Discretion is advice.

This is a minute-mur.

Every court case has two sides to it.

Every court case has two sides to it.

Obviously, one is right and the other is wrong, supposedly, or hopefully.

What about those cases where there's enough evidence to lead you to believe that a crime did happen as stated,

yet the defense was not capable of providing an adequate

defense to acquit his or her client on the grounds of self-defense or battered women's syndrome

or temporary insanity, something like that, even though there was more than an adequate amount

of evidence proving that any one of those options could have been the case.

How does a lawyer go about proving that there are extenuating circumstances behind a murder?

Especially one in which the suspect has been examined and psychologically tested and found to be suffering from battered women's syndrome as well as post-traumatic stress disorder?

The story we're talking about today is the case of a woman who stabbed her husband

193 times, broke the tip off of a knife in his skull, and she tried to cover up the crime

for a week. It's a virtually impossible task for the defense. While being examined at a hospital by a psychologist,

Susan Wright admitted she knew her husband was dead. Yet she had also stated how terrified she was

that this man was going to wake up and come after her to kill her. The defense attorney

refused to put the psychiatrist on the stand during the trial

because his client had admitted to him that she knew that her husband was dead, although this

could have been carried out in questioning to show that she also stated that her fear was that

he was going to wake up and come after her to kill her. It's complicated.

Or is it?

...