I tend to look at everything a little differently than everyone else. Maybe it’s because I have what psychologists call “a rich fantasy life.” Whatever the reason, I completely disagree with the TruTV commentators on the issue of whether or not Alvaro Castillo knew what he was doing was wrong.

]Today, the prosecutor cross-examined Dr. James Hilkey about what Mrs. Castillo said her son told her after he shot his father.

• Sidebar: I’ve written before about the weirdness of such hearsay evidence. Nuff said.

The mother testified that Alvaro asked his father’s forgiveness and God’s forgiveness. The prosecutor forced the doctor to say that if the mother’s statement was correct, then it would mean that Castillo knew right from wrong.

But why am I the only person who doubts all of the mother’s statements? Wasn’t the doctor also trying to cast doubt on what the mother said on the stand? Wasn’t social-worker Deborah Grey casting doubt on the mother’s testimony, too?

I know how I reacted to the mother’s testimony. I felt she was trying to make herself look good and also was fabricating things about her son because she thought it would help him.

And didn’t the prosecutor himself end his cross-examination of her with the standard rhetorical question, “You love your son, don’t you?” That’s a rhetorical question because the answer is known. It is used by prosecutors to remind the jury that the witness is trying to help the defendant even if she had to lie.

So which is it, lawyers among you? Is the prosecutor right about the mother’s testimony being unreliable? Or has the prosecutor found the single truth among the mother’s lies that will send her son to prison for life?