We Ain't Gonna See It Live.

[Jayne]

Somebody out there...in the media...has to have some interest to keep up with those of us in these threads who have followed this trial from day ONE and are looking forward to this PS2.

This wasn't a glove that didn't fit...it wasn't an attorney who absconded with a bag of "goods" or a former Wife murdered...although..YES that was newsworthy.

Here there is a music industry ICON..who totes guns..threatens people, especially women who come to his Invite into his House..then wants to keep Captive. HEY..where was that "kidnapping" charge, btw? He wears a woman's coat (I really don't have a problem with that..BUT there was blood on it) then claims (only through his astute attorneys) that he didn't have it ON or was running toward her to SAVE her from herself, or somesuch when his guest allegedly SHOT HERSELF in HIS HOUSE? Newsworthy? Especially after the last Hung Jury and the TV and news coverage of that one?

Maybe the reason the Media isn't interested is because they TOO believe he's Guilty and don't want to take it to the waves? Not worth of their time or money? Maybe so. I guess I'd just let the whole thing go down the tubes (TV and all). If they don't cover it..then they're essentially saying he's guilty? Or not? Where are the former media people..the ones we all loved? Why can't they put in a petition to cover this trial? Beth Karas...absolutely great and not one sided...gotta give her that..I loved her commentaries. Loni and Marta? Jamie? Vinnie? Etc. Etc.?

I understand if it were a mass murderer in a little town..with little reknown..why bother? This is just a celebrity who had millions glued to the TV last year during PS1 who got them great ratings, I'm sure, and with comments back and forth on their sites and they had "fun" with it...to their not expense but recompense and more.

Just don't get it..why no one wants to step in here and televise or at least "report" as best they can or can afford on this PS2 trial. There are plenty of people who want this..who would respond...who could keep those reporters and stations ON CALL and IN BUSINESS for this trial. Upping their ratings and giving some reporter a KUDO in the news.

What's up with that?

If I were independently wealthy and didn't have to work a many hours a week job, I'd be petitioning to cover it...outside if not inside. I DO understand if JF wants to keep it outside the courtroom. Actually...it might end up better than last time..thinking about it!

jmo

J

(OK..you got it my friend..I tried to post this thread. :) )

[kennedy06]

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.:rolleyes:

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

[Jayne]

NO, Kennedy..I did NOT suggest it..LKB did..that he was running towards her to stop her..remember that? Or that he was so many feet away and just got "spurted" with blood..while the entire floor between them was blood free? Hello? Guess it was the Blood Spatter Fairy instead of the Tooth Fairy?

Yeah..I agree..he'd have had to been doing the foxtrot or two step or better yet...the Tango...to get the blood on his jacket that way..IF he had it on (which I do believe..and I do believe he was within just 24-30 inches of her at the time..at arms length, if you get what I mean)..and if he didn't...where was it? hanging from the ceiling with only the left lapel and side near her blood spurting like Linda Blair's spewing? At least she hit everything in the room, not to mention the entire jacket of the "preacher"!

Then..they'll say...it was such a self inflicted shot and the blood was everywhere..OR..NO...it was just "contained" due to it being in the back of her skull/spinal column..so little got out. OK..then? How did it get on his jacket? He couldn't have been running towards her..right? Otherwise, like I said..there would have been blood all over the floor and the rest of the foyer. No..that was LKB's claim..I remember it distinctly from PS1.

But..what if she was correct? and the little guy with the broom (Aesop's fables) came in and swept up the floors but forgot PS's jacket? What if Lana herself got out of the chair and "cleaned up" before expiring? Wasn't it Spitz or whoever..claimed she could be like a chicken with it's head cut off..still moving about? Dancing and singing Da Do Run Run? (NO I know he didn't say that...I'm just expounding in ridiculousness..)

[kipswife]

hey everyone,

went to jury selection on friday. will write it up tomorrow morning. needless to say, it was really interesting and the highlight of my trip

m

[Jayne]

hey everyone,

went to jury selection on friday. will write it up tomorrow morning. needless to say, it was really interesting and the highlight of my trip

m

YEAH..can't wait to hear about it..do it NOW! :)

J

[Shotzie]

If I remember right Sprocket that went almost everyday to trial one and reported back to us, is planning on going again. so hopefully we can get a little insight to what is going on..no tv..bummerhammer

[kennedy06]

I have tried to post often to show there is interest to the point I'm sure many are tired of my posts. I think the legal edge is the best chance of gavel to gavel. They are done with OJ now. He did a great job with that and gave us some good interviews also. I have emailed them again asking for PS coverage as I hope everyone else has. After watching his intro on the consumer segment he seems like just the guy to listen to us! Lets hope he does:)

CW did let us know that there will be some coverage by our IS channel. So there is still hope for some coverage. I can't see Lisa, Jamie and Ashley not wanting to discuss it. They did a great job last time.

As snowbird posted I find something strange about this lack of coverage also. There could be how many years before another celebrity trial barring any sports figures and they don't want to cover this most unusual one?

JMO

[KathR]

I have tried to post often to show there is interest to the point I'm sure many are tired of my posts. I think the legal edge is the best chance of gavel to gavel. They are done with OJ now. He did a great job with that and gave us some good interviews also. I have emailed them again asking for PS coverage as I hope everyone else has. After watching his intro on the consumer segment he seems like just the guy to listen to us! Lets hope he does:)

CW did let us know that there will be some coverage by our IS channel. So there is still hope for some coverage. I can't see Lisa, Jamie and Ashley not wanting to discuss it. They did a great job last time.

As snowbird posted I find something strange about this lack of coverage also. There could be how many years before another celebrity trial barring any sports figures and they don't want to cover this most unusual one?

JMO

I've thought of trying to enlist some help from the 350 or so people that are always posting in the Caylee Anthony topic. Actually, I've been one of them at times. I'll come here and find no one around then go there to watch the action. I'd like to tell the people viewing that thread that they just may not get to watch the trial of Casey Anthony for the same reason we are not getting to watch the Spector trial.

With the economy going south we don't have the chance of a snowball in heck getting anyone to make the investment in televising anything right now, but it looks like TPTB have been putting this on the back burner for some time.

It seems that one network still has a lock on all the trial coverage contracts or whatever the court gives you to allow you to tape the trial. But that network is no longer seriously interested in trial coverage, doing the barest minimum necessary to keep alive the fiction of there being trial coverage available to the public.

Someone mentioned in one of the blogs or here that perhaps a private party could tape the trial and people could pay-per-view to watch it. Guess it's a little late for even that now.

[nsm]

I can't believe the stations that Live Stream really believe there is not enough interest in this trial. Its not like he is just Joe-6pack. This is a famous man - and famous for being nutty - which is always interesting
to the general public - or there would be no Nat. Enquirer and other such rags. There is something strange about this lack of coverage.


Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

[nsm]

I hope it ends like the OJ trial, with PS having to put his hands behind his back and being led to jail.

[KathR]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/philspectortrial/

Here's a link to the petition to have the trial televised. I put it in links, but this will be convenient if you are reading here.

[JopNop]

I have to ask myself where the media is getting this information that no one is interested in the PS trial, some third world country? :shrug: I think if they would just spend the time and REALLY check, they would find more than enough interest.


I guess Trutv would rather show reruns of the Candid Camera trial for the 5th time!

I would like to think that a station devoted to trials and criminal justice would be all over this live trial!

Go figure!

[eagleeer]

Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

It is purely up to the Judge to allow cameras in the courtroom. Whether the networks decide to do it is another issue. Petition all you like but if TruTV has something scheduled for that time slot we are SOL

[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.
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.

[Jayne]

Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

Some do...it depends on the case and particularly the age of the defendant, particularly a young child who is a witness. I don't know whether to call it a "right" but it's a protective matter by the Court/State. Some children as potential witnesses are even protected from taking the stand and instead do a taped video or deposition - it all depends on the state, court, circumstances. I honestly can't tell you..right now without researching it..whether PS would have any right or say about cameras in the courtroom. I could NOT believe it..in another case on these boards where the defendant was "pro per" and actually got to Question/"witness" the child victim..I think it was the case where he maliciously and brutally killed her brother and tortured her as well. Just Sickening that that poor child Had to take the stand and be questioned by the very monster who hurt her and her brother. I say it's just fine to allow a defendant to represent himself, but to allow him to question a victim, especially a child, on the stand, I find reprehensible, even if the child/guardian agrees. Let the public defender step in, whether the defendant likes it or not..for that limited purpose, perhaps. Sorry..that was sort of a tangent. But it made me think..what if PS defended himself and was questioning the PBA witnesses? They're obviously adults and could hold their own and PS would probably not want to be questioning them anyway - he'd blow it after his first question, I'd imagine. What a fiasco that would be. 3d person, 1st person...almost like "Who's on First?"

Frankly, I'd think He would want the publicity, on camera..but maybe not, since it isn't his most favourable light. And the defense could be arguing and motioning (although I haven't heard of it) about No Cameras..arguing for a Fair Trial the benefit of which outweighs the right of the media and public..However, trials are "public"..can't get around that one. There are interesting "reads" out there on First Amendment, public trials, cameras, etc. Wish I could quote or cite them for you, but I don't have it handy right now and I was foolish enough to not "save them to favourites"...do a google search if you're interested in reading about it. I found it rather fascinating.

I know this was no real answer..but maybe a little bit?

J

[Jayne]

You write wonderfully, IMO...you made it interesting..with humour and "facts". I saw PS's photo going into trial..I have to agree that he looked particularly DAPPER (NOT to get into that Fashion Thing again..but he DID..IMO...won't say the same for Chelle...who I don't mean to be MEAN, but she dresses like a teenager..Heck why not Match Him in Style? Anyway...no slams at me for that, please..)

I'm sorry you didn't make it back Inside..but waiting for the rest of your story. And..glad you didn't get stopped by security..I was concerned about that..NOT that you're a criminal, mind you, LOL...I had just posted to be careful what is in your purse, etc.

Gheesh..I really wish you could have heard the jury questions..did you get back inside?

Glad you had a Great Time...I thought about you...kindly...and not jealously..just with a tad bit of "nice envy" (not Green (although CA is!)! :)

J

[KathR]

Before the OJ trial CNN was announcing trial coverage every day. Of course, that got interrupted by the bailout coverage, but I think they were surprised to find so little interest in the trial by most people. Ergo, no one is interested in second trials. Ergo, no one is interested in the Spector re-trial.

