Why does CNN still
keep her around?
She conducted a contentious argument with Paul Rodriguez, foreman of the Jackson jury.
"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?"
Um, no. The point of the justice system is for the government to present a case to the jury, and for the jury to determine whether that evidence meets pre-established burdens of evidence. A conviction is a serious matter, but Grace thinks that personal beliefs/prejudices should trump the evidence and long-established legal guidelines?
Grace's "standards" for prosecution are the same as the lynch mobs of old -- where "what you believe in, what you think is right" trumps the law. She probably stands with Lott, Cochran, Cornyn, and the rest of the racist pro-lynching senators.
Stunning, really. And yet she remains on that once-proud network, CNN.
(p.s. I ignored the Michael Jackson trial in its entirety, so I have no opinion on whether he's guilty or innocent. Nor do I care.)