Phil Spector Debate and Discussion 2

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06


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 [/*]

He certainly tried to take over the courtroom and tell the Judge what to do, and he had the arrogance to do it from the other end of a phone!

Thank Goodness Judge Fidler put Riordan in his place and reminded him who runs his courtroom!

We could all still be waiting for Jury instructions in trial one, otherwise. :tongue:

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Searching
I guess you didn't watch the trial either. [/*]

Can you provide a PROPER link to the testimony that only you can remember?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
I guess you didn't watch the trial either. [/*]

Vonna did watch the trial, from start to finish. I'm one of many who were right here with her and can vouch for that.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Vonna did watch the trial, from start to finish. I'm one of many who were right here with her and can vouch for that. [/*]

:seeya: I will vouch for Vonna as well.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
For the record it doesn't mean I did not watch the trial. I do find it interesting that Land Shark got his nic from a SNL skit where Land Shark goes around preying on young single woman. His tag line is from that skit. In the skit Land Shark knocks on doors of unsuspecting women pretending to be a repairman,etc. Once inside the Shark swoops in for the kill. I guess thats what he means by being the cleverist of all sharks. If you want to trust someone that would use that as a tag line. Have at it. BTW no one is trying to prove any point. Just stating the facts. Since you so despartly need a link for my original post here it is www.lasuperiorcourt.org.:seeya: [/*]


A skit from an old show isn't much of a basis for making a judgment of someone's trustworthiness.

As far as Lana's shoes are concerned, so what? A person's worth, even their financial worth, is not based on whether or not they buy a pair of shoes.

She had been seriously injured and unable to work for a year. She was only just getting back on her feet financially, but she was working and earning. She had a new job, she had landed a new modeling account.

Her Mother wanted to do something nice for her and bought her some shoes when they went shopping. That's it. In terms of financial worth, who bought the shoes is utterly irrelevant.

Like I said earlier, I don't believe that money is the motive for the Civil suit, but since that is what is awarded in Civil cases, that has to be part of it.

I notice that you consider the judgment of the Civil Courts unimportant, since there is a different standard of proof. That is certainly your right, but the judgments are still legal and still stand.

If you want to get technical about it, Lana Clarkson was a healthy 40 year old woman. She had the ability to work and no matter what she did, as far as financial matters go, she still had another 30 years of earning potential.

It doesn't matter whether she would have spent that money on her mother or not.

In fact, in show business it's often a boom and bust situation. There have been actors who have gotten on a hit TV show and had the greatest success of their lives when they were 40 and over. That could have happened for Lana, had her life not been stolen from her. She never got the chance.

Donna Clarkson has the legal right to file a Civil Lawsuit against PS and she has done so. I doubt she's counting on a penny from PS should she win (and I believe she will). He's very loathe to part with his money. Even when he's run up bills. Ask the Westin Bonaventure Hotel and Suites in Los Angeles.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Anakerie


:seeya: I will vouch for Vonna as well. [/*]

:seeya: She was here, we see'd her.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by True2Blues


:seeya: She was here, we see'd her. [/*]

Yup!

All this fuss about who paid for the shoes is immaterial in my opinion. My own mother occasionally does things like that for me. Not that long ago, she and I went shopping and I picked out a couple shirts I liked, she spotted them and went and got a couple more of the same style in different colors from what I had in my cart... IMO, a lot of Moms do things like that for their children.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


:seeya: She was here, we see'd her. [/*]

:seeya: I'll vouch for her too!

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Searching
For the record it doesn't mean I did not watch the trial. I do find it interesting that Land Shark got his nic from a SNL skit where Land Shark goes around preying on young single woman. His tag line is from that skit. In the skit Land Shark knocks on doors of unsuspecting women pretending to be a repairman,etc. Once inside the Shark swoops in for the kill. I guess thats what he means by being the cleverist of all sharks. If you want to trust someone that would use that as a tag line. Have at it. BTW no one is trying to prove any point. Just stating the facts. Since you so despartly need a link for my original post here it is www.lasuperiorcourt.org.:seeya: [/*]

Yeah, I never said it did have anything about you not watching the trial, I believe that you did. I'm saying that Land Shark is a respected member of this board and posted long before you. I don't much care where Land Shark's name comes from. LS always does post an accurate link. What you posted was something that we have to pay for and if you have this information in your possession, you give it up if you are trying to make this silly point. That's JMO!

[dref99]

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: [/*]

Perhaps like Mr Spector, you do not fully understand the love that exists between a child and his/her mother. It is shown in so many different ways - often debated on this forum, when a mother cannot accept that a child she raised is responsible for an horrific crime. A mother's love for her child is unconditional, her own emotional being is very dependent on the happiness or otherwise of her child/children.

Lana's mother expected that her daughter would outlive her - would supply financial and emotional support in the years to come as her own life drew to a close. It is extrememly difficult to put a price on such things, as courts have shown many times. You will perhaps show surprise when a court is eventually allowed to provide a damages figure - it is very sad that Mrs Clarkson will have to stand in line with all the other creditors, and like them, probably receive nothing except more pain and anguish.


jmo

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


You are right about the skit from some old show. However, a judgement of someone's trustworthiness, or lack thereof, can be appropriately made by observation of how they conduct themselves in everyday life, including on a message board.

I'm with Searching on this one.

imo [/*]

I'm sure your support is appreciated.

The only basis presented for that judgment was the SNL skit, not LandShark's behavior in his everyday life.

His behavior in everyday life isn't the subject of discussion here, even if the poster has observed it. Which we don't know. Personal attacks are against TOS.

As far as his behavior on the message board, all he did was ask for a link to support something stated as fact. When something is posted s fact and no one else can find it any where, we do that. It helps clear things up.

He provides links to supports his posts, rather than making claims he can't support.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by dref99


Perhaps like Mr Spector, you do not fully understand the love that exists between a child and his/her mother. It is shown in so many different ways - often debated on this forum, when a mother cannot accept that a child she raised is responsible for an horrific crime. A mother's love for her child is unconditional, her own emotional being is very dependent on the happiness or otherwise of her child/children.

Lana's mother expected that her daughter would outlive her - would supply financial and emotional support in the years to come as her own life drew to a close. It is extrememly difficult to put a price on such things, as courts have shown many times. You will perhaps show surprise when a court is eventually allowed to provide a damages figure - it is very sad that Mrs Clarkson will have to stand in line with all the other creditors, and like them, probably receive nothing except more pain and anguish.


jmo [/*]

Thank you! You put it so much better than I did.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Searching
I agree with you partially. The ? I raised is a valid legal ? that has to do with financial dependency. Given Lana's age it could become an element when discussing damages. Glad to see that her mother was able to help her out. Nothing wrong with that. As to wining any financial judgt. the old axiom is a judgt. is only worth the amount you can collect. [/*]

Please read the post by dref99 just above this one of yours.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Anakerie


Yup!

All this fuss about who paid for the shoes is immaterial in my opinion. My own mother occasionally does things like that for me. Not that long ago, she and I went shopping and I picked out a couple shirts I liked, she spotted them and went and got a couple more of the same style in different colors from what I had in my cart... IMO, a lot of Moms do things like that for their children. [/*]

You are exactly right. My mom will still buy me something, if she thinks that I would like. Lana's mother bought her shoes, she showed both reciepts to AJ.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Well how come she and a few others missed the mothers testimony about buying the shoes. You didn't. BTW I find nothing upsetting or wrong with the mother buying her shoes. The original ? had to do with actual damages and the ability to show dependency upon Lana for financial support when Lana was apparently dependent on her mother. The standard may be lower in a civil action but you still have to prove up damages. Glad you came along though. There are some that say the shoe buying testimony never took place. I guess besides the court records you are the other link. Thank You. :D [/*]

They all said that Lana's Mother bought her some shoes. She said that she did and had a receipt.

It's the comment that Lana couldn't afford to buy new shoes. As I recall the testimony, the point of the shopping trip, according to her Mother, was for Lana to buy one pair of flat shoes for work.

As it turned out, Donna decided to buy several pairs of shoes for Lana as a gift, but the original intent of the shopping trip, was for Lana to buy them herself.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Vonna did watch the trial, from start to finish. I'm one of many who were right here with her and can vouch for that. [/*]

Vonna was right here the whole time. I was here during the middle to the very end, so was Vonna. :)

[dref99]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Thank you! You put it so much better than I did. [/*]

That's very kind of you to say - not sure that it is true - you are always able to debate and provide reasons for your views. I have to think long and hard when we disagree :D





jmo

[joolz]

Originally posted by Searching
No link needed now. You confirmed the incident. Since you agree it happened maybe you can give a link. If you can't some will say you posted a lie and imply that you are a liar. Wouldn't that be a personal attack. I do find it offensive that some would associate themselves with a skit about preying on young women. Go to Wikipedia and read it for yourself. [/*]

Why should True supply a link to a point that you raised and won't let go of?

Amazing what some people find offensive, isn't it? That old SNL skit sure seems to have made an impression on you - I bet the writers would be delighted. I find posters who get banned and then reappear under new nics with the same attitudes that got them banned to begin with offensive, but that's just MOO. :shrug:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Where's your link for what you posted. Your recall maybe insufficient for some and you don't want to be called a liar do you. That's what happened to me. I would hate to see the same happen to you. So where is your link. [/*]


That's why I stated that it is what I recall. I'm the only link I have for that. If that isn't good enough for someone fine by me.

If someone wants to call me a liar, they can certainly do so.

If my recall is inaccurate then I am more than willing to admit that, should someone present a transcript of Mrs. Clarkson's testimony that proves it.

I have looked for something of the kind myself, but can only find reports online, no actual transcripts. All I have at this point to go on, is what I remember.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


I never mentioned Land Shark in my post. With this in mind, how would such a post be considered a "personal attack"? I would never make a post that was considered against the TOS. I come here to post about various issues, not launch attacks against anyone. [/*]

I didn't mean to say you attacked LandShark. I'm sorry if that's the way it came across.

I was referring to the post we were discussing. If I worded it so it seemed that I meant you had attacked someone then I apologize.

Of course you did nothing of the sort.

I didn't make myself clear, my fault. Sorry again.

[dref99]

Originally posted by Searching
When you chime in late you some times miss the point. Vonna claimed certain testimony about Lana's mom buying shoes didn't take place. Vonna was wrong. So your defense of Vonna is moot. Besides by now the shoe buying incident is a dead issue. It's time to move forward. [/*]

Nothing is a dead issue in a discussion, until folks stop talking about it. If you have issues in regard to the death of lana clarkson this is the place to discuss them. It is not the place to tell others what they may/may not discuss about the crime.

This discussion has been going on for years - I only joined in in 2007, guess I came late too.

The shoes are mentioned on this link
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/20.html

It doesn't give details of who paid the bill. Sadly the films we used to rely on from Court TV Extra are no longer available to provide the detailed information on exactly what was said.

From the very good blog - the darwin exception - an almost verbatim report about the shoes

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/08/page/17/


jmo

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Searching
When you chime in late you some times miss the point. Vonna claimed certain testimony about Lana's mom buying shoes didn't take place. Vonna was wrong. So your defense of Vonna is moot. Besides by now the shoe buying incident is a dead issue. It's time to move forward. [/*]

Well I can "chime in" any time I please.
Foegive me if I am wrong. It happens.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Well I can "chime in" any time I please.
Foegive me if I am wrong. It happens. [/*]

Yes you can. You have the right to comment on the posts here whenever you want. You didn't say anything wrong.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Yes you can. You have the right to comment on the posts here whenever you want. You didn't say anything wrong. [/*]



Thank you :beer:

[GPSpector]

WARNING, if you are a "baiter", you may find this post is referring to you . If you are a "Baiter" that is easily offended, please do not read.



I can not believe the past 3 pages are full of long time posters (postings in the 3-4 digits) falling for baiter's (posters with barely 2 digit postings) that just want to post comments just for the sheer joy of stirring things up.

Do you senior posters really want to waste your time in a tit-for-tat debate when it's obvious they they will do everything they can to not prove their point and when you get them in a corner, they will just turn it around on you like suddenly, you did something wrong and now they want you to prove it.

Asking for a link from these people is like asking for any amount of factual evidence as to why most NG's think my Father is innocent. With the exception of very few, all I see is flapping gums.

Is that really worth your time. it's not worth mine.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Searching
Where's your link for what you posted. Your recall maybe insufficient for some and you don't want to be called a liar do you. That's what happened to me. I would hate to see the same happen to you. So where is your link. [/*]

I don't think that True2Blues needs to provide a link to the purchase of the shoes. Yes, Lana's mother bought her some shoes. I believe the thing most are disagreeing with you about was YOUR statement that Lana couldn't afford to buy a pair of shoes and that was NOT testified to. UNLESS you can provide us a link to the TESTIMONY from someone saying that Lana couldn't afford to buy a pair of shoes.

Enough... I'm finished with the shoe story because it is immaterial.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by GPSpector
WARNING, if you are a "baiter", you may find this post is referring to you . If you are a "Baiter" that is easily offended, please do not read.



I can not believe the past 3 pages are full of long time posters (postings in the 3-4 digits) falling for baiter's (posters with barely 2 digit postings) that just want to post comments just for the sheer joy of stirring things up.

Do you senior posters really want to waste your time in a tit-for-tat debate when it's obvious they they will do everything they can to not prove their point and when you get them in a corner, they will just turn it around on you like suddenly, you did something wrong and now they want you to prove it.

Asking for a link from these people is like asking for any amount of factual evidence as to why most NG's think my Father is innocent. With the exception of very few, all I see is flapping gums.

Is that really worth your time. it's not worth mine. [/*]

Thank you, GPS... lol, I guess I had a little bit of time to waste this afternoon.. :D

[watchu]

The shoes are not immaterial! Who buys 7 pair of shoes before they commit suicide? You can take 'um with you... Her mom testified to purchasing the shoes for Lana's new job....

[watchu]

On the witness stand, Donna Clarkson said the last time she saw her daughter was on a shopping trip to buy shoes for the new job.

"She needed flat shoes to stand on her feet," she recalled. "She only had heels."

The mother said Clarkson intended to buy one pair but by the time they left she had bought seven. The mother said she paid for them.

Prosecutors presented a receipt timed off at 5:13 p.m. and the mother said her daughter rushed out because "she had to be at work at six o'clock."

"And that was the last time you saw her?" asked Jackson.

"Yes," said the mother, with a catch in her voice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293234,00.html

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Searching
What's amazing about finding attacks on women offensive no matter what form they are presented in. BTW why do I have to post a link and True2 Doesn't? Never mind it's time to move forward. [/*]

So let it go already!!

[gmiller]

Originally posted by GPSpector
WARNING, if you are a "baiter", you may find this post is referring to you . If you are a "Baiter" that is easily offended, please do not read.



I can not believe the past 3 pages are full of long time posters (postings in the 3-4 digits) falling for baiter's (posters with barely 2 digit postings) that just want to post comments just for the sheer joy of stirring things up.

Do you senior posters really want to waste your time in a tit-for-tat debate when it's obvious they they will do everything they can to not prove their point and when you get them in a corner, they will just turn it around on you like suddenly, you did something wrong and now they want you to prove it.

Asking for a link from these people is like asking for any amount of factual evidence as to why most NG's think my Father is innocent. With the exception of very few, all I see is flapping gums.

Is that really worth your time. it's not worth mine. [/*]

Thanks GP! You really are a very calming presence here.

[kennedy06]

Looking late to see if there was any other information on the shoe purchase, I came across this article. It's from Jan 2005 but, I have never read it before or anything from Lana's Mother or family. At least not that I can remember. She sounds like a Mother that truly loved her daughter.

Like Anakerie posted, Mothers do things like that for their daughters. No matter what their age, they will always be their little girls. So no surprise or shock to me if she paid for them. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Entertainment/Story?id=442185&page=1

I'm glad I came across the article.

[joolz]

Originally posted by GPSpector
WARNING, if you are a "baiter", you may find this post is referring to you . If you are a "Baiter" that is easily offended, please do not read.



I can not believe the past 3 pages are full of long time posters (postings in the 3-4 digits) falling for baiter's (posters with barely 2 digit postings) that just want to post comments just for the sheer joy of stirring things up.

Do you senior posters really want to waste your time in a tit-for-tat debate when it's obvious they they will do everything they can to not prove their point and when you get them in a corner, they will just turn it around on you like suddenly, you did something wrong and now they want you to prove it.

Asking for a link from these people is like asking for any amount of factual evidence as to why most NG's think my Father is innocent. With the exception of very few, all I see is flapping gums.

Is that really worth your time. it's not worth mine. [/*]

GPS - Thank you for the reminder. I always think I'm done taking the bait, but I fall off the wagon occasionally. :)

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by watchu
The shoes are not immaterial! Who buys 7 pair of shoes before they commit suicide? You can take 'um with you... Her mom testified to purchasing the shoes for Lana's new job.... [/*]

I mispoke... The shoes aren't immaterial to the case. The shoes are immaterial to "searching's" quest for attention.

I'm sorry I didn't post my whole opinion. What I was referring to was searching saying that it was testified to that Lana couldn't afford to buy a pair of shoes.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by watchu
On the witness stand, Donna Clarkson said the last time she saw her daughter was on a shopping trip to buy shoes for the new job.

"She needed flat shoes to stand on her feet," she recalled. "She only had heels."

The mother said Clarkson intended to buy one pair but by the time they left she had bought seven. The mother said she paid for them.

Prosecutors presented a receipt timed off at 5:13 p.m. and the mother said her daughter rushed out because "she had to be at work at six o'clock."

"And that was the last time you saw her?" asked Jackson.

"Yes," said the mother, with a catch in her voice.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293234,00.html [/*]

Thank you for finding that link, watchu...

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
No link needed now.

snipped


Link still needed.

These are your words from 11:15am this morning. Speaking about Lana Clarkson:

Given the fact she couldn't afford to buy her own shoes.

There is absolutely NO testimony stating Lana Clarkson couldn't afford to buy her own shoes.

None.

You posted a blatant lie as fact. Period.

When you post blatant lies as fact, it affects everyone posting here. It especially affects new posters as they may be inclined to believe your lie.

I will not let your lie go unchallenged.

Now... where's the link to testimony that states Lana couldn't afford to buy her own shoes?

There is no link to something that doesn't & never did exist.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller


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: [/*]

Woah! Do you know the facts of the accidental overdose? If JF is letting it in, then it must have been non prescription drugs? Or some evidence that she was "popping" pills? A bit confusing to me..now a dead witness is being "prosecuted"? IMO..even a person who is on prescribed medication can have an ACCIDENTAL overdose, and not have it go against their credibility...maybe dumb to take too many or forget that they took a dose earlier in the day or something...that's accidental. That's perplexing to me. How's the prosecution going to counter that one? Maybe put her doctor on the stand?:shrug:

Nothing like attacking the "credibility" of a videotape (witness). Her demeanor on the stand didn't come across to me as if she were a pill user, but more like a bit "ditsy" in a sense..in an innocent, mild mannered sense..where she was credible to me, anyway, that she had a "thing" for PS and didn't want him to "do it like that"...isn't that how she said it (referring to sex at gunpoint)?

YEP..agree with you on the Pie comment. My guess is Pie had visions of $1,000 bills flowing through her bloodstream, a bit of "ideals of fame", some "morning after" wake up after a night partying, and not a lot of "true blood"...as in best buddy blood for Lana. Sort of the Self Absorbed Pumped Blood.

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Woah! Do you know the facts of the accidental overdose? If JF is letting it in, then it must have been non prescription drugs? Or some evidence that she was "popping" pills? A bit confusing to me..now a dead witness is being "prosecuted"? IMO..even a person who is on prescribed medication can have an ACCIDENTAL overdose, and not have it go against their credibility...maybe dumb to take too many or forget that they took a dose earlier in the day or something...that's accidental. That's perplexing to me. How's the prosecution going to counter that one? Maybe put her doctor on the stand?:shrug:

Nothing like attacking the "credibility" of a videotape (witness). Her demeanor on the stand didn't come across to me as if she were a pill user, but more like a bit "ditsy" in a sense..in an innocent, mild mannered sense..where she was credible to me, anyway, that she had a "thing" for PS and didn't want him to "do it like that"...isn't that how she said it (referring to sex at gunpoint)?

YEP..agree with you on the Pie comment. My guess is Pie had visions of $1,000 bills flowing through her bloodstream, a bit of "ideals of fame", some "morning after" wake up after a night partying, and not a lot of "true blood"...as in best buddy blood for Lana. Sort of the Self Absorbed Pumped Blood.

jmo

J [/*]

According to this article by Harriet Ryan, for the L.A. Times, Diane Ogden died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs.

Accidental and Prescription being, as you say, the important words here.

I have no doubt the Defense would love a chance to dirty DO's name and claim she was every kind of addict, given the chance. The official cause of death will still be accident though.

I don't see that her cause of death is relevant, since it was determined to be an accident. All the jury needs to know is that she passed away between trials.

I'm with you on PP. I believe that one was seeing $$$$$ while she was up there lying through her teeth.

ETA it helps if the link gets put on.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector15-2008jul15,0,4948527.story

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by EmuArt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anakerie

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

I found this article interesting because as I have mentioned before I think Fiddler will add the lessors this time to get a conviction. The new lawyer must think the same.

Hope you all are OK with getting off the shoe thing.............. [/*]

I think they can get a conviction without the lessors, provided they don't get another juror with an agenda.

