Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:30:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Staircase

Started by Pimhole, May 13, 2022, 03:24:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pimhole

Anyone watching the new Sky drama version of this documentary/true crime thingy? The story of the death of Kathleen Peterson and her husband's subsequent conviction of her murder.

The original documentary from 2004/2013 is one of my favourite documentary series. Michael Peterson is such an odd and compelling character, and his children's sometimes cult-like devotion to him is at turns charming and creepy. This is a family that is very difficult to relate to in a lot of ways, and yet you do end up relating to them despite the weirdness. Some of the peripheral characters are such larger-than-life perfect clichés of corrupt Southern law enforcement/prosecution too, such as Olympic-level bullshitter Dwayne Deaver, who somehow carved himself a career out of a subject he knew nothing about, or swivel-eyed homophobic Church Lady Assistant DA Freda Black, who sometimes doubts your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

However, like the Making A Murderer docuseries, it did seem to leave out or skip over certain details of the case so it will be interesting to see if the drama series covers them*.

I've watched the 3 episodes currently available and although it has quite clunky dialogue and foreshadowing in some places, my main takeaway is that Colin Firth's impression (and it IS an impression) of Michael Peterson is quite breathatakingly accurate. I rewatched the docuseries before starting the Sky drama and honestly cannot get over how good Firth is in this. It is uncanny. I wonder what anyone who had not seen the original documentary would make of it though, they might wonder why he's being so weird. Parker Posey's version of Freda Black is a lot more restrained and I guess that's because if you were to do an accurate representation it really would look like farcical over-acting.


Also there are some nice unintended parrallels between Toni Colette's performance in this and Hereditary. They seem to be fleshing out the characters of Michael's various children and adopted children and the tensions between them. I don't know if that's necessary to the plot.

*it does look like it will cover the
Spoiler alert
Owl Theory
[close]
which to me makes the most sense as an explanation of what happened.

ersatz99

Have to keep telling myself that's not Robin Williams playing the defence lawyer. Also, wasn't there an older white haired investigator who was quite prominent in the the original doc that doesn't feature at all in this? I doubt Peterson would mind Firth's characterisation of him but I wonder how Kathleen's family feel about her being depicted as a bit too much of a drinker.

Pimhole

Quote from: ersatz99 on May 13, 2022, 03:38:23 PMI doubt Peterson would mind Firth's characterisation of him but I wonder how Kathleen's family feel about her being depicted as a bit too much of a drinker.

Oh, I'm sure Kathleen's sister Candice would go absolutely batshit. Again.

The Ombudsman

I didn't know they were making this and will have to find some way of watching it.

The doc was certainly one of the strangest things I've seen and one of the better Netflix doc's.

imitationleather

Quote from: The Ombudsman on May 13, 2022, 03:55:39 PMone of the better Netflix doc's.

The original nine-parter wasn't a Netflix doc and that's why it's not a load of old shite, pal.

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: Pimhole on May 13, 2022, 03:24:18 PMMichael Peterson is such an odd and compelling character, and his children's sometimes cult-like devotion to him is at turns charming and creepy.

They knew he was guilty but didn't want to be cut out of his multi million dollar will

imitationleather

I've had this dramatisation on in the background the past couple of days but I'm going to need to rewatch it because it's the post-Bang Face Weekender week and my brain basically feels like it has advanced dementia right now.

I did think Firth wasn't really capturing what a totally creepy weirdo Peterson is, though. That's a tough gig for any actor, though. There's basically no other human on the planet like that man.

colacentral

What makes Breaking Bad so great is how perfectly observed a character Walter White is, and how perfectly played that character is by Bryan Cranston. Michael Peterson is Walter White. His nice guy act is on the one hand laughably transparent, and yet on some level, I find it hard to not be taken in by it.

I watched this the other week:

https://youtu.be/rNH7GvKSnno

Body language experts analyse the bit of video where he talks the documentary crew through the events of the night Kathleen died. They completely rip it apart and remove any doubt I ever had of his guilt. Particularly interesting to me is the way that he skips over whatever happened in the kitchen. That's definitely where it all kicked off.

It's also hilarious what they say about him making up a fictional story about them hanging out by the pool once you see it for yourself, especially the part when the dog runs into frame.

bgmnts

Quote from: Martin Van Buren Stan on May 13, 2022, 04:40:07 PMThey knew he was guilty but didn't want to be cut out of his multi million dollar will

Sorry, was his guilt clear?

Seemed to me like the evidence pointed away from him big time. Like the blood spatter donut trying to frame him up and all that carry on.

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: bgmnts on May 13, 2022, 06:56:58 PMSorry, was his guilt clear?

Seemed to me like the evidence pointed away from him big time. Like the blood spatter donut trying to frame him up and all that carry on.

Framing a guilty man doesn't make him innocent.

imitationleather

Quote from: bgmnts on May 13, 2022, 06:56:58 PMSorry, was his guilt clear?

If you watch/read/listen to anything that's not that French documentary about the case it is completely obvious he's as guilty as sin.

bgmnts

Oh I only ever watched the docco tbf.

Quote from: Martin Van Buren Stan on May 13, 2022, 07:19:00 PMFraming a guilty man doesn't make him innocent.

But the blood spatter evidence didnt add up did it?

I had no bias towards Peterson either way I just really wanted it to be that the owl did it.

imitationleather

It's a great doc and deserves the plaudits it gets for kickstarting the current true crime craze but when you hear about the stuff the makers left out it really shows what a narrative they were trying to spin.

Nowhere near as disgraceful as Making a fookin' Murderer, mind. But getting info about the case from other sources really made me realise that you have to treat all true crime series as entertainment trying to create an engaging storyline first and as an actual honest account of went down a distant second.

The Ombudsman

Quote from: imitationleather on May 13, 2022, 04:34:59 PMThe original nine-parter wasn't a Netflix doc and that's why it's not a load of old shite, pal.

Aha! That explains it. Most of the stuff on there is like an algorithm has generated it. 20 minutes of actual content laboured over 5 40 minute episodes, all with slowed down stock footage.

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: imitationleather on May 13, 2022, 07:24:32 PMIf you watch/read/listen to anything that's not that French documentary about the case it is completely obvious he's as guilty as sin.

That's basically the only thing I've watched on it and I still thought he was guilty as fuck
Quote from: bgmnts on May 13, 2022, 07:32:26 PMOh I only ever watched the docco tbf.

But the blood spatter evidence didnt add up did it?

I had no bias towards Peterson either way I just really wanted it to be that the owl did it.

I can't remember the specific details. How would that prove his innocence anyway?

bgmnts

Because the way they claimed he killed her wouldnt be supported by the evidence?


Martin Van Buren Stan

So how do you think she died then? As far as I recall the gaps in the "fell down the stairs" evidence were much more substantial than the "he killed her" evidence. Obviously in court the burden of  proof is on the latter but in the real world that doesn't matter.

Pimhole

Quote from: colacentral on May 13, 2022, 05:01:20 PMI watched this the other week:

https://youtu.be/rNH7GvKSnno

Body language experts analyse the bit of video where he talks the documentary crew through the events of the night Kathleen died.

Isn't "body language" mostly bunk?

I only got 10 minutes into that, those four men annoyed me from the off. The first one introduces himself as an expert in interrogation techniques - another field that it is rapidly becoming apparent is mostly bunk, and definitely not focussed on finding "the truth" but just on obtaining a confession at any cost.

What I can't get past from the original trial is how you explain the complete absence of skull fractures or brain injury if he did 'bash her head in' with an implement or on the stairs. And that's what took up most of the prosecution's time, trying to explain that, and they only did it with Deaver's made-up bullshit.

There were only scalp lacerations, and she bled to death. I'm not saying that proves his innocence, but it is a very odd way to go about murdering someone. And how or why you would make those specific patterns of laceration.

I really want to see how the series broaches the Owl Theory. I don't know how else you explain the owl feathers, pine needles and strips of bark found on her body/in her hair and the blood found outside the house.

Pimhole

Quote from: Martin Van Buren Stan on May 13, 2022, 07:19:00 PMFraming a guilty man doesn't make him innocent.

Ah right, fair enough then, frame away.

The great thing about the original documentary is that it doesn't really focus on theroies of how she died, it is specifically about the shitness of the legal process. In that aim it really fucking succeeds.

Martin Van Buren Stan

Quote from: Pimhole on May 13, 2022, 07:57:24 PMAh right, fair enough then, frame away.

Yeah that's what I meant

colacentral

Quote from: Pimhole on May 13, 2022, 07:55:40 PMIsn't "body language" mostly bunk?

No.

It's not objective scientific fact but most of us have an inate ability to pick up when people exhibit certain behaviours, eg nerves or anger, that they are trying not to show.

Body language includes words chosen, breathing, rhythm of speech.

If you watch the video properly, they clarify multiple times that different people have different baselines (ie odd behaviour interpreted as nerves in one person might be another person's every day behaviour.)

They are a bit annoying, particularly the British guy, but I find it hard to disagree with most of their conclusions (and again, in fairness, they're always careful to clarify that they're not claiming anything as a fact).

Like I said, look at how he skips over what happens in the kitchen and the story he concocts at the pool. His 911 call is similarly embarrassing and they make a good point there about his response to the operator's question on how many steps she fell down. He's incredulous he has to come up with a new detail that he hasn't thought of yet.

Martin Van Buren Stan

His lawyer looks like Saddam Hussein

elliszeroed

I remember from the original doc that the Blowpoke the prosecution had was a Blowpoke they claimed was like the one that killed her?? They never actually found a murder weapon.

I never thought the prosecution had enough evidence, even though he came across as kind of detatched/ creepy in the doc. But judging someones guilt/ innocence on how they acted is slippery- there's no single reaction to grief.

Also- an owl did it, sounds fucking stupid, until you remember the Australian dingo case.

Alos- bloodsplatter evidence really feels like an art more than a science in this case.




imitationleather

There was also all the financial stuff involving how they were on the brink of ruin because of how he'd not worked for years while she'd been supporting the entire family and their extremely expensive lifestyles (including her non-biological sons who despite being adults were essentially layabouts). There's loads of circumstantial motive like that. It's not beyond the realms of possibility she found out about him hiring the male prostitute and kicked off. Even if she was aware he was bi was a a-okay with him exploring that stuff, I can well imagine she wouldn't be best pleased he was spending money they didn't have on hiring rentboys. This could have caused a big row, and it has been noted in other podcasts and so on that Peterson did have a right temper when confronted about his behaviour on various issues.

EOLAN

Juat rewatching the first episode of the original documentary. Would love the body language experts look at the assistant DA with the moustache. Seemed a bit over proud that they got the coroner to agree with their theory.

The Forensic Files episode was hillarious after watching the Netflix doc. Showed some eveidence not dealt with but the over the top ironcast tonenof certainty was funny. They have been proven to do a couple of episodes on people who were later found innocent. Indeed I think one episode got the Innocence Project to investigate a case they subsequently overturned based on the episode.

Anyway he is more than likely guilty.

imitationleather

Oh yeah something this series hasn't addressed yet as far as I can remember: Didn't the son Todd arrive at the house before the police and ambulance despite it being about 2am and him living absolutely nowhere near the Peterson residence? Always a bit fishy for me that, Clive.

If they'd had CSI that was competent and a blood scene analyst who wasn't a crook working on this I can't help but feeling like this whole thing would have been an open and shut case.

Cuellar

I don't care how good Firth is in this they should have got John C McGinley

studpuppet

Quote from: Cuellar on May 13, 2022, 11:22:04 PMI don't care how good Firth is in this they should have got John C McGinley

Or maybe Police Academy-era George Gaynes.

The Ombudsman

I came away from the doc thinking there wasn't enough evidence to take to trial however it was obvious something happened that wasn't talked about. I wondered if the dad took the wrap for someone else.


Thomas