October 1st thru..... [Archive] - Page 3 - In Session Message Boards

Anakerie

10-26-2008, 04:52 PM

Actually, I think he implied that because he did not take them to Court, they were able to go on to have a successful career.

I think Phil and his inflated ego gives himself too much credit. The song, or the absence of the song wasn't what made the movie. Just like the quotes in the articles about his bemoaning the fact that he wasn't awarded a "doctorate" for his "wall of sound". In my opinion, Bob Dylan contributed more to the music industry than Phil did and Bill Cosby has done more for the entertainment industry in general that Phil could ever contemplate. Phil Spector wants to be a "big man" in more ways than one. And what he's accomplished is to make himself smaller and more pathetic than he ever dreamed possible.

kennedy06

10-26-2008, 06:05 PM

Actually, I think he implied that because he did not take them to Court, they were able to go on to have a successful career.

That is the way I took that comment. I was trying to understand what he meant by the remark being in Godfather and Taxidriver. Did he mean it literally as in the film or his music was? I can't help but wonder if he meant Goodfellas, he has several songs in that movie from what I can remember. Scorsese directed that movie, not The Godfather and De Niro stars in it also.:shrug:

PS song Goodfellas clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWYe-Ef3u5M&feature=related

JMO

Jayne

10-26-2008, 10:46 PM

kennedy, thanks as always, you come up with the most amazing finds, Queenie:beer:I was also, Phil was actually in 'Goodfellas' and Taxi' :confused: I guess they used to call it a "Napolean Complex" but seems esp. befitting with his "shoes" that many have commented on (come on, those things are sooo obvious). Maybe this "guy thing and guns" complex they talk about in some Pscyh. circles..
~ lalala ~ was going to say "cool" with that youtube clip but I guess it was "dig it" back then ~ me was just wet behind the ears back then;)

OK, OK, OK..I admit..I "like" the shoes...and they do "fit" him (pun intended)...but he should have stuck with shoes..guns and PS just don't mix well..they give him Too Much Hight ( - maybe hubris, even?)

I don't really know about the Psych circles, but I think I do recall reading or "hearing" that particularly males who feel "diminutive" or "underappreciated" or the like, often use "weapons" such as guns...either collecting them or carrying them around (?!) to feel more powerful, important, "to be respected"? I suppose women may too. I never did it for that purpose..it was a skill and it was something my father wanted me to know..how to be careful..be safe...and teach some eye/hand coordination (on targets..not living things)..and to take those crazy (but safe) shots at skeet..quick on the trigger as well as the eye..now that was sport...it didn't hurt anything but for a bunch of clay. And kids today do those video games. Think about it! Maybe I over react when it comes to them, but I don't like them..especially when the targets are "cyber/game beings".

Someone who respects "guns"...i.e. how to use them carefully and for a non criminal purpose, isn't doing that, IMO. I'm not a hunter, nor would I be, but I learned about it..and my family had Respect..it was never about Sport..it put food on the table and never, ever would my father ever have left an animal injured. He even tracked a deer, he didn't even shoot...because he saw that the poor thing was obviously hurt, but mobile and probably in pain..hours later, he found him and put him out of his misery..then reported it (and that was archery..not a gun..but the effect is the same..if done with no remorse or responsibility). Just me..but I absolute despise killing "for sport" (animals..I mean, of course)...and absolutely killing a human being for "sport" and we know people have done that.

Maybe I'm not getting the point of the post...but I think it is..that PS needed to "up" himself...the shoes weren't enough..so he went with something with a bit more foot (again..another 'bad pun'..distance) powder in it? Maybe he was good at it...I have no idea...but if he wanted to play "dirty harry"...he wouldn't have done it at arm's length...he'd have done it from across the room to Make his Day/Morning. I think he was more about "threatening"...and that was his "mode of operation"..close up...scarey...but something went wrong or he just "lost control" that time. He should have left his bullets upstairs in the box...a barrel right in your face..loaded or not..would be enough for submission..

JMHO...and I apologize, I do..if I've gone OT..

J

dref99

10-27-2008, 05:14 AM

You're probably right. He's too much of a coward.

Not sure about the coward bit - I would think he has fully convinced himself that Lana committed suicide - he would use "I don't remember" (which is probably true) for 99% of his testimony & together with his lawyers he probably realises it would be pointless.

jmo

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 09:13 AM

Not sure about the coward bit - I would think he has fully convinced himself that Lana committed suicide - he would use "I don't remember" (which is probably true) for 99% of his testimony & together with his lawyers he probably realises it would be pointless.

jmo

I respectfully disagree. He knows full well he murdered Lana. He said it from the start "I think I killed someone". Plus, factor in him moving Lana after he shot her.

If you look back into PS bad behavior towards the women in his life, that makes him a coward.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 09:20 AM

gerald1

Save it. I can call him a coward. He is what he is.

What the fiture holds?

:rolleyes:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 10:00 AM

Phil's statement to the police. What a filthy mouth he has and what does he mean when he states "LAPD works for me"? What an arrogant statement to make.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/docs/statement.html?page=1

:cuss:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE=mcannie1965;12345115]
IT IS, IT IS, IT IS....

If you had read and understood the whole report, you wouldn't have an issue. You don't pay anything in California.

:no:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 12:08 PM

I Dont think a day has gone by, that I haven't thought of Lana and her last shopping trip with her mother, buying 6 pairs of shoes.
Lana Clarkson, was murdered that night by this freaky little man PS. He has blood on his fingers dripping down his HAND as he stumbled outside and said "I think I just killed somebody" and he never called 911. He and casey A are of a certain breed of people.

Lives of others do not matter to them. Lana will get justice. If they cannot get him criminally then PS hold onto your little self, as they will sue you for every dime you have left, just like OJ. Now let the fireworks begin. For Lana. As Im sure she loved fireworks just as much as the next woman.

:rose: For all the women PS berated and abused. I'll be thinking of you.

Dots

What a nice post. PS will pay no matter.

:rose:

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 01:30 PM

I guess it is open to interpretation but, I took it from the standpoint that he knew J. Maple and also Jay. R, who was a former bodyguard of his and friend. He J. R.,was the one supposedly seated at the table along with Norma K. on the night of her incident according to the pros. motion. Though it was not mentioned if he witnessed it or not. I always thought I would like to hear what he has to say about PS as a former bodyguard of his, if I understand the connection correctly. He also had another bodyguard that had previous law enforcement experience. So that is in the context of which I feel he made that statement, not that hey now I paid this much in taxes last year. JMO

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 01:31 PM

Read the transcript to get the entire context the remark was made. Or do you think this recording was inaudible too?

There are a few more comments he makes that he thinks are going to get him off. Always arrogant PS. What a potty mouth he has as well.

PS<<<<hammer

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 01:50 PM

:no:"he had blood splatered all over him." The very small amount of blood and tissues evidence on the white jacket has and will continue to be a major problem for the prosecution. Also something many posters can not seem to get over either.JMO. The prosecution places him straddled and pratically on to top of the victim when the gun was fired. Distance involved has to be left up to the experts. If you hate PS for some explainable rational reason then you probably won't listen to defense experts with an open mind. JMO. BY"explainable rational reason" I'm talking about something beyond this message board,CTV and Media Hype. Like 1st hand personal knowledge.:hat:

I don't hate PS, I don't hate anyone. I find him arrogant as others have posted. I do find some people, some arrested and some of those whos cases I have followed truly disgusting. First hand personal knowledge, the closest I could get to that at this point is if PS came to this message board and posted. :shrug: JMO

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 01:56 PM

You are forgetting about that inside weather phenomena that the last defense team led us to believe was in effect inside the castle that evening. You know the one that can make blood drops fly 8 feet through the air & around corners. :D

Thanks for the reminder. They sold their soul to the devil so they'd say anything to get their client off.

:lol:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:00 PM

I don't hate PS, I don't hate anyone. I find him arrogant as others have posted. I do find some people, some arrested and some of those whos cases I have followed truly disgusting. First hand personal knowledge, the closest I could get to that at this point is if PS came to this message board and posted. :shrug: JMO

Never apologize. You shouldn't be chastised for your opinions. Report it to CW.

You are exactly right. PS is arrogant, but I for one hate him for murdering an innocent woman and using his $$$ to get away with it.

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 02:18 PM

:no:"he had blood splatered all over him." The very small amount of blood and tissues evidence on the white jacket has and will continue to be a major problem for the prosecution. Also something many posters can not seem to get over either.JMO. The prosecution places him straddled and pratically on to top of the victim when the gun was fired. Distance involved has to be left up to the experts. If you hate PS for some explainable rational reason then you probably won't listen to defense experts with an open mind. JMO. BY"explainable rational reason" I'm talking about something beyond this message board,CTV and Media Hype. Like 1st hand personal knowledge.:hat:

Personally I do not hate Phil Spector but I do hate the crime he is charged with & believe him to be guilty of said crime. I hate his behavior not him.
None of us have first hand personal knowledge of this crime, including you, so your last statement is a moot one.

llylabrat

10-27-2008, 02:20 PM

Actually, I think he implied that because he did not take them to Court, they were able to go on to have a successful career.

I think you are right, but I still don't get his point.... If he sued and got the movie/song yanked, they would go broke and being talentless, end their careers? Or be too distracted by court proceedings to be creative? Or have their reputations smashed to bits?

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 02:21 PM

ITA.

I think the jacket will be a major problem for the prosecution, and the theory he straddled her to shove the gun in her mouth, is the height of the ridiculous. All he needed to do is shoot her--from a distance.

I don't think he will be acquitted. The prosecution will manage to get some haters on the jury, but I don't think he will be convicted. The jacket will stand in the way of conviction. It will be another hung jury.

For Phil Spector: :rose:

mho

With his shaky hands & his drunken state, he probably could not have hit the broad side of a barn shooting from a distance let alone a woman.

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 02:26 PM

I think you may be paraphrasing what had been posted by some others recently and in months past. Those that held the view of VM were often met with severe ridicule and criticism by you and others for even posting such a notion. Now you embrace it. How interesting. Welcome aboard. I asume you would not like to discuss the possible suicide theory. Perhaps not.;)

Incorrect, I have never criticized or ridiculed anyone for holding the opinion of VM in this case as I have felt the crime could fit the definition of it & have stated so multiple times. If you are going to quote me please quote me correctly. To me the suicide theory is not a viable one.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:29 PM

Personally I do not hate Phil Spector but I do hate the crime he is charged with & believe him to be guilty of said crime. I hate his behavior not him.
None of us have first hand personal knowledge of this crime, including you, so your last statement is a moot one.

If you did hate PS, why is it of concern to anyone else? If they can't handle what is being said by the majority of the public, they shouldn't insist on hanging on message boards and then complain about it.

:rolleyes:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:31 PM

With his shaky hands & his drunken state, he probably could not have hit the broad side of a barn shooting from a distance let alone a woman.

Good point. Wasn't he on drugs as well?

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:34 PM

Love it!:beer: and anyway is there any reason to believe he wouldn't get up close and personal to scare her?

Scare her to get into his bed is what I think.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:39 PM

good morning everyone,

seems we are having a difference of opinion here today. always makes for good reading. even the ones that are so off base we all get to laugh.
you know who you are.
PS will be found guilty of one of the charges against him this time. he wont last ten minutes in prison so any amount of time will be just.

Hi kipswife,

Those who believe everyone is innocent and should never be put on trial for their crimes are always way off base.

I agree. He will be found guilty and if he chooses to take the cowardly way out of a jail cell, so be it. One less murderer to pay for.

:seeya:

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 02:42 PM

Scare her to get into his bed is what I think.

I tend to look at it as something deeper than his just wanting sex. That may have been the end result he desired but, I think everything leading up to that point fed another desire not so obvious that also needed to be satisfied. JMO

kipswife

10-27-2008, 02:46 PM

I tend to look at it as something deeper than his just wanting sex. That may have been the end result he desired but, I think everything leading up to that point fed another desire or something else in him that also needed to be satisfied. JMO

he wanted POWER/CONTROL......he is what we see...a sad, lonely older man who has nothing. not love...not power...not a sense of self. when i saw him in court for the jury selection, he was just so "nothing". for a moment i even felt sorry for him. what a sad man....what a bad man, did he write that song? i doubt it

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 02:48 PM

I tend to look at it as something deeper than his just wanting sex. That may have been the end result he desired but, I think everything leading up to that point fed another desire not so obvious that also needed to be satisfied. JMOCare to be more specific? Given his past behavior leads me to believe it was about sex and control. What else could he have wanted that he felt the need to bring out his gun? Remember his history mind you. Gun=intimidate=control.

:shrug:

kipswife

10-27-2008, 03:01 PM

i am willing to bet that the more he drank the less he shook.....drinking gave him what he believed to be power. the gun gave the control.
he is and always will be a pig.

hiitsme

10-27-2008, 03:09 PM

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:19 PM

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:28 PM

Spector's vagueness may be the result of a cocktail of five drugs which he has taken daily for the past eight years to manage his mental state. He says that he suffers from manic depression and "sleeplessness - mood changes, mood swings, hard to live with, hard to concentrate, hard, just hard, a hard time getting through life".

Some who have worked with Spector would concur that he is not merely eccentric but is actually mentally disturbed - and prone to explosive losses of temper.

The singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen, who was threatened at gunpoint by Spector, spoke of his "megalomania and insanity".
He added that Spector had "a devotion to guns which was really intolerable" and would change weapons to match his outfits up to four times a day.

It is well-known that Spector even loosed a round during the recording of John Lennon's Rock 'n' Roll album. Lennon taunted him about his wife Ronnie leaving him; Spector drew his gun, raised it above his head and fired.

Lennon deadpanned: "Listen, Phil," he said, "if you're going to kill me, kill me. But don't f*** with my ears. I need 'em."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-442807/Is-Phil-Spector-away-murder.html

hiitsme

10-27-2008, 03:29 PM

Great post. It sums up exactly how demented and evil PS has been for years.

:beer:

Thank you! And I also see that it tickled someone else's funny bone!

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:38 PM

Thank you! And I also see that it tickled someone else's funny bone!

Anytime...:D

Did you read the article I proved?

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 03:39 PM

NYGP since you mentioned Leonard. C., I had come across and posted this link a while back. Around the 2:30 mark he begins to speak about PS. JMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXP7uDNbvUY&feature=related

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:42 PM

Love it!:beer: and anyway is there any reason to believe he wouldn't get up close and personal to scare her?

Yes, that in your face with a gun was his method of operation for a number of years with women. IMO he would not stray from the tried & true method that night.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:42 PM

Hello, you don't know his professional background either? Figures. Oh two people here have no idea who PS is, but dare claim the world doesn't know who he is. Couldn't be more incorrect. Do the research yourself. Knowlege is power.

:rolleyes:

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:43 PM

Good point. Wasn't he on drugs as well?

He was on a cocktail of psychotropic drugs that he had been on for years.

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:45 PM

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:47 PM

"last statement is a moot one" it is actually rhetorical. BTW, why did you skip over the blood splatter issue. IMO skipping over what the post is about(:read:) is done quite often when some have no answer for the issue raised. IMO many jump past the issues immediatley and try to make something personal out of the post. Why is that?:(

I don't buy into the magic flying blood theory the defense tried to sell. Their theory violates the laws of physics.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:49 PM

Actually... no.

He didn't take his prescribed medications that weekend.

He testifies to that fact in his deposition taken for his lawsuit against Robert Shapiro.

Why that weekend when he's been pop'n pills for years? Could it be he lied? Yes

:seeya:

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:51 PM

:lol:

He probably couldn't hit the broad side of a barn shooting from a distance let alone a woman!" :lol: That is your theory? :lol: Surely you jest?:

But with his "shaky hands" & in "his drunken state," he could have overpowered a woman who outweighed him by at least 50 pounds, and who was many inches shorter than Lana?

What next, Warhorse? Sam Colt made them equal? For that to work, he would need to hold her with one "shaky" hand and get the gun down her throat with the other "shaky" hand---and this "shaky" hand managing to get the gun straight down the middle!

IMO, it was kinky gun play, and Lana accidently shot herself.

mho

I did not say he was lacking in strength. And add to that the element of surprise & you have the opportunity for murder.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 03:51 PM

I don't buy into the magic flying blood theory the defense tried to sell. Their theory violates the laws of physics.

One would have to understand the laws of physics.

:chicken:

kipswife

10-27-2008, 03:54 PM

One would have to understand the laws of physics.

:chicken:

some believe in the magic laws of physics......special people :biggrin:

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 03:57 PM

:confused:There are no direct quotes or " marks given. It is based on recollection and IMO it was done. Now please, back to the lack of evidence on the white jacket.:cool:

If you are going to accuse someone of saying something then it is your responsibility to support that accusation with credible evidence. And credible evidence is not your opinion. If you can supply posts of mine to support your theory then do it.

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 03:58 PM

If he was so well known there would be interest in the case, and it would be televised. There is NO interest in this case.

MHO

Sometimes those of you that support him do little justice on his behalf. You make him sound like was/is a nobody, if he reads here I wonder how that makes him feel? Come on I can look at both sides but, I see the way the evidence is pointing in this case and it doesn't look good for PS. Bizarre, All you have for him is a rose but no evidence to discuss to support your case or his innocence. JMO:punch:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:01 PM

:seeya:

Why that weekend?

That's the weekend he decided to drink again.

Spector was in a major funk that weekend.

Paul McCartney had just given a press conference regarding the release of Let It Be: Naked.

Every single contribution Spector made to that album was removed. And McCartney made no secret about how much better he thought the album is without Spector's contributions.

Spector was not happy about that at all.

I don't know. I think this may have made him pop more pills and still drink. I base this on his history.

PC knows who PS is too? He gave a press conference on Phil too? What are the odds? I can't believe it. The world knew nothing about him until he shot Lana in cold blood.

:lol:

Kara

10-27-2008, 04:04 PM

i am willing to bet that the more he drank the less he shook.....drinking gave him what he believed to be power. the gun gave the control.
he is and always will be a pig.
I think the shaking is an affection that Phil puts on. It comes and goes and he didn't shake one bit during the courtroom demonstration of him holding/aiming an imaginary gun.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:06 PM

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 04:06 PM

He manages to straddle her with "shaky hands," one "shaky hand" to hold her down, and the "other "shaky hand to stick the gun in her mouth...and his "shaky hand" shoots straight down the middle? Bad theory. No cigar.:rolleyes:

My, my what big egos these women have. He is so besotted by them he is going to hold them hostage with a gun?

He only knew Lana a matter of hours, and he doesn't want her to leave him so he straddles her and shoots her? :rolleyes:

It is only speculation he held guns on women to keep them from leaving. Those women were not credible.

MHO

Not speculation @ all, there were 5 women who testified that PS held guns to them when they refused to sleep with him. That is in no way speculation, that is direct eyewitness evidence.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:13 PM

Not speculation @ all, there were 5 women who testified that PS held guns to them when they refused to sleep with him. That is in no way speculation, that is direct eyewitness evidence.

She must not have heard the direct eyewitness testimony in this case either. How many case has she not heard what was said? I count at least 6 now. :rolleyes:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:21 PM

and strange, inside weather phenomenons. :lol:

Would have loved to be in on this meeting when his lawyers came up with this junk? or was it Phil who insisted they making this claim?

:biggrin:

Spectorfan8

10-27-2008, 04:21 PM

If it was all cut and dried, there wouldn't have been a hung jury! His alleged "guilt" was never proven. :lol:

mho

JMO, those women would never have come forward if the prosecution had not made them. All of this time went by, and not one of them ever came forward on their own.jmo

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 04:22 PM

If it was all cut and dried, there wouldn't have been a hung jury! His alleged "guilt" was never proven. :lol:

mho

To two jurors.

Is there anything on PS behalf you would like to post that you feel benefits him in anyway shape or form? I'm willing to read what you have to say but, just hung jury that is all you have to offer? JMO

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:50 PM

How does one who is never credible dare claim who is not telling the truth on the witness stand, especially if they haven't followed this case either? Didn't even hear the testimony at all.

:no:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 04:58 PM

as has been pointed out to you he has publicly demonstated not having shaky hands when holding a gun. Apparently holding a gun mellows him right out:biggrin:
Missed that too? LOL

PS feels so calm when holding a gun. It's like a warm blanket to him. Awww, isn't that sweet.

:rolleyes:

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 05:02 PM

Ok, now on to more important things. What freaky hairstyle will PS adorn on Wednesday?

OT: Just in, Stevens has been found guilty on all 7 counts. Excellent!

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 05:32 PM

nsm

10-27-2008, 05:46 PM

If I remember, the first trial, the only charge for the jury to consider was murder 1..right? are they going to give the jury the options of lesser charges like accidental homicide, etc?

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 05:53 PM

I also agree that his fascination with weapons was about power and control. According to the testimony of his prior female acquaintances, the gun came out when they were ready to leave and Spector had other plans for them. He played with them in a sick demented way, so he would not have just pulled the gun, fired from a distance and walked away. It wasn't his style in the past nor was it the night he put the gun in Lana's mouth and shot her.

I would be very surprised if the jacket was an issue this time around as some posters have suggested. For all we know he used that diaper as a bib to protect his lovely jacket, then used it again to clean up. It's no less plausible than trying to be sold on the theory that blood flies.

If this jury looks at the totality of the evidence and does not leave their common sense at the door, they will reach the correct verdict. MHO

Just for some things to think about.

How much blood do you really think would hit the jacket if it was right behind the gun and the gun is in a mouth being held by a hand? that gun and hand would shield most of the jacket. Most of the blood would have been either on the hand and deflected back on the face. The only way for blood to get on the jacket would probably from the hand recoiling back and up after the discharge, exposing the underside of the jacket sleeve.

If the shot was fired from a distance, the bullet would have continued through the Spine. the reason it did not is because, just like a Rocket, it had not reached full momentum at the time it hit the spine.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 06:26 PM

He was on a cocktail of psychotropic drugs that he had been on for years.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, he claimed that he had not taken his Meds for the prior 24 hours. of course, if he took them daily, not taking them could be a factor with the drinking and I also have no doubt that the Meds were still in his system due to regular daily use.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 06:29 PM

The little man syndrome. The gun gave him a sense of largeness & power.

He has said in the past that "The gun is the great equalizer" and I have heard that same statement from others as well.

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 06:32 PM

Just for some things to think about.

How much blood do you really think would hit the jacket if it was right behind the gun and the gun is in a mouth being held by a hand? that gun and hand would shield most of the jacket. Most of the blood would have been either on the hand and deflected back on the face. The only way for blood to get on the jacket would probably from the hand recoiling back and up after the discharge, exposing the underside of the jacket sleeve.

If the shot was fired from a distance, the bullet would have continued through the Spine. the reason it did not is because, just like a Rocket, it had not reached full momentum at the time it hit the spine.

Exactly right. Despite all of that, people still have to believe that it's just like in the movies. Even a severed artery doesn't spurt as far or as long as that.

The gunshot itself would have made one actual spatter from the impact (and back spatter from the gun), after that, the blood would have run downward. As you say, with a gun in a space as small as a mouth, hands holding the gun and those trying to block it, very little would have gotten out.

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 06:35 PM

If I remember, the first trial, the only charge for the jury to consider was murder 1..right? are they going to give the jury the options of lesser charges like accidental homicide, etc?

It was Murder 2 they went with. Voluntary Manslaughter was discussed, but it was decided by all that the crime as presented did not fit the definition of Manslaughter.

That gets decided after the case is presented, when jury instructions are being decided, so we won't know what they will do until then.

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 06:42 PM

Well, then if he didn't have a "shaky" hand, he wouldn't need to straddle her to shoot her. He could have shot her from a distance. If holding a gun mellowed him out, that blows the theory he had to straddle her because he couldn't have shot her from a distance with "shaky" hands! :biggrin:

MHO

I don't know whether he straddled her or not, in fact I don't think he did, but even if he did who's to say it wasn't because he wanted to? Straddling a person who is in a chair would be a means to pin them down and gain control, shaky hands or not.

Has it occurred to you that a person who shoves a gun into someone's mouth in order to shoot them, is up close because they want to be?

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 06:48 PM

He has said in the past that "The gun is the great equalizer" and I have heard that same statement from others as well.

It's only an Equalizer if the person you're pointing it at has a loaded gun as well! :)

PS didn't use the gun to gain equality, he did it to have the upper hand. That's why he always chose victims he knew were unarmed and often locked in his house.

Sorry to those who said previously they don't like the word, but it's an act of supreme cowardice and a real 'gotta control other people' problem.

NYGalPal

10-27-2008, 06:56 PM

For various reasons please share this blog site thru PM, not on this public forum. Thank you.
Will do.

:seeya:

hiitsme

10-27-2008, 06:57 PM

[QUOTE=GPSpector;12346708]Just for some things to think about.

How much blood do you really think would hit the jacket if it was right behind the gun and the gun is in a mouth being held by a hand? that gun and hand would shield most of the jacket. Most of the blood would have been either on the hand and deflected back on the face. The only way for blood to get on the jacket would probably from the hand recoiling back and up after the discharge, exposing the underside of the jacket sleeve.

If the shot was fired from a distance, the bullet would have continued through the Spine. the reason it did not is because, just like a Rocket, it had not reached full momentum at the time it hit the spine.[/QUOT

Points well taken. I hope you know I was being a bit facetious about the "bib", but it was an impulsive reply after all the talk about the lack of blood on the jacket and flying blood which I personally find ludicrous.

Jayne

10-27-2008, 07:05 PM

It's only an Equalizer if the person you're pointing it at has a loaded gun as well! :)

Sorry to those who said previously they don't like the word, but it's an act of supreme cowardice and a real 'gotta control other people' problem.

Yes..I do get your point, True...but I think many think of Equalizer..as upping his "status"...physical stature...a gun gives him a little more power...as in height and body size?

PS didn't use the gun to gain equality - as in Lana had one, he did it to have the upper hand. That's why he always chose victims he knew were unarmed and often locked in his house. Or so I think. A gun is an Equalizer...if you are the one armed and the other isn't..no matter what one's "size" is.

Totally with you True..I posted I guess on the other thead about the gun thing..it is an Equalizer..in that it makes him "bigger/taller/stronger"? than he is.

That gun..in his hand...at arms length...as I'd posted..it wouldn't really have mattered if it was loaded or not...to the SANE person who wanted to threaten someone..but PS had to have it loaded...just to be "sure"...it was that power thing, IMO...

What good is a gun if it isn't loaded? Well..in NYC..it can get you plenty of years in jail for assault, rape, etc. You can use a stick for all that matters...

PS made sure to load it with old..not fitting..bullets..which say to me...he was all about SHOW..and he BLEW it..in February 2003..totally Blew It...

Now we wait for the Curtain to Fall...bows and all...

(Blake doesn't even compare..imo)

jmo

J

Lynn Gweeny

10-27-2008, 07:12 PM

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 07:37 PM

One would have to understand the laws of physics.

:chicken:

And it is the basic understanding of those Laws that question the Defense's "Experts". They were so wrong on so many levels:read:

Jayne

10-27-2008, 07:40 PM

OK...ya got me into it..TO RESPOND, that is...NEVER GUN PLAY..I know better! :)

HMMM..won't do it alone..sorry...aint' so much fun alone...so where's the gun? HMM? Oh, yeah..PS..says..lets play hide and seek or find a speak? Lana finds it...ooohhh...good girl... then she sits down in that chair, with her heavy overladen purse on her shoulder..and says..OOOOOHHHH Look PHILL....I have a gun in my mouth..IS IT LOADED? He says..."why don't you pull the trigger and find out"

BAMMMMM...

NAH...I don't buy that gun play thing..AT ALL.

MBtion is one thing...playing with a loaded weapon...not fun unless you have a second player..Phil Spector? think? or his dog?

If I would buy the gun play thing..it wasn't ALONE...so PS is guilty..bottom line..he's guilty. GO FOR IT Defense...you get Manslaughter at the LEAST. For shame...go for the VMS conviction...no dirty laundry to clean..or explanations..unless you want to SMEAR Lana...two times over..and disgrace your wife. (Unless she likes that game too? I highly doubt it!) OK..sorry...I meant no disrespect to Chelle or PS or Lana..or the other "witnesses"...

Sorry..my colleague/poster...but I just couldn't help myself...

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 07:41 PM

tartangirl

10-27-2008, 07:44 PM

Phil Spector must face the music once more

On the eve of the record producer's re-trial for murder, Mick Brown meets the director of a fascinating film about his life and work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/28/bmspector128.xml

Thanks noodle, good to see you here again.:)

Reading this only inforces my complete belief that Spector has always and will continue to embroider the truth. His truth of what happened on February 03, 2003 is ingrained in his continual denial that he has ever done anything wrong. I just keep hearing ..and the beat goes on....same old broken record HPS.

~as always, my opinion only, Justice for Lana and those who love her~

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 07:49 PM

Sometimes those of you that support him do little justice on his behalf. You make him sound like was/is a nobody, if he reads here I wonder how that makes him feel? Come on I can look at both sides but, I see the way the evidence is pointing in this case and it doesn't look good for PS. Bizarre, All you have for him is a rose but no evidence to discuss to support your case or his innocence. JMO:punch:

I agree 100%. I have always been interested in the evidence for both sides and yet the evidence showing his innocents as a few claim, seems to be very lacking. So far, the only reported piece of evidence that could have cleared him was the fingernail and that has come up missing. Everything else basically amounts to "What if?".

I have no problem with a Defendant staying off the Stand, IF they are winning the case but I would not be the one sitting in my seat if the case was not going well. I may not be able prevent myself from going to prison by taking the Stand but I would not go without attempting to save myself on the Stand.

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 07:54 PM

Why would he want to be up close, when it is easier to shoot her from a distance, if his purpose is to keep her from leaving? It's a tortured logic theory.

Has it ever occured to you that he didn't want to shove a gun in her mouth in order to shoot her? Has it ever occured to you that he didn't give a thin dime about LC leaving? He only knew her a couple of hours...and he is going to blow her away for wanting to leave? He is going to kill her when he has a driver outside waiting to take her home? :rolleyes:

IMO, LC was snooping in the drawer, found the gun, and killed herself accidently during kinky gun play.

mho

There's no need to be so hostile. It was just a question.

I never said someone can't be shot from across the room, because of course they can. However, in this case we know that isn't what happened. Some killers like to be up close and personal when they kill for various reasons.

Some of the simplest reasons for closeness in this case could have been things like, wanting to keep Lana under control. A moving target is harder to hit and if she was threatened from a distance she may have gotten up and fled, giving her a better chance of surviving and reporting him to the police. Making sure there was no chance of a miss, what about those shaky hands? I believe it's a put on for the greatest part, but if he wanted to make sure he shot her, sticking a gun in Lana's mouth would be a guarantee that the shaking made no difference.

I happen to believe the PBA witnesses and it is part of their statements that PS made a point of touching his gun to their faces while he threatened them. I think he liked seeing the fear. There are also things such as personal murders. I believe rejection is what he got and rejection seems a very personal thing to PS. He admits himself that he's big on revenge.

In answer to your questions, before this trial I knew nothing but that the event had occurred and I was willing to consider anything. After watching the entire trial very closely that changed. At that point my answers were, and still are, No, No, Yes, Yes.

I saw no evidence that Lana 'snooped' in PS's drawers, no evidence that she was depressed and suicidal and no evidence that she routinely played with guns as if they were toys. The kinky sex play is just a dirtying tactic with no proof to back it up at all, IMO.

Jayne

10-27-2008, 07:55 PM

Oh My (noodle a la Tartan) ~ Lynn, so :beer: to see you again: besides kennedy here, you are my fave and I missed you...

Too bad multi-quotes aren't available because I have this to question too, so I will go and find, and brb~

YES..to see Lynn back again!

Kennedy and I...we keep meeting at the CAPE!

:)

J

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 07:55 PM

I have especially been wondering, in light of the new trial? What are the charges exactly, anyone know??

I believe the charge is still the same, Murder in the second degree.

Anakerie

10-27-2008, 07:58 PM

PS is off his rocker. He feels hounded. How is he hounded hiding in his mock castle? Further proof of is arrogance. He believes he's above the law.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iahVsLp6aWGWAqyUOy88eYXij6KQ

Shut up PS, you fool...:punch:

It's interesting that in the article linked above (along with quite a few others that I've read.) that Phil puts himself in the same class as Irving Berlin and George Gershwin. In other articles he bemoans the fact that he hasn't been "honored" the same way that Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Bill Cosby and others have been. Phil's ego won't allow the thought that he only managed to do ONE thing for the music industry; his "wall of sound" while Berlin and Gershwin were much more than Phil could ever even think of being. Phil seems to have an extremely inflated ego and deals with his one accomplishment as though he has done miracles for the music industry. Never mind that his one accomplishment was 30 years ago and he's done practically nothing since then.

