User Reviews

A 2 hours sequel documentary to the documentary mini-series THE STAIRCASE (see my review there).

While the mini-series was a court drama, this sequel was an emotional ride. It was truly moving, especially the last third.

This sequel shows bits of the case and bits of scenes from the mini-series, but focuses on what happened after that.

I can't recommend enough the mini-series and this sequel.

If this sequel doesn't move you, you really have a heart of stone.

Watching all those court/crimes documentaries really makes you lose any faith in the justice system. The system is corrupted. You may think it's unusual, but there are SO many innocent people going to jail that something is just wrong (not just in the USA).

If you're among the Making a Murderer cult, you will most certainly enjoy this two years senior documentary about a middle-aged writer called Michael Peterson who in 2001 called the emergency service reporting that he had found his wife at the bottom of the staircase in their North-Carolina home, only to become the police's suspect and be convicted for bludgeoning her to death in 2003. Now, some ten years later, his lawyer remains convinced of his innocence and works pro bono to get him a retrial to clear his name.

The film is made by a French team who first documented this case through a TV-mini-series back in 2004. This time, despite nine years of imprisonment, it is a more spirited and jovial Michael Peterson we meet, and one of the film's best features is how it continually lets us assess Peterson, and his possible guilt or innocence, based on his appearance and words. Writer/director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade doesn't have an agenda here; he is not out to clear Peterson's name by introducing anything but known facts and figures. What he does want to do, however, is uncover wrongdoings done by the state and how dishonest representatives for the prosecution has and can lead to wrongful convictions. Michael Peterson may or may not be guilty of what he was convicted of, but there's no arguing the facts that his lawyer ultimately reveals. As a feature documentary, the film may feel a little unfulfilled with regards to form, but it is a highly interesting and important study all the same.

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.