[A CA Guy]

Jurors viewed the witnesses as big liars who testified against Blake.
I don't know if it was so much the money or Los Angeles as it was they had nothing on Blake that would have been on his body had he shot that weapon.

Oil on the gun to prevent fingerprints.
No oil anywhere on his body. There would have been traces had he wiped it.

Same for gun residue from a gun shot and no blood splatters.

They didn't have the stuff.

Blake could have hired somebody, but he did not fire that weapon.

[Oztrich Boy]

JMO, but I think the problrm with the American Legal system is that courts have gone so far on exclusion of evidence on civil rights grounda, that prosectors, rather than take the chance good circumstantial evidence will be excluded, have come to rely on testimony, confessions or conspirators "turning".

This has firstly blinded them to the fact that when they can't found circustantial evidence probably means the guy didn't do it, instead they're relying on testimony to give them a case.
Secondly, usually the testimators (is that a word?) are usually not solid citizens, and the jury only believes them if the defendant has the same background, or the DA can destroy his/her reputation. This only works against nonenities who don't have good lawyers.