Feb 23 2009 -

[Anakerie]

You crack me up.
The “IS – OUGHT” Fallacy?


:lol: ROFL! Way to go, My 2 Cents! Excellent job in catching that!

[kipswife]

I think he would be sent to one of the "Reception Centers", my guess would be either Chino (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CIM.html) or Deuel (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/DVI.html). He would be held there for evaluation and then sent on to another facility. My guess would be that he'd be sent to one of the prisons that specialize in medical treatment like the one at Vacaville (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CMF.html) where Phil's buddy Charlie had been until they moved him to Corcoran... IF his health warrants that kind of care.

Hi Anakerie,

I live in Vacaville so I guess I could go visit little phil when he gets here.
The prison has a nice view of hills around here and some newer housing developments. Little phil is going to be very happy here. I am sure the other prisoners will be very nice to him :w00t:

m

[Themis]

Here is a list of known attorneys Phil Spector has hired since his arrest in the murder of Lana Clarkson.

Pre Trial 1

1. Robert Shapiro (Los Angeles)
2. Sara Caplan (Los Angeles)

3. Leslie Abramson (Los Angeles)
4. Marcia Morrissey (Los Angeles)

Trial 1

5. Bruce Cutler (New York City
6. Roger Rosen (Los Angeles)
7. Linda Kenney-Baden (New York City)
8. Bradley Brunon, (Los Angeles)
9. Chris Ploud (San Diego, CA)
10. Dennis Riordan (San Francisco)

Trial 2

11. Doron Weinberg (San Francisco)


These are the major ones; for example, it was the law firm of Abramson and Morrissey and both were going to represent Spector at trial.

Feel free to add any I have forgotten.
[JMO]

[Jayne]

Here is a list of known attorneys Phil Spector has hired since his arrest in the murder of Lana Clarkson.

Pre Trial 1

1. Robert Shapiro (Los Angeles)
2. Sara Caplan (Los Angeles)

3. Leslie Abramson (Los Angeles)
4. Marcia Morrissey (Los Angeles)

Trial 1

5. Bruce Cutler (New York City
6. Roger Rosen (Los Angeles)
7. Linda Kenney-Baden (New York City)
8. Bradley Brunon, (Los Angeles)
9. Chris Ploud (San Diego, CA)
10. Dennis Riordan (San Francisco)

Trial 2

11. Doron Weinberg (San Francisco)


These are the major ones; for example, it was the law firm of Abramson and Morrissey and both were going to represent Spector at trial.

Feel free to add any I have forgotten.
[JMO]

"Himself"?? (sorry..I'm being a bit sarcastic but realistic....HE has been running his defense since the first Team were off and Cutler essentially "recused" himself...by default then by actual court agreement)..

Baden..LKB, that is...was she a NY attorney? I'll have to check..she lived in NJ and practiced there, but she might well have been licensed/authorized to practice in NY..wouldn't surprise me...a slew of NY attorneys live in NJ...easy access...less costly.

Now..he has a CA attorney...reknowned for his appellate work..and I wonder..is PS telling him what to do? I do NOT think so - well he may be telling him WHAT to DO..but DW is wiser than many of us think, is my guess. He's saving his throat and his Bar "license". He's walking that fine line between appeasing his client and "doing the right thing". There is no way I could possibly believe DW would put his license and his career on the line...it's all to his benefit. There is no "ineffective counsel" claim that would pass the test. I do not like what DW is doing..I couldn't do it at all..but he has every right and obligation to do it. He comes out, imo, a lot better than the PS1 team who flagged this and that and didn't really come out in the end, despite the hung jury which was to their benefit, anything that has added to PS2..in fact...DW has a whole ball of WORMS to deal with, with the witnesses, etc. PS better be paying him good bucks for this..he deserves it, IMO. He's throwing out every possible argument and evidentiary claim he can. Sure he wants to earn his fee..but he will not jeopardize his career..unless he's entirely STUPID...which I do not think he is. Like him? NO. Respect him for what he's doing as a lawyer..YES. Would I work with/for him..you bet for the right price...but I'd be admonishing him one and up another for his decisions. He must have a slew of great assistants...hence the bill he'll be getting from PS? This guy is no fool. PS is, IMO.

jmo

J

[Shameonme]

I think he would be sent to one of the "Reception Centers", my guess would be either Chino (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CIM.html) or Deuel (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/DVI.html). He would be held there for evaluation and then sent on to another facility. My guess would be that he'd be sent to one of the prisons that specialize in medical treatment like the one at Vacaville (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CMF.html) where Phil's buddy Charlie had been until they moved him to Corcoran... IF his health warrants that kind of care.

Phil being in S.Calif. He will more than likely go to Chino for Reception and Evaluation. Deuel is for N.Calif adults offenders. Wasco is for Central Ca. Adult offenders. I would be real surprised to see him sent to Vacaville this day and age. I think he very well could end up in a place like San Luis O Bisbo http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CMC.html

These are the websites for Vacaville, Chino, Deuel, and Wasco.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CMF.html

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/CIM.html

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/DVI.html

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Visitors/Facilities/WSP.html

[penguin01]

I agree the family would most likely win the civil case but would there be any chance of the money being hidden like the OJ case? OJ's case is different because his retirement income and his home are exempt - so he only had to hide other assets. He hid his "stuff" and got paid for shows, etc. by using dummy (pun intended) front-men.
IMO PS has probably already taken steps to protect his income - transferred (sold?) his royalties into someone else's name.
Hope its not the "trial bride" lol.

[Anakerie]

OJ's case is different because his retirement income and his home are exempt - so he only had to hide other assets. He hid his "stuff" and got paid for shows, etc. by using dummy (pun intended) front-men.
IMO PS has probably already taken steps to protect his income - transferred (sold?) his royalties into someone else's name.
Hope its not the "trial bride" lol.
I doubt that Phil would transfer anything beyond what he and his "trial bride" agreed upon before they tied the knot. My guess would be that his daughter Nicole would be the one on the receiving end of anything that Phil wanted to transfer/hide/protect.

[Curlyjo]

I doubt that Phil would transfer anything beyond what he and his "trial bride" agreed upon before they tied the knot. My guess would be that his daughter Nicole would be the one on the receiving end of anything that Phil wanted to transfer/hide/protect.


I agree and I wouldn't be surprised if his money hasn't already been moved and his bills are all being paid by his "trial bride" or by his daughter. Then he can show the court that he is a poor man being taken care by others. I do believe that he will never ever give any money to the Clarkson Family.

[GPSpector]

You crack me up.
The “IS – OUGHT” Fallacy?

1st, before commenting on your “IS-OUGHT” fallacy reference, let me say this – Suggesting that I am “obviously biased” because I think it is an unreasonable assumption (by you) to expect police officers to document observations while in the MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION is insulting (and ignorant IMO) to not only Police Officers, but Firemen and others in this line of work. I suggest you participate in a “ride-a-long” with a Los Angeles Police Officer and then get back to us on that one.

Snipped for space


I do not mean to speak ill of my father but anyone and I mean ANYONE that carries a gun on them for protection, whether it be a Police Officer, a Soldier, a civilian just walking about, or my father, All should be approached with caution and due respect.

Now, for someone like my father, at his age and his admitted issues, also needs to be considered a threat, not only to others but to themselves if they are considered a suspect of a crime where either someone has died or could die.

You are 100% correct when you stated that the Police Officers were in a "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION ". Police Officers will not make light of possible threats to themselves or to others as your fellow poster seems to think they should have.

It is the job of the Police Officers to clear an area, capture and restrain any possible threats and ask question later to determine if they are safe enough to be released. They will never assume (nor should they) that just because you are the only one standing and rambling next to a dead body that you are innocent. Good people die with mistakes like that. It's was safer for them to assume he was dangerous first, for their safety.

And I know my father well enough to say this.

[GPSpector]

I agree the family would most likely win the civil case but would there be any chance of the money being hidden like the OJ case?

That's assuming he lives to see the Civil Suit :sad:

[Curlyjo]

That's assuming he lives to see the Civil Suit :sad:

That is a sad thought.:ohmy:

[Anakerie]

Snipped for space


I do not mean to speak ill of my father but anyone and I mean ANYONE that carries a gun on them for protection, whether it be a Police Officer, a Soldier, a civilian just walking about, or my father, All should be approached with caution and due respect.

Now, for someone like my father, at his age and his admitted issues, also needs to be considered a threat, not only to others but to themselves if they are considered a suspect of a crime where either someone has died or could die.

You are 100% correct when you stated that the Police Officers were in a "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION ". Police Officers will not make light of possible threats to themselves or to others as your fellow poster seems to think they should have.

It is the job of the Police Officers to clear an area, capture and restrain any possible threats and ask question later to determine if they are safe enough to be released. They will never assume (nor should they) that just because you are the only one standing and rambling next to a dead body that you are innocent. Good people die with mistakes like that. It's was safer for them to assume he was dangerous first, for their safety.

And I know my father well enough to say this.
Hi GPS... The one who is disputing that the officers on the scene were in the "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION " doesn't have a clue of what he is saying.

If officers (ANY law enforcement officers) respond to a scene where a shooting has taken place they have to act accordingly. When the officers arrived at Phil's castle that morning, they didn't know who had the gun, they didn't know how many gun carrying people were there, etc. So the first priority would be to subdue or isolate whoever was inside the building. They first came upon Phil and subdued him, then they had to "clear" the rest of the castle. Once they knew that there were no other LIVE people in that place, the "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION " was over. THEN they could turn on that tape recorder, take notes or whatever because they then knew that the scene was "safe". To think that someone would critisize the police for not turning on the tape recorder or stop to jot down a few note is ludicrus.

Especially since the comments that are being disputed aren't even in evidence at this point.

[oodi1]

Gary and Anakerie...

EXACTLY!!!

Not to mention that they were trying to secure the scene as much as possible as quickly as possible, so they could get the medics in to attend to Lana.

[dref99]

That's assuming he lives to see the Civil Suit :sad:

Probably an honest thought GPS - it may be easier to sue his estate than to sue him in the future. I would think the comments made by DD are still somewhat relevant as well
http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/12/dunne200712


jmo

[dref99]

Here is a list of known attorneys Phil Spector has hired since his arrest in the murder of Lana Clarkson.

Pre Trial 1

1. Robert Shapiro (Los Angeles)
2. Sara Caplan (Los Angeles)

3. Leslie Abramson (Los Angeles)
4. Marcia Morrissey (Los Angeles)

Trial 1

5. Bruce Cutler (New York City
6. Roger Rosen (Los Angeles)
7. Linda Kenney-Baden (New York City)
8. Bradley Brunon, (Los Angeles)
9. Chris Ploud (San Diego, CA)
10. Dennis Riordan (San Francisco)

Trial 2

11. Doron Weinberg (San Francisco)


These are the major ones; for example, it was the law firm of Abramson and Morrissey and both were going to represent Spector at trial.

Feel free to add any I have forgotten.
[JMO]

On some of the documents related to trial 1 there is mention of
Robert D Blasier El Dorado Hills CA
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&
(document 04/05/2007 - various defense motions

I've often wondered as to his role as he didn't appear in court - that I remember

jmo

[i h8 clowns]

murdered blonde in foyer, an uncooperative man walking around the area who would not remove hands from pocket. if I had witnessed suicide, i would immediately call 911. <I would then need to change my underwear>. I would never walk outside and say 'I think I killed somebody'. With PS' grasp of the language, he would have walked outside and said 'that stupid &&&& or ^^^^^ just shot herself'. How dare that %^%% do that in my house
.
case closed.

i totally agree with everything you have written here. including the remark about the underwear! isn't that the truth? and here this guy keeps those matching chairs in his house. walks by them everyday. is he cheap or just really messed up. never mind, i think i know the answer. both!

[GPSpector]

Hi GPS... The one who is disputing that the officers on the scene were in the "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION " doesn't have a clue of what he is saying.

If officers (ANY law enforcement officers) respond to a scene where a shooting has taken place they have to act accordingly. When the officers arrived at Phil's castle that morning, they didn't know who had the gun, they didn't know how many gun carrying people were there, etc. So the first priority would be to subdue or isolate whoever was inside the building. They first came upon Phil and subdued him, then they had to "clear" the rest of the castle. Once they knew that there were no other LIVE people in that place, the "MIDDLE OF A LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION " was over. THEN they could turn on that tape recorder, take notes or whatever because they then knew that the scene was "safe". To think that someone would critisize the police for not turning on the tape recorder or stop to jot down a few note is ludicrus.

Especially since the comments that are being disputed aren't even in evidence at this point.


Thank you and like I said to the other poster, I agree with you as well.

My comment was in response to his post to the other poster. I did not see the need to quote the the prior poster since the comment was already quoted.

[Jayne]

On some of the documents related to trial 1 there is mention of
Robert D Blasier El Dorado Hills CA
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&
(document 04/05/2007 - various defense motions

I've often wondered as to his role as he didn't appear in court - that I remember

jmo

I just tried to post and it went "poof"! I think my computer is on "gag order"...I can't open any of those documents.

Blasier is a Harvard Law grad..admitted in CA in 1971. (cal bar)

by avvo.com:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/95762-ca-robert-blasier-292396/aboutme.html

Bob is a highly experienced criminal defense attorney. He has been awarded the maximum rating by Martindale-Hubbel (AV). He has been on the trial teams for many high profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson cases, the Unabomber case, and most recently the Phil Spector murder case. He is considered to be a national expert in forensic issues, with a particular emphasis on DNA litigation. Bob's website can be found at www.Blasier.com.


(an aside - which I find sort of ironic/humorous...he looks like Bob Newhart..remember that TV show? - I think he owned some hotel or something in Vermont and was a psychologist? Maybe I'm mixing up a Sinatra film and his TV show?!)

anyway...don't know if this helps. He may have been consulted...was his name on the document as the "signature/filing" attorney? or mentioned in points and authorities?

jmo

J

[dref99]

I just tried to post and it went "poof"! I think my computer is on "gag order"...I can't open any of those documents.

Blasier is a Harvard Law grad..admitted in CA in 1971. (cal bar)

by avvo.com:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/95762-ca-robert-blasier-292396/aboutme.html

Bob is a highly experienced criminal defense attorney. He has been awarded the maximum rating by Martindale-Hubbel (AV). He has been on the trial teams for many high profile cases, including the O.J. Simpson cases, the Unabomber case, and most recently the Phil Spector murder case. He is considered to be a national expert in forensic issues, with a particular emphasis on DNA litigation. Bob's website can be found at www.Blasier.com.


(an aside - which I find sort of ironic/humorous...he looks like Bob Newhart..remember that TV show? - I think he owned some hotel or something in Vermont and was a psychologist? Maybe I'm mixing up a Sinatra film and his TV show?!)

anyway...don't know if this helps. He may have been consulted...was his name on the document as the "signature/filing" attorney? or mentioned in points and authorities?

jmo

J

Document(s) have all attorneys listed at top - in the order given

Bruce Cutler NY
Linda Kenney-Baden NY
Robert D Blasier Ca
Christopher J Plourd Ca
Bradley Wm Brunon Ca
Roger J Rosen LA
Attorneys for Defendant Phillip Spector

and then the one I read - there are a few similar

Defense In Limine Motion - signed by Robert D Blasier

Got to watch bringing up those old TV shows :laugh: Some of us might remember them!!

jmo

Edit: Alot of the documents are large & take quite some time to open - you can't see anything until the whole document has downloaded, so it may not be your computer.

[oodi1]

Jayne,

You are correct... they were both Bob Newhart's show. The one where he was the shrink and the one he owned the B&B.

"Hi! I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl and my other brother Darryl." :biggrin:

[dref99]

From your link Jayne

Wonder why he left or was no longer required?

http://www.blasier.com/gallery2.php?id=10

jmo

[Dave]

I did not see the need to quote the the prior poster since the comment was already quoted.

Can we quote you on that (in quotes, of course)?

:punch:

[wasapi]

He always said that all women (being polite here...) deserved a bullet in their head. Like a hunter, he keep a "trophy" of his greatest "hunt" so he can remind himself the day he was able to carry out his "dream"...

JMO

Nanouk

Nanouk, what an interesting concept. I had never thought of it pertaining to this case until your post, but I have read many times about how common it is (usually when a male murders a female) for the man to keep something that serves as a unique reminder of their prey, yes, to them, a trophy of sorts.

[wasapi]

Yet another question that has already been answered. However . . .

Does anyone know how many witnesses the defense is still planning on calling to testify before closing arguements begin?

[Jayne]

From your link Jayne

Wonder why he left or was no longer required?

http://www.blasier.com/gallery2.php?id=10

jmo


Henry Lee??? Michael Baden??

can't figure it out..

but I'd say he "bowed out" with all the possible fluff and stuff??

I have no idea...

you'd think he'd have holed up with the rest of them back then?

MY COMPUTER is not responding to those uploads..sorry,...I'm frustrated as I really want to read them..

jmo

J

[oodi1]

Yet another question that has already been answered. However . . .

Does anyone know how many witnesses the defense is still planning on calling to testify before closing arguements begin?

They will probably be calling Pie. I'm not sure who else, though... maybe another "aha" moment from Baden?

[Jayne]

Yet another question that has already been answered. However . . .

Does anyone know how many witnesses the defense is still planning on calling to testify before closing arguements begin?

not enough to get PS off..with a "not guilty", that is..

just my guess...hey need a witness who was THERE..that would solidify their case..but they don't have it..they have the driver ADS hearing what he heard..GO WITH IT from there. The prosecution has..the defense has tried to..It is OVER.as I see it. How many more witnesses can they bring out from the woodwork? None.

The experts...god bless them...are old..senile...making money off their testimony...some are not so old...and they are bound to the state's requirements of testifying truthfully.

Why? didn't PS take that offer that Shapiro proffered? Stupidity...holier than thou...and costing him and the state millions of dollars to find out what? What? PS just went beyond that state of "I'm gonna threaten you" to..."I think I killed someone".

jmo

J

[Curlyjo]

They will probably be calling Pie. I'm not sure who else, though... maybe another "aha" moment from Baden?

Yes, I believe it is Pumpkin Pie and more of that "good friend" testimony.
With tears and smears about her friend.:angry:

[dref99]

not enough to get PS off..with a "not guilty", that is..

just my guess...hey need a witness who was THERE..that would solidify their case..but they don't have it..they have the driver ADS hearing what he heard..GO WITH IT from there. The prosecution has..the defense has tried to..It is OVER.as I see it. How many more witnesses can they bring out from the woodwork? None.

The experts...god bless them...are old..senile...making money off their testimony...some are not so old...and they are bound to the state's requirements of testifying truthfully.

Why? didn't PS take that offer that Shapiro proffered? Stupidity...holier than thou...and costing him and the state millions of dollars to find out what? What? PS just went beyond that state of "I'm gonna threaten you" to..."I think I killed someone".

jmo

J

Remaining witnesses

There is mention of suicidologist Dr. Seiden here
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/01/phil-spector-retrial-day-thirty-two.html

so I assume that is 1
Pie is 2
Sprocket mentions perhaps another "expert" 3
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-question-answers_27.html

No mention of a witness of the shooting Jayne - perhaps someone who can commune with the other side - as I remember only 2 people were present when the gun was fired.


jmo

[Curlyjo]

Remaining witnesses

There is mention of suicidologist Dr. Seiden here
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/01/phil-spector-retrial-day-thirty-two.html

so I assume that is 1
Pie is 2
Sprocket mentions perhaps another "expert" 3
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-question-answers_27.html

No mention of a witness of the shooting Jayne - perhaps someone who can commune with the other side - as I remember only 2 people were present when the gun was fired.


jmo


that is right only 2 people were present and only one lived!!!!

[oodi1]

I was doing some reading here: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1171877458.pdf

I noticed that in at least 2 of the reports (by different people), that it was noted that Lana had a black eye and a swollen lower lip. For anyone that might know... is it possible for this bruising and swelling to occur after death?

My apologies if this has already been discussed.

[dref99]

Tracing back the early statements, it seems PS has stuck with the suicide story from just a few hours after Lana's death. His major problems with this story seem to be

- He was the one known to "play around with guns"
- The forensics seem kinder towards murder than suicide
- He has not been able to find an "expert" who can explain all that happened in terms of suicide
- His actions immediately after Lana died are not what most people would do if they witnessed a suicide
- The defense has found very few witnesses who will suggest that Lana was suicidal - the ones found have not been convincing and it seems all initially disagreed with the idea of suicide.
- Women do not favour shooting themselves in the head as a suicide method.
- Despite the defense withholding discovery the Judge appears to rule more often that not in favour of the defense
- Despite the defense discovery issues the prosecution seems able to pick up quickly on the errors of fact or errors of omission in the "aha" moments presented. The reaction of the jury may have been better if these moments avoided the "Perry Mason" revelation style.


jmo

[oodi1]

Well H@lls Bells... let's try this: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

10-6-2005: Post arrest statements attached to Notice of motion and motion to exclude post-arest statements of defendant; memorandum of points and authorities

[dref99]

your link does not work for me

Jayne has a problem with those files as well - they work for me - the one you cannot load is 2.5 mb and can take awhile to load. They don't show until the complete file is loaded. If you were using a dial up line, it would seem like it doesn't work at all

[oodi1]

I tried it after Why said it didn't work, and it didn't work for me either. The links must just be temperamental at times. :confused:

[dref99]

I was doing some reading here: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1171877458.pdf

I noticed that in at least 2 of the reports (by different people), that it was noted that Lana had a black eye and a swollen lower lip. For anyone that might know... is it possible for this bruising and swelling to occur after death?

