Morality Dept 

Call Mr. Bonzo to the stand, Your Honor    

(Or) The [Monkey] Shining 

This site is about writing – of a sorts… is it not? ‘Fraid so. 

“So, does that mean I’m gonna have to postpone my memoirs – again?

My public! The little people! They need me!”

“Yes sir. Just go to the end of line three around the corner. The one in front of counter four. You’ll have to get a razzle form No. 141A – fill it out completely. Make sure you staple your 517C dazzle stubs to your copy of the form. Then proceed to the checkout.”

“Yes? What was that? Turn leftright at the Hall Of Mirrors – below the courthouse?”

“That’s correct, sir. You’ll have to take a number and have a seat in the waiting room. When your number is called, respond with your magic whizzer to get Mr. Bonzo’s attention. And don’t forget to buckle-up. Have a nice day…”

Too bad. I’ll have to skip past myself again because I’ve agreed to take the case of what’s inside two books, one by John Grisham and one by Michael Crichton.

Michael Crichton's ‘Next’ is science-fiction that reads like tomorrow’s headlines. Grisham's ‘The Innocent Man’, is non-fiction, detailing the mechanics of our judicial system; from investigation to execution. What’s underneath the hood of these two pulse-raising, paper-back page-turning pulp-a-thons, is, in my opinion, important.

The conduct of the antagonists covered in the pages of these two books caught my attention because they seem to mirror injustices in the way of news media manipulation. Even though most people take the high road, some recognize that false information seems an easy way to turn others' heads away from the facts in subtle ways. 

Who are my clients? They are the virtual Mr. and Mrs. Ok. I've agreed to take their case, in hopes of winning an acquittal. Am I qualified?

The fate of the entire universe may hinge on it!  

Lawyers ? Lawyers? We don't need no stinking lawyers. I aim to lift the erstwhile ersatz hocus-pocus from the mantle of Mr. & Mrs. Ok, a thing hung on them like last weeks fish - by those hiding in the shadows! Those exhaustingly, maddeningly, nuttily, pointedly unpointed cruddy things perpetrated by a few authoritarian politicos wearing those pin-head-striped shark suits.  

But first, a little haiku:

I read. Then I move on to other things. Then back.

For those of you who happen to be waiting in line, or waiting at the airport, maybe even waiting to be indicted - possibly waiting for those life’s’ changes’ to kick in? (how about waiting to win the PowerBall jackpot?) – Well, wait no more. I’ve got a couple of reads to kill your time, but not your conscience. Bend your head - but not break it. A tonic for the case of the  senadnum – a speedy ride on the fast moving stream of alternate consciousness – that is – unless you’ve already picked up these two pulp-hogs.

In which case, it’s back to haiku.

Let’s head over to the ‘best-seller’ mill. The de-forester-pulp-mill turns out for the most part contemporary fiction: page-turning blast-a-thons. Of these, a few are what I would consider important. A very few are both entertaining and important. I pick two; one is fiction, the other is not. In this episode, let’s look at ‘Crime and Sci-Fi Pulp’. I want to cover, then bind these two books together. Henceforth we shall refer to this melding in its proper  scientific name: ‘pulp-a-tude’.

Grisham and Crichton weave tales of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Grisham touches upon how we unwittingly observe, sometimes even participate in injustice, and in so doing, we boomerang ourselves on the back of the head.

Crichton, on the other hand, explains how the world is happily spinning along while a motley band of corporate barons are rounding up and rustling the double-helix – wringing it out like a wet towel, twisting the laws of nature into bizarre shapes. Both authors are skillful at giving the reader an insider’s view of their respective areas of expertise: Crichton is a doctor; Grisham, an attorney.

The nice thing about reading these stories, is that you can avoid all that messy monkey-business and side-step the banana peels of reality. Unless of course, fate happens to throw one under you.

