March 17, 2005
THEY TOOK THEIR EYE OFF THE SPARROW:
Actor Robert Blake Acquitted in Shooting Death of His Wife (Andrew Blankstein and Jean Guccione, March 17, 2005, LA Times)
After a 12-week trial that ended with jurors saying they did not believe two Hollywood stuntmen central to the prosecution's case, actor Robert Blake was found not guilty Wednesday of fatally shooting his wife.Prosecutors "couldn't put the gun in his hand," said jury foreman Thomas Nicholson. "I felt the primary thing from what I saw was that the circumstantial evidence was flimsy." [...]
"As things progressed, it just turned out there were a lot of gaps," said Michael Pollack, 47, an alternate juror who said that when the trial began, he believed Blake didn't stand a chance of acquittal.
In the absence of direct evidence, jurors were asked to believe testimony from the stuntmen, who testified that Blake had asked them to kill Bakley two months before she was slain. But Blake's attorney, M. Gerald Schwartzbach, was able to undermine their credibility by presenting evidence that their admitted use of cocaine and methamphetamine could have caused them to be delusional.
"I didn't believe either one of them," said Charles Safko, a 50-year-old truck driver from Winnetka. "I thought they were both so full of it, it was unbelievable."
Deputy Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Shellie Samuels, a career prosecutor who had won 48 of 49 murder cases before this one, said she was "blown away" by the verdict. She wondered what effect Blake's celebrity had on the case.
"I can't believe a jury would not convict on this," Samuels said.
Never mind the question of what they think happened instead, where did his defense team find 12 people who even remember that he had a tv show? Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2005 8:22 AM
Nobody in LA wants to convict celebrities. They know who butters their bread.
Posted by: pj at March 17, 2005 8:33 AMNo. Weak evidence, B.S. witnesses, reasonable doubt. Who among us would want to be tried by a jury that would have convicted Blake?
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 17, 2005 9:39 AMi trhink the unsavoryness of his wife contributes to blake getting off. i hear blake and (o.j.) simpson are setting up a detective agency together.
Posted by: cjm at March 17, 2005 9:54 AMMan, what an awesome TV show that would make. Sounds like something iowahawk came up with.
Posted by: Governor Breck at March 17, 2005 10:08 AMMy impression, and I admit I didn't follow either trial closely, was that the evidence against Blake and Peterson was about even, but the difference was the characters of the victims and the defendants.
Peterson's wife and baby were the ultimate innocents, while Bonnie Lee (was that her name?) was a grifter and a gold digger. Peterson came off as an arrogant jerk (complete with a bimbo on the side), while Blake looked like a hapless little old man.
So one jury sends Peterson to the death house and the other sets Blake free, based not so much on the evidence as on their impressions or, as Barry Manilow would say, feelings.
As for the evidence against Blake, I heard somewhere yesterday that he'd been found with gunpowder residue on his hands. That may not be a smoking gun, but it might be good enough for me.
Posted by: George at March 17, 2005 11:26 AMoj: Courtesy compels restraint in framing a reply to the contention that an innocent man should welcome trial by jurors satisfied by such evidence. It is well understood that by prosecutors that it is almost as easy to frame an innocent man as it is a guilty one. As Solzhenitsyn tells us in Gulag Archepelago, when they need a conviction, "YOU'LL DO!"
Zero forensics, shaky snitches, and you think you would have nothing to worry about. The ethical standard for a prosecution is probable cause, not reasonable doubt. Have I ever gotten a guilty verdict on a defendant or military accused whom I would have acquitted if a juror or court member? You betcha dupa.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 17, 2005 12:04 PM
Perhaps not, but the legal system is.
Posted by: ghostcat at March 17, 2005 7:50 PMWhen you're a Little Rascal, you can get away with just about anything. Blake played the pathetic druggie loser to the hilt, you couldn't help feeling sorry for him. The deceased was easily depicted as a gold-digging bimbo, a type we know is very rare in Hollywood.
Lou, once again you hit the nail on the head. OJ, as an old law professor friend said to me 'If you want justice, go to divinity school. This is the law we're talking about.'