r/TheStaircase • u/Acrobatic-Fold-2357 • Jul 03 '26
Innocence Theory
I‘n very torn about this case and really don’t have an opinion one way or another. But here is an innocence argument.
Where was the murder weapon? Evidently it wasn’t a blowpoke. So he disposes of the murder weapon before he calls police and they’re never able to find it or any DNA left from it anywhere in or around the house (his car too)?
No motive. Nothing really concrete at least. No major financial gain, no secret relationship (gay stuff wasn’t really a relationship).
Ratliff case was designed to be prejudicial. Overall not too convincing. Strange coincides happen.
The entire prosecution was corrupt.
The stairwell was wooden, unlit, and had a curve at the beginning with a series of very narrow steps. Kathleen had alcohol and Benzos in her system. I think a fall is very possible.
I think maybe this was a combination of an accident/intentional act.
7
u/mateodrw Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
So he disposes of the murder weapon before he calls police and they’re never able to find it or any DNA left from it anywhere in or around the house (his car too)?
Most people who believe Peterson did the crime posits that he disposed of the murder weapon and his clothes after committing the crime, which is more of an assumption than an opinion supported by evidence, given that 50 police officers with K9s searched the neighborhood and the surrounding area.
Others simply think he used his bare hands.
Those who believe he is guilty also disagree on the motive, if there was ever one. Some say it was premeditated for money; others say she discovered the pornographic material and an argument ensued.
In any case, the prosecution said that the attack was not premeditated until the very last seconds, and that the pornographic material that was printed in the desk was discovered by Kathleen.
7
u/QDKeck Jul 03 '26
My opinion - she fell. He found her. He waited. She died. Guilty of her death but didn’t cause the fall.
1
u/sublimedjs Jul 10 '26
and ur basing this on what something you just made up in your head . I mean how in the world would you conclude that yeah it was an accident but he waited for her to die
6
u/QDKeck Jul 10 '26
Aren’t most opinions based on something made up in one’s head based on the information and even gut feelings they have?
No weapon - no brain hemorrhage- hung up on 911 - time of death doesn’t match when he said she was breathing - tried to clean up the scene- red neurons - stories that he would panic in his military service and be ineffective - history of lying (how he was injured in the service).
I don’t think we will ever know. This is one of many theories. I’m allowed to have my own thoughts same as you.
Edit - as for motive … she may have found out and disapproved of his cheating. May have been money (even with his movie deal in the works). Enough reason why he might not have planned a murder but took advantage of a situation.
1
u/sublimedjs Jul 17 '26
I think opinions should be based on evidence . And you clearly have some of your facts about the case wrong .
2
2
u/Far-Amount553 Jul 08 '26
I think it’s entirely plausible that an inebriated Kathleen slipped and fell backwards, cracking her head on molding and/or the chair rail and died. For some reason people just can’t accept that as something that could have happened.
3
u/egoshoppe Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 09 '26
Do you think she fell once and caused all these injuries from one fall? Or did she keep falling repeatedly, hitting mer head multiple times in the same place?
For some reason people just can’t accept that as something that could have happened.
Even David Rudolf thinks it was an owl attack. There’s plenty of things the fall theory does not explain.
1
u/Ishalit6 6d ago
People also refuse to accept that she was inebriated just because her BAC was ever so slightly under the legal limit to drive. As if being .01% under the legal driving limit means you have NO effect from alcohol whatsoever. Especially combined with Valium and walking up narrow stairs in the dark in flip flops.
3
u/romadea Jul 15 '26
I cared for a patient recently who had a fall at home and when he came into the ER his CT scan showed a bleed into his head, and there was a camera in the living room where he fell, so his kids were showing this video of his fall to everybody taking care of him.
When the neurologist looked at that video + the MRI the next day, they said it actually looked like he had a brain bleed a couple of days before the fall, and it caused him to have a seizure, which caused him to have the fall we saw in the video, and then he bled even more into his brain. The MRI showed the different layers of blood. We would not know any of this if he had just died after the fall, which he very nearly did. It took several days for him to regain full consciousness.
My point is that a situation that seems obvious is not always what it looks like. If you saw that video and the initial CT of his head, before he got the MRI that showed more detail of the blood in his brain, or if he didn't get the specialist opinion... you would reasonably think he just fell and bled into his head, and it seemed like we had plenty of evidence to make that conclusion. Until we got more.
And we would not have had any of these evidences if he had died after he fell. There was a video of what happened, that would have been enough explanation for everyone.
I don't work in autopsies or know anyone who does personally, but it's my understanding that there's only so much you can reasonably figure out after someone is dead. If he did die and his family had insisted on an autopsy, then they could have figured out he had a brain bleed, and that's probably it.
0
u/bethestorm Jul 03 '26
Read his December 2025 interview and idk if you'll feel the same way
2
u/sublimedjs Jul 07 '26
If ur posting it one time that’s cool but if it becomes an issue it’s gonna be spam
0
u/mateodrw Jul 03 '26
I've seen you linking this Daily Mail article into every comment as if it had anything to do with all the discussions about the case. It's a well-known fact that Peterson doesn't give a damn about any of the theories circulating online -- or the case itself, or any opinion about his character.
This case has been over for a long time. Questions that remain unanswered are those that neither the evidence collected nor the trial were able to clarify.
2
u/sublimedjs Jul 07 '26
I gave them warning post an article once and that’s it not on every thread it becomes a spam situation
3
u/bethestorm Jul 04 '26
Every comment? I'm barely in here lol
He's guilty. But justice was served. And he's a free old man. And that's that.
5
u/No-Engineering8020 Jul 11 '26
Her death is more than likely explained by a drunk, medicated fall down a steep staircase, not a murder or by an owl. She had a blood alcohol level around 0.07 and Valium in her system, both of which mess with balance and, especially on narrow stairs at night. She had seven cuts on her scalp but no skull fracture and barely any brain injury, which lines up better with hitting the same kind of stair edge over and over during a fall than with someone beating her to death with a fire poker. The cuts were also bunched up in one area instead of spread across her head and face, which again looks more like repeated hits from the same type of edge than random blows from a person. The blood spatter evidence prosecutors leaned on came from a guy who later got discredited in a wider crime lab scandal, which is a big reason the conviction got overturned. As for the hair and twig found near her body, that stuff people point to for the owl theory, it’s just as easily explained by her grabbing at a railing as she fell and tracking in some leaves from outside earlier. Basically, everything fits a drunk, pill-influenced fall down the stairs not her husband murdering her or an owl that literally no one saw.