Nancy Grace’s dramatic license?
In a must read, Rebecca Dana in the New York Observer brings up a lot of information unflattering to Nancy Grace and questions the legitimacy of some of Grace’s history as Grace has told it…
Nancy Grace was engaged to a man named Keith Griffin. He was murdered in Georgia. And the man who killed him is serving a life sentence. In that, Ms. Grace’s version lines up with the official records from the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, newspaper articles from the time of the murder, and interviews with many of those involved in the case.
But those same sources contradict Ms. Grace when it comes to other salient facts of the crime and the trial—the facts that form the basis of Ms. Grace’s crusade against an impotent, criminal-coddling legal system.
• Griffin was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker.
• The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior convictions.
• Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested.• The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days.
• Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn’t get it, because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded.
• Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.
Ms. Grace has also misreported the date of the incident—it was in 1979, not 1980—and has given Griffin’s age as 25 when it was 23.
The justice system, in other words, apparently worked the way it was supposed to.
Doesn’t surprise me at all. Whenever I listen to Nancy Grace talk it makes me wonder if she ever even went to Law School at all…
Comment by OverHere — March 1, 2006 @ 10:41 am
She may have went to Law school but did she graduate? Could be! She may still have the matchbook that the application was printed on.
Comment by Roger C. — March 1, 2006 @ 11:14 am
I believe she worked as a Prosecutor somewhere. Of course, as a former Public Defender, I will reserve comment…
Comment by OverHere — March 1, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
She exaggerates things a little too much IMO. Actually now that I think about it, her and Bill O’Reilly have a lot of common when it comes to telling the truth…
Comment by anonymous — March 1, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
Wow….Guess the only haters on this board are not only Fox haters……..Give the poor Woman a break……..This article is over the top. You can easily critize her for her style and demeanor on TV but to attack her recollection of a personal loss, now thats classless…….
Comment by JR — March 1, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
One would think such a traumatic event would be burned in her mind forever, so I think it’s a legitimate story…
Comment by Spud — March 1, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
Spud,
Its a legitimate story from what standpoint? How does this information coming out in public serve anyone? What is the point of this other than to embarass Ms. Grace?
IMHO this type of story just reinforces the fact that the public has little or no respect or trust in the media…….
Comment by JR — March 1, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
“Its a legitimate story from what standpoint? How does this information coming out in public serve anyone? What is the point of this other than to embarass Ms. Grace?”
Are you serious? You want to argue that it’s better to let the public believe something that is apparently not accurate rather than point out that there are serious discrepencies between Grace’s public declarations of the story and what really happened? That makes no sense, particularly since Grace has repeatedly used those events to buttress her public positions.
“IMHO this type of story just reinforces the fact that the public has little or no respect or trust in the media…”
You’re entitled to your opinion. I however disagree. The public would have no trust in the media if they decided what facts they should reveal and what facts they should not reveal if they didn’t reveal those facts just to spare someone personal embarrassment.
Comment by Spud — March 2, 2006 @ 2:01 am
Again, Spud hits the nail on the head. Sheesh, it is amazing how in this world people will believe what they want to believe and defend people telling LIES to promote themselves because “it’s classless to attack her recollection of a personal loss” and labeling people who question her version of reality “haters.” Please! I can think of few things more “‘classless” than someone who lies about the murder of someone close to her in order to advance her television career. If that’s the way someone in the media is going to be, no wonder few people trust the media.
If you want to be a public face, you have to be able to take the heat. When you make your whole reason for being there a “story” you tell people about your past, as Grace has, then your story better check out. It better not have had any details “embellished” to make it sound better. Because if it does, people will never have any reason to expect the truth from you again.
Comment by tanne — March 2, 2006 @ 7:25 am
Just to make what I’m saying clear…I don’t think this is an issue at all of Grace having “poor recollection.” “Poor recollection” is when you think the guy who killed your fiance was wearing a light blue shirt that day when it was actually a white shirt. Or perhaps even “recalling” that it happened in 1980 and not 1979 (although being a whole year off does seem rather strange). It does not account for things like “recalling” a lengthy appeals process on his part, which caused you much emotional anguish and is allegedly the entire reason for your having gone to law school and become a lawyer, when the records show that he did not appeal at all.
There is nothing “over the top” about simply taking items someone has repeated about his or her past as “facts,” researching their accuracy and pointing out, one by one, that they are not “facts” at all.
Comment by tanne — March 2, 2006 @ 7:30 am
This woman has based her world and life’s mission on lies and incorrect informtaion that she made up and changed around to benefit herself and to create a TV career. It’s disgusting.
Comment by anonymous — March 2, 2006 @ 1:53 pm