Ditto for me, Nan. That's what I got, too.
Oh, and Ann, you have every right to dislike Connie and Blair, but I don't think they automatically accepted that what he had done was the right thing, but since they were hired to defend him, they had to look at it a certain way. He told them to work for justice, but to do their job competently, they had to assume the standpoint that he was innocent and try to prove their case for it, because they had to balance out the prosecution trying to do the opposite. Regardless of their personal beliefs, it became their job to present him as innocent and they have to think that way to do their job best.
This is the reason why, morally, I could never be a defense lawyer. Sooner or later, you're going to be asked to represent someone who IS guilty, but because of the way the American justice system is set up, (which I believe is necessary to ensure that the innocent are not falsely imprisoned), your job as a defense lawyer is to represent him the best you can and force the prosecution to convince the jury that your client did it. If they can't, the defendant goes free. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. It isn't always pretty, especially when evidence turns up after the trial, proving the guilt of the defendant. It comes down to which evil you consider to be more tolerable, guilty men and women going free or innocent men and women being falsely imprisoned, and the American justice system chose the former.
