- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
January 2019 Moms
galactickates
member
The Staircase - True Crime Discussion
galactickates
member
ok Ladies! Lets discuss The Staircase.
If you want to join in, The series is available on Netflix.
Beware there will be spoilers, if you aren't caught up proceed with caution.
Lets talk!
Lurkers are welcome to join the discussion because why not
If you want to join in, The series is available on Netflix.
Beware there will be spoilers, if you aren't caught up proceed with caution.
Lets talk!
Lurkers are welcome to join the discussion because why not
Re: The Staircase - True Crime Discussion
@katethemom I need reasons that negate that 911 call. I just don't believe he's innocent. I mean he told the operator she was still alive but the blood was dry when they got there.
I know I need to keep watching but I seriously can't get past the 911 call. And how many lacerations she had. I'm sorry but that just doesn't happen when you fall down the stairs unless your staircase is made of spikes
I think Elizabeth’s death was an accident (that’s where he got the idea), and Kathleen’s wasn’t.
BUT I will say I’m surprised that Kathleen didn’t have any skill/brain damage. I’m curious as to what the murder weapon was.
DS1: May 2016
DS2: Jan 2019
Baby #3 EDD: 6/18/24
However, I will list the reasons for my conclusion that he is innocent below. I'm first listing the reasons why I do not think the evidence presented by the prosecution proves murder. And then I'll list my personal reasons for believing his innocence.
The prosecution managed to convince the jury of Michael's guilt based on the amount of blood and the spatter and smear patterns on the staircase, the fact that they believed the lacerations on the head indicated a homicidal beating, and the motive for the murder based on their story that Michael must of killed Kathleen after she confronted him about his bisexual tendencies and numerous "affairs" with men while they were married. I am not convinced by their evidence because:
1.) Most importantly, the prosecution's expert witness, Deaver, whose testimony ultimately convinced the jury to return a guilty verdict, was later found to have misrepresented his expertise and basically lied about his scientific findings in a number of murder trials, including Michael's, and was later fired by the SBI for that reason. (I actually thought he sounded like an idiot on the stand before it was revealed that he had given false testimony.)
2.) The prosecution claimed that the lacerations indicated a beating. But as the defence argued, there were no skull fractures or brain damage found on autopsy. I just don't find it plausible that repeated blows by a blunt object would not leave the victim with more severe injuries.
3.) The blood on Michael's shorts was also an important piece of evidence for the prosecution and also another part of Deaver's testimony. There was no splatter found on Michael's shirt that would have indicated he had beaten Kathleen, as there surely would have been splatter on his shirt if that had been the case. I think it highly understandable that he could have gotten all the blood on his shorts simply from leaning over and trying to help his wife in her condition, splatter on the shorts resulting simply from him moving around in an area where there was a lot of blood.
4.) The prosecution claimed that Michael had a motive solely based on his bisexual tendencies. They wanted the jury to believe that Michael killed Kathleen after she confronted him about his affairs with men. However, there is no actual proof that Kathleen found any evidence on Michael's computer, which is what the prosecution wanted the jury to believe. Also, there is no evidence that Kathleen was not already aware of Michael's behavior during the duration of their marriage. It cannot be assumed that their marriage was not a happy one simply because Michael was bisexual had sex with men while married to Kathleen.
My personal reasons for believing his innocence:
1.) His children stood by his side the entire trial. This included his adopted daughters even after their own mother's body was exhumed to help prove his guilt.
2.) His first wife also declared his innocence, both in the case of her friend's death and that of Kathleen.
3.) I don't think his behavior was odd for someone in his position. He maintained his innocence always. Most of what is shown in the documentary occurred months after his wife's death so I don't expect that he would have to always appear in a state of obvious grief to indicate that he was innocent. I think he's a man who understands death to be a natural part of life, especially given his familiarity with it in Vietnam. So I think he acted appropriately even if his personality is not necessarily my cup of tea.
4.) Michael contacted 911 twice for help. He was clearly upset that they had not arrived more quickly. And he did not attempt to alter the scene before their arrival.
5.) I think Kathleen died tragically for sure and we will never know how exactly. I think it was acceptable that officers suspected Michael immediately because of the shear amount of blood involved in the scene. But there was just not enough evidence to indicate murder when it came down to it. I think the DA just did a really good job of smearing Michael's character to the jury when they provided their story of a murder that occurred in a moment of rage on Michael's part.
Since his conviction, there has been a new theory put forth about how Kathleen might have died, the Owl Theory. It's definitely an interesting theory to consider if anyone is interested in reading about it.
Sorry for the length of the post. I studied forensic anthropology and criminal justice for my bachelor's, so murder mysteries are kind of my thing.
I think he's guilty, but I don't think I've seen enough to say for sure since I'm at the very beginning. He's strange and his reactions are strange. His family stands firmly behind him, even the stepdaughter can't say why she changed her mind minus the autospy report. It sounds like it was so out of character for him. I hate that the prosecution acts like since he was bisexual that meant he would murder! They are so cocky and disgusting about it. Even being a liar doesn't make you a murderer! People do snap, I would love to really know what Kathleen knew and her reaction to it. I don't think she knew he was sleeping with others during their marriage, but that she may have known he was bisexual. I'm so glad there are so many of us viewers on here!
The DA argued that this was a case of first degree murder, so not premeditated in any sense, but rather a crime of passion. So I don't think it could be argued that he got the idea for Kathleen's murder from Elizabeth's accident as that would indicate that he planned to kill her ahead of time on the stairs. Unless you are saying that he got the idea to claim that that she had fallen after he had killed her. But even then, I don't think he would have made the connection to his friend's accident in his mind as he would have been aware that his friend died of cerebral hemorrhage and just happened to be on the stairs. I think he claimed she fell on the stairs because that is the only thing he could have assumed that happened when he walked in on the scene.
If she truly did hit her head on the side of the door frame and on other surfaces as she fell and possibly struggled to get up and call for help, I think the amount of blood on the scene is not unlikely. She had several lacerations, deep lacerations, and those certainly could have been a source of a lot of blood. However, if this had been a beating, there is a lack of cast-off patterns on Michael's clothes and the surrounding area. It makes less sense that a beating occurred and somehow there aren't more splatter patterns evident in the surrounding areas.
I think I'm in the minority that I'm leaning slightly towards him being not guilty. But that might just be spite towards the DA because I found it totally despicable how they seemed to be using his bisexuality to prove that he's some terrible person.
ETA - SSDGM
I don’t think they had enough evidence to convict.
Though I do lean towards him being guilty, there’s no way I would have sat through that trial as a juror and found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
DS1: May 2016
DS2: Jan 2019
Baby #3 EDD: 6/18/24
He said they drank 2 "bottles", but didn't say of what. I'm going to assume wine? But they said in the first episode that her blood alcohol level was only .07. That seems pretty low for drinking maybe a bottle of wine, so they MUST have been relaxing drinking for a while so it has time to digest along the way while they were drinking, which falls in line with the guys story. They were outside relaxing and chatting, then she decides to go in, and he decides to stay outside. I feel like if he was trying to kill her, he'd push her down while she was more drunk so it'd be easier. Unless HE drank a bottle and a half, got pissed at her, and pushed her down the stairs while under the influence, but they already said that it doesn't appear like a "rage murder", so that doesn't quite make sense.
Married: 8/11/2007
DD: Born 2/3/17
BFP#2: 5/3, EDD 1/10/19
I agree with the recommendations of the Jinx! If you like true crime you should definitely watch it.
Any other recommendations!?
Did they discuss his shirt? It is possible he changed shirts?
I will never get past that 911 call and her blood being dry when paramedics got to her. Did they go into how long she had been dead for later in the series?
DS1: May 2016
DS2: Jan 2019
Baby #3 EDD: 6/18/24
Part of me thinks he's probably guilty but I still couldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. What's that quote about better to let 100 guilty men go free?
As far as the shirt evidence, the SBI expert witness, Deaver, claimed that he was unable to examine any blood spatter on the shirt because of the color of the shirt - dark blue. He claimed he was unaware of any technology that could enhance his ability to analyze it. However, the defence had the shirt examined (perhaps by Dr. Lee - can't remember for sure) and no spatter was found that would have indicated Michael attacked Kathleen and/or beat her. I believe it was a reporter or news anchor who brought up the suggestion that maybe Michael changed his shirt, but that was never addressed in court. If the DA suspected that he did, then it would have been up to them to find evidence for that a look for another shirt, but they did not do that. Deaver basically just tried to ignore the shirt evidence by claiming he wasn't able to analyze it because of the color.
And with the blood being dry, I believe a witness for the prosecution stated that the blood only appeared to be dry when they arrived, but no one actually touched any of the blood to determine whether it was actually completely dry or still drying. You can actually pull up the picture online and see where the blood is located. It appears that it is mostly located in the staircase and directly under and around the body. But there doesn't look to be a trail of blood anywhere. I think blood can dry fairly quickly if it is spattered and smeared across a surface, and it did take, I think, 15 minutes for EMT's to arrive on scene. Some of the blood around the body would have to have still been wet, though, for Michael's story to make sense, given that his shorts were bloody.
Whether he is innocent or not, the jury was misled by the DA's evidence to secure a guilty verdict. The owl theory sounds crazy, but I think there is more evidence to support it than the theory that he violently beat her over the head.
Edited - grammar
So was there a trail of blood leading from outside to inside or no?
You just said that just because someone acts guilty doesn't mean they are.
And then said that "You can't convict someone based on how they act. I get that. That's not why I think he's guilty nor what I'm basing my opinion on at all."
But then turned around and said if I asked you if you think he's acting guilty, you would say yes.
It's just kind of a circular argument. I just want to understand what exactly it is about his behavior that makes you think he's guilty.
I think the fact that his family supported him says more than the fact that the public did not. People love to hate the wealthy. The media attention his trial received colored people's opinions of him, and it was very negative. Michael admitted that himself in the documentary, I believe.
I could say I think he's guilty because of the 911 call but he acts innocent... but I don't think he does act innocent.
It's his mannerisms, he doesn't sound like he's trying to convince anyone it was an accident. The whole time it's how can I get out of this. The way he denied having an affair and acted like it was crazy and then said yup I did. I also don't think just because you have an affair it makes you guilty either but lying doesn't make you look honest. Now you look like your hiding something, so what else are you hiding? I have also said I haven't seen the whole series yet. That 911 call 100% is why I think he's guilty. Not being able to answer about the stairs and saying she was alive when I don't believe she was. That's what makes him look guilty.
I didn't think the operator did that great of a job of reassuring him that help was on the way. It seemed like he was under the impression that she was just continuing to ask questions and hadn't called for an ambulance yet.