Hello; this is my first post here and, I must say, this is a fascinating forum!
I, like many others, don't understand Nancy Grace's reasoning (and the reasoning of a few others on this thread) that motherhood in and of itself is a mitigating circumstance for perjury. This makes it seem as though being a mother is a protected, almost holy status that makes it okay to lie for murderers, as long as you gave birth to one of those said murderers. Isn't it better to stand as a good example for your children--even if they're already on their way to Death Row--rather than unleashing their sociopathy upon society?
During the trial of Charles Manson and his associates, the parents of the Manson girls set what I consider to be examples of proper displays of love for their children. In prior interviews, they all said that they believed their daughters to have grown up as essentially good people, but they didn't attempt to create alibis for them. The young women's attorneys didn't call them to the stand during the trial proper (which was also a DP case) to make excuses and tell lies for their children. The parents only appeared during the penalty phase--appropriately--to plead for their daughters' lives and to talk about how they had been productive citizens prior to meeting Manson. That is the way to conduct yourself as a parent.
When I think of the cost to the state in flying in witnesses to rebut CA's lies and the wasted time and resources, it sickens me. Prosecutors all over the country are being laid off due to dwindling monies for courts, and yet CA thinks nothing of wasting money and creating an unnecessary fiasco through her selfish belief that ICA is a special snowflake who needs her mommy to cover for her.
I've been wondering...if there were a hung jury and ICA had to be retried (knocking on wood that doesn't happen!), could not the SA bring up CA's testimony in this trial, along with the rebuttals by Gentiva, etc. to add strength to the premeditation argument? In other words, couldn't they use all of this computer-related testimony from this trial for the next?