The film had two sequences of what "really" happened. First, the shooting was an accident, second -it was murder. So which was it? I know she got a sentence, and still claimed it was an accident, but . . . . ?????
shareI thought it was pretty clear that she did. This is a tricky film because for the first hour it lets us believe Jean's version, but in the end the facts tell the real story (in the second flashback).
Also in the DVD extras, there are interviews with the actual people involved in the case, and it's no question. The judge himself said, "If this wasn't a jury trial, I would've convicted her in 30 seconds." It was that obvious. But I guess, like the OJ trial, the truth gets diluted. I think that's what this film was trying to show.