Most of ye will be aware of the case of an Irish nanny in Boston who is facing charges over the death of a baby in her care a few weeks ago.
I'm not concerned in this thread with the specifics of the case. Many of these have yet to emerge. What I am concerned with is the manner in which this case - and other high profile cases - get handled by the respective legal teams.
People here will be familiar with the concept of evidence being sub judice; i.e. being kept under wraps, not being discussed in public forums until such time as it is appropriate, usually during the actual court case. And the Irish media is usually happy to go along with this.
In the USA, the defendant has hardly been arraigned before the judge and both sides are rushing down the steps of the courthouse to hold up the other side's dirty linen for the world to see.
What is the point of this unseemly and undignified spectacle? It might influence public opinion but the public won't be the ones deciding guilt or innocence: that'll be left to the jury.
Of course, there is also the court case itself. There may be cameras in the courtroom and that gives the media extra scope for keeping the circus going. The jury is analysed, statements and testimonies get parsed by TV journalists as to their effectiveness rather than their veracity, lawyers play to the gallery knowing that this is their chance to hit the big time.
Is it just me or is one thing forgotten in all this drama? That little thing called justice?