The story itself, with all its plot twists, rivals a good murder mystery, but I would've enjoyed reading about the case rather than watching the documentary. The technique seemed amateurish to me: long, too-close closeups, blurry shots brought into focus (instead of edited out), pointless scenes where nothing is happening.The rest of my criticism is admittedly unfair, but I'll say it anyway, because it definitely detracted from my enjoyment of the series. I found several of the people involved very hard to watch and listen to: Martha, who spoke in "up talk" (making every sentence sound like a question) and was so vapid; Caitlin with her "vocal fry" (hard to explain; just look it up); Michael, so dripping with self-pity that every time he opened his mouth, I couldn't help but think he was lying, his false bravado, his self-sacrificing-but not really; and the lawyer Rudolf who grinned and hammed for the camera and was overall so glib you'd think he'd forgotten his client's life was on the line.And then there was the scant treatment of family members who didn't defend Peterson, which makes the whole enterprise seem very biased. Why didn't we hear more about Caitlin's research that led her to doubt her dad?People who like documentaries more than I do will probably like this one.

I began watching, vaguely remembering when it happened. I had no notion about guilt or innocence. Yet by the 4th or 5th episode, I was honestly wondering where Kathleen was in all this. But for her murder, her self absorbed egotistical husband wouldn't have this platform for a film. Then I read a review about the podcast by BBC1 called Beyond Reasonable Doubt. I believe that needs to be heard/followed in order to gain a balanced view of this whole case.

This was completely a biased tale of a bizarre man that ultimately is painstakingly unsatisfying. The editing is atrocious and could have been trimmed at least by half and knowing that he had a 15 year relationship with the films editor completely discredits this film among many other things.

As we watched the series we are left with two choices....either she died by fall (illogical based on lacerations and loss of great amount of blood) or the husband killed her (illogical because never once was there a beating without a brain fracture, and there was no fracture of the skull here so the beating theory is very weak ...plus, there was no evidence to show of a struggle, which would have happened. Oh, and does anyone really believe the blow poke was the weapon? Come on people! ). We were never left with door number 3, except at the end they discussed this theory that some barred owl may have done this. They only gave us a three minute video on that theory but after getting on the internet and doing further research, this theory makes the MOST SENSE to me. Did you see the lacerations on the top of her head for crying out loud? What do they look like to you? Talons!!! Hello people.....do you honestly believe a blow poke did that? And if you do, why was the blow poke in the house not shown as evidence as the weapon? If you believe that, you not only are gullible but I wouldn't want you as a juror in my murder case either because quite frankly, you aren't smart enough to think clearly and logically. I live with barred owls in my back yard and they are big and if they feel their young can be threatened, they can go on attack mode. Plus, look at the facts: at the time of death, Kathleen had a FEATHER in her hand, bloody twigs in her hand, her hair pulled out in her hand, and there were traces of blood OUTSIDE on the walkway going into the house which signifies she was attacked just before she came into the house. She even had needle point wounds on her arms as if she was protecting herself from this attack. Honestly, this theory makes much much more sense to me than the two they left us to choose from. I know they made a motion in May of 2016 to add this evidence so maybe if they had a new trial this would have been entered, but because of the Alford Plea, we will never know. Lastly, while the death in Germany was eerily similar, I really do not believe you can admit this as evidence because it is too prejudicial to the average juror who is probably being led more by emotion than logic. But, the fact is, there was no evidence in Germany that this was a murder and it was never thought to be based on their investigation. Case closed folks. So why let an American jury hear this if a German police department and DA determined there was not enough evidence to proceed as a wrongful death? I see no reason to allow, thus this judge screwed the pooch. Oh, and guess what? To his credit, he admitted at the end that he probably should not have admitted that evidence, because it probably was too prejudicial. That comment is right....too bad for Peterson he didn't have that logic in 2002.The judge also questioned whether he should have allowed the bisexual evidence but I think he had to allow that because after all, Peterson's lawyer did say their marriage was IDYLLIC. Well, that comment should be open for examination. Did Kathleen know and approve her husband wanting to have sex with other men during their marriage? In order to be idyllic you would have to prove this didn't bother her. Well, let me tell you, if my wife thought or knew that I was seeing other men (or women) while married to her, she would both beat me up (a former cop who works out every day) and then throw me out the door. I think most women would feel as my wife would, not the opposite. There was no evidence presented that Kathleen didn't mind Peterson getting it on with other men except his weak testimony. Don't forget, he did say, "we didn't talk about it" so this shows me she obviously did not approve of it. Personally, I think Peterson was lying about this and was telling us what made him look more favorable in order to remove motive. I enjoyed the series but I agree, it was slightly slanted toward Peterson's side and especially now knowing he was in a relationship with the editor of the series does not look good as being a totally OBJECTIVE documentary. I believe Kathleen's family should have been included much more so we could also experience what they were going through too. After all, they gave us way to much time showing us how Margaret and Martha feel, so why not show us how Candace, Lori, and Caitlin feel too? I know some people were upset with Kathleen's sister, Candace, for her harsh comments, but not me. She is her sister after all, and she is right...the evidence doesn't point to merely a FALL as the cause of death, so what else was she to conclude? Oh well, I guess i can't have everything, thus my 8 rating, and not 10. One last thing, I feel I should probably add this....I am an attorney, so I am seeing this through those colored glasses which can be slightly different from an average layperson. I hope you enjoyed reading this review...I know, it was rather long-winded wasn't it? Cheers.