But you kinda get to my point in your post.I didn't see it as AJ "dancing around with stupid connotations." I saw it as more of him disproving Buchenik's statements the day before about not having a lead investigator and that they (the troopers) investigate as a team. AJ was implying (albeit underhandedly) that Proctor was the one who ultimately (mis)handled the investigation, including the actual evidence. Proctor's name is literally everywhere, and Buchenik can't testify to anything with Proctor's name attached to it.
Even if Proctor were on the up and up (excluding the Fed investigation for argument's sake), his handling of evidence and/or interviews and lack of reporting is a gross injustice to the defendant, whether or not he is biased against her.
I look at it like this: is Proctor's handling of evidence what I would want to see happen if my loved one was killed? I would want justice for my loved one, but I'd want the evidence (and collection of) to leave absolutely no doubt in my mind that the accused was, in fact, guilty.
In this case, I have so much doubt...I personally need to hear Proctor explain his process.
Buchenik is NOT Proctor.
Buchenik can only answer for himself.
He was there.
At the end of the day the defence spent all that valuable time calling a super valuable witness someone elses name and obsessionally referring to someone else actions.
Achieved absolutely zero toward helping his client.
Proctor will be called witness.
NO action Jackson can perform his best circus tricks then.