Phil Spector Verdict Watch 4/9/09 thru 4/12

[True2Blues]

Holiday thread!

[vonna]

Hi all,

Here's hoping the Jury are fit and well for at least a half day deliberation tomorrow. I really thought it was going to finish today, but not to be. Look forward to reading your posts tomorrow.

Nic

I hope so, too. This is beyond frustrating.

[PKizner]

I'm here! Impatient for justice for Lana but I am here!!!! :thumbsup:

[dref99]

It seems as quiet in here as has ever been seen (even during the trial things were discussed - when there was no news whatsoever). Perhaps a reflection of Judge Fidler's court room, deserted by all, after the jury went home.

I would assume the Spector supporters are hanging out with everything crossed, hoping for another hung jury and those who believe Spector committed murder have run out of words about LA juries and expensive expert witnesses.

Looking at the last thread for inspiration, most of what I discovered was in which countries the easter days are celebrated with a major holiday and where they are not, and a debate about the timing of new threads, which didn't appear to be resolved (perhaps a guideline as to why juries cannot make decisions). The minutiae of daily chat takes over when the brain cannot accept the reality of no verdict 2 weeks after the trial ended. (I guess Truc Do missed her holiday)

I did notice one comment related to the facts of the matter viz from Vonna

I believe his defense attorneys came up with the preposterous idea of a suicide.

It was Phil himself who decided on suicide, while he was rambling and raving at the APD after he was taken there in the early hours of February 3. When his brain realised that this time he had actually pulled the trigger on one of those guns he loved to use to threaten and intimidate - he obviously realised there were only two choices as to what had happened, and he didn't much like one of them.

That this thought, described in his usual foul-mouthed way, became a defense for murder, which two juries have now spent time and energy treating as a possibility, could surely only happen in La La Land

jmo

For what Phil said when (and how he said it)
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

[Curlyjo]

Wow...I was wondering what the heck is going on when I saw today's thread wasn't allowing any posting. Wasn't sure were to find the new thread. Glad I did. I hate to admit it but I am addicted to this trial and even though I don't always post I am reading.

[vonna]

It seems as quiet in here as has ever been seen (even during the trial things were discussed - when there was no news whatsoever). Perhaps a reflection of Judge Fidler's court room, deserted by all, after the jury went home.

I would assume the Spector supporters are hanging out with everything crossed, hoping for another hung jury and those who believe Spector committed murder have run out of words about LA juries and expensive expert witnesses.

Looking at the last thread for inspiration, most of what I discovered was in which countries the easter days are celebrated with a major holiday and where they are not, and a debate about the timing of new threads, which didn't appear to be resolved (perhaps a guideline as to why juries cannot make decisions). The minutiae of daily chat takes over when the brain cannot accept the reality of no verdict 2 weeks after the trial ended. (I guess Truc Do missed her holiday)

I did notice one comment related to the facts of the matter viz from Vonna

I believe his defense attorneys came up with the preposterous idea of a suicide.

It was Phil himself who decided on suicide, while he was rambling and raving at the APD after he was taken there in the early hours of February 3. When his brain realised that this time he had actually pulled the trigger on one of those guns he loved to use to threaten and intimidate - he obviously realised there were only two choices as to what had happened, and he didn't much like one of them.

That this thought, described in his usual foul-mouthed way, became a defense for murder, which two juries have now spent time and energy treating as a possibility, could surely only happen in La La Land

jmo

For what Phil said when (and how he said it)
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

Thanks for this, Dref. The suicide theory is so insane I should have guessed it came from Spector - but I didn't, obviously.

[KaraokeDiva]

Are we just waiting for Monday now or will the jury be deliberating on a Friday this time around??

[Curlyjo]

Are we just waiting for Monday now or will the jury be deliberating on a Friday this time around??

I am not sure ... I guess we will have to wait and read sprocket's report. I sure hope they work the half day scheduled.

[KaraokeDiva]

Thx for the responses. I guess I will just check in tomorrow.

[dref99]

Thanks for this, Dref. The suicide theory is so insane I should have guessed it came from Spector - but I didn't, obviously.

That about describes it - not even a defense lawyer could think up that one. I think he went through so many lawyers due to their difficulty in agreeing with this defense - but it only takes 2 jurors to get it through 2 trials - We know he found one!

jmo

[Hey Paula]

Hi Everyone!

How long has this jury been deliberating?

I check the board from time to time, and it appears they've been deliberating for some time. Has the jury requested that specific portions of testimony be read?

Does it appear this jury might be deadlocked?

Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to reply!

:rose: May justice be served for Lana and her family.

[KaraokeDiva]

Hi Everyone!

How long has this jury been deliberating?

I check the board from time to time, and it appears they've been deliberating for some time. Has the jury requested that specific portions of testimony be read?

Does it appear this jury might be deadlocked?

Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to reply!

:rose: May justice be served for Lana and her family.Hey Paula, good to see you!

If I'm not mistaken, this jury has been deliberating for something close to 25 hours...

[Hey Paula]

Hey Paula, good to see you!

If I'm not mistaken, this jury has been deliberating for something close to 25 hours...

Hi KD!

Great to see you too, and thanks for your reply!

I've been checking the PS board and have seen threads labeled "Verdict Watch" since 4/1 and that's 8 days ago! However, I'm glad they haven't been deliberating for more than a week!

[Curlyjo]

Sprocket will be on the radio http://www.talkradioone.com/ she should be on soon. just for information

[Curlyjo]

Sprocket will be on the radio http://www.talkradioone.com/ she should be on soon. just for information

I am so sorry that we have to listen the other person.....please let us listem to betsy

[bearwds]

I was trying to think which witness coined "accidental suicide"..the silliest defense I have heard since Dan White's "Twinkie Defense".

It was in PS-1. Was it Spitz, Baden..?? ..or someone else..??


bearwds

[eagleeer]

I was trying to think which witness coined "accidental suicide"..the silliest defense I have heard since Dan White's "Twinkie Defense".

It was in PS-1. Was it Spitz, Baden..?? ..or someone else..??


bearwds

Bruce Cutler said it.

"Like her colleague Bruce Cutler, who began the opening arguments on Wednesday, Ms Kenney Baden poured scorn on the district attorney's office and its motives in pressing charges, suggesting investigators got it into their heads they were looking at a murder case and never seriously considered any alternative. "Murder on their mind," was how Mr Cutler characterised their viewpoint.

He suggested Ms Clarkson's death was, rather, the result of something he called "accidental suicide" - a term unfamiliar to criminologists that suggests some mixture of death wish and drunken misadventure."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/spector-trial-accidental-suicide-caused-actress-death-446410.html

[bearwds]

Bruce Cutler said it.

"Like her colleague Bruce Cutler, who began the opening arguments on Wednesday, Ms Kenney Baden poured scorn on the district attorney's office and its motives in pressing charges, suggesting investigators got it into their heads they were looking at a murder case and never seriously considered any alternative. "Murder on their mind," was how Mr Cutler characterised their viewpoint.

He suggested Ms Clarkson's death was, rather, the result of something he called "accidental suicide" - a term unfamiliar to criminologists that suggests some mixture of death wish and drunken misadventure."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/spector-trial-accidental-suicide-caused-actress-death-446410.html

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

Cool. Bruce Cutler it was.

bearwds

[eagleeer]

Now that I think about it, isn't "accidental suicide" and oxymoron, said by a real moron.

[GPSpector]

Now that I think about it, isn't "accidental suicide" and oxymoron, said by a real moron.

Yes, on both counts.


I hope Good Friday is a good day for everyone.

[Banditta]

I can't believe there isn't a verdict. I watched the first trial and have been peeking in on the Spector board. Guilty guilty guilty. I hope justice is done. Has the jury requested anything to be read back or other evidence or questions?

[aproudmom]

OK what is up there is still no verdict I got into the first trial crazy hair kinda freaked me out:scared:what is taking so long with this verdict so easy G-U-I-L-T-Y JMO.

[Banditta]

Thank you all for keeping me updated on this trial and
deliberation. It's time for Lana Clarkson, her family and friends, to have the justice they deserve. I hope this is the day the jury finds
that appalling murderer guilty.
Hey "Jo", good to see you I can't Tell you how much.:tonguewag:

[bearwds]

Did the jury get the case yesterday? How many hours did they deliberate so far?

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

To deliberations: March 26, 2009

Current elapsed time: 24hours, 48minutes


bearwds

[FrankieBones1]

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

To deliberations: March 26, 2009

Current elapsed time: 24hours, 48minutes


bearwds

Far too much time. Wonder what the hold up is.

[Banditta]

Far too much time. Wonder what the hold up is.

have any notes been sent out to the judge?

[dref99]

Far too much time. Wonder what the hold up is.

I was wondering who the holdup might be - rather than what. But I agree - far too much time.


jmo

[FrankieBones1]

have any notes been sent out to the judge?

No idea, Banditta. I haven't been following the second trial as close as the first one. All I know is that there was so much evidence to toss his butt in prison for life. Too bad the jury system doesn't always work.

[FrankieBones1]

I was wondering who the holdup might be - rather than what. But I agree - far too much time.


jmo

Please don't let it be a 'who'. Not sure I could live through another one of those.

[dref99]

Good morning dref. I am also interested in who. I wish we knew a little about this jury. I doubt if it was #9 again. Dunno, could be.

Happy Good Friday for those who are acknowledging this day.

Hello Dianna

It is probably better that we have little knowledge of the jury - last time around there was much speculation about jury members - most of it wrong. Hopefully when it is all over we shall find who was holding things up

The only hope I do have relates to my memory of the Mark Jenson trial.(I think that was the name) That jury was out for some time & some of them spoke as to why - which related to a detailed look at all the evidence - with particular items pointing to guilt - so I pin my hopes that something similar is happening - but I really have not a clue.

In my religious youth (long gone are both), Good Friday was seen as a day of mourning - so perhaps it is a good day to light a candle for Lana

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

[dref99]

:wink: we have dissected this case for years..... the jury has only deliberated 25 hours

Everyone said that last time too.

I can't remember when I was last an optimist about this trial - probably about July 2007. Do hope you are correct Why.


jmo

[KatyDid]

Happy Good Friday!

I was just reading back on the thread. So, we won't know if there will be jury deliberations today until all jurors show up, or one juror calls in sick. Is that right?

[tartangirl]

Good Morning,

I have read a small bit of information in that evil blog that this was a female juror this time. How this person has that information I do not know. The same blog brought forth the information about the female jury foreman a few days ago. I only hope all are well, or heal soon and have a steady mind and strong body enough to get to the task of bringing in a guilty verdict soon. 2nd DEGREE MURDER.


