Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Robert Blake Acquitted

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Necrolestes, Mar 17, 2005.

  1. Necrolestes

    Necrolestes IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    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?
     
  2. Anakha1

    Anakha1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Couldn't care less either way.
     
  3. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Baretta was a really cool show.
     
  4. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    He who has the best lawyer, wins.

    We are talkin Cali, here.
     
  5. HAMC8112

    HAMC8112 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Justice, the American way!
     
  6. Nastie_Bowie

    Nastie_Bowie Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,064
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nah, the California way.
     
  7. HAMC8112

    HAMC8112 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    255
    To us ignorant Europeans, thats all the same. :D
     
  8. cotton

    cotton IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    120
    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.
     
  9. Necrolestes

    Necrolestes IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,904
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    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).
     
  10. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. KillJoyBob

    KillJoyBob IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    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.
     

Share This Page