The question is do you believe she killed him in cold blood simply because she rang up some debt?

It was more complicated than that. Bottom line, he didn't deserve this and it didn't have to happen.

It was more complicated than that. Bottom line, he didn't deserve this and it didn't have to happen.

 

I think we can all agree that most people don't deserve to be shot.

 

However, there were certainly signs that something wasn't right in this relationship and that Cheryl was somehow sustaining injuries.

 

Again, it doesn't absolve her but it certainly makes it a little more understandable.

 

In regards to this trial, from an outsiders perspective it seems the attorney has done a questionable job showing self-defense.

Do people know what goes on behind closed doors in most other communities? :confused:

 

No, and it wasn't a jab at Fort Thomas. I was stating that I don't know Birdsfan or how well he, or others on here knew this family. However, the people living right next door, supposedly didn't know about this abuse, and only once did the disturbance become loud enough for a neighbor to concern themselves with it. As a result, nobody knows, just like in other communities.

However, there were certainly signs that...Cheryl was somehow sustaining injuries.

I don't know that there were.

I don't know that there were.

 

There were and people were set to testify to it.

There were and people were set to testify to it.

Your opinion. Let's just wait and see how it all works out.

There were and people were set to testify to it.

 

1) How do you know this?

 

2) Set to testify that she had "sustained some injuries" or that the injuries were being caused by her husband? (i.e., my wife seems to always have some type of ongoing injury, including most recently a black eye when she slipped on some ice - doesn't mean she is the victim of spousal abuse).

Your opinion. Let's just wait and see how it all works out.

 

I just told you that there were people set to testify and you tell me its an opinion???

 

I'm not speculating. People were prepared.

1) How do you know this?

 

2) Set to testify that she had "sustained some injuries" or that the injuries were being caused by her husband? (i.e., my wife seems to always have some type of ongoing injury, including most recently a black eye when she slipped on some ice - doesn't mean she is the victim of spousal abuse).

 

I know.

 

As to #2, you are correct. They obviously had no concrete evidence but they were immediately questioned by detectives and at least one was told to be ready to testify for the defense as to the fact that the suspicion was there based on her showing up with a black eye and possibly other reasons.

 

Another was told that since the BWS was not being used that he would not need to testify.

 

Again, I'm not saying anyone deserved to be shot.

I just told you that there were people set to testify and you tell me its an opinion???

 

I'm not speculating. People were prepared.

If they had any eligible/irrefutable witnesses, I think they would have been used.

 

The jury now has the case.

If they had any eligible/irrefutable witnesses, I think they would have been used.

 

The jury now has the case.

 

Apparently McCafferty's attorneys did not try to make a defense of battered spouse, so there may not have been any reason to try to present such witnesses.

If they had any eligible/irrefutable witnesses, I think they would have been used.

 

The jury now has the case.

 

The defense asked to use several witnesses set to testify to at least 17 different acts of prior spousal abuse, and the trial court said no. I've already provided the law on this. If she is convicted there will be an appeal and that will be the primary issue, and we'll see if it comes back down to do it over again on the taxpayer's nickel.

Apparently McCafferty's attorneys did not try to make a defense of battered spouse, so there may not have been any reason to try to present such witnesses.

 

The choice not to present that defense may have been made because the trial court refused to let the jury hear the witnesses. So they went with what they considered the next-best thing. At least possible.

Hearsay, in your opinion why would a trial judge exclude this defense knowing that it very will could result in an appeal?

The defense asked to use several witnesses set to testify to at least 17 different acts of prior spousal abuse, and the trial court said no. I've already provided the law on this. If she is convicted there will be an appeal and that will be the primary issue, and we'll see if it comes back down to do it over again on the taxpayer's nickel.

If they were excluded, it was based on sound legal precedent. I'm sure there is a lot going on behind the scenes, and even in the trial itself, that we're not hearing due to the tight restraints on news coverage.