#nancy grace

My response to Nancy Grace (Triple Shackle No Remorse)

June 26, 2026

I appreciate those who can avoid a rush to judgment in the Reiner family tragedy. While watching this video, consider, for instance:

• If a man looks like he put on weight while incarcerated, it could be that he's finally able to eat after near-starvation, or that he's prevented from most physical exercise; not necessarily that he's "really enjoying that prison food."

• If he is calmer or more tense, it could be that he is on appropriate medications, or that he is off inappropriate ones like meth; or he is using different ways to self-soothe, like sleep, reading, and food, rather than drugs and self-harm.

• People who saw Nick in court have said, for example, "he had a blank stare," "he smirked," "he oozed hostility," and "he seemed bored and unremorseful," not speaking at all — "but look at his eyes." In context, taken together, that makes no sense. And when this kind of thing goes out to YouTube channels with millions of viewers, it is, I believe, prejudicial in the legal sense.

I'd like to know how a person on trial for homicide could possibly appear appropriate — to you, Ms. Grace, for instance.

Verbal outburst? Silence? Right to remain silent? Throw some thing or person across the courtroom? Clearly not.

Stand calmly as possible, not speaking, except as appropriate — and be judged for not speaking? Remaining calm but "appearing hostile"? Saying something — or nothing? Looking up, looking down, exercising one's Fifth Amendment rights by not speaking — or speaking (with his attorney) "in hushed tones" (off-camera, out of earshot, in order to preserve attorney-client confidentiality)?

What to do? How can a defendant avoid the bruising haircut critique and its rigorous overinterpretation? How can anyone escape accusations that "his dark eyes shot right through you" and — yes, confirmed exactly what you suspected all along?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be stated as, "You have the right to remain silent." The specific text, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, reads: “No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

The law makes no allowance for telepathy, clairvoyance, assumptions, fashion premonitions or undue haste.

In this case, where Nick Reiner stands accused of the unthinkable, it seems like ANY response or NO response could be flagged immediately as either masked and vicious internal hostility, feigned indifference or emergent danger by all the insta-experts in the 21st Century Culture of A.I. Impatience and "YouTube said it; I will obey."

In Nick Reiner's case, what behavior — if any — would qualify as appropriate?

I have enormous respect for Nancy Grace, but she has a staggering number of imitators; and not all of them know that in matters of justice that affect a person's liberty, life, and (incidentally) their pursuit of happiness, there is no easy way.

Although tempting, snap-finger rushed judgment, trial by audience approval, clap vote, thumbs-up or thumbs-down Facebook beauty pageant, spectacular yellow journalism in print, broadcast or online media, tying the defendant to worthwhile stockades in the public square, or even the satisfying gleam of a bright guillotine — none of these will yield a fair trial.

Jenny Westberg

NOTES & RESOURCES

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute (law.cornell.edu)

GovFacts: Your Right to Remain Silent: A Guide to Your Fifth Amendment Protections (govfacts.org)

The Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause