Netflix Instant Watch Recommendations Thread

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by TomDMB803

Haven't backread so not sure if it's been brought up, but just finished the Wild Wild Country documentary. That was some crazy stuff and well worth the watch.

I liked that one. Never knew anything about that entire situation.

[M. Steng]

With respect to the whole sexuality/male escort thing, it's a huge part of motive if you assume Kathleen didn't know, then found out, and then an argument broke out because of it.

I believe they mentioned in the doc (or I read elsewhere) that the exchanges with the male escort happened pretty contemporaneously with Kathleen's death. If that's the case, then I buy it as a valid motive.

Of course the defense tried to spin it that she knew and was cool with it, but it came down to the jury either believing the defense's side of it or not, and they didn't. This is fairly rural North Carolina in the early 2000s we're talking about here, the acceptance of that sort of dynamic/relationship is a lot different than it would be in modern day San Francisco.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by kelchlsm

No he never said she knew.
He would generalize his answer "I think she knew, She would sometimes joke about that stuff" but never flat out answered "yes she knew"
Also later on, I may be mistaken, he said he lied even about that and that she didn't- I could be wrong on this part though so someone could correct me, it was later in the series last couple episodes

true. she never really knew all of his actions. He once claimed that she "was comfortable" with his bisexuality thoughts and that "they didnt talk about it". But acting on those thoughts? Has never been clear if she knew or not.

According to ABC News, Freda Black, the assistant district attorney at the time of the trial, said in the courtroom, “According to the persons that know [Kathleen] well … she would have been infuriated at learning that her husband, who she truly loved, was bisexual and having an extramarital relationship not with another woman but even with a man, which would be humiliating and embarrassing to her. We believe that once she learned this information, that an argument ensued and a homicide occurred."

The netflix doc was one sided. left a lot out. Micheal had a love affair/relationship with the docs editor. They fell in love with eachother. No bias in the editing? Clearly there was.


Just so many facts that go against Micheal. thats all.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by dre2142

nah, i just dont buy the "she was drunk in flip flops" (both false claims), and fell down the stairs, then walked up and fell down again, over and over again, hitting her head 7 times, and then ending up in the position she ended up in.



none of it adds up. the sum of all that i wrote in my past few posts point more towards her having her life taken away from her by someone vs her slipping on some very very narrow stairs.

I think we all agree something killed her and it’s possible it wasn’t a fall. You’ve really been arguing against words you put in people’s mouths, not what they’ve been saying.

The only thing I’ve been posting is that due to lack of forensics, specifically cast off patterns, I don’t think the beating happened at the bottom of the stairs.

So that leaves open a lot of questions. And I agree that if the blood was dried, and the evidence does point to her being dead longer than he is saying, is problematic for MP.

That said, she did have alcohol and Valium in my system which your post above implies she did not. So, since you know so much please keep to the facts.

And as you know, the defense doesn’t have to prove their theory so a slip and fall is only one possibly, though in the reddit information you posted there is no evidence it wasn’t a slip and fall and the biomechanics expert for the defense testified that a slip and fall was entirely possible.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

There are plenty of things tying him to it, they just weren't shown in the documentary since that would hurt their narrative.



Most evidence in all murder trials is highly circumstantial. Your post is consistent with what legal experts deem the "CSI effect" where audiences (and thus juries) have been conditioned to think that there must be some sort of physical or DNA evidence linking someone to a crime, when that is actually very rarely the case.

Source: internship with a CT state D.A.; sat through 4 murder trials while clerking at a CT courthouse.



People are fucking crazy, man. If you tell yourself the same lie over and over, you start to believe it's the truth.

The first one-on-one interview-style segment they did with Michael in the documentary, I could instantly identify him as a giant bullshitter. The guy was a war fiction writer. He was capable of making up some pretty intricate and realistic narratives. Considering the fact that he probably had thought about how he was going to do it, what his alibi would be, etc., it's not unreasonable to conclude that he simply made the entire thing up and tried his best to match the physical evidence to his narrative. Unfortunately, hard physical evidence don't lie.



Glad somebody else could see right through this BS.



Just because people perceived them as an ideal couple doesn't mean it encapsulates what went on behind closed doors. There are literally thousands if not millions of DV cases every year where everything appears to be fine from the outside, but it's the exact opposite within the confines of the home/marriage/relationship.

Again, Michael was a master bullshitter and seemed to me to be a deft manipulator. He seems to me to be the type of person to put on a show in front of others to keep up appearances.

It's also not mentioned much how the psychological torment of being gay/bi affected his psyche. I'm sure he had years of pent up frustration with respect to his sexuality, and I very highly doubt that Kathleen was as cool with it as he said she was. That's not the sort of thing you can just take on somebody's word.



Agreed, Dre. Did the prosecution do a standup job? Hard to say since the doc really only showed the stuff they flubbed up. Very few prosecutions are watertight and the DAs are still only human and susceptible to error.

