Didn't take too much convincing ...
Did anyone get the impression that it sure didn't take too much convincing for Michele to let her kindly, aged aunt take the rap for the accidental/self defense killing of her step-father? She gives one ounce of righteous protestation and then it's as though, "Well, okay if you insist that it's more for you than for me, you can go ahead and cop to smashing his skull." I mean maybe the authorities would go easy on a woman her age, but since it would appear the town still thinks she got away with murder 60 years ago, would they necessarily be willing to let her off the hook for the killing of Gerard. I was thinking: wouldn't it make more sense just to tell the truth? Couldn't Michele just say, he tried to rape her, he had done it before. She didn't necessarily intend to kill him, just ward him off. She was defending herself - I'm sure they could do blood alcohol tests to verify how inebriated Gerard was. It doesn't seem as though anyone would care. Francois openly admits he hated his father. Aunt Line hated him so much she wanted to take credit for murdering him. There doesn't seem to be much between Anne and Gerard, and at the very least it would seem she'd bellieve her daughter over her husband. She's had to have had some ideas about his character. Anne already won the election - so it wouldn't affect that. And even if it did affect her political ambitions, wouldn't her political career be equally affected by her aunt killing her husband?
I know they wanted to end it as some sort of cathartic opportunity for Aunt Line. She felt guilty about her first murder so apparently there's no better salve for that guilt than to confess to killing your nephew-in-law. But I thought they were lifting him up the stairs only to drop him down so he would receive an assortment of other similar bruises to mask the blow that killed him (the striking of his skull with the lamp) and just say he was drunk and fell down the stairs shortly before the crowd arrived?