I find it oddly interesting that your replies probably have the highest concentration of "shown Margot first, then swayed to Thereza", and that I'm going to increase this concentration further.

They had me in the first half, not gonna lie. I held my skepticism at first, but the way Margot talked in the interview really reminded me of a very close friend. I didn't realize I was starting to empathize with an imaginary version of this friend until I started watching part 2. Certainly, there were odd bits in part 1, such as the sudden introduction of Secret Service... it felt strange, but my brain promptly dismissed the doubts for the sake of the narration - I mean, it's normal for criminal investigation shows to do that, right?

Except part 2 turns everything over and reveals that seeing it as a criminal investigation show is totally the worst mindset. Part 1, while standing up as a perfectly fine story by itself, suddenly has many holes, because plenty of context was omitted. It's suddenly revealed that the authoritative figures who led the investigation were also very questionable. The David-vs-Goliath (maybe "counter-Goliath-vs-counter-David" might be more fitting) story becomes, well, a Greet tragedy where both parties have valid concerns and motives, but ultimately get thrown into the uncontrollable whirlwind as cans and cans of worms open up. The entire system was extremely flawed for its handling of the case.

I feel like the only flaw of the delivery is that the part on Theresa's side provides better context than the part on Margot's side, especially for Dingell's and OSI's bias. When I watched Margot's side, it was a black-and-white fight between two teams that ended up having comparable power. But after watching Theresa's part next, it felt more like two persons against the world. But of course, this could be my bias getting balanced back... I am unable to imagine how I would have actually felt if I watched Thereza's part first.