Feb. 2 thru Feb.23

[wasapi]

How pathetically wrong and petty your remark was. Does not deserve to be quoted here or anywhere...ever :glare:



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


Tartangirl. Thank you. I understand that it was baiting, but you handled it in a far more dignified way then I would have.

[Anakerie]

How pathetically wrong and petty your remark was. Does not deserve to be quoted here or anywhere...ever :glare:



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


Thank you for saying what needed to be said about that post. Your words were much better than what went through my mind when I read it.

[True2Blues]

How pathetically wrong and petty your remark was. Does not deserve to be quoted here or anywhere...ever :glare:



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


You're absolutely right TG, but it gets thrown out there every once in a while anyway.

[Rickshere911]

but when you kill yourself in a music producer's castle to make yourself famous, a gunshot in the mouth is a fair choice. jmo


Rachelle Spector would say

[penguin01]

Tartangirl. Thank you. I understand that it was baiting, but you handled it in a far more dignified way then I would have.

Really - thanks from alot of us - you saved us from being banned or given a time-out by handling that quickly and correctly for us:beer:

[Jayne]

I'm SO confused...

What is going on? No offense..but I just can't seem to read through all these posts and get a real handle of the "issues".

I'm runnin' on empty! SP8 has Never been caustic to anyone...either side...so I'm at a loss here to understand some of what I'm trying to sift through.

please update me..in plain english..if someone will. Two days absent and I'm lost!

thanks...J

[My 2 Cents]

I'm SO confused...

What is going on? No offense..but I just can't seem to read through all these posts and get a real handle of the "issues".

I'm runnin' on empty! SP8 has Never been caustic to anyone...either side...so I'm at a loss here to understand some of what I'm trying to sift through.

please update me..in plain english..if someone will. Two days absent and I'm lost!

thanks...J

Hi Jayne - I just logged in myself. I believe the remarks have absolutely nothing to do with SF8. I believe they may be directed at post 322 .

[Anakerie]

Hi Jayne - I just logged in myself. I believe the remarks have absolutely nothing to do with SF8. I believe they may be directed at post 322 .

As for my post quoting and thanking Tartangirl, you are correct. Post 322 was what I was referring to.

[My 2 Cents]

"T&T" has the update of Monday's testimony posted.

Ricardo, Juror 9 was in the courtroom gallery Monday to listen to Dr. Spitz's testimony. (Wouldn't that be great if Juror 9 returns to this forum and shares some of his feedback about yesterday's courtroom proceedings?) :thumbsup:

I am amazed at the continuous efforts by Weinberg to view the California Discovery Laws as mere "suggestions" for the defense. IMO, Weinberg seems like a "brat", who "doesn't play well with others".

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


Joe Friday has an update too, but it is very, very brief.

[kennedy06]

To do such a thing to become famous?I think there are women that would do and say things on behalf of men that have some form of celebrity to make themsevles feel more important. Look at the reality shows on tv and other things. Men if they had no fame and looked the same, the same women wouldn't even say hello to those men in the grocery store, or would just look the other way if they saw them laying in the gutter.

I don't think PS had that type of real social appeal, notariety among the general population today to be used to become famous off of. It is a ridiculous notion at best. I think even PS would roll his eyes at that suggestion.:rolleyes:

I can't believe DW tried to bring up the OJ and JBR cases into this trial.

[hiitsme]

Oh my! Dr. Spitz' testimony went from bad to worse for the defense. I do not believe for one minute that he took into account the PBA evidence or any other opinion that did not coincide with his. It almost seems as if he has forgotten what his testimony was in PS1. Sad, in a way.

[My 2 Cents]

Hi Jayne - I just logged in myself. I believe the remarks have absolutely nothing to do with SF8. I believe they may be directed at post 322 .

Jayne - Don't want YOU or OTHER POSTERS to think "I've lost it". The post 322 I referenced, has apparently been deleted (so reading post 322 NOW will be even more confusing), and the poster it appears, may have been banned.

[My 2 Cents]

I am eager to hear from this witness because I believe in PS1 he was brought in "last minute" to fill part of the gap left by Dr Henry Lee not testifying. He may have taken the stand a 2nd time, I can't recall for sure - - but the 1st time he testified he had NOT actually seen any of the physical evidence in person (like the jacket, dress, gun).

He was the witness, I believe, that stated on the stand, during DIRECT, that he was surprised and confused that there wasn't any blood found or detected UNDER the area where the gun was discovered. He said that there should have been blood on the carpet in that spot. On redirect, after AJ asked Pex if he still would have expected to find this if the gun had been wiped down - Pex said, No. - - - I don't think Pex will likely make that mistake in PS2, bringing that up again. At least not on DIRECT.

But he may be one of the few witnesses in PS2 that provides somewhat "new" testimony. Since he was brought in so late during PS1, and I am assuming that he has now had more time to personally exam the physical evidence and conduct experiments for the defense. (It's just unfortunate that the state hasn't had a chance to review this information, since it was just recently provided to them. I am also curious if the "photos" of the experiments that Pex did NOT bring with him and DW did NOT provide to AJ, will make a difference to the testimony.)

[penguin01]

If it was fame she was after,don't you think she wold have shot P.S.? Ever heard of Mark Chapman?

Just pointing out the stupidity of your post.
Just a suggestion: its best to make your comment without quoting the "baiting" post and thereby keeping it alive. That poster has been banned.

[penguin01]

Oh my! Dr. Spitz' testimony went from bad to worse for the defense. I do not believe for one minute that he took into account the PBA evidence or any other opinion that did not coincide with his. It almost seems as if he has forgotten what his testimony was in PS1. Sad, in a way.
I thought the funniest thing was that AJ couldn't get a simple "yes" out of this Dr. - but the judge could when asking the very same question. It really is sad - and a waste of the jury's time. I doubt they will want to consider anything he had to say. And they must be sick to death of Weinberg at this point.

[hiitsme]

I am eager to hear from this witness because I believe in PS1 he was brought in "last minute" to fill part of the gap left by Dr Henry Lee not testifying. He may have taken the stand a 2nd time, I can't recall for sure - - but the 1st time he testified he had NOT actually seen any of the physical evidence in person (like the jacket, dress, gun).

He was the witness, I believe, that stated on the stand, during DIRECT, that he was surprised and confused that there wasn't any blood found or detected UNDER the area where the gun was discovered. He said that there should have been blood on the carpet in that spot. On redirect, after AJ asked Pex if he still would have expected to find this if the gun had been wiped down - Pex said, No. - - - I don't think Pex will likely make that mistake in PS2, bringing that up again. At least not on DIRECT.

But he may be one of the few witnesses in PS2 that provides somewhat "new" testimony. Since he was brought in so late during PS1, and I am assuming that he has now had more time to personally exam the physical evidence and conduct experiments for the defense. (It's just unfortunate that the state hasn't had a chance to review this information, since it was just recently provided to them. I am also curious if the "photos" of the experiments that Pex did NOT bring with him and DW did NOT provide to AJ, will make a difference to the testimony.)

Did you notice yesterday, (T& T notes) and ( without the jury), Mr. Pex stated that he consulted a print expert who does not think that the gun had been wiped? Very interesting considering what you recall Pex saying about the blood on the floor in PS1 when asked by AJ. How these experts can say with a straight face that they are not being led by the nose is beyond me.

[dref99]

Did you notice yesterday, (T& T notes) and ( without the jury), Mr. Pex stated that he consulted a print expert who does not think that the gun had been wiped? Very interesting considering what you recall Pex saying about the blood on the floor in PS1 when asked by AJ. How these experts can say with a straight face that they are not being led by the nose is beyond me.

I noticed that as well hiitsme - it seems he learned well from the questions he was asked in the first trial and went out to find some rebuttal for the second trial, or else Mr Weinberg has studied the original transcript very very well - which of course he should be doing to best serve his client. I wonder shall we see the print expert as a witness?

It seems the defense is doing all they can to make sure the prosecution doesn't have time to check the validity or otherwise of some of the "expert" opinion and experimentation. It seems alot of PS money was spent in producing PP presentaions for "training" purposes ??

jmo

[True2Blues]

To do such a thing to become famous?I think there are women that would do and say things on behalf of men that have some form of celebrity to make themsevles feel more important. Look at the reality shows on tv and other things. Men if they had no fame and looked the same, the same women wouldn't even say hello to those men in the grocery store, or would just look the other way if they saw them laying in the gutter.

I don't think PS had that type of real social appeal, notariety among the general population today to be used to become famous off of. It is a ridiculous notion at best. I think even PS would roll his eyes at that suggestion.:rolleyes:

I can't believe DW tried to bring up the OJ and JBR cases into this trial.


Not to mention that there's no point in "Fame" if you're not around to enjoy it. You'd have to be an idiot to kill yourself in order to gain notoriety, and I don't see Lana that way at all. If it was nothing more than a blip on the publicity radar, there would be no second chance.

I agree about PS's appeal as well. I didn't know who he was when it happened, and I didn't care when I found out. He's been old news for many years.

As for DW, I think he'll bring up anything and everything. He just seems that type to me.

[True2Blues]

I liked that AJ had to count to 10 to keep his composure (when questioning Spitz). :thumbsup:

I can believe that! When he testified last trial he drove me nuts, and I was just watching.

[RayStar]

Jayne - Don't want YOU or OTHER POSTERS to think "I've lost it". The post 322 I referenced, has apparently been deleted (so reading post 322 NOW will be even more confusing), and the poster it appears, may have been banned.

I think the deletion was correct. Don't worry the good posters will figure it out. Now, Dr. Spitz was according to the recap was just so confused. I still wonder why the defense used him. Since he worked here in my city so long I really feel sorry for him. The recap of James Pex should be a good read. How many witnesses is the defense planning on calling?

[hiitsme]

Do you really think that Mr PS would want to save his money for the Civil Case??

NO, but if he had a conscience and any type of love and concern for his family and children that he basically abandoned, he'd think of what he could do for them before he goes to the Big House. He will spend his last dime on himself. What a guy!

[vonna]

NO, but if he had a conscience and any type of love and concern for his family and children that he basically abandoned, he'd think of what he could do for them before he goes to the Big House. He will spend his last dime on himself. What a guy!

Nobody could never accuse PS of having any concern for his family!!

[Jayne]

I liked that AJ had to count to 10 to keep his composure (when questioning Spitz). :thumbsup:

That's the "unwritten rule"..or at least in my experience...like "counting to ten" before saying something stupid? Thank goodness most of us have 5 fingers on each hand (or foot)..It Helps! It Does!

I trained with an excellent lawyer..long before..well long before I did what I did. She was amazing. You know how the squeaky wheel gets the grease? Well her motto was..the silence..well placed..and the "soft voice" gets the attention of the judge and/or jury. She was right. IMO She's a judge now..and a good one. And..she always said "count to ten"!

Rather comforting and somewhat amusing to read this post.

jmo

j

[My 2 Cents]

Did you notice yesterday, (T& T notes) and ( without the jury), Mr. Pex stated that he consulted a print expert who does not think that the gun had been wiped? Very interesting considering what you recall Pex saying about the blood on the floor in PS1 when asked by AJ. How these experts can say with a straight face that they are not being led by the nose is beyond me.

I just looked at James Pex's Business/Consulting website and under one of his areas of expertise is the heading: FORENSIC BIOLOGY

Here, Mr Pex states that biological fluids, such as BLOOD can be difficult to see, especially on dark objects. It then states, the use of chemical testing such as LUMINOL, may help locate these fluids.

I found this interesting because in PS1, this is the witness who criticized the state for using Luminol to locate blood on the carpet. (the dark red carpet - by the way) He said the state should have cut out the carpet and brought it into the lab for examining under a special microscope. - - - H-m-m, I wonder why he speaks so highly of using Luminol on his own website? . . . AND how would that even work? Ripe up the entire carpet (or) just large patches/squares? If large squares, do you only pick areas where you SEE blood or where you hope you might find blood. I can't see this being a very good solution. But then my knowledge of blood is pretty much limited to . . . "It is red".

[Jayne]

[QUOTE=My 2 Cents;12766764<snipped">


But then my knowledge of blood is pretty much limited to . . . "It is red".[/QUOTE]

NO..it's BLUE!

for godsakes...you know as I do...

jmo

J

sorry.please CW.don't ban me...but it is appropriate and a bit of an Old English "thing"..

[Spectorfan8]

Well, it's blue before it gets mixed with Oxygen and Oxidizes causing it to turn Red due to the high Iron content :wink: :tonguewag:

I'm just happy our blood has Iron and not Copper, or it would turn Green and that would just look Vulcan :wink:

How did I know that you would choose Vulcan blood??LOL

[Kara]

When is his this trial going to come to a close? Seems like it has been going on forever.I think it has been. They are trying to make sure Phil dies of old age before a verdict is returned.

jmo

[sdg380]

In her blog, Sprocket expressed what I perceived to be dismay in the Judge's apparent deference to the highly questionable tactics of the defense (tactics, I should add, that would never be tolerated from prosecutors.)

However, IMO, I think the Judge is acting to the extent possible to deny the defense any plausible basis for a successful appeal, including the possibility of yet a further trial.

All indications are that Judge Fidler is a very able jurist, who has taken great pains to be even-handed and fair, and afford PS every opportunity for a fair trial. Of course, I believe that the Judge is quite intellgient and very experienced, and he has no doubt whatsoever that PS is guilty as sin--after all, he's had the front row seat, and this guy has no trouble distinguishing between geniune issues of fact and complete sophistry (for example, I'm sure he thought Henry Lee was a complete charlatan, but found the PBA witnesses and the driver to be quite credible.)

Having already spent untold millions on these trials (funded by all of us) as PS delays, delays, delays, and seeks to obfuscate the truth, I think Judge Fidler is going to do his level best to prevent a successful appeal--an appeal he knows is inevitable because he feels confident that the jury will return a guilty verdict. If fact, I think he was most highly chagrined by the outcome of PS1, since it was undoubtedly clear to him that PS brutally murdered that poor woman. After all, I understand that the Judge was previously a defense attorney, and I'm sure he has a highly developed BS meter.

So Sprocket, no need to be distressed, Judge Fidler is undoubtedly sick to death of this vast waste of resourses because PS doesn't have the guts to take responsibility for his actions, but I think the Judge has certain objectives in mind that will eventually result in what I call an approximation of justice--after all, Lana is gone forever solely because of the despicable bully PS.

JMO

[My 2 Cents]

RE: Testimony by Pex on TUESDAY (held outside the ears of the jury)

How unjust it seems that AJ has to "go to bat" with one hand tied around his back. Again - - doesn't seem like there's a fair playing field. The defense seems to receive quite a bit more leeway with the rules.

Very interesting observation with regards to Weinberg possibly "signaling" to the witness on the stand who's being questioned by AJ.

RE: Fountain - -

Well wouldn't that be a HOOT if Rachelle took the stand (to testify about the fountain being the same as it was 6 years ago). Ha, ha . . . I'd camp out to see that exchange take place! And that certainly would fill the courtroom. AJ and Rachelle going at it. And as much as I'd like to see that, my advice to you Rachelle, would be . . . . . "Don't Go".

Unfortunately, that entertainment will NEVER take place, as DW wouldn't be worth a plug nickle if he allowed that to ever happen.

[My 2 Cents]

sdg380 - - - Great Post and very good points.

[Dave]

Earlier, a penguin said that the jury must be sick to death of Weinberg at this point. I would think that it was quite early in this trial when they crossed that bridge.

It's possible that Judge Fidler may be being extremely cautious in his rulings partly with an eye toward providing the defense with a minimal number of straws to grasp at in a post-conviction appeal.

[kennedy06]

I didn't realize JF was once a Defense attorney.

I had to kind of chuckle at the.... at the bar in the Sheraton. I bet that was an interesting meeting. To be a fly on the wall type interesting.

What about this financially strained part? Is there a set limit the defense can spend on a case??? I mean if you spent that much already on a defense, what is a few extra dollars? :huh:

[wasapi]

"financially strained " only goes to my point I made before. I really do not think there will be anything left for the Clarkson's and I believe, that was the intent all along :sad:

Yes, but what about future royalties? Couldn't the Clarkson's - if they win the civil case - attach future earnings? I have no idea what percent of PS's yearly income comes from royalties, but it must account for some I would assume?

[tartangirl]

I just found this really good article about the fabulous and wonderfully talented Dominick Dunne...:wub:

He was a big part of PS1 and is following this trial too, just not the same way. Dominick is feeling chipper despite his bout with bladder cancer. That news just makes me happy.

Gee I wish we had him to tell us all about what goes on in that courtroom each day now for PS2. For me, he just makes words come alive and jump off the page.....:rolleyes:

It is a good read. Our link thread is gone ...the author was banned I think. The old trial link is locked so here is where it will stay until otherwise moved by someone who decides it should be. :closedeyes:


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/dvd/article5709996.ece


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

[Spectorfan8]

I just found this really good article about the fabulous and wonderfully talented Dominick Dunne...:wub:

He was a big part of PS1 and is following this trial too, just not the same way. Dominick is feeling chipper despite his bout with bladder cancer. That news just makes me happy.

Gee I wish we had him to tell us all about what goes on in that courtroom each day now for PS2. For me, he just makes words come alive and jump off the page.....:rolleyes:

It is a good read. Our link thread is gone ...the author was banned I think. The old trial link is locked so here is where it will stay until otherwise moved by someone who decides it should be. :closedeyes:


http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/dvd/article5709996.ece


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


That was a good article...and there was a small surprise.

[dref99]

RE: Testimony by Pex on TUESDAY (held outside the ears of the jury)

How unjust it seems that AJ has to "go to bat" with one hand tied around his back. Again - - doesn't seem like there's a fair playing field. The defense seems to receive quite a bit more leeway with the rules.

Very interesting observation with regards to Weinberg possibly "signaling" to the witness on the stand who's being questioned by AJ.

RE: Fountain - -

Well wouldn't that be a HOOT if Rachelle took the stand (to testify about the fountain being the same as it was 6 years ago). Ha, ha . . . I'd camp out to see that exchange take place! And that certainly would fill the courtroom. AJ and Rachelle going at it. And as much as I'd like to see that, my advice to you Rachelle, would be . . . . . "Don't Go".

Unfortunately, that entertainment will NEVER take place, as DW wouldn't be worth a plug nickle if he allowed that to ever happen.

I think AJ can hold his own, his understanding of the Science I find amazing! - and apart from reasons given, findings against the defense could well delay proceedings - which no-one wants. AJ was given the option for more time to prepare his cross, if I read the blog correctly. Sprocket has a small update in her comments in reply to other comments (and a little more on today)

It would certainly bring the MSM to court if Rachelle were to talk about the fountain - which is somewhat of a sad reflection on the dwindling importance of the MSM and what they like to report. I would love to read your report on such an event - you certainly have a flair for describing the scene.

jmo

[Jayne]

Yes, but what about future royalties? Couldn't the Clarkson's - if they win the civil case - attach future earnings? I have no idea what percent of PS's yearly income comes from royalties, but it must account for some I would assume?

I don't know, but it would seem reasonable. As long as he's still alive those belong to "him". I wish I knew more about royalties and the plausible amounts he is due on an annual basis, but I would guess, as you do, that it is fairly substantial, and that perhaps a judgment through court could "attach them" at least until the judgment amount is satisfied, if not satisfied outside/elsewhere. Forced 'sales' to satisfy judgments, etc. might be possibilities too. I can't respond with any solid reliable information - just guesses. I have seen liens and attachments and forced sales to satisfy judgments - it all depends on each individual situation.

That IS what his career was based on..was making money off of his productions - or so I would think. His monies, that he does have, may well be tied up in some kind of trusts, mutual funds, who knows? My guess is that PS was, and no doubt still is, rather money savvy. Someone who tipped like he has but is "cheap" with his employees, etc. knew how to make his dollars work to his benefit, imo. Unfortunately, I've known some people who live "high off the hog" from their earnings but pay their employees miniscule wages, no benefits, and no real "job security". I do believe that is how many people "get rich" or "stay rich". Sometimes, I often think it is "smokes and mirrors" however..so perhaps PS didn't have much liquidity of his assets.

jmo

j

[Jayne]

I think AJ can hold his own, his understanding of the Science I find amazing! - and apart from reasons given, findings against the defense could well delay proceedings - which no-one wants. AJ was given the option for more time to prepare his cross, if I read the blog correctly. Sprocket has a small update in her comments in reply to other comments (and a little more on today)

It would certainly bring the MSM to court if Rachelle were to talk about the fountain - which is somewhat of a sad reflection on the dwindling importance of the MSM and what they like to report. I would love to read your report on such an event - you certainly have a flair for describing the scene.

jmo

Oh, I do agree..about AJ's capabilities, etc. But, considering in PS1, there were a few moments when he was "boiling under the collar" (my interpretation, only), I wonder if it wouldn't be more entertaining to see his co-hort be the one to "cat fight" with Rachelle on the stand. I think she'd be shocked and a bit "off-set" if she was expecting AJ to do it..and Truc do stood up to hold the reins.

As for DW "not allowing" her to take the stand - it would depend on that "spousal privilege"..., plus he's not her attorney..he's PS's attorney. I'm sure he'd make sure she had an independent attorney at that point, if it happens. I don't remember if they were married back then...but if they weren't..it would take some dancing around the evidence code, etc. And, IIRC, it's mostly about communications between spouses..not between the fountain installer and she..or her observations..since the construction or condition of the fountain is not about PS..it's about the fountain..YET..and I can see him arguing this..it has to deal with communications between she and PS during their marriage that would be restricted/privileged. Interesting "stuff", huh?

don't mean to confuse...as I'm confused enough already..just throwing about the little I 'know'.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

WHOA!!!!! Just peeked over at the T&T blog. It's just a quick FYI by sprocket re: TODAY . . . But apparently, during CROSS, AJ accuses Pex of PERJURY. After CROSS, Fidler has PEX leave the court room for a hearing - after he returns, Fidler advise Pex of his rights!

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

[kennedy06]

Oh my gosh, these defense expert witnesses are just getting slammed by this case IMO. I hope the money they earned was worth it. Wow 2 down so far, through their own words. Like I said would have like to have been a fly at that bar in the Sheraton!

[dref99]

WHOA!!!!! Just peeked over at the T&T blog. It's just a quick FYI by sprocket re: TODAY . . . But apparently, during CROSS, AJ accuses Pex of PERJURY. After CROSS, Fidler has PEX leave the court room for a hearing - after he returns, Fidler advise Pex of his rights!

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

Must be the scoop of the trial - and where was the MSM? Direct link to that post

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-jackson-accuses.html

It would seem AJ well held his own working overnight

jmo

[penguin01]

Tim Teeman is obviously a fan (as am I) and he writes very well himself, doesn't he?

About a civil judgement: I imagine PS has taken steps to disappear both his current and future money. He could even have signed away the rights to his productions including the royalties to someone or some other entity .... to Rachelle, God forbid? And wow on the court proceedings today - can't wait to hear about the rest of the story tomorrow!

[Jayne]

Tim Teeman is obviously a fan (as am I) and he writes very well himself, doesn't he?

About a civil judgement: I imagine PS has taken steps to disappear both his current and future money. He could even have signed away the rights to his productions including the royalties to someone or some other entity .... to Rachelle, God forbid? And wow on the court proceedings today - can't wait to hear about the rest of the story tomorrow!


I agree and perhaps he did, but I do think there are regulations or laws or such that look "back" to when they were signed over..if signed over in order to "escape" bankruptcy proceedings, judgments, etc. they may be overturned and not honoured. I'm not sure...but I do think so..like transfers to attempt to escape creditors, taxes, etc.

Yep..I hope to read about tomorrow, as well.

Penguin...gosh it makes me think about Danny DeVito..in Batman! I'm sure there is no connection..and it isn't derogatory at all.

jmo

J

PS..I happen to like penguins..resilient...family oriented..loyal..

[My 2 Cents]

RE: James Pex

So Pex really was trying to "hint" to Weinberg that he better take a look at that CD before he handed over to the state. Thank Goodness Fidler didn't let them. It also explains the "doe in headlights" expression on Tran Smith's face when Weinberg reeled him in, to help keep DW out of hot water for discovery violations.

Here's what I hope . . . "Whineberg" (I am "borrowing" this term/name from a clever, anonymous reader who posted it on the "T&T" blog) gets "thrown under the bus" by both Pex and Tran Smith. Weinberg put them in a horrible position. AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PERJURING THEMSELVES UNDER OATH. :thumbdown: But DW's role in all of this needs to be addressed by Judge Fidler as well. IMO.

[tartangirl]

Tim Teeman is obviously a fan (as am I) and he writes very well himself, doesn't he?

About a civil judgment: I imagine PS has taken steps to disappear both his current and future money. He could even have signed away the rights to his productions including the royalties to someone or some other entity .... to Rachelle, God forbid? And wow on the court proceedings today - can't wait to hear about the rest of the story tomorrow!

Oh penguin, count me in with the other millions of fans for the good Dominick Dunne. :rolleyes: I did like the writer, Tim Teeman, he had a nice easy sit down and talk to me style that made me want to read more.

HPS can not hide. His money, hmmm maybe so there. The talk of the looking glass in the courtroom recently, reminds me of the Al Franken skit from SNL....Stuart Smalley telling himself looking in the mirror speaking in one of his affirmations..."People like me" :rolleyes:

Wow is right....GO AJ

Thank You Alan Jackson for all that you do for Lana and in the name of Justice.

More truly great trial law that we all missed.

It will all be worth it when HPS is found guilty. Oh how I miss seeing this trial...:glare:


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

[Anakerie]

Must be the scoop of the trial - and where was the MSM? Direct link to that post

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-jackson-accuses.html

It would seem AJ well held his own working overnight

jmo

It would seem AJ was doing his homework with that all-nighter! It seems to have shaken Phil as well... A quote from a comment by Sprocket on that blog entry:
An observer in the courtroom noticed that when Pex was accused of falsifying experiments for the jury, and everyone in the courtroom was in shock, Spector's hands started to visibly shake faster.

I can hardly wait to read the rest of the story!

[Anakerie]

Today in court was just impressive, mind-blowing and what going to court is all about. It was like watching an episode of Columbo. A.J. lead Pex in for the kill and then, without warning, strikes straight for the jugular. I was not in court yesterday but from what I gather picture’s that Pex used to demonstrate a possible scenario were used. He stated that he took some pictures of him using a Cobra identical to the Cobra used Feb 3rd 2003. The pictures depict blood spatter on both the ring finger and indexes finger. He stated that the pictures HE took of HIM using the Cobra were only meant to educate D.W. on possible scenarios of how the gun was held. The four picture that Pex took showed just how blood splatter would look after using a Cobra. However, after A.J. repeatedly ask him about HIS/Pex’s pictures that HE took on a specific date, it is discovered, as A.J. put up four other pictures taken much earlier of a demonstration using a different make revolver and not a Cobra, that the pictures are in fact the same exact pictures. Yes, Pex lied about taken the pictures and in fact just reused old pictures and changed the dates and said it was a demonstration using the Cobra when in fact, it was not. Also, it was a demonstration meant only to educate D.W. and not to be used in court but because it was used in court, it’s called “discovery testimony” (or something like that) and that’s a no-no. Anyway, A.J. brought up perjury and Pex’s was without words. He just sat there with a nervous smile and Fidler did the only thing he could...He called for a brake. During the braked A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used. The demonstration is only what would happen when a gun is used not what type of gun. Yet Pex said in open curt of front of the jury that he took the pictures and a Cobra was used. Man, you guys should have been there. People were falling out of there seats, falling from the bleachers, jumping up and down, jews were dropped, people fainted...well, I exaggerate but you get the picture.

Thank you, Claudius, for giving us a glimpse inside that courtroom! From what you and Sprocket have said, it would seem that Pex really is an "expert for hire"....

[My 2 Cents]

THANKS CLAUDIUS for ALL the GREAT FEEDBACK. Realizing all this "action" took place on a Wednesday, I was truly hoping YOU were there and would come share some of it with us over here on InSession.

And just for the record . . . I use to LOVE watching Columbo too. :thumbup:

[Anakerie]

THANKS CLAUDIUS for ALL the GREAT FEEDBACK. Realizing all this "action" took place on a Wednesday, I was truly hoping YOU were there and would come share some of it with us over here on InSession.

And just for the record . . . I use to LOVE watching Columbo too. :thumbup:

LOL! I used to love watching Columbo too!

Is it tomorrow yet? :biggrin:

[Anakerie]

Furthermore, earlier on A.J. brought a 9 or 10 page report. The report was notes documenting what happened the morning of Feb 3rd 2003. The notes were written in order of who showed up and did what as they arrived into P.S. house. I forget who’s notes they were but it was just that persons observation of what happened that day. The first page had item # 2 then the next page had item #1 and #3 (Not all items were in order). Now I don’t know what item’s were what but let just say that Item #2 was the gun being inspected, item #1 was the blood on the door knob and so on. However, upon going over the pages it is discovered that one of the page numbers was missing. It seems D.W. left some vital information out, information that had Pex rethink his findings. it was the information of when the Gun was removed. It seems it was removed much earlier then Pex had thought. It was just a good day for A.J. and not such a good day for D.W.

Oh wow, Claudius! It sounds very much like it wasn't DW's day today.... The stack of papers were part of the defense stuff??

[True2Blues]

Today in court was just impressive, mind-blowing and what going to court is all about. It was like watching an episode of Columbo. A.J. lead Pex in for the kill and then, without warning, strikes straight for the jugular. I was not in court yesterday but from what I gather picture’s that Pex used to demonstrate a possible scenario were used. He stated that he took some pictures of him using a Cobra identical to the Cobra used Feb 3rd 2003. The pictures depict blood spatter on both the ring finger and indexes finger. He stated that the pictures HE took of HIM using the Cobra were only meant to educate D.W. on possible scenarios of how the gun was held. The four picture that Pex took showed just how blood splatter would look after using a Cobra. However, after A.J. repeatedly ask him about HIS/Pex’s pictures that HE took on a specific date, it is discovered, as A.J. put up four other pictures taken much earlier of a demonstration using a different make revolver and not a Cobra, that the pictures are in fact the same exact pictures. Yes, Pex lied about taken the pictures and in fact just reused old pictures and changed the dates and said it was a demonstration using the Cobra when in fact, it was not. Also, it was a demonstration meant only to educate D.W. and not to be used in court but because it was used in court, it’s called “discovery testimony” (or something like that) and that’s a no-no. Anyway, A.J. brought up perjury and Pex’s was without words. He just sat there with a nervous smile and Fidler did the only thing he could...He called for a brake. During the braked A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used. The demonstration is only what would happen when a gun is used not what type of gun. Yet Pex said in open curt of front of the jury that he took the pictures and a Cobra was used. Man, you guys should have been there. People were falling out of there seats, falling from the bleachers, jumping up and down, jews were dropped, people fainted...well, I exaggerate but you get the picture.


Does this mean DW will get reported for suborning perjury?

I suppose he can just claim he didn't know his 'expert' was lying.

[Jayne]

Furthermore, earlier on A.J. brought a 9 or 10 page report. The report was notes documenting what happened the morning of Feb 3rd 2003. The notes were written in order of who showed up and did what as they arrived into P.S. house. I forget who’s notes they were but it was just that persons observation of what happened that day. The first page had item # 2 then the next page had item #1 and #3 (Not all items were in order). Now I don’t know what item’s were what but let just say that Item #2 was the gun being inspected, item #1 was the blood on the door knob and so on. However, upon going over the pages it is discovered that one of the page numbers was missing. It seems D.W. left some vital information out, information that had Pex rethink his findings. it was the information of when the Gun was removed. It seems it was removed much earlier then Pex had thought. It was just a good day for A.J. and not such a good day for D.W.

gotta love those anal retentive prosecutors, don't ya! (no offense.it's actually a compliment)


jmo

j

[Jayne]

Both the prosecution and defense have the stack of paper each, however, it was the stack of paper given to Pex from D.W. that was missing a page, the page showing the time of which the gun was removed. It was when A.J. crossed Pex, that it was discovered that one page was missing. It was information not provided to Pex from the defense. Asked if this information would then change his testimony Pex said it might caused him to rethink it but not necessarily change it however I think the damage was done and the jury now knows information was withheld. Of course we didn’t blame Pex for this “discovery” we just assumed D.W. was trying to be cleaver and deceptive. Slouched in his chair you could see him shaking his head but it was latter when we learn about the photos that were missed labeled that Pex then lost his credibility while D.W. was not only shaking his head but also loosening hes tie as if it was getting hot in the room. He didn’t address the missing paper only the photos. I think we’ll learn more about the repercussion next week as it’s not over as of yet.


Well..now..if that is the case..I've been spending a lot of time doing professional and personal research on the Ca Bar Rules and Statutes (codes BPC)...and..if that is the case, I say again, DW has some "splainin" to do. Mind you..it wasn't in relation to this case, in particular, just "brushing up"..and let me tell you CA is very strict..yet very broad and very narrow (quite a conundrum, huh?)...

Problem..I see here..is PEX should have had the page from the getgo...so why was it missing? An expert is an expert..they don't get on the stand if they don't have all the information..unless they are a "puppet"?

I hate to even surmise that DW..with his reputation..would stoop that low to hide evidence. If he did..he'll never work again...I'd think..other than in a fast food place or just retire. I could see the shingle..PSBurgers (partly seared burgers...leaves a stain on your jacket)? reminds me of those other commercials..where the "slop" from the burger drips on everything..WHAT was what commercial??

jmo

J

[dref99]

Furthermore, earlier on A.J. brought a 9 or 10 page report. The report was notes documenting what happened the morning of Feb 3rd 2003. The notes were written in order of who showed up and did what as they arrived into P.S. house. I forget who’s notes they were but it was just that persons observation of what happened that day. The first page had item # 2 then the next page had item #1 and #3 (Not all items were in order). Now I don’t know what item’s were what but let just say that Item #2 was the gun being inspected, item #1 was the blood on the door knob and so on. However, upon going over the pages it is discovered that one of the page numbers was missing. It seems D.W. left some vital information out, information that had Pex rethink his findings. it was the information of when the Gun was removed. It seems it was removed much earlier then Pex had thought. It was just a good day for A.J. and not such a good day for D.W.

Claudius - thank you so much for sharing - it seems the experts have a few problems to resolve. It seems it is rather important to keep track of the paper work (& the computer work)

[nanouk]

Tim Teeman is obviously a fan (as am I) and he writes very well himself, doesn't he?

About a civil judgement: I imagine PS has taken steps to disappear both his current and future money. He could even have signed away the rights to his productions including the royalties to someone or some other entity .... to Rachelle, God forbid? And wow on the court proceedings today - can't wait to hear about the rest of the story tomorrow!

If I remember well, the ownership of musical productions can be sold and bought, as Michael Jackson did with a large collection of The Beatle's songs. He is the one who has been receiving royalties, whenever these songs are played. I also remember that he borrowed a large sum of money, with this collection as a guarantee, to finance the trials that were brought against him. Maybe this is what HPS did? He's had quite a few trials to finance himself lately...

TrueTV (and all other news organisations) is really missing some great trial moments, moments that should have been covered for history: all the fireworks (and confusion) coming from Spitz, the sinking of Pex and possibly Weinberg and, most important the incredible workmanship of one of the greatest prosecutors: Alan Jackson!!! What a show this must have been! I don't want to forget the great workwomanship of Truc Do... What a team! (And yes, Pat Dixon was quite a number too...).

Luckily, we have Sprocket to cover things for us... She has been doing an incredible job, attending the trial each and every day, rain or shine... Reading her is like attending the trial ourselves. By the way, where is Joe Friday? Haven't heard from him for a while... Thanks also for all the others who report bits and pieces for us!

JMO

Nanouk

[My 2 Cents]

I didn't realize JF was once a Defense attorney.

I had to kind of chuckle at the.... at the bar in the Sheraton. I bet that was an interesting meeting. To be a fly on the wall type interesting.

What about this financially strained part? Is there a set limit the defense can spend on a case??? I mean if you spent that much already on a defense, what is a few extra dollars? :huh:

I too was surprised to hear that Judge Fidler had been a Defense attorney. Here's a LINK to a PROFILE page for the Honorable Judge Larry Fidler.

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/judges/sup_la/fidler.htm

This interview was written (Gail Cox) in 3/2000, but there's a quote from Judge Fidler that seems relevant to what's happening in courtroom 106:

"If there is one thing a new attorney needs to know before coming before him, the judge says of the way he runs his court, "it is that I don't like game playing." . . . . . hmmm, wonder what he thinks about old & experienced attorneys?

At the very bottom of the article it also mentions that Fidler has only sanctioned attorneys TWICE (keep in mind that this was written in 2000) and has NEVER held an attorney in contempt.

[My 2 Cents]

Well, apparently Sprocket has turned into a bit of a “tease”. Proposing a question in the COMMENTS section of her T&T blog with regards to Wednesday’s fireworks.

She asks her readers:
(after AJ presents arguments to Fidler during the called break)
“Can any of you make an educated guess as to WHAT Weinberg said in his defense? Tune in tomorrow for the update!
”

I’m no lawyer, but that’s my definition of “cruel & unusual punishment”. (Oh, 1 or 2 more sentences would have been kind.) However, not wanting to “bite the hand that feeds me”, I understand it takes an enormous commitment and chunk of time to provide her readers with so much detail from the courtroom. Therefore, I will patiently wait and in the meantime I’ll take some “educated” guesses, as she has directed us to do:

No.1 would have to be - - - “Beam Me Up Scotty”
( I read once that this actually got a driver out of a speeding ticket from the CHP, so why not give it a shot.)

2. “The dog ate it” (however, this only helps with regards to the missing page, so it may not be DW’s best option for a defense)

3. Clicked his heels together and repeated the words, “There’s No Place Like Home, There’s No Place Like Home” (but watch out Weinberg - a house just might drop on your head)

. . . well, I’m all out of “educated” guesses. If I speculate anymore I’ll just start sounding silly.

[dref99]

Well, apparently Sprocket has turned into a bit of a “tease”. Proposing a question in the COMMENTS section of her T&T blog with regards to Wednesday’s fireworks.
“Can any of you make an educated guess as to WHAT Weinberg said in his defense?

...snipped for space - your thoughts are a great read ...

. . . well, I’m all out of “educated” guesses. If I speculate anymore I’ll just start sounding silly.

I think Claudius may have given us the answer a few posts back #377 unless something gets deleted

... A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used

I wonder if he added "It is what it is"?

jmo

[coinoutlet]

Will Spector be able to cause a delay in this trial by firing his legal team because of their actions? If they hurt his chances with the jury I could see him asking the court to allow him to change lawyers...esp if he was unaware of his lawyer setting up perjury.

[hiitsme]

I think Claudius may have given us the answer a few posts back #377 unless something gets deleted

... A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used

I wonder if he added "It is what it is."

jmo

It's looking like "It is what it is" will be Phil Spector's downfall. How DW can be so cavalier about this is really disturbing. To think he and his liar for hire experts would dare to pull the wool over one's eyes is beyond belief, especially after the Caplan and Baden incidents in PS1. I am all for a vigorous defense, but whatever happened to one's obligation to search for the truth?

[coinoutlet]

It would seem that his appeal chances would be great if he is convicted. He can now claim inefective counsel. IMO

[dref99]

It's looking like "It is what it is" will be Phil Spector's downfall. How DW can be so cavalier about this is really disturbing. To think he and his liar for hire experts would dare to pull the wool over one's eyes is beyond belief, especially after the Caplan and Baden incidents in PS1. I am all for a vigorous defense, but whatever happened to one's obligation to search for the truth?

In both trials things seem to have disintegrated when the defense started calling their "experts". Perhaps these experts and defense lawyers have never before dealt with a prosecutor who so clearly understood the "expert" evidence and would not be confused by smokescreens.

Suddenly the jury are not evaluating evidence, rather they are seeing experts discredited. More time is spent without the jury than with the jury. Items such as whether a fountain can run at variable speed and sound take the time of all parties. Discovery that should have been resolved months ago is still ongoing.

Does this in any way relate to the fact that the defense is suicide, yet there is so little evidence of suicide, it is better to have other things happening, so this lack of evidence may be missed.

Mistrials, appeals, removal of counsel (which I don't think will happen), fountains, discovery and perjury - discussion of all or any of these things (and more) puts the prosecution evidence further away (timewise) from the deliberations of the jury

jmo

[kennedy06]

Today in court was just impressive, mind-blowing and what going to court is all about. It was like watching an episode of Columbo. A.J. lead Pex in for the kill and then, without warning, strikes straight for the jugular. I was not in court yesterday but from what I gather picture’s that Pex used to demonstrate a possible scenario were used. He stated that he took some pictures of him using a Cobra identical to the Cobra used Feb 3rd 2003. The pictures depict blood spatter on both the ring finger and indexes finger. He stated that the pictures HE took of HIM using the Cobra were only meant to educate D.W. on possible scenarios of how the gun was held. The four picture that Pex took showed just how blood splatter would look after using a Cobra. However, after A.J. repeatedly ask him about HIS/Pex’s pictures that HE took on a specific date, it is discovered, as A.J. put up four other pictures taken much earlier of a demonstration using a different make revolver and not a Cobra, that the pictures are in fact the same exact pictures. Yes, Pex lied about taken the pictures and in fact just reused old pictures and changed the dates and said it was a demonstration using the Cobra when in fact, it was not. Also, it was a demonstration meant only to educate D.W. and not to be used in court but because it was used in court, it’s called “discovery testimony” (or something like that) and that’s a no-no. Anyway, A.J. brought up perjury and Pex’s was without words. He just sat there with a nervous smile and Fidler did the only thing he could...He called for a brake. During the braked A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used. The demonstration is only what would happen when a gun is used not what type of gun. Yet Pex said in open curt of front of the jury that he took the pictures and a Cobra was used. Man, you guys should have been there. People were falling out of there seats, falling from the bleachers, jumping up and down, jews were dropped, people fainted...well, I exaggerate but you get the picture.

Thank you, LOL I was trying to piece this altogether. Well duh, I'm no gun expert but even I would think the difference in the gun size, whatever and type of bullets used would make a difference in the amount of spatter or what size wound would be created.

In regards to your post about the pages, wow. So I don't mean to misunderstand my fellow posters but who did who in, in the end? Did DW mess Pex up, or did Pex mess DW up, or did DW mess Pexa and Tran or where they in on it all together! Yikes. Oh and the picture with the gun being held. The one with the blood on the forefinger and ring finger was that the picture of the gun being held, the one with the hand of Mrs. Px? The picture that T & T mentioned the fingernail polish matching that of Lana's that night/morning?

Thanks everyone!

[kennedy06]

Will Spector be able to cause a delay in this trial by firing his legal team because of their actions? If they hurt his chances with the jury I could see him asking the court to allow him to change lawyers...esp if he was unaware of his lawyer setting up perjury.

I would think he would be furious over this. It's like walking in a home run for the other team.

Hmmm I wonder what the tone of the calls were like last night concerning this day in court!:scared:
JMO

[sdg380]

I'm on record stating that Judge Fidler has taken great care to "appeal-proof" this trial, and I quite confident that he has no doubts that PS is guilty as sin--I mean, it's not exactly hard to figure out, given the over-whelming evidence.

But this latest stunt by DW (quite possibly orchestrated by none other than the "master producer" himself, PS--hardly seems impossible that he would hire somebody to perjure themselves so he can duck this murder rap), is cause for great concern that Judge Fidler will have no alternative but to declare another mistrial--which would be all but a complete victory for the despicable PS. Judge Fidler may have been put in the untenable position that this trial is forever tainted, and even if sanctioned by DW or PS (had to be one or the other, or both), he will have no choice but to declare a mistrial, no matter distasteful that would be to him. He knows this is a subversion of justice, but he may not have the leeway to steer around it. And if this happens, not only Lana, but all of us, will have been cheated in the most dreadful manner imaginable--after all, we all live here with the hope of "justice for all".

I hope that the Judge can manuever around this, but the little weasel PS, and his minions, may have once again pulled this off, and gotten away with murder.

JMO

[nanouk]

Is there any court today or is it dark?

Thanks

Nanouk

[coinoutlet]

Another mis-trial and 2 more years of freedom for Phil??:cursing:

[kennedy06]

I'm speechless, I had no idea what the possible ramifications could be from yesterday's events. There is never a dull moment with this case/trials that's for sure.

[sdg380]

Another mis-trial and 2 more years of freedom for Phil??:cursing:

At BEST--pressure will no doubt be brought to bear that the state cannot afford yet another costly trial, and he'll be home free. And the "master producer" will have, in fact, outfoxed us all and gotten away with murder. I am very sorry to say, stranger things have happened.

[tartangirl]

Your news in your last two posts
is so sad that I can not even bear to quote it here. The defendant has already lost this case and been found guilty in my eyes and those of many others here. :glare:

Remarkable work done by both Truc Do and the wonderful Alan Jackson while proving the defense negligent and more may pave the path for your possible outcome? I have to hope along with you that the Judge can work around this. This long week end will no doubt be consumed with thoughts of this case not only by us but of course by the major players. It truly takes my breath away to think the outcome could be a walk down that new path that leads to freedom for Harvey Phillip Spector....say it isn't so! :crying:


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

[My 2 Cents]

I predict it will take something a lot stronger & bigger than this before JF would ever consider a mistrial . . . and before Weinberg would let that happen as well. DW's reputation is very much on the line if a mistrial were to be declared due to "discovery violations" and "allegations of perjury" by defense witnesses. I believe AJ might tone down the "follow through" on his attack a notch too, if he thinks his arguments might detour the trial in the direction of a mistrial over this (because he definitely doesn't want that either). The only ones who would love to see a mistrial declared (based on these issues), are PS & RS . . and I'm not even 100% sure about RS.

An attorney of Weinberg's caliber is going to be prepared for major damage control today and whether Pex goes down for this or not, DW is not about to tarnish his extremely successful career over the likes of one Phil Spector. (Look at the Henry Lee/Sarah Kaplan mess from PS1 - and yet, things go on.)

And as for the "phone call that night" between Phil and Doron. (That would be a good one to be a "fly on the wall", as well) IMO, DW does not treat PS anything like the LKB, RR, Plourd PS1 legal team did. If PS tries to speak to DW in the manner in which we heard thru the "fountain e-mail" - I think DW would "rip into PS", quickly setting him straight about the mess PS has created (by killing LC - even though DW won't actually use those words - but Phil will understand) and the difficulties involved in trying to "clean up" the mountains of evidence against him that PS left behind. Of course this is just my opinion, but I really don't think JF, DW or AJ will allow this to go that far.

[coinoutlet]

At BEST--pressure will no doubt be brought to bear that the state cannot afford yet another costly trial, and he'll be home free. And the "master producer" will have, in fact, outfoxed us all and gotten away with murder. I am very sorry to say, stranger things have happened.

I have been advised by a poster on another blog that defense mis-conduct is NOT grounds for a mis-trial. I hope this is correct!

[tartangirl]

Justice ultimately will prevail. It must! :thumbsup:

I just can not think negative for more than a few minutes. It does not work for me..LOL Back on the guilty bandwagon and the yellow brick road to Justice for Lana and those who love her. :smile: Thanks ...I needed that.


~as always, my opinion ~

[nanouk]

I just can not think negative for more than a few minutes. It does not work for me..LOL Back on the guilty bandwagon and the yellow brick road to Justice for Lana and those who love her. :smile: Thanks ...I needed that.

~as always, my opinion ~

And the orange brick road to prison for Phil...Justice for Lana!

JMO

Nanouk

[sdg380]

I could be absolutely wrong, and I hope that I am, and we know that between the prosecutors and the judge, any number of talented individuals will work against another mistrial. But remember, PS has proven himself to be extremely adept at working the system, to a tee so far, and whether he screams "ineffective counsel", "lying expert", or "dog ate my homework", he will do his level best to make it sound, to any possible tribunal of review, that he was denied his constitutional rights (never mind Lana's rights.) It would be a mistake to underestimate him. And believe me, there is always another attorney somewhere to champion your cause, no matter how meritless, if you've got the $$$.

Here we are going on >seven years!< hardly even a day in the slammer, this was the trial that was supposed to start within, what, 120 days of PS1?, well, I think you get my concern.

JMO

[My 2 Cents]

I could be absolutely wrong, and I hope that I am, and we know that between the prosecutors and the judge, any number of talented individuals will work against another mistrial. But remember, PS has proven himself to be extremely adept at working the system, to a tee so far, and whether he screams "ineffective counsel", "lying expert", or "dog ate my homework", he will do his level best to make it sound, to any possible tribunal of review, that he was denied his constitutional rights (never mind Lana's rights.) It would be a mistake to underestimate him. And believe me, there is always another attorney somewhere to champion your cause, no matter how meritless, if you've got the $$$.

Here we are going on >seven years!< hardly even a day in the slammer, this was the trial that was supposed to start within, what, 120 days of PS1?, well, I think you get my concern.

JMO

ITA . . . but I "HOPE" that PS will be screaming "ineffective counsel" from behind bars, after he is hopefully found guilty and JF denies him a "get out of jail pass" while PS's (new) attorneys fight for his appeal case.

[hiitsme]

Your posts are well taken and I do hope that they are able to remedy the situation and continue to the just verdict. Having said that, PS may scream as you state, but where does his responsibility begin and end as far as who testifies and what they will say? It's hard to believe that he would shell out millions and not be on top of his witnesses and their testimony. If he claims he knew nothing it's hard to believe that DW and Pex will sit back and let the axe fall on them, essentially ruining their credibility and reputations.

[penguin01]

Your news in your last two posts
is so sad that I can not even bear to quote it here. The defendant has already lost this case and been found guilty in my eyes and those of many others here. :glare:

Remarkable work done by both Truc Do and the wonderful Alan Jackson while proving the defense negligent and more may pave the path for your possible outcome? I have to hope along with you that the Judge can work around this. This long week end will no doubt be consumed with thoughts of this case not only by us but of course by
the major players. It truly takes my breath away to think the outcome could be a walk down that new path that leads to freedom for Harvey Phillip Spector....say it isn't so! :crying:


~as always, my opinion, Justice for Lana and those who love her ~
I feel confident it ain't gonna happen.
AJ and Truc Do have shown themselves to be very knowledgeable and very careful about what they say....even without counting to 10, lol.

So there is more grist for the appeal mill - I don't care about that. I just want to see this trial finished and with the appropriate guilty verdict. Let PS spend his money and file his appeals from prison!

[bearwds]

I don't see a mistrial. JF has protected the record and sanctions should resolve the matter. If JF could manipulate the HL fiasco, I'm confident that this will be resolved as well.

I laughed at an earlier Post that alluded to RS not being too sad to see PS go away....

Thanx to all the Posters that add to this Thread. Your posts are most appreciated.


bearwds

[My 2 Cents]

I just peeked in over at T&T website (am so anxious for more info.) and lo and behold there's a NEW BLOG written by none other than our InSession "gun expert" MORT SNERD. He wrote the article as a special GUEST ENTRY about FIREARM PHYSICS in Phil Spector trial.

I haven't even read it yet - but wanted to make you all aware that it's there. Bye - - I'm off to read it now.

[My 2 Cents]

I just peeked in over at T&T website (am so anxious for more info.) and lo and behold there's a NEW BLOG written by none other than our InSession "gun expert" MORT SNERD. He wrote the article as a special GUEST ENTRY about FIREARM PHYSICS in Phil Spector trial.

I haven't even read it yet - but wanted to make you all aware that it's there. Bye - - I'm off to read it now.

MORTIE . . . Can you hear me? If you are over here on this forum, EXCELLENT JOB!!! :thumbup: What a helpful and well written article.

If you aren't a physics teacher, you might want to reconsider that calling. I think AJ needs to call YOU on the stand so the jury can better "visualize" why there isn't all the blood one would expect from an oral gun shot wound, after watching 8 seasons of "CSI". The circular graphic you added around that gun site in that picture was very helpful to me. THANKS.

[hiitsme]

MORTIE . . . Can you hear me? If you are over here on this forum, EXCELLENT JOB!!! :thumbup: What a helpful and well written article.

If you aren't a physics teacher, you might want to reconsider that calling. I think AJ needs to call YOU on the stand so the jury can better "visualize" why there isn't all the blood one would expect from an oral gun shot wound, after watching 8 seasons of "CSI". The circular graphic you added around that gun site in that picture was very helpful to me. THANKS.

Thanks M2C and I also agree that if Dr. DeMaio is called by the defense, Mort Snerd should be waiting in the wings as a rebuttal witness! Mort's knowledge and honesty would win the day. That picture said a lot.

[newsjunkie]

I don't see a mistrial. JF has protected the record and sanctions should resolve the matter. If JF could manipulate the HL fiasco, I'm confident that this will be resolved as well.

I laughed at an earlier Post that alluded to RS not being too sad to see PS go away....

Thanx to all the Posters that add to this Thread. Your posts are most appreciated.


bearwds


I don't think a mistrial can be called on a defense screwup.

The prosecution messes up is a different story.

[My 2 Cents]

The photo that Mortie selected, so that the reader could better "visualize" what was being explained in his article, was a "chilling" reminder of what Lana very well may have been looking at moments before her life came to a tragic end.

It is just heart wrenching now to see that picture.

[nanouk]

M2C,

Thank you! Not as well written as you say but it conveys my non-expert opinion. Too old to start another career, 45+ years of fixing computers was enough.

I would be an attorneys worst nightmare as a witness because as soon as I got "whined" at, I would try to poke the offender in the face.

Just for the record, the circle is 3 inches in diameter and the width of the gun in Harvey Philip Spector's hand is to scale! I did not perform any attorney "art" or "changing perspective" to try to fool anyone.

While the jury is not to perform any experiments, that does not rule out the readers of this forum. Try to force your mouth to open to a 3 inch opening!! Cannot be done without tissue tearing. (Well, maybe Louis Armstrong can from years of trumpet playing, but Lana did not play the trumpet).

Again thanks for all your comments M2C, I look forward to reading!

Mortie

Great work, Mortie

And don't forget that Lana probably had her hands also in the vicinity of that "circle"... She would have intercepted some of the blood too (as she most probably did, considering the backspatter on the back of her hands).

Thanks

Nanouk

[nanouk]

My guess is she was trying to push harvey away.

Exactly. Sorry I should have mentioned it...

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

Mort, I had to gasp at your write up. You are very precise and easy to understand. The cooling gases, the pounds of pressure, oh my gosh, that poor woman. That is just sad.

[My 2 Cents]

Nanouk - I thought the comment that I just read, that you made (wait - there aren't 2 Nanouks are there?), over on the T&T blog was excellent. Regarding the info you discovered on Dr DiMiao's website re: gun shot wounds. I highly recommend that you post it here - - very interesting. THANKS! :thumbsup:

[nanouk]

Nanouk - I thought the comment that I just read, that you made (wait - there aren't 2 Nanouks are there?), over on the T&T blog was excellent. Regarding the info you discovered on Dr DiMiao's website re: gun shot wounds. I highly recommend that you post it here - - very interesting. THANKS! :thumbsup:

Nope, only one Nanouk

Here it is:

Quite surprisingly, I found a lot of information in Vincent "Ninja" DiMaio's book on gunshot wounds found at

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10217209/Gunshot-Wounds-Practical-Aspects-of-Firearms-Ballistics-and-Forensic-Techn-2nd-Ed-V-DiMaio-CRC-1999-WW

(BEWARE: Extremely gruesome!!!)

Don't mind with the cover shown and scroll down to section 14, page 385, where it is said that, in suicides, "As the caliber of the pistol increased, so did the frequency of visible backspatter (on the hands)". The numbers given are for contact wounds, but it is interesting to find out that backspatter is only visible in 35% of gunshot wounds with a caliber size of less than 9mm while it can be found 50% of the time with 9mm.

He also states that "No blood was found either on the outside or inside of the barrel in 24% of the suicides using a revolver". So much for blood spatter all over the room...

Sold liars...

Nanouk

[Anakerie]

Phil :loveeyes:, he’s coming for you….
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Chelle :tonguewag:, he might get you too….
Another one bites the dust.

ROFL! Thank you for the laugh!! Now I need to go find my Queen CD so I can SING! LOL

[Kara]

I don't think a mistrial can be called on a defense screwup.

The prosecution messes up is a different story.

I'm catching up and still trying to figure out exactly what the screw up was...but I believe you are correct. The defense cannot benefit from it's own error... Otherwise you would have defense teams screwing up trial right and left, just to keep their clients free until they could die.

[Kara]

Today in court was just impressive, mind-blowing and what going to court is all about. It was like watching an episode of Columbo. A.J. lead Pex in for the kill and then, without warning, strikes straight for the jugular. I was not in court yesterday but from what I gather picture’s that Pex used to demonstrate a possible scenario were used. He stated that he took some pictures of him using a Cobra identical to the Cobra used Feb 3rd 2003. The pictures depict blood spatter on both the ring finger and indexes finger. He stated that the pictures HE took of HIM using the Cobra were only meant to educate D.W. on possible scenarios of how the gun was held. The four picture that Pex took showed just how blood splatter would look after using a Cobra. However, after A.J. repeatedly ask him about HIS/Pex’s pictures that HE took on a specific date, it is discovered, as A.J. put up four other pictures taken much earlier of a demonstration using a different make revolver and not a Cobra, that the pictures are in fact the same exact pictures. Yes, Pex lied about taken the pictures and in fact just reused old pictures and changed the dates and said it was a demonstration using the Cobra when in fact, it was not. Also, it was a demonstration meant only to educate D.W. and not to be used in court but because it was used in court, it’s called “discovery testimony” (or something like that) and that’s a no-no. Anyway, A.J. brought up perjury and Pex’s was without words. He just sat there with a nervous smile and Fidler did the only thing he could...He called for a brake. During the braked A.J.. talk about Perjury and D.W. doesn’t see the big deal “splatter is splatter” what does it matter what kind of gun was used. The demonstration is only what would happen when a gun is used not what type of gun. Yet Pex said in open curt of front of the jury that he took the pictures and a Cobra was used. Man, you guys should have been there. People were falling out of there seats, falling from the bleachers, jumping up and down, jews were dropped, people fainted...well, I exaggerate but you get the picture.

Ahhh...now I see what happened. Thanks so much for the report Claudius!

[dref99]

I'm catching up and still trying to figure out exactly what the screw up was...but I believe you are correct. The defense cannot benefit from it's own error... Otherwise you would have defense teams screwing up trial right and left, just to keep their clients free until they could die.

Can one appeal based on lawyer incompetence - I think that has happened before?

Meanwhile - the detail of the day is now on the blog

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-two.html

[Jayne]

Can one appeal based on lawyer incompetence - I think that has happened before?

Meanwhile - the detail of the day is now on the blog

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-two.html


yes, they can...but they need to appeal themselves, obviously..or have new counsel..so there's some new BUCKS..

Wow...PS dollars adding up..if that comes to that/it.

I just hope DW got his bucks upfront.in the proper account for a "dispute"..as if PS would win...COME ON..the guy did everything he can/could so far..he isn't incompetent..he may be crafty and all..but PS has no claim about incompetent..maybe the Bar or the Court has other agenda..but PS...Nah..He has no claim, IMO.

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

If you can listen to the talk one radio interview with #9, BR and unexpected guest PH, well it will be worth your time.:ohmy:

[dref99]

If you can listen to the talk one radio interview with #9, BR and unexpected guest PH, well it will be worth your time.:ohmy:

I couldn't get it live & can't yet find it loaded on the website - but will keep looking - it seems worth waiting for from your comment!

[nanouk]

Wow! Now we have:

-DW who removed a page from a report that was to be reviewed and testified upon by his "expert"...

-A discovery violation because some photos that were produced way back in September and shown to the jury were never given to the prosecution...

-A perjury by JP who presented and testified that backspatter in some photos were produced by a Colt Cobra while, in fact, they had been produced by his own Smith & Wesson in a previous photo session...

Mmmmmm...

If you add Spitz's mental confusion and incapacity control his temper or to agree to anything asked by AJ...

Doesn't look too good for the defense... Are the orange jail suits available in Small sizes?

