Losing "Gracefully"

Bull Dog
Originally uploaded by macsmind.
CNBC commentator Nancy Grace had a heated exchange with Michael Jackson Jury foreman Paul Rodriguez. It went like this:

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!!"

Rodriguez attempted a reply, but was cut off after two words.

"How do you explain this guy's sleeping with a 13-year-old boy 365 nights in their underwear?" she asked.

Rodriguez explained that the jury did not have enough evidence to convict Jackson beyond a reasonable doubt in the case before them.

Grace later pressed Rodriguez for his personal view on what Jackson did with boys in his bed. Rodriguez said he only wanted to talk about the evidence set before the jury.

"I was very stunned to hear a juror refuse to state what he thought Jackson does in bed with all of his line of little boys, say he didn't want to stick his neck out by telling what he believed," she said. "I mean, isn't that the point of the justice system, to do what you believe in, what you think is right, for Pete's sake?"

The trouble with Nancy and other 'commentators' is that they always want to try the case BEFORE the jury does. Making 'bets' on outcome is not only circus but totally unprofessional and quite frankly stupid. Unless your one of the jury sitting in that room what YOU think has absolutely NO bearing on the case - it's a waste of time.

Yet starting with OJ Simpson all the way up to now news networks have given lawyers an even worse rep than they had before.

Nancy was out of line. Mr. Rodriguez had done his duty - whether you like the outcome or not. He should be castigated in front of viewers simply because you lost a bet and got egg on your face.

Shame on you Nancy and all you represent - the worst in jurisprudence and the absolute worse in journalism.