Grammar: the basic elements of an area of knowledge or skill.Women came forward, many after years of silence, to help take down one of the biggest criminals in modern American history: Jeffrey Epstein. Women didn’t always have an opportunity of delayed accusations being seen as credible. Following are the ‘basic elements’ of a largely unknown story involving Kelsey Grammer, Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer Roy Black, and a corrupt prosecutor in New Jersey.
In 1995, a grand jury chose not to indict Kelsey Grammer after he was accused of sleeping with his underage babysitter. According to New York Times, she told her friends that Grammer had sex with her, and the friends told others, with parents eventually finding out. The girl “refused to cooperate with investigators” for a year. Regardless of her behaving like you would expect a teen victim to behave, the prosecutor in the case blamed the victim for the jury decision.
From NYT:“The young woman's delay of more than a year in pressing charges against Mr. Grammer made it difficult to support her claim, the County Prosecutor, Nicholas L. Bissell Jr., said today. The delay also meant there was no physical evidence to support a prosecution, he said.” NYT is happy to not question this line of reasoning, which clearly implies the girl not immediately coming forward made her seem non-credible. See how it says the delay “also” meant no there was no physical evidence. What else is there besides credibility and physical evidence? Witnesses? There’s only 2 potential witnesses and they both surely remember what happened or didn’t happen. And, as you will see, it seems there was indeed some pretty interesting ‘physical evidence.’
Exhibit A: “The panel also listened to tapes of what were purported to be messages left by the actor on a voice-mail service for teen-agers operated by a Phoenix telephone company. And they heard conversations between the two that the young woman has said she taped to keep as "mementos."
Exhibit B: “John Esposito, a Brooklyn lawyer representing the young woman, has said the tapes included "sexually suggestive" comments made by Mr. Grammer.”
If this isn’t enough to make you 2nd guess the Grand Jury verdict, there’s more.
Grammer was represented by Roy Black – a lawyer who has represented such people as the infamous Jeffrey Epstein, William Kennedy Smith, Joe Francis (Girls Gone Wild creator), and Rush Limbaugh. Roy Black is the only lawyer I can find who has married a juror from a trial he was a lawyer in. Not only did he marry a juror from a case, but it was from his first big case (Smith), where he established his specialty of getting rich guys off for rape charges. And on top of that, Roy and his wife hid the marriage until his ex-juror wife accidentally filed a police report as “Lea Black.” Oh and they met right after Roy got divorced…and at a hotel. How convenient. And how convenient that they can’t testify against each other now since they are married.
Roy is so bold as to even “joke” about fictional sex scandals involving defense lawyers and people involved in the lawyer’s trial: “In the first episode of Notorious the defense lawyer has sex with his client's wife. A very realistic show.” Kelsey also seemingly has his own flirtation with alluding to the case, playing a corrupt prosecutor who has "made a deal with the devil a few times.”
Next lets look at how Grammer’s lawyer Roy black is an expert manipulator. This wouldn’t be noteworthy – due to his being a lawyer, except for how extreme he is in his manipulation and, at the same time, proud of it.
Here’s a break down from the Sun Sentinel of how the psychopathic Roy Black manipulates jurors: “A number of legal experts believe Black won the case when he hired Kathy Bennett as a jury-selection specialist. During jury selection, Black didn't question jurors so much as have conversations with them. "We got to know each other," he says. During the trial, the jurors' favorable impression of Black played a couple of tricks on their minds. They perceived him, rather than William Kennedy Smith, as the defendant, and as such could never conceive of Black committing rape. And they perceived Black's relationship with "my friend Will" as proof that Smith was innocent because a nice man like Black would never have a friend who was a rapist."
Not a fair assessment you say? Well, Roy probably has no problem with it. He is proud of his psychological-manipulation abilities, saying "As he got more antagonistic, I got nicer...I apologized that he didn't understand my question. So the jury started thinking, what's wrong with this guy? Why won't he answer the question? I outniced the guy." Its not strange for a lawyer to try to be persuasive, but to be openly proud of how he manipulates people in a rape case is something as special as his marriage.
Another example from NYT: “In forcing the woman to re-enact every millisecond of her trauma, in making pointed asides about her penchant for dating bartenders and heels who abandoned her, in hinting obliquely to the jury that the woman had once used drugs, Mr. Black showed his proficiency at work that many people would have neither the stomach or soul to do.”
That’s enough about Roy Black. After all, you can’t really blame the defense for doing everything they can to get their client free. Legally speaking you can’t at least. Morally you can say that Black is a piece of shit who specializes in helping rich people accused of rape, and the pinnacle of his career is helping to get the most lenient sentence for any crime in US history when Epstein got a slap on the wrist for his vast criminal conspiracy centered around victimizing underage girls. Moving on…
The prosecutor, however, has no such expectations of being a piece of shit. They are supposed to be honorable, ethical upholders of law and civility.
Much like Black, Bissell was a master manipulator of people. “ Loyal followers said he had a magnetic personality” according to the New York Times. Unfortunately for Nick, this didn’t keep his pervasive criminality from being discovered, which led to his suicide not long after defending Grammer.
NYT, which covered Bissell’s death in a long article, made no mention of Grammer’s case (which NYT covered a few months earlier) or the fact that the prosecutor was under investigation durinig it , which, given all of the facts, very likely corrupted the case to the point of needing a retrial.And if you think Mr. Bissell’s corruption was perhaps a one time mistake, according to NYT “most of Mr. Bissell's 13-year tenure had been marked by ''systematic and pervasive corruption...He was the ''forfeiture king'' who seized profits from drug dealers while he was planning to frame a judge and threatening to ruin an adversary by having cocaine planted in his car.” Ask yourself how likely it is that someone who is under investigation and willing to frame a judge might be corrupt in a case involving a celebrity – taking money in exchange for helping to sway the jury towards not indicting Grammer.
One judge concluded “Mr. Bissell intimidated some witnesses and made secret deals with others to win the conviction” of a drug dealer.
Reasons why this deserves more attention: an extremely corrupt prosecutor handled the case while under investigation for serious crimes, Roy Black is the best lawyer in the world at helping accused sexual predators, the plaintiff’s lawyer said that there are recordings of Grammer saying sexually suggestive things to the girl, there are “tapes of what were purported to be messages left by the actor on a voice-mail service for teen-agers”, and Grammer wants more kids, which means more babysitters.
Mr. Esposito, if you read this, please encourage the victim to come forward so she can get a fair trial.
If anyone can find an example of a lawyer marrying a juror from a big trial they were involved in (who isn’t Roy Black) or has any other tips, please email me at KelseyGrammar1995@gmail.com