Nancy Grace: "Boy do I need a shrink."

[Bluebear]

NEW YORK - Nancy Grace held up a "crow sandwich" to eat after
Michael Jackson was declared not guilty of child molestation, then appeared near tears after talking about the case on CNN Headline News for an hour.

Some big TV names had a lot at stake in the verdict. Grace has built a successful cable show partly on her prosecutorial attacks on Jackson, while Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera declared he'd shave off his mustache if the pop star was found guilty....

Grace, a former prosecutor who has fashioned herself as a crime victim's advocate since her fiance was murdered, made it clear she felt Jackson was guilty even though she was cast in a journalistic role on her prime-time CNN Headline News show.

"Boy, do I need a shrink," Grace said on her show, where she said Jackson was found "not guilty, by reason of celebrity."

She conducted a contentious argument with Paul Rodriguez, foreman of the Jackson jury.

"When you have so many little boys coming in and saying, `this happened to me,' you got a $20 million settlement to make one kid go away, a $2 million settlement to make another kid go away, you got a grown man sleeping with little boys," she said. "Hello!!"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050614/ap_en_tv/tv_michael_jackson_2;_ylt=Ah_MzkYa3z_m6N5_aJBLyCmZGA4B;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Yes, Nancy, you sure do.

Please stop working out your issues on TV. It's undignified and it scares the animals.

[Bluebear]

8. LMAO!

[Mr_Spock]

104. Poor animals

:D

[spanone]

2. She was disgusting to watch on the Today Show today.

She's a disturbed person.

[elehhhhna]

3. She's unhinged. And stoopid.

[CatWoman]

4. I watched Geraldo last night

he opened up a serious can of whup ass on Marcia Clarke.

BTW -- She's blonde now. :eyes:

[Skittles]

45. Ms. Clarke does not pull off the blonde look

not at all

[lavenderdiva]

67. agreed!!

I saw her on Entertainment Tonight, sporting her ultra-blonde coiffure, and thought she should sign up for the next make-over show.

[goclark]

77. Did she have a bad face lift or what? nt

[Skittles]

114. not sure

looks like she gained a little weight and a little botox

[Radio_Lady]

122. Hey, I remember when she had dark, curly hair --

Now, is she a straight-haired blonde? Give me a recent picture for a truer analysis.

Here's what happens, folks, from a former employee and technician with the Clairol hair care company in Stamford, CT.

The curly part, back when she was going after O.J. Simpson, was probably a permanent wave. As I recall, she is a natural brunette with dark eyes.

When brunettes age, they lose the melanin or natural coloring in their hair. Then we call their hair GRAY or unpigmented. After that comes a choice: try to achieve a dark color closer to your natural color (and possibly look even older) or tint back with a blonde shade? Ms. Clarke seems to have chosen to be a blonde over gray. Or she may be highlighting (bleaching) out the dark hair she has left (most people have a mix of their natural color with mostly or partially gray).

Another case in point is Barbara Walters. She was a brunette, and now she is gray or light brown (with blonde or highlighting).

Thank you for allowing me to elucidate...

[cynatnite]

5. There's this thing called evidence!

Hello!!

God, what a freak! I swear this woman's got to be on meds or else she ought to be :eyes:

[wookie294]

6. The scary thing is that thousands of prosecutors are just like her

And the Republicans want to weaken the Constitution to make it easier for people like Nancy Grace to imprison innocent people.

[H2O Man]

7. I like Nancy.

I don't always agree with her, but I usually do. She has taken unpopular stances on cases, including her support of Mike Tyson in what she felt was a DA and judge prosecuting Mike for political gain.

[Donailin]

33. So do I

I love her nostrils.

Seriously though, when she was commenting on the Danielle Van Damn murder trial I just found her to be passionate and righton the moneu wrt every little detail. I identify with her outrage. She'd make a great anti-Busher if she was so inclined.

[ElectroPrincess]

41. Those who are proud of identifying with outrage - scare the hell out

of me?!? That outrage may make the person venting sick sentiments feel better, but it serves NO useful purpose.

Anyone who's murdered whether be a pretty little child or an old grandparent is *equally* precious in the eyes of God. Every killing/murder is equally sad.

Both Mark Klaus and Nancy Grace are IMO two equally sick and vengeful personalities. We all know that they must be so paranoid that they "pack heat" everywhere they go. However, I for one, don't want to be ANYWHERE close to either of them if and when they "go off" on society.

[Donailin]

50. Those who twist my words into a platform of self-righteousness

bore the hell out of me.

:nopity:

[H2O Man]

60. I strongly disagree.

Outrage is a healthy emotion when outrageous things occure. One would be hard-pressed to say that there are not outrageous things in society. Thus, the fear of outrage would seem a phobia.

[ElectroPrincess]

74. Whoa! You're entitled to your opinion but everything I've been

taught in Graduate School and since as an Drug Abuse and PTSD counselor indicates the opposite conclusion, i.e., outrage is not healthy and should be "worked through."

I don't wish to argue with you because "I understand" your point. My clients often demonstrate such raw, but very real emotions. However, I honestly hope that you (and others severely stricken like Mark Klaus and Nancy Grace) are able to resolve the demons within yourself that cry out for revenge. If not, I urge you - only out of genuine concern, to seek help.

Sincere best regards,

EP

On Edit: I'm not self-righteous ... or at least I try my best not to be. Outrage causes great "emotional pain" to the person. Like envy, it's an emotion that can't be fully understood nor resolved without an honest assessment of self and a desire to believe "the goodness" of basic humanity.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being haughty because I have my own demons that I must tackle, i.e., severe dental phobia for example.

[H2O Man]

78. I can't help this

and I am saying it partly tongue-in-cheek, but when I used to supervise master's students and new employees at the MHC and ADAS, I used to ..... (grin)

To say "outrage" is not healthy is to say that "outrageous" things do not occure. But, since outrageous things do occure, I would propose that outrage is a good thing .... unless it controls the person.

[ElectroPrincess]

90. You got that right Pro-fes-SOR ... and they also tend to "occur"

Kudos galore! :smoke:

Just teasing: No, I hold not grudge against PhD's albeit my Thesis chair was such a pain in the butt.

You're alright ... Yes, as a transient emotion, "outrage" is understandable, but we'd both agree, with Mark Klaus, it's (OUTRAGE!) his reason for being. Best to you. :-) EP

[H2O Man]

93. Field supervision

is not done by PhDs. It is done by those referred to by SUNY-Albany as "temporary faculty." Also, they are called "adjunct" .... although I will admit I checked my dictionary on that word, rather than risk "a junk" -- though that may be more descriptive!

Americans should consider the Bush administration's behaviors outrageous .... and they should respond in an appropriate manner.

[ElectroPrincess]

95. Most excellent! Then you are a lowly Masters level puke like me ...

Welcome dear "adjunct" :hi: for I've been there ... I was once granted full professor status while living in The Republic of Panama. I instructed Introductory Psychology. and the Psychology of Alcohol Abuse to USA Military and Government Personnel. Guess being in a dangerous central American country gives one with only a masters degree extra clout.

Too funny, and somewhat unfair. Such prestige never showed up in an increased paycheck. LOL

[H2O Man]

102. Paycheck?

What's a paycheck? Actually, now that I am retired, I make more than I did working. (Yet I do NOT recommend sustaining a disabling injury while on the job.)

Now, I ask this in all sincerity, and will accept your answer on face value ..... and certain the majority of PhDs are indeed good and decent people .... but .... wouldn't you agree .... that at least some are outrageous? (grin)

I just spoke with my wife, who is still working. She runs the local ADAS. I do not miss that business at all. I maintain a close friendship with a number of co-workers. But the funny business with cuts in funding, and added responsibilities as state facilities dump people with high levels of needs on unsuspecting communities. I think that it is a terribly underpaid line of work.

[ElectroPrincess]

110. Oh, I fully agree, many PhDs get self-absorbed and

full of themselves personality-wise.

For example, the head of our Psychology Department (and My Thesis Chair) was a tried an true male chauvinist. He used to whine how increasing numbers of women in the field of psychology would drive down salaries. He called it "The Feminization of Psychology" ... However, most times his constant laments fell mostly on deaf ears since all four of us Graduate Students in his research group were (TA DA!) WOMEN.

One day he rushed in and exclaimed with exuberance, "We're getting a MAN to join our research group!" Not missing a beat I quipped, "Great Dr. X, we now have someone to bring us coffee." There were muffled snickers but great self-control among the group as he did not find my comment amusing.

The Fall-Out: I submitted my Thesis Proposal four (4x) times before "that man" would give it the final approval for completion. Each time he would return it, he'd mark new errors / corrections. By the third time he bounced it back to me, I made it clear that "newly discovered errors" in the original text are now considered off-limits.

Yes, I finished my Thesis but it required *extra* blood, sweat and tears because I pissed off the "God - Like" Department Chair. It was hell on earth but he also begrudgingly noted and almost respected my determination and persistence.

To make a long story - well, a little less long, I find a number of PhDs arrogant and pompous blow hards. But of course, there are a number of notable exceptions ... All I can surmise is that they have enjoyed far too many undergrads kissing their butts for so many years in academia, that they actually begin to believe they're God's gift to their field. :P

Thanks for the good exchange of information ... have a good one! EP

[sandnsea]

73. I agree

John Walsh did something constructive with his pain and anger. Grace and Klaus are just on a rampage and serve no real useful purpose at all. One of the reasons we're seeing cops out of control is because people like them are turning the justice system into an angry vengeful mob. Not good. I sure don't understand somebody needing to listen to people like them for a daily dose of outrage.

[H2O Man]

59. Yep.

I note that the title of one of Vince Bugliosi's best books was "Outrage." It's a great book. While he is best known for prosecuting the Manson "family," Vince also authored the best book on the Supreme Court's criminal action in selecting Bush as president in 2000. He titled that book, "The Betrayal of America." It expresses outrage, also.

[Mandate My Ass]

62. I love outrage, the emotion and the book

my only problem with Nancy Grace is that she flouts the rules of both journalism and the justice system with her sneering, butting in, emotional outbursts, when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife questions, asking defense people to prove a negative, and declaring someone guilty (always!) before the prosecution even rests and way before the defense presents its case.

I avoided all coverage of the MJ trial that I possibly could, but I knew the prosecution had serious, serious problems with their witnesses and precious little evidence. That adds up to acquittal; even if emotionally you didn't want one, realistically you had to see it coming.

I just can't take her seriously.

[H2O Man]

66. I had little interest in the case.

I saw that there was remarkably little chance that the truth -- meaning did Michael molest this child or not -- would come out, and that rather than the media focusing on the serious issues involved, it would be a circus of celebrity. But as I mentioned on some thread or another, my brother told me that he was convinced the defense attorneys had raised reasonable doubt .... and it sounds like the DA did, too.

I'm not sure about the charge on journalism, but to clarify, Nancy has not flouted any rules of the justice system in her coverage of this case. There is a code found in the Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association, and there is a common misconception that it restricts attorneys from voicing opinions on guilt before a trial. In fact, the specific section (Rule 3.6) provides that the prosecutor and defense attorney on a case should not comment on if a client is guilty or not guilty outside the court. Obviously, both prosecutors and defense attorneys violate this rule frequently, and a strong argument can be made that it should only apply in certain circumstances determined by the presiding judge.

Nancy has in no way violated that rule by voicing her opinion. The merits of her opinion are, of course, debatable. But there is no violation of any code of conduct in her expressing those opinions.

[Mandate My Ass]

70. We can agree to disagree

I have never seen her lay out an objective case to back up her opinions or outrage and I have watched a lot of CourtTV. I can't take her seriously as a commentator or a former prosecutor when she acts like she doesn't know what reasonable doubt is or recognize when it clearly exists.

Her recent demand that you must convict because someone is most likely a pedophile, and her jury bashing is just another in a long series of such melodramatics that make her a joke to me. :-)

[H2O Man]

71. We don't disagree on that.

I recognize that you are right to exercise your right to have an opinion on her. You back it up quite well with reasons that you find her obnoxious. I have absolutely no problem with that.