JMO

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

Worth your time....may not have been a good choice of words...I was shocked is more like it. I did tune into listen to the announced guests. If this trial is going one way or the other I'm willing to listen but, I was taken back by the unexpected caller. He may be a PS supporter as he had the listeners believe but, I found the show sidetracked on his issues surrounding the PS case. Those issues were discussed more than the previous week in court or the past juror's experience. The announced guests handled it better than I think I would have. So you guys can judge it for yourselves....:unsure:

[Jayne]

My guess is she was trying to push harvey away.

no kidding! I can still remember the courtroom displays by LKB and AJ...demonstrating hand positions that "may have been Lanas". Which one made the most logical and "scientific" sense? The one of "defensive"..pushing or trying to push the gun/hands and arms holding it away from her mouth, IMO.

jmo

[Anakerie]

Worth your time....may not have been a good choice of words...I was shocked is more like it. I did tune into listen to the announced guests. If this trial is going one way or the other I'm willing to listen but, I was taken back by the unexpected caller. He may be a PS supporter as he had the listeners believe but, I found the show sidetracked on his issues surrounding the PS case. Those issues were discussed more than the previous week in court or the past juror's experience. The announced guests handled it better than I think I would have. So you guys can judge it for yourselves....:unsure:
I just finished listening to the broadcast and you're right, Kennedy.. The PS supporter did sidetrack the issues continually. Kudos to Sprocket and Juror #9 for handling the attacks as well as they did. They kept their cool way better than I think I could have. The PS supporter was more interested in tooting his own horn and attacking anyone and everything about the first trial. He seemed to know nothing about what is going on in the courtroom this time around.

[Anakerie]

Good morning Kennedy..
Are we permitted to post the link to the radio show last night. I don't see why not. Does anyone have a link, I would love to hear it.

I can not get a grasp on DW's witness Pex. Why would they permit him to continue on with his testimony. Expert opinion is far from what occurred Wednesday.:confused:
I can't think of a reason for not posting a link to the radio show... I believe links to it have been posted previously. So, here goes:

http://www.talkradioone.com/2009/02/12/next-marc-germain-live-thursday-8pm-pacific11pm-eastern-4/

[kennedy06]

I'm sorry Dianna, thanks for the link Anakerie. :)

It starts about the 45 minute mark and continues till the end at around 112 minutes.

[My 2 Cents]

This may be slightly O/T:

I read this morning that one of the RONETTES, Estelle Bennett (Ronnie's older sister) DIED Wednesday at the age of 67. She was found dead in her NJ apartment after family was unable to reach her.

http://www.spinner.com/2009/02/13/ronettes-star-estelle-ben-dies-at-67/

[Spectorfan8]

This may be slightly O/T:

I read this morning that one of the RONETTES, Estelle Bennett (Ronnie's older sister) DIED Wednesday at the age of 67. She was found dead in her NJ apartment after family was unable to reach her.

http://www.spinner.com/2009/02/13/ronettes-star-estelle-ben-dies-at-67/

I saw that yesterday. It was posted on Ronnie's website. Thanks for posting it....I didn't know if I should or not.

[llylabrat]

I just finished listening to the broadcast and you're right, Kennedy.. The PS supporter did sidetrack the issues continually. Kudos to Sprocket and Juror #9 for handling the attacks as well as they did. They kept their cool way better than I think I could have. The PS supporter was more interested in tooting his own horn and attacking anyone and everything about the first trial. He seemed to know nothing about what is going on in the courtroom this time around.

Take a look at this guy-the PS supporters blog. I couldn't listen to the whole program because I found him so crazy-sounding.

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

[Jayne]

that colt cobra..I just want to know how PS got it.

from whom?

then maybe some of this loyalty might make sense? But this trial won't deal with that...it's not the issue..it's the use of that gun..not where he got it from...BUT..I wonder..as I often have...WHO gave it (or sold it) to him?

[My 2 Cents]

I thought the host should have cut off the caller... sure take a question or so, but do not allow the caller a 1/2 hour diatribe of Sprocket. The caller just was not rational. He was beyond rude.

I Agree . . . I just finished listening to the Talk One Radio piece and was so disappointed that Marc Germain allowed that "crazy call in guy" to monopolized the majority of that entire 1 hour+ time. I was really hoping to hear what Juror 9 had to share - how often to we get that opportunity?. I was also hoping to hear what BR might share about the recent perjury & discovery allegations that just surfaced in the courtroom the day before. (Maybe share more about the reaction by the jury - did they look like they were completely understanding what was taking place (i.e. - did "jaws drop")? Or did they just look confused?)

IMO, all that Paul guy did was appear foolish, extremely biased and very uninformed about the actual "facts in evidence".

BUMMER . . . I wanted to here from Juror 9 and about the Pex fiasco on Wednesday :thumbdown:

[Jayne]

Yes, I agree..he was..but he did make some good points. And, I still think he is "connected" as I did back in PS1. Something just doesn't make sense with his "loyalty" to PS..there's something more to it I think..but it's just "I think".

jmo

j

[True2Blues]

I Agree . . . I just finished listening to the Talk One Radio piece and was so disappointed that Marc Germain allowed that "crazy call in guy" to monopolized the majority of that entire 1 hour+ time. I was really hoping to hear what Juror 9 had to share - how often to we get that opportunity?. I was also hoping to hear what BR might share about the recent perjury & discovery allegations that just surfaced in the courtroom the day before. (Maybe share more about the reaction by the jury - did they look like they were completely understanding what was taking place (i.e. - did "jaws drop")? Or did they just look confused?)

IMO, all that Paul guy did was appear foolish, extremely biased and very uninformed about the actual "facts in evidence".

BUMMER . . . I wanted to here from Juror 9 and about the Pex fiasco on Wednesday :thumbdown:

My bolding. That doesn't surprise me, since he seems exactly like that in all of his writing that I've seen. That's why I avoid any of his opinions now.

[Jayne]

Care to share?:mellow:

No...but I would but Big Brother is watching!

PS and this guy are not "arms length" friends as far as I see it...those are the points.

just my opinion or instinct, better yet...to not get into trouble here.

jmo

J

[dref99]

Take a look at this guy-the PS supporters blog. I couldn't listen to the whole program because I found him so crazy-sounding.

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

Thank you for the link - I had forgotten about this Spector supporter since trial one - had thought he had gone away. I shall continue to forget about him.

Recent events in trial 2 (about which he knows nothing, other than what he has read on the net or been told by "friends") just seem to reinforce the view that there is no evidence to support suicide

jmo

[Jayne]

Thank you for the link - I had forgotten about this Spector supporter since trial one - had thought he had gone away. I shall continue to forget about him.

Recent events in trial 2 (about which he knows nothing, other than what he has read on the net or been told by "friends") just seem to reinforce the view that there is no evidence to support suicide

jmo


yeah..and what about the gun? I still...still.wonder..where did he get that gun? Would that SHUT a few traps? Believe me..it would mine..if I GAVE (or GOT) a gun (legally or from some police thing..."never found" sort of thing)...then I go on talk radio about that person..who allegedly used that gun to commit the crime. HECK YEAH..I'd be supporting his case up the whazzoooooo/ No implicating Huble..exactly...but he's up for the running with the other former policeman/PI in PS1.

There is no evidence of suicide except what the defense is trying to put in..what there is evidence of is a gun....and I guess it doesn't matter HOW PS got that gun...but inquiring minds want to know.

jmo

j

[kennedy06]

That call was unforgettable in a very disturbing way. What kind of "man" would make such remarks to a woman as he did to BR when MG even spoke up to him. It was uncalled for and showed the quality of the man. IMO

PS had gates and guards, dogs and alarms for how long before this case? After listening to a fan of his carry on like that, now I understand why:wub:

I wanted to hear what Juror #9 had to say also but, he kept getting interrupted with off the wall wild accusations.

I'm sure PS and DW can take care of this case on their own or they would have asked for this special fan's help :wink:

[Jayne]

That call was unforgettable in a very disturbing way. What kind of "man" would make such remarks to a woman as he did to BR when MG even spoke up to him. It was uncalled for and showed the quality of the man. IMO

PS had gates and guards, dogs and alarms for how long before this case? After listening to a fan of his carry on like that, now I understand why:wub:

I wanted to hear what Juror #9 had to say also but he kept getting interrupted with off the wild accusations.

what knd of "man"..a Mouthpiece just like a "piece" (o/w known as a gun).. KNOW I'm speculating...but something never "sat right" from PS1 when this guy surfaced. My guess is he was behind those gates and guards and dogs and alarms well before this incident.

BUT of course I can be wrong..it IS only Speculation...or should I say Spectoration?

jmo

J

[dref99]

yeah..and what about the gun? I still...still.wonder..where did he get that gun? Would that SHUT a few traps? Believe me..it would mine..if I GAVE (or GOT) a gun (legally or from some police thing..."never found" sort of thing)...then I go on talk radio about that person..who allegedly used that gun to commit the crime. HECK YEAH..I'd be supporting his case up the whazzoooooo/ No implicating Huble..exactly...but he's up for the running with the other former policeman/PI in PS1.

There is no evidence of suicide except what the defense is trying to put in..what there is evidence of is a gun....and I guess it doesn't matter HOW PS got that gun...but inquiring minds want to know.

jmo

j

Hi Jayne

I think the prosecution concentrate on what they can prove & let quite a few other "issues" be passed over - perhaps to not give the defense yet another chance to go down a side road.

I have never been a fan of talk radio - anyone who "calls in" usually wants to sell their own story, rather than listen to any other opinions. The person running this show, should have simply disconnected the call - but they never do - they disconnect the sane, intelligent calls.
(my opinion, of course)

I realise AJ needs to completely discredit these "experts" and their experiments, and also that JF needs to allow the defense to have a case - but JF also needs to find away to "move this along" without excusing perjury and or violations of the discovery rules.

It all may make for good entertainment (which no-one is seeing due to lack of media interest) but I don't think it does much for justice.

All of the above is jmo.

[Jayne]

The guy spews the same misogynistic feelings by calling the four PBA witnesses BIMBOS. I am surprised he used BIMBO instead of the C word that PS likes. I wish Sprocket had said but even Phil's attorney said that PS is an equal opportunity gun bully.

Well..that set it..along with your following post: Equal opportunity gun bully who "sometimes" wears women's clothing. (OK..that's my interpretation..but it fits, doesn't it? like a glove..) I'm thinking ol' Mr. H used "bimbo" to be on-the-air-nice? Please...

[nanouk]

Well..that set it..along with your following post: Equal opportunity gun bully who "sometimes" wears women's clothing. (OK..that's my interpretation..but it fits, doesn't it? like a glove..) I'm thinking ol' Mr. H used "bimbo" to be on-the-air-nice? Please...

Another bully crossdresser... Can't admit to his sexual orientation, so he hides it behind an extreme form of machism...

JMO

Nanouk

[nanouk]

Hey, just found Paul Huebl "other" web site:

http://www.zeldamccorville.com/

Unbelievable

Once again: WARNING: GRUESOME!!! :scared::laugh::laugh:

Nanouk

[lane99]

The guy spews the same misogynistic feelings...

Well spotted. Birds of a feather, flock together. That's part of the reason he's willing to humiliate himself with his cringe-inducing rants.

There are other reasons, too.

At any rate, when the points one accentuates when presenting a case are not only lies ("the driver is an illegal alien"), but also irrelevant, even if they were true, I'd suggest that speaks pretty clearly to the merits of one's arguments.

[Spectorfan8]

That call was unforgettable in a very disturbing way. What kind of "man" would make such remarks to a woman as he did to BR when MG even spoke up to him. It was uncalled for and showed the quality of the man. IMO

PS had gates and guards, dogs and alarms for how long before this case? After listening to a fan of his carry on like that, now I understand why:wub:

I wanted to hear what Juror #9 had to say also but, he kept getting interrupted with off the wall wild accusations.

I'm sure PS and DW can take care of this case on their own or they would have asked for this special fan's help :wink:

Do you think that Mr. Spector knew this PH guy was going to go on the radio? I was unable to listen to the talk radio interview, but from what I read on this guys website, I have to wonder what in the heck made him do that? Since the last trial, I have heard that this guy is a cross dresser.:scared:

O/T Happy Valentine's Day Kennedy!!

[nanouk]

Do you think that Mr. Spector knew this PH guy was going to go on the radio? I was unable to listen to the talk radio interview, but from what I read on this guys website, I have to wonder what in the heck made him do that? Since the last trial, I have heard that this guy is a cross dresser.:scared:

O/T Happy Valentine's Day Kennedy!!

Go at the address I gave in my previous post (up 3 or 4), you'll SEE this guy is a cross dresser!!!

Nanouk

[Spectorfan8]

Go at the address I gave in my previous post (up 3 or 4), you'll SEE this guy is a cross dresser!!!

Nanouk

Thank you, I have been looking at some other sites about him.....creeps me out.

[i h8 clowns]

the link for the Huebl guy(?) was quite scary! what is this guy's trip? i noticed on the 'team spector' page, they have posted several of Paul Huebl's lengthy remarks and bizarre view points. they're listed under the blog up on the top right of the page.

apparently 'team spector' doesn't think this guys a nut or they wouldn't have posted his crazy rants on their web page. me thinks 'team spector' needs to start making better choices (Pex? Spitz? Huebl? RS?)

[oodi1]

I wonder if he thinks those videos might get him the lead role in "Tootsie 2" :confused:

[wasapi]

Take a look at this guy-the PS supporters blog. I couldn't listen to the whole program because I found him so crazy-sounding.

http://www.crimefilenews.com/

This person is truely disturbed in more ways then just being a misogynist. It would seem that anyone with a shred of common sense would want to distance themselves from him. If PS doesen't get that, DW should have warned him that this creepy guy is contaminating an already murky trial.

And - that he is a liscensed PI is more then unsetteling. It is frightening. Over the past few years the requirements in the state of Calif. to obtain a PI's liscense have become more and more strict. He has probably had his for several years and is the type of PI that has caused the requirements to become more difficult to obtain.

[True2Blues]

Huebl also calls the witnesses..... For the most part these women have been thieves, whores or gold diggers.



http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Spector


He's a sick person, IMO. He just spews vitriol at anything and anyone he decides he doesn't like. Logic, reason, evidence, mean nothing to him. He's best avoided in print, on TV/Radio and certainly in person!

[kennedy06]

Do you think that Mr. Spector knew this PH guy was going to go on the radio? I was unable to listen to the talk radio interview, but from what I read on this guys website, I have to wonder what in the heck made him do that? Since the last trial, I have heard that this guy is a cross dresser.:scared:

O/T Happy Valentine's Day Kennedy!!

I don't know if PS would have known or not. Though I think there may be a clue in the comments on Trials & Tribs on her Feb 12 post/blog that may give us a hint as to why he seemed so intent on the doing more than giving a mere comment.

Maybe the almighty $$$ or lack of, may have had something to do with it??
:shrug:
******
Retrial Day 42 Feb 11 blog post, written on the 12th (see comment section)

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






O/T Thank you and same to you and everyone else here!

[My 2 Cents]

Since we have a bit of a "lull", as we wait for court to resume Tuesday, I was wondering if anyone could share their understanding or perspective with regards to a piece of evidence that I have always had trouble with. LANA'S FALSE EYELASHES.

I have always been "clueless" with regards to what that might indicate. :read:

I have a hard time believing Lana would (A) take them off at a man's house - a man she just met AND (B) that she would leave them on this guy's sink, back of toilet (or even place them there at all - she wears them on her eyes). But IF they came off when Phil was wiping Lana's face, they would have found evidence of that wouldn't they? Smearing with diaper, or blood? . . . or does anyone think since her eyesocket was black/blue that the inside pressure from the gunshot loosened them and maybe Spector pulled them off because they were dangling or ????

There's a brandy sniffer/wine glass on the sink in the same bathroom (which doesn't mean it was Lana's - or do we know who's glass was who's? Phil could have set it there when he went to use the toilet, etc.) The toilet seat in the police photographs, shows the LID was UP, which suggests that Phil used it last OR lifted for wetting diaper, hands, evidence, etc. If toilet lid UP - no way Lana used it last!!!

Anyway . . . If ANYONE has any insight or info re testimony concerning the False Eyelashes - I would appreciate it. Thanks. That has always puzzled me.

[My 2 Cents]

I don't know if PS would have known or not. Though I think there may be a clue in the comments on Trials & Tribs on her Feb 12 post/blog that may give us a hint as to why he seemed so intent on the doing more than giving a mere comment.

Maybe the almighty $$$ or lack of, may have had something to do with it??
:shrug:
******
Retrial Day 42 Feb 11 blog post, written on the 12th (see comment section)

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/
O/T Thank you and same to you and everyone else here!


Thanks for the info K6 - - I forget to go back and check for the newer, recently updated COMMENTS. I must say - personally - I would have LOVED to watch Sprocket & Huebl go "head-to-head" on CNN as one "bloggers" view of the trial VS anothers. That would have been H-Y-S-T-E-R-I-C-A-L. Can you picture Nancy Grace conducting this "blogger vs blogger" spotlight segment? I don't believe Paul Huebl would fair well. Sprocket would have all this very specific information and quotes & rulings from the trial each day and PH would be ranting and raving about how solid a witness Punkin Pie is, and what a unjust Judge Fidler is for not letting Baby Doll & Raul Levy testify. . . oh, THAT WOULD BE ENTERTAINING. . . . I WOULD DEFINITELY "TUNE IN". :lol:

[Jayne]

Since we have a bit of a "lull", as we wait for court to resume Tuesday, I was wondering if anyone could share their understanding or perspective with regards to a piece of evidence that I have always had trouble with. LANA'S FALSE EYELASHES.

I have always been "clueless" with regards to what that might indicate. :read:

I have a hard time believing Lana would (A) take them off at a man's house - a man she just met AND (B) that she would leave them on this guy's sink, back of toilet (or even place them there at all - she wears them on her eyes). But IF they came off when Phil was wiping Lana's face, they would have found evidence of that wouldn't they? Smearing with diaper, or blood? . . . or does anyone think since her eyesocket was black/blue that the inside pressure from the gunshot loosened them and maybe Spector pulled them off because they were dangling or ????

There's a brandy sniffer/wine glass on the sink in the same bathroom (which doesn't mean it was Lana's - or do we know who's glass was who's? Phil could have set it there when he went to use the toilet, etc.) The toilet seat in the police photographs, shows the LID was UP, which suggests that Phil used it last OR lifted for wetting diaper, hands, evidence, etc. If toilet lid UP - no way Lana used it last!!!

Anyway . . . If ANYONE has any insight or info re testimony concerning the False Eyelashes - I would appreciate it. Thanks. That has always puzzled me.

PS1..was a "big issue" about those eyelashes. Personally...I didn't see much weight in it as I figured they got there by Phil rinsing out that diaper in the toilet, but picking off the eyelashes before he dunked it..and put them there. Why? have no idea..but maybe that's what a guy would do? Surely she would not be standing in front of the toilet and rip off her lashes and put them there, would she? Maybe she'd have done it at the sink..but wouldn't she either throw them in the trash basket or in a tissue and flush them or put them in her purse? OR would she put them on the toilet tank? For what? to come back later and get them? Did she think she couldn't flush them down the drain if there was no wastebasket to put them in? I do not think so. They are quite flushable. So why were they there? I think as you..PS put them there...but why? A memento?

yes, it is weird...but I doubt you or I or anyone will ever know why or how or who or even when (before or after death).

[dref99]

PS1..was a "big issue" about those eyelashes. Personally...I didn't see much weight in it as I figured they got there by Phil rinsing out that diaper in the toilet, but picking off the eyelashes before he dunked it..and put them there. Why? have no idea..but maybe that's what a guy would do? Surely she would not be standing in front of the toilet and rip off her lashes and put them there, would she? Maybe she'd have done it at the sink..but wouldn't she either throw them in the trash basket or in a tissue and flush them or put them in her purse? OR would she put them on the toilet tank? For what? to come back later and get them? Did she think she couldn't flush them down the drain if there was no wastebasket to put them in? I do not think so. They are quite flushable. So why were they there? I think as you..PS put them there...but why? A memento?

yes, it is weird...but I doubt you or I or anyone will ever know why or how or who or even when (before or after death).

This makes me start to wonder what was happening before Lana was shot. I have always thought she was sitting, waiting to leave when Phil appeared with gun and her death happened very quickly thereafter - but what if things were different.

Could she have tried to leave (problem with door lock??) and Phil threatened her with the gun - so she sat - with bag on shoulder - while he tried whatever weird things came into mind - removed lashes - maybe - who would know now except the one who only discusses his water fountain and his celebrity photographs.

I don't think anyone except Phil could explain the who and what of the eyelashes, which is probably why they play little part in the trial.

jmo

[Jayne]

DS..he should have gotten rid of those eyelashes..think?

but he didnt' have time to do that..the LE were there at the door...he didnt have enough time to clean up the scene? think?!

come on....if someone killed herself in your house wouldn't you make it perfectly clear how it happend?

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks everyone for your feedback - much appreciated.

I was always curious as to what type of false eyelashes they were (expensive? Or .99 cents pair?). False eyelashes can cost $8-$15-$25 each. Or they can cost as little as .99 cents. The more expensive eyelashes can definitely be used multiple times (like 10+ times). Regardless of whether they cost $1 or not, I could never imagine a woman whose appearance was always so perfectly "put together" as Lana's seemed to be - taking off her eyelashes at a man's house (and putting them on a strange man's "burgundy" toilet tank lid . . . ewww!) But your suggestion NANOUK - retreating to bathroom to get away from an "excited Harvey" and possibly crying as you said, for finding herself in that situation (and therefore lashes might be coming off) - - so, so, so easy to visualize. I always thought it was while she was in the bathroom, fixing hair, lipstick (purse was ZIPPED close to leave), - - that Phil stepped over and opened the drawer where the closest gun was hiding. Then as LC exited she was quickly brought up-to-date by PS, that she in fact was NOT leaving. "Sit down, you'll leave when I say it's time to leave" (or something like that).

I also wondered if the gun in the mouth may have been this wacko "Napoleon Complex" gun toting guy's weird kind of f@repl@y. Getting some "excitement" out of forcing it in her mouth (getting kicks by replaying the role & scene he played in "Valley of the Dolls" - didn't he shove a revolver in a women's mouth in that scene?).

Of course, as you state Dref, . . . We will never know.

[My 2 Cents]

Oops . . . I didn't mean to imply PHIL actually played the part in Valley of the Dolls . . I know the part was suppose to be "written with him in mind" . . . but he did NOT actually play that part in the movie. SORRY for the way I wrote that. :blush:

[My 2 Cents]

DS..he should have gotten rid of those eyelashes..think?

but he didnt' have time to do that..the LE were there at the door...he didnt have enough time to clean up the scene? think?!

come on....if someone killed herself in your house wouldn't you make it perfectly clear how it happend?

YES, I think a lot of what he did, ended up that way because Phil ran out of time. He probably wasn't madly "rushing around", because he was drunk for one and I'm sure in "shock" - and also because he probably thought he had more time (I don't think PS is use to "employees" being a concern . . I truly don't think he thought a "foreign exchange student" was going to be calling the police (not on Phil Spector) or he would have "dumped"/"hid"/"changed" his clothes immediately. When police pulled up to 4 car garage area - - they saw Phil upstairs pacing back & forth in front of the window. I feel certain he was saying, "Oh CRAP - what the heck do I do now?" (or possibly something a little stronger).

I do believe if PS thought ADS was running to call 911 - he would have pointed that gun at DeSouza (not to shoot him - just threaten). He would have yanked his butt back into the house - sat him in the "unoccupied" chair and explained exactly the way ADS's life as he knows it - would be DESTROYED and how DeSouza wouldn't EVER be able to return to the USA again IF HE DIDN'T DO EXACTLY AS PHIL WANTED (and he would throw in a wad of $$$ as well - to seal the deal). PHIL would have SCARED the HECK out of DESOUZA. . . . IMO that is!!!!!

[cady]

Since we have a bit of a "lull", as we wait for court to resume Tuesday, I was wondering if anyone could share their understanding or perspective with regards to a piece of evidence that I have always had trouble with. LANA'S FALSE EYELASHES.

I have always been "clueless" with regards to what that might indicate. :read:

I have a hard time believing Lana would (A) take them off at a man's house - a man she just met AND (B) that she would leave them on this guy's sink, back of toilet (or even place them there at all - she wears them on her eyes). But IF they came off when Phil was wiping Lana's face, they would have found evidence of that wouldn't they? Smearing with diaper, or blood? . . . or does anyone think since her eyesocket was black/blue that the inside pressure from the gunshot loosened them and maybe Spector pulled them off because they were dangling or ????

There's a brandy sniffer/wine glass on the sink in the same bathroom (which doesn't mean it was Lana's - or do we know who's glass was who's? Phil could have set it there when he went to use the toilet, etc.) The toilet seat in the police photographs, shows the LID was UP, which suggests that Phil used it last OR lifted for wetting diaper, hands, evidence, etc. If toilet lid UP - no way Lana used it last!!!

Anyway . . . If ANYONE has any insight or info re testimony concerning the False Eyelashes - I would appreciate it. Thanks. That has always puzzled me.


I had originally thought the lashes came off when her face was wiped but forensic testing showed no blood on them and the way they were sitting there didn't jive with that theory anyway. They looked like they were "placed" there not randomly tossed.

So I can't think of anything other than Spector asking Lana to remove them...maybe "let me get a look at your natural beauty...wipe off the makeup and take off the eyelashes" kind of thing. A lot of men don't like the false eyelash look. Spector likes younger women.....the not much makeup look, imo. Maybe he's selling that "I can put you movies" line....just my thoughts.

[kennedy06]

Why would they be sitting on the back of the toilet like that. Who would put something where the eyes are concerned and hygiene sort of counts on a strangers toliet tank. I don't mean to be gross or funny, but could they have been his and he took them off in there early on after entering the castle, a guy probably would set something like that on the back of a toilet. If you were standing at the sink why not put them on the counter male or female?

I've thought about her crying or being tired but why not put them in a tissue or something and put them in her purse. With the diaper wiping I just think the individual lashes would have been matted or bent somehow when he wiped her face. If he took them off of her because they came loose I can't see him walking them into the restroom and sitting them there, that would be pretty clear thinking. I would think a man would just wad them up or something. Stuck to the diaper, maybe but that would take some glue for the pair to stick and not fall off.... well you wouldn't be wiping them glue side up....

I don't know.........

[oodi1]

I've always thought (don't ask me why, it's just my gut feeling) that after Lana arrived at the Castle, and realized that Phil Spector wanted more than company and good conversation, that she was no longer a willing participant in any activity that transpired after that. Nobody but Phil and Lana know when the gun came out of the drawer... Phil may have had the gun on her for quite some time, to get her to comply. He may have pulled the eyelashes off, and left them in the bathroom. ( He may have been having trouble putting them down, because of the glue, they are sticking to his fingers... hence the reason they are in different places) Like some of the other posts, it seems odd that Lana herself would leave them like that.

[dref99]

... snipped for space

I do believe if PS thought ADS was running to call 911 - he would have pointed that gun at DeSouza (not to shoot him - just threaten). He would have yanked his butt back into the house - sat him in the "unoccupied" chair and explained exactly the way ADS's life as he knows it - would be DESTROYED and how DeSouza wouldn't EVER be able to return to the USA again IF HE DIDN'T DO EXACTLY AS PHIL WANTED (and he would throw in a wad of $$$ as well - to seal the deal). PHIL would have SCARED the HECK out of DESOUZA. . . . IMO that is!!!!!

I think Phil got such a shock - no regular driver to look after him. What a different story might well have emerged. My take on DeSouza'a testimony - he was scared witless when he saw the gun - Phil would have definitely needed to point the gun to get him back into the house - but Phil realised he had just told someone - who wasn't going to help him - what he had done! Phil beat a retreat & ADS called 911

Your query on the eyelashes, made me think, like oodi1, that just maybe the gun was waved around for longer than has been thought. There was supposedly the scene of them sitting in the living room - but could that have been set up as well? Ahhh - I'm just speculating.

Fact - the defense experts aren't doing very well.

All speculation and one fact are jmo.

[nanouk]

Why would they be sitting on the back of the toilet like that. Who would put something where the eyes are concerned and hygiene sort of counts on a strangers toliet tank. I don't mean to be gross or funny, but could they have been his and he took them off in there early on after entering the castle, a guy probably would set something like that on the back of a toilet. If you were standing at the sink why not put them on the counter male or female?
(snipped)

Why would she had put her eyelashes on some stranger's toilet tank? Maybe because she didn't care too much about retrieving them later?

As to the idea that they could have been Harvey's own, I like that! Maybe that's what he and Paul "Zelda" Huebl have in common! What if they belonged to Paul who would have left them there earlier?

JMO...

Nanouk

[spydernweb2006]

Just another theory:

Phil had the gun on Lana and she took them off quickly because they came loose from crying. With a gun pulled on you by a drunk man I can see her being so upset that she is crying and not worrying about replacing false eyelashes. She likely sat them down someplace else, like the lil table next to her and Phil moved them to the toilet AFTER she was shot. I can see Phil seeing them and thinking OH CRAP better move these. If they were on the table they could easily be out of blood dna areas and still have skin cell dna on them, which I believe was the case with them. Remember Phil had 40 mins and cleaned his hands from all blood evidence before police arrived.

So in a nutshell I thik Lana removed them BEFORE she was shot but Phil moved them AFTER Lana was shot, placing them on the toilet.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[hiitsme]

Just another theory:

Phil had the gun on Lana and she took them off quickly because they came loose from crying. With a gun pulled on you by a drunk man I can see her being so upset that she is crying and not worrying about replacing false eyelashes. She likely sat them down someplace else, like the lil table next to her and Phil moved them to the toilet AFTER she was shot. I can see Phil seeing them and thinking OH CRAP better move these. If they were on the table they could easily be out of blood dna areas and still have skin cell dna on them, which I believe was the case with them. Remember Phil had 40 mins and cleaned his hands from all blood evidence before police arrived.

So in a nutshell I thik Lana removed them BEFORE she was shot but Phil moved them AFTER Lana was shot, placing them on the toilet.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

As a former eyelash wearer, I can believe things happened the way you suggest. Finding the lashes, period, indicates to me that Lana was under duress and in a very frightening situation. If under normal circumstances, the lashes became loose or uncomfortable, I would think she'd remove them inconspicuosly and slip them in her purse. Most women would prefer others not knowing that their lashes are false, so finding them as they did in a stranger's house tells me that something terrifying happened moments before Lana died. MOO

[My 2 Cents]

My bet would be that fake eyelashes, of all price ranges, will float on water. I would think that they are made as light as possible but someone else will have to verify. As Lana's face was wiped with a diaper (my belief a dry one) and then it was rinsed off in toilet they would have been floating. He is then left with the problem of take them out or flush. If flushed, then he has to answer "where did they go" so he pulled them out and placed on back of toilet. As the diaper was attempted to be rinsed, they would have been as well, ego, no blood on them.
Lana got up and tried to leave but door was locked as he had thumb latch in his pocket, thus controlling the situation. She sat in chair, and waited for him to open the door. BANG. Blood on his hands, digs thumb latch from pants pocket, gets blood in pocket, opens door to get his driver to help with clean up. Ooops, not his regular driver. Closes door. It is not comfortable putting a one pound gun in you pocket. He drops latch and starts his "tidy up".

Just my opinion,

Mortie

Thanks Mortie . . . I can easily visualize each of these steps, as a natural progression - each step, almost seamlessly arriving at the next, and supporting evidence of Phil's movements throughout the house. I also think HIITSME's comment that "finding the lashes, period, indicate that Lana was under duress & in a very frightening situation" is a very "telling" and important observation.

ALL of these theories have been extremely helpful to me, giving me other "angles" at which to view this piece of evidence from. Thanks so much - everybody! :smile:

[My 2 Cents]

So far, has there been any evidence that Lana ever went into that bathroom? :confused:

GOOD POINT . . . I don't know that there has. Just speculation.

Didn't BOTH glasses have both, PS's & LC's DNA on them? But we know if Lana did go in there, she was NOT the LAST occupant to be in there - obviously, the bloody diaper AND the raised toilet rim can ONLY indicate Phil's movements.

Whether it was HIS glass or NOT, . . . I don't know which way the evidence leans. (Did BOTH glasses have LIPSTICK residue on them?)

[hiitsme]

Thanks Mortie . . . I can easily visualize each of these steps, as a natural progression - each step, almost seamlessly arriving at the next, and supporting evidence of Phil's movements throughout the house. I also think HIITSME's comment that "finding the lashes, period, indicate that Lana was under duress & in a very frightening situation" is a very "telling" and important observation.

ALL of these theories have been extremely helpful to me, giving me other "angles" at which to view this piece of evidence from. Thanks so much - everybody! :smile:

Just some food for thought! Besides you are the one who usually provides so many thought provoking angles to the things we discuss here! This eyelash thing convinces me even more that PS is reponsible for her death. I'm glad it was discussed again.

[spydernweb2006]

To me the eyelashes further prove murder vs suicide. Taking a RATIONAL look from a female perspective I conclude the following:

A Woman who is gonna " chuck it all" per her one email sentence doesnt:

1. Go to someone's house to network or attempt to advance their career.

2. Remove false eyelashes prior to comitting suicide, vanity isnt gonna be their big worry at a momment like that.

3. Make an appointment to do their taxes.

4. Prepay their rent.

5. Move her car from a parking spot so it doesnt get towed or ticketed.

6. Make a video and promote it to advance her career.

7. Buy shoes in multiples on the day she dies.

8. Accept or audition for acting work, example is the commercial she was due to do the following week.

9. Go to work at all!

Fact is that Lana did NONE of these around the time of her chuck it all email. If she truly was planning to kill herself she would have been making goodbye plans not future plans. IMO the only suicide that happened that night was the truth and Phil Spector, not Lana.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[kennedy06]

Spyder after reading this article about the Dateline special, I might add telling someone to make sure they call you on Monday.

This is worth rereading again, though many of us watched it sometime towards or after the last trial, it's the Dateline special. They do include some evidence photos as does the old CTV homepage for PS.

Something else I found interesting, under the list of things you could read about on that site, the story about the actress and the video. It is about the video he made where he offered the check. As I read it, I wondered why (as the article stated) he kept saying she may have?

I guess there is probably a simple answer that I'm not seeing for the way he worded that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18319872/

[kennedy06]

A diaper has a middle section with several layers to hold the wetness. If this diaper was rinsed in a toilet, I would think the several layers would have absorbed alot of water making it very heavy. This diaper sort of looks kind of dry to me?? Of course I don't know how much time had elapsed by the time the photo had taken. I think he wetted it somehow prior to the wiping or may have rinsed a small section of it but not the entire diaper.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/photo_gallery/index1.html?curPhoto=21

Also in the msnbc evidence photos the two main doors are straight across from one another. Now he was probably just use to using that back door so that was the one he may have removed the lock mechanism from possibly but, if she was trying to leave out of desperation there was another door a few feet from her. I think he may have been biding his time, so she was waiting on him to escort her to the car or maybe for the car if she was told it was not on the premises. Just sitting there waiting. JMO

Maybe he liked her and was courteous and didn't want her to go so he made that final approach and she said no and so.....

I guess it is possible he went into the mode the others PBA's spoke about but, I bet with her being so much bigger than him he wouldn't have done that without something to protect himself. Hmmmm

[oodi1]

Good point! From that MSNBC article:

"She (Lana) may have accidentally taken own life," he said. "She may have purposefully taken her own life. She may have been eating the gun with her dancing. ... I don't know why, when, how or where in what circumstance she may have taken her own life _ whether she planned to or not."

It sounds to me like he is saying that he wasn't even there.... he doesn't even know when, how or where??? :confused: :confused:

How about in the early morning, with HIS gun, in HIS house, and after HE pulled the trigger.

[oodi1]

Also in the msnbc evidence photos the two main doors are straight across from one another. Now he was probably just use to using that back door so that was the one he may have removed the lock mechanism possibly but if she was trying to leave out of desperation there was another door another a few feet from her. I think he may have been biding his time, so she was waiting on him to escort her to the car or maybe for the car if she was told it was not on the premises. Just sitting there waiting. JMO

It's also possible that the other door had a deadbolt that required a key (whether a regular key or the thumb key type) to open from the inside. Just a thought...

[penguin01]

I had forgotten that when he was arrested, one item in his possession was lipstick
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/dateline%20hidden/2007/april/spector/spector_police_report.pdf
That was interesting. And I wonder why 2 lancets? Little surgical knives aren't they?

[My 2 Cents]

It's also possible that the other door had a deadbolt that required a key (whether a regular key or the thumb key type) to open from the inside. Just a thought...

Based on feedback from most all of Spectors "vistors" to the castle, they all pretty much state the same things that happen upon arrival:

* wait to be escorted thru locked outside gates (electric fences also mentioned)
* gate relocked behind them after they enter
* many state they are "frisked" upon entering
* doors locked behind guests, after they enter the house
* usually left waiting long periods - for Spector to make his "grand entrance"
* his children kept out of sight and locked in rooms

So I would think the "odds" are consistent with ALL the doors of the "castle" being locked that night and the "guest" needing a key in order to leave. After all, why would it be any different for this guest, Lana - than it has been in the past for his other guests, guests that actually made it out alive? (And I don't mean the 4 or 5 PBS witnesses. I mean the "regular" guests of PS who have mentioned this in articles and interviews.) . . . IMO, that seems to be the "M.O." when visiting 1700 Grandview.

[oodi1]

Lancets are used to puncture the skin for diabetic testing. I'm not sure what else they may be used for.

[Spectorfan8]

I googled lancets. One purpose is to test blood glucose... but I did not see a glucose meter as one of the items in his possession. Lancets probably have other purposes too.

Is PS diabetic?

Yes, I have read that he is.

[kennedy06]

I had forgotten that when he was arrested, one item in his possession was lipstick
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/tvnews/dateline%20nbc/dateline%20hidden/2007/april/spector/spector_police_report.pdf


If he wore lipstick, a ladies' jacket and heels.... maybe he also wore false eyelashes

Oh, I don't think I have ever read that before. If I did I don't remember it. That was very interesting. That stuff that was photographed at the police station, he had on him when he was subdued by the police at his home or was he allowed to get things before he went to the police station?

[My 2 Cents]

Oh, I don't think I have ever read that before. If I did I don't remember it. That was very interesting. That stuff that was photographed at the police station, he had on him when he was subdued by the police at his home or was he allowed to get things before he went to the police station?

I believe those items would have been on him.

If PS had to be tasered so police could get him to comply, I would guess he was immediately hand-cuffed shortly thereafter, to relieve the concern for the policemen's safety. At that point he wouldn't be allowed to do anything, use restroom, nothing . . . IMO.

RE: "Lipstick" - maybe it was recorded as that but it was more of a "clear gloss" used for keeping lips from chapping, etc . . . like a Chapstick, but possibly a little bit nicer container. If PS takes all the "meds" we've read that he does, I would imagine "dry lips and mouth" may be a constant battle.

[kennedy06]

I was thinking about the 2 pairs of glasses, they wouldn't be something you would have in your pants pockets. I didn't note eyeglass cases being photographed. I would think you would keep those in your shirt pocket either way. If there were 2 loose pairs of glasses and there was a great struggle with the police I would think they would have been damaged somehow??? Just thinking.

[My 2 Cents]

I was thinking about the 2 pairs of glasses, they wouldn't be something you would have in your pants pockets. I didn't note eyeglass cases being photographed. I would think you would keep those in your shirt pocket either way. If there were 2 loose pairs of glasses and there was a great struggle with the police I would think they would have been damaged somehow??? Just thinking.

Great observation & point! Could the glasses (at least one pair) been in the white jacket pocket and since the detectives grabbed that (eventually), the items in the jacket where recorded as PS property as well? Just wondering? . . . the 2nd pair of glasses may have been on him or on a table close by, etc and PS made sure the police grabbed it - - he may not wear them all the time but someone who needs "reading" glasses and is about to be hauled down to Police Headquarters would sure want to make sure they could read the small print on any paperwork, if need be.

[My 2 Cents]

Perhaps PS doesn't buy his chapstick at the supermarket like us and it was in a fancier case. I think a male cop would write chapstick though or lip balm... unless it was in a fancier or 'feminine' container. A female cop would write gloss or lipstick if it were gloss or lipstick.

Ok, . . . I was trying to be nice. But maybe the man does wear lipstick. Don't know - - - but I certainly want to thank you for that unpleasant "visual". :scared: LOL

[Jayne]

Many thanks to Sprocket, her dedication to following the trial, and her notes of Steve Renteria's testimony, we can have the following information:



With a percentage 1 of 2.5 trillion, it is certain that the eyelashes belonged to Lana Jean Clarkson and were handled by Phil Spector at some point.

Thank you Sprocket!

Mortie


thank you Mortie


she did NOT put them there..they were placed there..

why on earth would his dna be on them if he didn't touch them?

[My 2 Cents]

Spyder after reading this article about the Dateline special, I might add telling someone to make sure they call you on Monday.

This is worth rereading again, though many of us watched it sometime towards or after the last trial, it's the Dateline special. They do include some evidence photos as does the old CTV homepage for PS.

Something else I found interesting, under the list of things you could read about on that site, the story about the actress and the video. It is about the video he made where he offered the check. As I read it, I wondered why (as the article stated) he kept saying she may have?

