Experience can help her.

But this so-called 'friend Ursula' was actually someone she had described as a poisonous insect and a rotten person, someone who would not let her daughter get close to or talk to her at all.

After several months of filming together, her mother, who was watching, knew very well that Ursula took drugs before filming to assist the filming and reduce the pain.

She knew, but she still let her daughter do it.

Once again, I am slapping myself in the face with what I said before.

Prelas is only 19 years old. If she had been more than a year younger, let alone her mother forcing her to death, the mental abuse she mentioned before would have been exposed earlier, and the defendant would have been arrested and sent to prison.

The prison is closed.

Just because she was legally an adult just because she was more than one year old, her mother could use this as an excuse to escape blame and blame all this on Preles herself, saying that it was all her own decision.

Mother did nothing wrong!

Prelles is physically 19 years old, but she has been controlled by her mother since she was three years old. Is her actual mental age really 19 years old?

What would a truly adult person do?

This is not a suicide case chosen by an adult, but a murder case in which a child who has been controlled by his mother since he was three years old was forced to death step by step by his psychopathic mother!

Before her death, like all murder victims, she kept trying to survive and begged the murderer to let her go, but the murderer coldly ignored her. Finally, she died in despair. Before she died, she kept repeating "I don't want to".

Such a sentence.

Yes!

She doesn’t want to star in a small movie, and she doesn’t want to commit suicide by taking pills! She is still a child, full of curiosity and expectations about the world.

But forced by the murderer, she had no choice!

She did not commit suicide, but was forced to death by her own mother!"

The emotional speech echoed throughout the courtroom. Under the unwavering gaze of the defense lawyer, all members of the jury looked at the defendant with strong disgust and disgust.

Not to mention the jury, even the supposedly impartial judge sitting on it looked at the defendant with the same evaluation as the judge in the probate court: "This is a disgusting mother!"

Faced with the accusations, the neurotic mother suddenly became excited and shouted categorically: "I didn't do anything wrong! Preles is an adult and she makes her own decisions! I just encourage her to do what she wants to do.

thing!"

"The accused should be silent!"

The judge immediately frowned and interrupted.

The defense lawyer also quickly grabbed his client, apologized, and gave his own speech, saying that there was no evidence to prove what his client was thinking, so it was not a murder charge anyway.

The jury went in and came out quickly.

The results are obvious.

The jury chosen by Chuck was naturally disgusted with this kind of thing, and the bald prosecutor Ben Stone played a perfect role in exposing the defendant's inconsistency in words and deeds. Everyone understood that the deceased was indeed raped by this beastly mother.

A life-and-death situation.

In a trial, evidence is very important. Even if the evidence is known to be true, due to procedural flaws, the jury would rather choose a not guilty verdict in order to avoid an unjust case.

But sometimes the evidence is bullshit!

When all jurors are convinced that the defendant is guilty, the sufficiency of the evidence is not an issue at all.

This is why the big law firms in Chicago were willing to pay a lot of money to hire Chuck to micro-observe the jury.

"We will appeal!"

After the trial, the defense lawyer routinely said: "Your release of the videotape is seriously detrimental to my client. The Court of Appeal will take over the case! The Court of Appeal does not have a jury controlled by you. It only respects the law itself!"
Chapter completed!