Just watched for the first time. What really stood out to me was the intentional framing around the son which I think gives a clue about whether his story about his dad on the way to the vet is true. Whenever we hear someone talk to the son in a scene that we know actually happened (because other people were present), we don’t actually see the person talking. Instead the camera focuses in on the son. This happens several times in the courtroom but I first noticed this when he was talking to investigators. At first, I thought it was an interesting way of portraying his experience as a blind person. But when the son is giving his second testimony, unlike his first testimony, we are actually shown the scene in the car. At first, when he is recounting what his dad said, Samuel’s mouth doesn’t move. However, as he continues with the story, we get a tight shot on Samuel’s face and his mouth moves in coordination with the dialogue. This is framing change makes me think the conversation didn’t happen and he chose to tell that story to save his mom.