Robert Blake Acquitted

Necrolestes

Diabloii.Net Member
Robert Blake Acquitted

For those not in the know (or for those that just don't care), a jury acquitted Robert Blake of solicitation to commit murder and of committing the murder of his wife, Bonnie Blakeley. This trial closely resembled the OJ trial: an actor defendent, a weak prosecution, an easily swayed jury, and a stellar defense team. The end result was the same: a guilty man walked free (I don't think Blake killed his wife but I think he tried to have someone kill her; likewise, OJ probably hired someone to kill his ex-wife and felt guilty about it, which explains the statement "I killed her" despite physical evidence to the contrary).

What do all of you think: was Blake really innocent, was he guilty, or was it the one-armed man?
 

cotton

Diabloii.Net Member
Necrolestes said:
For those not in the know (or for those that just don't care), a jury acquitted Robert Blake of solicitation to commit murder and of committing the murder of his wife, Bonnie Blakeley. This trial closely resembled the OJ trial: an actor defendent, a weak prosecution, an easily swayed jury, and a stellar defense team. The end result was the same: a guilty man walked free (I don't think Blake killed his wife but I think he tried to have someone kill her; likewise, OJ probably hired someone to kill his ex-wife and felt guilty about it, which explains the statement "I killed her" despite physical evidence to the contrary).

What do all of you think: was Blake really innocent, was he guilty, or was it the one-armed man?
Look, you can disagree with a verdict all you want, but the fact is that we have a system in the US (especially California,) where someone who committed a crime WILL go free if the state cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did commit it. State must prove this to 12 ordinary citizens, whose job, by the way, is to be swayed. Yes, the system makes it possible to get away with murder, but it is a much better system than punishing someone because Necrolestes, or Cotton, or anybody else is "sure" they did it. So both sides stand up and argue their side in front of a jury, with the rule being that the state has to win by a landslide. The verdict here indicates the prosecution did not prove its case beyond doubt. So Blake goes free. If the state were to accuse me of something, I would want (and get) the same protections.
 

Necrolestes

Diabloii.Net Member
Blake's Seven + Five

Re: Cotton

Oh, I actually do believe that Blake is innocent...but there were some similarities to the OJ case that I felt needed to be pointed out, and the best way to flesh those out was using the age-old tactic of slanted speech. Your response, Cotton, was the one I was looking for. Many people judged Blake solely on media representation which is the reason why juries aren't allowed to listen to or watch media while they're involved in a trial. Likewise, everyone assumed OJ was guilty (I think he's guilty by association but I don't "know" this, I merely "think" it which, as you'll all agree, are two different animals). Both prosecutors (OJ's and Blake's) sought to make themselves some sort of hero by taking down someone famous and as such, they rushed through the case with very little if any concrete evidence (they had mountains of circumstantial evidence but that's akin to the "tiger rock" theory - I have a rock that repels tigers; how do I know it works? Do you see any tigers around? - which states that b/c the evidence points towards that conclusion, that conclusion must be the correct one).
 
Not really sure on his guilt/innocence, but I can say for a fact that he's certifiably wacko.

Now get into my fever thread and tell me what disease I have, Necrolestes. I made that entire thread with you in mind.
 

KillJoyBob

Diabloii.Net Member
Nastie_Bowie said:
Nah, the California way.
I suppose they would "hang'em high" in any other state? The "trial by jury" concept is actually more prevelant than you think. ;-)

Seriously, I don't assume to know more about the case than the 12 men and women on that jury. They got all the information and passed judgement. Very few other people are ever going to be privy to that level of detail about the case. I know I'm not in a position to second guess the jury.
 
Top