There are many reasons why the defense team for Lorena Bobbitt chose not to fully explore the known relationship between Lorena's abortion and her attack on John. Most of the following explanations were conveyed to me by principals in the case.

First, the job of the defense team was to gain Lorena's acquittal. It was not their job to fully discover or disclose the truth; it was sufficient to simply show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Second, and related to the first, it is often prudent for defense lawyers to withhold relevant information. In this specific case, where the defense was working toward a temporary insanity defense, "too much" explanation of Lorena's frame of mind could backfire. The "irresistible impulse" defense might actually be weakened if the jury gained too much insight into Lorena's mind. The claim of insanity is linked to the notion of the "mysteries of the mind." Thus, to focus on a single trauma, the abortion, might inadvertently lead the jury to conclude that Lorena had a particular motivation for her attack on John. This might undermine their "irresistible impulse" defense, which by definition means an act which lacks any rational motivation.

Third, the single overriding goal of the defense strategy was to show that John Bobbitt was a brutal wife beater. They wanted to portray Lorena as the sympathetic victim, and John as the despicable enemy. They wanted the jury to believe that even in her moment of temporary insanity, Lorena was only defending herself. Everything was really John's fault. With his years of abuse he had "loaded the gun"; with his rape that night he had "pulled the trigger." Given this strategy, the defense team may have feared that too much emphasis on the abortion would distract the jury from seeing John as cause of his own destruction.

Fourth, the issue of abortion is highly emotional and contentious and it would be difficult to predict and control the jury's reaction to this psychological profile. Blaming the Lorena's emotional breakdown on the abortion might provoke a backlash from pro-abortion jurors who would see this analysis as simply "anti-choice" propaganda.

Fifth, two sources confirm that one member of the defense team was particularly hostile to any inclusion of the post-abortion expert's testimony. One source described this hostility as arising from a "personality conflict," while another source attributed it more directly to an ideological mismatch. According to the latter source, this one defense attorney objected to any testimony which might undermine the public's perception of abortion.