Sir William
New member
12 people. They don't believe he did it. Odd case. Comments?
Robert Blake-NOT Guilty!
- Thread starter Sir William
- Start date
kennybs plbg
New member
The media painted the target on Blake, wipped up by everything but facts. If the media treated the O.J. case the same way, Simpson would still be swinging from an overpass in L.A.
kenny b
kenny b
WillBrayjr
Moderator
Money talks and Bull#$!% walks. I watched the verdict live, Blake all most had a heart attack when he was found not guilty.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
God forbid, one of us should be accused of shooting someone, with a gun other than the one we're carrying, which is later found to lack any fingerprints, while tests fail to show any powder residue on our hands......
I'd kinda hope the jury finds us Not Guilty. And I'd imagine, most of us would near faint at the verdict. Whether Blake killed her or not, the case was pure weak. The verdict was the only one a jury could have rendered.
Rich
I'd kinda hope the jury finds us Not Guilty. And I'd imagine, most of us would near faint at the verdict. Whether Blake killed her or not, the case was pure weak. The verdict was the only one a jury could have rendered.
Rich
Struckin Fuggle
Moderator
Agreed ... no way could they convict on that evidence.
Is he guilty? I dunno. Did they have enough to prove he was guilty? No way. I saw his reaction also ... it's obvious he expected a different verdict.
Don't get us started on OJ, what an abortion that was.
Is he guilty? I dunno. Did they have enough to prove he was guilty? No way. I saw his reaction also ... it's obvious he expected a different verdict.
Don't get us started on OJ, what an abortion that was.
Struckin Fuggle
Moderator
Bill, there's residue on your hands also ... did you kill her? 
Presented evidence had more holes than [insert pithy simile here].
11 to 1 ... not exactly a close verdict.
Presented evidence had more holes than [insert pithy simile here].
11 to 1 ... not exactly a close verdict.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
Did he do it? Probably, but no matter. Jury found him not guilty, because the state couldn't show convincing evidence. Verdict was proper.
I'd rather see the occasional guilty walk free, than have a whole lot of innocent folks in jail, just because the state's burden of proof was eased.
I'd rather see the occasional guilty walk free, than have a whole lot of innocent folks in jail, just because the state's burden of proof was eased.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
You're in good company, Marko.Marko Kloos said:
it is very easy to make a judgement about someone or something we have no personal contact or firsthand knowlege about based on what "facts" we are presented by the media.
i truly feel sorry for anyone on the receiving end of this circus, guilty or not. the general public, in general, will believe anything that the tv tells them, and will make a big deal about anything the tv tells them is a big deal.
Unique 5.7
New member
NEXT UP: Michael J!
The hard evidence here doesn't look so good for conviction, either. If he gets convicted, well, "advertise" yourself as a pedophile and people may believe you.
The hard evidence here doesn't look so good for conviction, either. If he gets convicted, well, "advertise" yourself as a pedophile and people may believe you.
Lessee.
He threatens his wife with death on more than one occasion as she has threatened to leave him (as in divorce with all the $$$ involved and lengthy legal implications, particularly regarding child custody).
He commits acts of spousal abuse upon her person.
He solicits her murder from among any number of physically capable cohorts (movie stuntmen).
He is unsuccessful in his solicitations.
He dines out with his wife but parks some distance away instead of the parking lot.
He escorts his wife to the car after dinner but says he must return to the restaurant because he "left his gun there".
He returns to his car to find his wife dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
Police recover a WWII era P-38 9mm handgun in a dumpster near the vehicle. It later proves to be the murder weapon.
He owned such a weapon which has gone missing.
No one else in the known world has a motive to end her life.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A COMPLETE MESS OF THIS CASE? I guess a completely incompetent DA.
And as Robert Blake himself used to say in that old TV show, Beretta, he starred in "...An' dat's da name a dat tune!"
He threatens his wife with death on more than one occasion as she has threatened to leave him (as in divorce with all the $$$ involved and lengthy legal implications, particularly regarding child custody).
He commits acts of spousal abuse upon her person.
He solicits her murder from among any number of physically capable cohorts (movie stuntmen).
He is unsuccessful in his solicitations.
He dines out with his wife but parks some distance away instead of the parking lot.
He escorts his wife to the car after dinner but says he must return to the restaurant because he "left his gun there".
He returns to his car to find his wife dead from a gunshot wound to the head.
Police recover a WWII era P-38 9mm handgun in a dumpster near the vehicle. It later proves to be the murder weapon.
He owned such a weapon which has gone missing.
No one else in the known world has a motive to end her life.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A COMPLETE MESS OF THIS CASE? I guess a completely incompetent DA.
And as Robert Blake himself used to say in that old TV show, Beretta, he starred in "...An' dat's da name a dat tune!"
Just my .02 cents here: Do you think if Blake had been a poor person with a slight smudge or two in his history AND didn't have millions to pay for lawyers, would he still receive this freedom? I just wonder and hope someone can tell me what he or she thinks? If the evidence was so very weak why did this go to court? I think I heard something to the fact that Blake has been on a tracking device for 3 years. What and how can such weak evidence cause a tracking device to be placed on a citizen? Is that a court ordered placement? Did the media get it wrong when they reported Blake had tried to hire a hit on his wife 2 times? Not too sure........ Help me out........Thanks 
Rojoe67, the point i am trying to make is that folks are on trial for murder all the time. only a select few end up being the subject of a thread on a firearm related forum.
Why? because the tv told us that this murder trial in particular is more important than any of the others. mostly when it is a celebrity, who is known because of tv ...
The other point i am trying to make is that many believe in someones guilt or innocence based soley on what the tv tells them. if they actually saw the evidence, the police reports, the testimony, as the jury does, perhaps their tune would be different. armchair jurors / judges / executioners, if you will.
Why? because the tv told us that this murder trial in particular is more important than any of the others. mostly when it is a celebrity, who is known because of tv ...
The other point i am trying to make is that many believe in someones guilt or innocence based soley on what the tv tells them. if they actually saw the evidence, the police reports, the testimony, as the jury does, perhaps their tune would be different. armchair jurors / judges / executioners, if you will.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
You're kinda making redhawk's point here. Are you suggesting that everyone indicted by a Grand Jury is "probably guilty"?Rojoe67 said:
Rich
hmmm...rich guy kills wife, goes free, not so rich guy kills wife, gets death penalty.
I know that is an over simplification of things, but it seems all too damn common.
I did not follow either trial closely, hardly at all for that matter because I knew that this would be the most likely outcome. I wonder if Blake is going to put out a rewards to try and catch the real killer?
I know that is an over simplification of things, but it seems all too damn common.
I did not follow either trial closely, hardly at all for that matter because I knew that this would be the most likely outcome. I wonder if Blake is going to put out a rewards to try and catch the real killer?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Or.....
hmmmm....rich guy kills wife, goes free [gets TV coverage for 3 years]; not so rich guy kills wife, goes free [gets no TV coverage] = Rich Guys must be guilty.
Or.....hmmm...rich guy kills wife gets death penalty [gets TV coverage for 3 years], not so rich guy kills wife, goes free [gets no TV coverage]= Rich Guys must be guilty.
Redhawk already made the telling point......be careful of "experience" selectively created for you by the media....and personal envy at "rich guys".
Rich
novus collectus
Moderator
I've known people like his dead wife all my life and know that she was probably killed by someone else. If he really abused her then he would have lost his gun, much more his CCW. The residue could have easily gotten on his hands if he touched his uncleaned gun or its holster in the restaurant. The police just had to do a lab test on the powder residue on his hands and match it with the powder residue on her head. They may have done this but "forgot" to put it into evidence. He had no blood spatter on him at all and he only had five minutes unseen. This is not enough time to change clothes, hide a gun and walk to the restaurant (in my opinion of course). The attorney for the older daughter claims that there is no way for anyone to get blood spatter on them because she was in the car. The only way that would be true is if he shot her from a long distance or through the window at a shorter distance. Cops would've mentioned that.
She was a bad person and a lot of people would have wanted her dead. She was a liar, been charged with blackmail in the past, and slept with three celebrities (that we know of) at the same time just so she could get pregnant with one of their kids. She told all three that it was theirs and threatened all three. Blake is the only one to match though. Anyone of her many enemies that had more reason to kill her could have followed her and Blake for a day or so waiting for the right moment to kill her when she was alone.
But, guilty or innocent, the rest of us would have gone to jail because we didn't have the money to bring out all the facts and to blow the DA's weak evidence out of the water.
Just my thoughts. I have been convinced to change my mind in the past though.
She was a bad person and a lot of people would have wanted her dead. She was a liar, been charged with blackmail in the past, and slept with three celebrities (that we know of) at the same time just so she could get pregnant with one of their kids. She told all three that it was theirs and threatened all three. Blake is the only one to match though. Anyone of her many enemies that had more reason to kill her could have followed her and Blake for a day or so waiting for the right moment to kill her when she was alone.
But, guilty or innocent, the rest of us would have gone to jail because we didn't have the money to bring out all the facts and to blow the DA's weak evidence out of the water.
Just my thoughts. I have been convinced to change my mind in the past though.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
novus-
Home run.
I've no question that money buys a better defense than poverty. It buys better food, better education, better cars, better homes....you name it. But in this Age of the Common Man, we assume that all these things are somehow "unequal"...they're not.
This is the Way of Life....unfair; seldom unequal.
If he EARNED the personal dollars to "buy" him the best possible defense, good on him. The rest of us can't afford to hire nine investigators and a team of attorneys for every impoverished person accused of a capital crime...that's sad. But it's hardly unjust.
And besides....at a $10 Million defense, he claims he's now broke. I believe him. Hardly a cake-walk facing this 71 year old guy.
Rich
Home run.
I've no question that money buys a better defense than poverty. It buys better food, better education, better cars, better homes....you name it. But in this Age of the Common Man, we assume that all these things are somehow "unequal"...they're not.
This is the Way of Life....unfair; seldom unequal.
If he EARNED the personal dollars to "buy" him the best possible defense, good on him. The rest of us can't afford to hire nine investigators and a team of attorneys for every impoverished person accused of a capital crime...that's sad. But it's hardly unjust.
And besides....at a $10 Million defense, he claims he's now broke. I believe him. Hardly a cake-walk facing this 71 year old guy.
Rich