P Spector's NEW Trial

[GPSpector]

:confused:Okay, I now have no idea what happened to the prior thread or why there is only 1 thread and it's only for the old trial but here's a thread for the NEW trial that I hope does not just go POOF.

[Jayne]

Just a heads up... the 'November 14th thru...' thread is gone because it was started by the temporary mod & the temporary mod's nic is now gone from the system.

All posts & threads started by said temporary mod went away when the nic was removed.

On topic... I look forward to the inevitable guilty verdict. :thumbup:

GHEESH..it sounds like the stockmarket?!

I agree with you...but I'm still sitting on a pea (under the mattress)..that DW is pushing for that mistrial or hung jury..he's banking up all he can to appeal from a guilty (I really do think so...I'm tired tonight but I've posted too much about it..that just went POOF!!)..and if he gets a mistrial or hung jury...I'd say it's done with. The economy what it is right now..courts out here scrambling to find research attorneys and clerks to serve in the courts (believe me..they are offering Great benefits up here..with very strict requirements, however), I just don't see the prosecution/state going for a 3d trial...and I'm not even certain about the particular caselaw on that...as going for a third trial.

I do think JF is giving him enough rope to hang himself (I mean DW and of course PS controlling him) with a conviction..NOT a hung jury...then it's up to an appeal which I am quite sure JF is also controlling to make sure it doesn't win on any appeal. PS2 is more Legal Carp than PS1, IMO. It has turned into a sophisticated legal game of battleship.

but..I can't attend trial...and I just get what I read here or in the local newspapers (which isnt' much, mind you)..or from some very nice posters who post and PM on occasion.

With this just "new" Breaking News thing about a juror..being caught by the defendant's mother...albeit NY (Cutler territory), I'd wonder if the DA office in LA isn't brushing another comb over that jury...dunno

jmo

j

[GPSpector]

What "new" news are you referring to? What did the Juror do?

[kennedy06]

The only thing I had heard about a juror in this trial is from Trials & Tribs. Apparently one juror had worn a Sun music Tshirt to court. That just makes me think of Elvis and then also this juror wore an Easy Rider shirt. You know that movie hasn't been out in a long time but surely it was a coincidence. There is other good information about AD and the shirt is mentioned in it also. I'm sorry our thread is gone, alot of good posts by so many went with it. :unsure:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/11/phil-spector-retrial-day-ten-of.html

(we can link to the trial information on T&T, I asked CW)

[KathR]

The only thing I had heard about a juror in this trial is from Trials & Tribs. Apparently one juror had worn a Sun music Tshirt to court. That just makes me think of Elvis and then also this juror wore an Easy Rider shirt. You know that movie hasn't been out in a long time but surely it was a coincidence. There is other good information about AD and the shirt is mentioned in it also. I'm sorry our thread is gone, alot of good posts by so many went with it. :unsure:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/11/phil-spector-retrial-day-ten-of.html

(we can link to the trial information on T&T, I asked CW)

I'm glad I found you people again. My computer crashed a month or so ago and I've been repairing and catching up since then. I have gotten so far from the Phil Spector trial that I have no idea what point it is at. Has the prosecution closed?

Is there a problem with having this subject going? What's this about only talking about not guilty or the old trial, but not the new trial? Are we allowed to discuss that here?

[Spectorfan8]

I have only been on a jury once, but there was some kind of "dress code". No one showed up in jeans or T-shirts. Everyone was dressed casual or business dressed.
I don't know, maybe it is only an east coast thing.:unsure:

GP, thanks for the new thread. :thumbup:

SF8

[hiitsme]

I'm glad I found you people again. My computer crashed a month or so ago and I've been repairing and catching up since then. I have gotten so far from the Phil Spector trial that I have no idea what point it is at. Has the prosecution closed?

Is there a problem with having this subject going? What's this about only talking about not guilty or the old trial, but not the new trial? Are we allowed to discuss that here?

Many posters who believe that PS is not guilty enjoy going over the information they feel proves innocence, thus providing links galore from the old trial. So, in order to avoid problems, separate threads for the old and current trials have been established. The pros. has not yet closed. If you "stay tuned" here you will read some very informative info from a few who have actually attended the trial recently.

[hiitsme]

When I first read about the "musical shirts", I thought, yikes, what type of message, if any, is he sending! Hopefully, the posts from the old thread will appear today!

[KathR]

Many posters who believe that PS is not guilty enjoy going over the information they feel proves innocence, thus providing links galore from the old trial. So, in order to avoid problems, separate threads for the old and current trials have been established. The pros. has not yet closed. If you "stay tuned" here you will read some very informative info from a few who have actually attended the trial recently.

I will stay tuned now that I'm back. I just read the Sprocket blog from Nov 28. That is very well written and very interesting. Is that the latest there is?

Thanks for the info.

[kennedy06]

When I first read about the "musical shirts", I thought, yikes, what type of message, if any, is he sending! Hopefully, the posts from the old thread will appear today!

Well PS had nothing to do with Sun records from what I had read or know of. I believe that is where Elvis got his start. I think that would have been caught by those that know more about him than I do or ever would. Both the defense and prosecution surely see these shirts also. I'm just paraphrasing of course about the shirts, more exact information about the Sun shirt can be found on this link below to T&T. There is so much trial information there I don't quite know where or how to start discussing it, but I guess this is a start, right!

Keeping my fngers crossed the Nov 14 thread will magically reappear again too:)

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search?q=Sun+records

(last paragraph of the 1st entry)

[Spectorfan8]

Many posters who believe that PS is not guilty enjoy going over the information they feel proves innocence, thus providing links galore from the old trial. So, in order to avoid problems, separate threads for the old and current trials have been established. The pros. has not yet closed. If you "stay tuned" here you will read some very informative info from a few who have actually attended the trial recently.

I am a NG, but I prefer NEW news from this trial. I watched the last trial, all of it. It would be nice if we could watch THIS trial too.::huh:


SF8

[kennedy06]

I will stay tuned now that I'm back. I just read the Sprocket blog from Nov 28. That is very well written and very interesting. Is that the latest there is?

Thanks for the info.

There is a little more information on the links thread, One link in particular the latest (12-01) from Tartangirl on how the defense is going about defending Phil.




(Sorry for another post but I ran out of edit time to add it to my original)

[hiitsme]

I am a NG, but I prefer NEW news from this trial. I watched the last trial, all of it. It would be nice if we could watch THIS trial too.::huh:


SF8

I agree. It's very disappointing not to be able to watch PS2 live. Then probably most, whether for or against guilt could discuss current happenings. OT, but good luck next week!

[Jayne]

On the other thread Emu asked:

12-06-2008, 10:03 AM
EmuArt
Registered User Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
Posts: 395

Jayne,

I meant vms. That is what I think he is guilty of. Thanks for your reply. You rock! I guess what I am after with the brandishing is who had the gun first? That's why I thought both sides should of checked the drawer for fingerprints.
__________________
Common sense is not common after all.

------------

First..well, ya'd think they'd check for prints especially after finding the holster in there, however..two problems with that: PS owned the home and the furniture so he could have opened that drawer anytime and not necessarily to take out the gun. Lana could have leaned against the drawer and got her prints on it, not actually opening it.or maybe she did? Just more mud to throw around perhaps is what they thought? I'd have done it, but imagine the time and money and what they may call "wasted manpower" to check furniture in the house of the suspect? DUH? Why not?! However, lifting prints is not that easy..unless they've come up with a "new way" that I'm not familiar with. The object has to be smooth, non porous more or less..heck I was burglarized and when I arrived home my own chef's knife was lying at the doorway just inside. Of course, I didn't put it there...the LE didn't want to take prints because it was "my knife". I was flabbergasted...of course it might have my prints on it..but it should have had prints of the perp who placed it there from my kitchen drawer. Nonetheless, they tried after my insistence..NO Prints came up..which said to me..I think pretty obviously..as it was an "easy find" if there were any there..the perp used gloves or wiped it before placing it. I'm explaining this because if a person knows what they are doing they can remove prints. If PS did commit this crime, did take the gun from that drawer and considering all his diaper wiping moments, he probably wiped down that drawer. But, what I always wondered...would there have been "blood spatter or smears" on that drawer..if smears, they certainly weren't caused by Lana.

As for brandishing a gun..we're talking a misdemeanor or an enhanced sentence. I can't say at this point what would matter whether Lana had the gun FIRST or PS did...certainly if PS did..there is hardly a question about liability..arguable, sure..but if there were proof that he had that gun in his hands that evening, I mean forensic proof.. more fuel to the fire. Now if Lana had it first? Interesting question..but another can of worms..WHY? And what another can of bigger worms if both prints are on it to say who had it first? It would be like a tug o war.

She obviously didn't bring it there..how would it have come into her Initial/First possession - brandishing? I'd say PS must have supplied it..either handed it to her (OK..then he had/brandished it first?) or told her where to find it..or she rummaged around (like the juror alluded to because of his..what was she..his mother in law?? DUH) and found it in that drawer. But..was she brandishing a gun? I guess it depends on the interpretation...if one has a gun in his pocket and no one knows..that's not brandishing..if they are looking at it, inspecting it..not threatening anyone with it..that's not brandishing - damn stupid if you're in public..but what the heck. But..if you're walking down the street..you have no ill intent..but you pull out the gun from your pocket..to make sure the clip is ON..or you need the dollar bills or change in your pocket below it..if a cop catches you..you're pretty much "brandishing a weapon". Nuts isn't it? Well..no...considering what I've read about in the papers here lately...I'm frankly afraid to go out and do any christmas shopping..not that I can...people are holding up Pet Stores..imagine that?!

So..you ask a good question...if this was mutual (or not) gun play (Ooooh..back to LKB), then there was no brandishing...so to speak...But...there is the Supply question..how did Lana come upon this gun? If PS handed it to her..directed her to it..I'd argue that is "brandishing/supplying/assisting". WHO in their right mind would allow a guest to take a loaded handgun and "play with it"? A sadistic idiot, IMO.

If he wanted to play along with her..then don't have any bullets it in. And..from all that we've heard in PS1 there is no way she loaded that gun herself (despite LKB's horrific and embarassing talk about how the gun is loaded!).

Again..I'm over typing here..but Brandishing usually has to do with the Perp. In suicide..if that is the claim..there is no Perp..it is self inflicted..brandishing doesn't come in. (unless you want to prosecute a dead person for brandishing a gun upon himself?) If Lana were handling that gun..then it had to be in offense to herself..not self defense. A person defending himself is not guilty of brandishing a gun. So...that's where PS1 was trying to go, I think, that Lana got the gun..and I think they knew darned well where the gun came from and who handled it..but they attempted to put it in her hands..first and always..except at the door..and there comes DS..seeing and hearing what he did.

[hiitsme]

Jayne's post #26

Jayne, you always leave no stone unturned when evaluating the evidence and/or responding to another's post. I guess I am not nearly as analytical and probably live in a house with a white picket fence. I cannot in my wildest dreams picture Lana wanting anything to do with a gun in that stranger's home. I get sickened at the notion of kinky gun play as some love to say. While I don't believe that PS went out that night looking for someone to murder, I do believe that his behavior mimicked so many other incidents when he pulled a gun on women who wanted to leave him. The other women knew him and were able to reason with him to avoid disaster. Lana must have been petrified when he pulled a gun on her. Did he mean to murder her, I don't know that. But, I do know that he had the opportunity to call 911 and tell his story. His words and actions after the fact just don't equal innocence in my world.

[sunstar]

Hi everybody! :seeya: Well since there's a new thread I'll post the latest news article about PS. I really wish there would be daily updates in the media so we knew what was going on in the courtroom.

The strange defense of Phil Spector: He's scary

8:02 AM, December 1, 2008

Since his murder retrial began a month ago, Phil Spector has heard himself described as a gun-obsessed boor with a mouth filthier than a truck stop restroom and mood swings as sharp and scary as a dagger.


more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/12/the-strange-def.html

[Jayne]

Jayne,

Interesting answer to my Q. I have said this here before but I will say it again. It's all about how you interpret the law. Isn't that a course in law school?
I hate to hear you were robbed. Damn thieves anyways!

Oh..my several times...I learned a lot about it...about protecting your house..yourself...I could write a book..and someday..maybe I will..

I was a prime victim in Brooklyn..even in Boston.out here..nobody knows me from Adam..except for those who would never harm a hair on my head.

or so I think..

Ya know..never trust anyone.

I do not think PS rises to M2..I don't....it was an accident waiting to happen and now the prosecution is putting on that theory...well....it doesn't rise to M2...it comes down to MS...doctrine of chance..it is NOT intententional..it's CHANCE.

I think they are trying to be very smart...putting the case on like last time but adding this "theory"..which gives them a way out without charging VMS or MS...

I suppose I'm stupid as all get out...and it's OK if you all think that.

:)

J

[KathR]

The link in the previous message brought me to the LA Times coverage. They have a reporter named Harriet Ryan who seems interested in the case. Good to see someone is covering it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spectorgallery,0,5124683.storygallery

[Jayne]

Jayne's post #26

Jayne, you always leave no stone unturned when evaluating the evidence and/or responding to another's post. I guess I am not nearly as analytical and probably live in a house with a white picket fence. I cannot in my wildest dreams picture Lana wanting anything to do with a gun in that stranger's home. I get sickened at the notion of kinky gun play as some love to say. While I don't believe that PS went out that night looking for someone to murder, I do believe that his behavior mimicked so many other incidents when he pulled a gun on women who wanted to leave him. The other women knew him and were able to reason with him to avoid disaster. Lana must have been petrified when he pulled a gun on her. Did he mean to murder her, I don't know that. But, I do know that he had the opportunity to call 911 and tell his story. His words and actions after the fact just don't equal innocence in my world.

YES..IMO..there is no innocence for PS in this entire scenario at all..

be that as it is..it may not be murder..and frankly..as much as I would be the Brooklyn Prosecutor..I'd be the Brooklyn Prosecutor as I was to ASK QUESTIONS..I'm not so sure PS KILLED Lana.

I know this is going to upset the applecart and all the posts I've made..but I'm really not that sure...YET..CA law has this Malice Implied thing..and that DOES fit PS. NY doesn't have that..trust me..it doesn't...it's more black and white...

I have from the outset felt PS was "guilty" but not necessarily of M2..I think he's too danged stupid and deranged to commit M2..I really do..

I couldn't figure out why..and still can't ...why the LA DA didn't include manslaughter.. It still means he KILLED Lana..it just means it wasn't malice..wasn't planned. WHAT were they thinking?

I think they've blown this entire case down the sewer..but heck...I'm just a little guy in the CA Bar list...YET...DW seems to be helping them...now he's blowing his mouth into the sewer, as I see it.

It's almost like an episode from Monte Python.. or a Fish Called Wanda..

I think the only person out there..who is and has to be totally disengaged is JF..and I bet he's pulling the few hairs he has left on his head..totally out..

Man...I really do want to meet him someday...long off..to figure out..just how SMART he is..and believe me..I think he's one of the most intelligent judges out there.

sorry..I'm tired..and maybe none of this made sense...

jmo

J

[sunstar]

The link in the previous message brought me to the LA Times coverage. They have a reporter named Harriet Ryan who seems interested in the case. Good to see someone is covering it.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spectorgallery,0,5124683.storygallery

I saw that but they don't seem consistent. The last entry I found was Monday so what happened this past week in the courtroom? :shrug: I so miss Loni & Marta.

[Jayne]

I saw that but they don't seem consistent. The last entry I found was Monday so what happened this past week in the courtroom? :shrug: I so miss Loni & Marta.

OH Lord..me TOO!..I never laughed so hard as I did watching them two!

I'll be sitting again..in about two months..just like I was inPS1...can't walk...watching TV..but this time NO COVERAGE..dang...yes...I will so much miss them and the others...gheesh..Vinnie..right?

:crying:
j

[My 2 Cents]

I know that I have gone from over 800 posts back down to 783. That really sucks.:tonguewag:

SF8

You think that "sucks", I've gone from ? - "all of my posts" - ? (not sure of the total number . . . .to ZERO posts. ha, ha . . . that really, really sucks!

[Jayne]

You think that "sucks", I've gone from ? - "all of my posts" - ? (not sure of the total number . . . .to ZERO posts. ha, ha . . . that really, really sucks!

Gee..wish that would happen either with my years, in age, or the wrinkles on my face - reduced..

The sad thing is m2c, you had some really good courtroom informative posts..you didn't happen to save them, did you? I like going back and reading many of the posts of many posters, you and spectorfan8 included. And, I remember kennedy or theal, perhaps?, asked me a question..I answered it and now can't remember what it was or I'd repost it.

[Anakerie]

Sprocket has updated the Day 13 trial notes and says that she will be posting the Day 14 notes later today.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-thirteen-of.html

(We can post links to the blog.. I asked CW!)

[Spectorfan8]

You think that "sucks", I've gone from ? - "all of my posts" - ? (not sure of the total number . . . .to ZERO posts. ha, ha . . . that really, really sucks!

I know, it's bad, but we will survive. Hopefully, you will get to post more on the trial. Having someone post here that actually goes to the trial is GREAT. Thank you for the info, keep on posting!!!
:thumbsup:

SF8

[True2Blues]

What could we expect this week? Anyone know?

I think it's safe to say that we can expect a lack of information about what's going on in the courtroom. Like every week since this trial started. (sigh)

[GPSpector]

You're right, but on the hand if he gets convicted, he can't use the "the media convicted me" whine.

Well, I guess that's a bright side:unsure:

[Spectorfan8]

Well, I guess that's a bright side:unsure:

G,

I don't think there is a bright side here. No one really wins. If Mr. Spector is found guilty, it won't bring Lana back. Then, if he goes free, she still won't come back. Is that how you feel? :unsure:


SF8

[My 2 Cents]

THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING (RE: "new" potential defense witness in PS2)

I was reading "T&T" most recent update on the PS2 trial and she mentions that the name, Elizabeth Loftless was thrown around in court (jury not present). Apparently AJ thinks this is a witness that the defense is going to call to dispute De Souza's testimony (and he was concerned because he hadn't received "discovery" info from the defense yet).

