Someone correct me if I am wrong here, but did they not convict them more or less on the TV commentary that she made wherein she said that it was not her fault, and that the victim should have gotten into her house faster? This is what the Washington Post claimed as of this morning.

If so, is it not convicting her based on her being cold and callous, and not on her real culpability in the matter? Regardless of *how* she presented herself to the media, whether or not she showed any remorse at all or no, before all that, there were *facts*. What did she do *during* the actual attack? What did she do *prior* to it? Did she encourage the dogs? Did she plan it? If not, it's gross negligence and manslaughter.

I think she deserves to have been found guilty, I just don't necessarily agree with it being for murder. Murder is pre-meditated. Did she *plan* for her dogs to kill this woman? The jury's still out for me on this one.