There are others who base their opinion on less well-documented reasons, including emotion and occasionally ignorance. Those are the ones I disagree with.

I've had a number of family members and friends murdered or violently assaulted. That plays a significant role in how I view Nancy. In one case, I had a role in being our family's spokesperson with the media. I appreciate that a bit of theater is involved in what Nancy does, based on my own experience.

[Mandate My Ass]

72. Well, I do find her obnoxious

but the reason I can't form a favorable opinion of her is because she is so darned unreasonable most of the time.

I'm sorry about the violence inflicted on your family and friends. I once heard NG talk about her support of rape victims during trials and I found her views and methods in this realm very compassionate as well as effective. Kudos to her for that.

[H2O Man]

76. You might find

a post I just put on GD of interest .... it is in regard to the topic of "guilty, not guilty, and presumptions of innocence." It is related to the general topic covered here.

I suspect that Nancy is aware of her frequently abrasive behaviors. I think that her goal (besides that she obviously is collecting a pay check) is to force people to think. Although I like her, I am aware that she is not succesful in getting a large segment of people to think about the issues involved in high-profile cases, because people often react to her personality. I think that is something she needs to examine.

[ElectroPrincess]

79. Perhaps the reason people don't pay much heed to the opinions

of Nancy Grace is that she is working out HER OWN personal issues (murder of her fiance) on National Television.

Oh gawd, it's so sad and so sick. Look at her and/or Mark Klaus's face when the true INDIGNATION sets in ... it's like they are reliving the events that have spawned such inappropriate (to the present case fact) demonstration of outrage? It's just damn sick.

I'm not saying that I might personally be compelled to hunt down and kill the "Guilty Party" if a member of my family was murdered. What I am trying to convey is that there's something VERY DEMENTED in the Corporate USA National Media parading these two, very emotionally disturbed people out whenever they want to stir-up some selectively sensationalistic outrage in the American sheeple?

But maybe I'm just strange that way. :-)

[H2O Man]

82. Mark Klaus

strikes me as an odd character. Obviously, I pity him for his loss. But even watching him on tv gives me an uneasy feeling.

I've spoken on DU a number of times about having my nephew viciously assaulted and left for dead by a group of racist thugs. They did not like a non-white high school student getting media attention for sports and leadership abilities. I had to make a choice: to react with violence (it would have been easy), or to respond in a different way. I know I rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. But even today, people sometimes approach me, and say, "I remember you ...."

[Carni]

116. She's very shrill and know it all sounding

I had a snoot full of her regarding that Peterson case!

[ronnykmarshall]

94. Enjoy!

[ElectroPrincess]

40. She's a loon! Please please bring back the REAL "Headline News"?

[H2O Man]

57. She's intelligent,

rational, thoughtful, and passionate. And she is a dedicated democratic activist. I like the image she projects.

[DemBeans]

80. really?

Please direct me to where I can find evidence of Grace being a "dedicated" Democratic "activist".

She's made one donation to Hillary - that's it. An activist that hardly makes, much less a dedicated one.

[H2O Man]

83. If you are interested

you'll be motivated to find it yourself. If your mind is already made up, you'll be content to base your opinion on what little you know. It is no concern to me either way.

[DemBeans]

87. nice dodge

You make a blanket statement, and then when questioned on your source you breezily tell me to "find it yourself", followed by a rude remark about my knowledge of Grace's political activity.

Why so defensive and rude? Because there's absolutely no proof - anywhere - that Grace is a "dedicated Democratic activist". Again, she made one donation to Hillary five years ago, and that's the extent of her public 'activism'.

Your unsubstantiated remarks are of no concern to me either, but to twist one political donation into a whirlwind of public activism is simply dishonest.

[H2O Man]

92. There have been threads

on DU which have included a number of examples of her activism. Other people listed those examples. I didn't write them down, or memorize them. I have no need to, because I'm not concerned with if other people are convinced she meets their definition. Thus, I'm not dodging your question: I was convinced by reading examples I was not previously aware of. If you want, go through the archives, and you will find them. If it is important to you, you will; if not, no big deal.

[Carni]

117. SHE IS?

Seriously...SHE is a Dem activist?

Please send me a link to that and I will shut up but she reminds me of that right winged Judd...*person* (Is it Naomi that I am thinking of? I can't keep them straight--I mean that mother of the Judds)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

105. She is a major whack-job in need of major pyschotherapy. IMHO,....

...she is a disgace to the legal profession with her constant claims that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

There is a reason why she no longer practices law as a prosecutor in Atlanta, and it has to do with her lack of professional conduct both in and out of the courtroom.

You like her? You can have her, and anyone that thinks like her.

[H2O Man]

112. There is a show on ESPN Classic.

It's about Mike Tyson. Nancy Grace takes the prosecutor and judge who railroaded him to prison apart. She doesn't always say people are guilty, just those she believes are indeed guilty. And statistically, most people arrested and charged with crimes are found to be guilty.

I do not think she was prevented from prosecuting in Atlanta; if she indeed was, I'd like to see a link to a report, if possible.

Again, there is nothing in the legal profession that recommends an attorney not comment on a case they are not involved in.

[Evergreen Emerald]

9. actually, she has a point

"When you have so many little boys coming in and saying, `this happened to me,' you got a $20 million settlement to make one kid go away, a $2 million settlement to make another kid go away, you got a grown man sleeping with little boys," she said. "Hello!!"

Versus: the juror who said she didn't like the mother because she snapped her fingers. It shows that the jury was looking for reasons not to convict, which is typical in child molestation cases. They ignored the evidence.

These cases are inherently hard to prove because
1. The perps pick their victims well. Isolated, poor, bad families, etc.
2. They usually perform the acts in private with the only other witness the victim who generally has issues (see #1). If they do not do the acts in private, they hire people to keep quiet.
3. because jurors would rather believe that a mother is a bad person who would put her son through this Hell for money rather than believe a man could molest a child.

Nancy Grace may be extreme in some cases but she has a point.

[wookie294]

10. It's easy to convince two boys they were molested when they weren't

What does "so many little boys" mean? Apparently it means "two boys" - hardly "many."