The Judge decided last time that the crime didn't meet with the requirements for manslaughter. I don't see how it could suddenly meet them this time, unless the Prosecution changes their case.

We won't know until it's time to do jury instructions. Right now, I'm just hoping jury selection is smooth! LOL

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Looking late to see if there was any other information on the shoe purchase, I came across this article. It's from Jan 2005 but, I have never read it before or anything from Lana's Mother or family. At least not that I can remember. She sounds like a Mother that truly loved her daughter.

Like Anakerie posted, Mothers do things like that for their daughters. No matter what their age, they will always be their little girls. So no surprise or shock to me if she paid for them. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Entertainment/Story?id=442185&page=1

I'm glad I came across the article. [/*]

Absolutely! And..my intent in responding to your post kennedy is not to stir up..what's already been sloshed around the kitchen

sink. Thanks to GPSpector for his post! Things get tense and so many do Fall for the Bait or get caught up in something very near and dear in a poster's emotions and attachments to this case.

Not to keep this up..remember...but it is true..IMO..what you said. Mother's do that for their daughters..and for their sons. Seen it in my own family..god rest my mom's soul (recently deceased). If she could write a check or order from some little catalogue, she'd be doing it..not because either me or my brother "needs it" but just because she wanted to do that. I miss my mother so very much..and it's not for the money or gifts..it's for that "motherly thing"..sometimes tangible..mostly intangible. What happened at that moment between Lana and her Mom..I think was BOTH. I'd wager...she has that receipt somewhere..as a memoire of her last moments with Lana. Really, really sad.

Like you..I'm not shocked at all. My kid is still not an "adult" but I know darn well that I will throughout my life do things for him even if he doesn't "Need it". Maybe just throw in that added extra...or make it a "gift".

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I think they can get a conviction without the lessors, provided they don't get another juror with an agenda.

The Judge decided last time that the crime didn't meet with the requirements for manslaughter. I don't see how it could suddenly meet them this time, unless the Prosecution changes their case.

We won't know until it's time to do jury instructions. Right now, I'm just hoping jury selection is smooth! LOL [/*]

Really respect you True...and "love ya too" (NO..I'm not PIE In disguise!!! LOL)..

The judge was deciding on the "papers"...that's his job..and then what was proved during the trial and "motioned for" in the jury instructions...at least I think so. Lessers are almost automatically included in many jurisdictions..here they had to add it to the "complaint/charge" or present it in evidence and then ask for instructions. I do NOT think either side asked for those instructions..in fact Mr. Telephone Man argued vehemently against it..and rightfully so, in a sense.

I VERY respectfully disagree..I do think the evidence would support "manslaughter"..depending on how it is presented..if they don't actually put it in the Charge. CA has some pretty strangely constructed laws, if I must say so myself (being out here!)..but if one commits murder...they've also caused the death of someone..one way or another...by intent, malicious implied, defined intent, or negligent or reckless..the death happened. (TRUE (not your name)..there is a difference between negligent and reckless as to homicide..and in CA they add that "implied malice"..which as I interpret it is essentially Reckless Homicide in other jurisdictions..would still get Murder in some states..but here? might only get the LIO of Manslaughter. CA seems to align Implied Malice with what other jurisdictions call "reckless disregard". (I know I've posted this ad nauseum before and won't do it again.) When you think about it..it's form over substance..someone caused someone's death..BUT if you didn't plead it correctly..or put in evidence to support the lessor..and murderer gets off free?

Your point is the big one..IF they don't get a juror....

that's why I would think the prosecution would gear their case for M2, but have all the ELEMENTS of Manslaughter..then in the jury instructions..there's no Telephone Man arguing it can't get in...throw it all in there. Just bolster it for M2.

Dunno

Just a thought.


jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by EmuArt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Anakerie

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

I found this article interesting because as I have mentioned before I think Fiddler will add the lessors this time to get a conviction. The new lawyer must think the same.

Hope you all are OK with getting off the shoe thing.............. [/*]

I absolutely agree..with everything!

lessors come in

shoes go out

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Really respect you True...and "love ya too" (NO..I'm not PIE In disguise!!! LOL)..

The judge was deciding on the "papers"...that's his job..and then what was proved during the trial and "motioned for" in the jury instructions...at least I think so. Lessers are almost automatically included in many jurisdictions..here they had to add it to the "complaint/charge" or present it in evidence and then ask for instructions. I do NOT think either side asked for those instructions..in fact Mr. Telephone Man argued vehemently against it..and rightfully so, in a sense.

I VERY respectfully disagree..I do think the evidence would support "manslaughter"..depending on how it is presented..if they don't actually put it in the Charge. CA has some pretty strangely constructed laws, if I must say so myself (being out here!)..but if one commits murder...they've also caused the death of someone..one way or another...by intent, malicious implied, defined intent, or negligent or reckless..the death happened. (TRUE (not your name)..there is a difference between negligent and reckless as to homicide..and in CA they add that "implied malice"..which as I interpret it is essentially Reckless Homicide in other jurisdictions..would still get Murder in some states..but here? might only get the LIO of Manslaughter. CA seems to align Implied Malice with what other jurisdictions call "reckless disregard". (I know I've posted this ad nauseum before and won't do it again.) When you think about it..it's form over substance..someone caused someone's death..BUT if you didn't plead it correctly..or put in evidence to support the lessor..and murderer gets off free?

Your point is the big one..IF they don't get a juror....

that's why I would think the prosecution would gear their case for M2, but have all the ELEMENTS of Manslaughter..then in the jury instructions..there's no Telephone Man arguing it can't get in...throw it all in there. Just bolster it for M2.

Dunno

Just a thought.


jmo

J [/*]

It was the Judge who said it didn't meet with the requirements for Manslaughter. I found him very thorough when it came to all of his decisions. He always had plenty to back it up with, so I believe he knows what he's talking about.

In the last trial, both the Defense and the Prosecution agreed.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Especially when it comes to Involuntary Manslaughter. An 11 pound trigger pull cannot be pulled by mistake, especially in the Colt Cobra, which has a safety that requires the trigger be pulled all the way back. If the gun was cocked it showed intent and there goes involuntary.

After hearing the evidence in the first trial, I was, and still am, convinced that this was no accident. He claims he wasn't drunk, (Which would still be his choice and no excuse) and since I don't believe that Lana Clarkson committed suicide, that only leaves intentional killing.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20502294/

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


It was the Judge who said it didn't meet with the requirements for Manslaughter. I found him very thorough when it came to all of his decisions. He always had plenty to back it up with, so I believe he knows what he's talking about.

In the last trial, both the Defense and the Prosecution agreed.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Especially when it comes to Involuntary Manslaughter. An 11 pound trigger pull cannot be pulled by mistake, especially in the Colt Cobra, which has a safety that requires the trigger be pulled all the way back. If the gun was cocked it showed intent and there goes involuntary.

After hearing the evidence in the first trial, I was, and still am, convinced that this was no accident. He claims he wasn't drunk, (Which would still be his choice and no excuse) and since I don't believe that Lana Clarkson committed suicide, that only leaves intentional killing.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20502294/ [/*]

AHH..I didn't say Involuntary..

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


AHH..I didn't say Involuntary.. [/*]

No, but allowing lesser charges, plural, would leave only voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. That's what the motion stated: Charges.

I don't think it's Voluntary Manslaughter either. I believe there was intent and malice.

Anyway, from Spector's defense claim, which is "I was clear across the room and have no responsibility whatsoever, she did it herself", he disqualifies himself from any charge other than Murder, as far as I'm concerned.

He isn't claiming lesser responsibility, he's claiming no responsibility.

Either he's lying and he's guilty of murder (which is my belief) or he had no part in it (which I don't believe at all).

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Jayne


AHH..I didn't say Involuntary.. [/*]

OH..and please don't take me as argumentative..I'm not and I think you know that. So..not I add more...not just a possible "Involuntary" but a "Voluntary"...

I don't want to see this happen..trust me..I see M2 as the charge and the verdict..but I'm just adding this to try to clarify what I was trying to say in the first place..I think JF is going to include it in the jury instructions and I think the prosecution will produce evidence..even if not "written in the complaint" that would support this and JF will add that in the instructions. Just my stupid guess?

Voluntary is "in the "heat of passion" according to CA law. Or Involuntary..as in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felon..which MURDER is!...which might produce death..in an unlawful matter, or without due caution or "aforethought/circumspection"

DOES not apply to driving a car, etc.

If there is any Manslaughter conviction, I do not see it being anything less than VOLUNTARY..not that I agree with it..just trying to clarify.

see below:


192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(*) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--

<snipped for space and irrelevance>

"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

I could write a paper or define this..but won't take up space on this thread...

:)

respectfully and most graciously...

jmo moo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


No, but allowing lesser charges, plural, would leave only voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. That's what the motion stated: Charges.

I don't think it's Voluntary Manslaughter either. I believe there was intent and malice.

Anyway, from Spector's defense claim, which is "I was clear across the room and have no responsibility whatsoever, she did it herself", he disqualifies himself from any charge other than Murder, as far as I'm concerned.

He isn't claiming lesser responsibility, he's claiming no responsibility.

Either he's lying and he's guilty of murder (which is my belief) or he had no part in it (which I don't believe at all). [/*]

I agree..I get it and we agree, or so I think. I'm just trying to throw out there the reasons where JF or the prosectuion or the presentation of the case would include the elements of the lesser..VOLUNTARY.

Involuntary manslaughter..is where a person died and you basically had NOTHING to do with it..except vehicular..or as the laws state. That isn't the case here..I couldn't see any lesser any lesser than Voluntary. I guess I wasn't clear on my first post?

just trying to help with the legal interpretations..not what I think is "right".

maybe I should just "shut up" and quit replying?

:)

jmo

J:punch:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


OH..and please don't take me as argumentative..I'm not and I think you know that. So..not I add more...not just a possible "Involuntary" but a "Voluntary"...

I don't want to see this happen..trust me..I see M2 as the charge and the verdict..but I'm just adding this to try to clarify what I was trying to say in the first place..I think JF is going to include it in the jury instructions and I think the prosecution will produce evidence..even if not "written in the complaint" that would support this and JF will add that in the instructions. Just my stupid guess?

Voluntary is "in the "heat of passion" according to CA law. Or Involuntary..as in the commission of an unlawful act (kidnapping, for example) which might produce death..in an unlawful matter, or without due caution or "aforethought/circumspection"

DOES not apply to driving a car, etc.

see below:


192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(*) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--

<snipped for space and irrelevance>

"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

I could write a paper or define this..but won't take up space on this thread...

:)

respectfully and most graciously...

jmo moo

J [/*]

I don't think you're being argumentative at all Jayne. A lot of people believe that Manslaughter is a reasonable option. I just don't happen to be one of them! LOL

I don't believe that Lana did anything to provoke or frighten Spector to the point that he felt he needed to put a gun in her mouth and pull an 11 pound trigger. There was no evidence of any such thing presented by either side. If there was no malice or intent, (I repeat this ad nauseum I know) the ham mer would not have been cocked.

The fact that the gun was in her mouth also implies intent to me. Guns don't fall into people's mouths by accident and I heard nothing that convinced me Lana put it there herself. The act of shoving a gun into someone's mouth takes intent.

There was no sign of a huge physical fight that would indicate she jumped PS and he was defending himself. He himself claims no such thing.

Sudden quarrel or heat of passion? Again, Spector claims no such thing.

If he got mad and shot her for something like refusing to have sex with him or wanting to leave him and go home, he should have to prove that those things unhinge him to the point of having no control. Other people take rejection every day and don't kill anyone.

Maybe it would be considered a legitimate excuse in California, I don't know every detail of the law, but on the surface I don't see it.

PS has owned and fired guns for over 30 years. There is no way he could not have know the danger of having it in that position. Therefore, if it was in that position, he knew what he was doing. Guns don't cock themselves.

That's just my opinion, but there it is.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by EmuArt
Isn't it about how you interpret the law?

I know, same old stuff.

I asked this a long time ago. What happens when a witness in a new trial says something different than they did in the old? Does the court hold them to their testiphony or not?

Somebody pm'ed me and their box is full. [/*]

That's a good question.

[dref99]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I don't think you're being argumentative at all Jayne. A lot of people believe that Manslaughter is a reasonable option. I just don't happen to be one of them! LOL

I don't believe that Lana did anything to provoke or frighten Spector to the point that he felt he needed to put a gun in her mouth and pull an 11 pound trigger. There was no evidence of any such thing presented by either side. If there was no malice or intent, (I repeat this ad nauseum I know) the ham mer would not have been cocked.

The fact that the gun was in her mouth also implies intent to me. Guns don't fall into people's mouths by accident and I heard nothing that convinced me Lana put it there herself. The act of shoving a gun into someone's mouth takes intent.

There was no sign of a huge physical fight that would indicate she jumped PS and he was defending himself. He himself claims no such thing.

Sudden quarrel or heat of passion? Again, Spector claims no such thing.

If he got mad and shot her for something like refusing to have sex with him or wanting to leave him and go home, he should have to prove that those things unhinge him to the point of having no control. Other people take rejection every day and don't kill anyone.

Maybe it would be considered a legitimate excuse in California, I don't know every detail of the law, but on the surface I don't see it.

PS has owned and fired guns for over 30 years. There is no way he could not have know the danger of having it in that position. Therefore, if it was in that position, he knew what he was doing. Guns don't cock themselves.

That's just my opinion, but there it is. [/*]

I agree, as did alot of the folks discussing the trial last time around. If the jury believed the prosecution, then malice was shown. The manslaughter definitions say "without malice". Both the defense including Riordan AND the prosecution agreed that the lessors did not fit with either's case. Spector has never said in court (he did outside of court in probably his first statement to police) that it was an accident, or in the heat of the moment.

The point of yesterday's ruling was simply that there is NO double jeopardy related to the lessors - whether they are allowed this time around will depend, as before, on the evidence presented by both sides.

I still believe, that the best option for PS five years ago would have been to say it was an accident. I believe a plea could have been arranged and I believe that is what the first lawyer wanted, & why he did not stay with the case.

Based on what has transpired, however, unless the prosecution gets very very kind, there is no room for a plea, and no room for manslaughter (of any variation)

jmo

[LegullEgull]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293234,00.html

Donna Clarkson testified that on the day her daughter died she took her shopping. Lana needed shoes she could stand on her feet during work.

Lana intended to buy one pair but wound up buying seven pairs which her mother paid for. Above is the link.

n the witness stand, Donna Clarkson said the last time she saw her daughter was on a shopping trip to buy shoes for the new job.

"She needed flat shoes to stand on her feet," she recalled. "She only had heels."

The mother said Clarkson intended to buy one pair but by the time they left she had bought seven. The mother said she paid for them.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by LegullEgull
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293234,00.html

Donna Clarkson testified that on the day her daughter died she took her shopping. Lana needed shoes she could stand on her feet during work.

Lana intended to buy one pair but wound up buying seven pairs which her mother paid for. Above is the link.

n the witness stand, Donna Clarkson said the last time she saw her daughter was on a shopping trip to buy shoes for the new job.

"She needed flat shoes to stand on her feet," she recalled. "She only had heels."

The mother said Clarkson intended to buy one pair but by the time they left she had bought seven. The mother said she paid for them.

Thanks for that. :)

Oddly enough, not one mention of 'she couldn't afford to buy her own shoes'.

Just like the testimony on record.

Thanks again for proving Searching posted a blatant lie. As fact.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by EmuArt
Isn't it about how you interpret the law?

I know, same old stuff.

I asked this a long time ago. What happens when a witness in a new trial says something different than they did in the old? Does the court hold them to their testiphony or not?

Somebody pm'ed me and their box is full. [/*]

That's an excellent question. I had wondered about it also, what if someone like PP or even one of the PBA slightly change their story can they say, but last time you said, or is it like the 1st trial never took place? I don't see any of the experts changing theirs unless for some reason they have reconsidered something because of new technology, rethinking a piece of science. JMO

[kennedy06]

The archived PS boards are gone? I hope I am wrong. There were some good links on there to evidence pictures and many other things that were linked to topics on this current thread. With the retrial coming and the topics still relevant I would hope it would have remained until the next trial became closer. No I don't consider it off topic, much of the same evidence will probably be used in the next trial.
JMO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by kennedy06
The archived PS boards are gone? I hope I am wrong. There were some good links on there to evidence pictures and many other things that were linked to topics on this current thread. With the retrial coming and the topics still relevant I would hope it would have remained until the next trial became closer. No I don't consider it off topic, much of the same evidence will probably be used in the next trial. Oh well.
JMO [/*]ii


Like you I loved the archived PS boards. I did look, and yes they are gone.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Searching
Coldwater: Feedback and Posting Information. Page 1. "Once again requesting links is getting ridiculous. A link is only needed if something is quoted from a person or article. Paraphrasing or giving your interpetation of what you heard on TV or read somewhere or post as a memory of something is not quoting. If someone heard differently you can discuss or debate it on the form. It is your decision to believe or not believe what is not "quoted" or not from an article. It is not your duty to ask for a link." Hence, since no quotation marks were used I find no allowances for your continued attack on my post by calling it a "blatant lie" or your continued rquest for a link when my post was based on my interpetation and memory of what I heard on TV. Enough said, discussion over. I'm moving forward. Hope you are able to do the same.:seeya: [/*]

Thank you for posting the above!!!:seeya:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

my post was based on my interpetation and memory of what I heard on TV.

snipped


Thank you for finally admitting that. :)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

I stand by my original post.

snipped


Yes you do. You stand by your original post that is based on your interpretation and memory of what you heard on TV.

I stand by my posts correcting the misinformation in your original post.

Now are you ready to move forward? I am. Hope you're willing to do the same.

:seeya:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by EmuArt


I agreed with the verdict.

snipped


What verdict would that be?

There wasn't any verdict in the Phil Spector trial.

Hence the retrial.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
What I'm asking is when PS was first arrested should the charge have been manslaughter?

No.

Phil Spector's crime is second degree murder. The law is quite clear on that.

IMO.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Searching
What do you think about the judge including a lessor charge this time around. IMO I'll wager he wishes he had allowed it in the first trial. There probablly would have been a conviction IMO.:) [/*]

I would rather it be a lesser charge. That way maybe Mr. Spector, (hopefully) will get a seriously reduced amount of time served. I believe that there was a shooting that night/morn. I (MOO,JMO,IMO,) do not believe he commited an out right murder.
Maybe some posters think it is wrong, but I am entitled to my opinion, no?:)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I would rather it be a lesser charge. That way maybe Mr. Spector, (hopefully) will get a seriously reduced amount of time served.

snipped


What 'time served' are you referring to?

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Land Shark�


What 'time served' are you referring to? [/*]

LOL I think he only served a night (at most) in lockup. If he is convicted on Manslaughter charges (especially if its voluntary) he is more likely to get years.

Spectorfan, it is my understanding that you are a legitimate fan of PS. I to am fans of people in the rock business who could and have done some pretty bad things...they just haven't killed anyone yet:rolleyes:

Yes, I absolutely feel you have a right to your opinion. That said, I have the feeling that PS did something very wrong and I believe in the 1101*'s testimony. IMO he was a ticking time-bomb and musical genius or not, he needs to face the consequences of his actions ...which for me would entail spending years in prison. He showed a blatant disregard for Lana's life, why would I want to see him get off easy? Of course that's jmo.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


What 'time served' are you referring to? [/*]

Hmm... Maybe the few hours at the police station the night he was arrested will shorten his prison term?
:shrug:

[joolz]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


No.

Phil Spector's crime is second degree murder. The law is quite clear on that.

IMO. [/*]

Yes, it is. If you read the following definition of manslaughter it uses California specifically as an example of a jurisdiction where what might be a manslaughter charge elsewhere is a second degree murder charge there.

"Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder."

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


What 'time served' are you referring to? [/*]


Less then a day, and he thinks Shapiro didn't earn his million.

He got PS out on bail, got him away from the press, secured the services of Lee and Baden and got them to fly in to see the autopsy and the crime scene.

While I have no respect for either Lee or Baden any longer, they are known names.

O/T sorry!

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Yes, it is. If you read the following definition of manslaughter it uses California specifically as an example of a jurisdiction where what might be a manslaughter charge elsewhere is a second degree murder charge there.

"Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death may not be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder." [/*]

:seeya: Thank you Joolz!

I remember discussing that last trial. Criminal Negligence blends into the other charges in California, where it's totally separate in other areas.

Spector had been around guns far too long not to be aware of the dangers of pointing them at people and cocking them when they were loaded.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Less then a day, and he thinks Shapiro didn't earn his million.

He got PS out on bail, got him away from the press, secured the services of Lee and Baden and got them to fly in to see the autopsy and the crime scene.

While I have no respect for either Lee or Baden any longer, they are known names.

O/T sorry! [/*]

Not at all O/T... What Shapiro did for Phil is all part of this case.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Anakerie


Not at all O/T... What Shapiro did for Phil is all part of this case. [/*]

That's true. I'm no great fan of Shapiro, but I do think he earned his million from PS.

Not that it matters, since PS seems to think he should be exempt from paying any of the bills he runs up. I think they've already set a date for the case against Sharpiro. Meanwhile the Westin Bonaventure is having to sue for their money.

Kind of makes me wonder if he is sticking to local experts this time. If not, what hotel will put his experts and attorneys up this time? Unless he pays in advance and I don't see that happening.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


:seeya: Thank you Joolz!

