Chip's Blog

I have been reading here (truth be told, looking forward to the journalism of Ted Daniel and Bob Ward...and I'm betting our new blogger Lynn has alot to do with the quality of journalism I've seen!!) about the Neil Entwhistle trial.

What is striking, beyond the absolute morally bereft actions that took the lives of a Mother and her infant child, is the frequency of references to "the OJ verdict".  I half liken this to the phenomenon we experienced (and still do to some extent) after the Blizzard of 78, when, every time snow was predicted, store shelves magically emptied in the bread and milk departments, almost instantaneously!!

Did the verdict in the OJ murder trial so jade our perceptions of jury process that we now view every trial and every jury through this optic?  Did our perceptions of the actions of one jury cloud the public perception of our system, a beautiful system, that protects both the public from crime, and law abiding citizens from unwarranted legal consequences?  Was that jury even wrong, or was an investigation mishandled by over zealous detectives?

Whatever the explanation, it has affected us.  It has affected our perceptions.  In the Millenium, no hurdle lives without a diagnosis!  Post OJ Stress Disorder 

I think we need, as individuals, to go back to trusting our wonderful system of legal safeguards.  Judgement by a jury of our peers.  I want to believe...I will believe, dammit...that a slow verdict is a measure of a thoughtful jury, not a bad verdict.  A woman and an infant are dead and, boys and girls, that truly sucks.

But won't it suck more if with them dies the belief in the most beautifully designed judicial system on our planet?