Still unsure of his guilt or innocence. The documentary is obviously a very unreliable narrator, but the dearth of obvious work to identify another assailant beyond the staircase itself always jarred with me - why isn't Michael trying to find out what happened to his wife? Obviously the issue of being fingered by the state for a crime you didn't commit is going to take up most of your headspace, but he doesn't seem to concerned with finding out what really happened to her. But if he is innocent, it's an appallingly sad 16+ years in the twilight of his life he's had to endure.

He absolutely did it, the documentary left a lot out from the court case, such as the question of why his bloody footprint was on the back of her trousers, why was her blood on his front door, why was the blood dry when the paramedics arrived if she had only been gone from the back yard a few minutes and he called 911 as soon as he found her. Why was he on his computer deleting stuff while the paramedics were there trying to revive his wife? Then there is the point that his sons were in money troubles, she had reportedly refused to help them out, he had no money himself, and he was the beneficiary of her life insurance, an insurance she was supposedly about to lose as her company was in trouble and close to going under...

Yeah that doesn't sound promising. Also, you felt like his youngest daughter Martha was still suspicious of his innocence, but needed a final verdict to make up her mind for her.

plus his "stepdaughters" really look a lot like him, one of them in particular. And both their parents died in mysterious ways...