1) Surely the O.J. Jury is More Comfortable with Judge Glass

The judge has toned down her "instructions" to the lawyers. If I were in the jury box, I'd now feel much more sympatico with her attempts to keep the witnesses and the lawyers on track. Not only that, now that her tone is calmer I notice her nice eyes and lovely hands with long fingers. For some reason, I notice people's hands and feet almost as soon as their eyes. Hands are very expressive. The shoes on a person's feet tell me a great deal about them, too. (Remember O. J.'s Bruno Maglis?)

2) Apparently the Goldman's Lawyer is Out

Judge Glass ruled yesterday that the lawyer representing the Goldman family could not testify about the property in question in this trial. This ruling will greatly help the jury reach a verdict. If the prosecution wishes to argue that the ownership of the property stolen from the Las Vegas hotel room is irrelevant, then it is also irrelevant that the Goldman family is claiming to own some of it.

The real reason the prosecution wanted this gentleman to testify, though, was to remind the jury of O. J. Simpson's past and of his many victims. But courtrooms and trials aren't about vengeance for victims. A case is never The Victims versus The Defendant: trials are The State versus a Citizen.

I truly wish that victims' personal tragedies didn't become such a big part of most sensational trials. The media does this, not the law. And I can't think of a single victim who benefited from the resulting circus. A wise victim will hide from the cameras and once the trial is over will let go of the past. Nothing can change the past. What happened, happened. When a person is victimized, the only way to heal is to let go of the victimization. The media are cruel and self-serving to keep victims in the spotlight their whole lives.

3) The Bible-Thumping Witness

Yesterday one of the sleaziest characters in this case testified: Walter Alexander. He may even be on the stand today. But he reduced my interest in this case. He actually had the gall to bring a Bible into the witness stand with him. And he testified that he only turned state's evidence because God spoke to him and told him to.

This guy may think the jury will fall for this, but I know otherwise. During my jury experience, something similar happened. When a prosecution witness made a statement that was obviously untrue, and obviously intended to sway the jury, it had the opposite effect from what was intended. I won't go into details, but the whole jury agreed the statement was ludicrous. We all knew why he said it. Instead of convincing us of the prosecution's side, we ultimately decided that no one would have bothered to argue about it if it were true.

I'm not sure I want to waste my time with this trial now.