I found some interesting information about her on-line, at least I believe this is the person they are referring to: Elizabeth Loftus, a distinguished professor at UCI (University of Calif, Irvine). UCI is a highly respected University located approximately 1 hour from LA courthouse. The articles state that Loftus has been obsessed for that past 30 years with one topic . . . memory. One of her main areas of study deal with "eyewitness testimony" with regards to accidents & crimes. EX: What happens when eyewitnesses are questioned by police officers? What if those questions are biased? Initially, during her studies and research Loftus offered to help a public defender working on a murder case, sharing her findings relevant to the case, if he let her observe the various phases of the case. It involved the client, a woman, who had gotten into a violent argument with her boyfriend and shot him six times, killing him. Prof Loftus helped the lawyer understand the conflicting eyewitness testimony and . . . low and behold . . the girlfriend who shot & killed her boyfriend was acquitted. Loftus wrote an article for PSYCHOLOGY TODAY magazine detailing her research and outcome of this case. After that - life changed drastically for Prof Loftus, her phone began "ringing off the hook" with calls from lawyers. She has now testified as an expert witness in 100s of cases including: McMartin Preschool Molestation Case, the Hillside Strangler case, Abscam case, trial of Oliver North, trial of the officer's accused in the Rodney King beating, the Menendez Brothers, the Michael Jackson case. the Oklahoma Bombing and many more. She has been honored and recognized for oodles of very distinguished awards and accolades.

Soooo, HANG ON TO YOUR HATS . . her testimony (for the defense) is going to be interesting! Her testimony, I'm guessing, is at least partially going to explore the area of "leading" questions by the officers interviewing ADS. FOR EXAMPLE; "Did you see the BROKEN HEADLIGHT?", would lead to more FALSE accounts by eyewitnesses of BROKEN HEADLIGHTS. HOWEVER, I must add, that after watching the video taped interview (that was one of the days I was in court) that was played in court for the jurors, along with the audio recording of ADS calling 911, I don't think she'll be able to do too much damage, if any. It kind of takes away the "eyewitness memory" concerns when a lot of the initial testimony & statements were recorded &/or filmed and taken at the time of the incident. IMO

[dref99]

You think that "sucks", I've gone from ? - "all of my posts" - ? (not sure of the total number . . . .to ZERO posts. ha, ha . . . that really, really sucks!

Your posts were fabulous and are sorely missed. Did you type them direct or save them on your computer before posting. If you have any copies do please post them again.

And many thanks for the info on Elizabeth Loftus - it does sound like the person being discussed - very interesting.


jmo

[GPSpector]

G,

I don't think there is a bright side here. No one really wins. If Mr. Spector is found guilty, it won't bring Lana back. Then, if he goes free, she still won't come back. Is that how you feel? :unsure:


SF8

I was referring to him not being able to use that excuse. Nothing will bring Lana back.

[GPSpector]

THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING (RE: "new" potential defense witness in PS2)

I was reading "T&T" most recent update on the PS2 trial and she mentions that the name, Elizabeth Loftless was thrown around in court (jury not present). Apparently AJ thinks this is a witness that the defense is going to call to dispute De Souza's testimony (and he was concerned because he hadn't received "discovery" info from the defense yet).



Well, I guess if they could not get Baby Doll Gibson to testify to waste time, Elizabeth Loftless will have to do.:wink:

[kennedy06]

Wow My2cents, thanks for taking the time to research her for us.:thumbup:

[hiitsme]

She may try to make a psychological argument regarding AD's testimony, however, I'm sure Alan Jackson will be ready and waiting for the cross. In any event it will be something new and interesting for both sides.

[Spectorfan8]

Thank you for the info on Elizabeth Loftus, My 2 Cent.

SF8

[Spectorfan8]

Lana won't be brought back so don't bother to try her murderer? don't put the murderer in jail because you can't bring their victim back? Hmm, something very wrong with this thinking.

No, that is not what I said. If Mr. Spector is found guilty, it won't bring Lana back, and if he is found not guilty, or hung jury, it still won't bring Lana back.
I didn't say anything about not trying Mr. Spector. I didn't say anything about not putting him in jail.

I am of the belief that Mr. Spector is not guilty, therefore, I do not see him as going to jail. I have stated that since the last trial, and I will continue to do so.

I do not get involved with petty arguements, with anyone.

SF8

[Spectorfan8]

It looks like Mr. Spector is going to have surgery on his vocal cords, Judge Fidler has already approved it, all he is waiting for are the dates. So, it looks like court will be out for at least a couple of days.
That is what I read on T&T.

[My 2 Cents]

I forgot to add in my previous post what I read about the other "potential" witness that the defense said they may call. This is the witness that is actually more likely to be called. In the notes from "T&T"'s blog, DW stated he may not even call Elizabeth Loftus. Anyway, I didn't research to hard looking for info on Dr. Richard Seiden, but this is the "gist" of what his research, area of interest seems to be (if I have the right guy).

Dr. Richard H. Seiden - a professor at U.C. Berkley
He has written a lot of articles, information (book ?) on SUICIDES and the GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (were the % of suicide attempts effected by the increase of more deterrents & barriers being installed by city?) . . . AND his research exploring whether SUICIDES are more likely to occur if "the means" are easily available AND/OR whether SUICIDES are prevented or reduced in number because the "availability of a particular means" is NOT present. B-I-N-G-O . . . I do believe this will be the area that Dr. Seiden will enlighten us on. You know, like . . . WHY WOULD LANA WASTE A PERFECTLY LOADED GUN, THAT'S JUST SITTING HERE IN THIS OPEN DRAWER, WHEN SHE'S SO "DOWN IN THE DUMPS AND ALL", WHY NOT JUST USE IT, RIGHT HERE AND NOW IN THIS PERFECT STRANGER'S HOUSE? . . . Oh Brother!

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks for the info on Elisabeth Loftus!
During the first trial I was one of the few who kept trying to bring up questions about memory concerning ADS. (very few takers on my observation!)
I always found him to be someone who was honest.....but quite possibly only believing he was being honest. I think it is very possible for him to believe in false information. That is the stuff of reasonable doubt imo.

BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER this very important DIFFERENCE between ADS testimony & his eyewitness info AND the typical type of eyewitness testimony from people who have seen a car accident, or a bank robbery, etc . . . DeSouza called 911 immediately while fleeing from Spector and stated to 911 operator what HE SAW just seconds before. He was NOT being asked "leading" questions OR ANY QUESTIONS for that matter, ADS was calling for police assistance and stating to 911 what HE JUST WITNESSED. AND he has stayed consistent with this testimony and these facts since 2/3/03. PS came out with a colt .38 in his hand and said to ADS (standing 4 or 5 ft away) "I THINK I KILLED SOMEBODY". And then he peeked around Spector and SAW the BODY. In the same spot the police found her in. All this is recorded on the 911 tapes, BEFORE anyone had a chance to ask any "leading" or "biased" questions which might alter/taint his memory in any way (which is LOFTUS's focus of research, I believe).
I also (IMO) think the detectives at the police station did a good job of asking ADS "unbaised" and "unleading" questions, based on what I SAW on the VIDEO TAPE of the ENTIRE INTERVIEW of ADS. It will be difficult for DW to argue with that - it's all on tape and the jury can judge for themselves. IMO

[kennedy06]

I forgot to add in my previous post what I read about the other "potential" witness that the defense said they may call. This is the witness that is actually more likely to be called. In the notes from "T&T"'s blog, DW stated he may not even call Elizabeth Loftus. Anyway, I didn't research to hard looking for info on Dr. Richard Seiden, but this is the "gist" of what his research, area of interest seems to be (if I have the right guy).

Dr. Richard H. Seiden - a professor at U.C. Berkley
He has written a lot of articles, information (book ?) on SUICIDES and the GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE (were the % of suicide attempts effected by the increase of more deterrents & barriers being installed by city?) . . . AND his research exploring whether SUICIDES are more likely to occur if "the means" are easily available AND/OR whether SUICIDES are prevented or reduced in number because the "availability of a particular means" is NOT present. B-I-N-G-O . . . I do believe this will be the area that Dr. Seiden will enlighten us on. You know, like . . . WHY WOULD LANA WASTE A PERFECTLY LOADED GUN, THAT'S JUST SITTING HERE IN THIS OPEN DRAWER, WHEN SHE'S SO "DOWN IN THE DUMPS AND ALL", WHY NOT JUST USE IT, RIGHT HERE AND NOW IN THIS PERFECT STRANGER'S HOUSE? . . . Oh Brother!


OK I give you an A plus 100 extra credit points!! Fantastic info on these two:thumbsup:

[Spectorfan8]

This isn't a petty argument by any stretch. Perhaps you were not more clear in your post because it came off as cold and callous to the victim "Lana".

Just saying.

Oh, no problem. If you knew me better, from my previous posts, I would never be cold and callous toward Lana.
I personally feel terrible that she died.

OK?

[kennedy06]

If AD memory is questioned as it is now of course, but if after a memory specialist testifies, is it possible to bring up people that says he has a good memory? Wait he worked part time at the Grill, he testified to it and also Kathy S worked there. I wonder what he did there? If it was a job remembering orders during a packed house that could benefit him. He was cool in a crisis and his memory sharp type of thing. Just a thought, probably not a good one but anyway.....

JMO

[hiitsme]

If AD memory is questioned as it is now of course, but if after a memory specialist testifies, is it possible to bring up people that says he has a good memory? Wait he worked part time at the Grill, he testified to it and also Kathy S worked there. I wonder what he did there? If it was a job remembering orders during a packed house that could benefit him. He was cool in a crisis and his memory sharp type of thing. Just a thought, probably not a good one but anyway.....

JMO
I think you bring up a very good point. While a word or 2 spoken by AD may have varied, the essence of what he said within hours of the murder was basically the same. I find it hard to believe that a "memory expert" would be able to discredit him. Again, I believe the pros. will be ready for any so called expert that the defense decides to call.

[True2Blues]

Good grief another delay on Phil's part. He couldn't have had this done before the trial? It's not like he didn't have time.

:cursing:

No kidding. they mentioned at the last trial that he needed surgery on some polyps on his ocal cords or something like that. He has definitely had time. I think it's a play for sympathy on his part. Make the jury think, "Poor old guy, he has to have surgery, let's let him off, he must be in bad health."

[True2Blues]

I think you bring up a very good point. While a word or 2 spoken by AD may have varied, the essence of what he said within hours of the murder was basically the same. I find it hard to believe that a "memory expert" would be able to discredit him. Again, I believe the pros. will be ready for any so called expert that the defense decides to call.

I don't think she'll get far either, and for exactly the reasons given earlier, the tapes. If you pay enough you can get anyone to say anything though, and I guess the defense has to try, though I think they picked a lose in this case, since the police recorded the interview and the 911 call.

[GPSpector]

Also, AD was in a state of concern when he heard the "POW" and then in a state of disbelief when my father walked out and said what AD heard. AD was not in a state of shock (of any kind) until he saw Lana. My point is, everything prior to seeing inside the house should be clear memories, not altered ones that shock can produce.

[kennedy06]

I think witnessing things that are very tramatic tend to sear that event into one's memory and a leading question won't really alter it any. A question could make you focus on something that you remember but may not think it is important but I don't think it would create a false memory.

[KathR]

I'm reading Sprocket's very interesting log for the 3rd and just came across this:

DW: Did you tell Ms. Nelson that Spector said he shot her? (Barbara Nelson is a criminalist with the coroner's office.)

That was the defense asking about what Spector said. If I were a defense lawyer I'd never repeat information attributed to my client when I was trying to deny he ever said such a thing. Doesn't it just serve to hammer the remark further into the minds of the jury?

[True2Blues]

why not over holiday break?

It sounds good to me, but I'm sure PS wouldn't want his holiday revels interrupted. I imagine there would be much argument and tossing about of phrases like "My client's rights."

Forget That the family and real friends of Lana are spending their 5th Christmas without her, and that she saw her last Christmas in 2002. It's all about PS. Always has been to him.:angry:

[GPSpector]

i thought the driver called his boss michelle (phil's assistant) first and she told him to call 911. iirc

Nope. Yes AD called Michelle 1st but she never answered. He left a message on her Answering Machine. He then called 911 on his own choosing.

[True2Blues]

i thought the driver called his boss michelle (phil's assistant) first and she told him to call 911. iirc

He did call Michelle Blaine first, but she wasn't home so he left a message. In the first trial he said he wanted the address of the castle to give to the police. When he couldn't get in touch with MB, he drove down the driveway to the address sign and called 911.

[dref99]

This isn't a petty argument by any stretch. Perhaps you were not more clear in your post because it came off as cold and callous to the victim "Lana".

Just saying.

Most of us are here to discuss the trial, not attack other posters. SF8 is always clear in her statements, I suggest you take a little more care with yours.

The comments and discussion related to "nothing will bring Lana back" Very sad and very true. I have seen no indication of "cold and callous"


jmo

[dref99]

No kidding. they mentioned at the last trial that he needed surgery on some polyps on his ocal cords or something like that. He has definitely had time. I think it's a play for sympathy on his part. Make the jury think, "Poor old guy, he has to have surgery, let's let him off, he must be in bad health."

I agree that he probably has known about this for some time - but perhaps he has just realised if it is not done now, he will have to wait for the prison service to decide where and when :ohmy: - a guilty verdict is seeming very likely, unless we run into another weird juror.

jmo

[dref99]

Oh Oh, the decision was made to delete all the temps. posts now, if she was the thread starter that means the whole thread went also.
I wish there was a solution to that in the system. When a person is banned and posts deleted it takes too much time to check and see if any threads were started by them. If anyone has a solution please advise.

I'm really very sorry for this happening, I should have checked first, I guess because I don't usually start threads I didn't think he/she would either. I hope not too many important posts were lost, I honestly do feel badly about it. Hope some of you have some copies of the important ones and can repost them.

Thankyou for the information - perhaps in the future the password could be changed & the posts let stand to avoid the issue (I don't know if this is possible or fits the situation) - but either way it was nice to understand why this happened.

[dref99]

Testimony from Monday Dec 8

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifteen-of.html

[kennedy06]

I agree that he probably has known about this for some time - but perhaps he has just realised if it is not done now, he will have to wait for the prison service to decide where and when :ohmy: - a guilty verdict is seeming very likely, unless we run into another weird juror.

jmo


I guess that could be one logical reason. I would never have thought of that. Thanks dref

[kennedy06]

I just read the latest entry on Trials & Tribs ( I'm paraphrasing) about the police officer T. Do would like to include in this trial because his testmony would be about a cloth that was upstairs. After reading AJ's point about there being towels in the restroom near the stairs so many feet from where Lana was, I took a look back again at a picture of that restroom. Sure looks like a basket of handtowels are there on the sink countertop to me. Also this may sound strange, but the toilet seat looks like it is up. Now maybe the police did that I don't know but, that isn't a natural way for a woman to leave a seat. It would be a natural way for a man to most often use one. I know weird subject. That kind of says to me, if he left it that way naturally out of habit any other time he may have lifted it back up out of habit if it had been put down that night, even if it was possibly to just wash out a diaper. Silly point I suppose. Just thinking about the diaper becoming wet from the sink and being tossed over there as compared to being washed out in the toilet.


Why not use a nice clean hand towel to render aid if that was how the cloth/diaper got that way (as I noted AJ had mentioned in some manner)? I had thought the diaper was just in that drawer and the closest item to grab but, now that I think about it I guess it would be more natural to keep something like that with your gun supplies right?? If you value your guns I guess your first instinct to clean one would to use the proper equipment. hmmmm

JMO only

Picture of the powder room

http://www.daylife.com/photo/02hleQn7Js25k/Lana_Clarkson

[Jayne]

I just read the latest entry on Trials & Tribs ( I'm paraphrasing) about the police officer T. Do would like to include in this trial because his testmony would be about a cloth that was upstairs. After reading AJ's point about there being towels in the restroom near the stairs so many feet from where Lana was, I took a look back again at a picture of that restroom. Sure looks like a basket of handtowels are there on the sink countertop to me. Also this may sound strange, but the toilet seat looks like it is up. Now maybe the police did that I don't know but, that isn't a natural way for a woman to leave a seat. It would be a natural way for a man to most often use one. I know weird subject. That kind of says to me, if he left it that way naturally out of habit any other time he may have lifted it back up out of habit if it had been put down that night, even if it was possibly to just wash out a diaper. Silly point I suppose. Just thinking about the diaper becoming wet from the sink and being tossed over there as compared to being washed out in the toilet.


Why not use a nice clean hand towel to render aid if that was how the cloth/diaper got that way (as I noted AJ had mentioned in some manner)? I had thought the diaper was just in that drawer and the closest item to grab but, now that I think about it I guess it would be more natural to keep something like that with your gun supplies right?? If you value your guns I guess your first instinct to clean one would to use the proper equipment. hmmmm

JMO only

Picture of the powder room

http://www.daylife.com/photo/02hleQn7Js25k/Lana_Clarkson


From experience and knowledge, many gun owners use diapers because of the lintLess factor and they are soft and do not "scratch".

Last trial (and still evidence in this one), the diaper was found, yes, near the toilet. Then, and now, I believe it is there because PS was either attempting to dunk it to wash off the blood or he was attempting to flush it after dunking it as well. No matter how awful this crime is, I really doubt he got it wet for clean up by using potty water..the sink was closer to the door..but who knows? He likely grabbed the dry diaper from that half opened drawer, or he already had it in one of his hands or even over the wrist cuff of his jacket when the gun was shot. Then tried to wipe down the gun and some of Lana...heard someone coming and tried to get rid of the diaper?

jmo

j

[My 2 Cents]

:closedeyes:The prosecution hides evidence and gets people to lie all the time by offering deals for testimony. How else do you think that illegal limo driver has been allowed to stay in this country.:thumbdown:

It appears you are missing quite a few facts, or perhaps new to this trial & the evidence that has been presented. With regards to the limo driver, is has been stated under oath (and the defense has not supplied ANY evidence to dispute it) that NOTHING has been offered to Mr De Souza allowing him to stay in the US. The prosecution has not even spoken with De Souza once, since the last trial (these are facts stated under oath in court) AND Mr De Souza, at the time of the shooting, had a VALID TOURIST VISA (in addition to the Student Visa) for the USA that was VALID until 2007 (shooting took place in 2003) allowing De Souza the freedom to travel back & forth between Brazil & USA.

[My 2 Cents]

Also this may sound strange, but the toilet seat looks like it is up. Now maybe the police did that I don't know but, that isn't a natural way for a woman to leave a seat. It would be a natural way for a man to most often use one. I know weird subject. That kind of says to me, if he left it that way naturally out of habit any other time he may have lifted it back up out of habit if it had been put down that night, even if it was possibly to just wash out a diaper. Silly point I suppose. Just thinking about the diaper becoming wet from the sink and being tossed over there as compared to being washed out in the toilet.


