Different deals for different outcomes.

They could even have written parts of the book in advance.

Nothing illegal about that.

She sucks.

It appears to me that she shared info with her husband before she was legally allowed to.

She would, of course, been the co-author, who could have been working on this all along.

As it turns out, it looks like pressure was put on the proposed publisher and the offer withdrawn so there probably wasn't any writing going on, but there could have been.

I agree with you, I wish there could be a mistrial and retrial.

Money!

TYY

I don't see how any publisher could write a contract until they size her up and see a proposal.

There was a poll posted earlier today asking opinions about the jury that I delayed responding to until I knew more. The jury is the jury. Then I saw the opportunist interview:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3268411

I'm still not willing to lump them all in with her. Who knows - maybe one of the manslaughter or the murder votes will share something about Ms. Opportunist.

They will - when they see how she's cashing in. People are simple and easily motivated by money.

I'm banking on the one with a lot of children.

So instead of deliberating they discussed which verdict was most bankable?

Is that what you're saying?

The question about bank ability referred only to B37. Sorry for not making that clear. I have no thought that other jurors were involved.

If it was shown that the jury was motivated by book sales to lean one way or another, would the trial be invalidated? Just wondering, not saying it did, just don't know what the law might say about that.

I'm beginning to feel the same way after hearing about this book deal...

the Prosecutor to the Judge to the Jury.

No one in power wanted a conviction.......no one.

…until all the publicity about the shooting started to make them look bad.

Or this whole trial might have been a set-up! The whole thing stinks.