Routinely or not, they were apparently strewn around the house. That makes her story sound just a little bit less ridiculous, does it not?
Originally Posted by Doove
Unless of course, she threw them in a pathetic attempt to create an alibi.
I mean, why would he throw them at her? Are we supposed to believe he was trying to give her a weapon? If he wanted to kill her, he would have grabbed one and stabbed her.
Her whole story makes no sense. Something the jury probably concluded as well.
Fair point, but i would argue that the similarity i used in making my point is actually in her favor. In her case, the victim is on record as admitting that he started the fight.
Originally Posted by Doove
True, but that may weigh in his favor. Admitting fault tends to make your story more believable, not less.
And, a claim of self defense is not predicated on who started it. It requires that you have no option but to kill to protect yourself. If she went to the kitchen to get knives, she could simply have left the house.
Also, if her story was true - that he threw a bunch of knives at her - then his fingerprints would be all over the knives. I think it is fair to imply from her conviction that that part of her story wasn't backed up by fingerprint evidence either. Surely the article would have mentioned it?
Who?
Originally Posted by Doove
This post:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=23