MDLR's role was a mystery, and remains so when trying to match her actions to her title. By examining her actions alone, it may be possible to connect them in the end to her title in a roundabout and indirect way.
Her role in the courtroom seemed to be that of Jodi's 'buddy' ; drawing to her side like a magnet at every opportunity, whispering, smiling, joking; presenting to the public the image of friend, there to lend support, implying an understanding and insight into a positive side to Jodi's character not obvious to anyone else and not necessarily presented as evidence at the trial, or if it was, as the demonstration of a concrete example of same.
That's the only sense I can connect her behavior to her title: as a conveyor of the message "Hey, if I can like her, so can you."
Manipulative and staged, but they say a stage is an appropriate metaphor for a courtroom.
I found her totally artificial. I would go as far to say, I personally felt her
wardrobe style is also an effort to deflect from her less than professional motivations. You may be onto her, yet she's prepared her
image for response. She's a 'specialist,' after all. It's the 'ol "Who, me?" card.
I remember when the rap artist, Chris Brown did an interview after his offense, the guy went on CNN for an interview with the most Urkel-ish outfit he could don. Manipulative.
OT: A few posts back I stated the county called me up for jury service. I was just a tad uneasy about this whole juror selection. I've always felt interrogative about the defense side - it's my nature, even long ago when I was called in for a criminal trial. This time it was a 'simple' insurance case. Passenger suing the driver for injury(?) sustained. It's so silly of them to presume that my innocent(?) self couldn't
be more inept to serve. I felt somewhat bad for the attorney, she smiles and presumes I'm a shoo-in. I then unforeseeably respond with a "Well, I *may* find the passenger entitled to *some* compensation, even if fault be proved, I would want to ask some further questions as to the nature of the incident. Perhaps the passenger initiated some distraction or juvenile behavior the driver ordinarily would have been wise to. Did he/she also suffer injuries? Independent of the situation, I believe in a cap to the compensation..."
I mean, I think she was expecting a "Sure, why yes, of course, shell out the the $$$ for the poor schleb!" ? I'm sorry, but my bestest pal is actually a paralegal who sees these injury and insurance cases ALL the time. So we know what most of these people are after, despite fault/length of relationship, etc etc.
Just thought I'd share. I wonder if websleuths has also influenced me in some way... :thinking: