Posted: 3/16/2005 1:43:56 PM EDT
|
Not guilty on 2 counts Hung Jury on 1 count. He is free. |
|
Boy - they really fucked his life up. Probably knocked 10 years off his lifespan for all the time he was forced to spend in jail with no bail. He was locked up for over a year in jail with no bail until he was finally let out last year. If you don't do the crime, you'll still do the time... |
, not enough evidence
Common sense, and the fact that witnesses said he asked them about doing it. Oh, don't get me wrong, I have no need to see the fellow put back in jail, for he was found 'Not Guilty' by a jury of his peers. But he's about as innocent as OJ. Eric The(HollywoodNights)Hun 
|
Peterson will be freed on an appeal. The whole lot of these guys will be drinking rounds together in a few more years. I guess murder and child rape just keep getting easier. |
yeah him and OJ got screwed  |
Common sense... maybe. You are talking about a case in which the prosecution had not one shred of physical evidence and no eye witness. And your only witnesses on the solicitation to murder are on the very unreliable side at best. He might have done it but they had no provable case and still pushed it to the obvious result. |
Inadmissible evidence! "Common sense" has no place in this courtroom! 
Is that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' counselor? |
Produce ANY physical evidence or eyewitness to the crime and you MAY have a point. Otherwise - I'd REALLY hate to have people like you on a jury.
|
Sorry, but this is NO courtroom. Although you may refer to me as, 'Your Honor', if you wish! 
Always. The jurors looked at these low-life pieces of shiite and found them on about the same level as the defendant. Not worthy of belief. Everyone should take this verdict as good instruction: IF you ever decide to have your wife murdered, just make certain that the folks you hire are just a wee bit more objectionable than you are. That way, if it ever comes to court..... Eric The(IRestMyCase)Hun
|
+1 |
I must say I was suprised he didn't get convicted on the solicitation thing. Not suprised that he wasn't convicted of murder. I just get the feeling he did it, though there just wasn't the evidence needed, and I guess you can't deny that there were some doubts. Enough doubts for the jury apparently, anyway. Some of the witnesses were low-lifes, Blake is a low-life, and his wife seemed a low-life (may she rest in peace). The whole thing is sad. |
actually I would have voted to acquit both of them. Doesn't mean I feel sorry for him for the bit of time he did spend in jail. I would not convict either of them, but I have no problem with treating them like murderers for the rest of their lives. |
| Wasn't the keystone of Blake's defense that he wasn't there because he went home to get his gun? That's the most brilliant defense EVER! Was he charged in this proceeding with the solicitation as well as the actual murder? I don't see how a judge would allow such a prosecution to be brought. He should either be charged with the murder itself, or having someone else commit the murder, but not both. True, he may be guilty of something but it is the prosecution's burden to bring the appropriate charges and the evidence to support their case. |
|
Post from Dino -
'Both' of them? You mean to tell us that had you been on the OJ Jury you would have voted 'Not Guilty'? Why the 'F' would you have done that? There wasn't enough 'blood' evidence for you? There wasn't enough DNA evidence for you? Detective Mark Furman was nothing more than a lying racist because he uttered the 'N' word 15 years earlier? And his unbridled racism caused him to try and frame OJ? Explain this, please! If Detective Furman planted the glove, after illegally removing it from the crime scene at Nicole's house, how did he know that OJ had no concrete alibi for the entire day? How did Det. Furman not know that OJ would not pull up to his Brentwood mansion with then-Mayor Readen in the limo with him? And that the Mayor would have said that he had spent the entire day with him, never leaving his sight? 'Uh, Det. Furman, where did you say you found that glove, again?' Sheesh! What lunacy! Eric The(Astounded,AsAlways)Hun
|
|
The OJ case was lost when the LA County DA (Gallardo ?) moved the case downtown and when Judge Ito allowed the thing to be a media circus. I have never seen anyone, nor will we ever again, be acquitted with so much damning evidence brought against him. Innocent men don't run. |
1. If he's innocent, I'll eat your shorts (safe bet, we'll probably never know for sure. But change 'em every day just in case.  ).2. He is, according to the jury "Not Guilty" on 2 counts. Since they're hung on one count (anyone hear what it was) he may be re-tried. True story. My wife was on a jury that tried a guy for vehicular homicide who spent the afternoon in a bar, got in his car and, at high speed, rear ended a car with a man and his two grandchildren waiting at a red light after leaving Wednesday evening services at their church. During deliberation one dumbass on the jury reasoned, "Well, nothing we do here will bring those poor children back." (Talk about grounds for JUSTIFIABLE homicide). No way would she go for anything more than manslaughter. THAT'S what I mean about Innocent/Not Guilty. Sure, you are innocent until they prove you guilty, but if they come back with NG, you may still have the blood dried under your fingernails when they do. |
OT: Yep, MJ is not guilty because the it is based on a Brit TV documentary and main accuser can't seem keep his story straight. To me so far, the evidence present by news media was "not beyond a reasonable doubt." If the prosecution can't find any other evidence or corroborate more of what the acuser is saying, MJ will probably walk. |
<------ "Commando" RE: Point number two. It's going to be tough for the DA to bring the "uhng" charge back since he's already been acquited of the other two counts. This may be a simple case of a poorly structured prosecution. I doubt that the the defense was particularly brilliant. |
|
As much as I think MJ is weird and fucked up, thats all he may be. The accusers are scum of the high order and are gold-diggers. The difference between the Petersen case and Blakes and MJ are gold-diggers pure and simple. You cant trust people what have a motive to see the person go down. Much less sympathy then a beautiful innocent female like Lacey. |
|
I followed the Blake case a bit in the tabs (I loved that interview he did with Barbara Walters where he spoke that crazed msessage to his daughter). The problem for the Prosecution was that a big part of their case consisted of telling the jury what a chisler and bitch his wife was as a means of demonstrating how reasonable it would be to believe that her husband would kill her. That to me is a big difference between Blake and Peterson. |
Fixed it for ya' Where the heck did you learn law? This ain't the Magna Carta, buddy! Or are you descended of British stock? 
|
Brother, American criminal jurisprudence is descended from British stock! And I had a very classical legal education! The concept of a jury of one’s peers was introduced in the Frame of Government of Pennsylvania (1682), Article VIII: "That all trials shall be by twelve men, and as near as may be, peers or equals, and of the neighborhood..." This is from the Virginia Declaration of the Rights of Man, June 12, 1776: "VIII That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers." No need to go any further. I like 'a jury of his peers' better than any other phrase. Young whippersnappers! Eric The(Antique)Hun
|