You can't really be that stupid. The fact she would laugh AT ALL says enough. In expressing such things, there's no way I, or any normal person, would laugh in any way. It was a SAD thing. She didn't have to enjoy it either.
Not surprising that a well known liar would attempt to spin the facts differently once the facts have come to public attention and proved to cast an unfavorable light upon her actions at the time.
She did neither of those things... facts which are easy enough to research. So if you persist with those claims you're merely a liar.
What about the incongruity of her supposedly asking to get off the case and the recording of her bragging and laughing at her destruction of a child's life? How can you square that? As to her taking the case, I understand and agree. EVERY accused has the right to a lawyer she certainly could have defended him without willfully destroying the girl's life. She failed her oath not by defending him but how she did it. She apparently knowingly allowed purgured testimony and that is against the lawyers canon and law. In the end NC the recording of her laughing about her actions and the results are disgusting and reveal her true character.
You're right, Winston, Every person accused of a crime has a right to an attorney. Even Jeffrey Dahmer had representation but his lawyers didn't attempt to trash his victims and then laugh about it later or say that the judge made them take the case.
