If this documentary was meant to convince me of Michael Peterson's innocence, it actually had the opposite effect. Peterson is utterly charming - and narcissistic and manipulative and completely lacking in empathy or remorse - a typical sociopath.
One accidentally telling scene (I say this because the documentary was incredibly biased) was one where Peterson's eldest son comes to visit him in prison. Peterson goes on and on about himself for a while, then asks how his son is doing. His son tries to tell him. Instead of listening to him, Peterson jumps up and starts complaining about how noisy it is (subtext: "poor me, I have to live in this noisy prison"). His son is left standing there with tears rolling down his face. I believe this scene is likely indicative of their entire relationship: son trying to get father's attention; father too self-involved to notice or care.
Another accidentally telling scene is when Peterson is seen freaking out because they are going to exhume Elizabeth Ratliffe's body, ostensibly on behalf of her daughters, although it's fairly clear that Peterson realizes he's in trouble. He then becomes just as freaked out about the fact that the body will be perfectly preserved while looking at his ex-wife - his ex-wife (don't get me started on her!) who clearly lied for him, saying that there was hardly any blood at the scene, when multiple witnesses say there was lots of blood that some of them actually had to clean up afterward. Also notable is how strikingly Ratliffe looks not only like Peterson's ex-wife (you can barely tell them apart), but also Kathleen.
And then, of course, there's the fact that Peterson's son "finds" the blow poke. Even Peterson seems to realize that this may not be credible to the judge or jury and asks his defense team to "fudge a little bit" about where it was found. To their credit, they refuse to do so.
And then, there's the owl theory. Are we even meant to take it seriously?
I could go on and on, but the ultimate question this documentary tries to pose is whether there was a miscarriage of justice. I absolutely believe that there was a miscarriage of justice, but not in the way that the documentary would like to portray. It is deeply unfortunate that the prosecution chose the wrong expert, thus allowing Peterson to go free after only serving 8 years for 2 murders.
If you want to watch a biased documentary that leaves out most of the prosecution's case, then this is perfect for you. If you want a more neutral documentary that shows both sides of the case, you are likely to be as disappointed as I was.
One accidentally telling scene (I say this because the documentary was incredibly biased) was one where Peterson's eldest son comes to visit him in prison. Peterson goes on and on about himself for a while, then asks how his son is doing. His son tries to tell him. Instead of listening to him, Peterson jumps up and starts complaining about how noisy it is (subtext: "poor me, I have to live in this noisy prison"). His son is left standing there with tears rolling down his face. I believe this scene is likely indicative of their entire relationship: son trying to get father's attention; father too self-involved to notice or care.
Another accidentally telling scene is when Peterson is seen freaking out because they are going to exhume Elizabeth Ratliffe's body, ostensibly on behalf of her daughters, although it's fairly clear that Peterson realizes he's in trouble. He then becomes just as freaked out about the fact that the body will be perfectly preserved while looking at his ex-wife - his ex-wife (don't get me started on her!) who clearly lied for him, saying that there was hardly any blood at the scene, when multiple witnesses say there was lots of blood that some of them actually had to clean up afterward. Also notable is how strikingly Ratliffe looks not only like Peterson's ex-wife (you can barely tell them apart), but also Kathleen.
And then, of course, there's the fact that Peterson's son "finds" the blow poke. Even Peterson seems to realize that this may not be credible to the judge or jury and asks his defense team to "fudge a little bit" about where it was found. To their credit, they refuse to do so.
And then, there's the owl theory. Are we even meant to take it seriously?
I could go on and on, but the ultimate question this documentary tries to pose is whether there was a miscarriage of justice. I absolutely believe that there was a miscarriage of justice, but not in the way that the documentary would like to portray. It is deeply unfortunate that the prosecution chose the wrong expert, thus allowing Peterson to go free after only serving 8 years for 2 murders.
If you want to watch a biased documentary that leaves out most of the prosecution's case, then this is perfect for you. If you want a more neutral documentary that shows both sides of the case, you are likely to be as disappointed as I was.