The Devers stuff was clearly prejudicial and I agreed with the Appellate Court's decision to give him a new trial from a procedural and constitutional perspective. I thought Peterson's lawyer actually did a much better job presenting the appellate argument than he did to defend the actual trial. Not to say he didn't do a good job, but I question whether he ever really believed Michael was not guilty of this. He did the best he could with what he was presented, which was some really difficult physical and circumstantial evidence to overcome at trial.

All of this may be right but there was never any evidence to substantiate it given. And his character assinations I thought were pretty minor overall. He wasn’t perfect.

People took small stuff he did, and even some big lies he told, and are using that for the basis of him being a murderer. You can’t do that.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by kelchlsm

There is a clear motive with his hidden personal life

If she didn't know about that, and then recently found out, sure is motive

Ehh, millions of people cheat and don’t kill their spouse. And are bisexual and don’t murder.

This isn’t enough, especially with no evidence she actknew and was pissed.

My guess is she knew MP better than anybody. She wasn’t stupid, and it’s entirely possible she didn’t care.

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

All of this may be right but there was never any evidence to substantiate it given. And his character assinations I thought were pretty minor overall. He wasn’t perfect.

People took small stuff he did, and even some big lies he told, and are using that for the basis of him being a murderer. You can’t do that.

Here's where you're wrong. It's the character stuff, plus all the other circumstantial and physical evidence. The "character assassination" wasn't entirely that; when someone is on trial for murder, any and every part of their life can be scrutinized and used as part of the motive narrative. Although motive isn't a legal element of a murder conviction, it does help to persuade the jury as to why someone would do it. And it clearly worked in his first trial.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Here's where you're wrong. It's the character stuff, plus all the other circumstantial and physical evidence. The "character assassination" wasn't entirely that; when someone is on trial for murder, any and every part of their life can be scrutinized and used as part of the motive narrative. Although motive isn't a legal element of a murder conviction, it does help to persuade the jury as to why someone would do it. And it clearly worked in his first trial.

I think it’s really the lack of physical evidence that I’m focusing on that makes me think 1. He didn’t kill her at the bottom of the stairs, and 2. If 1 is true, than where else does the evidence lead us to what really happened?

[Climb2safety]

In the death photo Dre posted, did you notice how the bottom of her feet were covered on blood.

I found that interesting.

Like she had been standing in it perhaps. How else does that happen?

[Gene Parmesan]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

In the death photo Dre posted, did you notice how the bottom of her feet were covered on blood.

I found that interesting.

Like she had been standing in it perhaps. How else does that happen?

The defense used that to explain the multiple lacerations. Supposing she tried to stand up and slipped on the blood.

Doesn't quite seem like a murder, or an accident. Gonna go owl for now. Only on episode 8. Want to hear more about these owl microfeathers in her hair.

[Gene Parmesan]

And arguing against her being intoxicated is a stretch. While .07 is legal, that plus valium would make her a bit tipsy.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s really the lack of physical evidence that I’m focusing on that makes me think 1. He didn’t kill her at the bottom of the stairs, and 2. If 1 is true, than where else does the evidence lead us to what really happened?

"lack of physical evidence" is killing me man!

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

I think it’s really the lack of physical evidence that I’m focusing on that makes me think 1. He didn’t kill her at the bottom of the stairs, and 2. If 1 is true, than where else does the evidence lead us to what really happened?

There is a shit ton of physical evidence in this case. More than most other cases, even.

I think you're more referring to hard forensic DNA evidence which would provide a direct link from Peterson to Kathleen in some manner. And possibly a lack of a murder weapon as well, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan

The defense used that to explain the multiple lacerations. Supposing she tried to stand up and slipped on the blood.

Doesn't quite seem like a murder, or an accident. Gonna go owl for now. Only on episode 8. Want to hear more about these owl microfeathers in her hair.

owl theory isnt mentioned at all in the doc. because its a silly theory.

where are the punctures/injuries to her hands if an owl attacked her?
and there would be a hell of more owl evidence in the area than microscopic owl feathers.

mike killed her hours before and staged it to the look the way it looked in the photos. thats my opinion. jury agreed with me.

another crazy thing- the cat picture at the bottom of the stairs.....that exact same cat picture was at the bottom of the stairs after that death (murder?) in germany.

[Rodey]

There were injuries to her hands and small puncture wounds on her cheeks. And they found microfeathers. I don't think owl theory is silly at all.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by dre2142

"lack of physical evidence" is killing me man!

You know how I know there was a lack of physical evidence?

Because the forensic expert for the state had to perjure himself to make the case against MP. Specifically no cast off blood spatter to support the prosecutions theory and/or implicate MP.

If there was so much evidence against him why would he do this?

Instead, they with held evidence, lied about evidence, and failed to test evidence.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

There is a shit ton of physical evidence in this case. More than most other cases, even.

I think you're more referring to hard forensic DNA evidence which would provide a direct link from Peterson to Kathleen in some manner. And possibly a lack of a murder weapon as well, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Yeah, lack of cast off spatter is the most damning to the prosecution imo.

They botched the investigation to such a large extent I done think much credence can be put in the CSI teams findings tbh.

What do you think is the most damning piece of physical evidence pointing to MP as the killer? (Interested in anyone’s thoughts here)

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

What do you think is the most damning piece of physical evidence pointing to MP as the killer? (Interested in anyone’s thoughts here)

Her head wounds look scary!!!!!!1!!!

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by Rodey

There were injuries to her hands and small puncture wounds on her cheeks. And they found microfeathers. I don't think owl theory is silly at all.

Question for all: if there are defensive wounds and bruises on her face from the front how was the killer hitting the back of her head with the murder weapon?

[M. Steng]

I think there's a really decent chance that he strangled her to death and then staged the rest of it to make it look like an accident.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

You know how I know there was a lack of physical evidence?

Because the forensic expert for the state had to perjure himself to make the case against MP. Specifically no cast off blood spatter to support the prosecutions theory and/or implicate MP.

If there was so much evidence against him why would he do this?

Instead, they with held evidence, lied about evidence, and failed to test evidence.

him doing that doesnt mean there wasnt evidence. we can all agree the case was handled badly, but the juries verdict didnt hinge on deavers testimony. this is fact as its on the record as such. you also seem to be under the impression that what we saw in the doc was all there was. there were HUNDREDS of witnesses and experts called.

Defense and prosecution experts are being paid to testify. A defense can run through 10 different experts before finding one that they want to use on the stand to fight for their case. Lees testimony was no better.

That being said, are you discrediting everything the medical examiner concluded in her autopsy? Do we throw that report out the door as all being false?

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

Yeah, lack of cast off spatter is the most damning to the prosecution imo.

They botched the investigation to such a large extent I done think much credence can be put in the CSI teams findings tbh.

What do you think is the most damning piece of physical evidence pointing to MP as the killer? (Interested in anyone’s thoughts here)

Luckily cases dont hinge on physical evidence alone.
His lies are pretty damning. And the autopsy results alone show me that she was murdered- so a fall down the stairs isnt even an option for me, and definately not when you put all the pieces together.

The situation could have unfolded in many different ways. Were they even ever out near the pool?

I think he attacked her at some point in the night and then tried to stage the scene as an accident.

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by dre2142

That being said, are you discrediting everything the medical examiner concluded in her autopsy? Do we throw that report out the door as all being false?

Yes.

Her shenanigans with the exhumed body throw her credibility out.

[Rodey]

It was confirmed that at least one prosecution witness worked backwards and used phony science to fit the prosecution's narrative. Not to mention blatantly lying on the witness stand.

All in Durham, where who would have guessed, a DA was disbarred for trying to railroad some college kids for something they didn't do... for political reasons.

That doesn't mean MP is innocent, only MP and KP know for sure what happened, but it's enough for me to take everything the prosecution said/did with a large grain of salt.

[Climb2safety]

Prosecution experts testify as part of their job and are every bit as much paid and slanted towards their side as any defense experts are. So much so they perjure themselves and hide evidence contrary to their side.

Because the prosecution and police are in such control of matters their burden should be held to the highest standards and scrutiny.

[kelchlsm]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

Ehh, millions of people cheat and don’t kill their spouse. And are bisexual and don’t murder.

This isn’t enough, especially with no evidence she actknew and was pissed.

My guess is she knew MP better than anybody. She wasn’t stupid, and it’s entirely possible she didn’t care.

What are you talking about? besides people trying to scam life insurance- this is probably the #1 reason relationships end in murder

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by Rodey

It was confirmed that at least one prosecution witness worked backwards and used phony science to fit the prosecution's narrative. Not to mention blatantly lying on the witness stand.

All in Durham, where who would have guessed, a DA was disbarred for trying to railroad some college kids for something they didn't do... for political reasons.

That doesn't mean MP is innocent, only MP and KP know for sure what happened, but it's enough for me to take everything the prosecution said/did with a large grain of salt.

Didn’t the one dude on the prosecution go on to be a judge? I think I saw that during his appeal when he got out.

Great

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by jcc522

Yes.

Her shenanigans with the exhumed body throw her credibility out.

How so? A different examiner did the autopsy on Ratliff, which occured way after Kathleens autopsy.

Id recommend reading "Written In Blood" by Diane Fanning. Dives into the case pretty deep.

If it was an owl attack, there would have been more distinct pattern all over the head- not in one concentrated area on the back of her head, and not long and deep. And there wouldve been more evidence of owl inside the house.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by kelchlsm

What are you talking about? besides people trying to scam life insurance- this is probably the #1 reason relationships end in murder

Is cheating and murdering your spouse statistically correlated?

It’s a good question.

I was just thinking 50% of marriages end in divorce, how many end in murder?

[Gene Parmesan]

MP is weird as fuck and definitely appears guilty to me. But I have doubts based on whats been presented.

It's one thing to exhume a body, it's another to drive it across the country to get the results you want. Thought that was shady and disrespectful.