There were witnesses who claimed he tried to hire them to kill her. Plus, gunshot residue was found on Blake's hands.
-
The_Dougster — 9 years ago(May 26, 2016 02:59 PM)
You can believe what you want, but in the perception of the courts, it means everything. What's not impressive is when the prosecutors claim to have "star" witnesses who are unreliable and of a shady character.
Again, who
would
someone like Blake try to hire to kill his wife? Guys he met at choir practice? I admit that the "shady character" thing can be a problem for the prosecution but it hardly makes Blake innocent. So, the fact that people testified that he tried to hire the5b4m to kill his wife, not to mention that his own attorney admitted that he had motive, makes your claim that "they had zilch on him" rather dubious. -
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 26, 2016 05:59 PM)
So, the fact that people testified that he tried to hire them to kill his wife, not to mention that his own attorney admitted that he had motive, makes your claim that "they had zilch on him" rather dubious.
Again, as already stated, you're presenting a very weak argument. It doesn't matter, the shady characters who testified weren't credible, the end. I didn't say they were supposed to be stand up citizens, or had to be, they simply weren't believable in the court of law. Anyone can have the motive to kill their spouse. I could probably think of numerous reasons to kill someone, that proves nothing. He was found not liable for a reason, my claim "they had zilch on him" st16d0ill holds true. They didn't have anything to work with from the onset. It was simply a show trial. The persecution had nothing convincing, zero, nada, zilch, on him. As much you like to think the exposed story of the witnesses, and a trivial motive as proof, it really isn't condemning at all. They had more on OJ and Casey Anthony than they did Blake.
It was honestly one of the weakest cases I've ever seen. They should be apologetic for keeping the man locked up for so long with such rubbish "evidence". -
The_Dougster — 9 years ago(May 26, 2016 09:47 PM)
It doesn't matter, the shady characters who testified weren't credible, the end.
That's subjective. Credible to
who
? The jury? Apparently not. That doesn't automatically make him innocent or validate your argument that they had zilch on him.
I didn't say they were supposed to be stand up citizens, or had to be, they simply weren't believable in the court of law.
Apparently not to the jurors in this case. Same argument, same response from me. C'mon, man. No point in either of us just repeating the same thing over and over again. I have a feeling we'll have to end up agreeing to disagree on this. No big deal really. Discussing this is fine but it's not like anything written on these boards is going to
affect
anything in any substantial way.
Anyone can have the motive to kill their spouse. I could probably think of numerous reasons to kill someone, that proves nothing.
Do you really
believe
that? Anybody whose spouse turns up murdered should be under an equal amount of suspicion? Get real!
They had more on OJ and Casey Anthony than they did Blake.
SO?
Two people guilty as fck who got acquitted?
This
argument points towards his innocence?
It was honestly one of the weakest cases I've ever seen. They should be apologetic for keeping the man locked up for so long with such rubbish "evidence".
You're entitled to your opinion. I guess the jury in the civil trial was full of idiots then? That verdict certainly doesn't prove he's guilty but does put your "they should be apologetic" spiel into question, to say the least. -
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 27, 2016 12:46 AM)
SO? Two people guilty as fck who got acquitted? This argument points towards his innocence?
You're not getting the scope of my comparison. My point being, those two had much more evidence connecting them to the crime than Blake and even they weren't found guilty. You think the reasons you gave me are substantial enough to convict? The sparse gun residue (Blake owned many guns, it's to be expected), the motive to kill (if my girlfriend died of from a gunshot tonight in my house, I'm sure someone could pin down a motive on why I might have caused her death), and the testimony of witnesses who are perceived criminals that could make up any cock-and-bull story? Does that mean he's innocent, no, but there really isn't nothing that would stick when analyzed closely.
As for the civil trial, I'm not familiar enough to say one way or another. Do I think he's innocent? I don't really know, I think he had a hand in her death or at least had some knowledge of it. -
The_Dougster — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 08:15 AM)
OK, this is basically us repeating the same thing over and over again. I also think he had a hand in her death. I can't say whether or not the verdict in the criminal trial was correct because I saw none of it. In the O.J. Simpson trial, I followed it enough to see that he was clearly guilty, the jury's verdict notwithstanding. I watched it until I got so sick of it that it's with reservation that I even bring it up
now
! I'm
certainly
not watching any of that mini-series they're showing about it now! Back to Blake, what I don't get is how you've seen enough evidence to think he had a hand in his wife's death but you think "they had zilch" on him. You think the legal system owes him an
apology
! Did I read you correctly there? And this spiel you're giving me about motive is pretty silly. The boyfriend or husband are not always charged with murder in cases like these. Blake's attorney admitted that he had motive to
MURDER HER
. I think you're confused about motive here. You're acting like anyone who
EVER
fought with their significant other has inherent motive to
KILL THEM
! As far as "the testimony of witnesses who are perceived criminals" goes, we've been through that over and over again. The title of this thread is "Think he did it?". You say you believe he had a hand in it, yet at the same time you call it one of the weakest cases ever brought to trial. Surely you can see the contradictions in your argument. -
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 06:50 PM)
You say you believe he had a hand in it, yet at the same time you call it one of the weakest cases ever brought to trial. Surely you can see the contradictions in your argument.
It wab68s a weak case. Doesn't mean I think he's innocent, just indicates the evidence seem very inadequate. I don't mind if he did it or not, she's one less gold digger in the world. -
The_Dougster — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 08:36 PM)
There are many annoying or otherwise undesirable characteristics displayed by certain people. That doesn't mean their lives are worthless and/or they don't deserve justice when something like this happens? So, basically, you're saying you don't care
who
killed this woman and you're glad she's dead. Is that about right? -
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 30, 2016 02:23 PM)
I'm not trying to be funny at all. Why should I or anyone else sympathize with her when she used her life to scheme others out of money? Women like her that could give a sh!t less about anyone but themselves don't merit sympathy. She contributed nothing positive that I can tell. She was too lazy to find a real job and expected a man to pay for her extravagant lifestyle. She manipulated others for her own benefit, not someone I would waste my compassion on.
-
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 05:01 AM)
Have I not made it clear by now that I could care less? Why should it bother me? She was a stranger that played with fire and it came back and bit her in the ass. I could understand if it was tragic, but I don't consider it that unfortunate. Even if he did kill her I doubt he'll do it again. I say thumbs up, one less gold digging whore in the world. Now if others would follow lead and whack the rest of em'
. -
The_Dougster — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 05:39 PM)
Yeah, you've made it clear. I just wasn't sure if this was dead serious or was to be taken "tongue-in-cheek". That's pretty cold that you don't think that even a gold-digger deserves some kind of justice. Why should it bother you?
Maybe
because being a gold-digger isn't a capital offense. Just sayin, man! Even a "gold digging whore" deserves
some
justice. -
GetOffMyLawn — 9 years ago(May 31, 2016 08:12 PM)
I know it may seem a little harsh but that's how I feel
. Outside of family and close friends, people's death never affected me unless it was innocent children being murdered or molested and the elderly being mistreated. -
gs-web — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 11:12 AM)
My opinion is that most people don't start committing murders when they are in their mid 60s. He is an actor and the public confused his acting with who he really was as a man. In one of those highly publicized cases that was gone over and over with a fine tooth comb, Blake was never found to have been abusive, to have beat anyone, molested anyone, or done anything more than just having an abrasive personality here and there.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Robert Blake had not lived a life filled with scams and problems. His dead wife, though, had been a scam artist that had trapped him in a marriage he didn't want. He married her out of love for that baby. She could have been murdered by any number of men, because she had scammed and cheated many, many men.
Bonnie's children, of course, don't want to think of their mother in that light, so they have pretty much rewritten history to make their mother faultless and Blake the boogie man. Its really a shame all of this has happened. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial and then lost everything he ever earned in a career that lasted longer than 50 years. -
prolia705 — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 08:15 PM)
that is what I think too.
he hired somebody,that is why there was no gun residue evidence.
Furthermore he didn't even want the baby and told Bonnie to abort it.
He is as guilty as the civil jury said he was.
And dat's the name of dat tune! You can take dat to the bank!