Phil Spector Debate and Discussion 2 [Archive] - Page 4

Spectorfan8

08-05-2008, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

It could be the case either way, in any trial. I don't think it was the case in PS1 for a couple of reasons.

One is that while the special jury instruction #3 was still in effect, the vote was 7-5. Not because they believed Spector innocent, but because they were following the limitations given in that instruction. Once it was removed the vote changed, but before that they were obviously willing to arrive at a different verdict.

The second reason, is that the other jurors who were willing to speak mentioned only the foreman as a person with whom they were having problems in deliberation.

A juror who is not willing to base their verdict on the evidence and the law is a bad thing, no matter which way they lean, as far as I'm concerned. [/*]

Was #9 in the original 7? I totally agree on jurors should base their verdict on the evidence.
I have been on jury duty, and some of the jurors honestly could have cared less. It disturbed their daily life, and their only interest was going home.

True2Blues

08-05-2008, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo

When I read your post, I can't help but to think of juror #9. He referred to himself as "the bully for justice". ha [/*]

The only place I ever saw him do that was on the CTV message boards, and that was in response to posters who called him a bully, because he would not change what he believed.

He also qualified that remark by saying something to the effect of, if not changing what he had come to believe was the truth made him a bully, then he was a bully. A bully for justice, as guilty was the verdict he believed to be just.

If no one had attacked him, he wouldn't have said it.

Spectorfan8

08-05-2008, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

The only place I ever saw him do that was on the CTV message boards, and that was in response to posters who called him a bully, because he would not change what he believed.

He also qualified that remark by saying something to the effect of, if not changing what he had come to believe was the truth made him a bully, then he was a bully. A bully for justice, as guilty was the verdict he believed to be just.

If no one had attacked him, he wouldn't have said it. [/*]

That is the same reason #10 was singled out. He wouldn't change what he believed. IMO

True2Blues

08-05-2008, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

Was #9 in the original 7? I totally agree on jurors should base their verdict on the evidence.
I have been on jury duty, and some of the jurors honestly could have cared less. It disturbed their daily life, and their only interest was going home. [/*]

Juror #9 said he was a Guilty from the beginning of deliberations.

True2Blues

08-05-2008, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

That is the same reason #10 was singled out. He wouldn't change what he believed. IMO [/*]

I didn't see #10 come on the boards and get attacked and called names, so I can't say.

The only information I have about #10 is what came from Jurors 9 and 12, who both said that 10 would not discuss and deliberate, refused to let other jurors see the Judge's jury instructions, and that he based his decision at least partially on the fact that his mother in law snooped through drawers, rather than the evidence, as required.

That along with his behavior at the press conference and on the phone with Ashleigh Banfield the next day gave me a different impression of him, but everyone has to make up their own mind.

Spectorfan8

08-05-2008, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

I didn't see #10 come on the boards and get attacked and called names, so I can't say.

The only information I have about #10 is what came from Jurors 9 and 12, who both said that 10 would not discuss and deliberate, refused to let other jurors see the Judge's jury instructions, and that he based his decision at least partially on the fact that his mother in law snooped through drawers, rather than the evidence, as required.

That along with his behavior at the press conference and on the phone with Ashleigh Banfield the next day gave me a different impression of him, but everyone has to make up their own mind. [/*]

If #10 was the problem, it was #9 and #12's responsibility to let the judge know. They did not, so they in a way helped the defense.IMO

Spectorfan8

08-05-2008, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

Juror #9 said he was a Guilty from the beginning of deliberations. [/*]

Right. He already knew going in how he would vote, nothing different from #10.

True2Blues

08-05-2008, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

If #10 was the problem, it was #9 and #12's responsibility to let the judge know. They did not, so they in a way helped the defense.IMO [/*]

That's all been gone over and over. Blame who you like, I hold #10 responsible for his own behavior. If he needed others to keep him in line, he should have told someone that at jury selection.

Jayne

08-05-2008, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo

Also I think many jurors are influenced by tv coverage. That can never be a good thing. [/*]

Do agree with that. Despite the warnings (when they're not sequestered) to not read a newspaper, or watch TV, or listen to their friends and family, or discuss "this case with anyone" including amongst themselves, common sense says it is going to happen..at least to some degree. Not every juror, despite how high integrity they have, in every case that is telivised and media ridden can avoid "overhearing" a comment or seeing a "flash by photo" if out in some restaurant (alone). Sequestering would be the best bet to avoid any of that. Sure..that juror or jurors could say they'd "ignore it" but that's pretty difficult to do. And, so too..some jurors no matter how well meaning and "sticking to the rules" can't help their "personal experiences" coming into the foray even though they fight to keep them out "if/when prejudicial".

Peers are peers..that jury composition. Some are engineers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, parents, grandparents, white and blue collar workers, farm workers, even. Jury picking is a tough thing and it doesn't make it a vacuum, even though it is supposed to be. Even if they didn't watch the TV, someone else probably did and let something "slip", or just the fact that it's televised gives a certain "aroma" to the trial atmosphere. And, curiosity can kill the juror/y. Even if only in the back of their minds and not through their ears. Televised? Must be crucial. Not televised...then not as paramount?

I'd like to be able to watch PS2 or at least catch up with the televised portions...but it might not happen. Eichmann I think was the first televised trial..but there was a Humanity Reason behind it. (not that murder isn't against humanity, but it was a Grave Situation..then there was the Texas case (cite escapes me right now). Maybe without the TV, things would move more quickly and without the attorneys being on Second Guard for the public display (maybe that's a good thing, though?).

It would be great to have someone able to attend the trial and report it "neutrally" even if of one bent or the other as to guilty, but be totally neutral in the Reporting. That's where I found last year..with the tV coverage..if not inside the courtroom at least the varied reporters, "we" did get people of one "side" and the "other". In all due respect, I think Beth Karas was the most "neutral" of all the reporters. I'm quite sure she was essentially pro pros, but she reported both sides and would comment on prosecutorial GoofUps..if I recall correctly. Most of it was commentary on the evidence and then on the attorneys producing it through witnesses. It wasn't a one sided report like the gals and guys in the morning shows. They were essentially having a "debate" in their reporting. Which is OK and it was entertaining. But if any of that slipped out to a juror? Doesn't matter if cameras are in the courtroom or not..the goings on inside the courtroom still make it to the media..TV and Newspapers..and people on the street.

Don't know what the fine balance would be, but I'd never want to see the witch trials come back...all Inside..No one knows anything until she drowns (innocent) or doesn't (guilty). (out there...but that was Our Justice System for many years..tragic. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press. It's a balancing act for a judge/court to make this decision.)

JMO

J

True2Blues

08-05-2008, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

Right. He already knew going in how he would vote, nothing different from #10. [/*]

I haven't seen any interviews with #10 that stated that, so I can't say. I know that #9 said the evidence convinced him PS was guilty, because he spoke publicly about it.

There were several press and TV people who would have liked to hear from #10, but as far as I have ever seen, he didn't accept. If you've seen interviews with him, then you've seen something a lot of other people would have been interested in.

Jayne

08-05-2008, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

OMG, I was 26!! I had to watch OJ every day at the office. This lady actually took NOTES, can you believe it?
The Phil Spector trial was the first one I have watched in awhile. I was transfixed to the TV. It was addicting. [/*]

OH..
Gheesh...you too Spectorfan? I'd just had given birth to my son..was home the entire time of the trial...actually didn't live far from Nicole's home. First went through the Riots of Rodney King..then the uproar over OJ. I moved that Fall before Simpson's murder in 1994, further up north and away from LA.

But..when that case hit the TV...I was there almost every day, watching and...YES, I believe it, I took notes...notebooks of them...kept them...took them across country...then shredded them when I moved back...didn't need that extra 10-20 pounds of "stuff". Actually during PS 1, I had about 10 notebooks of comments, entries, CA law. When I moved recently..they disappeared along with 5 other boxes of my belongings. So that..plus I lost the harddrive on my old computer..all that research is "gone".

I actually found PS1 more transfixing and addicting...is that what you meant?

jmo

J

GPSpector

08-06-2008, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Searching
Since you never responded I was courious if my post on where I stand was clear enough for you. In the absence of any response is it reasonable to assume you perhaps also agree with the VM charge as being the correct one. Not wishing to speculate on your position, what is it. I only ask in all fairness since you asked the same of me.:patriot: [/*]

I did not respond because I do not respond to those that are not serious about the conversation.

You obviously make comments just for the shear fun of getting a reaction. that was obvious with your response when it did not really answer my question.

You are quick to judge others on their opinions and yet you refuse to supply any facts as to how you came to yours.

You were very quick to admit that you do not know the legal system and yet say that the legal system is wrong.

I have no interest in playing your games.

If you can not convince me as to why you think my father should not be charged with 2nd Degree Murder than I have no choice but to accept those charges and to prepare myself for the possible outcome, as hard as it may be for me to hear. I do not give in to false hopes just because someone like you says others are wrong or the system is wrong. If you can not support your comment's, I am not interested.

I hope that was a clear enough responce.

GPSpector

08-06-2008, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Its never 'reasonable' to assume.

IMO. [/*]

Especially with me :D

Land Shark®

08-06-2008, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by GPSpector

Especially with me :D

True that. :)

Jayne

08-06-2008, 01:44 AM

Please don't get this thread shut down.

I'm guilty of writing "tomes" more or less..I admit to my guilt. I am guilty of that..and I'm sorry. I have to go on the 12 step program of "writing" or "spewing" my thoughts and opinions that I realize are often "overwhelming"..but it's a sort of therapy for me as well. I'm very much into the legalistics of this case, have been since last year.

But I'm not going to badger one poster or another..even if they "tick me off" in a sense or two..and few ever have, frankly. I respect anyone's opinion..I don't need links or anything else, it's simply an opinion, based on fact or supposition. We've all had plenty of supposition throughout this past trial.

I'm seeing some of PS1 coming back here shrouded. I don't mean posters..I mean the flavour of the whole thing. It was shut down more times than a light switch on a teenager's bedroom wall.

I don't know that anyone is "Baiting"..if so..then just Ignore it. I know it's difficult to do..especially if that post seems particulary "inviting" or "irritating".

Frankly, I have not seen one post be that "awful" but I've seen a lot of "battling back and forth" over..essentially Nothing that we didn't know already or wouldn't suspect someone to throw out there.

Sometimes agreeing to disagree (many of us do that) is the best way to go about it. Or simply saying nothing..in response...just let it go. (Sorry..but I see so much of this like a parent "arguing" with a teen! In whatever direction the argument is going.)

Squeaky Wheel...well..if you ignore it...it won't get the grease and it will stop "working"..or so I've been told. HEY..I've been "ignored" in my posts..and it was just OK..I was never trying to get a Rise..just a response, affirmation or something. But, if not..no big deal. Said my peace or piece and that was it.

I think there are posters here from both sides who have their own opinions..backed up by links or not..it's simply an opinion...based in fact or based in opinion..or "wishes". Doesn't really matter..does it?

It's fodder for the chewing and spewing..but not making this into a battle field. I would just hate to see these threads torn down for lack of self control.

It's getting so close to the first day of trial. Can't wait for it...see those "fashions"! (just kidding, frankly!) See those laptops in the courtroom. Get those Blogs...almost before the last word is spewed in the courtroom. See PS and see his defense team and the prosecution team..and see..how much Control posters can have on this board.

Speak your peace...I ask you...but don't get these threads shut down. This is a thread that both sides/opinions should be able to post their ideas..but when it turns into a Cold War, that's just horrible, IMO.

That's my plea...innocent..until proven guilty!

:)

jmo

J

GPSpector

08-06-2008, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

If #10 was the problem, it was #9 and #12's responsibility to let the judge know. They did not, so they in a way helped the defense.IMO [/*]

Actually, it was the responsibility of each and every Juror to stand up and say something, except it was stated after the trial that none of the Juror's were aware that they could say anything. Juror #10 had told them that only the Foreman was allowed to speak to the Judge and #10 was the Foreman.

What the Jurors should have been told was that the only thing that the Foreman gets to do that the others don't is that only the Foreman gets to read the final Vote. Other then that, they all have the same rank as each other.

I blame #10 for giving the others misinformation.

Jayne

08-06-2008, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by GPSpector

Actually, it was the responsibility of each and every Juror to stand up and say something, except it was stated after the trial that none of the Juror's were aware that they could say anything. Juror #10 had told them that only the Foreman was allowed to speak to the Judge and #10 was the Foreman.

What the Jurors should have been told was that the only thing that the Foreman gets to do that the others don't is that only the Foreman gets to read the final Vote. Other then that, they all have the same rank as each other.

I blame #10 for giving the others misinformation. [/*]

I don't know if he gave Misinformation. I think he indeed could have "misled" the other jurors..and I think because he was Foreman..he held himself out to be more important than he really was..and some juror(s) bought into it. Don't know.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt until I heard about the "mother in law" thing. That was outright discrimination and going against the "rule" of a juror. You don't bring in your "dirty laundry" to deciding a verdict in a trial. What his mother in law did had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Lana may or may not have done. It was prejudice. Then when he made it "public"?

No wonder people are suspect of juries...and of this next one.

I'd bet jury selection this time takes at least two weeks or more. And, I'd even bet there won't be one engineer on that jury..if the proscecution can keep them out on their 'choice' selections. It's really sad..kind of...he made a bad name for his profession..it's just going to "come out" in the choices, even though it's not really fair, in a sense. Not to mention the religious background. They can only be preemptory challenges...pretty much..and although I don't have the CA statute in front of me, I think they are pretty much limited. Most are for cause. Federal law is different. And challenging a juror on religious basis, etc. is very very limited. Forget the case...Think it might have been "Batson"?

jmo

J

jmo

J

kennedy06

08-06-2008, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

I don't know if he gave Misinformation. I think he indeed could have "misled" the other jurors..and I think because he was Foreman..he held himself out to be more important than he really was..and some juror(s) bought into it. Don't know.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt until I heard about the "mother in law" thing. That was outright discrimination and going against the "rule" of a juror. You don't bring in your "dirty laundry" to deciding a verdict in a trial. What his mother in law did had absolutely NOTHING to do with what Lana may or may not have done. It was prejudice. Then when he made it "public"?

No wonder people are suspect of juries...and of this next one.

I'd bet jury selection this time takes at least two weeks or more. And, I'd even bet there won't be one engineer on that jury..if the proscecution can keep them out on their 'choice' selections. It's really sad..kind of...he made a bad name for his profession..it's just going to "come out" in the choices, even though it's not really fair, in a sense. Not to mention the religious background. They can only be preemptory challenges...pretty much..and although I don't have the CA statute in front of me, I think they are pretty much limited. Most are for cause. Federal law is different. And challenging a juror on religious basis, etc. is very very limited. Forget the case...Think it might have been "Batson"?

jmo

J

jmo

J [/*]

I just don't see his being an engineer or his religion as being such a deciding factor on his decision. A plain old rigid personality or his past history with a suicide and shootings were probably more of factor. I can't see the next jury consultants saying no to logically or factually thinking people or yes only to those with vivid imaginations such as writers. I had a link on one of our previously vanished threads to the jury consultant for the defense, in which the head of the company spoke in the article about the PS case. I'll see if I can find it again.

I'll be honest I didn't care for either juror after they spoke. The only difference I see between them is Juror 10 kept PS out of prison and Jury 9 would have put him in the penitentary for life. Other than that I didn't see either one as such a prize. JMO

Spectorfan8

08-06-2008, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

OH..
Gheesh...you too Spectorfan? I'd just had given birth to my son..was home the entire time of the trial...actually didn't live far from Nicole's home. First went through the Riots of Rodney King..then the uproar over OJ. I moved that Fall before Simpson's murder in 1994, further up north and away from LA.

But..when that case hit the TV...I was there almost every day, watching and...YES, I believe it, I took notes...notebooks of them...kept them...took them across country...then shredded them when I moved back...didn't need that extra 10-20 pounds of "stuff". Actually during PS 1, I had about 10 notebooks of comments, entries, CA law. When I moved recently..they disappeared along with 5 other boxes of my belongings. So that..plus I lost the harddrive on my old computer..all that research is "gone".

I actually found PS1 more transfixing and addicting...is that what you meant?

jmo

J [/*]

Oh Jayne, I got to where I couldn't stand that supervisor, she truly believed OJ was not guilty, sound familiar?lol The day of the verdict, she couldn't be there. She had me stay during lunch while she was on the cell phone. I had to tell her exactly what was taking place, word for word! Maybe that is why I can't stand OJ.

kennedy06

08-06-2008, 11:29 AM

Jayne I hope my last post didn't come across argumentive.The name slipped me for a moment but, I have since remembered it. Paragraph 4 gives the basic details of their methods. Seems alot went into the selection and presentation of the trial from their standpoint for PS. Will they be used again?? I found the resistance persuasion strategies, just a very interesting concept. JMO

http://investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=61252473

Spectorfan8

08-06-2008, 11:30 AM

Land Shark®

08-06-2008, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Searching
:confused: The vote was 10-2 as I recall. Why is juror #10 the only one attacked. What about the other juror that agreeded with #10.:patriot:

:lol:

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Sounds like he may have had his own agenda IMO. I note much to do about #10's supposed agenda. Is it not possible that #10's agenda was to discus the case, arrive at individual conclusions and vote accordingly. Afterall in your own post you state a believe that jurors take their responsobility seriously. BTW as I recall the outcome was 10-2. Why is that other juror and their vote allways left out in these discussions. :) [/*]

As I said before, the other jurors who spoke, said that #10 did not participate in discussion or deliberation, not to mention he had to be forced to have a vote after three days.

It was stated by those jurors, that all of the others took part in the deliberation and put forth the points raised by both sides. The only one mentioned who would not take part was #10.

It was also stated by the speaking jurors that the other NG juror changed sides, and was willing to go along with whatever was agreed on by the other 11. It sounds to me, like she didn't care what the verdict was, as long as she got out of there. MOO.

#10 showed himself willing to go before the press and speak. At the press conference he made a prepared speech, interrupted the reporters who wanted to ask questions , and then refused to say how he had voted, or answer any questions about the actual jury deliberations.

He obviously wanted to make sure he got a chance to be center stage and make his little speech, but had no interest in listening to others, or in sharing how he came to his conclusion. He did not want to say how had he had voted, that was certain.

When he called Ashleigh Banfield the next day, he was upset that he had been outed as a NG, made it clear he called to pontificate about his opinions of the jury system, and stated that he had the numbers of the Prosecutors and intended to call and tell then how to try the next case.

He was completely unwilling to share any information on his decision and how he reached it. He wouldn't even name one piece of evidence presented that had been convincing to him.

A person willing to speak to the press, to call in to Court TV, but unwilling to have anyone know how he voted, and refusing to give even one example of his reasons for his stance, doesn't strike me as one who is comfortable, or confident of his decision.

Had he refused to speak and wanted to keep to himself, as several of the jurors did, it would be different.

He did, however, convince me that he was expecting to be hailed as an expert on the jury system and that he wanted attention, provided he was able to say what he liked without any disagreement. He wanted, and expected, to be courted as an expert. His concern was not the trial, not the verdict, not the victim and not the defendant.

His one and only concern was how he could get recognition, admiration and praise for himself.

Land Shark®

08-06-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Searching
ITA, it sure seems funny that the other juror is never discussed. It is right up there with some witnesses some do not wish to discuss.:)

I'm laughing at you replying to yourself. :)

You sent me a PM with your ?WudScoobyDo nic yesterday. Proving you are posting with both nics. Thanks for that. ;)

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Searching
SinceTV ratings are based on the # of viewer interest which translates in to revenue $'s for advertising it just seems more likely to me that the OJ case would get the nod. Some TV Exctv. may have a real dilema on his hands.JMO:seeya: [/*]

That is something I have been concerned about from the moment both dates were set. On top of all that, OJ starts first and will have a foot hold.

On the other hand, OJ has only one of his co-defendants left and that one wants a separate trial, so maybe his trial will wrap up before Spector gets a jury seated.

Hopefully there will be enough interest that other outlets will cover the Spector Trial, if cameras are allowed.
I can't see TTV not even trying to have camera coverage, to show later if necessary. A local network might buy the stream and run it online. There are several who do that with high profile cases.

Land Shark®

08-06-2008, 02:12 PM

The thing about television coverage...

We won't hear anything about it if no station submits a request to televise the trial.

I bet there will be local stations submitting requests.

Then we'll have to see if Judge Fidler allows it.

IMO.

joolz

08-06-2008, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

I'm laughing at you replying to yourself. :)

You sent me a PM with your ?WudScoobyDo nic yesterday. Proving you are posting with both nics. Thanks for that. ;) [/*]

:D It's so early to have a post of the day, but that has to be it!

On topic, I believe that if JF allows cameras in the courtroom that a local station will stream coverage. There may not be as much interest as there is for OJ, but who knows? OJ isn't charged with murder - this time - and Spector is. That's probably an interest equalizer. JMO

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®
The thing about television coverage...

We won't hear anything about it if no station submits a request to televise the trial.

I bet there will be local stations submitting requests.

Then we'll have to see if Judge Fidler allows it.

IMO. [/*]

I'm hoping they get around to it pretty quickly here. I still think TTV would do it. Even if it was to run it later. It's not like they don't know there's interest.

If nothing else, the anchors bring it up as comparison or example all the time.

I hope that OJ gets over before the Spector jury is seated. If the last co-defendant gets his wish, OJ will be paddling his canoe alone. This isn't a DNA case, so no battling experts.

There needs to be a trial after that one, and Spector is one people want to see. They should be like the Boy Scouts and "Be Prepared".

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by joolz

:D It's so early to have a post of the day, but that has to be it!

On topic, I believe that if JF allows cameras in the courtroom that a local station will stream coverage. There may not be as much interest as there is for OJ, but who knows? OJ isn't charged with murder - this time - and Spector is. That's probably an interest equalizer. JMO [/*]

:seeya: Joolz!

Not to mention that some people may be tired of OJ and his arrogance. I know I am.

gmiller

08-06-2008, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues
(snipped)

Hopefully there will be enough interest that other outlets will cover the Spector Trial, if cameras are allowed.
I can't see TTV not even trying to have camera coverage, to show later if necessary. A local network might buy the stream and run it online. There are several who do that with high profile cases. [/*]

Well if you think about it, TTV goes off at 3:00 here on the east coast anyway I have no idea what occurs after the lunch break west coast trials anyway without accessing the net.

I recall the local (for me) trial of Neil Entwistle. That trial coverage spanned until 5:00 pm (we are wicked hard workers here;). I went to local news websites for the 2 hour gap in testimony. I'd guess that KTLA would put in for a live Spector feed, which would be streamed online.

gmiller

08-06-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

:seeya: Joolz!

Not to mention that some people may be tired of OJ and his arrogance. I know I am. [/*]

ITA! He's bull s**t is getting really old. My own mother who as I mentioned before was obsessed with OJ's trial is sick of his pending trial coverage. I don't mean to belittle the NU OJ trial but I think it'll be over with in 2 weeks and it will be pretty boring :o Think of it, in OJ's trial there is no murder or innocent victim(s) for that matter... they all seemed like dirt bags if you ask me. That's JMO though.

joolz

08-06-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

ITA! He's bull s**t is getting really old. My own mother who as I mentioned before was obsessed with OJ's trial is sick of his pending trial coverage. I don't mean to belittle the NU OJ trial but I think it'll be over with in 2 weeks and it will be pretty boring :o Think of it, in OJ's trial there is no murder or innocent victim(s) for that matter... they all seemed like dirt bags if you ask me. That's JMO though. [/*]

ITA! He's still interesting as a former celebrity who (IMO) got away with murder, but he's also very old news. I agree that this trial will be boring and over quickly - I believe the only reason it will be watched at all is to see if OJ finally has to spend some time in prison.

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Since there is no IMO are we to believe he told you that personally or you know someone he stated it to. :confused: [/*]

You will find in the signature line of my posts IMO, MOO, JMO etc.

In the post itself, I say this is my impression of the jury foreman.

If someone else had said that, I would have noted it. I always do.

kipswife

08-06-2008, 03:54 PM

I have a question I hope someone can answer.....I will be in LA on Oct 3 and I want to go watch the jury selection. will it be open to the public? it has to be, right? will be my only chance to see any part of the trial so i will take it

thanks
m

gmiller

08-06-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by joolz

ITA! He's still interesting as a former celebrity who (IMO) got away with murder, but he's also very old news. I agree that this trial will be boring and over quickly - I believe the only reason it will be watched at all is to see if OJ finally has to spend some time in prison. [/*]

Yep, phone me on nu OJ verdict day. Now that is something I'd watch! My mom seriously only tuned into watch his arraignment hearing just to see OJ in the jumpsuit:D Now she asks me about Spector though and what I know. She's hooked on this trial too!

gmiller

08-06-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by kipswife
I have a question I hope someone can answer.....I will be in LA on Oct 3 and I want to go watch the jury selection. will it be open to the public? it has to be, right? will be my only chance to see any part of the trial so i will take it

thanks
m [/*]

I believe that the jury selection process is open to the public, but I couldn't say for sure if it is in CA. Good luck!

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by kipswife
I have a question I hope someone can answer.....I will be in LA on Oct 3 and I want to go watch the jury selection. will it be open to the public? it has to be, right? will be my only chance to see any part of the trial so i will take it

thanks
m [/*]

If they start with questionnaires they may not be in a courtroom. I don't know if they mail them out or make people come in to fill them out.

Then the lawyers and Judge go over them and pick out the ones they want to question in person.

Land Shark®

08-06-2008, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by ?WudScoobyDo

snipped

You have been implying this for days now.

snipped

Wow. For someone who, and I quote, 'has no concern for what others think'...

You sure seem to be concerned about what I know. ;)

I believe Judge Fidler will allow cameras in the courtroom.

I think he might sequester this jury too.

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by Land Shark®

Wow. For someone who, and I quote, 'has no concern for what others think'...

You sure seem to be concerned about what I know. ;)

I believe Judge Fidler will allow cameras in the courtroom.

I think he might sequester this jury too. [/*]

I think (and hope) the Judge will allow cameras again. The strangest and most time consuming things in the last trial had nothing to do with cameras in the courtroom.

I don't know about sequestration. That's an extreme measure if it lasts the whole trial. Especially with restrictions of hours and days that court is in session, in California. Those things make the trials longer.

Also, they will start jury selection in October, last time it took a month. If it takes that much time this go round, they will probably still be going when the Holidays come around. If not Christmas, then Thanksgiving. That may spark a rebellion among the jurors!

I don't believe it would have made one bit of difference in the last trial. I really do think that the media coverage of the trial was ignored by the jurors and alternates.

Then again, who knows what will happen? :)

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Searching
They are usually filled out in the clerk of courts jury room and then submitted to the judge and lawyers. There may be as many as 40 questionaires to scrutinize before the voir dire begins.:seeya: [/*]

How long do you think they will be? Actually, how long were they last time? :) I remember it being mentioned, but can't remember how many pages they had.

ETA, I found it online. I didn't know they had them available. It was 18 pages long.

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/Phil_Spector_questionnaire.pdf

kennedy06

08-06-2008, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

How long do you think they will be? Actually, how long were they last time? :) I remember it being mentioned, but can't remember how many pages they had.

ETA, I found it online. I didn't know they had them available. It was 18 pages long.

http://jurylaw.typepad.com/Phil_Spector_questionnaire.pdf [/*]

Thanks for that link True. They covered everything with a fine tooth comb didn't they, even to the magazines they read. JMO

True2Blues

08-06-2008, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

Thanks for that link True. They covered everything with a fine tooth comb didn't they, even to the magazines they read. JMO [/*]

Yes they do, and I think some of those questions about people other than the juror are none of their business, quite frankly.

I don't live in L.A., but my knowledge of this case, before CTV started coverage while the jury was being selected, consisted of the first short report of the shooting.

I didn't know who PS was, my husband had to tell me. I could have cared less, but since it seemed taken for granted that everyone knew who he was, I felt I was the only one who didn't know. LOL

dref99

08-06-2008, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

If they start with questionnaires they may not be in a courtroom. I don't know if they mail them out or make people come in to fill them out.

Then the lawyers and Judge go over them and pick out the ones they want to question in person. [/*]

It seems there won't be alot happening until the middle of October

Fidler states that it will be a repeat of the first trial with a draw of 300 jurors over two days, 150 jurors on each day. The pre-screening of the jurors is also laid out. The trial will be delayed a few days from originally stated. It is now moved to start on October 2nd, with the second jury draw on October 3rd. The jurors will receive their questionnaires on those dates. The jurors will then return on October 14th (the day after a holiday, Columbus Day) for voir dire.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-08-02T15%3A10%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=10

Someone mentioned not reading Sprocket's blog - tis the only place with detail of current court proceedings that I can ever find

jmo

Jayne

08-06-2008, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by GH247

The foreman also presides over the deliberations. This duty should be performed in an even-handed way, respecting the rights of each juror to contribute, but sometimes is not. What I think some juries don't realize is that if they don't like the way the foreman is managing the deliberations, they can elect a new one. [/*]

ITA. Probably too many times, jurors feel like they're in a "no win" situation or an adhesion contract when they are "under" a foreman. Maybe despite any readings to them, they think of foreman..like foreman on a construction job. In the jury room, he presides, true, and he can be voted out and replaced...if everyone isn't too Chicken to do it. On a construction site, he checks other workers, gives instructions, keeps the regs and rules. Maybe some of them did think they had to give up or shut up (or the reverse..give in and say nothing?...regardless of their "gut or reasoned out feelings on the case). Maybe they figured their vote was insignificant or even "wrong" if the foreman was taking one particular side. Apparently, most didn't. Maybe that other juror..I think it's Searching is asking about..or someone else, not sure..but I think perhaps that other juror voted "no"..making it 2 against..and I believe there was discussion here last year, not sure elsewhere, that she was on the fence, then decided to vote with #10. Why? Who knows? Maybe felt pressured? Maybe was so far hanging on the fence and just didn't want to go the "conviction" route, or didn't want #10 to stand out there alone? In CA, 1 out is all you need, but maybe s/he felt better going with the "can't say PS is guilty" to be able to live with his/her decision? That's the mystery of the jury room. The foreman can have a lot of Sway, even though just a Monitor of the deliberations.

Again..that vacuum..I've voiced it other places and thought I posted it here, but perhaps not. That vacuum can, I believe, literally suck the independent thinking of some people to where they are influenced by the foreman, because they look to him or her as the "leader"..in the "construction foreman" sense. Don't really know.

I'm sure there are many jurors over the years who have voted one way or another, determined to follow the law, the evidence, etc. but get side-winded or just "can't do it alone". Maybe that other juror...#2 or whoever it was wanted to vote "not guilty" but just couldn't "speak up" or take that stand until the foreman did?

It's a stupid thing...but I wonder...if in that jury room there weren't statements made about personal experiences..like the mother in law (perhaps more) that would reflect on other juror's thinking...what would seem like Common Sense but is just one person's experience in a different situation under much different circumstances. I'm not accusing...just thinking it might have been a possibility.

Certainly a VERY DUMB jury question..but what if asked: Have you ever known anyone, personally to you or otherwise, who has secreted and delved into your or someone's personal life that you know of - be it home, finances, etc. to find something they weren't entitled to? (I wonder how many people hunt through their parents or grandparents drawers for a Will...Just a Look See?) (If honest...I think there'd be a lot of YES answers, btw!) Then...how did you feel about that? Or..have you ever been in a situation where your vote was required but you couldn't make a decision? What did you do? (I know..that one wouldn't fly...)

Not quite like looking for a suicide weapon, I agree. But, neither do I see #10's MIL snooping around the house as a comparison or a "that had to be it" as to Lana.

Again..as out there..and knee jerk as it is at the moment, I'd like to see a physician on the jury and perhaps even chosen as foreman (depending of course on his or her experience). Maybe they "hate lawyers" so is said..but they have two sides of lawyers to be worried about...prosecutors (against an alleged criminal) or defenders (for an alleged criminal). Could go either way I suppose. But, I tend to think that doctor or medical professional would weigh the evidence in a very fine toothed comb sort of way and not set it up for Liability as to how it came out. OR just choose the person with the intelligence but no attachment to either side (per se) or specific experience or education in any particular area. Just a normal..gonna think about it person...and analyze it. If I had enough information about the jurors and could theatrically run it...I'd have that person down to where there would only be "for cause" left..or none.

If I were PS, I'd want as many industry people on that jury..and musicians..and artists (maybe...oops...don't forget Lana's background).

This will be interesting..who shows up...who gets Chosen.

Then who is the Foreman.

jmo

J

Jayne

08-06-2008, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Searching
The process you are asking about in legalese terms is called "Voir Dire". Whether it's open to the public is an issue for the trial judge as I understand it. Voir Dire can take place in different forms. The prospective jurors can be questioned as a group or individually. The judge may even ask questions of the prospective jurors. Lawyers on both sides are given a lot of latitude when the PJ's are questioned individually. With that in mind some judges may not open the process to the public because certain personal information about the PJ may be revealed before the trial starts. At least that's my general basic understanding of process. It's the judges ballpark and he is the umpire. So you might want to call the judges clerk before you waste a trip to the courthouse. :seeya: [/*]

You're correct. Except that Voire Dire also applies to any witness on the stand. Which is After the Fact. :)

jmo

j

kennedy06

08-06-2008, 11:56 PM

I don't see an active professional such as a doctor, medical professional or attorney on the next jury. They would have a good reason to be excused on a case that has been determined to take some time considering the last trial but, I do see the logic in it. A member of the industry, that could be a two edge sword, have an actor or actress still working their way through the ups and downs of their profession, that would benefit the prosecution or have a Keith Richards's type musician and the defense would probably be elated. PS wouldn't sit well with the older generation I think and a very young juror would look at him as an old weird guy. Middle aged everyday people will make up this next jury I think, we'll see though. JMO

Jayne

08-07-2008, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by kennedy06
I don't see an active professional such as a doctor, medical professional or attorney on the next jury. They would have a good reason to be excused on a case that has been determined to take some time considering the last trial but, I do see the logic in it. A member of the industry, that could be a two edge sword, have an actor or actress still working their way through the ups and downs of their profession, that would benefit the prosecution or have a Keith Richards's type musician and the defense would probably be elated. PS wouldn't sit well with the older generation I think and a very young juror would look at him as an old weird guy. Middle aged everyday people will make up this next jury I think, we'll see though. JMO [/*]

I know...or think I know..what you are saying. And, it may come to fruition.

I just think..this time around..both sides are going to Fight..to get Their Jurors on the list.. but it is going to be really difficult to get it "just right".

Keith Richards....Barbarian Queen... won't happen..but close? maybe?

My best bet is they'll get the "usual" from the jury pool..then so so many are "OUTED"...then they do their thing...finding one or another that fits the bill. Trick is..to be the last to have the objection. Not an easy trick at all.

One Keith Richards...IN..and a Barbarian Queen OUT...??

I'd love to and hate to be on that team...Love to actually...

but it's a carp shoot...if you got it right?

I'd honestly rather have a doc or an attorney..get through the jury selection..IF they are the correct unbiased type.

jmo

J

Spectorfan8

08-07-2008, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

I know...or think I know..what you are saying. And, it may come to fruition.

I just think..this time around..both sides are going to Fight..to get Their Jurors on the list.. but it is going to be really difficult to get it "just right".

Keith Richards....Barbarian Queen... won't happen..but close? maybe?

My best bet is they'll get the "usual" from the jury pool..then so so many are "OUTED"...then they do their thing...finding one or another that fits the bill. Trick is..to be the last to have the objection. Not an easy trick at all.

One Keith Richards...IN..and a Barbarian Queen OUT...??

I'd love to and hate to be on that team...Love to actually...

but it's a carp shoot...if you got it right?

I'd honestly rather have a doc or an attorney..get through the jury selection..IF they are the correct unbiased type.

jmo

J [/*]

Jayne
I agree with your post. I have a question, and I believe you can answer. Having served on a jury myself, I know how some can be. Do you think it possible that a juor just goes along with the majority because they just want out ? I have watched jurors just vote any way so they can get out of there. With a trial like PS1, running so long and took up so much of their lives. Sometimes when you take people out of their daily lives, they get mean in that jury room. I have watched people bring in their work and try to deliberate and do their work at the same time.
I realize people get tired of being there, but it is their duty to give the trial at hand all of your attention. JMO

True2Blues

08-07-2008, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

Jayne
I agree with your post. I have a question, and I believe you can answer. Having served on a jury myself, I know how some can be. Do you think it possible that a juor just goes along with the majority because they just want out ? I have watched jurors just vote any way so they can get out of there. With a trial like PS1, running so long and took up so much of their lives. Sometimes when you take people out of their daily lives, they get mean in that jury room. I have watched people bring in their work and try to deliberate and do their work at the same time.
I realize people get tired of being there, but it is their duty to give the trial at hand all of your attention. JMO [/*]

I think there probably are people who get to the point where they'll just go along. Probably after a long trial and then contentious deliberations, they may just get to the point where they want their lives back. No matter how seriously they listened, how much they wanted to get to a verdict. If it looks like dragging on, they may just reach their limit.

I also believe that there are some who are bullied and pressured, many who compromise, agreeing to a lesser verdict, because they want to give a verdict, rather than cause a mistrial.

Of course, that leaves some who bully others, some who, as your example shows, don't pay attention, some who refuse to listen, etc.

It's a mix of people and the only way it can work, is if they all take the responsibility seriously, and do their very best. Which includes listening to others, and behaving in a respectful manner. I agree with you 100% on that.

It all comes down to the individual in the end, doesn't it? And there's really no way to predict how any one person will react to the stress that can occur in the jury room. Choosing a jury will always be a crap shoot. Get the best qualified jury on the information attainable.

I imagine some people may even surprise themselves by reacting to being tired, stressed, maybe yelled at, in ways they didn't think they would. (Like a normally calm person launching themselves across a table and trying to stuff pencils up another juror's nose.)

One thing that needs to change is the attitude people have towards Jury Duty. It is a something that everyone should be proud to be included in, and willing to do. It's our duty as citizens, and the way we participate in our Justice System.

True2Blues

08-07-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Not so sure I buy into that. From what has been reported as I recall PS does not sit on the mantle of likeability within the entertaiment industry. Beyond his musical claim to fame he doesn't seem well liked or respected in the entertainment industry. Could even be some jealousy.JMO:seeya: [/*]

You've got a point there. People in the same profession, whether friend or foe, might be affected by simply being in the same profession.

Like Lawyers, Police and Medical persons, are sometimes not wanted on juries because of what they know, or who they may favor, even if they've never seen the defendant before in their lives.

Not to mention the way others on the jury may look at them. Like when Oprah got called to jury duty. There would always be the concern that fans of hers might go along with whatever she said, rather than thinking for themselves. Even if she was right on the money, the decision still needs to be made by each person.

I must say, having seen Kieth Richards interviewed, I wouldn't want him on any jury! :tongue: Even if he were a citizen. I don't see him paying attention. LOL

Spectorfan8

08-07-2008, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

I think there probably are people who get to the point where they'll just go along. Probably after a long trial and then contentious deliberations, they may just get to the point where they want their lives back. No matter how seriously they listened, how much they wanted to get to a verdict. If it looks like dragging on, they may just reach their limit.

I also believe that there are some who are bullied and pressured, many who compromise, agreeing to a lesser verdict, because they want to give a verdict, rather than cause a mistrial.

Of course, that leaves some who bully others, some who, as your example shows, don't pay attention, some who refuse to listen, etc.

It's a mix of people and the only way it can work, is if they all take the responsibility seriously, and do their very best. Which includes listening to others, and behaving in a respectful manner. I agree with you 100% on that.

It all comes down to the individual in the end, doesn't it? And there's really no way to predict how any one person will react to the stress that can occur in the jury room. Choosing a jury will always be a crap shoot. Get the best qualified jury on the information attainable.

I imagine some people may even surprise themselves by reacting to being tired, stressed, maybe yelled at, in ways they didn't think they would. (Like a normally calm person launching themselves across a table and trying to stuff pencils up another juror's nose.)

One thing that needs to change is the attitude people have towards Jury Duty. It is a something that everyone should be proud to be included in, and willing to do. It's our duty as citizens, and the way we participate in our Justice System. [/*]

Yes, you are entirely right. You know, alot of things come into play when you are selected as a juror. Like pay for instance, some people would rather not serve because of what the system pays them. Some places do not pay their employees while they are on jury duty. I didn't get paid for it, but I still had to do my duty.
In cases such as the Spector trial, because it could be a long trial, doesn't the judge tell or someone tell the potential jurors ? I thought that you are told in advance that this could be a long trial. Maybe not, I do not really know.

True2Blues

08-07-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

Yes, you are entirely right. You know, alot of things come into play when you are selected as a juror. Like pay for instance, some people would rather not serve because of what the system pays them. Some places do not pay their employees while they are on jury duty. I didn't get paid for it, but I still had to do my duty.
In cases such as the Spector trial, because it could be a long trial, doesn't the judge tell or someone tell the potential jurors ? I thought that you are told in advance that this could be a long trial. Maybe not, I do not really know. [/*]

I'm sure they tell them during the actual face to face questioning. They can't be exact, but they usually seem to give an estimate. It would be foolish on the part of the court not to.

People may be scheduled for surgery or some thing in a month or two, but be free for a short time and willing to serve. That's something they'd need to know.

I understand that some people don't have time to serve, because of special circumstances. As you say, if they're the sole support and their work won't make up the difference in wages, that would be a big problem. (I think employers should be required by law to make up the difference, but that's just me.).

Caretakers of children, disabled or elderly people, who can't afford to pay someone else to come in while they're on jury duty, also have a legitimate excuse. Small business owners who are boss and employee can't be expected to lose their business, or to neglect contracts. Some with health problems who can't sit all day, same thing.

The ones who just make up any excuse, because they don't want to be bothered are the ones who annoy me.

gmiller

08-07-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Not so sure I buy into that. From what has been reported as I recall PS does not sit on the mantle of likeability within the entertaiment industry. Beyond his musical claim to fame he doesn't seem well liked or respected in the entertainment industry. Could even be some jealousy.JMO:seeya: [/*]

I don't know about "jealousy". PS was brilliant in his day but he's washed up now...sad. After the John Lennon incident, I think he began to get a bad reputation and PS's fall from grace ensued.

If someone on the jury were to be in the entertainment industry, IMO it is possible that they could side with Lana Clarkson. Any actor or musician could identify with working crummy jobs to make connections, until they had their break. Many current celebs have even taken jobs as dog walkers to make an entertainment connection. Lana's job at the HOB sounds like a cakewalk compared to picking up dog poop.

My point is that none of them committed suicide, potential jurors who are entertainers, that is.

Of course that's JMO though!

Spectorfan8

08-07-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

I'm sure they tell them during the actual face to face questioning. They can't be exact, but they usually seem to give an estimate. It would be foolish on the part of the court not to.

People may be scheduled for surgery or some thing in a month or two, but be free for a short time and willing to serve. That's something they'd need to know.

I understand that some people don't have time to serve, because of special circumstances. As you say, if they're the sole support and their work won't make up the difference in wages, that would be a big problem. (I think employers should be required by law to make up the difference, but that's just me.).

Caretakers of children, disabled or elderly people, who can't afford to pay someone else to come in while they're on jury duty, also have a legitimate excuse. Small business owners who are boss and employee can't be expected to lose their business, or to neglect contracts. Some with health problems who can't sit all day, same thing.

The ones who just make up any excuse, because they don't want to be bothered are the ones who annoy me. [/*]

Yes, you are exactly on the same page as I am. Total agreement. :)

Fallen Angel

08-07-2008, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by dref99

It seems there won't be alot happening until the middle of October

Fidler states that it will be a repeat of the first trial with a draw of 300 jurors over two days, 150 jurors on each day. The pre-screening of the jurors is also laid out. The trial will be delayed a few days from originally stated. It is now moved to start on October 2nd, with the second jury draw on October 3rd. The jurors will receive their questionnaires on those dates. The jurors will then return on October 14th (the day after a holiday, Columbus Day) for voir dire.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-08-02T15%3A10%3A00-07%3A00&max-results=10

Someone mentioned not reading Sprocket's blog - tis the only place with detail of current court proceedings that I can ever find

jmo [/*]ohhhhhh ty for the update. i thought the trial was going to start in Sept :cuss:

True2Blues

08-07-2008, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Fallen Angel
ohhhhhh ty for the update. i thought the trial was going to start in Sept :cuss: [/*]

It's really only three days difference. All the questionnaires and voir dire would have taken place in just the same way.

It's not much of a consolation, I know, but it has to be done.

Jayne

08-08-2008, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by poodlestar

hi sp8 - cool name you have there :cool:

i agree about the next verdict, it could be hung again. jmo [/*]

Indeed, it could be. I hope it isn't..for everyone involved. It's a real lack of "closure" and I really would hate to see that happen.

Maybe PS with two "hung juries" would feel he's truly innocent. Not that I want to wish infliction of "guilty" if he truly is not guilty, but if in his shoes..and it's just me..I'd be happy for it..yes..but I may never feel "relieved or compensated" without that "not guilty". And, the Clarksons, on the other hand/side, would still feel unrecompensed or adjudicated (plus or minus) to the event that took their daughter's life.

I think..from what I just read on Sprocket's blog about the Judge's ruling or comments about the "lesser includeds"..the prosecution is going to put in enough (just enough..not too much) to be able to "allow" the court to give those instructions to the jury. [or I, personally...not putting any push on this...think should happen]. If the wolves put it in..ever so sort of surreptitiously..it's there. If the defense wants, Or sees and wants to counter it...then OK..if Not..there is the option. Riordan, I do believe is a very smart and astute lawyer..and particularly to the Specifics of the Law. He is pushing the envelope for the prosecution, IMO. And, the judge, essentially "allowed it", if I understand the goings on in court from Sprocket's post.

Certainly, IMO, if the prosecution doesn't Introduce such a possibiliy, the Defense certainly isn't going to. Riordan has put the Prosecution on Notice, in a sense, that if they want that "option", it has to come out in trial..and it has to start with them.

I wonder if they'll do it, This Time?

jmo

J

(edited for typos..maybe have missed more)

gmiller

08-08-2008, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

Indeed, it could be. I hope it isn't..for everyone involved. It's a real lack of "closure" and I really would hate to see that happen.

Maybe PS with two "hung juries" would feel he's truly innocent. Not that I want to wish infliction of "guilty" if he truly is not guilty, but if in his shoes..and it's just me..I'd be happy for it..yes..but I may never feel "relieved or compensated" without that "not guilty". And, the Clarksons, on the other hand/side, would still feel unrecompensed or adjudicated (plus or minus) to the event that took their daughter's life.

I think..from what I just read on Sprocket's blog about the Judge's ruling or comments about the "lesser includeds"..the prosecution is going to put in enough (just enough..not too much) to be able to "allow" the court to give those instructions to the jury. [or I, personally...not putting any push on this...think should happen]. If the wolves put it in..ever so sort of surreptitiously..it's there. If the defense wants, Or sees and wants to counter it...then OK..if Not..there is the option. Riordan, I do believe is a very smart and astute lawyer..and particularly to the Specifics of the Law. He is pushing the envelope for the prosecution, IMO. And, the judge, essentially "allowed it", if I understand the goings on in court from Sprocket's post.

Certainly, IMO, if the prosecution doesn't Introduce such a possibiliy, the Defense certainly isn't going to. Riordan has put the Prosecution on Notice, in a sense, that if they want that "option", it has to come out in trial..and it has to start with them.

I wonder if they'll do it, This Time?

jmo

J

(edited for typos..maybe have missed more) [/*]

I have no doubt that Riordan is a meticulous lawyer but watching him in PS1 was the equivalent of taking 2 or 3 ambien. IMO, he really could loose a jury's attention.

Jayne, your mailbox is full.

Jayne

08-08-2008, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by gmiller

I have no doubt that Riordan is a meticulous lawyer but watching him in PS1 was the equivalent of taking 2 or 3 ambien. IMO, he really could loose a jury's attention.

Jayne, your mailbox is full. [/*]

OK..cleaned out. I clean it out daily..sorry.

He did..IMO..he was the telephoneman, right? Maybe I'm confused.

I think he is very very smart, educated, experienced and knows the law probably to the hilt...that's what he does. Problem is..if I get your Gist..is that he has a monotone voice..he was talking through the telephone for the most part..so no "face on" demeanour. How many jurors want to listen to a cell phone, blackberry..something like that? They want a Real Person in the Courtroom.

He had his reasons and he was approved, by court order. IF I'm getting the correct person here..

When he was there personally, I agree. Very smart..very astute lawyer..but very "monotone"...doesn't Hit everyone the right way.

See my PM on this. Doesn't make the lawyer anything less than brilliant..only "boring".

jmo

j

gmiller

08-08-2008, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

OK..cleaned out. I clean it out daily..sorry.

He did..IMO..he was the telephoneman, right? Maybe I'm confused.

I think he is very very smart, educated, experienced and knows the law probably to the hilt...that's what he does. Problem is..if I get your Gist..is that he has a monotone voice..he was talking through the telephone for the most part..so no "face on" demeanour. How many jurors want to listen to a cell phone, blackberry..something like that? They want a Real Person in the Courtroom.

He had his reasons and he was approved, by court order. IF I'm getting the correct person here..

When he was there personally, I agree. Very smart..very astute lawyer..but very "monotone"...doesn't Hit everyone the right way.

See my PM on this. Doesn't make the lawyer anything less than brilliant..only "boring".

jmo

j [/*]

Yes, Riorden is the "telephone man".
As I recall, he made one appearance in the courtroom. What really stands out to me is that JF could not stifle Riorden when he phoned in. There was laughter in the courtroom because JF tried to interject and Riorden would keep on talking in his monotone voice.

You are right as usual Jayne, his credentials are very good but as a lay person he is a bit boring. I can see where a juror's attention may drift to what he/she is having for supper . I really wonder if he'll even present evidence or examine witnesses. Could he be on the team as an expert on CAL CRIM, like he was in PS1?

JMO.
G

dref99

08-08-2008, 02:43 AM

Jayne

08-08-2008, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by gmiller

Yes, Riorden is the "telephone man".
As I recall, he made one appearance in the courtroom. What really stands out to me is that JF could not stifle Riorden when he phoned in. There was laughter in the courtroom because JF tried to interject and Riorden would keep on talking in his monotone voice.

You are right as usual Jayne, his credentials are very good but as a lay person he is a bit boring. I can see where a juror's attention may drift to what he/she is having for supper . I really wonder if he'll even present evidence or examine witnesses. Could he be on the team as an expert on CAL CRIM, like he was in PS1?

JMO.
G [/*]

CAL CRIM expert? Maybe so. He certainly can be an attorney On the case but never present evidence or Argue except at certain points or on certain points..like he did in PS1. Sort of "of counsel" to the team..perhaps the most apprised of CA law, etc. but just not putting himself out there on the "stand".

I think PS may have hired himself a real bulldog..Hope he Pays Him!...to have the CA law in the back of his hand. But, he'll be behind the scenes, more or less (I think)..as the backbone of the defense team. He doesn't have the courtroom persona...doesn't command the attention of the courtroom (he prefers the telephone? just kidding..since even when he was there it was like listening to someone nodding off to sleep..NOT about his knowledge, etc. just his presence)..you want a lawyer with Presence. I think that's why PS hired Cutler..he is a Presence Lawyer. Too bad it didn't work out. If you could combine the two..Cutler and Riordan (NY hot shot..CA smart shot), I don't think there would be a comparison..even in the LA office..not to discount their greatness. There's a huge difference in courtroom demeanour between NY and LA for starters...as if that matters here? Since LA doesn't give much credence to the NY style. (no offense intended..it's just a different sparring grounds)

I think PS could have a slew of CA attorneys..all up on the laws, twistings, etc. but if they don't "command attenton", it probably won't much matter IF it's their courtroom demeanour. He had LKB who kept the attention last time (Cutler for a time) and then Plourd and Whatshisname and the Other Main One (who obviously I've forgotten his name as he didn't make a big effect on me).

If Riordan stays behind the curtain but puts in his expertise, PS has the start of a pretty good team. Weinberg..name right? has a pretty good reputation. So..maybe TWO people on his team who can really work as a team and not try to one-up the other? Good start.

It's theatrics..for much of it...gotta have that legal knowledge and readiness for trial..but when it comes down to it..who is "in command" on the floor of that courtroom at any time? A prosecuting attorney? A defense attorney? And if both..the jury listens to both/all. Who get's the "Emmy"..in a sense. It's WHO they believe..not just WHAT they believe..even though it's just the Evidence they are supposed to Listen to.

Got a boring lawyer..who drones on and on...think that jury is going to stay awake and truly listen? Fat Chance.

That's why many really intelligent, capable attorneys..who just don't have that "courtroom finesse"..stay behind desks.

And, why others..with that courtroom finesse..may not have all the much high level expertise in the law and proceedings...go and learn as they go and Win cases because of how they present them, with basic knowledge or "help" from the outside. Where..those Desk Attorneys...Smart to the Hilt..couldn't stand up in front of a judge or jury and "get them to believe" even though they are correct. Then the monotone voiced ones...can't help themselves really, but they go into court with a real handicap. Can't captivate the Audience..which is crucial to pleading one's case.
jmo

J

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by dref99

Dennis Riordan is mainly an apellant lawyer - so he may not be part of most of the court room activity - but if an objection is warranted or a point of law to be discussed, he will no doubt be to the forefront.
http://www.law.nyu.edu/alumni/almo/2005_2006/riordan.html

This interview with him is interesting
http://www.law.nyu.edu/alumni/almo/2005_2006/riordan_interview.html

jmo [/*]

The interview link was a good read. Geesh I dont know, he sounds like the big time to me. I just think the 1st trial will pale in comparison to this next trial. Still we can't under estimate AJ and T. Do (sp), who was at the hearing. If she is also officially on the team, the cases she participated in make her a force to be reckoned with also. JMO

dref99

08-08-2008, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by kennedy06

The interview link was a good read. Geesh I dont know, he sounds like the big time to me. I just think the 1st trial will pale in comparison to this next trial. Still we can't under estimate AJ and T. Do (sp), who was at the hearing. If she is also officially on the team, the cases she participated in make her a force to be reckoned with also. JMO [/*]

It does seem to be a better team than last time & certainly not so disjointed. After Cutler lost his opening, he played virtually no part in the trial and the others were somewhat leaderless. The current 2 will probably work really well together BUT

looking at the post from Mortie - they have alot of proven facts against them.

jmo

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Jayne

OK..cleaned out. I clean it out daily..sorry.

He did..IMO..he was the telephoneman, right? Maybe I'm confused.

I think he is very very smart, educated, experienced and knows the law probably to the hilt...that's what he does. Problem is..if I get your Gist..is that he has a monotone voice..he was talking through the telephone for the most part..so no "face on" demeanour. How many jurors want to listen to a cell phone, blackberry..something like that? They want a Real Person in the Courtroom.

He had his reasons and he was approved, by court order. IF I'm getting the correct person here..

When he was there personally, I agree. Very smart..very astute lawyer..but very "monotone"...doesn't Hit everyone the right way.

See my PM on this. Doesn't make the lawyer anything less than brilliant..only "boring".

jmo

j [/*]

There were other things besides not bothering to show up in the courtroom. He tried to take over control of the courtroom from the Judge, he 'threatened' anything JF decided that he didn't like and eventually was told by the Judge, that threats weren't going to work and he wasn't running things.

He also helped to write Special Jury Instruction #3, which, as we all know, purposely misstated the law. That indicates that he's willing to try and sneak something he, as an appeals attorney (who mentioned his greater knowledge of law constantly as I recall) knows is incorrect, into the process.

Land Shark®

08-08-2008, 01:48 PM

Spectorfan8

08-08-2008, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

hi sp8 - cool name you have there :cool:

i agree about the next verdict, it could be hung again. jmo [/*]

It can be a cool name, but it can have it's draw backs. That is one reason I made it up.
Yes, it could be another hung jury. Personally, I would prefer the not guilty. From what I have read so far, either verdict is going to be a long time coming.
SF8

joolz

08-08-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd
The gun contained 5 unexpended rounds of ammunition. Several of these had Lana Jean Clarkson’s DNA matched blood spatter on the front of the bullets. The only spatter event on Lana Clarkson’s body was the inter-oral gunshot wound. The bullet matched the revolver by ballistics.
Last item to fact pile is that evidence item #1 is the gun that ended the life of Lana Jean Clarkson.

Summary:

1. The gun that ended the life of Lana Clarkson was a Colt Cobra Special .38 with a 2” barrel.
2. Where the gun was found, it was impossible for Lana Clarkson to have committed suicide un-assisted.
3. Phillip Harvey Spector was seen handling a gun on the morning of February 3, 2003.
4. Lana Clarkson’ face was wiped off along with the death weapon with a wet diaper by Phillip Spector.

Conclusion:

All of the above was testified to on the witness stand and tested by the attorneys, from both sides. None of the above was proved to be false by either side. Lana Jean Clarkson was at Phillip Harvey Spector’s home on the morning of February 3, 2003. She had the appearance of being ready to leave 1700 Grandview and was sitting by the back door leading to the limousine parking area. A gun was introduced into the setting and was inserted 2 inches’ into Lana Clarkson’s mouth. When it was fired, the bullet travelled at a slight downward angle (5 degrees) and transected Lana’s spinal cord. Death was immediate. The upper front teeth contacted the sight of the gun as it exited the mouth. It then was transported to the back door of 1700 Grandview where Phillip Spector had it in his hand when he made a comment. Phillip Spector then proceeded to obtain a wet diaper, wipe Lana Clarkson’s face and the gun, leaving the diaper in the bathroom.

There is no coloring, no opinions on the above. This is a text book example of Murder 2.
Lana did not bring the gun to 1700 Grandview. She did not search and find the gun nor did she commit an unassisted suicide.

Where is there reasonable doubt in any of the facts shown above?

There are none in my verdict, guilty as charged.

Mortie [/*]

:seeya:
Please send this right-to-the-point synopsis to the D.A.'s office. I don't think there is a way to make what happened any clearer than this. Guilty as charged IMO.

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd
The gun contained 5 unexpended rounds of ammunition. Several of these had Lana Jean Clarkson’s DNA matched blood spatter on the front of the bullets. The only spatter event on Lana Clarkson’s body was the inter-oral gunshot wound. The bullet matched the revolver by ballistics.
Last item to fact pile is that evidence item #1 is the gun that ended the life of Lana Jean Clarkson.

Summary:

1. The gun that ended the life of Lana Clarkson was a Colt Cobra Special .38 with a 2” barrel.
2. Where the gun was found, it was impossible for Lana Clarkson to have committed suicide un-assisted.
3. Phillip Harvey Spector was seen handling a gun on the morning of February 3, 2003.
4. Lana Clarkson’ face was wiped off along with the death weapon with a wet diaper by Phillip Spector.

Conclusion:

All of the above was testified to on the witness stand and tested by the attorneys, from both sides. None of the above was proved to be false by either side. Lana Jean Clarkson was at Phillip Harvey Spector’s home on the morning of February 3, 2003. She had the appearance of being ready to leave 1700 Grandview and was sitting by the back door leading to the limousine parking area. A gun was introduced into the setting and was inserted 2 inches’ into Lana Clarkson’s mouth. When it was fired, the bullet travelled at a slight downward angle (5 degrees) and transected Lana’s spinal cord. Death was immediate. The upper front teeth contacted the sight of the gun as it exited the mouth. It then was transported to the back door of 1700 Grandview where Phillip Spector had it in his hand when he made a comment. Phillip Spector then proceeded to obtain a wet diaper, wipe Lana Clarkson’s face and the gun, leaving the diaper in the bathroom.

There is no coloring, no opinions on the above. This is a text book example of Murder 2.
Lana did not bring the gun to 1700 Grandview. She did not search and find the gun nor did she commit an unassisted suicide.

Where is there reasonable doubt in any of the facts shown above?

There are none in my verdict, guilty as charged.

Mortie [/*]

Bravo Mort, that was an excellent factual synopsis. A simple thing of including her middle name, just adds just another tiny bit of humanity to this already tragic situation. I'm not as good with the facts as many of you are but, one thing that just has stood out to me as a fact that I could state and that is she didn't wipe her own face or that gun. Was she dispondent, was he playing around or angry, was he that close or was she messing around all can be speculated with in some degree but, that wiped down gun he did that. No one else could have and why wipe it down?

Does an innocent man touch a gun after an accident? A man with at least some knowledge of guns. A man who had a former marshall and another former policeman as bodyguards, did he not learn something from them as far as gun safety or protocol. At 62 you know how things work and what basically can incriminate you and what can exonerate you. Her prints mainly would exonerate him, his prints mainly might at least show possible ownership and previous handling, or his prints might just prove worse, well.......... Phil isn't stupid. JMO

joolz

08-08-2008, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

(respectfully snipped)

well.......... Phil isn't stupid. JMO [/*]

Nope, just very disturbed. :seeya:

Ellie

08-08-2008, 03:23 PM

Ellie

08-08-2008, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Excuse me for jumping in. I think the poster is just stating their opinion. IMO they are not out to convince anyone of anything and they don't have to.JMO:hat: [/*]

Oh absolutely, I agree with you. I just want to know why they think what they think. You know, what leads them to these opinions. That's all!

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by EmuArt
This is awful. BEWARE. You guys have probably seen this web site already as I got this link from here during the last trial.

http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/02/lucky-homicide-detectives-escaped-death.html [/*]

I remember his postings on T Spector. Team S. I wonder who came up with that idea, anyway..............

I did have a bit of a chuckle when on Sprocket's blog concerning the March 28 hearing she mentions at 9:55am seeing PH talking to Weinberg. I notice on PH blog of the same date March 28, he put up a disclaimer concerning his connection to PS. Hmmmm :shrug: LOL

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

joolz

08-08-2008, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

suicidal thoughts and actions can occur spontaniously, especially when drinking booze. jmo [/*]

Spontaneous suicide? How interesting.

If that is what you really think happened, then why would Spector have said, "I think I just killed somebody?"

gmiller

08-08-2008, 05:07 PM

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

suicidal thoughts and actions can occur spontaniously, especially when drinking booze. jmo [/*]

But she was with Phil S, you would think being with this well known music producer and writer would be an uplifting experience not drive you to suicide. That doesn't say much for being in his company even with a couple of drinks. JMO

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

Was that real? There isn't a lot that shocks me but that was just....disturbing. [/*]

OMG I didn't watch that video, I thought beware was referring to his writings. JMO

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by joolz

Spontaneous suicide? How interesting.

If that is what you really think happened, then why would Spector have said, "I think I just killed somebody?" [/*]

I think it's because he had just killed Lana Clarkson.

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

OMG I didn't watch that video, I thought beware was referring to his writings. JMO [/*]

:lol: So did I, knowing what site that is!

joolz

08-08-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

I think it's because he had just killed Lana Clarkson. [/*]

:D You don't believe in spontaneous combustion, I mean spontaneous suicide?

gmiller

08-08-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

wow i just watched that. makes you wonder if he knew he was going to shoot himself before he took the drink of water or did he just make up his mind to do that in a split second? [/*]

Well when you are a cop killer, it's probably best to commit suicide. I don't really know when he decided */c I was so taken aback by his body movements after he killed himself. This actually reminded me of when my grandmother passed away from cancer a year ago. She had morphine...but not enough (towards the end it's supposed to be administered every hour, on the hour and due to negligence on the nurse's part it was administered every eight hours). Right at the end she came out of her coma a horror show, even worse than the suicide we just witnessed. I'm still a bit traumatized that incident.

joolz

08-08-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

Well when you are a cop killer, it's probably best to commit suicide. I don't really know when he decided */c I was so taken aback by his body movements after he killed himself. This actually reminded me of when my grandmother passed away from cancer a year ago. She had morphine...but not enough (towards the end it's supposed to be administered every hour, on the hour and due to negligence on the nurse's part it was administered every eight hours). Right at the end she came out of her coma a horror show, even worse than the suicide we just witnessed. I'm still a bit traumatized that incident. [/*]

:rose: for her and for you.

gmiller

08-08-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

OMG I didn't watch that video, I thought beware was referring to his writings. JMO [/*]

And I thought it was going to be pics of Lana from the crime scene. I have seen those before. Save yourself the trip and bill to the psychologist's office Kennedy. You needn't see that!

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

wow i just watched that. makes you wonder if he knew he was going to shoot himself before he took the drink of water or did he just make up his mind to do that in a split second? [/*]

I'd say the fact that he bothered to sneak a gun into the police station, would indicate that he intended to end his own life.

If he'd decided to shoot it out, it still would have been suicide by Cop.

He was at the police station. A place full of Cops, who were carrying guns. The chances of getting out of there alive, even with a hostage, are probably around one one thousandth of a point to zero, and getting out after killing one in front of their peers less than zero.

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

"look at me, i have no real career, look at phil he has a mansion. i think i will kill myself at this famous guy's house and then i will be famous too." lc [/*]

Is that a direct quote, or just an unfounded knock at Lana Clarkson?

gmiller

08-08-2008, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by joolz

:rose: for her and for you. [/*]

Awe, thanks joolz. Due to the distance that separated us, we weren't actually that close (her death brought us close together though).

After that experience I was motivated to become a hospice volunteer and I am happy to report that the 2 deaths that I have witnessed were very peaceful.

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by joolz

:D You don't believe in spontaneous combustion, I mean spontaneous suicide? [/*]

Not just out of nowhere, no I don't. Certainly not in this case. There is no evidence, real reliable evidence, not PP's lies, to back it up.

Even professionals who study suicide agree that the rare "spontaneous" suicide (and they are in the minority), still has to have some elements.

The person may not have planned to suicide that day, in that way, but they would be depressed, probably have thought about suicide, and would be giving off signs, even if no one recognized them.

gmiller

08-08-2008, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by EmuArt

I am sorry gmiller. I should of said more than beware and my heart goes out to you and yours.

I was interested in the fact of where this mans legs ended up and if it made a difference whether or not the bullet hits the spine. I would guess yes. We need Lindawithay and her expertise. I always thought maybe in the scuffle Lana's legs ended up like they did.

Again sorry. [/*]

Oh please don't apologize! It is facinating and now that I understand the leg movement pertaining to LC.

I can tell you from my experience with my grandmother that your body can move in all sorts of different directions when they die. For example, the "horror show" portion of grandmothers death was when she opened her eyes and made eye contact with me and then with my poor father (her son), sat up, vomited blood, and then flopped back in the bed and there were bubbles that frothed in her mouth. My mom whispered to me "I didn't know grandma had partials" (thinking the silver bubbles were metal in the roof of her mouth). That's when told her that she didn't and that it looked like bubbling. I still don't understand that. Anybody have thoughts as to that? No one in hospice wants to tell me but everyone looked horrified and tells me that it should not have happened.

Anyway, getting back to your point, I recall her hands were clasped, but then as she lifelessly ended up in the laying down position her arms were strait out beside her and her hands were no longer clasped. Her head rolled too when we thought it was settled on the pillow too, much like the perp on the tape.

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 06:11 PM

Spectorfan8

08-08-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Just a suggestion for you. Since many here are not Ca. residents or Ca. Atty's why don't you email Lisa Bloom or Jami Floyd. I believe they are both Ca. lawyers. You could ask:
1.From where is the jury pool drawn?(Drivers license, voter registration,other)
2.How large is the pool and is a pool specifically assigned to a specific case.
3. Is the "Voir Dire" process open to public view.
4. Does the judge ask the potential jurors if a long trial is a burden on them.(health,family,financial,etc.)
5.What is the $Per Diem allowed for service as a juror.
6. Anything else you might feel is germane.
It seems to me L.*. & J.F. should be in a position to know and should be more than happy to respond. I would do it but I think you are younger than me and I get tired. I know you type and spell better than I do. Good Luck.:hat: [/*]

I have written them before, and got no reply. I don't know about me being younger, I am 42, the best year of my life. My babies (college age ha ha) are grown, and I'm getting ready to miss them so much.
Here, jurors are paid $12.00 a day.:seeya:

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

jmo of what she could of been thinking. none of us were there, so we do not know what was said back and forth between lana and phil. [/*]

Very mean spirited.

joolz

08-08-2008, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

Very mean spirited. [/*]

ITA. This is the fastest I've ever gone from Point A to Iggy.
Is that a personal best or Occam's Razor?

kennedy06

08-08-2008, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

jmo of what she could of been thinking. none of us were there, so we do not know what was said back and forth between lana and phil. [/*]

They could have been saying I love you for all we know, still doesn't excuse the fact a bullet ended up in the back of her mouth. :rolleyes: JMO

Spectorfan8

08-08-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

Oh please don't apologize! It is facinating and now that I understand the leg movement pertaining to LC.

I can tell you from my experience with my grandmother that your body can move in all sorts of different directions when they die. For example, the "horror show" portion of grandmothers death was when she opened her eyes and made eye contact with me and then with my poor father (her son), sat up, vomited blood, and then flopped back in the bed and there were bubbles that frothed in her mouth. My mom whispered to me "I didn't know grandma had partials" (thinking the silver bubbles were metal in the roof of her mouth). That's when told her that she didn't and that it looked like bubbling. I still don't understand that. Anybody have thoughts as to that? No one in hospice wants to tell me but everyone looked horrified and tells me that it should not have happened.

Anyway, getting back to your point, I recall her hands were clasped, but then as she lifelessly ended up in the laying down position her arms were strait out beside her and her hands were no longer clasped. Her head rolled too when we thought it was settled on the pillow too, much like the perp on the tape. [/*]:rose: :rose:

I am right here with you. I lost my dear sweet grandmother in June. Her body just looked a shell of herself. RIP, dear Nannie. Tommorrow is her 88 birthday, and by the grace of god, she will celebrate it in heaven, with no pain. :rose:

Spectorfan8

08-08-2008, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

:lol: So did I, knowing what site that is! [/*]

Same here.:)

gmiller

08-08-2008, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

They could have been saying I love you for all we know, still doesn't excuse the fact a bullet ended up in the back of her mouth. :rolleyes: JMO [/*]

Exactly! The facts are that we have 5 women that all stated when PS was drunk, he threatened him with a gun. On the other hand, we have the testimony of 2 fools who said Lana wanted "end it all". PP changed her story (possibly in exchange for a job). Sine from all indications the jury didn't buy their story so it will be interesting what "the Thanksgiving Day dessert" has to say at trial 2.
JMO

gmiller

08-08-2008, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
:rose: :rose:

I am right here with you. I lost my dear sweet grandmother in June. Her body just looked a shell of herself. RIP, dear Nannie. Tommorrow is her 88 birthday, and by the grace of god, she will celebrate it in heaven, with no pain. :rose: [/*]

It is quite shocking to see them so fragile. I'm so sorry for your loss, Spectorfan. I'm sure she'll be shining down on you tomorrow! God bless.

~G

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd
The gun contained 5 unexpended rounds of ammunition. Several of these had Lana Jean Clarkson’s DNA matched blood spatter on the front of the bullets. The only spatter event on Lana Clarkson’s body was the inter-oral gunshot wound. The bullet matched the revolver by ballistics.
Last item to fact pile is that evidence item #1 is the gun that ended the life of Lana Jean Clarkson.

Summary:

1. The gun that ended the life of Lana Clarkson was a Colt Cobra Special .38 with a 2” barrel.
2. Where the gun was found, it was impossible for Lana Clarkson to have committed suicide un-assisted.
3. Phillip Harvey Spector was seen handling a gun on the morning of February 3, 2003.
4. Lana Clarkson’ face was wiped off along with the death weapon with a wet diaper by Phillip Spector.

Conclusion:

All of the above was testified to on the witness stand and tested by the attorneys, from both sides. None of the above was proved to be false by either side. Lana Jean Clarkson was at Phillip Harvey Spector’s home on the morning of February 3, 2003. She had the appearance of being ready to leave 1700 Grandview and was sitting by the back door leading to the limousine parking area. A gun was introduced into the setting and was inserted 2 inches’ into Lana Clarkson’s mouth. When it was fired, the bullet travelled at a slight downward angle (5 degrees) and transected Lana’s spinal cord. Death was immediate. The upper front teeth contacted the sight of the gun as it exited the mouth. It then was transported to the back door of 1700 Grandview where Phillip Spector had it in his hand when he made a comment. Phillip Spector then proceeded to obtain a wet diaper, wipe Lana Clarkson’s face and the gun, leaving the diaper in the bathroom.

There is no coloring, no opinions on the above. This is a text book example of Murder 2.
Lana did not bring the gun to 1700 Grandview. She did not search and find the gun nor did she commit an unassisted suicide.

Where is there reasonable doubt in any of the facts shown above?

There are none in my verdict, guilty as charged.

Mortie [/*]

As I have done before, regardless of which side you are on, If I see misinformation that I know is incorrect, I will correct it.

Mort, as close to exact as you have always been, I was surprised that you actually posted misinformation, not once but twice in the referenced posting above.

You stated that :
1: "3. Phillip Harvey Spector was seen handling a gun on the morning of February 3, 2003."

2: "Lana Jean Clarkson was at Phillip Harvey Spector’s home on the morning of February 3, 2003."

Both of these comments are incorrect as facts.

And as I always try to back up my corrections with links (unlike some), here's is my proof of the fact that I am correcting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spector

If you read the information very carefully, you will see, in fact, that my father's name was actually Harvey Phillip Spector when he was younger and later, legally changed it to just Phillip Spector and commonly just called Phil Spector. You will see that at no time was Harvey ever his middle name.

Now, as for the rest of your post, as sad as it is, it was very accurate.

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

Thanks for the reply....

I too would prefer a "not guilty" and I know that I am not a popular person for this view. I think Lana was messing around with Phil's gun - "acting out" and made a huge mistake. I would not dismiss either that because of drinking and thinking and possibly depressed because of her bad career (come on that video sucked big time), she may of took her own life on purpose. She is now more famous dead than alive. JMO [/*]

I will agree with you on only 1 Point. I too would not like to see him found guilty.

Now, as to the rest of your comments, since Lana had two broken wrists (from an accident on a rug 13 months prior) and had recently had pins removed from both wrists, how could she possibly put her wrists in a position to commit suicide through the mouth? That was physically impossible for her to do and was stated in the trial.

What evidence do you have that she was "possibly" depressed? They could not prove she was. The closest they got was an E-Mail sent out 2 Months prior.

Other then your opinion of the video, how did she have a bad career when she was only just getting back into it after being out for over a year. She had jobs lined up as early as the following week of Feb 3,2003 (also stated during the trial).

Since you want to submit comments contrary to what was stated and proven during the trial, the burden of proof falls on you to prove she could have committed suicide.

I would like any facts you have that could give me hope that my father has a chance. Opinions will not convince me nor should they convince the Jury, only facts.

I see that you are very new here so please, do not see my comments as mean spirited but as a means to find hope from you where none others before you with your same comments have provided.

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

maybe she was blubbering about how her life sucked? maybe he told her to go ahead and shoot herself, thus feeling somewhat guilty of her actions? [/*]

Blubbering you say. Just how much alcohol do you think she had in her system? You are aware that most of what she drank had not been processed by her body yet, right? Most of it pooled up in her heart which showed that it was only just starting to get into her system. If her breath was tested at the moment she died, she would not have been legally drunk, so again, why do you think she could have been "blubbering"?

Just as an opinion, I think you either did not see the whole trial (or at least the part about her *.A.C. level) or we have an old Baiter with a new Nic just trying to get a reaction from posters that really do care about this case and want to discuss real possibilities to both sides of the case. This is just my opinion.

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by kennedy06

But she was with Phil S, you would think being with this well known music producer and writer would be an uplifting experience not drive you to suicide. That doesn't say much for being in his company even with a couple of drinks. JMO [/*]

Sad as it is, you make a very good point. My father was great at what he did and since some want to speculate that Lana knew who my father was, it would make no sense that she would go to his place to commit suicide but to possibly "network" and try to make new contacts which is a common thing to do in Hollywood and that happens 24/7.

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

i am not trying to be mean, just posting my views and since they are the opposite of yours, they seem "mean" to you. i have seen worse said about PS and i don't take it personally, as no one should take anything i say about LC personally. these are only my opinions and i am not looking for a cheering section or a tomato fight.

;) [/*]

If you're not trying then you have a natural talent for it. That little "Quote" you posted earlier attributed to Lana (and based, as you stated, on no facts) speaks for itself.

Jayne

08-08-2008, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

Was that real? There isn't a lot that shocks me but that was just....disturbing. [/*]

I'm not shocked..except that he wasn't "shaken down".

I don't know what comparisons are being made here...but this guy shot himself in the side of the head with his left hand ONLY holding the gun. He had his left leg crossed over his right until he took out the gun, on his left side...braced himself underneath with his Left leg..shot himself..then "slumped" to his left...where the force of the bullet hit him...where his weight was balance at the time of the shot..where his body was leaning when shot...

Lana's body position wasn't anywhere near that (as we know it)..but the dripping blood..to her Right side...one hand almost beneath her the other dropped by her side..but the Gun on the Other Side. I see no comparison. She wasn't shot in the side of the head..but direclty in the mouth..the bullet lodging in her C vertebrae, if I recall correctly.

I'm no scientist, obviously, but common sense tells me...she didn't shoot herself with her left hand and end up leaning to her right..with the gun falling to her Left..and her legs...

Yes..his legs straightened out..I think it was Dr. Herold who testified (or one of them did) that the legs could distend. But this video of him...his legs are leaning to his Right..he SHOT himself on the Left side..the gun was on the Left side..his head Fell to his Left side. So his "body" adjusted..to the upper weight falling against the wall and leaning toward the area of the Shot.

he shot himself using his Left Hand...I'm not suprised the gun ended up there. Or that his head leaned to his left and his lower body was center to his right...angle...body straightens up at death, as I maybe not correctly understand it.

Lana's legs were Straight Out in Front..Almost...Her head only leaned to her right..Seems more sensible reasoning that she was shot "dead/spot on"...front on...and her body followed "habit" (being R handed/superior) OR because of the angle of the "shooter" she slumped that way. If she shot herself, and the condition and placing of her body..the way it was...said she shot herself straight on..and the gun would have ended up at her Right side. If someone else shot her..straight on..as it certainly appears to me, especially after seeing this video...the gun wouldn't have ended up anywhere unless the shooter dropped it...and if the shooter were R handed..and dropped it..it would be at Lana's Left Side. But..of course..we know that the gun was "tampered with" after the death. My guess..it never left the shooters hands...until wiped off and placed...where...drunk as a stunk he was...he stood in front of her body and put the gun where HE at that moment thought it would go..to HIS right.

Enough belabouring of this issue...

jmo

J

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by GPSpector

Sad as it is, you make a very good point. My father was great at what he did and since some want to speculate that Lana knew who my father was, it would make no sense that she would go to his place to commit suicide but to possibly "network" and try to make new contacts which is a common thing to do in Hollywood and that happens 24/7. [/*]

I think if Lana had known who your Father was on sight, she would not have called him Mrs. Spector.

It was an honest mistake and not meant to offend, but it certainly isn't the kind of thing you say to someone you know is a man.

Especially someone whose support you hope to gain to help you in your career.

I find it reasonable that Lana eventually accepted PS's invitation for a drink in order to earn his good will and create a possible connection. As you say, networking is a way of life for the entertainment business.

She probably felt bad for her mistake earlier, and grateful that PS had been nice about it, and figured why not go for one drink. She must have thought she would be safe with someone everyone at work knew.

True2Blues

08-08-2008, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by Jayne

I'm not shocked..except that he wasn't "shaken down".

I don't know what comparisons are being made here...but this guy shot himself in the side of the head with his left hand ONLY holding the gun. He had his left leg crossed over his right until he took out the gun, on his left side...braced himself underneath with his Left leg..shot himself..then "slumped" to his left...where the force of the bullet hit him...where his weight was balance at the time of the shot..where his body was leaning when shot...

Lana's body position wasn't anywhere near that (as we know it)..but the dripping blood..to her Right side...one hand almost beneath her the other dropped by her side..but the Gun on the Other Side. I see no comparison. She wasn't shot in the side of the head..but direclty in the mouth..the bullet lodging in her C vertebrae, if I recall correctly.

I'm no scientist, obviously, but common sense tells me...she didn't shoot herself with her left hand and end up leaning to her right..with the gun falling to her Left..and her legs...

Yes..his legs straightened out..I think it was Dr. Herold who testified (or one of them did) that the legs could distend. But this video of him...his legs are leaning to his Right..he SHOT himself on the Left side..the gun was on the Left side..his head Fell to his Left side. So his "body" adjusted..to the upper weight falling against the wall and leaning toward the area of the Shot.

he shot himself using his Left Hand...I'm not suprised the gun ended up there. Or that his head leaned to his left and his lower body was center to his right...angle...body straightens up at death, as I maybe not correctly understand it.

Lana's legs were Straight Out in Front..Almost...Her head only leaned to her right..Seems more sensible reasoning that she was shot "dead/spot on"...front on...and her body followed "habit" (being R handed/superior) OR because of the angle of the "shooter" she slumped that way. If she shot herself, and the condition and placing of her body..the way it was...said she shot herself straight on..and the gun would have ended up at her Right side. If someone else shot her..straight on..as it certainly appears to me, especially after seeing this video...the gun wouldn't have ended up anywhere unless the shooter dropped it...and if the shooter were R handed..and dropped it..it would be at Lana's Left Side. But..of course..we know that the gun was "tampered with" after the death. My guess..it never left the shooters hands...until wiped off and placed...where...drunk as a stunk he was...he stood in front of her body and put the gun where HE at that moment thought it would go..to HIS right.

Enough belabouring of this issue...

jmo

J [/*]

Thanks for the information Jayne. I didn't watch the tape, but the location of the shot makes a lot of difference. His shot wouldn't have severed his cerebral cortex. Different body reactions.

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Searching
Suicide
From Wikipedia, [/*]

Instead of wasting all of our time with comments that could easily be edited to suit your needs, try saving your time, and ours by just posting the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide

There is a reason people ask for links. For one, it make you look more credible when you supply them and less credible when you do what you did.

Now, if you have no clue how to post a link, just ask for help. As long as you continue to support the opinion that you don't need to, you will have problems convincing most here of your views.

Jayne

08-08-2008, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

I think if Lana had known who your Father was on sight, she would not have called him Mrs. Spector.

It was an honest mistake and not meant to offend, but it certainly isn't the kind of thing you say to someone you know is a man.

Especially someone whose support you hope to gain to help you in your career.

I find it reasonable that Lana eventually accepted PS's invitation for a drink in order to earn his good will and create a possible connection. As you say, networking is a way of life for the entertainment business.

She probably felt bad for her mistake earlier, and grateful that PS had been nice about it, and figured why not go for one drink. She must have thought she would be safe with someone everyone at work knew. [/*]

ITA...I have posted it before so won't reiterate it..except to say..I think someone at the HOB told Lana who PS was...and insinuated he was "helpful/ok/big name"..or they just mentioned the name and it "struck a bell" from what she'd heard from Miss Pie. And, therefore felt "safe" and perhaps in a position to make a little "connection" just for "one drink". But...can the prosecution find an honest witness from the HOB..who would risk Liability..for having said any such thing?

jmo

J

GPSpector

08-08-2008, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by poodlestar

i am not trying to be mean, just posting my views and since they are the opposite of yours, they seem "mean" to you. i have seen worse said about PS and i don't take it personally, as no one should take anything i say about LC personally. these are only my opinions and i am not looking for a cheering section or a tomato fight.

;) [/*]

No, your comment WAS mean spirited by showing no concern or respect for the dead or to those that lost someone they cared about.

I care a great deal about what happens to my father and yet, I still feel very bad about what Lana and her closest friends and family due to the death of Lana regardless of how it happened.

It's called compassion. :rose:

Show respect here and you will get it in return.

Jayne

08-08-2008, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by True2Blues

Thanks for the information Jayne. I didn't watch the tape, but the location of the shot makes a lot of difference. His shot wouldn't have severed his cerebral cortex. Different body reactions. [/*]

I don't know True...but my guess is with yours..yours more seasoned as to the cortex. He shot himself just behind his left ear...where the bullet ended up? lodged in his skull? I didn't see a bullet come out the other side and end up on the wall of the interrogation room. Maybe it angled or sort of ricocheted into another part of his head/brain. But definitely..he did not have an In Mouth..Direct to the Back of the Spine Shot.

For the little I know of medical terminology...I'd say it was a Brain Trauma from a Gun Shot to the Head...not Spinal. What Cortex or fold of the brain that bullet would have hit...I don't know..but it certainly killed him...instantly..his body just took a few seconds to react to gravity...if I understand physiology to any extent.

Plus..it looked like a much higher calibre and definitely longer barrled gun...like a revolver..because I heard the "click"...that "take some of the pounds of pressure away" to shoot the fatal bullet. Cowboy Stuff... (that's just my input..doesn't mean a thing..but always think of the Eastwood movies!) I think he definitely "cocked" that gun before he shot his fatal shot.

jmo

J

edited for a very bad typo..sorry

GPSpector

08-09-2008, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

ITA...I have posted it before so won't reiterate it..except to say..I think someone at the HOB told Lana who PS was...and insinuated he was "helpful/ok/big name"..or they just mentioned the name and it "struck a bell" from what she'd heard from Miss Pie. And, therefore felt "safe" and perhaps in a position to make a little "connection" just for "one drink". But...can the prosecution find an honest witness from the HOB..who would risk Liability..for having said any such thing?

jmo

J [/*]

Actually, it was stated in the trial that "She was to treat him like Dan Akroyd". Dan Aykroyd was not just part owner of the House of Blues but also a well established actor and that alone could have been all that was needed to imply to Lana that my father may have also been in the acting industry and therefore a good source for networking.

Just as a side note, and a fact, my father has acted on both the big screen and TV:

"Easy Rider" (1969) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064276/

"I Dream of Jeannie" (1967) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0609115/

kennedy06

08-09-2008, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by GPSpector

Actually, it was stated in the trial that "She was to treat him like Dan Akroyd". Dan Aykroyd was not just part owner of the House of Blues but also a well established actor and that alone could have been all that was needed to imply to Lana that my father may have also been in the acting industry and therefore a good source for networking.

Just as a side note, and a fact, my father has acted on both the big screen and TV:

"Easy Rider" (1969) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064276/

"I Dream of Jeannie" (1967) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0609115/ [/*]

Thats possible, I guess we will never really know the true extent of what was going through their minds as to their intent with each other. We have a pretty good idea with him since he had asked another waitress out also that night at the HOB and of course the noted pattern of behavior. He is your Dad but, he also, though not acting in the true sense of the word, helped host/cohost a show also. This one with Sal Mineo. JMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-_KKYLzd24

kennedy06

08-09-2008, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

I don't know True...but my guess is with yours..yours more seasoned as to the cortex. He shot himself just behind his left ear...where the bullet ended up? lodged in his skull? I didn't see a bullet come out the other side and end up on the wall of the interrogation room. Maybe it angled or sort of ricocheted into another part of his head/brain. But definitely..he did not have an In Mouth..Direct to the Back of the Spine Shot.

For the little I know of medical terminology...I'd say it was a Brain Trauma from a Gun Shot to the Head...not Spinal. What Cortex or fold of the brain that bullet would have hit...I don't know..but it certainly killed him...instantly..his body just took a few seconds to react to gravity...if I understand physiology to any extent.

Plus..it looked like a much higher calibre and definitely longer barrled gun...like a revolver..because I heard the "click"...that "take some of the pounds of pressure away" to shoot the fatal bullet. Cowboy Stuff... (that's just my input..doesn't mean a thing..but always think of the Eastwood movies!) I think he definitely "cocked" that gun before he shot his fatal shot.

jmo

J

edited for a very bad typo..sorry [/*]

Jayne I for one had watched it and was shocked about his final sitting position. After reading your posts concerning it, I now see the differences that you pointed out. Thanks

Jayne

08-09-2008, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by kennedy06

Jayne I for one had watched it and was shocked about his final sitting position. After reading your posts concerning it, I now see the differences that you pointed out. Thanks [/*]

I don't know if anything holds water in forensics or whatever...

but that video compared to PS situation is like comparing apples to oranges...

Nothing was even closely "similar". Larger gun..larger calibre..Left hand Absolutely as the shooting mechanism...leaning to his Left when he shot himself. obviously, to me, left handed..the way he opened up the water bottle..with his Left Hand on the cap.

And..it was a dead on shot to the Left side of his head. NOT at all what happened with Lana.

Just trying to throw in my opinion and give some "other" insight..not to cause argument or dissention to the observations here.

I hope Mortie can come in here and give some of his gun expertise.

jmo

J

gmiller

08-09-2008, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by poodlestar

i am not trying to be mean, just posting my views and since they are the opposite of yours, they seem "mean" to you. i have seen worse said about PS and i don't take it personally, as no one should take anything i say about LC personally. these are only my opinions and i am not looking for a cheering section or a tomato fight.

;) [/*]

I don't want to start a fight either but I feel as though you crossed the line. Lana Clarkson was, IMO the victim here. As you point out, this is mostly a pro prosecution board. Then why would you want to make yourself a target by saying such cruel and disparaging things Lana? If you are here to change minds, I'll be the first to say it aint gonna happen with me!
JMO
~G

gmiller

08-09-2008, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

I don't know if anything holds water in forensics or whatever...

but that video compared to PS situation is like comparing apples to oranges...

Nothing was even closely "similar". Larger gun..larger calibre..Left hand Absolutely as the shooting mechanism...leaning to his Left when he shot himself. obviously, to me, left handed..the way he opened up the water bottle..with his Left Hand on the cap.

And..it was a dead on shot to the Left side of his head. NOT at all what happened with Lana.

Just trying to throw in my opinion and give some "other" insight..not to cause argument or dissention to the observations here.

I hope Mortie can come in here and give some of his gun expertise.

jmo

J [/*]

Hi Jayne!

I completely agree. The suicide that we saw on the youtube clip is not at all similar to how Lana died. I would like to add to your post that Lana died from an intraoral GSW, not to the temple. Do you think it immediately destroyed his cerebral cortex? I think not */c the shot was to temple. And then we have the blood that poured out of his head, (where he was shot) where LC's was like an encapsulated explosion contained within her head.

On another note, at least he had the good sense to take himself out. You know how copkillers are treated in prison. Maybe I'm biased */c you know how much I like the cops;) So it's kind of a win, win don't you think?

Jayne

08-09-2008, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by gmiller

Hi Jayne!

I completely agree. The suicide that we saw on the youtube clip is not at all similar to how Lana died. I would like to add to your post that Lana died from an intraoral GSW, not to the temple. Do you think it immediately destroyed his cerebral cortex? I think not */c the shot was to temple. And then we have the blood that poured out of his head, (where he was shot) where LC's was like an encapsulated explosion contained within her head.

On another note, at least he had the good sense to take himself out. You know how copkillers are treated in prison. Maybe I'm biased */c you know how much I like the cops;) So it's kind of a win, win don't you think? [/*]

OK...here goes. Cop Killers..many times do not even make it to prison...I'll say no more...but the majority of times, in my experience, it isn't a set up..it's a confrontation with another cop or cops. Sure cops protect and avenge each other..but within the law..most of them do. I do believe that...but they won't make it easy on the guy. That's why I was amazed that they didn't shake him down. In NY..I never ever heard of a situation like this. Somebody wasn't paying attention or following protocol.

He was in the interrogation room...he had two (or maybe three) options. Confess....get the 1st Degree Murder Charge with a death penalty or play hardball...go to prison awaiting trial...and see how he's treated (not going to say anymore about that) probably getting extradition to a place he was so adamant about getting away from?...or shoot himself?

I think he didn't take the "chicken's way out" (but yes, in a sense)...he took the Easy Way Out. Get it done and over with. Especially, as I understand it, he was an illegal immigrant...so double the problems. I bet he'd rather be dead in the USA than extradited?

sounds harsh...but maybe that was it..he wasn't even thinking about a "police beating" (if that would have even happened..certainly NOT on tape..right?) or a "in the slammer...gonna be self contained" issue. Or maybe he knew he was "IN" for the long run..with no way out..so let the COPS take the blame?

(WHICH..heck..WHAT were they thinking to not pat him down or more?...maybe it was because of in the heat of the moment..catching a Cop Killer...they weren't careful? DUH...what were they thinking?) The language the detective used was pretty "lame" compared to what he could have used in that video after finding out the perp shot himself..almost in his presence? What a nightmare.

What an IAB case that would be. I could just imagine the family of this guy suing the city or state..for his "wrongful death"? Wouldn't be the first time a criminal or his family sues the city..for some lame excuse or loophole.

jmo

j

gmiller

08-09-2008, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Jayne

OK...here goes. Cop Killers..many times do not even make it to prison...I'll say no more...but the majority of times, in "my experience, it isn't a set up..it's a confrontation with another cop or cops. Sure cops protect and avenge each other..but within the law..most of them do. I do believe that...but they won't make it easy on the guy. That's why I was amazed that they didn't shake him down. In NY..I never ever heard of a situation like this. Somebody wasn't paying attention or following protocol.

He was in the interrogation room...he had two (or maybe three) options. Confess....get the 1st Degree Murder Charge with a death penalty or play hardball...go to prison awaiting trial...and see how he's treated (not going to say anymore about that) probably getting extradition to a place he was so adamant about getting away from?...or shoot himself?

I think he didn't take the "chicken's way out" (but yes, in a sense)...he took the Easy Way Out. Get it done and over with. Especially, as I understand it, he was an illegal immigrant...so double the problems. I bet he'd rather be dead in the USA than extradited?

sounds harsh...but maybe that was it..he wasn't even thinking about a "police beating" (if that would have even happened..certainly NOT on tape..right?) or a "in the slammer...gonna be self contained" issue. Or maybe he knew he was "IN" for the long run..with no way out..so let the COPS take the blame?

(WHICH..heck..WHAT were they thinking to not pat him down or more?...maybe it was because of in the heat of the moment..catching a Cop Killer...they weren't careful? DUH...what were they thinking?) The language the detective used was pretty "lame" compared to what he could have used in that video after finding out the perp shot himself..almost in his presence? What a nightmare.

What an IAB case that would be. I could just imagine the family of this guy suing the city or state..for his "wrongful death"? Wouldn't be the first time a criminal or his family sues the city..for some lame excuse or loophole.

jmo

j [/*]

Okay, I'm going to break this one down Nancy Grace style:

"Let me go out to Jayne out of the the ** jurisdiction tonight. Jayne, why in the hey didn't they pat him down? Is Barney Pfief running that PD? Yes? No?

And also what in the hey does IAB stand for? Break it down for us
'common folk'".

Sorry, I couldn't resist. NG is awesome and she seems to be on an even keel lately which is the last thing anyone could say about me tonight/this morning :biggrin:

Spectorfan8

08-09-2008, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by GPSpector

I will agree with you on only 1 Point. I too would not like to see him found guilty.

Now, as to the rest of your comments, since Lana had two broken wrists (from an accident on a rug 13 months prior) and had recently had pins removed from both wrists, how could she possibly put her wrists in a position to commit suicide through the mouth? That was physically impossible for her to do and was stated in the trial.

What evidence do you have that she was "possibly" depressed? They could not prove she was. The closest they got was an E-Mail sent out 2 Months prior.

Other then your opinion of the video, how did she have a bad career when she was only just getting back into it after being out for over a year. She had jobs lined up as early as the following week of Feb 3,2003 (also stated during the trial).

Since you want to submit comments contrary to what was stated and proven during the trial, the burden of proof falls on you to prove she could have committed suicide.

I would like any facts you have that could give me hope that my father has a chance. Opinions will not convince me nor should they convince the Jury, only facts.

I see that you are very new here so please, do not see my comments as mean spirited but as a means to find hope from you where none others before you with your same comments have provided. [/*]

Hi, G,

You are not mean spirited!!!:) You are one of our fav posters, at least IMO.
To the poster that thought my nic was cool, this guy right here can personally tell you the controversy around using Spectorfan8 is. This man is the one that can tell you what it's like.

Later,
G

Spectorfan8

08-09-2008, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by gmiller

I don't want to start a fight either but I feel as though you crossed the line. Lana Clarkson was, IMO the victim here. As you point out, this is mostly a pro prosecution board. Then why would you want to make yourself a target by saying such cruel and disparaging things Lana? If you are here to change minds, I'll be the first to say it aint gonna happen with me!
JMO
~G [/*]

I don't mean to jump in, but I had to. I for one do not know what was going on the night Lana died. I will say that is a tragic that she isn't here today. :rose: I am a not guilty also, but I can't find it within me to disgrace her. I must show compassion. IMO, it is sad that she died, ever which way it was. Again, this is just my personal feeling. RIP Lana:rose:

Jayne

08-09-2008, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by gmiller

Okay, I'm going to break this one down Nancy Grace style:

"Let me go out to Jayne out of the the ** jurisdiction tonight. Jayne, why in the hey didn't they pat him down? Is Barney Pfief running that PD? Yes? No?

And also what in the hey does IAB stand for? Break it down for us
'common folk'".

Sorry, I couldn't resist. NG is awesome and she seems to be on an even keel lately which is the last thing anyone could say about me tonight/this morning :biggrin: [/*]

Good Lord...but OK!

(BTW..I wouldn't go "on" Nancy Grace for a NY minute..but I'd certainly have a coffee or lunch with her and chew the fat.)

1. Why didn't they pat him down? I have no out of this world idea why they didn't? Where I worked previously in criminal law, there would be NO WAY that perp wasn't patted down..stripped of anything other than his clothing..THEN taken into an investigation room for questioning...Protected by a presiding person the entire time. My only "guess" is...they figured they had a "guy" who would have "thrown the gun" somewhere..maybe they had detectives out there looking for it..and what they wanted to do..immediately...was get a confession..statement..something..then throw him in the slammer, pending further investigation. No offense intended to illegal immigrants..but the police should have been, IMO, more concerned. If you don't have documentation of your actual existence...why would the police just trek this guy off to the interrogation room without checking him out first?

A Very Stupid Mistake, IMO. COPS protect each other - you know - there's a "name" for that. For G's sakes...so do corporations and families. BUT..here's the big BUT... police have to do it in a Legally acceptable way. If they do not...they are up against the IAB (coming up...next paragraph)..or it's "thrown out" in court. Not that it matters in this Case..right? The perp is dead..but the cops involved are alive...and the family, I would surmise, have a lot of issues in how this was handled.

Barney Pfeif? I don't want to disparage the S Bernadino PD at all..so I can't really respond to that. But..considering the circumstances, I think it was an 11th hour moment...get the guy in there..get a statement..no one bothered to check if he was "patted down", etc. The Big Guys (detectives, etc.) expected that it was done. It's the trickle down thing...The guys at the bottom..who are really at the Top..get what is handed to them. I think that situation was entirely tragic. For everyone.

It was a Flurry..caught the Cop Killer..Get Him In There. I've worked and lived on both coasts and places...I respect the police departments, but I just am guessing that perhaps in San Bernadino they weren't as astute as NYC or LA to crossing their "T's" and dotting their "I's"..I mean the arresting officers. (PM if you want to)

After watching that video..several times..to get the moments exact (to make my responses), I think that detective was UnInformed but thought he was Informed.

2. IAB. Internal Affairs Bureau. Prosecutors had to prosecute the police if the IAB determined there was "cause"....Well..that was my experience in NY. It's the Internal Investigation Bureau of the Police Department. They investigated any Police Shootings...if it wasn't clear if it was "in defense", etc. And for other things as well..collusion..."sleeping with the enemy" so to speak. Maybe it's called something else out here?

3. I like and dislike Nancy Grace for different reasons. Won't take up space here about one or the other. I think she's very very smart, educated, and has "*'s" most wouldn't have to put on air. I've listened to and watched her presentations..and those of the coverage of PS1. If Nancy Grace had been there last year during PS1, I think there might have been a lot more controversy on the boards and maybe a different Mindthought about the whole thing. She's basically a "victim" advocate, as I understand her diatribes. But, she doesn't let too many stones unturned. I hope she gets out of the ridiculous charges against her for Melinda (name right?)..as it wasn't her determination..it was the syndicate's.

Did I answer your questions ok?

jmo

J

gmiller

08-09-2008, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Spectorfan8

I don't mean to jump in, but I had to. I for one do not know what was going on the night Lana died. I will say that is a tragic that she isn't here today. :rose: I am a not guilty also, but I can't find it within me to disgrace her. I must show compassion. IMO, it is sad that she died, ever which way it was. Again, this is just my personal feeling. RIP Lana:rose: [/*]

Hello Spectorfan! I think some posters may want to take a page out of your book. While you are proSpector you have never once said anything disparaging about Lana. For that, you have made me a fan of yours.

