Robert Blake: Not Guilty

[melon]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/blake.trial.ap/index.html

What a busy day in the court system!

Melon

 

[deep]

well,

i did not follow this case either


i hope he can get on with his life

 

[Judah]

Oh good. Maybe he and O.J. can now join forces to look for the real killers of their wives.

 

[melon]

It was, essentially, a circumstantial case. They had no hard evidence at all. Circumstantial cases, very often, end up in acquittals.

Melon

 

[Macfistowannabe]

well,

i did not follow this case either

i hope he can get on with his life

Yep.

 

[Judah]

It was, essentially, a circumstantial case. They had no hard evidence at all. Circumstantial cases, very often, end up in acquittals.

Melon

Yeah...same thing here in Vancouver today, when two suspects in the Air India bombing case (1985 bombing of airplane that killed 329 people over the Atlantic) were found not guilty. 20 years and millions of dollars of investigation and no final resolution. Circumstantial evidence and dodgy prosecution witnesses.

 

[jay canseco]

It was, essentially, a circumstantial case. They had no hard evidence at all. Circumstantial cases, very often, end up in acquittals.

Melon

But sometimes, if the defendant looks really really mean, ends in the death penalty.

 

[nbcrusader]

But sometimes, if the defendant looks really really mean, ends in the death penalty.

right........


Melon is correct. This was build on very weak circumstantial evidence. The strongest part of the prosecution's case was Blake's motive.

 

[tiny dancer]

Just heard.

 

[Tech]

wow also just heard. Prosecution needed a stronger case!

 

[all_i_want]

they didnt really have any evidence though. the only witnesses they brought were a couple of junkies. i think he was guilty.

on another note, another guy who killed his wife (and his child) scott peterson, was sentenced to death the other day. he will spend approximately 20 years in jail before his execution will be considered.

air india bombing was another legal event, and one of the sons of the victims said 'apparently its ok to blow up planes in canada!'

 

[verte76]

OK, not guilty, weak case by the prosecution. It's fine with me, that's the way our courts are supposed to work.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think he did it or hired someone else to do it . The jury said the witnesses had no credibility.

They showed him on the news playing guitar outside the courtroom and complaining that he's broke

 

[U2Kitten]

Oh good. Maybe he and O.J. can now join forces to look for the real killers of their wives.

and pool their money for a reward!

 

[jay canseco]

I didn't follow this case or the Peterson case at all. We've been so saturated with the details in the news, that I have picked up on the basics. Was the Peterson case less circumstantial than the Blake case?

 

[U2Kitten]

Peterson was not a rich man. Blake and OJ (and the Ramseys) are

but all are equally guilty

 

[BAW]

Peterson was not a rich man. Blake and OJ (and the Ramseys) are

but all are equally guilty

Peterson may not be rich in the sense that OJ and Blake are but he led a very privileged life and he was represented by a high powered, rich man's attorney.

I think to the public and the jurors, Laci Peterson was a much more sympathetic victim than Nicole Simpson and Bonny Bakely. Nicole Simpson was portrayed as a fast living drug abuser who tormented OJ with other men and Bonny Bakely as a con woman/grifter who trapped Blake by getting pregnant...Laci was portrayed as a beautiful expectant mother who by all accounts led an upstanding life.

That, along with a not-so-great presentation of the cases by the prosecutors probably had a lot to do with outcomes of both.

 

[diamond]

i think Blake did it.

db9

 

[BAW]

I think he did it too...maybe not by his own hand but he did it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

they didnt really have any evidence though. the only witnesses they brought were a couple of junkies. i think he was guilty.

That's the thing though. If he's guilty, where's the proof? Where's the evidence?

 

[the iron horse]

I did follow the case.

I am fan of the 30s/40s "Our Gang" series. Blake was in some good feature films as a child and made some good films as an adult.

He's always been a bit of a rebel. (not the typical "BOW AT MY FEET I"M A STAR" ego)


I think the jury made the right verdict. There was no evidence that connected him to the murder. Without going into the story, his wife did have quite a shady past and did have enemies.


Blake showed his rebel side after the verdict by walking out with his lawyers after the verdict smoking a cigarette into the California open air and sun.

 

[all_i_want]

That's the thing though. If he's guilty, where's the proof? Where's the evidence?

the guy was asking around to contract someone to kill his wife, but youre right, there wasnt enough evidence. and it shouldnt be a surprise that he would try to get junkies to kill his wife, since their testimonies would be incredible.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- District Attorney Steve Cooley says Robert Blake was "guilty as sin" and the jurors who acquitted him of murder were "incredibly stupid."

A jury last week found the former "Baretta" star not guilty in the 2001 slaying of his wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, who was shot in a car outside a restaurant where the couple had dined.

Jurors acquitted Blake of one murder count as well as one count of solicitation of murder. They deadlocked on a second solicitation count, with the vote 11-1 in favor of a not-guilty verdict.

"Quite frankly, based on my review of the evidence, he is as guilty as sin. He is a miserable human being," Cooley said Wednesday.

Blake's attorney, M. Gerald Schwartzbach, said the district attorney's attack on the jurors was inappropriate and "small-minded."

Juror Chuck Safko said: "To hear him say we aren't a smart jury is sour grapes. They didn't have a good case. Their case was built around witnesses who weren't truthful."