I just heard on headline news that it's in. it hasn't been read yet.

and the suspense builds.

I just heard on headline news that it's in. it hasn't been read yet.
WOW! I can't wait. I bet he's found guilty.

I realize that this will show you how how large the rock is that i've been living under... but who is Robert Blake?

I realize that this will show you how how large the rock is that i've been living under... but who is Robert Blake?He played in the cop show Baretta http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072471/

I realize that this will show you how how large the rock is that i've been living under... but who is Robert Blake?
More like living under a mountain. Kidding. He's a former actor accused of killing his wife.

Um... I guess i better do a google, I do not know what Barretta is, or what he did to be convicted....... ;)

Oh Oh Oh! Ok, I take that back... I've heard of this case.. I just didn't recongize the name, but i recongnize the face....

Janice, it's actually a rather large boulder ;)

It'll be read at 2:30

you mean 2:30 pm tomm?

you mean 2:30 pm tomm?2:30 today

2:30 today
thats Pacific time. 5:30 ET.

i'm confused...it's 5:30 here...what time zone are you in?

thats Pacific time. 5:30 ET.
awww, ok, thank you very much!!

It's on now!

yea, i'm sitting here watching it

wow, he is 71 years old w/ a 4 year old daughter!!

Not Guilty! I can't believe it!

celebrities always get off, I have this sad feeling Jacko will be found innocent too because he's a celeb

celebrities always get off, I have this sad feeling Jacko will be found innocent too because he's a celeb



There was no physical evidence linking Blake to the crime. The jury can only go by what is presented to them in court. They can't just say, "I think he is guilty" or something like that. If there was physical evidence, he'd have surely been convicted and that is something that will sway the jury.

well, he may had not pulled the trigger.. but damn, to walk away w/ nothing? come on.

ohno: ohno: ohno:

This country has officially gone to Hell.

I'm not that surprised. If you are a celebrity then you have to have more then circumstantial evidence to convict. I'm a little surprised on those other counts though. I thought he might have been found guilty of trying to hire someone to kill her.

celebrities always get off, I have this sad feeling Jacko will be found innocent too because he's a celeb

I do too... :wallbang

I do too... :wallbang

Ditto. This is such Bull ****.

Wow, the justice system actually works....despite the masses screaming for his head, the jury made a verdict based on the evidence presented - in this case said evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Am I the ONLY one who, crazy as it sounds, thinks that everyone, civilian or celebrity, is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

Wow, the justice system actually works....despite the masses screaming for his head, the jury made a verdict based on the evidence presented - in this case said evidence was insufficient for conviction.




Thank you. I think many people often assume that when you are a juror, you vote based on what you believe about the defendant. I had a criminal justice professor who said that he followed the OJ Simpson trial very closely. The DA in that case botched it. If he were a juror in that case, he would have to have voted not guilty, even though he personally believed he did murder those people. But they have to go by what is presented in court. That's the only thing they can work with. They can't take into consideration that the individual is a celebrity or what kind of person he or she is.

I think anyone who is taking college courses should take a criminal justice class but that's just me. :)

Am I the ONLY one who, crazy as it sounds, thinks that everyone, civilian or celebrity, is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?

It doesn't make sense to me either. When you're arrested, you're assumed to be guilty. But when you're in court, you're innocent until proven guilty. I'm so confused!! :crazy:

I had a criminal justice professor who said that he followed the OJ Simpson trial very closely. The DA in that case botched it. If he were a juror in that case, he would have to have voted not guilty, even though he personally believed he did murder those people. But they have to go by what is presented in court.
O.J. Simpson's blood was found at the crime scene. He had cut his finger. The victim's blood was found on and in Simpson's car and in his home. Literally, a trail of the victim's blood in O.J.'s driveway leading up to his home. Unless Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman drove O.J.'s car to O.J.'s home to pay him a visit after they were murdered...well, most clear thinking and logical people know he's guilty as hell.

The only way to conclude he was innocent was to believe he was framed. I've read analysis on that foolish theory which states that at least 60 people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy...law enforcement, forensic, lab techs...it's ridiculous. He's so guilty. I followed that trial intensely.

who wants to bet that if Scott Peterson had been in a few movies or tv shows, that he'd be back on the streets?

After looking at Robert Blake's case there was nothing to convict on. there was no physical evidence it was just lot of guessing. I think he hired somebody to do it, but there was no evidence to prove that.

O.J. Simpson's blood was found at the crime scene. He had cut his finger. The victim's blood was found on and in Simpson's car and in his home. Literally, a trail of the victim's blood in O.J.'s driveway leading up to his home. Unless Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman drove O.J.'s car to O.J.'s home to pay him a visit after they were murdered...well, most clear thinking and logical people know he's guilty as hell.

The only way to conclude he was innocent was to believe he was framed. I've read analysis on that foolish theory which states that at least 60 people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy...law enforcement, forensic, lab techs...it's ridiculous. He's so guilty. I followed that trial intensely.


I'm not saying he was innocent nor did I imply that the jury believed he didn't do it. I'm sure that those 12 jurors believed that he was guilty. But they had to consider not only the evidence but the character of the witnesses.

One thing my professor mentioned was that the detective who discovered the gloves had a taped conversation in which he used the N-word 41 or 42 times. One of the witnesses for the defense was a man who Fuhrman arrested and called him the N-word. This was the same guy who arrested OJ Simpson, who everybody knows is black. And he lied about it in court. Given the fact that there was debate over the gloves (that didn't fit OJ), that and that the detective who discovered them was known to have used racist slurs and denied it under oath, it damaged his credibility and implied that he was biased and racist.

Also, the jury wasn't allowed to hear the testimony of OJ's rumored jailhouse confession to Rosie Grier and other evidence that surfaced subsequent to the criminal trial that OJ was guilty. This evidence was used against him in the civil trial in which the Goldman's won, although in civil trial, there is a thing called the preponderence of evidence. Unlike in a criminal trial, evidence is rarely needed and considered but in this case, it helped the Goldmans win, although they haven't gotten a lot of the money.

I'm not saying he was innocent nor did I imply that the jury believed he didn't do it.
No, I know you weren't speaking on his innocence. The detective Mark Furhman did use the N-word. He actually found the glove. That glove shrunk due to the blood, and anyone can see that O.J. is acting when he's trying to put it on. His face grimaces. He deserved an Oscar for that courtroom performance.

Fuhrman used the N-word which could have indicated he was a racist and O.J. is a double murderer. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fuhrman could never have framed him alone. Too much blood everywhere.

I'm not saying he was innocent nor did I imply that the jury believed he didn't do it. I'm sure that those 12 jurors believed that he was guilty. But they had to consider not only the evidence but the character of the witnesses.

One thing my professor mentioned was that the detective who discovered the gloves had a taped conversation in which he used the N-word 41 or 42 times. One of the witnesses for the defense was a man who Fuhrman arrested and called him the N-word. This was the same guy who arrested OJ Simpson, who everybody knows is black. And he lied about it in court. Given the fact that there was debate over the gloves (that didn't fit OJ), that and that the detective who discovered them was known to have used racist slurs and denied it under oath, it damaged his credibility and implied that he was biased and racist.

Those OJ jurors were far from intelligent. One of them thought "DNA" was a blood type! The trial should have been in Brentwood or West L.A. where the crime was committed. A big mistake to have it in downtown.

A clever move on the defense- divert the case to Fuhrman. What words he said (which was for some kind of screenplay) had nothing at all to do with the OJ case. Fuhrman used to play basketball with some black friends before he went on duty. Doesn't sound like something a racist police officer would do. In fact, bringing up racist for the OJ case should not have been allowed at all. OJ was friends with many of the L.A. police officers. They were at his house several times for "marriage dispute" calls and he was never arrested. Then there was the claim that the police "planted" evidence. Another ridiculous assumption.