I wonder about that, too. Here are some things I think will make the self-defense claim muddy though: AM inquired whether the cousin would be at the phone via telephone the day prior (can't recall where I read that, but it stuck out); TW had been anxious to get AM to Wells Fargo to retrieve this money for at least a day prior. AM kept putting her off (knew someone would be at the farm maybe?) Assuming DNA will prove it's the same one - TW's thin blue line paracord bracelet was found in AM's home during the search warrant. Who, in a true self-defense case, would keep a souvenier? Nothing in the police reports or documents we've seen so far indicate that AM had any defensive wounds when they initially interviewed her. AM was at the farm, left the farm, then came back to the farm. Why? Seems inconsistent with self-defense. More consistent, however, with cover-up (fetching supplies, double-checking something, etc). AM took TWs phone with her to a wedding in Louisiana shortly thereafter, then appears to have tossed it? Or turned it off? Either way - inconsistent with someone who was doing something in self-defense. The most obvious thing - if it was self-defense, WHY NOT CALL THE COPS?