Just home from the audience with David. I thought it was good.. but left feeling more frustrated than when I entered. David himself seems like a lovely man, very witty and personable, but I cannot understand how after all this time he’s not even willing to entertain anything other than Michael’s innocence.
I would agree with the previous poster who said he speaks to the audience with the inclination we assume Michael is innocent, and if not he is trying to convince you so.
He argued about the rights of the press to publish the prejudicial stuff from Germany vs Michael’s right to a trial, he said it was a case of amendment vs amendement. He kind of made it seem like it was an issue exclusive to this case, instead of acknowledging its an American justice issue in any event.
I found it interesting that he did not mention the night itself at all. His whole argument was focused on the trial and the injustices he felt present. He did not once mention the night itself, the 9/11 call, what Michael did in the two hours before the call.. nothing.
Also at times it just all felt kind of in bad taste.. I noted that he didn’t even mention Kathleen’s name at all until the second act. There was a lot of attempted jokes and witticisms that kind of fell flat.. I think in the back of your mind it’s hard to erase the fact that a women (possibly two) died at the hands of this man and so it’s just in bad taste to try and be humorous off the back of that.
He didn’t read out my pre-submitted question but I did get a chance at the end to meet him and ask him personally. I just wanted to know why, if the defence argue that Kathleen fell backwards multiple times, why she had a fractured cartilage injury. He kind of fobbed me off and asked me to email him. So I asked him again.. and said it’s an injury consistent with manual strangulation and he deflected and said it’s not only consistent with strangulation it’s often presented in those who have been in car crashes etc.. I said okay but she wasn’t in a car crash.. and he said he had to go... also almost the entire second act was dedicated to the owl theory which David himself says he doesn’t believe to be true but still he insisted on mentioning it. Funny because he spent a lot of time insisting we don’t pay heed to Reddit or speculative theories online; while he himself indulged one of the biggest online conspiracies himself...
If anything it just re-solidified my belief that he is guilty as sin. David is a great defence lawyer and he was doing his job. He treated the town hall like a mini court room, replaying pieces from the doc and arguing against them poking holes etc. But overall i just wasn’t convinced.
So yeah. I enjoyed it but it did have a feel that it was thrown together last minute. There was a moderator there prompting David and instructing him but the moderator seemed kind of bias and selective in his questioning. My bf is quite worried at this stage
He says I’ve graduated from documentaries to podcasts and now to live shows... the next step is the real thing.... watch this space....