Why not use a nice clean hand towel to render aid if that was how the cloth/diaper got that way (as I noted AJ had mentioned in some manner)? I had thought the diaper was just in that drawer and the closest item to grab but, now that I think about it I guess it would be more natural to keep something like that with your gun supplies right?? If you value your guns I guess your first instinct to clean one would to use the proper equipment. hmmmm

JMO only

Picture of the powder room

http://www.daylife.com/photo/02hleQn7Js25k/Lana_Clarkson

Very interesting point & observation . . . I had not thought about the toilet lid being UP. I would think that was the way the officer's found it, since they are trained NOT to alter a crime scene in any way until after the photographs, finger printing, etc. This would lead me to think perhaps PS was the last to use the restroom (and I never believed that LC took her eyelashes off and left them on the bathroom counter. For one - Very unlikely a woman would take them off at all at a strangers house. Two - wouldn't likely leave them on the bare countertop - gross . If anything, put them in a tissue & back in her purse. Nice ones are not cheap and they go on you eyes. A woman would not want them sitting directly on Phil's old outdated, grungee 1980's bathroom countertop.) I also didn't focus on the fact that there were several clean towels available in that bathroom. Common sense says, a person trying to render aid to LC would grab on of those - they're closest. Thanks for the photo link and insights.

[My 2 Cents]

Hmmm... I feel the same way about those who believe Phil Spector is not guilty.

Ahhhh, . . . you have made ME a believer - The LANDSHARK II is in fact "the cleverest of all sharks".

[GPSpector]

Excellent point! Can I get an Amen? :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Don't forget the Defense's eggspurts that made up science as they spoke on the Stand.

[spydernweb2006]

IMO The most honest and believable witnesses are:

ADS
Neely (Lana's real best friend of many years)
Dr Lynn " It is what it is" Herrold.


ADS risked alot by calling 911 and testifying, and you cannot deny the fear in his voice when he called 911.

I'm pretty sure we'll hear from Dr Herrold but not sure about Neely.

I sure wish this were televised...

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[Anakerie]

Don't forget the Defense's eggspurts that made up science as they spoke on the Stand.
You mean like the statements from one of the defense "experts" that a human being can move around after having their spinal cord severed?
:lol:

[hiitsme]

IMO The most honest and believable witnesses are:

ADS
Neely (Lana's real best friend of many years)
Dr Lynn " It is what it is" Herrold.


ADS risked alot by calling 911 and testifying, and you cannot deny the fear in his voice when he called 911.

I'm pretty sure we'll hear from Dr Herrold but not sure about Neely.

I sure wish this were televised...

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

I absolutely agree and would add Michael Bay to the list. In my view, he totally debunked the testimony of PP and portrayed Lana as a fighter in a very competitive business. I remember his nonchalant, believable recall of his brief encounter with her the same night PP so dramatically tried to expose her supposed best friend as a depressed, suicidal maniac. I do hope that Neely testifies again. Now that's what I call a best friend!!!

[dref99]

From experience and knowledge, many gun owners use diapers because of the lintLess factor and they are soft and do not "scratch".

Last trial (and still evidence in this one), the diaper was found, yes, near the toilet. Then, and now, I believe it is there because PS was either attempting to dunk it to wash off the blood or he was attempting to flush it after dunking it as well. No matter how awful this crime is, I really doubt he got it wet for clean up by using potty water..the sink was closer to the door..but who knows? He likely grabbed the dry diaper from that half opened drawer, or he already had it in one of his hands or even over the wrist cuff of his jacket when the gun was shot. Then tried to wipe down the gun and some of Lana...heard someone coming and tried to get rid of the diaper?

jmo

j

Hi Jayne

I had never thought about the cloth being on/in his hand before or while the gun was fired. Are you thinking it may have been used to "hide" the gun or ?? Interesting

jmo

[GPSpector]

Hi Jayne

I had never thought about the cloth being on/in his hand before or while the gun was fired. Are you thinking it may have been used to "hide" the gun or ?? Interesting

jmo

I'm sure the diaper was not touching the gun when it went off or there should have been more traces on it than just whetted blood. Probably no burn marks since the gun discharged in the mouth, though possible from near the cylinder.

[Jayne]

Hi Jayne

I had never thought about the cloth being on/in his hand before or while the gun was fired. Are you thinking it may have been used to "hide" the gun or ?? Interesting

jmo

Ah...maybe just for the "drama"..kinda that tough guy "mobsta" persona...or maybe not. I don't know..I just threw it in there..since we'll never know if it came from upstairs where the gun was probably loaded and just came down with the gun in his pocket..in/on his hand, etc. or whether he got it when we went upstairs and left his jacket up there..then proceeded to clean up. Or..if it came from the drawer where the holster was..and perhaps the gun was there too - already loaded - having been loaded recently, I'd think, from the LE finding rubber gloves and packages of bullets in his room upstairs - I think they were on the bed, but I'm not sure I'm recalling that correctly.

Since, I would wager those diapers were to wipe down guns (i.e. keep them clean and smudge free, etc. (important in good gun care..really)), I'd say the best bet is from upstairs where the bullets, etc. were, or right from that drawer with the holster (probably the more likely)..but Again...all speculation...based on some experience, common sense, logic..and what facts are known.

:unsure:

[kennedy06]

I don't believe that he is. It is my understanding he is in poor health at this time. Trials & Tribs has not mentioned his being in attendence. Here is a link that was provided sometime ago where people can leave comments and wish him well. It was nice to read his writings about the last trial wasn't it.

Also on the Legal Edge, Michael B. did an interview with DD during this last OJ trial. Scroll down to Sept 17. On the 2nd clip of the interview he explains a little something about his health. It is a good interview.:smile:


http://dominicksdiary.com/

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

[warhorse46]

:It appears you are missing quite a few facts yourself, or perhaps you are new to this trial. It appears you have no idea what you are posting IMO. DeSouza testified in open court that at the time of the suicide he was in this country illegally. His visa had expired and he knew it. Why else do you think the DA wrote a letter to ICE asking that they not deport him until he testified.:huh: BTW a student visa doesn't give the holder of same Carte Blanche travel privileges.:thumbup:



That is incorrect. DeSouza was in this country legally on a student visa @ the time of the murder. What he did wrong is one cannot work when here on a student visa. His student visa had not expired @ the time of the crime. It expired between the time of the crime & the time of the first trial. THAT is when the prosecution wrote the letter asking that he not be deported until after he testified.

<<The defense also questioned DeSouza about documents showing that because of requests by prosecutors immigration officials decided to "defer action" on DeSouza's deportation. At the time of the shooting, he was working illegally while in the country on a student visa.

Brunon characterized DeSouza as "being put ahead of tens of thousands, millions" of people wanting to enter the country and asked the witness if he was grateful for it.

"Oh, I appreciate it," he told the defense attorney.

He said a prosecutor had also written immigration officials to ask that he be allowed to work while awaiting the trial and that his mother and sister be permitted to visit him in California.

DeSouza said, however, that his mother was denied a visa despite the intervention of prosecutors and that he was already working when he was given official permission to do so. He said he was allowed to stay in the U.S. only until he testified.

"I'm here, but it's not a help at all," he protested. "I'm stuck in the same place."

Questioned later by a prosecutor, DeSouza indicated that he would likely be deported after the trial
http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/052107-pm_ctv.html?page=2 >>

[My 2 Cents]

: BTW a student visa doesn't give the holder of same Carte Blanche travel privileges.:thumbup:

warhorse46 has already responded to your post (thank you "warhorse"), but in addition with regards to the above claim, I SAID, De Souza had TWO visa's. A student visa AND a TRAVEL/TOURIST VISA. The travel/tourist visa is the visa that I said didn't expire until 2007. ADS said this in court (in the PS2 - 2008 RETRIAL) just a few days before the Thanksgiving break. He said that he had this 2nd Visa at the time of the shooting and it was valid til Feb 2007 and if he wanted to travel to Brazil he could & then return to USA . AND I KNOW THAT HE SAID this because I WAS SITTING IN COURT listening to the testimony when he said it.

[warhorse46]

warhorse46 has already responded to your post (thank you "warhorse"), but in addition with regards to the above claim, I SAID, De Souza had TWO visa's. A student visa AND a TRAVEL/TOURIST VISA. The travel/tourist visa is the visa that I said didn't expire until 2007. ADS said this in court (in the PS2 - 2008 RETRIAL) just a few days before the Thanksgiving break. He said that he had this 2nd Visa at the time of the shooting and it was valid til Feb 2007 and if he wanted to travel to Brazil he could & then return to USA . AND I KNOW THAT HE SAID this because I WAS SITTING IN COURT listening to the testimony when he said it.


You're welcome. People twisting the facts gets tiresome to me.

[wasapi]

:ohmy:I hope not.

Another typically uncalled for and mean-spirited comment by you.

Kennedy, thank you for the link. I just added a comment to Mr. Dunne.

[My 2 Cents]

I thought I would post some quotes that Phil Spector made during an interview. They appear to be his opinions on a few things (not related to the shooting). I actually found them pretty witty and thought I would post them . . to lighten things up a little.

SPECTOR's thoughts when asked about DISCO, MICHAEL JACKSON & RAP MUSIC:

Disco? . . . . 'Terrible.'
Michael Jackson? . . . . 'The most depressing, heinous thing. I mean, starting out life as a black man and ending up as a white woman, what's that all about?'
Rap music? . . . 'Like the 'C' got left off at the printers.' (ha, ha - that's my favorite. Sorry RAP music lovers.)

[Anakerie]

Sprocket's entry for yesterday, Dec. 9th;
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Sixteen of Testimony (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-sixteen-of.html)

[kennedy06]

Thanks Anakerie, concerning PS and RR not speaking in the hall, as it was mentioned on T & T, well so much for that client attorney relationship, at least on some level! It would be interesting to hear what each have to say about the other after last years trial :rolleyes:

[dref99]

Hi,

Does anyone know if Dominick Dunn is still attending this trial?

:confused:

The blog containing the daily details lists any media folk attending the trial each day (Harriet Ryan seems to come every few days, rarely anyone else). The author usually posts any information on Mr Dunne that she receives. As mentioned by Kennedy06, he is ill and I believe is concentrating on writing his memoirs, rather than attending any further trials. (I think he attented OJ 2?) Vanity fair has many of his reports from trial 1 online. Checking the link, I also find this
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2008/12/05/dominick-dunne-oj-simpson-deserves-his-punishment.html

All his articles listed
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/dunne

[dref99]

December 10 - Day 17
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-seventeen-of.html

"Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence"

[My 2 Cents]

DeSouza forfeited his status when he took a job and stopped attending classes."At the time of the shooting, he was working illegally while in the country on a student visa." "What he did wrong is one cannot work when here on a student visa."
See: http://www.ice.gov/sevis/sevisfactsheet.htm, SEVIS Fact Sheet
Maintaining Your Immigration Status While A Student Or Exchange Visitor
Recognize And Avoid Status Violations

By violating the requirements that govern your immigration status, you may jeopardize your ability to remain in the United States as a student or exchange visitor. (partially snipped - due to length)
That is why the DA's Office panicked and wrote the letter to ICE. He was about to be deported because of the aforementioned violations. He is the lynch pin to their case. He realizes his importances and tried to get status for his sister and mother. He has a lot of incentive to testify IMO.:sneaky:

OH GIVE ME A BREAK . . . 1st of all, as YOU have stated here, the law reads: "you may jeopardize your ability to remain in the United States as a student or exchange visitor". . . MAY jeopardize.
I would only image that exchange students take jobs all the time - SO THEY CAN EAT - I would guess that a 1st offense, at most, would be a slap on the wrist, not deporting an active, full time student with no prior problems. IMO. Also, in court it was testified to (and DW had no proof otherwise) that ADS was an active, enrolled student in good standing - all $$$ for tuition, paid, etc - unlike what you have quoted, you stated that he had stopped attending classes - this is not true, according to facts in evidence (he did file thru his college for a 30 day leave when he thought his family was coming to visit - but I believe that was after the shooting and it was approved by his school)
Now if we're going to "THROW STONES" at "illegal activity" surrounding ADS . . . Here is how the USA feels about EMPLOYERS WHO KNOWINGLY HIRE SOMEONE that DO NOT COMPLY with U.S. Employment Eligibility Laws. I'm betting Spector knew full & well that it was AGAINST THE LAW for him to employ ADS, also paying him under the table - which also creates ADDITIONAL TAX LAW VIOLATIONS in addition to the EMPLOYMENT VIOLATIONS he has already knowingly committed.
"It is unlawful to hire any individual for employment in the United States without complying with employment eligibility verification requirements. Requirements include examination of identity documents and completion of Form I-9 for every employee hired." . . . it's actually punishable up to 5 years in prison and can be charged as a felony - in some cases . . . wouldn't that be funny if PS was tried & convicted on this. ha, ha
So don't jump on ADS and make him out to be so "SNEAKY" unless you negate EVERYTHING PS has said about his innocence as well, since he now falls into your SNEAKY category too. You seem to want to THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER, so to speak. He worked while on a Student Visa, therefore he DID NOT see or hear what he testified to. Really?

[My 2 Cents]

:confused:Why are you jumping on me. I posted my opinion. DD is a fraud journalist IMO. Maybe you should read what real journalist write about him. Wikipedia:"In 2005, Gary Condit won an undisclosed amount of money and an apology from Dunne, who had earlier implicated him in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. In November 2006, he was sued again by Condit for comments made about the former politician on Larry King Live on CNN[3] but the suit was tossed out of court. :thumbdown: for DD

You may NOT want to quote from WIKIPEDIA if you're making a point about "what real jounalists write about him . . .". You do realize that Wikipedia is just another Public Form, much like this website. All posts are made by random people like you & me. Nothing quoted on that site has been necessarily proven in any way and information may not even contain factual information. You may want to pick another resource . . I'm not being snotty, just a suggestion.

[My 2 Cents]

Since "Punkin's" testimony will likely be coming up soon, I thought I would add this link to an article & interview done on her entitled, ALMOST INFAMOUS . . .THERE & BACK WITH PUNKIN PIE. It was published Dec 2000 (several years before LC death). I found her interaction with George Lucas, when she recognized him at the airport interesting. (I will not comment on what I think about that - I will let you be the judge.) I also found her "bawling uncontrollably at the airport" drama interesting - I wonder if she was "suicidal"?

http://www.laweekly.com/2000-12-14/news/almost-infamous/1

. . .and her closing remark, "I even garden NAKED".
(I did NOT need that visual.)

[kipswife]

Since "Punkin's" testimony will likely be coming up soon, I thought I would add this link to an article & interview done on her entitled, ALMOST INFAMOUS . . .THERE & BACK WITH PUNKIN PIE. It was published Dec 2000 (several years before LC death). I found her interaction with George Lucas, when she recognized him at the airport interesting. (I will not comment on what I think about that - I will let you be the judge.) I also found her "bawling uncontrollably at the airport" drama interesting - I wonder if she was "suicidal"?

http://www.laweekly.com/2000-12-14/news/almost-infamous/1

. . .and her closing remark, "I even garden NAKED".
(I did NOT need that visual.)

that story makes me want to puke......she is gross

[kennedy06]

After reading that all I could hear is that song title Everybody Wants You!! :rolleyes:

[wasapi]

that story makes me want to puke......she is gross

I agree. Also, doing the math, that means when she testified last year she was - only - about 51yrs? I could have sworn . . .

Does anyone know for sure that she will be called to testify again in this trial? It seemed that during trial #1 her only accoplishment had been to embarrass herself, as well as prove that she hadn't been Lana's best friend. Once someone has embellished while testifying, everything else they swear to is suspect.

[kennedy06]

Since I had read on Trials & Tribs that PS is having surgery on his vocal cords, it brought to mind a song I had heard on a PS documentary. I thought I like it better than the version I had heard on the radio, as I listened to it. I was shocked to find out it was PS singing it. My first encounter with his voice was hearing his voice on those Demon Tapes that were on the Telegraph. Others may have heard an entire song sung by him but I never have. I found this on my trip through utube. I'll post it here only because of the topic of the trial delay for his surgery and to note how his voice did once sound in his younger years. Just trivia, nothing more. JMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBTXmQS0jNs

[dref99]

Since "Punkin's" testimony will likely be coming up soon, I thought I would add this link to an article & interview done on her entitled, ALMOST INFAMOUS . . .THERE & BACK WITH PUNKIN PIE. It was published Dec 2000 (several years before LC death). I found her interaction with George Lucas, when she recognized him at the airport interesting. (I will not comment on what I think about that - I will let you be the judge.) I also found her "bawling uncontrollably at the airport" drama interesting - I wonder if she was "suicidal"?

http://www.laweekly.com/2000-12-14/news/almost-infamous/1

. . .and her closing remark, "I even garden NAKED".
(I did NOT need that visual.)

Would they really bring her back? Her testimony was so discredited last time - it would be interesting to know who is currently on the defense list of possible witnesses,


jmo

[warhorse46]

I guess someone should have told the DA's Office. If he were legal why did the DA feel it necessary to write the letter to ICE for the 1st trial. His student visa expiring is moot. He had forfeited his visa status by taking a job and not attending classes. See:http://www.ice.gov/sevis/sevisfactsheet.htm,


Go back & reread my post, I explained it. Was my explanation vague to you?

No he did not forfeit his visa status. His visa expired because of time not because he was working.

BTW there is one little word in the link you posted that makes a lot of difference that you left out of your theory---MAY.

[GPSpector]

He does have a nice singing voice.

I too was very surprised and impressed. I still prefer the the version he released but he still did a very good job on his own.:wink:

[kennedy06]

He does have a nice singing voice.

I'm really posting on the edge of O/T for this trial but... vocal surgery ok, trial delay for a day.

Old School he sounds like someone to me, maybe Bobby Goldsboro from back when??


From reading over on Trials & Tribs the the trial notes, I do sort of wonder about the holes DW is trying so hard to poke in everyone's testimony. I hope the jury can remain focused on the basics, make their mind up from there and not be "pied pipered" into following the notion that all these pros witnesses seem to have faulty memories or lack of real knowledge of their jobs, as his questioning is appearing to me. JMO

[JConnolly]

Can someone PLEASE help me understand why all the hoopla and negative posting(s) re ADS and his status of either being "illegally" here or WHATEVER... has ANYTHING whatsoever-- or IMPORTANCE of any kind, or carries ANY weight -- as to WHAT he SAW or HEARD?? Is that one poster trying to say that IF he were not allowed to be in the US, then that SOMEHOW negates his hearing and eyesight?? For the life of me, I just can't see where it makes one iota of difference! WHY does it matter at all??

TIA!

[hiitsme]

Can someone PLEASE help me understand why all the hoopla and negative posting(s) re ADS and his status of either being "illegally" here or WHATEVER... has ANYTHING whatsoever-- or IMPORTANCE of any kind, or carries ANY weight -- as to WHAT he SAW or HEARD?? Is that one poster trying to say that IF he were not allowed to be in the US, then that SOMEHOW negates his hearing and eyesight?? For the life of me, I just can't see where it makes one iota of difference! WHY does it matter at all??

TIA!

I agree, it doesn't make one iota of a difference! ADS was extremely credible. Quite simply, if you are a prosecution witness, you automatically have credibiliy issues and your testimony is not to be believed. This seems to be the general consensus of a few PS supporters who post here.

[wasapi]

:confused:Why are you jumping on me. I posted my opinion. DD is a fraud journalist IMO. Maybe you should read what real journalist write about him. Wikipedia:"In 2005, Gary Condit won an undisclosed amount of money and an apology from Dunne, who had earlier implicated him in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. In November 2006, he was sued again by Condit for comments made about the former politician on Larry King Live on CNN[3] but the suit was tossed out of court. :thumbdown: for DD

I am "jumping on" you because you so frequently bring up things like "hoping" D. Dunne isn't covering the trial (just one of many examples) that have nothing at all to do with the Phil Spector trial.

Just as whether someone is here legally or not has nothing to do with what they witnessed.

[penguin01]

Can someone PLEASE help me understand why all the hoopla and negative posting(s) re ADS and his status of either being "illegally" here or WHATEVER... has ANYTHING whatsoever-- or IMPORTANCE of any kind, or carries ANY weight -- as to WHAT he SAW or HEARD?? Is that one poster trying to say that IF he were not allowed to be in the US, then that SOMEHOW negates his hearing and eyesight?? For the life of me, I just can't see where it makes one iota of difference! WHY does it matter at all??

TIA! Doesn't matter - just something to talk about. It happens when posters get bored due to lack of current info, I guess. Just like its fun to rag on Punkin Pie - and she is not even involved in this now.

Anyone talking about Pros questioning Dr Pena and not asking him anything about the manner of death- so the defense could not cross examine on that. Hearing about it on Tuesday. I thought it was very interesting, but haven't seen any discussion on it. Did I miss it somewhere?

[warhorse46]

Can someone PLEASE help me understand why all the hoopla and negative posting(s) re ADS and his status of either being "illegally" here or WHATEVER... has ANYTHING whatsoever-- or IMPORTANCE of any kind, or carries ANY weight -- as to WHAT he SAW or HEARD?? Is that one poster trying to say that IF he were not allowed to be in the US, then that SOMEHOW negates his hearing and eyesight?? For the life of me, I just can't see where it makes one iota of difference! WHY does it matter at all??

TIA!

If they can convince you that ADS was dishonest enough to be here illegally then he could be dishonest enough to lie to police & on the witness stand. It goes to his credibility.

[SheStone]

If they can convince you that ADS was dishonest enough to be here illegally then he could be dishonest enough to lie to police & on the witness stand. It goes to his credibility.

Yes, that is what they are trying to do. What hurts them is the 911 tape and the tape of him being questioned by police after it happened. They show what he has said from the very begining has not changed. Especially the 911 tape.

JMO

[tartangirl]

Doesn't matter - just something to talk about. It happens when posters get bored due to lack of current info, I guess. Just like its fun to rag on Punkin Pie - and she is not even involved in this now.

Anyone talking about Pros questioning Dr Pena and not asking him anything about the manner of death- so the defense could not cross examine on that. Hearing about it on Tuesday. I thought it was very interesting, but haven't seen any discussion on it. Did I miss it somewhere?

You did not miss it...seems that many might be posting on another thread that has very much activity today. Your post drew me out from hiding to reply. :wink:

My comment...BRILLIANT...but that is this prosecution team to a "T" ..
and that could very well stand for TENACIOUS. :drool:

One has to wonder if DW feels just a little put out? Considering how he has been playing the game in that courtroom, it just might stop his clock for a few minutes or two. He just does not play by the rules and he sure as heck deserves a time out anyway...what was the word? Gamesmanship? :tonguewag: Oh gosh, that is so childish looking..but you know...gotta go with what he is acting like.


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

[SheStone]

Doesn't matter - just something to talk about. It happens when posters get bored due to lack of current info, I guess. Just like its fun to rag on Punkin Pie - and she is not even involved in this now.

Anyone talking about Pros questioning Dr Pena and not asking him anything about the manner of death- so the defense could not cross examine on that. Hearing about it on Tuesday. I thought it was very interesting, but haven't seen any discussion on it. Did I miss it somewhere?

I think the prosecution is trying to prevent the Defense from starting to argue their rediculous suicide theory during the prosection's case. Very clever on the part of the prosecution.:thumbsup:

JMO

[penguin01]

You did not miss it...seems that many might be posting on another thread that has very much activity today. Your post drew me out from hiding to reply. :wink:

My comment...BRILLIANT...but that is this prosecution team to a "T" ..
and that could very well stand for TENACIOUS. :drool:

One has to wonder if DW feels just a little put out? Considering how he has been playing the game in that courtroom, it just might stop his clock for a few minutes or two. He just does not play by the rules and he sure as heck deserves a time out anyway...what was the word? Gamesmanship? :tonguewag: Oh gosh, that is so childish looking..but you know...gotta go with what he is acting like.


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

Hope it works. Can't stand the bash the victim with a "sudden" suicide theory. SO ridiculous!

[dref99]

It has always been a mystery why suicide, as opposed to accident, has ever been used by lawyers in this case - obviously this is the desire of the defendant, finding lawyers to support the concept does not appear to have been easy given the number that he has used.

I still think his original lawyer (Shapiro) suggested a deal based on an "accident". The fact that PS thought/thinks suicide gives him a chance for acquittal surely shows that he has lost the ability to "think" in any sensible fashion.

Forcing tactics to be so much of the trial, rather than evidence and facts, doesn't give great confidence in the process (moo). I guess when there is no defense, it is the only option. ??


latest trial report
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-eighteen-of.html



jmo

[My 2 Cents]

FYI: Harvey Philip Spector's birthday is Dec. 26, 1940. (68th)

I guess PS gets time off for surgery AND to celebrate his birthday. Court is recessed from Friday, Dec 19, 2008 until court resumes Monday, Jan. 5, 2009 (unless anything has recently changed that).

Hopefully his NEXT birthday will be spent behind bars with his new friend Bubba. . . . IMO

[kennedy06]

I wonder if a break this long is done often in trials. The prosecution has offered their case so far. With the break, even with rebuttals, will the information provided by the PBA's still have that "shock value" with the jurors or other information by other witnesses? The jurors have time off to think about other things during the busier joyful, holiday season.

JMO

[Jayne]

You did not miss it...seems that many might be posting on another thread that has very much activity today. Your post drew me out from hiding to reply. :wink:

My comment...BRILLIANT...but that is this prosecution team to a "T" ..
and that could very well stand for TENACIOUS. :drool:

One has to wonder if DW feels just a little put out? Considering how he has been playing the game in that courtroom, it just might stop his clock for a few minutes or two. He just does not play by the rules and he sure as heck deserves a time out anyway...what was the word? Gamesmanship? :tonguewag: Oh gosh, that is so childish looking..but you know...gotta go with what he is acting like.


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


I think ol' DW has met his match. I've been trying to keep up..and been so busy the past week or two that I can't..but reading this...

Dref...you have a pretty good handle on what is going on even though you aren't there in the courtroom (neither am I..unfortunately...my "vacation" is the time the court is out..DANG!!!)

This is a HUGH MATCH..like a BOXING MATCH, IMO.

If, indeed, the prosecution never put that in...YEP..DW can't chew on it spew on it and throw it into his game plan. Brilliant..indeed..as long as it works. And..it just might.

I'm still a bit "concerned" about DW..he has a lot of rabbits up his sleeve...but they seem to be turning into doves.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

I wonder if a break this long is done often in trials. The prosecution has offered their case so far. With the break, even with rebuttals, will the information provided by the PBA's still have that "shock value" with the jurors or other information by other witnesses? The jurors have time off to think about other things during the busier joyful, holiday season.

JMO


No..it's not..in my experience..not that it means much. BUT..there are the court calendars..and if they are filled at the time when they're looking to come back in..unless it is considered CRITICAL..you have to wait until the next available time.

I think this time off is not going to help the jury at all..in being a spot on..paying attention jury...I think what they need to do..when coming back..is have time for the jury to get re-acquainted...get back into the business..but they don't do it like that..unfortunately. I don't like this...the court is not closed...from the 19th on...I think this is strategically planned and for the life of me I can't understand why the Prosecution would let it end like this without drawing it out...like some testimony..hanging on the edge on the 19th..NOW that would keep the jury wanting to "go back" and go over what they heard so far..then get back on base.

Let's see if AJ and his team does that...leave them with a "cliff hanger" on the 19th. I think he/they should..but what the heck do I know?!

jmo

J

[warhorse46]

Yes, that is what they are trying to do. What hurts them is the 911 tape and the tape of him being questioned by police after it happened. They show what he has said from the very begining has not changed. Especially the 911 tape.

JMO



According to some of the Spector supporters posting here his description did change. They like to harp on the fact that he told the 911 operator I think my boss killed someone but he told the detective Phil Spector shot someone. They seem to put great store in that difference of wording, failing to understand he was answering two different questions & the answers were appropriate.

[Jayne]

According to some of the Spector supporters posting here his description did change. They like to harp on the fact that he told the 911 operator I think my boss killed someone but he told the detective Phil Spector shot someone. They seem to put great store in that difference of wording, failing to understand he was answering two different questions & the answers were appropriate.

YES YES YES...YOU...YOU Get it...it's the SAME response...the same mindset..the same "Eureka, I got it"..

THANK YOU Warhorse...how can anyone buy into the "jello" story (OK..I'll explain it if necessary)...It's entirely different if you are relaying EXACTLY what someone said or you heard...FROM..what you are relaying to 911 in a panic..saying the same thing in DIFFERENT wording..to GET THEIR ATTENTION.

Geeze..how dumb can people be? You call 911..you tell them what you've observed or what your urgency is. If I drove up to a friend's home...and I saw some guy standing outside with a gun in his hand and he claimed "I think I killed somebody"..then looked inside and saw a person slumped in the chair...know what I'd do? I'd call 911 and say...I think Mr. X killed someone. GET the LE out there right now..protect me..get the person who was shot taken care of..and get the friend..in custody or not.

This ridiculous argument over semantics is just part of the legal hullabaloo..and as a "legal professional" I find it ridiculous and a waste of time as getting to the truth.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

No..it's not..in my experience..not that it means much. BUT..there are the court calendars..and if they are filled at the time when they're looking to come back in..unless it is considered CRITICAL..you have to wait until the next available time.

I think this time off is not going to help the jury at all..in being a spot on..paying attention jury...I think what they need to do..when coming back..is have time for the jury to get re-acquainted...get back into the business..but they don't do it like that..unfortunately. I don't like this...the court is not closed...from the 19th on...I think this is strategically planned and for the life of me I can't understand why the Prosecution would let it end like this without drawing it out...like some testimony..hanging on the edge on the 19th..NOW that would keep the jury wanting to "go back" and go over what they heard so far..then get back on base.

Let's see if AJ and his team does that...leave them with a "cliff hanger" on the 19th. I think he/they should..but what the heck do I know?!

jmo

J

Excellent Idea Jayne . . . I think you are absolutely right. They do NOT want to tidy things up by Xmas break, and then the defense gets to start off, after a looooooong break, with new info and a whole new show. I think the prosecution will have lost a lot of "steam & momentum" I think your idea Jayne of "Cliff Hanging" type testimony before the break is a great idea. Something very "edge of your seat" that is very strong in favor of guilt, . . . but don't finish the testimony, make sure you have some sort of testimony to carry over to 1/5/09 when court resumes after the break, so you can make sure the jury's memory is properly "refreshed" before handing the "baton" over so DW can start his "Dog & Pony Show".

[Jayne]

Excellent Idea Jayne . . . I think you are absolutely right. They do NOT want to tidy things up by Xmas break, and then the defense gets to start off, after a looooooong break, with new info and a whole new show. I think the prosecution will have lost a lot of "steam & momentum" I think your idea Jayne of "Cliff Hanging" type testimony before the break is a great idea. Something very "edge of your seat" that is very strong in favor of guilt, . . . but don't finish the testimony, make sure you have some sort of testimony to carry over to 1/5/09 when court resumes after the break, so you can make sure the jury's memory is properly "refreshed" before handing the "baton" over so DW can start his "Dog & Pony Show".

That is how we would do it in NY, M2C...you don't end your case and then have a week or two off..you leave the jury with a "WHATS THAT" idea in their mind..them come back to finish it. But WE never had a break as long as that! In fact, we had court 24/7..almost...7 days a week..at least for arraignments..trials were M-F and there were NO DAYS off unless it was a legal holiday. Of course..attorneys and such can ASK for holidays...but if I were AJ and the DA here..I'd have said NO...we go until the 23d. Los Angeles..as I understand it..and I may be wrong..but their days off are the 25th and 26th...and the 1st of January...not all that time PS is getting "off".

I do hope..under these circumstances..that AJ can hold that BATON to the 19th..have it dripping with a spot of blood..or whatever.

I wish I could attend trial with you...I'd absolutely love to..my only vacation time off my job is from the end of the day of the 19th...to the beginning of the day of the 5th. BLAST IT!

I love your posts...and I'd so much love to be there just one day with you...

thanks so much for your input...

Jayne

[dref99]

For those of you who understand the law in California, can you explain to me why the defense cannot use certain evidence if the prosecution do not. The two examples

- the original statements by PS not used, which upset Mr Cutler very much

- the manner of death

Can the defense bring these up during their side of the case? From trial 1, the only way the original statements could be brought in was by PS testifying - Why?

Can suicide be brought up later by the defense?

I don't really understand "the law" in these two issues


tia

[My 2 Cents]

For those of you who understand the law in California, can you explain to me why the defense cannot use certain evidence if the prosecution do not. The two examples

- the original statements by PS not used, which upset Mr Cutler very much

- the manner of death

Can the defense bring these up during their side of the case? From trial 1, the only way the original statements could be brought in was by PS testifying - Why?

Can suicide be brought up later by the defense?

I don't really understand "the law" in these two issues


tia

Thanks for asking that dref99 . . . I have that same exact question. ANYONE? . . . a little help?

(A shot in the dark - but MY GUESS would be that the "burden of proof" is all on the state/prosecution - innocent until proven guilty, and all that - however, the defense can only "REFUTE" ...i.e. "defend" that testimony &/or facts that have been "presented" to the jury that point to guilt. Although, I would think if someone was charged with a crime, especially murder, they could use whatever means/testimony they could that would prove their innocence. ) Maybe the "scope & range of flexibility" the courts can give Spector/the defense in this case is what is going to be discussed Tuesday morning before the jury comes back.

[Jayne]

For those of you who understand the law in California, can you explain to me why the defense cannot use certain evidence if the prosecution do not. The two examples

- the original statements by PS not used, which upset Mr Cutler very much

- the manner of death

Can the defense bring these up during their side of the case? From trial 1, the only way the original statements could be brought in was by PS testifying - Why?

Can suicide be brought up later by the defense?

I don't really understand "the law" in these two issues


tia

I'd be happy to share with you in email...and I probably..if I had the time could write a book here on this..

to start..if the prosecution does NOT put in the police on the stand and police reports..those statements are "off limits"..UNLESS..PS takes the stand..to REFUTE THEM

that was a strategic ploy by the prosecution in PS1.

Frankly..well..I'm not going to go there...because I am not employed by them..and if I were..they'd be having a heyday with me...I'd have put them IN - probably..but that's where they are the Experts and I'm not..but If I were there..then there woud be Cutler as defense I think Cutler had a lot of things up his sleeve as to the police records..and he no doubt could have probably made a big issue out of them..so the LA DA said NO..we're not going to put them in.

I'M NOT SO SURE that was a wise decision. We have a lunatic here...PS...no matter what he said to police..if one lets those reports in..then there are counters and counters to it..LOOK at all the media that PS has given..

I'm not so sure the DA made the correct choice...but at least they got Cutler off their back, huh? NOW they have DW...Gheesh...

jmo

j

[spydernweb2006]

Since Dr Baden and Lee are now involved in the Caylee Anthony case I wonder if they are gonna appear in PS2? Will Dr Baden come back and explain his AHA momment in PS2?

Anyone?

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[dref99]

Hi Spyder

I didn't hear about Dr Baden in the Caylee case, but I haven't read alot about it, so he could also be mentioned - but I did listen to his wife mention Henry Lee and Werner Spitz. (who is paying, these folks don't come cheap?) Purely my opinion, but I don't think any of them came out too well in trial1 and I seriously doubt they'll be here for trial 2. The jury members who chatted after the trial (excluding the foreman who chatted about not saying anything) said they believed the forensics from the prosecution folks, so there would be little point in paying these folks any more money.


jmo

[dref99]

Hi jayne

thanks for your comment - I'm sure a few others would be interested in any legal aspects in relation to what can/can't be used as evidence. From what you have said - do please correct me if I am wrong

I am assuming the police reports and the medical reports are treated exactly the same - if something is not mentioned by the prosecution it cannot be discussed?

When if ever will Weinberg be able to mention suicide - during the defense case? or is it completely based on the discussion to be had with JF next Tuesday?

Hi My2cents

I'm still slightly confused - as you say, if the defense is suicide, surely it can be mentioned? Tuesday morning could be a good time to be listening. Are you going back at all before the break?

[Jayne]

Hi jayne

thanks for your comment - I'm sure a few others would be interested in any legal aspects in relation to what can/can't be used as evidence. From what you have said - do please correct me if I am wrong

I am assuming the police reports and the medical reports are treated exactly the same - if something is not mentioned by the prosecution it cannot be discussed?

When if ever will Weinberg be able to mention suicide - during the defense case? or is it completely based on the discussion to be had with JF next Tuesday?

Hi My2cents

I'm still slightly confused - as you say, if the defense is suicide, surely it can be mentioned? Tuesday morning could be a good time to be listening. Are you going back at all before the break?

Well..yes burden of proof is on prosecution to prove guilt...defense refutes it...so they can bring in evidence to refute the guilt. What the pros put in, the defense gets to rebut..they can't rebut something that isn't put in, but after the DA case is completed, they can put on a defense and if the court allows it for relevance, etc. it will come in, and the DA gets to rebut the defense case.

Pros have to turn over all of their evidence, in discovery, to the defense...no surprises. I was surprised in PS1, Cutler was thrown off by it, that the DA did not use the police reports in their case in chief.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=evid&codebody=&hits=20

will lay out the evidence law in CA and its not written in such leaglise that it's difficult to understand (unlike the probate code!). I find it to be the most interesting area in trial law and all the possible objections...a lot to know and if not using it, then losing it.

[warhorse46]

For those of you who understand the law in California, can you explain to me why the defense cannot use certain evidence if the prosecution do not. The two examples

- the original statements by PS not used, which upset Mr Cutler very much

- the manner of death

Can the defense bring these up during their side of the case? From trial 1, the only way the original statements could be brought in was by PS testifying - Why?

Can suicide be brought up later by the defense?

I don't really understand "the law" in these two issues


tia


The statements are considered self serving ie PS claims he is not responsible for Lana's death. Unless the state uses them the defense is not allowed to use them. They MUST put their client on the stand to say he is not responsible for Lana's death, they cannot use recorded statements. That is why the state did not use the recordings & it was a brilliant move on AJ's part.

[warhorse46]

Since Dr Baden and Lee are now involved in the Caylee Anthony case I wonder if they are gonna appear in PS2? Will Dr Baden come back and explain his AHA momment in PS2?

Anyone?

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder


Both of those experts lost all credibility with me during the PS1 trial & before that I held them both in very high esteem. I would be very suspect of anything they had to say about any case now.

[Jayne]

The statements are considered self serving ie PS claims he is not responsible for Lana's death. Unless the state uses them the defense is not allowed to use them. They MUST put their client on the stand to say he is not responsible for Lana's death, they cannot use recorded statements. That is why the state did not use the recordings & it was a brilliant move on AJ's part.

Didn't realize it was recordings, I thought it was all police reported statements...and they can't redact and only use parts of them...

refresh me..link or whatever..the statements PS made that were exculpatory...or is it the police report(s) where he says one thing then says another? And, yes..that was a brilliant DA move..since if one comes in they all would, more or less..despite making PS look schizophrenic with I did it, I didn't do it, she's a (*&(*&, etc. it would open a can of worms for the jury to pick through..shock? denial? guilty? innocence? I don't recall the content of all the different reports that were posted in PS1 as links...I think you posted some of them and another poster (forget her name) - the Link Queen! LOL

j

[Jayne]

Both of those experts lost all credibility with me during the PS1 trial & before that I held them both in very high esteem. I would be very suspect of anything they had to say about any case now.

ITA..Baden would be a fool to present himself even under subpoena..better to take contempt. Lee? well...there would go that missing white thing again, all over again. And, I'd hate to see Sara back in there...upset, holding her lawyer vows, put on the spot.

jmo

[penguin01]

Since Dr Baden and Lee are now involved in the Caylee Anthony case I wonder if they are gonna appear in PS2? Will Dr Baden come back and explain his AHA momment in PS2?

Anyone?

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder
I don't think Dr. Baden is involved there.... just his wife. who is demanding Casey's right to see the remains 'cause she is the mother. hammer

[Shell0724]

It has always been a mystery why suicide, as opposed to accident, has ever been used by lawyers in this case - obviously this is the desire of the defendant, finding lawyers to support the concept does not appear to have been easy given the number that he has used.

I still think his original lawyer (Shapiro) suggested a deal based on an "accident". The fact that PS thought/thinks suicide gives him a chance for acquittal surely shows that he has lost the ability to "think" in any sensible fashion.

Forcing tactics to be so much of the trial, rather than evidence and facts, doesn't give great confidence in the process (moo). I guess when there is no defense, it is the only option. ??


latest trial report
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-eighteen-of.html



jmo

I agree wholeheartedly with your point of view. I don't think he planned to kill anyone, and believe it was a tragic accident. There's no excuse to intimidate someone with a gun, but, as a celebrity, who was glorified as "the rebel", he had gotten away with this kind of radical behavior for decades, and it was even part of his legend as an eccentric genius.

The spectacle of putting lovely Lana on trial for being an over-the-hill washed up B-actress who committed suicide infuriated me.

I know defense attorneys do this, but, it doesn't make it right. Why couldn't they have plead this out, with him admitting to making a dreadful mistake? He may have done time, but, probably not too long, with the mitigating factors of his history with mental illness.

Even if he technically gets off again, through a mistrial, how can he ever be free of the knowledge of what really happened, or ever find peace for his soul?

[dref99]

I agree wholeheartedly with your point of view. I don't think he planned to kill anyone, and believe it was a tragic accident. There's no excuse to intimidate someone with a gun, but, as a celebrity, who was glorified as "the rebel", he had gotten away with this kind of radical behavior for decades, and it was even part of his legend as an eccentric genius.

The spectacle of putting lovely Lana on trial for being an over-the-hill washed up B-actress who committed suicide infuriated me.

I know defense attorneys do this, but, it doesn't make it right. Why couldn't they have plead this out, with him admitting to making a dreadful mistake? He may have done time, but, probably not too long, with the mitigating factors of his history with mental illness.

Even if he technically gets off again, through a mistrial, how can he ever be free of the knowledge of what really happened, or ever find peace for his soul?

Given what happened then and later - I don't exactly think it was an "accident". Anyone who carries guns and waves them in peoples faces is committing a crime - they should not be surprised when one goes off - whether premeditated or not. So my view would be more that it was not premeditated.

Thus said, I do believe he could have got a deal in 2003/4. I think Shapiro was his best lawyer. Getting him bail was amazing when a woman had died in his house with his gun. PS prefers to say that Lana committed suicide. There is no way that this happened, so it is most likely he will be convicted, unless the legal arguments on evidence cause utter confusion.

jmo

[dref99]

Didn't realize it was recordings, I thought it was all police reported statements...and they can't redact and only use parts of them...

refresh me..link or whatever..the statements PS made that were exculpatory...or is it the police report(s) where he says one thing then says another? And, yes..that was a brilliant DA move..since if one comes in they all would, more or less..despite making PS look schizophrenic with I did it, I didn't do it, she's a (*&(*&, etc. it would open a can of worms for the jury to pick through..shock? denial? guilty? innocence? I don't recall the content of all the different reports that were posted in PS1 as links...I think you posted some of them and another poster (forget her name) - the Link Queen! LOL

j

Jayne

thanks for your replies - I will go and read your legal link :smile:

In relation to the above - his first statements at the scene, I think were recorded, where he said "I can explain - it was an accident" (speech only). The detail of all his comments (and who recorded, heard or wrote them down) are given on the LA documents site - in the request from the prosecutors to have them admitted or the defense to have them excluded.

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

Documents - 10/06/2005 Post arrest statements attached to Notice of motion and motion to exclude post-arest statements of defendant; memorandum of points and authorities

and
10/06/2005 Notice of Motion and Motion to exclude post-arrest statements of defendant; memorandum of points and authorities; declaration of Bruce Cutler

[dref99]

On the third page of the post arrest statements pdf it is written by the reporting officer
http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/1jsbvvipgjfpih45ij3k3q55/1171877458.pdf

"I turned on my micro cassette recorder .... " This was what I remembered of something being recorded.

[Jayne]

Jayne

thanks for your replies - I will go and read your legal link :smile:

In relation to the above - his first statements at the scene, I think were recorded, where he said "I can explain - it was an accident" (speech only). The detail of all his comments (and who recorded, heard or wrote them down) are given on the LA documents site - in the request from the prosecutors to have them admitted or the defense to have them excluded.

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

Documents - 10/06/2005 Post arrest statements attached to Notice of motion and motion to exclude post-arest statements of defendant; memorandum of points and authorities

and
10/06/2005 Notice of Motion and Motion to exclude post-arrest statements of defendant; memorandum of points and authorities; declaration of Bruce Cutler


Now even though I haven't gone there to read them...it brings up a bit of memory. The defense would want that OUT as it would go to guilt...even accident...but because they were not certain what the prosecution was doing then they brought in that ridiculous accidental suicide thing to counter it "just in case" and then got caught with it with the pros didn't bring in the "accident". Or so I think because I can't imagine well worked attorneys would come up with such a farce as accidental suicide all on their own..they figured those statements of "accident" were going to come in..then when they didn't..Cutler was thrown off his usual base of having police reports...and LKB was Stuck with her opening statement..and it went from there. WOW...If they only knew....and had done their case according to what was actually on the plate last time, PS might be "out" by now or on probation. And they wouldn't look like fools.

[dref99]

Very much "gamesmanship" however - fight hard to bring them in - get the right - and then don't use them!

I don't think murder trials should be seen as games, regardless as to which side does this. Reminds me of the Franken/Coleman teams objecting to votes in the recount - for no other reason than what appears to be an attempt to make the figures lean one way or the other. Gamesmanship - not to sway the result, but to sway public opinion. Strange that it seems to be used both in trials and politics :confused:


jmo

[warhorse46]

Didn't realize it was recordings, I thought it was all police reported statements...and they can't redact and only use parts of them...

refresh me..link or whatever..the statements PS made that were exculpatory...or is it the police report(s) where he says one thing then says another? And, yes..that was a brilliant DA move..since if one comes in they all would, more or less..despite making PS look schizophrenic with I did it, I didn't do it, she's a (*&(*&, etc. it would open a can of worms for the jury to pick through..shock? denial? guilty? innocence? I don't recall the content of all the different reports that were posted in PS1 as links...I think you posted some of them and another poster (forget her name) - the Link Queen! LOL

j


It is the taped interview of PS @ the police station. He gives several versions of what he claims to have happened.

[kennedy06]

I agree wholeheartedly with your point of view. I don't think he planned to kill anyone, and believe it was a tragic accident. There's no excuse to intimidate someone with a gun, but, as a celebrity, who was glorified as "the rebel", he had gotten away with this kind of radical behavior for decades, and it was even part of his legend as an eccentric genius.

The spectacle of putting lovely Lana on trial for being an over-the-hill washed up B-actress who committed suicide infuriated me.

I know defense attorneys do this, but, it doesn't make it right. Why couldn't they have plead this out, with him admitting to making a dreadful mistake? He may have done time, but, probably not too long, with the mitigating factors of his history with mental illness.

Even if he technically gets off again, through a mistrial, how can he ever be free of the knowledge of what really happened, or ever find peace for his soul?

Hi Shell0724! Its been awhile since I last read your great posts from PS1:smile: Concerning PS only, I do wonder if he cares about what happened to Lana that night when he is alone with his own thoughts or does he just considers himself a victim in all this. Walking through that foyer has to be a reminder of what he has lost personally that no amount of money he has spent or will spend can ever bring back. JMO

[kennedy06]

I don't think Dr. Baden is involved there.... just his wife. who is demanding Casey's right to see the remains 'cause she is the mother. hammer
I noticed Werner S., Henry L and Linda K. B. on Geraldo last night to discuss their/ or at least one of their dismay at not being able to attend the child's autopsy. While Michael B. commented on the show also. From PS to CA, why am I not surprised. JMO

[True2Blues]

I noticed Werner S., Henry L and Linda K. B. on Geraldo last night to discuss their/ or at least one of their dismay at not being able to attend the child's autopsy. While Michael B. commented on the show also. From PS to CA, why am I not surprised. JMO

Where go the cameras, there go the camera seekers.

[HappyTroll]

Is this trial in the defense portion yet?

[SheStone]

Hi jayne

thanks for your comment - I'm sure a few others would be interested in any legal aspects in relation to what can/can't be used as evidence. From what you have said - do please correct me if I am wrong

I am assuming the police reports and the medical reports are treated exactly the same - if something is not mentioned by the prosecution it cannot be discussed?

When if ever will Weinberg be able to mention suicide - during the defense case? or is it completely based on the discussion to be had with JF next Tuesday?

Hi My2cents

I'm still slightly confused - as you say, if the defense is suicide, surely it can be mentioned? Tuesday morning could be a good time to be listening. Are you going back at all before the break?

As I understand it, the defense can only cross examine a witness on subjects that were brought up on direct examination. So the prosecution is not going to ask Dr. Pena any question relating to manner of death, which he ruled homicide. By doing this the defense can not question him about manner of death, which they say is suicide.

The defense will be allowed to bring it up when it is their turn to put on their defense case, but this way they avoid it being brought up during the prosecution's case, or at least at this point.

JMO

[Anakerie]

Is this trial in the defense portion yet?
Nope.. The prosecution is still calling witnesses.

[HappyTroll]

Nope.. The prosecution is still calling witnesses.


Wow! Looks like Phil will get to spend at least one more Christmas/Hannakah/Holiday at his castle.


ps.. thanks for answering. : )

[GPSpector]

Given what happened then and later - I don't exactly think it was an "accident". Anyone who carries guns and waves them in peoples faces is committing a crime - they should not be surprised when one goes off - whether premeditated or not. So my view would be more that it was not premeditated.

Thus said, I do believe he could have got a deal in 2003/4. I think Shapiro was his best lawyer. Getting him bail was amazing when a woman had died in his house with his gun. PS prefers to say that Lana committed suicide. There is no way that this happened, so it is most likely he will be convicted, unless the legal arguments on evidence cause utter confusion.

jmo


I may be mistaken, but I think I recall him accusing Lana of bringing the "unregistered" gun with her shortly after getting arrested. If that is true, that may have played a part in him getting bail approved. I could also be wrong in thinking that because Shapiro could have been fired just prior to verifying enough proof that the gun was indeed his, might have been the reason that the bail was not revoked. I'm sure if a Judge tried to revoke the bail after finding that the gun was his, Shapiro would have been called in and that would cause a conflict because he started the original lawsuit, not long after the firing.

I really do not know but I am just guessing that he found a loophole in the system and took full advantage of it. Other then that, I have no other ideas as to how the bail remained intact or allowed on a charge that does not allow bail.:confused:

[dref99]

SheStone

many thanks for your reply. We may get some information this week & no doubt in the new year will discover what the defense has to say re suicide.

GPS - to the best of my knowledge it is bailable (is that a word?) - the 1 million price tag makes it impossible for most folks. I would have to backtrack to find the rules of the court. Thus said, PS certainly has Robert Shapiro to thank for his last 5 years of freedom - wonder why he keeps wanting to sue him?

I found this
1270.5. A defendant charged with an offense punishable with death
cannot be admitted to bail, when the proof of his or her guilt is
evident or the presumption thereof great. The finding of an
indictment does not add to the strength of the proof or the
presumptions to be drawn therefrom.

1271. If the charge is for any other offense, he may be admitted to
bail before conviction, as a matter of right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/1268-1276.5.html

and among the details is a section that seems to indicate bail may be available if convicted - and an appeal is lodged!!

Just found a bail list for Orange County - I think they are all similar
http://www.orangecounty-dui-bailbonds.com/index.php/component/content/article/54?start=1
Murder - with special circumstance No bail
All other murders 1,000,000

I guess the gun isn't "special circumstances" - or perhaps, as you say, it was not considered to be his - although it is now, I would think



jmo

[My 2 Cents]

:huh:You must have watched a different case. DeSouza worked for a limo service not PS directly. Not knowing that simple fact makes your post suspect IMO.:cool:

It was my understanding that De Souza worked as a private driver for Spector. He was the "back up driver" for PS. Spector's regular driver was a guy named Dillion Keane. Dillion Keane, I believe, worked at THE GRILL (a restaurant) along with De Souza. They were both parking attendants there. De Souza also knew Kathy Sullivan (one of Spector's guests that night), because she too worked at THE GRILL. Keane was the one who recommended De Souza to Spector as a driver, to fill in when Keane was not available. I had read that it was Michelle Blaine, Spector's assistant, who would call ADS directly, and set up all the driving/limo appointments. De Souza was paid $30 an hour when he worked for Spector as a driver. De Souza said he had driven for Spector approximately 15 times, prior to the night of 2/2/03.

It was my understanding that Spector (via Michelle Blaine) would call Keane & DeSouza directly, and not by going through the parking attendant company associated with THE GRILL, or anyone else. If DeSouza worked for Spector via a Limo Service, I did not realize that - and if that is the case, could you please give me the name of that Limo Company and a link to where that info is stated? I would like to read that because I was not aware of that.

I disagree that my not knowing that, if that is the case, now makes my post "suspect". Just as ADS working while having a student visa does not make his testimony "suspect", nor does it taint his credibility, etc. He had a lot to lose, by immediately going to the authorities regarding PS's behavior and offering his eyewitness account. If he truly was motivated by working a deal with the police in exchange for "perjurious testimony" then it would have made sense to state that upfront with the officers that morning (listen & watch the taped interview, testimony - no deals!) . . And for what? . . . so he could lock up a perfectly innocent man, poor lil ol Phil. . . on the oft chance the police MIGHT help him NOT get deported??? As YOU have stated, ADS would probably still be here working illegally if he had NOT been noticed by all this Spector attention . . . So what would motivate him to do this if he was "flying under the radar" before all of this? Unless it was as simple as what he stated in court . . ."It was the RIGHT thing to do."

[kennedy06]

Wow! Some great information there my2cents. I didn't know what position AD held at the grill or how much he was paid.

[kennedy06]

Thank you Wasapi for the link to Lana on the links thread. I feel bad sometimes because I can seem to find alot about Phil to link to but not so much of her. I had read her living doll page when it was still available. I remember liking what I was reading, in her own words. That song...I believe I had heard it before in connection to Lana but, I never knew the lyrics till now. She was very pretty in so many of those pictures, especially the last photo. Thanks again, it was a nice reminder of Lana.

[dref99]

Wow! Some great information there my2cents. I didn't know what position AD held at the grill or how much he was paid.

I agree - great post.

AD came across to me as being scared. He had obviously not seen PS with a gun previously - like Lana, he had no idea re the gun history - and I believe he was scared and wondering who would get shot next, especially as he knew he was the only other person in the vicinity. He responded as most people would, call Michelle, as his contact to PS, and call 911.


jmo

[kennedy06]

Which he has, and lacks`

moo

No I don't think so, he doesn't lack credibility. Character and morals to do the right thing in a time of crisis, yes he seems to have that fine quality as he displayed it that night. To bad Phil didn't have that quality at the top of his list that night, a simple effort to dial 911 might have put him in a better light even with all the evidence that appears to be stacked against him. Three little numbers that was all he had to dial on one of the many house phones or working cell phones. I bet he knows how to use a phone, I think he is smart like that.

JMO

[Jayne]

OMG..motivated to testify when on the verge of being deported?!

OK..DO IT MAN..think it's gonna get you a "you can stay here" declaration..

That is absolute stupidity...or desperation...as Searching I think is saying..BUT...

WHY..would he do it...what did he have to gain? KEEP his mouth shut..he can go about business..THINK PS would turn him in? NAH...not in a Cutler NYC minute...HE..the Driver..was his ANGEL..

I'd bet PS would pay him anything to keep his mouth shut...

come on..he was his hired servant...and he thought..I'd guess..his regular servant when he spewed that He though He killed someone..

PS..set it up..ADS didn't...PS had him on the line and ADS knew it...I'd guess ADS had more brain matter at that point in time than PS did..

Whether his visa or whatever wasn't "in line"..he was not going to jeopardize that...and he was in a panic...his BOSS shot someone..or so he said..

come on...get real..this guy wasn't about saving his tuss...as much as he was saving his SOUL..

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

LandSharkII,

Seeing a man with a gun and blood on his hand would make me put distance between myself and the holder of the gun. Add to that, seeing a body slumped in a chair combined with the gun holder saying "I think I killed somebody" would make me call 911 as soon as I had a location of where I was.

Guns motivate people very well.

Being Brazilian, catholic and a army officer testify to his ability to tell the truth.

Mortie

Hi There Mortie . .
I agree whole heartedly with your above statement.
However, my question to you pertains to a different topic RE: PS2 trial. I recall reading a post/comment you made on Sprocket's "T&T" site. When the picture of the gun with all the SMOKE shown in the photo was displayed by Weinberg, you commented that MODERN GUNS (including the actual .38 colt used in the death of LC) uses SMOKELESS POWDER, hence why they call it "smokeless". You stated that these guns even have completely different firing patterns & that the OLD BLACK POWDER (which is being displayed in the photo shown to the jury by the defense) DOESN'T even contain BARIUM or ANTIMONY, but uses CHARCOAL, POTASSIUM NITRATE & SULFUR.

W-O-W . . . that is extremely interesting to me. (AND I completely APOLOGIZE if I have misinterpreted, or misconstrued what you were trying to describe - I know "nada" about guns. My question is . . . HOW IN THE HECK CAN THE DEFENSE SHOW THE JURY A PICTURE OF A GUN with the OLD "BLACK POWDER" shooting out of it? It just seems so MISLEADING to present this as evidence. I didn't read anything about AJ objecting or pointing this out to the jury. Do you think the defense might have just "doctored" a smokeless gun with OVER EXPOSURE techniques, etc OR is it possible that AJ's team doesn't know the difference in what DW is showing in the "smoking gun photo"? (or a 3rd possibility that AJ did object & we didn't hear that - or at least I didn't) I'm really curious what your thoughts are on this - you sound very knowledgeable in this area. AND I LOVED YOUR FINAL WORDS . . . "Why don't they go for broke and use a Civil war cannon? Grumble, mumble...." ha, ha . . . loved that!

[hiitsme]

:ohmy:IMO for some reason you constantly extrapolate your POV on to how other people should react in certain situations. Furthermore, I guess in your mind breaking the law, going beyond the scope and violating the rules set down for student visa holders some how attest to his veracity.:blink: Being as you describe him does not preclude him from misinterpreting or exaggerating. It also does not preclude him from telling the authorities within certain parameter's what he thinks they want to hear. No one says he is lying.:cool:

Huh? "No one says he is lying"? So what is your point? Dull at best!

[Dave]

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[kennedy06]

LandSharkII,

Seeing a man with a gun and blood on his hand would make me put distance between myself and the holder of the gun. Add to that, seeing a body slumped in a chair combined with the gun holder saying "I think I killed somebody" would make me call 911 as soon as I had a location of where I was.

Guns motivate people very well.

Being Brazilian, catholic and a army officer testify to his ability to tell the truth.

Mortie

Ditto Mort:beer:

[My 2 Cents]

:huh:What does a dissertation about different gun powders have to do with the victim sticking the gun in her mouth and pulling the trigger. How does any discussion on that subject preclude the possibility of the victim doing that. None IMO. Different types of gun powder are not the issue in this case.:cool:

IMO it absolutely does when they are discussing the amount of GSR left at the crime scene and on Lana & Phil (even though "some mystery person" appears to have wiped down the crime scene). IMO when the jury sees a picture of a gun spewing large amounts of black smoke out everywhere when it is fired, they are given the false expectation that there should be GSR everywhere & Phil should be covered in it, if in fact he pulled the trigger or was near the victim. It's similar to the blood spatter testimony. The jury needs to understand that because of the type of bullets used, no exit wound, velocity, etc. that the blood spatter is a very fine mist & therefore could not travel very far. Piece by piece, the state can more clearly present a better picture of what the crime scene would look like, if what they claim did take place, and that the evidence they are presenting supports that scenario.
And if you find my interest & question to Mortie regarding this subject so useless and unimportant, why are you posting your opinion about it to me & everyone? I wasn't asking you. Nor was I asking for your permission to ask it.

[palomine]

Hey is this trial going on, there is zero coverage that I can find...
news media didn't make a mistrial of the first trial the jury foreman writing his novel instead of paying attention was the reason

[nanouk]

Hi "My 2 Cents,

A little history lesson, during the civil war, snipers on both the Blue and Grey side, wanted someone to invent a gunpowder that did not give away their hidden position. Gunpowder at the time was called Black Powder and was made from charcoal (Thus the Black color, potasium nitrate and sulfur) and made lots of smoke. The other side would then fire at the smoke and hopefully get the sniper. Then came the invention of the first modern gunpowder made from nitrocellulose which in one form or another continues today and nitrocellulose does not create smoke. You take nitric acid and treat wood cellulose to "nitrate" it. During the same period of time, they developed the self contained cartridge containing bullet, gunpowder, primer and casing. The old pistols of cowboy movies were blackpowder with lots of smoke, again giving away your position. They (the defense) "got away" with using a blackpowder gun because the smoke was visable so the jury could see the discharge of soot and GSR but a modern gun can not and will not create that color/density of smoke. A blackpowder gun will leave GSR but it will be carbon and unburnt sulfur. Smokeless will leave a GSR of Barium and Antimony (which are really created by the primer, not the gunpowder) with lead shavings and particles from the bullet. A modern gun does produce the same "cloud" but it is colorless and hard to demonstrate. They did NOT do a good job explaining this to the jury, in my opinion. The only "doctoring" they appear to have done is use a much longer barrel, a very fast shutter and a black background to make the light grey "cloud" show up better.
A 6" barrel (as shown in that picture) is three times as long as the 2" barrel used by Colt in the death weapon and interpet that to read, that the powder had three time more time to completely burn and create that smoke, shorter barrels create less combustion time but do create more modern type GSR.

Guys (at least me) like things that go BANG!

Mortie

Hi all

I remember reading, from another expert in PS1, that the gun used in the picture was a "break open" type of revolver, meaning that it opened with a hinge at the bottom right behind the barrel instead of the barrel flipping out of the gun. This would mean that, when fired, a small gap would open where the gun closes and it would then release much more smoke than any other type of revolver.

JMO

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

Hey is this trial going on, there is zero coverage that I can find...
news media didn't make a mistrial of the first trial the jury foreman writing his novel instead of paying attention was the reason

We still have Trials & Tribs to give us daily updates and once in a while a reporter will write an article. We are very fortunate that we have posters that have been able to attend either a hearing or the trial itself and let us know what is going on. Besides that there is the occasional story on TMZ about Phil, or an article or video link to discuss about PS or Lana. Those links while not directly related to the trial at times, they do help give us some insight into who Phil and Lana are/were and what made them tick, all pieces of the puzzle. JMO

[palomine]

We still have Trials & Tribs to give us daily updates and once in a while a reporter will write an article. We are very fortunate that we have posters that have been able to attend either a hearing or the trial itself and let us know what is going on. Besides that there is the occasional story on TMZ about Phil, or an article or video link to discuss about PS or Lana. Those links while not directly related to the trial at times, they do help give us some insight into who Phil and Lana are/were and what made them tick, all pieces of the puzzle. JMO

Is the trial on now or is it on holiday break??

[Spectorfan8]

Is the trial on now or is it on holiday break??

I do not mean to speak for Kennedy, but the trial is off until Jan.5,2009.
Mr. Spector is having surgery on his vocal cords, and the holidays coming up.

SF8

[Spectorfan8]

Thanks for the info SF8. Hope you have a great holiday season. :thumbup:

Same to you.:seeya:

[palomine]

I do not mean to speak for Kennedy, but the trial is off until Jan.5,2009.
Mr. Spector is having surgery on his vocal cords, and the holidays coming up.

SF8

Shouldn't Mr. Murderer had his surgery while waiting for his second trial to be scheduled? Think he will talk even more feminine after the surgery?

[Spectorfan8]

Shouldn't Mr. Murderer had his surgery while waiting for his second trial to be scheduled? Think he will talk even more feminine after the surgery?

I don't know. All I know is that is the reason. Not to mention the holiday season.

[My 2 Cents]

Shouldn't Mr. Murderer had his surgery while waiting for his second trial to be scheduled? Think he will talk even more feminine after the surgery?

Actually, I think Spector had his surgery last Friday (12/12) and needed thru Monday (yesterday) to recoup. Court I believe is in session today through Thursday 12/18, then breaks for the holidays. Court resumes Monday, 1/5/09. I am curious what Sprocket will have to say, if anything , about Phil's voice (if she hears him speak, or re: his overall appearance) . He appears frail in person, and surgery of any kind, even outpatient, is hard on a person.

[kipswife]

Actually, I think Spector had his surgery last Friday (12/12) and needed thru Monday (yesterday) to recoup. Court I believe is in session today through Thursday 12/18, then breaks for the holidays. Court resumes Monday, 1/5/09. I am curious what Sprocket will have to say, if anything , about Phil's voice (if she hears him speak, or re: his overall appearance) . He appears frail in person, and surgery of any kind, even outpatient, is hard on a person.

hi M2C,

when i saw ps (doesnt deserve caps) during the jury selection, I thought he looked alot stronger than ppl were giving him credit for. I really stared at him for a long time. he looked right at me and i never looked away. he wasnt even shaking much for that matter.

i think he is just milking the whole frail thing for what he can get.....maybe a bed in the medical unit at the prison. i wonder if he will come up here to the vacaville medical prison first.... i could go visit him.......NOT

m

[Spectorfan8]

Actually, I think Spector had his surgery last Friday (12/12) and needed thru Monday (yesterday) to recoup. Court I believe is in session today through Thursday 12/18, then breaks for the holidays. Court resumes Monday, 1/5/09. I am curious what Sprocket will have to say, if anything , about Phil's voice (if she hears him speak, or re: his overall appearance) . He appears frail in person, and surgery of any kind, even outpatient, is hard on a person.

Thank you for the info. I have been "out of here for awhile". I do agree with you. It would be nice if you could attend while they are still in court, but I do understand that you have shopping to do just like most of us do.

[dref99]

Hi Mortie

Thankyou for all the expert information - I know nothing about guns & your explanations are much appreciated.

[Jayne]

Hi Mortie

Thankyou for all the expert information - I know nothing about guns & your explanations are much appreciated.

believe me..you couldn't get better..except from the actual ballistics department in LA IF IF IF they are going their job.

Gonna share this...I've worked with police departments...ballistics..and they were TOPS..don't need to tell you where - wasn't CA...and this POSTER knows his stuff.

'nuf said

jmo

J

[dref99]

believe me..you couldn't get better..except from the actual ballistics department in LA IF IF IF they are going their job.

Gonna share this...I've worked with police departments...ballistics..and they were TOPS..don't need to tell you where - wasn't CA...and this POSTER knows his stuff.

'nuf said

jmo

J

Hi Jayne

If you haven't seen the update on 11 th Dec - James Carroll wittness - also an expert on guns. If we have enough trials, I might eventually understand it all :smile:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-eighteen-of.html

[Jayne]

Both the defense and prosecution agreed that the gun was inserted into the mouth at the time it was fired. They did look pretty dumb presenting other possibilities. But you get that alot with paid to show up "expert" witnesses. Some took money and never showed up at all! Real smart lawyering <NOT>.

Mortie

hey..WE'RE NOT ALL STUPID!

lol

and we don't all get paid enough!

:)

so glad you're back...

you go help out here..with that gun stuff and other things...I'm on vacation in a few days...

gotta check out my "tree"..on the Open Court...truly CA... LOL

J

[kennedy06]

Shouldn't Mr. Murderer had his surgery while waiting for his second trial to be scheduled? Think he will talk even more feminine after the surgery?

You must be a man LOL. I thought his younger voice was sort of pleasant when I heard it on some of the links I have provided. Of course on the other hand I was never on the receiving end of it when he was in one of his moods that seems to be described so often from various people in testimony, articles, books or documentaries. Maybe if he takes the stand we will see how it sounds now.

[kennedy06]

Is the trial on now or is it on holiday break??

As it was previously posted it is still ongoing. Maybe it is quite simplistic, but I haven't quite figured out how much (of course certain dates) are for the holiday and how many maybe for other purposes and needed or requested by whom. We still have the prosecution witnesses on the stand. I surely hope that somehow, as others have posted, they don't end their case before the vacation starts.

[kennedy06]

hi M2C,

when i saw ps (doesnt deserve caps) during the jury selection, I thought he looked alot stronger than ppl were giving him credit for. I really stared at him for a long time. he looked right at me and i never looked away. he wasnt even shaking much for that matter.

i think he is just milking the whole frail thing for what he can get.....maybe a bed in the medical unit at the prison. i wonder if he will come up here to the vacaville medical prison first.... i could go visit him.......NOT

m

Your description and opinion reminds me of the story of the mobster from NY was it (Gigante) ,that dressed in his PJ's when he was seen out and about to appear less coherent than he actually was.

[hiitsme]

Your description and opinion reminds me of the story of the mobster from NY was it (Gigante) ,that dressed in his PJ's when he was seen out and about to appear less coherent than he actually was.

I remember! I too think PS looks healthier this time around. During PS1 poor Phil was pampered by his entourage of attorneys who fell over each other to protect him. I was waiting for the fans and bunches of grapes to appear. Now he is just like any other defendant and perhaps realizes appearance and demeanor matter when you're fighting for your freedom.

[Spectorfan8]

You must be a man LOL. I thought his younger voice was sort of pleasant when I heard it on some of the links I have provided. Of course on the other hand I was never on the receiving end of it when he was in one of his moods that seems to be described so often from various people in testimony, articles, books or documentaries. Maybe if he takes the stand we will see how it sounds now.

Kennedy,

I agree with you about his younger voice. The link that you provided from YouTube was really good.
Thanks for the link!

SF8

[dref99]

As it was previously posted it is still ongoing. Maybe it is quite simplistic, but I haven't quite figured out how much (of course certain dates) are for the holiday and how many maybe for other purposes and needed or requested by whom. We still have the prosecution witnesses on the stand. I surely hope that somehow, as others have posted, they don't end their case before the vacation starts.

Things seem to change quickly. A juror became ill, arguments continue about the cross examination of Dr Pena & it is now in recess until January 5.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

[dref99]

Has there ever been another trial where things took this long :confused:

A few items from the timeline

February 3, 2003 Lana died. Spector spent less than 24 hours in jail.
April 25 2007 Opening statements in Trial 1 began
September 26 2007 Mistrial was declared News Conference - the DAs office announced they would begin immediately preparing for the retrial. A hearing was set for October 3.
October 3 2007 Fidler orders the retrial to occur no later than 120 days from this date
October 2007 to October 2008 Many hearings, no trial

October 29 2008, 13 months after the mistrial declared, Opening statements trial 2

Trial 1 took 5 months and 1 day from opening to mistrial verdict.

How long trial 2 - past 2 months and the prosecution has its main scientific evidence yet to come.

Dates come from all over - please google if you wish to check/verify

Trial 1 source: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/26.html

[dref99]

This is the link for SF8's story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector18-2008dec18,0,7377935.story

[Jayne]

WooHoo..total lack of scruples let alone common sense..

we may be looking at a count of contempt of court? Not sure...not sure of the details but it sure sounds like it..this is worse than chewing gum, huh?..but I'm not surprised.

IMO..and IMO only...and really not to disparage or start a war here..but methinks it smells like a "hired hand"...either do what I tell you..or do what you think will keep you in "good will" (in the Castle, I mean..and whatever community property (probably none, considering this trial), etc. is at stake.

Chelle..needs to put duct tape over her mouth, IMO...and put herself in a straitjacket...she doesn't have the same freedoms, so to speak, we do...to post and be Stupid (speaking for myself..mind you) or she needs to find a good girlfriend..to escape with..put it all behind her. I am absolutely amazed that a woman with her nice looks (I'm being truthful..not a Beauty..but pretty) and her talent (well..I'm taking it at face/publicized value) would do this to herself..she must be getting something from it other than pure LOVE and DEVOTION. Or Maybe I'm wrong..probably am.

This kind of behaviour is either Outwardly motivated or her own Ego...and PS being who PS seems to be wouldn't let anyone control his destiny..he'd control it.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

Things seem to change quickly. A juror became ill, arguments continue about the cross examination of Dr Pena & it is now in recess until January 5.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

Thank you.:smile: I need to read the trial updates.

[dref99]

Despite discussions last time about the comment related to the Judge, nothing happened & it will probably be the same this time - or perhaps Rachelle simply wants to be banned from attending the trial - thus having the perfect excuse not to go.

jmo

[dref99]

Thank you.:smile: I need to read the trial updates.

You're very welcome - I often wonder if the lawyers get a bonus for each event they can dream up to delay the trial - guess they can't be blamed for a juror being ill, although given the time these trials seem to last, with 18 jurors odds are many of them will have a medical problem or two.


jmo

[Jayne]

She would be "dead meat" in NY..let's see what CA does with this one..

and if not..what I (and probably others) think it should be...I want to see Cutler's broad smile


Hey..maybe even PS is setting her up...get her out of his way "financially"...I'm not even sure he has a clue since he has the "police in his pocket" as he said..

IMO..all she does..she's an "arm hanger"...drops him off in court...looks "good"..does the "wifely" thing..but maybe he isn't all that happy anymore...so he sets her up to do his dirty business..and if she gets caught...so what? It was her choice.

PS isn't all that stupid...whether that was the case or not..

Chelle is either dumb or desperate or thinks she can WIN..BUT..she's not on trial..but she may be.

I see a Contempt of Court coming in very very soon. If it doesn't, I've lost faith in the CA court system. Fidler...for all he's worth and how he's been applauded here by many of us...he needs to follow through..and IF he does, DW is NOT going to have a Merry Christmas/Holiday Season..

At least I'm off..and BOY would I love to attend the trial, but they are taking vacation...when the only vacation I get is the same time..

M2C will keep us up...

jmo

J

(indeed..my analysis may be totally incorrect)

[bearwds]

Rather appalled but not surprised about 'Chell's webposting.

