Oh, just from the little I've seen on Thurs. and Fri. I get that not directly answering question bit. I'm sure she's a past master at doing that on her own but no doubt her lawyer's had her keep it up as it seemed to frustrate the prosecutor so that Wednesday, was it? I didn't watch any of the trial that day but after it went off, the lawyers on TV were saying that she really had him going with her obfuscations and half-answers and quips. I'd be too afraid the jury would get angry at me, if I were a defendant and did that. That can be infuriating and one has to wonder why in the heck the tap-dance is necessary when a little two-step would suffice. I think she may be digging her own hole with that way of behavior at it is sooooo obvious she doesn't want to honestly answer the question. Tells you volumes about her and her "story" of what happened. It's also a tried 'n true time-buying device that we all recognize for what it is. Unless they are gullible, no jury should allow a defendant to get by with that if they are trying to in any way to side with her that this was a defensive killing. If I had someone I kind of felt sorry for and they used that technique time after time, I think I would turn on them and wonder what they were working so hard to hide and rethink my feelings for them. So she is taking a real chance. May be cute and clever to her and the defense and TV analysts and infuriate the prosecutor, but it could incite that jury to give her a little extra time or find on a harsher count even if they don't think she planned to kill him. She's so busy playing the game of one-upsmanship, she forgets to play the victim most of the time.
Remember how well Mary Winkler did it? She should have taken lessons from her trial.
__________________  Jeanie and Tibbe One must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. C. S. Lewis |