How does Meursault's lawyer twist his testimony?

Meursault's lawyer, upon meeting him, is a bit horrified at Meursault's apparent lack of emotion, insight and instinct for self-preservation. Meursault seems not to be aware, nor to care, that his dispassionate attitude and absence of self-analysis will be held against him during the trial, particularly in regards to his mother. While from a purely empirical perspective, Meursault is correct in arguing that his behavior regarding his mother's death has nothing to do with his...

Meursault's lawyer, upon meeting him, is a bit horrified at Meursault's apparent lack of emotion, insight and instinct for self-preservation. Meursault seems not to be aware, nor to care, that his dispassionate attitude and absence of self-analysis will be held against him during the trial, particularly in regards to his mother. While from a purely empirical perspective, Meursault is correct in arguing that his behavior regarding his mother's death has nothing to do with his murder of the Arab, he doesn't consider that the lack of affect in one area suggests his lack of morals in another.  

Naturally, Meursault's lawyer has no intention of allowing Meursault to casually argue himself into a conviction, so he does what he can to manipulate Meursault's statements, as well as those of the witnesses, in order to portray Meursault as a normal person to the extent that he can. Unfortunately the lawyer is portrayed as something of a fool, and a reactionary one at that. Rather than taking hold of the testimony or trial and steering it toward more defensible matters, such as returning the attention to the crime rather than Meursault's mother, or arguing for Meursault shooting the Arab in self-defense, instead the lawyer plays along with the prosecutor's line of attack, pleading extenuating circumstances on Meursault's behalf and proclaiming that he is suffering from "eternal regret". This is clearly not so because Meursault has told us in a variety of ways that not only does he not regret the murder, he hasn't even given it the consideration of a moral or emotional response. It simply occurred, it is now in the past, and he is more interested in "what comes next", as he always has been. 

In fact, the lawyer does very little to twist the actual testimony in any direction; rather, it is the prosecutor who does this, particular with Marie's testimony, driving her to tears for making it seem that Meursault was indulging in hedonism when he should have been mourning his mother.