Throughout the series, director Jean-Xavier de Lestrade answered your questions about Death on the Staircase. Many thanks to all who contacted us, the response was phenomenal and Jean-Xavier thoroughly enjoyed getting his teeth into all your emails.

An absolutely extraordinary and gripping film. Apart from the opening scene, was any of it reconstructed retrospectively?
Suzanne Davies, London

Jean-Xavier replies: The opening scene (Michael Peterson walking around the house telling us his story) was actually the only one to be retrospectively reconstructed. It was filmed six months after Kathleen's death, and that could explain why he is so cool about what happened. Everything else in the documentary was filmed when it occurred.

What made you think that it would be possible to follow the events and how did you manage to get access at such an early stage?
Suzanne Davies

Jean-Xavier replies: When you start filming a documentary it is always a challenge. By definition you do not know what will happen. But you may have some intuitions about what could and what should happen. The first time I met Michael Peterson I knew he was a great character (he appears to me as a kind of Shakespearian character), bigger than life. I had the intuition that with him, anything could happen...

I had great access because all parties involved had seen Murder on a Sunday Morning and thought it was a very professional film. I got the Oscar for that film in March 2002 while I was dealing with the District Attorney and David Rudolf about what could be filmed. And, in the US, an Oscar opens to you many doors. We also signed a confidentiality agreement with all parties saying that nothing we filmed could be seen by anyone outside the crew before the end of the trial.

Had you any idea that the story contained special revelations?
Suzanne Davies

Jean-Xavier replies: I knew before starting filming that the District Attorney would argue that Michael Peterson had had some gay affairs. But they were the only "revelations" I truly knew.

I realise what a challenge it must have been to edit down 650 hours of footage. However, there's one question which is niggling me the answer to which may have ended up on the cutting room floor. What happened to Michael Peterson's first wife, Patti? Or is that answer coming in later episodes?
Julie Adair, Glasgow

Jean-Xavier replies: Watch episode three and you will find out.

Stylistically and in content the series plays like a good American TV drama. Are you a fan of any American cop shows and did they influence you at all making Death on the Staircase?
Dennis Machin, Ipswich

Jean-Xavier replies: Amazingly, I am not really a fan of US TV drama. The only one I really liked was the first series of Murder One, but the show wasn't too successful and it was stopped after two seasons (too good maybe).

How wealthy was Michael Peterson and was his wife's life insurance considered a motive for him to murder his wife?
Charlotte Newton, Edinburgh

Jean-Xavier replies: When Kathleen Peterson died, Michael Peterson was quite wealthy: he had $1.5 million. The prosecution tried to show in court that Michael Peterson was broken and that he killed his wife for the life insurance. But that was stupid. I have to remind you that Michael Peterson paid a total of $975 000 for his defence.

Absolutely gripping TV! Can't look away for a second. One minute I think he is innocent the next I think he is guilty. Unmissable.
Mike Robertson, Chelmsford

What a fascinating programme. Without knowing the verdict, I seem to have made my decision already. I find one of the most intriguing questions, do the defence team genuinely believe Michael Peterson to be innocent or are they simply earning a pay cheque?
Stephen Earle, Glossop

Jean-Xavier replies: David Rudolf, the lead defence attorney, is really convinced of Michael Peterson's innocence. He was totally impressed by the way that Peterson (and the people who knew the couple very well) described his relationship with Kathleen. David Rudolf was convinced that Kathleen and Michael were deeply in love and because he could not find any relevant motive, he believed that Michael Peterson was innocent. And it is never a good thing that a lawyer sees his client as innocent because he believes that everyone will, in the end, think as he thinks.

I'm left with the sinking feeling that the justice system in the United States, of which I am a natural-born citizen, has deteriorated beyond repair. From watching your film, the principles of justice seem completely inverted: Michael Peterson is guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof is squarely on the defence's shoulders, while the prosecution doesn't seem to have to put much effort into their case at all other than to leak their prejudices to the media. A sad state of affairs all the way around.
Sean O'Neil, London

How can the prosecution leak the Elizabeth Ratliff post-mortem results to the media? This surely prejudices the defence case? Your views please.
Brian Carrod, London, England

Jean-Xavier replies: That was a prosecution tactic - and a very clever one. Of course it prejudices the defence case, but they did not care and the judge seemed to care even less. He allowed all the leaks because he thought the public should have the right to know about Liz Ratliff's autopsy. What was really disturbing to me was the fact that the prosecution spent thousands of dollars to bring back Liz Ratliff's body to Chapel Hill (1,200 miles from Bay City, TX) to be sure that it would be autopsied by the same medical examiner that autopsied Kathleen Peterson. Why not an autopsy by an independent Texas medical examiner? Everything that happened surrounding that exhumation was totally biased (half of the brain was missing, so how can you conclude that she did not die from a cerebral haemorrhage?).

Absolutely fascinating TV viewing, far better than the usual 'reality' drivel we are being served up relentlessly. What do you think was the most damaging evidence against Peterson, the gay revelations or the similarities between his wife's death and that of close friend Elizabeth Ratliff?
Nigel Glover, Stoke-on-Trent

Jean-Xavier replies: I guess the two elements played a tremendous role in the trial. But at a different level (and do not forget that we are in North Carolina and that you do not deal with very open-minded people). For sure the bisexuality card was played by the prosecution to show that Michael Peterson was a bad person. A way to say to the jury: "Be careful, he is a deviant! He had a secret life, so everything he will tell could be a lie, and everything we can tell could be true". And even if Michael Peterson has nothing to do with Liz Ratliff's death, it is such a "striking coincidence" that it hurts your sense of logic, and prejudice the way you will hear the evidence about Kathleen's death. The main question in episode six will be: Will the judge allow the evidence about bisexuality and Liz's death to be part of the trial? Is it relevant to the case?

