You know I think it comes down to what  is the most believeable not what the law is?? Which is wrong, the law says if there is doubt no matter how much is proven one doubt is NG. But most look for the reaction and attitude and are told the persons demeanor is not on trial but IT IS!! That's how most come to there verdicts I reckon hmmm... Totally wrong I agree!! The case also wasn't about whether she did it or not but whether it was self defense hmmm... Just because there is no wounds maybe she did attack him but after she was attacked first but he tried and failed maybe hmmm Way to much doubt here!! How do you prove its self defense if no-one seen you being attacked or just because you have no wounds so you wasn't attacked hmm... I think it comes down to logical which I think is unfair it her word against the lawyers as nobody has any proof.. Just what could and did of and most likely hmm!!! Ok Maybe I'm confusing everyone!!!! Sounds like 2 other trials that we know of Scott's and the policeman(what was his name) and now this one! Also the one with this little girl hmmm!!! I reckon her being her own attorney opened peoples eyes as to the farce or trials people have to go thru??????
Canga!

You know I'm going to miss this trial. It is really sad to say but the updates from that trial read like a sitcom and never failed to make me laugh.

I know juries are supposed to make decisions based on evidence, but I believe this woman appeared over the top and that HAD to play in jurors' minds.  I only watched a few clips of this trial-and we all know how the media chooses which clips to show-so they were always showing her looking off the wall.  I HATE that she even tried to attempt defending herself, not just because it wasn't beneficial to her, but it had to be hard on her sons.  Can you imagine having to testify in your mom's trial, much less have her posing the questions.  This was sad all the way around. 

I can't understand why everyone I ever see acting as their own attorney is allowed to do so.  I think when they are given the option of acting as their own attorney, if someone says,"Yep, I am defending myself" that ought to be automatic grounds for being considered legally insane!!  LOL, but really why would anyone want to represent themselves?   Maybe when this option is offered, the courts should pass out a pamphlet to the person showing people who have attempted to act as their own attorney.  The cover of the pamphlet should show Ted Bundy.  I don't think self-representation should even be an option to anyone.

Seriously, though, can't she appeal on grounds of insufficienct representation or whatever the correct terminology is?