Phil Spector Debate and Discussion 2

[Spectorfan8]

I just got home from my grandmother's funeral, so I am a little behind, everyone go ahead and post about Mr. Spector.
have a good one!!

Spectorfan8

[juliekan]

I apologize if this has already been posted, since I am not a reg on this thread.

Just wanted to say I watched a documentary about the band the Ramones on Showtime last night and they had a segment on it with them talking about PS having them over to his house and not wanting them to leave and pointing guns at them...

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by juliekan
I apologize if this has already been posted, since I am not a reg on this thread.

Just wanted to say I watched a documentary about the band the Ramones on Showtime last night and they had a segment on it with them talking about PS having them over to his house and not wanting them to leave and pointing guns at them... [/*]

Thanks Julie for the information on the Ramone's documentary. One of them attended a party of PS's this year. There is a picture of him with PS on Trials & Tribulations the March 16 2008 post. Scroll down to about the bottom of the page. Just if you are a fan of the Ramone's and would like to see it . JMO

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

Thanks Spectorfan for starting the new thread.:)

[GPSpector]

Hello All,

I was just reading Sprockets Blogs and looking at some of the pictures. Thanks Kennedy6 for the above link.

One of the things I never noticed and no one mentioned, was the differences in the guns in the 2 photos.

Here is the picture of my Father's gun:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_KKuG0mhN6fQ/R_ZnrKPwmdI/AAAAAAAAAOQ/_c9CpNaDG5w/s1600-h/Mortie+gun+1.jpg

Here's the picture of Mort's gun:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_KKuG0mhN6fQ/R_Zn4qPwmeI/AAAAAAAAAOY/Zmci_nKagLM/s1600-h/Mortie+gun+2.jpg

Other than the obvious that they are owned by 2 different people and have different handles, my Fathers gun has a shorter barrel.

I did not notice this at 1st until I noticed that the barrel was not cut parallel to the cylinder and than I noticed the sight (Nub Thingy above the Barrel) is shorter as is the Base Pin (doohickey thing right under the barrel ;) )

Over all, the barrel was about 1/8" shorter on my father's gun. I will have to admit, I really had to adjust Mort's gun image to get it to match the best I could to be the same size in relation to my father's.

I noticed the Sight was almost the same size after all the adjusting but not quite. I used Corel 11 to turn Mort's gun partially transparent so that I could place his image right over my fathers gun and adjust for size since Mort's picture was a bit larger in size. I used the 3 screws for best alignment.

The biggest clue that my father's gun was modified was the end of the barrel compared to the end of, well any other gun.

[kennedy06]

I thought Mort's diagram (Hi Mort!) was nicely done and he handled the remarks of the commenter that had problems with his diagram quite well (a watermellon, okkk)

I see what you are saying GPSpector, it does look angled slightly I wonder if that is just the picture or something that occurs in the mfg process or it was modified. Good catch though!

If a gun like that would be modified slightly. would there be a particular reason for it, anyone??

The only thing I could find on the Colt in TDWS by M. Brown was it had been shipped from Colt to a Texas gun dealer in May of 1971 and there were no further records of owndership after that.

Hmmmm, JMO

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


The gun titled " Mortie+gun+1.jpg" is a photograph taken by the press from the gallery in the court room and the screen with the image of the gun is at an angle of approx 30 degrees to the camera. I indicated this in the commentary in the article. As I am not a lawyer or on the prosecutors staff nor do I reside in California, I did not have or had access to Mr Spector's gun, only the press photograph. I did have access to a direct view at 90 degrees of an exact identical model and manufacturer of gun titled "Mortie+gun+2.jpg" that I clearly stated as a different gun. I also stated that I altered the photo to disguise the serial numbers only.

The reason the barrel looks shorter is the perspective caused by the angle between the screen and camera only. I did not retouch or alter the photograph in any way to make it look shorter. In the diagram, I used a Colt .38 shot from 90 degrees to eliminate any distortion caused by perspective distortion.

I have not attempted to confuse anyone, nor did I create false images to prove any point other than to state my opinion as to why blood spatter occured the way it appears to have been deposited. I stand by my opinion and images.

Mortie [/*]

Hi Mort!!

Thank you for clearing that up. I remember it the way you stated.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


The gun titled " Mortie+gun+1.jpg" is a photograph taken by the press from the gallery in the court room and the screen with the image of the gun is at an angle of approx 30 degrees to the camera. I indicated this in the commentary in the article. As I am not a lawyer or on the prosecutors staff nor do I reside in California, I did not have or had access to Mr Spector's gun, only the press photograph. I did have access to a direct view at 90 degrees of an exact identical model and manufacturer of gun titled "Mortie+gun+2.jpg" that I clearly stated as a different gun. I also stated that I altered the photo to disguise the serial numbers only.

The reason the barrel looks shorter is the perspective caused by the angle between the screen and camera only. I did not retouch or alter the photograph in any way to make it look shorter. In the diagram, I used a Colt .38 shot from 90 degrees to eliminate any distortion caused by perspective distortion.

I have not attempted to confuse anyone, nor did I create false images to prove any point other than to state my opinion as to why blood spatter occured the way it appears to have been deposited. I stand by my opinion and images.

Mortie [/*]

Sorry Mort, at no time was I criticizing your picture. My point was that my fathers gun barrel was shortened.

As for the tilt, the end of the barrel would still be Perpendicular to the top of the barrel as long as you move the camera up or down parallel to the gun. if you move the camera Left or Right, the end of the barrel will either look concave or convexed so what we see in the picture is not a camera angle issue, unless you can reproduce it with yours. But either way, I had no problem with your picture at all.

[kellygreen]

Judge Fidler will preside over PS-2. The California Supreme Court refused to take up Spector's claim that the judge was biased.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/P/PHIL_SPECTOR?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-25-22-55-57

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by kellygreen
Judge Fidler will preside over PS-2. The California Supreme Court refused to take up Spector's claim that the judge was biased.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/P/PHIL_SPECTOR?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-25-22-55-57 [/*]

Still never could understand why the Defense felt the Judge was unfair. Didn't the Judge allow him to "sleep" through most of it. How many Judges would have allowed that??

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


I have too much respect for you and your posts to quibble over camera angles and view points, but I do not want to be viewed as a Dr. Spitz or DiMaio. It is a simple matter to move a camera off from top dead center and shoot at an angle to create a false sense of any objects size. I would like to point out that if you examine the cartridge sizes (the five on the left were S&W .38 SPL and the cartridge on the right was a Speer .38 Special) you can see that the cartridges appear smaller in height the further left you go. The actual size of a .38 SPL cartridge is 1.55" and all bullet manufactures keep to this toterance +/- .01"

The photo was the prosecutions first exhibit entered into evidence, therefore labeled "Item 1". I did not create the photograph nor was I in the courthouse to take the photo. If you take just the cartridges into Corel, then draw a straight line above and below the cartridge cases you will find a difference in size. The difference in size can then be used to calculate the foreshortening and also give you the angle which then can be used to determine the actual barrel length.

Mortie [/*]

Ok, so you are saying that the end of the barrel looks normal on my dads gun??

Just so you know, I would never compare you to those two. Like I said, your picture looked fine. I just tried to re-size it to try to make it the same scale as the other picture. I was not aware the 2 guns were not the same make and model. Thank you for clarifying that.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Still never could understand why the Defense felt the Judge was unfair. Didn't the Judge allow him to "sleep" through most of it. How many Judges would have allowed that?? [/*]

They don't want a fair and competent Judge. That's why they want him gone. They want an Ito.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by kellygreen
Judge Fidler will preside over PS-2. The California Supreme Court refused to take up Spector's claim that the judge was biased.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/P/PHIL_SPECTOR?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-25-22-55-57 [/*]

Thank You! I've been wondering when they would get to that.

[tartangirl]

Always good to hear more postive news about this trial. The good judge will hold his own again in that courtroom and we and those involved in that case are the lucky ones...all except those at the defense table..probably not liking it so much right about now. Fair and Just you should be happy to have him PS2 team.

While watching trials this past year, I have seen some antics by defense lawyers that have truly taxed my patience. Often I find myself saying outloud..."where is Judge Fidler when you need him?"

Between Judge Fidler and the very good prosecution team in this case this courtroom will be under control. Love to see the process done the right way and with flourish...


;) ;);)

[kennedy06]

Only because I posted on the subject and I noticed a very slight slant at the end of the barrel myself, sort of like this /_____ so that is just a distortion from the photo ok, I see, thanks Mort.

:)

[Nova]

Originally posted by kellygreen
Judge Fidler will preside over PS-2. The California Supreme Court refused to take up Spector's claim that the judge was biased.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/P/PHIL_SPECTOR?SITE=NYNYP&SECTION=ENTERTAINMENT&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-25-22-55-57 [/*]
Thanks for posting!!!!
Great to see JF will be presiding over PS2's trial ... I found him to be extremely FAIR to both sides. Can't wait to see AJ in action again!!!! I'll never forget him whispering those words "Don't Go" in his closing, great prosecutor. Of course, this is just my opinion.
;)

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Nova

Thanks for posting!!!!
Great to see JF will be presiding over PS2's trial ... I found him to be extremely FAIR to both sides. Can't wait to see AJ in action again!!!! I'll never forget him whispering those words "Don't Go" in his closing, great prosecutor. Of course, this is just my opinion.
;) [/*]

Yes..no reason for JF to "go"..he did nothing truly wrong...unless one wants to say he gave more leeway to the defense than the "normal" judge would. He watched his Ps and Qs and was 'aboveboard' all the way, IMO.

AJ in action. Wheewww..there are a lot of people here who either recognize his prosecutorial finesse...or the style of clothing and haircut and "youthfulness" about him! (kidding...yet, understanding at the same time...nothing like a handsome prosecutor (BTW...what happened to the 'beautiful/pretty' prosecutors??!! Guess they burn out earlier?!)) He had some wet behind the ears moments..and he's had years of experience. This was no quickie trial and he was "under the gun" many times. I think he did quite wonderfully. And, yeah, he's kinda fun to "look at" under camera.

"Don't Go"...YEP...great....theatrical, creative...and I think it was a good move on his part and obviously "hit" a few people...too bad it didn't hit all 12 in that BOX.

Yet..it's hindsight...I'm not putting a slab of concrete on that statement..I think it's great, frankly. "Don't believe everything you hear"..."Don't go"..."Don't be foolish"..."Don't put pearls before swine"...or whatever those sayings are.

"Don't Go"..good one. I thought it was, frankly, a Great statement in closing. Think she'd have listened? I don't think so...but it was a good one..to throw out there.

He did well, AJ, that is.

JMO

J

[tartangirl]

Hey Jayne, The good Judge Fidler and the remarkable prosecutors from PS1 were a true delight for all trial watchers. Smart men with good intentions always are. Working for Justice puts them in another dimension all together.

Well yes the prosecutors are human, thank the stars for that, and that means perfection usually does not occur here on earth.
This team was pretty darn close to that though.

While I will admit freely that watching Alan Jackson was a treat most days I was just listening, really listening to him. If I could be impressed via the television then most certainly he was able to reach the jurors. Pat Dixon held the attention of everyone that was lucky enough to be able to hear him speak. For me he is crafty and covert in his intensity and the results are most persuasive.

I have set my trial criteria by this one. By the work done by these three officers of the court. It is a mistake to do that I will admit because I am always a little disappointed by the lawyers and judges during the trials I observe.

Nice and good things can arrive in plain packages, that certainly is not the case with Judge Fidler, Alan Jackson or Pat Dixon. I am wowed by what is inside though and how they use their talents and gifts for the better of all of us.

waiting for the next trial..patiently..well, trying to.

take care ..as always

~Justice for Lana and those who love her~

[vonna]

Originally posted by tartangirl


Hey Jayne, The good Judge Fidler and the remarkable prosecutors from PS1 were a true delight for all trial watchers. Smart men with good intentions always are. Working for Justice puts them in another dimension all together.

Well yes the prosecutors are human, thank the stars for that, and that means perfection usually does not occur here on earth.
This team was pretty darn close to that though.

While I will admit freely that watching Alan Jackson was a treat most days I was just listening, really listening to him. If I could be impressed via the television then most certainly he was able to reach the jurors. Pat Dixon held the attention of everyone that was lucky enough to be able to hear him speak. For me he is crafty and covert in his intensity and the results are most persuasive.

I have set my trial criteria by this one. By the work done by these three officers of the court. It is a mistake to do that I will admit because I am always a little disappointed by the lawyers and judges during the trials I observe.

Nice and good things can arrive in plain packages, that certainly is not the case with Judge Fidler, Alan Jackson or Pat Dixon. I am wowed by what is inside though and how they use their talents and gifts for the better of all of us.

waiting for the next trial..patiently..well, trying to.

take care ..as always

~Justice for Lana and those who love her~ [/*]

:beer:

[Daisy'sMom]

Originally posted by Nova

Thanks for posting!!!!
Great to see JF will be presiding over PS2's trial ... I found him to be extremely FAIR to both sides. Can't wait to see AJ in action again!!!! I'll never forget him whispering those words "Don't Go" in his closing, great prosecutor. Of course, this is just my opinion.
;) [/*]

Counting the days until the start of PS2! Watching JF at work made me proud and watching AJ, well, that was magic. I also remember those words, "don't go". I pray this time Lana will have justice.:rose:

[Jayne]

Originally posted by riverrambler
my favorite AJ moment was when - as he was questioning eyebrow dimaio who kept insinuating that lana committed suicide - AJ turns from the stand on his heel and says she must have wanted to kill herself because she was a hostess - in those words the utter absurdity of such an conclusion by the medical examiner was ludicrous and total disbelief apparent in AJs voice. after all the hours invested in the case it was apparent that this is what he knew. professional and yet sensitive - revealing quailities of the man as a prosecutor and human being. [/*]

Gosh..I don't remember that..and it was probably during one of the few days I couldn't "watch" TV when I was hospitalized, as I missed very little of it from start to finish (or hung jury - not "Finish"!). DiMaio..what a piece of work. Him and Spitz (am I getting the name correct?)

I agree that AJ is a great prosecutor...with amazing potential as he moves ahead and up. I really like Dixon, though too - and even though some posters felt he wasn't as dynamic or forceful as AJ, I thought his experience, calmness, gentleness (so to speak) and demeanor portrayed a seasoned prosecutor/attorney. He just has a different style. I can see why they had AJ in there alongside him, however. Baden I suppose was the comparable component of the defense? Maybe?

I want to comment on your last sentence. Prosecutors..or at least as I was taught...you Do bring in the "human part" of it and if you can do it like AJ and many other prosecutors..you aren't just a "piece of machinery" put up to represent the state, you are a sensitive individual who applies the law but realizes that the state is really "the people"..which should humanize it all. It's not just an "entity" that is "suing" the defendant for the crime committed...it's the entire population that comprises the State. Meaning..in my simple mind way of explaining it: Do NOT do this to a citizen of our state..s/he was one of us. And, we will Not Tolerate It. You have to take the Entity and turn it into a Human Being(s). We will not allow this. Essentially "The People of the State of California vs. Phil Spector". The people of the state are prosecuting Spector because they killed One Of Theirs/Them...because poor Lana can't do it. The state represents Lana (in a real sense, although Not Legally per the books)...a citizen of the state..one of the populace up to the moment of her demise. Thank goodness..I say...for having a system that can seek justice..even though many times it doesn't "work" out to true justice.

Hence..the admonition...Do not take the law into your own hands.

Good or Bad? Follow the law and take the consequences..or don't follow it and take the consequences.

Its a double edged sword. I so much feel for families who have felt so abandoned by the legal system and either do or want to take care of it themselves. Cowboy Law. Good? Bad? Obviously against the law. But, I do understand why people do take things into their own hands.

I hope for peace and resolution for the Clarkson family. And, I hope for peace and resolution for Spector's sons. And, in all fairness..I hope for resolution to PS..whatever that may be, whether I agree with it or not.JMO

J

[kka]

Im glad judge Fidler will be the judge how about
alan Jackson i hope he is prosecuting the case he is the only one i think capable of prosecuting as well as he did the first time. in my opinion i think juror # 10 was paid off by the defense team. Phil desrves to go to prision for life for killing that woman.
karen

[Chimera]

Hello all, Glad to hear judge Fidler will continue on . To me, he is a very fair minded man, and allows no disrespect in his court. something truely needed for this case!

[Spectorfan8]

Hi Everyone,

I am back from my grandmother's funeral and visiting the family.

As for Judge Fidler, it really doesn't bother me that he will be the judge. He presides over the court, makes sure everything goes as it should. IMO, he did that.
It is the jury that makes the final decision. Again, IMO, this new jury could be another hung jury. JMO

[kennedy06]

Since we are familiar with the faces of many of the main participants in this trial such as JF, AJ, Mr. Dixon and Plrd I came across a picture with PS new attorney in it. It gives us some idea of who we will be watching in the next trial. JMO

http://starbulletin.com/2002/11/20/news/story1.html

[tartangirl]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Since we are familiar with the faces of many of the main participants in this trial such as JF, AJ, Mr. Dixon and Plrd I came across a picture with PS new attorney in it. It gives us some idea of who we will be watching in the next trial. JMO

http://starbulletin.com/2002/11/20/news/story1.html [/*]Thanks for this...the last picture that I saw, and please do not ask me where, he was wearing a bow-tie. For some reason he looked very eclectic in that picture I saw and he really seemed to fit into the family...the Spector family of fans and advocates that is.

We shall see, it will be interesting and I feel so strongly that Justice will be served this time around..

take care, and as always..

JUSTICE FOR LANA AND THOSE WHO LOVE HER

[Jayne]

Originally posted by tartangirl
Thanks for this...the last picture that I saw, and please do not ask me where, he was wearing a bow-tie. For some reason he looked very eclectic in that picture I saw and he really seemed to fit into the family...the Spector family of fans and advocates that is.

We shall see, it will be interesting and I feel so strongly that Justice will be served this time around..

take care, and as always..

