A Long
Cold Walk Up the Judicial Staircase
Despite the
best efforts of District Attorney Jim Hardin and his team (and some of
the press information about this documentary) to paint Michael
Peterson as a rich weirdo living a bizarre lifestyle, what becomes
surprisingly apparent is how Peterson is a man not unlike millions of
others. A retired Marine, Peterson married more than once, and he
finally found happiness with Kathleen, and the two raised an ever more
typical yours mine and ours family: Michael and Kathleen, Kathleen’s
daughter, and Michael’s two sons and two adopted daughters. They were
a wealthy family: Michael a successful writer and Kathleen an
executive at Nortel. Michael did have extramarital affairs,
but the inference is that Kathleen knew, that there was an unspoken
agreement between the two of them, their own “don’t ask don’t tell”
policy. Hardin does not take issue with the fact that Peterson had
affairs as much as he had affairs with men. See, Michael was
bisexual, and if there is anything more dangerous than a sex-crazed
bisexual running free in society, I don’t know what is. At least,
that seems to be the attitude of Hardin and his crew.
Such is the
weakness of the prosecution’s case in Academy Award winning filmmaker
Jean-Xavier de Lestrade’s dense, novelistic film The Staircase,
a detailed look at the other Peterson trial, the Michael
Peterson trial, which took place in Durham, North Carolina, in 2003.
Supposedly Durham is a relatively progressive, liberal burg, a blue
oasis in an otherwise red state, but one would never know it to look
at this film. District Attorney Hardin and his assistant, Freda
Black, come across like two classically stereotypical red staters.
How interesting it is to see Black’s lip curl when she talks about the
gay sex pictures that were found on Peterson’s computer. She is
physically uncomfortable, and her bias shows itself most especially in
the closing arguments, when she actually calls it “filth.” One can
almost picture her running home to bathe after having to look at some
of those pictures.
What does porn
and bisexuality have to do with Peterson’s guilt or innocence?
Nothing, other than that is the track the prosecution decides to
take. The State’s case is surprisingly weak, their witnesses like
clay pigeons which lead defense attorney David Rudolf easily shoots
down. In the face of such a flimsy case, legally outgunned, the D.A.
resorts to showing the jury autopsy photos and gay porn. (Has anyone
ever looked good in an autopsy photo?) They marry themselves
to a case designed more to bias the jury than to actually prove guilt.
Watching how
everyone involved in the case evolves over the course of eight
chapters is interesting. At the center of it all is David Rudolf, and
in a sense he is the one most changed by it in the end. Michael
Peterson becomes a supporting player while Rudolf, who has the
unenviable task of saving Peterson’s life, becomes the star. As
Peterson himself says, once the trial begins, it really isn’t about
Kathleen anymore; it is about who can make the strongest case. We
should all be fortunate enough to have an attorney like Rudolf. Every
preposterous argument the prosecution makes, Rudolf jumps on it like
Pete Sampras smashing down an easy lob; he makes being a trial lawyer
look easy. Rudolf has a great team around him, and there is almost
nothing they do not see coming.
Rudolf is
media savvy as well. When it is learned that an old friend of
Michael’s was found dead at the bottom of another staircase years
earlier, he looks at the camera and says, “Your film just got a whole
lot more interesting.” From day one he takes the media to task over
their portrayal of Michael and the trial. In a particularly
interesting scene, Rudolf and one of his colleagues are watching Nancy
Grace’s coverage of the trial on Court TV. Nancy Grace is, well,
Nancy Grace, which is to say that nothing of what she has to say has
anything to do with the trial. When it comes out that there was no
blood on the shirt Peterson was wearing the night of the murder, she
answers that, “he must have changed shirts.” Rudolf is quickly on the
phone, taking Court TV to task over their biased coverage. It is one
thing coming from Nancy Grace, he says; you expect that, but the
correspondent who was actually at the trial is saying things that are
patently untrue. Nothing changes, of course, and as the trial
progresses, he and his partner can watch the television coverage only
in stunned silence, wondering if they are even looking at the same
case.
Having the
actual trial right next to the Court TV coverage leads one to a
striking conclusion: Nancy Grace should never be allowed to comment on
a public hearing again. Ever. She and her
forget-the-evidence-we-all-know-he’s-guilty style of “journalism” have
no place in polite society. She is a fraud, a phony, a blight on the
national media.
The most
startling, peculiar thing in the film is the behavior of Michael
Peterson himself. He clearly does not mind a camera crew following
him around, recording this moment in his life, but he talks about the
trial as though it were happening to someone else, like it isn’t
his life on the line. The trial is casual dinner conversation,
and some of the gallows humor is a bit uncomfortable at times, like
when son Todd says that for Halloween they are all going to put on
Michael Peterson masks to scare the neighbors. Michael is an
intelligent, intellectual guy, perhaps too much so for his own good.
It is no
surprise when someone points out midway through the trial that the
defense’s entire case has been built on science and forensics and not
one ounce of emotion, something that probably shouldn’t matter, but
does. Michael takes us on an interesting driving tour of Durham,
across its racial and economic lines, pointing out along the way some
of the corruption that have kept the more impoverished areas from
improving. He points out houses in the predominantly Black section of
town that were meant to be a step in the right direction but have now
fallen into disrepair. This tour is especially interesting
considering that the jury in this trial is predominantly Black.
After the
tour, Michael reads from some of his old newspaper columns, where he
holds the D.A. up to ridicule for his handling of issues. The
intimation is that there is a political tinge to the charges Peterson
is facing. Whether you believe this or not, the articles cannot have
helped. What is most interesting is that Michael has more to say
about Durham’s political climate than he does about his own case.
When he talks about city politics, passion seeps through, like he
really cares about what happens, but during one startling conversation
about the trial he talks about how there is no sense in getting upset
because nothing can be changed now. “Fuck it,” he says, “no use
worrying about it now.” At times he comes across as someone who
expects to go to jail.
De Lestrade
and his team have put together a compelling documentary. Their real
coup is in how much access they were able to get from the families,
the defense attorneys, the prosecution, and others involved in the
case. They capture some interesting moments, and at times it seems as
if the subjects truly forgot that the camera was present. This is not
to say that everyone is cast in a favorable light. Kathleen
Peterson’s two sisters are surprisingly unsympathetic, so blinded by
their contempt for Michael that they are incapable of entertaining the
idea that their sister’s death might have been anything other than
murder. D.A. Hardin and his assistants seem simple and ignorant and
legally outclassed for much of the film. The only people that fare
particularly well are the children of Michael Peterson, who, despite
what one thinks of his guilt or innocence, as losers here as much as
anyone else. Finishing the film is like finishing a good book. The
characters span a wide range, the story takes us around the world, the
ending is stunning, and after it is over, there are endless layers to
think and rethink.
The Sundance
Channel will air two back-to-back episodes every Monday in April at
9:00pm. See it.