Ito Interview and Simpson Case

Re “Ito’s Televised Interview Lands Him in Controversy,” Nov. 15:

Rewind that videotape! Wasn’t that the same Judge Lance Ito appearing on local news the one presiding over the O.J. Simpson case? By rejecting jury candidates who slipped and listened to classical music on the radio or watched cartoons with their children, Judge Ito’s iron edict cut out several informed citizens whose only sin was to inadvertently expose themselves to news blurbs. And now Judge Ito has the temerity to flood us for a week with news on him!

Judge, join the ranks of the attorneys in this case who have used the media for their own self-aggrandizement to the detriment of a fair trial. Don’t forget, Dante reserved the eighth circle in Hell for hypocrites (wearing robes, no less)!

DONN WALDRON

Playa del Rey

*

* A UCLA professor of law says that Ito’s appearance on TV “smacks of hypocrisy” because Ito has had some harsh words to say about media coverage. This is just another example of misunderstanding the judge’s own rules for handling cases that command TV exposure.

The third of the maxims Ito wrote says: “The sirens of mythology pale in comparison to the allure of seeing yourself on CNN. The results, however, can be about the same.” I believe this law professor has not realized the humor, the wisdom nor the profundity of this statement. He should read again Homer’s “Odyssey” before he condemns Ito’s decision to do these interviews.

The judge is not discussing the Simpson case, but giving us all a look at his background so that we can better know and understand him and his reasoning. I find this to be most admirable and a fine example for all of our judges, most of whom are strangers to the public.

MARILYN ALLEN

Yucaipa

*

* A judge who joins the media circus may end up looking like a clown.

SAUL KAHAN

Los Angeles

*

* After reading “For Goldman’s Father, Grief Turns to Anger,” Nov. 13, I felt compelled to write you with hope that Fred Goldman and his family, as well as the Brown family, can know that there are many of us who share his anger over the outrageous media circus that has prevailed since the tragic murder of his son and Nicole Brown on June 12.

My husband and I feel the defense attorneys have made mockery of the justice system and continue to do so as they try to denigrate any person who can provide substantiation of Simpson’s guilt. We support Goldman’s frustration as the deaths of these two young people have seemingly become secondary to Simpson’s plight as the prime suspect in the crime. With so much emphasis on the fear that Simpson will not get a fair trial, one is led to think that “fair” means he’s found “not guilty” because of reasonable doubt. Well, we say that’s not fair to the memory of the two victims and the two families who lost their loved ones.

We wish the Goldman and Brown families courage as the next few months unfold. May it help just a little to know that there are many of us who care about you and your loss. May justice win out.

ROBERTA M. BLANK

Los Angeles

*

* It is ironic that, the day after the media “win” the “right” to cover the Simpson trial by television cameras, the networks and local stations proclaim they do not intend to offer gavel-to-gavel coverage (Nov. 8). Even the local stations are refusing to enter a consortium to offer gavel-to-gavel coverage on a rotating basis.

This is hilarious, and sad. The day after Kelli Sager (on behalf of, inter alia , The Times) piously argues that the public is learning civil procedure from gavel-to-gavel coverage, the day after Judge Ito expresses his concern about “sound bites” and distorted descriptions, the day after all the media attorneys argue the best protection against distorted coverage is gavel-to-gavel coverage--the basic television outlets for that very information say they will not provide that very coverage! Most people cannot receive CNN, or Court TV--where the gavel-to-gavel coverage will now be relegated. The public will now be offered “hourly updates.” Of course, those updates will be delivered by anchor-people reading scripts written to attract attention, not to convey information. This coverage will be as biased, as contemptible, as the “teaser” ads local stations run for upcoming news shows. The media will apparently decide which days are “important days of the trial” in offering coverage. How does such selective coverage fit with allowing the public to be fully informed through all of the proceedings?

JOHN M. HAYTOL

Costa Mesa