Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html

Hooray!

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
>
> Hooray!

Hooray?

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:

> Hooray?
>
> Dimitri


It balanced out the O.J verdict.

"Levelwave©" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>
> > Hooray?
> >
> > Dimitri
>
>
> It balanced out the O.J verdict.

Meaning he wasn't guilty.

"Levelwave©" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> Hooray?
>>
>> Dimitri
>
>
> It balanced out the O.J verdict.

Explain, please. If you can.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Levelwave=A9 wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
>
> > Hooray?
> >
> > Dimitri
>
>
> It balanced out the O.J verdict.

The verdict in the criminal trial, or the civil trial? -aem

Dimitri wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
>>
>>Hooray!
>
>
> Hooray?
>
> Dimitri
>
>

Evidently it's illegal to kill your wife (and child) if you're
Scott Peterson but not so illegal if you're Robert Blake.

gloria p

"Puester" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
> > "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
> >>
> >>Hooray!
> >
> >
> > Hooray?
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
> >
>
> Evidently it's illegal to kill your wife (and child) if you're
> Scott Peterson but not so illegal if you're Robert Blake.
>
> gloria p

And you know he did it....how?

Puester wrote:
> Dimitri wrote:
> > "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >
> >>Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
> >>
> >>Hooray!
> >
> >
> > Hooray?
> >
> > Dimitri
> >
> >
>
> Evidently it's illegal to kill your wife (and child) if you're
> Scott Peterson but not so illegal if you're Robert Blake.
>
> gloria p


There were massive problems with the prosecution witnesses - as in,
they made stuff up and they admitted lying. No murder weapon; no
witnesses; all circumstantial - I'd have trouble being on the jury and
saying "guilty." In addition, he's no danger to anyone and he hasn't
got much life left to live. If found guilty, he'd likely die on death
row during the appeal process.

Scott Peterson is probably guilty but in the same vein, I certainly
couldn't have said he deserved the death penalty - again, all
circumstantial, no witnesses. I don't call that "beyond a reasonable
doubt." OTOH, I'm not privy to what the jurors heard.

N.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Puester wrote:
>> Dimitri wrote:
>> > "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> >
>> >>Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
>> >>
>> >>Hooray!
>> >
>> >
>> > Hooray?
>> >
>> > Dimitri
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Evidently it's illegal to kill your wife (and child) if you're
>> Scott Peterson but not so illegal if you're Robert Blake.
>>
>> gloria p
>
>
> There were massive problems with the prosecution witnesses - as in,
> they made stuff up and they admitted lying. No murder weapon; no
> witnesses; all circumstantial - I'd have trouble being on the jury and
> saying "guilty." In addition, he's no danger to anyone and he hasn't
> got much life left to live. If found guilty, he'd likely die on death
> row during the appeal process.
>
> Scott Peterson is probably guilty but in the same vein, I certainly
> couldn't have said he deserved the death penalty - again, all
> circumstantial, no witnesses. I don't call that "beyond a reasonable
> doubt." OTOH, I'm not privy to what the jurors heard.
>
> N.
>
I've got to say I never cared about whether Scott Peterson killed his wife
or not. I was hoping he would be acquitted as the evidence seemed
circumstantial. In fact, I was heartily annoyed by the coverage for
several reasons. Laci Peterson disappeared during a slow time for news, and
the media--particularly Dan Abrams of MSNBC-- jumped on the story, literally
keeping on-the-spot watch. The media had Scott Peterson tried and convicted
before the end of December. I find it really hard to believe that is what
getting a fair trial is all about. The other thing that really bugged me
was that I felt all the coverage was about Laci Peterson because she was
white and attractive. If you add pregnant to that you've got a dream story
that can be carried on and on--reality TV. How many stories do we ever hear
about missing women/pregnant women, with any kind of follow-up, if the women
are fat or ugly or poor or uneducated or something other than Caucasian?
The whole thing makes me sick.

That's my rant--glad I got it off my chest.

Janet

Janet Bostwick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Puester wrote:
> >> Dimitri wrote:
> >> > "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >>Go he http://www.kipaddotta.com/robert-blake.html
> >> >>
> >> >>Hooray!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hooray?
> >> >
> >> > Dimitri
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Evidently it's illegal to kill your wife (and child) if you're
> >> Scott Peterson but not so illegal if you're Robert Blake.
> >>
> >> gloria p
> >
> >
> > There were massive problems with the prosecution witnesses - as in,
> > they made stuff up and they admitted lying. No murder weapon; no
> > witnesses; all circumstantial - I'd have trouble being on the jury
and
> > saying "guilty." In addition, he's no danger to anyone and he
hasn't
> > got much life left to live. If found guilty, he'd likely die on
death
> > row during the appeal process.
> >
> > Scott Peterson is probably guilty but in the same vein, I certainly
> > couldn't have said he deserved the death penalty - again, all
> > circumstantial, no witnesses. I don't call that "beyond a
reasonable
> > doubt." OTOH, I'm not privy to what the jurors heard.
> >
> > N.
> >
> I've got to say I never cared about whether Scott Peterson killed his
wife
> or not. I was hoping he would be acquitted as the evidence seemed
> circumstantial. In fact, I was heartily annoyed by the coverage for

> several reasons. Laci Peterson disappeared during a slow time for
news, and
> the media--particularly Dan Abrams of MSNBC-- jumped on the story,
literally
> keeping on-the-spot watch. The media had Scott Peterson tried and
convicted
> before the end of December. I find it really hard to believe that is
what
> getting a fair trial is all about. The other thing that really
bugged me
> was that I felt all the coverage was about Laci Peterson because she
was
> white and attractive. If you add pregnant to that you've got a dream
story
> that can be carried on and on--reality TV. How many stories do we
ever hear
> about missing women/pregnant women, with any kind of follow-up, if
the women
> are fat or ugly or poor or uneducated or something other than
Caucasian?
> The whole thing makes me sick.
>
> That's my rant--glad I got it off my chest.
>
> Janet


That's the thing about California news - for some reason, the TV and
print media thinks everyone in the country cares about what goes on in
California. AS IF. ;-) The same is true of the Jackson mess.

N.

Far as I can tell, someone wrote:
> OTOH, I'm not privy to what the jurors heard.

That's the most important thing to consider.

We don't know what the jury heard or didn' t hear.

All we know is what the news media tells us and if you've ever been
personally knowledgable about a particular news item, you know that the
news media doesn't get ANYTHING right.

News is a product that is sold to advertisers. Whatever they can do to
make it easier to sell, they'' do.