Feb. 2 thru Feb.23

[kennedy06]

While reading the comments on T & T I seen where Sprocket had mentioned this link below to Lana's site. I didn't know if anyone else had the link or not so I thought I would link to it here. It has been a long time since I have looked at it. I'm glad Sprocket had mentioned it, and thank you to her also for letting her readers know about it.

http://www.lanaclarkson.com/


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

[My 2 Cents]

Thank you m2c..... and joe friday...... have either of you met sprocket?

The time before last that I was in court - I introduced myself to Sprocket. She was very nice and extremely friendly.

For the life of me I don't know how she captures so much of what is said in court. I attend court - then read her blog and learn so much MORE about what was said and what took place . . . and I was sitting right THERE when it was said. WOW . . . maybe something is wrong with me! ha, ha, ha :sad:

[Spectorfan8]

Thank you M2C, glad you were able to make it to court, even though the weather is rough.

SF8

[wasapi]

It's odd, I read through the 1st 11 days of the Retrial on T&T and I can find no timeline like there was during the 1st trial.

The only reference to a time was that at 5:02am AD called 911 and it was about 5:00am that AD heard that, now famous quote.

Best guess (and I hate to do that) is that since Lana left after the HoB's closed, I can just guess that she was in the company of my father about 3 hours since AD saw my father come outside (about 5am) just a few minutes after he had heard the POP sound.

I too am interested in the amount of time she spent at PS's. She had finally accepted but made it clear it would be for one quick drink. Does anyone know how long it takes to drive from the HOB to PS's residense? Perhaps because I recall them watching a movie, it was my impression it wasn't a quick trip.

And thank you dref99 and others for answering my earlier question.

[Spectorfan8]

I too am interested in the amount of time she spent at PS's. She had finally accepted but made it clear it would be for one quick drink. Does anyone know how long it takes to drive from the HOB to PS's residense? Perhaps because I recall them watching a movie, it was my impression it wasn't a quick trip.

And thank you dref99 and others for answering my earlier question.

Hi!

I am not sure, but I believe that at one point it was said to have been 3-4 hours. Like I said, I can't be sure.
I believe that it took around 45 minutes to reach the castle from HOB.

[My 2 Cents]

I too am interested in the amount of time she spent at PS's. She had finally accepted but made it clear it would be for one quick drink. Does anyone know how long it takes to drive from the HOB to PS's residense? Perhaps because I recall them watching a movie, it was my impression it wasn't a quick trip.

And thank you dref99 and others for answering my earlier question.

I read that ADS testified that he pulled up to PS's house "JUST BEFORE 3AM" on 2/3/03. He let LC & PS off in front of the 80+ steps walking up to front door of house. LC helped the "intoxicated" PS. Then shortly after that, PS emerged at back door, where ADS had parked Mercedes S430, and ADS handed him his bag/purse. And then PS returned back into the house. ADS heard "pop" from the gunshot at 5AM. ADS got out of the car to check out the sound and then climbed back in car. A few minutes after that, PS stepped out the house and ADS "leaped out of the car". Standing about 5 feet from PS, he saw gun in PS hand and then heard him then say, "I think I killed somebody". . . . .etc.

So - - - I would judge that LC & PS were in the house together, about 1 hour, 45 minutes before Lana was killed. (I am allowing approx 15 minutes to climb steps and retrieve valise/bag/purse).

2/2/03
6:45PM - time ADS arrived in his Ford Crown Victoria to PS's house
7:00PM - Spector emerges from foyer to leave for the evening
8:00PM - Spector & "guest" arrive at the Grill on the Alley
10:00PM (appx) return Romney home
Pick waitress Kathy up at Grill and go to Trader Vic's
(stay about 1 hour)
2/3/03
1:00AM - PS & Kathy arrive at Dan Tana's (stay about 1/2 hour)
- Leave and drive to HOB (Kathy doesn't want to go) They arrive "just before closing" at HOB
15 min later (after arrival) - LC walks Kathy to Limo. She introduces herself and tells ADS to take Kathy home and return to HOB for Mr Spector.
When ADS returns, LC helps PS to LIMO. PS tries to get her to come. LC - No. Accepts ride to her car. Talks LC into coming for 1 drink. PS takes a "whizz" against parking lot area wall. while Lana moves her car from employee parking lot to the street.
3AM - "Just before 3AM" LC & PS arrive at the lower steps to entrance.

[MrsB]

I don't know who you are but you are not the same person who used to post as "GP Spector" and you are not Phil Spector's son. IMO

My Opinion

That's a rather BOLD, ABRASIVE and ATTACKING statement. Especially coming from a "poster" who doesn't APPEAR to have even been a part of this forum before, not a single post. Or perhaps you have posted here, just under a different name, maybe a banned poster, maybe not - - doesn't matter. Either way - I recommend a little more harmony with other posters, and a little more tack. But that is just my suggestion - I certainly don't know or speak for the poster whose throat you're jumping down.

That being said - WELCOME!

[kennedy06]

I don't know who you are but you are not the same person who used to post as "GP Spector" and you are not Phil Spector's son. IMO

My Opinion

How could you say with any authority who a poster is or isn't opinin or not? Well, He was the real deal, the son of PS the defendant in this case we have posted along with for almost 2 years now. I guess it would have been best to ask Claudius his Twin brother. Anyone that has followed the PS boards have all known who they were since May and June 2007 they didn't hide it.

Oh and yes, welcome. I'm really looking forward to your posts.

[tartangirl]

Just caught this

Article about the jury visit to the "castle" tomorrow. :wink:


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



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/spector-trial-1.html

[dref99]

Just caught this

Article about the jury visit to the "castle" tomorrow. :wink:


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



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/spector-trial-1.html

Thank you for the link - T&T blog did say Harriet Ryan was in court in the morning - there seems little reporting of the actual evidence by the MSM - it is as well for anyone who can't get to court that some board and blog folks do attend and report

jmo

[kennedy06]

:scared: That's all I've got to say. :crying:

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I hope you do keep us updated often. Thanks for the reports and posts They are appreciated.

[dref99]

I'm sure more will show up closer to the end. I mean right now it's all "been there-done that." I think near the end we will see more reporters, at lest I hope so. I'll try to post when ever I go, but at least we are not left in the dark.

Thank you Claudius - it is appreciated as is all the information from others at the court. I thought I read media may be there for closing statements & no doubt for when there is a verdict (or a hung jury). Meanwhile do please stay and post with us.



jmo

[kipswife]

It sounds like the judge is going to let the jurors ask questions at the house again. should be interesting. i am currently attending a trial where the judge lets the jury ask questions (on paper) after each witness.
they ask some great questions too.

m

[SHORTSIRKT]

Thank you Claudius and GSpector for the information. I wasn't questioning who you " really " were. I know from reading all the posts who you both are. I appreciate you answering my post. I am new so forgive me if i get O/T

[dref99]

It sounds like the judge is going to let the jurors ask questions at the house again. should be interesting. i am currently attending a trial where the judge lets the jury ask questions (on paper) after each witness.
they ask some great questions too.

m

I watched one awhile ago - cannot remember what trial it was (senior moment I fear) - I did find it a little strange. Are there local laws that govern whether this can happen. It always seems to me when the jury asks a question it gives clues as to what they are thinking - perhaps not a good idea until the trial is complete :confused:

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

I wanted to mentioned a remark Judge Fidler made to jurors in court Tuesday (re: Thursday's "field trip" to Spector's house):

Fidler advised jurors that the scheduled visit to the house was an extremely huge undertaking, involving lots of planning and additional outside resources.

Fidler: "So I want to advise you, unless you're in a COMA, I don't want anyone calling up in the morning and saying they're sick." :biggrin:

He then stated . . . Ok, I'm kidding. But I just want to stress how much work is involved if we have to reschedule this visit. So if you wake up in the morning and you feel a cold coming on, I would appreciate it if you'd do your best to come in anyway. Not that this has ever been any problem, it hasn't. I just want to alert you to the difficulties involved in rescheduling this visit. (Paraphrased a little - but you get the idea.)

[bearwds]

Just wanted to drop by and offer my thanx for the in-court reporting.

Wonder if Michael Bey will testify this round..?? Didn't do much for the defense last time around... ...perceived ignoring=suicide

Was it resolved what to do with RS during the "viewing" Thurs..?? Last I understood, she would be at the castle but sequestered upstairs.

Thanx again for the info.


bearwds

[nanouk]

I'll bet there will be a large photo of RS somewhere the jury can't miss, with "To Phil Spector, my sweet, loving and caring husband" boldly hand written on it...

JMO

Nanouk

[RayStar]

Does anyone know if any of the jurors are heavy notetakers?

[kennedy06]

I'll bet there will be a large photo of RS somewhere the jury can't miss, with "To Phil Spector, my sweet, loving and caring husband" boldly hand written on it...

JMO

Nanouk

or like a poster of Mash, remember the theme song.

After reading the details of those witnesses the other day, it had the opposite affect then what the defense may have wanted their testimony to have. It gave me even more the notion she was a smart independent gal she knew her way around. She was an actress and there is always a roll out there or a connection.

[NYGalPal]

I'm guessing, but I think it was approx. 1hr & 30 min. What took place is open to speculation and is a double edged sword.:wink:

Only to one who isn't following this case very well. :rolleyes:

[NYGalPal]

I can tell you, money is not the deciding factor in a person honesty. A more important thing is what you do for a living. I can trust a limo driver far far more easily than a retired lawyer living in Texas or expert hired witness living in Oregon. Seems that lawyers and experts are PAID to talk and give opinions on the truth as their clients see it. Bill Buckley wannabe's do not impress me.

Mortie

True point. I'd trust him over paid witnesses.

[NYGalPal]

No speculation whatsoever.

Phil Spector stated with clarity exactly what took place.

'I think I killed somebody.'

Unfortunately, Phil Spector was right. He did indeed kill somebody.

Phil Spector shot & killed Lana Clarkson.

Pesky fact that poster can't grasp. The jury will, which is way more important.

:thumbsup:

[kennedy06]

True point. I'd trust him over paid witnesses.

and hey he drove PS how many times before that night and PS trusted him with his life on the highways and byways of LA so......he trusted him enough to go to him first. He could have called someone on the phone and say hey get over here but he didn't he turned to someone he must have trusted or why turn to him?

[kennedy06]

He was friends with that famous palimony attorney that spoke up on his behalf later on. He could have called him or one of those attorneys he knew and said you're not going to believe this and immediately tried to seek counsel on someone comitting suicide in your home and even ask them rush over. I mean wouldn't you call someone?:confused:

[NYGalPal]

and hey he drove PS how many times before that night and PS trusted him with his life on the highways and byways of LA so......he trusted him enough to go to him first. He could have called someone on the phone and say hey get over here but he didn't he turned to someone he must have trusted or why turn to him?

Good point kennedy. I hope the jury thinks this when they finally get the case in their hands. :thumbsup:

[NYGalPal]

:thumbup:It seems to me to be reasonable that prosecutors and their paid experts live in the same tent. Prosecutors clients are the people of the state and their so called experts,(ME's& Technicians) are paid by the state. I guess if you or a relative ever had to go to court you would take a limo driver to represent you. If true all I can say is Good Luck.:smile:

What you fail to realize is that hard working limo driver you're jealous of has no reason to lie. Doubt you could do his job.

[kennedy06]

Good point kennedy. I hope the jury thinks this when they finally get the case in their hands. :thumbsup:

Well not to over post on this but heck.

Well you know what PS is a celebrity, so a good point to make was PS had to have faith in him that he was a good man, an honest man, hey would PS trust his life to just anyone I mean there they are alone in just a car, there are kidnappers and people who just pull guns on people, we see that in the news everyday. He was able to understand PS prior to that night or I would think PS would have said no to having him drive him around, wouldn't you think? The relationship itself says trust to me, that is just the way I see it. JMO

[kennedy06]

Oh it's a simple concept to understand:rolleyes:

TRUST

Trust in the fact that the driver could understand him. Like at 5 am he could understand him when PS spoke.

[nanouk]

:thumbdown:The illegal limo driver is a paid witness. His payment was the letter the prosecutors sent to ICE. Sounds like a pretty strong incentive to me to let some one remain in this country illegaly and earn money under the table while waiting to testify. I'm not saying he was honest or dishonest in his testimony. Just that he is also a paid witness with possible financial incentive IMO.

Adriano De Souza's testimony was given in the minutes/hours following Lana's murder (911 call, police interrogation). He only stayed in the USA to confirm in court what he had witnessed and already testified to. Nothing more came out of him. There were no financial incentive for him to call 911 or to answer, the same day, to the police questions.

JMO

Nanouk

[Anakerie]

Adriano De Souza's testimony was given in the minutes/hours following Lana's murder (911 call, police interrogation). He only stayed in the USA to confirm in court what he had witnessed and already testified to. Nothing more came out of him. There were no financial incentive for him to call 911 or to answer, the same day, to the police questions.

JMO

Nanouk

I've seen references to the letter to ICE being the incentive for Adriano to call 911 and answer questions from the police and the prosecutors several times now and I disagree with the posters who believe that. In the minutes after that gunshot and seeing Phil standing there with a gun in his hand saying "I think I killed someone", I doubt very much that his motive in calling 911 was staying in this country. I think Adriano De Souza is an honorable man who heard a gunshot and saw the gun and did the right thing when he dialed 911 after getting away from the door to that castle. I do not think that he considered his immigration options before deciding to dial that phone.

Phil Spector isn't an "honorable man". Phil didn't pick up one of the 14 or so phones in that house to dial 911 or anyone else. Phil Spector spent 40 or so minutes running (stumbling?) around in that castle manipulating the evidence. There were three people at the castle that night. One outside and two inside. The one outside heard the gunshot, saw one of the two inside step out with a gun in hand and heard him say "I think I killed someone" and then saw the other person who was inside sprawled in a chair with blood on her face. He called 911 which is the most natural and logical thing to do.

[My 2 Cents]

I've seen references to the letter to ICE being the incentive for Adriano to call 911 and answer questions from the police and the prosecutors several times now and I disagree with the posters who believe that. In the minutes after that gunshot and seeing Phil standing there with a gun in his hand saying "I think I killed someone", I doubt very much that his motive in calling 911 was staying in this country. I think Adriano De Souza is an honorable man who heard a gunshot and saw the gun and did the right thing when he dialed 911 after getting away from the door to that castle. I do not think that he considered his immigration options before deciding to dial that phone.

Phil Spector isn't an "honorable man". Phil didn't pick up one of the 14 or so phones in that house to dial 911 or anyone else. Phil Spector spent 40 or so minutes running (stumbling?) around in that castle manipulating the evidence. There were three people at the castle that night. One outside and two inside. The one outside heard the gunshot, saw one of the two inside step out with a gun in hand and heard him say "I think I killed someone" and then saw the other person who was inside sprawled in a chair with blood on her face. He called 911 which is the most natural and logical thing to do.

ITA - - And if someone thinks ADS was truly "motivated" to call 911 so he could STAY in the US, then they are being ridiculous and absurd. If ADS wanted to STAY in US, the last thing HE would WANT TO DO, would be to call 911 or the police about a wealthy employer who leaves $450 tips for a drink & a salad and get involved with accusing this man of murder. ADS would NOT be motivated to "PO" Spector - - and I am sure De Souza has seen the "PO" side of Phil before. AND if ADS was "motivated" by "gain", as some on this board have suggested - - I am sure when he reached the gate entrance/exit to the castle, INSTEAD of calling 911 - he would have simply called PHIL. From this "safe point" I am sure ADS could have left that day, a very "satisfied and wealthy" employee.

[Spectorfan8]

like the one on michelle blaine's blog of RS?
1/17/09 entry

http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dfGkQpuE2bQ/SXIToOwZHhI/AAAAAAAAAN0/uohvays1Xg0/s1600-h/rachelle.jpg

Is this really rs?

Yes, it really is Rachelle Spector.

[NYGalPal]

ITA - - And if someone thinks ADS was truly "motivated" to call 911 so he could STAY in the US, then they are being ridiculous and absurd. If ADS wanted to STAY in US, the last thing HE would WANT TO DO, would be to call 911 or the police about a wealthy employer who leaves $450 tips for a drink & a salad and get involved with accusing this man of murder. ADS would NOT be motivated to "PO" Spector - - and I am sure De Souza has seen the "PO" side of Phil before. AND if ADS was "motivated" by "gain", as some on this board have suggested - - I am sure when he reached the gate entrance/exit to the castle, INSTEAD of calling 911 - he would have simply called PHIL. From this "safe point" I am sure ADS could have left that day, a very "satisfied and wealthy" employee.

Great post, ITA.

:thumbsup:

[NYGalPal]

Yes, it really is Rachelle Spector.

MB response to her was rather fitting. Wonder why PS doesn't care his trashy wife is leaving nude pictures of herself online? Some character that man has, huh?

[Anakerie]

::ohmy:Who posted "I doubt very much that his motive in calling 911 was staying in this country.":unsure: I know I didn't.

I believe you just quoted me twice. You quoted my whole post, then asked who posted a sentence that is in my post.

Uhmmm.... I posted "I doubt very much that his motive in calling 911 was staying in this country." There. I posted it again. And I'll go a little further. I do NOT think that Adriano De Souza had a thought for his immigration status when he called 911. I also do NOT believe that his testifying for the prosecution was motivated by his iimmigration status. As I said above, I believe Adriano De Souza to be a good man and I believe he did the most natural and logical thing when he called 911. I also believe that he testified for the prosecution because it was the right thing to do.

[My 2 Cents]

:huh:I have never read in any post by anyone that states "...someone thinks ADS was truly "motivated" to call 911 so he could STAY in the US,". I know I have never posted such a statement.:thumbup:

12/9/08 - post #63:
"The prosecution hides evidence and gets people to lie all the time by offering deals for testimony. How else do you think that illegal limo driver has been allowed to stay in this country." - - by SEARCHING

I’m sorry if I incorrectly implied you suggested ADS was “motivated” to call 911 so he could stay in the US. WHAT A LEAP ON MY PART. What I should have said is that some think ADS is “motivated” to LIE for the prosecution, in order to stay in the US. (To me, calling 911 was the 1st step in achieving this, because his recorded 911 call is the same basic testimony that he has stated all along. Sorry if that misstated your point.) Above is a quote by you on this forum which suggested to me that you felt this way, along with several of the remarks you have posted on this board. If I am wrong again about what your actual point is - - why don’t you clarify it for all of us. What is your point? I believe many here would like to know, me included (and therefore I won't misstate it). Is it . . .

1) ADS is LYING, simply to stay in this country? (and does this mean he NEVER saw Phil holding the gun and Phil NEVER said, “I think I killed somebody”?), OR

2) He is here in US illegally because he worked while on student visa, therefore his testimony is useless or unreliable, and therefore should not be allowed or valued, OR

3) the prosecution “hides evidence & gets people to lie all the time”, therefore we shouldn’t value ADS’s testimony OR any of the states’ witnesses? , OR

4) ???? . . . you tell me – If I have not correctly captured your point yet, please explain more clearly to me – I must be a little slower than the others. I am not being rude, I would just like to have a better understanding of what it is exactly that YOU are trying to say about what ADS has stated that he saw & heard that morning. THANKS

[My 2 Cents]

Here is a 2/19/09 article by Linda Deutsch regarding the jury visit today. (It is NOT an update, following the visit - I was hoping KTLA might have a LIVE helicopter feed. So far, no luck in finding one.)

http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Jury-Tours-Spectors-Alhambra-Mansion=1&blockID=110746&feedID=1198

I am surprised that in the 7th (?) paragraph, Linda states that the defense is claiming this:

"They have cited the noise of the fountain as well as the air conditioning in the car where the chauffeur had been sitting as sounds that might have obscured his ability to hear what Spector said."

Could Linda have forgotten that ADS wasn't even sitting in the car when PS utter those words? How would A/C effect that?

The testimony states that ADS was STANDING within 5 ft of Spector when he made those remarks, and NOT still in the parked car. Testimony states ADS "leaped out of the car immediately" (something to that effect) when PS emerged out the back door, gun in hand. (After ADS had just climbed back in the car after walking around, looking for what may have caused the sound from the gun shot he had just heard.) I am surprised she stated that in her article.

[kennedy06]

You would think she would have checked out his date of birth before reporting, wasn't he born in 39 as his daughter testified to IIRC?

In regards to the first jury visit and the article,

He wasn't sitting in the car when he spoke to him. IMO it wasn't like it was in the middle of the day abd 110 degrees out, I'm sure if the air was on in the car and the car was running with the door open it wasn't on full blast, if the car was even running at that moment ( I don't recall). At 5 feet he could have heard him speak, or I would think he would have asked what did you say sir? JMO

Well wait a minute a picture is worth a 1000 words.

[Spectorfan8]

thanks, i was not sure.

No problem. I have seen many pictures of her...she's really pretty.

[dref99]

and hey he drove PS how many times before that night and PS trusted him with his life on the highways and byways of LA so......he trusted him enough to go to him first. He could have called someone on the phone and say hey get over here but he didn't he turned to someone he must have trusted or why turn to him?

Phil had much trust in his drivers to protect him (Phil) from harm - and also from himself. Because ADS was a relatively new driver, he didn't understand that he was supposed to solve any problems Phil had, including a dead woman inside his house.

ADS had everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by telling the truth. When he discovered he was working for a man who had in all probability killed the lady he had invited home for a drink, like most folks would do , he got out of his presence and called 911.

jmo

[dref99]

Here is a 2/19/09 article by Linda Deutsch regarding the jury visit today. (It is NOT an update, following the visit - I was hoping KTLA might have a LIVE helicopter feed. So far, no luck in finding one.)

http://www.ktla.com/landing_topstories/?Jury-Tours-Spectors-Alhambra-Mansion=1&blockID=110746&feedID=1198

I am surprised that in the 7th (?) paragraph, Linda states that the defense is claiming this:

"They have cited the noise of the fountain as well as the air conditioning in the car where the chauffeur had been sitting as sounds that might have obscured his ability to hear what Spector said."

Could Linda have forgotten that ADS wasn't even sitting in the car when PS utter those words? How would A/C effect that?

The testimony states that ADS was STANDING within 5 ft of Spector when he made those remarks, and NOT still in the parked car. Testimony states ADS "leaped out of the car immediately" (something to that effect) when PS emerged out the back door, gun in hand. (After ADS had just climbed back in the car after walking around, looking for what may have caused the sound from the gun shot he had just heard.) I am surprised she stated that in her article.

Thankyou for the link. During trial 1 Linda was the reporter of choice by PS to be present at the jury visit. This caused a minor upset among the many press at the trial as they had voted for someone else. Eventually 2 press people went.

It has always been my impression that Linda's reports detailed any defense arguments, regardless of their accuracy.

What the defense claims is the only way they can prove their suicide story - the relationship between these claims and reality are for the jury to determine. The testimony of ADS is virtually written in stone - talking about his language ability, his immigration status, airconditioning and the noise of fountains is the defense attempt to raise doubt. It seems most unlikely that it will succeed.

jmo

[dref99]

Just to add to your comments My2Cents - the last sentence of paragraph five seems somewhat of a stretch :huh:

I don't remember reading anywhere that the defense has ever proven that the sound of the fountain cannot be changed - it would be my opinion that the Judge is going to advise the jury that it cannot be determined whether the sound is softer, louder or the same as the night that Lana died.

Wasn't that discussed the day you went to the court?

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Just to add to your comments My2Cents - the last sentence of paragraph five seems somewhat of a stretch :huh:

I don't remember reading anywhere that the defense has ever proven that the sound of the fountain cannot be changed - it would be my opinion that the Judge is going to advise the jury that it cannot be determined whether the sound is softer, louder or the same as the night that Lana died.

Wasn't that discussed the day you went to the court?

jmo

LOL...You're right. I missed that remark in her article (Linda Deutsch):
"But the defense established that the pump has only one speed and the sound of the fountain can't be altered."

I don't know if the fountain now - 6 years later, has only 1 speed or not. The plumber for the prosecution reported back that the fountain pipes, etc looked new. JF ruled that he still doesn't know if fountain "sounds the same as it did on 2/3/03 or not". He ruled that the jurors would be advised of this fact - sound of the fountain during their visit isn't necessarily the same as it was that morning. The attorneys will be allowed to draft some sort of statement for the jurors, supporting their points of view (I would imagine, JF will have to approve it, of course).

But the statement above, in LD's article, is misleading IMO. Otherwise JF would not have included the admonishment to the jurors regarding the sound of the fountain.

[Kara]

Gosh...I can't believe this trial is still going on... Are closing arguments in sight yet?

[oodi1]

2.3.2003 in LA at 5am...... would you even be running the AC? I know in t he northeast, we would have a heater on.

The overnight temp probably would have been in the 40's... so I doubt he would have had the A/C on... unless he was having a SERIOUS case of hot flashes! :tongueside:

[Anakerie]

The overnight temp probably would have been in the 40's... so I doubt he would have had the A/C on... unless he was having a SERIOUS case of hot flashes! :tongueside:
According to the Farmer's Almanac weather history page, the weather in downtown LA on 2/3/03 had a high of 73 and a low of 46.9. So I'm guessing that the AC in the car wouldn't have been on.. Heater, maybe. But not the air conditioning...

Here's the page I got it from:
http://www.almanac.com/weatherhistory/oneday.php?month=2&day=3&year=2003&number=722874&wban=93134

[Anakerie]

You guys also have to remember that at 5:00 AM birds are waking up, so you also have to account for the loud sounds birds make at that time. Also, and I do believe Phil owns a rooster, the sound of the morning rooster and the amplified sounds of the tree leaves blowing in the wind, I mean with all the sounds around, it’s a wonder A.H. heard anything at all that night.:wink:

:lol: LOL, Claudius! You forgot the neighborhood dogs barking at Phil's crowing rooster! hehehe.'

Thank you for the giggles! :laugh:

[kennedy06]

Wow you guys have made some excellent points about that morning temp and noise levels!

Mort, I never thought about just having the water intake valve being opened so far would adjust the flow and the sound! Heck your right you have to be able to shut the water off. What was I thinking Duh, you don't need a switch low med full bore to control the flow of water.

:thumbup:

[dref99]

It is totally immaterial how many speeds the pump has or does not have. By Building Code Law, the pump must have a shutoff valve on the output and input sides so when you replace the filter, all the water does not run out. The valve can be half-opened and guess what happens?? Only half the water goes through it to make noise!! The message from the consultant says "Make sure it is full-bore". The noise can be adjusted.

Mortie

Hi Mortie

Your knowledge well exceeds that of the defense lawyers - on many topics. I think AJ perhaps underestimated how far Weinberg would go in saying it had not been changed and/or the sound was the same. With the difficulty getting access to the property (mentioned on T&T blog) and not easily getting an inspector there for any length of time, he probably accepted that the Judge was going to allow the fountain to be on - the only alternative seemed to be to call out all the defense as "mis speaking".

sprocket tends to report all of the media in the courtroom & I didn't see mention on Linda D in the last couple of days (although it was mentioned earlier, she would be on the visit). I can only assume Linda's report came via conversations with the defense. It certainly reads that way.

jmo

[Spectorfan8]

Hello Kennedy

First and foremost, I personally doubt if Adriano had his A/C on at 5 O'clock in the morning. In the State of California it cool down pretty good in the summer, at night.
I wouldn't think Adiano would be sitting with his car parked, running for 3 hours with his A/C running. I wouldn't think he would have his A/C on and the radio on knowing that Phil Spector may emerge from his house and Adriano not hear him. The minute Adriano heard the door he was up front and center.
Adriano De Souza clearly heard Phil Spector and he clearly seen the gun in Spectors hand.
From what I read Judge Fidler has taken care of the fountain issue.
MO

It was also Feb., so I am pretty sure the A/C was off.

[Spectorfan8]

Thank you Spectorfan. I had my date mixed with another case I'm concentrating on.

Hey, no problem. :smile:

SF8

[My 2 Cents]

Here's a short article by Harriet Ryan about today's jury visit. I hope this isn't the extent of the feedback that we're going to get.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/02/phil-spector.html

Interesting that JF didn't let them sit in the car. I was thinking in PS1 that he did, I may be mistaken. And the lighting question - h-m-m-m, interesting.

[My 2 Cents]

Here's the article by Linda Deustch, the other journalist that was allowed to attend. It's is a little longer and more detailed.

http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/02/19/Phil_Spector_jury_ready_tour_5205.html

[Spectorfan8]

Why would some of the jurors want to actually SIT in the actual chair? To me, that's just creepy.:scared:

[dref99]

Here's the article by Linda Deustch, the other journalist that was allowed to attend. It's is a little longer and more detailed.

http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/02/19/Phil_Spector_jury_ready_tour_5205.html

Thanks for the links - as soon as I stop looking - they appear :rolleyes:
Next time I will just check for your post :laugh:

If the questions were covered later in the courtroom (as per LD) perhaps we shall hear more about them. I wonder do the jury ask about light/sound because they can, or because they seriously think ADS may not have heard what he said he heard? Wonder why Nancy Sinatra was on display - is one of the jury a fan of same?

jmo

[dref99]

Why would some of the jurors want to actually SIT in the actual chair? To me, that's just creepy.:scared:

We're definitely on the same side with this one. I wonder about crime scene visits - do the jury feel obligated to re-enact the crime, or some such thing - I see little of benefit in such events, especially when 6 years have passed.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Linda Deutsch reports:

"At one point, several jurors stood outside by the car and had another juror talk on the steps of the home. They also measured the distance from the car to the door."

I thought that the testimony stated that ADS was "within 5 ft of Spector", when Spector uttered those words.

Am I wrong? . . OR does AJ need to review this testimony with this panel of jurors? There is no way that someone standing in the driveway, outside the car door, would be within 5 feet of Spector who is standing in the doorway. . . . (I'm freaking out a little - Am I NOT paying attention - OR is it the jurors?)

[Spectorfan8]

We're definitely on the same side with this one. I wonder about crime scene visits - do the jury feel obligated to re-enact the crime, or some such thing - I see little of benefit in such events, especially when 6 years have passed.

jmo

I agree, things in the house cannot be the very same. Using that chair just creeps me.

The Nancy Sinatra picture with Phil is from a period when he dated her.

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks for the links - as soon as I stop looking - they appear :rolleyes:
Next time I will just check for your post :laugh:

If the questions were covered later in the courtroom (as per LD) perhaps we shall hear more about them. I wonder do the jury ask about light/sound because they can, or because they seriously think ADS may not have heard what he said he heard? Wonder why Nancy Sinatra was on display - is one of the jury a fan of same?

jmo

Maybe Nancy Sinatra's picture was displayed, because it was there on 2/3/03. Wasn't PS dating her around this time? I think I read that they had recently broken up/stopped dating right before this shooting happened.

RE: Lighting - perhaps the jury thought the lighting might add another "hint" as to what was happening. Lights still dimmed in living room? What about the lighting in the foyer? Unfortunately, it doesn't matter, because ONLY Phil would know if he changed anything after Lana was killed - - and he's NOT talking (nor would I believe it anyway).

[dref99]

Linda Deutsch reports:

"At one point, several jurors stood outside by the car and had another juror talk on the steps of the home. They also measured the distance from the car to the door."

I thought that the testimony stated that ADS was "within 5 ft of Spector", when Spector uttered those words.

Am I wrong? . . OR does AJ need to review this testimony with this panel of jurors? There is no way that someone standing in the driveway, outside the car door, would be within 5 feet of Spector who is standing in the doorway. . . . (I'm freaking out a little - Am I NOT paying attention - OR is it the jurors?)

I think we get a much better chance to review the evidence than does the jury. They are not allowed to discuss same until deliberations begin. Ideas presented by the defense can obviously have an impact, at least for some of the time.

I am interested to know if the questions were written down by 1 person, or all individually.

ADS was supposedly inside the car when hearing the shots only. As you say, after that he was outside & looking at & listening to PS

jmo

[kennedy06]

Here is a link to a selection of past newsclip videos about the 1st trial.

Go to the video search box across from the words local news in the big box, type in PS's name. Nine pages of videos will come up, go to page 6 and select the date of May 21 3:48 video with AD's picture on the selection.

On it you will see a short clip of AD being interviewed by the detectives. As the camera moves you can see the fountain running for a second or two. Also you can see the entryway in which I think lights are on (!) but it is daylight so the illumination will not be the same IMO. I would think at night the inside lights would add to the illumination.

Also I don't know if it being shown in court affected how we actually hear the video verses the actual sound of it but, you can hear a fountain or at least a noise BUT you can also hear AD and the police talking clearly.

Now look where the limo is parked I believe 5 foot is a possiblity because if you look towards the bottom of the video when AD is talking you can see a tiny portion of the 1st step.

Of course this does not mean any of this is the same as that night but its something interesting to look at.

Now you may have to watch this a few times to see things.:smile:

http://cbs2.com/video/?cid=211

[kennedy06]

juror 5 has asked to be excused per sprocket blog

Thanks

I noticed when I looked at the radio talk one show guest list for tonight Betsy R. is mentioned.

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks

I noticed when I looked at the radio talk one show guest list for tonight Betsy R. is mentioned.

Let's hope PAUL doesn't call in and ramble on about some other case he worked on - - hopefully BR can talk about PS2 and what she "learned" today about the jury visit.

[kennedy06]

I agree!

Also the other AD clip of the same date on that link is good as well, including a bit of the entry way.

[My 2 Cents]

Why would some of the jurors want to actually SIT in the actual chair? To me, that's just creepy.:scared:

I am HOPING they wanted to sit in the chair next to it - both chairs look the same . . . Otherwise that is SOOOOOO gross! Ewwww!

[dref99]

It seems I was wrong re the press on jury visit trial 1 - so to quote from T&T

It's interesting that there were two journalists allowed to go. Last time, there was only one reporter approved to go and that was Linda Deutsch. She was Spector's choice and luckily, she was also the one who received the most votes when the media personnel got together and held an anonymous ballot.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-four.html - see the comments

Apologies for my error

[My 2 Cents]

juror 5 has asked to be excused per sprocket blog

Isn't Juror 5 the same juror that has worn the Sun Records, etc T-shirts from time to time? :confused:

[dref99]

Thank you for the video links Kennedy06 - lots of different hair styles and lawyers among them all. March 2007 - Jury selection started for trial 1

[nanouk]

Isn't Juror 5 the same juror that has worn the Sun Records, etc T-shirts from time to time? :confused:

Yep, that's him


Nanouk

[dref99]

Yep, that's him, as per Sprocket's October 31st, 2008 posting.

Nanouk

I think so too - found Dec 11 mention of "joker" T-shirt

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

This article states ADS was standing within 5 feet - - but as we have read, newspaper articles can be INCORRECT.
However, it did remind me that ADS testified that he leaned to the left of PS to see inside the doorway, after Spector said those words. That is when ADS saw Lana in the chair with blood on her face. This point would confirm that ADS would have to be close to the doorway & step in order to see inside to the foyer - including seeing the blood on her face.


ARTICLE FROM LOS ANGELES TIMES - DATED JAN. 10, 2005

Shortly after Spector and Clarkson had disappeared into the mansion, a glaring Spector came out the back door, retrieved his portable DVD player and went back into the house.

For the next two hours, De Souza played with the navigation system in the Mercedes. He listened to the radio. He dozed. A fountain gurgled nearby.

Around 5 a.m., De Souza heard a soft popping sound. He got out, saw nothing amiss, and returned to the Mercedes.

A minute or two later, Spector appeared at the back door. De Souza leaped out of the car.

Spector was dressed as he had been all evening. Now, however, he was holding his right arm across his body, pointing a revolver off to the side. De Souza, from about 5 feet away, saw blood on the back of Spector’s hand.

“I think I killed somebody,” Spector told him.

De Souza peered to the left of Spector. Through the doorway, he saw legs stretched out. He moved farther to the left and saw Clarkson’s body, half on, half off a chair.

“What happened, sir?”

Spector shrugged and rolled his eyes.

[My 2 Cents]

Here's a LINK to the actual questions asked during the jury visit for the first SPECTOR trial (and seriously, who's hand-writing is this??? take the pen away from this person!!!!) Anyway - I'm only posting it because I thought it might be interesting to compare (once we read what the questions are for PS2). Also, I wanted to point out that the request to sit in the car during PS1 was denied also, if I'm interpreting the "NO" correctly.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/docs/jury_questions.html

[dref99]

Here's a LINK to the actual questions asked during the jury visit for the first SPECTOR trial (and seriously, who's hand-writing is this??? take the pen away from this person!!!!) Anyway - I'm only posting it because I thought it might be interesting to compare (once we read what the questions are for PS2). Also, I wanted to point out that the request to sit in the car during PS1 was denied also, if I'm interpreting the "NO" correctly.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/docs/jury_questions.html

My memory hasn't been very good today - but I think that Juror #10 recorded and asked the questions - whether this was a copy of what he wrote or someone else's notes??

jmo (could be wrong)

[Jayne]

i think so. he sent a note to the judge. he said he was paying out of pocket to serve on jury and now there is a family illness. it is to be discussed tomorrow in court.

MY guess it is BS but the court can ask for confrmation...but maybe he's being upfront?

jmo

J

N.B. Most people have to pay out of pocket to make up for the miniscule daily pay they get to be jurors...IF their employer doesn't make up for it..TODAY? imagine that?!

jmo

[Jayne]

by Linda Deutsch reports:

"At one point, several jurors stood outside by the car and had another juror talk on the steps of the home. They also measured the distance from the car to the door."

I thought that the testimony stated that ADS was "within 5 ft of Spector", when Spector uttered those words.

Am I wrong? . . OR does AJ need to review this testimony with this panel of jurors? There is no way that someone standing in the driveway, outside the car door, would be within 5 feet of Spector who is standing in the doorway. . . . (I'm freaking out a little - Am I NOT paying attention - OR is it the jurors?)


By the time ADS heard PS he could have certainly walked toward the castle to that distance This IS JUST going to take this more into time, time time...

If you heard someting n the house...wouldn't you start walking towards it? IF not...would you even stay there to see PS come out with a gun in his hand? HE was an EMPLOYEE..he had an obligation....didn't he?

jmo

J

[kennedy06]

Thank you for the video links Kennedy06 - lots of different hair styles and lawyers among them all. March 2007 - Jury selection started for trial 1

I know on one of those clips from early on there was an attorney with PS that I had never heard of in connection to this case.

[My 2 Cents]

Here is a LINK to photos of the jury visit yesterday. It is not inside the house, just of the white vans arriving and one of the press. (These appear to be from a small local newspaper.)

http://sgvtribune.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=695574&CategoryID=33028

I saw a small "clip" regarding jury visit on the news last night. KTLA. There was a short video of the vans arriving and Linda Deustch talking. There was an aerial shot from a news helicopter over the "castle" as well. The piece was presented during the ENTERTAINMENT coverage/section of the news.

[hiitsme]

Here is a LINK to photos of the jury visit yesterday. It is not inside the house, just of the white vans arriving and one of the press. (These appear to be from a small local newspaper.)

http://sgvtribune.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=695574&CategoryID=33028

I saw a small "clip" regarding jury visit on the news last night. KTLA. There was a short video of the vans arriving and Linda Deustch talking. There was an aerial shot from a news helicopter over the "castle" as well. The piece was presented during the ENTERTAINMENT coverage/section of the news.

This is so eerie and disturbing to me. No wonder it was part of the entertainment section. LD looks like a tour guide. If Lana had seen this in the daylight she would have heeded AJ's warning."Don't Go!"

[dref99]

Here is a LINK to photos of the jury visit yesterday. It is not inside the house, just of the white vans arriving and one of the press. (These appear to be from a small local newspaper.)

http://sgvtribune.mycapture.com/mycapture/folder.asp?event=695574&CategoryID=33028

I saw a small "clip" regarding jury visit on the news last night. KTLA. There was a short video of the vans arriving and Linda Deustch talking. There was an aerial shot from a news helicopter over the "castle" as well. The piece was presented during the ENTERTAINMENT coverage/section of the news.

Some pictures from the first visit - does Linda always wear pink?
http://laist.com/2007/08/09/phil_spector_fi.php

[Spectorfan8]

Maybe Nancy Sinatra's picture was displayed, because it was there on 2/3/03. Wasn't PS dating her around this time? I think I read that they had recently broken up/stopped dating right before this shooting happened.

RE: Lighting - perhaps the jury thought the lighting might add another "hint" as to what was happening. Lights still dimmed in living room? What about the lighting in the foyer? Unfortunately, it doesn't matter, because ONLY Phil would know if he changed anything after Lana was killed - - and he's NOT talking (nor would I believe it anyway).


Right, that is true about the picture. The two had recently stopped seeing eachother. The picture was there when Lana was there.:smile:

[My 2 Cents]

Here's a teeny, tiny, video "blurb" of the jury visit. Actually, it is really just an AUDIO clip. (You have to scroll down about 1/2 way - - on the right is a segment titled "Bloody Furniture Highlights Mansion Tour".

Linda Deutsch makes me chuckle . . . "splotched with blood, well - it was blood" (I'm pretty sure it still is blood, Linda)

http://www.kfwb.com/

[hiitsme]

Here's a teeny, tiny, video "blurb" of the jury visit. Actually, it is really just an AUDIO clip. (You have to scroll down about 1/2 way - - on the right is a segment titled "Bloody Furniture Highlights Mansion Tour".

Linda Deutsch makes me chuckle . . . "splotched with blood, well - it was blood" (I'm pretty sure it still is blood, Linda)

http://www.kfwb.com/

Might be somewhat OT, but does Linda Deutsch generally tend to be pro defense? I know little of her but this reminds me of OJ Simpson being more trusting of her during his murder trial?

[Anakerie]

Might be somewhat OT, but does Linda Deutsch generally tend to be pro defense? I know little of her but this reminds me of OJ Simpson being more trusting of her during his murder trial?
Linda Deutsch is a pro-defense reporter in nearly all the articles I've seen written by her. Especially if the defendant is a "celebrity".

[penguin01]

Linda Deutsch is a pro-defense reporter in nearly all the articles I've seen written by her. Especially if the defendant is a "celebrity". Her name came up during his trial -concerning some of OJ's communications. I don't remember exactly what - but I guess nothing ever came of it. There are still some loose ends that should be investigated from that trial - hope they are ongoing.

Is there a problem if they decide to let juror #5 go? They have alternates ready to serve don't they?

[Anakerie]

Her name came up during his trial -concerning some of OJ's communications. I don't remember exactly what - but I guess nothing ever came of it. There are still some loose ends that should be investigated from that trial - hope they are ongoing.

Is there a problem if they decide to let juror #5 go? They have alternates ready to serve don't they?

I don't think there would be a problem if juror #5 is released. The alternates have been there in the courtroom every day and they went on the walkthrough of the castle as well. I imagine that it would just be a matter of selecting one of the alternates to take the place of juror #5.

[penguin01]

I don't think there would be a problem if juror #5 is released. The alternates have been there in the courtroom every day and they went on the walkthrough of the castle as well. I imagine that it would just be a matter of selecting one of the alternates to take the place of juror #5.
Thats good - I don't think he wanted to be there in the first place.

[wnb]

Linda Deutsch is a pro-defense reporter in nearly all the articles I've seen written by her. Especially if the defendant is a "celebrity".

Linda Deutsch has interviewed Simpson several times, as he likes her as an interviewer. About the Simpson murder trial, I saw a recent article were she was quoted as saying, "I don't know. I have heard all the evidence and I don't know." She is pro-defense when the defendant is a "celebrity" in ever article or interview of her that I have seen.

