by Sunspot 61 Replies latest social current
Let's see if I have this right. Here in the good old USA, if you are rich or famous and you are accused of murder, you are automatically guilty. And if you have enough money to hire a decent lawyer, then this makes you guilty, too. Who of us, if accused of murder would not hire a good lawyer if we could afford it? Murder is a very serious charge and someone accused of it needs to hire the best lawyer that they can afford, especially if they are innocent.
Good point! Make sense to me.
M'
Geeeeeeee now I'm convinced he didn't do it ................................ Where would he be if he had to take the stand and didn't have a lawyer ?
Good point! Make sense to me.
M'
Thank you, Mercurious.
Where would he be if he had to take the stand and didn't have a lawyer ?
No one should have to take the stand with out a lawyer. Whether it is someone unknown and poor or someone with money who is famous, everyone should have a competent attorney when facing serious charges.
Wow! I cannot believe how many of you think RB is innocent. I believe he is 100% guilty of at least hiring someone to kill his wife, if not doing it himself.
<br><br> And so what if this lady was scum. She didn't try to kill him or his family. She was extorting money and threatening to keep his daughter from him. Neither of which is enough to justify cold-blooded murder!
<br><br> With enough money to get him out of murder he could have just as easily taken his daughter away from his wife LEGALLY.
<br><br> Instead he chose to murder the mother of his child whom he claimed to love. He is a selfish, psyco-path muderer and it is a shame that money and fame excuses him and others like him.
<br><br> Unfortunately too many people are caught up in celebrity and think that these celebs can do no wrong.
<br><br>
There's a great analysis in a recent LA Times about how popular TV shows like CSI are educating viewers and potential jurors about forensic evidence. It points out that people now know about forensic crime detection and expect there to be an abundance of evidence pointing to guilt or innocence. The result is that some juries, most notably the one that freed Blake, are now holding the prosecution to a historically high standard of evidential proof and ignoring the circumstantial evidence which has long been a critical ingredient in jury judgments. Whether this is good or bad, I can't say.
Given that, the subject line for this thread ought to be: Robert Blake Found Not That Guilty!
The result is that some juries, most notably the one that freed Blake, are now holding the prosecution to a historically high standard of evidential proof and ignoring the circumstantial evidence which has long been a critical ingredient in jury judgments.
WL,
The fact that these shows are educating the general public is a "plus". IMHO. They know about Gunshot Residue (and complete lack OF it), and Bloodspatter, etc and ever so many details that were never spoken of beyond the forensics labs until now.
THAT was where the crux of the case sat---and all of these things were non-existant. All the sleazy drug-soaked thugs on the Witness stand didn't help in the credibility department either.
Granted, Blake hung with an odd crowd, but it doesn't make him a murderer.
The jury took their job very seriously by the amount of time they deliberated......and their verdict was a just one.
Annie
This is one case where I wouldn't feel bad about convicting based on circumstantial evidence. Blake's story was so rediculous! He asked people to kill his wife. He was at the scene when she died. He said he went back to the restaraunt for his gun and she was killed then. WOW!!! Unbelievable!!! A man threatens to kill his wife, asks people to do it for him and then she gets killed while he walks away for a few minutes. If his alibi was that he was out of town or not with her I would understand not convicting based on circumstantial evidence alone. But he was there and conveniently walked away while she was killed. He planned it and maybe didn't do it himself but again, I would have convicted him. And I would not have lost one bit of sleep over it. Just My Humble Opinion. :)
Just My Humble Opinion. :)
Sandy,
If we all had the same opinion this board would be so boring!!!
BTW------ HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
hugs,
Annie
Thanks Sunspot. My actual B-Day is tomorrow 3-20!!!
The good thing here is that Blake has been acquitted. Some of us think this is the right verdict. We are very happy for him and his daughters. He can't be tried again for it would be double jeopardy. This is one very nice thing that has happened lately.
Forensic evidence is very hard to clean up and hide when done in secret. This murder happened in public.
