POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!! (I suggest you read this after having seen the film) I don't know if what I'm gonna say can be regarded as a "spoiler", because after all, this is a documentary and maybe a lot of people know what happened. It's quite impossible too to discuss this without giving away the ending.
This documentary (though this one plays out like a terrific film) chronicles the trial of Michael Peterson, but at the same time tells you more about morality, prejudice, justice and Southern mentality than you could've imagined. The director used a fly-on-the-wall approach to the subject, which was very appropriate in my opinion, though some people clearly regarded this as being biased. But you can't argue what you CAN see in the film...
Now let me start by saying that I won't go into details about the case (in which novelist Michael Peterson was found guilty of murdering his then wife, Kathleen; the case is now up for appeal, by the way). The facts, testimonies, evidence, etc. you have to see for yourself, whether it be in this documentary, television footage or in some archive. I won't even go so far as to say that Michael Peterson didn't murder his wife, because after all I wasn't present at the trial (and even that isn't always a guarantee for justice) and I've only been offered this material in the form of a documentary (by French film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade) of about 6 hours. So maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But I've studied the law myself for several years here in Belgium and after having seen this film and having read about the case whatever I could find, I really can't conclude otherwise than by saying that there's at least enough reasonable doubt to set Peterson free.
For me, more important than the technical discussions in the film (some people seem to KNOW that for example doctor Henry Lee sold out to the defense side), is the human and moral aspect at play here. I díd see the four sons and daughters of Michael Peterson standing behind their (step-)father all the way (with the exception of Kathleen's daughter Caitlin). I díd hear prosecutor Freda Black talk about the "filth" she found on Peterson's computer, talking about the homosexual pornography she found ("no relationship, but pure sex") and the triumphant look in the other prosecutor Jim Hardin's eyes (though he did his best not to show it) when he found the pornography. For these people it was apparent that the dubious sexual ways of Peterson were enough from the start to declare him guilty. I can't even begin to understand how it is possible that the homosexual stuff was allowed in the trial, or how it was possible that the autopsy report (by the clearly highly incompetent "expert" Deborah Radisch (does she even know she's not allowed to make judgments in her report?)) was put out on the internet, before the case started.
Worst of all however, I was shocked by the decision of the prosecutors to bring the death of Elizabeth Ratliff (a close friend of Peterson, about twenty years ago, who died in "similar" circumstances) into play here (they even dug up her corpse again). What were they trying to prove with that? That Peterson is a serial killer who strikes once every twenty years in the proximity of a staircase? Well, that doesn't go with the theory of Kathleen Peterson finding out about his bisexuality and getting herself killed. What was the motive of Peterson in the Ratliff case by the way? Not one single answer on that by the prosecutors.
No murder weapon, not a decent motive and not one decent theory by the prosecutor about how Michael Peterson could have killed his wife (judge for yourself when you see the staircase of the title). But a lot of dirty tricks, e.g. bringing in Peterson's sexuality, his writings (fiction!) and the death of Elizabeth Ratliff, and plenty of wild theories (e.g. the blow-poke). For me that's enough (multiplied by ten) to conclude there's reasonable doubt in this case, but the jurors concluded otherwise. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a fine concept, too bad some people use it so light-heartedly.
But it's not hard to guess why Peterson was convicted. Not because the prosecutors showed he was guilty, but because he's bisexual, quite rich and white (a majority of the jurors and the judge were black), and because, well, let's face it, the juror system simply doesn't work. The prosecutors knew very well which buttons to push (the emotional and moral ones, not too surprising in these Bush times) and even after all had been said and done (and Hardin and Black clearly didn't even have faith in a guilty verdict anymore), those issues simply made the difference. So what if there's no proof, we can't stand the man, 'kay? I could comment on the dubious role the judge (allow everything, no matter if it's relevant; if it can hurt Peterson, bring it on), some media (ignore what's been said on the trial, ask silly questions and make up a story of your own), the police, medical examiner Radisch and some of Kathleen Peterson's relatives (I understand their grief, but what her sisters did was preposterous) played here, but enough for now. You be the judge.
Like Peterson's lawyer said (more or less): "The outcome did not surprise me. It shook the foundations of my belief in the justice system, in humanity, morality and myself." I doubt if the world we're living in today is as safe as some people will have us believe. Just look around you. Who would like to be judged by such "peers"?
This documentary (though this one plays out like a terrific film) chronicles the trial of Michael Peterson, but at the same time tells you more about morality, prejudice, justice and Southern mentality than you could've imagined. The director used a fly-on-the-wall approach to the subject, which was very appropriate in my opinion, though some people clearly regarded this as being biased. But you can't argue what you CAN see in the film...
Now let me start by saying that I won't go into details about the case (in which novelist Michael Peterson was found guilty of murdering his then wife, Kathleen; the case is now up for appeal, by the way). The facts, testimonies, evidence, etc. you have to see for yourself, whether it be in this documentary, television footage or in some archive. I won't even go so far as to say that Michael Peterson didn't murder his wife, because after all I wasn't present at the trial (and even that isn't always a guarantee for justice) and I've only been offered this material in the form of a documentary (by French film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade) of about 6 hours. So maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But I've studied the law myself for several years here in Belgium and after having seen this film and having read about the case whatever I could find, I really can't conclude otherwise than by saying that there's at least enough reasonable doubt to set Peterson free.
For me, more important than the technical discussions in the film (some people seem to KNOW that for example doctor Henry Lee sold out to the defense side), is the human and moral aspect at play here. I díd see the four sons and daughters of Michael Peterson standing behind their (step-)father all the way (with the exception of Kathleen's daughter Caitlin). I díd hear prosecutor Freda Black talk about the "filth" she found on Peterson's computer, talking about the homosexual pornography she found ("no relationship, but pure sex") and the triumphant look in the other prosecutor Jim Hardin's eyes (though he did his best not to show it) when he found the pornography. For these people it was apparent that the dubious sexual ways of Peterson were enough from the start to declare him guilty. I can't even begin to understand how it is possible that the homosexual stuff was allowed in the trial, or how it was possible that the autopsy report (by the clearly highly incompetent "expert" Deborah Radisch (does she even know she's not allowed to make judgments in her report?)) was put out on the internet, before the case started.
Worst of all however, I was shocked by the decision of the prosecutors to bring the death of Elizabeth Ratliff (a close friend of Peterson, about twenty years ago, who died in "similar" circumstances) into play here (they even dug up her corpse again). What were they trying to prove with that? That Peterson is a serial killer who strikes once every twenty years in the proximity of a staircase? Well, that doesn't go with the theory of Kathleen Peterson finding out about his bisexuality and getting herself killed. What was the motive of Peterson in the Ratliff case by the way? Not one single answer on that by the prosecutors.
No murder weapon, not a decent motive and not one decent theory by the prosecutor about how Michael Peterson could have killed his wife (judge for yourself when you see the staircase of the title). But a lot of dirty tricks, e.g. bringing in Peterson's sexuality, his writings (fiction!) and the death of Elizabeth Ratliff, and plenty of wild theories (e.g. the blow-poke). For me that's enough (multiplied by ten) to conclude there's reasonable doubt in this case, but the jurors concluded otherwise. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a fine concept, too bad some people use it so light-heartedly.
But it's not hard to guess why Peterson was convicted. Not because the prosecutors showed he was guilty, but because he's bisexual, quite rich and white (a majority of the jurors and the judge were black), and because, well, let's face it, the juror system simply doesn't work. The prosecutors knew very well which buttons to push (the emotional and moral ones, not too surprising in these Bush times) and even after all had been said and done (and Hardin and Black clearly didn't even have faith in a guilty verdict anymore), those issues simply made the difference. So what if there's no proof, we can't stand the man, 'kay? I could comment on the dubious role the judge (allow everything, no matter if it's relevant; if it can hurt Peterson, bring it on), some media (ignore what's been said on the trial, ask silly questions and make up a story of your own), the police, medical examiner Radisch and some of Kathleen Peterson's relatives (I understand their grief, but what her sisters did was preposterous) played here, but enough for now. You be the judge.
Like Peterson's lawyer said (more or less): "The outcome did not surprise me. It shook the foundations of my belief in the justice system, in humanity, morality and myself." I doubt if the world we're living in today is as safe as some people will have us believe. Just look around you. Who would like to be judged by such "peers"?