October 1st thru.....

[Kara]

Good morning. CW requested a new thread for this morning so here ya go.

When does jury selection begin?

[FrankieBones1]

Good morning. CW requested a new thread for this morning so here ya go.

When does jury selection begin?

Good Morning, Kara. I've been reading a British news site and saw this:

In downtown Los Angeles, 500 people have been gathering in the Criminal Justice Centre this week as part of the preliminary screening process to find the 12 who will sit on the jury for the trial of Spector for the murder of the actress Lana Clarkson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/01/bmspector101.xml

[tartangirl]

Kennedy06 has asked me to bring this over from the old thread...being a fall baby definitely shows me to be an air sign. ;) Forgot to start a new thread..thanks Kara..:)

Frankie I know this is the same link that you posted...but a good thing does bear repeating....and Mick Brown is a good writer...so..from the old link earlier this morning..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I know this is not news to us..my title is the way Mick Brown has his latest bit of news headlined in the UK. A good read for us addicts, if nothing else, to shore up our strength and energy for the next trial this fall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...spector101.xml


The author states that Mr. Spector is preparing to face the music once again. IT promises to be as lurid as the original. IT talks about the jury from last year's mistrial and it also talks about how the defense TRIED to paint Lana Clarkson in a less than positive light. Many good facts are discussed. I do have to wonder from the article.....the question by the judge. "WHY IS BOB HERE?" must have been an ice breaker at one of the pretrial hearings.

and so it begins......

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

__________________

[tartangirl]

that link says my request is not available....I am not sure why...I have it up on my screen from earlier this morning......maybe the site is having problems. I will keep on trying too...I am sorry...

[kennedy06]

Thank you Frankiebones for your link and post and to Tartangirl for being so gracious as to move her post over at my request, prior to Frankie's post. All appreciated!! :)

After reading the link I see PS's wife's act of celebration that day, after the mistrial, is still widely remembered. I have to laugh as some describe it as they seen it that day on the video. They don't mince words. I do have a little different opinion or thought. I do wonder if it was actually him or his wallet she was aiming for.:D

I look forward to kipswife postings. I didn't realize untill I read this link that the process had already started. I can honestly say I feel strangely nervous for everyone the witnesses, The Clarkson family and PS's family. I can't imagine what AD and the PBA's and the others have gone through just thinking about returning to the stand.

JMO as always

[tartangirl]

Try this one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/search/sitesearch.do?action=doBasicSearch&advSearch=false&queryText=Phil+Spector&ch=&selectedChannel=&sort=1

You saved the day...nothing like trying to show good information to people and then have it not be available..thank you for going the extra mile...:)


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

[Kara]

Good Morning, Kara. I've been reading a British news site and saw this:

In downtown Los Angeles, 500 people have been gathering in the Criminal Justice Centre this week as part of the preliminary screening process to find the 12 who will sit on the jury for the trial of Spector for the murder of the actress Lana Clarkson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/01/bmspector101.xml
Thanks for your response and the link Frankie! I'm still trying to find out if ktla will be streaming the trial or not. I love Marta and Loni but if ktla doesn't want to provide commentary I'll settle for a pure stream.

I'm sure a lot of the evidence will remain the same as the first trial. Usually retrials are streamlined but I'm not sure that will happen in this case given Spector's resources....

What do y'all think?

[Kara]

You read Sprocket's blog from 9/25, right? There's a very brief update in her 9/26 entries that because of the very poor economy, lack of interest, and basically watching a re-run, there will be limited coverage.

I believe KTLA's coverage of the original trial consisted of somehow linking/utilizing CNN's cameras and paying a fee to show it in full. I don't think that KTLA (Channel 5 in Los Angeles) has the resources/personnel to shell out the estimated $30,000 per month on their own to provide 100% coverage.

Please post if you hear/read an update and hope this info is not too redundant.According to Marta and Loni, on 9/26, they said there will be a pool camera in the courtroom to cover proceedings. I asked them yesterday if ktla will be streaming and if they will be commenting but they don't know the answer to that yet.

I love Sprocket's commentary, but I suspect that Loni and Marta might be in a position to have access to more accurate info.

[kennedy06]

According to Marta and Loni, on 9/26, they said there will be a pool camera in the courtroom to cover proceedings. I asked them yesterday if ktla will be streaming and if they will be commenting but they don't know the answer to that yet.

I love Sprocket's commentary, but I suspect that Loni and Marta might be in a position to have access to more accurate info.

Thanks Kara for asking them. That makes the 2nd good questioned asked of them yesterday :)

JMO

[kennedy06]

Thanks for your response and the link Frankie! I'm still trying to find out if ktla will be streaming the trial or not. I love Marta and Loni but if ktla doesn't want to provide commentary I'll settle for a pure stream.

I'm sure a lot of the evidence will remain the same as the first trial. Usually retrials are streamlined but I'm not sure that will happen in this case given Spector's resources....

What do y'all think?

Streamlined possibly but, I would think PS would allow nothing less than a vigorous defense of him by his new attorney DW. While the very first jury vote last time didn't really fair well for either side, the last jury vote was just 2 short of him receiving a prison sentence. If I understand correctly AJ will have a new attorney at his side (don't quote me!) T. Do, so while there maybe the same witnesses and evidence to examine for the most part, it will be done with a couple of new fresh energized attorneys with their own style and ideas.

Another way of looking at it is AJ was 2 votes short of winning that case. He was so close in the end to winning that case for the state. He basically took on a table of how many present in the courtroom defense attorney. While he had had the help of PD and help behind the scenes I realize, he was pretty amazing to watch and I expect nothing less from him this time. So streamlined maybe but, I think it will be as intense as the first trial. JMO

[KathR]

How diminished my world is since last year. Court TV no longer exists.

Is KTLA going to broadcast the trial? Is there a feed anywhere?

[L J]

Can anyone tell me when Specter trial start?
Thx

[L J]

Hello to all:
What ever happend to JW,for shooting his driver?

[Spectorfan8]

Do you think anyone will write a book about Lana's life and career?

Not just her death.


Doubt it. jmo :seeya:

[Jayne]

Doubt it. jmo :seeya:

I must agree. If someone were going to do it...and for an "impact", I think it would have been attempted already. (no doubt unsuccessfully) If there is one written about her death - it would be more about PS, I'd think, but maybe not..just a few chapters (or one big one) about that aspect, or a psychological type of writing about how difficult Hollywood can be and the people who fall into it's traps, so to speak - perhaps she as the "title" person, but including so many others, who either died at their own hands intentionally or uncontrollably, or by underhanded means (corporate or otherwise), or by pure unfortunate circumstances or "accident", or a "romantic/nostalgic" comparison of her death (even if never truly "decided" in a court of law") to others similar to her. It could be a "tear jerker" and a "wake up call" to those who yearn to be stars, take risks, get taken for granted, struggle, and in the end..no one really really knows what happened..as to why they are no longer with us. (leaving a lot out for space and irritation perhaps from other posters about my "expounding" on things! forgive me!)

She may be mentioned in books...about the Barbarian Queen, etc. and actually, I think that is a possibility...someone wanting to 'cash in' a bit on his or her fav kind of flicks and when this trial is over, having that chapter/section "dedicated or about" Lana Clarkson - who was a victim (or legally considered not?? depending on the outcome). But, if this case turns up to be a conviction for PS, it just may happen..if the Clarkson's don't try to stop it. I don't know them..but the sense I get from this past year, plus, is that they aren't out for notariety but they just want "justice" and most definitely "closure". I could see a book entitled "God Save the Queen"...but it's a bit late to publish that.

I do think, however, that if PS is found guilty, there will be a book or books written...about him..his career, bringing up his favourable and not favourable events in books already written, including his involvement in this case..an only imagine some "Titles" in that instance.

And maybe even if he isn't found guilty but is either aquitted or still "hung" there will publications of some sort, maybe a book? dunno. I'd wager Chelle might want to write one if that's the case. Might even sell (as opposed to cell). Or I could see one written "How to get off When your "Off""?

Or another...as one esteemed poster has as a Signature Line "Don't Go"..NOW...that Title I would love to see in a book...NOT just about Lana Clarkson...but about a "warning of sorts"...you can take you life in your own hands and go out there to push your career..but Beware.

Someone may publish a book or article on the "watchings/attending" the trial..either PS1 or 2 or both.

jmo

J

[GPSpector]

Hello All,

Sorry, my home PC is still down :(
but parts on the way :D

If anyone should hear about any books regarding this trial or any of those involved, please let us all know.

[Jayne]

Hello All,

Sorry, my home PC is still down :(
but parts on the way :D

If anyone should hear about any books regarding this trial or any of those involved, please let us all know.

Oh..if I only had the time and resources, I'd write one..getting it published would be a nightmare!

idea...go to circuitcity or staples and the like..with the economy now..prices will be waayyyy down! Might make more sense to buy a "new" one than fix the old one..truly.

:)

J

[spydernweb2006]

Since the OJ verdict is comming in before Spector 2 starts I hope we will get KTLA coverage.


JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[bluwaters]

Lonnie and Marta just said that the PS trial will not be televised! :eek:
There is no interest in it!
Cameras will be allowed, but no one plans to film it.

[KathR]

Lonnie and Marta just said that the PS trial will not be televised! :eek:
There is no interest in it!
Cameras will be allowed, but no one plans to film it.

Well, I guess we can blame the economy but I blame those who destroyed the concept of televised trial coverage a year ago.

I hope they have gotten rich. Well that's a lie. I'm really hoping they are scraping to get by and fail in the coming economic downturn.

I never watch the network anymore, not even for the six hours of lip service they give to trial coverage during the day, which is just not enough to keep an audience. I found myself getting so angry every day at 3 o'clock when the network would switch to reruns that I simply stayed away. I hope I stayed away in droves.

I know this note will get me kicked from these boards but I'm not really worried. Nothing here for me anymore anyway.

[dref99]

It would seem from here
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

Yesterday, it was agreed that the kick off of voir dire would be moved back one week from October 14th to October 20th, to give counsel more time to review the jurors responses.

that the trial has gone back another week. Perhaps PS wants to spend Christmas at the castle?

The link from tartangirl
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hc3i0Dpchi1urZANymg8GNcrBunw
didn't mention the change. It did mention JF saying that

no one, including him, would know the prospective jurors' names.
"It's being done to protect your privacy, primarily from the media," he told the first group of potential panelists.

Given the absolute lack of interest from the media - it hardly seems necessary.

jmo

[GPSpector]

Oh..if I only had the time and resources, I'd write one..getting it published would be a nightmare!

idea...go to circuitcity or staples and the like..with the economy now..prices will be waayyyy down! Might make more sense to buy a "new" one than fix the old one..truly.


J

Yea, I am happy to say, it did not cost me anything other then time and a lot of patients to get my PC back up and running :beer:

I also refused to do a Format/Reload.

Well, at least when the new parts arrive, things will get a lot faster and some Sims will look a lot better ;)

Right now, I'm just glad I can now keep up on th news and this Message Board while I'm not at work again :D

[KathR]

Oh..if I only had the time and resources, I'd write one..getting it published would be a nightmare!

idea...go to circuitcity or staples and the like..with the economy now..prices will be waayyyy down! Might make more sense to buy a "new" one than fix the old one..truly.

:)

J

That's a good idea, but I'll wait a bit more. Hope to catch the computers at rock bottom. Might as well spend the little I have. It isn't going to last long anyway. At least between now and D(isaster) day, I can get in some fun gaming time, if I can't watch the Spector retrial.

[Spectorfan8]

Well, I guess we can blame the economy but I blame those who destroyed the concept of televised trial coverage a year ago.

I hope they have gotten rich. Well that's a lie. I'm really hoping they are scraping to get by and fail in the coming economic downturn.

I never watch the network anymore, not even for the six hours of lip service they give to trial coverage during the day, which is just not enough to keep an audience. I found myself getting so angry every day at 3 o'clock when the network would switch to reruns that I simply stayed away. I hope I stayed away in droves.

I know this note will get me kicked from these boards but I'm not really worried. Nothing here for me anymore anyway.

I hope that you do not get kicked off. I feel we lost it all when we lost Court TV last year. jmo:(

[kennedy06]

Oh..if I only had the time and resources, I'd write one..getting it published would be a nightmare!

idea...go to circuitcity or staples and the like..with the economy now..prices will be waayyyy down! Might make more sense to buy a "new" one than fix the old one..truly.

:)

J

I never thought about writing one LOL I can barely write a post:D

I only spent money on one book about him. Ronnie's I checked out at the library. If the powers that be think there is no interest in his retrial, I can't imagine anyone would think there is much interest in another book exploring his past again. I guess there could be exceptions if there was really something new. :read:

JMO

[kennedy06]

Hello to all:
What ever happend to JW,for shooting his driver?

I noticed his name was brought up in the OJ thread today or yesterday by another poster. Is there something about his case and the PS case you find similar or something??

:)

JMO

[kennedy06]

I hope that you do not get kicked off. I feel we lost it all when we lost Court TV last year. jmo:(

I felt bad about it also SPF8. Then again the only real change I have noticed besides Vinnie being gone is I have started to watch a few trials only to find out they were past trials. I can't keep up no cameras, maybe cameras, coverage, maybe, maybe not, some, none! I guess we will take what we can get. I loose interest now and then but then for example after seeing the picture on yahoo news of PS and his wife arriving at the courthouse, my interest returns. :)

JMO

[Velouria]

I never watch the network anymore, not even for the six hours of lip service they give to trial coverage during the day, which is just not enough to keep an audience. I found myself getting so angry every day at 3 o'clock when the network would switch to reruns that I simply stayed away. I hope I stayed away in droves.
<respectfully snipped>


Neither do I, Kath. My husband doesn't know what to tease me about anymore. ;)

No Jamie Floyd has been great for my blood pressure!

[tartangirl]

I felt bad about it also SPF8. Then again the only real change I have noticed besides Vinnie being gone is I have started to watch a few trials only to find out they were past trials. I can't keep up no cameras, maybe cameras, coverage, maybe, maybe not, some, none! I guess we will take what we can get. I loose interest now and then but then for example after seeing the picture on yahoo news of PS and his wife arriving at the courthouse, my interest returns. :)

JMOI have felt the same way. While saddened by the loss of CourtTV, I have hope somewhere in this glass half full attitude of mine that we will be able to see the Spector trial this second time around. I am not talking bits and pieces, I have faith the whole trial will be brought to us. No evidence of this mind you, just blind faith.:)

From reading here and there it is very obvious that Alan Jackson will have his able hands full this next year with PS2 and the case of Kazuyoshi Miura. I, like many others, would love to be able to see how he uses his skills and great mind to handle both these intense and very interesting cases at the same time.

My interest in the Spector case has deepened as time has passed. It has not wavered or diminished in any way. Many people want to see this trial again and to see this case to the justice it so deserves.

I just keep on keepin' on with the emails and letters and maybe someone will step up to make it all possible...gotta have hope ;)
~ as always, my opinion, Justice for Lana and those who love her ~

[KathR]

KathR,

You said nothing in your comment to get kicked off the board. Fred Graham was the last person who cared. With the sale of Court-TV to Ted Turners TBS, they took a already proven product with a following and turned it into "Reality" entertainment for the masses. Do not let the chum spreaders win. Stay and post your opinions, it will drive them nuts.

Just my opinion,
Mortie

What i can't understand is why this new network goes through the charade of pretending to give trial coverage. Do they have some contractual obligation to do so?

Someone said it would cost $30,000 to televise the Spector trial. Considering that the trial will probably last at least a month, isn't that a small amount to pay for 5 days a week of 8 hours a day live television?

I guess understanding the economics of canceling one of the best things available in the broadcast world is beyond me. Is it really much cheaper to rerun old true crime shows and share the advertising dollars with ID, WE, and a couple of other cable networks.

I can always find something else to watch on cable tv. I can find dozens of channels that sell garbage. I can find five or six devoted to exercising. I can find two or three featuring animals (btw, I love Animal Planet). There's a network for the weather and a network for climate control. But we no longer have a network for trial coverage. Why?

[Fallen Angel]

What i can't understand is why this new network goes through the charade of pretending to give trial coverage. Do they have some contractual obligation to do so?

Someone said it would cost $30,000 to televise the Spector trial. Considering that the trial will probably last at least a month, isn't that a small amount to pay for 5 days a week of 8 hours a day live television?

I guess understanding the economics of canceling one of the best things available in the broadcast world is beyond me. Is it really much cheaper to rerun old true crime shows and share the advertising dollars with ID, WE, and a couple of other cable networks.

I can always find something else to watch on cable tv. I can find dozens of channels that sell garbage. I can find five or six devoted to exercising. I can find two or three featuring animals (btw, I love Animal Planet). There's a network for the weather and a network for climate control. But we no longer have a network for trial coverage. Why?and if they won't pay for a trial like spector.......does that mean we won't really see anymore BIG cases? i have to tell you i'm heart broken we won't see this trial. i've waited a whole year for this one.......

At this point i have a feeling there will never be Justice for Lana. :(

[kennedy06]

After posting on another thread on this PS board. Have others of you thought about his running at her and that is how he possibly got the blood spatter on one side of his jacket????? Where would he have been running from to get to her and if that was a possibility why didn't she just leave while he was at this place or distance to have to run to get to her? Could she not leave? So many possible stories:rolleyes: :shrug:

JMO

[QueeeenBeeee]

Lonnie and Marta just said that the PS trial will not be televised! :eek:
There is no interest in it!
Cameras will be allowed, but no one plans to film it.

Don't you know that bit of bad news just hit ole Phil right in the ego!:tongue:

[GPSpector]

After posting on another thread on this PS board. Have others of you thought about his running at her and that is how he possibly got the blood spatter on one side of his jacket????? Where would he have been running from to get to her and if that was a possibility why didn't she just leave while he was at this place or distance to have to run to get to her? Could she not leave? So many possible stories:rolleyes: :shrug:

JMO

Gee, in the 35 Years that I've known him, I've never seen him run to anything or to anyone for any reason.

To imply that he was running towards anyone would imply that he either cared or was concerned for someone else's well-being, which is something else I don't think I've ever seen him do so I really can't comment with my views of my father running towards Lana, I just do not see that ever happening.:shrug:

[kennedy06]

Gee, in the 35 Years that I've known him, I've never seen him run to anything or to anyone for any reason.

To imply that he was running towards anyone would imply that he either cared or was concerned for someone else's well-being, which is something else I don't think I've ever seen him do so I really can't comment with my views of my father running towards Lana, I just do not see that ever happening.:shrug:

Maybe he became more athletic since you last seen him. :)

JMO

[kennedy06]

After my reply to Jayne's thread I thought maybe I should post my reply over here also. I will admit I think I may have misunderstood some of her finer points of her well thought out post but, I do have some food for thought. Thanks
--------------------------

Are you suggesting some sort of reverse discrimintation against PS because of his wealth and eccentric ways that they have already considered him guilty and not worth their time????

To be honest I consider the no interest comments by the media to be an insult to the memory of Lana C and to Phil's celebrity status. I post about the memory of Lana very respectfully.

He didn't grow up in Beverly Hills or the Castle he started off like most in modest surroundings. So if that is your angle your way off base this case isn't about money and who he can hire it is about him fighting for the best defense he can afford. He earned the money and the accolades. That shouldn't be held against him. On the other side no matter who he is or how much money he may have accumulated over the years he deserves the same vigorous prosecution as any lowlife gang member on the streets of Alhambra that is involved with a shooting.

Just because he is a man of wealth and leisure I think he deserves the same type of coverage as Joe 6 pack would. He is still relevant, heck I just looked over at youtube there are 2 newly added videos, one quite well done and complimentary I believe of him and the other well, while very dark in its satire of him and tacky at best. The second one they actually wrote a weird song about him. Even if its NOT my cup of tea, I think it DOES show he and this case are still relevant and still show that even as of yesterday he is still being thought about in different venues. Maybe not our way of expressing interest but, in their own way of supporting or whatever about him.

I agree with your comment about those being able to view our discussions without real expense to them but recompense.

Comparing his trial to OJ's first trial, at least one victim was known to the accused in this case she was a perfect stranger to him. It makes it even more of an interesting case to me. We may not have had a glove don't fit moment but, who knows with this next trial, for either side. That is a curious point you pointed out about the kidnapping charge!! She was sitting there in the chair with her purse straps on her, obviously waiting to leave.

He should have stuck with Shapiro, look what he did for OJ in his first trial. I can't help but wonder if he doesn't regret that decision now.

I have tried to picture him running towards her as you suggested but wouldn't he have to had been running sideways at her to only get the blood on one side of his ladies coat???? That would be awkward where would he have been running from? The bathroom, the couch??

This trial has more angles to it, it is hard to keep up with them all. If what the defense has tried to say she searched and found a gun then it is kind of a frightening idea that you would have to watch any guest that comes to your home.

I would think those that thought JF was unfair to PS would be those that would fight the hardest to get coverage. It is one thing for a few the courtroom to see and hear and know of rulings but it is another for the world to see!!

JMO as always
__________________
You're tearing me apart!...You say one thing, he says another, and everybody changes back again. ... James Dean- Rebel Without a Cause

[kipswife]

hey everyone,

i just got back from LA and went to the jury selection on friday morning. i did see PS and his wifey, the judge, the DA, the whole courtroom. will fill in the details tomorrow. it was great. i was the only one in the courtroom when PS walked in.

m

[dref99]

hey everyone,

i just got back from LA and went to the jury selection on friday morning. i did see PS and his wifey, the judge, the DA, the whole courtroom. will fill in the details tomorrow. it was great. i was the only one in the courtroom when PS walked in.

m

Do look forward to hearing your news :) - If you were alone when PS arrived - that may be why there is no-one wanting to film the trial - did any media turn up?

[kennedy06]

Thank you Kath for the link on the links thread to the picture of PS and her arriving at the courthouse. I had seen it but didn't link to it. I'm glad you did!

He almost looks like he has developed freckles on that pictue and his hue of his hair looks sort of reddish now. Maybe it was just something with the photo. I also see he likes to wear the rubber bracelets.

JMO

[kipswife]

morning all,

so going to court was amazing. i took notes so i will rewrite them for you and add other thoughts in as i go. feel free to ask questions, maybe i will be able to answer them.

I got up early on friday morning and got a ride downtown ( about ten blocks from my hotel ) to the Stanley Moss courthouse. I go inside and take the elevator to the top floor which is only the sixth floor. After wandering around the sixth, fifth, and fourth floor, i finally found someone to ask and was told i was in the wrong courthouse. GREAT....i needed to go outside and over two blocks. cool...i can do that, good thing i got there by 8:30 so i had time.
I get to the criminal courthouse and so through sercurity, find the elevator with a hundred other people and take it to the 9th floor. there is another sercurity checkpoint on the 9th floor and the guards there are very helpful. they point me to Judge Filder courtroom. I am so excited. as i go down the hallway, i see about 100 or so perspective jurors. many different types of people, all ages, sizes, race. it was quite a selection of the population of LA. I am now standing in front of the courtroom of the Honorable Judge Larry Paul Fidler. I open the door and go in. WOW. room holds about 80 people, seems larger on TV. there are 2 other people in the gallery, who have other business with the court before juror selection starts. it is about 9:15 now. we are suppose to start about 10 am.
there are four rows of seats and i am sitting at the end of the third row so when PS walks in, he will have to walk within 3 feet of me. so will everyone else for that matter. so i sit now and wait. there is the judge's bench up there. this really is great. i see a different chair up at the defense table....didnt PS have a special type of chair?
someone just brought in a huge stack of papers....atleast 15 inches tall. I hear them say that they are the questions for the panel. just the first panel. i see a box of questions on the outside table and sneak a peak at them. pretty general questions....didnt get to look at them for long. should have taken one. people in the courtroom now are the baliff, who is a big fellow, the court clerk who is named wendy and the stenograhper who's forearm is covered with a tattoo.
I see the judge...he just walked out to sign some papers. he is quite handsome...but i do have a thing for a shiny head. he signed some papers and went back to chambers. i justed walked out to the little girls room and the hallway is now packed with people,
judge is now on the bench for another matter. takes two minutes and the only other person in the gallery is now leaving. i am now sitting alone here. no PS yet, no AJ yet. it is now 9:45. just heard the clerk say that they expect the trial to be over by late Jan.

Ladies and Gentlemen............PS has just walked into the courtroom with two bodyguards and the wifey. he is walking right towards me, he has to turn next to me. i am the only person in the room. when he looked at me it was like he was either trying to figure out if he had seem me before or knew me. i never took my eyes away from his. his expression is blank. he is a strange looking guy. not much taller than me and i am only 5'3" on a tall day. he is dressed in a dark suit (very nice one) with a bright white shirt and a white silk tie. great two tone shoes. wifey sits in the front row across from my section. not much to say about her....will leave it at that for now. wifey ask PS if he would like some coffee, he answered with a raspy voice. wifey and bodyguard leave room to go get coffee. PS's lawyers arrive...dont recognize anyone of them. two women and one man. maybe one of the women is jury selection person.
So now i am just sitting here and PS is just feet from me....why, why did Lana go home with him. he is soooooo creepy, even when he smiles. i am still the only person in the gallery. PS stares at me and I dont look away. no way will i look away from this creep...he doesnt scare me. he is pityfull, really. PS sits slumped in his chair, his arms are hanging down the outside of the chair, shoulders slumped too. His chair is actually facing me, so if he looks up I am what he sees. I am always looking at him, just so he knows he is a freak show to watch.

got to take rest from typing.....will take a five minute break

stay tune

[kennedy06]

Looking forward to part 2! What you didn't ask him for his autograph:D

[tartangirl]

Listening to Trutv in the room behind me as I type away here, I heard the voices of some of the jurors from the Simpson case talking. Those words and voices got me to thinking about this media coverage conversation...again.

After looking at some other documents today, I wonder if knowing that you might be involved in a trial that will have media attention could sway you from being completely available for that jury? Does knowing that this case will garner attention the world over somehow hamper the dedication of the most ardent jury prospect? I know my answer of course, but I am not there and not being considered for the jury. I certainly hope that it would not keep anyone from doing their civic duty in this instance.

Maybe after the jury is decided, we will have a better look at what will be done in the way of media coverage for this trial.

Hard to believe that 50 news groups were clamoring for space for PS1 and none or only one are considering it newsworthy this time around.

Just a random thought on a Monday ...

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

[tartangirl]

Oh yeah....good stuff and I love your style....just the nitty gritty stuff....I'm glued to the chair.

Here have a ..:rose:...you deserve one..for the stare and the "not easily intimidated attitude" I am the same way. I would love to stare into those eyes and think of Lana all the while I did it.


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

[kipswife]

Alan Jackson just walked in....wow....wow....wow...talk about good looking. his new assistant DA is with him. AJ is really handsome.
wifey just returned with PS's cup of coffee, which is almost as big as he is. wifey just said something about how when she goes to the gym, people think she is a cop because she is hanging out with cops/sercurity so much she now takes on their behaviors.....whatever.
PS is now talking about the VP debate last nite with his lawyers. he is saying how he should answers questions like Palin did. he is being very aminated right now. talking about how he should answer whatever is asked by talking about something totally different from the questions. talk about his carreer or such. i would bet my money that he is voting for Obama...that could change my vote (just kidding). wifey has a nasty laugh.
just got informed by the court staff that there may not be any public seats when the jury comes in because there are so many of them. cant stand in the entrance. i dont want to leave....damn it.
PS is now up talking to his wife but his voice is so raspy i cant make out what he is saying ...... and i am really trying to hear it.
jurors are now coming in...i have been told that the most important part of this selection is to make sure the jurors stay anatomist. they dont want anyone to be identifed....do they do that for all LA jurys, I wonder.
I just got kicked out because there were not enough seats.....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. the bodyguards are in the hallway too. doesnt look like i will be getting back in this morning and i have other things i would like to do this afternoon.
this was so worth doing, I just cant tell you guys how fun it was.
PS is not the first killer i have ever seen....went to susan polks trial everyday. saw ed kemper in (santa cruz killer) prison once. PS takes the cake though....he is creeper than either of them and kemper killed like five women and his mother.

that is all i have about my trip to court. i wish i were better able to express the how it felt to be there and be part of the process, even a tiny bit. i know that you guys understand. so glad i have some people to share this with.....hubby thinks i am goofy at times with trials but he loves me anyway.

m

[tartangirl]

Kipswife you did great and I am really glad that you enjoyed the experience so much. Maybe we will have other posters stop in during the trial. Such an important trial for so many reasons, we surely deserve a closer look than a few blogs here and there. You did that for us...;) It only made me want more ...but that is me I guess..

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

[kennedy06]

Thanks for taking the time to share with us kipswife! Your posting was greatly appreciated and well done.:seeya:

[True2Blues]

Thanks Kipswife for posting your experience. Good job!

[KathR]

Alan Jackson just walked in....wow....wow....wow...talk about good looking. his new assistant DA is with him. AJ is really handsome................

.....hubby thinks i am goofy at times with trials but he loves me anyway.

m


Thank you so much for the great insider account. It is just the kind of stuff I love to read. The gossip. You are a great reporter. Hope you will be there for a good while and can report back to us again.

[GPSpector]

To: Kipswife,

Thank you very much for the update. I appreciated it very much:).

[kennedy06]

Kipswife, did you notice did his hand still shake at times? We have read about his wife holding onto him when he would walk into the courtroom previously. I'm not saying that he is but, did he look as unsteady as some had seem to give the impression of him in previous articles or reports?

Thanks

JMO

[CatBallou]

Can anyone tell me when Specter trial start?
Thx

Apparently jury selection has started:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hc3i0Dpchi1urZANymg8GNcrBunw

Seventy-five other prospective jurors were due in court later Thursday, with another 150 expected on Friday.

Questioning of jurors will take place at Los Angeles Superior Court from October 14 before opening statements later in the month.

[kipswife]

Kipswife, did you notice did his hand still shake at times? We have read about his wife holding onto him when he would walk into the courtroom previously. I'm not saying that he is but, did he look as unsteady as some had seem to give the impression of him in previous articles or reports?

Thanks

JMO

yea, kennedy06, i did notice his hands shaking but he was pretty steady on his feet. he walked in without assistance and also got up and down from the chair when he went and talked with wifey. he wasnt shaking enough for it to stand out to the casual observer.
once again, it was soooo cool being there.

m

[Jayne]

Thanks for taking the time to share with us kipswife! Your posting was greatly appreciated and well done.:seeya:

DITTO..please Kipswife...read my response to you on the other thread (the televise one...) I mean it wholeheartedly..but didn't want to "double post"..I write enough as it is! LOL

J

[dref99]

Kips wife

Thanx from me too.....


And thanks from me too - much appreciated :)

[spydernweb2006]

Thank you sooo much Kipswife!

Awesome reporting!

I am very suspicious of the hand shaking, in PS1 he looked like he was doing St Vida's dance but you reported it wasnt that noticable.... hmmmm

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[bearwds]

Kipswife....

You did a yeoman's job of your impressions. A hearty thank you.

A pox upon TruTV. This is like tearing out the last page in a mystery novel.

I'll make a deal. Fire Jamie Floyd and with money saved, stream trial. Talk about killing 2 birds with one stone. The old win/win.

I'm sure the racist could find all the wrongly convicted thugs in South Central that would love to have her as a defender. Heck she would be in heaven.

Still hoping KTLA or L.E. will pick up at last moment.


bearwds

[Texas48]

Streamlined possibly but, I would think PS would allow nothing less than a vigorous defense of him by his new attorney DW. While the very first jury vote last time didn't really fair well for either side, the last jury vote was just 2 short of him receiving a prison sentence. If I understand correctly AJ will have a new attorney at his side (don't quote me!) T. Do, so while there maybe the same witnesses and evidence to examine for the most part, it will be done with a couple of new fresh energized attorneys with their own style and ideas.

Another way of looking at it is AJ was 2 votes short of winning that case. He was so close in the end to winning that case for the state. He basically took on a table of how many present in the courtroom defense attorney. While he had had the help of PD and help behind the scenes I realize, he was pretty amazing to watch and I expect nothing less from him this time. So streamlined maybe but, I think it will be as intense as the first trial. JMO Good morning all..ITA w/your post and a good one it is. I watched every second of this trial and can you that as many cases I have followed/watched I must say...AJ was/is the best I have ever seen. It was such a learning experience to watch him. I have watched several since then but have to say I have not seen like him. I honestly believe he will be more INTENSE this time around. Have waited a year for this. jmo

[Texas48]

I have felt the same way. While saddened by the loss of CourtTV, I have hope somewhere in this glass half full attitude of mine that we will be able to see the Spector trial this second time around. I am not talking bits and pieces, I have faith the whole trial will be brought to us. No evidence of this mind you, just blind faith.:)

From reading here and there it is very obvious that Alan Jackson will have his able hands full this next year with PS2 and the case of Kazuyoshi Miura. I, like many others, would love to be able to see how he uses his skills and great mind to handle both these intense and very interesting cases at the same time.

My interest in the Spector case has deepened as time has passed. It has not wavered or diminished in any way. Many people want to see this trial again and to see this case to the justice it so deserves.

I just keep on keepin' on with the emails and letters and maybe someone will step up to make it all possible...gotta have hope ;)
~ as always, my opinion, Justice for Lana and those who love her ~

GREAT POST and ITA.:beer:

[Texas48]

and if they won't pay for a trial like spector.......does that mean we won't really see anymore BIG cases? i have to tell you i'm heart broken we won't see this trial. i've waited a whole year for this one.......

At this point i have a feeling there will never be Justice for Lana. :( You are right on Fallen Angel. I never missed one day of the trial last year (thanks to tivo) then the mistrial. As for myself and I know for many many people/followers have waited a year for the 2nd trial and now it will not be televised. I think you are also correct that the BIG CASES will not be shown. jmo

[north-eh]

Thank you Kipswife!:seeya:
That was great work, you certainly had my attention, I love details, You rock!
N

[Texas48]

morning all,

so going to court was amazing. i took notes so i will rewrite them for you and add other thoughts in as i go. feel free to ask questions, maybe i will be able to answer them.

I got up early on friday morning and got a ride downtown ( about ten blocks from my hotel ) to the Stanley Moss courthouse. I go inside and take the elevator to the top floor which is only the sixth floor. After wandering around the sixth, fifth, and fourth floor, i finally found someone to ask and was told i was in the wrong courthouse. GREAT....i needed to go outside and over two blocks. cool...i can do that, good thing i got there by 8:30 so i had time.
I get to the criminal courthouse and so through sercurity, find the elevator with a hundred other people and take it to the 9th floor. there is another sercurity checkpoint on the 9th floor and the guards there are very helpful. they point me to Judge Filder courtroom. I am so excited. as i go down the hallway, i see about 100 or so perspective jurors. many different types of people, all ages, sizes, race. it was quite a selection of the population of LA. I am now standing in front of the courtroom of the Honorable Judge Larry Paul Fidler. I open the door and go in. WOW. room holds about 80 people, seems larger on TV. there are 2 other people in the gallery, who have other business with the court before juror selection starts. it is about 9:15 now. we are suppose to start about 10 am.
there are four rows of seats and i am sitting at the end of the third row so when PS walks in, he will have to walk within 3 feet of me. so will everyone else for that matter. so i sit now and wait. there is the judge's bench up there. this really is great. i see a different chair up at the defense table....didnt PS have a special type of chair?
someone just brought in a huge stack of papers....atleast 15 inches tall. I hear them say that they are the questions for the panel. just the first panel. i see a box of questions on the outside table and sneak a peak at them. pretty general questions....didnt get to look at them for long. should have taken one. people in the courtroom now are the baliff, who is a big fellow, the court clerk who is named wendy and the stenograhper who's forearm is covered with a tattoo.
I see the judge...he just walked out to sign some papers. he is quite handsome...but i do have a thing for a shiny head. he signed some papers and went back to chambers. i justed walked out to the little girls room and the hallway is now packed with people,
judge is now on the bench for another matter. takes two minutes and the only other person in the gallery is now leaving. i am now sitting alone here. no PS yet, no AJ yet. it is now 9:45. just heard the clerk say that they expect the trial to be over by late Jan.

Ladies and Gentlemen............PS has just walked into the courtroom with two bodyguards and the wifey. he is walking right towards me, he has to turn next to me. i am the only person in the room. when he looked at me it was like he was either trying to figure out if he had seem me before or knew me. i never took my eyes away from his. his expression is blank. he is a strange looking guy. not much taller than me and i am only 5'3" on a tall day. he is dressed in a dark suit (very nice one) with a bright white shirt and a white silk tie. great two tone shoes. wifey sits in the front row across from my section. not much to say about her....will leave it at that for now. wifey ask PS if he would like some coffee, he answered with a raspy voice. wifey and bodyguard leave room to go get coffee. PS's lawyers arrive...dont recognize anyone of them. two women and one man. maybe one of the women is jury selection person.
So now i am just sitting here and PS is just feet from me....why, why did Lana go home with him. he is soooooo creepy, even when he smiles. i am still the only person in the gallery. PS stares at me and I dont look away. no way will i look away from this creep...he doesnt scare me. he is pityfull, really. PS sits slumped in his chair, his arms are hanging down the outside of the chair, shoulders slumped too. His chair is actually facing me, so if he looks up I am what he sees. I am always looking at him, just so he knows he is a freak show to watch.

got to take rest from typing.....will take a five minute break

stay tune OMG...don't leave. This is sooooo good. Almost like being right there. You are too good.

[Texas48]

TY so very much Kipswife. It was so great of you to share with us. You are very much appreciated..please know that.

[Pooh]

Hey - does anyone know if they took the KTLA message boards down? I was trying to go over there to see if there was any update on whether Marta and Loni were going to cover this case and I couldn't get there. Has anyone else been able to access that message board?

[JConnolly]

Thank you so much Kipswife! Great reporting! I agree with NavyMom, I can do without the fashion reports as well. LOL. Just the facts mamn, just the facts! (Sprinkled with a bit of editorial license of course, like your amazing ability to make us all feel like we were "there" with ya!)

GOOD JOB. Hope to hear more about it all from YOU. :) You have class!

[ohjalapeno]

OMFG....no coverage of PS2! How depressing. They got us emotionally invested in this trial and now wont cover it. Not a great way to treat your viewers. Oh....Hi to all and I have really missed being on this board. Thanks kipswife for coverage of jury selection. I was hanging on every word. Anyone have any suggestions as to how we could get trutv to cover this? :shrug: Hugs to all.....

[Fallen Angel]

OMFG....no coverage of PS2! How depressing. They got us emotionally invested in this trial and now wont cover it. Not a great way to treat your viewers. Oh....Hi to all and I have really missed being on this board. Thanks kipswife for coverage of jury selection. I was hanging on every word. Anyone have any suggestions as to how we could get trutv to cover this? :shrug: Hugs to all.....
i've called and emailed everyone i can think of. maybe i can throw a temper tantrum as i recall i was good at that as a child lol......

NO SERIOUSLY why is TruTv NOT showing this? :flamemad:

[kennedy06]

Hey - does anyone know if they took the KTLA message boards down? I was trying to go over there to see if there was any update on whether Marta and Loni were going to cover this case and I couldn't get there. Has anyone else been able to access that message board?

I began to read that board during this last OJ trial. I happen to look over there not to long ago and when I clicked it nothing appeared. I wonder if it only is up when there is trial coverage?

I still am hoping for The Legal Edge to step in and cover PS2. Under his video box there is a statement about keeping an eye out for the next announcement of gavel to gavel trial coverage. I hope it will be PS2. I guess if he gets enough requests who knows!

http://www.thelegaledge.com/index.php?livecover

JMO

[kennedy06]

Is there link to see the new jury questionaire for this next trial? Thanks

JMO

[KathR]

I began to read that board during this last OJ trial. I happen to look over there not to long ago and when I clicked it nothing appeared. I wonder if it only is up when there is trial coverage?

I still am hoping for The Legal Edge to step in and cover PS2. Under his video box there is a statement about keeping an eye out for the next announcement of gavel to gavel trial coverage. I hope it will be PS2. I guess if he gets enough requests who knows!

http://www.thelegaledge.com/index.php?livecover

JMO

I didn't know thelegaledge.com televised trials. How nice.

I tried to register with them. Can't read the security code. How annoying.

I have filled out that form about 20 times. Each time you put in the wrong code, the form comes back with an error and blank!

How do you make requests to them?

[cherylt]

I began to read that board during this last OJ trial. I happen to look over there not to long ago and when I clicked it nothing appeared. I wonder if it only is up when there is trial coverage?

I still am hoping for The Legal Edge to step in and cover PS2. Under his video box there is a statement about keeping an eye out for the next announcement of gavel to gavel trial coverage. I hope it will be PS2. I guess if he gets enough requests who knows!

http://www.thelegaledge.com/index.php?livecover

JMO


Yes, everyone should BOMBARD Thelegaledge with emails letting them
know we want and need them to cover this. I already send a couple requests. If everyone on hear sends at least one email to them, maybe we can get it covered. At least, I hope so. So let's all try!
:patriot: (oh, I and I also got a 5 people to sign the petition on the links page). Maybe if we each get at least 5 added, that may help to..

[cherylt]

I didn't know thelegaledge.com televised trials. How nice.

I tried to register with them. Can't read the security code. How annoying.

I have filled out that form about 20 times. Each time you put in the wrong code, the form comes back with an error and blank!

How do you make requests to them?

email to cs@thelegaledge.com

[KathR]

email to cs@thelegaledge.com

Thanks. I have written them. No answer yet.

I'll try getting friends to sign the petition too.

[cherylt]

morning all,

so going to court was amazing. i took notes so i will rewrite them for you and add other thoughts in as i go. feel free to ask questions, maybe i will be able to answer them.

