Wampum

I spent this past year watching CourtTV and, while I'm a big fan of Nancy Grace, I don't always agree with her. She has a knee jerk reaction against those brought up on charges and seems unable to consider that some of them might be wrongly charged.

I understand that her fiance was murdered some years ago, and I believe that this has skewed her judgment. Fortunately, in her position on CourtTV and now CNN, she can't influence any innocent person's fate. We have enough of those types still present in our judicial system as it is.

I well remember the case Dwight. We also probably need to mention that this gross miscarriage of justice happened to a portly rich white guy. He was stunned that he was somehow entrapped in this web of lies, and if it had been a different regime in the Governor's mansion or a slightly less sympathetic Ga. Supreme Court, he'd be fried by now. If it had been TX, we'd be reading about it in the history books, perhaps 20 years later. The paramours would have gotten the loot and the prosecutor would have made it to high political office.

There's no safety from the likes of a lying, scheming prosecutor hell bent with a moral indignation to bring you down, no matter what. Ask Bill Clinton about it.

FYI, this week's TNR's cover story is a not-especially-flattering feature on Grace.

Nancy Grace is an insufferable drama queen.

I understand that her fiance was murdered some years ago...

Boy, that guy took the easy way out!!

I disagree with Larry - Nancy Grace can still help railroad innocent people using trial by pundit. She's contaminating future jury pools, via the classic prosecutor's argument:

"Of course the defendant's guilty - or else the defendant wouldn't have been arrested

Besides, even if the defendant didn't commit this crime, the defendant is probably guilty of something else -

And even if they haven't committed any crimes yet, THEY WERE GOING TO COMMIT A CRIME SOON!

I like to call her: Nancy "Try'em and Fry'em" Grace.

To Janet: Nancy may have more impact on TV than she ever did in the courtroom. In the case of the Utah girl who was kidnapped, Grace tried and fried a homeless man for murder (he died before he could be charged), then shamelessly refused to apologize or recant when it turned out he had nothing to do with the girl's disappearance.

I still can't figure out how Scott Peterson could have been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt -- except that the jurors may have watched Nancy Grace try him and fry him on the Larry King show in the months leading up.

Her hatred is so intense and patently obvious that she seems almost psychotic. Even Larry king got exasperated with her.

c'mon Libby... Scott Peterson? He's as innocent as OJ.

Daily Howler has a bunch of good stuff on Nancy Grace. Basically, Grace was utterly convinced of the guilt of Gary Condit, and chortled at anyone who argued otherwise. But hey, Condit's a public figure, and such treatment comes with the territory.

But there was also Richard Ricci, another whom Grace convicted before he was even charged:

That man, of course, is Richard Ricci, a convicted felon who had worked as a handy-man in the Smarts’ home and fell under King panel suspicion. During the summer of 2002, Grace had Ricci tried and convicted. During the original search for Smart’s abductor, Ricci was arrested for other crimes, and regarded by police as a “person of interest.” He died of an aneurysm while in jail. At the time that Ricci died, brilliant pundits said he was The One. But with the March arrest of Brian David Mitchell, it is now abundantly clear that Ricci did not abduct Smart.

God knows how many innocent people Grace will tele-lynch before she's finally driven off the air.

Has anyone ever sued her for wrong conviction?

Can't influence an innocent person's fate?

Tell that to that po' ol' Modesto salesdude.

She is scum, just like most of the "opinion makers" on cable TV. A person would do him or herself a favor by ignoring them, renting some porno tapes, and jerking or rubbing off.

Better yet, take a French Cooking Class and make life better for yourself and your friends and loved ones.

Grace indeed. With her, the Terrible Two's turned into the Terrible Twat. But that's cable for ya'. At least she isn't on a level with The Fucktor over on Fox. But I bet she tries.

Dwight, the link to CNN's Nancy Grace page is missing a 'h' in the 'http'.

Weldon Carr was released as a free man on June 29, 2004, after the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously ruled that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial after his first conviction was overturned. (This was the one that Nancy Grace railroaded him in.) The State waited for years to retry him, claiming that they hadn't yet found an arson expert to testify against him. When they eventually did produce one (after the trial judge gave them an ultimatum), it turned out that the reason the State delayed producing their expert for so long was because the expert had decided that there was no arson.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's report about Carr's release is here.

I assume that Grace still has her Georgia law license because nobody filed an ethics complaint against her as a result of her shenanigans in Carr's trial. Courts don't normally lift a lawyer's license unless the State Bar presents them with a recommendation to do so after someone has filed an ethics complaint, there's been a hearing, and the lawyer has been found guilty.

It's a sad state of affairs that Grace remains on TV where she is doing untold damage to such niceties as the presumption of innocence and the right to due process of law. The woman is quite a piece of work -- and unfortunately typical of a certain species of prosecutor.

I've been a criminal defense lawyer for 15 years, and I've met quite a few Nancy Graces.

It comes out in these domestic violence or sexual assault cases. Some female prosecutors will leave no rule unbroken or lie untold to get a conviction. Unfortunately, the media environment being what it is, you could never get a newspaper writer or TV producer to do a story about false claims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Grace of course "fights for womens' rights" in no way whatsoever -- she is instead a useful part of the GOP psy-ops machinery, joining Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter et al in conditioning the media audience to angry, scapegoating, deceptive, hidden agenda-driven trial-by-accusation as the official American State of Consciousness.

She absolutly SUCKS! I have never seen someone so biggoted and once her mind is made up forget it..Thats it - She cuts people off as if they were children if their answers and opinions don't meld with hers,,,Frankly she is a hoity toity Bitch and I do believe this will catch up to her...I can't believe she is on TV...

I absolutely loathe Nancy Grace. Every time she spews her filth it irks me to no end. She keeps acting like all defendants are guilty and monsters, and she can never focus on the humanity of a defendant.

Take the Nichols case. The guy is obviously fucked up, but after hearing Ashley Smith tell her story it's easy to remember that even though he did evil things, he was still a person. A human being. We don't know completely how the mind works, and we don't know if it's possible to snap while acting normally, but maybe that's what happened with this guy.

But Grace? As soon as Smith's interview is over all she focuses on is how Nichols tied her up the same way he tied up his alleged rape victim, and then she keeps going on and on about the Court Reporter he murdered, as if conciously trying to arouse hatred out of her panel for this guy. Like they're not pissed off enough that they're not allowed to be human about it. Unbelievable.

Why why why why why is she on the air?

While Nancy tends to be a bit overly dramatic at times and rarely lets guests finish a comment before interrupting...........cut her one bit of slack: having a loved one killed tends to make people a little less than sympathetic toward murderers, liars, thiefs and rapists. Oh yeah.........about that poor ole modesto salesman......read his sister's book. If he is innocent, I am the Pope.

Nancy part of the GOP machinery, hmmm...she may want to find this out because in investigating political contributions made by the famous or infamous, I found that she supports Democrats.

In reply to the message from David, Nichols deserves no sympathy at all. How can you even criticise Nancy Grace for frying him. He deserves to be fried over and over again. Put yourself in the shoes of the families of the victims... He did not kill one, two or three people... These were people that did absolutely nothing to him. I like Nancy Grace a lot and although I agree she is a bigot, she is a good person and she actually cares, unlike the greedy creatures that infiltrate the legal system.

I'm not saying Nichols deserves any sympothy, and I'm sure that if he doesn't plea out somehow he will fry for it. He deserves whatever punishment he should get.

What I'm saying is that while everyone else in the panel was lauding this woman's bravery and the sadness of the humanity of the whole situation, Nancy kept trying to illict hatred from her panel from this man, as if they weren't pissed enough. Watch it again and you'll see what I'm talking about.

She is a bigot. How can a (another) bigot be allowed to influence so many people with her pundantry?

Oh, and Nnenna, I'd appreciate it if you quit putting words in my mouth. "Sympothy for Nichols". Those are your thoughts, never mine.

That's the sort of thing Grace would do, after-all, put words in people's mouths.

People please try and remember according to Nancy Grace, people like Michael Jackson are guilty until proven innocent. This is a professional (and I use that term losely) who instead of talking about what happens in court she'd rather make fun of what Michael is wearing and who he brings to court. I've watched the program twice. That's more than enough. Nancy you're a disgrace to your profession.

HEY..... Wait a minute

I've seen Nancy Grace quite a lot lately...in fact, it seems like every time I turn on the TV, there she is.

I respect that she has never gotten over her fiance being murdered some years ago, but I sometimes think she overdoes it, prosecuting the person being discussed before any facts are even really known. I think Larry King should stop calling her as often as he does. From these message boards, it would appear that most people, while they respect her legal expertise (as I do), wish she would "tone it down."

C'mon - leave Nancy alone. She's a cutie, which is undoubtedly a factor in why some women don't like her. She's entertaining and informed, and a healthy ego is all it takes to relate to her.

Apparently it was happenstance I came upon this site...obviously this is a site for "let's slam Nancy Grace", which of course all are entitled to. However, with her passion and her fight for VICTIM'S RIGHTS, I am sure many find her quite overbearing. I must ask, how many who are "Gracebashing" have every been a victim. How many have had the pleasure or displeasure of experiencing our legal system in process. Although, I will take our system over any other in the World, rest assured it is flawed, often times severely. If one is high profile, we must admit, the guilt or innoncence of the charged is irrelevant, it's all about "out lawyering", put the victim on trial, media prosecution. I wonder how many celebrity cases that have been before the Media and the Court system in the past several years would have had different outcomes if it had been middle America or the poor being prosecuted, trial time - probably two weeks max and I'll bet no one would have cared whether law enforcement did their job, the Newsreporters would have trudged elsewhere. I have been in the legal system for almost 12 years, on two different sides of the fence and no I am not an atty nor a judge. I love it, it is facsinating, it is stressful and exhausting, it is frustrating and sometimes the Defendants are not guilty, it often times grips the very heart of your soul, it will stir compassion beyone belief whether for the alleged perpetrator or the victim. Before you hastily judge next time, check with your local law enforcement see if they have a program where you can do a "ride along", the next time there is a trial in your community, civil or criminal, take a day off from work, sit for those 8 to 10 hours and listen to the facts, if that is not an option, find out the schedule of your local Magistrate/Municipal Court Bench Trial Schedules. Sit there for the 2, 3, or 4 hours and see your system at work. Also, take a look at the abuse of the judicial system because someone is just mad and they want to get even. When you are summoned for Jury duty, don't make that phone call that says, "I really can't serve, can you help...it's inconvenient." You're darn right it's inconvenient, more than you could ever imagine. Contact your Clerks of Court, there are many, Civil, Criminal, Magistrate/Municipal, they will be glad to see if their Judge is available for interview, they will talk with you when scheduling allows, they will explain the legal process. God forbid you ever become a "victim", but if you do, you will want someone who is passionate and a fighter for victims, such as Nancy Grace on your side, rest assured I don't always agree with Nancy, but I admire her ability to speak out when everyone else is looking the other way. By the way, I am a female, professional and passionately past the age of 40. Furthermore, Nancy conveys her opinion, does not attempt to sway - if you are swayed then it is your choice and maybe she presented a view that others did not. If she were a male...would there such disdain? Just curious. Get involved and keep an open mind...and God forbid you ever become a victim.

Hi Scarlett, thanks for reading.

I am just curious. Do you think that Nancy Grace's advocacy of victim's rights gives her a pass on her illegal and unethical conduct (as determined by a unanimous Supreme Court of Georgia) as the prosecutor in the Carr case?

Hey, Dwight - give it a rest. Nancy Grace is not a serial "illegal and unethical" conductor. I suppose you thought OJ was innocent and Scott Peterson was a real fisherman. (I knew Scott wasn't being straight when he claimed to have gone sturgeon fishing in a small boat in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve - NOBODY who knows anything about fishing would have done something that stupid.) And "sex with that woman" doesn't include oral sex? Clinton is a very clever liar - an articulate person can make a reasonable-sounding argument but not everyone is going to be fooled. (By the way, have you ever cheated on your taxes or exceeded the speed limit?)

I sailed from Berkeley marina (both the muni side and the UC club side), as well as the Richmond and Alameda marinas, and the (upwind) SF and Marin marinas, for most of the '70s, in a variety of small keel and center-board boats and dingies, and I fish, and I don't know a god damn thing about or have the smallest interest in the Scott Peterson trial.

Winter on the SF Bay is calm. Summer is when the shallow down-wind side (Berkeley) is challenging, due to the Central Valley heated air being horizontally replaced by flows through the Gate and over Novato and elsewhere. Winter is doldrums and chess for the racing sailor. Summer is broken gear, high wind and chop.

So, being on a 14' skiff in mid-winter, absent storm, anywere between Alameda and San Pablo seems safe and sane.

Sturgeon come in all sizes. Using the "wrong gear" seems presumptuous that one only hooks the "right fish", and using the "wrong bait" seems again, either presumptuous as to the nature of fish, or stupid if not presumptuous as to the nature of fish. The later does not usually carry the death penalty.

Um, multi-season Bay Area Mercury (18' keel) fleet champ, Berkeley sailing team, Olympic trials, blah blah, sunk twice in SF Bay, blah blah, and fishing since 6.

Eric - our wakes may have crossed. I've been sailing SF Bay since the mid 60's and fishing since the 50's.

White sturgeon can grow as big as a cow - over 1,000 lbs. The green are smaller but still top out at over 400 lbs. This is a fighting fish and not one to try to catch from a small boat, unless you're looking for a spot in Ripley's "Believe it or Not" or a new home with Davey Jones. The largest legal sturgeon is 72" and something more than 100 lbs, but that comparative midget would still take several strong men and a small boy to land. (You could do without the small boy, but he'd never forgive you.)

Anyone can "sail the Bay". I raced every weekend and mid-week, in dingies, one-designs, and small keelboats, year round, as well as racing in the Monterey and Carmel Bays (home) and points south. I've broken a lot of gear and lost one hull and nearly lost another. The claim that being in a 14' craft off the Berkeley side in mid-winter is suspect or dubious seems to me to be itself profoundly ignorant of local conditions.

Anyone can cite sea cow stats, but it is the angler's perogative to cut the line, or to have light, breakaway gear, or just be using the wrong tackle and bait. If the guy thought he might get a 4 footer, more power to him.

I read one of the prosecution experts -- he was going non-linear on the ground tackle the guy was using -- unless someone posts the actual meteo and wave -- air speed and wave heights, and the tide table for the day, and the times in question, and the location the guy was fishing, it is within my experience that he could have been on flat water with no wind and no chop.

It seems like some pretty careless speculation is de jure, which pretty much is Dwight's point.

Clarence,

Nothing excuses illegal or unethical behavior. As a former paralegal, I know the scrutiny attorneys come under and the ramifications of such behavior. In fact, it's a shame our physicians do not come under the same scrutiny. If Nancy was found guilty of such behavior then I am sure she experienced the appropriate discipline as offered by the Supreme Court. However, it does not eradicate her ability to express her compassion for victims and the injustices victims experience. No not all Defendants are guilty, not all arrests are just, but there are times, that the Defendant is more cleaver than those who can not fathom the evils of our society. We are not a nation that easily comprehends the atrocities that people commit against others, including loved ones. There are those of us who see it every day and of course we may appear cynical. But when you bury friends children because of habitual drunk drivers (who previously never served time), see the bruises on children because of sexual and physical abuse, see bodies chopped in pieces, watch your local law enforcement and victims advocates' despair at such atrocities you realize you are a part of a world that fortunately many will never see. When an Officer is killed in the line of duty or killed at random off duty, on his own property, the glasses you see life through are no longer rose colored. You can thank God for that blessing. We must remember that we have a duty to weigh ALL of the facts, putting our personal opinions aside, then not only must we try to put ourselves in the shoes of the Defendant we must attempt to walk a mile in the Victim's shoes. We must also remember that what we think personally is not necessarily legal (sometimes that is quite difficult) It's the law. Devised and created by our Legislators. What if Laci had been your sister? I know I am quite verbose, for that I apologize, but my passions run high for JUSTICE, not all victims are really victims, that is reality. Remember, Ted Bundy was a good looking, educated nice guy. Furthermore, although I am not what you call an avid fisherman, I have fished, including deep sea - 60+ miles out, as well as close to shore fishing and shrimping and I know enough that there are some things avid fisherman don't do. The wrong bait/lures, winds, etc. You may be able to sell that story on e-bay- but I just can't buy it. Thanks for your response I respect your opinion. In the words of Patrick Henry, "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Interesting, Eric, that in your earlier post you wrote "I don't know a god damn thing about or have the smallest interest in the Scott Peterson trial" and yet in your last post you informed us that you had "read one of the prosecution experts."

