The Key Demo

On The Record With Greta Van Susteren…

Much fuss, often too much, is always made about the annual White House Correspondents Association Dinner (“Nerd Prom”) and this year was no exception.   A cavalcade of celebrities came to town:  TomCat, Demi, Ashton, Tyra (fierce!), Val Kilmer, Matthew Modine, totally dreamy Chase Crawford; you get the idea.

Much of this year’s post gala chatter centered on Greta van Susteren and her guest, Todd Palin who sat at the Fox News Channel table on Saturday evening.   An earlier function that day got DC tongues wagging.  Carol Lee of the Politico filed this after Tammy Haddad’s garden party on Saturday afternoon.

I Went to a Garden Party

I Went to a Garden Party

“…Todd Palin was being led around the brunch by Fox’s Greta Van Susteren, who is apparently his host AND handler.  POLITICO started to chat with Alaska’s “first dude” when Van Susteren intervened. The host… told us this brunch was “off the record” …

 

Greta took exception to the term “handler” and shot back on her blog.

We had a chance to chat with Greta as well, but our interest wasn’t Todd Palin.  We wouldn’t go out of our way to see him in our own backyard, let alone Tammy’s.  Since we’re all about business and longtime viewers of hers, we took the opportunity to ask Greta what she knew about the Wone case, knowing that exposure on her program could really tip the scales with awareness of the case.

We ran into her just as she was leaving  and politely introduced ourselves and said we wanted to make sure that a certain unsolved DC murder case was on her radar.  “Attorney..  colleague of Eric Holder…  mysteriously slain in the home of another attorney, college friend…  We think this trial is starting to heat up…”

“I know about it…the guy who was knifed,” she responded, telling us that with her years of experience as an attorney and DC roots makes her familiar with many of DC’s murder trials.

And this being Washington, she dropped a name.  “…and Bernie Grimm is a friend of mine.”   A 30 year friend and frequent guest on her show.

A brief exchange but we came away with something.  The Wone case is on her radar.  Whether she devotes any airtime to the case, she did not say, but we were told to keep her informed.  We certainly will.

If she were to devote a segment or two to the Wone case we wonder how it would be accepted by her Fox News Channel audience.  We hope to find out.

Greta, check.   Paging Nancy Grace,  TruTV (nee: CourtTV), Judge Judy?

-Doug and Craig

64 comments for “The Key Demo

  1. CDinDC
    05/12/2009 at 11:56 AM

    Good try, guys.

  2. CDinDC
    05/12/2009 at 11:56 AM

    Good try, guys.

  3. TK
    05/12/2009 at 12:06 PM

    Nancy Grace is so vile. Isn’t there someone at MSNBC who covers this sort of thing?

    • Craig
      05/12/2009 at 12:24 PM

      Rachel is the one at MSNBC who makes sense. As to Nancy, she’s passionate, indefatigable and a fierce advocate of prosecutors. She gets decent numbers too. I’d love to see her team book Bernie Grimm for a segment on this case. Must-see TV.

      • CDinDC
        05/12/2009 at 12:40 PM

        I have to agree with Craig on this (on both counts)…..Nancy comes across as sensationalistic, but when you get down to brass tacks, she’s a staunch advocate for victims.

        She’d give Bernie a wicked way to go. I’d LOVE to see it.

        Rachel, although I believe she would be truely sympathetic to the cause, I just can’t see that she would spend any time on a murder story. Economics and politics, yes….murder mystery? Not really.

        • N.M.
          05/13/2009 at 12:52 PM

          I agree. I would LOVE to see Nancy Grace take a crack at the defendants via Bernie Grimm. I don’t watch her show often, and when I do, there are times when I really disagree with what she says, but the focused way she questions her guests and pushes them to give a direct answer is unparalleled. (As per MSNBC, she blows Rachel Maddow out of the water – the latter has never questioned a guest this way).

          I hope Nancy Grace – and only Nancy Grace – picks up this story. Coverage elsewhere, I fear, would degenerate into the “police and gay community protect murderers out of political correctness,” “political correctness oppresses straight men,” and “political correctness now condones murder” shtick. It easily become a focal point for anti-gay activists.

          My hunch is that the way to get this case into national “headlines” will be to link it to some questionable behavior by a political figure. Remember – Chandra Levy’s disappearance only became a high profile case because of the Gary Condit link. If it weren’t for that, her case would have gone the way of Joyce Chang’s.

          For example, if some aspect of what’s transpired reflects badly on Eric Holder, this could become a “Unsolved Murder Haunts Atty General” type of thing.

          Or – “Souter Leaves Town Amid Gay Murder Rumors: may be called to testify.”

          Now that would get some attention!

  4. TK
    05/12/2009 at 12:06 PM

    Nancy Grace is so vile. Isn’t there someone at MSNBC who covers this sort of thing?

    • Craig
      05/12/2009 at 12:24 PM

      Rachel is the one at MSNBC who makes sense. As to Nancy, she’s passionate, indefatigable and a fierce advocate of prosecutors. She gets decent numbers too. I’d love to see her team book Bernie Grimm for a segment on this case. Must-see TV.

      • CDinDC
        05/12/2009 at 12:40 PM

        I have to agree with Craig on this (on both counts)…..Nancy comes across as sensationalistic, but when you get down to brass tacks, she’s a staunch advocate for victims.

        She’d give Bernie a wicked way to go. I’d LOVE to see it.

        Rachel, although I believe she would be truely sympathetic to the cause, I just can’t see that she would spend any time on a murder story. Economics and politics, yes….murder mystery? Not really.

        • N.M.
          05/13/2009 at 12:52 PM

          I agree. I would LOVE to see Nancy Grace take a crack at the defendants via Bernie Grimm. I don’t watch her show often, and when I do, there are times when I really disagree with what she says, but the focused way she questions her guests and pushes them to give a direct answer is unparalleled. (As per MSNBC, she blows Rachel Maddow out of the water – the latter has never questioned a guest this way).

          I hope Nancy Grace – and only Nancy Grace – picks up this story. Coverage elsewhere, I fear, would degenerate into the “police and gay community protect murderers out of political correctness,” “political correctness oppresses straight men,” and “political correctness now condones murder” shtick. It easily become a focal point for anti-gay activists.

          My hunch is that the way to get this case into national “headlines” will be to link it to some questionable behavior by a political figure. Remember – Chandra Levy’s disappearance only became a high profile case because of the Gary Condit link. If it weren’t for that, her case would have gone the way of Joyce Chang’s.

          For example, if some aspect of what’s transpired reflects badly on Eric Holder, this could become a “Unsolved Murder Haunts Atty General” type of thing.

          Or – “Souter Leaves Town Amid Gay Murder Rumors: may be called to testify.”

          Now that would get some attention!

  5. Nick
    05/12/2009 at 12:38 PM

    These are horrible ideas, unless Kathy Wone feels she needs the exposure

  6. Nick
    05/12/2009 at 12:38 PM

    These are horrible ideas, unless Kathy Wone feels she needs the exposure

  7. Anon. in Arlington
    05/12/2009 at 12:57 PM

    Chris Hanson with Dateline…

  8. Anon. in Arlington
    05/12/2009 at 12:57 PM

    Chris Hanson with Dateline…

  9. CDinDC
    05/12/2009 at 1:06 PM

    How about 15 mintues on 60 Minutes?

    Or maybe the eds could do an NPR segment.

  10. CDinDC
    05/12/2009 at 1:06 PM

    How about 15 mintues on 60 Minutes?

    Or maybe the eds could do an NPR segment.

  11. 05/12/2009 at 4:03 PM

    WTF? Hire a PR flack, editors.

    • Frankie
      05/12/2009 at 4:24 PM

      I know the following comment will results in a spate of negative comments against it (and against me), but I’m going to post it anyway.

      What would the purpose be in the editors of this website hiring a “PR flack” or going on television, other than to garner attention for themselves? How would such moves serve the stated purpose of this site?

      Is drawing attention to this murder a goal, or is the goal to draw attention to the editors? It seems to me, in any event, that any news organization would be far more interested in interviewing the police, the Assistant US Attorneys handling this case, and the defendants’ attorneys rather than the editors of this website.

      How about the people who post comments? Should they go on television too?

      • Frankie
        05/12/2009 at 4:35 PM

        results = result

      • Bea
        05/12/2009 at 4:38 PM

        Frankie, I don’t think anyone is suggesting publicity for the site. I think they’re suggesting publicity for the murder case so that the public will demand justice – which in some cases equates to getting more money assigned to the prosecutor’s coffers for this particular matter. The prosecutor won’t have nearly the sums that Bernie Grimm & Co. have to spend but there are times when a public eye does force the case file to the top of the heap. No reason to get insulted by the thread – I think that while it’s debatable whether Nancy Grace will take it on. I detest her most of the time but loved her Scott Peterson coverage because she was so pro-prosecution in days when Greta was not, though I greatly prefer Greta – in this instance, however, I fear her ties to Bernie Grimm. Of course, Bernie could not be on her “panel” since he’s representing Price, but until/unless there’s a gag order, he could pontificate in Joe’s favor which would be hard to watch.

      • Craig
        05/12/2009 at 5:24 PM

        Frankie – I think the goal is to raise awareness of the case as it reaches critical mass. If I were a booker for either Nancy or Greta I’d want one of the reporters following the case like Mike Scarcella along with a criminal defense expert and a former prosecutor. That would be a pretty decent panel.

        In no way would we pitch ourselves to these outlets. And I say that as a flack.

        This begs the larger question: Can anyone imagine this case making it to TV or does the squeamish factor (male sexual assault) make it too hot for prime time?

        • Themis
          05/12/2009 at 8:33 PM

          I represented a female client who was painted by the prosecution as a swinging, sexually voracious, black widow who visited strip joints with her lover and engaged in group sex with men and women alike on an indiscriminate basis. She has had articles written about her by a national weekly news magazine and a weekly entertainment magazine, and a segment produced about her by a “true crime” cable TV show. The judge refused to allow CourtTV’s cameras in the courtroom.

          Sad to say, but an alleged gay male on straight male sexual assault may be considered as somewhat novel and especially titillating by a significant portion of the public. If only people could be seen as people whose death or crimes similarly wound society regardless of “demographics.” We certainly are not there yet.

          • N.M.
            05/13/2009 at 1:09 PM

            I really think the “ick” factor is too high. I’ve said it before, (but I won’t let that stop me) no one wants to hear about a man – much less a straight man – who was raped. You would think this could be a “man bites dog” novelty thing but no. Besides the ick factor, the lack of a hawt female victim (or predator), no station wants to have to fend off offended viewers, wingnut activists, and an angry bunch of gays.

            That is a whole mess of trouble for very little reward.

            I believe in pulling out all the stops to ultimately bring this case to a just resolution, but I must say that I don’t think mass media exposure is the way to go (except for my Souter idea, lol).

            I think the question the editors need to answer (if I may be so bold) is what *exactly* would be the positive effect of national media attention. Who would this exposure pressure, and what is it they’d be pressured to do? And how would those actions advance our cause (obtaining justice)?

            I suggest looking at things the other way around. (1) What needs to happen to obtain justice, (2) who are the people who can do these things, (3) how can pressure be brought to bear on them so they will act, and (4) who can create this pressure?

            Here’s my idea: fundraising drive amongst the lawyers who were friends with Robert with the goal of quadrupling the reward. Bring it up to $100,000. That might flush a few birds from the bush.

            Maybe someone who is good at that sort of thing could approach Mrs. Wone with a tactful, respectful fundraising plan and offer to organize it with her.

            • Craig
              05/13/2009 at 6:14 PM

              N.M. – Good question and I’ll take a crack at it. Whether media exposure could affect the outcome of the trial is debatable. But I see little downside to raising awareness of the case, the Keystone Kop investigation, the cavalier attitude of the investigators, and the glacial pace of the judicial process.

              And lastly, I’ve always felt that if it’s not on television, it never happened.

        • Fascinating
          05/13/2009 at 9:26 AM

          Just wanted to say that I read this post with the assumption that the editors simply were suggesting that solving Wone’s murder would be accelerated with some television exposure.

          I did not think that this blog or the editors sought to be TV stars.

          • Lance
            05/13/2009 at 9:56 AM

            I’m not really all that sure that justice would be accelerated from television exposure. Reports of crimes tend to be somewhat sensationalized; and they’re hard to maintain over an extended period of time during which little happens. (Honestly, how would a national television anchor report on the last six months? What’s happened has been an arrest and arraignment, followed by…well, some motions being filed, and then some more motions, then a closed hearing, then an open hearing. There’s really just not that much to say.)

            Also, the people the editors have contacted so far–Fox News, Camille Paglia–are frankly the sort of people I wouldn’t really want on my side.

            Now, if in contrast to reporting the editors wanted to contact an investigative journalist who would, well, investigate–that’s something I can see being useful. Convincing a local paper like the Post to not only follow the trial but also look into the evidence, the missing evidence, the mishandling of the evidence, the claims and counterclaims…I could see that doing a lot of good. For one thing, that kind of newspaper exposure is the sort of thing that really would push the REWIRE Act forward. But I don’t really see Van Susteren, or Grace, or Paglia, or for that matter Olbermann or Maddow, or any other national anchor, doing that kind of investigation.

            • CDinDC
              05/13/2009 at 10:02 AM

              Lance says: “Also, the people the editors have contacted so far–Fox News”

              The editors didn’t “contact” Fox News or Greta V-S, for that matter. She was at an event they attended. In the editors words….”We ran into her just as she was leaving and politely introduced ourselves…”. That’s far from “contacting”.

              • CDinDC
                05/13/2009 at 10:06 AM

                And Camille Paglia….wasn’t her connection via Proteinwisdom?

            • Craig
              05/13/2009 at 12:26 PM

              Lance – On occasion we talk with reporters covering the case, print and broadcast. Something may surface in the near future.

              As for Paglia, I’m a longtime fan and wrote that (poorly written) note to her on a whim. She chose to respond.

              • Lance
                05/13/2009 at 2:53 PM

                Huh. I’m a long time non-fan of Paglia, personally. And the fact that she was interested in it as a case of “politically correct censorship” and a chance to attack “the liberal mainstream media” is exactly the sort of thing I think shouldn’t happen with this case–if it gets publicity, it should be about the murder, not about the (IMHO imagined) political implications of the coverage or lack thereof.

      • SheKnowsSomething
        05/12/2009 at 10:13 PM

        I think there is a lot that the public can do to communicate our demand for justice for Robert without involving the likes of the TV court reporter clowns. This murder happened in our local community. The accused traveled in the same circles that many of us travel in. Any one among us might have found ourselves in the position where Robert met his horrific fate. We need to invest a little more sweat in the game of demanding attention and resources to solve this case and bring the murderer or murderers to justice. We should be writing letters to the editors of all the local newpapers and radio and TV stations. We should be holding vigils in the courtroom or outside the courthouse everytime the judge convenes a hearing related to this case. Action needs to happen here at Ground Zero … not with some talking head in the ether.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/13/2009 at 10:10 AM

          SKS is on to something, but I would never want to contribute to a misstep that would throw the case or not let justice be served. Are there proactive measures we are able to take that will not negatively impact the case and not offend Mrs. Wone?

        • Craig
          05/13/2009 at 12:21 PM

          SKS – Some good points here. Nothing speaks louder than genuine grassroots efforts. There will be another status hearing on Friday, May 22, 2:00pm at Superiour Court for anyone who’d like to attend.

          On that note, we expect to upload the official transcript from the April 24 hearing later this week. It makes for good reading, especially for those who were unable to attend.

          And to Anon’s point, decorum must rule the day.

  12. 05/12/2009 at 4:03 PM

    WTF? Hire a PR flack, editors.

    • Frankie
      05/12/2009 at 4:24 PM

      I know the following comment will results in a spate of negative comments against it (and against me), but I’m going to post it anyway.

      What would the purpose be in the editors of this website hiring a “PR flack” or going on television, other than to garner attention for themselves? How would such moves serve the stated purpose of this site?

      Is drawing attention to this murder a goal, or is the goal to draw attention to the editors? It seems to me, in any event, that any news organization would be far more interested in interviewing the police, the Assistant US Attorneys handling this case, and the defendants’ attorneys rather than the editors of this website.

      How about the people who post comments? Should they go on television too?

