I just saw something ridiculous on Entertainment Tonight. This is not necessarily aberrant, but it pissed me off. Mary Hart had a 'special exclusive interview' with O.J Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clarke. Why? I couldn't really tell. Apparently, because Marcia used to be a prosecutor, it is useful to interview her about what the prosecutors preparing a case against Scott Petersen might be thinking. Rubbish, right? The whole interview is thus purely speculative and pissweak, and more about its participants than its subject matter. It reminded me very much of a great episode of CNNNN last year, where, during Sandwichgate, a wife - who had nothing to do with the events - was interviewed about what might be going on in the head of the wife of the man involved in the car chase that was causing all the kerfuffle. You know, "As a wife myself, I think that this wife might be thinking..." It was hilarious. Mary Hart's interview was less hilarious, because, prig that she is, you could see that she actually felt like she was conducting a serious interview, even though what she was actually doing was talking to someone completely uninvolved in the story who, despite her high profile, was unable to render up to us any blazing insights. Having said all this, these two women were not the weirdest characters to pop up in a 4-minute ET story. Some weirdos actually bothered to stand outside the station where Scott Petersen was being booked, holding placards with witty little interpretations like "Scott is a MURDERER", and proudly declaring that they knew he did it all along. These are just members of the public. They are not even remotely involved. They have no connection to the families. And yet they don't find themselves strange for standing around in the dark next to a police station, waiting for a car to arrive so that they can tell its occupant that they don't like him. They are rabid and vicious and very pleased with themselves for being so. These are moral people. And yet, those with at least some connection to the case aren't behaving much better. The actual District Attorney prosecutor responsible for this case declared Scott's conviction was gonna be a 'slam dunk' before the guy had even been arraigned. These people are professionals, but they appear hard to separate from those outside the police station, who have decided themselves authorities on the case based on what has been reported to them. Also, much of the reporting has been more concerned with updating us on the state of current public opinion, and then going on to speculate what effect public sentiment might have on the case - where it is decided, jury selection, etc - rather than what the case against Scott actually is. Now, I don't know what the case is, either. I don't know who is guilty or innocent. But I think that it is important to consider that a conviction isn't good in itself. And that being able to to convict someone of a crime is no guarantee that you have done your job. That is all.