I think Willy could have instilled enough doubt in the Juror's minds by staging a model with clothes etc as seen on the CCTV. We didn't even see him look for the items Ted was wearing in Ted's house. Besides that, CCTV cameras would have seen him entering the bungalow his wife and Nunally were using. I like the film, but that stuff annoys me.
shareWe didn't even see him look for the items Ted was wearing in Ted's house.That would be a police job, not that of a DA.
I think Willy could have instilled enough doubt in the Juror's minds by staging a model with clothes etc as seen on the CCTV.What would be the point, seeing at best, it would only be viewed circumstantially? It's Willy's job to prove the case beyond doubt and the cops had already concluded the footage was not clear enough to make a positive ID of Ted.🐭 share
I think that's a good point. Yes, it's the job of the police and not the DA's office to gather evidence - in which case, Willy shouldn't be looking at the tape at all? He "orders" the cops to look again for the gun, why not once for the clothing? And plenty of people are convicted on circumstantial evidence. Crawford's motion for a directed verdict would probably still have been granted, as the judge wouldn't find what you suggest to be compelling evidence, but Willy couldn't have anticipated that motion, and jurors are notoriously, um - unpredictable? "This guy is way older than his wife, he's jealous and smarmy, you know he did it + those clothes! = Guilty!!/That detective is a racist, and this guy is famous, and charming, and handsome! and that DNA stuff was too confusing + those gloves didn't fit = Not Guilty!! (When do we get our checks?)
share