The Staircase

This documentary about the "other" Peterson case keep you riveted but it won't tell you the whole story.
Despite their claims to the contrary, the film makers of The Staircase clearly have a point of view. They set out to make a film about a murder trial from the defendants point of view and their opinion of America and the American justice system is evident in nearly every frame. In short, Southerners are unsophisticated, the police tend to rush to judgment and the prosecution is willing to cut corners.
So why 4 stars? Because while Lestrade presents Peterson's and his attorney's (David Rudolph) version of events as if they were the gospel and leaves out key pieces of evidence, they are damned by their own words and actions. Rudolph's arrogant insistence that "there is not motive" leads him to paint the Peterson marriage as a union of "soul mates" that is belied by Michael Peterson's regular emails to a paid escort. Any claim to compassion for Liz Ratliffe is in stark contrast to Peterson and his brother joking about "lightening striking twice." Peterson comes across as deeply self-absorbed and self-enchanted, Rudolph as having a persecution complex. All of which is highly entertaining and highly revealing.
I highly recommend buying this along with Diane Fanning's more balance telling of the story Written In Blood. You'll be amazed at what Lestrade left out. The huge debts, Peterson's spending spree after Kathleen's death, one son's arrest for attempting to bomb his college dorm, how Peterson benefited financially from Ratliffe's death, etc. Read it first and you may end up tossing things at the screen.

A wonderfull documentary from award winning director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade.
Full of surprising turningpoints. A bodemless well of emotions.

This film offers an insight into the narcisistic personality of an accused murderer but does little to forward the cause of justice or present a true picture of his trial. I learned this the hard way. I had never heard of the case until I saw the two hour tv special. I was intrigued because of the overwhelming appearance of murder and yet it was a largely circumstantial case. I decided to view the 8 episode documentary. I guess I should have been suspicious after viewing episode titles like "a prosecution trickery" and "a weak case." I was floored when Peterson said, "If she (Caitlin, Kathleen's daughter) had kept her mouth shut, we wouldn't be here. She and Candace (Kathleen's sister)." Does that sound like an innocent person? Then there is the startling moment when the defense attorney waves a blowpoke around without a witness to explain where it was found, when it was found, and by whom. (There was actually no EVIDENCE that it was found in the house--defense cross-examination of a witness with no knowledge of where it was found does not constitute evidence.) Still, those things may support a suspicion of guilt, but they don't constitute lack of reasonable doubt. So I started doing research online and looking at actual trial transcripts and exhibits. I was shocked by what I discovered.

As others point out, this documentary omits crucial evidence that was admitted at trial, most notably how Peterson gave a different alibi to the first responders ("I just went out to turn off the lights and came in") and that there was blood splatter INSIDE the leg of is shorts that could only occur if he was standing over her. While some omissions can be explained by the necessity to edit over 600 hours of film, the failure to include such crucial evidence creates a completely false impression and casts a dubious shadow over this documentary. Frankly, it's intellectually dishonest and manipulative. (Hmmm, who does that remind you of?) I expected more integrity from this Oscar-winning director.

This was one of the most fascinating documentaries I have ever seen and I watched all eight parts in two sittings. It was like a book that you can't put down. It had to be extremely challenging to boil months of preparation and testimony to 6 1/2 hours of film, but the effort not only produces a compelling story, but an astounding array of food for thought. Was the film somewhat biased? Sure, but part of this reflects the relative lack of access to the prosecution and the fact that so much of the story centered on the impact to Peterson's immediate family. Regardless, the film does expose many of the weaknesses of our criminal justice system and how the win-lose mentality ultimately pushes questions of justice out of the way. Was the Peterson verdict warranted? Was there room for a reasonable doubt? Ultimately, each viewer will have to answer these questions to his/her own satisfaction. I know that I am still processing what I have seen and heard. Perhaps the true value of this presentation is that, not only is it tremendously interesting (and I generally avoid Court TV and hyper coverage of trials like the plague), but it leaves you with as many questions as answers in the end.

I watched the entire "documentary" in a 24-hour period. It's very interesting, but the defense bias was so obvious, I was actually convinced of Peterson's guilt. Maybe I'm just contrary. Maybe I'm just sick of blood spatter "expert" Henry Lee (who also tried to convince people of OJ's and Scott Peterson's innocence). After watching, I felt the story wasn't finished--I could feel things had been left out. Sure enough, critical facts that support the prosecution's case weren't even mentioned, such as Michael's bloody footprint found on Kathleen's back, or the splatter inside his shorts. Watch if you're interested in documetaries or true crime, then do your own research before you make up your mind.