COMING: A first-person look at the Mark Becker trial

In tomorrow's Gazette, reporter Trish Mehaffey will be writing about her liveblogging coverage of the Mark Becker murder trial, which had as many as 3,000 readers each day during the two-week trial and four and a half days of deliberations.

Here's how Trish relates her experiences. Check back tonight for the full story.

I've been liveblogging trials in state and federal courts for over a year, but the Becker blogs are the perfect examples of what they are supposed to be – readers ask questions, share opinions and ideas, and then they become contributors and some even become educators based on their experiences.

Some days it became a forum within a forum. The readers/contributors started communicating with each other and I learned from them. I had some lawyers and mental health professionals on the blog who talked about mental illness and the difficulties of proving legal insanity. A few others had been jurors in other trials and could share their experience. That was something I couldn't share with them because I've never been called for jury duty.

What was most surprising was one of my biggest days was after the testimony ended. We were waiting for a verdict. I expected to jump on and say "the jury is still out, but I will liveblog the verdict when it comes in." And six hours later, I was still on. I had to force breaks. Readers were immediately asking questions, starting discussions about mental health and details of the case and one person started a poll for who would vote guilty and who would vote not guilty by reason of insanity.

Here's a snippet from one day:

[Comment From CarrieCarrie:]I'm wondering if they'll commit him to a hospital. John Hinckley, Jr. and Mark David Chapman keep coming to mind.[Comment From SteveSteve: ]I'd really be interested in knowing what the hang up is with the jury on what is convincing some of them one way and the rest another wayTrish Mehaffey:It's got to be the insanity issue.[Comment From PatPat: ]My understanding is that with GBMI it is a bit easier to prove because of mental illness. Insanity is not a medical diagnosis according to DSM-IV-TRTrish Mehaffey:Yes. It's a lot easy to prove. They don't have to deal with legal definition of insanity.[Comment From oldadoldad: ]think of the students that testifyed against him. how would they feel if this guy got off.[Comment From PatPat: ]

I'm wondering if they'll commit him to a hospital. John Hinckley, Jr. and Mark David Chapman keep coming to mind.

[Comment From SteveSteve: ]

I'd really be interested in knowing what the hang up is with the jury on what is convincing some of them one way and the rest another way

Trish Mehaffey:

It's got to be the insanity issue.

[Comment From PatPat: ]

My understanding is that with GBMI it is a bit easier to prove because of mental illness. Insanity is not a medical diagnosis according to DSM-IV-TR

Trish Mehaffey:

Yes. It's a lot easy to prove. They don't have to deal with legal definition of insanity.

[Comment From oldadoldad: ]

think of the students that testifyed against him. how would they feel if this guy got off.

[Comment From PatPat: ]

sentencing would be different in GBMI compared to just first degree murder.