As a longtime reader of the MDJ opinion pages, I’ve always applauded your editors’ selections of syndicated columns and letters submitted by readers. Though I may disagree with various positions, the postings are invariably well-thought and reasonable. However, the letter Sunday from Jean Durham regarding the Zimmerman trial was so ludicrous, inflammatory and illogical that I question why it was chosen for publication.
She purports to know six “facts” in this case. Yet not one of her claims is indeed a “fact.” Each is merely her conjecture. She was not present at the scene and her knowledge is based solely on after-the-fact media reports, many of which have been contradictory depending on political viewpoints.
Her babbling that Zimmerman was “drunk on power and frothing at the mouth to shoot somebody” is so outrageous that it would be laughable in any other context.
Beyond all that, her tone is beyond offensive, demeaning anyone who disagrees with her — your editors are “knuckleheads,” Editorial Page editor Joe Kirby and Geraldo Rivera are “mindless zealots” who use their pens to “foist poisonous figments of (their) vicious minds.”
What Ms. Durham and those demonstrating for Trayvon conveniently ignore is that justice was served. Zimmerman was charged, after much outside racial pressure, with murder. He was found “not guilty” by a jury of his peers based on their unanimous decision that the facts did not convince them of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
That last point is the universal underlying premise of our judicial system, and unlike Ms. Durham’s conjecture, that is indeed a “fact.”