JUSTICE FOR LANA AND THOSE WHO LOVE HER [/*]

Interjecting for no reason at all...I guess. But he sort of looks like a white-haired Shapiro. Weinberg oughta watch out or he'll be sued too.

Sprocket has the history on him and I haven't kept on it...but who HAS he not sued, who has been his "protector"? Lawyers, Blaine, competitors in the music industry? (if not suing them at least pointing guns at them or threatening them or taking away their monetary "rights"?)...even in his own defense here, he's essentially suing the deceased Lana Clarkson..to make him look "BIG". Poor Chelle...after all this is over..if it's ever over..he'll be suing her, think? OR vice versa?

So..if Weinberg couldn't "get off" this fraud bigshot...what is his track record for pathological liars?

I wonder if Linda Baden sleeps well at night, wondering when she might receive her summons?

Maybe the "publicity" was worth it considering he might "leave her alone"?


MOO

J

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Since we are familiar with the faces of many of the main participants in this trial such as JF, AJ, Mr. Dixon and Plrd I came across a picture with PS new attorney in it. It gives us some idea of who we will be watching in the next trial. JMO

http://starbulletin.com/2002/11/20/news/story1.html [/*]

Ok, it would seem that my father is hoping to win this case by hiring a lawyer that just lost the Fraud case?? I just don't see that as a good thing:shrug:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Ok, it would seem that my father is hoping to win this case by hiring a lawyer that just lost the Fraud case?? I just don't see that as a good thing:shrug: [/*]

Well in essence I guess you could say that! LOL

That picture was taken in 2002. The case went to appeal here is a link of the results.

http://www.khon2.com/news/business/7949597.html
---------

In the comments for the June 26 post on Trials & Tribulation concerning JF, there is a commenter that gives some idea also of his attorney's other past clients.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

JMO

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne


Interjecting for no reason at all...I guess. But he sort of looks like a white-haired Shapiro. Weinberg oughta watch out or he'll be sued too.

Sprocket has the history on him and I haven't kept on it...but who HAS he not sued, who has been his "protector"? Lawyers, Blaine, competitors in the music industry? (if not suing them at least pointing guns at them or threatening them or taking away their monetary "rights"?)...even in his own defense here, he's essentially suing the deceased Lana Clarkson..to make him look "BIG". Poor Chelle...after all this is over..if it's ever over..he'll be suing her, think? OR vice versa?

So..if Weinberg couldn't "get off" this fraud bigshot...what is his track record for pathological liars?

I wonder if Linda Baden sleeps well at night, wondering when she might receive her summons?

Maybe the "publicity" was worth it considering he might "leave her alone"?


MOO

J [/*]

Jayne I know what you are saying lol but, for some reason I don't think he will mess with LKB because of who her Husband is and his connection to the case.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Jayne I know what you are saying lol but, for some reason I don't think he will mess with LKB because of who her Husband is and his connection to the case. [/*]

Oh, I agree...as to her husband's influence...but because she was his "hand holder". The male attorney's didn't do that...oh a hug here and there, as I recall.

I think you are spot on...he wouldn't and couldn't bit the hand that "feeds him"..as far as the prior testimony of LKB MISTER and then some.

Still...I do wonder...what she has as "dreams" from that trial.

Frankly, I think she did a stellar job..with what she was thrown. I didn't like her "attitude" or demeanor with the witnesses, but I totally understand it...sort of. I felt "embarrassed" for her (well, for me..as a female attorney) that she didn't get the Gun thing correct..or allowed the defense to put on such a sham of a demonstration. And from the beginning I lost almost every bit of "trust" in her as an investigative defense attorney when she talked about the bullet loading, etc. She HAD to know better...she had to...she has years of experience in the law. DNA on the bullets..and loading them Backwards? GMAB.

They had plenty of time to research and I bet a lot of Grunge Associates to do their work for them. There was no excuse for that..which is why I viewed it as 'malfeasance'..but PS would never claim that..it was to his benefit. Still..I give her the benefit of the doubt for being a good attorney. I think she got caught up in the whole scenario, especially with her husband as an "expert" (if you can call it/him that).

No..you're right..he wouldn't go after LKB...but she might still have trouble sleeping over the possibility, since Shapiro has a higher (not better, maybe) reputation that she does and he's been put through the coals by PS for standing by the "Man".

Liability..culpability...malpractice..misfeasance. .. What those lawyers have to go through..and then end up being retained by PS? It's a nightmare, IMO.

Besides the telephone man...I give a lot of credit to his attorneys...and I don't really blame them for a lot of things that went on in that trial Number One...except for a few things, which I won't mention here..but most posters here are cognizant of. You do what your client wants..as long as it is within the realm of applicable law and procedure..even if it's DAS.

Lawyer's are servants, in a sense.

I hope LKB doesn't have sleepless nights or nightmares over that trial. I don't think she deserves it. She did her best. I didn't "like" her as to how she presented evidence, but she was within the law. (I have a very few instances where I think she walked the line, but won't print it here.) The real perpetrator of the LKB family was her husband. IMO. He should have either not testified or she should have "backed out".

Honestly...and I know that Cutler looked pretty foolish out there...but he's a seasoned and smart attorney. I doubt he'd be taken on by PS this time..but he should have, imo. The prosecutors 'caught him'...which was pretty funny...Cutler knows better. But, in my simple mind here..I think he wanted "out"..and he did it "legally". Which says a lot. He's defended and Won many cases where defendants were POS. He wasn't going to keep up with this one.

I can hardly wait for September 29th...to start PS2. Phil is going to have his ducks, swans, and Brunhilde's in a row this time. From what I've read on Sprocket's blog and other areas...Weinberg is in for the YEAR...and he needs a
Good Win. Let's see.



MOO

J

[ZumbaGirl]

I followed PS1 trial and I can only say I hope the prosecution is successful this time.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by ZumbaGirl
I followed PS1 trial and I can only say I hope the prosecution is successful this time. [/*]

I can't see that they wouldn't be successful. But...but...it's the jury that matters. And, you can't blame the lawyers if they did their jobs...from either side or both sides. Or I'd hope not..but PS would!

I think this time around...there will be a few changes..not much..from the prosecution side. But the defense...they have a huge ball of wax to melt down after the last trial. What a web was woven.

Weinberg better be all he thinks and they say he is...he has a long road ahead of him. Losing a labor union fraud case? GMAB! I understand why they lost..it wasn't him..it was the defendant.

So...here lies the new one..."lies" is the operative word, there. I would not want to walk in his shoes for one day..not in this PS2 trial. Regardless of his past record as to "win some, lost some", I'm giving him a lot of credit for coming in on this trial. I just want to see him be responsible, respectful, and professional.

I think he will be. I think for his past history with cases..and PS's past history..he's going to walk the fine line and do it well. It may well be a very interesting trial with a defense attorney who can handle it. Doesn't mean he's going to win for his client...but I think he's going to have his act together before he enters that courtroom on the 29th of September. He just might give the LA DAs a run for the time and money. THAT...I would like to see....that AJ and Dixon et al. win out..with a worthy opponent.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne


Oh, I agree...as to her husband's influence...but because she was his "hand holder". The male attorney's didn't do that...oh a hug here and there, as I recall.

I think you are spot on...he wouldn't and couldn't bit the hand that "feeds him"..as far as the prior testimony of LKB MISTER and then some.

Still...I do wonder...what she has as "dreams" from that trial.

Frankly, I think she did a stellar job..with what she was thrown. I didn't like her "attitude" or demeanor with the witnesses, but I totally understand it...sort of. I felt "embarrassed" for her (well, for me..as a female attorney) that she didn't get the Gun thing correct..or allowed the defense to put on such a sham of a demonstration. And from the beginning I lost almost every bit of "trust" in her as an investigative defense attorney when she talked about the bullet loading, etc. She HAD to know better...she had to...she has years of experience in the law. DNA on the bullets..and loading them Backwards? GMAB.

They had plenty of time to research and I bet a lot of Grunge Associates to do their work for them. There was no excuse for that..which is why I viewed it as 'malfeasance'..but PS would never claim that..it was to his benefit. Still..I give her the benefit of the doubt for being a good attorney. I think she got caught up in the whole scenario, especially with her husband as an "expert" (if you can call it/him that).

No..you're right..he wouldn't go after LKB...but she might still have trouble sleeping over the possibility, since Shapiro has a higher (not better, maybe) reputation that she does and he's been put through the coals by PS for standing by the "Man".

Liability..culpability...malpractice..misfeasance. .. What those lawyers have to go through..and then end up being retained by PS? It's a nightmare, IMO.

Besides the telephone man...I give a lot of credit to his attorneys...and I don't really blame them for a lot of things that went on in that trial Number One...except for a few things, which I won't mention here..but most posters here are cognizant of. You do what your client wants..as long as it is within the realm of applicable law and procedure..even if it's DAS.

Lawyer's are servants, in a sense.

I hope LKB doesn't have sleepless nights or nightmares over that trial. I don't think she deserves it. She did her best. I didn't "like" her as to how she presented evidence, but she was within the law. (I have a very few instances where I think she walked the line, but won't print it here.) The real perpetrator of the LKB family was her husband. IMO. He should have either not testified or she should have "backed out".

Honestly...and I know that Cutler looked pretty foolish out there...but he's a seasoned and smart attorney. I doubt he'd be taken on by PS this time..but he should have, imo. The prosecutors 'caught him'...which was pretty funny...Cutler knows better. But, in my simple mind here..I think he wanted "out"..and he did it "legally". Which says a lot. He's defended and Won many cases where defendants were POS. He wasn't going to keep up with this one.

I can hardly wait for September 29th...to start PS2. Phil is going to have his ducks, swans, and Brunhilde's in a row this time. From what I've read on Sprocket's blog and other areas...Weinberg is in for the YEAR...and he needs a
Good Win. Let's see.



MOO

J [/*]



It would be interesting to know not only about LKB but, how all the past defense attorneys are feeling now, concerning everything from the case to just personal dealings with PS.

In regards to Bruce C., Dominic Dunne writes abou thim in this Vanity Fair article. It gives a little insight as to what was going on with *. C. and the other members of the defense team. (Starting in the middle of page 2. Paragraph begining with Although I'm not one............ onto page 3.)

Vanity Fair Nov 2007 issue

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/11/dunne200711?currentPage=2

Also in this earlier article it is mentioned that *. C. had rented a cottage at a Rtiz Carlton to be nearer the Castle. I wonder which attorney(s) were sleeping on those heavenly beds at the Westn and how they feel about the bill not being paid. *. C. is mentioned in this article by Dominic D. also

Vanity Fair Aug 2007

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/08/dunne200708?currentPage=3


JMO

[tartangirl]

Kennedy06 thanks for the links to some of the best articles that were ever written about PS1. Always a favorite of mine, Dominic Dunne did a superb job sharing his diary with the loyal readers of Vanity Fair...although I would read him anywhere. My copies are all put aside awaiting re-reading before the second trial begins in Septermber.

I know that Bruce Cutler was a major part of the defense team in the beginning and that he made a bombastic attempt to discredit Diane Ogden, sadly now deceased, a strong PBA witness for his client. Somehow I have managed to put him in a seperate class than the others. It is comforting to know his kindness erupts through the rough exterior and he remains human.

I know that what these defense lawyers can do for a living does not always define them as human beings..it was often hard to find the human side of each one of them at the end of the trial day and often that impression just magnefied with each new witness. Almost a year later and the impression is still there..what oh what could that amount of money ever do to make up for the marks on their reputation?

Maybe we will all be treated to a book about this first defense team and the many additions and deletions of lawyers that so swifty speed past trial watchers. I would pay to read all that they would have to say, believe a third of it and enjoy the concept of that many members of the legal profession coming together and agreeing on anything. Especially that whole group of personalities..oh never mind that is just a whim, a fantasy or a better yet a dream.

Secrets made and secrets kept...human nature and client confidentiality will keep the rest of us guessing for a long time. Oh to have been a fly on the wall....good courtroom drama was a daily gift with the complete hope and feeling that the guilty verdict would be the only clear and obvious result of the fine work presented by the prosecution. Jury selection pulled out the doubtful card for PS1. With a strong hand given to them this time the prosecution will be able to seat a fair jury. One to the liking of both sides.

it will only get better and by that I first and formost hold Justice for Lana and those who love her to be the best ending.

JMHO~~take care

[tartangirl]

Originally posted by NavyMom58
Great articles kennedy06! Hmmm. Maybe Mr Cutler is human after all. I guess the old saying is true, don't judge a book by it's cover.Still, his court personna is a little hard to watch without forming a negative opinion of him.

Hey TartanGirl, good morning!:seeya: [/*]Good morning to you NavyMom

Good to see you and looking forward to the next trial and posting with all of the other trial watchers from last year.

It will be exciting and a truly needed conclusion to this horrible event.

Justice for Lana and those who love her~

take care, tartangirl

[jacona]

Please forgive my ignorance-- but when is Spector 2 due to start. I was so addicted to the first trial, I can't believe I have to ask!!

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by jacona
Please forgive my ignorance-- but when is Spector 2 due to start. I was so addicted to the first trial, I can't believe I have to ask!! [/*]

The PS2 trial is due to start Sept 29, 2008

[jacona]

Thanks! My son is getting married on Sept. 20th. I'll be able to make it to the church on time!!

[Spectorfan8]

There is also a pre-trial hearing sometime in July. I'm not sure of the date.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by NavyMom58
Great articles kennedy06! Hmmm. Maybe Mr Cutler is human after all. I guess the old saying is true, don't judge a book by it's cover.Still, his court personna is a little hard to watch without forming a negative opinion of him.

Hey TartanGirl, good morning!:seeya: [/*]

Thanks for posting that kennedy. In the past (PS1), of the times I would post my knowledge or experience (very limited, mind you) of having been in the presence of Cutler or knowing his courtroom antics, representations, etc. (particularly from NYC), many, if not most, couldn't believe the man had a conscience or that 'human side'. I surmise that much of it came from the knowledge of the clientelle he represented and his bombastic, overpowering courtroom mannerisms.

He was "unkind" toward Ogden...and I think "over the top" even though it was within his "job" to "attack her". I even thought he should have gone about it a different way...it backslapped him, at the least. As said before - he should have known better. And maybe did...at the expense of a pretty innocent and "distraught" (over her relationship with PS) woman. Had all that not happened..plus his "alleged - as seen faux pas with the introduction of police documents being "withheld" knocking him for a loop in his planned opening statement (I can't believe he overlooked that or just "expected" it...but he was coming out of NY practice (for the most part)..yet, still no excuse for a lawyer with his years of experience). As many were as well, I was surprised by his Surprise. I wonder, however, if it just wasn't another of his courtroom antics on display at that point in the beginning of the trial. He held nothing back in being disappointed with the defense team. Then, again, I suppose he was used to be "top dog" and he just lost his tail to a very craft move on the part of the prosecution.

Despite that, I didn't view his "leaving" as him going out with his tail between his legs. He had better fish to fry - his personal obligations (well...that TV show) - and he was arrogant enough to say he didn't have to be there to be a defense attorney. Which..in a sense is true..if they were a true team, he would have been, more or less, of counsel to them. However, Fidler was correct in his decisions and rulings and so Cutler got to "walk". Whether it was a strategic move or not, I'm sure PS won't be filing suit against Cutler due to it or as a consequence to it. PS chose his team and kept those he wanted, including telephone man. By happenstance a few days ago, I came across the CA rules on telephone lawyering. Pretty interesting and I think a bit too "loose". But, that's just my opinion. My feeling? If you can't be there - then pass it on to someone who can. Can you imagine..in the future..being tried by telephone, internet, cams? There's just something about the physical presence of the one who is sort of holding your life in their hands...not just the mouthpiece of a telephone. (some others here, as well, compared telephone man to the Wizard of Oz!) Of course TM's wire conversations were about preserving appeal, the lesser included, instructions, etc. certainly not observing a witness, let alone questioning one. I could see direct examination of a witness, perhaps, by tele-something...but cross examination? Imagine if during PS1, we only got to "hear" the testimony..and not actually see it? Would be like reading transcripts...not like reading the directions to an on stage play where there are "parens" about the actor's physical directions, etc.

Pardon for the diverse comments here. And, it all started with a thanks for sharing Cutler's human side in print.

moo

J

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
There is also a pre-trial hearing sometime in July. I'm not sure of the date. [/*]

I was wondering that myself. I thought it was sometime in the teens of July, but IDK.

And :seeya: to tartangirl!!!!

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by gmiller


I was wondering that myself. I thought it was sometime in the teens of July, but IDK.

And :seeya: to tartangirl!!!! [/*]

I thought it was July 27th

[MoonFlwr]

Originally posted by jacona
Thanks! My son is getting married on Sept. 20th. I'll be able to make it to the church on time!! [/*]

lol! Almost came close to having to re-schedule the wedding! :D

Congrats on your son's wedding btw.

Looking forward to PS2 as well. Keep wondering how life is for PS, knowing he has a 2nd trial looming over him.
Given the photos of the party he hosted in his mansion, Christmas 2007, though...:shrug:

[tartangirl]

A little early but just knowing we are a tad bit closer to the trial this month makes me want to celebrate...

****JULY 29, 2008****


is the date I have for the pre-trial hearing..a good day for sure..

so light a candle, a fizzler of some sort or just be happy as I am that the date will soon be here for the trial to begin...

Justice for Lana and those who love her

[wandering]

Originally posted by MoonFlwr


lol! Almost came close to having to re-schedule the wedding! :D

Congrats on your son's wedding btw.

Looking forward to PS2 as well. Keep wondering how life is for PS, knowing he has a 2nd trial looming over him.
Given the photos of the party he hosted in his mansion, Christmas 2007, though...:shrug: [/*]Did he whip out his gun? Just wondering...

[gmiller]

Thanks GPS and tartangirl. The July 27th falls on a Sunday, so I'll put my $$ on the 29th.

I'm sure like many of you, I will be on Sprocket's blog to see what transpires.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by wandering
Did he whip out his gun? Just wondering... [/*]


LOL!!!!!

Hey, anyone have a link to those Christmas party pictures?

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by tartangirl
A little early but just knowing we are a tad bit closer to the trial this month makes me want to celebrate...

****JULY 29, 2008****


is the date I have for the pre-trial hearing..a good day for sure..

so light a candle, a fizzler of some sort or just be happy as I am that the date will soon be here for the trial to begin...

Justice for Lana and those who love her [/*]

Thank you very much for the date.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by entrapment0


Will you be attending this trial GPSpector? It must be very difficult for your family and Lana's to go through it again. Justice will be served this time. [/*]

If you are referring to my family as in my Brother's, then Yes, I'm sure it will be a bit hard.

As for attending the trial, as much as I would really like to be there with my Brother's and to see my Father, unless I win the lottery, I do not see how I will be able to get there again.

At the moment, I am just trying to find a job and if I do get a job, there's no way some company will allow me time off for the trial in under 90 days of employment.

But I have seen stranger things happen, so we'll see.

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Ellie



LOL!!!!!

Hey, anyone have a link to those Christmas party pictures? [/*]

I didn't understand how to link until a polite poster on the board showed me how. Now all I do is link LOL!

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

There is one picture where I think he looks very thin. Scroll down about 2/3rds of the page to see them. JMO

[Nova]

Originally posted by tartangirl
A little early but just knowing we are a tad bit closer to the trial this month makes me want to celebrate...

****JULY 29, 2008****


is the date I have for the pre-trial hearing..a good day for sure..

so light a candle, a fizzler of some sort or just be happy as I am that the date will soon be here for the trial to begin...

Justice for Lana and those who love her [/*]
THANKS for posting update ... very much looking forward to PS2, hoping for a much different outcome however!!!
I'm assuming/hoping the pre-trial hearing and eventual trial will be covered LIVE, hope so.
Waiting just a tad bit longer for justice to be served for Lana :rose:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Nova

THANKS for posting update ... very much looking forward to PS2, hoping for a much different outcome however!!!
I'm assuming/hoping the pre-trial hearing and eventual trial will be covered LIVE, hope so.
Waiting just a tad bit longer for justice to be served for Lana :rose: [/*]

I really don't know if it will be covered LIVE this time. I've thought about writing either the Judge, the Court House and/or Tru-TV since I don't expect to be there and I really would like it covered but I just don't know if it would do any good.

I guess I could try to find the old phone #'s from when I did my last interview, just to see if they are still good since the station name change.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by GPSpector


If you are referring to my family as in my Brother's, then Yes, I'm sure it will be a bit hard.

As for attending the trial, as much as I would really like to be there with my Brother's and to see my Father, unless I win the lottery, I do not see how I will be able to get there again.

At the moment, I am just trying to find a job and if I do get a job, there's no way some company will allow me time off for the trial in under 90 days of employment.

But I have seen stranger things happen, so we'll see. [/*]

I want you to know that we'll all be here for you during the second trial...if you cant be there personally, just understand we know you want to be there for you immediate family..especially for your twin!!

Wishing you luck on landing a job, and if there is anything we can do for you in support, dont be shy, let us know!

Kindest regards to you and yours!!

LMS:rose:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I really don't know if it will be covered LIVE this time. I've thought about writing either the Judge, the Court House and/or Tru-TV since I don't expect to be there and I really would like it covered but I just don't know if it would do any good.

I guess I could try to find the old phone #'s from when I did my last interview, just to see if they are still good since the station name change. [/*]

Just so you know, we will find out about live feed, coverage..but somehow, I believe KTLA..will be covering it..Loni and Marta..will likely be there be square..They had great coverage in the final months of your dad's first trial..

LMS:seeya:

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha"Y


Just so you know, we will find out about live feed, coverage..but somehow, I believe KTLA..will be covering it..Loni and Marta..will likely be there be square..They had great coverage in the final months of your dad's first trial..

LMS:seeya: [/*]

Thank you for the kind thoughts. Also, I'm sure it was just an oversight but I would also like very much to see my younger Brother Donté in California as well. I do wish I were closer to my Sister but that's up to her, she has her own life and lifestyle.

I have no doubt all of us "Kids" are very concerned as to what happens during the next trial.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by kennedy06


I didn't understand how to link until a polite poster on the board showed me how. Now all I do is link LOL!

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

There is one picture where I think he looks very thin. Scroll down about 2/3rds of the page to see them. JMO [/*]

Thanks for the link! You did a great job posting it. ;)

I have to say again that I am amazed at the metamorphosis between then and now. Back then he was still trying to be the rockin' superstar with big hair and loud clothes. He totally looks like he's sickly now, with tamed hair and the more muted colors he wears. I also think he's stopped wearing his glasses on purpose so that he looks even more weak. It *almost* makes you feel sorry for him. ALMOST.[/*]

[Nova]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I really don't know if it will be covered LIVE this time. I've thought about writing either the Judge, the Court House and/or Tru-TV since I don't expect to be there and I really would like it covered but I just don't know if it would do any good.

I guess I could try to find the old phone #'s from when I did my last interview, just to see if they are still good since the station name change. [/*]
Thanks for responding :seeya:
Hopefully someone will livestream, I would think maybe Insession/CNN ... also I noticed Lynda posted maybe KTLA and I forgot about them, that's another possibility. I guess we'll all have to "wait and see".
It's ashame you can't be there personally again ... good luck with the job hunting, it's tough out there now with the economy the way it is. Look forward to posting with you in the future.
;)

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by BannedSoon


Loni has taken another job as the morning anchor for the Orange County public tv news. Not so sure she's going to be around for the second trial. [/*]

Oh No...Every party has a pooper that we invited you..party pooper..LOL..no insult intended..but sorry to hear Loni has moved on..Yiks wonder who'll take her place??,,Anyway, I am sure we'll keep our eyes peeled to be in the know come September!!

LMS;)

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Ellie


Thanks for the link! You did a great job posting it. ;)

I have to say again that I am amazed at the metamorphosis between then and now. Back then he was still trying to be the rockin' superstar with big hair and loud clothes. He totally looks like he's sickly now, with tamed hair and the more muted colors he wears. I also think he's stopped wearing his glasses on purpose so that he looks even more weak. It *almost* makes you feel sorry for him. ALMOST.[/*] [/*]


JMO here, but he probably quit wearing his glasses because he possibly wears contacts now.JMO

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8



JMO here, but he probably quit wearing his glasses because he possibly wears contacts now.JMO [/*]

Do they make Sunglasses in Contact form? That's the only reason I've ever seen him wear glasses, that and to be stylish, like back in the 70's when he wore Yellow (not bluBlockers) glasses.

I've never seen him wear glasses for reading or any other reason.

This may answer the prior posters question though, Sunglasses are not allowed in a Court Room unless they are prescription. That may be why he's not wearing them inside.

Outside, I wish he would wear them. He looks more feeble without them.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Do they make Sunglasses in Contact form? That's the only reason I've ever seen him wear glasses, that and to be stylish, like back in the 70's when he wore Yellow (not bluBlockers) glasses.

I've never seen him wear glasses for reading or any other reason.

This may answer the prior posters question though, Sunglasses are not allowed in a Court Room unless they are prescription. That may be why he's not wearing them inside.

Outside, I wish he would wear them. He looks more feeble without them. [/*]

I saw him wearing a pair of glasses when the trial first started. They were not sun glasses. They were small rectangular clear glasses. Then, one day he wasn't wearing them any longer.
Yes, I have seen pictures of him wearing those sunglasses.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by BannedSoon


Loni has taken another job as the morning anchor for the Orange County public tv news. Not so sure she's going to be around for the second trial. [/*]

Oh, My! Who is going to be Marta's sidekick (with her cowlick? remember that! LOL)

Was very much into PS1, but must admit that for the levity and "break to laugh", I could hardly wait for Marta and Loni to come on..Loni talking on and on like Marta wasn't even there, much of the time (can you blame her?!) and Marta being Marta.

And...oh, the earlier morning coverage...the Chevy Chase lookalike..."whatshisname"? Sometimes I wanted to jump through the screen and strangle him or slap him silly for some of the things he said and How he said them.

July 27th, hmm? Guess that would be right..I was thinking it was the 28th (That's where I thought I was initially confused about September's date..which is the 29th and not the 28th.) Isn't the 27th of this July a Sunday?

:shrug:

maybe I have the wrong calendar? could be...can't seem to keep track of my house keys these days!

MOO

J

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


Oh, My! Who is going to be Marta's sidekick (with her cowlick? remember that! LOL)

Was very much into PS1, but must admit that for the levity and "break to laugh", I could hardly wait for Marta and Loni to come on..Loni talking on and on like Marta wasn't even there, much of the time (can you blame her?!) and Marta being Marta.

And...oh, the earlier morning coverage...the Chevy Chase lookalike..."whatshisname"? Sometimes I wanted to jump through the screen and strangle him or slap him silly for some of the things he said and How he said them.

July 27th, hmm? Guess that would be right..I was thinking it was the 28th (That's where I thought I was initially confused about September's date..which is the 29th and not the 28th.) Isn't the 27th of this July a Sunday?

:shrug:

maybe I have the wrong calendar? could be...can't seem to keep track of my house keys these days!

MOO

J [/*]

I just checked a Calendar, the 27th is a Saturday. So the 29th would make more sense to start on.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I just checked a Calendar, the 27th is a Saturday. So the 29th would make more sense to start on. [/*]

Not to be argumentative...but the 4th is this Friday...which makes the next Fridays the 11th, 18th, and 25th...which makes the 27th a Sunday.

Tell me I'm nuts...I'll accept it!

JMO :)

J

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


Not to be argumentative...but the 4th is this Friday...which makes the next Fridays the 11th, 18th, and 25th...which makes the 27th a Sunday.

Tell me I'm nuts...I'll accept it!

JMO :)

J [/*]

Yes, in July but I was looking at September. That last posting was a bit confusing since it mentioned both July and September.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Yes, in July but I was looking at September. That last posting was a bit confusing since it mentioned both July and September. [/*]

GOTCHA! See..that's why there was so much confusion between JULY and SEPTEMBER...

I first "heard" the 28th...so I thought...9/28..which is impossible (my birthday..on a Sunday)..so September HAS to be the 29th. Now the July date...27th IS a Sunday...so it has to be the 28th..Monday.

Professor Corey..remember him? Very funny...but this mix up of dates and going back and forth just reminds me of him.

Would love to meet you. Will you be out here for any of the trial? Perchance the first date (SEPTEMBER 29th??).

Let me know...PM me. I really would like to meet you. I don't know if you remember..but we did talk on the telephone...waayy back.

JMO

J

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


GOTCHA! See..that's why there was so much confusion between JULY and SEPTEMBER...

I first "heard" the 28th...so I thought...9/28..which is impossible (my birthday..on a Sunday)..so September HAS to be the 29th. Now the July date...27th IS a Sunday...so it has to be the 28th..Monday.

Professor Corey..remember him? Very funny...but this mix up of dates and going back and forth just reminds me of him.

Would love to meet you. Will you be out here for any of the trial? Perchance the first date (SEPTEMBER 29th??).

Let me know...PM me. I really would like to meet you. I don't know if you remember..but we did talk on the telephone...waayy back.

JMO

J [/*]

Sorry to say, as I stated earlier, unless I win the lottery or something, I do not see how I will be able to get to California. even if a TV Station wanted to pay my way, I don't see any employer allowing me that time in under 90 days and I certainly hope I have a job by then. :(

[GPSpector]

Well, before this thread is closed down for the holiday, I would like to wish everyone a very Happy 4th :patriot:

May we never forget why we celebrate it:beer:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Well, before this thread is closed down for the holiday, I would like to wish everyone a very Happy 4th :patriot:

May we never forget why we celebrate it:beer: [/*]

Thank you. I hope you have a nice 4th also.


Spectorfan I also remember seeing him in like rimless clear glasses. I thought it was for the start of the trial also but, maybe it was in an interview. I have wondered what the significance, if there is any, of the large dragonfly pin he is seen wearing in a few photos since the start of the trial.

JMO
:patriot:

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Well, before this thread is closed down for the holiday, I would like to wish everyone a very Happy 4th :patriot:

May we never forget why we celebrate it [/*]

:patriot: I hope you have a lovely 4th as well, GPS!

And I agree... We should never forget why we celebrate it! :beer:

hehe.. I had to borrow your beer because of the image limits on this board...

[Spectorfan8]

I hope everyone here has a wonderful 4th, and I will repeat GPSpector, remember why we celebrate.:patriot:

[Anakerie]

Spector's lawyers want to bar 'the most damaging evidence'
The defense seeks to avoid testimony from five women who said in the music producer's murder trial last year that he threatened them with guns.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-spector16-2008jul16,0,2986118.story

[Anakerie]

New witness comes forward in Phil Spector re-trial
Woman claims producer threatened to kill her
http://www.nme.com/news/phil-spector/38181

Phil Spector prosecution finds new witness
Prosecutors hoping to convict Phil Spector of murder have found another woman prepared to testify at his second trial that the famed music producer threatened her life, according to court documents.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2303019/Phil-Spector-prosecution-finds-new-witness.html

[wandering]

Originally posted by Anakerie
Spector's lawyers want to bar 'the most damaging evidence'
The defense seeks to avoid testimony from five women who said in the music producer's murder trial last year that he threatened them with guns.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-spector16-2008jul16,0,2986118.story [/*]Well, Diane Ogden passed away. I'm wondering if Michelle Phillips will be a new witness.

I'm also wondering if the prosecutor will be allowed to play Diane's testimony, since she was cross-examined. Thoughts?

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by wandering
Well, Diane Ogden passed away. I'm wondering if Michelle Phillips will be a new witness.

I'm also wondering if the prosecutor will be allowed to play Diane's testimony, since she was cross-examined. Thoughts? [/*]

I read in the LA Times article I linked above that the new witness is someone named Norma Kemper. Here's a paragraph about it:
"Jackson wrote that Kemper, a former personal assistant for the music producer, would testify that Spector brandished a gun during a 1996 dinner at Dan Tana's restaurant."

I think the motion to use Diane Ogden's testimony via tape is still awaiting a ruling.

[Anakerie]

Well, whatever the decisions are on the prior bad acts witnesses, Diane Ogden included, Phil has a heck of a job defending himself. Defending himself from the murder charge and all the lawsuits against him right now. The hotel, all the groups suing him for back payment of royalties and who knows what else. Nothing's been settled in the lawsuit from his lawyers either that I can find on the net...

Sure makes you wonder what goes on in that head of his. Beyond how to keep the wigs on, that is...

[wandering]

Originally posted by 1LuckyDuck


I'm thinking no to Diane Ogden. The defense will come up with a reasoning that could be prejudicial and overturned on appeal. New trial, new evidence, new way to cross-examine.

Probably will allow new witness, but I sense potential problems with her. Why did she come forward at this late day? She had to have known that Phil was on trial and that her story may have some meaning with it. Late stories are viewed suspiciously. And she worked for him long after the alleged incident....must not have been that scared or intimidated. Judge will probably determine her story has enough similarities to Lana that he will allow the testimony, but she will have to hold up to mean much. [/*]It's possible that she was questioned before the previous trial. Not all the witnesses were allowed, IIRC.

It's also possible that she thought PS would be convicted, and now wants to 'fess up. :shrug:

[wandering]

Originally posted by Anakerie


I read in the LA Times article I linked above that the new witness is someone named Norma Kemper. Here's a paragraph about it:
"Jackson wrote that Kemper, a former personal assistant for the music producer, would testify that Spector brandished a gun during a 1996 dinner at Dan Tana's restaurant."

I think the motion to use Diane Ogden's testimony via tape is still awaiting a ruling. [/*]Thsnks, Ana. I did read that. Eek! At Dan Tana's, too. :eek:

I suppose they are quite familiar with this scenario, but value his big tips. :cuss:

[wandering]

Here's the document list. Maybe Kemper's name is in there?

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

[Anakerie]

Here's an interesting article that tells about where some of Phil's money is going:

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S514448.shtml?cat=89
Franken has 104,000 individual donors, but only 18,000 of them are Minnesotans. They include entertainers like Ted Danson, Tim Meadows, and Bill Maher.

He also received seven donations from music producer Phil Spector, who is currently awaiting re-trial on a murder charge. Spector's donations have since been returned.

Why is Phil so interested in Minnesota politics that he contributed SEVEN times? lol... And poor Phil, the politician sent his money BACK.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by wandering
It's possible that she was questioned before the previous trial. Not all the witnesses were allowed, IIRC.

It's also possible that she thought PS would be convicted, and now wants to 'fess up. :shrug: [/*]

Sprocket relayed in her Trials and Tribulations blog that Kemper was not located until the end of PS1.

I think the defense has little to zero chance in blocking the 1101-* witnesses. Fidler let them in before, he'll surely let them in again.
Cannot wait wait for this trial to begin and more importantly Justice for Lana to come to fruition. :rose:

[GPSpector]

Welcome back everyone.:seeya:

Well, if my Father really wants to throw his money around, I can think of 3 sons that would never complain or send it back and would be very appreciative of it ;-)

As for Norma Kempler, she was found January of this year and has been talking with the DA's Office since. I'm guessing it's only hitting the news now because they finally decided her testimony was relevant to the case.

I'm guessing that all these witnesses are needed only because my father will not take the Stand and there is not enough evidence to put the Gun in his hand. I'm only guessing that they are trying to show with the witnesses that it's more likely then not, that he would have had the Gun in his hands at the time since history (and the witnesses) have proven that he has no problem brandishing a Gun when he's drink.

If they did not use the witnesses, the Prosecution would not have much of a case and the Defense knows it.

[dref99]

Originally posted by Anakerie
Well, whatever the decisions are on the prior bad acts witnesses, Diane Ogden included, Phil has a heck of a job defending himself. Defending himself from the murder charge and all the lawsuits against him right now. The hotel, all the groups suing him for back payment of royalties and who knows what else. Nothing's been settled in the lawsuit from his lawyers either that I can find on the net...

Sure makes you wonder what goes on in that head of his. Beyond how to keep the wigs on, that is... [/*]

I didn't think the prior bad acts were so important - perhaps I see things differently to others, but I didn't see evidence of merit pointing to suicide & that word was not mentioned in the initial statements made by PS. I wonder if the prosecution will use these statements in the new trial?

http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/asudqbaoef5wun554ybcyijt/1171877458.pdf (2.5mb)

Thankyou for the document reference Wandering. Last time I checked it hadn't been updated post 2007


jmo

[wandering]

Originally posted by dref99


I didn't think the prior bad acts were so important - perhaps I see things differently to others, but I didn't see evidence of merit pointing to suicide & that word was not mentioned in the initial statements made by PS. I wonder if the prosecution will use these statements in the new trial?

http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/asudqbaoef5wun554ybcyijt/1171877458.pdf (2.5mb)

Thankyou for the document reference Wandering. Last time I checked it hadn't been updated post 2007


jmo [/*]YW. These recent motions will be heard on July 29, at 8:30 AM.
I see that the Diane Ogden videotaped testimony motion is going to be heard, also.

[vonna]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Still never could understand why the Defense felt the Judge was unfair. Didn't the Judge allow him to "sleep" through most of it. How many Judges would have allowed that?? [/*]

Can't anyone post anything new? I have read all of this several times before.

[wandering]

Originally posted by vonna


Can't anyone post anything new? I have read all of this several times before. [/*]How about you?

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by vonna


Can't anyone post anything new? I have read all of this several times before. [/*]

I agree with wanting new info but that comment I made was posted 6/25/08. So, I agree it's old news now, but it was relevant then. :rolleyes:

[sunstar]

Originally posted by GPSpector
Welcome back everyone.:seeya:

Well, if my Father really wants to throw his money around, I can think of 3 sons that would never complain or send it back and would be very appreciative of it ;-)

As for Norma Kempler, she was found January of this year and has been talking with the DA's Office since. I'm guessing it's only hitting the news now because they finally decided her testimony was relevant to the case.

I'm guessing that all these witnesses are needed only because my father will not take the Stand and there is not enough evidence to put the Gun in his hand. I'm only guessing that they are trying to show with the witnesses that it's more likely then not, that he would have had the Gun in his hands at the time since history (and the witnesses) have proven that he has no problem brandishing a Gun when he's drink.

If they did not use the witnesses, the Prosecution would not have much of a case and the Defense knows it. [/*]
Hi and it's good to see you again too! :seeya: I appreciate the additional information about Norma Kempler since I was wondering if she had been one of the prior bad act witnesses that weren't called at the 1st trial. I agree with you about Phil not taking the stand ~ why should he ~ all he needs is one juror to believe his innocence and I don't think the prosecution would try him a 3rd time if this one doesn't succeed in a conviction.

[sunstar]

Originally posted by wandering
Well, Diane Ogden passed away. I'm wondering if Michelle Phillips will be a new witness.

I'm also wondering if the prosecutor will be allowed to play Diane's testimony, since she was cross-examined. Thoughts? [/*]
Is there any way the defense could say they didn't have a chance to cross-examine Diane and have her testimony excluded? Phil has a new legal team now. :shrug:

[wandering]

Originally posted by sunstar

Is there any way the defense could say they didn't have a chance to cross-examine Diane and have her testimony excluded? Phil has a new legal team now. :shrug: [/*]There is a law to cover this motion. It will depend on the judge's interpretation of that law.

It's cited in the motion:

http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/ny2nu055sndwmm45umwe44zq/1287527624.pdf

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by wandering
Here's the document list. Maybe Kemper's name is in there?

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233& [/*]

Thank you for the link. I read a few documents on the list and found them interesting.

[wandering]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Thank you for the link. I read a few documents on the list and found them interesting. [/*]YW. I'm still reading the new motions, but it looks like the defense is trying to keep everything out, just as they tried to for the last trial.

[disneyfreak]

Originally posted by sunstar

Hi and it's good to see you again too! :seeya: I appreciate the additional information about Norma Kempler since I was wondering if she had been one of the prior bad act witnesses that weren't called at the 1st trial. I agree with you about Phil not taking the stand ~ why should he ~ all he needs is one juror to believe his innocence and I don't think the prosecution would try him a 3rd time if this one doesn't succeed in a conviction. [/*]

Her name sounds very familiar to me but I don't know where from.

Anyone have more info on her, I can't seem to find any.

[wandering]

Originally posted by disneyland


Her name sounds very familiar to me but I don't know where from.

Anyone have more info on her, I can't seem to find any. [/*]14-7-08 (scroll):

http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/

[disneyfreak]

Originally posted by wandering
14-7-08 (scroll):

http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/ [/*]

Thanks. Those articles helped me figure out why I recognize her name.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by forensicpsy


Her name is Norma Kemper - not Kempler. :) [/*]

Thanks for the correction. I guess I had butterfingers when I typed it and I failed to catch the error.:punch:

[kennedy06]

In Beth K.'s blog she gives just a few more details. I wonder if this man Jay R. was at dinner or even the same table with PS and NK. If he was did he witnessed this incident.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/15/

JMO

[wandering]

Originally posted by kennedy06
In Beth K.'s blog she gives just a few more details. I wonder if this man Jay R. was at dinner or even the same table with PS and NK. If he was did he witnessed this incident.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/15/

JMO [/*]Thanks, kennedy. The defense will have a field day with this witness. Why didn't she leave? She went to another club with him after that.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by wandering
Thanks, kennedy. The defense will have a field day with this witness. Why didn't she leave? She went to another club with him after that. [/*]

And worked for Phil for 4 years after the gun incident? I am not getting why the prosecutors are wanting to use her as a witness to replace Diane. :confused:

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by wandering
Thanks, kennedy. The defense will have a field day with this witness. Why didn't she leave? She went to another club with him after that. [/*]


Maybe the fact that she didn't come forward, until she was found.
Maybe, that will help the defense. I sure hope so. JMO

[gmiller]

Originally posted by GH247


I thought a witness saw him with the gun in his hand, and heard him say something about the incident. Isn't it merely a matter of the credibility of this witness? [/*]

The one problem that I am having with this new potential witness is that she didn't come forward during PS1. You would have to be in a coma or something not to notice that your famous fmr employer was up on murder charges AND that the victim was threatened and attacked in the same manner that you were.

IDK, but something is not right here.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by sherp


I don't think Spector will be too interested in giving money to any one who supports his conviction for any crime. Folk need to think about how they treat their parents, long before the will is read. [/*]

If you have followed this case at all, you would know that Phil abandoned his sons a long, LONG time ago. GPS wants the truth, wouldn't you, if it were YOUR father accused of murder?

ETA: GPS and his brother have both posted on this forum that they WANT a relationship with their father. It's their FATHER, Mr high and mighty, king of the wall of sound, Phil Spector that kicked them to the curb.. NOT the sons.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by sherp


Well, truth be told, I have not "followed" the personal relationships of Phil in this case that much but did watch most of the trial on TV. I quess if Phil "kicked them to the curb" they don't have to worry about getting any money from him, then. Everyone got the truth at the trial and obviously this was a terrible accident. I think retrying this thing is a mistake and it will be either another hung jury or a Not Quilty. [/*]

"Not Quilty"? No, Phil has nothing to do with quilts. As for the verdict, it will be either Not Guilty or Guilty. Yes, another "hung jury" is possible, but I don't think it is likely THIS time.

I agree with one part of your post. I, too, believe it was an "accident". BUT, it wouldn't have happened if Phil wasn't an "accident" waiting to happen. Murder 2 is what he is accused of. Perhaps for this go-around there will be evidence enough to support a manslaughter charge. Who knows. We will have to wait and see what PS2 will show us.

As for the money part that you seem to be so concerned with, I am sure that GPS and his brother will tell you that it's NOT the money they are interested in. It's a relationship with their father that they want.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by sherp



The anti Spector folks did not believe there would be a "hung jury" last time. [/*]

I think you need to read a lot more of GPS's posts about his father.

The hung jury last time was due to ONE juror who wouldn't have believed anything anyone said even if he had a video showing the shooting and ONE juror who was a "follower" of the engineer. Period.

What are the odds of them seating another juror like the engineer?

[Cheri_G]

Apologies if this has been asked and answered...

Has anyone heard if the new trial is going to have full live coverage like the last one?

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Cheri_G
Apologies if this has been asked and answered...

Has anyone heard if the new trial is going to have full live coverage like the last one? [/*]

Not yet. It hasn't even been said if Judge Fidler will allow cameras in the courtroom this time.

We can keep hoping!

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by sherp


I don't think Spector will be too interested in giving money to any one who supports his conviction for any crime. Folk need to think about how they treat their parents, long before the will is read. [/*]

Just wondering why you think I support my Fathers conviction. That's like saying I want my Father to go to prison.

You could not be further from the truth.

What I support are the Facts in the case, which ever way they go. So far, no one has given me any Facts as to why I should believe he will be found Not Guilty.

I'll admit 14-2 (counting the 4 alternates) for Guilty was not very encouraging from where I sit.

I would rather prepare myself for the worst and hope for the best as apposed to the opposite where it will hurt a lot more if I give myself false hopes.

So, Sherp, other then him being my Father, give me facts that will give me hope he will be found Not Guilty.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by GH247


I thought a witness saw him with the gun in his hand, and heard him say something about the incident. Isn't it merely a matter of the credibility of this witness? [/*]

Yes, the Driver saw him with the Gun AFTER the shot was fired. The Driver did not SEE him shot the Gun. That's the reason for the witnesses, to prove more likely then not, that my Father could have pulled the trigger even though the only time I can recall reading about him doing it while upset and in front of someone was in the studio, but there, he shot the ceiling.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by gmiller


The one problem that I am having with this new potential witness is that she didn't come forward during PS1. You would have to be in a coma or something not to notice that your famous fmr employer was up on murder charges AND that the victim was threatened and attacked in the same manner that you were.

IDK, but something is not right here. [/*]

I do not believe that my Father actually pulled out his gun to make the threat. It is possible that she never actually saw the Gun and that may be why she continued the evening with him and to work for him for 4 years.

If this is the case, the Defense will like having her on the Stand and the Prosecution will not.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by sherp


Well, truth be told, I have not "followed" the personal relationships of Phil in this case that much but did watch most of the trial on TV. I quess if Phil "kicked them to the curb" they don't have to worry about getting any money from him, then. Everyone got the truth at the trial and obviously this was a terrible accident. I think retrying this thing is a mistake and it will be either another hung jury or a Not Quilty. [/*]

Trust me when I say, I do not worry about his money. If you read my prior post, there was a ";-)" and the end.

Granted he did promise that when we hit a certain age, we will be well provided for. Well, that was before the Twins were born and since then, I knew we would never see anything. This trial has not changed that. simply put, I gave up any hope for any money way back in the mid 80's.

And after he refused to help me get a back surgery after I was in an auto accident (as a passenger in 1989, I knew I was right to give up on any hope for generosity.

The only thing I have hoped for during this trial was the chance that he might decide to contact me to make mends. That still has not happened.

As for his money now, I think Rachelle will need all she can get her hands on after this, if he's found Guilty so as to pay off all my Father's debt's that she will be responsible for since she married him before the prior trial started.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by sherp


Looks like this guy/gal is concerned about the money. Not me and my posts were in reply to this post.
The anti Spector folks did not believe there would be a "hung jury" last time. We already know the Prosecution has NO case.
How about those "quilts"???????? [/*]

Last I checked, I was all MALE. Also, I do sleep and I do not live on this site, I just visit when I can.

Are there anymore Facts you would like cleared up? :read:

[dref99]

Originally posted by sherp


Well, truth be told, I have not "followed" the personal relationships of Phil in this case that much but did watch most of the trial on TV. I quess if Phil "kicked them to the curb" they don't have to worry about getting any money from him, then. Everyone got the truth at the trial and obviously this was a terrible accident. I think retrying this thing is a mistake and it will be either another hung jury or a Not Quilty. [/*]

If it was a "terrible accident" PS would have had a plea deal long ago. The way he spoke about Lana after she died is very indicative that he has no intention of claiming it was an accident. The defense was suicide in the last trial - there will never be a not guilty from 12 jury members based on that defense

Perhaps he will try insanity this time - from the court documents he does NOT want lessors to murder included, so no manslaughter/accident


jmo

[Cheri_G]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Not yet. It hasn't even been said if Judge Fidler will allow cameras in the courtroom this time.

We can keep hoping! [/*]

Thanks T2*. :)

[gmiller]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I do not believe that my Father actually pulled out his gun to make the threat. It is possible that she never actually saw the Gun and that may be why she continued the evening with him and to work for him for 4 years.

If this is the case, the Defense will like having her on the Stand and the Prosecution will not. [/*]

You are right, he did not pull the gun out but from Beth Karas' report he opened his jacked and displayed the small gun in his shoulder holster and said to Kemper "You know I could kill you right now". Your father did all of this after she blocked him from kissing her.

Now I suppose the other witness at Dan Tana's that night, Jay Romaine, could have been the source of this account. Then he would be the actual eye witness to see your father's gun while she sat oblivious to the situation. That could make sense, but if that's the case, why would the prosecution try to have her introduced as a witness and not just ask Mr. Romaine to testify? I hope all of that makes sense.

I'll admit I'm not in the practice of speculating on matters that have not been testified to in court...well on these boards anyway. I do a fair amount of this with my family though. I may even deserve a :punch: for subjecting them to my theories but they are far to nice to do such a thing:) Anyway, we don't really know enough about what this witness will offer at trial.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by gmiller


You are right, he did not pull the gun out but from Beth Karas' report he opened his jacked and displayed the small gun in his shoulder holster and said to Kemper "You know I could kill you right now". Your father did all of this after she blocked him from kissing her.

Now I suppose the other witness at Dan Tana's that night, Jay Romaine, could have been the source of this account. Then he would be the actual eye witness to see your father's gun while she sat oblivious to the situation. That could make sense, but if that's the case, why would the prosecution try to have her introduced as a witness and not just ask Mr. Romaine to testify? I hope all of that makes sense.

I'll admit I'm not in the practice of speculating on matters that have not been testified to in court...well on these boards anyway. I do a fair amount of this with my family though. I may even deserve a :punch: for subjecting them to my theories but they are far to nice to do such a thing:) Anyway, we don't really know enough about what this witness will offer at trial. [/*]

Flipping his coat open for her to see, that sounds like something he would do.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Flipping his coat open for her to see, that sounds like something he would do. [/*]

I really and truly feel for all that these women went through at the hands of PS.

Additionally, my heart truly goes out to you, GPS and your siblings who had to endure all that you went through as children. To me it's sad that you know that flipping open his coat to expose a gun for the purpose of intimidating an unsuspecting woman is not a-typical behavior for your father.

[starling]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Last I checked, I was all MALE. Also, I do sleep and I do not live on this site, I just visit when I can.
<snip>
:read: [/*]

:seeya: Enjoy your posts...glad you visit when you can.
~S

[Jayne]

Originally posted by gmiller


I really and truly feel for all that these women went through at the hands of PS.

Additionally, my heart truly goes out to you, GPS and your siblings who had to endure all that you went through as children. To me it's sad that you know that flipping open his coat to expose a gun for the purpose of intimidating an unsuspecting woman is not a-typical behavior for your father. [/*]

I think he knows his father..and I think it is Phil Spector...to flip open his coat and show his "strength"...


kinda kinky...this or that...

I'm so very sad for his children...who are adults..now...but have to live through this whole thing like children all over again.

Please.... I am asking people on this board to not berate or disparage Phil Spector's children...they come here..for whatever reasons...to vent, perhaps?

It's a way to let go...and to keep hold.

I feel so terribly sorry for them all...all of them...

jayne

jmo..moo..with all due respect...
[

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


I think he knows his father..and I think it is Phil Spector...to flip open his coat and show his "strength"...


kinda kinky...this or that...

I'm so very sad for his children...who are adults..now...but have to live through this whole thing like children all over again.

Please.... I am asking people on this board to not berate or disparage Phil Spector's children...they come here..for whatever reasons...to vent, perhaps?

It's a way to let go...and to keep hold.

I feel so terribly sorry for them all...all of them...

jayne

jmo..moo..with all due respect...
[ [/*]

Thank you,

As much as I understand your post, I would hate for my presents to be the reason others don't feel like expressing themselves. I am a big supporter of Freedom of Speech and to have others not speak because I post here would go against what I believe in.

On the other hand though, I am not in favor of attacking those that do not deserve or asked for it.

One thing I did learn in the Scouts (other then how to tie a square knot) is the Golden Rule and I do live by it even if I question it sometimes. So don't bite, unless you are willing to be bitten back ;)

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


Where in the trial evidence does he say ". . he did not kill her"? The only trial evidence I heard was from anyone about Phillip Spector was Philip DeSousa telling us that Mr Spector told him "I think I killed someone"

Mortie [/*]

Uhm.. It was Adriano De Sousa..

Hi Mortie :seeya:

[kennedy06]

Originally posted by Jayne


I think he knows his father..and I think it is Phil Spector...to flip open his coat and show his "strength"...


kinda kinky...this or that...

I'm so very sad for his children...who are adults..now...but have to live through this whole thing like children all over again.

Please.... I am asking people on this board to not berate or disparage Phil Spector's children...they come here..for whatever reasons...to vent, perhaps?

It's a way to let go...and to keep hold.

I feel so terribly sorry for them all...all of them...

jayne

jmo..moo..with all due respect...
[ [/*]

Jayne, ohhhhh, I never looked at it that way before, as you put it....this or that......

I feel sorry for all his children, as you said and as many of others have expressed before. I'm sure they all try their best to deal with this situation, each in their own way.

I went through a much smaller scale "public" controversial incident with one of my parents many years back. It was only local, by no means like PS's but, controversial never the less. I had no clue what was going on and only found out after someone pointed it out to me on the front page of one of the local newspapers. To add to the difficulty as an adult, you know your parent, their ways, words and actions and understand how the problem could arise. There were some supporters but, mostly non supporters. Friends they supported didn't speak up, so I understand that situation but, I could understand their reasons also. Though I realized it wasn't my problem, it still had an affect on my personal life, work, others attitudes even a little personal security. I wanted to hide, I was embarassed in away but, it was always there in one form or another. Helpless I could only sit back and watch as it unfolded over time. After a few years the controversy went away and was forgotten. I would never want to live through that again. I did learn one lesson, never talk to a reporter or media. You never know if what you say will be reported accurately or in what context you words may be used. Others may disagree with me but, that is how I feel. JMO

Just my opinion as always

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Thank you,

As much as I understand your post, I would hate for my presents to be the reason others don't feel like expressing themselves. I am a big supporter of Freedom of Speech and to have others not speak because I post here would go against what I believe in.

On the other hand though, I am not in favor of attacking those that do not deserve or asked for it.

One thing I did learn in the Scouts (other then how to tie a square knot) is the Golden Rule and I do live by it even if I question it sometimes. So don't bite, unless you are willing to be bitten back ;) [/*]

It's not the opinions concerning this case that are the problem, but, as you say, the personal attacks made on you. They are against the rules.

There's no reason everyone can't state their opinion without those nasty little cracks. You have always been respectful to every other poster on the thread, you have every right to expect the same in return.

I hope this won't keep you from posting here. I, like many others, enjoy reading your posts.

[joolz]

Originally posted by sherp


Well, the defense was that she committed suicide. They had forensic experts testifying the evidence pointed to a self inflicted event. To me, that means Spector is claiming he did not kill her. [/*]

Don't agree at all. The defense theory that LC killed herself was a theory. Nowhere did PS ever claim that he didn't kill her, IIRC. Your last sentence is an assumption on your part, but I guess that is your opinion.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by sherp


Well, the defense was that she committed suicide. They had forensic experts testifying the evidence pointed to a self inflicted event. To me, that means Spector is claiming he did not kill her. [/*]

The problem with the paid experts is that when they were asked if the evidence they had would be any different if my father shot the gun. They all said "NO", the evidence would be the same.

According to them, there strongest reason for agreeing with suicide was because, in all the cases each one worked on that involved an intra-oral gun shot wound, suicide was how they ruled.

So, in a nutshell, they could not prove it was suicide, only that they believed it was but that they could not prove one way or the other.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by True2Blues


It's not the opinions concerning this case that are the problem, but, as you say, the personal attacks made on you. They are against the rules.

You have always been respectful to every other poster on the thread, you have every right to expect the same in return.

I hope this won't keep you from posting here. I, like many others, enjoy reading your posts. [/*]

Thank you and I agree "There's no reason everyone can't state their opinion without those nasty little cracks."

:beer:

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by True2Blues


It's not the opinions concerning this case that are the problem, but, as you say, the personal attacks made on you. They are against the rules.

There's no reason everyone can't state their opinion without those nasty little cracks. You have always been respectful to every other poster on the thread, you have every right to expect the same in return.

I hope this won't keep you from posting here. I, like many others, enjoy reading your posts. [/*]

I agree with you, GPSpector and his brothers do not need this kind of treatment. These men had nothing to do with any of this trial stuff. Nor did their sister.JMO

[wandering]

Originally posted by sherp


I don't know what happened but think that they were playing around with the gun. She put it in her mouth and it went off. I don't think she committed suicide or that Phil killed her. Just a stupid tragic accident.
The fact that an employee will or will not testify that in 1996 he/she saw Phil flip open a coat and show a gun is meaningless,, in my opinion only. Not only that, from what I have read, the person continued to work for him for four more years. [/*]I suppose it wouldn't matter to you if they presented 100 women who said he pulled a gun on them. :rolleyes:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by sherp


I don't know what happened but think that they were playing around with the gun. She put it in her mouth and it went off. I don't think she committed suicide or that Phil killed her. Just a stupid tragic accident.
The fact that an employee will or will not testify that in 1996 he/she saw Phil flip open a coat and show a gun is meaningless,, in my opinion only. Not only that, from what I have read, the person continued to work for him for four more years. [/*]

The whole "Lana put the gun in her mouth while playing around" theory just doesn't work for me. A gun with an 11 pound trigger pull doesn't go off by accident, and anyone trained to use a gun, as Lana was, would know better than to cock a gun and then play with it. Someone who knew nothing might be dim enough to do that, but not someone who knew better.

It isn't just the showing of the gun, but the accompanying threat that are the point with the new witness, I think. PS has a habit of trying to intimidate women with guns.

How he managed to talk this woman around after that remark we'll have to wait and see. With the other women, he had known them for a while and had acted differently before, so when he apologized, they were more willing to take drink as excuse.

All I can think of is that because he didn't actually draw the gun and point it, he may have been able to laugh it off as a joke.

Although I can't see it myself, there is no denying he is able to charm some women.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by wandering
I suppose it wouldn't matter to you if they presented 100 women who said he pulled a gun on them. :rolleyes: [/*]

I'd believe it! Just reading different books and stories about him, it's clear that he uses guns to intimidate and control women.

[Jayne]

Wandering...I can't pull up the PDF link you referenced..but I posted some time back about videotaped or transcribed testimony of a deceased or unavailable witness.

Tell me...did it quote California Evidence Code sections 240, et. seq. and 1291?

Yes, the judge makes the determination..but I'm sure he'll find - and without fear of an appeal - that PS's former attorneys - HIS representatives had plenty of opportunity to cross examine Ogden on the point that is in issue. Were it about another issue..then it wouldn't fly...if you all understand what I mean. If the point this time around was to "prove" something other than what she took the stand for last time..and although she was cross examined by the PS1 team..if the "intent" of her testimony is otherwise herearound, then the defense could very very likely keep it out. (I call it "dead man talking"... when in a court of law...transcribed and proscribed..it's much safer than a "video tape" of a Will that could be overdubbed. apples and oranges...the issue has to be the same..which it is, IMHO, this time around as it was back then...her experience with PS and the gun brandishing, etc. Not about what she had for lunch on any certain date.)

my opinion..for what it's worth...is that her testimony will come in..at the least..transcribed..but courts prefer videotaped, if available, since it shows and tells so much more, plus avoids any possible transcript errors - IF there were any.

I have a dinosaur computer here at home and wouldn't dare use my office computer to "chat" about this trial - darn..it has the PDF capabilities.

jmo..moo

J

[wandering]

Originally posted by Jayne
Wandering...I can't pull up the PDF link you referenced..but I posted some time back about videotaped or transcribed testimony of a deceased or unavailable witness.

Tell me...did it quote California Evidence Code sections 240, et. seq. and 1291?

Yes, the judge makes the determination..but I'm sure he'll find - and without fear of an appeal - that PS's former attorneys - HIS representatives had plenty of opportunity to cross examine Ogden on the point that is in issue. Were it about another issue..then it wouldn't fly...if you all understand what I mean. If the point this time around was to "prove" something other than what she took the stand for last time..and although she was cross examined by the PS1 team..if the "intent" of her testimony is otherwise herearound, then the defense could very very likely keep it out. (I call it "dead man talking"... when in a court of law...transcribed and proscribed..it's much safer than a "video tape" of a Will that could be overdubbed. apples and oranges...the issue has to be the same..which it is, IMHO, this time around as it was back then...her experience with PS and the gun brandishing, etc. Not about what she had for lunch on any certain date.)

my opinion..for what it's worth...is that her testimony will come in..at the least..transcribed..but courts prefer videotaped, if available, since it shows and tells so much more, plus avoids any possible transcript errors - IF there were any.

I have a dinosaur computer here at home and wouldn't dare use my office computer to "chat" about this trial - darn..it has the PDF capabilities.

jmo..moo

J [/*]Thanks, Jayne. I read an legal opinon somewhere that it will come in, just not sure if it will be the videotape or the transcription.

Can't you download adobe? :confused:

Nice to read you again, btw. :seeya:

[Jayne]

Originally posted by True2Blues


The whole "Lana put the gun in her mouth while playing around" theory just doesn't work for me. A gun with an 11 pound trigger pull doesn't go off by accident, and anyone trained to use a gun, as Lana was, would know better than to cock a gun and then play with it. Someone who knew nothing might be dim enough to do that, but not someone who knew better.

It isn't just the showing of the gun, but the accompanying threat that are the point with the new witness, I think. PS has a habit of trying to intimidate women with guns.

How he managed to talk this woman around after that remark we'll have to wait and see. With the other women, he had known them for a while and had acted differently before, so when he apologized, they were more willing to take drink as excuse.

All I can think of is that because he didn't actually draw the gun and point it, he may have been able to laugh it off as a joke.

Although I can't see it myself, there is no denying he is able to charm some women. [/*]



True...it's what many of us (regardless of "which side" we are/were/will be" on) have been saying about PS's "lifestyle" as to how he treats those he wants to control.

Lock them in their rooms...take away their money or don't give them any...sue them when they don't do exactly what you say..or even if you do...if it turns out "not so good" later on (Shapiro prime example on that one).

The laws are so specific as to "prior bad witnesses" and how to "show a propensity" ..which isn't it..it has to be a Modus Operandi...a showing that this person has done this time and time again...and if believed would give weight to the premise that indeed that happened this time as well.

Prior Bad Acts...a Big Black Hole in criminal evidentiary procedures and motions and applications. It comes down to that "prejudicial vs. probative" determination, and I'm quite sure (legally and otherwise) that is why the prosecution was limited to "x" amount of PBA witnesses.

This time around..they will get (imo..but I can be wrong)..Ogden's testimony in..but they can add this new LIVE witness. Why, though? There must be something there we aren't "seeing". She was an "after the fact" witness...but she is coming forward now? I think I "get it"..it's partly, perhaps, a showing that despite all that has come down and had come down after Lana's death, he continued with his M.O. with people he wanted to control, particularly women.

Why she didn't come forward? Why the prosecution didn't use her (apparently..if posts here are correct..they didn't even know about her until recently?)..

FEAR...INTIMIDATION.

Now..there's another charge against PS..intimidating witnesses or plausible witnesses. It could get really really muddy...but from what I've gleaned about Michelle..the former "aide"..there was intimidation..in the act of a lawsuit? Maybe, again, I don't have all the facts down straight...but if you were about to be sued for millions or thousands and thousands of dollars...and could be a potential witness...well..I don't mean YOU..but many people would say..NOPE..ain't gonna testify or I don't have anything to offer. Which brings up a thought I've had for a long time...Why wasn't MB called in as a witness on PS1? Maybe the prosecution hit their "limit" of PBAs before they learned the truth about PS and MB's relationship? Or maybe it would look more like retaliation? The defense wouldn't call her as she'd not be on "their side"?

Interesting "stuff", huh?

charming some women? Yes, I think he obviously has and probably continues to do so?? Sometimes it is the snake in the grass who charms the little old lady to take him in..feed him...then get bitten. (remember that old story...that we read to "children"?? The purpose of which, I think was, you don't change your SKIN, even if you shed it from season to season..once a snake..always a snake....at least most don't.)

I have absolutely no respect or forgiveness for someone who does this consistently. One time mistake..OK...but he has a repetitive history of intimiating People..mostly women, I suppose..but anyone who can or does possibly "get in his way". He's a miniscule, in stature, Thug...or wannabe Thug. I can't give any credence to any psychological profile (IF there ever were one to be presented, which I'm quite sure there will not be) that a Napoleonic persona caused all this..that's no excuse. Nor should there be any "Amazonian woman" profile or insinuation that just because Lana played the part of the Barbarian Queen makes her more Superior or a Threat to PS, or incapable of being murdered..thus, she must have committed suicide? That's abhorrently ridiculous. But, I do think that is what the defense in PS1 was trying to attempt in their claim that she had to killed herself..too Large...to "experienced" in guns and "barbarian ways" to have been a victim?

IMO..if he is not found "guilty" of this crime (murdering/manslaughtering) against Lana..he is definitely guilty of intimidating and harrassing people who were or became close to him, either in familial or business relationships, for whatever reasons he had in his mind at the time. That's a lifetime of "crime"...as I see it.

JMO
MOO
J

[kennedy06]

I'll apologize ahead of time if one of the links many of you posted already contained this information. I was able to open the links previously but, for some reason they won't work for me now. Here is a link to Srpocket's blog containing parts of the prosecution's motions. I'm glad she took the time to print some of it for us to read. It gives us a little more insight into Norma K. and the pattern being established. (July 20 post)

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

I see NK did inform her husband about the incident after it happened. So Jay R. was seated at the table. Apparently PS and Jay R. sat on one side of the table and NK on the other side. I wonder if Jay R. was sitting there at the time of the alleged incident?

Was this gentleman, Jay R. a former bodyguard or just a friend of PS?

JMO

[dref99]

Originally posted by kennedy06
I'll apologize ahead of time if one of the links many of you posted already contained this information. I was able to open the links previously but, for some reason they won't work for me now.
... snipped because I don't know the answer to the query - sorry

JMO [/*]

I think someone has incorrectly updated a few links - hopefully the documents will return, there were 7 listed for the new trial last time I looked. One that I hadn't read in full appeared to relate to wanting to remove ALL evidence from the prosecution expert witnesses :shrug: Did anyone read the reasons for that?

tia



jmo

[Jayne]

Kemper was there from 1996 to 2000..that was prior to Lana's death.

She wasn't an "after the fact" employee.

Why she didn't come forward or wasn't pulled forward before..who knows? Ya'd think that might be important?

So far...every post here says there was no information that she was a "former" expected witness in PS1..so WHY?

Maybe the prosecution figured the other PBA witnesses were more "important" because they did NOT have a business relationship with him ..but were quasi-business and maybe just "friends".

For a Boss to intimadate an employee..sure there is no excuse..but it looked better, I'd think from the prosecution side, to have "un-attached" PBAs..like Lana was. She didn't work for PS..she was an "item of interest" to him that evening.

Now..they are bringing her in? Why? Well...among all the other PBAs they might have had in PS1, she may be very important..can hold up to cross examination..has no "dirty laundry"..such as lawsuits against her by PS, etc. Maybe MBlaine won't testify..or maybe...after all she's written online, blogged, etc., she wouldn't be the Best Witness..as an employee "dissed". Even if she is/was willing. Sometimes..IMO..it pays to keep your mouth shut..in public, that is. She might have been one of the prime prosecution witnesses..but her writing on the internet, etc. sort of "blew it"..that's just my opinion..for what it is worth.

dunno..just a guess.

JMO

MOO

J

[wandering]

Originally posted by Jayne
Kemper was there from 1996 to 2000..that was prior to Lana's death.

She wasn't an "after the fact" employee.

Why she didn't come forward or wasn't pulled forward before..who knows? Ya'd think that might be important?

So far...every post here says there was no information that she was a "former" expected witness in PS1..so WHY?

Maybe the prosecution figured the other PBA witnesses were more "important" because they did NOT have a business relationship with him ..but were quasi-business and maybe just "friends".

For a Boss to intimadate an employee..sure there is no excuse..but it looked better, I'd think from the prosecution side, to have "un-attached" PBAs..like Lana was. She didn't work for PS..she was an "item of interest" to him that evening.

Now..they are bringing her in? Why? Well...among all the other PBAs they might have had in PS1, she may be very important..can hold up to cross examination..has no "dirty laundry"..such as lawsuits against her by PS, etc. Maybe MBlaine won't testify..or maybe...after all she's written online, blogged, etc., she wouldn't be the Best Witness..as an employee "dissed". Even if she is/was willing. Sometimes..IMO..it pays to keep your mouth shut..in public, that is. She might have been one of the prime prosecution witnesses..but her writing on the internet, etc. sort of "blew it"..that's just my opinion..for what it is worth.

dunno..just a guess.

JMO

MOO

J [/*]Diane Ogden made it perfectly clear that she was subpoenaed. I suspect there are others who don't want to talk about it. I'd say their fear keeps them silent.

Yeh, I'd say M. Blaine wouldn't be a good witness. A huge ulterior motive there.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by sherp


I don't know what happened but think that they were playing around with the gun. She put it in her mouth and it went off. I don't think she committed suicide or that Phil killed her. Just a stupid tragic accident.
The fact that an employee will or will not testify that in 1996 he/she saw Phil flip open a coat and show a gun is meaningless,, in my opinion only. Not only that, from what I have read, the person continued to work for him for four more years. [/*]

Well Sherp, when you said this:
"they were playing around with the gun. She put it in her mouth and it went off. I don't think she committed suicide or that Phil killed her. Just a stupid tragic accident."

You just defined 2nd Degree Murder and that is what my father is on trial for.

If it were suicide (with her own gun), he would be free.

If it was deliberate, it would be 1st Degree.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Jayne




True...it's what many of us (regardless of "which side" we are/were/will be" on) have been saying about PS's "lifestyle" as to how he treats those he wants to control.

Lock them in their rooms...take away their money or don't give them any...sue them when they don't do exactly what you say..or even if you do...if it turns out "not so good" later on (Shapiro prime example on that one).

The laws are so specific as to "prior bad witnesses" and how to "show a propensity" ..which isn't it..it has to be a Modus Operandi...a showing that this person has done this time and time again...and if believed would give weight to the premise that indeed that happened this time as well.

Prior Bad Acts...a Big Black Hole in criminal evidentiary procedures and motions and applications. It comes down to that "prejudicial vs. probative" determination, and I'm quite sure (legally and otherwise) that is why the prosecution was limited to "x" amount of PBA witnesses.

This time around..they will get (imo..but I can be wrong)..Ogden's testimony in..but they can add this new LIVE witness. Why, though? There must be something there we aren't "seeing". She was an "after the fact" witness...but she is coming forward now? I think I "get it"..it's partly, perhaps, a showing that despite all that has come down and had come down after Lana's death, he continued with his M.O. with people he wanted to control, particularly women.

Why she didn't come forward? Why the prosecution didn't use her (apparently..if posts here are correct..they didn't even know about her until recently?)..

FEAR...INTIMIDATION.

Now..there's another charge against PS..intimidating witnesses or plausible witnesses. It could get really really muddy...but from what I've gleaned about Michelle..the former "aide"..there was intimidation..in the act of a lawsuit? Maybe, again, I don't have all the facts down straight...but if you were about to be sued for millions or thousands and thousands of dollars...and could be a potential witness...well..I don't mean YOU..but many people would say..NOPE..ain't gonna testify or I don't have anything to offer. Which brings up a thought I've had for a long time...Why wasn't MB called in as a witness on PS1? Maybe the prosecution hit their "limit" of PBAs before they learned the truth about PS and MB's relationship? Or maybe it would look more like retaliation? The defense wouldn't call her as she'd not be on "their side"?

Interesting "stuff", huh?

charming some women? Yes, I think he obviously has and probably continues to do so?? Sometimes it is the snake in the grass who charms the little old lady to take him in..feed him...then get bitten. (remember that old story...that we read to "children"?? The purpose of which, I think was, you don't change your SKIN, even if you shed it from season to season..once a snake..always a snake....at least most don't.)

I have absolutely no respect or forgiveness for someone who does this consistently. One time mistake..OK...but he has a repetitive history of intimiating People..mostly women, I suppose..but anyone who can or does possibly "get in his way". He's a miniscule, in stature, Thug...or wannabe Thug. I can't give any credence to any psychological profile (IF there ever were one to be presented, which I'm quite sure there will not be) that a Napoleonic persona caused all this..that's no excuse. Nor should there be any "Amazonian woman" profile or insinuation that just because Lana played the part of the Barbarian Queen makes her more Superior or a Threat to PS, or incapable of being murdered..thus, she must have committed suicide? That's abhorrently ridiculous. But, I do think that is what the defense in PS1 was trying to attempt in their claim that she had to killed herself..too Large...to "experienced" in guns and "barbarian ways" to have been a victim?

IMO..if he is not found "guilty" of this crime (murdering/manslaughtering) against Lana..he is definitely guilty of intimidating and harrassing people who were or became close to him, either in familial or business relationships, for whatever reasons he had in his mind at the time. That's a lifetime of "crime"...as I see it.

JMO
MOO
J [/*]

Hi Jayne, Once a snake always a snake is right!

We all know that PS is not averse to using intimidation, look at the threats he left for Dorothy Melvin. She's not the only one either, all of them said that he threatened their jobs, their lives, etc. after the incidents if they talked.

Even when the police came for him, the transcript of the tape they made had him threatening them with his contacts in the government. Saying he'll get them fired and all of the rest of it. When the threats don't impress them, he goes to flattery, wheedling and it's all a mistake.

PS definitely has an inflated sense of his own importance. Along with that is an awareness of his unimpressive stature and (I believe) and even deeper knowledge that his "all for me" brand of relationship is too insincere to earn the affection and respect he wants and believes he deserves.

I really think he believes that it's his personal accomplishment, when he uses a gun to force someone to do what he wants. There's no way anyone would do it, if it weren't for the fact that the gun is potentially deadly, while Spector by himself is impotent as a threat.

[wandering]

Originally posted by dref99


I think someone has incorrectly updated a few links - hopefully the documents will return, there were 7 listed for the new trial last time I looked. One that I hadn't read in full appeared to relate to wanting to remove ALL evidence from the prosecution expert witnesses :shrug: Did anyone read the reasons for that?

tia



jmo [/*]Here's the link for that. Hope it works...


http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/ssgrr455nu4tb155vxat5w45/1287526532.pdf


It appears they are saying it's beyond those experts expertise.

[wandering]

Here's a link to the main page. :shrug:

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

[tartangirl]

For the facts as to why or when MB might be called as a witness please go here and read.


The comments area gives an answer from the person herself...always a good thing.:)

The last blog on that page has the info.


http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/


take care, tartangirl

and as always..Justice for Lana and those who love her..

[DixieChick]

Originally posted by joolz


Don't agree at all. The defense theory that LC killed herself was a theory. Nowhere did PS ever claim that he didn't kill her, IIRC. Your last sentence is an assumption on your part, but I guess that is your opinion. [/*]

I recall PS made several statements ie; she killed herself, I wasn't even in the room, etc.

I think even to the police he gave a pantomine to show how she put the gun to her head.

[joolz]

Originally posted by DixieChick


I recall PS made several statements ie; she killed herself, I wasn't even in the room, etc.

I think even to the police he gave a pantomine to show how she put the gun to her head. [/*]

Even if he did, it doesn't matter since none of that was admitted as evidence, IIRC.

[wandering]

Originally posted by GH247
This discussion about rules of evidence and whether or not he claimed to have killed her or not is pointless quibbling. He pled not guilty, didn't he? The substantive question is: is he guilty or not, and if so, of what? [/*]Huh? :confused:

[Spectorfan8]

Good Morning!!!

M Blaine will testify under rebuttal. That is as much as I know about it.:)

[wandering]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
Good Morning!!!

M Blaine will testify under rebuttal. That is as much as I know about it.:) [/*]Really? :confused: Do you have a link?

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by GPSpector


Well Sherp, when you said this:
"they were playing around with the gun. She put it in her mouth and it went off. I don't think she committed suicide or that Phil killed her. Just a stupid tragic accident."

You just defined 2nd Degree Murder and that is what my father is on trial for.

If it were suicide (with her own gun), he would be free.

If it was deliberate, it would be 1st Degree. [/*]

Well I think you broke it down quite nicely, Phil is charged with 2nd degree...thus not premeditated..His gun in hand at the door shortly after Adriano heard the shot..Lana sprawled on seatee in hallway, purse at her side, fully clothes, face bloodied, a mere few hours after arriving to his house..then proving Phil's propensity to intimidating women when leaving his house, then blood spatter and other evidence of in that house, on his person, then his simple words.."I think I just killed somebody"..

Self inflicted is not plausible in my view, Lana did not know PS, she would not have known where to find a gun in a house she had never been before, nor a history of attempting suicide or preyliction for firearms.

It really is as simple as you spelled out..His gun, his house, his past threats with a gun, his irradict behavior when drinking, and finally blaming the victim for what they got...It is in his mind, that everyone else is wrong..or they have wronged him..I rather doubt he has ever taken responsibility for anything other than getting the "Limelight".

Sorry, GP..your dad was an accident just waiting to happen and marvel that something like this didnt happen before Lana!!

LMS:seeya:

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by wandering
Really? :confused: Do you have a link? [/*]


No link needed, I was personally told.

[tartangirl]

Originally posted by wandering
Really? :confused: Do you have a link? [/*]

read up a few posts...



http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/



Justice for Lana and those who love her

[KathR]

Hi folks. Does anyone know when the retrial will take place or if it will be televised?

Boy, I sure miss Court TV. What a shame that we have lost that resource.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by True2Blues


I'd believe it! Just reading different books and stories about him, it's clear that he uses guns to intimidate and control women. [/*]

Exactly...to CONTROL women! Where where the female witnesses for the defense that said they ever mutually "played around" with guns? All the evidence has always pointed to PS trying to intimidate women. Seems like one hell of a coincidence that the only woman that seemingly ever willingly "played around" with guns in Spector's presence, wound up dead (God rest her soul).

P.S.: GPS, I'm glad that you let of these mean spirited posts roll off your back. I think most of us here feel protective of you in a way because we know you've been through a lot and we enjoy chatting with you. I'm glad that you won't let a few posters stop you posting. Those of us who have been posting on here for awhile now really respect your opinions and are grateful for your candor.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Mort Snerd


I am just trying to follow the Rules of Evidence. What the Prosecution or Defense lawyers say in court is not evidence. Only the statements made by the witness are evidence and physical evidence, pictures etc admitted into evidence can be considered by the jury. This is stated over and over again by all Judges I have listened to when instructing the jury. I understand what you are saying but if we are to fairly judge Phillip Spector, where is the evidence that he stated he did not kill her? [/*]Unless he takes the stand there won't be any direct evidence from him. The police have recorded evidence where he admits he didn't kill her. The prosecution is aware of it as is the defense.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


Well I think you broke it down quite nicely, Phil is charged with 2nd degree...thus not premeditated..His gun in hand at the door shortly after Adriano heard the shot..Lana sprawled on seatee in hallway, purse at her side, fully clothes, face bloodied, a mere few hours after arriving to his house..then proving Phil's propensity to intimidating women when leaving his house, then blood spatter and other evidence of in that house, on his person, then his simple words.."I think I just killed somebody"..

Self inflicted is not plausible in my view, Lana did not know PS, she would not have known where to find a gun in a house she had never been before, nor a history of attempting suicide or preyliction for firearms.

It really is as simple as you spelled out..His gun, his house, his past threats with a gun, his irradict behavior when drinking, and finally blaming the victim for what they got...It is in his mind, that everyone else is wrong..or they have wronged him..I rather doubt he has ever taken responsibility for anything other than getting the "Limelight".

Sorry, GP..your dad was an accident just waiting to happen and marvel that something like this didnt happen before Lana!!

LMS:seeya: [/*]What a terrible law. Under that statute the are an infinite number of scenarios in which a gun could be accidentally discharged and you could be found guilty of 2nd Dg. Murder.

[DutchFlower]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Unless he takes the stand there won't be any direct evidence from him. The police have recorded evidence where he admits he didn't kill her. The prosecution is aware of it as is the defense. [/*]

I'm going to need a notebook to keep up with all your new nics. I'll add this one to the list. See you soon. ;)

:seeya:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
What a terrible law. Under that statute the are an infinite number of scenarios in which a gun could be accidentally discharged and you could be found guilty of 2nd Dg. Murder. [/*]

Accidental discharging of ones weapon has killed alot of people including children..It could be manslaughter and depends on the evidentiary testimony to indicate whether the introduction to any situation was malicious, menacing, or intimidation intended.
It is not rocket science to think that any loaded weapon brought out could go off accidently.. but it is the proveable rationale for that gun to be there in the first place. I really dont think that Lana had one clue whether Phil had guns or didnt..much less know where they were kept.. and to insinuate some sort of "sex game"..rediculous..I dont want to bad mouth Phil..but pleeeze dont think so!

LMS

[Cnigt]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


Accidental discharging of ones weapon has killed alot of people including children..It could be manslaughter and depends on the evidentiary testimony to indicate whether the introduction to any situation was malicious, menacing, or intimidation intended.
It is not rocket science to think that any loaded weapon brought out could go off accidently.. but it is the proveable rationale for that gun to be there in the first place. I really dont think that Lana had one clue whether Phil had guns or didnt..much less know where they were kept.. and to insinuate some sort of "sex game"..rediculous..I dont want to bad mouth Phil..but pleeeze dont think so!

LMS [/*]

PS and his defense had no such qualms about bad mouthing Lana. They started trashing her day one and never stopped.

[KathR]

Originally posted by Phil S.
What a terrible law. Under that statute the are an infinite number of scenarios in which a gun could be accidentally discharged and you could be found guilty of 2nd Dg. Murder. [/*]

Great law. Phil S held a gun to Lana Clarkson's face and he is responsible for her death. He should pay by spending the rest of his senility behind bars.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Cnigt


PS and his defense had no such qualms about bad mouthing Lana. They started trashing her day one and never stopped. [/*]

It is really so sad and frustraing to see defendents and defense attny's who bad mouth the victim..not just in this case...however most defenses doing that only show that they have no other venue to defend themselves..speaks volumes to me anyway.

it's one thing to take pot shots at a victim with a known violent reputation, or has history of threatening, or whatevers...but to blanketly insinuate possibles is so wrong, hurtful and in a common sense manner is usually dismissed by jurors. I of course am not refering to aberrant trials that to this day still boggle my mind..but as a rule of thumb.:confused:

LMS

[Cnigt]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


It is really so sad and frustraing to see defendents and defense attny's who bad mouth the victim..not just in this case...however most defenses doing that only show that they have no other venue to defend themselves..speaks volumes to me anyway.

it's one thing to take pot shots at a victim with a known violent reputation, or has history of threatening, or whatevers...but to blanketly insinuate possibles is so wrong, hurtful and in a common sense manner is usually dismissed by jurors. I of course am not refering to aberrant trials that to this day still boggle my mind..but as a rule of thumb.:confused:

LMS [/*]

I agree. It's very telling the lengths some will go to, in order to dirty a victim. Like trying to get testimony allowed from a Former Madam with forged papers, for instance.

[tartangirl]

Originally posted by DutchFlower


I'm going to need a notebook to keep up with all your new nics. I'll add this one to the list. See you soon. ;)

:seeya: [/*]



You will be needing more space in that notebook for another nic is

************* AmishElecCo ****************


Justice for Lana and those who love her

[Chimera]

Originally posted by tartangirl




You will be needing more space in that notebook for another nic is

************* AmishElecCo ****************


Justice for Lana and those who love her [/*]

Not to mention the various spellings of that one...still offensive.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by BannedSoon


Isn't she the lady who embezzled from him? [/*]

Yes it is, the very one.

[dref99]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Unless he takes the stand there won't be any direct evidence from him. The police have recorded evidence where he admits he didn't kill her. The prosecution is aware of it as is the defense. [/*]

It is an unusual phrase "he admits he didn't kill her" - probably more usual to say he said he didn't kill her. Most people admit guilt and state innocence.

In at least one of his early statements at the scene , he said "The gun went off accidentally" and "I can tell you what happened" which led to my comment pages back - a plea at the time, may have been a good idea.

At a later stage he makes a comment - which I won't repeat (most of it will look like **** on here) - indicating that Lana killed herself.

All of his early comments can be seen here - when/if the link works (seems ok at the minute)
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&


jmo

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by BannedSoon


Isn't she the lady who embezzled from him? [/*]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spectorfan8


Yes it is, the very one. [/*]

Funny, most people that do what Michelle Blane did are called Personal Assistants. What she used the money for was to pay my fathers bills. He just claimed that he did not have knowledge and claimed he never gave permission for her to spend the money.

By calling it embezzling, it was his way of getting a full refund of all the money he paid her for job and to take her home from her was just a way to hurt her and her family.

The only thing I can recall a Personal Assistant possibly doing something wrong was a prior Assistant that relayed messages from me to my father and on one occasion, I was in need of help and she had sent me a check with his name on it to to help cover my rent. I never really knew if my father actually even knew he helped me. He not once ever replied to my messages from the Assistant or the ones I left on his answering Machine.

I had originally thought that he actually did care but I have learned that it is more likely that he had no clue that he helped me. So I give all my gratitude to his prior Assistant whom was also fired but by my Sisters Mother from what I have heard.

I only wish that my father was capable of doing good but I just have not seen it.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8
Good Morning!!!

M Blaine will testify under rebuttal. That is as much as I know about it.:) [/*]

Really? How..or I should say..to what? I'm guessing you mean by "rebuttal"...for the defense? Who or what will she be "rebutting", if you know?

That's interesting.

If she isn't doing this voluntarily, then it's by subpoenae. What could she possibly be "rebutting"? (You know I'm not "attacking you, SPfan..I'm just amazed at hearing this.)

Here's my guess..the prosecution puts on the new witness Kemper..to testify to her experience as PS's assistant..then the defense puts on Blaine (willingly or not) to rebut the "evidence" put forth by Ms. Kemper?

Seems pretty "iffy" imo..with all MB has thrown out to the public. I have nothing against her, nor do I find her a "problem person" at all..despite what might have been "read into" my prior posts, but what I see is a 'can of worms' (I don't mean her personally). She'd be the last witness I'd pick as a defense rebuttal..unless they obviously know something none of us do, at this point. Again..another guess...she stayed on as his assistant when she knew things weren't "quite right"..thus "no fear"...so they'll try to bootstrap it up to Kemper's testimony...to support a "lack of fear" for staying on the job for 4 years or thereabouts, if PS was such a "threat".

just a few thoughts

jmo
moo
J

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Phil S.
What a terrible law. Under that statute the are an infinite number of scenarios in which a gun could be accidentally discharged and you could be found guilty of 2nd Dg. Murder. [/*]

I'm not sure about California Law but here in Colorado, all guns are to be secured and stored away from its ammo and unloaded.

By securing, there are trigger locks now. And I do believe it is now ok to store the ammo in its proper box or in a gun case with the gun but only if there is a trigger lock. The gun still can not remain loaded though.

Leaving a loaded gun in a drawer to be found is just asking for trouble anyway.

Also, I have trouble believing the gun was originally in that drawer before her death. I can't help but think that he was wearing that holster with the gun while he was on the town like he usually did.

[GPSpector]

Originally posted by Jayne


Really? How..or I should say..to what? I'm guessing you mean by "rebuttal"...for the defense? Who or what will she be "rebutting", if you know?

That's interesting.

If she isn't doing this voluntarily, then it's by subpoenae. What could she possibly be "rebutting"? (You know I'm not "attacking you, SPfan..I'm just amazed at hearing this.)

Here's my guess..the prosecution puts on the new witness Kemper..to testify to her experience as PS's assistant..then the defense puts on Blaine (willingly or not) to rebut the "evidence" put forth by Ms. Kemper?

Seems pretty "iffy" imo..with all MB has thrown out to the public. I have nothing against her, nor do I find her a "problem person" at all..despite what might have been "read into" my prior posts, but what I see is a 'can of worms' (I don't mean her personally). She'd be the last witness I'd pick as a defense rebuttal..unless they obviously know something none of us do, at this point. Again..another guess...she stayed on as his assistant when she knew things weren't "quite right"..thus "no fear"...so they'll try to bootstrap it up to Kemper's testimony...to support a "lack of fear" for staying on the job for 4 years or thereabouts, if PS was such a "threat".

just a few thoughts

jmo
moo
J [/*]

From my understanding, the only way Michelle will be put on the Stand is ONLY if the Defense puts my Father on the Stand.

She would be called by the Prosecution to Rebut my Father.

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


From my understanding, the only way Michelle will be put on the Stand is ONLY if the Defense puts my Father on the Stand.

