Phil Spector Debate and Discussion 2

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:confused: Is that some sort of question. [/*]


It must be, it has question marks at the end. :shrug:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson isn't part of the D.A. staff? How odd. [/*]

Really odd, because he's been filing motions for the upcoming hearing.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues



It must be, it has question marks at the end. :shrug: [/*]

That's how I read it too.

:shrug:

T2 - mailbox is full.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by vonna


How so, Phils? Inquiring minds want to know. [/*]Your going to have to make up your mind. I post as Phil S. You refer to me as RES or Phils. Try to be civil a use Phil S. in the future. Thank you, DUDE:hat:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


That's how I read it too.

:shrug:

T2 - mailbox is full. [/*]

Thank you.

Mailbox is empty now.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Your going to have to make up your mind. I post as Phil S. You refer to me as RES or Phils. Try to be civil a use Phil S. in the future. Thank you, DUDE:hat: [/*]

I really don't think Vonna is a dude. And as for your nic, you have to admit that using Phil S. on a Phil Spector board is asking for questions. Unless, of course, you really ARE Phil Spector. Are you?

[roytoy]

Awfully testy for a noob. Do you have anything to say about the upcoming retrial or is it all about you and how you have been dissed?

As the date looms closer, so are Phil's opportunties to go to Target, to go out Navy Grogging, or pull a gun on anyone. He will be convicted in the retrial, IMO.

[joolz]

Originally posted by roytoy
Awfully testy for a noob. Do you have anything to say about the upcoming retrial or is it all about you and how you have been dissed?

As the date looms closer, so are Phil's opportunties to go to Target, to go out Navy Grogging, or pull a gun on anyone. He will be convicted in the retrial, IMO. [/*]

Let's hope he doesn't get lucky again and stumble onto a prospective juror at Target this time. :rolleyes:

[vonna]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Your going to have to make up your mind. I post as Phil S. You refer to me as RES or Phils. Try to be civil a use Phil S. in the future. Thank you, DUDE:hat: [/*]

Oops! Forgot the space between the Phil and the "s."

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by roytoy
Awfully testy for a noob. Do you have anything to say about the upcoming retrial or is it all about you and how you have been dissed?

As the date looms closer, so are Phil's opportunties to go to Target, to go out Navy Grogging, or pull a gun on anyone. He will be convicted in the retrial, IMO. [/*]


If he'd pull a gun out he'd be in jail where he belongs. I think that is the only thing that has kept it from happening, because I believe he has acquired at least one, since his were taken.

Even though he's not supposed to have them.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by joolz


Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Jackson isn't part of the D.A. staff? How odd. [/*]Let's explore this. He is paid by the county with tax payers money that funds the DA's office. The DA or a supervisor probably signs his checks. As a Deputy DA he more than likely has a small office whcih is part of the larger DA's office. He works closely with other Deputy DA's and in the Spector case tiried the case along with a sr. mem. of the DA's staff. I don't believe that there has been any mention of him being hired as a special prosecutor. If he isn't part of the DA's staff and he's not a special prosecutor why is he filing motions and responding to defense motions. In what capacity do you feel his function is if he isn't part of the DA's staff. His job title that you posted would indicate that he is a staff atty.

[vonna]

Originally posted by True2Blues



If he'd pull a gun out he'd be in jail where he belongs. I think that is the only thing that has kept it from happening, because I believe he has acquired at least one, since his were taken.

Even though he's not supposed to have them. [/*]

Spector never met a law he didn't enjoy breaking - let alone the commandment "thou shall not kill."

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector never met a law he didn't enjoy breaking - let alone the commandment "thou shall not kill." [/*]

Well put.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Let's explore this. He is paid by the county with tax payers money that funds the DA's office. The DA or a supervisor probably signs his checks. As a Deputy DA he more than likely has a small office whcih is part of the larger DA's office. He works closely with other Deputy DA's and in the Spector case tiried the case along with a sr. mem. of the DA's staff. I don't believe that there has been any mention of him being hired as a special prosecutor. If he isn't part of the DA's staff and he's not a special prosecutor why is he filing motions and responding to defense motions. In what capacity do you feel his function is if he isn't part of the DA's staff. His job title that you posted would indicate that he is a staff atty. [/*]

Of course he is. I was just correcting your grammar. Sorry if that confused you.:shrug:

[True2Blues]

Has anyone seen an information regarding who the defense plan on calling as "Experts"?

In his motions, Weinberg states that he will put on experts, so there must be some lined up.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues



It must be, it has question marks at the end. :shrug: [/*]There are three ? marks and three letters. So is that 3 separate ?'s or one 1 ? about each letter. The person that posted it wirtes very bizarre, outlandish and nonsensical post, I just wanted to be sure.:hat:

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues
Has anyone seen an information regarding who the defense plan on calling as "Experts"?

In his motions, Weinberg states that he will put on experts, so there must be some lined up. [/*]

Is Henry Lee back from his extended vacation?

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
There are three ? marks and three letters. So is that 3 separate ?'s or one 1 ? about each letter. The person that posted it wirtes very bizarre, outlandish and nonsensical post, I just wanted to be sure.:hat: [/*]

:no: You really should put "IMO" on that kind of post. I don't find that person's posts any of those disparaging things that you wrote. JMO of course.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Well put. [/*]:lol: You have to kidding.:hat:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: You have to kidding.:hat: [/*]

:lol: No I don't.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Is Henry Lee back from his extended vacation? [/*]

I've heard he's been in the country since then, but he's probably got Spector's defense lawyers number's blocked.

After he turned tail and fled last time, I don't see him being willing to give AJ another go at questioning him.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by vonna


Oops! Forgot the space between the Phil and the "s." [/*]:punch: As usual you didn't answer the ? either.:hat:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
There are three ? marks and three letters. So is that 3 separate ?'s or one 1 ? about each letter. The person that posted it wirtes very bizarre, outlandish and nonsensical post, I just wanted to be sure.:hat: [/*]


Res is an actual word. It's a word meaning, thing. Often used as a legal term.

Since the three question marks come after the last word, that would be one question.

Use of more than one punctuation mark like a question mark or an exclamation point usually denotes emphasis.

Hope that helps.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
In all honesty aren't we all a little guilty of that. [/*]

In all honesty..NO..only people that do things for alterior motives do such things!!..Very simple..It is however something salespeople, promoters, and self-serving people do all the time..Which category do ya fit into??

LMS:shrug:

[vonna]

Originally posted by joolz


Of course he is. I was just correcting your grammar. Sorry if that confused you.:shrug: [/*]

Take it easy on Phil dash s. He/she/it? is easily confused.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Here is a link to a woman that gave an interview concerning PS. He wasn't drinking and didn't have a romantic interest in her. She speaks kindly of him. Of course we don't know if its sincere or not. Never the less, this may help explain why some of these women did return to work for him.

We find out at the end of the interview, that PS's exwife/assistant and mother to his youngest set of twins was aware of stories relating to PS's reputation, by reassuring this guest. I guess either side could find something in this. JMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wp-SH6uepU [/*]

Promotional video for her..and questionable motivation to claim such a definite point...me thinks it was bought and paid for..This youngster "Brooke" really doesnt convince me of the "Actual Truth" of Phil's behavior/personality/mindset..

No Spin Zone..Nope!

LMS:rolleyes:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Sorry Ms. Dude. That hardly qualifies as a case busting falsehood. He also could have forgotten and believes he didn't see her. PP could also have been misstaken. Big Deal and So What. [/*]

So what?..lends to credibilty of which she speaks..Case busting..a rather old fashion term..and not applicable in what was being asserted..Case busting No..but credibility busting..yes..just another inconsistant statement PP made.

LMS

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by vonna


Hopefully the DA will listen to AJ this time and not permit a jury consultant to make the call that put BenTen on the jury. Spector should and will be found guilty - because he IS. [/*]

Thank you for Your opinion. Opinions are like a bellybuttons, everybody has one. JMO,MOO,IMO.:)

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: I can hear him now. "PP, now you be sure and get up there and lie about that party and who was there. I will make it worth your while. It's a critical element to the case. Don't you see PP this could bust the case wide open." :rolleyes: [/*]

It is very possible that is exactly what could have gone down..however, Mr. Spector has others do his dirty work for him so he can claim nadda..didnt know nadda about nadda..Modes Operendi..Blame others for accusations against you!!..

LMS

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector never met a law he didn't enjoy breaking - let alone the commandment "thou shall not kill." [/*]

You know, you should read your signature. JMO nothing personal. Just an observation.
I am a NG from the start, and you are the opposite. No reason to get feathers ruffled.OK?:)

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Let's explore this. He is paid by the county with tax payers money that funds the DA's office. The DA or a supervisor probably signs his checks. As a Deputy DA he more than likely has a small office whcih is part of the larger DA's office. He works closely with other Deputy DA's and in the Spector case tiried the case along with a sr. mem. of the DA's staff. I don't believe that there has been any mention of him being hired as a special prosecutor. If he isn't part of the DA's staff and he's not a special prosecutor why is he filing motions and responding to defense motions. In what capacity do you feel his function is if he isn't part of the DA's staff. His job title that you posted would indicate that he is a staff atty. [/*]

HummmmmYou seem to know alot about AJ, the DA's office and what and who repsonds to motions?????Have to question just why you are posting with non-involved people who are strictly discussing their perspectives, opinions..and yes speculations..

If you are not directly involved with this case..then I have to question why certain posters get your attention but quick..and typed in a sarcastic manner...Hummmmmmmmmm

LMS:confused:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


It is very possible that is exactly what could have gone down..however, Mr. Spector has others do his dirty work for him so he can claim nadda..didnt know nadda about nadda..Modes Operendi..Blame others for accusations against you!!..

LMS [/*]

I agree with that!

Since PP was saying that the "snub" was the last straw that drove Lana to suicide, it actually was a major thing to have the person accused of causing Lana to snap come in and testify that no such thing ever happened.

When it comes down to it, who is the more reliable source? Michael Bay, the man accused of snubbing Lana, or PP, a person who admitted that she has a lousy memory on the stand?

I think he's more likely to know what he did than she is.

[vonna]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


You know, you should read your signature. JMO nothing personal. Just an observation.
I am a NG from the start, and you are the opposite. No reason to get feathers ruffled.OK?:) [/*]

My signature is directed to people like you.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


You know, you should read your signature. JMO nothing personal. Just an observation.
I am a NG from the start, and you are the opposite. No reason to get feathers ruffled.OK?:) [/*]

That is an incredibly snide comment, and what it implies is dead wrong. JMO

[vonna]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


You know, you should read your signature. JMO nothing personal. Just an observation.
I am a NG from the start, and you are the opposite. No reason to get feathers ruffled.OK?:) [/*]

My feathers wouldn't be ruffled even if I had any. But what else can be expected from a poster whose idol is a murderer???

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by joolz


That is an incredibly snide comment, and what it implies is dead wrong. JMO [/*]

Like I said, nothing personal. I have read some incredibly snide comments myself!!! JMO,MOO,IMO
JMO, but you do not have to comment at all. I have been here since this thread started. Everything has been going just fine. Then in comes some trouble makers, snide comments are a dime a dozen, again this is MOO,JMO,IMO

[gmiller]

Originally posted by roytoy
Awfully testy for a noob. Do you have anything to say about the upcoming retrial or is it all about you and how you have been dissed?

As the date looms closer, so are Phil's opportunties to go to Target, to go out Navy Grogging, or pull a gun on anyone. He will be convicted in the retrial, IMO. [/*]

LOL! I've been lurking today and I was noticing the same thing about that poster.

He will absolutely be convicted. Break out the Navy Grogg and the revolvers.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Like I said, nothing personal. I have read some incredibly snide comments myself!!! JMO,MOO,IMO
JMO, but you do not have to comment at all. I have been here since this thread started. Everything has been going just fine. Then in comes some trouble makers, snide comments are a dime a dozen, again this is MOO,JMO,IMO [/*]

:lol: Everything has been going fine? Gee, I seem to remember it differently during the trial. :shrug:

Congratulations on being here since the thread started, but I thought this was a thread that anyone who had an opinion and could voice it respectfully was allowed to be on.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by vonna


My feathers wouldn't be ruffled even if I had any. But what else can be expected from a poster whose idol is a murderer??? [/*]

FYI, Mr. Spector is not my idol, this is a nic that I decided to use, because of the trial. I do not believe that he killed Lana . At least not the way that the pros. made up.
I am and have been a fan of his music for a long time.
Personally, I couldn't care less what you think about me.MPO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by joolz


:lol: Everything has been going fine? Gee, I seem to remember it differently during the trial. :shrug:

Congratulations on being here since the thread started, but I thought this was a thread that anyone who had an opinion and could voice it respectfully was allowed to be on. [/*]

You are right, voice it respectfully!!
I am talking about the thread that we are on now, not during the last trial.

[vonna]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


FYI, Mr. Spector is not my idol, this is a nic that I decided to use, because of the trial. I do not believe that he killed Lana . At least not the way that the pros. made up.
I am and have been a fan of his music for a long time.
Personally, I couldn't care less what you think about me.MPO [/*]

OK. I'll bite. In what way DID he kill Lana?

[joolz]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


You are right, voice it respectfully!!
I am talking about the thread that we are on now, not during the last trial. [/*]

JMO, IMO, IMHO, I've noticed that you don't seem to take issue with Phil S, who has said some of the most disrespectful and nasty things on this thread. Is that because he agrees with you about Spector's guilt?

[gmiller]

Okay, everyone really needs to stop with the personal attacks and snide comments on both sides before the MOD pulls this post. On second thought, may not be such a bad thing to have a fresh start on this topic. IMO a lot of us are out of line! Can't we all get along? We are all adults here, aren't we?:shrug:

[joolz]

Originally posted by gmiller
Okay, everyone really needs to stop with the personal attacks and snide comments on both sides before the MOD pulls this post. On second thought, may not be such a bad thing to have a fresh start on this topic. IMO a lot of us are out of line! Can't we all get along? We are all adults here, aren't we?:shrug: [/*]

You are absolutely right, and thanks for the reminder. :) Time to cool down.

[vonna]

Originally posted by gmiller
Okay, everyone really needs to stop with the personal attacks and snide comments on both sides before the MOD pulls this post. On second thought, may not be such a bad thing to have a fresh start on this topic. IMO a lot of us are out of line! Can't we all get along? We are all adults here, aren't we?:shrug: [/*]

Interesting that you signed up on this board the same time that spectorfan signed up.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by gmiller
Okay, everyone really needs to stop with the personal attacks and snide comments on both sides before the MOD pulls this post. On second thought, may not be such a bad thing to have a fresh start on this topic. IMO a lot of us are out of line! Can't we all get along? We are all adults here, aren't we?:shrug: [/*]

Yes, I believe that you are right.:)

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by vonna


Interesting that you signed up on this board the same time that spectorfan signed up. [/*]

Really? I don't know the poster. I only signed up because I could talk with people about the trial. I have made several friends over this period of time, however, I do not know gmiller. Sorry.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Really? I don't know the poster. I only signed up because I could talk with people about the trial. I have made several friends over this period of time, however, I do not know gmiller. Sorry. [/*]

That's fine, Spectorfan. I find this quite humorous as I am, and always have been pro prosecution.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
I have no idea, but it's nice to meet you.

Spectorfan8:seeya: [/*]

It's nice to meet you too. I joined these boards because I was having PS1 withdrawals (mostly because I was unable to see AJ on a daily basis).

Still curious what vonna meant.

[dref99]

Originally posted by gmiller
Okay, everyone really needs to stop with the personal attacks and snide comments on both sides before the MOD pulls this post. On second thought, may not be such a bad thing to have a fresh start on this topic. IMO a lot of us are out of line! Can't we all get along? We are all adults here, aren't we?:shrug: [/*]

Problem is that there are only 2 possible explanations for the death of Lana - She was killed by PS or she killed herself.

The posters who believe the latter, are truly walking in faith, they can provide no explanation as to how and why, apart from a couple of women who testified that they were Lana's very best friends and then dissed her as if their worst enemy, to explain why she committed suicide. I suppose one could think with friends like this ...... no wonder, BUT they were not her very best friends, as was shown during the trial. The truth of any of their evidence was shown to be very doubtful. It will be of minor interest to see if they take the stand in trial 2.

So when a new Nic comes along, gets confused about jury selection and thinks the defense can have input into the prosecution jury decisions (or vice versa - he sure got it wrong), it needs incredible restraint by those who sat through every day of the previous trial, to allow the incorrect, unreferenced, unacknowledged and without merit statements to go unanswered. The person concerned spent most of his posts making the very snide comments you mention above. It is truly difficult not to respond in kind.

Then an old Spector Fan reappears and his/her first comment is a snide remark
"Thank you for Your opinion. Opinions are like a bellybuttons, everybody has one" and the second was a personal attack, despite the preface "JMO nothing personal". It was personal, and it was an insult.

The current legal defence of Mr Spector seems to be hell bent on removing every piece of evidence, including that of the ME and well accepted experts, showing there is every likilihood they have no way of mounting a serious defense based on suicide.

To quote another poster - same old, same old from the defence and from the supporters of same.

jmo (having read, listened and dissected the evidence, over and over and over)

[True2Blues]

Very Well Said dref99. Thank you.

[Jayne]

I spent a half hour..yep..stupid of me...writing a post...to try to clear up what a DA or ADA does.

I figured...why bother.

So..I just backslashed..or came to this post.

I think..if there is going to be discussion here..you and so many others are "correct"..it's a discussion.

If you want legal information or cites (I don't mean as to blogs, etc.)..but want some court rules...just ask me and I'll do my best in the time I have to thrust them out there.

I'm back in CA...and I can direct any poster to where they could look. But here are the places to search if you are relegated to the internet:

anyone's best bet? California Rules of Court, or local Rules of Court..or California Law (has all of them listed...forms..pro forma...motions...etc.) In CA...much different that many other states..it is determined by the county or local court one is in. Los Angeles Rules of Court..pleadings...and so on and so on.

If anyone wants to know why Alan Jackson does or did what he did? He's an employee/staff of the District Attorney of Los Angeles County...he Must comply or defer to the DA's decision on any particular case. IMO...Jackson is an up and coming high hauncho DA in that office (IF he chooses to stay there). Whatever motions or documents or whatever he files in this case..it is Under the auspices of the LA DA office.

IMO..he would not have been assigned in the outset to this case if Cooley didn't think he was capable...and Dixon wouldn't have just "sat there" (WHICH I'M not saying he DID..he was the senior person...gleaning and grooming Jackson to move up) and done nothing if there was something done "wrong".

Defense attorneys..on the other hand..are up to a different type of scrutiny..if they are Legal Aid...bless them...for earning that pittance of a salary to do what they do and probably never even be recognized..by a "thank you" or in Print..and certainly not by salary. (BTW...district attorneys do not make the big bucks, either..just in case anyone there thinks they do. In my mind..it's a vocation.)

I'm sorry ..if posters don't get this...but a defense attorney..if Not Legal Aid..is coming from a far different background and gastank than the district attorney. You can NOT do things as a DA..that a defense attorney CAN do or tries to do.

Just think..Exculpatory evidence. DA doesn't give it up...OUT.

Defense? Well..yeah..and no. Let's stretch that chess board..about an extra few feet for that ONE side...

JMO MOO

J

[gmiller]

Dref99, well put. I can not figure out how on earth a defense can be built around the likes of "The Thanksgiving Desert"! I think of her as a peripheral friend when Lana was alive and a greedy person after Lana died. I cannot believe people, even though they are in the minority, could ever put stock in a defense this transparent.

My problem is when some people like the "bellybutton" comment, or the irresponsible remarks to GPS earlier in this thread is what bothers me. I wish people wouldn't go off half cocked, spewing rude comments, often times without knowing the facts.

Most importantly, there must be a mutual respect in this discussion. It is a discussion, and should never be a fight where some of us don't want to participate. I threw in my two cents to stop the insanity!! Not sure if it worked but tomorrow is a new day, hopefully a more peaceful one.
~Gigi

[vonna]

Originally posted by gmiller
Dref99, well put. I can not figure out how on earth a defense can be built around the likes of "The Thanksgiving Desert"! I think of her as a peripheral friend when Lana was alive and a greedy person after Lana died. I cannot believe people, even though they are in the minority, could ever put stock in a defense this transparent.

My problem is when some people like the "bellybutton" comment, or the irresponsible remarks to GPS earlier in this thread is what bothers me. I wish people wouldn't go off half cocked, spewing rude comments, often times without knowing the facts.

Most importantly, there must be a mutual respect in this discussion. It is a discussion, and should never be a fight where some of us don't want to participate. I threw in my two cents to stop the insanity!! Not sure if it worked but tomorrow is a new day, hopefully a more peaceful one.
~Gigi [/*]

Love the "Thanksgiving desert" designation! She's got to have set pumpkins back a decade, at least! She claimed to have loved Lana so much - that when Lana died - she was so distraught that she took to her bed for a week. From that amount of alleged grief - to selling her BFF out for thirty pieces of silver - is a stretch which STILL boggles my mind.

[flipflop]

I am coming in from left field here. I am sorry for my question but does anyone know when the new trial will start?

[spydernweb2006]

Personally when PP wrote in her Christmas letter which was an exhibit :

And I lost my Dear Friend Lana to the hands of Phil Spector

Then got up on the stand and swore under oath:

I NEVER said that!

She was a liar and I could not trust her testimony! That ofcourse is and will be my opinion. I didnt believe a word out of PP's mouth after that. No true friend would ever trash their friend the way PP trashed Lana on the stand. I chose to believe Neely(sp?) (I believe that was her name, forgive me if I am wrong, the Real Estate Agent ) who knew Lana longer, and saw her the day of her death, as a more reliable source. Certainly Neely didnt trash Lana but came across as honest.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[flipflop]

Originally posted by flipflop
I am coming in from left field here. I am sorry for my question but does anyone know when the new trial will start? [/*]

Anyone? Or has it not been stated?

[gmiller]

Originally posted by vonna


Love the "Thanksgiving desert" designation! She's got to have set pumpkins back a decade, at least! She claimed to have loved Lana so much - that when Lana died - she was so distraught that she took to her bed for a week. From that amount of alleged grief - to selling her BFF out for thirty pieces of silver - is a stretch which STILL boggles my mind. [/*]

LOL poor pumpkins (the squash, obvs not the woman). I recall watching her take the stand and wondering where they dug that "precious" gem from:rolleyes: I hope AJ brings back the
"Thanksgiving Day Desert" section of PS1 if PP testifies again. All I can think is how she betrayed Lana and for what? The almighty dollar?

vonna, hope you will remember me from now on and know that I am NOT spectorfan, nor am I anyone who would ever support the defense in this trial. What I was trying to do was keep the peace in this discussion. Just trying to clear the air with you. Glad things are back on track.

[Jayne]

not sure if I have the hearing date correct..but I definitely have the trial date of September 29th correct.

reading through all these threads is difficult..so I'm just trying to help out here.

You can always check "online" with the Los Angeles Courts...check out their dockets/calendars.

JMO MOO

J

[vonna]

Originally posted by spydernweb2006
Personally when PP wrote in her Christmas letter which was an exhibit :

And I lost my Dear Friend Lana to the hands of Phil Spector

Then got up on the stand and swore under oath:

I NEVER said that!

She was a liar and I could not trust her testimony! That ofcourse is and will be my opinion. I didnt believe a word out of PP's mouth after that. No true friend would ever trash their friend the way PP trashed Lana on the stand. I chose to believe Neely(sp?) (I believe that was her name, forgive me if I am wrong, the Real Estate Agent ) who knew Lana longer, and saw her the day of her death, as a more reliable source. Certainly Neely didnt trash Lana but came across as honest.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder [/*]

Absolutely correct. Well said. Neely was her true friend.

[vonna]

Originally posted by gmiller


LOL poor pumpkins (the squash, obvs not the woman). I recall watching her take the stand and wondering where they dug that "precious" gem from:rolleyes: I hope AJ brings back the
"Thanksgiving Day Desert" section of PS1 if PP testifies again. All I can think is how she betrayed Lana and for what? The almighty dollar?

vonna, hope you will remember me from now on and know that I am NOT spectorfan, nor am I anyone who would ever support the defense in this trial. What I was trying to do was keep the peace in this discussion. Just trying to clear the air with you. Glad things are back on track. [/*]

I apologize for any reference to anyone else where you are concerned. I like the way your head works!! It works like mine.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by flipflop


Anyone? Or has it not been stated? [/*]

No it has not started. There is a pretrial hearing on July 29th (I think). The trial is expected to start in September.

[vonna]

Originally posted by gmiller


No it has not started. There is a pretrial hearing on July 29th (I think). The trial is expected to start in September. [/*]

I have September 28th in my head for an important trial starting. Spector or OJ????

[gmiller]

Originally posted by vonna


I apologize for any reference to anyone else where you are concerned. I like the way your head works!! It works like mine. [/*]

LOL I've always liked the way your mind works too. No need to apologize, but thank you and of course I accept. We are on the same team. Now everybody join in for a round of Cum Ba Ya ;)

[gmiller]

Originally posted by vonna


I have September 28th in my head for an important trial starting. Spector or OJ???? [/*]

If you go to Sprocket's blog she has the motions posted. They are from AJ. The motions are for Dianne Ogden's testimony to allowed and the new witness to be allowed in as a new 1101 * witness. On these docs you will see the date these motions are to be argued is July 29th at 8:30 AM. You may be right about the Sept. 29th trial date. 2 months should allow ample time to seat a jury unless the defense pulls some *.s. shenanigans.

Oh and OJ is supposed to start around the same time as Spector. Not to worry though, fmr. CTV correspondent Michael Bryant's thelegaledge.com is supposed to be up and running by then so, if PS2 is televised then we should be able to see it gavel to gavel on his site. If not, perhaps KTLA will cover it on their website as well.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller


LOL poor pumpkins (the squash, obvs not the woman). I recall watching her take the stand and wondering where they dug that "precious" gem from:rolleyes: I hope AJ brings back the
"Thanksgiving Day Desert" section of PS1 if PP testifies again. All I can think is how she betrayed Lana and for what? The almighty dollar?

vonna, hope you will remember me from now on and know that I am NOT spectorfan, nor am I anyone who would ever support the defense in this trial. What I was trying to do was keep the peace in this discussion. Just trying to clear the air with you. [/*]

Hey...Gmiller..think you haven't made a presence? I don't think anyone is questioning you..least of all me and I would speak for vonna, as well..if that's ok with her.

BTW...I have no problem at all with the SpectorFan who posts here...she's not a problem either..just states her opinion. Give her a break.

We all often get "emotional" (Lord knows I can)..but she's a good egg..even if not on the "same side" so to speak as many here.

Spectorfan, me, you, vonna..and a slew of others...we're not a problem...and I think there are only a small few posters who use different "nics" if in fact they do that. YOu know..during PS1..there were a few whose spouses/significant others..signed on..to voice the same opinion and it became a fiasco...or so I was informed or misinformed.

I think we just need to keep this whole discussion to a discussion..like so many others have said..and not into personal attacks or discriminatory and nasty remarks that are essentially personal in nature..even if being couched by some comment on the case at bar.

jmo

moo
J

Spector's sons are a prime example..they are often attacked or disparaged. One of the last posts that GPS postd here, I found to be very intersting and telling. Some people may not think him particulary astute..I do...he made a very telling comment..if anyone really read it..about the blood in PS's pants pocket(s). Here's a PS son..who I am sure does not want to think or find out that his father is a murderer..but who is communing and posting with us here..and then posts what he did. He's not condemning his father..he's being realistic and I'm sure he's cringing inside at the thought that it might actually be true. And..frankly..I think he may be well correct. We are speculating on "history"..he is speculating on a different "history". I think he may be more correct than either the prosecution or defense was in PS1. PS is a man of habit...how many people put their hands in their pockets..as a matter of habit..or of hiding something...bad fingernails? wanting to keep their hands from flying about because they usually use them when they talk? Or wiping off blood..that got on their hands when they opened the door to "greet" the police?

I just question...how did PS open the door..talk to Adriano..then go back inside and do all he did..but there was still blood on that handle?? My guess? not that far off from GPS..but in a different perspective...is that PS was in the middle of "cleaning up"..and he still had blood on his hands from the clean up procedure..he opened the door with bloody hands..so he hid them in his pocket..or tried to. OR..was that doorhandle bloody..because right after he shot lana..he went to the door to proclaim to ADSousa...what he did...then when he went inside..he just went about cleaning up..forgetting about the door handle.but then when the police arrived..after he'd sanatized the place as much as he could..he had to open a "bloody door handle"? I wonder how much forensics did about coagulation of blood, etc. I don't remember hearing about that in PS1..but I missed a few days of testimony.

Either way..I can see GPS's idea...it was to "hide" his bloody hands.

BUT..dang that diaper...why didn't he throw it down the toilet..or try to? Didn't fit? or didn't have time? That was my guess..he'd have tried to flush it down - that's why it was on the floor in front of the toilet..but the PO were at the door..so the panic. What IDIOT..would leave a half wet..half bloody baby diaper in the bathroom of a crime scene..when you would or could be the prime suspect?? PS was smarter than that...or so I think. He got caught..or he should have been. Was the LE that incompetent? Or had PS been much more savvy than we'd want to imagine?..plus a few moments of Grace (on his part..let's call it inopportune Fate)?

I think he did have the cops in his pocket..so to speak...NOT that they didn't pay attention to this crime scene...but they did their job..then he spouted off all of his "connections" and so it dragged on..eventually..he was "let go". Cops messed up? Connections? dunno...I admit that I "side" with the police..only because I truly do know, from experience, that the majority of them are truly honest and believable and ironclad citizens who protect us.

I wonder why..I truly do..why the prosecution didn't put up the police statements. Most say..because it prevented the defense from using them. Yeah..it does or did. But WHY would the prosecution do that if their case was ironclad. Why? Maybe IT was NOT ironclad and they didn't want statements coming in. understand that..totally. Or YES..they wanted to force PS to take the stand (AS IF IF IF he would???) But I don't think that was the only reason. IMOO..there were enough contradicting statements that had the DA let the police reports in..they still would have had PS under the gun, so to speak. Something was going on there..I think..that wasn't illegal..but that was a "problem". Someone in the Police Dept..did something a bit "outside the box" that they shouldn't have..so they wanted to keep it all out..to avoid that problem. Dunno..just speculation..so don't take anything I'm saying as a truth..only a surmise.

Think we're gonna see police reports or have an arresting officer on the stand this time? I wonder. Sort of Too late..too soon..or vice versa. BTW..I support the police and the hard work they do and the mistakes they make just like anyone else..but they..THEY are under such strict and devisive scrutiny that they can't cross their "t"s the wrong way or it's a claim against "justice"..sometimes YES..should be..other times..give them a stinking BREAK. Form over Substance...Or how about discretion..not discrimination..but discretion...and reasonable and legal.

I don't think he will..but I'd like to see AJ put every single police report, statement and the officers on the stand..this time. There's enough incriminating evidence in those reports that I think would actually "Force" PS to the stand to contradict. That's a shot in the wind..and I'm sure they won't take it. Thank God I don't make their decisions, huh? :)


jmo

moo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by vonna


I have September 28th in my head for an important trial starting. Spector or OJ???? [/*]

28th is a Sunday - my old lady BDay

..opening date is the 29th...I know..wanna be there

Nobody will start on a Sunday unless it's an arraingment..

JMO

Moo

JOKING..but will OJ have another arraignment? I wouldn't be surprised!!! :) Is he stealing gloves from some designer corporation? Gloves that don't fit..over latex bodygloves underneath? (just kidding..)

[gmiller]

An informative post as always Jayne. I have never had a problem with Spectorfan. Due to the fact that I coincidently joined this board around the same time as spectorfan, it was intimated that she (sf8) and I are one in the same. While I respect her opinion regarding, I do not in any way believe ps is NG. Vonna and I have decided that we are PS soul sisters, lol. I realize those posts that were rude in nature came from someone who is not any of the individuals you mentioned. I recall BK saying during the trial that some people affiliated with this trial are posting.

If you have specifics as to who these people really are (other than GPS), please PM me if you could. I'd love to know.

Goodnight all! I have a 1st date tomorrow afternoon and I need to get my beauty rest. Heaven forbid I go on this date looking like a piece of "Punkin' Pie". The guy would go running for the hills! LOL
~gigi

[tartangirl]

Hey NavyMom, I am right there with you waiting and will be interested to hear what happens on the 29th of this month. I am also hoping for that long awaited trial to begin on the 29th of September without any more delays. although I know the defense will do all they can to cause some kind of problem again.

Wish I could gather up some patience dust and sprinkle away to ease the waiting....till then I will just have to keep telling my self...I NEED PATIENCE....NOW! LOL

take care, tartangirl


as always ~~~ Justice For Lana and those who Love Her

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by dref99


Problem is that there are only 2 possible explanations for the death of Lana - She was killed by PS or she killed herself.

The posters who believe the latter, are truly walking in faith, they can provide no explanation as to how and why, apart from a couple of women who testified that they were Lana's very best friends and then dissed her as if their worst enemy, to explain why she committed suicide. I suppose one could think with friends like this ...... no wonder, BUT they were not her very best friends, as was shown during the trial. The truth of any of their evidence was shown to be very doubtful. It will be of minor interest to see if they take the stand in trial 2.

So when a new Nic comes along, gets confused about jury selection and thinks the defense can have input into the prosecution jury decisions (or vice versa - he sure got it wrong), it needs incredible restraint by those who sat through every day of the previous trial, to allow the incorrect, unreferenced, unacknowledged and without merit statements to go unanswered. The person concerned spent most of his posts making the very snide comments you mention above. It is truly difficult not to respond in kind.

Then an old Spector Fan reappears and his/her first comment is a snide remark
"Thank you for Your opinion. Opinions are like a bellybuttons, everybody has one" and the second was a personal attack, despite the preface "JMO nothing personal". It was personal, and it was an insult.

The current legal defence of Mr Spector seems to be hell bent on removing every piece of evidence, including that of the ME and well accepted experts, showing there is every likilihood they have no way of mounting a serious defense based on suicide.

To quote another poster - same old, same old from the defence and from the supporters of same.

jmo (having read, listened and dissected the evidence, over and over and over) [/*]


First of all, I didn't "just drop in", I started this thread. I try to post as much as I can, but with summer being here, I stay out by the pool much of the day. I do not post if there is nothing here that I really care about.
At last, there are some posters (me included) that are tired of discussing the LAST trial. We are waiting for the new trial. Something to post about.
Last night got out of control, it all got resolved through pm's. So, there is no reason to keep bringing it up. That is, unless YOU are trying to start it up again.
Also, I am not a new poster, I have been here since the last trial. Posting about something like this only encourages people to lash back, there is no point to it.
So, you won't get me to post about this again. :)

[roytoy]

Just because a poster starts the thread does not mean that they control the content or get to police other posters. IMO.

Motions are being heard next week and I don't think it is unreasonable for discussion about PS2.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by roytoy
Just because a poster starts the thread does not mean that they control the content or get to police other posters. IMO.

Motions are being heard next week and I don't think it is unreasonable for discussion about PS2. [/*]

I didn't say it is unreasonable to discuss PS2. I know that about the thread. :)

[vonna]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by NavyMom58

Thanks!
:seeya:

[roytoy]

And so, considering this is a retrial, it is not unreasonable for posters to discuss the first trial and what might be done differently this time. MOO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by roytoy
And so, considering this is a retrial, it is not unreasonable for posters to discuss the first trial and what might be done differently this time. MOO [/*]


You are absolutely right. Thank you for your input.:)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


If you go to Sprocket's blog she has the motions posted. They are from AJ. The motions are for Dianne Ogden's testimony to allowed and the new witness to be allowed in as a new 1101 * witness. On these docs you will see the date these motions are to be argued is July 29th at 8:30 AM. You may be right about the Sept. 29th trial date. 2 months should allow ample time to seat a jury unless the defense pulls some *.s. shenanigans.

Oh and OJ is supposed to start around the same time as Spector. Not to worry though, fmr. CTV correspondent Michael Bryant's thelegaledge.com is supposed to be up and running by then so, if PS2 is televised then we should be able to see it gavel to gavel on his site. If not, perhaps KTLA will cover it on their website as well. [/*]

You can count on at least attempted shenanigans, but it's been over a year and I think Judge Fidler is ready to get this show on the road.

I just hope that if JF allows cameras again, there is someone who carries the trial Live. Since OJ is starting first everyone, including Michael Bryant, seems to be focused on that.

If it's still going on by the 29th, I worry that no one will want to refocus on the PS retrial.

[vonna]

Originally posted by True2Blues


You can count on at least attempted shenanigans, but it's been over a year and I think Judge Fidler is ready to get this show on the road.

I just hope that if JF allows cameras again, there is someone who carries the trial Live. Since OJ is starting first everyone, including Michael Bryant, seems to be focused on that.

If it's still going on by the 29th, I worry that no one will want to refocus on the PS retrial. [/*]

Hopefully, the OJ trial will be finished by then and he'll be in jail. Even if it's not - I will still switch to the Spector trial and believe many others will do likewise.

[Spectorfan8]

I would watch Spector instead of OJ anytime.

[tartangirl]

Good Evening,

I will be there with bells on for sure when PS2 begins this fall.

I think that there are a whole lot of us that are hell bent on getting OJ out of the way and our schedules and calendars clear for the Spector trial.

I would skip OJ altogether and watch every minute of the Spector trial and be perfectly happy. I know that I am not alone in that thought. I actually have a friend who said that she would rather sit on the Spector jury than win the lottery...that is serious intention folks.;)

Let's get on with it, too much time has past and we need Justice for Lana and those who Love her.

we are all more than ready..

take care, tartangirl

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by vonna


Hopefully, the OJ trial will be finished by then and he'll be in jail. Even if it's not - I will still switch to the Spector trial and believe many others will do likewise. [/*]

I'm with you all the way. I'm much more interested in Spector2.

[gmiller]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by True2Blues


You can count on at least attempted shenanigans, but it's been over a year and I think Judge Fidler is ready to get this show on the road.

I just hope that if JF allows cameras again, there is someone who carries the trial Live. Since OJ is starting first everyone, including Michael Bryant, seems to be focused on that.

If it's still going on by the 29th, I worry that no one will want to refocus on the PS retrial. [/*][/QUOTE

That is a worry of mine as well. I'm so sick of the new trial OJ! The murder trial was one thing...this new trial seems like it will be boring. I don't really think that trial could last very long. Seems pretty open and shut, no? In any event, I hope OJ goes down but I could live without watching the trial.

Fidler had better cover this trial or we will be some disappointed and bitter posters. I really want to see justice for Lana this time around :rose:

[vonna]

Originally posted by gmiller
[QUOTE]Originally posted by True2Blues


You can count on at least attempted shenanigans, but it's been over a year and I think Judge Fidler is ready to get this show on the road.

I just hope that if JF allows cameras again, there is someone who carries the trial Live. Since OJ is starting first everyone, including Michael Bryant, seems to be focused on that.

If it's still going on by the 29th, I worry that no one will want to refocus on the PS retrial. [/*][/QUOTE

That is a worry of mine as well. I'm so sick of the new trial OJ! The murder trial was one thing...this new trial seems like it will be boring. I don't really think that trial could last very long. Seems pretty open and shut, no? In any event, I hope OJ goes down but I could live without watching the trial.

Fidler had better cover this trial or we will be some disappointed and bitter posters. I really want to see justice for Lana this time around :rose: [/*]

Judge Fidler is brilliant! My money's on him to control the second trial as he did the first. The trick to winning will be to getting a jury without another BenTen - and I think the DA should have learned from the fiasco of the first trial and trust AJ's judgment this time.

[gmiller]

They have to listen to AJ this time around and kick the BenTen's (I love that, btw) to the curb. The LA DA's office does want to break their curse of OJ and Robert Blake, right?

JF is a wonderful judge. He did rule a tight ship and I expect nothing less from PS2.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller
They have to listen to AJ this time around and kick the BenTen's (I love that, btw) to the curb. The LA DA's office does want to break their curse of OJ and Robert Blake, right?

JF is a wonderful judge. He did rule a tight ship and I expect nothing less from PS2. [/*]

At first..I didn't get the "BenTen" reference. But you do realize..there are only so many "challenges" either side can use..you have to use them wisely..or risk losing that "last one" that could get rid of a "BenTen".

Hopefully AJ..will take a few JenTwos...just to have that last challenge for BenTen?

It's a carp shoot in a lot of ways. It's almost like choose the lesser of many greater evils..or maybe among suitors...WHO will do you the best..NOW and in the FUTURE?

Geesh..I just made jury selection sound like spouse selection. Hmmmmm..maybe it is. A good choice makes it to your death or demise and makes sure you and your wishes are taken care of? A bad choice..takes all your money and runs. Hmm...again..which side?

Can't pick your relatives...but at least in jury selection..you can deselect them? I might choose (i.e. not oppose) a few disgruntled nieces and nephews..if at the end I could DeSelect the Evil Stepmother.

It's timing..it's being prepared..it's being not sideswiped and not misled..and there is no Perfect...it just depends on who or which juror was the one "missed" or "had to be let in".

My guess is AJ didn't see BenTen coming at him..looked good on paper..sounded good in audio...was a PITA in deliberations. Not AJ's fault...ya can't see everything or be able to "throw out" everything.

Peers...great concept..impossible to have in a vacuum 100%. Unless of course, it is an Eureka..Good Lord..I've Found It..GUILTY! or NOT?

Hey..Phil??? wanna have a Bench Trial? hmmm? (I know..I know..it was just a "joke")

:)

jmo
moo
J

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne


My guess is AJ didn't see BenTen coming at him..looked good on paper..sounded good in audio...was a PITA in deliberations. Not AJ's fault...ya can't see everything or be able to "throw out" everything.

Peers...great concept..impossible to have in a vacuum 100%. Unless of course, it is an Eureka..Good Lord..I've Found It..GUILTY! or NOT?

Hey..Phil??? wanna have a Bench Trial? hmmm? (I know..I know..it was just a "joke")

:)

jmo
moo
J [/*] *respectfully snipped*



Hi Jayne:seeya:

Actually, it's my understanding that AJ didn't want to seat BenTen on the jury. He was trumped by the DA's jury consultant and the DA decided to side with him or her. So we can gather that AJ's did get a bad initial feeling about BenTen.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Hi NM! :seeya:

I have to disagree with you there NM. That gun, uncocked has an 11 pound trigger pull, and a built in safety that makes it necessary to pull the trigger all the way back, in order for the firing pin to be able to strike.

No one pulls an 11 lb. trigger by accident.

If it was cocked, the trigger pull would have been 4 lbs, but the act of cocking a gun is intent to do harm. No intention, no reason to cock the gun.

I think your scenario is right. Lana fought back, PS got made and decided to show her who had the power and fired. No accident there. [/*]

Here's a question for people to think about,

If Lana inadvertently applied say 6 pounds of pressure to his trigger finger in an attempt to defend herself with both her damaged wrist, how many pounds of pressure would he really need to pull an 11 pound trigger?

Now, after thinking about the above question, is it now possible that neither really intended to pull the trigger but maybe it's possible it was indeed an unexpected and unintentional firing?

Still does not change the outcome or the charge of Murder 2 but gives a little more to think about.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:confused: Your post is very confusing. Sounds like you are only interested in defendant bashing. My post has to do with possibilities within the realm of the premise stated. [/*]

It would be nice if we could all accept everything we hear at face value but sometimes you really need to think about what you hear before you make a conclusion.

All the Jurors heard all the Defense witnesses but they did not consider any of it (as stated on TV by them) because the Jurors thought about what Defense witnesses said and knew none of it made sense.

If you want to believe everything you heard, that's fine but to try to convince those that actually thought about what they heard, all I can say is good luck.

Bringing up hypotheticals based on improbabilities really does not help your case.


Also, I have helped so many out of the kindness of my heart for so long, I'm not about to stop now just because you think I need to catch up to your way of thinking.

I prefer to work with proven facts when presenting hypotheticals and as long as assumed facts don't violate "Natures Laws" like the Defense's witnesses did, I will consider anything.
:read:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Sorry Ms. Dude. That hardly qualifies as a case busting falsehood. He also could have forgotten and believes he didn't see her. PP could also have been misstaken. Big Deal and So What. [/*]

And you just made an argument in favor of not allowing any witnesses into a trial because it would be to easy to disqualify a witness if all anyone has to say is "I think he forgot"and have no proof to back up your statement.

If your premise is that the film director "Forgot" that Lana was at his party, then the burden of proof is now on you to prove she was there. Until you can do that, all we can do is trust that he was telling the truth. That is how the Courts work.

Until a statement is proven otherwise, it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

so, I ask you, where is your proof the film director lied?

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I'm not the one with my knickers in a twist, so don't worry about me.

You're entitled to your opinion about "gossip" boards, and thank you for sharing that. Though I have no idea what that has to do with this.

What I'm talking about is the remark you made to Tartangirl's response to one of your posts from earlier today, that she needed to catch up. Sorry that it confused you. [/*]

Just to defend Phil S., his comment to "catch up" was more directed at all of us that do things out of the kindness of their heart. I believe he was implying that we should stop and start thinking of just are selves so we could "Catch up" to people that are not as kind as some of us are.

Personally, and I hope I'm right in this, he really was being sarcastic and baiting for a response.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


Promotional video for her..and questionable motivation to claim such a definite point...me thinks it was bought and paid for..This youngster "Brooke" really doesnt convince me of the "Actual Truth" of Phil's behavior/personality/mindset..

No Spin Zone..Nope!

LMS:rolleyes: [/*]

Actually, I kind of believed Brooke's description of my father, when he does not drink and maybe the Defense might put her on the Stand but the problem is not proving what my Father is like when sober, this case is about what my Father may have done while possibly drunk.

Personally, I don't see the Prosecution spending a lot of time cross examining her if she were to be called but she would make the trial take longer and that may be a motive for the Defense to use her.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Actually, I kind of believed Brooke's description of my father, when he does not drink and maybe the Defense might put her on the Stand but the problem is not proving what my Father is like when sober, this case is about what my Father may have done while possibly drunk.

Personally, I don't see the Prosecution spending a lot of time cross examining her if she were to be called but she would make the trial take longer and that may be a motive for the Defense to use her. [/*]

Hi!

I do not think that the judge will allow her testimony about how nice he was and so on. He didn't allow your sister to do that. He doesn't want your dad to come across as a real person. I believed her, no reason not to.
For some reason, I just do not think that the judge will allow anything that makes your dad look innocent. I personally think that he is wrong in doing so. I feel people should hear about the good times that they had with your dad. You know, put the entire mystery of Phil Spector on the table.
One more thing, I was told that I have made some horrible comments about you. I have not done that. I respect you, your brothers, and sister.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by tartangirl
I actually have a friend who said that she would rather sit on the Spector jury than win the lottery...that is serious intention folks.;)

Let's get on with it, too much time has past and we need Justice for Lana and those who Love her.

we are all more than ready..

take care, tartangirl [/*]

Wow, if your friend gets the winning jackpot Lotto Numbers, she can give them to me and out of the kindness of my heart, I will buy her plane tickets and all expense paid for a place to stay at the same hotel that was good enough for my father during the last trial for PS2 :D Sorry that I can't guarantee a seat on the Jury but maybe near them :rolleyes:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Hi!

I do not think that the judge will allow her testimony about how nice he was and so on. He didn't allow your sister to do that. He doesn't want your dad to come across as a real person. I believed her, no reason not to.
For some reason, I just do not think that the judge will allow anything that makes your dad look innocent. I personally think that he is wrong in doing so. I feel people should hear about the good times that they had with your dad. You know, put the entire mystery of Phil Spector on the table.
One more thing, I was told that I have made some horrible comments about you. I have not done that. I respect you, your brothers, and sister. [/*]

I too doubt that the Judge would allow Brook to testify but not for your reasons. I just don't believe what she has to say is relevant.

And yes, my Sister did testify. she confirmed that our Father is Right Handed and she painted a nice image of my father coming over to where my Sister lived with her Mother to watch "All in the Family". AJ just decided not to cross examine her because he felt it was not worth his time. In his own word, He thought my Sister's testimony "was a joke".

I don't think I saw a single case where the Judge denied anything from the Defense side. If the Defense wanted my Father to look "innocent", they should have done that instead of trashing Lana's life.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Sorry Ms. Dude. That hardly qualifies as a case busting falsehood. He also could have forgotten and believes he didn't see her. PP could also have been misstaken. Big Deal and So What. [/*]

Facts are facts. Not only did this person lie about Michael Bay, she also , if I may remind you, stated CLEARLY IN HER CHRISTMAS CARD that her "dear friend, her sister..." (blah blah blah BLAH) "Lana was killed at the hands of Phil Spector. " (Wording may not be exact. You get the gist.) If she didn't and doesn't have the sense of mind to remember 2 VERY important details correctly then 1, possibly it's not in the defense's best interest to have her on the stand and 2, she should know by now that she looks like a total dolt.

Now if she didn't believe Lana died "at the hands of Phil Spector" when she sent these cards out to people, why did she say it? It totally makes me doubt her credibility--- at this point she has NONE with me. And maybe I do sound like I want to 'defendant bash' but you know something? Every single person called to the stand in defense of PS was flimsy in my opinion. Not a single person, certainly not this person who goes by the name of a dessert (come on... how can anyone take her seriously?!), not any of the high-paid 'experts', not even Henry Lee has given me one iota of thought that PS might be innocent. The prosecution has given me every reason to believe that he is not. And based on his past, I'm thinkin' he deserves a little bashing. Dude holds a gun to womens heads as if it's nothing, calls them the "C word" and says they all deserve a bullet? Bash away, folks. Bash away.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I too doubt that the Judge would allow Brook to testify but not for your reasons. I just don't believe what she has to say is relevant.

And yes, my Sister did testify. she confirmed that our Father is Right Handed and she painted a nice image of my father coming over to where my Sister lived with her Mother to watch "All in the Family". AJ just decided not to cross examine her because he felt it was not worth his time. In his own word, He thought my Sister's testimony "was a joke".

I don't think I saw a single case where the Judge denied anything from the Defense side. If the Defense wanted my Father to look "innocent", they should have done that instead of trashing Lana's life. [/*]


I'm sorry, Gary. Your sister is adorable and seems like a genuinely nice person, but her testimony sounded as if she was reading from queue cards or something. Bless her for trying though.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Hi!

I do not think that the judge will allow her testimony about how nice he was and so on. He didn't allow your sister to do that. He doesn't want your dad to come across as a real person. I believed her, no reason not to.
For some reason, I just do not think that the judge will allow anything that makes your dad look innocent. I personally think that he is wrong in doing so. I feel people should hear about the good times that they had with your dad. You know, put the entire mystery of Phil Spector on the table.
One more thing, I was told that I have made some horrible comments about you. I have not done that. I respect you, your brothers, and sister. [/*]

I believe the defense can only call a witness to rebut specific testimony of a prosecution's witness. For example, if a person witnessed one of the acts of an 1101* witnesses and recalls something different- something that would bode well for Spector then we could be aloud to hear from that person.

I don't think we can hear about all of the good things about PS, (just as we cannot hear about what Lana was really like) during the evidentiary portion of the trial. Everyone, even the worst of the worst criminals can have a "good guy side" to them. It sounds like what you would like to see are victim impact statements in the trial, but that is too prejudical. We know, and the jury will as well that there are two sides to Spector.

