Thanks Mrs. G. This is one wordy journalist. What I take away from her article is that she obviously opposes our justice system and our freedom of speech, and that's she's a stout defendant advocate and sympathizer, regardless of the crime committed. Of course she's entitled to her opinion, but I think she may be outvoted.
So some of the less deadly wounds that Travis suffered were technically "superficial". Why, because she hit bone? Well, the wounds that killed him were in no way superficial, such as the near decapitating slash to his throat. So what is her point, that the "superficial" wounds were a mere accident and result of anatomy? And a failure on CMJA's part in her attempts to take Travis' life. Ok. :scared:
And to the crux of the issue, what does any of this author's whining pity and complaining about the trial, have to do with the vicious and violent nature of this crime. She just goes on, and on, and on, and on. :scared: I just couldn't continue reading, she lost me somewhere in her vitriolic rampage. It would have been equivalent to subjecting myself to a whining, spoiled brat having a temper tantrum.
This journalist is always going to side with the defendant, regardless of how heinous the crime, imo. Her issue seems to be that she believes that televising and making the trial public compromises and makes it more difficult for the defendant to get away with murder. Imo, she doesn't understand the principle of accountability, i.e., justice. She doesn't understand that it has nothing to do with being placating, indulgent, enabling, or empowering the murderer. It has to do with empowering the victim and their family. And, about protecting our society from people like Jodi Arias. That's justice. :moo: