Objection!: How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System

by Nancy Grace

  There was already speculation that Elizabeth’s disappearance was an “inside job,” that Elizabeth was really a rebellious runaway, and that somehow the whole thing was mixed up with the family’s deep involvement with their Mormon church. By the time the dust settled, the family had been skewered, polygraphed, and ridiculed. But you know what? They never listened. They believed. Even when police told them they were wrong to continue hoping for their daughter’s safe return, they fought and they brought their girl home. Alive.

  I’ll never understand why people were eager to heap blame on the Smarts. It’s not as if those blaming the victims were defense attorneys with a “job” to do. There was nothing to gain by attacking Elizabeth or her family. Then it dawned on me. People wanted to blame the Smarts as a way of saying that this would never happen in their home. I really believe that was the misguided reasoning behind a lot of the mean-spirited O B J E C T I O N !

  2 0 3

  talk about the Smarts. The thinking was, I’d never bring someone I didn’t know into my home. I’d never be at risk the way the Smart family was because I simply wouldn’t be that naïve. This self-serving thinking was so pervasive that it allowed the hard truth to be avoided: We are all at risk. It doesn’t matter if it’s the cable guy, the mailman, the yard guy, the door-to-door salesman, the woman with a broken-down car, the Avon lady, or the pizza deliveryman. The world gets in.

  The world finds a way in whether you are rich or poor, white or black, college-educated or a day laborer. I had to learn this at a very young age. Things can happen to you. They happened to me. Blaming the victim may make you believe you’re insulated, may make you sleep better at night, but the reasoning is simply not true. Sure, the finger-pointers may feel better, but they make the victims feel so much worse.

  And in the Elizabeth Smart case, it all turned out to be lies.

  As for the Smart family, it’s not over yet. There is still a trial to come. Initially Elizabeth’s parents did not want their daughter to take the stand in the case against her alleged abductors, Wanda Barzee and Brian “Emmanuel” Mitchell. They did not want their daughter to have to live through her ordeal again. After seeing the debacle surrounding the alleged victim in the Kobe Bryant case, can you blame them? Elizabeth will be cross-examined, and the usual defense tactics will be employed. None of them will be believed, of course, but the damage to this beautiful girl on cross-exam, after all she has managed to survive, will last a lifetime. The choice? Let them walk free. I believe that Elizabeth Smart will take the stand and that after hearing her, a jury will convict.

  The truth will shine out like a light.

  A H I G H - T E C H S O L U T I O N

  One way to keep defense attorneys for kidnappers and pedophiles from blaming their victims and their families is to look for new ways to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place. When Samantha 2 0 4

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  Runnion, Danielle van Dam, and Elizabeth Smart were snatched from their homes, parents everywhere shared the dread and sense of helplessness of the girls’ families.

  Technology does exist that pinpoints a person’s location using orbit-ing satellites. Now an inventor who originally wanted to tap the global positioning satellite system to find her runaway dog has won several patents for applying her idea to following and finding missing people.

  Jennifer Durst, a single mother from Oyster Bay, New York, and two partners have patented a lightweight, portable GPS transceiver that she says is designed to be “form-fitted into a backpack, a baseball hat, or a belt,” for example. Ms. Durst, Eugene Fowler, and Joseph McAlexander have already gotten one patent for a “pet locator” and two more for a

  “mobile object locator” that can be used to track animals or people.

  According to Durst, the devices can be programmed with boundaries, and if those boundaries are exceeded, the devices send messages directly to a cell phone, a pager, a two-way personal digital assistant, a traditional phone, or even an e-mail address. Those messages are followed by continuously updated geographic information.

  This could be an extremely effective tool in helping to locate missing children. A parent would program the perimeter of the yard or neighborhood into Ms. Durst’s gadget. Those coordinates could be changed or updated at any time. If the child went for a walk with a parent, the adult could use a password to suspend the boundaries.

  When the person wearing the gadget leaves the specified perimeter, an alert is sent to a designated two-way-radio device. Location information follows in the form of text, figures, graphics, or numbers, and it is updated every few seconds, in effect following a person down a street, through a neighborhood, or around an amusement park. If the tracking system is removed for any reason, an alert and last known location are transmitted.

  Ms. Durst has said that she’s also designed a model that incorporates a

  “panic button,” so someone in distress can send an alarm about his or her location. The system is designed to notify the person back at the home base directly. Other GPS systems send data to a central computer.

  O B J E C T I O N !

  2 0 5

  Durst and her partners have several prototypes, including one that is part of a child’s fanny pack and could be rented to parents at places like Disney World. From Southern California to St. Louis, recent child abductions have kept our nation riveted, angry, scared—and wondering just what we have to do to keep our children safe. In the wake of these tragedies and near tragedies, this technology could be one key to stopping kidnappers and abductors in their tracks and preventing painful tragedies whose hurt is never healed.

  B E A T I T ! ( T H E M I C H A E L

  J A C K S O N D E F E N S E

  S T R A T E G Y )

  As a result of Jackson’s most recent child-molestation charges, the

  “blame-the-victim” machine is in high throttle. Press reports and Jackson sympathizers assert outright that the boy’s mother and other relatives coached him into claiming molestation. They also claim the child’s family is only out for money—a multimillion-dollar settlement, to be exact, similar to the one in Jackson’s first known molestation scandal in the early nineties.

  Instead of focusing on the seriousness of the actual child-molestation claims in Jackson’s case, critics wonder out loud and in print why the mother allowed her child to spend so much time with a forty-year-old man, especially in light of past molestation claims against Jackson. Attacks on the parents started almost immediately after the charge was made public. Media outlets seemed thrilled to announce that the boy’s family was also involved in a lawsuit alleging that they’d been mistreated by mall security guards. Reports of the couple’s wrangling over a divorce, including the boy’s father pleading no contest to domestic abuse and child cruelty, were gobbled up like tasty appe-tizers in anticipation of a sumptuous main course . . . the trial!

  Here’s the reality that Jackson supporters don’t want the public to 2 0 6

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  know about: Regarding the mall incident, J. C. Penney Co. paid $137,500 in 1999 to settle the suit. Court records show that the family claimed that security guards had manhandled the boy, his mother, and his brother after alleging the boy had left the store carrying clothes that hadn’t been paid for. The mother also contended that she was fondled by one of the guards at the time of the 1998 confrontation.

  As to the domestic claims, when the mother filed for divorce, a bitter fight was ignited, one that included criminal charges of abuse filed against the dad. The father’s attorney, Russell Halpern, claimed that the mother lied about the abuse and had a “Svengali-like” power to make her children repeat her lies. The reality is that the boy’s father pled no contest to a 2002 claim of child cruelty. The father also pled no contest to spousal abuse in 2001. So much for “coaching.” Those are the facts.

  While the boy and his family were taking the heat, no one seemed to be taking a hard look at Jackson himself. After all, he
was the one accused of child molestation. Jackson’s career stalled well before the current criminal case surfaced because of bizarre and highly publicied behavior, but in my book that’s the least of his credibility problems.

  Prior bad acts, known legally as “similar transactions,” are coming back to haunt him. The 1993 child-molestation scandal rebounded like a boomerang, finally hitting him in court. The sworn affidavit of his first accuser, with whom Jackson settled for millions in order to keep the claims quiet, swears that Jackson kissed him on the mouth, fondled him, and twisted his nipples in bed while the boy’s mom was not around. Remember, this is the 1993 alleged victim under oath.

  Even though he was never charged with a crime in that case, the King of Pop’s credibility is in grave jeopardy, all by his own doing.

  Publicly denying his obvious and extensive plastic surgery, attributing a drastic change in skin tone to the pigment disorder vitiligo, publicly stating on national television he has sleepovers with boys, and blaming his troubles on racism and on some wacky conspiracy to get Michael Jackson, all turned many die-hard fans against him.

  O B J E C T I O N !

  2 0 7

  It is apparently a lot easier for people to dwell on the boy’s family dysfunction as opposed to dealing with claims that a pop superstar molests little boys. Nevertheless, the family’s issues are critical to the case. Jackson’s defense insisted that the mother and child are not to be believed, fueling the credibility contest between a world-renowned superstar and a middle- to low-income little boy.

  T H E E V I D E N C E M O U N T S

  In the summer of 2004, stunning new developments in the Michael Jackson case landed like a bomb and bolstered the state’s case against him. It seems that once again Jackson has escaped criminal prosecution by paying off another alleged child victim, to the tune of millions. According to the French news agency AFP, Jackson admitted to making multimillion-dollar settlements to avoid court in the past, not just in 1993. Jackson’s statement was issued just hours before American media outlets were set to report new claims that the pop star had paid $2 million to another boy who accused him of inappropriate touching.

  Jackson’s statement read, “Years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I fought the matter in court. . . . I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money.”

  Dateline NBC reported Jackson paid over $2 million to the son of a Neverland Ranch employee after the child said the star fondled him.

  The abuse allegedly went on for a period of time in 1990, when the child was twelve. It was widely reported the boy was the son of a maid at Neverland who quit working for Jackson once she learned of what had allegedly happened. It appears authorities discovered this 1990

  case when they were investigating 1993 allegations involving a thirteen-year-old boy.

  The second boy originally agreed to testify along with the thirteen-year-old in 1993, but backed out when the thirteen-year-old stopped cooperating and dropped out of the case. In 1994, Jackson’s lawyers 2 0 8

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  announced he had settled a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of money, now known to be nearly $20 million.

  Throughout the latest chapter of Jackson history—claims he molested a child cancer patient—Jackson’s fans and supporters worldwide have demeaned the boy and his mother, showing up at every court appearance waving banners and ridiculing the boy, who miraculously seems to be beating deadly cancer. In light of a third boy coming forward, I wonder what they’re writing on their posters tonight? “We’re sorry” would be a good start.

  R . K E L L Y

  Sex allegations involving grown men and young boys are still perceived as more aberrant than assaults on young girls. Just look at the case of R. Kelly. The singer, whose hits include “I Believe I Can Fly,”

  “Bump ’n’ Grind,” “Feelin’ on Yo Booty,” and “Your Body’s Callin’,” is known for his sexualized lyrics and playboy lifestyle. He once told MTV, “I walk into a club and I can come out with two or three women, and that’s a problem for me.”

  That’s the least of his problems. The Grammy Award winner has several charges leveled against him for having sex with underage girls. In February 2002, the Chicago Sun-Times gave Chicago police a videotape that authorities claim was made between 1998 and 1999, allegedly showing Kelly having sex with a fourteen-year-old girl. Kelly was charged with twenty-one counts of child pornography. He denies the charges.

  When you don’t know a horse, look at his track record. Kelly was the focus of four lawsuits accusing him of sex with underage girls. He tried to explain this away during an interview on BET, when he told interviewer Ed Gordon that he’d settled two of those suits only because his lawyers had told him to do so. There’s also a dancer who says Kelly failed to mention that their sexual encounter was being taped. In August 1994, Kelly married the then-fifteen-year-old singer Aaliyah. Her O B J E C T I O N !

  2 0 9

  age made the union illegal, and it was annulled. Kelly won’t comment on his relationship with the late singer, he says, “out of respect for her parents.”

  How often do you hear the argument, “What do you want? A video of the crime?” Well, in the case of R. Kelly, there is a video. Enter the parents. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services is reportedly investigating whether the parents of the girl knowingly allowed her to have sex with an adult. Look for the blame-the-parents defense somewhere in the defense attorney’s summation when the case comes to trial.

  With Michael Jackson, it is arguable that his lyrics generated a picture of wholesomeness. The public—and a jury, for that matter—

  may very well construe Jackson’s credibility issues as more a personal hypocrisy. With R. Kelly and the sexual nature of his music, his criminal charges may be interpreted as much more realistic and more believable. But we cannot ignore the power of popularity. Director Roman Polanski pled guilty in 1979 to drugging a thirteen-year-old girl so he could have sex with her, then fleeing the country right before sentencing. When Polanski won an Oscar in 2003 for his film The Pianist, even in his absence he got a standing ovation. History does repeat itself.

  Kelly was nominated for an NAACP Image Award in January 2004. Incredible. As of this writing, R. Kelly still awaits a trial date for his child-porn case in Illinois.

  S T A R V I N G T H E C H I L D R E N —

  L E G A L L Y

  While thousands of criminal cases involving child abuse come into court each year, some of the most tragic involve foster children. We have come to know these defenseless children through some of the most shocking headlines in recent memory. They live in horrific conditions and suffer at the hands of monsters who routinely go undetected by the system.

  2 1 0

  N A N C Y G R A C E

  On October 10, 2003, before the bombshell dropped that foster children in the community were actually starving, Collingswood, New Jersey, police responded to a neighbor’s late-night call that a “little kid” was eating out of an outdoor garbage can. The “little kid” weighed only forty-five pounds and stood just four feet tall. He was actually nineteen years old, stunted by years of abuse and malnourishment.

  Bruce Jackson, who lived with foster parents Vanessa and Raymond Jackson, had three little brothers at home just like him—starving. Department of Youth and Family Services workers had been in the home on visits at least thirty-eight times since 1999 and seemingly didn’t notice the children were starving. Many now doubt the DYFS visits ever took place.

  It pains me to even write this: A 1994 entry in a caseworker’s notes reveals that Bruce Jackson begged the caseworker just to take him to McDonald’s, to Dunkin’ Donuts—anywhere at all the boy could get something to eat. She refused. The “boy” was so starved he found a cookie in the car’s glove compartment and ate it, then begged the social worker not to tell his foster mother. Caseworkers chose to believe th
e foster parents instead of the boys’ doctors when it came to the truth about their health. The “mother,” Vanessa Jackson, told caseworkers Bruce was so small because he had “bulimia and depression,” writes Kevin Ryan of New Jersey’s Office of the Child Advocate. Doctors disagreed.

  Although the Jacksons received around $28,000 a year from the state for the children’s care, Bruce and his little brothers, ages fourteen, ten, and nine, were kept locked out of the home’s kitchen and lived off nothing but a diet of uncooked pancake batter, peanut butter, jelly, and cereal. The boys chewed on wallboard and insulation to live.

  A blistering report by the above-mentioned Office of the Child Advocate cited sloppy casework, an ignorance of the rules specifically passed to protect the innocent, and a shocking lack of internal communication as the unacceptable reasons the state’s child-welfare agency had allowed four “intentionally malnourished” adopted children to live in near starvation for almost a decade.

  O B J E C T I O N !

  2 1 1

  The Jackson parents were actually praised for “doing an excellent job” and being “very consistent on doctor’s appointments” in one 1997

  foster-home evaluation. In reality, the four boys suffered painfully, both emotionally and physically, for years on end. Doctors’ reports—that DYFS had full access to, had they bothered to read them—showed that in no uncertain terms. For example, one doctor, during a routine physical on one of the boys, wrote that he was “markedly underweight, un-dersized and presented with failure-to-thrive syndrome.” At three years old, he weighed only twenty-one pounds. Shockingly, just one year later, the department approved his adoption by the Jacksons, with no concern or even mention of his disturbingly poor health. With full approval of DYFS, judges, and special law guardians assigned to the

  “family,” the other boys’ adoptions by the Jackson “parents” were a breeze. There was just one problem no one mentioned—the children were being systematically starved to death.