Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
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.'
|
It's funny how the first season made it out to seem like Jerry and Dean were fighting an uphill corrupt battle while being extremely competent lawyers. And this season, at least the Steven Avery portion, was all about how completely useless they looked. Just sort of goes to show how the biases of the 'documentary' can make a huge difference.
It wasn't even like they tried to make it seem like Jerry and Dean were limited. Sometimes they made a pretty good picture of them being incompetent, like not getting a blood spatter expert to discuss blood spattering...
You could almost do a new recut of the first season and make it out to look like both Brendan and Steven got incompetent lawyers and have these two new awesome ones. All the bias of the first season, all the evidence that was left out that got Steven Avery convicted (and was debunked, or attempted to be debunked by Zellner) would almost make for a more compelling story. Instead the series almost had to backtrack on it.