It is only my opinion, based on watching her in trial, watching interviews after verdicts and other interviews about her work in general.
I cant quote her exact words without rewatching her video but it was something to the effect of her “working for the process, not the client” which seemed true when watching her. She seemed to be someone who wont allow speculation to translate into fact, and she goes out of her way to prove it. She attacks evidence. Maybe thats why shes so good.?
IDK, you have to form your own opinion, I just feel like her goal is to show how the legal system should work, despite public opinion.
This case…seems like a lost cause too but when you hear she will be his defence, it feels like the ground starts to shake a little.

I have no idea how she got on to this case, or what she plans to do with it. Thats the part I cant wait to hear.