Anonymous wrote:You can believe he did it, and still think that the prosecution did not make the case because of the lack of murder weapon, motive, etc. But you do not need to stoop to an "owl theory". That's just dumb. People will do anything to believe a white man!!!

I’m pretty damn realistic about what white (or any) men are capable of, and I find the owl theory intriguing because it explains a lot of the evidence that otherwise doesn’t make much sense, whether he did it or not.

You can believe he did it, and still think that the prosecution did not make the case because of the lack of murder weapon, motive, etc. But you do not need to stoop to an "owl theory". That's just dumb. People will do anything to believe a white man!!!

Anonymous wrote:The prosecution relied heavily on the “he’s bisexual, lies and cheats so he’s capable of anything” angle. That carried a lot of weight with a conservative southern jury at that time. A lot has changed in a relatively short period of time culturally so it probably wouldn’t fly today, but the DA milked the deviancy angle hard and it worked.

This was our reaction when we watched it. Both DH & I were horrified that he was convicted with so little evidence, plus the one expert the jury said they relied on (blood spatter) was shown to be full of it, which is why he got out. Now, does he seem unusual? Sure. And not necessarily innocent but they certainly didn't have enough to convict. I can't believe the Staircase makes it seem so much like he is guilty. I think basically the story is that he was bisexual & nonmonogamous & that was bulk of the prosecution's evidence. We honestly wondered whether he'd have a defamation suit against The Staircase.

I'm not 100% sure he's innocent & I am not sure I buy the owl defense but there's ample room for reasonable doubt.

Anonymous wrote:If I were in the jury I could not convict. Not that I think he’s innocent, but too much doubt.

No wounds in him, no blood in him, no bloody footprints, no murder weapon, no real motive. They couldn’t even determine what attack her her head.

ditto - it just seems like a tragic and bizarre accident.

Anonymous wrote:I lived in NC during the trial; Peterson came off as super guilty.

Right, because that's the way the press spun it.

I lived in NC during the trial; Peterson came off as super guilty.

Anonymous wrote:If I were in the jury I could not convict. Not that I think he’s innocent, but too much doubt.

No wounds in him, no blood in him, no bloody footprints, no murder weapon, no real motive. They couldn’t even determine what attack her her head.

I'm in the Owl Theory camp, but he DID have blood all over him. But he claims it's from when he found and tried to help her.

The prosecution relied heavily on the “he’s bisexual, lies and cheats so he’s capable of anything” angle. That carried a lot of weight with a conservative southern jury at that time. A lot has changed in a relatively short period of time culturally so it probably wouldn’t fly today, but the DA milked the deviancy angle hard and it worked.

If I were in the jury I could not convict. Not that I think he’s innocent, but too much doubt.

No wounds in him, no blood in him, no bloody footprints, no murder weapon, no real motive. They couldn’t even determine what attack her her head.

The JUDGE says "I could have had a reasonable doubt" if I had been on that jury.

!!!

Anonymous wrote:He absolutely did it. I don’t know how this can even be questioned.

It can be questioned because nobody aside from Michael Peterson knows “absolutely” whether he did it, and there is plenty of credible evidence that this was a tragic accident.

I can’t believe this gorgeous French woman falls for him. Ew.

He absolutely did it. I don’t know how this can even be questioned.

Anonymous wrote:OMG in the most recent episode Sophie Turner's wig looks SO terrible!

Agreed. Toni Collette’s isn’t great either.

OMG in the most recent episode Sophie Turner's wig looks SO terrible!