Respectfully, the defense attorneys are not going to waltz into the courtroom, throw their hands up and declare their clients guilty, they are going to put on a defense, and in a high profile case, it's going to be a doozie.
The jury will ultimately decide based on facts, circumstantial evidence, the Prosecution's alleged motive, and a theory by the accused's defense team.
Are we not curious what the
defense will use to try and "justify" the actions that are detailed in the DA's charges, and what will not be considered evidence at all?
Speaking for myself, presenting possible defense scenarios, in an effort to anticipate what the Turpin's attorneys may interject to possibly cause reasonable "
doubt", is hardly justifying child abuse.
As a matter of fact, I share (eerily) much in common with these survivors and I can assure you there is no justification in my mind or heart for any form of child abuse. I have spent most of my life searching for a good excuse because my abuser died before I could find the courage to ask him why, and the other parent has offered little. I have found only one halfway justified excuse, the 1999 case of
Betty Topper. Brain damage.
I have been on this forum for many years and have never so much as hinted at my story because I am a very private person and, IMO, it has no place on another victim's thread. I only now mention it because I would ask people to please consider this before harshly judging someone's words and/or intent...they might be victims too.