Nancy Grace's View of the WM3? Past and Present?

Satch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
2,572
Hey All,

I would assume that being a former prosecutor that Nancy Grace, probably at the time of the evidence collecting and the trials of the WM3, that she firmly believed they were "Guilty as Sin." In light of the new evidence, and lack of DNA at the crime scene, matching the defendants, and what is now known about Terry Hobbs, has her view changed?

I think, given someone with her strong convictions in the justice system, if there was really strong proof of their innocence, and her view has changed, she could go on Fox News, and really sway a lot of people toward believing in their innocence based on new evidence.

Did she do any reporting about the Alford Plea and their release because of it? What does she think about the case at this time?

Satch
 
To my knowledge, she has been strangely silent about this case since the release of the WMFree. I'm not sure how to interpret her silence. Is it shame that she was so wrong? Is it merely uncertainty because she hasn't looked at the new information available? Is she just busy with other things, believing that, since the WMFree are released, this case is no longer important? I don't know, and, unless she speaks out, I tend to believe that she is still clinging to her original belief in guilt, but, with no evidence to support it (and the release of the WMFree tending to look like the State knows that they are, in fact, innocent, despite what they say publicly), she is remaining silent on the issue so that she won't have egg on her face. However, that's just my opinion. She could come forward tomorrow and change my mind.
 
No clue
Didn't watch her for a while after the Anthony fiasco as I didnt want to give my rating share to the Anthony's
 
She is donating all monies she makes to Missing and exploited children so I hope she wins . She is actually putting her money and her feet where her mouth is .
 
To my knowledge, she has been strangely silent about this case since the release of the WMFree. I'm not sure how to interpret her silence. Is it shame that she was so wrong? Is it merely uncertainty because she hasn't looked at the new information available? Is she just busy with other things, believing that, since the WMFree are released, this case is no longer important? I don't know, and, unless she speaks out, I tend to believe that she is still clinging to her original belief in guilt, but, with no evidence to support it (and the release of the WMFree tending to look like the State knows that they are, in fact, innocent, despite what they say publicly), she is remaining silent on the issue so that she won't have egg on her face. However, that's just my opinion. She could come forward tomorrow and change my mind.
NG never goes against the grain. She may be harsh and well, like a pit bull but its always in the direction of MOST viewers' opinions and beliefs. I think in the case of the WM3, there is too much of a split between "believers and non-believers" and she wouldn't want to take the risk that some of her viewers would turn against her (not that it hasn't happened already) and her ratings would fall. Her passion as a prosecutor has turned into a cartoon TH IMO. Sadly, because I used to very much respect her.
 
Has Nancy ever admitted she was wrong about anything? Honest question. I know she sometimes goes in another direction but never says she was ever going a different way.
 
Has Nancy ever admitted she was wrong about anything? Honest question. I know she sometimes goes in another direction but never says she was ever going a different way.

She was dead wrong about Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart).She's not one to admit when she is wrong.I have no doubt that she probably thinks that they are guilty.That's just my opinion.
 
Hey All,

I would assume that being a former prosecutor that Nancy Grace, probably at the time of the evidence collecting and the trials of the WM3, that she firmly believed they were "Guilty as Sin." In light of the new evidence, and lack of DNA at the crime scene, matching the defendants, and what is now known about Terry Hobbs, has her view changed?

I think, given someone with her strong convictions in the justice system, if there was really strong proof of their innocence, and her view has changed, she could go on Fox News, and really sway a lot of people toward believing in their innocence based on new evidence.

Did she do any reporting about the Alford Plea and their release because of it? What does she think about the case at this time?

Satch

Don't know how NG feels about the West Memphis 3, but she's not going to go on FOX News to talk about it, since she works for their rival CNN.
 
Has Nancy ever admitted she was wrong about anything? Honest question. I know she sometimes goes in another direction but never says she was ever going a different way.

