Reasonable Doubts

Murder fascinates me. I am not alone, or true crime writers wouldn't make best seller lists so often. Miss Marple and Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have the hold on popular imagination that they have had for decades. It isn't necessary to explain my fascination, except perhaps to myself. I can trace it back to a murder that happened in Chapel Hill when I was 12. (See my blog, http://frankandlucille.blogspot.com/ to read about it.) But there is more to it, too.

I live for stories. I tell them, write them, listen to them, read them. For me, it is storytelling that makes us human. A murder investigation, trial and verdict have all the elements of great storytelling.

I remember the good old days when CourtTV provided live and full coverage of the OJ trial and the Mendendez brothers. Since those were in California, I could get home from work and still watch the afternoon sessions as they happened. I saw the glove that didn't fit, I saw the brothers break down while describing their cruel father. And the CTV evening programing was a recap of the day for the poor souls who had lives. It was great drama, and it led me to understand that our legal process teaches us to understand our society and human nature, to empathize with victims, survivors, and sometimes even the murderer. In my opinion, that last part--seeing the humanity in someone who has done something horrible--is what puts this kind of story-telling on a par with the greatest classics in literature.

Domestic cases are the ones that capture my imagination, draw me in and hook me. Yesterday, a local murder trial began. Brad Cooper is accused of murdering his wife, Nancy. It took more than 7 days to seat a jury of 12 plus 4 alternates, because the case has received so much publicity here. Brad and Nancy have 2 little girls. When Nancy went missing, and after her body was found, news media were full of photos of a good looking young woman with a great smile and her sweet daughters, sometimes with and sometimes without the husband and daddy now on trial. It's hard to say which are more poignant.

Nancy had good friends who loved her, and who were quick to tag Brad as her killer. They talked about troubles in the Coopers' marriage. They knew that Brad had been unfaithful. They spoke of abusive, controlling behavior on Brad's part. They started a charity in Nancy's name, to benefit women who are victims of abuse. The Court awarded custody of the little girls to the Rentz family, Nancy's family. I am sure that the general opinion among the public (and I include myself here) leans toward believing Brad is guilty. That's the easy point to get to, the easy story to tell.

But this morning, Howard Kurtz, Brad's attorney, delivered a 2 hour opening statement that must surely open people's minds for reasonable doubt. Mr. Kurtz did not just stand up and say "this is a tragedy, but my client is innocent, and the State can't prove otherwise." He went through the police work and the way the prosecution built its case point-by-point. He told the jury what they would hear, and why it was wrong or faulty. He did not shy away from making Nancy's friends look bad, or from tarnishing Nancy's halo. He managed to raise doubts before a word of testimoney or a shred of evidence is introduced. He absolutely raised the bar the prosecution has to get over before the trial propre begins. He reminded me that the easy story isn't always the true story.

So at this point, I have no opinion. I am wide open. (Not that my opinion matters to anyone except me.) I am just glad to see that the burden is squarely on the prosecution, where it belongs, and I look forward to the next chapter.