Apog: So let's not just take the side of the defending lawyer here just because it gives us another thing to blame the religion for.
The hypocrisy is that it doesn't go the other way. When a JW does something good, like returning a large amount of cash that's been lost, JWs invariably use that as evidence that the person did this because they are a JW- the WT made them a better person.
When something bad happens, like this case, the default argument is always, 'well, people do bad things, you can't blame the religion'.
To a degree I see your point, Apog, but I also don't think it can be reasonably argued that the religion didn't at least contribute (probably to a large extent) in the decision she made.
So really, is her attorney that far off in using this argument as a defense???