The Staircase (2004–2018) User Reviews

Still not sure how she died?

[tennismenace · 9/10 · 4 July 2018]

As we watched the series we are left with two choices....either she died by fall (illogical based on lacerations and loss of great amount of blood) or the husband killed her (illogical because never once was there a beating without a brain fracture, and there was no fracture of the skull here so the beating theory is very weak ...plus, there was no evidence to show of a struggle, which would have happened. Oh, and does anyone really believe the blow poke was the weapon? Come on people! ). We were never left with door number 3, except at the end they discussed this theory that some barred owl may have done this. They only gave us a three minute video on that theory but after getting on the internet and doing further research, this theory makes the MOST SENSE to me. Did you see the lacerations on the top of her head for crying out loud? What do they look like to you? Talons!!! Hello people.....do you honestly believe a blow poke did that? And if you do, why was the blow poke in the house not shown as evidence as the weapon? If you believe that, you not only are gullible but I wouldn't want you as a juror in my murder case either because quite frankly, you aren't smart enough to think clearly and logically.

I live with barred owls in my back yard and they are big and if they feel their young can be threatened, they can go on attack mode. Plus, look at the facts: at the time of death, Kathleen had a FEATHER in her hand, bloody twigs in her hand, her hair pulled out in her hand, and there were traces of blood OUTSIDE on the walkway going into the house which signifies she was attacked just before she came into the house. She even had needle point wounds on her arms as if she was protecting herself from this attack. Honestly, this theory makes much much more sense to me than the two they left us to choose from. I know they made a motion in May of 2016 to add this evidence so maybe if they had a new trial this would have been entered, but because of the Alford Plea, we will never know.

Lastly, while the death in Germany was eerily similar, I really do not believe you can admit this as evidence because it is too prejudicial to the average juror who is probably being led more by emotion than logic. But, the fact is, there was no evidence in Germany that this was a murder and it was never thought to be based on their investigation. Case closed folks. So why let an American jury hear this if a German police department and DA determined there was not enough evidence to proceed as a wrongful death? I see no reason to allow, thus this judge screwed the pooch. Oh, and guess what? To his credit, he admitted at the end that he probably should not have admitted that evidence, because it probably was too prejudicial. That comment is right....too bad for Peterson he didn't have that logic in 2002.The judge also questioned whether he should have allowed the bisexual evidence but I think he had to allow that because after all, Peterson's lawyer did say their marriage was IDYLLIC. Well, that comment should be open for examination. Did Kathleen know and approve her husband wanting to have sex with other men during their marriage? In order to be idyllic you would have to prove this didn't bother her. Well, let me tell you, if my wife thought or knew that I was seeing other men (or women) while married to her, she would both beat me up (a former cop who works out every day) and then throw me out the door. I think most women would feel as my wife would, not the opposite. There was no evidence presented that Kathleen didn't mind Peterson getting it on with other men except his weak testimony. Don't forget, he did say, "we didn't talk about it" so this shows me she obviously did not approve of it. Personally, I think Peterson was lying about this and was telling us what made him look more favorable in order to remove motive.

I enjoyed the series but I agree, it was slightly slanted toward Peterson's side and especially now knowing he was in a relationship with the editor of the series does not look good as being a totally OBJECTIVE documentary. I believe Kathleen's family should have been included much more so we could also experience what they were going through too. After all, they gave us way to much time showing us how Margaret and Martha feel, so why not show us how Candace, Lori, and Caitlin feel too? I know some people were upset with Kathleen's sister, Candace, for her harsh comments, but not me. She is her sister after all, and she is right...the evidence doesn't point to merely a FALL as the cause of death, so what else was she to conclude? Oh well, I guess i can't have everything, thus my 8 rating, and not 10. One last thing, I feel I should probably add this....I am an attorney, so I am seeing this through those colored glasses which can be slightly different from an average layperson. I hope you enjoyed reading this review...I know, it was rather long-winded wasn't it? Cheers.

This happens more than you realizr

[janashedlock · 9/10 · 18 June 2018]

I went through a similar ordeal with law enforcement and the assistant DA that wanted to win a promotion to DA. My son was accused of a crime that he did not do and they had zero evidence and and he had never had any brush with the legal system but they wanted a good case that would make headlines. I had always trusted the law enforcement system and believed you are innocent until proven guilty but it the opposite. You are guilty and we had to spend $247,000 on legal costs before he was found not guilty by a jury of 12. The state wasted so much money and we are still paying off those we borrowed money from and he was also on 3rd party for a whole year. It was over four years ago now but I still suffer from depression and anxiety from this horrible, unbelievable failure of our legal system. I will never trust it again nor will any of my family. I don't even care whether Michael Peterson is guilty or innocent. Just the lies and misconduct of the procsecution team was glaring and oh so familar. They , too, did not care if he was guilty or innocent: they just wanted to win. Instead, everybody lost. The hundreds of thousands of dollars the state spent could have been spent on public "pretenders" for those pitiful prisoners that came into court chained together and their only choice was a plea bargain, which always meant guilty

Accidental Masterpiece

[sallyvee · 7/10 · 15 June 2005]

(I tried not to spoil anything, but I clicked the spoiler alert just in case.)

The Staircase was accidentally absorbing. Even though the filmmakers had an unmistakably obvious point of view, they did not succeed in persuading me to the same conclusion. Yet, to Maha's credit, the film was thoroughly engaging from beginning to end. Most of the characters it dwelled on were so despicable, transparent, and sad that I can think of no real life situation where I'd have spent more than five minutes in the company of such people. But it was tolerable and even darkly fascinating to observe them on screen over the course of this enthralling real life documentary.

Since I first watched the film, I've read an excellent book by Diane Fanning about the Michael Peterson case. I recommend it to all -- titled "Written In Blood." My instincts, according to this exceptionally well researched, well written book, were pretty solid as it turns out. Common sense served me well, and I believe common sense prevailed in the face of a million+ bucks in "expert obfuscation" and P.R. hi-jinx -- AKA David Rudolph's High Powered Legal Defense Team.

I can say without reservation, The Staircase is highly entertaining and well crafted. Yet I must encourage viewers to balance the heavily one-sided array of facts and suggestions by consulting additional sources. There are a number of places online offering background, evidence, testimony, and opinion. Or get one straightforward, well organized, and riveting account in Fanning's book. After bulking up your knowledge of the opposing viewpoint and forensic evidence, watch The Staircase a second time and experience a whole new set of "Aha!" moments.

One other spectacular element that must be mentioned: the exquisite and haunting original music composed (and performed?) by Jocelyn Pook. Hats off to the directors for spotting this amazing talent.

A Masterpiece - on True Crime genre and Documentaries

[winguita · 10/10 · 10 June 2018]

If you think "I'm not into true crime documentaries, I'll pass" please do yourself a favour - don't think of it as a "crime doc".

This case has been one of the biggest and most controversial cases in recent times and if you have no idea of who Michael Peterson is you will be gripped by all the episodes.

Having previously watched the released episodes before Netflix premiered the series, adding 3 more, I had already formed an opinion and thought that 3 episodes would not make a huge difference. I was wrong. If the twists, turns, anger, love and incredible, mind-bending insider views weren't already enough, every single episode added had an incredible emotional charge to them.

This is not your usual "true crime" documentary. Yes, we have seen how the genre has expanded to showing the BTS footage, how Making A Murderer caught the attention of the whole world but trying not no spoil it... I would say MAM leaves a lot unsaid or "to be presumed" by the viewer. While The Staircase focuses on Michael Peterson and can easily be argued as "biased", I don't see how this particular case would have been fairly presented without that "bias". Meaning, all that is revealed (until the very last minutes of the last episode) will make you understand why Michael Peterson had the opportunity to be presented the way he is in this documentary.

If Making a Murderer did come up with several issues and questions were raised, they were just that - opening lines for possibilities that never got solved or resolved (most of them are still open for dispute).

But The Staircase is filled with facts and presentations of evidence that will for sure make everyone rethink about the whole justice system.

If you are familiar with the Owl Theory and don't understand why this wasn't discussed I would guess that it was a good effort to keep the bias to a minimum - not attempting to offer a solution, the viewer is left with what I believe to be the main core information. The flaws of a system are exposed - the flaws that everyone knows about but no one seems keen on solving... It is very disturbing (even for someone who is a fan of the true crime genre) to hear and clearly understand from the words and actions of the players involved in a murder case what *exactly* can go wrong - and why.

This was a brilliant, gripping series I watched in only 2 days because the revelations never end. I was not expecting to know much more about the case I was already familiar with but I was wrong.

I hope this documentary finds its way out of the true crime genre because even though it starts from a murder charge, everything else comes down to empathy, emotions, social and family relationships and a whole lot about how we, as a society, can be easily swayed from our very core beliefs.

You will laugh, you will cry, you will yell at the screen. No matter how you *personally* welcome what the director presents you, the raw honesty and the human emotions will affect you - from everyone involved in this tragedy.

I would say this is probably the best true crime doc I've seen, easily. And from someone who watches trials and live streams of these cases, I had never learned so much about the humanity (or lack thereof) and emotions going on in these procedures.

Don't read spoilers, don't read about the case if you have the chance to avoid it. This goes way beyond what is presented in any website you might read about it.

There's much (apparent) simplicity on the way the images are presented but they do serve a higher purpose - for the viewer to be able to live every situation as if it was happening to them.

Congratulations on the marvellous completion of 13 episodes and I truly hope every documentary lover will watch this, not only true-crime genre fans...

It's not about the case. It's about the Justice system

[alexandresouriau · 10/10 · 14 November 2018]

If you want to watch a police documentary don't watch this one because the mystery is still here (even though there are certain theories going around on the internet, I'll let you look by yourself).

This documentary is about a broken justice system that doesn't allow the defendant the fair ability to defend themselves. The State is the prosecution so why would they handle themselves all the evidence? It needs an unbiased third party to handle such evidence. Politics come into play in all aspect of society and it's just sad that it also colors the justice system, which should be politic-free and unbiased, always.