Thanks to Mr Lestrade for a riveting piece of must-see TV - I haven't been able to take my eyes off the screen. The scene where David Rudolf had a go at the guy screening the pictures the night before the trial was so intense it really captured the importance of the need to get all evidence just right.
Anthony Sloey, Glasgow

Your film is beautifully shot. I noticed you used two cameras for some scenes. Did you use them all the time and how many mikes did you use as a rule? Also, did you get a commission from a TV station beforehand or did you shoot first and sell later?
Dave Young, Bristol

Jean-Xavier replies: Thanks for your compliment. Isabelle Razavet is a very good director of photography who usually works on feature films. I never used more than one camera outside the courtroom (with a microphone boom and two wireless mikes). To be in any way "invisible" you have to have a very small crew. But inside the courtroom we used two, and sometimes, three cameras and 14 microphones. The sound was the most difficult part because the witnesses and the prosecution did not want to have wireless microphones. Before starting shooting we had a deal with two TV stations: HBO in the States and Canal+ in France. But it was supposed to be a two hour film. It ended in a six hours and twenty minutes. The total budget was €1.5m.

First of all, Jean-Xavier, I'd like to compliment you on a wonderful piece of filmmaking. Having convinced my girlfriend to watch it, we have been gripped from the first five minutes. I have studied law to a high level here and can't believe the incompetence of the judge in deciding on the admission of evidence of Liz's autopsy. He seemed unsure of his own state's law and did not even exude the presence of a judge of law. How long has he been a judge in North Carolina? I'd also like to ask about Kathleen's daughter. What made her turn away from Michael? She seemed to back him then change very quickly.
Steve, London

Jean-Xavier replies: About Judge Hudson: he has been a judge in Durham for 15 years. You are totally right about him: he was not sure about the decisions he took. His thoughts were: "Okay, I'll let the bi-sexuality and Ratliff's death into the trial and the appeal court will decide if he gets convicted". Kathleen's daughter Caitlin changed her mind after the police told her about her stepfather bi-sexuality. That opened a big hole in her, She though that if he could hide that part of his character then he could hide everything.

To me, Michael Petersen comes over as an intelligent, caring individual who is making a great attempt to keep his emotions under control. Do you think if he had played up more to the media and showed more emotion, his reception would have been more favourable. Do you think his demeanour would have been more favourably received in countries other than the US, where the public display of emotion seems to be the norm?
Sally Lingard, London, England

Jean-Xavier replies: I think you are totally right. Michael Peterson tried since the beginning of the case to keep his emotions under control. He did not want to be seen as a victim. And of course I am sure that if he had shown more emotion, especially in front of the media, the perception of the public - and ultimately the jury - would have been totally different. He was profoundly and deeply shocked by Kathleen's death, but nobody inside the courtroom could really feel his pain and have a sense of his personal tragedy. I was surprised myself, when we filmed what it is the opening shot of the film (Michael Peterson telling us his side of the story) and he was so cold talking about what happened that I felt uncomfortable. But I guess that that was also the only way for him to live: do not let the emotions come too close as they can destroy you. In the US it certainly helps to be an actor at your own trial. But I am not sure that it is really different in others Western countries. I know of at least three cases in France where the defendant was found guilty because of their lack of emotion. Maybe the UK is different, I do not know.

I have been glued to my TV. The coincidences are too great. I lived in Durham, NC most of my life until I moved to Frankfurt, Germany in 1987 to work for the US Army. In that job I often interacted with teachers at the school on Rhein-Main Air Base. Although I do not know any of the people involved in the story so far (except John Butts who was a med school classmate) I am familiar with the territory. In its defence, I would like to say that Durham (and the rest of the Triangle Area of NC) is a little more liberal than much of the rest of NC. My question is how and when (in what stage of the trial and/or investigation process) did you learn of this case and what led you to choose it for your film?
Susan Zarutskie, Wiesbaden, Germany

Jean-Xavier replies: I learnt about the case three weeks after Kathleen's death but I had been looking for something like it for three months. What did I chose it? Because I had a very strong feeling that Michael Peterson was prosecuted not because the DA could show that he murdered his wife but because he was bi-sexual (ie a bad person) and that, as every one knows, when you live this kind of life it always ends up with a tragedy (that at least was the DA's point of view).

I love the series and am absolutely transfixed. However, Peterson is obviously guilty and I simply cannot believe the number of gullible people out there. My decision has absolutely nothing to do with his sexuality. I'm sure there is deep prejudice against gays, especially in that part of the US, but this does not make him innocent. I think the motive is financial. But my decision is based mainly on the autopsy photographs - you just do not sustain such injuries from falling down some steps. Furthermore, has anyone noticed the strong resemblance between the eldest Ratcliffe girl both to the defendant and the younger Peterson boy? I think Peterson is her natural father and that Elizabeth Ratcliffe changed her will so that the Petersons got custody of the children should anything happen to her. I also think that Peterson being the father had something to do with Elizabeth Ratcliffe's death. I think it was he who persuaded the Ratcliffes to make him and his then wife guardians should anything happen to them.
Jean Firth, Macclesfield

Whether innocent or guilty, the defendant gets very rough justice in the US. The documentary is a damning indictment of their judicial system. Why then 'fictionalise' it by adding background music?
Heather Stewart, Nottingham

Jean-Xavier replies: I like fiction. Even though the film is in a cinema-verite documentary style, I think music plays a very important part in the emotions you can feel. On Death on the Staircase, I worked with a very talented composer who lives in London called Jocelyn Pook. She's composed the music for a lot of feature films (if you want to know more about her she has a website - www.jocelynpook.com). She is very sensitive and wrote the music I felt the film needed: not the music you expect in a thriller, but something that makes you uncomfortable and makes you think about what you are watching. It is clearly an important voice in the film, and I like it. She did a great job.

The question here is, "Is there reasonable doubt?" From the court evidence seen so far my answer would have to be yes. Sure it's a coincidence to lose a friend and wife in a fall down the stairs, but Michael Peterson hasn't even been placed at the scene for the first death. Over 1,500 people die every year from falls down the stairs in the UK alone. Head injuries from falls downstairs are not uncommon. I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent but I have reasonable doubt and would certainly question the fairness of the trial.
Wendy, Bath

My partner and I are immensely enjoying this dramatic insight into something usually only delivered wrapped up in glossy production and topped off with happy endings. Great job on the production. I'm not sure how you've been able to put all this together or how you got such unbelievable access but the film does you great credit.
Ben, Luton

What an absolutely compelling series - huge congratulations. Has there been an appeal and if so what was the outcome?
Rebecca Lyon, Hampton, Middlesex

Jean-Xavier replies: To bring the appeal in front of the North Carolina Court of Appeal, you need to have the full transcripts of the trial. The defence team just received it two weeks ago - more then 15,000 pages! They now have to go through all of it and hope to be able to argue the appeal next August and to have an answer in November, 25 months after the guilty verdict!

Being from North Carolina I had a great interest in this trial. I only saw the two-hour film, not the one viewed in England and I have no idea how it was presented in England, but I watched the whole trial. I am shocked and amazed at all the posts in England that Michael Peterson was innocent. Were the autopsy photos and reports seen? He killed Kathleen and lived off her for years. I hope the people in Germany seek and convict him on his first murder. Michael Peterson is a cold blooded killer.
S Dravecky, Knoxville, USA

As a very close follower of the actual trial itself and someone who knows various people connected in various ways with the case, I can say with all confidence that I believe Michael Peterson killed his wife. I think my decision was finalised when I read the autopsy report. I wish I could show it to all of you right now.
Nancy Branch, Durham, North Carolina

I am not surprised that anyone living in Durham, North Carolina felt that he was guilty. Certainly after the way the local television station reported on a couple of 'facts' that we were shown. This type of reporting is not allowed in England either before or during the trial. The judge would throw it out.
Dave Tolhurst, Dartford, England

You have done a wonderful service by putting this on - far and away the best TV I have ever seen. But why was there no publicity or promotion of the programme? We just tuned in by chance, thinking it would be a routine trial thriller, and then were totally hooked. So glad you are repeating it in February - I've been telling everyone not to miss it.
Dr A Gerber, Glasgow

I have just finished watching the documentary series and I can honestly say it is one of the most amazing programmes I have ever watched. Totally brilliant. As a law student, I found it doubly fascinating. Will you be following the appeal process?
Amanda McPherson, Melton Mowbray

Jean-Xavier replies: Yes I will be following the appeal process... And thanks for your comments.

Astonishing filmmaking. I have never watched anything on TV so avidly before. I am amazed at the verdict. Do you believe that you showed us a fair representation of the evidence? Or did you edit in such a way that the ending was a bigger shock than it might have been had I sat in court every day of the trial? The sense that you, quite naturally, succumbed to the latter is the only possible explanation I can come up with to make sense of what I have just witnessed.
Chris Hannigan, Reigate

Jean-Xavier replies: I was too was amazed at the verdict. It totally stunned me. I sat in the courtroom the full 14 weeks of that trial and I can tell you, I never could imagine such an outcome. I tried the best I could to show you a fair representation of what happened during the trial. The prosecution had only the blood on the walls, the bisexuality and the German coincidence. That was all they had. To me it was a very weak circumstantial case. I did not try to manipulate the audience. And that is why I really think the film is compelling and makes sense: because I did not cheat with the truth. Of course, if people want to go to the Court TV website, they may find a different story. But the Court TV people were really biased (I met them in Durham) and were obviously anti-Michael Peterson. But I will say that I was really shocked by the verdict (and I think that justice was not served in this case), that does not mean that I am convinced that Michael Peterson is innocent: to me it is still a mystery.

Marvellous film Jean-Xavier, it kept my whole family hooked for the duration. I wondered what kind of response the film had when it was shown in the US? Did you receive much feedback from the audience?
Charlotte Newton, Edinburgh

Jean-Xavier replies: The film has been aired in the US by a commercial network: ABC. They were only interested in the ratings, so they asked me to do a much shorter version: two hours! It was a very painfull process but I could not say no, because in the US, as a director you have no final cut. This prime time special aired on 22 July last year. It got ABC's best rating for the week and the executives were very happy. But the reactions were very disappointing... The full series will be shown by the cable Sundance Channel in six weeks. I am waiting, at that time, for much more attention.

I have been gripped all week and had been convinced that, although something did not ring true about Mr Peterson (perhaps my overly suspicious mind), the defence gave a convincing and slick case for returning a verdict of not guilty. I was shocked to hear the jury felt otherwise. The prosecution presented their 'evidence' in such a shoddy manner, not helped by assistant DA Freda Black coming across as a bit of an amateur. Can you give us any idea of what has become of Michael since he was sentenced? Did he appeal? What was the outcome?
Jane K, York

You say you had been looking for a case like this to film. Was this because given the state and the background to the case you felt a guilty verdict would be almost inevitable?
Frances Adam, Hurstpierpoint

Jean-Xavier replies: No. Until the very end of the trial I was thinking, guessing, batting on a not guilty verdict. I could never imagine the way the jury reacted.

Congratulations on a fascinating, but ultimately depressing documentary. I personally do not agree with extra-marital sexual relationships be they straight or gay, but it wasn't Michael Peterson's personal life on trial. Making the assumption that the documentary was totally unbiased, from the evidence I saw, I cannot possibly see how any jury could not have had 'reasonable doubt'. No murder weapon, no 'proved' motive, more than enough forensic evidence to suggest an accident, the list goes on. I feel incredible sympathy for Mr Peterson and I hope he is successful in any appeal that is made.
Steven Blackman, London

From the film, it suggests that the defence team became a little complacent or perhaps a little cocky towards the end. Could that have been a factor in the verdict? I also wonder whether the decision to argue so overtly on the technicalities of reasonable doubt went over the heads of the jury who, from the prosecution, were receiving a lot of emotion.
Ruth, London

Jean-Xavier replies: David Rudolf at the end of the trial was very confident. Of course he is smarter than Jim Hardin, of course he is a much better lawyer... Also, in the closing, he thought that talking about the reasonable doubt would be enough. But the prosecution played it better: "The walls are talking to you... Kathleen is talking to you though the blood on the walls..." The jury loved it.

Some of the most gripping TV I have ever seen! By the time it came round to announcing the verdict the tension was almost unbearable, and then I sat open-mouthed with disbelief that Michael Peterson could have been convicted unanimously of murdering his wife on the evidence offered by the prosecution. I think even the DA looked stunned!
Stella Bury, Cardiff

A section in episode seven I found interesting was the phone conversation between Peterson and Rudolf. From Rudolf's responses Peterson clearly asks several times whether any blood was found on the recently found blowpoke. Why ask? Why would there be any in the first place if he were completely innocent?
Paul Bridges, Wolverhampton

Jean-Xavier replies: Very interesting comment. In fact, Michael Peterson was afraid, when Clayton discovered the blow poke, that it could have been planted by the police. He thought that it could be a conspiracy so he was anxious and it was a real question for him to know if there was blood on the blowpoke.

