[eddie willers]

She's run out of children to kill...
Voila....does not constitute a danger.

[stands2reason]

She's run out of children to kill... Voila....does not constitute a danger.

Yes; unfortunately, she completed her mission.

[Justa]

"She's run out of children to kill... Voila....does not constitute a danger."

Huh?

If she'd do that to her own children WTF do you think she'd do to you or me?

[pttttt]

The jury slacked off on the penalty hearing. At least one of them did, since it needed to be a unanimous vote for death.

Two questions they were supposed to answer for the death penalty:

1. Is she still dangerous? if yes,

2. Are there mitigating circumstances?

(if the answer to 1 is no, you don't reach 2).

They came up with "no" for 1, at least one of them did. Wrong answer. She's proven dangerous. Real dangerous. And she may always be. It would have to take a lot of determination to drown a struggling kid. Much more 5 of them. That's not an impulse killing; it even goes beyond a rage killing. She might still be dangerous when she gets out on parole at age 76 (and gets put to work during the Chelsea Clinton administration in a child care center, probably).

And what mitigating circumstances?

What if those kids had been killed by a black man instead? I think we all know what that verdict would have been.