Think he did it?
-
Liljan-2 — 20 years ago(July 29, 2005 06:04 AM)
I wouldn't like to think so, but only for sentimental reasons - "Baretta" is an old favourite of mine. But common sense tells me that there is enough circumstantial evidence to make his guilt likely.
Poor nations are hungry, and rich nations are proud; and pride and hunger will ever be at variance. - Jonathan Swift -
absolute213 — 20 years ago(August 02, 2005 09:02 PM)
The poster who said the following is correct:
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
I think if you are found not guilty of a capital crime you should be immune from civil lawsuits. A jury said Not Guilty, that means not guilty. A civil suit allows rumor and innuendo, hardly fair it seems.
Not guilty means not guilty. Frivilous civil suits such as the OJ civil trial with a biased judge and an overzealous, easily manipulated jury lead to unjust judgements that the innocent party, yes I said INNOCENT, should never have to pay.
Blake didn't do it, as OJ didn't do it also. They each had to spend their lifes work away to prove their innocence over a state that decides to spend too much of the taxpayers cash trying to put innocent people5b4 behind bars.
And to the person who wanted to know if Blake wanted to try to find the real killer. That would only cause problems due to the fact Blake would probably thank him from relieving him from the loveless marriage he was trapped in, and society would call him a "terrible man" for that and condemn him more than they already have. Blake just needs to go on with his life, look for work, and count his blessings.
- tdthomas16 (Sun May 15 2005 21:12:33 )
-
actorguy — 20 years ago(August 04, 2005 01:11 PM)
to all above. I'm not going to give an opinion of if he did or did not do the act at question. However I wanted to put my two cents in and say he was NOT found innocent. He was NOT found not guilty. He was aquitted of charges because there was a lack of evidence to prove he had anything to do with the crime. There is a big difference in all of these.
-
LadyGodiva1977 — 20 years ago(August 05, 2005 07:59 AM)
I Don't think he did it buti think he knows who did it or knows somthing about it he is just not saying but then again he morer than likely paid someone to do it actors could do somthing like that.hey if ya got the money i personally would go shopping but others choose to kill thier spouses
.. -
littleprettyone — 20 years ago(October 18, 2005 09:06 AM)
I've read the case, and I don't doubt he did it, just like OJ did. I hope they get the bastard in the civil case n take him for every penny he's got. And before someone jumps on this n5b4 says what bout the poor kid, that child should've bin taken away when her mother died.
Don't get me wrong, from what I've read, Bonny wasn't the greatest of people, but she didn't deserve what she got.
The Bride: You and I have unfinished business.
Bill: Baby, you ain't kidding. -
littleprettyone — 20 years ago(October 19, 2005 11:39 AM)
I know, the OJ money thing is an absolute disgrace. That guy is as guilty as they come, but then he crawls off to Florida where they can't touch his NFL pension. Bastard. I hope one day his kids realise what he did to their mother, and deal him out the harshest punishment of all by disowning him. He's scum.
The Bride: You and I have unfinished business.
Bill: Baby, you ain't kidding. -
SheBear — 20 years ago(November 03, 2005 08:40 AM)
Personally I don't think he did it. It's all a little too obvious you know? It seems the guy has always had a voliatile personality which could explain why he doesn't come off as the most sympathetic character. He never denied that he married Blakely strictly because of the baby so if he never loved her and grew to despise her when he found out about her past it stands to reason that he wouldn't be particularly saddened by her death and that he would be angered by being accused of something he didn't do. I don't believe in knocking the victim but in this case Blakely's past is incredibly relevant since her lifestyle led to MANY people that could have wanted her dead.
But aside from all that and more importantly - there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict him. -
marbleann — 20 years ago(October 21, 2005 09:05 PM)
I came over here because the person Robert Balke replaced in the Little Rascals died today and I wanted to check on something and I saw this. I think he did it. I believe one of the reasons he was not guilty is once again the DA blew it. They presented the case as a muder for hire case. The DA for some reason stuck with theory that Blake actually paid a few guys to kill his wife. But the problem was the people the DA thought were the hitmen were a bunch of guys that no o238ne could believe would be capbable of shooting decoy duck no less a real person. One was some guy that use to be a stunt man who might have been alive during the Revolutionary war. One was a hope to die dope fiend. I think no hit men were invloved and he shot his wife all by himself. Just like I think OJ killed his wife and the other guy by himself. I think he had to shoot her when he got back or shot her right before he left to retrieve his gun from the resturant. He just used another gun.
Even though I feel he and OJ are killers it is the DA'sb68 who seem to make these crazy glaring mistakes. We should really express our anger with them. Also I think in California the jury's seem to be very star struck. I still can't believe the way Michael Jackson got off either. But I think the combination of star struck juries and hasty DA's is a recipe for disaster for the People and success for the famous defendants. -
littleprettyone — 20 years ago(October 22, 2005 06:23 AM)
Totally agree with you marbleann. You made some excellent points there. I don't really have anything to add to what you said, because you summed it up well, but I just wanted to post to say I think you're right. The DA screwed up another one. These days it seems like you can slice up your wife and her friend, shoot her at alarmingly close range, or even abuse little boys, and as long as a jury will recognise you, you'll get off. It's an absolute disgrace.
The Bride: You and I have unfinished business.
Bill: Baby, you ain't kidding. -
marbleann — 20 years ago(October 22, 2005 02:34 PM)
Thanks. I live in NY and we have our problems with some jury's too, but I have never seen the idolitry California Jury's have for these celebs. When Russell Crowe threw that phone at the hotel clerk here the first thing I thought was he is stupider then I thought because if he wanted to assault a innocent person he should of waited until he got to California to do it because over here we do convict celebrities. Martha Stewart can attest to that. And there is no doubt in my mind that Crowe will go to jail if he doesn't take a plea. Everything was on video. In NY we think of movie stars to be spoiled brats. We tend to let the Mafia/gangster types off here, they are our equivilent to movie stars.