Often in the annals of discourse, public and otherwise, whether it be an apology, an announcement, an accusation, a public statement or a private admission, what isn’t said often speaks louder than what is said.
Having heard the statement that Michael Vick released to the public after his arraignment, the one crucial omission in his message blared out as strikingly as a confession…
Before I get into Michael Vick’s “absolutely, positively, 100%, not guilty” moment, I think it would lend some perspective to have Sherman set the “way back” machine to 1994 and examine a truly vintage moment of omission from the original “absolutely, positively, 100%, not guilty” defendant himself. It was actually one of Mr. Simpson’s esteemed surrogates that provided this insightful moment, and it was the moment, for me at least, that erased all doubts about the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. (O.K., not that I actually had much doubt, but you get the point.)
In a rare journalistic “get,” “Larry King Live” was actually able to book one of the attorneys from the O.J. Simpson trial, Alan Dershowitz, to appear on the show. Imagine that! (This interview, by the way, took place sometime during the middle of the criminal trial and coincided with the “beginning of the end” of Dershowitz’s credibility.) As the famed Harvard law professor and criminal defense attorney took the hot seat, as well as the merciless grilling that Larry King is so famous for, he was hit right between the eyes by a very simple but direct question about his client’s innocence. The two were discussing the case and after some prolonged bluster by Dershowitz about evidence that exonerated his client, Larry asked him, quite simply, “So what you’re saying is, you believe your client is innocent?” To this, Dershowitz responded, “Larry, here’s what I believe… I believe when all the facts of this case are laid out and the jury gets to see all of our evidence… blah, blah, blah,… beyond a reasonable doubt,… blah, blah, blah,… not guilty of these horrific crimes,… blah, blah, blah.” My jaw dropped. The correct answer to Larry’s question if Dershowitz actually believed his client was innocent was, “Yes.” Period. No equivocating. No clarifying. No explaining. No, “Here’s what I believe…” No hemming and hawing. Just, “Yes.” Absolutely. Positively. 100%. “Yes.” So it wasn’t what Dershowitz said, it was what he didn’t say. And it was only one word, but it told me everything I needed to know.
This brings me to Michael Vick. Moments after Vick’s arraignment, he had his attorney release this statement to the media--
"I take these charges very seriously and look forward to clearing my good name. I respectfully ask all of you to hold your judgment until all of the facts are shown. I would like to say to my mom I'm sorry for what she has had to go through in this most trying of times,"
He also apologized to his teammates for not being with them for the start of training camp.
Afterwards, his attorney chimed in--
"This is going to be a hard-fought trial. We are conducting our own investigation. We will look into these allegations and we look forward to the opportunity to being able to walk inside this courtroom saying to the world that Michael Vick is innocent."
Anybody notice something missing in this statement? I certainly did.
Not one single word about dogs.
Amidst all the truly horrific allegations and the wide-spread speculation, there is one thing that we know for certain about this mess, and that is the fact that Michael Vick is a dog owner. And he has more than one. Now, whether Michael Vick is a dog lover or a dog fighter in the eyes of the law is yet to be determined, (And let me be absolutely clear. YOU CANNOT BE BOTH!) but it stands to reason that if you are an owner of multiple dogs and you are not in the latter category, you are almost certainly in the former.
In the interest of full disclosure I must tell you that I am a dog lover myself and have a real soft spot for people who open their homes up to animals. Especially more than one. It is a lot of work and it’s a big responsibility.
That being said, it is almost impossible for me to comprehend that if Michael Vick (or anyone in his situation) was truly a dog lover, that the idea of dog fighting wouldn’t be repulsive to him and that his first public statement wouldn't reflect that fact loudly and unequivocally. He would proclaim, not only his innocence, but his love of dogs. He would decry the barbaric practice. And maybe, most emphatically, he would say that he was sick to his stomach that anyone could ever even think that he could be involved in anything that depraved. I would. And I suspect that every single dog owner I know would. I would be less concerned with the criminal consequences than I would about the fact that people might start looking at me like some kind of monster.
Shooting.
Strangling.
Electrocuting.
Drowning.
Pummeling to death.
Those actions make one a monster.
And I can tell you for a fact that any dog owner wrongfully accused of fighting, torturing and slaughtering their own animals would issue more than the perfunctory “Not guilty,” “Let’s respect due process.” “Sorry to my friends and family,” et cetera.
They would scream their innocence from the mountaintop and no lawyer would stop them because there is no legal jeopardy in proclaiming your innocence when you’re actually innocent.
I know what an innocent man looks like and maybe, more importantly, I know what one sounds like and I didn’t hear one today.
I couldn’t care less about Michael Vick. About his football career. About his endorsements. About his freedom. I have no sympathy for him.
I’m saving it all for the pit bulls.
Because, sadly, they need it now more than ever.