I know this must be frustrating for you Spectorfan, because you are trying to figure out this man. I think that many of us already have him pegged as simply a man who took his life long behavior and threats towards woman to far and there was a deadly consequence that he must pay for now. IMO

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Ellie



I'm sorry, Gary. Your sister is adorable and seems like a genuinely nice person, but her testimony sounded as if she was reading from queue cards or something. Bless her for trying though. [/*]

No apology needed. Anyone that tells me (like she did about 8 years ago) that she believes she is "superior" to me, in an E-Mail can defend herself.

Knowing how much she has been given by our father to have a great start at life would not surprise me that she would do all she could to defend him. Both her and her Mother helped put the wedge between our Father and my Brothers & I.

She's just protecting what she thinks is hers.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Ellie


Facts are facts. Not only did this person lie about Michael Bay, she also , if I may remind you, stated CLEARLY IN HER CHRISTMAS CARD that her "dear friend, her sister..." (blah blah blah BLAH) "Lana was killed at the hands of Phil Spector. " (Wording may not be exact. You get the gist.) If she didn't and doesn't have the sense of mind to remember 2 VERY important details correctly then 1, possibly it's not in the defense's best interest to have her on the stand and 2, she should know by now that she looks like a total dolt.

Now if she didn't believe Lana died "at the hands of Phil Spector" when she sent these cards out to people, why did she say it? It totally makes me doubt her credibility--- at this point she has NONE with me. And maybe I do sound like I want to 'defendant bash' but you know something? Every single person called to the stand in defense of PS was flimsy in my opinion. Not a single person, certainly not this person who goes by the name of a dessert (come on... how can anyone take her seriously?!), not any of the high-paid 'experts', not even Henry Lee has given me one iota of thought that PS might be innocent. The prosecution has given me every reason to believe that he is not. And based on his past, I'm thinkin' he deserves a little bashing. Dude holds a gun to womens heads as if it's nothing, calls them the "C word" and says they all deserve a bullet? Bash away, folks. Bash away. [/*]

Phil S. has been banned.:D

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


It would also account for the slight downward angle of the bullet path and also provide a shield to stop the flight of back spatter. In addition, it could account for the lack of GSR on Phillips hands as her hands were over his.

Mortie [/*]

Shame you can not go back to prior posts. That is exactly what I described during the last trial to explain why there was so little Back Spatter on the coat but it seemed to many did not want to either respond or think was possible.

My other point was that there was not much in the back of the throat to cause a lot of bleeding. The bullet never reached full speed so it sealed itself in the severed spine. The majority of the blood had to have come from the shredding effect the blast had in her mouth.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I too doubt that the Judge would allow Brook to testify but not for your reasons. I just don't believe what she has to say is relevant.

And yes, my Sister did testify. she confirmed that our Father is Right Handed and she painted a nice image of my father coming over to where my Sister lived with her Mother to watch "All in the Family". AJ just decided not to cross examine her because he felt it was not worth his time. In his own word, He thought my Sister's testimony "was a joke".

I don't think I saw a single case where the Judge denied anything from the Defense side. If the Defense wanted my Father to look "innocent", they should have done that instead of trashing Lana's life. [/*]

You are correct about the defense, IMO, they should have concentrated more on his relations with people when he was sober, and when he was drinking. Lana should not be bashed like she was. I may be a NG, but, I still believe that she should not have died. I don't know exactly how she died, suicide, accident, or whatever happened. JMO :seeya:

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


The judge in a trial will not allow any self-serving testimony to enter into evidence in a trial. If the defendant wants, he can take the stand. One of the down-sides of not taking the stand (as is his right under the fifth admendment) is just as you point out. The judge is not in error but is following the law.

Mortie [/*]

You are right, the judge is not in error. I feel that if I were on the jury, I would want to know all that I could about Mr. Spector. It gets frustrating on what can be included in the trial and what cannot be included.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.:)

[Ellie]

Originally posted by GPSpector


No apology needed. Anyone that tells me (like she did about 8 years ago) that she believes she is "superior" to me, in an E-Mail can defend herself.

Knowing how much she has been given by our father to have a great start at life would not surprise me that she would do all she could to defend him. Both her and her Mother helped put the wedge between our Father and my Brothers & I.

She's just protecting what she thinks is hers. [/*]


Well then, apparently I am very wrong... :seeya:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector


No apology needed. Anyone that tells me (like she did about 8 years ago) that she believes she is "superior" to me, in an E-Mail can defend herself.

Knowing how much she has been given by our father to have a great start at life would not surprise me that she would do all she could to defend him. Both her and her Mother helped put the wedge between our Father and my Brothers & I.

She's just protecting what she thinks is hers. [/*]

Shame on her for saying such a thing to you, and for lying on the stand. If $$ is that important to her, I guess she has learned a lot from your Father.

With his new Bride, what makes her think she'll be getting any more money $$ from PS?

Forgive me if I seem harsh, but her testimony was baloney. She claimed that she'd never seen PS play piano with his left hand, though she said she'd seen him play. It doesn't stretch farther than that.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


I believe the defense can only call a witness to rebut specific testimony of a prosecution's witness. For example, if a person witnessed one of the acts of an 1101* witnesses and recalls something different- something that would bode well for Spector then we could be aloud to hear from that person.

I don't think we can hear about all of the good things about PS, (just as we cannot hear about what Lana was really like) during the evidentiary portion of the trial. Everyone, even the worst of the worst criminals can have a "good guy side" to them. It sounds like what you would like to see are victim impact statements in the trial, but that is too prejudical. We know, and the jury will as well that there are two sides to Spector.

I know this must be frustrating for you Spectorfan, because you are trying to figure out this man. I think that many of us already have him pegged as simply a man who took his life long behavior and threats towards woman to far and there was a deadly consequence that he must pay for now. IMO [/*]

I think the Defense can put on Character witnesses if they want to. However, if they put on witnesses for the purpose of establishing good character for PS, then the Prosecution will be allowed to put on witnesses to his bad character.

The prior bad acts witnesses are there because their experiences with PS follow a pattern, witnesses to bad character in general, wouldn't have to follow that pattern and with all of the stories out there, there would be a huge variety to choose from that all involved guns.

I don't think the Defense wants to go anywhere near there, and can you blame them?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Hi!

I do not think that the judge will allow her testimony about how nice he was and so on. He didn't allow your sister to do that. He doesn't want your dad to come across as a real person. I believed her, no reason not to.
For some reason, I just do not think that the judge will allow anything that makes your dad look innocent. I personally think that he is wrong in doing so. I feel people should hear about the good times that they had with your dad. You know, put the entire mystery of Phil Spector on the table.
One more thing, I was told that I have made some horrible comments about you. I have not done that. I respect you, your brothers, and sister. [/*]

The Judge didn't allow NS to go on about all of the great things she claims her father has done, because she was editorializing. She wasn't there as a character witness, and was trying to get in stories that were irrelevant to her testimony.

[kennedy06]

The reason I posted the *. L. video link was in response to some asking why did women return to be in his company after their incidents with him. I had wondered why anyone would work for him, let alone marry him (besides money on the marry part) considering his personality. So as self serving as the interview probably may have been (JMO), it gives us an idea why women continued to be around him in any capacity.

I never thought of her as a future witness but, I see her as someone confirming the prosecution's pattern of behavior. He was sober and had no interest in her, no problems.
With Lana the pattern was repeating itself, alcohol consumption, we can safely assume he had a "romantic" interest in her to ask her back to his home. Odds are extremely high that the final part of the pattern continued with Lana.

To me the reassurance from the exwife/assitant to this woman, says she was aware of his reputation. JMO

[True2Blues]

Not only aware of his rep, Kennedy, proud of it. In the Mick Brown interviews he says Satan doesn't want him because he's probably afraid PS would take over Hell.

That is a huge boast about all the rotten things he's done in his life, IMO. Not only that, but it shows that all of them were voluntary and had intent behind them. Drunkenness isn't an excuse anyway, drink doesn't make anyone do anything. It just gives the otherwise spineless the guts to do what they want.

[kennedy06]

I was looking at the pants evidence in reference to the posts. If anyone else had forgotten what the blood evidence on them looked like here is the picture

http://www.courttv.com/graphics2/photos/trials/spector/evidence-gallery/pants-gallery-062807.jpg

JMO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues


The Judge didn't allow NS to go on about all of the great things she claims her father has done, because she was editorializing. She wasn't there as a character witness, and was trying to get in stories that were irrelevant to her testimony. [/*]

Thank you for clearing this up. :)

[Spectorfan8]

I have just found out that the re-trial is set for Oct. 8.I got the info from a live feed that I have for Spector.
Just thought I would let you know.
:read:

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
I have just found out that the re-trial is set for Oct. 8.I got the info from a live feed that I have for Spector.
Just thought I would let you know.
:read: [/*]

Oh boy! Thanks for passing that along.

[tartangirl]

Thanks for the info. I just got a notice from contactmusic.com about the latest court filings and they also listed the date as Oct. 08....I figured they were wrong...guess not

It is a few days longer to wait...oh, we all know good things are worth waiting for and getting Justice for Lana and those who Love her is a very good thing.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by tartangirl
Thanks for the info. I just got a notice from contactmusic.com about the latest court filings and they also listed the date as Oct. 08....I figured they were wrong...guess not

It is a few days longer to wait...oh, we all know good things are worth waiting for and getting Justice for Lana and those who Love her is a very good thing. [/*]

I have the contactmusic.com also. I found out two ways, so I thought that it must be so.

[roytoy]

Some people like to always have the last word, even though it is meaningless.


Thanks to those who posted real content :seeya:

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by roytoy
Some people like to always have the last word, even though it is meaningless.


Thanks to those who posted real content :seeya: [/*]


:confused:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
I have just found out that the re-trial is set for Oct. 8.I got the info from a live feed that I have for Spector.
Just thought I would let you know.
:read: [/*]


I can't find any information about a date change, other than one blog that is not affiliated with the court itself.

I had no idea there was a live feed for Spector. Where would that be at?

[gmiller]

I'm not sure if this has been posted but the defense has filed a motion to have the testimony of Dr's Pena and Herold and Mr. Renteria blocked!!! Sprocket is my source for this info.

AJ has already filed a motion to say that "the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony...is without merit and should be denied."

Fasten your seatbelt folks, this defense is about as crazy as their client.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues



I can't find any information about a date change, other than one blog that is not affiliated with the court itself.

I had no idea there was a live feed for Spector. Where would that be at? [/*]

That is something that I for cannot tell you. My son did it for me on his computer. sorry. he is at work right now.
You can go to contactmusic.com, and look up Phil Spector. It also carries the most recent events or happenings about Phil Spector.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by gmiller
I'm not sure if this has been posted but the defense has filed a motion to have the testimony of Dr's Pena and Herold and Mr. Renteria blocked!!! Sprocket is my source for this info.

AJ has already filed a motion to say that "the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony...is without merit and should be denied."

Fasten your seatbelt folks, this defense is about as crazy as their client. [/*]
rial
You can go to contactmusic.com, it also tells about that. Sorry, I was taken back by the change on the retrial.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

rial
You can go to contactmusic.com, it also tells about that. Sorry, I was taken back by the change on the retrial. [/*]


I don't know what happened there on that post!!!

:shrug:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


That is something that I for cannot tell you. My son did it for me on his computer. sorry. he is at work right now.
You can go to contactmusic.com, and look up Phil Spector. It also carries the most recent events or happenings about Phil Spector. [/*]


I've seen it, but it could easily be a mistake or misprint. So far, it's the only thing around with a change of date on it.

[True2Blues]

In the article it states that the retrial is scheduled in Oct (08). That reference is to the year, not the day. When specific dates are referenced they are put in (24JUL08) date, month and year.

I think this is just a misstatement by the person writing the article, as to the Month. I see nothing that indicates an actual date anywhere in there.


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prosecutors%20fight%20spector%20motions_1075420


This is a British site, I can't see them having information about the California Superior Courts that the US news media doesn't have.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues
In the article it states that the retrial is scheduled in Oct (08). That reference is to the year, not the day. When specific dates are referenced they are put in (24JUL08) date, month and year.

I think this is just a misstatement by the person writing the article, as to the Month. I see nothing that indicates an actual date anywhere in there.


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prosecutors%20fight%20spector%20motions_1075420 [/*]


You can also Google Phil Spector and find articles about it.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues
In the article it states that the retrial is scheduled in Oct (08). That reference is to the year, not the day. When specific dates are referenced they are put in (24JUL08) date, month and year.

I think this is just a misstatement by the person writing the article, as to the Month. I see nothing that indicates an actual date anywhere in there.


http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/prosecutors%20fight%20spector%20motions_1075420 [/*]

Hi T2:seeya: I'm trying to keep track here. I thought the trial date was September 29?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Hi T2:seeya: I'm trying to keep track here. I thought the trial date was September 29? [/*]


As far as I have been able to find, it is.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues



As far as I have been able to find, it is. [/*]

TY.:)

[gmiller]

Originally posted by True2Blues



I've seen it, but it could easily be a mistake or misprint. So far, it's the only thing around with a change of date on it. [/*]

Yes I agree. I have not read anywhere else that the trial date has been set for that date either. Sprocket has all of the docs posted regarding the evidence that the defense is trying to block, but nowhere does she or the docs for that matter give the date of Oct. 8th.

I did google Phil Spector and the news results that came up only addressed the defense trying to suppress the prosecution's blood evidence.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by gmiller


Yes I agree. I have not read anywhere else that the trial date has been set for that date either. Sprocket has all of the docs posted regarding the evidence that the defense is trying to block, but nowhere does she or the docs for that matter give the date of Oct. 8th.

I did google Phil Spector and the news results that came up only addressed the defense trying to suppress the prosecution's blood evidence. [/*]


You both are right, I jumped ahead of myself. My apologies.hammer

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



You both are right, I jumped ahead of myself. My apologies.hammer [/*]

It's fine. I think we've all done that to some extent.

So what do "we" think of the latest developments regarding the defense trying to withhold the prosecutions very credible experts?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



You both are right, I jumped ahead of myself. My apologies.hammer [/*]

It's sad to say, but anymore you can't trust anything put out as news until you see it repeated everywhere. Even then, it can just be that everyone has the same mistaken info! LOL

Now that we've gone from actual news reporting to "Infotainment" no one bothers to check facts before they print.

We've all seen it happen time and time again. It gets really confusing and then really aggravating to me, but what can you do?

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by gmiller


It's fine. I think we've all done that to some extent.

So what do "we" think of the latest developments regarding the defense trying to withhold the prosecutions very credible experts? [/*]


JMO, It looks like the defense is trying to keep alot of the 1st trial out of the 2nd trial.I can't wait for the retrial though.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


It's fine. I think we've all done that to some extent.

So what do "we" think of the latest developments regarding the defense trying to withhold the prosecutions very credible experts? [/*]

I see it as a typical Defense ploy. Trying to get as much evidence as they can ruled out before trial.

Especially that of Lynn Herold, who I thought was an outstanding witness.

In the motion, Weinberg gives Dr. Herold's credentials and admits she is qualified, but then says she shouldn't be allowed to testify, because her testimony as to how far spatter generally travels (which is 3-4 feet, the answer I've heard in many cases) doesn't agree with the former defense experts!

The claim is that she testified outside of her area of certified expertise, but she didn't. In fact, Dr. Herold was asked many questions she wasn't qualified to answer by LKB, and consistently refused to answer them for that very reason.

[Anakerie]

For those of us who watched the first go around with Spector and appreciated the writings of Dominick Dunne, Sprocket has a post on her blog about him. He's going in for surgery because his cancer has returned.

:rose: Hoping for good health and a speedy recovery for Dominick and also hoping he'll be able to cover Spector II.

ETA: Sprocket also posted a link to Dominick's Diary (http://dominicksdiary.com/) for those who would like to drop him a note...

[gmiller]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I see it as a typical Defense ploy. Trying to get as much evidence as they can ruled out before trial.

Especially that of Lynn Herold, who I thought was an outstanding witness.

In the motion, Weinberg gives Dr. Herold's credentials and admits she is qualified, but then says she shouldn't be allowed to testify, because her testimony as to how far spatter generally travels (which is 3-4 feet, the answer I've heard in many cases) doesn't agree with the former defense experts!

The claim is that she testified outside of her area of certified expertise, but she didn't. In fact, Dr. Herold was asked many questions she wasn't qualified to answer by LKB, and consistently refused to answer them for that very reason. [/*]

Dr. Herold was an outstanding witness. So let me get this strait, the defense wants her testimony out because it isn't in line with their (imo "dirty") experts.

How fast before Fidler denies that argument?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


Dr. Herold was an outstanding witness. So let me get this strait, the defense wants her testimony out because it isn't in line with their (imo "dirty") experts.

How fast before Fidler denies that argument? [/*]

Since it's based on the fact that they don't like her answers, I'd say it isn't going anywhere.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Shame on her for saying such a thing to you, and for lying on the stand. If $$ is that important to her, I guess she has learned a lot from your Father.

With his new Bride, what makes her think she'll be getting any more money $$ from PS?

Forgive me if I seem harsh, but her testimony was baloney. She claimed that she'd never seen PS play piano with his left hand, though she said she'd seen him play. It doesn't stretch farther than that. [/*]

Actually, if I remember correctly, she stated that she had never seen my father play the piano which really surprised me to hear since he was not a frequent player while I was growing up but he did play. gee, we had 3 piano's in the house I grew up in.

I'm sure like most people, we had 1 upright in our downstairs hallway, 1 baby grand in our living room and of course 1 upright in his bedroom. Well, maybe not all have a baby grand :rolleyes:

I'm sure she just forgot.;)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Actually, if I remember correctly, she stated that she had never seen my father play the piano which really surprised me to hear since he was not a frequent player while I was growing up but he did play. gee, we had 3 piano's in the house I grew up in.

I'm sure like most people, we had 1 upright in our downstairs hallway, 1 baby grand in our living room and of course 1 upright in his bedroom. Well, maybe not all have a baby grand :rolleyes:

I'm sure she just forgot.;) [/*]

Thank you. I knew it had something to do with piano playing and his left hand.

I guess we were out of the loop. We didn't have any pianos. Of course, we didn't have anyone who could play either. :)

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by kennedy06
The reason I posted the *. L. video link was in response to some asking why did women return to be in his company after their incidents with him. I had wondered why anyone would work for him, let alone marry him (besides money on the marry part) considering his personality. So as self serving as the interview probably may have been (JMO), it gives us an idea why women continued to be around him in any capacity.

I never thought of her as a future witness but, I see her as someone confirming the prosecution's pattern of behavior. He was sober and had no interest in her, no problems.
With Lana the pattern was repeating itself, alcohol consumption, we can safely assume he had a "romantic" interest in her to ask her back to his home. Odds are extremely high that the final part of the pattern continued with Lana.

To me the reassurance from the exwife/assitant to this woman, says she was aware of his reputation. JMO [/*]

I just don't see my father as the Romantic type as much as a "seducer". Usually in a romantic situation, both parties are together 100% willingly. Lana had to be asked 3 times to join him. Also, liquor was involved (on my fathers part) prior to any "romancing". He knew what he wanted. Just does not sound romantic to me when it's one-sided. But what do I know, I've been single for way to long and I don't play the "single scene"

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
I have just found out that the re-trial is set for Oct. 8.I got the info from a live feed that I have for Spector.
Just thought I would let you know.
:read: [/*]

Looks like the delays have begun :(

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by joolz


Hi T2:seeya: I'm trying to keep track here. I thought the trial date was September 29? [/*]

Maybe the person reported just figured that the date was so close (2 days) to October, that person decided to round up to the nearest Month ;)

I've learned during this trial, anything is possible and will be tried at least once :D

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



JMO, It looks like the defense is trying to keep alot of the 1st trial out of the 2nd trial.I can't wait for the retrial though. [/*]

To me, it just looks like the Defense does not want to be challenged on their claims.

I think they will find it very hard to have a one sided trial, in their favor. I just see it as another tactic to create delays.

Let's just see what the Judge does about these files now that the Prosecution has filed to keep their witnesses.

Let the Games begin :(

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller


I believe the defense can only call a witness to rebut specific testimony of a prosecution's witness. For example, if a person witnessed one of the acts of an 1101* witnesses and recalls something different- something that would bode well for Spector then we could be aloud to hear from that person.

I don't think we can hear about all of the good things about PS, (just as we cannot hear about what Lana was really like) during the evidentiary portion of the trial. Everyone, even the worst of the worst criminals can have a "good guy side" to them. It sounds like what you would like to see are victim impact statements in the trial, but that is too prejudical. We know, and the jury will as well that there are two sides to Spector.
<snipped>
[/*]

You are right about the "hear about all the good things..." In criminal cases the defendant's character cannot be brought in, except in particular circumstances. As well, the prosecution can't bring in PS's character or other "bad" things he's done. And, you're right about the same for Lana, as well. Even though what was brought out in PS1 has been called victim bashing - and in a very emotional sense it surely was, what was being attempted what not to show her character..good or bad...but to show a propensity not of character but of being "suicidal" or "on the brink". Frankly, I have always thought that some of what was brought or allowed in about Lana was "outside the scope".

And, yes...the defense can call witnesses of their own for their own purposes, but they can only call a "rebutting witness" to challenge and "impeach" a prosecution witness or vice versa.

Brook was put on the stand to attempt to prove that PS is right handed. OK. But what I failed to grasp back then is why some testimony was not put on to show that most musicians, particularly pianists, drummers, violinists, guitarists, etc. develop their Left Hands to a greater extent than the general public, even if they are "primarily" or innately Right Handed (and vice versa). (I have personal experience in this and almost all of my colleagues and former colleagues in music are as near to being ambidextrous as a true ambi.) I've shot guns with both hands, individually, and although certainly stronger on my favoured hand, can steadily and almost as accurately use the other. And in this case..at such a "point blank range", IMO, it hardly makes a difference which hand was used. I'd use my strong hand to "control the victim" and the other adaptive one to handle the gun...but the real point is who pulled the trigger, and perhaps as well - since we'll never really know..at what Poundage of Pull? (You do have to cock the gun to get the lesser pull..if not..it is "pulled through" the two stages at once, hence the stronger "pull". If Lana were defending herself against an "uncocked gun" and her force of defense caused PS to pull the trigger..as a consequent result..he pulled it through both stages..it wouldn't just "stop" mid-stream waiting for a nervous or unintentional moment to finish the actual shot..or that's how I recall and understand it on that type of gun. Mortie can comment on that...but I think we've covered that during PS1. If this "cocking the gun" first theory could be definitively "proven"..then either PS or Lana could have "half cocked" that gun (pun intended..but not maliciously)..but I do think..that if Lana had done that..placed the gun in her mouth, etc. it was either because she felt she couldn't handle the full 11 pound pull in one stroke..or she was just "fooling around" with herself...Why would PS just stand there..with a guest in his house acting like an Idiot..which that would have been...and do nothing? Well..I think that's what the defense was trying to get in...that PS all of a sudden saw Lana with a "cocked gun" (or a not cocked gun) in her mouth..he ran toward her..hence getting the spatter on his jacket. Baloney. His history of terrorizing women doesn't support that...his "smaller body than Lana's (which the defense kept pushing down the jury's throats) wouldn't make sense to that scenario (Heck..she could have pulled out the gun in a second and shot him!...) and there were no prints of hers on that gun. Now..had she killed herself..WHY would PS pick up the gun and/or wipe it off, much less wipe down Lana? He obviously didn't give a darn about her, considering his comments after the incident..he certainly wasn't trying to protect her..and put blame on himself or the ghost of the castle. He was surely trying to take blame away.and it wasn't taking the blame away from Lana by doing that..or if so..he was putting it right on himself.

This may well have not been an "intentional" act, as most of us think of Intentional, in the big sceme or realm of reality, but it does fall under M2 of implied malice under the law, and IMO in practice. It was No Accident. If it was Suicide..none of the evidence presented of the occurrences post facto support that at all, IMO. What I think it might portray is PS not truly intending to KILL, but certainly following his M.O. thereby falling under "implied malice"...and most defiinitely under Manslaughter as written in CA laws.

I still stick to my analogy of a "drunk drivers"..does it over and over again..nothing ever happens, thankfully. But they knowingly are putting other drivers and pedestrians on the road by their behaviour, even though they have no intent of hurting anyone (except themselves I suppose). They do it over and over..never get caught..nor do they even anticipate it or take it into consideration..because They are Under Control. I see PS fitting that "mold"..his past behaviours and actions..but this time...somebody got killed. He's calling it an accident. Sure...DUI's that end in death are indeed accidents..so to speak..but the law is harsh against them. They should KNOW better..because No. 1..it's against the law to drive drunk (No. 1 It's against the law to threaten, harass, and point guns at people you want to control, much less threaten them to not go where they have a right to go..that is, home..or "away" - another "kidnapping charge"?). No. 2..acting in that "uncontrolled" manner (drunk..or with the penchant of slinging guns at dates, colleagues, friends, acquaintences, StarBuck employees, etc.) is unlawful, stupid, and an accident waiting to happen. Mother's Against Drunk Drivers (MADD)...how about People Eagerly Against Controlling Egocentrics With Intentionally Loaded Live Firearms Living On Person - Not Our Wish (PEACE WILL FLOP NOW).

Makes me remember some of those "Perry Mason" episodes (if I have it correct) where the right handed defendant was thrown a wad of paper or ball by the attorney..and he caught it with his left hand.

JMO MOO
Friday evening..writing too much
J

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Anakerie
For those of us who watched the first go around with Spector and appreciated the writings of Dominick Dunne, Sprocket has a post on her blog about him. He's going in for surgery because his cancer has returned.

:rose: Hoping for good health and a speedy recovery for Dominick and also hoping he'll be able to cover Spector II.

ETA: Sprocket also posted a link to Dominick's Diary (http://dominicksdiary.com/) for those who would like to drop him a note... [/*]

Thanks Anakerie for letting us know.

:rose:

On his Tru tv site there is a video in which he tells a story of an encounter he had with PS at the courthouse. Some of you may have already heard this before. There is just something in the way he tells about the chance encounter in the men's room that only he could so vivdly, yet very respectfully tell. The PS story will begin about one third of the way until the end of the video. JMO

http://www.trutv.com/video/dominick-dunne/interview-with-dominick-dunne.html

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Actually, if I remember correctly, she stated that she had never seen my father play the piano which really surprised me to hear since he was not a frequent player while I was growing up but he did play. gee, we had 3 piano's in the house I grew up in.

I'm sure like most people, we had 1 upright in our downstairs hallway, 1 baby grand in our living room and of course 1 upright in his bedroom. Well, maybe not all have a baby grand

I'm sure she just forgot. [/*]

I have a piano! Sometimes I use my left hand at the same time I use my right hand when I play!:D

One more link guys ok? Some of You have probably seen this one before but, for our newbies, its Christmas in July! Could this be the grand piano you are speaking of GPSpector. Is that both hands I see on that keyboard???!:shrug: :tongue: Ok I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a little fun. JMO

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4623059

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I just don't see my father as the Romantic type as much as a "seducer". Usually in a romantic situation, both parties are together 100% willingly. Lana had to be asked 3 times to join him. Also, liquor was involved (on my fathers part) prior to any "romancing". He knew what he wanted. Just does not sound romantic to me when it's one-sided. But what do I know, I've been single for way to long and I don't play the "single scene" [/*]

I only use the word romantic to try to be respectful of the situations. I realize what he was probably up to.;) JMO

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I have a piano! Sometimes I use my left hand at the same time I use my right hand when I play

One more link guys ok? Some of You have probably seen this one before but, for our newbies, its Christmas in July! Could this be the grand piano you are speaking of GPSpector. Is that both hands I see on that keyboard???!:shrug: :tongue: Ok I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a little fun. JMO

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4623059 [/*]

Had written a response..about an hour ago...dealing with this same issue.

I'm a musican...I know FOR a fact..that if you play piano, drums, strings, almost any instrument..you become Ambidextrious to a large extent..some more than others. I was "born" R handed...actually maybe L Handed..but was trained R handed..but through musical training, I can sign in either hand. and I can shoot a gun with either hand..I know that.

If I were trying to Control a Victim..I'd use my stronger hand to control and the other hand to pull the trigger.

A pianist has to develope both hands equally well..if both R handed..then they definitely work on their Left..or vice versa.

I've taught strings for years...kids, especialy will say they are "right handed" and they can't play the violin...NAH...what turns out is they end up with STRONG left hands and fingers to compliment their innate R hands. OR..yes, vice versa.

PS is a musican..he is not the "general public" when it comes to this issue.

He could pull a trigger on a gun with either hand..and if he had to control someone at close distance..don't you think he'd use the "stronger" hand/arm to control the person/body..and use the other to threaten/shoot?

Or...actually...could probably do it either way.

I think both the prosecution and defense missed this entirely..why? have no idea. Everyone was focusing on calves shot in the head, point blank..and heart of rabbits beating in a jar.

at least this post of mine is shorter than the one I discarded earlier!

JMO MOO

:)

Jayne

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne


Had written a response..about an hour ago...dealing with this same issue.

I'm a musican...I know FOR a fact..that if you play piano, drums, strings, almost any instrument..you become Ambidextrious to a large extent..some more than others. I was "born" R handed...actually maybe L Handed..but was trained R handed..but through musical training, I can sign in either hand. and I can shoot a gun with either hand..I know that.

If I were trying to Control a Victim..I'd use my stronger hand to control and the other hand to pull the trigger.

A pianist has to develope both hands equally well..if both R handed..then they definitely work on their Left..or vice versa.

I've taught strings for years...kids, especialy will say they are "right handed" and they can't play the violin...NAH...what turns out is they end up with STRONG left hands and fingers to compliment their innate R hands. OR..yes, vice versa.

PS is a musican..he is not the "general public" when it comes to this issue.

He could pull a trigger on a gun with either hand..and if he had to control someone at close distance..don't you think he'd use the "stronger" hand/arm to control the person/body..and use the other to threaten/shoot?

Or...actually...could probably do it either way.

I think both the prosecution and defense missed this entirely..why? have no idea. Everyone was focusing on calves shot in the head, point blank..and heart of rabbits beating in a jar.

at least this post of mine is shorter than the one I discarded earlier!

JMO MOO

:)

Jayne [/*]

Hi Jayne!

That is such an excellant point. When I began my college education, I wanted to become a Speech/ Language Pathologist and since I could have worked with the hearing impaired, I took a Sign Language class as a part of my major. My professor for that class suggested that everyone should use their dominant hand. I am typically a "righty" but I unconsciously signed and performed better with my left. However, when I tried to sign my name with my left hand it is practically illegible.

IMO, your point all comes down to fine motor movements (playing an instrument, typing, signing, and perhaps pulling the trigger of a gun) vs. gross motor movements (activities that utilize your major extremities such as walking, lifting, reaching and certainly exerting force on Lana). If I were in a fight with someone where I was holding a gun (that almost never happens though :rolleyes) I would be able to pull the trigger with my left as I am more and that would enable me to fight with my right. Just something to think about...hopefully, the prosecution will if they haven't already.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I have a piano! Sometimes I use my left hand at the same time I use my right hand when I play!:D

One more link guys ok? Some of You have probably seen this one before but, for our newbies, its Christmas in July! Could this be the grand piano you are speaking of GPSpector. Is that both hands I see on that keyboard???!:shrug: :tongue: Ok I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a little fun. JMO

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4623059 [/*]

Yes, that was the piano in the living room, and that was our hallway that guy was walking down with the drinks.

Just so you know, the scenes with the singers was in the studio, not the house.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


Had written a response..about an hour ago...dealing with this same issue.

I'm a musican...I know FOR a fact..that if you play piano, drums, strings, almost any instrument..you become Ambidextrious to a large extent..some more than others. I was "born" R handed...actually maybe L Handed..but was trained R handed..but through musical training, I can sign in either hand. and I can shoot a gun with either hand..I know that.

If I were trying to Control a Victim..I'd use my stronger hand to control and the other hand to pull the trigger.

A pianist has to develope both hands equally well..if both R handed..then they definitely work on their Left..or vice versa.

I've taught strings for years...kids, especialy will say they are "right handed" and they can't play the violin...NAH...what turns out is they end up with STRONG left hands and fingers to compliment their innate R hands. OR..yes, vice versa.

PS is a musican..he is not the "general public" when it comes to this issue.

He could pull a trigger on a gun with either hand..and if he had to control someone at close distance..don't you think he'd use the "stronger" hand/arm to control the person/body..and use the other to threaten/shoot?

Or...actually...could probably do it either way.

I think both the prosecution and defense missed this entirely..why? have no idea. Everyone was focusing on calves shot in the head, point blank..and heart of rabbits beating in a jar.

at least this post of mine is shorter than the one I discarded earlier!

JMO MOO

:)

Jayne [/*]

Both sides also missed any information about Lana's wrists after she was shot.

Considering the condition of both her wrists, I would think it would be very easy to tell if she actually pulled the trigger. The nearest they got to it was trying to prove whether or not she could have held the gun in the needed position for suicide.

I am pretty sure, if she held the gun and fired it in the angle they are claiming she must have, she would certainly have destroyed or severely fractured 1 or both wrists the moment the gun went off.

I do not know that anyone examined her wrists other then to notice a slight bruising which would indicate she was somewhat restrained I think on just 1 wrist.

[dref99]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Since it's based on the fact that they don't like her answers, I'd say it isn't going anywhere. [/*]

It comes across to me as a defense very short on ideas - the prosecution experts have been proven to be "experts" many times in LA trials.

I'm not sure that the trial 1 defense "experts" will be willing to repeat their testimony. I look forward to seeing a witness list.



jmo

[Jayne]

Originally posted by dref99


It comes across to me as a defense very short on ideas - the prosecution experts have been proven to be "experts" many times in LA trials.

I'm not sure that the trial 1 defense "experts" will be willing to repeat their testimony. I look forward to seeing a witness list.



jmo [/*]

I agree.

Prosecution experts, at least at the outset, are Facts Experts..if they need Opinion Experts..then they bring them in as well.

Defense is defending...so they bring in experts to counter the prosecution's case.