I feel everyone had some bias in this case. Michael's sexuality created one. But I also feel that the director's dislike of the American legal system did as well. I feel this is why he is able to find a reason for Michael acting so coldly when describing what had happened, even though it made him feel uncomfortable, as it did myself. Michael's final comments, "It's okay" and "It's alright" indicate to me that at the very least he accepted the judgement. The fact that I have not heard of any appeal going through further surprises me. If he is innocent why would he choose to spend the rest of his life in jail? Would you? If he was innocent he would have nothing to hide. But of course if he was guilty he would have much.
Ian Wild, London

Congratulations on a gripping documentary. Were you able to interview any members of the jury or did any of them publicly explain their reasons for coming to a guilty verdict? So many issues were raised by this documentary, but for me as a lesbian the most worrying was that a jury of your 'peers' could still be allowed to vote with their prejudices. Do you still believe in the jury system? Is there a better way for trials like this to be heard?
Barbara Marsh, London

Jean-Xavier replies: I spoke to some jury members three months after the trial. Basically that said to me that they came back with a jury verdict because of the quantity of blood and because of the seven lacerations on Kathleen's head. But when I asked them: "Okay, you sent the guy to prison for the rest of his life, so can you tell me how he did it, with what and how?" nobody could answer these very simple questions. Nobody knew why, how and with what kind of instrument Michael had killed his wife but they put him in jail anyway. I really think that they do not want to admit that they chose the verdict because they did not like Michael Peterson's way of life. They know it is not politically correct to admit it. But the bisexuality played a major role in the case for sure. I would be terrified to be judged by a popular jury. But I guess that is the way in a democracy. It is really the worst system, but I'm not sure that I know a better one...

What a riveting piece of television. It's more of these top quality programmes that are needed. It was one of the few programmes my wife and I looked forward to watching each evening. Thank you again. The verdict was a real surprise to say the least.
Ian, Pembrokeshire

I followed the entire trial and disagree with many of the things Jean-Xavier states as his point of view of the case. People thought Michael Peterson was guilty because of the injuries to his wife's head. All of the other stuff was extraneous to show the true character of Peterson that was hidden from many of those closest to him.
Sharon, Mt Holly, USA

Jean-Xavier replies: What is the true character of a man or a woman? I am convinced that Kathleen was aware of Michael Peterson's gay affairs. The two boys Todd and Clayton knew about them, so it was not so hidden. I am not sure that you could convict Michael Peterson solely on Kathleen's head injuries. I have asked many criminologists to try to explain to me how you can kill a woman in a narrow staircase with seven blows to the head and there be no brain injury and no skull (and finger, and ribs) fractures. No one could explain that to me. The murder theory does not make sense. But the accident theory does not make sense either.

I was totally shocked by the verdict in the final episode. I have always thought that the more money you have the more likely you will be found not guilty. Michael came over as a bit pervy, and with the case in Germany included, I thought how could those two girls not know the real man? If he was truly happy he would never have gone to soldier Brad and contemplated sex with somebody he didn't know, gay or otherwise. I think Kathleen found out off the computer and went nuts and this ended in her death. Only Michael knows the truth. Let's hope that the real verdict has been made.
Julie Walker, Newbridge

One of the most intriguing and gripping pieces of film making I've ever seen. With so much footage omitted, I am wondering if there is anything missing that may have altered my perception of this case? Your film more than convinced me that the prosecution failed in their attempt to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and it leaves me cold to think that he was convicted.
Danny Rhodes, Canterbury

Jean-Xavier replies: As I replied to Chris Hannigan, I really tried to do my best to present a very fair work. Of course, I had to make many choices, but I wanted to put the audience in the position of the jury. To be successful I had to give you the best the prosecution had.

I don't watch telly as a rule, but this was far so much more important than the crap we normally get fed. Still don't know where I stand, but I know that at first the pictures alone would have made me convinced of his guilt. It was a wonderful display of the nature of man, and makes you question gut reactions which we all seem so sure of. Has anyone thrown at least an old egg at the ridiculous, over-hairsprayed, plastic idiots who made up their own stories for news coverage? The Sun destroys people in exactly this way for their ratings. It upsets me.
Simon Gibson, Bedford

I have been gripped by this series, and have not stopped talking about it with friends and colleagues this week. I am extremely surprised with the verdict, as there was plentiful reasonable doubt. Why do you think Michael Peterson allowed the film to be made?
Amanda, West Byfleet, Surrey

Jean-Xavier replies: Yes there was plentiful reasonable doubt. Michael Peterson allowed the film to be made because I guess he was curious to see what could be captured by a camera of his own case. But I am not sure, and I cannot answer for him. Maybe you can ask him directly. Here is his address:
Michael Peterson
0816932
Nash CI
Box 600
Nashville, NC 27856

A masterpiece. I have never been so gripped by TV. I have also never been so angered by it. How can the jury sleep at night? There was so much 'reasonable doubt' that the case should never have come to trial. Michael Peterson was convicted of being wealthy, bisexual, and outspoken. Not one piece of evidence pointed to him being guilty of murder. I only hope that when the appeal is heard this miscarriage of justice is corrected. If this had been fiction you would not have believed it! Will there be any coverage of the appeal?
Barbara Rodd, Lincolnshire

We have been thoroughly gripped by the programme and the ending was unbearably tense. What is happening now? Presumably there is an appeal, but the court case was well over a year ago. Is Rudolf a 'hot-shot' lawyer brought in from out of state who may have antagonised the jury?
Lise and Andrew Michaelides, Sevenoaks

Jean-Xavier replies: Yes, David Rudolf forgot at some point that he will always be seen has an outsider (the Jewish lawyer from New York) in Durham. Jim Hardin, the prosecutor, is someone from there - he is definitely the local boy. But I have to add that Rudolf has lived in North Carolina (Chapel Hill exactly) for more than 15 years. But he will be, as I said, an outsider all his life in NC.

Congratulations on such an excellently produced documentary film. Will you be making a follow-up? What is the current situation of his children?
Anthony Coulson, Brussels, Belgium

Jean-Xavier replies: I am still in contact with Michael Peterson and his family. About the children:
Caitlin is still at Cornell University (New York State). She wants to be a lawyer!
Martha, the youngest, is at USC (San Francisco) studying theatre and literature.
Margaret is at Tulane University (New Orleans) studying German and documentary film.
Todd is in Nevada working for a tourist complex at Lake Tahoe
Clayton got married last May and he and wife live and work in Baltimore.
The four children who still support Michael Peterson are quite confident about the appeal process and waiting for it. They are very strong and are trying to live their own lives the best they can.

