Maybe a more academic writing would be beneficial: I think the "more academic" phrase is
meant to hurt my feelings and it has. Please don't compare my writing. I'm doing my best.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hearst/hearstdolaccount.html
Why, then, did Bailey opt for the brainwashing theory? One reason is because that was the theory that Hearst's parents wanted him to use--and they were paying for his defense. Randolph and Catherine Hearst seemed unwilling to accept that their daughter would voluntarily choose to become an SLA member. Another reason might have been Bailey's fear that arguing in this case that Hearst's voluntary conversion came after the Hibernia robbery would expose her to a future prosecution for her shooting outside Mel's Sporting Goods store a month after the bank robbery. Bailey also had a psychiatrist ready to testify that Patty "was not responsible for her actions" and felt confident of his own ability to sway jurors on the brainwashing theory. Finally, it is possible that Bailey's holding book rights to the Patty Hearst story influenced his decision; brainwashing, it might be assumed, would make for a good story line and boost his recently sagging criminal practice.
The decision to go with the brainwashing theory meant that Hearst would have to take the stand to describe in some detail how the brainwashing took place. Unfortunately for her case, the jurors didn't believe a lot of what they heard from her. For example, after Hearst described being "raped" by SLA member William Wolfe (or "Cujo") and telling jurors "I hated him," the prosecution produced the love trinket, the so-called Olmec monkey, found in her purse after arrest, that Wolfe had given her. Asked to explain why she would keep a gift in her purse from a rapist that she hated, Hearst answered lamely that she "like art" and took classes in art history. If the love trinket wasn't enough to explain, there was also Patty's own words in her June 7 communique, in which she called Cujo "the gentlest, most beautiful man I've ever known." In his cross-examination of Hearst, Browning repeatedly turned to the defendant's own writings, in the form of the "Tania Interview" (personal reflections written during Patty's so-called "missing year" with the SLA), to undercut her testimony that she was something other than an enthusiastic radical.[/QU
Thanx for your link. I provided a link several posts back which I hope you read because it clarifies my opinions. I definitely agree that Patty Hearst showed real inconsistencies, but again my whole point is that she wouldn't have been "Tania" if she hadn't been kidnapped. I think Patty Hearst did join the SLA but the kidnapping diminished some (not all) of her guilt. There is a timeline with Patty. Before the kidnapping she never mentioned the SLA, during the kidnapping she was Tania and very supportive of the SLA, and after she was renouncing her "Tania" statements. You are very correct that the Hearsts were worried about Bailey's defense and his plans to write a book Obviously the jury didn't buy the brainwashing defense theory either. Some people felt Patty was a spoiled heiress and should be punished.
I do know that the Kathleen Soliah took part in murderer, attempted bombing, and bankrobbery. Kathleen Soliah was running with the SLA of her own accord and was involved in attempted bombing of a police car. She was very lucky because if she had killed all those police officers she never would have seen the light of day. KS disappeared when the police were closing in. Patti Hearst was a small part of this saga, but obviously people still remember her part in it. KS was with Patty "Tania" during her time in SF and really KS knew most of the SLA's terrible secrets. KS was a violent terrorist who needs to recognize and accept her responsibility. I think as a poster on this thread I'm going to stay with the topic of Kathleen Soliah who is in the news now. Enough of Patty Hearst.
