Thanks for the correction – it’s probably been four years since I first read that stuff.
Can we lobby OED to get “rjung” officially recognized as a verb? The definition is still in progress, but right now I’m leaning towards:
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Of course with Blake, if he did do it then he’ll probably admit it once this and the civil trial are over.
/QUOTE]
Couldn’t the Feds bust him then for depriving her of her civil rights?
If I didn’t know how fast it would get me banned, I’d like to post anti-Bush propaganda in all sorts of random, completely non-political threads.
GQ: “What’s the safest way to remove a wasp’s nest?”
“Say it has WMDs and invade it. When no WMDs are found, get re-elected.”
MPSIMS: “Well, my kid started kindergarten today.”
“Wow…only thirteen more years before he can be drafted into a phony war!”
Cafe Society: “Saw The Aviator today. Not bad.”
“Bush lied!”
As it is, though, perhaps we could regard him as a political version of the Grapist. “This post has been rjunged by rjung!”
There’s one problem with that theory. Let’s run through the scenario. Assume you’re Blake, and you’ve decided to hire someone to kill your wife. The best way to do it is to make it look like a random act of street violence. So, you plan to go out to dinner. When dinner’s done, you’ll both go back to your car. There, you will come up with some excuse to go back to the restaurant, thereby leaving your wife alone in a place where the hit man can easily get to her, and vanish into the night.
So far, so good - a reasonable plan. Now, you have to come up with some excuse to go back to the restaurant. I’ve got it! You’ll leave your gun there, so you’ll have to go back to retrieve it! BZZZT!! WRONG ANSWER!!! Only a complete moron would do this. Leave something in the restaurant - your jacket, your glasses, your cell phone, something. But your fucking GUN? Bad choice. If you own a gun, you make sure it’s safely locked away in a vault somewhere, so that there can’t be any question whatsoever regarding its whereabouts at the time of the shooting.
This is where a lot of conspiracy theories fall apart - the perpetrator has to be smart enough to pull off the crime, but stupid enough to plan it badly.
I haven’t paid all that close attention to this case, but based on the bits I haven’t been able to avoid, and the recaps here and in the linked NY Times article, it sure sounds like the jury did what they were required to do, based upon the evidence presented: Not guilty. If they’d found the hitman, or some kind of actual link - then it would be a different story. As it is, the presumption of innocence wins out.
Part of the time, I feel that better 1000 guilty people go free than that one innocent person be convicted, and other times, I just want the alleged perps locked away, no matter the cost. (The latter is my gut reaction when hearing about someone like Arthur Shawcross, or Angel Mateo - people who’d been convicted or arraigned of murder, and then went on to murder again.)
I don’t know. I saw some talking head on the tube (might have been Court TV, but I don’t have a cite) last night saying that although Blake had a good (and expensive) lawyer, this was a defense that any competent public defender could have mounted and won.
Maybe he didn’t trust the hit man’s aim & had the gun on him as a backup.
My Hubby read that you couldn’t swing a dead cat out there w/out hitting someone who actively despised that woman and had sound reasons for doing so. “Didn’t deserve to die for it”? You know, I’m getting to the point where I’m not so sure about that anymore. I keep thinking of Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove and how they summarily hung horsethieves and their ilk. Is keeping them around really such a good idea?
Or was it SUCH a bad choice that it was a GREAT choice?
“well, surely he wouldn’t have gone back in for a GUN if he was planning on having her whacked!”
There’s always some twit that manages to drag Bush into it. Why don’t you just come out and accuse Bush of shooting old Bonnie directly?
:wally
Finally!!! Hell yes! So she was a evil, heartless bitch that used people and ruined lives… does she deserve to be killed. Most likely… YES! People used to consider their actions because they were likely to be held accountable. There are some people that the world is better off without and she was one of them. I realize this is less than PC but… oh well. As for Blake, the jury said innocent. I hope, so but if not, I can’t argue with the results.
You’re taking liberties with my posting. I started this thread in IMHO, as you are well aware. It was moved after several posters, including you, by the way, got frisky with it. If I was “all riled up”, I would have started it as a Pit thread.
My original point was supposed to be that money and fame gets many people a pass when it comes to crime. Perhaps Blake and Simpson can team up to find the golf pro who actually committed the murder.
Rjung’s like a rooster. A rooster sees the sun and he spews forth with a lot of meaningless noise. Rjung sees a computer and he spews forth with a lot of meaningless words. It doesn’t happen all the time-a rooster doesn’t crow every time he sees the sun either, but it happens often enough that it’s a legitimate phenomenon.
Comparing and contrasting the Simpson and Blake trials, it certainly seems that this go 'round, people are more accepting of the jury’s interpretation of the facts. No one has questioned their ability to render an objective, unbiased decision. Very few people have accused them of being blinded by celebrity. I haven’t heard anyone calling them idiots or making insinuating remarks about race. There has been much more respect this time. This is good.
That was lacking in the Simpson trial. I wish that it hadn’t been.
It also seems that this go 'round, the victim–as well as the defendant–has been on trial in the minds of the public. Speculating on motives and the likelihood that there are other suspects is one thing…but suggesting that anyone deserves to be slain like that is another. I find it kind of ugly.
I saw two of the jurors on the Today Show this morning. When asked if they found him legally not guilty or if they thought he was innocent, they both said, “Not Guilty.”
I find that very interesting. Neither would speculate as to what they thought happened, yet it was clear all the jurors had given it careful thought and they even had some ideas which they would not talk about because of the pending civil case.
I said pretty much the same thing last night after he mentioned he’d gone through ten million dollars. Hell, even OJ didn’t go through that kind of dough and look at all the horsepower he marshalled. Blake may have been found not guilty but that doesn’t mean he escaped serious punishment. Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but he’d have been a hell of a lot better off paying her $500,000 or $1,000,000 to divorce him and give up rights to the little girl. I have no doubt she would have taken it.
She would have never gone away. She’d taken the money and turn up on his doorstep wanting more…she’d fuck some crap lawyer, who would then start filing papers for her to get her little girl back…it would have been the death of a thousand cuts.
Do you never tire of Six Degrees Of Bush? I can’t understand your preference of it over Twister.
What GraphicsGal mentioned is pretty interesting and sums up my initial comment to the wife last night. Someone might look guilty as hell through evidence circumstantial but that still allows for a lingering possibility of innocence, to which a verdit of not guilty must be administered.
Yes, I think he did it. No, I’m not surprised he walked.
Good point. That probably is why he decided to have her “whacked” after all. Her relentless chicanery was her own undoing in the end.
Blake was saying something yesterday about “being innocent until proven broke.”