[Lindacooks]

15. No it isn't.

My dh was the director of a woman's shelter, and he knows, and has told me, that false reporting of molestation is EXTREMELY rare. I have no doubt that Jackson did indeed molest those children, and I hope this has scared him shitless so he stops it. NOW.

[Maat]

19. I completely agree, Lindacooks, and in seven years of social ..

work, I maybe only had one or two, out of thousands, that I doubted (sexual abuse allegations).

[Lindacooks]

121. Yep, you're right.

That's one of the problems of this type of crime - people don't want to believe these things happen. Well, they do, every single minute of every single day since the beginning of time. These crimes are the most underreported and least understood in the history of mankind. The amount of suffering they cause is immense. And while there are people around who 'think' many of these people are lying, the pain just intensifies.

[Maat]

124. You're right.

And it is obvious if an allegation is phoney: the teenager (and it usually is one) behaves differently than a victim, the teenager cannot provide a coherent story, filled with detail, and there is great contradiction.

[wookie294]

25. Kids don't even know what sexuality is

Children can be manipulated to make all kinds of statements about sexuality, especially when listening to hysterical parents and prosecutors. The California McMartin trial taught us that. There was another child molestation trial in the Carolinas a few years back. As in the McMartin case, there were dozens of day care workers accused of child molestation. LOL. The legal system is flawed when it comes to child molestation, as common as the crime may be. I met an 11 year old girl last Christmas (the child of an acquaintance) who constantly crawled all over me. I'm a single man, never married and 42 years old -- a prime candidate to be brought up on charges because some little girl was telling me I'm "cute" and repeatedly climbing on my lap while wearing her dress. She was inappropriately sexual and I was uncomfortable. I can see her words getting twisted by her parents in order to send me up the river.

I will NEVER spend time alone with kids because of child and sexual hysteria in America.

[JohnLocke]

37. Hmm.

:eyes:

[wookie294]

39. Hmm, indeed

Never forget that children can be SOMEWHAT sexual without realizing they are sexual. It's inappropriate behavior by the child. But once the parents find out about their child's inappropriate behavior, I imagine they go ballistic and allege child molestation -- even though NO SEXUAL conduct occurred. I believe many innocent men are in prison today because of such hysteria. Little girls use cosmetics today (so I've learned to my surprise in recent years). They are pseudo-sexual and want to **act out** the behaviors of 22 year old pretty women (though no sex or pedophilia ever occurs). This is how innocent single men like myself wrongly end up in prison. Do yourself a favor and stay away from children while America's modern-day witch trials continue. Seriously!

[Dorian Gray]

58. I have a problem with your statement, Wookie.

I've worked with children of all ages. I've never noticed children being sexual. I mean, they're not all little Lolitas running around.

(Of course, I was one of the few who read Lolita as though her "seduction" of Humbert squared was actually the deranged rantings/imaginatings of his perverted pedophile mind. That's not a popular reading, but it made the most sense to me. The faulty narrator, seeing what he wanted to see.)

Regardless, the only sexualization of YOUNG children is done by adults. They can dress, act, and look in ways that we might call sexy, but if they are under 13 years old, they are children with children's bodies. I find nothing sexual about ANYTHING in children.

[RedCloud]

84. You don't seem well versed then.

Little boys get boners when they have to pee. Babies even play the Unca..unca crawl. Very suggestive. And yes kids punch and kick weiners, vaginas and boobs all the time. My little guy has found that if he touches a boobie he gets that person's attention!

I give you an F for your observational skills and an A for misrepresenting reality.

[Dorian Gray]

98. And how is that behavior sexual?

Physiological reactions within kids do not sexuality make.

If a child punching boobs and vaginas is SEXUAL to an adult, then that adult has issues.

LOOK, Red Cloud, I know 5 year olds have a "thing" for vaginas/boobies/peepees/etc. But, in what state of mind must you be to find that SEXUAL?

Only an adult who understands sexual behavior can make that into sexual behavior. If you find it sexual and that it places you into a danger zone of behavior, then you are EXACTLY the type of person who should never be alone with children.

Otherwise, those are innocent child-like curiosities, and it's not a big deal. It certainly shouldn't be viewed as temptation for adults to view those children sexually.

UGH! Are you just arguing with me for the sake of being argumentative? Or do you truly believe that children (particularly YOUNG children) are capable of SEXUAL behavior?

(I take back my, "That's all I have to say on this subject!")

[Dorian Gray]

99. Sorry... 2x post. NT

[thinkingwoman]

65. the 2 most telling words

in your post are "I imagine"

That pretty much sums up your pov completely.

As the mother of two teens, I can honestly say that nothing in your posts rings true with any reality I have encountered in my 40 years.

Meanwhile, it's pretty damn easy to avoid being "falsely accused" of child moslestation--never allow yourself to be alone with other people's children.

[Dorian Gray]

69. Exactly, Thinkingwoman!

It's basic common sense. Children are just that! Children!

It amazes me all the people who worry about being wrongly accused by children of sexual abuse. I don't get how that can even cross your mind!

[RedCloud]

86. Perhaps because you want to monopolize the kids!

True that children need to be protected from pedophiles. True that wrongfully accused people need to be compensated.

But kids also need to be protected from Master Control Manipulators.

Stay away from kids? What the hell kind of primate advice is that? Totally divorces the male from the situation. False global community.

[Dorian Gray]

97. This is in response to me...

but I NEVER advocated men needing to stay away from children. Men should, indeed, stay away from improper contact with other people's children. (READ: Sleeping in the same bed with a child who is not your own. Especially if you are ALONE!)

Grown men and women regularly coach other people's children in soccer, football, swimming, running, etc., and they don't run into these problems. Grown men and women often chaperone slumber parties without issues. That's all fine. I do not, in any way, advocate never going near children. But, if at one of those slumber parties, you are a single mother or father and you take one of your son's/daughter's friends alone into your bedroom? You will have issues.

I don't know why people, if they follow the normal parameters of human contact, NEED to worry about this issue.

And on THAT note, I don't think that I can add any more to this topic.

[thinkingwoman]

88. love your screen name!

Just thought I'd get that out of the way.