Phil is a small man, in more ways than one, who seeks to become a big man in more ways than one.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 07:59 PM

I think the shaking is an affection that Phil puts on. It comes and goes and he didn't shake one bit during the courtroom demonstration of him holding/aiming an imaginary gun.

I agree. It appeared to be over exaggerated when he sat down but his hands were rock steady when he got up to pose and on the final day as well.

Minor shakes are expected at his age, but not what I saw while he was sitting. The origin of the shakes did not look natural.

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 08:10 PM

YES..to see Lynn back again!

Kennedy and I...we keep meeting at the CAPE!

:)

J

I'm glad to see Lynn back also. I so admired her linking in the last trial, my hero! :D

LOL Jayne your funny, maybe more like Baltimore's Inner Harbor, The St.Louis Arch, Vegas or Griffith Planaterium but the Cape! I think you are meeting a different kennedy there!:)

JMO

kennedy06

10-27-2008, 08:13 PM

I agree. It appeared to be over exaggerated when he sat down but his hands were rock steady when he got up to pose and on the final day as well.

Minor shakes are expected at his age, but not what I saw while he was sitting. The origin of the shakes did not look natural.

We discuss the hand shaking but, unless I missed something do we know if he had that shake at the time of the shooting or is it something that developed later on, it has been 5 1/2 years.:shrug:

JMO

True2Blues

10-27-2008, 08:36 PM

We discuss the hand shaking but, unless I missed something do we know if he had that shake at the time of the shooting or is it something that developed later on, it has been 5 1/2 years.:shrug:

JMO

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. Even if it is shaking from the medicine he takes, (Tardive Dyskinesia) as some people suggested last trial, those movements can be controlled by people if they are aware they are doing them. Remember how steady his hands were in that priceless demonstration of him holding a gun.

As far as I can see it makes no difference when you consider that putting a gun in someone's mouth rules out any chance of a miss due to shaky hands.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 09:29 PM

Not speculation @ all, there were 5 women who testified that PS held guns to them when they refused to sleep with him. That is in no way speculation, that is direct eyewitness evidence.

It seems to be a waste of time to convince him since an Ear Witness would not be credible in his eyes either. All I can say is that when I was a child, I heard a few of those types of "conversations" between my father and the last guest or a family friend. I regret that I still remember those nights but at least Ihave grown past them.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 09:54 PM

It's only an Equalizer if the person you're pointing it at has a loaded gun as well! :)

PS didn't use the gun to gain equality, he did it to have the upper hand. That's why he always chose victims he knew were unarmed and often locked in his house.

Sorry to those who said previously they don't like the word, but it's an act of supreme cowardice and a real 'gotta control other people' problem.

I certainly agree with you on those points.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 10:04 PM

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 11:07 PM

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 11:10 PM

Actually, if I am not mistaken, he claimed that he had not taken his Meds for the prior 24 hours. of course, if he took them daily, not taking them could be a factor with the drinking and I also have no doubt that the Meds were still in his system due to regular daily use.

That is what I was getting @. It would take way longer than 24 hours for the med to clear his body. But since I believe so little of what he says & we have only his word he had not taken his meds I am inclined to think he is lying on this issue also.

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 11:21 PM

It seems to be a waste of time to convince him since an Ear Witness would not be credible in his eyes either. All I can say is that when I was a child, I heard a few of those types of "conversations" between my father and the last guest or a family friend. I regret that I still remember those nights but at least Ihave grown past them.

Had it been only one witness to testify to the prior bad acts involving guns I would buy the theory of they were not credible. But when 5 get on the stand under oath & tell essentially the same story, that alone makes them credible to me.

warhorse46

10-27-2008, 11:24 PM

warhorse, someone responded earlier that one of the specific charges to the Jury is Murder I. You mean if the Jury finds him guilty of that, the Judge can rule = Accidental Homocide?

Darn, wish we could know for ourselves/see this LIVE. Dam the stream..

No. After all of the evidence has been presented & just before the jury instructions are given the Judge has the authority to add lesser charges to the Murder charge, like manslaughter if he/she feels the evidence supports that charge. Either side can ask for or argue against lessers but it is ultimately the decision of the Judge.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 11:30 PM

We discuss the hand shaking but, unless I missed something do we know if he had that shake at the time of the shooting or is it something that developed later on, it has been 5 1/2 years.:shrug:

JMO

From what little I know and from what I have seen, the shakes seems to have started when the trial did and stopped when the 1st trial did. The only time he seems to have the shakes is when there is a camera on him. I have yet to read anyone discribing these shakes when he does interviews without a camera.

GPSpector

10-27-2008, 11:46 PM

That is what I was getting @. It would take way longer than 24 hours for the med to clear his body. But since I believe so little of what he says & we have only his word he had not taken his meds I am inclined to think he is lying on this issue also.

I really wish we could have a live feed (for many reasons) for one reason in particular on this issue. To see the shakes. The thing I noticed about the shakes (for those that think they look natural), was where they seemed to originate from. It looked almost as if the shakes originated from the wrist as opposed to the muscles in the arm, almost deliberate. The only times I saw his hands shake was when they were clasped together and had more of the appearance of what someone might do when waiting impatiently for something to end or something to happen. Kind of like a guy on a 1st date or someone waiting for a 1st interview.

These are only my opinions based on what I have actually seen.

warhorse46

10-28-2008, 01:24 AM

Hey WH hiyas ! You know what i was just thinking about that current affiar video, his hands sure as chit were not shaking when he held up that check he wanted to give to all the women who would testify against him...remember that piece of film? I do. Maybe the defense will try to play that this time round. I think they should enter it into evidence.
really hammer it home in PS's own words exactly what he thinks, of
Women.

Dots

Hiya. Beth had reported during the first trial that PS had had tremors for several years & they had gotten progressivly worse due to the meds he is on. And I do know those meds do cause tremors & stress can aggravate them so I do believe he does have them. But I would not put it past him to exaggerate the tremors if he thinks it would be to his benefit.

GPSpector

10-28-2008, 01:27 AM

So many of us fell in love with her and all she stood for in life. We also all stood here together for five months. Then we watched the unthinkable happen. It was OJ all over again.

What more does a logical mind need, along with CE and Trace Evidence as well as material evidence, he was holding the gun, her blood dripping down his fingers as he runs out of his "castle" and says "I think I just Killed Someone"
She didnt even HAVE A NAME TO HIM!!

And that backblow? Sorry LAPD, ya missed his wig. HAD his wig been taken off, Im sure they would have found the blow back they needed, since the amount on his jacket was so small. A bullet to the brain does not always cause a ton of blood; especially an intra oral wound.

This time, lets hope that AJ goes there. Show the mug photo and use it AJ, it clearly shows him with a wet wig on; evidence that he washed that too in the toilet that night.

Think about it; PS he has that diaper and is leaning over his toilet in a state of panic and cowardice, trying to get the blood off his face. whether on his knees or standing, his hair would have been hanging in his face, and his hair was a wig. No one wants a jury to think you've missed evidence but PS lied when he didnt tell LE that he was wearing one, he lied by omission I think because there was Trace Evidence in his hair.
That's my theory, based on his mug shot and all we know about his steps after he shot lana that night. I dont know many men who clean up in toilets. But we do know for a fact, PS did.

Dots

It is possible that if he had blood on his face (if it was not shielded), his driver would have seen it but I do agree with the possibility that there could have been some in his hair based on the possible spray pattern, I am sure some had to have gone up and when coming down, landed in his hair. I never did hear that his hair was tested but it did look wet in the picture. I just don't recall how long after the police took him in and that picture was taken. I would have thought his hair would have been dried by the time of the photo. Maybe the wet look was just the style for that day. I really do not know but you do raise an interesting point.

Jayne

10-28-2008, 03:13 AM

I don't disagree with anything mentioned here. I also don't want to be critical of LC. <snipped with much respect>
It looks like M2 to me.

Indeed...and that seems to be the reason Riordan was so against VMS? Or why the prosecution didn't put it in their initial charge?

Malice (implied) is in there...but I can see where many of us might think "recklessness" "disregard for human life" even that "heat of passion"...in some other states that is Manslaughter...here in CA..it gets bumped up to M2...not so easily but not so difficult, either...it's all in the pleadings and production of evidence...yes?

Law School Exam Question? Yep...a good one...not for the weak ones, either...who don't know their IRAC from their Irac? A bit slippery with all the oil dripping and gas guggling..

PS, IMO, had "implied malice" from day one..whether it was Lennon...his wife..his kids...women in his life..and LC...he HAD to be king of his castle...Why the KNIGHT ARMOUR in the foyer? Art? Maybe...but I think not..it was a "statement"...

cave canum..or something close to that...

jmo

J

bearwds

10-28-2008, 03:55 AM

[QUOTE=gnm109 ......<<SNIP-SNIP>>

It looks like M2 to me.[/QUOTE]

*********************************

As well as it does to me.

As soon as Spector introduced the gun into the spectrum, the charge jumped to Murder-2. Now, if he was just mad or in a frenzy and strangled her where she sat, I would consider Voluntary Manslaughter.
He didn't, and under the law you have a solid charge of M-2.

My impression of how things went down that night, I have stated in the 1st trial. It's been a long time.....

Lana went to the Castle that night (don't go.....) thinking that would help her career. Heck she had just been told to treat the House of Blues VIP as if he were "Dan Ackroyd". She had fumbled at the rope line by calling him "Miss" because of his feminine way of dressing. She even sat at his table when he asked and manager approved. She did not drink liquor.

Having a last lunch with mom and going shopping for several pairs of shoes, she was probably in a good mood. Heck, she even had a new project that she was excited about the next week.

After leaving the club she refused several invitations to go to the Castle, then agreed.

At the Castle, drinking did occur. Lana may or may not have been sexually approached. By PBA's, I would assume so.

Lana finally had had enough and wanted to go home. Spector went upstairs and when he returned to the foyer, Lana was sitting in a chair. She may or may not have tried the front door.

She was dressed, ready to leave, coat on and purse on her shoulder. Spector couldn't believe that this person he had only known for a few hours would defy him. He would show her. Just like the rest. Nothing like cold steel to wake a person up.

He walked to the chair and turned left a little bit. Opened the drawer and pulled out his gun. He stepped back a couple of feet and suddenly grabbed Lana's right wrist with his left hand. At the same time, he jammed the gun towards her face. Like all the others, he thought she would succumb immediately.

What he didn't know was that Lana was recently injured and had a very tender, post fracture wrist.

The pain of her wrist caused her to startle at the same time the gun was coming towards her face and she jerked.

A shot went off.

Spector didn't drop the gun or wipe it off. He just went to the front door and told his new chauffeur that "I think I killed somebody". Not even her name.

Clean-up was then the order of the day. Wipe the gun down with a diaper rag and drop it next to the wrong foot. He took the diaper and rinsed it in the toilet, returning in a futile attempt to make the blood go away that was leaking. He couldn't fix this.

SWAT then entered and he failed to comply and a taser attempt was made which failed. Arrested, charged.

bearwds

Jayne

10-28-2008, 04:21 AM

I agree..except..I think he had that gun in his pocket the whole time...the Bureau..was not to his left...

I tend to think that the gun....it had been in that briefcase he went and "got" in the meantime...like in the "trunk" with Rommie/whatshername?

Your scenario is good...and I think much of what probably happened...

I think Lana was tired..loopy..and wanting to go "home"..and just plunked herself in that chair after using the restroom/bathroom...waiting for PS to come back..from wherever he was and OPEN the door? so she could get the ride back to her car with AS. She was professional..even if three sheets to the wind....she wouldn't just walk out or "TRY" the door.

He didn't want that...so he approached her...arms length...did what he usually did..and then segue to your post...

jmo

J

gnm109

10-28-2008, 10:51 AM

Indeed...and that seems to be the reason Riordan was so against VMS? Or why the prosecution didn't put it in their initial charge?

Malice (implied) is in there...but I can see where many of us might think "recklessness" "disregard for human life" even that "heat of passion"...in some other states that is Manslaughter...here in CA..it gets bumped up to M2...not so easily but not so difficult, either...it's all in the pleadings and production of evidence...yes?

Law School Exam Question? Yep...a good one...not for the weak ones, either...who don't know their IRAC from their Irac? A bit slippery with all the oil dripping and gas guggling..

PS, IMO, had "implied malice" from day one..whether it was Lennon...his wife..his kids...women in his life..and LC...he HAD to be king of his castle...Why the KNIGHT ARMOUR in the foyer? Art? Maybe...but I think not..it was a "statement"...

cave canum..or something close to that...

jmo

J

Yes, it's a good question. My feeling about M2 vs. MS is that we really don't have the facts to make MS. How angry was PS if indeed he was angry? Was his anger "reasonable". Unfortunately, we really weren't there. There were only two "witnesses" and neither of them is talking.

But we do have what we need for M2. We have the gun, the presence of which was clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. We know the awful results and there are enough forensics left over to :almost" see HOW it occurred, besides the obvious nature of the wound. If you take it apart and "reverse engineer" the setting you probably come up with M2. So, if that's what they are charging this time around, they have very likely got it right, at least in my humble opinion.

Regards to all and Happy Sleuthing. ;)

Ellie

10-28-2008, 11:37 AM

IT doesn't matter how many guns were around: Only one gun was used, IMO, by LC doing kinky gun play.

mho

Oh, yes, and in a flurry of concerned desparation he tried to revive her ("Lana! Lana! Please Lana, speak to me!!"), thus moving her head from right to left and wiping her face with a diaper full of toilet water, out of the kindness of his heart (because from all we know about PS, he's just 'that nice' of a guy and loves women, right?). Then he immediately grabbed one of the what, 14 phones in his castle and dialed 911 so that help could get there right away and save Lana. Then he grabbed the gun from her hand so that when she came to she might not try it again (and wiped it down as well, just to keep things neat) before he ran outside and told AS "I think I just killed somebody.... JUST KIDDING!"

Phil, IMO, removed the locking mechanism from the door and Lana couldn't leave, so she sat in that chair and waited for him to open the door. He straddled her, did a few other things (if you recall there was evidence of an exchange of fluids on both of them....), she probably begged him to let her go, he forced the gun into her mouth and BANG. There you go.

hiitsme

10-28-2008, 12:26 PM

Oh, yes, and in a flurry of concerned desparation he tried to revive her ("Lana! Lana! Please Lana, speak to me!!"), thus moving her head from right to left and wiping her face with a diaper full of toilet water, out of the kindness of his heart (because from all we know about PS, he's just 'that nice' of a guy and loves women, right?). Then he immediately grabbed one of the what, 14 phones in his castle and dialed 911 so that help could get there right away and save Lana. Then he grabbed the gun from her hand so that when she came to she might not try it again (and wiped it down as well, just to keep things neat) before he ran outside and told AS "I think I just killed somebody.... JUST KIDDING!"

Phil, IMO, removed the locking mechanism from the door and Lana couldn't leave, so she sat in that chair and waited for him to open the door. He straddled her, did a few other things (if you recall there was evidence of an exchange of fluids on both of them....), she probably begged him to let her go, he forced the gun into her mouth and BANG. There you go.
Great, logical post. There was not one shred of evidence that Lana was inclined to participate in kinky gun play. It's beyond absurd. The only kinky person who was obsessed with guns was the man who murdered her, Phil Spector.

kennedy06

10-28-2008, 01:05 PM

I had wondered if they had asked his help, cleaning or assistants, former bodyguard or close friend, or anyone else close to him since he began to live at the Castle, where they knew him to keep his guns in the house. Was he known to keep one in his briefcase, or in a shoulder or possible leg/ankle holster that was removed only in his private quarters (bedroom)? Was there was one in that drawer for protection? Seems like a pretty simple question. Any discussion about his security he may have had with others might have revealed this, possibly showing a pattern. :shrug: JMO

Anakerie

10-28-2008, 01:43 PM

Can't stay long, but I do have a couple of questions. Wasn't there $ in large denominations in the victims purse? Iam not implying,suggesting or insinuating anything. Just asking in conjunction with Det. Lilliefield's statement of what he observed. I can't recall exactly so Iam not quoting anyone. It has been a long time since the first trial and it's as best as I can recall. Also, were fingerprints ever lifted from the drawer where the gun was kept? I do not recall reading that they were or that it was even attempted. Seems to me that might be important if there are any. Lastly, why do you think some posters always leave out the woman that stayed overnight on more than one occasion when they post about the others that testified in support of the prosecutions theory? Sounds rhetorical I know, but what do "YOU" think?