About thirty-five years ago I was sailing back under the Golden Gate Bridge against the wind when I saw a new sailboat coming in my general direction at high speed. After a bit I could see two young men and (presumably) their girlfriends - the girls were cowering and the men obviously had no control of the boat. A little closer and I could make out what one of the men was frantically shouting to me - it was "Call the Coast Guard!" But as you so "carelessly speculated," in your last post, anyone can "sail the Bay," so I suppose the men were just playing a joke on me.

You would have an easier time of it in a debate if you didn't consider someone else's point of view (mine in this case) to be a personal attack on your brilliance. You say a few silly but rational-sounding words about fishing and think you are going to impress a fisherman - chew on this for a while:

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Court TV, 26 July 2004) — The San Francisco Bay's preeminent sturgeon fishing expert testified Monday that it was all but impossible for Scott Peterson to catch one of the massive fish with the equipment he carried to the bay the day his wife vanished.

Prosecutors called Angelo Cuanang, a commercial fisherman and author of two guides to sturgeon fishing, to cast doubt on the double-murder defendant's angling alibi.

The prosecution contends the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman used the Christmas Eve 2002 fishing trip as a cover story to dispose of his wife Laci's body.

When initially asked by police what he was fishing for in the bay, 90 miles from his Modesto home, Peterson could not answer, officers have testified. Later, Peterson said he was in search of sturgeon and striped bass.

Cuanang, who estimated he has reeled in a thousand sturgeon in 40 years on the bay, told the jury Peterson was not well-prepared to fish for either species.

He said Peterson had the wrong bait, tackle and anchor to fish for the bottom-dwelling fish and was relying on an unsuitable, and illegal, trawling method in an area of the bay far from their known breeding ground. As a result, Cuanang said, his only hope for catching a fish was by hooking it in its side as it swam by.

Using maps, fishing rods and photos from his own books to illustrate his testimony, Cuanang listed a number of problems with the account Peterson gave police. He said he used metal lures designed for freshwater bass and ocean reefs when sturgeon fishermen bait their hooks with live crabs. He said Peterson's fishing line was not strong enough for sturgeon, which can weigh up to 1,500 pounds.

Pointing to the five-pound homemade anchor police found in Peterson's boat, Cuanang said, "Any kind of current or any kind of wind, you are going to be drifting. There is nothing on this anchor to grip the bottom."

To catch bass or sturgeon, he said, a fisherman needs a claw-like anchor to hold his boat steady. Trawling for sturgeon, as Peterson said he did Dec. 24, is illegal in California, Cuanang testified.

Scarlett -

Thank you for the very interesting message - I pretty much agree with everything you said. However... didn't you intend to address your post to Dwight?

All the best.

Clarence, you're absolutely correct, please forgive the faux pas.

It was a slow day, so between 01:43 PM and 07:20 PM I used google with "scott peterson" and "fishing" as search keys. I found the piece you posted, which appears to be concerned that the defendant was suboptimally equipped to compete for Boone and Crocket style "biggest one that didn't get away".

However, not being competitive isn't a capital offense, and neither is violating fish and game regs.

If you want to hang your hat on that kind of testimony and construction of intent from deduced incapacities, fine, but your initial claim was the pseudo-expertise claim concerning small boats on the Berkeley shore in mid-winter, which is flatly wrong, followed by a tide, bottom and ground tackle incapacity claim that is misdirection at best and supports the defense claim (as I dimly understand it) that he was on the flats where tital current is absent, relative to the more tidally extreme flow points in the bay, the water shallow and the fish, even the sand sharks, small, and the guilt by disassociation claim, that because Peterson didn't look like (from an equipment inventory PoV) the sturgeon fisherman, he couldln't have been fishing for sturgeon. The more interesting line of questioning would have been all the dumb things a person with 40 years of line fishing either did along the way, or saw others do, and what fish are typically taken where the defense and prosecution each place the defendant.

I've no idea how important the mid-winter boat and tackle narrative is to either defense or prosecution, but I've seen people in kayaks "under fish" big fish looking for fun before cutting their line, and mid-winter is, absent pacific storm, wicked quiet in the bay. Its when racers smoke, not for the nicotine, but to watch smoke, to see what wind there is, and adjust sail accordingly.

Anyway, you got your sentance.

I can't believe the people here that make excuses for morons like Nancy Grace.

There is a difference between victims rights, and blind and possibly misplaced revenge.

Some of you ask if anyone here has been a victim. The more appropriate question would be has anyone here had to face a lying sack of crap like Nancy Grace in court?

Until you're sitting in a court room listening to some windbag like Grace lie her ass off about you to get a conviction for her scorecard, you don't know the meaning of the word frustration.

The only thing that matters in our court system is procedures to insure a fair trial. Nothing about Nancy Grace has anything to do with that in any sense.

She clearly has no understanding of the purpose of our legal system.

Clarence above "wasn't me!"

Eric -

Surely you don't mean that it took you nearly six hours to find the Court TV article I quoted from. All you had to do was take a phrase from the quote (for a test I used "He said Peterson had the wrong bait") and Google finds the article in less than a second.