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

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

[bballgrl]

Good Morning all.. I am sorry to report that my optimism has failed me. I know that IF the jury does deliberate today, it will be half day only. IF They do not come to a decision today, I am predicting a Hung Jury once again. I highly doubt that a group of 12 fairly intelligent people can agree on a NOT GUILTY decision. So, I am saying that if we do not get a verdict today.. I am predicting another deadlock and hence a Hung Jury. Please don't blast me, this KILLS me to say. It is just the feeling I am getting. I know that people are saying we have to give it time and allow the jury to get all the facts.. but this is a no-brainer (as far as I am concerned) If they are even considering Lana's background, then SHAME ON THEM... she is the victim in this case, not the murderer.

OK, end of rant.... Just My Opinion...:crying:

[dref99]

Good Morning,

I have read a small bit of information in that evil blog that this was a female juror this time. How this person has that information I do not know. The same blog brought forth the information about the female jury foreman a few days ago. I only hope all are well, or heal soon and have a steady mind and strong body enough to get to the task of bringing in a guilty verdict soon. 2nd DEGREE MURDER.


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

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



It probably wasn't hard to find out who it was via the accredited press, or the lawyers, some of whom he may be acquainted with. Most else what he said was posted by Sprocket.

The foreperson being juror no 1 was mentioned on sprocket's blog as well - at the time of the message request for a readback.

It was the mildest post from the weird one that I have ever seen. Strange

jmo

[vonna]

does rachelle have a blog? :laugh: what is the www?

Good morning, all. Good to see you Frankie. I've got my fingers crossed that deliberations resume today.

[dref99]

wasn't it last thursday a juror got sick?

and now this thursday........hmmmmmmm

I believe it was a Wednesday. Perhaps they like long weekends


jmo

[KatyDid]

wasn't it last thursday a juror got sick?

and now this thursday........hmmmmmmm

a little reminiscent of PS1, except it was always one of the defense attorneys who had something 'come up'. :sneaky:

[vonna]

:ohmy:I hope you have a storm cellar or a safe place to go. Don't live close to Mena,AK. do you?:blink:

She lives IN Mena. Thanks to TG for informing me last night that she and her family are without electricity - but well.

[Anakerie]

Good morning everyone....

I'm hoping that the juror who was ill yesterday will be well enough to show up at the courthouse today... even if it is just a half-day because of Good Friday. I'm not worried yet about how long they've been deliberating. Key word is "yet". I would hate to be on a jury in a case that lasted as long as this one has.... I would think it would be hard to remember what was said or shown 5 months before!

[Anakerie]

:ohmy:I hope you have a storm cellar or a safe place to go. Don't live close to Mena,AK. do you?:blink:
I thought Navymom was in Arkansas.. I've heard on the news this morning about the tornado there. Is there a Mena in Alaska too?

ETA: Thank you, Vonna... I'm glad she's ok!

[Ellie]

Absolutely simple physics;e.g., 04-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Searching #218
Registered User

"Very simple. It is more likely to end up at or near the left foot. After the weapon is fired and dropped because of recoil or death the shortest distance for it to fall would be near the left foot. For it to end up at the right foot would require a further extension of the right arm after discharge."
Also:Verdict Watch Thursday 4/9/09#266
Posted By Searching
"Strange that in his 3 phone calls for help, CHP, APD and MB he never mentioned Spector standing outside holding a gun. He did mention it 5 hours latter to the APD.":thumbdown:

I totally disagreed with this yesterday and I totally disagree with it today. If a person shoots themself in the mouth with their right hand, common sense alone (and if I weren't at work I could do some research on it) would tell me that the gun would land wherever the right hand fell. NOT under the ankle of the left leg. it would land on Lana's right side, whether in her lap or on the floor. The body tenses up initially when something so sudden happens... the hand would not immediately go flax and just 'let go', and no gun is going to 'bounce' across Lana's lap, onto her left knee, and then down to the floor to rest under her ankle (this idea is about as crazy as Cutler's suggestion that Lana was able to move after Phil shot her). Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?!

[vonna]

Absolutely simple physics;e.g., 04-09-2009, 07:38 PM
Searching #218
Registered User

"Very simple. It is more likely to end up at or near the left foot. After the weapon is fired and dropped because of recoil or death the shortest distance for it to fall would be near the left foot. For it to end up at the right foot would require a further extension of the right arm after discharge."
Also:Verdict Watch Thursday 4/9/09#266
Posted By Searching
"Strange that in his 3 phone calls for help, CHP, APD and MB he never mentioned Spector standing outside holding a gun. He did mention it 5 hours latter to the APD.":thumbdown:

I still think this is a theory worthy of Bruce Cutler or one of the highly paid "experts" for the defense. And it certainly is NOT "very simple."

[Ellie]

I still think this is a theory worthy of Bruce Cutler or one of the highly paid "experts" for the defense. And it certainly is NOT "very simple."

Ha, JINX, Vonna!! :wink:

[Ellie]

"Strange that in his 3 phone calls for help, CHP, APD and MB he never mentioned Spector standing outside holding a gun. He did mention it 5 hours latter to the APD.":thumbdown:

Oh, and further....wthever about 'ADS didn't mention Phil standing outside...' no, he just beat cheeks outta there because Phil was standing on the front step with an assumably loaded gun in his hand. I don't think ADS had any thought whatsoever about telling the police (and MB for that matter) the truth about what he saw. I'm sure he was pretty shaken up at that point. Nice try though! :wink:

[oodi]

Good morning everyone!!!

Just a reminder... the Dateline episode with AJ is on tonight! :thumbsup:

[KatyDid]

Good morning everyone!!!

Just a reminder... the Dateline episode with AJ is on tonight! :thumbsup:

Thank you for the heads up on that. I had forgotten about it. :smile:

[tartangirl]

Good morning everyone!!!

Just a reminder... the Dateline episode with AJ is on tonight! :thumbsup:

Thank You for the reminder. I will be doing a good deed this evening, one that I enjoy thoroughly. I hope to have it all put to bed by that time though. :wink:

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

[kitty1182]

Maybe today will be the day that a little man will be locked away to pay for his sins........

I sure hope so!!!!!

[Ellie]

..."the truth about what he saw."...You could also add what he thought he heard. Seems very strange that if someone is standing in front you of holding a gun and making alledged excited utterances that some of your very first words to the police would be about that person standing there holing a gun. Does make you wonder or at least it should why he didn't. The jurors sure have a lot of questions to resolve. Doesn't appear to be the "SLAM DUNK" that many predicted.:thumbup:

Ok.. to clarify... IIRC, ADS was in the car when he heard the gunshot, then saw phil emerge from the house with the gun in his hand. ADS either was still in the car or went back to the car when he saw Phil and took off, as would most normal people when approached by someone with a gun (and blood all over them, mind you. My first thought would be to get the heck outta there, I'm the witness!). So... it doesn't really matter if ADS first told anyone Phil was "standing on the front step with a gun in his hand" or not. The order in which he told the truth does not matter... that he told the truth DOES. And I think he told to the truth.

[Anni]

Quickie question...Are the jurors deliberating today? TIA~


Happy Easter Weekend To All...

[bballgrl]

Quickie question...Are the jurors deliberating today? TIA~


Happy Easter Weekend To All...

We won't know until our Sprocket gets to the court room to see. She mentioned that they did not know ahead of time and she will have to go to the court house to find out. Hopefully!

But, if they do... it will only be 1/2 day

[cook4andy]

Quickie question...Are the jurors deliberating today? TIA~


Happy Easter Weekend To All...



We won't know until normal court hours resume. One of the jurors came down ill yesterday, so it's up in the air.

Good afternoon all. :)

Wishing everyone Happy Passover and Happy Easter.

[Anni]

Thanks JohnnyRocket, love yer nic!

[Exiled.]

"All of us feel the same way." Why do some folks post that. Are they attempting to speak universally.:sad:

I have to agree with you there Searching. Johnny Rocket most certainly doesn't speak for me.

Happy Easter!

[Jayne]

.....but before it landed, it flew through the air into a bathroom or kitchen, wiped itself off, turned around and flew back to land under her left foot.

There you go again, CJ, giving me a good "laugh". You've a great sense of humour. And, of course that makes no sense...flying cobra...gheesh.

jmo

j

[cook4andy]

So if Sprocket's calculated jury deliberations are correct. The jury will only deliberate 1 Hour, 52 Minutes today. If they deleberate at all?

[vonna]

It is not only JMHO, but it is plausible. Given the dynamics of simple physics it is also probable. It is so simple that you don't even need anything in your hand to try an experiment and see the probability and plausibility.:thumbup:

Excellent choice of word - "plausible" i.e. giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.

[Shameonme]

I have to agree with you there Searching. Johnny Rocket most certainly doesn't speak for me.

Happy Easter!

I have to agree with you as well Exiled I speak for myself thank you very much.

[vonna]

Take off and run away, thats fine. However, it does not explain the ? of why he did not say anything about the gun in his cry for help. Just ask yourself a simple ? If your afraid for your life and someone is standing there holding a gun, it is reasonable to assume you would say something like;e.g., He is standing there holding a gun and I think he said he just killed someone. Or, I think he said he just killed someone and he is holding a gun.The transcripts also reveal that he is not 100% sure about the statement.:thumbup:

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!!!

[cook4andy]

that was yesterday

Thank you!!

[cook4andy]

The jury is deliberating. Yeah!

[oodi]

Jury IS deliberating... half day.

[Curlyjo]

the jury just started deliberating. YEA

[vonna]

the jury just started deliberating. YEA

Thank heavens - or, more precisely, the juror who was feeling poorly yesterday.

[cook4andy]

Thank heavens - or, more precisely, the juror who was feeling poorly yesterday.


Thank heavens is right. I wonder if this is a good sign?? I hope!!

[oodi]

Me thinks thou doth protest too much!!!

I'm thinking of all the wasted bandwidth. :wink:

[vonna]

Since it is 1/2 day, they will not have lunch - so they may deliberate for 3 to 4 hours straight (with breaks) and get off at 1:00.

Maybe....maybe

I like your thinking.

[KatyDid]

Jury IS deliberating... half day.

Thanks for the update! Good news! I hope they come to a decision in the next hour and we can all enjoy our Easter weekend. :biggrin:

[Shameonme]

Were you here on the thread when I posted that? Nor was exiled.

Why yes I was and can we just leave it at that or I should say I'm going to leave it at that. As a poster replyed nuff said.

[vonna]

I hope she got the laundry done, feed the cat and made a few hand bags.:biggrin: I'm looking forward to a good:laugh: reading her travelogue about her daily trek to the court house. Given her simplistic style I can see where she may have appeal for some.:wink:

Guess your mama never told you about saying nothing when unable to say something nice about a person.

[oodi]

More wasted bandwidth. I think we need another thread again.

[vonna]

Good afternoon CJ...:biggrinjester::chicken:

Good morning, Ms. Dianna.

[mbmb]

Hey, its the ONLY place we can go to get the very latest (in the court room) blogs; so where else do you suggest we get that info from????

Nic

It certainly appears that OP is reading Sprocket's Blog, since he/she knows a lot about it. :rolleyes:

[vonna]

:confused:Is there some rule about going back and reading previous post and comenting on them?:huh:

No, it's okay to COMMENT on them.

[oodi]

Ok what do they need a big bucket of ice for? are they going to make margaritas?:glare:


If it helps them get to a guilty verdict sooner, I say GO FOR IT! :biggrin:

[cook4andy]

that's why that person is on ignore..... he/she/it just tries to stir the pot....


Please :no: pot stirring today. Today might be the day :thumbsup:

[vonna]

I know. Must be real torture to read a blog that causes you such misery because they can't do it themselves. :laugh:

Be kind to searching. He/she is obviously searching for the truth and perhaps will discover what we have - that Spector is guilty, guns which magically fall on the left side of a right-handed person and magical blood which flies through the air - missing the carpet only to land in a delicate spray on Phil's jacket, not withstanding. Truly worthy of the Illusionist.

[oodi]

can it be a secret one?


LOL. It worked for a good while yesterday... I was hoping it might work again.

[tampa-mom]

Ok what do they need a big bucket of ice for? are they going to make margaritas?:glare:

to ice the champagne!

[cook4andy]

<hands behind my back>

:biggrin: w/fingers crossed for a MS2 verdict today. :thumbup:

[Daisy'sMom]

:biggrin: w/fingers crossed for a MS2 verdict today. :thumbup:

I hope they come back with ms2 this morning. They are only there for 4 hours?

[vonna]

I hope they come back with ms2 this morning. They are only there for 4 hours?

That's the optimistic point of view which doesn't allow for potty breaks, sherbet breaks or other kinds.

[Jayne]

Ok what do they need a big bucket of ice for? are they going to make margaritas?:glare:

Ice chips? Hey..they're in difficult, hard, every moment counts Labor!

J

[cook4andy]

I hope they come back with ms2 this morning. They are only there for 4 hours?


I do too Daisy'sMom! I feel it's a good sign they showed up today with one of the jurors coming down ill yesterday. Hoping they want to wrap things up.

If not I'm going to be a bit worried. :scared:

[Details]

The ice is interesting. I can't think of anything trial related that could be for - but there must be some reason. I wonder if it's something for the sick juror - an ice pack to make them feel better? Maybe it was a strained back (I've got a bad back, without a good chair and plenty of time out of it, I can get pretty well crippled) - and the ice is for that.

[tampa-mom]

and while they are icing champagne...we are champing at the bit....

Morning Court Jester I got lost this morning sure glad I found you guys.

[bballgrl]

I hope she got the laundry done, feed the cat and made a few hand bags.:biggrin: I'm looking forward to a good:laugh: reading her travelogue about her daily trek to the court house. Given her simplistic style I can see where she may have appeal for some.:wink:


She certainly has appeal to me. I don't think she has a "simplistic" style, she is just straightforward. What she see's is what you get. You certainly don't have to read her blog if you aren't interested in what she has to say, however... for me it's necessary. If someone else were reporting on the trial, we would have more selections. However, I would still choose Sprocket's blog. She gives us what WE want to hear. She answers questions from her readers.. etc. That's just my opionion...

Now, I would like to see the jury give it up and send Phil to jail! That is what I am here for!

[cook4andy]

Morning Court Jester I got lost this morning sure glad I found you guys.


Thought you missed the bus? :laugh:

[Unperson1984]

The ice is interesting. I can't think of anything trial related that could be for - but there must be some reason. I wonder if it's something for the sick juror - an ice pack to make them feel better? Maybe it was a strained back (I've got a bad back, without a good chair and plenty of time out of it, I can get pretty well crippled) - and the ice is for that.

Maybe it's a hangover.

[cook4andy]

OMGoodness, they are on break. Seems like they just started. But then again if one is sick I can understand I guess.

[Carol25]

The ice is interesting. I can't think of anything trial related that could be for - but there must be some reason. I wonder if it's something for the sick juror - an ice pack to make them feel better? Maybe it was a strained back (I've got a bad back, without a good chair and plenty of time out of it, I can get pretty well crippled) - and the ice is for that.
A drink after deliberations to celebrate the holiday?

However, I would be surprised if the court would allow alcohol in there.

[Ellie]

Maybe it's a hangover.

Probably their drinks are warm and they have cups and needed ice. That's what I'm assuming....

Searching, I am sorry but I have to stop the banter with you. When you try to make sense and not be argumentative I like to debate with you, but as others have stated you have already said you believe Phil shot Lana, and for that reason alone I don't understand your seemingly defending him and/or stating that you don't think he should be sent to prison. That alone negates my desire to respond to you. Happy holidays to you.

[cook4andy]

[QUOTE=Ellie;12989734]Probably their drinks are warm and they have cups and needed ice. That's what I'm assuming....

Exactly what I was thinking. :biggrin:

[bearwds]

Maybe the ice is for a non-deliberative body.

"Alternate"...(said in a Milton Berle pancake make-up voice)


bearwds

[KathR]

Good morning everyone. Nice to see them deliberating again, but I'm pretty sure there will not be a verdict today.

[tampa-mom]

Maybe the ice is for a non-deliberative body.

"Alternate"...(said in a Milton Berle pancake make-up voice)


bearwds

LOL not enough ice though!

[cook4andy]

Good morning everyone. Nice to see them deliberating again, but I'm pretty sure there will not be a verdict today.

Good morning Kath, we can hope. :smile:

[tampa-mom]

Jury's back on the job 10:30

[cook4andy]

Jury's back on the job 10:30


:thumbup: Get er' done.

[Carol25]

Typical. Another misinterpretation on your part. He can be guilty of manslaughter without even having touched the gun. I have never posted that he shot her. BTW, there you go again using that phrase..."we all know "...Why do you insist that it is a universal believe?:thumbdown:
Then why did he wipe it down? Lana didn't after she shot herself is my best guess.

[Exiled.]

Thank you CJ.

Little does that poster know I never include her in the "us" because she isn't part of the debate. All she has done is bash the prosecutor for a hobby he may or may not have. He may drive a VW, can you believe that? How horrible. A volks wagon. He must be swimming in money if he drives a VW.

LMAO

:laugh:

I never bashed AJ for enjoying the sport of auto racing. I simply pointed out that it is an expensive hobby, and money is probably not the reason he chose to work for the LA District Attorney. Where do you get bashing out of that?

[bballgrl]

do you think we'll see a verdict some time this month?

Honestly? I am thinking that we aren't going to GET a verdict. I am sorry, I am not usually pessimistic, but this time I am seeing a Brick Wall. :thumbdown:

[Carol25]

This was explained to searching more than once who believes Phil shot Lana. Don't take the bait. Read Ellie's post above.
Thank you.

[tampa-mom]

do you think we'll see a verdict some time this month?

Who knows! I hold out hope cause I refuse to give up. My thoughts are that the first jury went for 44 hours so there's still a chance. How about you?

[vonna]

I don't believe the won't have a verdict. Some juries take longer than others. They haven't been deliberating all that long.

It just SEEMS like a long time as it has been over so many days.

[Carol25]

If they ordered ice for their drinks, they were planning on staying there for a while.

[bballgrl]

I don't believe they won't have a verdict. Some juries take longer than others. They haven't been deliberating all that long.

Everybody keeps saying that.... It seems like forever to me. I would have had a verdict in about hmmmmm - 4 hours (I would have wanted my lunch, you know!) LOL

[Unperson1984]

Honestly? I am thinking that we aren't going to GET a verdict. I am sorry, I am not usually pessimistic, but this time I am seeing a Brick Wall. :thumbdown:


I'm beginning to share your pessimism. There are really only two questions to decide, did Lana commit suicide and if she didn’t to what degree is Spector liable. The fact that there have been no real questions from the jury makes me think they are still dealing with the first question, and that’s not a good sign.

[cook4andy]

If they ordered ice for their drinks, they were planning on staying there for a while.


Wouldn't it be wonderful if we got word the jurors requested to stay longer so they could come to a decision TODAY. We can dream can't we. :biggrin:

[Details]

wow they worked a WHOLE hour before taking a break.....*rolls her eyes*Working in the real world - breaks every hour or just a bit more, are pretty common during meetings. Keeps your attention good, prevents people from dozing.

[Ellie]

Most of your post are outrageously hilarious IMO. But you have outdone yourself this time.JMO:laugh::punch:

Too late to edit my above post but I'd like to add that your condescending attitude leaves plenty to be desired. You're going to lose all your 'friends' here and then what will you do with yourself? it IS possible to debate without being a... well... I don't want to get banned so I'll leave it at that. :punch:

[Details]

Who knows! I hold out hope cause I refuse to give up. My thoughts are that the first jury went for 44 hours so there's still a chance. How about you?Scot Peterson's jury went a long time too - came back guilty. A long time doesn't mean anything. Actually, medium length deliberations IIRC is more often an indication of not guilty. To say guilty is a hefty burden, a jury often takes a bit of time over it.

[Ellie]

ITA....I have a feeling we have another hung jury :(

No way, honey. As my mother would say, PERISH THE THOUGHT!

[Details]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we got word the jurors requested to stay longer so they could come to a decision TODAY. We can dream can't we. :biggrin:They can't.

Sprocket had a good explanation yesterday in her blog - but what it amounts to is money. To let the jury deliberate late means keeping the courthouse open - which means not only the bailiff and judge and a few staff for the courtroom itself open, but also building security must be hanging around, someone to man the doors, etc. - and all of these people must have no commitments keeping them from being able to stay (a kid waiting for a pickup at school, a second job, etc.) So court hours, deliberation hours - especially during the current budget crunch - are set pretty much in stone.

[Unperson1984]

Who knows! I hold out hope cause I refuse to give up. My thoughts are that the first jury went for 44 hours so there's still a chance. How about you?

And we all know how the first trial ended. They must have one or two holdouts, that's the only logical explanation.

[tampa-mom]

Scot Peterson's jury went a long time too - came back guilty. A long time doesn't mean anything. Actually, medium length deliberations IIRC is more often an indication of not guilty. To say guilty is a hefty burden, a jury often takes a bit of time over it.

Keep talking Details I'm feeling better already:smile:

[vonna]

Keep talking Details I'm feeling better already:smile:

No need for all the gloom and doom. Speculation is pure fantasy so why not fantasize something wonderful?

[Details]

i agree sitting in a meeting or seminar is exhausting... just getting up to i stretch your legs or back is healthyYeah, I was always wiped out at the end of the day whenever I had more than a meeting or two during the day. They just get so tiring - even when it's a good meeting, a good discussion about an interesting subject.

And seminars - I've gone to some of those - thank goodness for those breaks! Every hour to hour and a half, at the least, you get to stand up and stretch - if it's a long session, the speaker ALWAYS called out breaks about that often, everywhere I've been, different subjects or whatever. Whether it's an all day training at Microsoft campus, or a 3 our session in a conference - same timing applied.

[KathR]

Keep talking Details I'm feeling better already:smile:

I agree that we can pretty well assume that not guilty is no longer in consideration by the majority of the jurors. I'm just worried about one of them.

[Unperson1984]

Scot Peterson's jury went a long time too - came back guilty. A long time doesn't mean anything. Actually, medium length deliberations IIRC is more often an indication of not guilty. To say guilty is a hefty burden, a jury often takes a bit of time over it.

The Peterson jury was back in court every other day with questions or juror problems, this jury has been silent for the most part.

[cook4andy]

They can't.

Sprocket had a good explanation yesterday in her blog - but what it amounts to is money. To let the jury deliberate late means keeping the courthouse open - which means not only the bailiff and judge and a few staff for the courtroom itself open, but also building security must be hanging around, someone to man the doors, etc. - and all of these people must have no commitments keeping them from being able to stay (a kid waiting for a pickup at school, a second job, etc.) So court hours, deliberation hours - especially during the current budget crunch - are set pretty much in stone.


Thanks Details for the info! Makes sense.

[Details]

Keep talking Details I'm feeling better already:smile:Everyone was sure the length meant he was going to be let off - NG or hung jury. The commentators, the people on the forums - we even were sorta going through the classic stages of grief - acceptance anyway - some who believed in his guilt were mentally preparing themselves to hear NG or hung jury, thinking how at least it meant the next trial could be better. I was pretty much there too. Then they came back with a guilty verdict!

I always hold out hope - and reality is that most of the time that hope is rewarded.

[Details]

The Peterson jury was back in court every other day with questions or juror problems, this jury has been silent for the most part.Yeah, different juries work different ways. I've seen quiet ones and noisy ones both come back with guilty, so I'm not worried. Silence just means they are satisfied with the info they have, and are working through it. 5 months of trial they've sat through, 5 months of notes, 5 months of evidence - it'll take time.

[tampa-mom]

I agree that we can pretty well assume that not guilty is no longer in consideration by the majority of the jurors. I'm just worried about one of them.

Me too but hopefully he/she/they can be reasoned with. Everyone in full agreement of a guilty verdict.

[vonna]

They are going over everything with a fine tooth comb. Hashing out whether he should be convicted of Murder2 or Manslaughter. After all, these 12 juror's have already agreed Spector is GUILTY.
The next part is difficult for them because they don't have everything we have that was said and done on the night of 02/03/03.:wink:

Pardon me for being so thick - but on what is your statement based that the jurors have already agreed that Spector is guilty, Dianna?

[vonna]

For the very last time. I have posted repeatedly that he is probably guilty of manslaughter and should go to jail for that. Also I HAVE NEVER POSTED, inspite of all the misinterpretations and misquotes by others who only :drool: for a 2nd Dg. Conviction,..." believe Phil shot Lana,"...I do feel and have always expressed that he is culpabe for the charge of one of the degrees of manslaughter without having pulled the trigger. Even if she was a potential suicide. It makes no difference. His house, his gun, booze and pills involved. Had he been charged correctly and tried on manslaughter he would probably be in jail now.:thumbup:

Lana did NOT commit suicide - but if she really had - I don't see why Phil would be guilty of manslaughter. What he would have done is immediately call 911 for help and not alter the crime scene. What am I missing??

[KathR]

They are going over everything with a fine tooth comb. Hashing out whether he should be convicted of Murder2 or Manslaughter. After all, these 12 juror's have already agreed Spector is GUILTY.
The next part is difficult for them because they don't have everything we have that was said and done on the night of 02/03/03.:wink:

You got me thinking. Now I agree they are simply methodically working on the details of the guilty decision. If they were hung, wouldn't there be far more requests for read-backs and explanations as the majority tried to convince the holdout? The last jury wasn't nearly so quiet as this one.

[Details]

My image of the jury - based only on my own biases - is that they looked at what they had, and saw a prosecution case that was solid. So, to be thorough, they're going over everything the defense presented again, to see if any of it is not countered by the prosecution, if any of it generates reasonable doubt. That's why the readback on the testimony the defense was trying to muddle and misquote during the trial.

I'd see it as just being certain - the case is solid, but double checking just to be sure, is a way to know my verdict is true.

[cherylt]

Hey all!

Here we are - again. (PLEASE Friday verdict!! Guilty!)

I was freaking out for about 5-10 min. because I couldn't figure out why anyone wasn't posting on the PS forum. I thought I was kicked out or something, then it dawned on me to check for a holiday forum somewhere. Whew! I almost felt like I was in the twilight zone...

C'mon jury - we're waiting for you. Friday verdicts are very nice, especially when reaching a G in THIS case we've agonized over for so long! (I know they can, I know they can, I know they can...) :)

[Anakerie]

C'mon people!! Just a reminder, if you see a post that offends you or makes you want to "argue", skip and scroll!!! Lets NOT get things locked up, please?????

[newsjunkie]

Keep talking Details I'm feeling better already:smile:


Perish the thought lol to feeling better.

Remember SP jury had to boot their foreman and start over and then it went pretty quick, and ps1 had a hung jury which meant they went nowhere fast for several days.

Someone who is in touch with sprockett should tell her IS is not down but on this board.
Temporary Forum makes me sad, used to be Holiday Forum or Easter Forum but I guess it another politically correct movement for the generic.

[cherylt]

Scot Peterson's jury went a long time too - came back guilty. A long time doesn't mean anything. Actually, medium length deliberations IIRC is more often an indication of not guilty. To say guilty is a hefty burden, a jury often takes a bit of time over it.


Very true... Plus there's that theory of 1 day for every week of deliberations, the Vinnie P used to use... If we use THAT scale, there are too many days left... (esp. with all those tiny weeks they fit in...)

[Ellie]

Hey all!

Here we are - again. (PLEASE Friday verdict!! Guilty!)

I was freaking out for about 5-10 min. because I couldn't figure out why anyone wasn't posting on the PS forum. I thought I was kicked out or something, then it dawned on me to check for a holiday forum somewhere. Whew! I almost felt like I was in the twilight zone...

C'mon jury - we're waiting for you. Friday verdicts are very nice, especially when reaching a G in THIS case we've agonized over for so long! (I know they can, I know they can, I know they can...) :)


LOL! I did the same thing this morning...wondered why no one had started a thread for today, thinking everyone is so disgusted with the way things are going that no one wanted to start a thread. Then I realized I was having a blond moment and found the gang. Glad you made it!

[KathR]

I'm still trying to figure our the reasoning for a "temporary forum." :confused:

I guess Holiday sounds too frivolous for some holy days. I once started to wish someone a happy Yam Kipper but caught myself when I realized I was telling them to have a happy day of atonement.

[vonna]

In a word "FOCUS". I never said she commited suicide. I posted:"It makes no difference. His house, his gun, booze and pills involved.":thumbup:

OFGS! You don't have to say she committed suicide. It is implied if you don't think Phil killed her! There were only two people in the house!!!

[Details]

I'm still trying to figure our the reasoning for a "temporary forum." :confused:I don't know why the name - I suspect CW was just very busy at the time, didn't feel like being creative on the name.

But I think temporary forums are to put everyone in one room so the moderator can take a bit more spare time to themselves for the holiday. Putting us here disrupts old arguments on long threads, and gives her only one 'room' to check on.

[cherylt]

LOL! I did the same thing this morning...wondered why no one had started a thread for today, thinking everyone is so disgusted with the way things are going that no one wanted to start a thread. Then I realized I was having a blond moment and found the gang. Glad you made it!


Thanks! Whew, glad it wasn't just me... :) I had the same thoughts, like "what the heck? Everyone was fed up @ once??? lol

[Details]

Perish the thought lol to feeling better.....:cursing: What! Perish the thought to me posting more!!! How dare you!!!

</ just joking>
:tonguewag:

You wouldn't be trying to say I'm excessively verbose and prolific, now would you? :tongueside:

[KathR]

:cursing: What! Perish the thought to me posting more!!! How dare you!!!

</ just joking>

You wouldn't be trying to say I'm excessively verbose and prolific, now would you?

As is often said, the devil's in the ..... :wink:

[newsjunkie]

[QUOTE=Details;12990069]:cursing: What! Perish the thought to me posting more!!! How dare you!!!

</ just joking>


You wouldn't be trying to say I'm excessively verbose and prolific, now would you?


Nope I was just trying to say "How dare you feel better and optimistic"

I wanna feel miserable today and your not helping one dang bit!


ok ok have it your way :tonguewag::thumbsup:

I had to steal your icons

[Carol25]

I don't know why the name - I suspect CW was just very busy at the time, didn't feel like being creative on the name.

But I think temporary forums are to put everyone in one room so the moderator can take a bit more spare time to themselves for the holiday. Putting us here disrupts old arguments on long threads, and gives her only one 'room' to check on.
Sounds like a babysitter checking on the kids, doesn't it... guess it fits! :blush: We're getting close to ending time....

[newsjunkie]

I have no idea why the last post I made quoted that way :scared: :confused:

[Details]

As is often said, the devil's in the ..... :wink:Mwaahahahaaaa!

[cook4andy]

See y'all Monday.


Looks like the jury are requesting their dessert for Monday.

Have a great weekend everyone. :)

[tampa-mom]

deliberations have stopped.

[Carol25]

Have a Great Holiday!

[Details]

Nope I was just trying to say "How dare you feel better and optimistic"

I wanna feel miserable today and your not helping one dang bit!


ok ok have it your way :tonguewag::thumbsup:

I had to steal your iconsThe way I figure it -we might have good news or bad news coming up. If we think about it as bad news, we get all the stress and misery of that - even if it never actually happens. If we assume it'll be good news, we don't have the extra stress - and if we're right - great. If we're wrong - we just get the same stress and strain and misery we'd get anyways.

Of course, hard to keep your mind from going to the negative, to the fears - but hey, like someone else said, since speculation is fantasy, might as well make it a pleasant one! The jury takes awhile, finds him guilty of 2nd degree, he goes to jail, stays there the rest of his life - the usual fantasy of appeals is floated - but like most cases, no appealable issue is found. The end.

[newsjunkie]

Lord They are calling it a day 20 minutes earlier than their 1/2 day , after they ordered favorite cookies for Monday OMG this is a disaster!

[True2Blues]

they are ordering lunch for monday or at least cookies

How nice to know they have priorities. :rolleyes:

[Carol25]

Let's all message the judge for shorter lunch hours and starting earlier. And sequestering.

[tampa-mom]

I'm remaining positive, the jury came to a good stopping point and we get to do this again on Monday. Bye all have a great weekend!

[KathR]

Well everyone, Have a good Temporary. See you for the verdict on Monday.

[Jayne]

Lana did NOT commit suicide - but if she really had - I don't see why Phil would be guilty of manslaughter. What he would have done is immediately call 911 for help and not alter the crime scene. What am I missing??


You are not missing a thing, imo...

IF Lana committed suicide..that is..

jmo

J

[True2Blues]

Lord They are calling it a day 20 minutes earlier than their 1/2 day , after they ordered favorite cookies for Monday OMG this is a disaster!

I seriously wonder if these people are taking this seriously.

[newsjunkie]

I seriously wonder if these people are taking this seriously.



Lets go visit the other freakish case lol!

[cherylt]

they are ordering lunch for monday or at least cookies


OH man, they should stop the darn lunches, no more food until you reach a verdict!

Guess that would be inhumane... :)

[Carol25]

Maybe in this job environment they should be worried about their jobs....

[vonna]

I seriously wonder if these people are taking this seriously.

Happy Easter folks.

[KathR]

Some smiles, some frowns. Sounds like a normal group of non-stressed people. Sounds good. Again, have a nice weekend everyone.

[bballgrl]

well they are taking their cookies seriously :(


Poor Lana and her mother and sister and REAL friends and all of us here .......

Are we the only ones on this Gods green earth that care about Lana?

This is ridiculous. This is the feeling I got for today. I thought this was going to happen. I honestly think that people are AFRAID to send Phil Spector to jail. I don't know WHY I feel that way, I just know I do... we are not going to see a guilty verdict..... I am very sad today. :crying:

Happy Easter all....

[Details]

We've spent the last few months following this case in our spare time, while still keeping our normal jobs, routines, anytime we're tired of it, we can take a day or so off, hop in and out of the forums.

They're living it every day, they cannot watch the trial for awhile, then look at something else during the day. I'd say they're forced to take this far more seriously than we do.

[Exiled.]

Maybe in this job environment they should be worried about their jobs....

I don't believe an employer can terminate employment due to jury service.

imo... of course.

[Exiled.]

This is ridiculous. This is the feeling I got for today. I thought this was going to happen. I honestly think that people are AFRAID to send Phil Spector to jail. I don't know WHY I feel that way, I just know I do... we are not going to see a guilty verdict..... I am very sad today. :crying:

Happy Easter all....


Maybe they are affording an old man one last weekend (Holy week) before sending him to prison for his remaining days.

[wasapi]

Maybe they are affording an old man one last weekend (Holy week) before sending him to prison for his remaining days.

Perhaps. Even so, all things considered, Lana should have been allowed to spend 6 Holy weeks with her loved ones.

[imlawlor]

Why were they working today and why are they deliberating on Monday? Don't they get Easter holidays?

[warhorse46]

I don't believe an employer can terminate employment due to jury service.

imo... of course.


They can in my state, we are an at will employment state. An employer can terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason @ all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

[cherylt]

Maybe they are affording an old man one last weekend (Holy week) before sending him to prison for his remaining days.


That may just be it or one of the reasons...Perhaps they didn't want to go into the weekend just having convicted someone. It may weigh too heavy on their minds, so they'll wait until after and be "lighter" until they get back...

But this is torture to all of us! We'd go better into a holiday weekend (or any day for that matter) w/ a Guilty verdict! :)

[Details]

I don't believe an employer can terminate employment due to jury service.

imo... of course.Technically - no - realistically - if your boss is ticked off at you, even if you had no control over the situation, all they have to do is look for an excuse.

[True2Blues]

Why were they working today and why are they deliberating on Monday? Don't they get Easter holidays?

Easter is on Sunday. Why should they have Monday off? Schools are the only ones I've ever known to get Monday off and this isn't a school, it's a Court.

[Details]

They may not think there's enough time - with the courts holding to such a tight schedule, if they announce the verdict, I wonder if they would have time to deliver it. But I think they need at least one more full day's deliberations anyway. I'm kinda thinking Tuesday, early, is our day right now.

[Exiled.]

That may just be it or one of the reasons...Perhaps they didn't want to go into the weekend just having convicted someone. It may weigh too heavy on their minds, so they'll wait until after and be "lighter" until they get back...

But this is torture to all of us! We'd go better into a holiday weekend (or any day for that matter) w/ a Guilty verdict! :)

I suspect that Mr. Spector is feeling a great deal more torture in waiting than anyone here.

imo.. of course.

[CourtsideVue]

Let me see. In following your assertion of what is ..."implied"... then you must agree with the following conclusions.
1. Steel is hard
2. My teeth are hard
3. Therefore my teeth are steel.
Or
1. Criminals carry knives.
2. Surgeons use knives.
3. Therefore surgeons are criminals.
:ohmy::wink:


Gosh ... do you think you and whomever you're arguing with could take it elsewhere? It seems this argument has lasted through the entire duration of today's deliberations. Granted, that wasn't very long, but it was plenty long enough for you to battle it out on the board. Jeez, I'm just tired of the blah blah blah arguing. Don't make me block you because I really do enjoy reading what everyone has to say *MOST OF THE TIME* but not this kind of verbal spewage.

I'm grateful for a short day just to leave the forum for the day (so please don't reply to this, I won't see it anyway, just take it to heart and see that you've taken this just too far today). May we all come back refreshed Monday and ready for the M2 guilty verdict!

[Virgo]

Where in the hell did they get this jury.....oh that's right LA LA LAND!!Come on and give Lana and her family the justice that is soooooooolong overdue.:cursing:

[Ellie]

I suspect that Mr. Spector is feeling a great deal more torture in waiting than anyone here.

imo.. of course.

Except Donna Clarkson.

[Exiled.]

Technically - no - realistically - if your boss is ticked off at you, even if you had no control over the situation, all they have to do is look for an excuse.

An at will employer can terminate for any reason, or no reason at all. But they can't terminate for a "wrong" reason, such as discrimination.. and I think jury service is a wrong reason. Now it only matters if the employer is stupid enough to provide proof they have fired for a wrong reason.

imo.. of course

[Daisy]

Hey y'all,
Was there ever a news story or link that told the makeup of this jury? You know, like age, gender, profession, etc.
TIA
~Daisy

PS
I guess we shouldn't be surprised that this jury only worked a couple of hours before quitting for the weekend. Fits in with their prior MO!

[Carol25]

An at will employer can terminate for any reason, or no reason at all. But they can't terminate for a "wrong" reason, such as discrimination.. and I think jury service is a wrong reason. Now it only matters if the employer is stupid enough to provide proof they have fired for a wrong reason.

imo.. of course
Actually, thinking about it, if someone is on a very long trial, this jury members job would probably have to be filled for the time he is on the case.

When he comes back,the employer could have both employees and determine who would be the best employee to keep. If the one who was on jury duty was not the better, he could be let go. All for the reason his job was put in jeopardy in the first place was because of jury duty.

The employer got a better employee due to it but it was fair. Perhaps not so much for the jury member, but his skills weren't up to par.

Or, already knowing the job histroy of the jury member, the employer would prefer the new employee.

[Exiled.]

Actually, thinking about it, if someone is on a very long trial, this jury members job would probably have to be filled for the time he is on the case.

When he comes back,the employer could have both employees and determine who would be the best employee to keep. If the one who was on jury duty was not the better, he could be let go. All for the reason his job was put in jeopardy in the first place was because of jury duty.

The employer got a better employee due to it but it was fair. Perhaps not so much for the jury member, but his skills weren't up to par.

Or, already knowing the job histroy of the jury member, the employer would prefer the new employee.

Then the prospective juror would notify the court that his employment would be jeapardized if selected for jury service, and would request to be dismissed. Employers are legally obligated to give the employee time off for jury service without consequence to the employee. The employer is not obligated to pay the employee during the time he is fulfilling his civic duty. I believe most jurors are comprised of retired, and government employees, who do receive their regular pay while serving on a jury.

imo... of course.

[Carol25]

Then the prospective juror would notify the court that his employment would be jeapardized if selected for jury service, and would request to be dismissed. Employers are legally obligated to give the employee time off for jury service without consequence to the employee. The employer is not obligated to pay the employee during the time he is fulfilling his civic duty. I believe most jurors are comprised of retired, and government employees, who do receive their regular pay while serving on a jury.

imo... of course.
But if another employee had to be hired due to need, (causing two salaries being paid) as noted in my post and the juror didn't know his job was in jeopardy at the time he wouldn't know to ask to be dismissed. He would just assume that other employee would leave when he came back.

Not even the employer knew until the new employee worked out so much better.

[Mr. Moto2]

Hey all. Are deliberations done for today? Yeah, I'm too lazy to read thru this thread.

[Mr. Moto2]

Do you think Phil Spector is totally drugged up while waiting.

[Details]

An at will employer can terminate for any reason, or no reason at all. But they can't terminate for a "wrong" reason, such as discrimination.. and I think jury service is a wrong reason. Now it only matters if the employer is stupid enough to provide proof they have fired for a wrong reason.

imo.. of courseExactly. If you show up late, once. If your lunch hour was long. If they just say, they didn't need you anymore. When your employer is unhappy, they can get rid of you. They just need the minimal amount of smarts to not let it appear to be jury duty that was the reason.

[Mr. Moto2]

Well. I think so. Lawzy only knows, I need a beer or two after a day of waiting :biggrinjester:

Thanks for the update and cheers. btw, what does Lawzy mean?

[Details]

Then the prospective juror would notify the court that his employment would be jeapardized if selected for jury service, and would request to be dismissed. Employers are legally obligated to give the employee time off for jury service without consequence to the employee. The employer is not obligated to pay the employee during the time he is fulfilling his civic duty. I believe most jurors are comprised of retired, and government employees, who do receive their regular pay while serving on a jury.

imo... of course.Nope. This holds true for everyone every chosen for jury duty - it always opens up your job to scrutiny, since you have to be replaced during jury duty. If they accepted that theory as a reason to not be selected (without proof that your boss was planning to replace you), the jury pool would be empty. Judges can be pretty hard core about that - I was in a jury pool, listening to the excuses - they don't take much.

While retired and gov't employees (whose bosses, BTW, can indeed also prefer the new employee to the old) are a disproportionate number of jurors, jurors still are from everywhere, and many or most have a job they hope to return to. The paralegal that is a foreman - if they like their new paralegal better, or if she's cheaper due to less experience - all they have to do is find an excuse to let her go that they can claim was not due to jury duty.

It's always a risk. You have to hope your replacement isn't better than you were, doesn't have some hobby or other nice method of getting an in with your boss.

[vonna]

I suspect that Mr. Spector is feeling a great deal more torture in waiting than anyone here.

imo.. of course.


Now THERE'S a pleasant thought

[Mr. Moto2]

It's "Southern Speak" for Lordy.

Learn something new everyday,

[Mr. Moto2]

Now THERE'S a pleasant thought

Heck, I think he's high as a kite, with his perky wife nibbling on his hairy ears.

[DebinNv]

Now THERE'S a pleasant thought

Ahhhh-- you are right on with that one! With that thought, I will have a great weekend, and look forward to Monday...thanks!

[Exiled.]

Nope. This holds true for everyone every chosen for jury duty - it always opens up your job to scrutiny, since you have to be replaced during jury duty. If they accepted that theory as a reason to not be selected (without proof that your boss was planning to replace you), the jury pool would be empty. Judges can be pretty hard core about that - I was in a jury pool, listening to the excuses - they don't take much.

While retired and gov't employees (whose bosses, BTW, can indeed also prefer the new employee to the old) are a disproportionate number of jurors, jurors still are from everywhere, and many or most have a job they hope to return to. The paralegal that is a foreman - if they like their new paralegal better, or if she's cheaper due to less experience - all they have to do is find an excuse to let her go that they can claim was not due to jury duty.

It's always a risk. You have to hope your replacement isn't better than you were, doesn't have some hobby or other nice method of getting an in with your boss.

Right... and most employers aren't going to fire an employee and tell him the reason is because he is black, or gay. Same goes for tenant evictions. You can be evicted for any reason, or no reason at all, but if it can be proven that you were evicted for the "wrong reasons", you can seek legal remedy. I was evicted once, and instead of just keeping their mouths shut, they wrote a letter stating the reason for my eviction was due to my distribution of a letter they didn't like, to all the tenants. I was able to sue for damages because that eviction violated my rights to free speech. The same would be true of an employer.

[Jayne]

They can in my state, we are an at will employment state. An employer can terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason @ all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

You're right. But there are ways around it...for justifiable reasons...such as terminated for serving on jury duty - discriminatory - not due to poor performance, not due to being "willingly" unable to come to work. It's a very interesting area of law - employment - that despite what the laws say (and yes, mostly, they always "win" - the employer's, that is). In this case, I could see a very good "fight" against being terminated/let go/laid off..for "no reason" when it was obviously because of "jury duty". AT will or not at will. CA is an at will state, unless there are unit bargaining contracts/unions, or one can negotiate their own, which is near to impossible.

If an employer did that to a juror, OK..it's at will. If that juror/employee wrote an article in the newspaper telling his/her employment/lack thereof story, it's first amendment rights...it was an "at will" employment situation. That employer has no claim, IMO, against that "let go" employee - it's not slander or libel, it's true - it was "at will"..so was his/her editorial, including Free Speech.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you, but I can't imagine an employer with any business and "looking forward" sense would do such a thing. It's self destructive, let alone destructive to an employee. (but...I would guess it's happened...I've seen enough of this "at will" "business is slow" "bye bye" stuff)

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Hi y`all.

Decided to stay away the last days. Because of what?

First: We have beautiful weather here, blue sky and about 25 C.
Second: If Phil get´s off again.... Well, won´t believe in justice anymore. Not
even in your country. In our country it´s already gone. And I just can´t stand it.
Third: Maybe sometimes you have to build your own little world. Just to keep sane.
I think I´ll have to do that.

Again! I think there is bribe....in this jury somehow....if they don´t get a verdict.

LL

I just hope they don't have a paralegal who thinks she knows it all. They aren't supposed to be that way...they have ethics rules to follow too, but I wonder...does "power" actually get to everyone, no matter what?

I'm considering that isn't the case..that this is hopefully just the "flu", or wanting to get home earlier for Easter, Passover, some more needed time, too many legal pads? too much confusion over understanding "this" or "that"? Ya know..in law school...at least in my time...they taught attorneys to speak in Plain English (in fact there are several books geared for lawyers..but anyone can buy them and read them)...they implore that one doesn't use "legalise", doesn't use examples that aren't common...and even if so, use all possible alternative ways of explaining things. Our juries today aren't all college educated (don't have to be, to be smart...don't get me wrong)..or Worldly (now...there's an exception, IMO...not many have travelled the world, seen other cultures, understand 5 ways to say "back of the wrist" (sorry...couldn't resist)...or to understand the difference between "what I heard" and "what I thought I heard" despite it being witnessed...that is "WHAT I heard". What about jurors who might be too embarrassed or afraid to admit they don't speak or understand perfect English? What about those who admit to not doing it? (Of course..there are interpreters...but as much as I trust they are doing a great job, does it really translate? I'm only wondering this because I lived in a Germanic country, I learned to speak, read and understand their language as best I could and was required to, but some things just went WHEEEWWW right over my head. BUT, I asked for an explanation..as best it could be given.)

I don't know what is going on here. But, I'm trusting that it is time needed...not time wasted or destroyed.

I'd hate to think of a bribe..but it wouldn't be beyond anyone who could actually pull it off, I know. I tend to think with all the shennanigans that have gone down, especially in PS2, there are more "watchers" out there to be certain this isn't, or doesn't happen. Maybe if DW's threat (sorry...was it his? about the internet, etc.?) were to come down, there'd be something much worse than a flu infected jury. I think at this point, he wouldn't even go there, if there were the slightest concern about a "bribe". If he opened the door..the DA will throw open a window, I'd think.

jmo

J

[Amy Thist]

I still have hope that Mr. Spector will be convicted.

[Mort_Snerd]

Don't worry about the "simple physics". In law school the only physics course is the one that instructs some lawyers on how to calculate the speed of an ambulance and the time required to catch up to it.

Mortie

I totally disagreed with this yesterday and I totally disagree with it today. If a person shoots themself in the mouth with their right hand, common sense alone (and if I weren't at work I could do some research on it) would tell me that the gun would land wherever the right hand fell. NOT under the ankle of the left leg. it would land on Lana's right side, whether in her lap or on the floor. The body tenses up initially when something so sudden happens... the hand would not immediately go flax and just 'let go', and no gun is going to 'bounce' across Lana's lap, onto her left knee, and then down to the floor to rest under her ankle (this idea is about as crazy as Cutler's suggestion that Lana was able to move after Phil shot her). Come on, you don't really believe that, do you?!

[Dunlurken]

Wow, how long has the jury been out? Haven't been following it this time, I assumed it would be a slam dunk. JMO.

[Jayne]

Don't worry about the "simple physics". In law school the only physics course is the one that instructs some lawyers on how to calculate the speed of an ambulance and the time required to catch up to it.

Mortie

AWW Mortie...

thanks you said "some" lawyers!

Totally up for reprimand, discipline, maybe even disbarrment.

PS..they don't teach it.they teach against it. Think about it! huh? It's all about character and honesty.

:)

J

[Anakerie]

Wow, how long has the jury been out? Haven't been following it this time, I assumed it would be a slam dunk. JMO.
8 days.... 24, 25 or 26 hours total time deliberating. (Sorry, I am not sure what the actual time deliberating is.)

I'm not worried yet. They've got 5 months of trial information to wade through and they've only asked for ONE read-back of testimony so far. If they were asking daily for read-backs, then I would be worried. Weren't the PS1 jurors out for much, much longer?

[vonna]

Hello, Anakerie! Yes, the PS1 jurors were out for 40 hours and some minutes - result: hung jury.

But then again the 10 month Charles Manson trial jury was out for 40 hours and 20 minutes - result: All four defendants guilty of 1st degree in all 7 slayings (Except Van Houten - 2 slayings).

For 2 trials now, many people on this forum have hashed and re-hashed every single piece of testimony. We've discussed and sometimes argued way past court or deliberation hours - not to mention weekends and holidays. We can google anything we want to and discuss interviews and articles. So MANY of us (NOT all) have come to a definite opinion as to guilt or acquital.

I think it is very important for people here to remember, the jury has not had the exposure to or availability of information on this case as we have had.

As for the jury members, I say: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM....

Just the Jester :biggrinjester:

Even though they prefer sherbet???

[dref99]

8 days.... 24, 25 or 26 hours total time deliberating. (Sorry, I am not sure what the actual time deliberating is.)

I'm not worried yet. They've got 5 months of trial information to wade through and they've only asked for ONE read-back of testimony so far. If they were asking daily for read-backs, then I would be worried. Weren't the PS1 jurors out for much, much longer?

Jury 1 didn't ask for any readbacks either. All they asked for was a tape to replay ADS - I gather more than once.

Jury 1 did come forward sooner and say they were hung. Perhaps this time they have a foreperson who realises after 2 trials they need a decision - so they may be debating in a better fashion. Who would know.

I have difficulty understanding why they cannot reach a verdict after this length of time - so assume someone is a holdout - no idea as to who or for what reason.

jmo

[Anakerie]

Hello, Anakerie! Yes, the PS1 jurors were out for 40 hours and some minutes - result: hung jury.

But then again the 10 month Charles Manson trial jury was out for 40 hours and 20 minutes - result: All four defendants guilty of 1st degree in all 7 slayings (Except Van Houten - 2 slayings).

For 2 trials now, many people on this forum have hashed and re-hashed every single piece of testimony. We've discussed and sometimes argued way past court or deliberation hours - not to mention weekends and holidays. We can google anything we want to and discuss interviews and articles. So MANY of us (NOT all) have come to a definite opinion as to guilt or acquital.

I think it is very important for people here to remember, the jury has not had the exposure to or availability of information on this case as we have had.

As for the jury members, I say: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM....

Just the Jester :biggrinjester:
Hi Jester! I agree with you letting them eat ice cream! I'll even add in the cookies! LOL

Sprocket is putting up a post that details the time involved in the retrial. From Voir Dire on... Very interesting indeed. According to her figures, the jury in PS1 deliberated about 43 hours...

Like I said, I'm not worried yet. I want to give the jurors credit for doing their jobs...

[Anakerie]

Jury 1 didn't ask for any readbacks either. All they asked for was a tape to replay ADS - I gather more than once.

Jury 1 did come forward sooner and say they were hung. Perhaps this time they have a foreperson who realises after 2 trials they need a decision - so they may be debating in a better fashion. Who would know.

I have difficulty understanding why they cannot reach a verdict after this length of time - so assume someone is a holdout - no idea as to who or for what reason.

jmo
Perhaps the decision between Murder 2 and the manslaughter charge is taking up some time?

I don't know... All I know is that I'm not worried yet. They have a ton of information to review....

[dref99]

Hello, Anakerie! Yes, the PS1 jurors were out for 40 hours and some minutes - result: hung jury.

But then again the 10 month Charles Manson trial jury was out for 40 hours and 20 minutes - result: All four defendants guilty of 1st degree in all 7 slayings (Except Van Houten - 2 slayings).

For 2 trials now, many people on this forum have hashed and re-hashed every single piece of testimony. We've discussed and sometimes argued way past court or deliberation hours - not to mention weekends and holidays. We can google anything we want to and discuss interviews and articles. So MANY of us (NOT all) have come to a definite opinion as to guilt or acquital.

I think it is very important for people here to remember, the jury has not had the exposure to or availability of information on this case as we have had.

As for the jury members, I say: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM....

Just the Jester :biggrinjester:

As much as PS has committed a crime I have great difficulty comparing him to Charles Manson. That jury had many things to consider - being a multi victim and multi defendant trial & various degrees of guilt for each defendant.

In addition, the timings probably don't compare in terms of how many hours per day the trial was held, nor in the amount of "non jury" time.

This jury have now "lived" with the case for almost 6 months. We may have rehashed events and evidence and non-evidence but I would think they have spent more time on PS in the past 6 months, than I have in the past 2 years (I realise this may not apply to those who watched gavel to gavel through trial 1 - I just never have the time to do that).

According to a comment on the blog, the jury have been advised to take the items one at a time. First, determine about murder. If this is a NG, then decide on manslaughter. It is not a case of eliminating suicide and then deciding on the murder degree.

Thus, I can only hope (not sure I believe) that the deliberations at the minute are still stuck in phrase one, and there is a hold-out for NG of murder - much the same as trial 1. Not sure where this would lead, if it is not resolved.

jmo

[Exiled.]

O.K.

Mother Jester here, shaking her bells

IGNORE SEARCHING'S POST

IT IS ONLY FIRE AND SMOKE AND MEANT TO HURT A POSTER

COLDWATER, PLEASE BAN THIS POSTER. PLEASE

Maybe some think that posting such vitriol during a holiday weekend will "exempt" them from being banned.


SORRY CHARLIE. Your goose is cooked.

I think each of us is capable of determining which posts we do or don't want to ignore. I doubt any of the posters need to be told who's opinion is right or wrong. Personally.. and no offense, I think your posts are more offensive than the posts you are drawing our attention to. Just a thought.

imo... of course.

[dref99]

Hello, my dear friend, as to the "time" the jury has had in this trial, the jury may have had the "time" - but you must realize that that "time" was spent in listening to evidence.

We, on the other hand have had that same time to discuss the evidence, google whatever we wanted, read whatever we wanted...

So we may come to our own conclusions, having MUCH more information tha the jury has.

Am I repeating you? Won't be the first time!

Jester

Hi Jester

I do believe that the jurors went home and did not read, google, discuss with family or anything else about the trial - but you cannot stop the brain from thinking. For all of my many years, my brain thinks about the important events in my life - even when I am desperate that it does not. They have lived with the evidence as given in the trial, for many months.

I would like to think some of the discussion relates to understanding the forensics and dismissing items of concern - I hope you are right - I just don't think the little man is worth such debate or concern or analysis - or frankly anything. I would think Lana's family deserve much more.

jmo

[bearwds]

I don't think the sitting juries of either trial can be compared to one another when deliberation time is the factor.

In PS-1, one assumed that "deliberations" were taking place when it was only later that we found out no preliminary vote was taken for three days. Only later did we learn that the foreman blocked discussion with a Solomon like phrase, "I'm listening".

In PS-2, The jury foreperson is a para-legal who has been trained in legal procedure to some degree and would be unlikely to allow the mockery of the jury system to repeat.

There are lessor degrees of guilt this time also. More factors to consider for each act to mitigate.

Given that we had a false jury the first trial and degrees of guilt in the second, I don't think the deliberation time is unreasonable.

Apples and Oranges.


bearwds

[eagleeer]

I don't think the sitting juries of either trial can be compared to one another when deliberation time is the factor.

In PS-1, one assumed that "deliberations" were taking place when it was only later that we found out no preliminary vote was taken for three days. Only later did we learn that the foreman blocked discussion with a Solomon like phrase, "I'm listening".

In PS-2, The jury foreperson is a para-legal who has been trained in legal procedure to some degree and would be unlikely to allow the mockery of the jury system to repeat.

There are lessor degrees of guilt this time also. More factors to consider for each act to mitigate.

Given that we had a false jury the first trial and degrees of guilt in the second, I don't think the deliberation time is unreasonable.

Apples and Oranges.


bearwds

You nailed that down to a T. :thumbup:

[Jayne]

I'm so confused...

what is going on??

[GPSpector]

O.K.

Mother Jester here, shaking her bells

IGNORE SEARCHING'S POST

IT IS ONLY FIRE AND SMOKE AND MEANT TO HURT A POSTER

COLDWATER, PLEASE BAN THIS POSTER. PLEASE

Maybe some think that posting such vitriol during a holiday weekend will "exempt" them from being banned.

SORRY CHARLIE. Your goose is cooked.



I usually agree with the ignore but history shows that his technique does not work. What I've also noticed is that according to the members date of joining, despite all attempts by other posters, that poster seems immune to getting permanently banned. either that, or not enough poster complain to CW.

So, all we are left with is to Ignore the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" as I choose to do.

[vonna]

I usually agree with the ignore but history shows that his technique does not work. What I've also noticed is that according to the members date of joining, despite all attempts by other posters, that poster seems immune to getting permanently banned. either that, or not enough poster complain to CW.

So, all we are left with is to Ignore the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" as I choose to do.

Too bad the PC isn't banned. Must not be too difficult to obtain a new nic. Those Baiters usually have made few posts with the new one.

[MoonFlwr]

Hi

I read about a link updating jury deliberations and movements as they occur...could I ask for that link? TIA :)

Is it this one....? Or is there another?

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/search/label/Phil%20Spector

[eagleeer]

I usually agree with the ignore but history shows that his technique does not work. What I've also noticed is that according to the members date of joining, despite all attempts by other posters, that poster seems immune to getting permanently banned. either that, or not enough poster complain to CW.

So, all we are left with is to Ignore the "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE" as I choose to do.

It is all moot now Gary, "Searching" is banned.

[GPSpector]

Too bad the PC isn't banned. Must not be too difficult to obtain a new nic. Those Baiters usually have made few posts with the new one.

Nope, as the baiter is aware, all a banned poster needs is a new E-Mail address and than create a new nic. Only a permanent ban would prevent the re-use of the nic. Temp bans allow the nic to be used again when the ban is lifted.

[GPSpector]

It is all moot now Gary, "Searching" is banned.

Thank you.

[warhorse46]

Nope, as the baiter is aware, all a banned poster needs is a new E-Mail address and than create a new nic. Only a permanent ban would prevent the re-use of the nic. Temp bans allow the nic to be used again when the ban is lifted.


Even when a nic is permanently banned the person can come back with a new nic & e-mail address. Only when an IP number is banned can they not come back unless they have a different IP & IP number. But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned.

[Jayne]

OFGS..do you have any idea what it is to be on "the street"??

You think one or another poster is so "up there"...we'll I'm not...I was..but I'm not now..I'm "on the street"..been there before..and not in Lana's realm..but "there"...

DO I have any compassion for PS..absolutely not..

would I take a ride in his limo to get a "one up" in making it? YOU BET (with my PPK in my pocket)

Many of you guys/gals just don't get it...a few pairs of nice shoes and a new job isn't all there is...

She was a play toy....a victim...a keep her there kinda girl...

MY Goodness Lord...are LA juries that danged dumb?

This is a near rape situation..but of course..that isn't what was indicted..it was murder..why? because she's dead and it didn't go that far?

Well, I'm pushing my envelope...but I think that is what would have happened had Lana said NO..and PS said YES, and he hadn't pulled the trigger. But Lana said no..and he did.

jmo

J

go ahead..ban me...

[GPSpector]

Even when a nic is permanently banned the person can come back with a new nic & e-mail address. Only when an IP number is banned can they not come back unless they have a different IP & IP number. But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned.

Only if a lot of innocent people are at that IP. It's just harder to ban an IP if the IP is not a static IP.

[MoonFlwr]

Why, Thank-you!

Oops...I mean...Thank-you, Why? :)

[eagleeer]

Even when a nic is permanently banned the person can come back with a new nic & e-mail address. Only when an IP number is banned can they not come back unless they have a different IP & IP number. But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned.


"But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned."

warhorse, this is absolutely not true.

Banning an IP (Internet Protocol) address would not ban anyone but the person that IP address is assigned to by their Internet Service Provider. No two users have the same IP address. There are two types of IP addresses. Static and Dynamic. A Static IP changes regularly. They are assigned to the user from a pool of IP addresses by your Internet Service Provider. A dynamic IP is exclusive to the user and most of the people who have a dynamic IP are those who have their own websites which most here do not. If one is so inclined they can get a program called Hide My IP or use a Proxy server which makes it hard to track and ban your IP address.

[eagleeer]

Sorry in my post above I switched Dynamic IP with Static IP descriptions. Dynamic (DHCP) IP is the one that is assigned from the pool of IP addresses from your Internet Service Provider. I apologize for confusing you.

[tartangirl]

My city's baseball team had opening day today and the coverage that was to be over at 10:00 tonight is going late because of rain delays. Not going to get to see Alan Jackson or this great sounding show. Maybe it will be online soon. :crying: I LOVE baseball, but this just stinks...LOL

Enjoy my poster pals and fill me in if you can...please?

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

[Jayne]

who was banned? I'm so confused..

trying to mix here between Passover..Easter..next week is my Orothodox Easter.

jmo

J

[eagleeer]

who was banned? I'm so confused..

trying to mix here between Passover..Easter..next week is my Orothodox Easter.

jmo

J

Searching was banned Jayne.

[Mr. Moto2]

"But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned."

warhorse, this is absolutely not true.

Banning an IP (Internet Protocol) address would not ban anyone but the person that IP address is assigned to by their Internet Service Provider. No two users have the same IP address. There are two types of IP addresses. Static and Dynamic. A Static IP changes regularly. They are assigned to the user from a pool of IP addresses by your Internet Service Provider. A dynamic IP is exclusive to the user and most of the people who have a dynamic IP are those who have their own websites which most here do not. If one is so inclined they can get a program called Hide My IP or use a Proxy server which makes it hard to track and ban your IP address.

I don't know about the Hide My IP program, but those proxy servers can slow your connection down to a crawl.

[eagleeer]

I don't know about the Hide My IP program, but those proxy servers can slow your connection down to a crawl.

That would be true Mr. Moto. I would never use one.

[Mr. Moto2]

That would be true Mr. Moto. I would never use one.

That is if you find one that even works lol.

[Jayne]

Searching was banned Jayne.


oooh..thanks my poster pal...after I spewed a whole bunch of stuff..

well, I meant it..I did.

thanks for your response.

:)

J

maybe I'm next?

hope not

[GPSpector]

Well, Dateline just started here. Have a great evening you Guys and Gals

[oodi]

Well, Dateline just started here. Have a great evening you Guys and Gals

You too, Gary!! I have 2 more hours to wait for Dateline.

[Curlyjo]

You too, Gary!! I have 2 more hours to wait for Dateline.


I am waiting one more hour...hope the Diamondbacks game is over by then so I can watch it with my hubby!

[Anakerie]

oooh..thanks my poster pal...after I spewed a whole bunch of stuff..

well, I meant it..I did.

thanks for your response.

:)

J

maybe I'm next?

hope not
Jayne, you're not belittling and attacking other posters, are you? I would guess that you are ok... hehe...

Lordy, even though I'm not worried about the jury yet, I hope this weekend ends up a busy one for me so I don't have to think about Phil and the trial much... lol

[oodi]

I am waiting one more hour...hope the Diamondbacks game is over by then so I can watch it with my hubby!


For your sake, I hope the game gets over too! Hubby and I watch Friday Night Lights, so it's the lead in for Dateline.

[oodi]

Jayne, you're not belittling and attacking other posters, are you? I would guess that you are ok... hehe...

Lordy, even though I'm not worried about the jury yet, I hope this weekend ends up a busy one for me so I don't have to think about Phil and the trial much... lol

I won't get to see my grandkids until next weekend, so I won't be coloring Easter eggs till a week from now... otherwise, that would have kept me busy.

[Anakerie]

I won't get to see my grandkids until next weekend, so I won't be coloring Easter eggs till a week from now... otherwise, that would have kept me busy.
I have one set of grandkids right across the street from me, so I will most likely be over there bugging them a bit.. lol... I don't think that's going to be enough to keep my mind off the cases that I am watching though... :D

[Curlyjo]

I won't get to see my grandkids until next weekend, so I won't be coloring Easter eggs till a week from now... otherwise, that would have kept me busy.

Grandkids...I wish I had some but my children are waiting and so am I. But I have already purchased things for them...a little rocking chair...a
1980 Barbie Christmas doll...stuff like that. My kids ask me why the little rocking chair? I say...so when I have grandchildren they can sit in it and tell me everything!!! They just laugh at me....mind you they are 27, 26 and 24. I have a funny feeling they willl all get married and have children all at the same time. I pray anyway.

[oodi]

I have one set of grandkids right across the street from me, so I will most likely be over there bugging them a bit.. lol... I don't think that's going to be enough to keep my mind off the cases that I am watching though... :D

I bought the house across the street from my mom, so my kids grew up with Grandma across the street. Then I met my current hubby online, and moved away.

I'll have The Master's to watch this weekend, so I'll be rooting for Tiger Woods... that will keep me occupied part of the time.

[warhorse46]

"But banning an IP number would also ban every person who uses that IP & number not just the offender. Would result in lots of innocent people being banned."

warhorse, this is absolutely not true.

Banning an IP (Internet Protocol) address would not ban anyone but the person that IP address is assigned to by their Internet Service Provider. No two users have the same IP address. There are two types of IP addresses. Static and Dynamic. A Static IP changes regularly. They are assigned to the user from a pool of IP addresses by your Internet Service Provider. A dynamic IP is exclusive to the user and most of the people who have a dynamic IP are those who have their own websites which most here do not. If one is so inclined they can get a program called Hide My IP or use a Proxy server which makes it hard to track and ban your IP address.


Just passing along what CW & the CTV techs have told us in the past. They seemed to know what they were talking about & have been saying it for years.

[Curlyjo]

Just passing along what CW & the CTV techs have told us in the past. They seemed to know what they were talking about & have been saying it for years.

Thank you that answers my question.

[oodi]

Grandkids...I wish I had some but my children are waiting and so am I. But I have already purchased things for them...a little rocking chair...a
1980 Barbie Christmas doll...stuff like that. My kids ask me why the little rocking chair? I say...so when I have grandchildren they can sit in it and tell me everything!!! They just laugh at me....mind you they are 27, 26 and 24. I have a funny feeling they willl all get married and have children all at the same time. I pray anyway.

That's how my mom was... buying all kinds of stuff before they were even a sparkle in anyone's eye. LOL

I have a grandson who is 10 years old and a granddaughter who is 4 months old. I wish I got to see them more often.

[Curlyjo]

That's how my mom was... buying all kinds of stuff before they were even a sparkle in anyone's eye. LOL

I have a grandson who is 10 years old and a granddaughter who is 4 months old. I wish I got to see them more often.

I envy you...I hope my sparkle in my eyes happen...I feel lost without my family expanding.

[oodi]

WTH is going on here? Did everybody go for a long pee break then all come back at the same time? What did I miss?:confused:

LOL... you missed some "Grandma" talk, and some talk about IP addys, etc.

[oodi]

I envy you...I hope my sparkle in my eyes happen...I feel lost without my family expanding.

I'm an only child, so I was used to the "small" family. Then I had 4 kids, to which my mother said: "I told you I wanted you to have ONE just like you, not FOUR just like you." LOL But she loves every minute of it, and I think having the grandkids so close (geographically and ohterwise) has been what has kept her in such good shape for someone in their mid 80's.

[eagleeer]

Ummm, please forgive my igonrance. I know that I requested a ban, not only on these boards, but in a PM as well. I have NEVER done that before - EVER. It is just that the viscious attacks on posters were escalating, and I felt they should stop.

Mt stupid question is...how do you KNOW that a person is banned?

I'm the idiot Jester, here. How do you know?

Go back to post 254 on this thread and you will see under the name Searching the word Banned not Registered User.

[Curlyjo]

I'm an only child, so I was used to the "small" family. Then I had 4 kids, to which my mother said: "I told you I wanted you to have ONE just like you, not FOUR just like you." LOL But she loves every minute of it, and I think having the grandkids so close (geographically and ohterwise) has been what has kept her in such good shape for someone in their mid 80's.

God bless her...mid 80's huh...my mother passed away 10 years ago but would have loved to be a great grandmother. Blessing to you and your family on this Good Friday and Easter Celebration.

[Anakerie]

Ummm, please forgive my igonrance. I know that I requested a ban, not only on these boards, but in a PM as well. I have NEVER done that before - EVER. It is just that the viscious attacks on posters were escalating, and I felt they should stop.

Mt stupid question is...how do you KNOW that a person is banned?

I'm the idiot Jester, here. How do you know?
No, you're not an idiot, Jester... In addition to looking at a post by someone, try "searching" for a name in the advanced search feature for this board... Then follow a link to the person's profile... (Sometimes it's hard to find a post by a "banned" one.. hehe)
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/member.php?u=146587

[eagleeer]

:smile:No, you're not an idiot, Jester... In addition to looking at a post by someone, try "searching" for a name in the advanced search feature for this board... Then follow a link to the person's profile... (Sometimes it's hard to find a post by a "banned" one.. hehe)
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/member.php?u=146587

Anakerie, you are so right, Jester is not an idiot and your method described is a more definitive way to check out if someone is banned. I just happened to run across it when looking back at some of the posts and his were still there. Sometimes the posts are pulled off the thread.

Thanks for explaining it better than I did. :smile:

[True2Blues]

Just passing along what CW & the CTV techs have told us in the past. They seemed to know what they were talking about & have been saying it for years.

My husband works with computers and he said you're absolutely right. If all computers in one house are connected through one modem (As most are because there's no need for more) they all show up with the same IP. The IP that shows on the internet, is actually for the modem/the connection.

In order to have separate IP's for each computer in one household, they all have to have a separate direct connection to the internet. A modem apiece or other direct connection and that's simply not necessary.

[oodi]

God bless her...mid 80's huh...my mother passed away 10 years ago but would have loved to be a great grandmother. Blessing to you and your family on this Good Friday and Easter Celebration.

Thank you, Curlyjo! I hope you and your family (and everyone else here) have a wonderful Easter holiday as well.

[eagleeer]

My husband works with computers and he said you're absolutely right. If all computers in one house are connected through one modem (As most are because there's no need for more) they all show up with the same IP. The IP that shows on the internet, is actually for the modem/the connection.

In order to have separate IP's for each computer in one household, they all have to have a separate direct connection to the internet. A modem apiece or other direct connection and that's simply not necessary.

That would be true if they were hooked up through a network hub (router) to the same modem. However that was not the issue. Warhourse indicated that others not necessarily in the same household could share the same IP which is not true.

[GPSpector]

"I will take a ride in a Limo, if it will get me a 'leg up', tells the whole story about this "lawyer chick", just like Lana, a sell out.

After so many post, she tells she sells out. harharhar!

Gee, I hope I misread you implyed meaning of your post. It almost sounded like you were attacking another poster for absolutly no valid reason.

Not cool todo on Good Friday, the day before Easter or ever.




Is that you "searching" for something on a month old account?

[GPSpector]

For those interested:

Phil Spector is free...
http://www.contactmusic.com:80/news.nsf/article/spector%20free%20for%20easter_1100344