Back to packing for upcoming trip. I'm spending my childs inheritance. Be sure and go VOTE. Regardless of who you pick it is an oppurtunity to join in an historical event besides being a duty IMO.

I do not remember any mention in the first trial of money in large denominations in Lana's purse. And if there had been a large amount of money in Lana's purse, you can bet that Phil's round-1 defense team would have made something of it.

As for a fingerprint lift from that drawer, I don't think they found anything usable.

Ellie

10-28-2008, 01:59 PM

I don't believe for a second she begged him to go. It was kinky gun play, and tragically she accidently killed herself.
mho

With her purse hanging over her shoulder and her shoes on? No way, not buyin' it.

Do we know what Lana's uniform was at the HOB?

Again, in my opinion, Phil set the place up for 'romance'. He lit the candles, he poured the drinks, HE thought he was going to get lucky.

So the drawer handle wasn't dusted for prints, is that correct? Or it was and we either don't have the results or Lana's weren't on the handle?

Sure, maybe the 2 of them did engage in a little hanky-panky. Again, I think that would only be because Lana was trying to make an impression on PS. (Come on, why would she come on to someone like Phil? Look at her! She was beautiful. And Phil, I am sorry to say, may have had some charm to wow the women back in the day but not in years and definitely not that night... that night Lana thought he looked like a woman.) I don't for one second think that Lana was doing anything kinky or otherwise with the gun, other than maybe trying to get it out of her mouth.

Also, as I've said before, take a look at the way Lana's body is positioned on the chair. She's slouched back... as if she is trying to back away from someone... or something. If she was doing anything seductive, I think she'd have been sitting forward, not back.

kennedy06

10-28-2008, 02:29 PM

Can't stay long, but I do have a couple of questions. Wasn't there $ in large denominations in the victims purse? Iam not implying,suggesting or insinuating anything. Just asking in conjunction with Det. Lilliefield's statement of what he observed. I can't recall exactly so Iam not quoting anyone. It has been a long time since the first trial and it's as best as I can recall. Also, were fingerprints ever lifted from the drawer where the gun was kept? I do not recall reading that they were or that it was even attempted. Seems to me that might be important if there are any. Lastly, why do you think some posters always leave out the woman that stayed overnight on more than one occasion when they post about the others that testified in support of the prosecutions theory? Sounds rhetorical I know, but what do "YOU" think?

Back to packing for upcoming trip. I'm spending my childs inheritance. Be sure and go VOTE. Regardless of who you pick it is an oppurtunity to join in an historical event besides being a duty IMO.:patriot::seeya:

Wasn't it because she described their relationship as having a father daughter dynamic? So no physical attraction no gun, it just plays into the doctrine of chances, right? It shows the opposite effect if no attraction. What the other PBA's prove through his attraction to them, guns, threats is the DOC. JMO

kennedy06

10-28-2008, 02:44 PM

Who described their relationship as "having a father daughter dynamic?" TIA

mho

Kathy Sullivan

JMO

kennedy06

10-28-2008, 03:48 PM

to record the opening statements (Sprocket blog). This would be an unmanned camera in the gallery. The judge has not ruled on it.

Here's hoping!
BY the way - this thread is getting very long and CW doesn't like that . Should be a new one soon?

Such good posts on here but, I see your point about the thread Snowbird. Maybe if someone is up early in the morning they can start a trial discussion thread.:patriot:

All this time posting until the next trial, and tomorrow is finally the day. I'm looking forward to hearing about the opening statements, or if we are granted a reprieve actually hearing them live!

JMO

warhorse46

10-28-2008, 03:48 PM

I remember her. Thanks.

She was not the only one who stayed overnight. Other women stayed overnight. The one he allegedly opened her purse and questioned the lipstick tube had stayed overnight. The one one passed away since the trial, she also spent the night...and claims he forced her to stay with a gun in her face...problem with that story is the woman claimed she fell asleep in the chair as he held the gun to her face.

None of these witness' were credible, IMO.

mho

Misquoting the evidence. She did not claim to fall asleep in the chair, they went up to the bedroom & she was in bed with the gun within sight. IIRC.

Ellie

10-28-2008, 03:57 PM

I remember her. Thanks.

None of these witness' were credible, IMO.

mho

Can I ask you why you think they're not credible, and what it would take for you to think a witness IS credible?

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 03:58 PM

Did they dust the door to see if she tried to open it? She is reportedly not the first person to locked in by PS, but she may not have known that.

You bring up an excellent point. Lana didn't even now who PS was and what he was famous for until she was told by a fellow employee at the house of Blues. So many people have gone on about her knowing what he was like, but she obviously didn't even know he existed until that night. Why should she? He wasn't a current music figure then, hadn't been for a decade or more. The only reason his name is known now is because he killed an innocent woman.

Ellie

10-28-2008, 04:03 PM

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 04:06 PM

Baby doll gibson was interviewed on kfi radio in los angeles about Lana Clarkson and thePhil Spector trial. Baby doll said that Lana worked for her as an "escort" and that Lana had a sexually-linked, kinky gun fetish.

Of course there was no evidence of kinky gun play in the trial: Judge Fidler wouldn't allow it.

Baby doll was ready to testify to Lans's kinky gun fetish, but Judge Fidler wouldn't allow her to testify. Ms. Gibson said that Lana performed kinky acts with guns. LC was paid "1500 an hour.

MHO

Judge Fidler wouldn't allow it because BDG "notes" were very obviously forged. It was clearly evident that names were written over with different colored ink.

As far as Gibson herself, a has been "Madam" who can't get enough of the limelight is hardly a credible witness. I wouldn't think someone who doubts the words of women who actually knew PS, would put any credence into the words of a fame mongering nobody like Baby Doll Gibson. You surprise me.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 04:32 PM

It should have been entered into evidence, and experts should have been called to judge the documents, and the jury should have decided whether the documents were forged--NOT JUDGE FIDLER, IMO.

Those documents were in police custody...and BDG could not have forged them after they were in PC!

Doubting the witness' have nothing to do with Baby dolls credibality. The documents speak for BDG!

MHO

Actually, the documents were in the custody of BDG and the Defense investigator (Tawney something?) immediately before being put into evidence, which is where the forgery was discovered. As I recall, the Judge was willing to have the papers examined for forgery, though he would have done so before allowing testimony, as is correct when such a thing is in question.

All of that is irrelevant, however, since the Defense made the choice not to call Gibson. Her testimony would have only been relevant had Spector testified that he used her services in order to procure women, Lana in particular. Since he did not testify, Gibson's testimony was irrelevant.

If you need to blame someone for her lack of testimony, blame the Defense and Spector. It was their choice.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 04:38 PM

Kinky gun play was an issue at trial, but Judge Fidler wouldn't allow the kinky gun play testimony of Baby doll Gibson. Kinky gun play discussion is a legitimate discussion, since it was mentioned at trial.

Of course it is neccesary to dsicuss this:

The defend contends that Phil didn't kill Lana, that Lana shot herself during kinky gun play...or role playing. I think Lana shot herself accidently during role playing or kinky gun play. The defense called it accidental suicide, IIRC.

MHO

Do you recall exactly where they said it was kinky gun play? I can't remember there being a direct statement that she was doing that. Spector claims he was just coming into the room and was 8 feet away when it happened, why would she be doing that alone? He has also claimed in the past that she was dancing and singing a song when she suddenly put the gun in her mouth and fired (which didn't happen as she was shot while seated as proven by the blood)and also that she was telling him how unhappy she was an just did it. To a police officer, he mimed her putting the gun to the temple area, which we all know didn't happen either.

In all of those tall tales, I don't recall the whole kinky sex thing being given as the definitive reason for Lana having a gun in her mouth.

dreamlawyer

10-28-2008, 04:41 PM

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 05:01 PM

Judge Fidler would not allow BDG to testify...so how can the defense call her to testify when the judge doesn't allow it? They can't.

Phil testifying has nothing to do with whether or not Baby doll testified. She didn't testify because Judge Fidler indicated the documents were forged. The jury should have been allowed to judge the documents, not Judge Fidler.

I have no "need" to blame anyone. The issue of kinky gun pley came up at the trial, and I am opinining on it. It has nothing to do with "need;" it has to do with the trial and the issues.

MHO

No.
The only thing that would have related Baby Dol Gibson to the PS trial would be PS saying he used her service. That is why the defense did not call her, because PS wouldn't testify and the only thing relating her to the situation was him.

That is the way it is in trials. People can't just walk in off the street and offer to get on the stand and testify to things that are not relevant, and BDG's claims were not relevant if PS didn't call and order a hooker from her.

I'm sorry you don't like that, but facts are facts.

The rulings and defense decision is mentioned in this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19839205/

It is also mentioned that Gibson went to jail in 2000 for Pimping, so unless she was willing to admit she was doing it again, she had nothing to offer but her word that she employed Lana before that. Something which she couldn't prove anyway, since it was her word only..

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 05:04 PM

I'd like to know this too! I'm not happy that In Session is not covering the re-trial, it's a bad choice on their part. :cuss:

I agree. IS is supposed to be starting some sort of love triangle murder case live tomorrow, but if a chance comes to watch Spector that's where I'm at. No question.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 06:03 PM

Even less, and that's saying a lot! The woman had nothing but altered papers and her word, which is worth nothing at all.

Even if the word of a convicted **** who seeks publicity constantly were gold, (which it isn't) Gibson supposedly quit pimping and therefore had no contact with her workers after 2000. Her testimony would still mean nothing, as she had no idea what those women were doing in 2003.

Unfortunately, some posters just refuse to accept the facts of the case and the rulings. Because they have nothing reliable and factual to back them up they dump on the Judge.

There is no convincing people who care nothing for the realities of a trial, that a person in no way involved with the crime, who cannot even prove they ever met the person they are speaking of, can walk in and say whatever they want without any reliable factual evidence to back their claim up.

Mr. Fact is not at home to some.

gnm109

10-28-2008, 06:58 PM

[QUOTE=snowbird01;12351420]for opening statements anyone know where we will be able to see it?[/QU

I'd like to know this too! I'm not happy that In Session is not covering the re-trial, it's a bad choice on their part. :cuss:

Nor am I happy about it. I wonder, are they going to be doing any new trials at all. I'm tired of reruns and "not reality, actually", etc. I also don't care about old tapes of robbers knocking over convenience markets or repeat car chases any more.

I wish there could be another company that would do live trials. It appears that the name change from "Court TV" to "Tru TV" was the end of the line.

Daisy'sMom

10-28-2008, 07:32 PM

[QUOTE=dreamlawyer;12351506]

Nor am I happy about it. I wonder, are they going to be doing any new trials at all. I'm tired of reruns and "not reality, actually", etc. I also don't care about old tapes of robbers knocking over convenience markets or repeat car chases any more.

I wish there could be another company that would do live trials. It appears that the name change from "Court TV" to "Tru TV" was the end of the line.

Watching IS now is like watching Jerry Springer reruns. It used to be a classy place to see how our judicial system works, now it's a cheap smut for ratings network. I won't watch reruns of trials, so I don't tune in now. If they covered PS2, I would in a heartbeat.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 07:33 PM

The REALITY of this trial is Baby doll did not testify, and her credibilty cannot be judged. There is no way to judge the "reliabilty" of documentation that LF wouldn't allow iat trial.

The reality is BDG has documentation listing Lana as an "escort." BDG wasn't just blowing hot air: She has the documentation to show it. The jury should have been allowed to judge BDG's testimony, and the documentation.

The reality is there are those who find BDG not credible, despite the fact she didn't testify, and despite the fact an "expert" did not testify to the alleged forgery.

The reality is no matter how BDG is made to sound like as "someone who came off the streets," she has the documentation with Lana listed as an "escort," which was never challenged in court by an "expert" in forged documents. That is the reality.

How do you BDG never met Lana Clarkslon? Her documentation and tesimony wasn't challenged in court.

I am basing Phil's innocence on the jacket forensics. This jacket will be a major problem for the prosecution!

Correct: "Mr. Fact is not at home to some."

MHO

The REALITY of the first PS trial is that the Defense chose not to call BDG, so she didn't testify.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=gnm109;12352167]

Watching IS now is like watching Jerry Springer reruns. It used to be a classy place to see how our judicial system works, now it's a cheap smut for ratings network. I won't watch reruns of trials, so I don't tune in now. If they covered PS2, I would in a heartbeat.

I don't watch the reruns of the canned trials either. It's really sad how this has all played out.

When Turner took over CTV they said they weren't going to even look at ratings for the IS segment, because it was such a specialized thing. Then with PS it was all, no interest (other than hundreds of viewers asking them to run the retrial :rolleyes:), bad ratings last time.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 08:09 PM

The REALITY of the first PS trial is they couldn't call BDG to testify because the judge wouldn't allow her testimony. The defense had no choice in the matter.

MHO

That's not true at all. Under conditions that would have given relevance to her testimony, Gibson could have been called. It was the decision of the defense not to call her. I'll take the legitimate press reports of the situation and my own recollection, as I watched it live, as fact.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/071807_ctv.html

Deny to your heart's content, I'm through with the subject.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 08:14 PM

True2Blues: Well in all fairness to TT, he pretty much gave up control about the time CNN went to AOL years ago...With That takeover the eventual downturn and "CNN taking over CourtTV" or whatever ~ :punch: took over everywhere read: Our Country too ~ imo

:seeya:

It was Turner who commented on the takeover and chose the people who would run TruTV for Turner Broadcasting. The company is still his, so as far as I'm concerned, he's still the one who makes the decisions. If he isn't active in his enterprises, he should be.

gnm109

10-28-2008, 08:39 PM

:seeya:

It was Turner who commented on the takeover and chose the people who would run TruTV for Turner Broadcasting. The company is still his, so as far as I'm concerned, he's still the one who makes the decisions. If he isn't active in his enterprises, he should be.

As you point out, TT should be responsible for his company. Regardless of who is running TRuTV, they ruined it for me. I hardly watch it anymore. So if their goal was to kill the ratings, it's working.

I guess TT hasn't yet recovered from the shock of the divorce from his loving wife, Jane Fonda. Ahem. Perhaps the shock of the situation affected his judgment. You think?

Somehow, I knew that it wouldn't last when I noticed that she didn't take his last name. :rolleyes:

GPSpector

10-28-2008, 08:41 PM

I don't recall there being large $ dominations being in Lana's purse.

I think the reason Phil checked some of the purses of the women, is he thought they were stealing momentos. He pulled out a lipstick container out of the purse of one of the women, and asked her "what is this," words to that effect.

There were hollow lipstick containers which could be used to put a joint in them. I think they stopped these kind of drug containers( to hide drugs) in the 1980's. I think they might be worth a lot of money and sold to collecters. Phil may have had these containers in his possession, and he suspected this woman of stealing one.

As to the fingerprints on the drawer, I don't think they even checked to see if there were fingerprints.

MHO

Sorry, my father has never smoked anything other then bad smelling skinny cigars. Even implying that he had or had pot related contriband is wrong unless you have proof of it.

As for the rumors about Lana having money in her Purse, she was a hostess and besides, those rumors got started by those that wanted to drag Lana through the mud by implying something she was not.

True2Blues

10-28-2008, 08:51 PM

Sorry, my father has never smoked anything other then bad smelling skinny cigars. Even implying that he had or had pot related contriband is wrong unless you have proof of it.

As for the rumors about Lana having money in her Purse, she was a hostess and besides, those rumors got started by those that wanted to drag Lana through the mud by implying something she was not.

[B][COLOR="Blue"]There was never any mention of drugs or anything of the kind. I don't remember exactly, but didn't he think it was some kind of listening device or something of that sort? Spying on him essentially?

Maybe I'm thinking of something else, but I'm sure there was no mention of drug contraband or of DM stealing anything from him.

I wouldn't hold my breath for evidence of either of those things if I were you. ;)