Have a seat and grab those arm-chair handles. Furrow your brow, bite your lip. Cover your face – close those eyes and scream through your mind! Yes – we’re aiming to hang that literary IV up behind your armchair (a little to the right, please…) and drip the joy-juice. You have every legal right to sashay straight through other people’s back yards. Oh, the vicarious voyeurism of it all! The snoopery that allows you, the intrepid detective, to take your cerebellum on an audacious mini-car ride around the track. You – the dauntless page-turner get to sail to distant lands and squeeze that lemon... all this and more, while avoiding those messy slings and arrows of reality. For to read about it is a far, far better thing that you do, than you have ever done before. A far, far better shirking of reality that you shirk, than you have ever shirked before…

Better that – than slip on that banana peel – and let the monster grab you by the shorts…!

Let’s push the button and start the plotline. Roll Grisham:

Grisham takes the lay-public into the world of the law, and how our legal machinery is capable (quite capable) of convicting innocent men or women to death. ‘Innocent’ is a departure into non-fiction for Grisham, and he shows equal skill in exposing real-life injustice in small town  America. You get to sit on the judge's bench and see cases from the inside-out. Without this vantage-point, the layperson might be anyone who picks up a local newspaper and reads about ‘that suspect in custody' – maybe he thinks the suspect is guilty. 'He must be - how else did he land in jail.' What do you think? Is he guilty? How do you plead?

Detectives and prosecutors wield a lot of power, and it’s natural to assume that what they tell us is the straight dope. Reading ‘The Innocent Man’ is to see the workings of our legal system – and it’s a scary fascination. Innocent exposes the occasional police and public’s hypnotic disregard for constitutional law. Innocent is the true story of how a few (a very few) lawyers, judges, district attorneys, and juries, have ruined lives and reputations.

You might wish to take a trip to the beach before reading Innocent – for doing so is like watching an episode of – get this – “Legal Systems Gone Wild!” ‘The Innocent Man’ is a horror story because it not only happened, it leaves the reader wondering how many other people have been wrongfully executed.

Innocent walks you down the vaunted halls of justice, showing you the circumstances, the investigation, then the indictment, prosecution, and finally the appeals process. You might not be able to practice law after you read this book, (too bad) but you will end up knowing at least as much as an innocent man strapped onto a gurney (well, that's something…)

Grisham uses his knowledge of being an attorney to spin out the true tale of false convictions, gives the reader a panoramic view of the elephantine giant called the legal system as it slowly plods across the land, sometimes squashing anyone who falls the wrong way. And how over-zealous prosecutors know how to tickle this behemoth with the feather of untruth, to sending it rampaging and running amok. Once the apparatus marches against you, the chances are that you, (should you be convicted) will in time, be rolled straightaway into a death chamber (in most states), effectively crushed at a distance by the arrogant forked-tongue of a prosecuting attorney, practicing the craft of band-wagon-politics. In this true story of false justice, the investigating detectives and the prosecuting attorneys practice their witch-craft in 'heart-land' - I won't name the town.

A comparison might be made with the recent ‘Duke Rape Case’. But with Duke, the only culpability seems to be with an obstinate and over-zealous district attorney (Mike Nifong) who was rather quickly found out and vanquished. In Grisham’s book, the victim(s) is/was not so lucky – they spent a long time on death row. In Innocent, Grisham shows in detail how legal malfeasance is occasionally spread over the community like an obscene layer of muck; how it fouls the legal process, and poisons the minds of a jury.

In this story, good behavior falls through wide-open cracks of inflated egos and old-fashioned spite. Let’s not forget incompetence and lying. And let’s not forget that in today’s society, once an injustice has been accomplished, everyone has been pulled aboard and rides the train, weather they were pied-pipered or not: judge, jury and prison warden included. This is the true story of ‘Walking-Low’  - the guys who carry the big stick are an entire police department, district attorney and all. 'Judge not...'

saith the choir.

