True Crime

the defendant until there is no doubt in my mind, absolutely no doubt. What amazed me on this one is the judge. I am not surprised there are so many sidebars since she is the antithesis of an activist - Repukes must love her. She says virtually nothing. There were so many times I could not believe she didn't cut off the endless, endless sexual details that seemed to have absolutely zero relevance.

I put myself in the position of Jodi and the defense. I think it is interesting to think about how they must have developed a defense from the end backwards. I imagine them saying, "ok...you did it, you admit it, and you did it was an absolute vengeance. Now, we have to come up with the why. And it really can't be that he spurned you or you were jealous that he was taking someone else to Cancun."

How do you think it went from there? They obviously decided on having him be a pervert and a batterer. Then they had to make everything that happened in their relationship lead (or sound to lead) toward pervert and batterer. Problem was, it didn't all fit neatly. There were all those words written and tapes and texts. Funny how the alibi of seeing that guy in St Lake City actually hurt her in the end because she wasn't beat up. If she had first automatically assumed the would have gotten caught, she could have played everything completely differently.

This is weird, but from a female perspective, the guy, although not a batterer, was an asshole to her. He used her. Too bad she didn't get vengeance in another way besides murder.