Just finished reading Lois Henry's Feb. 20 column concerning the possible resentencing of Glenda Crosley, who was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of her estranged husband, Sam Crosley, in 1986.

Henry raises some important issues, but fails to answer some pertinent questions. Like why was Glenda attending a singles group with Sam? Why did she bother going to the pizza parlor, if she wasn't going to park, and go in -- like everyone else? Why did she tell the Board of Prison Terms commissioners that she hit his car, and not him?

Among the things commissioners are looking for before considering inmates suitable for parole is an awareness of the enormity of their crimes, in essence showing remorse. I do not condone violence against women, and I, as an outsider, do not know the extent of the alleged spousal abuse. But just as in the Menendez brothers trial, the judge in the second trial did not allow testimony about past alleged sexual molestation, because there had been too much time between the last incident and the murders.

A friend of mine was an eyewitness to Sam Crosley's murder, and told a chilling tale of how Glenda was parked away from the pizza parlor, sitting in her car. Sam approached, an argument ensued, and he left, at which time, she hit him with her car. Whatever happens in this case, Crosley was found guilty of murder, and sentenced to 15 years to life -- 15 being the minimum, life the max. So, how long is long enough?