At least that is the jury decision in regards to Robert Blake, who was just found not guilty of killing his wife.
Now I haven’t been following the case because, unlike the OJ case, it hasn’t been splashed all over the newspapers here. So I don’t know if the prosecution truly failed to prove its case or if what went through the jury’s mind was, “We really don’t want to convict Bobby Blake on evidence any less than five people seeing him empty a gun into her, and besides which the victim was a skank.”
However, I feel fairly confident in saying that the defendant kept his eye on the sparrow when the going got narrow.
PAD
• 
Nice to see a guilty famous white guy can get away with it as easily as a guilty famous black guy. Now if George Lopez can just off his wife and beat the rap we will truly have achieved racial harmony.
How long before the Hallmark Channel starts airing Baretta reruns?
The prosecutors should have shown the jury the movie In Cold Blood.
I followed the trial, from what I could here. The prosecution’s case wasn’t as airtight as they wanted it to be with a lot of circumstantial evidence. It’s great to see the justice system does work some of the time.
Truly a surreal day with both the Blake Trial and the Peterson Trial finishing up. Peterson was sentenced to death today.
Fred
I’ve been keeping an eye on the Blake trial for a nonstandard reason — my father met him when they were both in the Army a good many moons back (“protecting Alaska from the North Koreans”, as my dad put it), and from what I’ve been able to pick up, the prosecution’s case was not only entirely circumstantial, but not too sturdy even at that. I’m inclined to trust the jury on this one; from the reporting I saw on the case, it looked to me as if the police picked one theory early on and ran with it, overlooking a great morass of additional context in the process.
On MSN before they had the jurt talking about thier decision to let him go, and basically they said unfortunately they couldn’t put the gun in his hand. And from what it seems they were moreso hoping to convict him…
And while the news focuses on Peterson and Blake, the Senate voted to open up drilling in Alaska today. Glad our our wonderful news media has their priorities straight.
Well, the good news is that now the MJ trial is the only one getting coverage. Only one trial left to ignore.
I, for one, was convinced OJ did do it. But while he got away with not getting imprisoned, he at least has not been a danger to society. (Well, other than running my friend over with a grocery cart while buying orange juice — I am really not joking about this!!)
I suspect the same will be true for Blake. If the case was not clear and beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury did the right thing. We can just hope that he won’t be a threat to anyone else.
(Not trying to raise another issue, but because I believe in justice in the next life, I am confident that no one ever actually commits the “perfect crime” and gets away with it. The crime will be paid for at some point. So I have learned to let go when justice here is sometimes really screwed up.)
Iowa Jim
Karen:”And while the news focuses on Peterson and Blake, the Senate voted to open up drilling in Alaska today. Glad our our wonderful news media has their priorities straight.”
Hi Karen,
Yeah ,I noticed that too.MSNBC was reporting on their ticker that at best we wont see real oil production from that area for at least 10 years.
Also ,there was a man onn the Daily show whose name escapes me that wrote a book about how just bad the news media is.Specifically how little “real “news is presented by the media anymore.
“And while the news focuses on Peterson and Blake, the Senate voted to open up drilling in Alaska today. Glad our our wonderful news media has their priorities straight.”
Except, being home sick, I’ve seen reports all day about Anwar on FOX, CNN, ABC, Yahoo News, Drudge Report, and other places. It’s not like this news was kept a secret or anything.
‘So I don’t know if the prosecution truly failed to prove its case or if what went through the jury’s mind was, “We really don’t want to convict Bobby Blake on evidence any less than five people seeing him empty a gun into her, and besides which the victim was a skank.”‘
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=U5EYN31PFOTP4CRBAELCFFA?type=peopleNews&storyID=7926457&pageNumber=1
The jury foreman told reporters after the verdict that jurors had found the evidence against Blake “flimsy” and “based on unreliable people.”
I’m with you, Karen.
At least this time, unlike the Peterson verdict, I didn’t have a colleague interrupt my class to come in and tell my students (her former students) the news. Sheeeeesh.
Many years ago, I had a student ask at the start of a quiz, “so, can we take a break during the quiz and listen to the OJ verdict?” When I said no, someone else said, “But this is the Trial of the Century!” Tired of hearing that, I turned to him and said, “No. Nuremberg has a pretty good shot at being the Trial of the Century. Some ex-football star hacking up his wife doesn’t qualify.”
Said student turned to me and asked, completely seriously, “Who was Nuremberg?”
The series of “wham” sounds my head made on the blackboard apparently registered on Caltech seismometers a few seconds later.
Priorities indeed.
TWL
The OJ verdict may be one of those events where you remember where you were when you heard.
I was being shown around my 1st day on a new job. A co-worker came up to my guide and said “Did you hear? Not guilty!”
