Setting fire to a winning lottery ticket

If memory serves me right, none of the folks associated with the first O.J. trial — from defense attorneys to prosecutors(even "Kato" Kaelin) — ever had to do another honest day’s work in their lives if they elected not to do so. The lone exception being Judge Lance Ito, who earned the reputation among his peers as being perhaps the worse Judge in the history of American jurisprudence.

The rest of them parlayed their participation in the case to book deals and careers as TV commentators. Closer to home, Congressman Steve LaTourette rode his involvement with the 1989 Jeffery Lundgren cult murder case like a government mule … all the way to Washington and a seat in the Congress.

Now, juxtapose that to Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold’s lost opportunity to ride the Sowell case off into the sunset of her legal career. True, since all of the victims as well as the alleged perpetrator, are black the payoff won’t be as lucrative as the O.J. case (hey, this still is America) however, even a deeply discounted pay day still could total in the low seven figures when all is said and done. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if prosecutors on the Sowell case are taking copious notes in preparation for a book deal … that is if they haven’t already inked one.

But Judge Saffold’s brief involvement will now forever be relegated to footnote status, her dismissal from the case a future trivia fact most will find difficult to recall a decade down the line. “What was that Judge’s name that got tossed off the Sowell case in Cleveland?”

It’s as if she missed hitting the lottery by one number, or had the winning ticket and set it on fire … with incendiary, injudicious and downright wacky comments and flat-out lies(if, indeed, she made them … and she’s saying that she didn’t. That’s her story and she’s sticking to it — at least for the nonce).

But can anyone really be surprised that Acting Chief Justice Paul E. Pfeifer was concerned and troubled enough by postings on an email account Judge Saffold admits she often uses to take her off the case? Pfeifer could have taken months to rule on the disqualification motion filed by Sowell’s attorneys, but instead he made his ruling within hours … which should tell us something.

While Judge Pfeifer didn’t come out and publicly question the veracity of Judge Saffold’s explanation (she said that she shares the email account with her daughter, who actually was the source of the scurrilous and degrading comments) the swiftness and wording of his ruling strongly suggests that Judge Saffold’s explanation didn’t pass the straight face test. Did she honestly think that anyone was going to buy the line of bull she was selling? And, going forward, no one should be surprised if her daughter eventually comes out and contradicts the Judge over authorship of the missives in question.

Already among the most high profile cases in Cuyahoga County history, the plot was about to take as many serpentine twists and turns as any literary work of Fyodor Dostoyevsky if Judge Pfeifer hadn’t brought things to a screeching halt.

I figured it would take about two minutes for Saffold supporters to cry “racism” at the decision to take her off the case, but I was wrong — it only took a minute and a half. If race is going to be wrongly introduced into the conversation, someone might as well ask why was it that only black people were viciously attacked by the cowardly emails. And for idiot journalists of color to use the race card at every drop of the specious hat only cheapens it to the point where it has no validity — no real value — in cases where racism truly exists. Some black writers and publications really should be ashamed of themselves.

Lost in all of the recriminations and petty postings is the larger question of Internet anonymity. As Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote not long after the story broke, newspapers are partially — indeed, maybe even mostly — to blame for the despicable lowering of the level of discourse in our culture by posting comments from cowards who don’t have to strap on their nuts and put their names to what they write. In their eagerness to remain relevant newspapers nationwide are providing smoke and mirrors soapboxes for kooks of every ilk and stripe … and are allowing them to, as old folks say, “throw a rock and hide their hands.”

When I first began writing online, publisher Thomas Mulready gave me a piece of advice I took to heart: Before reading any readers’ response to something I’ve written, he cautioned me to scroll down to the bottom of it to see if they have the courage to put their name on it; if they don’t, then don’t bother to waste my time reading it. Great advice since I really have no time or tolerance for cowards, fools and mental midgets.

I’ve always put my name on my opinions and beliefs, and, yes, doing so has occasionally cost me … in terms of acquaintances who no longer speak to me (you’ll notice I didn’t call them “friends” they were just acquaintances and therefore of no great loss) and even have suffered in financial terms; I know — or at least I was told by insiders — that over the years I’ve lost out on a few consulting contracts because of my penchant to speak truth to power. So be it … I’ve survived without them — and will continue to do so. Plus, I have the added bonus of being able to look at myself in the mirror every morning … and like what I see. There really ain’t nothing wrong with talking real greasy about someone … just be man or woman enough to do it out front, and not from safe hiding.

Judge Pfeifer, in coming down hard and fast on cowardly Internet conduct proves once again that “God don’t like ugly.” There will be no retirement jackpot for Her Honor. Hooray, she doesn’t deserve one.

From Cool Cleveland correspondent Mansfield B. Frazier mansfieldfATgmail.com. Frazier's From Behind The Wall: Commentary on Crime, Punishment, Race and the Underclass by a Prison Inmate is available again in hardback. Snag your copy and have it signed by the author by visiting http://www.frombehindthewall.com.