Grisham gives several cases of people who have been wrongfully convicted, but centers the story mainly on a Ron Williamson, a one-time major (for a short time) and minor league baseball player. Grisham shows us the hidden manifesto of incompetence and malfeasance that is the operational byword in such a corrupt police department. The guilty go free to laugh up their sleeves another day, while the innocent land in the hot seat.

Certain prosecuting attorneys take faulty evidence, and take the court for a ride. Bait-and-switch in the courtroom. This is done by presenting a sloppy circumstantial case, and calling it ‘hard evidence’. I understand that an exuberant presentation is properly called for on both sides, but under correct procedures. Anything else, and it is jellyfish justice.

(An interesting note: around the turn of the twentieth century, a lynching took place in this town. Today’s citizens in this bible-belt community (as undoubtedly elsewhere) seem to have allowed their judgment to be clouded over by the same spirit of rage carried by their forefathers - resurrected again in a ‘twilight-zone-repeat’ of the past.)

Grisham tells us how the game is played. The pattern seems to go something like this: many, (perhaps most) wrongly convicted people have broken laws and raised the ire of local police. Again, many, if not most of these individuals (but certainly not all of them) have histories of fighting, public drunkenness, resisting arrest, and so on – this attracts attention.

And if one of these episodes of carousing happens to have taken place near an actual murder scene – and it happens at about the same time of the murder – then watch out. Because outbursts and bad language are something that always trigger the memories of nearby witnesses. Sometimes, an even more tenuous connection is made: an innocent man who is not prone to outbursts is circumspectly taken in and charged. With some police departments, all it takes to put an innocent man to death is thin evidence, and false/jailhouse testimony.

The above scenario is probably more likely to happen in a smaller town (but not always), where the suspect has  crossed paths with the actual killer. And you can bet killers understand how this works. In the case described in Innocent, the actual killer was brought in for questioning and told the police he thought ‘it had to be that guy Ron’ (paraphrased). The police believed him because they wanted to believe Williamson did the crime, and they squeezed and manufactured evidence into a shape presentable to a jury. That put Williamson on death row. Years later, Williamson was in fact exonerated by DNA evidence, but his road to freedom was blocked repeatedly and fought by the prosecution, tooth and nail. I guess that’s a sad way to say, “Judge not lest you be judged.”

Besides going after some of the local bad boys, part of the game is to do political correctness with the newspapers – tell ‘em what they want to hear. 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I put the virtual evidence into my virtual top hat, and – I pull my virtual handkerchief over it – presto! Guilty man!'

Most convictions in the US are made against those who are in fact, guilty; the point of all this, is that some are falsely convicted and executed, revealing basically, judicial murder by proxy. The fact that certain courts have short-circuited due process is unpardonable. Judges have done so, basically because they sense that the public, the press, and the jury are against a defendant, because he’s the one sitting at the defense table – this 'false-cloud-nine' air of superiority is what the jury is fed by over-zealous prosecutors. The one small detail is, what if the evidence used does not match actual facts? What if the defendant really is innocent.

But Innocent is only about a few cases that we know of, that were ramroded by corrupt law-enforcement officials who were playing in the wrong zoning areas, and playing for keeps. 

Thoughts on this? Maybe we should pause, and take an ‘angry’ break. The legal rights for the victims of crime are few and far between. The constitution itself only guarantees rights for >those individuals whose actions produce victims<. Most people are outraged at how criminals always seem to get the last laugh.

This emotion alone seems to describe how some police officials can put on the cape of crime-fighter, and tear off a quick and dirty conviction. They knew when a wind of evidence blew toward the defendant, and conveniently let their capes blow over their eyes. They were carried along by public sentiment, and they carried public sentiment. Weak judges allowed fictitious evidence. Media manipulation carried the day. Some in the jury, believing in a wish-world of retribution, and carried about by the sentiment blowing in the wind – helped along by gossips and newspapers, allowed themselves all to be blown around as if by a child blowing bubbles in the wind. ‘Muthu’s little helpers’ seem to be the sale of advertising spots. Newspapers know how to dish the hot air. Guilty.