I remember discussing that last trial. Criminal Negligence blends into the other charges in California, where it's totally separate in other areas.

Spector had been around guns far too long not to be aware of the dangers of pointing them at people and cocking them when they were loaded. [/*]

Exactly. In this case it's, "Guns don't kill people, music producers kill people." :rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by True2Blues


That's true. I'm no great fan of Shapiro, but I do think he earned his million from PS.

Not that it matters, since PS seems to think he should be exempt from paying any of the bills he runs up. I think they've already set a date for the case against Sharpiro. Meanwhile the Westin Bonaventure is having to sue for their money.

Kind of makes me wonder if he is sticking to local experts this time. If not, what hotel will put his experts and attorneys up this time? Unless he pays in advance and I don't see that happening. [/*]

I would like to see that trial after reading the deposition that took place back when. How many potential cases could he possibly have forthcoming? Trial 2, civil trial, Robert S., and possibly the singers and hotel or would the singers and hotel not go that far? JMO

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by True2Blues


That's true. I'm no great fan of Shapiro, but I do think he earned his million from PS.

Not that it matters, since PS seems to think he should be exempt from paying any of the bills he runs up. I think they've already set a date for the case against Sharpiro. Meanwhile the Westin Bonaventure is having to sue for their money.

Kind of makes me wonder if he is sticking to local experts this time. If not, what hotel will put his experts and attorneys up this time? Unless he pays in advance and I don't see that happening. [/*]

If I were running a hotel in the LA area, I wouldn't hand any keys to rooms out for Phil's experts without payment in advance (NO checks, NO credit. Cash only, IN FULL.). Perhaps Phil will have to make room for his experts in his "castle"... UGH!

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Anakerie


If I were running a hotel in the LA area, I wouldn't hand any keys to rooms out for Phil's experts without payment in advance. Perhaps Phil will have to make room for his experts in his "castle"... UGH! [/*]

Me either!

Fortunately for the "Experts", their claims of being neutral, no matter who pays them, would probably keep them from staying as personal guests of PS in his Castle. Lucky them. LOL

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by NavyMom58


I know I'd think twice befor trusting PS when it comes to him parting with money! [/*]

:seeya: Oh Yes! Word gets around, and it's been in all the papers that he didn't pay his last bill.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by EmuArt


I thought I read here that PP ended up as a friend on PS's my space or vice versa. If that's the case he surely couldn't use her again. I didn't see the myspace so I cannot confirm this. [/*]

Well, if PIE became his friend on MySpace, it must have been after Sept 22 because I did a complete screen grab of that page on that date. I think we all know what date that was, Rachelle should. Her comment was the last comment posted when I captured that whole site :D and I just looked at all the pictures that made of that page and I saw no PIE on that date listed.

[dref99]

Originally posted by EmuArt


I agreed with the verdict. I didn't think their case was proved BRD. I can find argument on both sides. I surely don't think Lana committed suicide though.
I will be open to any and all new testimony and can't wait. I do think Fiddler will let in the lessors this time and it seems the new attorney feels strong about his case or he wouldn't argue to keep the lessors out.

So what charge? Not real sure as I sit here on the fence. [/*]

The defense was 100% Lana committed suicide. If you don't believe it was suicide then it was murder. There is no other option, as per the California legal definitions. The lessors were not seen as relevant by either side. I doubt they will be used in trial 2 unless the defense changes its approach.

jmo

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


What 'time served' are you referring to? [/*]

I meant the amount of time he would spend behind bars.

I should have cleared that up, thank you for doing that for me.:)

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I meant the amount of time he would spend behind bars.

I should have cleared that up, thank you for doing that for me.:) [/*]

I'm just curious, are you saying that if my father is found guilty, you think he should spend less time in prison than what someone else might get, for the same crime?

If so, why?

He has done nothing to show compassion, evidence that he's innocent, and in fact, he is forcing the Prosecution and the Judge to work overtime (so to speak) to prove he's guilty. Personally, I see it possible, that if the Jury finds him guilty, the Judge may just throw the book at him for making this trial so difficult.

Personally, I really would not want my father in prison but I have to accept what the law dictates for the crime he is being charged with.

Now, if he had stated in the beginning, that it was an accident (as it might have been), he would probably have gotten a couple years and probation or just house arrest. Either way, it is my opinion that if he had shown some compassion, the Judge would have been lot kinder in sentencing as opposed to having to deal with this case for as long as it has been and with all the needless delays and pointless motions as well as the shenanigans of the Defense's egg spurts (darn spell checker ;) ).

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Searching
Some may not but I understand what you mean. The length of the sentence could be less for a manslaughter conviction than a murder 2 conviction. It's pretty clear you didn't post "for" time served. :seeya: [/*]

I agree, I think Spectorfan meant "of time TO serve"..not meaning he had already had some "time served". Time at a police station for questioning when not "jailed" isn't "time served" anyway..that refers to time held in prison until bailed or released, pending trial, etc.

I'm pro pros, which is probably pretty obvious, but from last year's trial, I felt it was a mistake to not include the LIO..in the evidence, or even in the charges themselves. And in the end with the "telephone man (attorney)") arguing not to, then to (if I recall correctly) then again Not to include the definition of the LIOs in the charges to the jury, it was pretty clear to the the defense was arguing that Not just for an Appeal Issue..but because they probably had a "gut or legally thought out" feeling that the jury just might have come back with VMS (they might have been OK with IMS - although, IMO, it would take a LOT of messing around with the language of the law to get Involuntary under the facts as presented).

Someone in the DA office decided to go full barrel with M2 and not give any leeway. I'd ever wager..perhaps part of that decision was because they "knew" the defense team was going to claim some sort of "accident" or "accidental suicide" and they (pros) didn't want to make it "easy" on a Plea. However...they might have (as in "could have") offered PS a plea of the highest amount of time under VMS. (I've never found out what Shapiro had suggested to PS as a plea but PS refused to allow Shapiro to "offer" to the DA...wonder if it was "just that"?)

Voluntary Manslaughter in CA is either 3, 6 or 11 years for sentencing.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by sherp
The Judge and Prosecutor are salaried folk. IF they were not working on this case, they would be working on another. I can not imagine they care whose case they are working on at any given time. They can barely get a good days work in and certainly are not on Over Time. I hope the Judge is working the case the old fashion way, justice for all and not holding it against Phil cause he is defending himself in a Court of Law and has the same rights as anyone else, per the Constituation. MOO [/*]

You're right, Sherp..IMO...and I would certainly believe that the Judge works the "old fashioned way" which IS and should be the only way..it is justice for all...and presumed innocent until proven guilty. That, however, does not mean that a judge or attorneys or even us "lay observers" don't see things one way or another. We are not beholden to the law as the judges and attorneys are. They, especially judges, cannot "take sides" (sure..attorneys do..that's how they get paid..but for..as you well noted..the city, state, fed, etc. attorneys who are paid for representing the city, state, feds..they are on one side and paid for it, but at a salary, that you are SO correct, does not include overtime or bonuses or "contingency fees" (not applicable I know to criminal..but just throwing that in there).

However, I will disagree on one thing. There are some cases that take a higher level of "caring about" in a DA's office..those that strike at justice a bit "higher" perhaps? I know that sounds a bit ridiculous or discriminatory..but thing is..DAs are paid and hired to fight for justice for the People..in every single case. And like you said..they take whatever case the big DA throws at them and they have to "work it" like it or not. But, there is a difference, which I know and I think most would understand, between prosecuting a day long trial that concerns some litigious witness/victim with a case that "on its face" qualifies for prosecution but which is Miniscule in comparison to a high degree felony that's on the backburner due to delays from either side or something that needs to be done but hasn't been yet. They are obligated to try every case with the same vigor, intelligence, and support of the State. And, yes..they are often "overwhelmed". I've personally known DAs/ADAs who although on miniscule salaries (compared to civil and defense attorneys) work those 10-12-15 hour days..even into the weekends with no overtime. Overworked, underpaid, but as diligent as any high paid hourly attorney. They either work themselves "up" in the DA office, or they burn out and either move on to defense or civil practice or sole practitioner or just give it up altogether. DA work/service-life expectancy is about the same as a policeman, IF/WHEN they make a "career" out of it. (meaning years in service)..that's partly my opinion and partly facts known to me some years ago in NYC.

That said...the reason I agree with you is this: AJ or whomever in that office is obligated to try whatever case he is assigned. But with a high profile and very obtuse and complicated one as this, I would think his focus is on this one and he's given the opportunity to do just that..not like the other "drudge" DAs who handle many and most of the others. ("drudge" that's no insult...it's very personal to me) I have no idea what cases he's handled since last year's PS trial. But, I doubt the head DA would assign him another Gonna Last a Long Time Trial, when this one is finally going to get started again. He well may have handled hundreds of "smaller ones" in the meantime where he could still focus on PS2. But, of course..No Overtime! Of course..I may well be wrong. :)

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

Emuart while PP may not have been on Team S at one time she was on Bcakstage's and may be at this time. At one time during the trial or closely after, Team S had left the customary picture of PS and a greeting of some kind, birthday or something to the business. If he was and is such good friends with the K Brothers and one of them I believe is involved with the business, I wonder if anyone knows if PS ever visited this establishment. JMO

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Emuart while PP may not have been on Team S at one time she was on Bcakstage's and may be at this time. At one time during the trial or closely after, Team S had left the customary picture of PS and a greeting of some kind, birthday or something to the business. If he was and is such good friends with the K Brothers and one of them I believe is involved with the business, I wonder if anyone knows if PS ever visited this establishment. JMO [/*]

I can't find the original post here in the threads, so I'm a bit "lost"..but I gather it's about something Pie has had or someone put online?

As to your "wonder": I do too. But, my guess is that PS wouldn't have visited Pie's place of repute..if he had..there'd have been photos of HIM up there too? OR maybe not..after Lana's death? And..if that were true...I'd be wondering if Lana "knew anything" about PS. One of my surmises..some times on different posts. NOT that she ever knew him personally..but that Pie talked about him..maybe there was a photo or something to the effect.that mysteriously disappeared after the Incident..and which is why when Lana heard who the "person" at the HOB that night..who she didn't know or recognize or most likely (almost definitely) had not met before was PS, some recognition besides the bartender or someone there apprising her of it came to memory.

I know some posters..when I mentioned that some time ago said it probably was not within the realm of things..Pie probably didn't ever mention PS. Possibly very True. But, I tend to think she did..to Lana...even in passing..but enough for Pie to take "the defensive" when called to the stand. She wanted NO responsibility or liability at all at having perhaps mentioned to Lana the Name Phil Spector..so instead of being the Best Girlfriend, she protrayed her as "desperate, depressed"..drew the attention away from any "connection".

I didn't know any of them at all..personally or even in the newspapers (other than PS) before this trial. But, I just can't imagine that anyone 40 years old, especially a woman, would just "get in a car" with a perfect stranger to go to his house IF there wasn't some "background information or reliance"..unless she was entirely off her rocker. I know people in "the industry" take chances the "rest of us" wouldn't take..but to just rely on a bartender or whomever saying..."know who that is"..or whatever way she learned about PS, would be incredibly dumb for someone who lived some life..up to 40 years old and been through the artistry RingerWasher for years. I just have thought, and still do, that Pie's involvement in this is more than the whipped cream on top of the pumpkin best friend card. She sold her out, IMO, for thirty pieces of silver.

Dunno...guess it's my over-imaginative mind or suspicious one.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

I didn't take the overtime term to mean in the literal sense of the word as would apply to the average working man. I took it to mean PS and his attorneys are trying the courts more than the average defendant on trial for murder and his attorney. I realize this is the Judge and prosecutors job and they give every case their fullest attention but, this type of high profile hollywood case with 6 defense attorneys and cameras, delays, motions (how many times does a judge have to reconsider the jury instructions) and other unique things to the trial itself are not an everyday occurence therefore requiring more attention, Overtime, than the average murder trial.

I don't know if PS was given any kind of advice on how to handle his public image or what to say to the press, things like that but, if he was given advice they didn't give him very good advice. A prime expample in the link I gave back a few posts ago, the woman coming to the gate of the castle saying LC was washed up. I wonder who that woman was, should I take a guess. Even if he felt he was to be found not guilty, in the court of public opinion he would have faired much better if kept quiet or at least spoke with some compassion from everything from the PBA to LC herself.

JMO as always.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06
I didn't take the overtime term to mean in the literal sense of the word as would apply to the average working man. I took it to mean PS and his attorneys are trying the courts more than the average defendant on trial for murder and his attorney. I realize this is the Judge and prosecutors job and they give every case their fullest attention but, this type of high profile hollywood case with 6 defense attorneys and cameras, delays, motions (how many times does a judge have to reconsider the jury instructions) and other unique things to the trial itself are not an everyday occurence therefore requiring more attention, Overtime, than the average murder trial.

I don't know if PS was given any kind of advice on how to handle his public image or what to say to the press, things like that but, if he was given advice they didn't give him very good advice. A prime expample in the link I gave back a few posts ago, the woman coming to the gate of the castle saying LC was washed up. I wonder who that woman was, should I take a guess. Even if he felt he was to be found not guilty, in the court of public opinion he would have faired much better if kept quiet or at least spoke with some compassion from everything from the PBA to LC herself.

JMO as always. [/*]

Kennedy...we are on common ground here as understanding..I think. I didn't take the "overtime" thing..the way you did. I think the OP was saying...those people work for a Salary..Government Employees. They work their 40 hour week and go home. Except for DAs..which that poster realized, I think. They work WAY beyond the 40 hours..but they are still paid the time with no OverTime pay.

Overtime..I believe was meant..they get a Salary. (the DA's)..Defense attorneys bill by the hour. DA's don't have that luxury of "if they work over 40 hours" they don't get paid any overtime..they get paid their 40K or 80K or whatever..and they WORK to get it DONE...no matter what. Private attorneys at anywhere from $250 to 500 or more an hour...Overtime means nothing..it's HOURLY. A DA puts in 60 hours a week..still gets his/her salary. A defense attorney puts in that same time at even..let's say $300 per hour...$18,000 for that week. There is NO way a DA makes that salary..NO WAY.

just trying to stay with you..but clear up the financial issue here. There just is no comparison, IMO

JMO with respect

PS..who was the woman coming to the gate saying he was washed up? I guess i missed that as well?

J

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne


I can't find the original post here in the threads, so I'm a bit "lost"..but I gather it's about something Pie has had or someone put online?

As to your "wonder": I do too. But, my guess is that PS wouldn't have visited Pie's place of repute..if he had..there'd have been photos of HIM up there too? OR maybe not..after Lana's death? And..if that were true...I'd be wondering if Lana "knew anything" about PS. One of my surmises..some times on different posts. NOT that she ever knew him personally..but that Pie talked about him..maybe there was a photo or something to the effect.that mysteriously disappeared after the Incident..and which is why when Lana heard who the "person" at the HOB that night..who she didn't know or recognize or most likely (almost definitely) had not met before was PS, some recognition besides the bartender or someone there apprising her of it came to memory.

I know some posters..when I mentioned that some time ago said it probably was not within the realm of things..Pie probably didn't ever mention PS. Possibly very True. But, I tend to think she did..to Lana...even in passing..but enough for Pie to take "the defensive" when called to the stand. She wanted NO responsibility or liability at all at having perhaps mentioned to Lana the Name Phil Spector..so instead of being the Best Girlfriend, she protrayed her as "desperate, depressed"..drew the attention away from any "connection".

I didn't know any of them at all..personally or even in the newspapers (other than PS) before this trial. But, I just can't imagine that anyone 40 years old, especially a woman, would just "get in a car" with a perfect stranger to go to his house IF there wasn't some "background information or reliance"..unless she was entirely off her rocker. I know people in "the industry" take chances the "rest of us" wouldn't take..but to just rely on a bartender or whomever saying..."know who that is"..or whatever way she learned about PS, would be incredibly dumb for someone who lived some life..up to 40 years old and been through the artistry RingerWasher for years. I just have thought, and still do, that Pie's involvement in this is more than the whipped cream on top of the pumpkin best friend card. She sold her out, IMO, for thirty pieces of silver.

Dunno...guess it's my over-imaginative mind or suspicious one.

jmo

J [/*]

I wrote my post with PP and PS in mind. I can only go by two things the trial with the understanding LC didn't know PS and I can only refer back to Michelle * post in September titled Thanksgiving Dessert concerning PP. That is one interesting blog post. JMO

http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by sherp
The Judge and Prosecutor are salaried folk. IF they were not working on this case, they would be working on another. I can not imagine they care whose case they are working on at any given time. They can barely get a good days work in and certainly are not on Over Time. I hope the Judge is working the case the old fashion way, justice for all and not holding it against Phil cause he is defending himself in a Court of Law and has the same rights as anyone else, per the Constituation. MOO [/*]

I'm sure the Judge won't treat PS any differently than he does any other client. He has no reason to do so.

I think the fact that JF hasn't treated Spector with the deference PS thinks he deserves is what bothers him the most.

The only comment I've ever seen attributed to Judge Fidler concerning Spector, was to say that he's a fan of the music Spector produced, but that it wouldn't influence him.

There are usually guidelines for sentencing in most states. I doubt that JF would be willing to deviate from those and endanger his career for PS.

I think the Prosecutors take their jobs very seriously, and I believe that AJ and PD put a great deal of work into this case.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne


Kennedy...we are on common ground here as understanding..I think. I didn't take the "overtime" thing..the way you did.

JMO with respect

PS..who was the woman coming to the gate saying he was washed up? I guess i missed that as well?

J [/*]

I don't know who the woman was, it didn't say, paragraph 4. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Entertainment/Story?id=442185&page=1

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by EmuArt
It is hard for me to believe PP didn't know who PS was when she is so involved in the music industry and works for Kessler. Who really knows, right! Maybe I am giving her too much credit. [/*]


She had to know who Phil Spector was, I agree. If you're being too hard on her then I'm being worse, because I don't believe she had no idea that the Kessel brothers were involved in the club she was working for.

The Kessels are rabid PS supporters, extremely outspoken about it. The fact that PP went from needing three gigs a week to support herself, to just one night a week at the club the Kessels were involved in is too far a stretch for me.

At Christmas Lana was killed by PS, at trial time she was doing one gig a week and trashing her supposed best friend in the world. Nope, I don't buy it.

It wouldn't require brilliance to know who she was working for, or who they were supporting in this case.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by True2Blues



She had to know who Phil Spector was, I agree. If you're being too hard on her then I'm being worse, because I don't believe she had no idea that the Kessel brothers were involved in the club she was working for.

The Kessels are rabid PS supporters, extremely outspoken about it. The fact that PP went from needing three gigs a week to support herself, to just one night a week at the club the Kessels were involved in is too far a stretch for me.

At Christmas Lana was killed by PS, at trial time she was doing one gig a week and trashing her supposed best friend in the world. Nope, I don't buy it.

It wouldn't require brilliance to know who she was working for, or who they were supporting in this case. [/*]

After reading the PP blog post ( the link I just provided above) if I understood it correctly, the K Bros may have at least knew of, or who PP was, if not personally. JMO

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I don't know who the woman was, it didn't say, paragraph 4. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Entertainment/Story?id=442185&page=1 [/*]

Thanks for the link. It was apparently some woman ABC talked to who said SHE (LANA) was "washed up"..Not Spector.

Guess I misread your post.

Either way...WHO was this woman and what was she doing inside PS's property?

Undoubtedly a PS supporter or some disgruntled competitor of Lana's?

Can't see any other reason for such a comment. Washed up? Either she had inside information or was an "insider" for the Team, IMO.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I wrote my post with PP and PS in mind. I can only go by two things the trial with the understanding LC didn't know PS and I can only refer back to Michelle * post in September titled Thanksgiving Dessert concerning PP. That is one interesting blog post. JMO

http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html [/*]

Well..after reading that. I have to re-state my former post. Lana DID know SOMETHING about PS through PIEface. If not as a "set up" date...she surely had mentioned him. If I had any money..I'd certainly wager it. And, that's why she turned her face..like Janus...doorways in either direction..whichever would benefit her?..and at that point..Lana dead? PS..monied and a "protector" so to speak. See in the past and see into the future. What a PIEce of work.

BFF or not..if in the business of "setting up people"..she surely would have mentioned this guy's name with Lana around, if not actually TO her.

I don't buy it that Lana just got in PS's car that night with just a "know who he is?" comment from a HOB person. Maybe there was that comment..but something Struck in her mind..OH..YEAH...PIE told me about him.

I do think so..but YEAH..I can be and may well be very very wrong.

jmo

J

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I'm just curious, are you saying that if my father is found guilty, you think he should spend less time in prison than what someone else might get, for the same crime?

If so, why?

He has done nothing to show compassion, evidence that he's innocent, and in fact, he is forcing the Prosecution and the Judge to work overtime (so to speak) to prove he's guilty. Personally, I see it possible, that if the Jury finds him guilty, the Judge may just throw the book at him for making this trial so difficult.

Personally, I really would not want my father in prison but I have to accept what the law dictates for the crime he is being charged with.

Now, if he had stated in the beginning, that it was an accident (as it might have been), he would probably have gotten a couple years and probation or just house arrest. Either way, it is my opinion that if he had shown some compassion, the Judge would have been lot kinder in sentencing as opposed to having to deal with this case for as long as it has been and with all the needless delays and pointless motions as well as the shenanigans of the Defense's egg spurts (darn spell checker ;) ). [/*]

I meant that if the judge would allow a manslaughter, he would hopefully get a lighter sentence. Your dad isn't the only one who does not show compassion. There are plenty of people who would not show compassion. Besides, I would imagine that he is too concerned for his outcome of the trial. Now, if he would have told the police that it was an accident, I feel he would've gotten off with a much lighter sentence. However, those are "what if's", and he didn't do that.
Maybe, he was not shown any compassion growing up. He could have been blamed for his dad's death. After hearing all of that; after you are grown, sometimes it affects how you are as an adult. Does that make sense????:cool:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I meant that if the judge would allow a manslaughter, he would hopefully get a lighter sentence. Your dad isn't the only one who does not show compassion. There are plenty of people who would not show compassion. Besides, I would imagine that he is too concerned for his outcome of the trial. Now, if he would have told the police that it was an accident, I feel he would've gotten off with a much lighter sentence. However, those are "what if's", and he didn't do that.
Maybe, he was not shown any compassion growing up. He could have been blamed for his dad's death. After hearing all of that; after you are grown, sometimes it affects how you are as an adult. Does that make sense????:cool: [/*]

I agree, my father is not the only one that does not show compassion but not everyone that does not show compassion is on trial for Murder 2. With that said, I am not concerned about all the other people that show no compassion, I'm concerned about my father on trial for Murder 2 after a woman was found dead in his house and not showing any compassion, especially if he wants to claim it was suicide.

As for "what if", my father DID tell the police that it was an accident and that he could explain it. All that has already been documented. The Prosecution was waiting for my father to take the Stand during the last trial before addressing his comments made to the police officers.

I am sure that if my father took a plea, the charge could have been dropped to Manslaughter (I really don't know) but he refused to take a plea. He's claiming 100% innocents and so the Judge has to have him on trial for Murder 2 as it fits the Crime according to California Law. What my father is doing is making harder on himself and hoping for a miracle long-shot as if he's in Las Vegas betting on his future.

Like you, I don't have to like what he's being charged with but I do accept it based on all the information available. So far, he has done nothing to convince anyone of his innocents other then to have paid expert present a lot of hypothetical possibilities in hopes to give doubt to at least 1 Juror.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I agree, my father is not the only one that does not show compassion but not everyone that does not show compassion is on trial for Murder 2. With that said, I am not concerned about all the other people that show no compassion, I'm concerned about my father on trial for Murder 2 after a woman was found dead in his house and not showing any compassion, especially if he wants to claim it was suicide.

As for "what if", my father DID tell the police that it was an accident and that he could explain it. All that has already been documented. The Prosecution was waiting for my father to take the Stand during the last trial before addressing his comments made to the police officers.

I am sure that if my father took a plea, the charge could have been dropped to Manslaughter (I really don't know) but he refused to take a plea. He's claiming 100% innocents and so the Judge has to have him on trial for Murder 2 as it fits the Crime according to California Law. What my father is doing is making harder on himself and hoping for a miracle long-shot as if he's in Las Vegas betting on his future.

Like you, I don't have to like what he's being charged with but I do accept it based on all the information available. So far, he has done nothing to convince anyone of his innocents other then to have paid expert present a lot of hypothetical possibilities in hopes to give doubt to at least 1 Juror. [/*]


Thank you .:seeya:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I meant that if the judge would allow a manslaughter, he would hopefully get a lighter sentence. Your dad isn't the only one who does not show compassion. There are plenty of people who would not show compassion. Besides, I would imagine that he is too concerned for his outcome of the trial. Now, if he would have told the police that it was an accident, I feel he would've gotten off with a much lighter sentence. However, those are "what if's", and he didn't do that.
Maybe, he was not shown any compassion growing up. He could have been blamed for his dad's death. After hearing all of that; after you are grown, sometimes it affects how you are as an adult. Does that make sense????:cool: [/*]

I don't know Spectorfan, he ws 62 years old not a young adult or even middleaged.While I agree with the the majority of your post and the effect certain parts of a childhood can still have on one as an adult, his situation was different, he wasn't an average working man. At this age with the help of Dr.s such as Dr. Kaplan that has been mentioned an interviews of PS and just the "society" in general he was associated with he could have come to undertand some of his issues in some form. He had money and time and resources to do it. He felt bad about Lenny * or John L deaths and others, he wasn't a rock, why not LC or LC Mother if he felt it was an accidental suicide.

I realize he didn't know her apparently and blamed her for his situation. He may not have been shown compassion as a child as you suggest and from a thing or two I have read. From what I have read, besides dealing with a death of a loving parent, he didn't have it as tough (JMO) on the same level others may have had it. I realize many respond to similar situations differently but, I know of those that had a worse childhood and at his age can show kindness and compassion.

His mother and sister while dealing with their own problems may not have been as emotionally caring as one may like, it sounded like they cared about him and helped in ways that proved to be significant in his development as a musician or producer. Buying him a guitar, getting him an introduction to Barney K.

I'll give him plenty of compassion for his Father's death and the toll it may have taken on him psychologically. This situation was handled wrong in my opinion. Even if he felt she did actually do as he said she did, he could have least said I'm so sorry she did what she did in my home, my sympathies to her family and stuck with that then running her down.

:)

Just my opinion only

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I don't know Spectorfan, he ws 62 years old not a young adult or even middleaged.While I agree with the the majority of your post and the effect certain parts of a childhood can still have on one as an adult, his situation was different, he wasn't an average working man. At this age with the help of Dr.s such as Dr. Kaplan that has been mentioned an interviews of PS and just the "society" in general he was associated with he could have come to undertand some of his issues in some form. He had money and time and resources to do it. He felt bad about Lenny * or John L deaths and others, he wasn't a rock, why not LC or LC Mother if he felt it was an accidental suicide.

I realize he didn't know her apparently and blamed her for his situation. He may not have been shown compassion as a child as you suggest and from a thing or two I have read. From what I have read, besides dealing with a death of a loving parent, he didn't have it as tough (JMO) on the same level others may have had it. I realize many respond to similar situations differently but, I know of those that had a worse childhood and at his age can show kindness and compassion.

His mother and sister while dealing with their own problems may not have been as emotionally caring as one may like, it sounded like they cared about him and helped in ways that proved to be significant in his development as a musician or producer. Buying him a guitar, getting him an introduction to Barney K.

I'll give him plenty of compassion for his Father's death and the toll it may have taken on him psychologically. This situation was handled wrong in my opinion. Even if he felt she did actually do as he said she did, he could have least said I'm so sorry she did what she did in my home, my sympathies to her family and stuck with that then running her down.

:)

Just my opinion only [/*]


Hi!

This is just a thought. I wonder why Mr. Spector didn't have his personal doctors testify for him. You know, I think he should have had his doctor testify about his hands shaking, his mental state at the time Lana died, his mental state now. Does that make sense? It's just a thought.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I don't know who the woman was, it didn't say, paragraph 4. JMO

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Entertainment/Story?id=442185&page=1 [/*]



Kennedy, thanks for the link. That article is good, and it brings you right back to everything. I would venture to guess 'that woman' was RS... I don't have time right now to do date verification, however. Were they married by then?

That being said, I have a couple questions.... 1, does anyone know if there was a prenup when the Mr. & Mrs. married? I ask because if not, depending on CA divorce law (MN is 'no fault'), it's possible that PS is somewhat sheltered because half of what he has now belongs to the Mrs. This may mean that depending on the outcome of PSII, if he somehow gets off, they could divorce prior to the civil suit... and there would be less at stake. And for those who don't understand why the Clarksons would go for as much money as they can get... come on. Really. Think about it. PS's bank account(s) are the only way to the mans heart. Get him where it hurts. And hurt him bad.

My second question... has there ever been any explanation as to why PS refused to take his hands out of his pockets when the police asked him to that night (before they were forced to taser him)? The simple lack of cooperation on his part is enough to make me even more positive of his guilt. As much as I have looked for any sign of innocence, I cannot find it.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Ellie




Kennedy, thanks for the link. That article is good, and it brings you right back to everything. I would venture to guess 'that woman' was RS... I don't have time right now to do date verification, however. Were they married by then?

That being said, I have a couple questions.... 1, does anyone know if there was a prenup when the Mr. & Mrs. married? I ask because if not, depending on CA divorce law (MN is 'no fault'), it's possible that PS is somewhat sheltered because half of what he has now belongs to the Mrs. This may mean that depending on the outcome of PSII, if he somehow gets off, they could divorce prior to the civil suit... and there would be less at stake. And for those who don't understand why the Clarksons would go for as much money as they can get... come on. Really. Think about it. PS's bank account(s) are the only way to the mans heart. Get him where it hurts. And hurt him bad.

My second question... has there ever been any explanation as to why PS refused to take his hands out of his pockets when the police asked him to that night (before they were forced to taser him)? The simple lack of cooperation on his part is enough to make me even more positive of his guilt. As much as I have looked for any sign of innocence, I cannot find it. [/*]

We do have to consider who one of PS's friends was Marvin Mitchelson, the famed palimoney attorney. I'm would think he learned a thing or two from him. I did find an article once, concerning a party PS had for one of the musical events. In it an unamed woman revealed to one of the party goers that she at one time wanted to marry PS but he wanted a prenup and she wouldn't give him one. So from those two sources I think he would cover his butt, expecially with this one. He sounds like he is smart and smart enough to know why she is around. I don't think he is fooled by that point but, may have to keep her around for many other reasons. Maybe he just likes the way she plays the trombone or styles his hair. JMO

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



Hi!

This is just a thought. I wonder why Mr. Spector didn't have his personal doctors testify for him. You know, I think he should have had his doctor testify about his hands shaking, his mental state at the time Lana died, his mental state now. Does that make sense? It's just a thought. [/*]

Could it be because he wasn't saying he was insane or had mental problems but, that she commited accidental suicide. I guess we would know if that hand shake was prominent before the shooting from Rommie D or the others he met witht that night. JMO

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Ellie




Kennedy, thanks for the link. That article is good, and it brings you right back to everything. I would venture to guess 'that woman' was RS... I don't have time right now to do date verification, however. Were they married by then?

That being said, I have a couple questions.... 1, does anyone know if there was a prenup when the Mr. & Mrs. married? I ask because if not, depending on CA divorce law (MN is 'no fault'), it's possible that PS is somewhat sheltered because half of what he has now belongs to the Mrs. This may mean that depending on the outcome of PSII, if he somehow gets off, they could divorce prior to the civil suit... and there would be less at stake. And for those who don't understand why the Clarksons would go for as much money as they can get... come on. Really. Think about it. PS's bank account(s) are the only way to the mans heart. Get him where it hurts. And hurt him bad.

My second question... has there ever been any explanation as to why PS refused to take his hands out of his pockets when the police asked him to that night (before they were forced to taser him)? The simple lack of cooperation on his part is enough to make me even more positive of his guilt. As much as I have looked for any sign of innocence, I cannot find it. [/*]

:) I was just rethinking about your post concerning the possiblity of divorce and him having less money to go after. Unless there is a deep passionate trusting love there I can't see any man setting up a woman to get half of his money and take the chance on her giving it back or sharing it with him after a divorce. I don't know how much PS is worth or the contracts that may be between them or what is said in private but, just remember one name Anna N. Smith! :D JMO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Could it be because he wasn't saying he was insane or had mental problems but, that she commited accidental suicide. I guess we would know if that hand shake was prominent before the shooting from Rommie D or the others he met witht that night. JMO [/*]

Well, you are right. I was just trying to think of people that could testfy on his behalf. You know me :shrug: ;)

[joolz]

Originally posted by Searching
IMO you are using a broad brush generic definition. What does the California Penal Code specifically provide as a definition. If you can, please provide the section number. Also I note you used quotation marks. What is your source. In a previous post Janyne has provided us with the correct definition of the 3 kinds of manslaughter applicable to the state of Ca. along with the correct section number. [/*]

:D Jayne is admirably thorough in citing sources, so please refer back to her post if you want to refresh yourself about the section numbers.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by kennedy06


:) I was just rethinking about your post concerning the possiblity of divorce and him having less money to go after. Unless there is a deep passionate trusting love there I can't see any man setting up a woman to get half of his money and take the chance on her giving it back or sharing it with him after a divorce. I don't know how much PS is worth or the contracts that may be between them or what is said in private but, just remember one name Anna N. Smith! :D JMO [/*]


Oh, I totally agree... BUT... this is where RS's lack of scruples might come in handy. Maybe THEY have an agreement somewhere, some legal document (or some dude named Lefty that RS is terrified of....) with some sort of jargon in it. It's possible and just a thought that crosssed my mind, but you never know. It would be interesting to know if there is a prenup either way. :)

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Searching
I note you are using quotation marks. What is you source. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Coldwaters position on providing links. May I suggest that you read it in its entirety. BTW since PS hasn't been convicted of killing any one can you name any other music producers that have been convicted of killing some one. Off hand I can't think of any. IMO it sounds like you are makeing a broad indictment of music producers. Some may even find it slanderous and liable.JMO. [/*]


OH. MY. GOD. "I" am going to "use" quotation "marks" ALL THE TIME "now". Using "quotation marks" does not "mean" that anyone needs to provide a "link" for "anything". I think "stating" anything as "fact" is what "requires" a "link".

I think we need to stop being so freaking petty and just get on with intelligent discussion.

OH. By the way. JMO (I think that's silly too. But that's, you know, JMO.)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
I note you are using quotation marks. What is you source. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Coldwaters position on providing links. May I suggest that you read it in its entirety. BTW since PS hasn't been convicted of killing any one can you name any other music producers that have been convicted of killing some one. Off hand I can't think of any. IMO it sounds like you are makeing a broad indictment of music producers. Some may even find it slanderous and liable.JMO. [/*]

Quotation marks are used for more than one reason. According to the Purdue University on-line writing lab uses for Quotation Marks are as follows:

Use quotation marks . . .

in the following situations:


for example:

to enclose direct quotations. Note that commas and periods go inside the closing quotation mark in conventional American usage; colons and semicolons go outside; and placement of question and exclamation marks depends on the situation (see our quotation marks document).


He asked, "Will you be there?" "Yes," I answered, "I'll look for you in the foyer."

to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way; but don't overuse quotation marks in this sense, or they will lose their impact.


History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization."

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_overvw.html


A parody of a well known slogan would be included in that.

Proper use of punctuation is not against TOS. As far as that goes, neither is improper use. There are no "Punctuation Police" on the boards.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Quotation marks are used for more than one reason. According to the Purdue University on-line writing lab uses for Quotation Marks are as follows:

Use quotation marks . . .

in the following situations:


for example:

to enclose direct quotations. Note that commas and periods go inside the closing quotation mark in conventional American usage; colons and semicolons go outside; and placement of question and exclamation marks depends on the situation (see our quotation marks document).


He asked, "Will you be there?" "Yes," I answered, "I'll look for you in the foyer."

to indicate words used ironically, with reservations, or in some unusual way; but don't overuse quotation marks in this sense, or they will lose their impact.


History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization."

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_overvw.html


A parody of a well known slogan would be included in that.

Proper use of punctuation is not against TOS. As far as that goes, neither is improper use. There are no "Punctuation Police" on the boards. [/*]


Thanks for providing the "link". :tongue:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
She didn't site any definition for 2nd Dg. You did in quotes. Besides that it is your post. Again I ask for you to please provide your source. Is the definition you submitted from the Ca. Criminal Code or just a broad brush generic definition. Either way, since you used quotation marks in your post you are required to provide the source.:) [/*]


There is nothing in TOS that requires every post with quotation marks provide a source.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Ellie



Thanks for providing the "link". :tongue: [/*]

:lol: " You're surely Welcome!"

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Searching
Neither is Purdue Unv. But since you feel compelled to answer in another poters behalf, do you know of any other music producers that have been convicted of murder. [/*]

Wait. Isn't the "proper" abbreviation of the word "University" "Univ." and not "Unv."? Also, what is a "poter"? And is your last sentence a question or a statement? There is no question mark, and apparently around here you need to be verrrrrry careful with punctuation or someone might misread or otherwise not understand what you're trying to say...

I don't usually pay attention to this kind of thing but since you're pushing buttons, and since I've had 3 large cups of coffee this morning....

Ah, well. All I'm trying to say here is that in order to have a discussion worth the time it takes to type posts, we need to stop being so petty and nit-picky. If this is your thing have at it, but I've a feeling you'll be playing solo. :shrug:

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues



There is nothing in TOS that requires every post with quotation marks provide a source. [/*]

Oh thank goodness! I was getting worried that the thread police were going to take me away in handcuffs! :D

[joolz]

Does anyone know if there was ever any resolution about that missing white object (fingernail, perhaps) that caused all the problems for Henry Lee?

And does anyone know what happened to the lawyer who had to testify about it (Sara Kaplan, I think)?

TIA

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Neither is Purdue Unv. But since you feel compelled to answer in another poters behalf, do you know of any other music producers that have been convicted of murder. [/*]

I didn't say they were. I was simply pointing out that there are uses for quotation marks that would include parody and stressing of a certain word or words.

Had I not provided a link for that, I imagine I would have been asked for one.

If you have reason to doubt the abilities of the English Professors at Purdue University there are plenty of books available on the usage of punctuation.

As for other music producers who have been convicted of murder, I don't see that as relevant to this case.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Correct, but it may be because you are looking in the wrong place. Try Feedback & Posting Infortmation.;) [/*]


No, it's not that.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


(respectfully snipped)

As for other music producers who have been convicted of murder, I don't see that as relevant to this case. [/*]

:D Correct. I res my case.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Searching
I wouldn't be so greatful just yet IMO. The poster you are thanking looked in the wrong place. [/*]

I believe you meant grateful. :confused:

[joolz]

Originally posted by Searching
:shrug: What is a "res case". [/*]

A typo. We all make them.:)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
I wouldn't be so greatful just yet IMO. The poster you are thanking looked in the wrong place. [/*]

No, the poster didn't. I have read all of the feedback and the TOS and it does not say that quotation marks mean a post is a direct quote from an article or that a link is needed.

I'll thank you to not state what I've read and haven't read, as you obviously have no idea.

[vonna]

Originally posted by Searching
I disagree. Go to Feedback and Posting Information. Page 1, Links, Coldwater. Also, a state statute is written and published for public comsumption. The same as the constitution or bill of rights. The dutys under the constitution are listed as articles. I'm sure you would not want to post a quote from the constitution without giving it proper credit. As an example for such a quote you would start out or end by stating under article such and such of the Constitution Of The United States of America. The same would apply if you use quotation marks when giving the definition of a particular law. Thats all I'm asking. Under what article or section (if you prefer) of the Ca. Penal Code was the posters definition in quotes derived from. If thats where the definition was taken from then say so along with the corresponding article number. If you do not know the Ca.PC definition then just say so. BTW do you know the Ca. Penal Code dfefinition of 2nd Dg. Murder.:seeya: [/*]

Wow! You have a vast knowledge of this board. Quite amazing as you have only (allegedly) contributed a hundred posts.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by joolz
Does anyone know if there was ever any resolution about that missing white object (fingernail, perhaps) that caused all the problems for Henry Lee?

And does anyone know what happened to the lawyer who had to testify about it (Sara Kaplan, I think)?

TIA [/*]

Great question, would that be all brought up again in the next trial?? I'm not that savy about the courts. Will this trial be starting from scratch with the exception of the video of DO, or would issues resolved in the last trial stand for this one? LOL we need a retired CA criminal trial attorney to guest post with us for a day!JMO

[True2Blues]

Has anyone figured out yet if the testimony of a witness in trial one, can be used to correct or question the same witness if trial two if their story changes?

Emuart asked the other day and I'd like to know myself. On the one hand it is sworn testimony, but on the other hand the mistrial means it's like trial one never happened, right?

All the pretrial motions have to be redone, so I would think (though I don't know) that any testimony from trial one is off limits. It would remain part of the record of the mistrial but not be usable by either side to contradict tesimony in the new trial.

Police interviews, written statements from the witness, Grand Jury testimony, could still be used like before.

Like I said, that's what I would think, but I have no actual knowledge and I'm not having any look finding any clarification online.

Anyone out there with law experience who knows? TIA

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Great question, would that be all brought up again in the next trial?? I'm not that savy about the courts. Will this trial be starting from scratch with the exception of the video of DO, or would issues resolved in the last trial stand for this one? LOL we need a retired CA criminal trial attorney to guest post with us for a day!JMO [/*]

This Retrial thing is confusing, isn't it? They have to do all the pretrial motions again, all the arguing about admissible evidence again.

I keep looking for a layperson explanation of what retrial entails. I recall someone on IS saying it would be like trial one never happened, everything starts from scratch.

So, if HL isn't going to testify would the subject be moot?

[joolz]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Great question, would that be all brought up again in the next trial?? I'm not that savy about the courts. Will this trial be starting from scratch with the exception of the video of DO, or would issues resolved in the last trial stand for this one? LOL we need a retired CA criminal trial attorney to guest post with us for a day!JMO [/*]

I was thinking about it and it occurred to me that unless anything comes up about calling Henry Lee it may not even get mentioned (since they never did locate the object, right?).

I'm just curious about Sara Kaplan since she was so distraught about having to testify against Lee.

You're right, we do need a CA criminal attorney (and probably retired since these boards can get SO busy) to guest post.;) Know any?

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


This Retrial thing is confusing, isn't it? They have to do all the pretrial motions again, all the arguing about admissible evidence again.

I keep looking for a layperson explanation of what retrial entails. I recall someone on IS saying it would be like trial one never happened, everything starts from scratch.

So, if HL isn't going to testify would the subject be moot? [/*]

LOL - True, I think we came to the same conclusion at the same time about HLee. I'd love a clear explanation of what a retrial entails, too. I watched the Menendez retrial, but that was so long ago that I've forgotten what was allowed in from the first trial.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
What is it then? Are you avoiding my post about the Constitution? IMO you may be. Seems real simple to me. If you are using a quotation mark to support a definition, interpetation or whatever of a particular subject you should provide the source of your quote. Regardless of any mesg. board rules or guide lines. It's considered proper If you have not done the research thats applicable do not pretend you have. Nothing wrong in posting as your personal interpetation or understanding of the subject matter. Any more questions? If not I'm moving forward.:seeya: [/*]

What about the Constitution? What are you talking about? This started over a parody of a known slogan in a post and the proper use of quotation marks. The Constitution doesn't enter into it.

On this board, I follow the rules. You may do things "Regardless" of the rules, that's your choice.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


LOL - True, I think we came to the same conclusion at the same time about HLee. I'd love a clear explanation of what a retrial entails, too. I watched the Menendez retrial, but that was so long ago that I've forgotten what was allowed in from the first trial. [/*]

Yes we did! I don't see HL wanting to take part in a new trial. :tongue:

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Yes we did! I don't see HL wanting to take part in a new trial. :tongue: [/*]

:lol:
Got that right! Come to think of it, I haven't seen or heard anything about him since then. I wonder if he was completely discredited by what happened? JF ruled that Lynn Herrold (sp?) will be allowed to testify again, right? I thought she was really impressive.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
I disagree. Go to Feedback and Posting Information. Page 1, Links, Coldwater. Also, a state statute is written and published for public comsumption. The same as the constitution or bill of rights. The dutys under the constitution are listed as articles. I'm sure you would not want to post a quote from the constitution without giving it proper credit. As an example for such a quote you would start out or end by stating under article such and such of the Constitution Of The United States of America. The same would apply if you use quotation marks when giving the definition of a particular law. Thats all I'm asking. Under what article or section (if you prefer) of the Ca. Penal Code was the posters definition in quotes derived from. If thats where the definition was taken from then say so along with the corresponding article number. If you do not know the Ca.PC definition then just say so. BTW do you know the Ca. Penal Code dfefinition of 2nd Dg. Murder.:seeya: [/*]


Yes, I do know the California Penal Code definition of second degree murder.

That is why I can recognize an interpretation of it when I see one, and I have seen several. All consistent in every way with the interpretation posted earlier. That's why I don't have a problem with it.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


:lol:
Got that right! Come to think of it, I haven't seen or heard anything about him since then. I wonder if he was completely discredited by what happened? JF ruled that Lynn Herrold (sp?) will be allowed to testify again, right? I thought she was really impressive. [/*]

I was really impressed with Lynn Herold as well. She was very clear and precise, and unlike several of the Defense "experts", she refused to answer questions that she wasn't qualified to answer.

"It is what it is."

The Judge ruled that Steve Renteria, could testify as well. They are going to argue about Dr. Pena at the next hearing, I guess.

I know H.Lee is still around and still getting work. I read that he had tried to distance himself from the PS trial, which makes sense after he was questioned in the evidentiary hearing.

I doubt that an ego as big as HL's would ever go into a quiet life. He's one who can't seem to get his face on camera often enough.

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Yes, I do know the California Penal Code definition of second degree murder.

That is why I can recognize an interpretation of it when I see one, and I have seen several. All consistent in every way with the interpretation posted earlier. That's why I don't have a problem with it. [/*]

LOL! Are you trying to use logic on posters who just seem to want to derail substantive discussions for some personal reasons? JMO of course. Let's not forget 1) what GPSpector posted about baiters the other day and 2) that Iggy can be your best friend. :D

Have you heard anything about another PBA witness who didn't testify at the first trial being allowed to testify at the second?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


LOL! Are you trying to use logic on posters who just seem to want to derail substantive discussions for some personal reasons? JMO of course. Let's not forget 1) what GPSpector posted about baiters the other day and 2) that Iggy can be your best friend. :D

Have you heard anything about another PBA witness who didn't testify at the first trial being allowed to testify at the second? [/*]

I've seen the information about her and I know there is a motion from the Prosecution to allow her to testify.

Since whether the PBA will be allowed is going to be argued next hearing, I suppose the motion will be held until then. Though I don't see the PBA witness being blocked from testifying.

Whether the Judge will allow the new one I don't know. At least the video testimony of Dianne Ogden will be played if the PBA Witnesses are allowed.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Thats because they understand the definition of quote. Try this: www.websters-dictionary-online.com, Definition of Quote "1. A punctuation mark used to attribute the enclosed text to someone else". I don't know for sure but I guess TOS and Feedback did not feel the need to explain everything. :seeya: [/*]

I'm sure that your expertise in punctuation would fascinate many, but this is the Phil Spector thread.

If you do decide to start a punctuation thread though, you might want to get a link that works.

[kennedy06]

:)



Searching, what evidence do you find the most compelling that you makes you feel PS is either guilty or not guilty? Is it the PBA's and pattern of behavior or the Science alone? JMO

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
:confused: Well then why is it so difficult to provide the section or article #. It should not be that difficult for you since you know the CPC definition. So can you please provide the information requested. BTW the earlier post was not an interpetation. They used quotation marks. Had the post been stated as their interpetation that would be fine. :seeya: [/*]

I look up information for myself, I don't provide a service.

I'm through with the debate on quotation marks in other people's posts.

[Crispy]

http://www.squidoo.com/seconddegreemurder

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second-degree+murder

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199


Four links that have definition of murder and 2nd degree murder....the MALICE would be that he put the gun in her mouth knowing that it could cause harm, thus he can be, and I believe will be, convicted of second degree murder

[dref99]

Originally posted by EmuArt
Wouldn't that be something if PS's defense came up with a whole different story. I think the accidental suicide came from PS's statement to LE " it was an accident" and "she committed suicide." We all remember AJ not using his statement so there would be no self serving statements coming in. By the way that was a good move. [/*]

I think it more likely that the "accidental" suicide was discussed by the defense because there was so very little evidence that Lana was in such a state that suicide would be a reasonable option. In addition, finding a gun in the house of someone you had just met and using it for suicide, stretches the bounds of reasonable, so accidental suicide would allow that PS placed the gun within reach of Lana. Still not reasonable, IMO.


AJ (or any other prosecutor) did not say WHY the statements were not used in the opening. My thought would be
. the prosecution had fought very hard to allow the statements into the trial
. they knew the defense would thus assume they would be used
. they thought the defense would thus use them in their opening statements, which would not be allowed

The tactic derailed Bruce Cutler from the trial. He was "denuded" and contributed very little from that point forward. (If a link is required, type "denuded bruce cutler" into google & there are 389 hits :D )

jmo

[dref99]

Originally posted by Crispy
http://www.squidoo.com/seconddegreemurder

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second-degree+murder

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199


Four links that have definition of murder and 2nd degree murder....the MALICE would be that he put the gun in her mouth knowing that it could cause harm, thus he can be, and I believe will be, convicted of second degree murder [/*]

Thanks for the links. It was/is my undertanding that threatening Lana with a loaded gun was sufficient for malice to be assumed by the jury. The legal argument related to this was what caused the incorrect instruction to initially be given to the jury.

If he had been convicted, the removal of the instruction may have been cause for appeal. Perhaps it is better that a second trial take place without any doubt attached to definitions. Despite the time taken to get to trial II, it is probably faster than an appeal!

jmo

[kipswife]

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/index.html.....

here is an old web site on have on file that still shows all the info...pics, testimony, that stuff. it works for me so i hope it will work for you guys too, lest those who want it.

let me know if it works, i can always get the info to you another way....i think

m

[Crispy]

Originally posted by kipswife
http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/index.html.....

here is an old web site on have on file that still shows all the info...pics, testimony, that stuff. it works for me so i hope it will work for you guys too, lest those who want it.

let me know if it works, i can always get the info to you another way....i think

m [/*]

That link took me to a site map where I could click on Phil Spector and get all the info..Thanks..:seeya:

[dref99]

Originally posted by Searching
I agree. A threat would be sufficent to show malice. But wouldn't any such threat be presumptive given that they were the only two there. IMO any such threat would be unproveable. The ? of how the gun ended up in her mouth is open to speculation IMO. [/*]

I think one of my recent answers covered this question. As you correctly say, there were only two there. The gun was put in her mouth by he or she; the view of the majority, on the forum and on the jury in trial 1, was that it was done by he.

Regardless, it was HE who owned the gun, HE who introduced the gun, so even if it accidentally got into her mouth, HE is responsible. It was not the type of gun that accidentally discharged.

The man is not going to confess (he probably has no memory whatsoever of the events), many murderers have been convicted by much less evidence. The evidence of the chauffeur definitely puts the gun in the hands of PS - but if you watched trial 1 - you know all of this

same old same old


jmo

[vonna]

Originally posted by joolz


:lol:
Got that right! Come to think of it, I haven't seen or heard anything about him since then. I wonder if he was completely discredited by what happened? JF ruled that Lynn Herrold (sp?) will be allowed to testify again, right? I thought she was really impressive. [/*]

She was great. An absolute objective scientist.

[kennedy06]

If PS is convicted, before sentencing would the family of LC be able to give an impact statement? Does the defendant PS get to speak like the BTK (no I'm NOT comparing PS to him) to the judge and courtroom. Remember that speech:rolleyes: . Does the defendant get to call impact statement people on his behalf before sentencing? I may have this all backwards but that is why I ask. JMO

[joolz]

Originally posted by kennedy06
If PS is convicted, before sentencing would the family of LC be able to give an impact statement? Does the defendant PS get to speak like the BTK (no I'm NOT comparing PS to him) to the judge and courtroom. Remember that speech:rolleyes: . Does the defendant get to call impact statement people on his behalf before sentencing? I may have this all backwards but that is why I ask. JMO [/*]

I think that both the victim's family and the convicted person (and maybe even his family?) get to make impact statements before sentencing, but I'm not positive. It's a good question and I hope someone here can answer definitively.

[Spectorfan8]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joolz


I think that both the victim's family and the convicted person (and maybe even his family?) get to make impact statements before sentencing, but I'm not positive. It's a good question and I hope someone here can answer definitively. [/*][/QUOTE


I watched the Darren Mack trial. Both sides got to make statements. Does that help?:shrug:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I'm sure that your expertise in punctuation would fascinate many, but this is the Phil Spector thread.

If you do decide to start a punctuation thread though, you might want to get a link that works. [/*]

Actually, the link will work if you remove the "," at the end of the link but don't bother, the link is as useless as the posters comments. It only brings you to the Websters site where you can enter in any word you want, it is NOT a link to support the posters comment. The link will cause you to do the research the poster should have done but has proven to be too incompetent in computer skills to defend him/herself.

Appearing lazy or too incompetent is a popular tactic of "baiters" forcing you, the reader to do all their work for the purpose of antagonizing you, not helping you. they do this for their enjoyment, not yours.

I have simple rules I work with and I use them on every forum I am a member of:

-If I read a comment from anyone that I think is questionable, I will research on my own and instead of pestering people for a link to prove themselves, I'll provide a link to prove they are wrong or to prove my case.

-I will not require every quote to be supported by a link, nor do I expect every use of the Quotation Marks to be supported by links. I'm just not that petty.

-What I will not do is challenge someone by making that person do all the research to prove me right, such as telling someone to go look it up for themselves.

If someone wants to quote the California Law that pertains to Murder Charges without providing a link, I really do not care. If something does not look right in what they are quoting, I will (and have in the past) post a link showing the correct quote as a means to help educate others, not for the purpose to make them look bad.

Here is a proper link to prove that the "Baiter" could have easily posted a link to the definition that was referred to but chose not to.:
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.com/definition/incompetent

[joolz]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joolz


I think that both the victim's family and the convicted person (and maybe even his family?) get to make impact statements before sentencing, but I'm not positive. It's a good question and I hope someone here can answer definitively. [/*][/QUOTE


I watched the Darren Mack trial. Both sides got to make statements. Does that help?:shrug: [/*]

Yes, and I think it's the same in CA. I know there were victim impact statments at Scott Peterson's trial, but I don't remember if his family spoke - and I know he didn't.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Yes, and I think it's the same in CA. I know there were victim impact statments at Scott Peterson's trial, but I don't remember if his family spoke - and I know he didn't. [/*]

That sounds right. The people most affected by the crime and those most affected by the verdict.

Somehow I can't imagine Jackie Peterson passing up a chance to talk, but I don't remember if he did either.

[GPSpector]

Wow, I really do not know if I could actually stand up, face my father and say anything to him, if he is found guilty. That would be very hard for me emotionally.

I guess, if I had the opportunity, I would try to face Mrs Clarkson and just say "I'm Sorry". :(

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by joolz


I think that both the victim's family and the convicted person (and maybe even his family?) get to make impact statements before sentencing, but I'm not positive. It's a good question and I hope someone here can answer definitively. [/*]

I am here in California, so I think I can give an answer to your question. The answer is yes to both. The victim's family and the convicted person (or his family/friends) can make statements before sentencing.

My brother attended the trial of the man who murdered a very good friend of his. He and I both blogged about the trial on my blog and among our entries are the statements at the sentencing. (My brother got the transcripts from the court.) The victim's family gave statements, my brother gave a statement and at the end, the murderer gave his statement. The murderer's family stayed away from the trial, he had no friends there either, therefore the only statement on his behalf was his own. Then, the judge pronounced sentence. 50 years to life for murder in the 1st degree.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Anakerie


I am here in California, so I think I can give an answer to your question. The answer is yes to both. The victim's family and and the convicted person (or his family/friends) can both make statements before sentencing.

My brother attended the trial of the man who murdered a very good friend of his. He and I both blogged about the trial on my blog and among our entries are the statements at the sentencing. (My brother got the transcripts from the court.) The victim's family gave statements, my brother gave a statement and at the end, the murderer gave his statement. The murderer's family stayed away from the trial, he had no friends there either, therefore the only statement on his behalf was his own. Then, the judge pronounced sentence. 50 years to life for murder in the 1st degree. [/*]

Thank you for that Anakerie. That must have been a very emotional moment for your brother.

The only ones I can remember seeing were BTK and Jeffrey Dahlmer though I have watched other trials. They probably just stood out. JMO

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Thank you for that Anakerie. That must have been a very emotional moment for your brother.

The only ones I can remember seeing were BTK and Jeffrey Dahlmer though I have watched other trials. They probably just stood out. JMO [/*]

Yes, it was very emotional for my brother and the victim's family. My brother, though, had the "outlet" of the blogging to help him keep his composure. The fact that he is also a chaplain helped tremendously as well. The posts are still on my blog... Just google with the key words of "Mario Lozano Anakerie" and it'll take you right to the entries. The trial didn't take terribly long, a couple weeks, but it was very interesting to hear/read about the forensics. Then, the statement by the murderer was the most... (uhm.. I don't think I can type the word in my mind at the moment) hmm... "strange" plea for leniency I've ever seen or heard.

By the way, the circumstances were slightly similar to what happened to Lana. Two people were there. One person is dead, one person is still alive. The living one tried his darnedest to blame it on the one who didn't survive. The forensics did NOT support the murderer's version of the events.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Anakerie


Yes, it was very emotional for my brother and the victim's family. My brother, though, had the "outlet" of the blogging to help him keep his composure. The fact that he is also a chaplain helped tremendously as well. The posts are still on my blog... Just google with the key words of "Mario Lozano Anakerie" and it'll take you right to the entries. The trial didn't take terribly long, a couple weeks, but it was very interesting to hear/read about the forensics. Then, the statement by the murderer was the most... (uhm.. I don't think I can type the word in my mind at the moment) hmm... "strange" plea for leniency I've ever seen or heard.

By the way, the circumstances were slightly similar to what happened to Lana. Two people were there. One person is dead, one person is still alive. The living one tried his darnedest to blame it on the one who didn't survive. The forensics did NOT support the murderer's version of the events. [/*]

Thank you for sharing that Anakerie. I'm glad that justice was served in that case, although I'm sure it doesn't really help the pain of such a loss. :rose:

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by joolz


Thank you for sharing that Anakerie. I'm glad that justice was served in that case, although I'm sure it doesn't really help the pain of such a loss. :rose: [/*]

My brother still misses Kacie. And her family misses her still more. They've turned their anger and pain to something positive though. Every year since her death, there is a motorcycle run up in the mountains in her honor. Kacie's Ride For Hope. All the proceeds go to an organization that helps people find their way out of domestic violence. So, knowing that her murderer is in prison and will most likely die in prison and the fact that a lot of other people will be helped in her memory does a lot towards healing. For everyone. (Except Mario, though... I hope he NEVER heals.)

[Jayne]

here's a link to California Codes, including the Penal Code.


http://www.leginto.ca.gov/calaw.html (www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html)

Title 8, Chapter 1

187-199 covers "homicide" which includes variations, including manslaughter.

hope it helps

I've posted sections..and with all this "provide a link" or "use or don't use quotations"...I'm confused and do not want to Mislead anyone, about using quotes and not sure if this is how to provide a link.

I know the CA laws and where to find them and to provide the language..but I'm not computer savvy enough to figure out how to post a link..so you can just "double click" on it.

If someone can teach me how to do that...I could perhaps be more helpful?

What I can do is "legally interpret" the law for someone here, if that helps as well, from my legal knowledge, that is.

Last year, during PS1, I had TONS of "favourites" and "links" on the CA laws, gun laws, what I think was interesting and helpful information on both and other things..but that computer is no longer "with me" (RIP).

:)

jmo

jayne

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Searching
Thank you very, very much for the links. I do have a ?. How are they going to prove he actually put the gun in her mouth. Seems like a tough not to crack since there were only the two of them at the time. IMO the science could go either way. VM would have been a much easier case to make. No need for all the scientific testimony and he would probably be in prison by now.JMO [/*]

circumstantial, searching...as to how to "prove" PS put the gun in Lana's mouth. You're correct..there is no videotape of it..no audiotape of what occurred..no witness - of the actual "event taking place" other than PS and LC. There is the witness "immediately after the fact/occurrence" who places the gun in Spector's hands. Now...how did it get there? was it always in his hand..was it in his hand when it went off..did he pick it up (and..why..good lord WHY would he pick up a gun if he hadn't had it in his hand in the first place..THAT is a very important question, IMO..and if the "answer" (sorry..I used quotes! LOL) is speculated (since he won't take the stand, no doubt) is that it was to Clean Up..then WHY was he cleaning up, if he had nothing to do with it??

This is indeed a "whodunnit" in a BIG way, again IMO. Two people there, only two people, at the moment of the death and the moments or minutes or hours before..One dead..the other a Mute (so to speak..since not speaking out on the stand about it).

There's a Smoking Gun..with DNA on it (backspatter/splatter/spash) on the area of the bullets that were facing the victim (NO Surprise there!)..no fingerprints on the cartridges where there would be by the person who Loaded the Gun..the bullet that killed LC came out of that gun..it was of a type that was not "usual" but others just like it were found in PS's home upstairs..disconnected with where apparently/circumstantially the Gun must have been kept..either at the moment it was taken out or prior to, but for the holster that was found in that drawer..a holster that was a "perfect fit" for that gun..in that bureau next to where LC was found dead.

PS had a habit and penchant for having guns around to "threaten/harass" people, particulary women, who he didn't want to "leave his castle".

Logic? Where would one keep a gun...handy...to STOP someone from leaving? How about the foyer area, where the door of Exit is?

I know..it's circumstantial...but it sure holds a lot of weight, IMO.

I don't think there would be any Question that this gun belonged to PS..and the bullets inside it. Question is..HOW did that gun end up being the weapon that killed LC? Did she find it? Was it given to her? That juror (can't remember the number) likened the possibility that Lana FOUND the gun, just because he has a "snoopy mother in law" (or something like that).

Common sense, please. If Lana was Bent on killing herself, she'd have brought her own gun with her, wouldn't a normal person think that? Would she go to a strangers home and start foraging around for a weapon?

And if common sense holds true...and if All Of A Sudden..she decides to do herself in..where did she get that gun? PS must have given it to her..presented it..played around with it towards/with her..and even if in the mind of anyone, there is any thought that SHE overpowered him and TOOK the gun from him (ridiculous, IMO)..he SUPPLIED IT. LIABILITY, no matter how you look at it. NOT TO leave out STUPIDITY, frankly, and RECKLESS DISREGARD, GROSS NEGLIGENCE at the LEAST.

OK..I'm stopping here.

jmo

J

[Land Shark®]

Jayne, I wholeheartedly disagree with your 'this is indeed a "whodunnit" in a BIG way' statement.

It's also my opinion the above statement of your's is completely out of place with the rest of your post.

No offense. :)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Jayne, I wholeheartedly disagree with your 'this is indeed a "whodunnit" in a BIG way' statement.

It's also my opinion the above statement of your's is completely out of place with the rest of your post.

No offense. :) [/*]

I'm not offended at all.

which statement of mine is completely out of place with the rest of my post? The "whodunnt"?

What I meant by that..is the fact that it is circumstantial.

maybe it was not that "clear"..apologies..

no offense taken

[Land Shark®]

No apologies necessary. You were very clear. :)

In reading your post, it's obvious who is to blame.

Phil Spector.

So I found the 'this is indeed a "whodunnit" in a BIG way' statement completely out of place.

[Land Shark®]

I think the crime scene obviously being staged will play a huge part in the coming guilty verdict.

Huge.

IMO.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
No apologies necessary. You were very clear. :)

In reading your post, it's obvious who is to blame.

Phil Spector.

So I found the 'this is indeed a "whodunnit" in a BIG way' statement completely out of place. [/*]

I get it..I think?..LandShark. I'm not a LandShark...or maybe I am..in a different sense? (NO NO NO..I'm not comparing myself to you..just the "shark" word...which I'd never want anyone to call me a "shark"..which most of us are called!)

I can see how you thought or still think it out of place.

It was in reference to being "circumstantial"...both sides have to prove their case..without that "Smoking Gun" or witnesses, etc. Sure..not like many other cases where there was NOTHING..which most people would probably call a Purely Whodunnit. I was over-reaching perhaps.

I guess I write in twisted ways..I admire Shakespeare and have studied his works for years...but there's no way I can emulate him...maybe this was my uncontrolled way to try without considering about how it might be interpreted.


I am sorry for the confusion.

:o :o

jmo

j

[GPSpector]

Jayne, please empty your Mailbox so I can respond to your comment.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
I think the crime scene obviously being staged will play a huge part in the coming guilty verdict.

Huge.

IMO. [/*]

AH..and I agree with you totally.

It was indeed "staged"..props..(gun under the WRONG arm area of the chair! DUH!!). Blood drops in places they shouldn't be (OOPS..forgot those!). No blood drops where there should be? (where WAS that hypo I could have used...to make sure the LE would see I was at least 7 feet away?? think?!)..Ah..Jacket...yep...well...I was looking out the window when Linda Blair spewed her blood across the room and I got a bit of "spatter"..OR..NOPE..it wasn't on me at all..it was on the banister hanging there..and only a few drops got there..even though none others were in that direction. Hmmm..

LandShark...What I just don't get..and never will..is why that jury in PS1 didn't seem to care about the wet bloodied diaper in that bathroom. WHO put it there? and WHY was it so CLOSE to the toilet? Never mind the eyelashes..I found them pretty miniscule in the big picture, except that perhaps he had wiped them off of Lana..and put them there. But WHY??? Were the LE at the door and he didn't have time to flush? YEP..I think that's exactly what happened..he was picking through that diaper..found the eyelashes...picked them out and put them there (expecting to either throw them down the trash or whatever...the toilet..then continue to clean up with the diaper SANS the eyelashes??)...then they were at the door. TOO LATE.

He was caught bloody handed..hence the HANDS IN THE POCKETS..which I think..but as USUAL..I can be and am probably WRONG!

jmo

J

[Land Shark®]

Regarding the gun....

If I recall correctly, first it's witnessed to be in Phil Spector's hand.

Miraculously, it ends up underneath, as you say Jayne, the wrong arm area of the chair.

Physics do not lie.

And they never will. :)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Regarding the gun....

If I recall correctly, first it's witnessed to be in Phil Spector's hand.

Miraculously, it ends up underneath, as you say Jayne, the wrong arm area of the chair.

Physics do not lie.

And they never will. :) [/*]

Thanks LandShark..we are indeed on the Same Page on this one!

DUMBA>>> PS

HOW STUPID WAS THAT JURY??? If it ended up where it did...allegedly or truthfully..it ended up there at PS's hand..not Lana's.

Mortie...you know..one of our esteemed posters..and an other one who has "exited"...we often talked with our gun experiences..and as you said..science.

there is NO way...that gun would have been where it was found..unless SOMEONE put it there. UNLESS..there was proof that Lana was Left Handed..and there was NONE. Who screwed up on that? Nobody..because it wasn't true..right?

THIS is "out there"..but I'd bet that PS placed that gun there..because he was "out of it"..and it was to "his RIGHT" facing Lana..that was his "favoured side"...and although in my guess he was pretty much ambidextrous...he didn't think Lana was..if he could even think at that point...and just "tossed the gun" next to her LEFT hand...which was his RIGHT hand area at the time.

He wasn't even thinking about the "mirror image"...since she was facing him..and that would mean her LEFT side?

I'm making this much too complicated...I'm sorry.


jmo

moo

J

PLUS..I am amazed that the prosecution didn't bring in a "musical expert" about the LH/RH abilities. Gheesh..I know it firsthand and Spector being the God he was/is of Music...he is Ambidextrous to the HILT..or dang well should be?? I've viewed the videos...that Christmas one recently..He has a pretty strong LEFT hand, imo!

[spydernweb2006]

Let us all not forget the bloody after death palm print found on the gun, that ended up under Lana's left foot, after being seen in Phil Spector's hand by A DeSouza.

In no way could that palm print ever have been there unless someone (My guess was Phil Spector) attempted to frame the death on Lana. Someone's whose spinal column was severed cannot make the physcal moves to make such a bloody print, so how did one end up on Lana's hand and on the gun? Remember this bloody print was dna typed to Lana.

But... weirdly enough no other blood was found on the gun's surface except in areas that were indented. As in it was wiped clean except for the matching to Lana's left PALM print in her blood. How could someone whose spinal column was immed transected ever accomplish wiping the gun down?

IMO Phil has alot of splaining to do Lucy.....

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[Jayne]

Originally posted by spydernweb2006
Let us all not forget the bloody after death palm print found on the gun, that ended up under Lana's left foot, after being seen in Phil Spector's hand by A DeSouza.

In no way could that palm print ever have been there unless someone (My guess was Phil Spector) attempted to frame the death on Lana. Someone's whose spinal column was severed cannot make the physcal moves to make such a bloody print, so how did one end up on Lana's hand and on the gun? Remember this bloody print was dna typed to Lana.

But... weirdly enough no other blood was found on the gun's surface except in areas that were indented. As in it was wiped clean except for the matching to Lana's left PALM print in her blood. How could someone whose spinal column was immed transected ever accomplish wiping the gun down?

IMO Phil has alot of splaining to do Lucy.....

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder [/*]


Yep...I agree..and since he was facing her at the "ultimate moment"...his right hand was her left...he wasn't about to go around and behind her...he simply..placed that gun in her hand...to his right..."her left"...put an imprint on it and let it fall.

He didn't have enough wits about him..to go behind her and the chair and figure out which hand she "allegedly might have used" to put the gun in the correct hand..thus handprints AND where to drop it!

He was 10 sheets to the wind, almost expired over the "cleaning up/maid service" and desperate with the wolves at the door..that's my opinion..or I should say..surmise.

jmo

J

Where was his friend..the retired cop...can't recall his name right now..started with a "P"? can't remember..does anyone? Like I said..my old computer RIP..left me with no "logs" to the last trial.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by joolz


I was thinking about it and it occurred to me that unless anything comes up about calling Henry Lee it may not even get mentioned (since they never did locate the object, right?).

I'm just curious about Sara Kaplan since she was so distraught about having to testify against Lee.

You're right, we do need a CA criminal attorney (and probably retired since these boards can get SO busy) to guest post.;) Know any? [/*]

I might know of one or two nice ones;) (not CA) I asked our basic question and found this out:

In a retrial we start from scratch as if #1 never happened EXCEPT any witness may be confronted with any prior sworn testimony including trial, [...in A TRIAL on ______did you testify under oath that...,] and ANY depositions as well as other statements. The prior trial RESULT cannot be mentioned.

JMO

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne



Yep...I agree..and since he was facing her at the "ultimate moment"...his right hand was her left...he wasn't about to go around and behind her...he simply..placed that gun in her hand...to his right..."her left"...put an imprint on it and let it fall.

He didn't have enough wits about him..to go behind her and the chair and figure out which hand she "allegedly might have used" to put the gun in the correct hand..thus handprints AND where to drop it!

He was 10 sheets to the wind, almost expired over the "cleaning up/maid service" and desperate with the wolves at the door..that's my opinion..or I should say..surmise.

jmo

J

Where was his friend..the retired cop...can't recall his name right now..started with a "P"? can't remember..does anyone? Like I said..my old computer RIP..left me with no "logs" to the last trial. [/*]

Maybe you are speaking of (former policeman?) he was a friend and apparent bodyguard he had let go, Jay R. He is the one I'm just so interested in from his being seated at the table with PS and NK, at least at some point, the evening of her incident. Jack Mple's name was mentioned but, he said if he was alive. Does this help? JMO

[joolz]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Maybe you are speaking of (former policeman?) he was a friend and apparent bodyguard he had let go, that Jay R. The one I'm just so interested in from his being seated at the table with PS and NK, at least at some point in the evening of her incident. Jack Mple's name was mentioned but he said if he was alive. Does this help? JMO [/*]

I don't remember who that was at all.:shrug: But IMO that is par for the course in a trial that was so much smoke.

I know I'm an Occam's Razor kind of person, but seriously: the gun was in PS' hand when he made his (IMO again) confession to De Sousa, and then it miraculously appeared under the chair of the decedent. Since there was no one else there, any way you spin this it can only come up with Spector as the shooter. There is no other reasonable explanation.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I might know of one or two nice ones;) (not CA) I asked our basic question and found this out:

In a retrial we start from scratch as if #1 never happened EXCEPT any witness may be confronted with any prior sworn testimony including trial, [...in A TRIAL on ______did you testify under oath that...,] and ANY depositions as well as other statements. The prior trial RESULT cannot be mentioned.

JMO [/*]

Thank you very much! :) I've been wondering about that.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Maybe you are speaking of (former policeman?) he was a friend and apparent bodyguard he had let go, Jay R. He is the one I'm just so interested in from his being seated at the table with PS and NK, at least at some point, the evening of her incident. Jack Mple's name was mentioned but, he said if he was alive. Does this help? JMO [/*]


Yes..that's the one I think PS mentioned at the police station (Jack Maples...?). I was thinking about the other one...he was at "the scene"... didn't he testify as well? It's been so long..and I don't have my "notes" from last year..but there was that cop...that was included in the investigation.

dang..can't remember his name. I think he was PS's bulldog..he was in that photo with Shapiro..the knight in tarnished armour behind them...

PS had a lot of "protectors"..or so he imagined..This one..the one in the photo...he was retired, if I recall correctly, and hired or connected with Shapiro or the investigation.and right there in PS's house. And, he has/had a website.. I didn't believe his "words" for a minute..he was "in the pocket" so to speak. IMO that is.

jmo

Jayne

[Jayne]

as to Ogden...she's "unavailable"..tape or transcript may be allowed in

as to others: only to use it if it counters what they say in this PS2 trial...what most here call "impeaching the witness"

Basically..it means..you don't say one thing One time...Then get to say something else Another time..and not have it slammed in your face like a Cream Pie. The statement was made in a court of law under oath. Lie now..you're in trouble. Lied before..you're still in trouble. Prior Inconsistent Statement.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

gheesh..typed you a response a mile long (yeah...my style)..and ..WHOOSH...GONE.

:)

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne



Yes..that's the one I think PS mentioned at the police station (Jack Maples...?). I was thinking about the other one...he was at "the scene"... didn't he testify as well? It's been so long..and I don't have my "notes" from last year..but there was that cop...that was included in the investigation.

dang..can't remember his name. I think he was PS's bulldog..he was in that photo with Shapiro..the knight in tarnished armour behind them...

PS had a lot of "protectors"..or so he imagined..This one..the one in the photo...he was retired, if I recall correctly, and hired or connected with Shapiro or the investigation.and right there in PS's house. And, he has/had a website.. I didn't believe his "words" for a minute..he was "in the pocket" so to speak. IMO that is.

jmo

Jayne [/*]


Bill Pavelic? The one who testified that the former policeman turned private eye, who testified that he saw Henry Lee pick up what looked to him like a fingernail at the crime scene, was outside doing security duty?

Then proceeded to post his own personal photographs from the scene that showed the man (whose name I can't remember) right there with them in the house!

He was full of stories, but wouldn't make any of those accusations under oath. He's a piece of work that one.


ETA Stan White. That was the name of the man who testified.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


OHHHH I know (at least I think I do LOL) Pavelic?

JMO [/*]

YES YES Pavelic.

deep in Ps's pocket as I see it.

what a piece of work, huh?

jmo

j

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Bill Pavelic? The one who testified that the former policeman turned private eye, who testified that he saw Henry Lee pick up what looked to him like a fingernail at the crime scene, was outside doing security duty?

Then proceeded to post his own personal photographs from the scene that showed the man (whose name I can't remember) right there with them in the house!

He was full of stories, but wouldn't make any of those accusations under oath. He's a piece of work that one.


ETA Stan White. That was the name of the man who testified. [/*]

Yeah..then Stan White..wasn't he the one who said it looked like a part of or a fingernail?

and it was basically...THROWN out as evidence to THAT team?

Maybe I'm not recalling it correctly...but it had to do with H Lee..and the initial investigation.

Stan White...he was outside more or less the entire time..but he made that comment.

Bill Pavelic..he was inside the house.

NOW..not to disparage the LE or any police department as I support them to the hilt

But....and Pavelic WAS NOT with the LE at that time..but he knew the procedures of the LE.

I think there was some "dirty dealing" going on then...and he knew enough to say "don't touch that"..or..."discard that"...

can be totally wrong..but it was a supposition of mine..that's all.

Why the LE didn't get everything at the outset? Don't know..maybe their investigation was "interrupted"..maybe they weren't as thorough as they should be. BUT..when the defense finds something...it's not like the Prosecution finding something..they HAVE to immediately turn it over. The Defense..could..in a sense..play with it.. IF they found a gun..yep turn it over..if they found certain other things..but this "chip"...they didn't have to..by law...but they should have, IMO, ethically..and they did not..that's where the whole thing with the lawyers (Sarah) testifying, etc. came in.


jmo

moo

J

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Bill Pavelic? The one who testified that the former policeman turned private eye, who testified that he saw Henry Lee pick up what looked to him like a fingernail at the crime scene, was outside doing security duty?

Then proceeded to post his own personal photographs from the scene that showed the man (whose name I can't remember) right there with them in the house!

He was full of stories, but wouldn't make any of those accusations under oath. He's a piece of work that one.


ETA Stan White. That was the name of the man who testified. [/*]

True I didn't see your post when I posted his name.:)

I remember him more clearly now! Thanks

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06


True I didn't see your post when I posted his name.:)

I remember him more clearly now! Thanks [/*]

:seeya: When I first read Jayne's post I couldn't remember any name starting with "P". I did a really good job of blocking him out! LOL

Pavelic leaves a bad taste in my mouth. He was so obviously lying. More than willing to get in front of a camera and tell tales, but too much of a coward to get on the stand and repeat them.

I think I'll block him out again. :tongue:

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne
gheesh..typed you a response a mile long (yeah...my style)..and ..WHOOSH...GONE.

:)

J [/*]

Sorry Jayne! You were having the same problem yesterday. I cleaned out some of them so there's room now.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Yeah..then Stan White..wasn't he the one who said it looked like a part of or a fingernail?

and it was basically...THROWN out as evidence to THAT team?

Maybe I'm not recalling it correctly...but it had to do with H Lee..and the initial investigation.

Stan White...he was outside more or less the entire time..but he made that comment.

Bill Pavelic..he was inside the house.

NOW..not to disparage the LE or any police department as I support them to the hilt

But....and Pavelic WAS NOT with the LE at that time..but he knew the procedures of the LE.

I think there was some "dirty dealing" going on then...and he knew enough to say "don't touch that"..or..."discard that"...

can be totally wrong..but it was a supposition of mine..that's all.

Why the LE didn't get everything at the outset? Don't know..maybe their investigation was "interrupted"..maybe they weren't as thorough as they should be. BUT..when the defense finds something...it's not like the Prosecution finding something..they HAVE to immediately turn it over. The Defense..could..in a sense..play with it.. IF they found a gun..yep turn it over..if they found certain other things..but this "chip"...they didn't have to..by law...but they should have, IMO, ethically..and they did not..that's where the whole thing with the lawyers (Sarah) testifying, etc. came in.


jmo

moo

J [/*]

There was definitely some dirt going on there. Pavelic claimed White was outside the whole time, but then posted a picture on his own web site that showed Stan White standing on the stairs in the foyer.

White said Lee picked something up and he, white, shined his flashlight on it. Others said they saw White inside too. The dirt was sticking to Pavelic and Lee and that's a fact.

Henry Lee and Pavelic both knew they were supposed to turn over what they found. It doesn't matter what it was, they broke the law when they took it and kept it, making no record.

Why would they do that, if it was nothing important? They wouldn't. Didn't they claim it was nothing and got tossed back on the floor at one point? Until Sara Caplan testified to seeing it get put into a container.

They claimed no pictures had been taken of it either, but they had. The notes of HL showed he'd cramped in brief info on it, in different colored ink, so at a different time, and then tried to pass it off as happening at the same time as the other noted. Truly pathetic.

Of course, Pavelic won't repeat any of his accusations under oath, and Henry Lee seemed to want to get as far away from the Spector case as possible, so hopefully the issue won't get repeated in this trial.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


There was definitely some dirt going on there. Pavelic claimed White was outside the whole time, but then posted a picture on his own web site that showed Stan White standing on the stairs in the foyer.
,snipped for space>
Of course, Pavelic won't repeat any of his accusations under oath, and Henry Lee seemed to want to get as far away from the Spector case as possible, so hopefully the issue won't get repeated in this trial. [/*]

I do think Pavelic had a LOT to do with this entire scenario.

Sorry..Pavelic..but you don't post things online and then not take responsibility??

Stan White..

I think he was the "patsy"..

That nail chip..or whatever it was..may have been something significant..but I think the DA knew..it really didn't matter BUT FOR THE FACT..that it was "withheld"..

it's the "whodunit" thing...which LandShark...meaning well..accosted me for (meaning well and misunderstanding what I mean)..but it is what it IS..was it murder (0r manslaughter of some degree) or.....was it suicide..

Circumstantial evidence in a high level murder trial like this is crucial for evidence.

Whether that piece of whatever it was..was a Nail Chip..or a piece of drywall...plaster..whatever it was..if THEY picked it up..it SHOULD have been in evidence...OR..discounted and explained..OH..Your Honour..it was just Plaster...

they were searching for ways to get PS off...anything they could find..but when they found that?? It might have been incuplatory..not exculpary..so..just "forget about it"..insignificant.

NOTHING is insignificant..even if the LE weren't thorough..which I find rather unsettling..that they didn't take a fine toothed comb to that place after the incident...someone "screwed up"...but people do make mistakes.

Heck..anyone could throw down a piece of a torn nail...and claim they found it..right?

then have it "disappear"..because it didn't match Lana's fingernails?

sorry...but I'm finding some sinister.underhanded things that people do...

and as a lawyer...I find it reprehensible that this would have happened..IF IT DID.

from what I followed last year..Stan White..was an OUTSIDER...maybe he was inside the "house" at some point...but he wasn't 'in the pocket"..he was their patsy. and he testified..and I think very truthfully.

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

I misunderstood you Jayne! Sorry. Yes, Stan White was definitely an 'Outsider' in that respect. He wasn't one of the "group", wasn't in anyone's confidence.

There seems to be a bit of a clique there, Shapiro, Lee, Baden, Pavelic. What a bunch.

[kennedy06]

!! So I come inside to look something up about a plant. I scroll down my favorites, I have lots of them, and suddenly I see this name (!) I don't remember seeing this before. I thought what would I have saved from that name. I clicked it LOL guess what it was..........

A picture!

http://www.billpavelic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/spector-foyer-photo.JPG

JMO

(I guess with our archives having vanished we should save our links!)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06
!! So I come inside to look something up about a plant. I scroll down my favorites, I have lots of them, and suddenly I see this name (!) I don't remember seeing this before. I thought what would I have saved from that name. I clicked it LOL guess what it was..........

A picture!

http://www.billpavelic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/spector-foyer-photo.JPG

JMO

(I guess with our archives having vanished we should save our links!) [/*]

YEP..I think that is it! THANKS SO MUCH! I think that is the photo I was referring to.

Fleas in the woodworK?

IN THE POCKET? I don't this scenario was Shaprio's..it was PS telling Shapiro what to do...

when in the end of it all.everhthing fell on the Lawyer. Then he, PS had the audacity to sue him?


Lawyers are not all that bad..as many people think..they are bound by the laws..even if someone"thinks" their client is guilty.

Shapiro went way and above the call of duty to help PS..IMO..

But..Pavelic? Where is he now?? Vegas?

just kdding..but I wonder where he is these days?

jmo

J

[spydernweb2006]

Why I believe the fingernail chip, which I believe it was a fingernail chip is sooooooo important is that it shows where Lana's hands were at the time of the shooting. In NO way could she have been holding the gun in a suicide pose so as to have her thumbnail chip by the exiting of the bullett from the gun. For her thumbnail to chip by the bullett her hands would have to have been upwards trying to push the gun away from her face, while someone else (PS) had their hand/finger on the trigger. That lil chip tells a HUGE tale, thats why it shouldnt be discounted. The fact that the defense didnt turn over this item and possibly destroyed it is horrible as well as a violation of discovery laws and possibly crimminal for tampering with a crime scene.

