Haha, seeing as this seems to be applicable to something I just posted, I'll attempt to answer it. I said in an earlier thread that it doesn't necessarily help her case, or absolve her of any wrongdoing if she was in fact involved - but their relationship is a huge part of the case and who they are as individuals, and in that aspect I find it extremely interesting and relevant when discussing the case. I find it important that they first became involved when Shauna was only 14 and NM was considerably older, especially considering the power imbalances that are already inherent in a relationship between a man and a woman. I think that the fact that NM was attracted to SH at such a young, vulnerable age (no matter how 'adult' she may have presented) and started a relationship with her says a lot about him as a person, rather than her. Honestly, I find it so hard to think of a reason as to why a grown man would want to be in a relationship with a young teenager, unless it was because he believed that the teenager would be easier to subdue and 'mould' to his liking.
I would not say that those of us that believe SH's behaviour in court etc may be a result of her being in a controlling, potentially abusive relationship are being 'led down the rabbit hole'. I just think that if the relationship is abusive and controlling, which we have had witnesses attest to, then it explains a lot of SH's behaviours before, during, and after RW's murder. It does not make her innocent. It does not mean that she does not know more than she is letting on. But it explains, to me, why she would choose to claim 100% innocence, and why she would act the way she has done throughout the trial, rather than admitting to some involvement in the crime (which we actually do not have any concrete proof of, as of yet).
In my opinion, if SH has been controlled and abused, then it means everything in terms of how this case should be resolved. She has been in this relationship since she was a child - even now, she is only 21. It means that all of her reactions and behaviours have been directly impacted by living in an unhealthy, controlling environment - it means that NM's hold over her is potentially so great that actually, yes, it has greatly impacted her ability to react 'properly' to a situation as heinous as this. I don't know how else to word it. I could turn out to be totally incorrect - maybe I have been sucked in by SH's ability to lie fantastically and play the role of the subdued, abused woman. But if that is the case, and it turns out that she's the guilty mastermind, then I'll still feel completely secure with my decision to give her the benefit of the doubt and see her as a victim - because to me, at the moment, nothing has proved otherwise.
I too am interested in hearing more about their relationship - hopefully we get to hear more throughout the trial.
