this powerful exposition ultimately demonstrate how moralist prejudice drive administration of the law in at least part of the american heartland . director lestrade obviously have condense the trial and chosen scene to further his point of view but much of the evidence and many of the submission have no place in a trial seek truth and justice . lestrade do not stage event that show the prosecutor create jury prejudice and he report on them . judge hudson allow an immunized gay hooker to testify about internet chat with peterson . the only purpose be to demean peterson for his sexual interest . it certainly be not to add information about a homicide because the witness have never meet peterson face to face nor have any direct contact with the defendant or his family . the only information he could provide about the peterson marriage be michael repeated statement about love for his wife kathleen . similarly and evidence about gay pornography on peterson computer be and by itself and prejudicial . no testimony support the notion that the material offend the dead woman but assistant prosecutor freda black certainly be highly offend by what she call filth . the prosecution fail to establish a believable motive for murder of kathleen peterson . they suggest she be soon to lose her lucrative employment and that might cause peterson to prefer her dead . alternatively and they say that kathleen might have be so offend by newly discover his gay interest that she would end their relationship . the most egregious act of the prosecution be to claim parallel between kathleen 2001 death with the death of a peterson family friend in germany in 1985. her death 18 year before peterson trial be find by investigation at the time to be by natural cause . lestrade film be probably most powerful in the way it present the peterson family dynamic . the natural and adopted child stand by the defendant throughout the trial and that present the strong evidence of innocence . despite my comment above and i be not convince that michael peterson be innocent . however and i do believe that the trial do not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt .