pr-36
Michael Peterson has a problem - well two problems actually. His wife is dead, he says from falling down the stairs and repeatedly hitting her head. Amazingly, the couple's best friend had also died in remarkably similar circumstances several years previously, with Michael and Kathy bringing up the victim's two young girls after the tragedy. In what is almost a painfully long series (it's well made, but not exactly a thrill ride) Michael's character is put under the microscope, as is the honesty and expertise of the prosecution's expert witnesses. Michael is a difficult, outwardly unemotional character that is difficult to like or have sympathy for, but his treatment during this case by law enforcement officials, lawyers and even his own family members is deeply questionable. Fascinating but overlong, this is a serious indictment if the US Justice system and its practises.
riot_guuy
In many ways this series became what it captured - an exercise in both the tedium and personalities involved in a lengthy court case. The entertainment which was gripping at times, is balanced by many many scenes of the protagonist making dinner, smoking, standing on his soap-box, all things which could have been left out for a sharper watch. Much of the entertainment for me was some of the witnesses and their fruitiness; their levels of expertise stacking up against each other on opposite sides of the case; and the way Peterson, some of his family, and his legal team seem to skate through the whole process with a crazy amount of levity as if escaping conviction was a fait accompli so let's all joke about Peterson going to jail. I suppose some of their behaviour could have been curtailed at Peterson's insistence because they were on his coin, but it must have fed his self-belief (and as others have pointed out, his over-confidence) so he let it be.
There's enjoyment to be had, but I found much of it is ironic enjoyment. Give yourself a couple of rainy days to wade through all shots of cooking and Peterson's tangential diatribes which his legal team were paid a pretty penny to listen to.
dannad11
You will really enjoy watching this and sway back and forth about whether he did it or not, but the problem is, he was in a relationship with the documentary's editor and so a lot of facts were left out. When you read that information such as their financial struggles were left out, you quickly realise that you weren't actually shown anything that would make him look completely guilty.Google 'Michael Peterson' and you'll find lots of other things that were left out.
NikkiHassinger
This was completely a biased tale of a bizarre man that ultimately is painstakingly unsatisfying. The editing is atrocious and could have been trimmed at least by half and knowing that he had a 15 year relationship with the films editor completely discredits this film among many other things.
AD
