Feh. He wasn’t too disabled to murder someone. Therefore, his removal from the human race is a bonus for everyone!

Lets quit whining about the murderers getting the “eye for an eye” and start focusing on curbing the violent crime in America. If states would start executing convicted murderers within 72 hours of their conviction lets see how many violent criminals would reconsider taking a life while commiting a crime. I’ll bet violent crimes go down quickly and prisons begin reducing their overcrowding!

While I can emphasize with your comments, I also reconize that the laws in some states do not.

Perhaps you in your position at Court TV can change some of the wrongs in judgements sent down by jurors in cases like this to reflect your belief system. Until that time please know most of us in the USA are happy to know that our children /or adults will not be the targets of someone who insane or not will be dead because of a ideal due to mental illness or not. I don’t know but feel for both sides of the case. We are all God’s children, no matter what we do in life. I for one feel it is our duty to carry out the law for the good of all. What you think might differ and I accept that on value.

I for one do not value ideals of people killing and getting away with it no matter if they are trully mentally diasbled or not. ie: Ted Bundy or his ilk.

Johnnnie

Tell that to the family of the victim. There would have been 2 victims but the husband survived. He was a violent criminal who did not have any mercy for his victims. Justice was done.

Why does it matter. he killed so he should be killed. Why do we pay for someone to live 10years when they are going to die anyway. mental or not he should have died

Is it possible for the monitary settlement to be set as the income changes? This is done for people paying child support. This would resolve any possibility of Mr. McGreevey claiming that his earning potential is minimal and later increasing substantially. This would eliminate any confusing caculations of what Mr. McGreevey “should be” earning! It could be set at a percentage of his earnings. Sounds fair for both parties once the percentage is established.

It was determined that the first gunshot wound was through the baby and into the mother’s tissues, and that the fatal wound to the mother was the second gunshot to the head. Given that, after the first shot was made, the mother would still be alive. The defense tried to make much of the fact that there was gunshot residue to both of the hands of the mother. Is it not possible that she would have raised her hands (both of them) after the first assault in defense, and that this would explain why it was present on both hands?