does ‘exposé’ damage Nancy Grace ‘brand’?

The essence of Nancy Grace’s brand as the avenging crusader is based on a tragic incident in her past. As she tells it, she was a 19 year old college student, just months away from being married, when her fiancé, Keith Griffin, was murdered by a repeat offender who wanted to rob him. Grace recalls the trauma of testifying at the trial and asking the district attorney to spare him the death penalty. Motivated by her experience Ms. Grace changed her career path, becoming a successful attorney and television personality.

The New York Observer recently published a story debating the finer points of Ms. Grace’s story. They acknowledge that Ms. Grace’s fiancé was murdered. But they say that the murderer knew

Griffin

from work, that he was not a repeat offender, and that the motive of the crime was not robbery although he did take

Griffin

’s wallet. The story further states that Grace’s appearance on the stand was brief, merely to identify her fiancé’s wallet, and that there was never a possibility of the man receiving a death sentence. Grace herself doesn’t deny that after 20+ years some of the details are a little blurry, but insists that she has recalled the story as best she can remember it.

We all witnessed James Frey’s downfall it when became known that he falsified many aspects of his past.  Will Nancy Grace be ostracized by her fans?

Opinions on Grace are polarized; people either love her or can’t stand her. But Grace is no James Frey; the essential facts of her story are indisputable: a loved one was murdered. She did testify, however brief that testimony might have been. And she did change her career path to law. These are the essential facts that make Grace’s positioning as an avenging crusader for crime victims believable. This story is a non-story which will have a negligible effect on her brand. 

What do you think?

Did Nancy Grace, TV Crimebuster, Muddy Her Myth?

New York

Observer,

March 6, 2006