They couldn't be more wrong. How can the media be so wrong about what people actually want to watch. Perhaps it is because they are always pitching to a different market than the one they have. If middle aged, middle classed people watch trials, switch to something the 19-year-olds want. Instead of a steady, smaller audience they fight over the pickings in the bigger ones.

[kennedy06]

Feed back

Hey TruTV if no gavel to gavel camera I would take a link to just listen to the coverage!! How about that!!:seeya:

JMO

[ms1950]

Trial watchers may have an opportunity to watch the retrial of Phil Spector! The site, The Legal Edge is attempting to set up a live stream of the trial, gavel to gavel! Many of you may have watched the OJ trial there. If you are interested in seeing the trial (as I am) please go there and sign up. Here's the deal though, it will be presented pay per view. If enough of us want to watch the whole trial, costs go down, The more the merrier! So, if all you peps want to watch this guy go down, let's unite and do it!

I really love trial watching and I know you guys do too. :beer:

I hope it was okay to post this, I'm just real excited that we may be able to catch the whole trial instead of sound bites.

Thanks!

[Lana]

I would LOVE to be able to watch it. Been looking forward to it. I just don't know if I can afford it.

[warhorse46]

I would love to watch the trial live & I just do not understand why networks are saying there is not enough interest in watching a retrial.

[warhorse46]

Go here & leave a comment.

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=56#comment-47

[Cornblossom]

It's my understanding,as with all pay per views if you don't pay you don't watch. I can afford the 35.00 a month,I can afford whatever Michel sets as a price...but what I have against this idea is if I pay my money and then miss some of the trial...that's going to tick me off..and I mean if it's my fault,audio fault or visual fault. What if your computer crashes? Is the trial going to be archived? Am I going to end up reading a blog anyway?
I'm VERY surprised this isn't going to be shown on Tv..unless they are slipping a new concept in on us...if you want to see a certain trial bad enough-it'll be pay per view.

[kennedy06]

I guess this is good for our own IS to see the interest also!

Count me in!

[True2Blues]

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it. :shrug:

[Cornblossom]

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it. :shrug:It is my understanding that the trials weren't going to be rated anyway, so how do they know no interest was shown? LOL:shrug:

[True2Blues]

It's my understanding,as with all pay per views if you don't pay you don't watch. I can afford the 35.00 a month,I can afford whatever Michel sets as a price...but what I have against this idea is if I pay my money and then miss some of the trial...that's going to tick me off..and I mean if it's my fault,audio fault or visual fault. What if your computer crashes? Is the trial going to be archived? Am I going to end up reading a blog anyway?
I'm VERY surprised this isn't going to be shown on Tv..unless they are slipping a new concept in on us...if you want to see a certain trial bad enough-it'll be pay per view.


:seeya: If nothing else, it's showing who cares what the viewers do want to see and who doesn't. It's not like no one has showed an interest in seeing PS2 aired. There have been requests going in for weeks, months, to IS and CNN.

Even though IS doesn't provide an address for programming like CTV did. I guess they were trying to make it clear the viewer's interest isn't welcome. It didn't stop us, but then no plan is perfect.

If this were any other case, I wouldn't be willing to pay $35.00 a month to see it and that's a fact, so anyone planning to run away with that idea is in for a disappointment.

[True2Blues]

It is my understanding that the trials weren't going to be rated anyway, so how do they know no interest was shown? LOL:shrug:

I remember them saying that too, so why should they care?

Unless they are looking at Neilson ratings from the last trial, I have no idea where that came from. If they actually wanted an accurate idea of how many watched that trial, they should have checked the message boards. That trial was busy all day and half the night.

They've gotten actual requests to air PS2, shouldn't that tell them something? It's the only trial I have ever requested they carry.

[Cornblossom]

I remember them saying that too, so why should they care?

Unless they are looking at Neilson ratings from the last trial, I have no idea where that came from. If they actually wanted an accurate idea of how many watched that trial, they should have checked the message boards. That trial was busy all day and half the night.

They've gotten actual requests to air PS2, shouldn't that tell them something? It's the only trial I have ever requested they carry.


I'm not interested in half the trials they've been showing,that didn't stop them from showing them LMAO Yet...there's this big boo haha about showing a trial like the Spector trial? what gives? A trial is a trial...doesn't cost any more to set up a Spector trial as it did an OJ one. IMO

[True2Blues]

I'm not interested in half the trials they've been showing,that didn't stop them from showing them LMAO Yet...there's this big boo haha about showing a trial like the Spector trial? what gives? A trial is a trial...doesn't cost any more to set up a Spector trial as it did an OJ one. IMO

Exactly. It's still a murder trial, it isn't required that anyone had to see the first to watch the second and actual viewers are asking that it be covered.

A live trial beats canned trials any day as far as I'm concerned.

[kennedy06]

Just to add a little paranoia to the mix, I have wondered if someone in particular doesn't want it shown or someone that may work for them. I can remember checking out in the grocery store and the lady bagging the groceries mentioned getting home to watch the trial and how her elderly mother watched it. Needless to say we struck up a conversation!

Heck in a conversation with my physician he asked what had I been up to, I chuckled watching the PS trial and even he started asking me questions about it and new many facts himself. I don't get this no interest either.:confused: Of course its not on everyones minds but enough for magazines, newspapers,tv station's news coverage and documentary type specials to mention the trial and PS.

I dont think there will ever be another trial like the 1st OJ trial,they can't expect that, but I do believe as far as trial interest and coverage goes this trial had to have ranked in the top 10. JMO

JMO

[Cornblossom]

Just to add a little paranoia to the mix, I have wondered if someone in particular doesn't want it shown or someone that may work for them. I can remember checking out in the grocery store and the lady bagging the groceries mentioned getting home to watch the trial and how her elderly mother watched it. Needless to say we struck up a conversation!

Heck in a conversation with my physician he asked what had I been up to, I chuckled watching the PS trial and even he started asking me questions about it and new many facts himself. I don't get this no interest either.:confused:

JMO
my doctor had the waiting room TV turned to the trial..everyone was watching it.....and no one complained! One reason why I didn't mind making appointments during that trial.

[Jayne]

I don't know the answer here...I realize there are many of us who WANT this coverage, even if we can't watch it (day by day...meaning me and maybe others?)..but we'd be willing to GET IT..since we'd get to be able to watch videos of it?

Again...I'm willing to shell out $20 per month..even though I'd probably ever see a moment of trial...to ensure that it IS there for my fellow posters..and be able to access an archive, so to speak and see what other's saw.

BUT..I want reassurances that my $20 a month is not going for nothing.

Believe me..I've read the posts as to how much it costs...Sure..I work for a firm..they Bill at X amount of dollars but I get paid Xless amount of dollars per hour.
I'm still saying..and I may be indeed wrong..but with even two employees at 10K per month..there is another 10K for equipment, licenses, etc. and those licenses..if contracted appropriately among all the other cases..might come up to 2K per case? It depends..I'm just saying that 35 a month is a bit too much for a monthly fee. I'd say..how about $5.00 per month...no rebates, just for the opportunity..then as you view.. $2.00 per day...if you view 20 days per month..that's $45.00 per month. Id' think from all of our interest in this trial that just might be a better deal..get a monthly "low fee"..then charge per day per view, even if it is not live but saved video?

I'm really trying to back this up but trying to be fair to myself, of course!, and others.

MJB has my $20 per month..if he can work something out like this...because if he took $5 per month..he might actually get 45 out of me..just one little person..

jmo

j

[True2Blues]

It doesn't matter how much you may be willing to spend over all. This is a case of will there will be enough there to pay for the equipment, personell and upload to get it out in the first place.

This trial isn't part of the budget at TLE, they have already decided to put their $$ money into other things. What is being offered, as I understand it, is the organization and coordination of providing a live feed of the trial. The money is on those who want the feed to exist.

No one is going to lease equipment or run it for what they 'might' get when it's over. The equipment has to be paid for, the people need to eat and pay bills and no one will be uploading for free.

That money has to be provided before the equipment is handed over, the feed goes up, and regularly to the people who need to make a living running it. It HAS to be there or there is no feed.

This is a do it yourself project, it has to be supported as it goes. It's not what we'd prefer, but if we want it, we're going to have to pay for it and that's the bottom line.

If 1000 people cannot be found who will commit to $35.00 a month there will be no feed. If more are found, the amount will go down.

It is what it is.

[Joan-Pa.]

There is no way that TLE or Michel will know who is watching how many hours a day, or if they are at work and can't watch, so the money has to come up front, and equal for everyone, or it will not be seen.
When he reconsidered airing it, he stated that he would still probalby show 4 or 5 shorter trials live, and would do this one extra, or sperately but would have to do it as a 'pay for view' to cover the cost to do it seperately from the other trials he would be covering. He was trying to do it as a favor to all of us that were dissapointed that IN SESSION and KTLA wouldn't be covering it.
I know i assumed that IS/CTV would be covering it, since they did the first, and was shocked that they are not. Big mistake on their part.

So If we want to see this trial, we have to go by Michel's rules, and hopefully get enough people willing to pay and watch.
That is are only choice.

[Cornblossom]

Will you get your money back if you can't watch it after paying for it?
Are you helping pay for everyone to watch it or just yourself? I mean there's some people here I wouldn't want to watch it if they couldn't.
You have 1,000 viewers(payers) this month,but not that many the second month.......does "production" shut down?
You send money for a three month trial and it only lasts 2 months?:shrug:

[coinoutlet]

Count me in ...and $35 is not too steep for the number of hours of entertainment that will be provided.

[Jayne]

It doesn't matter how much you may be willing to spend over all. This is a case of will there will be enough there to pay for the equipment, personell and upload to get it out in the first place.

This trial isn't part of the budget at TLE, they have already decided to put their $$ money into other things. What is being offered, as I understand it, is the organization and coordination of providing a live feed of the trial. The money is on those who want the feed to exist.

No one is going to lease equipment or run it for what they 'might' get when it's over. The equipment has to be paid for, the people need to eat and pay bills and no one will be uploading for free.

That money has to be provided before the equipment is handed over, the feed goes up, and regularly to the people who need to make a living running it. It HAS to be there or there is no feed.

This is a do it yourself project, it has to be supported as it goes. It's not what we'd prefer, but if we want it, we're going to have to pay for it and that's the bottom line.

If 1000 people cannot be found who will commit to $35.00 a month there will be no feed. If more are found, the amount will go down.

It is what it is.

OK..I get your point..my cyber fellow poster.

I'm out...I don't have 35 a month..but if he or anyone wants to take 20 per month..as "extra" then I'm in. and, like I said.. I will not get to view a thing..except after the fact..it's all for everyone else's benefit...so that's why I say $20. Pay per view for not getting to view.

:)

J

[tartangirl]

For me the question is who does not want to see the second Phil Spector murder trial? All my contacts are saying yes to seeing it ...and seeing it all.

We have all used our voices, and our typing skills to show our displeasure with the decisions made by many media outlets to ignore this trial. We now have a chance to have the trial brought to us gavel to gavel. Who could ask for anything more? Well, sitting in that courtroom with all the prime subjects would just about make my life more than dang happy right now. ;) The world is a mess, our country is at odds with itself and this is almost one little thing that I can use some control over.

Hells Bells, YES....I want to see it ;)

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

[NYGalPal]

When does this trial start? We have to pay to watch it?

[Daisy'sMom]

I want to see the trial, but am not willing to pay a dime. We don't do pay for view in this house, remembering when you could watch television for free and already spending a fortune on satellite.

[lawjerk]

Seems there's a lot of confusion over how and why TLE is attempting to set up this PPV (pay per view can apply to a one night boxing match or a 4 month trial--it's very broad) PS2 coverage. I'm starting to wonder myself. (Kidding)

Issue 1: How can it cost more to do one long PS trial than it does to televise 4-5 shorter trials?
Answer: That's not the point. All things being equal a day of trial in one case is about the same cost as a day of trial in another. The original TLE plan hopes to broaden the trial watching audience by providing a variety of cases. We live in a short attention span world. If someone is not interested in Phil Spector the 2nd time around we may alienate the new viewer who may be interested in other trials like the mom on trial for killing her diabetic daughter by not monitoring her insulin; or the judge's husband who is on trial for attempted murder for knocking his wife silly with a frying pan. Both of these trials start within a few weeks.

Issue 2: Court Costs are How Much?
Answer: At the risk of going inside baseball...

1. Cameras and crew (2) $1,300/day
2. Audio operator $250/ day
3. Producer $300/day
4. Meals $125/day

Total $39,500 (20 days per month)

This doesn't count supplies and misc. needs that pop up.
I am assuming an average of 18 court days per month.

Issue 3: How Would the Site Work for PPV?
Answer: If you pay the monthly fee (which would be prorated and a refund issued for any partial month) you will be provided an activation code. If you don't pay, you don't get to see the PS2 feed. Simple. If you commit to this trial you're in for the duration. We can't have someone peek in for month one...then bail on the rest of the trial. I think the details re: costs make clear why that can't happen.

Issue 4: Why $35 Dollars!
Answer: See above cost breakdown. As I've said from the beginning this is based on 1000 viewers and the price could fall if more people commit. Many remember that CTV used to have a paid fee for trials but the project failed. That's why we are not attempting to create a pay per trial site. This attempt to bring PS2 back from a death TLE had nothing to do with is simply an accomodation. It doesn't fit into our business plan and we will continue to provide free trials no matter what happens with PS2.

Issue 5: Why Not a Lower Monthly Fee or a Daily Fee?
Answer: Bookkeeping and logistics nightmare. And by the math already done by others it's clear it would likely cost you more doing it by the day. Besides at $35 bucks a month that's $1.75 a day. I know in these trying times every penny counts and that's why I'm hanging it out there to see who wants what.

Issue 6: Why Does the Pool Outlet Need to Give Away the Feed?
Answer: Basically, the First Amendment. The trade off is this; it's impossible to allow all video media to stack up in the courtroom so one is chosen as "pool" and must provide the others with the pool feed free. The public, through the media, has the right to see the trial but logistics mean one pool feed for all to share. In a case like this there is likely to be more interest in Openings, certain witnesses, Closings and the Verdict, but the pool concept applies for the entire trial.

I'm happy to field questions that come up. But for now I must be exceeding some posting length limit.

MJB

[Joan-Pa.]

I am in for sure!
I think for most of us who really want to see this trial, it is simply that we felt cheated from the hung jury in the last one. also, we were so invested in the first trial, months and months, we feel we need to see how it will end. To see if there are any new details, or new witnesses,
and to see justice for Lana.
I think we all assumed that it would be carried again by CTV/In Session, or KTAL like last time, ( for us in the east coast, we needed Ktal, since In Session had ended at 3 pm for us.

I think what Michel is doing or trying to do is more than fair, and for the time it may take, he has a lot invested in it , and he knows how much we want to see it so he is going above and beyond to try to bring it to us.

I wonder what else we can do, who else we can contact, like the other poster said , maybe Vinnie P. , he covered the first trial.. he could spread the word on his radio show, and get more interested who would sign up.

Thank you Michel for explaining all the details, hopefully that will clear up things for some who didn't understand how it would work, and they will now know the effort you are putting forth for us deciated trial followers.
The other trials you mentioned we would all watch, but this one is different. Imagine if we couldn't have seen the second O.J. trial that just ended.. it wasn't as good as the first, but again it was good for all those who followed the first trial, and the hearing last fall.. to see it to the end, to see how it ends. and be there to see it in person.

This trial is so important to so many who invested their entire last summer, and into fall of 07.. we need to see it end.

Thank you Michel for all the effort you are making, and for listening to us, and hopefully we will be able to figure this out and get the number of people needed to bring it to us live every day.
You are going above an beyond but I think you will see how many will follow it every day, and the message boards will fill up day and night.
Thanks again

[Spectorfan8]

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it. :shrug:

I am with you 100% on this.

[True2Blues]

Thank you Michel for taking the time to come here and explain how this works, and even more than that, Thank You for Listening to to us!

I hope by now that everyone understands that no one is going to air this trial for free. There's no point in banging that drum, it's a fact.

The extra effort you are making on behalf of those of us who wish to see it is truly appreciated. Many of us said we'd pay if that was the only way to get this trial and we meant it. I just hope it's enough.



We're getting down to the wire here. The choice is simple, pay or don't see the trial. I'm willing to pay, because I want to see this resolved.

[kennedy06]

Lawjerk, is audio feed only a possibility if there isn't enough to cover the camera cost? Streaming the audio feed, I know an old concept that could be new again? Having the screen preset with pictures of the attorneys, PS and LC. Then as we would listen to different witnesses testify, a photo of them could be pasted and maybe even something about them?

Just an idea if all else fails and if the AP thinks JF would go for that???

Thanks for explaing things to us. Your efforts are appreciated. I hope you will keep us abreast of the count and any other efforts besides ours you may know of.

Oh and if I can sit through Saddam Hussein's trial coverage when it would come on and the others in Iraq, and Phil Spectors I think I have the attention span for the longer trials:) I think with the great many other posters and viewers that also stayed with the PS trial last year, we proved we have what it takes!

Thanks again!

[True2Blues]

Ijust got my email from michael!! I told him to count me in! I would so be willing to pay $35/month. I told him I would even be willing to pay $50. dont shoot me, lol.

I hope we can get enough people!!!!!!!


btw...morning everyone!

I'm with you there!

We want to see it, we asked IS/CNN to cover it, they refused. We're lucky that MJB listened to us and was willing to go the extra distance to try and help.

Broadcasts on TV or the internet don't just appear there by magic, it costs money. Someone has to pick up the tab. In this case, it has to be us.

[Pooh]

I'm with you there!

We want to see it, we asked IS/CNN to cover it, they refused. We're lucky that MJB listened to us and was willing to go the extra distance to try and help.

Broadcasts on TV or the internet don't just appear there by magic, it costs money. Someone has to pick up the tab. In this case, it has to be us.



ITA. I also e-mailed Michel and told him to count me in. I gotta see AJ put that jerk in jail this time!

[kennedy06]

A very big portion of the posters from last years trial are on the C. Anthony and political boards. I can surely understand the interest there and feel equal concern for little C.A. tragic situation. Still though posters there that did watch the PS trial last year and were equally upset at the mistrial are probably unaware of these circumstances. On the day of her Mother's hearing I noted over 500 viewers on her site and a daily average of close to 200 at any given time. I have no clue as to how to reach them just to see if they are interested or not.:confused:

JMO

[Roux]

I just sent MB my committment to him for Spector 2. Told him I would even be willing to send him $35 in advance right now if that's what he needs.

[KathR]

Trial watchers may have an opportunity to watch the retrial of Phil Spector! The site, The Legal Edge is attempting to set up a live stream of the trial, gavel to gavel! Many of you may have watched the OJ trial there. If you are interested in seeing the trial (as I am) please go there and sign up. Here's the deal though, it will be presented pay per view. If enough of us want to watch the whole trial, costs go down, The more the merrier! So, if all you peps want to watch this guy go down, let's unite and do it!

I really love trial watching and I know you guys do too. :beer:

I hope it was okay to post this, I'm just real excited that we may be able to catch the whole trial instead of sound bites.

Thanks!

Thank you so much. I thought this was a lost cause. I hope I can sign up. Had problems with their software and that security image I can't see.

[KathR]

A very big portion of the posters from last years trial are on the C. Anthony and political boards. I can surely understand the interest there and feel equal concern for little C.A. tragic situation. Still though posters there that did watch the PS trial last year and were equally upset at the mistrial are probably unaware of these circumstances. On the day of her Mother's hearing I noted over 500 viewers on her site and a daily average of close to 200 at any given time. I have no clue as to how to reach them just to see if they are interested or not.:confused:

JMO

I posted a note on that board. It was ignored, but I didn't get blasted either.

I just tried LegalEdge again. Their site says they are now showing OJ trial, but that is over. I still haven't been able to register with them. I'd pay the 35 to see the Phil Spector trial but don't know who to contact. Got now answer from their Customer Service Department.

[KathR]

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it. :shrug:

Ratings? Perhaps if they had gotten ratings on the first trial they would have known that many people were watching the trial. But CTV does not get ratings on In-Session trial broadcasts. I don't remember where I learned that. I think it came in response to an email to the network last year when CTV stopped broadcasting.