'Judge not...

I think Mortimer E. Shacklesby pointed out that politicians and lawyers occasionally cast spells on the public by fondling the tool of news-hounds. 

What? Never heard of him?

Neither have I. And we thought they cared…

Where was I? Oh yes. Public sentiment is often manipulated by politicians and newspapers like Sally’s little doll. And this is how some people are executed. Not many. But a few. Surprised? No?

Don’t know what came over me J

Exculpatory evidence? New discovery? In Grisham’s book, spit in your right hand to see if it fills up faster than your left hand. Even DNA evidence which would (pardon the expression) be a ‘slam-dunk’ for dismissal in court is railed against; attempts are vigorously made to obfuscate new findings. Obfuscating evidentiary analysis to keep appeals lawyers from seeing how thin it is, spoon-feeding the newspapers to bolster public opinion -

In an honest ‘straight’-forward case, an innocent man has a proportionately better chance of [rightfully] being set free based on a criminal courts 'good-behavior’, but again, this depends on the level of honesty (in words), and the lack of obfuscation (truthfulness with the evidence), presented in the courtroom – or to the appeals court. But if the evidence is tampered with to cover up for laziness or embarrassment: consider the goose as pretty much already in the oven.

In the case of wrongful convictions, irrational thinking on the part of incompetent police powers involves stubbornness in sticking with a sloppy story. This slop, a shapeless bag of emotional weight, is presented to a jury – and here the salesmanship begins. The bag of slop is opened and poured out over the heads of the jury while the serious looking guy in the black robe behind the bench does a good of acting like a judge. If the story is false the court buys it, the outcome of the trial gels into injustice, smothering its victim.

The corrupt DA stands up in the court, and passes out the ‘super-duper-x-ray-vision-rose-colored-glasses’ to the judge and the jury, telling them by so many genuflections, ‘Trust me’. The ability of a judge to discern is blurred, if that stupid judge puts on those dumb rose colored glasses. The 'lay-jury' can not be expected to know any better.

I stood in the presence of Elmer Fudd one fine afternoon, as he said in a commanding, albeit scratchy and high-pitched voice, “Jeepers! I have fthaith in the Amewican wegal system!”

In the case of an honest police department and DA’s office, freeing an innocent man is still difficult: highly trained appeals lawyers and appeals court clerks may still be under the spell of persistent, rose-colored glasses syndrome. I.E. ‘why is that a man physically sitting behind bars in the first place?’

Now I’ll wind these fine meanderings down to my ‘un-point’: I can’t fix injustice. It is too closely bound up with human nature. There is only one group of birds in the flock which can free our poor goose – those are the ones who are privy to the innards of the system – the judicial guys themselves. Grisham touches upon what you may have already suspected: often an appeals court is reluctant to overturn a conviction – because very often the appellate judges know the trial judges personally. Translated: they are afraid that by overturning a decision, they will overturn friendships and feelings. Let’s give the judge a big kiss…

Enough of this depressing injustice stuff. Lighten up and let us move to another twisted groove. Peel back the leaf and look at Crichton’s book about injustice perpetrated upon all life on our planet: That’s ‘Next’.

Crichton’s book, ‘Next’, is written in his usual page-turner style – but with a twist: most of the chapters in Next are written as a series of unrelated essays. Next has a justice all its own in the way it unfolds at the end; in-between, skullduggery wafts through the pages like a smoke-filled room of political hacks. These disparate-looking chapters come together at the end like teeth in a wacky gear factory.

This spoof of greed and ego takes the reader on a wild and hilarious roller-coaster ride, filled alternately with raucous wise-guy laughs, then abruptly dropping the reader through trap-doors into a room full of bedazzle. You’ll fall over laughing all right – but these stand-alone ‘piece-stories’ in his book are happening today – imagine waking up some morning, opening your front door, and greeting a long-lost copy of yourself. Hey, wait a minute. That’s not funny. Relax! The  genetic jigsaw pieces haven't all been fitted together – yet. But I think you understand, don’t you, it really is ‘next’.

Today’s and tomorrow’s world of genetic engineering is a warning of science gone quite mad. Next looks like zany science fiction, but it’s actually on ‘next’ years headlines – straight to your door. This shock-the-monkey thriller is already 90% true today – and the crazy DNA train is bound to come off the tracks in the next few years. Crichton, an MD, is only doing his job in explaining how the process is done; he uses fictional characters who are driven by - what else – buck motive. Multi-billion-dollar science is all it takes to turn multi-billion-year genetic evolution back on itself like a pretzel. The hook of realism in this book is how twisted dreams will be turned into twisted life – this can (and will) only be made possible by corporate and governmental backing.

Plot and action follow hand in hand, round and round; wrestling with this genetic monkey-thriller is exhilaratingly insane. ‘Next’ really does cover things going on today – only in Next, a few things haven’t actually happened yet – that is, that we know of. Like breeding a chimpanzee with a human (humanzee), among other things. Give it time.

The community of geneticists and bio-scientists portrayed in ‘Next’, go on about their monkey-shines, quite placidly tinkering with genes and doing the bizarre. In blasé fashion, scientists blissfully turn our world into a new creation. After all, big money is to be made in patenting genomes. (As in you and me.) Or, engineering super-intelligent parrots. Or, get this – producing displayable advertising messages by genetically altering plants and animals with luminescence pattern-markings. British Petroleum and General Motors would be proud J

So, to recap our tale of two injustices: Grisham’s is a horror-story of how your fate may be lying in wait just down at your local police station, and in Crichton’s world, monkeys and humans are paired off – and I give a hearty opposing thumbs up to the courageous monkey. ‘Next’ is the  fictional true story of monkey-business; and the non-fiction Innocent, is unbelievable fact. With either, give it a few years; or, throw your dice said the tick-tock man – it’s already happened, and it’s going to happen for the first time.

Which one of these works struck me? Both. Although ‘Next’ describes what will take place in the next few years, it is still around the bend, so to speak. It probably has the higher entertainment value – hilarious drop-offs, and gut-busting belly-laughs.

‘Innocent’ was and is, a discomfortingly real story. We’re not innocent – none of us. Wouldn’t it be interesting if you received the death penalty for it? Not to mention that ‘Innocent’ is an enlightening mirror on the fact that some cops are criminals. Of course, to hold the mirror closely enough to find out, you might have to take a needle in the arm.

Stylistically, the authors are very different. ‘Innocent’, unlike most of Grisham’s other mega-sellers (some made into movies, as you know) reads more like Hemingway: rapid-fire – to the point – just the facts, man. This documentary-styled book is, or should be, required reading in schools – because it is a type of ‘Salem Witch-Hunt, revisited’ – it’s how all of the worst things in human nature (fear, jealousy, ect) can (and sometimes will) come to happen like a bad dream come true.

Either way, both of these little books are important. They will no doubt, be forgotten in a few years march of time: the next few bestsellers will make their way to the tops of the chart. But these two are more than reasonable explications which take the reader by the hand into the dark vaults of injustice – the dark things that we as a society tend not to want to think about. As touches both society, and, individualism – injustice opposes all of God’s creatures. The value of these two randomly selected books seems to be the more so, because these two reads are not a ‘whine-list’ of selfish complaints – not some species of narcissistic hogwash – ‘Next’ touches the mind; ‘Innocent’ touches the heart(s).

Afterword From The Editor:

The story you have just read was retrieved by subpoena from the files of clone #217-0-5526 just after he went into surgery for organ removal. RIP.

Michael Crichton - 1942-2008. RIP.

Top