But wait -- McClintic is a deeply troubled person who was, even if her evidence is fully accepted, taking serious drugs throughout all material times. Is she telling the truth? Does she even know what happened? Does she have a reason to lie?
A witness is credible or not in large part based on whether the evidence makes sense and whether there is material that corroborates it. Are there other witnesses placing McClintic there? Was any of the discarded clothing found?
McClintic's story is extraordinary; it needs solid proof to be accepted.
It may be that McClintic is telling the truth and a conviction will follow but before convicting look closely at the evidence and see what the accused says:
4 comments:
Yes, Morton, it would be truly troubling to be a juror in this case. What if her contention of the accused role is a fantasy on her part or is a guilt-ridden creation to make it seem as though she was not acting alone etc.?
I would hate to have to make that determination because there is a lot of emotion wrapped up in such testimony and as a juror you would want to believe it (I think) because it somehow makes the events seem to make more sense - ie. one disturbed person feeding off another and going to lengths that one alone might not go.
I don't think she killed that little girl. Her boy-friend did it. You can see how much control he has over her. She said it herself, she's willing to take the fall for him.
HE DID IT....she is covering for him.
Bottom line, Tori is dead, evidence of both of their participation is vast and neither of them need to be out and about in regular society at all. In fact as a mother of two little girls I for once would like to re-examine the death penalty for Canada.
Post a Comment