THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 22, 1995 TAG: 9510190003
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 40 lines
Mary Adams-Lackey's ``If you don't like the O.J. verdict, don't fault the jury'' (Another View, Oct. 12) was both sad and laughable. She criticizes those who said the verdict ``came too fast.'' She asks, ``. . . compared with what, the length of the trial?'' No, compared with the mountains of evidence and testimony of more than 100 witnesses that should have been deliberated upon.
In true amateur psychobabble, Ms. Adams-Lackey says the jurors, nearing their freedom from virtual imprisonment, unconsciously focused their minds, and ``subconscious conclusions'' they didn't know they had reached ``leapt from their minds.'' This is the new definition of ``deliberations,'' undoubtedly.
Ms. Adams-Lackey seems unaware that Dream Team appeals-specialist Alan Dershowitz had already prepared appeals on about 50 points, the last of which was the exorbitant ``speed'' of the verdict. It clearly indicated to him that the jurors did not deliberate the evidence submitted.
Alas, the O.J. trial was about Mark Furhman. It was about allegations of corruption and contamination in laboratories, police departments, D.A.'s offices, etc.
Ms. Adams-Lackey notes that Simpson said he couldn't have, wouldn't have done it. But he didn't make his denials from the witness stand - and that after months of hearing from the Dream Team that O.J. couldn't wait to tell his side of the story, clear his name and all that good stuff.
A ``search for the truth,'' indeed. That jury couldn't find either of its feet with both hands.
EDWARD SOLESKY
Chesapeake, Oct. 12, 1995 by CNB