      • Frankie
        05/12/2009 at 4:35 PM

        results = result

      • Bea
        05/12/2009 at 4:38 PM

        Frankie, I don’t think anyone is suggesting publicity for the site. I think they’re suggesting publicity for the murder case so that the public will demand justice – which in some cases equates to getting more money assigned to the prosecutor’s coffers for this particular matter. The prosecutor won’t have nearly the sums that Bernie Grimm & Co. have to spend but there are times when a public eye does force the case file to the top of the heap. No reason to get insulted by the thread – I think that while it’s debatable whether Nancy Grace will take it on. I detest her most of the time but loved her Scott Peterson coverage because she was so pro-prosecution in days when Greta was not, though I greatly prefer Greta – in this instance, however, I fear her ties to Bernie Grimm. Of course, Bernie could not be on her “panel” since he’s representing Price, but until/unless there’s a gag order, he could pontificate in Joe’s favor which would be hard to watch.

      • Craig
        05/12/2009 at 5:24 PM

        Frankie – I think the goal is to raise awareness of the case as it reaches critical mass. If I were a booker for either Nancy or Greta I’d want one of the reporters following the case like Mike Scarcella along with a criminal defense expert and a former prosecutor. That would be a pretty decent panel.

        In no way would we pitch ourselves to these outlets. And I say that as a flack.

        This begs the larger question: Can anyone imagine this case making it to TV or does the squeamish factor (male sexual assault) make it too hot for prime time?

        • Themis
          05/12/2009 at 8:33 PM

          I represented a female client who was painted by the prosecution as a swinging, sexually voracious, black widow who visited strip joints with her lover and engaged in group sex with men and women alike on an indiscriminate basis. She has had articles written about her by a national weekly news magazine and a weekly entertainment magazine, and a segment produced about her by a “true crime” cable TV show. The judge refused to allow CourtTV’s cameras in the courtroom.

          Sad to say, but an alleged gay male on straight male sexual assault may be considered as somewhat novel and especially titillating by a significant portion of the public. If only people could be seen as people whose death or crimes similarly wound society regardless of “demographics.” We certainly are not there yet.

          • N.M.
            05/13/2009 at 1:09 PM

            I really think the “ick” factor is too high. I’ve said it before, (but I won’t let that stop me) no one wants to hear about a man – much less a straight man – who was raped. You would think this could be a “man bites dog” novelty thing but no. Besides the ick factor, the lack of a hawt female victim (or predator), no station wants to have to fend off offended viewers, wingnut activists, and an angry bunch of gays.

            That is a whole mess of trouble for very little reward.

            I believe in pulling out all the stops to ultimately bring this case to a just resolution, but I must say that I don’t think mass media exposure is the way to go (except for my Souter idea, lol).

            I think the question the editors need to answer (if I may be so bold) is what *exactly* would be the positive effect of national media attention. Who would this exposure pressure, and what is it they’d be pressured to do? And how would those actions advance our cause (obtaining justice)?

            I suggest looking at things the other way around. (1) What needs to happen to obtain justice, (2) who are the people who can do these things, (3) how can pressure be brought to bear on them so they will act, and (4) who can create this pressure?

            Here’s my idea: fundraising drive amongst the lawyers who were friends with Robert with the goal of quadrupling the reward. Bring it up to $100,000. That might flush a few birds from the bush.

            Maybe someone who is good at that sort of thing could approach Mrs. Wone with a tactful, respectful fundraising plan and offer to organize it with her.

            • Craig
              05/13/2009 at 6:14 PM

              N.M. – Good question and I’ll take a crack at it. Whether media exposure could affect the outcome of the trial is debatable. But I see little downside to raising awareness of the case, the Keystone Kop investigation, the cavalier attitude of the investigators, and the glacial pace of the judicial process.

              And lastly, I’ve always felt that if it’s not on television, it never happened.

        • Fascinating
          05/13/2009 at 9:26 AM

          Just wanted to say that I read this post with the assumption that the editors simply were suggesting that solving Wone’s murder would be accelerated with some television exposure.

          I did not think that this blog or the editors sought to be TV stars.

          • Lance
            05/13/2009 at 9:56 AM

            I’m not really all that sure that justice would be accelerated from television exposure. Reports of crimes tend to be somewhat sensationalized; and they’re hard to maintain over an extended period of time during which little happens. (Honestly, how would a national television anchor report on the last six months? What’s happened has been an arrest and arraignment, followed by…well, some motions being filed, and then some more motions, then a closed hearing, then an open hearing. There’s really just not that much to say.)

            Also, the people the editors have contacted so far–Fox News, Camille Paglia–are frankly the sort of people I wouldn’t really want on my side.

            Now, if in contrast to reporting the editors wanted to contact an investigative journalist who would, well, investigate–that’s something I can see being useful. Convincing a local paper like the Post to not only follow the trial but also look into the evidence, the missing evidence, the mishandling of the evidence, the claims and counterclaims…I could see that doing a lot of good. For one thing, that kind of newspaper exposure is the sort of thing that really would push the REWIRE Act forward. But I don’t really see Van Susteren, or Grace, or Paglia, or for that matter Olbermann or Maddow, or any other national anchor, doing that kind of investigation.

            • CDinDC
              05/13/2009 at 10:02 AM

              Lance says: “Also, the people the editors have contacted so far–Fox News”

              The editors didn’t “contact” Fox News or Greta V-S, for that matter. She was at an event they attended. In the editors words….”We ran into her just as she was leaving and politely introduced ourselves…”. That’s far from “contacting”.

              • CDinDC
                05/13/2009 at 10:06 AM

                And Camille Paglia….wasn’t her connection via Proteinwisdom?

            • Craig
              05/13/2009 at 12:26 PM

              Lance – On occasion we talk with reporters covering the case, print and broadcast. Something may surface in the near future.

              As for Paglia, I’m a longtime fan and wrote that (poorly written) note to her on a whim. She chose to respond.

              • Lance
                05/13/2009 at 2:53 PM

                Huh. I’m a long time non-fan of Paglia, personally. And the fact that she was interested in it as a case of “politically correct censorship” and a chance to attack “the liberal mainstream media” is exactly the sort of thing I think shouldn’t happen with this case–if it gets publicity, it should be about the murder, not about the (IMHO imagined) political implications of the coverage or lack thereof.

      • SheKnowsSomething
        05/12/2009 at 10:13 PM

        I think there is a lot that the public can do to communicate our demand for justice for Robert without involving the likes of the TV court reporter clowns. This murder happened in our local community. The accused traveled in the same circles that many of us travel in. Any one among us might have found ourselves in the position where Robert met his horrific fate. We need to invest a little more sweat in the game of demanding attention and resources to solve this case and bring the murderer or murderers to justice. We should be writing letters to the editors of all the local newpapers and radio and TV stations. We should be holding vigils in the courtroom or outside the courthouse everytime the judge convenes a hearing related to this case. Action needs to happen here at Ground Zero … not with some talking head in the ether.

        • Anon. in Arlington
          05/13/2009 at 10:10 AM

          SKS is on to something, but I would never want to contribute to a misstep that would throw the case or not let justice be served. Are there proactive measures we are able to take that will not negatively impact the case and not offend Mrs. Wone?

        • Craig
          05/13/2009 at 12:21 PM

          SKS – Some good points here. Nothing speaks louder than genuine grassroots efforts. There will be another status hearing on Friday, May 22, 2:00pm at Superiour Court for anyone who’d like to attend.

          On that note, we expect to upload the official transcript from the April 24 hearing later this week. It makes for good reading, especially for those who were unable to attend.

          And to Anon’s point, decorum must rule the day.

  13. Themis
    05/12/2009 at 4:18 PM

    It’s no secret among the defense bar that Nancy Grace was accused of prosecutorial misconduct in Georgia. Her work is colored by the fact that her fiance was murdered, something for which she deserves sympathy but which does not excuse seeking vengeance rather than justice.

    By way of disclosure, my views are colored by the fact that I have worked on getting new trials for clients on the grounds that the prosecution deliberately elicited false, incriminating testimony that was proven false by documentary and/or physical evidence. For example, officer testifies that defendant never stated “X” during post-arrest interviews; however, audiotape is located by defense after conviction where defendant specifically tells the officer “X” not just once but three times and “X” goes to the heart of the defense theory.

    Homicides are horrible cases that take their toll on everyone involved, even the professionals. To minimize that toll, the professionals involved need to act ethically. When a conviction is wrongfully obtained, the victim’s family suffers and the real perpetrator may go free.

    In case anyone is interested, there is a great group called Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation that is easy to Google.

    (Personally, I would take Dan Abrams or Bill Kurtis over Nancy any day.)

    Now, I will step off of my soapbox.

    • N.M.
      05/13/2009 at 1:13 PM

      Wow! I had no idea. That certainly changes my opinion of her. Thank you for that information — and for the work you do.

  14. Themis
    05/12/2009 at 4:18 PM

    It’s no secret among the defense bar that Nancy Grace was accused of prosecutorial misconduct in Georgia. Her work is colored by the fact that her fiance was murdered, something for which she deserves sympathy but which does not excuse seeking vengeance rather than justice.

    By way of disclosure, my views are colored by the fact that I have worked on getting new trials for clients on the grounds that the prosecution deliberately elicited false, incriminating testimony that was proven false by documentary and/or physical evidence. For example, officer testifies that defendant never stated “X” during post-arrest interviews; however, audiotape is located by defense after conviction where defendant specifically tells the officer “X” not just once but three times and “X” goes to the heart of the defense theory.

    Homicides are horrible cases that take their toll on everyone involved, even the professionals. To minimize that toll, the professionals involved need to act ethically. When a conviction is wrongfully obtained, the victim’s family suffers and the real perpetrator may go free.

    In case anyone is interested, there is a great group called Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation that is easy to Google.

    (Personally, I would take Dan Abrams or Bill Kurtis over Nancy any day.)

    Now, I will step off of my soapbox.

    • N.M.
      05/13/2009 at 1:13 PM

      Wow! I had no idea. That certainly changes my opinion of her. Thank you for that information — and for the work you do.

  15. CDinDC
    05/13/2009 at 11:08 AM

    Personally, as a couple of our editors have careers that are steeped in media and journalism, I would trust their instincts better than my own, when it comes to what steps to take.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/13/2009 at 1:21 PM

      They will give Dominic Dunne a run for his money when they publish in Vanity Fair (said while waiting in eager anticipation).

  16. CDinDC
    05/13/2009 at 11:08 AM

    Personally, as a couple of our editors have careers that are steeped in media and journalism, I would trust their instincts better than my own, when it comes to what steps to take.

    • Anon. in Arlington
      05/13/2009 at 1:21 PM

      They will give Dominic Dunne a run for his money when they publish in Vanity Fair (said while waiting in eager anticipation).

  17. SwannStObserver
    05/13/2009 at 10:34 PM

    Congrats, lads, you’re on your way to becoming the Dominick Dunnes of DC!

    (barf)

  18. SwannStObserver
    05/13/2009 at 10:34 PM

    Congrats, lads, you’re on your way to becoming the Dominick Dunnes of DC!

    (barf)

  19. BlondeAnon
    05/14/2009 at 3:17 AM

    I was happy to read this update, as I had wondered previously on this site why Greta and Nancy weren’t all over this case. I was also happy to read Camille Paglia’s piece on Salon.com, because her column does get a lot of attention, and I think this case needs a higher profile. I was about to mention the Vanity Fair is the perfect magazine to cover this, but Anon in Arlington mentioned VF first. This is a Dominick Dunne piece waiting to be written.

    I am worried that the police/investigators are bungling this case, and think national attention could help.

    For what it’s worth, I think Michael and Louis were at the house that night and removed and disposed of incriminating evidence, including cameras. That’s why I think Joe defended Louis for the domestic argument Michael and Louis had: he had to keep Louis loyal and “in the family”. Other people must have been in the house during the assault and murder in order for the timeline to make sense (and I don’t think it’s a stranger who answered an Alt.com profile; I think that person(s) would’ve come forward).

  20. BlondeAnon
    05/14/2009 at 3:17 AM

    I was happy to read this update, as I had wondered previously on this site why Greta and Nancy weren’t all over this case. I was also happy to read Camille Paglia’s piece on Salon.com, because her column does get a lot of attention, and I think this case needs a higher profile. I was about to mention the Vanity Fair is the perfect magazine to cover this, but Anon in Arlington mentioned VF first. This is a Dominick Dunne piece waiting to be written.

    I am worried that the police/investigators are bungling this case, and think national attention could help.

    For what it’s worth, I think Michael and Louis were at the house that night and removed and disposed of incriminating evidence, including cameras. That’s why I think Joe defended Louis for the domestic argument Michael and Louis had: he had to keep Louis loyal and “in the family”. Other people must have been in the house during the assault and murder in order for the timeline to make sense (and I don’t think it’s a stranger who answered an Alt.com profile; I think that person(s) would’ve come forward).

Comments are closed.