[cake_crumb]

I was like that during the OJ trial too, except that of course I was interested in the case for the sake of the case law. OJ's non-trial fiasco didn't have any repercussions on public policy nationwide though. The Peterson case DOES...or did...hard to tell now. The media has obfuscated everything to the point that the case law might get mucked up. Which is probably the intent from some quarters, since it's worked so well in the past.

[FreedomCalls]

Do you think the non-stop coverage will prejudice any jury they can find? Or will they have to get such thick-heads who will claim not to have seen any coverage that they are not capable of following a trial argument and will be capable of being misled by a fast-talking attorney like Johnny Cochran?

Either way, can he get a fair trial? Isn't that reason enough to moderate the coverage?

[meema]

I change the channel every time it comes up. Can't stand this 24/7 stuff!! This is not like OJ, which I admit I watched.
I just had to get up to grab the remote. The blasted story is on EVERY CHANNEL at this moment. Clicked to c-span. Ssomething about Historic Preservation.

[toothseaquer]

I was thoroughly hooked on the OJ case. I knew everything by not missing one day. It was during the hot summer season and I was glued to the TV only going out at noon time break to shop for groceries. (I noticed the market was busy at that time too LOL.)
I vowed to myself, I will never get addicted to a case like that again. It was too emotionally draining. I had to eat those words when locally we had the Westerfield trial. I watched the trial daily. When one is familiar with the area, it brings it closer to home. Scott was picked up at a familiar spot, which also brings his case closer to home. If there is a televised trial(which I pray won't happen) I am afraid I am too weak to resist watching. The media creates the addiction and it takes a strong resolve not to get sucked in. Proud of all of you who shut off your TV or switch to other channels for entertaiment.