NOT even in the death of Trenton Duckett's mom.... Not even an apology
 
To my knowledge, she has been strangely silent about this case since the release of the WMFree. I'm not sure how to interpret her silence. Is it shame that she was so wrong? Is it merely uncertainty because she hasn't looked at the new information available? Is she just busy with other things, believing that, since the WMFree are released, this case is no longer important? I don't know, and, unless she speaks out, I tend to believe that she is still clinging to her original belief in guilt, but, with no evidence to support it (and the release of the WMFree tending to look like the State knows that they are, in fact, innocent, despite what they say publicly), she is remaining silent on the issue so that she won't have egg on her face. However, that's just my opinion. She could come forward tomorrow and change my mind.

Maybe she thinks they are guilty still and the Alfred plea hasn't changed her mind.
 
Maybe she thinks they are guilty still and the Alfred plea hasn't changed her mind.

You're probably right. It seems that the Alford Plea doesn't change people's minds about guilt or innocence, only about the stupidity of the Arkansas criminal justice system (or at least some members of it).
 
You're probably right. It seems that the Alford Plea doesn't change people's minds about guilt or innocence, only about the stupidity of the Arkansas criminal justice system (or at least some members of it).

Very true. People wonder why if they are 100 innocent did they take a plea? Why not go for the trial where they would have been totally exonerated?
 
Very true. People wonder why if they are 100 innocent did they take a plea? Why not go for the trial where they would have been totally exonerated?

Let's see - you have a choice: Spend some more time in prison (maybe years) or get out now, while maintaining your innocence, and continue working to prove your innocence as a free man while getting the medical and dental help that you have needed for years. I don't know too many people who would trust the system that has already unjustly imprisoned them for over eighteen years to do the right thing this time. Of course, maybe you would be willing to trust the State of Arkansas. I don't think I would.
 
Let's see - you have a choice: Spend some more time in prison (maybe years) or get out now, while maintaining your innocence, and continue working to prove your innocence as a free man while getting the medical and dental help that you have needed for years. I don't know too many people who would trust the system that has already unjustly imprisoned them for over eighteen years to do the right thing this time. Of course, maybe you would be willing to trust the State of Arkansas. I don't think I would.

LOL, well Arkansas hasn't done anything to me so I guess I would. And Arkansas gave them a plea, which probably wouldn't have happened in another conservative state.

I actually don't live in the US anyway. But it appears it's very prevalent, all the killers in prison are innocent right so maybe I shouldn't trust any state DA. Y'all executing innocent people and all that.:seeya:

What I meant was, to you supporters, their innocence and their release was a foregone conclusion. That's all you've been talking about this year, the new trial in December..they'll be set free, free Halilulah. None of that happened. :crazy:
 
Well, they were set free. I would have preferred a trial in which they were exonerated, but they're free, and I'm very glad about that! As to why Arkansas allowed the plea, consider this: plea deals are generally entered into prior to a trial. This plea deal was made over eighteen years after trials which found all three men (then teens) guilty.

Why would the State of Arkansas enter into a plea deal that ultimately released three men who were found guilty of heinous crimes? IMO, the State (or at least some of the representatives of the State) realized that a mistake had been made and that three innocent men were in prison. However, in order to save face and money, the State accepted an Alford plea which saves the State from ever having to worry about the Three suing them for false imprisonment. There's just no other way to explain the release of three convicted murders unless there was something wrong with the convictions. Nothing else makes sense.

So, the Alford plea was a face-saving and money-saving cop out. I'm sure that the Three will continue to pursue proof of their innocence, and I'm also sure that one day the Three will prove their innocence. I just hope that it's sooner rather than later.
 
So, the Alford plea was a face-saving and money-saving cop out. I'm sure that the Three will continue to pursue proof of their innocence, and I'm also sure that one day the Three will prove their innocence. I just hope that it's sooner rather than later.

For both sides imo. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We've got to find who brutalized those boys. Sickos.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,211
Total visitors
2,399

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,386
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top