Michael Peterson case

[John Dule]

Peterson's case is currently the subject of a documentary on Netflix. I've been watching it recently; it's a bit of a tough decision for me. I'd typically err on the side of caution, but the defense's claim was that Kathleen fell down the stairs, and the sheer amount of blood at the crime scene coupled with her head lacerations makes me think this wasn't an ordinary tumble down the stairwell. However, the prosecution's case was also full of holes. The blood spatter expert they called turned out to have deliberately misled the jury, not just in this case, but in several others.

Overall, I'm going to have to go with Option 4.

[RFayette]

4 seems like what I would say, as I would err on side of acquittal in terms of defining what constitutes a reasonable doubt.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Option 5

I would say the chances of Michael Peterson having killed Kathleen are about the same as the chances of Charles Cross/Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

[morgieb]

Haven't seen The Staircase, but from my understanding from readings Option 4 seems the closest. Might change if/when I do watch it though.

[brucejoel99]

Option 4. I think he did it, but I also think that any reasonable juror, had they been aware of the evidence being fabricated by a corrupt prosecutor & blood spatter "expert," would have some doubt as to whether he did indeed murder his wife.

[RFayette]

Option 4. I think he did it, but I also think that any reasonable juror, had they been aware of the evidence being fabricated by a corrupt prosecutor & blood spatter "expert," would have some doubt as to whether he did indeed murder his wife.

This.  That being said, had the prosecution not overreached the way they did, I think the weight of the evidence would have probably been enough to convict.  But once you have this kind of overreach, I couldn't justify convicting as it casts into doubt the other evidence to at least some degree.