I don‘t think anyone is seriously suggesting that the violent kidnapping wasn‘t real and she was a willing participant from the start. The questions have always centered around the fact that she ultimately “switched sides”, participating in crimes and not availing herself of multiple opportunities to escape. Was she brainwashed and psychologically coerced, as she and her defenders claimed, or did she willingly join the cause, becoming ideologically committed?
Toobin, whose book I mentioned above, lands somewhere in the middle. He basically sees her as the ultimate opportunist.
Impressionable young woman, forced to hang out with her kidnappers, trying to gain their confidence, probably created some bonds where joining was just the next step. Toobin thinks she always knew what she was doing, basically that the SLA people were too dumb for any real brainwashing. But over time, they simply became her home team.
But since there was no deep ideological commitment, once she was captured, she did what she could to avoid consequences, reverted right back to “terrified victim”, took advantage of her social status and family money and connections, and got off with a slap on the wrist.
