MovieChat Forums > The Staircase II: The Last Chance (2013) Discussion > Evidence on review

Evidence on review

posted 11 years ago by tpupkin
5 replies | jump to latest

(I also just posted this on the board for the original series. Wasn't aware of this separate board at that time...)

I watched the first of the two new episodes last night, having just finished the original series just last week.

It was a little awkward for the filmmakers that most of the evidence now being challenged -- and which the defense is now characterizing as the most damning --had been almost completely ignored during the previous 8 episodes, which should add to claims of a pro-Peterson bias.

A little coincidence I noticed was that Rudolph's arguments for the retrial were cut short by an alarm triggered by a bomb threat. I recall that his last-minute technical preparations in the court room the night before the trial, 8 years before, were also interrupted by a fire alarm or something similar, weren't they?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tpupkin 10 years ago

Now that it's been a year since my original post, I am unable to support my argument with any detail.

It seemed to me at the time that the specifics being challenged in the follow-up were either marginal or ignored in the original series. But I've completely forgotten the substance of that claim, and I'm not going to re-watch 10 hours of TV to support it. You win.

[–] nightech 9 years ago

I just finished watching the last seven hours of the original series, and it struck me that the verdict didn't hinge on the evidence, as much as on the female prosecutor's disgust at Peterson's homosexual pornography.

Also, being in such a small town, it wouldn't be surprising if local jurors tended to cooperate with the law enforcement, even if demonstrably corrupt.

[–] puirt-a-beul 9 years ago

That keeps coming up in this film, as well. The prosecution can't let go of the idea that Peterson and his wife "must" have had a violent fight over Peterson's sexua;ity -- on just the unsupported allegation that she didn't already know about it -- and Kathleen's biological daughter raises it several times as if it's evidence to her that Peterson "must" have killed her mother.

There was forensic evidence presented -- from Deever and Radisch, both of whom appeared to be finding evidence to support their pre-formed conclusions, rather than letting the evidence lead them to the conclusion -- but it was pretty clear that the context of the prosecution's case was that Peterson was a sexual deviant, so it was likely he was a murderer as well. Truly sleazy.

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

[–] rachel-filmer82 9 years ago

I must disagree. Just watched all of it this week and I don't think there was anything in the hearing that didn't come up in the original episodes. I was surprised they left out Deever's omission of that report though, since it proved he was up to his same tricks in this case. I don't know whether he's guilty or not but that verdict should never have been allowed to stand if the documentary is even vaguely accurate.