......you can't afford a high priced lawyer to get you out of the time.

Baretta takes a walk.

Any of you esquire types out there disagree?

From what I've read about the case... it sounded as if he was guilty as hell. But who knows. We weren't there every day. The jury heard it all. I guess there was "reasonable doubt".

If there isn't a video tape of you actually doing the crime isn't there always a "reasonable doubt" that could be argued?

Hell...even if there's a video of it. Those can be altered. That would be a reasonable doubt.

If you can't do the time.....do the crime in California! OJ led the way!

I'll bet Michael Jackson gets off too!

What nut pool do they get their jurors from? How did Scott Peterson get convicted?

Did you hear any of the interviews with Blake after the verdict? He made threats to everyone who "lied" about him. I think the only person he didn't threaten was the judge.

Jim Cavanaugh

quote:

Originally posted by azsar:
......you can't afford a high priced lawyer to get you out of the time.

Baretta takes a walk.

Any of you esquire types out there disagree?

Much as I hate to say it, seems like you're right on this one. It looked like a no-brainer, that he was guilty as hell, after trying to get hit men to do it for him. I wonder what evidence was introduced to get the jurors to fall for the "reasonable doubt."

If Martha and the guy from WorldCom had been tried in California, they might be off too. Just hope that poor excuse for a person Jackson gets what's coming to him.

The judicial system worked as it was designed to. Innocent till proven guilty. No evidence, no guilt. I'd still like to see him convicted, but don't blame the California courts. For all we know, it could have been the forensic team that dropped the ball and came up with nothing to use in the trial.

At least they convicted Peterson. A guy who went to court to be proven that he was a liar and all around rotten person...but he was never proven a murder, yet he gets the chair.

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:
At least they convicted Peterson. A guy who went to court to be proven that he was a liar and all around rotten person...but he was never proven a murder, yet he gets the chair.

Ah, but he was proven to be a murderer in the eyes of the law. The law is not a search for truth. It matters only what you can prove. And, even when something has been proven, it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob G:

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:
At least they convicted Peterson. A guy who went to court to be proven that he was a liar and all around rotten person...but he was never proven a murder, yet he gets the chair.

Ah, but he was proven to be a murderer in the eyes of the law. The law is not a search for truth. It matters only what you can prove. And, even when something has been proven, it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

A cynic that's still practicing law!

quote:

Originally posted by Rob G:
Ah, but he was proven to be a murderer in the eyes of the law. The law is not a search for truth. It matters only what you can prove. And, even when something has been proven, it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

Well being convicted by a jury does not mean anything was proven. I meant that there was no compelling physical evidence to link Peterson to the actual act.

There was more than enough reason to doubt that Peterson did the crime himself. He could have hired people to do it for all we know. All that was proven was that he was a cheater and he did not mourn his wife. That's all that was proven in the trial. Nothing more.

I think he was guilty, but I don't think the case built against him was sufficient. Although I supposed the ends justifies the...well he got what he deserved in the end.

Isn't Michael Jackson's crime getting off in the first place?

Just had to ask.

Alan

quote:

Originally posted by aholsber:
Isn't Michael Jackson's crime getting off in the first place?

Just had to ask.

Alan

LOL, Alan!

quote:

Originally posted by saulphx:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob G:

Ah, but he was proven to be a murderer in the eyes of the law. The law is not a search for truth. It matters only what you can prove. And, even when something has been proven, it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

A cynic that's still practicing law!

Look, Rob, lawyers are now getting credit for benefitting society by saving lives:

'After the verdict, Blake credited lead defense attorney M. Gerald Schwartzbach with saving his life.

"Robert [Blake] was very kind and very appreciative," Schwartzbach told CNN. "I became a lawyer many years ago in order to do something socially productive with my life, and this is my most recent experience with that."'

From CNN website.

quote:

Originally posted by sobek:

quote:

Originally posted by Rob G:
Ah, but he was proven to be a murderer in the eyes of the law. The law is not a search for truth. It matters only what you can prove. And, even when something has been proven, it doesn't mean that it is the truth.

Well being convicted by a jury does not mean anything was proven. I meant that there was no compelling physical evidence to link Peterson to the actual act.

There was more than enough reason to doubt that Peterson did the crime himself. He could have hired people to do it for all we know. All that was proven was that he was a cheater and he did not mourn his wife. That's all that was proven in the trial. Nothing more.

I think he was guilty, but I don't think the case built against him was sufficient. Although I supposed the ends justifies the...well he got what he deserved in the end.

Being convicted by a jury means that each and every element of the crimes for which he was tried for were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or not is irrelevant. In the eyes of the law his guilt was proven. The fact that there may not be any direct evidence doesn't matter. He has been proven guilty as charged.

Again, whether he is guilty or not is another issue. But under our rules of jurisprudence, he has been found guilty.

All I know is that Blake must have gotten one
hell of a score on OJ's 16 hr. crash course..


"There are many pleasures in life
but none so noteworthy as that of
a great cigar" Llord Nakcor

Oh and by the way, arguing with a lwayer is like mud wrestling with a pig. After a while, you begin to realize that the pig actually enjoys it.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob G:
Being convicted by a jury means that each and every element of the crimes for which he was tried for were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you or I or anyone else agrees or not is irrelevant. In the eyes of the law his guilt was proven.

That's just semantics. As you say yourself, a conviction does not mean there was compelling proof. No evidence = no proof.

Plenty of people have been wrongly convicted. Doesn't mean their guilt was "proven" in any of those cases...because clearly, it wasn't.

The only difference between Peterson and Blake was the emotional appeal to the jury. I find it disturbing, not because I think they are innocent (I don't), but because in any other court room Peterson might have gone free and Blake could have been found guilty. Such a half-assed jobs of investigating was done that no evidence could be found. It's unsettling that we would rely on a lawyer's ability to sway the emotions of a jury for a conviction, rather than a systematic presentation of gathered evidence and facts.

And Justice For All!!!

From what I could tell his wife needed to be killed.

I believe the main difference in this trial and the Peterson trial is that the jury liked the defendant and disliked the victim where in the Peterson trial it was the other way around.

Every law enforcement officer on this board can tell you about countless people (who committed the crime for which they were charged) that a jury found 'not guilty.' Did they do the crime? Sure they did. It's always better to have a judge trial than trial by jury....the judge knows something about the law while the jury is generally ignorant of the law.