It's always the husband. It's something I've often heard in movies, TV shows, even in real

criminal investigations regarding a married woman's murder. Police typically consider those

closest to the murder victim to be the primary suspects because statistically, when it comes

to FBI statistics regarding solved homicides at least, you actually are more likely to be killed

by somebody you know,

a family member, a friend, an acquaintance, a neighbor, a coworker, etc.

Then you are to be killed by a complete and total stranger.

And spouses tend to have an obvious motive more often than strangers do when it comes to

homicides, like a huge life insurance money payout.

And frequently, when law enforcement

suspects that somebody has been killed by somebody close to them, like their husband, their hunch is

correct. But what if that hunch is not backed up by a lot of obviously damning forensic or

physical evidence that clearly points to the husband? What if the murder weapon can't even actually be found or even conclusively determined?

What if the evidence is largely circumstantial, but there's so damn much circumstantial evidence?

Should you, if you're on the jury, still convict the husband if the prosecution actually can't quite prove,

not beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available

evidence that the husband actually is the murderer, even if the circumstantial evidence leads you to

think, oh, come on, this dude had to have killed her. He's got to be guilty. When it comes to the

divisive case of Michael Peterson, murdering his wife, Kathleen

Peterson, a case thoroughly covered in the very popular French docu-series, The Staircase, that

finally made it to Netflix in 2018, after already having aired on numerous other channels,

especially in Europe, for many years in some form, I think if I'm being honest that I would

...