I saw this case on the Internet before and stumbled upon a documentary.
2020.4.29 Due to the complexity of this case, I combined the information in the text version and the case analysis of other versions to watch this film together. Perhaps the purpose of this film is to show everyone a trial scene that has not been artificially processed, a wonderful evidence confrontation between the prosecution and the defense. However, due to the personal relationship between micheal and the editor of the film during the filming, the film inevitably has a tendency to acquit the accused.
The focus of the film is not on how the prosecution and the police investigate how to restore the scene, nor even give a clear timeline, but spends a lot of time and energy to describe the dailylife of the Peterson family? I think it is impossible for the film to describe the defendant from the point of view of an adopted daughter and adopted son. Because in their eyes, Mike is a good father.
In addition, while the prosecution cited evidence to raise reasonable doubts, the defense played far more emotional cards in court than the prosecution, such as citing outsiders' eyes as a fairy couple, a harmonious family, and so on. The whole point of the film is to describe the psychological process of the defendant, while the introduction of the deceased is pitiful. The pen and ink emphasize that Mike is a famous best-selling author, as if Catherine is just an ordinary woman, but the fact is that Catherine is a family The company's vice president, whose annual salary is far more than Mike's, has no financial motive for murder.
The film review was also written on a whim after watching it. The logic may be a bit confusing. I will probably list some doubts that are not mentioned in the film but have some actual data, and combine the film to prove why I think he is the murderer.
1. Time. In the actual data, Mike's time testimony was changed once. That's why his final time testimony seems less plausible. Judging from his statement, he was in the outdoor swimming pool from the time Catherine went to work until 2:40 of the incident. This time is about two hours. ❗️But note that the crime happened in December, before Christmas Eve, North Carolina was not in the tropics, the temperature at that time was about 10 degrees, and according to the crime scene he was wearing short-sleeved shorts, which is Said he was going to sit alone for two hours at 10 degrees by the pool. It's extremely unreasonable to dress in this weather, so I think he must have lied about the time before the crime. From a psychological point of view, it is not uncommon for witnesses to modify their testimony. Due to the suddenness of the incident and the excitement of the scene, many people's memories will be disordered on the timeline, so it is not necessarily worth doubting that he modified his testimony , but the testimony he finalized was clearly unconventional.
2. Blood. According to the scene of the trial in the documentary, 911 received a call from the defendant at 2:40 in the morning. He said at the time that "she was still breathing", and then received a second call from the defendant at 2:46, and he said that "she was not breathing." . According to the testimony, the police arrived at the scene between 2:47-2:53, about ten minutes after he called the police. But police suggested Katherine's blood had dried up by the time they arrived at the scene. According to common sense, the viscosity of blood is high, and in the case of such a large amount of blood, it will take about 90-120 minutes to basically dry up. If Katherine was still breathing at 2:40 according to Mike's phone call, it means that she is still bleeding, which is inconsistent with a large amount of dried blood. Therefore, it is inferred that Catherine may have been killed at 2:40. He may have called 911 after handling the crime tools to clean up the scene, trying to create an accident.
3. Motivation. Generally, when judging murder, it is necessary to speculate on the motive of the accused. In this case, I think there are two more important motives for killing.
1⃣️Mike's sexuality. Before the investigation into him was launched after the incident, almost no one knew that he was bisexual, and that he had cheated in the marriage, slept with different men and found male prostitutes. Both he and his son Todd claim Catherine knew about it, but I don't think it's likely. Catherine and Mike belong to the second marriage. Catherine was injured in the previous marriage, so she may not have such a high tolerance for the second marriage. It can be seen from the film that even Mike's close adopted daughter doesn't know about his father's sexual orientation, so I don't think Catherine knew it at all. It is known from other sources Mike's testimony that Katherine's last email of the night was sent from Mike's computer at approximately 11:45 pm. When the police searched for evidence, they found that Mike's mailbox had explicit emails with male prostitutes. I speculate that it may be that Katherine saw his record when using Mike's computer to send emails that night and learned about Mike's bisexual issues and marital infidelity. He couldn't accept the reality for a while and broke out into a quarrel with Mike, which eventually led to tragedy.
The case was retrial in 2011, and he was released after signing a plea agreement in 2017. The Supreme Judge in charge of the case said at the end of the film, "If I had to do it all over again, I would not agree to use him as bisexual as relevant evidence in this case, because This is a prejudice against the defendant."
Personally, I disagree. If he is bisexual, he is likely to be involved in cheating marriage, which is an extremely hateful behavior that can easily lead to fierce conflicts. We can only say that it may be bias to make a moral judgment on his bisexuality, but for the analysis of this case, his sexual orientation is indeed a direction worthy of research.
Catherine's sister has a sentence at the end of the show that is worth thinking about. She said: "Catherine has supported you and your children for so many years..."