Riveting

[alexnmike · 9/10 · 9 June 2018]

After viewing the entire 13 episodes now available on Netflix, I'm horrified at the incompetence of the local agencies responsible for investigating, collecting evidence, and evaluating evidence. However you feel about the character or guilt of the accused Michael Peterson, we should all be concerned about how law enforcement, prosecutors and those involved in evaluating scientific evidence, clearly mishandled their positions of authority. By allowing us to witness the flaws in the judgement of the judicial system, I can only say that fairness was not present in this case and no that one can claim any winners. It's obvious that under the right circumstances, anyone could find themselves unable to get a fair trial. Truly riveting and well produced documentary.

The reviews were almost as interesting as the documentary!

[ccfield1 · 9/10 · 13 June 2018]

First, the criticism that there wasn't enough coverage of the prosecution teams was ridiculous. The Staircase was about Peterson's ordeal and his interaction with the justice system, not a omniscient look at the case from all possible angles.

Second, to dismiss Peterson as a narcissist who got what was coming to him for killing his wife and using his narcissistic personality to brainwash his children (the Stockholm Syndrome was even brought up at one point) is also ridiculous.

Yes, Peterson does come off as full of himself and eager to talk about himself but does that make him a narcissist or human? Narcissist do not typically enjoy the wide-ranging support Peterson received. Rather narcissist often end up alone, having alienated everyone around them.

The unwavering support of Margeret and Martha Ratliff is testament to Peterson's success as a parent, not a sign of the Stockholm Syndrome!

The indictment of the justice system is real, but it is not a indictment against the jury that convicted Peterson, not a case of a disproportionally black jury convicting a white man because he was rich.

The Peterson jury was spoon fed lies by corrupt or over eager investigators who formed a theory and twisted or omitted facts to fit that theory. By eliminating exculpatory evidence, fabricating incriminating evidence, twisting findings to fit a particular theory, members of the North Carolina SBI through egregious misconduct painted the picture of a very guilty man for those jurors selected to judge him.

I can't say I enjoyed Lestrade's documentary. Enjoy is far from the correct word but I did find it fascinating. It was also a cautionary tale. Although we have come to believe that the rich (like OJ) can get away with murder, apparently that's not always the case, especially if unscrupulous B.B. investigators are lined up against you. Then they are capable of using their powers to mold the elements of the case to create the outcome they want. Mr. Deaver taught us that.

The documentary isn't perfect and there might have been more sympathetic defendants to follow than Peterson, but I don't regret watching it for it's human interest and it's exposure of the ugly underbelly of our justice system. Forewarned is farearmed.

Interesting story but horrible editing

[smcgilli-2 · 6/10 · 11 June 2018]

I wont go over the whole story here as many other have already done so. Yes, this is a tragic story and has some interesting twists. Yes, I feel that justice was not well served for this whole investigation and trial. However, this 13 episode series could have easily been edited down to 6 or 7 episodes. There is SO much fluff. There are SO many scenes that drag on or rehash the same info. The characters are just not that interesting to hear them go on and on. They even have drawn out scenes of cars parking or driving away or people walking...nothing going on. No drama. No storytelling. No point. It makes a slow story feel a LOT slower.

Very good indeed.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 19 February 2021]

This is a fascinating series, which asks the question, did Michael Peterson have a hand in his wife's death, or not? Found at the bottom of a staircase, Kathleen has died, and it seems like history is repeating itself, as some sixteen years before this, another woman was found in the same circumstances.

The case is very interesting, the first few episodes I was convinced of his guilt, but as it develops, I start to question more and more. I think my opinion may be clouded, as I find Peterson loathsome, he shows zero emotion, until he's got the spotlight on him. He's one of those people I just instantly disliked, maybe the whiny voice, feeling of insincerity, or his life of lies.... Make your own mind up.

It's a long series, I didn't think it dragged on, I note that some very important pieces of information are omitted, I suggest you dig a little deeper, you will find out more.

I know some of the editing is a bit clunky, and it's not the usual slick Netflix series, but that's not so important in these circumstances.

Had there not been the case sixteen years before, I would have been more conflicted, the fact that that happened, be honest, what are the chances.

If you're aware of British crime show Solent Witness, check out an episode called 'voids,' you'll find it fascinating.

A few things you learn, how flawed the legal system is, and just how much money talks.

A very interesting watch. 8/10.

Too long

[anthonycohen-60451 · 6/10 · 27 November 2018]

A good story kinda ruined by Netflix. Drags on for what seems like an eternity & i lost interest. I just ended up asking a friend how it ended.

Marvelously Gripping True Crime Mocumentary

[MacCarmel · 10/10 · 28 May 2013]

Possible spoilers ahead -- best read once you know a thing or two about the case and the players.

I give it a 10 as an edge of your seat, deliciously consuming film treat. I give it a 3 for truthiness. To find out what was omitted from the film I recommend Diane Fanning's 2005 excellent true crime book, "Written in Blood" which covers the case and the trial in detail.

