If he could take it back - and I am sure there is a long list of things Vince Fumo would like to take back today - No. 1 would be his decision to testify on his own behalf at his federal corruption trial.

As jurors made clear yesterday - after finding Fumo guilty of all 137 counts against him - the testimony gave them a chance to take a measure of the man.

In weighing the decision to let Fumo testify, his defense team obviously was in a difficult situation. Since the charges against him were undeniable - he did buy those power tools, he did use his staff for personal missions, he did take those trips on the fancy boat - their only hope was that his explanation as to his motives would ameliorate the voluminous black-and-white case presented by the feds.

They were trying to get the jurors to see the gray.
And they had some reason to expect that Vincent, always the brightest guy in the room, might be able to talk his way out of the mess he was in. Take the stand, accentuate the positive - his intellect, his effectiveness, his tireless activity on behalf of his district - and decentuate the negative included in the book-length federal indictment.

Instead, Vincent revealed his true character.

On the witness stand for days, Fumo - unintentionally, but inevitably - gave the jurors a look into his psyche. And they did not like what they saw. They found his greed unacceptable, his arrogance repugnant and his lifestyle a study in excessiveness born of neediness that was, in their judgment, also a bit pathetic.

As one juror told The Inquirer: “It seems like he was always searching - always searching - for something that he just didn’t have… Something always seemed to be missing.”

Vincent tried to convince them that his actions resided in the space between right and wrong. The jurors did not see that space.

He tried to convince them the world was gray. The jurors saw black and white.
In the end, his lawyers minimized the charges against him and asked for understanding and forgiveness. The jurors had no mercy to give.

The jury rendered a verdict based on the law, but don’t think this was only about the law. They made a moral judgment against the man.