My apologies if this has already been discussed.

I have vague memories of it being discussed in trial 1 - I find Dr Baden mentioned it in his "aha" statements - but I don't know the science of it at all. There was debate as to how the injuries happened but I think it all related to before she died (or caused at the time of death).

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/ca-vs-spector-some-things-take-thinking/
(Kim's description is always worth a read - even if it doesn't answer your question)

jmo

[dref99]

I tried it after Why said it didn't work, and it didn't work for me either. The links must just be temperamental at times. :confused:

They do sometimes take the site down & you get an error message - but I tried it also just before my post and it worked fine for me :confused:
My understanding of cyber space is somewhat minimal :confused:

[oodi1]

Thanks dref! Interesting that the article says "a black eye on the left that Baden determined was caused by blood flowing around the eye under the skin." I don't think blood flows in a dead body... not when the heart isn't pumping to keep it flowing.

I'm wondering if the black eye and swollen lip didn't occur before the gun went off.

[oodi1]

They do sometimes take the site down & you get an error message - but I tried it also just before my post and it worked fine for me :confused:
My understanding of cyber space is somewhat minimal :confused:


It's the cyber gremlins! :wink:

[oodi1]

Aha, probably did

Especially interesting when you look at Donna Clarkson's civil suit against PS: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1234566268.pdf

See page 2, # 6.

[dref99]

Especially interesting when you look at Donna Clarkson's civil suit against PS: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1234566268.pdf

See page 2, # 6.

Aha - that link didn't work for me - but I got there via the list of cases :confused:

I don't understand about the 20 does (is this on the off chance that someone else was involved?) but I do understand the words "grabbed, hit, fought with, restrained and otherwise prevented the departure from his home"

jmo

[Themis]

From your link Jayne

Wonder why he left or was no longer required?

http://www.blasier.com/gallery2.php?id=10

jmo
According to an article dated 3/17/07 by Linda Deutsch: Robert Blasier was hired by Bruce Cutler. Cutler states that his co-counsel is Roger Rosen.

Blasier was very involved with O. J. Simpson's murder trial and is listed as a "specialist in DNA and physical evidence." I do remember him taking an active part in that trial along with Barry Scheck.
Scanning through the photos linked (thanks, dref99) I noted Blasier includes photographs of himself with F. Lee Bailey, Henry Lee, Michael Baden, OJ, Star Jones, and Geraldo Rivera.:ohmy:

According to an article dated 4/9/07 by Natalie Finn: Alan Jackson filed a motion to bar all of Hayes' testimony because the defense intentionally withheld her statement until well after the deadline for turning discovery materials over to the prosecution. It was Blasier that denied that charge when talking to reporters.

By 4/20/07 in an article by Peter Hong, LA Times: the defense team of lawyers experienced in DNA evidence cases consisted of: Christopher Plourd, Robert Blasier, Linda Kenney Baden and Bradley Brunon. [how many of these lawyers experienced in the same field(s) were needed?)

So, maybe Blasier was deemed redundant Cutler/Rosen/Spector with help from Brunon, Kenney Baden, and Plourd.
Perhaps he didn't want to deal with any more motions by the Prosecution on the subject of discovery violations by the Defense.
On the other hand, having had time to work and speak with the major attorneys, talk with Spector, taking note of the experts being added to the roster, he decided to return to northern California which doesn't smell as bad as L.A.:wink: [JMO]

[dref99]

Thank you for the information Themis. It would seem after firing Shapiro, Spector threw attorney after attorney at the issues. He should have stayed with Shapiro. I think lots of the others were redundant. Then again, perhaps the confusion caused by who was who, helped to get that hung jury :confused:

jmo

[Jay]

What constitutional issues? The supreme court has ruled that retrials after hung juries are not double-jeopardy. Perhaps there is something else I'm not aware of.


No, they are not DJ, but IF multiple trials are commenced after hung juries the Due Process Clause of the 14th AM may be triggered.


Two retrials is questionable on it's face. If a 3rd trial (2nd retrial) were to end in a hung jury, any 4th attempt (third retrial), IMO would be shot down.

In other words, sooner or later a Prosecutor will get a conviction, but the Due Process Clause safeguards this. If it did not, a Prosecutor could try a person 10 times until they win.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I was doing some reading here: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1171877458.pdf

I noticed that in at least 2 of the reports (by different people), that it was noted that Lana had a black eye and a swollen lower lip. For anyone that might know... is it possible for this bruising and swelling to occur after death?

My apologies if this has already been discussed.

i am sorry for the delay in responding to your post, and i too recall the discussion of these two signs of injury during the first trial. The blackened eye and lip swelling is created by the explosion within Lana's oral cavity, and the soft tissues react with rupturing of small blood vessels and capillaries close to surface of those areas..This was not caused by external trauma, such as a punch, or hitting to that area. The visual you see is created by the seepage of blood from those vessels not circulation to those area's.

This phenonema occurs post mortem, and does not mean that Lana survived minutes or hours post trauma, nor that she had been in a physical fight and been punched necessarily. And since Phil had no hand wounds to denote his punching, much less speak of hitting her, I tend to believe these injuries were due to intraoral explosion outwardly.

I do hope I havent confused everyone. Forgive me if I have:mellow:

LMS

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I have vague memories of it being discussed in trial 1 - I find Dr Baden mentioned it in his "aha" statements - but I don't know the science of it at all. There was debate as to how the injuries happened but I think it all related to before she died (or caused at the time of death).

http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/ca-vs-spector-some-things-take-thinking/
(Kim's description is always worth a read - even if it doesn't answer your question)

jmo


dref, quite the foul mouth that person (Kim) reporting in this link has...no love lost there towards Dr. Baden...LOL

Anyway, In this article I was reading about the Weight of the lungs..comparing Lana's total weight ( lungs) were twice the wt. of normal lungs. MB (Dr. Baden) made a rather biased statement about these lungs..like fluids and blood "CANT" collect there after death by gravity..now, first off As per testimony I heard she really was rendered Brain Dead immediately, due to the severing of her spinal cord, however due to her sitting upright positioning, along with a couple of grasps caused by the Autonomic nervous system, i.e. Cheyne-Stokes respirations, then remember she sat like that for many hours before she was removed, would account for much of the excess fluid wt. He also went on about the aveoli ( small sacs at end of bronchiol) should not have all this fluid and debris there unless she took breathes..Rediculous in my mind, if the pressure of explosion went backwards out of her nose, and mouth, then it also went foreward down the path of least resistence down her airway..thus expanding her lungs rupturing all those microscopic capilliaries in those pesky alveoli ( which is where all gas exchange is done in humans)..It seems rather logical to me o expect trauma to those little sacs as well....

I just never understand when I hear some of these experts use rationale for their opinions using only partial truthes, conveniently leaving out other probabilities that could either disprove or give alternative rationale to another cause...I guess we here on the boards term this as "Spin":wink:

Again, i hope I havent confused you all again..Sorry in advance if I did!!

LMS

[oodi1]

Thanks Lynda! Certainly makes more sense than Baden's explanation.

[coinoutlet]

No, they are not DJ, but IF multiple trials are commenced after hung juries the Due Process Clause of the 14th AM may be triggered.


Two retrials is questionable on it's face. If a 3rd trial (2nd retrial) were to end in a hung jury, any 4th attempt (third retrial), IMO would be shot down.

In other words, sooner or later a Prosecutor will get a conviction, but the Due Process Clause safeguards this. If it did not, a Prosecutor could try a person 10 times until they win.

A prosecutor COULD try a defendant ten times and not trigger double jepordy or violate due process as long as the court is informed of intention to do so in a timely manner IMO

[Lyndawitha"Y]

gesh i can't stand PP barf

PP is a prime example who illustrates what a "Fairweather Friend' is really like..She thought nothing of selling her friendship to the highest bidder...Lowest of the low in my estimation!!

LMS:sad:

[GPSpector]

I was doing some reading here: http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/jirzx02hrcffi3eqyuhi4qfl/1171877458.pdf

I noticed that in at least 2 of the reports (by different people), that it was noted that Lana had a black eye and a swollen lower lip. For anyone that might know... is it possible for this bruising and swelling to occur after death?

My apologies if this has already been discussed.

Not sure if it's been answered yet but the answer is no.

Why, you ask?

Because, when you are slapped, you excite the nerves in that area causing blood flow activity as a response to the bodies defense to see if damage was done. This causes the reddening in the area you were slapped.

When you are hit hard enough to break blood vessels, the same thing occurs except, now that the blood vessels are broken, the blood is forced out of those breaks due to the blood pressure causing it to pool in that area. it is this pooling that causes the bruising and if there is enough soft tissue in that area, there will be swelling. Same thing if bones are broken after death or at time of death.

Simply put, No blood pressure, no bruise. Bruising due to injury will only happen prior to death.

[Jay]

A prosecutor COULD try a defendant ten times and not trigger double jepordy or violate due process as long as the court is informed of intention to do so in a timely manner IMO

I disagree here!

I did research on this before, as a matter of fact it may have been for another Spector thread, or some years ago for something else, forget now!

All the case law I uncovered never cited more than 3 retrials, at most, and cited Due Process violations for a defendant when charged again.

You simply can't keep trying a person over and over and over and satisfy Due process.

[kennedy06]

There is just something that has stood out to me that may have absolutely no real value to this trial except it was just noted to be in the valise, his passport. I guess only MB might be able to answer a question about that being there. Was it always kept there or was it usually kept tucked away in a safe place. I just found that a rather important document to just carry out and about for dinner, but then maybe it is common among celebrities who never know where they may jet off to or who they may meet. Just thinking. :confused:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/060607_ctv.html

[kennedy06]

Concerning the posts about prisons, I thought at one time there was information on this board about where the high profile prisoners go for the own security. I thought is a was where Manson is:confused:

Anyway....I feel sort of I don't know creepy or bothered by the idea where possiblities of a cyande pill and things are discussed, even if mentioned by Dominic D. in an article. I hate the idea of thinking my daily postings about this trial are nothing more than the equivilant to sand falling through an hour glass. I would hope this is all without any real basis, as I can't imagine the pain it would cause to many people. So I hope he would take the idea of prison, if convicted, differently than some may suspect he might. JMO

[oodi1]

There is just something that has stood out to me that may have absolutely no real value to this trial except it was just noted to be in the valise, his passport. I guess only MB might be able to answer a question about that being there. Was it always kept there or was it usually kept tucked away in a safe place. I just found that a rather important document to just carry out and about for dinner, but then maybe it is common among celebrities who never know where they may jet off to or who they may meet. Just thinking. :confused:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/060607_ctv.html

I thought it was strange that he was wearing 2 watches.
I guess I didn't think the passport was so weird, as I remembered reading in some of the transcripts during the time he was at the jail, he had said he had to go to NY.

[kennedy06]

I thought it was strange that he was wearing 2 watches.
I guess I didn't think the passport was so weird, as I remembered reading in some of the transcripts during the time he was at the jail, he had said he had to go to NY.

See and I thought it was strange he had 2 pairs of glasses that were accounted for at the jail. I've never been arrested LOL but do they let you gather things up before you go off to jail or are you taken as is?

Edit- of course they didn't say what kind maybe one pair was sunglasses but I guess I just assumed both were reading glasses. I don't think he wore glasses to see from the photos taken of him that night after the arrest but then maybe he does hmmm. But then I think he had clip on sunglasses on those photos of him at the studios with John L that are on utube. I don't know probably means nothing, I just wondered. JMO

[oodi1]

Concerning the posts about prisons, I thought at one time there was information on this board about where the high profile prisoners go for the own security. I thought is a was where Manson is:confused:

Anyway....I feel sort of I don't know creepy or bothered by the idea where possiblities of a cyande pill and things are discussed, even if mentioned by Dominic D. in an article. I hate the idea of thinking my daily postings about this trial are nothing more than the equivilant to sand falling through an hour glass. I would hope this is all without any real basis, as I can't imagine the pain it would cause to many people. So I hope he would take the idea of prison, if convicted, differently than some may suspect he might. JMO

As far as the prisons, Manson and Sirhan Sirhan are at Corcoran. Scott Peterson is in San Quentin. I can't imagine PS being sent to either of those, but it could happen.

[kennedy06]

Yes I'm right there are a couple of clear shots of clip ons on this video. hmmm. Oh well. And I also realize most of you probably don't care! I don't know I just wondered about the passport, the 2 cellphones and 2 glasses and things if he was expecting to leave that day, but then maybe those were his normal things to carry. JMO only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSNBh0kCf0

[kennedy06]

In that video that was shot somewhere other than G Star from the info box, he looks like he has 2 watches on also. A possible silver one on the left wrist when the video starts and a possible leather watch band on the right wrist later on in the video, so maybe it was habit. It just seemed sort of out of the ordinary to hear of two but then who knows. Thanks:rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

I think Spector is guilty as sin, but imo he won't get convicted. It will either be acquital or a hung jury.

I can see G or possible hung jury but I can't see an all out aquittal after some of these defense witnesses testimony.

[dref99]

Yes I'm right there are a couple of clear shots of clip ons on this video. hmmm. Oh well. And I also realize most of you probably don't care! I don't know I just wondered about the passport, the 2 cellphones and 2 glasses and things if he was expecting to leave that day, but then maybe those were his normal things to carry. JMO only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSNBh0kCf0

I thought he carried the passport for photo-id (did that get mentioned somewhere?) - Did he have a current driver's license? It seems he didn't drive himself? Photo ID seems a fact of life in current times

Two glasses I also understand - My husband always has at least 2 sets (reading/distance) as he doesn't like the graded type.

Two cellphones - I hate even having one - I never hear it ring from inside my bag, so pointless! This would probably just be a quirk - making him feel important.

jmo

[dref99]

I think Spector is guilty as sin, but imo he won't get convicted. It will either be acquital or a hung jury.

Some reasons for both comments would be helpful to the discussion.

jmo

[kennedy06]

Oh I don't know dreff, I missed the part about the photo ID. LOL here I had wondered about that passport. Thanks

[Spectorfan8]

Yes I'm right there are a couple of clear shots of clip ons on this video. hmmm. Oh well. And I also realize most of you probably don't care! I don't know I just wondered about the passport, the 2 cellphones and 2 glasses and things if he was expecting to leave that day, but then maybe those were his normal things to carry. JMO only

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNSNBh0kCf0

He does have glasses. The picture of him in court with the big hair, he is wearing a pair of regular glasses.

SF8

[dref99]

Oh I don't know dreff, I missed the part about the photo ID. LOL here I had wondered about that passport. Thanks

I think he would have had to surrender his passport as part of the bail terms (again, I don't now for sure, but it seems very likely) - wonder what he uses now for photo id?

In terms of your other posts - given the way that PS has lived for the past many years, I would think he would/will have great difficulty in a prison environment and/or even contemplating same. The comments when he had been detained for just a few hours (as per the LE documents) would be some proof of this.

I have no desire to discuss suicide methods or similar, but if he is found guilty any mental instability will surely come to the forefront of his existence. If he goes to prison, I doubt it will ever be with the general prison population.

jmo

[Spectorfan8]

I think he would have had to surrender his passport as part of the bail terms (again, I don't now for sure, but it seems very likely) - wonder what he uses now for photo id?

In terms of your other posts - given the way that PS has lived for the past many years, I would think he would/will have great difficulty in a prison environment and/or even contemplating same. The comments when he had been detained for just a few hours (as per the LE documents) would be some proof of this.

I have no desire to discuss suicide methods or similar, but if he is found guilty any mental instability will surely come to the forefront of his existence. If he goes to prison, I doubt it will ever be with the general prison population.

jmo

hi!

At the start of the first trial, Judge Fidler took his passport. Not sure, but he probably still has it.

[GPSpector]

In that video that was shot somewhere other than G Star from the info box, he looks like he has 2 watches on also. A possible silver one on the left wrist when the video starts and a possible leather watch band on the right wrist later on in the video, so maybe it was habit. It just seemed sort of out of the ordinary to hear of two but then who knows. Thanks:rolleyes:

I assume G Star is Gold Star Studios?

As for the 2 watches, I never recalled him wearing 2 watches. Do you see the watch faces on both? I do recall him wearing either a wide silver or gold link bracelet that could have been mistaken for a watchband. Just a guess since I do not know which video you were referring to.

[GPSpector]

[QUOTE=GPSpector;12844372]Snipped just to use as quick link back.

As a side note. If there were ruptured blood vessels under the eye, and I'm sure there was, even though there would be no blood pressure after death, the blood will still slowly drain from where ever it can. So, it is possible that bruising could occur in the sacks under the eye looking like a black eye though, I would think it would look a bit different but I'm not sure how much. I'm guessing it would have a yellow tint around it, kind of like an old bruise due to it probably taking longer to form then a bruise caused while living.

I do not see how swelling in the lips could be caused after death though. Lasserations could be possible.

[Spectorfan8]

Maybe for a photo ID he carries an old LP or CD in his man bag. :huh:

How often are you asked for a photo ID? New job, register to vote, cash a check?

Perhaps he has a driver's license, pretty sure that he does.

[oodi1]

Maybe for a photo ID he carries an old LP or CD in his man bag. :huh:

How often are you asked for a photo ID? New job, register to vote, cash a check?

By law, it is required to carry photo ID. I had my son in the back seat of the car (he was 17 at the time) and didn't realize he didn't have his seatbelt on. I got stopped, my son got the ticket, and I got a lecture from the cop that my son needed a photo ID. I told the officer that I wasn't about to let him get a drivers license, and he told me that my son didn't need a license, but that it was required that he have a photo ID card from the DMV.

[Spectorfan8]

Could be. I thought someone said above that he did not. Most states offer a photo ID for those who do not drive.

Since he does own a car, I'm pretty sure he had to have one to buy the car.JMO

In most states you have to have a valid driver's license to purchase a vehicle.

[oodi1]

Since he does own a car, I'm pretty sure he had to have one to buy the car.JMO

In most states you have to have a valid driver's license to purchase a vehicle.

Not in CA. I've seen it many times, especially with older or blind people. They buy their own cars, but don't drive. They have someone else do the driving.

[nanouk]

Maybe for a photo ID he carries an old LP or CD in his man bag. :huh:

How often are you asked for a photo ID? New job, register to vote, cash a check?

Board a plane?

Nanouk

[Spectorfan8]

Not in CA. I've seen it many times, especially with older or blind people. They buy their own cars, but don't drive. They have someone else do the driving.

That may be true. can't dispute since I do not know Spector. Pretty sure he is grounded due to the trial.

[oodi1]

I have to show my ID every time I use my debit card at stores that don't have a keypad to input PINs.

[Spectorfan8]

I have to show my ID every time I use my debit card at stores that don't have a keypad to input PINs.

Do what I did, if your bank offers it. I have my photo on my debit card. Then again, some places still ask my license.:confused:

[oodi1]

Do what I did, if your bank offers it. I have my photo on my debit card. Then again, some places still ask my license.:confused:

My bank doesn't offer it. My pic is on my Am Ex card, and I still get asked for ID. :huh:

[oodi1]

oh I do not have a debit card... my wife may. we use a credit card for everything and pay it off each month... for the cash back.

You must be like my husband, and CANNOT be trusted with a debit card. LOL :wink: Then again, mine can't be trusted with a credit card either. :sad:

[Spectorfan8]

You must be like my husband, and CANNOT be trusted with a debit card. LOL :wink: Then again, mine can't be trusted with a credit card either. :sad:

I am with you on that!!! Mine can't carry anything except cash.LOL

[oodi1]

I am with you on that!!! Mine can't carry anything except cash.LOL


And only what you give him for allowance? That's what I ended up doing... when I realized how much $$$ was being spent on golf clubs. He has about 5 sets now. :cursing:

[oodi1]

that obvious? I always lost receipts. I usually have one blank check with me (CARBON copy required). At least now, with online banking, she can find out quickly if I use it and forget to tell her. Things were a lot different over 20 years ago when we married. Online banking may be responsible for saving marriages. :rolleyes:

now to Spector... who is the next witness?

Oh man... your wife is brave to trust you with a check! LOL I've made a few busts via online banking as well... it's a wonderful thing!! :biggrin:

As for next witnesses... I think Sprocket mentioned Dr. Seiden (suicidologist) in her blog. I assume Pie will also be called.

[Dave]

On his blog, reporter Joe Friday has posted a picture showing the MySpace alert that was sent to the Team Spector mailing list in January, urging them to come to court.

Quoting from the Spector mailing list alert, "This is VERY important, especially for the jury to see that people DO BELIEVE in his innocence."

Here it is: http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

[Themis]

Thank you for the information Themis. It would seem after firing Shapiro, Spector threw attorney after attorney at the issues. He should have stayed with Shapiro. I think lots of the others were redundant. Then again, perhaps the confusion caused by who was who, helped to get that hung jury :confused:

jmo

You’re welcome, dref99; I agree with your assessment of Spector. His personality seems such that he simply cannot accept ‘being told what to do,’ even when that advice comes from experts he has hired. His ego is massive. IMO, when he fired Shapiro, a long-time friend, he made his biggest mistake. With a reputation as a negotiator and Hollywood fix-it attorney, Shapiro is well connected even though his legal career has diminished in very recent years. But back in 2003 when Lana Clarkson was killed, there was a every possibility Shapiro could have negotiated a good deal for Spector; he would have been out by now and millions of dollars ahead.
Shapiro certainly did that in representing Christian Brando who was originally charged with 1st degree murder, was found guilty of manslaughter and spent less than 6 years in prison at San Luis Obispo. Speaking of Christian (and his sister, Cheyenne), his upbringing made Spector’s early life seem like episodes of Leave It To Beaver. Talk about dysfunctional family life!
C. Brando had a history of problem drinking, violence, domestic abuse, and guns. Brando narrowly missed killing a friend [I can’t remember his name] with the bullet grazing the guy’s cheek. Sound familiar?

A thought has nagged at me for a long time. Could it be that a sex/gender identity problem is part of Spector’s long standing mental difficulties? It would sort of explain some of his history with both women and men. Spector seems quite proud of his decades-long psychoanalysis; even bragging about paying $600/week in treatments back in his early years. If you haven’t read this Esquire interview with him in July 2003, just 5 short months after Lana Clarkson’s death, you might find it interesting:

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0703-JUL_SPECTOR

It’s even worth a re-read, IMO, even if written by a guy wearing rose-tinted glasses. The one person who has never spoken, and I doubt ever will, about Spector whom I would really like to hear from is Nancy Sinatra. I wonder how she escaped being part of Trial #1 -- the phrase ‘deny, deny, deny’ comes to mind.

It’s a shame no corporation decided Trial #2 was worth the investment to cover on TV or the Net.
Too bad no one even in La-La Land was all that interested in a has-been and his current stable of legal beagles duking it out in Round 2.

[JMO]

[Spectorfan8]

And only what you give him for allowance? That's what I ended up doing... when I realized how much $$$ was being spent on golf clubs. He has about 5 sets now. :cursing:

yes, the golf clubs.OMG!

[Spectorfan8]

On his blog, reporter Joe Friday has posted a picture showing the MySpace alert that was sent to the Team Spector mailing list in January, urging them to come to court.

Quoting from the Spector mailing list alert, "This is VERY important, especially for the jury to see that people DO BELIEVE in his innocence."

Here it is: http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

That is so old news. Yes...there are people that believe he is innocent. That was only posted for one day.

[oodi1]

On his blog, reporter Joe Friday has posted a picture showing the MySpace alert that was sent to the Team Spector mailing list in January, urging them to come to court.

Quoting from the Spector mailing list alert, "This is VERY important, especially for the jury to see that people DO BELIEVE in his innocence."

Here it is: http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

When Joe Friday said "wacky, crazy, zany" he should have also added VERY TACKY! I wouldn't be surprised if DW didn't order the letter removed from the My Space page. DW might have thought a bunch of whackos would show up.

[Joe Friday]

That is so old news. Yes...there are people that believe he is innocent. That was only posted for one day.

Never been printed as far as I know.....that ok with you?? Only posted for 1 day???? Should never had been posted.

[oodi1]

Thanks for the link Themis! Very interesting read. Even after all that happened, he was still threatening to blow people's brains out. It also appears that he was planning on another "romantic interlude" with another strange woman. Scary thought!

[Themis]

Thanks for the link Themis! Very interesting read. Even after all that happened, he was still threatening to blow people's brains out. It also appears that he was planning on another "romantic interlude" with another strange woman. Scary thought!
I know! I know! With even the 'lowly servants' (PS's mind) telling him he can't/shouldn't say things and do things like that. Scary thought is putting it mildly.:wink:

Glad you found the article interesting; I did when I found it again recently. Notice how he surrounds himself with people that are B and C list when it comes to celebrities and quick to show off by means of throwing money around. I would even be tempted to feel sorry for him, except for the fact that .....

[Jayne]

When Joe Friday said "wacky, crazy, zany" he should have also added VERY TACKY! I wouldn't be surprised if DW didn't order the letter removed from the My Space page. DW might have thought a bunch of whackos would show up.

Joe Friday's blog...I happen to like, very much. s/he (I'm guessing a he?) is pretty very much spot on.

DW can order what he wants..but My Space isn't a court of law. DW, IMO, has gotten himself into a whole lot of doo doo. He's a lawyer...well, methinks? YES he is ...(calbar.ca.gov) But what game is he playing here? My guess...and I'd bet a dollar..if I had it..is to appease PS...they are going for an Appeal. Why? Because this jury will bring down a guilty verdict..I mean that is his job as to how to get out from under the burning carpet when you set the fire?

PS knew what he was doing to hire DW..he want's his best "defense" which is an appeal...it isn't getting him "off"..it's buying him time. Why he ever let Shapiro go..and then Cutler..just does not make sense to me..but heck PS is a whole lot smarter than I could be.

jmo

J

[dref99]

http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0703-JUL_SPECTOR

... snipped for space - my reply seems a bit long - sorry

[JMO]

I had seen some of the story before, but not all. My knowledge of Phil Spector is very different to the authors. I had never heard of him before he killed Lana Clarkson (and I certainly was a beatles fan in the 1960s). PS to me (when I heard of him), was the man behind the scenes. He may have been the best music maker in the world, but I knew of the folks who were singing the songs. Lana was the generation past the beatles. For someone to say

Lana Clarkson, God rest her soul, is gone, and whatever her agenda, and however sunny her memory, the chance that, after twenty years of swimming after stardom in Los Angeles, she didn't know exactly what she was up to -- and who she was riding with, and why -- when she left the House of Blues that night is exactly the same chance she had of becoming Marilyn Monroe: zero

is wishful thinking about who knew/knows his hero, and definitely untrue in regard to folks of Lana's era.

I've not spent much time analysing the whys of Mr Spector, but if I had to, I don't think I would relate them to a gender identification problem. I would more relate it to a famous identity problem. If one is the music creator behind the musicians and the singers - they get the fame, they get the glory in front of the house, you get the money - as much as you can.

Phil was/is physically nothing like those he helped to stardom. His behaviour and actions could well be as they are to overcome this. He choses a mode of dress to make him stand out from the crowd, because in normal street clothes, he would not. He choses a mode of living so folks will find him "eccentric". Eccentric can be used to hide alot of sins. Waving guns around gets described as "that's just Phil".

He may well have been humilated many times by women - hence his treatment of them and his many statements as to what he thinks of "women" in general. He seems to have discovered relatively early that if you pay enough, people will be nice to you. A $450 tip for a $13.50 check seems to make this very obvious. I have no doubt that Lana went for that drink because she thought he may be useful to her career or financial future. No-one has denied that she needed help in both areas, but it is easily demonstrated that she did not know him, or know of him. Even Phil admits he had never known her before that night.

It all comes back to this - also mentioned in the link

And there it sits: Two people alone in the castle at five a.m., and one winds up dead of a gunshot wound. The cops say that they have the gun that fired it. They autopsied the body -- Spector tells me that Shapiro hired two forensic pathologists to sit in -- and ran their tests. And?
Lana can't tell us what happens. Phil has given the news, his lawyers and presumably his friends his side of the story. Some of what he says is known to be untrue viz.

I called the police myself. I called the police - There is no record of a call by Phil Spector to the police
I don't know where or how she got the gun - PS owned the gun
She asked me for a ride home - He begged her to come for a nightcap
Then she wanted to see the castle - she agreed to go for 1 drink - presumably inside his house, not on the pavement
She was loud and drunk even before we left the House of Blues - she was not allowed to drink alcohol while working
I wasn't drunk at all - LE reports state he smelt and acted very drunk at the police station

Fortunately, for him, the jury will probably not see any comments made by PS until they have reached a verdict. They will be using the statements of others to decide which of the two people present that morning pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Lana Clarkson.


jmo

[dref99]

Joe Friday's blog...I happen to like, very much. s/he (I'm guessing a he?) is pretty very much spot on.

DW can order what he wants..but My Space isn't a court of law. DW, IMO, has gotten himself into a whole lot of doo doo. He's a lawyer...well, methinks? YES he is ...(calbar.ca.gov) But what game is he playing here? My guess...and I'd bet a dollar..if I had it..is to appease PS...they are going for an Appeal. Why? Because this jury will bring down a guilty verdict..I mean that is his job as to how to get out from under the burning carpet when you set the fire?

PS knew what he was doing to hire DW..he want's his best "defense" which is an appeal...it isn't getting him "off"..it's buying him time. Why he ever let Shapiro go..and then Cutler..just does not make sense to me..but heck PS is a whole lot smarter than I could be.

jmo

J
Hi Jayne

Could that note on My Space have gone against the gag order from the Judge - which I believe is still in place? Asking supporters to come along and show the jury that you support him :confused: I did think the jury are supposed to consider the evidence before them, not the spectators.

Weinberg, I think is the best on offer since Shapiro - but it is most probable that Shapiro could not negotiate him out of jail time - hence he was fired.

Not sure PS is too smart here Jayne - He was/is looking for the AJ verdict - they don't come too often.

jmo

(thankyou for the post Joe - I hadn't seen it before)

[kennedy06]

I assume G Star is Gold Star Studios?

As for the 2 watches, I never recalled him wearing 2 watches. Do you see the watch faces on both? I do recall him wearing either a wide silver or gold link bracelet that could have been mistaken for a watchband. Just a guess since I do not know which video you were referring to.

Yes, but I don't believe the recording took place there but, but in England. If I understood the information in the video side box correctly.

Interesting point, no I didn't see watch faces! I found a clearer video in which both items can be seen clearly, but I still don't see a face on either. One does appear to be wide a gold bracelet! Look during/around the 1 minute mark. Thanks

JL and PS recording a song in a studio.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnF80aLEcSU

[Jay]

By law, it is required to carry photo ID. I had my son in the back seat of the car (he was 17 at the time) and didn't realize he didn't have his seatbelt on. I got stopped, my son got the ticket, and I got a lecture from the cop that my son needed a photo ID. I told the officer that I wasn't about to let him get a drivers license, and he told me that my son didn't need a license, but that it was required that he have a photo ID card from the DMV.


IF, that's IF, there is such an archaic and deseutude law on the books, which I doubt, and if it has never been challenged and remains so, it would be struck down upon a charge. As I say, I know there are wierd laws out there.

You say it is law, have a link, or are you just repeating what the Cop said. Some cops spout off all kinds of non existent laws to detainees.


According to Hiibel, you only have to, at minimum, give your NAME to an officer AND that is IF you are under investigation.

Of course, since your son was cited, he was under previous investigation, sure, but Hiibel mainly concerns "stop and identify" statutes.


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

[Spectorfan8]

Never been printed as far as I know.....that ok with you?? Only posted for 1 day???? Should never had been posted.

Well, it was. It was posted on the thread that is now closed.:biggrin: I couldn't care less.:tonguewag:

SF8

[hiitsme]

Well, it was. It was posted on the thread that is now closed.:biggrin: I couldn't care less.:tonguewag:

SF8

Whether it was posted or not it's sad to think that PS's camp had to come up with this advertisement of sorts. As an admired and respected celebrity by many in the music industry and elsewhere, he must have certainly burned a lot of bridges to resort to this type of plea.

[Spectorfan8]

Whether it was posted or not it's sad to think that PS's camp had to come up with this advertisement of sorts. As an admired and respected celebrity by many in the music industry and elsewhere, he must have certainly burned a lot of bridges to resort to this type of plea.

Don't know!!

[Jayne]

Whether it was posted or not it's sad to think that PS's camp had to come up with this advertisement of sorts. As an admired and respected celebrity by many in the music industry and elsewhere, he must have certainly burned a lot of bridges to resort to this type of plea.

hiitsme...love your posts...as a precursor...


PS burned tons of bridges, IMO..and he built a bunch of them too...

It's kind of like "rounding the wagons" (an ol' labor union term, and others)...

Can you imagine if the Clarkson family did the same thing? What a hoopla would be in the media over that. Actually...too bad they didn't..but I think if many posting here could get in a plane and be there..they would...more than the Spector Team that shows up.

I really don't think he's that much admired in LA...I talk with people from there...in the industry..they know how HARD it is to Make It.

Sure..I'd love that $400 tip..but believe you me...(OK...I don't mean he tipped Lana..just using it for an example). I wouldn't step inside his limo for a ride for that..I'd just say "thank you very much"...go home and curl up in my own bed...YET...were I trying to do what Lana was trying to do...yes, take that ride..that "one drink"..

PS was a user, a loser (in interpersonal relationships, among others), and abuser. IMO.

My guess..and it's only a guess..this jury is going to come up with a "Guilty"..then DW gets to really do his job..what he was hired for..to Appeal. But on what grounds? He certainly can't do it on ineffective counsel, unless PS hires another attorney to put down DW. I think DW has been putting his ducks in a row...he hasn't caught AJ yet...not as we see it..but he can get it other ways..if he's as smart as I think he is..maybe.

jmo

J

[hiitsme]

hiitsme...love your posts...as a precursor...


PS burned tons of bridges, IMO..and he built a bunch of them too...

It's kind of like "rounding the wagons" (an ol' labor union term, and others)...

Can you imagine if the Clarkson family did the same thing? What a hoopla would be in the media over that. Actually...too bad they didn't..but I think if many posting here could get in a plane and be there..they would...more than the Spector Team that shows up.

I really don't think he's that much admired in LA...I talk with people from there...in the industry..they know how HARD it is to Make It.

Sure..I'd love that $400 tip..but believe you me...(OK...I don't mean he tipped Lana..just using it for an example). I wouldn't step inside his limo for a ride for that..I'd just say "thank you very much"...go home and curl up in my own bed...YET...were I trying to do what Lana was trying to do...yes, take that ride..that "one drink"..

PS was a user, a loser (in interpersonal relationships, among others), and abuser. IMO.

My guess..and it's only a guess..this jury is going to come up with a "Guilty"..then DW gets to really do his job..what he was hired for..to Appeal. But on what grounds? He certainly can't do it on ineffective counsel, unless PS hires another attorney to put down DW. I think DW has been putting his ducks in a row...he hasn't caught AJ yet...not as we see it..but he can get it other ways..if he's as smart as I think he is..maybe.

jmo

J

As always, I so enjoy your insight and happen to agree with you point by point in this post. Any reference to admiration etc. was certainly meant in the past but as something that could be very much alive today, had he lived his life differently. It seems as if JF is going above and beyond to avoid appealable issues, yet DW is still in "the game" to make sure there are some valid ones. Knowing very little about the law, I will just say that a very interesting Chess game of sorts may be brewing. At this point, I'm not sure who will win.

[wasapi]

Sorry, but for two days I've written lengthy posts and for some reason it kept coming up that I was in error and couldn't complete posting. So I'm just seeing if the glitch is still happening.

[My 2 Cents]

NO COURT TODAY - Monday 2/3/09

Thought I would try the METROLINK today - NO LA TRAFFIC STRESS

Missed 1st train NO PARKING SPOTS at this tiny train station.
Had to drive to a 2nd train station - as spots not opening open. Cool, that works. Make it to the last stop, UNION STATION and finally figure out where the Union Station Red Line connection is, hop on & off. Run into the Clara Shortridge Building across the street and VIOLA . . . courtroom empty. Just a few courtroom employees and AJ chatting with Harriet Ryan of the LA TIMES. . . . . CR#P!!!!

AJ tells me that the defendant had to have some sort of medical procedure and court was cancelled today, . . . and possibly tomorrow.
LOVELY! No trains heading in my direction leave Union Station for a LONG, LONG, LONG TIME! So much for avoiding stress today. (sigh!) :crying:

And I thought I might get to see PIE and JHR. BUMMER! . . . I miss my car!

[hiitsme]

Sorry, but for two days I've written lengthy posts and for some reason it kept coming up that I was in error and couldn't complete posting. So I'm just seeing if the glitch is still happening.

We're seeing this one. Please try again!

[wasapi]

It worked, I'm back!

Since I don't believe we have any new trial info yet, I would like to ask a question. I apologize because it is perhaps off topic.

My question; So much has been written about PS that is negative. He has been demonized and we have all heard stories to support why that is so frequently what we hear.

Though I am a Guilty, I believe that few people are all bad, or simply evil. I believe that there must be things not talked about frequently that PS has done, that are acts of kindness.

I recall reading that he was asked to sit Shiva with the family of a friend of his who died. I know that in the Jewish religion, a family doesn't request someone unrelated to sit Shiva unless it is a person they think highly of.

With no disrespect to Lana intended, does anyone else know of other things PS has done that would show a kinder side then what we have become used to hearing?

[penguin01]

As always, I so enjoy your insight and happen to agree with you point by point in this post. Any reference to admiration etc. was certainly meant in the past but as something that could be very much alive today, had he lived his life differently. It seems as if JF is going above and beyond to avoid appealable issues, yet DW is still in "the game" to make sure there are some valid ones. Knowing very little about the law, I will just say that a very interesting Chess game of sorts may be brewing. At this point, I'm not sure who will win.
Its looking better and better for AJ these days, I think, as DW's witnesses lie, change their stories and pretend they haven't, etc.
But I'm always very concerned about the weird "Juror #10 and groupie" factor. We had one in the Brian Nichols case also - when it came to the punishment phase.

[tartangirl]

Wow...I will bite my tongue and not say anything but many scenarios are dancing around in my mind. :w00t:

I am sorry you did not get to see and hear all today in courtroom 106. We are all always anxious to read your posts concerning the days activities there in the courthouse. Thank you for your good words past and future. :biggrin:

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

[kennedy06]

NO COURT TODAY - Monday 2/3/09

Thought I would try the METROLINK today - NO LA TRAFFIC STRESS

Missed 1st train NO PARKING SPOTS at this tiny train station.
Had to drive to a 2nd train station - as spots not opening open. Cool, that works. Make it to the last stop, UNION STATION and finally figure out where the Union Station Red Line connection is, hop on & off. Run into the Clara Shortridge Building across the street and VIOLA . . . courtroom empty. Just a few courtroom employees and AJ chatting with Harriet Ryan of the LA TIMES. . . . . CR#P!!!!

AJ tells me that the defendant had to have some sort of medical procedure and court was cancelled today, . . . and possibly tomorrow.
LOVELY! No trains heading in my direction leave Union Station for a LONG, LONG, LONG TIME! So much for avoiding stress today. (sigh!) :crying:

And I thought I might get to see PIE and JHR. BUMMER! . . . I miss my car!

Thanks for checking in with us, oh defendant, I was thinking witness when I first read this. Oh and possibly tomorrow :huh:

[My 2 Cents]

Wow...I will bite my tongue and not say anything but many scenarios are dancing around in my mind. :w00t:

I am sorry you did not get to see and hear all today in courtroom 106. We are all always anxious to read your posts concerning the days activities there in the courthouse. Thank you for your good words past and future. :biggrin:

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



THANKS - Of course, when I hear court is cancelled due to the defendant having a "medical procedure", I think of his throat problems mentioned before. Although, I heard 2 ladies in the hallway, who said they had traveled very far to come to court today. They both had a little smile across their face and then said, "Oh - well maybe he had a heart attack." Well, h-m-m-, that had not crossed my mind.


I wonder if PIE was still ill and the defense team didn't want to take witnesses out of order? Or this "new" possible forensic's expert mentioned on TALK RADIO ONE, that the defense might call - maybe they need a few more days to ??? , I don't know - buy a gun or white jacket and run some quick tests? . .. yeah, I know - I'm just being crabby because I'm STUCK HERE. :crying:

[kennedy06]

THANKS - Of course, when I hear court is cancelled due to the defendant having a "medical procedure", I think of his throat problems mentioned before. Although, I heard 2 ladies in the hallway, who said they had traveled very far to come to court today. They both had a little smile across their face and then said, "Oh - well maybe he had a heart attack." Well, h-m-m-, that had not crossed my mind.


I wonder if PIE was still ill and the defense team didn't want to take witnesses out of order? Or this "new" possible forensic's expert mentioned on TALK RADIO ONE, that the defense might call - maybe they need a few more days to ??? , I don't know - buy a gun or white jacket and run some quick tests? . .. yeah, I know - I'm just being crabby because I'm STUCK HERE. :crying:

Your efforts are appreciated though if that helps any. :smile:

[tartangirl]

THANKS - Of course, when I hear court is canceled due to the defendant having a "medical procedure", I think of his throat problems mentioned before. Although, I heard 2 ladies in the hallway, who said they had traveled very far to come to court today. They both had a little smile across their face and then said, "Oh - well maybe he had a heart attack." Well, h-m-m-, that had not crossed my mind.


I wonder if PIE was still ill and the defense team didn't want to take witnesses out of order? Or this "new" possible forensics expert mentioned on TALK RADIO ONE, that the defense might call - maybe they need a few more days to ??? , I don't know - buy a gun or white jacket and run some quick tests? . .. yeah, I know - I'm just being crabby because I'm STUCK HERE. :crying:

It could be any number of reasons. Hmmm....:sneaky:


I know it does not help your cause, but are there any other cases you might be able to sit in on? It all fascinates me.


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

[hiitsme]

thanks anyway m2c... sorry you are stuck there..... just you and AJ...:laugh:Good one! See, there's always a light at the end of the tunnel.:laugh:

[My 2 Cents]

the use of the term 'medical procedure'.... sounds like a planned event...... medical emergency would make me think differently..... weird .... but AJ was there... of course the term could be used out of respect for privacy.


of course it could be a procedure on DW, Truc or a witness. are we sure it was of spector? don't think court would be canceled for rachelle unless she had an emergency

I might be wrong - AJ may have said "emergency medical procedure" and not "medical procedure" . . (because I'm pretty sure he used the term PROCEDURE). It was just that I was so disappointed when it soaked in that court was cancelled, but then I kind of "spaced out for a split second" while he was talking - because I immediately dawned on me, at that second, that there weren't any southbound trains until much later in the afternoon. Sorry, I "spaced out" at the wrong time. LOL.

I do know for CERTAIN that he said the DEFENDANT was having the medical issue (not a witness). Because I did exactly as Kennedy06 and thought, "Huh, I wonder what witness?" and then a "light bulb" went off over my head that said, "OH MY - AJ just said "DEFENDANT", not witness. h-m-m-m, interesting.

SPROCKET where are you? Let's do lunch. LOL :biggrin: Or AJ, you're welcome too! - my treat!

[oodi1]

NO COURT TODAY - Monday 2/3/09

Thought I would try the METROLINK today - NO LA TRAFFIC STRESS

Missed 1st train NO PARKING SPOTS at this tiny train station.
Had to drive to a 2nd train station - as spots not opening open. Cool, that works. Make it to the last stop, UNION STATION and finally figure out where the Union Station Red Line connection is, hop on & off. Run into the Clara Shortridge Building across the street and VIOLA . . . courtroom empty. Just a few courtroom employees and AJ chatting with Harriet Ryan of the LA TIMES. . . . . CR#P!!!!

AJ tells me that the defendant had to have some sort of medical procedure and court was cancelled today, . . . and possibly tomorrow.
LOVELY! No trains heading in my direction leave Union Station for a LONG, LONG, LONG TIME! So much for avoiding stress today. (sigh!) :crying:

And I thought I might get to see PIE and JHR. BUMMER! . . . I miss my car!


I wonder if PS is was finally having the surgery he was supposed to have a month or so ago. :confused:

[hiitsme]

It worked, I'm back!

Since I don't believe we have any new trial info yet, I would like to ask a question. I apologize because it is perhaps off topic.

My question; So much has been written about PS that is negative. He has been demonized and we have all heard stories to support why that is so frequently what we hear.

Though I am a Guilty, I believe that few people are all bad, or simply evil. I believe that there must be things not talked about frequently that PS has done, that are acts of kindness.

I recall reading that he was asked to sit Shiva with the family of a friend of his who died. I know that in the Jewish religion, a family doesn't request someone unrelated to sit Shiva unless it is a person they think highly of.

With no disrespect to Lana intended, does anyone else know of other things PS has done that would show a kinder side then what we have become used to hearing?

I understand what you are saying, but there has been a deafening silence when it comes to kindness shown by Phil Spector. Even his own children, while vocal but not judgmental, have not opined in any way about their father's kindness or simple caring for others. I think he has always been a very egotistical self serving individual.

[GPSpector]

Yes, but I don't believe the recording took place there but, but in England. If I understood the information in the video side box correctly.

Interesting point, no I didn't see watch faces! I found a clearer video in which both items can be seen clearly, but I still don't see a face on either. One does appear to be wide a gold bracelet! Look during/around the 1 minute mark. Thanks

JL and PS recording a song in a studio.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnF80aLEcSU


Yep, that's his Gold bracelet. I don't recall if that was a Watch on the other wrist or not but, I think it is.

Wow, that video was taken just before John Lennon was shot. My father had to finish that song and the Imagine album without John.

[GPSpector]

IF, that's IF, there is such an archaic and deseutude law on the books, which I doubt, and if it has never been challenged and remains so, it would be struck down upon a charge. As I say, I know there are wierd laws out there.

You say it is law, have a link, or are you just repeating what the Cop said. Some cops spout off all kinds of non existent laws to detainees.


According to Hiibel, you only have to, at minimum, give your NAME to an officer AND that is IF you are under investigation.

Of course, since your son was cited, he was under previous investigation, sure, but Hiibel mainly concerns "stop and identify" statutes.


http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html


Odd, here is Colorado, it is a requirement to have either State ID or a Licence on you (just not both). If you move, you have to notify the DMV within (I think) 6 months.

If it's not a law, they sure make it sound like one here. I'm glad I've always had State ID until I finally decided to get a licence a few years ago.

[GPSpector]

It worked, I'm back!

Since I don't believe we have any new trial info yet, I would like to ask a question. I apologize because it is perhaps off topic.

My question; So much has been written about PS that is negative. He has been demonized and we have all heard stories to support why that is so frequently what we hear.

Though I am a Guilty, I believe that few people are all bad, or simply evil. I believe that there must be things not talked about frequently that PS has done, that are acts of kindness.

I recall reading that he was asked to sit Shiva with the family of a friend of his who died. I know that in the Jewish religion, a family doesn't request someone unrelated to sit Shiva unless it is a person they think highly of.

With no disrespect to Lana intended, does anyone else know of other things PS has done that would show a kinder side then what we have become used to hearing?

If you ever get the chance to go to the Courthouse and see my Sister (or her mother), she might be able to tell you a few good things.

As for me, I'd say the nicest thing I can remember were those 3 trips to Gold Star Studios and being invited along to get pizza with Joey Ramone on the last trip there.

Also, being invited to the Lakers vs. Spurs game in 1999, then letting his driver use my camera to take a picture.

There were other things but nothing I would say was overly nice, they just were not bad. Such as on rare occasions, allowing my Brothers & I to watch TV in the living room on the big color TV.

As for something I am glad about, I'm glad he never hurt us physically. Does that count for doing good?

[GPSpector]

NO COURT TODAY - Monday 2/3/09

Thought I would try the METROLINK today - NO LA TRAFFIC STRESS

Missed 1st train NO PARKING SPOTS at this tiny train station.
Had to drive to a 2nd train station - as spots not opening open. Cool, that works. Make it to the last stop, UNION STATION and finally figure out where the Union Station Red Line connection is, hop on & off. Run into the Clara Shortridge Building across the street and VIOLA . . . courtroom empty. Just a few courtroom employees and AJ chatting with Harriet Ryan of the LA TIMES. . . . . CR#P!!!!

AJ tells me that the defendant had to have some sort of medical procedure and court was cancelled today, . . . and possibly tomorrow.
LOVELY! No trains heading in my direction leave Union Station for a LONG, LONG, LONG TIME! So much for avoiding stress today. (sigh!) :crying:

And I thought I might get to see PIE and JHR. BUMMER! . . . I miss my car!

Any chance he is finally getting his Throat surgery?

[GPSpector]

I understand what you are saying, but there has been a deafening silence when it comes to kindness shown by Phil Spector. Even his own children, while vocal but not judgmental, have not opined in any way about their father's kindness or simple caring for others. I think he has always been a very egotistical self serving individual.

I just remembered, my Father used to donate to G.L.A.Z.A. (The Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association) when I was a kid. We never got free passes though. My Brothers and I just went to the Zoo with the YMCA.

I hope that counts as a kindness from the heart.

[hiitsme]

I just remembered, my Father used to donate to G.L.A.Z.A. (The Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association) when I was a kid. We never got free passes though. My Brothers and I just went to the Zoo with the YMCA.

I hope that counts as a kindness from the heart.

What's the saying or proverb, "Charity begins at home?" It sounds like it didn't exist in your home which is hard to understand Wealthy or not, providing a loving, supportive environment for ones children should be an inherent desire and privilege. If the kindness didn't start at home, I'm sure it wasn't distributed elsewhere, except of course if it was done to promote self image.

[wasapi]

What's the saying or proverb, "Charity begins at home?" It sounds like it didn't exist in your home which is hard to understand Wealthy or not, providing a loving, supportive environment for ones children should be an inherent desire and privilege. If the kindness didn't start at home, I'm sure it wasn't distributed elsewhere, except of course if it was done to promote self image.

That is a great quote, and one that I hadn't thought about for a long time. Like most proverb's, it is a truism.

Thank you Gary, for sharing those memories. I think I know you well enough now to know that you don't want pity. Yet reading your words, I still want to say that I am so sorry.

Having grown up with a mother who reminds me very much of your father, I understand that there are simple moments that others don't think much of, but are important to us to remember, when the good experiences with our parents are so eclipsed by the bad.

And I apologize if I offended anyone with my original post on this possible good side of PS. I will now get back on topic.

[RayStar]

Well if PS had his surgery today i hope everything turns out ok and he recovers quickly so he can get back to court and then be able to serve his time in prison.I love this post. Why didn't he have this mess done before the trial? I say take away his freedom and this trial will be on speed dial!

[Anakerie]

I love this post. Why didn't he have this mess done before the trial? I say take away his freedom and this trial will be on speed dial!
I might be mistaken, but wasn't one of the delays/time off things before the holidays have to do with medical procedures for Phil? I wonder what happened.....

[dref99]

THANKS - Of course, when I hear court is cancelled due to the defendant having a "medical procedure", I think of his throat problems mentioned before. Although, I heard 2 ladies in the hallway, who said they had traveled very far to come to court today. They both had a little smile across their face and then said, "Oh - well maybe he had a heart attack." Well, h-m-m-, that had not crossed my mind.


I wonder if PIE was still ill and the defense team didn't want to take witnesses out of order? Or this "new" possible forensic's expert mentioned on TALK RADIO ONE, that the defense might call - maybe they need a few more days to ??? , I don't know - buy a gun or white jacket and run some quick tests? . .. yeah, I know - I'm just being crabby because I'm STUCK HERE. :crying:

oh my2 cents - so sorry - and (being completely selfish) we have missed another of your reports. Just when (according to T&T) there are no dark days for the next few weeks!

I would assume the throat, in absense of other information - interesting that he had time off for this earlier - and it didn't seem to happen.

I hope you found some company for lunch - or another trial to watch

jmo

[tartangirl]

Many things have seemed to morph into other events during this trial for me. :confused: I do know, however, that there were two days in December that PS was scheduled to get some kind of procedure on his throat.

It was a Thursday and a Monday. Not having the chance to hear him speak since the first trial, it would be hard for any of us to know if that had occurred or been successful.

I know accidents happen, and emergency rooms are filled most days, but I remain suspicious. I should feel badly about that, but I don't since we have been in delay mode for six years now. :sneaky:

We shall find out soon.


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

[Jayne]

oh my2 cents - so sorry - and (being completely selfish) we have missed another of your reports. Just when (according to T&T) there are no dark days for the next few weeks!

I would assume the throat, in absense of other information - interesting that he had time off for this earlier - and it didn't seem to happen.

I hope you found some company for lunch - or another trial to watch

jmo

Yeah..dang. Home sick today...if I could have driven to LA..I guess I'd lose my "sick day" (as if I have any LOL...not paid is how they work!)

She's a great asset here, isn't she? (M2C)

jmo

J

[dref99]

Many things have seemed to morph into other events during this trial for me. :confused: I do know, however, that there were two days in December that PS was scheduled to get some kind of procedure on his throat.

It was a Thursday and a Monday. Not having the chance to hear him speak since the first trial, it would be hard for any of us to know if that had occurred or been successful.

I know accidents happen, and emergency rooms are filled most days, but I remain suspicious. I should feel badly about that, but I don't since we have been in delay mode for six years now. :sneaky:

We shall find out soon.


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




Not having (and never having for me) the chance to hear PS, we can but listen/read other reports. From what I read in regards to the first "procedure" his voice didn't change - so the assumption was it did not happen, or it was not successful.

Only one day was requested off - as court is always dark on Friday
Dec 9
Last Thursday, Weinberg requested a "Friday and Monday" off for the surgery, so this coming Monday, December 15th, court will be dark. That leaves only five more days of testimony before the holiday break.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-sixteen-of.html

It is mentioned here (dated 15th - I suspect it is the 16th) that his voice is still very raspy.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-nineteen-of.html

jmo

[oodi1]

If this was a planned procedure (or whatever it was) it seems strange that there was no advanced warning.

[Jay]

Odd, here is Colorado, it is a requirement to have either State ID or a Licence on you (just not both). If you move, you have to notify the DMV within (I think) 6 months.

If it's not a law, they sure make it sound like one here. I'm glad I've always had State ID until I finally decided to get a licence a few years ago.


Are you able to locate it and post it? I know some "similar" laws "on the books" around the country have been ruled unconstitutional. The legislature has not removed them though.

For instance, this law is still "on the books" in MA, but has been ruled UNconstitutional by it's High Court:


TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS

CHAPTER 85. REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS RELATIVE TO WAYS AND BRIDGES

Duty of driver at night to give name to officer on request

Section 16. Every person shall while driving or in charge of or occupying a vehicle during the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, when requested by a police officer, give his true name and address.

[Jayne]

If this was a planned procedure (or whatever it was) it seems strange that there was no advanced warning.

Yes indeed...unless it was an "emergency"? What emergency? Witnesses? Not ready with discovery?

DW knows better, or should, about claiming one thing or another for His advantage.

If it truly was something with Phil...I do wish him well...even if he spends the rest of his life behind bars...health care is something one shouldn't have to "put off" but many of us have to. he doesn't. I'd think..and he could have scheduled it Ahead of time...so my guess..this IS an emergency. Hope all is well.

jmo

J

[tartangirl]

Not having (and never having for me) the chance to hear PS, we can but listen/read other reports. From what I read in regards to the first "procedure" his voice didn't change - so the assumption was it did not happen, or it was not successful.

Only one day was requested off - as court is always dark on Friday
Dec 9
Last Thursday, Weinberg requested a "Friday and Monday" off for the surgery, so this coming Monday, December 15th, court will be dark. That leaves only five more days of testimony before the holiday break.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-sixteen-of.html

It is mentioned here (dated 15th - I suspect it is the 16th) that his voice is still very raspy.
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/12/phil-spector-retrial-day-nineteen-of.html

jmo

Thanks for the correction. :smile:

I do remember hearing him during PS1. NOT a good sound either.

You know I am still very suspicious, that is how the defendant and his
defense team have played the game so far. :sneaky: They ignore the rules and bend the law, or try to make it suit their needs. :glare:


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

[Jayne]

Are you able to locate it and post it? I know some "similar" laws "on the books" around the country have been ruled unconstitutional. The legislature has not removed them though.

For instance, this law is still "on the books" in MA, but has been ruled UNconstitutional by it's High Court:


TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS

CHAPTER 85. REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS RELATIVE TO WAYS AND BRIDGES

Duty of driver at night to give name to officer on request

Section 16. Every person shall while driving or in charge of or occupying a vehicle during the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, when requested by a police officer, give his true name and address.

You're correct, Jay...I just spoke about this with my friend..attorney..in Boston area.

I live in CA..there is NO requirement that my child have an ID..YES..I'd be smart to have one..so he carries his school ID with him..for identification..to contact me..but there is no law that requires it.

What the law says..here..as far as driving a car...license, proof of insurance, registration..that's it..in the car at all times..and BE INSURED even if you don't own a car.

jmo

J

[Jay]

You're correct, Jay...I just spoke about this with my friend..attorney..in Boston area.

I live in CA..there is NO requirement that my child have an ID..YES..I'd be smart to have one..so he carries his school ID with him..for identification..to contact me..but there is no law that requires it.

What the law says..here..as far as driving a car...license, proof of insurance, registration..that's it..in the car at all times..and BE INSURED even if you don't own a car.

jmo

J


Appreciate the info!! I have never seen any law, on the active books or still on them and unconstitutional that mandated an ID be carried at all times. As you say, of course, we are not talking about driving, etc.

The MA one only concerned a name be given.

[Jay]

Jayne, here is the case law on that law I posted:

In part:


In the circumstances of a lawful stop of a motor vehicle for speeding, the State Troopers had no objective basis for requiring the passenger to produce identification papers, and where that unlawful interrogation led to a search that produced a cache of cocaine secreted in the vehicle, the defendants, the passenger and driver, were entitled to suppression of the fruits of the search. [534-536]

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

Desuetude characterizes the history of the statute in case law. We have not found a single reference to it. Until 1989, s. 16 did not apply to motor vehicles. See G. L. c. 85, s. 17, prior to amendment by St. 1989, c. 341, s. 60. Were s. 16 read to permit dragnet interrogation of the sort we have described as prohibited, questions about the constitutionality of that statute would necessarily arise.





http://masscases.com/cases/app/44/44massappct531.html

[Jayne]

Thanks for the correction. :smile:

I do remember hearing him during PS1. NOT a good sound either.

You know I am still very suspicious, that is how the defendant and his
defense team have played the game so far. :sneaky: They ignore the rules and bend the law, or try to make it suit their needs. :glare:


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




My poster friend..that IS what they do..that is what they are hired for.

The Chess Game goes on.

At least it isn't the circus PS1 was...now we only have one Clown (just a term...not demeaning DW) to bring the House Down..in favour of Spector.

There may be more three rings..or parades...but either DW is going to have another Academy Award..or PS will fall. Like the Fall of the Wall in Berlin? How ironic that might be? And, sad...

The more I think about it, the more I believe...his father's death led him to be who he is..not who he wanted to be.

He might have been the happy kid..playing guitar or piano..playing solos in his HS orchestra..gone on to Great Things..but with a different perspective?

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Jayne, here is the case law on that law I posted:

In part:


In the circumstances of a lawful stop of a motor vehicle for speeding, the State Troopers had no objective basis for requiring the passenger to produce identification papers, and where that unlawful interrogation led to a search that produced a cache of cocaine secreted in the vehicle, the defendants, the passenger and driver, were entitled to suppression of the fruits of the search. [534-536]

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

Desuetude characterizes the history of the statute in case law. We have not found a single reference to it. Until 1989, s. 16 did not apply to motor vehicles. See G. L. c. 85, s. 17, prior to amendment by St. 1989, c. 341, s. 60. Were s. 16 read to permit dragnet interrogation of the sort we have described as prohibited, questions about the constitutionality of that statute would necessarily arise.





http://masscases.com/cases/app/44/44massappct531.html

Thanks, Jay..are you in Massachusetts?

The finding..well..I'm obviously no judge (wish I were!) is correct. That doesn't mean people go around suppressing cocaine in the trunk of a car...nah...it just means what it said...stopped for speeding..then you get the ID of the driver..if a passenger doesn't have on their seatbelt (CA law)..then he is cited as well as the driver. Miranda...reasonable search and seizure..great stuff. But you don't do a full out search of a car..asking for ID's of passengers..for a speeding violation. Who were these cops? They should know better..most of them do. One of my dearest friends..a co-law school student..his partner was shot in MA..traffic stop. So...albeit what I said just now..there are times you have to be very very careful..it was a routine "speed" stop..the cop shot Dead.

I loved all that law school "stuff" about the criminal things..that's why I became a prosecutor (not now, but wish I still were...ah...poor choices!)...the due process...the Amendment's rights...and this...well, this case is something, isn't it? jmo

jmo

j

[Curlyjo]

My poster friend..that IS what they do..that is what they are hired for.

The Chess Game goes on.

At least it isn't the circus PS1 was...now we only have one Clown (just a term...not demeaning DW) to bring the House Down..in favour of Spector.

There may be more three rings..or parades...but either DW is going to have another Academy Award..or PS will fall. Like the Fall of the Wall in Berlin? How ironic that might be? And, sad...

The more I think about it, the more I believe...his father's death led him to be who he is..not who he wanted to be.

He might have been the happy kid..playing guitar or piano..playing solos in his HS orchestra..gone on to Great Things..but with a different perspective?

jmo

J


We all have had bad things happen to us and doesn't make us hate or behave like PS. As far as I am concerned ... PS and his group are all performing under the Big Top.

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks for the correction. :smile:

I do remember hearing him during PS1. NOT a good sound either.

You know I am still very suspicious, that is how the defendant and his
defense team have played the game so far. :sneaky: They ignore the rules and bend the law, or try to make it suit their needs. :glare:


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




AJ also mentioned, "the jury has been dismissed for the day", or "we had to dismiss the jury for the day", and then that's when he mentioned that there may not be court tomorrow as well. But the remark about the jury had me thinking - because it implied that the jurors showed up and were then sent home. This suggests that the court MAY not have had any "heads up" from the defense - otherwise wouldn't the court have called the jurors and spared them a wasted trip in. I mean even if this "emergency with Spector" came up over the weekend, wouldn't the defense team have a "contact" for the court, so the court can call the jurors? Because this must happen quite often with all the trials going on. I would think there are provisions for "emergencies", so not to waste juror's time needlessly.

. . . who knows - maybe it was a last minute illness. Maybe I need to pay attention a little better. LOL.

I hope T&T posts something soon - I am sure she can fill in many "gaps".

Hey, here's a thought - - maybe its not related to his throat at all. Maybe his "blood pressure" went through the roof after the horrible week the defense had in court. . . . just a thought.

[Jay]

Thanks, Jay..are you in Massachusetts?

The finding..well..I'm obviously no judge (wish I were!) is correct. That doesn't mean people go around suppressing cocaine in the trunk of a car...nah...it just means what it said...stopped for speeding..then you get the ID of the driver..if a passenger doesn't have on their seatbelt (CA law)..then he is cited as well as the driver. Miranda...reasonable search and seizure..great stuff. But you don't do a full out search of a car..asking for ID's of passengers..for a speeding violation. Who were these cops? They should know better..most of them do. One of my dearest friends..a co-law school student..his partner was shot in MA..traffic stop. So...albeit what I said just now..there are times you have to be very very careful..it was a routine "speed" stop..the cop shot Dead.

I loved all that law school "stuff" about the criminal things..that's why I became a prosecutor (not now, but wish I still were...ah...poor choices!)...the due process...the Amendment's rights...and this...well, this case is something, isn't it? jmo

jmo

j


No, I don't live in MA, it was in a discussion on another board.

I checked the annotations on it at the law library for the poster.

I took criminal law in college, so I study the 4th AM from time to time and criminal law in general.

Since the 4TH was made applicable to the states in Wolf in 1949 and the exclusionary rule in Mapp in 1961, there has been so much litigation on Search and Seizure, it is hard to keep up with it. I love it though!!!

I do know in CA, as I learned somewhere else, that even though Maryland v. Wilson permits an officer to request a passenger to exit the vehicle for no reason, on the progeny of Mimms, they can not ask if there is no articulable reason for it. I believe I am right on that??

[kipswife]

hi all,

this is OT but today, at the trial i am watching in woodland, ca. during jury deliberations, I went into another courtroom and was thrilled to see who the defense lawyer was. It was Robert Blaiser, yes, from the OJ trials. WOW....like he is sooo much the defense lawyer. tomorrow he is giving the closing for the rape trial he is defending so i am going to watch it. i may be pro-prosecution but it is always a treat to watch one of the best...even if he is on the wrong side
m

[Jayne]

No, I don't live in MA, it was in a discussion on another board.

I checked the annotations on it at the law library for the poster.

I took criminal law in college, so I study the 4th AM from time to time and criminal law in general.

Since the 4TH was made applicable to the states in Wolf in 1949 and the exclusionary rule in Mapp in 1961, there has been so much litigation on Search and Seizure, it is hard to keep up with it. I love it though!!!

I do know in CA, as I learned somewhere else, that even though Maryland v. Wilson permits an officer to request a passenger to exit the vehicle for no reason, on the progeny of Mimms, they can not ask if there is no articulable reason for it. I believe I am right on that??

aha...well..good question...they THINK they can. but they can not unless as you said "articulable reason"..with a passenger..there has to be "probable cause" or some such thing - I know you said "articulable reason" and maybe it's that lesser of a reasoning, but I think it is probable cause..or under the circumstances, sort of articulable reason

I used to "ride" with the Sheriffs out here...the first time I did..they pulled over a car...2 felons and an accomplice in it...in Malibu area...the accomplice was the driver...his license was "expired"..but it came up on the search that he was on "probation"..then found out the other two in the car - passengers - from their ID were "wanted". They certainly had probable cause after checking out the driver...the lack of registration on the license plate, etc. So..I can't answer you directly, but I do believe it is the same reasoning as "reasonable search and seizure"...not sure...I'll have to look it up!

Now..if the passenger fit a "description"..that would be an entirely different issue, I'd think..and I'd back it up...because how many times has someone (criminal) hijacked a car...and s/he's the passenger?

jmo

J

[Jayne]

hi all,

this is OT but today, at the trial i am watching in woodland, ca. during jury deliberations, I went into another courtroom and was thrilled to see who the defense lawyer was. It was Robert Blaiser, yes, from the OJ trials. WOW....like he is sooo much the defense lawyer. tomorrow he is giving the closing for the rape trial he is defending so i am going to watch it. i may be pro-prosecution but it is always a treat to watch one of the best...even if he is on the wrong side
m

Woo hoo..please PM me about it..if you don't post it otherwise. Have a great day tomorrow!

Jayne

[kennedy06]

I agree. I thought court was dark a few days in December for the throat surgery.

Maybe PS is seeing the handwriting on the walls of sound... and figures surgery now is a better option than the prison infirmary.

Even with a healed throat in prison, the guards still will not answer your screams. Have you seen the HBO series Oz? :scared:

No but I have watched Lockup several times, yikes on that.

[wasapi]

The more I think about it, the more I believe...his father's death led him to be who he is..not who he wanted to be.
(respectfully snipped.)

jmo

J

Wow. Jayne, your entire post was excellent and so perfect, so poignantly written.

The part that I qouted of your words brought up so many things. It really always comes down to be about choices. It is a pet-peeve of mine when people choose childhood trauma as an explanation (read:excuse) for the person they became.

I believe that a large percentage of adults have experienced at aleast once in their youth, vicious, unspeakable pain and grief. When they get more to an age of maturity it is time to make those choices. Will I allow this rejection and saddness dictate my life, and if so, how?

There were quite a few similarity's in my childhood and PS's. And your question Jayne, as to how PS may have turned out if not for what fate threw in his midst as a child is interesting. Of course we'll never know, but your post has me speculating now, it has me doing the "what if". And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. It's interesting for me in more then just wondering about PS.

Sorry. A long-winded way to say how excellent I found your post!

[dref99]

hi all,

this is OT but today, at the trial i am watching in woodland, ca. during jury deliberations, I went into another courtroom and was thrilled to see who the defense lawyer was. It was Robert Blaiser, yes, from the OJ trials. WOW....like he is sooo much the defense lawyer. tomorrow he is giving the closing for the rape trial he is defending so i am going to watch it. i may be pro-prosecution but it is always a treat to watch one of the best...even if he is on the wrong side
m

Somewhat on topic, given that he was with the Spector team at one stage - I wonder why they parted company? or if PS contacted him after trial 1 - when searching for a new lawyer - I guess we may never know.

jmo

[Jayne]

Somewhat on topic, given that he was with the Spector team at one stage - I wonder why they parted company? or if PS contacted him after trial 1 - when searching for a new lawyer - I guess we may never know.

jmo

just speculation..of course..I think Cutler may have drawn him in for his "expertise"...

Cutler became "history"...so goes his consultant?

don't know..just a thought.. and Linda had her husband..and they had the other "experts" who are experts and not lawyers...?


Then.maybe PS wouldn't pay for another attorney? Just as a consultant....to get what he/they needed? hence my feeling that when Cutler blew..so did he..not sure of the timing..but if it's close, I'd say that is why or maybe why?

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

T&T has posted an update about today. Sprocket has added a little VOTING contraption at the end of her post. It let's you vote on what you think may have happened today - Why you believe court was "really" cancelled. Just for kicks! Kind of cute IMO.

Sprocket apparently "lucked out". . . she over slept today. So she ended up making a phone call to verify court was still on. She was quite surprised the hear it was cancelled. . . . What a lucky duck.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-no.html

[Themis]

I guess I am way behind the times on PS #2. I realized there was a connection between Dennis Riordan and Doron Weinberg, and that is why Riordan was pretty much responsible for bringing Weinberg on board. I thought it was because they are both quite well known and both in San Francisco. San Francisco, is, after all, a very small city compared to L.A.

It appears that Riordan currently specializes in appellate issues but has criminal defense experience.

It appears that Weinberg’s current focus is on criminal defense but he is also experienced in appellate issues.

Did you all know their 2 firms share office space?
The law firms of: ‘Weinberg & Wilder’ and ‘Riordan & Horgan’ share the listed address of 523 Octavia St, SF . 94102

This isn’t some tall skyscraper with lots of professional suites; according to Zwillow it is a two story house.

Weinberg:

1. http://www.lawyers.com/weinberg&wilder/jsp2165405.jsp

2. http://www.statelawyers.com/Lawyer/Profile.cfm/AttorneyID:247336

Riordan:

1. http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/lawyer/Dennis-P-Riordan/8fea28c1-3104-4704-bb67-fb0a84664ff9.html

2. http://www.law.nyu.edu/alumni/almo/pastalmos/20052006almos/dennisriordanapril/index.htm


There’s no doubt both Weinberg and Riordan are heavy hitters.

[Themis]

hi all,

this is OT but today, at the trial i am watching in woodland, ca. during jury deliberations, I went into another courtroom and was thrilled to see who the defense lawyer was. It was Robert Blaiser, yes, from the OJ trials. WOW....like he is sooo much the defense lawyer. tomorrow he is giving the closing for the rape trial he is defending so i am going to watch it. i may be pro-prosecution but it is always a treat to watch one of the best...even if he is on the wrong side
m
Lucky you, Kipswife! I hope you will return here and post your impressions of attorney Robert Blaiser since he has been the subject of recents postings and his involvement in Spector Trial #1.

Did you watch Spector Trial #1?
Did you see Bruce Cutler's opening statement?
Did you happen to see Cutler's one and only cross examination of a witness, Dianne Ogden, snippet linked below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bOk_TWMQjY

Now that you have see Blaiser how do you compare him to other Spector attorneys: Cutler, Rosen, Linday Kenney Baden, Bruce Brunon, Chris Plourd?

Hoping to hear from you.:smile: [JMO]

[dref99]

T&T has posted an update about today. Sprocket has added a little VOTING contraption at the end of her post. It let's you vote on what you think may have happened today - Why you believe court was "really" cancelled. Just for kicks! Kind of cute IMO.

Sprocket apparently "lucked out". . . she over slept today. So she ended up making a phone call to verify court was still on. She was quite surprised the hear it was cancelled. . . . What a lucky duck.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-no.html

Still thinking of your "luck" my2cents - how very disappointing.

I was rather intrigued that the last witness said she had not seen Pie since the last trial! Yet they were all such good friends? I was quite surprised that she was called again - so could it be that Pie is ill/missing or ? Even Michael Jackson turned up in his PJs - is anyone likely to go and check out what the issues are with PS?

jmo

[dref99]

just speculation..of course..I think Cutler may have drawn him in for his "expertise"...

Cutler became "history"...so goes his consultant?

don't know..just a thought.. and Linda had her husband..and they had the other "experts" who are experts and not lawyers...?


Then.maybe PS wouldn't pay for another attorney? Just as a consultant....to get what he/they needed? hence my feeling that when Cutler blew..so did he..not sure of the timing..but if it's close, I'd say that is why or maybe why?

jmo

J

When PS decided to fire Shapiro, he really should have done a little more checking on the alternates available - I wonder if some of those experts Shapiro hired were giving opinions of the lawyers to chose? Whatever, it seems there were some good defense lawyers much closer to home - could have saved on hotel bills.

jmo

[Jay]

aha...well..good question...they THINK they can. but they can not unless as you said "articulable reason"..with a passenger..there has to be "probable cause" or some such thing - I know you said "articulable reason" and maybe it's that lesser of a reasoning, but I think it is probable cause..or under the circumstances, sort of articulable reason


Surely a lesser standard than probable cause. A reasonable suspicion they may be armed or a safety threat, etc. Not necessary a "totality of the circumstances" test. I would say the same standard, per se, as a Terry frisk for weapons.

A "reasonable suspicion" a traffic law, or any law, may be/has been violated, is enough to conduct an investigatory stop (Terry stop) of a motorist also, probable cause is not necessary.


I used to "ride" with the Sheriffs out here...the first time I did..they pulled over a car...2 felons and an accomplice in it...in Malibu area...the accomplice was the driver...his license was "expired"..but it came up on the search that he was on "probation"..then found out the other two in the car - passengers - from their ID were "wanted". They certainly had probable cause after checking out the driver...the lack of registration on the license plate, etc. So..I can't answer you directly, but I do believe it is the same reasoning as "reasonable search and seizure"...not sure...I'll have to look it up!



If you are talking about randomly running a license plate without any individualized suspicion, this is NOT a search under the 4th AM.

I am having trouble with a link that will stick, but in:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ISMAEL DIAZ-CASTANEDA, No. 06-30047
Defendant-Appellant.

Filed July 18, 2007:


...The 9th Circuit, in a case of first impression, ruled, as other US sister Circuits have, that such a running of a LP without any reason in Constitutional.

This was an Oregon case, although, as I am sure you know, CA is in the 9th Circuit also, but I am sure it was permitted in CA under thier state constitution long before Diaz was decided on a federal level.

This is a valuable tool to see if the driver has any warrants, etc. After the Class decision, cited in Diaz, 475 U.S. 106, courts around the US began to expand it to include the random running of LP's.

From the body of the opinion:


However, every circuit that has considered the issue in a precedential opinion has held that license plate checks do not count as searches under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Ellison, 462 F.3d 557, 561 (6th Cir.2006); Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521,529 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Walraven, 892 F.2d 972,
974 (10th Cir. 1989); cf. United States v. Sparks, 37 Fed.
Appx. 826, 829 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished);

If it is NOT a search, then it can not be argued as unreasonable, as the USSC has ruled before, "The touchstone of the 4th Amendment is reasonableness".

Per your example, say a plate was run and the driver had a warrant, unless CA's constitution forbids asking a passenger in the car for ID without any individualized suspicion, it is an important police tool.

As cited in Diaz, the recent Brendlin case permits a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped to also challenge the Constitutionality of it.

Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-8120.ZS.html

[Jay]

Oh, the citation for Diaz is:


494 F.3d 1146

[penguin01]

Does the information change anyone's mind about anything?

[Dave]

Starsailor's James Walsh on the band's ups and downs and working with Phil Spector

"He became increasingly difficult to work with, and would go into moods where he wouldn’t speak to anyone."

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-arts/2009/03/03/starsailor-s-james-walsh-on-the-band-s-ups-and-downs-and-working-with-phil-spector-92534-23047647/

[Dave]

There are situations where people are fined for delaying court proceedings. While it's not completely relevant to this case, here's an example:

$7,500 FINE AGAINST COLEMAN

"The court Monday fined the Coleman team $7,500 to make up for three days of delay Howell's on-again, off-again testimony caused. The judges said they were willing to go further. "In the event this sanction fails to deter future conduct on the part of (Coleman's counsel), the court will not hesitate to impose harsher sanctions, up to and including dismissal," they wrote. The judges also said they would be willing to consider making Coleman pay for three days of Franken's attorneys fees at the end of the trial even if Coleman wins his case."

Source: http://www.twincities.com/ci_11822466?source=most_viewed

[hiitsme]

court is dark again today

Maybe they're giving JHR time to get out of town. After that testiphony about her BFF, Lana, and then almost losing it on cross, I don't think the defense was very proud of her. LOL. They must also be a bit apprehensive about what the other BFF, Pie, will sing, especially on cross. Can't wait for that one! MOO

[Anakerie]

court is dark again today
I wonder if we'll ever hear what the reason for the sudden "medical procedure" is...

I hope My 2 Cents didn't go to the courthouse today!

[hiitsme]

Maybe JHR is having a medical procedure... or is going to Oz... for a heart.

Interestingly, according to the survey on T&T, not too many believe that this delay is due to any type of medical procedure.

[penguin01]

Maybe they are sobering up PP so she can take the stand.
LOL - that could be considered a "medical" reason.

[kennedy06]

Starsailor's James Walsh on the band's ups and downs and working with Phil Spector

"He became increasingly difficult to work with, and would go into moods where he wouldn’t speak to anyone."

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-life-features/liverpool-arts/2009/03/03/starsailor-s-james-walsh-on-the-band-s-ups-and-downs-and-working-with-phil-spector-92534-23047647/

Thanks Dave for the link. Why not speak to the guys at times? Of course why was I suprised to read that. He doesn't speak at times from what we have learned, then to others we read he doesn't want them to leave. To others he can be kind, but then he seems to quite the opposite with them at times . I think he would be a hard man to be around 24/7. Maybe those that are around him or have been can tell the mood of the day or hour, because that would be one heck of a guessing game to play. I would dare to say that Lana most likely experienced more than one of his moods that night.
JMO only

[oodi1]

Thanks Dave for the link. Why not speak to the guys at times? Of course why was I suprised to read that. He doesn't speak at times from what we have learned, then to others we read he doesn't want them to leave. To others he can be kind, but then he seems to quite with them at times . I think he would be a hard man to be around 24/7. Maybe those that are around him or have been can tell the mood of the day or hour, because that would be one heck of a guessing game to play. I would dare to say that Lana most likely experienced more than one of his moods that night.
JMO only

It seems to indicate some mood swings. You are probably right that Lana encountered multiple moods.

[oodi1]

Based on an update on Joe Friday's blog, it appears the "procedure" was for the nodules. I wonder why this would need to be done on an "emergency" basis. :confused:

[Anakerie]

Based on an update on Joe Friday's blog, it appears the "procedure" was for the nodules. I wonder why this would need to be done on an "emergency" basis. :confused:
Odd, isn't it? :confused:

[Spectorfan8]

Based on an update on Joe Friday's blog, it appears the "procedure" was for the nodules. I wonder why this would need to be done on an "emergency" basis. :confused:

Can you post a link to Joe Friday's Blog? Or you can pm me. Thanks ahead of time.

SF8

[oodi1]

Can you post a link to Joe Friday's Blog? Or you can pm me. Thanks ahead of time.

SF8


Here it is: http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

[Spectorfan8]

Here it is: http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

[Spectorfan8]

I found this about the nodules. I don't know, it may be helpful.

SF8




Treatment of Vocal Cord Nodules And Polyps

Treatment requires modification of voice habits, and referral to a speech therapist may be indicated. Resting the vocal cords by allowing little or no speaking for several weeks may permit the nodules to shrink. Children occasionally have screamer's voice nodules and these can be treated by voice therapy alone.

Inhaled steroid spray may be helpful. Sometimes biopsy and surgical removal are necessary. They can be removed during the course of a special examination (a laryngoscopy) in which a metal tube with a light on the end is passed through the mouth and into the throat. A small, sharp, cup-shaped punch is threaded through the tube and used to clip off the polyps. Biopsy of the polyp may be performed in order to be certain that there is no cancer. Removal of a polyp should be followed by voice therapy to correct the underlying cause.

[oodi1]

Here's a link that gives some info:

http://www.entnet.org/HealthInformation/nodPolypCysts.cfm

[Anakerie]

I think Julie Andrews had this type of surgery and it was botched... she was never able to sing professionally again.

I know, you want a link...

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/langer-andrews.html
I suppose you could say that Phil is lucky in that he doesn't depend on his voice to earn a living?

[Anakerie]

well that too. Lucky he has not been in prison the last six years for murdering LC also. JMHO. You and I would probably have been locked away though.
Very lucky that Shapiro was able to get him out on bail.. And lucky that the bail hasn't be withdrawn after all these years.

I'm quite sure that any of us on this message board would have been in prison a long time ago simply because we don't have millions to throw at lawyers.

[Spectorfan8]

Given your insatiable lust for conviction and along with your bias against the defendant I would think you would be happy that he is having the surgery now. The defendant has to be able to comunicate with his counsel. Denying him that right would be fertile grounds for an appeal if latter convicted. If comunication between a defendant and his lawyer is hindered and the problem can be corrected by a surgical procedure;e.g., partial post by"03-03-2009 09:55 PM
Spectorfan8 I found this about the nodules. I don't know, it may be helpful.

SF8...Removal of a polyp should be followed by voice therapy to correct the underlying cause." then it should be done now. I doubt that the state would want to give the defense on appeal another issue to raise along with the SO many that already exist. IMO there is nothing ODD about having the procedure done now. Just as important there are future potential health issues for the defendant.:thumbup:

I didn't post the link that I was reading because it contained information about other types of nodules.
Thank you and everyone else for the info. :wink:

[dref99]

Based on an update on Joe Friday's blog, it appears the "procedure" was for the nodules. I wonder why this would need to be done on an "emergency" basis. :confused:

If it was the throat issue as mentioned last December, for which he received a Monday absent from court - I would agree with you. He has had ample time to ask for a further absense, rather than turn it into a last minute event. From the very little we know, perhaps we are making assumptions that this was the issue - perhaps it is something very different

I find it hard to believe his absence is for other than medical reasons - but then again, I find it impossible to believe his suicide defense. The only time I have read of him speaking in court was to state he has been taking pictures in the courtroom (which is a NO NO) for the past 2 years! so I'm not sure I should believe anything that he purports to say, or have reported that he said.

Reminds me of LKB disappearing for 3 weeks so her husband could aha outside of her presence. Trouble is, the defendant in these proceedings has to be present - and if Weinberg is to contimue with his other trial - he needs to get this one finished! So I would think the absense is all due to PS himself - emergency or no.

jmo

[GPSpector]

Are you able to locate it and post it? I know some "similar" laws "on the books" around the country have been ruled unconstitutional. The legislature has not removed them though.

For instance, this law is still "on the books" in MA, but has been ruled UNconstitutional by it's High Court:


TITLE XIV. PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS

CHAPTER 85. REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS RELATIVE TO WAYS AND BRIDGES

Duty of driver at night to give name to officer on request

Section 16. Every person shall while driving or in charge of or occupying a vehicle during the period from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise, when requested by a police officer, give his true name and address.

Sorry, I have looked on the DMV website (Dept. of Revenue here) and I could not find the specific law and doing a web search was not much help since for the past few years, this State has been dealing with several issues regarding Licences & ID's. All I could find were discussions on House Bills but not actual reference.

Either way, as long as it is required here to have either State ID or a Licence, I am not about challenge the State on a Constitution issue regarding either when it's just easier to not leave home without ID of some sort.

I personally have had issues with the Police Dept. here when I was a victim of an assault. So no, I will not try to assume they know the law or even care.

Believe it or not: A Detective drop the assault charges and refused to arrest the guy that broke my nose and teeth. He even refused to see an E-Mail from the only witness stating she was there and saw it happen. His reason for dropping the charges, because I refused to take a Lie Detector test (on the advice of a lawyer I had at the time). :angry:

[lane99]

...A Detective drop the assault charges and refused to arrest the guy that broke my nose and teeth...because I refused to take a Lie Detector test... :angry:

Gee, that's disheartening. Knowing that polygraphs (I assume this is the test you refer to) are bogus, I've often wondered what would be the best thing to do if I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to take one: Should I agree, and just hope the "test" goes my way (satisfying the cops) or refuse the test because polygraphs are phoney as a three dollar bill (but have the "true-believer" cops thinking I'm just making an excuse to avoid coming clean).

What happened to you is exactly what I have been afraid might happen in the case where a truthful and innocent person declines to submit to a polygraph. What a pity.

[Jay]

Believe it or not: A Detective drop the assault charges and refused to arrest the guy that broke my nose and teeth. He even refused to see an E-Mail from the only witness stating she was there and saw it happen. His reason for dropping the charges, because I refused to take a Lie Detector test (on the advice of a lawyer I had at the time). :angry:


Sorry to hear that. The system at times STINKS. I hope the emotional healing has not taken long. Sometimes this is worse than any medical scars.

Take care,

Jay

[CourtsideVue]

1) Are you following the trial through Sprocket's blog or are you getting it somewhere else?

2) When is this trial expected to wrap up?

3) Do we know if there are any plans to cover the closing arguments and/or the verdict either online or on tv?

Thanks in advance for your time. :thumbsup:

[Anakerie]

1) Are you following the trial through Sprocket's blog or are you getting it somewhere else?

2) When is this trial expected to wrap up?

3) Do we know if there are any plans to cover the closing arguments and/or the verdict either online or on tv?

Thanks in advance for your time. :thumbsup:
Hi Courtside... Here are my answers (can't answer for anyone else..)

1) I read Sprocket's blog as well as Joe Friday's blog.. Plus, occasionally (VERY occasionally!) there is an article in one of the LA papers about the trial... It sucks, because I'd love to be watching the trial again...

2) From what I understand, testimony will probably last another 2 or 3 weeks (barring more "emergency medical procedures" for the defendent.).

3) Early on, one of the LA TV stations (KTLA) said that they would cover the closing arguments but I've seen nothing about it since then..

[GPSpector]

Gee, that's disheartening. Knowing that polygraphs (I assume this is the test you refer to) are bogus, I've often wondered what would be the best thing to do if I found myself in a situation where I was being asked to take one: Should I agree, and just hope the "test" goes my way (satisfying the cops) or refuse the test because polygraphs are phoney as a three dollar bill (but have the "true-believer" cops thinking I'm just making an excuse to avoid coming clean).

What happened to you is exactly what I have been afraid might happen in the case where a truthful and innocent person declines to submit to a polygraph. What a pity.

What really stinks is that the only reason I even had a lawyer at the time was because I was living in the Trailer where the incident happened to help my friend take care of the place and pay her rent. The witness claimed the guy was her fiancee and that they were not there when I was hurt (despite her E-Mail to me admitting she was).

To protect her "Fiancee" from getting arrested, she put a Restraining Order against me so that I could not tell the police when he was hiding out in the trailer and get picked up.

When we went to Court for the Restraining Order (the reason I had the Lawyer), the Judge asked her why she thought I was dangerous. She actually told the Judge " Do you know who his father is? He's up on Murder charges in California". Then she goes and tells the Judge my fathers name.

Basically the Judge laughed her out of Court and I won the case but because I declined to take the Test, the Detective dropped the charges. By the way, I went to an agency to get help with finding a Lawyer and was able to find 1 for $500, just to find, after the case and after the Lawyer found out who my father was, the $500 contract turned out to be $1,500 and I only found out after I thought I paid him off. I ended up paying him $800 before I proved my case to the B.A.R. and they stopped the billing and the agency was shocked at what that Lawyer did since they never would have sent me to a Lawyer that would charge that much to someone on low income.

I really can't wait for this trial to end.:rolleyes:

[GPSpector]

Sorry to hear that. The system at times STINKS. I hope the emotional healing has not taken long. Sometimes this is worse than any medical scars.

Take care,

Jay

No medical scars because I was never able to fix the nose or my teeth.

What really hurt was that about 1 year prior, I had spent a couple Thousand Dollars on dental work, just to have it all undone with 1 hit.

Not only did I have the pain of the nose and the teeth, when I fell back, there was a very nice small patch of cactus like plants behind me.

I even asked the Dr if he could remove the hair like needles from my lower backside and he refused and suggested Duct Tape.

Yea, to top it off, the Detective actually stated that he thought I did all that to myself. Ya right. That's what I do for kicks on my days off. Every time I talked to that guy, it seemed he always wanted to pick a fight with me and no one in the Dept would listen to include the Chief of Police when I tried to complain.

[GPSpector]

How did he treat his mother?

If you heard the 5 PBA's, you would have a good idea. I doubt that he ever touched his Mother but the words were just as bad over the phone while using speakerphone. :sad:

[kennedy06]

You are certainly entitled to your subjective evaluation of PS. A bit broad brushed IMO. Uless of course you have conducted personal interviews that you haven't told about. How could you possibly know such a thing as ..."he sits back in the dark recesses of his mind and laughs."... Perhaps you are a trained medical person. I doubt it, but even if you are,any analysis would be limited without the benefit of personal interviews. I sincerly don't know and it is JMO, but perhaps a more accurate interpretation would be that you just don't like PS or have a problem with people that have reached financial success. Not uncommon in our society where we seem to love to build people up and tear them down later. Admittedly with spoon feeding provided by the media, PS's hubris does not appear likeable and probably is not to most people. Personally I prefer not to dabble in lunch counter, coffee shop or quilting bee psychology. But to each his own IMO. BTW any info on who asked the trigger pull question. The answer to that ? may be telling.:thumbup:


.....:confused:...

Well if you don't like lunch counter psychology I guess there is alway the slight of hand in a magic act.

:mad:

[GPSpector]

.....:confused:...

Well if you don't like lunch counter psychology I guess there is alway the slight of hand in a magic act.

:mad:

It's amazing the defense my father gets in and out of Court.

I agree 100% about what Mort_Snerd said about my father. Seems to see my father with opened eyes and described him rather well, sorry to say.


PS: It's a bit hard to reply to those on ignore :thumbsup:

[kennedy06]

I guess we can try to figure PS out, or try to understand him, but no matter what there is one simple fact, you and your brothers actually lived with him in the same home, depended on him. There aren't many that can say that so......its probably strange to be second guessed about his ways/personality. Just a thought nothing more.

[oodi1]

I haven't seen anything referencing the items in her purse. It would be interesting to know if some of the "excessive" amounts of meds the defense has claimed she was taking were in her purse.

[oodi1]

try posting the question in the comment section of sprocket's blog, she might know.


Excellent idea!!!

[Dave]

It's amazing the defense my father gets in and out of Court.



Consider the source. Always consider the source.



It's a bit hard to reply to those on ignore.



Even if it was easy, it would still be a pointless waste of time and energy.

[oodi1]

Here's the link: http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

Sprocket attends court every day, and reports on the day's events. Under her report for the day is a link to "Comments." You can click on that link, and post any comments. Lately, she has been doing a Q & A Friday, since court is dark on Fridays.

[kennedy06]

I had saved this link from the previous PS board here. While we wait for new testimony I thought I would relink to it. I don't quite know what to think of her story about her encounter with PS, and his slathering dogs.
:shrug:

http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com/archives/the_spector_spectacle_exclusive_hollywood_interrup ted_interview_wgunplay_victim.phtml

[kennedy06]

Thank you for that link, Kennedy... I don't remember seeing/reading that one back during PS1...

I posted then thought should I, would it just be old news and deleted it. So I linked to it again. Thanks:smile:

[Anakerie]

I posted then thought should I, would it just be old news and deleted it. So I linked to it again. Thanks:smile:
lol, I thought I was losing it or that the board was glitching, so I deleted my post... hehe...

Anyway, thank you again for the link.. It was interesting to read. I sure wish we could get some NEW stuff, but then I guess Phil is enough of a has-been now that no one can find anything new to write about him. It's all been said, I guess.

[sdg380]

Kennedy, thanks for the link. From the attached "comments":

"He's the classic bully-coward."

Guess a tiger doesn't changes its stripes, heh? Think of those poor PBA witnesses, with remarkably similar stories, guess they can't all be lying now, can they? And remember, brandishing a loaded handgun and forcing into a woman's mouth is NOT an "accident". Actually, it's exactly what he's on record claiming women deserve, in his own words.

Let's hope he gets his in the here and now, as well as in the hereafter.

JMO

[hiitsme]

Kennedy, thanks for the link. From the attached "comments":

"He's the classic bully-coward."

Guess a tiger doesn't changes its stripes, heh? Think of those poor PBA witnesses, with remarkably similar stories, guess they can't all be lying now, can they? And remember, brandishing a loaded handgun and forcing into a woman's mouth is NOT an "accident". Actually, it's exactly what he's on record claiming women deserve, in his own words.

Let's hope he gets his in the here and now, as well as in the hereafter.

JMO

I agree completely, and often wonder, if these highly paid experts, when considering all of the facts presented in this case would still consider this a suicide if Lana was their daughter.

[oodi1]

sdg.... the PBA witnesses and his rantings of what women deserve make me think the correct charge might be 1st degree..... he has thought about putting a bullet through a woman's head for years. jmho.


I wonder if the "Hate Crime" enhancement could be applied. He definitely seems to have issues with women.

[dref99]

Sad to say it probably will not. The way the Justice System works in California has allowed this trial to be a trial about Ego, money and dirt. Facts and humanity take the back seat. Everyone is dancing to Harvey Phillip Spector's tune while he sits back in the dark recesses of his mind and laughs. It started with the treatment he gave his mother and has continued through to the death of Lana Jean Clarkson with many other casualties along the way. The trial has damaged everyone caught up in its path all the way from Bob Shapiro and Sara Caplan to Doron Weinberg and even Judge Fidler. The only people who escaped the ravages of his grasp are Adriano De Souza, Dr. Pena and Dr. Lynne Herold with their honesty, non-ego assertive testimony.

Just my opinion,

Mortie

A very well analysed opinion, in my opinion. The comment by Dr Lee in the LA times (referenced some pages back) shows the damage he suffered, and such sentiments can probably be repeated by many others involved in the trial.

Judge F has been subject to many many complaints about his actions and rulings (by the defense and their supporters). Allowing Riordan to compose the special Jury instruction seems to have been where he and AJ got waylaid - after such a long trial, yet it has had many reprecussions.

I find it interesting that some of the juror questions - in both trials - ask about opinions on justice in California - "ego, money and dirt" thoughts would probably help one avoid jury service for this trial.

jmo

[JONOTWO]

Searching- to make it an accident take a probable scenaio like this: PS has the cocked gun in his hand, but not in Lana's mouth, for if it were already there, no accident! She grabs at the gun, jams in in her mouth breaking teeth, and causes PS to ''accidentaly'' fire it.Obviously, he has to be close enough for her to reach out while sitting and grab his hands, making the argument he was not close look foolish.

I doubt anyone, even you, would think she would jam it in her mouth when the natural reaction would be to push it away.
I, for one, wait with every expectation you will be able to conjure up
an alternative that fits the ''grab and bang'' scenario necessary to
result in the accident defense.

[dref99]

I don't usually comment on searching's remarks - and never quote them - but He/She (I will assume He) keeps stating it is/maybe/could be an accident. He forgets that the defense is suicide. For 6 long years (excluding the first 6-8 hours after the death of Lana) Phil Sector has claimed inside and outside of the courtroom that Lana committed suicide. There has been no mention of accident.

There has never been a case of an intra oral gun shot death by accident - they are suicide or murder. If there had been a case of accident, one of those many, highly paid experts or lawyers, would have found it.

How can you put a gun in your own mouth, pull the trigger and have it defined as other than suicide.

How can you put a gun in another person's mouth, pull the trigger and have it defined as an accident?

The only thing that is doubtful in this case relates to intent. Many people accept (including the prosecution) that Phil Spector did not intend to murder Lana - but if you pick up a gun, force it into someone's mouth - it does not go off by divine intervention. It is a murder about to happen.

Hopefully Trial 1 found the only Juror in the LA jury pool who cannot understand these basic facts.

jmo

[dref99]

Searching- to make it an accident take a probable scenaio like this: PS has the cocked gun in his hand, but not in Lana's mouth, for if it were already there, no accident! She grabs at the gun, jams in in her mouth breaking teeth, and causes PS to ''accidentaly'' fire it.Obviously, he has to be close enough for her to reach out while sitting and grab his hands, making the argument he was not close look foolish.

I doubt anyone, even you, would think she would jam it in her mouth when the natural reaction would be to push it away.
I, for one, wait with every expectation you will be able to conjure up
an alternative that fits the ''grab and bang'' scenario necessary to
result in the accident defense.

I didn't see your post before I posted - it is so hard to imagine Lana doing anything except attempting to get out of range of the gun and as you say - trying to push it away.

And the LA law on murder could well be debated - even by pointing the gun at Lana a form of murder took place - there is some debate as to whether that should be murder II or manslaughter - but certainly not an accident.

jmo

[Jayne]

I wonder if the "Hate Crime" enhancement could be applied. He definitely seems to have issues with women.

California Penal Code
PENAL CODE SECTION 422.55-422.57


422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other
state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly
requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:
(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) "Hate crime" includes, but is not limited to, a violation of
Section 422.6.


422.56. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall
apply:
(a) "Association with a person or group with these actual or
perceived characteristics" includes advocacy for, identification
with, or being on the ground owned or rented by, or adjacent to, any
of the following: a community center, educational facility, family,
individual, office, meeting hall, place of worship, private
institution, public agency, library, or other entity, group, or
person that has, or is identified with people who have, one or more
of those characteristics listed in the definition of "hate crime"
under paragraphs 1 to 6, inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section
422.55.
(b) "Disability" includes mental disability and physical
disability as defined in Section 12926 of the Government Code.
(c) "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity
and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.
(d) "In whole or in part because of" means that the bias
motivation must be a cause in fact of the offense, whether or not
other causes also exist. When multiple concurrent motives exist, the
prohibited bias must be a substantial factor in bringing about the
particular result. There is no requirement that the bias be a main
factor, or that the crime would not have been committed but for the
actual or perceived characteristic. This subdivision does not
constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law under In
re M.S.(1995) 10 Cal. 4th 698 and People v. Superior Court (Aishman)
(1995) 10 Cal. 4th 735.
(e) "Nationality" includes citizenship, country of origin, and
national origin.
(f) "Race or ethnicity" includes ancestry, color, and ethnic
background.
(g) "Religion" includes all aspects of religious belief,
observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism.
(h) "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or
bisexuality.
(i) "Victim" includes, but is not limited to, a community center,
educational facility, entity, family, group, individual, office,
meeting hall, person, place of worship, private institution, public
agency, library, or other victim or intended victim of the offense.




422.57. For purposes this code, unless an explicit provision of law
or the context clearly requires a different meaning, "gender" has
the same meaning as in Section 422.56.

-----

here's a link to a search under the year 2003

http://www.ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/hatecrimes/hc03/appn.pdf

---

It would be interesting, wouldn't it? But then another "burden of proof" and involving a lot more evidence. I think the Prosecution has taken on enough..I don't mean that they can't prove it...but these hate crimes, as I usually have seen, are more "obvious"..the swastikas, hate words sprayed on the victim's home, writings on the wall (no pun intended) that show a malicious "indifference" (too kind a word) to the particular characteristic..at a crime scene.

I understand the thought and the possibility, and I do wonder if he'd have been in this situation with his various "music "people""..or he figured..he was better off with them alive and not taunted..more than that bullet shot into the ceiling..as they would bring him money? Somehow, I think PS must have had a "trigger point" (again no pun)..where the "lock/clamp" was put on intentionally so as to not to go so far - that is, he must have still been In Control? (I don't mean on the actual gun, although that is a possibility...see Mort's posts above...but a mental/emotional/survival in the industry type of "clamp"...don't bite the hand that feeds you, sort of thing?

I have no idea..what was in his mind (just a supposition) and I don't know ...well..I do guess that the DA didn't feel that the "hate crime" enhancement would be all that helpful - if it could even be used - I'm sort of responding with links and statutes without having totally deciphered them, but at first glance I am just giving a "maybe IMO"...it certainly would be if it were a highly "slam dunk" case..as many of them are...the evidence is right there on the face of the crime scene in many cases.

I think the issue here..is a man "allegedly" shot a woman...that doesn't make it a "hate crime" without evidence..that this man has a history (OK..but just listen me out)..of Proof/Evidence/On The Scene/Complaints/Prior Convictions, etc. of such "behaviour".

Not that I agree..but it seems this crime is being looked at like a M2..yes, of course...it wasn't taken as a "crime of passion" although it could be, IMO..it was between a human and a human...and then add on that one was a woman...what it does, I believe, is raises it to PS's MO, prior behaviour (hence, "bad acts")..but not necessarily a "hate crime".

jmo

J

(sorry..promise to be "short" the rest of the evening...and more)

[oodi1]

Jayne,

Thanks you. While he does seem to have particular issues with women, I think Why? is more accurate when he says that PS is an equal opportunity hater.

And please don't apologize for being long. I appreciate the time you took to explain it to a layperson like myself.

[Jayne]

was there a hate crime law in 2003?

is a crime against the opposite sex a hate crime? i think ps might be an equal opportunity 'hater'.


yes it is..but see my link "above or below"..the one from the Penal Code..and then a link to 2003. But just because a male shoots a female or vice versa..does not automatically make it a "hate crime". Imagine that? Then..in my little idiotic reality..anyone who shoots anyone else (if it weren't an accident or in self defense) is commiting a "hate crime"..ah..but that isn't on the books other than murder or manslaughter..in their varying forms...then again...even there...that "intent" might be missing (or the malice implied??)?

These gang murders that happen out here..I've been following them for a near year..most men, kill men...well, I'm not keeping a TAB..but I keep up weekly. Most "crime of passion" killings..are mixed..killing the wife/girlfriend..or the "illicit lover" or both..that doesn't fit "hate crime" although there's an awful lot of "hate" in there. What a Hate Crime is..IMO and from my research and background..is a crime committed by a person who "despises" a particular characteristic...may go for years doing nothing..but then Kills. Or maims...or damages their property. Gang against Gang...well sure..it could certainly be "hate crime"..the Asian Gang hates the Hispanic Gang or the Black (you know what I mean) Gang..or the White (you know what I mean) Gang..that is a HATE crime..on top of being a gang crime (as if that makes sense, too?).

Now..this NUT running about California killing the prostitutes...I'd certainly say that comes under this.."hate crime"..it's women...it's "religion" (I hear he drops their bodies close to a church..as if to send them to H or H?)..

jmo

J

[SHORTSIRKT]

To answer your questions Courtsidevue,

I am following the trial through Sprockets Blog.

Trial is supposed to last 2 or 3 more weeks.

I hope we see at least closing arguements and a verdict on TV or online

[SHORTSIRKT]

I also believe that Phil Spector is responsible for Lana Clarkson 's death.He brought the gun to the "party". And the defense witnesses up to this point imo have lost all credibility. The " expert" witnesses can not be trusted or believed. They are like a traveling circus that go from big event to big event. Shame on them all

[oodi1]

I also believe that Phil Spector is responsible for Lana Clarkson 's death.He brought the gun to the "party". And the defense witnesses up to this point imo have lost all credibility. The " expert" witnesses can not be trusted or believed. They are like a traveling circus that go from big event to big event. Shame on them all

I agree! Pulling a gun is no accident. It is reasonable to assume that if someone pulls a gun, they expect to use it. It doesn't matter who/what/when/where/why/how that caused the gun to fire, or if it was even fired at all.

[dref99]

Jayne... appreciate the info on hate crime. no need to apologize

Many thanks from me also Jayne - interesting to see "gender" in the list re "hate" crimes, but I don't really see how that law fits PS. He was known to wave guns at both sexes - the fact that only women are mentioned in the trial relates (I think - you can probably confirm or deny) to the admissability of prior acts & why these episodes were allowed into the trial, rather than to any sexual bias in whom he threatened with a gun in earlier times.

jmo

[Curlyjo]

Many thanks from me also Jayne - interesting to see "gender" in the list re "hate" crimes, but I don't really see how that law fits PS. He was known to wave guns at both sexes - the fact that only women are mentioned in the trial relates (I think - you can probably confirm or deny) to the admissability of prior acts & why these episodes were allowed into the trial, rather than to any sexual bias in whom he threatened with a gun in earlier times.

jmo

This is true...I am trying to remember the times PS pulled out guns on men...can anyone help?

[My 2 Cents]

COURT: WED. 3/4/09

SORRY EVERYONE . . . No P.I.E.

Hey, there was court today and I attended. The witnesses were:
Jennifer Hayes-Riedl (finished up)
Dr Richard Seiden (psychologist) He is the "suicidologist"

Let me just say this . . .
In a "nutshell", court was a bit boring I thought. Only because the COMBO of Weinberg handling the DIRECT of Dr Seiden was a tad "DRY".

However, the morning with JENNIFER HAYES-RIEDL made attending in the rain, ALL WORTH it, IMO. Oh, I would have enjoyed seeing Thursday's testimony. I heard she was much more "toned down" today - - - OMG. SERIOUSLY? ????

HOW THE DEFENSE COULD EVER IMAGINE THAT, "Hey, let's call Jennifer Hayes-Riedl to the stand to help our case" . . . needs to have their head examined OR their license revoked. I am NOT exaggerating.
I don't get it. I can not understand how ANYONE on the defense team would think this person could help their case in any way, shape or fashion. . . . anyway, that was my view of it. AND I saw Hayes on the less "dramatic" day apparently.

It was COMICAL . . . . I know, I know - it's a murder trial, but Hayes was a HOOT! I wanted to LAUGH out loud at her antics a few times. HECK - - I could have "snorted" it was so crazy. She is entertaining.

After the morning break - Judge Fidler ADMONISHED THE "GALLERY". He was scolding the public because BOTH SIDES he said had made so many outwardly obvious facial expressions. He said after Thursday's testimony with JHR, the jury had commented to the court about it. WELL I CAN SEE WHY - - - IT IS HARD TO HOLD A STRAIGHT FACE WITH THAT WOMAN UP THAT.

These are a few words I would use to describe this witness:
NO.1 . . . FLIPPANT
also,
ARGUMENTATIVE
THE "B" WORD
DINGY
SNOTTY
AIRHEAD
and . . . a Nice Dresser.

RE: PHIL's condition:
Apparently they are referring to the 2 day court delay as being due to an "Oral Procedure"

So it could be the throat "nodule" thing - OR - not.
My reason's for thinking it is NOT:

Weinberg said he thought he might be able to finish the defense case THIS WEEK. (yup!) . . . except for 1 witness that can't get here til next Thursday (more about that later). But to do that they were going to hold court on FRIDAY. However, they later changed that because PHIL - thinking court is NEVER held on a FRIDAY, schedule a "follow-up" appointment for FRIDAY. But then outside of court, a friend came out and told PHIL that they needed him back inside they had a question about his "DENTAL APPOINTMENT". "dental appointment" - I don't think a dentist would touch the throat. Don't know, and frankly I don't really care if Phil has a dental problem, throat nodule problem, or stubbed toe. BUT I DID FIND IT ANNOYING THAT HE NOW HAS A "PLASTIC HANDICAPPED PARKING" TAG HANGING FROM HIS CAR'S REARVIEW MIRROR. Seriously, he does! Whether throat procedure OR wisdom tooth pulled or capped tooth came loose - - - how does that affect your walking Spector?

[dref99]

My2Cents

Your reports are NEVER boring - you so obviously pick up on what is happening in court - perhaps when thinking about it later, you find it was not so boring as you initially thought!

Thank you so much

And re the parking sticker - no doubt we are back to the comment that Life in LA is different for the rich as opposed to the poor - or perhaps PS has a friendly doctor, as I have difficulty understanding how a throat or tooth ailment affects one's mobility.

jmo

[dref99]

This is true...I am trying to remember the times PS pulled out guns on men...can anyone help?

The thread linked above by Kennedy06 gives Leonard Cohen in the comments. I have also heard mention of John Lennon & a group who were sitting in a restaurant (I think after the death of Lana?) but at this stage I have no links for these

jmo

Edit: There is a 1975 incident referenced here
http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/angsarytc3jnnqmuwn2wl4eo/1176750636.pdf (a reasonable size pdf file) when the prosecution tried to get prior arrests as evidence.

[oodi1]

The thread linked above by Kennedy06 gives Leonard Cohen in the comments. I have also heard mention of John Lennon & a group who were sitting in a restaurant (I think after the death of Lana?) but at this stage I have no links for these

jmo

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that during the CourtTV coverage of PS1 that it was mentioned by one of the reporters that PS had pulled a gun on the Righteous Brothers.

[Jayne]

Many thanks from me also Jayne - interesting to see "gender" in the list re "hate" crimes, but I don't really see how that law fits PS. He was known to wave guns at both sexes - the fact that only women are mentioned in the trial relates (I think - you can probably confirm or deny) to the admissability of prior acts & why these episodes were allowed into the trial, rather than to any sexual bias in whom he threatened with a gun in earlier times.

jmo

That's part of what I was trying to convey. Indeed..perhaps the majority of "gender" he was "abhorrent" towards, etc. were women, but as "Why" said..he's an equal opportunity...

That I would think is partly why the prosecution didn't even think of adding this...it wasn't about gender so much as it was about "rage"...and an "accident waiting to happen" regardless of sexual gender.

But it would be an interesting concept...but for the fact(s)..

I mean..if PS only EVER pulled guns on women..and NEVER on men...there might be more weight to it.

Yet, oddly enough..all the PBA's are women..but it goes with the evidence and crime. I..not expert..by any means...if possible (but I'm sure the court would disallow it nonetheless) bring in every gun slewing act he had against anyone..be it in the ceiling..pointing it outside his car or at Starbucks employees (OK..it was after the fact...never mind)..etc. But that wasn't/isn't their mode here..it's what he did that night..and did he do it before..and is it a "pattern" of behaviour.

jmo

J

jmo

J

[Jayne]

COURT: WED. 3/4/09

SORRY EVERYONE . . . No P.I.E.

Hey, there was court today and I attended. The witnesses were:
Jennifer Hayes-Riedl (finished up)
Dr Richard Seiden (psychologist) He is the "suicidologist"

Let me just say this . . .
In a "nutshell", court was a bit boring I thought. Only because the COMBO of Weinberg handling the DIRECT of Dr Seiden was a tad "DRY".

However, the morning with JENNIFER HAYES-RIEDL made attending in the rain, ALL WORTH it, IMO. Oh, I would have enjoyed seeing Thursday's testimony. I heard she was much more "toned down" today - - - OMG. SERIOUSLY? ????

HOW THE DEFENSE COULD EVER IMAGINE THAT, "Hey, let's call Jennifer Hayes-Riedl to the stand to help our case" . . . needs to have their head examined OR their license revoked. I am NOT exaggerating.
I don't get it. I can not understand how ANYONE on the defense team would think this person could help their case in any way, shape or fashion. . . . anyway, that was my view of it. AND I saw Hayes on the less "dramatic" day apparently.

It was COMICAL . . . . I know, I know - it's a murder trial, but Hayes was a HOOT! I wanted to LAUGH out loud at her antics a few times. HECK - - I could have "snorted" it was so crazy. She is entertaining.

After the morning break - Judge Fidler ADMONISHED THE "GALLERY". He was scolding the public because BOTH SIDES he said had made so many outwardly obvious facial expressions. He said after Thursday's testimony with JHR, the jury had commented to the court about it. WELL I CAN SEE WHY - - - IT IS HARD TO HOLD A STRAIGHT FACE WITH THAT WOMAN UP THAT.

These are a few words I would use to describe this witness:
NO.1 . . . FLIPPANT
also,
ARGUMENTATIVE
THE "B" WORD
DINGY
SNOTTY
AIRHEAD
and . . . a Nice Dresser.

RE: PHIL's condition:
Apparently they are referring to the 2 day court delay as being due to an "Oral Procedure"

So it could be the throat "nodule" thing - OR - not.
My reason's for thinking it is NOT:

Weinberg said he thought he might be able to finish the defense case THIS WEEK. (yup!) . . . except for 1 witness that can't get here til next Thursday (more about that later). But to do that they were going to hold court on FRIDAY. However, they later changed that because PHIL - thinking court is NEVER held on a FRIDAY, schedule a "follow-up" appointment for FRIDAY. But then outside of court, a friend came out and told PHIL that they needed him back inside they had a question about his "DENTAL APPOINTMENT". "dental appointment" - I don't think a dentist would touch the throat. Don't know, and frankly I don't really care if Phil has a dental problem, throat nodule problem, or stubbed toe. BUT I DID FIND IT ANNOYING THAT HE NOW HAS A "PLASTIC HANDICAPPED PARKING" TAG HANGING FROM HIS CAR'S REARVIEW MIRROR. Seriously, he does! Whether throat procedure OR wisdom tooth pulled or capped tooth came loose - - - how does that affect your walking Spector?


OMG..HOW I wish I could have been there..alongside you..

I'm in such a "foul mood" with things "up here"..that you'd have had to slap me silly..from wanting to cat claw that woman!

Gosh..people just seem to forget who they are..or who they claimed they were?

Dental problem? Now, I'm really confused? A root canal? and a Handicapped parking tag? PLEEEASE..I've had two hip operations..and I was only given a tag for a few months, if that..for either one..and frankly, I rarely even used them..was better to "walk it off" than be babied. NOT that I'm saying anything against anyone who really needs them..god bless them. (my mom did...and when we left it home (by accident)..I got out..talked to the people and got her in on the ramp without anybody else's "extra help" more or less). Geesh...I wonder...maybe he needed it...but was it all "show"? Court is another thing, of course.

Ahhh...maybe he scheduled a dental appointment for Friday (none of this was dental?) because he thought Friday was "off"? I'm sure a dental appointment can wait..unless it's an "emergency"?

Wonder what happened..will court be dark on Friday, too? Too bad.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

RE: Jennifer Hayed Riedl -
When Truc was doing the CROSS on Jennifer, this is LITERALLY how JHR would answer:

"Ok, just tell me how you want me to answer"
What do you want me to say, that Lana wasn't my friend?" "That I'm making this all up?" That I dreamt it" "OK, I just made it up" I never knew her" "Is that how you want me to answer?" (and in a very nasty tone)

Jennifer stated this AFTER Truc pulled out an e-mail Lana sent to 33 of her girlfriends talking about her new job at HOB, very up about it and mentioning her need to borrow some clothes for new position. AND GUESS WHO'S NAME WAS NOT ON IT? Yeah, JHR.

But before Truc tells her she is not on the e-mail, she hands it to JHR and asks her if her e-mail address is on it.

JHR: well I'm sure I am. Just tell me where it is. I am obviously on it right? That's why you gave it to me? . . . JHR is up there for 2 or 3 minutes rambling about "just tell me where it is." "I'm obviously on it or you wouldn't have handed it to me" blah, blah blah.

It was kind of painful waiting for JHR to realize she wasn't on it. The entire gallery had already realized that the whole point Truc was trying to make was that JHR was not that close with LC. 33 girlfreind's e-mailed about her new job, but JHR is not one of them. Truc sat leaning against the short partition between the gallery and the podium, very relaxed, looking slightly down at her shoes . . she could have been filing her nails, just kicking back. It was hysterical I thought. Because the whole time Truc is doing this, JHR is non-stop blabbing away about "OK, Ok just tell me where it is . I know it must be here or you wouldn't have given it to me." And everyone knew - HEY JHR - IT'S NOT THERE - SHE IS MAKING A POINT THAT YOU'RE NOT THAT CLOSE WITH LANA. BUT NOW SHE HAS INADVERTENTLY MADE THE POINT, THAT YOUR NOT ALL THAT "SHARP" EITHER. . . . Finally Truc says calmly and patiently, "Ms Hayes, it isn't on there". Truc had to repeat it several times because JHR didn't completely grasp it for awhile.

Truc brought out the fact that in ALL of Lana's EMAILS that were retrieved AND ALL OF LANA's PHONE RECORDS - YEARS . . . There was NOT a SINGLE EMAIL or CALL to JENNIFER HAYES RIEDL on them. W-O-W.

JHR went on to say (or should I say, "JHR went on to SHOUT . . . ) that she NEVER uses e-mails, NEVER reads emails, NEVER. She had a personal assistant then and she handled that stuff. She didn't even think that she had an e-mail address. Wasn't really sure.

So what does Truc do - - she presents JHR with a PRINT OUT of LANA's e-mail ADDRESS BOOK - and there is JHR's name and e-mail address. So I guess that means that Lana had it, it did exist , but Lana just didn't feel a need to include JHR in the 33 girlfriend email advising of her new job, etc.

Then Truc presents the PHONE CALL RECORDS information - not a single call, over all the years she has known JHR, to JHR.

JHR explains - "I don't use the phone either. Unless for business. I don't even talk on the phone with my kids" - - - Yes, she really said that.

JHR did have an explanation - her friendship with PIE and Lana was like a "triangle" thing. So JHR would probably call PIE and then PIE would call Lana and the 3 of them would talk together, so JHR's number would not show up because she called PIE and PIE called Lana.

IMO: TRUC WAS REALLY GREAT TODAY. She is NOT AJ, but she certainly has her own style, very patient, calm but assured. How she didn't "lose it" with this argumentative, disrespectful and obnoxious witness I do not know. But she never did. She did an excellent, excellent job IMO. I was very impressed. And all without ever raising her voice.

[My 2 Cents]

Ok, this was interesting:

The whole time JHR is being questioned/crossed by Truc Do, JHR is practically shouting - she raises her voice, she was extremely argumentative and would cut Truc Do off constantly - just a "B"!!!
And her answers were so "flippant". I mean - not only disrespectful, but like she is just being a smart a$$, and doesn't care and like this whole line of questioning was a joke. Like this whole trial was a joke.

AND THEN . . . DW starts his reDIRECT and what does JHR SUDDENLY DO??? SHE STARTS TO CRY!!!! (although I can't really say if a single tear came out - - - but she really gave it a shot). OMGosh - - all of a sudden JHR is "just sooooo upset" and saying things about "wait, wait, wait . . I just need a minute. this has me so upset. I loved Lana. I still Love Lana. I'll always Love Lana"

DW: Do you need a tissue?
JHR: "No, no . . .I'll be OK. I just need a minute" -- then fans her eyes to help dry her tears - the tears that are not there.

OH BROTHER! I was taken by surprise, because she turned it on so quickly after being so smug and flippant with Truc Do. It was a little like how I visualize "SYBIL" popping in and out of her different "personalities".

While "crying", JHR said, "I can't hide the truth. It's been the hardest thing in my life."

RE: FIREARMS
JHR stated that "LC is very adept at firearms. That she even bragged about her knowledge of it. Would go to Beverly Hills Firing Range even."

BUT TO ME - AND THIS IS JUST ME: I thought if someone was truly TRAINED ON FIREARMS, that person would be much more likely to have a healthy RESPECT for GUNS and THE DEVASTATION THEY CAN CAUSE. They would NEVER "fool around with a gun - ever". That's what I thought.

Finally, DW asked her: And you are telling us the truth? (YES) And you have no reason to lie? (NO)

THEN . . .Truc asks only 1 question AND FROM HER CHAIR. SHE DOESN'T EVEN STAND UP (ha, ha - I liked that message):
TRUC: Ms Hayes, would you tell us if you were lying?

JHR: "Of course I would tell you if I was lying" (ha, ha - I found that humorous - the way JHR phrased her answer)

[Dave]

Good God.

Say goodnight, Phil. :seeya:

[dref99]

.... snipped for space
JHR: "Of course I would tell you if I was lying" (ha, ha - I found that humorous - the way JHR phrased her answer)

:laugh: :biggrin:

The answer reminds of logic puzzles - e.g. If A tells the truth all the time and B lies all the time and C lies some of the time etc ..... so we have the statement

"Of Course I would tell you if I was lying"
If this statement is true A never lies
If this statement is false A sometimes lies
How do we tell if this statement is true or false?

Might have been a better way to give that answer. Hope there are some logical folks on the jury

jmo

[SHORTSIRKT]

Just curious . if the defense can close this week then would they suspend court until next Thursday until, i guess, " the pie" can testify? I guess that would be what they are waiting on.

[SHORTSIRKT]

JHR really made a mess of things. I can only imagine what pie is going to be like. :scared:

[SHORTSIRKT]

And by the way 3 way calling doesn't work like that. The same party has to call the other two.

[SHORTSIRKT]

TruTV really missed a good trial. Hope they are kicking themselves for not airing ithammer

[dref99]

Just curious . if the defense can close this week then would they suspend court until next Thursday until, i guess, " the pie" can testify? I guess that would be what they are waiting on.

Without having any other information - I would suggest it may be a defense tactic (yet again) to have the prosecution rebuttal witnesses before their final witness. Given that the prosecution will probably call the real best friend, it seems like a defense idea to have Pie testify last.

I have no idea if the prosecution can/would or must give rebuttal before the defense has been completed.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Just curious . if the defense can close this week then would they suspend court until next Thursday until, i guess, " the pie" can testify? I guess that would be what they are waiting on.

Great Question . . . Weinberg suggested that AJ "go ahead and start his rebuttal" and then when Weinberg's witness can show up on Thursday, AJ can stop his momentum and let Weinberg jump on in. Then AJ can finish up. How thoughtful of Weinberg.

AJ said, "Heck No"

A DECISION WAS MADE THAT WEINBERG CAN JUST ADD THIS "NEW" WITNESS TO WEINBERG's REBUTTAL CASE. (which I thought was a practical decision - because WHY should Weinberg throw AJ's rebuttal plans all out of whack, just because Weinberg decides to call this witness at the 11th hour? How long has Weinberg had to line up his witnesses? Come on DW, get your act together.)

However, now that there is NO LONGER court this FRIDAY, Weinberg maybe be looking at ending his case on Tuesday. And I say Tuesday, instead of Monday because a whole new issue arose today with the SUICIDOLOGIST - SEIDAN (I'll make a separate post about that).

[dref99]

Great Question . . . Weinberg suggested that AJ "go ahead and start his rebuttal" and then when Weinberg's witness can show up on Thursday, AJ can stop his momentum and let Weinberg jump on in. Then AJ can finish up. How thoughtful of Weinberg.

AJ said, "Heck No"

A DECISION WAS MADE THAT WEINBERG CAN JUST ADD THIS "NEW" WITNESS TO WEINBERG's REBUTTAL CASE. (which I thought was a practical decision - because WHY should Weinberg throw AJ's rebuttal plans all out of whack, just because Weinberg decides to call this witness at the 11th hour? How long has Weinberg had to line up his witnesses? Come on DW, get your act together.)

However, now that there is NO LONGER court this FRIDAY, Weinberg maybe be looking at ending his case on Tuesday. And I say Tuesday, instead of Monday because a whole new issue arose today with the SUICIDOLOGIST - SEIDAN (I'll make a separate post about that).

And I can rebutt my own comment as well - Sprocket's blog is up and she also mentioned what you have just said

Jackson states that it's not acceptable to call this witness within his rebuttal case

I gather is it a rather contraversal lady they intend to call - and as yet I assume there has been no discoverey, as he originally said she would not be called :confused:

jmo (and a very confused opinion - oh that we had a film to replay & replay)

[My 2 Cents]

Great Question . . . Weinberg suggested that AJ "go ahead and start his rebuttal" and then when Weinberg's witness can show up on Thursday, AJ can stop his momentum and let Weinberg jump on in. Then AJ can finish up. How thoughtful of Weinberg.

AJ said, "Heck No"

A DECISION WAS MADE THAT WEINBERG CAN JUST ADD THIS "NEW" WITNESS TO WEINBERG's REBUTTAL CASE. (which I thought was a practical decision - because WHY should Weinberg throw AJ's rebuttal plans all out of whack, just because Weinberg decides to call this witness at the 11th hour? How long has Weinberg had to line up his witnesses? Come on DW, get your act together.)

However, now that there is NO LONGER court this FRIDAY, Weinberg maybe be looking at ending his case on Tuesday. And I say Tuesday, instead of Monday because a whole new issue arose today with the SUICIDOLOGIST - SEIDAN (I'll make a separate post about that).

I FORGOT TO ADD: The "new" witness Weinberg wants to add is ELIZABETH LOFTUS (sp?). She is the professor out of UCI (SO CALIF) that deals primarily with MEMORY. And "illusionary memory". I wrote a post awhile back about her, but I can't find it now - maybe it was deleted. Her focus seems to be EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. She helped with the McMartin Preschool Molestation Case and Menendez Brothers and a slew more. I am guessing this is to put doubt in the jurors mind about ADS and what he "really heard" and "really saw".

As far as testifying in trials, . . . She helped a lawyer out on a trial, because she wanted to study "real life" situations. His client had shot her boyfriend six times. After Loftus testified about unreliable "eyewitnesses" and the flaws that come with that, the client was acquitted. I think she published an article about the case. After that she became extremely popular with the lawyers and testifying for their clients.

[nanouk]

I know it was pretty obvious to everybody, but I wish Truc Do would have asked JHR why she was acting so friendly and openly toward the defense while being so defensive and aggressive with the prosecution... I was almost expecting her to wink toward HPS every time she thought she had a "good" play. And her friend sitting on the defense side... I also wish Fidler would have allowed those MySpace links. Sooooooo obvious how biased this witch is! I hope all the jurors can see her game play...

JMO

Nanouk

[Kara]

I just wanted to say thanks for the updates. I don't post much over here but I do stop by to see how the trial is progressing.

Thanks to all who update us on the court proceedings! :seeya:

[kennedy06]

Oh my gosh! Not a single phone call? On the email list but no email when 33 others friends were emailed! IIRC she didn't attend her funeral either correct?

Where in the world did they find this witness? How did they find Pie? Was she orignally discovered by the prosecution or was she found through some means by the defense? I can't imagine the patrons at the Backstge weren't all talking the next day after the shooting and about Lana. I would think the owners who I believe were in the music business would have known who PS was IMO.

I wonder why in the world they selected these 2 of all that may have known her??

[kennedy06]

I bet AJ and TD know more than we may ever suspect about many people connected with this case. I just finished reading T & T, the whole myspce discussion was pretty amusing. Who is on TS, DK, PP and others myspace, they are leaving no stone unturned. Good for them. I would think or just guess that even if those were/are private they could still read them considering it is a part of an investigation for a murder trial. I think they take this case very seriously and are just trying to connect the dots as quickly as the defense or others may wish to erase those lines. Of course I guess they were made aware of the TS mspce during the 1st trial so...maybe they have watched many of them for some time who knows, but it was just interesting even if it wasn't really allowed in. JMO

[wasapi]

The thread linked above by Kennedy06 gives Leonard Cohen in the comments. I have also heard mention of John Lennon & a group who were sitting in a restaurant (I think after the death of Lana?) but at this stage I have no links for these

jmo

Edit: There is a 1975 incident referenced here
http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/angsarytc3jnnqmuwn2wl4eo/1176750636.pdf (a reasonable size pdf file) when the prosecution tried to get prior arrests as evidence.

I am pretty sure that John Lennon died several years prior to Lana.

Also, I couldn't get the link to open but I will try again later.

As to JHR, wouldn't the defense first have a 'run-through' with their witness prior to her testimony? After the embarrasment Pie caused last year I would think they would realized the importance of making sure each witness they call is prepared - and presentable. :-)

[Ellie]

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that during the CourtTV coverage of PS1 that it was mentioned by one of the reporters that PS had pulled a gun on the Righteous Brothers.

Umm.... I think John Lennon?... the Ramones (though newly disputed)... and members of StarSailor? A couple of guys in Starbucks? yeah, I think Phil prefers to pull guns on women but when that hand is itchy he's not picky.

I strongly suggest reading Tearing Down the Wall of Sound. It's really a fascinating book!

[Spectorfan8]

I am pretty sure that John Lennon died several years prior to Lana.

Also, I couldn't get the link to open but I will try again later.

As to JHR, wouldn't the defense first have a 'run-through' with their witness prior to her testimony? After the embarrasment Pie caused last year I would think they would realized the importance of making sure each witness they call is prepared - and presentable. :-)

Yes, John Lennon was killed in 1980 in New York. :sad:

[My 2 Cents]

I bet AJ and TD know more than we may ever suspect about many people connected with this case. I just finished reading T & T, the whole myspce discussion was pretty amusing. Who is on TS, DK, PP and others myspace, they are leaving no stone unturned. Good for them. I would think or just guess that even if those were/are private they could still read them considering it is a part of an investigation for a murder trial. I think they take this case very seriously and are just trying to connect the dots as quickly as the defense or others may wish to erase those lines. Of course I guess they were made aware of the TS mspce during the 1st trial so...maybe they have watched many of them for some time who knows, but it was just interesting even if it wasn't really allowed in. JMO

Here's my take on it K6,

IMO, I was with Fidler about the MYSPACE line of questioning. It did seem a bit reaching, and frankly, I don’t think AJ or Truc needed to go there. It’s not their “style”. When I realized what Truc was doing, it immediately reminded me of “6 DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON”. The actor, Kevin Bacon (from FOOTLOOSE).
Kevin’s “6 degrees theory”, is that HE can be linked to ANYONE in Hollywood or the Universe, in 6 or less steps. It’s very funny and he does a pretty good job of it. EX: ELVIS PRESLEY – Elvis was in movie with Edward Asner. Asner was in JFK with Kevin Bacon (1 step). Kevin is much better with explaining examples - - quite funny actually. It’s referenced on TV shows, commercials, etc)

Anyway - - that’s what I thought of. She was linking Harvey Sid Fishers myspace and his TOP TEN FRIENDS, to Spector & Kessel Bros & Kessel Bros to Backstreet Café, etc , etc. Those “friends” links don’t even have to belong to who they say they do . . . I think TEAM SPECTOR has a slew of “dead” friends on his myspace “Top Ten, Twenty, whatever” , like Lenny Bruce, John Lennon. Or what about Ronnie Spector on his TOP FRIENDS - - - yeah, right!
(Also - these were NOT private MySpace pages. To be added as a friend and possibly see more additional pages, perhaps - but Truc just pulled up the PUBLIC PAGES on these myspaces - anyone can view them.)

What Truc was much more effect with IMO, is when she simply asked JHR, You’ve talked with the obvious Spector supporters & fans in the courtroom, sat over on the right side with them, etc., etc. - - - did you ever go talk to Donna Clarkson, Lana’s Mom or Fawn, Lana’s sister? Ever, first or 2nd trial?

JHR: “No. They have never spoken to me since this whole ordeal happened”
Truc: “You mean the trial”
JHR: “NO, I mean since her death.”

I might not be correct, but I thought Mrs Clarkson testified that she had never even heard Lana mention JHR’s name . She had no clue who she was. She knew Nilli Hudson quite well, and other friends, but didn’t even recognize JHR’s name.

JHR also obviously has a MEMORY problem, at least as far as using her as a credible witness - - she stated over and over , “Can’t remember”. Couldn’t tell ya” Even when Truc gave her helpful ways to help her, EX – well you said Lana wanted to borrow clothes, and that had to have been after she was hired at HOB, was it after that? Or before that? . .. JHR – “no clue” “Couldn’t say”. SO MY CONCERN IS THIS . . . In PS1, didn’t JHR state that the ONLY reason SHE (JHR) came along to the Tawni Tyndell interview with PIE, was because “PIE has a terrible memory, and she was there to help PIE with her recollection of events, etc” – PIE wanted her to come for that reason. I think that may have been how JHR got involved with being a witness. And the defense may have thought they could use her to help back up PIE’s testimony and to help PIE “remember”. Oh brother . . . I don’t recall if JHR’s memory was this bad at PS1, but the extra years since 2003 have not helped.

[hiitsme]

Here's my take on it K6,

IMO, I was with Fidler about the MYSPACE line of questioning. It did seem a bit reaching, and frankly, I don’t think AJ or Truc needed to go there. It’s not their “style”. When I realized what Truc was doing, it immediately reminded me of “6 DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON”. The actor, Kevin Bacon (from FOOTLOOSE).
Kevin’s “6 degrees theory”, is that HE can be linked to ANYONE in Hollywood or the Universe, in 6 or less steps. It’s very funny and he does a pretty good job of it. EX: ELVIS PRESLEY – Elvis was in movie with Edward Asner. Asner was in JFK with Kevin Bacon (1 step). Kevin is much better with explaining examples - - quite funny actually. It’s referenced on TV shows, commercials, etc)

Anyway - - that’s what I thought of. She was linking Harvey Sid Fishers myspace and his TOP TEN FRIENDS, to Spector & Kessel Bros & Kessel Bros to Backstreet Café, etc , etc. Those “friends” links don’t even have to belong to who they say they do . . . I think TEAM SPECTOR has a slew of “dead” friends on his myspace “Top Ten, Twenty, whatever” , like Lenny Bruce, John Lennon. Or what about Ronnie Spector on his TOP FRIENDS - - - yeah, right!
(Also - these were NOT private MySpace pages. To be added as a friend and possibly see more additional pages, perhaps - but Truc just pulled up the PUBLIC PAGES on these myspaces - anyone can view them.)

What Truc was much more effect with IMO, is when she simply asked JHR, You’ve talked with the obvious Spector supporters & fans in the courtroom, sat over on the right side with them, etc., etc. - - - did you ever go talk to Donna Clarkson, Lana’s Mom or Fawn, Lana’s sister? Ever, first or 2nd trial?

JHR: “No. They have never spoken to me since this whole ordeal happened”
Truc: “You mean the trial”
JHR: “NO, I mean since her death.”

I might not be correct, but I thought Mrs Clarkson testified that she had never even heard Lana mention JHR’s name . She had no clue who she was. She knew Nilli Hudson quite well, and other friends, but didn’t even recognize JHR’s name.

JHR also obviously has a MEMORY problem, at least as far as using her as a credible witness - - she stated over and over , “Can’t remember”. Couldn’t tell ya” Even when Truc gave her helpful ways to help her, EX – well you said Lana wanted to borrow clothes, and that had to have been after she was hired at HOB, was it after that? Or before that? . .. JHR – “no clue” “Couldn’t say”. SO MY CONCERN IS THIS . . . In PS1, didn’t JHR state that the ONLY reason SHE (JHR) came along to the Tawni Tyndell interview with PIE, was because “PIE has a terrible memory, and she was there to help PIE with her recollection of events, etc” – PIE wanted her to come for that reason. I think that may have been how JHR got involved with being a witness. And the defense may have thought they could use her to help back up PIE’s testimony and to help PIE “remember”. Oh brother . . . I don’t recall if JHR’s memory was this bad at PS1, but the extra years since 2003 have not helped.

You are so correct! I distinctly remember JHR mention the memory thing as a reason for being with Pie that one particular night. Any notable reactions from the jury during this testimony? As a best friend of Lana, having to admit she has had absolutely no contact with her mom or any family member must have gone over like a lead balloon.

[My 2 Cents]

You are so correct! I distinctly remember JHR mention the memory thing as a reason for being with Pie that one particular night. Any notable reactions from the jury during this testimony? As a best friend of Lana, having to admit she has had absolutely no contact with her mom or any family member must have gone over like a lead balloon.

She (JHR) kept stating that she has never said she was BEST friends with Lana - just a VERY GOOD FRIEND of Lana's. Her, PIE & Lana - 3 Musketeers. SHE stated that PIE was her BEST Friend, or at least ONE of HER BEST FRIENDS (meaning she may have had more than just one BFF).

RE: Jury - I always forget to look over there. They didn't take too many notes when JHR was talking, from what I noticed. They started taking several during Dr Seiden's testimony. When JHR was testifying, my eyes were locked on her because it was so entertaining, but I did notice that some of the jurors didn't even look at her while she testified. They looked straight ahead AND at the gallery. Maybe they were more entertained by the looks of amazement from the public - that JF later scolded everyone about.

[sdg380]

My thanks to My2cents, Sprocket, and Joe Friday for helping us stay informed.

sdg.... the PBA witnesses and his rantings of what women deserve make me think the correct charge might be 1st degree..... he has thought about putting a bullet through a woman's head for years. jmho.

I happen to agree, but clearly the prosecution has to make a tactical decision about what they can successfully prove. But note, from Wiki: "In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder." You don't brandish a loaded handgun and force it into a woman's mouth without thinking about it. I'm just hoping he ends up getting what turns out to be a life sentence.

Another quote: "...wonder, if these highly paid experts, when considering all of the facts presented in this case would still consider this a suicide if Lana was their daughter."

For all these overpaid experts, the "supporters", the NG's, they should all only pray this type of miscarriage of justice is never visited upon them. This has got to be positively a living h*ll for Lana's poor mother, I pray that she can someday find peace, but I'm afraid that may be just too much to hope for, all because of this despicable excuse for a human being. And DW has clearly figured out that defending rich guilty criminals, while flaunting all the rules, is where the money is at, but don't you wonder how his view of the world might change if this had happened to a member of HIS family.

Finally: "HE NOW HAS A "PLASTIC HANDICAPPED PARKING" TAG HANGING FROM HIS CAR'S REARVIEW MIRROR."

What a repugnant piece of garbage--let's just hope there really is a little "karma" in the world for the likes of Jennifer Heyes Reidl, Harvey Sid Fischer, Chelle, and the rest, who are clearly trying to advance personal agendas by jumping on the Team Spector bandwagon. Guilt by association?--you bet. They're certainly not trying to see that justice is done. And to what end? To sell a few more "astrology songs"? So Chelle can be a star? So somebody's nightclub is successful? Really worthwhile reasons to get in league with a murderer.

JMO

[nanouk]

My 2 Cents

Thanks for your reporting. Very precious. What can you say about Seiden's testimoney, apart that it was "dry"?

Regards

Nanouk

[oodi1]

My thanks to My2cents, Sprocket, and Joe Friday for helping us stay informed.



I happen to agree, but clearly the prosecution has to make a tactical decision about what they can successfully prove. But note, from Wiki: "In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder." You don't brandish a loaded handgun and force it into a woman's mouth without thinking about it. I'm just hoping he ends up getting what turns out to be a life sentence.

Another quote: "...wonder, if these highly paid experts, when considering all of the facts presented in this case would still consider this a suicide if Lana was their daughter."

For all these overpaid experts, the "supporters", the NG's, they should all only pray this type of miscarriage of justice is never visited upon them. This has got to be positively a living h*ll for Lana's poor mother, I pray that she can someday find peace, but I'm afraid that may be just too much to hope for, all because of this despicable excuse for a human being. And DW has clearly figured out that defending rich guilty criminals, while flaunting all the rules, is where the money is at, but don't you wonder how his view of the world might change if this had happened to a member of HIS family.

Finally: "HE NOW HAS A "PLASTIC HANDICAPPED PARKING" TAG HANGING FROM HIS CAR'S REARVIEW MIRROR."

What a repugnant piece of garbage--let's just hope there really is a little "karma" in the world for the likes of Jennifer Heyes Reidl, Harvey Sid Fischer, Chelle, and the rest, who are clearly trying to advance personal agendas by jumping on the Team Spector bandwagon. Guilt by association?--you bet. They're certainly not trying to see that justice is done. And to what end? To sell a few more "astrology songs"? So Chelle can be a star? So somebody's nightclub is successful? Really worthwhile reasons to get in league with a murderer.

JMO


Again... well said!!

As far as the handicap parking tag... My 2 Cents, or anyone else who has seen him... does it look like he has any difficulty walking? Any other outward appearance of anything wrong? I've seen mention of his hand shaking, and VDM attempted to make reference to Parkinson's.

[penguin01]

Between you and Sprockett we really have a great picture of what happened yesterday. Thank you so much! I bet TRuTV is kicking itself - and wouldn't the Talking Heads have had a wonderful time discussing this entertaining "witness"?
Where does the omnipresent Harvey (Harvey Sid Fisher) fit in to all this?Is he a current buddy or does he have a pro-Spector blog - or is he just between gigs at this time? He's a singer/songwriter/golfer person?

[My 2 Cents]

My 2 Cents

Thanks for your reporting. Very precious. What can you say about Seiden's testimoney, apart that it was "dry"?

Regards

Nanouk

RE: Dr Seiden (DW almost thru with direct – has a question or 2 left he said)
He came across IMO, different from many of the other recent defense witnesses – based on what I’ve read in T&T and what I remember from PS1.
He stated that he doesn’t testify in trials very often. Very, very rare. He has billed the defense $6,000 so far and after his time in LA, will add those charges to his bill, to cover his time. DW brought all this up in direct. INTERESTING – because DW has fought long and hard over the other “expert” witness fees being disclosed. And AJ is always the one that has brought it up, in front of the jury. I guess when the fee is a mere $6,000, and not the equivalent of a 3rd World Country’s National Debt, DW wants to shout it from the roof tops.

So far, Dr Seiden has done 2 things:
(1) Explain his major focus of study lately – his research in the field of Suicidology and his article/study entitled: “WHERE ARE THEY NOW? A Study of Suicide Attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge”, and “THE URGE TO END IT ALL”. This GG Bridge study involves 515 people who were restrained (or lived) while attempting to commit suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge. Interviews with them. Basically, he contends that when people are STOPPED from committing suicide, most of them don’t follow thru and try it again. He said of these 515 people, only about 10% went out and committed suicide later. He talks about: “IF the “AVAILABILITY of a CONVENIENT METHOD is NOT there, then MANY TIMES SUICIDE IS AVOIDED”. I guess this means that if Lana hadn’t stumbled across a perfectly, easy to get to, loaded COLT .38 in that drawer, she would still be alive today and probably would never attempt it again. (yeah, that’s probably what happened – makes so much sense to us “non-suicidologists”).

He said approx 40% of all suicides are IMPULSIVE (they decided in 5 minutes or less to commit suicide) and the role ALCOHOL plays in IMPULSIVE SUICIDES is dramatic. He said only about 33% of suicides leave notes. He also said that MORE SUICIDES involve FIREARMS, than HOMICIDES. FIREARMS: 40% Homicides, 55% Suicides (that surprised me). His BIG point was – if you remove the easily accessible means for suicide, i.e. – the “convenient, drive-up GG Bridge” - most people will not attempt it then, or ever again, based on his studies, which are based on SURVIVORS of suicide. MY THOUGHT WAS – IF THESE PEOPLE WERE STOPPED BY POLICE, ETC THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN REFERED FOR PSYCH HELP, FAMILY WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED & INVOLVED, THERE FOR SUPPORT, etc. (Just a thought I was having when he talked about this)

(2) Has reviewed “a sentence or 2” from several of Lana’s e-mails or letters and has commented on whether these emails, etc SCREAMED, warning, warning – suicide waiting to happen! And surprise – as a matter of fact (per Dr Seiden), they did. There were a lot of emails shown that I had not seen or heard of before. But we were not allowed to see or hear entire letter. That should be interesting on CROSS. Because the defense DID NOT hand out the entire letter or email to the jury. He threw it up on the screen (which was too small to read) and then highlighted the sentences he wanted to refer to and those were blown up in VERY LARGE PRINT, easily readable. Well, a couple of times a different portion of the letter/email was enlarged (and then quickly removed), and it had very positive comments from Lana on it.

[JONOTWO]

Searching- I fail to find ''prosections'' on my or the web's dictionaries!
Can you provide a citation??
I am still waiting for your version of the ''grab and shoot'' scenario
that supports an accident.

[penguin01]

"The more things change, The more they remain the same." T.S. Eliot I believe is responsible for that, but I'm not certain of it.:thumbup:
Originally French author Alphonse Karr (1808-20), then appeared later in George Bernard Shaw's book Revolutionists Handbook. ITs a good one and, oft quoted as it is, it may have also been quoted by T.S.Elliot.

[nanouk]

RE: Dr Seiden (DW almost thru with direct – has a question or 2 left he said)

So far, Dr Seiden has done 2 things:
(1) Explain his major focus of study lately – his research in the field of Suicidology and his article/study entitled: “WHERE ARE THEY NOW? A Study of Suicide Attempters from the Golden Gate Bridge”, and “THE URGE TO END IT ALL”. This GG Bridge study involves 515 people who were restrained (or lived) while attempting to commit suicide off the Golden Gate Bridge. Interviews with them. Basically, he contends that when people are STOPPED from committing suicide, most of them don’t follow thru and try it again. He said of these 515 people, only about 10% went out and committed suicide later. He talks about: “IF the “AVAILABILITY of a CONVENIENT METHOD is NOT there, then MANY TIMES SUICIDE IS AVOIDED”.
(respectfully snipped)

Thank you so much, M2C.

It doesn't take that long to jump from a bridge when you're standing next to the railing. I'm pretty sure that, among those 515 who were "saved" a lot (90%?) only really wanted to cry out for help. I can't wait for AJ or TD to do his cross. I'm not sure his testimony will bring any hope to the defense after they finish off with him.

JMO

Nanouk

Note: "Iggy" (Ignore) is my friend, he helps me keep my blood pressure to a normal level.

[hiitsme]

Thank you so much, M2C.

It doesn't take that long to jump from a bridge when you're standing next to the railing. I'm pretty sure that, among those 515 who were "saved" a lot (90%?) only really wanted to cry out for help. I can't wait for AJ or TD to do his cross. I'm not sure his testimony will bring any hope to the defense after they finish off with him.

JMO

Nanouk

Note: "Iggy" (Ignore) is my friend, he helps me keep my blood pressure to a normal level.

I agree and from the little I've read about this witness, most of his research is related to "bridge jumping" suicides. The defense is also providing only those snippets of Lana's E-Mails in which she is simply venting frustrations of normal life. Something similar was done with the E-Mails in PS1 and AJ made sure that the E-Mails, when appropriate were introduced in their entirety. Without evidence from medical experts who treated Lana as to her state of mind and mental well being prior to her death, I think this is just a last desperate attempt to float the theory of suicide which is simply ridiculous and unproven. MOO.

[penguin01]

Sorry, the white haired guy's name is Harvey Sid Fisher.

Sprocket has a short update about yesterday on her blog. Sprockett mentions him quite often - but I'm just not getting where he fits in to this whole thing or why. He's a singer, songwriter, golfer and friend of PS. and an unofficial coach or advisor to PS's witnesses???

[tisamystery]

I no longer attach any significance to "experts", whether they're for or against the defense. Because that's what they are: for or against. They come in with a "side". If I've learned on thing from watching Tru TV it's that you can find an expert to support your position if you pay them enough.

[oodi1]

Sprockett mentions him quite often - but I'm just not getting where he fits in to this whole thing or why. He's a singer, songwriter, golfer and friend of PS. and an unofficial coach or advisor to PS's witnesses???

I found this on Harvey: http://www.answers.com/topic/harvey-sid-fisher

I guess it's possible that Harvey and PS may have had some prior business relationship. Maybe they are golf buddies... but somehow, PS doesn't strike me as being the golfing type. :confused:

[nanouk]

I found this on Harvey: http://www.answers.com/topic/harvey-sid-fisher

I guess it's possible that Harvey and PS may have had some prior business relationship. Maybe they are golf buddies... but somehow, PS doesn't strike me as being the golfing type. :confused:

Harvey only seems to be one more of the weird groupies around HPS. If you want more on him, he's all over YouTube. Just do a search with "harvey sid fisher" and he'll come popping up with a lot of his "songs".

JMO

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

Sprockett mentions him quite often - but I'm just not getting where he fits in to this whole thing or why. He's a singer, songwriter, golfer and friend of PS. and an unofficial coach or advisor to PS's witnesses???

I so remember this from the last trial or a simlilar video. I believe he has his own channel on utube, as you can see after clicking the poster that posted the video. I have never really thought about this relationship or why he is there for PS. :shrug:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_VAiznSTc

Edit- :) I see you posted something similar Nanouk!

[kennedy06]

Thank you my2cents for your post explaining your thoughts behind the myspce and TD line of questioning. I understand and thanks.:smile:

After reading about some of DW tactics I sort of thought TD had decided to look outside the box during this one incident. During the time I have been on this msg brd I have been surprised/shocked how quickly posters as soon as a trial starts or a crime is committed and it hits the news, how quickly the myspces are found and different things noted. I believe the Casey A. case would be one example. I had looked at two (living) celebrities spaces and noted it was mentioned that they were not running their sites themselves (for fans wanting things from them). Still even if it was an unusual thing for TD to have looked at, I admire her efforts.

Thanks!

[kennedy06]

I was extremely happy with the information set forth.

If I was a juror I would not under any circumstance believe anything JHR said yesterday. She was very hostile and it was obvious she was playing the jury with her crocodile tear.
Truc Do did an excellent job.
I am not looking forward to Pie next week but knowing she is good friends with JHR her credibility will be useless.
Spector believes JHR did an excellent job, I read. :thumbdown:

Where did you read about PS thoughts about JHR may I ask?

Probably some place obvious and I skipped right over it, right!

[hiitsme]

I was extremely happy with the information set forth.

If I was a juror I would not under any circumstance believe anything JHR said yesterday. She was very hostile and it was obvious she was playing the jury with her crocodile tear.
Truc Do did an excellent job.
I am not looking forward to Pie next week but knowing she is good friends with JHR her credibility will be useless.
Spector believes JHR did an excellent job, I read. :thumbdown:

Does anyone know for sure that Pie will be testifying again in this trial?

[Sooz1960]

Here I scroll down here on the message board, and there's a board for Phil Spector! I had no idea his re-trial was going on! Why isn't In Session broadcasting it, does anybody know?? I'm hearbroken!! :cursing: :mad: