When it comes to drug abuse, my usual sense of empathy and understanding falls flat on its face. I despise drug use. Drug users and addictions have cost me a lot...physical abuse, destroyed finances, a failed marriage, and those are just brief flashes of it all. Perhaps I have a lack of personal understanding...not because I haven't used drugs (there were moments, a long time ago), but because I never ended up so far in that it resulted in self-destruction. But I have witnessed enough of that self-destruction to be more than uncomfortably familiar with it.
Having said that, I hope that any readers will forgive me if my tone is somewhat abrasive today.
I am aware that drug use is a sensitive part of Kirstin's case, but I didn't write any of the above to condemn her. She's certainly had more than enough filth thrown at her reputation over that past part of her life without needing me to add any. I mention it only to illustrate how very unsympathetic to drug use I am.
Nevertheless, I don't argue with forensic science very often. The prosecution has said that Kirstin Lobato was at the end of a 3-day methamphetamine binge, which is part of her misused confession to fending off a rapist months before the Bailey murder.
The only time Kirstin Lobato could have only committed this murder was just after midnight on July 8th. Yet, on both July 5th and 6th Kirstin had urine tests done, and they came back as clean. That is, drug free, which is something she had been making the effort to accomplish. Successfully, no less. For those of you just tuning in, those days would be day one and two of the prosecution's "3-day methamphetamine binge."
Even if you ignore the fact that her mother saw her sleeping (and her mother passed a lie detector test regarding this) while on Day Three of this supposed methamphetamine binge (methamphetamines...that's official linguistics for speed and/or ecstasy, ladies and gents, more or less like caffeine on rockets with a bit of a trip..a downsized acid trip, for those of you with 'experience'), it is difficult to ignore the fact that methamphetamines take up to five days to clear out of one's system.
The prosecution ignored or downplayed this evidence of a great big black hole in their version of restructured events. Which isn't to say they ignored Kirstin's history of drug use. On the contrary, they used it to attack her character with the same level of venom I used earlier to describe my feelings about drug use. But sometimes a line should be drawn when it comes to pulling history into the present.
We all have the capacity to change, and yet it is always history that tries to hunt us down. Anyone can find evidence of sin simply by looking for it. If someone were to openly advertised the payment of five million dollars to anyone who could find proof of the worst thing you have ever done, well...imagine that for just a moment.
The point isn't whether or not what happened can even be proven (if you hid it well, that is to be expected). It's the fact that your mind can go there, to that worst moment, right away...the fact that it even exists at all.
But such a thing doesn't completely define us..most of us, anyways. We are different, we are more, and we can - and do - rise over and above our problems and negative traits. The prosecution for Kirstin Lobato's case did their very best to define her as a murderously crazed drug addict...and only that...using her past to defile her character despite her acheivements. Acheivements which defied their definition instead of supporting it. But, as it turned out, that definition seems to be what stuck in the jurors' minds.