Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormius
I know they explained it a little bit, but in the first season Jerry and Dean were portrayed in such a great light and with supposed to be Avery's saviours. Zellner kind of throws them under the bus and they get cast in a pretty dismal light this season. I suppose she needed to cast some doubt on their competence in the role, but she seemed a bit harsh when speaking about Avery's defense team there.
I am still curious what compelling evidence the prosecution side had they made this all a slam dunk for them. If the show is curated as a mouthpiece for the defence's position of Avery being framed, what did the prosecution really have in court that would compel a guilty verdict.
|
I noticed this as well. I think she has to because just like Avery's prior lawyers, you're arguing a tough case and sometimes its helpful to be able to fall back on:
"The prior people were idiots."
Jerry and Dean were not. But they still failed. So you take that failure and spin it as best you can right now. Because thats the state of affairs, whats happening 'right now.'
The judge is always looking for the new evidence, and they're presenting it and some old evidence in a different light, but being able to also say that the past defence team missed this or that is also like spinning a new tale.
Ultimately I think its just gamesmanship. Zellner strikes me as someone who really knows how to play the game. And she has to because you have to imagine that someone who makes a living by making prosecutors and judges look like morons has to be on point. Every point.