It is still up and viewable. Wouldn't that violate Fidler's order..?

She must follow T/T closely. Wouldn't be surprised if this Board as well.

Not much class...well, about as much as humpa-humpa dance.


bearwds

[GPSpector]

I see a big problem if Rachelle tries to deny taking those photo's. If she tries that excuse and says that someone she does not know, took those pictures and sent them to her and she was not aware they were taken from inside the Courtroom, they will pull her phone records and for her sake, there had better be proof of 3 photo's being sent to her just prior to her posting.

I sure would hate to be a close friend that just so happened to have sent her 3 pictures (unrelated to the trial) just before the posting because I have no doubt that person would become a scapegoat.

Of course, if the Court has to work to hard to come full circle to find she took those pictures, I would not want to be her or associated with her because she would be headed for big trouble if she tries to deny it.

[My 2 Cents]

I see a big problem if Rachelle tries to deny taking those photo's. If she tries that excuse and says that someone she does not know, took those pictures and sent them to her and she was not aware they were taken from inside the Courtroom, they will pull her phone records and for her sake, there had better be proof of 3 photo's being sent to her just prior to her posting.

I sure would hate to be a close friend that just so happened to have sent her 3 pictures (unrelated to the trial) just before the posting because I have no doubt that person would become a scapegoat.

Of course, if the Court has to work to hard to come full circle to find she took those pictures, I would not want to be her or associated with her because she would be headed for big trouble if she tries to deny it.

If the information on Sprocket's blog are accurate (and I have every reason to believe they are, based on her very detailed & organized notes), then the courtroom has been "a ghost town". Even the Associated Press doesn't show. My point is, there aren't a whole lot of people there to pick from that could have taken those photos and I have no doubt that Judge Fidler knows exactly, without a doubt, who took them. The same person the web site is named for. . . . what was she thinking? :confused:

[GPSpector]

If the information on Sprocket's blog are accurate (and I have every reason to believe they are, based on her very detailed & organized notes), then the courtroom has been "a ghost town". Even the Associated Press doesn't show. My point is, there aren't a whole lot of people there to pick from that could have taken those photos and I have no doubt that Judge Fidler knows exactly, without a doubt, who took them. The same person the web site is named for. . . . what was she thinking? :confused:

As usual, she wasn't. she's setting her self up to have the whole thing blow up in her face. At this rate, her X-Mas may get interrupted or at least, me end up someplace where she may miss the end of the trial just to get free to find she has to pay all his debts.

[kennedy06]

Thanks SPF8 for bringing what Rachelle has done to our attention. I don't know what to think about all this. If this is a violation, somehow I wonder if they would even do anything. If a fan of Phil's in the courtroom sent them to her is she still culpable in some manner for printing them?

What a mess/circus this has all been, all the way down to this.:unsure:

I'll say it again, I don't know who he looks to for advice or his public relations but Phil I really think you need to look for someone new. JMO

[roytoy]

What many people do not know or realize about DIGITAL photos, is that there can be imbedded copyright information included within the digital data, such as manufactures, model, serial number, date and time. This data has no effect on, nor can you see it in the image. The data can be displayed with a program, if the device that created the image included it. How do you think that CD's and DVD's are protected? Be careful, we live in a digital world.

Mortie


very easy to track camera phone photos directly back to the source. like hansel and gretel.


no cameras inside the courthouse. simple rule, no? you break it, you bought it. after what she pulled during PS1 it is obvious that she is dumb as a stump. might be some repercussions this time. let's hope.

[roytoy]

Mortie & RoyToy . . . You two know your stuff. I "copy & pasted" a couple of the Sprocket pictures from Rachelle's website to drop into my PhotoShop Illustrator software, just to see if any of the "data" from the camera, etc displayed (there's a option for viewing picture data) and VIOLA . . . it listed the names the person saved the JPEG files under AND it displayed the camera used to take original picture was a: BLACKBERRY 8330. In T&T, it always mentions RS using her "Blackberry". What's the MODEL NUMBER Rachelle? (She apparently took more than these 3 pictures, because the names the JPEG files were saved under were: sprocket 3, sprocket 4, and sprok 5 )


exactly. and much more can be gleaned as well, including who the device is owned by, etc.

not the sharpest tool in the shed, rachelle. but we knew that, didn't we? i hope fidler uses some sort of punative measures as she has no respect for the law and she has proven it once again.

[wasapi]

I hope that something good comes from this. I have a feeling that Judge Fielder is fed up with her and her stupid antics. Hopefully she will - at the least - be barred from the court.

Also, I hope that this is the final wake-up call for Phil Spector, and that he finally realizes she is far from an asset and is actually making things worse. Hopefully there was a pre-nup, and he kicks her out on the street where she deserves to be.

[Anakerie]

Sprocket's blog wasn't the only one that "someone" tried posting a link to Rachelle's lame little web page. Someone also tried posting the link in the comments on the Rachelle with a gun post on my blog as well. Since I enabled the moderation of comments on my blog there have been a couple rather nasty comments that were attempted to be put on my blog including the one with the link. What I found funny is that the comment with the link to her page seems to have been posted from someone in Alhambra.. Odd, huh? BTW, that wasn't the only comment from there.

I do hope that Judge Fidler can somehow reign her in. The trial has enough "drama" going on without her childish attempts to derail it. It's bad enough that we rarely get any news from the media as to what is going on in that courtroom. I wish at least Harriet Ryan were there more often, but with everything else that goes on in LA, I guess she has other assignments to take care of. Darn it.

[Spectorfan8]

The reason that I posted it was because Sprocket always goes on and on about the way the Spector's look in court.
IMO, she shouldn't be reporting on how THEY look. There is nothing wrong with the way the Spector's dress, and besides, who really cares?
Not me.

SF8

[Anakerie]

The reason that I posted it was because Sprocket always goes on and on about the way the Spector's look in court.
IMO, she shouldn't be reporting on how THEY look. There is nothing wrong with the way the Spector's dress, and besides, who really cares?
Not me.

SF8
I guess I've missed Sprocket going "on and on" about how the Spectors dress. I've seen mentions in most of her posts about what they are wearing on any given day, but I didn't think that was out of line, since she also mentions how others in the courtroom dress.

[kennedy06]

CORRECTION:
One of the photos that was taken from outside the courtroom (red jacket, Spocket walking away), actually lists the embedded info on that picture (entitled by picture taker as: "sprok 5") as taken from a diffent source: a CANON POWERSHOT SD600 camera. (However, the other 2, from inside the courthouse, show taken by a BLACKBERRY 8330.)

Needless to say I am in awe of you guys, I didn't even know such a capability existed:blushing:

[Spectorfan8]

I guess I've missed Sprocket going "on and on" about how the Spectors dress. I've seen mentions in most of her posts about what they are wearing on any given day, but I didn't think that was out of line, since she also mentions how others in the courtroom dress.

During the trial last year,she reported almost daily about how they dressedand how Rachelle looked.
Nothing against her, but if I were her I wouldn't comment on the way the Spector's dress.jmo

SF8

[Spectorfan8]

Needless to say I am in awe of you guys, I didn't even know such a capability existed:blushing:

I know, isn't it amazing the technology that we have today? My sons know more about computers than I will ever know.

[hiitsme]

Needless to say I am in awe of you guys, I didn't even know such a capability existed:blushing:

Hi Kennedy, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe we have a prosecutorial dream team emerging here.:smile:

[kennedy06]

I have to speak up and say I for one am glad Sprocket takes the time to give Phil's trial the attention the mass media won't. She has posted alot of details of how the defense is going about their arguments. All we got from the Mass Media besides a article or two really was the link in which DW comes across like he is presenting Phil as an equal oppportunity gun waiver. At least through her blog we are able to read the finer points of his arguments and also the prosecutions.

I don't know what the ramifications are of what has happened, is it just a fine or what. I guess it is between them when you get down to it over clothes. If this is ignored, if someone else does this while visiting this trial taking a picture of whomever, maybe Phil, would it be allowed to go away??

[CopperDog]

very easy to track camera phone photos directly back to the source. like hansel and gretel.


no cameras inside the courthouse. simple rule, no? you break it, you bought it. after what she pulled during PS1 it is obvious that she is dumb as a stump. might be some repercussions this time. let's hope.

:seeya: ITA

[My 2 Cents]

Just an additional detail . . .
The "file information" on several of the photos show that they were ORIGINALLY taken on Wednesday, 12/3/08. These are the pictures taken INSIDE the courtroom. The Photo taken with the red jacket, walking outside of the courthouse, taken by the CANON POWERSHOT SD600, was taken on Tuesday, 12/16/08 . . . and that date would coincide with the same evening the pictures were 1st posted on RS's website.

[GPSpector]

very easy to track camera phone photos directly back to the source. like hansel and gretel.


no cameras inside the courthouse. simple rule, no? you break it, you bought it. after what she pulled during PS1 it is obvious that she is dumb as a stump. might be some repercussions this time. let's hope.

Sometimes the best way to make sure rules are enforced is by making sure the business (in this case, the Courthouse) is aware that the people want the rules enforced.

The Court seems to be aware of the pics but unless people speak up, I'm sure this issue will just be swept under the rug with a slap on the hand.

I don't see anything happening with this though I agree the rules are there for a purpose and should be upheld.

[stown]

Another poster mentioned to me that if you view one of the images on Rachelle's web site, and change the file name, you can view at least 5 pictures of Sprocket. What is interesting is that when you view some of the other pictures she took, ONE of them is taken INSIDE the courtroom and the person who took it is DEFINATELY sitting on the RIGHT SIDE of the COURTROOM, taking it of Sprocket, sitting on the left side of the courtroom (with "San Diego Linda" sitting to the left of her).
No doubt...the picture entitled sprocket2 was taken inside the courtroom. I do hope the Judge deals with this.

[dref99]

I have to speak up and say I for one am glad Sprocket takes the time to give Phil's trial the attention the mass media won't. She has posted alot of details of how the defense is going about their arguments. All we got from the Mass Media besides a article or two really was the link in which DW comes across like he is presenting Phil as an equal oppportunity gun waiver. At least through her blog we are able to read the finer points of his arguments and also the prosecutions.

I don't know what the ramifications are of what has happened, is it just a fine or what. I guess it is between them when you get down to it over clothes. If this is ignored, if someone else does this while visiting this trial taking a picture of whomever, maybe Phil, would it be allowed to go away??

I think it is disappointing that the MSM can't report from the trial on a daily basis but gossip about the defendant's wife and a trial blogger/reporter gets a mention.

Sprocket is the only person who gives us detail on the trial happenings - I tend to ignore the trivia as it is of little interest, but I see it as the way she writes things & as it is her blog, it is her choice as to what/how she reports.

It must be boring for Rachelle without any media attention, Sprocket is the only person reporting & not in a favourable way to the defendant. Perhaps this gave her something to do in the courtroom? I doubt there will be many repercussions. She may have to apologise ??

jmo

[roytoy]

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=camera+in+courtroom+california&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/cameras.pdf&w=camera+cameras+courtroom+courtrooms+%22court+roo m%22+california+ca&d=DnZeG0fiR4pE&icp=1&.intl=us



scroll about 3/4 down the page and you will see that cameras are not allowed on court property w/o express permission. rule 980.

[True2Blues]

http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=camera+in+courtroom+california&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/cameras.pdf&w=camera+cameras+courtroom+courtrooms+%22court+roo m%22+california+ca&d=DnZeG0fiR4pE&icp=1&.intl=us



scroll about 3/4 down the page and you will see that cameras are not allowed on court property w/o express permission. rule 980.

Ah, but the Spectors are special and think they don't have to follow any rules.

I'd really love to see her get taken to task for this. Held in contempt, fined, strip searched every day she comes to court to make sure she doesn't have a phone or camera.

[roytoy]

Ah, but the Spectors are special and think they don't have to follow any rules.

I'd really love to see her get taken to task for this. Held in contempt, fined, strip searched every day she comes to court to make sure she doesn't have a phone or camera.
agreeance. she needs to follow the rules. but, we have to remember, this is a woman who had the nerve to talk back to judge fidler during ps1 and acted like a 14 y.o.

fine her and ban her from the courthouse--oh wait, that would not be punishment for her. fine her and throw her in the pokey for 24 hours.

[Spectorfan8]

Personally, I like the descriptions. Then again, as a guy, it helps me visualize the courtroom.

Sprocket's comments about clothing likely stems from her love of sewing.

i like how she reports juror 5 wearing sun records tshirt, etc.

You know, like I said, nothing against her. I prefer My2Cents observations from the courtroom much better. Just seems more to the point. jmo:smile:

[True2Blues]

agreeance. she needs to follow the rules. but, we have to remember, this is a woman who had the nerve to talk back to judge fidler during ps1 and acted like a 14 y.o.

fine her and ban her from the courthouse--oh wait, that would not be punishment for her. fine her and throw her in the pokey for 24 hours.

Jail would be good. Someplace where she's just like everyone else.:seeya:

[nina]

PS is a total psycho, violent misogynst. And I hope that his freedom is not tied to the amount of money he has...which of course it will..if this nut gets off scott free because he has dough...then we all lose. The system should work for justice...not money.

[Jayne]

You know, like I said, nothing against her. I prefer My2Cents observations from the courtroom much better. Just seems more to the point. jmo:smile:


ITA...


and this THING about the pictures.

IF CA/LA court does not do something about this...I have lost much faith in them.

Those photos were one thing..the comments Chelle made were another.

BUT..to be fair..NOT THAT I WANT TO BE...

She has her blog and Sprocket has hers.. Sprocket has put photos on her blog and been pro prosecution...but she NEVER wrote comments like what Chelle did....So..there's a ONE UP for Sprocket..

the Real Issue Here..as I see it..IS where did those photos come from? Certainly NOT Sprocket..photographing herself and in that way..NAH.

This was ill intentioned to the HILT...Chelle is ticked....PS is moreso, IMO. (did he set her up to do this?) Only to backfire, IMO, because I think PS believes he "owns" the law..the LE..and everyone, not to mention his attorneys who are probably Scrambling to Try to Figure Out how to FIX this?!

The fact that Chelle or her website was very very derogatory to the Blogster (I'm trying to be politically correct here..but the name was already mentioned...SO..I may rest in confinement with those who have been banned??), is just a "have some common sense...be civil..don't ruin your husband's CASE thing)...but Biggest Fact, IMO, is that She..whether she took those photos herself or got them from someone else..SHE posted them..Or SOMEONE who has access to her account did..then wrote those comments. It's the fact that a camera...some means of taking Photos...got into that courtroom without approval by the Judge/Court.

If Sprocket did it...she'd be out of there in a ny minute. She obviously didn't take photos of herself..or if she did...how many people walking about, etc. coudln't have viewed it and "turned her in"?

This is MICKEY MOUSE carp...it's Rachelle..one way or another...if she had a website and monitors it..if it was Someone Else who posted...she's still "guilty" for not having safeguards in place. If she took those photos..claiming it was a "gift" but then put them there and added the comments. "Nuf said".

If JFidler doesn't do something about this...and it's not just to protect and make Sprocket feel better..it's to abide by the courtroom and court rules. You do it..and if you don't...what else do you not do?

I think Weinberg will be eating CROW for Christmas.

jmo

J

[MrsB]

jayne, ita about your post re the courthouse photos.

she needs to be dealt with this time. it is illegal and easily trackable as to where the photos came from. hopefully jf will act on this.

not defending said blogger, just the ca law and that one mrs. rachelle spector does not seem to feel that she has to follow any law or protocol. being brazen and ignorant is no excuse for breaking the law. moo.

I read on the local rules posted for Los Angeles Courthouses (which includes the Clara Shortridge Criminal Justice Center, where the Spector trial is taking place), that cameras (including still cameras) not only need to get permission by the judge to take a picture BUT even if the court decides to allow it, it states that the JURY and the SPECTATORS can NOT be filmed, photographed, etc. Under CALIF RULE 1.150 the SANCTIONS for VIOLATION of these rules "may be the basis for an order terminating media coverage, a citation for contempt of court, or an order imposing monetary or other sanctions as provided by law".

I believe it is in RULE 980 that you (roytoy) directed us to previously, that also mentions the courtroom hallways and the area between the "double doors" (where several of the pictures were taken) are considered to also fall under the protection of RULE 980.

If the above info is correct, I would think JF would look foolish if he doesn't have the court take a very close look at who is responsible for taking these pictures & posting them. And then readdress it with that responsible party. After all, JF is NO Judge Ito.

[MoonFlwr]

To any people that have been attending the case..is there a chance of getting in one day to watch the trial. I happen to be in LA for some time and I watched the first trial blow-for-blow...so would jump at an opportunity to attend court.
TIA :)

[Spectorfan8]

To any people that have been attending the case..is there a chance of getting in one day to watch the trial. I happen to be in LA for some time and I watched the first trial blow-for-blow...so would jump at an opportunity to attend court.
TIA :)

I haven't attended the trial, but I know that it is out until Jan.5, 2009.
Would love to attend the trial though, but can't.
We do have a poster here that has attended the trial, maybe you could read some of their posts. The poster is My 2 Cents.
Good Luck on attending the trial.

SF8

[MoonFlwr]

I haven't attended the trial, but I know that it is out until Jan.5, 2009.
Would love to attend the trial though, but can't.
We do have a poster here that has attended the trial, maybe you could read some of their posts. The poster is My 2 Cents.
Good Luck on attending the trial.

SF8

Thanks for the response, the tips and the information that court is out until Jan 5th :)

I'll still be around then, so if I can convince my travel partner...perhaps I shall be able to attend!

[spydernweb2006]

What Rachelle did was pure mean spite and I hope it hits her hard upside the pocketbook with a nasty fine or a contempt of court. Its one thing to blog about what people in the trial are wearing its another to make nasty personal comments just because you dont care for her writing. I give T&T kudos for giving up ANY information on the trial, she doesnt hafta do it and does for FREE. She gives us a GIFT everytime she posts and for that I am thankful. She doesnt have to do it, there certainly is no reason except from the good of her heart that she does it so we atleast have an idea whats going on.

Maybe because I base my opinions on beauty by a person's inside not outside I'd give Ms Ross a beauty pagent tirara anyday over Ms Spector. Thats MY opinion and Im sticking to it!

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[Jayne]

What Rachelle did was pure mean spite and I hope it hits her hard upside the pocketbook with a nasty fine or a contempt of court. Its one thing to blog about what people in the trial are wearing its another to make nasty personal comments just because you dont care for her writing. I give T&T kudos for giving up ANY information on the trial, she doesnt hafta do it and does for FREE. She gives us a GIFT everytime she posts and for that I am thankful. She doesnt have to do it, there certainly is no reason except from the good of her heart that she does it so we atleast have an idea whats going on.

