They will victim blame, it works because the victim isn't there to defend themselves. The killer can say anything he wants, and she's not there to correct the record. They'll paint him as Ghandi and that only works if she's somehow deserving of being attacked. It's what works because inherently everyone wants to feel safe and feel it can never happen to them, so the defense sells you on why it happened to her but won't ever happen to you. That only happens through blaming the victim, i.e. she yelled at him, she frightened him, she threatened him so he acted in some sort of self defense so if YOU don't act that way you won't get killed while out in public. Everyone on here has thought "what can I do different to make sure this doesn't happen to me". We've talked about pepper spray, bear spray, box cutters, self defense classes, not running alone, not running at all. It's not a leap to sell that safety in a bottle to a jury too. Secondly he'll play on "perception". We won't be able to call him a killer, that's nasty, we'll call him a misguided young family man. We won't call it murder, we'll call it a mistake. Change the words, the rhetoric will follow. It's why we've changed from using "illegal aliens" to "undocumented immigrants". We're all immigrants, and therefore it's changed perception by changing the language, it's no longer "illegal" it's just missing documentation. The same with this. He's not a killer any more, he's a hard working family man who made a mistake. My worst fear is that this will somehow get downgraded to aggravated assault, because this atty isn't stupid no matter how badly he dresses and he's already throwing around words like "perception".