I understand how mature and functioning adults might be disappointed in Rachel's actions and demeanor. It is certainly not something that the best 19 year old African-American females we have to offer would want to emulate. It's not something that any 19 year old would want to emulate.
While I have no problem with her personally, IMHO, no jury should convict the Defendant based on her testimony for one simple reason: she previously lied under oath. When she lied about her funeral attendance, that was under oath.
How can anyone convict a Defendant of such a serious charge, when the prosecution's star witness has already lied under oath in a matter involving the case? Isn't the prosecution's standard "beyond reasonable doubt"? When your star witness is proven to be willing to lie under oath, IMHO, you cannot prove your case "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I wish the best for Rachel. I understand that she's immature and has other faults. I would not say that she is a "liar." Notwithstanding, the jury should not convict based on her testimony.
This post was edited on 6/28 at 9:02 am