I saw an interview outside the courthouse with Wilma where she was asked if she believed that 281129 was a victim of domestic violence. The article with it had quotes from the media and Wilma. I cannot find the article.
Her answer was something like 'I believe 281129 was involved in a domestic violence relationship'.
My first thought was "yes she was, and she was the perpetrator!"
I thought this was a good example of how sleezy lawyers twist their words around to make it seem like they answered you while keeping their client in a possitive light.
She also stated that 'we never said that Travis was a pedophile'. Did she really never say he was? How about Nurmi? Or did they just use their hired guns to get that out there? Perhaps I am thinking of a sidebar or motion that was being argued without the jury present?
Her answer was something like 'I believe 281129 was involved in a domestic violence relationship'.
My first thought was "yes she was, and she was the perpetrator!"
I thought this was a good example of how sleezy lawyers twist their words around to make it seem like they answered you while keeping their client in a possitive light.
She also stated that 'we never said that Travis was a pedophile'. Did she really never say he was? How about Nurmi? Or did they just use their hired guns to get that out there? Perhaps I am thinking of a sidebar or motion that was being argued without the jury present?