It doesn't change the fact that a scumbag thug shot her baby in the face.
By the time this piece of crap lawyer gets through, they’ll be saying the baby committed suicide.
In what world is this testimony admissible?
I agree that a scumbag thug shot the baby in the face. What involvement, if any, that the mother had in it raises questions concerning whether or not they nabbed the correct scumbag thug, and the reliability of the mother's identification of the scumbag thug on trial. If the mother was involved, her identification of the defendant is worse than unreliable, it's positively exculpatory.
"Hi, Hon, sorry I haven't spoken to you in 15 years and gave you up for adoption when you were a baby. By the way, how long did you have to wait after Grammy died before you cashed her life insurance check?" Because that's the first thing most mothers think about after their baby is murdered in cold blood. I'm sorry, I am not on the jury and have not heard all the evidence, but based on the article, if I were on the jury, I believe that I would be inclined to acquit. The whole damned story has the Susan Smith/Charles Stuart aroma to it.