fran
Former Member
I think she testified that her mother said that at age 22 she would have the mind of a 2 year old. I realize that she is older now, but if that really is the case she may not have completely understood what she was doing - or understood the depth of what she was doing as a witness in a murder case.
I could be way off base, but if I'm not then it seems like it is sort of unethical for the prosecutors to use her this way. I didn't see her testimony in the first trial but watched it this time and felt bad that the prosecutors were putting her through this. Technically she is an adult, but if she has the mind of a small child...small children don't testify in court for a reason.
Or is that just the job of the jury to sort out how much weight they will give the testimony?
In the end a man's life is on the line and her testimony is a key part of what the prosecution is using to try to put him away for life.
Well, either her mom knows some really, really, really BRILLIANT two year olds, or she's wrong and Gracie is smarter than a two year old.
I have some pretty bright kids, and I thought they did well knowing how to hold complete conversations and alphabet and begin to read at two. I don't think they could have used a cash register though. Or count back money, or know to turn the gas pump auto off outside, so that they'd have to come in and pay BEFORE paying. I'm pretty sure by 2, they didn't know that someone could possibly take off without paying.
I doubt her testimony will be the 'hook' of any of the jurors. But it might be a good chunk of the puzzle that HELPS, tie the other pieces together.
JMHO
fran