IMO despite what side of this trial we are on, let's try to keep in mind that Lana was a person. She has been dragged through the mud enough, and no doubt will be for a second time. At the end of the day 12 hopefully impartial individuals will be deciding what did go on in PS's home that night.

Jayne

08-09-2008, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by EmuArt

There are differences but I had been wondering about reflexes. [/*]

Reflexes...I'm not at all educated to them. But the difference between that video and how Lana was in that chair..like I said ...was like comparing apples to oranges.

The gunshot was IntraOral..direct to the back of her head, more or less. It wasn't like this video at all.

Reflexes..I guess it depends on how the brain/body reacts to being DEAD?

If you compare his video to what we have seen about Lana...there is no comparison. Almost everything is aposite...her head to her right..her legs almost outstratight in front of her... If she had shot herself in the R side of her head..her legs..if we are using this video as a comparison would to more to her left. That was not the case.

I think..and it's only what I think from some knowledge..then add this "not comparable video" to it. She was shot face/dead on...her legs "threw out" in front of her...and her head either tilted to her Right..by gravity...or someone helped it that way. I'd say it was gravity. And the amount of blood...not like that Video at all...she was shot intra-oral...the blood came out of her ear and mouth..that was "cleaned up"..as to her mouth, pretty much. I'd even bet the was some "force" when she immediately died..when her legs Threw Out...that caused her body to lean to her right?

It this video we're discussing..had a person standing in front of him when he shot himself..right in front of him..perhaps his body angle would have been different? But where that gun landed..I don't think that would have been an issue at all..unless someone..other than the suicide victim..had moved it..shoved it..kicked it, etc. And..obviously..that video proved..right there...the gun was on the side where it was from the Hand it was Shot From.

between that video and Lana's position..sure the body slumped down..but see the differences?

I do..but maybe I'm as crazy as a loon! LOL

jmo

J

kennedy06

08-09-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by EmuArt

There are differences but I had been wondering about reflexes. [/*]

Reflexes that is what amazed me. I watched it several times each time concentrating on a different part of his body movement. I can only speak from a non professional point of view. I have never seen a video of anyone shot while sitting in a small chair with arms, no matter how they were shot. With great respect to Jayne I see the differences that are being pointed out the difference in the details but, I still can't get over the fact his legs ended straight out and he slipped down in that chair.

I thought maybe she had been trying to escape PS, pushing down and away with her feet, her hands around the gun in a defense protective manner and that is how she ended up on the end of the chair like she did. After watching this with only a laymen's eye, I was shocked he ended up in somewhat of a similar position. So maybe her final sitting position didn't have as much to do with her possibly getting away from him as it was the reflexes of her body to the shot impact and noise a knee jerk reaction and death. He could have ended up in how many different poisitions and so could have she but their final sitting poisitions to my laymens eye are similar.

I'm not saying PS isn't guilty just that video example (God bless his soul) gave an actual accounting of the bodie's reflexes. JMO

kennedy06

08-09-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd
Eeeek, wow what a goof I made. I cut and paste selected information from forums and other public comments into a folder of facts that I keep on this case. Was trying to humanize BOTH parties by using full names and I got it wrong. I apologize to you and the Spector family. I did not mean any disrespect to anyone, especially you, your brother or sister. The reason for the posts I made was to try and move the discussion away from some of the more negative threads. I have never disrespected a poster for having a view that is different than mine. I have been known to natter on too long though so I will stop now.

Mortie

[/*]

I always look forward to your posts Mort. You post with a high degree of knowledge about the facts in this case. I would never consider it nattering on:)

gmiller

08-09-2008, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Jayne

Good Lord...but OK!

(BTW..I wouldn't go "on" Nancy Grace for a NY minute..but I'd certainly have a coffee or lunch with her and chew the fat.)

1. Why didn't they pat him down? I have no out of this world idea why they didn't? Where I worked previously in criminal law, there would be NO WAY that perp wasn't patted down..stripped of anything other than his clothing..THEN taken into an investigation room for questioning...Protected by a presiding person the entire time. My only "guess" is...they figured they had a "guy" who would have "thrown the gun" somewhere..maybe they had detectives out there looking for it..and what they wanted to do..immediately...was get a confession..statement..something..then throw him in the slammer, pending further investigation. No offense intended to illegal immigrants..but the police should have been, IMO, more concerned. If you don't have documentation of your actual existence...why would the police just trek this guy off to the interrogation room without checking him out first?

A Very Stupid Mistake, IMO. COPS protect each other - you know - there's a "name" for that. For G's sakes...so do corporations and families. BUT..here's the big BUT... police have to do it in a Legally acceptable way. If they do not...they are up against the IAB (coming up...next paragraph)..or it's "thrown out" in court. Not that it matters in this Case..right? The perp is dead..but the cops involved are alive...and the family, I would surmise, have a lot of issues in how this was handled.

Barney Pfeif? I don't want to disparage the S Bernadino PD at all..so I can't really respond to that. But..considering the circumstances, I think it was an 11th hour moment...get the guy in there..get a statement..no one bothered to check if he was "patted down", etc. The Big Guys (detectives, etc.) expected that it was done. It's the trickle down thing...The guys at the bottom..who are really at the Top..get what is handed to them. I think that situation was entirely tragic. For everyone.

It was a Flurry..caught the Cop Killer..Get Him In There. I've worked and lived on both coasts and places...I respect the police departments, but I just am guessing that perhaps in San Bernadino they weren't as astute as NYC or LA to crossing their "T's" and dotting their "I's"..I mean the arresting officers. (PM if you want to)

After watching that video..several times..to get the moments exact (to make my responses), I think that detective was UnInformed but thought he was Informed.

2. IAB. Internal Affairs Bureau. Prosecutors had to prosecute the police if the IAB determined there was "cause"....Well..that was my experience in NY. It's the Internal Investigation Bureau of the Police Department. They investigated any Police Shootings...if it wasn't clear if it was "in defense", etc. And for other things as well..collusion..."sleeping with the enemy" so to speak. Maybe it's called something else out here?

3. I like and dislike Nancy Grace for different reasons. Won't take up space here about one or the other. I think she's very very smart, educated, and has "*'s" most wouldn't have to put on air. I've listened to and watched her presentations..and those of the coverage of PS1. If Nancy Grace had been there last year during PS1, I think there might have been a lot more controversy on the boards and maybe a different Mindthought about the whole thing. She's basically a "victim" advocate, as I understand her diatribes. But, she doesn't let too many stones unturned. I hope she gets out of the ridiculous charges against her for Melinda (name right?)..as it wasn't her determination..it was the syndicate's.

Did I answer your questions ok?

jmo

J [/*]

Yes, you answered my questions just fine. That was so frightening that he wasn't at the minimum subjected to a good ole' pat him down! I recall going to visit a relitive of mine in prison (yes, I think there is one in every family) I was given the patdown and I had to go through 2 metal detectors too. They made sure nothing was overlooked.
I was only kidding about the Barny Pheif remark. I should never post anything at 3:00am:D
As for NG, I used to really like her when she was on CTV. (She did cover the openings in the Spector trial, so I can't remember when she left) Although, when she would "go out to the court house steps" to talk to Beth Karas, I always felt really bad for BK. She would always take such a tone with her, that I thought they are either Best Friends or they loath each other. I agree with you in that NG would be great to have over for tea but I would NEVER want to go on her show. I noticed that Mike Brooks (a personal favorite of mine) hasn't been on her show in weeks. Wonder what happened?

Yes Melinda Duckett is the woman that committed suicide after being grilled by Nancy. I didn't know she was still up on charges. She's not responsible for that. I felt that she was trying to be a victims rights advocate and get down to where little Trenton Duckett was. I did notice that she did try to tread lightly with the grandparents of Caylee Anthony. From what I understand there are some similarities between the Duckett case and the Anthony case, so she's being careful.

True2Blues

08-09-2008, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Jayne

Reflexes...I'm not at all educated to them. But the difference between that video and how Lana was in that chair..like I said ...was like comparing apples to oranges.

The gunshot was IntraOral..direct to the back of her head, more or less. It wasn't like this video at all.

Reflexes..I guess it depends on how the brain/body reacts to being DEAD?

If you compare his video to what we have seen about Lana...there is no comparison. Almost everything is aposite...her head to her right..her legs almost outstratight in front of her... If she had shot herself in the R side of her head..her legs..if we are using this video as a comparison would to more to her left. That was not the case.

I think..and it's only what I think from some knowledge..then add this "not comparable video" to it. She was shot face/dead on...her legs "threw out" in front of her...and her head either tilted to her Right..by gravity...or someone helped it that way. I'd say it was gravity. And the amount of blood...not like that Video at all...she was shot intra-oral...the blood came out of her ear and mouth..that was "cleaned up"..as to her mouth, pretty much. I'd even bet the was some "force" when she immediately died..when her legs Threw Out...that caused her body to lean to her right?

It this video we're discussing..had a person standing in front of him when he shot himself..right in front of him..perhaps his body angle would have been different? But where that gun landed..I don't think that would have been an issue at all..unless someone..other than the suicide victim..had moved it..shoved it..kicked it, etc. And..obviously..that video proved..right there...the gun was on the side where it was from the Hand it was Shot From.

between that video and Lana's position..sure the body slumped down..but see the differences?

I do..but maybe I'm as crazy as a loon! LOL

jmo

J [/*]

Once the Spinal Cord was transected, Lana would not have moved again. No signals could have reached any of her nerves. There wouldn't have been rigid posturing, since there is a difference between humans and frogs.

Her heart may have beat a few more times, until it ceased to receive signals, but there would have been no breathing and no moving.

The testimony from neuropathology specialist, Los Angeles County Deputy Medical Examiner Dr. John Andrews supports this.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070823/ai_n19492184

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20399068/

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/

Jayne

08-09-2008, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd

As I have had atrial fibrillation for many years, I understand how the heart beats. My AFIB is controlled by medication and have years of discussions with doctors and my own research to fall back on.

The heart actually has 4 mini beats per heart beat cycle. The first is generated by the brain and is sent via the spinal canal to the sinus node near the right atrium of the heart. The other three beats are generated by a nerve plexus (AV Nodes) in the heart itself based on the first pulse. When the spinal chord is transected (cut), there is no path for this priming signal to reach the sinus node. There may be several non-coordinated beats caused by AV node activity but without signals to the sinus node you are, in my view, officially dead. Without the right atrium beating, no blood flow is possible. As the blood system in people is a closed loop system, the pressure will not drop to zero immediately. There are two numbers to blood pressure; systolic which is a measure of the pump pressure and diastolic or non-pumping pressure. Blood will flow until the pressure goes to zero which can be a substantial amount of time. Enough of your mouth, shut up Mort.

Mortie [/*]

Mort..NEVER shut up! OK? Your input is invaluable.

Thanks for the PM..and for your post...I may not be totally spot on..but you make me feel So much Better..with the "second opinions".

Can I have you as an Expert in any of my cases?

:)

J

All and all...what we're getting here is how the gun "functioned"..and a good idea of WHO functioned it...but nonetheless..I'd say listen to Mortie...at least as to these boards. Too bad he's not on the list of experts at trial.

Those "experts" are in a vacuumed atmosphere...most of the time correct...but that that same gun outside..in the woods or a particular foyer...do what it did or supposedly did..might be different results?

don't know...Mortie..could that be true?

J

Jayne

08-09-2008, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd

Only if you are willing to accept the liability that I might bound out of the witness and bite the opposition lawyer! I cannot count the number of times I ripped apart my little Plourd doll.

Mortie [/*]

we'll we can talk about it..outside this forum.

But..do you think you're making any leeway here as to the guns?

You're the Board Expert...and so far I'm right in there with you.

There is NO WAY Lana shot herself...from the evidence of PS1 and this video (not at all comparable...but maybe educational to many).

If Lana shot heself..her left hand wouldn't be BENEATH her left side of her body (which it was)...which tells me she was Bracing Herself against a force against her.

Her right arm..dangling down by her R side..where the blood dripped to her purse..says...that gun was NOT in her Right hand. and then with her Left hand underneath her left side/hip..it wasn't in her Left hand either.

Gheesh... I guess common sense isn't common sense?

Maybe I missed something in the physical evidence?

jmo

J

True2Blues

08-09-2008, 05:14 PM

True2Blues

08-09-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd

Only if you are willing to accept the liability that I might bound out of the witness and bite the opposition lawyer! I cannot count the number of times I ripped apart my little Plourd doll.

Mortie [/*]

I'll bet that felt good. Especially around the 6th time he asked the same blasted question, with one word changed.

True2Blues

08-09-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Jayne

we'll we can talk about it..outside this forum.

But..do you think you're making any leeway here as to the guns?

You're the Board Expert...and so far I'm right in there with you.

There is NO WAY Lana shot herself...from the evidence of PS1 and this video (not at all comparable...but maybe educational to many).

If Lana shot heself..her left hand wouldn't be BENEATH her left side of her body (which it was)...which tells me she was Bracing Herself against a force against her.

Her right arm..dangling down by her R side..where the blood dripped to her purse..says...that gun was NOT in her Right hand. and then with her Left hand underneath her left side/hip..it wasn't in her Left hand either.

Gheesh... I guess common sense isn't common sense?

Maybe I missed something in the physical evidence?

jmo

J [/*]

You're right Jayne, Common Sense isn't common at all. It's a rarity anymore.

Jayne

08-09-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Mort Snerd

The science they use is true, they would be insane to mis-state or lie about scientific fact. They are experts, and I will acknowledge, well versed in their areas, but you must remember, this is what they do for a living. Give opinions as to what the facts represent. They are just that, opinions, not facts and some people believe what they say on the stand as facts. They are NOT facts, they are opinions. Add to this, they are hired and testify ONLY if their opinions agree with the side that hired them.
If later they are proven wrong, as has happened, they can just say, well I was wrong. Just like I did with Harvey Phillip Spectors name, but they will not apologize as that can lead to liability. Kind of like me when I bite a lawyers ankle.

Take some fake blood, put into a hypodermic needle and see how far you can make it travel by pressing the plunger as hard as you can at a height of five feet. Guess what, even if you aim it up to maximize the distance, it will only travel 4 feet. All of the words spoken about blood spatter and distance were opinions. Oh Henry Lee, where are you?

Mortie [/*]

YES..that is where I think a lot of "lay people" and jurors get caught up..they are Opinions..NOT Fact.

Maybe it would be different were they in that jury room..deciding their OWN fate...doctor's opinions..second, third opinions?

In a court case..I think many people think of it as "comments on the facts"..not Opinions. As if there is that much difference.

Dunno

Jmo

J