| How do you come to this conclusion? It doesn't appear she had much of a choice. Her two successful lawyers in a fancy, shiny, expensive office gave her this advice: "I asked my lawyers to refuse, and we fought about it, repeatedly. They brought up things from my past that could be used against me; not criminal behavior per se, even they admitted, but they wanted me to have immunity." Different people have different situations; no single piece of advice can apply to all people. Speaking for myself, if somebody placed me in a tricky position where my past could be used against me I would always put myself first if it meant protecting myself and my family. Being a single mother is tough enough; being a single mother, struggling with money, involved in things you don't understand, being threatened by people with significant amounts of power (is it hard to believe eventually they would have done something to threaten her daughter?) would be enough to convince most normal people to speak. Given the information she had at the time she made a rational (debate-fully wrong) choice. While there may be strong arguments for the case that the prosecutor's actions are unethical, ultimately Aaron's actions put her into this situation. His blaming her for her actions after being caught up in his battle, while wanting to protect herself and her child, is offensive to me. It's sad that she beats herself up - she lost in a game she was not trained or skilled enough to win, a game somebody else forced her to play. |
2) Her lawyers didn't care at all about protecting Aaron, they cared about protecting her -- because that's 'officially' what lawyers are supposed to do, throw everybody but their client under the bus. (If you WANT to do this too, and you're being offered immunity, well, that's different).
3) Non-political laywers will often not have good advice in political cases, in part but not entirely because of #2 above. And probably related to her deciding #1 above in the end.
YES, being involved in things you don't understand, being threatened by peopel with power, etc., YES, that is enough to convince most normal people to speak. I am NOT blaming those who are duped into speaking, again, the cops are EXPERTS at duping you. Which is why I'm saying, when you hear about this happening to someone else, the more people that learn from it the better: don't talk to the cops.
Now, if you actually _want_ to accept an immunity deal to 'snitch' on someone else (say, because you think they ought to go to jail), then okay. But, other than that, if you think you can actually make things better for you or someone else by talking to the police -- well, like I said, we can't say in 100% of cases that won't work, never say never: We can say that you are unqualified to have any idea if it will work or not, and that usually it won't. Don't talk to the cops.