I don't have a problem with the photo of MOM and Crump. Especially knowing that a reporter asked them to pose together and they simply obliged. Further, MOM looks very confident, Crump very uncomfortable.
I see on blogs people blowing a gasket over the photo - but for the most part these seem to be the people who hate MOM and live for reasons to interpret his behavior in a bad light. A photo certainly doesn't mean people are best friends or are in a conspiracy together to railroad George (unbelievably, some are actually asserting this). Being an attorney means being in an adversarial profession. I would imagine that no one would last long as an attorney if they had to feel hate for their professional opponents, and to live every day consumed by that hatred, day after day, case after case. I would think that the healthier way to live their lives would be to compartmentalize a bit and not engage in the negative emotions, to stay as much as they can in the cognitive realm and focus on the actual case before them.
IANAL, but I *am* in a profession in which wearing your feelings and reactions on your sleeve is indisuptably detrimental to the process. I see MOM as behaving as a professional. I think a lot of the armchair would-be attorneys aren't really thinking about what's best for George, but rather what would make *them* feel better in the short term. For instance, MOM acting like a snotty teenager, yelling profanity-laden insults to and about Crump, making a scene about not wanting to be anywhere near him, or otherwise publicly showing that Crump has gotten under his skin. Basically, feeling better if MOM sunk to a level even below that of Crump.
Personally, I would feel little confidence in such an attorney, one who couldn't control their emotions, one who couldn't keep their feelings private and present a professional demeanor with a clear, logical head. I certainly wouldn't want an attorney whose buttons could be pushed so easily, who would act immaturely and unprofessionally every time an opposing attorney got under their skin. I'd want an attorney who was mature enough to brush the crap off her/his shoulders and remain in control of their own emotions, one who would not even let the other person get under their skin.
ArtTart has some good comments over on Nettles' thread on Diwataman's blog. As he says there, it's the *media's* job to present the information in the case (which they aren't doing much of); MOM has provided a lot of info as a courtesy. Yet MOM gets blasted because he hasn't presented as much as they want, as quickly as they want it. Again, I think many of the unhappy people are looking for what will make *them* feel better. In addition, since their bias is to find fault with MOM, they blame him instead of stepping back and realizing the media has failed them. MOM's focus is and should be winning this case, not keeping bloggers satisfied.
But maybe the prevalence of "reality" TV is to blame. People seem to want some macho bravado blustering attorney on steroids and in a bikini wrestling in the mud... I'm starting to think they basically want a "show" fit for the lowest-common denominator. Then they could sit in their armchair, suck down a beer, and yell and scream at the TV what they feel should be done.... like they do with football games, feeling an "identification" with "their" team, even though they're as far from an athlete as they can be lol In this case, they know a small percentage of the evidence that MOM does, they have none of MOM's legal experience, but they have all the answers from the throne of their armchair lol
|