10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,560
- Reaction score
- 194,971
Surely her Barrister , Attorney, Lawyer , whichever it is , will not allow her to take the stand! What a debacle that would be. He must get a signed waiver from her if she does. And, being Letitia, with such a story and so much more to reveal about herself to us all, and actually believe that people hear her lava flow of irrational and dreary nonsense, over and over again, the mad fantasies, the crazed convictions, the dribbling banality of her backwoods barnyard life, she will fight to the death to get into the stand and finally, finally have an audience that has to listen to her, where she can direct and control and conduct the flow and ebb of rubbish.
People like Letitia love that witness testifying stuff, even if they are the accused, sometimes, particularly if they are the accused. It's like Gangbusters Day for them, they cannot shutup, and everything goes to hell quite quickly. Many a dedicated lawyer has tried to woodshed clients like Letitia.. a losing game. ...
I reckon that judge will give her a long leash should she take the stand, enough to hang herself 10 times over.
And 25 years from now, when she comes up to apply for parole, she will tell the same ludicrous delusionary scenario of being 'raped' and ' frightened' and ' protective' and all that tootle. Said with a straight face and that cockeyed stare. Her story will never change. Not ever. It's concreted in, now.
Oh, I do disagree (respectfully). The way to raise reasonable doubt about her sanity (which is the only issue at trial, IMO) is to put her on the stand and let her be...crazy.
She might "love" to testify, but that alone is damning, IMO. She would talk in circles, make no sense, get agitated and in general look like the average person's notion of "a crazy person."
As you point out, she tells ludicrous, delusionary stories. And all it takes is one juror who looks at that and says, "Ah-yep, she's nuts!"
(She'll still be confined).
Most of us want her to be Guilty as Charged. NGBRI is not a free pass, though. She may insist on testifying as a kind of Swan Song (her defiant behavior yesterday has me thinking she might want to be more involved).
Even the "*advertiser censored*-eyed" stare you mention (I'm not sure exactly what you mean, I don't see anything off about the positioning of her eyes), but I do think most people would think she has "crazy eyes" (meaning, what we think the typical "crazy person" of our nightmares might look like.
So, that would be their Hail Mary, IMO - and also, IMO, it may be the easiest way to convince a couple of jurors that she's insane. Because she talks word salad, and with such vague, cryptic terms, that she sometimes resembles an untreated schizo-form person (IME). I'm not saying she IS insane, and she's certainly not a typical schizophrenic (IMO - although, I'd need more information if I were trying to put her into a mental health study). But there are many quasi-schizoform cases and they defy regular diagnosis. She could be one of them. I think her expert (who will likely testify DID) is not going to help much, as it doesn't seem she has that. But the jury isn't asked to diagnose her.
The jury is asked to decide whether she is insane, not to diagnose her. It's a weird situation, in CO. The prosecution has to prove she's sane. I think it's a difficult ask and they're doing an amazing job, but it's a tight wire act.
IMO.