We both knew automatically what was meant, even though Simpson was not mentioned by name.
My memory of the case is shaky, but I seem to have the impression that the prosecution made the case that OJ could have and would have, but couldn’t close on “did.”
Tim, all due respect to your colliding cranium, but for most people, OJ WAS the trial of the century, since most people that I run into think of the last century as starting in, oh, around 1975. At the earliest.
And unfortunately, historical ignorance is equally widespread. First time my wife and I watched The Patriot, about 5 minutes into it, she turns to me and says, “Um, we won this war, right?” Although, in her defense, she didn’t have her glasses on (her standard excuse for, oh, everything) and she can’t even remember her OWN history before she was seven.
I just have to wonder, seeriously here, how long it will be before the Blake, Jackson and Peterson trials fade from the public memories. I could really do without all the pundits on [insert cable channel HERE] expostulating about someone’s trial as though they’ve already been declared guilty.
But, then, that’s just me.
First time my wife and I watched The Patriot, about 5 minutes into it, she turns to me and says, “Um, we won this war, right?”
Well, you can’t really blame someone for saying something dumb while watching The Patriot. What goes in comes out. (Newsflash to Mel Gibson: most American Revolution soldiers did not know kung-fu).
As for the Robert Blake issue, I think a lot of the language being thrown around here is, to me, indicative of something wrong with our society. Saying something like, “Nice to see a guilty famous white guy can get away with it as easily as a guilty famous black guy,” is making a pretty big assumption, isn’t it? What happened to that whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing. People go on trial and we get disappointed when they don’t get punished. Well, what if they don’t deserve to be punished? Should we change our justice system to better reflect “guilty until proven innocent?” What about when that’s you on the stand?
Tim, all due respect to your colliding cranium, but for most people, OJ WAS the trial of the century, since most people that I run into think of the last century as starting in, oh, around 1975. At the earliest.
That may well be so — but I was a wee lad in 1975, and *I* friggin’ know the history well enough to avoid making a fool of myself. (Most of the time, anyway.)
Some days I think we’re not much beyond the bread-and-circuses stage. Just give us our spectacle up front on the way to the shearing room and we’ll go along quietly.
Bah. (Or rather, “baa.”)
TWL
Some days I think we’re not much beyond the bread-and-circuses stage
God, you’re incredibly optimistic, Tim.
I wonder if we would recognize news anymore. Almost all we get is opinion. Oh for some in-depth investigation.
Deano,
Hi back at you. I saw the Daily show last night and have put that book at the top of my “to get” list. I didn’t mention it because I couldn’t remember his name, or the book title and I’ve been burned before on this blog when I don’t give people links to the facts I present. My problem is that I read an awful lot of information, but don’t always retain where I get it. Maybe I read too many websites. I find I get most of my info online and read the Seattle PI for more local stuff.
Anyway, the book is “Bad News” by Tom Fenton. Anyone who is interested can go to the Comedy Central website, click on the Daily Show, and watch the video of the interview.
Tim,
I wonder if Lincoln would change his quote today to “You can fool most of the people most of the time if you have great PR and are willing to bend the rules.”
As for the Robert Blake issue, I think a lot of the language being thrown around here is, to me, indicative of something wrong with our society. Saying something like, “Nice to see a guilty famous white guy can get away with it as easily as a guilty famous black guy,” is making a pretty big assumption, isn’t it? What happened to that whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing. People go on trial and we get disappointed when they don’t get punished. Well, what if they don’t deserve to be punished? Should we change our justice system to better reflect “guilty until proven innocent?”
[snark]
Don’t worry, Michileen, if Gitmo’s any indication, we’re gettin’ there…
[/snark]
On a less snarky and even less topic note…take a gander at this webcomic wherein one of its characters is agonizing going to a signing with his favorite author, who also happens to be a rampant homophobe:
http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03132005.shtml
(Much like PAD did with Funky, I pointed to the start of the on-going arc…)
Anyone remember the interview Robert Blake did a few years back when he was singing at the TV screen? That was pretty f-ed up. Really, REALLY funny though. Anyone got a link for that video?
Decision came down today, and I didn’t hear a word of it on Headline News. I tune it in and all I get is Scott Peterson.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
is evidence that is not directly observed. Most evidence is circumstantial. Very few people are convicted solely on direct evidence.
FWIW, from what I saw here in Oregon, the Blake investigation and trial actually got very little media attention compared to OJ’s, to the Peterson trial, or to the Martha Stewart non-event trial. After the one prime time interview on ABC, even the Hollywood-news shows went pretty quiet, noting only that it had gone to the jury and then making brief mention of the jury’s requests for materials. I didn’t get the news of the verdict off TV, radio, or a mainstream news site — I got it right here from Our Illustrious Host.
