In my younger days, my very younger days, before my brain had fully developed, my mind was tickled with a couple of professions: professions that were spurred on by my days on the high school debate team.

So first, some of you may be wondering how the heck someone like me could have qualified for such a team. Well, one of my teachers had recommended me for a spot because she said I liked to argue.

Moi:like to argue?!

I don’t like to argue, I just like to discuss, defend and my favorite and theorize.

So needless to say, for a millisecond, I pondered the possibility of becoming a lawyer.

Please, for all of my friends who are attorneys, stop laughing. Like I said, it had just been for a millisecond as had been the notion of going into politics.

Thank goodness my brain evolved. Now that’s not to say I am putting down lawyers or politicians, I just became more self-aware of — a different calling — one that didn’t require four more years of school or having to compete for votes.

But that’s not to say I have put away the notion to chew on a heated topic now and again or ponder the possible outcomes of a situation.

Just ask hubby. He hates to speculate. He is a “just the facts” kind of guy. But I find it exciting to hypothesize, which is why I am all over the Karen Read trial.

If you haven’t heard of Karen Read, she is a woman who is being accused of killing her boyfriend, John O’Keefe, who was a Boston police officer. She is being accused of hitting him with her Lexus SUV and leaving him for dead.  But her defense is arguing (here is where my talents could come into play) that she is being framed by police and that O’Keefe’s death was due to other circumstances.

I typically don’t follow trials; however, I was glued to the television during the O. J. Simpson trial. And just for the record, that glove definitely fit.

For the Karen Read trial, I don’t have time to listen to it in its entirety, like I did the O.J. trial, but baby girl has put me on to lawyers that are giving recaps, via You Tube videos. One that I have been following daily is called the “Lawyer You Know.” This little fellow has a great personality, and he is not so bad on the eyes!

Not that that should sway a follower. I do like how he breaks the trail down into little nuggets by playing clips of the high points and giving explanations as to why the lawyers on both the prosecution’s side and the defense’s side do certain things, and he also clues you in on the judges’ actions.

Initially, I wasn’t too keen on keeping up with the Karen Read trial, but baby girl watched the first one, which was a mistrial — the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict, so back to court this poor woman went — but this go round I have been hooked.

And unlike the O.J. case, I don’t think the defendant (lawyer word) — Karen Read — is guilty.

In my expert opinion, I don’t see how the jury could convict with so much reasonable doubt due to all the bungles made by the Boston Police department and the Massachusetts State Police.

For those of you who aren’t following the trial, I am sure this column of mine is also a bungle — a bungle of babble, but it’s a bungle of babble that has reminded me of the millisecond I contemplated a life of litigation.

 Terri Cowart Frazier writes features for The Vicksburg Post. She can be reached at terri.frazier@vicksburgpost.com.