An owl did it
Haven't finished the newest episodes, wonder if they get into the owl theory.
shareProbably not because it's ridiculous.
There was blood spatter all over the staircase; that's where her head was hit. Unless an owl flew into the house and attacked her there then it doesn't make sense. At the same time, it's almost as equally nonsensical as saying she fell down 3 steps and banged her head multiple times and with enough force to kill her. Peterson was guilty and likely guilty of the Germany case too.
What proof do you have that Peterson did it? I hope you're not relying on Duane Deaver.
shareMountains of circumstantial evidence.
Red neurons indicate that she’d been slowly dying for around 2 hours. The dried blood and layers of blood spatter on the walls and on her clothes corroborate this. That means he must have been sat outside for 2 hours in the middle of December in shorts and a t-shirt for 2 hours without her when Peterson himself said he was only out there momentarily and at another point, for 45 minutes. He wasn’t sat out there, he was inside killing her.
I know nothing about red neurons. Even if they do show that she took longer to die, I don't see that as any form of evidence showing M. Peterson was responsible. I see other places people mentioning a footprint and some blood on his shorts. I don't see how anyone could imagine a scenario of walking in on a loved one covered in blood and you wouldn't end up with some blood on you just checking if they're alive. So to me, those indicate nothing suspicious. A lot of people mention his mannerisms during the documentary. I'm pretty sure anyone being railroaded like he was would exhibit some strange behaviors. May he have been guilty? Possibly. I don't know that. I don't know how you could know it if you weren't there.
shareNo one can know beyond all doubt, except Peterson, because none of us were there. None of the jurors were there -- no jurors ever are at the scene of a crime while crimes are being committed -- yet they're tasked with deciding if a defendant is guilty or not guilty, based on the evidence with which they're presented.
When I look at her injuries and the blood on the wall, and her clothing, I have a difficult time believing it was a result of having slipped or tripped and fallen down 3 stairs.
Agreed, but my point is that the prosecution is tasked with proving *HE* did it. Not with proving it wasn't a fall.
shareTrue, however now I'm learning there was some compelling evidence against him that was completely omitted from the documentary.
Haven't finished the series yet. All I can say for absolute certain is I hope I don't allow myself to get sucked down this rabbit hole as I did with Making A Murderer.
could he have killed her by smashing the back of her head to the staircase?
shareAccording to Duane Deaver's interpretation of the blood spatter (although some may say he's ruined all credibility), the impact injuries she suffered came from at least 3 points in space so not against the wall and not against the staircase. He probably killed her by taking short jabs due to being in a confined space at the absence of obvious cast-off pattern.
share