By now, most of us are all too familiar with that horrific Bloomingdale library rape of two years ago and the subsequent trial and recent conviction of Kendrick Morris. We also read about how challenging it was to select a jury given the pervasive media exposure. Who in the pool had not heard about this notoriously tragic case? It was surprising, candidly, that there wasn’t a change of venue.
There is, admittedly, a tendency to wonder how — absent a recent reawakening from a comatose state — anyone could not know about this case. And how suitable — given this glaring gap in contemporary frame of reference — would they be as a juror? Only the clueless qualify?
And then I read the post-trial comments of the woman who had been elected foreman. She said the DNA evidence sealed the guilty verdict. She then addressed her jury selection — given the key criterion that had disqualified so many others.
She said that although she lived in the area of the high-profile crime, she had, indeed, been unaware of it. She explained that she is an animal advocate who has come to focus more on pets than people.
“The more that I learn about people, the more I’m disappointed in humans,” she said.
I have pets. I follow the news all too closely. I get it.