IF you FEEL he's NOT GUILTY Thread, March 20, 2009 and on to ....

[tartangirl]

If you feel that Phil Spector is not guilty of the murder of Lana Clarkson, here is a place to post about your feelings concerning that and the retrial. I checked with Coldwater and she said it was worth a try.

Happy posting.

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

[Spectorfan8]

It is my belief that Phillip Spector is not guilty of murder or involuntary manslaughter. he is an innocent man.:thumbsup:

SF8

[LisaM22]

I believe alcohol and guns do not mix, you can't drink and drive, nor should you drink and point...

I do not believe he meant to kill her, more like involuntary manslaughter.

[Jayne]

Well..chiming in...

Voluntary Manslaughter...maybe, if not M2.

I don't see Involuntary..it's not like it was a hunting accident..or a DUI (or maybe it was?..drama under the influence?).

Need to go back and read some posts..because I can't see a jump from M2 to Involuntary Manslaughter, as I see that as an LIO twice removed - like a long lost 3d cousin? So they're going to include IVMS and not VMS? They've skipped a generation, if that's the situation.

:confused:
jmo

J

[dref99]

I believe alcohol and guns do not mix, you can't drink and drive, nor should you drink and point...

I do not believe he meant to kill her, more like involuntary manslaughter.

I don't think he meant to kill her either Lisa - but if you point a loaded gun at someone - it is no accident if it fires and someone dies. If it was premediatated he would be facing a murder 1 charge.

There seems little reason that he should have been pointing a loaded gun at anyone - sober or drunk. Alcohol is surely no excuse for murder.

Can I suggest you post on the main thread - lots of folks there are discussing the case - I find it weird that a person who thinks PS is guilty should have started a NG thread?? Why can't everyone post together??

jmo

[tartangirl]

I don't think he meant to kill her either Lisa - but if you point a loaded gun at someone - it is no accident if it fires and someone dies. If it was premediatated he would be facing a murder 1 charge.

There seems little reason that he should have been pointing a loaded gun at anyone - sober or drunk. Alcohol is surely no excuse for murder.

Can I suggest you post on the main thread - lots of folks there are discussing the case - I find it weird that a person who thinks PS is guilty should have started a NG thread?? Why can't everyone post together??

jmo

Certainly posters will discuss this case and the current retrial in both areas.

I find what is being discussed and the fact that this murder occurred
to better qualify for the weird category easier than the fact we have two opposing threads. As the trial progresses this thread might be the place where some posters feel more comfortable with their feelings and post accordingly.

In the big picture of what we are all discussing this is a tiny pebble.

This is not a new concept here and merely a convenience.

As you well know, in the heat of a good discussion all boundaries are often lost and the good words spill out wherever they may.

Merely an option. :smile:


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

[Spectorfan8]

Certainly posters will discuss this case and the current retrial in both areas.

I find what is being discussed and the fact that this murder occurred
to better qualify for the weird category easier than the fact we have two opposing threads. As the trial progresses this thread might be the place where some posters feel more comfortable with their feelings and post accordingly.

In the big picture of what we are all discussing this is a tiny pebble.

This is not a new concept here and merely a convenience.

As you well know, in the heat of a good discussion all boundaries are often lost and the good words spill out wherever they may.

Merely an option. :smile:


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



Thank you for being the one to start this thread. It never crossed my mind, or I would have done it for you.
Once again, thanks for the "option".

[My 2 Cents]

Well..chiming in...

Voluntary Manslaughter...maybe, if not M2.

I don't see Involuntary..it's not like it was a hunting accident..or a DUI (or maybe it was?..drama under the influence?).

Need to go back and read some posts..because I can't see a jump from M2 to Involuntary Manslaughter, as I see that as an LIO twice removed - like a long lost 3d cousin? So they're going to include IVMS and not VMS? They've skipped a generation, if that's the situation.

:confused:
jmo

J

Hi Jayne -

I think I might (maybe) be able to include some insight into the VOLUNTARY vs INVOLUNTARY manslaughter confusion. I happened to read about it at this site (see LINK) and it then became a little more clear to me. I had been discussing it with another poster via a PM and this is what I saw as the MAIN difference AND WHY the lessor charge (if one was to be included) would have to be IVMS and NOT VMS.

It seems in California, that VOLUNTARY manslaughter is what I refer to (for lack of a better word), as a little more "Crime Specific". There are 3 categories that are applicable when VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER is being considered as a "lessor included offense":
1. "Heat of Passion" (Husband walks in on wife with another man - pulls out gun, BANG)
2. "Imperfect Self-Defense" (defendant THOUGHT he was in imminent danger, thought person had a weapon - - Oops, I shot them and there doesn't seem to be any weapon, . . . something along that line)
3. "Murder Not Charged" (This is probably the one you are talking about. If a lessor must be included, this would make more sense than IVMS - that's what I thought too. HOWEVER, for some reason, in California, this 3rd choice CAN NOT EVER BE USED AS A LESSOR if MURDER 1 or 2 has been CHARGED. Therefore it is called "Murder NOT Charged". The required proof for guilt is written EXACTLY like M1 and M2 instructions. So I'm guessing it exists merely as a BARGAINING CHIP, a PLEA BARGAIN, etc for someone looking at M1 or M2. I don't really understand why it exists or how else it would be used. Perhaps you could add some insight on this. BUT, it can NOT be used in ANY CASE where MURDER - 1 or 2 - HAS BEEN CHARGED.)

Therefore, since HEAT OF PASSION and IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE would not apply to the Spector case, AND SINCE Murder, 2nd Degree is DEFINITELY being charged - - - then NONE of the VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER options would work (or fit). And if a "lessor offense" is being put on the table, the only one that would apply would be INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter. Pheeeew, did you get all that? I do BLAB a lot don't I? ANYWAY - - that was MY take on what I READ at the LINK I've attached below. And if I misunderstood, please let me know, because I want to understand this. THANKS. :read:

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/index.html

[LisaM22]

I don't think he meant to kill her either Lisa - but if you point a loaded gun at someone - it is no accident if it fires and someone dies. If it was premediatated he would be facing a murder 1 charge.

There seems little reason that he should have been pointing a loaded gun at anyone - sober or drunk. Alcohol is surely no excuse for murder.

Can I suggest you post on the main thread - lots of folks there are discussing the case - I find it weird that a person who thinks PS is guilty should have started a NG thread?? Why can't everyone post together??

jmo

I agree with you, I do not think there is any excuse for what he did and he should be found guilty, I just think this falls into the manslaughter category vs murder - jmho

[Jayne]

Hi Jayne -

I think I might (maybe) be able to include some insight into the VOLUNTARY vs INVOLUNTARY manslaughter confusion. I happened to read about it at this site (see LINK) and it then became a little more clear to me. I had been discussing it with another poster via a PM and this is what I saw as the MAIN difference AND WHY the lessor charge (if one was to be included) would have to be IVMS and NOT VMS.

It seems in California, that VOLUNTARY manslaughter is what I refer to (for lack of a better word), as a little more "Crime Specific". There are 3 categories that are applicable when VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER is being considered as a "lessor included offense":
1. "Heat of Passion" (Husband walks in on wife with another man - pulls out gun, BANG)
2. "Imperfect Self-Defense" (defendant THOUGHT he was in imminent danger, thought person had a weapon - - Oops, I shot them and there doesn't seem to be any weapon, . . . something along that line)
3. "Murder Not Charged" (This is probably the one you are talking about. If a lessor must be included, this would make more sense than IVMS - that's what I thought too. HOWEVER, for some reason, in California, this 3rd choice CAN NOT EVER BE USED AS A LESSOR if MURDER 1 or 2 has been CHARGED. Therefore it is called "Murder NOT Charged". The required proof for guilt is written EXACTLY like M1 and M2 instructions. So I'm guessing it exists merely as a BARGAINING CHIP, a PLEA BARGAIN, etc for someone looking at M1 or M2. I don't really understand why it exists or how else it would be used. Perhaps you could add some insight on this. BUT, it can NOT be used in ANY CASE where MURDER - 1 or 2 - HAS BEEN CHARGED.)

Therefore, since HEAT OF PASSION and IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE would not apply to the Spector case, AND SINCE Murder, 2nd Degree is DEFINITELY being charged - - - then NONE of the VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER options would work (or fit). And if a "lessor offense" is being put on the table, the only one that would apply would be INVOLUNTARY Manslaughter. Pheeeew, did you get all that? I do BLAB a lot don't I? ANYWAY - - that was MY take on what I READ at the LINK I've attached below. And if I misunderstood, please let me know, because I want to understand this. THANKS. :read:

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/index.html


Thanks M2C...I know I've posted these codes/statutes so many times..and I still have NY law in my head, along with CA which is very different..here's CA

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


From the on the face reading of the statute...I can see "voluntary manslaughter"..upon a Sudden Quarrel (does not have to be heat of passion..which most are between spouses or "romantic/intimate"...types..even between child and parent, IMO).

Apparently, CA doesn't go with the law as written as "sudden quarrel" unless there are certain circumstances..such as an established relationship? Don't know...haven't done any criminal in CA..so, that's why I'd argue VMS..Sudden Quarrel...E.G. "So you want to leave? Yes. Well, I don't intend to let you leave? Oh, yeah? Yeah? blah blah blah..then Boom." But...I get why they can't really do it, I suppose..since the only witness will not take the stand and "say so". Even though several PBA witnesses testified that THAT is exactly what PS has done with them..and circumstantially with Lana. Sudden Quarrel...like "Don't Go"...seems to go both ways, huh?

Hmmm..Weinberg..no wonder he was against VMS last time..there were no witnesess, no evidence of a quarrel, fight, altercation. Interesting..but I can tell you in other states...VMS would be the LIO below murder..it is not limited to "heat of passion" or "murder not charged" (which sorry to say..sounds ridiculous to me..but it must be case law or preferred practice?..as it isn't written in the Penal Code)

Too bad they don't include VMS along with IVMS...but..appealable..YEP..no doubt that is why not..but if on appeal the Supreme Court after the appeal says...better look as VMS and re-vamp it? CA is CA..NY and MA and PA are what states they are..and if there were a LIO, in at least one of them it would be M3 for Heat of Passion..then VMS for mitigation, defenses, or Gross Negligence. IVMS in one I know is limited to vehicular accidents or mitigation below VMS, for example.

Your post..makes a lot of sense why Shapiro probably was advising PS to accept a plea to VMS...it wouldn't be on the books or on the "indictment" but it was a LIO, in a sense. Or maybe he was going for IVMS as an "offer" for PS to approve? Geesh...if so, WHAT was PS thinking? The sentence for that is minimal at best. Yet, I'd see why the DA wouldn't accept it even if Shapiro could have offered IVMS..but I think they might have "taken" or negotiated on VMS.

Funny..isn't it...black and white is never black and white...there's always some interpretation or loophole someone can jump through.

Ya otta be a lawyer, M2C.

[Spectorfan8]

Everybody was so glad to get the NOT guilty thread. So we wouldn't bother you
Now, everyone is posting here.:shrug:

[Spectorfan8]

There's no point to having this "not guilty" thread! It will never work out. The guiltys are now posting here.

Yeah, I know. It's all good.

Enjoy your evening!

SF8

[dref99]

Certainly posters will discuss this case and the current retrial in both areas.

I find what is being discussed and the fact that this murder occurred
to better qualify for the weird category easier than the fact we have two opposing threads. As the trial progresses this thread might be the place where some posters feel more comfortable with their feelings and post accordingly.

In the big picture of what we are all discussing this is a tiny pebble.

This is not a new concept here and merely a convenience.

As you well know, in the heat of a good discussion all boundaries are often lost and the good words spill out wherever they may.

Merely an option. :smile:


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



The trial is nearly over - we managed to last 18 months without separating views - and as mentioned people supporting both views are now posting here - so why separate them. And as mentioned, folks supporting both positions are now posting in 2 places.

jmo

[tartangirl]

The trial is nearly over - we managed to last 18 months without separating views - and as mentioned people supporting both views are now posting here - so why separate them. And as mentioned, folks supporting both positions are now posting in 2 places.

jmo

Up to a few months ago we did have another OPEN NG THREAD. It was removed when someone was banned from the board. This is not a new concept here as we all know. It happens that posters have in the past and will again post on both threads. People, having free minds and free will like to use them both. If it does not work out for any reason, like many options on message boards, no doubt it will be taken away.

The essence of both threads, the discussion, always returns eventually to the events surrounding the horrible death of a beautiful young woman and the fact that a man is on trial and may spend the rest of his life in prison for that death.

That to me seems far more important than where your words about those events may land at any given time or place. :smile:

It is all good. Merely an option.

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

[eagleeer]

Lest you all forget during PS1 there were both guilty and not guilty threads. What is the problem with it now? :confused:

[GPSpector]

Wow, it's amazing, after 20 postings and I still have not seen any facts to support "Not Guilty". Just a lot of complaining about "Guilty" thinkers posting here.

I go to their threads to see their facts, I look to threads like this one to see facts that support "Not Guilty".

Shame, after 2 years to gather information from the trial here and I still have only seen what amounts to "He innocent, just because".

Since 2/03/03, I have been hoping for something that can give me hope for my father. I still see only bickering, but no hope.

I'm sure the "Guilty" posters are here for close to the same reasons, to see their "Guilty" facts countered with "Not Guilty" facts. I know that's why I'm here, not to get more opinions, just facts. Well wishing and opinions can not help my father and he is in need of a lot of help at this time and only facts can help him. Shame he's the keeper of all the facts and yet he refuses to take the Stand.

[GPSpector]

There have been "facts" and links to back up facts by not guilty posters on many threads that's been deleted.

Being the son of Spector doesn't make you an expert on what happened that tragic night! We all go by the evidence or lack of. I see reasonable doubt. So when you talk about "facts," keep in mind we see the evidence differently.

"Bickering?" It's called a difference of opinion.

He is not going to get convicted. Mark my words it won't happen.

imo

I never claimed to be an expert on what has happened. Nice twist though.

Speaking of twisting, Facts are Facts, they can only be seen 1 way. Evidence can be seen differently. Example, 2+2 = 4, Tuesday IS the day after Monday. The facts can't be changed but more can be found.

Opinions are like theories, they are useless until proven.

Nice of you to refer me to deleted posts instead of posting those facts you say existed, but were deleted.

I'll be adding another name to Iggy I see, thanks for confirming that my father has no chance other then "luck", again.

I'll go back to looking for facts. :read:

[hiitsme]

A definite common thread here. (no pun intended ) One poster who believes that Lana Clarkson engaged in kinky gun play in an attempt to end her life. So absurd, ridiculous and baseless.

[eagleeer]

Right, I just became a member this month as a "poster," before I just read the board. One needn't be a poster to read the threads.

Who do you think you are kidding? You know darn well you were banned and now have come back with a new name and email address. Some of us were born at night, but not last night.

[My 2 Cents]

I know you're not an expert, far from it.


I know you need to believe it, but I have never confirmed that. Nice twist.

Speaking of twisting, the fact remains there are hung juries which means individual jurors judge the "facts" differently.

You mean you never read those deleted posts? As I recall you replied to a good number of them therefore I thought you knew they existed,

I won't be adding the first name to my iggy .I don't get upset over different opinions. Good luck and keep looking for "facts," it will help to make an informed opinion. It helped me. I found reasonable doubt in the facts I found.

Could you name a few? (you state: ". . . I found reasonable doubt in the FACTS I found.") Could you name a few of these FACTS? This thread would be the perfect place for it and many are hoping to hear what those are. FACTS please, not just statements like, "I think he is innocent", or "Dan Kessel is talented and HE thinks Phil is innocent", etc). Thank You. I am eager to hear what I may have missed.

[Anakerie]

A friend of mine got banned, and there is no place to register when you've been banned! This is a fact! The only way a poster can get back on--and under the same nic--is when the ban is lifted. Then one doesn't need a new nic. If a poster is banned forever, there is no place to register and a poster can't even read the board, according to my friend.If you don't want to take my word for it, check it out with Coldwater...or kindly quit making accusations. What's more, a temp. banned poster can't even read the board until the ban is lifted.
I have no idea how it is when someone is permanently banned, but I will argue with you about the temp banned poster reading the boards. You are wrong. A temporarily banned poster CAN read the boards if they simply log out... (I got sent to band camp because of a link to a blog I added to the forum.. Unfortunately the blogger had an "adult content" warning on his blog for no good reason but I was still able to READ the posts here.. lol)

[Anakerie]

not even Pie believes Pie :scared:
It would seem that Mr. Weinberg didn't believe Pie either since he didn't bother calling her as a witness for the retrial... lol

[GPSpector]

It would seem that Mr. Weinberg didn't believe Pie either since he didn't bother calling her as a witness for the retrial... lol

Anyone that would believe a $5,000 per day paid "expert", anyone that was given information by my father, and not from facts and that includes my friend Kitty's interview (by the way she's a few years older then me and that interview was done when she was in her early 20's and just re-aired) or anyone that he helped to support financially is questionable at best due to the a strong chance of extreme bias.

With that said, I to believed Pie. Well, to be exact, I believed Nelli when she talked about the Card Pie wrote. During the 1st trial, Pie was no better then the list I referenced above.

It's odd, when a poster asks for fact's, they are referred to deleted threads or given opinions when no one was asking for an opinion.

I'm thinking another English class must be given again, but for the word "Fact" this time.

I'd offer to quote the definition but it seems the student here has doubts about my credibility and I'm in no mood to teach this one. Any takers. :read:

[eagleeer]

Anyone that would believe a $5,000 per day paid "expert", anyone that was given information by my father, and not from facts and that includes my friend Kitty's interview (by the way she's a few years older then me and that interview was done when she was in her early 20's and just re-aired) or anyone that he helped to support financially is questionable at best due to the a strong chance of extreme bias.

With that said, I to believed Pie. Well, to be exact, I believed Nelli when she talked about the Card Pie wrote. During the 1st trial, Pie was no better then the list I referenced above.

It's odd, when a poster asks for fact's, they are referred to deleted threads or given opinions when no one was asking for an opinion.

I'm thinking another English class must be given again, but for the word "Fact" this time.

I'd offer to quote the definition but it seems the student here has doubts about my credibility and I'm in no mood to teach this one. Any takers. :read:

I'll give it a shot Gary.

Fact (not to be confused with opinion)

-noun

1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.


I believe a persons opinion is only worth their own credibility. When said credibility is lacking, the opinion isn't worth the paper it is written on. As I read the threads, I haven't found anyone to challenge GPSpector's credibility. Yet today someone wishes to do so. I find that interesting given that said person has only been registered here since the 19th of March. Pay no attention to whoever this person is or the axe he/she has to grind. We all know what they say about opinions.

[GPSpector]

My main reason for my NG opinion has to do with lack of blood on Mr. Spector's jacket and the fact that Lana's teeth were not smashed inward. If someone was trying to shove a gun in my mouth, I would lock my teeth and not open my mouth. This makes me believe that Lana put the gun in her mouth herself.

As for if she did it on purpose or accidentally, I am not 100% sure. I do think it is either one. I tend to think she did it more on purpose, but can also see it as a stupid stunt. People do stupid things everyday with guns even when they are not high or have been drinking alcohol.

Side Note: I will not take any baiting from any of you G's to get me upset and/or banned. I am trying my best to remain calm, even though I strongly believe Lana is responsible for her own death.

Good post and I too had thought that but I just can't figure out how she was able to pull the trigger considering she just had the pins removed from both wrists shortly to her death. She would not have had full movement yet.

I really wish they had X-Rayed her wrists. Her Right wrist had bruising showing possible sign of being restrained like in a struggle but an X-Ray would have proven extensive damage to any wrist of the hand that was holding the gun the moment it went off.

[My 2 Cents]

My main reason for my NG opinion has to do with lack of blood on Mr. Spector's jacket and the fact that Lana's teeth were not smashed inward. If someone was trying to shove a gun in my mouth, I would lock my teeth and not open my mouth. This makes me believe that Lana put the gun in her mouth herself.

As for if she did it on purpose or accidentally, I am not 100% sure. I do think it is either one. I tend to think she did it more on purpose, but can also see it as a stupid stunt. People do stupid things everyday with guns even when they are not high or have been drinking alcohol.

Side Note: I will not take any baiting from any of you G's to get me upset and/or banned. I am trying my best to remain calm, even though I strongly believe Lana is responsible for her own death.

I find it interesting that the last time you posted on the Phil Spector board (3/16/09) you stated; "ps may have already asked god for forgiveness of his sins. and he still has a chance to ask, if he hasn't already."

I am curious why you would post that if you thought Phil Spector (PS) had NOTHING to do with Lana's death. If Lana put the gun in her mouth why should PS be asking god to forgive his sins? I am a little confused at your conflicting and contradicting posts. :confused:

[Spectorfan8]

hello!

I have read Joe Friday's Blog, there is a Spectorfan8 impostor!!

I do not post on Joe Blows blog or any other blog.

Phil Spector is not guilty because he did not murder Lana. Simple answer.

Later,

SF8:biggrin:

[Anakerie]

if she is screaming for him to stop, it is quite easy for a gun to be placed in her mouth......
I can't imagine screaming for someone to stop with my teeth clenched. :rolleyes:

[Spectorfan8]

It is on Tru/TV now. Beth is talking about it.

[GPSpector]

I can't imagine screaming for someone to stop with my teeth clenched. :rolleyes:

I would not think it would be to difficult to get someone to do something unreasonable like opening their mouth, when at gun point.

Besides, if given the choice of being shot in the head or in the mouth, which do you think would make less of a mess and cause less damage to the face. I have read a long time ago (though I have no links) that women that have thought of suicide think about those things where as guys don't. So, I see nothing odd about her opening her mouth when ordered to do so at gun point.

What I do see wrong is that she is dead, regardless of who pulled the trigger.:sad:

[kennedy06]

I think it slipped into her mouth or unintentionally ended up there during a struggle, because to think he would actually put it there or forced it there is to horrific of a thought. That would be beyond extremely cruel and heartless.:unsure: It would make him a cold blooded.....

JMO

[hiitsme]

ITA

Another thing, she was twice his size. She could of jumped him or even kicked him in the nuts.

jmo

Maybe DW will quote you today! After having his defense annihilated by Truc Do yesterday it might be all he has left.

[Spectorfan8]

Since this is the NG thread, I will post my comments.

I feel like the prosecution went over the top with their entire presentation.

It was very uncalled for. It should have been a mistrial.

Phillip Spector is not guilty of murder or involuntary manslaughter. He did not murder anyone. His past has nothing to do with this case.

SF8

[Tracian]

ITA

Another thing, she was twice his size. She could of jumped him or even kicked him in the nuts.

jmo


There is a saying:

God created all men; Sam Colt made them equal.

A gun is a great equalizer, many people have obeyed someone holding a gun to them, and IMO, until it happens to you, there is no way to predict what you would do.

The Hillside stranglers pulled guns on women to get them to get into their car, they didn't run, they obeyed.

[kennedy06]

Since this is the NG thread, I will post my comments.

I feel like the prosecution went over the top with their entire presentation.

It was very uncalled for. It should have been a mistrial.

Phillip Spector is not guilty of murder or involuntary manslaughter. He did not murder anyone. His past has nothing to do with this case.

SF8

It is so interesting to hear different views. I don't mind at all hearing them.

See I thought it simplistic and right to the point. RussianRoulette, first thing I think of is the movie Deer Hunter, what image did it put in the minds of the jurors? I think it was very good because it gave them image to draw back on as the contemplate the evidence such as the shifting sands, the image AD described, he had the gun in his hand why place it at her foot, why move her head, why go upstairs and leave her by herself?

I'll admit when I heard what he had on him at the police station, the 2 pairs of glasses (those that wear glasses always take an extra pair when they go on trips just in case) 2 watches, why have a baggie of pills and a toothbrush, 2 cell phones and a list of phone number and the passport in the valise was he thinking of running?? Or did he just carry those things around with him in his valise and or the police let him collect his things before they took him to jail??

Heck they should play that song by the cryin shames the last work of the music producer (I know old story) Joe Meek who shot and killed that woman on the morning Feb 3, 67 who was also eccentric and knew PS (as they were competitors).... just for effect if they bring up the "Don't Go"... except it is more of a love song but still...and show the clip of her blowing out the candle and standing outside the nightclub.

When I first watched the clip, I didn't know for a second who was in the white coat I thought it was a kid (not to be funny) she had to bend slightly to talk to him IIRC....... also show the images of the 5 PBAs. Ask was he lonely and wanted control, no one was going to leave him that he wanted to stay?? Then show a picture of the gun.

A song, images you will remember the evidence presented you won't have to be an engineer with how many books of notes to recall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRN4h8gI0_U

JMO only

[kennedy06]

Joe according to TDWS had hung up on PS when he tried to talk to him....so playing Joe's song at the end of PS murder trial might set PS off and then they would really get to see another side of him the side the PBA's seen IMO.

OK my posts are looking like some of the comments with an opposing view of PS (not on IS) that I have read!

Ok Phil, I watched the Agony documentary, I feel bad for you on many parts of your life but.........oh and your best work was Ebb Tide. (!)

OK I'm done!

JMO

[GPSpector]

ITA

Another thing, she was twice his size. She could of jumped him or even kicked him in the nuts.

jmo

Maybe she did. That would explain a trigger pull by someone that has never pulled a trigger on a human before. After all, I've never heard of a woman fighting back either. There's always a 1st time.

My advice would be to never do anything that would cause a guy to clinch his fingers when a finger is on a trigger and a gun pointed at you or someone else.

[GPSpector]

It is so interesting to hear different views. I don't mind at all hearing them.

See I thought it simplistic and right to the point. RussianRoulette, first thing I think of is the movie Deer Hunter, what image did it put in the minds of the jurors? I think it was very good because it gave them image to draw back on as the contemplate the evidence such as the shifting sands, the image AD described, he had the gun in his hand why place it at her foot, why move her head, why go upstairs and leave her by herself?

I'll admit when I heard what he had on him at the police station, the 2 pairs of glasses (those that wear glasses always take an extra pair when they go on trips just in case) 2 watches, why have a baggie of pills and a toothbrush, 2 cell phones and a list of phone number and the passport in the valise was he thinking of running?? Or did he just carry those things around with him in his valise and or the police let him collect his things before they took him to jail??

Heck they should play that song by the cryin shames the last work of the music producer (I know old story) Joe Meek who shot and killed that woman on the morning Feb 3, 67 who was also eccentric and knew PS (as they were competitors).... just for effect if they bring up the "Don't Go"... except it is more of a love song but still...and show the clip of her blowing out the candle and standing outside the nightclub.

When I first watched the clip, I didn't know for a second who was in the white coat I thought it was a kid (not to be funny) she had to bend slightly to talk to him IIRC....... also show the images of the 5 PBAs. Ask was he lonely and wanted control, no one was going to leave him that he wanted to stay?? Then show a picture of the gun.

A song, images you will remember the evidence presented you won't have to be an engineer with how many books of notes to recall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRN4h8gI0_U

JMO only


That song almost sounded like something my father could have done.

Were you referring to the guy in the video wearing the white coat? I could not recognize him. They were all a bit distorted on my 24" wide-screen 1080p HD monitor. Lower Resolutions like YouTube uses, seems to look worse on this monitor. But it's great when I'm working with graphics :wink:

[kennedy06]

I'm sorry, No on the clip on the Agony documentary they showed Lana blowing out the candle and then they also showed them in the parking lot getting ready to leave (I think that was shown in court during the 1st trial) and then them getting into the car and driving off.

No my link, that isn't a very good quality, especially for American Bandstand! But at the time they probably thought it was pretty cool.

[GPSpector]

Maybe she did. That would explain a trigger pull by someone that has never pulled a trigger on a human before. After all, I've never heard of a woman fighting back either. There's always a 1st time.

My advice would be to never do anything that would cause a guy to clinch his fingers when a finger is on a trigger and a gun pointed at you or someone else.

[oodi1]

Maybe she did. That would explain a trigger pull by someone that has never pulled a trigger on a human before. After all, I've never heard of a woman fighting back either. There's always a 1st time.

My advice would be to never do anything that would cause a guy to clinch his fingers when a finger is on a trigger and a gun pointed at you or someone else.

I think VDM is the only one who thinks it's so easy, and has so much experience at disarming someone with a gun.

[eagleeer]

I think VDM is the only one who thinks it's so easy, and has so much experience at disarming someone with a gun.

Wow, you made me use some unused brain cells with the VDM. Had to do some total recall on PS1 to figure that one out. :blink:

[oodi1]

Wow, you made me use some unused brain cells with the VDM. Had to do some total recall on PS1 to figure that one out. :blink:


LOL... Sorry about that!

[kennedy06]

She was a beautiful woman I can't imagine that PS wasn't thrilled that she went to his home. He was fortunate she gave him the time of day. No offense to PS, I realize some think he is a looker but you know....he had seen better days.

[Tracian]

Many people freeze when they have a gun stuck in their face. Watch Cops or Most Shocking how quickly some will become compliant. Survival is not just attacking back, it is sometimes attempting to comply with the psycho holding the gun.

If someone is holding a gun in your mouth, kicking them would be the worse possible thing to do, their finger on the trigger, could very possibly make the gun go off.

I have never had a nutcase put a gun in my face, unless you have you can say what you would do either, and even if either of us did, how you would react, or I would is not conclusive for the way another person would react.


I do agree about this:

Ms. Clarkson did have spunk and courage, another reason I do not believe she killed herself, because that is not the actions of someone with spunk and courage.

[lane99]

Hopefully the jury will base their decision on the evidence as it was presented in court, and not the fantasies his groupies pretend they believe in.

And I expect they will. The deliberations should not take long.

[Tracian]

He pleaded "not guilty," and his defense is she shoot herself.


IMO his defense is ridiculous. There is no logical reason Lana would shot herself in his house after just meeting him. There is no evidence that Lana was playing with a loaded gun. There is no evidence that she was suicidal.

There is a past history of PS using guns to intimidate women.

He got lucky the first trial...somewhat, but luck tends to run out.

[Rickshere911]

rui
There was no signs of a struggle. The "contusions" on her wrists could have been old bruises. She "bruised" easily according to testimony, and they couldn't date the bruises. And how is he going to hold her wrists with both his hand--which he would need to do--and hold a gun at the same time? Not possible.

If she had been in a struggle, she outweighed him and was taller than him and she could have overtaken him.

I agree she would have overtaken him....but he had a gun and you know the rest....

[Tracian]

uh huh it is NOW after he got a lawyer before that he said he killed her but it was a accident........


Oh for heaven's sake, even some of PS's supporters disagree with the defense claims that it was suicide; it was 'gun play'.

Anything I guess if it excuses an alledged murderer.

[Tracian]

ot

And there is no evidence he would shoot her in his house after only knowing her a few hours. It's a ridiculous prosecution theory.

There is evidence he didn't fire the gun: the blood on the jacket suggests he was holding his arm across his body when the shot was fired. There are those who believe the jacket shows his guilt, but I believe it suggests his innocence.

He didn't get lucky the first trial. The evidence wasn't there and two jurors saw the lack of evidence.

I said she "ACCIDENTLY" shot herself doing gun play! But there were jurors in the first trial who thought she could have committed suicide.


No, in the first trial there were two juror's that bought into the Defense that she killed herself. That was the defense put on the first time, that Lana Clarkson, so depressed after spending the evening with PS dug around, found a loaded gun and shot herself.

Now, while I would too be depressed if I had to spend anytime with PS, I doubt it would push me to suicide.

[Tracian]

I said she "accidently" shot herself doing gun play! And so what if some of PS supporters disagree with defense claims it was "suicide? Do you think we follow each other like little ducks in a row?

Are you suggesting that PS lied to his defense team about the events that led to Lana shooting herself? If it was 'gun-play' then why didn't Spector insisit on his defense presenting the truth, rather than attempt as in the last trial to parade people in to say what a depressed person Lana was? Did Spector enjoy beating down the memory of a dead woman when he knew what happened was they were messing around, and it was purely accidental?

Quite a guy that Spector, to allow people to lie on his behalf.

[Tracian]

She knew that she'd spend time with him BEFORE she went home with him, not after! She goes home with him, but doesn't want to spend time with him?

And there is evidence she had consensual sex with him! Her DNA was on his scrotum!

It is too bad the same respect isn't shown to the living that is shown to the dead. Those nasty comments about Phil Spector is uncalled for and inappropriate.


Her DNA on his scrotum does not prove consensual sex, it proves they had sexual relations of some level, maybe that is where the 'gun play' comes in.

And the living, well they at least can speak for themselves, that is if they were not to cowardly to take the stand and explain what really happened.

[Tracian]

It does in my estimation and in the defense's.


And as for the living they see all the ugly things said about them, and can feel the pain and hurt.

So does the living family of the dead victim.

[Velouria]

It does in my estimation and in the defense's.


So what? :rolleyes:

[Tracian]

No, I am not suggesting he lied to his defense! Just because I don't believe she committed suicide, it doesn't follow he lied when he said she committed sucide.

Lana had blackouts, had depressions, and this is in her emails! So maybe the defense is right and she committed suicide. I wsn't there, and neither were you! SO, maybe I am wrong and she did commit suicide.

She had to either commit suicide or killed herself accidently doing gun play. One or the either as the jacket blood suggests he did not fire the gun!


I don't know why you always put a (!) after your statements, I feel we are having a reasonable discussion.

She didn't either have to do one or the other, that is why PS is on trial.

The mere fact that Lana was wearing her jacket and had her purse over her shoulder negates that she suddenly got the urge to shoot herself in the face either accidently or had a sudden desire to kill herself.

[Tracian]

It does in my estimation and in the defense's.


And as for the living they see all the ugly things said about them, and can feel the pain and hurt.

"Cowardly?" How courageous is it to say ugly things hiding behind a screen nic?


I was wondering the same thing in regards to some of the things said about Lana.

Regardless, I am not on trial for murder either.

[Anakerie]

It does in my estimation and in the defense's.


And as for the living they see all the ugly things said about them, and can feel the pain and hurt.

"Cowardly?" How courageous is it to say ugly things hiding behind a screen nic?
So, in your opinion the minute amount of DNA from Lana on Phil's privates means he had consensual sex with her?

I'm curious, how do you explain away the unknown male DNA on Phil's privates? Another instance of consensual sex earlier that evening?

IMO, the minute amounts of DNA from Lana and the men can be explained simply by considering DNA transfer. Phil could have picked up the men's DNA in the rest rooms in the bars he visited that night. Phil also could have transferred Lana's DNA after he "cleaned" up the scene that night. I think that is more probable than the consensual sex scenarios with Lana and those unknown men.

[Tracian]

But that does change the fact that her DNA was on his scrotum.


And there is no proof of consensual sexual relations either.

[Spectorfan8]

I said she "accidently" shot herself doing gun play! And so what if some of PS supporters disagree with defense claims it was "suicide? Do you think we follow each other like little ducks in a row?


This is what happens when you create a thread for NOT GUILTY posters, and the GUILTY posters come here and try to stir things up.!! JMO, MHO

[Tracian]

I never said anything unkind about Lana. I said she killed herself accidently!

I guess not being on trial for murder makes uncalled for and inappropriate remarks acceptable!


I never said you did. I do think only a coward would allow a defense team to tear down the memory of a dead woman to the world, when he could take the stand and (should he be) simply tell the truth. That would give the family closure and give him a chance explain the tragic event.

Hope that clears up my statement.

[Anakerie]

This is what happens when you create a thread for NOT GUILTY posters, and the GUILTY posters come here and try to stir things up.!! JMO, MHO
I am not "trying to stir things up". I am here looking for the same thing I've looked for since this case first began, even before PS1. I want to know about evidence and that includes your evidence for Phil being not guilty. I ask questions of those who proclaim Phil's "innocence" and have never gotten a rational answer. Most of the answers given (IF any are given at all!) are based in "faith" in Phil's innocence and next to nothing in the way of actual evidence that makes sense.

Sorry if I've "intruded" upon your pep rally for Phil.

[Tracian]

Her DNA was on his scrotum, and that, in my estimation, shows consensual sex!

And what are you doing on this not guilty thread? Are you trying to stjr up trouble?


I am not the only person that feels this way posting here. Sorry, the only reason I did start posting here because I saw that both opinions were being posted.

As far as DNA proving consensual sex, that simply is not true, that is why rape kits are taken at the hospital after an assault.

[eagleeer]

This is what happens when you create a thread for NOT GUILTY posters, and the GUILTY posters come here and try to stir things up.!! JMO, MHO

So are you saying that there should be no rational debate on a not guilty thread but just a group hug and mutual admiration society? Do you have the same feeling when you come on the guilty thread and stir the pot? Seems you want it your way only. :confused:

[Tracian]

\


I didn't say you said I did!

Tear down the memory of a dead woman? Look, Tracian, he has a right to a defense. You know nothing about Ms. Clarkson's life except what is presented in court! You accept the prosecution's side, and I accept the defense!

And what about the posters tearing down Phil Spector of a murder he hasn't been convicted of. That's okay in your book, huh, Tracian?

It is not his place to give the family closure. He is on trial for his life--for a murder he says he didn't commit! The family is not his concern!


Even if it was an accident, it happened in his house, with his gun, in his presents, I don't understand what kind of human being would not feel some compassion for the family under such circumstances.

Because of those factors alone, I would expect a person to at least be decent enough to tell the truth, to offer testimony about what really happened, not allow a side show slander fest by high priced attorneys because it was less stressful for him to take the stand.

So no, to answer your question, I have zero respect for him. If it was an accident, which I don't believe for a minute, he was to cowardly to tell what happened. If it was murder, he is still a coward because he shot an unarmed woman in the face.

Basically, I expect more from human beings, I expect some level of honor and decency. IMO, PS has no human traits at all.

[GPSpector]

She knew that she'd spend time with him BEFORE she went home with him, not after! She goes home with him, but doesn't want to spend time with him?

And there is evidence she had consensual sex with him! Her DNA was on his scrotum!

It is too bad the same respect isn't shown to the living that is shown to the dead. Those nasty comments about Phil Spector is uncalled for and inappropriate.

Ok, McAnnie, so now you insist on inferring Lana was mentally challenged? Because that's what someone would have to be to play with a strangers gun. And you complain about what people say about my father and yet you do the same about Lana. trust me, if someone post a lie about my father, I will speak up. Who is here to defend Lana? Only those that don't know her but honestly do care about her.

The Vicodin that you want to use to prove she was on drugs was taken hours before leaving and was below prescription strength. The alcohol you want to use to prove she was a drunk was measured from her heart where the alcohol will pool and be the highest concentrate before it cycles through the body. She was there a couple hours, had NO alcohol at work. She did not have time to get drunk unless she started drinking from the bottle nonstop from the time she got in the car. If she had done that, her BAC would have been off the chart and just starting to get a very bad buzz. In other words, if she only had a drink or two, there was not enough time to get drunk but enough time for the alcohol to make it to the heart.

Yea, she knew she was going to go home with my father, that's why she turned him down three times before relenting, just for 1 drink.

Here's something I KNOW you did not think of: What is the logic of trying to fight to get away from someone holding a gun when there is no place to go?

She had 2 damaged wrist, the evidence showed she had bruising around her wrist which indicated recent injury to them. So, if she even could have knocked the gun out of his hand, what then? There was no way she was going to be able to pick up the gun and use it.

So, now that her wrists are further damaged, and lets say she does knock the gun out of his hand, great, where is she going to go? SHE WAS TRAPPED IN HIS HOUSE. The only reason to disarm someone is to either to turn the gun against the assailant or to buy you time to get away. She could not do either.

Now, about this DNA joke of yours. The defence claimed Lana's DNA was on the bullets and saw that as proof she loaded the gun. The evidence proved that the DNA was not her fingerprints as the Defense implied but her blood from back-spatter.

Your claim of her DNA being on his private area tries to imply it was her saliva. I do not recall ever hearing what for of DNA it was. Do you have a link that proves it was not DNA from her blood? After all, he kept putting his bloody hands in his pockets? It was proven that not only was the door latch knob in his pocket but so was Lana's blood.

So please, each and ever case you come up with gets shot down as quickly as the Defense's and sounds just as credible.

[GPSpector]

This is what happens when you create a thread for NOT GUILTY posters, and the GUILTY posters come here and try to stir things up.!! JMO, MHO

Funny, the same can be said for the other thread with the NG's posting there.

I too want evidence based on facts that my father is innocent and every NG poster has let me down with posts that are void of facts.

[GPSpector]

He did tell what happened to his defense team!

It's obvious you have "zero respect" for him. A respectful person doesn't make ugly comments.

He did not shoot Lana in the face. Lana shot hersellf.

Does your "honor" and "decency" expections mean an innocent person should confess to a murder you think he committed? Spector said he didn't kill Lana Clarkson.

There you go dehumanizing Spector. You just can't seem to quit disparging him--and while hiding behind a screen nic. He has human traits, but some are too blinded by hatred to see them.

He also said he did kill her so, that negates that fact. Besides, confessing to the Defense team means nothing if you don't confess to the Jury.

This is a Not Guilty thread, so please, post a fact that has been presented to the Jury that at least raises doubt. You, so fart have given me no hope for my father.

What you have done is post misinformation that causes me to do research to find facts tat make me think my father has even less of a chance. So, I guess I could say it is you that has proven (indirectly) that my father has no chance of winning. At least I know where the guilty group stand.

You seem to do more damage to my fathers case as far as the perspective of those not in the Courtroom. At least have some respect for my father if you won't show any for Lana.

At least my brothers and I show more respect for Lana and her family and it's our father on trial for possibly life.

[GPSpector]

^^^snipped ^^^


Now it seems you are calling people mentally challenged. It does happen enough (someone playing with a strangers gun). You act like that has never happened before.

And PS was not a stranger to Lana anymore, she drove home in his limo and partied with him. No longer a stranger. jmo

He was a stranger to my Brother's and I, and I lived with him for about 14 years. So yes, He was a stranger to Lana. They only knew each other just a few hours.

And please, trying to twist my words is a pointless venture, it only proves you may have comprehension limitations. I would not want to advertise it on a message board by proving you did not fully comprehend what I stated in plain English.

[Tracian]

Originally Posted by justannie
He did tell what happened to his defense team!

It's obvious you have "zero respect" for him. A respectful person doesn't make ugly comments.

He did not shoot Lana in the face. Lana shot hersellf.

Does your "honor" and "decency" expections mean an innocent person should confess to a murder you think he committed? Spector said he didn't kill Lana Clarkson.

There you go dehumanizing Spector. You just can't seem to quit disparging him--and while hiding behind a screen nic. He has human traits, but some are too blinded by hatred to see them.


I never said an innocent person should confess to a crime. I said a decent person, who had someone in their house, with their gun, in their presents shoot themself, would at the very least have some compassion for the family, and tell the truth. This IMO, would be the decent, human thing to do.

You say he did tell his defense team, well then, according to what Spector must have told them, by their tactic in court, Lana committed suicide, which varies from your theory of 'gun play' it also cannot be proven because there was no reasonable evidence offered to support that claim.

BTW, my screen name is my name, so I am not hiding from anything or anyone.

[kennedy06]

^^^snipped ^^^


Now it seems you are calling people mentally challenged. It does happen enough (someone playing with a strangers gun). You act like that has never happened before.

And PS was not a stranger to Lana anymore, she drove home in his limo and partied with him. No longer a stranger. jmo

G only asked a question if that Justannie was implying. He didn't call anyone a name. So I'm speaking up.

They were in the Mercedes for 30 min, they watched a movie called Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye. Wasn't like they were in a stretch limo.

I like the songs you posted on the links thread. He did some great work, I'll give him that. :)

[Curlyjo]

Ok, McAnnie, so now you insist on inferring Lana was mentally challenged? Because that's what someone would have to be to play with a strangers gun. And you complain about what people say about my father and yet you do the same about Lana. trust me, if someone post a lie about my father, I will speak up. Who is here to defend Lana? Only those that don't know her but honestly do care about her.

The Vicodin that you want to use to prove she was on drugs was taken hours before leaving and was below prescription strength. The alcohol you want to use to prove she was a drunk was measured from her heart where the alcohol will pool and be the highest concentrate before it cycles through the body. She was there a couple hours, had NO alcohol at work. She did not have time to get drunk unless she started drinking from the bottle nonstop from the time she got in the car. If she had done that, her BAC would have been off the chart and just starting to get a very bad buzz. In other words, if she only had a drink or two, there was not enough time to get drunk but enough time for the alcohol to make it to the heart.

Yea, she knew she was going to go home with my father, that's why she turned him down three times before relenting, just for 1 drink.

Here's something I KNOW you did not think of: What is the logic of trying to fight to get away from someone holding a gun when there is no place to go?

She had 2 damaged wrist, the evidence showed she had bruising around her wrist which indicated recent injury to them. So, if she even could have knocked the gun out of his hand, what then? There was no way she was going to be able to pick up the gun and use it.

So, now that her wrists are further damaged, and lets say she does knock the gun out of his hand, great, where is she going to go? SHE WAS TRAPPED IN HIS HOUSE. The only reason to disarm someone is to either to turn the gun against the assailant or to buy you time to get away. She could not do either.

Now, about this DNA joke of yours. The defence claimed Lana's DNA was on the bullets and saw that as proof she loaded the gun. The evidence proved that the DNA was not her fingerprints as the Defense implied but her blood from back-spatter.

Your claim of her DNA being on his private area tries to imply it was her saliva. I do not recall ever hearing what for of DNA it was. Do you have a link that proves it was not DNA from her blood? After all, he kept putting his bloody hands in his pockets? It was proven that not only was the door latch knob in his pocket but so was Lana's blood.

So please, each and ever case you come up with gets shot down as quickly as the Defense's and sounds just as credible.

BRAVO:thumbsup:

[dref99]

No, in the first trial there were two juror's that bought into the Defense that she killed herself. That was the defense put on the first time, that Lana Clarkson, so depressed after spending the evening with PS dug around, found a loaded gun and shot herself.

Now, while I would too be depressed if I had to spend anytime with PS, I doubt it would push me to suicide.

I'm a little scared to post on this thread, last time I did resulted in a couple of PMs I would rather have not received - however - I did want to comment on the two jurors from trial 1.

If you followed events and conversations with jurors after trial 1, at one stage the vote was 11-1 to convict. There was a juror who seemed unable to make a decision, other than to vote with the foreperson. She had apparently thought he would vote G, but when this did not happen she then changed back to NG.

Purely my opinion, based on reported comments from a couple of jurors, but there was only one juror who continuously voted NG during the deliberations.

Just to add - NG does not mean innocent and a hung jury does not mean NG. One assumes the current jury understands the importance of reaching a decision. Hopefully this time around, all 12 will agree to discuss the evidence and each other's opinions. It should be a very different decision making process cf forcing one's child to eat their veg.

jmo

[Curlyjo]

Even if it was an accident, it happened in his house, with his gun, in his presents, I don't understand what kind of human being would not feel some compassion for the family under such circumstances.

Because of those factors alone, I would expect a person to at least be decent enough to tell the truth, to offer testimony about what really happened, not allow a side show slander fest by high priced attorneys because it was less stressful for him to take the stand.

So no, to answer your question, I have zero respect for him. If it was an accident, which I don't believe for a minute, he was to cowardly to tell what happened. If it was murder, he is still a coward because he shot an unarmed woman in the face.

Basically, I expect more from human beings, I expect some level of honor and decency. IMO, PS has no human traits at all.

Great response...keep it up!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Tracian]

I'm a little scared to post on this thread, last time I did resulted in a couple of PMs I would rather have not received - however - I did want to comment on the two jurors from trial 1.

If you followed events and conversations with jurors after trial 1, at one stage the vote was 11-1 to convict. There was a juror who seemed unable to make a decision, other than to vote with the foreperson. She had apparently thought he would vote G, but when this did not happen she then changed back to NG.

Purely my opinion, based on reported comments from a couple of jurors, but there was only one juror who continuously voted NG during the deliberations.

Just to add - NG does not mean innocent and a hung jury does not mean NG. One assumes the current jury understands the importance of reaching a decision. Hopefully this time around, all 12 will agree to discuss the evidence and each other's opinions. It should be a very different decision making process cf forcing one's child to eat their veg.

jmo


Yes, juror 10. I remember he was interviewed, and made absolutely no sense. IMO, he was just picking NG because was playing his own version of 'Runaway Jury'

[Curlyjo]

This case revolves around the alleged excited utterances supposedly made by Spector to a limo driver and cops who had over-reacted and tasered Spector moments before. Did they even get these remarks correct?

Were they just trying to justify their use of a new law enforcement toy by making a killer out of Spector?

Under these kinds of circumstances people never seem get these kinds of quotes straight. :thumbdown:

So many documenting these quotes but apparently not enough for you?

[Anakerie]

So many documenting these quotes but apparently not enough for you?
Amazing, isn't it? :wink:

[Curlyjo]

Amazing, isn't it? :wink:

Yes it is and I am tired of those who have nothing to back up their constant claims of truth. :confused:

[dref99]

This case revolves around the alleged excited utterances supposedly made by Spector to a limo driver and cops who had over-reacted and tasered Spector moments before. Did they even get these remarks correct?

Were they just trying to justify their use of a new law enforcement toy by making a killer out of Spector?

Under these kinds of circumstances people never seem get these kinds of quotes straight. :thumbdown:

Now we have two folks on the boards (one very new) discussing "excited utterances". ADS was quite calm, until it dawned upon him he was the only witness to the very excited utterance of Mr Spector. So let us see what were the excited utterances of Mr Spector at the scene of the crime

The one the jury has heard, from an honest, truthful witness very shortly after hearing a gun shot.

"I think I killed someone" Doesn't sound like suicide

The utterances the jury could only hear from the person who made them (as he didn't take the stand, they were not heard by the jury) were made at least 40 minutes after Lana's death. They were recorded on tape by the Officer Page present at the scene.

I will tell you what happened
I'm sorry there's a dead woman here, and I'm sorry this happened
I'm not drunk, and I'm not stupid. I can tell you what happened
I'm sorry this happened, I don't know how it happened
The gun went off accidentally
She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake
I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened. it scared the .... out of me that it happened
I see the damage that's been done ... this is the most devastating thing I've ever seen in my life

It was only much later, at the police statement that Mr Spector first mentioned the word "suicide".
These statements have been referenced many times - in the LA court documents list - feel free to check them out.

[Curlyjo]

Now we have two folks on the boards (one very new) discussing "excited utterances". ADS was quite calm, until it dawned upon him he was the only witness to the very excited utterance of Mr Spector. So let us see what were the excited utterances of Mr Spector at the scene of the crime

The one the jury has heard, from an honest, truthful witness very shortly after hearing a gun shot.

"I think I killed someone" Doesn't sound like suicide

The utterances the jury could only hear from the person who made them (as he didn't take the stand, they were not heard by the jury) were made at least 40 minutes after Lana's death. They were recorded on tape by one of the Officer Page present at the scene.



I will tell you what happened
I'm sorry there's a dead woman here, and I'm sorry this happened
I'm not drunk, and I'm not stupid. I can tell you what happened
I'm sorry this happened, I don't know how it happened
The gun went off accidentally
She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake
I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened. it scared the .... out of me that it happened
I see the damage that's been done ... this is the most devastating thing I've ever seen in my life

It was only much later, at the police statement that Mr Spector first mentioned the word "suicide".

These statements have been referenced many times - in the LA court documents list - feel free to check them out.

dref99 don't worry walker is just walking around the truth:thumbsup:

[eagleeer]

(Excerpt)
Some people are closed-minded because they are afraid to have any new information input into their brain since it may upset their defense strategy. They are bold about their position. They adopt rationales for things and argue piously with those who think differently. They often have been provided with arguing points from mentors, such as religious or political leaders. They are arrogant, aggressive and care little for the feelings of others (which would reveal their lack of real knowledge).

There is nothing wrong with knowing nothing as long as you don’t advertise it publicly.

You can’t win an argument with a closed minded person. There is no point trying. They don’t have room in the tiny sections of their brains in which they eke out their existence to entertain facts or arguments that don’t fit perfectly with the positions they hold. Anyone who tries to carry on a debate with a closed minded person will end up in a pi$$ing match because the closed mind will hurl insults rather than confront issues about which he or she knows little or nothing. (Bill Allin)

As the Chinese proverb hints, you might rather debate with a block of wood than with a closed minded person. At least you would come away more emotionally intact.

[lane99]

I agree with you, eagleeer. Clearly there are a few ringers who aren't debating this case honestly and it's a waste of time to debate with them if one's goal is a reasonable assessment of the evidence.

On the other hand, this thread was specifically designed for people who profess to believe this scoundrel didn't murder Miss Clarkson. And I wouldn't begrude them their own little sandbox, if it means that much to 'em.

[dref99]

dref99 don't worry walker is just walking around the truth:thumbsup:

I definitely don't worry :smile: I just like to keep throwing in a few facts (silly me) but what was most interesting was the use of a phrase know best to describe another poster who hasn't been around very much recently.

It's all good

[lane99]

[QUOTE=dref99;12930270...I will tell you what happened...[/QUOTE]

I had heard that he was recorded admitting HE SHOT HER, but it was an ACCIDENT. And, thus, I had been thinking it was a mistake not to admit that recording into evidence (they didn't, right?)

In fact, in what you have quoted her, he does not admit he shot her. He said it was an accident, and he could explain. He could argue he was referring to Miss Clarkson being the one who accidentally shot herself.

So I understand better now why the prosecution didn't admit this.

[dref99]

Hi lane

You are correct in what he said - it was all - I can explain, it was an accident etc, but I would add to your reason as to why they didn't bring in the statements.

I think there were at least 3 reasons

1. Purely tactical - the defense thought they were going to use them, the prosecution had fought very hard for this

2. A rethink by the prosecution realised that many other statements were made as well - when PS first started discussing suicide. It was all or nothing - the prosecution wanted to be able to cross examine on these statements - if they were introduced by the pros, they would have lost any chance to do this (there was no chance anyway, i doubt PS would ever have taken the stand)

3. In terms of the argument that PS was referencing Ms Clarkson - that could be another reason - it would be the Lawyer doing the argument thought, - not Phil - He would not have taken the stand.

jmo

[eagleeer]

Thank you very much. Your post is an excellent description of those that refuse to look at other possibilties and will only be satisfied(:drool:) with a guilty verdict. They seem to be willing to post anything in defense of that strategy. BTW, Since we are not members of the jury isn't one opinion posted on this board as good as another? I think you may have been a little too harsh on those that support a guilty verdict.JMHO:thumbup:

Thank you for your comment. My post was meant for those on both sides of this issue not just to those that support a guilty verdict.

"Your post is an excellent description of those that refuse to look at other possibilties and will only be satisfied(:drool:) with a guilty verdict."

Quite the opposite, frankly my post leans toward a select few of those who have posted here lately that would only accept a not guilty vote and refused to debate their position with facts as apposed to their own bias or opinion. And I guess that one opinion here is as good as another as long as it is based on a resonable hypothisis. The same goes for theories.

Never take life to seriously, no one gets out alive anyway.

[eagleeer]

So you do have a bias;e.g.,..."leans toward a select few of those who have posted here lately that would only accept a not guilty vote"...I have no way of knowing for how long you have been reading post on this board, but I would hazzard a guess, not very long. Or perhaps like some others you have choosen to ignore what was posted when it was contrary to your opinion. IMHO most post that support a guilty verdict are egocentric. BTW this is an opinion board. Given that opinions are only a guess or conjecture, who determines their reasonableness on a message board. Maybe this is a good place for a definition. Opinion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:"An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. An opinion is normally a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts."

IMHO your previous assessment best describes those that hold on to their guilty opinion in spite of the existence of other possibilities.:thumbup:

"I have no way of knowing for how long you have been reading post on this board, but I would hazzard a guess, not very long."

Well, if you had done your homework you would see that I have been posting here for approximately a year longer than you have.
One thing I don't need here is a pseudo intellectual telling me what my assessment describes. You apparently don't get it and you have no idea whether I am pro defense or prosecution, nor will you as I haven't posted my belief one way or the other. Beyond this I have nothing further to say to you.

[Spectorfan8]

Funny, the same can be said for the other thread with the NG's posting there.

I too want evidence based on facts that my father is innocent and every NG poster has let me down with posts that are void of facts.

Good, enjoy your day.

[Spectorfan8]

Having a great trip. Just taking a short break and thought I would take a gander at the continuing saga. I see the same old "BS" is going on. Numerous times;i.e., too many to mention, opinions along with supportive facts as to NG have been posted by many. Those only wishing to :drool: over a guilty verdict consistently ignore those post. In most instances they completely ignore the substantive rationale opinions and elect to cherry pick, correct spelling and point out gramatical errors. As time passes they then drag out their chronic complaint that they have yet to see anything posted that would support a NG verdict. The irony is most of what the so-called guilty posters post, when analyzed, tends to support a NG verdict.JMHO. Moving on:seeya:

Great post!:wink:

[GPSpector]

"I have no way of knowing for how long you have been reading post on this board, but I would hazzard a guess, not very long."

Well, if you had done your homework you would see that I have been posting here for approximately a year longer than you have.
One thing I don't need here is a pseudo intellectual telling me what my assessment describes. You apparently don't get it and you have no idea whether I am pro defense or prosecution, nor will you as I haven't posted my belief one way or the other. Beyond this I have nothing further to say to you.

:thumbsup:Great post:thumbsup:
♥ A good Education is sooo under-rated ♥

It's amazing how many NG's claim facts have been posted (but darn if those post weren't deleted) and yet, not one of them will repeat those facts. After all, this thread is the best place to list all the facts (that have been heard by the Jury). I've noticed that many of the Guilty thinkers seem to keep coming her looking for a list of facts. I too, or personal reasons would ♥ to see a NG List.

[Spectorfan8]

:thumbsup:Great post:thumbsup:
♥ A good Education is sooo under-rated ♥

It's amazing how many NG's claim facts have been posted (but darn if those post weren't deleted) and yet, not one of them will repeat those facts. After all, this thread is the best place to list all the facts (that have been heard by the Jury). I've noticed that many of the Guilty thinkers seem to keep coming her looking for a list of facts. I too, or personal reasons would ♥ to see a NG List.

1. No GSR on Mr. Spector
2. Not so much blood on his jacket
3. Would have been much more blood on his jacket ad he shot her.
4. He's not guilty of murder, involuntary manslaughter, or any harm to her.

SF8:D

[Spectorfan8]

Why are you asking them to be redundant? You should have saved a copy of their post before they were deleted. Then you could have shared and we all would have been spared your perpetual laborious disingenuous chronic complaint.JMHO. BTW, They are only posting their opinion and do not have to prove anything to you or anyone else. Also, how could anyone(G/NG) posting their opinion here possible know eveything a jury may have heard. That's ridiculous IMHO.:thumbup:

My thoughts exactly!! Wonderful post.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

SF8

[lane99]

Giving you credit for having some rational basis to your comments, you must be suggesting that people always have GSR on them after they fire a weapon.

This is false. In fact, even in confirmed cases of SUICIDE, GSR is often absent.

Furthermore, unless you're claiming that Spector was not even in the room when the shot was fired, and assuming there was significant gunshot residue expelled when the gun was fired, then he SHOULD have had residue on him, even if he was just a bystander.

In other words, no GSR on him would be evidence he cleaned up and tampered with the crime scene.

...The rest of your arguments are equally lacking, but you may already be aware of that.

[Spectorfan8]

Giving you credit for having some rational basis to your comments, you must be suggesting that people always have GSR on them after they fire a weapon.

This is false. In fact, even in confirmed cases of SUICIDE, GSR is often absent.

Furthermore, unless you're claiming that Spector was not even in the room when the shot was fired, and assuming there was significant gunshot residue expelled when the gun was fired, then he SHOULD have had residue on him, even if he was just a bystander.

In other words, no GSR on him would be evidence he cleaned up and tampered with the crime scene.

...The rest of your arguments are equally lacking, but you may already be aware of that.

Everyone has their own opinions.....thank you for yours.:shrug:

[wasapi]

I do hope that someday you can get over your childhood. best wishes

Such a cheap shot. It's right up there with the absurd post about "wealth envy". Phil Spector should be proud of Gary and his brother's. They have gotten on with their lives remarkably well.

Few people are able to show grace under fire the way Gary has. And even fewer have been put in that position while in the public eye.

Gary could have been like you, hiding behind a nickname while making mean-spirited comments that he knows nothing about. Instead he has chosen to take the high road and say exactly who he is, talking about his opinions and when he doesn't know the answer to a question he admits it.

So go ahead and stay behind your curtain, spouting innuendo's about things you really know nothing about.

[kennedy06]

Wasapi, that was a great post. I wonder if Shooter would have the nerve to make such a comment to Phil S. himself?

I'm not making light of PS childhood.

[eagleeer]

Such a cheap shot. It's right up there with the absurd post about "wealth envy". Phil Spector should be proud of Gary and his brother's. They have gotten on with their lives remarkably well.

Few people are able to show grace under fire the way Gary has. And even fewer have been put in that position while in the public eye.

Gary could have been like you, hiding behind a nickname while making mean-spirited comments that he knows nothing about. Instead he has chosen to take the high road and say exactly who he is, talking about his opinions and when he doesn't know the answer to a question he admits it.

So go ahead and stay behind your curtain, spouting innuendo's about things you really know nothing about.

Great post :thumbsup:

[oodi1]

Such a cheap shot. It's right up there with the absurd post about "wealth envy". Phil Spector should be proud of Gary and his brother's. They have gotten on with their lives remarkably well.

Few people are able to show grace under fire the way Gary has. And even fewer have been put in that position while in the public eye.

Gary could have been like you, hiding behind a nickname while making mean-spirited comments that he knows nothing about. Instead he has chosen to take the high road and say exactly who he is, talking about his opinions and when he doesn't know the answer to a question he admits it.

So go ahead and stay behind your curtain, spouting innuendo's about things you really know nothing about.


AMEN!!!

Some are so low, they have to climb to reach the gutter.

[dref99]

Such a cheap shot. It's right up there with the absurd post about "wealth envy". Phil Spector should be proud of Gary and his brother's. They have gotten on with their lives remarkably well.

Few people are able to show grace under fire the way Gary has. And even fewer have been put in that position while in the public eye.

Gary could have been like you, hiding behind a nickname while making mean-spirited comments that he knows nothing about. Instead he has chosen to take the high road and say exactly who he is, talking about his opinions and when he doesn't know the answer to a question he admits it.

So go ahead and stay behind your curtain, spouting innuendo's about things you really know nothing about.

Thanks Wasapi - great post - I was utterly confused by "wealth envy" - and have always appreciated the discussions and opinions given by GPS

[GPSpector]

Giving you credit for having some rational basis to your comments, you must be suggesting that people always have GSR on them after they fire a weapon.

This is false. In fact, even in confirmed cases of SUICIDE, GSR is often absent.

Furthermore, unless you're claiming that Spector was not even in the room when the shot was fired, and assuming there was significant gunshot residue expelled when the gun was fired, then he SHOULD have had residue on him, even if he was just a bystander.

In other words, no GSR on him would be evidence he cleaned up and tampered with the crime scene.

...The rest of your arguments are equally lacking, but you may already be aware of that.

Good point and I just can't figure out why some expect a CSI blood bath.

The bullet only went through less then an inch of soft tissue and hit no major arteries, then it cauterized the wound behind itself. The majority of what came out was seen by AD when my father stepped outside. There was also blood and matter (though very little) found in his hair and on the jacket that was discarded upstairs.

Also, there was traces of GSR found on the sticky pads used on my father just to small an amount to determine for certain if he could have done it. So, to say there was none, is wrong but there was also not enough to be conclusive.

I will admit those 2 points (though stretched to be 4) were interesting. at least they were something.

[penguin01]

..........snipped to highlight statement.
The irony is most of what the so-called guilty posters post, when analyzed, tends to support a NG verdict.JMHO. Moving on:seeya: That is a really fabulous statement: one of your best - too funny IMO!

Come on Searching - please give us a couple of examples. Or take AJ's points in closing (what the Gs have been saying) and show just how they, in fact, (when YOU analyze them) tend to suppport an NG verdict. Please show us something, anything.... I can't stop laughing!

I was just cruising along trying to figure out what NGs could be thinking - and there it was: that totally amazing, fabulous statement.

[poppy]

How I wish this trial had been televised as KTLA did the first one.
The lack of blood spatter on Spector and the trajectory of the bullet should alone mandate a not guilty verdict.

[lane99]

Hi lane...I think there were at least 3 reasons...

Hi, dref. Considering the potentially ambiguousness of what was caught on tape, I assume your reasons are right.

I somewhat thought he had said something as straightforward as he had said to the driver. For example, something like "I didn't mean to shoot her, it was an accident".

If he had, I'm sure the prosecution would have presented it (even though Spector later tried to explain the shooting away- in his own imitiable manner that has charmed a few here into worshipping the ground he walks on- as a suicide.

p.s. are we long lost cousins?

[wasapi]

I'm sure that "Shooter" was expressing a genuine concern felt by some that post here.JMHO The best evidence of that is that poster, whom you feel complelled to defend, seems to have a bottomless pit of anguish when story telling about their childhood. However, I'am confused. Beyond this board, do you know them personally? If not, aren't you only parroting what they post under an anonyomus nic. I only ask because you state;..."They have gotten on with their lives remarkably well." Care to elaborate.:confused: Furthermore, we all post from behind the curtain of anonymity. Including you. So IMHO there is :no:need to censure "Shooter" for doing the same and expressing the same thought that some other posters may be in concurrence with.:thumbup:

Yes, beyond this board I do know him. No, I don't care to elaborate any further on something off-topic.

[penguin01]

How did a fingerprint get into the wet blood? Not a question Searching would answer. Clearly it isn't Lana's fingerprint. Apparently Searching will never know who's fingerprint that is or how it got there. Another mystery.....or the only thing she/he knows is that it has nothing to do with PS ever touching the gun and/or killing Lana. Somehow its another point by the "Gs" that actually proves NG somehow, some way...LOL

[Staceylee]

The purse on her arms really say's it all. She had been there a while and I know her purse was not on her arm the whole time she was there. Because it was on her arms tells me that she was ready to go home. The fact that she was sitting by the door confirms that to me. A person who has decided to end there life is not going to put her purse on her arm. You can't take it with you to heaven. JMO

[Staceylee]

..."I know her purse was not on her arm the whole time she was there"... You know that for certain. Do you? BTW, suicides are quite often done on impluse without any planning as to how, where or when.:thumbup:

You are right, I was not there so I do not know if her purse was on her shoulder the whole time she was there but common sense and logic tells me it was not. I know that on the jury you have to go by the facts of the case but I believe that you still have to insert some common sense and logic into the equation. I think that is why so many cases end in a hung jury because some people just lack it. JMO

[Staceylee]

[QUOTE=Shooter;12936615]I know a few woman who keep their purses on their shoulders for the entire time they are present. There is a woman who goes to the same hairdresser as me and she keeps her purse on her shoulder while she is getting her hair fixed. She does put it in her lap when he hair is getting washed, but then it is back on her shoulder while her hair is getting set. She has short hair.

I have a sister who keeps her purse on her shoulder 90% of the time.

I can see people doing that but i think it's because they don't want to lose it or for someone to take it but what I am saying is if you are ending your life the purse or its contents are no longer needed unless you have a note in there and Lana did not.

[Staceylee]

Maybe out in public but when you are one of 2 people in a house I just can't see anyone clinging to there purse like that. But, come on you don't really believe that she would have that purse on her shoulder the whole time do you? That purse on her shoulder meant she was ready to go home. Your sister and the lady in the beauty shop, they have a reason to keep an eye on there purse because they are attached to it and it's contents.They may even need something from it in the near future but for someone who is ready to end there life they are not the least bit concerned with it. She did not kill herself, Phil did it.

[Curlyjo]

Maybe out in public but when you are one of 2 people in a house I just can't see anyone clinging to there purse like that. But, come on you don't really believe that she would have that purse on her shoulder the whole time do you? That purse on her shoulder meant she was ready to go home. Your sister and the lady in the beauty shop, they have a reason to keep an eye on there purse because they are attached to it and it's contents.They may even need something from it in the near future but for someone who is ready to end there life they are not the least bit concerned with it. She did not kill herself, Phil did it.

I agree ...she wouldn't need her purse anymore if she was going to kill herself. :smile:

[Tracian]

i guess she didn't feel the need to throw her purse off her shoulder before she put the gun in her mouth. jmo


That makes no sense, IMO.

Why would she have her jacket on, purse on her shoulder, and then rumage around for a gun that she could not even be sure she would find, to shoot herself in the mouth in the home of of all intents and purposes, a stranger?

[Tracian]

First off, I believe he is guilty, but she may have just been searching around and happened to find a gun. I don't think that is what happened, but it is not an illogical theory. It doesn't mean she was searching for a gun, but just happened to find one.


I don't know about some, but I don't go rummaging through some one's house that is hardly more than a stranger to me. Now, I can understand checking out some one's medicine cabient (LOL, Sienfeld episode) but to go through random drawers...that makes very little sense. But for giggles, let's say that is the kind of person she was, she was nosey, I don't see her yanking out a gun, should she stumble upon it, unless she felt threatened.

[Tracian]

how many people leave a loaded gun in their foyer by the front door?


The kind of person that uses it to ensure that their 'guests' are persuaded to stay.

[Tracian]

Didn't the jury foreman say his mother would search in drawers in people's homes? My neighbor does. It's more than being nosey, she looks for items of value.

The jury will decide whether LC was searching in the drawer. They may decide she searched in the drawers looking for money or for items of value, and happened to find a gun.

I can see her yanking out a gun, should she stumble upon it, and not necessarily because she was threatened. Guns are worth money.

I don't believe this happened. I am just giving benefit of argument. Both sides.



I don't think that happened either, in fact, I think it is ridiculous to speculate that Lana was planning to rob PS.

[Tracian]

But that's what the jury might decide.

I don't think it happened, but I don't think it is ridiculous. It does happen.


The only person with a history of being shall we say a bit 'off' is PS.

The jury would have to completely ignore that PS has in the past used guns to keep women in his control; there was nothing offered into evidence that Lana was a petty thief.

[Tracian]

I think he said it during a press conference.


You are referring to juror #10?

[Tracian]

I just want to discuss the case. I am not emotionally involved in this trial, and prefer not to get involved in discussing his mentality. Either he killed her or he didn't. I think he did. I go by the science. The jacket tells me he killed her. It doesn't matter if he is nuts or not.

If she was capable of searching in medicine cabinets and taking drugs, the jury might decide she was capable of searching in drawers. The jury might decide it makes her a "petty thief."


Where did it come out in evidence that she was searching for medications? Sorry, I missed that.

[Curlyjo]

i guess she didn't feel the need to throw her purse off her shoulder before she put the gun in her mouth. jmo

More like put it down so she could do the job right...it might have gotten in her way ... and she would need to concentrate real hard because her wrists are very weak.

[Curlyjo]

I am not sure of my facts here, but wasn't there LC's saliva on his scrotum?

Are we allowed to post a posters post from during the last trial? I have a very interesting one in my draft files.

Maybe she spit at him and said "no way"!!!

[Curlyjo]

Maybe. Then maybe not. She might have had a sexual encounter. I don't know. It doesn't prove anything one way or the other. I think he killed her. I go by the science, and his jacket points to guilt.


I agree he killed her!!!

[Curlyjo]

Do you think he intentionally killed her?

When you have a gun ...by the way a loaded gun...threatening with it then yes I do.

[Curlyjo]

The jury never got to hear or read the transcripts from the police station. But what really gets me is that there were 14 phones and he never called 911. Even a child knows that's what you're supposed to do.

Yes a very young child!!!!

[Curlyjo]

Not calling 911 has nothing to do with the murder. The science is all that matters. I base his guilt on the blood on the jacket.


Not everything in a trial is science...common sense comes into play :smile:

[dref99]

But it has no bearing on the killing. The science is all that matters to me. I like to play with theories, but in the end result he killed her. Its just a question of whether it was accidental or deliberate.

It is as well you are not on the jury - there are a number of very different scientific theories with the prosecution saying the science cannot say who pulled the trigger.

Other issues can suggest that PS pulled the trigger
- An eyewitness saw the gun in his hand
- the was a part print in blood on the gun
- the gun was wiped (difficult for Lana to do that)
- the gun was found by LE under Lana's foot - unlikely that she put it there

and many more issues including

- there were 14 guns in the house
- the gun that killed Lana was owned by PS
- PS spent 40 minutes cleaning up the murder scene
- PS did NOT call 911

The science you watch on television, is not the science of the real world in many instances. If it was, there would never be the need for circumstancial evidence.

The defense used "scientific experts" attempting to prove that Lana must have committed suicide. They also used other evidence to bolster their case

- Lana was suicidal
- intra oral gunshots are 99% suicide
- the driver misheard Spector
- the light was bad
- the fountain was noisy.

A jury has to consider ALL evidence, not just the CSI reports. With some conflicting evidence in one area, and a jury NOT being a collection of scientists who understand every word or nuance, they sometimes use other evidence to help determine their verdict - as they should.


jmo

[dref99]

I do too.

My daughter always keeps her purse on her shoulder. I would think LC would keep it on her shoulder in a stranger's home.

There were only 2 people in that house, of which Lana was no doubt aware. If I am in a public place, or at a large party, I am wary of leaving my purse anywhere, but if I visit a friend's place, with a few folks around, most of whom I know - all of whom the host knows, then no, one does not walk around all the time with a purse on the shoulder. First thing a host would do is suggest you leave the purse wherever ...

Lana had her purse on her shoulder because she wanted to go home - but the door was locked.

jmo

[Curlyjo]

But it has no bearing on the killing. The science is all that matters to me. I like to play with theories, but in the end result he killed her. Its just a question of whether it was accidental or deliberate.

So science has no common sense involved in the results....I don't believe that at all.

[Ellie]

I don't have time to continue my search for the link(s) to the original docs that I found during PS1, but here's a link where an article quotes directly from the original police interview the night Lana was killed.

PLEASE NOTE, specifically, where Spector says "I didn't mean to shoot her". THIS, my friends, is an admission of guilt. Of course he later changes his story to Lana committing suicide.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/11/local/me-spector11

I will continue to look for the link to the original doc and will post it when I find it.

Tick.....tick....tick.....tick.....

[Tracian]

It's considered "bait" to give a different opinion? Isn't this a pro and con board? And I don't think shooter is mcannie or justannie. His/her style is not the same.

As to the "facts," the question of consensual sex was raised at trial. The one detective testified it looked like a setting for a sexual encounter.

If the judge considered it "bashing" the victim," he wouldn't have allowed evidence in about sex or about Clarkson's character.

I don't know why you should get so upset at the suggestion of sex between Spector and Clarkson? There was her DNA on his scrotum: saliva. And the jury will take into consideration Clarkson's character and what her motives were for going home with him..or Fidler wouldn't allow character into evidence.

And since when is the possibility of having "consensual sex" "bashing?" Grow up. :rolleyes:


So much of this could have been cleared up if Spector would have taken the stand and explained what 'happened' that night, but true to form, without a gun in his hand he is a coward.

A lot about Spector was kept out of the trial as well, regarding his character, his continued threats regarding using guns to intiminate people.

As far as Lana, even if she was a person with character flaws, it does not have anything to do with the case, it would have been just a 'bash', to make he less sympathetic a victim.

As far as the possible sexual contact. It could have been consentual, it could have been forced, or it may not have happened, it could have been DNA from her blood.

The fact remains quite simple, only two people know what happened that night, one is dead, the other was to much of a coward to take the stand---oh he was quite brave to bash Lana to friends and on a video tape, but when it counted, he sat there with his bad hair and funky suits and said nothing.

[Ellie]

..... here it is. Please note page 2 specifically...

http://www.courttv.com/trials/spector/docs/report.html?page=2

[oodi1]

What do you mean by "Lana was sighted?"

Meaning Lana was sighted... she was NOT blind.

[Tracian]

She knew what he looked like when she went home with him. :rolleyes:


Yes, she did. It does not, however, mean she planned to have sex with him.

[Ellie]

She knew what he looked like when she went home with him. :rolleyes:

Yep, you're right! She actually thought he was a woman at first, and then her boss at the HOB told her who he was and to treat him "like Dan Akroyd" (meaning like gold). I have absolutely zero doubt that the only reason she went with him was because she thought there was a small possibility that PS might be able to help her further her career (and I wouldn't doubt the possibility of a promise from him to her along these lines either). Sigh. Lana was a beautiful class act.

[Staceylee]

I think the DNA could have got there by him urinating at some point after attempting to clean up the scene. I do not even believe Lana wanted to be there. As I recall she had turned down his invite 3 times before finally giving in and agreeing to go for one drink. I think she only gave in because she was told to treat him like gold. Maybe he scoulded her and she was afraid if she angered him that her employer would be upset. She was ready to go home and he had her trapped in the house. He is a sorry pathic bully of a little man with a big ego who thinks he can abuse females. I think he gets a kick out of it because he is to wimpy to treat men that way. They would break his scrawny little neck. I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe the defense story in this case. It is so far fetched imo.

I wonder if the people who think he is not guilty would spend time alone with him in his home or allow there daughter to.

[penguin01]

Didn't the jury foreman say his mother would search in drawers in people's homes? My neighbor does. It's more than being nosey, she looks for items of value.

The jury will decide whether LC was searching in the drawer. They may decide she searched in the drawers looking for money or for items of value, and happened to find a gun.

I can see her yanking out a gun, should she stumble upon it, and not necessarily because she was threatened. Guns are worth money.

I don't believe this happened. I am just giving benefit of argument. Both sides. I remember the foreman "Ben-10 " saying that about his mother - or it may have been his mother-in-law. He said that she was just curious - NOT that she was looking for items of value. The funny thing was that he said he thought that curiously rooting around in drawers in other people's homes was perfectly normal behavior. Do y'all think so too?

Now what are the odds - or the statistics - that Lana was a person who would root around in drawers in a strangers house - find a gun and spontaneously decide to commit suicide
OR .... an angry PS once again pulling a gun on a "***** or c..." who wouldn't do that he wanted.

[Ellie]

But she did go home with him, and she was the saliva donor on his scrotum.

Spector had something going for him with regards to women. He married Ronnie who is absolutely gorgeous. Have you read her book?She thought he was sexy.

Yep, I did read Ronnie's book and came away with 2 thoughts. 1, Ronnie was sixteen (or thereabouts) when she met Phil. She thought he was sexy because of his power and his talent. Ronnie is still gorgeous, but I seriously doubt she'd say the same thing about Phil right now or 6 years ago (when Phil shot and killed Lana. He hasn't changed much looks-wise since then but has changed completely since 1965). The 2nd thing I came away with was Ronnie knew Phil wanted to help her in her career.... and that he was one of those at that time that could. It was the 60s. Phil probably was somewhat sexy back then, he was talented, he was known, and he had connections. Kind of like Donald Trump. I don't think a lot of women date Donald Trump because he looks like Paul Walker, know what I mean?

As far as the saliva on his scrotum (oh how I CRINGE typing that), that could have been transfer dna. Phil may have gone to the bathroom after touching Lana or somehow getting her dna on his hand, and then touching himself.

I end this posting with a plea to PLEASE READ the police interrogation report that I posted the link to earlier. PS said things TWICE that night that he shot or killed someone. Once to ADS, and once to the police. Aside from allllll of the buckets of other evidence pointing to his guilt, this alone seals the deal for me.

[Tracian]

Are you the leader of the cult of posters who run this board behind the scenes?


I have no idea what you are talking about. There was a poster that supposedly left the board that used ridiculous terms like that when they had nothing intelligent to say, aside from that, I have never heard that term before, or since.

[Ellie]

I don't know what she'd say about his sex appeal now. I know what she said in her book, and I won't even venture a guess as to what she'd say about his sex appeal now. Age has nothing to do with judging sex appeal.

While your post does hold the opinion of some, I highly, highly doubt Lana went home with Phil because she found him attractive. 1, as I said, she thought he was a woman , 2, he had to basically BEG her to go home with him, and 3, Lana was about as aesthetically pleasing as it gets (which I think is why Phil was so determined to get her to go home with him). Nothing against Phil but he just hasn't aged well. I don't think Lana was considering Phil 'boyfriend material'. Also... remember, he pulled the old 'lock her in my castle' routine. Lana wanted to leave.

[Ellie]

Eddie Hayes refered to Lana Clarkson as a "lady of the night" on CTV during the trial. I still have a copy of the show, but don't know how to transfer it to the board. But you can email him if you want to confirm that he said that.

Hmm.. can you elabroate? In what context did he say this, and was he insinuating that Lana was a prostitute?

[Ellie]

I have no idea what you are talking about. There was a poster that supposedly left the board that used ridiculous terms like that when they had nothing intelligent to say, aside from that, I have never heard that term before, or since.

I have never heard this term before either and I've been here since the start of PS1.

PS--Tracian-- send me the notes from last night's InSession Message Board Cult Meeting, will you?:wink:

[Ellie]

I do know this about Ronnie Spector, it was mentioned on CTV during the first trial that Ronnie Spector sent Phil a letter expressing support for his innocence. . She said in the letter that she knew he would never harm anyone. IIRC, it was reported on Jamie Flyod's show. A guest mentioned it on the show.

This may or may not be true but I have a tough time believing she truly feels that way since he basically kept her hostage in their home, she had to literally sneak out without her shoes the day she left, and he kept a gold and glass coffin in the basement for her "in case she ever decided to leave him".

[Tracian]

I have never heard this term before either and I've been here since the start of PS1.

PS--Tracian-- send me the notes from last night's InSession Message Board Cult Meeting, will you?:wink:



you need to offer the secret handshake first :lol:

[Tracian]

This may or may not be true but I have a tough time believing she truly feels that way since he basically kept her hostage in their home, she had to literally sneak out without her shoes the day she left, and he kept a gold and glass coffin in the basement for her "in case she ever decided to leave him".



Regardless of what Ronnie may or may not believe, other women have testified that he could be violent, and has been.

[Tracian]

Aside from there not being any evidence that Lana was engaged in anything illegal, even if she was a call girl, that does not excuse her murder.

[Ellie]

Regardless of what Ronnie may or may not believe, other women have testified that he could be violent, and has been.

Oh yeah, and then there's that! Those what, 5 pesky little PBA witnesses.

[Tracian]

Fact is Phil has used violence to get his way for a long, long time.

imo

Exactly. It seems that his violent nature escaladed through the years, which is not uncommon for those that abuse women.

[Tracian]

Oh yeah, and then there's that! Those what, 5 pesky little PBA witnesses.


And it is not uncommon for women to forgive violence against them.

[Tracian]

did Ronnie or any of the PBA's talk about ANY S&M? No..........

i do love your imagination lol


I never heard anything about S&M offered in court either. :confused:

[Ellie]

Regardless of what the PBA's said, Ronnie Spector said he wouldn't harm anyone. Their testimony doesn't change what Ronnie said. She was married to him, and has insights into his behavior.

Two of the PBA's still went out with him after the so called gun violence.

This bring me to question why they didn't call Ronnie as a character witness? Or Phil's sons? What are your thoughts on that?

[Ellie]

And it is not uncommon for women to forgive violence against them.

And/or just be gladashell they got out alive. (Honestly, a lot of people question why the police were never called when Phil has pulled a gun on a 'guest'. I think if it were me and I was out of the house, in my car and on the way home or even AT home, it wouldn't occur to me. By that time I'd just be glad I was as far away as possible. And I don't think LE could do much anyway... it becomes 'he said she said' at some point and all they'd do is warn the offender. I think.)

[Tracian]

And/or just be gladashell they got out alive. (Honestly, a lot of people question why the police were never called when Phil has pulled a gun on a 'guest'. I think if it were me and I was out of the house, in my car and on the way home or even AT home, it wouldn't occur to me. By that time I'd just be glad I was as far away as possible. And I don't think LE could do much anyway... it becomes 'he said she said' at some point and all they'd do is warn the offender. I think.)


You're right. Also PS celebrity could have been another factor that intimidated the victims of his PBAs.

[eagleeer]

You'd need to ask the defense that question.

Why may I ask are you here? Is it because you have been banned so many times? You sound remarkeably like a few posters who are not here any longer. New nic different day????

[Ellie]

Pay attention and you won't be :confused : It is my inference based on the PBA testimony!

Whoa. Apparently this went from a respectful, thoughtul debate to condescension and size 5 font! FWIW, I think your inference is so off base it's not even in the ball park.

[Tracian]

my strawmen?
i never said you said they did i ASK a question hints the ?

why wouldn't they admit to S&M? it's not against the law.....i freely and willingly admit i'm very submissive.

and IMO PS's not involved with S&M or BDSM or anything like that....IF he was he would know how to control his temper...... JMHO


bolding:

I agree, and with all the other ridiculous scenarios that the defense put on, that would have been at the top of the list if someone would have thought of it.

[hiitsme]

Why may I ask are you here? Is it because you have been banned so many times? You sound remarkeably like a few posters who are not here any longer. New nic different day????

So obvious and sad. I do not believe for one second that Lana's morality or sex life will be mentioned in that jury room. They will see her as a victim along with the other women who had guns held to their faces by this maniac.

[Ellie]

oh please it was not saliva, it was blood


That is exactly what I was wondering!! Thanks for clarifying that for me!

[Tracian]

If Spector thought people were stealing from him, he could have called the police and filed a report. Also, if it seems to me he is a bit paranoid, because it seems he believed 6 women were stealing things from him, so he finally got mad and killed the last one...

Not a stable character, IMO.

[Tracian]

The DNA on Spector's scrotum was from Lana, he had her blood on his hands, therefore when he went potty, it is a fair assumption like most males, he had to take aim, if you will...thus the transfer.

[Velouria]

Eddie Hayes refered to Lana Clarkson as a "lady of the night" on CTV during the trial. I still have a copy of the show, but don't know how to transfer it to the board. But you can email him if you want to confirm that he said that.

Dear little Eddie. He really should quit tying those neckties so tightly and return the bloodflow to his brain one of these days... The man is BFFs with Bruce Cutler. 'Nuff said.

[oodi1]

Posters said he may have got the DNA on his scrotum when he "urninated." So did he urinate blood?


There was testimony that there was blood in his pants pocket from putting his hand in there. I think he reached into his pocket, and scratched his crotch (you know how guys are) and the blood dna transferred that way.

[Ellie]

Posters said he may have got the DNA on his scrotum when he "urninated." So did he urinate blood?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Where are you coming from? What WHY? was saying is that the origin of the dna on Spector's scrotum (cringe) was from Lana's blood.

Don't be argumentative just to be argumentative. It completely defeats the purpose of even posting.

[Ellie]

The DNA on Spector's scrotum was from Lana, he had her blood on his hands, therefore when he went potty, it is a fair assumption like most males, he had to take aim, if you will...thus the transfer.

Exactly and I AM SPENDING ENTIRELY TOO MUCH TIME THINKING ABOUT THIS "PART" OF PHIL SPECTOR!!!! MAKE IT STOP!!! :laugh:

[Velouria]

it was blood. he has blood on his hands from trying to clean her face wtih the rag. he went to urinate and the DNA got on his scrotum...

Exactly, Angel! But I'm afraid it's a losing cause to try and explain the process of DNA transfer to those who refuse to see. :shrug:

[Ellie]

Where are you coming from? Why? said it was not saliva, it was blood.

Copy of his post:

#251 03-27-2009, 02:01 PM
Why?
Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 256

Quote:
Originally Posted by jane1982
But she did go home with him, and she was the saliva donor on his scrotum.

Spector had something going for him with regards to women. He married Ronnie who is absolutely gorgeous. Have you read her book?She thought he was sexy.

oh please it was not saliva, it was blood
__________________
Why? always JMHO
Ya can't argue with an idiot........one of my favorite quotes.....

No, Jane1982. YOU said that Lana was the 'donor of the saliva on Spector's scrotum'. WHY? said that it wasn't saliva, it was blood. YOU came back with a question about PS urinating blood. I am assuming YOU are calling the dna found on Spector's scrotum saliva, as saliva, unless wet, probably isn't easy to spot or swab for. WHY? then clarified any question about the ORIGIN of said "saliva" (which is apparently what we're calling the dna) NOT being from "saliva" but from blood.

Follow me now? You had me when you had valid points, now I'm bored.

[kennedy06]

His first wife was very pretty, a petite blonde. There is a picture of her in TDW of S. She was also on a story about him, she was older of course but she looked like a pleasant down to earth woman. JMO

[hiitsme]

maybe she (shelle) loves him? :tonguewag:

I bet even you, don't believe that one!:laugh:

[Ellie]

Don't drain it. Hang loose! He said it was blood, not saliva, and the "urinating" comment of mine was "sarcasm."

Follow me now? You had me when you had valid points, now I'm bored.


Now you're not even making sense! :laugh: (I know you are but what am I?) Too funny.

[dreamlawyer]

One thing is for sure Chelle loves his money!!!!:drool:

[Tracian]

i think lana was disgusted with herself for going home with an old man and letting him touch her.

she took her own life. jmo


There is no proof he touched her in any way; further there is no proof that if he did 'touch' her, she was receptive to it.

[Tracian]

But there's proof she touched him. His scrotum. He must have had a busy day: not only was her DNA on his scrotum, but the DNA of two males.


Not really, the DNA could have been tranfer, he had her blood on his hands, that could be the source of the DNA.

[hiitsme]

"Do you really think that he wanted to prevent Lana Clarkson from leaving because he wanted to be serviced yet another time?" Kenney-Baden said. "Phil Spector's DNA on Lana Clarkson's nipple and Lana Clarkson's DNA on Phil Spector's scrotum. Need I say more?"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09072007/news/regionalnews/phil_had_enough_lana_sex.htm

What a disgusting, crass statement. You are surely not suggesting that this is "evidence". Only PS knows the sequence of events, and it would have been oh so simple for him to get up there and explain the horror of watching someone commit suicide. Oops, I forgot, he would also have to explain his compassionate gesture of wiping her face with a diaper, alter the crime scene, and neglect to call 911.

[hiitsme]

It's reasoonable doubt, based on the sexual overtones of the DNA.

If only Spector knows the "sequence of events," that hasn't stopped AJ from suggesting a sequence of events--and well it shouldn't. Nobody was at the scene of the shooting either, but that hasn't stopped most from giving their opinion.

Why would he need to explain a "compassionate gesture?" A "compassionate gesture" is what it is: a "compassionate "gesture." The term speaks for itself.

Not calling 911 doesn't make him the shooter. It just shows his "neglect" to call 911. "Neglect" doesn't equate shooter. One has nothing to do with the other.

All I'll say is that I obviously used the word compassionate facetiously! I would also venture to say that most people who just witnessed a suicide don't turn into a "Merry Maid" before calling for help.
Definite conscienceness of guilt. MOO

[Ellie]

If ever I am a defendant, I have the right NOT to take the stand in my own defense. I respect this right for EVERY defendant in this country, regardless of the crime the defendant is accused of committing.

JMO


If I were accused of a crime I did not commit, I'd take that stand in a New York minute and proclaim my innocence. IMO, PS's attys don't want him to take the stand for fear he'd say something to incriminate himself.

[eagleeer]

What a disgusting, crass statement. You are surely not suggesting that this is "evidence". Only PS knows the sequence of events, and it would have been oh so simple for him to get up there and explain the horror of watching someone commit suicide. Oops, I forgot, he would also have to explain his compassionate gesture of wiping her face with a diaper, alter the crime scene, and neglect to call 911.

Exactly, the crux of the whole trial and "I think I killed someone."

[eagleeer]

i think lana was disgusted with herself for going home with an old man and letting him touch her.

she took her own life. jmo

You are really outdoing yourself today Shooter, that is maybe the most lame thing I have seen you post yet. Debating with you is like debating with a block of wood.

[hiitsme]

I know what the testimony was.... and the testimony doesn't matter. The fact is that the possibility that any sexual contact happened by force and/or gunpoint is completely being ignored. NONE of the testimony stated that any sexual contact was determined to be consensual.


Excellent post! Thanks, Oodi.

[eagleeer]

Mcannie/kmal, enough already. You were proven incorrect at least 10 times this week on this illogical thinking you are forever stuck on. Everyone knows your game now. Flood the thread and get it closed. I've alerted CW before you achieve that only goal in your life.

:rolleyes:
Good point, that poster has more names than an Arabian Sheikh.

[hiitsme]

Are you tring to "run me off the board?" You keep following nics, and finding mcannie behind every nic! ! That is considered stalking and harassing!

Before this post of yours refering to me as Mcannie and your threat that you alerted Coldwater and after this post of yours, all of my posts have been on topic. Alert her for what? For giving a different opinion on the sexual encounter and finding reasonable doubt that differs from yours?

Is this not a pro and con board? CW best settle this: is it pro and con or not? If it is only pro prosecution, then I will no longer give a different opinion. I will just have my account terminated if only pro opinions are acceptable

You had your account terminated as Shanna1970, the only poster who informed everyone of your decision on the open forum.

[hiitsme]

Spot on!!!

I would venture to bet that the only diaper most of us have ever dipped in a toilet, was one that was soiled by our children when they were babies. It would certainly never occur to me to dip anything in a toilet to wipe the wounds or provide any kind of aid to someone in need.

Absolutely! If one lived in a castle, wouldn't you think there would at least be hand towels near the toilet? No, PS decides to retrieve a diaper to wipe his prints off his murder weapon, then dunks it in the toilet to wipe Lana's face as a compassionate gesture!

[coinoutlet]

How does having two male's DNA on his scrotum change the fact LC's DNA was on his scrotum. His DNA was on her "nipple." Sounds like consensual sex to me.

Sounds to me like Harvey must touch both make and female private parts as part of his sick lust

[coinoutlet]

Yes, the testimony does matter! It's a matter of whether you believe it or not. The defense contends it was consensual. The inference drawn from LC's DNA on his scrotum and his DNA on her nipple is the sex was consensual. The word "consensual" needn't be stated, the overtones of the DNA tells me it was consensual. It's an "inference" drawn.

The defense team contends it was consensual. I found Jayne's post to very enlightening regarding "hanky-panky" going on between them. I do disagree with Jayne's comment about "networking. " I find it harsh, as, imo, "networking" implies she was a prostitute. I don't think Ms. Clarkson was a prostitute. Sex on a first night does not a prostitute make!

Must have been consensual with the 2 males also