How can you fall down 3 steps and suffer 7 lacerations to the head?

The Asian guy came up with the watermelon theory.

I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around how slipping and falling on 3 steps could result in all of those lacerations on or near the top of her head, and the way all the blood is smeared and spattered on the wall.

I also wonder why there's a huge amount of blood on the front of her pants, but little at all on the top she was wearing. Seems like she'd have had to have been in a sitting position, slumped forward.

Not finished yet, so haven't formed my final conclusion.

Also interesting how Elizabeth Ratliff had almost the exact same lacerations on her head.

Also when you fall you get bruises on your limbs which she didn't have, plus the neck strangulation evidence.

Amen. Too bad the police and SBI screwed up the investigation and played dirty. There should have been plenty of evidence against MP to make a conviction stick.

While I agree the Lacerations are very curious the same could be said for how you encounter so much trauma without suffering from a skull fracture or brain bleed of some sort. My point would be to say that while i agree there are certainly things that make you think something more happened, the prosecution never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a "beating" took place much less that Michael committed it. Furthermore as a citizen of the United States it shakes me to my core to think that the state would manipulate evidence something that was very clearly done in this case and that any juror would find any credibility with the Blood spatter anylisis expert in the first trial (the one that admitted that the crime lab was manipulating evidence to assist with convictions). When I watched his testimony FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME (at which time i was leaning towards Michaels Guilt rather than innocence). I quite literally laughed out loud. To see his outrageous experiment in which he took small "love tap swings" at a sponge filled with red paint and just continue to walk through the blood and anything else he could think of to make the experiment match the crime scene was absolutely laughable. The funniest part however is when he attempted to explain the lack of cast off by saying that the murderer could have "wiped the weapon of between blows." My jaw quite literally dropped as i thought about the possibility of a murders striking their victim saying "hey stay still a minute while i wipe away this blood" then WHACK again. Stop "Your making a mess honey im gonna have to wipe this damn thing off again" WHACK i mean are you serious. Yet the jury said this was some of the most convincing testimony of the trial. If this is the case then NOT GUILTY was an obvious choice because nothing about this guy came across as anything less than a made up story. I do not know weather Michael killed his wife but, he was certainly never given the presumption of innocence.

It's possible if there was sharp metal to hit your head on the way down - but there was not. Just wooden steps, skirting board, architrave and presumably plastered brick walls in keeping with an oldish mansion like that. Those cuts to the victims head look to be caused by something sharp, metal, stone whatever. Not flat wooden surfaces.