This was a triumph for television. I can't believe how affected by this programme I have been all week. Like watching Truman Capote's In Cold Blood for real...
Colin Chapman, London

The scenes of the summing up by both the defence and the prosecution were fascinating. However I would also loved to have heard the judge's summing up. Why was this aspect of the trial not included in the film? I was extremely surprised by the jury's verdict but think that the judge's summing up speech may have had a strong bearing on the outcome of the jury's decision.
Joanne Cookson, Lymm, Cheshire

Jean-Xavier replies: Not really. The Presiding Judge Orlando Hudson did not made a strong summing up and what he told to the jury was basically the law: if you have reasonable doubt, it is not guilty; no reasonable doubt, it is guilty.

This was a fantastic piece of work. I am stunned that the jury found Mr Peterson guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. I found the relationship between Mr Rudolf and Mr Peterson compelling - I loved the interaction and humour they shared in such circumstances. I was surprised when the blowpoke was found that they checked with Mr Peterson whether it was okay to have it tested. I was under the impression that they believed in Mr Peterson's innocence. I felt the media's reporting of the trial was irresponsible and beyond belief. What was said and what was reported were two completely different things. Is Mr Peterson's appeal underway? Will Mr Rudolf do the appeal? What has happened to Mr Peterson's family?
Debra Tavendale, Aberdeen

As any reasonable person who has watched all eight episodes, I'm stunned on hearing the guilty verdict. However, am I the victim of a brilliant documentary that has manipulated my thoughts and led me to see only Peterson's side of the story? Do you think your own judgement clouded by spending so much time with the Peterson family? And if you made the documentary from the prosecution's side, how differently would you have made it?
Peter Bennett, London

Jean-Xavier replies: Well, difficult question. It is quite impossible to answer because I do not know what I would have thought if I made the documentary from the prosecution's side. But I tried and at the beginning the DA let me film a little bit with his team. But they closed the doors rapidly. I guess because they were not so confident about their own case. But as I said to others viewers, I really tried to be the most honest I could be. And to me it is more a film about justice then a film about 'who did it'. My goal at the beginning of the shooting was to show both sides. But I could not do it. Peter, you are not the victim of a brilliant documentary that has manipulated your thoughts.

Just wanted to congratulate you on producing the finest piece of television we have seen for a very long time. We could not believe the final verdict. It seemed clear from the forensic evidence alone that there was significant 'reasonable doubt'. Anyone who believed in the basic tenet of the justice system, that you are innocent until proven guilty, could not possibly have considered the verdict that the jury arrived at. It has shaken our faith in this system and made us question whether such decisions should be made by people who were clearly influenced by the irrelevant matter of his sexuality and the death of Liz many years ago.
Jon and Jack, Leamington Spa

How compelling this documentary was. I was convinced I knew what the verdict would be, but was completely shocked on the outcome. Any follow ups on the incompetence of the judge?
Vee, London

Jean-Xavier replies: The defence team thinks that the judge made reversible errors about Liz Ratliff's death and the bisexuality... But anything may happen in this case.

I know I didn't sit through the trial for the whole time, but I can't see how the jury could have no doubts whatsoever about his guilt. I would have a very heavy conscience if I were one of the jury members. I think they didn't like Michael because of the gay alter ego, but the judge should have never allowed this or the autopsy of Liz to be shown as evidence. Is there an appeal? And if so how is it getting on? I thought David Rudolf did an absolutely wonderful job and looked more stunned than Michael Peterson. I would like to congratulate you on a piece of telly that I shall always remember.
Richard, London

Would have liked to hear more from Kathleen's sisters and from Caitlin, or were they not willing to talk? Don't know if Michael Peterson is guilty but he strikes me as a deeply troubled man. How could you trust a man who lies, and who clearly thinks it's OK to indulge in another secret life? How would Kathleen feel, knowing about it, especially as she had been in a bad relationship before? No wonder she needed alcohol and valium to get to sleep.
Anthony, West Sussex

Jean-Xavier replies: I met Caitlin many times but she always found a reason not to be filmed. And it was also very difficult to work with Kathleen's sisters. They thought that we were paid by Michael Peterson to do the film! Ridiculous. Nobody has received one dollar for this film... It is my rule of ethics.
You may not trust a man who has a secret life and who has lied but that does not make him a murderer! And I think that is the point. Caitlin thought because she did not know about the bisexuality that her stepfather could have done anything - even killing her mother.

How did the Peterson family live with Kathleen Peterson's blood on the wall for all that time, from her death through the trial? Did the Peterson's ever crack? They seem so grounded in the reality of Michael's defence. There's a way that Michael Peterson forces one to have faith in his goodness and yet the tone of your film has conditioned me not to trust that. It's blinding.
Sean O'Neil, London

Jean-Xavier replies: Michael Peterson had to leave the blood on the wall, because at anytime, the defence experts wanted to be able to see it, to study it again, and again, as you can see in the film (Henry Lee comes back at the scene the day before he testified). But it is not the main staircase in the mansion, and since Kathleen's death it was never used again. A door was blocking the entrance of that back staircase, and on an ordinary day you would never notice it. And to have access to it, you needed to remove the door with a hammer and a screw. But I agree, to be living in the house knowing that Kathleen's blood was still on the walls was very difficult for Michael Peterson (whatever he had done).
The Petersons (including Michael) were very confident in the case. They never really thought that Michael would be convicted. Of course, it was a possibility, but, because they totally believed in Michael's innocence, they could not think that he could be found guilty by a jury. And they all have a great sense of humor (especially Michael's brother Bill who is a wonderful man), a great sense of irony... The only moment I have seen them to crack was at the verdict. And I spent a lot of time with all of them. The only one who expressed to me some concerns during the case was Bill. Because, he is a lawyer, he knew that sometimes the system can fail... But he tried to hide it.

