Twistinginthewind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,442
- Reaction score
- 19,091
I hear you @afitzy, I haven't been keeping up with this case for the last month or two, you have, and thank you so much!! I'm sure there's much more to it than the eye can see, and your hinky meter is right on.IDK. I see what you are saying here but IMO MT wasn't a compelling liar. She is a piss poor liar. You know when you see a master liar in action and its total brilliance and they are total TEFLON? MT was not a compelling liar on this level at all. MT seems to be the kind of liar that creates more problems for herself than possibly telling the truth might have created! Why didn't she just say (or her atty say) that she wouldn't speak to LE. Does Atty Bowman really think what MT did in AW3 represented 'cooperation' on the level that it should get consideration in court down the line? I hope not!
As we have endlessly discussed here, MT is NOT a defendant that juries will think highly of to begin with and then you toss on these comments from AW3 that make no sense and it all just seems a recipe for a defense atty's nightmare. Can you imagine how these MT comments in AW3 will play out in court on recycle and how in the world will juries even understand what she meant?
I just hope EE is a credible witness as he might be the only way to understand what all happened at 4Jx and 80 MS on the disappearance date as good luck figuring out anything from MT pitiful testimony.
IDK. All I can think of is that one Press shot of Atty Colangelo we saw after the 8/13 meeting with MT where he looked harassed and simply fed up and hot an aggravated. Now, reading this MT testimony in AW3 I can understand why he looked like he did if he had to spend hours listening to this word salad that makes little sense in any language.
I'm saying this from the perspective of wanting to make sure she has adequate representation and so doesn't have that 'out' available to her down the line. I really wonder what the Atty Bowman plan is for MT defense as based on what we see in AW3, I'm confused as to what he is thinking.....
MOO
I am only listening to my gut that MT's defense is headed in the direction of her being:
- under FD's thrall
- an addled addict with mental health issues who doesn't really 'know wrong from right', just goes along with what her latest meal ticket says & does
- a jealous mistress wishing to usurp her paramour's wife & gain access to her financial & parental rights & status and live 'the good life' / American Dream
- a fish out of water (non-native) who tried with her practiced feminine wiles to be part of a new scheme in a tony US enclave with her new honey living the good life, but couldn't really piss with the big boys
- a victim of circumstances beyond her control
But primarily I think she is leaning on her defense as being under FD's thrall, and being swept along without really knowing what he was up to. Like all the other women who didn't do the deed themselves, but helped their paramour do it & cover it up for selfish and nefarious purposes.
She's just as guilty as FD is with her complicity, but he may have convinced her that he would make sure they weren't caught (no body, no charges) and he would take the bullet in the unlikely event that they were caught, and she should just play dumb...
MOO