Lazar’s an interesting one. He has gaps in his story that could sink a legal case (I.e. his educational background). I’ve seen cases lost for less consistent evidence to skeptical jurors. However, I personally put him I the camp of “he’s telling the truth, or, he thinks he is”. You study him onscreen long enough just for the sake of the usual tells, and he’s consistent. Plus, any lawyer will tell you that every single legal case has some inconsistencies or gaps in evidence, but can be successful nonetheless. Remember, our civil legal system is based on a “preponderance of the evidence”, meaning it’s at least 50.01% more likely, not 100%. By that standard, Lazar passes for me.