I think adult males should take care not to put themselves into a situaiton where they could be accused. My husband used to coach a local swim team (males and females ranging from 5-18 years old) and he took the precaution of always having several team members and/or other adults around at all times.

Then he never gave it another moment's thought. Pretty simple really.

[Dorian Gray]

96. :)

Thank you!

And I agree. It's easy to keep yourself out of harm's way.

Bringing this back to MJ, he obviously went past the normal boundaries a grown man should make with younger children. I do blame the parents, partially, for this mess.

He made terrible mistakes. I hope he isn't guilty. I don't think it's likely that he isn't, but it's certainly possible.

I just take exception, however, when people seem to think that little kids are quick to accuse others of sexual molestation.

And on that note, I'm off my high horse. (For now!) :)

[thinkingwoman]

100. that's what gets me about this case

why, after settling the case 10 years ago, would MJ ever do anything to open himself up to such an accusation again? Further, why would he flaunt the questionable behavior (sleeping with boys) to the world?

I don't know if he is guilty or innocent, but I'm a smoke-fire kind of person. If he is innocent, he would be the first human I've ever known or heard of who slept with other people's children and DIDN'T molest them.

Oh well, guess we'll just have to wait and see. If he is truly a pedophile, he'll offend again.

[Carni]

119. MJ is no doubt a big weirdo IMO

Did he molest? I honestly don't know.

IMO the man must be addicted to some heavy prescription drugs in addition to his other issues.

I am no fan of his to put it mildly, but Nancy Grace turns me off to whatever or whoever she takes issue with--I don't like her stagey act or her guilty till proven innocent posture.

She basically shoots her causes in the foot IMO

[Lindacooks]

103. The number of false reports is LESS than 2%,

the same as for any other crime. False reporting of child abuse or rape is extremely rare, and there are not 'many innocent men' in prison today because of it. On the contrary - there are many guilty men walking free because no one believed the victim.

[genieroze]

56. She was inappropriately sexual?

Maybe she was abused, just not by you. This could be how she got attention by adults. It could instead be that she is starting to become a woman and her hormones are kicking in.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/

[wookie294]

113. I agree

I'm amazed that adults on this thread think children "can't be sexual." Children may not feel sexual feelings, but they can act out sexual behaviors or immitate them. Also, I first masturbated when I was 11 years old. I was a CHILD then. Children can CERTAINLY feel sexual feelings. Sexuality is EVERYWHERE in America -- on billboards, television, radio, movies, magazines -- EVERYWHERE. Little girls learn early (at age 5) that sexuality is power. Sexuality is "cool." Little girls know this. It's a travesty that hysterical parents (some on this thread) and prosecutors are unaware of this. I'm not saying little girls can be sexual "predators," but hysterical parents can convince such children that they were "sodomized" after she climbed on the lap of a single man. Our society is unbelievably retarded when it comes to sexuality and I guarantee many hysterical parents have put innocent men in prison on trumped-up pedophilia charges. Yeah, I will stay away from kids forever. Why risk being victimized by America's modern-day witch trials?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. I don't think your "dh" knows what the heck he's talking about....

...perhaps you should read this website and share it with your "dh":

Timeline of the Ritual Abuse Panic
<http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/timeline.htm>

[Lindacooks]

120. Uh huh. Right.

Years of experience working on helping people who have suffered child abuse, domestic violence, and rape mean nothing to you, huh? You probably think science is the work of the devil, the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth. Grow up.

[CatWoman]

11. the problem with your argument

well, one of them anyway, is that "so many boys" didn't come in saying those things.

"so many boys" said the opposite.

[blueknight]

14. he is till f@cked up

any 40something year old man who WANTS to sleep with little boys is severly f*cked up. i think he has molested kids, maybe not this one,but he has.imho

[CatWoman]

17. I never said he wasn't "normal"

he certainly is strange.

so now, we convict people based on strangeness?

well, just string his ass up.

you get the tar, I'll get the feathers.

[H2O Man]

20. The jury spoke.

I choose not to follow the case, so I have no opinion on if he were guilty or not. I have watched a number of the jurors. A couple seemed less than gifted. But others were clear: they had to go with "not guilty" because they felt the prosecutor had not met the requirements for a guilty verdict. One said Michael shouldn't be around children; another said he suspects Mike has likely molested other children. But they were not able to convict on this case, because they had reasonable doubts. That's the way our legal system is supposed to work.

[BuelahWitch]

22. String me up too then

I'm "strange" and proud. I don't share my bed with children, but I have a puppet in my avatar and I like to dip pretzels in ranch dressing.

Isn't that strange?

[Bunny]

51. You know, I thought the puppet in your avatar was a little weird,

but the pretzels in ranch dressing really clinches it, you freak! I'm reporting you immediately! ;)

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. Key words: MAYBE NOT THIS ONE

That is precisely the belief that should lead to a not guilty verdict in THIS CASE.

Period. End of story.

You cannot convict someone FOR other cases. You cannot even convict someone if you fear they will perform bad acts in the future.

You can only convict a person based on the indictment. And if you can say "MAYBE" those acts alleged in the indictment did not happen, then you MUST acquit.

At least, that's the way it works if you are following your duty to the law.

[Bake]

28. Sure you can: jury nullification in reverse

The jurors can say, we may not get another shot at you, Jacko. We know you're a pedophile, and maybe the state did a lousy job and maybe these cases are hard to prove, but my gut says you need to be put away. That's what the jury could have done.

Jury nullification is a time-honored tradition where the state proves its case 100% but the jury thinks the law is stupid. Or where the jury is making a statement about the political or racial application of a certain law.

They could have done it here. I think they SHOULD have done it here, in reverse. He could have appealed it, for sure, but if it comes down to which witnesses the jury believed and which ones they just didn't like, the verdict would stand.

Bake

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Oh, they COULD do that

And, unfortunately, many juries seem to want to do that.

But it is an outrage on the law and erodes the system.

Jury nullification seems to be a very different kind of operation, but I may just be more partial to it since it doesn't redound to the benefit of the State.

[kenny blankenship]

31. Yeah it used to be quite popular down my way

they called it a legal lynchin'.

