The hero's loss all the way before his son speaks is helpless. Because the male protagonist doesn’t know what his son will say, he can only create some conditions for the male protagonist’s domestic violence while revealing the least information.
It is true that Alexander (the neighbor’s child) had a leg with the deceased’s wife. The movie gave three shots of two people together: In the first shot, after Alexander's testimony, the male lead took the deceased’s wife and spoke very close to him. In the second scene, before the jury announced the results, the male lead called the deceased's wife, and the back of the deceased's wife was also Alexander. In the third scene, when the son questioned the protagonist, the protagonist said that the deceased had been destroying his wife. The protagonist knew it, and so did Alexander.
These three clues prove that Alexander and the wife of the deceased are very close. Therefore, the testimony of the wife of the deceased’s domestic violence is false, and the son will finally ask before the jury result is announced: Did my father really beat you?
The male protagonist repeatedly confirmed whether there was evidence of the third suspect when questioning the police and forensic doctors, in order to use their confessions to press the death fait accompli to protect himself. That’s why the black girl discussed with the male protagonist that night and asked the male protagonist why he didn’t ask the police for not investigating the third suspect. The male protagonist said that he did not want to humiliate the police in front of the jury.
In the first half of the game, the male protagonist has been using passive work and the police method to kill him without a third suspect. It was an accident that his son appeared at the crime scene and was immediately taken away by the police. So the male protagonist Neither the deceased’s wife nor the deceased’s wife knew what the son would say.
The male protagonist had been unwilling to speak before his son announced that he was a witness, especially the sitting posture of the male protagonist before his son came to the stage was different. The wife of the deceased didn't know what her son would say, so she panicked.
The son didn't say anything at first because he had been thinking about the course of the matter and he also had the ability of a lawyer. He wanted to see the course of the event based on the testimony and then adopt a strategy. So nothing said
The son cares about Reed University very much and is dissatisfied with the deceased in this matter. Including the flight attendants who wrote the word Reed on the paper when they changed their schedule and did not go to Reed University.
The deceased humiliated his wife and neighbors because the deceased knew that his wife was a wasteful man, and probably knew that his wife had an affair with the neighbor’s son, so he angered the neighbor. According to the reaction of the deceased, the deceased probably did not know that the male lead also had a leg with his wife. Otherwise, the deceased would not go to the male lead to tell the male lead that he had discovered that his wife had an affair. (The deceased has a good relationship with the male protagonist. The male protagonist was brought out from the trainee lawyer by the deceased little by little)
The above is the clue. The biggest bug in the show is the watch: when the male protagonist wears a sweater and gloves when he kills, why would he still drop his watch? And the watch is not used by the deceased's wife to frame the male protagonist. The evidence is that the deceased’s wife picked up the watch by talking to her son, and then immediately returned it to the male protagonist (there is a flashing shot). This is the biggest bug in the whole article, which directly reduces the rigor of the whole film
View more about The Whole Truth reviews