I guess there is probably a simple answer that I'm not seeing for the way he worded that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18319872/


With regards to this "Home Video" Phil recorded and had released in 2005, explaining HIS side of what took place . . .

I can't find the ENTIRE video anymore (just short clips), but on a WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT from a Larry King show that played several portions of his video - here are the exact words, included in the show's transcript, for the OPENING of this video (with Phil talking).

MY QUESTION: Why would he OPEN with these statements? What is wrong with this man? A woman died in his home and on the video explaining how he is NOT involved, he STARTS OUT WITH THESE "LINES"? He's trying to be funny? The man is truly CLUELESS (and heartless - IMO) . . . and tacky!!! (again - IMO)

From Larry King transcript - quote of what Spector stated in opening segment of his "home video":

SPECTOR: Greetings, I'm Phil Spector. Welcome to my castle. I have no idea where the servants are. I think they are out robbing other houses, bringing in new furniture for mine. Come right in. Let me get you the right -- (INAUDIBLE) let me get you a better song (INAUDIBLE) you will sit and join me in my depression. We will all take new Prozac-lite and we will have a wonderful time together.


Really Phil???????? :thumbdown:

[Spectorfan8]

With regards to this "Home Video" Phil recorded and had released in 2005, explaining HIS side of what took place . . .

I can't find the ENTIRE video anymore (just short clips), but on a WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT from a Larry King show that played several portions of his video - here are the exact words, included in the show's transcript, for the OPENING of this video (with Phil talking).

MY QUESTION: Why would he OPEN with these statements? What is wrong with this man? A woman died in his home and on the video explaining how he is NOT involved, he STARTS OUT WITH THESE "LINES"? He's trying to be funny? The man is truly CLUELESS (and heartless - IMO) . . . and tacky!!! (again - IMO)

From Larry King transcript - quote of what Spector stated in opening segment of his "home video":

SPECTOR: Greetings, I'm Phil Spector. Welcome to my castle. I have no idea where the servants are. I think they are out robbing other houses, bringing in new furniture for mine. Come right in. Let me get you the right -- (INAUDIBLE) let me get you a better song (INAUDIBLE) you will sit and join me in my depression. We will all take new Prozac-lite and we will have a wonderful time together.


Really Phil???????? :thumbdown:

That is all that I can find of the tape. However, that whiny MB says she has a copy since she was the one who made the video. According to her, Rachelle is sitting right there in another chair...off camera.
Personally, I don't know if she's telling the truth or not.JMO

[My 2 Cents]

That is all that I can find of the tape. However, that whiny MB says she has a copy since she was the one who made the video. According to her, Rachelle is sitting right there in another chair...off camera.
Personally, I don't know if she's telling the truth or not.JMO

MB may have operated the camera filming it and RS may have been sitting, off camera close by, but I have no doubt that ALL THE WORDS and statements made by Phil, were all HIS WORDS (and his idea) and no one else's. Don't you agree?

I would also bet his attorney's would have done everything to convince PS not to do this, had they known about.

[Spectorfan8]

MB may have operated the camera filming it and RS may have been sitting, off camera close by, but I have no doubt that ALL THE WORDS and statements made by Phil, were all HIS WORDS (and his idea) and no one else's. Don't you agree?

I would also bet his attorney's would have done everything to convince PS not to do this, had they known about.

I do agree....it should never have been made.

[Spectorfan8]

why do you call her whiny? assuming you mean Michelle Blain and not Michael Baden with the MB :laugh:

I was talking about Michelle Blaine. Have you ever read her pathetic blog? Her, Oh, whoa is me attitude really gets old.
If she feels so strong about Mr. Spector, then she should testify. She only has to testify if Mr. Spector gets on the stand. At least that is what she told me awhile back.
She wants people to feel so sorry for her because she worked for Mr. Spector. If she didn't like it, she should have quit. Instead she hung right in there with him until he fired her.

[Spectorfan8]

I was talking about Michelle Blaine. Have you ever read her pathetic blog? Her, Oh, whoa is me attitude really gets old.
If she feels so strong about Mr. Spector, then she should testify. She only has to testify if Mr. Spector gets on the stand. At least that is what she told me awhile back.
She wants people to feel so sorry for her because she worked for Mr. Spector. If she didn't like it, she should have quit. Instead she hung right in there with him until he fired her.

It has been brought to my attention(by a friend) that this post sounds like one that a banned poster would make. Sorry, this came straight from my own thoughts. Never really read that poster's post, it was all about the first trial. Been there, know all about the first trial.

I just wanted to clear it up.

[Spectorfan8]

I have not read the Michelle Blaine blog. I will have to look for it. I was just kidding with the MB meaning Michael Baden... when reading these boards, I sometimes have to stop and think of the reference for the acronym or initials... :confused:

I thought so, Yes, it can get confusing sometimes when we use the person's initials. I have caught myself wondering who this person or that person was. It's no problem.:thumbup:

[dref99]

I was talking about Michelle Blaine. Have you ever read her pathetic blog? Her, Oh, whoa is me attitude really gets old.
If she feels so strong about Mr. Spector, then she should testify. She only has to testify if Mr. Spector gets on the stand. At least that is what she told me awhile back.
She wants people to feel so sorry for her because she worked for Mr. Spector. If she didn't like it, she should have quit. Instead she hung right in there with him until he fired her.

It has always been my thought that Michelle can only testify if Phil takes the stand, because otherwise anything she says is only "hearsay"("She said he said"). I am no lawyer and I could always be completely wrong with this. I assume she could testify that the driver attempted to call her at a specific time - but I think that has been accepted as fact without need for her confirmation.

If Phil does speak, then I assume the prosecution could use Michelle to refute, argue, disagree or whatever with some of what he says.

JMO

[dref99]

That certainly wasn't what I was saying GS - and I wasn't attacking anyone. I was purely commenting on the legalities of Michelle testifying and would like to know the legal side of same.

I'm sure Michelle has well learned to look after herself & there will always be folks who do/don't like certain blogs. There has also been some negative comments about the T&T blog on here at times & there are many blogs on the net that I could do without - but I appreciate both T&T and MB's blogs.

Also the odd radio show that seems to allow any caller to talk nonsense that I think perhaps could do much better - some folks may disagree with my view.

I am sure Michelle appreciates your support

jmo

[dref99]

Ok, I'm not sure why you think my comment was directed towards you? .... snipped for reply.

I really didn't know - people who support PS are going to speak against those who do not and vice versa.

It always seems to me that those who do support PS get jumped on so quickly they never get a chance to expand their ideas. Which may well be a good idea - but sometimes I would really like to be able to understand why someone thinks that Lana had anything to do with her own death, or alternatively why anyone thinks that PS may be found not guilty. If they are instantly jumped upon, we will never know. maybe sometimes we all deserve to be jumped upon.

No doubt I want the impossible

jmo

[Spectorfan8]

Ok, I'm not sure why you think my comment was directed towards you? It actually was directed towards Spectorfan8, I just did not want to point the finger directly at her since I usually respect her views, just not this one. If I could have put my comment directly after her post, I would have.

That's fine that your post was directed at me. I usually respect your comments.
No big deal.:wink:

[Spectorfan8]

I really didn't know - people who support PS are going to speak against those who do not and vice versa.

It always seems to me that those who do support PS get jumped on so quickly they never get a chance to expand their ideas. Which may well be a good idea - but sometimes I would really like to be able to understand why someone thinks that Lana had anything to do with her own death, or alternatively why anyone thinks that PS may be found not guilty. If they are instantly jumped upon, we will never know. maybe sometimes we all deserve to be jumped upon.

No doubt I want the impossible

jmo

I support your post. IMPO, I do not believe that murder should be the charge. Maybe she was playing with the gun...and it went off,maybe.
Maybe, he didn't mean for the gun to go off, in my opinion an accident.

I don't know, the only person that does know isn't going to take the stand.
I honestly don't mind someone jumping on me, I have my opnions and thoughts, and I will post them.:wink:

[dref99]

Hi SF8

I guess I still don't understand. I can't agree that lana chose to be anywhere near the gun - I can believe Phil didn't mean to kill her - but in my mind, that is still not an accident. Producing a loaded gun is enough to remove the word "accident"

I do agree that the one who used to know (not sure he remembers any more) will not take the stand.

Thank you for the comments, it reinforces that I don't think the suicide defense was a very good idea.


jmo

[oodi1]

I agree that the suicide defense is ridiculous, but what choice is there? As I see it (and I'm by no means any expert), any other option would result in at least some culpability on the part of PS, which may result in jail time. The suicide defense was the only option to absolve him of any responsibility.

[Spectorfan8]

You should be bashing PS for not taking the stand, not MB. It is amazing you ignore the overwhelming evidence against PS and sit her and make things up that couldn't have possibly happened. No one with a full deck wouldn't make up such outlandish lies towards Lana just because they like PS past musical history.

Maybe lana was playing with a gun? Where is the evidence since it was PS who claimed to have shot "someone"?

When he is found guilty, what else will you make up about Lana and MB?

imo

I will post whatever I please. If you do not like my posts, scroll past them. :tonguewag:

[NYGalPal]

I'm in the middle of reading MBs blog. WTH is her point?

What will the PS hanger-ons do when he is put in jail for killing Lana?

[Anakerie]

I'm in the middle of reading MGs blog. WTH is her point?

What will the PS hanger-ons do when he is put in jail for killing Lana?
MG's blog? I must be brain dead this morning. Who is MG?

As for your question about the PS hang-ons, I imagine they will be anxiously awaiting the appeals that PS and his lawyer(s) will no doubt file. As for me, I will be interested to hear how Phil adapts to prison life. It'll also be interesting to hear what Mrs. Spector does after the conviction.

[Spectorfan8]

MG's blog? I must be brain dead this morning. Who is MG?

LOL. She is talking about MB. I have her on ignore, so I could only see it when you quoted it.

[NYGalPal]

MG's blog? I must be brain dead this morning. Who is MG?

I fixed my error. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

[NYGalPal]

LOL. She is talking about MB. I have her on ignore, so I could only see it when you quoted it.

Of course you ignore people who prove you wrong at every turn. I'll be better for it. Trust me. :rolleyes:

[Anakerie]

I fixed my error. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

lol, You confused me... No worries.. :thumbsup:

BTW, I went back and answered your other question.. hehe

[NYGalPal]

You should be bashing PS for not taking the stand, not MB. It is amazing you ignore the overwhelming evidence against PS and sit her and make things up that couldn't have possibly happened. No one with a full deck wouldn't make up such outlandish lies towards Lana just because they like PS past musical history.

Maybe lana was playing with a gun? Where is the evidence since it was PS who claimed to have shot "someone"?

When he is found guilty, what else will you make up about Lana and MB?

imo

Anyone but PS is the name of the game. Don't expect an educated answer. It's laughable to suggest Lana was "maybe" playing with the gun. It's even more ridiculous than PS silly defense.

[NYGalPal]

MG's blog? I must be brain dead this morning. Who is MG?

As for your question about the PS hang-ons, I imagine they will be anxiously awaiting the appeals that PS and his lawyer(s) will no doubt file. As for me, I will be interested to hear how Phil adapts to prison life. It'll also be interesting to hear what Mrs. Spector does after the conviction.

I'm reading the responses. The arguments are funny. All over that POG, PS. He's not worth it.

They will wait years and PS will still be sitting in jail. How will his hair fair in jail? Not well. j/k He's too much of a coward. He won't fair well at all, imo.

Mrs., who married him for money will find another poor soul to leach off of.

[NYGalPal]

is it my bad memory or is there another thread missing? It may have been one about the ramones. :confused:

I don't recall a thread re: remones. The old case thread is finally closed. :thumbsup:

[Anakerie]

is it my bad memory or is there another thread missing? It may have been one about the ramones. :confused:

Threads seem to disappear from this forum quite often. Wonder where they end up or if they're deleted............. Hmm...

[Jayne]

maybe not Ramones but a radio interview or UK interview. oh well missing threads are probably with mates to my socks in a black hole somewhere

HAHA..maybe in some fountain in Alhambra? :)

[Spectorfan8]

is it my bad memory or is there another thread missing? It may have been one about the ramones. :confused:

There was a thread about the Ramones.:smile:

[Spectorfan8]

Yes, I remember that thread. I think it discussed Marky changing his story about what happened in the studio. He now claims that Mr PS never pulled a gun out. It's sad that he would claim that only after all the other band members past away. Now there is no one but Mr PS as a witness to what happened.

That is what it discussed.
At least Marky has been in court a few times showing his support of Mr. Spector.

[Spectorfan8]

I have to agree with your post. It is Mr PS that is not willing to take the stand, not MB.

Also, to even suggest an accident on Lana's part would suggest that she was capable of pulling an 11lbs trigger easily, with two shattered wrists that only recently (to that date) had the pins removed. I do not believe that would have been an easy task.

I can only guess, the poster may just be worried that if Mr PS goes to jail, all his music may disappear (and that may be what he's hoping). Well, I too am a fan of his music and I am fortunate enough to have some old 45's and CD's to still listen to. The best we can hope for (the fans that is) is that he may have sold the rights or he lets the rights expire. If he sold them, the new owners could keep them on the radio. If Mr PS let them expire, they will become public domain and anyone can copy and use them, again, keeping them playing.

Sad to say about another person, but his music may be missed, but I really don't think he will be except maybe by his kids even though he still won't see them now, while he can. So I don't know if they can miss him more than they might now.

Then, if MB wants to, she should haul it right up to AJ and let him know.

[Anakerie]

Then, if MB wants to, she should haul it right up to AJ and let him know.

Do you not understand? Michelle Blaine will only be called to testify if Phil Spector testifies. Which you know darn well he won't. Geezzzz....

I'm sorry, Spectorfan, in the past I have respected your views and tried hard not to jump on your posts. But your apparent hatred for Michelle Blaine is over the top. What the heck happened to you?

[Spectorfan8]

Do you not understand? Michelle Blaine will only be called to testify if Phil Spector testifies. Which you know darn well he won't. Geezzzz....

I'm sorry, Spectorfan, in the past I have respected your views and tried hard not to jump on your posts. But your apparent hatred for Michelle Blaine is over the top. What the heck happened to you?

I KNOW that she can only take the stand IF Mr. Spector does. The poster that I was posting to implied that she CAN take the stand.

I do not hate Michelle Blaine. Nothing personal at all.
I also know that Mr. Spector will not take the stand.
Personally, I never even knew that you read my posts. So, thank you for the compliment.
What happened to me? Can't say.

[NYGalPal]

Then, if MB wants to, she should haul it right up to AJ and let him know.

You aren't in any position to be telling anyone what they should be doing. :rolleyes:

[wasapi]

I am aware that this may not be entirely on-topic, but I am hoping someone can answer some questions.

Were any of the guns found in the home of PS, registered to him? It seems that if I recall correctly, the gun that killed Lana was not, and I don't recall if they were ever able to definetively trace it back to whose name it was registered in.

Also, I read with great interest the posts about the false eyelashes. I read that they didn't have blood on them, but would that completely exclude the possibility that they did come off due to the incredible pressure? I guess I am wondering if having had them on for a long period of time they may have become lose, and landed somewhere several feet from the body.

Did the eyelashes ever come up in trial #1?

[Jayne]

I KNOW that she can only take the stand IF Mr. Spector does. The poster that I was posting to implied that she CAN take the stand.

I do not hate Michelle Blaine. Nothing personal at all.
I also know that Mr. Spector will not take the stand.
Personally, I never even knew that you read my posts. So, thank you for the compliment.
What happened to me? Can't say.

What happened to you? You became my friend. Opposites..yes you can say.

NO..you're wrong..and we can talk about it...MB can take the stand...but only if the prosecution or defense calls her. She has plenty to say. Her blog is pathetic..I do agree. She has a lot to fry..bones to pick. They wouldn't call her to back up Adriano's phone call to her..why? to have the defense tear her apart? Of course not. Would she now come in and "trash" PS? Hardly...he has enough on her to fry her. You know...it comes down to how one lives his/her life.

Dirt is dirt..and it only gets worse.

This woman...may be a perfectly good person...as Lana may have been..but they both have something in common..whether for a night..a moment or months working together.. (frankly...from MB's blog...I don't give her much credence.) Nor am I crazy about any other blogs..but I'm thankful for the information.

something here on these threads make so much more sense..

There's something rotten in Denmark..

it lies within..

[NYGalPal]

If you choose to run a Forum, threads and messages become "Business Records" and are legally supposed to be saved for a minimum of 5 or 7 years, do not remember which. Also, there are HomeLand Security rules regarding message boards that are not published widely.
They are moved to an archive that us normal users cannot see but they are still here someplace.

Mortie
Hi Mort, always nice to see you post.
Wonder why they left the old case thread now that the OP is banned?

[Anakerie]

If you choose to run a Forum, threads and messages become "Business Records" and are legally supposed to be saved for a minimum of 5 or 7 years, do not remember which. Also, there are HomeLand Security rules regarding message boards that are not published widely.
They are moved to an archive that us normal users cannot see but they are still here someplace.

Mortie

Thank you, Mortie. I didn't know it was a requirement to save the threads...

[Jayne]

Sorry, but from what I understand of the Law, other than the Lawyers advising my father, there is nothing stopping him from just letting the Judge know that he wishes to take the Stand. I'm sure he can't just walk up and sit on the Stand and start talking but something tells me, neither the Prosecution nor the Judge would really stop him.

I just do not know if there is anything he can say that would help him stay out of jail. I do believe he could make it worse but there is still always that off chance that he may say something that could help clear him.

PS has every right to take that stand...NO ONE can stop him. His attorney(s) may advise against it, but they canNOT stop him.

He will not take that stand...I'm quite certain of it...because all those spewing filth of his mouth will come out in those police reports. He was darned lucky he had Cutler get shot down to his knees...those reports are OUT..unless PS takes the stand. He should thank his lucky stars for Shapiro and Cutler. I think Cutler knew about it all along..it was "staged". But..then...I'm an ol' NYker...and a "fan" of his..smart lawyer..very smart...would put DW to shame, imo.

Gary...I'd like to think so..but I dont' think there is a word your father could put in to aquit/clear himself. He has hurt too many people in his life..not to mention YOU and your brothers for goodness sakes. There is little he has other than his "music" and his new wife to keep him happy and afloat? You're a better man, Gary...be thankful you got out of there..

jmo

j

[Spectorfan8]

What happened to you? You became my friend. Opposites..yes you can say.

NO..you're wrong..and we can talk about it...MB can take the stand...but only if the prosecution or defense calls her. She has plenty to say. Her blog is pathetic..I do agree. She has a lot to fry..bones to pick. They wouldn't call her to back up Adriano's phone call to her..why? to have the defense tear her apart? Of course not. Would she now come in and "trash" PS? Hardly...he has enough on her to fry her. You know...it comes down to how one lives his/her life.

Dirt is dirt..and it only gets worse.

This woman...may be a perfectly good person...as Lana may have been..but they both have something in common..whether for a night..a moment or months working together.. (frankly...from MB's blog...I don't give her much credence.) Nor am I crazy about any other blogs..but I'm thankful for the information.

something here on these threads make so much more sense..

There's something rotten in Denmark..

it lies within..

Excuse me?

[Jayne]

Excuse me?

NO..Not you, my friend...

something is lying within..it's NOT you. I love you my friend.

:)

[Spectorfan8]

Trust me Spectorfan8, when I say, Allen Jackson knows all about Michelle Blaine and knows that she is available. He can not put her on the Stand unless my father takes the stand 1st. The only other possibility would be if Rachelle takes the Stand to discuss the Fountain.

So, just to let you know, any negative talk about Michelle Blaine not wanting to take the Stand, is just not warranted. The only thing keeping her from doing it is my father and possibly Rachelle.

Personally, I am surprised that you are not mad at my father for not trying to defend himself. I for one, would very much like to see him take the Stand to defend himself and not leave the rest of his life in the hands of his lawyers.

I would LOVE for him to take the stand, everyone would.
I will not discuss MB with anyone any longer. You're right, I shouldn't have posted it, just kept it to myself. It's O/T anyway.
Now, do you feel better?

[Spectorfan8]

NO..Not you, my friend...

something is lying within..it's NOT you. I love you my friend.

:)

Oh, so sorry Thelma. I love you too.

[Spectorfan8]

Something could be lying in wait. We have three members and eight "guests".

This is a reply to Jayne's post.

[Anakerie]

Here's a clue about the "missing" threads......... Go to your UserCP options and change the "Default Thread Age Cut Off" to "Show all posts"... Voila, all the "missing" threads are still there...

Sorry for not thinking about the defaults for the board earlier... I've had real life concerns that have distracted me...........

[My 2 Cents]

Here's a clue about the "missing" threads......... Go to your UserCP options and change the "Default Thread Age Cut Off" to "Show all posts"... Voila, all the "missing" threads are still there...

Sorry for not thinking about the defaults for the board earlier... I've had real life concerns that have distracted me...........

Whoaaa!!! ANAKERIE . . . You're a GENIUS. Thanks!

So many threads I've NEVER seen before. I guess I have some "perusing" to do. :read:

[Anakerie]

Whoaaa!!! ANAKERIE . . . You're a GENIUS. Thanks!

So many threads I've NEVER seen before. I guess I have some "perusing" to do. :read:

:laugh: I can't take credit for that information... Not tonight anyway. I have to thank a former poster here who emailed me with the info.. hehe

[dref99]

You aren't in any position to be telling anyone what they should be doing. :rolleyes:

Well none of us are, we're scattered to the 4 winds on a message board - but sometimes I'd like to tell Phil to have a change of heart and tell everyone what really happened that night


jmo

[NYGalPal]

I would LOVE for him to take the stand, everyone would.
I will not discuss MB with anyone any longer. You're right, I shouldn't have posted it, just kept it to myself. It's O/T anyway.
Now, do you feel better?

You know he won't because he's guilty and he has a bad habit of lying.

[NYGalPal]

Well none of us are, we're scattered to the 4 winds on a message board - but sometimes I'd like to tell Phil to have a change of heart and tell everyone what really happened that night


jmo

PS has no character and no soul. He'll never admit to what he did.

[Spectorfan8]

I wish he could say to the Clarkson family... 'I am sorry about what happened to your daughter at my house ' .... he could say that with no guilt admitted:cursing:

You're right...that he could do.

[NYGalPal]

I wish he could say to the Clarkson family... 'I am sorry about what happened to your daughter at my house ' .... he could say that with no guilt admitted:cursing:

PS lacks a concience. I can't wait to hear what the jury says about him when this trial is over.

[kennedy06]

This is sort of a sad story about the Estelle, one of the Ronettes that passed away. PS is mentioned in the article so......one part of it deals with a suit against PS and the settlement. Just rather sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/arts/music/17rone.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Estelle%20Bennet%20Ronettes&st=cse

[wasapi]

I am aware that this may not be entirely on-topic, but I am hoping someone can answer some questions.

Were any of the guns found in the home of PS, registered to him? It seems that if I recall correctly, the gun that killed Lana was not, and I don't recall if they were ever able to definetively trace it back to whose name it was registered in.

Also, I read with great interest the posts about the false eyelashes. I read that they didn't have blood on them, but would that completely exclude the possibility that they did come off due to the incredible pressure? I guess I am wondering if having had them on for a long period of time they may have become lose, and landed somewhere several feet from the body.

Did the eyelashes ever come up in trial #1?

O.K., I admit, this isn't the first time I have talked to myself!

[cherylt]

I am aware that this may not be entirely on-topic, but I am hoping someone can answer some questions.

Were any of the guns found in the home of PS, registered to him?

Also, I read with great interest the posts about the false eyelashes. I read that they didn't have blood on them, but would that completely
Did the eyelashes ever come up in trial #1?


IIRC, they lashes were found on the ground level in the bathroom - set on a towel or toilet paper; looking like she took them off. I think they were neatly placed by the sink & she probably (imo) was going to go back for them b4 she left and forgot about them (found in a chair with purse on shoulder - if she was leaving upon the shooting, she forgot about them, but she was drinking...)

And yes, I believe he had 4 or 5 registered guns & perhaps one that wasn't registered. But I may be a little off on that...

[oodi1]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something about the possibility of a defense strategy being that since the gun involved in this case wasn't registered to PS, that it wasn't his.... but the same ammo was found in other guns in the house (that were registered to PS). I can't remember the exact details, so maybe someone else can fill in the parts I'm missing, or have incorrect.

[dref99]

O.K., I admit, this isn't the first time I have talked to myself!

I think some were registered - if you look at the online documents from the old trial it may be there somewhere - if they were mentioned in trial 1 - as said, there may be information on the old posts of the T&T blog

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


jmo

[dref99]

IIRC, they lashes were found on the ground level in the bathroom - set on a towel or toilet paper; looking like she took them off. I think they were neatly placed by the sink & she probably (imo) was going to go back for them b4 she left and forgot about them (found in a chair with purse on shoulder - if she was leaving upon the shooting, she forgot about them, but she was drinking...)

And yes, I believe he had 4 or 5 registered guns & perhaps one that wasn't registered. But I may be a little off on that...

she had not had alot to drink Cheryl - unlike the person she was with, Lana had been working - non alcoholic drinks only. Her only alcohol was at the house of PS.

I cannot imagine a woman leaving eye lashes on a toilet tank - and that is the only place they were seen. I know it would be nice to change the "facts" as the defense does try to do - sadly for the defense "it is what it is"

jmo

[kennedy06]

I believe you are correct G on the amount of guns compared to # phones.

There is information on the various guns in the home, 2 which PS purchased in the late 60s/early70s, one assortment that he purchased from a friend, and the others with incomplete histories, the exact details can be found in TDW of S by M.B. page 426. The gun used in the shooting was sent from Colt to a TX gundealer in 71 and that is all on that one.(paraphrasing on all points)

JMO

[kennedy06]

MB may have operated the camera filming it and RS may have been sitting, off camera close by, but I have no doubt that ALL THE WORDS and statements made by Phil, were all HIS WORDS (and his idea) and no one else's. Don't you agree?

I would also bet his attorney's would have done everything to convince PS not to do this, had they known about.


I believe there are two different videos. One offering the check (shell necklace, Hawiian shirt) and the other the reality show idea where he walks around his home and mentions the prozac light.

[kennedy06]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something about the possibility of a defense strategy being that since the gun involved in this case wasn't registered to PS, that it wasn't his.... but the same ammo was found in other guns in the house (that were registered to PS). I can't remember the exact details, so maybe someone else can fill in the parts I'm missing, or have incorrect.

I guess this isn't exactly trial testimony but on page 3 here it mentions about bullets in a cup similar to the ones in the gun. There must be a more exact description (link) about the bullets and where they were found. Anyway it's something :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749858/page/3/

[kennedy06]

So far, has there been any evidence that Lana ever went into that bathroom? :confused:

Like were there fingerprints on the faucet handle or inside door handle? I don't know if that was mentioned or anything like that, good point though.

I think I have a little information overload in some areas of this case and I'm completely blank on others anymore lol.

[Joe Friday]

www.LosAngelesTrials.blogspot.com

Lotsa new stuff!!

[Spectorfan8]

This is sort of a sad story about the Estelle, one of the Ronettes that passed away. PS is mentioned in the article so......one part of it deals with a suit against PS and the settlement. Just rather sad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/arts/music/17rone.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Estelle%20Bennet%20Ronettes&st=cse

That was truly sad. Goes to show that you just never know what is really happening in someone's life.

[tartangirl]

Thanks Joe, I remember that witness from the first trial as having no credibility at all. He hurt more than helped then and from what you have posted, he is at it again and using the victim for his own purposes....:glare:



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

[cherylt]

she had not had alot to drink Cheryl - unlike the person she was with, Lana had been working - non alcoholic drinks only. Her only alcohol was at the house of PS.

I cannot imagine a woman leaving eye lashes on a toilet tank - and that is the only place they were seen. I know it would be nice to change the "facts" as the defense does try to do - sadly for the defense "it is what it is"

jmo


Sorry, NO I am NOT trying to change the facts. I just thought I recalled it kind of looked like she may have taken them off themselves because maybe they are burdensome after a long day, that's all. He very well may have had something to do w/ it, but I don't know why he would choose to put them on the toilet tank...

I do believe PS did it - there is a mound of circumstantial & direct evidence against him - "I think I killed somone". I forgot a few things, so again, sorry that she wasn't "drunk". I was just trying to think of a reason IF she took off her eyelashes why she could have forgotten them... I obviously really don't know.

(And to GPSpector - I didn't say he "ripped them off her w/ a diaper"!)

Although he did wipe her offf with something like a diaper, I have no idea if why he would put the eyelashes if they fell off on the tolet tank....

I thought he should have been convicted the 1st time & am upset just like everyone else that TTV isn't covering it. Sorry if I forgot a few things, but AJ was brialliant and that defense team was a circus, imo.

[cherylt]

I believe you are correct G on the amount of guns compared to # phones.


JMO


That's reminds me about the phones. How MANY did he have & he NEVER called 911? Somewhere between 10-14, but nobody stone me if I'm wrong. He also had 40 minutes to himself. With the # of phones in the house, he could easily have picked up any one of them to call for help and he didn't. Another "bad fact" for PS...

[dref99]

There are 2 documents from trial one related to the guns
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

1. 10/19/2005 Notice of motion & motion to exclude evidence of firearms ..... 6 page document

The defense wanted all except the gun that killed Lana Clarkson excluded from evidence.

On February 3, 2003, after Defendant was arrested in connection with the death of Lana Clarkson (the "deceased") Alhambra police officers searched Defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant and seized a total of fourteen guns. (my bolding)

2. 10/21/2005 Memorandum and points and authorities in opposition to defense motion to exclude firearms evidence
Note 54 pages

This document gives reasons for including 11 of the additional guns as evidence and details the type of gun, where found, loaded/not loaded and any additional ammunition found.


Does anyone know the final ruling? Having read the submissions AND watched the trial, I don't remember if they were admitted - but I think at least some were - to prove that the gun belonged to PS and not Lana - or did the defense eventually admit this?

The history of the guns is also given in the document

2 were bought by PS
5 were bought by a friend of PS who said he had sold them to PS
The remaining 5 handguns (including the one that killed Lana) have incomplete histories - the last known owners having no connection to PS.

The complete document is worth reading - it details many statements by PS related to Lana killing herself. The comment that Lana was drunk before they left the House of Blues may be what another poster saw re comments as to whether lana was drunk.

jmo

[cherylt]

Sorry but there was no evidence showing that the Eyelashes were anyplace other than on Lana's Eyes and the Toilet Tank. I'm not even sure if there was enough evidence to even prove they were wiped off with the diaper.

As for the her drinking, she did not have a high enough BAC in her system to even suggest she was drunk and certainly not enough to forget things. Besides, being forgetful does not require alcohol.

As for the gun, yes, my father tried at 1st to claim the gun was not his and blamed Lana for bringing it, until it was proven that the odd mix of ammo matched some of his other guns.

I do not recall the exact count of guns but I think it was close to the same number of phones he had, to include a shotgun and a starts pistol.

I had never read that the original owner was know but I do recall reading that the gun was not registered to him. I think I read that the Serial # had been removed but I do not know if it was ever lifted (I think it's done with an acid).


I apologize that you took issue w/ my memories...Geez, all I wrote was surmising and trying to remember things from the 1st trial. So why would your father try to say that gun wasn't his and that it was Lana's (at first) if he is innocent? That's another "bad fact". I remember the defense trying to claim that perhaps she brought the gun with her in her purse & offed herself in a moment of desperation, which is preposterous, imo.

I remember now, PS asked her to come over for a drink - one drink she told Sousa - she may have had a little more. I did think she had more than one drink but I didn't mean to imply she was drunk (and even if she was, it wouldn't matter to me). So, I also forget things all the time though, with no alcohol involved! :) I have lots of lists...I was in a restaurant one time with friends, got home & realized I left my purse there! (although I did have 2 drinks..) And I almost did it a 2nd time @ that same place...duh! :)

I don't recall the acid on the gun to remove the serial #... are you saying u think it could have the previous owners'? just curious...

Anyway, haven't talked to you in awhile. Are you OK? Have you gone to the courtroom at all this time? I hope you are doing as well as you can...

[cherylt]

There are 2 documents from trial one related to the guns
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

1. 10/19/2005 Notice of motion & motion to exclude evidence of firearms ..... 6 page document

The defense wanted all except the gun that killed Lana Clarkson excluded from evidence.


2. 10/21/2005 Memorandum and points and authorities in opposition to defense motion to exclude firearms evidence
Note 54 pages

This document gives reasons for including 11 of the additional guns as evidence and details the type of gun, where found, loaded/not loaded and any additional ammunition found.

Does anyone know the final ruling? Having read the submissions AND watched the trial, I don't remember if they were admitted - but I think at least some were - to prove that the gun belonged to PS and not Lana - or did the defense eventually admit this?

The history of the guns is also given in the document

2 were bought by PS
5 were bought by a friend of PS who said he had sold them to PS
The remaining 5 handguns (including the one that killed Lana) have incomplete histories - the last known owners having no connection to PS.


jmo


Thanks for the info & link! I also don't remember if they let the # of guns in that was in his house... did the defense succeed in getting Fiddler to rule in their favor? I'll have to try to look it up. Or perhaps it is on Sprocket's page & I can check there to see if it is mentioned.

[dref99]

Thanks for the info & link! I also don't remember if they let the # of guns in that was in his house... did the defense succeed in getting Fiddler to rule in their favor? I'll have to try to look it up. Or perhaps it is on Sprocket's page & I can check there to see if it is mentioned.

Thanks for your other post - must have appeared while I was looking for the guns - took awhile to find the information, I thought I had seen it before.

I believe Phil tried to convince alot of folks that Lana was drunk, but my understanding was she was not allowed to drink alcohol while working - one would think a very good rule. The eyelashes to me are strange - I think it more likely that they came off when her face was wiped and were then put under a tap (or flush) - but it will probably never be known.

There may well be another of those documents that list the number of phones in the house.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Hi Guys - Went to court today. (What was I thinking? Rain, mixed with drivers from So Calif who don’t fair well in inclement weather and LA freeways . . . I need to have my head examined. What a nightmare. And then the courthouse parking lot was full - - Arghhh!). I was hoping my “determination to attend, in spite of all the obstacles”, would be rewarded in room 106, with some interesting testimony. Or the attorney’s arguments being heard & ruled on, regarding last week’s “discovery violations” +/or perjury allegations.

NOPE . . . court was IMO, a little boring and nothing more than a small, insignificant “blip” on the overall trial’s radar screen – so to speak.

The witnesses for the defense today were:
John Barons - the “Brentwood Blondes” director & playwright that fired Lana
Detective Thomas Fortier – with the LA Sheriff Dept “High-Tech Crime Force”. He reviewed the data on Lana’s laptop computer
David Schapiro – a friend of Lana’s that shared some e-mails that the 2 had exchanged


At 3PM, the defense ran out of witnesses (that they had called to be there), and court was adjourned.

Before the jury was brought in (at 9:30AM) the attorneys presented their “arguments” concerning the issue with the FOUNTAIN (I missed this, but was filled in by someone that was there, that it was “short & somewhat uneventful”). Then, at the start of the lunch break, JF made his ruling:

Fountain will be allowed ON during Thursday's jury visit to Spector's home. But the jury will be advised that the fountain may or may not have been set at the same speed, sound, etc. as on 2/3/03.

(JF did advise the lawyers that they could present argument/evidence (? – not sure what exact words he used), supporting their “point of view” to the jurors, with regards to the fountain sounding the same that morning or that it had been altered and therefore did not necessarily sound this way on 2/3/03. - - something to that affect.

Have to go fix dinner – be back to share more later.
(And I’m sure you can ALL hardly wait - - now that I’ve told you it was BORING. Ha, ha.) I just noticed that there's a separate link from Joe Friday, who apparently was there today as well. I haven't had a chance to read that yet, but I will take a peek at it after dinner to make sure I don't duplicate too much.

[dref99]

My2Cents

Do please duplicate anything at all - your reports are fabulous - thank you so much for posting.

Was there no mention of last weeks events?

And why did I know JF would let the fountain be on? I think he has written his final speech noting that he allowed everything the defense requested and still the facts were allowed to be seen.

jmo

[Jayne]

[QUOTE=My 2 Cents;12797679]Hi Guys - Went to court today. (What was I thinking? Rain, mixed with drivers from So Calif who don’t fair well in inclement weather and LA freeways . . . I need to have my head examined. What a nightmare. And then the courthouse parking lot was full - - Arghhh!). I was hoping my “determination to attend, in spite of all the obstacles”, would be rewarded in room 106, with some interesting testimony. Or the attorney’s arguments being heard & ruled on, regarding last week’s “discovery violations” +/or perjury allegations.

<snipped>

David Schapiro – a friend of Lana’s that shared some e-mails that the 2 had exchanged
[/B]

At 3PM, the defense ran out of witnesses (that they had called to be there), and court was adjourned.

Before the jury was brought in (at 9:30AM) the attorneys presented their “arguments” concerning the issue with the FOUNTAIN (I missed this, but was filled in by someone that was there, that it was “short & somewhat uneventful”). Then, at the start of the lunch break, JF made his ruling:

Fountain will be allowed ON during Thursday's jury visit to Spector's home. But the jury will be advised that the fountain may or may not have been set at the same speed, sound, etc. as on 2/3/03.

(JF did advise the lawyers that they could present argument/evidence (? – not sure what exact words he used), supporting their “point of view” to the jurors, with regards to the fountain sounding the same that morning or that it had been altered and therefore did not necessarily sound this way on 2/3/03. - - something to that affect.

<snipped>QUOTE]

Yes, ITA with you...WHAT were you thinking?! I had to go back to work today (those two hipless days on F and M) and had to drive with the nutsy CA drivers "in rain". 5 miles from home to office, but it was a "nightmare"..two accidents. Glad to read what you "observed" even if it was boring.

My guess is JF is allowing "argument" regarding the fountain..perhaps mixed with any evidence..if there is any to compare then to Now? Yes..he's doing, IMO, a "safe haven" ruling regarding the fountain being left on with that caveat. I say it would seem a rather ridiculous visit to not have the fountain on...a picture could do as well, unless it were to see how close or far the fountain was between the house and Adriano's car? Things change...sometimes purposefully and I wouldn't doubt at all that the fountain was "changed" between then and now.

Where do I find this "Joe's" link? thanks in advance.

How was dinner?

OH..David Shapiro...from PS1 - isn't he the "friend" who testfied then (did he as well this time?) about Lana's depressing emails? What a bud he was, huh? They were both "dramatists", I hope the jury can see through that.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

Court was pretty packed today. Surprising, considering the rain. On the defense side of the gallery it was “max’d out” with PS supporters. 3-4 people in each row. On the left side of the gallery it was about ½ full (maybe a little more) . (The left side is much larger and holds approx 3 to 4 times more people). Donte and Louis were both in court today. Donte sat in the front row with RS and Tawney Tindell, the defense’s investigator. Louis was with his friend Frieda . . . . what NICE, NICE, FRIENDLY people they BOTH are!

I’m not sure, but perhaps everyone came to court today for the same reason I did - in anticipation of hearing arguments on Pex perjury allegations & the discovery violations. But NOTHING was discussed on those 2 subjects (I arrived late to court – but others that were there advised me that it wasn’t brought up.)

Ok, in a “nutshell” I will tell you that my impression of today was that these 3 witnesses did NOTHING to help the defense IMO. If anything, they helped the prosecution. The reason I say this is because this is still the “beginning” , the “meat & potatoes” of the defenses’ case. And these witnesses have added “NO DOUBT” what-so-ever. They have NOT – IMO – offered anything that supports Lana having committed suicide.

1st up was John Baron. Baron is the writer & director of the play Lana was suppose to be in called “Brentwood Blondes”.
Here’s a link to the play’s website. http://brentwoodblondes.com/_wsn/page5.html
TRUC DO did the cross on Baron’s. It was brought out on the stand that Barons contacted Tawney Tindell – he said he only called after hearing that his name was on a list as a possible witness. He 1st called Tawney on 5/29/07 and then came out on a bus from Atlanta to testify on 7/9 & 7/10/07 (he doesn’t like to fly). It came across IMO, based on the questions asked by Truc Do, that this guy wanted his “15 minutes of fame” in front of ALL the cameras during PS1. (And it wouldn't exactly hurt the promotion of his play either.)

Lana was cast to play the Marilyn Monroe part (her idol). The play is about 3 blondes that are killed/murdered by “famous men”.
1. Marilyn Monroe – he speculates that the SENIOR Kennedy (Joseph) was behind this
2. Sharon Tate – killed by Manson
3. Nicole Brown Simpson – OJ
AND . . . after Lana died, Barons rewrote the play to include a 4th “blonde” . . LANA. And since the play is based on ONE SINGLE COMMON DENOMINATOR – that a “famous man killed each of these women – who do you think it was that killed Lana? We will NEVER know because Judge Fidler would NOT let Barons answer that question. (Fidler - you "party pooper")
(Barons said that he has now added a small scene that includes a reference to Princess Diana - her killer is the “paparazzi”.)

Lana was only being paid $5 a week. It appeared that she was doing this because she loved the idea of playing Marilyn Monroe and that she would “really get a chance to do some real acting”, and not for the money.

I hadn’t known this before: (I didn’t know LC was planning on quiting)
Lana had sent an e-mail to her friend, Teresa on 12/8/02 stating how excited she was about the possible HOB job and working in the Foundation Room (I believe this was before she actually was hired for the HOB job – and hoping she would get it). She advises this friend that if she does get this job that she will probably have to quit the play. She doubts that the HOB would let her take Thurs-Sun evenings off and her priority would definitely be the HOB job, not the play, and she would not lose this opportunity (HOB) . .. and she needed the money.

Barons conceded how gracious she was when he let her go. He received a note/letter from LC about one week after he let her go. He said he never opened it until AFTER play closed, and about 1 ½ months AFTER he had received the hand written note - - and after LC had died. (why didn’t he open it when he received it? No clue)

This is what the note said:
“Thank you John for bringing Marilyn to life for me in such a beautiful way. All the Best of Luck with the Show...Your Dreams! With Love, Lana”

[SHORTSIRKT]

Hi I am new here and I have a couple of comments. I do think PS is responsible for LC's death. PS brought the gun to the " party" whether accidentally or in a struggle to get that gun away from her face the gun went off. PS is responsible. And GSpector, you are so gracious in answering everyone's comments. Do you know your father's mother or his sister? if it's to personal then I understand. I was curious if they are living. I love Sprocket's Blog. I can't wait for the updates.

[My 2 Cents]

John Baron's Testimony (part 2):

On REDIRECT, it seemed the best DW could come up with was . . .
DW: “But this was a FICTIONAL PLAY right?”
JB: “Yes”

Barons stated that 1 reason he hired Lana was because of connections Lana had. Including her producer/director friend Roger Corman from the BARBARIAN QUEEN, DEATHSTALKER movies.

Reasons JB said he fired her: “Needy”, and he eluded to the “size” difference between her and the gal who played Sharon Tate (I assume this meant her height) and that she didn’t get along with Ron (he may be the producer – can’t recall). He also relayed the story about the $7,000 gold lame jacket I had heard about before . . . but not like this. I recall hearing before (opening statements?) that Lana had wanted an expensive $7,000 jacket/outfit to wear in this part . And today, Baron confirmed that this is part of the reason he fired her - - he told this story and used it to back up the fact that Lana was “needy”. HOWEVER, it was explained that Lana didn’t want Baron to provide her with this - - - apparently Lana had access to OR actually OWNED a very expensive ($7,000) gold lame jacket and she simply OFFERED to bring it and wear in the play if he wanted (because her character, MM, was suppose to wear a “gold lame robe”, and Nicole was suppose to wear a Silver Lame robe, etc). Apparently, this annoyed JB, that she offered to do this - for free.

AJ pulled up the website and it showed a copy of the very thoughtful letter that Lana had written & mailed to JB, which he posted on his site. JB also added a “Memorial Page” on the “Brentwood Blondes” website, dedicated to Lana.

I'm not sure what the DEFENSE hoped to accomplish with this witness.
Did they want to make sure the jury had a chance to read this very personable note written by Lana?
Did they want the jury to hear about the play he wrote about blondes MURDERED by famous men & that he ADDED LANA to the play?

IMO, I have a hard time believing they thought JB's testimony would convince this jury that Lana was suicidal over losing this $5 week part, a part that we now know Lana was going to quit anyway, because of the new job at the HOB, that she was excited to get. - - ANYWAY - that's the way I saw his testimony. Perhaps the jury viewed it as the defense had hoped.

[My 2 Cents]

The 2nd Witness of the Day - 2/17/09:

Detective Thomas Fortier – LA Sheriffs Dept (8 yrs) “High-Tech Task Force” (computer investigations)

Tom examined Lana’s laptop on 2/6/03 searching to see if PS & LC had communicated via computer, before. Also, to search for data with “keywords” (i.e. - depression, suicide, guns, murder, Spector).

Again, IMO – I just don’t see the “positive” impact this witness made for the defense. DW spent a lot of time on an e-mail sent to LC from SAG (screen actor’s guild). It was an e-mail for DEPRESSION & ALCOHOL SCREENING that Lana had retained in her “in-box”. It had NOT been deleted.

However, it was later brought out on CROSS (AJ ), that LANA had approx 3,553 e-mails that were in her “in-box” and had not been deleted (OK, DW - you might have mentioned that). Det. Fortier could not even tell if e-mail had ever been opened or read by Lana. This e-mail had actually not been received by LC until 8/2/02 – but the “expiration” date for the “depression/alcohol screening” was 6/9/02. It appeared to be a MASS MAILING to ALL the members of SAG, which Lana belonged too.

There were 3,553 “inbox” e-mails AND 1,932 “sent” e-mails on Lana’s computer. The scan also checked documents, etc that were used on her laptop, including previous “deleted” items. NOT ONE OF THESE e-mails or documents contained the word SUICIDE. There were only (3) e-mails that were “red flagged” from this entire search of her files. (1) was the SAG “junk mail” depression/alcohol screening offer, and (2) e-mails with the word DEPESSION referenced. In an e-mail to LC’s friend – “Angel Friend”, Lana writes how excited she is about the “Brentwood Blondes” play , she says she hasn’t read play yet but LOVES JB/director and is so excited to play Marilyn Monroe. She sounds so “up”, then in next line of the e-mail she says, “have to go clean up my pad now – thrashed it during a recent depression”. (I can't recall what the 2nd e-mail said that mentioned "depression" - apparently it was even less "riveting" than this one.)

On REDIRECT, DW had Det Fortier point out that this “SAG” mass mailing e-mail was in LC's inbox and had NOT been deleted.
“YES”, that's true . . . along with 3, 553 other UNDELETED e-mails.

IMO – I thought the fact that the defense called this witness just made them look a little “pathetic”. Thousands, and thousands and thousands of e-mails reviewed and (1) is a mass mailing for ALL SAG members about depression & alcohol that they can’t even verify if Lana even opened it or not. And (2) e-mails where Lana says the word “depression” in it.

AGAIN . . . What do they really hope to accomplish with that? Where are the "meat & potatoes" Mr Weinberg? The jury is "hungry" for something with a little more substance. (I know, I know, I know - - enough with all the "metaphors".)

FYI: Louis - - - You're right - It was nice having 3 witnesses take the stand in 1 day AND get a ruling on the fountain AND MEETING YOU & FRIEDA. :thumbup:

[dref99]

You remind me, my2cents, that I have thousands of emails in my inbox - some back to 2002 and some from professional or special interest groups, many of which I looked at the heading and read no further.

I am thinking I shall delete lots - the thought of anyone pouring over my mail is so horrible - I have spoken of depression with a number of friends/family - not always about me, and usually when it was over & whoever involved was feeling better.

There is so little evidence of suicide, Weinberg is really searching for the impossible.

Thankyou so much for your notes and thoughts.

jmo

[kennedy06]

Hearing this version of the Sag email/s story puts this in a whole other light.:rolleyes: Trashing her home in depression, that could simply mean I didn't take the time to pick up the papers, left the dishes next to the sink or didn't make my bed. Not literally destroying things.

I wonder if DW thought JB saying he had fired her was the end all? The shocker. See she was happy about the HOB, IMO she could have met all sorts of celebrities. I"m feeling better and better about my thoughts about guilt or innocents, but it is coming from the defense witnesses testimony this time around.

Well thanks My2cents! Any other detail please share, I hope you are there for Pie if she is called. Claudius you had me there for a second with the hand shake and dinner invitation I thought wow, sorry it was just a dream.

[hiitsme]

Has anyone ever asked or answered the ? of how much time elasped from when the illegal limo driver let them out at the residence to when PS re-appeared and made the excited utterance? Without excoriated profligacy directed at the defendant, his family or defense team, can anyone answer this ?:cool:

LE, without "excoriated profligacy" must have the time frame documented. Do you think this will make or break the case?

[Rickshere911]

Has anyone ever asked or answered the ? of how much time elasped from when the illegal limo driver let them out at the residence to when PS re-appeared and made the excited utterance? Without excoriated profligacy directed at the defendant, his family or defense team, can anyone answer this ?:cool:

I too would like to know how long they were at the crime scene before PS killed her and came out and told the limo driver " I think I killed someone"

IMO you are a hypocrite. You can "excoriated profligacy directed" at the limo driver but you think PS and the defense team are above all that.

[My 2 Cents]

3rd & Last Witness of the Day: (I'm sorry this is so long)

David Schapiro – A friend of Lana’s. They met approx 7-8 months before she was killed thru a comedy writing workshop. (DS’s goal had always been to be a comedy sketch writer. At the time he met LC he was still trying to “get his foot in the door”, get his “break” in the industry as well. At the time he was working in ‘quality assurance’ for gaming software – or something along those lines. When AJ did cross, he also admitted that he had been unemployed for most of a year – I think 2007, but I didn’t write it down. Today, DS was now “successfully” working as a writer for TV scripts and following HIS dream.) Outside of the workshop, they talked on the phone and e-mailed back & forth, but David actually only hung out socially with Lana approximately 8-10 times. They were just friends, never dated.

David was called to testify because he exchanged a few e-mails with Lana that defense thought showed LC was “depressed & possibly suicidal”. Lana also wanted to borrow $ from him to help with her rent. 1st $600, then later, amount was reduced to $200 (because that was all that DS could afford to loan her) and then finally, he changed his mind and did NOT loan her any money. Their friendship appeared to end after this (Dec 2002), over the money matter. The few e-mails brought up by DS said things like “ready to chuck it all”, “you seem to call when I’m down in the dumps”, I’m at the “end of my rope”, etc.

After reading several of Lana’s e-mails, back & forth between this guy, you get a little better idea about Lana’s personality, sense of humor, and her “drama”. (FYI: most of the e-mails discussed, took place all within a few hours of each other – on the same day, 10/25/02.) One minute her e-mail says she’s at the “end of her rope” and 43 minutes later she e-mails same person and asks him to go see a movie with her the next day and she sounds all upbeat and excited about this old comedy movie she has had “on her calendar for a month” to see it shown on the “Big Screen” and she wants to know if David wants to go too. The movie? . . . . (I have to say she has GOOD TASTE!) “Young Frankenstein” . . . I LOVE that movie too!!!! One of MY all time favorites!

An interesting choice of words in David’s response to LC:
“ . . . wish I could be the Happy Go Lucky David, because I’d be there GETTING A TAN FROM YOUR SHINE.”

(On CROSS, David explained he said this because Lana is always so up, so positive – a ray of sunshine, so to speak – and he meant he could get a “tan” off the “shine” or “glow” that she always projects around her. )

10/25/02 Lana responds back to David
“ . . . I might have to bite the bullet & start doing amateur strip contests. YeeHaaaaaa!!!!! Sad you can’t come see Franky.”

(DW on DIRECT implies LC might be so “financially strapped” that she might truly be meaning that she would “strip” to pay bills. On CROSS AJ clears up with David, that Lana’s a comedian and she’s being funny. And that David never thought for once that Lana was implying she was going to consider being a “stripper” to make ends meet.)

Throughout the e-mails Lana is always referencing things like her phone might get turned off at 5PM, then later says, no - extended to Monday, etc. She was trying to borrow $200 from David and he said on CROSS that he thought she was saying these things to make sure he believed she still really needed the loan. The items in the e-mails that DW brought out as “signs of a depressed person”, possibly “suicidal”, AJ later confirmed with the witness that this was “Lana just being overly dramatic”. And never once did he worry about her state of mind or that she was seriously depressed. He testified that she spent about $30,000 to produce the “Lana Unleashed” video, but on cross it was learned that the “backer” was in no hurry to get paid back and LC was not worried about that at all.

AJ was IMO “hysterical” when he was rereading the e-mails in a tone in which he believed Lana had written them in. As a bit of a “drama queen”. When she is UP, she is EXCITED & OVER THE TOP and then when she is DOWN, everything is OVERLY DRAMATIZED. AJ used an example of Lana claiming to enjoy a piece of cake. He asked witness if her response would be something like, “Oh my this is the MOST WONDERFUL CHOCOLATE CAKE I’VE EVER EATEN” - - he was VERY DRAMATIC and very funny. IMO. And likewise, when something went wrong or was bad, she was overly dramatic about how HORRIBLE or AWFUL something was. He wasn’t rude, it was just a reminder of when someone’s personality is a little “dramatic”, it goes both ways. (And if any of you have teenage daughters, you know exactly what he’s talking about. Ha, ha. )

One of Lana’s e-mails to David was signed, “Lana Jean” (I believe this is Lana’s middle name.) I got the impression that DW didn’t even know this. He was asking DS, “Do you know why she would sign this that way? Do you have any idea if this is even Lana’s middle name?” (DS didn’t know her middle name) DW seemed to me that he was trying to tie that signature with Lana’s connection to MMonroe (Norma Jean). But I’m pretty sure JEAN is Lana’s middle name.

David also stated during DIRECT when DW asked about her “alcohol consumption” that she never really drank alcohol when he was with her. She had told him that she had to take medication and it was not suppose to be mixed with alcohol. (So that went over like a lead balloon for DW.) DW also eluded to DS forwarding one of Lana’s overly dramatic e-mails to a friend. I had the idea that it was out of DS’s concern for Lana’s “safety” perhaps – wanting a 2nd opinion. But on CROSS, AJ had David admit that it was forwarded to his friend, only to show what a “drama queen” Lana was being. To make fun of her. It was one of the 10/25/02 e-mails. He wrote in e-mail to his friend something like, “Look at this dramatic actress. What a drama queen she is.” David said he was never concerned that she was unusually depressed, and never thought she was suicidal. Just “sad” sometimes about money, but that most of his friends in that line of business were (including himself), many were all in the same boat.

[logbump]

I would still like to know what has happened to Pex/perjury matter. It can't just go away can it?:confused:

[My 2 Cents]

Hearing this version of the Sag email/s story puts this in a whole other light.:rolleyes: Trashing her home in depression, that could simply mean I didn't take the time to pick up the papers, left the dishes next to the sink or didn't make my bed. Not literally destroying things.

I wonder if DW thought JB saying he had fired her was the end all? The shocker. See she was happy about the HOB, IMO she could have met all sorts of celebrities. I"m feeling better and better about my thoughts about guilt or innocents, but it is coming from the defense witnesses testimony this time around.

Well thanks My2cents! Any other detail please share, I hope you are there for Pie if she is called. Claudius you had me there for a second with the hand shake and dinner invitation I thought wow, sorry it was just a dream.

ITA K6, . . . this is how I had previous viewed the "bits & pieces" I had heard about with regards to this SAG e-mail. What a lot of NOTHING that turned out to be (I always thought she had responded to it). It was just a MASS e-mail to ALL SAG members on the e-mail list, and they don't even know if Lana opened it. The defense seems to be really reaching if this is the "strength" of their "suicide & depression" theories IMO.

The e-mail to her friend about the excitement she felt over the potential HOB job, came across quite clear IMO. She seemed very proud that she was being considered for the Foundation Room. She did mention the money would certainly help, and a girls' gotta eat, etc . . . but was very much looking forward to this opportunity.

[hiitsme]

Thanks a milliion for that recap. I remember his testimony so vividly and your post brought all of it back as if I was listening to it again. He seemed uncomfortable even having to be a part of this but testified truthfully and was not about to say that his friend, Lana was some type of suicidal maniac. In your view, was there anything at all, that the defense gained by calling him?

[My 2 Cents]

I would still like to know what has happened to Pex/perjury matter. It can't just go away can it?:confused:

Someone mentioned to me yesterday, that the PEX perjury allegations and discovery violations are being worked on by the lawyers and they have approximately a week to "make their motion" or their "arguments" to present to the judge. I'm not sure how accurate this is - I didn't hear it personally . . . but it makes sense that they are given time to do this. They are in the middle of a trial and I imagine that 99% of their time is focused on the next witnesses that are coming their way. In their "spare" time, they can focus on these distracting side issues . . . and with any luck, they have 1 hour of sleep each night as well. :biggrin:

[logbump]

Thanks Cents. You are most helpful, as usual!

[tartangirl]

Someone mentioned to me yesterday, that the PEX perjury allegations and discovery violations are being worked on by the lawyers and they have approximately a week to "make their motion" or their "arguments" to present to the judge. I'm not sure how accurate this is - I didn't hear it personally . . . but it makes sense that they are given time to do this. They are in the middle of a trial and I imagine that 99% of their time is focused on the next witnesses that are coming their way. In their "spare" time, they can focus on these distracting side issues . . . and with any luck, they have 1 hour of sleep each night as well. :biggrin:

That all makes a lot of sense. I hope they are getting more than that...and at least a little bit of fun too...:wink:


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

[NYGalPal]

I too would like to know how long they were at the crime scene before PS killed her and came out and told the limo driver " I think I killed someone"

IMO you are a hypocrite. You can "excoriated profligacy directed" at the limo driver but you think PS and the defense team are above all that.
PS was busy before he went outside.

Searching sounds jealous of that hard working limo driver.

:lol:

[NYGalPal]

Do you know the answer? :wink:

No, of course he doesn't. Bet ya that limo driver makes a whole lot more money than searching ever will?

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks a milliion for that recap. I remember his testimony so vividly and your post brought all of it back as if I was listening to it again. He seemed uncomfortable even having to be a part of this but testified truthfully and was not about to say that his friend, Lana was some type of suicidal maniac. In your view, was there anything at all, that the defense gained by calling him?

I think the only thing DW may have gained with some jurors, was that Lana was possibly "working" this guy a little, to borrow the $200 - IMO. And by "working" , I don't mean false flattery, or pretending she was more than a friend, etc. Just nudging him a little bit to borrow some bucks, to give her a little breathing room that month, as far as bills were concerned. After he changed his mind at the last minute and said he couldn't loan any money, Lana sent him an e-mail that was curt and apparently Lana & David didn't communicate again after this. This apparently ended their friendship.

Lana's e-mail response said:
"Great - I promised them I would have the $200. I am suppose to deliver it to them today. That's why they gave me leeway. You said you would loan it to me. Thanks David. Happy Holidays"

This was the only e-mail that was presented that showed a somewhat different side to Lana . . . a "mad" or upset Lana. If DW gained ground because some saw her as possibly "using" David to borrow money. If maybe DW thought this made Lana look like a "beggar", asking people for money because she was so strapped . . . don't know. It wasn't my impression. This guys e-mails to Lana said things like, "When do you want it? Do you want a check or cash?" She truly thought he didn't have a problem loaning it to her. We know that Lana did work paycheck to paycheck and that she had a history of scrambling to pay all her bills. IMO, it did NOT translate into someone who was "suicidal". It came across to me that this may have happened a lot through out her roller coaster career as an actress and during her challenges after recovering so long from 2 broken wrists.

Did DW gain ground because Lana came across in this e-mail response as a MEAN and UNAPPRECIATIVE FRIEND? IMO . . . NOT at all. I figure, if they're tearing thru over 5,ooo e-mails from Lana and this is the "nastiest" she gets, so they share it with the jury . . . then that says a lot about her - in a positive way IMO. (Wouldn't it be interesting if the state could splash some of Phil's e-mails up on that big screen? How about the one to his own lawyers in PS1 about the fountain? Geeesh . . . it would put things in perspective a little wouldn't it?)

DW also asked David if anything like this ever happened to him before? Anyone ever act so "mercurial" to him like this (or something like that)? David clearly did not understand DW's choice of words. I'm not sure I did either , but I think he meant "fickle" or erratic, or something along that line. David finally answered (after DW rephrased the question), "YES, with a girlfriend. They broke up over it." (Imagine that, a friendship or relationship collapsing over loaning or not loaning the person $$$)

Before, I mentioned that David said he saw Lana more as "sad" , not depressed. I WAS WRONG . .. I meant to say that DAVID described Lana as someone who was "FRUSTRATED", and NOT as someone who was "DEPRESSED".