Explosive developments - implicating both the forensics laboratory of the police department of North Carolina, and Duane Deaver, its chief - recently saw the convicted subject of 'The ...
See full summary »
Michael Iver Peterson, an American novelist convicted in 2003 of murdering his second wife, Kathleen, sees his life go under the microscope in this award winning true crime series by ... See full summary »
A critical look into some true crime cases where American law enforcement made up for lack of actual physical evidence by using devious psychological tactics during interrogation in order to extract confessions from naive suspects.
Explosive developments - implicating both the forensics laboratory of the police department of North Carolina, and Duane Deaver, its chief - recently saw the convicted subject of 'The Staircase', Michael Peterson, released from jail after serving eight years of a life sentence, pending a retrial.Written by
Convincing enough but the defendant is still guilty
There were times I was swayed by the film. Nevertheless, I went back to watch those questionable episodes again. I cemented my opinion that Michael Peterson is guilty because of those unshakable physical evidences.
The documentary is well produced. It displayed substantial amount of reasonable doubts which would resonate with the audience. However, it just liked "Making a Murderer". The physical evidences told the truth. Even though this one is inclined to the defendant's innocence and "Making a Murderer" is the opposite.
The prosecutor might have a fair chance to win over the conviction the second time with less charges other than first-degree murder. There were flaws in the prosecutor's scenarios which bore significantly reasonable doubts. Michael Peterson would not have the second chance in court if he was not sentenced to life in the prison. So bearing that in mind, the state attorney then if he charged the defendant with lesser crimes based on the physical evidences, Michael Peterson most likely would still be in prison.
Personally, I believe keeping those psychopaths and sociopaths away from the general population as long as possible would serve the best interest to the public. There were several high profile cases in recent years where the defendants were off the hooks. Mostly, I would blame the prosecutors overly charging defendants with their alleged crimes. The proper charges should be based on the physical evidences. It would have little bearings on how server crimes were committed. Because more serious charges bears more burdens of proves which tends to lead to reasonable doubts. But being a public prosecutor is often treated as a political step stone. I don't see changes anytime soon.
Michael Peterson is charming, articulate and persuasive. He is a typical psychopath. The director somehow was swayed by him to depict story one sided. His family rallied behind him because the closer they got they had hard time to believe him being a killer. I think the prosecutor went on to seek out the evidences of the incidence happened in German was not a smart move. To me that was not more than trying to tie Peterson into a serial killer. The prosecutors' job should be convicting defendants and keeping them incarcerated as long as possible.
Despite of my disagreements, this is a crime documentary worthy your time.
5 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this