True. I assumed it would have went to trial, especially because of the circumstances, but I did a quick google and it looks like you're right, it didn't. Although the police did say that when she tried to contract the hit man, she mentioned her son off the bat, like she wanted to prove to him that she had taken care of it and that she wouldn't let anyone hurt him.
So at that point, we already know the crime has something to do with her son and she's not just hiring a hit man just to hire one.
I just don't understand why at no point, not even when she had to give the police a statement or when she met with her court appointed lawyer, even if it was only for a moment one time before going to the indictment, the entire story was not told, if for no other reason than to show that it was not as open and shut as it seemed.
I just feel like it would have been worth it to have the entire story out on the table, as it may have affected the deal that the prosecutor gave her, assuming that she was sentenced via a deal.
reply
share