The questioning from Formenton's lawyer seems heavily weighted on the choice to drink heavily that night insinuating that she made the choice to drink in order to bring her out of her shell, become less inhibited, and to make "fun" choices that she wouldn't make if she was sober. The notion that drunk people are still responsible for their choices even if the sober version of the person wouldn't have made them and would regret them, and that it is not up to others to determine what the sober and drunk personas would choose to do especially if they are all drunk. I believe this may be related to her statement yesterday conceding that she may have been asking for some of what happened, but they should have known how drunk she was.
It's kind of an uncomfortable line of questioning. There has to be some point where a person is so drunk that they no longer have agency and can't consent, but of course there levels of inebriation that someone can consent even if it is a bad choice.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|