[hiitsme]

I posted a note on that board. It was ignored, but I didn't get blasted either.

I just tried LegalEdge again. Their site says they are now showing OJ trial, but that is over. I still haven't been able to register with them. I'd pay the 35 to see the Phil Spector trial but don't know who to contact. Got now answer from their Customer Service Department.

Hi Kath,

I have also tried numerous times to register with TLE, but keep getting form after form to fill out. What's with that? It makes me skeptical about their efforts to provide coverage of this trial.

[True2Blues]

You don't have to join anything to say you are interested in the PPV, just email MJB at lawjerktoo@gmail.com and say so. That's where the interested vote is being counted.

[hiitsme]

You don't have to join anything to say you are interested in the PPV, just email MJB at lawjerktoo@gmail.com and say so. That's where the interested vote is being counted.

I did send an E-Mail expressing my interest. Was just wondering why I am having such a difficult time signing on with TLE?

[Joan-Pa.]

Hi Kath,

I have also tried numerous times to register with TLE, but keep getting form after form to fill out. What's with that? It makes me skeptical about their efforts to provide coverage of this trial.


hiitsme and Kath, go to the email address Michel provided lawjerk@hotmail.com and send an email to him there. Tell him or them you are having problems signing in or signing up and hopefully they will straighten it out for you.
you can just go to his web page and click on the big red square where it says watch a live trial, an you are on the site..
at the top of the page, there is something that says MLB blog, click on that and read what is there and then below his latest entry, click on comments and leave a comment .. also mention your difficulty in signing in.
Hope that helps..

[KKKKKKatie]

TY Kennedy for getting me over here. Is KTLA not going to cover it this time?

[kennedy06]

TY Kennedy for getting me over here. Is KTLA not going to cover it this time?

No they say there is no interest. I think all of us that followed that trial last year are a little taken back by that. Lawjerk is from The legal edge he is trying to help us out. So on this merged thread and the Oct1... thread there is plenty to read. Whatever anyone decides its nice to see you guys again:seeya:


JMO

[KKKKKKatie]

No they say there is no interest. I think all of us that followed that trial last year are a little taken back by that. Lawjerk is MJB from The legal edge he is trying to help us out. So on this merged thread and the Oct1... thread there is plenty to read. Whatever anyone decides its nice to see you guys again:seeya:


JMO

Thanks! No interest? What are they thinking lol I will email Martha at KTLA. I'm sure others probably have already but it can't hurt.

[hiitsme]

hiitsme and Kath, go to the email address Michel provided lawjerk@hotmail.com and send an email to him there. Tell him or them you are having problems signing in or signing up and hopefully they will straighten it out for you.
you can just go to his web page and click on the big red square where it says watch a live trial, an you are on the site..
at the top of the page, there is something that says MLB blog, click on that and read what is there and then below his latest entry, click on comments and leave a comment .. also mention your difficulty in signing in.
Hope that helps..

Joan, I did leave a message, but only about trial coverage, so I'll try again as you suggest. Thank you.

[KathR]

hiitsme and Kath, go to the email address Michel provided lawjerk@hotmail.com and send an email to him there. Tell him or them you are having problems signing in or signing up and hopefully they will straighten it out for you.
you can just go to his web page and click on the big red square where it says watch a live trial, an you are on the site..
at the top of the page, there is something that says MLB blog, click on that and read what is there and then below his latest entry, click on comments and leave a comment .. also mention your difficulty in signing in.
Hope that helps..

Thanks, Joan. I have written them. But it does make one wonder how TheLeagalEdge can get support for the trial when people can't get past their software and register with their site. Talk about a firewall:)

I've sent numerous emails now. I've put a note on the blog. I hope to hear back from them soon.

[KathR]

I did send an E-Mail expressing my interest. Was just wondering why I am having such a difficult time signing on with TLE?

I'm glad you posted about your problem. At least now I know it isn't me. It is so frustrating having that form returned, blank!, and reading that erroneous error message.

I hope they get the site working so that people who are interested can express that interest.

[KathR]

This board is getting to be like a game of musical chairs. Threads get moved out and then moved back in. Then new threads get merged into the old thread that has just taken a tour of all the In-Session boards.

I hope we can settle down and talk about getting coverage in this not so aptly named OJ thread now. I'd rather it be called Spector Coverage (like name of the latest thread of posts that has since been merged into this thread) or something more explicit but I am very happy to have any place to talk about this at all.

[Pillar]

OMG, this brings up memories of the transcripts for the S.Peterson trial. Everyone wanted them, desperately, but when it came time they had to pay for the....well, there were more excuses regarding the money issue, it seems, "here we go again"!

As it stood, those who "truly" wanted the transcripts, paid for them, received them, and enjoyed them throughout the trial.

It took a tremendous amount of work to make it happen for the transcripts, and now we have TLE stepping forward trying to help by offering to provide coverage of the trial, however, there will be a cost.

BOTTOM LINE. If you really want to watch PS2, there is only one way ~~ Pay for it, and be grateful TLE has taken into consideration the interest, and is trying to help us out.

To watch the trail ~ $35.00 a month, essentially, just over a dollar a day, the equivalent of one Starbucks coffee/day for "a week". Starbucks ~~~ $5.00 x 7 = $35.00.

Skip the coffee, watch the trial. No complaining is going to change what the facts are. Simple as that.

:seeya:

Pillar

[NYGalPal]

"marginal interest"? I may quote you on that. :cool:

I hope you do especially now that it is claiming to attend the trial anonymously.

[coinoutlet]

I just received an email from Legal Edge. It said that they will have an update on the status of PS2 on Wednesday.

[KathR]

I sure hope they all get together and pay up. I wouldn't mind peeking in now and then. I do not want to have to pay for marginal interest.:cool:


Cutting off your nose to spite your face?

[Cornblossom]

I sure hope they all get together and pay up. I wouldn't mind peeking in now and then. I do not want to have to pay for marginal interest.:cool:you do realise if you don't pay you don't watch.....right?

[hiitsme]

I sure hope they all get together and pay up. I wouldn't mind peeking in now and then. I do not want to have to pay for marginal interest.:cool:

Didn't you post a few months ago that you were enroute to CA to attend the trial? And again stated today you would be there and in the next post you would be willing to pay to see it! What's with all the double talk?:confused:

[NYGalPal]

Something doesn't add up. Someone doesn't want to spend $35 to watch the trial via their computer, but is willing to to pay for airfair, hotel, 3 meals a day, car rental and there is no guarantee you'll get a seat every day?

[True2Blues]

OMG, this brings up memories of the transcripts for the S.Peterson trial. Everyone wanted them, desperately, but when it came time they had to pay for the....well, there were more excuses regarding the money issue, it seems, "here we go again"!

As it stood, those who "truly" wanted the transcripts, paid for them, received them, and enjoyed them throughout the trial.

It took a tremendous amount of work to make it happen for the transcripts, and now we have TLE stepping forward trying to help by offering to provide coverage of the trial, however, there will be a cost.

BOTTOM LINE. If you really want to watch PS2, there is only one way ~~ Pay for it, and be grateful TLE has taken into consideration the interest, and is trying to help us out.

To watch the trail ~ $35.00 a month, essentially, just over a dollar a day, the equivalent of one Starbucks coffee/day for "a week". Starbucks ~~~ $5.00 x 7 = $35.00.

Skip the coffee, watch the trial. No complaining is going to change what the facts are. Simple as that.

:seeya:

Pillar

I do, I will and I am, because MJB really is trying to help.

[Jayne]

So "TruTV" (formerly Court TV) is not going to cover the Phil Spector Re-trial, eh? Well, that's fine with me. I'll read about it in the newspaper.

As to whether I should pay $35 to watch it on the computer, forget that. I'll just have to hear about it. It's Phil's problem, after all. He's the one that plays with guns.

I'll just watch the boring TruTV trial reruns from two or three years ago and listen to Lisa Bloom gaggle with her mommy, Gloria Allred, about the latest designer representation in which she's engaging. That's pretty entertaining.

By the way, why does Gloria Allred always wear a turtle neck sweater?

Oh never mind.......:tongue:

I have no idea..about the turtlenecks..except it does hide some flaws (believe me..I know..and they are not hickies! LOL (NO COMMENTS, PLEASE!)

I actually sort of like (note I said "sort of") like Gloria. She's a gang buster and goes for the jugular. I too did sort of enjoy Lisa..in that aspect, but I give Lisa some other credit..she has her Own Head on her shoulder...but she'll always back her Mom...and well she should...she probably is the beneficiary in Mom's estate? Sorry..I mean no offense..but it IS business. Still...I like both of them..Separated, that is!

I don't want to keep belaboring the issue...but I'm offering MJB the opportunity to take $20 from me...he won't allow me to pay per view or access the archives at that price..but my $20 could help others..like a "back up savings account"? Then maybe he'll allow me a tidbit now and then? OR just..heck...a coffee with him someday for being a "nice fellow" to help the cause? Or maybe a StarBucks card?

I'm being very honest here..I just want to know if I "donate" X amount of dollars..since I can't do the $35 per month..(AND..I WILL DO IT) my pennies will be distributed to get the NUMBER ON BOARD to get this PPV for all who can watch and keep up. I guess what I'm thinking is this...IF there were 5 or 10 other people like me..can't afford the $35...but then there's close to $350 a month from us "can't afford it"...would there be a "backdraft" of sorts..to hit the 1000? And we just "lose out" but were nice enough to contribute to keep it going?

We get a tax rebate? We are donating to a charitable cause? and if not...we just get to have a coffee at the local "internet house" and read emails from those we helped out? because they get the charitable cause? STARBUCKS..THINK? wasn't that where PS threatened his guns?)

?

J

[Jayne]

What's to stop it from appearing on YouTube?


Great Point, actually! Seems those copyright laws..and first come first serve go right out the window with YouTube..UNTIL they catch up with it..IF it really matters and by then..it's pretty much too darned late..or the accuser figures.."it is publicity"?

Vinnie is up there...so are the others from last year..no problem with that..and it wasn't PPV, even if it was.

Maybe that is the reason for PPV? Subsidize what will end up for everyone to see anyway..but ONLY if it is subsidized in the first place. Weird, huh? You're spot on, Scooby.. Still..I'll give a "donation"..not a monthly PPV..just too much...but I'll subsidize so those YouTube videos can be shown. AND..so my fellow posters can watch it "live"..just feed the pockets to make up the numbers difference..IF that is the agreement. My $20...can help a few others who can only afford $30 or $25 a month...that might mean anywhere from 2 to 4 people to make their monthly quota. I'd rather do that..than be counted out as One Person just because I can't do the entire $35.00.

jmo

J

jmo

J

[cherylt]

What's to stop it from appearing on YouTube?

I think.... that a person who actully pays for the service would actually have to download the live stream to their computer and then upload back to youtube. And MB probably has that option blocked (no dowloading the trial to your hard drive). But this is just a guess on my part.

[KathR]

I have no idea..about the turtlenecks..except it does hide some flaws (believe me..I know..and they are not hickies! LOL (NO COMMENTS, PLEASE!)

I actually sort of like (note I said "sort of") like Gloria. She's a gang buster and goes for the jugular. I too did sort of enjoy Lisa..in that aspect, but I give Lisa some other credit..she has her Own Head on her shoulder...but she'll always back her Mom...and well she should...she probably is the beneficiary in Mom's estate? Sorry..I mean no offense..but it IS business. Still...I like both of them..Separated, that is!

I don't want to keep belaboring the issue...but I'm offering MJB the opportunity to take $20 from me...he won't allow me to pay per view or access the archives at that price..but my $20 could help others..like a "back up savings account"? Then maybe he'll allow me a tidbit now and then? OR just..heck...a coffee with him someday for being a "nice fellow" to help the cause? Or maybe a StarBucks card?

I'm being very honest here..I just want to know if I "donate" X amount of dollars..since I can't do the $35 per month..(AND..I WILL DO IT) my pennies will be distributed to get the NUMBER ON BOARD to get this PPV for all who can watch and keep up. I guess what I'm thinking is this...IF there were 5 or 10 other people like me..can't afford the $35...but then there's close to $350 a month from us "can't afford it"...would there be a "backdraft" of sorts..to hit the 1000? And we just "lose out" but were nice enough to contribute to keep it going?

We get a tax rebate? We are donating to a charitable cause? and if not...we just get to have a coffee at the local "internet house" and read emails from those we helped out? because they get the charitable cause? STARBUCKS..THINK? wasn't that where PS threatened his guns?)

?

J

It would probably cost more than $20 to keep trrack of everyone who paid odd amounts. TheLegalEdge is considering offering a ppv deal for $35, either for the whole trial or for a month, I don't know yet. I'll be happy if they come forward with that. Why bother them with questions about what they are not offering to do.

[NYGalPal]

Anyone know have an idia about how long this trial is supposed to last?

[Cornblossom]

Wrong. Once they start broadcating "whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE.":D

I don't think you can "suddenly decide" to start broadcasting....so if you don't pay you don't watch. Don't you think that's rather cheap and low of people to wait for others to pay then start to watch...and probably complain about the quality or something. IMO

[KathR]

Wrong. Once they start broadcating "whatever outlet agrees to pool a given trial MUST provide the court feed to all other media for FREE.":D


What are you quoting there? An FCC agreement? An agreement with the trial court?

[True2Blues]

I don't think you can "suddenly decide" to start broadcasting....so if you don't pay you don't watch. Don't you think that's rather cheap and low of people to wait for others to pay then start to watch...and probably complain about the quality or something. IMO

They aren't interested anyway. All of the networks have scheduled other things to show, because they aren't interested in PS.

The key to 'Free' is some station dropping everything to do exactly as you say and suddenly change everything and broadcast the trial. If no one does that, it won't be free to anyone and only the PPV people will be able to see it live as it happens.

[Jayne]

Anyone know have an idia about how long this trial is supposed to last?

Supposed to last? Well.. if the defense is paid by the hour..as long as they can drag it out. If it's about justice..oh..let's say about a month or so then another week, at most for any other "things" that come up? 24 hours for jury deliberations? If it's about last year's trial..who knows? Took too long then and ended up a Start Over. At least this time we have TelephoneMan right there in the courtroom..that should speed up things? Until his next Big case in January..then what?
My guess? and it's only a guess, of course..about 8 weeks top..that includes testimony and jury deliberations maybe a few days more, but perhaps not.

I say if they really get rolling in November...it'll be over by mid January if not sooner.

[warhorse46]

Per Michel Bryant.

<<We tried. We wish we had longer to get the word out. The hundreds of folks we got to commit in five days might have blossomed into the number we needed (1000) but we are out of time. I will be calling Judge Fidler this morning to officially bow out.

Thanks to all who tried to rally the troops. I believe there is still hope for Openings, Closings and Verdict to be televised but there has been no official word on that yet.
More here
http://blog.thelegaledge.com/ >>

[warhorse46]

Since you are only speculating what other networks may or may not do over a period of time it is also possible that some outlets are not willing to perpetuate the myth that the state is only interested in pursuit of the truth. I do not pretend to know that "All of the networks have scheduled other things to show, because they aren't interested in PS." I do feel that it is entirely possible that after the news on the election,bailout,home mtg./value, stock market,etc. has died down some outlets could pick up the coverage to fill in the gaps. I also think it is possible for a group or an individual to register as a news outlet, secure a temporary license pending final approval from the FCC and tap into the "FREE" feed if TLE is successful. :read:
FCC Licensing Systems


Universal Licensing System (ULS)
The Universal Licensing System allows electronic filing of applications processed by the Commission.

Special Temporary Authority
"FCC Bureaus and Offices are authorized to issue a Special Temporary Authority (STA) for those subject-matter areas falling under their respective jurisdiction. An STA is the authority granted to a permittee or licensee to permit the operation of a communications facility for a limited period at a specified variance from the terms of the station or service authorization or requirements of the FCC rules applicable to a particular class of station or service"...
STA Term
"STAs are granted with a fixed expiration date, usually six months."
Forms & Fees
"Applicants are strongly encouraged to file electronically via the Universal Licensing System (ULS). Applicants for Special Temporary Authority should apply on FCC Form 601"...
Payment
"No fee is required for governmental entities or non-profit applicants"...
So if a person or group were to file as a Christian News Org.,i.e.,non-profit, getting an STA wouldn't cost a dime. IMO you could then tap into the TLE feed if it is up and running. The process takes about 10 days. Jury selection should be over by then. BTW most states allow for registering non-profit religious org's to file on-line. Usually no fee required. You can also go online to your state offices. It is simply getting the forms and filling in the blanks. IMO the only contingency for the above rest with TLE securing the feed. Free is Free and the only issue is accessibility. So Good Luck TLE:beer:


Not going to happen, read my thread re this issue.

[NYGalPal]

Thank you kindly for the update. No need to worry. Searching said he/she was going to attend the trial. Maybe they'll be kind enough to give us daily updates. What do you think?

[warhorse46]

:lol: My computer logged off abruptly to install security updates while I was posting...Thank you, warhorse, I would vote you any day to start this thread for us:) Comment @ TLE blog said maybe it's not surprising b/c of the economy ... and after 8 years of what we used to be, my optimism isn't set on cruise-control like it used to be. Still giving credit where credit is due -- TLE did try, and my esteem there rising while what is left of IS-CNN-TRu-TV dwindles. To those here who keep hope and truth alive here :beer: as always~


Thanks. I really wanted to see this retrial live but that is not to be so will have to be satisfied with updates as they come in. But I gotta give Michel kudos for trying so hard for us.

[warhorse46]

Thanks for the info. I truly feel sorry for those that will be denied their daily enjoyment.:hat:


I do enjoy seeing our justice system @ work live. I hate the reason we must have a justice system, crimes against people, but it is very interesting & educational to see it in operation to me.

[ellvarn]

Thank you Warhorse and all those who tried to get this going. I could not have been able to do a pay per view, but I would have watched gavel to gavel. I too am amazed at what CourtTV/TruTV/In Session/cnn, has come to. Sooooooo sad.

I am still devoted to the IS boards because of the posters and CW. I am pushing my 1,000 posts, without being banned but it has taken me forever to get this far. I will stay here as long as the boards stay up, but I am let down even more because of the many changes and now again by the Spector trial.

Thanks Legal Edge for trying.

And most of all the posters on this board - :beer:

[JConnolly]

I wonder if certain ppl here are as much of a hole in real life, or is it just here on the boards....:rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

Thanks you for trying MJB:seeya:

[kennedy06]

I was glad to read that the openings may still be covered. I wish we could find out the official word on that as he mentioned.

JMO

[Roux]

Thanks for the news, altho disappointing. I do very much appreciate Michael's efforts.
I wonder if PS might be disappointed as well. Is his ego so large that he will miss being in the limelight?

[Spectorfan8]

Well, I guess I can thank Michel for trying. Still have hopes of seeing at least some of the trial.

[tartangirl]

~ The news is not what we wanted it to be but I am still thankful to MJB and his team for giving us his ear and a good quantity of hope these last few days.

I have to say that unless I sell all and move to CA and live under a bridge somewhere there...can you do that?....most likely I will not get my full and complete gavel to gavel of this long awaited trial.

STILL, PS is going to be in that courtroom dealing day to day with the facts of this case and the strong arm of the law. That does give me a pleasant feeling just knowing that the time is almost here and we will be a part of it in some way. Although most likely quite different from that last riveting time we all posted together, we will make the most of it here and gather our facts and daily sweeties from media drips and dribbles along the trial yellowbrick road to Justice for Lana and those who love her...;) The time is almost here folks....finally.

~as always, my opinion,

[bearwds]

~ The news is not what we wanted it to be but I am still thankful to MJB and his team for giving us his ear and a good quantity of hope these last few days.

I have to say that unless I sell all and move to CA and live under a bridge somewhere there...can you do that?....most likely I will not get my full and complete gavel to gavel of this long awaited trial.

STILL, PS is going to be in that courtroom dealing day to day with the facts of this case and the strong arm of the law. That does give me a pleasant feeling just knowing that the time is almost here and we will be a part of it in some way. Although most likely quite different from that last riveting time we all posted together, we will make the most of it here and gather our facts and daily sweeties from media drips and dribbles along the trial yellowbrick road to Justice for Lana and those who love her...;) The time is almost here folks....finally.

~as always, my opinion,
***********************************************

Thanx for the Post tartangirl. I agree 100%.

Sad that justice will be shrouded from public view.

MB did say that "several hundred" folks had stepped up to subscribe. One can take some sort of solace in that.


bearwds

[KathR]

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

Thanx for the Post tartangirl. I agree 100%.

Sad that justice will be shrouded from public view.

MB did say that "several hundred" folks had stepped up to subscribe. One can take some sort of solace in that.


bearwds

I'm beyond disappointed but there is nothing we can do about it. Someone mentioned audio? Is that a still a possiblity? How do we go about getting access to daily transcripts?

Again, is there anyone going to the trial that can give feed back on bbs?

[Jayne]

Well, I guess I can thank Michel for trying. Still have hopes of seeing at least some of the trial.

Ditto, Spectorfan.

Thanks MJB for trying.

And, dear Spectorfan = you will see "at least some" of the trial! Count on it...

:)

J

[warhorse46]

I agree, but you have to remember that the same system protects all us. No matter what your personal feeling about an accused may be. Government is no stranger to abuse of authority or power.:patriot: Just a ? OT of the PS case. Are you a strict constructioness or interpeter of our constitution.:hat:


To me the rights written in the Constitution are the rights of all American citizens. When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution that is case law.

[Jayne]

To me the rights written in the Constitution are the rights of all American citizens. When the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution that is case law.

Indeed, the laws written in the Constitution are rights of American Citizens. Then..as you said...when the Supreme Court sits on a case sometimes..Well..yes..it's a case interpreted by the Supreme Court..taking in the laws, regulations, former cases, and the Constitution, etc. So it is "case law" and one of the most seminal cases was Roe v. Wade...It is indeed Case Law and it is a Precedent and it still stands today..However, as many are concerned, because it was "case law" and an "interpretation" it may be overturned. (I do not believe it will ever happen, however.)

Case law is not Statutory..it is interpretation by the judge/court, based on common law, prior cases, and as I noted above..rules, regulations and statutes, and is considered "precedents" that future cases may follow, until that is upturned.

There are many instances of Case Law that have been overturned, and if one doesn't use the Lexis or Westlaw to check them, one can stand up in court any day and miss something that came down the "pike" the day before and be at a loss.

Case law, technically, is what is relied on by attorneys in arguing their briefs or cases...cases that have been decided by the court..judge's rulings, etc. Precedence, Common Law, comparisons.


This is where Riordan's motions or anyones argue "case law" as well as statutory law. They need to refer back to cases that interpreted some "law or regulation" in their favour.

I see it as a "back up system"..such as "well..he said this..and this case won..but she said that and that case didn't win...so HERE is my case...Look at those decisions...and find it MY WAY" That's really what it is..if you're correct and you're convincing.

jmo

J

[BobbiBlue]

Ditto, Spectorfan.

Thanks MJB for trying.

And, dear Spectorfan = you will see "at least some" of the trial! Count on it...

:)

J

No where No how? Not on the Net either? Oh and I too got hooked on this one! Im sad now!:(

[BobbiBlue]

Spector retrial heads toward jury selection
By LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent
Article Launched: 10/16/2008 05:55:45 PM PDT


http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10739518

[kennedy06]

Thanks Bobbie for that link. :)

[Roux]

I seem to remember finding on the internet a court that allowed you to log onto the official court web page, and access a streaming feed to the trials going on at that given time. It gave a choice of which courtroom had which trial, and you could pick which one you wanted. I wonder if the LA County Criminal Court has the capability to do something similiar.

Just a thought from scooby.

Until someone posted the link to the court site in the Casey Anthony hearing earlier this week, I had no idea such a thing existed.

[kennedy06]

Until someone posted the link to the court site in the Casey Anthony hearing earlier this week, I had no idea such a thing existed.

I wonder if it is on their links thread. I read about this link for live news cameras over on that board and saved it. Its amazing the sites out there. I don't know what good it would do us for PS unless he takes off in a white bronco LOL JMO

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

[KathR]

Case laws are very often codified as I'm sure most know.

As to Roe v. Wade, it may be a long time until it's overturned if Barack Hussein Obama gets into office. He will have the opportunity to nominate some liberal interpreters of the constitiution.

It's the first step towards Sharia law and Burkhas. :)

Excuse me. That is Barack Steve Obama now.

OBama 0Eight

(Oops. Wrong board.)

[Jayne]

Why would there be a cost to the court to have webcams w/ sound in each courtroom? I admit I am not up on the world of webcams and crap like that, but seems like if we can watch a college coed undress in her dorm room, we should be able to watch the goings on in a courtroom.
:shrug:

Gotta say..that was Priceless, Scooby! Seen enough of them on my carousing aroung YouTube for something with some CHARACTER or Healthy Entertainment!

You pay the court to file your complaint..then to file an amendment..or motions or whatever...once you finally get to the actual court date..you're talking TONS of BUCKS. That's how they help to pay the salaries of everyone who works there, including the "clerks" in the office who doen't have a clue of what's going on or aren't allowed to say that they do or don't. It's business..I guess.

This whole "in camera" thing is a bit of a mystery..they have to petition the court to be able or allowed to Film or Audio a trial. But..they DO have to pay a fee..but it isn't astronomical as we'd might be led to believe. It's the equipment they bring.the people they pay.their per diem. hotels.food..you name it. It turns into a celebrity Bash of sorts if it's not an actual Media Network that does it for the sake of News.

Then again..I'm probably as dumb as a doornail as it comes to this stuff..and I'm Ok with admitting that.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

I have considered all possibilities. I don't know, PS was a man with a Team approach to his public defense persona. A team that had buttons and possibly tshirts. Somehow I think things are a little more personal for some, something just isn't right.:read:

If it was about numbers trolls could strike many threads not just a few select that already have popularity and controversy naturally attached to them. One would stir things up like on Murder at WHF on the trials thread.

Maybe I'm naive but, I think the PS board is genuine in its controversy.

JMO

[warhorse46]

Look, I have a degree in English and a JD. You don't need to print out sections of the Constitution to prove a point to me. When someone starts quoting all of this stuff, it makes me wonder what they really mean. I prefer standard English. I know what the statutes and Constitution mean. I don't know what it is that you mean.

I've noticed this happening quite a bit on this and other sites recently. Just put it in English and it will suffice.

So please, if you can, just translate for me what it is you mean in your own words. Then perhaps can have a converation. Especially since this thread is so far off-target it almost appears that it's on its way to the moon.

By the way, the States have long had the right to pass laws (statutes) that are tighter than those mandated by the federal government. For example, the automobile pollution standards in California are tighter than those mandated federally. Thus, there is greater protection for the individual. But again, I'm not sure exactly to what you are referring.


Regards.


Thank you, I could not figure out what Searching was trying to way either & thought it was just me.

[JConnolly]

2. Jamie Floyd - The only person I ever heard of who thinks that all criminals are innocent. Snip*

LOL, does she post here under the nic .............. uh... well maybe I better not.

[warhorse46]

:shrug: about "your second word here (take you pick, "American English" or "King's English")". Are you saying that I posted that or should have posted that. In either case IMO you are wrong. Not that it is any big deal. I am just courious and have a ? about sentence structure. IYO "take you pick" is gramatically correct?:confused: BTW I did not raise the issue I responded to. Please go back to Post No. 118, by gnm 109, this thread, 10/17/2008. Thank you.


What the poster was refering to is the word your in your previous post. You used the wrong spelling of the word for the meaning you were going for. Your is the possessive, example--your name or your car. You were trying to say you are & the abv for that is you're---not your as you used.

[warhorse46]

You can "watch the goings on". Courtrooms operate on Tax $'s and in the public domain. They rely on public Tax $'s to function. Tax $'s are a significant part of their operating budget. The court can not rely solely on filing, fines and other fees to cover all expenses. In fact you can file a Pauper's Affidavit along with a Motion to grant such a status and if granted pay no fees for filing. The courthouse itself is built with Tax $'s and as such is a public place.
Someone has to pay for and the use of the camera equiptment. Plus the cost for a camera tech/operator. The courtroom is a public place and barring any special circumstances is generally open to the public to view proceedings. Asking the public to pay the cost for viewing beyond the confines of the courtroom itself, only to satisfy the needs of those that can not attend the live proceedings would be an unjust TAX. The public is already burdened by the State and Federal Gov. with plenty of those types of TAX.IMO. Court proceedings are not a comercial ventrue as is your example,i.e.,"a college coed undress in her dorm room" and to make it one would open Pandora's Box and probably incite a bidding war among providers. Sorry, I hope I have not been too wordy. The bottom line is "NO FREE LUNCH".:(:patriot:


In Florida all of the state court rooms are equipped with cameras & audio & all proceedings are recorded. In fact for a Judge to turn off the cameras he/she must submit a written motion stating the reasons to a panel of Judges. They will make the decision whether or not the camera rolls or not.

[hiitsme]

:(Sorry about that. IMO the icon selection should include a "white flag" icon. I'm sure WE could all use it on occassion and especially in matters of minutiae. Just a thought, nothing personal. However, I do have to admit I was looking forward to crossing swords with a fellow counselor and getting their take on PS2. For instance do you have any thoughts about allowing decade old PBA's. Just courious?:seeya:

Fellow counselor?? Well, your commentary on the retrial of Mr. Spector should be quite entertaining, at best.

[hiitsme]

I agree, Kennedy. The language was so indicative of his actions and behavior as described by the PBA witnesses. His deep rooted feelings towards women had been festering for quite sometime. I still find it hard to understand why certain facts are deemed too prejudicial when to me they relate to the heart of the case. That goes for both sides.

[hiitsme]

Informative also. :( to say I probably will not be posting much for a little while. Sorry! Good news for some, not so good for others IMO. Live theater( Broadway Across America) productions starting soon in our area. I enjoy my season tickets. Also a new friend of mine, I met via this board, wants to go to the horse races in Vinton.LA. They begin in Nov/08. Looks like RV time again.
I sincerly, doubt that PS2 will be over by the end of this year. But you never know. I also still feel PS was overchared by the state with 2nd Deg. and would have been found guilty if charged with VM with out malice. He would have been convicted and sitting in the slammer with a 20 year sentence. Rightfully so. At his age and health condition a sure death sentence. Maybe the state thought it's like the music charts. A 2nd Deg. conviction is higher up on the charts then VM. JMO.There is such a thing a Judicial Ratings. BTW I have always held that he was probably guilty of VM. Nothing new there.
Anyway, Au Revoir to all for now, Good Fortune & God Bless. If I'm going to Louisiana I need to brush up on my French.:cool::seeya:

Safe travels. Maybe French will come easier to you! We will all be back on topic soon.

[JConnolly]

... and the term "without" is one word when used in the context in which it was. Not with out. :D Just trying to get some minituae or whatever in LOL ;)

[hiitsme]

Without malice is the term the Ca. Legislatures decided on when they wrote the law. I do not find anything particularly funny about it's use. It is simply separating and defining the deg.'s of manslaughter. I do not know PS personally and therefore can not answer your ?. I suspect you do not know him on a personal level either. BTW, something can be legally correct and morally wrong at the same time. Best evidence of that is the WAR in Iraq.JMO:patriot:

You postponed your trip?

[NYGalPal]

You postponed your trip?

Good catch. I thought I was the only one who noticed.

[True2Blues]

Without malice is the term the Ca. Legislatures decided on when they wrote the law. I do not find anything particularly funny about it's use. It is simply separating and defining the deg.'s of manslaughter. I do not know PS personally and therefore can not answer your ?. I suspect you do not know him on a personal level either. BTW, something can be legally correct and morally wrong at the same time. Best evidence of that is the WAR in Iraq.JMO:patriot:

The words the poster was referring to were "Phil Spector" and "without malice". The rest of the post explains that snowbird01 sees PS as I do, full of maliciousness towards anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him.

It is not in reference to the words 'without malice' not fitting together.

[hiitsme]

:shrug:What trip? I have a tenative trip set for Nov./08 to go see the horse races in Louisiana with a new friend. But that is a couple of weeks off. I have plans to go vote early this week because of my Nov. trip, but I do not think you would call voting a trip. Would you? Anyway I hope PS will not be taking any trips down the trail of injustice and receives a fair trial this time,JMO. I'm sure you must feel the same?:rose:Justice For All(also a great movie btw/Al Pacino,1983). Be sure and vote early and often as LBJ use to advise.:seeya:

Read your post # 128. That should refresh your memory!

[kennedy06]

:shrug:What trip? I have a tenative trip set for Nov./08 to go see the horse races in Louisiana with a new friend. But that is a couple of weeks off. I have plans to go vote early this week because of my Nov. trip, but I do not think you would call voting a trip. Would you? Anyway I hope PS will not be taking any trips down the trail of injustice and receives a fair trial this time,JMO. I'm sure you must feel the same?:rose:Justice For All(also a great movie btw/Al Pacino,1983). Be sure and vote early and often as LBJ use to advise.:seeya:

In what specific ways do you belive he may not have received a fair trial last time? Thanks

[Jayne]

In what specific ways do you belive he may not have received a fair trial last time? Thanks

OK..I'll bite...

:)

He had Spitz as an expert Witness...

He had DeMaio as an expert Witness...

He had an attorney (and I'll give her great deference..LOOK at what she had to deal with and do her best? I have no qualms with her except for her "attitude"..which is sort of forgiveable under the circumstances..but I will NEVER forgive her for that STUPID display of guns and such...WHAT was she thinking or not thinking..THAT was her expertise? or sort of?) Michael Baden (what a "wuss"...he rode on his wife's apronstrings until he got "caught" then did the "aha moment"..) Cutler left..he got SMART and walked off. (indeed..I am a fan of his..much to my demise and reprimand) and who was left? the Three Amigos...

Fair Trial? SURELY anywhere but in the USA, huh? There was nothing UNFAIR about his trial. It ended up HUNG? and WHY?

Well..that happens... doesn't mean the trial wasn't fair..it really meant the jury was either Dumb..Confused...or couldn't come to the decision they needed to convict - and that means it WAS FAIR. Does NOT mean it wasn't fair. IF SO..it would have been a MISTRIAL. And it wasn't. Mistrial is much "worse" than a hung jury, IMO. There was never any indication that there was a mistrial..ever.

So far I haven't heard of any motions or appeals about that one..are there?

Maybe they are out there and I just don't know about them..YET.

It's a really big game..and it's meant to be honest...and I do think it's pretty much "fair"...if you have a Hung Jury...it's not a Mistrial..so you miss out on that Claim. Hmm...Then it's waiting for a New Trial.

If you want a Mistrial..MAKE ONE..Let's see how the defense does this time...And...Prosecution...if that's what they are looking for...GO FOR IT..give them no way out.. No hung jury this time...had I any money...I'd bet on it. Mistrial this time...which wasn't last time..Prosecution will catch Riordan or his team on a "mis-statement" of the law..that misleads the jury or the court..and BAM...no way out..no mistrial..no hung jury.

I think it will take some "dancing around" Riordan's motions and points and authorities..but I think the LA DA will come through...whether through precedent or Making Precedent. I do believe they'll do it. They wouldn't waste their time on this case if it didn't mean something to CA criminal law, in general, as well as to Lana/victims. That's what the DA office does..they protect the people..the innocent victims..and they make "law" that will protect and ensure others who are caught up in the system that they have something to fall back on and rely on.

Or I'm just plain stupid...as someone last year called me "Plain Jane"

:)


jmo

J

[tartangirl]

Thank you Jayne....I enjoyed that ...and it gave me hope....and a nice warm feeling in my toes...and other places too just thinking it all could just happen that way. I would love to see the faces of those fine LA DA people if it does. Especially that of Alan Jackson, he has worked diligently on this case. Yep, hope does float.

sweet dreams..

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

[gnm109]

<snip>

They wouldn't waste their time on this case if it didn't mean something to CA criminal law, in general, as well as to Lana/victims. That's what the DA office does..they protect the people..the innocent victims..and they make "law" that will protect and ensure others who are caught up in the system that they have something to fall back on and rely on.

Or I'm just plain stupid...as someone last year called me "Plain Jane"

:)


jmo

J

Jayne, I had nothing else to do tonight except read this site a bit. While I do admire and respect your opinion, especially regarding the proper role of the DA in the world of criminal law I am moved to respond....
.
Your view of the DA's role is the way that it ought to be. Unfortunately, my experiences have almost uniformly been different. The DA's that I dealt with were mainly interested in body count. They wanted one conviction per complaint and one for each count in the complaint. The ones that I encountered could have cared less about making law. They were graded on how many convictions they could land since convictions were the main method of determining success in the system.

If that sounds cynical, I'm not attempting to be. I'm just mentioning what I experienced.

And no, I don't think you are stupid....:)

(Viewers may place contradictory statements, personal abuse, denials, argumentative rebuttals, statements about my heritage and descent and other quasi-relevant information below this line.)

;)
=====================================

[Jayne]

Jayne, I had nothing else to do tonight except read this site a bit. While I do admire and respect your opinion, especially regarding the proper role of the DA in the world of criminal law I am moved to respond....
.
Your view of the DA's role is the way that it ought to be. Unfortunately, my experiences have almost uniformly been different. The DA's that I dealt with were mainly interested in body count. They wanted one conviction per complaint and one for each count in the complaint. The ones that I encountered could have cared less about making law. They were graded on how many convictions they could land since convictions were the main method of determining success in the system.

If that sounds cynical, I'm not attempting to be. I'm just mentioning what I experienced.

And no, I don't think you are stupid....:)

(Viewers may place contradictory statements, personal abuse, denials, argumentative rebuttals, statements about my heritage and descent and other quasi-relevant information below this line.)

;)
=====================================

I respect you too...my fellow....X and I'm sorry that's been your experience. Had we worked opposite each other..I think you'd have found differently. I'm not a black/white person..even though I supposedly wore the White Hat! LOL. Or did! I always like the shades of grey...in a sense. let's take this to PM sometime....

that's why I am "where I am"..and thanks..I am not stupid..I just throw it out there to appease those who think I am. I don't wear rose coloured glasses either.


I respect you..and your opinions..and your experience, of course!

j

[gnm109]

I respect you too...my fellow....X and I'm sorry that's been your experience. Had we worked opposite each other..I think you'd have found differently. I'm not a black/white person..even though I supposedly wore the White Hat! LOL. Or did! I always like the shades of grey...in a sense. let's take this to PM sometime....

that's why I am "where I am"..and thanks..I am not stupid..I just throw it out there to appease those who think I am. I don't wear rose coloured glasses either.


I respect you..and your opinions..and your experience, of course!

j

Thanks. Of course there are shades of grey in the law business. Nor did I mean to impugn all DA's. There are, I'm sure many that are high-minded. It's just that it's not uniform. Lots of it has to do with management as well. It's not only the DA's that tend to shuffle cases along, either. Many public defenders are faced with terrible volumes of cases. They are severaly burdened down, as are the DA"s. With such a volume, it can be difficult to deviate from the norm. Often, there is not enough time to review cases to the depth that is required.

It's a business that is based on volume and management will generally look at results, not the fine points. As an example from my experience, one of my first jobs right out of law school was as an outside contract public defender in a California town that shall remain nameless, other than to say that the smell of cow manure was heavy in the air.

Within a short time, I had a portfolio of more than 100 open criminal cases! In my youthful exuberance, I saw that one of the cases might properly be subject to a motion to exclude important, even dispositive evidence that had been taken without a warrant. My attempt to file a motion for exclusion of evidence was summarily canned by my boss, whom we shall simply call, "the Big Cajuna" HWMBO. In scolding me for being so wasteful, I learned, during a private "audience" that his take on the matter was that the defendant in question must have done something wrong to be in jail and, after all, I was only running up costs which were given to his office on contract on a per capita basis! That being the case, my motion went into the round file and the defendant was forced to plead guilty, with my assistance of course, rather than fighting it out. Needless to say, I didn't last long. To stay there would have been to aid and abet the unthinkable.

So, DA"S and PD's face their management every day and the whims of management often have as much to do with how a case is disposed of as anything else.

Relating this to getting back on thread, OJ's original case was moved arbitrarily by management from Santa Monica to South Central L.A. This set the scene for an acquittal but may have saved a lot of buildings and certanly some lives in Los Angeles. A Constitutional issue? Not at all. Just a reasoned decision on venue in order to avoid the wrath of unhappy viewers.

I rest my case.......LOL :rolleyes:

[Jayne]

Thanks. Of course there are shades of grey in the law business. Nor did I mean to impugn all DA's. There are, I'm sure many that are high-minded. It's just that it's not uniform. Lots of it has to do with management as well. It's not only the DA's that tend to shuffle cases along, either. Many public defenders are faced with terrible volumes of cases. They are severaly burdened down, as are the DA"s. With such a volume, it can be difficult to deviate from the norm. Often, there is not enough time to review cases to the depth that is required.

It's a business that is based on volume and management will generally look at results, not the fine points. As an example from my experience, one of my first jobs right out of law school was as an outside contract public defender in a California town that shall remain nameless, other than to say that the smell of cow manure was heavy in the air.

Within a short time, I had a portfolio of more than 100 open criminal cases! In my youthful exuberance, I saw that one of the cases might properly be subject to a motion to exclude important, even dispositive evidence that had been taken without a warrant. My attempt to file a motion for exclusion of evidence was summarily canned by my boss, whom we shall simply call, "the Big Cajuna" HWMBO. In scolding me for being so wasteful, I learned, during a private "audience" that his take on the matter was that the defendant in question must have done something wrong to be in jail and, after all, I was only running up costs which were given to his office on contract on a per capita basis! That being the case, my motion went into the round file and the defendant was forced to plead guilty, with my assistance of course, rather than fighting it out. Needless to say, I didn't last long. To stay there would have been to aid and abet the unthinkable.

So, DA"S and PD's face their management every day and the whims of management often have as much to do with how a case is disposed of as anything else.

Relating this to getting back on thread, OJ's original case was moved arbitrarily by management from Santa Monica to South Central L.A. This set the scene for an acquittal but may have saved a lot of buildings and certanly some lives in Los Angeles. A Constitutional issue? Not at all. Just a reasoned decision on venue in order to avoid the wrath of unhappy viewers.

I rest my case.......LOL :rolleyes:

Gee..wanted to respond..but we'll just keep it "on thread" :)

J

[KathR]

I wonder if it is on their links thread. I read about this link for live news cameras over on that board and saved it. Its amazing the sites out there. I don't know what good it would do us for PS unless he takes off in a white bronco LOL JMO

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

LOL. That is such a good idea. I bet he wants the trial televized too. :cool: He seemed to enjoy being the celebrity last year.

[DixieChick]

I just saw the trial is finally getting underway. It is disappointing that it wont be televised, but I look forward to discussing it with you all.

Justice for Lana..... :rose:

[gnm109]

I saw a subsequent interview given by the older, tall and balding prosecutor in the OJ case a couple of years after the trial. He is a senior staff member and was guiding Marsha C. and "Go ahead, try the glove" Chris D. But I can't remember his name. Not an exact quote, but he indicated the sole reason the trial was moved to SCLA was so the media trucks would have more room to park. That's my best recollection anyway. In the same interview he also indicated that M.C. was not their first choice based on viewers responses to their survey. The partiscipants did not like her. He further indicated they threw caution to the wind and went with M.C. because of gender and media appearance.Again I'm not quoting. As we all know they unfortunately bet wrong. Anyway a :rose:for Johnny C., may he rest in pease:patriot:

The need for more room for parking the media trucks was certainly a possibility. The main reason that I've heard for moving the trial locatoin (from several sources - please don't ask for links) was to avoid another Watts Riot or a Rodney King Riot in the event of a conviction. The truck parking was a collateral benefit I suppose.

I rather admired Johnny Ciochran. He was the epitome of a defense lawyer. He had good style and was always on point. I can't say as much for the LADA group. They foundered early on and, coupled with a world-class perjurer, some slow-witted experts and a rather unusual judge, the die was cast.

:read:

[MOMMOM]

Spector or anthony?

[logbump]

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/
Sprocket is attending the trial and writing a detailed blog on her site.
She is covering the jury selection. :seeya:

[gnm109]

" avoid another Watts Riot or a Rodney King Riot in the event of a conviction. The truck parking was a collateral benefit I suppose." Seems someone is giving them a great deal of foresight. I gues they antiscipated a conviction? Seems more like justification after the fact IMO. Anyway, I enjoyed your POV. I do find it interesting how many posters scatter when a POV supported by actual knowledge is posted contrary to myopic views of the system.:cool: PS: Please don't pick on an old man for typos and misspelling. I'm sure you wouldn't, but it appears that is all some others can do. Thanks.

Don't worry about typos. I make enough of them myself.

I'm very certain that the move of the OJ trial was done in anticipatoin of a conviction. If I had the sound bytes from then District Attorney, Gil Garceti, I could show you that he said as much. He knew that if OJ was convicted then a riot would be a certainty. The fact that he was acquitted by a jury of his "peers" also helpd to ensure that there would not be a riot. So Garceti had it covered either way.

I nover heard about the parking before but it could be a possibility. I recall when they had the Unibomber trial at the old federal courthouse in Sacramento, I could hardly find a place to park. The media trucks filled up a large two level parking structure across the street and half of the road out in front.

[hiitsme]

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/
Sprocket is attending the trial and writing a detailed blog on her site.
She is covering the jury selection. :seeya:

Thanks. It looks like she will be our best hope for knowing what is happening during the trial. Even though the first one was televised, I still enjoyed reading her blog at the end of the day.

[kennedy06]

see sprocket's blog for an update on cameras

Thank you guiltyindeed!! Tapping heels together,OK there nothing like camera coverage, there is nothing like camera coverage:rolleyes: I know, but that sounds hopeful! :)

JMO

[KathR]

I wonder if it is on their links thread. I read about this link for live news cameras over on that board and saved it. Its amazing the sites out there. I don't know what good it would do us for PS unless he takes off in a white bronco LOL JMO

http://www.livenewscameras.com/

Think we can collect enough to rent him the bronco?

[Jayne]

Think we can collect enough to rent him the bronco?


Very funny!...but...BRONCO? you have to be kidding! :)

He gets a bicycle or unicycle..hightail it up the 101...he can power it with those High Powered Bullets...Just Plug Them in there..lord knows he had a whole box of them...

BUT..I have to be FAIR...I guess with the price of gas these days..he could have turned his cycle into a vegetable powered vehicle? And those "unfitting" bullets had nothing to do with Lana's death?

jmo

J

[tartangirl]

The other threads are closed...so here it is posted....


HAPPY HALLOWEEN....BOO...HOPE I SCARED YOU :)

LKB is on TRUTV talking a little bit about the first Spector trial and the current one too.....just makes me more frustrated listening to it and remembering how great it was to watch it each day and then to discuss it here with all of you...:eek:

She will be back and Lisa mentioned that they will continue discussing the Spector trials. :rolleyes:


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

[GPSpector]

Well, it seems there is some coverage on the radio, or I think Satellite Radio to be exact, in the form of Talk Radio One.

Since Sprocket has done a few interviews with that station, I thought it would be a good idea to create a thread for those that want to comment on it here instead of the other threads where it might be a bit off topic.

[kennedy06]

Are you the son of PS that is going to be on talk radio tonight GP? I read the caption for the radio show tonight. Well good luck! I'm glad you let us know about the radio show on here.

I had linked to this over the Christmas Holidays to the PS board but I'll link it again so if there is anyone else that would want to listen tonight or later on.


http://www.talkradioone.com/

[kennedy06]

Nice Job, he sure asked alot of questions! I hope your Dad is able to listen and realize maybe he needs to make a call and have a talk about things.:unsure:
Thanks for letting us know about the show.:smile:

[kennedy06]

Not to over post on this thread, but I think I'm one of the first to have come acrossed it. I can relate the following link to the trial only in this way, his father experienced a "gun" situation with PS but, on a different level then those that testified. I'm going to link to this but, obviously it's not for thread discussion. This isn't a reflection on that musician as I love their music and was directed by a nice friend to hear the son's music over the holidays. While listening I discovered this on utube also. I guess there are things that only older sons of certain men, that were oddly enough friends, could probably begin to understand in some way though the circumstances were different. Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6eV7ZsghCs&feature=PlayList&p=AB9C43C45CCE956D&playnext=1&index=42

[GPSpector]

Well, that was an interesting interview.

I even tugged my ear (like in my prior interviews) to let my friends know I appreciate you all. :biggrin:

[Jayne]

My heart goes out to you..so glad we got to speak over the phone a time or two..

You were just wonderful on the talk radio one...

Your father should be grateful for the Person you have Become despite all his shortcomings (I say that nicely)..

you doing music..and he talking to you like that..not encouraging you..just breaks my heart...I could never do that to my son..ever..no matter how many sour notes he might play (or has in his learning/practices) to not want you in the "business"..having dinner together...man...this makes me so sad.

I'm sorry Gary. You are a prime example of a "good son" even though you were never truly treated like one..In My Opinion. Thank God for George...

Bless your heart...MOVE FORWARD...I encourage you to Get On with it...I have faith in you!

J

[My 2 Cents]

My heart goes out to you..so glad we got to speak over the phone a time or two..

You were just wonderful on the talk radio one...

Your father should be grateful for the Person you have Become despite all his shortcomings (I say that nicely)..

you doing music..and he talking to you like that..not encouraging you..just breaks my heart...I could never do that to my son..ever..no matter how many sour notes he might play (or has in his learning/practices) to not want you in the "business"..having dinner together...man...this makes me so sad.

I'm sorry Gary. You are a prime example of a "good son" even though you were never truly treated like one..In My Opinion. Thank God for George...

Bless your heart...MOVE FORWARD...I encourage you to Get On with it...I have faith in you!

J

Ditto, Ditto, Ditto . . . . Great Job, Great Interview Gary. I just finished listening to it. I also just watched the video interview with John Lennon's son - amazingly similar stories (although Lennon was much more fortunate to have, what sounds like, a great relationship and support from his Mom - which of course, would make a huge difference) You, Gary, are a better person than I, to be so forgiving, non judgmental and supportive to this self-centered, insecure person.
Good Luck with the job hunting - - I will keep you in my prayers. :rose:

[hiitsme]

Gary,
Whether or not they find him guilty, I believe he is a despicable human being to have treated women and his own children the way he did. My respect for you and the way you have and are handling this whole ordeal is immense. You have been totally fair and objective despite the pain this may have caused.