Did you think that having Nancy Grace distracted by Dancing With the Stars would keep the mouthy talking head from weighing in on Dr. Conrad Murray and his role in the death of Michael Jackson?
When not busy flashing her boob at middle America on the ballroom dancing competition, the former prosecutor likes to spend her time second guessing the decisions of juries for all and sundry on her cable news show. Grace, 52, has made a second career of subverting the presumption of innocence in the courtroom, furthering the belief that considerations like due process and rule of law are silly constructs standing in the way of putting the guilty, guilty guilty in jail, regardless of what evidence we the viewer may or may not be privy to that was presented at trial.
While Nancy Grace has always been a blowhard, she took special delight in the trial of Casey Anthony, parking her shouty sideshow right on the corpse of little Caylee to incite outcry and unrest as the legal circus dragged on. Grace’s brand of fear and hatemongering is not unique, but she is one of the few commentators on such shows with the distinction of driving a person of interest to suicide with her haranguing pseudo cross-examinations.
So Grace took time out from her new reality show gig to weigh in on another verdict, this time in the verdict handed down by a jury in Murray’s case. While the private doctor to Jackson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the pop star’s overdose death, Grace again called into question the court’s decision, speaking for God as well as the court in opining:
“God is going to get him… He’s going to be miserable. He can run but he can’t hide. He and Casey Anthony can have a tea party when he gets out in four years.”
She further commented:
“I don’t think [the guilty verdict is] fair. In fact, I think that he should have gotten murder one with propofol as a deadly weapon, and should have spent life behind bars.”
Do you find Grace’s torch and pitchfork schtick a bit tiring? Would you prefer juries have the discretion to do their jobs without the interference of those not privy to courtroom proceedings?