2 Comments

MB

The prosecution said you had shaken Matthew violently and banged his head down against an immovable object, that is why on February 4th they found that Matthew Eappen had a two and a half inch skull fracture, internal bleeding, these injuries were caused by you that’s what the prosecution said.

LW

It didn’t happen, that didn’t happen. I felt sure that the presented case would at least pose reasonable doubt and I think that I did more than that I would be believed I just knew that hadn’t happened at least not by me and not on that day and I just felt sure that the evidence proved that..

An innocent person is not focused on presenting reasonable doubt. An innocent person knows she is innocent and is convinced that she will be found innocent. She does not need to concern herself with the evidence and what it proved. If an innocent person is found guilty, their focus would be on the injustice that happened, on the anger, disbelief, shock of a miscarriage of justice. Her focus is still on the evidence and what she "just felt sure" about what it would prove. "just" is a comparative word. To what does she compare? To not feeling sure?

Expand full comment

MB

Can I start by asking you the central question. Are you responsible for the death of Matthew Eappen?

LW

No I’m not. No, I’m innocent. I didn’t do anything wrong. If anything , I tried to help him as best I could and didn’t do anything to hurt him or harm him in any way.

The best answer to a yes or no question is yes or no. She starts with no. But she doesn't stop there. The more words after the no, the less convincing. Count the words. It's a sermon. She is trying to convince.

MB

Did you like them?

LW

Yes..

Now that is a good answer. She doesn't qualify the answer, there is no follow up.

Expand full comment