It’s probably because when they ask him to take the drugs by force or choice he said to give him the drugs. I mean he said they have a video of him being there so they can see the other parts where he’s in and out that he doesn’t remember and they could’ve been feeding him more. Also he tends to enjoy more extreme stuff so probably in a drugged out state he could look like he was enjoying it. But the video should also defend him because they beat him up and forced the drugs in but you don’t know what the videos are like to match. My only thing is that the investigation wasn’t being recorded when ml came in and he was hurt so they can clearly tell he was assaulted but so were the other drug addicts. Asking why make him watch the video meaning it was bad and you can see him getting messed up.
I mean it makes sense the video is from the last seen as they said they found more on site and there was a screen on so it’s obviously from that.
The video is also (probably) against MC. Why? He mentions the "video" numerous of times as an alibi but we (the audience) do not know the context of the video or where the location is. The prosecutor and investigators seen it yet still ask the same questions. Why?
Because the video doesn't line up with MC. If MC is innocent, then they would've let him go since the video is aligned with his statement (or lack there of). Even ML is asking the same questions and he (kind of) know MC personally.
ML has seen uncomfortable things as well as done uncomfortable things, but maybe this was something that was beyond his level of comfort. What I got from the writing, we the audience would have been given context if that were the case, but we weren't. Obviously, we know he's the victim but that's because we followed him. Also, does anyone remember a camera during that? Yeah it was WHEN he walked in willingly