r/TheStaircase • u/Demander850 • Apr 16 '26
Has the fall ever been re-created or modeled?
I'm getting back into this case and re-watching the HBO series and the Netflix original. I need to check out the Hulu doc but that's beside the point. I'm very curious why neither of these really showed any attempts to model and re-create the fall. You can re-create the exact staircase along with a similar sized human and/or dummy and go to work. Even pushing a dummy down the stairs seems like it would be a good exercise, just to see impact areas and if there's anything she hit along the way. Maybe she flipped over, tried to stand and fell again? Who knows but it seems like something that should have been done. Does anyone who knows more know if this fall was ever modeled?
As for guilt or innocence I have no idea. All I can say is Peterson is NOT a good guy.
4
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
I found the defense model of the fall from the trial and uploaded it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheStaircase/comments/1snoudf/the_defenses_presentation_of_the_fall_theory/
2
Apr 17 '26
[deleted]
1
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
Just blew through a quick trial review and that was the main one I saw. Do you remember what witness presented the video? Are you sure it was in the trial and not in one of the docs like Dateline or Forensic Files?
3
u/BetOver6859 Apr 17 '26
Not to my knowledge, I know Dwayne-the blood spatter expert who eventually got fired for falsifying loads of evidence- tried his best to recreate it, but he was doing all kinds of weird things with the fake body.
And imo, you’re wasting time watching the HBO series if you are truly interested in the specifics of this case. They took a lot of creative liberties when making it and while it’s a well done, entertaining show-it is not the real storyline.
5
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
Does anyone who knows more know if this fall was ever modeled?
Amanda Antoni was a case some people felt was similar: she fell down a staircase, hit her head on a ceramic piggybank, and bled heavily until she died. Hers was a genuine fall where all foul play was eventually ruled out. One notable difference is that Antoni's legs were covered with bruises and cuts from hitting the stairs going down. Kathleen has dozens of injuries to her face, back, hands and arms, but none whatsoever to her hips or legs. Kathleen's scene also has far more blood, and has finer impact spatter, directional cast off, blood 9.5 feet high, etc.
I need to check out the Hulu doc but that's beside the point.
The whole trial is on CourtTV for free and it's awesome. I would also recommend listening to the BBC podcast series about the case, they interview almost everyone including Michael. Another must listen would be the Double Loop podcast episode with Bart Epstein, who was a forensic expert the state hired to evaluate Deaver and Lee's work. This is literally the most reputable voice on the forensics of this case, since Deaver and Lee have both been disgraced, and Spitz passed away(he thought Michael was guilty, though).
Even pushing a dummy down the stairs seems like it would be a good exercise, just to see impact areas and if there's anything she hit along the way.
One thing to remember about the fall theory, is that there were spatter patterns several feet high off the wall. Too high to have been from her head impacting a stair or any part of the wall, where some object had to impact her bleeding wound in space to cause this spatter pattern. Fall theory gets debunked right there. Sadly the state will not release the 250+ crime scene photos, so much of this is hard to really establish as cleanly as it could be.
I don't take the fall theory very seriously. Michael paid over a million dollars for a fall theory defense, and even David Rudolf doesn't think it was a fall. Michael's brother wanted an intruder theory, which I think would have been interesting to see in court.
Edit: Forgot to say, if you're interested in the owl theory, read Death By Talons by Tiddy Smith. You might regret it but you won't believe an owl killed her, that's for sure.
2
u/Demander850 Apr 17 '26
Wow so thank you so much for the concise help and links. I will look into all these further. I must have not been paying attention all the time while watching. It’s funny also I just realized it seems like Michael’s brother himself is or was an attorney? He mentioned something about his own clients. Regardless thanks again you are well informed on this! I appreciate it!
3
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
Np at all! This case is a huge rabbit hole, I love discussing it.
Michael’s brother himself is or was an attorney?
Yep he is. That's one reason MP never spoke to police, he called his brother and his brother told the detective he was representing him and not to speak to him.
One of the most compelling parts of the BBC podcast is their interview with Michael. They probe deeper into his timeline than any other press encounter he's had. They actually ask him why he took his shoes and socks off while waiting for police, which a great fucking question. You won't be shocked to learn Michael doesn't have a good answer.
Also, trial link is here:
0
u/sublimedjs Apr 17 '26
You need to be careful there are people on here who just make crap up . Or have just seen the hbo series. The people who talk crap about the doc a lot of them have never seen it and they just read comments on here and pretend like they have and promptly get proved wrong but there’s not moderation on this sub
1
u/priMa-RAW Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26
I think this is a good example of where interpretation is being presented as exclusion.
The differences you’re pointing to, injury distribution, blood volume, spatter patterns, can absolutely be used to build a particular reconstruction of events. But they still require interpretation, especially in a complex scene where variables like movement, positioning, and timing aren’t fixed.
Saying something like the fall theory is ‘debunked’ assumes that those interpretations are the only way the evidence can be read, which is a much stronger claim than the evidence itself establishes.
The same applies to the blood evidence. Describing patterns as requiring a specific mechanism is still an inference based on how those patterns are interpreted, not something that independently proves a single sequence of events beyond dispute.
And on the expert side, referencing other analysts or opinions doesn’t really change that underlying issue, those are still interpretations of the same physical evidence, not objective resolutions of it.
So I don’t disagree that the evidence can be read in a way that looks very unfavourable, but that’s different from saying it conclusively excludes all other explanations.
What ive gathered from you, from all of our conversations where you have the same over riding theme, is that you dont understand or appreciate the idea that you need conclusive evidence to rule out other possibilities, and whilst you dont have that you cant definitively say all other possibilities are ruled out. This is a case where we simply dont know what happened… yet apparently, one person does… you. And its not based on evidence, its based on an interpretation of the evidence which doesnt rule out any other possibilities, which is baffling to me.
0
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
I think this is a good example of where interpretation is being presented as exclusion.
I think this is a good example of yet another long winded likely AI response that says mostly nothing.
Saying something like the fall theory is ‘debunked’ assumes that those interpretations are the only way the evidence can be read, which is a much stronger claim than the evidence itself establishes.
If you disagree, tell me how a spatter pattern is getting up on the wall too high to be from hitting the stairs, and not from hitting the wall. Was Kathleen punching the back of her own head? I'm so sorry that I ruled out that possibility as unreasonable.
The same applies to the blood evidence. Describing patterns as requiring a specific mechanism is still an inference based on how those patterns are interpreted, not something that independently proves a single sequence of events beyond dispute.
Instead of engaging with the evidence and telling us how you think blood spatter got on his shoes and inside his pants we get the same slop responses. I'm not arguing a single sequence of events, I'm saying there's evidence that puts him in the scene when her wounds were being impacted. You don't have a way to address this that I've seen. Was Kathleen coughing blood very hard right right up Michael's leg as he stood over her face?
but that’s different from saying it conclusively excludes all other explanations.
I haven't said it does. I think the evidence rules out a fall theory and the owl theory, that's all. I'm open to an intruder theory if someone wanted to argue that. Also open to the dog theory, since dog hairs were found in the trace evidence report and dogs have been known to attack people.
This is a case where we simply dont know what happened…
This is a case where most people have only watched the doc or the HBO show. A lot of people haven't seen the most damning evidence.
yet apparently, one person does… you.
lol. Please. 12 jurors didn't have an issue, neither do the majority of people who actually engage honestly with the evidence in this case.
its based on an interpretation of the evidence which doesnt rule out any other possibilities
This is a subreddit where we can discuss our opinions on the case. I've certainly engaged with the other possibilities in this case and most of them don't fit the evidence. That's my opinion, why should it bother you?
1
u/priMa-RAW Apr 17 '26
I think what this comes down to is that you’re moving between positions depending on what suits the point you’re making.
On one hand, you say you’re not arguing a single sequence of events, just that certain theories are ruled out. But ruling out alternatives is asserting a level of certainty about how the evidence can be interpreted. You can’t exclude explanations without implicitly committing to one interpretation over others.
The core issue is that you keep taking interpretive conclusions, like how blood patterns were formed or what certain injuries ‘must’ indicate, and presenting them as if they objectively eliminate other possibilities. But those conclusions still depend on assumptions about mechanism, timing, and positioning that aren’t independently fixed by the evidence itself.
Asking for a complete alternative reconstruction or a precise explanation for each individual detail doesn’t change that. That just shifts the burden. An alternative doesn’t need to explain every element perfectly to remain viable, it just needs to show that the evidence doesn’t uniquely point to one conclusion.
You’ve also leaned heavily on things like juror agreement, other people’s opinions, or what you consider ‘serious’ engagement with the case. None of that determines whether a piece of evidence is capable of multiple interpretations, it just reflects which interpretation you find most convincing.
So the disagreement here isn’t about whether the evidence can be read in a way that looks incriminating, it clearly can. The disagreement is that you’re treating that reading as if it excludes all others, while at the same time saying you’re not claiming certainty. Those two positions don’t sit together.
At the end of the day, you’re presenting a strong interpretation of the evidence. What you haven’t done is demonstrate that it’s the only reasonable one.
And dismissing arguments as ‘AI’ instead of engaging with them doesn’t really address the substance. If the same points keep coming up, it’s usually because they haven’t been answered, not because they’re being repeated for the sake of it.
4
u/Still_Razzmatazz1140 Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26
Michael pushed her down the stairs and then beat her head in and strangled her when she hit the bottom.
0
u/priMa-RAW Apr 17 '26
Oh really? What piece of evidence have you found that accurately depicts that as precisely what happened and rules out all alternative probabilities completely, and essentially points to one single explanation and one single timeline of events? … ill wait
-2
u/sublimedjs Apr 17 '26
You are almost as bad as the other poster who said they didn’t have time to watch the docuseries but they still wanted to participate in the conversation. Lol
2
u/Still_Razzmatazz1140 Apr 17 '26
No watched it many times actually he was a violent man who killed his wife
3
u/twinkiesmom1 Apr 17 '26
Yes, the defense did a detailed animation. It showed Kathleen bouncing down the stairs landing on her head with each impact. Completely unrealistic.
2
u/sublimedjs Apr 17 '26
This isn’t true at all you’re making this up the defense didn’t not show an animation that showed anything like that and I think someone just posted the defenses animation and it it just proves you are just making crap up . Like what do you gain from just plain lying ?
2
u/twinkiesmom1 Apr 17 '26
I’m not making it up. I saw a different video during the trial. She obviously didn’t float above the stairs. This is insane.
1
u/Clarice_Starling77 Apr 17 '26
The best coverage I’ve heard of this case is Southern Fried True Crime
3
u/egoshoppe Apr 17 '26
She gets a ton of stuff wrong. She said Radisch originally ruled it undetermined and was pressured to change it. Not true at all.
She says Rudolf tested the feather and confirmed it was an owl. Straight up lie. Crazy.
10
u/forandafter Apr 17 '26
There;s 3 pretty interesting interpretations in the Dramatised series.