And I can get there easier when it is a perjury case or a debate about affair. But when it comes to murder, putting someone in prison or to death for murdering some one, That you have to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt..
That is not what this is doing for me.
Well, I was under the impression that we were specifically talking about the affair.
The murder is trickier but for me, I don't know how else to explain it. Andrea was vehement that she found out at the hospital, yet on the way to the daycare she informed two people that Rusty was shot and called her family and Rusty's family when the extent of the info she was supposed to have at that time was "something bad happened." All this after calling Hemy four times. Then she arrives at the school acting like a lunatic. Again, with very limited info.
Now she has a friend that is willing to poke some holes for her and I suppose the defense opened it up to the possibility that Andrea found out before the hospital. It still doesn't explain her testimony. Or her actions. Let's assume the defense made a point.
She finds out on the phone. She arrives at the school and collapses in an officer's arms.
Then she finds out inside and slides out of her chair.
Then she finds out again at the hospital and she slides out of her chair again.
All that falling and grandstanding and each time she finds out she acts like it's new info. That's assuming she did find out before then, which she says she didn't. Her friend who testifed that she was told that Andrea found out at the daycare had previously said Andrea confided in her that she found out at the hospital. Did she suddently remember that important bit of info?
When police arrived to search her home, the Sneiderman's wanted to let them in. Andrea refused as did her parents. Who does that if they don't have anything to hide in the wake of her husband's murder.
It's a puzzle. And I never said that points to her being definitively complicit in the murder. But what other conclusion is there?