She would be called by the Prosecution to Rebut my Father. [/*]

Oh, dear, GPS..if your Father is put on the Stand..the case is "over" IMO...They wouldn't even need MB..except..like you aver to..to support the prosecution's case. Whatever he says about MB or their relationship or what when on during that period..she can rebut.

I just don't see any other way she would be a rebuttal except for that purpose...so I confer with you. Other than the flimsy reason I noted before..IF..that were a defense putting her on (against her will, I suppose - which would be ridiculous, considering all she's written and put out in public).

I think there was a "misnomer" perhaps between rebuttal and redirect..or if it was meant to rebut your father's testimony, yes.

Hope you are doing OK.

J

all my posts are only..JMO..MOO as to the case and it's issues

[gmiller]

Originally posted by Jayne


Oh, dear, GPS..if your Father is put on the Stand..the case is "over" IMO...They wouldn't even need MB..except..like you aver to..to support the prosecution's case. Whatever he says about MB or their relationship or what when on during that period..she can rebut.

J

all my posts are only..JMO..MOO as to the case and it's issues [/*]

OMG I just had this mental flash of AJ cross examining PS. I see nothing for PS to gain by taking the stand, except perhaps a verbal assault assault against a prosecutor. J/K I hope.

[kennedy06]

I'm intrigued by Norma K. I just have the feeling while her story is least "sensational" of the PBAs, could her story possibly open more doors.

If there was a witness to the incident, would they have been mentioned in the prosecution's motion or would they just be introduced after she took the stand?

If the other gentleman at the table Jay R. (hopefully he is still with us) PS's friend and bodyguard and a (former?) policeman did witness the incident, could he be asked if he had ever seen PS, while inebriated and showing an "romantic" interest in a woman, threaten her with a gun? Could her husband be called to indicate what they may have discussed as to her continuing to work for PS, after she told him of the incident?


JMO

[Jayne]

Originally posted by GPSpector


I'm not sure about California Law but here in Colorado, all guns are to be secured and stored away from its ammo and unloaded.

By securing, there are trigger locks now. And I do believe it is now ok to store the ammo in its proper box or in a gun case with the gun but only if there is a trigger lock. The gun still can not remain loaded though.

Leaving a loaded gun in a drawer to be found is just asking for trouble anyway.

Also, I have trouble believing the gun was originally in that drawer before her death. I can't help but think that he was wearing that holster with the gun while he was on the town like he usually did. [/*]

CA law..has to be in separate compartments..if the gun is in the trunk..the ammo has to be elsewhere or locked, as you said..apart from the gun. CA has the most strict laws of any state as far as carring a concealed weapon or even not carring it concealed. You can't walk down the streets in CA with a loaded gun..in fact, in some areas you can't even shoot a BB gun in your own backyard. Other states are far different..you can have a loaded gun under your front seat!

I think that gun was loaded...I think is was in the drawer..at first, perhaps..but it was eventually in PS's hands..easy to acquire..easy to put under his belt, so to speak, or in his pants pocket..which makes a lot of sense..according to the evidence...blood in the pockets..he put it back there after he shot it..or he put his hands in his pocket..think? nah..he put the gun there in the meantime to clean up. Did he?::Go get a drink or some ice cubes..pick up the gun and put it in the holster (which he obviously didn't or else he put the holster back in the clean up procedure..my guess? he put it in his pant's pocket..because he figured..time was coming down to when Lana would want to leave..have it ready to intimidate). It's a theatrical imagining on my part, I suppose...but isn't or wasn't that his M.O.? He had a gun ready..or could go upstairs (or in a drawer) and get it? I bet time was of the essence and he figured he couldn't go upstairs to get his rifle or shotgun..this was the most reasonable way for him to intimdate Lana, considering she might have said "it's time I go home..I have to work tomorrow".

IMO..you want to protect your castle..you have a loaded shotgun in the arms of one of those metal "knight figures" at the foyer...OR..you have a loaded pistol in the drawer nearby.

All those "latex gloves"...what was the purpose of them? There was so much back in PS1 that made a lot of sense and maybe didn't..depending on which side one was coming from.

IMO..he loaded that gun..there was NO dna on the loading side of the bullets..WHY? If a person is loading his/her own gun..for not "malicious reasons"..WHY hide the DNA? If you are protecting your home..that's a defense..DNA or not..SURE..it helps I guess it could..if there were no DNA on there..but in my mind, it makes it worse..it looks MORE sinister.

My question has always been...how can the defense claim she loaded that gun when NONE of her DNA was on the loading end of the bullets? It was the blood backsplatter that placed her DNA on the bullets...not the loading of it. Then HOW would she know where PS hid a loaded handgun? Did he tell her? Did she snoop around? (OH, yeah..that juror..snooping around thing.) Did he hand it to her..or she struck it from his hands? Well...then..he's still guilty. You don't hold out a piece of broken glass to a potential victim and say..."go for it". I really doubt she took it from him...if so..he'd have had some black and blue marks on him as he couldn't and wouldn't have allowed a woman to subdue him..to be the "higher up"..he had to be in control. And, if not..why wasn't he down on his knees..crying for help after she allegedly SHOT herself?

If I wanted to commit suicide..believe you me..I'd take my own weapon..concealed...to a person's place I wanted to set up as a patsy..and blow my brains away. YEAH...sure. NAH...She wasn't insane..she had no history of mental disorder or the like. She didn't take that gun..she didn't FIND that gun. And..if the defense wants to make a kinky play thing out of it..then PS is guilty..bottom line..he's guilty. You don't play with fire. And you are not going to let a "nutcase" take your gun from you and play Russian Roulette..you fight to get it back. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. If Lana had grabbed that gun, does anyone think PS would have just done nothing? Maybe some do..I think, instead, he would be going for the gamut...he needed to be the control person. I'm guessing..had that been the scenario..he'd have taken control..playing with her.."let me do it".

What a mess of a jury that was..even at the worst..he enabled her. (which I don't believe for a minute). If they wanted to make her out to be the larger than life person..then he didn't take anything from her..he shoved it in her and she died.

"What a tangled web we weave."

jmo
moo
J

[GPSpector]

Well Jayne,

I see you have been thinking about this. The only problem is, my father almost always has a gun in a holster under his arm.

It would make it easy access, where ever he is. He could then have gone upstairs (while in shock), take off his jacket and realize he's still wearing the holster and take off the strap and place the holster in the drawer. All this after trying to clean the gun (as was proven).

It was proven that someone tried to put the gun in Lana's hand (possible to transfer fingerprints) but because there was blood on the handle, her prints were not complete showing that her hand was on the gun only after she died. the gun was then allowed to drop to where it was found, at the chair leg under her foot.

I am just not sure as to when he could have used the diaper to clean her face but I bet that if he used the wet diaper on her face, her eyelashes would have come off and that may be why they were found on the sink in the same bathroom the diaper was found in.


These are just my opinions based on the facts so far.

I really wish I could think up a scenario based on the Defences story. I mean, at one time my father says he did not do it and he was not even in the room than he says I can tell you what happened. There are just to many conflicting stories from the Defense to piece anything plausible together.

[kennedy06]

Hi Jayne,

Concerning blood in the pants pocket, I do remember a poster during the trial considering the idea that he may have removed the turning mechanism for the lock so the door was rendered useless. To open the door to he may have reached into the pocket, transfering the blood into the pocket and the lock knob when attaching it, to talk to AD. I thought it sounded like a good theory for the blood in the pocket. I don't remember now, was the reason for the blood in the pants pocket covered in the trial? JMO

[Jayne]

Originally posted by kennedy06
Hi Jayne,

Concerning blood in the pants pocket, I do remember a poster during the trial considering the idea that he may have removed the turning mechanism for the lock so the door was rendered useless. To open the door to he may have reached into the pocket, transfering the blood into the pocket and the lock knob when attaching it, to talk to AD. I thought it sounded like a good theory for the blood in the pocket. I don't remember now, was the reason for the blood in the pants pocket covered in the trial? JMO [/*]

Hey..Kennedy...there could be several reasons or plausible explanations for blood in the pants pocket...let me give some:

1. bloody hand from handling the door handle..like you said - yes..sounds plausibe..but if he had ANYTHING do to with the gun..WHERE did he put it at that point? Adriano said he saw it in his hand..so..blood? when he went back inside? before he came outside?

2. putting the gun back in my pocket.my usual modus operandi - that's my best guess..he did that "automatically"..then realized he had to "clean up"...then he forgot about the latex gloves upstairs but suddently realized. I bet he was beside himself with all the COVER UP he had to do...if in fact he could remember..and I think he well remembered. I'd bet he had a drink or so after doing all that..to kind of "mask it out". Sure..Perry Mason stuff..but I wouldn't doubt it for a minute...it's amazing what a person can do in ten or twenty minutes..then just "forget about it".

3. I have a "habit" of putting my hands in my pocket (NEVER mind..that I just killed someone)

4. I just had a woman commit suicide in my house..I was "CLEANING UP"..and I automatically just shoved my hands in my pocket??

5. dunno.did the back spatter..his my pants pocket..FROM THE INSIDE??

6. NAH..the back spatter..soaked in..yeah..that's right..

7. I keep a vial of blood in my pants pocket..just to protect myself in case I get accused of a crime?

8. LANA DID IT.

sorry..but it's late at night..and YES..I'm kinda tired.. but your question...I really wanted to respond to, as stupid as it might seem. in response...

:)

jmo moo J

[GPSpector]

I'm not 100% sure but AD did say he saw my father wearing the jacket when he came outside holding the gun and blood was on his hands.

When the police showed up, he was not wearing the jacket. The jacket was found on the floor of his bedroom. So, he obviously cleaned his hands at some point before taking the jacket off, since there was no blood on the jacket other than the Back Spatter.

I'm guessing, it's possible he was also not wearing the jacket when he was cleaning off Lana's face. And while going back and forth from the bathroom, he did touch the rails, so he was transferring the blood to other locations.

It's possible that when he opened the door for the police, he could have either added more blood to the door knob (though I don't think so) or that's when he got more blood on him and he used the inside of the pocket to wipe that blood off. The police did state that he kept putting his hands in and out of his pocket and that was the reason they attempted (unsuccessfully) to taser him.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by GPSpector
I'm not 100% sure but AD did say he saw my father wearing the jacket when he came outside holding the gun and blood was on his hands.

When the police showed up, he was not wearing the jacket. The jacket was found on the floor of his bedroom. So, he obviously cleaned his hands at some point before taking the jacket off, since there was no blood on the jacket other than the Back Spatter.

I'm guessing, it's possible he was also not wearing the jacket when he was cleaning off Lana's face. And while going back and forth from the bathroom, he did touch the rails, so he was transferring the blood to other locations.

It's possible that when he opened the door for the police, he could have either added more blood to the door knob (though I don't think so) or that's when he got more blood on him and he used the inside of the pocket to wipe that blood off. The police did state that he kept putting his hands in and out of his pocket and that was the reason they attempted (unsuccessfully) to taser him. [/*]

GP your memory of these facts are very close to my recollection too. Speaking to the Eye lashes on the sink in the downstairs bathroom, I think got there when Phil wiped Lana's face with that wet diaper, probably placed there by Phil when wringing out that cloth, although I do recall the defense spin that fact that Lana had put them there..in preparation for a sexual encounter..I find that rediculous tho. The was blood in the toilet bowl water, which is indictative of diaper being rinsed there..

The blood inside his pockets, well it is my memory that Phil was putting his hands in and out of his pockets constantly, creating big concern by the police..

Blood distributed throughout the foyer, stairs, door knobs, railings carpet had to have been via Phil..Not Lana..and Phil had a long time to scurry through this scene.. remove his jacket etc..I do believe he did as you described try to stage it to look like she did this to herself..but failed (in my eyes) forensically not shown to be viable.

The GRS on her hands proves nothing as that is expected... as she was there when gun was discharged. I dont believe I have every heard of a victim of a close gunshot wound which they tried to push gun away DIDNT have GSR on them..

It will be interesting to see if Phil's "Rogue Gallery of Experts" will testify again...?? Wonder if Dr. Lee will testify in PS2??.

LMS

[wandering]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


GP your memory of these facts are very close to my recollection too. Speaking to the Eye lashes on the sink in the downstairs bathroom, I think got there when Phil wiped Lana's face with that wet diaper, probably placed there by Phil when wringing out that cloth, although I do recall the defense spin that fact that Lana had put them there..in preparation for a sexual encounter..I find that rediculous tho. The was blood in the toilet bowl water, which is indictative of diaper being rinsed there..

The blood inside his pockets, well it is my memory that Phil was putting his hands in and out of his pockets constantly, creating big concern by the police..

Blood distributed throughout the foyer, stairs, door knobs, railings carpet had to have been via Phil..Not Lana..and Phil had a long time to scurry through this scene.. remove his jacket etc..I do believe he did as you described try to stage it to look like she did this to herself..but failed (in my eyes) forensically not shown to be viable.

The GRS on her hands proves nothing as that is expected... as she was there when gun was discharged. I dont believe I have every heard of a victim of a close gunshot wound which they tried to push gun away DIDNT have GSR on them..

It will be interesting to see if Phil's "Rogue Gallery of Experts" will testify again...?? Wonder if Dr. Lee will testify in PS2??.

LMS [/*]Good post, Lynda. I'm anxious to see if the defense's assertion that three of the prosecution's experts can't testify on those issues will fly on July 29. If the defense wins that one, the prosecution will have to get an expert for that specific testimony. I doubt that will happen, though.

[gmiller]

Originally posted by wandering
Good post, Lynda. I'm anxious to see if the defense's assertion that three of the prosecution's experts can't testify on those issues will fly on July 29. If the defense wins that one, the prosecution will have to get an expert for that specific testimony. I doubt that will happen, though. [/*]

Sorry, what is the defense claiming that the couldn't prosecution's forensic witnesses testify to?

I have another question that has probably been "asked and answered" and is off topic so forgive me. Do we know if Stephanie Jennings had some sort of facial trauma (not at the hands of PS */c that would have been explained at the 1st trial). I wasn't a part of these boards during her testimony, and I don't recall Beth Karas mentioning what (if anything) happened to SJ.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by wandering
Good post, Lynda. I'm anxious to see if the defense's assertion that three of the prosecution's experts can't testify on those issues will fly on July 29. If the defense wins that one, the prosecution will have to get an expert for that specific testimony. I doubt that will happen, though. [/*]

I hadnt heard that motion wandering..On what grounds could that even be successful?..It seems that the defense experts testified to many things outside of their expertise?? making leaps of faith to suggest plausibilities..Dr. DeM. really boggled my mind as to just where he got off suggesting some of his "expert Opinions"!

I'll bet too that our favorite Pumkin Pie will be shown up for her waffling probable "bought testimony"..It was very suspicious to me that she would come out much later with her story of depression etc..of Lana!!

[Land Shark®]

Maybe Punkin' Pie will testify for the prosecution this time. Maybe she wants to tell the truth during this trial.

Crazy how wishful thinking gets isn't it?

For anyone interested, there is news on the Drew Peterson thread that needs to be seen to be believed. Just a friendly update. :)

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by GH247


Accidental shootings are not prosecuted as murder. However, threatening someone with a firearm which results in killing them is murder, because any reasonable person knows that firearms are deadly force. This is the doctrine of "implied malice." Malice is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter, and pointing a gun at someone in a threatening way is malice.

That's no guarantee that a conviction will be for murder. Just recently, someone in the San Francisco Bay Area was convicted of manslaughter for firing a handgun into a crowd and killing someone. Ironically, it was a friend of his, whom he did not specifically intend to kill. Should have been murder, anyway. I suppose the judge thought so, too, because he maxxed out the sentence on the manslaughter conviction. [/*]:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable.

[Land Shark®]

Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson. The question is why. Did Phil S. accidently pull the trigger when he was threatening Lana Clarkson? I think that's what happened. That's second degree murder. Period. I anticipate a guilty verdict as most of you already know. ;)

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable. [/*]

I am sorry, but for you to assume plausability in this case, given the evidence presented..does not reach the level of reasonable. Just to assume when 2 people involved..one dies, the other one shot..accused seen moments after shooting with gun in hand, and blood on hand, claiming "I think I just killed somebody".. then to assume the victim did this to herself..is not reasonable let alone probable.

Decisions must be made taking the totality of the evidence, including the hx and propensity of threatening women who try to leave his presence..then the feeble attempt to stage the scene, then to blame the victim (per Phill Spector) who had been at this hose a couple of hours..had no idea of who PS was when first met at the House of Blues, let alone his history.

Phil Spector's modes of dealing with anything..is to blame everyone else for his problems. His dark side can be hidden by his baffoonary..He indeed has issues, least of which the inability to care about anyone but himself..His solitary lifestyle, surrounding himself with paid employee's who Phil has done and will sue or threaten at a drop of a hat..only proves his self absorbed mindset..I could not for one minute coverup his behavior..ever.

It is truly a shame Phil did not get the intervention years prior ..it is obvious in hindsight to see the errors made when people he wronged, threatened or bought off didnt expose his problems!!

I do look foreward to seeing Phil held accountable for his actions!

LMS

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Lyndawitha&quot;Y


I am sorry, but for you to assume plausability in this case, given the evidence presented..does not reach the level of reasonable. Just to assume when 2 people involved..one dies, the other one shot..accused seen moments after shooting with gun in hand, and blood on hand, claiming "I think I just killed somebody".. then to assume the victim did this to herself..is not reasonable let alone probable.

Decisions must be made taking the totality of the evidence, including the hx and propensity of threatening women who try to leave his presence..then the feeble attempt to stage the scene, then to blame the victim (per Phill Spector) who had been at this hose a couple of hours..had no idea of who PS was when first met at the House of Blues, let alone his history.

Phil Spector's modes of dealing with anything..is to blame everyone else for his problems. His dark side can be hidden by his baffoonary..He indeed has issues, least of which the inability to care about anyone but himself..His solitary lifestyle, surrounding himself with paid employee's who Phil has done and will sue or threaten at a drop of a hat..only proves his self absorbed mindset..I could not for one minute coverup his behavior..ever.

It is truly a shame Phil did not get the intervention years prior ..it is obvious in hindsight to see the errors made when people he wronged, threatened or bought off didnt expose his problems!!

I do look foreward to seeing Phil held accountable for his actions!

LMS [/*]

I look forward to it as well.

You're right about Spector, Lynda. He was the one seen with the gun, the one who was still alive. The one with the penchant for terrorizing women with guns.

The possibility of suicide on Lana's part, especially in the house of a stranger and with the stranger's gun (Whether he denies it or not, there was plenty of evidence to show it was his) is infinitesimal.

There is no evidence that Lana was suicidal. She was recovering from an injury, had a job with a steady income, had just landed a modeling job. Cherry picking phrases from e-mails isn't proof of anything.

As for accident, Spector himself denies that. Had he claimed accident he would have been able to get parole, according to Beth Karas. He refused to do so. He refuses to take any responsibility. Those who support him should drop accident then as a theory, since he denies it.

I went into the trial thinking maybe it was an accident, and came out believing it was intentional first degree murder. I understand that second Degree is all they can ask for and I'm behind that 100%.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable. [/*]


Assisted Suicide? You truly believe it is plausible that Lana Clarkson asked a person she had never seen before in her life, to knowingly assist her in committing suicide?

Not only that, but that Phil Spector is the kind of person who would do so, knowing such a thing is illegal? If so, why not just say that's what he did?

I don't see him missing any opportunity to toot his own horn.

What examples are you basing that on? I have not seen anything about PS that leads me to believe he is possessed with such a nobility of spirit and generosity of heart, that he would do such a selfless thing for a complete stranger. Especially as he would be facing jail for it.

I don't recall ever hearing of PS doing anything for anyone that didn't in some way benefit himself.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable. [/*]

Assisted suicide is plausible? That is so far beyond ridiculous that if this wasn't a murder case it would make me laugh. Are you on the new defense team?

[kennedy06]

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

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

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

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Abbreviated:

I don't recall ever hearing of PS doing anything for anyone that didn't in some way benefit himself. [/*]In all honesty aren't we all a little guilty of that.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Assisted suicide is plausible? That is so far beyond ridiculous that if this wasn't a murder case it would make me laugh. Are you on the new defense team? [/*]


Hi Joolz! :seeya: Unbelievable isn't it?

There are some new documents over on the L.A. Superior court Documents site, and from reading them, I'd say the Defense is sticking with the same theories as last time.

Also looks like a whole lot of interruptions if the motions are anything to go by.

Weinberg wants the ME to be excluded from testifying to the manner of death, because he says Pena is unqualified to make that decision.

Which is interesting to me, since it IS the job of the ME to name a manner of death.

He wants Dr. Herold not to be able to testify to Blood Patterns, and says she's unqualified to do so. Right after he gives her certification and qualification information on Blood Stain Pattern Analysis. :rolleyes:

Why is she unqualified then? Because she gave the same answer so many experts in so many trials give about how far blood spatter goes, which is 3-4 feet.

Weinberg objects, because the Defense "Experts" for PS last time gave a different answer ($$$) and she didn't agree with them. One of his examples is DiMaio, who is not a qualified expert in that at all, but insisted on opining on EVERYTHING!

Same old, same old.

[kennedy06]

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

Oh there are a few of us that do things out of the kindness of our hearts and expect nothing in return;)

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Hi Joolz! :seeya: Unbelievable isn't it?

There are some new documents over on the L.A. Superior court Documents site, and from reading them, I'd say the Defense is sticking with the same theories as last time.

Also looks like a whole lot of interruptions if the motions are anything to go by.

Weinberg wants the ME to be excluded from testifying to the manner of death, because he says Pena is unqualified to make that decision.

Which is interesting to me, since it IS the job of the ME to name a manner of death.

He wants Dr. Herold not to be able to testify to Blood Patterns, and says she's unqualified to do so. Right after he gives her certification and qualification information on Blood Stain Pattern Analysis. :rolleyes:

Why is she unqualified then? Because she gave the same answer so many experts in so many trials give about how far blood spatter goes, which is 3-4 feet.

Weinberg objects, because the Defense "Experts" for PS last time gave a different answer ($$$) and she didn't agree with them. One of his examples is DiMaio, who is not a qualified expert in that at all, but insisted on opining on EVERYTHING!

Same old, same old. [/*]

:seeya: NM! Yup, same Sh*! different day.

How can an ME be excluded from testifying to manner of death? That makes no sense at all. But then again, look at what we're dealing with - I'm afraid it's gonna be down the rabbit hole again, but this time, hopefully, with the right verdict.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by joolz


Assisted suicide is plausible? That is so far beyond ridiculous that if this wasn't a murder case it would make me laugh. Are you on the new defense team? [/*]The word is plausible. Based on the premise stated it is a plausible arguement. Doesn't mean that's what happened. It just raises a possibillity. Glad to see you didn't rule out suicide or accident as not plausible. Which is your preference.

[True2Blues]

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

You may be, but I find that most people are willing to give and do to help others in need just out of kindness and compassion.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


:seeya: NM! Yup, same Sh*! different day.

How can an ME be excluded from testifying to manner of death? That makes no sense at all. But then again, look at what we're dealing with - I'm afraid it's gonna be down the rabbit hole again, but this time, hopefully, with the right verdict. [/*]

I'm all for that! :beer:

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by kennedy06


Oh there are a few of us that do things out of the kindness of our hearts and expect nothing in return;) [/*]Key word"few".

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
The word is plausible. Based on the premise stated it is a plausible arguement. Doesn't mean that's what happened. It just raises a possibillity. Glad to see you didn't rule out suicide or accident as not plausible. Which is your preference. [/*]

This is the dictionary def of plausible:

having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.

Credible? Believeable? No, assisted suicide is not even marginally plausible.

I don't have a preference, I think he's guilty of murder.

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable. [/*]


LOL!! Oh that's right. I can see this happening... I mean come on, Phil is just SO compassionate and understanding, right? He saw this sad, beautiful creature and she asked him, of all people, to help her out of this cruel, cold world.. and Phil, the dear that he is, said "sure honey. Let's go to my castle and I will help you there."

Fer cryin' out loud.

[Ellie]

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


Uh.... no.

[tartangirl]

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


NO



Not everyone is like that !!

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by NavyMom58


This is my thoughts too, Land Shark. I feel he didn't shoot her on purpose, but still he brought the gun to intimidate her. So still guilty of murder.
Unless, of course, Lana was more of a fighter than the others, and refused to be intimidated, and it so infuriated him, he decided WTH? His ego could not withstand a woman actually fighting him. [/*]

Hi NM! :seeya:

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

No one pulls an 11 lb. trigger by accident.

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

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

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Land Shark®
Maybe Punkin' Pie will testify for the prosecution this time. Maybe she wants to tell the truth during this trial.

Crazy how wishful thinking gets isn't it?

For anyone interested, there is news on the Drew Peterson thread that needs to be seen to be believed. Just a friendly update. :) [/*]Are you saying she didn't tell the truth the first time. I haven't seen where she has been brought up on a perjury charge. Do you have some inside information?

[Ellie]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Are you saying she didn't tell the truth the first time. I haven't seen where she has been brought up on a perjury charge. Do you have some inside information? [/*]

Wasn't she more or less caught in a bald-faced lie when she told the story about Michael Bay dissing Lana at that party? Didn't Michael Bay get on the stand to say he never even saw Lana at the party? I think that's lying... no?

Sorry dude, don't mean to be on your back. I just have so much to say in response to so many of the things you're saying....

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Ellie



LOL!! Oh that's right. I can see this happening... I mean come on, Phil is just SO compassionate and understanding, right? He saw this sad, beautiful creature and she asked him, of all people, to help her out of this cruel, cold world.. and Phil, the dear that he is, said "sure honey. Let's go to my castle and I will help you there."

Fer cryin' out loud. [/*]:confused: Your post is very confusing. Sounds like you are only interested in defendant bashing. My post has to do with possibilities within the realm of the premise stated.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Ellie


Wasn't she more or less caught in a bald-faced lie when she told the story about Michael Bay dissing Lana at that party? Didn't Michael Bay get on the stand to say he never even saw Lana at the party? I think that's lying... no?

Sorry dude, don't mean to be on your back. I just have so much to say in response to so many of the things you're saying.... [/*]


That's lying, Yes! She was caught in a few of those.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by tartangirl



NO



Not everyone is like that !! [/*]Some people just have some catching up to do.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Are you saying she didn't tell the truth the first time. I haven't seen where she has been brought up on a perjury charge. Do you have some inside information? [/*]

Bringing perjury charges is an option, not a requirement. Just because the DA's office doesn't find her worth bothering to prosecute, doesn't mean she didn't lie.

[joolz]

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

Possibilities withing the realm of the premise stated? Huh? What realm? What premise? :rolleyes:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Some people just have some catching up to do. [/*]

Tartangirl answered a post from today, she's entitled to that as a member of this message board.

Every member is not required to be on here at the same time in order to participate. That's a Chat Board. This is a message board.

[vonna]

Originally posted by joolz


This is the dictionary def of plausible:

having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.

Credible? Believeable? No, assisted suicide is not even marginally plausible.

I don't have a preference, I think he's guilty of murder. [/*]

And the reason you think so is because you watched the trial as many of us did and there was proof beyond any reasonable doubt that he is a murderer! Lana died at his hands - whether he intended to do it or NOT.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Ellie


Wasn't she more or less caught in a bald-faced lie when she told the story about Michael Bay dissing Lana at that party? Didn't Michael Bay get on the stand to say he never even saw Lana at the party? I think that's lying... no?

Sorry dude, don't mean to be on your back. I just have so much to say in response to so many of the things you're saying.... [/*]Sorry Ms. Dude. That hardly qualifies as a case busting falsehood. He also could have forgotten and believes he didn't see her. PP could also have been misstaken. Big Deal and So What.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by Phil S.
Are you saying she didn't tell the truth the first time.

snipped


Yes. I'm stating unequivocally that Punkin' Pie LIED on the stand. Repeatedly.

IMO.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by joolz


Possibilities withing the realm of the premise stated? Huh? What realm? What premise? :rolleyes: [/*]hammer There were only two people present at the time of the incident.

[vonna]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Yes. I'm stating unequivocally that Punkin' Pie LIED on the stand. Repeatedly.

IMO. [/*]

Spector bought her off, IMO.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector bought her off, IMO. [/*]


Funny how she went from needing three gigs a week to support herself, down to one night a week working for the Kessel Brothers, two rabid PS defenders, isn't it?

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Yes. I'm stating unequivocally that Punkin' Pie LIED on the stand. Repeatedly.

IMO. [/*]

I agree with you.

Punkin Pie flat out lied. And so did her "friend".

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
hammer There were only two people present at the time of the incident. [/*]

Calm down, Res, that's not a premise, it's a fact. They are two different things, no need for the hammer.

[vonna]

Originally posted by True2Blues



Funny how she went from needing three gigs a week to support herself, down to one night a week working for the Kessel Brothers, two rabid PS defenders, isn't it? [/*]

Sounds like a marvelous change in fortune to me!!!

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues


Tartangirl answered a post from today, she's entitled to that as a member of this message board.

Every member is not required to be on here at the same time in order to participate. That's a Chat Board. This is a message board. [/*]hammer You need to lighten up a little. My response has to do with a post by that poster submitted today. "NO, not eveyone is like that". What in the world are you talking about? By the way since you felt compelled to pont out the difference in Boards, in my opinion this board many times reads like nothing more than a gossip board. Thats my opinion.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: As in this case where there were only two people present. One can't be heard from and the other probably won't testify how can you imply anything. An arguement for accident, assisted suicide or suicide is just as plausable. [/*]

You are correct. Mr. Spector is the only person alive that can tell what happened. JMO,MOO, IMO, Mr. Spector will not be convicted of murder. No way that there will be a 100% guilty jury. There will be one or two that may feel Mr. Spector is not guilty. Then again, there could be someone looking for their 15 minutes of fame. JMO:)

[vonna]

Originally posted by Spectorfan8


You are correct. Mr. Spector is the only person alive that can tell what happened. JMO,MOO, IMO, Mr. Spector will not be convicted of murder. No way that there will be a 100% guilty jury. There will be one or two that may feel Mr. Spector is not guilty. Then again, there could be someone looking for their 15 minutes of fame. JMO:) [/*]

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

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by vonna


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

[joolz]

Originally posted by vonna


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

The D.A.'s office should have listened to their own lawyers who didn't want to put 10 on the jury at all. So much for expert jury consultants!

[vonna]

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

Is that you RES???

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
hammer You need to lighten up a little. My response has to do with a post by that poster submitted today. "NO, not eveyone is like that". What in the world are you talking about? By the way since you felt compelled to pont out the difference in Boards, in my opinion this board many times reads like nothing more than a gossip board. Thats my opinion. [/*]

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

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

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

[joolz]

Originally posted by True2Blues


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

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

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

Really, I have no idea what gossip boards have to do with this either. And what's with all the head-banging? Perhaps some anger issues? :shrug:

Oh well, it's all OT anyway, so let's get back to Phil S - spector, that is, wouldn't want to add to the confusion.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by vonna


Hopefully the DA will listen to AJ this time and not permit a jury consultant to make the call that put BenTen on the jury. Spector should and will be found guilty - because he IS. [/*]:lol: AJ nor anyone else can stop the defense from hiring a jury consultant. Nor can they stop them from acting on the advice of the jury consultant. The final choice rest with the defense atty. So what in the world are you talking about.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by vonna


Spector bought her off, IMO.

I agree.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: AJ nor anyone else can stop the defense from hiring a jury consultant. Nor can they stop them from acting on the advice of the jury consultant. The final choice rest with the defense atty. So what in the world are you talking about. [/*]

Um, dude, she was talking about the D.A., not the defense.

And not to nit-pick, but technically, it should be, "Neither AJ nor"

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by joolz


Calm down, Res, that's not a premise, it's a fact. They are two different things, no need for the hammer.

Now I get it. :cool:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: AJ nor anyone else can stop the defense from hiring a jury consultant. Nor can they stop them from acting on the advice of the jury consultant. The final choice rest with the defense atty. So what in the world are you talking about. [/*]


The Prosecution.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Now I get it. :cool: [/*]

:D I thought you would be the first one!

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by True2Blues



The Prosecution.

Grammar & reading comprehension lessons seem to be in order. :)

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by joolz


:D I thought you would be the first one!

Actually I was the second. I failed to alert you in a PM. :cool:

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues


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

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

What I'm talking about is the remark you made to Tartangirl's response to one of your posts from earlier today, that she needed to catch up. Sorry that it confused you. [/*]It's no wonder you may be having a difficult time in understanding the Spector case. I'm not the one confused. You still are about my post. Anyway moving on. :seeya:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Grammar & reading comprehension lessons seem to be in order. :) [/*]

We could just be kind and put it down to misunderstanding the post.

If people do things like that without having something to gain from it.

;)

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
It's no wonder you may be having a difficult time in understanding the Spector case. I'm not the one confused. You still are about my post. Anyway moving on. :seeya: [/*]

I'm not having any problems understanding T2*'s posts or anyone else's except yours. Usually when someone thinks they are the only one being clear and everyone else is mistaken, there is faulty logic at work. Anyway, whereever you are off to, have a wonderful evening.:seeya:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
It's no wonder you may be having a difficult time in understanding the Spector case. I'm not the one confused. You still are about my post. Anyway moving on. :seeya: [/*]

I have no problem understanding Spector, but thanks for the concern.

Don't worry about your former post. There's nothing in it that matters a whit to me in any case.

[vonna]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Grammar & reading comprehension lessons seem to be in order. :) [/*]

Isn't that the truth? I thought my post was as plain as PP's lying face.

[roytoy]

somewhere out there, there is another verdict that has just been reached and some posters will always swoop in for the aftertrolling. bizarre practice.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by joolz


Um, dude, she was talking about the D.A., not the defense.

And not to nit-pick, but technically, it should be, "Neither AJ nor" [/*]:lol: Isn't AJ part of the DA Staff. Technically speaking most of my post are done for the sake of brevity. I have seen some post a 1/2 a page long. BTW I like the the new nic "DUDE". It suits me. Thanks :hat:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by vonna


Isn't that the truth? I thought my post was as plain as PP's lying face. [/*]


It was perfectly clear.

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: Isn't AJ part of the DA Staff. Technically speaking most of my post are done for the sake of brevity. I have seen some post a 1/2 a page long. BTW I like the the new nic "DUDE". It suits me. Thanks :hat: [/*]

We'll keep an eye out for it. :seeya:

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


Grammar & reading comprehension lessons seem to be in order. :) [/*]:beer: :lol: There is a real example of the" Pot Calling The Kettle Black"

[joolz]

Originally posted by roytoy
somewhere out there, there is another verdict that has just been reached and some posters will always swoop in for the aftertrolling. bizarre practice. [/*]

Aftertrolling - I love it!:lol:

[vonna]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:beer: :lol: There is a real example of the" Pot Calling The Kettle Black" [/*]

How so, Phils? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by True2Blues


We'll keep an out for it. :seeya: [/*]:shrug: "out for it". I'm sorry, I don't get it. Sincerely, Your New Pal, DUDE:hat:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by joolz


Aftertrolling - I love it!:lol: [/*]


I think a new phrase has been coined here. :tongue:

[True2Blues]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:shrug: "out for it". I sorry, I don't get it. Sincerely, Your New Pal, DUDE:hat: [/*]


Of course not. No problem. :seeya: It was a typo and has been corrected.

I'm no great typist.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Phil S.
:lol: Isn't AJ part of the DA Staff. Technically speaking most of my post are done for the sake of brevity. I have seen some post a 1/2 a page long. BTW I like the the new nic "DUDE". It suits me. Thanks :hat: [/*]

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

[Phil S.]

Originally posted by vonna


Is that you RES??? [/*]:confused: Is that some sort of question.