Possible spoilers ahead -- best read once you know a thing or two about the case and the players.
I give it a 10 as an edge of your seat, deliciously consuming film treat. I give it a 3 for truthiness. To find out what was omitted from the film I recommend Diane Fanning's 2005 excellent true crime book, "Written in Blood" which covers the case and the trial in detail.
First of all, I completely reject the comments of reviewers who say that this film is somehow an indictment of the jury trial system and that it shows that Southern juries and populations hear the word bisexual and vote to convict. Hogwash. But I will caution first time viewers to watch this film through the lens of what should be completely obvious, which is, that it is a tool of the defense. At some point while watching you must wonder why the evidence and the prosecution gets so little airtime while we instead get so much of the defense team talking about how to craft their story to best tear down anticipated arguments and witnesses for the prosecution. And way too much of a jovial and harmless looking Michael Peterson, surrounded by his very protective adult children.
I watched the film having only the vaguest familiarity with the case. I do, however, have familiarity with the courtroom, attorneys and narcissists. It was immediately apparent to me that Peterson is quite likely a narcissist and that the "narcissistic family" dynamic was on full display. Michael Peterson was the center of everyone's universe, prompting a fierce display of united loyalty. But that loyalty looked false and coerced. Too much, too forced, too effusive, too grandiose. Red flags that something else is going on with this family. Some of them are true believers that what they are showing is absolutely sincere. This false reality is the definition of love that they know to be true. With that understanding --- NOW think about the future for the most harmed children that Michael Peterson put on display for his own use: Margaret and Martha Ratliff. Caitlin Atwater will find her way to a better and healthier life, and she has sane family members to help her do that. Margaret and Martha may never be able to do that because they have been so inculcated in the narcissistic family abuse/intimidation/fear/demands which have been defined for them as love -- and they have only the Petersons to guide them.
Americans believe in many myths about our democracy. One of the most egregious being that truth and justice awaits you in the courtroom. Again -- Hogwash. The courtroom is a stage and all who enter it enter the theater. The best actor, not necessarily the truth, wins. The name of the game is always to destroy the credibility of each and every witness, which is always easiest to do with personal attacks rather than evidentiary rebuttals. This said, however, I believe it was entirely appropriate to speak of both Michael Peterson's sexual trolling and his financial position because both go directly to motive. Personally, I don't believe Kathleen Peterson knew her husband was being unfaithful to her until the night of her death when I think it is likely that she found evidence on Michael's computer and confronted him. (Remember that, inexplicably, he spent the next hours and days after her death reading emails and deleting files from his computer.) She had ended her first marriage over her husband's infidelity. Why would anyone not consider it relevant to the case that if she had discovered it happening with her second husband she may ultimately be moved to end that marriage as well. And if that happened, Michael Peterson would have no source of income at all and his high standard of living would literally go Poof in an instant.
And lastly, a comment on the sons - Todd and Clayton. It seems apparent to a discerning viewer, and obvious to a reader of Diane Fanning's book, that Todd absolutely had an agenda. He seems to be the sociopath "boy next door". I believe he was an accomplice in Kathleen's murder and the ensuing story being fed to police, friends and family. He clearly orchestrated the obfuscation and failure to cooperate with EMT's and police at the scene of the crime. In the follow up episodes of the film, when Michael Peterson is seeking a new trial, Todd offers a very strange toast to the family and singles out Margaret, especially, for all that she's done to stand by Michael. Surely, it would not be notable for a lot of viewers but I found it chilling. The look on his face was smug and intimidating and, when he noticed the camera on him, changed to a much softer, camera friendly look. The impact of his words goes to the heart of the narcissistic family --- Margaret was used and manipulated by Todd, Michael and the defense team and she is utterly clueless about that. In short -- they got away with murder, in part, because of Margaret's dutiful assistance.
Clayton has a history of violent and subversive acts and has spent time in prison for them. Conveniently, none of that was mentioned in the film.
The bottom line on this film is to view it with the full understanding that it shows you a small piece of the puzzle. The most meaningful aspects of the family picture are not included. Neither are the most damning pieces of evidence. Which means that those who cry "Travesty!" at Michael Peterson's conviction are speaking from the viewpoint of one who is ignorant of the evidence. And this includes the family of Michael Peterson.
I give it a 10 as an edge of your seat, deliciously consuming film treat. I give it a 3 for truthiness. To find out what was omitted from the film I recommend Diane Fanning's 2005 excellent true crime book, "Written in Blood" which covers the case and the trial in detail.
First of all, I completely reject the comments of reviewers who say that this film is somehow an indictment of the jury trial system and that it shows that Southern juries and populations hear the word bisexual and vote to convict. Hogwash. But I will caution first time viewers to watch this film through the lens of what should be completely obvious, which is, that it is a tool of the defense. At some point while watching you must wonder why the evidence and the prosecution gets so little airtime while we instead get so much of the defense team talking about how to craft their story to best tear down anticipated arguments and witnesses for the prosecution. And way too much of a jovial and harmless looking Michael Peterson, surrounded by his very protective adult children.
I watched the film having only the vaguest familiarity with the case. I do, however, have familiarity with the courtroom, attorneys and narcissists. It was immediately apparent to me that Peterson is quite likely a narcissist and that the "narcissistic family" dynamic was on full display. Michael Peterson was the center of everyone's universe, prompting a fierce display of united loyalty. But that loyalty looked false and coerced. Too much, too forced, too effusive, too grandiose. Red flags that something else is going on with this family. Some of them are true believers that what they are showing is absolutely sincere. This false reality is the definition of love that they know to be true. With that understanding --- NOW think about the future for the most harmed children that Michael Peterson put on display for his own use: Margaret and Martha Ratliff. Caitlin Atwater will find her way to a better and healthier life, and she has sane family members to help her do that. Margaret and Martha may never be able to do that because they have been so inculcated in the narcissistic family abuse/intimidation/fear/demands which have been defined for them as love -- and they have only the Petersons to guide them.
Americans believe in many myths about our democracy. One of the most egregious being that truth and justice awaits you in the courtroom. Again -- Hogwash. The courtroom is a stage and all who enter it enter the theater. The best actor, not necessarily the truth, wins. The name of the game is always to destroy the credibility of each and every witness, which is always easiest to do with personal attacks rather than evidentiary rebuttals. This said, however, I believe it was entirely appropriate to speak of both Michael Peterson's sexual trolling and his financial position because both go directly to motive. Personally, I don't believe Kathleen Peterson knew her husband was being unfaithful to her until the night of her death when I think it is likely that she found evidence on Michael's computer and confronted him. (Remember that, inexplicably, he spent the next hours and days after her death reading emails and deleting files from his computer.) She had ended her first marriage over her husband's infidelity. Why would anyone not consider it relevant to the case that if she had discovered it happening with her second husband she may ultimately be moved to end that marriage as well. And if that happened, Michael Peterson would have no source of income at all and his high standard of living would literally go Poof in an instant.
And lastly, a comment on the sons - Todd and Clayton. It seems apparent to a discerning viewer, and obvious to a reader of Diane Fanning's book, that Todd absolutely had an agenda. He seems to be the sociopath "boy next door". I believe he was an accomplice in Kathleen's murder and the ensuing story being fed to police, friends and family. He clearly orchestrated the obfuscation and failure to cooperate with EMT's and police at the scene of the crime. In the follow up episodes of the film, when Michael Peterson is seeking a new trial, Todd offers a very strange toast to the family and singles out Margaret, especially, for all that she's done to stand by Michael. Surely, it would not be notable for a lot of viewers but I found it chilling. The look on his face was smug and intimidating and, when he noticed the camera on him, changed to a much softer, camera friendly look. The impact of his words goes to the heart of the narcissistic family --- Margaret was used and manipulated by Todd, Michael and the defense team and she is utterly clueless about that. In short -- they got away with murder, in part, because of Margaret's dutiful assistance.
Clayton has a history of violent and subversive acts and has spent time in prison for them. Conveniently, none of that was mentioned in the film.
The bottom line on this film is to view it with the full understanding that it shows you a small piece of the puzzle. The most meaningful aspects of the family picture are not included. Neither are the most damning pieces of evidence. Which means that those who cry "Travesty!" at Michael Peterson's conviction are speaking from the viewpoint of one who is ignorant of the evidence. And this includes the family of Michael Peterson.