You're reading too much into my original statement - my contention is that all things taken together would cause the mythical "reasonable man" to doubt Scott Peterson's tardy claim that he had driven 80 or so miles on Christmas Eve to go fishing for sturgeon in San Francisco Bay. In fact, a jury of his peers did come to that conclusion.

Regarding small boats on the Bay in mid-winter, I know that can be done because my first boat was an eleven-footer and I never had any problems. As for "expertise," I don't share your compulsion to prove to the would how smart you are. I will readily admit that you know more about racing on the Bay than I do. Fishing, however, is another story. The purpose is to catch the fish, not to justify an incompetent way of going about it. If you have a problem with this concept, try taking one of the sportfishing boats out of Fisherman's Wharf and see how long any of the experienced fisherman will put up with your novel ideas.

Give Nancy a break..she is the best thing to happen to cable tv..someone needs to remember the
victims and families...nowadays its all about
the perps rights..i.e when a report stated that
BTK was depressed and missed his family..well gee do you think his victims families are depressed and miss their loved ones...stop making criminals
life so cozy...We need more people like Nancy Grace..

I absolutely abhor that woman. As an attorney and officer of the court, her behavior in the Wayne Carr trial tells me everything I need to know about her.

No doubt all those who oppose Nancy Grace on ethical grounds are even more opposed to Bill Clinton. He was, after all, disbarred by both the State of Arkansas and the United States Supreme Court. (Or is there an element of hypocrisy present in the ultra-liberal mind?)

Bill Clinton is not relevant to the discussion of Nancy Grace's etihics. Let's stay on topic shall we.

It is relevant - it goes to the issue of fairness.

No it is not. We're discussing HER. Bill Clinton is a non sequitur.

I am questioning the validity of your original comment based upon a perceived lack of impartiality. Your credibility would be enhanced if you could demonstrate an even-handed approach. Otherwise your comment amounts to little more than a personal opinion, although you do use less inflammatory language than "Copycat" Clarence above.

Nancy Grace is a disgrace. I have a 14 year old child who loves to watch current events via cable news channels. One day she came across Nancys program. She was horrified! She actually asked me "Is that Journalism? Is that kind of behavior allowed?" I did not know how to answer her. In the end, I ended up telling her that Nancys show is entirely based on her opinion. Not Facts. Well, Seems very discouraging that our children have to learn Early that facts dont matter!(apparently to CNN and Nancy Grace.) Such a FREAKING SHAME!

Nancy Grace is convinced that anyone charged with a crime is guilty until proven innocent. She fills her show with "experts" who fall in line with her thinking, but never fails to include a few who disagree with her so she can cut them off mid-sentance and ridicule their opinions, and re-affirm her own. In response to Clarence Darrow's March 17th posting, yes I have faced an overzelous lawyer in court. I went to a trial ready to tell "the truth, the whole trurh, and nothing but the truth" and was devastated to find out the lawyer didn't want to hear the truth, he wanted to trick me into saying what HE wanted to hear. His favorite method was to word a question in such a long winded and twisted manner that an answer of yes or no could be turned to his advantage. Any attempt by me to explain something brought an immediate demand from this self importamt windbag for the judge to make me answer with only a yes or a no. It is indeed very frustrating. The truth and a fair trial often are the least important issue to these kind of people. It's very scary to know that lawyers like Nance Grace have only one goal, to win their case, because that's what feeds thier ego-winning. It is a shame that a person who claims she wants to see justice done is allowed a national TV audience to which she openly and aggressively preaches her pre-trial opinions about every defendants guilt.

No - Nancy Dis-Grace is convinced people are guilty even AFTER being proven INNOCENT. Someday, somewhere, someone will die at the hands of some wacko nutjob thanks to Nancy "Bill O'Reilly In Drag" Dis-Grace

When the news reports came out stating Robert Blake had been found not guilty Nancy Grace had a fit. She kept repeating how she was " stunned that this guy got off!!!" She also went on & on about how the defense destroyed Bonnie Bakely's character in court by bringing up her past history. I'll agree I don't understand what that has to do in determining guilt or innocence in a murder trial. However, isn't that pretty much the same thing Michael Jackson's lawyers are doing in reference to his accusor's mother and her past? What has the allagation that this woman has at times tried to extort money from other celebrities got to do with determining if Michael is a child molester? It's a disgusting way to for a lawyer to try and divert the focus of a trial away from his client. The only question at hand should be did Michael molest this child or not? Going back to Robert Blake's being found not guilty, Nancy Grace should be thrilled at seeing an example of our justice system at work. This man was found not guilty by a panel of his peers because there was enough "reasonable doubt" in their minds to vote the way they did. Many people may question this verdict but it is still the way our system works. Maybe someone should remind Nancy of that.

No doubt all those who oppose Nancy Grace on ethical grounds are even more opposed to Bill Clinton.

I had no idea that CNN Headline News was giving Bill Clinton a primetime nightly show to talk about legal issues. Who knew?

(Now, if Clinton were hosting a show on marital monogamy, you might have the barest of points, rather than just flinging out pathetic diversions.)

A man spent 15 years in jail for a murder he did not commit and was later discharged and acquitted by modern DNA evidence. You could see the contortions on Nancy Grace's face as she maintained the man's absolute guilt. Every other expert on Larry King's show that night agreed the man was wrongly accused.

I firmly believe that what goes around comes around, and that someday Nancy or someone close to her that she knows to be innocent, will be on the "other side" facing a wicked prosecutor. This is not ill will towards her, just a stated fact of life that we reap what we sow.

Nancy Grace is living proof that "those who know the least know it the loudest." She plays on the emotions of the victims' families by acting as if she is in their court, so to speak. She'll say anything they want to hear-- which is a cruelty in itself. The only cause she wishes to promote is the cause of Nazi Face....er, Nancy Grace.

The sole method by which she scores is to turn up the volume on that shrill-as-a-brand-new-dial-up-modem voice and repeat, repeat, repeat, ad nauseam what she has already said for the previous twenty minutes. Essentially, if she can't shout 'em down, she is at a loss to make valid points.

Frankly, she has yet to master the basic principle of American jurisprudence: guilty until proven innocent. Nancy sees the sides in trials as the prosecution versus the guilty.

Nancy, go work for the Innocence Project for awhile and then say a few words...but only a few.

She blew her credibility with me when making statements like " I've tried thousands and thousands of cases like these ".
Do the numbers.
What an idiot.
Of course her buddy Diane said she interviewed Gary Gilmore in Texas where he was executed. Actually Utah but close enough for these 2 idiots.

i've been watching cnn during the michale jackson trail and it is very clear that mr.jackson has already been convicted by her and ms. dianne diamond who her self has been after mr. jackson for over a decade , there is no way this icon can receive a fair trail they are the worst. it is a shame america has come to convicting our accused in the court of public opinon ;and yes i feel that they are both racist who enjoy bringing down powerful black indviduals.with out these high profile cases where would you bitches be remeber god is the ultimate judge

Reading these comments I've come to one conclusion love her or hate her you all watch her with fascination which is why she now has her own show. I do watch her show can't say that I like or dislike her but do find it entertaining which is sadly what Cable News Channels are all about. One final thought to Kevin how you can conclude that Ms. Grace is a racist based on her opinion of Michael Jackson is ludacrist MJ hasn't been a black man for years. I am a proud African American and have always been disgusted by the fact that for years MJ has been trying to turn himself into a white man which negates him the privelage to call himself and African American.

I didn't know anything about Nancy Grace and I'm glad I found this site to know a bit about her background because she comes across as this pompous moron, who thinks she is smarter than she is, on her show. I don't watch "Nancy Grace" because I just can't stand her and the majority of her guests. I sometimes stop on her show for a few seconds when I'm channel surfing but that is the extent of my viewrship. However, from just those few moments of the shows I've caught it's obvious that she, and most of her guests, believes that the accused are guilty until proven innocent and she and most of her guests try to make the accused of whatever trial they are discussing seem guilty. Obviously I'm not the only one who feels this way. The Michael Jackson case is just one example. For instance, she showed a clip of Jackson's interview with Bashir (or whomeever it was) where he desribed his relationship with kids. After the clip Grace sarcastically noted that Jackson also served kids alcohol and showed them porn, even though none of this has been proven in court. Of course, she's not the only one who has this sort of bias. We see this also on late night talk shows like Dave Letterman and Jay Leno who are always portraying the accused in high profile cases (they never mention legal cases otherwise) as guilty. But Grace is the one with show dedicated to making the accused seem guilty. I suppose, though, that dishing out the dirt and making someone seem guilty is what draws viewers, which is pretty sad. If she was to have an actual "fair and balanced" show where cases were discussed by equal analysis of the prosecution's and defendent's cases then it would probably be too civil, intellectual, and "boring" for a mass audience that has become accustomed to mind-numbing programming and tabloid "news." Though I doubt Grace would be able to host such a show.

Just a side not on the above comment by John. Yes, I don't think Grace is racist with respect to her approach to the Jackson case. She tries to make everyone look guilty. However, I don't believe Jackson has been trying to become a white person, though this is a widely held belief among many people of all races. After tryingto keep it secret for a long time, it was finally revealed that Jackson suffers from a skin condition that etches all colour from his skin leaving him not white person white but literally snow white, without any pigmentation. Old photos of this happening to him were shown. While there are people who would doubt this claim, I don't see what he would gain from lying about it.

In response to Levi, I will conceive the remote possibility that his skin condition caused his skin to turn white but how do you explain his facial features. Did his skin condition also cause the drastic change in his facial appearance I don't think so or was changing his nose and mouth just so they would match his white skin.
As for Nancy grace I do agree she is very biased in favour of the Prosecution, but CNN obviously wanted that perspective or they would not have hired her. As for her comments on Michael Jackson I certainly didn't need her views to form my own opinion. The saying is true that where there is smoke there is fire for years I have wondered about all the little boys he has kept with him and I'm sorry but no way can it ever be right for a 40 year old man to be sleeping in a bed with boys who are not his children.

My concern is not just with Nancy Grace, but with her audience. How have we come to accept this as actual news? Aren't people getting their drama needs filled with the talk shows?

Journalists have constitutional protection not as entertainers or public mourners but as a source of information for the electorate.

John asks "how do you explain his facial features. Did his skin condition also cause the drastic change in his facial appearance I don't think so or was changing his nose and mouth just so they would match his white skin."

Well, you've gotten so used to a black man's "black-featured" face that it's impossible to reconcile the image of that person with the black totally removed. Only his nose and chin (a cleft) are different. Maybe his "big nose," as he asserts his father and brothers called him, would have looked awful against his white skin.

John also says: "The saying is true that where there is smoke there is fire for years."

Sorry, but there is no fire. The smoke is coming from a smoke-making machine, courtesy of the rats (prosecutors) peddling their kettles of fish (non-existant "case"), so that we don't smell the two. And in case you're too dense to understand the metaphors, it means this:

The smoke is a deterrent from the rats and kettle of fish that you'd otherwise smell.

Then John goes on to say: "I'm sorry but no way can it ever be right for a 40 year old man to be sleeping in a bed with boys who are not his children."

Yes way it can ever be right.

First of all, Michael Jackson is 46, not 40.

Secondly, in case you have not noticed, he is not an "ordinary" 46-year-old man. He claims that he is a "child in a man's body." I believe him because I am such myself and thus can identify with him.

I have a developmental disability on the autism spectrum called Asperger Syndrome; it is not a mental illness, nor is it psychological. Rather, it is a neurological re-wiring of the brain. I perceive the world much differently than "normal" people like you, who would also be called "neurotypical."

Among my many symptoms, many of which Michael seems to exhibit, I am very childlike, just like him. In fact, like I said, I am a child in a man's body as well. Emotionally, socially, and sexually, I am a child in those areas of development; I am totally incompatible with same-aged peers. Despite the fact that my physical age is 22, I don't perceive the world like others of that physical age do. As stated in the 2003 film version of "Peter Pan," "And so the children forgot about it, for what troubles a grown-up will never trouble a child." I am unconcerned about social norms, propaganda, indoctrination, and anything else meant to subjugate and divide.

I'll tell you how it can be "right" that Michael slept in a bed with children: because he is on THEIR level of development and perceives the situation to be as innocent and fun as they do, like a child's slumber party. That is how I myself perceive that situation too. Just because we are 22 and 46, respectively, doesn't mean that we think like similarly-aged people. Age is definitely nothing but a number in our case.

Unlike an adult, my emotional-sexual development is at the level of a child's; I don't possess the need for a socio-romantic relationship with anyone. And I don't desire to screw anyone like you'd see in a Penthouse magazine. I am sure that Michael is the same way. The way I perceive his relationships with boys is consistent with my own wants and needs: a platonically affectionate companionship. Only an adult-oriented socio-romantic relationship would involve "consummation" (i.e. sex), but that is not what I want or need.

Bottom line: Michael Jackson is, again, NOT an "ordinary" 46-year-old man. And for that matter, I am not an ordinary 22-year-old male. But that does not mean that we are dangerous. It only means that we happen to perceive the world much differently. I perceive the world as it is truly and intrinsically, stripped of your silly social norms, indoctrination, and propaganda. And I am more than certain that he perceives the world similarly.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope to expand it a little.

I agree with you Jack, Michael Jackson is not an ordinary 46 year old man. HE IS A PERVERT, CHILD MOLESTER AND WILL BURN IN THE SPECIAL KIND OF HELL RESERVED FOR ANIMALS LIKE HIM. I hope there are people watching you because you sound like you're going down the same path. All you deviants always think your special don't you..

Hello Friend! Seems everyone that hasn't spoken yet is Nancy's "friend" unless you piss her off.....watch the lower lip slip up against her upper and watch the fake eyelashes look at her fake desk...
This bitch has nothing more to prove than how she can manipulate the judicial system by showing her stupid ass on TV and shut out anyone ...ANYONE who disagrees with her point of view....I believe a justice enema is in order.....FU tweety!

Just a note to John, posted April 13th...... you're fucking sick, just like freakshow Jackson and you need help.....don't try to explain away the reason that you feel like a child and need to embrace them. That doesn't justify anything! if you touch a child in an inappropriate way, no bones about it, it's WRONG!!!!!! Your "level" of development is such that you are in serious need of help. Please PLEASE seek treatment and try to stay away from our children......

see???? I accused John when it's Jack that may be guilty....Nancy Grace needs to go back to School.....except she'd most likely fail because she's used to cheating on the bar exam!

Jay and John; remember this: it takes one child molester to know another. Since you both are so sure that Jackson is a child molester, you must be child molesters yourselves. How else would you know for certain that he is a child molester? Only those who have child molesting on the brain would know!

And that wasn't very nice of you to vilify Jack like that; have you ever gotten to know him? No. So how do you know that he's dangerous? Perhaps you guys are too screwed up to even consider the possibility that he is indeed a harmless person. Now why would that be? Oh, I know: because you two are harmful people yourselves!!!

Guys, stop looking in the mirror when talking about others.

John:

Since you seem intent on making people's lives miserable, maybe it is YOU who should stay away from children. We wouldn't want you corrupting them so that they'd make others' lives miserable.

Jay:

It takes one freakshow to know another. Maybe YOU should seek treatment and stay away from "our" children. It would do us all bit of good if you sought some "serious help."

Guys, stop molesting kids!

I LOVE HOW YOU BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL IDIOTS ARE ALWAYS DEFENDING THAT PERVERT JACKSON. YOU SHOULD ALL BE STRUNG UP FOR DEFENDING THAT PERVERT

Note to Jay, why don't you read whose is saying what before you comment.

Johnny, Johnny, Johnny...

If only you could see how silly you look. We're defending Michael Jackson because the prosecution has not proven that Jackson molested his accuser. About the only thing proven is that Jackson likes to look at nude women. Doesn't sound like a pedophile to me. Furthermore, if you conservatives had an inkling of brain matter, you'd be able to logically and reasonably conclude that the prosecution's case, as it is being presented in court, does not add up. The problem with you and Aunt Nancy is that you don't have the intellectual capacity to reason; you only possess the emotional capacity to get hung up on the salacious details.

Tell me something: heaven forbid you were to witness an adult sexually abusing a child, would you go to the police? Or would you do nothing about it? Well, several of Jackson's former employees, all of whom sued him for wrongful termination and lost, claimed to have seen Jackson abusing a child. And guess what: they did absolutely NOTHING about it!

They didn't go to the police. No, they went straight to the tabloids!

How can you rationalize that? Aunt Nancy keeps making excuses for these people's behavior. That is because she has no intellectual capacity to reason.

Forget the fact that Jackson used to share his bed with kids; that is irrelevant. He is not on trial for "sharing his bed." The issue is whether or not he molested children. So far, the prosecution has done nothing to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Each witness for the prosecution has had some type of motive, financial or otherwise.

The only "perversion" I see here is the closed-minded views of people like you, Aunt Nancy, and Jay. You're the ones who insist on talking about such things as child molestation, not me. I insist on talking about the good things. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe, like I said before, you guys are dying to molest children yourselves.

I learned something important during Bill O'Reilly's sexual harrassment scandal, and that is those who preach the loudest about immorality are often guilty of the very sins they so vocally oppose.

You might argue that those who aren't so vocal against something must be supporters of it. Open your minds and you'd see that most people are indeed against such things but would prefer to focus on other, more positive ways of problem-solving.

Jim
Let's clear up a couple of points, first off I think Bill O'Reilly is an idiot as are most of the right wing radio and tv show host out there. As for Nancy Grace as I said previously I don't like or dislike her but do find her show entertaining, lets face it there are no actual unbiased news programs out there these days. They all either tow the right or left wing lines.

As for Mr. Jackson whether or not the prosecution proves its case or not isn't the point and I do agree they are doing a lousy job. And sorry even if he is found not guilty which is what probably will happen it does not mean he didn't do it. While I do agree that greed has been a big part of some peoples motives it doesn't mean they are all lying. I can't imagine how reasonable people can look at Jackson and listen to his own words and not think he does molest children more specifically boys.

And for all you guys out there who have been yammering that I must be one to know one. Maybe put a little thought into where I am coming from. I was molested by my soccer coach when I was 9 years old and it still affects my life to this day. So do I think child molesters should be strung up, you bet I do, because there is nothing in this world more evil than someone who steals a childs innocence and trust.

One final point to think about if you're single next door neighbor had little boys at his house all the time and had them sleeping over in his bed would you send your son over to sleep with him. Let's be honest here, I know my son wouldn't be there how about yours?

John, I can't imagine how reasonable people can look at Jackson and think that he DOES molest children. Again, you are stuck on the salacious details and cannot process the logic or reason.

Furthermore, your own judgment has been clouded by your experience. I am sorry for what you've endured, but you're acting just as low as Nancy Grace; you're taking your ire out on other people.

As far as the possibility of letting my hypothetical son sleep over at a single neighbor's house, you've forgotten one very important thing: Michael Jackson is NOT like "every other" man. I sincerely believe that he does not perceive such situations as does a so-called "normal" adult.

So, to answer your final point: if it were just another normal man, no, I would not let my hypothetical son sleep over his house. But Michael Jackson is a very different kind of person who looks at the world differently.

John, I am sorry to hear of your troubles. However, it isn't your coach's fault that you suffered. It is society's fault. They made much ado about nothing. If it was nothing to you in the beginning, then it is intrinsically nothing. Society's problem is manufacturing superficial problems where they don't exist.

To the men who attacked me; you are so blind with hatred that you completely misinterpreted my statements.

How dare you try to speak for me when you don't even know me?

I said that my emotional-sexual development is on the level of a child's. Do children desire to go out and "get some"? No. And neither do I.

I said it pretty clearly, but since the two of you lack the intellectual capacity to process exactly what I said, let me repeat it:

I don't desire a socio-romantic relationship with anyone. Get it? I don't desire a boyfriend or girlfriend of ANY age. I desire a peer frienship with children.

Society's argument is that a child cannot consent to a socio-romantic relationship with an adult, especially the sex part (the "consummation"). Well guess what:

I can't consent to either of those things myself!

Why? Because, like a child, I lack the skills and wisdom needed to sustain such a relationship. It is NOT IN ME. Get it? How much more blunt must I be in order to get you to understand that?

It figures, just like Jim said: only those who have child molesting on the brain would project that into something that has nothing to do with the subject.

You also seem to have joined society in corrupting the word "love" to indeed mean "socio-romantic relationship," "sex" and the like.

Have you ever had a child hug you because they simply loved you for who you are? That, my friends, is "platonic affection." THAT is the ONLY type of love I can give, and the only type of love that I wish to receive. The only age group with which I can relate is children.

I can't get platonic, unconditional affection from same-aged people; everyone my age wants a socio-romantic relationship. I fail to see or perceive just what it is that adults contribute to or take from such a relationship.

My physical age is no reflection of these emotional needs. Despite what society has tried to "teach" me about "adult" relationships, it's gone in one ear and out the other. Aspies completely lack social developmental skills.

If only you knew me personally. You'd think that I was a completely different person than what you've perceieved me as.

Jack
I'm sure your peer group of children love all those big words you like to throw around.

One final thought thank God we live in a country where we can all have such diverse opinions. Even though I don't agree with most of you I certainly respect your right to express yours ...
Good bye 'Friends' its been real

John, in your close-mindedness, you are unable to separate emotional development from intellectual development. Children happen to respect me for my intellectual development. I may talk like an adult, but I treat them like peers. Of course, you'd never know that because your skull is made of steel.

Enjoyed reading your posts.

C s n n l n

[devoweled. ebw]