[JLS]

As much as I detest Nancy Grace I'm strongly opposed to this suit.

In I general agree with you, but as with many legal issues it depends on what Grace and her minions said to the woman.

If they told her that she would be given the opportunity to seek help finding her missing child and then Grace switched on her, then Grace might have some liability. Basically if a jury finds that Grace and her agents baited and switched a vulnerable person, a jury might find a tort was committed.

The question becomes has someone committed a civil wrong, ie a tort, if they entice a person they knew to be psychologically vulnerable due to the loss of a child on their tv show with false assurances and then aggressively question them about their responsibility in the matter? No maybe Grace is such a jerk, that her defense is that the woman should not have expected any better from her.

But I think this would be very different than a stranger here coming to a rough and tumble discussion forum. We have no reason to know new comers are vulnerable. We did not bait them in with any promise to treat them well.

[Ken H]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/best-of-case-iv.html

[snip]

Meanwhile, the Liestoppers analysis of the NAACP should win an award for timeliness. In recent weeks, Nifong enablers have attempted to argue that the NAACP has taken a "neutral" course on the case, chiefly by citing a 10-point statement by state director Barber. (That an organization with a long history of defending due process in criminal justice cases could assume a position of "neutrality" in a case with massive prosecutorial misconduct suggests a new approach in and of itself.)

Yet the Liestoppers post showed that the NAACP has, essentially, spoken with a forked tongue on the case, maintaining the Barber statement but taking action after action that contradicted it--to the point where the organization is now all but operating as an arm of the prosecution.

[end excerpt]

[Jezebelle]

It's possible a sympathetic jury could find for the plaintiff, but in my opinion it's a very weak case because the woman could have simply stated she'd been misled, unhooked her mic and walked away, and there won't be any testimony from her, obviously. It's going to be a big leap to get to where the plaintiff needs to get.

I guess we'll have to wait to read the legal theory put forward by plaintiff's counsel.