Robert Blake Not Guilty

clayj

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
Wow... I felt certain that they were going to hang him out to dry. Not guilty on 1st degree murder and on solicitation, and the jury was hung (11-1) on the third count... so Blake may not be entirely out of the woods, depending on whether the DA decides to pursue retrying him on that third count.
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
That's hard to believe he got off on all counts - not that I've been watching all that closely, but I thought it was fairly open and shut that he was involved, even if he didn't pull the trigger himself.

Another case of the "OJ's"? Or do most people think he really was innocent?
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
Just have to believe that the jury knows more about the case than we are aware. No matter what, he can't be retied for the first two counts. Pray that this isn't another OJ celebrity fiasco. What is the third count?
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
wdlove said:
Just have to believe that the jury knows more about the case than we are aware. No matter what, he can't be retied for the first two counts. Pray that this isn't another OJ celebrity fiasco. What is the third count?
Another solicitation count... and we don't know (the judge asked for it not to be said in the courtroom) whether the 11-1 was biased toward 11 guilty or 11 not guilty. Whichever way that swings will, no doubt, have an effect on whether Blake's going to have to face that charge again.

He really dodged a bullet (bad pun, sorry) here...
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Another case of celebrities getting away with murder, literally.


I was reading an article about this on ABC. They mentioned how there was no physical evidence, no murder weapon or anything tied to Blake, it was just all circumstansial. Well gee, who does that sound like? Scott Peterson, except he gets death and Blake gets off the hook since there's not enough physical evidence to convict him.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Doctor Q said:
Will it be safe for me to go out at night any more?
Hope not, someone should do to him what he did to his wife since the US legal system isn't capable of dealing out justice
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
I would like to hear more about his wife who was referred to as a con and had conned a few folks through the years???anyone know anything about what she did? what was her profession?
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
leekohler said:
Well, gee guys-isn't it possible he didn't do it? We are so cynical these days, ya know?
Is it possible he didn't do it? Sure, it's possible, and that's probably why he was acquitted. But as with the OJ Simpson trial, the preponderence of evidence pointed at him... that both men were acquitted points both to the skill of their defense attorneys AND the fact that juries in the Greater Los Angeles area seem to have a collective IQ of about 100 (per jury).

Cynicism is often the result of experience... we've seen too many people who were OBVIOUSLY guilty (e.g., OJ) get off scot free.
 

~loserman~

macrumors 6502a
yg17 said:
Another case of celebrities getting away with murder, literally.


I was reading an article about this on ABC. They mentioned how there was no physical evidence, no murder weapon or anything tied to Blake, it was just all circumstansial. Well gee, who does that sound like? Scott Peterson, except he gets death and Blake gets off the hook since there's not enough physical evidence to convict him.
How true.

The only thing I would add is did you ever hear the history of Blakes wife. Man was she scary.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
Trials are nice, but in the end there is only one judge that matters - and you don't meet that judge till you leave your mortal body behind.

What would be interesting is to see what someone like Peterson spent for defense and what Blake did.
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jan 14, 2005
7,473
180
visiting from downstream
Dont Hurt Me said:
I would like to hear more about his wife who was referred to as a con and had conned a few folks through the years???anyone know anything about what she did? what was her profession?
From MSNBC: Bakley had been married several times, had a record for mail fraud and made a living scamming men out of money with nude pictures of herself and promises of sex.
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
clayjohanson said:
From MSNBC: Bakley had been married several times, had a record for mail fraud and made a living scamming men out of money with nude pictures of herself and promises of sex.
She was out on parole when they married.

It could easily have been her past coming back to haunt her. Yes he had no alibi. Yes he had a gun that didn't match and a tiny amount of residue on his hands. But they found the gun that did it several blocks away without fingerprints etc. Yes he said to some rather rough and tumble people something along the lines of "I wish someone would kill that @#$@@" but these people had drug problems and convictions.

It could go both ways.

Oh the judge dismissed the charge the jury was deadlocked on so he is free free. With the possible exception of a civil case.

Before anyone gets to angry about him getting off consider he spent 3 years in jail for a crime he was acquitted of. He missed a lot of his daughters first 4 years of life. A child that he loves dearly and may not even know. It has also cost him most of the money he saved up after 60 years of hard work.
This was wrong. He was in jail for 11 months. He had been released on bail so presumably he could see his daughter. I had thought that he was held without bail. Ooops mea culpa. i'm a dummass
 

haiggy

macrumors 65816
Aug 20, 2003
1,309
51
Ontario, Canada
Totally off topic,

It's quite weird to see my name show up so many times in one forum. Seeing the thread name was enough of a shock.


Blake :p
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
clayjohanson said:
Is it possible he didn't do it? Sure, it's possible, and that's probably why he was acquitted. But as with the OJ Simpson trial, the preponderence of evidence pointed at him... that both men were acquitted points both to the skill of their defense attorneys AND the fact that juries in the Greater Los Angeles area seem to have a collective IQ of about 100 (per jury).

Cynicism is often the result of experience... we've seen too many people who were OBVIOUSLY guilty (e.g., OJ) get off scot free.
And the media spin these things like mad! There are many examples in which innocent people have been dragged through a trial and get aquitted-only to have there lives ruined because of the press. The evidence against Blake was circumstantial, not physical-therefore you can't convict him. The same thing should have happened in the Peterson trial. I find it very disturbing that we are now convicting people in the press and with circumstantial evidence. It's a very dangerous precedent.
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
leekohler said:
And the media spin these things like mad! There are many examples in which innocent people have been dragged through a trial and get aquitted-only to have there lives ruined because of the press. The evidence against Blake was circumstantial, not physical-therefore you can't convict him. The same thing should have happened in the Peterson trial. I find it very disturbing that we are now convicting people in the press and with circumstantial evidence. It's a very dangerous precedent.
You can convict on circumstantial evidence. The weight of the evidence was greater against Scott Peterson. There was some physical evidence as well. Blood and hair for instance. Additionally his alibi of fishing where the bodies were dumped doesn't hold much water.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
Doctor Q said:
He's a free man and he's in Los Angeles. Will it be safe for me to go out at night any more?
My answer is definitely yes, that is at least when it comes to Blake. If it turns out as in the OJ case at civil trial that he's guilty of this crime, the public is still safe. It would be a crime of passion. Just look at OJ, in his life nothing has occurred since.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Hard to convict a man on circumstantial evidence, unlike the OJ trial. :rolleyes: Travesty of justice.
 

~loserman~

macrumors 6502a
MongoTheGeek said:
You can convict on circumstantial evidence. The weight of the evidence was greater against Scott Peterson. There was some physical evidence as well. Blood and hair for instance. Additionally his alibi of fishing where the bodies were dumped doesn't hold much water.
No they never found any blood evidence other than Scott's.
They also only found 1 dark hair on his boat that might have been Laci's But I don't think it was ever proved.

In the end that case kind of wound up like this.
The prossecution didn't prove
When she died.
Where she died
Or how she died

But they did prove Scott is a habitual lier
And that he went fishing within a few miles of where her body washed up.
Somehow that was enough to convict.