This powerful exposition ultimately demonstrates how moralist prejudice drives administration of the law in at least parts of the American heartland. Director Lestrade obviously has condensed the trial and chosen scenes to further his point of view but much of the evidence and many of the submissions had no place in a trial seeking truth and justice. Lestrade did not stage events that showed the prosecutors creating jury prejudice, he reported on them.<br /><br />Judge Hudson allowed an immunized gay hooker to testify about Internet chats with Peterson. The only purpose was to demean Peterson for his sexual interests. It certainly was not to add information about a homicide because the witness had never met Peterson face to face nor had any direct contact with the defendant or his family. The only information he could provide about the Peterson's marriage was Michael's repeated statements about love for his wife Kathleen. Similarly, evidence about gay pornography on Peterson's computer was, by itself, prejudicial. No testimony supported the notion that the material offended the dead woman but assistant prosecutor Freda Black certainly was highly offended by what she called filth.<br /><br />The prosecution failed to establish a believable motive for murder of Kathleen Peterson. They suggested she was soon to lose her lucrative employment and that might cause Peterson to prefer her dead. Alternatively, they said that Kathleen might have been so offended by newly discovering his gay interest that she would end their relationship.<br /><br />The most egregious act of the prosecution was to claim parallels between Kathleen's 2001 death with the death of a Peterson family friend in Germany in 1985. Her death 18 years before Peterson's trial was found by investigation at the time to be by natural causes. <br /><br />Lestrade's film is probably most powerful in the way it presents the Peterson family dynamics. The natural and adopted children stood by the defendant throughout the trial and that presents the strongest evidence of innocence.<br /><br />Despite my comments above, I am not convinced that Michael Peterson is innocent. However, I do believe that the trial did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.