They definitely were watching stuff or else they wouldn't have asked about her hurting animals. That is a HUGE problem. Could get a new trial. And also the skank question wasn't supposed to be asked. I couldn't get TW link to work but I googled the article I don't know if I'm looking at same one as you guys.
Not necessarily, Tink. They may have wanted to look for behaviors, in the past, to determine if she was/is a psychopath. Harming pets is well known as a connection or early indicator (in childhood), and most animal lovers know this.
I can't find it [MENTION=43882]Tink[/MENTION] @TW, oops, ha ha, [MENTION=43880]Trialwatcher[/MENTION] - this is all I can find of your conversation where it ended. I agree with TW on this, is there something else I missed? When did that question happen? Before or after Dr. D? Would they have reason to think BPD or ASPD when they asked the question?
This is kind of key - news, appeal, just random'ish or answer for it, no appeal.
Just curious, not picking a bone. Anything that stinks of possible successful appeal, I want to investigate so I stay on top of the power rep [MENTION=42294]Snookie[/MENTION] is giving me.