Michael Blagg Gets Appellate Hearing

[Richies Cool Man Diary]

guilty as charged!!!!!!....

[Sonia Wright]

Did not watch the trial, but I was wondering if the police pulled the telephone records of the house they lived in for previous phone calls to home when he was at work?

[Sheer]

PA_VC wrote:

<quoted text>
So the mother killed her daughter? WTF are you thinking...

Perhaps there was another layer of material in the van that kept blood from being deposited on the surface. That would logically leave blood stains left during loading/unloading.

[Karen Stickney]

What motive would his mother in law have for killing his wife and daughter? If she didn't like him, then wouldn't she have killed him instead?

[Karen Stickney]

If Michael also killed Abby, why wasn't he charged in her death as well as Jennifer's? I saw this case on The Investigators and I was shocked out of my mind that this happened.

[rick]

of course he is guilty

[Ice]

Karen Stickney wrote:

If Michael also killed Abby, why wasn't he charged in her death as well as Jennifer's? I saw this case on The Investigators and I was shocked out of my mind that this happened.

Because they never found her body. No body, no case.

[Somebody]

drea wrote:

how can you say he's guilty...the cops looked at him from the start of the investigation just like the ramsey case and ironically that case was also in Colorado and only 186 miles apart...both the little girls look extremely similar...abbey's body has never been found and no evidence that she is dead...so I wonder, who was up for election when this case broke? wouldn't be the 1st time... a little bit of blood in Jennifer's vehicle does not mean anything because I have blood in my jeep so does that mean i'm dead and my husband killed me too? guess not because i wouldn't be writing this
what would be really funny is if they ever do find Abbey hopefully she could clear her father because i don't think he did this...but to each there own.....think what you want but don't judge someone who you know nothing about because you never know one day you

Nothing about this case is funny and never will be. It was very interesting that they found all kinds of stuff from his workplace near Jennifer's body. He's GUITLY AS SIN!!!

[Karen Stickney]

Ice, apparently you haven't heard of the Helle Crafts murder case. There was no body in this case, but her husband Richard was still found guilty of her murder.

[Billybobhornton]

GlobalCooling wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a lot more to read but none of it was incriminating. Doing a mileage estimate 30 days after the incident. What good is that? There was a lot of nothing in the report.

What?!?!? None of it was incriminating? Are you out of your mind? 3/4 of it was incriminating. Everything he said points to the fact that he knows what happened and doesnt want to face consequences if theyre severe. Unbelievable. I'm thrilled you weren't on the jury.

[Billybobhornton]

jenn wrote:

I agree with gar....there is not enough evidence . The town was against him. It's terrifying to think that we send people away w out a chance for second opinions, or second chances for truth. There is no positive evidence . We just let some poor man out of jail after spending thirty years for a rape he didn't commit. Thus will continue to happen if we keep giving convictions with no solid evidence .
So sad for this man.

Um, Blagg is not "some poor man" and there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence against him. "positive evidence" is what exactly?? Uneducated people on this subject think only DNA and fingerprints are "positive evidence" when in fact, DNA and fingerprints can be present and mean nothing and anyway, in this case there was NO FOREIGN DNA! So that
means, if you're right, a stranger came in, shot
Jennifer for no apparent reason- no sexual
assault, nothing stolen- took Abby, picked
Jennifer up in some kind of tarp so as not to drip
blood (why would a stranger care?!) and
transported the body and Abby in JENNIFERS
car! How did he get there?! Also, the blood had
transitioned in a way where it proved to have
been there longer than the time blagg was
working- meaning all this would've happened
While Michael blagg was asleep. And how would he have kissed his wife before he left then? Shed already been kidnapped! Bottom line: when there is loads of circumstantial evidence that IS so-called "positive evidence"!!

[Billybobhornton]

Christina wrote:

I think the police were looking for an easy case to make and staged a lot of it themselves. Like the blood in the van, they could have put it there. There was never any REAL hard evidence in the case and it sickens me that Michael never got a real fair trial. There was no way that he could have gotten a fair trial in Mesa County. This just goes to show you how bias our country is and how lazy our law enforcement has become to not
even look at any other suspects. Our justice system sucks! You are suppose to find them
guilty "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT" and
in this case there is A LOT of reasonable
doubt!!!!

LOL!! Another uneducated, paranoid nut. Cops don't plant evidence to convict the wring person for the murder of a child and mother!! You're insane and of course, wrong. He didn't get a "fair trial"? Did you SEE the trial?! No, right? Thought so. If you had, you would've seen all the legal guidelines were followed and loads of circumstantial evidence against Blagg led jurors to convict. If you were educated at all on the law, you'd know that all equals a fair trial. Thank god you weren't on the jury and I hope you're NEVER chosen to be on any jury.

[Billybobhornton]

Gar wrote:

Just saw the 48 hours special on this. Absolutely sickening. Not Michael Blagg - you people. The comments on here, the jurors, the people that threw a man into hell-on-earth for ridiculous notions and beliefs, the people that say 'this man is guilty' after 5 minutes of watching a TV special. You know they can edit those to make him seem however they want, right? Watch a bunch of these shows like my girlfriend and I do. She used to be like that -
'oh, guilty, haha!'- until we'd look up the cases
later and find out the REAL story. The utter fact
of this case is that there was not enough
evidence to convict Michael Blagg. The
conviction happened because the jury was
biased. I can tell you that purely from the way the
people talked. The police who die-hard believed
it was him, the '99% of the townsfolk who had
made up their minds'. Utterly sickening.


If anything, shows like this should be a sad testimony to our broken justice system. Jurors that don't understand the legal process. Jurors that spout ridiculous notions that God controls their decisions so that they can avoid their own guilt at going with town's 'peer pressure'.
Notice how I never said I believe him innocent. Whether he was guilty or innocent, there was not enough evidence, the jury was biased, and he
should NEVER have been sent to jail.

Lol!! All of that nonsense after saying "I just watched an episode of 48 hours.."! So you watched one tv show and YOU'RE making a call on whether the trial was "fair"?! Do you have a clue how long this trial took to carry out? 48 hours mystery has 42 minutes to present as much evidence AND background on the victims and suspect as they can fit. Guess what? It's a tiny percentage. It's YOU that knows nothing. How ridiculous to think you're educated on something because you watched tv for 42 minutes. THEN to say everyone who makes a call based on a tv show should be ashamed?! Wow. Duh. I have not only watched multiple shows on the case but actually watched the trial, read the book and researched the case at length, and the jury based their decision on a MOUNTAIN of evidence against Blagg. People uneducated on forensic and the law who think they know it all because they watch csi think nothing but DNA and fingerprints are solid evidence, but in the REAL world, a ton of circumstantial evidence is STRONGER- DNA and fingerprints can be at a crime scene but what does that prove? That it's there. That's it. What do a hundred different pieces of suspicious actions prove? GUILT!!

[Billybobhornton]

just saw the show wrote:

great response......no solid evidence...if im on that jury, you better show me something solid....how bout a murder weapon......c'mon....but it could happen to anyone.....
<quoted text>

So you're saying, in no uncertain terms, that if a killer is smart enough to get rid of a murder weapon, you should reward him by ignoring a pile of MORE damning circumstantial evidence and let him go free?! He deserves it, right?! You obviously have no idea how much circumstantial evidence there was against him because you too probably only watch a 40 min tv show on the case. To say you would need a murder weapon to convict is utterly and ridiculous- and scary. I pray you're NEVER chosen to be on a jury. Way too many know it alls watching csi think forensics are the only solid pieces of evidence in this country.

[Billybobhornton]

just saw the show wrote:

Ill just say that i sure hope i never have to go to court and rely on a jury of my peers...after watching that show and seeing that verdict....no way...you shouldnt be found guilty unless there is evidence PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT...that you are guilty....and that was not proven...everything was heresay.....if the public wants you guilty....if the cops want you guilty because they have NO HARD EVIDENCE.....they will find u guilty....sad sad story.....

Lol and you're basing your opinion on one 40 min tv show??? Wow. Ridiculous. You obviously have no clue that there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence that DID prove him guilty beyond just about ALL doubt. Incredibly ignorant to assume they can fit all the evidence of guilt in about 25 min. Unbelievable.

[Ice]

Karen Stickney wrote:

Ice, apparently you haven't heard of the Helle Crafts murder case. There was no body in this case, but her husband Richard was still found guilty of her murder.

No I haven't heard of it, nor do I know where it was. But in this case, you can't charge Blagg with murder of the girl if you don't have her body. Everyone knows Abby is in the dump but they just couldn't find her.

[Ice]

Billybobhornton wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol and you're basing your opinion on one 40 min tv show??? Wow. Ridiculous. You obviously have no clue that there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence that DID prove him guilty beyond just about ALL doubt. Incredibly ignorant to assume they can fit all the evidence of guilt in about 25 min. Unbelievable.

You know, arguing with people who are clearly stupid is not really gonna help. I applaud your efforts, but it's helpless. You can't fix stupid.

[Mandy]

You don't need a body to convict someone of murder. Are you people saying a stranger dumped Jennifer's. remains in the dumpster where Blagg worked? Are you people joking?
Blagg was not a good Christian man. He was caught red handed by the police stealing from where he worked and was promptly fired. He was a porn addict.
No way his wife agreed to it as she was very frightened of him.

Circumstantial evidence is sometimes better than direct evidence and you don't need a smoking gun to convict someone. Its beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT beyond any doubt. Its a proven fact that Blagg is a thief and a liar and a pervert and a cold blooded killer.

He is no better than Josh Powell.

[bill switzer]

I would have to be an idiot to believe Blagg is innocent Evidence is overwhelming. He murdered his wife and dauter for whatever reason, only he and God know the whole story. Real Christins come clean about ther sins this guy is a phony through and through. He forgets if he is a real Christan that God sees. Does he think he is fooling God.Wake up and see the light Blagg You are not going to lie your way out of a life without parole sentence,Wereis Abby you worm.

[Lynn Fergusson]

I just read a book on this case and although I admit to having my doubts when reading it common sense tells you it had to have been Blagg.