"to stay loyal to him because of the man she knows him to be, regardless of public opinion, shows her to be a lady of honor"
I'll pretend my eyes did not have to see the "lady of honor" bit and move on...
I really want to focus on "the man she knows him to be."
Unless she wants to go the "implausible deniability" route, which would require that we either (a) believe she literally blinded herself to the basic details of his cases or (b) is stupid (something I know her not to be), the best she could say is that she was basing her loyalty on "the man she thought he was." And I think you will have to agree, notwithstanding your bizarre perspective here, that being loyal to some sadly mistaken nostalgia that has now been disproved, is categorically wrong.
Sometimes it is useful to take things out of their immediate context and think in an abstraction that carries no subjectivity. If you had a next door neighbor, a delightful couple with two wonderful children who grew up in a happy, nurturing family and went on to do great things, and, after the kids were grown you came home one day to the sight of police cars and it turned out that the lovely wife had shot her terrific husband in the brain, the sordid details of which you watched incredulously on CourtTV, might you contemplate repudiating what you "knew her to be"? |