First of all, I completely reject the comments of reviewers who say that this film is somehow an indictment of the jury trial system and that it shows that Southern juries and populations hear the word bisexual and vote to convict. Hogwash. But I will caution first time viewers to watch this film through the lens of what should be completely obvious, which is, that it is a tool of the defense. At some point while watching you must wonder why the evidence and the prosecution gets so little airtime while we instead get so much of the defense team talking about how to craft their story to best tear down anticipated arguments and witnesses for the prosecution. And way too much of a jovial and harmless looking Michael Peterson, surrounded by his very protective adult children.

I watched the film having only the vaguest familiarity with the case. I do, however, have familiarity with the courtroom, attorneys and narcissists. It was immediately apparent to me that Peterson is quite likely a narcissist and that the "narcissistic family" dynamic was on full display. Michael Peterson was the center of everyone's universe, prompting a fierce display of united loyalty. But that loyalty looked false and coerced. Too much, too forced, too effusive, too grandiose. Red flags that something else is going on with this family. Some of them are true believers that what they are showing is absolutely sincere. This false reality is the definition of love that they know to be true. With that understanding --- NOW think about the future for the most harmed children that Michael Peterson put on display for his own use: Margaret and Martha Ratliff. Caitlin Atwater will find her way to a better and healthier life, and she has sane family members to help her do that. Margaret and Martha may never be able to do that because they have been so inculcated in the narcissistic family abuse/intimidation/fear/demands which have been defined for them as love -- and they have only the Petersons to guide them.

Americans believe in many myths about our democracy. One of the most egregious being that truth and justice awaits you in the courtroom. Again -- Hogwash. The courtroom is a stage and all who enter it enter the theater. The best actor, not necessarily the truth, wins. The name of the game is always to destroy the credibility of each and every witness, which is always easiest to do with personal attacks rather than evidentiary rebuttals. This said, however, I believe it was entirely appropriate to speak of both Michael Peterson's sexual trolling and his financial position because both go directly to motive. Personally, I don't believe Kathleen Peterson knew her husband was being unfaithful to her until the night of her death when I think it is likely that she found evidence on Michael's computer and confronted him. (Remember that, inexplicably, he spent the next hours and days after her death reading emails and deleting files from his computer.) She had ended her first marriage over her husband's infidelity. Why would anyone not consider it relevant to the case that if she had discovered it happening with her second husband she may ultimately be moved to end that marriage as well. And if that happened, Michael Peterson would have no source of income at all and his high standard of living would literally go Poof in an instant.

And lastly, a comment on the sons - Todd and Clayton. It seems apparent to a discerning viewer, and obvious to a reader of Diane Fanning's book, that Todd absolutely had an agenda. He seems to be the sociopath "boy next door". I believe he was an accomplice in Kathleen's murder and the ensuing story being fed to police, friends and family. He clearly orchestrated the obfuscation and failure to cooperate with EMT's and police at the scene of the crime. In the follow up episodes of the film, when Michael Peterson is seeking a new trial, Todd offers a very strange toast to the family and singles out Margaret, especially, for all that she's done to stand by Michael. Surely, it would not be notable for a lot of viewers but I found it chilling. The look on his face was smug and intimidating and, when he noticed the camera on him, changed to a much softer, camera friendly look. The impact of his words goes to the heart of the narcissistic family --- Margaret was used and manipulated by Todd, Michael and the defense team and she is utterly clueless about that. In short -- they got away with murder, in part, because of Margaret's dutiful assistance.

Clayton has a history of violent and subversive acts and has spent time in prison for them. Conveniently, none of that was mentioned in the film.

The bottom line on this film is to view it with the full understanding that it shows you a small piece of the puzzle. The most meaningful aspects of the family picture are not included. Neither are the most damning pieces of evidence. Which means that those who cry "Travesty!" at Michael Peterson's conviction are speaking from the viewpoint of one who is ignorant of the evidence. And this includes the family of Michael Peterson.

Brilliant but biased

[tieman64 · 7 July 2010]

"Death on the Staircase" deals with the arrest and subsequent trial of Michael Peterson, a writer accused of murdering his wife. Directed by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade - the man behind the documentary masterpiece "Murder On A Sunday Morning" - this mammoth 360 minute documentary is intriguing for most of its running time.

The film grants us an inside look into the workings of Peterson's defence team and focuses on procedures usually omitted from most works of fiction. For example, the buying and coaching of "expert witnesses", the severe denial people undergo when family members are accused of a crime (Peterson's daughters undergo Stockholm Syndrome before our eyes), the lengths defence attorneys go to distance themselves from their clients (they could care less whether Peterson is guilty or not), the staggering amount of research, surveys and preparation that goes into a case etc etc.

Most interesting, though, is the way Peterson's past is dissected by the prosecutors, his bi-sexuality (and liaisons with prostitutes) brazenly brought up in court. Of course Peterson denies these things at first, and so its all the more fascinating to watch as he slowly confides his sordid past to both his family and his lawyers.

Lestrade touches upon the media's biased coverage of the crime, but mostly he's interested in painting this case as a gigantic failure of justice. The director wants us to believe that America is a puritanical and uptight country that unfairly convicted a man based on his wealth and bisexuality. That small town Americans are conservative, racist and classist, and that the (largely black) jury believe that bisexuals are criminals, innately sick and so must be punished.

But of course Lestrade would have been unable to make this documentary had Michael Peterson not granted the director permission to document his life and trial. No doubt Peterson provided a series of very strict rules for the documentary crew to follow. Is it therefore any surprise that the film is so pro-defence? That it deliberately omits facts and paints Peterson as a man betrayed by justice?

8/10 – Though this documentary borrows elements from "Capturing The Friedmans", "The Thin Blue Line" and "Murder on a Sunday Morning", it's not as good as either of those films. The rich psycho-horrors of "Capturing The Friedmans" is lacking, the moral integrity of "Murder on a Sunday Morning" is absent and the brevity of "The Thin Blue Line" non existent. Still, for fans of the genre, Lestrade delivers a couple hours of good stuff.

Worth one viewing.

Mesmerizing

[castlekc4 · 7/10 · 16 June 2018]

Why wasn't it ever put into question, the paternity of the adopted girls ? The one looks exactly like Peterson ! And all the talk about Kathleen " falling " in the stairway ... she certainly could have " fallen" after being beaten ..... it was a good presentation ... he's guilty as hell.

Not buying it.

[johanna_pb · 4/10 · 3 February 2021]

Paterson tries to ride the wave of sympathy for unjustly convicted persons. Sorry, dude - even with this extremely biased, one-sided perspective your crocodile tears and tales of victimization are not convincing. I mean - you independently enlisted the film company! That's insane bias! I wasn't going to finish watching the series because *insert eye roll*, but I felt I needed all of the information if I was going to voice an opinion. The amount of egocentricity is astounding, so I suppose the "documentary" has that going for it. It's like a car wreck you can't turn away from... well, maybe a fender bender? I love true crime - the evidence-based ones finding the criminals, the exonerating of innocent convicts, and anything in between. I also have a high standard for integrity (no matter which side), and Peterson's manipulative tactics fall severely short of that bar.

Fundamental flaws reveiled

[willemavisser · 10/10 · 20 November 2018]

Watching this series, and similar Netflix-series like Making a Murderer and The Confession Tapes fulfill me with sadness, as it reveals a broken justice system. My diagnosis based on these documentaries. 2 fundamental flaws: 1. The Distric Attorney and the Judge are elected officials and therefore find it hard to make unpopular decisions. You see it in this documentary where the DA after a new trial is granted to Michael Peterson, is first inclined to accept a deal, and then backs down from it after talking to the sisters of the victim. The same in Making a Murderer: the reaction of the victim's family dictates what the DA does. This does not help finding the truth, as you have to be able to look to the facts objectively in order to find the truth. 2. The adversarial nature of the proceedings: all series mentioned before are a testament to the fact that putting two parties opposite each other and let them fight with all legal available means does not further the truth. It only leads to a competetion of who is going to win and who is going to lose. All parties involved are forced to choose sides: am I for the DA or for the defendant? As is evident from the Staircase Series this applies to law enforcement officials too. The CSI-techs were more interested in proving their theory, than following the evidence, wherever it may lead.

Solutions? I hope this series will lead to a debate about improving the system. My thoughts? Start with depoliticizing the justice system by appointing judges and DA's not through elections, but independently by the Supreme Court or any other judicial body.

Watching the series is very instrumental in understanding the US justice system. And in seeing the consequences it has for anyone being accused of a crime and their loved ones. I can very much recommend it. The documentary maker has had unprecedented access to the defendant, his lawyer, to the lawyer-client discussions and to the jail where Michael was held. This makes it unique. As making a documentary of only 11 hours involves making choices what footage to use and to disregard, and is in that sense subjective, there is a lot of court room material in the series to allow you to get a good picture of what the case was about.

Disclaimer: as you might have guessed I am a European lawyer and this is just my personal opinion.

Worth watching

[bikash-20802 · 8/10 · 17 June 2018]

Reading all these reviews after I finished watching the show what I realized is that most people don't realize what the criminal justice system should be all about. It's not about deciding if Peterson is innocent or not. It is also not about what your common sense tells you about what happened. Any person who is charged with something is "not guilty" unless proven "guilty" beyond reasonable doubts. And in this particular case it was prosecutors burden to prove that. The only thing which is begging us to give attention in this series is the broken criminal justice system and the fact that the DA will go any length to put someone behind the bars. This guy had some money so he could fight against it whether he killed his wife or not. But think about this possibility: you're poor and your wife died by an accident and they think you murdered her. So they will do whatever is there to do to put you away for good. And you cannot do anything about it because you are poor. The justice system is biased and rigged against the poor. Whether we think OJ or Peterson killed their wives doesn't mean anything. The prosecutors have to prove beyond reasonable doubts that they are guilty without masterminding the evidence and/or bringing prejudicial matters as evidence. The judge was not wise enough to stop that in Petersons case which he should have stopped. It's not like we can execute some innocent people for the sake of executing a lot of guilty people. If you are not proven guilty then you are not guilty and that's the bottom line. Just because something goes along smoothly according to our common sense doesn't make them right. You have to produce evidence what matters. I agree what David said in one episode, "the absence of evidence is not same as evidence of absence". No one knows if he killed his wife except himself until you can prove otherwise by the evidence of presence. If the prosecutors went for the DNA in her clothing straight forward maybe they would have better case against him rather than fabricating with the evidence. True they could have brought some more perspectives from the prosecutors side. It would have been really interesting to see their reaction after the Deaver things came out. But overall it's an average crime documentary with not very high quality. I'll put a 8 star and encourage you to watch it if you have some time to spare.

Murder In My Heart For The Judge

[valis1949 · 9/10 · 18 April 2009]

THE STAIRCASE is protracted and meticulous, yet a fascinating study of how a 'Dream Team' legal defense is organized and executed. In December of 2001 acclaimed author, Michael Peterson, was accused in the death of his wife, Kathleen. It was his contention that Kathleen slipped and fell on a staircase in their home after an evening of wine and relaxation, while the prosecution maintained that Mr. Peterson had bludgeoned his wife, and positioned the body to appear as an accident. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, the writer/director, has culled this account from more than six-hundred hours of taped documentation. Every aspect of the case is dissected and examined in great detail, and the viewer watches as each piece is crafted into the best possible case for the defense. The film demonstrates how expert witnesses are selected and coached so that the presentation to the jury becomes a calculated performance. The facts of a case are seen as nothing more than elements in a construction to portray the defendant in the most positive light. Truth is of secondary importance, and it is clear that in the American justice system, only the wealthy can receive anything approaching fairness. If you are a fan of The Courtroom Procedural, THE STAIRCASE is well worth your attention. Superb soundtrack by Jocelyn Pook.

Mike Peterson's sister comments

[shoyt_2001 · 31 August 2005]

http://www.justicemag.com/daily/item/1186.html The link above leads to a magazine article in which Michael Peterson's sister describes the crime and situation in her family as it unfolded in her life.

In the beginning she supported Mike and believed that he could not have murdered Kathleen but she could not ignore the similarity with Liz Ratliff who had been found dead at the foot of her stairs years before. Soon there were other things Ann could not ignore. Ann was never seen at the trial because by that time she had found sufficient evidence to believe that her brother was guilty of murdering his wife Kathleen. There are those who say there is reasonable doubt Mike killed his wife but for his sister it was all too evident that the evidence was overwhelming.

Excellent fly-on-the wall documentary, in which ignorance and bigotry causes most people to ignore reasonable doubt.

[kitellis-98121 · 9/10 · 11 July 2018]

In 1980, a woman in Australia became the centre of a media storm when she claimed that her baby had been taken by a dingo. The Australian public, led by a vicious and frenzied media, agreed amongst themselves that she had killed the baby as part of some obscure religious cult - because the baby was wearing a black dress!

There was no evidence, other than a missing baby and an odd-seeming couple. But everyone felt that the mother was cold and didn't display the proper signs of grief.

So, based on nothing but assumptions and some very shoddy police work, she was sent to prison. After multiple unsuccessful appeals, in 1986 a crucial piece of evidence was discovered and the mother was released for a new trial. In 1988 she was fully exonerated. In 2012 a coroner finally ruled that the baby had been killed by a dingo. They made a film about it, starring Meryl Streep, but the baby was still dead and her parents had been cruelly tried by the media and imprisoned by an unjust and negligent judicial system.

Ring any bells?

The story of The Staircase is eerily similar. Based on little more than a localised predisposition to dislike and distrust anyone intellectual, bohemian, bisexual, or even mildly odd, the incompetent, corrupt, and immensely bigoted police department and prosecutors mounted a modern-day witch-hunt against a man who they felt must be guilty of murder, simply by virtue of being closeted and weird (as well as intellectual and bohemian, of course). The moronic, bigoted local media quickly jumped on the bandwagon, bringing with them a moronic and bigoted public.

The sheer weight of reasonable doubt should have instantly exonerated the poor man, but the justice system proved, as usual, to be anything but, and the judge proved to be very nearly as useless and incompetent as everyone else involved. (Although he later admitted that this case had likely been a vast miscarriage of justice).

The unprecedented access given to the documentary crew throughout the trial makes for an exceptionally in-depth viewer experience. In stark contrast with the standard available material from a murder trial, which is almost entirely provided by a biased and unreliable news media, in this case we get a rare opportunity to follow the story from the inside, with an exceptional close-up view of the accused murderer through every stage of mounting his defence.

Having followed his case this closely, I find him innocent of all charges. Unfortunately I am in the minority. Seeing the way he was treated by the so-called judicial system, and how many reviewers of the documentary are still convinced of his guilt - despite a staggering lack of evidence that should at the very least raise "reasonable doubt" - I find myself wondering if we are all still living in 1980's Australia!

Interesting, yet kind of flawed.

[dixiedoggg · 7/10 · 19 April 2020]

If you are reading this, then you have got to know what the story is about. If not, then disregard.

