Posted on 03/16/2005 1:39:19 PM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs
You want to be impartial about a case that's over and trial testimony has been reported, word for word? Be my guest. Go read it and report back to me.
Until then, there's no sense discussing something with someone who doesn't know anything about the case.
How impartial have you been? For someone who hasn't paid attention to the case (your words), you've called a juror a bimbo. And accused freepers who have paid attention to the case as being led by the media. That's not being impartial. That's having a reading comprehension problem.
Now, I've already told you where the information about actual court testimony could be located. You've ignored that and asked freepers to give you 6 months worth of testimony on a thread that doesn't even deal with Scott Peterson.
So go do a little reading and educate yourself before you accuse others of being ignorant. The only one who has shown her ignorance here is you.
Brainiac, I admitted my ignorance at my first posting, hoping that one of the empty headed type who follow this nonsense can inform me. It appears to be a secret! So far, all you did is bitch about my spellings, and why I did not pay attention to this "important" case.
Do you have great respect for the intellectual capacity of a girl with fire engine red hair? I don't know, perhaps you have a blue hair, which explains the hostility you have towards rational discussions..
You're kidding, right? You think a woman with red hair can't be intelligent?
I'm done with you. You have issues.
Yes, and thanks for the worthless discussion.
He acted in Money Train, and will get other work offered soon I am sure.
Here's the basics.
You are right, bad guys are going to be who you would ask to be doing bad deeds, therefore you aren't going to get great witnesses.
Problem, these witnesses had deals with the prosecution for some reason. They also contradicted themselves left and right (according to the jury who read, re-read and studied transcripts.)
Bigger problem yet regarding Blake.
#1 There was an oil residue all over the gun to prevent fingerprinting.
Problem for the DA, none of the oil was anywhere on Blake.
With so little time and the immediate tests on Blake for that oil, gun powder residue and blood splatters...ALL CAME BACK NEGATIVE.
Blake is really excluded by the evidence of being the trigger man.
The witnesses against him were to suggest he made attempts to arrange the murder. If so, nobody after investigation fingered who it was, who had the oil on their hands, blood spatters on their body along with gunpowder? Sure wasn't Blake.
There are other possibilities in this case also as to who could have wanted her dead.
She conned lots of people out of money, so all of those people might have.
An addition she was screwing Christian Brando and said Blake's baby was his which screwed and pissed of Christian.
Christian Brando is a convicted murderer who killed his sister's boyfriend in an emotional moment. That is a big possibility.
Many others could have killed her, she was NOT a sympathetic victim as a thief, and NONE of the evidence directly linked Blake.
If you want to convict every woman or man who talked to someone in a conversation about wishing their spouse was dead at one point or another, you'd probably have to jail up to 50% of people who went through a divorce in this country.
I had a hunch there was going to be a rim-shotted punchline by the end of your Buckwheat saga. And on
top of ALL Buck's real trouble with the law, he has to
see Eddie Murphy's lampoon of him on SNL, with the album
"Buh'Wheat Sings" doing renditions of big pop songs like
"Unce, tice, fee tines a mady" that Lionel Richie made famous.
Two questions, "conservlib": 1. Is English your first language? 2. Where did you learn how to spell?
(Points accusatory finger at Alfalfa.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.