[My 2 Cents]

Here is a LINK to a more detailed article from Harriet Ryan with regards to yesterday's jury visit to Phil's house (I believe the previous article she wrote 2/19/09 was "short & sweet", written quickly after the visit). She has a few more details, some that were not mentioned in LD's article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector20-2009feb20,0,2855939.story

[oodi1]

I'm intrigued by the jury's request to sit in the vehicle. The jury in the first trial made the same request. To my thinking, the only thing that could be gleaned from sitting in the car, is whether or not ADS would have been able to hear the gunshot from inside the car. Surely the jurors didn't expect the court to "replicate" a gunshot from inside the house to test this.

Am I missing something? Or is "old timer's" setting in?

[dref99]

Here is a LINK to a more detailed article from Harriet Ryan with regards to yesterday's jury visit to Phil's house (I believe the previous article she wrote 2/19/09 was "short & sweet", written quickly after the visit). She has a few more details, some that were not mentioned in LD's article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector20-2009feb20,0,2855939.story

I think I am beginning to understand why there are so few regular posters on this forum (not counting folks getting banned or leaving for reasons associated with same)

This crime was committed six years ago - and still there is legal debate and argument as to what happened that night. In my mind the volume of the fountain is irrelevant - ADS got out of the car, walked towards the door, saw the gun, saw Lana and heard PS say "I think I killed someone". Apart from anything else - his immediate reaction to flee confirms what he saw and heard.

Six years later, is a report that includes the comments

Phil Spector stood inside the front door of his mansion Thursday morning wearing a chocolate brown suit, a shiny gold tie and an impassive expression What other person accused of murder can oversee the visit of a jury to the crime scene?

one of the defense purposes in requesting the field trip was to expose jurors to the volume of the fountain. It was splashing loudly as some panelists circled it What other murder trial has a defense that goes on for week after week, with the major testimony related to the volume of a fountain, especially when it is impossible to "recreate" what the volume would have been?

It all comes back to the facts - 2 people were in that house and one died. Why does it take six long and expensive years for 12 people to understand the ramifications of these facts. Is this the impact an earlier trial has had on justice in LA and can anyone (prosecution or defense) afford this type of justice in the future

I think I stay around because I do strongly feel - Lana Clarkson did nothing apart from follow her dream, she did not deserve her fate, nor did she play any part in her death, other than to be the victim of murder.

Anyone who plays around with guns, intimidates with guns, talks about gun play and/or uses a handgun for anything except self defense has no legal excuse when one of those guns he/she likes to keep loaded in an unlocked drawer becomes a death weapon.

I keep thinking that maybe those who do not believe tht PS was responsible for the death of Lana, may come up with some impelling arguments, discussion or debate. Through one trial & almost the second, I am still waiting for this discussion.

jmo

[mbmb]

I'm guessing, but I think it was approx. 1hr & 30 min. What took place is open to speculation and is a double edged sword.:wink:

You are either Rachelle or Phil... and trust me I'm Searching...

[Jayne]

I can understand why many find it eerie that a juror would want to sit in that chair. But, I just my opinion here, but I can see why a juror might want to - just like wanting to hold the gun, or demonstrate to him/herself what is alleged to have occurred - as they did in PS1, IIRC, with the gun in the jury deliberation room. The chair - perhaps a juror would want to "get a feel" of what it was like to sit in that chair...try to imitate the witnessed as well as the "speculated" slumping - for trying to understand or figure how Lana ended up in the position she was found in..would it make sense to a juror that she would have been in that position due to after effects of the shooting or had she been in that position or close to it before the shot? Maybe it's pseudo-psychic? Sitting in it one might think they'd receive some revelation?

The "no" may have been evidentiary - in that the chair IS an item of evidence that can't be "disturbed" - if blood stains could be altered maybe? Or two or more-fold - that sitting in the chair might actually do more harm than good in having them be 'impartial' and to not put their own feelings into their decision making? As eerie as it may be, personally, I might want to sit in that chair..in that foyer..and try to emulate what I'd heard in court occurred.

The reporter said something about the request to sit in the car was denied because it wasn't the same car? I doubt that's the reason. Just sitting in that car wouldn't be helpful to their understanding unless everything else was re-created - darkness, the lighting, the fountain (as it was then) and a gunshot from the same make, model and with the same calibre bullet in it being shot inside the house in the foyer in a way that would be just like what happened..intraoral. Pretty difficult, if not ridiculous, to attempt to simulate.

jmo

J

[oodi1]

Exactly my point on the car. Whether or not ADS heard the gunshot or not has no bearing on anything. There is no question that there WAS a gunshot... that fact is not in dispute. Hence the reason I am so perplexed as to why both juries would feel it important to sit in the car (or the subsitute car). UNLESS... they are thinking that ADS was still in the car when PS was supposed to have made the "I think I killed someone" statement, and they wanted to see if normal speech could have been heard from inside the car. The only problem with that is, ADS has testified that he got out of the car before the statement was made, and to my knowledge the defense hasn't questioned whether ADS was actually in or out of the car.

[dref99]

Of all of the years I have watched CourtTV and now TruTV, there have been only a few instances where I thought the outcome of the trials did not equal justice. ....snipped for space ... Two cases have bothered me greatly. Those two cases were Cynthia Sommer and Phil Spector. One other case was a college student murder & defendent's name was Orange Something...and that case had a video and IIRC, it was a hung jury.
....

The cases you mention raise a couple of issues that I think are very important - related to the PS trial.

IIRC the college student defendant was named Orange Taylor and his first trial resulted in a hung jury. Checking ...

The student was found dead on Dec 15, 2006 & despite some issues via the University admin actions following the discovery of her body, Orange Taylor was arrested on Feb 23, 2007. Opening statements on October 16, 2007 - trial expected to last 2 weeks.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/taylor/101507_background_ctv.html
October 24 2007 the judge declared a mistrial. Jan 28, 2008 was set as new trial date. Taylor stayed in jail.
http://www.courttv.com/trials/taylor/102307_mistrial_ctv.html
Jury selection for trial 2 began on March 31, 2008. The jury returned a guilty verdict on April 7.
http://www.jurorthirteen.com/GeneralCategories/PastTrials/OrangeTaylor/tabid/349/Default.aspx

Just under 16 months for arrest and 2 trials. Taylor was in jail throughout the proceedings. As with Lana's death, it was known (via video) that the defendant was in the building. Taylor's defense was Soddi - that he had just "found the body". I guess Spector couldn't use this defense - unless he wanted to blame ADS - no-one else was around.

Spector gets over 6 years for arrest and 2 trials - less than 1 day in jail. Do they both get the same justice?

Cynthia Sommer was convicted by bad/false scientific evidence. (links are plentiful via google).
This reminds me that the defense definitely do have the right to call their own expert witnesses (sometimes it may relate to cost as to whether this can be done).

What it also says is that science on either side can be very biased. In the case of Cynthia, the prosecution had no evidence of murder, but wanted the death to be murder. In the case of Phil Spector, the defense have no evidence of suicide, but want it to be suicide.

Disagreeing with your own expert opinion, available in books and/or other trials, creating experiments that have no way of reflecting exactly or precisely the events of the time in question, and accepting scientic evidence with results way outside what would have been expected if there was a death by poisoning are not ways for experts to prove their expertise. I will not detail such things as incorrectly dating when tests were done or ahha moments reached after years of trying to explain the inexplicable.

Juries make decisions on such evidence, they deserve to be given scientific truth or the reality that sometimes science does not have the answer to every last detail of the question.

jmo

[Jayne]

Exactly my point on the car. Whether or not ADS heard the gunshot or not has no bearing on anything. There is no question that there WAS a gunshot... that fact is not in dispute. Hence the reason I am so perplexed as to why both juries would feel it important to sit in the car (or the subsitute car). UNLESS... they are thinking that ADS was still in the car when PS was supposed to have made the "I think I killed someone" statement, and they wanted to see if normal speech could have been heard from inside the car. The only problem with that is, ADS has testified that he got out of the car before the statement was made, and to my knowledge the defense hasn't questioned whether ADS was actually in or out of the car.

Well..good points. Yet, think about it. Even if one wants to believe ADS was sitting in that car..didn't hear the gunshot...then eventually saw PS at the door..any reasonable person would believe that he would have exited the car, think? Boss at the door..opened the door..there's the Employee ADS expecting to take Lana back to her car at PS's instruction..then he exited the car, which couldn't be that far from the steps, considering the size of the driveway, etc. and he walked toward the house..to his Employer...maybe then PS said what he did..and ADS looked around PS and saw Lana in the chair? I believe what ADS said...and even if it wasn't spot on perfect..he did exit the car...he was within hearing distance of PS...from the size of that driveway, etc. how could he NOT be within hearing distance..and that fountain would have to be like Niagra Falls to disrupt any voice from the foyer door of that house and where ADS was standing outside his car toward the house. And, even if they want to discount some or all of that...WHY would ADS have called 911 saying he thought his boss shot someone? IF..he hadn't heard a gunshot...IF he hadn't heard his boss SAY what PS (allegedly) did...if he weren't fearing for his own safety?..if he weren't being a good "citizen" (legal or illegal doesn't matter, IMO)? It's almost like the defense is making ADS to look as if he "set up his boss"..because the guy obviously does understand English and can speak it well.

Going to throw an "iron" into the issues here...ADS calls Michelle first..supposedly to find out the address of the house? Maybe..or maybe it was because she was PS's protector (maybe she even had a power of attorney?) and AS knew it, perhaps from PS's instruction to call MB if there were ever a problem? (well pretty obvious to me from his testimony, otherwise why would he call her?) and the first person to call in any emergency is Michelle to get some direction from her? But, then when he couldn't reach her..he drives out of the driveway to get away from danger and does the next best thing to call 911, so he calls 911..now knowing the address? I have to question that...PS must have had some sort of GPS system in his car(s)..maybe not. On the other hand, honestly, no matter how brave this guy may be, I don't think he'd have sat in that driveway calling 911 after he just saw a woman with a bloody face stradled in a chair in his Boss's foyer.

jmo

J


(now..as dumb as this sounds...I wonder why MB wasn't called to the stand to confirm that ADS had called her..records would show that...but maybe the prosecution didn't want to get her involved because there may be questions of perjury or something else? And maybe that's why she won't/can't testify unless PS takes the stand? because then her testimony would be limited to "that fact(s)"?)

[My 2 Cents]

T&T has her update posted re JURY VISIT 2/19/09. She has lots of photos posted, AND she the questions the jurors asked are listed. . . . now I must get back to reading it.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-five_20.html

[dref99]

T&T has her update posted re JURY VISIT 2/19/09. She has lots of photos posted, AND she the questions the jurors asked are listed. . . . now I must get back to reading it.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-five_20.html

A Q&A post up as well - thank you My 2 cents

[My 2 Cents]

Linda Deutsch stated that . . .

"When the jurors gathered in the driveway, speaking by themselves for five to ten minutes they appeared to be led by juror #1. There were a lot of questions dealing with lighting by the jurors."

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE . . . How did these jurors TALK for 5 - 10 MINUTES in that DRIVEWAY with the SPLASHING, THUNDEROUS SOUND OF THAT NOISY FOUNTAIN so close by?

I bet they get ALL those QUESTIONS mixed up and wrong! That darn fountain!

OK, . . . I have a couple questions:

1. Linda Deutsch states, "Compared to the first juror visit, these jurors were not as animated." . . . Linda, do you mean NOT as ANIMATED as YOU (in which case, I am concerned) or not as animated as "regular, everyday people"?
2. Does Linda have arms? . . . can't tell.
3. Why hasn't "Mister Big Spender" ever painted those walls that surround his "castle"? Seriously Phil, don't blame this on lawyer bills . . .these walls don't look like they've been painted since that red/burgundy carpet went in back in the early 80's.
AND LASTLY . . . .
(this is for real)
4. WHY DIDN'T THE JURORS ASK, "Where is the spot exactly, that ADS says he was standing when he heard PS blurt out those 5 very important words?" Come on guys, forget about asking to sit in the car, . . . ask this instead.

[Jayne]

Linda Deutsch stated that . . .

"When the jurors gathered in the driveway, speaking by themselves for five to ten minutes they appeared to be led by juror #1. There were a lot of questions dealing with lighting by the jurors."

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT A MINUTE . . . How did these jurors TALK for 5 - 10 MINUTES in that DRIVEWAY with the SPLASHING, THUNDEROUS SOUND OF THAT NOISY FOUNTAIN so close by?

I bet they get ALL those QUESTIONS mixed up and wrong! That darn fountain!

OK, . . . I have a couple questions:

1. Linda Deutsch states, "Compared to the first juror visit, these jurors were not as animated." . . . Linda, do you mean NOT as ANIMATED as YOU (in which case, I am concerned) or not as animated as "regular, everyday people"?
2. Does Linda have arms? . . . can't tell.
3. Why hasn't "Mister Big Spender" ever painted those walls that surround his "castle"? Seriously Phil, don't blame this on lawyer bills . . .these walls don't look like they've been painted since that red/burgundy carpet went in back in the early 80's.
AND LASTLY . . . .
(this is for real)
4. WHY DIDN'T THE JURORS ASK, "Where is the spot exactly, that ADS says he was standing when he heard PS blurt out those 5 very important words?" Come on guys, forget about asking to sit in the car, . . . ask this instead.

Brilliant, M2C!

Oh..and loved your post above..about Linda's characterization of "it was blood...." HAHA..like it transformed into something else?

[penguin01]

I could imagine some jurors walking around near where the car was parked while others were close to the mansion door to see what they could hear (near the car). Its just ridiculous to imagine they would not ask exactly where the driver was, isn't it? His testimony been such a major point and the conversation about the fountain ad nauseum. So they just skipped it? That worries me.

[hiitsme]

I could imagine some jurors walking around near where the car was parked while others were close to the mansion door to see what they could hear (near the car). Its just ridiculous to imagine they would not ask exactly where the driver was, isn't it? His testimony been such a major point and the conversation about the fountain ad nauseum. So they just skipped it? That worries me.

That worried me too, but I talked myself out of it. The trial so far, in MO, has been very favorable toward guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I now chose to think that these jurors don't care where ADS was standing because they believe that when PS walked outside, gun in hand, he did in fact say " I think I killed someone."

[Jayne]

IF MB's testimony was anything that would capture th defense team to get PS off they surely would have advised MB to take the stand. This might sound crazy but perhaps the only reason why she would testify is because if PS was willing to take the stand he would be found guilty when they finished up with his testimony.
In addition, this might also sound crazy but if MB was called to the stand by the State, they would most likely end with a hostile witness. With that, it would really give good cause for appeal and or another demand for mistrial.? Dunno...I'm not an attroney...
JMO

exactly - except hostile witness would be a good thing to the defense" - the prosecution can't appeal.

you are an attroney! :)

[Jayne]

I assume LD is an entertainment or celebrity reporter. It makes sense to me that she would always favor the celebrity. She is in LA... if she comes across as being pro-prosecution in celebrity cases, no celebrity would ever talk to her.... celebrities are her bread and butter.

As far as I know, she is a 'celebrity hog' (no offense..it's a term).

Now, were it a civil action, it might be different. I don't know why exactly, but the photos of her remind me of Betty Davis in one of those old movies.

jmo

J

[Spectorfan8]

Furthermore, did AD ever get thru via cell phone to MB on the night of the incident.. I didn't think he had. I thought he had left a messg. for her to call him. JMO:thumbup:

He did not reach MB that night. She was having a birthday party for her son. So, she had turned the phone off.

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by Searching
Furthermore, did AD ever get thru via cell phone to MB on the night of the incident.. I didn't think he had. I thought he had left a messg. for her to call him. JMO

He did not reach MB that night. She was having a birthday party for her son. So, she had turned the phone off.
__________________
I will always love you Nan. RIP 6/21/08
Thelma....You're a Part of Me!!!

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

But, he did make the call. That is the point I would think, that MB was called once ADS realized what happened...and I'm not so sure it was about the address of the house, but maybe it was. I'm guessing, he was calling her as PS's administrative assistant...as to what to do...when he didn't get through, he called 911 himself, since he couldn't get MB to take care of it. I wonder if that call was made when he was still in the "driveway" or when he got out to the gate.

jmo

J

[nanouk]

If he didn't get thru isn't it immaterail where the call was made from. He apparently knew enough to call 911 himself, why not call them first. Since he didn't it sounds like points for the PS team to me. Since it is all conjecture anyway I suppose you could opine he wanted MB to 911. Nevertheless it easy to see why she wasn't called as a witness.:thumbup:

AD called MB so she could tell him the exact address. Since she wasn't answering, AD decided to drive to the gate to get it so he could give it to the 911 dispatcher.

Nanouk

[Jayne]

oxymoron eh? accidental suicide. :cursing: Absolutely ridiculous.


Of course it is...how can a person accidentally intentionally kill oneself? This was the brilliant (?) theory of PS1 defense. And, I do believe it was due to PS's blabs with the LE about it being an accident, defense thought those police reports would come in (hence, Cutler's surprise in opening statement) and the only way to get PS off...would be that the ACCIDENT was Lana...Playing with the gun and shooting herself NOT PS Playing with the Gun, as he has a history of doing and "accidently" killing Lana. NO...So they come up with a legal theory (YET to go on the books...but hundreds if not thousands of lawyers and judges are laughing at it)..Of "Accidental Suicide"....guess that will have to be Penal Code AS101? This whole oxymoronic legal whatyamado had me rolling on the floor and scratching my head. WHAT is up with that? It's not just an oxymoron..it's moronic, IMO. Really irritates me that anybody would even think about believing it..it makes no sense at all. Nobody commits suicide by "accident"...you can't even prosecute a dead person for committing suicide. They may shoot themselves by accident/stupidity..but that isn't suicide. But i they really meant to, then it was no accident. PS1 got caught up in it, I think..now PS2 is going for Point Blank Suicide..aren't they? If not, haven't they learned a thing? And, if that is true, from what I've read, there is no proof of suicide - just an accident waiting to happen..by PS's modus and hand.

jmo

j

[dref99]

I assume LD is an entertainment or celebrity reporter. It makes sense to me that she would always favor the celebrity. She is in LA... if she comes across as being pro-prosecution in celebrity cases, no celebrity would ever talk to her.... celebrities are her bread and butter.

If you search youtube - there are a few videos about LD - one linked on the T&T blog gives her background

[kennedy06]

If you search youtube - there are a few videos about LD - one linked on the T&T blog gives her background

Thank you dreff. When I looked at the picture of her on T & T I thought she had a large brown polka dot bow on, I thought thats different. LOL then I realized it was the microphone holder.:rolleyes:

[dref99]

Thank you dreff. When I looked at the picture of her on T & T I thought she had a large brown polka dot bow on, I thought thats different. LOL then I realized it was the microphone holder.:rolleyes:

I did too - I thought it was a scarf of some type :rolleyes:

[dref99]

Most definitely ridiculous.

It seems some people, including Phil Spector's first 'defense' team, don't realize there is no such thing as 'accidental suicide.' And there never will be any such thing.

The definition of the word suicide is quite clear. The definition leaves absolutely no room for 'accidental' to come into play. Ever.

In fact, the definition of the word suicide includes 'intentional.'

Therefore... 'accidental suicide' is literally impossible. Period.

Oxymoron indeed.

Although I think the combination of words is ridiculous, there is nothing about this trial that I would any longer call impossible.

The rulings on some issues including but not limited to, recent events, makes it very doubtful that anything will be ruled impossible. The defense used the term in trial 1.

Whether we believe it or not is irrelevant - if they can make someone on the jury believe it, the purpose if saying this is achieved. Much of the defense of trial 1 went against the reality of science and/or the language we speak - but one person appeared to believe at least some of the argument.

I would expect that a few others, outside of the jury, would hold a similar opinion. They would probably think a lawyer or "expert", carries much weight in defining how things might happen

jmo

[RayStar]

Just finished reading the update at T&T and the question about the car being in the same position bothered me. When DeSouza moved the car to phone 911, there is no way to know how close he was to the actual parked position before. Or was this detailed in PS1? IIRC didn't ADS wait outside the gate for LE?

[dref99]

Just finished reading the update at T&T and the question about the car being in the same position bothered me. When DeSouza moved the car to phone 911, there is no way to know how close he was to the actual parked position before. Or was this detailed in PS1? IIRC didn't ADS wait outside the gate for LE?

AD had driven for PS many times - I would think (but don't remember from the trial) that he probably always parked in the same position - so would have been able to accurately give the information to the police. Although he dropped Phil and Lana at the front (to walk up all the stairs) I believe it was much more common that he pick up and drop off at the back.

jmo

[RayStar]

AD had driven for PS many times - I would think (but don't remember from the trial) that he probably always parked in the same position - so would have been able to accurately give the information to the police. Although he dropped Phil and Lana at the front (to walk up all the stairs) I believe it was much more common that he pick up and drop off at the back.

jmo
OK I was being technical about the parking space. I was referring to the juror's question about the car and wanting to sit inside it. Really I doubt an inch or two difference whould have mattered. Shoot sometimes I touch the gargage door or pull closer to the side of the house. I guess I'll have to look up whether or not he drove back inside the gate after calling for help. Thanks for the post.

[Anakerie]

OK I was being technical about the parking space. I was referring to the juror's question about the car and wanting to sit inside it. Really I doubt an inch or two difference whould have mattered. Shoot sometimes I touch the gargage door or pull closer to the side of the house. I guess I'll have to look up whether or not he drove back inside the gate after calling for help. Thanks for the post.

IIRC, De Souza stayed outside the gate waiting for LE to arrive. He didn't come back up the driveway with the car until Phil was in custody.

[NYGalPal]

oxymoron eh? accidental suicide. :cursing: Absolutely ridiculous.

Consider the source. Ditto! :lol:

[NYGalPal]

Posting to yourself is almost as funny as talking to yourself. Thank you!

Mortie

LMAO and still never makes one bit of sense. Can't wait to see what ridiculous move it makes when PS is found guilty. Should be entertaining.

:lol:

[RayStar]

Thanks e1 for the answer on ADS staying out by the gate. I truly hope we get a verdict this time.

[penguin01]

oxymoron eh? accidental suicide. :cursing: Absolutely ridiculous.
but very funny! :biggrinjester:

[nanouk]

i think we all are then suicidal. how many times have individuals said they were going to 'chuck' their careers and go for something else after career burnout or just a bad day? my guess is everyone here has said or thought of 'chucking' it all.

btw, i probably have said it in emails and in person.... now on a message board... i guess if I am murdered, the defendent's attorney will find those old emails.... yeah, that's it, that's the ticket... sounds logical :rolleyes:

Based on our never finding friend's criteria, my wife would be suicidal for a few days every month... Crying, wants to quit her job, finds herself ugly... The rest of the time she is the most enjoyable and beautiful person.

JMO

Nanouk

[Jayne]

searching..... you said you feel PS is culpable, but not of 2nd degree murder... possibly VM.... I thought that California law states that VM is not really an option.... that if PS has any culpability, then it is automatically 2nd degree...VM is out?

I am not an attorney... Jayne?

Neither am I..not on these threads (ok?)...

VM is an option depending on several factors.

1. was it charged as an LIO

2. is there evidence during the trial that would support the LIO

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.

. . .

(rest left out as it is vehicular...

SOURCE: www.leginfo.ca.gov under Penal Code.


Once again...I believe (no proof solid) that this is what Shapiro attempted to "offer" but PS said no..VM.

If a trial does not include the "elements" of a lesser included..AND if they weren't charged at the outset...there is an argument which DW did well in arguing in PS1..it doesn't apply.

I don't know which side here is playing what part of the chess game...but first time, had I been PS, I'd have taken that plea. Second...I'd have charged it in the indictment and fashioned the trial to have all the elements of malice implied murder and VM as well. The only thing missing is the "malice implied" for VM, IMO...it's heat of passion...or sudden quarrel (LIKE..You don't want to leave? i.e. not premeditated..or not malice implied..it was a Knee Jerk Reaction..e.g. "an accident"?? Geeze..I always use guns to do this..but you just took it to the point where..well..I reacted....an "accident"?)

jmo

and I know many will disagree...but that's why we talk here..and I am Not against any PS supporters...I just give my opinions..that's all.

Jayne

[Jayne]

a question..... if PS had been charged with 1st degree murder, would bail have been available?

Gheesh...questions questions.

maybe...I need time to research it, but he wasn't charged with it and he couldn't be..the facts do not fit murder of the first degree.

sorry I can't just throw this off the top of my head.

:)

jmo

J

[*Spike*]

i hope the jury find's him guilty this time around. JMO

[hiitsme]

Based on our never finding friend's criteria, my wife would be suicidal for a few days every month... Crying, wants to quit her job, finds herself ugly... The rest of the time she is the most enjoyable and beautiful person.

JMO

Nanouk

So true! I'll bet many of us girls are saying, gee honey, I didn't know you joined the In Session Message Boards. It really is frightening to see what tactics are used just to "win". What happened to the search for the truth?

[Jayne]

So true! I'll bet many of us girls are saying, gee honey, I didn't know you joined the In Session Message Boards. It really is frightening to see what tactics are used just to "win". What happened to the search for the truth?

JMO..please..

it's stuck within all that legislation and codes and statutes that have so many "loopholes" that a "high paid" defense attorney can swim through and come up breathing for air. (OK..to be fair..even an underpaid one.)

Unfortunately..and I mean this sincerely..the prosecution doesn't have that "edge"..OH..they can argue..they can put on witnesses...they might even be able to argue "the law"..but the Defense? Here is where I think AJ and his team were told that they go for M2 and Nothing Else. That essentially tied their hands. I do believe it comes to that..but to let out VM and not be able to "get it" amazes me.

Like i've alluded to..it IS a Chess Game...but I don't think we want to go back to Draconian Codes? Or maybe we do? cut off their heads (LOVE the poster..Off with the heads, or something like that!)..for any small infraction of the Law. maybe Athenian government was a bit (a bit????) strict...but ...heck, we'd cut down on the population, wouldn't we? (I'm being a bit waxing and sardonic here...)

So..I guess it is M2 or nothing? shame..I think..if the jurors would find VM and convict. (But..it just may not happen this time..it may be a M2 conviction...depending on..well the same old same old of the jury.)

jmo

J

[Spectorfan8]

Jayne,

You are getting your game on today!!LOL

Keep 'em coming!! :thumbsup:

SF8

[Jayne]

Jayne,

You are getting your game on today!!LOL

Keep 'em coming!! :thumbsup:

SF8

HAHA Priming for the Oscars tonight and the meeting tomorrow at work! Not gonna get banned...

:)

[hooked2]

i hope the jury find's him guilty this time around. JMO

....... :beer:

[hooked2]

HAHA Priming for the Oscars tonight and the meeting tomorrow at work! Not gonna get banned...

:)
:waves: Hi Jayne! Haven't talked to you since PS1, I think. Those were the good ole days :biggrin:

Re: not getting banned, me either! Crosses fingers. Hard to believe we're actually 'old timers' on the board now, huh? It's only extreme self censorship and my going off on ADD ventures for months at a time that keeps me in my 'first life' whereas so many others have 9 lives or more on this board!

[Jayne]

:waves: Hi Jayne! Haven't talked to you since PS1, I think. Those were the good ole days :biggrin:

Re: not getting banned, me either! Crosses fingers. Hard to believe we're actually 'old timers' on the board now, huh? It's only extreme self censorship and my going off on ADD ventures for months at a time that keeps me in my 'first life' whereas so many others have 9 lives or more on this board!

HEY...GREAT to see you again! And, we're talking again! As to those 9 lives...you're funny! Love my cats..check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVBiRqKj6j8

makes me laugh Every Morning..YES.it is my wake up call..along with my three "talking" cats!

[hooked2]

If he didn't get thru isn't it immaterail where the call was made from. He apparently knew enough to call 911 himself, why not call them first. Since he didn't it sounds like points for the PS team to me. Since it is all conjecture anyway I suppose you could opine he wanted MB to 911. Nevertheless it easy to see why she wasn't called as a witness.:thumbup:

For the same reason that the masseuse for Heath Ledger called the Ashley twin prior to calling 911 when he was found unresponsive or dead. That the nurse called Howard prior to 911 when Anna Nicole was found unresponsive or dead. etc... etc... etc...

People who are in the employ of celebrities have it drilled into their heads that privacy is the #1 priority. That is what stays in the forefront of their minds and seemingly prevents them from doing our logical first choice without 'authorization' from someone of 'higher' authority. A celebrities' concern is publicity first, rationale second... They don't want their dirty secrets revealed unless there's absolutely no other choice. It's practically the motto for this club that we 'regular folk' have no comprehension of.

[hooked2]

HEY...GREAT to see you again! And, we're talking again! As to those 9 lives...you're funny! Love my cats..check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVBiRqKj6j8

makes me laugh Every Morning..YES.it is my wake up call..along with my three "talking" cats!

......... oh, I miss laughing santa soooo! much. :insert santa here:

Do you think PS will be found guilty this time or will there be jurors still holding out for the CSI video of the shooting to convict?

-->> Please check out my insession post (#29) re: cats and the copywriting issue and tell me if you think this is an accurate synopsis of this issue
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12817121&posted=1#post12817121

[Jayne]

......... oh, I miss laughing santa soooo! much. :insert santa here:

Do you think PS will be found guilty this time or will there be jurors still holding out for the CSI video of the shooting to convict?

-->> Please check out my insession post (#29) re: cats and the copywriting issue and tell me if you think this is an accurate synopsis of this issue
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12817121&posted=1#post12817121


I think they have a problem...they always will with keeping out the VM..but maybe not this time? don't know. Why would you allow a jury to visit the place then say NO to sitting in the car? Seems like a set up for disaster..big mistake...why even have the car there in the first place? AM I being stupid? MAYBE..it's ok.

I can see not sitting in the chair..but HECK let them sit in the car...WHAT are they going to get from that UNLESS you SHOOT a gun inside the house..in the dark hours of the morning with a fountain, hopefully, spewing it's water at the same decibels as 2/3/3..but heck...sure let them sit there..but they better UNDERSTAND that sitting in that car pretty much means Nothing

jmo

J
Oh, Yes..and I won't post more..I'd be banned..but think "caesar....."

wash my hands of it all?

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

For the same reason that the masseuse for Heath Ledger called the Ashley twin prior to calling 911 when he was found unresponsive or dead. That the nurse called Howard prior to 911 when Anna Nicole was found unresponsive or dead. etc... etc... etc...

People who are in the employ of celebrities have it drilled into their heads that privacy is the #1 priority. That is what stays in the forefront of their minds and seemingly prevents them from doing our logical first choice without 'authorization' from someone of 'higher' authority. A celebrities' concern is publicity first, rationale second... They don't want their dirty secrets revealed unless there's absolutely no other choice. It's practically the motto for this club that we 'regular folk' have no comprehension of.

Excellent Post! - Excellent Point!

[dref99]

Jayne and I have always disagreed about the VM option (but not alot else). I agree entirely that a plea for manslaughter was probably offered and rejected not long after the death of Lana.

From Calcrim - jury instructions (I have a copy of these - they are probably online somewhere) - There are some documents here - discussing the mid deliberation changes
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&date=11/3/2008%209:48:13%20AM

Murder 1 and II - to prove guilty the People must prove

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person AND
2. When the defendant acted he had a state of mind called malice aforethought AND
3. He killed without lawful excuse of justification.

Item 2 has always been the one causing disagreement in relation to the murder of Lana and the problem jury instruction in trial 1 related to this.

There are 2 kinds of malice aforethought - express or implied - proof of either is sufficient.
Express malice - he unlawfully intended to kill (most agree this was not the case)

This crime fits implied malice
1. He intentionally committed an act
2. The consequences were dangerous to human life
3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life AND
4. He deliberately acted with concious disregard for human life.
Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim.

Producing a loaded gun and pointing it at lana (let alone putting it in her mouth) - applies to 1 & 4 - he intentionally committed an act with concious disregard for human life. This is the part that causes folks to disagree. I think other states have different rules in regard to the "degrees" of murder.

In trial 1 - The prosecution said it was murder under this rule. The defense didn't want lessers as the defense was suicide - not manslaughter or an accident. The Judge agreed.

trial 2 - will probably be argued again - may conclude something different.

My opinion only

[Spectorfan8]

Jayne and I have always disagreed about the VM option (but not alot else). I agree entirely that a plea for manslaughter was probably offered and rejected not long after the death of Lana.

From Calcrim - jury instructions (I have a copy of these - they are probably online somewhere) - There are some documents here - discussing the mid deliberation changes
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&date=11/3/2008%209:48:13%20AM

Murder 1 and II - to prove guilty the People must prove

1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person AND
2. When the defendant acted he had a state of mind called malice aforethought AND
3. He killed without lawful excuse of justification.

Item 2 has always been the one causing disagreement in relation to the murder of Lana and the problem jury instruction in trial 1 related to this.

There are 2 kinds of malice aforethought - express or implied - proof of either is sufficient.
Express malice - he unlawfully intended to kill (most agree this was not the case)

This crime fits implied malice
1. He intentionally committed an act
2. The consequences were dangerous to human life
3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life AND
4. He deliberately acted with concious disregard for human life.
Malice aforethought does not require hatred or ill will toward the victim.

Producing a loaded gun and pointing it at lana (let alone putting it in her mouth) - applies to 1 & 4 - he intentionally committed an act with concious disregard for human life. This is the part that causes folks to disagree. I think other states have different rules in regard to the "degrees" of murder.

In trial 1 - The prosecution said it was murder under this rule. The defense didn't want lessers as the defense was suicide - not manslaughter or an accident. The Judge agreed.

trial 2 - will probably be argued again - may conclude something different.

My opinion only

this is just my opinion, but I believe that something else will be offered. I don't know what, but the defense should consider the lesser charges.

[My 2 Cents]

Because AD himself is not sure.They wanted to sit in the vehicle because as AD originally testified he was inside the vehicle (:closedeyes:) and was awoken by the gun shot and alleged uncorroborated excited utterance attributed with possible inaccuracy to PS. It was 5 hours latter that he was interviewed at the station and 12 hours latter when he returned to the scene with the detectives. BTW why do you feel the need to attack LD and the castle paint job. What a bunch of nonsense:thumbdown: What does that have to with anything?.

“Alleged Uncorroborated Excited Utterance” . . . this appears to be one of your favorite responses. Usually an “excited utterance” carries strength in a courtroom, because it’s a statement blurted out spontaneously, possibly during a stressful or shocking event taking place. For ex: “OMG he has a gun”, shouted by a person in bank that suddenly realizes it is getting robbed. Because it is spontaneous, it usually contains a lot of truth. Person didn’t mean to blurt it out – but did without thinking. “Without thinking” – doesn’t mean it doesn’t speak the truth. Many times it means they would have rather not blurted it out, for different reasons (in this example, perhaps not to send everyone into a panic, or not to alert the robbers). Your other favorite word, “UNCORROBORATED”. I would have to completely disagree with your suggestion that this “excited utterance” is “uncorroborated”. In my opinion, what ADS stated to the police (on phone message to MB, to 911, at the Grand View location, at the police station on video and under oath during his testimony) of what Phil said (while holding the gun in his hand), a minute or two after hearing the gunshot, is supported in many ways by many things. Here are a few things IMO that support ADS heard this “excited utterance” correctly:
1. Statement made by Phil Spector 2/3/03, heard by Police Officer Rodriguez and documented in her report, “What’s wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation for this.” - spoken by Phil Spector while at Alhambra home.
2. While being handcuffed, and included in report by different officer, “The gun went off accidentally.” “I’m sorry it happened” – by P.Spector
3. The fact that the gun used was wiped down. (supports ADS’s statement that PS was holding the gun, and not Lana)

The fact that Phil changes his “story” to “accidental suicide”, approx 6-9 hours after taken into custody doesn’t support the story as being truthful. It contradicts his earlier statements made at his house. The fact that he changes his story more often than most people change their underwear, doesn’t support his story as being truthful either. Here are just a few of the claims Phil has made since 2/3/03:

March 2003 e-mail from Spector to friends: the L.A. Sheriff’s dept is going to release a statement ruling Lana Clarkson’s death has been determined to be an “accidental suicide” and I have been fully “exonerated” and will not be charged.” (LIE)

Mid-2003 Esquire Magazine interview given by PS: : “I didn’t do anything”. I called the police myself.” “I called the police” “She was loud & drunk when we left the house of Blues”. I wasn’t drunk. I wasn’t drunk at all.” She grabbed a bottle of tequila from the bar to take with her” “She asked me for a ride home.” (ALL of these are LIES – verified by videos and multiple statements from others who were there working that night, his driver, phone records, etc)

“Remember, I own the House of Blues, where this lady pretended to work, OK?” (Nope, still a LIE Phil)

I think the closest truth we will ever get from this guy, is when he does blurt out an “excited utterance”. When it isn’t spontaneous, this guy seems to ooze, lie after lie.

And with regards to your ongoing references to ADS being “asleep” or “dozing” in the car. . . regardless of what took place BEFORE the gunshot sound, ADS was up, awake and out of the car after that (and most likely before as well – or he wouldn’t have even heard the sound or been alarmed enough to get out and search the area). Certainly you’re not suggesting he was “sleep walking” after he got out of the car to check for the sound. So he’s up, awake and alert after checking for the sound that had him puzzled. More support that he heard things correctly, minutes later - after his brisk walk outside and around the car and courtyard area.

BTW – I did not attack LD, I was simply attempting to add a little humor to my post, - same as you, when you use all those big words – at least I think that’s why you do it, anyway - - - the monotone, robotic inflection LD used, when describing this jury as “less animated” just struck me as funny. I apologize for that – it had nothing to do with her reputation as a journalist. With regards to PS’s wall – I stand by that. The fact that he hides behind a wall, not one of sound, but this one - peeling, crumbling and clearly in need of repair . . . seems only fitting.

[dref99]

this is just my opinion, but I believe that something else will be offered. I don't know what, but the defense should consider the lesser charges.

They could do this - but have not wanted to do so in the past. It was brought up much earlier and JF said it would be discussed at the end

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Based on our never finding friend's criteria, my wife would be suicidal for a few days every month... Crying, wants to quit her job, finds herself ugly... The rest of the time she is the most enjoyable and beautiful person.

JMO

Nanouk

:lol: LOL . . . that is so funny Nanouk, and so true (for many of us wives, I'm afraid)

[dref99]

Great post My2Cents. It would seem PS has convinced himself he did not shoot Lana - unfortunately, he doesn't have much evidence to back up his many different utterances on this topic. The first "excited utterance" seems the one most likely to be true.

jmo

[Jayne]

“Alleged Uncorroborated Excited Utterance” . . . this appears to be one of your favorite responses. Usually an “excited utterance” carries strength in a courtroom, because it’s a statement blurted out spontaneously, possibly during a stressful or shocking event taking place. For ex: “OMG he has a gun”, shouted by a person in bank that suddenly realizes it is getting robbed. Because it is spontaneous, it usually contains a lot of truth. Person didn’t mean to blurt it out – but did without thinking. “Without thinking” – doesn’t mean it doesn’t speak the truth. Many times it means they would have rather not blurted it out, for different reasons (in this example, perhaps not to send everyone into a panic, or not to alert the robbers). Your other favorite word, “UNCORROBORATED”. I would have to completely disagree with your suggestion that this “excited utterance” is “uncorroborated”. In my opinion, what ADS stated to the police (on phone message to MB, to 911, at the Grand View location, at the police station on video and under oath during his testimony) of what Phil said (while holding the gun in his hand), a minute or two after hearing the gunshot, is supported in many ways by many things. Here are a few things IMO that support ADS heard this “excited utterance” correctly:
1. Statement made by Phil Spector 2/3/03, heard by Police Officer Rodriguez and documented in her report, “What’s wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation for this.” - spoken by Phil Spector while at Alhambra home.
2. While being handcuffed, and included in report by different officer, “The gun went off accidentally.” “I’m sorry it happened” – by P.Spector
3. The fact that the gun used was wiped down. (supports ADS’s statement that PS was holding the gun, and not Lana)

The fact that Phil changes his “story” to “accidental suicide”, approx 6-9 hours after taken into custody doesn’t support the story as being truthful. It contradicts his earlier statements made at his house. The fact that he changes his story more often than most people change their underwear, doesn’t support his story as being truthful either. Here are just a few of the claims Phil has made since 2/3/03:

March 2003 e-mail from Spector to friends: the L.A. Sheriff’s dept is going to release a statement ruling Lana Clarkson’s death has been determined to be an “accidental suicide” and I have been fully “exonerated” and will not be charged.” (LIE)

Mid-2003 Esquire Magazine interview given by PS: : “I didn’t do anything”. I called the police myself.” “I called the police” “She was loud & drunk when we left the house of Blues”. I wasn’t drunk. I wasn’t drunk at all.” She grabbed a bottle of tequila from the bar to take with her” “She asked me for a ride home.” (ALL of these are LIES – verified by videos and multiple statements from others who were there working that night, his driver, phone records, etc)

“Remember, I own the House of Blues, where this lady pretended to work, OK?” (Nope, still a LIE Phil)

I think the closest truth we will ever get from this guy, is when he does blurt out an “excited utterance”. When it isn’t spontaneous, this guy seems to ooze, lie after lie.

And with regards to your ongoing references to ADS being “asleep” or “dozing” in the car. . . regardless of what took place BEFORE the gunshot sound, ADS was up, awake and out of the car after that (and most likely before as well – or he wouldn’t have even heard the sound or been alarmed enough to get out and search the area). Certainly you’re not suggesting he was “sleep walking” after he got out of the car to check for the sound. So he’s up, awake and alert after checking for the sound that had him puzzled. More support that he heard things correctly, minutes later - after his brisk walk outside and around the car and courtyard area.

BTW – I did not attack LD, I was simply attempting to add a little humor to my post, - same as you, when you use all those big words – at least I think that’s why you do it, anyway - - - the monotone, robotic inflection LD used, when describing this jury as “less animated” just struck me as funny. I apologize for that – it had nothing to do with her reputation as a journalist. With regards to PS’s wall – I stand by that. The fact that he hides behind a wall, not one of sound, but this one - peeling, crumbling and clearly in need of repair . . . seems only fitting.

wooo Hoo..and Thank YOU! what a great post!

jmo

J

[dref99]

Some conflicting information here?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector23-2009feb23,0,5215241.story

The Dr Lee photo caption indicates Dr Lee testified in trial 1 - but further down the article it says he did not :confused:

Or was it just that he testified outside of the presence of the jury - in relation to what he did/did not find?

jmo

[GPSpector]

To clear up some "Excited Utterance" by my father after the Police arrived.

Quoting from Grand jury Document Exhibit-G PS Transcript. Case # GA048824:

Since there was no real conversation between my father and any of the officers on site, I will only post all my father's comments (@@@ for the foul words) and only quote any direct comments to my father:

*** = Unintelligible
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Line 02, Page 03: Just ask me and I'll tell you. I'm not

Line 03, Page 03: Robert Blake--

Line 05, Page 03: -- what the h@@@ is wrong with you?

Line 07, Page 03: Oh, what the f@@@ is wrong with you?

Line 09, Page 03: Oh, J@@@@ C@@@@@.

Line 11, Page 03: It feels good.

Line 14, Page 03: What the h*** is wrong with you?

Line 18, Page 03: What are you, what are you worried about?

Line 21, Page 03: What are you concerned about?

Line 23, Page 03: Oh, G@@. LAPD works for me.

Line 05, Page 04: What are you worried about?

Line 07, Page 04: I can tell you what happened.

PO Mike Page:
Line 08, Page 04: Only if you want to.

Spector:
Line 09, Page 04: If you're gonna arrest me, just tell me what
Line 10, Page 04: happened.

Line 13, Page 04: The dog was locked up. *** was a little
Line 14, Page 04: schnauzer. What the F@@@ is wrong with you?
Line 15, Page 04: Jay Romaine -- he's a lieutenant in your
Line 16, Page 04: F@@@ing police department. What the H@@@ is
Line 17, Page 04: wrong with you people? Oh J@@@@ C@@@@@.

Line 19, Page 04: Oh --

Line 21, Page 04: J@@@@. You know, you're acting stupid. Get
Line 22, Page 04: the F@@@ off of me! This is stupid. I'm sorry
Line 23, Page 04: there's a dead woman here. But I'm sorry but
Line 01, Page 05: this happened. I can explain it but if you'd
Line 02, Page 05: just give me a chance. I mean, you know. What
Line 03, Page 05: the H@@@ are you acting like A@@H@@@@. You
Line 04, Page 05: think you're acting so F@@@ing important, man.

Line 07, Page 05: Okay, okay, okay, ***.

Line 12, Page 05: Bottom half, bottom half, bottom --
(in response to hearing they are searching the bottom half of the house)

Line 17, Page 05: Now, wait a minute now. If you want to search
Line 18, Page 05: the bottom half --

Line 19, Page 05: -- and the upstairs, ask me.

Line 02, Page 06: Why are you standing on my head, a@@h@@@?
Line 03, Page 06: J@@@@ F@@@ing C@@@@@. I'm not drunk and I'm
Line 04, Page 06: not stupid. I can tell you what happened. You
Line 05, Page 06: don't have to handcuff me. I can tell you what
Line 06, Page 06: happened. What's wrong with you people? Jack
Line 07, Page 06: Mapel worked for me. J@@@@ C@@@@@, the chief
Line 08, Page 06: of police worked for me. If you want me to
Line 09, Page 06: call him, I'll call him. I don't want to be an
Line 10, Page 06: a@@h@@@. I'm sorry this happened I don't
Line 11, Page 06: know how it happened, but it happened and I'm
Line 12, Page 06: sorry this happened. But, excuse me --

Line 15, Page 06: -- but I don't want to be tied up like a pig
Line 16, Page 06: Okay, I'll hang ***

Line 20, Page 06: ***

Line 02, Page 07: Why do you keep stepping on me? What the F@@@
Line 03, Page 07: ***.

Line 05, Page 07: The gun went off accidentally. She works at the
Line 06, Page 07: House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don't
Line 07, Page 07: understand what the F@@@ you people is wrong
Line 08, Page 07: with you. Jack Mapel worked for me. He worked
Line 09, Page 07: for the chief of police. Oh, G@@. I'm just
Line 10, Page 07: gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to
Line 11, Page 07: sleep?

Line 13, Page 07: Do you have to step on my back?

PO James Hammond:
Line 14, Page 07: I don't want you to get up. Just stay where
Line 15, Page 07: you're at.

Spector:
Line 16, Page 07: No, but do you have to step on my back like an
Line 17, Page 07: a@@h@@@. J@@@@ C@@@@@, I mean it's a G@@-
Line 18, Page 07: f@@@ing disgrace. I mean, I wouldn't step on
Line 19, Page 07: your back 'cause you probably ***, J@@@@
Line 20, Page 07: C@@@@@.

Line 23, Page 07: I'm sorry this happened.

Line 02, Page 08: I don't know how it happened. It scared the
Line 03, Page 08: s@@@ out of me that happened.

Line 08, Page 08: If you're gonna arrest me, arrest me. I own
Line 09, Page 08: this castle, I live here, and I'm sorry this
Line 10, Page 08: happened. And I, I see what happened.

Line 13, Page 08: Oh dear G@@.

Line 23, Page 08: If Jack Mapel were alive --

Line 03, Page 09: -- if Jack Mapel were alive, he wouldn't allow
Line 04, Page 09: this s@@@ to be done.

Line 06, Page 09: And I love you guys --

Line 08, Page 09: -- but I'm sorry. You know -- excuse me --

Line 10, Page 09: -- excuse me. when I see the damage that's
Line 11, Page 09: been done -- this is the most devastating thing
Line 12, Page 09: I've ever seen in my life.

Line 14, Page 09: Oh, come on now. J@@@@ C@@@@@. *** right now.

Line 17, Page 09: Cut the wires and what?
(in response to hearing PO Hammond tell another PO to cut the 1 taser still connected)

Line 21, Page 09: Are you arresting me?

Line 04, Page 10: No. -- before you do, I want to call my lawyer
Line 05, Page 10: ***. I'm sorry. Don't hurt me.
(in response to a PO approaching to cut the taser wire after being told not to pull them)

Line 07, Page 10: ***

Line 10, Page 10: What are you doing *** --
(in response to PO Hammond telling PO Kennedy to search him)

[End of recording]

I'll see if I can find the 911 call.

[dref99]

Hi GPS

Great to see you

Most of the utterances can be found among the court documents
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

which are off line at this instant - they seem to come and go a little - probably back tomorrow

Most of these remarks are not in evidence. The jury hears only what was said by ADS (who has no doubt whatsoever, as to what he heard) unless PS decides to give evidence and that, I am sure, would be against the advise of his attorney.

jmo

[GPSpector]

Hi GPS

Great to see you

Most of the utterances can be found among the court documents
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

which are off line at this instant - they seem to come and go a little - probably back tomorrow

Most of these remarks are not in evidence. The jury hears only what was said by ADS (who has no doubt whatsoever, as to what he heard) unless PS decides to give evidence and that, I am sure, would be against the advise of his attorney.

jmo

Yes, there were many Utterance's by my father but it was the "Excited Utterance" 's that someone referred to that I am commenting on.

The reason I did not include the specific one ("I think I killed someone") was because I do not believe it was an "Excited Utterance" because, it was stated after the shot was fired, and after my father walked over to the door and opened the door, then stepped out of the house. All prior to saying it. I have no doubt he was in a state of shock when he said it, but that's all.

An "Excited Utterance" is usually something you would say immediately after a shocking experience. If he had said it immediately afterwards (within seconds), then yes but, he did not.

With all that had happened as soon as the police had arrived and he was on the ground, there were many things going on that would cause him to utter "Excited Utterance's" and it was those comments that would best fit the description of what a "Excited Utterance" is. IMO, I could be wrong.

[NYGalPal]

Welcome back GPS, thanks for the info. What a potty mouthed little man your father is.

[kennedy06]

Well I think you hit one over the center field wall with the excited utterances example GP. You too MY2Cents, with your post on excited utterance.

:thumbsup:

[hiitsme]

Well I think you hit one over the center field wall with the excited utterances example GP!

I agree and that should answer most of the previous ?'s!

[tartangirl]

This link talks mostly about the Hilton case that has been featured on TruTv recently and ended with a not guilty verdict last week. The subject of Reasonable Doubt has been talked about here and elsewhere a lot lately, this has a few thoughts and a little information and does mention the Phil Spector case briefly. It is a good read in my book...:wink:



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


http://blog.thejurorinvestigates.com/2009/02/22/wicca-kathleen-hilton-verdict-more-than-just-a-reasonable-doubtmdasha-solution-to-whodunit.aspx?ref=rss

[My 2 Cents]

DEFINITION:
cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rate
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

To whom it may concern – I now believe the word SEARCHING is not meant to suggest you are in fact, searching for any truth to the circumstances of 2/3/03. Perhaps, you are only searching for an argument. Therefore I will no longer “quote” and duplicate your posts, nor participate as your “sparing” partner.

Clearly you do not understand the definition of the term you throw around so often or you would not imply that because only ADS and PS were present when the telling statement, “I think I killed somebody” was uttered, that it was not corroborated by other evidence that morning. Similarly, your insistence that ADS’s 911 call does not support his original statements to the police, simply because he did not “parrot” back the exact words Phil used to him are beyond puzzling and frankly, just silly. My remarks about ADS’s call to MB are not wrong. They most definitely strengthen ADS’s claim that he saw PS emerge with a gun in hand and that PS told him he thought he had killed someone. Here are the exact words (recorded on tape & presented as evidence) that ADS made on his call to MB:
"Michelle, Michelle! It's Adriano! Michelle, Michelle - you have to come to, to Mr. Philip's house. I think he killed some - a lady. Please call me, call me back!" "I'm going to call the police right now.” (of which he did)
How in the world does that NOT corroborate ADS’s statements to the police and his testimony, that he heard & saw what he claims he did?

Your arguments are similar in ways to Phil’s highly paid team of defense attorneys. Take a single sentence or two, from a pile of over 6,000 e-mails & documents and try to conjure up a case for “suicide” or for whatever “works”. Using this type of “evidence”, along with destroying innocent victim’s and credible witnesses’ character along the way – as long as the end result takes the focus off the real problem, Phil Spector and his actions & responsibilities that morning. And I also want to be clear - I am in no way suggesting that you and “team spector” belong on the same playing field. Heavens No. After all, you’re not fielding grounders or up to bat against the likes of an AJ, a lawyer or even a paralegal . . . just an everyday Mom. And I recommend you find another one - because this one has hung up her gloves. I prefer spending time on this forum SEARCHING for "the truth" of what actually took place the morning of 2/3/03. And I prefer to do with blinders off and my eyes wide open.

Meant only as a kindly suggestion - I recommend you consider changing your nic, it seems so misleading. If its not already taken, I suggest: “sesquipedalian”. That’s meant as a compliment.

[NYGalPal]

Excellent once again My2Cents. :thumbsup:

[NYGalPal]

Is there court today? What should we expect to hear if there is? I'm really getting annoyed at how long this trial is taking. How much longer till the jury gets the case?

[oodi1]

There is court today. I believe JF was making a decision today regarding Juror #5, who has asked to be dismissed for hardship reasons. I'm not sure about anything else regarding witnesses, etc.

[NYGalPal]

There is court today. I believe JF was making a decision today regarding Juror #5, who has asked to be dismissed for hardship reasons. I'm not sure about anything else regarding witnesses, etc.

Thanks oodi1.

Oh yeah forgot about that for a moment. I wonder if the Judge decided already since it is past 10 there?

[hiitsme]

This link talks mostly about the Hilton case that has been featured on TruTv recently and ended with a not guilty verdict last week. The subject of Reasonable Doubt has been talked about here and elsewhere a lot lately, this has a few thoughts and a little information and does mention the Phil Spector case briefly. It is a good read in my book...:wink:



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


http://blog.thejurorinvestigates.com/2009/02/22/wicca-kathleen-hilton-verdict-more-than-just-a-reasonable-doubtmdasha-solution-to-whodunit.aspx?ref=rss

Thank you. Great article which I'm sure so many jurors would appreciate. There have been many jurors, upon an acquittal or hung jury who have said, " I think he/she did it but there was not enough, "beyond a reasonable doubt." You rarely hear, the evidence points to others etc, as the writer of this article discussess. Reasonable doubt is a difficult concept and can be interpreted in so many different ways regardless of the given instructions. Many defense attorneys, especially those who represent celebrities, do a masterful job at creating reasonble doubt rather than defending their client based on the facts, if any, that prove innocence.

[oodi1]

Thanks oodi1.

Oh yeah forgot about that for a moment. I wonder if the Judge decided already since it is past 10 there?

I wonder too... I wish it was on tv. Although during PS1, we missed quite a bit. The "gavel to gavel" coverage went off at 3PM our time (California), even though court was still in session. The 1 to 2 hours may not seem like much, but I recall that quite a bit of exciting stuff happened in those "off" hours.

[Anakerie]

DEFINITION:
cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rate
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

To whom it may concern – I now believe the word SEARCHING is not meant to suggest you are in fact, searching for any truth to the circumstances of 2/3/03. Perhaps, you are only searching for an argument. Therefore I will no longer “quote” and duplicate your posts, nor participate as your “sparing” partner.

Snipped for space (and the speed of the board).

Thank you for another excellent post, My 2 Cents...

[hooked2]

To clear up some "Excited Utterance" by my father after the Police arrived.

Quoting from Grand jury Document Exhibit-G PS Transcript. Case # GA048824:

(snip)

Line 21, Page 04: J@@@@. You know, you're acting stupid. Get
Line 22, Page 04: the F@@@ off of me! This is stupid. I'm sorry
Line 23, Page 04: there's a dead woman here. But I'm sorry but
Line 01, Page 05: this happened. I can explain it but if you'd
Line 02, Page 05: just give me a chance. I mean, you know. What

(snip)

Line 02, Page 06: Why are you standing on my head, a@@h@@@?
Line 03, Page 06: J@@@@ F@@@ing C@@@@@. I'm not drunk and I'm
Line 04, Page 06: not stupid. I can tell you what happened. You
Line 05, Page 06: don't have to handcuff me. I can tell you what
Line 06, Page 06: happened. What's wrong with you people? Jack
Line 07, Page 06: Mapel worked for me. J@@@@ C@@@@@, the chief
Line 08, Page 06: of police worked for me. If you want me to
Line 09, Page 06: call him, I'll call him. I don't want to be an
Line 10, Page 06: a@@h@@@. I'm sorry this happened I don't
Line 11, Page 06: know how it happened, but it happened and I'm
Line 12, Page 06: sorry this happened. But, excuse me --

(snip)

Line 05, Page 07: The gun went off accidentally. She works at the
Line 06, Page 07: House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don't
Line 07, Page 07: understand what the F@@@ you people is wrong
Line 08, Page 07: with you. Jack Mapel worked for me. He worked
Line 09, Page 07: for the chief of police. Oh, G@@. I'm just
Line 10, Page 07: gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to
Line 11, Page 07: sleep?

(snip)

Line 23, Page 07: I'm sorry this happened.

Line 02, Page 08: I don't know how it happened. It scared the
Line 03, Page 08: s@@@ out of me that happened.

Line 08, Page 08: If you're gonna arrest me, arrest me. I own
Line 09, Page 08: this castle, I live here, and I'm sorry this
Line 10, Page 08: happened. And I, I see what happened.


The lines I bolded are as telling for what they do say as what they don't say!

Essentially, he's sorry, the gun went off accidently.
He's clearly telling what happened. He shot her.

He repeatedly says he'll tell what happened, but he never once through all of this noise does he tell what happened. Never says 'she accidently shot herself' Never says 'I didn't shoot her' which, I feel certain would come out immediately.

He tells all these random things- where she works, who he knows on the force, etc... but never once, 'I didn't shoot her, she shot herself'

[NYGalPal]

I wonder too... I wish it was on tv. Although during PS1, we missed quite a bit. The "gavel to gavel" coverage went off at 3PM our time (California), even though court was still in session. The 1 to 2 hours may not seem like much, but I recall that quite a bit of exciting stuff happened in those "off" hours.

PS wasn't special enough to have his very lenghy trial televised. He's not easy on the eyes, if you catch my drift.

I keep checking the various blogs for updates and so far nadda for the day. Oh well, later I'm sure.

[oodi1]

LOL... True! But AJ is easy enough on the eyes to make up for it. :wink:

[nanouk]

DEFINITION:
cor·rob·o·rat·ed, cor·rob·o·rat·ing, cor·rob·o·rate
To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.

To whom it may concern – I now believe the word SEARCHING is not meant to suggest you are in fact, searching for any truth to the circumstances of 2/3/03. Perhaps, you are only searching for an argument. Therefore I will no longer “quote” and duplicate your posts, nor participate as your “sparing” partner.
(Snipped)

For those who prefer a much quieter board :

Go to "User CP" in the Board menu;
Select "Edit Ignore List" on the left;
Add the name of the poster you want to ignore in the "Add a Member to Your List..." field;
Press "Okay" and voila! Gone with the wind...

JMO

Nanouk

[nanouk]

Wow!

As per T&T, juror #5 has been excused and replaced by an alternate juror, an Asian woman!

No more music T-shirts...

JMO

Nanouk

[NYGalPal]

LOL... True! But AJ is easy enough on the eyes to make up for it. :wink:

Oh yes! ITA :thumbsup:

[wasapi]

I apologize (again!) if this has been asked and answered;

What do we know about juror#5? Is that the juror who has frequently worn t-shirts such as Easy Rider (which as we all know PS was in, and I found it innapropriate that a juror should being wearing it)?

Also, there have been so many great posts here lately that I couldn't begin to quote them all. I again apologize that I don't recall who specifically mentioned lesser charges.

This has been a point of great confusion for me. Can the judge, just prior to jury deliberation, bring up lesser charges? Since PS adamently refused any plea to a lesser charge, it seems the judge is truely doing all he can to get the system to work this time.

And, I commend the judge for allowing a lesser charge to be considered. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall this happening very often in murder cases. Can anyone enlighten me any? (It seems apparent I am a slow learner!) Thank you so much!

[NYGalPal]

Wow!

As per T&T, juror #5 has been excused and replaced by an alternate juror, an Asian woman!

No more music T-shirts...

JMO

Nanouk

Thank you for the update. :thumbsup:

[NYGalPal]

wow... thanks. wonder if he can speak to reporters now? I can't remember how it has worked before.

Good question. Wonder if the media cares to hear what he has to say?

[My 2 Cents]

I just read a comment posted on T&Ts blog from MB (mControl) I believe. Its dated 2/22/09 @ 12:25PM, under the BLOG titled "Questions & Answers II, and its in the COMMENTS section. It is extremely helpful and informative about the location of the car, ADS and PS when he emerged from the back door. Also, the lightening in that area of the house.

In a nutshell, she states:

MERCEDES: Facing SOUTHEAST, meaning the Driver's DOOR side was closest to the house. (I didn't realize this - I always assumed that the car most likely had front passenger side nearest door, since that is the normal direction a car travels - passenger side nearest curb) So ADS was closer to steps than I realized. MB states that he would be about "8 steps (based on a women's size 8 shoe) to the stairs of the foyer entrance. A car parked here (where she parked almost daily) had clear view into foyer. As ADS approached PS at the doorway, with back door open, ADS would have a clear view of LC splayed out in the chair - the chair angled slightly towards the direction of the foyer door.

LIGHTENING: Exterior sconces always left on and used 100watt bulbs.

FOUNTAIN: Repaired at least 4 times while MB still there, with new pipes and filter system - and as a result, considerably louder than on 2/3/03.

If you read/look at this forum MB . . . . THANK YOU SO MUCH! :thumbup:

[My 2 Cents]

Welcome Back - GPS and wasapi

So happy to see your friendly and familar faces - or should I say "nics" - back here again, and of course - your very valued posts! :thumbsup:

Should I also say, thanks CW? . . . just in case, I will. Thanks CW.

[kennedy06]

I would think he would park very closely to the steps so his employer wouldn't have to walk any distance to get into the car JMO

[hiitsme]

Good question. Wonder if the media cares to hear what he has to say?

Remember the guy who was excused from the Peterson jury because of inapproriate comments/gestures to a member of Laci's family? He certainly didn't hold back when interviewed while the trial was still ongoing. He was definitely a NG at that point in the trial. Sorry, a bit OT. I guess juror #5 would also be free to speak?

[kennedy06]

Really! Well I hope this one sings like a canary then:laugh: A woman at first I thought well she would have a different perspective than a man, one that may lean more toward G but, then I remembered the 2nd ng juror in the last trial was a woman. I don't know, leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes, so it would be hard for me to ignore the PBA's, in regards to Lana's manner of death.

Hi Wasapi, can't answer your post but, nice to see you again:smile:

Yes Thanks CW, nice to have our posting group together:smile:

[My 2 Cents]

For those who prefer a much quieter board :

Go to "User CP" in the Board menu;
Select "Edit Ignore List" on the left;
Add the name of the poster you want to ignore in the "Add a Member to Your List..." field;
Press "Okay" and voila! Gone with the wind...

JMO

Nanouk

Thanks NANOUK . . . I am a silly little fish, that keeps going after the same "bait". This will greatly curb that "appetite". :)

[nanouk]

I would like to bring everybody's attention to an alert that was also posted on T&T: According to Harriet Ryan, Vincent "Ninja" Di Maio would take the stand sometime this week...

Do you think we have enough time to raise some dirt on him? There is so much, this shouldn't be a big task...

JMO

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

so would i.

somewhat related.,.. i also think the fact that ps always dropped off people at the front steps ... and forced them to walk up 88 steps says something about his personality.... i am surprised he does not have red carpet on those steps.

Ok thats too:laugh: funny

[wasapi]

Remember the guy who was excused from the Peterson jury because of inapproriate comments/gestures to a member of Laci's family? He certainly didn't hold back when interviewed while the trial was still ongoing. He was definitely a NG at that point in the trial. Sorry, a bit OT. I guess juror #5 would also be free to speak?

Oh, I had completely forgotten about that. You're correct, as I recall he had plenty to say. I am wondering if the fact there is no gag order in place, legally allows the juror to speak if he so chooses.

I believe it was Nanouk who just posted "no more t-shirts" in reference to the excused juror. So he was the one that had made me uncomfortable.

The t-shirts may have been totally innocuous and not meant to be a surruptious type statement to PS. However, I still feel more comfortaable that he's gone.

[oodi1]

wow... thanks. wonder if he can speak to reporters now? I can't remember how it has worked before.

If I remember correctly, there was a juror removed from the Scott Peterson trial during deliberations. I think he did give interviews shortly after, but the jury came back with a verdict fairly quickly, so I can't remember if it was before or after the verdict.

[nanouk]

Oh, I had completely forgotten about that. You're correct, as I recall he had plenty to say. I am wondering if the fact there is no gag order in place, legally allows the juror to speak if he so chooses.

I believe it was Nanouk who just posted "no more t-shirts" in reference to the excused juror. So he was the one that had made me uncomfortable.

The t-shirts may have been totally innocuous and not meant to be a surruptious type statement to PS. However, I still feel more comfortable that he's gone.

He also made me uncomfortable... Case settled.

By the way, welcome back Gary and Wasapi!!!! And thanks CW!

JMO

Nanouk

[Daisy]

Is this trial EVER going to end?!?!? Good grief.

I hope all this time and BS testimony doesn't get in the way of finding him guilty this time!
~Daisy

[penguin01]

Thanks for the info re your father's comments while the police were trying to get him in hand. I'm sure that (if it happened) he would have said the "the GD bit** killed herself!" and he would have been just mad - not sorry. That idea had to be thought up later. I do hope you find the 911 tapes and link them for us.
It doesn't make sense to me that the chauffeur would exactly quote PS' statement to him at that time - he's trying to get the police to come - and that isn't always easy.
I remember the 911 tapes in Atlanta when the bomb went off during the evening festivities at the huge Olympic Park that was built in the center of downtown. It was really an exercise in futility. The operators had no idea there was an Olympic Park (couldn't pronounce it anyway) and, of course, had no idea where to dispatch anyone.
I thought AD was sufficiently articulate and should have been understood - but anyone with any accent can tell you that is very often a problem with 911 operators.

[hiitsme]

I would like to bring everybody's attention to an alert that was also posted on T&T: According to Harriet Ryan, Vincent "Ninja" Di Maio would take the stand sometime this week...

Do you think we have enough time to raise some dirt on him? There is so much, this shouldn't be a big task...

JMO

Nanouk

AJ will be ready for him, just like he was for PS1. These experts are glutton for punishment. Bring him on!

[NYGalPal]

He is not saying he shot her when he said the gun went off accidently! He's clearlly saying she shot herself, that the gun went off accidently.

The defense contends she shot herself that it was an "accidental suicide."

MOO

Where is he saying she shot herself? Can you clarify?

There is no logic to what they are claiming. How do you accidentally commit suicide?

[NYGalPal]

Remember the guy who was excused from the Peterson jury because of inapproriate comments/gestures to a member of Laci's family? He certainly didn't hold back when interviewed while the trial was still ongoing. He was definitely a NG at that point in the trial. Sorry, a bit OT. I guess juror #5 would also be free to speak?

He was the laughing stock of the trial. Who could forget him. He was soo stupid, he got himself kicked off. LOL

Wonder what t-shirt juror 5 will wear during his interviews, if there are any?

[NYGalPal]

Is this trial EVER going to end?!?!? Good grief.

I hope all this time and BS testimony doesn't get in the way of finding him guilty this time!
~Daisy

It is going on way too long.

[hiitsme]

Where is he saying she shot herself? Can you clarify?

There is no logic to what they are claiming. How do you accidentally commit suicide?

Yes, Shanna, I would also like to see where he clearly states that Lana shot herself.

[oodi1]

once again.... accidental suicide...... oxymoron... the terms are incompatible

he is clearly saying, imo, 'it was an accident, i did not mean to kill her when i stuck my gun down her throat after she disrespected my sexual advances ... i just wanted to exert my power over the GD c&&&. I'm PS GD it. i own this town'

that is the PG version.... jmo

I think that scenario is further exemplified by the position of her body in the chair. It's more like someone who is pushing themselves away from someone/something.

[My 2 Cents]

I hope this clears some things up and helps with some of the statements that Officer's have testified to, that PS made. It is a link to the GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPT - Officer Beatrice Rodriguez's testimony on the morning of 2/3/03. She is the Officer in charge of covering the base of the stairways, near entrance of the bathroom, after PS was handcuffed and left in that area, so the rest of the team of officer's could check & clear the house (remember - they had no idea who else was in this house, and Lana is slumped in the chair dead). While covering this area, Ofc Rodriguez hears Spector who is only a few feet from her, make the following statements (and quite LOUDLY she states): (on page 13, starting at line: 17)

According to Ofc Rodrigues, Phil said, "What's wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident."

Ofcr Rodriguez testifies that when she wrote her report that morning, she purposely put the remarks in QUOTATIONS to indicate these were the exact words spoken by Phil Spector at that time. Phil, she states, was LYING ON HIS BACK, ON THE GROUND, parallel to the STAIRWAY WALL, his HEAD, closest to her BACK that was guarding/covering the back entrance to the foyer and the hallway by the foot of the stairs (the landing area).

http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/q15b2p45n1stv2vmpjrv0v45/1176753993.pdf

Gary: Possibly this is helpful as well. This transcript includes additional statements made by your Dad, (after handcuffed) that were not included on the other transcript you posted earlier (which I believe were statements made "while being handcuffed").

Shanna1970: Hope this helps clear things up for you as well, as Phil clearly does NOT state that "she shot herself", Phil says, "I DIDN'T MEAN TO SHOOT HER", which suggest to me that HE SHOT HER.

[nanouk]

I live in San Antonio,...ohhh the stories i can tell you about VDM barf

Please go ahead!!! PM me!! Or post links to the goodies!

Thanks

Nanouk

[nanouk]

Once again...not an oxymoron...the terms are not incompatible. "Suicide" is the killing of oneself, and one can accidently kill oneself: Thus accidental suicide.

It is a matter of opinion of what he is clearly saying, not a matter of fact. Glad to see you said "IMO." It is my opinion he is clearly saying LC shot herself.


MOO

When someone kills himself by accident, it is called an ACCIDENT! Suicide is the voluntary killing of oneself.

It's unbelievable how people can try to play with words to twist the truth.

JMO

Nanouk

[oodi1]

I live in San Antonio,...ohhh the stories i can tell you about VDM barf


Is there more to tell, other than being one of the most narcissistic people I've ever seen?

[oodi1]

LOL... that's why I said "one of the most"... too close to call.

[kennedy06]

Once again...not an oxymoron...the terms are not incompatible. "Suicide" is the killing of oneself, and one can accidently kill oneself: Thus accidental suicide.

It is a matter of opinion of what he is clearly saying, not a matter of fact. Glad to see you said "IMO." It is my opinion he is clearly saying LC shot herself.


MOO

But suicide is the intention to kill ones self. If I accidentally eat a poisonous plant leaf thinking it was lettuce and died I didn't accidentally commit suicide, or all accidental deaths would be suicide! Can you imagine the insurance companies reaction to that.:sneaky:
******

(oh sorry, see the same similar definition was already posted about suicide, must be that darn fillament burning out again LOL)

[oodi1]

But suicide is the intention to kill ones self. If I accidentally eat a poisonous plant leaf thinking it was lettuce and died I didn't accidentally commit suicide, or all accidental deaths would be suicide! Can you imagine the insurance companies reaction to that.:sneaky:

(oh sorry see the same similar answer was posted about suicide, thanks)

Good analogy!! People don't commit "accidental suicide" when they die in solo vehicle accidents.

[hiitsme]

I sure hope that paying clients received better work product than these gems.

Mortie

Are you referring to English tutors?

[dref99]

I apologize (again!) if this has been asked and answered;

What do we know about juror#5? Is that the juror who has frequently worn t-shirts such as Easy Rider (which as we all know PS was in, and I found it innapropriate that a juror should being wearing it)?

Also, there have been so many great posts here lately that I couldn't begin to quote them all. I again apologize that I don't recall who specifically mentioned lesser charges.

This has been a point of great confusion for me. Can the judge, just prior to jury deliberation, bring up lesser charges? Since PS adamently refused any plea to a lesser charge, it seems the judge is truely doing all he can to get the system to work this time.

And, I commend the judge for allowing a lesser charge to be considered. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't recall this happening very often in murder cases. Can anyone enlighten me any? (It seems apparent I am a slow learner!) Thank you so much!

Hi Wasapi :seeya:

I posted awhile back about lessers, as did Jayne - it is determined when the jury instructions are finalised (after closing statements). Last time both sides and the judge decided lessers did not fit. If either side wants to include them, the Judge rules whether this is appropriate.

jmo