More Disgrace

I've made it abundantly clear how much I hate Nancy Grace. Here's a couple from yesterday's Larry King Live (ugh, why did I leave the TV on CNN when studying?)

GRACE: ...And I'm still trying to get my head, Larry, around this videotape that surfaced yesterday. Videotape that some of Jackson's people had taken of this boy walking in and out of his school in his little school uniform. Of the mom going in and out of her apartment. Why was the king of pop, literally, the king of pop, worldwide an icon, videotaping this kid going in and out of school?

***

KING: Raymone Bain, a spokesperson for Michael Jackson. What's the talk about taking the stand?

BAIN: Well Larry, before I answer that, let me just say that earlier some one on the program indicated that Michael Jackson videotaped the kids. That is absolutely incorrect. An accusation was made on the stand that someone under Mr. Jackson's employment -- however, we can't even determine if that's true or false. But for the pronouncement to be made that it was Michael Jackson to videotape, I think is absolutely outrageous.

GRACE: That's not what I said, Larry.

BAIN: That's what you said, Grace.

GRACE: Check the transcript, Ms. Raymone -- no ma'am. I said some one in the Jackson camp or worked for Jackson.

BAIN: That's not what you said.

GRACE: Yes it is.

BAIN: You said Michael Jackson videotaped.

GRACE: No, ma'am, he never leaves Neverland. He's always holed up in his bedroom. I don't believe he was out taking video.

BAIN: That's what you said.

KING: We'll check the tape and see what she said. Let's check the tape. Let's check the tape.

Unfortunately, Grace kinda covered her ass, but then she also asked why literally the king of pop made that tape. Good observation Nancy. She had another brilliant observation that was dealt with rather well by Michael Cardoza (whom I now greatly respect not only because he makes Grace look like the fool that she is but he's also worked on both sides and offers honest no-shit, non-emotional assessment of cases). Here it is for you to enjoy.

GRACE: I think they're going to rest next week, that's what they're intimating. Of course, I don't know if that's going to happen. In California, Larry, it always takes longer than it does in any other state in the union. It's a phenomena.

***

CARDOZA: ...And I want to address something that Nancy said, and that's the speed of California courts. I know that she takes shots at our courts here a lot. I have never understood why do we worship speed. I mean, here Jackson is facing 20 years plus in state prison. The case is important, to both the district attorney's office, the alleged victims and to Jackson. So why do we have to do it quickly? Isn't it more important to get it right than to achieve speed.

KING: Well, what she -- Michael, was she saying, they have to do it quickly or was she just commenting they take it slow. Nancy, you want to respond? Let's let Nancy respond.

GRACE: The question it's more important to get a speedy verdict rather, as opposed to a true verdict is ridiculous. And if Michael can prove to me that California courts are not slower in their trials. Same trial, tried here in New York, Georgia it would move more quickly. I don't know what that ingredient is in California courtrooms. I've been there. I was there last week for Pete's sake. I feel strongly about justice being sought in California courtrooms. So, that assertion is ridiculous.

CARDOZA: Well, Nancy...

KING: David Willis -- I'm sorry, go ahead, Michael.

CARDOZA: That's right. And you always talk speed, and say we do it slow.

GRACE: No, I don't. I don't talk about speed.

CARDOZA: Look at what the judge is doing here. He's working -- he's working these attorneys awfully hard. I mean, they get 10 minute breaks. They're doing a forced march in this trial. So, why is it so slow? Why do you keep commenting on our courts?

GRACE: Because Larry asked me.

CARDOZA: (INAUDIBLE) done correctly here. It is done correctly here, and we get justice in our courts.

GRACE: OK. Michael.