Realização:
Jean-Xavier de LestradeArgumento:
Jean-Xavier de LestradeCâmara:
Jean-Xavier de LestradeElenco:
Michael PetersonSinopses(1)
None has forgotten the shock Michael Peterson's verdict caused, sentencing him to die behind bars, without any solid proof for his supposed crime. 2010, ten years after Kathleen Peterson's death, a new dramatic turn of events: an unprecedented scandal implicates both the forensics laboratory of the police department of North Carolina, and Duane Deaver, its chief. Accused of having lied in order to win his cases, Deaver is summoned to court to justify his testimony in the Peterson trial. If David Rudolph can prove Deaver perjured himself, Michael Peterson can be freed and would have the right to a retrial. (Moscow International Film Festival)
(mais)Críticas (1)
A case from "and now what" department, i.e. when it´s sometimes not possible to distinguish between guilty and innocent person even when your conscience is clear. A large family living the American dream until the wife falls down the stairs and dies in her husband's arms. It soon becomes clear that there is something strange about the tragic accident. On the one hand, there is a lot of blood and wounds on her head that simply could not be resulting from a fall from the stairs, on the other hand, there is no bruised skull or any brain swelling or splashes of blood at the crime scene. On the one hand, there is the central expert analysis of a man who was later convicted of false testimonies (which does not mean that he gave it in this case), on the other hand, the fact that years ago the husband was suspected of another strange fall from the stairs (which does not mean that he caused it). And these are just some of the facts of this case, there are much more discrepancies, weird things and questions without answers. In addition, several years of lawsuits, a crumbling family, conspiracy and alternative theories of the public and... And none of this interests the author of the document (to be fair, he already partially reflected it several years earlier in a series depicting the defense's preparations for the trial). For him, a one-sided portrait of a husband accompanied by plaintive violin, complaining of his lawyers about the corruption of the system, etc. is crucial. Not that it would be bad or uninteresting (on the contrary, it is quite impressive due to intimacy), but with all this being said, if they had tried a little bid hard the ambition could have been exploited more than just depicting simple agitation for liberation. All happy families are similar, every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. With this quote from Tolstoy it could be concluded, because nothing captures this "noir of family relationships" better than Anna Karenina 's introductory sentence.
()