drama_farmer
Central Kentucky (Bluegrass)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2016
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 11,662
bbm
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
For not just S.A. but the parents as well.
The lawyer had said the parents could sue for an (paraphrased) 'unlimited amount'.
From the swiftness of the lawsuit -- it appeared that the child's parents and grandparent (SA) were very focused on reaping the rewards of a successful lawsuit.
Who knows why the other set of grands have been silent, but it's possible they were threatened to have money withheld if the lawsuit was successful -- if they spoke against SA or the parents.
Chloe was their grandchild as well.
It's surprising that the local LE in Chloe's father's (Alan Wiegand) police jurisdiction were so supportive of this lawsuit.
LE are by the nature of their job a nosy bunch of people.
They must know by now that this did not happen the way Kimberly Wiegand and S.A. said it did ?
Imo.
I think it's a combination of confirmation bias and psychological denial. If you KNOW that "he" would never do such a thing, that belief effects the way you view the video evidence. This happens in all walks of life/professions, imo.
There's also the power of suggestion. One powerful example of that is when you hear a clip of audio that is difficult to decipher. Then, you see some words on screen or in a transcript. Suddenly, the words in the audio are indisputable!
Maybe the passage of time or being confronted with an alternative narrative/reality will cause his supporters to see things from another perspective. Jmo