That's where a jury convicts a defendant because they know--evidence be damned--that his kind does this type of thing. So if he's really guilty, justice is served, and if he ain't then a message was sent anyway.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. A "time-honored tradition" indeed...n/t

[progressivebydesign]

111. Jury Nullification?? That is total bullshit.

Juries are not GOD. They do not have the right to overlook the purpose of their gathering. Your argument is the strangest thing I have ever heard. Seriously. It's completely easy to bust apart, thusly:

You say a jury didn't have enough AFTER SITTING THROUGH WEEKS OF TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE to convict someone in a trial. Then, you state that by some divine talent, this same jury can somehow KNOW enough (WITHOUT SEEING ANY EVIDENCE) that someone is guilty of something else in the past or future?

Ummmm.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how flawed your thinking is. If they don't have enough info to decide that a defendent committed a crime in one case, after sitting through all of that, you say they can magically ascertain guilt in other instances?? That's freakin' preposterous. :wtf:

[RedCloud]

89. You think he has? And your evidence is????

Michael has been a strange person since singing to the rat in "Ben". And now look, we have a Ratzinger as Pope!

The prosecution was allowed to bring in old horse shit, previously rejected testimony in other courts. If that isn't unconstitutional we need to start a second American revolution.

You cannot be convicted by a preponderance of the liars, the ignorant and the greedy in your community.

I have no way of knowing this, but it would not surprise me to to see the hand of Bush co behind this. It seems to fit their agenda. Let some prosecutor spend ridiculous amounts of taxpayers dollars trying to win an impossible case against a Hollywood liberal. Maybe jail him and seize his billion dollar fortune as "damage".

[FourStarDemocrat]

12. I agree...I think Jackson got away with it for all of those reasons. n/t

[Lindacooks]

16. I don't like Nancy Grace either, but I agree with her and you on

those points.

I still can't get over the juror who said 'what kind of mother lets her children sleep with a man??' What the eff does that mean? It's obvious the juror knew Jackson was guilty, or why would they be upset with the mother? Hello? Is there anyone in there?

[Maat]

18. Yep.

What you say jives with my experience (CPS, '93 to 2000).

Let's just say my nephew won't be doing overnights at Neverland.

[kenny blankenship]

23. I saw her say that to the jury foreman

and at that moment I was thinking that foreman should explain that the instructions given to the jury placed on them the duty of deciding whether the defendant actually did what the prosecution alleged, not whether the defendant seemed like the kind of person who would probably do something like what was alleged. As a lawyer she should know this without the poor sap jury foreman having to explain it to her.

Of course with some people like her, it's not like they give a shit what the law says:
11th Circuit: Nancy Grace 'Played Fast and Loose' With Ethics
Federal appeals court raps former prosecutor

Jonathan Ringel
Fulton County Daily Report
05-04-2005


Nancy Grace, the host of a self-titled legal show on CNN Headline News, "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties as a Fulton County, Ga., prosecutor in 1990, a federal appeals panel has declared.

Monday's decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a triple murder conviction won by Grace, explaining that her actions didn't change the result of the trial. It is the third time appellate courts have admonished Grace for her conduct as a prosecutor in Georgia. Grace served as an assistant district attorney in Fulton from 1987 to 1996, leaving that year to join Court TV as a commentator.

The three-judge panel on Monday criticized Grace for not following her obligations to disclose to the defendant's lawyer information about other possible suspects. The 11th Circuit also agreed with a magistrate who found it hard to believe that Grace did not knowingly use a detective's false testimony that there were no other suspects.

This is the third time Grace's conduct as a prosecutor has been criticized by an appellate court.

In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court skewered Grace for her actions in prosecuting Weldon Wayne Carr for allegedly setting fire to his house and murdering his wife. Carr later was freed when Fulton prosecutors waited too long to bring him up for a retrial. While the court reversed Carr's 1994 conviction for other reasons, the justices said Grace withheld evidence entitled to the defense and made improper opening statements and closing arguments.

"We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case (Nancy Grace) demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable," wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997)

So NOW you know how Nancy Grace got her job at CNN.

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. She knows the distinction damn well

Her sole role as a cable news commentator is to erode respect for the law in favor of broad judgments that accrue to the benefit of prosecutors.

If you have jurors deciding on whether what was actually alleged in the indictment is proved according to the strict standards of reasonable doubt rather than whether the defendant seems like a disreputable fellow or a "danger" broadly speaking, you have prosecutors that actually have to work, and a built in system of citizen checks against state power run amok. Mustn't let people think that they are the final arbiters of power, and not the state apparatus honchos, bureaucrats and apparatchiks. Next, people will start to question how their lives are fed through the meat grinder of the profit system...Lordy Lord!

[northzax]

64. as for the $20 million settlement

how much do you think this case has cost Jackson, legal fees alone are rumoured to be 20 million, plus the beating his image has taken (rightly or wrongly) And he won. Why not, as insurance companies do, simply pay less money up front to make it go away?

the whole thing makes the $2m settlement look cheap, doesn't it?

and finlly, past evidence of bad acts is not prima facie evidence of current misbehaviour. Only in california and only in sex cases isthe pattern arguement allowed into evidence. It would be one thing if he had been convicted of any previous crimes, but he wasn't even indicted.

I have no idea if Jackson molested these boys, frankly, he engaged in innapropriate behaviour, but is that molestation? all I can go on is the fact that the only witnesses lied under oath. I'll forgive the kids, that's tough, but the mother? Either Jackson is the most coniving pedophile ever, picking the absolute weakest families to abuse, or he simply likes being around people as damaged as he is. who knows?

[RedCloud]

81. Maybe her head comes to a point!

The little boy said that MJ whacked him off 6 times to orgasm in 30 minutes! That is BS beyond any belief. Nancy just picks and choses what she wants to remember.

She is the crying oh poor lonesome me widow wannabe that the Repugs could promote to some level to carry out her revenge on any accused of anything.

She just fuels hysteria. With Scott Peterson she was practically foaming at the mouth saying he was guilty because his friends didn't show up and shit like that!

[peekaloo]

13. Geraldo should have challenged her to grow out her mustache if

the verdict was not guilty.

At times I'm quite happy I do not have cable.

[Rowdyboy]

21. She insults a jury after the most pathetic prosecution I've ever seen?

Real class, Nancy, real class. If they had made the case, the verdict would have been guilty. If MJ's last name had been Jones, the trial would never have happened.

I think MJ is likely guilty but BASED ON THE EVIDENCE GIVEN no one in their right mind could vote guilty.

I don't care how strange you are, if they don't have reliable witnesses and "real" evidence, a juror must side with the defendant.

Nancy Grace should STFU.

[kenny blankenship]

27. A jailyard shrink maybe

see post #23

[BiggJawn]

29. Well, she had "Runaway Bride"'s fiance already strapped into "Ol' Sparky"

with the damn sponge on his head when Ms. "Deer in the Headlights" surfaced with her bullshit FIRST story...

She should be forced to eat a REAL crow on Teeee-Veeeee.

Make it "A Very Special 'Fear Factor'!"

[Bluebear]

35. She most certainly did. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

34. I don't know how Nancy Grace maintains a shred of credability

Remember, she had the original suspect in the Elizabeth Smart case, Richard Reece, all but sentenced to the electric chair based on the mileage on his car. She denied it later but I have the episode on tape.

It requires zero talent or related background to insist anyone charged is guilty and to back it up with clever stuff like, "Hello!" or "Gimme a break." Last week she blatantly lied while insisting the (nonexistent) Las Vegas odds had shifted dramatically toward favoring a guilty verdict.

This won't be well received, but I'm convinced Court TV caters to bored middleaged conservative housewives who want everyone to be convicted and therefore even more miserable and worse off than they are. I've watched the network for a decade and it has become significantly more conviction oriented to the brink of a parody of what it is designed to be. Dianne Diamond is denying today she displayed an anti-Jackson slant, but I posted many times that it was blatant, and completely unlike her at least in terms of criminal cases where she is normally balanced. You know what you're getting with a Nancy Grace or Lisa Bloom. But even the previously fair Court TV nighttime documentaries have become nothing more than prosecution mouthpieces, at least in the Peterson, Blake and Jackson cases.

[Andromeda]

36. Oh, another Nancy Grace bashfest...

I get so tired of these sessions. Why don't you just cut her a break for crying out loud!

Nancy is a victim's advocate and she genuinely is concerned for the VICTIMS and not the perpetrator.

I stayed away from this trial because it was such a circus and I KNEW the jury would set him free just like they did OJ.

What does it take to convict a celebrity? I guess you have to catch them in the act.

Jacko has still got his millions and will go on his weird little way molesting more boys and getting away with it like he has always done. The jury was either dumber than dirt or the prosecutor was so inept he couldn't convict Jack the Ripper.

I don't have any sympathy for child molestors and people who murder their wives, but that's just me.

If you think Jacko the Wacko is innocent that's your privilege but I'm just not naive enough to think a 46 year-old man sleeping with young boys is just good clean fun!

[Bluebear]

38. Well, You certainly told me, didn't you?

By the way, it was a news article, maybe you should write them if you object to the content. As far as Nancy being a victim's advocate, why doesn't she truly go all the way and be a full-time advocate rather than appearing on this and that show? Example: the Jennifer Wilbanks situation where she was just SURE the husband was another one who "murders their wives". She is too involved to be an objective commentator, but that's just me. Peace.

(edit: typo)

[ElectroPrincess]

42. I agree with you Bluebear ...

and guess what? Our justice system acquitted MJ, so all the crying and blowing snot at the jury and defense attorney is to no avail. It "freaks me out" how folks can't let go of celebrity. They are NO more special than any of us. Let its rest for heaven's sake, show us mercy so the damn whorish media does not persist.

[Sandpiper]

47. Nancy would have just cheated to win

Because in Nancy-world, when you're pursuing "justice," situational ethics are a-okay.

[Sandpiper]

46. Nancy Grace has a personal vendetta against anyone accused of a crime

So much so, that she was willing to engage in prosecutorial misconduct on multiple occasions.

That she still has a law license is an indictment of the State Bar of Georgia.

The nicest thing that can be said about Nancy Grace is that she is unethical.

[BiggJawn]

53. Not only accused, but also SUSPECTED.

I reference "Runaway Bride" again.

Nancy Grace is just a cuter version of Joe Scarborough. Maybe with the exception that SHE didn't have a male aide show up dead in her office one morning...

If she's an example of prosecutorial conduct in Georgia, I pray that I'm never arrersted there...

[ProfessorGAC]

52. A Victim's Advocate??? Why??

Because she used to be a prosecutor. We've got highly successful prosecutors here in Illinois who belong in jail for their lack of respect for the law. They called themselves advocates for the victims.

That term is just code for "hang the scum". Completely worthless expression.
The Professor

[RedCloud]

91. Then you think an 11 year old can do it 6 times in 30 minutes?

That is what the accusing boy said happened to him. Nice to see what kind of evidence you think is solid.

His brother BTW contradicted that earlier by saying his kid brother was asleep. But don't let the facts hit you in the face while you are out to lynch Michael Jackson!

[Tomee450]

101. Nancy Grace is

one of the most mean spirited persons I've ever seen. I absolutely refuse to watch her any longer. She doesn't care about the law, doesn't seem to honor it. She convicts people even before there has been a trial. She seems to believe that if a person is accused of a crime, he must be guilty. I think it is most unfortunate that she has used her positions in the media to be an arm of the prosecution. The way she acted during the Elizabeth Smart case was despicable.

Nancy can be concerned about victims but she should also be concerned that innocent people not be sent to prison. How would you like to be on the receiving end of Nancy's vitriol and don't say it can't happen to you. Many individuals have been in the wrong place at the wrong time and found themselves in the sights of the prosecution. It seems every other month someone, previously convicted and sent to prison, is being released after it was discovered he never committed the crime.

Why are you bringing up OJ? Robert Blake was also acquitted of murder as was Robert Durst who admitted to murdering his neighbor. I get so tired of hearing about one black man OJ, while other people who have also been acquitted are never mentioned. Is his name being brought up because he is black and his alleged victims white?

Why do you call someone who has never done a thing to you, "Jacko the Wacko." Why the meanness? You probably have never met the man and are basing your assessment of him on what you've heard from the media, the same media that hates him.

I guess now we are at a stage in this society that for some, a person accused is guilty and he should just be thrown in prison without benefit of trial. I guess someone who seems to be odd is automatically to be considered likely to commit a crime.

It is a sad day in America that people think Nancy Grace is someone to be admired. She is an angry woman who seem to harbor a lot of hatred. In a way I feel sorry for her. Her programs could be used to help people better understand the law but instead she uses them to assist prosecutors.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

106. I wonder how many defendants she sent to prison based on her....

...manipulation of the facts and her belief that everyone charged with a crime is guilty until proven innocent?

There is a reason why this whack-job is no longer practicing law in Atlanta...think about it.

I have absolutely NO respect for people that insist on stating that certain people are guilty before they even come to trial, and even LESS respect for those that continue to believe that someone is guilty even after a jury finds them innocent. The jury had ten chances to find Jackson guilty of something, and refused to do so based on the evidence before the court.

If you don't like that, get pissed at the prosecutor for going on an unfounded witch-hunt and bringing this poorly supported case to trial.

[Sandpiper]

43. Finally, something out of Nancy's mouth that I agree with!

You do need a shrink Nancy.

Someone that will help you let go of your personal vendetta against anyone and everyone accused of a crime.

[Skittles]

44. that woman is in dire need of therapy

I can't believe she is on prime-time

[onager]

48. That twit Grace believes in Psychic Detectives...

She recently ran episodes on CNN advertising: "Why you should have a clairvoyant investigating your crime" and "How psychic detectives solve murders."

I don't care how many cases she's prosecuted or how many TV shows she's on. If she believes that nonsense personally it's one thing, but she certainly shouldn't be advising the public to hire psychics as crime solvers. That's like hiring a faith healer to cure your congenital heart condition.

James Randi gave her a right proper red-assing over it, too. With his usual offer of $1,000,000 for ANY psychic who can even come close to solving ANY crime:

http://www.randi.org/jr/061005smug.html

For the record, you should only have a clairvoyant investigate your crime if you did the crime and want to get away with it. They will get in the way of the real cops, muck up the crime scene with their voodoo, and accomplish exactly nothing.

The FBI has never used a psychic to solve a crime. Ditto for Scotland Yard. Both are on record (and all over the web) as saying so.

The Los Angeles Police Department says it will politely refuse any request for psychic help. The LAPD has enough sense to come right out and call it "a waste of time."

And the LAPD once conducted a study on the use of psychics.

They noted that the psychics produced many CLAIMS of evidence. But it was all BS. The Woo-Woos produced absolutely nothing useful in actually solving a crime. i.e., no genuine matching descriptions of persons or places, no license plate numbers, etc.

One of the worst examples of this hokum occurred during the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in Utah. A psychic group convinced the Smart family they would find their daughter DEAD near a certain "body of water." (Always a safe guess in the Psykik Biz, since it literally covers everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink.)

Elizabeth's relatives went to the place expecting to find her corpse (and just imagine how that made them feel). Ms. Smart was, of course, eventually found alive and mostly well.

[Skittles]

49. what I can't figure out is

why don't psychics just become cops and detectives? :o

[BiggJawn]

54. Because they can't pass the Psych tests.

that's why.....

[immoderate]

63. Well stuck, onager!

As a James Randi fan, I was glad to see your post, saved me some typing. I saw parts of the shows mentioned, and my impression was that somebody is really full of shit.

I saw no reasonable rebuttal to her ridiculous claims. I doubt her capacity for objectivity.

--IMM

[Mandate My Ass]

55. Her cheese slid off her cracker a long, long time ago

but she does have those nifty flaming nostrils of justice. :rofl:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

75. Hahaha

:rofl:

[Puglover]

85. I'm still

:rofl:
because someone actually thinks this bitter bitten woman is a "victims advocate".

[MadHound]

61. She's a former prosecutor? I can see why the operative word is former!

She should have realized, especially as involved in this case as she was, that when it was shown that the victim's mother was a shake down artist, when the victim kept changing stories, that the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" went right out the window, and that Jackson would not be convicted. Hell, I stayed away as much as possible from this three ring circus, yet even I recognized that.

This case wasn't lost due to Jackson's celebrity status, this case was lost by the prosecution due to a failure to prep witnesses properly, and by having the two most important witnesses so utterly compromised by their past actions.

[ProfessorGAC]

68. You're Right, And. . .

. . .the prosecution mistake was bundling the charges. Once half of those charges looked fishy and of questionable merit, even the ones for which evidence was more solid looked suspicious.

So, the strength of the case where more solid evidence existed was impeached by the weakness of the proof (or lack thereof) in the others.

This is what happens when you use the shotgun approach instead of taking dead aim and making sure you hit the target. In fact, the shotgun approach may have been an indicator that even the prosecution knew that they had a very weak case.
The Professor

[ibegurpard]

107. I had a rare tv-watching episode the other day...

...curious to see if I would be as horrified by the Michael Jackson coverage as I was expecting and, sure enough, I was not let down.
I was horrified by Nancy Grace...I totally understood what that jury foreman was saying...he suspected that there was fire to go along with that smoke but the prosecution didn't give them enough evidence to send someone to JAIL over it.
She ought to know that and if she doesn't then she needs to stop claiming any credentials as a lawyer.

[paula777]

108. What does a crow sandwich look like? Was there a dead crow between

2 slices of bread?

[Carni]

115. No shrink could help that whacko

And I am frankly shocked that she had a fiance

[napi21]

118. Well, MJ was found NG, and Nancy said she was wrong.

I believe in the justice system, and I think the presecution in this case didn't prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since that's the bar that must be met, I think the system worked.

Now, do I think MJ was guilty? I don't know, but I also believe a lot in those old adages, like, where there's smoke, when there's multiple accusations of a similar crime there's just cause for concern, etc.

I don't know if he's guilty of the charges in THIS case, but I would NEVER let my kids even visit Neverland, let alone stay there!

[NuttyFluffers]

123. WOOO! "Don't stop, don't stop 'til you get enough" Shamoa!

mmm, crow...