great article by dr. palmatier, spot-on on so many counts, but i think she missed the boat thinking ja's allocution underscored her narcissism - ja's defense was that she was an abused woman, in constant fear of ta's next physical or verbal outburst, who finally was forced to defend herself in a life or death situation. and this is the same defense that i'm sure they plan to stick with when the case is appealed, as such ja's courtroom act, including her allocution, was perfectly consistent with the image her defense wanted to paint: a woman wrongfully accused of murder, and guilty of nothing more than surviving a physical attack that was intended to end her life. thankfully the jury saw right through this nonsense.
also, i thought is was pretty silly that dr. palmatier threw in child custody as another example of women getting away with murder in court, apparently in an effort to bolster her position - that comment was completely off-base, in so many ways, imo. and that's from a father's point of view.