It's great to feel so welcome by this sarcastic comment and many others "liking" the sarcastic attack on my original comment. I must have missed that portion of her testimony yesterday, since that was the entire scope of my original comment. I didn't hear JA make any references to any of those things in her testimony yesterday. Guess I will go back to not commenting on a site that clearly isn't as receptive as I thought to different perspectives. Good luck.
hey there...I'm only reading every couple of hundred posts, sorry I missed something.
As you can tell by my user name, I'm big on waiting for all the evidence.
I've taken some crap for it, but that's who I am.
I'm much more of a trial addict than a sleuth and I'm a huge fan of different perspectives.
The trial process and what juries can and cannot see and may and may not take into consideration are fascinating to me.
I figure every opinion can be represented by the jury.
The last thread I absolutely kept up on without fail was the Mickey Shunick thread(s). That moved so fast that I started reading from the last post backwards when I had a chance to check in.
This is how I see this case thus far:
I don't hate JA. I'm often the last one who reaches the conclusion that an accused is guilty.
There's a difference between
believing someone is guilty and seeing them
proven guilty. Many times, I may personally believe that the accused is, indeed, guilty, but the evidence fails to firmly establish their guilt. Sometimes I'm glad of that because it means if I drop a rooted hair on the floor of a convenience store where two hours later someone is murdered and breathes their final breath with that hair clutched in their hand, I might not be convicted!
In this case, the accused has such an extensive, publicly documented history of fanciful lying that I can't imagine her rambling testimony is helpful in any way, save avoidance of the death chamber.
Abuse is subjective. I haven't heard anything that I'd
personally label as unbearable - or even especially unusual - abuse, based upon my own childhood and subsequently having raised two children. I've also been in physical fear of a man. Many, many women have.
If there are jurors who share life experience similar to mine, they're going to have a tough time making the leap from wooden spoon spankings and being grounded to fantastically savage overkill, in my opinion.
When you frame the current rambling testimony in the context of well and properly documented lies, it becomes an even further stretch that every juror buys this defense theory.
If there are 2 people on the jury that have been spanked, grounded, moved around a lot as a child, had an @$$hole boyfriend that they left, even been struck or manipulated or verbally abused by a lover.......then driving a great distance to get to, have sex with and subsequently brutalize a wet, naked man is going to be terribly difficult to mitigate, in my opinion.
The apparently maniacal savagery is inexplicable, in my opinion.
But I haven't heard the entire defense case...