Once again ... like with Scott Peterson (who yet AGAIN is in the news today) ... I am involved in a news story against my will. How on earth can I avoid it when I get a BREAKING NEWS EMAIL about the verdict from CNN?
Uhm ... CNN? I really don't think that this counts as 'breaking news'.
However. Here I am. Involved.
Robert Blake was found guilty??? [Note: Edited to appease Dave J's semantic splitting-hairs comment. WHATEVER. Everyone seemed to know what I meant! However, to appease the compulsive legal semantic gods, I edited the damn thing.] Holy crap. I can't beLIEVE that. I assumed he was guilty, even though I definitely felt bad for him (the wife was clearly psychotic). However - Innocent until proven guilty. If they could not prove his guilt, then they could not prove his guilt.
Baretta's a free man.
Posted by sheilaThat Reuters' article doesn't read like the unnamed reporter can believe that Robert Blake was found innocent either, Sheila...
"The actor heaved a deep sigh of relief, bowed his head and embraced his lawyer as the verdict was read. He later rubbed his eyes as if wiping away tears, laid his head on the defense table."
"The actor.."
"The actor.."
Posted by: peteb at March 16, 2005 06:34 PMAlso "as if wiping away tears". As if.
Posted by: red at March 16, 2005 06:36 PMBut ... it's not his job to prove he's innocent. It's the prosecutor's job to prove he's guilty. And obviously this did not occur.
Posted by: red at March 16, 2005 06:40 PMTotally accept that point, Sheila.. but whoever wrote that report clearly doesn't - the "as if" is just gratuitous on their part.
And I've just got a NY Times Breaking News email on the same verdict.. sheesh.
Posted by: peteb at March 16, 2005 06:41 PMI know. It's like they're BUMMED that the Robert Blake trial didn't capture the nation's imagination and so they are punishing us with irrelevant breaking emails about it.
Posted by: red at March 16, 2005 06:43 PMLike, Jeez pete ... do you really need a Breaking News email about this across the ocean? I mean, come ON! hahaha
Posted by: red at March 16, 2005 06:48 PMAt least the Times article isn't quite as snide as the Reuters report and does cover the court case, lack of evidence, witnesses, testimony etc..
Posted by: peteb at March 16, 2005 06:49 PMYeah.. some of the Breaking News I get is a little unusual.. But hey.. I LIKE to be kept informed.
Posted by: peteb at March 16, 2005 06:50 PMI guess that if the dead woman is a small time grifter who made money conning old men out of their savings with topless photos and letters full of promises of something more...
who got knocked up and "trapped" the man into marrying her...
and got shot in the head while her poor trapped husband went back into the restaurant to retrieve his gun which he left behind (this happens to me all the time - my sunglasses, my gun, it's always something I'm forgetting)...
and the only real evidence against him is the testimony of two ex-drug addicts...
it's hard for a jury to be able to convict on circumstantial evidence...
i'm glad scott peterson is being held accountable, but why do OJ and Blake get to kill their wives without being culplable? It's really not okay to kill women even if you were once famous.
Posted by: susie at March 16, 2005 07:13 PMI think it was a New Yorker cartoon that contained the line "we the jury find the defendant...famous!"
Posted by: Dave J at March 16, 2005 08:28 PMThe Chappelle show had a great sketch on jury selection for various celebrity trials. I can't remember how exactly how it went, but the Blake portion ended with Chappelle exclaiming "Oh, yeah, Beretta did it!"
Ok, I did a lousy job recapping, but you'll have to take my word that it was hilarious.
Posted by: Independent George at March 17, 2005 12:51 PMOh, and I just noticed, and wanted to point this out:
"Robert Blake was pronounced innocent???"
No one is pronounced "innocent." They're found "not guilty." It sounds like merely a matter of semantics, but I think it recognizes something beyond that. Of course, unless you're Arlen Specter, we don't have the in-between Scottish verdict in this country of "not proven."
Posted by: Dave J at March 17, 2005 03:59 PM