You know, I just had a random thought. what if she wasn’t the victim here, but the victims THEARAPIST. What if she is using a victims story, and the names and places have been changed (or omitted) to project herself as the victim for convenient political gain.
She is after all a highly educated psychologist, and now apparently a couples therapist. She could be using her “skill” to use some real facts from a real other person (clos to her who confided), and knowing both the victim, AND how victims are supposed to act, put on a quite convincing show. she wasn’t crying real tears after all. It would GREATLY explain her going from highly “upset” in the hearing, to jovial, and seeking caffeine, in the span of a few seconds.
Who was the victim, she already told us during testimony… It was her friend Leyland. remember how at the end we all thought it odd for her to say that here friend had medical “issues, and that she was glad she was “seeking help”
Think about it. what if it was Leyland who was attacked (by someone else NOT BK) and then told her best friend Christine all about it (except of course a name (I have my suspicions) It would GREATLY explain the lack of contemporaneous details OR witnesses, and Her sketchy memories, (exact time, place, date, )The flat refutation of her claims by all involved. (she WASN’T there), and the “facts” from her “story that either didn’t add up, were flat WRONG, or just were so incoherent that they didn’t make sense.
HMMMM I HOPE the FBI puts MS Leyland under oath, it might be very interesting. She may very well be the key to the lock.