Posted by: kevinfortruth | April 26, 2011

Nancy Grace – a very confused control freak. Why?


Nancy Grace never ceases to amaze me.  She is the consummate control freak – from controlling the answers guests give, to threatening to silence the microphone of guests, to stopping guests when a response is not what she was looking for so she can chide them for taking an opposing view.

Lately, I have noticed Nancy taking her controlling manner to new levels – levels I never thought possible.

She, I believe, is more into the sensational side of kidnappings, missing individuals, and murder investigations versus an honest, unbiased pursuit of the truth.<br><br>

Case in point, the Holly Bobo case.  As most people know, Holly supposedly was abducted in her front yard by someone in camouflaged hunting gear, while her brother watched from the kitchen window. 

Last Thursday, Deborah Norville was sitting in for Nancy as her guest host and her entire show was dedicated to the Bobo case.  Even though the case is very upsetting to many, Deborah did a wonderful job as host.  She did not rudely interrupt anyone – nor did she put someone down for taking an opposing viewpoint.

What is interesting though is with Holly still missing, Nancy Grace did not dedicate one minute on this case on her next two shows – last Friday and yesterday.  That just does not make sense to me.

Thousands of people are in the dense woods looking for Holly – these daily events are both newsworthy as fodder for investigative journalism shows like Nancy Grace and Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell – more so for the Jane Velez-Mitchell show because she focuses on what she calls the “War on Women”.  Whether or not the family is involved or if Holly was truly abducted by a stranger – this case sure would qualify under Jane’s “War on Women coverage”.  So I ask, why is Jane not even covering this news worthy story”? Is someone at CNN requesting or insisting that the story not be covered?

Pieces of evidence are being found but the police are not divulging anything.  The family has lawyered up and they are saying nothing.  This time period is critical to finding Holly – dead or alive.

Holly could have been kidnapped and might be held hostage as a sexual object to her abductor – on the other hand, she could be in the lake a few miles from her house.  In either regard, giving attention to the case on a national network show could be critical in having individuals call in with any bit of information that could help solve this case.

Why is Nancy ignoring this case?   True, her last two shows have covered other current cases but one of the shows was focusing more on a two or three year old case.

I think Nancy is so perplexed about the possible outcome and the potential guilty parties, including family members, that she is intentionally avoiding any coverage – not even posting a photo of Holly and stating that she is still missing and if anyone has any information to call the TBI or local police and posting the phone numbers, email accounts, twitter accounts, or Facebook pages.

Because the family has not been eliminated as either person’s of interest or suspects, Nancy does not know what direction to go –  she cannot attack anyone with an opposing view because she has not solidified her own position – and this poses a conundrum for Nancy.  As a result, she hides from the case and jumps to an old case that she has a firm position on and she now is focused on a missing young mother from Maine whose car was found in another state with this mother’s young daughter inside.

Nancy is the most arrogant journalist on television.  She acts more like a prosecuting attorney than a neutral host.  She saves her strongest venom for guest defense attorneys who try to explain various defense strategies for people Nancy believes committed a crime – even though they have yet to be found guilty.

Nancy loves covering stories where the victims are young, blonde, white, and very beautiful – i.e. Elizabeth Smart, Natalie Holloway, Madeleine McCann, Jessica Lynch, and others – now Holly Bobo.

Why is Nancy claming up on the Bobo case – after all she is beautiful, blonde, white, and the cousin of a popular country music star Whitney Duncan – also beautiful, blonde, and white.

Nancy is being out of character and I am curious as to why?

Advertisements

Responses

  1. In court of Nancy Grace, we’re guilty
    Posted: 07/09/2011 07:12:15 AM PDT

    “It is better (100) guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.” – Benjamin Franklin.

    LET’S all take a deep breath. The Casey Anthony verdict was in all probability a miscarriage of justice. But to condemn our system of justice as some have done is absurd.

    Despite a handful of high-profile cases such as Michael Jackson, O.J. and Robert Blake, the courts heed Franklin’s words and get it right most of the time. And God help us if we resort to prosecution by punditry.

    Which brings us to one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Anthony trial.

    It will assuredly encourage more mindless and prejudicial chatter from cable TV’s assorted talking heads who fancy themselves judge, jury and executioner.

    Anthony will continue to be their bete noire for months, maybe years.

    After that, there will be another missing child, another Tot Mom or Octomom, another tawdry murder case out there somewhere to exploit.

    To be sure, I stand ready to defend their right to babble. The First Amendment guarantees free expression even from people you loathe.

    But there is something fundamentally disturbing about the likes of Nancy Grace, the Headline News personality who, convinced of Anthony’s guilt before her daughter’s body was even discovered, used her bully pulpit to endlessly paint the defendant as an affront to motherhood and human decency.

