The Cynic

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Baretta Lives...Peterson Dies

Am I surprised? Not particularly. This was a strange case, a lot of sleaze involved on all sides and very early in the trial it was obvious that the prosecution didn't have any real substanial proof other than that it was a strange relationship. [CNN]

Some writers are already doing the quick O.J. comparison and I don't expect this judgment or the following months to cause the outrage that the O.J. case did because the networks never put their time into covering the case (especially when Scott Peterson is out there [Wash. Times]) and frankly Robert Blake isn't as big a star as O.J. and Blake doesn't have the carrot of a potentially lucrative civil trial to fall back on (although Blake will at least have a 6-digit judgment against him there).

So do *I* think he did it? I don't know. My opinion really doesn't matter, the opinion of jurors really doesn't matter. They aren't looking to be coaxed, they want to be convinced.

I remember back in 1995, I was living in Buffalo and I was on this "O.J. Panel" for a local access station. Buffalo was one of the few places that didn't equate the Simpson trial down racial lines. O.J. was a hero in Buffalo and I would say 90% of the city was happy to see him get off.

Well I'm at this panel. Only black person on the panel so immediately they were expecting me to have this shit-eating grin as if I'm getting some sort of salvation out of O.J.'s freedom. But I really never got a good feeling on the case (much like I felt when reading the transcripts on the Blake case).

Matter of fact I felt the same way on each:

They didn't do it alone or they brokered the execution of the murder.

They did it but they were also framed through sloppy policework.

They didn't do it.

One of those three things. So as the panel goes in its circle with the obligatory "What do you think" question and there were various answers and I said, the [prosecution] lost the case in the first week, everything after that was pure entertainment.

Why?

Well because they started catering more to public opinion rather than proving their case with the jury. That's the great thing about the judicial system -- it really doesn't matter what we think, it's supposed to be a fact-based procedure. The prosecution was so busy trying to rally the public with socks, shoes and gloves that they lost sight of the 12 people who really mattered.

The sad thing is that we'll never really know what happened because no one bothered to try O.J., he was merely hanging out in the courtroom because he had to be there to occasionally model pieces of clothing. It was a court trial for about six hours, then it became a fashion show, a circus, a soundbyte auction among other things. That's why the jury's decision came so quick and decisively.

The decision was correct. No one proved shit except that lawyers love to grandstand in front of cameras. Did O.J. do it? Hell he probably did but we don't judge people's lives in on a court of law based on what probably happened or what we think happened. You have to deliver the goods.

The Blake case was similar for the little that I saw of it, there was such a focus on this strange marriage and relationship. Yes, it was very odd but that has nothing to do with murder. So the prosecution had nothing more than townies and drug-addicts trying to convince a jury that a 70-year old man whacked his wife. No gun, no blood, no connections between one thing to another. Just posturing.

posted at 1:26 PM by Corey
|

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -