We're going to hear from the defense about her background, her mental health, whether she's ever had sex before.

The description of the bodies really didn't match what the police found at the scene. I think this is a guy who is desperately trying to cover up what he had done, but really couldn't even get his story straight.

We are so awestruck (with DNA) that we don't take a moment to step back and say, 'Gosh, does it really matter in this case?' There is no such thing as defense at any cost, ... We need not be blinded by the idea that DNA is conclusive on the question of guilt or innocence.

Isn't it funny. One victim gets to dictate the result, the other gets the door slammed in her face.

A lot of people have wished hard that this day would've come a long time ago. I'm always getting a flood of calls about how John Conte was not doing the right thing. This is very good news.

People are speculating that this means possibly Rachel was holding the baby in her arms, that the baby was shot first, and perhaps Rachel dropped her on the ground.

I don't think this is one of those sort of rage killings that happened on the spur of the moment. (And) there's a lot of evidence of premeditation in case, getting the weapon, the cover-up, the fact that he was returning the gun to the place he took it, from Rachel's stepfather.

If this was a robbery, a murder or a case of national security, and the sole eyewitness to the case says 'Please drop the charges,' do you think they would ever just obey the only witness' wishes? It's the military's responsibility to prosecute a crime because it's an offense to the military.