Murray Trial -- Jury Shouldn't Watch Nancy Grace

brunob12brunob12 Posts: 162
edited August 2011 in News
[size=14pt]Murray Trial -- Jury Shouldn't Watch Nancy Grace[/size]<br />7/20/2011 10:30 AM PDT by TMZ Staff  <br /><br />Lawyers for Conrad Murray told the trial judge they don't want  Nancy Grace to pull a "Casey Anthony" on the jury -- so they asked the judge to prohibit jurors from watching her.<br /><br />0720-conrad-murray-michael-jackson-bn.jpg<br /><br />Attorney Michael Flanagan argued that it was impractical to tell jurors they can't watch TV - because they simply will.  So Flanagan asked Judge Michael Pastor to sequester the jury, O.J. style.  The judge told Flanagan to file a motion and he'd consider it, although the judge did say he thought sequestering was both unnecessary and too expensive.<br /><br />Flanagan pressed his claim for outtakes from the "This Is It" rehearsals -- something Sony doesn't want to cough up.  Sources tell us ... Flanagan wants the outtakes to show there were periods where Michael Jackson appeared to be on drugs. <br /><br />In a telling comment, Judge Pastor said, "This case is going to focus on the charge, not personal lifestyle."

Comments

  • Wow - very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I guess this is taking a different turn than the 2005 trial did?

    My opinion is that they should tell the whole world that they should NEVER watch Nancy Grace - regardless of the trial. She is as biased and nasty as Diane Dimond, if not worse. She is so slanted that she displays poor judgment in her journalistic views. She is a disgrace and should be taken off the air. Just my opinion, of course.

    Blessings <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
  • I don't think anyone should ever watch Nancy Disgrace. Ever.
  • MJFAN7MJFAN7 Posts: 3,063
    Oh God. I wish they could prohibit my Mom from watching her. I'm tired of seeing her face on my TV all the time. <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->
  • GINAFELICIAGINAFELICIA Posts: 6,506
    the outtakes can't prove MJ was on drugs....it is just an assumption.
    The judge is right about focusing on the charge and not on personal lifestyle.
  • SarahliSarahli Posts: 4,265
    Is this picture supposed to say something more?

    0720-conrad-grace-bn.jpg
  • PureLovePureLove Posts: 5,891
    Wow - very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I guess this is taking a different turn than the 2005 trial did?

    My opinion is that they should tell the whole world that they should NEVER watch Nancy Grace - regardless of the trial. She is as biased and nasty as Diane Dimond, if not worse. She is so slanted that she displays poor judgment in her journalistic views. She is a disgrace and should be taken off the air. Just my opinion, of course.

    Blessings <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

    Totally agreed. And yep, it looks like this is taking a different turn than the 2005 trial. This time they are on MJ's side. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
  • becbec Posts: 6,387
    Nancy Grace is completely insane. Her logic is twisted and convoluted. She will never change, her brain is wired weird.
  • AndreaAndrea Posts: 3,787
    Is this picture supposed to say something more?

    0720-conrad-grace-bn.jpg

    I love Murray's "b*tch, don't even!" face and Michael looks like he's giving her the kiss-off while laughing.

    And Nancy covering her ears is perfect - she won't listen to reason, like "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

    "Lawyers for Conrad Murray told the trial judge they don't want Nancy Grace to pull a "Casey Anthony" on the jury -- so they asked the judge to prohibit jurors from watching her."

    But Casey Anthony was found not guilty so if the jurors watched her, they weren't swayed when they made their decision.

    I find it interesting that just a few days ago, Harvey attacked Nancy Grace on TMZ Live and now this article. I think Nancy Grace is on Michael's "list".
  • mjssoulmatemjssoulmate Posts: 820
    Nancy Grace is in it for the ratings. She is bias and so insincere. Why people can't see that is beyond me.
    I'm glad the judge has some common sense and isn't putting the victim on trial. He is right. We are dealing with a "doctor" here. He took the oath and then decided to administer propofol without necessary equipment and knowledge for money. Even if Michael begged for it, a doctor concerned for his patient never would have done what Murray allegedly did.

  • Excellent articles, Grace. Thanks for sharing.
    In our judi­cial sys­tem the Casey Anthony ver­dict had to be what was returned by the jurors and we have to under­stand that the jurors saw and heard what tran­spired within the court­room, not what HLN, Court TV, and the main­stream media rev­eled to their view­ers through the rant­i­ngs of biased and prej­u­diced tabloid journalists.

    The only peo­ple that believed a dif­fer­ent ver­dict should have been arrived at were the tabloid jour­nal­ists and those lis­ten­ing to these self pro­claimed main­stream media judges and jurors, who while report­ing the trial injected their own biases and opin­ions as often as they could, ele­vat­ing their tabloid jour­nal­is­tic report­ing to its low­est jour­nal­is­tic standard.

    This reminded me so much of what happened to Michael.
  • Wow - very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I guess this is taking a different turn than the 2005 trial did?

    My opinion is that they should tell the whole world that they should NEVER watch Nancy Grace - regardless of the trial. She is as biased and nasty as Diane Dimond, if not worse. She is so slanted that she displays poor judgment in her journalistic views. She is a disgrace and should be taken off the air. Just my opinion, of course.

    Blessings <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->

    Totally agreed. And yep, it looks like this is taking a different turn than the 2005 trial. This time they are on MJ's side. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->


    You are right Purelove, they are taking a different approach it is about time <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
  • paula-cpaula-c Posts: 7,221
    bec wrote:

    Nancy Grace is completely insane. Her logic is twisted and convoluted. She will never change, her brain is wired weird.




    Perhaps your brain is connected to your large intestine.. <!-- ssuspicious// -->suspicious//<!-- ssuspicious// -->
  • 2good2btrue2good2btrue Posts: 4,210
    <!-- m -->http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... -contract/<!-- m --><br /><br /><br />[size=14pt]Nancy Grace Sued for $15 Million for Alleged Breach of Contract[/size]<br /><br />Television host Nancy Grace is being sued by former colleague Patricia Caruso for allegedly breaching a contractual agreement to develop a syndicated television series that Grace would host, and for which Caruso would serve as executive producer.<br /><br />According to the complaint filed in the Supreme Court in New York last month, Caruso and Grace first met in 2002 while both working for the cable television channel Court TV in which they became personal friends and professional colleagues. In early 2008, Caruso alleges that the two started developing a series under the working title “Grace’s Cases,” and that Grace committed to cooperate in the development of the series and promised not to proceed unless Caruso was retained and credited as an executive producer.<br /><br />[glow=red:2uwghotx]And we all know Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch..[/glow:2uwghotx]<br /><br /><br />Read more: <!-- m -->http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... z1ShVNRBEu<!-- m -->
  • hey guys, I don't watch her much anymore....I didn't watch quite a bit when the Casey Anthony story broke...it just pulled at my heart stings a mother that seemed to love her child...having seemed murdered her out of the blue for no reason....the whole thing just felt wierd to me still does...any how...I'm wondering of Nancy is reporting anything on Michael's case with conrad Murray...??
  • But what side is she on...when MJ 'was' alive she was against him, and now she will be against CM...so is she just against anyone who is presumed innocent...there is NO LOGIC IN THAT, it's insane.

    Anyway I though Jurors are banned from watching the media when any of it has to do with the case that they are deliberating for.
  • [size=14pt][highlight=#80ff40:3rm4wqjd]Casey Anthony trial: Media frenzy at new heights[/highlight:3rm4wqjd][/size]<br />July 6, 2011 8:20 AM <br /><br />(CBS News)  Immediately after Casey Anthony was acquitted on charges she killed her two-year-old daughter, Caylee Anthony, Casey's defense attorney chided the media for presuming guilt long before the case ever went to trial.<br /><br /><br />And CBS News legal consultant Jack Ford says this was hardly the first time media coverage of a trial reached a fever pitch -- and only the latest example of justice as entertainment.<br /><br /><br />He notes that, as they had every day for the past six weeks, anxious crowds gathered outside the Orlando courthouse Tuesday morning, hoping to get in to catch a glimpse of one of the most captivating trials in recent memory.<br /><br /><br />"Once again, it was relentless media coverage that in large part fed the fascination with the case," Ford observed.<br /><br /><br />And just minutes after the not guilty verdict, defense attorney Jose Baez took a swing at the media, saying, "We have the greatest Constitution in the world, and if the media and other members of the public do not respect it, it will become meaningless."<br /><br /><br />It is, says Ford, a familiar charge, and one with a long history.<br /><br /><br />In 1935, the nation followed newsreel coverage of the first so-called "trial of the century," when a German immigrant was accused of kidnapping and murdering aviation hero Charles Lindbergh's infant son. <br /><br /><br />Media coverage was so excessive that cameras were subsequently banned from most U.S. courtrooms for decades after.<br /><br /><br />Sixty years later, it was newly-created cable news networks, hungry for compelling content, that drove coverage of the murder trial of O.J. Simpson to unprecedented levels and created a new market for celebrity courtroom drama.. <br /><br /><br />In 2005, Michael Jackson was charged with child molestation. Although eventually found not guilty, the high-profile trial derailed his career for years.<br /><br /><br />And experts say the presumption of guilt is a hallmark of these media trials.<br /><br /><br />"They thought," says Jackson defense lawyer Tom Mesereau, "Simpson would be convicted. They thought Michael Jackson would be convicted, and they thought Casey Anthony would be convicted. And, in all of those cases, despite a very oppressive media, the juries, you know, followed the law, looked to the evidence and decide that the cases were not proven."<br /><br /><br />But, CBS News legal analyst Lisa Bloom says, the Anthony case had one critical difference from earlier media-heavy trials: "no celebrities. There's just an ordinary little girl who was found dead, and mother who is accused of her killing."<br /><br /><br />Still, says Ford, whatever the circumstances, the public's appetite for these types of cases, fed by ever-expanding media coverage, should only continue to grow.<br /><br /><br />Ford and criminologist Casey Jordan discussed the verdict, the hoopla surrounding the case, and the media members who covered it with "Early Show" co-anchors Chris Wragge and Erica Hill:<br /><br /><!-- m -->http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/ ... 7125.shtml<!-- m --><br /><br />
    Sixty years later, it was newly-created cable news networks, hungry for compelling content, that drove coverage of the murder trial of O.J. Simpson to unprecedented levels and created a new market for celebrity courtroom drama..
    <br /><br />
    And experts say the presumption of guilt is a hallmark of these media trials.<br />
    <br /><br /> <!-- s:!: -->:!:<!-- s:!: -->
  • liegiliegi Posts: 640
    I see Michael's hand here. We are really hearing what he has to say.
  • becbec Posts: 6,387
    Did you guys read the latest in regards to Casey Anthony trial? I don't know if this is necessarily posted in the right spot but... check it out... sounds SUPER familiar to what the DA did to Michael:

    <!-- m -->http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-miscon ... 13907.html<!-- m -->
    According to a software designer who created the computer program used by police and prosecutors to allege that Casey Anthony had conducted a Google search of the word “chloroform” 84 times, the prosecution erred in their assertion regarding the computer search and knew they might be doing so prior to the conclusion of the Anthony trial.

    The computer search was a key piece of evidence in the murder trial as the prosecution sought to prove that Anthony had carefully studied the use of chloroform to render her daughter unconscious as part of a plan to murder 2 year old Caylee Anthony.

    The designer, John Bradley, is the chief software developer for Cacheback, the owner of the software program used by the Orange County Sheriff’s department to determine how many times Ms. Anthony had searched for information on the use of chloroform. Bradley also gave expert testimony with respect to the same at the trial.

    Subsequent to Bradley’s testimony, during a redesign of the software program, he discovered that the program used in the investigation had erred and that, in fact, the computer had only conducted a Google search for the word 1 time leading to a website that was also visited just one time - a considerable distinction from the 84 times the prosecution alleged.

    Bradley decided to commence the redesign after learning, following his testimony at trial, that police had used a different software program prior to his own and had come up with a different result – something they had failed to tell Bradley prior to his testimony and a fact that worried Mr. Bradley who realized the importance of getting it right as Ms. Anthony’s life might very well be at stake.

    Bradley says that upon discovering the mistake, he immediately emailed and phoned prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the sheriff’s office to disclose his findings, expecting that this new piece of information would be provided to the defense.

    It was not.


    “I gave the police everything they needed to present a new report,” Mr. Bradley said. “I did the work myself and copied out the entire database in a spreadsheet to make sure there was no issue of accessibility to the data.”

    Via New York Times

    Under the law, prosecutors are obligated to reveal any and all information that could be relevant to the guilt of the defendant, particularly information that would be exculpatory. Failing to do so is a serious offense and, had Ms. Anthony not been found not guilty, would have likely presented grounds for a new trial.

    This is deep shit... why does everything point to Michael? I'm losing my mind.
  • Anyone else find it intersting that there are so many "Michael's" involved in this trial? The judge...the attorney... what a coincidence <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

    And yes, Nancy Grace was one of the WORST reporters during Michael's case. No doubt she's on his shit list.
  • MissGMissG Posts: 7,403
    People search on the internet the same thing over and over to study, for example, instead of making a paper print.

    From wikipedia:
    <!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony<!-- m -->

    "in the United States, the case was called "one of the biggest ratings draws in recent memory" and "the social media trial of the century".[6][7] Defense counsel charged that Anthony was being tried in the media to her great detriment while she was facing the death penalty.[8] The case has been cited as an example of the unfairness of prejudicial pretrial publicity with the potential for impacting the rights of defendants in the United States"

    To be honest, I had no idea about this case and imo, it can´t be compared with Michael´s case at all. Michael was known by the media and the whole world to start with. Also, when Michael´s case, they put more police to work than they do with serial killers.

    As far as I understood, this woman did not report that her child was gone after one month. She may be did not kill her child, but surely neglegted the child.
  • AndreaAndrea Posts: 3,787
    Anyone else find it intersting that there are so many "Michael's" involved in this trial? The judge...the attorney... what a coincidence <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->

    I noticed that too. Michaels everywhere!...especially behind the scenes I'm sure
  • fordtocarrfordtocarr Posts: 1,547
    I don't like the type of journalist Nancy Grace is, she could use her show for good instead of just ranting!  BUT, lately she's been doing her shows on my bosses grand baby missing, baby Kate.  This how she can do good..but, she continues to RANT!!  I'm glad the message is getting out about the baby, but I think theatrics are NOT necessary to reporting. 
Sign In or Register to comment.