A "long" crime documentary, I couldn't stop chasing after it, because the 13 episodes were filmed for 17 years from 2001 to 2017, and the episodes were reversed. First playthrough:
His wife died tragically under 20 steps of stairs at home.
Prosecution evidence: no intruder, multiple head trauma, excessive bleeding, blood analysis on defendant's husband's pants, defendant's bisexuality and confession of infidelity in marriage and mailing of male prostitutes, defendant's lie about being wounded in the Vietnam War.
Defense evidence: The blood splatter analysis of the deceased is consistent with the accidental fall to the ground, there is no murder weapon (two years later the prosecution's presumed murder weapon blower was found and denied), part of the blood splatter evidence was contaminated by the police, all relatives and friends confirmed the relationship between husband and wife Very good (defendant had no motive for murder).
Trial Result: The jury found the defendant guilty of homicide, and the defendant was jailed.
The case was restarted after the defendant served 9 years in prison, all because of an "accident": Defoe, a material evidence forensic expert for the prosecution (prosecution), was proven to have cheated for a long time to maliciously help the prosecution prove the defendant's guilt, causing many cases. Injustice. In this case, the most important evidence to convince the jury at the time was Defoe's (fake) experiment. After the restart, the 75-year-old defendant had no energy and financial resources to start a new round of retrial, and agreed to accept a plea bargain, the Iford plea agreement (“not guilty because he was guilty, but guilty because he did not want to go to trial”).
So what is the truth of the case? I want to say, I-don't-know-know. Because of doubt. Because the defendant may or may not have killed his wife. As long as there is a reasonable doubt, the accused is innocent "in the legal sense", although he may not be innocent! Well, unless the police and the prosecution come up with conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence can only be presumed .
So far, I don't care if he kills her or if he looks more like a criminal. Because the only truth remains unknowable after 17 years. The reality is so cruel, even if you are kind you long for the truth. And finding the truth is definitely not a defense lawyer's obligation, nor is a lawyer obliged to prove the defendant's "innocence" , as long as the "doubt" is proved, there is reasonable doubt. On the contrary, as the prosecutor (police) representing the government, it cannot prove that the truth is not abominable (Simpson case), but inflicting harm in the name of justice (at the expense of falsification) is the greatest evil ("Making a Murderer"). The greatest threat to our liberty comes not from criminals, but from the illegal exercise of power by governments. Therefore, human judicial civilization has been designed step by step : the jury system, controlled defense (the right to defense, cross-examination in court), the presumption of innocence, the right to silence the defendant... All of these great inventions limit power.
PS The director of the film, Jean Harvey de Lestrade, won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature for his "Sunday Morning Murder" in 2002.
View more about The Staircase reviews