    No trial was necessary in Grace’s view.
    Advertisement
    No balanced reporting here. Casey Anthony was guilty from Day One.

    This was not new territory for Grace. She took a vehemently pro-prosecution stance against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in a high-profile case. When they were acquitted and the district attorney disbarred, she was absent from her show and a substitute anchor announced the decision.

    Grace’s philosophy is shaped by the fact that she is a former prosecutor. I’ve never met a prosecutor in my professional career who wasn’t filled with the spirit of indignant righteousness.

    Take a zealous prosecutor, give her a television show and the freedom to hound a defendant without the restrictions of due process, and you have Nancy Grace, an avenging angel wrapped in the flag of truth, or at least her version of it.

    That’s not just my opinion. According to published accounts and court opinions, the Supreme Court of Georgia several times condemned Grace’s conduct as a prosecutor. First, in a 1994 heroin trafficking case, Bell v. State, the court declared a mistrial, saying that Grace had “exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument” by drawing comparisons to unrelated murder and rape cases.

    In 1997, the court was more severe, overturning the murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to her transgressions, since the case had turned primarily on circumstantial evidence, it nevertheless concluded “the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable.”

    Despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace “played fast and loose” with her ethical duties and failed to “fulfill her responsibilities” as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens. The court agreed that it was “difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use … (apparently false) testimony” from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.

    And Grace’s view of the Anthony defense? “They will do and say anything,” she sniffed.

    The ratings for Headline News have soared as a result of Grace’s trial coverage.

    According to Dylan Stableford, the media writer for Yahoo News, Grace’s network has benefited greatly from its take on the trial. The network beat MSNBC in total viewers in June, Stableford reports, averaging 982,000 in prime time, an increase of 86 percent.

    So she will live to rant again and is well on her way to becoming a media star, despite her failure to have Casey Anthony put to death.

    I see “Dancing With the Stars” in her future. Or maybe even an appearance in the Rose Parade.

    Imagine her popularity if she came down on the right side of a verdict.

    Read more: http://www.sgvtribune.com/opinions/ci_18446534?source=rss_viewed#ixzz1RjI45C8T

    • Great Post – read it several times so I could absorb it all. The only thing I take exception to is the premise that pundits can say anything and everything about anyone and not be held accountable.

      I believe the next trial of the year will be a lawsuit brought against Nancy Grace and Headline News by Jose Baez and Cheney Mason on behalf of Casey Anthony. Free Speech is permitted, but it is permitted to a point and HLN and Nancy Grace have more than crossed that point. It will never go to trial but HLN and Nancy will settle out of court for millions.

      If that does not work, I think someone will shadow Nancy Grace and report on everything she does that is questionable or illegal or immoral.

      Episodes of Nancy Grace are on even more frequently since the trial began. Now there are even 2 hour and three hour episodes that have video footage of the trial, including the closing arguements.

      Nancy really needs to be home with her twins on a full time basis instead of being on television. People will tire of seeing all the reruns and will turn the channel. Last night, I swore off CNN and HLN until they change their policy on trying to destroy anyone in their path.

      Thanks again for the post – it is one of the best I have seen in a while. Kevin.

  2. Hi Peter, I gather from your post that you cannot stand Nancy Grace. Joking. My dislike and disrespect for her goes well beyond her hair and her accent and I cannot wait for the day she is kicked off the air.

  3. Peter, I gather from your post that you are not fond of Nancy Grace. You are not alone. Thanks for writing. Personally, my dislike and disrespect for her goes well beyond her hairdo and her accent. By the way, I agree with the Psycho reference.

  4. Nancy Grace likes to hear her on voice and I agree she gets anoyed when someone disagrees with her. Nancy thought Casey would get death but when the jury came back with Not Guilty it destroyed ole Nancy’s world. She was mad. She is a piece of word and that voice drives me up the wall and her rude behavior which is typical of a prosecutor. It is all about Nancy Grace and if you research her show she makes her money off dead or missing babies.

    • Well Jacqie, we both do not think much of Nancy. Some of what she does is for its shock effect – getting the viewers to come back again and again to see that nasty side of her. But on the other hand, she appears to have a dark side – she just appears to enjoy bossing everyone around – to have her own opinion and be able to put anyone down who disagrees with her. There is no way she can leave all that nastiness at the office door when she leaves and she has to take some of it home – how sad.

      Thanks for your comments.

  5. That is interesting CNN having to pick up the tab. It blows my mind CNN puts up with it. Why in thunder we can’t have a station that puts on trials from start to finish each day without having to change the channel from “In Sessions” over to HLN to finish. This has been the most crappy programing ever. Have been watching some of the Casey Anthony Trial. If Mike Brooks doesn’t watch it he will be growing a pie hole, already has the screaming down pat and his bias opinion. He can’t be objective about a thing. I really loved the old Court TV and must of caught it when Nancy Grace wasn’t on. I would have remembered the “Bottom Feeder.” They had some very intellectual people on that show.

    • I agree about the need to switch channels to follow ONE case. That is pathetic, right? The real reason for this is the advertising dollars. Look at the numbers – the advertisers are elated. You have a case of good cop and bad cop – watch the trials by day (good cop) and then watch the maniacal Nancy spew her vitriol – she is having her own trial at night (but without Defense Attorneys defending Tot Mom).

      Nancy is a one man band destroying our legal system. My gut feeling is that Tot Mom is guilty – but she is still entitled to a fair trial. I dread to think of how many jurors were disqualified because Nancy has already tried the case on her show for the past 4 years – and thousands or even millions of Americans have formed, not their own opinion, but Nancys opinion.

      How many trials across America had to be relocated partly because Nancy has prosecuted individuals on her show?

      Nancy represents what is wrong with America.

  6. I found the name of this act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Hit a few lawsuits on Nancy Grace with these violations. Kevin I love your blogs

  7. Seeing the Duckett case phone interview on the Nancy Grace Show wiped me out (first time watching her show). Then going on the internet seeing what her expertise in law was…And her multitude of lawsuits from Atlanta on, explained much to me. What a nasty despicable %#@#. She needs tooo be stopped. I was wondering how the lawsuit on the Artist Internet copyright law (it falls under a different name but can’t remember). turned out? The artist who made a carving of a skull out of an apple was used on her show without his permission. This was in regards to the Casey Anthony case. It sounds trivial unless your an artist. I love reading your posts and looking forward to a book Michelle….

  8. I love nancy grace!!!!

    • We differ and that is fine and I respect you for your preference.

    • Hi Michelle; I accepted the post from the person who loves Nancy because I know there are many people on both sides of the fence and there are probably another group who doesnt love her yet thrive on her ability to dig for the elusive truth. I, for the live of me, cannot understand Nancy because she usually treats some guests like crap but they still keep coming back. Maybe she is just playing the part with THEM to keep her persona up, but she is not acting when she so vehemently attacks some individuals who are either Persons of Interest, or suspects in criminal cases. She supposedly left her Prosecutorial position for her TV show but I believe, in her head, she still is trying to prosecute everyone she can. In this role, she can treat those individuals like “$#%@” (you fill in the word), without being slapped with a Contempt Charge – she is having it both ways. But the good thing is, even though she treats suspects like crap, she cannot affect trials, thank God. Judges and juries determine guilt or not guilty – if she were in charge of determining that, half of America would be in jail instead of the 1 percent. There are several people who have filled in for her who I would be happy to have as a permanent replacement – ther are a few others I personally do not like, but I would even accept them in lieu of her. Jean Casarez, who has filled in for Nancy and also does special segments is a wonderful, lovely, charming, informative, personable, likeable individual who would be a wonderful replacement. She does not talk down to anyone, is not hateful to any group of people – be they suspects, defense attorneys, reporters, etc. Nancy appears to truly HATE all defense attorneys – especially if they take a position that is diametrically opposed to Nancys usually biased opinion. I am done…. Thanks for writing. I plan on doing a blog asking for everyone’s choice for a Nancy Grace replacement. Nancy needs more time with the twins – she obviously loves them and maybe they might find the goodness in Nancy and bring out the softness that night exist down under.

  9. Hi Michelle from Madison; I am considering starting an email campaign to see if we can encourage CNN to replace Nancy Grace with someone more humane to guests. Her rudeness, especially to defense attornies, is totally unacceptable. She never takes an unbiased stand on any suspected criminal – she acts like a prosecuting attorney – except for the fact that no judge would put up with her shenanigans – my guess is that she would constantly be paying fines in court for contempt. I plan on researching the best approach – format wise – and how to manage an effective email campaign that would end up on the lap of the President of CNN that would provide him with a significant number of people who are sick and tired of Nancy Grace’s vitriol and the way she constantly tries to intimidate persons of interest. If anyone else is unhappy with Nancy, drop me a line and I will get a campaign started.

    I know she has suffered a tragedy in her life, but many of us have also. The name Marc Klass comes to mind as a person who lost a daughter yet he takes the high road with everyone. He would be a wonderful replacement for Nancy. Also, Nancy’s frequent substitute replacement, Jean Casarez, would be a wonderful replacement.

    • What is this? The kevinfortruth blog???


Comments appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: