Phil Spector closing arguments begin today

[lmercer]

Closing arguments begin today, could get verdict by the end of the week. Does anyone no of a local channel broadcasting this , that we could watch online? Let's hope for the right verdict this time.
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gentleeyes]

There was mention just prior to Banfield and Ford: Courtside that there would be discussion about the the Spector closing arguments. I assumed by it that perhaps we might be able to see the closing arguments? I guess I will just have to see....:unsure:

[lmercer]

I bet his shaken hands are really going to be shaken when he knows he is goin to the big house!!!!!!:lol:

[jusdafacts]

Sprocket's Blog:

Closing Arguments Day 1 (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2009/03/phil-spector-retrial-closing-arguments.html)

[dref99]

It seems CW closed the last thread - so for those who did not see the great posts by My 2 Cents - here are the links.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=11
Post #518 #522 #534

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=12
Post #555 #599

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=13

Post #602 #603

[bearwds]

It seems CW closed the last thread - so for those who did not see the great posts by My 2 Cents - here are the links.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=11
Post #518 #522 #534

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=12
Post #555 #599

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527&page=13

Post #602 #603

****************************

Thanx dref. No idea why previous Board closed abruptly. Well within TOS and count..<sigh>

DW gets his shot (so to speak) this morning. IF he is ready.

Wonder if instead of "shifting sands", he will show quicksand as this defense is showing that sucking sound.

A shout out to "2-Cents" for info as well as T/T.


bearwds

[GPSpector]

Just like the shifting sand dunes, these pages move too, :rolleyes:

Great coverage M2¢ :thumbsup:. Thank you very much. Now to check out Sprocket.

[logbump]

Not that it matters, but it appears the previous thread was simply merged with "not guilty" thread. It's not closed.

[dref99]

****************************

Thanx dref. No idea why previous Board closed abruptly. Well within TOS and count..<sigh>

DW gets his shot (so to speak) this morning. IF he is ready.

Wonder if instead of "shifting sands", he will show quicksand as this defense is showing that sucking sound.

A shout out to "2-Cents" for info as well as T/T.


bearwds

It is as well we have bloggers - and friends in court. Seems a little unfair to me (but then life ain't fair) that when things get interesting, the MSM get preference in seating in court. I'm so glad they all got in to hear the closing (and passed on the detail).

There is a posting from Joe Friday as well
http://losangelestrials.blogspot.com/

[dref99]

Not that it matters, but it appears the previous thread was simply merged with "not guilty" thread. It's not closed.

I only see 2 pages on the "not guilty" thread & I've learned that I don't want to go there. :unsure: This was the last thread as far as I know - so if you are looking for other links or the latest posting, that is where they are.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=350527

[logbump]

Thanks dref99. Wish we could see Weinberg live. How will he follow up Do?

[oodi1]

I'm in the middle of reading Sprockets blog.... the part about Gran Torino. I wonder how many in the courtroom saw the movie to make the connection, and see the irony in it.

[bearwds]

Just like the shifting sand dunes, these pages move too, :rolleyes:

Great coverage M2¢ :thumbsup:. Thank you very much. Now to check out Sprocket.

*************************

Hey Gary...!! Read "T/T'...now over to Joe..har

...:seeya: ..in passing.


bearwds

[dref99]

Thanks dref99. Wish we could see Weinberg live. How will he follow up Do?

With difficulty, I would think - but if you saw LKB in trial 1, she was leaden and reading from handwritten notes for 6 hours - I think she lost everyone and certainly didn't reference the opening "the science will prove" - but there were still a couple of folks who thought there was doubt.

jmo

[oodi1]

I've seen it 3 times. He never waved a loaded gun that accidentally went off?

I didn't hear what TD said, so I'm not sure what part of the movie was being described. BTW... that isn't the "irony" I was talking about.

[Mr. Moto2]

Finally. I can't believe this trial is winding down. Not much media coverage this time around. Do you think there will be a conviction now? Most retrials end in conviction, don't they?

[lmercer]

Yes they do, but anything goes with a California jury.
GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Daisy]

The length of this trial is ridiculous.

Thanks my2cents for your stellar reporting!
~Daisy

[Daisy]

In CA is the order of closing arguments, Prosecution / Defense / Prosecution Rebuttal? I can't recall.

TIA
~Daisy

[oodi1]

What was the irony that would be reflected in Gran Torino? Sorry, I'm a little slow today.

TD being Vietnamese, and referencing a movie about a Vietnamese family.

[Curlyjo]

TD being Vietnamese, and referencing a movie about a Vietnamese family.

But of course....dahhhhhh:smile: Thank you for reminding us.

[Dave]

In CA, is the order of closing arguments, Prosecution / Defense / Prosecution Rebuttal?



Yes, that's the order. Alan Jackson will have the last word.

[logbump]

Did M2C make it there today? I'd love a lunch break update!

[totallyBARD]

Unbelievably excellent CA by Truc! Same accolade for Sprocket's reporting!!!!!!!!

[True2Blues]

Yes, that's the order. Alan Jackson will have the last word.



'Don't go!'

[Anakerie]

'Don't go!'
OMG... I remember him saying that in PS1's closings. I got goosebumps when he said it! I wonder if he will say it again...............

[lmercer]

I know, of all the trials I have watched (I am a ctv junkie) Alan Jackson is one of the best lawyers I have ever seen.

[oodi1]

I know, of all the trials I have watched (I am a ctv junkie) Alan Jackson is one of the best lawyers I have ever seen.


I agree!!! Which is why it is so disappointing that they chose not to air PS2.

[hiitsme]

I agree!!! Which is why it is so disappointing that they chose not to air PS2.

Another admirer here. I'm sure he will come through beautifully with his rebuttal. He and Truc compliment each other and are such articulate, classy prosecutors.

[My 2 Cents]

Well . . . I tried!

I took the EARLY, EARLY MetroLink into court today. Arrived BRIGHT and EARLY, to join a few "regulars" already there outside Courtroom 106. No one from the courtroom shows up to let anyone in and by 9:25am - 1 1/2 hours later, there are a lot of people wanting to get in. The "PR" people for court show up and decide to DRAW NUMBERS. (I personally thought this was a LOUSY IDEA. I thought it seemed FAIR to let the "1st come, 1st serve" rule take it's course. i.e. - those in front of the line, have the first crack at the available seats. Those waiting for 1 1/2 - 2 hours and not people trickling in at 9:30, 9:35am have the same chance at getting in.) But nobody asked me.

1st they let in EVERYONE saying they are there for the defense. Fans, Lookie-loos, doesn't matter if they're expected or a friend of the family, THEY ALL GET IN. Before the courtroom "PR" people arrived, Spector friend, ANITA TALBERT walks right up to FRONT of line, where people had been waiting for over an hour and stands there, BUTTS in front. People address her - advise her - "there's a line lady". She replies, "I'm with the defense side, it doesn't matter, we won't be sitting on the same side of the courtroom" . . . ANITA, HOW DOES THAT MAKE IT OK FOR YOU TO WALK TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE AND BUTT RIGHT IN? THAT IS COMPLETELY RUDE. If the defense side gets allowed in, fine, until then - be an adult and wait in line behind the patient 25 people who arrived here before you.

ANYWAY - long story short . . . I don't get in. (I don't even have a ride home for awhile as I took the train and none leave until later this afternoon.) :sad:

Not to worry - SPOCKET got in, so you will get your coverage. (The "PR" court people then ask for the 3 "bloggers" and let them in. Whoaa . . . Sprocket, Linda (San Diego) & Sherri get escorted in. Ok, well ONE of those 3 people blog, BUT THEY EACH DESERVE A SEAT. ALL 3 ARE THERE ALMOST DAILY FOR 5-6 MONTHS. So I was very glad they got seats. Those 3 received seats AFTER the courtroom "PR" let in a TON OF MEDIA - no one has been interested in reporting on this case for 5 months AND NOW THEY DECIDE THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THE TRIAL. Everyone with a laminated badge is let inside. Oh brother. I DON'T GET MY NUMBER PICKED. A lady that walks up as they're in the process of picking numbers, asks if she can still get a number - - - what luck - HER NUMBER is the NEXT NUMBER SELECTED. Lovely.

A little later - Frieda (Louis Spector's friend) comes out and talks to the "PR" court person. She asks if she can exchange HER SEAT and let ME sit in it for awhile, so I can go in instead. WASN'T THAT THE NICEST THING?
I told her, "No, way - I'm not letting you do that (thank you though). BUT FRIEDA - if you're reading this THANK YOU SO MUCH - WHAT A THOUGHTFUL GESTURE. I told the "PR" courtroom door guards "Can I sit on her lap, and share a seat?" (I was kidding of course) and laughed. Frieda said, "SHE CAN!, IT'S OK" ha, ha I pointed out that since Frieda is a teeny, tiny thing - it should be HER that sits on MY LAP. ha, ha . . . I am sure we were NOT amusing the "PR" gal. LOL.

Here are some of the people that I noticed arrive:

Nili with the Clarkson Family. Donte is here today, as is Louis Spector and Frieda. A TON of press and the ABC POOL camera is here. Aphrodite Jones (yeah, she gets in - she writes BOOKS, and she's NOT writing one about this case because she's only has come a couple of times) LINDA KENNEY BADEN is here today. I thought she had "a face lift" . . . I change my mind. I don't think she did - looks the same. A guy that was here yesterday that looks just like "David Cosby" is here. He lasts about 10 minutes and then he splits.

At break - ONLY FEEDBACK I COULD GET FROM ANYONE (because most people DON'T LEAVE because aren't guaranteed seat) regarding my question to them "HOW IS IT GOING" . . . Answer: BORING.

Before court started, I heard that the defense brought in a BIG CRATE. And what could be inside? . . . I heard it is none other that the CHAIR that Lana died in. OH BROTHER - the jury has seen it. Enough with the chair. IMO, it's just a reminder to the JURY, now that they've been to Spector's house - that HE STILL HAS THOSE SAME TWO MATCHING CHAIRS IN HIS HOUSE. SEES THEM EVERYDAY THAT HE EXITS TO LEAVE. Who would keep them? What a HORRIBLE REMINDER. Don't be so cheap - buy 2 DIFFERENT chairs to go in the foyer.

Can you tell I'm CRANKY because I didn't get in? :biggrin:

[oodi1]

Yes it does stink! Oh well... thanks for trying M2C!

[Anakerie]

M2C, I would be cranky too!!! Maybe someone will get bored enough to leave and you can get inside!

ETA: So the early "reviews" of Weinberg's closing is "Boring"? LOL! Somehow that does not surprise me....:laugh:

[lmercer]

I am so surprised that none of the California TV stations are not showing any of this as sensational as it is.

[nanouk]

M2C

You could have pretended you changed your mind about Harvey's guilt and got in with the defense side...

Na.....

Nanouk

[kennedy06]

That was good of you to try my2c, thank you. They may not get to AJ to tomorrow. Oh you write for us you should have been given a seat I know you are kind but.....Thanks:smile: Maybe after lunch time someone will give you their seat that has to leave.

[lmercer]

:confused: What??????????????

[oodi1]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm... ok. :ohmy:

[lmercer]

Excuse me, Ms. Lynch. This forum is about the PHIL SPECTOR retrial. Not about your difficulties. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own on Open Court or one of the other areas.

:thumbsup: I AGREE

[Curlyjo]

Excuse me, Ms. Lynch. This forum is about the PHIL SPECTOR retrial. Not about your difficulties. Perhaps you should start a thread of your own on Open Court or one of the other boards. Your difficulties have NOTHING to do with the retrial.
:rolleyes:


I agree lets stay on topic

[spydernweb2006]

Ms Lynch do you have any idea why the defense didnt call you as a witness in the trial? The DA could not stop the defense from issuing you a supeona if you truly had any info that would help Phil Spector's case. You claim on all your posts here and in other places that you have info on this case so why werent you called to testify under oath?

Not being arguemative just curious

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[True2Blues]

Is this still the PS thread or have we moved on to "This is your life?"
I came to see if there were any updates on closings.

[hiitsme]

Is this still the PS thread or have we moved on to "This is your life?"
I came to see if there were any updates on closings.

OMG, too funny! I needed a laugh today. Thanks!:laugh:

[gmiller]

Can't we all agree to ignore this poster... her motives are pretty clear. So let's drag this one out of the ditch before this thread closes too.

[True2Blues]

I do not think I could live in the house if I murdered someone or if someone was murdered in my house. It is probably a mood enhancer for him. :cursing:

I wouldn't doubt that a bit.

[Curlyjo]

I do not think I could live in the house if I murdered someone or if someone was murdered in my house. It is probably a mood enhancer for him. :cursing:

Yikes...just the thought:ohmy: Some people buy murder memorabilia … he as his very own.

[gmiller]

Yikes...just the thought:ohmy: Some people buy murder memorabilia … he as his very own.

I know, whenever I hear about "murderobelia" I cringe! Hopefully the jury will, at the very least be weirded out that Spector hasn't moved from the home where he saw a woman dead in a foyer.

IMHO I don't think anyone with a conscience could walk past that area without thinking about what transpired that night.

[Curlyjo]

I know, whenever I hear about "murderobelia" I cringe! Hopefully the jury will, at the very least be weirded out that Spector hasn't moved from the home where he saw a woman dead in a foyer.

IMHO I don't think anyone with a conscience could walk past that area without thinking about what transpired that night.

No kidding...I wonder how the jurors felt going there?

[True2Blues]

I know, whenever I hear about "murderobelia" I cringe! Hopefully the jury will, at the very least be weirded out that Spector hasn't moved from the home where he saw a woman dead in a foyer.

IMHO I don't think anyone with a conscience could walk past that area without thinking about what transpired that night.


"Anyone with a conscience" being the point here.

[kipswife]

I know, whenever I hear about "murderobelia" I cringe! Hopefully the jury will, at the very least be weirded out that Spector hasn't moved from the home where he saw a woman dead in a foyer.

IMHO I don't think anyone with a conscience could walk past that area without thinking about what transpired that night.

I can see rachelle giving tours after ps gets convicted. wont surprise me if she does.
I guess when this is finally over, I will have to get a life. oh well....

m

[Anakerie]

I can see rachelle giving tours after ps gets convicted. wont surprise me if she does.
I guess when this is finally over, I will have to get a life. oh well....

m
Life? You mean we're supposed to have one of those? Think maybe I can find one on ebay? Cheap? :laugh:

Seriously though, I keep hoping that M2C will be able to get into the courtroom this afternoon... It's fantastic to have more than one "blogger" posting the events that are going on inside that courtroom.

[lmercer]

The thing is PS is a legend in his own mind, can you just IMAGINE how he will fare in prison:laugh:

[kipswife]

The thing is PS is a legend in his own mind, can you just IMAGINE how he will fare in prison:laugh:

I can imagine alright......puts a smile on my face when I think about how he will do in prison. that may be some measure of justice

[lmercer]

:thumbsup: PERFECT!!!

[lmercer]

Hey all did anyone hear yet how that witness Diane Ogden died in Dec. I was dumbfounded when I heard that yesterday, she was a great witness in the first trial and she was young, they were not saying how she died, I wonder if PS had a hand in that????????????????

[Curlyjo]

Hey all did anyone hear yet how that witness Diane Ogden died in Dec. I was dumbfounded when I heard that yesterday, she was a great witness in the first trial and she was young, they were not saying how she died, I wonder if PS had a hand in that????????????????

Most of what I read is "she died in her sleep of undetermined causes" but I ran across this site...first time I ever heard this from a news organization. http://www.newsday.com/topic/la-me-philspector-2008sep17,0,116138.story

[gmiller]

Hey all did anyone hear yet how that witness Diane Ogden died in Dec. I was dumbfounded when I heard that yesterday, she was a great witness in the first trial and she was young, they were not saying how she died, I wonder if PS had a hand in that????????????????

Yes, she passed away of an accidental prescription drug overdose. The autopsy conclusion was accidentally released onto the internet (by the state, IIRC).

RIP Dianne Ogden

[True2Blues]

Yes, she passed away of an accidental prescription drug overdose. The autopsy conclusion was accidentally released onto the internet (by the state, IIRC).

RIP Dianne Ogden


That was a shock and a shame, she seemed like a such a nice person. Thank goodness her testimony was captured on tape, because it was very powerful.

[oodi1]

wow the link says accidential overdose :( i didn't know that. I just hear BK say the other day say she had died of Natural causes.


I heard her say the same thing... twice. :confused:

[Anakerie]

The thing is PS is a legend in his own mind, can you just IMAGINE how he will fare in prison:laugh:
I don't think Phil would fare well in prison. I mean he would have to deal with:


No body guard to accompany him everywhere. (Unless he gets a "buddy" in prison.)
No "trial bride" to prop him up as he walks from his cell to the mess hall or rec yard.
No driver to drive him to local bars and clubs. Err.. No bars and clubs at all.
NO alcohol. (Unless he buddies up with someone that makes the homegrown hooch.)
No wig.
No shoes with lifts.
No fancy food.
Etc, Etc, Etc.

[spydernweb2006]

I don't think Phil would fare well in prison. I mean he would have to deal with:


No body guard to accompany him everywhere. (Unless he gets a "buddy" in prison.)
No "trial bride" to prop him up as he walks from his cell to the mess hall or rec yard.
No driver to drive him to local bars and clubs. Err.. No bars and clubs at all.
NO alcohol. (Unless he buddies up with someone that makes the homegrown hooch.)
No wig.
No shoes with lifts.
No fancy food.
Etc, Etc, Etc.



I think the hardest thing for Phil IF he ever went to Prison would be that he woud loose the right and ability to do anything HIS WAY. For an older person who has had everythng done his way for years thats a huge thing to overcome, and I dont see Phil acclimating easily.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

[Anakerie]

I think the hardest thing for Phil IF he ever went to Prison would be that he woud loose the right and ability to do anything HIS WAY. For an older person who has had everythng done his way for years thats a huge thing to overcome, and I dont see Phil acclimating easily.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder
I agree with you there. Phil's been able to have everything his way for so many years, and to have everything done for him by others, I have a feeling he's going to be lost when he first settles in.

[True2Blues]

I think the hardest thing for Phil IF he ever went to Prison would be that he woud loose the right and ability to do anything HIS WAY. For an older person who has had everythng done his way for years thats a huge thing to overcome, and I dont see Phil acclimating easily.

JMHO

Hugs,
Spyder

The loss of control will be the hardest for him, I agree. I can't think of anyone who deserves it more.

[Curlyjo]

The wall of sound will take on a whole new meaning....... mommy.... come and get me... i'm sorry i was so mean to you.... help me mommy

LOL .... I got a visual...:laugh:

[newsjunkie]

I agree with you there. Phil's been able to have everything his way for so many years, and to have everything done for him by others, I have a feeling he's going to be lost when he first settles in.

I hope if he is found guilty. make that when, that they don't let him have bail until sentencing.
I don't think he will ever end up in jail if they do that.

[gmiller]

I learned of all of this so long ago that I hope that I am recalling how all of this went down accurately. From my recollection, Her cause of death was accidentally released. It all started when the prosecution tried to get her testimony admitted into evidence to use in this trial. The state had to provide evidence to the court as to why Ms. Ogden wouldn't be able to in PS2. They submitted to the court a copy of her death certificate. Her death certificate relayed the cause and manner of death and THIS was leaked onto a the net. WE ...the public were never meant to view this due to privacy issues. It was pulled within 24 hours of being released.

Does anyone else recall this? I cannot believe BK said she died of natural causes:ohmy:

[tartangirl]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/last-words-from-phil-spectors/

[Curlyjo]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/last-words-from-phil-spectors/

Thank you and I can't wait to hear from M2C and sprocket. :thumbup:

[oodi1]

I learned of all of this so long ago that I hope that I am recalling how all of this went down accurately. From my recollection, Her cause of death was accidentally released. It all started when the prosecution tried to get her testimony admitted into evidence to use in this trial. The state had to provide evidence to the court as to why Ms. Ogden wouldn't be able to in PS2. They submitted to the court a copy of her death certificate. Her death certificate relayed the cause and manner of death and THIS was leaked onto a the net. WE ...the public were never meant to view this due to privacy issues. It was pulled within 24 hours of being released.

Does anyone else recall this? I cannot believe BK said she died of natural causes:ohmy:

BK said it once in the morning when she was on with Lisa Bloom, then again in the afternoon when she was on Ford and Banfield.

[tartangirl]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD974LKSG1

[Daisy'sMom]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD974LKSG1


I just get angry when I hear about the garbage that spews from Weinberg's mouth. Anyone that can twist the truth to make it look like an innocent victim is her own murderer is not a decent man. I don't see him meeting his maker when his time comes.

[True2Blues]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD974LKSG1


As far as I recall, none of the defense pay to say experts laid out irrefutable evidence that proved Lana shot herself. Certainly none was reported. Several were proven to be liars, some to be basing their testimony only on chosen bits of evidence, while ignoring anything that was inconvenient, yes. Still, he has to try.

[dref99]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g93Q_UR0CRpFh-FS-4UbHXxI-dvAD974LKSG1

Well goodness me - Did anyone see the size of Linda
Deutsch's report yesterday.

Size today 563 words 2778 characters
Size yesterday 152 words 751 characters

Now why would she want to report so much more of the defense detail?

Here is one link to yesterday's article. Many web links seemed to carry Harriet Ryan's report - so I don't find alot of links for the AP one
http://www.examiner.com/a-1920503~Prosecution_gives_final_arguments_in_Spect or_trial.html

jmo

[Daisy'sMom]

Well goodness me - Did anyone see the size of Linda
Deutsch's report yesterday.

Size today 563 words 2778 characters
Size yesterday 152 words 751 characters

Now why would she want to report so much more of the defense detail?

Here is one link to yesterday's article. Many web links seemed to carry Harriet Ryan's report - so I don't find alot of links for the AP one
http://www.examiner.com/a-1920503~Prosecution_gives_final_arguments_in_Spect or_trial.html

jmo

I have always considered Linda Deutsch to be pro defense.:thumbdown:

[tartangirl]

Well goodness me - Did anyone see the size of Linda
Deutsch's report yesterday.

Size today 563 words 2778 characters
Size yesterday 152 words 751 characters

Now why would she want to report so much more of the defense detail?

Here is one link to yesterday's article. Many web links seemed to carry Harriet Ryan's report - so I don't find alot of links for the AP one
http://www.examiner.com/a-1920503~Prosecution_gives_final_arguments_in_Spect or_trial.html

jmo


Linda D...We know where her heart lies...:wink:


Jane Velez Mitchell to talk about PS case soon on the HdlnNews station that Nancy Grace is also on. It is on right now.



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

[dref99]

That stinks. Thanks for the report though.

How incredibly disappointing. Given I have just read one of the reports from the MSM, I have no idea why they are given preference over anyone else.

TO My 2 Cents

Thank you for the walk by on who was around - you are just amazing - your report that you couldn't get into the trial is so much more interesting than a report from a senior journalist who didn't have to stand in line.

I am still completely lost as to how a trial can last 6 months with the defense based on a suicide that is technically impossible and psychologically more so.

jmo

[Dave]

If you watched the segment about Spector on Jane Velez Mitchell's show, did you notice that neither she or any of her three guests even knew whether or not Punkin Pie testified in Spector's retrial?

Mitchell does yell quite well, though.

[kennedy06]

Dave I just came on to tell them also. Can you believe they didn't know PP didn't take the stand this time around.So that one guy isn't he the head of the Guardian Angels? Oh the guardian angel guy (?) (Curtis) says if PS was off the streets he would be considered crazy (paraphrasing!) (not wealthy)

[Dave]

Yes, that was Curtis Sliwa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Sliwa

[Anakerie]

Linda D...We know where her heart lies...:wink:


Jane Velez Mitchell to talk about PS case soon on the HdlnNews station that Nancy Grace is also on. It is on right now.



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


I just watched what Jane Velez Mitchel and her panel had to say about Phil and the trial and I was surprised! They actually made me laugh today... Particularly about the rest of the actors and actresses in Hollyweird that are working as waiters and waitresses. They're right, most actors and actresses are NOT working full time. All I have to do is ask my stepbrother. It's no wonder he's running a successful landscape design business now. He got tired of being constantly on the lookout for a part in a movie or TV show...

[logbump]

A trial like this is like a carcass...pulls in the flies and vultures for the end.:scared:

[kennedy06]

I was a little shocked JVM called PP the turncoat friend! Oh well at least Head Line News / JVM are covering it. More than most are doing.

[tartangirl]

If you watched the segment about Spector on Jane Velez Mitchell's show, did you notice that neither she or any of her three guests even knew whether or not Punkin Pie testified in Spector's retrial?

Mitchell does yell quite well, though.


I sat there shaking my head at them. I little bit of homework would have made them at least seem credible to some degree...:huh:


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

[kennedy06]

I like the one guy, well my friend went to court but I didn't talk to him yet!

[gmiller]

I usually don't watch JVM because she yells and I end up with a headache:rolleyes: I'll have to watch when she repeats later tonight though. Perhaps the Monday morning quarterbacking (on the media's part) means we'll get to see Phil's face when the jury comes back with a guilty verdict:biggrin:

[lmercer]

Does any one know for sure, I think manslaughter is on the table this time, where as it was not the first time.

[gmiller]

Yes, Involuntary Manslaughter is on the table this time around...so it is most likely he will be found guilty of something. Frankly, IVMS is to good for him!

[sunstar]

I was a little shocked JVM called PP the turncoat friend! Oh well at least Head Line News / JVM are covering it. More than most are doing.

Hi! :seeya: I haven't posted during this 2nd trial because there isn't any tv coverage, so I've just been reading, but I watched JVM's show tonight and was really surprised to see video of Truc Do's closing argument!

Is there any video coverage online?

[lmercer]

I do not think so,I have been searching as well, I cannot believe tru tv did not cover this, the first trial they had their biggest ratings! You have to wonder about some of these execs.

[Anakerie]

Does any one know for sure, I think manslaughter is on the table this time, where as it was not the first time.
Yes, the jury will have a choice of Murder 2 or Involuntary Manslaughter this time. Or at least that is the last decision made... I guess we'll see once the jury gets the instructions and goes into deliberations.

[sunstar]

I do not think so,I have been searching as well, I cannot believe tru tv did not cover this, the first trial they had their biggest ratings! You have to wonder about some of these execs.

thanks! I was just wondering where JVM got the video from then, if no one is showing the closing arguments? Just hoping to find them somewhere so I could watch at night. :sad:

[newsjunkie]

Yes, the jury will have a choice of Murder 2 or Involuntary Manslaughter this time. Or at least that is the last decision made... I guess we'll see once the jury gets the instructions and goes into deliberations.



I don't mind that murder 2 is on the table, even IVMS BUT I do so think that MURDER 1 should also be on the table. What's with that BS?

[sunstar]

I don't mind that murder 2 is on the table, even IVMS BUT I do so think that MURDER 1 should also be on the table. What's with that BS?

It seems the state didn't believe they could prove premeditation.

[Anakerie]

thanks! I was just wondering where JVM got the video from then, if no one is showing the closing arguments? Just hoping to find them somewhere so I could watch at night. :sad:

The Los Angeles Channel 7 station has cameras in the courtroom for the closings and they are calling it a "pool feed" from what I have read elsewhere. So far, I haven't seen anything but the short clips anywhere on the web. ABC7 in L.A. has the whole thing, but I guess none of the rest of the main stream media think's Phil is newsworthy enough to do more than show the short clips of Truc Do's closing. I have a hunch we'll see more of Weinberg's speech tonight or tomorrow. **sigh**

[oodi1]

thanks! I was just wondering where JVM got the video from then, if no one is showing the closing arguments? Just hoping to find them somewhere so I could watch at night. :sad:

A local channel is filming in the courtroom, but it isn't being aired. Only the little clips that show up on various newscasts.

[sunstar]

The Los Angeles Channel 7 station has cameras in the courtroom for the closings and they are calling it a "pool feed" from what I have read elsewhere. So far, I haven't seen anything but the short clips anywhere on the web. ABC7 in L.A. has the whole thing, but I guess none of the rest of the main stream media think's Phil is newsworthy enough to do more than show the short clips of Truc Do's closing. I have a hunch we'll see more of Weinberg's speech tonight or tomorrow. **sigh**

thanks so much ~ you have shed some light on it! :smile: Being clear across the country I wasn't sure what the local media was doing, except what I can find online. I so miss the ctv coverage from the 1st trial where I could catch up.

[newsjunkie]

Don't be ignorant, going on for six years, read about it anywhere on the web.


If your calling me ignorant maybe you should look in a mirror.

I followed spector 1 every single day.
I have since had 2 deaths in my family and my hubby has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

I tuned in back here to watch tha Caylee boards when I have the time and have been reading here for the spector CA's.

Somewhere I missed that murder 1 is off the table.

I hope things are good for you.

[sunstar]

A local channel is filming in the courtroom, but it isn't being aired. Only the little clips that show up on various newscasts.

TYVM! :smile:

[True2Blues]

If your calling me ignorant maybe you should look in a mirror.

I followed spector 1 every single day.
I have since had 2 deaths in my family and my hubby has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

I tuned in back here to watch tha Caylee boards when I have the time and have been reading here for the spector CA's.

Somewhere I missed that murder 1 is off the table.

I hope things are good for you.

Newsjunkie, I'm sorry you've had such a difficult time.

I would certainly like to see PS go down for first degree myself, but 2nd degree will do! The Involuntary Manslaughter charge bothers me, but I'm hoping the jury can see that there was nothing Involuntary about this crime.

[sunstar]

Newsjunkie, I'm sorry you've had such a difficult time.

I would certainly like to see PS go down for first degree myself, but 2nd degree will do! The Involuntary Manslaughter charge bothers me, but I'm hoping the jury can see that there was nothing Involuntary about this crime.

I personally think it's good the judge had to add the charge, after the first trial ending in deadlock. This time there's more of a chance of conviction, imo. :smile:

[Curlyjo]

I personally think it's good the judge had to add the charge, after the first trial ending in deadlock. This time there's more of a chance of conviction, imo. :smile:

I also think that the jurors can see the difference between the charges having both available to them and their meanings. Murder 2 please.

[newsjunkie]

I personally think it's good the judge had to add the charge, after the first trial ending in deadlock. This time there's more of a chance of conviction, imo. :smile:

Yes I agree but don't know why they didn't just add it. Why did they remove murder 1 was what I don't get. Can't they have 3 choices?

[sunstar]

Yes I agree but don't know why they didn't just add it. Why did they remove murder 1 was what I don't get. Can't they have 3 choices?

Maybe this could explain it a little better. :smile:

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html

[newsjunkie]

Maybe this could explain it a little better. :smile:

In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html

Ok thanks, I will check that out.

[Jayne]

Yes I agree but don't know why they didn't just add it. Why did they remove murder 1 was what I don't get. Can't they have 3 choices?


M1 in Ca wasn't a choice..laws are different in other states and most likely in Canada (I've been reading a lot of case law of Canada decisions and they seem to be more "strict".)

They never removed Murder 1..they never charged it because the elements of Murder 1 were not present.

I'm a diehard..and would like to see CA law changed as to VMS..but that will never happen, I suppose!..they'd have to revamp their entire 187+ of the Penal Code.

jmo

J

[sunstar]

Ok thanks, I will check that out.

You're most welcome! :smile:

[penguin01]

I personally think it's good the judge had to add the charge, after the first trial ending in deadlock. This time there's more of a chance of conviction, imo. :smile:
But what are the odds we could have another "Ben-10 and mindless groupie" on this jury. Its like lightening striking twice: happens, but not that often.
IMO there wasn't really even a real hung jury last time: there ought to be something else to call it. There were 10 people ready and wanting to convict and then -- just a nut case who wouldn't deliberate and a woman who simply decided she would vote however her leader voted: she was ready to vote guilty when she thought he was going that way. I wish they had both could have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty or something. Must have been so very frustrating for the "real" jurors trying to do their job.
No need to pretend the defense even almost had a winning case the first time - and the defense really blew it with the pay to play witnesses caught lying this time.

[oodi1]

Hey Jayne... welcome back!! Did you get to see any of the closings?

[newsjunkie]

They could have 3 choices........ in theory anyway.......

Murder 1 was not on the table in PS1.



Really? I thought it was. Oh well he's old and will die in prison even if he gets murder 2.

Thanks for all the responses all & g'nite :mellow:

[sunstar]

But what are the odds we could have another "Ben-10 and mindless groupie" on this jury. Its like lightening striking twice: happens, but not that often.
IMO there wasn't really even a real hung jury last time: there ought to be something else to call it. There were 10 people ready and wanting to convict and then -- just a nut case who wouldn't deliberate and a woman who simply decided she would vote however her leader voted: she was ready to vote guilty when she thought he was going that way. I wish they had both could have been prosecuted for dereliction of duty or something. Must have been so very frustrating for the "real" jurors trying to do their job.
No need to pretend the defense even almost had a winning case the first time - and the defense really blew it with the pay to play witnesses caught lying this time.

I agree about the 1st trial, and I definitely hope that couldn't happen twice! MOO

[sunstar]

Really? I thought it was. Oh well he's old and will die in prison even if he gets murder 2.

Thanks for all the responses all & g'nite :mellow:

Even with manslaughter + the gun enhancement, I think he'd die in prison.

Have a good night! :seeya:

[mbmb]

Just a quick question....did the defense closing argument end today? I know I'm late...please forgive me.

[dref99]

I also think that the jurors can see the difference between the charges having both available to them and their meanings. Murder 2 please.

I think this as well, but some seem to disagree. There was much confusion last time about the definition of murder 2 - perhaps why Truc Do spent time explaining the definition in her closing.

It would seem from another MB email (she does get the interesting ones)
http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/2009/03/rsvp-for-spectors-defense.html

the man himself is the one saying the IVMS was introduced because in

"the Judge's mind, it will make it easier on the jury to find him [PS] guilty.. "

I find that interesting because he was the first (and only) person to suggest a suicide occured. Now he is suggesting what the Media seems to be reporting.

Many of Phil's comments outside the court are reported - shame the only words inside the court relate to all the fan photos that should not have been taken.

Some of the MSM seems to like to report - the world according to Phillip Spector - wonder what will be reported after he is convicted.

jmo

[mbmb]

LOL! I just asked that :cool: Inquiring minds want to know :thumbup:

Or *Great Minds* think alike :thumbsup:

[Curlyjo]

I think this as well, but some seem to disagree. There was much confusion last time about the definition of murder 2 - perhaps why Truc Do spent time explaining the definition in her closing.

It would seem from another MB email (she does get the interesting ones)
http://mcontrolblogs.blogspot.com/2009/03/rsvp-for-spectors-defense.html

the man himself is the one saying the IVMS was introduced because in

"the Judge's mind, it will make it easier on the jury to find him [PS] guilty.. "

I find that interesting because he was the first (and only) person to suggest a suicide occured. Now he is suggesting what the Media seems to be reporting.

Many of Phil's comments outside the court are reported - shame the only words inside the court relate to all the fan photos that should not have been taken.

Some of the MSM seems to like to report - the world according to Phillip Spector - wonder what will be reported after he is convicted.

jmo

Thank you for that...I found it funny...the world according to Phil Spector...well that show is closed.

[mbmb]

You got that right :wink: I just moved from Michigan to N.C.

How close are to Asheville? I have wanted to go there for years.

Where from Michigan did you move from? I'm from the Flint area.

[dref99]

An interesting report from Harriet Ryan - includes this comment, in relation to witness fees
“There are no charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people,” he[Weinberg] said. Does this relate to another defendant with a dream team of scientists?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/phil-spectors-a.html

The most recent (5.15pm) comment on the article made a good point

jmo

[bearwds]

Wonder what the reaction will be the first time a female correction officer orders Spector to do something..??


bearwds

[Curlyjo]

An interesting report from Harriet Ryan - includes this comment, in relation to witness fees
“There are no charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people,” he[Weinberg] said. Does this relate to another defendant with a dream team of scientists?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/phil-spectors-a.html

The most recent (5.15pm) comment on the article made a good point

jmo

I am glad to read the comments and too look forward to AJ tomorrow...but I am waiting for M2C and sprockets writings of today's events because they give us so much more. Going to make a cocktail as I wait.
:thumbsup:

[oodi1]

An interesting report from Harriet Ryan - includes this comment, in relation to witness fees
“There are no charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people,” he[Weinberg] said. Does this relate to another defendant with a dream team of scientists?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/phil-spectors-a.html

The most recent (5.15pm) comment on the article made a good point

jmo

I saw that quote... what a ridiculous statement to make! What point is he trying to make with that one???? Is he trying to glean sympathy from the jury because PS has had to pay for his own defense???

[Jayne]

Hey Jayne... welcome back!! Did you get to see any of the closings?

NO..boo hoo..and I MEAN IT...I was going to try for yesterday..NOPE..a client had to come in..then today...I had to be here for my child...

I'm so disappointed..but am so glad that M2C is there...she keeps us up.

jmo

J

[oodi1]

NO..boo hoo..and I MEAN IT...I was going to try for yesterday..NOPE..a client had to come in..then today...I had to be here for my child...

I'm so disappointed..but am so glad that M2C is there...she keeps us up.

jmo

J


Well horse pucky!!! I was hoping you'd get to see at least some of it. :sad:

I hope everything is ok with your child.

[Jayne]

I saw that quote... what a ridiculous statement to make! What point is he trying to make with that one???? Is he trying to glean sympathy from the jury because PS has had to pay for his own defense???


WOW,..that is totally BOGUS. Does he think he's going to get sympathy from jurors because Legal Aid or some other non profit legal organization didn't pay for Spector's witnesses? Those organizations are set up "legally" (hopefully) and the purpose is to help people who CANNOT afford legal assistance. They are not a free for all for anyone. Wouldn't it be great if they were? Maybe that's what Weinberg wants..to have access to free Witnesses..so his net could be larger in legal fees?

I think he's playing the "race for the dollar" card..Poor Phil Spector...has had to pay for two trials..surely he should have gotten free legal assistance for those "experts"? Why? Because the first ones could get him an acquittal?

Point is, IMO,..if he absolutely could NOT afford legal assitance, DW would Not be his attorney...and he'd have a legal aid defense attorney...and somebody would have come in..at state's cost (perhaps?) or "pro bono" to expert witness for him? maybe..

DW is crying "welfare" here for his client, while his pockets are being filled (or have been already?)..I'd think. But, maybe not..maybe the outcome of this case is the dependent factor on whether he gets paid? (OHOH..I'm not saying "contingency fees"...not legal in criminal cases)..but his retainer may be a bit low or in the red?..or he's just hoping for another one for Appeal?

I actually think he's a good attorney (maybe even a great one)..but that comment..to me, IMOO, was unprofessional. Maybe he was just "shooting at the hip" as many lawyers have to do..and especially if caught off guard or "unprepared or ready".

I don't think a juror will buy that..not in LA..not in the case of Phil Spector.

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Well horse pucky!!! I was hoping you'd get to see at least some of it. :sad:

I hope everything is ok with your child.


NO KIDDING..but maybe I can finagle it down there for the verdict...I don't know...I'm skating on kind of thin ice here between the factions...DANG...for two years I've followed this...PS1 was the greatest...watching the TV, following it daily (I was in home-rehab at the time)...then had some time, but not enough, to keep up online with PS2. I'm thankful for the friends I've met here..who keep me up in PMs, emails, and some calls..and actually "meet face to face".

I'm really grateful for the coverage by the posters (You know who they are) and the bloggers who attend the trial. It may seem biased to some..but I find it giving "facts" and not just opinions.

jmo

J

[coinoutlet]

One woman from the first trial, Diane Ogden has since died of a drug overdose and videotape of her former testimony has been played and the jury has not been told about her drug use and mental condition we now know existed.

This type of 1101b, prior bad act witness, is over the top. Judge Fidler just put in a reversible error into the case. Spector will walk again, like Frankenstein, he will not die.

I wonder how much of the mental condition that "YOU KNOW" about was caused by the trauma inflicted upon her by Harvey

[Jayne]

Wonder what the reaction will be the first time a female correction officer orders Spector to do something..??


bearwds

bearwds..you're a kick!

I'd bet there'd be a lot of "cursing"..and pointing fingers..cause he won't have a gun (hopefully)..and probably put into a jacket to control himself. I can't imagine PS ever bowing down to a female..unless they have a gun. And, had that been the case back in 2/3/3, Lana would have walked out of that house..or been the one in court, IMO.

jmo

J

[Lyndawitha"Y]

One woman from the first trial, Diane Ogden has since died of a drug overdose and videotape of her former testimony has been played and the jury has not been told about her drug use and mental condition we now know existed.

This type of 1101b, prior bad act witness, is over the top. Judge Fidler just put in a reversible error into the case. Spector will walk again, like Frankenstein, he will not die.

Please RonWalker, take this comment within the spirit it is meant...Are you related to Johnney Walker?..Anyway Diane Ogden's death from OD has absolutely nothing to do with her testimony nor her honesty in her first statements in PS1..IF she di end up taking an overdose, then just maybe Phil Spector is just the final straw that broke her back..IF you listen to her testimony initially, then you must know that whole experience left her emotionally stressed and just maybe fearful..and for whatever reason, (hey could be spectors goons put pressure on her..speculating..only)..she had no reserve to deal with the Spector Bull Dozing manners..who knows really..however, you would like to believe its because she felt guilty for testifying against Phil..Please give me a flippen break!..Her demise has NOTHING TO DO WITH HERE TESTIMONY!!..bashing the victim, bashing previous victims of Phil Spector's tirades, doesnt excuse Phil's behaviors or actions..Phil just maybe be held accountable this time, and for the first time in his adult life will have to follow rules, boundaries and limitations..Yikes..dont think he'll like that much..

LMS:rolleyes:

ETA..Kudos to GPSPECTOR (Gary)..I admire your integrety, and thoughtful insights..appreciate all you have brought to this whole nightmare your whole family has had to deal with..Big hugs..Wish you the best!!

[Jayne]

Drug use and/or mental condition does not make a victim a Non Victim. Many times, it makes them a definite victim...easy to control, afraid, unaware of the danger..perfect victim, in fact. Does their testimony lack credibility? No...sometimes, perhaps yes. But the time she Ogden took that stand...she did not appear drugged or mentally incompetent. The DA would know better than to put a witness on the stand who was incompetent. Besides..they had more than enough to choose from, as I understood it.

Would PS perhaps make a victim of someone who "drank a bit too much"? was "under the influence" or "vulnerable"..because it's easier??

Now there's a Frankenstein..or better - a Mr. Hyde.

jmo

J

[mbmb]

Drug use and/or mental condition does not make a victim a Non Victim. Many times, it makes them a definite victim...easy to control, afraid, unaware of the danger..perfect victim, in fact. Does their testimony lack credibility? No...sometimes, perhaps yes. But the time she Ogden took that stand...she did not appear drugged or mentally incompetent. The DA would know better than to put a witness on the stand who was incompetent. Besides..they had more than enough to choose from, as I understood it.

Would PS perhaps make a victim of someone who "drank a bit too much"? was "under the influence" or "vulnerable"..because it's easier??

Now there's a Frankenstein..or better - a Mr. Hyde.

jmo

J

Oh Jayne...You got that right! And, thank you for saying it so well.

[Jayne]

ROTFL!!!! Jayne, I think you mean "Shooting FROM the hip". Comes from the old west when a lot of people wore gun belts w/holsters.

Girl, I needed a good laugh tonight - thanks!

Take Care - I love reading your posts
CJ

YES..my friend cyber poster..that IS what I meant...but know what? my dad taught me to actually "shoot from the hip" with a rifle..and from the Danged Shoulders with a Shotgun! So I guess...my verbage is a bit mixed up!

but I have 2 titanium ones...so I guess I think I shoot AT the hip!

LOL

jmo

J

[gmiller]

Drug use and/or mental condition does not make a victim a Non Victim. Many times, it makes them a definite victim...easy to control, afraid, unaware of the danger..perfect victim, in fact. Does their testimony lack credibility? No...sometimes, perhaps yes. But the time she Ogden took that stand...she did not appear drugged or mentally incompetent. The DA would know better than to put a witness on the stand who was incompetent. Besides..they had more than enough to choose from, as I understood it.

Would PS perhaps make a victim of someone who "drank a bit too much"? was "under the influence" or "vulnerable"..because it's easier??

Now there's a Frankenstein..or better - a Mr. Hyde.

jmo

J

Hi Jayne! Thank you for calm post because I almost fell out of my chair when I read that original post. I really felt for Dianne Ogden and do not, in any way believe she was "unstable". It's bad enough that most know how Ms. Ogden died, but it's a downright insult for others to cast stones on her mental condition.

PS: HAPPY AJ DAY ...on the east coast anyway;) Cannot wait to read/watch 20 seconds of his closings via the ABC Pool camera:confused:

[Jayne]

Hi Jayne! Thank you for calm post because I almost fell out of my chair when I read that original post. I really felt for Dianne Ogden and do not, in any way believe she was "unstable". It's bad enough that most know how Ms. Ogden died, but it's a downright insult for others to cast stones on her mental condition.

PS: HAPPY AJ DAY ...on the east coast anyway;) Cannot wait to read/watch 20 seconds of his closings via the ABC Pool camera:confused:

ABC Pool Camera? Where? When?

Dianne Ogden.is lying in the same ground..or spread around..where Lana is...shouldn't that give some dignity to it all?

Ya know..maybe if there were some history of Lana being "mentally ill" (OF COURSE THERE ISN'T)..but wouldn't that throw an iron in this entire case (although it's over..)

I think what DW is trying to get at..is Lana was "suicidal" even if not saying so..then saying Odgen was "mentally ill"...putting those eggs in his basket? dunno..

jmo

J

[oodi1]

Yes, Jayne, thank you for your post on Dianne Ogden. gmiller - I take it that the defense finished today? Wonder how long it was? We will all see when sprocket posts her blog.

And, y'know what? the jury just might get the case today (Wed). HUZZAH!

Wishing an end to this Never-ending Horror Story

CJ

Sprocket posted that she has over 80 pages of notes for today. I'm guessing it will take her a while to get all that transcribed!

[Jayne]

Totally out there...sorry it is OT

but I watched the news this morning before leaving for work

there Is Michael Jackson's entry. "Neverland" gates up for auction.

I think PS should buy them..he can put them into his trust for his wife (or his kids...think?) before he's sentenced...

jmo

J

(I lived near there...I catered in his "palace"...those gates are Beautiful...maybe put them up in front of the prison PS goes to?) Maybe better yet..put them in front of His Castle....'Neverland/Don't go??)

jmo

[bearwds]

Yes, Jayne, thank you for your post on Dianne Ogden. gmiller - I take it that the defense finished today? Wonder how long it was? We will all see when sprocket posts her blog.

And, y'know what? the jury just might get the case today (Wed). HUZZAH!

Wishing an end to this Never-ending Horror Story

CJ

***********************

Still waiting for T/T update...9:30 pm Pacific.

Wasn't Diane the one who described Spector as Elmer Fudd when he came down the staircase with the rifle..??

Looking forward to deleting my sig line I've had for the last couple of years.


bearwds

[gmiller]

ABC Pool Camera? Where? When?

Dianne Ogden.is lying in the same ground..or spread around..where Lana is...shouldn't that give some dignity to it all?

Ya know..maybe if there were some history of Lana being "mentally ill" (OF COURSE THERE ISN'T)..but wouldn't that throw an iron in this entire case (although it's over..)

I think what DW is trying to get at..is Lana was "suicidal" even if not saying so..then saying Odgen was "mentally ill"...putting those eggs in his basket? dunno..

jmo

J

KABC has a Pool Camera to cover closings. Yesterday they had a spot on the 4:30 news that I was able to view via the internet...they played part of TD's closing but it was very brief (like a sentence or 2)!

As for Weinburg's tactic, I'm not sure what he argued today... supposedly it was "boring" though. Someone stated earlier today on this thread that Dianne Ogden had emotional problems. I'm not sure where that person got that info from, but "he" stated it as if it were fact and I don't believe that to be true at all.

IMHO Lana and Ms. Ogden have 2 things in common... one being pretty obvious: the unfortunate "Spector connection", and the other being they are both have their angel wings. That's JMO.

[oodi1]

Holy Moly! As much as I love sprocket, I really do not want to read all that. Do you think she'll have an abridged version?

I have no idea. Maybe it's a small sized notebook. :confused:

[oodi1]

Y'know..I will read through what sprocket posts, if only to honor her for all her work. But to be honest - I watched the Closings for the PS1 trial and when LKB was presenting, I had to leave the room from time to time because she made me sick. That and I had almost destroyed my throat from screaming at the screen.

Who says "posters" don't get involved...

LOL... I was the same way. I guess I expected more from her, but I certainly wasn't impressed. I felt sorry for the jurors, who couldn't change the channel or leave the room.

[dref99]

Y'know..I will read through what sprocket posts, if only to honor her for all her work. But to be honest - I watched the Closings for the PS1 trial and when LKB was presenting, I had to leave the room from time to time because she made me sick. That and I had almost destroyed my throat from screaming at the screen.

Who says "posters" don't get involved...

From media reports on Weinberg's closing, I would suggest it was somewhat better than the hours of monotone from LKB.

It will be interesting to read the detail & see what "evidence" he considers provides that "reasonable doubt" - or doesn't provide enough proof of murder.

I find it amazing that both trials continue to say the science is the key.

jmo

[Dave]

...I watched the Closings for the PS1 trial and when LKB was presenting, I had to leave the room from time to time because she made me sick...



I remember that. During LKB's ranting, my dog, who is always at my side, groaned, got up, and left the room.

[Exiled.]

Y'know..I will read through what sprocket posts, if only to honor her for all her work. But to be honest - I watched the Closings for the PS1 trial and when LKB was presenting, I had to leave the room from time to time because she made me sick. That and I had almost destroyed my throat from screaming at the screen.

Who says "posters" don't get involved...


LKB is a great attorney, and sets an example for all women. I made a point of taking off work, so that I could go and watch her in person. Any defendant would be fortunate having her on their side.

[Exiled.]

***********************

Still waiting for T/T update...9:30 pm Pacific.

Wasn't Diane the one who described Spector as Elmer Fudd when he came down the staircase with the rifle..??

Looking forward to deleting my sig line I've had for the last couple of years.


bearwds

What if you have to change your sig line to "Phil don't go... to prison?

[My 2 Cents]

FYI: I JUST GOT HOME (10:45PM) - SO DON'T KNOW IF THINGS ARE POSTED ON JOE FRIDAY, T&T, TV OR WHAT. (I discovered my Grandma fell and got hurt while I was in LA, and I went straight from courthouse - to train - to hospital), and I just now got home. Sorry if this is a repeat.

WEINBERG CLOSING 3/24/09 - AFTER LUNCH RECESS:

I guess they took pity on me and let me in after lunch break – although I did get help from a “friend”. THANKS. THANKS. THANKS.

I asked around re: what people thought of Weinberg’s CLOSING so far (before lunch) – many responded, “boring”. I was told he held the Colt Cobra .38 in his hand for the longest time. Moved about with it in the courtroom, always holding it. At one point he used a LASER POINTER to indicate the direction the gun was aimed at. I will look forward to reading the details of that one, and WHY, from Sprocket.

WEINBERG has the podium turned, it directly faces the jury – about 6ft back from the front row. He has a black 3-ring binder sitting on top of the podium and he occasionally glances over, catches his place and then continues. Every so often, turning the pages as he continues to his next topic. IMO – Not nearly as obvious and annoying as I found LKB reading from her notes in the 1st trial. BUT TRUST ME – NOTHING AS PROFESSIONAL, CONFIDENT AND SMOOTH AS TRUC YESTERDAY.

FYI: For What it is Worth . . . I agree with the courtroom people I asked about the morning session. The afternoon was BORING. It really lacked any luster, and it was IMO, just a rehash of the testimony that the JURY has already heard. A "HE SAID" - "SHE SAID" kind of a ping pong routine.

The difference between YESTERDAY and what I heard in the afternoon TODAY . . .
Yesterday, Truc told a story. She started with a story about the 2 different worlds that Lana and Phil lived in. She then explained what the LAWS are that the judge would later advise the jury of - that they would need to follow in coming to their verdict. BUT she explained those LAWS by telling a couple of more STORIES. Each of these stories painted clear examples of those LAWS, stories that the jurors could easily relate to and visualize in their heads. Then she shared the most IMPORTANT CHAPTER in this story. About the SHIFTING SANDS in the South Vietnam dunes. She explained it to the jury, as if reading a chapter from a book, of how similar these CHANGING DUNES were to the Phil Spector DEFENSE. But she didn't just read to them or tell them, she SHOWED them. And as the sand dunes shifted, so did the printed quotes from Weinberg, the testimony from the defense witnesses, etc. Her STORY supported why the evidence from the state was so solid and pointed to SPECTOR's definite guilt. All presented in an organized, and smooth transition, with a beginning, middle, and an end, as she touched on each of these chapters, that supported the final ending in this STORY - That Phil Spector was holding the gun, and pulled the trigger when Lana was killed.

I thought that CLOSING ARGUMENTS were an opportunity for the attorneys to take a collection of all the important information that has been covered in the trial and "wrap it up, in a neat little package - - - ideally with a bow" and present it to the jurors. Closing Arguments give the attorneys a lot more leeway, flexibility and the opportunity to present this info - in a much more relaxed and creative way.

IMO, Weinberg missed an opportunity to do this. He seemed to rehash the same testimony that the jurors had heard many times in court. Except instead of TWO attorneys hashing it out, HE PLAYED BOTH the ROLES. In plain, "ARIAL FONT", the transcripts of the testimony were printed up on the screen. Sometimes the font was very small, sometimes it was a little larger. When it was small, we all waited for his AV assistant to highlight it and enlarge it - - - it was not what I would call a "finished" or creative (or interesting) presentation. It was more like, . . . "Do you remember when this was said?", "When this was discussed?" Then he would have a few more highlighted, "cherry-picked" words that a witness said, or what AJ said the witness said and then TELL THE JURY why this was a mistake or ridiculous or why they shouldn't accept it as fact, etc. HE WAS THE TEACHER - AND THE JURY WERE HIS STUDENTS, and he was covering information they had already learned. There was a lot of "fidgeting" sounds in the gallery as his lecture continued on. I guess that means I wasn't the only one ready for "class" to end.

Weinberg is NOT finished. I have no idea how much of Wednesday he will need. I would guess AT LEAST 1/2 the day. I heard this morning that AJ was ready to GO today with his CLOSING, if Weinberg happened to finish earlier. But that did not surprise me in the least.

[bearwds]

T/T Posting for today is up.


bearwds

[My 2 Cents]

Duh, if you guys have not got it yet, Sprocket is the guillotine, hang man's, femme/woman, she is profiting by the accusations against a man innocent of murder. Like it or lump it, if you buy into the bias do not call me when your dog is accused of vagrancy.

Get a clue, the main stream media are terse and without comment about this case. Of course they are pressed during closings to make a comments.

The scientific evidence that shows Spector guilty of murder is very thin.
One thing for sure, Judge Larry Paul Fidler did absolutely everything he could to deny Phil Spector a fair trial. If convicted Spector would win a new trial but it’s doubtful that Spector will live long enough to benefit from any appeal of a conviction. This jury is the court of last resort for Spector.

WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
And how EXACTLY Ron, is Sprocket, as you say, "profiting by the accusations against a man innocent of murder"????

"Bias" . . ."Dog Accused of Vagrancy?" . . . WHAT????

RON, HAVE YOU EVEN BEEN TO COURT AND LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY? If you haven't - then you must be getting your ONLY INFORMATION on the trial thru Sprocket's blog. How do you KNOW it is biased? If you haven't attended, where are you obtaining ANY information on the trial that contradicts what she writes? There virtually isn't any out there. I have attended the trial - and then later read her blog that was covered that day. IMO, it was "spot on". It contained mostly word, for word quotes of what took place during testimony. As I have stated before . . . DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER, it's NOT her fault the defense hasn't presented something more solid.

[dref99]

Hi M2C
Do hope is all well with your grandma - she must have been so pleased when you arrived - and of course we are thrilled that you "were let in" after lunch. I had just started reading Sprocket's blog and came over to post my "giggle"

One of my interests is genealogy & this truly has me ROFL

Some of the new faces indicate that they are "family." Overnight, Spector's family tree grew exponentially. I didn't understand where all these family members came from. Where were they all throughout the trial? It wasn't until I read Michelle Blaine's blog this evening that I got my own "AHa" moment. Michelle confirmed that Rachelle Short sent out another plea to have all of Spector's extended "family" show up at court to support him

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

I had already read Michelle's blog - she gets the most interesting emails!

Thank you so much for posting for us amid the family events. You were much missed earlier this evening

Poster Ron is one of the newbies who have been appearing recently, most have now left - he may have received one of those emails Michelle was talking about. He has been talking about "excited utterances" which another poster of the past has mentioned many times. I have no idea why he, or anyone, has a need to attack the one and only person who regulary reports on the trial - perhaps he would prefer that no-one hears any evidence (now there's a thought)

jmo

[dref99]

Thank you for your biased report on the most important defense closing. Weinberg is not there to entertain you. Can you post more about the 14 points of innocence and how someone can understand them?

That is the meat of this case, not something coincidental that affects your emotions.

Really, how about an objective report?!

Why not READ the messages before you reply RonWalker - My 2 Cents was not in the courtroom this am. Tricky to report what she didn't hear - best you go and read Sprocket because she has listed every one of these 14 points before she ran out of time transcribing her notes - and went to bed.

Your attacks are most unfounded and apology to both Sprocket and MY2cents definitely needed

[My 2 Cents]

Thank you for your biased report on the most important defense closing. Weinberg is not there to entertain you. Can you post more about the 14 points of innocence and how someone can understand them?

That is the meat of this case, not something coincidental that affects your emotions.

Really, how about an objective report?!

Well RON, as I stated in my very 1st sentence. I have just arrived home after being at the courthouse ALL DAY, and then a train ride home AND THEN at the HOSPITAL ALL NIGHT before even arriving back home since leaving this morning at 6:30AM. So I thought I would be NICE and post a "generic" over-all view of Weinberg's closing (this afternoon) vs Truc's closing (yesterday). That post was NOT meant to be about point-by-point SPECIFICS. I will post more of those tomorrow, as it is very late and I am very tired. I also stated that I was NOT even present for the first half of the day.

I am NOT HERE FOR YOU RON - I am NOT here to POST what YOU tell me too. Attend the trial yourself if YOU want to know what's going on -- so far ALL I've read from you is that EVERYONE reporting on the Spector retrial is BIAS. GO - FIGHT THE TRAFFIC & PAY the $16 PARKING - TAKE NOTES - AND THEN POST ON IT. Quite a SIMPLE solution really.

The CLOSING ARGUMENTS are NOT evidence. So WHY you would say "this is the MEAT of their case" is really ODD to me. Closing Arguments are ALL ABOUT finding a way for the attorney to best summarize their case and why certain evidence "proves their case". But it is NOT, in MY OPINION, just a rehash of the testimony. They've already done that for the past 5-6 months. Weinberg lectured like a teacher to his students. Truc accomplished summarizing her & AJ's case and what it had proved, in an INTERESTING, WELL THOUGHT OUT WAY, that I believe the jurors could RELATE to. The JURORS are the AUDIENCE and the CLOSING is the "Final Act". If the attorney can "high-light" 5-6 months of evidence & testimony in a smooth, interesting and well thought out way - the jurors are much more likely to LISTEN, RELATE and RETAIN the information. I NEVER said Weinberg needed to "ENTERTAIN" anyone. But he needs to make it a lot less boring - otherwise - regardless of what he has to say - - - it will be LOST ON HIS AUDIENCE, THE JURORS - because after 1 1/2 days of "lecturing", they are going to start "tuning him out".

IF and WHEN I do post "specifics", something tells me you are not going to like them either. So why don't you go down there tomorrow and report back to us. Would you like for US to TELL YOU what you should and shouldn't post on? I didn't think so.

Well have FUN - I would post the directions for you, on how to get to the courthouse, but I believe YOU have been there before, haven't you? During the pre-trial hearing?

[FREEMORE]

Thank you so much and good luck to your grandmother's recovery M2C. So glad to read you got in.

[tartangirl]

I know you are enjoying this retrial as only one who is there to experience it can. Enjoying it and still seeing and hearing and then being able to relay it all back to us is the wonder part of it all. Stimulation overload most days for sure. :w00t:

We have some great posters and bloggers out there who do go the extra mile and give us their words each day so that we can be a part of the retrial. Like so many here, I would love to see this and do feel cheated that we were not given the chance to be a part of this story as it is finally brought to conclusion. You have helped with the craving for the courtroom drama. I will always be thankful to you for that. :wink:


I wish your gram a complete and speedy recovery and will keep her in my thoughts and prayers. :smile:



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


http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=lana

[GPSpector]

I did not just stumble on this opinion chat room board four years ago, I sought it out.

The jury for the Spector case is about to deliberate, the authority, the finders of fact. The hater posts here show a care for the victim, they also show a disregard for due process of law.

The verdict will, imo, be a manslaughter charge, anything else is, ahem, well over the top.

Wow, after all that huffing and blowing (in the wind) about how you think he's innocent, you think HE IS GUILTY.

Gee, such great support for someone you have claimed to be completely innocent.

Thank you for telling me how the Jury wil vote, I can now prepare myself for the worst.

Rally, thank you for ranting and raving on behalf of my father whilst not posting a single fact that has been presented to the Jury and then at the last moment, turn tail and claim my father is Guilty (of manslaughter). It is truly a sad day for my father. You truly are a "switch hitter" ;-)

No apology needed, I understand that you must go in the way the winds blow to save face and your reputation for always trying to sound correct.

Reminds me of people that cheer for 1 team but bet on the other because they know the odds of winning favors the team you won't cheer for.

[hiitsme]

Thank you for your biased report on the most important defense closing. Weinberg is not there to entertain you. Can you post more about the 14 points of innocence and how someone can understand them?

That is the meat of this case, not something coincidental that affects your emotions.

Really, how about an objective report?!

From what I've read thus far, I would call it 14 desperate atttempts to distort the truth by Weinberg and his liars for hire. The longer he goes on the longer AJ has to destroy what's left of the defense case. As far as "hate posts", I think there are very few here and most of them are aimed at posters who believe PS is a murderer. It is hard to hate someone you don't know or anything you have not experienced, but, it is very easy to hate the behavior, actions and lifestyle of a person upon hearing OVERWHELMING evidence pointing to GULT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, no matter who that person is. MOO

[alldone]

First, I want to thank everyone who has kept me informed and entertained over the last several months. I feel like I know all of you and I admire and appreciate very much the insights many of you have contributed to this board. While I consider myself fairly intelligent, you folks have shown me that when it comes to research, trials, and data consolidation, I am incompetent and well - down right ignorant!

I watched all of PS1 and after reading everything I can regarding PS2, I think Mr. Spector is guilty as hell, however I have to admire his attorney. His job is to advocate for his client and as whiney, arrogant and nasty as he is, I can’t help but think he is doing everything he can with the hand dealt. Its just to bad if he has the personality of cardboard. If I were in a heap of trouble, I think I might talk to him, at least I would know I went down with a fight!

So here I sit on the east coast; waiting for any news, hoping that this time the truth will prevail.

Kind regards

[lmercer]

Well,gee, Ron. It appears that you have lost the whole concept of this (or any other) message board.
People come here to give their OPINION of whatever crime has been reported and is being discussed. Just as you are allowed to post your OPINION of the blogger, reporters or other posters here, everyone else is allowed to post their OPINION of any part of a trial or the defendant, lawyers or judge.

In my OPINION no one here is biased, just convinced one way or the other.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Worried that old Phil is going to be found guilty?
I'm praying he is! Why? Because in my OPINION, the prosecution has met it's burdan and proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson!

Thank you My 2 Cents, for reporting this to us and for being there! I hope your Grandmother is doing ok.



:thumbsup: Great post.

[KathR]

Will there be a verdict watch anywhere? Should I just keep checking this board for word?

[Daisy'sMom]

Will there be a verdict watch anywhere? Should I just keep checking this board for word?

I thought that Weinberg was still closing? I wish we could watch AJ in action......He'll nail it shut, I am sure. GO AJ!:thumbsup:

[GPSpector]

First, I want to thank everyone who has kept me informed and entertained over the last several months. I feel like I know all of you and I admire and appreciate very much the insights many of you have contributed to this board. While I consider myself fairly intelligent, you folks have shown me that when it comes to research, trials, and data consolidation, I am incompetent and well - down right ignorant!

I watched all of PS1 and after reading everything I can regarding PS2, I think Mr. Spector is guilty as hell, however I have to admire his attorney. His job is to advocate for his client and as whiney, arrogant and nasty as he is, I can’t help but think he is doing everything he can with the hand dealt. Its just to bad if he has the personality of cardboard. If I were in a heap of trouble, I think I might talk to him, at least I would know I went down with a fight!

So here I sit on the east coast; waiting for any news, hoping that this time the truth will prevail.

Kind regards

Well, if you continue to read here, we may all get lucky and a member might post here before the Media reports on it. M2¢ seems to report very quickly when she is able.

[GIGI4256]

Well, if you continue to read here, we may all get lucky and a member might post here before the Media reports on it. M2¢ seems to report very quickly when she is able.

Sad that we can't watch ourselves. JMO

[alldone]

Well, if you continue to read here, we may all get lucky and a member might post here before the Media reports on it. M2¢ seems to report very quickly when she is able.


Oh gosh, if reading here does that...I'm on it! BTW, I can't tell you how much I admire you and your brother. You are the definition of class in my book.

[bearwds]

Will there be a verdict watch anywhere? Should I just keep checking this board for word?

**************************************

Hey Kath..!! Weren't you here for the last jury watch..??

One night it ran until 10pm, pacific. Jury wasn't sure they could leave...lol

Quite a bit different this time around.

Scramble for information. Shame on MSM.

Good to see your interest is still intact.


bearwds

[oodi1]

WOW... I go to sleep for the night, and I missed a bunch!!

I'm glad you got in M2C, and thanks for the report! I hope your grandmother is doing better!

[Daisy'sMom]

Oh gosh, if reading here does that...I'm on it! BTW, I can't tell you how much I admire you and your brother. You are the definition of class in my book.

I agree with everything you have said. They are both wonderful men and I thank them for their time. I also hope, as I have said before, that they find some peace in all of this.

[summit]

I do hope the jury gets it right this time for Poor Lana and for Her family members that have suffered for so long.

[Curlyjo]

FYI: I JUST GOT HOME (10:45PM) - SO DON'T KNOW IF THINGS ARE POSTED ON JOE FRIDAY, T&T, TV OR WHAT. (I discovered my Grandma fell and got hurt while I was in LA, and I went straight from courthouse - to train - to hospital), and I just now got home. Sorry if this is a repeat.

WEINBERG CLOSING 3/24/09 - AFTER LUNCH RECESS:

I guess they took pity on me and let me in after lunch break – although I did get help from a “friend”. THANKS. THANKS. THANKS.

I asked around re: what people thought of Weinberg’s CLOSING so far (before lunch) – many responded, “boring”. I was told he held the Colt Cobra .38 in his hand for the longest time. Moved about with it in the courtroom, always holding it. At one point he used a LASER POINTER to indicate the direction the gun was aimed at. I will look forward to reading the details of that one, and WHY, from Sprocket.

WEINBERG has the podium turned, it directly faces the jury – about 6ft back from the front row. He has a black 3-ring binder sitting on top of the podium and he occasionally glances over, catches his place and then continues. Every so often, turning the pages as he continues to his next topic. IMO – Not nearly as obvious and annoying as I found LKB reading from her notes in the 1st trial. BUT TRUST ME – NOTHING AS PROFESSIONAL, CONFIDENT AND SMOOTH AS TRUC YESTERDAY.

FYI: For What it is Worth . . . I agree with the courtroom people I asked about the morning session. The afternoon was BORING. It really lacked any luster, and it was IMO, just a rehash of the testimony that the JURY has already heard. A "HE SAID" - "SHE SAID" kind of a ping pong routine.

The difference between YESTERDAY and what I heard in the afternoon TODAY . . .
Yesterday, Truc told a story. She started with a story about the 2 different worlds that Lana and Phil lived in. She then explained what the LAWS are that the judge would later advise the jury of - that they would need to follow in coming to their verdict. BUT she explained those LAWS by telling a couple of more STORIES. Each of these stories painted clear examples of those LAWS, stories that the jurors could easily relate to and visualize in their heads. Then she shared the most IMPORTANT CHAPTER in this story. About the SHIFTING SANDS in the South Vietnam dunes. She explained it to the jury, as if reading a chapter from a book, of how similar these CHANGING DUNES were to the Phil Spector DEFENSE. But she didn't just read to them or tell them, she SHOWED them. And as the sand dunes shifted, so did the printed quotes from Weinberg, the testimony from the defense witnesses, etc. Her STORY supported why the evidence from the state was so solid and pointed to SPECTOR's definite guilt. All presented in an organized, and smooth transition, with a beginning, middle, and an end, as she touched on each of these chapters, that supported the final ending in this STORY - That Phil Spector was holding the gun, and pulled the trigger when Lana was killed.

I thought that CLOSING ARGUMENTS were an opportunity for the attorneys to take a collection of all the important information that has been covered in the trial and "wrap it up, in a neat little package - - - ideally with a bow" and present it to the jurors. Closing Arguments give the attorneys a lot more leeway, flexibility and the opportunity to present this info - in a much more relaxed and creative way.

IMO, Weinberg missed an opportunity to do this. He seemed to rehash the same testimony that the jurors had heard many times in court. Except instead of TWO attorneys hashing it out, HE PLAYED BOTH the ROLES. In plain, "ARIAL FONT", the transcripts of the testimony were printed up on the screen. Sometimes the font was very small, sometimes it was a little larger. When it was small, we all waited for his AV assistant to highlight it and enlarge it - - - it was not what I would call a "finished" or creative (or interesting) presentation. It was more like, . . . "Do you remember when this was said?", "When this was discussed?" Then he would have a few more highlighted, "cherry-picked" words that a witness said, or what AJ said the witness said and then TELL THE JURY why this was a mistake or ridiculous or why they shouldn't accept it as fact, etc. HE WAS THE TEACHER - AND THE JURY WERE HIS STUDENTS, and he was covering information they had already learned. There was a lot of "fidgeting" sounds in the gallery as his lecture continued on. I guess that means I wasn't the only one ready for "class" to end.

Weinberg is NOT finished. I have no idea how much of Wednesday he will need. I would guess AT LEAST 1/2 the day. I heard this morning that AJ was ready to GO today with his CLOSING, if Weinberg happened to finish earlier. But that did not surprise me in the least.

M2C ...wow what a tough day for you...I hope you grandmother is going to be alright. I thank you for all that you go thru for us. Sometimes we forget that you have a life and still find the time to fit in this trial coverage. Same goes for sprocket. Thank you doesn't seem enough to show my appreciation.:thumbsup:

[Daisy'sMom]

M2C,
I also want to thank you for your coverage. You and Sprocket have been our only connection. I did not miss one moment of the PS1 trial and was so sad that I could not watch this one. I know it has been a hardship for you, and I am praying that your grandmother gets well fast.
Thank you.:thumbsup:

[Virgo]

GUILTY VERDICT PLEASE.....put an end to this nightmare for the family of Lana!!!

[lmercer]

I am looking forward to the part when they first put him in handcuffs right after the verdict is read.

[oodi1]

Does anyone think this case will go to the jury today?


Based on Sprocket's blog, it doesn't sound like DW is even halfway through his closings. If they do get it today, it probably won't be until late today.

[GPSpector]

Does anyone think this case will go to the jury today?

Only if DW finishes today and AJ's Closing is very short.

I'm guessing Thursday

[Daisy'sMom]

LKB a great attorney? Why do you say that? What has she done that makes you call her great? There are alot of descriptive words that I would use when talking about LKB, but great is not one of them.

[alldone]

Here is a question I would like to place in front of the group. It is my opinion that half (maybe more) of the defense strategy is to position themselves for the appeal process. In the event of a guilty version (I don't ask for much, but justice would be nice) what points do you think will be brought up on appeal? I don't know enough about the law to even venture a guess.

Also, do you think they will charge Mr. Pex post verdict? I hope they do, that man needs to be taught the value of an oath.

So on my short list of things I want are
1. Mr. Spector guilty of 2nd
2. Mr Pex formally charged with perjury and no deal out.
3. TruTv carry this trial, so all of us get to watch a squirm.
4. Oh and I wouldn't turn away a winning lotto ticket either!

[Daisy'sMom]

Only if DW finishes today and AJ's Closing is very short.

I'm guessing Thursday


I wish we could watch today. I get furious everytime I think about no coverage.:angry:

[hiitsme]

[QUOTE=oodi1;12931511]Based on Sprocket's blog, it doesn't sound like DW is even halfway through his closings. If they do get it today, it probably won't be until late today.[/QUOTI

In a way, I hope he babbles on all day and bores the jury to death. Then AJ can give his anticipated awesome rebuttal in the AM right before the jury begins to deliberate!

[KatyDid]

I wish we could watch today. I get furious everytime I think about no coverage.:angry:

Just checking in on this case. I followed it closely during the first round.

Thank you for the comment about no coverage. I was about to ask that. Sheesh, you would think somebody would be covering the closing arguments and the verdict. :sad:

[Virgo]

LKB a great attorney? Why do you say that? What has she done that makes you call her great? There are alot of descriptive words that I would use when talking about LKB, but great is not one of them.

You got that right!! Couldn,t agree more.:thumbdown:

[KatyDid]

LKB a great attorney? Why do you say that? What has she done that makes you call her great? There are alot of descriptive words that I would use when talking about LKB, but great is not one of them.

DITTO on that opinion!! :biggrin:

[gmiller]

LKB a great attorney? Why do you say that? What has she done that makes you call her great? There are alot of descriptive words that I would use when talking about LKB, but great is not one of them.

I completely agree! Some of the reporters like Ashley Banfied, Lisa Bloom and Jane Velez-Mitchell have all said how BRILLIANT LKB is. I thought it was just rear-end kissing by the press. I don't know, but all I can remember is her boring and clinical closing. I'll never forget when she a pink highlighter and put it in her mouth to show how Lana would have put it in her mouth. It was offensive, bordering on despicable...IMHO

[Daisy'sMom]

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/25/john-q-public-covers-the-spector-trial

John Q Public covers the Spector trial

It's disgusting that CNN now shows up, when they could have sent TRUTV there. Thank GOD for M2C and Sprocket.

[tartangirl]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/full-court-press/phil-spector-trial-weinberg-re/



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

[Daisy]

Yes, that's the order. Alan Jackson will have the last word.


Thanks, Dave. I sure wish I could have seen Truc Doh's closing. It sounds like it was really good. And, Alan Jackson earned my huge admiration and respect during the first trial.

I wish we could have seen the 2nd trial. (Though it would have been hard as hell to listen to all the crap that's gone on since last October! - I can't believe they took this long!) But, there's been some great reporting from inside the courtroom online here.

I pray the jury convicts him this time!

~Daisy

[Daisy]

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/full-court-press/phil-spector-trial-weinberg-re/



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




OMG! I just read the blog at the link above. And, Weinberg (or whatever the hell his name is) is telling the jury that DeSouza misheard Spector and that Spector actually said "Call somebody" instead of "I think I killed somebody"?!?!?!?! These defense attorneys just make sh*t up as they go along. :cursing:

[tartangirl]

I completely agree! Some of the reporters like Ashley Banfied, Lisa Bloom and Jane Velez-Mitchell have all said how BRILLIANT LKB is. I thought it was just rear-end kissing by the press. I don't know, but all I can remember is her boring and clinical closing. I'll never forget when she a pink highlighter and put it in her mouth to show how Lana would have put it in her mouth. It was offensive, bordering on despicable...IMHO


Some things just do not leave the mind. If LKB is brilliant, how did I miss it since I watched the complete trial two years ago? Shudder and shake was what I did most days watching her fawn over PS. I was very disappointed she sat at that defense table as a woman and as a lawyer. :confused: Money will always make a difference to some people.


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

[hiitsme]

Daisy...calm down:wink: The defense HAS to say something about this. After all, it is a very da*ning piece of evidence.

I'm sure AJ will deal with it just fine in his rebuttal. DW is grasping at straws.

[alldone]

I'm always a little leery of a new poster askin important questions that sound like a defense atty's assistant tryin to get ideas that they should already have..
no offense intended, but this is exactly what your question sounds like..

Oh I understand your concern, I am not associated with anyone, anywhere. The reasons for the questions is simple, I finally worked up enough nerve to poke my head up and ask what has been bouncing around in my brain...no mysteries here, no troll, just moi,
your average retired person living in Maryland.

Everything I have read says he is a lawyers lawyer, smart, specializing in appelate (sp?) matters, so it makes sense to me he has cards to play and I would like to know what they are! I can't believe he hasn't been laying somekind of ground work by trying to force some discrete error, what kind/how I don't know enough about the law to see the game plan.

I do know what the end game is with the State of CA and I hope they achieve their goal! I think the job they did in both trials is breath taking and I was very disappointed in the results of the first trial. I would have liked to strangle that juror myself.

So Citygirl, those of us who prefer to stay in the shadows are not all bad, filled with malice, or try to bait; We generally stay hidden with our questions because of those people you are worried about.

[tartangirl]

OMG! I just read the blog at the link above. And, Weinberg (or whatever the hell his name is) is telling the jury that DeSouza misheard Spector and that Spector actually said "Call somebody" instead of "I think I killed somebody"?!?!?!?! These defense attorneys just make sh*t up as they go along. :cursing:


How long do you think it took them to come up with that line? For some reason it does sound familiar to me, I wonder if one of the "dream team " from last trial took it out for a drive one day and it just stayed in my memory bank until now....hmm...:glare:

Preposterious...guess he has to try just about everything...and he seems to be doing just that. :sneaky:

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

[kellabeck]

So apparently Adriano could hear Spector say "Call someone" over the burbling fountain?? Amazing. I wonder if the jury can keep a straight face.

[tartangirl]

Absolutely agree with you. That is why I'm not tearing my hair out right now :biggrin:


At this point I am just laughing at the absurdity of it all. AJ will dot all the "I"s and cross all of the 'T's and then some. Smooth and smart...he will not disappoint...:smile:


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

[Tracian]

I completely agree! Some of the reporters like Ashley Banfied, Lisa Bloom and Jane Velez-Mitchell have all said how BRILLIANT LKB is. I thought it was just rear-end kissing by the press. I don't know, but all I can remember is her boring and clinical closing. I'll never forget when she a pink highlighter and put it in her mouth to show how Lana would have put it in her mouth. It was offensive, bordering on despicable...IMHO

IMO, LKB is one of those lawyers that want to take impossible cases and attempt to get the person off to prove her own legal expertise. I am all for the accused getting a fair trial, but I am getting really sick and tried of legal games that have nothing to do with justice or truth, but instead to cater to the ego of the lawyer in question, regardless of the side they represent.

[Daisy'sMom]

I want to see him put away forever.


Welcome!

I am with you on this one!!

Justice for Lana and her family:rose:

[Velouria]

So apparently Adriano could hear Spector say "Call someone" over the burbling fountain?? Amazing. I wonder if the jury can keep a straight face.


Well, recall that the defense tried to make much of the fact that English is not his first language. Perhaps they want the jury to believe that not only does he speak with an accent, but that he HEARS with one, too. :rolleyes:

[kennedy06]

I realize the jury can only consider the PBA's whos testimony they were allowed to hear. Look at the other incidents they weren't allowed to hear. Russian Roulette, more like a little reign of terror. These don't include other stories that have circulated about PS and others, of course we have all heard the John L. one, can't forget the story Doron W. brought up at the beginning of the trial about PS chasing the young adult men with the gun for mistaking him for Dudley Moore. This of course doesn't include the 5 PBA's.

August 11, 2008 (15)

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/ui/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&date=2005-10-21%2010:27:06

I don't hate PS, but it would be safe to say he has left a few memorable moments for some in his wake.


JMO

[KatyDid]

IMO, LKB is one of those lawyers that want to take impossible cases and attempt to get the person off to prove her own legal expertise. I am all for the accused getting a fair trial, but I am getting really sick and tried of legal games that have nothing to do with justice or truth, but instead to cater to the ego of the lawyer in question, regardless of the side they represent.

DITTO!! :thumbup:

[kipswife]

My laugh out loud moment for today - thanks so much!:thumbsup:

DITTO..........

and welcome alldone

m

[kennedy06]

There is also the 6 PBA witnesses whos testimony wasnt allowed in Norma K. a former assistant of his.

To many stories, where there is smoke there is fire. So for Lana to have ended up dead by a gunshot wound in his home is just to coincidental. JMO

[alldone]

This post is to all those lawyers, former jurors and gallery sitters out there:

What are the effects of very long closing arguments? Are they annoying? are they confusing? Are they really effective?

Having never sat through one myself, I have always wondered whether people are turned off by the hour after hour of arguments. Is that true? We have T&T and M2C to read - and we can stop anytime and take a break. How can a jury remember all that is said in a day and a half of closing argument?

Wondering here..

Thanks to all
CJ

I sat on an attempted murder trial many years ago, after listening to the testimony for a week we then had the luxury of listening to closing arguments for hours on end. It was boring, it was painful, it was stupid and it was not forgotten once in the jury room, it was the first thing we talked about! That was overshadowed by a juror who annouce three days in ( and about 10 votes of 11/1) that he didn't believe in the American Judicial System...all hell broke lose that day or as I like to say "let the entertainment begin!"

[Daisy'sMom]

I sat on an attempted murder trial many years ago, after listening to the testimony for a week we then had the luxury of listening to closing arguments for hours on end. It was boring, it was painful, it was stupid and it was not forgotten once in the jury room, it was the first thing we talked about! That was overshadowed by a juror who annouce three days in ( and about 10 votes of 11/1) that he didn't believe in the American Judicial System...all hell broke lose that day or as I like to say "let the entertainment begin!"

Welcome Alldone. I don't post that often, but I have followed this trial since the first day of the first trial. I am here until the end.
I have to ask, was there a mistrial declared in your trial? Did you all want to kick this juror in the can?

[penguin01]

I sat on an attempted murder trial many years ago, after listening to the testimony for a week we then had the luxury of listening to closing arguments for hours on end. It was boring, it was painful, it was stupid and it was not forgotten once in the jury room, it was the first thing we talked about! That was overshadowed by a juror who annouce three days in ( and about 10 votes of 11/1) that he didn't believe in the American Judicial System...all hell broke lose that day or as I like to say "let the entertainment begin!"
SO I hope that (unlike the PS1) jury y'all informed the judge and had him romoved from the jury so that the "real" jurors could get on with their work. Or did your case end up with a hung jury also. Please don't leave us hanging here - what happened????

Also wanted to say to Court JEster - I would think that the jury would be so angered by a lawyer who dragged out the closing argument and bored them to tears that they would tend to vote against him. Today (I hope) AJ will wrap it all up in a neat package for the jury in short order - and keep them awake and interested while he is at it.

[Curlyjo]

I am finding it so hard to wait and hear what the heck is going on in that courtroom. I really should get back to work but I am finding it hard to concentrate on anything. I sure hope we get something at the lunch break!:thumbup:

[eagleeer]

This post is to all those lawyers, former jurors and gallery sitters out there:

What are the effects of very long closing arguments? Are they annoying? are they confusing? Are they really effective?

Having never sat through one myself, I have always wondered whether people are turned off by the hour after hour of arguments. Is that true? We have T&T and M2C to read - and we can stop anytime and take a break. How can a jury remember all that is said in a day and a half of closing argument?

Wondering here..

Thanks to all
CJ

The poisley with the plazzle is the plazzle with the ploizle. Oh dang, I always get that wrong. :confused: :smile:

[True2Blues]

I am finding it so hard to wait and hear what the heck is going on in that courtroom. I really should get back to work but I am finding it hard to concentrate on anything. I sure hope we get something at the lunch break!:thumbup:


Maybe DW is going to Filibuster. It probably only seems that way, though.

[Juror #9]

I sat on an attempted murder trial many years ago, after listening to the testimony for a week we then had the luxury of listening to closing arguments for hours on end. It was boring, it was painful, it was stupid and it was not forgotten once in the jury room, it was the first thing we talked about! That was overshadowed by a juror who annouce three days in ( and about 10 votes of 11/1) that he didn't believe in the American Judicial System...all hell broke lose that day or as I like to say "let the entertainment begin!"

I found Linda Kenny Baden's closing long and boring. In the end we, for the most part, did not consider her appearance and length of closing arguments’ during our deliberations. It was the evidence presented during the trial that we, I, depended on in the end. If this jury works as hard as we did in the first trial I think this time he will be found gilty of 2nd degree murder

[eagleeer]

Well, recall that the defense tried to make much of the fact that English is not his first language. Perhaps they want the jury to believe that not only does he speak with an accent, but that he HEARS with one, too. :rolleyes:

Priceless :laugh:

[cook4andy]

I found Linda Kenny Baden's closing long and boring. In the end we, for the most part, did not consider her appearance and length of closing arguments’ during our deliberations. It was the evidence presented during the trial that we, I, depended on in the end. If this jury works as hard as we did in the first trial I think this time he will be found gilty of 2nd degree murder

I pray your right!

I can't believe PS2 isn't being televised:confused: :mad:

[Pozie]

I found Linda Kenny Baden's closing long and boring. In the end we, for the most part, did not consider her appearance and length of closing arguments’ during our deliberations. It was the evidence presented during the trial that we, I, depended on in the end. If this jury works as hard as we did in the first trial I think this time he will be found gilty of 2nd degree murder

Hi - mostly a lurker here, but want to ask you: How did the jurors in the first trial feel about DeSouza's testimony?

[kennedy06]

Glad you asked the question Pozie! I would like to know how they felt about the 5 PBA's testimony.

Thanks

[Juror #9]

Well, recall that the defense tried to make much of the fact that English is not his first language. Perhaps they want the jury to believe that not only does he speak with an accent, but that he HEARS with one, too. :rolleyes:

you are not too far off. One of the jurors in the first trial acually thought that.

[Juror #9]

Hi - mostly a lurker here, but want to ask you: How did the jurors in the first trial feel about DeSouza's testimony?

all of us, except for Juror #10 and sometimes Juror #1, believed him.

[alldone]

Welcome Alldone. I don't post that often, but I have followed this trial since the first day of the first trial. I am here until the end.
I have to ask, was there a mistrial declared in your trial? Did you all want to kick this juror in the can?

Mistrial? Why yes indeed, right after the brawl. I'm not kidding either.
The unamerican jurist was being throttled by another jurist, the rest were trying to get them separated. Me I got my purse and headed for the door, I bruise easily.

They rounded us all up, brought the defendant and the lawyers in, and the judge said something to the effect "I see that there is no chance of a verdict, am I correct?" after we answered in the affirmative, he thanks us and let us go. Never did find out the ending on that one.

[Pozie]

Mistrial? Why yes indeed, right after the brawl. I'm not kidding either.
The unamerican jurist was being throttled by another jurist, the rest were trying to get them separated. Me I got my purse and headed for the door, I bruise easily.

They rounded us all up, brought the defendant and the lawyers in, and the judge said something to the effect "I see that there is no chance of a verdict, am I correct?" after we answered in the affirmative, he thanks us and let us go. Never did find out the ending on that one.

Don't have to answer if you don't want to, but was his name Ben?:glare:

[Juror #9]

all of us, except for Juror #10 and sometimes Juror #1, believed him.

And yes, we all believed the five women who testified Phil held a gun to thier heads.

[Juror #9]

do you ever speak to the other jurors from PS1? If so, what is their take on PS2?

yes, just a couple of us keep in contact.

[Juror #9]

Don't have to answer if you don't want to, but was his name Ben?:glare:

yes it was

[kennedy06]

I realize you may not wish to answer more questions #9, but did the "Don't Go" was that effective?

[Juror #9]

I realize you may not wish to answer more questions #9, but did the "Don't go" was the effective?

It was for me! I still get goose bumps when I remember that part of AJ's closing

[kennedy06]

Thinking back it was wasn't it!

[Pozie]

yes it was

LOL - was asking Alldone if that was the case in the jury she was on. I thought surely there couldn't be another one like him. Silly me.

[Daisy'sMom]

And yes, we all believed the five women who testified Phil held a gun to thier heads.


Thanks Juror #9 for filling us in. Do you think, if he is found guilty that he will get found on murder2 or the lesser charge?

[kennedy06]

Do you think PS recognized you when you went to court lately, like did he give you one of his well known Stares??!

[coinoutlet]

Now showing on MSNBC crawler:

Second-degree murder charges against music producer Phil Spector expected to go before a Los Angeles jury today

..

If this is true then AJ must have been short and to the point.

[Juror #9]

Thanks Juror #9 for filling us in. Do you think, if he is found guilty that he will get found on murder2 or the lesser charge?

I believe he will be found guilty of murder2.

[Juror #9]

Do you think PS recognized you when you went to court lately, like did he give you one of his well known Stares??!

Yes he did. He almost tripped over one of his guards as he crooked his neck back to give me a long, long stare.

[Daisy'sMom]

Yes he did. He almost tripped over one of his guards as he crooked his neck back to give me a long, long stare.

I hope you gave it right back!

[eagleeer]

:thumbsup: And I did't even mention the Chalice with the Palace....

Do you mean the pellet with the poisle is in the flaggle with the chalice? Oh dang again, I think I got that one wrong too. :confused:

[kennedy06]

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

:smile:

[Pozie]

Thank you for taking the time to answer.

:smile:


Me too, Juror #9. Much appreciated.

[Daisy'sMom]

Me too, Juror #9. Much appreciated.

Yes, thank you Juror #9

[tartangirl]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/phil-spectors-a.html

[Daisy'sMom]

Court Jester, I just noticed that you live in Clayton. My cousin lives there. Small World:laugh:

[My 2 Cents]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.

[True2Blues]

Yes he did. He almost tripped over one of his guards as he crooked his neck back to give me a long, long stare.

I hope you stared him down.

[kennedy06]

Hi my2c, oh my gosh he did that!

[Curlyjo]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.

So good to hear from you M2C:thumbsup:

[True2Blues]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.



Thank you M2C. Muttering, now that's professional.

[Juror #9]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.

hey to you too!

[Pozie]

Could the "other source" of the blood spatter have been from Spector's hand?

[hiitsme]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.

Hope your grandmother is OK. As you listened yesterday, was there any one thing he said that you thought, gee, the jury might get hung up on this point?

[oodi1]

This report also says that the jury may get it today:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6727704

[Mort_Snerd]

In total agreement with you. He presented a CV to the jury to list his credentials and experience and they qualified him as an expert. Regardless of how much money he was paid or not paid, he told the Judge and Jury that he was qualified to testify about what tests he did and would prove. He cannot say sorry I misspoke, he knew he was in trouble when he tried to get Mr. Wienberg to hold off and giveing the CD to the prosecution. He lied and he knew he lied. Unfortunately for him, so did Alan Jackson. He sure as heck was not man enough to admit to his deliberate lie. Sadly for Mr. Pex, the problem was caused by Mr. Weinberg trying to hide "discovery note/reports" from the prosecution. He should also stand in the dock alongside Mr. Pex for subording perjury.

Just my opinion,
Mortie

Here is a question I would like to place in front of the group. It is my opinion that half (maybe more) of the defense strategy is to position themselves for the appeal process. In the event of a guilty version (I don't ask for much, but justice would be nice) what points do you think will be brought up on appeal? I don't know enough about the law to even venture a guess.

Also, do you think they will charge Mr. Pex post verdict? I hope they do, that man needs to be taught the value of an oath.

So on my short list of things I want are
1. Mr. Spector guilty of 2nd
2. Mr Pex formally charged with perjury and no deal out.
3. TruTv carry this trial, so all of us get to watch a squirm.
4. Oh and I wouldn't turn away a winning lotto ticket either!

[My 2 Cents]

Yesterday - Weinberg chastised Dr Herold and her tetimony, because he said that she doesn't have documentation of measurement, no charts and no documentaion.

DW stated, "Dr Herold can only say YES to Alan and Truc. She can't tell you how. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE."

I'm not sure that's the way I remember LH's testimony. IIRC she had a lot of detailed notes and reports, that both attorneys discussed during her testimony. But I could be wrong. I am sure AJ will have a response to that.

WHAT I FOUND EXTREMELY HUMOROUS WAS: It seemed throughout the defense's stream of "EXPERT's" testimony - NONE OF THEM SEEMED TO HAVE MORE THAN A PAGE OF TWO OF NOTES, IF ANYTHING. And these guys ALL charged a FORTUNE. I believe it was PEX who testified that WEINBERG WROTE HIS REPORT and he just "amended a paragraph" or something of that length.

[Curlyjo]

This report also says that the jury may get it today:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6727704

Yes it does say that but that report was done early this morning. This is the same report that says Truc Do will do the rebuttal as well. Not that I WOULDN'T want the jury to get the case today (because believe me I do but I really doubt it. :unsure:

[Juror #9]

Thanks.

are you there today?

Not today. I am working from home and waiting for news regarding the jury's status.:bored:

[newsjunkie]

Yes it does say that but that report was done early this morning. This is the same report that says Truc Do will do the rebuttal as well. Not that I WOULDN'T want the jury to get the case today (because believe me I do but I really doubt it. :unsure:


Does the jury still need instruction after the rebuttal?

[Juror #9]

Does the jury still need instruction after the rebuttal?

yes, that will last about an hour.

[newsjunkie]

yes, that will last about an hour.


....Thankyou!

[Curlyjo]

Yesterday - Weinberg chastised Dr Herold and her tetimony, because he said that she doesn't have documentation of measurement, no charts and no documentaion.

DW stated, "Dr Herold can only say YES to Alan and Truc. She can't tell you how. THAT'S NOT SCIENCE."

I'm not sure that's the way I remember LH's testimony. IIRC she had a lot of detailed notes and reports, that both attorneys discussed during her testimony. But I could be wrong. I am sure AJ will have a response to that.

WHAT I FOUND EXTREMELY HUMOROUS WAS: It seemed throughout the defense's stream of "EXPERT's" testimony - NONE OF THEM SEEMED TO HAVE MORE THAN A PAGE OF TWO OF NOTES, IF ANYTHING. And these guys ALL charged a FORTUNE. I believe it was PEX who testified that WEINBERG WROTE HIS REPORT and he just "amended a paragraph" or something of that length.

Wow...that is so funny...thank you...thank you!!!!!!

[Ellie]

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Hello everyone! I can't believe the time is finally here. I have aged, had a child, 2 job changes, gotten married and considered divorce, all in the span between the start of PS1 and what is now nearing the end of PS2. I can't believe it's finally here. I bet AJ needs a vacation. I'm going to miss you guys after the jury comes back with their verdict. I know it won't be a mistrial this time... And PS doesn't have the funds for another trial!

So after the 3 days of closings... did anyone change their minds on how long the jury will be out?

[Curlyjo]

yes, that will last about an hour.

Juror #9 I just wanted to say how much we appreciated that you served on the jury and to let us ask you questions how the jury looked at the evidence in the case. Thank you! Glad you here posting!!!!:thumbup:

[My 2 Cents]

This report also says that the jury may get it today:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=6727704

This is just my GUESS, but I would bet that if Weinberg does finish today and it is after lunch, AJ will make sure that his CLOSING carries over into tomorrow (at least a little bit), so the jury gets the case while his closing is FRESH in their minds. I think AJ is only going to take 1/2 day, maybe less - and if DW ended by AM break - AJ would not drag it out. But I bet DW takes a good chunk of today and therefore, AJ will make sure he has something carried over til tomorrow morning. And then the jury will start deliberating.

FYI:I'm not there today - this is just my "pick".

Also, this ABC news report - I'm not sure how informed this reporter is. She suggested TRUC DO will handle the 2nd part of the closing and a few other details she added were rather weak. I don't think she had any inside info about where the closings really stood, unfortunately.

[Juror #9]

Juror #9 I just wanted to say how much we appreciated that you served on the jury and to let us ask you questions how the jury looked at the evidence in the case. Thank you! Glad you here posting!!!!:thumbup:

hmm. I don't know what you mean. Looked at the evedence...

[Ellie]

Between T&T's great details and the media, you have probably gotten a lot of feedback from YESTERDAY. Here was one of the things that DW did that woke the jury up.

THE CHAIR:
(after the lunch break, 3/24/09)

Weinberg pulls the blood stained chair, that Lana was found in, out of a crate and places it directly in front of where Mrs. Clarkson’s seat is. Later he moves it in front of the jury, next to his podium and facing the jury. Before he begins any discussion regarding the chair, he walks over and PLOPS DOWN IN IT. (this got the attention of the jury very quickly) And he doesn’t just SIT in it. He slumps way down in the seat and straightens out his legs in front of him. OK, now I get it – Weinberg was recreating the angle and placement of Lana’s body when police arrived to the scene. Jurors are NOW, up out of their seats to see him better AND so are several gallery guests in the back row. Weinberg explains to the jury the direction the blood pooling out of Lana’s mouth would flow. He shows them, while slumped back, how the blood would flow out his mouth and down his chest and the eventual path it would follow down the chair and onto the ground, etc. He states, “there is no way that the blood flowing from her mouth could hit the outside of the chair.”
He points to the BLOOD SPOT on the chair that has been looked at many times. (it has a bit of a “tail” to it, and the state’s evidence suggests that this drop is “directionally back spatter”, I believe).

DW points to this single drop of blood and says, “How could that NOT be satellite spatter? DW says it is “satellite” spatter from another source. (the blood flow from Lana’s mouth)
I believe in the trial Dr Herold testified this 1 spot was IMPACT SPATTER
I believe in the trial Pex testified that this 1 spot was SATELLITE SPATTER

THIS IS IMPORTANT, HE STATES – “because it explains how Phil Spector could have gotten spatter on his jacket, helping or . . . “ (pause) then he MUMBLES something like “or whatever” - - or “doing what ever it was next” – I thought he mumbled something like that. (it made me chuckle, because to me it appeared that he reached that part of his explanation, but didn’t really remember exactly how he was going to “coin” whatever it was the jury was to conclude that Phil Spector was doing right about then.

:seeya: Hi Juror #9.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Whatever. Or Whatever. Or "helping". Yeah, he helped alright.

thanks for the great updates, M2C. I don't post much any more but I read every single day (usually all day if there are updates!).

[Dave]

"Defense: Lana Clarkson had "significant struggle" with alcohol and drug abuse."

Jurors: Spector's attorney had "significant struggle" with being concise, his credibility, and evidence abuse.