Gripping stuff. Notwithstanding the obvious, shall we say, 'lesser competency' of the judge and prosecution, I think they came to the right conclusion. Far from being a persecuted minority figure, the accused comes across as an elitist rich guy with some dubious personal preferences. Small wonder that the jury, who looked largely black, and almost certainly a lot poorer, found him, his money, his expensive legal team guilty. Me, I just think that there is no way a simple fall on the stairs could produce that much blood.
Bill Roberts, Hullbridge, Essex

Although your film is excellent, it is very biased in favour of the defendant. Why do you make no mention of the fact that the defendant claimed more than $1 million in insurance and pension payouts a few months after his wife's death? Why do you make no mention of his financial difficulties, his son's huge debts, and his wife's redundancy worries? All this can be found on the Court TV website for anyone interested. Why do you constantly play the "I'm gay therefore I'm the victim" card. Just because the defendant was gay or bi does not make him innocent. The defendant's sexuality had nothing to do with the murder. The motive was financial, pure and simple - the autopsy photographs speak for themselves. I would love you to answer these questions for me.
Alan, Macclesfield

Jean-Xavier replies: From the beginning, the DA told me that the motive was sex: because Kathleen found the gay emails and pictures on Peterson's computer that night an argument occurred and he killed her. That's what Jim Hardin and Freda Black told us. And they desperately tried to find gay witnesses to establish the sex motive. But they failed. So during jury selection, they asked an SBI expert to review all of Michael Peterson's bank accounts to switch the motive from sex to finances. Kathleen had a life insurance policy in favour of Michael Peterson so it was natural that he received what was on it. Where is the problem?
To my knowledge, Michael Peterson had no financial difficulties. Okay, Clayton had very large credit card debts ($120,000), but you have to know that the last two years before Kathleen died she decided to receive from Nortel (where she was vice-president) only 20% of her salary ($160,000) because she did not need more and kept the 80% on a special company account. If the couple had financial problems, do you think they would have done this? Michael Peterson had six bank accounts at the time Kathleen died. And the prosecution did not check all of them (because they did not know). Where did Michael Peterson find the million he needed to pay the defence?
The financial motive was put in the trial because the DA could not establish the sex motive. And, please do not rely too much on the Court TV website, it is full of errors. They were crazy against Michael Peterson because he refused to talk to them before the trial started. Alan, I agree with you on one thing: the defendant's sexuality had nothing to do with Kathleen's death. So why did the prosecution put it into the trial?

I don't usually watch six hours of TV in the week, let alone one series. However, I was gripped from the start. On Friday, I waited with anticipation for the last two episodes, and was impressed by Rudolf's succinct summary of the how the prosecution had failed to prove Peterson's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I could not believe it when he was found guilty, with emotion and prejudice overcoming the logical analysis. Stunning TV. Excellent work.
Joe, Andover

I'd love to get this on DVD so I can show friends and family and see what they think of the outcome. Any plans for a release?
Hartley Pellipar, London

Jean-Xavier replies: In France for sure... But in the UK I do not know. Maybe the BBC could make a DVD release. Ask them!

Faith-based justice. Who needs evidence?
Nick W, Bristol

Couldn't believe the verdict. Can you please let me know if an appeal is ongoing, and how I could contact Mr Peterson, to offer my condolences?
Ann Craig, Widnes

Jean-Xavier replies:Here is Michael's address:
Michael Peterson
0816932
Nash CI
Box 600
Nashville, NC 27856

I have to say after watching this gripping programme that the law in this part of the US sucks. I have a theory that only witnesses with an intelligence quotient of above average should be allowed to stand in cases of this complexity. This jury simply didn't understand the phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Steve Kersting, Pudsey

I was shocked at the guilty verdict. What has happened since October 2003? Has an appeal been submitted? How is Michael Peterson and his family coping?
Stephy Pordage, Glasgow

Jean-Xavier replies: I guess I have answered these questions before, but they are coping quite well.

This was without question the best thing I have seen on television in the last 10 years. It was absolutely riveting. I was on the edge of my seat before the jury gave its decision, with my heart pounding in my chest. I felt sick when they found Michael Peterson guilty. I feel that Rudolf and his team proved that there were serious doubts as to his guilt and I could not believe the incompetence of the prosecution or the bias of the judge, and the media. I feel that in the UK Peterson would definitely have been found not guilty. There was 'reasonable doubt'. In fact there was almost no evidence against him. How can the American public be so stupid? I feel a great injustice has been done and my heart goes out to his children whose world has been torn apart by this. Where could I find out what has happened to Peterson and his family since the programme. Does he intend to appeal?
Guy Marsden, Broadstairs

My heart was in my mouth waiting for the verdict and then a numbness as it was announced. I was so shocked that I was wondering whether there were any aspects of the prosecution case that we did not see in your film?
Steve, Swansea

Jean-Xavier replies: Many viewers have asked me that. And again: no, no, no. I tried to film the prosecution the best I could. (And what Alan said about the financial motive is interesting but not relevant.)

Thanks for a marvellous film. Personally I couldn't make up my mind about his guilt or not but on the evidence he should not have been found guilty. If it had been in Scotland a 'not proven' verdict would have been appropriate!
Michael Bailey, Edinburgh

Help! We need counselling! What an amazingly gripping and moving series, but what a terrifying and devastating end. My husband and I (both filmmakers - so not exactly media-illiterate) stayed up for hours last night discussing the obvious flaws in the US jury system, but really I think we were devastated for the family. Throughout the series we really felt drawn in to the emotional life of the Peterson/Ratcliffe family, and the shots of the Ratcliffe girls crying at the verdict were some of the most powerful TV I've seen in a long time. And while being totally gripped we, the audience, were nonetheless treated as thinking human beings. We weren't led by the nose to any conclusions, and the absence of commentary (very rare on UK TV nowadays) was an essential part of what kept us on the edge of our seats. I have a couple of questions - how long were you in the edit with these films? The storytelling seemed very carefully crafted and beautifully measured, and I wondered if this took a shocking amount of time to construct. And (to aid with our post-series grief counselling) please tell me that Michael Peterson's appeal is looking very strong and will be heard soon...
Sunshine Jackson, London

Jean-Xavier replies: Thank you very much for your comments. I am very grateful. Well, it took me some time to edit the piece. I worked with two editors at the same time, on two edit suites over 12 months! Does that appear to you as a shocking amount of time? It was a very long and difficult process. One of the main difficulties was to tell the story with no narration and still to be balanced. The appeal should be heard in August and the answer is supposed to be for November. Technically, the appeal looks strong. But anything can happen...

