robert blake gets butt kicked in court

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:13 pm

that looney robert "baretta" blake just now was found responsible in civil court for the murder of his wife bonny lee bakely. and the judgement is for $30,000,000 smackers! HA!! of course he'll pull an OJ and claim to be broke.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:14 pm

i see this posted twice, i have no clue why.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:20 pm

BREAKING NEWS...click on pic

Blake at the L.A. Superior Court Friday.

Actor Robert Blake, who was acquitted of his wife's murder in March, was found liable Friday in the wrongful death civil trial brought by the estate of his slain wife, Bonny Lee Bakley. Bakley's four children sued the 72-year-old actor in 2002, claiming he should be held responsible for their mother's death and forced to pay damages. A separate jury acquitted the former "Baretta" actor of murder in the criminal trial.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:22 pm

Man, has he gotten OLD!!

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:32 pm

Older, but not wiser.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:09 pm

It will be like OJ, the only justice is the court's decision that he was found liable in her death.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:10 pm

blake is a low-rent OJ who sneaked out the back jack after the verdict. OJ has paid shite, and neither will blake, by whatever means. further, he's a f**king nutjob. OJ is canny.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:14 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Great, now I've got that Paul Simon song stuck in my head.:guitaristwhich one???oops, nevermind, i get it! hahahaha

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:17 pm

here, this will make you even crazier..........'IT'S A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL" ...*EVIL LAUGH*

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:18 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Hop on the bus, Gus...GET A NEW PLAN STAN............

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:20 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: you BITCH! that has come up in conversation

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:25 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Way off tangent... is that ride still open at Disneyland? I always felt homicidal listening to those squeaky little voices singing "Its a small world after all..." *smiles unpleasantly at the thought of popping a head off some singing muppet*i would prefer to have my eyes gouged out with rusty barbed wire than ever get on that f**king ride again, or ever even go to disney (highway robber of the south) again!! homicide is good.

ubetta · Post by **ubetta** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:51 am

lady cop wrote: that looney robert "baretta" blake just now was found responsible in civil court for the murder of his wife bonny lee bakely. and the judgement is for $30,000,000 smackers! HA!! of course he'll pull an OJ and claim to be broke.

I wonder how they came up with that dollar amount. I mean, ok, life is priceless and all that, but think about it. She was a woman who did not have a job and ran scams on people to get by. What is worth $30M ? She wouldn't have made that in a lifetime much less in the time she had left.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:50 am

it was punitive damages, meant to punish. she wasn't worth shite. and punitive, as opposed to actual, damages usually get reduced or thrown out.

ubetta · Post by **ubetta** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:52 am

lady cop wrote: it was punitive damages, meant to punish. she wasn't worth shite. and punitive, as opposed to actual, damages usually get reduced or thrown out.

I'm glad you didn't slam me for being callous about the victim's worth.

I dunno....I am pretty sure he did it but I'm not so sure about the whole thing of having a civil trial if the criminal one doesn't turn out the way some people would like. If there isn't enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then...it should be over, IMO. Or...if you don't think there is enough proof to begin with then just sue in the civil courts. It just seems to me, it should be one or the other...not both. Like an insurance claim....if someone purposely damages your car, you can either handle it through the criminal court system and get money directly out of the person, or you can go through the insurance company to get paid. You can't do both.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:01 am

quote beyond a reasonable doubt, then...it should be over, IMO. Or...if you don't think there is enough proof to begin with then just sue in the civil courts....that's precisely what happened. in civil court one's liberty is not at stake, hence a much lower burden of proof. it's "by a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. there WAS enough proof in the criminal trial, it was another dumbass OJ jury. the state does not file murder charges without ample proof, that is punishable as prosecutorial malfeasance. criminal/civil is NOT double jeopardy.

ubetta · Post by **ubetta** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:08 am

lady cop wrote: quote beyond a reasonable doubt, then...it should be over, IMO. Or...if you don't think there is enough proof to begin with then just sue in the civil courts....that's precisely what happened. in civil court one's liberty is not at stake, hence a much lower burden of proof. it's "by a preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. there WAS enough proof in the criminal trial, it was another dumbass OJ jury. the state does not file murder charges without ample proof, that is punishable as prosecutorial malfeasance.

What happened here is that they couldn't get him criminally so they went civil. IMO, I don't think that should be allowed to happen. And the prosecution goes forward thinking "hoping" they can make the case and convince the jury quite often. They aren't doing it maliciously (hopefully) but sometimes the evidence just isn't there enough to convince a jury. I think it should stop there. If the family isn't sure it will work out, then they should have the choice to go civilly FIRST and then it stops there. One trial. In other words...if he were convicted criminally, they would not be able to go after him civilly. It would be over. So, I don' t see why that doesn't apply if they try to get him criminally and it doesn't work.

I understand the difference between the two, I just don't think it's right that it is allowed.