Feb 23 2009 -

[Anakerie]

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:
Unfortunately, no one is broadcasting the retrial. Apparently Phil isn't newsworthy enough anymore for the media to care. There aren't even any main stream media reporters in the courtroom most of the time...

**sigh**

[kipswife]

Hi everyone,

So yesterday I got to watch Robert Blaiser do his closing argument for a young man (22) who is charged with rape. The DA did his closing in about 1 1/2 hrs, and I thought Blaiser would take the whole afternoon but he only took about 45 mins. Kind of disappointing, I expected alot more for the money the family must be paying. Anyway, I was back in court today waiting for my jury to come back ( they have been out for 6 days) and Mr. Blaiser walked by. I followed him out and asked him if I could talk to him.
He was very nice and said of course. I told him that we, here on the message board, had been talking about PS1 and PS2 and his name had come up. I told him when I mentioned seeing him here in court that ppl wanted to know more.
I asked him how he thought PS2 was going and he said that he wasnt getting much info on it, but he does talk to Phil every few days. Sounds like Phil doesnt give up much info. WOW----he talks to PS every few days. He said he was surprised that they only got two jurors on their side last time. I told him he could find out info by going to sprocket's blog, trials and tribulations. I said she takes great notes and gets alot of info for us to learn about. When I mentioned sprocket's name, he asked if that was the woman that rachelle doesnt like and I said that I thought it was, but that sprocket always talked about how nice she dressed. He was very nice. A few hours later his jury came back, after less than 10 hrs, and found the kid guilty.

m

[Sooz1960]

Unfortunately, no one is broadcasting the retrial. Apparently Phil isn't newsworthy enough anymore for the media to care. There aren't even any main stream media reporters in the courtroom most of the time...

**sigh**

Well Geez...! What's that about?! :(

Thank you Ana!

[dref99]

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. :-)

Hi Waspapi

JL was shot in 1980, but I was talking about who Phil had threatened with guns - this one was obviously before 1980.

Those links to the documents seem to come and go (I think that area of the website is sometimes down). You can try going to the next level up and looking at all the available documents
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&
(but as I post it is not working)

The defense doesn't seem to like admitting that they spoke with witnesses before their appearance - could be some additional discovery that isn't passed on perhaps :confused:

jmo

[dref99]

Hi everyone,

So yesterday I got to watch Robert Blaiser do his closing argument for a young man (22) who is charged with rape. The DA did his closing in about 1 1/2 hrs, and I thought Blaiser would take the whole afternoon but he only took about 45 mins. Kind of disappointing, I expected alot more for the money the family must be paying. Anyway, I was back in court today waiting for my jury to come back ( they have been out for 6 days) and Mr. Blaiser walked by. I followed him out and asked him if I could talk to him.
He was very nice and said of course. I told him that we, here on the message board, had been talking about PS1 and PS2 and his name had come up. I told him when I mentioned seeing him here in court that ppl wanted to know more.
I asked him how he thought PS2 was going and he said that he wasnt getting much info on it, but he does talk to Phil every few days. Sounds like Phil doesnt give up much info. WOW----he talks to PS every few days. He said he was surprised that they only got two jurors on their side last time. I told him he could find out info by going to sprocket's blog, trials and tribulations. I said she takes great notes and gets alot of info for us to learn about. When I mentioned sprocket's name, he asked if that was the woman that rachelle doesnt like and I said that I thought it was, but that sprocket always talked about how nice she dressed. He was very nice. A few hours later his jury came back, after less than 10 hrs, and found the kid guilty.

m

Thank you for your insights - I think Mr Blaiser was smart to be so rarely associated with this case in the media - interesting that he is in contact still

jmo

[kipswife]

Oh, i forgot to add that Blaiser thinks that this trial is not going so well for PS.

[kennedy06]

Hi everyone,

...snipped for length.....
I asked him how he thought PS2 was going and he said that he wasnt getting much info on it, but he does talk to Phil every few days. Sounds like Phil doesnt give up much info. WOW----he talks to PS every few days. He said he was surprised that they only got two jurors on their side last time. I told him he could find out info by going to sprocket's blog, trials and tribulations. I said she takes great notes and gets alot of info for us to learn about. When I mentioned sprocket's name, he asked if that was the woman that rachelle doesnt like and I said that I thought it was, but that sprocket always talked about how nice she dressed. He was very nice. A few hours later his jury came back, after less than 10 hrs, and found the kid guilty.

m

Thanks for taking the time to talk to him, thats really something!

[My 2 Cents]

RE: Dr Seiden, Wednesday

VERY IMPORTANT RULING FROM YESTERDAY
(sorry I couldn't post more before - - been a busy, busy day):


Possible Title for this POST - either;
ANOTHER WITNESS ISSUE (or) WHINE-BERG is such a BRAT

At the end of the day, I think after the PM break, Truc has to ask JF to get involved with an issue and clearly she & AJ are not happy about involving him.

When AJ & Truc flew up to San Fran to interview Dr Seiden before he testified, they tape recorded the interview (and I believe DW was allowed to be there, but he couldn't make it. I might be wrong - but I think they said that).

BACKGROUND INFO: When DW interviewed Dr Herold, DW would not allow AJ or TRUC to be present, he did not want AJ to be privy to his "strategy". Dr Herold was worried that DW would later twist her words and say during cross that she stated something different. SO she agreed to speak with DW ONLY if it was tape recorded - for HER protection, and SHE would hang on to the tape. However, DW made AJ agree that the prosecution could NOT LISTEN to it.

Now the situation from yesterday,

DW wanted Truc & AJ to agree NOT to use the tape unless there was a discrepency with what DR SEIDEN'S testimony is, as opposed to what he stated to AJ & Truc during interview. Approx 2-3 weeks ago, AJ tells DW that he would like to make a copy of the tape transcript and he'll provide DW with one to. He wants it on hand, just in case Dr Seiden changes testimony (gee - why would AJ think that might happen?), he'll have a copy already printed up to reference AND AJ wanted to make sure DW read it as well - so DW knew what Dr Seiden had said, W-A-Y BEFORE Dr Seiden ever took the stand. 2-3 weeks ago. Every time he talked to DW - DW said NO. AJ argued it numerous times with DW - he always said NO and would not turn over the tape or give him a transcript from it - which AJ said was crazy, since he is entitled to it - interviews are usually taped. DW claimed this was the SAME SITUATION AS DR HEROLD. (Keep in mind - the only reason the agreement was made with Dr Herold is because DW would NOT allow AJ to be there OR to listen to the tape of the interview - because he didn't want his "strategical" plans for cross, discovered. AJ said, "I don't care if DW hears what questions we asked Dr Seiden" "Listen to our strategy as you call it, I don't care." "Have at it" "Here is the tape - I beg you to listen to it - so you know whether YOUR witness's testimony stays true to his preivous statements. AJ was TRYING to AVOID the situation that he and Truc knew was probably inevitable, which in fact, Truc is now telling JF. Dr Seiden's testimony conflicts with several statements he previously made during this interview. AND STILL DW WON'T HAND OVER THE TAPE AND TRUC IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING THE CROSS TODAY. DW says, "well, you haven't done the cross yet, so why do you need it now?" (something like that). Truc: Uh, duh . . . because Dr Seiden has ALREADY STATED the inconsistencies during DIRECT! (I don't know what DW's plan is - he knows it is inevitable during cross, so is his plan to just SCREW UP THE TIMING OF TRUC OR ?

DW stated that HE HASN'T EVEN LISTENED TO THE TAPE - - -which AJ replied, WELL THEN YOU'RE AN IDIOT OF AN ATTORNEY WEINBERG - - NO,NO, NO - AJ did NOT really say that, but he wanted to - AJ was really PO. AJ did refer to Weinberg "like a little kid on a playground, and now they have to run to the teacher to have him resolve the problem. we should not be involving you - mean JF" AJ stated what a PAIN (used other word, but very similar) DW has been over EVERYTHING. AJ actually said to the Judge; DW just refuses to agree with anything, he is making everything very difficult. I say RED, he says GREEN. I say UP, he says DOWN . . . etc, etc. Even the judge made a comment about how much these TWO HATE EACH OTHER.

NOW, Fidler has to listen to the interview tape in his spare time between yesterday and 8:30am today, and the transcripts from that day's testimony AND determine if there were discrepancies. AND if there are -- I don't know how they will get a typed transcript by 9:30am, because Truc will be starting CROSS after DW asks just a question or 2 more.

MY OBSERVATION: To me, this bickering and entire argument, clearly painted a picture of who these two "MEN" are and what EACH OF THEM REPRESENT. AJ comes across to ME, as an attorney searching for the TRUTH ("here DW, take my interview, listen to it - I'm not hiding a "strategy". Know what YOUR witness said before hand"). He wants to play fair and believes with ALL HIS HEART that the evidence is overwhelming that PHIL KILLED LANA and he wants justice for her and her family. There are no discovery games, or perjury problems. He tries to avoid problems with the defense BEFORE they become a problem. DW comes across to ME, as a man playing a GAME. This is all about WINNING AT ALL COSTS. This is nothing more than a high stakes "Chess Game" to him. That's just my opinion. Yesterday, DW's arguments (and it went on forever with this man) was just ridiculous. He reminds me of those kids you can't stand growing up, that pick up their "toys" and go home if they can't always have their way. Or after they lose. . . . GROW UP WEINBERG - YOUR INSECURITIES ARE SHOWING!

[My 2 Cents]

Does anyone know for sure that Pie will be testifying again in this trial?

I think there is a good chance that she may be testifying today, when they end with Seiden.

[oodi1]

Oh, i forgot to add that Blaiser thinks that this trial is not going so well for PS.

Thanks kipswife!

He apparently is getting enough info to form an opinion on how the trial is going.

[dref99]

ANOTHER WITNESS ISSUE (or) WHINE-BERG is such a BRAT [/B]

At the end of the day, I think after the PM break, Truc has to ask JF to get involved with an issue and clearly she & AJ are not happy about involving him.

... respectfully snipped for space

[/B]

Thank you so much for the detail - my take on this saga is (in my opinion) supported by these events.

As, I think Mortie said a few pages back, no-one will come out of this event with their reputation fully in tact. Then again, perhaps Weinberg will - he is defending a client with NO evidence whatsoever that a suicide took place. The evidence is slam dunk murder, yet after 6 years and 2 trials, there is still a discussion of suicide!!! His reputation is of one who can win against all odds and if he wins this one - he will forever be wanted by every defendant in California, if not the USA. If he loses - well there really was no evidence of suicide - he tried his very very best.

Judge Fidler lost it when Riordan got the better of him - removing the amended jury instruction after the event, could well have resulted in an overturn of a guilty verdict. AJ lost it when he did not get a guilty verdict in trial one - despite the evidence and his almost perfect delivery of same. PS lost it when he shot Lana Clarkson and RSh lost it when she agreed to become RSp. The Clarkson family lost their lovely daughter and six years of their lives to the Californian legal process

All of the experts in every field have lost because eventually there is sometimes more interest in what they can't say as compared to what they do say. Some of the bigger names have seriously lost reputation, but even those working for the prosecution have had their words maligned and twisted and have spent a large part of the last many years on this one case, rather than move on to increase their skill levels and range.

The cost to the people of California is unbelievable - all because one small mean man lost his temper one night too many - and after many times threatening to shoot someone - he actually did it.

DW - knows he can push the limits - reprimands/cautions/actions against him will only provide appealable issues for his client
AJ - hates being put in the role of "telling the teacher" but he is unable to have a working relationship with Weinberg (which is Weinberg's choice)
JF - the more he has to do, the more a mistake may happen - DW and AJ both know this - yet JF seems unable to find a solution other than to give himself more work. When he once insisted a DVD be instantly given to the prosecution - perjury statements ensued. If he insisted the tape now be given to the defense - he cannot know what may ensue - he feels an obligation to be "in control" at all times - but can one person take on this level of responsibility, under these circumstances?

About the only thing that seems to be without doubt in this piece of Californian "Justice" - the presence of MSM is not required to turn a straightforward murder trial into an unbelievable saga of epic proportions. It is yet to be seen how the Hollywood writers will display it on the big screen.

JMO

[My 2 Cents]

FYI: I bet today was quite exciting OUTSIDE the courthouse - - I just saw the news and the CHRIS BROWN (Rihanna: Assualt & Battery Charges) arraignment TODAY, looks like it was at the same courthouse as the Phil Spector trial (Clara Shortridge Foltz Justice Center). I saw MARCIA CLARK talking about it - - - it looked like a MAD HOUSE in the parking lot and front of the building. I AM 99% SURE IT WAS THE SAME COURTHOUSE. I BET THAT WAS CRAZY! . . . to bad some of those reporters couldn't wander into Spector's case. I bet that was a little "salt in the wound" to Spector - seeing all that media and hoopla for 2 singers that Spector probably doesn't think are fit to shine his shoes. I wonder if Spector even found a place to park in that parking lot . . .even with his HANDICAP PARKING PLACARD. :biggrin:

[oodi1]

FYI: I bet today was quite exciting OUTSIDE the courthouse - - I just saw the news and the CHRIS BROWN (Rihanna: Assualt & Battery Charges) arraignment TODAY, looks like it was at the same courthouse as the Phil Spector trial (Clara Shortridge Foltz Justice Center). I saw MARCIA CLARK talking about it - - - it looked like a MAD HOUSE in the parking lot and front of the building. I AM 99% SURE IT WAS THE SAME COURTHOUSE. I BET THAT WAS CRAZY! . . . to bad some of those reporters couldn't wander into Spector's case. I bet that was a little "salt in the wound" to Spector - seeing all that media and hoopla for 2 singers that Spector probably doesn't think are fit to shine his shoes. I wonder if Spector even found a place to park in that parking lot . . .even with his HANDICAP PARKING PLACARD. :biggrin:


They mentioned it on our local news (a judge being stabbed in court by a defendant was the hot topic), and I wondered if it was at the same courthouse. I can only imagine the chaos.

[Dave]

Unfortunately, no one is broadcasting the retrial. Apparently Phil isn't newsworthy enough anymore for the media to care.



From an article about events at the courthouse this afternoon:

"Even as Brown's bodyguard led the Brown-less party into the courthouse, Phil Spector emerged from an exit just 30 feet away. Only a few cameras took the time to capture the music producer, accused of murdering actress Lana Clarkson in 2003."

Source: http://blogdowntown.com/2009/03/4112-outside-the-criminal-courts-a-familiar-circus

[Jayne]

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.


Very interesting and thanks so much for the post. Wish I could have been there. I sort of get the 'convenient drive-up bridge' (we have a bridge out here that has several suicides a year..and it "ain't the golden gate"! not making a joke of the suicides)...but I think..aren't gas stoves rather convenient in apartments/homes? So if you take it away, less chance of a suicide - from a suicidal person? Sure...but having a gas oven/stove with a person who isn't "suicidal" does that make it more convenient if they have an "episode of Depression" or have "one too many" one night? I suppose so...so does walking outside into the middle of the street into the convenience of oncoming traffic. There probably is a lot of sense to his studies..that Golden Gate Bridge was "convenient" to a lot of people who OTHERWISE wouldn't have committed suicide...so I see the correlation..if that COLT Cobra hadn't been within Lana's reach (or pointed at her), wouldn't that mean she wouldn't have "allegedly" committed suicide? Screwed up logic and not one I'd have argued with him on the stand..but could come to that conclusion with inductive reasoning (I think that's the kind as compared to deductive reasoning?)

I look forward to hearing more about the consequences of this witness.

Thanks M2C, et al.

jmo

J

[dref99]

From an article about events at the courthouse this afternoon:

"Even as Brown's bodyguard led the Brown-less party into the courthouse, Phil Spector emerged from an exit just 30 feet away. Only a few cameras took the time to capture the music producer, accused of murdering actress Lana Clarkson in 2003."

Source: http://blogdowntown.com/2009/03/4112-outside-the-criminal-courts-a-familiar-circus

Very fickle - the LA press it would seem. Is there a board/thread for the Brown assult case - this young man (19?) should be made to attend the Spector trial and say "there but for .... go I" Imagine if he had had a gun at the time of the alleged offense!!

jmo

[Lynn Gweeny]

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.


From notes taken from the archived EXTRA video available during the first trial:

According to the testimony of Barbara Nolan from the Coroner’s office, Lana’s large tiger print purse contained the following:

1. Black beaded small purse
2. 4 business cards with time stamps that Lana would use for her job
3. Pair of sunglasses
4. 3 keys on a hard key ring
5. Driver’s license
6. Blue rhinestone pager
7. Sprint cellphone
8. Makeup case
9. Toothbrush
10. Card case
11. Micros (sp?) employee I.D. card
12. 3 Zone bars
13. 2 glass cases
14. Pen
15. Hand-free cell attachment
16. Metal pill box
17. Pair of red and clear stoned earrings
18. Brown braided necklace
19. Flower bracelet with 11 purple stones
20. Stretch clear stone bracelet
21. Hydrocodone with Acetaminophen pill (1) with no prescription directions, no name of the prescribing physician, no dispensing pharmacy (she noted this because the pill was lying free in the purse or pill box)
22. Zenith 4266 pill (1)

(Lana's folded up skirt was NOT included in this inventory)

[My 2 Cents]

From an article about events at the courthouse this afternoon:

"Even as Brown's bodyguard led the Brown-less party into the courthouse, Phil Spector emerged from an exit just 30 feet away. Only a few cameras took the time to capture the music producer, accused of murdering actress Lana Clarkson in 2003."

Source: http://blogdowntown.com/2009/03/4112-outside-the-criminal-courts-a-familiar-circus

Thanks for the LINK.

If you look at PICTURE #10 & #11, that is of PHIL and RACHELLE leaving. Phil's bodyguard is the guy in front of him and Rachelle's Mom is the lady behind them (with the fushia colored sweater).

If you look at PICTURE #5, you will see a BIG, BLACK ESCALADE in the front - which is Chris Brown's entourage, but 2 cars back - the little black Lexus - "cross-over" parked nose 1st. That's Phil's newest set of wheels. He use to drive a Mercedes everyday, then he went all "Soccer Mom" on us. INTERESTING OBSERVATION - I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT PARKED NOSE 1ST, ALWAYS BACKED IN. WONDER IF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE "HANDICAPPED PARKING PLACARD" COMMENT? ha, ha. (or could be I just have never seen it parked that direction . . . Nah, it's the "handicapped remark". :lol: )

The article said that Brown entourage arrived at 3:20PM approx - then when they were walking in - Phil walking out. That suggests to me: Perhaps court was "ADJOURNED" TODAY A LITTLE EARLY. Juror appointment - or did they run out of witnesses - or did they let courtroom go so the attorneys could "duke it out more"?

[Dave]

He looks defeated. Because he knows he is.

[My 2 Cents]

Very interesting and thanks so much for the post. Wish I could have been there. I sort of get the 'convenient drive-up bridge' (we have a bridge out here that has several suicides a year..and it "ain't the golden gate"! not making a joke of the suicides)...but I think..aren't gas stoves rather convenient in apartments/homes? So if you take it away, less chance of a suicide - from a suicidal person? Sure...but having a gas oven/stove with a person who isn't "suicidal" does that make it more convenient if they have an "episode of Depression" or have "one too many" one night? I suppose so...so does walking outside into the middle of the street into the convenience of oncoming traffic. There probably is a lot of sense to his studies..that Golden Gate Bridge was "convenient" to a lot of people who OTHERWISE wouldn't have committed suicide...so I see the correlation..if that COLT Cobra hadn't been within Lana's reach (or pointed at her), wouldn't that mean she wouldn't have "allegedly" committed suicide? Screwed up logic and not one I'd have argued with him on the stand..but could come to that conclusion with inductive reasoning (I think that's the kind as compared to deductive reasoning?)

I look forward to hearing more about the consequences of this witness.

Thanks M2C, et al.

jmo

J

Interesting that you happened to mention OVENS Jayne -
It just so happens Dr Seiden discussed that topic quite a bit.
"COAL GAS STORY" - COAL GAS Ovens (which are very toxic) used a lot for the "head in the oven" suicides we've all heard of. I forget where it took place, but when mass (country?) replacement of these ovens took place, replaced with Natural Gas ovens - - suicide there dropped by 1/3.

Seiden seemed a much higher "caliber" of witness than many of the recent experts" for the defense lately - IMO. But I don't mean he was necessarily more helpful. He just seemed more "real" and less "shady". He didn't agree with EVERYTHING DW was trying to sell. But he sure was liberal with stating that a sentence from an e-mail meant "depression" was written all over it. I find it hard to believe that a professional "suicidologist" would LEAP so FAR, based on SO LITTLE.

If he is different - I am curious how much he is willing to "budge", if AJ/Truc present other reasonable explanations, etc - - or if he acts like all the other paid "experts" DW has presented.

I don't think he's gonna sell a whole lot of jurors on the idea that the gun was so convenient, so why wouldn't Lana pick tonight to commit suicide in this man's house that she's know for 1 1/2 hours and hey, a gun sounds good as any - - - "I know I just had NEW "head shots" taken, but I really don't care if people find me with 1/2 my face blown off. My looks just aren't that important to me." - - - I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT ABOUT HER.

[spydernweb2006]

Id love to see a measurement of Lana's arm length in comparsion to the table drawer. I have a hunch that seated the way she was, facing forward her arms would NOT have been long enough to open the drawer and get the gun, unholster it, place the holster back in the drawer and shoot the gun.

If I recall correctly the table was NOT against the chair she was sitting in, just close to it. I would think if She had been the one to introduce the gun into the situation she would have had to be standing or reaching almost behind her to reach in top the drawer. I dont believe she could have been seated as she was in the chair and also be able to get the gun from the table drawer.

Ive tried to reconstruct this, my own lil expiriment and the ONLY way would be for Lana to bend her bad wrists over 90 degrees backwards and to twist her wrists so that her plam would be face up. Now I have not broken the wrist I used since I was a teenager (Im a Grandma now!)and it sent pain waves up my arm when I tried it. I did not even attempt to pick up anything, I would imagine that would add further pain due to the added weight.

I honestly dont think Lana would have been capable to get the gun due to her location, the table's location and the condition of her wrists.

Try this folks and let me know what YOU think. I placed the table 12 inches away from my chair and equal to my chair, but If I recall correctly the table may be a lil behind the chair.

So IF we remove the Lana got the gun while seated in the chair then the committed spontaineous suicide (which I DO NOT BELIEVE!) could NOT have happened. She wouldn't have "found" the gun to commit spontaineous suicide. You cannot commit spontaineous suicide without the weapon being found by her. I believe She 1st saw the weapon when PS brandished it.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[Themis]

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.
Reference Post 528

Mark Ribowsky wrote in his book that PS got frustrated during a session on a Lennon project and fired shots into the ceiling.

Lenny Bruce told journalists PS pulled a gun on him.

DeeDee Ramone was also supposed to have said PS threatened band members and forced DeeDee to play bass at gunpoint.

http://crime.about.com/od/famousdiduno/p/philspector.htm

In 1965 the Righteous Brothers signed on with Spector's Philles label and recorded probably their 3 biggest hits.

In 1966 the left PS and went with Verve.

To the best of my knowledge neither Medley nor Hatfield [Hatfield died in November 2003] has ever made a public statement about their relationship with PS. Neither has Nancy Sinatra. [JMO]

[My 2 Cents]

The "much discussed" BLACKOUT e-mail was discussed yesterday. I have never read it or seen it posted anywhere. Maybe all of you have, but I hadn't. I only recall it being referenced by LKB in PS1 opening. Of course, I still haven't seen ALL of the e-mail. Only a few sentences.

It's entitled, "Hey there Cowboy",
This is LC's nic for her boyfriend L.B.Moon. The email seems like it is a response to some remarks that HE claims LC made to him at a party - I believe. He is suggesting she doesn't remember saying it because she was drunk. She is claiming she remembers everything she said exactly, and that is a cop out to suggest that. Then she goes on the say, " . .. there's only been 3 times in my life when I've had "blackout" drinking, that I had difficulty recalling my words or my behavior . .. " She then basically says she remembers everything she says when she's been drinking, and what about the mean and nasty things he said to her? And that she recalls what they were and what he said, etc.

It felt like it was an extreme invasion of someone's personal life. And the fact that it was just a few sentences, possibly not grasping the entire picture - - seemed like an even bigger invasion.

I can't say for sure, but I think Lana put the term "blackout" in quotes for a reason. L.B. refers to her being so out of it that she can't even remember what she did or did not say. Lana is calling what he is suggesting to "blackout" drinking - - but I don't think she means the Robert Downey Jr stuff, where you wake up in someone else's house and have no clue how you got there. NOT that her drinking doesn't sound "hard core", I just don't think Lana meant she "passed out" (blacked out).

[My 2 Cents]

T&T has posted the update for TODAY's courtroom testimony.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-three.html

The blog isn't completed - she had a TALK RADIO ONE interview tonight (so that may contain some info about today as well), BUT it sounds like Truc did a GREAT JOB. She says Truc, in her opinion, did an even better job with Dr Seiden that with JHR . . . then that must have been something, because Truc was outstanding with JHR. I am excited to hear the details.

Sprocket also LINKS to (2) articles about Phil leaving as Chris Brown family arriving. The 1st LINK is the same one that is posted here - but the 2nd one, it's a VIDEO of Phil, et al . . . leaving courthouse.

BUT some BIG NEWS that she mentioned: Punkin may NOT testify after all. Weinberg will let the court know by tomorrow. BUMMER . . . I was so looking forward to that. :shrug:

[Themis]

I'm late to the party, as usual, but have to take the time to say

Many thanks to My 2 Cents and Dref99 for your lengthy and most informative posts.

I really appreciate them because I know it takes a lot of time and effort on your part.

[dref99]

I'm late to the party, as usual, but have to take the time to say

Many thanks to My 2 Cents and Dref99 for your lengthy and most informative posts.

I really appreciate them because I know it takes a lot of time and effort on your part.

The thanks are due to My 2 Cents, Themis - what a great reporting effort she has done. My thoughts try to make sense of it all, but no matter how I analyse, I cannot get past the man who likes to play with guns. Obviously no-one ever told him - Guns are not toys!

It was an interesting comment about The Pie - my2cents - I wondered as to her whereabouts when JHR said she had not seen her. Wonder if Weinberg will request to play her previous testimony (no - that seems unlikely). He is tricky - he may want her very very last perhaps :confused:

jmo

[bearwds]

So no Ms. Pie..??

I guess that means Michael Bey won't testify in this trial. He was the "set-up" for Pie, as I recall.

Thanx for the updates.


bearwds

[Daisy]

Hey, y'all. I've been reading some of the posts regarding this defense witness, Dr. Seiden, and I have a few thoughts. His testimony that Lana's emails were "screaming" a warning that she was suicidal are absurd and out of context, IMO. How about how many people have moments of depression or other extreme emotional distress at some point in their lives and contemplate or mention suicidal thoughts in passing. And, the HUGE majority of us never commit suicide or even really plan or attempt or seriously think about it.

Here's a thought.... IMO, Spector's years of out of control behavior, specifically with women and guns, were "screaming" for someone to put a stop to this lunatic before he seriously hurt or killed somebody! And, that was never done. So, Lana's death is an obvious result of his years of affinity for alcohol, drugs, and threatening women with guns.

I watched the first trial pretty much from opening to closing gavel and I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could find Phil Spector not guilty. Not every piece of "evidence" entered in a trial is as important or relevant as every other piece. The trick, I guess, is having the brains and common sense to wade through the mire and muck to the facts.

I've certainly seen nothing reported (not that there IS much being reported on this trial except for here and Sprocket's blog) that changes my mind about his guilt. I don't know if you can get everyone to agree that Lana's death was premeditated murder, but I don't see how anyone can believe that anyone else but Phil Spector pulled the trigger. Lana's death was a crime that was year's in the making. All the other women he threatened were just lucky that they didn't get THEIR heads blown off.

I believe Spector pulled that trigger. Absolutely no doubt in my mind. IMO, the only question is what degree of murder is he guilty of.

~Daisy

[sdg380]

From Daisy: "I watched the first trial pretty much from opening to closing gavel and I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could find Phil Spector not guilty."

It certainly seems so blatantly obvious--so with reference to the courthouse pix, can someone please tell me what is Chelle's mother using for brains as she let's her own flesh and blood cavort about with this murderer, Chelle's little arm around the frail Phil, as mom follows dutifully behind. I mean, have these people gone mad?!

For any of us with an ounce of decency, we must hope and pray for Lana's mother that PS is convicted and appropriately sentenced--I can't believe she's had a good night's sleep in years, the poor woman, with this absolutely disgusting show going on--not that she will ever sleep well again, having lost her daughter so senselessly to this piece of garbage.

JMO

[penguin01]

Its hard to imagine anyone buying the suicide theory at this point. But something just struck me as very funny: apparently there is a lawyer in TN that buys it - and is using it to defend Raynella Leath. Like this case - that stupid defense will do her in.
There are witnesses talking about her husband's drugs and depression: but it is all beside the point because the ballistics prove that the last shot was fired after he was dead - and from an odd angle - designed to get gunshot residue on his hand. I just don't understand why they go on and on about his medication - unless any of it gave him the capability of shooting the gun after he died.

[oodi1]

one thing that I have been thinking about is perhaps Lana was not seated in chair ready to leave... but Lana is standing in front of chair w/purse on shoulder...... PS pushes her down unexpectantly while he is waving gun, she falls into short chair..... Lana's behind toward front of chair... PS leans over her and pushes gun in face/mouth and gun discharges......

sorry i saw a clip of 9 to 5 movie when the TV host was talking about 9 to 5, the Musical coming to Broadway..... it was the scene where Dolly Parton pushes Dabney Coleman into a chair and tells him the next time he makes an indecent proposal, stating (in what is perhaps the film's most well-known line) that she will turn him "from a rooster to a hen with one shot". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_to_Five

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fob6IIcE8oo

think of PS in the Parton role.... Dolly is short, PS is short..... the chair helps force Lana down.

Her position in the chair, with her rear end so far forward in the seat, certainly doesn't seem to me to be that of someone who is "comfortable" in their surroundings. I think she was forced to sit... whether it was through physical force or not.


From Daisy: "I watched the first trial pretty much from opening to closing gavel and I don't see how any reasonable thinking person could find Phil Spector not guilty."

It certainly seems so blatantly obvious--so with reference to the courthouse pix, can someone please tell me what is Chelle's mother using for brains as she let's her own flesh and blood cavort about with this murderer, Chelle's little arm around the frail Phil, as mom follows dutifully behind. I mean, have these people gone mad?!

For any of us with an ounce of decency, we must hope and pray for Lana's mother that PS is convicted and appropriately sentenced--I can't believe she's had a good night's sleep in years, the poor woman, with this absolutely disgusting show going on--not that she will ever sleep well again, having lost her daughter so senselessly to this piece of garbage.

JMO

I have no knowledge of Chelle's background, but maybe she is following in her mother's footsteps. :confused:

[nanouk]

Could anyone tell me if court is dark today (Friday)? I remember reading that they would work on a Friday but I'm not sure if it was today...

Thanks!

Nanouk

[oodi1]

Could anyone tell me if court is dark today (Friday)? I remember reading that they would work on a Friday but I'm not sure if it was today...

Thanks!

Nanouk

It sounds like it to me, based on this entry in Sprockets blog for March 4, 2009:

"Jackson asks about scheduling and Weinberg replies that we could call her during sur-rebuttal or call her out of turn. Jackson states that it's not acceptable to call this witness within his rebuttal case. Weinberg states that he "should be done this week" on the provision that they will be working this Friday. Yep. Testimony would be presented this Friday. Weinberg would then potentially end his case with Ms. Loftfus."

Although she doesn't mention anything about it in her entry from yesterday.

[coinoutlet]

Could anyone tell me if court is dark today (Friday)? I remember reading that they would work on a Friday but I'm not sure if it was today...

Thanks!

Nanouk

I believe Sprocket said dark this friday...MAYBE next friday.

[oodi1]

For those who may not have seen it, Sprocket posted a link to video of PS leaving the courthouse yesterday, amid all the Chris Brown hoopla.

http://www.poptv.com/2009/03/05/celebs-in-court-chris-brown-and-phil-spector/

[My 2 Cents]

I think I may have misinterpreted the blog on T&T last night about PUNKIN. I reread it today, and realized that Sprocket isn't actually saying that Weinberg said Punkin MAY not testify - - she states that Weinberg just says he hasn't decided whether he will use her now OR during his rebuttal . For some reason, I read that last night as, he hadn't decided whether he was going to use her (whether it was now or later) at all. . . . MY BAD - Sorry if I have misstated the info posted on the T&T blog and worried the readers on InSession that PIE might not make an appearance. I for one, am very pleased to know that PIE may still be used by the defense.

Taking into account, the level that AJ has "raised the bar" in PS2 (even though I didn't think that "bar" could be raised much higher than what he did in PS1 . . . PIEs CROSS in PS2 should be something extremely interesting.

[dref99]

For those who may not have seen it, Sprocket posted a link to video of PS leaving the courthouse yesterday, amid all the Chris Brown hoopla.

http://www.poptv.com/2009/03/05/celebs-in-court-chris-brown-and-phil-spector/

Seemed to be almost smiling - nothing like a camera perhaps - and he certainly appeared to we walking well - despite that handicapped parking tag.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

“Miracle on 34th Street” moment . . . Who can forget the great scene in this movie, when the courtroom’s double doors burst open and the bailiffs carry in bag, after bag of mail, containing thousands of letters addressed to SANTA CLAUS. Dumping them into an enormous mound, piled high, up on the Judges’s bench? . . . I LOVED THAT SCENE!

If you haven't listened to the radio interview Sprocket gave on TALK RADIO ONE last night, you might want to. Near the very, very end of the interview, Betsy mentions a scene that took place in the courtroom yesterday that seemed "priceless". I suggest either you listen to it or I am sure she will post it very soon, but in a nutshell - Dr Seiden was apparently only given 30 emails to review, out of more than 12,000+ emails and letters taken off Lana's computer hard drive AND 30 interviews with Lana's friends. (30 emails is all Weinberg gave Dr Seiden) When Truc verified that Dr Seiden only reviewed 30 emails of Lana's to come to his conclusion - Truc doesn't just state for the jury, the number of e-mails and letters and interviews, etc that Dr Seiden should have had at his disposal to review - - - SHE SHOWS THEM!!! In come 5 boxes of over 12,000 emails and piles them on the table. What a GREAT visual.

That scene from MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET is exactly what I was picturing when Betsy described this moment in court yesterday.

ONE WORD: "AWESOME" :thumbsup:

And what was Weinberg thinking? Providing Dr Seiden with only a handful of e-mails to use in testifying about Lana's state of mind. I think he continually underestimates AJ and Truc.

[penguin01]

Great analogy! Bet that was a sight to behold! Bye bye Phil.

[dref99]

“Miracle on 34th Street” moment . . . Who can forget the great scene in this movie, when the courtroom’s double doors burst open and the bailiffs carry in bag, after bag of mail, containing thousands of letters addressed to SANTA CLAUS. Dumping them into an enormous mound, piled high, up on the Judges’s bench? . . . I LOVED THAT SCENE!

If you haven't listened to the radio interview Sprocket gave on TALK RADIO ONE last night, you might want to. Near the very, very end of the interview, Betsy mentions a scene that took place in the courtroom yesterday that seemed "priceless". I suggest either you listen to it or I am sure she will post it very soon, but in a nutshell - Dr Seiden was apparently only given 30 emails to review, out of more than 12,000+ emails and letters taken off Lana's computer hard drive AND 30 interviews with Lana's friends. (30 emails is all Weinberg gave Dr Seiden) When Truc verified that Dr Seiden only reviewed 30 emails of Lana's to come to his conclusion - Truc doesn't just state for the jury, the number of e-mails and letters and interviews, etc that Dr Seiden should have had at his disposal to review - - - SHE SHOWS THEM!!! In come 5 boxes of over 12,000 emails and piles them on the table. What a GREAT visual.

That scene from MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET is exactly what I was picturing when Betsy described this moment in court yesterday.

ONE WORD: "AWESOME" :thumbsup:

And what was Weinberg thinking? Providing Dr Seiden with only a handful of e-mails to use in testifying about Lana's state of mind. I think he continually underestimates AJ and Truc.

Weinberg does try my2cents - every trick in the book - but I also think he underestimates the prosecution - I have no doubt AJ was devestated with the last result - nothing is getting past him second time around.

jmo

[tartangirl]

“Miracle on 34th Street” moment . . . Who can forget the great scene in this movie, when the courtroom’s double doors burst open and the bailiffs carry in bag, after bag of mail, containing thousands of letters addressed to SANTA CLAUS. Dumping them into an enormous mound, piled high, up on the Judges’s bench? . . . I LOVED THAT SCENE!

If you haven't listened to the radio interview Sprocket gave on TALK RADIO ONE last night, you might want to. Near the very, very end of the interview, Betsy mentions a scene that took place in the courtroom yesterday that seemed "priceless". I suggest either you listen to it or I am sure she will post it very soon, but in a nutshell - Dr Seiden was apparently only given 30 emails to review, out of more than 12,000+ emails and letters taken off Lana's computer hard drive AND 30 interviews with Lana's friends. (30 emails is all Weinberg gave Dr Seiden) When Truc verified that Dr Seiden only reviewed 30 emails of Lana's to come to his conclusion - Truc doesn't just state for the jury, the number of e-mails and letters and interviews, etc that Dr Seiden should have had at his disposal to review - - - SHE SHOWS THEM!!! In come 5 boxes of over 12,000 emails and piles them on the table. What a GREAT visual.

That scene from MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET is exactly what I was picturing when Betsy described this moment in court yesterday.

ONE WORD: "AWESOME" :thumbsup:

And what was Weinberg thinking? Providing Dr Seiden with only a handful of e-mails to use in testifying about Lana's state of mind. I think he continually underestimates AJ and Truc.

We have missed seeing this like so many other vital pieces of this case, because it was not news worthy or important enough for the media to cover.
More than that, in this super technology filled age in which we exist, in the future we will only be reading about this case and not seeing any of it, ever. :mad:

Thank You for that My2Cents. Another stellar piece of work by the prosecution. They really are the very best around...:wub:


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

[oodi1]

“Miracle on 34th Street” moment . . . Who can forget the great scene in this movie, when the courtroom’s double doors burst open and the bailiffs carry in bag, after bag of mail, containing thousands of letters addressed to SANTA CLAUS. Dumping them into an enormous mound, piled high, up on the Judges’s bench? . . . I LOVED THAT SCENE!

If you haven't listened to the radio interview Sprocket gave on TALK RADIO ONE last night, you might want to. Near the very, very end of the interview, Betsy mentions a scene that took place in the courtroom yesterday that seemed "priceless". I suggest either you listen to it or I am sure she will post it very soon, but in a nutshell - Dr Seiden was apparently only given 30 emails to review, out of more than 12,000+ emails and letters taken off Lana's computer hard drive AND 30 interviews with Lana's friends. (30 emails is all Weinberg gave Dr Seiden) When Truc verified that Dr Seiden only reviewed 30 emails of Lana's to come to his conclusion - Truc doesn't just state for the jury, the number of e-mails and letters and interviews, etc that Dr Seiden should have had at his disposal to review - - - SHE SHOWS THEM!!! In come 5 boxes of over 12,000 emails and piles them on the table. What a GREAT visual.

That scene from MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET is exactly what I was picturing when Betsy described this moment in court yesterday.

ONE WORD: "AWESOME" :thumbsup:

And what was Weinberg thinking? Providing Dr Seiden with only a handful of e-mails to use in testifying about Lana's state of mind. I think he continually underestimates AJ and Truc.


Talk about some drama!! I can only imagine some of the facial expressions when boxes of emails started rolling in! I wonder if JF had to scold the gallery again.

[Curlyjo]

Thank you for posting the contents.

I did a google search and could not find it.

WHAT? No suicide note?:wink:

[kennedy06]

On J V Mitchell show tonight there was a discussion about high profile celebrities and their trials MJ, OJ and so on, no PS. Anyway it was nice to see several old CTV personalities. A remark or question was made that with the celebrities in these long trials, such as with the MJ that it is possible that jurors after looking in the face of the celebrities for so many months begin to feel for the celebrity or something close to that (paraphrasing). I wonder if any of the jurors watching PS began to feel something for him?

[oodi1]

Most people under 50 had never heard of Spector in 2003. He may have made a lot of money, but he was not widely recognized. There was no facial recognition like that of OJ, MJ and Blake. JMHO.


Good point! I had heard the name for years, but I don't think I knew what PS looked like before PS1 (and I'm in the over 50 crowd). I also can't imagine that some of his behavior that has come out in testimony would evoke any sypmathy from anyone.

[Jayne]

Id love to see a measurement of Lana's arm length in comparsion to the table drawer. I have a hunch that seated the way she was, facing forward her arms would NOT have been long enough to open the drawer and get the gun, unholster it, place the holster back in the drawer and shoot the gun.

If I recall correctly the table was NOT against the chair she was sitting in, just close to it. I would think if She had been the one to introduce the gun into the situation she would have had to be standing or reaching almost behind her to reach in top the drawer. I dont believe she could have been seated as she was in the chair and also be able to get the gun from the table drawer.

Ive tried to reconstruct this, my own lil expiriment and the ONLY way would be for Lana to bend her bad wrists over 90 degrees backwards and to twist her wrists so that her plam would be face up. Now I have not broken the wrist I used since I was a teenager (Im a Grandma now!)and it sent pain waves up my arm when I tried it. I did not even attempt to pick up anything, I would imagine that would add further pain due to the added weight.

I honestly dont think Lana would have been capable to get the gun due to her location, the table's location and the condition of her wrists.

Try this folks and let me know what YOU think. I placed the table 12 inches away from my chair and equal to my chair, but If I recall correctly the table may be a lil behind the chair.

So IF we remove the Lana got the gun while seated in the chair then the committed spontaineous suicide (which I DO NOT BELIEVE!) could NOT have happened. She wouldn't have "found" the gun to commit spontaineous suicide. You cannot commit spontaineous suicide without the weapon being found by her. I believe She 1st saw the weapon when PS brandished it.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

Well..I agree to some extent..but she could have been "foraging around" (I'm being sarcastic) like Juryr #10 thought last time (since his MIL was a bit of a nosey type, I guess?)..found it..all the time for a Long Time had been contemplating suicide..but ALAS she had no gun. Plenty of prescription medication on hand, though, if she'd truly wanted to she could have done it before 2/3/3, IMO. So, I don't buy it. But, I don't she they had to be within sitting reach to the drawer..she could have opened it and found it (even though I don't believe so)..took it...sat down calmly and shot herself. That's what the defense in PS1 wanted people to believe, even though the "claim" was it wasn't PS's gun..well..at least in "theory". Now if PS told her a gun was in there..and he was flitting about the castle..and she just pulled it out..left the holster there (hoping to "blame him"? or being a neat freak)..then went and sat in that chair? There was nothing in evidence..and again..from my speculation (and experience from falling backwards with my physical issues onto, into chairs much stronger than that one was!)..I cannot imagine that if she shot herself standing up and she'd have landed as she did..that chair would have likely flown out from underneath her, and she'd have been lying on the floor after a self inflicted gunshot. If she shot herself in the chair, I'd have thought (of course speculation) that it would be "dead on" (no pun)..straight in that chair, determined..and her "slump in that chair" would have been an entirely different "picture". JMO

When I think of the ludicrous-ness of it...if I wanted to commit suicide..and I was danged sure it was by a gunshot...hmmm...and I didn't have access to a gun...guess I'd have a few choices: Go buy one (well..that would be a "clue" wouldn't it?), borrow one (another clue?), steal one (yet another clue), or...hopefully take a ride for just "one drink" to hopefully find someone who did..who would be STUPID ENOUGH to either let it in Open View or I'm the type to go snooping to just hopefully find one, if I didn't know, or wasn't sure they had one? Or go to a crime infested area...make a scene and get shot? But then..that's murder, isn't it? Safe bet perhaps...if the shooter was a "known criminal/wannabe" and no one could testify that it was "her fault"..like many try..."s/he was in the wrong place at the wrong time"...we'll..that's not suicide..that's unfortunately murder. And, I do think Lana was in the wrong place at the wrong time on 2/3/3 and she had no intention of killing herself. And, I'm not saying that PS was a "known criminal/wannabe" but he certainly has had a past of using guns to control people..and I'd highly doubt Lana took that ride for one drink figuring she was going into a house where her "dream" (of dying) could come true. What would be "up" with that? She'd have had a better chance just driving to downtown LA Watts district and wander about the streets. Or going home and taking an overdose..if that was her intention.

Heck...just rehashing old stuff..but those emails do NOT scream at me (what I know of them) as any more depressing than anything I've received or sent among friends or colleagues..exaggerating, being dramatic, looking for "sympathy" or just plain joking. (example: how many people have said (or written).."I'd rather be dead, than _______."?

jmo

J

[Jayne]

“Miracle on 34th Street” moment . . . Who can forget the great scene in this movie, when the courtroom’s double doors burst open and the bailiffs carry in bag, after bag of mail, containing thousands of letters addressed to SANTA CLAUS. Dumping them into an enormous mound, piled high, up on the Judges’s bench? . . . I LOVED THAT SCENE!

If you haven't listened to the radio interview Sprocket gave on TALK RADIO ONE last night, you might want to. Near the very, very end of the interview, Betsy mentions a scene that took place in the courtroom yesterday that seemed "priceless". I suggest either you listen to it or I am sure she will post it very soon, but in a nutshell - Dr Seiden was apparently only given 30 emails to review, out of more than 12,000+ emails and letters taken off Lana's computer hard drive AND 30 interviews with Lana's friends. (30 emails is all Weinberg gave Dr Seiden) When Truc verified that Dr Seiden only reviewed 30 emails of Lana's to come to his conclusion - Truc doesn't just state for the jury, the number of e-mails and letters and interviews, etc that Dr Seiden should have had at his disposal to review - - - SHE SHOWS THEM!!! In come 5 boxes of over 12,000 emails and piles them on the table. What a GREAT visual.

That scene from MIRACLE ON 34TH STREET is exactly what I was picturing when Betsy described this moment in court yesterday.

ONE WORD: "AWESOME" :thumbsup:

And what was Weinberg thinking? Providing Dr Seiden with only a handful of e-mails to use in testifying about Lana's state of mind. I think he continually underestimates AJ and Truc.

I love it, love it, love it.

Did weinberg protest?

{just for sport: TD to JF: "[Judge] how do you like this play"? JF in response: "The [Counselor] doth protest too much, methinks."}

jmo

J

[Jayne]

I think I may have misinterpreted the blog on T&T last night about PUNKIN. I reread it today, and realized that Sprocket isn't actually saying that Weinberg said Punkin MAY not testify - - she states that Weinberg just says he hasn't decided whether he will use her now OR during his rebuttal . For some reason, I read that last night as, he hadn't decided whether he was going to use her (whether it was now or later) at all. . . . MY BAD - Sorry if I have misstated the info posted on the T&T blog and worried the readers on InSession that PIE might not make an appearance. I for one, am very pleased to know that PIE may still be used by the defense.

Taking into account, the level that AJ has "raised the bar" in PS2 (even though I didn't think that "bar" could be raised much higher than what he did in PS1 . . . PIEs CROSS in PS2 should be something extremely interesting.

No kidding..I'd even go so far as to say "excrutiatingly interesting (tolerable?)". PS1..watching (excrutiating) wanted to throw a blanket over her exposure, give her a cold washcloth to wake her up and something "personal" of Lana's...like something they shared...or some "gift" Pie might have given her..as if that would soften her?? Her "calendar/journal" as I recall..IMO..was fabricated (added to..just like the Madam's). Birds of a feather, I guess.

jmo

J

[dref99]

From notes taken from the archived EXTRA video available during the first trial:

According to the testimony of Barbara Nolan from the Coroner’s office, Lana’s large tiger print purse contained the following:

...snipped for space



Many thanks Lynn - you are as always, a wonderful finder of very useful information - I did search for this without success

[tartangirl]

This current retrial of Phil Spector has me, and I am sure many more, thinking once again of his penchant for guns and how he used them as a control devise. It seemed, he tried to use them to amuse, confuse and frighten us. I say seemed because he is not suppose to be doing that any longer. Hmm ..I have to wonder about that though. Old habits are hard for Phil to break I would imagine and this is a very old habit of his.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month, although sad to say, is the perfect time for this retrial to be wrapping up. Phil has had his way with women and guns and crazy long enough. Lana Clarkson was the end to his madness that night February 03, 2003.

The current BIG TIME NOTE WORTHY media frenzy story crossed paths with Phil Spector the other day as he made his pathetic exit from the courthouse. The Rihanna and Chris Brown story is an example of what can and does happen not only in Hollywood but all around the world over and over each day to women and men who are victims of domestic violence. How coincidental some might say, or it just might be a warning to Rihanna of what could and might have happened that night.

Here is a link to one story with some gumption behind it that wonders why more people in the music and entertainment business do not speak out more about this subject.

http://jalowe1957.blogspot.com/2009/03/domestic-violence-in-hollywood-and.html

I have another one too, but I can not publish it here because the title and content has some objectionable words boldly stated for all to see.

pm if you want it


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

[dref99]

This current retrial of Phil Spector has me, and I am sure many more, thinking once again of his penchant for guns and how he used them as a control devise. It seemed, he tried to use them to amuse, confuse and frighten us. I say seemed because he is not suppose to be doing that any longer. Hmm ..I have to wonder about that though. Old habits are hard for Phil to break I would imagine and this is a very old habit of his.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month, although sad to say, is the perfect time for this retrial to be wrapping up. Phil has had his way with women and guns and crazy long enough. Lana Clarkson was the end to his madness that night February 03, 2003.

The current BIG TIME NOTE WORTHY media frenzy story crossed paths with Phil Spector the other day as he made his pathetic exit from the courthouse. The Rihanna and Chris Brown story is an example of what can and does happen not only in Hollywood but all around the world over and over each day to women and men who are victims of domestic violence. How coincidental some might say, or it just might be a warning to Rihanna of what could and might have happened that night.

Here is a link to one story with some gumption behind it that wonders why more people in the music and entertainment business do not speak out more about this subject.

http://jalowe1957.blogspot.com/2009/03/domestic-violence-in-hollywood-and.html

I have another one too, but I can not publish it here because the title and content has some objectionable words boldly stated for all to see.

pm if you want it


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


Hi Tartangirl

I saw the link in the new links thread - many thanks. When the hearing was first mentioned on this thread - I made a comment - probably a page or two back

this young man (19?) should be made to attend the Spector trial and say "there but for .... go I" Imagine if he had had a gun at the time of the alleged offense!!

For one who has never been subject to domestic violence I do have trouble understanding why women don't immediately leave, but I also understand that the reasons seem very logical to them at the time.

If there is any chance for "celebrity justice" in LA, the outcome of these two cases will prove it, one way or the other.

jmo

[Jayne]

<snipped only for space>

For one who has never been subject to domestic violence I do have trouble understanding why women don't immediately leave, but I also understand that the reasons seem very logical to them at the time.

<snipped>

jmo

Hey, dref! briefly..to not be "off thread/topic"...domestic violence (and maybe it's not so off topic, in fact...PS may not have had a "relationship of length" with Lana..but it was, IMO, a striata of domestic violence)..so here...I worked in it/with it for several years prosecuting and my very best friend (and to this day..we still are) was on the victim's side for a year when we "worked" in the same state...and I can put in some personal experience/knowledge.

Why don't women leave? The reasons aren't only logical to them, dref, they are survival mode and victim associated. Fear for their children's safety (depending on the circumstances), no money, nowhere to go, emotional - believing it will change or thinking they "caused it", fear..bottom line...fear..even worse than the fear they have when accosted and assaulted. For a year, I attended a place (won't give the name) that was a safe place for women (and men..but none attended when I was there...) to come to talk, get counselling, attempt to move on..there was a lot of support among those women. I understand what you're saying..for years I thought the same..then I prosecuted those people who victimized them and then I went to those counselling sessions to "listen"..oh, what I learned. It's so much more than most people think. It isn't so easy to just "walk away" BUT IT SHOULD BE. If I had the money, I'd donate to every woman's shelter I could - domestic partner too (gender doesn't matter to me...that place that one would think was only for women, was not..it included domestic partners). I did leave clothing and food when I moved from east to west.

that's as brief as I can be on this...and apologies..but I do think it fits this case. I wonder about Ronnie...how long it took her to "run". And, the mere fact that she did, says something to me (besides the media and publications and this case) that something just wasn't "right".

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Lynn Gweeny..WHERE have you been?

J

[Anakerie]

Sprocket has updated the Day 52 entry... Dr. Seiden's testimony.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-two.html

[Curlyjo]

Sprocket has updated the Day 52 entry... Dr. Seiden's testimony.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-two.html

Thank you for letting us know about the update. I wish I could be there thank goodness for these wonderful people who take the time out of their lives to let the rest of us know what is happening. I appreciate it very much.

[My 2 Cents]

SPROCKET'S "T&T" has UPDATED all the notes for Thursday, March 5th of the trial. THANKS SPROCKET! :read:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-three.html

[My 2 Cents]

Hey Anakerie, My 2 Cents, ~ great to see you again, was checking back after away with other Boards here as well:

Hard to believe that this is 'wrapping up' -- much appreciated to previous websites as well! It's been a long road...

What's this about Lisa Bloom @ testifying tomorrow/Monday ?! (In the Grand Finale perchance) ?! Does that mean she'll be reporting on herself on TruTV bright and early too?! :w00t:

LOL . . . I guess, that would mean that - - - - EXCEPT for the fact that TRUTV and everybody else, do NOT seem to want to cover this very exciting trial. If Lisa Bloom is a witness, maybe they will rethink their lack of ANY coverage or updates. (Wishful thinking on my part, I am sure.)

RE: Lisa - I don't believe T&T is reporting that LISA BLOOM is necessarily the witness testifying Monday for the state's rebuttal case. I think it's just several, very "eager" readers of Sprocket's that are "anticipating" it MAY be LISA BLOOM (or possibly - - "HOPING" it will be Lisa Bloom). . . . I HOPE THEY ARE RIGHT. WOULDN'T THAT BE INTERESTING? . . . as well as another great moment in court, that the media has past up.

[mbmb]

SPROCKET'S "T&T" has UPDATED all the notes for Thursday, March 5th of the trial. THANKS SPROCKET! :read:

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-three.html

Thanks for keeping us up to date. I'm just hoping this trial ends with a *Guilty* verdict. I don't even want to think about Spector #3.

[oodi1]

I wonder if Dr. Loftus can do any better than the other defense experts have done. :confused: It seems to me that her expected testimony would be more applicable to defense witnesses, rather than prosecution witnesses. :ohmy:

[My 2 Cents]

Dr Seiden's CROSS by Truc Do:

After reading Sprocket's blog about Thursday's testimony, let me see if I am COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION.

1. Dr Seiden didn't even write a single report about his conclusions, after being paid to work on this case for 7 months?

2. Weinberg actually WROTE the 5 page report (or as DW interjected "a summary") FOR Dr Seiden and gave it to him to review. Which he did, and then Seiden "revised" just one of the paragraphs. SO WEINBERG, the attorney, WROTE the "Suicidologist's", DR. SEIDEN'S REPORT?

3. Weinberg only forwarded Dr Seiden 30 of Lana's EMAILs off her computer's hard drive, . . . 30!!!! Out of over 6,000+ emails (over 12,000 PAGES of emails) that were there? Gee, . . . Why would Weinberg do that?

4. Dr. Seiden considered what he referred to as Lana's "Reckless Behavior", based on her being a "Reckless Driver", which he had based on 3 DMV reported accidents for her vehicle - - even though Fawn, her sister was driving during one of them, not Lana AND one of the other accidents occurred when Lana had been rear-ended?

5. Dr. Seiden made his "expert" conclusions WITHOUT interviewing any family members or friends, WITHOUT considering any of the physical evidence, WITHOUT considering the behavioral history, drinking, etc of the only other person (PS) who was present at the time Lana died, and WITHOUT considering ANY of the statements from other people made at the scene?

DID I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY? Because I am thinking this won't fly to well with the jury. The JURY is going to totally dismiss Dr Seiden's testimony, because he based it on only a few "hand-picked" emails out of more than 6,000, and without even exploring all the other information, interviews, statements from family & friends, etc. I also believe the JURY is really going to question Weinberg's "Game Playing" and "Sneakiness". Much of Weinberg's "games" and discovery issues, etc, have been out of the view & earshot of the jury. Knowing now, that DW only gave Dr Seiden 30 of Lana's emails to base his "expert" opinion and testimony on - - - I believe the JURY will really question Weinberg's character, and what lengths he is willing to go to, to "pull the wool over the eyes'" of this jury. IMO

[kennedy06]

A clip of PS walking into the courthouse. For just being posted the other day it sure has had a lot of views. I wonder if he knew why all the cameras were present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtOLPA3XmWE

[oodi1]

Dr Seiden's CROSS by Truc Do:

After reading Sprocket's blog about Thursday's testimony, let me see if I am COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION.

1. Dr Seiden didn't even write a single report about his conclusions, after being paid to work on this case for 7 months?

2. Weinberg actually WROTE the 5 page report (or as DW interjected "a summary") FOR Dr Seiden and gave it to him to review. Which he did, and then Seiden "revised" just one of the paragraphs. SO WEINBERG, the attorney, WROTE the "Suicidologist's", DR. SEIDEN'S REPORT?

3. Weinberg only forwarded Dr Seiden 30 of Lana's EMAILs off her computer's hard drive, . . . 30!!!! Out of over 6,000+ emails (over 12,000 PAGES of emails) that were there? Gee, . . . Why would Weinberg do that?

4. Dr. Seiden considered what he referred to as Lana's "Reckless Behavior", based on her being a "Reckless Driver", which he had based on 3 DMV reported accidents for her vehicle - - even though Fawn, her sister was driving during one of them, not Lana AND one of the other accidents occurred when Lana had been rear-ended?

5. Dr. Seiden made his "expert" conclusions WITHOUT interviewing any family members or friends, WITHOUT considering any of the physical evidence, WITHOUT considering the behavioral history, drinking, etc of the only other person (PS) who was present at the time Lana died, and WITHOUT considering ANY of the statements from other people made at the scene?

DID I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY? Because I am thinking this won't fly to well with the jury. The JURY is going to totally dismiss Dr Seiden's testimony, because he based it on only a few "hand-picked" emails out of more than 6,000, and without even exploring all the other information, interviews, statements from family & friends, etc. I also believe the JURY is really going to question Weinberg's "Game Playing" and "Sneakiness". Much of Weinberg's "games" and discovery issues, etc, have been out of the view & earshot of the jury. Knowing now, that DW only gave Dr Seiden 30 of Lana's emails to base his "expert" opinion and testimony on - - - I believe the JURY will really question Weinberg's character, and what lengths he is willing to go to, to "pull the wool over the eyes'" of this jury. IMO


You understood it the same way I did. And if we are both correct, this helped the defense how?????

BTW... Accidents only show up on the driver's DMV reports. The one accident where Lana was a passenger would not have shown up on her DMV report. Regardless, it was ridiculous to even bring those up without the police and/or insurance company reports to give the details of the accidents.

[Jayne]

Seiden...

I may be wrong...but I view this as "inductive reasoning"...

maybe OK for some things...not so much for others..

An example: All musicians I know are crazy...therefore, all musicians are crazy. DUH??? But that's how it works...inductively, that is.

With deductive reasoning/logic, the premise must be true. I do not think that Seiden gave any evidence that on the "premise" was true.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

Seiden...

I may be wrong...but I view this as "inductive reasoning"...

maybe OK for some things...not so much for others..

An example: All musicians I know are crazy...therefore, all musicians are crazy. DUH??? But that's how it works...inductively, that is.

With deductive reasoning/logic, the premise must be true. I do not think that Seiden gave any evidence that on the "premise" was true.

jmo

J

ITA Jayne, but SOME "inductive reasoning" can be pretty strong, can't it? For example, how about this?

INDUCTIVE REASONING:

All persons emerging from their home, standing a few feet away from a dead woman with a gunshot wound, a minute after the gun shot was heard, while holding in their hand the same gun used in the shooting AND while claiming, "I think I killed someone" . . . is probably GUILTY.

OR could that almost qualify as DEDUCTIVE reasoning? One thing is for sure, in my book, it QUALIFIES as "LOGICAL THINKING". :thumbup:

[hiitsme]

I just finished reading the T&T update thus far of Thursday's testimony. If these tactics, resulting in that type of testimony don't fly in the face of the search for the truth, nothing does! I was sickened by this trickery (so they thought) and total lack of conscience by this Dr. The insinuations regarding the minor traffic violations were outrageous. It's amazing that Lana's mother and sister were able to maintain their composure. But then again, that's just how classy they are. As BR indicated, Truc Do did a magnificent cross to discredit this "liar for hire" and it appears she's not done. Can't wait for the next update. MOO

[hiitsme]

Lisa Bloom is not hosting her program this morning. Hmmm, maybe she will be the rebuttal witness called by the pros. I certainly hope so because I'm sure she'll set the record straight as to Gregory Sims' appearance on her show during PS1.

[kennedy06]

I finished reading T & T update on Dr. S. When I first read about him I thought maybe he might be the defense's strongest witness, as the rest just haven't seem to fair well under cross.

Needless to say as M2C has pointed out above so well, this witness didn't fare any better.

I almost feel sorry for this man. I suppose he could have researched on his own, but am I assuming correctly that he went by the information that DW supplied him with only?

I wish we could see the attorney TD in action. She sounds pretty amazing. If everyone in the gallery was looking at the 5 boxes I'm sure the jury was also.

[My 2 Cents]

FYI FOLK:

JUST ROUNDED HALLWAY TO COURTROOM 106 . . . and guess who is sitting in the hallway on a bench, outside courtroom 106?

Yup . . . . LISA BLOOM (wearing a very attractive red dress).

I'll touch bases with you later, just thought you'd appreciate knowing.

[kennedy06]

Thanks for letting us know:smile:

[Dietcokefan]

FYI FOLK:

JUST ROUNDED HALLWAY TO COURTROOM 106 . . . and guess who is sitting in the hallway on a bench, outside courtroom 106?

Yup . . . . LISA BLOOM (wearing a very attractive red dress).

I'll touch bases with you later, just thought you'd appreciate knowing.


Yes indeed...I just read on TMZ.com that she is being called as a prosecution witness to rebuttul Sims' testimony...NICE!

[Dietcokefan]

Too Cool, My 2 Cents! I was remembering your covering there/for us here months ago, and yesterday ? what Lisa Bloom's connection was to all this, and so close to the end...all making this seem surrealistic, somehow.
Thank you, thank you for any and all updates!!!
Picture of Phil from the other day Kennedy06 posted (great to see you again too!) Phil was wearing bright red flower and hankie. I guess they're nothing if they're not Hollywood, right? Wonder if there was a conflict of interest CNN/TRUTV not covering? Wasn't other media going to cover this/at least the closings?

Back during the 1st trial, Lisa Bloom interviewd Greg Simms (friend of Lana) and he spoke of her behavior/demeanor prior to her death...at the time he told Lisa that there was NO WAY Lana was depressed etc...well, now during this trial he has testified for the defense as to the total opposite, stating that Lana was depressed, and he even said that he told this to Lisa Bloom during/after their interview...well, now the prosecution is calling Lisa Bloom to the stand to set the record straight as to what was really said during that conversation/interview he had with Lisa...word is that she is going to state that he did say Lana was NOT depressed...and that he is now lying.

[Dietcokefan]

Oh OK, thanks for the refresher course! And glad to see they are not letting the little weasel and his assorted cohorts continue with their useless "defense". wtg Lisa too!!!

Yes, I so agree with you...and it came out in Simms' recent testimony in this new trial that he also has some connection to those two brothers who own a nightclub in LA that Spector is very good friends with...it's a tangled web I tell ya!

And, yes, great for Lisa Bloom to be setting it all straight...

[kennedy06]

Too Cool, My 2 Cents! I was remembering your covering there/for us here months ago, and yesterday ? what Lisa Bloom's connection was to all this, and so close to the end...all making this seem surrealistic, somehow.
Thank you, thank you for any and all updates!!!
Picture of Phil from the other day Kennedy06 posted (great to see you again too!) Phil was wearing bright red flower and hankie. I guess they're nothing if they're not Hollywood, right? Wonder if there was a conflict of interest CNN/TRUTV not covering? Wasn't other media going to cover this/at least the closings?

Hi Flere!

We tried hard to get coverage by the MSMedia, emailing and things but to no avail. We did have a source willing to try to help but, it would have required a monthly fee to pay for the coverage, it didn't work out.

Regular reporters report on this trial once in a great while. If it weren't for T & T and M2C and another recent blogger Joe Friday we wouldn't know really what was happening. As for closings we can only hope.

[Anakerie]

FYI FOLK:

JUST ROUNDED HALLWAY TO COURTROOM 106 . . . and guess who is sitting in the hallway on a bench, outside courtroom 106?

Yup . . . . LISA BLOOM (wearing a very attractive red dress).

I'll touch bases with you later, just thought you'd appreciate knowing.
Wow! I'll be looking forward to your impressions of her testimony! I guess this explains why she wasn't on her TruTV show this morning...

Sprocket also has an announcement up about Lisa testifying today!
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-four.html

Sprocket also says that Lisa Bloom will be leaving TruTV in June because she's moving back to California....

[Anakerie]

Yes indeed...I just read on TMZ.com that she is being called as a prosecution witness to rebuttul Sims' testimony...NICE!
Here's a link to the TMZ spot:
http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/09/lisa-bloom-spector-witness-pants-on-fire/

The TMZ "reporter" goofed too... He says that Sims was a prosecution witness... lol.. DOH!

[My 2 Cents]

Lisa Bloom was in fact the special rebuttal witness for the prosecution today. She was taken out of order to accommodate her busy schedule. She must have arrived very early, as she seemed to be one of only a few people anywhere in sight and the courtroom had not been opened yet. A little later, while still waiting outside the courtroom, the attorney that took over for the Michael Jackson case – Tom Mesereau (he’s the attorney with the long, white hair) came up to her and they chatted for quite awhile.

IN COURT: Lisa was an excellent witness. She looks so relaxed and comfortable on the witness stand. . . . AND she comes across as sincere and very, very likeable. During CROSS by Weinberg, when he was trying to “put words in her mouth” - at least, that is how it came across to ME, Bloom took her time, paused and then answered. She came across IMO as trying to be very honest.

TESTIMONY: She starting working for COURTTV in June, 2001. And was with COURTTV in 2003 on the BLOOM & POLITAN show and in 2007 when the first PS trial took place. In 2/2003 when Lana was killed Greg Sims was her friend and neighbor in Pacific Palisades (CALIF) where she lived in an apartment. She testified that “shortly after the shooting” Greg Sims shared with her (friend to friend – not to Lisa, the journalist or COURTTV analyst), “Oh my God, I knew Lana Clarkson. I spoke with her 1 week before she died. I had a party at my suite at the St Regis Hotel.” “She was weepy & sad.” “She was very drunk.” “We talked. At the end of the night she felt better.”

Lisa Bloom testified that she asked Sims point blank, “Did she seem suicidal?” (Lisa said she asked this because being in the news industry, she had already heard the rumors about her possibly committing suicide.)
SIMS: “ABSOLUTELY NOT”

Lisa testified that Sims seem affronted that it was even suggested that Lana was suicidal.

Other words that Lisa kept testifying to that Sims alluded to about that night: (she kept stating “this is the essence of what he told me. I can’t recall and quote word for word what he said. As a journalist, I am very careful about putting quotes around statements. But this was the tenure, this was the essence of what he said.)
“little down”, “little depressed”
“a bit of a drama queen”
“weepy & sad”
Sims told her . . . “Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would she be someone that would have killed herself, and certainly not take a gun & shoot herself.”

I will post more later – but in a few words: Lisa was an excellent witness, they even played the video tape from his 5/11/07 interview on BLOOM & POLITAN and Sim’s states the same things that Lisa said he told her. . . . GOTTA GO NOW. Court is starting.

[Dietcokefan]

Lisa Bloom was in fact the special rebuttal witness for the prosecution today. She was taken out of order to accommodate her busy schedule. She must have arrived very early, as she seemed to be one of only a few people anywhere in sight and the courtroom had not been opened yet. A little later, while still waiting outside the courtroom, the attorney that took over for the Michael Jackson case – Tom Mesereau (he’s the attorney with the long, white hair) came up to her and they chatted for quite awhile.

IN COURT: Lisa was an excellent witness. She looks so relaxed and comfortable on the witness stand. . . . AND she comes across as sincere and very, very likeable. During CROSS by Weinberg, when he was trying to “put words in her mouth” - at least, that is how it came across to ME, Bloom took her time, paused and then answered. She came across IMO as trying to be very honest.

TESTIMONY: She starting working for COURTTV in June, 2001. And was with COURTTV in 2003 on the BLOOM & POLITAN show and in 2007 when the first PS trial took place. In 2/2003 when Lana was killed Greg Sims was her friend and neighbor in Pacific Palisades (CALIF) where she lived in an apartment. She testified that “shortly after the shooting” Greg Sims shared with her (friend to friend – not to Lisa, the journalist or COURTTV analyst), “Oh my God, I knew Lana Clarkson. I spoke with her 1 week before she died. I had a party at my suite at the St Regis Hotel.” “She was weepy & sad.” “She was very drunk.” “We talked. At the end of the night she felt better.”

Lisa Bloom testified that she asked Sims point blank, “Did she seem suicidal?” (Lisa said she asked this because being in the news industry, she had already heard the rumors about her possibly committing suicide.)
SIMS: “ABSOLUTELY NOT”

Lisa testified that Sims seem affronted that it was even suggested that Lana was suicidal.

Other words that Lisa kept testifying to that Sims alluded to about that night: (she kept stating “this is the essence of what he told me. I can’t recall and quote word for word what he said. As a journalist, I am very careful about putting quotes around statements. But this was the tenure, this was the essence of what he said.)
“little down”, “little depressed”
“a bit of a drama queen”
“weepy & sad”
Sims told her . . . “Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would she be someone that would have killed herself, and certainly not take a gun & shoot herself.”

I will post more later – but in a few words: Lisa was an excellent witness, they even played the video tape from his 5/11/07 interview on BLOOM & POLITAN and Sim’s states the same things that Lisa said he told her. . . . GOTTA GO NOW. Court is starting.


Oh...thank you! thank you!

[Dave]

You should have taken the plea deal, Phil. You are going down. You really do not have a defense.



Hey, come on. Spector has the best defense money can buy. :laugh:

[hiitsme]

omg, omg, Thomas Mesereau too?!?> oh be still, faint heart !!! oh I'm really on baited breath now...(as abeit-real-life-drags-me away...)
omgomg...:thumbup:

Hi Flere

See, perfect timing, you came back for the best part. Did you just catch Lisa Bloom's short video on TMZ.com as she came out of the courthouse?

[True2Blues]

Yes, I so agree with you...and it came out in Simms' recent testimony in this new trial that he also has some connection to those two brothers who own a nightclub in LA that Spector is very good friends with...it's a tangled web I tell ya!

And, yes, great for Lisa Bloom to be setting it all straight...

Someone needs to investigate those two and their relationship to PS and people testifying in this trial. It's ridiculous.

[Anakerie]

My 2 Cents, THANK YOU!

I'm so glad we have someone on the board here that is going to the trial now and then again... Especially since we can't rely on the main stream media for any information!

[True2Blues]

You should have taken the plea deal Phil.... you are going down. You really do not have a defense.


According to the Prosecution, the only plea deal was in PS's mind anyway.

[Rickshere911]

The only way PS is going to get out of this is if he can get to a juror...... again

[Jayne]

Oh, I thought Shapiro made a deal with Pros for a manslaughter charge... maybe Shapiro wanted to try but PS said no

thanks t2b

I think that was it...from PS1 through now, that's what I've gleaned from all the varied sources, posts, publications..it was an offer that Shapiro WANTED to offer to the prosecution (that IS how it goes...usually, unless the case is one the prosecution sees as "50/50" perhaps or is a "first offender" (OK, not for murder..but then the evidence, etc. can come into play)). I'm not surprised that AJ would say they never made an offer. I doubt they would. But, back then, they might have negotiated one..can't say...I mean they have the victim's family, lots of emotions, looking at the evidence from their perspective. Maybe if Shapiro had been "allowed" by PS to present it, it might have been accepted or re-negotiated. We'll never know.

I've even posted it..as have others that "PS should have taken that plea offer of Shapiro's", but I think it was misunderstood..many thinking it had been on the "table" (as between DA and defense). Apparently it never was as PS told Shapiro to forget it..then he sues the guy...just amazing. With almost any negotiating/bargaining (from education and experience), if you are the offering (alleged guilty) party..you start on the low side..but not so low you'd be laughed at. If the other "prosecuting side"..if they offer, that pretty much tells the defense "something is up"..unless it's a high offer..and it reeks of "guilt" but something is time consuming or there is a "small flaw" in the case that might come down to getting exactly what is offered..but save the attorney's fees and court time and get the defendant into the system and out of it (or whatever) rather than spending months or longer coming down to probably the same or similar thing. It's that Chess Game (the trial) I allude to..NO Game, really..but that's how it looks if grafted on paper..I move, you move, I move, you move. The key (or one of several) is can you back that "piece" into a corner..Check Mate..but if you can get it early on...justice is served and caseloads are less. (on a side note - I found plea bargaining to be a rather exciting and educational experience...in many ways..you never know what you're gonna get and the journey is the interesting part)

Just trying to explain...from my non celebrity and non famous experience/knowledge.

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

Some General Observations from TODAY:

1. LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Lisa Bloom on the stand today. What a really great witness. So relaxed, so comfortable and so friendly as she spoke. Doesn't get defensive, doesn't come across as biased.

I did get a chance to ask her (after she had already testified), "Lisa, so any thoughts why the retrial isn't being covered?" She said, "I-don't-really-know-why . . . it is such an interesting trial, that's for sure."

2. Dr Mary Goldenson - (clinical psychologist) - ONLY on the stand approx 20 minutes tops. Really didn't add anything to case. She briefly spoke to Lana on phone and testified that Lana only asked questions about health insurance, what coverage they accepted, etc.

3. Dr. Seiden (finished his testimony) - Came across today as VERY DEFENSIVE, SNOTTY AND ALL AROUND "PO". IMO Interrupted Truc numerous times. Cut her off. Wouldn't answer her questions. He kept anticipating what she would ask, then cut her off or tell her, "This is what you should be asking me", etc.

Juror #9, from PS1 was there today, all day. He is very friendly, very nice guy.

[My 2 Cents]

COURTROOM FYIs:

Pretty empty on the defense side today – Rachelle, her Mom , Tawni Tyndell & Weinberg’s wife (2 regulars came during last hour of day)

Weinberg has no more witnesses, except for Dr Loftus, who can’t testify until Thursday. (Therefore, if PIE testifies, she will be a part of the defense’s rebuttal case.)

NO COURT TUESDAY & WEDNESDAY (the attorney’s & judge will be working on “Jury Instructions” – but PS & jurors will not be there)

Hey . . . Maybe PS or RS do read the InSession forum, because the HANDICAP PARKING PLACARD was GONE today. :biggrin:

[oodi1]

Thanks M2C!

Do you have any insight as to why the defense would call Dr. Goldenson? Was it the defense's attempt to imply that the mere fact that Lana called a psychologist indicated that she was depressed or suicidal?

[kennedy06]

Thank you m2c. Was there any noticeable reaction to Lisa being there by anyone in the courtroom?

Thanks

[My 2 Cents]

When Lisa’s TV show, BLOOM & POLITAN covered the 1st Spector trial, “gavel-to-gavel”, LB asked Sims to be a guest, to discuss the conversation she & Sims had 4 years earlier. She held a PREinterview with him before the actual taped show (like she does with every guest) – she said it was consistent with the conversation she had with him shortly after Lana’s death and then with what he later stated on her show. She also said, “Sims was NOT compensated in any way, none of our guests are.”

Sims also had told Lisa that, “Lana was just like 90% of all actresses in Hollywood. Down & upset, and then after talking to a friend, she felt better.”

The video tape of SIMS was played and Sims said basically what LB had just stated he told her back in 2003.

WEINBERG CROSS: DW suggested that Lisa was biased. He accused her of stating on her TV show, while talking to Vinnie about the PS case, that PS was a, “NEBBISHY, LITTLE JEWISH GUY”. (And CW - Please don't ban me, I am just quoting the testimony.) Lisa laughed a little at herself, and then said, “You know that I am Jewish?” DW said, “Yes, I know.” And then LB added, “That's not necessarily a negative thing. My boyfriend is a Nebbishy, Little Jewish Guy.” She laughed again and so did everyone else, (except DW & PS – I would guess). DW accused her of being biased because she had formed an opinion as to PS’s guilt or innocence. LISA stated that “YES, she had formed an opinion, and NO that absolutely did not make her biased. She had listened to ALL the testimony of every witness, every single bit of it and heard all the evidence. After reviewing ALL of that, she formed an opinion as to his guilt. But that does not make it biased.” . . . OOPS, perhaps DW should have stopped and NOT followed up with that question.

DW played back the tiniest snippet of BLOOM & POLITAN, with Lisa saying a few, fragmented words; "very drunk", "depressive" and then DW tries to manipulate what she had said (even though the court had just played a longer section of the same tape/video), suggesting that Lisa is implying LC was a "train wreck" - - so to speak. It was really great the way Lisa replied to DW: "Mr. Weinberg, you have played only a very short clip of what I actually said." - - - DW moves on to new topic.

DW kept trying to get her to state "word for word" what GS said to her in 2003. Lisa was very clear about what he said, and some very specific details (like the 90% reference). But she kept telling Weinberg, I can't say that was a perfect quote of what he said, but the essence of what he said - but DW treated this as if it now held no value because she couldn't, with 100% certainty, quote verbatim what exact words GS used. And DW wanted her to ALSO know the EXACT WORDS Sims used in his testimony, for PS1, since Lisa said she listened to & covered all of the trial. Lisa finally said to him: "I am NOT going to remember ANY OF THE EXACT & SPECIFIC wording used from a 5 month trial, 2 years ago."

AJ on redirect, asked Lisa if it would have stuck out in her mind, (knowing the defense was suggesting LC committed "suicide" ) if Sims had mentioned that LC stated that "She was at the end of her rope" OR that she said, "She didn't have a reason to live"? LB advised, "HE NEVER SAID THAT TO ME. IF HE HAD, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY SIGNIFICANT TO ME & I WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY REMEMBERED THAT."

[My 2 Cents]

Thank you m2c. Was there any noticeable reaction to Lisa being there by anyone in the courtroom?

Thanks

Everyone in the gallery and the attorneys, including DW and his team - seemed to be excited that she was there. Chatting and introducing themselves, even Weinberg. The jury seemed very interested in her testimony, but I couldn't say if they realized who she was or not.

FYI: I just saw that video interview of her leaving the courthouse. Even though she looks fine there, that was a really poor quality or lighting or something - - because she looked just as refreshed and good in the courtroom as she does on TV. (and not like in that video)

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks M2C!

Do you have any insight as to why the defense would call Dr. Goldenson? Was it the defense's attempt to imply that the mere fact that Lana called a psychologist indicated that she was depressed or suicidal?

YES . . . I believe that is exactly why they called her. What was interesting was that she testified that she does "PSYCHODYNAMIC THERAPY" and "INTRAPERSONAL THERAPY" and INTERSPECTION. . . i.e.- Career Development, a person could come to her to BETTER their PERSONAL SPEAKING, and more along those lines.

The witness seemed very honest, but really had nothing to assist the jury with any weighable evidence. - - Lana called and this Dr happened to answer. She only remembered that Lana told her she was referred by a friend and that she was calling to check on which insurance they accepted, etc. Explained her health insurance was thru SAG. AJ showed her an email dated 3/19/2002 where Lana thanks the person for referring her - Jennifer Sykes (a friend Lana had just met, a friend of Jennifer Hayes), and implies - I believe - that she's checking with her insurance. AJ is suggesting this took place in early 2002 - a year before her death. DW is suggesting the call took place nearer to the END of 2002, possibly 1/2003.

However, after AJ thru out all the other services Dr Goldenson provided, it seemed to ME, like DW was back to chasing his tail. It seemed like a complete waste of time for; THE JURY, THE COURT, DR GOLDENSON . . . and me too. (LOL) IMO.

[Jayne]

YES . . . I believe that is exactly why they called her. What was interesting was that she testified that she does "PSYCHODYNAMIC THERAPY" and "INTRAPERSONAL THERAPY" and INTERSPECTION. . . i.e.- Career Development, a person could come to her to BETTER their PERSONAL SPEAKING, and more along those lines.

The witness seemed very honest, but really had nothing to assist the jury with any weighable evidence. - - Lana called and this Dr happened to answer. She only remembered that Lana told her she was referred by a friend and that she was calling to check on which insurance they accepted, etc. Explained her health insurance was thru SAG. AJ showed her an email dated 3/19/2002 where Lana thanks the person for referring her - Jennifer Sykes (a friend Lana had just met, a friend of Jennifer Hayes), and implies - I believe - that she's checking with her insurance. AJ is suggesting this took place in early 2002 - a year before her death. DW is suggesting the call took place nearer to the END of 2002, possibly 1/2003.

However, after AJ thru out all the other services Dr Goldenson provided, it seemed to ME, like DW was back to chasing his tail. It seemed like a complete waste of time for; THE JURY, THE COURT, DR GOLDENSON . . . and me too. (LOL) IMO.

OH PLEEEAASSE..this is California..with all those "excuses" for behaviours. And, I'm frankly "sick and tired" of all this "pseudo..psycho BS...I've experienced one of them..he allegedly studied in CA..went back to the east coast to "accost young girls"..YEAH..some pretty high fallootin expertise, huh _hellerwork..should be called "hell work" imo

I'm sorry.M2C..well, maybe I don't have to be..you do realize I'm coming to this from a pretty straight forward sensible approach? (hopefuly!). This is absolutely LUDICROUS.

I think I can understand where DW lies...(not saying he's a bad person, but he surely is pushing his envelope, huh?)..

I'm not being nasty here..just my own humour..but let's talk some "gypsy magic"..it just might work?

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

OH PLEEEAASSE..this is California..with all those "excuses" for behaviours. And, I'm frankly "sick and tired" of all this "pseudo..psycho BS...I've experienced one of them..he allegedly studied in CA..went back to the east coast to "accost young girls"..YEAH..some pretty high fallootin expertise, huh _hellerwork..should be called "hell work" imo

I'm sorry.M2C..well, maybe I don't have to be..you do realize I'm coming to this from a pretty straight forward sensible approach? (hopefuly!). This is absolutely LUDICROUS.

I think I can understand where DW lies...(not saying he's a bad person, but he surely is pushing his envelope, huh?)..

I'm not being nasty here..just my own humour..but let's talk some "gypsy magic"..it just might work?

jmo

J

Hola Jayne - - What I meant was, this Dr had all these "fancy sounding names" for these other things she did through her office . . . but they were just "fancy names" for NON "TYPICAL" PSYCHOLOGIST THERAPY TYPE THINGS . . . Like: IMPROVING ON YOUR PUBLIC SPEAKING, IMPROVING CAREER DEVELOPMENT, etc. Not necessarily something related to any sort of "depression" problem or therapy because Lana was harboring suicidal thoughts. She may have been referred to help her acting career for all we know - because this lady did stuff like that. Very broad AREA for a psychologist in my opinion.

I wondered WHY they didn't just call as a witness, the "friend" that gave LC this lady's name and referred her. They know it was Jennifer Sykes. Ask her why Lana was interested. MAYBE WEINBERG ALREADY KNEW THAT ANSWER AND DIDN'T LIKE IT.

[Rickshere911]

Do you have proof that he got to a juror?
Either he was paid off or he was an idiot......IMO ........ and that goes for these so called friends too

[spydernweb2006]

TY again M2C for your indepth covrage of Lisa Bloom at the PS2 trial.

Any idea how the Jury took to her testimony? How did Phil react?

Hugs,

Spyder

JMHO

[nanouk]

Either he was paid off or he was an idiot......IMO ........ and that goes for these so called friends too

Ben-Ten, the juror that couldn't go for guilty in PS1, was an idiot :w00t:. He stated that, since his mother-in-law was constantly rummaging through his house's drawers, so could Lana have done at PS's house, thus finding the gun and using it on herself. He clearly had a score to settle with his wife's mommy. He chose a very bad place to do so. Crazy... As for the so called friends, I clearly believe they had their own agenda :thumbdown:. Scratch his back and...

JMO

Nanouk

[penguin01]

Ben-Ten, the juror that couldn't go for guilty in PS1, was an idiot :w00t:. He stated that, since his mother-in-law was constantly rummaging through his house's drawers, so could Lana have done at PS's house, thus finding the gun and using it on herself. He clearly had a score to settle with his wife's mommy. He chose a very bad place to do so. Crazy... As for the so called friends, I clearly believe they had their own agenda :thumbdown:. Scratch his back and...

JMO

Nanouk It was fun seing him interviewed wasn't it? He really thought he would become well known as some kind of advisor to the Prosecution. And he thought he was a "stealth" NG voter - it was funny as it started to dawn on him that everone knew it was him - and his "whatever he says" followers. I'm not sure anyone got to this guy. I think he planned it early on himself - he hoped to make himself seem interesting thru this case. Sad, that.

[penguin01]

I was so sad that it seemed important to him to "normalize" what most people would think of as really terrible behaviour - that of rooting around the in the private drawers of someone else's home.... was it just his home or any home she happened to be in?
Maybe any home, because he wanted everyone to think it would be a normal thing for Lana and any other woman to do. Yuck! and idiotic, for sure!

Wonder what "Ben-ten" is up to these days. Keeping a low profile I guess.

[gmiller]

Thanks for all of the information. I think that by her having all of those belongings on her person when she was found clearly shows that she wasn't depressed. The defense teams weak attempt at a suicide defense is so bogus and disgusting that they should be ashamed of themselves.

I was curious about one of the items, because I do not recall hearing about in either PS1 or 2. This was Item #22 which is the Zenith 4266 Pill. I just Googled it and according to healthline.com this pill is really called Acyclovir which is an antiviral med used to treat herpies and shingles. I don't recall any mention of that. Did I miss something and if I am then can anyone tell me what she was taking it for?

PS: HI Jayne :seeya:

[Jayne]

Getting caught up I see now that DW gets to rattle on, on Thursday.

As to these two days in the interim for "Jury Instructions" -- Does anyone know if these are 'finalized' ?-- Weinburg may/could? use this to pull a fastie @ remaining witness -- then in Closing as to some convoluted "fact" in the Jury Instructions. Or allude to -- he seems so much inuendo, to numerous mentions of his pomposity and leaning way back in his chair, to what I got from My 2 Cents yesterday...

Hi Jayne: I remember on a couple threads here that you thought DW had something up his sleeve, possibly some fact only he knew...that he was going to: pounce. Did he, you still @ that?

Yes, I did..but right now, I think he "blew" every possibility other than PIE..and what a "slam in the face" that would be? I would be surprised (but shouldn't be) if he puts her on the stand..to counter WHAT?

I still think he is going to argue No..or Yes...which he should (IMO) "manslaughter"..although..I'm not so sure it will fit..I couldn't WATCH the trial and only get snippets..but thanks to M2C..much of it seems pretty clear. DW will be out for an "appeal"...I do think that..and that's what he's been up for the whole time..even if PS didn't agree. But..on What Grounds? Ineffective Counsel? (NO WAY...who bites their nose to spite their face?)...discovery issues (WHO is the one who violated them?)...

I don't know...probably DW is better than I right now think he is...I'd never disparage a fellow attorney without evidence..but I really question this..IS he trying to be Cochran? Can't emulate that guy though you might try. Never really liked his style..but he was effective.

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Oh, I thought Shapiro made a deal with Pros for a manslaughter charge... maybe Shapiro wanted to try but PS said no

thanks t2b

I think you're right about Shapiro wanting to make a deal. I imagine that's what got him replaced.

[True2Blues]

Thanks M2C!

Do you have any insight as to why the defense would call Dr. Goldenson? Was it the defense's attempt to imply that the mere fact that Lana called a psychologist indicated that she was depressed or suicidal?

Probably. That's what they inferred last time.

[GPSpector]

Does anyone have the scoop on the chance that the PS2 closing arguements will be televised?

TIA

I asked Tru-TV that question a few weeks ago when I called about the Dominic Dunne show (I declined to do it), I was told by a producer that they still have not decided not to show the Closing and it may be a possibility but that they just have not decided yet.

[Juror #9]

Can you imagine how the ten Gs felt in discussions with Ben-10?

The old saying 'you can't argue with an idiot' comes to mind. I do not think PS got to him. I just think he had some archaic thoughts in his mind... and he believes (JMHO) that women are inferior.

I used to work for a guy that reminds me so much of #10. The manner of dress, the hair, speaking and religious background.

Belive me, it was hell trying to get Ben to see it our way.

[coinoutlet]

Belive me, it was hell trying to get Ben to see it our way.

Juror #9 What do you think of the defense using PIE as a rebuttle witness?

[penguin01]

Probably. That's what they inferred last time. who's the they who inferred - the jury? I'm confused. (The speaker implies, the listener infers - its like pitchers and catchers.)

[gmiller]

Myth : The most common method of suicide is drug over dose.

Fact : The leading cause of death among suicide victims is gunshot wounds. Those who take drugs are often less successful.


Myth : People who commit suicide always leave notes.

Fact : Only a small percentage of those who commit suicide leave notes explaining why or telling that they intentionally took their own life.

There are many more at this link:

http://www.voicesofhope.info/suicide.htm

That's such an old school myth about suicide notes.

I would like to point out something very interesting from Sprocket's blog...even the defense's "Suicideologist" had to conceded that he had never seen a person commit suicide in a strangers home. That's a big omission from someone who was practically doing cartwheels for the defense. IMO I feel that once he realized Weinburg's dirty game or misinformation and half truth's this suicideologist was told, he jumped ship.

[Ellie]

Yes, I did..but right now, I think he "blew" every possibility other than PIE..and what a "slam in the face" that would be? I would be surprised (but shouldn't be) if he puts her on the stand..to counter WHAT?

I still think he is going to argue No..or Yes...which he should (IMO) "manslaughter"..although..I'm not so sure it will fit..I couldn't WATCH the trial and only get snippets..but thanks to M2C..much of it seems pretty clear. DW will be out for an "appeal"...I do think that..and that's what he's been up for the whole time..even if PS didn't agree. But..on What Grounds? Ineffective Counsel? (NO WAY...who bites their nose to spite their face?)...discovery issues (WHO is the one who violated them?)...

I don't know...probably DW is better than I right now think he is...I'd never disparage a fellow attorney without evidence..but I really question this..IS he trying to be Cochran? Can't emulate that guy though you might try. Never really liked his style..but he was effective.

jmo

J

Ha, pull Pie out of his sleeve.... lol! If he did that, all AJ would have to do is ask her about her Christmas card the year that Lana was murdered. I think keeping Pie up his sleeve would be best for DW, PS and the defense in general. (Hi Jayne!!) :smile:

[kennedy06]

That entire day's report by T & T was just something! I can't help but wonder if PS isn't longing for the days when he had Shapiro or Cutler, heck even Rosen representing him. I don't know what PS may have said about LB but I would hope he would have learned a lesson from hearing VT testimony, about the way he speaks about women.

[My 2 Cents]

That entire day's report by T & T was just something! I can't help but wonder if PS isn't longing for the days when he had Shapiro or Cutler, heck even Rosen representing him. I don't know what PS may have said about LB but I would hope he would have learned a lesson from hearing VT testimony, about the way he speaks about women.

Hi K6. You might be right, but I must say, Weinberg is a PIT BULL. He just won't let go, or let up. And I guess (when your client doesn't have any facts to speak of, that support NG) this makes for a good defense attorney. Fight, fight, fight for every point, every ruling he thinks MAY help. But I do believe some of this definitely "back fires", because it has to get old and on the jury's nerves. And I believe when someone "cries wolf" too many times, you pay less attention and start dismissing what they say. IMO however, I think Phil is getting more "BANG FOR THE BUCK" with Weinberg, than he did with the disjointed group of attorneys that he had working for him during the trial, in PS1. But that is just my observation - maybe because the PS1 "team", just didn't seem to operate as a "team", and each of their individual "styles" where so different from each other - maybe that's why they seemed less cohesive to me.

[hiitsme]

Hi K6. You might be right, but I must say, Weinberg is a PIT BULL. He just won't let go, or let up. And I guess (when your client doesn't have any facts to speak of, that support NG) this makes for a good defense attorney. Fight, fight, fight for every point, every ruling he thinks MAY help. But I do believe some of this definitely "back fires", because it has to get old and on the jury's nerves. And I believe when someone "cries wolf" too many times, you pay less attention and start dismissing what they say. IMO however, I think Phil is getting more "BANG FOR THE BUCK" with Weinberg, than he did with the disjointed group of attorneys that he had working for him during the trial, in PS1. But that is just my observation - maybe because the PS1 "team", just didn't seem to operate as a "team", and each of their individual "styles" where so different from each other - maybe that's why they seemed less cohesive to me.

I would agree that DW is running a tighter ship, so to speak, but just about every one of his witnesses have been basically discredited by the prosecution on cross. During PS1, I could at least say there were good days for the defense, despite their enormous egos which caused that lack of cohesiveness you indicated. I'm wondering if DW calls Pie as his very last witness in his rebuttal, can AJ call Nilli to rebut Pie's testimony? I have also wondered if AJ intended on calling Nilli at all. I thought she was one of their best!

[My 2 Cents]

I would agree that DW is running a tighter ship, so to speak, but just about every one of his witnesses have been basically discredited by the prosecution on cross. During PS1, I could at least say there were good days for the defense, despite their enormous egos which caused that lack of cohesiveness you indicated. I'm wondering if DW calls Pie as his very last witness in his rebuttal, can AJ call Nilli to rebut Pie's testimony? I have also wondered if AJ intended on calling Nilli at all. I thought she was one of their best!

THAT IS TRUE - for sure! The defense witnesses are bombing! I do think that AJ has raised "the bar" for the state, even as great a job as he did in PS1, he is making sure no stone is unturned and his case is just so tight. I also think he and Truc Do make a better team, than AJ & Pat Dixon. I have to think Weinberg is forced to "push the envelope" if he expects any chance at a hung jury (because, IMO, I don't think an acquittal is even a remote possibility). But you are right - he has certainly crossed over the line and that will take its toll with the jury - insulting them with "biased witnesses" and "perjury laced testimony".

RE: PIE - I think AJ will call Nilli Hudson during rebuttal and then Weinberg will call PIE during his sur-rebuttal (in an effort to discredit Nilli's testimony and support Jennifer Hayes testimony). He better be careful though - - - Seeing a true friend like Nilli testify, butted up close to the "other supposed LC friend", PIE , will be a glaring contrast in character and honesty that will be very apparent to the jury IMO.

[hiitsme]

Pie's testimony will definitely be discredited by Nilli and the prosecution. Maybe I'm confused, but if Nilli is called by AJ in rebuttal, she has to be called only to rebut someone's testimony during the case in chief? If so, it can't be to rebut Pie if she hasn't testified yet. Maybe she'd be called to rebut the testimony of Gregory Sims. I cannot recall who the rebuttal/sur-rebuttal witnesses were in PS1 as Why? asked previously.

[My 2 Cents]

Pie's testimony will definitely be discredited by Nilli and the prosecution. Maybe I'm confused, but if Nilli is called by AJ in rebuttal, she has to be called only to rebut someone's testimony during the case in chief? If so, it can't be to rebut Pie if she hasn't testified yet. Maybe she'd be called to rebut the testimony of Gregory Sims. I cannot recall who the rebuttal/sur-rebuttal witnesses were in PS1 as Why? asked previously.

I'm thinking Nilli is being called to rebut Jennier Hayes Riedl's testimony, primarily. And to rebut the defense's case in general - that Lana was suicidal and extremely depressed, leading up to 2/3/03. IMO.

[hiitsme]

I'm thinking Nilli is being called to rebut Jennier Hayes Riedl's testimony, primarily. And to rebut the defense's case in general - that Lana was suicidal and extremely depressed, leading up to 2/3/03. IMO.

Thank you and that makes perfect sense! I think I only had the Christmas card on my mind, not all of the other witness testimony that Nilli could rebut. Go Nilli!

[nanouk]

I would agree that DW is running a tighter ship, so to speak... (respectfully snipped)

And so was Edward John Smith before he hit an iceberg... and sank :wink:

JMO

Nanouk

[hiitsme]

And so was Edward John Smith before he hit an iceberg... and sank :wink:

JMO

Nanouk

OK, OK, I hope you know I'm hoping he goes down with his shi@p. oops.

[Anakerie]

Anyone have a clue or a guess why DW think's is so iimportant for Rachelle to be in the courtroom before any testimony can happen? (Referencing DW's objection to court on Friday...) That puzzles me. She isn't part of the trial aside from being Phil's prop when he walks from his car to the courthouse and back.... Plus, she's been absent from the courtroom on other days...

[Anakerie]

It's nagged at me since PS1 Jury Deliberations, your choosing #10, and stymied your Jury from sending Judge Fidler questions/s -- and that there was some question (among you) as to changing (to another) Foreperson. And it was (somehow relayed) you could not do so <--- by #10 himself. ???
If so in any way, I hope this California Jury gets clear rules, the rules are more clear/rewritten by now, can't get hijacked!

Anarkie, I tried finding that particular Objection. Can you specifiy? Maybe they've all gotten lost in the shuffle...

Hi Flere... It's in Sprocket's "Day Fifty Four Part II" post... About midday or so... It's a ways down in the post.. Fidler's clerk asked Weinberg about Friday and he answered that Mrs. Spector "can't do Friday"... I'm wondering now if it was a typo and Weinberg said MR. Spector couldn't do Friday or if he really did say MRS. Hopefully Sprocket will clear up the confusion since there were more than just me asking about that in the comments for that post.. lol

ETA: Thank you, Why! I didn't read your post before typing out mine... :biggrin:

[KathR]

ty for letting us know. TruTv has really let all of us arm chair detectives down :(

I can't watch it anymore. Was getting too annoyed at 3 p.m. Eastern when the court day suddenly ended. However, I hope someone streams the closing and verdict watch.

[Anakerie]

Sprocket has a short entry up for days 55 and 56...
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-55-56.html

The Mr./Mrs. thing is cleared up... The Mrs. was a typo.. It's MR. Spector that "can't do Fridays"... lol

And Alan Jackson got a promotion! :thumbsup:

[Curlyjo]

Sprocket has a short entry up for days 55 and 56...
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-55-56.html

The Mr./Mrs. thing is cleared up... The Mrs. was a typo.. It's MR. Spector that "can't do Fridays"... lol

And Alan Jackson got a promotion! :thumbsup:

Really? Can't do Friday's? I wonder what he has to do that will take up the WHOLE day? Can the court demand that he works it out so that he be in attendance at least half of the day? Can the California court system afford this? I mean California is broke right?

[tartangirl]

A friend and I were just talking about that wonderful news. Alan Jackson has been a true advocate for Lana Clarkson and her family. It is easy to see how his dedication and love of the law has brought the right kind of attention and an unexpected promotion too. :wink: I am grateful that in this crazy world that there are good men out there willing to fight the good fight for justice. Thank You Mr. Jackson.


ALAN JACKSON YOU ARE A TOP ACT



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

[oodi1]

I can't watch it anymore. Was getting too annoyed at 3 p.m. Eastern when the court day suddenly ended. However, I hope someone streams the closing and verdict watch.


Yeah... "gavel to gavel" coverage starts at 9 AM and ends at 3 PM on the west coast too. :confused: It's very frustrating. :cursing: I can't imagine the cameramen/reporters are walking out in the middle of the trials just because the coverage is no longer being aired.

[Jayne]

Anyone have a clue or a guess why DW think's is so iimportant for Rachelle to be in the courtroom before any testimony can happen? (Referencing DW's objection to court on Friday...) That puzzles me. She isn't part of the trial aside from being Phil's prop when he walks from his car to the courthouse and back.... Plus, she's been absent from the courtroom on other days...

Maybe because DW might think (or realize?) that if she weren't there Before testimony, she might make a Grand Entrance, even if against the court "rules" since those "rules" seem to not have applied to her in many cases, in her mind. And, that would distract the jury from listening to the evidence?

[My 2 Cents]

A friend and I were just talking about that wonderful news. Alan Jackson has been a true advocate for Lana Clarkson and her family. It is easy to see how his dedication and love of the law has brought the right kind of attention and an unexpected promotion too. :wink: I am grateful that in this crazy world that there are good men out there willing to fight the good fight for justice. Thank You Mr. Jackson.


ALAN JACKSON YOU ARE A TOP ACT



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



I TOTALLY AGREE. And I especially like your point about, "thank goodness there are GOOD MEN out there willing to fight the good fight for justice." I think it was the orator, Edmund Burke that said something to the effect of: "Evil Triumphs, When Good Men Do Nothing" (and I've always liked that quote) . . . and isn't that the truth? Thank goodness for Mr Jackson and his special gift as a trial lawyer. He is in a class of his own, IMO. :beer:

RE: Promotion to "Assistant Head of Major Crimes Division" . . . WHO is the HEAD of Major Crimes Division? ISN'T IT PAT DIXON - Jackson's co-counsel from PS1? I thought I had heard that before - but I am not 100% sure.

Here's a LINK that has a nice PROFILE about Alan Jackson.
http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/alan_jackson_nov_dec_2007.html

[My 2 Cents]

Really? Can't do Friday's? I wonder what he has to do that will take up the WHOLE day? Can the court demand that he works it out so that he be in attendance at least half of the day? Can the California court system afford this? I mean California is broke right?

This is pure speculation and mostly just a "GUT" feeling, but this is my "best bet":

(A) Rachelle threw a tissy fit because she doesn't want to come to court one more day a week than already agreed to. Meaning - doesn't want to spend a minute more with Grandpa Spector, I mean "hubby". Wants her 3 Days Off without Phil. The "standing appointment" is probably her nails or massage or tanning salon.

(B) Phil thinks, Ya, I'll support that, because "No Fridays" translates to 2 or 3 more days of freedom. (I would bet anything that Spector's car & driver NEVER exit that gate between 8am-4pm, come Friday.)

I'm guessing that Weinberg would rather have court on Fridays - he probably wants to move onto his next case, that keeps getting put on the back burner. I'm guessing he is ready for this to be over as well as his association with his client, Phil Spector - who I think Weinberg has absolutely no respect for. Just think about that email from PS1, to the attorneys, and the way Spector ordered those people around - the insulting and controlling way he spoke to them. Weinberg would never put up with that from the likes of a Phil Spector, IMO.

[tartangirl]

I TOTALLY AGREE. And I especially like your point about, "thank goodness there are GOOD MEN out there willing to fight the good fight for justice." I think it was the orator, Edmund Burke that said something to the effect of: "Evil Triumphs, When Good Men Do Nothing" (and I've always liked that quote) . . . and isn't that the truth? Thank goodness for Mr Jackson and his special gift as a trial lawyer. He is in a class of his own, IMO. :beer:

RE: Promotion to "Assistant Head of Major Crimes Division" . . . WHO is the HEAD of Major Crimes Division? ISN'T IT PAT DIXON - Jackson's co-counsel from PS1? I thought I had heard that before - but I am not 100% sure.

Here's a LINK that has a nice PROFILE about Alan Jackson.
http://www.ndaa.org/ndaa/profile/alan_jackson_nov_dec_2007.html

That quote is also one of my favorites. I also remember reading about Pat Dixon as the Head of Major Crimes Division. He is such a wonderful lawyer and another one of my favorite memories from PS1. Thank you for the link, I have that one and I enjoyed reading it again tonight. I had an extra reason to smile as I read it this time. Happiness for a talented lawyer at a well earned time of his life. :smile:


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

[Jayne]

I don't see anything in her purse that is a clear sign that she was NOT depressed. I also did not see anything in her purse that is a clear sign she WAS depressed.

jmo

Well..isn't that forensics?

Good lord..look in my purse..or the purse of many who carry around a 5-10pound purse:

make up (not me..but many)

money (most people do, including debit or credit cards)

identification

bank deposit slips

photographs.

keys

perfume?

medication?

a bunch of other stuff piled up over the week or weeks?? receipts..bills...etc.

nail file, clipper, extra set of keys...

address book

cell phone?

extra pair of "underwear, etc."?

Just in Case...Toothbrush..toothpaste...anything extra that is "just in case"

pens, pencils, agenda book, notes

photographs?

MAN it can PILE UP.

jmo

J

[dref99]

who were the rebuttal and surrebuttal witnesses in PS1?

I'm not sure there were any surrebuttal in trial 1 but I think these were the rebuttal

Nili Hudson - friend of Lanas
Michael Bay - to say he didn't "diss" Lana
Devra Robitaille - english lady - employee and girlfriend of Spector 1970s
John Andrews to rebut Dr. Michael Baden's testimony
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/celebrity/phil_spector/18.html

There was a crossover of witnesses at the end (as is happening now) because of when people were available - and the defense deciding who they would call.

Nothing like a long weekend away & I missed the excitement of this week. It bothers me when celebrities get involved in this trial - it seems to me the defense use this to make the trial into something it is not - a celebrity who cannot get a "fair" trial. I think everyone, especially the judge, has been more than "fair" to Phil and yet the lawyers go on and on - I just hope nothing happens with the jury instructions to cause grief as happened at the end of trial 1. I assume Phil is wanting Riordan to perform another miracle by confusing the jury instructions.

I don't fully understand why the prosecution now wants to allow manslaughter - I hope it is not because they think they can't get murder 2 verdict.

jmo

[kennedy06]

I was also wondering about the manslaughter consideraton dreff. I didn't know if I misunderstod T & T, if it was a serious consideration or just something that had to be brought up because of the Lee case or what. I don't know what type of sentence manslaughter would bring?

Maybe its to early for me lol but wouldn't it be something if he paid for all this and ended up with manslaughter...if that was the original charge...he probably could have made a deal.....so the money spent on two trials and all else....worry and affect on his health....IF he married because of the charge or trial only, loss of friends or reputation or gaining of a new reputation,everything....would almost be a sort karma type payback for his past indiscrestions maybe.

On the other hand the affects on the families, taxpayer dollars spent...time and effort to prosecute him....and then end up with manslaughter...I don't know......I guess we will see.

I watched Bernie M. going to court this morning,on tv. Funny I thought about both of these men, if PS is convicted, at their ages 69/70 going off to prison but I guess they would be in totally different prison environments. Its funny I bet neither thought they would get caught doing something they had done apparently for years (PBAs/PS) and maybe no one really said anything to them that could have put a stop to their actions before someone got hurt. JMO

Off to read the PS astrologist report that T & T mentioned!

JMO only

[Ellie]

...anybody want to guess how long the jury will be out? I say a week.

[kennedy06]

...anybody want to guess how long the jury will be out? I say a week.

At this time I'm thinking a week or even less.

[nanouk]

...anybody want to guess how long the jury will be out? I say a week.

Not very long: 2 days or less.

JMO

Nanouk

[tartangirl]

Hi tartangirl:seeya:

How right you are! I've never seen a more dedicated prosecutor than Mr. Jackson! Not only is he an inspiration to others...he's easy on the eyes!LOL!


I congratulate you also, Mr. Jackson! If anyone deserves it, you do!

Hey NavyMom58,

This case has taken up a lot of the past two years and more for the prosecution and Alan Jackson has been a leader in that good fight for Lana. I know the recent promotion had to be based on the complete body of work that this totally dedicated man has done for his employer. I have to see a small glimpse of positive light in this intense case that filtered through and allowed the sun to shine on one of our favorite lawyers. Steady as he is, this will just add a sheen to his case as it progresses. Each day brings us closer to the guilty verdict that I know is evident and so warranted.


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

[penguin01]

I watched the original trial from opening gavel to hung jury. At that time I had been laid off from my bank due to "downsizing". Since that time my life took several 360 degree turns and I lost track of the trials I was following. As it turns out I am again laid off from another company. I'm now again working with unemployment and finding a job. But I have a little time to view In Session and live trials. I decided to view the message boards.... To my chargrin, the second trial of PS was almost finished. I jumped to Sprocett's blog to catch up.

Please tell me, how close are we to deliberations?

My question also. I'm going to be out of town and out of pocket Tues and Wed next week. Will I be missing the closing arguments?
Tough choices: Terracotta Soldiers and the King Tut Exhibits - or AJ's big moment(s)?

[Anakerie]

My question also. I'm going to be out of town and out of pocket Tues and Wed next week. Will I be missing the closing arguments?
Tough choices: Terracotta Soldiers and the King Tut Exhibits - or AJ's big moment(s)?

No, I don't think you will be missing the closing arguments. The defense at the moment is still in their "case in chief" right now. The prosecution will have their rebuttal, and so on... I don't think closing arguments will come in the next week. Depending on how many witnesses both sides put on in their rebuttals, I think we still have another week or two of testimony.

Especially with all the "dark" days in the courtroom because of illnesses, appointments and other duties that the judge has to take care of. Go see the Terracotta Soldiers and the King Tut Exhibits. lol.. BTW, the Terracotta Soldiers are fascinating.. I saw some of them in an exhibit in Los Angeles years ago and would love to see them again.

[dref99]

Less than 10 hours, probably less than two court days (2 x 6.5=13)

As long as there are no confusing jury instructions - if it takes more than 10 hours, we are probably looking at a hung jury.

If JF does allow a manslaughter option, this may add to the time as many seem to get confused with the California Murder definitions in regard to implied malice aforethought.


jmo

[Anakerie]

No live streaming anywhere :thumbdown:.
Frustrating, isn't it?
:cursing:

[Daisy'sMom]

A friend and I were just talking about that wonderful news. Alan Jackson has been a true advocate for Lana Clarkson and her family. It is easy to see how his dedication and love of the law has brought the right kind of attention and an unexpected promotion too. :wink: I am grateful that in this crazy world that there are good men out there willing to fight the good fight for justice. Thank You Mr. Jackson.


ALAN JACKSON YOU ARE A TOP ACT



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



AMEN! AJ deserves this promotion and many more. He is a true man of justice.

[dref99]

Very! I want to see his face/expression. His walls finally come crumbling down. Bittersweet Justice at last.

GPS posted awhile ago that said there may be film of the closings. I would think there will be some MSM reporters around for the verdict - but what I really want to see/hear is the sentencing - I do hope someone will film that event. I very much wish to hear Lana's mother and sister and also JF. I do wonder if Mrs S. will have any words of wisdom to say about her husband.

I must thank again the court watchers - without them we would have no information whatsoever.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

I personally believe PS is clearly guilty of Murder2, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't believe that pulling out a loaded gun and pointing it at someone's head (regardless of it being intra oral or not), should allow someone an option of MANSLAUGHTER. Whether Spector meant to kill her or not. A person clearly knows the dangers of these irresponsible actions.

However, what I worry about is this, and maybe someone knows the answer:

IF the jury is given the (2) choices of MURDER2 and MANSLAUGHTER, what happens if they have 12 jurors that think PS is GUILTY, but now they can NOT agreed on the (2) choices. IF ALL 12 CAN'T AGREE ON JUST ONE CHOICE (manslaughter VS murder2), IS THAT ANOTHER "HUNG JURY", even though they ALL think he is GUILTY? This is my big fear about "opening this can of worms". I think AJ is selling himself short by introducing MANSLAUGHTER, he has proven PS's guilt for M2, beyond ANY doubt, in my opinion.

[oodi1]

I personally believe PS is clearly guilty of Murder2, beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't believe that pulling out a loaded gun and pointing it at someone's head (regardless of it being intra oral or not), should allow someone an option of MANSLAUGHTER. Whether Spector meant to kill her or not. A person clearly knows the dangers of these irresponsible actions.

However, what I worry about is this, and maybe someone knows the answer:

IF the jury is given the (2) choices of MURDER2 and MANSLAUGHTER, what happens if they have 12 jurors that think PS is GUILTY, but now they can NOT agreed on the (2) choices. IF ALL 12 CAN'T AGREE ON JUST ONE CHOICE (manslaughter VS murder2), IS THAT ANOTHER "HUNG JURY", even though they ALL think he is GUILTY? This is my big fear about "opening this can of worms". I think AJ is selling himself short by introducing MANSLAUGHTER, he has proven PS's guilt for M2, beyond ANY doubt, in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more!

[My 2 Cents]

Ok, I think I MAY have answered my own question . . .AND it really FREAKS ME OUT. I just found this article about a trial in California (even if it is old, shouldn't really change things) that the JURY could NOT AGREE between MANSLAUGHTER and MURDER and the Judge had to finally declare a mistrial. Here's a LINK to what I just read.

http://www.courant.com/topic/la-me-broderick21nov2190,0,3203203.story?page=1

Oh man, I hope they do NOT offer this manslaughter option. I think some people believe, if PS didn't MEAN to actually kill her, he just wanted to scare her into thinking that - - that this gives him a "free pass of manslaughter". :ohmy: This will create problems, IMO.

[My 2 Cents]

T&T has posted a brief note, that the DEFENSE RESTED today, after Dr Loftus' testimony.

No mention of PIE yet. So I take that to mean she will NOT be part of the Defense's "entree", but will be "served for dessert", during the Defense's rebuttal. How appropriate, PUNKIN PIE for "dessert".

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-seven.html

My prediction: A Pumpkin Pie on Thanksgiving stands a better chance of staying intact than she does, after AJ's CROSS a 2nd time around. (I know - I over did it with silly analogy . . sorry)

[dref99]

Ok, I think I MAY have answered my own question . . .AND it really FREAKS ME OUT. I just found this article about a trial in California (even if it is old, shouldn't really change things) that the JURY could NOT AGREE between MANSLAUGHTER and MURDER and the Judge had to finally declare a mistrial. Here's a LINK to what I just read.

http://www.courant.com/topic/la-me-broderick21nov2190,0,3203203.story?page=1

Oh man, I hope they do NOT offer this manslaughter option. I think some people believe, if PS didn't MEAN to actually kill her, he just wanted to scare her into thinking that - - that this gives him a "free pass of manslaughter". :ohmy: This will create problems, IMO.

Given what happened at the end of trial 1, I think the judge would throw all jury members against a brick wall, rather than let them disagree to the extent of a hung jury on the manslaughter/murder options. I think they realise the importance of reaching a verdict - most trial 2 juries understand this very well.

My concern is that manslaughter gives them an "out" if there is a juror who cannot understand the legal definitions. To me, it would also give an appealable result - which I don't like at all - if the defense is suicide - absolute denial of what happens - how can a verdict be manslaughter? Thus said - you have to very closely look at the definitions, and the case law. My understanding (from reports of the discussions) is that it is a case law item, that the Judge and the prosecution are looking at. I believe all the arguments from Riordan are purely to create "appealable issues" when the verdict is guilty (of anything)

I am sure they are all on their toes when dealing with Riordan and his "instructions" - after the disaster of his last definition of Murder 2.

jmo

[dref99]

T&T has posted a brief note, that the DEFENSE RESTED today, after Dr Loftus' testimony.

No mention of PIE yet. So I take that to mean she will NOT be part of the Defense's "entree", but will be "served for dessert", during the Defense's rebuttal. How appropriate, PUNKIN PIE for "dessert".

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-seven.html

My prediction: A Pumpkin Pie on Thanksgiving stands a better chance of staying intact than she does, after AJ's CROSS a 2nd time around. (I know - I over did it with silly analogy . . sorry)

I think she is missing - presumed "does not want to testify" - but I could be absolutely wrong - perhaps they don't want Nili to testify - or are trying to ensure Pie testifies last - shall have to wait and see.

Thank you for the link :smile:

jmo

[oodi1]

All the legal definitions of "manslaughter" I've read state that there is no "malice aforethought" or "evil intent prior to killing."

To my thinking, the only reason for pointing a gun at someone without "evil intent" is for self defense. I don't see how manslaughter applies either.

[steffaroob4]

Frustrating, isn't it?
:cursing:

"I don't think I disagree with that." (http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/phil-spectors-trial-without-en/)

lol

[Jayne]

"I don't think I disagree with that." (http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/phil-spectors-trial-without-en/)

lol

HAHA

Reminds me of Groucho

"I cannot say that I do not disagree with you"!

[dref99]

"I don't think I disagree with that." (http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/phil-spectors-trial-without-en/)

lol

Many thanks for the link - it seems that was all a memory expert was willing to say

jmo

Edit: Linda Deutsch's report seems to be all over (via Google). here is one link
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2009-03-12-spector-trial_N.htm

[dref99]

A longer version
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/12/ap6162862.html

From Harriet Ryan
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/the-defense-in.html

[dref99]

Its hard to imagine anyone buying the suicide theory at this point. But something just struck me as very funny: apparently there is a lawyer in TN that buys it - and is using it to defend Raynella Leath. Like this case - that stupid defense will do her in.
There are witnesses talking about her husband's drugs and depression: but it is all beside the point because the ballistics prove that the last shot was fired after he was dead - and from an odd angle - designed to get gunshot residue on his hand. I just don't understand why they go on and on about his medication - unless any of it gave him the capability of shooting the gun after he died.

Seems like somewhere between 1 and 3 jurors believed the story rather than the ballistics :confused: :confused:

No doubt PS was pleased to see that result

jmo

[bearwds]

M-2.....in 3 days.


bearwds

[kipswife]

So is AJ going to do a rebuttal case? I sure hope not because that will give DW an opening for another two weeks of making up stuff to confuse the jury. AJ's case is strong and he should just rest, thereby not allowing DW any more chances to speak. I am betting DW would be upset if that happens. DW didnt score enough points to make a decent case for ps.

m

[My 2 Cents]

http://www.marcgermain.com/files/TRO031209.mp3

50 minutes in is interview with Sprocket from last night

I just listened to the TALK RADIO ONE interview Betsy did last night. I was hoping she may have mentioned about testimony from Thursday (Loftus and then rebuttal witness, Katz), but NO, not that I heard. They never seemed to have a chance to get to that before it ended.

Incase there are some that don't have a chance to sit and listen to it, here are a few of the major points she discussed (IMO only, of course - Betsy may disagree.):

She discussed the jury instructions the attorney's & court are trying to work out. Important issue of course, whether to add MANSAUGHTER (involuntary) to charges. Because (per the State), prior to Lana's death, prior to Spector murdering Lana, other steps clearly led up to that point, by Spector (which are also against the law). (Brandishing weapon) 1st Spector brandished the loaded gun. (Assault) 2nd, Spector committed assault against Lana using loaded gun. And then Spector committed the charge of Murder2. So the state feels it is obligated, has no choice, other than to include manslaughter as well, and the state cites case law (people v. LEE). I TOOK IT TO MEAN (sorry Sprocket if I misunderstood) that State had to include it (manslaughter charges) because Spector committed them IN ADDITION TO THE MURDER2 charge, based on a ruling from this case law (LEE). And I very well have misunderstood her point about this.

Fidler will hold off on ruling to see if he is given any further argument from defense or prosecution.

Betsy also discusses:
* Lisa Bloom discrediting Greg Sims testimony about Lana.
* Truc Do's excellent CROSS of Dr. Seiden and some of his biases.
* This is NOT a BIG "note taking" jury. Biggest note taker seems to be JUROR #1, who Betsy can not see very well.

Per Marc Germain, Radio Host - says Sprocket originally predicted that there would be a verdict by APRIL 1st (2 weeks away) "Are you still sticking to that?"
Betsy: "I think I'm still pretty close on that."

Then she goes on to state why:
Defense Rested today.
Prosecution states they're going to call between 3-5 rebuttal witnesses, and they've already called 2. (and should take 2-3 days)
Closing arguments could state as soon as the end of next week. Realistically, she thinks closing arguments would start Monday, 3/23/09 and may take 2 1/2 days. Then hammering out all the instructions for jury, so 25th or 26th of March before case turned over to jury for deliberation, in her opinion.

I am NOT trying to speak for Sprocket, just thought this might help for those who can not stop and listen to full interview.

[My 2 Cents]

So is AJ going to do a rebuttal case? I sure hope not because that will give DW an opening for another two weeks of making up stuff to confuse the jury. AJ's case is strong and he should just rest, thereby not allowing DW any more chances to speak. I am betting DW would be upset if that happens. DW didnt score enough points to make a decent case for ps.

m

AJ actually already "opened the door" and has presented (2) rebuttal witnesses for the state (Lis Bloom & Steven Katz).

I actually believe the jurors NEED to hear from one of Lana's "real friends", and not just Lana's Mom. (i.e. - Nilli Hudson). Even though I agree with you that AJ's case is ROCK SOLID, I think that at some point to jurors should know that Lana has close girlfriends and that they do NOT believe for 1 second, that Lana was suicidal . . AND that they think PIE & Hayes are full of it, and have changed their stories DRAMATICALLY, since Lana's death. IMO.

[kennedy06]

Thanks for links dreff, why? and m2c.

M2c, I just also finished listening to the radio show and was sort of confused by it.

Probably a very insignificant question but I wonder or did I miss, if they asked Greg S. who else were his guests at the party in the suite after the Backstge had closed for the night.

[kennedy06]

I totally agree with your statement. This man has been thinking about doing it for a long time and had many mis-starts. Who he killed was not important to him, just the manner of the death and the sex of the victim. It is the coldest blooded killing that I know of and far worse than Manson.

Mortie

Wow Mort, it is interesting to hear your thoughts on that.

I don't know, I don't put him on the same level or worse than Manson. PS obviously has some issues don't get me wrong but....

Sure they both had difficult backgrounds, like to control people obviously from testimony given, both had or wanted something to do with the music industry (opposite ends of the spectrum of course), and both had known Terry Melchers, but that is about all I can see. I don't think PS was out to kill her as much as he wanted her to stay for his own personal control/male "reasons" but death I don't think was one of them. If he wanted to just kill a woman I think he probably had many chances before that night.

Making a guest stay and tormenting them with a gun and shooting them, after a night of drinking is up there as far as a horrific crime but, wanting to start a revolution of some sort by convincing others to commit multiple murders is another.


I personally put John Wayne Gacy at the very top of my list for worse criminal. Even if I have heard about others as equally bad. I actually waited up to hear the newscasters tell of his last moment. A slight gasp or whatever was all. Disgusting.

[penguin01]

Seems like somewhere between 1 and 3 jurors believed the story rather than the ballistics :confused: :confused:

No doubt PS was pleased to see that result

jmo Apparently it will take a 2nd trial once again to get a conviction of Raynella Leath. If PS is pleased it will hopefully be a very short term feeling. Its his 2nd trial and I believe his number is up - and the number is 2 -- Murder 2.

In Raynella's trial the 1 - 3 "Ben-10s" wanted a smoking gun and maybe a few eye witnesses in order to convict. Meanwhile I hope that they will move along with the trial of her 1st husband.
I sincerely hope that they get to use the prior "bad act" in the Barn of Doom story in her next husband #2 trial. Sad as it is - it might show that she is such a lousy shot it would take her 3 tries to kill a sleeping man.

Its OK Mortie - I would not really miss the Terracotta Soldiers or the King Tut Exhibit. I know that Sprockett and y'all would give me a pretty clear picture of what happens anyway.
Meanwhile I just can't wait to hear what Officer Katz' "best line of the trial" is!!!

[wasapi]

Mortie, I disagree here (am I allowed?). First, IMO, nothing is "worse" than the Manson murders. I was around when they happened and have read extensively about them. Stabbing an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman is as bad as it gets.

IMO, Spector is as guilty as h..l, but he doesn't have the balls to plan and commit a murder. He is a little man with a little man complex. He shores up his inferiority by brandishing guns. To me, he is stupid and dangerous. It was only a matter of time before he "slipped" and killed someone. I think he shoved a gun into Lana's face and she instictively grabbed his hands and PS reflex respone was to squeeze the trigger.

Guilty? Yes, indeed, and PS should be held accountable. It illustrates his cowardice that he did not own up to it at the beginning. Who knows? He might very well be out of prison now and on probation.

Instead, he has spent many years villifying an innocent victim. I hope they throw the book at him.

Court Jester - Very well said in my opinion. And yes, we can respectfully disagree with other posters. A woman begging for the life of her soon to be born child, and the unspeakable slow and painful death she and the others endured, just will always seem to be the most epic evil I can imagine. In addition, Manson was too much of a coward to do anything but the planning.

And I don't mean to minimize Lana's death in any way, or your summation of why PS needs to be held accountable. The continual victimization of the victim that he has orchestrated these past few years speaks of an evil on its own.

[Jayne]

Mortie, I disagree here (am I allowed?). First, IMO, nothing is "worse" than the Manson murders. I was around when they happened and have read extensively about them. Stabbing an 8 1/2 month pregnant woman is as bad as it gets.

IMO, Spector is as guilty as h..l, but he doesn't have the balls to plan and commit a murder. He is a little man with a little man complex. He shores up his inferiority by brandishing guns. To me, he is stupid and dangerous. It was only a matter of time before he "slipped" and killed someone. I think he shoved a gun into Lana's face and she instictively grabbed his hands and PS reflex respone was to squeeze the trigger.

Guilty? Yes, indeed, and PS should be held accountable. It illustrates his cowardice that he did not own up to it at the beginning. Who knows? He might very well be out of prison now and on probation.

Instead, he has spent many years villifying an innocent victim. I hope they throw the book at him.

Mortie..forgive me...I have to agree here...Spector is NOT Manson..He was an ACCIDENT waiting to happen..but a CAN I SAY IT...DELIBERATE ACCIDENT (WHOO HOO..sounds like PS1 with Accidental Suicide???)..I think that's what you might have been saying? I have wondered..much too often...in the past two years watching and following this trial...that Spector must have spent his life...taunting..playing with the guns..controlling many people, especially women, and in the back of his mind (wherever that is), he sort of "longed to carry this out - but not really..just a "fantasy of sorts""..but when he did (2/3/3) he was bereft..couldn't believe it happened..hence the "I think I killed someone" statement? He didn't set up a bunch of teens to do his dirty business like Manson did. He didn't plan this like he knew where Lana lived..but..BUT..he did, in a sense, take some liberty to take advantage of the opportunity? I honestly do not think he went out that night looking for a "victim" - that would be pre-meditated..which this isn't). BUT..I agree it is (or can be) M2 under California Law.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for two, three, or four years.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html

Is this correct? Is time added for firearm?

yes...it is

[oodi1]

Mortie..forgive me...I have to agree here...Spector is NOT Manson..He was an ACCIDENT waiting to happen..but a CAN I SAY IT...DELIBERATE ACCIDENT (WHOO HOO..sounds like PS1 with Accidental Suicide???)..I think that's what you might have been saying? I have wondered..much too often...in the past two years watching and following this trial...that Spector must have spent his life...taunting..playing with the guns..controlling many people, especially women, and in the back of his mind (wherever that is), he sort of "longed to carry this out - but not really..just a "fantasy of sorts""..but when he did (2/3/3) he was bereft..couldn't believe it happened..hence the "I think I killed someone" statement? He didn't set up a bunch of teens to do his dirty business like Manson did. He didn't plan this like he knew where Lana lived..but..BUT..he did, in a sense, take some liberty to take advantage of the opportunity? I honestly do not think he went out that night looking for a "victim" - that would be pre-meditated..which this isn't). BUT..I agree it is (or can be) M2 under California Law.

jmo

J

I'm not sure I agree that he wasn't looking for a "victim." He may not have been looking for someone to murder specifically, but he was definitely on a hunt for something. He was with 3 different women that evening, and the first 2 cut their time short for whatever reasons. I'm thinking Lana may have suffered the wrath of PS because he had already struck out twice that night already... he wasn't about to let Lana be strike 3.

[GPSpector]

(b) Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for two, three, or four years.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html

Is this correct? Is time added for firearm?

To answer your last question, YES.

What ever time he may be given, 10 years will be added for "Gun Enhancement". So, if he's found guilty of M2 and gets the minimum (that I've heard) of 15 years, + 10 (Gun Enhancement), that means that the least amount of time will be a total of 25 with no credit for times served since he has served none.

If he loses the Civil case, I do not believe there will be any time, just a monetary punishment that can be paid off with either money or properties to include future royalties.

[GPSpector]

Odd, I was just about to listen to Betsy's interview when I read the guest list for March 13:
"Phil Spector’s son Gary, Steve Parker The Car Nut, The Gossip Mom and Rob Marinko’s News"

I think someone either forgot to call me or to at least tell me to call because I was not aware I was expected on the show. :ohmy:

[kennedy06]

From listening to him it sounds like you made quite the impression on him. He replayed your interview.

[RayStar]

I love your post #801 Mort Snerd. Your explanation is so clear.
I put John Couey at the top of the list of worst cases.
I will be so glad when this against PS is settled. I certainly hope we have a guilty verdict.

[Spectorfan8]

We still have to wait on the jury to reach a verdict. I see the jury coming back as a hung jury.
IMO, the entire jury will not reach a guilty verdict.


SF8

[penguin01]

We still have to wait on the jury to reach a verdict. I see the jury coming back as a hung jury.
IMO, the entire jury will not reach a guilty verdict.


SF8
I was worried about that for quite awhile. But now that the defense has deteriorated to the level of bringing back witnesses who come in with new lies (and try to say they didn't) I feel more confident in a guilty verdict from the entire jury.
I would just hate for the verdict to be manslaughter, but I'll take any way they can get a solid GUILTY.

[JONOTWO]

SP8- it is understandable that your opinion is as you stated.Could you give a reason other than the possibility of a stealth juoror? That there has not been a credible defense witness seems to be a fair observation, and DW has apparently alienated at least some jurors.
The world wonders!

[Spectorfan8]

SP8- it is understandable that your opinion is as you stated.Could you give a reason other than the possibility of a stealth juoror? That there has not been a credible defense witness seems to be a fair observation, and DW has apparently alienated at least some jurors.
The world wonders!

I do not believe that all of the jurors are convinced that Mr. Spector is guilty. JMO There is always that one chance.
I guess we will have to wait and see.

[oodi1]

I do not believe that all of the jurors are convinced that Mr. Spector is guilty. JMO There is always that one chance.
I guess we will have to wait and see.

In addition, the more options the jury is given (ie: manslaughter, murder2) the less likely it is that they will all agree on the same charge.

[Jayne]

J,
<snipped>
By his own words and repeated in front of different people who have no axe to bear tells me he has wanted to commit this act for many years. In my viewpoint of life, there are no accidents only bad decisions and neglect. I do understand suicide and what can drive people to commit it, but that does not mean that I can accept an "accidental" deliberate act especially with a gun. If cocked, it required a trigger pull of 4.5 pounds and if it fell into Lana Clarkson's mouth, the trigger block would prevent the "accidental" firing of the gun, therefore someone pulled or pushed the trigger making it murder or manslaughter.

When I made the statement of being the "worst" murder in my memory, I was referring to the cold blooded portion of my sentance and I appologize to the readers of IN SESSION for mixing up my words and correct it to the statement of "worst cold blooded murder".

Just my opinion,
Mortie

Mort...your post brought up Just A Thought...certainly no analysis since I'm no psychologist or much of anything...but I wonder...his father's suicide (right?)...must have haunted him his entire life and I wonder....did he blame his mother? In a sense, maybe? So, women were to "blame" for his "loss or lack" of self esteem or self worth...sure he had his music business and all, but it is apparent from all we've heard he had a particular "hatred/disdain" of women. And, perhaps what you say is more to the point: I said taunting, You said practicing. Lana was in the "right place" (for her networking, etc.) at the "wrong time" (for PS's acting through). She may have said or done something, I think, that went beyond what the other PBA witnesses said or did that triggered PS to pull that extra 4.5 pounds in a fit of rage. Yes..that is "cold blooded" as it certainly wasn't self defense and for lack of a relationship it probably couldn't fit "heat of passion".

[kennedy06]

My statement did not make it clear and I am sorry. By saying it is the worst case, I mean of being cold blooded. Not the worst morally.
The number of deaths does not make a case more horrorfic or vile. Yes Sharon Tate was 8 months pregnant and was "slaughtered" and that series of murders was followed by the LaBinaca murders. Charlie revels in the attention he got and wallows in the publics disgust.

My comments regarding the death of Lana Clarkson by Phil Spector are, "in my opinion" the coldest minded killing that I can think of.
1. He has announced his intentions for 10 years
2. He has made practice runs
3. He chose a victim that neither knew him nor did he knew her.
4. He forced a gun into her mouth.
5. He pulled the trigger and released all of his built up anger at women.
6. He has vilified the victim and her family and friends
7. He has demonstrated no remorse for her death in his home.

It is getting close to decision time again and this retrial has not changed my mind but made it even more apparent to me that he is guilty.

Mortie

Mort I respected your first post.:smile: You have helped me to understand your point of view with your clarification above. You have made some excellent points to back your opinion.

When VT testified about the comment about women and a bullet I was bothered greatly. If he had said it, but there were never any harmful actions towards women that were noted, that would be one thing, but what the PBA's testified to gave that statement a life of it's own. The testimony about gun threats and phone messages left, made that a remark that didn't seem like it was an off the cuff comment, but something he had actually felt.


JMO and thanks

[My 2 Cents]

I'm still perplexed by this MANSLAUGHTER vs MURDER2 rehashing they keep having. Everything I have read seems to boil down to (in a tiny little nutshell), "reckless" behavior VS having "knowledge" that your behavior is likely to cause death or "grave harm".

I then stumbled across a BLOG from Sprocket, about a motion that was argued between THE DEFENSE and THE STATE before the retrial started, in July, 2008. I am attaching a LINK to it. Riordan was there for it as well as Fidler, Weinberg & AJ. The defense had filed a motion which was a whole lotta "gamesmanship" , but it forced the state to respond and the NOTES BY SPROCKET that ensued between the defense and the state, with regards to WHY a LESSER CHARGE of MANSLAUGHTER (both involuntary & voluntary) WAS NOT INCLUDED BEFORE AND SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED THIS TIME - is extremely interesting and detailed. Scroll down about 1/10th of the page until they start talking about, YES or NO, on including LESSER CHARGES - - - very, very interesting arguments and worth reading to understand WHY the lesser charge of INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER should NOT be INCLUDED - according to BOTH parties. (LONG, :read: but worth reading. Of course, all of you have probably read it already and this is "old news". I didn't know this blog existed back then. So if this is old news that I'm passing along, SORRY and ..."excuse the ring". LOL. )

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2008/07/phil-spector-prosecutions-opposition.html


P.S. - Thanks Sprocket for the detailed info back in July. What a hairy thing to take notes on.

[My 2 Cents]

I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING AND THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ENJOY READING THIS.

This is directly from CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (for Homicide) #580:

Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense

When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill AND does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.

The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk.

An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is either voluntary manslaughter (i.e. - "heat of passion", "imperfect self-defense", or "murder not charged") or murder (either 1st or 2nd degree).

Based on these "JURY INSTRUCTIONS" regarding the difference between "involuntary manslaughter" and "murder" - - i.e.: the person being aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created, and then consciously disregarding those risks . . . it seems the only choice should be MURDER2. Threatening a person with a loaded gun pointed at their head, is a conscious disregard for that risk to their life, IMO.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESTING AND THOUGHT YOU MIGHT ENJOY READING THIS.

This is directly from CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (for Homicide) #580:

Involuntary Manslaughter: Lesser Included Offense

When a person commits an unlawful killing but does not intend to kill AND does not act with conscious disregard for human life, then the crime is involuntary manslaughter.

The difference between other homicide offenses and involuntary manslaughter depends on whether the person was aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created and consciously disregarded that risk.

An unlawful killing caused by a willful act done with full knowledge and awareness that the person is endangering the life of another, and done in conscious disregard of that risk, is either voluntary manslaughter (i.e. - "heat of passion", "imperfect self-defense", or "murder not charged") or murder (either 1st or 2nd degree).

Based on these "JURY INSTRUCTIONS" regarding the difference between "involuntary manslaughter" and "murder" - - i.e.: the person being aware of the risk to life that his or her actions created, and then consciously disregarding those risks . . . it seems the only choice should be MURDER2. Threatening a person with a loaded gun pointed at their head, is a conscious disregard for that risk to their life, IMO.

I hate to even ask, as I think I know the answer..but I wonder IF Philly Dilly was EVER threatened with a gun..placed in HIS MOUTH???..I rather doubt it..I only wish someone who had been threatened by Phil's brandishing of guns or shot guns had of turned those same firearms onto HIM,.. would hehave continued that behavior?..and that is not mentioning NO LE interventions that should have taken place..The rich get richer, the rich getaway with crappy behaviors..buy their way out of things..that ALL NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS if not most go down big time for same of lessers.....PS..I hope you end up forced to experience proper justice..even if it is in the HIGH COURT..trying to justify your life to Mr. Big...GOD!!..Sorry Phil, you wont get past that Pearly Gate..might have to take a detour...LOL

LMS

MS

[My 2 Cents]

FYI: Sprcoket's blog is UPDATED now, covering the testimony from last THURSDAY.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-eight.html

At the end is a brief summary of the PEOPLE v. LEE case that the state references.

[kennedy06]

FYI: Sprcoket's blog is UPDATED now, covering the testimony from last THURSDAY.

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-day-fifty-eight.html

At the end is a brief summary of the PEOPLE v. LEE case that the state references.

I can't imagine the moment when the juror and Phil's fan recognized one another when they were almost to be a 4some! (golf maybe according to JF) It appears they have both did the right thing to avoid any problems, but what are the chances of that almost meeting in a county with a population that big! Pretty amazing.

[JONOTWO]

Searching - a very interesting post. Obviously, if Mortie has this affliction, then anyone who has the opposite opinion, based on his rationale,or one of their own, is also so afflicted. Perhaps you can present your rationale for a previously posted opinion that at least one juror will not vote guilty. Keep the myside bias in mind, and please
include at least two factors that support your opinion that at least one juror will vote NG.

[kennedy06]

My thoughts exactly. IIRC, it is the juror who was the 'lead' at the crime scene viewing.

I see you posted a correction for the juror. What are the chances that is the same fan whos myspace was put up on the screen by TD (according to T & T) after he and the witness JHR spoke in the hallway. I'm not trying to imply any wrongdoing. Just what are the chances? Also according to T & T he called in to the court asking about the status of the trial a day or so after that myspace incident. When I read that I thought why didn't he just call PS or Rs and ask! Oh well, just another strange twist to this trial. JMO

[kennedy06]

I see you posted a correction for the juror. What are the chances that is the same fan whos myspace was put up on the screen by TD (according to T & T) after he and the witness JHR spoke in the hallway. I'm not trying to imply any wrongdoing. Just what are the chances? Also according to T & T he called in to the court asking about the status of the trial a day or so after that myspace incident. When I read that I thought why didn't he just call PS or Rs and ask! Oh well, just another strange twist to this trial. JMO

I noted after reading that while several myspces were referenced, the fan's was noted in T & T as a picture (same thing??) anyway I'm referencing the blog posts of March 4 and then March 10, 9:28 am. Thanks

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

[My 2 Cents]

I see you posted a correction for the juror. What are the chances that is the same fan whos myspace was put up on the screen by TD (according to T & T) after he and the witness JHR spoke in the hallway. I'm not trying to imply any wrongdoing. Just what are the chances? Also according to T & T he called in to the court asking about the status of the trial a day or so after that myspace incident. When I read that I thought why didn't he just call PS or Rs and ask! Oh well, just another strange twist to this trial. JMO

It is the same "fan" K6 - - Harvey Sid Fisher, the Astrology Song Guy (and golfer apparently. LOL). He must golf a lot (Even I have heard him mention his golf game several times - in the hallway, waiting for an elevator, waving to PS and telling him he golfed all weekend, etc).

Maybe ALHAMBRA only has 1 major course . . . BUT REALLY, what are the ODDS? (The ODDS however, are probably a lot higher that those 2 would be paired up in a golf "four-some", than the ODDS of a woman, all of a sudden committing suicide in a stranger's house, and this same "stranger" just happens to have a history of threatening women/and others, with guns and threatening to blowing their brains out. Just a thought, since we're discuss "what are the odds".)

My guess K6 as to why HSF wouldn't call PS &/or RS and just ask. IMO, I don't think they have that kind of relationship. They don't hang out at lunch or during the breaks - just a short hello or brief small talk or walk to elevator at same time. This seems the same for most of the "fans" and guests visiting PS in court (except for Dan Kessel). A handshake, a sentence or 2 and then thats it. But that's just been my observation.

[True2Blues]

Mort...your post brought up Just A Thought...certainly no analysis since I'm no psychologist or much of anything...but I wonder...his father's suicide (right?)...must have haunted him his entire life and I wonder....did he blame his mother? In a sense, maybe? So, women were to "blame" for his "loss or lack" of self esteem or self worth...sure he had his music business and all, but it is apparent from all we've heard he had a particular "hatred/disdain" of women. And, perhaps what you say is more to the point: I said taunting, You said practicing. Lana was in the "right place" (for her networking, etc.) at the "wrong time" (for PS's acting through). She may have said or done something, I think, that went beyond what the other PBA witnesses said or did that triggered PS to pull that extra 4.5 pounds in a fit of rage. Yes..that is "cold blooded" as it certainly wasn't self defense and for lack of a relationship it probably couldn't fit "heat of passion".


According to PS's friends when he was in high school, PS and his Mother used to blame each other for his Father's death, at least according to Mick Brown. One friend recalled hearing them do just that.

Spector has built up an image of his Father as the person who would have made his life perfect. He even admitted in one interview (sorry, can't remember which) that he really has nothing to base that on other than it was his Father. The absent parent is often romanticized into the perfect person. I do believe that he resented his Mother for being the one who was alive. Still it's no excuse for his becoming what he is, besides which, his own recollections of his life show that he was pampered by both his Mother and his Sister.

No matter what may have happened in his life, he's the kind of petty, resentful, vengeful, little (not physical stature) person who would always build himself up, by tearing down others.

[kennedy06]

Thanks for explaining that M2C.

[My 2 Cents]

According to PS's friends when he was in high school, PS and his Mother used to blame each other for his Father's death, at least according to Mick Brown. One friend recalled hearing them do just that.

Spector has built up an image of his Father as the person who would have made his life perfect. He even admitted in one interview (sorry, can't remember which) that he really has nothing to base that on other than it was his Father. The absent parent is often romanticized into the perfect person. I do believe that he resented his Mother for being the one who was alive. Still it's no excuse for his becoming what he is, besides which, his own recollections of his life show that he was pampered by both his Mother and his Sister.

No matter what may have happened in his life, he's the kind of petty, resentful, vengeful, little (not physical stature) person who would always build himself up, by tearing down others.

GOOD POST - I think you may be very close to something here.

I do think it seems so strange/ironic that Phil holds his Dad in such high regard and the impact it had on him - loosing him at such a young age . . . and then Phil grows up and treats his sons - from the very beginning - so, so horrible and cruel. You would have thought this experience and the importance Phil believes his Dad would have made in his life, if he had lived - would have encouraged Phil to at least be a GREAT DAD to his boys. How strange is that, that he did just the opposite. That he is the "poster boy" for the definition of a "HORRIBLE FATHER"?

[sdg380]

Have tried to catch up since being away for a few days, but what struck me was that Lisa Bloom really toasted the whole (absolutely preposterous) suicide theory, and that her testimony may very well have sounded the death knell for the defense.

Forget all the psycho-babble from the experts, here was a (purported) friend Greg Simms clearly stating, at the time, that Lana was not suicidal. I think that may very well carry much more weight with the jury than testimony from paid "experts" who never even met Lana (aside from the fact that the suicide story was preposterous in the first place, but that seems to be what Phil cooked up in the heat of the moment.)

But perhaps more importantly, the fact the Bloom's testimony clearly outed Simms' changed testimony makes it crystal clear that the "fix is in", somebody behind the scenes in pulling strings to bury the truth. The source is absolutely clear, as is the reason, innocent parties don't need to pull stunts to be acquitted.

IMO, this will likely completely backfire on PS, at least this time his penchant for orchestration will be seen for what it is, a blatant attempt to get away murder. And this is certainly going to suggest to the jury that this was NOT an accident, but was instead clearly a pattern of conduct of "reckless disregard" that resulted exactly in the consequences that warrant that this course of conduct be considered murder, and not manslaughter.

JMO

[Exiled.]

snipped

If I were the defendant, instead of a child bride...... I would have married a 50/60ish woman and paid my kids to be in court everyday... then he MIGHT receive some sympathy from jurors. MIGHT.


Juror's are instructed to not let sympathy guide them when rendering a verdict.

[dref99]

Any views on why Pie was not called? - and if the prosecution does not call Nili (or another) to rebut Jennifer H-R then am I correct in thinking there would be no-one for Pie to surrebut - thus she could not be called?

I still have a thought that she doesn't want to testify - perhaps that is just me hoping that she realised the error of her ways!


jmo

[Anakerie]

Juror's are instructed to not let sympathy guide them when rendering a verdict.
That is true. But if jurors are not supposed to let sympathy guide them in deliberating a verdict, why do defense lawyers work so hard to have their clients (defendants) clean up their appearance and put on as miuch of a sympathetic demeanor as possible?

There was a lot of discussion on TruTV during the recent murder trial they televised where the defendant showed up in court with more and more tattoos each time he had to appear in court. It seemed that all the talking heads were appalled at the guy's appearance and at the fact that all the visible tattoos were added after his arrest. Jurors are instructed to "ignore" such things, but do you really think that is possible?

Then you can go the other way with a defendant who has a really bad (As in dressing and acting like a punk or whatever.) appearance before their arrest and then once the trial begins they are cleaned up and dressed in a manner to promote the fact that they are an "innocent" and "helpless" teenager (or whatever). The attorneys are playing for sympathy from the jury, wouldn't you agree?

[Anakerie]

Phil's story is featured on Investigation Discovery's "Bizarre Crime of the Week".... lol

http://blogs.discovery.com/bizarre/

[Anakerie]

Whoa! Sprocket says that the prosecution has rested its rebuttal case!!

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