"Who says they have to agree? If we put it out there in court and they try to double back then people will still think it. And that's all that matters. We plant the seed of doubt. No one in their right mind would admit to that sort of thing in court - it's almost more believable if they deny it." He usually just threw things out in court and saw how the client went along with it before he made decisions. He never bothered 'prepping' clients before.

"If there's a queer in the jury, he'll feel it's relatable. Chicks are always full of empathy for weirdos and men would soon believe a guy is hiding he's homo than hiding he's an assassin." Honestly, it seemed fool proof. "The problem with you is that you overthink it with all your 'proof' and 'facts' but anything can be fact if you make it fact."