As mentioned earlier, the documentary is really biased in introducing the identities of the two, focusing on shaping Mike's career success without mentioning Katherine's work. Catherine actually pays for most of the family's expenses, which is why her sister hates Mike's behavior so much that she swears in front of the camera. In the case of the disparity of economic strength between men and women, can Katherine really be calm and tolerant when she finds out that Mike cheated on men? I don't think so.
It is this that leads to the second motive for murder.
2⃣️ Economic reasons.
According to the information, Catherine is the main source of income for the family.
She was working at Nortel at the time, and her position was vice president. But the economic situation in 2001 was not good. She had to even dismiss her assistant (or secretary? I can't remember) and the millions of dollars invested in the family's stocks have shrunk to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The film mentions that Mike's lawyer's fee was as high as more than 300,000 dollars. This money was actually the compensation from the company after her death, because he was already in a major financial crisis at that time (the film did not mention financial problems) and their daily life at that time. Expenses are through credit cards, so there is a lot of debt. After Katherine married Mike, she changed the beneficiary of her insurance to him. The insurance company later paid $1.4 million, but in the end because he had a major suspicion, the money did not go to him.
There are various signs that, by the time of the incident, the Peterson family did not live as relaxed and unrestrained as it seemed, and behind the seemingly extravagant life was already a lot of debt. And if Catherine, who has a large insurance compensation, "dies unexpectedly", then this money is enough to alleviate the urgent need and allow them to maintain the illusion of vanity.
In this regard, Katherine's death Mike is the biggest beneficiary, and it is reasonable to suspect that he has a motive in this regard.
3. Wounds and bloodstains. According to the forensic autopsy, the deceased's head had a total of seven wounds. The lack of brain damage or a fractured bone is the most important reason why the defense has maintained her accidental death. The clichés are not repeated here. Whether it is Li Changyu or other experts, they have given professional explanations, which are described in detail in the film.
The strange thing is that the film only briefly mentions at the end that the deceased has a streak on the neck. Such an important phenomenon of unnatural death is never discussed in the film. If it was an accidental fall, why would there be a streak on the neck? Streak marks are important evidence of suffocation/murder.
In addition, there are Mike's bloody footprints on the back of the sweatpants that Catherine wore when she died. Because it is the "back", it looks very strange. What kind of situation made Mike step on the side of the deceased's pants in a panic? In a later report, police said Mike was barefoot with his shoes off the edge of the stairs when they arrived at the scene. This series of behaviors is unbelievable, and it can't help but make people suspect that he took off his shoes in order to deal with the evidence at the scene.
As for the blood of the deceased, it is far too much compared to falling down the stairs. Such a large amount of blood loss and a large area of splatter are beyond people's cognition of accidental death. The first reaction is murder is also reasonable. speculate.
4. The murder weapon. The original film can be said to have done enough homework on the murder weapon, and finally came to a reversal, which even made me shake my position that he was guilty. But actually think about it, the murder weapon, the fire stick, has loopholes. First of all, experts at the trial said that the blowing fire stick may indeed have caused the shape of the wound on the deceased's head, but they were not sure that this was the murder weapon. Secondly, who is sure that there is only one flaming stick? Was the fire stick they found "accidentally" the same as the murder weapon used by the defendant? (Assuming it was the murder weapon) Did he ever buy a fire stick again? Nobody knows.
Also, in the interview at the end of the credits, there is a detail - Mike mentioned how he found himself interested in men and said that he likes baseball and plays baseball a lot. This got my attention. The baseball batting stance is very similar to the stance used by Defoe and Rudolph himself to demonstrate how the defendant murdered a dead man with a (presumed) blowtorch. ❗️Rudolph suggested that if the deceased was beaten vigorously, there should also be bloodstains sprayed on the ceiling and high walls, but the crime scene was not found, so it is speculated that the deceased fell accidentally. But if he is a baseball enthusiast, he is likely to have a precise grasp of the force and angle of the blow. Even in a gaffe environment, there is inertia in his body. It cannot be ruled out that there is such a weapon, which can be mastered by the victim. Killed Katherine.
5. Coincidence. The reason why this case is called open and controversial is that another case in 1985 formed a coincidence with this case. The biological mother of Mike's two adopted daughters and his close friend Elizabeth, was found dead under the stairs in her German home in 1985 - very similar to Katherine's death, in the film the prosecution called a witness in the 1985 case and said "Lizzie has a lot of flow. blood, her blood was everywhere on the walls, floors and stairs." Likewise, in this case, Mike was one of the first to arrive at the scene to witness the tragedy of his friend. At the time, the case was not classified as a criminal case, but ended as an accident, with the conclusion that Elizabeth died suddenly from a brain hemorrhage and fell down the stairs. However, unlike Catherine, Elizabeth herself was a hemophiliac, so she died from bleeding from her wound easily, and Catherine had no reason to bleed too much after falling down the stairs.
In the first-instance trial, the prosecution proposed that the case be included in the admissibility of evidence and accused Mike of being the murderer of the case, which I think is unreasonable. Through the testimony of witnesses, it can basically be concluded that Mike did not commit the crime.
But two similar cases, the same scene witness, is such a coincidence real? I think the odds are slim, especially for two inextricably linked families. It is not ruled out that Mike is imitating the crime. He was inspired by the accident of his friend, so he tried to create an accident through the same method.
6. In addition, there are some details. These details are what I paid attention to while watching the documentary and thought it was worth pondering. Since the whole film is recorded without rehearsal, the reactions and expressions of people, and the words spoken subconsciously are more true reflections of the heart.
1⃣️Elizabeth's eldest daughter is also Mike's eldest adopted daughter, who looks a lot like Mike's son Todd. Although the witnesses in the 1985 case said that Mike and Elizabeth could not have an affair, but in turn, think about it, why would her two daughters be raised by male friends instead of her female friends after Elizabeth's death— — Mike's ex-wife? From the perspective of social ethics, the risk of entrusting one's young daughters to men is far greater than that of women. So it's worth thinking about why custody of her daughter passed over her closer female friends and went directly to Mike.
2⃣️Children relationship. The relationship between the children and Mike seems to be close, and Katherine is rarely mentioned. His children are all dedicated to exonerating their father, and it seems that no one has ever suspected the strange cause of their mother's death. From an outsider's point of view, Catherine's death scene is full of doubts, but in the eyes of the children, is their father not at all suspicious? I think one of the factors is that the mother left them a huge legacy, and if their father goes to jail for a crime then they will lose their most important financial support.
Mike and Katherine have five children in total: Caitlyn (Catherine's first-married daughter) Margaret, Martha (adopted daughter) Clayton and Todd. In the film, except for the eldest daughter, Caitlin, who believes that her mother was murdered by Mike, everyone else stands with Mike.
Clayton's presence in this film is extremely low. The first time I have the impression that he is mentioned is that he found the "kill weapon" blowing stick in the basement of Mike's house, and the second time is when he took his wife with him during the retrial of the case The son visits Mike together. Based on the limited information, I have no way of knowing why he happened to find the fire stick when it was missing? It is known from other relevant information that Clayton has always been a problem student and committed many outrageous acts of discipline and law during Duke University. Therefore, Mike and Catherine spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to wipe him. butt. So we don't know exactly what role he played in this case.
In this case, Mike's other son, Todd, caught my eye at the end of the film. During the retrial of the case, the prosecution had a piece of testimony from the prosecution: "The police arrived at the scene of the crime around 2:47-2:53, and there were the defendant and his son Todd who arrived after the crime." Mike made the first call at 2:40 and it took only about ten minutes for the police to arrive at the scene. How could Todd arrive at the scene in such a short time before the police? ❗️2:40 am is the deep sleep time for most people. It is not easy to wake up, change clothes and rush to the scene within 10 minutes. ❗️Secondly, when did he learn about Catherine's accident? If it was before the second 911 call after father Mike finished the first 911 call, it would be between 2:40-2:46. Since the first call lasted for 1 minute, he could receive the call. The time between 2:41 and 2:46 is 5 minutes, which means that he actually has less than ten minutes to arrive at the scene, but he can still arrive earlier than the police who are on duty at any time. Worth doubt. And from the recording of Mike's two 911 calls, he panicked and was on the verge of collapse. In this case, did he really remember to call his son? ❗️If he had known about it before Mike called the police at 2:40, then he and Mike would have become more suspicious. Under what circumstances would Mike choose to call his son first and then call 911 for help? This shows that he was at least sensible at the time, and his performance on the phone was completely out of control, the two were contradictory and suspicious. So is it possible that Todd was actually at the crime scene before? Or is it possible that he and Mike teamed up to murder his own mother? I think it is very likely that Todd is probably the insider of the case in my opinion. Although the statement of "invasion and attack by outsiders" raised in the retrial testimony and other materials was rejected by Mike in the first trial, I think there is a certain possibility, and this outsider may be his son Todd.
3⃣️ Character. Both Mike himself and his defense attorney Rudolph are typical representatives of extroverted and performative personalities. Unlike other ordinary people who are restrained and unnatural in front of the camera, Mike enjoys it very much, and is good at expressing his emotions and mental journey in front of the camera, and has a strong desire to perform. From the beginning to the end, he has been emphasizing his love for Catherine, his face is sad and sincere, and it is impossible to see that he has been in love with the editing of this film during the shooting. Obviously, he has already come out of Catherine's death, but still Create a long and affectionate character for yourself in front of the camera. Someone so good at show and self-expression might be able to cover up a well-planned murder.
?This film has obvious tendencies, presents the content preferentially and hides a lot of important information and clues, but it still presents us with a relatively real court process and the operation mode of the American judicial system. It's just that although Mike voluntarily signed a plea agreement after the retrial and was released after serving his sentence, I still think that in the unsolved staircase case in 2001, he was indeed the murderer.
View more about The Staircase reviews
