And if Lexi Herr had taken the time to follow the procedings in the trial and the mistrial she would have noticed that the defense strategy was not based on 'images of Munyenyezi as a mother' but on the question wether the witnesses against her were telling the truth as her attorneys stated the first day of trial, february 23 2012
"Munyenyezi, who is charged with lying on immigration papers about the role she played in the 1994 genocide, took no part in the violence. Witnesses who claim otherwise are lying - either for self-gain or because of pressure exerted by the Rwandan government. They come from a culture where the government . . . has used the genocide as a tool of oppression,"After a mistrial and retrial the Concord Monitor, which did an excellent job covering the proceedings, wrote in a editorial february 28 2013:
'We are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Manchester resident Beatrice Munyenyezi received justice'
'The appeal is a long shot, but it’s one for justice’s sake we hope Munyenyezi wins. Unlike the jurors, we’re not convinced the prosecutors made their case.'If Lexi Herr would have wanted to do justice to the proceedings in the Beatrice Munyenyezi case she would have made an attempt to answer some of the serious questions that remain unanswered to this day (see editorial Concord Monitor):
The highly suspicious timing of her arrest, which refocused attention away from Paul Kagame's jailing of opposition party UDF-Inkingi leader Victoire Ingabire and her American Lawyer Peter Erlinder, the assassination attempt on an exiled Rwandan general in South Africa and the subsequent assassination of a Rwandan journalist one day before Munyenyezi's arrest.
Why did the prosecution use a slate of unbelievable witnesses in the first trial (that ended in a hung jury)
Why did the prosecution return (in retrial) with drastically reduced allegations of Munyenyezi’s actions?
Why did they return (in retrial) with an entirely new cast of Rwandan?
Why, during proceedings and investigations (against her husband and mother-in-law) spanning some 16 years, did her name not come up?
Why were no charges filed against her during that time?
Why did the Rwandan Ambassador immediately issued a farcical call for Munyenyezi’s summary extradition to Rwanda after the retrial? Concord Monitor argues: 'Doing so would violate her rights under U.S. law and, since she has never been charged with a crime under Rwandan law, she can’t be extradited. It also suggests that politics played a role in the trial’s outcome'
None of these questions have been answered sofar.
To answer none of these legitimate questions, while happily comparing her to NAZI's, and suggest Beatrice Munyenyezi's defense was her image as a mother betrays lazyness and insults the intelligence of her readers.
Is that what is taught at Clark University Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies?