# The theological implications of Nancy Grace **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 8, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968 "2010-07-08T15:41:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/1 "2010-07-08T15:41:20Z")
Because I’m feeling petty. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/2 "2010-07-08T15:55:25Z")
Choice last. Nancy Grace-Avatar of Cthulhu. ---
**Author:** ![G0sp3l](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c68b51/32.png) [@G0sp3l](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G0sp3l)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/3 "2010-07-08T15:58:00Z")
There IS no god Nancy Grace is an eldritch abomination! I despise that smug, self-righteous \! I’ve gotta go lie down, thanks Skald, way to start the day on a miserable note. ETA: Apparently Czarcasm agrees. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/4 "2010-07-08T16:00:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Choice last. > Nancy Grace-Avatar of Cthulhu. Shouldn’t the avatar of Cthulhu be visually distinct from him, so as to lull us into a sense of false security? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/5 "2010-07-08T16:06:27Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > Shouldn’t the avatar of Cthulhu be visually distinct from him, so as to lull us into a sense of false security? That’s why she dyed her hair. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/6 "2010-07-08T16:19:08Z")
Because a human (if, in fact, she is not a [Reptiloid](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Reptiloids)) like Grace exists, we have positive proof that the Creator is not only evil but thinks that evil is entertaining (for varying values of the word ‘entertaining’). Remember, tragedy is something bad happening to you; comedy is something bad happening to someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/7 "2010-07-08T16:22:14Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > Because a human (if, in fact, she is not a [Reptiloid](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Reptiloids)) like Grace exists, we have positive proof that the Creator is not only evil but thinks that evil is entertaining (for varying values of the word ‘entertaining’). > > Remember, tragedy is something bad happening to you; comedy is something bad happening to someone else. You had to go ahead and call her that, didn’t you? Now you’re gonna get the Skrull Emperor on your ass. He does not tolerate such insults. ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/8 "2010-07-08T17:01:34Z")
Is Option 3 meant to be God, not Good? ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/9 "2010-07-08T17:02:21Z")
> [@a35362](#): > > Is Option 3 meant to be God, not Good? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/10 "2010-07-08T17:14:17Z")
#1. Cite: [Romans 5:20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+5:20&version=NIV). ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/11 "2010-07-08T17:36:41Z")
I chose the option with Natalie Portman, but if I had my druthers would substitute Keira Knightley: [http://www.celebrity9.com/img/keira-knightley/keira-knightley.jpg](http://www.celebrity9.com/img/keira-knightley/keira-knightley.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/12 "2010-07-08T17:39:30Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > I chose the option with Natalie Portman, but if I had my druthers would substitute Keira Knightley: [http://www.celebrity9.com/img/keira-knightley/keira-knightley.jpg](http://www.celebrity9.com/img/keira-knightley/keira-knightley.jpg) Keira Knightley is the lesser alternate to Natalie–the best of the scribbles from Eru’s artist pad before Portman was made. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/13 "2010-07-09T00:32:59Z")
As an attorney, she never lost a case. She did go through a pretty rough time after her fiance was killed. She was coached to present herself this way for television and like so many others before her, sshe too the bad advice. I was sorry to see her do that. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/14 "2010-07-09T00:40:35Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > As an attorney, she never lost a case. She did go through a pretty rough time after her fiance was killed. > > She was coached to present herself this way for television and like so many others before her, sshe too the bad advice. I was sorry to see her do that. I’m sorry, Zoe. I will need you to post something that is venomous, petty, cruel, hateful, insulting, and venomous. And yes, I know I wrote \*venomous \*twice. I like venom. ---
**Author:** ![Stuffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f17d59/32.png) [@Stuffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stuffy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/15 "2010-07-09T02:49:47Z")
I’d like to participate but she’s on my list of crazy folk I wouldn’t mind doing. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/16 "2010-07-09T03:42:01Z")
Wow! Until I saw this topic, I thought I was the only one who thought she was annoying. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/17 "2010-07-09T06:17:50Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > As an attorney, she never lost a case. … Not that she shouldn’t have, > [@](#): > > **Prosecutorial misconduct** > > The Supreme Court of Georgia has twice commented on Grace’s conduct as a prosecutor. First, in a 1994 heroin drug trafficking case, _Bell v. State_, the Court declared a mistrial, saying that Grace had “exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument” by drawing comparisons to unrelated murder and rape cases. > > In 1997, the court was more severe. Although its unanimous decision overturning the murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife was caused primarily by other issues, the court made note of Grace’s court actions, citing “inappropriate and illegal conduct in the course of the trial.” \* Her opening statement in the case promised the jury evidence of physical abuse that she had to know would never be admissible because that entire aspect of the case had already been excluded by the judge. > \* Subpoenas that contained hearing dates Grace knew to be false. > \* Failure to disclose a full witness list to the defense in a timely fashion. > \* Showing a chart during closing arguments that falsely stated a defense expert had not contradicted the state’s case on a key issue. > \* Also, during closing argument, “vouching” for the case by telling the jury she herself believed Carr to be guilty. > \* And finally, performing two illegal searches of Carr’s house, including one during which she was accompanied by a CNN camera crew.While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, since the case had turned primarily on circumstantial evidence, it nevertheless concluded “the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable.” Carr was freed in 2004 when The Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Fulton County had waited too long to retry him. > > Other courts have criticized Grace’s conduct even while upholding convictions in her cases. In a 2005 opinion, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said Grace “played fast and loose” with her ethical duties and failed to “fulfill her responsibilities” as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens. She failed to turn evidence over to his defense team that pointed to other suspects. The court noted that it was “difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly” elicit false testimony from a police investigator that there were no other suspects despite strong evidence to the contrary.[RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace#Prosecutorial_misconduct)[/RIGHT]The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in [_[COLOR=“DarkRed”]Stephens v Hall_](http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315251.pdf) (PDF!)[/COLOR] Those are just the cases that we know she fucked someone over on, I’m sure some investigation would turn up more. :mad: > [@Zoe](#): > > … She did go through a pretty rough time after her fiance was killed. … Which might explain, but not excuse, her embellishment of the facts of the murder and trial, > [@](#): > > **Allegations regarding fiancé’s murder** > > In March 2006 an article in the _New York Observer_ suggested that in her book _Objection!_, Grace had embellished the story of her college fiancé’s 1979 murder and the ensuing trial to make it better support her image. Grace has described the tragedy as the impetus for her career as a prosecutor and victims’ rights advocate, and has often publicly referred to the incident. The _Observer_ researched the murder and found several apparent contradictions between the events and Grace’s subsequent statements, including the following:\* Her fiancé, Keith Griffin, was shot not at random by a stranger, but by a former coworker, Tommy McCoy. > > - McCoy did not have a prior criminal record and, rather than denying the crime, confessed the night of the murder. > - The jury deliberated for a few hours, not days. > - There was no ongoing string of appeals (McCoy’s family did not want any). McCoy has only once filed a habeas petition, which was rejected.Grace told the _Observer_ she had not looked into the case in many years and “tried not to think about it”. She said she made her previous statements about the case “with the knowledge I had.” > > In response to MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann’s claims in a March 2007 Rolling Stone interview where he was quoted as saying, “Anybody who would embellish the story of their own fiancé’s murder should spend that hour a day not on television but in a psychiatrist’s chair,” Grace stated, “I did not put myself through law school and fight for all those years for victims of crime to waste one minute of my time, my energy, and my education in a war of words with Keith Olbermann, whom I’ve never met nor had any disagreement. I feel we have X amount of time on Earth, and that when we give in to our detractors or spend needless time on silly fights, I think that’s abusing the chance we have to do something good.”[RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace#Allegations_regarding_fianc.C3.A9.27s_murder)[/RIGHT]The Observer article [_[COLOR=“DarkRed”]Did Nancy Grace, TV Crimebuster, Muddy Her Myth?_](http://www.observer.com/node/51941)[/COLOR] Bathing in the blood of your murdered fiancé to sell books and raise your standing in the victims’ rights movement (which has more than enough real victims who’s stories make Grace’s fictionalized one seem like a good day in court), after being a poster child for everything that’s wrong with what should be the good guys in the justice system by lying about things that are public record. Not just evil but stupid too! I’m not buying any excuse for lying about someone’s murder for personal gain. At least she’s honest about abusing the chance she has to do something good … five hours a week on CNN Headline News. If I weren’t already sure there was no Devil, Nancy Grace would clinch it. CMC fnord! Venomous, petty, cruel, hateful, insulting, and venomous enough to make my soul worth a flying monkey Skald? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/18 "2010-07-09T06:53:04Z")
I prefer old fashioned mafia hit men and protection rackets to the kind of evil that is Nancy Grace and Sean Hannity on the airwaves. They are teachers of evil who teach evil for personal profit. I’ve done a lot of things in my life that I was ashamed of afterwards, but intentionally spewing misinformation for profit isn’t one of them. Nancy Grace is the worst of all of them. She inspires me to think bad, bad, bad thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/19 "2010-07-09T06:59:06Z")
Could it be that God exists and loves us _and_ has a really low sense of humor, getting some cheap giggles by foisting NG on us? I find that philosophy explains a lot about life. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968/20 "2010-07-09T11:28:52Z")
If Natalie Portman serves God, how do you explain “Phantom Menace”? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-theological-implications-of-nancy-grace/545968.md?page=2)