Think he did it?
-
amyjames615 — 20 years ago(November 20, 2005 08:09 PM)
I get it - and I understand. I just don't agree.
There's no "innocent" verdict. Guilty or not guilty. The "innocent until proven gulity" theory is not exercized today. We, the general population, are so ready to blame and hold responsible, we almost always feel if the authorities had enough "proof" to make an arrest, they must be guilty - and if they're found "not guilty," we usually think it's b/c the "got off," the prosecution didn't make a good case, someone lied for them, etc rarely do we think, "well, they must not have done it, then." We are definitely a "guilty, as charged" society. So, the fact that there is not an "innocent" verdict only proves my point.
There's no "Innocence Project" for civil suits. Think about how many people have been "proven guilty" only later to be exonerated b/c new evidence was able to prove they didn't do it. If the courts weren't able to find them guilty to begin with, it seems a travesty that they could later be found responsible in a civil suit.
Don't get me wrong, in many cases I think the "not guilty" verdict was wrong - they WERE guilty - however, the burden of proof is on prosecutors. If they FAIL to prove it "beyond a shadow of a doubt," it should be over. I believe that this is "double jeopardy" - just has a prettier name. -
XtroTerrestial — 20 years ago(June 06, 2005 05:33 PM)
It's so sad whenever a celebrity commits an unspeakable crime and always seems to get off with a slap on the wrist. Just because someone is a big name doesn't give them the right to go commit rape, assault, battery, murder and anything left unsaid. I remember years ago Christian Slater went to jail (I believe it was domestic abuse, I could be wrong) and not only got a suspended sentance (less than 6 months in jail), but was allowed to have cable and bring other personal items. He was even allowed to leave jail for the premeire of Hard Rain. So it seems that even if a celebrity goes to jail, it's like they are staying at a country club or something like that. It's just plain sickening.
"Meet me at the waterfront, after the social." Angela Baker, Sleepaway Camp -
Liljan-2 — 20 years ago(July 29, 2005 06:04 AM)
I wouldn't like to think so, but only for sentimental reasons - "Baretta" is an old favourite of mine. But common sense tells me that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make his guilt likely.
Poor nations are hungry, and rich nations are proud; and pride and hunger will ever be at variance. - Jonathan Swift -
absolute213 — 20 years ago(August 02, 2005 09:02 PM)
The poster who said the following is correct:
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
I think if you are found not guilty of a capital crime you should be immune from civil lawsuits. A jury said Not Guilty, that means not guilty. A civil suit allows rumor and innuendo, hardly fair it seems.
Not guilty means not guilty. Frivilous civil suits such as the OJ civil trial with a biased judge and an overzealous, easily manipulated jury lead to unjust judgements that the innocent party, yes I said INNOCENT, should never have to pay.
Blake didn't do it, as OJ didn't do it also. They each had to spend their lifes work away to prove their innocence over a state that decides to spend too much of the taxpayers cash trying to put innocent people5b4 behind bars.
And to the person who wanted to know if Blake wanted to try to find the real killer. That would only cause problems due to the fact Blake would probably thank him from relieving him from the loveless marriage he was trapped in, and society would call him a "terrible man" for that and condemn him more than they already have. Blake just needs to go on with his life, look for work, and count his blessings.
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
-
actorguy — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 01:11 PM)
to all above. I'm not going to give an opinion of if he did or did not do the act at question. However I wanted to put my two cents in and say he was NOT found innocent. He was NOT found not guilty. He was aquitted of charges because there was a lack of evidence to prove he had anything to do with the crime. There is a big difference in all of these.
-
LadyGodiva1977 — 20 years ago(August 05, 2005 07:59 AM)
I Don't think he did it buti think he knows who did it or knows somthing about it he is just not saying but then again he morer than likely paid someone to do it actors could do somthing like that.hey if ya got the money i personally would go shopping but others choose to kill thier spouses
.. -
littleprettyone — 20 years ago(October 18, 2005 09:06 AM)
I've read the case, and I don't doubt he did it, just like OJ did. I hope they get the bastard in the civil case n take him for every penny he's got. And before someone jumps on this n5b4 says what bout the poor kid, that child should've bin taken away when her mother died.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've read, Bonny wasn't the greatest of people, but she didn't deserve what she got.
The Bride: You and I have unfinished business.
Bill: Baby, you ain't kidding.