|
Okay, so I have this theory. The only good and smart people in the whole thing were Stephen Avery's trial lawyers, right? The shorter one with the full head of hair seemed to be slightly more in charge. And he said two things that really caught my attention, only because he proved himself in other places to be SO VERY careful with his words, as lawyers must be.
1.) In the closing arguments, they got into a weird back and forth where the prosecution was basically like, "Why would the police pick Avery out of nowhere to frame him?" And the defense responded with the logical argument that of course the police are not inherently evil, and they would only plant evidence if they believed him to be guilty and wanted a slam dunk, but that doesn't actually make him guilty... Except what he said was, "The police don't frame innocent people." And then he sort of elaborated into the point he actually meant. But that seemed like a really boneheaded verbal slip for a defense lawyer, to me.
2.) In the post trial discussion with all five lawyers in the room, he was the one who said that on some level he hopes that Avery did really do it, because otherwise the system is so depressingly broken, etc. Again, a relevant point, but not really the way one's own lawyer best phrases it.
Conclusion: I think he knew/believed Avery was guilty, or at least a terrible person (did you find the not-presented-in-the-documentary stuff online about Avery molesting Brendan Dassey when he was younger?) and didn't actually slip up at all, but instead showed the excellent, excellent control of language that he had in the rest of the series to very subtly make sure that he lost the case in the end.
|