One lawyer...two different testimonies...huh?

When Elsa's family court attorney turned against her and reported that she had discussed murder in his presence...or told him she was going to murder someone...or said something or other, he said these two things, as near as I can figure out:

• He said that Elsa and Margery had discussed killing Elsa's then-husband.
• But he also said that Elsa had discussed killing her children, so that the then-husband, who was a "criminal," would be blamed and would go the prison and get what he deserved.

First, I cannot see any way in heaven, earth or hell that Elsa Newman would have even thought of killing either or both of her children. It simply doesn't make sense. This is a wommon with a deep and forever love for her kids. Nope. This one doesn't compute. Not at all.

However, the attorney, Friedman, also said--in the same trial--that the two wommon planned to kill Elsa's husband.

Now folks, I'm not an attorney; I'm a retired schoolteacher. But I can look at these two things and see that you can't have it both ways. Friedman can't assert both things in his testimony during her trial: 1) she was planning to kill her then-husband; or 2) she was planning to kill one or both of the children and blame her then-husband.

So...what is wrong with this testimony? The two segments of testimony are mutually exclusive. There is no way Elsa could have accomplished both of those things Friedman said she had planned.

And what is the truth? Elsa did neither of these things.

THERE IS NO WAY A MOTHER WITH THIS DEEP A LOVE FOR HER CHILDREN WOULD HAVE PLANNED TO KILL THEM. HUH-UH. NEVER. NOT EVER. NO WAY!

And as for the supposed conspiracy against her then-husband, I dare to believe that Maryland's highest court was correct in throwing out the case against her on that alleged conspiracy. And right there is where it should have ended.

WHY didn't it?