I honestly believe Sara Kaplan more then Henry Lee or Pavelic in the missing white item issue. Those who were here for PS1 may remember one poster enlarged the lil white thing photo and the missing nail piece from Lana and to ME they seemed to match up.

If it was soooooo harmless why didnt the defense hand it over? Obviously someone in the defense knew or they couldnt have taken a picture of the item....

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[GPSpector]

Jayne :seeya: , you might want to clear out your In Box as well as your Sent Box if you are going to PM people. It's a bit hard to reply if your Mail Box is full. ;)

It is this very problem that I hate PM'ing :(

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by spydernweb2006
Why I believe the fingernail chip, which I believe it was a fingernail chip is sooooooo important is that it shows where Lana's hands were at the time of the shooting. In NO way could she have been holding the gun in a suicide pose so as to have her thumbnail chip by the exiting of the bullett from the gun. For her thumbnail to chip by the bullett her hands would have to have been upwards trying to push the gun away from her face, while someone else (PS) had their hand/finger on the trigger. That lil chip tells a HUGE tale, thats why it shouldnt be discounted. The fact that the defense didnt turn over this item and possibly destroyed it is horrible as well as a violation of discovery laws and possibly crimminal for tampering with a crime scene.

I honestly believe Sara Kaplan more then Henry Lee or Pavelic in the missing white item issue. Those who were here for PS1 may remember one poster enlarged the lil white thing photo and the missing nail piece from Lana and to ME they seemed to match up.

If it was soooooo harmless why didnt the defense hand it over? Obviously someone in the defense knew or they couldnt have taken a picture of the item....

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder [/*]


They didn't hand it over, because it wasn't harmless at all, exactly as you say. Unfortunately, with all the conflicting stories there isn't any action that can be taken, outside of Judge Fidler taking the actions he did. It's too bad.

As far as the photos go, Henry Lee took those pictures himself. He said so at the evidentiary hearing.

LKB giving Kaplan an out by allowing her to draw a picture that greatly exaggerated the size, after she had stated that if was the size of the end of her own nail, was ridiculous.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kennedy06
!! So I come inside to look something up about a plant. I scroll down my favorites, I have lots of them, and suddenly I see this name (!) I don't remember seeing this before. I thought what would I have saved from that name. I clicked it LOL guess what it was..........

A picture!

http://www.billpavelic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/spector-foyer-photo.JPG

JMO

(I guess with our archives having vanished we should save our links!) [/*]

Thanks Kennedy! Just looky who is standing on the stairs with a flashlight. That guy Pavelic said never came into the house.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Thanks Kennedy! Just looky who is standing on the stairs with a flashlight. That guy Pavelic said never came into the house. [/*]


yes yes yes...interesting isn't it? Pavelic never came into the house! DUH!

jmo

J

[Jayne]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GPSpector
Jayne :seeya: , you might want to clear out your In Box as well as your Sent Box if you are going to PM people. It's a bit hard to reply if your Mail Box is full. ;)

It is this very problem that I hate PM'ing :( [/*][/QUOTE

OK..sorry...usually I don't get mail unless it's bills!

done..

J

[Jayne]

Henry? Henry Lee (Aldrich)? where are you?

(sorry..couldn't resist)

:)

J

[Jayne]

WoooHooo..it all gets better..

just saw Pavelic's newest internet site...

that photo..YEP it was Stan White on the steps..

Kaplan may well have been mistaken..but Pavelic wasn't..nor was Stan White..

Phewww..I thought that from a year ago..that Stan White was there...

NOW..no Wonder he saw that fingernail chip...

How dumb is Pavelic??

He went online on an interview on TV...putting White right there?

Duh...White testified that he thought it was a chip from a fingernail..

then it miraculously disappeared...and then here is Pavelic in his internet site...making or trying to make White to be a ****e..

what's up with that?

He was the patsy...still say so..and an "outsider"...Stan White wasn't in their "troupe".

And the poor law school kid (or wannabe??)?

who cares if Shapiro didn't pay the kid...sure he'd be pissed..who wouldn't be..but if HE wanted to be a lawyer..unless he's incredibly stupid..he wouldn't have spoken up like he did were it not true.

Man...brings up memories..

They eat their own kind...that's how I think of Bill Pavelic...

sorry to say..

jmo

j

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Searching
Thanks for your post. As you can see I did some abbreviating. IMO the bottom line remains the same. How the weapon ended up in her mouth is still presumptive and open to speculation. I agree thats a big "whodunnit". DNA on the weapon doesn't prove he put the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. Since he owned the weapon I would expect his DNA to be found. Your last statement sounds more likie a civil case arguement IMO. But anyway thank goodness for America and the right to deisagree.:patriot: [/*]

Since I do not like debating with "Baiters", I'll make my questions simple.

Since you do not want to believe he put the gun in her mouth, what proof or evidence have you heard or seen during the last trial, that would lead us to believe she committed suicide?

He is charged with 2nd Degree Murder. That charge includes the possibility of it being an accident that he took part in and since you do not feel he should be charged with 2nd Degree Murder, that's fine but if it was no accident, that involved him in any way, what do you think happened before and after the gun went off?

A true "Baiter" would just find someway to avoid a clear answer and provide no links to back up their proof.

I think a lot of people here are interested on where you really stand. If you are not a "Baiter", then I look forward to your answers.

[Land Shark®]

Well said. :cool:

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Well said. :cool: [/*]

I'll second that. Very well said.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Searching
Thanks for your post. As you can see I did some abbreviating. IMO the bottom line remains the same. How the weapon ended up in her mouth is still presumptive and open to speculation. I agree thats a big "whodunnit". DNA on the weapon doesn't prove he put the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger. Since he owned the weapon I would expect his DNA to be found. Your last statement sounds more likie a civil case arguement IMO. But anyway thank goodness for America and the right to deisagree.:patriot: [/*]

I get your comment on civil..true...but it's also criminal manslaughter. Fine line..in some ways between torts and criminal actions...when it is that "reckless disregard" (it's in the penal code in CA) and gross negligence (also in the Penal Code in CA)...and as well..in tort (common) law.

I agree with you..the DNA doesn't prove Lana shot herself..not at all..what it does prove is that she was shot in the mouth and the back spatter/splatter placed her DNA on the TIPS of the bullets in the chambers of that gun. You're right..it does not prove he put the gun in her mouth.

What I found unbelieveable in PS1 was that LKB was claiming Lana's DNA on the bullets proved she loaded it??!! Unbelieveable. Linda was either shooting from the hip or terribly mixed up in her opening statements. One doesn't Load a gun that way...it's from the backside...and there is no one's DNA there..which I'd say pretty much clears Lana from having loaded it..if in a frenzy to do herself in. IMO..it was sanitarially loaded...either with latex gloves (like those found in PS's upstairs..near the bullets that matched those in the gun) or somewhere else (where would Lana find those kind of bullets that miraculously showed up in boxes in PS's upstairs? as well as loaded in other guns of his there?). Sure...there's an argument...Lana found the gun..went upstairs..found latex gloves and bullets..and loaded the gun then went downstairs (??) and sat down and shot herself? GMAB...no way.

that's about it...to my view of that DNA.

jmo

J


From your post..I don't think you are disagreeing at all.
If you are...I don't get it. I understand your mention and thinking it as a civil tort. But..if you read the criminal code..you'll find that same language in "manslaughter" in most states. And in Murder 2 or 3..in some other states..reckless disregard for human life....very much like Road Rage....or controlling a person one doesn't want to depart from one's home...if not outright "malice implied"..reckless disregard in a very insane way.

That said..PS is at least guilty..in the civil sense of a very Bad Tort...against the person. And...of voluntary manslaughter, also, at the least. This trial will determine if his actions are found legally founded in M2...or otherwise..if they give or have that option.

[True2Blues]

Jayne, LKB was lying, quite frankly. Twisting things to suit herself, making false claims, even though she had to have known what she was saying wasn't supported by the mere presence of DNA.

The Defense claimed her as a Forensic attorney more than once, even though her lack of knowledge of the subject showed in her questioning.

There was no proof that Lana loaded that gun. Her DNA was on the bullets from her blood spattering the gun and getting into the open areas of the cylinder when she was shot.

To be honest with you, I thought the defense in PS1 crossed over the line between creative possibilities and outright lies, more than once.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues
Jayne, LKB was lying, quite frankly. Twisting things to suit herself, making false claims, even though she had to have known what she was saying wasn't supported by the mere presence of DNA.

The Defense claimed her as a Forensic attorney more than once, even though her lack of knowledge of the subject showed in her questioning.

There was no proof that Lana loaded that gun. Her DNA was on the bullets from her blood spattering the gun and getting into the open areas of the cylinder when she was shot.

To be honest with you, I thought the defense in PS1 crossed over the line between creative possibilities and outright lies, more than once. [/*]

ME TOO, True! Was just showing or trying to some deference to a fellow female attorney...who knows NADA about guns...or..as you say..Pretended to not know and twist it backa...wards.

That just Blew Me Away..when I listened to her diatribe on that DNA on the bullet thing...then got Mortie and our dear departed..Bill...in on the gun, bullet, etc. issues. If she is a forensic expert...she made one of the lamest mistakes ever...on that bullet/dna thing. My kid knew better...and he was a mere teen...(been taught gun safety, etc. from an "expert"...not LKB! :) ) After that moment..I didn't trust one thing that came out of her mouth in defending PS. I might have otherwise, because I think she was the REAL MAIN attorney in that group..hand holding..etc. as well.

I'd bet Cutler was holding back coughs at that point. I know most on here don't like him at all...but I happen to give him a lot of credence and outside the courtroom, he's a decent person..imo.

I don't know HOW Dixon and Jackson held up through that..they must have been pinching each other's knees under the table.

THAT..and the "gun powder" demo with a DIFFERENT TYPE OF GUN...and then having PS stand up and mimic holding a gun...MAN..WHAT WERE they THINKING? It would have been a GUILTY just based on that, I'd think...but there were other factors...those EXPERTS..who may as well have been testifying for a circus.

Not saying they were all bad..but DiMaio and Spitz (?sp?)...dementia in the making. Baden...money in the making and he couldn't define "conflict of interest"?..wasn't that it? or was it another appro pro term?

gheesh...what do you think we'll see this time?

I hear the lady...for the prosecution H???? will be up again. Good thing. IMO she's a typical CA type of professional..laid back..but honest to the hilt...

Prosecution better get some really good ballistics people onhand I think.

And..if Lana is "on trial", then AJ can bring in Donna..the sister...friends (I mean Real Friends)..the "tender" at the HOB...a myraid of witnesses who can prove that Lana had her wits about her and wasn't in the Mood to kill herself that night.

DeSousa...someone should make a statue of that guy...for all he risked, he's a hero, in a sense.

I have a gut feeling that someone is going to come out of the woodwork this time...maybe this Kemper gal (is that the name?)..but I think someone else..and maybe the prosecution will put in the police reports this time....force or almost force PS to the stand to "esplain". (Cutler can laugh in the background....since he was cut off at the knees last time!)

just a gut feeling fantasy, I suppose.

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
How strange? LKB was stating her opinion and the opinions of the experts the defense hired and that some how translates into lying. Following your convoluted logic it is only reasonable to assume that the ME, it's staff and police are also lying. We know the police are allowed to lie when conducting an investigation, having been given permission by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore by extension the ME and related staff could also being lying since they work hand in glove with the police. :) [/*]

LKB claimed that what she was stating in her opening and closing, was FACT. You use that word a lot, so you should know what it means. Not opinion, but proven fact. The problem is, it wasn't. Not according to evidence presented by either side.

You may find that acceptable, I don't.

As far as what the police are allowed to do while questioning suspects during an investigation, that's a different matter altogether. When under oath in a court of law, the police must then tell the truth. That means admitting to any lies they told a suspect.

Despite the popular public idea that Defense attorneys are allowed to knowingly lie, they aren't. Defense attorneys have to conform to a set of ethics, just like any other attorney. They are not allowed to knowing lie or to knowingly allow a witness to commit perjury.

To state that ANYONE is allowed to lie under oath in a court of law is ridiculous.

The ME and the science and forensic people are hired to do the work they are qualified for. Work that involves scientific testing and expertise in specific fields related to the physical evidence in a case, not questioning suspects. I would hope you know that, though perhaps you don't.

[Jayne]

LKB. I don't think she Deliberately lied. I think she twisted the truth. An opening statement is not evidence as we all know...it's a party's version of the case...what they intend to present, to prove and their "conclusion" ..i.e. providing a case to prove the defendant not guilty.

I think LKB was either "caught up in the moment" in her opening or else she made a big mistake with that DNA spiel. The gun firing/powder display, I do think was a "crafty" attempt on the defense to attempt to show evidence much more "harsh" than was the actual truth, yet they put on experts who "backed it up" whether it was a fact or not, in actuality. She didn't actually "lie"..she just didn't tell it all like it was...if I remember correctly..she said Lana's DNA was on the bullets...then almost immediately went on in the opening to Suggest that Lana had loaded the gun...making a logical ? conclusion that her DNA was on the bullets due to having loaded the gun. That's what I took as a "lie"..and maybe LKB really believed it? I couldn't believe it...she was a forensic expert attorney...how could she make that "mistake"? Then again..maybe her expertise was blood spatter, again if I recall correctly. Did it mislead the jury? Probably..until it was later proven just where that DNA was located and how it got there. A juror then would either disbelieve the defense and wonder how could they make such an error...or they would forgive the attorney for the mistake, figuring it wasn't an outright "lie" but a defense tactic. Or maybe..since what they heard at first impression stuck in their minds..no matter how the DNA was later presented..that first impression would hold - Lana Must have loaded that gun..even though the DNA was on the bullet tips. Cutler should have handled that part in opening - he's had enough experience with ballistics and such and could make a bazooka look like a water pistol? without mis-stating the evidence/facts. I still think..at that moment in LKB's opening, she knew well that those bullets were PS's and that the gun was as well. She had to find a way to put the bullets in Lana's fingers - as to loading it - and she just got "caught up" with that DNA, that was on the tips. Surely she couldn't have thought one loaded a gun that way, unless it were one from the civil war era..packing the powder..the ball...rifle-musket. So...the way she presented it surely did sound like a "lie"..but it was "twisting" the facts...to imply that Lana loaded that gun.

Don't know if that makes any sense. So, defense attorneys can twist the truth or muddy the waters with opening statements and in producing witnesses and experts with their versions of the evidence or facts. As long as they follow the Bar's ethics, they are doing their job. So, although I agree it was "lying" - it wasn't the type of lying most of us think of as real lying. It was deceptive, but legally acceptable..to a degree. I, however, found it difficult to listen and give credibility to a lot of the evidence presented after that opening..that gun demo...and at least the two experts. Baden (the husband) had that "aha moment" which was embarrassing, I think. I think PS1 trial got so convoluted that the defense was left to backtrack as the theories were getting out of hand, in a way. Although I thought then (and still sort of do) that the prosecution could have and probably should have presented some "alternatives" in how it may have gone down that night, my thoughts are that they didn't..so they had a solid..one way street and weren't swerving all over the place like the defense seemed to do often (although I think the defense did a good job in many instances).

I think it is more difficult for defense attorneys to be flexible yet within the ethics requirements..they can push the envelope, but only so far, they don't have to turn over everything they have unless it falls in certain parameters. They do not have to put their client on the stand..even if s/he's lying. But..they can't stop him or her if s/he really wants to take the stand. I have an old friend who has worked as a criminal defense attorney for years and had a very media ridden case not just back in the boonies where it happened but in the nation, or so I think (TruTV has an accounting of it..very very gruesome). His defendant insisted on taking the stand..and got the death penalty. My friend.."cried" at the attorney's table as the defendant testified. It's no picnic being a defense attorney. (not being a prosecutor either..lots of threats.)

When LKB became ill towards the end of the trial, at first I figured it was a defense "ploy" and maybe it sort of was, but I tend to believe she truly was getting "ill" from the stressful situation on the defense team and PS's seemingly full and sole reliance on her to "save him". Thankfully, he didn't treat her with disrespect or go after her in a lawsuit. She certainly paid her dues on that trial, IMO.

jmo

j

[Spectorfan8]

Does anyone know the reason for the hearing on Aug. 14, 2008?

I was just wondering. :shrug:

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
Does anyone know the reason for the hearing on Aug. 14, 2008?

I was just wondering. :shrug: [/*]

Me, too. Have no idea.

That's next Thursday..dang. Why can't they have court on Saturdays and Sundays like NYC?! (OK..it's only arraignments...but I was throwing in a "deceptive" plea!)

I'd guess it has more to do with what went down a week ago. Motions to exclude witnesses or evidence or whatever..or motions to include. That's about all it could be..but what exactly? dunno.

Or..are they attempting to be bringing on a New Defense Attorney into the corral?

just a thought.

jmo

J

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Jayne


Me, too. Have no idea.

That's next Thursday..dang. Why can't they have court on Saturdays and Sundays like NYC?! (OK..it's only arraignments...but I was throwing in a "deceptive" plea!)

I'd guess it has more to do with what went down a week ago. Motions to exclude witnesses or evidence or whatever..or motions to include. That's about all it could be..but what exactly? dunno.

Or..are they attempting to be bringing on a New Defense Attorney into the corral?

just a thought.

jmo

J [/*]

I was thinking it might be a new atty. Then again, you never know.
Thanks!!;)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


I was thinking it might be a new atty. Then again, you never know.
Thanks!!;) [/*]

GMTA...whether we are correct or not! An out of state attorney? Get the court's approval? Hmmm...NAH..it's not Cutler...no way. But I wonder if they bring in a non-CA bulldog. OR..OMG..competency to stand trial? Never would Phil allow that..although it's a possibility? Could delay it a bit.

If I had money...I'd almost wager on it - the new attorney, that is...NAH...I'd rather have a vacation!

How about you?

:)

J

[True2Blues]

Hi Jayne, actually the words LKB used in her opening were "The Evidence will prove" and then went on to list all of the things the "evidence" would prove, beyond a doubt.

As for the DNA on the bullets, she claimed that the evidence would prove that she had loaded the gun. That was only one of several things she said would be proven that weren't. Remember Alan Jackson's board with all the things she promised would be proven on it? The one he used a red marker to X off all the things that weren't as she had claimed.

I don't believe that it was over excitement or anything else. She knew what she was saying. She's been a trial attorney too long not to know better, even if she doesn't do better. That's just my opinion, but there it is. :)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Me, too. Have no idea.

That's next Thursday..dang. Why can't they have court on Saturdays and Sundays like NYC?! (OK..it's only arraignments...but I was throwing in a "deceptive" plea!)

I'd guess it has more to do with what went down a week ago. Motions to exclude witnesses or evidence or whatever..or motions to include. That's about all it could be..but what exactly? dunno.

Or..are they attempting to be bringing on a New Defense Attorney into the corral?

just a thought.

jmo

J [/*]

The articles said that the Aug. 14th hearing would address the PBA witnesses and The defense objection to Dr. Pena testifying. I think the question of a new PBA witness will be discussed too, provided the Judge allows those witnesses.

There could be more than just that, but that's what was reported.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues
Hi Jayne, actually the words LKB used in her opening were "The Evidence will prove" and then went on to list all of the things the "evidence" would prove, beyond a doubt.

As for the DNA on the bullets, she claimed that the evidence would prove that she had loaded the gun. That was only one of several things she said would be proven that weren't. Remember Alan Jackson's board with all the things she promised would be proven on it? The one he used a red marker to X off all the things that weren't as she had claimed.

I don't believe that it was over excitement or anything else. She knew what she was saying. She's been a trial attorney too long not to know better, even if she doesn't do better. That's just my opinion, but there it is. :) [/*]

Hey..True. Like I posted before...I thought that as well...and still do..I'm just giving her some deference as a mutual female attorney (female doesn't matter..but I just threw it in there).

I think...as you and I seem to agree..but on different ways...she Knew she was Mis-stating the DNA...but she was "caught up"..you know..that lie but don't lie thing. Believe me, I've seen it..and I could have been taken in by it too..but my dad...bless his soul..always said to me..."J...never say anything you can't back up"..and he was no lawyer...just a very smart simple man.

Never in my career have I ever said something I couldn't back up...honestly...that's why those statements from LKB threw me for a loop. Was she that unaware? I still give it that possibility...as I know what it is like to be "up there"..arguing..or stating a case...and it just kind of "takes you over". Indeed..she's been a trial attorney MUCH longer than I was and she should know better.

Maybe she didn't. And, if that's the case...she shouldn't be an expert forensic attorney, IMO. Guns are the easiest cases to prove and disprove. You have ballistics (as a prosecutor) backing you up...you have scientific evidence..and common sense.

That is why, because my background was much of guns..you don't make that mistake...if you know anything about guns. SURE...his gun was "different"...but it wasn't that different...you load a revolver from the Butt/Handle side..not the front.

I'm making too big an issue of this, I guess. But..what I mean to say is...she didn't have her facts straight..or she got "lost" in her opening. Either way..it was wrong...but I still don't see it as a "lie" per se. But, definitely a deception. (AS IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE..right?) I'm still giving her the benefit of the doubt..that it was a fly off her mouth...and then she caught it..midstream..or midtrial. Shamefully so, IMO, but the defense did make up for that. They then turned it into..a myriad of other ways that bullet ended up in Lana's spinal column...without saying she actually loaded the gun. Ridiculous. Under the circumstances..NOT so ridiculous had she been found dead in her own house with a gun in her hand or nearby..with no connection to PS.

jmo

respectfully...as you know I do respect yours and everyone's opinions

J

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


The articles said that the Aug. 14th hearing would address the PBA witnesses and The defense objection to Dr. Pena testifying. I think the question of a new PBA witness will be discussed too, provided the Judge allows those witnesses.

There could be more than just that, but that's what was reported. [/*]

Thanks..

Dr. Pena? well...he was a bit of an inspector smart kind of guy...

he didn't have his facts or evidence in order...but he is who he is..and he did what he did..I just didn't like his testimony...he was wishy washy and didn't follow protocol..too bad...Or maybe I'm not remembering correctly. If the fact that he couldn't say one thing over the other..then that's the facts. Nothing against him..he's doing his job. If he screwed up...then..that's another. I found him to be a weak witness...only that..a weak witness. Too Bad, IMO. He seemed very honest...but I didn't see a lot of "sticking to the facts" or a "sanitarily clean examination" of the evidence. Still...he pretty muich laid it out...lana did not die at her own hands, alone..if at all. He was all science..which he should be..and that's the frustrating thing in trials like this...science is science..and sciences don't always agree.

I'm sure he'll come back on...but thankfully, I don't have to listen to his testimony..he was boring...unassertive..IMO. I frankly think he didn't do his job correctly...else...PS1 would not be PS2. Just my opinion.


I would guess he has to come in...with the medical examination and all. Who else could the prosecution have?

Why the defense is objecting to Pena?

the new PBA witness..is that the new "girl" Kempler..or whatever her name is?

Well..guess it's not a new attorney...that was my best guess, but wrong guess...but I'd say..it might come up in the future..depending on August 14th.

[True2Blues]

I made a mistake earlier and I need to correct myself.

What LKB said about the DNA on the bullet in her opening was, "Science may have suggested that she loaded the gun."

Which says that LKB is most definitely aware that she isn't allowed to tell lies.

I finally found a transcription of some of her opening on "The Darwin Exception". LKB says that the science proves that PS is innocent and that the Government is "selling you a story".

Along with all of her claims that science would show Spector factually innocent, she misstated things AJ said during his openings.

She goes on to say that the science will show PS didn't hold the gun, shoot the gun. Science will prove, according to LKB, that the wound was self inflicted.

She gives her 10 scientific points that will be proven, none of which were.

1. The location of the wound and bullet path show self inflicted.

Wrong. Those things do not prove that the gunshot was self inflicted. In fact the wound was much more centered than most suicides are, since hands must bend in to shoot oneself in the mouth.

2. Blood Spatter and distribution will show that PS didn't shoot the gun. That he was too far away to do so.

Wrong. Henry Lee didn't testify that he could prove blood spatter travels up to 7 feet from a gunshot. Even DiMaio's book says three to 4 feet, despite the claims of "out of Context".

Not to mention the fact that the blood spatter stops above Lana's knees. Also over looking the fact that only the initial shot is where the spray comes from, it's not continual. Lana wasn't shot in an artery, and there was a gun in her mouth blocking the path of the blood, which would have filled her mouth. Not to mention her hands trying to pull the gun out, and PS's, which he conveniently had an opportunity to wash.

3. That the gunshot would first blow out blood and then brain tissue. Lana was covered with it, PS wasn't.

Wrong, the example LKB made so much of was the left sleeve of the jacket. That was proven to have been from a purge that occurred when the body was was put on the examining table. Which was written in the notes of the person who was there.

Also, there is that little fact that Lana was not shot in the brain, her cerebral cortex was severed.

4.Gunshot residue was on Lana and not on Ps, so he didn't shoot.

Wrong. GSR can be wiped or washed off, and dead people do not have the option of getting up and washing their hands.

All GSR proves is that someone was close to a gun when it was fired. It's absence doesn't prove anything.

5. The gases from the gunshot blew Lana's teeth out, not the forcing of the gun into her mouth. The fact that PS didn't have dental residue on him proves he's innocent.

Wrong. All of her teeth would have blown out if that were case, besides there was crushed dental residue embedded in the site. That had to be force the gases wouldn't do that.

LKB claimed the tooth pieces on the stairs were blown over there by gasses. There was no proof that gas off of a gunshot is that powerful. More likely they fell off of PS jacket.

6. DNA on the bullets.

Wrong. As Jayne said, wrong place on the bullets. Besides it was tested and proven to be blood, so if she wasn't bleeding when she loaded the gun, it didn't happen.

7. Lana was bigger than PS and could have disarmed him.

Wrong and ridiculous.

8.Blood Clotting on diaper proves PS rendered aid.

Wrong. It means he wiped her face, it doesn't prove why. Clean up is as likely as anything else.

9. Blood on the gun wasn't wiped off to cover up the crime, it got on there by being kicked across the Carpet.

Wrong. Photos show the gun wasn't moved, the blood was embedded in every crack and cranny, meaning it was pressed in somehow. Either someone pressed the gun into the carpet and slid around on it, or PS wiped it. Which is more likely? (this may also have been an attempt to explain why the gun was on the wrong side.)

10. Lana's broken acrylic nail proves she fired the gun with her thumb.

Wrong. A broken nail proves someone broke a nail, it doesn't prove how.


LKB claimed all of this would be proven by science. None of it was.

Of course it's her job to do that, I don't dispute that. The questionable things were in closings. IMO

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


Thanks..

Dr. Pena? well...he was a bit of an inspector smart kind of guy...

he didn't have his facts or evidence in order...but he is who he is..and he did what he did..I just didn't like his testimony...he was wishy washy and didn't follow protocol..too bad...Or maybe I'm not remembering correctly. If the fact that he couldn't say one thing over the other..then that's the facts. Nothing against him..he's doing his job. If he screwed up...then..that's another. I found him to be a weak witness...only that..a weak witness. Too Bad, IMO. He seemed very honest...but I didn't see a lot of "sticking to the facts" or a "sanitarily clean examination" of the evidence. Still...he pretty muich laid it out...lana did not die at her own hands, alone..if at all. He was all science..which he should be..and that's the frustrating thing in trials like this...science is science..and sciences don't always agree.

I'm sure he'll come back on...but thankfully, I don't have to listen to his testimony..he was boring...unassertive..IMO. I frankly think he didn't do his job correctly...else...PS1 would not be PS2. Just my opinion.


I would guess he has to come in...with the medical examination and all. Who else could the prosecution have?

Why the defense is objecting to Pena?

the new PBA witness..is that the new "girl" Kempler..or whatever her name is?

Well..guess it's not a new attorney...that was my best guess, but wrong guess...but I'd say..it might come up in the future..depending on August 14th. [/*]

They are objecting to Pena, because they claim he isn't allowed to call Lana's death a homicide. Despite the fact that it is the job of the ME to name the manner of death.

It seems to go back to the fact that he didn't do a psychological autopsy.

The motions the Defense filed are on the Court Document sight, if you have time to read them. They don't have some of the newer ones on yet, but the one about Pena, Herold and Rentaria is on there.

The Judge did say that Steve Rentaria and Lynn Herold could testify.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


They are objecting to Pena, because they claim he isn't allowed to call Lana's death a homicide. Despite the fact that it is the job of the ME to name the manner of death.

It seems to go back to the fact that he didn't do a psychological autopsy.

The motions the Defense filed are on the Court Document sight, if you have time to read them. They don't have some of the newer ones on yet, but the one about Pena, Herold and Rentaria is on there.

The Judge did say that Steve Rentaria and Lynn Herold could testify.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233& [/*]

yeah yeah...ridiculous, isn't it? He's an "expert"..his opinion should count. Not a homicide..then Not a homicide in HIS opinion. I'm sure they'll have plenty of experts to say otherwise. See if the prosecution even dare try to exclude them, right?

Rentaria..THANKS..forgot his name. Herold...great...she was the - as I call it - the hippie, smart, laid back, ain't gonna take no S*** witness..but in a really nice way. I loved her "comebacks" and I truly believe they were Honest...not some Ego Trip.

Rentaria..remind me...was that the ballistics expert?

jmo

j

I'll try to get those documents..as long as they are html, it'll probably work. If PDF..I can't access them.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
Does anyone know the reason for the hearing on Aug. 14, 2008?

I was just wondering. :shrug: [/*]

The hearing on the 14th is for the motions that didn't get taken care of at the last one.

This is quoted from Sprocket's blog about the hearing on July 29th:
"Several motions were put over to August 14th at 1:30 pm, specifically, the defense motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Pena, as well as the admissibility of all six of the 1101(*), "prior bad acts" witnesses."
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/07/phil-spector-pretrial-hearing-july-29th.html

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne


yeah yeah...ridiculous, isn't it? He's an "expert"..his opinion should count. Not a homicide..then Not a homicide in HIS opinion. I'm sure they'll have plenty of experts to say otherwise. See if the prosecution even dare try to exclude them, right?

Rentaria..THANKS..forgot his name. Herold...great...she was the - as I call it - the hippie, smart, laid back, ain't gonna take no S*** witness..but in a really nice way. I loved her "comebacks" and I truly believe they were Honest...not some Ego Trip.

Rentaria..remind me...was that the ballistics expert?

jmo

j

I'll try to get those documents..as long as they are html, it'll probably work. If PDF..I can't access them. [/*]

Rentaria did the luminol tests. James Carroll was a firearms expert who testified about the gun. I don't remember who testified to ballistics.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Anakerie


The hearing on the 14th is for the motions that didn't get taken care of at the last one.

This is quoted from Sprocket's blog about the hearing on July 29th:
"Several motions were put over to August 14th at 1:30 pm, specifically, the defense motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Pena, as well as the admissibility of all six of the 1101(*), "prior bad acts" witnesses."
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/07/phil-spector-pretrial-hearing-july-29th.html [/*]


Thank you, I do not read Sprocket's blog, but I do thank you.:)

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Searching
Unbelievable!!!! Your lack of understanding of the American Judical System and how it works in the real world is so tragically sad that it is beyond being hilarious IMO.:( Where did you get that off the wall statement about the publics preception that defense attys are allowed to lie. Sorry, but I will have to give you a LOL on that one. Who stated that "ANYONE is allowed to lie under oath". I never posted any such statement and I have not seen it posted by anyone. BTW has LKB ever been brought up on charges of ethic violations or perjury. Since her lying was so obvious to you, I'm surprised that hasn't happened. Aren't you? I do not believe she is licensed in Ca. and only appeared as what some call guest council. What do think? Would the Ca. Ethic Comt. go after her or does a complaint have to be filed where she is licensed to practice. Sounds like a real conundrum IMO. [/*]


No I am not at all surprised that she hasn't been brought up on charges. It takes one heck of a lot for that to happen.

I will rely on other sources besides you for information on how the Judicial system works.

As for the public perception of what Defense attorney are supposed to do, laugh all you want. Then, if you have time, try going to this place called "In Session", you might have heard of it. Get on their message boards when a trial is on and look at the comments.

Depending on the claims made by the defense, you will often find one or more posters saying that smoke and mirrors, and lying, are the job of the defense attorney. These people are part of the public, as it is a public message board. That is a very common perception there, as well as other places.

As for the rest of the post, sorry you can't understand it.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


What you post could be the best argument for a professional jury. Imo, the common perception among these boards is skewed, and many times, without any logic. It's always one-sided for guilty even before the trial starts. I often wonder how many innocent people are sitting in prison due to the fact that juries are made up of people just like the posters on this board. [/*]

As opposed to those who claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them has a skewed perception, despite the fact that they truly have no idea how others have come to their decision?

[Land Shark®]

It always cracks me up when one poster uses another nic to reply to their first nic. :cool:

:seeya:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
It always cracks me up when one poster uses another nic to reply to their first nic. :cool:

:seeya: [/*]

:lol:

so it isn't only me then.

[GPSpector]

Nope, I too think it's humorous. Especially looking at the fast growing count without the post. ?WudScoobyDo went from 12 up to 23 in just one post. I'm guessing this new poster is posting all over the place just to inflate the count so as not to look too new Although I'll admit this new one did register 7/28/08:rolleyes:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo

snipped

You shouldn't assume that I am female.

No assumption here.

Don't concern yourself with what others think. :cool:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


What you post could be the best argument for a professional jury. Imo, the common perception among these boards is skewed, and many times, without any logic. It's always one-sided for guilty even before the trial starts. I often wonder how many innocent people are sitting in prison due to the fact that juries are made up of people just like the posters on this board. [/*]

I watched 12 Angry Men, I believe in the work of Professor Protess and his class (classes). I don't want anyone to be found guilty of a crime the evidence shows they didn't commit. I have had the benefit of more information than the actual jurors of PS1 so my view can be a bit skewed at times as you say but, the facts or evidence presented at trial are still the same. JMO

[vonna]

Originally posted by Searching
Unbelievable!!!! Your lack of understanding of the American Judical System and how it works in the real world is so tragically sad that it is beyond being hilarious IMO.:( Where did you get that off the wall statement about the publics preception that defense attys are allowed to lie. Sorry, but I will have to give you a LOL on that one. Who stated that "ANYONE is allowed to lie under oath". I never posted any such statement and I have not seen it posted by anyone. BTW has LKB ever been brought up on charges of ethic violations or perjury. Since her lying was so obvious to you, I'm surprised that hasn't happened. Aren't you? I do not believe she is licensed in Ca. and only appeared as what some call guest council. What do think? Would the Ca. Ethic Comt. go after her or does a complaint have to be filed where she is licensed to practice. Sounds like a real conundrum IMO. [/*]

Once again, I totally disagree with your conclusions. Guess our heads just don't work alike.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


What? You aren't interested in the fashion ut oh's committed by the trial players? [/*]

Personally, no I do not. I am more interested in the actual trial. I could care less what everyone is wearing, everybody has to wear something.IMO
BTW, I see you are a new poster, so welcome to the boards.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


No GP. I am new, and have no concern what others think. I post as I see fit. No harm there, I hope. [/*]

I am in agreement with you here, and I am a not guilty person. I have been posting here a long time with these guys. They are the posters that would vote guilty, however, I am still able to post with no problems, no harm. There are some great posters here. JMO :)

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Searching
Excuse me for butting in but what you may not be understanding is that it is vey difficult for many posters on this board to comprehend that there are other posters that do not agree with them. It appears to me that after having exhausted their bag of complaints, cherry picking and name calling they are left with accusing some one of posting with more than one nic. It's sort of like their last life line. That's my opinion anyway. I applaud your post and your sense of fairness. :patriot: [/*]


Great post. :beer:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
Ok, I'll bite. What info do you have that the jurors in PS1 did not. So that there is no misuderstanding please tell how you were privy to this info and they were not. Thank You.:patriot:

Well Searching, people who watched the trial were privy to happenings inside the courtroom that the jurors were not privy to.

It happens in every televised trial.

Watch one. You'll see. :)

[Land Shark®]

And yes...

It is fact that I crack up everytime a poster uses another nic to reply to their first nic. :)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
Just as funny are posters that pretend to know what they are posting about.

snipped


I agree. Your third post on the Susan Lefevre thread is a prime example of a poster pretending to know what they are posting about.

Thanks for the reminder. :)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
: Then why are you posting it here?:rolleyes:

You brought it up.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


I wonder what happens to you when you go nuts posting with your own multiple nics.

From what I hear, you already know. :cool:

[Land Shark®]

Ooh.. maybe we'll see exactly what happens when a poster goes nuts posting with their multiple nics.

Looks like its happening now.

IMO.

[Spectorfan8]

I don't mean to interrupt, but Emuart is right, we are way off topic. This is what pm's are for.
Let's not cause Coldwater to shut us down, please.:)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

I asked the poster I was responding to if that was the source of their info.

snipped


You sure did. You edited your post to add 'Are you referring to court room procedures and testimony covered on TV but not in the jurys view' one minute after I replied to your post.

Good job. :)

IMO.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

In the absence of any response is it reasonable to assume you perhaps also agree with the VM charge as being the correct one.

snipped


Its never 'reasonable' to assume.

IMO.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
I don't mean to interrupt, but Emuart is right, we are way off topic. This is what pm's are for.
Let's not cause Coldwater to shut us down, please.:) [/*]

That is so true...

So when do we find out if PS 2.0 will be televised or not. Will that be something that JF will rule on sooner rather than closer to trial? To my knowledge, there haven't been any motions by either side to keep the cameras out. Does anyone have any ideas?:shrug:

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by gmiller


That is so true...

So when do we find out if PS 2.0 will be televised or not. Will that be something that JF will rule on sooner rather than closer to trial? To my knowledge, there haven't been any motions by either side to keep the cameras out. Does anyone have any ideas?:shrug:

I think it is a 50/50 chance of being televised.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


My guess is that it will NOT be televised. Judge Fidler learned his lesson with the last trial. Too many unnecessary interruptions, due to the coverage.

What 'unnecessary interruptions' are you referring to?

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


You know, bloggers. freaks, and such.

No. I don't know.

I thought you were referring to 'unnecessary interruptions' in the trial.

None of the examples you post above 'unnecessarily' interrupted the trial.

Now... a necessary interruption was indeed Rachelle's blog post.

Quite necessary to 'interrupt' a trial when someone close to the defendant posts on a blog that 'she hopes Judge Fidler would die.' Paraphrased.

I welcome those kind of necessary interruptions.

IMO.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by gmiller


That is so true...

So when do we find out if PS 2.0 will be televised or not. Will that be something that JF will rule on sooner rather than closer to trial? To my knowledge, there haven't been any motions by either side to keep the cameras out. Does anyone have any ideas?:shrug: [/*]

Sometimes that decision isn't made until right before the trial starts. There doesn't seem to be any specific time for it to be made, just whenever the Judge has time.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


Also I think many jurors are influenced by tv coverage. That can never be a good thing.

How could television coverage influence a jury that is instructed to avoid televison coverage, newspaper coverage, & the internet in general?

Answer?

It can't.

If you know of any juror misconduct in the first Spector trial relating to 'television coverage'... I'd love to hear about it.

My guess is you have nothing to back that up.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


How could television coverage influence a jury that is instructed to avoid televison coverage, newspaper coverage, & the internet in general?

Answer?

It can't.

If you know of any juror misconduct in the first Spector trial relating to 'television coverage'... I'd love to hear about it.

My guess is you have nothing to back that up. [/*]

As I recall, the Spector jury was very aware of the limitations. To the point that they reported to the Judge when Spector appeared on a local paper and a couple of them had seen the picture and headline.

No one had read the article, because they knew they weren't supposed to, but they did let the Judge know they had seen the front of the paper.

I believe that people who sit on a Jury take the responsibility very seriously, with very few exceptions.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by True2Blues


As I recall, the Spector jury was very aware of the limitations. To the point that they reported to the Judge when Spector appeared on a local paper and a couple of them had seen the picture and headline.

No one had read the article, because they knew they weren't supposed to, but they did let the Judge know they had seen the front of the paper.

I believe that people who sit on a Jury take the responsibility very seriously, with very few exceptions.

I remember that too.

And I agree 100% with your last statement.

One exception? Juror #10.

Obviously.

IMO.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


Answer: An instruction doesn't make it so.

If that's the case, please support your statement with proof of juror misconduct in the first Spector trial.

TIA.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

Let me be perfectly clear.

snipped

IMO.


I'll allow it. :)

But I have yet to see you be clear about anything.

Regardless of which nic you use.

IMO.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching
How ridiculous.

snipped


Not at all.

It looks to me like you're implying there was juror misconduct in the first Spector trial.

I'd be highly interested in seeing some proof.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Searching

snipped

Enough said on my part

snipped


One can only hope. :)

IMO.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo


Answer: An instruction doesn't make it so. [/*]


Maybe not to you, but it would to me and every other person I've ever spoken to about jury duty. It is a responsibility almost everyone takes very seriously. As it should be.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


I remember that too.

And I agree 100% with your last statement.

One exception? Juror #10.

Obviously.

IMO. [/*]


Yes, I agree about that. I think Juror #10 came into PS1 with an agenda of his own.

[CopperDog]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Yes, I agree about that. I think Juror #10 came into PS1 with an agenda of his own. [/*]

:seeya: Hope it's not too late to comment, but totally agree with you on #10. IMO, if it were not for him PS would be behind bars now, where he should be.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Yes, I agree about that. I think Juror #10 came into PS1 with an agenda of his own. [/*]

Do you think it might be possible that one or two jurors that voted guilty, might have had an agenda?
Some had to already know which way they were going to vote.

I am not arguing with you, there has been enough of that. MOO


SF8

[CopperDog]

Originally posted by Searching
I agree. But back to the PS trial. IMO there may not be any TV coverage for PS2. Why? Because the OJ trial may start in September. On the basis of name recognition alone OJ is more widely known. The OJ case is building momentum. The state has another defendant ready to flip on OJ. Most people did not even know who PS was. Beyond messg. boards and a handful of TV stations there seemed to be very little national interest. OJ is a completely different matter. IMO the PS case does not even make a blip on the public interest radar screen.:seeya: [/*]

ITA with you, I know in my own little world (:D ) when I would talk about the Spector trial, they would go WHO?
Now OJ is a different matter, so many know of him and would want to see what is happening. I think so many want to see him conficted, since he was found NG in killing Nicloe & Ron.