A fine piece of work. Sadly, but not surprisingly, you echoed my doubts over the validity of the jury system as a mechanism for determining guilt or not, according to the evidence. I certainly share, with others, reservations as to the competence of the trial judge and of those supposedly 'expert' witnesses for the prosecution. We may never know whether it was [forensic scientist] Henry Lee's Chinese accent, or the quiet and courteous way in which he presented his objective opinion, that closed the minds of those 12 men and women. He shook the prosecution case to its very foundations, and the whole shakey edifice should have collapsed. Like the thoroughly competent defence attorney, I too was staggered by that jury's inability to come to grips with the notion of 'beyond reasonable doubt', and - I would add - the 'presumption of innocence'. Whether the defendant did, or did not do it, is not the issue in an accusatorial system. Did the jury do its duty, according to the law? No it didn't. Can you give us an update on this sorry tale?
John Juniper, Limoges, France

Perhaps Mr Peterson will be freed as you hope on 'technicalities' one day - but for me that would not be justice for Kathleen. I also felt sad at the level of denial shown by all but one of the children. Why did you not show their grief at any time in the film at their mother's violent and, if the defence were right, lonely death? I feel you let Kathleen down. We needed to have an overall sense of the two people and their relationship in order to better judge whether Kathleen was the kind of wife/woman who would indulge her husband's deviant sexual betrayals and keep his secrets. We needed to have far more balance in the portrayal of husband and wife. Your bias was to the jovial, slightly eccentric, kindly and pipe smoking Michael. He never introduced you to his other persona. Kathleen was only ever a corpse in the film.
Susan, London

Jean-Xavier replies: When we started shooting, it was very difficult to film the children's sadness. We did not really know them. Before filming someone's tragedy I need to build a relationship. I was able to film Martha and Margaret crying at the verdict because I had built a relationship with them... That is one of my regrets: not to have a better portrayal of Kathleen. You know I feel very close to her. She was a wonderful person, smart, with a great sense of humour, funny, a very good mother for all the children... I spoke with a lot of her friends. But I had great difficulties to find the right place in the film. And I could not. Again, it is a regret.

I was floored by the verdict, but then I should have seen it coming. When they were interrupted in the courtroom during rehearsal by a possible fire the night before opening day, I thought that was likely intentionally disruptive. This film was riveting throughout and a brilliant piece of filmmaking. I hope it opens the legal system to permanent broadcast scrutiny. Any one of us could be in Michael Peterson's shoes.
Gary D Chance, London

Having found myself profoundly affected by the story, I was wondering how you as the director felt when you heard the verdict? Are you still in contact with Michael Peterson and how difficult do you find it to disengage with your subjects when the filming is over?
Anna Webster, Bristol

Jean-Xavier replies: When I heard the verdict I was filming (at that moment we were using three cameras) and I was supposed to shoot Michael Peterson's family. Half of the shot is out of focus. I could not believe it. I was in shock but I had to shoot, and I filmed the close-up of Martha and Margaret. That was terrible and devastating.
I went to visit Michael Peterson three times in jail. Not because I am a friend, but because I feel we have shared something extraordinary. And we have a kind of bond. I have to say that he is coping quite well in jail. Still the same person. I just received a letter from him two weeks ago, and Margaret spent a month in Paris last summer, so we keep in touch.

What an amazing film! As a forensic scientist myself I was amazed at the incompetence of some of the people working on the case. How on earth were they allowed to produce those photos with the so-called "glitches"? As for the guy that had filed a report on Peterson's shirt - after not finding any blood, what a fool. I was absolutely horrified at the verdict. Even the DA and his assistant looked stunned at the result. Will Michael be appealing in the near future? If so do you have any plans to make a follow up film?
Ally Hall, Cambridge

Absolutely riveting TV. So many questions and comments. Is David Rudolph still involved in his case? Why wasn't the trial taken out of the state to give a fairer hearing? What were the main sticking points that delayed the jury for 5 days before getting to their guilty verdict? What is the current position of the Judge and DA ie. have they been promoted since the trial? By the way, I have also seen Death on a Sunday Morning. Another devastating indictment on so called American justice.
John Morgan, Portsmouth

Jean-Xavier replies: David Rudolf is still involved in the case (and he is working for free now). The judge wanted to keep the trial in Durham. It was a good publicity for the town... and for him. About the jury deliberation: the first vote they did (the very first day) had that result: guilty: 4; not guilty: 3; undecided: 5. It took five days to get a unanimous verdict. But it could have gone the other way... Jim Hardin could become the next Prosecutor of the State of North Carolina (he was chosen to appear in the national list of the top ten lawyers of the 2003). The judge is still the quiet Orlando Hudson.

Thank you for a riveting and disquieting documentary. The story became for me an allegory of the cultural divide in the USA that now seems to be spilling across the Atlantic: where rationalism and empiricism are being beaten back by religiosity and mysticism. In this context, Michael's best defence would have been to take the stand, declare himself a sinner, raise his arms and declare how he had welcomed the lord into his life.
John, Herts

I was glued to the TV throughout the series - absolutely gripping documentary. Like another comment made I felt that the oldest Ratliff daughter was in fact Pererson's daughter. She looked so like Peterson and so unlike her sister and I wondered whether anyone asked the question? If she was his daughter then there could have been a motive. I also wondered why there was substantially less footage of what the defence lawyers were up to. Was this because you had limited access or because it was boring? I would be interested to know what has happened to Peterson since the trial.
Paul Tolliday, Tetford, Lincs

Jean-Xavier replies: Very interesting comment about Margaret. The DA thought like you: they were convinced that Margaret Ratliff was in fact Michael Peterson's daughter - and they did a DNA test. It came back negative. No limited access. But editing choices. Michael Peterson is still in a Correctional Centre in North Carolina.

Why can they never write fictional drama as gripping as this? It was all too apparent that it wasn't the discovery of the blowpoke that was needed to sway the jury but evidence that Kathleen acknowledged and accepted Michael's bisexuality. The assistant DA argued powerfully that she would never have done so. In fact, many women do accept these things and remain close to their husbands. But, given the prejudices of that part of the US, it would have taken a courageous juror to argue that point during their deliberations.
Lester Cowling, Dorchester

Absolutely wonderful film. My only criticism is that there wasn't more of it. Why did you not show the exchange between Saami Shaibani and David Rudolf? According to the reports I have read, it was a high drama courtroom moment. I do have to say that I absolutely loved the look on Freda Black's face when the blow poke was produced! She could scare me into confessing to anything just by looking at me.
Scott Sinclair, Elgin

Jean-Xavier replies: Freda Black will love your comment! I did not put that exchange between Rudolf and Shaibani in the film because, in my opinion, it did not play a role in the outcome. I agree with you it was a very exciting moment, and a great show for a filmmaker, but I had to cut and I had to make choice... Maybe it will be in the DVD...

This was the most riveting piece of film making I've ever experienced. I was left spellbound at the end, particularly with the final verdict. On the evidence alone I found it disturbing how a jury could arrive at a guilty verdict. The case was prejudiced throughout and I felt almost as stunned as Rudolph at the end.
Nick Jansen, Fleet, Hants

Depressingly, my certainty that Michael Petersen would be found guilty grew in direct proportion to the weight of reasonable doubt the defence cast on the prosecution's case. The extraordinary appeal to the jury by the DA's assistant Freda Black to ignore the evidence and rely solely on their worst instincts and bigotry brought back Petersen's clear-eyed and penetrating remark early on that they were out to get him, and probably would. I found myself wondering how much the outcome of the trial owed to a post 9/11 world, where one no longer needs hard evidence to incarcerate people on the flimsiest suspicion that they are 'bad', and even to go to war on a fabrication. It was a painful but compulsive film and I hope you win a second Oscar for it. My question: what made you keep the scene of the sisters reading and copying Petersen's writings? Was his work brought up at all during the trial?
Maya, London

Jean-Xavier replies: About the two sisters reading Peterson's writing: I love the scene, because to me, it is the way that people usually see artists: they cannot make the difference between the creation and the personality. It is not because Michael Peterson, in one of his books, said through one of his characters that murdering is happiness that that is what he is thinking. This is absurd! If so then Shakespeare should have been sent to jail before he was 30! They tried to introduce Peterson's work into the trial but could not because he did not testify.

Why is there such an issue regarding the fact that Peterson was bisexual, after all we are often informed of prominent people, eg Michael Redgrave, being bisexual and having an excellent relationship with his wife and family? I feel the jury needed to be educated on this point and dragged into the 21st Century.
Hazel Peal, Hereford

Like Jean Firth, I thought the resemblance of Margaret to Mike Peterson was striking and that money might well have been a motive: this came up in the trial but wasn't shown in the film. No doubt he expected not to be charged with murder and not to have to spend a million on his defence. I just loved that bit with the defence lawyer saying he'd always had a problem with authority telling him what to do and this had led him to become a defence lawyer - yes, defending rich men on charges of wife-murder. Is it true that the producer of your film has known Michael Peterson for many years?
Helen, Edinburgh

Jean-Xavier replies: They did a DNA test between Margaret and Michael Peterson. Result: negative. About your second question, that is totally untrue. We met Michael Peterson for the first time in January 2002 and Denis Poncet, the producer, was with me. Before the case we had never have heard about Michael Peterson. What is true: Denis Poncet spent 18 months at the University of Chapel Hill in 1969. But he never met Michael Peterson at the time.

This was just about the best televison I have ever seen. I have no idea if the guy was innocent or not, but based on what I saw I could not believe the jury's verdict - nothing was presented to proved his guilt (at least to my mind).
Howard Stokoe, Speen, Bucks

Jean-Xavier - congratulations on such a gripping and beautiful film. I, like so many, was hooked from the start. I am interested to know if any further revelations or findings have come out since the trial? Have you interviewed Michael since?
Alan, West Sussex

Jean-Xavier replies: Nothing really new since the end of the trial. Denis Rowe (in Chapter Two the written statement about the man who said he had sex with Peterson) has been brutally killed, but I do not think it has anything to do with the case. I went to see Michael Peterson in jail three times. He is okay.

Congratulations on a first rate piece of documentary filmmaking. Though being inside the family unit in their most difficult of times you still managed to present all the sides and allow the viewers the chance to decide for themselves. Many questions, other than Peterson's guilt or innocence, were forced on the viewers and this is what television should do for people. It is to my mind significant that in a week when much of the population were glued to some minor celebrities holed up in a TV house, the BBC spent license fee money on bringing true, educational, reality TV to the screen. Thank you very much.
Gavin Goodhart, London

Is there some way to show solidarity with his fight for justice?
Paul Cooper, Llangollen, Wales

Jean-Xavier replies: Write to him, he will be very pleased!
Michael Peterson
0816932
Nash CI
Box 600
Nashville, NC 27856

Wow. By far the most riveting documentary I've seen. I too wondered about the similarities between the natural and adopted children of Michael Peterson. I sensed there was so much hidden from view in this story - which actually made it even more watchable for that reason. Brilliant film - but what a sad tale.
Andrea Coles, Birmingham

I thought Michael Peterson was guilty, but on the little we saw of the prosecution, was totally shocked that he was found guilty. I would never have convicted him on their evidence. I suppose I've watched too much CSI and so what appeared to be incompetence by the forensic experts rather shook me. I thought he'd had a relationship with Liz and some of the stories he wrote (which Kathleen's sisters were reading) would have warranted further inspection. I'm not sure if I would be in favour of televised court cases - but I suppose it will be inevitable. Many thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable series.
Beth Marsh, Aylesford, Kent

Having just seen the final two episodes I am almost as shocked as Rudolf was over the verdict. I am not sure that Peterson is innocent but I am sure that the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Is this travesty something that could only happen in USA? I think not. Juries are comprised of ordinary people and my experience of such is that emotion counts far more than logic in most situations. Peterson and his defence team were perceived as too clever for their own good. How do you get round that one? When the jury visited Peterson's home the trappings of affluence probably reinforced their negative feelings. I am surprised a highly experienced and successful defence team did not give greater consideration to this aspect. I must congratulate you on an excellent and absorbing series. This is TV at its best. More power to your elbow!
Barry Martin, Ditchling, East Sussex

I think he was innocent but with a son living in the Deep South I know that the sexuality was the aspect that condemned Michael Petersen. Was there an appeal on his behalf and if so what was the result?
John Welford, Elmswell, Suffolk

Superb and tragic at the same time. I'm not sure whether he was guilty or not, and that should have been the decision of the jury. Not proven.
Lee, Edinburgh