Robert Blake (Beretta) Walks

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#1
Not guilty of killing his wife because the prosecution couldn't prove it.

This guy is so guilty it's not funny. And all he could say after is he's broke and needs a job. Watch them give him a TV movie role playing himself the night of the shooting.
 
#4
Good.. they couldn't prove it... so he should walk.... so should Scott Peterson. I'm not saying Scott didn't do it.. but they didn't have enough proof to give him death..
 

Duke

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#5
Jokerman said:
Not guilty of killing his wife because the prosecution couldn't prove it.

This guy is so guilty it's not funny. And all he could say after is he's broke and needs a job. Watch them give him a TV movie role playing himself the night of the shooting.
And i suppose you know this because you have tons of evidence incriminating him??

You don't?
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#8
Duke said:
And i suppose you know this because you have tons of evidence incriminating him??
I'm not trying to convict him in a court of law. So I don't need tons of evidence. I just need a mind.
 
#12
They cant try him again, unless there is new evidence.
Nope. They can't try him even if he screamed out "I really really really did it!" They can't try him if he showed them a video of him killing her.

I'm not trying to convict him in a court of law. So I don't need tons of evidence. I just need a mind.
That's the excuse people like you always use: I am not a judge/we're not in court. Doesn't matter where you are, give him the same fairness you'd expect for yourself. Make the prosecution prove that he truly did it. If not, all you can do is say "Uhhhh...I think he did it."

but they didn't have enough proof to give him death
That's not how the U.S. criminal system works. You only prove whether the defendant is guilty of something. As for what happens to him, the prosecution has no say, and the prosecution's evidence is usually not used in determining if someone should get death. Usually, the nature of the crime is used to determine that. You can't say: well, they brought enough evidence for life in jail, but not death.
 
#13
That's pretty much what I thought - that they can't try him for the same crime again.

This is why I think Scottish law is effective. It is a unique system incorporating 3 verdicts: Guilty, not Guilty & Not Proven.

Obviously a 'Not Proven' verdict does not liberate nor condemn the accused & allows for him to be re-tried for the same crime.

(Throwaway info: the Scottish legal system, at it's foudnations, is actually based on the Roman legal system)
 
#14
This kinda makes he think of the C-Murder trial.

I heard there was a enough evidence to find Blake guilty of the murder, but he got off.

There were more witnesses that claimed that C wasn't the one who pulled the trigger than there were ones who said he did. And plus they used his own rap name and lyrics against him.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top