Netflix’s doc about the death of Kathleen Peterson and her novelist husband Michael’s court case remains a sensational, game-changing series

 

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/20...thleen-peterson

 

I started watching this yesterday, seems pretty good, I love a good true crime documentary B-)

 

Really intrigued by this, heard it’s essentially the Godfather of true crime docs!

3 episodes into this and it's really conflicting lmao. When it starts, you think one thing and then something happens and you think the opposite and then you go back to your original thought and ughhhhh.

 

Very interesting though. I'm bot sure how they're gonna drag it out for so many episodes though as I feel like they're repeating a lot of things and it's feeling dragged out, but I'm definitely intrigued.

3 episodes into this and it's really conflicting lmao. When it starts, you think one thing and then something happens and you think the opposite and then you go back to your original thought and ughhhhh.

 

Very interesting though. I'm bot sure how they're gonna drag it out for so many episodes though as I feel like they're repeating a lot of things and it's feeling dragged out, but I'm definitely intrigued.

 

You'll soon see. There's a bit more to it than the first few episodes show.

 

I absolutely loved this. I knew nothing about it before I watched it and just found it fascinating to see how the defence put their case together and just how it all unfolds in court.

 

To those who have seen it -

I can't express how frustrated I was when the judge repeatedly let the prosecution use prejudicial evidence, and then failed to dismiss the case when it was proved they not only lied, but tampered with evidence and made a retrial practically impossible. And then for the judge, after 15 years, to admit that he probably shouldn't have let the evidence be used in the first place!!

 

I did not like Michael one bit, but there was no way on this earth a jury should have convicted him. There was reasonable doubt all over that case. And why the HELL was that lying blood spatter "expert" not locked up for potentially botching dozens of cases???

 

Edited July 1, 20187 yr by PaulM1983

3 episodes into this and it's really conflicting lmao. When it starts, you think one thing and then something happens and you think the opposite and then you go back to your original thought and ughhhhh.

 

Very interesting though. I'm bot sure how they're gonna drag it out for so many episodes though as I feel like they're repeating a lot of things and it's feeling dragged out, but I'm definitely intrigued.

 

I'm about 5 episodes in and really struggling to see how it can last 13 episodes. Still got no idea whether he did it or not mind.

Its three series worth - something like 8 episodes for the initial series, 2 follow up episodes and then the 3 recent ones exclusive to Netflix that follow up more developments.

Finally finished. It was compelling, but overly long.

 

As to where I stand...

I'm 100% behind him being innocent now. There's a theory going around about a bird/owl attack which as far fetched as it sounds, actually seems plausible :lol: Even if I didn't believe him to be innocent, I genuinely don't understand how they could've convicted him on the basis of the evidence that was presented. It genuinely baffles me.

 

 

Also, Candace is irritating af. I understand she wants justice for her sister, but she really looks like she's just looking for someone to blame as opposed to fighting for her sister.

Finally finished. It was compelling, but overly long.

 

As to where I stand...

I'm 100% behind him being innocent now. There's a theory going around about a bird/owl attack which as far fetched as it sounds, actually seems plausible :lol: Even if I didn't believe him to be innocent, I genuinely don't understand how they could've convicted him on the basis of the evidence that was presented. It genuinely baffles me.

 

 

Also, Candace is irritating af. I understand she wants justice for her sister, but she really looks like she's just looking for someone to blame as opposed to fighting for her sister.

 

Pretty much this.

When I found out there was an owl feather in her hand, amongst a clump of hair she'd clearly ripped out, that theory actually becomes the most plausible. And you're right, there's no way on this earth that evidence was enough to convict beyond doubt. No way.

 

 

And yeah, Candace was something else. Her speech in the last episode was insane. I loved Rudolf just sitting there, staring her dead in the eyes, not reacting to anything.

I watched the first 5 episodes or so but got bored and just wanted to know what happened so I ended up just going to google lmao, I'm also behind the

owl theory

, its the only thing that makes sense?? Idk why they didn't take that one to court, i know they said it was too late but surely they can use it as the basis of an appeal or something?

No,

he can never appeal due to accepting the Alford plea. Also, as we learned the prosecution had contaminated the evidence, there's probably no way to ever present it in court again. He really was royally screwed over.

Edited September 11, 20186 yr by PaulM1983

Ohhh right I see,

I read about the plea thing but I didn't fully understand what it meant. I can understand why they'd make a series now, at least people can see his likely innocence from that whereas with the likes of making a murderer, it felt very biased and as though they were trying to convince people that he was innocent despite the evidence against him being pretty solid.