Comments on: Actor Robert Blake Not Guilty of Murdering His Wife

By: Ol' BC

Ol' BC — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 18:33:26 +0000

I don’t know much about Blake’s trial, but I did watch OJ’s almost from beginning to end as I was off work following surgery. OJ got off because the LAPD tried to frame him, or at least it appeared as so. The glove had very little to do with it. Anyone on that jury who voted guilty obviously was sleeping through the testimonies.

By: rich glasgow

rich glasgow — Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:54:25 +0000

SNL last nite said on their ‘news update’ that now O.J. has a new golf partner.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:58:54 +0000

AND they had the evidence of the murder weapon being right next to the defendant’s vehicle where the body was and where the crime occurred and the defendant placed at the crime scene AND a concrete motive. Sooooo I ask the following questions. Was this jury also racist, dumb and did it ignore the mountain of evidence?

The members of the OJ jury want to know. Fair question right? I mean Robert Black received a jury of his peers just like OJ supposedly was entitled to and received. This jury made a decision based on the “evidence” too. Sooooooo what is the difference here?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Dart to Sean Hannity, my friend for getting caught being over zealous in his prediction of and hype of the guilty verdict he was so sure to come during his radio show this afternoon. Kudos to Brian Kilmeade for not joining Steve Doocy and one of the Fox and Friends Blondes du jour in promoting the false view that somehow the Michael Jackson accuser rehabilitated himself yesterday by trying to explain away HIS LIES about what alleges happened. Way to go Brian for taking the FAIR AND BALANCED neutral wait and see position.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:08:58 +0000

Montie, Agreed.
Jab, Shannon K
However, burden of proof is still required, and the prosecution didn’t remove reasonable doubt.
Blakes wife was no angel herself, and the jury heard about her past, as well as Blake’s. It isn’t a stretch to imagine that a suppossed grifter might have an enemy or three out there. And that one of them finally caught up to her AND got the cajones to off her.
Combine that with the lack of HARD evidence against Blake, and you’ve got reasonable doubt.

By: Shannon K

Shannon K — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:45:31 +0000

Jab, I think you’ve got something. Wasn’t a juror from some recent big trial (Peterson’s?) dismissed because she was trying to play Jessica Fletcher in the jury room and on her own? She seemed to be under the impression that she could solve what the police hadn’t.

By: DC-MD GOPer

DC-MD GOPer — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:59:54 +0000

A Hollywood writer I know (mainly mystery, spy, genre) claims that Blake found his wife, called his criminal attorney, went back into the restaurant, drank 2 glasses of water, then vomited in his hands. According to this writer, the rankest crime writers know that stomach acid neutralizes the evidence of gunpowder on the hands. Hmmm.

I agree that he got away with murdering the mother of his child, just as OJ Simpscum did.

By: stan

stan — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:00:34 +0000

Redbeard,

I’m with you…apples and oranges.

By: Montie

Montie — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:48:23 +0000

Jab,

The premise of the obvious suspect being innocent and the real criminal being someone you least suspect has always made good TV, it goes clear back to “Perry Mason” days. Reality however, more strongly favors the obvious suspect being the actual suspect, at least in my experience.

By: jab

jab — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:20:19 +0000

Here’s a point I’ve never seen addressed:

Shows such as Law & Order, CSI, The Practice, etc…. are
insanely, wildly popular. In many of these shows, the obvious suspect to whom most of the evidence points is almost always innocent… the real criminal is always someone you least suspect… I admit I love these shows, they are suspenseful… but at the same time, I wonder how this affects the public at large… are we overly skeptical of the obvious evidence and all too willing to believe far-out possibilities? Are we easily convinced that almost any wild theory is sufficient grounds for us to have “reasonable doubt?”

By: J. Peden

J. Peden — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:18:03 +0000

Now they’re going to sue Blake for “responsibility”. Any doubt what the outcome will be, since we all “know” he did it anyway? But even when it couldn’t be proven to reasonable people? Then tell me it’s not double jeapordy. And that it’s ok to do because it’s not “criminal”. Right: he’s not guilty, but loses all his money. Now, that’s fair.

Civil suits in the face of a “not guilty” finding are an abomination, compounded by the 6-5 rule. What b.s.. Oh, and the noble plaintiffs are not in it for the money, but only to punish the not quilty? Right, and qed. Did I mention I’m leaked?

By: JackLewis.net

JackLewis.net — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:42:49 +0000

Law and order
Scott Peterson gets bad news. Robert Blake gets good news. But if we keep redefining crime, it eventually may not…

By: Mike Heinz

Mike Heinz — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:29:10 +0000

I’ve never understood people’s willingness to convict others of crimes based on what they read in the papers.

If the jury didn’t feel certain that he did it (or OJ, for that matter) shouldn’t you at least feel *some* doubt about his guild or innocence?

What’s the alternative? That a washed-up out-of-work actor managed to derail justice through some sort of celebrity magic? If jurors are so easily seduced, why bother having jury trials at all?

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:33:14 +0000

Sorry, The law states that the prosecuters have to prove he did it. Not he has to prove he didn’t (look at one of the earlier posts). They couldn’t prove it. He walked. The system worked as stated.

OJ is the same thing. I believe he did it. But the team of prosecution they had in his case messed up so bad it’s not funny.

By: RedBeard

RedBeard — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:32:00 +0000

According to an analysis by Ron Kuby, a far left attorney and a guy who wouldn’t hesitate to do the “another rich guy gets off” deal if he could, the two cases (O.J. and Blake) are not at all the same. He said the physical evidence in the O.J. trial was overwhelming, but in the Blake case the evidence was very weak, almost all circumstantial. Apples and oranges.

By: DLE

DLE — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:19:36 +0000

Let’s face it–in most cases like this, the best lawyers money can buy can turn any piece of solid evidence into jury doubt.

If you have enough money, you can stay out of jail no matter what you’ve done. People like you and me would be in the slammer, all other things being equal.