Maybe because I base my opinions on beauty by a person's inside not outside I'd give Ms Ross a beauty pagent tirara anyday over Ms Spector. Thats MY opinion and Im sticking to it!

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder


count me in. Whether I am a Ms Ross "fan" or not..doesn't matter...what was photographed..and WORSE commented on was not only mean spirited..it was against the law of the courts of California. Now..if they do nothing about it...what does that say? I think this will rise far above bubblegum/gum chewing.

jmo

j

[bearwds]

[QUOTE=Jayne... "Whether I am a Ms Ross "fan" or not.."....<<SNIP-SNIP>>[/QUOTE]

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

Hiya Jayne... I am. Shame Betsy is not welcomed here with open arms.

Ok..trial is on break until the 5th. No "cause of death" in the record this time. Interesting, and avoids the nonsense of a psychological profile. Like it really matters when someone blows.... I'll stop right there.


bearwds

[Spectorfan8]

Oh I love M2C's reports too. I am just hungry for info on the trial and upset TTV dropped the ball on this one. :cool:
I know, I couldn't believe that it wasn't carried live. Then again, with all of these breaks from court and the holidays, I guess they didn't deem it worth it. Sad though. :sad:

SF8

[True2Blues]

I know, I couldn't believe that it wasn't carried live. Then again, with all of these breaks from court and the holidays, I guess they didn't deem it worth it. Sad though. :sad:

SF8

The constant rerunning of trials we've already seen isn't worth it either, but they keep doing that. I've stopped watching altogether.

[bearwds]

The constant rerunning of trials we've already seen isn't worth it either, but they keep doing that. I've stopped watching altogether.

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

It's been almost exactly a year since the changeover.

Not much to celebrate.


bearwds

[Spectorfan8]

The constant rerunning of trials we've already seen isn't worth it either, but they keep doing that. I've stopped watching altogether.

Oh, I totally agree. I never watch anymore. Sad, but true. :sad:

Happy holidays True!!

SF8

[kennedy06]

count me in. Whether I am a Ms Ross "fan" or not..doesn't matter...what was photographed..and WORSE commented on was not only mean spirited..it was against the law of the courts of California. Now..if they do nothing about it...what does that say? I think this will rise far above bubblegum/gum chewing.

jmo

j

One thing for sure as far as the media interest, she is getting more attention than PS is with antics like that. His hair was mentioned on TMZ and the story became about her, then this. If she had a problem with Betsy she should have talked to her in court, in an adult manner, that was just childish. Personally I hope the courts don't overlook it, as who could be next taking pictures?JMO

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

To all my fellow posters, may I wish you all a Happy Holiday:)
For You:

Happy Holiday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QBtfpIfOB8&feature=related

[GPSpector]

It would seem that rachelle person is a truly ugly little person and I don't mean how she looks! I can only hope the judge will do the correct thing by enforcing the court rules, didn't this rachelle cause problems in the courtroom before?!
I always found Sprockets' description of what p spector was wearing interesting since he seemed to like to wear odd clothes including female clothes. p spector put himself in the public eye by the things he has done, many illegal, but Sprocket was doing nothing but helping us stay informed about the p spector MURDER trial!
I clicked on her link for the p spector web site and found it telling that the photo used on his bio page was of him with a spoon & vile full of coke!! All of the shots from that movie and that is the one used!!

Sounds like you are referring to that famous picture of him as "The Contact" in Easy Rider. I have the DVD but the last time I tried to watch it, I fell asleep. It seemed a bit to slow paced for me.

[True2Blues]

I think DW needs to decide which case he wants to defend, PS or accused child molester Ayers.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_11291103

[kennedy06]

LOL like I would know any better but now how did DW figure he would get through PS trial by Jan 5?:huh:

[emsdallas]

The constant rerunning of trials we've already seen isn't worth it either, but they keep doing that. I've stopped watching altogether.

I know I sound like a broken record, but it really galls me that TTV has the onscreen logos like 'InSession' should be 'OLD Session'.

If I'm home, I usually have it on, just in case they do have some current reports. I really miss Catherine Crier.

Happy Holidays everybody!

Justice for Lana:rose:

[Spectorfan8]

I think DW needs to decide which case he wants to defend, PS or accused child molester Ayers.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_11291103

One would think that Mr. Spector wouldn't "let" that happen.:confused:

Merry Christmas True!!!

SF8

[True2Blues]

One would think that Mr. Spector wouldn't "let" that happen.:confused:

Merry Christmas True!!!

SF8

Merry Christmas Spectorfan!:thumbsup:

That case has been pending for a long time, so I'm not sure what PS can do about it. I imagine he was informed of it before he took on DW. Maybe he thinks his case will just get more delays because of it, like last time.

I remember reading about that and wondering when the two cases would bump into each other.

[Spectorfan8]

Merry Christmas Spectorfan!:thumbsup:

That case has been pending for a long time, so I'm not sure what PS can do about it. I imagine he was informed of it before he took on DW. Maybe he thinks his case will just get more delays because of it, like last time.

I remember reading about that and wondering when the two cases would bump into each other.

I for one, would love for the trial to really get going, and get over with. That is the kind of person that I am. I would much rather get it over with than drag it out. Then again, I would love to be able to "see" the trial on TV. :unsure:

SF8

[hiitsme]

During this holiday season, I am especially proud to be one of the majority of compassionate, friendly and polite posters that I've shared opinions with on these threads. I really pity the likes of Mr. & Mrs. Spector and am thankful that I don't know their world. If this is off topic and I get banned, so be it. I will hopefully be able to join you, my friends, again in 2009. Happy Holidays. Hi it's Me

[kennedy06]

I'm having difficult time placing which summoned juror became juror #5 (shirts) on this latest trial. Maybe it is something quite simple to figure out but I'm not quite understanding it with the passes and replacements.

If anyone can figure it out or understands from T & T's Oct. postings concerning the jury and their descriptions, would you please pm or if allowed here just post the juror # that was applied to the 1st description of them! I hope that makes sense. :blush:

[hiitsme]

During this holiday season, I am especially proud to be one of the majority of compassionate, friendly and polite posters that I've shared opinions with on these threads. I really pity the likes of Mr. & Mrs. Spector and am thankful that I don't know their world. If this is off topic and I get banned, so be it. I will hopefully be able to join you, my friends, again in 2009. Happy Holidays. Hi it's Me

OOPS, I meant to say that I was proud to be associated with rather than "one of". Was not trying to compliment myself, I swear!

[kennedy06]

LOL, you are one of the the posters you described! Happy Holidays to you too:thumbup:

[kennedy06]

Just in case any of you that follow the PS trial are interested, there are four radio interviews that were given by Sprocket to the Talk Radio One show concerning the PS trial. I was recently able to listen to two of them.The four dates are listed on the home page of her Trials & Tribs blog under Talk Radio.

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

One interview I thought I would mention during this Holiday break was the latest the Dec 22 interview. It begins on about the 36 min mark and lasts quite sometime. A friend of Phil's from his childhood that owns a club in LA was interviewed last year and that interview is played once again. Being a friend of Phil's and also being connected to the music industry, he gave his point of view about the trial and PS before the verdict last year. It is somewhat complimentary to PS. He did spend a little bit of time on the L. Cohen incident. In particular, about others there around that time, guns, and other things but, this gentleman did not witness the supposed incident. Sprocket balances the interview with finesse also, considering everything, pointing out the particulars of the trial to the host. The host has as many questions as some of us. He would be great to have on the board LOL.

It was also interesting to hear and read from what I am understanding, about the prosecutions approach so far, the cause of death not the manner of death approach. Which seems to be causing some discomfort for the defense.

Thanks:smile:

[GPSpector]

Thank you for the link. I guess I am not to surprised Sprocket was interviewed. Rachelle can thank herself for making Sprocket a Radio Celebrity :cool:

[kennedy06]

Your welcome. I don't know if you were able to listen to the Dec 22 radio interview yet as it does take sometime to load, but Sprocket was courteous, not mentioning his wife in anyway except to describe how she sits during court as far as I can remember. This was only after a question was asked by the host. I don't know if I would have been so civil myself. Apparently there will be another interview per the talk show hosts suggestion as the trial progresses. This talk show host seems as interested in the trial as many on the board are! I think the Mrs has made a name for herself in her own way through her actions and words, and has possibly increased the popularity of those/someone she didn't intend to IMO.

[bearwds]

[QUOTE=kennedy06..."I think the Mrs has made a name for herself in her own way through her actions and words, and has possibly increased the popularity of those/someone she didn't intend to IMO."...<<SNIP-SNIP>>[/QUOTE]

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

Ah yes..unintended consequences.

Last I looked and well past Judge Fidlers notice, the images on the blog were still there. Sanctions anyone..??

Dec 5th will see AJ wrap up. I will guess going to the jury by the end of the month.

Change of address card will be needed.


bearwds

[kennedy06]

Thanks for the link.:smile:

This link was provided on the original board. It is to a BBC radio Christmas Eve program they had this year. They played PS Christmas music (which no matter what I still enjoy very much) and there were some interviews with Hal B. and another person about the making of the album. It was rather interesting with the interviews between the songs. You can FF through the songs if you are intrested in the interviews only. There are still 2 days left if anyone is interested in listening to it. The interview starts about the 2:20 min mark after the news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g63t8

To balance this out since while the 2 interviews I mentioned were somewhat complimentary of PS in their own way, by those that knew him in the music industry back when. I have read and watched more than my share of interviews like many of you, by those that knew him also that were less than complimentary and rightfully so from what had been revealed. So.........seems like there is a wide spectrum of opinions from those that knew him in different times and in different capacities.

If I had something new about Lana I would post it but sadly I don't.

[Spectorfan8]

Phil Spector's Christmas is still among the most played. It is wonderful. I do hope that he did enjoy his Christmas and birthday.
I realize that I am in the minority here, but I do still believe he is innocent. Not trying to start an argument, just stating my opinion.

Mr. Spector's music is still famous, he is/was one of the greatest producers, musicians, writers(music) of his time. JMO

[Spectorfan8]

This isn't really about Phil Spector, but It is about John Lennon.
It is a little creepy since John died before the laptop had been invented.http://www.yahoo.com/s/1009070

[kennedy06]

I just watched that when I came online a minute ago! Something about the voice..... OK is that his actual voice/words pieced together from back when, manipulated somehow? Because geesh PS did a better immitation of JL on his Lennon day interview! Ok creepy is the word!

Oh we can make it fit into the trial JL gun situation with PS in studio, PS Lennon day voice immitation. There!:cool:

[Jayne]

sythesized...

I never studied it or worked with it..but "played into it"..then the notes..were "my tones" on the synthesizer...for whatever instrument...then one can play around with it...get every note....inflection..

pretty interesting, huh?

pretty devastating..to the music industry...( just my ol' music unionism showing! )

[Spectorfan8]

I just watched that when I came online a minute ago! Something about the voice..... OK is that his actual voice/words pieced together from back when, manipulated somehow? Because geesh PS did a better immitation of JL on his Lennon day interview! Ok creepy is the word!

Oh we can make it fit into the trial JL gun situation with PS in studio, PS Lennon day voice immitation. There!:cool:

I think that the article mentioned that it digitalized to sound like his voice. It also said that Yoko approved of using his picture and voice.
You are right, PS did do a better John Lennon voice than the digitalized voice that was used.

[GPSpector]

People still love Phil's music.

What a tragedy - all around.

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/nightandday/gnnnightandday_story_359124316.html

I can't agree with you more. I am still a big fan of his music and will always be. :thumbsup:

[Spectorfan8]

That makes two of us. Actually, alot more than two of us.
You have to give credit where credit is due. Music is/was is his forte`. :cool:

[tartangirl]

To My 2 Cents

Don't know who you are
Probably could guess
Think I will just go along with the rest
Offer up so much thanks
For your take on the pranks
Seen each day in the venue
You read off the menu
Of good lawyering and more
By our AJ...who many adore
Can't forget old DW
Who won't play by the rules
Seems to think that Judge Fidler
Is one of the fools
This month is right up there
With many that do care
About finding true Justice...



You are a clever 2 Cents worth and more. This meager attempt was completely off the cuff and just some fun on my part. I laughed a lot as I read your post and the visuals were very good ... painted by your funny and poignant words.. :thumbup:

Monday will be interesting. It has been almost as hard waiting these two weeks as it was the year it took for the re trial to begin....:rolleyes:

I especially enjoyed the "whoever else I could afford"...that there is the ticket to the defense in this case....not always a good one either...

Thank You again for your good words...

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

[kennedy06]

:thumbsup: What else can I say! Thank you for sharing your talent my2cents.:smile:

I went to check up on my facts about Dr. P before posting and see Trials & Tribs has a refresher post on what we can expect when court resumes.

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

I wonder how much of the psychological autopsy and this suicideologist DW was/is/maybe counting on for the major part of his defense of PS?

[dgfred]

I feel like maybe Phil did make a big mistake (accident) and probably wishes now he had admitted it in the beginning. Too many times this same scenario had played out, the only difference being the actual pulling of the trigger. Maybe she tried to push the gun or him away, and the gun went off or something of that nature. I really don't think she commited suicide, only it was a terrible accident.

[Jayne]

Gosh..wish I could go there to see the trial.

I have a feeling...no premonitions..no gypsy in me...I see PS going down..and DW has more money to make on appeals...for PS. I also see them getting the state to allow bail to keep him out on appeal..why? Because I no longer trust the system. But Weinberg is running a thin line here with appeals..but it will buy PS a few more months/years.

I'd like to see his wife..reprimanded, legally, for that ridiculous camera, photos, etc. Sprocket didn't deserve that..no way.

If this was an accident..then he needs to take the stand and say so...he should do that..albeit..many years too late..but just do it. What kind of life is he going to have for the rest of his years? I guess the same he has had. Catered to..has LE or a PI in his pocket?

I will not be surprised if this turns out to be another hung jury, but I do not see an aquittal. Questions unanswered. A family left with no answers or finalization to this case. I may be entirely wrong, but I think the defense is preparing for a "conviction" that they can appeal..on grounds they are sneaky about..getting them in here and there.

jmo

J

[Spectorfan8]

I feel that this trial will end in a hung jury. No, it isn't a win for anyone. I"m not sure that there would be another trial, probably not.

[dref99]

I feel like maybe Phil did make a big mistake (accident) and probably wishes now he had admitted it in the beginning. Too many times this same scenario had played out, the only difference being the actual pulling of the trigger. Maybe she tried to push the gun or him away, and the gun went off or something of that nature. I really don't think she commited suicide, only it was a terrible accident.

From his own words - he once said "the gun went off accidentally", but as he became more aggressive with LE, he changed his words, initially saying and describing how she killed herself and then getting to the level of describing someone who "just blows her ........ head off in my ..... house"
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

(link is to documents in PS case - down at present)

I have always thought Robert Shapiro suggested he plead, but by then PS had decided the suicide defense.

The prosecution, with which I agree, says it is murder because it was Phil's gun, he produced it - which even if it went off accidentally is murder under the California definition of same.

Some folks think manslaughter should be an option for the jury, I think it has been stated this will be discussed (as in trial I) at the time jury instructions are determined.

jmo

Edit: I agree with Jayne, the current file seems to be based on finding means to appeal, at least during the prosecution stage. I am interested to know if an appeal would keep him out on bail? From what I have read, it seems possible

[dref99]

I feel that this trial will end in a hung jury. No, it isn't a win for anyone. I"m not sure that there would be another trial, probably not.

I think the rules say a maximum of 3 trials, but could California afford this? Everyone except the lawyers would be out of funds.

Lana's mother still has a case pending against PS which is waiting for the conclusion of the criminal case.

[Jayne]

that is the problem dref...clarksons have to wait..

third trial..sure...lawyers out of funds? well....I'd say so..the state can only afford so many prosecutions..it isn't all about Phil Spector (and I am not being Curt here)...

bail...Yes..under certain circumstances, he could get it while on appeal...and no doubt would...that's my faith in the system...and this is...I hate to even reduce it to this..but it isn't a child molestation murder..it isn't Charlie Manson. Oh..indeed it is downright horrible but the courts take into consideration a lot of things, including risk of flight. Where the heck is PS going to fly off to? Anywhere I suppose..but think he'd ever leave his Castle? He'd be sitting pretty in pink (or burgandy) to be let out on bail awaiting an appeal...But..But..ONE gun in his possession or nearby..he's dead meat..he'd need Shapiro or Cutler babysitting him at that point..Not Weinberg. And, certainly not his wife..she has enough to worry about...or so I'd think.

I've posted the Ca law here before...just look under "legalinfo"...CA..you'll come up with the statutes...laws, regs, etc.

Clarksons wouldn't see that money for a looonnng time..held up in bail.

And I just think they want closure...money is nice...but closure..can burn money but can't burn peace of mind.

[GPSpector]

Welcome back everyone.

[dref99]

Welcome back everyone.

Hi GP
welcome back to you too - I like this board cause things don't go too fast :smile: - not like PS 1 when I could never keep up.

Hi Jayne

I did read your earlier links, which is why I think PS will get bail if an appeal is lodged. Given JF being so particular to avoid an appeal, I doubt one will be successful, but it will perhaps keep PS free for a little longer.

jmo

[Jayne]

I wonder if Phil received one of these for Christmas. :unsure:

http://gspence1173.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/the-chia-spect/

holy cow...what photoshop can do, huh?

I wouldn't downgrade him or make fun of him...and I know most of "us" don't..not really..but a small "yoke" like this is a bit of levity. Gosh...I have joked about myself..on a very bad hair day, looking like the "witch" from Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves...at least I get people to "laugh"..and unfortunately, on an occasion or two..it was pretty close. I'd wager even Phil himself gets a chuckle out of his "choice" of hairdo. He's a unique one and certainly makes a statement. Gotta give him credit for that - he has never really "gone with the flow" - something I must say I do "admire"...as long as that flow doesn't hurt anybody else. I'd imagine..if he's seen this..he is "laughing" at himself too. Probably not Chelle...Something makes me think..and it's just a bit crazy I suppose, but I think Chelle does her "own thing"..sometimes with PS's approval or maybe even prodding her on, but maybe not all the time, and if he "dumped" her at this point in his "trials and tribulations" it just wouldn't come out "right". Could be wrong, indeed...

jmo

J

jmo

J

[That_Girl]

should we start a new thread for the new year? :cool:

Oh..please..let's do!

[Spectorfan8]

Hey, let's wait until court picks back up. Then we can start all new.

Nice to see you guys, this year.:laugh: