I'll say one last thing, your argument of the "Postpartum Psychosis should have been considered more" might hold more wait if it wasn't for the fact TWO, not one, but TWO juries convicted. With that said. Go back to your usual antics.
Juries are just regular people, they're not experts on mental illness.
You're right. BUT, they are charged with listening to every expert they defense presents and then deciding who's right and what's justifiable. They jury did that so it's not right to overturn their decision unless there is reasonable, solid new evidence to support it, which has not been presented.
Clearly it is right to overturn their decision, because the appeal process exists here in Canada, and also in the US. Are you suggesting that jury decisions shouldn't be appealed to higher courts without new evidence?
*looks around* re-read what I said, then ask again if yous till don't get it.
I don't know. It also doesn't say whether or not that was allowed in both trials. If I were the judge, I would have ordered a new trial and had that "evidence" withheld (not sure if that can be done).
I can in America and it should have in Canada. It should have been declared a mistrial.
See this is what skimming articles gets you, you miss important sections of the article. *embarrassed*
CORRECTION: Some of you deny the holocoust, maybe as a joke, but it has happened, I apologize.
No, that is not a correction. You've just repeated what you already said.
No it's not, I originally said people here justify it, now I've said that some, in jest, have denied it. Reread it dammit.