Thanks for sharing the definitions as per Florida Law. How much does having impairment like being drunk affect the idea of no disregard for human life? I'm not sure it is raised to that level here, but I haven't watched her cross yet.
Respectfully snipped:
I'm not across this case by any means in terms of applicable law, but it's my opinion that the defense cannot have it both ways. Imo they haven't argued that SB was too drunk to know what she was doing, on the contrary, SB's own testimony is that she knew what she was doing when she supposedly "poked" JT's hand back into the suitcase with a baseball bat.
Her testimony ( which the jury is being asked to believe is credible as there are no witnesses and SB did not, suspiciously it seems to me, record this on her phone) is essentially; she sought to eliminate what she claims she experienced as a threat to her life by making sure JT's hand was forced back into the suitcase with a baseball bat after she saw said hand emerge.
Jeez for crying out loud, poor JT. What a joke that SB is trying to say she felt threatened in that moment. Imo she was enacting her revenge fantasy for cheating and past acts of violence and was enjoying the sound of him begging for air. I base this opinion on her documented behaviour both immediately before and after her claimed neutralising of JT as a threat to her life ( ie videos).
According to her testimony, after she forces JT's hand with the bat,
she then begins recording the second video. Here, there is simply no doubt that JT is begging SB to let him out because he cannot breathe. SB ignores this. Her testimony proceeds, in summary, that she felt the threat to her life was neutralized so she went upstairs to bed.Moo
Here's the issue with her credibility imo. In her interview with detectives she claimed she left enough room for his hand so that he could get out of the suitcase, which is a direct contradiction to what she is claiming in her testimony, that she made sure the so called threat to her life was neutralized by using the bat to keep his hand from unzipping the case and getting out.
Regarding drunkenness; yes, she would have been better off arguing she remembered nothing at all about what happened with the suitcase, including making the videos where she taunts him and ignores his pleas to be released from the suitcase. That could have been charged as manslaughter imo. But she does not.
Instead she has testified to remembering that she neutralised this apparent immediate threat to her life which was JT, by using the bat to disable until he was no longer a threat to her, he being secured in the suitcase. If she remembers doing this, then imo it's not credible that she does not remember JT begging her to release him because he CANNOT BREATHE. That is BARD second degree murder according to the statute imo, and the jury has no reason to consider SB's level of drunkenness as mitigating substantive guilt. Jmo
Moo prosecution has the goods and law on their side to prove
BARD SB has committed murder in the second degree. She was of a "depraved mind" when she did so; the direct evidence is in those video recordings made both before and after the so called 'overt act' which the jury has to take SB's word for.
Her credibility imo is totally shot to
by her own testimony. The law is there to hold to account those like SB who break it. Jmo