On a less snarky and even less topic note…take a gander at this webcomic wherein one of its characters is agonizing going to a signing with his favorite author, who also happens to be a rampant homophobe:
“>http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp03132005.shtml
My girlfriend’s a regular reader of Something Positive and called me at work to tell me I had to read the latest comic.
Afterwards, after reading the punchline to the most recent one, I debated whether or not I should point out the link at any marvel comics-related message boards…
It is so nice to see that Justice is the same for everybody–regardless of how rich-famous you are.
Tim,
Who was Nuremberg?
Joe V.
ps. It’s a joke. I know what the Nuremberg trials were.
I Googled it 🙂
pps. That was another joke.
Karen wrote:
“And while the news focuses on Peterson and Blake, the Senate voted to open up drilling in Alaska today. Glad our our wonderful news media has their priorities straight.”
Sorry to bust your bubble, but I’ve heard this mentioned a few times today on various news media outlets. So, there’s no conspiracy going on to supress this information at all.
Posted by Karen at March 16, 2005 11:58 PM
I wonder if Lincoln would change his quote today to “You can fool most of the people most of the time if you have great PR and are willing to bend the rules.”
The late, great Spike Milligan once wrote (during the Johnson years, roughly):
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all of the people some of the time, generally for about long enough to get elected Presidentof the United States.”
(And, besides, Lincoln stole that line from Flashman — see “Flash for Freedom” by G.M.Fraser)
Posted by Alan Coil at March 17, 2005 12:55 AM
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
is evidence that is not directly observed. Most evidence is circumstantial. Very few people are convicted solely on direct evidence.
In actual fact, strong circumstantial evidence is often better than eye-witness testimony because eye-witness testimony is quite often hopelessly WRONG.
Tim, I’m half surprised none of your students thought Nuremberg was OJ’s character in the NAKED GUN movies. (The character’s name was Nordberg.)
Saying something like, “Nice to see a guilty famous white guy can get away with it as easily as a guilty famous black guy,” is making a pretty big assumption, isn’t it? What happened to that whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing.
Nothing happened to it. But I am not a court of law and, as such, there is no reason not to opine on the actual (as opposed to legal) guilt or innocence of anyone. Take a look at some of the trials of racists who killed civil rights workers in the sixties. They were guilty as all hëll but found innocent by a jury of their peers. It does not violate the constitution to point out that occasionally, people beat the rap.
Like some others, I too am puzzled that some of our regular posters could not find information on the ANWAR debate. Perhaps they should watch Fox news.
Gordon Lee: The prosecution’s case wasn’t as airtight as they wanted it to be with a lot of circumstantial evidence.
John C. Bunnell: From what I’ve been able to pick up, the prosecution’s case was not only entirely circumstantial, but not too sturdy even at that.
Luigi Novi: The idea that circumstantial evidence is somehow anemic is a myth. If you lay a cherry pie on your window, and later find someone has dug into it, and then later see a little kid walking around near your house with cherry syrup smeared all over his mouth, that
Tim Lynch: Some days I think we’re not much beyond the bread-and-circuses stage. Just give us our spectacle up front on the way to the shearing room and we’ll go along quietly.
A Typical Student: Okay, now THAT I remember! That was that episode were Kirk and his crew went down to that planet where it was like, Ancient Rome, right?
Too bad no one made like, a movie on that Nuremberg guy, maybe one starring William Shatner. Now THAT would be killer, man! I
“…An’ dat’s d’name’a DAT tune!”
Hooper
Wow! Blake was found not guity.
I guess it’s only a matter of time before there’s an announcement from some publicist unveiling a new reality TV show where Blake and O.J. team up to find the “real” killers and avenge the deaths of their wives. Both need the dough, and they could probably milk something like this for a season or two, really make a killing (financially speaking, of course)
“Saying something like, “Nice to see a guilty famous white guy can get away with it as easily as a guilty famous black guy,” is making a pretty big assumption, isn’t it? What happened to that whole “Innocent until proven guilty” thing.”
It’s in the same place as “Freedom of Speech” a.k.a. the 1st Amendment, it doesn’t apply to individuals or corporations (or to TV and Radio)…
Watched some court tv a lot over the past few days…In Oklahoma City for some training, not much else to do.
Anyway, from what I picked up from the commentary, there wasn’t enough reliable evidence to convict him. And from what evidence there was, it appears Blake at the very least didn’t pull the trigger. And the people they tried to say he approached to solicit as trigger men? Crazy. As in “men dressed as Joshua Trees are out to get me” crazy. Hard to believe testimony from folks like that.
On the other hand, maybe there still will be justice. As Blake has said, he was rich before this. Now he’s “poor,” at least by his standards. And given his performances in interviews over the past few years, who’s going to want to hire a disgruntled TV actor that’ lashes out at Babs Walters?
On the other hand, Peterson gets death, and the teenager that shot and killer her parents because they didn’t like her boyfriend gets convicted. Your taxpayer dollars at work.
I find it hard to believe that any reasonly educated person in America today never heard of Julius and Ethel Nuremberg. Their trial for teaching evolution to the Russians was one of the landmark cases in legal history.
Down here, all the radio pundits could talk about was how Spanky’s hair went from jet black to snow white while in jail for 10 months. The dude is ancient; how do they expect him to get more hair dye in jail? Cigarettes?
(Was he Spanky? Which Li’l Rascal was he?)
“Down here, all the radio pundits could talk about was how Spanky’s hair went from jet black to snow white while in jail for 10 months. The dude is ancient; how do they expect him to get more hair dye in jail? Cigarettes?”
He could have gotten it if he’d gone to Shawshank.
It’s obvious. The jury felt that the bird did it.:-)
Nah, he was “Supporting Cast”, Mickey was his character’s name IIRC…
“I find it hard to believe that any reasonly educated person in America today never heard of Julius and Ethel Nuremberg. Their trial for teaching evolution to the Russians was one of the landmark cases in legal history.”
I thought he was talking about Dave Nuremberg, when he put that faulty muffler on that dudes ford mustang, I believe Judge Wapner fornd in favor of the mustang gay and fined Nuremberg 240.00. Truely a landmark case. Nuremberg was a real jerk to Doug Llewellyn afterward. ….. oh wait, he may have been talking about that thing with the Nazi’s but being pre-fox news, may people might not have heard about that.
Bwa-hahahhahahhaha-ha-ha-hahahahahhahah
JAC
I really shouldn’t post right after waking up!
Here are the unfortunate spelling errors from my last post:
fornd – found
gay – guy
Llewellyn – Llewelyn
That will do!
JAC
Luigi Novi wrote:
Too bad no one made like, a movie on that Nuremberg guy, maybe one starring William Shatner. Now THAT would be killer, man! I
I personally thought he was innocent. I mean, sure, he asked the entire population of So. Cal., at one point or another, to kill his wife, but, let’s face it, who DOESN’T secretely want to kill their spouse? And then there was that whole “gun in the restaurant” alibi, but, hey, I forget my rocket launcher at Temple all the time (gotta bring it along, He’s a vengeful God). Still, I just wish there was ONE bloody celebrity living a worse life than I was, it would make me feel so much better about my own dismal existence. If Phil Specter gets off, I’m gonna be in a funk for a week. And dat’s da name od dat tune.
Nothing happened to it. But I am not a court of law and, as such, there is no reason not to opine on the actual (as opposed to legal) guilt or innocence of anyone.
No, there’s certainly no legal reason, but here’s my problem.
I’m assuming you weren’t there. If you weren’t there, then it’s kind of difficult to claim ACTUAL guilt. Sure, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you see someone pull the trigger, there really will never be any way for you to KNOW, will there?
And if you accept what I just said, then there really can only be one reason that you assume he’s guilty, that reason being that he was accused and people who are accused of crimes must have necessarily committed them.
And it’s precisely THAT kind of thinking that our legal system is supposed to protect us from. No, you’re not a court of law, and you’re not responsible to look at such incidents without bias as a judge or jury are required to do. But I think there’s a problem with our society when most people see someone brought into a court room and they don’t think “Is he guilty?” or “Is he innocent?” They think, “He’s guilty and I hope they prove it.”
OJ’s a perfect example. Yeah, he did it and we all know it, but I think if the people who were calling for his head actually told the truth, they’d admit that they didn’t assume he was guilty because of their own following of the case and careful consideration of the evidence. They assumed he was guilty as soon as the handcuffs got slapped on him.
Nice to see someone remember Phil Spector. I wonder what the status of that case is currently?
If you really want to see the dismal state of “educated” North Americans, just catch any installment of “Jaywalking” on the Tonight Show.
The there is this syndicated game show called “Street Smarts”, where the participants and the interviewees are both usually anything BUT smart. It’s so painful to watch sometimes that it becomes rivetting and extremely bizarre.
Michileen Martin: I’m assuming you weren’t there. If you weren’t there, then it’s kind of difficult to claim ACTUAL guilt. Sure, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless you see someone pull the trigger, there really will never be any way for you to KNOW, will there?
Luigi Novi: He never said he did. Bill simply made a personal conclusion, presumably based on the evidence presented to him that he examined. In much the same way that I conclude Simpson was guilty despite the fact that a jury found otherwise, so too can Bill opine that Blake is guilty despite the opposite verdict.
Michileen Martin: And if you accept what I just said, then there really can only be one reason that you assume he’s guilty, that reason being that he was accused and people who are accused of crimes must have necessarily committed them.
Luigi Novi: Nope. That