If you are reading this, then you have got to know what the story is about. If not, then disregard.
In the end, guilty or not guilty? I really have no idea what happened as I wasn't there. Mr. Peterson claimed innocence all along, yet the state saw enough evidence to arrest the man shortly after the death of his wife. In the end he did take an Alford Plea after being in prison (sentenced to life) for eight years. I imagine he would still be in prison if not for the Deaver fellow and his testimony.
Naturally, the defense and the defendant, and the children, dismissed all the police work and claims as utter nonsense, yet one daughter and the victim's sisters were convinced off his guilt. Should they ever have a conflict with the law in the state of NC, Lord help them all.
I feel sorry for the victim, her daughters, related relatives who are included in this documentary. It is of course an attempt to show that Mr. Peterson was not guilty. But in the end, they all appear to be voluntarily included in this documentary. I made up my mind long ago, to never talk to the press if I ever was in such a predicament, your dignity is thrown out the window from the first frame.
Mr. Peterson, the defendant, even though he is the subject of this film, and is pretty much shown in a manner to produce sympathy for the man against the evil system, comes across as a not too likable figure. This is just my opinion. Never once do we ever see a friend or acquaintance, beyond the brothers and paid attorneys, step up and offer any sympathy for this guy. He struck me as a pretentious guy who would lie to get what he wants, while puffing on a pipe and holding a wine glass, spewing lyrical nonsense to cover his actions. As soon as he was described as being bi-sexual (which is fine I suppose), I asked my wife what would she do if she found out I was paying other men to have sex with me, and I was doing it for years. She said she would divorce me immediately, if she was aware before we got married, she would never marry me. I think that would be an honest response by most women in the United States. Then it was revealed he lied about injuries in Vietnam to promote a book he had written.
This doesn't make you guilty of murder by a long shot, but it surely doesn't help matters. I also noticed the eye contact drifting around as he told the cameras he was innocent with his relentless non stop talking. And the tears only seemed to flow in the courtroom, when mention was made of his poor wife's demise, in front of a jury. Most of the time he was yucking it up with his lawyers and kids making bad, morbid jokes about his predicament, and never really showing the grief that I assume one would have. I came away with the impression that he was a an arrogant, self absorbed creep that I would never want to ever meet again. Like I said before, it doesn't make you guilty by being that way. Just makes you an unlikable jerk no one wants to be around. Maybe this is what got him convicted in the first place. He did seem to mellow considerably in the final episodes. His admission of pleading guilty (although an Alford Plea), was enough for me. The guy either was railroaded because he was an obvious jerk, or he was actually guilty off the crime.
The crime... Did anyone come to the conclusion that instead of a massive beating with an object, he may of just followed his wife inside after an argument about his dalliances with paid escorts, as she entered the stairway to go upstairs, he just grabbed her hair and pulled her back with such force to produce the injuries seen? Maybe once down on the floor, grabbed her head and continue to smash it against the steps? I am not an investigator nor an officer of the law, but that seemed pretty probable to me.
Here is a story, told by people who invited a camera crew to follow them around and film them, as they tried to convince an audience of his innocence. Right away the assumption is that you would be on your best behavior and admit to nothing, of course. So some relevance of not being biased is lost from the get go. Also the relationship he had with a person in the film company makes you wonder just a little bit. My impression was let the judicial system do their job and they ended up finding him guilty, then released due to the Deaver fellow, then an attempt to retry again. That is how the system works. He entered an Alford Plea and is still a convicted felon in the eyes of the law.
Good film/docu, whatever, a bit long in the tooth, but in the end, the state of North Carolina got what they perceived to be the truth, even after the defendant paid untold amount of money to defend himself. If it was just a poor soul from the other side of the tracks, I imagine he would be on death row or just rotting in prison still. Reminded me so much of the O.J. trial, and what a fat wallet will get you in the justice system.
I feel sorry for what his lies and manipulation did, and the toll on his family, they certainly did not deserve any of this.
And of course this is not the whole story. If you read a book or watch other shows about this incident, you learn so much more. Stuff like: Kathleen was married before, she got divorced because, you guessed it, her husband was cheating on her. The Petersons were flooded in credit card debt. Kathleen had a life insurance policy on her worth over a million. Both of his college educated sons relied on their parents for financial help, a lot. They seemed to live beyond their means, draining any financial security. The house needed some major repairs, Michael declined to repair anything and refused his wife's overtures to move to a smaller and more affordable location. Michael had no income from 1999 on it seems, although he did write a column for a newspaper, I don't know if he got paid for that, but even if he did, it certainly was not enough to afford an almost 10,000 square foot mansion, the taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other obligations associated with a life on that level. He would lose his free ride if Kathleen divorced him, and received half of everything. There is no indication that Kathleen ever knew, or approved, of Michael's gay lifestyle, even her sister mentioned that she would have definitely told her about that, and most certainly would have left him.
Moral of the story, don't tell lies, don't cheat on your mate. It will just get you in a mountain of trouble in the right situation.
In the end, guilty or not guilty? I really have no idea what happened as I wasn't there. Mr. Peterson claimed innocence all along, yet the state saw enough evidence to arrest the man shortly after the death of his wife. In the end he did take an Alford Plea after being in prison (sentenced to life) for eight years. I imagine he would still be in prison if not for the Deaver fellow and his testimony.
Naturally, the defense and the defendant, and the children, dismissed all the police work and claims as utter nonsense, yet one daughter and the victim's sisters were convinced off his guilt. Should they ever have a conflict with the law in the state of NC, Lord help them all.
I feel sorry for the victim, her daughters, related relatives who are included in this documentary. It is of course an attempt to show that Mr. Peterson was not guilty. But in the end, they all appear to be voluntarily included in this documentary. I made up my mind long ago, to never talk to the press if I ever was in such a predicament, your dignity is thrown out the window from the first frame.
Mr. Peterson, the defendant, even though he is the subject of this film, and is pretty much shown in a manner to produce sympathy for the man against the evil system, comes across as a not too likable figure. This is just my opinion. Never once do we ever see a friend or acquaintance, beyond the brothers and paid attorneys, step up and offer any sympathy for this guy. He struck me as a pretentious guy who would lie to get what he wants, while puffing on a pipe and holding a wine glass, spewing lyrical nonsense to cover his actions. As soon as he was described as being bi-sexual (which is fine I suppose), I asked my wife what would she do if she found out I was paying other men to have sex with me, and I was doing it for years. She said she would divorce me immediately, if she was aware before we got married, she would never marry me. I think that would be an honest response by most women in the United States. Then it was revealed he lied about injuries in Vietnam to promote a book he had written.
This doesn't make you guilty of murder by a long shot, but it surely doesn't help matters. I also noticed the eye contact drifting around as he told the cameras he was innocent with his relentless non stop talking. And the tears only seemed to flow in the courtroom, when mention was made of his poor wife's demise, in front of a jury. Most of the time he was yucking it up with his lawyers and kids making bad, morbid jokes about his predicament, and never really showing the grief that I assume one would have. I came away with the impression that he was a an arrogant, self absorbed creep that I would never want to ever meet again. Like I said before, it doesn't make you guilty by being that way. Just makes you an unlikable jerk no one wants to be around. Maybe this is what got him convicted in the first place. He did seem to mellow considerably in the final episodes. His admission of pleading guilty (although an Alford Plea), was enough for me. The guy either was railroaded because he was an obvious jerk, or he was actually guilty off the crime.
The crime... Did anyone come to the conclusion that instead of a massive beating with an object, he may of just followed his wife inside after an argument about his dalliances with paid escorts, as she entered the stairway to go upstairs, he just grabbed her hair and pulled her back with such force to produce the injuries seen? Maybe once down on the floor, grabbed her head and continue to smash it against the steps? I am not an investigator nor an officer of the law, but that seemed pretty probable to me.
Here is a story, told by people who invited a camera crew to follow them around and film them, as they tried to convince an audience of his innocence. Right away the assumption is that you would be on your best behavior and admit to nothing, of course. So some relevance of not being biased is lost from the get go. Also the relationship he had with a person in the film company makes you wonder just a little bit. My impression was let the judicial system do their job and they ended up finding him guilty, then released due to the Deaver fellow, then an attempt to retry again. That is how the system works. He entered an Alford Plea and is still a convicted felon in the eyes of the law.
Good film/docu, whatever, a bit long in the tooth, but in the end, the state of North Carolina got what they perceived to be the truth, even after the defendant paid untold amount of money to defend himself. If it was just a poor soul from the other side of the tracks, I imagine he would be on death row or just rotting in prison still. Reminded me so much of the O.J. trial, and what a fat wallet will get you in the justice system.
I feel sorry for what his lies and manipulation did, and the toll on his family, they certainly did not deserve any of this.
And of course this is not the whole story. If you read a book or watch other shows about this incident, you learn so much more. Stuff like: Kathleen was married before, she got divorced because, you guessed it, her husband was cheating on her. The Petersons were flooded in credit card debt. Kathleen had a life insurance policy on her worth over a million. Both of his college educated sons relied on their parents for financial help, a lot. They seemed to live beyond their means, draining any financial security. The house needed some major repairs, Michael declined to repair anything and refused his wife's overtures to move to a smaller and more affordable location. Michael had no income from 1999 on it seems, although he did write a column for a newspaper, I don't know if he got paid for that, but even if he did, it certainly was not enough to afford an almost 10,000 square foot mansion, the taxes, maintenance, utilities, and other obligations associated with a life on that level. He would lose his free ride if Kathleen divorced him, and received half of everything. There is no indication that Kathleen ever knew, or approved, of Michael's gay lifestyle, even her sister mentioned that she would have definitely told her about that, and most certainly would have left him.
Moral of the story, don't tell lies, don't cheat on your mate. It will just get you in a mountain of trouble in the right situation.