Phil Spector Weekend Thread - 5/22-5/26

[eagleeer]

Here you go for you Spector addicts. Hi Vonna. :wink:

[vonna]

Here you go for you Spector addicts. Hi Vonna. :wink:

Hi - and thanks for directions to this weekend thread. Am anxiously counting down to May 29th.

[Jayne]

Phils side? Perhaps Louis? Maybe Nicole (although it doesn't seem she'd do that) Rachelle (If Phil and the bodyguards and court clerks can't stop her?). That lady friend of his (often on TV during PS1..name escapes me, but she felt PS could do no wrong, essentially).

Should be cut and dry and with court opening at 8:30..probably finally getting down to it by 9:00 or thereabouts, it should all be over by 11 am or so..then he's off "up north"...wherever they "station" him. My guess Corcoran..could be closer to "home". Will be interesting to see when he'll be eligible for parole.

J

[Jayne]

now to answer Anakerie.....

I can't think of anyone who would speak for PS, except Rachelle.

As far as for Lana........ can anything said be used against Lana's family in the civil suit? Maybe Lana's real friends will talk. Maybe her agent...


Exactly..Donna's attorney will have "rehearsed/advised" her before she makes any impact statement. AS to her real friends and agent..it depends on the "judge's leeway" and the impact of the statement. I'd say it is Donna and Lana's sister and maybe brother, and perhaps one other person, if that. It's usually "family" of the victim (or actual victim if a survivor) who has priority at statements. Sometimes community members, etc. if the victim had that sort of impact. I could see her landlady speaking..if allowed.

jmo

J

[eagleeer]

Hi - and thanks for directions to this weekend thread. Am anxiously counting down to May 29th.

Hang on to my tail feathers Vonna, I will never lead you astray.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOZF4vTAF2M&NR=1

Eagle

[Details]

IMO - the most effective person to speak for Spector would be a doctor who could testify about any medical problems that should reduce his prison sentence. I can't see anything else really doing anything good for him.

[Jayne]

IMO - the most effective person to speak for Spector would be a doctor who could testify about any medical problems that should reduce his prison sentence. I can't see anything else really doing anything good for him.

Agree..and if not "reducing" his sentence, at least placing him in a proper or more suitable facility?

[sunstar]

IMO - the most effective person to speak for Spector would be a doctor who could testify about any medical problems that should reduce his prison sentence. I can't see anything else really doing anything good for him.

I thought Judge Fidler basically has to follow the sentencing guidelines for the crimes he's convicted of, with the exception the sentences could be run concurrently instead of consecutively. It seems from reading AJ's recommendation that PS is facing about 19 yrs. minimum. At any rate it seems it will be a 'life' sentence due to his age. MOO

[kennedy06]

Would he be eligible for parole?

Details, thats an interesting point about a doctor speaking up.

I would think any of his children, especially a son would have the greatest impact I suppose on JF. Nicole has been on the stand and Chelle has spoken in court before so....who else would there really be?

[sunstar]

Would he be eligible for parole?

Details, thats an interesting point about a doctor speaking up.

I would think any of his children, especially a son would have the greatest impact I suppose on JF. Nicole has been on the stand and Chelle has spoken in court before so....

Hi! :smile: The sentence is 15-life so he would be eligible at some point for parole, imo.

[True2Blues]

Hi! :smile: The sentence is 15-life so he would be eligible at some point for parole, imo.


If the Judge gives the sentences to run consecutively the 4 years for the gun charge would have to be served first, so there would be 4 years for sure. After that I think it's supposed to be 15 years before eligibility for parole, but that seldom gets stuck to strictly anymore by anyone.

Of course, a parole board still has to decide if the prisoner should be paroled, and Spector's refusal to take any responsibility for any of his actions will cause a problem. Acceptance of guilt and remorse for their actions are usually necessary for parole and I don't see that coming out of him.

Hopefully the sentence will be for the rest of his life, whatever it is. PS is, and always will be, a danger to other people.

[sunstar]

If the Judge gives the sentences to run consecutively the 4 years for the gun charge would have to be served first, so there would be 4 years for sure. After that I think it's supposed to be 15 years before eligibility for parole, but that seldom gets stuck to strictly anymore by anyone.

Of course, a parole board still has to decide if the prisoner should be paroled, and Spector's refusal to take any responsibility for any of his actions will cause a problem. Acceptance of guilt and remorse for their actions are usually necessary for parole and I don't see that coming out of him.

Hopefully the sentence will be for the rest of his life, whatever it is. PS is, and always will be, a danger to other people.
Thanks for the information and reassurance! I too don't think he'll ever get out, mainly due to his age now. In 19 years, he'll be 89!

[dref99]

If the Judge gives the sentences to run consecutively the 4 years for the gun charge would have to be served first, so there would be 4 years for sure. After that I think it's supposed to be 15 years before eligibility for parole, but that seldom gets stuck to strictly anymore by anyone.

Of course, a parole board still has to decide if the prisoner should be paroled, and Spector's refusal to take any responsibility for any of his actions will cause a problem. Acceptance of guilt and remorse for their actions are usually necessary for parole and I don't see that coming out of him.

Hopefully the sentence will be for the rest of his life, whatever it is. PS is, and always will be, a danger to other people.

I don't believe they can run the two parts concurrently - as per the recommendations from AJ, the 15 years to life is a minimum 15 years and the gun enhancement
any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission of a felony . . . shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4 or 10 years
(transcript of his submission - http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/)

I assume AJ is correct so minimum JF can give is 18 years, maximum 25 years - recommended by prosecution 19 years. I don't know if there can be a parole hearing within the 15 years but this was included by AJ
Pursuant to Penal Code section 190(3), the defendant is entitled to no conduct credit reduction in his sentence, so it seems "good behaviour" does not reduce the sentence.

As for speaking at sentencing - I wonder if we will hear from the Clarksons - I think it possible that their lawyer may read a prepared statement.

I think Weinberg may be the only person to speak for the defense - I really can't imagine Rachelle saying anything useful for her husband - perhaps being quiet might be her smartest move.

Then again - I could be completely wrong - shall know by the end of next week

jmo

[Anakerie]

Phils side? Perhaps Louis? Maybe Nicole (although it doesn't seem she'd do that) Rachelle (If Phil and the bodyguards and court clerks can't stop her?). That lady friend of his (often on TV during PS1..name escapes me, but she felt PS could do no wrong, essentially).

Should be cut and dry and with court opening at 8:30..probably finally getting down to it by 9:00 or thereabouts, it should all be over by 11 am or so..then he's off "up north"...wherever they "station" him. My guess Corcoran..could be closer to "home". Will be interesting to see when he'll be eligible for parole.

J
Hi Jayne.. Phil's first stop after leaving the LA County jail where he is right now will be one of the intake centers. My guess would be Chino since it's the intake facility that is normally used for the LA area. They'll evaluate him there, health wise, mental health, etc. and then decide where to send him for his home away from home for the next 15 to 25 years or so. He could be there at Chino for a few months. The next stop could be Corcoran or it could be the medical facility at Vacaville... :shrug:

[bearwds]

Phils side? Perhaps Louis? Maybe Nicole (although it doesn't seem she'd do that) Rachelle (If Phil and the bodyguards and court clerks can't stop her?). That lady friend of his (often on TV during PS1..name escapes me, but she felt PS could do no wrong, essentially).

Should be cut and dry and with court opening at 8:30..probably finally getting down to it by 9:00 or thereabouts, it should all be over by 11 am or so..then he's off "up north"...wherever they "station" him. My guess Corcoran..could be closer to "home". Will be interesting to see when he'll be eligible for parole.

J

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

Hey Jayne... ...and the rest of the olde timers (and new) on this Board..

I've got one for you. Perfect testimonial and 1000 reasons why the convict shouldn't be held accountable. Of course, I'm talking about Jamie Floyd....:mellow:

I haven't heard back from anyone except KTLA for the simulcast. Slight interest. I hope others took my plea to contact and request. Punch out KTLA on your google and that will get you there.

For my assignment guess: Kern facility for classification then on to Vacaville to serve.


bearwds

[cali650]

I think it's possible that we hear from the Clarksons and possible that we hear from Rachelle. I also think it's possible that we may see Nicole pop-up in this and I sure HOPE they have not put a lot of pressure (as in bribes) on Louis or Donte, but Spector has no limits on indecency. Nicole has a lot to lose, but Donte and Louis have already felt huge loss and at some pretty severe emotional and psychological violence at the hands of the convicted murderer. (I'm just mentioning Donte and Louis because we've observed them in court as they are more able to attend.)

The Clarksons would have a huge impact on Fidler as he has watched their stoic love without their comments, or hating, or any kind of pandering or grandstanding. I think that if Jackson asked them to speak, they would seriously consider making comments on the record at sentencing. I think it would be good to hear from the Clarksons, extremely dramatic and appropriate, but would of course honor any decision those two beautiful, sad ladies make. Whatever they decide is the right decision.

[cali650]

For emphasis: My bet is we will hear from Rachelle. And if I had to bet, I would guess that we will hear from the Clarksons and Nicole.

In my dreams we would hear from Tina and Cher but we know that those two don't want to be within 100 miles of Phil. My guess is Chino or Corcoran based on nothing. He's gonna have big big probs.

Also I do think it will be carried on tv depending on the news that day. My guess is yes, but maybe with no notice.

[bearwds]

Glad I found this thread.

Happy to report the sick myspace page trashing Lana and the Judge has been removed.

:thumbsup:

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

Cool. That must be the one that compared Judge Fidler to Hitler..??

Surprised, but not really.. ..that JF didn't take RS to task for some of the shenanigans that she pulled during trial. He didn't want to open any charge of bias for an appeal.

Wonder if she will pull anything on the 29th..??

Glad the 29th is on a Friday and not a "hump" day....:huh:


bearwds

[True2Blues]

Glad I found this thread.

Happy to report the sick myspace page trashing Lana and the Judge has been removed.

:thumbsup:

Glad to hear it. Funny how they can't find enough good about PS to fill a page, so instead they fill the space with hatred for others. I guess they're a lot like their idol.

[imc_e]

I'm looking forward to see PS without a wig.

:sneaky:

[warhorse46]

I'm looking forward to see PS without a wig.

:sneaky:


Now that is a scary thought!:scared:

[Jayne]

I read the posts..and I do guess that PS will go to Chino perhaps..or Kern County before transfer to the appropriate facility. Chino is the busiest as I've been told..then Kern/Wasco is the second...in the state. I was guessing Corcoran as the final destination but perhaps Vacaville as one suggested. He may end up in reassignment for mental health/drug addiction purposes to a particular facility? Haven't completed all my "homework" on that..but it's at this point just a surmise.

jmo

J

[barskin&co.]

It didn't come soon enough, Jullie...I was surprised they were able to keep the myspace up as long as they did.
The man was convicted and he gets sentenced on the 29th. One would think he was still sitting in trial and we were sharing a conversation as to weather the jury will find Spector guilty or Not.
I'm shaking my head constantly. LOL
JMO

Phillip Spector 2nd degree murder (GUILTY)

Spector gets sentenced on Friday, May 29, 2009.
See you in court at 8:30...Whooohoooo!:thumbsup:
In case it has been forgotten.:

Oh, I hadn't realized that it was coming up next week. Looking forward to it. Hey, Phil, have a nice life...sentence!

[Jayne]

Hi Jayne...
I hope you enjoy your memorial weekend.
I'm gonna take a guess and say Corcoran will be where he ultimately lands. I have heard they have everything to offer in the way of medical intervention and I know that's exactly what he will be needing with his health issues and maybe he can sit in on some mental health sessions. He truly needs it. (Never to late):no:
JMO
Thanks Dianna..will try..and I hope you enjoy yours (of course..I don't "have" (or am able) to go back to work on Tuesday! LOL) so it's a very long weekend here!

Corcoran has just what you indicated...there are other facilities that are "further down the road"..after "rehab" if proven..or if the facility that he is placed in can't give what is needed as far as medical/mental care. We'll see..where he gets placed..but I'm guessing Corcoran as well..Vacaville second.

I don't know if they'll tell "us" that at sentencing...perhaps.

jmo

J

[sunstar]

SENTENCE

A. THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO 19 YEARS TO LIFE IN PRISON

California Penal Code section 187(a).

The sentence for Count 1 in this case is mandatory. "[E]very person guilty of murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 15 years to life." Cal. Pen. Code § 190(a) (2003).

Thanks and I know that's AJ's recommendation but *if* PS is still alive after 19 yrs., wouldn't he be eligible for parole? That's all my question was ~ but it's probably unimportant since I don't think he'll make it. :shrug:

[vonna]

Thanks and I know that's AJ's recommendation but *if* PS is still alive after 19 yrs., wouldn't he be eligible for parole? That's all my question was ~ but it's probably unimportant since I don't think he'll make it. :shrug:

Let's hope they take good medical care of him so that he can remember what he did to Lana every single day.

[sunstar]

Let's hope they take good medical care of him so that he can remember what he did to Lana every single day.

Oh yes, I hope that too! :smile:

[vonna]

I doubt it would affect him, as there is no indication of remorse as yet, and it would be scenery that is much more beautiful than he deserves. A real punishment would be having to see himself for what he really is, but that might be considered cruel and unusual punishment. Even still, he needs to take a long look at himself, sans a wig of course.

I don't think this man is capable of remorse.

[bearwds]

Thanks Dianna..will try..and I hope you enjoy yours (of course..I don't "have" (or am able) to go back to work on Tuesday! LOL) so it's a very long weekend here!

Corcoran has just what you indicated...there are other facilities that are "further down the road"..after "rehab" if proven..or if the facility that he is placed in can't give what is needed as far as medical/mental care. We'll see..where he gets placed..but I'm guessing Corcoran as well..Vacaville second.

I don't know if they'll tell "us" that at sentencing...perhaps.

jmo

J

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

"I don't know if they'll tell "us" that at sentencing...perhaps."


No they won't.


At sentencing (19 years..?), he will be "remanded" to D.O.C. (Department of Corrections) to serve out his term. It is then up to D.O.C., to take physical custody. Assignments to facilities and issues of parole are up to D.O.C.

There has been a name change under Gov. Arnie.

D.O.C. is now called "Department of Corrections and rehabilitation"

"A rose by any other name" ...not much rehab. D.O.C.R.


bearwds

[cali650]

Hi Jayne...
I hope you enjoy your memorial weekend.
I'm gonna take a guess and say Corcoran will be where he ultimately lands. I have heard they have everything to offer in the way of medical intervention and I know that's exactly what he will be needing with his health issues and maybe he can sit in on some mental health sessions. He truly needs it. (Never to late):no:
JMO

That's where they have strong mental health services and the drug rehab program is. They bring prisoners from other locations to Corcoran for rehab and psych services. This is where R Downey Jr. went for his heroin sentence and 6 mo, if I recall, rehab. Worked for him.

[dref99]

pics of him with his various ridiculous wigs

I've never found much to laugh about in this case - but that did make me smile - what an image it conjured up

:D :D :D

[sunstar]

I agree there is nothing to laugh about in this case, it is all very sad for all parties concerned.

Nic

I agree it is very sad, and my thoughts are with his sons, especially "GPSpector" who posts here. :sad:

[vonna]

I agree it is very sad, and my thoughts are with his sons, especially "GPSpector" who posts here. :sad:

I'm dwelling on the happy part. Spector is about to face his long delayed sentencing. Only five days to go.

[Details]

There is no happy part to this case.......

NicA murderer is convicted and society will now be protected from him - that is a happy part. Our justice system worked, even on the rich and powerful - that is a happy part. A grieving family at least knows they have had justice, and slanders against their daughter were rejected by the jury - that is a happy part.

Everything, of course would have been better had Spector never killed her - but once he did, this was the best outcome possible - a trial and conviction to put the murderer away.

[Anakerie]

There is no happy part to this case.......

Nic
That is your opinion and you have every right to feel that way. Some of us, however are relieved that Phil will not be free to threaten another person with a gun. And believe it or not, that relief can bring a measure of happiness.

[vonna]

That is your opinion and you have every right to feel that way. Some of us, however are relieved that Phil will not be free to threaten another person with a gun. And believe it or not, that relief can bring a measure of happiness.

We are entitled to feel happiness when justice is served.

[sunstar]

I'm dwelling on the happy part. Spector is about to face his long delayed sentencing. Only five days to go.

I agree with that, he is guilty and about to face the rest of his life in prison, which he deserves. And that is justice for Lana and her family, but I also think about his sons. :smile:

[sunstar]

I do agree with you sunstar.
I feel bad for all his sons. The one he has chosen to pay attention to and serve up his responsiblities and those who he chose to pretend he does not know them. That is very sad and disappointing to me.
One positive note. (could be, should be) when all is said and done and he's doing years and years in prison he may want to take advantage of a book that goes with his yarmulke and try (just try) to reunite with his son's. He still has time with the good Lord and his son's I want to believe. Yes, I also think about his son's.

I too hope he uses his time in prison for that purpose. :smile:

[vonna]

I do agree with you sunstar.
I feel bad for all his sons. The one he has chosen to pay attention to and serve up his responsiblities and those who he chose to pretend he does not know them. That is very sad and disappointing to me.
One positive note. (could be, should be) when all is said and done and he's doing years and years in prison he may want to take advantage of a book that goes with his yarmulke and try (just try) to reunite with his son's. He still has time with the good Lord and his son's I want to believe. Yes, I also think about his son's.
JMO...JMHO...MOO

It's too bad Spector didn't think about his sons - like helping Gary with his surgical bills when he needed it. It's obviously up to us to feel sorry for them.

[cali650]

I think his sons have had quite enough of him and the best thing for all is to have him put away and so that we all feel safer, especially those that have had the massive bad luck to have been sucked into his orbit.

No way can PS reconcile with anything. He can only be emotionally manipulative. My hope is that his sons can live their lives in peace and safety and away from their abuser. For him to suddenly attempt to be fatherly and remorseful would only be another episode in his cycle of abuse.

My guess is that while the emotions are sharp, there still will be a general feeling of relief when PS goes away under lock and key. It will end the virtual stalking of knowing that their adoptive father is capable of his evil manipulation, if not granting the full comfort they deserve.

[cali650]

Well you obviously didn't look closely enough at that video. Because PS certainly wasn't dancing, twirling around in his driveway, as you put it - look again...... He is innocent of the charge and there is no joy in Lana's untimely death or a wrong man being accused IMO.

Nic

The jury is the finder of fact.
They found that Phil Spector is a murderer.
Case closed.

[vonna]

Well, there definitely is no grin in this video and Adriano DeSouza's testimony could easily have been ' i think somebody has been killed' as we know now. Thank YOU for giving me the chance to give my opinion as you do you. Here's to the appeal to free an innocent man IMO:thumbsup:

Nic

Thanks for the laugh. So AD's statement at the time Spector killed Lana has been twisted to "I think somebody was killed." That's rich!!

[Anakerie]

Thanks for the laugh. So AD's statement at the time Spector killed Lana has been twisted to "I think somebody was killed." That's rich!!
I think it's just the Phil-fans that have decided to twist what Adriano testified to. (How many times?) I guess it makes them feel better, just like that so-called petition that we've seen. Both are pointless.

It doesn't matter anyway. Phil was convicted, he will be sentenced this coming Friday and then all that he can do is settle in and see if his attorneys can come up with a valid appeal issue. I'm still waiting to hear from the fans what the appeal will be that will set Phil free. I'm guessing that since I've asked many times and have yet to get an answer back, they haven't figured it out yet.

[vonna]

:biggrinjester: Wear your t-shirt and smile :biggrinjester:

Good idea!

[Themis]

Hi Jayne...
I hope you enjoy your memorial weekend.
I'm gonna take a guess and say Corcoran will be where he ultimately lands. I have heard they have everything to offer in the way of medical intervention and I know that's exactly what he will be needing with his health issues and maybe he can sit in on some mental health sessions. He truly needs it. (Never to late):no:
JMO
Does anyone really know what his health issues are?

I've read where he has claimed to have diabetes -- Type II, I would imagine, as I have never read that he has to take insulin. No one with even Type II diabetes would drink as much as he does. Therefore, I discount completely his claims of diabetes. He may be a 'binge alcoholic' but simply being incarcerated would fix that problem.

He is 69...so what...I know of many his age and older who continue to work.

None of his alleged health issues have kept him from going shopping, dining out, club hopping, etc. There were hundreds of court days in his 2 trials -- how many court days had to be canceled because he was *too ill* to be in court. I recall a dental problem but that's all.

So, I am wondering why would Spector immediately qualify to be placed in the Medical Unit at Vacaville. He, IMO, does not qualify at this time for its licensed elderly care unit. I am no huge fan of Wikipedia but it does give a decent overview of California Medical Facility at Vacaville.

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

Corcoran? Well, again, according to Wikipedia it has its very special Protective Housing Unit which holds up to 47 prisoners who require, "extraordinary protection from other prisoners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corcoran

Here again, I cannot help but ask why Spector would require such extraordinary protection from other prisoners. Personally, I doubt 2% of the inmates in all of California's prisons would even know of Spector's background except that he is one of thousands who have killed someone. Spector is just not special in any way.

Because of Spector's apparent appreciation for old things (reference his own home and its furnishings and penchant for Edwardian-type clothes) San Quentin may be just the place where he could appreciate his historical digs.

[JMO * Themis]

[bearwds]

The deceiving grin on his face must have been standing out more then his soft step. One thing I do know is he is now where he should have been put waaay back last year. Just sayin.:wink:
No, it wasn't the wrong man. There was only one man and one woman in the foyer on 02-03-03. A woman with a purse on her shoulder (terrified) and a man with HIS own gun, bullets and anger and hostility in his evil eyes at that moment.
POP... (as Adriano Souza shared) what was clearly heard that morning right before he (Phil Spector) walked outside with gun in hand and said, "I think I killed somebody."
But, that was not the bench burner in this trial. That was only one single intricate part to this 5 month trial.
This jury got it right.
JMHO...JMO...MOO.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give my opinion as you do yours. Yours are very welcome, by the way.:seeya:

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

I think it was "POW".


bearwds

[warhorse46]

Does anyone really know what his health issues are?

I've read where he has claimed to have diabetes -- Type II, I would imagine, as I have never read that he has to take insulin. No one with even Type II diabetes would drink as much as he does. Therefore, I discount completely his claims of diabetes. He may be a 'binge alcoholic' but simply being incarcerated would fix that problem.

He is 69...so what...I know of many his age and older who continue to work.

None of his alleged health issues have kept him from going shopping, dining out, club hopping, etc. There were hundreds of court days in his 2 trials -- how many court days had to be canceled because he was *too ill* to be in court. I recall a dental problem but that's all.

So, I am wondering why would Spector immediately qualify to be placed in the Medical Unit at Vacaville. He, IMO, does not qualify at this time for its licensed elderly care unit. I am no huge fan of Wikipedia but it does give a decent overview of California Medical Facility at Vacaville.

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

Corcoran? Well, again, according to Wikipedia it has its very special Protective Housing Unit which holds up to 47 prisoners who require, "extraordinary protection from other prisoners."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Prison,_Corcoran

Here again, I cannot help but ask why Spector would require such extraordinary protection from other prisoners. Personally, I doubt 2% of the inmates in all of California's prisons would even know of Spector's background except that he is one of thousands who have killed someone. Spector is just not special in any way.

Because of Spector's apparent appreciation for old things (reference his own home and its furnishings and penchant for Edwardian-type clothes) San Quentin may be just the place where he could appreciate his historical digs.

[JMO * Themis]


He has been under the care of a psych doctor who has had him on a cocktail of psych drugs for years.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

There is no happy part to this case.......

Nic

Sure there is.

A murderer has been convicted.

Personally... I'm ecstatic. :thumbup:

[♫Rock*Star♫]

snipped

IF they had proven the case, it would be Mansalughter at the very most.

Fair trials aren't possible IF the media and poster's on message boards decide they're guilty.

mo

Evidently, you missed the jury's verdict.

You know... the twelve people who decided, based upon the evidence presented at trial, that Phil Spector is indeed a murderer.

Obviously Alan Jackson & Co. proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kudos to Alan Jackson & Co. :thumbup:

[Themis]

He has been under the care of a psych doctor who has had him on a cocktail of psych drugs for years.

And maybe that has been part of his problem. [JMO * Themis]


P.S. I clicked on the Quote Button before I typed my comment and yet this post got messed up; I did not do it.

[dref99]

Sure there is.

A murderer has been convicted.

Personally... I'm ecstatic. :thumbup:

I am pleased that justice was done and sad that someone had to die when it was known for so long that the man liked waving guns around - but ecstatic is a word I use for happy, exciting or wonderful occasions - this was none of those.

Definition: ecstatic
Delightful beyond measure; rapturous; ravishing; as, ecstatic bliss or joy


jmo

[♫Rock*Star♫]

I am pleased that justice was done and sad that someone had to die when it was known for so long that the man liked waving guns around - but ecstatic is a word I use for happy, exciting or wonderful occasions - this was none of those.

Definition: ecstatic
Delightful beyond measure; rapturous; ravishing; as, ecstatic bliss or joy


jmo

I am delighted beyond measure that convicted murderer Phil Spector is finally off the streets and won't be pulling guns on anymore human beings.

Let alone shooting and killing them.

[Jim]

I didn't keep up with the trial of Phil Spector after the first hung jury.

How much time did he get ??

[Details]

I didn't keep up with the trial of Phil Spector after the first hung jury.

How much time did he get ??No sentencing yet. Should be effectively the rest of his life.

The whole case is nothing to be happy with - a woman is dead, a man is going to jail. But given that the woman is dead, and no verdict would change that, the man who killed her, who threatened so many others, who could have killed again if allowed to get away with this one - sending him to jail is a very good thing, and something to be happy about.

Looking at the whole thing from Lana deciding to go to his place to now - it's a sad thing. But looking at it from the point of time when Lana is dead, and the murderer managing to stay free - a very sad point in time when all the worst is happening - this is a much better point to be in than there - this is a happy thing.

[warhorse46]

He has been under the care of a psych doctor who has had him on a cocktail of psych drugs for years.

And maybe that has been part of his problem. [JMO * Themis]


P.S. I clicked on the Quote Button before I typed my comment and yet this post got messed up; I did not do it.



Well it certainly caused his tremors.

[Anakerie]

I agree with you completely. :thumbsup:

Just so there's no mistake, there will be an appeal. He is legally entitled to one.

Just because somebody isn't the nicest person that ever lived, it's no reason to hang them out to dry when there is absolutely NO credible evidence to find the party guilty. And where do they get 2nd degree murder? IF they had proven the case, it would be Mansalughter at the very most. Boy, nothing like trying a person in the media and on message boards. Fair trials aren't possible IF the media and poster's on message boards decide they're guilty. :thumbdown:

mo
Hmm.. Did you know that the message boards had nothing to do with the verdict in this case? I'm not even going to argue evidence with you. The verdict is in and all that is left is a sentencing hearing and later on down the road, the appeals process. And, of course there will be an appeal filed, but that doesn't mean that he will get out of prison once it's filed. I'd still like to know what the fans think will be the subject of said appeal.

[barskin&co.]

Well, there definitely is no grin in this video and Adriano DeSouza's testimony could easily have been ' i think somebody has been killed' as we know now. Thank YOU for giving me the chance to give my opinion as you do you. Here's to the appeal to free an innocent man IMO:thumbsup:

Nic

Oh...sure! I believe DeSouza's testimony could easily have been, "I think somebody has been killed." I also believe martians have stolen my luggage.

:lol::lol:

[Details]

Don't insult me! I am NO fan of Phil Spector's, however I am a BIG fan of the U.S. Constitution and our Judicial System in this country. This case was tried and won in the media and on message boards. period.

mo :seeya:Nope. The jurors decided it. They walked the evidence, took their time, considered everything presented in court - not the media.

I know I personally didn't get a vote on the juror's panel - if you did, then maybe you've got a point there.

[barskin&co.]

Don't insult me! I am NO fan of Phil Spector's, however I am a BIG fan of the U.S. Constitution and our Judicial System in this country. This case was tried and won in the media and on message boards. period.

mo :seeya:

Absolutely wrong. The Spector media machine was working full blast for 6 years, churning out blather about the victim non-stop. At his trial, the defense had the best rent-a-heads money could buy. This vedict was won by virtue of a strong forensic and circumstantial case and a jury that did it's job diligently and without outside influence. If Phil Spector had not been rich and a celebrity, the defense would have been laughable.

[Themis]

[QUOTE=Themis;13135646]

Well it certainly caused his tremors.

Do you know the name of the psychiatrist who, according to your earlier post, 'has had him [Spector] on a cocktail of psych drugs for years."

Did he/she (the psychiatrist) testify at both trials? I tried to follow the first trial fairly closely and don't recall testimony from any psychiatrist who has treated Spector for, say, the most recent 10 years testifying. Coverage of this last trial has been limited.

I'm really curious since his tremors during the first trial were intermittent. At times his hands would shake a lot and were very visible, especially when he held his hands up to his face. I'm fairly sure that caught the jury's collective eye.
At other times his hands were quite steady as when Spector mimicked pointing a gun at the request of one of his defense attornies, Christopher Plourd, I think.

T.I.A. [JMO * Themis]

P.S. Another software glitch. The post I was responding to was by Warhorse46 yet it attributed it to ME.

[dref99]

P.S. Another software glitch. The post I was responding to was by Warhorse46 yet it attributed it to ME.

In terms of your quoting problem - the original error was caused because when you bolded some of what you were quoting - you bolded the start of the quote end as I have done here [/QUOTE].

This effected the quote selection for the reply by warhorse46, which then continued on your next reply, and would have continued here if I had not deleted the incorrect QUOTE options generated because of the mistake. Software is dumb, the options have to be exactly as defined.

[Themis]

In terms of your quoting problem - the original error was caused because when you bolded some of what you were quoting - you bolded the start of the quote end as I have done here [/QUOTE].

This effected the quote selection for the reply by warhorse46, which then continued on your next reply, and would have continued here if I had not deleted the incorrect QUOTE options generated because of the mistake. Software is dumb, the options have to be exactly as defined.
Thank you, Dreff99, for explaining the source of the previous foul-up in posts. I appreciate your time to do it.

[Themis]

Reference: Post 95

Yes, Cali650, those were my questions/comments directed to Warhorse. I appreciate reading your viewpoint, too.

Perhaps we will hear from Spector's long time doctor who has prescribed this alleged 'cocktail of psych drugs for years' before Judge Fidler imposes the sentence as some sort of mitigating factor. Although the time to have brought that up was during the defense case-in-chief. However, if his/her name was Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and/or Dr. Khristine Eroshevich we can assume why we didn't hear testimony during the defense case.

I stand by my initial post which stated my opinion that Spector showed nothing in his 2 trials that would make prison officials immediately place him in the licensed elderly care unit in California Medical Facility at Vacaville as alluded to earlier. He is not physically disabled; not HIV positive. Any California prison can dispense anti-depressant meds if a prison doctor deems them necessary.

At this point he is just a common murderer who murdered an uncommon lady.

[JMO * Themis]

[dref99]

Thank you, Dreff99, for explaining the source of the previous foul-up in posts. I appreciate your time to do it.

No worries - it is so easy to do - despite we all now live with computers - they are so exact it sends me crazy - no grey - just black/white.

Sometimes with crime boards we are the same - no in between - I think it is better that people can realise not everyone is perfect. I have no idea why Phil Spector decided to try and prove that Lana had committed suicide, I keep thinking that if he had faced the reality that this time he did pull the trigger (and I don't think he meant to do this - but that does not mean it was not murder) and used his money for counselling and/or retribution rather than lawyers and experts searching for a suicide, he may well have been convicted (or had a plea deal) of manslaughter and served little time.

Thus, unlike some, I am not rejoicing - simply quietly pleased to see a just conviction.

There were some drugs found in urine tests done on Spector samples from when he was arrested & during the civil deposition (against Robert Shapiro) Spector testified in relation to medications he was taking. Details of both are in pdf files here
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/courtnews/highProfile/HPDocumentList.aspx?title=People+vs.+Phillip+Spect or&casenum=BA255233&

Perhaps this is where the idea of the "cocktail of drugs" originated.

jmo

[dref99]

Absolutely wrong. The Spector media machine was working full blast for 6 years, churning out blather about the victim non-stop. At his trial, the defense had the best rent-a-heads money could buy. This vedict was won by virtue of a strong forensic and circumstantial case and a jury that did it's job diligently and without outside influence. If Phil Spector had not been rich and a celebrity, the defense would have been laughable.

I have to agree, message boards do not try cases & the media was rarely to be seen for trial 2. During both trials, the media reported as many things favorable to the PS defense as it did to the prosecution. I am still bewildered by the amount of positive press related to the suggested suicide. If you read all the AP reports from trial2, you would think it was a very successful defense.

The ability to make a $1 million bail and then draw the case out over 6 years are options available to very few people. I find it exceedingly unusual to see bail allowed for murder, but perhaps it is simply that most who commit murder cannot afford the amount payable.

I am not so sure about the "circumstantial" concept. There were only 2 people who could have shot Lana & one of them admitted to a witness "I think I shot someone". Is that considered "circumstantial evidence" - I would have thought it was direct evidence - but would need to look more closely at the definitions to be sure.

jmo

[vonna]

Sure there is.

A murderer has been convicted.

Personally... I'm ecstatic. :thumbup:

I'm with you!!!

[hiitsme]

Don't insult me! I am NO fan of Phil Spector's, however I am a BIG fan of the U.S. Constitution and our Judicial System in this country. This case was tried and won in the media and on message boards. period. Talk about a tainted jury pool. That's what happens in this country now in high profile cases. However, you can keep denying it if you want, but it won't change the truth.

mo :seeya:

In my opinion, the "high profile" defendants have had the advantage in the recent past. They can afford the best defense teams, and in many cases the top liars for hire. Many of these lawyers are simply out to win and and will do anything but search for the truth. It was particularly evident in PS2. It's really perposterous to believe that the media and these message boards influenced the outcome. The facts are the facts. Very little is known about this jury so please share the information you have with regards to it "being tainted".

[vonna]

No valid reason is given by his fans.

:confused:

No doubt because there isn't any valid reason for a successful appeal. Anyone is free to go through the motions.

[Anakerie]

Hmmm..... I suggest you look back on the May thread, because the appeal was discussed there at some length recently.

BTW I am not a PS fan as you seem to think everyone is who believes he is innocent! Oh and did you not know that jury's can actually get it wrong and this has been the case many many times in the past and these convictions have subsequently been overturned. So, you see it does happen in the 'real' world.

Nic
I have been here, Nic... I'm not going back to reread the May thread, because I was there when things were posted the first time. I saw a few posts about the appeals, but I don't remember seeing any mention of an issue that could be a successful appeal. Oh well, I guess I'll just drop the appeal questions and move on.

And BTW back to you, yes, juries can get it wrong, but I don't think they got it wrong at all this time. 2 trials, 24 jurors; 22 said guilty, 1 said not guilty and 1 followed the not guilty forman. And I'm not even counting what the alternates said they thought after both trials. I think the "guilty" is going to stick in Phil's "real world".

[warhorse46]

[QUOTE=warhorse46;13135963]

Do you know the name of the psychiatrist who, according to your earlier post, 'has had him [Spector] on a cocktail of psych drugs for years."

Did he/she (the psychiatrist) testify at both trials? I tried to follow the first trial fairly closely and don't recall testimony from any psychiatrist who has treated Spector for, say, the most recent 10 years testifying. Coverage of this last trial has been limited.

I'm really curious since his tremors during the first trial were intermittent. At times his hands would shake a lot and were very visible, especially when he held his hands up to his face. I'm fairly sure that caught the jury's collective eye.
At other times his hands were quite steady as when Spector mimicked pointing a gun at the request of one of his defense attornies, Christopher Plourd, I think.

T.I.A. [JMO * Themis]

P.S. Another software glitch. The post I was responding to was by Warhorse46 yet it attributed it to ME.


No doctor testified on PS's behalf in either trial. It was widely reported by Beth Karas & many others of his long psych treatment for mental issues & his long term psych medications. He has tardive dyskinesia. With this disease as with Parkensons the limbs to no shake constantly. The tremors can be stopped by certain activities like placing them together or on something. Read about it here.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tardive/tardive.htm

[dref99]

Why do you keep repeating this? We already know. You don't have the right to tell others how to feel. I'm extremely happy and will be even more on the day of the sentencing.

His famly is sad? Really? Beg to differ. You seem to be missing a whole lot about that. Reality, it is sad for Lana's family. You know the innocent victim shot in the face by Phil.

It really doesn't matter how many times anyone says something - they are unlikely to change another person's opinion. In that you think others "do not have the right to tell others how to feel" neither do you and I - but we can express an opinion, many times - as can others.

I believe justice was served. I am pleased about that. I am not elated. I do not understand how anyone can be elated - but they say that they are, so I have to accept this.

Nothing will bring Lana back and her mother will grieve for the remainder of her life - few will deny that that is very sad.

Some of Phil's family post on here - they are also very sad - they were and are victims as well. I have not heard them accept or deny the events that happened, like many, they wish that the shooting had never happened. Phil has other friends and family who are also probably sad about events. Disagreeing that his family is sad would assume you know them and how they are feeling, which is probably unlikely.

There is only one person who committed this crime. He has been found guilty and will be sentenced on Friday.

jmo

[bearwds]

I don't see any at all.

Happy Memorial Day!

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

Hey Jullie....

I have 100% certainty that Spector is guilty of M-2., and a case could actually be made for M-1.

However, since the issue of appeal was raised, I brought forth the possibility of a reversal. The decision by Alan Jackson to use the redacted testimony by Diane Odgen was unnecessary and other PBA witnesses were sufficient.

DW was forced to stand up and face a video screen. Not much response when you question an ELMO or video projector. Bruce Cutler was missing entirely.

Not saying the appeal will be successful, but the issue was "on what grounds".


bearwds

[dref99]

I have been here, Nic... I'm not going back to reread the May thread, because I was there when things were posted the first time. I saw a few posts about the appeals, but I don't remember seeing any mention of an issue that could be a successful appeal. Oh well, I guess I'll just drop the appeal questions and move on.

And BTW back to you, yes, juries can get it wrong, but I don't think they got it wrong at all this time. 2 trials, 24 jurors; 22 said guilty, 1 said not guilty and 1 followed the not guilty forman. And I'm not even counting what the alternates said they thought after both trials. I think the "guilty" is going to stick in Phil's "real world".

As was discussed back then - appeals have to be based on legal issues - not the evidence as presented. If an appeal is successful and a new trial is granted - then evidence issues can be addressed - but in this case it seems very unlikely that there are any valid grounds for an appeal to be allowed let alone successful.

I agree Anakerie - the guilty is here to stay. One juror whose MIL likes to look in other peoples' closets doesn't add up to not guilty.

jmo

[dref99]

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

Hey Jullie....

I have 100% certainty that Spector is guilty of M-2., and a case could actually be made for M-1.

However, since the issue of appeal was raised, I brought forth the possibility of a reversal. The decision by Alan Jackson to use the redacted testimony by Diane Odgen was unnecessary and other PBA witnesses were sufficient.

DW was forced to stand up and face a video screen. Not much response when you question an ELMO or video projector. Bruce Cutler was missing entirely.

Not saying the appeal will be successful, but the issue was "on what grounds".


bearwds

That may well be the best chance bearwds. The laws related to being able to query your accuser do bring in issues as to what happens when a witness dies and/or the victim leaves a message/note as to who may have been responsible if anything happened. It seems to becoming much more of a legal issue with some recent cases.

Diane was a very good witness in trial 1 - I think AJ did not want to lose her - I assume JF had legal guidelines for admitting the film.

jmo

[dref99]

Of course it is sad for Lana and her family. How come the Phil defenders could care less about that? Bashing her and others is the way to go. They only say it is "sad for Phil". The very man who has not one ounce of remorse for killing Lana. Makes me sick how much lower he sunk to defend himself. Lack of a soul, imo.

I only know Gary and it is sad for how he was treated by Phil. Is he sad he was found guilty? Maybe or maybe not. I'm speculating he may not be. If I'm wrong he can tell us. Phil has friends who are sad? His own wife isn't sad. She's mad as heck.

Phil is the one person who committed this crime and I am happy another murderer is off the streets. I'm always happy when that happens.

Mrs Spector has been exceedingly quiet for the past month - we may hear how she is feeling at the sentencing or thereafter - but at the minute I would not hazard a clue as to her feelings. She supported him through two trials and she may well be "mad" that he was convicted - she could also be sad - but I do not know either of these things.

I also have no idea as to whether supporters of PS have cares or otherwise for Lana and her family. I don't make assumptions as to how other folks think or reveal their thoughts.

jmo

[warhorse46]

Hmmm..... I suggest you look back on the May thread, because the appeal was discussed there at some length recently.

BTW I am not a PS fan as you seem to think everyone is who believes he is innocent! Oh and did you not know that jury's can actually get it wrong and this has been the case many many times in the past and these convictions have subsequently been overturned. So, you see it does happen in the 'real' world.

Nic


An appeal can only be brought due to some court error such as jury misconduct, misconduct by the Judge or prosecutor or new evidence that would change the out come of the trial. Which of those do you think happened in this case?

[bearwds]

bearwds,

Thanks for pointing out some issues. I just don't see those being appealable issues. Could be wrong though since I'm no legal expert. We'll see.

Forgot about Bruce Cutler. What happened to him?

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

Cutler is doing one of those "Judge_ _ _ _" shows on TV.

That's all I know. Never watched it and actively avoid it.


bearwds

[Mort_Snerd]

To be called “Convicted”, there are four separate and distinct legal processes that must be completed.

1. The State must file charges against the defendant.

2. The defendant must have a trial.

3. The defendant must be declared “Guilty” at the outcome of the trial.

4. The trial judge must pronounce a sentence upon the defendant.

If a defendant should die before step 4, their record will be expunged and it will be as if the trial never occurred. Conviction is only considered final after the sentence is pronounced.

Mortie

[bearwds]

To be called “Convicted”, there are four separate and distinct legal processes that must be completed.

1. The State must file charges against the defendant.

2. The defendant must have a trial.

3. The defendant must be declared “Guilty” at the outcome of the trial.

4. The trial judge must pronounce a sentence upon the defendant.

If a defendant should die before step 4, their record will be expunged and it will be as if the trial never occurred. Conviction is only considered final after the sentence is pronounced.

Mortie

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

Hey Mort... I spent an inordinate amount of time researching the issue of whether an appeal is filed against a conviction or sentence. My head started to spin.

Do you have an understandable answer..??


bearwds

[Anakerie]

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

Cutler is doing one of those "Judge_ _ _ _" shows on TV.

That's all I know. Never watched it and actively avoid it.


bearwds
Is he still doing that?

I've never watched it either... I don't know what the name of the show is, so I can't even find it on the DISH TV menu... LOL

[Anakerie]

Just so there's no mistake, there will be an appeal. He is legally entitled to one.

AMEN
:confused: No one on this forum has said any different. Of course there will be an appeal filed.. It will most likely be a few years from now that it is filed, and then more time before it's actually heard... It's part of the legal system here.. :shrug:

[Anakerie]

To be called “Convicted”, there are four separate and distinct legal processes that must be completed.

1. The State must file charges against the defendant.

2. The defendant must have a trial.

3. The defendant must be declared “Guilty” at the outcome of the trial.

4. The trial judge must pronounce a sentence upon the defendant.

If a defendant should die before step 4, their record will be expunged and it will be as if the trial never occurred. Conviction is only considered final after the sentence is pronounced.

Mortie
And that will happen this coming Friday....

Oh, how I hope that one of the Los Angeles TV stations will get a camera into that courtroom and stream the hearing!

[vonna]

Just so there's no mistake, there will be an appeal. He is legally entitled to one.

AMEN

No one is saying there won't be an appeal; what is being said is that it will be an effort in futility.

[penguin01]

And that will happen this coming Friday....

Oh, how I hope that one of the Los Angeles TV stations will get a camera into that courtroom and stream the hearing! I hope the do too - but we haven't been able to work up any media interest in this trial up to now, so its unlikely that they will suddenly care.

SO funny the differing perceptions we humans have. Most of us here made every effort to get the media to take an interest in this trial - if not to live-stream it then to show up daily and report it. Didn't happen! And we sure had no effect on making that happen - so much for the power of the boards or a blogger or two. There was apparently just very little interest or coverage for this trial. At least very little that we could find as we tried to follow the trial with what little information we could get.
But apparently some posters think that poor PS was tried in the media, and on the all-powerful message boards and blogs. What media - where was this interest with the power to sway the jury??

[warhorse46]

Just so there's no mistake, there will be an appeal. He is legally entitled to one.

AMEN



Just so there is no mistake---nobody here said there will not be appeal motions filed. I fully expect PS's lawyers to file appeal motions. But I do not think any will succeed. Lawyers can file as many motions as they want, that does not mean any will be heard by a higher court. Since appeals must be based on trial error what error do you think occurred in this trial?

[warhorse46]

:confused: No one on this forum has said any different. Of course there will be an appeal filed.. It will most likely be a few years from now that it is filed, and then more time before it's actually heard... It's part of the legal system here.. :shrug:


Or it may never be heard. Just because an appeal motion is filed does not mean it will be heard. The courts review the motions to see if there is merit to them then set a hearing date if they find merit. If no merit is found they reject the motion.

[vonna]

i feel sad for lana, especially that video she made. waste of money and waste of a dream. poor girl tried hard. sad sad sad.

When she made it she didn't know Phil was going to murder her.

[wasapi]

Yes, it is up to Gary, Louis, and Donte, to express how they feel about their Father going to prison for the rest of his life. However, for those of us who have been around from the beginning, and those of us who have really paid attention, I believe we have an idea of how they feel. Phil Spector's sons are a class act, and they have expressed their feelings towards their Father beautifully through their posts as well as Louis's poetry and blogs. There was a photo of Louis leaving the courtroom after the verdict. I can't imagine anyone seeing that photo and thinking Louis felt happy.

Personally I have learned from Gary and Louis by the way they have conducted themselves throughout this ordeal. The expression "Grace Under Fire" comes to mind. And I have learned, it is possible to love someone very much, yet hate something they have done.

[penguin01]

I've never seen Lois's blog and poetry. Is she the one writing a book?

I only know Gary and yes, he is a class act. Louis, not Lois, LOL. Its still early in Calif isn't it? You haven't had your coffee yet. Gary has a twin brother named Louis. Sometimes he posts here as Claudius.

[lizzard]

Had no idea. Never heard of his show.

I used to watch Judge Judy. Have no time anymore. She's funny.

I think it's called "Jury Duty"

[penguin01]

Thanks. I found this link but it is from 2007, nothing current.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588329/
I saw one of the shows recently - had no idea it was an old re-run. It was an interesting concept - but, in fact, it was a lousy show IMO. Bruce could have skipped it and finished doing his duty as an attorney for PS. He and his reputation would have been much better off.

[vonna]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Spector&1

The petition starter who can't spell and clearly doesn't understand the laws of our land must think people were born yesterday. There are no 201 supporters of Phil. It is the same 3 fans that are signing using different names. They are sooo obvious about it. I'd laugh, but feel sorry for these desperate people to free a murderer because he was famous once. They don't have a valid reasons why he should be freed so that won't work either. Really sad.

Name me one case that an online petition freed anyone? How about a real petition where the signatures are varified? No one.

:thumbdown:

Those people are living in a dream world. They can't name one case as it has never happened.

[wasapi]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Spector&1

The petition starter who can't spell and clearly doesn't understand the laws of our land must think people were born yesterday. There are no 201 supporters of Phil. It is the same 3 fans that are signing using different names. They are sooo obvious about it. I'd laugh, but feel sorry for these desperate people to free a murderer because he was famous once. They don't have a valid reasons why he should be freed so that won't work either. Really sad.

Name me one case that an online petition freed anyone? How about a real petition where the signatures are varified? No one.

:thumbdown:

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen it before. To show support of someone is one thing, but why do these people seem to not be satisfied until they can once again victimize the victim. Lana.

And you're right, I can't recall anyone being freed as a result of an online petition. I am aware of one that was instrumental (per the judge) in not allowing the early release of a young woman convicted of torture/murder. But freeing someone? No, I don't think so.

[barskin&co.]

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Spector&1

The petition starter who can't spell and clearly doesn't understand the laws of our land must think people were born yesterday. There are no 201 supporters of Phil. It is the same 3 fans that are signing using different names. They are sooo obvious about it. I'd laugh, but feel sorry for these desperate people to free a murderer because he was famous once. They don't have a valid reasons why he should be freed so that won't work either. Really sad.

Name me one case that an online petition freed anyone? How about a real petition where the signatures are varified? No one.

:thumbdown:

But look at some of the illustrious names and comments, Jullie!

199. theodore bundy Phil is good people, I feel a bond with him
102. Rabbi marvin tapierstein how can a court of goyim law judge a JEW?!?!?!

And those are the nice ones, those are the completely bogus entries. Many just spout the defense party line: Lana was a nobody, so why should her death count? :flamemad:

[vonna]

As they say.."Sticks and Stones may break by bones, but names will never hurt me."

Lana-bashing used to bring me to angry tears. Until I backed off from my own emotional reaction, realizing that this is exactly how the bashers want me to react.

These intellectually bereft, emotionally immature people are to be pitied. I am not challenging their right to support PS. Not by any means. Support of a cause or person is a positive thing - whether one agrees with the support or not.

Trashing-bashing a vicitm only weakens any position they may have.

Their "words" cannot change or effect Beautiful Lana. From all that I have heard or read from her friends and family, Lana had a wonderful and wicked sense of humor. She laughed loud, long and often.
I can just imagine her laughing out loud.

These "bashers" cannot take away from what she was here on Earth and is now in Heaven.

You GO, Lana !!!

I'm laughing with you

Court Jester :biggrinjester:

Those who bash Lana don't diminish her - they diminish themselves.

[Mort_Snerd]

Jury verdict is not a conviction, the "Conviction" is only complete after the judge has passed the sentance. Appeals go against the "Conviction" not the verdict.

Appeals can only be filed for errors "in law". Made the mistake asking my brother who is a former District Attorney and got a painful to listen to explanation. The lawyers and Judge make many "legal" decisions during the course of the trial and appeals can be filed if the defense attorney feels that a "legal" error occurred. Until the judge passes the sentence, no appeal can be filed because the conviction is "not complete" until it has. The jury (obviously in a jury tried case) is the sole decider of what the "facts" are in the case. Their decision, in of itself, cannot be appealed. The defense can appeal what the jury saw/heard or was told during the trial as testimony and if found to be "legally" incorrect, the verdict can be set aside and will cause a mistrial. If juror misconduct occurred, it will have to be proven to the appellate court.

The defense is normally the only attorneys that will proceed with appeals as double jeopardy would prevent the judge or prosecution from appealling.

Just my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion from what I have been told,
Mortie



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

Hey Mort... I spent an inordinate amount of time researching the issue of whether an appeal is filed against a conviction or sentence. My head started to spin.

Do you have an understandable answer..??


bearwds

[Jayne]

Jury verdict is not a conviction, the "Conviction" is only complete after the judge has passed the sentance. Appeals go against the "Conviction" not the verdict.

Appeals can only be filed for errors "in law". Made the mistake asking my brother who is a former District Attorney and got a painful to listen to explanation. The lawyers and Judge make many "legal" decisions during the course of the trial and appeals can be filed if the defense attorney feels that a "legal" error occurred. Until the judge passes the sentence, no appeal can be filed because the conviction is "not complete" until it has. The jury (obviously in a jury tried case) is the sole decider of what the "facts" are in the case. Their decision, in of itself, cannot be appealed. The defense can appeal what the jury saw/heard or was told during the trial as testimony and if found to be "legally" incorrect, the verdict can be set aside and will cause a mistrial. If juror misconduct occurred, it will have to be proven to the appellate court.

The defense is normally the only attorneys that will proceed with appeals as double jeopardy would prevent the judge or prosecution from appealling.

Just my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion from what I have been told,
Mortie


Mortie..it's a conviction...the sentence is separate..that's where those other cases..where someone did die..they tried to get it overturned post mortem..

Judge and prosecution cannot appeal..you know that..it's only the defense..you are correct..

double jeopardy..means...if found not guilty..or afterwards on appeal..can not be prosecuted again on THOSE CHARGES.

PS has been found "guilty"..now it is sentencing..SURE they're going to appeal..think? dead or alive? better alive, I'd think..the attorney's have something to put in their back pocket?

Your relatives are correct as far as filing the appeal..but the conviction Stands..it's the "conviction" they are appealing.. Even after he is sentenced..they can still appeal the "conviction" and they can plead for parole, etc. on the sentence.

There's more to it..but I'm limited to "content/space"..

jmo

J

[Mort_Snerd]

"A conviction is not complete until the trying Judge has passed the sentence", direct quote from a prosecuting attorney.

You are correct, the "guilt" phase and the "sentencing" phase of a trial are different aminals.

You are also correct, no "guilty" finding, no "sentence".

If Ted Bundy died before the judge pronounced sentence, the entire trial would be legally considered to have never happened. To get a "completed conviction", the judge must pass the sentence and the defendant has the right to be in the court room. If he is dead, no sentence can be passed therefore no "conviction" Sad as it may seem, the Constitution and Criminal Justice system work in mysterious ways.

Mortie



{Bolding and color mine}

#3 - I assume that is plead guilty also.

#4 - puzzles me. I had always understood that the Guilt phase and the Sentence phase were totally different and not dependant on each other - well, obviously, if a defendant is found Not Guilty there would be no sentence.... So sentence does depend upon a guilty verdict...

Oh, Mortie, are you saying in the blue highlighted paragraph that if Ted Bundy had died before #4 that he would have been determined to be Not Guilty? That hurts big time. Couldn't he be considered Guilty by a jury but not sentenced?

Color me Curious

CJ

[Mort_Snerd]

Jayne,

I am delighted to be corrected by you. For sure I am not a lawyer or even very smart about legal stuff. My brother, ADA in New York state beat me up pretty good on the topic of "Conviction" and kept calling it "not complete until sentence is passed". I am sure I am misunderstanding something basic here but even with a jury verdict of guilty" no body goes to jail until "sentencing" What am I missing?

Mortie

Mortie..it's a conviction...the sentence is separate..that's where those other cases..where someone did die..they tried to get it overturned post mortem..

Judge and prosecution cannot appeal..you know that..it's only the defense..you are correct..

double jeopardy..means...if found not guilty..or afterwards on appeal..can not be prosecuted again on THOSE CHARGES.

PS has been found "guilty"..now it is sentencing..SURE they're going to appeal..think? dead or alive? better alive, I'd think..the attorney's have something to put in their back pocket?

Your relatives are correct as far as filing the appeal..but the conviction Stands..it's the "conviction" they are appealing.. Even after he is sentenced..they can still appeal the "conviction" and they can plead for parole, etc. on the sentence.

There's more to it..but I'm limited to "content/space"..

jmo

J

[Jayne]

Jayne,

I am delighted to be corrected by you. For sure I am not a lawyer or even very smart about legal stuff. My brother, ADA in New York state beat me up pretty good on the topic of "Conviction" and kept calling it "not complete until sentence is passed". I am sure I am misunderstanding something basic here but even with a jury verdict of guilty" no body goes to jail until "sentencing" What am I missing?

Mortie

You are not missing a thing..your brother...ADA in NY..(HAHA..you and I know about that, huh?)...

