People in the house needed a scapegoat and she became the obvious and perfect one, unfortunately by asking in front of first responders and JMc if she hit him and so on
While still of a dissenting opinion, I agree that hysterical utterance "oh I hit him" or "did I hit him?", however it was phrased, is not the proof of guilt per se. Admission itself is not always the proof of guilt. Andrey Vyshinsky, Soviet jurist and the prosecutor at Moscow show trials, has formulated a phrase, "confession of the accused is the queen of evidence"." As we know how confessions were obtained in Stalin's times, i am against usinng this principle, and while KR's situation is very different, I don't think we have to much rely on confession. Now, I am skeptical about all such cases, there are false confessions, there are forced confessions, what not. I had to unfollow some other cases, e.g., the Delphi one, because they rely too much on individual confession, IMO. However, coming back to KR's situation, I have a question:
If we remove her "statement", be it "did I hit him?" or "I hit him", whatever way it was reported, because I intend to disregard it out of own principles,
What stays as a proof of her guilt/innocence?
(Just imagine she didn't say it and just called two women in the morning with her concerns because JO wasn't at home. Everything else stays, but she didn't say these words - what would be a strong indicator of her guilt?)