maren Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 From the NYT: No eyewitnesses, blood or DNA evidence linked Blake to the crime. The murder weapon, found in a trash bin, could not be traced to Blake, and witnesses said the minuscule amounts of gunshot residue found on Blake's hands could have come from a different gun he said he carried for protection. So, basically the prosecution had people who claimed that Blake discussed having his wife killed, but couldn't make any connection to the crime other than the circumstantial evidence and the fact that it wasn't exactly a strong marriage. I tend to agree with Allen - the prosecution didn't have much of a case and apparently they couldn't push the ball past "beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt". I'm 100% with Dan on this. Not to mention that the two main "people who claimed Blake discussed having his wife killed" were a paranoid delusional coke addict and a paranoid delusional meth addict, both of whom have other proceedings pending against them in the same jurisdiction... Quote
Man with the Golden Arm Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 you know the prosecution never put that damn cockatoo on the stand. big mistake! Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted March 17, 2005 Author Report Posted March 17, 2005 Not to mention that the two main "people who claimed Blake discussed having his wife killed" were a paranoid delusional coke addict and a paranoid delusional meth addict, both of whom have other proceedings pending against them in the same jurisdiction... I think a bunch of us know "these guys". Want your life in their hands? Quote
7/4 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 Not to mention that the two main "people who claimed Blake discussed having his wife killed" were a paranoid delusional coke addict and a paranoid delusional meth addict, both of whom have other proceedings pending against them in the same jurisdiction... I haven't been following the trial, but I can see where they would have a problem with that. Quote
Randy Twizzle Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 You've been acquitted of murder.... but your agent still won't return your calls... Quote
Rooster_Ties Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 I'm 100% with Dan on this. Didn't we used to have a thread of things we never thought we'd hear each other say?? Maybe I'm imagining that, but if not, this surely belongs in there!! Quote
chris olivarez Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 Blake said this cost him ten millon dollars in attorneys fees and that he is now broke and needing a job but I imagine he's pretty much damaged goods in Hollywood. Quote
AfricaBrass Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 From the NYT: No eyewitnesses, blood or DNA evidence linked Blake to the crime. The murder weapon, found in a trash bin, could not be traced to Blake, and witnesses said the minuscule amounts of gunshot residue found on Blake's hands could have come from a different gun he said he carried for protection. So, basically the prosecution had people who claimed that Blake discussed having his wife killed, but couldn't make any connection to the crime other than the circumstantial evidence and the fact that it wasn't exactly a strong marriage. I tend to agree with Allen - the prosecution didn't have much of a case and apparently they couldn't push the ball past "beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt". I'm 100% with Dan on this. Not to mention that the two main "people who claimed Blake discussed having his wife killed" were a paranoid delusional coke addict and a paranoid delusional meth addict, both of whom have other proceedings pending against them in the same jurisdiction... I was just joking around earlier. If I'd have actually been on the jury, I probably wouldn't have been able to find him guilty either. He's definitely guilty of bad acting as a little kid in the Our Gang comedies, but I think there was too much that you could reasonably doubt in this case. Quote
7/4 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 Blake said this cost him ten millon dollars in attorneys fees and that he is now broke and needing a job but I imagine he's pretty much damaged goods in Hollywood. There's always promo for books and Larry King and the Today show and all the rest... Quote
chris olivarez Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 No doubt he'll make his money back that way. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 Not to mention that the two main "people who claimed Blake discussed having his wife killed" were a paranoid delusional coke addict and a paranoid delusional meth addict, both of whom have other proceedings pending against them in the same jurisdiction... I think a bunch of us know "these guys". Want your life in their hands? No, but until 2008.... Quote
Soulstation1 Posted March 17, 2005 Report Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) maybe he could do a barretta reunion with Edited March 17, 2005 by Soulstation1 Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.