In the end, guilty or not guilty? I really have no idea what happened as I wasn't there. Mr. Peterson claimed innocence all along, yet the state saw enough evidence to arrest the man shortly after the death of his wife. In the end he did take an Alford Plea after being in prison (sentenced to life) for eight years. I imagine he would still be in prison if not for the Deaver fellow and his testimony.

Naturally, the defense and the defendant, and the children, dismissed all the police work and claims as utter nonsense, yet one daughter and the victim's sisters were convinced off his guilt. Should they ever have a conflict with the law in the state of NC, Lord help them all.

I feel sorry for the victim, her daughters, related relatives who are included in this documentary. It is of course an attempt to show that Mr. Peterson was not guilty. But in the end, they all appear to be voluntarily included in this documentary. I made up my mind long ago, to never talk to the press if I ever was in such a predicament, your dignity is thrown out the window from the first frame.

Mr. Peterson, the defendant, even though he is the subject of this film, and is pretty much shown in a manner to produce sympathy for the man against the evil system, comes across as a not too likable figure. This is just my opinion. Never once do we ever see a friend or acquaintance, beyond the brothers and paid attorneys, step up and offer any sympathy for this guy. He struck me as a pretentious guy who would lie to get what he wants, while puffing on a pipe and holding a wine glass, spewing lyrical nonsense to cover his actions. As soon as he was described as being bi-sexual (which is fine I suppose), I asked my wife what would she do if she found out I was paying other men to have sex with me, and I was doing it for years. She said she would divorce me immediately, if she was aware before we got married, she would never marry me. I think that would be an honest response by most women in the United States. Then it was revealed he lied about injuries in Vietnam to promote a book he had written.

This doesn't make you guilty of murder by a long shot, but it surely doesn't help matters. I also noticed the eye contact drifting around as he told the cameras he was innocent with his relentless non stop talking. And the tears only seemed to flow in the courtroom, when mention was made of his poor wife's demise, in front of a jury. Most of the time he was yucking it up with his lawyers and kids making bad, morbid jokes about his predicament, and never really showing the grief that I assume one would have. I came away with the impression that he was a an arrogant, self absorbed creep that I would never want to ever meet again. Like I said before, it doesn't make you guilty by being that way. Just makes you an unlikable jerk no one wants to be around. Maybe this is what got him convicted in the first place. He did seem to mellow considerably in the final episodes. His admission of pleading guilty (although an Alford Plea), was enough for me. The guy either was railroaded because he was an obvious jerk, or he was actually guilty off the crime.

The crime... Did anyone come to the conclusion that instead of a massive beating with an object, he may of just followed his wife inside after an argument about his dalliances with paid escorts, as she entered the stairway to go upstairs, he just grabbed her hair and pulled her back with such force to produce the injuries seen? Maybe once down on the floor, grabbed her head and continue to smash it against the steps? I am not an investigator nor an officer of the law, but that seemed pretty probable to me.

Here is a story, told by people who invited a camera crew to follow them around and film them, as they tried to convince an audience of his innocence. Right away the assumption is that you would be on your best behavior and admit to nothing, of course. So some relevance of not being biased is lost from the get go. Also the relationship he had with a person in the film company makes you wonder just a little bit. My impression was let the judicial system do their job and they ended up finding him guilty, then released due to the Deaver fellow, then an attempt to retry again. That is how the system works. He entered an Alford Plea and is still a convicted felon in the eyes of the law.

Good film/docu, whatever, a bit long in the tooth, but in the end, the state of North Carolina got what they perceived to be the truth, even after the defendant paid untold amount of money to defend himself. If it was just a poor soul from the other side of the tracks, I imagine he would be on death row or just rotting in prison still. Reminded me so much of the O.J. trial, and what a fat wallet will get you in the justice system.

I feel sorry for what his lies and manipulation did, and the toll on his family, they certainly did not deserve any of this.

And of course this is not the whole story. If you read a book or watch other shows about this incident, you learn so much more. Stuff like: Kathleen was married before, she got divorced because, you guessed it, her husband was cheating on her. The Petersons were flooded in credit card debt. Kathleen had a life insurance policy on her worth over a million. Both of his college educated sons relied on their parents for financial help, a lot. They seemed to live beyond their means, draining any financial security. The house needed some major repairs, Michael declined to repair anything and refused his wife's overtures to move to a smaller and more affordable location. Michael had no income from 1999 on it seems, although he did write a column for a newspaper, I don't know if he got paid for that, but even if he did, it certainly was not enough to afford an almost 10,000 square foot mansion, the taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other obligations associated with a life on that level. He would lose his free ride if Kathleen divorced him, and received half of everything. There is no indication that Kathleen ever knew, or approved, of Michael's gay lifestyle, even her sister mentioned that she would have definitely told her about that, and most certainly would have left him.

Moral of the story, don't tell lies, don't cheat on your mate. It will just get you in a mountain of trouble in the right situation.

Grave missteps on display.

[monsieurchariot · 10/10 · 16 October 2017]

Poor half-wit that I have become, addled by designer drugs, libations from the very top shelf and meaningless affairs with cold, angry women, I was expecting this documentary to be about Scott Peterson, the man who murdered his pregnant wife in 2002 and dumped her body into the San Francisco Bay.

