Feb 23 2009 -

[dref99]

I assume the last thread was closed as it was getting rather long. This was my last post to Wasapi

Hi Wasapi :seeya:

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

jmo

[dref99]

Some links from the last thread

did you read the transcript where officer rodriguez said ps actually said 'i did not mean to shoot her' (thanks again m2c)

page 13, line 17
http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/q15b2p45n1stv2vmpjrv0v45/1176753993.pdf

As per T&T, juror #5 has been excused and replaced by an alternate juror, an Asian woman!
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/breaking-news-phil-spector-trial.html

[oodi1]

I think PS2 started Oct 27th. There was a 2 week break for Christmas... add to that Thanksgiving, and the recent Presidents Day holidays, as well as the day or two for PS's surgery, and some other days off for miscellaneous reasons. All total, there has been no court for around 30 days of the last 4 months.

[Jayne]

Was going to post again about suicide, accidental homicide, accidental shooting..but figured..a waste of keystrokes. A person cannot accidentally do something On Purpose - it's a legal impossibility.

Defense could have chosen..Accident...that might have made a bit more sense, but then they'd have to prove that Lana was such an idiot that she didn't realize the gun was loaded, that she was "doing something foolish with it" and it "went off" INSIDE HER MOUTH - and then make sure at the same time in the same Breaths, that PS wasn't involved at all..as in "mutual" stupidity, play, etc. I think they knew they couldn't - he would be the only witness and if a witness, then he certainly Was There..and they had PS's statement which THEY thought would come in..("I didn't mean to do it..or didn't mean to shoot her"...whichever it was). Then AJ sideslammed them by not introducing those police statements and they'd already chosen that ridiculous defense of "accidental suicide", and I wouldn't doubt that that is large part of why AJ Did Not introduce those statements. Make them prove (well Defend..let's say...as he has the burden of proof as to murder) a legal impossibility. It was suicide or it was an accident..and due to PS's mouthing off, the accident, if so, had to have been His Accident. Now...honestly..even if PS were really thinking about Lana and claiming that what "she did to herself" were an accident, then what is the point of the other half of "suicide"? I'd say, because he wouldn't, shouldn't and couldn't take the stand due to his "excited utterances" his "not so excited utterances" and his history of foul mouthed uterrances against many, particularly women. He was essentially behind the eight ball from the moment he opened that foyer door to ADS standing outside.

JMO...only...not looking for argument or acceptance.

J

[Anakerie]

Sprocket has a new entry up! Would you believe Dominick Dunne was in the courtroom today?

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

[spydernweb2006]

I was thrilled to read that DD was looking much better, he is in my thoughts and prayers.

I wonder what the jury's reaction to the VT tapes were. I know if I were a juror and didnt know how lovely Phil can speak and then heard that Id be in shock. The tapes def show an anger issue with Women and the issue of guns as a method of anger relief.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[dref99]

I was thrilled to read that DD was looking much better, he is in my thoughts and prayers.

I wonder what the jury's reaction to the VT tapes were. I know if I were a juror and didnt know how lovely Phil can speak and then heard that Id be in shock. The tapes def show an anger issue with Women and the issue of guns as a method of anger relief.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

Definitely agree re Dominick - it is nice to hear how he is doing - and it seems he is still enjoying LA events.

Jayne seems to have well described the types of utterances one hears from Mr Spector.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Joe Friday has made a post about today.

http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

Interesting that when juror, ALTERNATE #3 was selected (I guess it literally took place by picking their number from an envelope - didn't know that is how it was done) . . . the juror was surprised and Joe said she "whooped it up".

That made me feel good - - - but I'm not sure why. I think its because the juror has a "sense of humor" - - and I like that. (All I know, is Juror 10 from PS1 would have NEVER have done that - therefore, I like this juror even more!) :cool:

[dref99]

Joe Friday has made a post about today.

http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

Interesting that when juror, ALTERNATE #3 was selected (I guess it literally took place by picking their number from an envelope - didn't know that is how it was done) . . . the juror was surprised and Joe said she "whooped it up".

That made me feel good - - - but I'm not sure why. I think its because the juror has a "sense of humor" - - and I like that. (All I know, is Juror 10 from PS1 would have NEVER have done that - therefore, I like this juror even more!) :cool:

Sprocket had an update here

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/breaking-news-phil-spector-trial.html about the scientific selection process :laugh: - taking a number from an envelope

Interesting comment by Joe Friday that Spector's attorney wanted to keep juror #5

jmo

[NYGalPal]

I was thrilled to read that DD was looking much better, he is in my thoughts and prayers.

I wonder what the jury's reaction to the VT tapes were. I know if I were a juror and didnt know how lovely Phil can speak and then heard that Id be in shock. The tapes def show an anger issue with Women and the issue of guns as a method of anger relief.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

Great new about DD. I was worried about him.

I hope that tape is the deciding factor to send that killer to jail once and for all. There is no way anyone could believe Lana killed herself after hearing that.

:thumbsup:

[GPSpector]

Just thought I'd let you all know, since Dominick Dunne was brought up.

Monday, I received a contract to sign that would release statement that I had made regarding my father on the Catherine Crier show, back on 5/21/04.

After reviewing the clips of me that they wish to use, I will NOT be signing the contract.

As much as I respect Mr. Dunne, I will not give permission to only use the comments that reflect negatively against my Father. Regardless of how my Father saw the interview, that interview was done in a neutral point of view. Not with the intention of wanting to hurt my Father.

Seems whom ever is behind this show just wants me to look like a bad guy in the interview. I do not know if there will be anyone talking positively about my Father but I will not be edited & clipped to look like the bad guy.

Also, I decided to call Tru-TV directly to discuss the Rights to the show just to make sure I would not have Tru-TV coming after me if I did sign. I did find that I am free to sign if I did wish too.

But as a favor to you guys (and Gals), I asked about the coverage. I was told that they will not be covering the trial at all BUT they are undecided at this time if they will cover Closing.

Sorry, I wish I could be posting good news. :sad:

[nanouk]

I admire you very much, Gary, for the respect you show to your father after all you went through with him. And I admire you very much also for the respect you are showing for TRUTH, no matter what.

And thanks for the favor. Too bad for Tru-TV. They are missing some great moments in judicial history. Alan Jackson is an incredible prosecutor. So is Truc Do. They are missing the sinking of the Titanic so they can show us reruns of Loveboat...

JMO

Nanouk

[hiitsme]

Good Morning

I would say that yesterday was another good one for the prosecution. Hearing that DD was well enough to attend the Oscars and the trial was great, of course, seeing Gary and Wasapi back was good news too! It will be an interesting day with Dr. Di Maio. He didn't fare too well on cross in PS1 so I hope he tones down the rhetoric. After what happened with Mr. Pex, I'm sure he will choose his words very carefully.

[NYGalPal]

Anyone think we'll hear from juror #5 today?

[kennedy06]

It took a reminder from JF blog that these witnesses we have been reading about, are there for the defense. I'm reading the testimony and I believe they are actually making case against PS not for him through their own honest testimony. I would have to go over it with a fine tooth comb to find the parts that are helping him. I thought there may be some blockbuster questions this time around with the new defense. I'm not seeing any really. Oh well yes, the DM "mistaken identity" gun chase story, that was a blockbuster moment, sort of like posing him with an invisible gun IMO.


I wonder what PS is thinking about all this.:confused:

[kennedy06]

Why would anyone remember or care if G protested about it or not, this last trial started in 2007 that took place in 2004. :confused: I find this odd. I would guess PS has had supporters long before the 1st trial but why before even hearing the evidence? I could take a guess as to why or who those maybe.......Hmmmm

I have an extremely good memory at times, and I don't have to stop and smell the :rose: either to remember the 1st trial board and to who may have questioned who.

End of subject for me. Yes ignore is our friend, I often forget :)

[NYGalPal]

How will PS handle jail if he is finally found guilty?

[GPSpector]

Just so you and all my friends here know, with every interview I've done, I made it very clear that I will not do an interview that will focus on making my father look bad. I let them all know that I am willing to do a neutral interview or none at all. So far, I'v turned down about 3 interviews because of the slant they wanted. I just don't recall anyone on this board being present during any of my talks with the stations prior to the interviews.

Also as a side note, that poster's memory stinks. I have clearly stated in a couple interviews that my father, just like anyone else, is "capable" of murder but it will be up to the jury to decide if he do it. Being capable does not make it more likely, it only means he has no physical limitations that would prevent him from doing it.

As a few here have stated in the past, Lana was NOT capable do to her wrists.
:read:

[GPSpector]

How will PS handle jail if he is finally found guilty?

If it comes to that, not well, I'm afraid. :sad:

[wasapi]

How will PS handle jail if he is finally found guilty?

Speaking of Mr. Dunne. I don't recall if this is from a Vanity Fair article or an interview with him (perhaps some else knows and can help me out with the origin). Mr. Dunne made a statement that it is common knowledge amongst court personnel that Mr. Spector has a cyniade capsule in his pocket, that he can not legally be searched for it, but if a guilty verdict is announced, baliffs have been ordered to grab him immediaetly before he is able to reach for it.

Had I read this statement from any other reporter, I would question it more. But it seems Mr. Dunne has frequently been made privay to information other reporters have not.

I will search for the link, but does anyone else recall reading this?

[Forensicpsy1]

Hey Gary. Nice to see you posting.

Just wanted to suggest that you have an attorney check with Tru-TV about the rights.

imo

[GPSpector]

Hey Gary. Nice to see you posting.

Just wanted to suggest that you have an attorney check with Tru-TV about the rights.

imo

If I could afford one, I would.

I did call Tru-TV already and they did state that they do own the Rights, I just wanted to make sure that they knew I was not in favor of what they wanted to do.

They may just air it regardless but at least I stated my position on the matter, with them and here.

So, if it does get aired with comments from me, I don't want to hear how I was attacking my father.

[oodi1]

Speaking of Mr. Dunne. I don't recall if this is from a Vanity Fair article or an interview with him (perhaps some else knows and can help me out with the origin). Mr. Dunne made a statement that it is common knowledge amongst court personnel that Mr. Spector has a cyniade capsule in his pocket, that he can not legally be searched for it, but if a guilty verdict is announced, baliffs have been ordered to grab him immediaetly before he is able to reach for it.

Had I read this statement from any other reporter, I would question it more. But it seems Mr. Dunne has frequently been made privay to information other reporters have not.

I will search for the link, but does anyone else recall reading this?

Is this the article you are thinking of?

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/12/dunne200712

[wasapi]

OMG, that's horrible. I believe I heard about this actually happening to another person who was convicted of murder, but wasn't aware of DD's statement.

It is horrible, on more then one level. I believe that Mr. Dunne is credible in his coverage of this case. (It made me really happy he was well enough to go to the trial recently).

However, now that I have qouted him, I need to do a search so that I can provide a link, as well as the verbatim statement.

[kennedy06]

OMG, that's horrible. I believe I heard about this actually happening to another person who was convicted of murder, but wasn't aware of DD's statement.

The only person I have ever heard of in history that used a capsule such as that when they knew they were going down, to avoid their possible fate, had the first name Adolf but they used a gun also.

[wasapi]

Here is the link to the article I referred to:

http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/12/dunne200712

I hope I did the right! It is an interesting article.

[NYGalPal]

Speaking of Mr. Dunne. I don't recall if this is from a Vanity Fair article or an interview with him (perhaps some else knows and can help me out with the origin). Mr. Dunne made a statement that it is common knowledge amongst court personnel that Mr. Spector has a cyniade capsule in his pocket, that he can not legally be searched for it, but if a guilty verdict is announced, baliffs have been ordered to grab him immediaetly before he is able to reach for it.

Had I read this statement from any other reporter, I would question it more. But it seems Mr. Dunne has frequently been made privay to information other reporters have not.

I will search for the link, but does anyone else recall reading this?


Good memory there. I see someone else posted the link. I'll have read it again. Just proves what a coward PS is and always has been.

[My 2 Cents]

I guess some posters need things S-P-E-L-L-E-D out for them. UNBELIEVABLE!!! You ask . . . "WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT IS?" (Why what is? Why Officer Rodriguez's statements are not included in the ITEM MARKED 29?)

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT 2 DIFFERENT REPORTS . . . Technically, 3!!! (a transcript of the voice recorder, the actual voice recording, and Officer Rodriguez's own report of her actions that morning) But I'm sure you already knew that . . . just "searching" for a argument. Let me walk you through this, in case you truly don't understand what is happening:

Officer Beatrice Rodriguez prepared a hand written report THAT MORNING (2/3/03) that detailed her involvement with the arrest of Phil Spector and the report of someone being killed at 1700 Grand View, Alhambra. (I believe this is standard.) Here is a link to that HAND WRITTEN REPORT, prepared by her, THAT MORNING. (Not a day later, not a week later, not 1 month later, not right before the Grand Jury called her for her testimony - - - NOPE, the morning of 2/3/03).

http://lascftp.lasuperiorcourt.org/hp/aamtt1z2z0q3l2fggklcjdq2/1176753892.pdf
(And I APOLOGIZE - I didn't realize it was MY responsibility to supply you with a link to EVERY transcript that supports every statement, that points to Spector's guilt)

As you can read on PAGE 2 of 3, LINE 19 . . . she includes statements she heard made by Spector. She also states, "under oath", that she purposely put these in QUOTATIONS because they were the exact words that she recalled him stating. In other words, she was NOT paraphrasing.

The ITEM 29 they refer to is an entirely different report. It is just a TYPED REPORT-TRANSCRIPT of the voice activated recorder that Officer Page activated from his shirt pocket that morning (Good thinking Ofc Page). But it certainly isn't a recording of EVERYTHING that took place that morning. (How unbelievable that these officers were so consumed with their safety because a woman was reported killed at this location and this idiot, PS would not simply come out of the house with his hands raised up in the air) Unfortunately, Ofc Page was a bit busy that morning. He was the Officer that helped pin PS down after he would not comply and the officers had to use a shield to push him to the ground. Officer Page was the person who initially held PS in place with his knee in his back while PS is lying there, next to the stairs, handcuffed. This Officer - Page had his hands full. He was trying to cover anyone who might come down from the 2nd floor, as no officers went up there yet. The 2nd group of officers had not arrived yet and everyone was busy trying to secure this huge house. Page activated his recorder, AFTER PS was handcuffed and AFTER he had changed the angle of his body to cover the stairs and watch the back doorway and AFTER he repositioned his knee in PS back - all the while freaking out about his SUB-MACHINE GUN that had slipped off his shoulder, etc. This VOICE ACTIVATED RECORDER and the transcript from it (ITEM 29), does NOT include a transcript of everything that went on that morning. Ofc Rodriguez heard Spector make some important statements PRIOR to Ofc Page activating his recorder. OMGosh - How UNBELIEVABLE WOULD IT BE to think that Spector might be SPEWING remarks right and left BEFORE the recorder had been activated??? Look at ALL the RANTS and RAVES he spewed while the recorder was on. To even suggest that he DIDN'T make a single remark seconds or minutes BEFORE the recorder was activated, is simply ridiculous. Ofc Rodriguez's report and the voice recording that substantiates when she and Ofc Cardella (Brandon) meet up in the hallway - all support the timeline of the events she testifies about and states in her report.

I guess that some people need the ENTIRE shooting AND arrest to be recorded - - NOPE, actually, I'm guessing if the police had recorded all of it - they would then require a VIDEO of ALL EVENTS as well. And if they had that . . . well, you know - it would be something else.

What I find most curious and AMUSING, is that this Officer's report and testimony is found questionable by some - - but yet, these SAME PERSONs DO NOT QUESTION or find UNCREDITABLE, statements RECORDED on VIDEO and DURING INTERVIEWS and in his OWN E-MAILS and RECORDED BY POLICE ON TAPE . . . that COMPLETELY CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER and are riddled with LIE after LIE. I find that so puzzling if that poster is in fact "searching" for the truth.

[NYGalPal]

How 'accidental suicide' is construed as 'possible' when the very definition of the word suicide is the 'intentional killing of oneself' is beyond any reasonable comprehension.

Thank you. :thumbup:

[hiitsme]

The only person I have ever heard of in history that used a capsule such as that when they knew they were going down, to avoid their possible fate, had the first name Adolf but they used a gun also.

I recall that one too! But clips of the actual trial I'm thinking of were shown on TV and seconds after the guilty verdict was read, the defendent slipped the poison and took a drink of water in front of everyone in the court. I think he collapsed but don't know if he subsequently died. OT, I know, but just of those things that popped into my mind after reading Wasapi's post.

[My 2 Cents]

Officer Page ALSO testified that he did in fact HEAR SPECTOR yelling things, but he was too focused on other important things (yeah, like his life and the safety of his fellow officers) - to take note of what the exact statements PS was spewing - - he stated that even when the recorder was turned on, he was not paying attention to what PS said - he focused on other urgent things and wasn't paying attention to that.

[oodi1]

My 2 Cents,

No offense, but I think you're preaching to the choir. The only thing Searching is searching for is an argument. It may be best to follow the instructions on the signs at the zoo... DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!

[My 2 Cents]

My 2 Cents,

No offense, but I think you're preaching to the choir. The only thing Searching is searching for is an argument. It may be best to follow the instructions on the signs at the zoo... DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS!

You're right . . . "Don't Feed the Animals". :thumbup:
IGNORE will be my word-of-the-day.

[oodi1]

Does the defense plan on calling pumpkin pie this time?

At this point, she may be more credible than the defense "experts."

[hiitsme]

At this point, she may be more credible than the defense "experts."

So true! I envision her appearing like a schoolmarm this time, somewhat like Casey Anthony at her recent court hearing. Just remembering how Pie betrayed her "best friend" is so sad.

[oodi1]

So true! I envision her appearing like a schoolmarm this time, somewhat like Casey Anthony at her recent court hearing. Just remembering how Pie betrayed her "best friend" is so sad.


Exactly! With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[GPSpector]

Officer Page ALSO testified that he did in fact HEAR SPECTOR yelling things, but he was too focused on other important things (yeah, like his life and the safety of his fellow officers) - to take note of what the exact statements PS was spewing - - he stated that even when the recorder was turned on, he was not paying attention to what PS said - he focused on other urgent things and wasn't paying attention to that.

That would make sense, since there were no real conversations with my father and any of the police Officers there. Just 2 comments I think, but no real conversations, as I noted it that post of "excited utterances".

[KathR]

Speaking of Mr. Dunne. I don't recall if this is from a Vanity Fair article or an interview with him (perhaps some else knows and can help me out with the origin). Mr. Dunne made a statement that it is common knowledge amongst court personnel that Mr. Spector has a cyniade capsule in his pocket, that he can not legally be searched for it, but if a guilty verdict is announced, baliffs have been ordered to grab him immediaetly before he is able to reach for it.

Had I read this statement from any other reporter, I would question it more. But it seems Mr. Dunne has frequently been made privay to information other reporters have not.

I will search for the link, but does anyone else recall reading this?


http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2007/12/dunne200712

[oodi1]

:confused::confused:

Why does Phil Spector have this phobia about people leaving or being alone? Many people have lost a parent at an early age...

A 'normal' person should know if you treat others well, they will not leave you. I just do not understand the psychology here. He treats his kids poorly, except Nicole. He keeps his wife as a virtual prisoner, as well as his oldest kids....

We need a shrink to join the board.

I've always thought it was part of the "Little Man Syndrome" and some of the insecurities that go along with that. It would be nice to have some input from a professional. Whatever the problem(s) is/are doesn't excuse the behavior, but might help explain it.

[i h8 clowns]

I bet you made this up. How embarassing for you.

I was being SARCASTIC. Or at least I thought I was. :sad:
I actually thought I was being funny. It was a response to the poster 'searching' implying that Lana's wrist couldn't be that bad, or HOB would not have hired her. My posts was trying to point our how comical I thought that remark was. For one, Lana was a hostess, not a busboy, and the fact that her wrists are too weak to angle them the way weinburg or the defense suggests and then to pull a trigger at that odd angle would hardly be a question on a EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION.

Geeee, tough room (or maybe I'm just not that funny)

[hiitsme]

Extremely big tipper, which seemed to me to be an attempt to "buy" the attention/companionship of wait staff.

Excellent facts and observations. I bet if we were able to put together a list attributed to Lana, the comparison would be glaring and very telling!

[oodi1]

bad hair? j/k

Good list. :thumbsup:

LOL!!!

Back to the list... I think "Poor Self Image" should be added. He seems to feel the need to belittle and demean others, which (in his mind anyway) makes him feel that he is "better" than others, by making them "lower" than himself. There are also some behaviors exhibited that fall in line with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

[Dave]

Unnamed sources are reporting that Team Spector cheerleader Paul Heubl has been spotted in Hollywood, dressed as a man.

Developing . . .

[wasapi]

LOL!!!

Back to the list... I think "Poor Self Image" should be added. He seems to feel the need to belittle and demean others, which (in his mind anyway) makes him feel that he is "better" than others, by making them "lower" than himself. There are also some behaviors exhibited that fall in line with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

I believe that PS is almost a text-book example of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Also, his alcohol consumption seemed to bring out the worst of his "demons". So I would add that to the list.

Though I have a certain amount of sympathy for things endured by him that were out of his control, I do for all of us - most everyone I know - who've experienced life knocking them to their knees, and feeling they will never again have the strength to stand.

My father also died when I was young, yet I was informed that "he just went away." My mother was mentally ill and abusive.

But at what point do we suck it up and quit using our grief as an excuse? I believe that PS has failed to ever reach that point. My sympathy has waned. He had good people who cared about him, wonderful sons and a satisfying career. Those are things that many dream of. And I'm not referring to money when I say those friends, his family, and his career made him rich with their invaluable gift.

And yet, in my opinion, he not only damaged and hurt the very people who really cared, he took the life of a lovely young woman. And he said to the police, "I can explain".

Saddly, his explaination has never seemed to include taking any responsibility.

[Dave]

Where did the "Links only" thread go?

Here's an article by Harriet Ryan of the L.A. Times:

Expert defence witnesses fall short of standard in Spector retrial

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0225/1224241768947.html

[Jayne]

Unnamed sources are reporting that Team Spector cheerleader Paul Heubl has been spotted in Hollywood, dressed as a man.

Developing . . .

OMG..I know this is OT (but still part of these trial subject episodes..as to his Radio "appearance" and admitting to dressing a particular way! That was funny..just good natured humour. Thanks for the "laugh"!

jmo

J

[Jayne]

I believe that PS is almost a text-book example of Borderline Personality Disorder.

Also, his alcohol consumption seemed to bring out the worst of his "demons". So I would add that to the list.

Though I have a certain amount of sympathy for things endured by him that were out of his control, I do for all of us - most everyone I know - who've experienced life knocking them to their knees, and feeling they will never again have the strength to stand.

My father also died when I was young, yet I was informed that "he just went away." My mother was mentally ill and abusive.

But at what point do we suck it up and quit using our grief as an excuse? I believe that PS has failed to ever reach that point. My sympathy has waned. He had good people who cared about him, wonderful sons and a satisfying career. Those are things that many dream of. And I'm not referring to money when I say those friends, his family, and his career made him rich with their invaluable gift.

And yet, in my opinion, he not only damaged and hurt the very people who really cared, he took the life of a lovely young woman. And he said to the police, "I can explain".

Saddly, his explaination has never seemed to include taking any responsibility.

Great post..and I agree..and I'm sorry for what you've experienced. I think many of us have some form of "dysfunctionality" or "bad experiences" in our lives..past or even recent/present. It's what we do with them and about them, and it isn't always easy for some people to "deal". Apparently (I'd say obviously..but I'm not a psychiatrist or psychologist and even if I could have wouldnt' have the credentials to "evaluate" PS)..that said (as I often do preface, "sorry"!), PS had a LOT on his plate..and yes, that does not excuse him from his behaviour, but perhaps as an earlier poster said..it might perhaps lead us to some sort of "understanding" (be it that) of how he could be is as he is/was and do as he did/does.

I was going to add "oppositional defiance" - a socio and I believe "disorder or behavioural" term used often these days with children, in particular...and I bring this in only from lay experience, obviously. That said...and it's probably not worth much and I'm certainly no expert, as I said, I do wonder if some of PS's behaviours throughout his life to this point were perhaps similar to that. Such as "you or the law tells me to do this"..However, I will do "that"...either Just Because or just because he Knew he could get away with it?

There are things about his personality and "way" that I have liked (OUTSIDE this case and instances of violating others rights whether professional or personal)...such as "dress code" - not violations..but against the "norm". I admire that in a person, actually...as long as it's reasonable and not some stupid act of going to work in a speedo where the requirement is a Tux, only to lose one's job?! Unless, losing that job was worth the "reaction"?

That's why I didn't mind reading about how he was dressed one day or another in court..or seeing his photos on some blog or newspress pushing the couture. I wasn't impressed because that is the PS I knew him to be, anyway. The drummer who walked (or dressed) to his own beat. I'd just skip over those sentences or paragraphs. But...remembering something my father once told me years ago...Does or did he do this for "attention" or to "push the envelople" or to "be different"..or make up for things he otherwise couldn't control..then or before?

If all that comes from this is that PS didn't "mean" to do what he (allegedly) did, wouldn't that mean he needs rehab help? assistance? supervision? Yes..being locked up..and I'm all for that with a guilty which may well be the case..but to give him some sort of "therapeutic help" that he obviously has not received either out of the criminal system ignoring his past and/or his not taking responsibility for his own downfalls? I'm not trying to say he can be cured or even perhaps truly "helped", but I would hope for his son's sake that if/when found guilty, there is some sort of procedure in place to get him the help he has needed perhaps for so long..to come to terms with who he really is, who he has been, and to understand he has had a family and others behind him who have cared for him deeply, and perhaps some superficially.

jmo

J

(apologies..I've been trying, really hard, to keep my posts Short(er)...please don't be hard on me for it..if you've read this far, please understand..I'm not blowing off at the mouth, I've really put some deep thought and consideration into this)

[oodi1]

Jayne,

No need for apologies as far as I'm concerned. I'd much rather read a long, well thought out post than some of the drivel that I've seen posted by some who are just looking for a fight, rather than intelligent discussion.

[wasapi]

Jayne,

In my opinion you hit on the one and only 'best-case-scenerio' in this whole tragic case.

If PS is incarcerated, I believe he will recieve a quick lesson about who really cares for him and who has only his best interests at heart. And it won't be Rachelle. It won't be his lawyers. It won't be the "yes" people he has surrounded himself with. It will be his real family, his sons. And perhaps a few real friends he has shut out of his life. Perhaps with their care, perhaps with the correct medication and therapy - well, in a perfect world I know - but just perhaps it's not too late for him to reflect and acknowlege some horrific decisions he has made, and accept some responsibility, and find some measure of peace, and a way to help banish "the demons".

It is too late for Lana, but perhaps his incarceration will provide her loved one's with some measure of peace as well.

As I said, it would be an outcome that is the best-case-scenerio. And though it isn't taking place 'in a perfect world' - it is still something to hope for.

[oodi1]

Not that I know of. After JF's ruling about Henry Lee in PS1, I doubt that he would be brought up.

[dref99]

Where did the "Links only" thread go?

Here's an article by Harriet Ryan of the L.A. Times:

Expert defence witnesses fall short of standard in Spector retrial

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0225/1224241768947.html

I don't know about the links thread (I thought there was one :confused:) but you can see the original article in the LA times - with a picture of Dr Henry Lee
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-spector23-2009feb23,0,5215241.story

Very confusing as to why the Irish Times would assign copyright to the Washington Post when Harriet Ryan presumably wrote the article for the LA times ?? I guess the Post rewrote it - there seems to be a little more information in the LA times version.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Today's post on T&T is up with Dr Di Maio's testimony. :read:

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

[My 2 Cents]

How dare you suggest that I am making light of Lana Clarkson’s death.
I have the utmost respect for what this trial represents and the people who’s lives have been forever changed by the tragedy that took place on Feb. 3, 2003. The only one that has diminished the importance of this trial and the search for justice is YOU. You have turned this forum into nothing more than your own personal game. I don’t know if your reasons are simply, rooting for the defendant or its your need to “play lawyer” because your ego needs boosting. My post had nothing to do with Lana, it was directed at you and the ridiculousness of your post and the assumptions you take such liberty with at the cost of discovering what really happened and who is at fault. Reprehensible? Yes, this little game you’re playing is reprehensible and I recommend you take it somewhere else. Perhaps, there’s a site called IWISHICOULDBEALAWYERBUTICANTPASSTHEBAR.com

P.S. – Sophormoric is spelled SOPHOMORIC. If you’re going to use it to make fun of someone, get it right.

Whoooaa . . . Don't know what I've missed today, but I support this post 100%. :thumbsup: Well said!

[SHORTSIRKT]

Welcome Back Gary, i don't post often but wanted to say wb. And just to say imo that DM sounds like he's an expert in every field. Can't wait for AJ's cross

[kennedy06]

Hi Jayne

Just some random thoughts,IF he would go to prison, would he be given any more treatment than any other prisoner? How many psychiatrist are there to go around to balance the effects of prison and then deal witht problems of the past? In the setting of a prison, how disturbed would he be considered compared to some of the others??

[dref99]

Reading T&T is anyone else getting the message that Weinberg is trying to say that PS has Parkinsons? Some analysis of why would be useful & I would think the fact that Di Maio's mother has the illness means about as much to this case as the fact that Juror #10's mother used to like looking in other folk's drawers.

It would seem the defense just comes up with red herrings and more red herrings!


jmo

[RayStar]

Reading T&T is anyone else getting the message that Weinberg is trying to say that PS has Parkinsons? Some analysis of why would be useful & I would think the fact that Di Maio's mother has the illness means about as much to this case as the fact that Juror #10's mother used to like looking in other folk's drawers.

It would seem the defense just comes up with red herrings and more red herrings!


jmoDref99, I was trying to figure that out also. I also wonder why AJ wants to delay his cross. If it is like PS1, DeMaio may find himself in a situation similar to James Pex. I am surprised he and Spitz came back for PS2.

[GPSpector]

Dref99, I was trying to figure that out also. I also wonder why AJ wants to delay his cross. If it is like PS1, DeMaio may find himself in a situation similar to James Pex. I am surprised he and Spitz came back for PS2.

Well, for $5,000 a day, it's reasonable to assume that better judgement goes right out the window with some.

As for what DM said about Parkinson's, I thought he was stating that my Grandmother had it and therefore it's possible that my father may have had it in 2003. None of this I've ever known to be true. Nor would it make my father incapable of pulling a trigger.

Of course, nothing that DM says comes across as factual based on any science or prior facts.

As for the gases blowing out the caps (LOL), does this mean that he honestly believes that the gun made no contact with anything during the recoil?? He's a great piece of work.

[dref99]

Dref99, I was trying to figure that out also. I also wonder why AJ wants to delay his cross. If it is like PS1, DeMaio may find himself in a situation similar to James Pex. I am surprised he and Spitz came back for PS2.

Given the delays the defense loves to have (6 years and counting), it is also interesting that they object to any delay from the prosecution re the cross examination. I can only assume there was some "new", perhaps not in discovery, evidence that AJ wanted to check.

We can but wait - and be thankful that someone is interested enough to pass on the news from the court.

jmo

[dref99]

Well, for $5,000 a day, it's reasonable to assume that better judgement goes right out the window with some.

As for what DM said about Parkinson's, I thought he was stating that my Grandmother had it and therefore it's possible that my father may have had it in 2003. None of this I've ever known to be true. Nor would it make my father incapable of pulling a trigger.

Of course, nothing that DM says comes across as factual based on any science or prior facts.

As for the gases blowing out the caps (LOL), does this mean that he honestly believes that the gun made no contact with anything during the recoil?? He's a great piece of work.

Thanks GPS - I took it as DeMaio's mother but no doubt got that incorrect given your knowledge that PS's mother had the illness. It is not something I would wish on anyone - but as you say, it has nothing to do with this trial. JF also said that to the jury - but once an idea takes hold - who knows - they must see the trembling hands each day.

Presumably DeMaio thinks the gun flew out of Lana's mouth and lodged under her foot :confused: Much strength in that gas.


jmo

[nanouk]

Morning Nanouk. Do you think PS will be man enough to take the stand?

Morning to you too, fellow East Coaster. PS can't and won't take the stand. It would open the door to him being questioned by the prosecution about all the occasions he pulled a gun on someone and to all the incongruities in his declarations regarding Lana's death. Can you imagine AJ in front of PS? It would be a carnage !!! And can you imagine all the profanities that would come out of PS?

In another way, there has been so many gun pulling occasions to inquire about and so many different declarations to confront him with that this could be another tactic from the defense to delay the inevitable...

JMO

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

I dont understand why DW brought up PS frozen facial muscles? Were they looking at a picture of him when he was arrested or how he looked sitting in the chair right there and then.

[RayStar]

Well, for $5,000 a day, it's reasonable to assume that better judgement goes right out the window with some.

As for what DM said about Parkinson's, I thought he was stating that my Grandmother had it and therefore it's possible that my father may have had it in 2003. None of this I've ever known to be true. Nor would it make my father incapable of pulling a trigger.

Of course, nothing that DM says comes across as factual based on any science or prior facts.

As for the gases blowing out the caps (LOL), does this mean that he honestly believes that the gun made no contact with anything during the recoil?? He's a great piece of work.Thank you Gary. From reading the update one could not tell whom DM was speaking of and only you know your family history.

Dref99 As to the delay, I was having that Raymond Burr moment. I think AJ is a deep thinker. We shall see. I think it has to do with previous testimony and the photos used by DM. I just want a verdict this time around. I wonder if the judge knows about the seemingly sleeping juror. Hopefully, they are just resting their eyes.

[kennedy06]

I dont understand why DW brought up PS frozen facial muscles? Were they looking at a picture of him when he was arrested or how he looked sitting in the chair right there and then.


I just rewatched the clip of the reality show that is on the cbs link I provided for viewing AD being interviewed by the detectives. I didn't see his hands shake during it. He held out his hand for a slice of pizza, used his hands to point to things but, from what I could tell they were not shaking, IMO. The reporter IIRC said this pilot was filmed several months after Lana's death. I will say if that night hadn't happened that probably would have been one bizarre reality show. JMO

[spydernweb2006]

Parkinson's is NOT always inhereited. My Grandfather had it and died from it but it never showed up in anyone else in the family.

More likely is Phil's shaking is due to his psychiatric meds. One of my best friends was just weaned off one drug and placed on another due to the side effect of Parkinson's like symptoms. Once the shaking starts it never gets better so Her Doc switched her before it became too bad.

Now is this an excuse for the gun discharging, Possibly..... BUT he'd still be GUILTY because he should never had pulled the gun and stuck it in her mouth to begin with. Remember the old adage NEVER pull a gun unless your prepared to use it. And if you use it, be prepared for the consequences.

Phil has severe issues. Sadly his answer to them was to pull a gun. Once he pulled that gun and it went off and killed someone makes him liable for murder.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

[GPSpector]

Thanks GPS - I took it as DeMaio's mother but no doubt got that incorrect given your knowledge that PS's mother had the illness. It is not something I would wish on anyone - but as you say, it has nothing to do with this trial. JF also said that to the jury - but once an idea takes hold - who knows - they must see the trembling hands each day.

Presumably DeMaio thinks the gun flew out of Lana's mouth and lodged under her foot :confused: Much strength in that gas.


jmo

Sorry but I think you misunderstood. I never said that my Grandmother had Parkinson's. I said I thought DM was claiming my Grandmother had it as an excuse or alibi for my father. I do not believe my Grandmother had any mental issues and other then my father putting my Aunt in an institution a couple of times, I never new my Aunt to have any issues either. I know she always enjoyed learning and reading, but that's about it.

DM may have been talking about his own mother, I could not tell from what I read.

[nanouk]

Parkinson's is NOT always inhereited. My Grandfather had it and died from it but it never showed up in anyone else in the family.

More likely is Phil's shaking is due to his psychiatric meds. One of my best friends was just weaned off one drug and placed on another due to the side effect of Parkinson's like symptoms. Once the shaking starts it never gets better so Her Doc switched her before it became too bad.

Now is this an excuse for the gun discharging, Possibly..... BUT he'd still be GUILTY because he should never had pulled the gun and stuck it in her mouth to begin with. Remember the old adage NEVER pull a gun unless your prepared to use it. And if you use it, be prepared for the consequences.

Phil has severe issues. Sadly his answer to them was to pull a gun. Once he pulled that gun and it went off and killed someone makes him liable for murder.

JMHO

Hugs,

Spyder

And Phil knew very well about the possibility of him pulling the trigger during one of his rage fits and hurting or killing someone. Why do you think the gun he went out with (and killed Lana with) was the only one unregistered among the 14 guns that he owned and that were in his house? Very convenient since he would only have to wipe the gun and drop it on his crime scene and voila! Can't trace it back to him.

JMO

Nanouk

[GPSpector]

Random quote came to me while posting this response.
"I don't need to fight,
to prove that I am right.
I don't need to be forgiven!"
(Baba O'Riley - The Who)

Lana Jean Clarkson was a Hostess at the House of Blues. She worked the front of the business and would not have been in the back end of the business very often. There is no misstatement of your words, except in your own mind. High risk jobs are King Crab fishermen in North Pacific, flight deck crew men on aircraft carriers and lumberjacks. If you examine the Department of Labor records, restaurant workers are far below the middle of the risk analysis. Possibly at some point in time there will be a reality show titled "Killed by gazpacho soup" but I have not seen it yet.

I also asked a question on where you got the information of restaurants being "high risk" that you chose to ignore. One of the methods that seem applicable to acquiring the information would be to follow up on real life accidental injuries. Why do you view "chasing ambulances" as accusatory?

Mortie

I agree. Besides "chasing ambulances" would be a far riskier thing to do. :wink:

-I am not 100% but, I am sure that the VIP lounge where Lana worked (at the HoB), was probably carpeted, so slipping would be down to a minimum anyway.

-Since she worked the entrance to the VIP lounge, I do not see her serving to many drinks at that position.

-Since she was limited to the VIP Lounge, I'm sure she only had to deal with a far fewer number of customers then their other bar.

In other words, she was in a fairly safe position, away from any mishaps. I'm sure, if the HoBs had any bar fights, it was probably not in the VIP lounge. Worst they probably see there are rude and demanding customers that just need to be pampered to settle their problems.

[My 2 Cents]

Given the delays the defense loves to have (6 years and counting), it is also interesting that they object to any delay from the prosecution re the cross examination. I can only assume there was some "new", perhaps not in discovery, evidence that AJ wanted to check.

We can but wait - and be thankful that someone is interested enough to pass on the news from the court.

jmo

I'm not sure if everyone has seen the ADDED piece Sprocket updated this morning before leaving for court - it talks about DWs DIRECT of Di Maio after the lunch break - - - this would certainly explain why AJ was taken aback and had to consider whether he needed more time for the CROSS.

DW displaying a photo of the S&W 37 next to the Colt Cobra 38 and DI MAIO - the coroner giving the expert testimony about the two - and if one would create more back spatter than the other???. . . and DW using these photo that AJ has NEVER even seen before?????

No wonder they hired DiMaio - he's quite the "Jack of All Trades", isn't he? OMGosh - - what a riot this defense team is. I had planned on attending court today and when I discovered court would only be 1/2 day I decided to not attend - - - I already regret it. Seeing AJ do the cross or recross today on DiMaio would have been so worth that drive, even if for only the 1/2 day.

[oodi1]

Thank you for the link can you believe HL said
"I refuse to participate in the case anymore because nobody is interested in the facts and the truth," he said. ...........Is he crazy? Isn't that exactly what trials are for, so people can know the TRUTH.


Trials should be for the truth. Unfortunately, this case has shown that the "truth" can depend on how much one is being paid, or can benefit in other ways. JP obviously was not truthful, and when VDM was being questioned about blood spatter, an honest person would have responded with "I'm not an expert in that area" rather than attempt to testify as if he was an expert. It also appears that VDM was attempting (with solicitation from DW) to make some sort of medical diagnosis of PS. Whatever PS's health issues may be today are totally irrelevant to what they were 6 years ago. How truthful is that?

[hiitsme]

I'm not sure if everyone has seen the ADDED piece Sprocket updated this morning before leaving for court - it talks about DWs DIRECT of Di Maio after the lunch break - - - this would certainly explain why AJ was taken aback and had to consider whether he needed more time for the CROSS.

DW displaying a photo of the S&W 37 next to the Colt Cobra 38 and DI MAIO - the coroner giving the expert testimony about the two - and if one would create more back spatter than the other???. . . and DW using these photo that AJ has NEVER even seen before?????

No wonder they hired DiMaio - he's quite the "Jack of All Trades", isn't he? OMGosh - - what a riot this defense team is. I had planned on attending court today and when I discovered court would only be 1/2 day I decided to not attend - - - I already regret it. Seeing AJ do the cross or recross today on DiMaio would have been so worth that drive, even if for only the 1/2 day.

Thanks for that info. Jack of all Trades, LOL, I'm sure if you ask him he'd agree. Once AJ finished with cross during PS1, I don't believe his overall testimony was favorable for the defense. Today's should be great! Now you can save your trip until the Pie takes the stand.

[My 2 Cents]

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000405/health.htm


Here is a direct quote from the articles you just LINKED:
"Suicide is defined as the intentional taking of one's own life. "

Actually, the articles you've just LINKed to - ADD TOTAL SUPPORT TO THE NOTION THAT LANA DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE. And the "accidental" suicide referenced in the article from India (that talks about "different degrees" of suicide is talking about something entirely different and contradicts the "accidental" suicide theory by the defense. That article states that an "accidental" suicide is not really meant to happen. The person create a situation with a very low level of danger or risk of dying (putting a loaded gun in one's mouth would not fit that example). I believe they are suggesting situations where people "threaten" suicide to draw attention, but don't plan on actually doing it, . . . like a girlfriend calling her boyfriend who has just broken up with her and tells him that she has just swallowed a bottle of pills because without him, she just doesn't to live, etc etc - - her intentions are that (A) boyfriend will run right over, (B) paramedics will pump her stomach, and (C) she and the ex boyfriend will live happily ever after - because he's not going to leave her now, not when she's so fragile, etc . . . BUT - if the boyfriend doesn't run to her rescue she will die, and they are implying this might be an "accidental" suicide. I don't know if I agree or not, but I definitely do NOT believe this scenario would be applicable to Lana's death.

RE: 1st article from OHIO. Just about EVERYTHING in that article contradicts Lana having committed suicide - accidental or otherwise. This article would NEVER be used by the DEFENSE. This article would be PERFECT FOR THE PROSECUTION that disputes the suggestion of suicide by Lana. The points mentioned throughout this entire article only SUPPORT that Lana was NOT A CANDIDATE for suicide. IMO - the article presents numerous points that would suggest PHIL SPECTOR as a MUCH MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE FOR SUICIDE. But since he would never do that, regardless of how miserable he feels that his everyday life is, then why not recklessly take chances with someone else's life, intentional or not? (Also, testimony by the recent DEFENSE WITNESS, David Schapiro - stated that Lana was NOT a big drinker these last 7-8 months of her life - when this person knew her. In fact, this DEFENSE WITNESS testified under oath that Lana never drank when he was with her. So I hardly feel that your quote about "excessive drinking as a sign of suicidal behavior" is appropriate in Lana's case and it is really reaching.)

[oodi1]

So you were talking about PS? I missed that... Since I use "Ignore" and skip some posts, I thought you were talking about someone else...

JMO

Nanouk

LOL... I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it... :biggrin:

[My 2 Cents]

The MAJOR POINTS and FOCUS of these articles are listed below (slightly paraphrased, so I don't get in trouble with CW & quoting rules for this board). These are the points your articles dwell on. How does this support your/defense’s theory?

Symptoms
Typical warning signs of suicide or suicidal thoughts include:
• Talking about suicide (NOT Lana)
• Securing means to commit suicide (NOT Lana IMO – but this is very vague. A 4th story window would even apply to this “symptom”)
• Withdrawing from social contact (NOT Lana)
• Dramatic mood swings (NOT Lana)
• Being preoccupied with death (NOT Lana)
• Feeling trapped or hopeless about a situation (this may be the ONLY point that could be argued by the defense because $ was always an issue – but it is for many people. I don’t think it is an accurate argument IMO. She was excited about new HOB job & its potential, had a commercial or acting job lined up the next week, just had NEW “head shots” taken, etc)
• Increased use of alcohol or drugs (NOT Lana – a defense witness & her best friend Nilli, both testified that her drinking in past year greatly reduced & she had developed healthy eating habits, became vegetarian. It certainly had NOT INCREASED.)
• Changing normal routine, including eating or sleeping patterns (NOT Lana)
• Engaging in risky or self-destructive behavior (NOT Lana)
• Giving away belongings or getting affairs in order (NOT Lana)
• Saying goodbye to people as if they won't be seen again (NOT Lana. She even asked “matchmaker” to call her on Monday – she would like to go on date with the man she recommended for her. Bought 8 pairs work shoes, etc)

And PLEASE provide me with a LINK to the many e-mails of Lana’s that reference her “blackouts”. I am not saying you are wrong in stating this. It is just that when I was in court the DEFENSE was focused that day on several of Lana’s e-mails, and NONE of them mentioned any “blackouts” that I recall. So if you could LINK to them I would appreciate it, as I would like to read them and see exactly what they say. Just as the articles you state support Lana as suicidal – I obviously disagree and I have stated why. So I would like to read these multiple e-mails of Lana’s that you keep referencing, for myself. Thanks – would very much appreciate it.

[nanouk]

I think I'll not address her at all period. All she hopes to accomplish is get another thread closed.

Dear friends

CW has been very clear. Let us quiet down or else some of us will get banned or the thread closed altogether. If you are not comfortable with what some posters write (as I am), just use Ignore on them. It's the only way if you don't want to flare up. This trial takes a lot of my attention and I need good healthy discussions with honest, sensible persons and this is where I get it.

Don't loose it!!!

JMO

Nanouk

[penguin01]

that is what all have been told since beginning of these boards:

The Option is called IGNORE!!!!

Just scroll right past their posts and don't reply or even complain about them on the forum. You are just encouraging them taking their bait & the responder is usually the one who gets banned.
That bears repeating - we do tend to forget.
But did someone do something to get the Links Thread disappeared? Can we get it back with whatever offending post was deleted if that was the problem? I was just about to see if there were any new news links and it went away.

[nanouk]

that is what all have been told since beginning of these boards:

The Option is called IGNORE!!!!

Just scroll right past their posts and don't reply or even complain about them on the forum. You are just encouraging them taking their bait & the responder is usually the one who gets banned.

Thanks, Coldwater, for the reminder. I understand why some persons can get hyped up reading some posts. I used to, until I discovered the Ignore. The posters you are warning are well respected participants and we need them to continue posting. I believe your advice will be observed and I promise I will act faster and post or PM the victims the next time a similar situation starts arising.

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

Thanks, Coldwater, for the reminder. I understand why some persons can get hyped up reading some posts. I used to, until I discovered the Ignore. The posters you are warning are well respected participants and we need them to continue posting. I believe your advice will be observed and I promise I will act faster and post or PM the victims the next time a similar situation starts arising.

Nanouk

I agree with your most excellent post. Like the song says

There's A Place in the Sun.....movin on.....movin on..... ignore...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogaLWgE4kUI

:cool:

[oodi1]

It looks like only a half day of court today for Ash Wednesday. I know the defense has been keeping their list of witnesses close to the vest, but does anyone have an idea of who might be left?

[kennedy06]

It looks like only a half day of court today for Ash Wednesday. I know the defense has been keeping their list of witnesses close to the vest, but does anyone have an idea of who might be left?

I just can't see them passing up Pie.

[oodi1]

Ash Wednesday is why? I hadn't thought about that. Good Friday too?

Wish I knew who else they had lined up.

Ash Wednesday is the first day of lent.

Good Friday and Easter aren't until April... hopefully, this will be all over by then.

[nanouk]

mmm, smores! Gimme, gimme.. :laugh:

? can't the Judge get the defense to stop dragging their feet and move along? I know PS is telling is team to waste time for as long as they can.
I wouldn't blame PS only. There has been soooo many breaks in the trial, such as every Friday off, all kind of civic/religious/state holidays you can think of, days or half-days of for so many reasons such as today PM off so some juror(s) can attend church on Ash Wednesday... I understand it's a long trial and jurors need some breaks but, what the heck... Let's move on!!!

JMO

Nanouk

[Anakerie]

Phil has apparently settled his differences with the Bonaventure Hotel... The article linked below says that the attorneys couldn't be reached for additional information on the terms of the settlement..

Bonaventure Hotel Settles Lawsuit Against Spector, Wife
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Bonaventure-Hotel-Settles-Lawsuit-Against-Spector-Wife.html

[oodi1]

I would guess that the jurors get an hour for lunch... which brings it down to about 5 hours a day.

[penguin01]

Phil has apparently settled his differences with the Bonaventure Hotel... The article linked below says that the attorneys couldn't be reached for additional information on the terms of the settlement..

Bonaventure Hotel Settles Lawsuit Against Spector, Wife
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Bonaventure-Hotel-Settles-Lawsuit-Against-Spector-Wife.html I wonder how many rooms he had and what services he got for - I thinks its about $500/day?
I guess if the hotel settled rather than leaving it up to the court PS may have gotten the "deep discount" he demanded.

[oodi1]

I thought Sprocket said in her blog that TD was scheduled for a vacation in about a month, so hopefully it will be wrapped up by then.

[My 2 Cents]

I would guess that the jurors get an hour for lunch... which brings it down to about 5 hours a day.

The jurors get 1 1/2 hours for lunch recess (usually 12:00 - 1:30PM). Court usually starts at 9:30AM (unless the attorneys have issues to debate out of the jurors presence), then it will start later. Court is usually recessed for the day at 4PM (unless they run out of witnesses or again, if there are issues to be discussed and argued by the attorneys & the judge). There are typically 2 breaks (AM and PM) that last about 15-20 minutes each. So I guess a typical day of testimony would cover about 4.5 hours, maybe a little less - especially since they don't seem to get underway right at 9:30AM.

It would be my guess, that if they tried to get in let's say, an 8 hour day, they would lose a lot of the juror's attention. On a few days that I have been there, where the testimony is packed with info - it is exhausting, and I am just sitting and watching. The jurors are taking notes and must pay very close attention. You hit "over-load" quite quickly. AND THE ATTORNEYS . . . OMGosh - I can NOT imagine what a full day in that courtroom does to their health and well being. And again - How "sprocket" gets down all the precise notes & information that is changing hands before the judge . . . I do not know. I can't keep up, that's for sure.

[penguin01]

They are all going to be exhausted - must be already! I hope that Truc doesn't miss out on her planned vacation. She'll need it. But its a cruise isn't it? If need be she can fly and catch up with the ship if the trial only runs over a day or two.

[oodi1]

To quote directly from the link you posted (and in it's entirety, so there is more understanding)

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000405/health.htm#3

Degrees of suicide

There might logically be various degrees of suicide as there are various degrees of homicide.

1. First-degree suicide: deliberate, planned, premeditated self-murder.

2. Second-degree suicide:impulsive and unplanned; under great provocation or mitigating circumstances.

3. Third-degree suicide: sometimes called "accidental" suicide. This occurs when a person puts his or her life into jeopardy by voluntary self-injury, but where we infer that the intention to die was relatively low because the method of self-injury was relatively harmless, or because provisions for rescue were made. The person was actually "unlucky" to die.

4. "Suicide under circumstances which suggest a lack of capacity for intention, as when the person was psychotic or highly intoxicated from the effects of drugs, including alcohol.

5. Self-destruction due to self-negligence: for example, such self-destructive behaviours as chronic alcoholism, reckless driving, ignoring medical instructions, cigarette smoking, and similar dangerous activities. In general, such deaths are not at present classified as suicide.

6. "Justifiable" suicide: for example, the self-destructive action of a person with a terminal illness. This last category is of considerable current interest to philosophers, theologians and social psychologists.


The article does mention "accidental suicide" in item #3... however, I do not feel this applies. Putting a gun in one's mouth does not meet the "the intention to die was relatively low because the method of self-injury was relatively harmless, or because provisions for rescue were made. The person was actually 'unlucky' to die" criteria. Furthermore, item #5 states that negligent behavior is NOT classified as suicide.

I also do not feel that this article is relevant, as it appears to be based on Indian law, which is not applicable to a case here in the US.

[My 2 Cents]

I just rewatched the clip of the reality show that is on the cbs link I provided for viewing AD being interviewed by the detectives. I didn't see his hands shake during it. He held out his hand for a slice of pizza, used his hands to point to things but, from what I could tell they were not shaking, IMO. The reporter IIRC said this pilot was filmed several months after Lana's death. I will say if that night hadn't happened that probably would have been one bizarre reality show. JMO

That's a good point K6.
I wonder . . . If the defense opens up this brand new area and topic of speculation (PS having Parkinson's disease, Frozen Facial muscles, etc) - Does it OPEN THE DOORS for the PROSECUTION to present tapes/videos of Spector acting normal, no shaky hands etc - that were video taped of him SHORTLY AFTER 2/3/03?
Wouldn't that be interesting?

Did you also catch the comment in T&T's blog . . . she said the jury was brought in, and then she mentions PS taking out a tin and retrieving & swallowing a pill from it. All while sitting up at the defense table and on the same day that Dr Di Maio has decided to explore this new area that includes this coroner's evaluation that PS has Parkinson disease. I don't recall her posting an observation like this before - taking medicine in front of the jury. . . . (My gut suggests it was intentional.) Oh brother! Lame IMO.

[dref99]

The mention of the two opposing terms together in an obscure publication from India shows an interesting similarity to putting the photos of two very different guns together and attempting to get an expert who doesn't seem to know the limits of his area of expertise to say they would have the same result when used in a homicide - or for that matter suicide.

The terms were fully described and the concept dismissed on many prior threads and I believe it has not been used by the defense in the current PS trial (if someone can find anything different I am open to correction of this statement).

He truly should have taken that plea deal.


jmo

[My 2 Cents]

I remember hearing something about that with regards to her testimony, but I went back to read several of the articles and CourtTV reports of Hayes-Riedl's testimony and I can't find her testifying to that. ("Him" saying it, as opposed to "Her" saying it on the stand . . . are very important differences.)

There are statements made by Roger Rosen that Hayes is GOING to testify to that, but I can't find the testimony regarding the Medicine Cabinet or Mexico trips to purchase drugs, etc. AGAIN - If you have a LINK to her testimony, I would appreciate it. The LINK you provided just has Rosen talking about what she is going to say - - but the testimony in that article from Hayes, doesn't show that she testifies to that. I also checked several other articles about Hayes' testimony and I haven't been able to find that testimony. (Remember, there were lots of claims from the defense about what Dr Henry Lee was going to testify too - and it never happened either.) THANKS - Please post LINK if you find it - much appreciated.

[My 2 Cents]

The mention of the two opposing terms together in an obscure publication from India shows an interesting similarity to putting the photos of two very different guns together and attempting to get an expert who doesn't seem to know the limits of his area of expertise to say they would have the same result when used in a homicide - or for that matter suicide.

The terms were fully described and the concept dismissed on many prior threads and I believe it has not been used by the defense in the current PS trial (if someone can find anything different I am open to correction of this statement).

He truly should have taken that plea deal.


jmo

When the testimony of Dr Di Maio is stretched beyond the "limits of his area of expertise" as I believe you have very accurately described - I can't help but think of Dr Herold and the caliber of expert witness she provided this trial. I recall when asked about the "tooth fragment" that was found on the carpet. She quickly advised that she is NOT an expert in that area - that the dynamics (or some similar word) for solid matter was very different for back spatter and blood. I am sure she would have LOVED to share her opinion on that while on the stand, but she knew that was outside her area of expertise.

I can not imagine Dr Di Maio being quiet on this subject for one second . . and he's a coroner!

[dref99]

I remember hearing something about that with regards to her testimony, but I went back to read several of the articles and CourtTV reports of Hayes-Riedl's testimony and I can't find her testifying to that. ("Him" saying it, as opposed to "Her" saying it on the stand . . . are very important differences.)

There are statements made by Roger Rosen that Hayes is GOING to testify to that, but I can't find the testimony regarding the Medicine Cabinet or Mexico trips to purchase drugs, etc. AGAIN - If you have a LINK to her testimony, I would appreciate it. The LINK you provided just has Rosen talking about what she is going to say - - but the testimony in that article from Hayes, doesn't show that she testifies to that. I also checked several other articles about Hayes' testimony and I haven't been able to find that testimony. (Remember, there were lots of claims from the defense about what Dr Henry Lee was going to testify too - and it never happened either.) THANKS - Please post LINK if you find it - much appreciated.

I also can find no mention of this on the stand (and one blog has quite a detailed entry on Haye's testimony). It does show that the next best friend did say some very nasty things about Lana, but there was no mention of trips to Mexico that I can find. Do miss not being able to go back and play the video that was removed with the changes to CourtTV. It is pleasing to see that the prosecution has been allowed to show some of the recordings in evidence at trial2. If Ms Hayes returns (unlikely, I would think) we will have some more up to date information.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Let's take a look at some of the OTHER statements that PHIL SPECTOR "CONTENDS" happened or didn't happen that morning:

It was an accident.
I didn't mean to shoot her.
She was drunk (and he was not) when she left HOB.
She asked him for a ride home.
She stole a bottle of tequila from the HOB as she left
She didn't work at HOB, so only pretended to be security there.
He owns the HOB
I think I killed someone.
She was standing when she killed herself, and she is 6 ft tall, - but she was wearing heels which made her even taller and he is only 5'2" (or 5'3" can't recall which he said) so the angle of the bullet from such a shrimp would be impossible
She sang 2 of his hit songs before she pulled the trigger (Pappa Doo Run Run and ??? Something else, can't recall) and then kissed the gun
He was 6 feet away when it happened
LA Sheriff's dept has exonerated him of all charges
LA Sheriff's dept has ruled it an "accidental suicide"
It was her gun

There is more - but you get the idea. Do you seriously find this man's statements reliable? Are you not concerned by how much he has contradicted himself? (and these statements are documented on video and at taped interviews with magazines - it's not "hearsay")

Surely you must be concerned with the fact that he does not stick with ONE story and ONE STORY ONLY?

[wasapi]

Someone with the description of being at high risk for suicide - reckless behavior, drinking to excess, etc., by far applies more to Phil Spector then Lana Clarkson. His mood swings, blackouts from excessive drinking, reckless behavior, ect., are well documented.

[nanouk]

What I remember is that the blood was drawn from the heart and this results in a higher alcohol reading. As for the drugs in her system some posters keep referring to, they were at a very low level. I don't believe it would have affected her in any way...

JMO

Nanouk

[wasapi]

It is totally uneducated to suggest the 80 Vicodin a month is excessive. That isn't even 3 a day. I've had to take more then twice as much of something stronger then Vicodin monthly for chronic pain. If used for pain it is a live-saver, allowing me to function normally as opposed to being impaired by chronic, unrelenting pain. It is yet one more desperate attempt to slander someone who can no longer speak to defend herself.

[mbmb]

Everyone, here is my advice and quote....

listen to me. Do NOT go into the light. Stop where you are. Turn away from it. Don't even look at it.
Poltergeist[/quote]

Oh, I'm so with you. Just figured out how to put people on ignore. I have fallen for the bait before & I am so not doing it again.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion...it's just that some opinions mess with my mind & my mouth or typing :angry:

[Anakerie]

It is totally uneducated to suggest the 80 Vicodin a month is excessive. That isn't even 3 a day. I've had to take more then twice as much of something stronger then Vicodin monthly for chronic pain. If used for pain it is a live-saver, allowing me to function normally as opposed to being impaired by chronic, unrelenting pain. It is yet one more desperate attempt to slander someone who can no longer speak to defend herself.

ITA, Wasapi... 80 vicodin pills in a month is definitely not excessive when dealing with an injury that causes intense pain. A number of years ago, I was in an auto accident and really messed up my back. The first couple of months after the accident, I was on vicodin and a couple other drugs for the pain. I would imagine that 2 shattered wrists would have been comparable or worse than what I had to go through. Here I am over 10 years later, and I still have vicodin in my medicine cabinet.

[mbmb]

Phil Spector is just as not guilty as Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson, and Jason Williams. All of them are felons who could afford high priced lawyers. My only hope is that Phil Spector will not join that club of *Not Guilty* but, *Not Innocent*.

I know I probably have said this before...but, Lana has been dead 6 long years & her killer has been free that long. It's a shame and a disgrace to our justice system. California is broke & they let trials go on & on. It just befuddles the mind.

[Jayne]

It's so quiet here today/evening. Guess no news from the courthouse? Y'all been hashing around my fav. oxymoron, I see. I've no comments - made enough of them since the first trial started. But, it was an interesting question - does anyone know about PS2, and Only PS2, if the defense has used the "a-s" defense, either by mentioning it or alluding to it? I didnt' think so, but haven't read all that's gone on or been able to see ONE DAY of this PS2 trial!

jmo

J

[Jayne]

just used my first ignore.....some of you need to use it too.
cant truc do go on vacation if the jury is in delibrations? she doesnt have to be there for verdict but i am sure she wants too.

I'd guess it depends on what DA Cooley says and whether she wants to be there if she has an option. I'd guess the DA office would "reimburse her" if she "has to stay" and loses anything due to unreimbursed vacation deposits, etc. She well may have planned this long before she even got hooked into the PS2 trial?

I wouldn't want to miss "the end", myself...might be worth it to lose out on a few hundred/thousand...then hop the next ship available.

jmo

J

[oodi1]

just used my first ignore.....some of you need to use it too.
cant truc do go on vacation if the jury is in delibrations? she doesnt have to be there for verdict but i am sure she wants too.

That's what I was thinking/wondering. I'm sure that if she does go on vacation before the verdict, she would know about the verdict within moments... probably before any of us know.

[My 2 Cents]

I am amazed at the partial testimony, so far, that Dr Di Maio has given. Just so I could "wrap my head around it", I decided to list some of the areas of "expertise" that he has testified about. And to think that he is actually a coroner, but yet he wears all these "hats". Maybe he does deserve the $5,000 a day fee. He's a busy, busy guy.

Coroner/Pathologist
Neurologist
General Practitioner
Back Spatter Expert
Wound Ballistic Specialist
Fire Arms & Weapons Expert
Toxicologist
Psychologist
Investigator (DW calls him this, but at least Dr DM corrects him and says, “coroner”. It must get confusing for DW, what with all the “hats” that Di Maio is expected to wear for Team Spector)
Absent Minded Professor (Did you speak with DW about PEX’s testimony? Nahhh, Not really!)

An “anonymous” reader on T&T’s blog, asked in the comments section “if Dr Di Maio would be Spector’s SUICIDOLOGIST too?" This poster is probably on to something - maybe Di Maio will tackle this area of expertise next.

I will laugh, but not be that shocked, if I catch Dr DM in the courthouse parking lot acting as PS’s driver. And we know that he is certainly qualified to be his bodyguard – Remember? He testified that he had disarmed assailants with guns before. No, not once, but TWICE. Oh . . . I so miss the televised coverage.

(PS1 when the trial was TELEVISED):

When Di Maio said Clarkson (who stood nearly 6 feet tall and was in excellent physical condition) could have wrestled the gun from the diminutive Spector’s hands, Jackson asked if Di Maio was being “ridiculous.”

“Have you ever taken a gun from someone’s hands?” Jackson asked.

“I’ve done it on two occasions,” Di Maio replied.

"Forensic Pathology", 2nd Edition by Dr DiMaio - - - - - - $124
Daily Rates to Testify - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$5,000
Watching Dr DiMaio disarm a would be mugger - - - - - - PRICELESS

[Jayne]

Even if information is given from PS1 - it would still be irrelevant. Lawyers do not "take the stand". They make comments both inside and outside of the courtroom, which may or may not, be proven by the evidence. If statements are made, outside of the hearing of the jury, there is no place for the prosecution to refute these statements.

10/12 jurors (at one stage 11/12) thought PS was guilty of murder despite any protestations (oh dear, I think that is a word another poster would use, and I am unsure if it is the right word to use here, or if it is even a word) by the defense lawyers that Lana committed suicide.

jmo

Protestations..yes it is a word and it can be used in the legal sense or otherwise. It is an OLD word..There is a Protestando..usually by a defendant in particular cases where it fits..often in claiming a right to land. I'm not sure, but with the Latin basis and the connections I've seen, it's from Old English (common) law. In what you're saying, yes, it makes sense and fits a few of the varied definitions of it, where in old legal practice as I understand it, it is something a party to a matter (usually a defendant) "answers" to so as not be pleading to two opposing matters.

You know...like say you get a check from someone who owes you money but they dont' pay you the amount owed. If you cash it..and they Wrote on the check..."for services" or something to the effect...unless you write "with protest" or "in protest"..cashing that check is in a sense accepting that payment (in full).

You're on track..but perhaps "despite any arguments...". It really is the defendant who "protests" through pleadings by his attorneys.

I'm just responding...I think you used the word well..besides you Do know, don't you? Lawyers make up words all the time..they do! (look at what the defense team did last time..not just a new "word(s)" but a whole fallacious "legal term/defense"!

We have to start a thread..maybe on Open Court..of the Funny Things said in court..not things said just by witnesses, but by attorneys and judges, etc. They are hilarious. I've two books of compilations and they're all over the internet. It would be O/T here to post them.

jmo

j

[oodi1]

It looks like more discovery violations based on a snippet from Sprocket in the comments section of her blog. I'm on pins and needles waiting for the details.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6757696342634699253&postID=4025647628332852642

[Jayne]

I am amazed at the partial testimony, so far, that Dr Di Maio has given. Just so I could "wrap my head around it", I decided to list some of the areas of "expertise" that he has testified about.
<snipped>
“Have you ever taken a gun from someone’s hands?” Jackson asked.

“I’ve done it on two occasions,” Di Maio replied.

"Forensic Pathology", 2nd Edition by Dr DiMaio - - - - - - $124
Daily Rates to Testify - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -$5,000
Watching Dr DiMaio disarm a would be mugger - - - - - - PRICELESS

You make me crack a rib...very funny...M2C Marx!

You're right..wonder if DiMaio would even think of attempting to disarm a mugger or gangbanger where I, you, or anyone else lives?

Hey, come to think of that testimony..it was that Lana could have disarmed PS..right? (Oh, I remember watching that on TV..THAT was priceless, as well..maybe he could..who knows? He said he did, right? Was it in a "test" or Real Life? I don't think AJ ever asked or got that answer. I remember back then..when he testified..like he was the James Bond or The Avengers' or Superman Pathologist/Expert, not only can he testify about the blood spatter but he can avoid it altogether by disarming the assailant?

Well, then, couldn't PS have disarmed Lana and prevented this whole "accidental suicide" from happening? After all, it was in his house with his gun..he should have had DiMaio's expertise and not be in any worse physical condition that DiMaio was and ended it right then and there..and none of this would be taking so many years to figure (drag) out. AJ was smart not to ask that...frankly...it would have been "gambling" on the answer..but Oh..if DiMaio had said "yes"...what a different ballgame to play.

Isn't this WEB of state vs. defendant and the different obligations and non, etc. etc. interesting? mindboggling?


jmo

J

[dref99]

It looks like more discovery violations based on a snippet from Sprocket in the comments section of her blog. I'm on pins and needles waiting for the details.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6757696342634699253&postID=4025647628332852642

You are not alone in waiting - it seems from the comments we have many sharing the wait. Unbelievable the lack of coverage - I notice Harriet Ryan had a post in the LA times this evening on a court case that surely has much less interest - but perhaps I read the views of those in LA incorrectly.

The legal aspects of this trial (and the prior one) I find riveting - I'm wondering what percentage of total time in court is spent in legal argument. No wonder the juries all become such friends - much time is spent in the Jury room, rather than the court.

Interesting to see how the latest mention of DV is treated by JF. He is truly between a rock and a hard place with this defense and, it seems to me, bending over backwards to accommodate them.

jmo

[oodi1]

You are not alone in waiting - it seems from the comments we have many sharing the wait. Unbelievable the lack of coverage - I notice Harriet Ryan had a post in the LA times this evening on a court case that surely has much less interest - but perhaps I read the views of those in LA incorrectly.

The legal aspects of this trial (and the prior one) I find riveting - I'm wondering what percentage of total time in court is spent in legal argument. No wonder the juries all become such friends - much time is spent in the Jury room, rather than the court.

Interesting to see how the latest mention of DV is treated by JF. He is truly between a rock and a hard place with this defense and, it seems to me, bending over backwards to accommodate them.

jmo

I was amazed at JF's ruling on the last discovery violation, but it actually worked out in the prosecution's favor... and with much more impact that any sanctions alone would have had. In the end, the defense just got more rope to hang themselves with.

[Anakerie]

It looks like more discovery violations based on a snippet from Sprocket in the comments section of her blog. I'm on pins and needles waiting for the details.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6757696342634699253&postID=4025647628332852642

:scared: It looks like we might have to wait longer to see what Sprocket's post will be... Blogspot seems to be down... I can't even get into my own blog!

[dref99]

:scared: It looks like we might have to wait longer to see what Sprocket's post will be... Blogspot seems to be down... I can't even get into my own blog!

I can get into both Anakerie (to read - not to write of course) - but no update from Sprocket yet

[dref99]

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

[nanouk]

New entry
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/02/phil-spector-retrial-day-forty-eight.html
I just finished reading Sprocket's blog. What a half-day it was!!!

I'm not sure DiMaio went down in flames, as I was expecting. I guess I have been wasted by all of AJ's incredible performances. Maybe it happened on Tuesday. Let's wait for the PM update.

As for Tawni Tyndall... She is despicable!!! She never had any notes to turn in of all her previous interviews (Punkin Pie, among others), yet she can't remember anything that happened the night before. What a liar!

Gregory Sims... How come he never testified to Lana being "so despondent she couldn't go on" in PS 1? The defense would have over-exposed this statement to support their case then!!! How can he come up with such an enormity now? Would that be a case of induced memory? The defense made sure the jurors knew he had to be subpoenaed, trying to show his as a potential hostile witness to their side... Yet that didn't keep him from spending some time with the defense going over his last testimony and discussing his new allegations... Has he been offered a job at the Backstage too?

JMO

Nanouk

[bearwds]

Frustrating that this trial not available as PS-1 was.

Heartened to hear from Gary that TruTV is considering showing the closing arguments. Now that is not a certainty if it's being "considered", but at this stage I'll take anything. It would follow that if the closings are broadcast, the verdict would be as well.

Found it interesting that AJ will be able to refer in closing to Pex.

One more carear shot to heck.


bearwds

[GPSpector]

Oh Thanks, I know. I was just kidding around, because the person was quoting remarks made by Linda Kenney-Baden, instead of quoting or linking to facts admitted into evidence.

And thanks for the secondary advice, as well.

For anyone to quote LKB for reason of showing proof of anything seems to be a complete waste of time and typing and therefore, our reading since, she did not take the Stand or show any proof to her statement and if I am not mistaken, she was FIRED.




So, in other words, I agree with you. Good post:thumbup:

[dref99]

Frustrating that this trial not available as PS-1 was.

Heartened to hear from Gary that TruTV is considering showing the closing arguments. Now that is not a certainty if it's being "considered", but at this stage I'll take anything. It would follow that if the closings are broadcast, the verdict would be as well.

Found it interesting that AJ will be able to refer in closing to Pex.

One more carear shot to heck.


bearwds

It would seem to me a large number of folks on the defense side of this case would so have wished that Lana had said "thanks but no thanks" on that evening six years ago. Some serious implications for many careers have happened here.

I am at a loss to know how new statements supposedly made by Lana can surface 6 years later. I can better understand that experts may streamline their evidence - but all of a sudden Lana cries on his shoulder for an hour and a half, distressed to an extreme degree, talking about how she didn't want to go on - and do I have it right - he then discussed it with best friend Pie? How very convenient.

I assume one then infers that Lana decided the next time she visited a stranger's house she would search high and low to find a gun, put it in her mouth and shoot herself.

For goodness sake - she could have gone home and taken all those pills LKB was supposedly talking about - but she didn't. Nor did she shoot herself at P Spector's house with P Spector's gun. I just have to assume that this jury didn't come down in the last shower. :sad: :sad:


jmo

[hiitsme]

I had completely forgotten about Gregory Sims until reading T&T. When his good friend, Lisa Bloom, interviewed him during PS1, I am fairly sure that he did not portray Lana as a suicidal ticking time bomb. The gist of his comments were that she like many or most trying to make it in that business struggle from time to time. This is another unfair attempt to muddy the waters. And I say, shame on him for betraying Lana like this. Hopefully, AJ will handle him "appropriately" when cross continues.

When AJ indicated he needed more time before the cross of Dr. DiMaio, I was expecting a bit of an AHA moment there as well. As Nanouk said, maybe we'll hear further on that later. It seems like boredom was settling in with a few of the jurors. During PS1, Dr. DiMaio lost me with his holier than thou, cocky attitude.

[dref99]

There is a good report of the testimony of Greg Sims in trial 1 on Kim's blog
http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/ca-vs-spector-who-has-lisa-been-blooming/

Interestingly on the same page there is also coverage of the defense requesting that the Murder II charge be changed to a manslaughter charge - Must have been listening to Ms Tyndall say it maybe wasn't suicide :confused:

jmo

[RayStar]

There is a good report of the testimony of Greg Sims in trial 1 on Kim's blog
http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/ca-vs-spector-who-has-lisa-been-blooming/

Interestingly on the same page there is also coverage of the defense requesting that the Murder II charge be changed to a manslaughter charge - Must have been listening to Ms Tyndall say it maybe wasn't suicide :confused:

jmo
Thanks for this post. I was trying to remember him. Now I do. Going back to read the update.

[spydernweb2006]

There seems to be ANOTHER discovery violation from the Def!

So what happens now?

Can Weinberg get into trouble over this?

Anyone?


Hugs,

Spyder

[oodi1]

It is moments like this that really make me wish that it was on tv. :sad:

[sdg380]

There seems to be ANOTHER discovery violation from the Def!

So what happens now?

Can Weinberg get into trouble over this?

Anyone?


Hugs,

Spyder

In my view, as an "officer of the court", DW should be severely sanctioned for these repeated and clear violations of the discovery rules, but I doubt there will be much in the way of negative repercusions, as DW not doubt suspects. As I've noted, Judge Fidler has made every effort imaginable to avoid a mistrial or provide a sound basis for appeal, although I have little doubt that he knows PS is guilty as sin, I mean, it's not exactly hard to figure out. But I'm sure the Judge is concerned that any severe sanction during or after the trial will merely be provide a basis on appeal to for the defense to scream "bias!" (And I would think that we would all want our legal system to provide some recourse, such as by of appeal, if there truly has been any type of inappropriate bias or prejudice by a trial judge--unfortunately, I'm sure it happens.)

I believe an attorney as experienced as DW knows this to a tee, and knows that because of it he can get away with all sorts of tricks that prosecutors could never pull. I suppose some would characterize this as "zealous advocacy", but it really seems pretty crummy that our system would all but sanction cheating by the defense in an effort to afford the accused his constitutional rights. But that's the system we have until somebody comes up with a better one. Of course, I don't think is says much for the integrity of DW, but he would merely respond that he is defending his client, let him be sanctioned if the court so deems. As pointed out earlier, sadly "truth" really does get relegated to the bottom of the barrel from the viewpoint of the defense of a guilty defendant.

So even though I believe these are all knowing violations intended to hopefully raise that little specter of doubt in just one of the jururs (they don't need an acquittal, just another hung jury since it is very doubtful that the case would be tried again), I do not believe that DW will be sanctioned in any meaningful way that will prevent him from continuing to use such tactics. Do not think for a moment that these were unwitting or unintended violations, this was all carefully orchestrated--just what the despicable murderer PS is paying for (always supposing DW got paid up front, which I bet anything he did.)

JMO

[oodi1]

In my view, as an "officer of the court", DW should be severely sanctioned for these repeated and clear violations of the discovery rules, but I doubt there will be much in the way of negative repercusions, as DW not doubt suspects. As I've noted, Judge Fidler has made every effort imaginable to avoid a mistrial or provide a sound basis for appeal, although I have little doubt that he knows PS is guilty as sin, I mean, it's not exactly hard to figure out. But I'm sure the Judge is concerned that any severe sanction during or after the trial will merely be provide a basis on appeal to for the defense to scream "bias!" (And I would think that we would all want our legal system to provide some recourse, such as by of appeal, if there truly has been any type of inappropriate bias or prejudice by a trial judge--unfortunately, I'm sure it happens.)

I believe an attorney as experienced as DW knows this to a tee, and knows that because of it he can get away with all sorts of tricks that prosecutors could never pull. I suppose some would characterize this as "zealous advocacy", but it really seems pretty crummy that our system would all but sanction cheating by the defense in an effort to afford the accused his constitutional rights. But that's the system we have until somebody comes up with a better one. Of course, I don't think is says much for the integrity of DW, but he would merely respond that he is defending his client, let him be sanctioned if the court so deems. As pointed out earlier, sadly "truth" really does get relegated to the bottom of the barrel from the viewpoint of the defense of a guilty defendant.

So even though I believe these are all knowing violations intended to hopefully raise that little specter of doubt in just one of the jururs (they don't need an acquittal, just another hung jury since it is very doubtful that the case would be tried again), I do not believe that DW will be sanctioned in any meaningful way that will prevent him from continuing to use such tactics. Do not think for a moment that these were unwitting or unintended violations, this was all carefully orchestrated--just what the despicable murderer PS is paying for (always supposing DW got paid up front, which I bet anything he did.)

JMO

Excellent points!!!

As a question, to anyone who might know, could the State Bar take any action based on DW's actions in this case? Or do his actions not meet the level of something they would get involved with?

[Rickshere911]

Oh i know that's right. I wish we could watch or hear the verdict being read though. and i would love to see the closing statements.

The defense sure doesn't seem as strong this time......or is it just me?

I am thinking about coming out to see it for myself. I have to see what the last minute air fairs are like at the time.

How long after the verdict is read do you think Rachelle will be ready to date?

[oodi1]

I am thinking about coming out to see it for myself. I have to see what the last minute air fairs are like at the time.

How long after the verdict is read do you think Rachelle will be ready to date?


I wonder if she hasn't been already.

[tartangirl]

I am thinking about coming out to see it for myself. I have to see what the last minute air fairs are like at the time.

How long after the verdict is read do you think Rachelle will be ready to date?


Thanks for the laugh.Kept me from deep, dark negative thoughts about the defense for a moment or two. :rolleyes:

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

[wasapi]

I just wanted to say that your post was excellent.

It has been frustrating to see how frequently sanctions seem more then called for, yet were never given. From DW to RS, there have been multiple infractions.

My best guess is that the judge is being extreemly cautious, and is also willing to let just about anything pass that may slow down the trial.

I know that most of us already feel that justice has taken far too long in this case, so I can only imagine how the judge, DA, and Lana's family must feel.

[penguin01]

Sorry for the following long post, but clarification seemed to be in order. Insurance companies do not rely on government stats. only. They have their own guide lines and employ actuaries. A definition of which is "Insurance. a person who computes premium rates, dividends, risks, etc., according to probabilities based on statistical records." Venue is an element. Southern Ca. has an abundance of restaurants. I do not believe there are any "lumberjack" or "King Crab fisherman" jobs in the So. Ca. area. "Aircraft carriers" jobs are subject to federal reg's., not private ins. Most work comp. ins. companies employ exteranl auditors which go to the insured venues for inspections. They look at work conditions, injured employees and no. of employees, etc. Premiums are adjusted up or down accordingly. Typically up. I never posted that her job was at the highest end of the risk scale factor, only that there might be a potential for a recurring injury. Something a well run rstaurant business would be interested in knowing. Whether she is at the front of the restaurant business or in back is immaterial when it comes to spilled drinks or food. Not wishing to become bogged down further in the quagmire of minutia allow me to kindly remind you that my previous post had to with the condition of her wrist and the ability or inablity to pull the trigger of a gun. Isn't it unknown if the gun was cocked or uncocked. If cocked, a 5-10 year old could have pulled the trigger. Some have. Also an accidental discharge is more likely IMO. Example: When PS tried to take the gun away from her it accidentally discharged. I'm saying that's what happened, but that it is possible.:thumbup:

If that were true wouldn't you imagine that among his "utterances" when the police were there would be "the B**** killed herself!" and "I tried to stop her" He would just be mad - not sorry, as he kept saying.
Seems to me, from reports we've read PS was always quick to blame others - especially women - but he didn't do so in this case till his lawyers thought it up.

[GPSpector]

I just wanted to say that your post was excellent.

It has been frustrating to see how frequently sanctions seem more then called for, yet were never given. From DW to RS, there have been multiple infractions.

My best guess is that the judge is being extreemly cautious, and is also willing to let just about anything pass that may slow down the trial.

I know that most of us already feel that justice has taken far too long in this case, so I can only imagine how the judge, DA, and Lana's family must feel.

I am just curious, if the Judge did to something to DW because of all the Discovery Violations, could he actually remove DW from this case. If this were PS1, it would not be so bad since my father had so many Lawyers, but this time, it's just DW.

[GPSpector]

If that were true wouldn't you imagine that among his "utterances" when the police were there would be "the B**** killed herself!" and "I tried to stop her" He would just be mad - not sorry, as he kept saying.
Seems to me, from reports we've read PS was always quick to blame others - especially women - but he didn't do so in this case till his lawyers thought it up.

I do believe you are correct in your statement except that the "B" word is not his favorite word to use in reference to women.

[oodi1]

I am just curious, if the Judge did to something to DW because of all the Discovery Violations, could he actually remove DW from this case. If this were PS1, it would not be so bad since my father had so many Lawyers, but this time, it's just DW.

I don't know if it could happen, but I can't imagine it happening. I would think it would only serve to cause more delays in the trial for a new attorney to "get up to speed" on things. I don't think anyone involved (JF, the prosection, the jurors) would want that.

[penguin01]

I do believe you are correct in your statement except that the "B" word is not his favorite word to use in reference to women.
I wasn't sure I could get away with a C word - even disguised LOL

[wasapi]

I am just curious, if the Judge did to something to DW because of all the Discovery Violations, could he actually remove DW from this case. If this were PS1, it would not be so bad since my father had so many Lawyers, but this time, it's just DW.

I am certainly not positive, but I believe he could, but also believe strongly that he wouldn't. For a new lawyer to take on a case so late in trial#2, and needing time to examine the evidence, in my opinion would be the judge's worst nightmare.

And he wouldn't be alone. Starting all over from scratch. It is nightmarish just thinking about it.

[kennedy06]

I do believe you are correct in your statement except that the "B" word is not his favorite word to use in reference to women.

That's just disgusting on Phil's part. If there is a woman such as myself on that jury and I heard him use that term several times and saying women deserve a bullet in the head well guess what Phil baby, you've got 1 strike against you already. The words you wrote made you famous but, the words you spoke may help convict you. JMO

[kennedy06]

So what is with this phenonmenon that when someone commits suicide they chip a nail? I don't think a woman would pull a trigger with her nail:rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

I've considered the size difference. Even his possible inseam length compared to the height of her leg to her knee. All those little possiblities about how it all may have happened how he may have been standing and things. I would think when one finds a gun pointed at them at close range they would move very cautiously, though your mind maybe going 100mp. She wasn't a past member of the Army special forces or something like that where she trained to stave off the enemy.. I would think your movements, while scared to death, would be more cautious, pushing away, blocking but, I don't think you would jerk that person around in fear of that gun going off, or hit them to anger them more. You would just want to move that gun away from you. Does that make sense??

How could Tawny T. not remember what was said the day before concerning a witness, not an expert but a basic one story witness in a high profile trial in which she works for the defense? :rolleyes:

[Anakerie]

Anyone hear relevant information today that actually exists? I haven't seen any updates via the various blogs.

:confused:
I haven't heard anything.. but then I'm having a problem even getting to any blogs that are on blogger or blogspot. Including my own. I can't even get to Gmail right now... **sigh* So I'm depending on you folks here to find out if anything new happens today......

[GPSpector]

So what is with this phenonmenon that when someone commits suicide they chip a nail? I don't think a woman would pull a trigger with her nail:rolleyes:

Well I would think it could be possible that the recoil of the gun could break a nail even if you don't actually pull the trigger with the nail, just as long as the nail made contact, BUT after listening to the all-knowing DM, he seems to think that the gases from the expelled bullet would have more force then solid steel since he claimed that it was the gases that knocked out her teeth, not the gun (despite material being embedded in the gun site)

[GPSpector]

Snipped for space

How could Tawny T. not remember what was said the day before concerning a witness, not an expert but a basic one story witness in a high profile trial in which she works for the defense? :rolleyes:

Good point, besides, doesn't she have a job that requires her to have a better than average memory??

The way she was described, I'm wondering if she even remembers what she had for breakfast.

[GPSpector]

When will this trial end?

When there's a verdict.

[oodi1]

I've considered the size difference. Even his possible inseam length compared to the height of her leg to her knee. All those little possiblities about how it all may have happened how he may have been standing and things. I would think when one finds a gun pointed at them at close range they would move very cautiously, though your mind maybe going 100mp. She wasn't a past member of the Army special forces or something like that where she trained to stave off the enemy.. I would think your movements, while scared to death, would be more cautious, pushing away, blocking but, I don't think you would jerk that person around in fear of that gun going off, or hit them to anger them more. You would just want to move that gun away from you. Does that make sense??

How could Tawny T. not remember what was said the day before concerning a witness, not an expert but a basic one story witness in a high profile trial in which she works for the defense? :rolleyes:

Remember... VDM thinks everyone should be a ninja, such as himself. I still have to question his statement that he disarmed people with guns on 2 occassions. I know several members of law enforcement, with many years of service... not one of them ever wrestled a gun from someone's hand. I also have to question what kind of places VDM has been hanging out in, that he's had a gun pulled on him - not once, but twice.

[My 2 Cents]

Remember... VDM thinks everyone should be a ninja, such as himself. I still have to question his statement that he disarmed people with guns on 2 occassions. I know several members of law enforcement, with many years of service... not one of them ever wrestled a gun from someone's hand. I also have to question what kind of places VDM has been hanging out in, that he's had a gun pulled on him - not once, but twice.

He hangs out at the morgue . . . maybe it was from a dead person with riga-mortise.

[True2Blues]

A recording was made by officers at the scene in order to help with their written report. A Officer Page states he heartd PS hollering and complaing, but never heard the statement. A Officer Rodriguez told the GJ that the statement she claims to have heard was part of her written report but it is NO WHERE to be found in the transcription of the recording(see previous post). I have to wonder, why was the claimed statement not part of the scene recording?:thumbup:

Because it was made immediately when the police arrived and before the tape recorder had been turned on. Officer Rodriguez did not have the tape recorder, another officer did..

[dref99]

I just wanted to say that your post was excellent.

It has been frustrating to see how frequently sanctions seem more then called for, yet were never given. From DW to RS, there have been multiple infractions.

My best guess is that the judge is being extreemly cautious, and is also willing to let just about anything pass that may slow down the trial.

I know that most of us already feel that justice has taken far too long in this case, so I can only imagine how the judge, DA, and Lana's family must feel.

Do agree with you an excellent post from sdg380. One thing that has been mentioned
- JF can apparently admonish the jury about the discovery violations, but I don't believe that he has yet said that he will. As most posters point out, he wants this trial to end without a mistrial and without appeal issues. If Spector's lawyer is treated in any negative fashion, presumably Spector could then appeal as to "ineffective counsel" or similar.

Weinberg is doing all that he can to confuse the basic facts, I am unsure as to whether he ever suspected that AJ would be so good (and fast) at determining the discovery and evidence variations. Surely he now knows that this will happen.

There seem to be folks from the DAs office dropping into the courtroom (as per the T&T blog). I wonder if they are picking up on any issues.

jmo

[oodi1]

He hangs out at the morgue . . . maybe it was from a dead person with riga-mortise.


LOL... that would explain it!

[True2Blues]

Remember... VDM thinks everyone should be a ninja, such as himself. I still have to question his statement that he disarmed people with guns on 2 occassions. I know several members of law enforcement, with many years of service... not one of them ever wrestled a gun from someone's hand. I also have to question what kind of places VDM has been hanging out in, that he's had a gun pulled on him - not once, but twice.

VDM is the only person, who believes that tall tale, I think. He hasn't a lot of respect for the truth in any case.

[dref99]

When will this trial end?

This particular reincarnation will probably be over by the end of March (assuming the jury doesn't take 2 weeks to deliberate)

If the verdict is NG - as GPS says - when there is a verdict
If the vertict is G - as Mortie says - when the plaintiff runs out of money - he will appeal and appeal and appeal.
If the verdict is a mistrial - perhaps the answer will be - when the State of California runs out of money


jmo

[penguin01]

A recording was made by officers at the scene in order to help with their written report. A Officer Page states he heartd PS hollering and complaing, but never heard the statement. A Officer Rodriguez told the GJ that the statement she claims to have heard was part of her written report but it is NO WHERE to be found in the transcription of the recording(see previous post). I have to wonder, why was the claimed statement not part of the scene recording?:thumbup:
I don't know which particular claimed statement you are referring to. All I was referring to was alot of "I'm sorry" "I'm sorry it happened" "I can explain" etc. Alot of blustering and complaining; but never once did he think to blame her. I'm just saying that if she did it to herself he would have been shouting about that from the rooftops.
But he didn't do so - that idea had to be planned out later with his attorney.

[i h8 clowns]

Because it was made immediately when the police arrived and before the tape recorder had been turned on. Officer Rodriguez did not have the tape recorder, another officer did..

This poster (not TRUE2BLUES, the poster he is replying to) knows this already. This poster has already been given a very detailed REAL ANSWER to his question. If he has forotten, all he has to do is read the detailed posts left earlier that list the page number, link to the transcripts, etc. He is again just trying to create confusion where none exists. Much like DW is trying to do in the courtroom. And why? Because the defense doesn't have the "science" to back up their claims and the circumstantial evidence against Phil Spector is overwhelming, IMO.

[oodi1]

The transcript that I read (that someone posted a link to earlier) stated that PS made the comments after he had been subdued and while the scene was still being secured. LE didn't turn on the recorder until after they had secured the scene.

[penguin01]

No disrespect, but I believe you may be confused. The State of Ca. is the Plaintiff via the DA's Office. Another way of putting it is that it's the people of Ca. vs. PS. If convicted he more than likely would appeal. However, he probably would be in jail at the time of the appeals. I doubt the judge would grant a bond pending an appeal.JMO. Also, statistically in these types of cases the defendant is often found guilty of something. If another mistrial happens the state would not,IMO, proceed with a 3rd trial. If they did they would be raising constitutional issues.:thumbup:

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

[GPSpector]

The transcript that I read (that someone posted a link to earlier) stated that PS made the comments after he had been subdued and while the scene was still being secured. LE didn't turn on the recorder until after they had secured the scene.

Was it this one ?

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

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

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

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

Line 03, Page 03: Robert Blake--

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

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

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

Line 11, Page 03: It feels good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Line 19, Page 04: Oh --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Line 20, Page 06: ***

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Line 21, Page 09: Are you arresting me?

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

Line 07, Page 10: ***

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

[End of recording]

[oodi1]

Sorry Gary... no that isn't it. I was responding to Searching, who asked why one of the officers had testified about something your father had said prior to the recorder being turned on. Searching couldn't understand why the comment by your father wasn't on the recording. I was explaining that the recorder hadn't been turned on yet, as LE was still securing the scene.

[My 2 Cents]

No I don't know that and I don't believe it. Sounds like speculation IMO. What I posted is from the GJ transcript where Officer Rodriguez was asked specifically by a Mr. Sorinto if the statement was in the transcript of the recording. She testified that it was not. I believe that testimony it is on page 377 of the GJ transcript.:thumbup:

YES .. you do know this. IH8CLOWNS was accurate when he/she stated that you had asked this exact question before and you recieved a detailed answer to it before. I know, because I was the one that POSTED the ANSWER - - - when you asked ME the same exact question 2 days ago. IF YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN, PLEASE REFER TO PAGE 1, POST 33 - DATED 2/24/09.

I spent a great deal of time answering this question for you, in much detail. And quite frankly "S", I am hurt that you did not take the time to read it. It took me awhile to type it - - as I stink at typing.

[My 2 Cents]

Sorry Gary... no that isn't it. I was responding to Searching, who asked why one of the officers had testified about something your father had said prior to the recorder being turned on. Searching couldn't understand why the comment by your father wasn't on the recording. I was explaining that the recorder hadn't been turned on yet, as LE was still securing the scene.

See my previous post oodi1 - - I think this is what you are referring to. (I didn't feel a need to repost it - - he/she can just flip back to page 1, post 33. Its too long. Besides - - - I firmly believe he is not looking for it, because he already read it and knows the answer.)

[oodi1]

See my previous post oodi1 - - I think this is what you are referring to. (I didn't feel a need to repost it - - he/she can just flip back to page 1, post 33. Its too long. Besides - - - I firmly believe he is not looking for it, because he already read it and knows the answer.)


Yep... we're talking about the same thing. I figured Gary may have his ignore button on, and had no clue... hence why I explained it.

[penguin01]

Post #200 is what I was referring to - as I think Searching is perfectly aware... S just responds do something else or not at all.

All that blah, blah, blah and he never says she did it herself.

By the time they came up with that idea they just look ridiculous. "Oh she commited suicide, but I forgot to mention that"??? Don't think so.

[dref99]

'There is no limit on how many times a defendant can be retried, but very few defendants are tried more than three times.'


http://www.criminaltrial.info/Right_to_Trial/default.aspx

Thanks Why & welcome to the boards - I don't think I have seen that site before - very useful

I believe most retrials end in guilty verdict (but I have no source for that belief). If true, it would explain why there are rarely, if ever more than 2 retrials. I would think if 3 juries cannot make a decision, a decision will never be made.

jmo

[My 2 Cents]

Thanks Why & welcome to the boards - I don't think I have seen that site before - very useful

I believe most retrials end in guilty verdict (but I have no source for that belief). If true, it would explain why there are rarely, if ever more than 2 retrials. I would think if 3 juries cannot make a decision, a decision will never be made.

jmo

I am NO lawyer, so this is just a lay person's "gut" feeling - but I always thought that if this trial ended in a 'hung jury' (because it will NEVER end with 12 NOT GUILTIES, no way - so only option is HUNG vs GUILTY - - IMO), the state would try to get the OK to go a 3rd time, but they would settle with reducing the charge to MANSLAUGHTER.

And if PS is lucky enough to get a 2nd hung jury - he would probably be talked into taking a plea bargain for manslaughter, due to costs AND because lawyers would be advising him right & left that he would have NO CHANCE of winning that one - IMO.

I also think after he agreed to a plea bargain - he would split - flee the country - - Hasta La Vista, Baby!

[oodi1]

A little OT, but I just found this little tidbit about DW... see page 3, paragraph 3.

http://www.kvn.com/pdfs/art03.pdf

[dref99]

A little OT, but I just found this little tidbit about DW... see page 3, paragraph 3.

http://www.kvn.com/pdfs/art03.pdf

Not at all off topic, this is the PS defense lawyer - and very interesting. He is also mentioned in the final paragraph on page 3

many thanks


jmo

[oodi1]

Not at all off topic, this is the PS defense lawyer - and very interesting. He is also mentioned in the final paragraph on page 3

many thanks


jmo

My Pleasure!

Here's another one http://www.lawyers.com/weinberg&wilder/jsp2165405.jsp

One of his practice areas is legal ethics????

[Jayne]

I am NO lawyer, so this is just a lay person's "gut" feeling - but I always thought that if this trial ended in a 'hung jury' (because it will NEVER end with 12 NOT GUILTIES, no way - so only option is HUNG vs GUILTY - - IMO), the state would try to get the OK to go a 3rd time, but they would settle with reducing the charge to MANSLAUGHTER.

And if PS is lucky enough to get a 2nd hung jury - he would probably be talked into taking a plea bargain for manslaughter, due to costs AND because lawyers would be advising him right & left that he would have NO CHANCE of winning that one - IMO.

I also think after he agreed to a plea bargain - he would split - flee the country - - Hasta La Vista, Baby!

You don't have to be a lawyer to be smart, intuitive, reasonable, fair, and seeking justice, among other things. I don't think LA DA will stop with another hung jury, if that happens. This is not malicious prosecution..so no claim for that. I must agree..and have considered this (despite I think he should have taken it first time..he'd already be or almost be out by now and not have lost so much money). As for fleeing the country? I don't know..you might be right. He isn't Polanski..but he did..but he's still "under watchful eye" last I read/researched. 6 years ago..had PS taken that plea (which I think is the plea Shapiro was offering to proffer to the prosecution), he wouldn't have spent much, if any "maybe?" time incarcerated..perhaps be on parole in the U.S. for a particular time, then "free to go"..he could have left the country, set himself up with his monies and royalties and lived fairly "fine" the rest of his life away from the glimmer, glitz, and ??? of Hollywood..he seemingly doesn't care about his family much and besides..if he does or those he does, he'd be able to "take care of them" from anywhere IF he wanted to. But..not to argue...I wonder IF he would have done that..leave the US. Even by taking a plea, he seems to (just my opinion) have that personality and such that he would want to Prove Himself...which...is probably why he didn't take the plea, think? I wonder..does he realize he can be re-prosecuted if there is another Hung Jury? Maybe that's his modus..go until there is "nothing left"? (reminds me of Moonstruck..."nothing left") BUT..Then What? Legal Aid? OH...I do believe there are many defense attorneys on legal aid who are Excellent..underpaid..but honest...their jobs are on the line to be honest and their hearts and souls are to represent the indigent, in particularly. A noble profession, IMO.

Could this turn out to be a trial that Out Media's the OJ trial? A dragger on. Some might say it is to "correct" what happened in OJ..maybe it is. Is that some way to become famous, all over again? The Wall of Sound vs. the Wall(s) of the Courtroom?

If one is going to go to H in a "handbasket"..why not at least have all your eggs in it and enjoy them while you can?

I'm hoping..for justice..for both Lana and Phil..that the basket will be tied up..bowed..and put to rest..this time. PS doesn't need any more of this..his health is apparently failing..the Clarkson's don't need to go through anymore trials (I would think they'd have some input with the DA's office...victim's assistance, etc.). Yes, I am being somewhat sympathetic to PS..because I don't think he knows his boundaries and I'm not so sure he's getting it from his attorneys and I don't mean the attorneys are doing the right thing, but I'm not so sure PS really "gets it"..but he probably is..to both their satisfaction.

I don't know how I would feel..NO I do..as the mother of someone who died in the house of a celebrity who might have a Third Trial..I'd sit out every single trial until it ended. She is One Strong Person, IMO. And, i don't think she'd ever give up.

jmo

J

[oodi1]

Jayne,

To expand on your point about PS wanting to "prove himself"... I agree with you. I think he does want to prove himself... in his convoluted way of thinking, he did nothing wrong. Somewhere, somehow, someway, he either learned or decided on his own that the unacceptable behavior he has displayed is perfectly normal and acceptable.

[dref99]

My Pleasure!

Here's another one http://www.lawyers.com/weinberg&wilder/jsp2165405.jsp

One of his practice areas is legal ethics????

and Attorney discipline :confused:

Perhaps he defends people charged in these areas ??

jmo

[oodi1]

and Attorney discipline :confused:

Perhaps he defends people charged in these areas ??

jmo

Scary thought, huh??? I wonder if his expertise in these areas is the reason he seems to have no qualms about pushing the envelope.

[Jayne]

Scary thought, huh??? I wonder if his expertise in these areas is the reason he seems to have no qualms about pushing the envelope.

Let me tell you..attorney discipline is no picnic...

..if he has expertise..I have a case for him..Pro Bono..

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

Hey, just saw that Joe Friday posted a blog about today's testimony.

Read the words: DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, TRAIN WRECK & SMACKDOWN (a la Jennifer Hayes) . . . sounds good!

http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

[oodi1]

Hey, just saw that Joe Friday posted a blog about today's testimony.

Read the words: DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, TRAIN WRECK & SMACKDOWN (a la Jennifer Hayes) . . . sounds good!

http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

OMG!!! Whomever thought this trial shouldn't be televised ought to be kicking themselves over and over and over and over again!!!

[dref99]

Hey, just saw that Joe Friday posted a blog about today's testimony.

Read the words: DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, TRAIN WRECK & SMACKDOWN (a la Jennifer Hayes) . . . sounds good!

http://www.losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

Seems like Joe picked a good day to report on! Thanks my2cents

jmo

[Dave]

Joe Friday is the best. Right to the point with what really counts.

Thanks for letting us know about his latest update.

[My 2 Cents]

WOW - Weinburg's little stunt certainly back fired on him - ONCE AGAIN. (I'm starting to think that DW is not a quick learner)

So by "forgetting" to disclose the "new discovery items" (i.e. - changes in SIMS testimony) . . . . AJ gets to play a tape of SIMS' interview on CourtTV BEFORE the 1st trial. Now the jury gets to SEE a taped interview, saying things like . . . Lana Could Not, Would Not, Ever Shoot Herself - Nope, No Way - No How, NOT Lana.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . meaning, AJ is UNBELIEVABLE.
What a lawyer - this was so much better than any sanctions by the court.

[Jayne]

Joe Friday is the best. Right to the point with what really counts.

Thanks for letting us know about his latest update.


I have given all to Sprocket..as much as I can..but..Joe Friday..( even if he is she) does give the information we want.

Who are you??? Joe Friday???

where do you sit in the courtroom? I happen to take your "takes" on the court more than I take anyone else's...

can we meet for coffee? next week?

jmo

J

[My 2 Cents]

I remember in the 1st trial, I thought J Hayes came off rather defensive. Now Joe Friday is stating that she was actually "SHOUTING at Truc Do" in court. That can't be good. Do you think he meant that LITERALLY? (I so hope he did.) :eek:

I am so curious what Sprocket is going to report. Should be interesting.

[oodi1]

WOW - Weinburg's little stunt certainly back fired on him - ONCE AGAIN. (I'm starting to think that DW is not a quick learner)

So by "forgetting" to disclose the "new discovery items" (i.e. - changes in SIMS testimony) . . . . AJ gets to play a tape of SIMS' interview on CourtTV BEFORE the 1st trial. Now the jury gets to SEE a taped interview, saying things like . . . Lana Could Not, Would Not, Ever Shoot Herself - Nope, No Way - No How, NOT Lana.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . meaning, AJ is UNBELIEVABLE.
What a lawyer - this was so much better than any sanctions by the court.

Not to take anything away from AJ, because he is awesome! But what the heck is/was DW thinking? Did he severely underestimate the prosecution? Is he just so arrogant, he thinks he could get away with it? Were the defense witnesses not "prepped" enough? I know his objective is "the win"... but it seems like he is a rookie, playing in the big leagues for the first time.

[dref99]

I remember in the 1st trial, I thought J Hayes came off rather defensive. Now Joe Friday is stating that she was actually "SHOUTING at Truc Do" in court. That can't be good. Do you think he meant that LITERALLY? (I so hope he did.) :eek:

I am so curious what Sprocket is going to report. Should be interesting.

She came off in the first trial as being a truly pointless witness. She was a friend of Pie's but from what I remember knew virtually nothing about Lana.

Kim's blog was a great read during trial 1 - here is her take on Jennifer
http://thedarwinexception.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/ca-vs-spector-punkin-pie-with-a-side-order-of-snide/

jmo

[dref99]

Not to take anything away from AJ, because he is awesome! But what the heck is/was DW thinking? Did he severely underestimate the prosecution? Is he just so arrogant, he thinks he could get away with it? Were the defense witnesses not "prepped" enough? I know his objective is "the win"... but it seems like he is a rookie, playing in the big leagues for the first time.

I wonder if we shall find out what was in those notes of TT that JF took away to read - were they just about billing? If they were about billing - how long did the meeting last 45min as stated?

ahhhhhhhhhh - so frustrating no filming!

Weinberg's object is to convince 1 juror that there is reasonable doubt. Any which way, what way, it would seem.

jmo

[GPSpector]

WOW - Weinburg's little stunt certainly back fired on him - ONCE AGAIN. (I'm starting to think that DW is not a quick learner)

So by "forgetting" to disclose the "new discovery items" (i.e. - changes in SIMS testimony) . . . . AJ gets to play a tape of SIMS' interview on CourtTV BEFORE the 1st trial. Now the jury gets to SEE a taped interview, saying things like . . . Lana Could Not, Would Not, Ever Shoot Herself - Nope, No Way - No How, NOT Lana.

UNBELIEVABLE . . . meaning, AJ is UNBELIEVABLE.
What a lawyer - this was so much better than any sanctions by the court.

W:w00t:W, that's just as bad as the Pie claiming Lana had to have committed suicide, after mailing out Christmas cards blaming my father for killing her.

[GPSpector]

Not to take anything away from AJ, because he is awesome! But what the heck is/was DW thinking? Did he severely underestimate the prosecution? Is he just so arrogant, he thinks he could get away with it? Were the defense witnesses not "prepped" enough? I know his objective is "the win"... but it seems like he is a rookie, playing in the big leagues for the first time.

I like your description, I feel the same way. I just do not have anymore confidence in him than I did with the team from the 1st trial. :sad: He just makes me feel more and more certain of my fathers future. :sad:

[GPSpector]

I wonder if we shall find out what was in those notes of TT that JF took away to read - were they just about billing? If they were about billing - how long did the meeting last 45min as stated?

ahhhhhhhhhh - so frustrating no filming!

Weinberg's object is to convince 1 juror that there is reasonable doubt. Any which way, what way, it would seem.

jmo

My guess is that the Judge took those notes and will hand them to AJ to review. We may hear about those notes and TT soon enough. It would be interesting to find out how much she wanted to "charge" the Defense for a 45 minute chat. DM earned $5,000 per day :wink:

[dref99]

My guess is that the Judge took those notes and will hand them to AJ to review. We may hear about those notes and TT soon enough. It would be interesting to find out how much she wanted to "charge" the Defense for a 45 minute chat. DM earned $5,000 per day :wink:

I think Weinberg has been the best value for money of anyone in this trial - but given his recent efforts, that doesn't say alot. There has been much money spent trying to prove what many believe cannot be proven.

jmo

[lane99]

Juries sometimes do a poor job. Which means this sorry excuse of a person could be acquitted. Quite unlikely, but he's got a much better chance than people with less ability to purchase testimony would have.

Still, assuming this trial is unfolding similarly to the first, smart money will be on a guilty verdict.

If it's a hung jury, even with 11ng, he will be tried again. But that would be their last kick at the rat. A hung jury with only 1-2 misfts such as the first trial, they would take at least two more cracks at it.

But that won't be necessary.

[hiitsme]

Yesterday was another horrendous day for the defense! Gregory Sims tried to pass off his interview with Attorney Lisa Bloom and close friend, as some tabloid piece. Unbelievable. Then the "other one", wanting her 10 minutes, trashed Lana again. According to T&T, a woman who accompanied JHR to court said "Excellent" as Jennifer, left the stand. These people don't have a conscience! I certainly hope that Michael Bay and Lana's lifelong childhood friend, Nili (sp) are called during the rebuttal phase. AJ is one fabulous attorney! MOO

[dref99]

Yesterday was another horrendous day for the defense! Gregory Sims tried to pass off his interview with Attorney Lisa Bloom and close friend, as some tabloid piece. Unbelievable. Then the "other one", wanting her 10 minutes, trashed Lana again. According to T&T, a woman who accompanied JHR to court said "Excellent" as Jennifer, left the stand. These people don't have a conscience! I certainly hope that Michael Bay and Lana's lifelong childhood friend, Nili (sp) are called during the rebuttal phase. AJ is one fabulous attorney! MOO

Interesting comment about why Mr Sims changed his testimony. Do hope that is followed through by the prosecution - maybe Lisa Bloom as a witness?

It would seem after 6 years and much effort and expense, the defense has found 3 or 4 people, at least two of whose statements have changed dramatically in that 6 years, and they are now giving support to the suicide defense. Investigating why they have changed their statements would be very worthwhile.


jmo

[dref99]

Loved reading that blog. Not very good for the defense at all. PS is going down. Wonder if he realizes it yet?

I think he probably thought he was going down last time - but having 1 hung jury I would think he may well believe he will get another.

Then again - who know what he thinks :confused:

jmo

[kennedy06]

So much to take in, incredible isn't it.

Did I miss something last time did this boyfriend, Moon testify at the last trial?

[tartangirl]

Another great post. I hope that those few posters who called this an accidental suicide as a result of "kinky gun play" read every word.


This post does deserve to be repeated again and again, only that might cause some rule breaking. :wink: I agree completely hitsme. :rolleyes:

Beautifully said sdg380


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

[Carol25]

Hi there! I have just been a lurker this time, but I do think there is a "missing piece" as well. It may not be able to be proven, but if there is any chance at all, it is with AJ at the helm.

Will Lisa Bloom be brought in to testify? Then a plea deal to another witness to being all to light?

JMO

[kennedy06]

I feel the same way Carol, something is missing...IIRC didn't Michelle write about punkin in her blog towards the end of the last trial? IIRC and I may be mistaken but I think it was called Thanksgiving Dessert or something like that. Just thinking about PP taking the stand, if she does. hmmm. Not to demean PP but to help put facts together.

I think AJ is doing a great job on cross but DW isn't leaving any stone unturned either in his efforts. Of course I look at DW efforts on a different level than AJ. As the prosecution hasn't been having these type of discovery violations or accusations of.

JMO only

[hiitsme]

So much to take in, incredible isn't it.

Did I miss something last time did this boyfriend, Moon testify at the last trial?

I'm pretty sure he didn't testify, but one of Lana's so called BFF did testify that she was depressed about the relationship because he dumped her? This I believe has been proven to be inaccurate.

[wasapi]

Gee, I'm sorry if this has been covered before.

I just can't get over feeling as if DW has been taking his time putting his client on a platter, with stuffing and dressing and an apple in his mouth, to deliever to the prosecution. It is just difficult to imagine PS hiring someone so inept.

The whole thing just seems curious. If not for ego, I would speculate DW 's actions in this trial is to make sure that inneffective council can become an issue, giving PS another chance. But again, with such ego involved, it is difficult to imagine DW throwing himself and his career under the bus to buy his client more time and another trial.

Then again, I guess he could just be arrogant and stupid.

[hiitsme]

Let's say for the sake of arguement you are correct;e.g., the recorder was turned on latter, even though I can find no support for your statement.IMO. Perhaps I missed it. One would think that upon the hearing of such a incriminating statement by Officer Rodriguez that she would at least have made a mental or even a small written note and would have repeated such a statement when the scene recording was made. After all the recording is a help tool for the writing of subsequent reports. That is it purpose. If she had repeated it into the recorder at the scene it would have been a fresh recollection and not subject to memory when writting a report at the police station. When did her recollection take place. Officer Page did not hear any such statement. When the recorder was turned on seems subject to guess work and IMO has no relevance in explaning why the officer did not record her hearing of such an incriminating statement, based on her recolllection while at the scene, when recorder was available.:thumbup:

It is obvious that you are very enthralled with this minutia. But, do you really think that it will a topic of conversation during jury deliberations? Since you come across as Carnac, please enlighten us as to your thoughts on the current happenings in court.

[oodi1]

Gee, I'm sorry if this has been covered before.

I just can't get over feeling as if DW has been taking his time putting his client on a platter, with stuffing and dressing and an apple in his mouth, to deliever to the prosecution. It is just difficult to imagine PS hiring someone so inept.

The whole thing just seems curious. If not for ego, I would speculate DW 's actions in this trial is to make sure that inneffective council can become an issue, giving PS another chance. But again, with such ego involved, it is difficult to imagine DW throwing himself and his career under the bus to buy his client more time and another trial.

Then again, I guess he could just be arrogant and stupid.

My thoughts exactly! It just seems to me that he has a lot more to lose, than he does to gain, with some of these antics. His reputation will stay with him a lot longer than any $$$ he receives from this case.

[My 2 Cents]

T&T have a new Friday, "Questions & Answer" blog set up about the Spector trial.

Sprocket also states that she did another TALK RADIO ONE interview last night. Here's a LINK. I'm listening to it now, she is discussing a lot about SIMs recent testimony, so far.

http://www.talkradioone.com/

[oodi1]

Yup, exactly.

This lawyer reminds me of Mark Garagos. Look how well his arrogance and stupidity worked for him. No one wants to go near him. IMO, he's the laughing stock of the legal profession.

Who could forget the boat on display during the Scott Peterson trial. :huh:

[spydernweb2006]

Not to be OT but Geragos is now representing Chris Brown,the Man that beat up Rhiana.

Im very torn about what DW is doing, I cant tell if its just plain stupidity or if he is willfully attempting to violate the discovery laws. Either way he should be reprimanded.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[My 2 Cents]

Whoaaaa!!!! . . . during the TALK RADIO ONE interview, near the very end - Betsy mentions that she understands that there is the POSSIBLITY THAT THE DEFENSE MAY CALL ANOTHER FORENSICS EXPERT to the stand.

OMGosh . . . that would be very interesting. So would that be someone who hasn't testified yet in PS2, but testified in PS1? H-m-m-m . . . what choices do we have to pick from? . . . Dr Henry Lee? Dr Baden? or who am I forgetting?

OR . . . would it be someone NEW. It would seem expensive to bring in someone new this late in the game, and of course, there's the 30 day discovery laws (if it were someone new).

Perhaps the defense is concerned that the wonderful experts that they have already had on the stand, possibly haven't done the trick in winning the jury over with "SCIENCE". Ya think?

[oodi1]

T&T have a new Friday, "Questions & Answer" blog set up about the Spector trial.

Sprocket also states that she did another TALK RADIO ONE interview last night. Here's a LINK. I'm listening to it now, she is discussing a lot about SIMs recent testimony, so far.

http://www.talkradioone.com/

I just finished listening to it. I thought Marc Germain summed it up pretty well when he speculated that GS and PP may feel that since they can't bring Lana back, they might as well "throw her under the bus" so that they might benefit in some way, given the common denomiator of being involved in the music industry, just as PS is.

And that brings up another question... I know PS receives royalties, but how active is he currently in the music industry? Could he really deliver much help/assistance at this point in time?

[oodi1]

I thought PS hasn't been active in the music biz for quite some time before he killed Lana, imo. A has-been. He must live off the royalties only.

That's what I had thought as well. I would also think that after all that has come out during PS1 and PS2, that any contacts he may have had in the industry, would run in the opposite direction.

[oodi1]

Whoaaaa!!!! . . . during the TALK RADIO ONE interview, near the very end - Betsy mentions that she understands that there is the POSSIBLITY THAT THE DEFENSE MAY CALL ANOTHER FORENSICS EXPERT to the stand.

OMGosh . . . that would be very interesting. So would that be someone who hasn't testified yet in PS2, but testified in PS1? H-m-m-m . . . what choices do we have to pick from? . . . Dr Henry Lee? Dr Baden? or who am I forgetting?

OR . . . would it be someone NEW. It would seem expensive to bring in someone new this late in the game, and of course, there's the 30 day discovery laws (if it were someone new).

Perhaps the defense is concerned that the wonderful experts that they have already had on the stand, possibly haven't done the trick in winning the jury over with "SCIENCE". Ya think?


And the other question is... will there be yet another discovery violation???

[hiitsme]

I think the music and the movie industry ran the other way.
His supporters are total strangers who believe all murderers are innocent. Good. That is just the kind of people he deserves behind him. :w00t:

Your point is so well taken! I've always thought it strange that the supporters are strangers, perhaps in the music industry, maybe paid to appear in the court room or just those who are groupies blinded by the facts of this case. Where are his neighbors, life long friends and loving family members? So bizarre for a man who was once an "icon" during his short period of fame.

[oodi1]

What prison will he be sent to when he's found guilty?

The CDC has recently been ordered to release over 50,000 prisoners due to overcrowding. It may depend on prison population at the time.

[oodi1]

Thanks oodi1.

Yikes. I wouldn't want to be living in Cali.

Unfortunately, I do... and believe me... I'm not happy about it!

[My 2 Cents]

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining"...Judge Judy.

:lol:

Ooooh, that's funny! :biggrinjester:

[oodi1]

I bet you aren't. I'm sorry you have to deal with that. Unbelievable. Most of them will be arrested again.

The recidivism rate is around 75%.

[Anakerie]

What prison will he be sent to when he's found guilty?

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

[kennedy06]

I just finished listening to the radio show. Hey I wonder where he read anything about the possiblity of a camera LOL! I think someone needs to reread that post about maybe for closings:smile:


One night I looked we had 64 viewers! Then the numbers slowly dropped. I could only guess a class or something had viewed us all at once, and slowly as they were done the numbers dropped down to like 8!

[kennedy06]

I do think Lana may have had a dramatic side to her from some of the testimony. So I'll consider that but then I also consider PS and the past PBA's for his. Crying when drinking is one thing, but threatening with a gun is another. The two aren't quite equal.

[hiitsme]

It is a fishing question for the jury and a valid one. It is one of those ?'s you raise to a jury, among others, to get the jury to ask ?'s among themselves. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that a member of a jury wouldn't. May seem like small potatoes to you because of your obvious bias.JMO. When a jury is asked to consider a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" you would be surprised what might lead them into the direction of tipping the scales of justice in favor of a defendant. The issue by it self may not do it, but it could certainly provide a catalyst for further inquiry into other issues. In conclusion your post with it's sincere and meaningful effort to sway might just come under the heading:Fallacy Definitions,Is-Ought: The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact, or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.It's just MO.

BTW, I'm in no way saying that the officer in this case lied, but all police were granted the right to lie when conducting an investigation. That right was bestowed on them by the US Spreme Court a few years back. If you have a lot of time and the weather is bad where you at you could spend some time @supreme.justia.com. Sorry I can't stay any longer(wait was that a sigh I heard:smile:) I have things to do this weekend, seeya:thumbup:
Don't flatter yourself! All here have things to do this weekend.

[kennedy06]

I'll correct myself the word wasn't maybe, but undecided for closings. Thanks

[Curlyjo]

Here we go again. I just read what happened in court yesterday. Boy oh boy. I can't help but get so annoyed and hope that I don't have friends that would talk about me in such a way. I paid very close attention to the first trial and I so wish I could be in the courtroom. I say thank you to all who do attend and update us all. I hope the CTV does air closing arguments.

[hiitsme]

:laugh:I certainly wasn't going to wait for you to do it. Seeya:biggrin::thumbup:

huh???????????????

[dref99]

Gee, I'm sorry if this has been covered before.

I just can't get over feeling as if DW has been taking his time putting his client on a platter, with stuffing and dressing and an apple in his mouth, to deliever to the prosecution. It is just difficult to imagine PS hiring someone so inept.

The whole thing just seems curious. If not for ego, I would speculate DW 's actions in this trial is to make sure that inneffective council can become an issue, giving PS another chance. But again, with such ego involved, it is difficult to imagine DW throwing himself and his career under the bus to buy his client more time and another trial.

Then again, I guess he could just be arrogant and stupid.

Hi Wasapi

I think it is the facts of the matter that are throwing PS under the bus - and not before time. DW seems able to throw witnesses to the winds with disregard for how when where and why they found made or otherwise thought up their evidence. There was a good comment on T&T about what one should do when the facts and the evidence are against you.

Reputations of many seem to have disappeared along with PS's money. There is a saying about dogs and fleas which seems to fit the situation.

Without having the eloquence of the last post from sdg380, I can but agree with the sentiment - there is no way Lana committed suicide at Phil Spector's house - for any next best friend or dying out has been to even mention this as a possibility - can only relate to a hidden motive, meaning or much more likely reward.

With six years of searching (no pun intended), if the only people TT can find to support the defense hypothesis are the ones we have seen - it can easily be said that there is no support of any substance for the proposition of suicide.

When the civil court rules that many years of royalties get diverted from the estate of PS to the estate of Lana Clarkson, I hope the amount is doubled or trebled because of the absolute trashing of Lana that Mrs Clarkson and Fawn have had to endure through six long years.

jmo

[True2Blues]

Here we go again. I just read what happened in court yesterday. Boy oh boy. I can't help but get so annoyed and hope that I don't have friends that would talk about me in such a way. I paid very close attention to the first trial and I so wish I could be in the courtroom. I say thank you to all who do attend and update us all. I hope the CTV does air closing arguments.


If they talked about you, like JH and PP talked about Lana, they aren't your friends.

[Curlyjo]

If they talked about you, like JH and PP talked about Lana, they aren't your friends.

I agree with friends like them who needs enemies but she did think of them as her friends.

[penguin01]

Here we go again. I just read what happened in court yesterday. Boy oh boy. I can't help but get so annoyed and hope that I don't have friends that would talk about me in such a way. I paid very close attention to the first trial and I so wish I could be in the courtroom. I say thank you to all who do attend and update us all. I hope the CTV does air closing arguments.

Welcome - I hope you had the chance to read back a few days of T&T 's reports. It just gets more and more strange. Why people think they can lie and then just pretend they didn't - including "expert" witnesses is beyond me. 3 cheers for Truc and AJ.
I would truly be wonderful if there were cameras in the courtroom for the closings and the verdict. At the very least CNN livestream. I'd love them forever if they did that for us!

[Curlyjo]

Welcome - I hope you had the chance to read back a few days of T&T 's reports. It just gets more and more strange. Why people think they can lie and then just pretend they didn't - including "expert" witnesses is beyond me. 3 cheers for Truc and AJ.
I would truly be wonderful if there were cameras in the courtroom for the closings and the verdict. At the very least CNN livestream. I'd love them forever if they did that for us!


I have been trying to follow but sometimes it is hard. Is it as strange as the first trial? I remember watching the trial every day and on the message boards late at night. So much passion on both sides.

[wasapi]

I do think Lana may have had a dramatic side to her from some of the testimony. So I'll consider that but then I also consider PS and the past PBA's for his. Crying when drinking is one thing, but threatening with a gun is another. The two aren't quite equal.

Well said. And though I don't like using platitudes and cliches, the portrait of Lana drawn from the witness's who truely knew her, show her to have had that type of 'larger then life' style of personality. She was an actress and someone who seemed to not come off as mysterious, but someone who let her friends get close to her and see all the good, the bad, the tears, the drama, with those she felt close to and safe with.

And I believe most of us, even those of us far more subdued, have had times in life where we feel beaten down and have shown sadness , anger, and frustration, tears, raw and unleashed, to those we feel safe with.

I'm sure that those of us who have, far out number those who have felt beaten down and frustrated and become chronic bullies, craving power and control, brandishing guns and oozing obscenities.

[SheStone]

It is a fishing question for the jury and a valid one. It is one of those ?'s you raise to a jury, among others, to get the jury to ask ?'s among themselves. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that a member of a jury wouldn't. May seem like small potatoes to you because of your obvious bias.JMO. When a jury is asked to consider a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" you would be surprised what might lead them into the direction of tipping the scales of justice in favor of a defendant. The issue by it self may not do it, but it could certainly provide a catalyst for further inquiry into other issues. In conclusion your post with it's sincere and meaningful effort to sway might just come under the heading:Fallacy Definitions,Is-Ought: The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact, or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.It's just MO.

BTW, I'm in no way saying that the officer in this case lied, but all police were granted the right to lie when conducting an investigation. That right was bestowed on them by the US Spreme Court a few years back. If you have a lot of time and the weather is bad where you at you could spend some time @supreme.justia.com. Sorry I can't stay any longer(wait was that a sigh I heard:smile:) I have things to do this weekend, seeya:thumbup:

Unless Phil Spector takes the stand the jury will not be discussing whether or not Phil Spector did or did not make those statements, because they will not be presented to the jury and will not be in evidence. The jury is not to discuss facts not in evidence, so your entire argument and/or point is moot. JMO

[Curlyjo]

Unless Phil Spector takes the stand the jury will not be discussing whether or not Phil Spector did or did not make those statements, because they will not be presented to the jury and will not be in evidence. The jury is not to discuss facts not in evidence, so your entire argument and/or point is moot. JMO

We all know that PS will not take the stand...that is for sure. I wish that AJ could taunt him and make this egotistical person go for it.

[SheStone]

We all know that PS will not take the stand...that is for sure. I wish that AJ could taunt him and make this egotistical person go for it.

Ohh, if that were to happen I imagine that would be very entertaining, might even get the news channels to show it live. :thumbsup:

JMO

[oodi1]

We all know that PS will not take the stand...that is for sure. I wish that AJ could taunt him and make this egotistical person go for it.


Now that would be priceless!!!

[Curlyjo]

I wonder with the money troubles going on right now if PS will have any money left after this trial? If he gets away with this he maybe in the welfare line.

[oodi1]

I wonder with the money troubles going on right now if PS will have any money left after this trial? If he gets away with this he maybe in the welfare line.


Don't forget about a civil trial which may be pending.

[dref99]

We all know that PS will not take the stand...that is for sure. I wish that AJ could taunt him and make this egotistical person go for it.

Curlyjo - AJ has class - please do not confuse possible defense actions with anything AJ would do, or think of doing. :smile:

PS will be convicted by the facts in evidence - the facts not in evidence will be seen by the jury after they make their decision & will no doubt reinforce that they did indeed, do the right thing.

jmo

[Curlyjo]

Don't forget about a civil trial which may be pending.

I hope it won't be as hard to get money from PS as it was from OJ

[Curlyjo]

Curlyjo - AJ has class - please do not confuse possible defense actions with anything he would do, or think of doing. :smile:

PS will be convicted by the facts in evidence - the facts not in evidence will be seen by the jury after they make their decision & will no doubt reinforce that they did indeed, do the right thing.

jmo

I thought that PS would have been convicted in the first trial but alas no. I would like to see PS on the stand and bury himself. But that is just wishful thinking.

[My 2 Cents]

Well said. And though I don't like using platitudes and cliches, the portrait of Lana drawn from the witness's who truely knew her, show her to have had that type of 'larger then life' style of personality. She was an actress and someone who seemed to not come off as mysterious, but someone who let her friends get close to her and see all the good, the bad, the tears, the drama, with those she felt close to and safe with.

And I believe most of us, even those of us far more subdued, have had times in life where we feel beaten down and have shown sadness , anger, and frustration, tears, raw and unleashed, to those we feel safe with.

I'm sure that those of us who have, far out number those who have felt beaten down and frustrated and become chronic bullies, craving power and control, brandishing guns and oozing obscenities.

ITA . . . thanks for a GREAT POST. :thumbup:

[My 2 Cents]

I do think Lana may have had a dramatic side to her from some of the testimony. So I'll consider that but then I also consider PS and the past PBA's for his. Crying when drinking is one thing, but threatening with a gun is another. The two aren't quite equal.

Absolutely . . both your post and wasapi's. An excellent reminder of life's REALITY's, and how that still doesn't translate to the defense's GIANT LEAP of Lana being suicidal. (and in Phil's house no less)

[wasapi]

I wonder with the money troubles going on right now if PS will have any money left after this trial? If he gets away with this he maybe in the welfare line.

The money issue has come up several times. With the civil case pending, regardless of the outcome of this trial, as well as considerable money spent already on legal fees, it is easy to assume that PS would have nothing much left but unpaid bills and judgements against him.

It has always been my assumption, though I could be completely wrong, that if PS is found guilty or not, he would still have income even if he never worked another day in his life, in the form of royalties.

I would really be interested in hearing someone knowledgeble about this complex financial situation unravel the web of questions regarding this.

[Curlyjo]

Absolutely . . both your post and wasapi's. An excellent reminder of life's REALITY's, and how that still doesn't translate to the defense's GIANT LEAP of Lana being suicidal. (and in Phil's house no less)

Sad as it is but one person on the jury fell for the suicidal possiblity in the first trial (reasonable doubt)....I pray that this jury doesn't. May the house of PS fall.

[Curlyjo]

The money issue has come up several times. With the civil case pending, regardless of the outcome of this trial, as well as considerable money spent already on legal fees, it is easy to assume that PS would have nothing much left but unpaid bills and judgements against him.

It has always been my assumption, though I could be completely wrong, that if PS is found guilty or not, he would still have income even if he never worked another day in his life, in the form of royalties.

I would really be interested in hearing someone knowledgeble about this complex financial situation unravel the web of questions regarding this.

I am not sure but you are most likely right. Do you have to take all the fun out of wishful thinking? The comment wasn't really meant to be analyzed.

[Jayne]

Curlyjo - AJ has class - please do not confuse possible defense actions with anything AJ would do, or think of doing. :smile:

PS will be convicted by the facts in evidence - the facts not in evidence will be seen by the jury after they make their decision & will no doubt reinforce that they did indeed, do the right thing.

jmo

Oh, dref, one of my fav fellow posters..I agree..AJ has class..and he also has the Bar rules to comply with, not to mention the strict "constrictures" (OK..another term!) being a DA or ADA (symantics). That doesn't mean he can't fashion his case to a level where the defendant is "itching to take the stand" as long as he isn't Pushing It. Besides, it is his job Not just to get a conviction..which most people believe..and it is in part true..but it is to "find justice". he took an oath when he became a prosecutor, to uphold the laws and to find justice..if that means plea bargaining out someone or dismissing a case, then he Has to do it.

I agree with many..in the opinion that PS will Never Take The Stand..not in the criminal trial..but he will have to Answer in the Civil Case. He absolutely cannot in this criminal trial or he'll be going to H in a HBasket..if he doesn't know it, his attorney does.

I have been mesmerized, oftentimes confused, and definitely amazed at DW's goings on. If he is putting himself in jeopardy by his "antics" (I'm using that lightly), I'm sure he has his ducks in a row that won't get him disciplined or disbarred..he's just pushing the envelope..something an Appellate Attorney ..bless his heart...must have a full handle of.

I still will say that PS is no idiot..he's been through one trial and probably a bunch of things before this to know or figure..this time he needs an "Appellate Attorney"..Why? I won't say..but I figure why is the chance he will be convicted so he needs as much fodder that he can get. Ineffective counsel? Good lord..what a slap in the face to DW..I do not think DW would allow or get himself involved in that unless PS gave him a vacation for the next 30-40 years in Switzerland..all expenses paid? Even then...give up that Bar...that thing he worked for - so many years - to be an "upholder of the law"? I wouldn't do it in a NY minute..not even if I was dying of some terminal illness..it's integrity.

If DW is handing him on a platter, then DW has a problem IMO. If DW has his hands tied, he should have (again, IMO) applied to the court to withdraw from representation..maybe he did? maybe it was denied? Would we ever know? Then..maybe DW is a bit "wet behind the ears" from years of being an appellate attorney? I don't think so. You don't get there if you haven't done your homework before.

Don't get me "wrong"...I disagree with a lot of with what DW has put up in this trial...but it's made me research it and think about it. He has far more leeway than AJ does. I do not think DW is putting PS to get a guilty..he's protecting against that guilty..and it isn't ineffective counsel. If so...bless him..to give up so much - but for what?

This one man has taken on what it took..what? 3-4 attorneys last time to not get a "not guilty"? I wonder if PS put his eggs in a basket and said.."who" can I get to defend me this time...who can also help IF I'm convicted?

You're all gonna hate this...but man did he make a mistake with Cutler...I could just see Cutler and DW as his attorneys. Cutler was smart enough to say "no", IMO. And, he's defended "mafia" (dare I say that??) and won (yeah..lost too..on a few occasions).

yeah yeah yeah..long post..sorry...I'll be gone tomorrow..so no more "puff" from moi.

jmo

J

[wasapi]

I am not sure but you are most likely right. Do you have to take all the fun out of wishful thinking? The comment wasn't really meant to be analyzed.

Well, if it helps any, I would be shocked if Lana' family didn't win the civil case. And though again, I don't know for sure, but I would bet that those royalties could be garnished by the Clarkson's. It wouldn't matter if he's in prison, he couldn't use money earned there. If he should get away with murder though, at least the civil trial wouldn't leave him much to support the lifestyle he has grown acoustomed to.

[Curlyjo]

Oh, dref, one of my fav fellow posters..I agree..AJ has class..and he also has the Bar rules to comply with, not to mention the strict "constrictures" (OK..another term!) being a DA or ADA (symantics). That doesn't mean he can't fashion his case to a level where the defendant is "itching to take the stand" as long as he isn't Pushing It. Besides, it is his job Not just to get a conviction..which most people believe..and it is in part true..but it is to "find justice". he took an oath when he became a prosecutor, to uphold the laws and to find justice..if that means plea bargaining out someone or dismissing a case, then he Has to do it.

I agree with many..in the opinion that PS will Never Take The Stand..not in the criminal trial..but he will have to Answer in the Civil Case. He absolutely cannot in this criminal trial or he'll be going to H in a HBasket..if he doesn't know it, his attorney does.

I have been mesmerized, oftentimes confused, and definitely amazed at DW's goings on. If he is putting himself in jeopardy by his "antics" (I'm using that lightly), I'm sure he has his ducks in a row that won't get him disciplined or disbarred..he's just pushing the envelope..something an Appellate Attorney ..bless his heart...must have a full handle of.

I still will say that PS is no idiot..he's been through one trial and probably a bunch of things before this to know or figure..this time he needs an "Appellate Attorney"..Why? I won't say..but I figure why is the chance he will be convicted so he needs as much fodder that he can get. Ineffective counsel? Good lord..what a slap in the face to DW..I do not think DW would allow or get himself involved in that unless PS gave him a vacation for the next 30-40 years in Switzerland..all expenses paid? Even then...give up that Bar...that thing he worked for - so many years - to be an "upholder of the law"? I wouldn't do it in a NY minute..not even if I was dying of some terminal illness..it's integrity.

If DW is handing him on a platter, then DW has a problem IMO. If DW has his hands tied, he should have (again, IMO) applied to the court to withdraw from representation..maybe he did? maybe it was denied? Would we ever know? Then..maybe DW is a bit "wet behind the ears" from years of being an appellate attorney? I don't think so. You don't get there if you haven't done your homework before.

Don't get me "wrong"...I disagree with a lot of with what DW has put up in this trial...but it's made me research it and think about it. He has far more leeway than AJ does. I do not think DW is putting PS to get a guilty..he's protecting against that guilty..and it isn't ineffective counsel. If so...bless him..to give up so much - but for what?

This one man has taken on what it took..what? 3-4 attorneys last time to not get a "not guilty"? I wonder if PS put his eggs in a basket and said.."who" can I get to defend me this time...who can also help IF I'm convicted?

You're all gonna hate this...but man did he make a mistake with Cutler...I could just see Cutler and DW as his attorneys. Cutler was smart enough to say "no", IMO. And, he's defended "mafia" (dare I say that??) and won (yeah..lost too..on a few occasions).

yeah yeah yeah..long post..sorry...I'll be gone tomorrow..so no more "puff" from moi.

jmo

J


I don't know but it seems to me only a guilty man would pay for such a high level defense and only skated on the first trial by one person. He reeks of guilt but his money keeps him free. Just my personal opinion.

[My 2 Cents]

It is a fishing question for the jury and a valid one. It is one of those ?'s you raise to a jury, among others, to get the jury to ask ?'s among themselves. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean that a member of a jury wouldn't. May seem like small potatoes to you because of your obvious bias.JMO. When a jury is asked to consider a verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" you would be surprised what might lead them into the direction of tipping the scales of justice in favor of a defendant. The issue by it self may not do it, but it could certainly provide a catalyst for further inquiry into other issues. In conclusion your post with it's sincere and meaningful effort to sway might just come under the heading:Fallacy Definitions,Is-Ought: The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact, or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs.It's just MO.

BTW, I'm in no way saying that the officer in this case lied, but all police were granted the right to lie when conducting an investigation. That right was bestowed on them by the US Spreme Court a few years back. If you have a lot of time and the weather is bad where you at you could spend some time @supreme.justia.com. Sorry I can't stay any longer(wait was that a sigh I heard:smile:) I have things to do this weekend, seeya:thumbup:

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

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

“IS-OUGHT” Fallacy?
This is just MY suggestion: I believe you would actually be better served by throwing the “OUGHT-IS” Fallacy argument at me, based on your claims, as opposed to the one you are mentioning (IS-OUGHT). This is just MY suggestion. You see, the “OUGHT-IS” fallacy would imply that YOU think I believe things are a certain way, simply because I want them to be (i.e. – “wishful thinking”). Regardless of the evidence that supports the opposite. This would tie in nicely with the BIAS accusations you’ve charged me with.
(I don’t see how the “is-ought” fallacy applies at all to what you were talking about. IMO)

But since YOU did bring up the “IS -OUGHT” Fallacy, hear is my own “IS-OUGHT” recommendation, that I believe YOU should consider:

If you IS going to copy down an entire paragraph that someone else has written, word-for-word, then you OUGHT to give that person/author credit, otherwise it appears as if your are claiming those words as your own, and it IS considered plagiarism. . . . and you OUGHT not do that.

(These are YOUR EXACT WORDS, are they not? See link attached.)

http://www.txstate.edu/Philosophy/fallacies/isought.htm

However, I must say - - very interesting and excellent site.

[Curlyjo]

Well, if it helps any, I would be shocked if Lana' family didn't win the civil case. And though again, I don't know for sure, but I would bet that those royalties could be garnished by the Clarkson's. It wouldn't matter if he's in prison, he couldn't use money earned there. If he should get away with murder though, at least the civil trial wouldn't leave him much to support the lifestyle he has grown acoustomed to.


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

[oodi1]

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

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

“IS-OUGHT” Fallacy?
This is just MY suggestion: I believe you would actually be better served by throwing the “OUGHT-IS” Fallacy argument at me, based on your claims, as opposed to the one you are mentioning (IS-OUGHT). This is just MY suggestion. You see, the “OUGHT-IS” fallacy would imply that YOU think I believe things are a certain way, simply because I want them to be (i.e. – “wishful thinking”). Regardless of the evidence that supports the opposite. This would tie in nicely with the BIAS accusations you’ve charged me with.
(I don’t see how the “is-ought” fallacy applies at all to what you were talking about. IMO)

But since YOU did bring up the “IS -OUGHT” Fallacy, hear is my own “IS-OUGHT” recommendation, that I believe YOU should consider:

If you IS going to copy down an entire paragraph that someone else has written, word-for-word, then you OUGHT to give that person/author credit, otherwise it appears as if your are claiming those words as your own, and it IS considered plagiarism. . . . and you OUGHT not do that.

(These are YOUR EXACT WORDS, are they not? See link attached.)

http://www.txstate.edu/Philosophy/fallacies/isought.htm

However, I must say - - very interesting and excellent site.

Good catch!!!

[Jayne]

I don't know but it seems to me only a guilty man would pay for such a high level defense and only skated on the first trial by one person. He reeks of guilt but his money keeps him free. Just my personal opinion.

I understand what you are saying and I'm not being antagonistic. But were I wealthy and wrongly accused..I'd spend my money to pay for defense..for me or my child(ren).

Many guilty men/women can't afford much to pay for their trial..many non guilty can't either. Money may buy a lot of things...what is that saying..it can't buy you happiness? Well..maybe it can..as you said...keep him free (I guess happy? but I really wonder. He rarely looks Happy.)

jmo

J

[dref99]

I am not sure but you are most likely right. Do you have to take all the fun out of wishful thinking? The comment wasn't really meant to be analyzed.

Do keep thinking, it may well not be wishful - it is fortunate for his creditors that he does have a continuous income source - I hope most of same goes to Lana's family, but will let the odd creditor have a share. Capital can be hidden from sight, it is much more difficult to hide an income stream.

jmo

[mbmb]

I understand what you are saying and I'm not being antagonistic. But were I wealthy and wrongly accused..I'd spend my money to pay for defense..for me or my child(ren).

Many guilty men/women can't afford much to pay for their trial..many non guilty can't either. Money may buy a lot of things...what is that saying..it can't buy you happiness? Well..maybe it can..as you said...keep him free (I guess happy? but I really wonder. He rarely looks Happy.)

jmo

J

To the short and sweet of it: *that is sad*

[Curlyjo]

I understand what you are saying and I'm not being antagonistic. But were I wealthy and wrongly accused..I'd spend my money to pay for defense..for me or my child(ren).

Many guilty men/women can't afford much to pay for their trial..many non guilty can't either. Money may buy a lot of things...what is that saying..it can't buy you happiness? Well..maybe it can..as you said...keep him free (I guess happy? but I really wonder. He rarely looks Happy.)

jmo

J


I don't disagree with you....but most of us don't have the money for this grand defense....I believe if he had just said it was just a accident he would be much better off than he is now. But someone like him and his place of mind of being above of us all...he feels he should get off. So should we either let him be free and be like OJ unliked by many but I perfer him see jail bars for the rest of his life.

[dref99]

... respectfully snipped for reply

If you IS going to copy down an entire paragraph that someone else has written, word-for-word, then you OUGHT to give that person/author credit, otherwise it appears as if your are claiming those words as your own, and it IS considered plagiarism. . . . and you OUGHT not do that.
[/B]
(These are YOUR EXACT WORDS, are they not? See link attached.)

http://www.txstate.edu/Philosophy/fallacies/isought.htm

However, I must say - - very interesting and excellent site.

I ought to be impressed with your research My 2 Cents and I is indeed - very much impressed, so I guess that is the ought-is option.

And just to add, the thought of LE or anyone else stopping to update their notebooks with the ravings of a suspect murderer while in an unsecured location is so much nonsense any ises and oughts seem rather irrelevant.

jmo

[oodi1]

I don't disagree with you....but most of us don't have the money for this grand defense....I believe if he had just said it was just a accident he would be much better off than he is now. But someone like him and his place of mind of being above of us all...he feels he should get off. So should we either let him be free and be like OJ unliked by many but I perfer him see jail bars for the rest of his life.

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again... I don't believe PS thinks he did anything wrong, or is culpable in any way, shape, or form. I think most people who feel they are totally innocent would go to any lenghts possible to prove their innocence. This is what PS is doing, because he feels he IS totally innocent. IMO

[oodi1]

I am just curious how people here are posting but I don't see there names listed in those who are on this thread? How does that work? Just curious how that works?

They've changed their settings in the User CP so it doesn't show they are online.

[dref99]

I am just curious how people here are posting but I don't see there names listed in those who are on this thread? How does that work? Just curious how that works?

There is an option somewhere in your profile to not show online/offline indicator. I think it is described somewhere in the help threads towards the top of the board

Hope this helps

[My 2 Cents]

I am just curious how people here are posting but I don't see there names listed in those who are on this thread? How does that work? Just curious how that works?

Didn't you read any of the HARRY POTTER books? (or movies?)
We have a "CLOAK of INVISIBILITY". :biggrin:

Just kidding around - - - if you go to EDIT OPTIONS (i think) and and check "invisible mode" - something like that, it doesn't light up the little green dot next to your nic. Aren't we sneaky? :sneaky:

[My 2 Cents]

I ought to be impressed with your research My 2 Cents and I is indeed - very much impressed, so I guess that is the ought-is option.

And just to add, the thought of LE or anyone else stopping to update their notebooks with the ravings of a suspect murderer while in an unsecured location is so much nonsense any ises and oughts seem rather irrelevant.

jmo

I know - it was so insulting to those officers IMO. And a LOSE-LOSE situation. They would get so much flak for that.

And the "IS-OUGHT" fallacy? I thought he made it up - - - Obviously not. :thumbdown:
And IMO, not even the best choice. I think "OUGHT-IS" was definitely the better choice for him to use. LOL.

[oodi1]

I ought to be impressed with your research My 2 Cents and I is indeed - very much impressed, so I guess that is the ought-is option.

And just to add, the thought of LE or anyone else stopping to update their notebooks with the ravings of a suspect murderer while in an unsecured location is so much nonsense any ises and oughts seem rather irrelevant.

jmo

Amen to that!! I'm also sure they were more interested in securing the scene ASAP so they could get the medics in to attend to Lana. While LE may have checked her, they are not qualified to make any kind of medical determination.