Huge slam of Nancy Grace

[steve2470]

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001773.html

You have to read the whole article to read the entire slam.

<snip>

One of Nancy Grace’s most prominent cases as a prosecutor was the murder trial of Weldon Wayne Carr. Carr was a wealthy business owner in Atlanta. His wife died in a fire at their home. Nancy Grace was assigned to prosecute him for the murder.

Grace obtained a conviction. That conviction was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court. The opinion does not seem to appear for free on the web. The citation is Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314 (1997).

The Georgia Supreme Court described the basic facts of the case:


<snip>


Nancy Grace was the lead prosecutor at Carr’s trial. The unanimous opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court included a sharp rebuke of her conduct as prosecutor:

We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable… We trust, however, that if this case is to be retried, the prosecuting attorney and the trial court will bear in mind the special responsibility of a prosecuting attorney:
…

It has often been stated that it is the duty of a prosecuting attorney to see that justice is done and nothing more. That duty should not be forgotten in an excess of zeal or the eager quest for victory in his case. The people of the state desire merely to ascertain beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged, and do not countenance any unfairness upon the part of their representatives in court. (Citations Omitted).

<snip>

[Floogeldy]

1. You can see it in her eyes and hear it in her voice

She is all about emotions and reacting - - - not facts and the law.

I'm glad she is on TV instead of in court rooms now.

}(

[imenja]

5. her fiance was killed in a violent crime

that motivates what she does. She's never lost a trial case, so she's obviously very good at what she does.

[saltpoint]

10. And what she does is shred the justice system.

The Georgia Supreme Court rebuked her soundly for extra-legal conduct unbecoming of a prosecutor.

[imenja]

16. yes, and?

Is that somehow extraordinary? Don't you think a number of prosecutors have been similarly sited? And what about the ones who still practice law? Grace is a TV talking head. Big fucking deal.

[saltpoint]

20. If you examine the point in discussion here, imenja,

you will note that objections have been raised to Nancy Grace's extra-legal conduct.

That is the subject.

If you are in defense of her extra-legal conduct, I find that startling.

If you are excusing it because of the chance others have done it, that's bullshit.

And yes, justice is a big fucking deal.

[imenja]

24. untrue

I excuse no such actions. I just think the fact that people focus on someone they happen to see on TV suggests a very narrow and unproductive approach to the problem. She's not a practicing attorney anymore. She's a TV host. You hate her. Good for you. Now what have you done to help defendant's rights? The attorneys and judges that are currently practicing law and are currently abusing the rights of the accused are far more important.

[saltpoint]

27. Post a defendants' rights thread as you please --

-- but if you can't address a subject in questionk, imenja, perhaps you need to do some work on topic sentence adherence.

Grace is being held accountable for her conduct by some DUers tonight and in the past by the Georgia Supreme Court.

This is a forum.

If you don't like ideas in a forum, the door's over there.

[imenja]

29. Why should I?

Or why should you, when it's so much easier for you to express hatred of women in the legal profession.

[saltpoint]

33. My feminist credentials are stronger than your apparent --

-- support of our judicial system.

Your defense of Nancy Grace and your obvious effort to dissuade others from criticising her tonight suggest a startling defense of wrong-doing. Not only Grace's wrong-doing, but in other areas as well.

What other extra-legal and unprofessional actions do you support?

[imenja]

37. knock if off

You aren't interested in how I feel about the justice system, since you've ignored everything I've said. You always have to turn a discussion into juvenile personal attacks rather than simply focusing on the subject matter.

[saltpoint]

39. Thank you for your input on extralegal conduct by --

-- prosecutors.

I find the comments useful.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seabiscuit]

66. Hmmmm...

I get the impression you're being "trolled", Old Crusoe. But I can't say it *for certain* ::smirk:: - oops, can't smirk here - gotta say this seriously: I can't come right out and claim it as a fact because it might be deemed a violation of posting etiquette.

But.... jeeeeeessshhhh!!!

[imenja]

72. Is this your conception of freedom of expression

If I don't agree with the majority on every opinion I'm a troll? Wow, that's open minded of you. No one should bother thinking for themselves. They should look for what the majority say and ape it unthinkingly.

[Seabiscuit]

78. Your responses to a serious poster came off as repetitive slapstick

So I just can't take you seriously. Sorry.

[imenja]

79. that is your prerogative

but I don't think you are evaluating the posts objectively. I've posted thousands of entries here on DU. Most far more serious than these. This is the lounge after all. To engage in personal condemnations based on your own lack of information is irresponsible. You also know nothing about the vitriolic manner with which this particular member has treated me in the past.

If you have something to say about the content of this discussion, I suggest you focus on that rather than attacking me personally.

[Seabiscuit]

82. I'm not personally condemning you. I'm personally blessing you.

You have all my sincerest condolences.

[imenja]

40. any woman will tell you

If a man claims he's a feminist, stay clear of him. They are invariably the worst in their treatment of women.

[enigmatic]

56. that's funny...

My wife works for a couple of women's groups up here and I just told her what you posted; she laughed for a minute and shook her head, "no"..

[imenja]

61. I heard that first from a woman in Brazil

who ran the women's center at the Universidade Federal da Bahia. There is nothing worse, she said, than a man who claims he's a feminist. It may be true. I've known guys who get after women if they wear make-up, lingerie, stockings, etc... because that doesn't fit their image of how a woman should look. I remember a guy in grad school hassling me over this sort of thing, cause I was going through a femme stage. And it's not like he was even dating me. Talk about nerve! I know one such guy who cheated on his girlfriend with another man and to really piss her off, lied and said he didn't use a condom. I know it was a lie because the guy he had sex with told me otherwise. Anyway, this is all torrid gossip. In reality, it depends on the individual.

[Skittles]

63. I have never heard that and I am a woman

nt

[Swamp Rat]

64. That's funny, I told a female in my class today that "I am a feminist."

She thought it was great! :) (I rarely use a label for myself, but this has specific significance for me)

Também, eu disse a mesma coisa a minha namorada lá em Fortaleza e ela gostou ouvir falar. Nasci numa familia matriarcal, então é possível que você está falando sobre outros homen que são malandros que gosta controlar as vidas das mulheres. :shrug:

[LibertyorDeath]

81. The shits flowing thick tonight

"any woman will tell you." Well lets see

I just asked my Wife who is a full time volunteer at a shelter for battered women.

Her response was

"whomever said that does not know what the fuck they are talking about"

[LibertyorDeath]

77. Your post is Shit! Old Crusoe did nothing of the sort

"when it's so much easier for you to express hatred of women in the legal profession."

You resort to complete bullshit when challenged on shit based assertions

it's a bad habit.

[Floogeldy]

11. According to that Georgia Supreme court opinion, she is a fucking scumbag

She is an unethical, lying piece of shit.

People get murdered all of the time.

You have confirmed that her selfish, reckless emotions were the basis of her behavior in court.

She is a disgrace to the legal community. Her license should be jerked.

She is a loser and an idiot.

[AlCzervik]

13. lets hope she never runs for judge.

or even worse get nominated.

[Floogeldy]

15. I'm not a particularly religious man . . .

. . . but I will pray for the people of Georgia in that respect.

B-)

[imenja]

19. how many people run for the bench from a TV show?

She doesn't even live in Georgia anymore.

[AlCzervik]

23. I think she'd move where ever she too if it meant a high profile

judgeship.

[imenja]

32. Do you know if her bar membership is active?

I know she hasn't practiced in a very long time. I wouldn't think she'd qualify to be on the bench. The law has changed. Judges are required to know current law and have current experience.

[Seabiscuit]

67. They wouldn't take her, and the job wouldn't give her the attention she

craves as a right-wing media whore. Thank gawwwwd.

[imenja]

70. someone said she's actually a Dem

I don't know if that is true or not.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Did you believe it when you heard it?

[imenja]

76. I don't know

I've never heard her discuss politics.

[imenja]

14. emotional?

your response is entirely emotional. I disagree with Nancy Grace on many things, but I see no reason for this sort of emotionally vehement hatred of her. I would imagine many prosecutors have been cited by superior courts. Grace isn't a practicing attorney anymore. If you're concerned about defendants' rights, you'd do better to focus on someone who is still practicing. Attacking her accomplishes nothing. What's your goal? To drive down her TV ratings? How radical of you.

[saltpoint]

17. Your support for individual prosecutors' practice of --

-- extra-legal conduct threatening the judicial outcome of court cases is startling, imenja.

Do you also favor extra-legal detention of "enemy combantants"? I mean, why stop at local cases in Georgia as long as you are rising in defense of wrongdoing?

[imenja]

21. READ

the English language. I support no such thing. I'm simply pointing out this attack of Nancy Grace is stupid. I'd prefer you all would focus on the actions of prosecutors, DAs, and judges rather than TV hosts.

[saltpoint]

22. Using capital letters for your verb commands does not --

-- clarify your position.

The topic is Nancy Grace's extra-legal and stridently unprofessional conduct.

Deal with it.

[imenja]

28. very well

If that's what makes you happy, go for it. You aren't, however, contributing anything to your stated goal of defendants rights.

[saltpoint]

31. In fact I am. So is anyone else who objects to --

-- extra-legal conduct by prosecutors, whether or not they are on television.

I think you should know this.

[Floogeldy]

25. The original post referenced a prosecutor . . .

. . . her name is Nancy Grace.

}(

[imenja]

26. not any more dear

she hasn't practiced law for years.

[Floogeldy]

30. She was, and is, an unethical, lying piece of shit, reckless, disgrace . .

Her license should be jerked. She is a loser and an idiot.

And she smells.


}(

[imenja]

34. I don't think she has a current license

If she does, she hasn't used it in years.

[Floogeldy]

41. You heard if from imenja: Nancy Grace surrendered her license to practice

And just where did you get this information?

[imenja]

43. it was a question

not an absolute statement. I don't think she has a current license. I don't know. In another post here I asked if anyone knew if her bar membership was current. I know that she quit practicing when a new DA was elected in Atlanta. She hasn't practiced law since then. That was some years ago: 8 to 10 perhaps, I'm not sure.

[Floogeldy]

45. That makes sense

Under the circumstances, I would hope that a new DA would be elected and kick her incompetent, idiotic, stupid, lying, ass out of the office.

[imenja]

47. so why do you hate her so?

I'm trying to figure this out. I assume your discovery of this Georgia court case is recent, so you hated her before then. Is that correct? I know I've taken great exception to the way she seems so quick to condemn defendants. The case that bothered me most was that guy who was picked up in California in conjunction with a child abduction case. He died in jail and turned out to have nothing to do with it. She seemed very quick to condemn him.

I do not, however, hate her. I've seen some footage of her in court, and she clearly was very good at her job. She cares passionately about victims rights, and she does get emotional. I don't think being emotional is a bad thing. One is emotional because they care. One is dispassionate when they don't care. I had no awareness of her while she was a prosecutor, so I never followed any of her cases then. Like most people, I only know her from TV. I disagree with her on many issues, but I see no reason to hate her. I don't think hating people helps advance any particular cause.

Do you know that Grace asked the DA not to seek the death penalty for the man convicted of killing her fiance?

I am much more concerned about the DAs in Harris county, Texas who seek the death penalty for a huge number of crimes. I'm more concerned about the prosecutors in the Texas drug cases where the defendants were set up due to testimony from a corrupt police officer. I'm concerned about the practicing attorneys who oppose efforts to examine cases of wrongful conviction and oppose post-conviction DNA testing because it challenges their own reputation. Today, Nancy Grace has a TV show. That's it.

[saltpoint]

35. A feminist might object to the condescending and --

-- belittling use of "dear" in your post, imenja.

"Honey." "Darlin'" Etc.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saltpoint]

38. Your baseless charge of sexism in an above thread --

-- prompts scrutiny and suggests that you just want to hurl insults and debase others instead of participate in the topic at hand.

That's unfortunate. Nevertheless, your objections tonight to this thread are without merit. You do not have new facts to introduce, you object just for the thrill of objecting without context or cause.

This forum's original post was clear and to the point. You have ignored that point and when challenged, you have hurled invective.

Not persuasive.

[Floogeldy]

18. Quite the contrary

My response is vitriolic.

}(

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. But apparently she lost this case

on appeal.

[Seabiscuit]

65. I couldn't have said it better. A Fox, er, I mean, Pox on Nancy Grace!

[AlCzervik]

2. jeebus, this part here

Perhaps the most unusual misconduct by Grace involved two instances of entering into the Carr home without Carr’s knowledge or consent. The first involved an expert witness viewing the house:

During the trial, the State brought in an expert witness from out-of-state to testify about the cause of the fire. Without the knowledge or participation of the defense, the prosecuting attorney presented an order to the trial judge permitting entry into Carr's home so that the expert could view the scene.
The State’s expert entered the house after breaking down the locked front door. The Supreme Court found it error to permit the witness to break into the Carr house and to testify but, for our purposes, the more interesting aspect is how Grace got the trial judge to issue the order permitting the entry:

the trial court, after a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence gathered through illegal use of subpoenas, specifically found that the prosecuting attorney abused the subpoena process by, among other things, inserting false information regarding hearing dates (Emphasis supplied).
In other words, Grace submitted false information to the court during an ex parte proceeding in an effort to gain a tactical trial advantage.

There was one other entry into the Carr home. It does not appear to have been for the purpose of gathering evidence but rather for the purpose of raising Grace’s personal profile:

The alleged misconduct of the prosecuting attorney included participation in and facilitation of unauthorized entries into Carr's home, once in person to film a CNN television special featuring the prosecuting attorney...

[saltpoint]

3. Wasn't familiar with this case but for Nancy Grace's rabid --

-- and obsessional behavior to prompt such a comment from the Georgia Supreme Court says a lot.

She's a scorched earth maniac. Freud would have a field day with this woman's visible anger.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. My law partners love her

"Lawyer With Rabies," they call her.

I just think her anger would melt silverware. There's something profoundly wrong with her.

[AlCzervik]

7. You probably know this already but her fiance was murdered

some years back and i think that has definitely impacted her view of victims. She must have shit a brick when she heard the Blake verdict.

[steve2470]

8. she was totally partisan tonight

Forget any pretense of "the jury has spoken"

[AlCzervik]

9. i'm waiting for her to start the chant some night

"Burn her, she's a witch!"

[Floogeldy]

12. Ha ha ha!

Good observation!

B-)

[imenja]

48. that asshole is guilty and you know it

he got off cause he's a "celebrity." That's it. For heaven's sake, there was testimony that he tried to hire a hit man. Peterson was given the death penalty on less.

[Bake]

49. No, I DON'T know "that asshole's guilty."

There was testimony he tried to hire a hit man. And the jury found it not credible, apparently, since the testimony came from a junkie who claims he is stalked by "tree people."

I bet Grace could - AND HAS - found somebody in virtually any instance to testify to whatever she wanted them to say. Doesn't make it true OR credible.

How else do I not know "that asshole's guilty?" Let's see - there was no powder residue on Blake's hands; his gun was definitely NOT the murder weapon, which by the way they never found. What DID he use to kill that con artist, anyway? How did he avoid powder residue? What did he do with the murder weapon?

Sounds like you've got an ax to grind, facts be damned.

Bake, Esq.

[imenja]

50. do you really think he'd have been acquitted if he hadn't been a celebrity?

I don't. Anyway, it makes no difference what any of us say. He's not going to jail. He could confess tomorrow and it wouldn't change that.

[Bake]

53. No, but there'd be a helluva civil suit ...

... except for that pesky statute of limitations ... she was killed in 2001, I think. Usually the wrongful death statute is three years, and some states shorten that time to one year for intentional (i.e., homicide-type deaths). So yeah, I guess he COULD confess tomorrow. But that would be pretty stupid.

On the evidence that was presented, and with a decent defense lawyer, a non-celebrity could certainly be acquitted. Simply put, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bake, Esq.

[imenja]

55. could be true

I didn't watch the trial. But the SOB looks guilty to me, not to mention out of his mind. I know as a lawyer that will infuriate you, but I'm not on the jury, so I do no harm by saying that.

[Bake]

57. "Asshole" ... "SOB" ... "looks guilty to me"

You're the FIRST one I get excused from the jury. Based on your comments in this thread, it wouldn't be hard to do. Like I said, facts be damned, the SOB just LOOKS guilty. So of course "that asshole is guilty."

I bet this will really piss you off: One thing they told us in law school was that in certain states (Texas, e.g.), when there's a homicide, they ask the suspect two questions: (1) Did you kill him/her? and (2) Did they NEED killin'?

Let's just say Bonnie Bakley wasn't exactly a "sympathetic" victim. Some would posit she "needed killin'". She was a grifter and con artist who doubtless had a lot more enemies than just Robert Blake.

Bake, Esq.

[imenja]

59. no need

If I went into the courtroom feeling this way I would tell the judge to excuse me.

I was a juror once. I was actually very fair. But if I was presented with a case in which I couldn't be fair, I would make that clear to the court. There is a big difference between idle comments based on watching TV and one's responsibility as part of the justice system.

[Seabiscuit]

68. Finally, some clarity. Blake "looks guilty" and therefore he only got off

because he's a celebrity. And Peterson must not "look guilty" to you (yeah, he's soooooo cute!) so he was convicted because he's not a celebrity.

Thanks so much for the clarification. Really, thank you, thank you.

I'm feeling enlightened.

I feel so energized.

I feel like running and dancing for joy.

[imenja]

69. no, I thought Peterson looked and was guilty too

the deadness in the eyes. Peterson is a sociopath. I see nothing cute about him. If you find him cute, that's your problem. Blake is more typical and doesn't seem like a sociopath. My comments were on what I know about the evidence only. Sorry to disappoint you, but I will express my opinions. I'm not on the jury, so I have that right. Whether or not Blake is guilty, he's clearly deranged.

Question, why do so many people have to invent positions for those they disagree with rather than asking someone what they actually think about a subject?

[Seabiscuit]

71. Your comments were "about the evidence only"? Well excuuuse me.

I thought your wrote something like: "the SOB looks guilty to me, not to mention out of his mind." and a lot of similarly worded stuff.

I must have completely misread everything you've written. Sorry I "invented" the above. Really, I truly thought you wrote that. My bad.

Please remind me never to "invent" some crazy story that you ever mentioned that Blake is "clearly deranged".

[imenja]

74. my comments on Peterson

were about the level of evidence. You felt a need to project your own crush on him to me.

So you like Blake and think he's innocent. Good for you. Does that extend to OJ too and all men who kill women? How about Ted Bundy?

[Seabiscuit]

80. Oh. So I'm projecting my "crush" on Peterson to you.

Sorry. Guess I'll have to re-examine my feelings about that SOB. I never knew I was so fond of him.

Yeah, if I question someone's emotional outbursts about some verdict about a guy accused of killing some grifter/con artist/scum simply because a couple of druggies told some jurors some stories the jury found incredible (which, BTW, was the *only* evidence against Blake), then I must be one hell of a chauvinist pig who thinks all men who kill women are innocent.

Thanks for enlightening me about myself again. I really needed that.

But wait... I could be wrong - after all, I think Peterson's guilty as hell and Bundy was guilty as hell. And they both killed women. Maybe I'm just a confused male chauvinist pig who doesn't know his ass from his elbow?

[imenja]

84. What about OJ?

Are your views on criminal trials always bound to the jury verdicts? Would that include Geronimo Pratt as well?

You were the one who said Peterson was cute. I assumed you believed that to be true. If not, why did you write it?

Don't you think it's odd that a perfect stranger happened to come up and kill the woman during the five or so minutes when Blake was away from the car? If that is indeed the case, it is a remarkable coincidence.

Yes, we women are prone to emotional outbursts. It's those pesky hormones. And I happen to see no virtue in dispassion toward men who murder women they find inconvenient, whether they are celebrities or not. If Blake had been a young black man who was not a celebrity, he would have been on death row months ago.

[Seabiscuit]

86. What ABOUT OJ?

Who cares???

As for my remark to you about Peterson, and "cute", you're apparently a stranger to sarcasm.

[imenja]

87. let's see, the Brown family

and the family of any woman he might beat or kill in the future. Why should anyone care about domestic violence? Women are too emotional anyway.

[Seabiscuit]

88. So.... let's all hound everyone, like OJ, to death, who was ever

acquitted of a crime, because since the accusation of criminal conduct involved a victim who was a woman, then we all must know he was guilty, and the juries were all wrong. Throughout all time. After all, he'll probably just go around beating and killing women for the rest of his life if we don't hound him to death first, right? Let's make sure we hound him enough to prove how much we care about domestic violence.

Good point. I'll take it to heart.

Oh, wait... I forgot... sarcasm is lost on you.

[Seabiscuit]

89. Never heard of Geronimo Pratt

But to answer your question: "Are your views on criminal trials always bound to the jury verdicts?"

No. I happen to think the prosecution's case against David Westerfield stunk and was full of evidendiary holes, but that he had utterly incompetent counsel and I can understand the jury's verdict, but happen to disagree with it. I personally found David Westerfield disgusting, and not someone I would waste a minute of my life with. But I don't think the prosecution proved its case against him beyond a reasonable doubt by a long shot. Personally, I still suspect the girl's parents (the father, at least, with the mother covering for him), who disgust me far more than Westerfield ever could.

Look, I'm a seasoned lawyer. I know how imperfect the criminal justice system is, and I've read countless appellate cases where verdicts have been overturned for a host of reasons. I'm not here to argue endlessly with you. I just don't like the way you've treated several of the posters here so I've been mocking you. I see a pattern of lack of respect in your posts, including your responses to me, so if I poke fun at you, it's because I think you have it coming.

[imenja]

90. Geronimo Pratt was a black panther

He was accused of committing a murder when he wasn't even in the same city at the time. The main witness against him was an FBI agent, but his identity was not revealed to the jury at the time. This was one of Johnny Cochran's first and longest cases. Pratt was convicted in the 70s and finally released just a couple of years ago after an appellate court granted him a new trial. The prosecution chose not to refile, essentially because their entire case depended on the FBI agent/ informant.

I'm not pretending to be objective on the Blake case. I happen to think the guy is guilty, and I don't see what is wrong with my expressing that opinion. I also object to the great inequalities in a justice system that condemns poor black men to death row while celebrities get royal treatment by both prosecutors and juries. Look how long it even took the LA DA to file charges in the Blake case. Ultimately it doesn't matter what I think. The man was declared not guilty. It's the jury's verdict that counts.

[Seabiscuit]

91. I never read anything about the Pratt case so I can't comment on it.

I don't mind people having/expressing opinions. It's how they're expressed and the manner with which people expressing them treat others who don't share the opinion that I do care about.

[imenja]

92. fair enough point

but I must say I believe you are as equally guilty in this regard as I am. I did not accuse you of being a freeper troll. At any rate, let's just agree to disagree on the subject.

[Seabiscuit]

93. OK. We can agree to disagree.

But for the record, I never mentioned the word "freeper". Nor did I ever formally accuse you of being a "troll". I jokingly raised the mere possibility, but made it clear I was making no claim or accusation.

[imenja]

94. okay

but you have to realize that is lawyer speak. You made your point quite clearly nonetheless. And you were entirely inaccurate in your assumptions. Regardless, I don't report people's posts unless they are anti-semitic or racist. I never report attacks against myself. I'm not so fragile. I prefer to defend my own views.

And I also acknowledge that some of my own posts were inappropriate.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

46. Yeah, I did know that

But, you know, we all endure personal tragedies, and, with a lot of work, and even more luck, we manage to end up as fairly balanced and functioning human beings.

She's clearly in need of some help. Or, if she's just affecting that pose in the interests of show business, she ought to be ashamed of herself for exploiting that terrible personal tragedy.

Or maybe she just has rabies?

[imenja]

51. how is she exploiting a personal tragedy?

I've only seen her discuss it once, when Larry King interviewed her directly about her personal life. Of course, I don't have the kind of obsession with the woman that so many here on DU seem to. It's possible I've missed it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. Her rabid style and anti-defendant stance

She's the Professional Crime Victim. She's made it very well-known what happened to her intended, and now it seems to define her every perspective.

I have no brief with her intelligence, but she's made some statements about how the law works that were so damn wrong, I screamed at the TV set. As a member of the profession, I might have a very different take on the woman.

Did that answer your question? I wanted to.

[imenja]

54. I agree with that

but I think that is evidence that event shaped how she sees the world, not that she is purposefully exploiting the tragedy for gain.

[enigmatic]

58. She's a nut

And as a screaming talking head, she's a bad as Ann Coulter. I don't care if she gave money to a Democratic candidate at one time, I wouldn't want anything to do w/ her..

[imenja]

62. now don't exaggerate

No one is as bad as Ann Coulter, except maybe Sean Hannity. Grace doesn't even approach that crowd.

[Bake]

60. The thing that bothers me about Grace

Of course, she is always 200% pro-prosecution, regardless of the case. She jumps to a "guilty" conclusion every single time.

The thing that bothers me is that she is put up to the public as the quintessential ideal prosecutor. She is not. Not by a long shot. She is rather the poster child for prosecutorial misconduct, who apparently has no clue about due process and cares not a whit for the Constitution that she took an oath to uphold.

Bake, Esq.

[Seabiscuit]

73. Which is exactly why the right-wing cable programs love to stick her in

our faces.

Seems all the lawyers here are of the same mind. She's made such incredibly stupid misstatements about the law I've felt like throwing something at the boob tube.

[sundog]

6. I was gonna do a Nancy Grace thread tonight as a matter of fact

maybe I'll do it anyway

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

83. Nancy Grace is barely human

The DA's office seems to attract this sociopathic type, both men and women, who care not a whit for human justice but only about winning and advancing the political career of their mentors. The DA's office is all about political power. A Deputy DA in my opinion should be held to a very high standard in the pursuit of truth, whether or not it helps their case and their track record.

I remember Nancy Grace's disgraceful display during the Elizabeth Smart abduction on the Larry King show. She tried and convicted a man, Richard Ricci on national television. A week later, the man died. Grace continued trashing him and his widow for weeks. In fact, when it was determined that Ricci was completely innocent of the kidnapping, his widow came on Larry King and was very forgiving. But Grace couldn't even find it in herself to offer the slightest apology to her or even a kind thought for her wrongfully accused dead husband. To her, he was a man with a past criminal record and therefore no longer human, no longer deserving of human justice.

Larry King: “Nancy, do you feel a little funny about all the racks we took at Mr. Ricci on this show?”

Nancy Grace: “No. I don’t.”

Larry King: “But on this program, Mr. Ricci got racked around and it wasn’t him,”

Mark Geragos: "Nancy, I have reserved any kind of comments tonight because you have been, all along in this story, one of the worst perpetrators of convicting people. And you’ve done it on this show in this specific case. I don’t even remember the name of the guy before Ricci that they had focused on, and you had convicted him as well."

Nancy Grace: “As far as Ricci, I’m not going on a guilt trip and I’m not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip because Ricci was a convicted criminal in the home and had problems with his alibi since that night, and considering him as a suspect is not unthinkable.”

A sociopathic personality, that is, someone without a conscience like Nancy Grace should never, ever be allowed near a courtroom prosecuting others on behalf of the State, with taxpayer money. And this has nothing to do with feminism or the fact she's a woman. I've seen plenty of male Deputy DAs as well who don't see a human being in the defendant's chair once criminal charges have been brought and don't feel a responsibility to owe true human justice to that defendant, even when they know there are problems with their own evidence and their case as prosecutors.

[Seabiscuit]

85. You're right. She shouldn't be allowed near a TV camera either.

She's totally loony tunes.

[kayleybeth]

95. Locking

This discussion has run it's course.

Thanks,
DU Moderator