IDK! If JW set DW up, DW's attorneys would want some proof of that. I'm having a problem with the semantics of "set him up". If it was JW's idea and DW was just the muscle, that doesn't affect DW's guilt if he committed the crimes. If JW set up the crime scene to look like DW was there when he really wasn't and committed the crimes himself, that could be a defense (although, really?!) If the "set up" was the former, I have no idea why they would bring JW up at all. If it's the latter, perhaps to show JW had motive, opportunity and means and to establish a relationship showing JW could have obtained evidence he later planted at the crime scenes and "tricked" DW into doing something noncriminal or a non-violent offense (driving the Porsche to the parking lot?) to make him look guilty.
I think convincing a jury that JW is a mastermind who spent days, weeks or months planning the perfect crime is going to be a tough sell. The man can't even deliver a package to his boss without stopping to take a picture of the contents and text it to his GF! Even if JW doesn't have an alibi for all of the crime, he definitely has one for part of the crime, so he could not have acted alone. I don't envy Argo and Lawson!