Reply #59: Trying to understand.

[madmusic]

Are you saying I can disagree with her questions, the way she asked them and even the concept of mass media but can't disagree with Grace doing her job?

How do you figure that? What gives her the authority? If you want to argue that the "public has the right to know," that would be one thing. I don't think the public "has the right to know" what Grace thinks and can dismiss her rants all they want. On the contrary, it is indeed spelled out in the Bill of Rights that a person does not have to speak. That too is part of the 1st Amendment - in addition to the right not to incriminate one's self, and invoking that right does not legally imply guilt. What makes Grace's 1st Amendment rights more valuable than the mother's? I wouldn't take a polygraph test, either, for any reason. They are notoriously unreliable. The guilty can look innocent and the innocent can look guilty. They are not allowed in court as evidence for good reason and can really throw a curve in any investigation. Her lawyer was right in advising she shouldn't take one.

Why didn't the mother say, "My lawyer advised me not to take a polygraph test"? Then her lawyer could say publicly, as she later did, "At no time did the mother indicate any guilt at all. I'm advising her not to take a polygraph test solely as a matter of law." That would settle that, but the mother didn't even explain that? Why not? She danced around questions when she didn't have to. That sounds to me more like mental instability than guilt.

Grace may have the right to try and convict people in the media, but that doesn't mean the public has to praise her. You have much more faith in the media and in Grace in particular than I do. Maybe the mother was guilty, maybe not, but that's what investigations and jury trials are all about.

You're right about one thing, the Bill of Rights are self-serving, thank God and thanks our Founders, and a special thanks to the British for being such assholes before the Revolution.