I got up early on friday morning and got a ride downtown ( about ten blocks from my hotel ) to the Stanley Moss courthouse. I go inside and take the elevator to the top floor which is only the sixth floor. After wandering around the sixth, fifth, and fourth floor, i finally found someone to ask and was told i was in the wrong courthouse. GREAT....i needed to go outside and over two blocks. cool...i can do that, good thing i got there by 8:30 so i had time.
I get to the criminal courthouse and so through sercurity, find the elevator with a hundred other people and take it to the 9th floor. there is another sercurity checkpoint on the 9th floor and the guards there are very helpful. they point me to Judge Filder courtroom. I am so excited. as i go down the hallway, i see about 100 or so perspective jurors. many different types of people, all ages, sizes, race. it was quite a selection of the population of LA. I am now standing in front of the courtroom of the Honorable Judge Larry Paul Fidler. I open the door and go in. WOW. room holds about 80 people, seems larger on TV. there are 2 other people in the gallery, who have other business with the court before juror selection starts. it is about 9:15 now. we are suppose to start about 10 am.
there are four rows of seats and i am sitting at the end of the third row so when PS walks in, he will have to walk within 3 feet of me. so will everyone else for that matter. so i sit now and wait. there is the judge's bench up there. this really is great. i see a different chair up at the defense table....didnt PS have a special type of chair?
someone just brought in a huge stack of papers....atleast 15 inches tall. I hear them say that they are the questions for the panel. just the first panel. i see a box of questions on the outside table and sneak a peak at them. pretty general questions....didnt get to look at them for long. should have taken one. people in the courtroom now are the baliff, who is a big fellow, the court clerk who is named wendy and the stenograhper who's forearm is covered with a tattoo.
I see the judge...he just walked out to sign some papers. he is quite handsome...but i do have a thing for a shiny head. he signed some papers and went back to chambers. i justed walked out to the little girls room and the hallway is now packed with people,
judge is now on the bench for another matter. takes two minutes and the only other person in the gallery is now leaving. i am now sitting alone here. no PS yet, no AJ yet. it is now 9:45. just heard the clerk say that they expect the trial to be over by late Jan.

Ladies and Gentlemen............PS has just walked into the courtroom with two bodyguards and the wifey. he is walking right towards me, he has to turn next to me. i am the only person in the room. when he looked at me it was like he was either trying to figure out if he had seem me before or knew me. i never took my eyes away from his. his expression is blank. he is a strange looking guy. not much taller than me and i am only 5'3" on a tall day. he is dressed in a dark suit (very nice one) with a bright white shirt and a white silk tie. great two tone shoes. wifey sits in the front row across from my section. not much to say about her....will leave it at that for now. wifey ask PS if he would like some coffee, he answered with a raspy voice. wifey and bodyguard leave room to go get coffee. PS's lawyers arrive...dont recognize anyone of them. two women and one man. maybe one of the women is jury selection person.
So now i am just sitting here and PS is just feet from me....why, why did Lana go home with him. he is soooooo creepy, even when he smiles. i am still the only person in the gallery. PS stares at me and I dont look away. no way will i look away from this creep...he doesnt scare me. he is pityfull, really. PS sits slumped in his chair, his arms are hanging down the outside of the chair, shoulders slumped too. His chair is actually facing me, so if he looks up I am what he sees. I am always looking at him, just so he knows he is a freak show to watch.

got to take rest from typing.....will take a five minute break

stay tune


Thank you soooo much for sharing your experience with us! That must have been really cool, staring down PS! You go, girl!!! Woooh, hooooh!

Are you going to write a 2nd installment? We would love to hear more.... Like how long you were alone w/ Phil, who is DW (his new atty's name), etc... Were there other trial watchers like you that showed up? Any media?

Again thanks for sharing! Hope you can let us know a litle bit more
Have a great night!!!:seeya:

[kipswife]

I was in the elevator with Phil last year. I can't say that I was totally creeped out or anything. I did get some cool pictures though.

i was wondering if he rode up with everyone else or if the big bodyguards would try to muscle out the public which would piss that public off. alot of people use the elevators
what did you notice about him?

m

[Jayne]

Well.. the bodyguards and Chelle were in the elevator also. I just happened to get on the same elevator. I noticed his suit and that it was very nice. I was jealous of his high heel shoes. In his car, I noticed he has a devil air freshener hanging from the mirror.

You are too funny, Scooby! (the shoes!! and the air freshener). What IS he thinking sometimes? I don't mean the shoes..I'd be a bit envious too..since I can't wear heels anymore! Devil Air Freshener? Why not an Angel one? Gheesh...I'd think he'd have a guitar or keyboard one..or be mass marketing them. Or one in the likeness of Chelle? Really...a Breath of Fresh Air brand in honour of his wife.

Wish I could get down there, but not so sure at this point, except maybe in late November or December..but likely when court is "out"..holidays..bummer. Am trying to "plead" for a day off, to no avail, so far, and would rather wait until the actual trial starts.

Kipswife...again..what a great post..thanks for sharing..do you have more?

jmo
J

[KathR]

OMFG....no coverage of PS2! How depressing. They got us emotionally invested in this trial and now wont cover it. Not a great way to treat your viewers. Oh....Hi to all and I have really missed being on this board. Thanks kipswife for coverage of jury selection. I was hanging on every word. Anyone have any suggestions as to how we could get trutv to cover this? :shrug: Hugs to all.....

They won't cover it. I don't think they intend to cover any new trials, just rerun tapes of old trials.

Has anyone figured out what that network is about? Why do they bother to give any trial coverage any more? Do they qualify as public service? It makes no sense that it would be economically attractive to show trials for 6 hours a day and reruns for the rest of the day? So, why the split focus?

I'd rather they just go away and business of televising trials up to who ever can take it. They are only getting in the way now.

[Velouria]

In his car, I noticed he has a devil air freshener hanging from the mirror.

LOL

So did you get a picture of it?

[kipswife]

You came from the Bay Area to see jury selection?

i took my son and his friend down for the E4ALL gamers convention which just happen to fall on the day of jury selection. just worked out for me to at least see some part of the trial.


m

[tartangirl]

Good Morning All,

I have just finished reading this at Michel Bryant's thelegaledge blog.

It is not promising, actually it is depressing. As he states, I hope we have made the right decision....I know that they have not. Will post on the links thread too...:confused:

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=36

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

[Spectorfan8]

Good Morning All,

I have just finished reading this at Michel Bryant's thelegaledge blog.

It is not promising, actually it is depressing. As he states, I hope we have made the right decision....I know that they have not. Will post on the links thread too...:confused:

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=36

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


Tartangirl,

You are right, it is depressing. I, like all of you have been waiting for this trial for a year. I may be a "Spectorfan", I still want to see the trial. Everyone thought OJ was some big deal, please. I have to say that more people would be more intrested in seeing Spector. jmo

[kennedy06]

Good Morning All,

I have just finished reading this at Michel Bryant's thelegaledge blog.

It is not promising, actually it is depressing. As he states, I hope we have made the right decision....I know that they have not. Will post on the links thread too...:confused:

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=36

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


So was he the pay per view?? How were we suppose to know that? Well good for him, any trial he can bring us IS can too:shrug:
I had high hopes for him and his website, I have been let down now.

Well I've come to far to turn my back on the PS trial. This is the one big case I will most likely ever follow so closely again because of real life and time. So between those of us the few the determined posters, we will keep each other informed and deal with what info we can find. We have been reminded twice that we may see SOME of it on IS. So lets just wait and see.:)

Thanks Tartangirl for this link and info and for the link to the jury questionaire!



JMO

[FrankieBones1]

I was in the elevator with Phil last year. I can't say that I was totally creeped out or anything. I did get some cool pictures though.

The only pic I saw that you took was an awful one of a blogger. I would like to see the ones of Phil if you still have them.

[KathR]

Good Morning All,

I have just finished reading this at Michel Bryant's thelegaledge blog.

It is not promising, actually it is depressing. As he states, I hope we have made the right decision....I know that they have not. Will post on the links thread too...:confused:

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=36

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


Depressing just doesn't say it strongly enough. I am angry. I won't be putting out any money to join The Legal Edge in the near future. I don't like their trial selection process or advertising technicques at all. Why haven't they let people know that they are even in the business before this.

[tartangirl]

This recent little piece of news has not influenced my desire for the trial to be completely covered by the media. We have been told we will see some, parts and various areas of the trial. I can go with that for now. Possibly more will be added as the trial moves forward. You all know how I feel about hope..it floats..;)

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

[NYGalPal]

I was in the elevator with Phil last year. I can't say that I was totally creeped out or anything. I did get some cool pictures though.

Can you post those pictures?

[Auburngirl]

NOOO!! I just read that the retrial won't be televised. Had to re-register and was anticipating the new trial so much. Bummer!

[bearwds]

I would be willing to pay.

Let me run this out....

Estimated production costs...$30k a month.
Estimated length of re-trial...3 months
Estimated cost of total trial..$90k.

Divided by subscribers at $100 for trial, 900 subscribers needed.

I realize that is a lot of money for some folks, but for others it would be a choice in discretionary income.

A little more than a buck a day. I would forgo a Starbucks to have gavel to gavel coverage.

Transmission would have to be scrambled somehow so that product of their labor wouldn't be ripped on venue like YouTube.

I realize that this would have limited retail value but being a "Maverick" venue like LegalEdge, they should try it for public notice, if nothing else. How about "public good"..??


bearwds

[kennedy06]

May I say one final thing on the LE, if he was considering pay per view it would have been nice if he would have mentioned it on his website.:punch:

Now I will continue on and post some older links about PS to refresh our memories some. I think there maybe still some intersest .:tongue:

JMO

[Spectorfan8]

May I say one final thing on the LE, if he was considering pay per view it would have been nice if he would have mentioned it on his website.:punch:

Now I will continue on and post some older links about PS to refresh our memories some. I think there maybe still some intersest .:tongue:

JMO

I will still be around. Surely, some of our posters will have some news to share. It was great last year with all of posting together, guilty or not. Sure, we are still interested in PS.
The Legal Edge is a real disappointment, jmo.
Anything that I find, I will bring here and post. I'm sure alot more posters will too.:seeya:

[cherylt]

May I say one final thing on the LE, if he was considering pay per view it would have been nice if he would have mentioned it on his website.:punch:

Now I will continue on and post some older links about PS to refresh our memories some. I think there maybe still some intersest .:tongue:

JMO

It sounds like there was a small group of people interested in PS in the beginning. And that small group is us!!Even though WE WERE TOTALLY into it, alas, the rest of the world I guess wasn't. Maybe because a lot of people haven't even heard of him (I hadn't but it didn't matter to me), or maybe he was just a washed up has been & people really didn't care.... Either way it stinks for us, but as long as we post all the latest info we can find, we'll get through this together.
Geez, I'm starting to sounds like we all need to be in a support group due to this trama!

[tartangirl]

We do support each other on these message boards. Questions asked, answers shared, links to other sources of information....that is what we do when we are not discussing or offering up new theories about the Phil Spector mistrial and PS2.

I can not ever see that coming to a halt any time soon. WE all have a common interest or two in this case. Truth, fairness or JUSTICE we all have our own reasons for wanting to see this story and tragic event played out to the end.

So call us what you will...I like it and I'm staying.... and I'm not giving up on what we all want either. Gavel to gavel coverage of this intense and highly interesting PS2 trial.;)

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

[Daisy'sMom]

It appears my prediction of several weeks back was right on. I am surprised that posters are surprised that there won't be any coverage. I suspect the guilty posse brought it on themselves. Very few of them could ever post any facts germane to the case. Many only posted their disgust and disdain for the defendant, his witnesses and his atty's. When they tired of that they turned their visceral comments towards other posters. As you well know, any statement of FACT about LC was considered bashing. They would completely ignore the STATEMENT OF FACT and go on the attack against the person providing it. It was their way or the highway. Perhaps the next trial they watch will be viewed with more opened mindedness, and not jump to wild and bizarre comments. In other words listen to both sides before jumping to conclusions. It's the only fair thing to do.:patriot:


I have to say you are way off base!:no:

[emsdallas]

It is absolutely amazing that TruTV/In Session do not have plans to televise the retrial!!!!

Bring back the old Court TV!!

Is there an official statement from TruTV/CNN why they are not planning coverage? Maybe offer it streaming online!!

BTW-I really miss Catherine Crier!

:flamemad:

[Jayne]

I have to say you are way off base!:no:

IN all fairness..I don't think Searching is all that way off base..but maybe missing a few integral points...and that's nothing against him or her.

If the media is going to come to these forums and decide who they are going to align with..according to posts...SURE...they'll see more Pro Guilty. If they want to oppose that..they'll televise it..if not..they won't? Does that mean the Guilty posters should be reprimanded and denied coverage? Or does it mean the media figures..it's a slam dunk case..and they won't bother? Either way...I do get Searching's point.

However..if the media is that blindsided, they haven't got a clue..and they should perhaps be RUNNING at the opportunity to prove those "guilty" people wrong? It can go either way...depending on the chutzpah of the media entity and whether they think it's worth it or not. Too bad..because I think many people here G or NG would love the coverage. But..I may be wrong in that.

[Daisy'sMom]

It is absolutely amazing that TruTV/In Session do not have plans to televise the retrial!!!!

Bring back the old Court TV!!

Is there an official statement from TruTV/CNN why they are not planning coverage? Maybe offer it streaming online!!

BTW-I really miss Catherine Crier!

:flamemad:

I am so angry that TruTV will not cover the trial. I never missed a day. Bring back Court TV!!!:flamemad:

[kennedy06]

It appears my prediction of several weeks back was right on. I am surprised that posters are surprised that there won't be any coverage. I suspect the guilty posse brought it on themselves. Very few of them could ever post any facts germane to the case. Many only posted their disgust and disdain for the defendant, his witnesses and his atty's. When they tired of that they turned their visceral comments towards other posters. As you well know, any statement of FACT about LC was considered bashing. They would completely ignore the STATEMENT OF FACT and go on the attack against the person providing it. It was their way or the highway. Perhaps the next trial they watch will be viewed with more opened mindedness, and not jump to wild and bizarre comments. In other words listen to both sides before jumping to conclusions. It's the only fair thing to do.:patriot:

Prediction:shrug:

You want to state your facts, please feel free but, you can't cry foul when those ideas maybe debated by others on the board. We post as adults and accept that there maybe opinions differing from ours. If you have strong enough convictions about your opinion on a piece of Spector evidence or ideas, than hopefully you are strong enough and your convictions true enough to weather a debate by others.

I must say I find your idea on the guilt or innocence expressed on a message board about Phil as a reason for the news media to cover or not cover a trial , an unusual concept.

:patriot:

JMO

[PatC]

You can color me disappointed too. I have been anxiously awaiting PS2 since I picked myself up off the floor when I heard there was a hung jury at the first trial.

As for why it will not be shown.... I read Michal Bryant's blog yesterday over on The Legal Edge. He was trying to find a way to televise the PS2 trial. One of the reasons he gave for not televising it was:

* "Ratings at CTV proved not enough people watched the first version of the Spector case."

Personally I find that REALLY hard to believe, but CTV ratings may well have been plummeting, but IMO it was because CTV was tanking, NOT because the trial was not being watched.

Also, the fact that it was a West Coast trial threw it later in the day... I can't remember, is that one of those West Coast trials that CTV cut us off before the end of the trial day? :cuss:

He did tell me that "...KTLA is planning on minimal coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict".

I swear, if I had the money, I'd travel out there in order to see this trial!

[Roux]

ITA Pat. All these media outlets are claiming there isn't interest and I just find that hard to believe. I watched Spector 1 streaming from KTLA because of the many commercials and short period of live coverage on CTV. In fact, nowdays I hardly ever turn on TruTV.

[kennedy06]

I wonder what many of you have problems with or feelings on certain ideas and evidence.

I have a problem with the gun being wiped down, why wipe it down? That bothers me. Why go upstairs to change why not stand by the door and wait for the authorities to arrive after he talked to AD?

JMO

[Jayne]

I wonder what many of you have problems with or feelings on certain ideas and evidence.

I have a problem with the gun being wiped down, why wipe it down? That bothers me. Why go upstairs to change why not stand by the door and wait for the authorities to arrive after he talked to AD?

JMO

MY dear friend/poster: (I'm home sick..really...but have the laptop onboard!)

Who would have a problem with the gun wiped down? Prosecution? Defense? I'd think the defense would have more of a problem with that..hence the "good samaritan thing"..running to her rescue (hence my post about LKB's thing that PS was Running towards her to get the blood on the jacket..or..on the other hand as LKB said (IIRC) was that the jacket was hanging somewhere (WHERE..from the ceiling? certainly not on the staircase..she wasn't pointing in that direction..duh?!)

What any sensible person would have done is call 911 PRONTO..if someone shot herself in his house...NOT touch the gun...do nothing..but if going outside to the driver..to tell him to call 911 also and perhaps come inside as a WITNESS? No wiping of the gun or the face or anything..IMMEDIATELY call 911 and GET A WITNESS. And SIT OUTSIDE on your doorstep..with a witness (the driver) until the police arrive..that would have exonerated him or at least given him an "I wasn't involved" first appearance. (An aside...and I should say this perhaps...but from my own experience here..I find the LE to be a bit "wishy washy" even in the districts that aren't Hollywood...they don't want to get Involved...they claim Jurisdiction.. but THERE was a dead woman in a house not her own. IN a bodunk community...things would have been handled a lot differently...If PS were sitting on the steps and not trying to avoid LE intervention...he'd be perhaps "suspect" but on "notice"...were he inside the house..trying to avoid the LE getting inside..he'd be french toast.

Phil..I think (but I may be wrong) didn't want any witnesses to anything..he walked outside..said what he did..went back inside and closed the door. The driver was probably beside himself with that "I think I shot/killed someone" (sorry...I don't remember the exact words recorded in court) and he wouldn't venture inside that house. under those circumstances..would he? Then Phil went about "cleaning up the evidence"...whether he was guilty or not..he made a BIG mistake, IMO. That is only going to GO AGAINST HIM..no matter what LKB said last time or the powers to be says this time. You do NOT clean up a crime scene IF YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Spector is no idiot...he KNOWS that..he had plenty of police friends (remember his tirade about Owning (or some such language) the cops?) I think maybe a little bit of information and knowledge may turn out to be destructrive to him..he had friends in the "business"..so he figured he knew how to "clean up a crime"? Believe me..I've seen it: armchair lawyers and such who think they can "make their case" before they've ever met with a lawyer and gone to court and they totally screw it up.

Other real problems I have..and I don't see why the jury didn't get it..but I can't remember if it was put into evidence: the packs of bullets..that were the same that were in the gun that killed Lana..the rubber gloves...the holster in that drawer that would fit that gun..the media witness..NOT in court..who said PS took her out to dinner but had a gun in the trunk of his car..what's up with that..why wasn't she subpoenaed?

1103...I spent some time last night going over that..his friend Ronnie could be subpoenaed..she's a witness to his prior acts that definitely align with what happened with Lana Clarkson...perhaps in his favour..but perhaps not. What woman would go to have drinks and dinner with a man who says he has a gun in the trunk of his car? Some...but I don't think Lana Clarkson would have. I understand why the prosecution would "stay away" from her/Ronnie..she'd either not tell the truth or outright lie to protect her friend and she's probably the best witness..but she's one I'd call...get her up there then after the defense makes her look good..hit her with the redirect. But...I don't have enough information or details to know if that's feasible.

jmo

j

[pebblepup]

You can color me disappointed too. I have been anxiously awaiting PS2 since I picked myself up off the floor when I heard there was a hung jury at the first trial.

As for why it will not be shown.... I read Michal Bryant's blog yesterday over on The Legal Edge. He was trying to find a way to televise the PS2 trial. One of the reasons he gave for not televising it was:

* "Ratings at CTV proved not enough people watched the first version of the Spector case."

Personally I find that REALLY hard to believe, but CTV ratings may well have been plummeting, but IMO it was because CTV was tanking, NOT because the trial was not being watched.

Also, the fact that it was a West Coast trial threw it later in the day... I can't remember, is that one of those West Coast trials that CTV cut us off before the end of the trial day? :cuss:

He did tell me that "...KTLA is planning on minimal coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict".

I swear, if I had the money, I'd travel out there in order to see this trial!

I'm with you PatC! :seeya:

I was completely shocked to learn this trial wasn't going to be televised!

[NatalieB]

It appears my prediction of several weeks back was right on. I am surprised that posters are surprised that there won't be any coverage. I suspect the guilty posse brought it on themselves. Very few of them could ever post any facts germane to the case. Many only posted their disgust and disdain for the defendant, his witnesses and his atty's. When they tired of that they turned their visceral comments towards other posters. As you well know, any statement of FACT about LC was considered bashing. They would completely ignore the STATEMENT OF FACT and go on the attack against the person providing it. It was their way or the highway. Perhaps the next trial they watch will be viewed with more opened mindedness, and not jump to wild and bizarre comments. In other words listen to both sides before jumping to conclusions. It's the only fair thing to do.:patriot:

Well, bring it on then. I'll counter ANYTHING you have to say about this case. I'm sure others who know it, inside out, will as well. Your post is all for show. Where is the substance? Bring it!

[Regina.Lampert]

Well, bring it on then. I'll counter ANYTHING you have to say about this case. I'm sure others who know it, inside out, will as well. Your post is all for show. Where is the substance? Bring it!

:eek: Whoo Whee look at you, all exercised about this..............lol.

I am very disappointed that IS isn't covering this trial.

[tartangirl]

has the trial started yet? add me to the list that is disappointed it's not going to be televised! PatC...you and i could share a motel room and go out there together,lol. i also find it hard to believre that the ratings were down for the ps trial. besides the peterson trials...ps was the biggest one i've ever seen on ctv in the amoount of posters watching. i dont get it.

These message boards had to reflect the viewers that were watching CTV last year. The boards were fast and furious and full, with what? three, four threads a day? Switching to a live feed at three each day was not a problem for anyone and many will do just that again if necessary.

A friend of mine said this to me today, "Wow, I see there's another canned trial on IS. Thank Goodness they've decided not to air Spector live, once the jury is chosen. We'd miss all of these great, taped, already over and done trials." I told her I was going to post that here.

For me it just about says it all. When the media decides to show us, the people who matter, what we want maybe we will have our faith in them restored. Until then, I remain more than just a tad bit confused, upset and frustrated and I seem not to be alone in that.:rolleyes:


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

[Jayne]

So..again...maybe the media doesn't see this as a BIG CASE..they think he's GUILTY already (per a few posters' opinions that may be why they wouldn't televise..like the G's caused it?). Then why bother spending thousands of dollars on a Slam Dunk? Maybe that's Good News?

PS won't get his TV in there to make him look "good"...Who really cares about the prosecution except for those who want to see AJ in action? They do it no matter what and a TV wouldn't hinder or help them no matter what.

I'm disappointed that there won't be gavel to gavel coverage..or even...week to week coverage..but if that is how it is..I will still not lose interest, but will surely be "out of the link" as to the goings on..because as much as I'd read one blogger or another, I'd rather see it or live it live to truly get a handle on what is going on in the courtroom.

Maybe...in the next few weeks we'll see coverage because PS wants it?

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

[QUOTE=NatalieB;12256021]Well, bring it on then. I'll counter ANYTHING you have to say about this case. I'm sure others who know it, inside out, will as well. Your post is all for show. Where is the substance? Bring it![/QUOTE;BROUGHT IT! Res ipsa loquitur. A legal term in Latin which means, "the thing speaks for itself". :cool:


I thought res ipsa liqtuor was a name of one of the many drinks PS consumed that night that helped fulfill the doctrine of chances:shrug:

JMO

[Jayne]

Is anyone here going to attend the trial?
Absolutely...maybe only one or two days..whatever I can get off from work, but I WILL be there...

:)

I have a week off in December...but probably no court? Gheesh...so will have to finagle another day or two otherwise.

[kennedy06]

So..again...maybe the media doesn't see this as a BIG CASE..they think he's GUILTY already (per a few posters' opinions that may be why they wouldn't televise..like the G's caused it?). Then why bother spending thousands of dollars on a Slam Dunk? Maybe that's Good News?

PS won't get his TV in there to make him look "good"...Who really cares about the prosecution except for those who want to see AJ in action? They do it no matter what and a TV wouldn't hinder or help them no matter what.

I'm disappointed that there won't be gavel to gavel coverage..or even...week to week coverage..but if that is how it is..I will still not lose interest, but will surely be "out of the link" as to the goings on..because as much as I'd read one blogger or another, I'd rather see it or live it live to truly get a handle on what is going on in the courtroom.

Maybe...in the next few weeks we'll see coverage because PS wants it?

jmo

J

I will be back to address the finer points of your previous post but I couldn't help but quickly post on your idea because PS wants it. IIRC from the last trial wasn't it mentioned on some reports that he was upset that JF didn't allow his musical career to be mentioned?

He may have shyed away from the media but he has to realize now that it brought attention once again to his music. People heard about him and thought what did he produce and began to explore and maybe buy so the exposure can't hurt him in that one particular arena. JMO of course

[Jayne]

I will be back to address the finer points of your previous post but I couldn't help but quickly post on your idea because PS wants it. IIRC from the last trial wasn't it mentioned on some reports that he was upset that JF didn't allow his musical career to be mentioned?

He may have shyed away from the media but he has to realize now that it brought attention once again to his music. People heard about him and thought what did he produce and began to explore and maybe buy so the exposure can't hurt him in that one particular arena. JMO of course


Well..lets hear you shred apart my "finer points"! :)

I do think..no matter how much we may all or many have our shorts up in a knot over this trial coverage (or lack of it), PS will get coverage...I can't see that he'd walk into the courthouse each day with his Wife on his Arm without coverage...or that his GREAT attorneys THIS TIME would even speak a word without it being on MEDIA..not just the courtroom reporters slips.

I do not see this trial getting "underway" until November sometime..by then PS will have enough influence to get media in there...to SAVE THE DAY/HIS SKIN..or..as you said..UP his popularity, once again.

Big Boy Network (as Mortie reiterated..and he knows I know about it)...PS is or can be INDEED a big part of it...to stop it or make it happen.

I would bet anything..that if OJ had a hung jury that the media would have been ALL OVER the second trial...they certainly were on his other one, right?

I smell a "rat"...somewhere...and I wonder if it isn't PS himself (or supporters)..holding out or trying to "block it"..but why? He's a musical ICON...and so far an ICON for evading a prosecution...why not televise it? It could bring him real fame..or infamy. And, if he thinks he's gonna lose?? Who would want that on tape?

I know..I'm just blowing things in the wind...

jmo

j

[Jayne]

problem is..res ipsa...is a tort concept..

but I get the concept Searching and you are putting forth...

it isn't in criminal law...

and I don't really oppose Searching's comments and ideas...or yours, for that matter..

but let Res Ipsa lie...it doesn't apply

(Johnny Cochran ryhme applied)

If they could have used that in OJ..that glove would have been on his hand..slippery or shrunkin or not...and the gun would have been in PS's hand...out of the bureau or not.

Things do not "speak for themself" in criminal law.there is a higher burden of proof..BUT if there IS a smoking gun...then it Does Speak for itself..but that's burden of proof not Res Ipsa.

Love Res Ipsa, BTW...think it's really neat comes from Old England back in the mid 1800s I think..

Now..if we are "trying" each other as posters...perhaps that applies? dunno... But I'm putting in a demurrer...for myself and those who want to be class action posters! (just having fun...but putting out some information at the same time)

:)

J

[NatalieB]

:eek: Whoo Whee look at you, all exercised about this..............lol.

I am very disappointed that IS isn't covering this trial.

LOL, sorry all

I just found it quite offensive that someone would state that we didn't care about the facts of the case, all we were out for was revenge.

When you have Michael Baden telling a jury that LC got up and walked around after suffering an internal decapitation, or even a PARTIAL (as if) decapitation, I think it's absolutely absurd that someone would claim we were more interested in revenge than justice. Hell, Christopher Reeves didn't suffer a fraction of that type of injury and we saw how much walking he did after his tragic accident.

Vincent Di Maio? Oh dear God have mercy. Didn't he spend a day and a half trying to get thru his credentials, yet, he went with the, if someone points a gun at you, you should just twist it this way to break their finger and for this reason alone, PS COULDN'T possibly have shot LC. After all, he's done it a couple of times to save his own life.

Oh, and dare we mention the great and powerful, Henry Lee. Has he gotten any deals to make commercials for the, Post It, company yet? Or, maybe he's still trying to decide if he wants to work for Heinz or Hunts?

Did the defense present anyone that was truly credible? Yeah, aliens could have killed Lana, too, but we are talking, REASONABLE, are we not?

[True2Blues]

I'm disappointed about the lack of coverage as well. PatC, you raise an interesting point with the ratings. When Turner took over CTV and changed format, they said that they would no longer be paying any attention to daytime ratings. So that shouldn't even be weighing on their mind.

As far as no one watching the trial, I don't even know how they could say that. Neilson ratings? Those are nothing. Whoever made that statement needs to go back and check the message boards then. There were huge amounts of activity on these boards, especially when the live trial coverage was on. People watching live and sharing information as it played out. At night, it was busy as well.

Even if it is a retrial, it is still a Murder Trial. Any live murder trial beats canned, finished, past trials hands down. This isn't a continuation, it's a complete trial. Unless something really spectacular is coming up within a few weeks, it makes no sense to ignore a trial that VIEWERS have been requesting.

[NYGalPal]

I was trying to find out some info on this case. I came across this blog and I'd appreciate it if someone can clue me in on who this Cheryl Shuman is who is being accused of stalking Phil Spector. I googled the name of the accuser and the info I came up with scared me.

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2007/11/who-is-phil-spe.html

[legalmania]

So..again...maybe the media doesn't see this as a BIG CASE..they think he's GUILTY already (per a few posters' opinions that may be why they wouldn't televise..like the G's caused it?). Then why bother spending thousands of dollars on a Slam Dunk? Maybe that's Good News?

PS won't get his TV in there to make him look "good"...Who really cares about the prosecution except for those who want to see AJ in action? They do it no matter what and a TV wouldn't hinder or help them no matter what.

I'm disappointed that there won't be gavel to gavel coverage..or even...week to week coverage..but if that is how it is..I will still not lose interest, but will surely be "out of the link" as to the goings on..because as much as I'd read one blogger or another, I'd rather see it or live it live to truly get a handle on what is going on in the courtroom.

Maybe...in the next few weeks we'll see coverage because PS wants it?

jmo

J

I don't know if it's as much the media as it is sponsorship. If you can't find anybody to sponsor the case to be televised, than nobody gets paid, and they can't afford the cameras, sound and techs in general. Unfortunately without the sponsors it makes it hard to be televised.

[Spectorfan8]

I was trying to find out some info on this case. I came across this blog and I'd appreciate it if someone can clue me in on who this Cheryl Shuman is who is being accused of stalking Phil Spector. I googled the name of the accuser and the info I came up with scared me.

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2007/11/who-is-phil-spe.html

I'm not sure who she is. I went to Youtube, there used to be a video of her there, it has since been taken down. It looks like Mr. Spector had something to do with that. Sounds creepy to me.

[Spectorfan8]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6nNlO5Ie2QAx.hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdWszMGJ wBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y2NTRfMTEx/SIG=1265l71s1/EXP=1223681613/**http%3a//www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheryl_Shuman

This will tell you about her.

[DRJAN]

Okay Could some please tell me if they have ever heard of a case where somone was going to commit suicide would actually go to someone else's house and do it. Women most often commit suicide by overdose to begin with they hardly ever use guns because of the mess and their looks. I just find it mind boggling And that Mr. Spector has a history with guns waving it around to alot of people.

[kennedy06]

[QUOTE=kennedy06;12256353]Thank You!!Thank You!!!I won the bet on how long it would take you to prove the point of Searching's previous post. For you:punch:

You two were betting on me! I'm flattered:D

Actually the point I was so facetiously trying to elicit an answer to was something you both maybe intersted in as betting people. I think the odd makers of the world would love the odds that his liquor consumption that night may have been the firt act in his pattern of past behavior. The same or similar pattern he showed towards the PBA's that testified to experiencing a threat with a gun.

JMO

[Jayne]

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6nNlO5Ie2QAx.hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzdWszMGJ wBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0Y2NTRfMTEx/SIG=1265l71s1/EXP=1223681613/**http%3a//www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheryl_Shuman

This will tell you about her.

WOW..that was a read..and I thought I wrote "too much"!!!

thanks for the link, my friend!

NYC ROCKS...I think, still?!

:)

J

[kennedy06]

MY dear friend/poster: (I'm home sick..really...but have the laptop onboard!)

Who would have a problem with the gun wiped down? Prosecution? Defense? I'd think the defense would have more of a problem with that..hence the "good samaritan thing"..running to her rescue (hence my post about LKB's thing that PS was Running towards her to get the blood on the jacket..or..on the other hand as LKB said (IIRC) was that the jacket was hanging somewhere (WHERE..from the ceiling? certainly not on the staircase..she wasn't pointing in that direction..duh?!)

What any sensible person would have done is call 911 PRONTO..if someone shot herself in his house...NOT touch the gun...do nothing..but if going outside to the driver..to tell him to call 911 also and perhaps come inside as a WITNESS? No wiping of the gun or the face or anything..IMMEDIATELY call 911 and GET A WITNESS. And SIT OUTSIDE on your doorstep..with a witness (the driver) until the police arrive..that would have exonerated him or at least given him an "I wasn't involved" first appearance. (An aside...and I should say this perhaps...but from my own experience here..I find the LE to be a bit "wishy washy" even in the districts that aren't Hollywood...they don't want to get Involved...they claim Jurisdiction.. but THERE was a dead woman in a house not her own. IN a bodunk community...things would have been handled a lot differently...If PS were sitting on the steps and not trying to avoid LE intervention...he'd be perhaps "suspect" but on "notice"...were he inside the house..trying to avoid the LE getting inside..he'd be french toast.

Phil..I think (but I may be wrong) didn't want any witnesses to anything..he walked outside..said what he did..went back inside and closed the door. The driver was probably beside himself with that "I think I shot/killed someone" (sorry...I don't remember the exact words recorded in court) and he wouldn't venture inside that house. under those circumstances..would he? Then Phil went about "cleaning up the evidence"...whether he was guilty or not..he made a BIG mistake, IMO. That is only going to GO AGAINST HIM..no matter what LKB said last time or the powers to be says this time. You do NOT clean up a crime scene IF YOU HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Spector is no idiot...he KNOWS that..he had plenty of police friends (remember his tirade about Owning (or some such language) the cops?) I think maybe a little bit of information and knowledge may turn out to be destructrive to him..he had friends in the "business"..so he figured he knew how to "clean up a crime"? Believe me..I've seen it: armchair lawyers and such who think they can "make their case" before they've ever met with a lawyer and gone to court and they totally screw it up.

Other real problems I have..and I don't see why the jury didn't get it..but I can't remember if it was put into evidence: the packs of bullets..that were the same that were in the gun that killed Lana..the rubber gloves...the holster in that drawer that would fit that gun..the media witness..NOT in court..who said PS took her out to dinner but had a gun in the trunk of his car..what's up with that..why wasn't she subpoenaed?

1103...I spent some time last night going over that..his friend Ronnie could be subpoenaed..she's a witness to his prior acts that definitely align with what happened with Lana Clarkson...perhaps in his favour..but perhaps not. What woman would go to have drinks and dinner with a man who says he has a gun in the trunk of his car? Some...but I don't think Lana Clarkson would have. I understand why the prosecution would "stay away" from her/Ronnie..she'd either not tell the truth or outright lie to protect her friend and she's probably the best witness..but she's one I'd call...get her up there then after the defense makes her look good..hit her with the redirect. But...I don't have enough information or details to know if that's feasible.

jmo

j

I have a problem with the gun being wiped down because I consider something like that to be the act of someone that has something to hide. A problem for the defense I think.

Something else that I find odd is his Not calling 911 to make sure the call had been placed, if that was his intentions, by talking to AD In that type of situation I would think a minute would feel like 10. He knew how to use a phone I believe.:shrug: Why change your clothes of all things to look nice when the authorities arrived? hmmmm.

I disagree with you that he may have not wanted any witnesses that is why he went back inside. I wonder if the look on AD face was one of shock and PS knew from it, he wasn't getting help from this guy to get him out of this jam. JMO

JMO

[kennedy06]

Where is the problem? Maybe you are jumping to conclusions. My response was an answer to a challenge submitted by a poster about posting. The post in question had been submitted by another poster(Searching). Didn't post anything about criminal matters. What in the world are you talking about? In the context aforemmentioned it is applicable. My response has nothing to do with OJ or PS. RIPL is used by a plaintiff in jumping the hurdle of proving or assessing liability in civil matters. Thats true. However, using the phrase in the contex that I used it does not take away it's meaning. So :no: lecture's please. Unless of course you are pedantic and can't help yourself.Possible I guess.JMO

Challenging a poster on a board about a man charged with murder we have to keep in mind. So therefore a criminal matter, an easy connection to make with the latin term. :)

No lecture here just a nice comment, dont forget to stop and smell the :rose:

JMO

Oh I had to snip your confusion mark to fit in my complimentary rose, sorry.

[kennedy06]

Okay Could some please tell me if they have ever heard of a case where somone was going to commit suicide would actually go to someone else's house and do it. Women most often commit suicide by overdose to begin with they hardly ever use guns because of the mess and their looks. I just find it mind boggling And that Mr. Spector has a history with guns waving it around to alot of people.

I've never heard of it. A beautiful woman, at a strange man's home in the early morning hours, going for just one drink, I don't see it.JMO

[kennedy06]

I was trying to find out some info on this case. I came across this blog and I'd appreciate it if someone can clue me in on who this Cheryl Shuman is who is being accused of stalking Phil Spector. I googled the name of the accuser and the info I came up with scared me.

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2007/11/who-is-phil-spe.html

Wow that was weird.

What is weirder the accuser posting it so many times.

JMO

[Jayne]

:confused:Where is the problem? Maybe you are jumping to conclusions. My response was an answer to a challenge submitted by a poster about posting. The post in question had been submitted by another poster(Searching). Didn't post anything about criminal matters. What in the world are you talking about? In the context aforemmentioned it is applicable. My response has nothing to do with OJ or PS. RIPL is used by a plaintiff in jumping the hurdle of proving or assessing liability in civil matters. Thats true. However, using the phrase in the contex that I used it does not take away it's meaning. So :no: lecture's please. Unless of course you are pedantic and can't help yourself.Possible I guess.JMO


Hmm...well, there is no problem. My response was an answer to two posts...by two (?) different posters? OJ was thrown in there for recent adjudication, but PS is the subject of this thread..or so I thought.

Pedantic...let me think about that....No...not ostentatious...minute details...Nope...sometimes, yes..but not in this instance..I was responding to one who was into those minute details of Res Ipsa that just didn't apply to PS. But, yes, you're correct, it did apply to the poster's intent that his/her post spoke for itself. I kind of think all of our posts speak for itself...so I just, at the moment, took it a step further and figured it was something about the PS trial. Silly me.

And, it's really neat that you know how res ipsa is used in civil matters..it's a Cool concept, huh? And it really works..oftentimes! And...sure people do often use it in regular day to day speech...just like other phrases such as idiot fatur....meus brain est mortuus...nos es quisnam nos es, or some such. Or in my case, aevum pro decor, unfortunately! :)

jmo

[kennedy06]

LOL, sorry all

I just found it quite offensive that someone would state that we didn't care about the facts of the case, all we were out for was revenge.

When you have Michael Baden telling a jury that LC got up and walked around after suffering an internal decapitation, or even a PARTIAL (as if) decapitation, I think it's absolutely absurd that someone would claim we were more interested in revenge than justice. Hell, Christopher Reeves didn't suffer a fraction of that type of injury and we saw how much walking he did after his tragic accident.

Vincent Di Maio? Oh dear God have mercy. Didn't he spend a day and a half trying to get thru his credentials, yet, he went with the, if someone points a gun at you, you should just twist it this way to break their finger and for this reason alone, PS COULDN'T possibly have shot LC. After all, he's done it a couple of times to save his own life.

Oh, and dare we mention the great and powerful, Henry Lee. Has he gotten any deals to make commercials for the, Post It, company yet? Or, maybe he's still trying to decide if he wants to work for Heinz or Hunts?

Did the defense present anyone that was truly credible? Yeah, aliens could have killed Lana, too, but we are talking, REASONABLE, are we not?

Yes we are, :beer:

JMO

[Jayne]

snipped...

I disagree with you that he may have not wanted any witnesses that is why he went back inside. I wonder if the look on AD face was one of shock and PS knew from it, he wasn't getting help from this guy to get him out of this jam. JMO

JMO

That's ok. I figured PS didn't want witnesses to his Clean Up deal once he realized AD wasn't coming to his aid, as he might? have expected or wanted. Otherwise wouldn't he have called in his "servant for the night" to come help him cover up the scene? He didnt' tell him to call the police...right? or maybe he did..but there was neither any testimony to that nor what we Non Jurors ever read in anything.

J...

[kennedy06]

[QUOTE=kennedy06;12256353]Thank You!!Thank You!!!I won the bet on how long it would take you to prove the point of Searching's previous post. For you:punch:


Gerald I quoted this above post of yours previously tonight and I don't understand how it appears with my name like I'm quoting myself and you are just mentioned above it with some numbers. Anyway my nice fellow posters I quoted Gerald on my flattered betting post not myself LOL.

:)

JMO

[aubrey04]

Kipswife, did you notice did his hand still shake at times? We have read about his wife holding onto him when he would walk into the courtroom previously. I'm not saying that he is but, did he look as unsteady as some had seem to give the impression of him in previous articles or reports?

Thanks

JMO

Does he have Parkinson's disease or a neurological disorder? I apologize if this has been discussed. I have been staying away from the Spector boards since PS1 - I had about enough of him and his lawyers.

My mom has Parkinson's.. Her tremors are minimal but that type of tremor in his hands and even his facial expressions remind me of a Parkinson's patient.

[Regina.Lampert]

LOL, sorry all

I just found it quite offensive that someone would state that we didn't care about the facts of the case, all we were out for was revenge.

When you have Michael Baden telling a jury that LC got up and walked around after suffering an internal decapitation, or even a PARTIAL (as if) decapitation, I think it's absolutely absurd that someone would claim we were more interested in revenge than justice. Hell, Christopher Reeves didn't suffer a fraction of that type of injury and we saw how much walking he did after his tragic accident.

Vincent Di Maio? Oh dear God have mercy. Didn't he spend a day and a half trying to get thru his credentials, yet, he went with the, if someone points a gun at you, you should just twist it this way to break their finger and for this reason alone, PS COULDN'T possibly have shot LC. After all, he's done it a couple of times to save his own life.

Oh, and dare we mention the great and powerful, Henry Lee. Has he gotten any deals to make commercials for the, Post It, company yet? Or, maybe he's still trying to decide if he wants to work for Heinz or Hunts?

Did the defense present anyone that was truly credible? Yeah, aliens could have killed Lana, too, but we are talking, REASONABLE, are we not?


:beer:

Well stated Ray. They lost me, oh so many times, but one time was when they talked about the atmospheric conditions INSIDE the "castle" accounting for incriminating blood spatter. That defense team was INCREDIBLE, but they were very lucky to have had the little wingnut, juror #10. IMO.

[Ellie]

I was trying to find out some info on this case. I came across this blog and I'd appreciate it if someone can clue me in on who this Cheryl Shuman is who is being accused of stalking Phil Spector. I googled the name of the accuser and the info I came up with scared me.

http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2007/11/who-is-phil-spe.html



OMG!! Does anyone remember "Joyce Danellen" from last year's posts? She was a bit....cryptic.... and very strange, if I remember correctly. At least in her posts (along with Yoko Ono). This seems like something maybe Joyce herself posted on that site.

NYGalPal, google Joyce Danellen and see what you come up with....let me know if you agree. :seeya:

[kennedy06]

Ellie, I remember seeing that name, but I think it had only one L in the last name's spelling. Were they not a very vocal supporter of Phil's such as in the comment section of papers and various articles also?? I hope he appreciated their efforts.

:read:

JMO

[Ellie]

Ellie, I remember seeing that name, but I think it had only one L in the last name's spelling. Were they not a very vocal supporter of Phil's such as in the comment section of papers and various articles also??

I just had the feeling from reading their comments that they were his biggest most vocal supporter.

:read:

JMO

Well... I am about 99.999% sure it's the same person, and she referred to herself in the 2nd person--and you're right, she was a very vocal (though in my opinion senseless) supporter of Phil, but if I recall correctly that changed towards the end of the trial, though I don't know why. ANYway (sorry), she would say thing like "Joyce Danelen thinks....." and "Joyce Danellen feels this way about....." Just really creeped me out, actually. So if you google her you get pictures of a very frail looking older woman (who was probably quite a looker back in her day), and it seems for whatever reason she has changed her opinion of whether PS is guilty. She must have put some thought into it. ;)

Also-- if you read even just some of the stuff in the link about Sheryl Schuman, then google this Joyce person, it sounds like they were cut from the same mold!

[Spectorfan8]

problem is..res ipsa...is a tort concept..

but I get the concept Searching and you are putting forth...

it isn't in criminal law...

and I don't really oppose Searching's comments and ideas...or yours, for that matter..

but let Res Ipsa lie...it doesn't apply

(Johnny Cochran ryhme applied)

If they could have used that in OJ..that glove would have been on his hand..slippery or shrunkin or not...and the gun would have been in PS's hand...out of the bureau or not.

Things do not "speak for themself" in criminal law.there is a higher burden of proof..BUT if there IS a smoking gun...then it Does Speak for itself..but that's burden of proof not Res Ipsa.

Love Res Ipsa, BTW...think it's really neat comes from Old England back in the mid 1800s I think..

Now..if we are "trying" each other as posters...perhaps that applies? dunno... But I'm putting in a demurrer...for myself and those who want to be class action posters! (just having fun...but putting out some information at the same time)

:)

J

Hi J,

I love those long posts!!;)

I personally will take your views on the law above anyone elses. You are right on with your posts, I must add Searching to the list also.

You are very respected here, so don't let some "out of no where poster(s)" bother you. Do as I do, let them pass.jmo :cool:

[kennedy06]

I just happen to stop by M. B. Phil's former assistant's blog just to see if there was anything about coverage. I read her latest entry, down to the last period, oh my!

Mort I don't know what reminded me, but I was also just remembering that great post of yours about PS/ gun. It was very educational.

We have some very good posters on this board, I am humbled to be able to post along with you guys about PS.:seeya:


JMO

[KathR]

Hi folks. Just checking in to see how the jury selection is going.

I guess we no longer have any hopes of live coverage. Hope we can get some one to watch the trial for us.

[True2Blues]

i'd pay! shoot, thats only 33/month too. i'd even pay $50-60 for the amount of time i'd put into watching it, i'd be spending more time watching the trial than my cable. i wish he'd reconsider.

If we had been told who was considering the pay per view, so we could contact them ourselves the result may have been different. Unfortunately, when I requested a direct contact with the company it was refused.

There seems to have been no reason to do something so selfish and self serving as denying access to the company in order to keep focus on an individual, yet it was done.

The result might have been different if those of us who were willing to deal with a reputable company had been given the direct contact info we asked for. It might not have made a difference. We'll never know now and we'll all be denied the coverage.:shrug:

[NatalieB]

:beer:

Well stated Ray. They lost me, oh so many times, but one time was when they talked about the atmospheric conditions INSIDE the "castle" accounting for incriminating blood spatter. That defense team was INCREDIBLE, but they were very lucky to have had the little wingnut, juror #10. IMO.

Oh yeah, lest we not forget about that what was it, a tornado or a hurricane that rushed thru that castle? You can't make this stuff up, can you? :lol:

[GPSpector]

OMG!! Does anyone remember "Joyce Danellen" from last year's posts? She was a bit....cryptic.... and very strange, if I remember correctly. At least in her posts (along with Yoko Ono). This seems like something maybe Joyce herself posted on that site.

NYGalPal, google Joyce Danellen and see what you come up with....let me know if you agree. :seeya:

Wow, you read my mind. Joyce used to have a lot (I mean A LOT) of anti YouTube videos about that lady.

[legalmania]

You fail to indicate that in his history of waving guns around, he never once shot anybody.

:cuss:

So you think Lana shot herself? I think this is the first time he didn't miss. IMO.

[kennedy06]

So you think Lana shot herself? I think this is the first time he didn't miss. IMO.

I wonder if PS has sat down and realized how lucky he was he didn't shoot himself in the foot or where ever, ranting with a gun in his hand like the PBA's mentioned and others not called to testify. JMO

[legalmania]

I am taking this straight from my West law dictionary

" The thing speaks for itself" An inference or rebuttable presumption of the defendant's negligence (unreasonableness) arises in the following circumstances: (a) The event producing the harm was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence (b) the event was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the defendant's exclusive control, and ( c) the event was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.

[hiitsme]

So you think Lana shot herself? I think this is the first time he didn't miss. IMO.

I hope you're saying it's ridiculous to think that Lana shot herself. In my view, each time Spector produced a gun in the past, he had an emotional connection with the women involved, who in turn, were able to reason with him to the point that the gun was withdrawn. Lana was a complete stranger whom I feel was caught totally off guard. PS who was in complete control, produced the gun, and lived out his fantasy to get back at another woman who rejected him. Unfortunately, Lana was sitting there waiting to go home, and became his first murder victim. I have not yet heard anything to the contrary that would make me think differently. My very humble and thoughtful opinion only.

[GPSpector]

I hope you're saying it's ridiculous to think that Lana shot herself. In my view, each time Spector produced a gun in the past, he had an emotional connection with the women involved, who in turn, were able to reason with him to the point that the gun was withdrawn. Lana was a complete stranger whom I feel was caught totally off guard. PS who was in complete control, produced the gun, and lived out his fantasy to get back at another woman who rejected him. Unfortunately, Lana was sitting there waiting to go home, and became his first murder victim. I have not yet heard anything to the contrary that would make me think differently. My very humble and thoughtful opinion only.

From one Spector about another, I will have to agree. The evidence presented and accepted by 14 (out of 16) Juror's, I will agree with your scenerio. I had stated close to the same thing over a year ago.

[legalmania]

I hope you're saying it's ridiculous to think that Lana shot herself. In my view, each time Spector produced a gun in the past, he had an emotional connection with the women involved, who in turn, were able to reason with him to the point that the gun was withdrawn. Lana was a complete stranger whom I feel was caught totally off guard. PS who was in complete control, produced the gun, and lived out his fantasy to get back at another woman who rejected him. Unfortunately, Lana was sitting there waiting to go home, and became his first murder victim. I have not yet heard anything to the contrary that would make me think differently. My very humble and thoughtful opinion only.

That's what I meant. He used guns to control women, he even pulled a gun on John Lennon the most peaceful man to bless earth. I'm pretty sure he'll go down this time. Lana was ready to leave she had her purse on her shoulder.

[legalmania]

Correct. The info you provide defines it as it applies in a legal sense. The translation from Latin is not affected or prohibited when used as part of a sentence concerning other than legal issues. The literal translation or the exegesis does not change because of a different context in which it's used. The context I used it in was not concerned with a legal issue. Jayne is the one that took the liberty to expand upon that. Nevertheless, :beer: for your effort in providing the correct legal application.;)

Glad I could help. I was trying to read back on how it was brought up and in what context. Anyway are you going to drink both those beers, or is one for me?

[hiitsme]

That's what I meant. He used guns to control women, he even pulled a gun on John Lennon the most peaceful man to bless earth. I'm pretty sure he'll go down this time. Lana was ready to leave she had her purse on her shoulder.

]Thanks, the purse on her shoulder was very significant to me also.
An innocent meeting with a deadly outcome.

[Jayne]

]Thanks, the purse on her shoulder was very significant to me also.
An innocent meeting with a deadly outcome.

I must admit..last year, when it was first brought up in the beginning of the trial, a lot of posters here saw the connection. For a while, I was not seeing it as overpowering, especially if she had Hidden the gun in her purse then sat down, opened the purse and took out the gun. Not, that I thought she actually did that, but I was attempting to look at it from a "defense" perspective where they were attempting to show "accidental suicide" (OH..that term again!)

When it became apparent the gun was indeed Spector's that thought flew out of my mind and the purse on the shoulder took more significance. Certainly Phil hadn't put it on her shoulder? unless he wanted it to appear she had indeed shot herself from a gun that was once inside that purse - the purse was "open", after all, IIRC..and that still seems strange to me..ready to leave with a purse "open"..not that I'm at fault of not zippering mine up and losing things, and she was not digging for car keys, but perhaps looking for her cellphone? Or having been in the bathroom perhaps taking off her makeup/eyelashes (I still think she could have taken them off..if she had them on in the first place? Her eyes were tired? She'd been drinking? Maybe there had been a Little hankypanky (all in good spirits of networking) going on and they because loose and bothersome..and she left them on the sink when she was startled by PS coming into the foyer and she was ready to leave..with the Open purse on her shoulder as she wanted to get out quickly but was pushed or backed into that chair? Or maybe she had been throwing up in the loo and put the eyelashes where they were found. I don't recall any DNA studies done on the eyelashes. Were there?

So..the purse is relevant and significant and I do believe more for the prosecution, considering the evidence, circumstancial and otherwise that came out during PS1. I think if she were just taking a "potty break" she'd have left her purse on the sofa to go back to it and the conversation(s) or whatever was going on beforehand, unless at that point, she was distrustful of PS? Or she indeed was ready to go - used the restroom first and was about to head out to the driver for a ride to her car.

Then there's the broken lock on the door...another post, perhaps, but I can see several different possible scenarios and not necessarily a deliberate breaking of the lock by PS. More on that later..

jmo

J

These are all suppositions and we'll never know what truly happened, I realize.

[Jayne]

Call it what you like, IMHO your pedantic. Nothing derogatory or disrespectful implied. Most school teachers are considered to be the same. Ever think about teaching as a profession?:cool:


YEP..honey...licensed in three states as a Teacher!

You got me figured out, huh?

are you surprised?

Pedantic isn't one of those..but you seem to like that word..it's ok..

I really don't mind...

I do NOT want to argue with you..but if you back me up against the wall...here it is...I'm a teacher..I'm a lawyer..I'm a mother...I'm a victim...

go for it gerald1...are you a teacher? licensed and certified?

a lawyer? or just the father of a going to be one? NOT that that isn't a great thing...good lord...do support your child and yourself..

wanna break somebody else down? I find that really an awfully weak area to go about..but it's OK if you want to attack me or anyone else..because...as you said "res Ipsa"

I feel really badly for it seems you are trying to find something wrong with any poster who disagrees with you..and even though I didn't disagree..you're still pulling punches...

What are you really worried about? Your kid getting into lawschool? OR WORSE..getting out of it? There are ways to get around that...I've offered..you don't accept the offer to talk with you like a human being who could maybe help out a little.

It's all ego? Well...I"m not buying into that.

I have enjoyed your posts..but you've been a bit nasty towards me lately...so let's kiss and make up?

jmo

J

[PatC]

has the trial started yet? add me to the list that is disappointed it's not going to be televised! PatC...you and i could share a motel room and go out there together,lol. i also find it hard to believre that the ratings were down for the ps trial. besides the peterson trials...ps was the biggest one i've ever seen on ctv in the amoount of posters watching. i dont get it.

Sounds good to me. I agree. I can't remember a trial that had as much traffic about/during it.

Their overall ratings may well have been down, but I seriously doubt it was because of interest in the trial. More likely it was other things goin on with them at the time. Also, isn't this one of the trials we could get better coverage from local stations?

[Joan-Pa.]

Hi folks. Just checking in to see how the jury selection is going.

I guess we no longer have any hopes of live coverage. Hope we can get some one to watch the trial for us.

Hi All, I usually just read, and not post , but I wanted tp pass this along and see if we can all do anything about it..
I watched the whole trial and was hoping to see the re-trial, but it seems possible not. I want to Michael Bryants site tosee if he might be covering it, and he said no, but I did leave a comment , and told him there were a lot of dissapointed people who watched faithly.
I mentioned to him to check out these boards, and see all the people who watched and comment daily, and he wrote me back and email saying to please get in touch with him, or someone start a petition to him . He said we would need at least 1000 people for him to do it to cover the cost. So do you think there are that many people?
We should all go to his web site and leave a message so he will know how many might be willing to do it. He said he would reconsider if he had enough people.
So, lets all get a petition going, i don't know how many people are on this board and interested in this trial, but I hope we can get enough interest to get it covered.
His site is the Legal Edge and it's Michael Bryant.

[Ellie]

Respectfully snipped....

YEP..honey...licensed in three states as a Teacher!

You got me figured out, huh?

are you surprised?

Pedantic isn't one of those..but you seem to like that word..it's ok..

I really don't mind...

I have enjoyed your posts..but you've been a bit nasty towards me lately...so let's kiss and make up?

jmo

J

Jayne, one of the things I like most about you is that you don't use verbosity like a shield. You don't steal your sentences or ideas from google or wiki. You're smart, well spoken, and omg you even use correct spelling and grammar! And there you go, once again being the bigger person. Good ol' Ger...yeah, well, we've gotta have at least a few of those, right? ;)

[kennedy06]

I still think something is strange about this no interest idea. Who decided and would PS want coverage hmmmm.

I enjoyed reading the link Dave provided. I thought Dr. Harold was a pretty convincing expert during the last PS Trial.

JMO

[Joan-Pa.]

I still think something is strange about this no interest idea. Who decided and would PS want coverage hmmmm.

I enjoyed reading the link Dave provided. I thought Dr. Harold was a pretty convincing expert during the last PS Trial.

JMO
Below is the email I received from Michael Bryant from The Legal Edge about covering this trial.. maybe we can let him know how many would be interested and change him mind. Lets all leave a comment to him at his site, or start a petition
Thanks.. Joan

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Thanks for taking the time to comment. If only there were more folks
>who feel like you. I've been contacted by many who are disappointed by
>our decision. Most reference 200+ who would have been happy to pay a
>subscription fee; or "hundreds" of willing viewers. The problem is simple.
>If we have costs in excess of $35,000 per month to produce this trial
>(that's just our costs--we expect no profit), you can do the math. We
>would need a commitment of at least 1,000 viewers at $35 per month to
>pay those expenses. If you can show me any petitions, message boards or
>other evidence of at least 1,000 willing subscribers, I'll be happy to
>rethink this. I just haven't seen it yet.
>
>Thanks again for your input.
>
>MJB

[Jayne]

I still think something is strange about this no interest idea. Who decided and would PS want coverage hmmmm.

I enjoyed reading the link Dave provided. I thought Dr. Harold was a pretty convincing expert during the last PS Trial.

JMO

I did too. She was down to earth, maybe didn't have the highfalutin credentials some of the other's did..like the calf head shots expert, or the one who previously determined an officer committed suicide by ductaping himself, cutting of parts of his body, then crashing his car..was that DeMaio? Her appearance maybe put some people off..not as Polished or Uppity or Professional looking? I'll admit, I saw her as a sort of stereotype..like the kid who grows up to be a scientist..in the back of the classroom..glasses on, maybe..doesn't say a lot but when s/he does..Whoah..it makes sense..then grows up to be mild mannered, rather quiet..sort of like "walks with a Big Stick" as far as the expertise and self assurance.

I like how she stood up to cross examination..it wasn't nasty or confrontational or defensive..it was Smart, Sure, and Respectful.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

Thanks Joan, He has heard from me LOL. I read on his blog about being able to do 4 to 6 other trials for the price of PS.

I look at it differently I guess, I look at it this way show one large celebrity trial instead of the 4 to 6 smaller trials that would cost the same and get that large amount of viewers (free of charge) instead of skipping it and hoping they come to watch the same smaller trials IS might cover at the same time.

I still have faith we may see something from IS!

I would hate to miss seeing AD and the PBA's and oh even Pie on the stand again!

AJ has been the most exciting trial lawyer I have watched in action yet so he is another reason I would like to see PS trial. I guess enough of my opinions though, I've tried and will continue to try.

I still wonder if we will see Norma K testify. I hope JF lets her story in!

JMO

[Spectorfan8]

YEP..honey...licensed in three states as a Teacher!

You got me figured out, huh?

are you surprised?

Pedantic isn't one of those..but you seem to like that word..it's ok..

I really don't mind...

I do NOT want to argue with you..but if you back me up against the wall...here it is...I'm a teacher..I'm a lawyer..I'm a mother...I'm a victim...

go for it gerald1...are you a teacher? licensed and certified?

a lawyer? or just the father of a going to be one? NOT that that isn't a great thing...good lord...do support your child and yourself..

wanna break somebody else down? I find that really an awfully weak area to go about..but it's OK if you want to attack me or anyone else..because...as you said "res Ipsa"

I feel really badly for it seems you are trying to find something wrong with any poster who disagrees with you..and even though I didn't disagree..you're still pulling punches...

What are you really worried about? Your kid getting into lawschool? OR WORSE..getting out of it? There are ways to get around that...I've offered..you don't accept the offer to talk with you like a human being who could maybe help out a little.

It's all ego? Well...I"m not buying into that.

I have enjoyed your posts..but you've been a bit nasty towards me lately...so let's kiss and make up?

jmo

J

J,

What a great post!! You know that I love reading your posts, long or not. You are right on the money!!!
There is no need for someone to attack you personally. I sent a pm letting gerald1 or whoever it is know how I felt.

You are much nicer than I am, you are willing to kiss and make up. That is some of what makes you so great.;)

[Spectorfan8]

Hi All, I usually just read, and not post , but I wanted tp pass this along and see if we can all do anything about it..
I watched the whole trial and was hoping to see the re-trial, but it seems possible not. I want to Michael Bryants site tosee if he might be covering it, and he said no, but I did leave a comment , and told him there were a lot of dissapointed people who watched faithly.
I mentioned to him to check out these boards, and see all the people who watched and comment daily, and he wrote me back and email saying to please get in touch with him, or someone start a petition to him . He said we would need at least 1000 people for him to do it to cover the cost. So do you think there are that many people?
We should all go to his web site and leave a message so he will know how many might be willing to do it. He said he would reconsider if he had enough people.
So, lets all get a petition going, i don't know how many people are on this board and interested in this trial, but I hope we can get enough interest to get it covered.
His site is the Legal Edge and it's Michael Bryant.

Thanks Joan, I have already tried with Michael Bryant, but will try again.

[hiitsme]

J,

What a great post!! You know that I love reading your posts, long or not. You are right on the money!!!
There is no need for someone to attack you personally. I sent a pm letting gerald1 or whoever it is know how I felt.

You are much nicer than I am, you are willing to kiss and make up. That is some of what makes you so great.;)

Spectorfan, I will simply say ditto!! Everytime I have read one of Gerald's posts, I try to get past his "Searching" for intelligence and/or political correctness. Somehow words like pedantic and posse seem to be weird and off the wall as related to the PS trial. Maybe he should be true to himself and stick to one user name on these boards, as most of us do. If not, he might morph into Geraldine by tomorrow.

[Joan-Pa.]

Thanks Joan, I have already tried with Michael Bryant, but will try again.


We all have to email him or leave comments on his board.. or maybe get a petition going. He needs to know that we are commited to seeing this trial. Like a poster said a few minutes ago, 'this big trial with lots of followers, or 5 or 6 small trials not many will watch.
Do you think there are 1000 posters who will follow it?

[hiitsme]

We all have to email him or leave comments on his board.. or maybe get a petition going. He needs to know that we are commited to seeing this trial. Like a poster said a few minutes ago, 'this big trial with lots of followers, or 5 or 6 small trials not many will watch.
Do you think there are 1000 posters who will follow it?

I'm on board!

[Joan-Pa.]

I'm on board!


He said if we show him that there is enough people he will reconsider.
So, we need to let him know that we all come from this message board, (maybe there are other message boards that I don't know about , anyone know of any?).
And we need to flood him with emails, or leave a comment on his board on his site so he will know we are serious.
Anyone know how to start a petition? or any other way to get to him directly so he can start seeing the overwhelming interest.

Can we somehow take a poll here to see how many would definately have an interest? He needs numbers.. he said at least 1000 to make it work.
anyone got any ideas??

[Spectorfan8]

spectorfan, i will simply say ditto!! Everytime i have read one of gerald's posts, i try to get past his "searching" for intelligence and/or political correctness. Somehow words like pedantic and posse seem to be weird and off the wall as related to the ps trial. Maybe he should be true to himself and stick to one user name on these boards, as most of us do. If not, he might morph into geraldine by tomorrow.

great post!!!!!:)

[Spectorfan8]

We all have to email him or leave comments on his board.. or maybe get a petition going. He needs to know that we are commited to seeing this trial. Like a poster said a few minutes ago, 'this big trial with lots of followers, or 5 or 6 small trials not many will watch.
Do you think there are 1000 posters who will follow it?

I think that if everyone would go there and leave a comment, we would have enough. I saw your comment, and agree, it is hard if not impossible to send an email to the contact. I did as you, I went to his blog and left a comment. We can only hope.:seeya:

[Joan-Pa.]

I, too, would be willing to donate monitarily for live trial coverage and commentary. I went to The Legal Edge and tried to find area to express our interest and support. I'm not exactly computer-savy but started one there and also cited our Forum here. Don't know but maybe this may get the ball rolling:

http://wordpress.org/extend/ideas

Too late I realized his name is Michel Bryant not Michael Bryant :oHope he forgives me. I'll also post under our LINKS. I also have to contact C @ jurorthirteen.com.

If anyone knows further info. please post :seeya:

I just received a new email from Michael and he is reconsidering about the Spector trial.
He is sending out email to all registered at 'The Legal Edge',,. but I'll put the one I just got below. He has a new email address just for this and to contact him to show our interest.
Lets get going.. I think we can do it!

Here is his new email I just received..


IS PHIL SPECTOR IN YOUR FUTURE?

I once covered the "fight of the century". It was 1986 at Ceasars Palace in Las Vegas. Thomas "Hitman" Hearns vs. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler. The fight lasted only 2 1/2 rounds before the "Hitman" went down, and while celebufight fans like Bo Derek and Sly Stallone called it the best fight ever, the boxers were plotting to set up the rematch. As the glassy eyed Hearns told me after the fight, "We did it once...let's do it again."

What the heck does this have to to with The Legal Edge? Nothing really, except that after an outpouring of Phil Spector fan e-mails I've decided to try one last time to get a read on how many folks would really subscribe to a monthly service that allowed us to cover costs to stream the Spector trial. Here's the deal: I've opened a new e-mail address just to receive commitments from PS2 fans. If the number is sufficient (and based on my calculations and production costs that number needs to be at least 1000 viewers at $35.00 per month. The cost would go down if we get more subscribers) we would go ahead with setting up the actual payment structure to assure these commitments. The last thing we want to do is start the process and end up going under because a large number of folks flaked.

Here's the dedicated e-mail address: lawjerktoo@gmail.com

So, pass this along to anyone interested. I'll e-mail the basics to all registered at TLE...and we'll see. It's up to you now.

[Spectorfan8]

I just received a new email from Michael and he is reconsidering about the Spector trial.
He is sending out email to all registered at 'The Legal Edge',,. but I'll put the one I just got below. He has a new email address just for this and to contact him to show our interest.
Lets get going.. I think we can do it!

Here is his new email I just received..


IS PHIL SPECTOR IN YOUR FUTURE?

I once covered the "fight of the century". It was 1986 at Ceasars Palace in Las Vegas. Thomas "Hitman" Hearns vs. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler. The fight lasted only 2 1/2 rounds before the "Hitman" went down, and while celebufight fans like Bo Derek and Sly Stallone called it the best fight ever, the boxers were plotting to set up the rematch. As the glassy eyed Hearns told me after the fight, "We did it once...let's do it again."

What the heck does this have to to with The Legal Edge? Nothing really, except that after an outpouring of Phil Spector fan e-mails I've decided to try one last time to get a read on how many folks would really subscribe to a monthly service that allowed us to cover costs to stream the Spector trial. Here's the deal: I've opened a new e-mail address just to receive commitments from PS2 fans. If the number is sufficient (and based on my calculations and production costs that number needs to be at least 1000 viewers at $35.00 per month. The cost would go down if we get more subscribers) we would go ahead with setting up the actual payment structure to assure these commitments. The last thing we want to do is start the process and end up going under because a large number of folks flaked.

Here's the dedicated e-mail address: lawjerktoo@gmail.com

So, pass this along to anyone interested. I'll e-mail the basics to all registered at TLE...and we'll see. It's up to you now.

I just received the same email!! I was about to post this, glad to see that you did. At least it is a start.:)

[True2Blues]

I just received a new email from Michael and he is reconsidering about the Spector trial.
He is sending out email to all registered at 'The Legal Edge',,. but I'll put the one I just got below. He has a new email address just for this and to contact him to show our interest.
Lets get going.. I think we can do it!

Here is his new email I just received..


IS PHIL SPECTOR IN YOUR FUTURE?

I once covered the "fight of the century". It was 1986 at Ceasars Palace in Las Vegas. Thomas "Hitman" Hearns vs. "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler. The fight lasted only 2 1/2 rounds before the "Hitman" went down, and while celebufight fans like Bo Derek and Sly Stallone called it the best fight ever, the boxers were plotting to set up the rematch. As the glassy eyed Hearns told me after the fight, "We did it once...let's do it again."

What the heck does this have to to with The Legal Edge? Nothing really, except that after an outpouring of Phil Spector fan e-mails I've decided to try one last time to get a read on how many folks would really subscribe to a monthly service that allowed us to cover costs to stream the Spector trial. Here's the deal: I've opened a new e-mail address just to receive commitments from PS2 fans. If the number is sufficient (and based on my calculations and production costs that number needs to be at least 1000 viewers at $35.00 per month. The cost would go down if we get more subscribers) we would go ahead with setting up the actual payment structure to assure these commitments. The last thing we want to do is start the process and end up going under because a large number of folks flaked.

Here's the dedicated e-mail address: lawjerktoo@gmail.com

So, pass this along to anyone interested. I'll e-mail the basics to all registered at TLE...and we'll see. It's up to you now.

Bless his heart! My e-mail is down today, but I recieved an e-mail about coverage of PS2 yesterday evening and it wasn't this one.

He's really doing all he can do to help us trial watchers out! Thanks for posting this.

[Joan-Pa.]

Bless his heart! My e-mail is down today, but I recieved an e-mail about coverage of PS2 yesterday evening and it wasn't this one.

He's really doing all he can do to help us trial watchers out! Thanks for posting this.

I think he got bombbarded after yesterdays email.. I know I wrote him back and asked for a second chance.
Where else should we post his new email address to let him know how we feel? and who will sign up?
On the "LINKS" page?

I have never posted there before, I guess it is okay.

[kennedy06]

All msg board must be contacted that you are registered with. All blogs must be contacted, Hopefully MB and The Darwin Exception maybe they would make a story out of the efforts, ok even Paul H. blog too for the spector fans, maybe this effort will be noticed and picked up in a story and who knows where we may end up. Well Mr. B has to do a little advertising of his own with his contacts maybe also!!! We are grateful.

I might stil see AD and AJ again:seeya:

Phil Will be thrilled we are working so hard to see him live I'm sure;)

JMO

[Jayne]

All msg board must be contacted that you are registered with. All blogs must be contacted, Hopefully MB and The Darwin Exception maybe they would make a story out of the efforts, maybe from there Mick B would find out and mention it or another service pick up the story about this effort, Lets get that price down!

I might stil see AD and AJ again:seeya:

Phil Will be thrilled we are working so hard to see him live I'm sure;)

JMO

methinks you just might! I just couldn't do the Blogger thing, but made my wishes known..Good for him...How about $20 per month? I think that is fairly reasonable...100 people..that's 2K 1000 that's 20K. Gheesh..I'd love to make 20K per month!

Even if I were putting in my own equipment, et. al.

Come on MJB...go for it...what do you have to lose? Nothing..you're a good writer...go have fun with it..then thumb your nose at the Big Media who weren't Man Enough to do it?

Just kidding...about that Man Enough Stuff..

jmo

j

we know you read these threads, huh? or the little bird on your shoulder does? You know there are posters here who would pack your refrigerator for some coverage...come on!

[True2Blues]

methinks you just might! I just couldn't do the Blogger thing, but made my wishes known..Good for him...How about $20 per month? I think that is fairly reasonable...100 people..that's 2K 1000 that's 20K. Gheesh..I'd love to make 20K per month!

Even if I were putting in my own equipment, et. al.

Come on MJB...go for it...what do you have to lose? Nothing..you're a good writer...go have fun with it..then thumb your nose at the Big Media who weren't Man Enough to do it?

Just kidding...about that Man Enough Stuff..

jmo

j

we know you read these threads, huh? or the little bird on your shoulder does? You know there are posters here who would pack your refrigerator for some coverage...come on!

Unless he gets more than 1000 people, it will be $35.00 a month to cover costs. When you consider that a one time pay per view event can cost that much, it isn't bad for coverage every day of the trial.

[MoonFlwr]

Unless he gets more than 1000 people, it will be $35.00 a month to cover costs. When you consider that a one time pay per view event can cost that much, it isn't bad for coverage every day of the trial.

Agreed. I think it is a reasonable amount to pay.

[kennedy06]

I wonder when the judge will make up his mind about allowing Norma's story in, after the trial starts or before?

JMO

[Jayne]

Unless he gets more than 1000 people, it will be $35.00 a month to cover costs. When you consider that a one time pay per view event can cost that much, it isn't bad for coverage every day of the trial.

I understand that..but he really, truly benefits from it..it's not just business..it's reputation...that has to count for a bit of a risk on his part..since he IS so Good?!

I'm not lining one person's pocket when I do pay per view...I'm paying into a corporate environment and business enterprise. When I'm paying an Individual to cover something..as a "pay per view", I'm still willing to do it..but at a more reasonable cost...let's say below "market standards for a corporation" as opposed to an "individual/1099"?

There are plenty of write offs...plenty of other things, including grants or donations and such...this pay per view thing...I'd still be willing to go with..but what if someone signs on then a month later it goes "poof"? I'm sure he'll have that in an ironclad contract to or not to not keep taking from bank accounts monthly? I'd certainly hope so. NOT that I distrust HIM...I just essentially distrust anyone who asks me to pay upfront for a service I have no "end of the contract" agreement with - sure I'd pay 20 but not 35 a month..that's all I can afford, honestly, and I'd never get to view it anyway..it would be for the benefit of my fellow posters who would comment on it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole thing..IF 1500 people signed up..but two months into the trial only 500 were left..then what? They refuse to pay or haul him into court?

An adhesive contract..either you pay or you lose? Maybe not a bad deal, considering...I'll take it MJB for 20 a month...no more...but, of course, as much less as YOU can afford..and if you are who you say you are..you could bring it down another $5.00. BTW..you write wonderfully well, MJB..you're smart, savvy, and full of spunk...but that won't get any more than $20 a month from me, if that, even though, you are worth it.

I think the guy needs to get a grant..or a loan from someone...how about PS? Or Shapiro? I like how he writes..and apparently "thinks"..he's no dummy at all..but I'm just not going to go there without some Real Definitive Promises.

I'd rather throw $20 or $35 bucks at some people in the street who need help...not in dollars..but cans of food (I never, ever give money unless I know where it is going)...and I have given them blankets (Gosh..I'd love to give them a place to sleep..but that would be doshdarnedfoolish).

$35K a month is a bit over the wall..for MJB, as I see it, but maybe I don't know enough about this guy. If that his M.O. he's making half a million or more a year..sucking in Pay Per View people like us?

$20 K a month is a fine salary..for just ONE TRIAL that lasts perhaps 3 months? That's a year's salary for a lot of people in just 1/4 of a year.

I KNOW..there are expenses, etc. but still...if what I read is true..that he has 5-7 cases a year to cover..that's pretty good bucks, as I see it. Is he actually going to Televise It? Or just talk about it? Heck would we pay Sprocket to go to court to have a blogsite? No Way..we'll go there and give her accolades..maybe buy her purses and such..but not pay per view! What View? (Hey..Sprocket...no offense as you never said you were Pay Per View..or Pay Per View of your website!)

I'm not being difficult..really..just very confused..Mea Culpa..someone enlighten me on all this...

J

[Dave]

Here's the message that I just sent to Michel Bryant:

During the first Spector murder trial I was one of the many who watched virtually all of the live, raw feed that was provided by KTLA. It was fascinating to be able to watch the live feed without any interruptions.

The commentary that was provided by KTLA's Lonnie and Marta was often interesting and helpful, and of course Beth Karas was terrific, as well as being very popular. But it was the action in the courtroom that kept us interested.

I am among the many who made a large personal investment in following that trial. It was a big part of our lives. In the upcoming Spector retrial, if all you did was to put the live camera feed online without any commentary, I would pay $100 a month for it.

- Dave

We'll see if it helps.

[True2Blues]

I understand that..but he really, truly benefits from it..it's not just business..it's reputation...that has to count for a bit of a risk on his part..since he IS so Good?!

I'm not lining one person's pocket when I do pay per view...I'm paying into a corporate environment and business enterprise. When I'm paying an Individual to cover something..as a "pay per view", I'm still willing to do it..but at a more reasonable cost...let's say below "market standards for a corporation" as opposed to an "individual/1099"?

There are plenty of write offs...plenty of other things, including grants or donations and such...this pay per view thing...I'd still be willing to go with..but what if someone signs on then a month later it goes "poof"? I'm sure he'll have that in an ironclad contract to or not to not keep taking from bank accounts monthly? I'd certainly hope so. NOT that I distrust HIM...I just essentially distrust anyone who asks me to pay upfront for a service I have no "end of the contract" agreement with - sure I'd pay 20 but not 35 a month..that's all I can afford, honestly, and I'd never get to view it anyway..it would be for the benefit of my fellow posters who would comment on it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this whole thing..IF 1500 people signed up..but two months into the trial only 500 were left..then what? They refuse to pay or haul him into court?

An adhesive contract..either you pay or you lose? Maybe not a bad deal, considering...I'll take it MJB for 20 a month...no more...but, of course, as much less as YOU can afford..and if you are who you say you are..you could bring it down another $5.00. BTW..you write wonderfully well, MJB..you're smart, savvy, and full of spunk...but that won't get any more than $20 a month from me, if that, even though, you are worth it.

I think the guy needs to get a grant..or a loan from someone...how about PS? Or Shapiro? I like how he writes..and apparently "thinks"..he's no dummy at all..but I'm just not going to go there without some Real Definitive Promises.

I'd rather throw $20 or $35 bucks at some people in the street who need help...not in dollars..but cans of food (I never, ever give money unless I know where it is going)...and I have given them blankets (Gosh..I'd love to give them a place to sleep..but that would be doshdarnedfoolish).

$35K a month is a bit over the wall..for MJB, as I see it, but maybe I don't know enough about this guy. If that his M.O. he's making half a million or more a year..sucking in Pay Per View people like us?

$20 K a month is a fine salary..for just ONE TRIAL that lasts perhaps 3 months? That's a year's salary for a lot of people in just 1/4 of a year.

I KNOW..there are expenses, etc. but still...if what I read is true..that he has 5-7 cases a year to cover..that's pretty good bucks, as I see it. Is he actually going to Televise It? Or just talk about it? Heck would we pay Sprocket to go to court to have a blogsite? No Way..we'll go there and give her accolades..maybe buy her purses and such..but not pay per view! What View? (Hey..Sprocket...no offense as you never said you were Pay Per View..or Pay Per View of your website!)

I'm not being difficult..really..just very confused..Mea Culpa..someone enlighten me on all this...

J

The money would be the monthly cost for equipment (cameras etc. plus they have to mount them on the wall) which they'd probably have to rent, and the wages of the person/people who would operate the camera. There is probably also a charge for the upload to air the feed.

I don't know the details about payment, it could be as simple as payment a month in advance to make sure wages and fees could be met. The first thing is to see if there are 1000 people who can and will pay.

I don't see a reason to distrust MB. The Legal Edge is actually there, he is a real person. He has no reason to cheat people, especially if he wishes for TLE to succeed.

It's an individual choice. We'd all like to see the trial free of charge, but that's not going to happen, so we each have to decide if we are willing and able to pay. :shrug:

[Jayne]

The money would be the monthly cost for equipment (cameras etc. plus they have to mount them on the wall) which they'd probably have to rent, and the wages of the person/people who would operate the camera. There is probably also a charge for the upload to air the feed.

I don't know the details about payment, it could be as simple as payment a month in advance to make sure wages and fees could be met. The first thing is to see if there are 1000 people who can and will pay.

I don't see a reason to distrust MB. The Legal Edge is actually there, he is a real person. He has no reason to cheat people, especially if he wishes for TLE to succeed.

It's an individual choice. We'd all like to see the trial free of charge, but that's not going to happen, so we each have to decide if we are willing and able to pay. :shrug:

I guess so True..but I could not afford more than $20, and I'd be paying that $20 for you and everyone else as I'd never be home to be able to view it..but I'd still do it. As long as I had an IronClad Contract..that if the trial Ended on the 5th day of any 30 day period that there'd be recompense..if it got to a point where a poster just couldn't afford it anymore, there wouldn't be any lawsuits to keep drawing the monthly "pay per view", but at the same time it wouldn't "end" just because of a setback or so.

I guess bottom line is this..as much as I want to be supportive and I really want to see this trial televised, I just am leery of pay per view..NOT MJB per se...but I don't know enough about him other than reading his wonderfuly stories, and indeed he is GREAT. I mean if CNN said...you can view PS2 if you contract with us for $35 a month, I'd really wonder about that, but at least they are an etablished media group and I really rather doubt they'd do that anyway. If Cox cable or Comcast said I can have an internet connection for $60 a month...sure...if I don't pay it, I don't get it, but I sure know who I can "sue" if I have to and know they have deep enough pockets to pay back.

I'm viewing this whole "pay per view" being a Pay Per Month..for as long as the trial lasts..and probably to the end of whatever month it ends. I am no doubt very stupid, but I thought Pay Per View..meant you paid for Each Time you viewed something..not a monthly charge, whether you viewed it or not?

This to me..sounds more like an employment contract with the ones who want this coverage more like the stockholders of the company than the general public who buys as they go. Maybe that's not a bad thing..I just don't have the bucks to invest.

Sorry...I indeed am a dumb bunny when it comes to things such as this..

:confused:

[GPSpector]

We all have to email him or leave comments on his board.. or maybe get a petition going. He needs to know that we are commited to seeing this trial. Like a poster said a few minutes ago, 'this big trial with lots of followers, or 5 or 6 small trials not many will watch.
Do you think there are 1000 posters who will follow it?

What bothers me is that this guy seems to be just looking to this site to see if there are 1,000 interested posters willing to pay $35. I see that as a very narrow view. If he is not willing to look elsewhere for viewers, I do not think he will find his 1,000 viewers.

Also, wasn't there already a petition setup for him that many refused to sign because someone sabataged the method by claiming that a donation was required?

Personally, I do not see how covering this case could cost as much as 4-5 smaller cases when the Courts don't charge for camera space and the airwave charges don't change based on who's on trial. 1 month of coverage should cost the same as any other trial covered for 1 month. Now, if he's comparing a small case that will last 1 month to this case that he's assuming will last 4-5 months, isn't that comparing a Rolls to a VW Bug? Of course that would cost more for the 1 trial but it would also cost the same on a month to month bases.

If he wants to know if there is any real interest, he needs to broaden his search and not just use us as the only measure of interest. Sounds to me like he has no interest in covering it as opposed to someone interested but not sure on the cost factor. If he's not interested, than I'm not interested in him covering it either. I would prefer someone that will do honest coverage because they want to.

I was told that Tru-TV will cover it but not Gavel-to-Gavel and I can accept that. At least they show interested in the case. I understand that money is always a factor.

Well, that's just my 2¢ worth.

[GPSpector]

Spectorfan, I will simply say ditto!! Everytime I have read one of Gerald's posts, I try to get past his "Searching" for intelligence and/or political correctness. Somehow words like pedantic and posse seem to be weird and off the wall as related to the PS trial. Maybe he should be true to himself and stick to one user name on these boards, as most of us do. If not, he might morph into Geraldine by tomorrow.

Personally, I hope to never get one of his harrassing PM again. The next time I see one that shows his rude ignorance about me, I'll post it here for all to see.

[GPSpector]

I guess so True..but I could not afford more than $20, and I'd be paying that $20 for you and everyone else as I'd never be home to be able to view it..but I'd still do it. As long as I had an IronClad Contract..that if the trial Ended on the 5th day of any 30 day period that there'd be recompense..if it got to a point where a poster just couldn't afford it anymore, there wouldn't be any lawsuits to keep drawing the monthly "pay per view", but at the same time it wouldn't "end" just because of a setback or so.

I guess bottom line is this..as much as I want to be supportive and I really want to see this trial televised, I just am leery of pay per view..NOT MJB per se...but I don't know enough about him other than reading his wonderfuly stories, and indeed he is GREAT. I mean if CNN said...you can view PS2 if you contract with us for $35 a month, I'd really wonder about that, but at least they are an etablished media group and I really rather doubt they'd do that anyway. If Cox cable or Comcast said I can have an internet connection for $60 a month...sure...if I don't pay it, I don't get it, but I sure know who I can "sue" if I have to and know they have deep enough pockets to pay back.

I'm viewing this whole "pay per view" being a Pay Per Month..for as long as the trial lasts..and probably to the end of whatever month it ends. I am no doubt very stupid, but I thought Pay Per View..meant you paid for Each Time you viewed something..not a monthly charge, whether you viewed it or not?

This to me..sounds more like an employment contract with the ones who want this coverage more like the stockholders of the company than the general public who buys as they go. Maybe that's not a bad thing..I just don't have the bucks to invest.

Sorry...I indeed am a dumb bunny when it comes to things such as this..

:confused:


I agree with your post and I think it would be better if his Pay Per View was a Day to Day subscription fee. Say $2.95 to access his site for a 24 hour period where you could watch the live feed or watch archived videos of this case and possibly others, also for a small daily fee for the library (archive). That way, you never pay for days you do not watch and you can catch what you missed. When the trial ends, he can still leave the site up for those wanting to re-watch something. He could have the potential of making a profit and we would have no fear of paying $35 for a whole month when the trial ends 5 days into a month.

Just some thoughts.

[True2Blues]

I agree with your post and I think it would be better if his Pay Per View was a Day to Day subscription fee. Say $2.95 to access his site for a 24 hour period where you could watch the live feed or watch archived videos of this case and possibly others, also for a small daily fee for the library (archive). That way, you never pay for days you do not watch and you can catch what you missed. When the trial ends, he can still leave the site up for those wanting to re-watch something. He could have the potential of making a profit and we would have no fear of paying $35 for a whole month when the trial ends 5 days into a month.

Just some thoughts.

I think the point, is that this is being considered because people are asking for it. Many of us here and on other boards. This isn't the only place that the message has been posted, it was sent to all Legal Edge members and all of the people who commented on MB's blog.

I personally think he's being really nice by giving this another try. Not because he can;t make up his mind, he's already done that, but because many of us have asked for it and are disappointed that it won't be aired.

The Legal Edge is a new site and looking to capture the attention of as many people as it can. They decided that showing shorter cases will provide a variety and give them a better chance of drawing in more people.

With a longer trial, like PS2 will probably be, they risk losing the interest of people who are not interested in it. Also, since it's a retrial, some may know enough not to want to bother. If it takes 4 months, people might not bother to check in more than once or twice and then give up. Different cases give them more of a chance to catch the attention of a greater number of people. I can understand that from their point of view.

Since there is no camera in the court room, it's not a matter of purchasing the right to show the feed. Whoever does this will have to accept the full cost and there is an excellent list of what that includes a few posts up. Since TLE has already chosen to spend their budget on other trials, this pay per view effort is an attempt to help us get the trial we've all become so interested in.

If we want it, we'll have to pay for it, because no one else is going to. It's the only way we'll get it, and even then, someone is going to have arrange all of this if enough people can be found.

That is also why we are being asked to spread the word to every place we can think of. I don't mind if it will get people interested, I've posted the message several places.

[GPSpector]

I think the point, is that this is being considered because people are asking for it. Many of us here and on other boards. This isn't the only place that the message has been posted, it was sent to all Legal Edge members and all of the people who commented on MB's blog.

I personally think he's being really nice by giving this another try. Not because he can;t make up his mind, he's already done that, but because many of us have asked for it and are disappointed that it won't be aired.

The Legal Edge is a new site and looking to capture the attention of as many people as it can. They decided that showing shorter cases will provide a variety and give them a better chance of drawing in more people.

With a longer trial, like PS2 will probably be, they risk losing the interest of people who are not interested in it. Also, since it's a retrial, some may know enough not to want to bother. If it takes 4 months, people might not bother to check in more than once or twice and then give up. Different cases give them more of a chance to catch the attention of a greater number of people. I can understand that from their point of view.

Since there is no camera in the court room, it's not a matter of purchasing the right to show the feed. Whoever does this will have to accept the full cost and there is an excellent list of what that includes a few posts up. Since TLE has already chosen to spend their budget on other trials, this pay per view effort is an attempt to help us get the trial we've all become so interested in.

If we want it, we'll have to pay for it, because no one else is going to. It's the only way we'll get it, and even then, someone is going to have arrange all of this if enough people can be found.

That is also why we are being asked to spread the word to every place we can think of. I don't mind if it will get people interested, I've posted the message several places.

Thank you for the reply. I was getting the impression that this site was the only site he was looking at for the 1,000 viewers and if we wanted to get more interested, we had to do all the work to come up with the 1,000 viewers.

[tartangirl]

What great news to see when I hit the computer screen a few minutes ago. Fighting fall allergies, I decided to take the afternoon off from emailing and thinking of how to get this trial back on the screens of all addicts out there. MJB...what a good guy to try again for all of us.

I posted at a few places also and will tell any and all to email that designated addy....:)

a sneezing and happy tartangirl here


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

[Jayne]

I'm absolutely disgusted about what happened to Mort Snerd.

J

[rem16]

I'm absolutely disgusted about what happened to Mort Snerd.

J

Jayne, your pm's are full..

[hiitsme]

I'm absolutely disgusted about what happened to Mort Snerd.


J

What happened?? He's a great poster.

[Jayne]

Sorry..just cleaned them..was out of soap!

Mort..esteemed poster, who I truly do respect, was "bumped" ..sure he may have stepped beyond a "line" but he was defending himself and many of us, in a sense and he did it in a sardonic sort of way..not nasty at all..but I'm guessing he posted a PM made to him by another poster that was not very nice toward him at all, I must say. He gave us some of the best information we could get no matter which side (G or NG) we sit on.

I want him back! It takes a lot to get him ticked..and I actually didn't find his post offensive at all, but it did violate TOS..can't repeat and post a private PM on a thread. Frankly, it was no different than what you'd see posted and the entire thread is gone I think it was just his post and mine to him in response perhaps..trying to assuage the situation to no avail.

What gets me..is posters can be abusive and nasty in PM's (as well as on the thread)..BUT if a PM is posted, it's a "you're gone" sort of thing. I can understand the policy behind it..but ya just gotta consider the source - be King Solomon and ban them both/all?..it's not like he revealed anything personal about the poster, or nothing unlike we've seen here ourselves. OK...he bad...but let him come back..he's a good guy it was just a slip of the fingers and a knee jerk response. He has experience and he's a good guy..just like the other guys and gals here. I wouldn't want to see anyone banned..HONESTLY..I really mean that...sometimes we get irritated with another poster, but this is an Open Board/Thread..bite back now and then or just ignore.

CW..bring Mortie Back, please?! He has so much to add to this PS2 trial. And, I'm sure he meant no harm at all..it was a tit for tat sort of thing that was "wrong", yes, but I do not think it was an intentional and malicious post..it was a bit of his humour in response to a slam to his integrity.

:)

J

[bearwds]

I think that if everyone would go there and leave a comment, we would have enough. I saw your comment, and agree, it is hard if not impossible to send an email to the contact. I did as you, I went to his blog and left a comment. We can only hope.:seeya:
***************************************

Just e-mailed....for what it's worth.


bearwds

[angellaw]

I wonder when the judge will make up his mind about allowing Norma's story in, after the trial starts or before?

JMO


Hi there Kennedy & Frends. Ihave been soout of the loop, is there a trial date set yet. We don;t get too much PS news here in PA..but I enjoyed the other trial and still don't understand the outcome of that one IMO..the man is guilty as h3ll....I'm sure I'll get some comments on that one. But ya know It's MOO :seeya:

[kennedy06]

Angellaw while many of you were away some of us were still posting about PS. There just always seem to be something new to post about concerning PS and this trial. There was of course banter about the evidence with both sides represented in our discussions. Also, reports of lawsuits, hearings, motions filed, TMZ articles, videos we discussed that we may have come across and many other littler things that held our interest and brought us to this point, the eve of the next trial.

I will try to gather some of those things and link them later on for those of you that are joining in the discussion once again. I'm sure others will link to some of those items that they may remember also :seeya:

JMO

[kennedy06]

Thanks. That's what happened to me -- twice or 3x -- and concerning a post/er that @ trouble before. I took my lumps on the one today and taken care of it (iggie is a true friend). I never read the TOS on this circumstance but I empathize with Mort. Oh my, I hope it's resolved!
Meanwhile back at the ranch here, I also posted RE TLE in another MB earlier as we were discussing (ktla) in support to email our support for Spector II. And thank you CW for allowing this thread open over the weekend so we can continue this important discussion as time is of the essence!

I wonder if there has ever been such a clammering to see a trial on this msg board. I looked around but, I didn't see a mention on The Darwin Exception, just incase anyone reading is a regular there. I hope that Mr. B will use his clout to get a mention by those will a little more pull, so to inform a wider group that watched last year but, didn't post on a message board. I'm grateful he has reconsidered and appreciate it.

JMO

[bearwds]

Just got an e-mail from MB. "We just came into the office..."

He was apologizing because either he or an office mate sent out info on on an account that showed BCC information. At least that is the gist I got out of it.

Won't/can't Post e-mail as against TOS, I believe.

Admonition to interested parties to "make your wishes known" concerning PPV in "the next few days".


bearwds

[warhorse46]

The money would be the monthly cost for equipment (cameras etc. plus they have to mount them on the wall) which they'd probably have to rent, and the wages of the person/people who would operate the camera. There is probably also a charge for the upload to air the feed.

I don't know the details about payment, it could be as simple as payment a month in advance to make sure wages and fees could be met. The first thing is to see if there are 1000 people who can and will pay.

I don't see a reason to distrust MB. The Legal Edge is actually there, he is a real person. He has no reason to cheat people, especially if he wishes for TLE to succeed.

It's an individual choice. We'd all like to see the trial free of charge, but that's not going to happen, so we each have to decide if we are willing and able to pay. :shrug:


There would be only one set of cameras inside the courtroom. How that works is one network gets the right to place their camers in the courtroom. They in turn sell their feed to all other outlets that want to use it. It is expensive too.

[warhorse46]

Personally, I hope to never get one of his harrassing PM again. The next time I see one that shows his rude ignorance about me, I'll post it here for all to see.


Please do NOT post PMs here, that is against the TOS & will result in you being banned. You can paraphrase what was said but to post the PM without the consent of the sender is prohibited.

[Jayne]

Please do NOT post PMs here, that is against the TOS & will result in you being banned. You can paraphrase what was said but to post the PM without the consent of the sender is prohibited.

Absolutely, warhorse. Sometimes I think people do it in "knee jerk" like I wrote above and it was not meant to intentionally disobey the rules or to be nasty. I think even paraphrasing would be a nono..if revealing something that was shared "in private"..but if you mean paraphrasing such as XXX has harassed me to the point of no end..without stating any particulars, I guess that's ok? I keep my PMs as PMs...and thankfully others do as well...we often share personal information (among friends)...and would keep it confidential, thank goodness. That's where that IGNORE button is so helpful...if someone is particularly caustic towards you or you think s/he might be..just put it on..the MailBox will be closed...so no risk of responding in kind anywhere..there or on the thread.

Good advice, Warhorse..as Usual! :)

[Cornblossom]

Absolutely, warhorse. Sometimes I think people do it in "knee jerk" like I wrote above and it was not meant to intentionally disobey the rules or to be nasty. I think even paraphrasing would be a nono..if revealing something that was shared "in private"..but if you mean paraphrasing such as XXX has harassed me to the point of no end..without stating any particulars, I guess that's ok? I keep my PMs as PMs...and thankfully others do as well...we often share personal information (among friends)...and would keep it confidential, thank goodness. That's where that IGNORE button is so helpful...if someone is particularly caustic towards you or you think s/he might be..just put it on..the MailBox will be closed...so no risk of responding in kind anywhere..there or on the thread.

Good advice, Warhorse..as Usual! :)emails and PM's fall under the copyright law I do believe...they can't be published without original writer's consent or court order.
*Michel's email can be published on boards because he gave his consent to get people's views on his pay per view idea*.

[kennedy06]

For those of you returning to to the PS forum and catching up on the news, sadly we learned one of the PBA's passed away Diane O..

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978753.html?categoryid=16&cs=1&nid=2562

JMO

[warhorse46]

For those of you returning to to the PS forum and catching up on the news, sadly we learned one of the PBA's passed away Diane O..

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117978753.html?categoryid=16&cs=1&nid=2562

JMO



I hated to read that when it happened. She was a very credible witness IMO. I hope her first trial testimony tape can be played in the second trial.

[kennedy06]

A photo of PS and photo comparison in an article titled Spector kills on the red carpet on tmz. JMO

http://www.tmz.com/2008/02/22/spector-kills-on-the-red-carpet/

[bearwds]

I hated to read that when it happened. She was a very credible witness IMO. I hope her first trial testimony tape can be played in the second trial.
***************************

Last I heard, D.O. trial tape, and the rest of the PBA witnesses haven't been ruled upon, as far as admissibility..??


bearwds

[Joan-Pa.]

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

Last I heard, D.O. trial tape, and the rest of the PBA witnesses haven't been ruled upon, as far as admissibility..??


bearwds

Hi, Where are in selecting the jury, and when it the trial estimated to begin> I haven't seen anywhere a timeline for it to start.
Thanks for any info.

[Jayne]

emails and PM's fall under the copyright law I do believe...they can't be published without original writer's consent or court order.
*Michel's email can be published on boards because he gave his consent to get people's views on his pay per view idea*.

Yes...I agree..and I do UPHOLD the TOS rules here..

but it has nothing to do with copyright law..it has to do with personal information and First Amendment Rights..So we copyright every PM we ever post? We take a risk..sure it's against TOS to publish it...so Buyer Beware...

If someone is going to be that bombastic in a PM...hides behind the TOS rules..sorry...I will agree with the rules and abide by them...

And as much as I'll uphold TOS...Why would anyone just PM someone if looking for pay per view? Why not put up a post and say "WHO IS INTERESTED"? Heck I am..at my minuscule monthly payout...

Am I misunderstanding this post? Probably...I'm having a bad physical day...sorry..

[Cornblossom]

Yes...I agree..and I do UPHOLD the TOS rules here..

but it has nothing to do with copyright law..it has to do with personal information and First Amendment Rights..So we copyright every PM we ever post? We take a risk..sure it's against TOS to publish it...so Buyer Beware...

If someone is going to be that bombastic in a PM...hides behind the TOS rules..sorry...I will agree with the rules and abide by them...

And as much as I'll uphold TOS...Why would anyone just PM someone if looking for pay per view? Why not put up a post and say "WHO IS INTERESTED"? Heck I am..at my minuscule monthly payout...

Am I misunderstanding this post? Probably...I'm having a bad physical day...sorry..you're misunderstanding my post. CW has stated emails can't be published here due to the copyright laws...you have to have the original writer's consent or a court order. PM's also belong to the original writer and they can not be copied here. I was just saying why emails and PM's can't be openly put on this message board.

[Jayne]

you're misunderstanding my post. CW has stated emails can't be published here due to the copyright laws...you have to have the original writer's consent or a court order. PM's also belong to the original writer and they can not be copied here. I was just saying why emails and PM's can't be openly put on this message board.

Sorry..I didn't mean to offend you at all..my post was nothing against you, my Cornflower poster friend.

I was just speaking to the real copyright laws..there is no copyright as to one's PM unless they publish it or register it as a copyright. There would be no court order about it at all..unless they said their words were copyrighted. (BTW..I have the little ditty one can put beneath their PMs..to ensure legal safety as to information not to be shared with others..just email me...I'll send it to you.)

when you blow your mouth at someone you risk it being sent out there...there is no copyright on it unless you make one..BUT I TOTALLY AGREE..in keeping with the TOS..you just don't do that..it's against the rules, we all agreed to that..it's pretty nasty and incomprehensible to put another's nasty mouth out there in public even though all of us should think before we speak.

Hence..had you PM'd me on this..no one would ever be reading about it..I will abide by the rules.



I understand what you are saying..but PMs are what they are...defamation, whatever..but...BUT we do uphold these board rules. Legally...there would be every right to go after a defamation or civil harassment case.

I uphold them..as do you..and almost everyone here, thankfully.

[Joan-Pa.]

Does anyone know if we have anywhere close to the 1000 people needed to get the live coverage from TLE and Michel B.?
Can we take a poll here?
I know there are posters on other parts of this board, ( Caylee A. other Trials, and Politics), but don't know if they have an interest in this trial like we do. Anyone know?

Is it okay to set up some kind of poll to see? ( I don't know if that is against the rules).??
I think the trial is fast approaching, and would love to know if we are even close?

[Cornblossom]

Sorry..I didn't mean to offend you at all..my post was nothing against you, my Cornflower poster friend.

I was just speaking to the real copyright laws..there is no copyright as to one's PM unless they publish it or register it as a copyright. There would be no court order about it at all..unless they said their words were copyrighted. (BTW..I have the little ditty one can put beneath their PMs..to ensure legal safety as to information not to be shared with others..just email me...I'll send it to you.)

when you blow your mouth at someone you risk it being sent out there...there is no copyright on it unless you make one..BUT I TOTALLY AGREE..in keeping with the TOS..you just don't do that..it's against the rules, we all agreed to that..it's pretty nasty and incomprehensible to put another's nasty mouth out there in public even though all of us should think before we speak.

Hence..had you PM'd me on this..no one would ever be reading about it..I will abide by the rules.



I understand what you are saying..but PMs are what they are...defamation, whatever..but...BUT we do uphold these board rules. Legally...there would be every right to go after a defamation or civil harassment case.

I uphold them..as do you..and almost everyone here, thankfully.you didn't offend me.

[Jayne]

you didn't offend me.

Thanks...would never ever mean to do that.

J

[Joan-Pa.]

Joan, I haven't responded to the thread started earlier today I think, in this Forum -- a poll, good idea though, ??:seeya:for posting TLE letter...

You're welcome,
Is there a way to do a head count? I dont' know if others who post on different parts of this board would be interested in the Spector trial.
I do see some of the same names on here and on other topics, ( Caylee A. and other trials), ( I know I didn't follow Spector again or visit this board till recently, maybe others are the same, but would like to watch the trial)
wonder if they are aware of this possible trial coverage, and would be interested in signing up?
Can you post a question like that on the other boards?
I know we need to get moving on this soon because the trial is coming up shortly.

I hope everyone is emailing Michel B. at his site, or leaving a comment at the email address he gave us.

[tartangirl]

Is Alan Jackson supposed to be the Prosecutor again for PS2? Did you know that the Japanese Businessman K. Miura committed suicide on Friday night? (I read @ ktla.com)..Alan was rep. the people in that one (Geragos/Miura) so he'll be freed up (though it took a lot, Schwarzenegger, to get the guy extradited back to the U.S.

There's a new thread here someone started RE are we interested in live coverage..like ye~ah (in best valley girl voice)

Respectfully snipped..


IT is so odd that you would mention the Kazuyoshi Miura case. I have been sitting here thinking about that since last night. I am sure Alan Jackson and the whole prosecution team are quite devastated about the way the case has been brought to a halt. Excellent work by his department and LE brought that case to the point it was when this death occurred. I only wish them a speedy recovery since PS2 is right around the corner. WE have seen the way he handles himself in a courtroom and we want more.

I also heard the date has been moved back from Oct. 14 to Oct 20 to give them more time. I say the more time to pick a fair jury the better. I thought it was the same courtroom. We just need to get the media to cover gavel to gavel....I will pay for that if have to. :rolleyes:

This story needs to have an ending with Justice served to the highest degree. I have no doubt that it will with Alan Jackson showing the way.

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

[GPSpector]

Please do NOT post PMs here, that is against the TOS & will result in you being banned. You can paraphrase what was said but to post the PM without the consent of the sender is prohibited.

Not to worry, I am aware of the rules of what can and can't be done ;)

[lawjerk]

I just wanted to pass along the latest info from my morning discussions with the Los Angeles Court PIO Alan Parachini. (Yes he was available on Sunday -- and he's on vacation!)
So, here's the deal: Alan says KTLA pulled out of the trial 2 weeks ago. Apparantly, Judge Fidler is requiring robotic cameras and specific audio equipment and the cost vs. benefit of doing the trial scared KTLA off. I think the Judge may still allow very limited coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict, but officially that IS NOT what I'm being told.

BTW here's a primer on production costs for these kinds of matters. Equipment purchase or rental; bodies to man the equipment and a critical issue you may not be aware of is this: whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE. There is no profit made off the feed just because you agree to pool a trial. In fact, it is much more expensive to pool a trial than to simply cover it for your own purposes.

All of a sudden I feel like I'm making excuses for laying out the PPV possibility we, at TLE, are proposing. This is not our attempt at trading out 4-5 smaller trials for 1 PS trial. We do not plan to charge for trials in the future. This is a one time option that will allow us to provide other trials (and there are some great ones out there -- you guys should know that) while at the same time adding the PS trial, something we can only do on a PPV basis.

I must say I laugh when people suggest I personally will make a fortune on this venture. At this point there is no money for MJB, and there hasn't been for the last 8 months while preparing to launch TLE. Ask my wife. (At least I think she's still my wife).

Anyway I digress. So, efforts continue, but our time to act is so short I feel it may be overwhelming to get the number we need. More in a day or so.

Here's hoping.

MJB

[kennedy06]

What about contacting writers such as Mick B. or well I almost hate to say this because I know he is in poor health but Dominick. D. they were interested in the last trial and it may be the only way they can view it also. They may have some clout dropping a line here or there and that would help with accessing more viewers?

LOL maybe even Anita Talbert! She is pro Phil from what I have seen and read. JMO

WE are trying our best on this end :)

Thanks!

[kennedy06]

I'm not joking here, maybe you could call Phil himself. He is a celebrity, maybe it is an insult to have the media be uninterested in him.
Seriously, maybe Mrs. Spector would enjoy an interview with you as much as Mrs. Scotto did! :)

Worse he could do is hang up or not return your call.

You would have all the coverage and the interviews ;)

http://www.philspector.com/contact.html

JMO and serious ones at that

Thanks

[Cornblossom]

I just wanted to pass along the latest info from my morning discussions with the Los Angeles Court PIO Alan Parachini. (Yes he was available on Sunday -- and he's on vacation!)
So, here's the deal: Alan says KTLA pulled out of the trial 2 weeks ago. Apparantly, Judge Fidler is requiring robotic cameras and specific audio equipment and the cost vs. benefit of doing the trial scared KTLA off. I think the Judge may still allow very limited coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict, but officially that IS NOT what I'm being told.

BTW here's a primer on production costs for these kinds of matters. Equipment purchase or rental; bodies to man the equipment and a critical issue you may not be aware of is this: whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE. There is no profit made off the feed just because you agree to pool a trial. In fact, it is much more expensive to pool a trial than to simply cover it for your own purposes.

All of a sudden I feel like I'm making excuses for laying out the PPV possibility we, at TLE, are proposing. This is not our attempt at trading out 4-5 smaller trials for 1 PS trial. We do not plan to charge for trials in the future. This is a one time option that will allow us to provide other trials (and there are some great ones out there -- you guys should know that) while at the same time adding the PS trial, something we can only do on a PPV basis.

I must say I laugh when people suggest I personally will make a fortune on this venture. At this point there is no money for MJB, and there hasn't been for the last 8 months while preparing to launch TLE. Ask my wife. (At least I think she's still my wife).

Anyway I digress. So, efforts continue, but our time to act is so short I feel it may be overwhelming to get the number we need. More in a day or so.

Here's hoping.

MJBh3lls bells...I was going to ask you for a loan LMAO but thanks for answering some questions!

[kennedy06]

Doesn't Vinnie Politan have a radio show and once worked for CTV also? Maybe he would give it a plug, can't forget his reaction to Phil's gun pose. I bet he hasn't forgotten it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlOI9IfGq_Q

I realize you are the professional here and it is your business, these maybe lame ideas, but there are something to try to help you and our cause.

Oh I bet Pies crowd would be interested too. A quick call to the Backstage Tavern is that what it is called now? hmmmm

Hope I haven't offended anyone.

JMO

[kennedy06]

Oh asking Pie to spread the word to her crowd, not the Backstage directly, I don't know if Dan K. would probably appreciate that. hmmm

There would be an interview. omg

JMO

[Cornblossom]

I'm not joking here, maybe you could call Phil himself. He is a celebrity, maybe it is an insult to have the media be uninterested in him.
Seriously, maybe Mrs. Spector would enjoy an interview with you as much as Mrs. Scotto did! :)

Worse he could do is hang up or not return your call.

You would have all the coverage and the interviews ;)

http://www.philspector.com/contact.html

JMO and serious ones at that

Thankshe won't even fix up his own home! LMAO

[kennedy06]

he won't even fix up his own home! LMAO

Hi Cornblossom, thats funny. But I was very serious and just trying to help, Really I was. I mean maybe through a middle man he would pay for the coverage or something, he is eccentric you know. He didn't exactly shy away from the possiblity of a reality tv show or making that check offer, remember with the shell necklace wasn't it, while awaiting trial.

Aren't there a few singers who are suing him?? Maybe a few people, some from his past, or even newly found fans that would like to watch his trial for whatever reasons??????? hmmmmm

Fans and nonsupporters alike I think would like to watch it.

Pie well she seemed to get alot of attention and with whatever she does, she does seem to meet with more of the "incrowd" that may have some pull.

I probably have said enough:punch:

JMO

[Cornblossom]

Hi Cornblossom, thats funny. But I was very serious and just trying to help, Really I was. I mean maybe through a middle man he would pay for the coverage or something, he is eccentric you know. He didn't exactly shy away from the possiblity of a reality tv show or making that check offer, remember with the shell necklace wasn't it, while awaiting trial.

Aren't there a few singers who are suing him?? Maybe a few people, some from his past, or even knewly found fans that would like to watch his trial for whatever reasons??????? hmmmmm

Fans and nonsupporters alike I think would like to watch it.

Pie well she seemed to get alot of attention and with whatever she does, she does seem to meet with more of the "incrowd" that may have some pull.

I probably have said enough:punch:

JMOI didn't mean to offend you...please don't think I was laughing at you...you're doing great! You're trying!!!!!

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I just wanted to pass along the latest info from my morning discussions with the Los Angeles Court PIO Alan Parachini. (Yes he was available on Sunday -- and he's on vacation!)
So, here's the deal: Alan says KTLA pulled out of the trial 2 weeks ago. Apparantly, Judge Fidler is requiring robotic cameras and specific audio equipment and the cost vs. benefit of doing the trial scared KTLA off. I think the Judge may still allow very limited coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict, but officially that IS NOT what I'm being told.

BTW here's a primer on production costs for these kinds of matters. Equipment purchase or rental; bodies to man the equipment and a critical issue you may not be aware of is this: whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE. There is no profit made off the feed just because you agree to pool a trial. In fact, it is much more expensive to pool a trial than to simply cover it for your own purposes.

All of a sudden I feel like I'm making excuses for laying out the PPV possibility we, at TLE, are proposing. This is not our attempt at trading out 4-5 smaller trials for 1 PS trial. We do not plan to charge for trials in the future. This is a one time option that will allow us to provide other trials (and there are some great ones out there -- you guys should know that) while at the same time adding the PS trial, something we can only do on a PPV basis.

I must say I laugh when people suggest I personally will make a fortune on this venture. At this point there is no money for MJB, and there hasn't been for the last 8 months while preparing to launch TLE. Ask my wife. (At least I think she's still my wife).

Anyway I digress. So, efforts continue, but our time to act is so short I feel it may be overwhelming to get the number we need. More in a day or so.

Here's hoping.

MJB

Goodness..I am a Canadian..and have to wonder about charging for video feed??? It is either out there or it isnt..I for one wish to see this PS2..but do work and ony have a few days a week to devote to observing..and to me 35.00/month is abit much..I dont pay that for telephone service..and even my heat (gas) doesnt reach that cost..So maybe I will just settle for the highlights and whatever the media provides..
I did see the first tial and circus of mis-information..and observed the stealth juror who feared for his property values..Geesh..I dont want to watch?? ..but cant stay away if it is available!!..PS is indeed a freak..and he will be eventually be held accountable ... But as for me..I will not pay for it!..Sorry Michel..Just cant budget tihs with costs and depressed incomes across the boards!!

Bless you for what you wish to do..but I cant go there!!

LMS:(

[kennedy06]

I didn't mean to offend you...please don't think I was laughing at you...you're doing great! You're trying!!!!!

Just thinking, PS probably reads here and is thinking what in the he// those posters on IS are hoping I'll pay to see my own trial! :chicken:

Who knows maybe he would.

JMO

[Cornblossom]

Just thinking, PS probably reads here and is thinking what in the he// those posters on IS are hoping I'll pay to see my own trial! :chicken:

Who knows maybe he would.

JMO:lol: you made my day LMAO

[True2Blues]

I just wanted to pass along the latest info from my morning discussions with the Los Angeles Court PIO Alan Parachini. (Yes he was available on Sunday -- and he's on vacation!)
So, here's the deal: Alan says KTLA pulled out of the trial 2 weeks ago. Apparantly, Judge Fidler is requiring robotic cameras and specific audio equipment and the cost vs. benefit of doing the trial scared KTLA off. I think the Judge may still allow very limited coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict, but officially that IS NOT what I'm being told.

BTW here's a primer on production costs for these kinds of matters. Equipment purchase or rental; bodies to man the equipment and a critical issue you may not be aware of is this: whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE. There is no profit made off the feed just because you agree to pool a trial. In fact, it is much more expensive to pool a trial than to simply cover it for your own purposes.

All of a sudden I feel like I'm making excuses for laying out the PPV possibility we, at TLE, are proposing. This is not our attempt at trading out 4-5 smaller trials for 1 PS trial. We do not plan to charge for trials in the future. This is a one time option that will allow us to provide other trials (and there are some great ones out there -- you guys should know that) while at the same time adding the PS trial, something we can only do on a PPV basis.

I must say I laugh when people suggest I personally will make a fortune on this venture. At this point there is no money for MJB, and there hasn't been for the last 8 months while preparing to launch TLE. Ask my wife. (At least I think she's still my wife).

Anyway I digress. So, efforts continue, but our time to act is so short I feel it may be overwhelming to get the number we need. More in a day or so.

Here's hoping.

MJB

I think most of us realize that this is not the typical situation. We really do appreciate your efforts to help us find a way to be able to see this trial.

[True2Blues]

Just thinking, PS probably reads here and is thinking what in the he// those posters on IS are hoping I'll pay to see my own trial! :chicken:

Who knows maybe he would.

JMO

If he offers, he'd better be made to pay up front, in cash. There are bill collectors hard on his heels as it is.

[warhorse46]

Sorry..I didn't mean to offend you at all..my post was nothing against you, my Cornflower poster friend.

I was just speaking to the real copyright laws..there is no copyright as to one's PM unless they publish it or register it as a copyright. There would be no court order about it at all..unless they said their words were copyrighted. (BTW..I have the little ditty one can put beneath their PMs..to ensure legal safety as to information not to be shared with others..just email me...I'll send it to you.)

when you blow your mouth at someone you risk it being sent out there...there is no copyright on it unless you make one..BUT I TOTALLY AGREE..in keeping with the TOS..you just don't do that..it's against the rules, we all agreed to that..it's pretty nasty and incomprehensible to put another's nasty mouth out there in public even though all of us should think before we speak.

Hence..had you PM'd me on this..no one would ever be reading about it..I will abide by the rules.



I understand what you are saying..but PMs are what they are...defamation, whatever..but...BUT we do uphold these board rules. Legally...there would be every right to go after a defamation or civil harassment case.

I uphold them..as do you..and almost everyone here, thankfully.




Incorrect Jane, in today's cyber world e-mails & PMs do fall under the copyright rules. Please read CW's post here re that very issue.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=146062

[warhorse46]

Does anyone know if we have anywhere close to the 1000 people needed to get the live coverage from TLE and Michel B.?
Can we take a poll here?
I know there are posters on other parts of this board, ( Caylee A. other Trials, and Politics), but don't know if they have an interest in this trial like we do. Anyone know?

Is it okay to set up some kind of poll to see? ( I don't know if that is against the rules).??
I think the trial is fast approaching, and would love to know if we are even close?


Michel has until Thursday to give the court his decision on airing the trial live. Go to the link I provided & leave a comment. Give the link to anyone you know who may be interested.

[warhorse46]

I just wanted to pass along the latest info from my morning discussions with the Los Angeles Court PIO Alan Parachini. (Yes he was available on Sunday -- and he's on vacation!)
So, here's the deal: Alan says KTLA pulled out of the trial 2 weeks ago. Apparantly, Judge Fidler is requiring robotic cameras and specific audio equipment and the cost vs. benefit of doing the trial scared KTLA off. I think the Judge may still allow very limited coverage of Openings; Closings and Verdict, but officially that IS NOT what I'm being told.

BTW here's a primer on production costs for these kinds of matters. Equipment purchase or rental; bodies to man the equipment and a critical issue you may not be aware of is this: whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE. There is no profit made off the feed just because you agree to pool a trial. In fact, it is much more expensive to pool a trial than to simply cover it for your own purposes.

All of a sudden I feel like I'm making excuses for laying out the PPV possibility we, at TLE, are proposing. This is not our attempt at trading out 4-5 smaller trials for 1 PS trial. We do not plan to charge for trials in the future. This is a one time option that will allow us to provide other trials (and there are some great ones out there -- you guys should know that) while at the same time adding the PS trial, something we can only do on a PPV basis.

I must say I laugh when people suggest I personally will make a fortune on this venture. At this point there is no money for MJB, and there hasn't been for the last 8 months while preparing to launch TLE. Ask my wife. (At least I think she's still my wife).

Anyway I digress. So, efforts continue, but our time to act is so short I feel it may be overwhelming to get the number we need. More in a day or so.

Here's hoping.

MJB


Thank you Michel! When did they start requiring the pool network to provide their feed for free? In the old days they sold it, that is how some networks made money.

[warhorse46]

Yes, NavyMom, at this point it sounds like he's the only one and he's really trying.. I trust Judge Fidler, in all the trials since I gauge the other Judges by him. And he is requiring this special equipment, evidently. Anyone know about "robotic cameras" ? (Sounds like something that would run amuk to me but maybe I've watched too much sci-fi.) And "specific audio equipment" ? hmmm Was it Mr. Reardon (the attny. for Defense who was the "specialist" in Jury Instruction? I guess they could do better tho it was :biggrin: looking at the speaker phone....Anyway, guess CTV/TRU-tv or whatever it's called now doesn't have that equipment?


Robotic cameras are small cameras mounted on the walls that are remote controlled. There would not be a camera on a tripod manned by a person inside the courtroom. Most times in a trial there are 2 or 3 remote controlled cameras mounted & a live person camera inside the courtroom. I have no clue on the special sound equipment.

[kennedy06]

I did a little searching and if what I pulled up is current, I came up with Vinnie P. radio show and of course it gives the call #. Looks like topics are caller driven. I don't have this service, nor would I be brave enough to call but, maybe there are those of you who are passionate enough about the trial to call and just talk about lack of coverage. Of course I would think Mr. Bryant would have to be the one to mention his kind and considerate offer maybe, maybe not. I don't know about things like that. I'm sure VP hasn't forgotten PS 1.

My last and final thought on this subject for Lawjerk is I wonder if we couldn't get camera coverage, if an old idea could become new again, audio feed only? Could that be a possiblity? It could be streamed maybe showing photos, some permanently set and others added as witnesses testified.

Well I have tried the best I can, and no I wasn't thinking of PS getting 1 coverage but maybe he would want to cover a good majority of it! Maybe that is the craziest idea I ever had LOL, Oh well Thanks everyone and especially MJB.

http://www.sirius.com/indietalk

JMO

[True2Blues]

Trying is all any of us can do, Kennedy. We've been trying to get the word out and hopefully enough who are interested will see it and get in touch with MJB to take advantage of his kind offer.

[kennedy06]

Kennedy06: Your entirley welcome, glad to be of service. Always willing to help. I do think you may be wrong about the media missing the train. If they were that interested they would be covering it now.JMO. Also, I'm happy to see that you are interested in a fair trial for PS this time around. All we can do is hope.:patriot::cool:

I just knew you would catch that post I deleted.

Yes Searching, he received a fair trial last time and like you I hope he gets a fair trial this time around also.

:patriot:

JMO

[joolz]

If you'd like to light a candle for Lana:

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=lana

:rose::rose::rose:

[hiitsme]

Amazing!! Some folks are willing to pay to see a possible mistrial, acquital or another hung jury. Any of the 3 could happen. What if a mistrial is declared say 1/2 way thru the trial. It could happen. The only certainty about jury trials is uncertainty. Do you get a refund if for some reason a mistrial is declared. Furthermore, isn't soliciting funds on this message board for a private venture against the rules.:hat:

I guess it's like auto insurance. Even if you don't get into an accident your premiums won't be refunded. You simply paid for the coverage. To pay or not to pay for the trial coverage is a personal decision.

[True2Blues]

Amazing!! Some folks are willing to pay to see a possible mistrial, acquital or another hung jury. Any of the 3 could happen. What if a mistrial is declared say 1/2 way thru the trial. It could happen. The only certainty about jury trials is uncertainty. Do you get a refund if for some reason a mistrial is declared. Furthermore, isn't soliciting funds on this message board for a private venture against the rules.:hat:

No one is soliciting funds for a private venture. There is a possibility this trial may be available through pay per view to the public. It is something many of us wish to see and so it has been mentioned here. No one is breaking any rules.

Those who are not interested in it can scroll on by.

[kennedy06]

kennedy06, you surely have rolled up your shirtsleeves with ideas for coverage of PS2 and your taking the time for sites, etc. as we renew. Kudos for all your efforts!

Thank you. Oh wait till I post about the link about the heavenly mattresses and that hotel law suit with PS! You'll all like that one LOL!

JMO

[Spectorfan8]

kennedy06, you surely have rolled up your shirtsleeves with ideas for coverage of PS2 and your taking the time for sites, etc. as we renew. Kudos for all your efforts!


She is a trooper, isn't she? :)

[True2Blues]

Constant nit picking and looking for something to run off has nothing to do with the Phil Spector trial.

Whether we will be able to watch it happen or not, does.

[GIGI4256]

Has a jury been seated yet?

[FrankieBones1]

Who is Shuman?

[True2Blues]

Has a jury been seated yet?

No, they're still doing questionnaires until the 20th of this month, when they'll call people in for live voir dire. The jury will be seated from those interviews. Closer, but not quite there yet.

[FrankieBones1]

Hi, True. Any idea when this trial will finally get off the ground? Good to see you!

[FrankieBones1]

No, they're still doing questionnaires until the 20th of this month, when they'll call people in for live voir dire. The jury will be seated from those interviews. Closer, but not quite there yet.

Yikes. So it's possible we won't see it start until December?

[True2Blues]

Who is Shuman?

:seeya: Hi Frankie! I think that's Cheryl Shuman who works in Hollywood or used to. There are links back up the thread about her. She seems to get these obsessions with people.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheryl_Shuman

[True2Blues]

Yikes. So it's possible we won't see it start until December?

If it takes that long to seat a jury, I suppose it's possible. I would think the beginning of November, if not sooner.

At this point, either people know too much or they just didn't care in the first place.

[kennedy06]

I don't know what became of this lawsuit if it was settled or what, but this is what was in the news in June. Apprently 3 were named in the suit. I will correct myself it was heavenly beds not mattresses according to the article.JMO

http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/17118.html

[Spectorfan8]

:seeya: Hi Frankie! I think that's Cheryl Shuman who works in Hollywood or used to. There are links back up the thread about her. She seems to get these obsessions with people.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Cheryl_Shuman

Frankie,

I do not mean to cut into your post, but I posted a link about her a few pages back. Strange woman. jmo

[hiitsme]

Yikes. So it's possible we won't see it start until December?

I guess I can understand the delays, but as we approach the holidays, many might be hesitant to commit to a PPV event. Any remedy to that?

[True2Blues]

I don't know what became of this lawsuit if it was settled or what, but this is what was in the news in June. Apprently 3 were named in the suit. I will correct myself it was heavenly beds not mattresses according to the article.JMO

http://thecelebritycafe.com/features/17118.html

Whatever they were, he's obviously not paying for them. I haven't seen anything on this since then either. I assume it's still pending.

[Spectorfan8]

True, Frankie,

I did not even notice that True provided the link. Man, am I ready for a trial. lol

Please accept my apologies. hammer

[True2Blues]

Frankie,

I do not mean to cut into your post, but I posted a link about her a few pages back. Strange woman. jmo

She's an odd duck all right.

[True2Blues]

True, Frankie,

I did not even notice that True provided the link. Man, am I ready for a trial. lol

Please accept my apologies. hammer

Nothing to apologize for, two answers are good. It's no answers that are the problem! LOL

I'm ready for a trial too. This trial in fact. :)