Chapter 11 - Helena’s defense
Helena’s attorneys built a defense around discipline.
No beating.
No dangerous chemicals.
The cleaning product in the bucket was diluted automotive soap.
No toxic exposure.
No serious injury.
Leo had water available.
He had eaten breakfast.
The delayed lunch was inappropriate, they admitted, but not intended as starvation.
The work clothes protected his clothing.
The Bentley washing was a misguided lesson.
Helena claimed she believed Leo might have added a second mark after the cart incident.
That explanation collapsed quickly.
The surveillance footage showed the scratch clearly before Leo arrived.
No second damage appeared later.
She had inspected it.
Photographed it.
Then closed the maintenance ticket.
Her attorney shifted.
Helena knew the cart caused the main scratch but believed Leo had touched the car with a metal toy earlier in the week.
No evidence.
No contemporaneous report.
Then:
The point was teaching him to respect expensive property.
That was the honest defense.
Not factual innocence.
Justification.
She believed the lesson itself was acceptable.
May you like
That belief would follow her into court.
────────────────────