Turns out it is instead about Michael Peterson, American author who claimed to have discovered his wife's body at the bottom of a staircase in a pool of blood in their home in Durham North Carolina in 2001. They're both named Peterson; a pardonable mistake, certainly, in light of the grave missteps on display.

Despite my clueless imbecility when it comes to mayhem in the news, I discovered The Staircase to be an utterly gripping, 2-disc documentary from Academy Award-winning French director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, and was so overcome with an obscene fascination that I was up practically half the night, watching the entire series in one sitting.

The Trouble With Lawyers

[itgirlx · 7/10 · 13 June 2018]

This film reminds me why I avoid breaking laws. The criminal justice system in America is profoundly broken along with a collective moral compass.

Attorney Rudolph lost the initial trail and subsequent appeals because he failed to nail-down obvious issues like the blatant homophobia of the jury which should have been address in voir dire (jury selection) and the incompetence of the Deaver testimony. He could have and should have used his own expert (Dr. Lee) and looked into Deaver's lies about experience, etc., like he did in the request for a new trial.

His pretrial discussions touched on arguments he failed to take to completion e.g., addressing the amount of blood with medical testimony on how very much scalp lacs bleed. His reconstruction of what likely happened with this intoxicated slip and fall was half-hearted and incomplete. He mentioned making an animation of what could have happened, yet one didn't show up until after losing. He failed to make much distinction between the German stairway accident with it's brain aneurism and Kathleen's impaired state . He could have introduced the number of stairwell injuries/deaths annually to explain how very often they occur, mitigating what appeared "too coincidental."

He characterized the Peterson marriage as idyllic without addressing the bisexuality-He glossed over the infidelities without explaining the concept of a poly-amorous relationship. He was out of his depth with the sexuality aspects and didn't bother to educate himself or the jury. The female prosecutor was extremely homophobic and didn't try to conceal it. Many on the jury and the judge as well. Rudolph and his team ignored it.

The defense needed many moving parts which Rudolph neglected to install. Then, he was shocked by the failure of his defense machine. Ultimately, he deflected responsibility for his failures with his incredulity at the guilty result and he took ten-plus years correct them.

Lived this case through the news.

[astokes64 · 10/10 · 20 March 2021]

I live in the Durham area and remember following this case day by day. I'd always thought Mr Peterson guilty but saw a totally new perspective through this documentary. Very well made in real time! So interesting. You see the case through the eyes of Mr Peterson and the defense counsel as it unfolds.

WAYYYY TOO LONG!

[sengland911 · 6/10 · 30 June 2021]

We FF'ed a lot between Eps 1-8, then hit Wikipedia to find out what happened with the rest of this story. This could have been told in 4-5 eps...and been much more compelling.

Do they really expect me to believe that Michael Peterson is innocent?

[christinarivers · 1/10 · 13 February 2021]

If this documentary was meant to convince me of Michael Peterson's innocence, it actually had the opposite effect. Peterson is utterly charming - and narcissistic and manipulative and completely lacking in empathy or remorse - a typical sociopath.

One accidentally telling scene (I say this because the documentary was incredibly biased) was one where Peterson's eldest son comes to visit him in prison. Peterson goes on and on about himself for a while, then asks how his son is doing. His son tries to tell him. Instead of listening to him, Peterson jumps up and starts complaining about how noisy it is (subtext: "poor me, I have to live in this noisy prison"). His son is left standing there with tears rolling down his face. I believe this scene is likely indicative of their entire relationship: son trying to get father's attention; father too self-involved to notice or care.

Another accidentally telling scene is when Peterson is seen freaking out because they are going to exhume Elizabeth Ratliffe's body, ostensibly on behalf of her daughters, although it's fairly clear that Peterson realizes he's in trouble. He then becomes just as freaked out about the fact that the body will be perfectly preserved while looking at his ex-wife - his ex-wife (don't get me started on her!) who clearly lied for him, saying that there was hardly any blood at the scene, when multiple witnesses say there was lots of blood that some of them actually had to clean up afterward. Also notable is how strikingly Ratliffe looks not only like Peterson's ex-wife (you can barely tell them apart), but also Kathleen.

And then, of course, there's the fact that Peterson's son "finds" the blow poke. Even Peterson seems to realize that this may not be credible to the judge or jury and asks his defense team to "fudge a little bit" about where it was found. To their credit, they refuse to do so.

And then, there's the owl theory. Are we even meant to take it seriously?

I could go on and on, but the ultimate question this documentary tries to pose is whether there was a miscarriage of justice. I absolutely believe that there was a miscarriage of justice, but not in the way that the documentary would like to portray. It is deeply unfortunate that the prosecution chose the wrong expert, thus allowing Peterson to go free after only serving 8 years for 2 murders.

If you want to watch a biased documentary that leaves out most of the prosecution's case, then this is perfect for you. If you want a more neutral documentary that shows both sides of the case, you are likely to be as disappointed as I was.