O.J. Simpson revisited

The media hype over the recent arrest of O.J. Simpson recalled for me the beginnings of my career as a legal pundit on TV. One day as I was being ushered into the studios at CNN to do some commentary, I queried the young booker as to why the network was devoting so much time to the OJ Simpson murder trial. She told me "our ratings go up every time we put on the trial." What was astonishing to me then -- that the public was fixated on a perfectly normal murder case -- seems commonplace today. It is almost impossible to get much in the way of useful news from television because so much time is devoted to the latest spectacular crash on the Nascar highway or to the antics of Britney Spears --whoever she is (I'm too old to care).

A conservative Republican recently advised that to survive in the Regulatory State it is vital to understand that the public tunes out most information of global or national significance, focuses upon factoids of personal importance and has an attention span that is most receptive to sound bites. Why, then, does CBS News feel it must email me with the breaking news that OJ has been released on bail? Personally, I am wondering where he got the funds to post bond since he's supposed to be paying Fred Goldman millions. Guess he's got a really clever asset protection plan at one of those beachfront banks in the Caymans.

In the old days I queried O.J. Simpson as to who in the world of Faye Reznick was the "real killer" and what physical evidence did he have that anyone was the killer but himself. He was completely inarticulate. During Watergate we heard the refrain, "follow the money." With O.J. we were introduced to DNA evidence and, as it turns out, it was right on the money -- or at least right on. So, I tell you with any case involving the "Juice," look for the physical evidence because it does not lie and cannot be successfully cross examined.