You point is well made...I doubt that most of the defense experts would come back and testify..or if they do...they'll just mirror what they did the first time around, awaiting "impeachment" or contradictory testimony.

You can't have a 'circumstantial murder case' without having experts, at least of some sort.

I'm starting to figure out how the defense could work this...to their point (although I'm prosecutorial). They'll bring in some experts...and they probably have a lot of them "on charge" just waiting to see if they need them.

The prosecution puts up Fact Experts..then the defense has to counter that...but how many experts could there be who could actually counter the facts, as presented? 2 maybe 3 or 4?

Unless someone in their job or career..of the prosecution experts, has done something ethically or physically/mechanically/scientifically wrong, there's not much to counter but for a few minutes on the stand with a defense expert, so to speak, who has evidence and facts to slam their testimony.

Didn't happen last time...won't happen this time, IMO.

If PS wants to keep as much money as he can, he'll weed out his expert witnesses to about 3 at most. If he wants to "get off", he'll bring in every gypsy, senile, egotistical, out of it expert, with credentials that Might Pass, to try to bolster his case. BUT...as an observing interested person..at trial or at home...this will be laughable, at best.

If he is truly, totally innocent, he'll take the stand with the backup of his defense team. He'll explain what happened..right down to the diaper on the floor of the bathroom. IF he did THAT...he might even get an aquittal, but my best guess is he'd still get manslaughter. So why not plead?

He obviously has bucks to throw around and he's not about to take any percentage of "fault" for Lana's death in HIS house.

He's in big time denial, IMO..and has been most of his life. So, I guess it won't change in PS2 either.

I'd actually like to meet him face to face...just observe his demeanor in different venues and circumstances. I'm sure he's charming. I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. And, I'd love to shoot the breeze over musical "stuff" But..these high riding financial experts..be it music or otherwise..they have a way about them to Charm..it's about getting business and getting trust...partly innocent perhaps..but mostly it's about survival and prestige, even if they have a Heart. And..yes, EGO. PS just had that added extra of the viscious nasty, controlling, criminal side to him...that maybe was a "childhood" start..but he hasn't rid himself of it to this day, as I see it.

JMO
MOO

J

[CopperDog]

Originally posted by dref99


It comes across to me as a defense very short on ideas - the prosecution experts have been proven to be "experts" many times in LA trials.

I'm not sure that the trial 1 defense "experts" will be willing to repeat their testimony. I look forward to seeing a witness list.



jmo [/*]

I'm right there with you, I'm anxious to see who they call this time. If I were some of the defense "experts" from the first trial, don't think I would want to do it again. Wonder if Lee will be around this time.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


If PS wants to "get off", he'll bring in every gypsy, senile, egotistical, out of it expert, with credentials that Might Pass, to try to bolster his case. BUT...as an observing interested person..at trial or at home...this will be laughable, at best.

J [/*]

I thought he did that during the last trial.

Trust me, I'm being nice by using your words. Personally, I thought they were an embarrassment to the degrees they held.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I thought he did that during the last trial.

Trust me, I'm being nice by using your words. Personally, I thought they were an embarrassment to the degrees they held. [/*]

:lol: You've got that right!

(and you are both putting it in very kind terms)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by dref99


It comes across to me as a defense very short on ideas - the prosecution experts have been proven to be "experts" many times in LA trials.

I'm not sure that the trial 1 defense "experts" will be willing to repeat their testimony. I look forward to seeing a witness list.



jmo [/*]

Henry Lee tried to disassociate himself from PS pretty quickly, and stayed in Taiwan so he couldn't be subpoenaed to testify.

M. Baden made a fool of himself with his Ah-Ha moment and is trying to rebuild his reputation, so he'll probably stay away.

DiMaio testified to everything, whether asked or not, despite not being certified to do so. The thought of watching him again makes me feel ill.

Stuart James admitted he'd never studies intra oral gunshot wound spatter and conceded that in a situation like Lana's blood spatter could be only a few feet.

Not to mention that in his own book, "Interpretation of Bloodstain Evidence at Crime Scenes",( James and Eckert)it states that high velocity spatter, because it is mist like travels only short ditance, and gives the example in parenthesis of 4 feet. (page 67-68)

Which it obviously was, since it ends abruptly on her skirt, above her knees.

Werner Spitz could talk about nothing, but his joy in shooting calves in the head, none of them intra oral and therefore, all of them irrelevant. Not to mention his being argumentative and defensive from question one on cross examination.

Even the two jurors who held out didn't believe any of the Defense Forensic/Scientific witnesses.

Speaking only for myself, I'd be getting a whole new slew of experts. Probably less expensive, and possibly less embarrassing than the group in trial 1.

[kennedy06]

Would the defense bring in the same experts again? The prosecution already knows these experts findings and how they would explain them. They also know how each one of those experts can be flustered during cross examination, their weak spots. The prosecution has had time to review their testimony, maybe watch videos of it, besides what they remember of them. Maybe I'm way off base but, wouldn't that be to the prosecution's advantage/defenses disadvantage to have them back.:shrug: JMO

[gmiller]

Originally posted by True2Blues


...M. Baden made a fool of himself with his Ah-Ha moment and is trying to rebuild his reputation, so he'll probably stay away...*respectfully snipped*

. [/*]

Not only is he trying to rebuild his reputation (in the Drew Peterson/ Kathleen Savio case) but he is trying to distance and rehab his wife's rep. Did anyone see the two of them sitting side by side on On the Record with Gretta? It was disgusting to me. From what I recall LKB was pretty much mute for the entire interview. Her presence was so irritating and useless that I turned to my father and asked what is Gretta doing allowing her to sit like a hand holding bump on a log. Weird.
They're agenda is so transparent!

[dref99]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I thought he did that during the last trial.

Trust me, I'm being nice by using your words. Personally, I thought they were an embarrassment to the degrees they held. [/*]

:seeya: Such polite wording GP. I had not thought about the universities/colleges from which these folks obtained their degrees. One does wonder if they are proud of their graduates.

I agree with True2Blues
I'd be getting a whole new slew of experts. Probably less expensive, and possibly less embarrassing than the group in trial 1.

Problem is to find the experts, with the right expertise, who are willing to argue against the prosecution.


jmo

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by dref99


:seeya: Such polite wording GP. I had not thought about the universities/colleges from which these folks obtained their degrees. One does wonder if they are proud of their graduates.

I agree with True2Blues
I'd be getting a whole new slew of experts. Probably less expensive, and possibly less embarrassing than the group in trial 1.

Problem is to find the experts, with the right expertise, who are willing to argue against the prosecution.


jmo [/*]

Maybe it takes $5,000 and hour to get someone with degree's to say what you want them to say, regardless of the science.

[kennedy06]

Two of these expert were called immediately by his 1st attorney R. S., Badne and Lee. That was probably a compliment that their expertise was being sought in a high profile case. They wouldn't have been known as the experts to call if they hadn't earned their reptuation and were respected by their peers, attorneys and the public. For those two only, I don't see money as a factor.

I wonder how Bdaen's wife became one of PS attorneys? In my eyes she looked like his lead attorney by the end of the trial. With PS's concern for her health and the friendly gestures, I'm sure they became friends as well. I wonder if she recouped during her time off, with physical problem PS spoke about, on one of those heavenly mattresses at that hotel. The one where the bill wasn't paid by PS and his wife, according the the suit filed.

I'm sure Bdaen will stand by his original findings if called apon again but, he has had time to think about the evidence a little longer. Was his wife fired or did she just quit after the last trial?? He seemed so tense to me on the stand last time. If called apon again maybe he will be a little more at ease with both sides questions. I think LKB gave her best to help PS, I hope he appreciated it. JMO

[Celebration]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Maybe it takes $5,000 and hour to get someone with degree's to say what you want them to say, regardless of the science. [/*]

There is a book about exactly this, which I'd recommend to everyone.

It's titled, "Whores of the Court." The author is Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D. It discusses exactly what you mention. For the right price you can get many "expert" and multi-degreed witnesses to testify to exactly what they know you want.

The copyright date is 1997 but it's had many printings.

[Celebration]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Two of these expert were called immediately by his 1st attorney R. S., Badne and Lee. That was probably a compliment that their expertise was being sought in a high profile case. They wouldn't have been known as the experts to call if they hadn't earned their reptuation and were respected by their peers, attorneys and the public. For those two only, I don't see money as a factor.

[/*]

Have you forgotten that Henry Lee's testimony was never admitted because there was evidence that Lee had concealed evidence? The judge decided that Lee was not credible, or at least was less credible than his accuser.

Do you not remember the Michael Peterson case, when Lee testified that the large quantity of blood reaching many feet up the wall was not a result of a beating but of the victim coughing up blood even though she had no blood in her lungs or respiratory system?

Oh yes, many of us know there was "money as a factor" then. And, the fact that Lee liked being "cute" as he spewed ketchup.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Celebration


Have you forgotten that Henry Lee's testimony was never admitted because there was evidence that Lee had concealed evidence? The judge decided that Lee was not credible, or at least was less credible than his accuser.

Do you not remember the Michael Peterson case, when Lee testified that the large quantity of blood reaching many feet up the wall was not a result of a beating but of the victim coughing up blood even though she had no blood in her lungs or respiratory system?

Oh yes, many of us know there was "money as a factor" then. And, the fact that Lee liked being "cute" as he spewed ketchup. [/*]

No, I hadn't forgotten about Lee. I only reference him as to my opinion as to why he was called in the first place by RS. I just don't think money would have been the most major deciding factor on him responding to RS call.

No to MP. I didn't follow that case, though I have heard refrerences to the spewed ketchup by others on this board.

JMO

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Celebration


There is a book about exactly this, which I'd recommend to everyone.

It's titled, "Whores of the Court." The author is Margaret A. Hagen, Ph.D. It discusses exactly what you mention. For the right price you can get many "expert" and multi-degreed witnesses to testify to exactly what they know you want.

The copyright date is 1997 but it's had many printings. [/*]

Thanks for the book recommendation. I found this site about her book. Thanks again. JMO

http://www.whoresofthecourtonline.com/

[Celebration]

Thank you for posting the link, and I apologize for seeming to be so argumentative.

[GPSpector]

Gee, I remember reading about DiMaio and all the stuff he's been given credit for:

http://majorglenmacdonald.net/LEGACYOFSHAME.htm

I hope you enjoy the read and I hope he's not to busy, and still does not return.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Gee, I remember reading about DiMaio and all the stuff he's been given credit for:

http://majorglenmacdonald.net/LEGACYOFSHAME.htm

I hope you enjoy the read and I hope he's not to busy, and still does not return. [/*]

That was horrifying, wasn't it? I remember we read that during PS1 when he was an "expert". To claim that man killed himself when it was so obvious he'd been tortured is incomprehensible, and that he, as the expert, was believed.

moo

[vonna]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Gee, I remember reading about DiMaio and all the stuff he's been given credit for:

http://majorglenmacdonald.net/LEGACYOFSHAME.htm

I hope you enjoy the read and I hope he's not to busy, and still does not return. [/*]

DiMaio was more an advocate than a scientist.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Celebration
Thank you for posting the link, and I apologize for seeming to be so argumentative. [/*]

don't ever see you as argumentative, celebration.

there are a lot of very nice posters on these threads, including you. And, I hope this PS stream stays that way once the trial starts, too. I remember during PS1 how many times the threads were shut down or posters accosted, berated, etc.

Question: Does anyone know if the trial date has changed from September 29th? I'd read a ways back someone said it was pushed up to October 8th..is that right? If anyone is sure, please post it. :)

jmo

j

[Land Shark®]

Spector's retrial is set for September 29, 2008. As of right now.

I believe there is a motion hearing in two days. July 29th. I think.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Spector's retrial is set for September 29, 2008. As of right now.

I believe there is a motion hearing in two days. July 29th. I think. [/*]

Thank You, LandShark!

I'm hoping the trial date doesn't change.

Am anxious to hear about the motion hearing from the posters here who can either access it or get the info during the daytime.

Wonder what the motions are about - discovery? venue? anyone know?

J

[vonna]

Originally posted by Jayne


Thank You, LandShark!

I'm hoping the trial date doesn't change.

Am anxious to hear about the motion hearing from the posters here who can either access it or get the info during the daytime.

Wonder what the motions are about - discovery? venue? anyone know?

J [/*]

I read on another thread that the trial has been set up to an early October date.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by vonna


I read on another thread that the trial has been set up to an early October date.

:seeya:

There's not one article in the media that states the retrial date is anything but September 29th.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Gee, I remember reading about DiMaio and all the stuff he's been given credit for:

http://majorglenmacdonald.net/LEGACYOFSHAME.htm

I hope you enjoy the read and I hope he's not to busy, and still does not return. [/*]

I'm with you on both points, 100%.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne


Thank You, LandShark!

I'm hoping the trial date doesn't change.

Am anxious to hear about the motion hearing from the posters here who can either access it or get the info during the daytime.

Wonder what the motions are about - discovery? venue? anyone know?

J [/*]

I think the motions are discovery issues. The prosecution is supposed to argue trying to introduce a new possible prior bad acts witness, and letting in Dianne Ogden's testimony from the last trial on video tape. Sprockett has the motions which are to be argued July 29th @8:30AM (pacific time of course)

If I had to guess, the defense will be arguing there ludicrous motion to have the prosecution's forensic experts thrown out. I have not seen those motions which were filed in court late last week, and I don't know if that is an acceptable time to introduce and argue a motion in court.

Hope everyone has had a nice weekend:cool:

[vonna]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gmiller


I think the motions are discovery issues. The prosecution is supposed to argue trying to introduce a new possible prior bad acts witness, and letting in Dianne Ogden's testimony from the last trial on video tape. Sprockett has the motions which are to be argued July 29th @8:30AM (pacific time of course)

If I had to guess, the defense will be arguing there ludicrous motion to have the prosecution's forensic experts thrown out. I have not seen those motions which were filed in court late last week, and I don't know if that is an acceptable time to introduce and argue a motion in court.

Hope everyone has had a nice weekend:cool: [/*][/QUOTE

If Riordan cut a deal to be paid by the motion and by the objections - he'll make a killing. The only problem he'll have will be in getting Spector to pay up.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by vonna
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gmiller


I think the motions are discovery issues. The prosecution is supposed to argue trying to introduce a new possible prior bad acts witness, and letting in Dianne Ogden's testimony from the last trial on video tape. Sprockett has the motions which are to be argued July 29th @8:30AM (pacific time of course)

If I had to guess, the defense will be arguing there ludicrous motion to have the prosecution's forensic experts thrown out. I have not seen those motions which were filed in court late last week, and I don't know if that is an acceptable time to introduce and argue a motion in court.

Hope everyone has had a nice weekend:cool: [/*][/QUOTE

If Riordan cut a deal to be paid by the motion and by the objections - he'll make a killing. The only problem he'll have will be in getting Spector to pay up. [/*]

Well, if he does not pay due to a Guilty Outcome, Rachelle can pay.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Well, if he does not pay due to a Guilty Outcome, Rachelle can pay. [/*]


I wonder what will happen if he has put his daughter in charge of his companies? I know that he made Rachelle vice president of one of his companies, just wondering if Nicole will be in charge if something should happen to your dad.:shrug:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



I wonder what will happen if he has put his daughter in charge of his companies? I know that he made Rachelle vice president of one of his companies, just wondering if Nicole will be in charge if something should happen to your dad.:shrug: [/*]

Hi Spectorfan! Where did you read that at that Rachelle was vice president of one of his companies? Which company? I'm so out of the loop, I find links and things the rest of you have probably known about since the trial started and I think its new news:rolleyes::)

[kennedy06]

I will add to my previous post, like PS private affairs are any of my concern. So I do feel a little guilty for my inquiry. I just didn't know if there is a new article out or something concerning the trial and that is where the information came from. Thanks:)

[joolz]

Originally posted by vonna
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gmiller


If Riordan cut a deal to be paid by the motion and by the objections - he'll make a killing. The only problem he'll have will be in getting Spector to pay up. [/*]

:lol: A brilliant new billing idea!

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



I wonder what will happen if he has put his daughter in charge of his companies? I know that he made Rachelle vice president of one of his companies, just wondering if Nicole will be in charge if something should happen to your dad.:shrug: [/*]

From what I had heard a few years ago, my father will have no companies remaining should he pass away or go to prison. He has no interest in his royalties lasting longer then him.

I was aware of my father putting a recording company in my sisters name but a Judge had ruled that it was a bogus company and he got in trouble for it.

I never knew if my sister was ever aware of it or not. For all I know, he could be hiding his money in all our names with out any of us knowing.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


From what I had heard a few years ago, my father will have no companies remaining should he pass away or go to prison. He has no interest in his royalties lasting longer then him.

I was aware of my father putting a recording company in my sisters name but a Judge had ruled that it was a bogus company and he got in trouble for it.

I never knew if my sister was ever aware of it or not. For all I know, he could be hiding his money in all our names with out any of us knowing. [/*]

She does work for your dad, right? When Jamie Floyd interviewed her, Jamie made the comment, " I am sure your boss doesn't mind you missing a little while", then they both laughed. I feel that your dad has more money somewhere.
Have a great day.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Hi Spectorfan! Where did you read that at that Rachelle was vice president of one of his companies? Which company? I'm so out of the loop, I find links and things the rest of you have probably known about since the trial started and I think its new news:rolleyes::) [/*]

I don't remember, it was sometime toward the end of the trial. If he has "dummy companies", it could be one of those.
I once worked for a man, he had four dummy companies. Heck, I was secretary and AC/AP of two of them.
If she was made vice president of a dummy company, then she is vp of nothing.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


She does work for your dad, right? When Jamie Floyd interviewed her, Jamie made the comment, " I am sure your boss doesn't mind you missing a little while", then they both laughed. I feel that your dad has more money somewhere.
Have a great day. [/*]

The only job I am aware of that my Sister has is as a writer in New York. I really do not think that Ms Floyd was referring to Nicole working for my Father only the fact that Nicole had to fly in from New York.

They usually say the same thing to me when I did the interviews, just not during the interviews.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I don't remember, it was sometime toward the end of the trial. If he has "dummy companies", it could be one of those.
I once worked for a man, he had four dummy companies. Heck, I was secretary and AC/AP of two of them.
If she was made vice president of a dummy company, then she is vp of nothing. [/*]

At one time or another, my Father had his Mother and Sister listed as "Board Members". Every time he had some new guy visiting the house he wanted me to meet, he claimed the guy was his "Body Guard". He tried to tell me that Rick Barry was his Body Guard. Even I could tell at 9 that at 7' tall, he was no ones "Body Guard". Back then I was not aware he was a Basketball player but that was my 1st guess.

Since he never seemed to pay his Personal Assistants on a regular bases, I doubt he has a staff with a real payroll. Heck, he would rarely pay my allowance on a regular bases or the same amount. He always found a reason to decrease it.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


From what I had heard a few years ago, my father will have no companies remaining should he pass away or go to prison. He has no interest in his royalties lasting longer then him.

I was aware of my father putting a recording company in my sisters name but a Judge had ruled that it was a bogus company and he got in trouble for it.

I never knew if my sister was ever aware of it or not. For all I know, he could be hiding his money in all our names with out any of us knowing. [/*]

Indeed he could, especially since "family member". Like Spectorfan8, I had been in a similar situation, working for a company with a legitimate name, incorporation, etc. but that after some time I suspected was essentially a "dummy corporation" for a myriad of reasons. I wouldn't doubt that your sister wasn't aware of it, or if she was, thought it was "legit" and a possible "gift" to her..to gain on the income or whatever. And, maybe on paper it was, just that a court determination ruled that it was 'incorporated' for fraudulent purposes or for evading taxes, etc. when it came to the court's attention, one way or another.

The IRS usually will catch up with such things, but sometimes situations like that are fairly evasive, and sometimes for such a long period of time. Thankfully the employees - who were unaware aren't harmed for it, but the one's who set it up are.

PS could have been doing that for several reasons - to avoid taxes, capital gains, transfers, you name it. For an employer or parent to do that, I find incredulous - to put their child or employees at risk. Dissolve the corporation and the person loses their job (if there was a job, that is).

jmo

j

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Well, if he does not pay due to a Guilty Outcome, Rachelle can pay. [/*]

And, so she would..either outright or by liens...or by having nothing left, more or less. Whatever she may have brought into the relationship as separate property, hopefully has remained her separate property. Pre-nup? Or smart financing? Or wonder if he got her to agree to no community property..on paper, that is? As helpful as that might be! She gets what he doles out while alive, but afterwards nothing? He married her after the murder charges, so any finagling he attempted to do with finances involving her I think (but I can be wrong) could be shot down during a determination after judgment..whether to pay attorneys and experts fees or for a civil judgment, etc.

Perhaps better spend while ye can or else be left with nothing? For the goose and the gander, since financially, I wonder..if they are truly one and the same when it comes to financial liability. Too much for me to think about right now!

I think he's brought in more liabilities than income since they married. Don't think I'd ever want to "marry rich" but if so, I'd want an ironclad agreement that didn't just allegedly leave me "something(s)" upon his death, but that divied out on a monthly or some such basis...upkeep (so to speak) and believe me, I'd hoard it away somewhere as my definite personal property(income) or spend it like wildfire, depending on the circumstances. And, I'd make darn sure I was not listed as a Board Member or "voting shareholder" or the like in Any Corporation unless I set it up myself with more ironclad assurances that it was legal and not a "sham".

Chelle sure comes off...I think..well IMO...as ditsy...but she sure has Chutzpah...that much I'll give her...more than I should, I suppose...as her manner is rather unconventional, or I should say, unprofessional.

In the end...can't get blood from a stone (not the Rolling ones, that is)..and maybe that say's something, right there?

JMO

MOO

J

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


If she was made vice president of a dummy company, then she is vp of nothing. [/*]

Wouldn't that make her the HD (Head Dummy)? Or the VID (Very Important Dummy)? Or the COD (Chief Operating Dummy)?

or something?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.) :seeya:

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Ellie


Wouldn't that make her the HD (Head Dummy)? Or the VID (Very Important Dummy)? Or the COD (Chief Operating Dummy)?

or something?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.) :seeya: [/*]

HAHA..can't disagree at all.

love the COD..as opposed to the CEO! Swims with the fishies...when it goes down..so does she?

I still bet she had no idea.

jmo

jayne

[spydernweb2006]

IMO Rachelle's ship has already starting sinking.

The Weston Hotel named her as well as Philip Harvey as co defendants in their lawsuit for non payment. On TMZ they showed the documents and sure enough some were signed by Rachelle. She better find a way to settle or have some floatation device cause it looks like she may be going up crap creek without a paddle in her sinking ship......

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by spydernweb2006
IMO Rachelle's ship has already starting sinking.

The Weston Hotel named her as well as Philip Harvey as co defendants in their lawsuit for non payment. On TMZ they showed the documents and sure enough some were signed by Rachelle. She better find a way to settle or have some floatation device cause it looks like she may be going up crap creek without a paddle in her sinking ship......

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder [/*]

Yeah, and these are the people that want to look down on my life.

At least I don't have their problems. Mine are bad enough but at least I have an excuse, I'm low income. They created their own problems and chose not to resolve it when they had the means.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by spydernweb2006
IMO Rachelle's ship has already starting sinking.

The Weston Hotel named her as well as Philip Harvey as co defendants in their lawsuit for non payment. On TMZ they showed the documents and sure enough some were signed by Rachelle. She better find a way to settle or have some floatation device cause it looks like she may be going up crap creek without a paddle in her sinking ship......

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder [/*]

I know they pulled the picture of my fathers Credit Card before I ever saw it but did they also pull the documents because when I went to TMZ, all I saw was the picture of him.

When did you see the other pictures?

[gmiller]

Not to divert from GP's question, but I have to jump in and ask if anyone knows where or if I can catch tomorrow's (well actually it's today on the east coast) hearing anywhere? Please PM me if anyone knows.

[spydernweb2006]

When TMZ first reported the lawsuit they had a link to all the documents, which they have removed. In part I am sure because they also showed PS's Credit card info. But many of us saw the documents and sure enough Rachelle had signed for guaranty of payment to the hotel. That is why she was directly named in the lawsuit by the Hotel Chain.

Since I dont think she can return the dental work so she may hafta sell her engagement ring if Phil is found guilty and the court rules in Westin- Bonaventure's favor.

Looks like the beginning of the end for the High Life of Rachelle Spector IMO.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Yeah, and these are the people that want to look down on my life.

At least I don't have their problems. Mine are bad enough but at least I have an excuse, I'm low income. They created their own problems and chose not to resolve it when they had the means. [/*]

Since this thread is about him and she interjected herself in the court and became a part of this trial through emails to the press, websites and interviews I will speak up. I tell you what, of course people can write what they want on the internet but, from what I have read about her and photos I have seen, she couldn't begin hold a candle to most women in looks or morals when they were her age. Yea my opinion but, hey every once in awhile I will call it like I see it. She couldn't look down on anyone I know.

For the hotel for the witnesses and attorneys, I think of it as just the game of monopoly being played in real life, who can hold onto their cash the longest. Winning is everything. On the other hand maybe he is robbing peter to pay paul, to keep things going. Either way I can't really see anyone in their supposed "bracket" admiring them. They have no reason to look down on anyone. Maybe more like stretching out their hands for friendship and forgiveness might be a better attitude. It would probably do the greater good in their lives. I don't wish them ill will, just a change of heart.

Today is the courtdate right? Looking forward for my trial watching moments to hear how his new attorney handles things.

Oh yes all my opinion only JMO

:rolleyes:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Dummy Corporations or Blind Trust are a smart place for people that have money to park it. It is an easy way for their administrator to draw a annual fee. So what is so stupid about it.:confused: Many politicians do it because they do not want their true assets known. [/*]


It depends on what you do with it. If the dummy corp. is used to aid in tax evasion, or to make illegal payoffs,(which is what most are used for) then they are being used to break the law.

Those who get by with it probably do think that illegal activity is smart. Right up until they get caught.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Searching
Dummy Corporations or Blind Trust are a smart place for people that have money to park it. It is an easy way for their administrator to draw a annual fee. So what is so stupid about it.:confused: Many politicians do it because they do not want their true assets known. [/*]


Oh fer cryin' out loud....

WHOOSH!

Know what that was? The sound of the joke flying over the heads of people who didn't get that what I posted was.... just a joke! :tongue:

Have a good day!!

[Land Shark®]

Just think...

At this time next year, Phil Spector will be sitting in prison.

I'm sure of it. :)

IMO.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Most folks that have made a lot of money will tell you that making it was not really the hard part. Keeping it is. [/*]


I'm sure that's true, but wanting to keep all of their money to themselves doesn't excuse breaking the law. They may think they're entitled, but they aren't.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Just think...

At this time next year, Phil Spector will be sitting in prison.

I'm sure of it. :)

IMO. [/*]


It's a lovely thought. ;)

[Ellie]

Has anyone heard anything about this mornings proceedings yet?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Just think, people were once convinced that the earth was flat and if you sailed to close to the edge you would fall off. Some even believed that the earth was the center of the universe. They were also sure of it. Just a thought. [/*]

There are even those who think having a lot of money and a huge ego entitles them to murder others. They're sure they can get by with it if they pay enough people to lie for them. Also just a thought.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Land Shark�
Just think...

At this time next year, Phil Spector will be sitting in prison.

I'm sure of it. :)

IMO. [/*]

I think that deserves a :D and a :beer:

Thanks for the happy thoughts, Land Shark!

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Ellie
Has anyone heard anything about this mornings proceedings yet? [/*]

Nothing yet and it's been over 2 hours now. I've been checking in with the Trials and Tribulations blog. Does anyone else have another reliable source to recommend?

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

Just a thought.

Just a thought... that has nothing to do with Phil Spector sitting in prison.

[Ellie]

Well, I've been bouncing back and forth between Michelle Blaine's site (ya'all should really head over there. No worries about her kicking you out!): Spector Trial (http://www.spectortrial.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=2)

...and the Nancy Grace site and I can't find a thing!

[gmiller]

I just noticed that AJ is listed as the ADA and some new person is the deputy DA. The T&T site is my reference (no surprise there).

Is Pat Dixon out of the Spector Case and if so where did he go and did AJ get promoted?

Whew...that was 3 questions in one sentence, but as they say inquiring minds want to know.

[Crispy]

Originally posted by gmiller
I just noticed that AJ is listed as the ADA and some new person is the deputy DA. The T&T site is my reference (no surprise there).

Is Pat Dixon out of the Spector Case and if so where did he go and did AJ get promoted?

Whew...that was 3 questions in one sentence, but as they say inquiring minds want to know. [/*]


In the recent motions filed, it lists Jackson as the Deputy District Attorney..

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&date=10/21/2005%2010:27:06%20AM

[kennedy06]

Hi everyone, I thought there would be something by now. I even checked one of his supporters blog and nothing.:shrug:

I wonder who is in attendance today? I just get the feeling the last trial will pale in comparison to the fight the prosecution and defense are going to put up this time around. JMO

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Crispy



In the recent motions filed, it lists Jackson as the Deputy District Attorney..

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&date=10/21/2005%2010:27:06%20AM [/*]

Ah, my mistake! Thanks for clearing that up for me. IMO, Jackson is more of the lead in PS 2.0 (like last time?) since he is the one writing up and signing off these motions, as opposed to Pat Dixion.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Hi everyone, I thought there would be something by now. I even checked one of his supporters blog and nothing.:shrug:

I wonder who is in attendance today? I just get the feeling the last trial will pale in comparison to the fight the prosecution and defense are going to put up this time around. JMO [/*]

I know it and now it's almost noon on the west coast. Will we know anything if they recess for lunch? And who in the heck is covering this?

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Searching
No wonder they can't get a celebrity conviction. They keep making the same mistakes with the same loosers.JMO [/*]

No need to bash my favorite prosecutor of all time :eek:

[gmiller]

There was a strong earthquake in the LA area. Hope everyone is ok!

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


I know it and now it's almost noon on the west coast. Will we know anything if they recess for lunch? And who in the heck is covering this? [/*]


If they're arguing all the motions filed it could take a while to get through them. I imagine the local papers have reporters in attendance, so we'll get some news eventually.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by gmiller
There was a strong earthquake in the LA area. Hope everyone is ok! [/*]


Sigh. Just another one of Spector's ploys to delay.

;) :tongue:

[tartangirl]

sems an earthquake of 5.8 magnatude occurred 18 minutes ago ..in Chino...but heard buildings were swaying..two after shocks...not so good...sure LA felt it...oh that Spector...another ploy..

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Ellie



Sigh. Just another one of Spector's ploys to delay.

;) :tongue: [/*]

LOL! That is hilarious...but wait...maybe you're on to something Ellie ;)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by tartangirl
sems an earthquake of 5.8 magnatude occurred 18 minutes ago ..in Chino...but heard buildings were swaying..two after shocks...not so good...sure LA felt it...oh that Spector...another ploy.. [/*]


:lol: It didn't work. The fire department said there was no damage reported.

Curses foiled again! LOL

The Spectors did make it to court, according to Harriet Ryan. There's a mention in an L.A. Times blog.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/

[Crispy]

There is a small update on T & T!

[gmiller]

See I had a feeling that Pat Dixon was replaced!!

NO TRIAL UNTIL NOVEMBER according to T&T?!:cuss:

[gmiller]

Truc Do - the "tiny Asian woman" sitting at the prosecution table is the other person signing off on these motions along with AJ, not Pat Dixon who was sitting in the gallery.

Here's the low down from T&T - http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by gmiller
Truc Do - the "tiny Asian woman" sitting at the prosecution table is the other person signing off on these motions along with AJ, not Pat Dixon who was sitting in the gallery.

Here's the low down from T&T - http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector [/*]

This isn't much but, I found this link that tells of a few cases she was involved with. Impressive I guess. In paragraphs 6 and 7 she is mentioned (assuming its the same person) JMO

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/050508a.htm

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller
See I had a feeling that Pat Dixon was replaced!!

NO TRIAL UNTIL NOVEMBER according to T&T?!:cuss: [/*]

Pat Dixon is the Head of Major Crimes in the Los Angeles County DA's office.

I don't know that he was "replaced" so much, as that he has a lot to do as Head Deputy district Attorney and Head of Major Crimes.

As I understand it, the jury selection process, which starts with questionnaires and goes on to voir dire of those who make the cut, is to start October 2, which is only three days after the original date.

There is no trial date in November. Trial will start once the jury is chosen, which is something that can only be estimated. I'm sire EW will drag it out as long as he possibly can.

[vonna]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Pat Dixon is the Head of Major Crimes in the Los Angeles County DA's office.

I don't know that he was "replaced" so much, as that he has a lot to do as Head Deputy district Attorney and Head of Major Crimes.

As I understand it, the jury selection process, which starts with questionnaires and goes on to voir dire of those who make the cut, is to start October 2, which is only three days after the original date.

There is no trial date in November. Trial will start once the jury is chosen, which is something that can only be estimated. I'm sire EW will drag it out as long as he possibly can. [/*]

Spector keeps managing to delay the start of his jail sentence. (I'm as optimistic as LandShark.)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller


I think that deserves a :D and a :beer:

Thanks for the happy thoughts, Land Shark! [/*]

That is a "happy thought"! (reminds me of Peter Pan...hmmm...kinda analogous, in a way...NOT to LandShark..I mean to PS...)

If he's not sitting in prison, at least the Clarkson's will no doubt be underway in their civil suit, which I highly doubt will not succeed. Not that it makes up for their loss...but it's another, or A real slap in the face. I know..there is the concern they won't get any money..and they surely should..but there'd be that "second justice"..or a justice, of sorts if the trial doesn't turn out as a "guilty".

I don't see him "getting off" ... to a high percentage (in my thinking), but I can't say there is 100%..in what I've seen and anticipate to a definite guilty...it will depend on the jury and the parade of experts and how much they are believable and believed.

PS should be thanking his lucky stars that he's in America and a legal American. Imagine..if he were in some other country(ies) or deportable to a despicable country (as in their legal systems)...we wouldn't be discussing much of Justice..as in the American Jurisprudence, and he wouldn't have his money..or probably his hands, head, or life. Middle East comes to mind - or what used to be the Eastern Block Countries. Their criminal justice systems have reformed over the years (SOME of them) but many are medieval...shoot first, ask questions later..as in "judgement" I mean.

Wish I could find the "site", but I recall reading recently the punishments in different countries..and one of them..not a third world country or "savage" system...once caught with a WEAPON on you..it's capital punishment..whether you used it or not against another person. Anyone else here seen that site? If so, please PM me with the connection. I was pretty amazed. No wonder those countries have low crime rates..with weapons, anyway. Wasn't it a Northern European Country?

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller
There was a strong earthquake in the LA area. Hope everyone is ok! [/*]

Indeed, there was. My chair moved across the floor...and my office is somewhere between 2 - 2 1/2 hours from here (drive time) from where the actual "hit spot" was..in San Bernadino area. Not LA..although, I guess in the big spectrum one might say LA. I think the fault lines cross each other so much..like the "life lines" on one's hands...that LA gets a lot of whatever hits wherever it hits. I HATED living in Santa Monica...got every little aftershock shake, it seemed, no matter where it originated from.

It's funny (I don't mean hilarious) that even here in the Santa Barbara area..some felt it..slightly...others much moreso even way out here. Someone I know had pictures/wall hangings..falling from the walls...things being tossed to the ground. I guess it depends on where one's residence lies on the "lines outgoing" from the plates moving across?

From all the news reports I could find (at my limited capacity at work and now), there are no injuries..some damages...some bridge or something "down", etc. but nothing monumental. Pretty amazing for a 5.4.

I HATE earthquakes..wasn't born and raised here..but lived here for 10 years..moved..then just recently located. BOTH times..I wasn't here 2-6 months before there was a shaking, rattling and rolling. first time..it was a Big one...

Yeah...Spector caused it! HAHA...well..considering his past musical works..I can see the humour..PLUS his time to be in court today!

Anyone know what happened? At the hearing, I mean?

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector keeps managing to delay the start of his jail sentence. (I'm as optimistic as LandShark.) [/*]

Here's a guess. Dixon was there to "in" Jackson...after his performance at PS1..there is no question in the DA's office or Dixon's referral that says AJ can't handle it himself or with "other counsel".

Right..Dixon is a "head" at the department.

With Dixon passing it down, so to speak, I'd say the DA office is pretty clear on where they are going and how to go about it and confidence in how it will be handled.

This is AJ's time to shine...build up his reputation...and be an honest DA, which he has been all along. That really counts. For his office and for him..and I'm quite sure he will continue to be just that.

He's on his way "up"..that's how I read this..I may be wrong, of course.

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector keeps managing to delay the start of his jail sentence. (I'm as optimistic as LandShark.) [/*]


I like that way of putting it! :D It's good to keep that optimistic outlook.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Pat Dixon is the Head of Major Crimes in the Los Angeles County DA's office.

I don't know that he was "replaced" so much, as that he has a lot to do as Head Deputy district Attorney and Head of Major Crimes.

As I understand it, the jury selection process, which starts with questionnaires and goes on to voir dire of those who make the cut, is to start October 2, which is only three days after the original date.

There is no trial date in November. Trial will start once the jury is chosen, which is something that can only be estimated. I'm sire EW will drag it out as long as he possibly can. [/*]

Jury selection is a HUGE DEAL. But I'm expecting that the September 29th date is STILL ON??? Maybe not?

I'd bet you..if I had the money...they will have a jury in a week or less...then the "voir dires" another week..if the attorneys are putting in their 60 hour weeks..OOPS..the court only has a 30-40 hour week? Me Bad.

AJ and whoever his second seat is..if that is the way things are going will be ready to "attack" and control this jury selection process and they will make sure it doesn't "Delay". There are only so many objections, etc. an attorney from either side can give and/or get. I can't see this lasting into November..but maybe it will, depending.

They make their motions..or did..today...they have from today to September 29th to get their ducks in a row...that's almost 2 months..well..it is! DUH!

Get to work..over-work...and get the show on the road.

Why is there the thought it will take to November? Or maybe there is a "court decree"?

I don't know what happened today..I'm waiting to read it here. But if it's just a matter of jury selection..they can still make their September date. OR am I missing some information?

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Indeed, there was. My chair moved across the floor...and my office is somewhere between 2 - 2 1/2 hours from here (drive time) from where the actual "hit spot" was..in San Bernadino area. Not LA..although, I guess in the big spectrum one might say LA. I think the fault lines cross each other so much..like the "life lines" on one's hands...that LA gets a lot of whatever hits wherever it hits. I HATED living in Santa Monica...got every little aftershock shake, it seemed, no matter where it originated from.

It's funny (I don't mean hilarious) that even here in the Santa Barbara area..some felt it..slightly...others much moreso even way out here. Someone I know had pictures/wall hangings..falling from the walls...things being tossed to the ground. I guess it depends on where one's residence lies on the "lines outgoing" from the plates moving across?

From all the news reports I could find (at my limited capacity at work and now), there are no injuries..some damages...some bridge or something "down", etc. but nothing monumental. Pretty amazing for a 5.4.

I HATE earthquakes..wasn't born and raised here..but lived here for 10 years..moved..then just recently located. BOTH times..I wasn't here 2-6 months before there was a shaking, rattling and rolling. first time..it was a Big one...

Yeah...Spector caused it! HAHA...well..considering his past musical works..I can see the humour..PLUS his time to be in court today!

Anyone know what happened? At the hearing, I mean?

jmo

J [/*]

Hi Jayne,

There is another hearing scheduled for August 14th.

At today's, the Judge ruled that there is no Double Jeopardy at stake in this trial if lesser crimes are considered. (Though there is nothing to suggest they will, since the crime fits the definition of 2nd degree murder.)

Dr. Herold and Steve Renteria may testify, it is up to the jury to decide how credible they are.

Taped testimony from Diane Ogden is admissible if the prior bad acts witnesses are allowed. Tape is needed to show her demeanor.

The prior bad acts witnesses will be decided at the next hearing, though I believe they will get in. They did last time and the Judge repeated over all defense objections to them, that he found there was room under 1101(*) for them.

The testimony of Dr. Pena, the ME, will be discussed next hearing too, I think.

The date to begin the "Trial", meaning the long process of winnowing down potential jurors, has been moved back three days, to October 2nd.

At that point it will be like last time, questionnaires to eliminate some and then voir dire. Last time it took a month to seat a jury, but it's anyone's guess how long it will take this time.

So basically, they're on schedule.


Oddly enough, when I heard about the earthquake, I wondered if PS was thinking Justice was coming to get him, and doing a little quaking of his own in those stacked Cuban heels.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Hi Jayne,

There is another hearing scheduled for August 14th.

At today's, the Judge ruled that there is no Double Jeopardy at stake in this trial if lesser crimes are considered. (Though there is nothing to suggest they will, since the crime fits the definition of 2nd degree murder.)

Dr. Herold and Steve Renteria may testify, it is up to the jury to decide how credible they are.

Taped testimony from Diane Ogden is admissible if the prior bad acts witnesses are allowed. Tape is needed to show her demeanor.

The prior bad acts witnesses will be decided at the next hearing, though I believe they will get in. They did last time and the Judge repeated over all defense objections to them, that he found there was room under 1101(*) for them.

The testimony of Dr. Pena, the ME, will be discussed next hearing too, I think.

The date to begin the "Trial", meaning the long process of winnowing down potential jurors, has been moved back three days, to October 2nd.

At that point it will be like last time, questionnaires to eliminate some and then voir dire. Last time it took a month to seat a jury, but it's anyone's guess how long it will take this time.

So basically, they're on schedule.


Oddly enough, when I heard about the earthquake, I wondered if PS was thinking Justice was coming to get him, and doing a little quaking of his own in those stacked Cuban heels. [/*]

HAHA..you are funny..stacked Cuban heels! (I could use a pair to tower over the women these days..gheesh..I stood in Starbucks line (not that I LIKE the place..it's just nearby..) to a woman..had to be 6'2"..and I was considered Tall in MY TIME!)

Double Jeopardy? Blows my mind...what judgement was found in the first trial? NADA..it was a HUNG JURY. Judge obviously knows his stuff..wonder how many others do? Did this defense even actually motion or argue that? Good Lord! Maybe I don't have all the information..but this is laughable..for an attorney, that is..and those who are arm chair ones. DOUBLE JEOPARDY...wracks my mind..where did THAT come from? He's obviously being "nice"..he's a danged great judge..and he plays along with the language..as I see it and to cover all bases.

There was no determination in the first trial as to M2 nor Manslaughter..hence "no double jeopardy" as there was no determination as to either charge..even though only one was "written" and the other "counter-argued" (Riordan???).but I still think the DA should have included it..but that's another post..everyone will HATE from me!! :)

Ogden...IMO..I don't see a problem at all. OF course her taped testimony is going to come in. If not..something is rotten in the state of Denmark (or whatever). IF the prior Bad Act Witnesses are allowed? HA..OF course this tape is going to come in. He's one smart judge.

OK..so now I get "sick" on October 2d?

thanks so much for the update!

jmo

j

[gmiller]

We have a tentative ruling on Dianne Ogden's testimony...and it's a go! The LA Times is reporting that Judge Fidler said the DVD of Ms. Ogden's testimony is more accurate than the transcripts. However, he will have to screen the DVD to ensure its accuracy. All I can say is thank goodness!!!
You can find the story here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector30-2008jul30,0,2851369.story

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller
We have a tentative ruling on Dianne Ogden's testimony...and it's a go! The LA Times is reporting that Judge Fidler said the DVD of Ms. Ogden's testimony is more accurate than the transcripts. However, he will have to screen the DVD to ensure its accuracy. All I can say is thank goodness!!!
You can find the story here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector30-2008jul30,0,2851369.story [/*]

figured so..that's the "general rule" in courts...video is much more reliable than transcripts...since there can be mistakes..and..AND you don't see the "demeanor" of the witness on the stand..only "parens" to attempt to describe it on transcript.

There is no way I can see Fidler or an Appeals Court not saying that her testimony didn't have proper cross examination and wouldn't be allowable. She may well be the BEST witness...in a way...sorry to say and God Rest Her Soul...maybe she'll be looking down and smiling..or laughing..after the outcome of all this.



GOOD!

jmo

J

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne


figured so..that's the "general rule" in courts...video is much more reliable than transcripts...since there can be mistakes..and..AND you don't see the "demeanor" of the witness on the stand..only "parens" to attempt to describe it on transcript.

There is no way I can see Fidler or an Appeals Court not saying that her testimony didn't have proper cross examination and wouldn't be allowable. She may well be the BEST witness...in a way...sorry to say and God Rest Her Soul...maybe she'll be looking down and smiling..or laughing..after the outcome of all this.



GOOD!

jmo

J [/*]

So true Jayne. I did forget to mention that JF did rule against the prosecution in their motion to keep out her manner of death (an accidental drug overdose). He said it cut against her credibility on the stand. If that's the case, I'd love to see what The Pie had pumping through her veins on the day she testified. :rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

I just finished reading Sprocket's update. I didn't realize part of the defenses problem with DO tape was partly because of Bruce C. cross of her. How it would reflect on them if I understood that right.

Esq W is a likealble guy and Rirodan brillant, according to the blog. For me, on the other side AJ is pretty brillant himself and if this new attorney T. D., with her experience will make a dynamic team. If W is likeable he may come across well to the jury and hold their attention. So I think that is, though minor, an imortant factor. I can't imagine this trial without the PBA's so I sure hope they are allowed in. MO

[Anakerie]

Judge in Spector retrial gives tentative OK to use Court TV footage of witness who died
A final ruling will be made after review of a DVD of the woman's testimony, but he says video is more accurate than reading transcripts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-spector30-2008jul30,0,102526.story

Spector's new lawyers lose motions before retrial
By LINDA DEUTSCH
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD927PFHG0

Judge delays decision about Spector witness
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_10037569

[vonna]

Originally posted by Anakerie
Judge in Spector retrial gives tentative OK to use Court TV footage of witness who died
A final ruling will be made after review of a DVD of the woman's testimony, but he says video is more accurate than reading transcripts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-spector30-2008jul30,0,102526.story

Spector's new lawyers lose motions before retrial
By LINDA DEUTSCH
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD927PFHG0

Judge delays decision about Spector witness
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_10037569 [/*]

Thanks for the links, Ana.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
I haven't read or heard about any convictions that would fit that train of thought. Have you?;)

Learn to use Google or the newest search engine Cuil & you'll find plenty of cases.

Just takes a little research. If you're willing. ;)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06
I just finished reading Sprocket's update. I didn't realize part of the defenses problem with DO tape was partly because of Bruce C. cross of her. How it would reflect on them if I understood that right.

Esq W is a likealble guy and Rirodan brillant, according to the blog. For me, on the other side AJ is pretty brillant himself and if this new attorney T. D., with her experience will make a dynamic team. If W is likeable he may come across well to the jury and hold their attention. So I think that is, though minor, an imortant factor. I can't imagine this trial without the PBA's so I sure hope they are allowed in. MO [/*]

Riordan brilliant? I can't say that was the impression I got of him, but to each their own I guess.

Last trial he wrote, and insisted on the inclusion, of a jury instruction that purposely misstated the law. This time, he asked for Double Jeopardy, knowing full well it wasn't attached.

Brilliant at finding ways to waste time, maybe.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
Did that allready. Couldn't find a one. Do you know of any?

Hmmm.... maybe you need to use different keywords.

I found plenty of cases.

Good luck. You might need it.

Either way, this is off topic. :shrug:

IMO.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Beyond a possible claim for loss of love and affection what would be their damages. I doubt anyone was dependent on her wages for financial support. Given the fact she couldn't afford to buy her own shoes. So what are there actual damages.:confused: [/*]

At the very least, the cost of the funeral and the legal fees.

I think, however, that the point may be to have a court find, and hold, PS responsible for the death of Lana Clarkson.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

Given the fact she couldn't afford to buy her own shoes.

snipped


I don't know where you got that from but it's not a fact at all.

Lana's mother bought her some shoes.

That is a fact.

Now please post the link to back up your statement of 'fact'.

I'll patiently await the link. Or your next post explaining it's your opinion & not fact at all. Either one is fine with me. TIA. :)

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Riordan brilliant? I can't say that was the impression I got of him, but to each their own I guess.

Last trial he wrote, and insisted on the inclusion, of a jury instruction that purposely misstated the law. This time, he asked for Double Jeopardy, knowing full well it wasn't attached.

Brilliant at finding ways to waste time, maybe. [/*]

I like your description of brilliant!

I think that will be his main role, finding any arugment anything however minute to argue and delay. Watch PS will be 80 by the time the next jury is to decide his verdit:D

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
If you want call

snipped


You made a statement of fact. With no link.

Post the link to prove your statement of fact.

Read the Terms Of Service here if you are having problems understanding how this works.

I'll still patiently await the link or your next post explaining that it's your opinion & not fact at all. Either one is fine with me. TIA.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

I did.

snipped


You did not. Here is an example of a 'link':

Click Here. (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=133497)

You haven't posted a link.

Because you can't post a link to testimony that never happened.

Donna Clarkson never testified Lana couldn't afford to buy shoes.

What you posted as fact is a blatant lie. Period.

Again I ask, provide a LINK to back up your statement of fact.

Read the Terms Of Service here if you are having problems understanding how this works. TIA.

IMO.

[spydernweb2006]

With the defense motions failing miserably do you think MAYBE Phil has seen the way the wind in gonna blow in PS2?

So far all I have seen from Weinberg and Assoc is spaghetti laywering. Throw it to the wall and see if its sticks type of stuff. I wonder if PS2 is gonna be just that a spaghetti laywering defense.

JMHO

hugs,
Spyder

[Lynn Gweeny]

Originally posted by Anakerie
Judge in Spector retrial gives tentative OK to use Court TV footage of witness who died
A final ruling will be made after review of a DVD of the woman's testimony, but he says video is more accurate than reading transcripts.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-spector30-2008jul30,0,102526.story

Spector's new lawyers lose motions before retrial
By LINDA DEUTSCH
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD927PFHG0

Judge delays decision about Spector witness
http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_10037569 [/*]

:seeya: Thanks Anakerie!

So next hearing is August 14th for motions and Harriet Ryan's article in the Times says that JURY SELECTION is set to begin OCTOBER 2nd??

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Searching
I did. What part of court archives don't you understand. Since you seem to be having trouble here is a hint for you. When you get to the transcripts go to the defense portion of the case. It will save you some time. They called the mother to testify. Seems odd you are the only poster having trouble with this fact. Why does it bother you so much and why are you trying to make a big deal out of it. No need to respond. The FACTS are the FACTS.:seeya: [/*]

Land Shark is probably not the only person to take issue with what you are saying. I for one do not recall Lana's mother saying that Lana didn't buy any of the shoes.

And for the record, you have only been a member here for a month, a newbie, and Land Shark is a senior member. I think we may trust Land Shark more than you especially since you will not rebut and post the link to prove your point.

I'm sorry if that was rude but really:rolleyes:

[vonna]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


You did not. Here is an example of a 'link':

Click Here. (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=133497)

You haven't posted a link.

Because you can't post a link to testimony that never happened.

Donna Clarkson never testified Lana couldn't afford to buy shoes.

What you posted as fact is a blatant lie. Period.

Again I ask, provide a LINK to back up your statement of fact.

Read the Terms Of Service here if you are having problems understanding how this works. TIA.

IMO. [/*]

You are absolutely correct!!!