What’s Missing from The Staircase?

Evidence, theories, and secrets that the Netflix documentary doesn’t touch on may influence your take on Michael Peterson’s trial...

I was so hooked by this docuseries that I binged all thirteen episodes within a day and became immediately obsessed, leading to a night of my sister and I staging potential death reenactments in our living room. Be warned — we will be discussing potential spoilers, and you may want to binge before reading so you have an understanding of the case.

I’m a true crime junkie, and although I love a good documentary, it’s apparent that the series has an obvious bias towards its subject, Michael Peterson. Although we see footage from the trial and are exposed to some of the major evidence from the prosecution and the defense, I had this nagging feeling that I wasn’t given all of the information to form my opinion: did he kill his wife, Kathleen?

Or…was it an owl?

I wanted to answer these questions and more, so in my true, internet sleuth fashion, I uncovered some of the missing pieces that the documentary fails to explain or touch on:

“No Motive” Explained by Mounting Debt

While watching The Staircase, the film focuses heavily on the defense through behind the scenes footage, interviews, and trial footage. We vaguely see testimony and footage of the prosecution at the trial, including some of the main evidence presented, but only when necessary to explain choices made by Peterson’s defense team.

I was left with the question: why? If Michael Peterson did kill Kathleen, what was his motive? We really only see the explanation that Michael’s friends and family thought their relationship was idyllic —and that he loved her, despite his “hidden” bisexuality. But was there any evidence of the contrary?

The documentary fails to expand on the prosecution’s evidence, corroborated by information found on Peterson’s computer hard drive and his emails, that the Peterson’s collectively were in $145,000 worth of credit card debt. Occurring over several years, this debt was exacerbated by a lack of financial security from Michael’s writing and the looming threat of a layoff at Kathleen’s job, Nortel Networks (Source).

Eleven days before Kathleen’s death, Michael emailed his ex-wife in Germany expressing concern over credit card debt of their two sons, Todd and Clayton, stating: “I am worried sick about them. It is simply not possible for me to discuss this with Kathleen.”

Losing money fast and watching his two sons following in his footsteps, was Michael desperate enough to kill Kathleen for her life insurance policy to settle their debts?

Wife and husband, or victim and killer? (Source)

$1.4 Million in Insurance Payout — Enough for Murder?

Not long after Kathleen married Michael Peterson, she changed her beneficiary on her policy from her previous spouse Fred Atwater, to her new husband.

Peterson received $384, 166 from Kathleen’s employer upon her death, which included compensation benefits, pension plan, and retirement savings. This was purportedly spent on fees for his lawyer and defense team.

However, due to the legality surrounding Michael’s conviction in 2001, the insurance policy was instead split between Kathleen’s biological daughter, Caitlin, and her father, Fred in 2004 (Source).

If his motive was to receive that money, that plan was clearly foiled by his conviction. Despite the trial sending Peterson into even more bankruptcy, in 2007 he settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Caitlin at the tune of $25 million for his part in Kathleen’s passing — despite his continued pleas of innocence (Source).

The courtroom after the verdict is read. (Source)

The Bloody Shoe Print and Other Skimmed-Over Evidence

While doing my digging, I found evidence that only raised more questions:

• Prosecution biased from the start — Michael was a columnist for the Durham Sun, and supposedly had published criticism for the police and for District Attorney James Hardin, who was lead prosecutor in Peterson’s case. I searched online for any of his published columns, but haven’t had luck yet tracking down a legitimate source. Could this history of badmouthing in the press have led to bias on the part of the state? (Source)
• Kathleen’s Blood Alcohol Content — Toxicology reports state that Kathleen’s BAC was .07, just one point away from the legal limit to drive. Was her intoxication (plus the possible Valium pill or muscle relaxer thrown into the mix, also corroborated by the autopsy report) enough proof to support an accidental fall? (Source)
• Bloody shoe print — According to testimony by state police evidence analyst, Joyce Petzka, a shoe print was found on the back of Kathleen’s sweatpants. Michael was found at the scene covered in blood, but barefoot — his shoes and socks were next to Kathleen’s body. How exactly did his shoe print end up on the back of Kathleen’s leg, when she was found lying on her back on the stairs? (Source)
• Hair and feathers in her hands — Kathleen’s autopsy report described clumps of her own hair and a pine needle in her hands, as well as three small feathers. If she died from an accidental fall or a beating, how did these items end up clenched in her hands? (Source)

Barred owl in flight, captured by Jim Neiger

An Impr-Owl-bable Theory

If you haven’t researched this theory yet, prepare to have your mind blown. Barred owls, a common resident of Durham, North Carolina where Kathleen and Michael lived, have been observed swooping in and attacking joggers, especially during winter when they are nesting and preparing to raise chicks.

Kathleen was killed in December during mating season, and feathers and pine needles ended up in her hands along with her own hair. Could this be evidence that an owl became entangled in her hair and she tried to fight it off?

Three affidavits were signed by experts positing that an owl’s talons could have been responsible for the lacerations on her head and the other injuries on her body, causing Kathleen to bleed out from her wounds.

Was ‘Owlcapone’ truly responsible after all, instead of Michael or a fall?

Sophie Brunet, the editor of The Staircase. (Source)

An Affair with the Editor

Confirmed by director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, Michael Peterson pursued a relationship with the film’s editor, Sophie Brunet, during the course of the documentary. He stated:

This is one of the incredible things that happened during those 15 years. Life is really full of surprises. They had a real story, which lasted until May 2017. But she never let her own feelings affect the course of editing. (Source)

Hmm…based on the sympathetic tone of the documentary and the obvious, emotional focus on the trial’s impact on Michael Peterson as well as his family and legal team, I doubt emotions didn’t impact the final cut that we see today. Although not evidence, I found this information key in understanding the subtle sympathy for Michael present throughout the film, reinforced through skillful editing, emotional music, and tone.

~~~

Whether you believe Michael Peterson is guilty or that a clever owl framed him, we can all agree that The Staircase doesn’t provide a completely unbiased view of the case or trial, nor an objective presentation of available evidence.

It is imperative that we continue to be critical of the media we consume and aware of its influence on our opinions — you never know if, one day, you’ll be called to sit on a jury of your peers and pass judgement without bias. If you were presented with the same evidence — would you convict Michael?

Happy researching, my fellow crime-obsessed friends — I doubt we will ever know the real truth behind the blood, the feathers, or the mysterious death of Kathleen Peterson.

---

Posted from my blog with SteemPress : https://selfscroll.com/whats-missing-from-the-staircase/

---