It isn't completed..he's right..and he probably has a much better handle on it than I a decade out of it..

No one goes to JAIL until sentencing..that is..they are not "committed" to a permanent place..they are in "holding state" until the sentencing.

What happens if not "sentenced"..well in some states...it would be a real problem to keep them confined.

Your brother must know a lot more than I did back then...

It's sort of ridiculous to even think about..but the laws are ridiculous at times, too. If someone dies before they are sentenced...does the Law actually say they weren't guilty? I don't think so..they simply weren't sentenced. I think it's a matter of what makes the conviction "complete"..it's the sentencing phase of it. But..heck..if John Doe is determined by a jury to be Guilty..and he kicks the bucket before sentencing..WOW..guess I'm a dumbass..but I've never heard that the "verdict" would be overturned. There's a Massachusetts case..you must know of it..years years later..the defendants were found "not guilty"..post mortem..

J

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Jury verdict is not a conviction, the "Conviction" is only complete after the judge has passed the sentance. Appeals go against the "Conviction" not the verdict.

Appeals can only be filed for errors "in law". Made the mistake asking my brother who is a former District Attorney and got a painful to listen to explanation. The lawyers and Judge make many "legal" decisions during the course of the trial and appeals can be filed if the defense attorney feels that a "legal" error occurred. Until the judge passes the sentence, no appeal can be filed because the conviction is "not complete" until it has. The jury (obviously in a jury tried case) is the sole decider of what the "facts" are in the case. Their decision, in of itself, cannot be appealed. The defense can appeal what the jury saw/heard or was told during the trial as testimony and if found to be "legally" incorrect, the verdict can be set aside and will cause a mistrial. If juror misconduct occurred, it will have to be proven to the appellate court.

The defense is normally the only attorneys that will proceed with appeals as double jeopardy would prevent the judge or prosecution from appealling.

Just my non-expert, non-lawyer opinion from what I have been told,
Mortie

When I read your post..it reminded of what happened to the Enron Scandal..and the conviction of Kenneth Lay..who died before his sentencing..and this is what I found:

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

His verdict apparantly was vacated..:

[edit] Abatement of conviction
On October 17, 2006, since Lay died prior to exhausting his appeals, his conviction was abated.[14][15] Precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court governing the district where Lay was indicted,[16] indicates that abatement had to be automatically granted. When abatement occurs, the law views it as though he had never been indicted, tried and convicted.[17][3] The government opposed Lay's attorneys' motion for abatement, and the Department of Justice issued a statement that it "remains committed to pursuing all available legal remedies and to reclaim for victims the proceeds of crimes committed by Ken Lay."[18][19] Civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate. However, according to legal expert Joel Androphy, claimants may not seek punitive damages against a deceased defendant, only compensatory damages.[20]

Is this what you are referring to Mortie?...No doubt that is why the "Suicide Watch" is usual post conviction in Verdict phase of trials.?

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

Abatement in pleading, a legal defence to civil and criminal actions based purely on procedural and technical issues involving the death of parties and changes in their status


LMS:glare:

BTW..Happy Memorial Day to my US Friends:wub:

[Daisy'sMom]

Speaking of. Wonder if she'll attend the verdict? That would be great.

i have no respect for her. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't she leave her children with this maniac?

[Daisy'sMom]

i feel sad for lana, especially that video she made. waste of money and waste of a dream. poor girl tried hard. sad sad sad.


A woman lost her life by the hands of a psychopath and you feel sad about the video she made and the money she spent. Oh spare me!:thumbdown:

[Daisy'sMom]

Yes she did leave her children behind. So wouldn't be so great IMO.

Nic

oh Nic, honey, if only she had been able to take them with her. They would not have had to live with that psychopath, don't you agree?

[Anakerie]

Hello, Nic -

Ooooo - several things to discuss..

Let's see.. "If guns were not readily available...". I understand that you are not in the USA - so, I'll say this, this subject is HUGE here. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Another "saying", which I believe in is "If guns are outlawed - only Outlaws will have guns".

It is NOT the availability of guns. Most of us in the USA do not buy or use guns - available as they may be. We just don't go there. Drugs are illegal in most countries - does that stop them? I know that in other parts of the world, people think that the USA is a "gun weilding" society. Can't be farther from the truth. But the 95% of us peaceful people do not make news. And may I also say, appoximately 50% of the people who DO own guns are NOT criminals. The 50% left are dangerous. I applaud the 80 year old woman who, when 3 armed thugs broke in to her house, opened fire with her colt-45 and killed them all.

To deprive our citizens of carrying arms to protect themselves is only tipping the scales towards the criminals who will get arms whether legal or illegal.

I'm sure my post will be "cut off" because it is long.

Discussion to continue....

CJ
Hi Jester...
I'm going to chime in on the tail end of your post. I am one of the gun owning public here in the U.S. I'll admit that neither of the guns I own have been fired in, ohh.. maybe 30 years or so. Neither of my guns are handguns though... One is a 22 rifle that I've had since I was 15 or so... The other is an antique.. a Belgian army rifle that is over 100 years old.

Perhaps it's a regional thing, but I know quite a few people who own guns. Most of them use their guns for hunting... And not just hunting for trophies, they hunt for food when it's in season. Not everyone here in the U.S. have habits like Phil had... Using the guns to threaten and intimidate people into doing what he wanted. I would say that the majority of the gun owners are law abiding people who don't break laws and who keep and use their guns safely. I think your 50% figure is wrong. I think there are far more law abiding gun owners than there are criminals.

[vonna]

HOW did she kill her career? she had a modeling job the next week, before PS killed her. She was working at her first real job in 20 years b/c she had medical bills from her two broken wrists. During her life she supported herself by acting/modeling. She could not work the prev. year due to the wrists.

Not many actors can say they supported themselves for 20 years solely on acting/modeling.

Are you trying to confuse people with the FACTS when they would prefer to confabulate???

[eagleeer]

Hello, Nic -

Ooooo - several things to discuss..

Let's see.. "If guns were not readily available...". I understand that you are not in the USA - so, I'll say this, this subject is HUGE here. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Another "saying", which I believe in is "If guns are outlawed - only Outlaws will have guns".

It is NOT the availability of guns. Most of us in the USA do not buy or use guns - available as they may be. We just don't go there. Drugs are illegal in most countries - does that stop them? I know that in other parts of the world, people think that the USA is a "gun weilding" society. Can't be farther from the truth. But the 95% of us peaceful people do not make news. And may I also say, appoximately 50% of the people who DO own guns are NOT criminals. The 50% left are dangerous. I applaud the 80 year old woman who, when 3 armed thugs broke in to her house, opened fire with her colt-45 and killed them all.

To deprive our citizens of carrying arms to protect themselves is only tipping the scales towards the criminals who will get arms whether legal or illegal.

I'm sure my post will be "cut off" because it is long.

Discussion to continue....

CJ


CJ, there are over 225 million registerded guns in the US with a population of approximately 300 million people. Half, 150 million people in this nation have at least one gun in their household. By your calculation there are 75 million people (50%) with guns that are dangerous. Bolding by me. I would hope that you would reconsider your calculations otherwise move out of your neighborhood as half the people there are dangerous.

For your information most of the guns in this country that are used for criminal acts are not registered and obtained illegally. The people who use guns for the purpose of illegal activties is less than 10% of the population. Guns DO kill people but those are people with guns. And unless it is an accidental shooting it is the 10% not the 50% that you say are dangerous. :wink:

[warhorse46]

{Bolding and color mine}

#3 - I assume that is plead guilty also.

#4 - puzzles me. I had always understood that the Guilt phase and the Sentence phase were totally different and not dependant on each other - well, obviously, if a defendant is found Not Guilty there would be no sentence.... So sentence does depend upon a guilty verdict...

Oh, Mortie, are you saying in the blue highlighted paragraph that if Ted Bundy had died before #4 that he would have been determined to be Not Guilty? That hurts big time. Couldn't he be considered Guilty by a jury but not sentenced?

Color me Curious

CJ


Nope. The same thing happened to Kenneth Lay of Enron fame. As far as any criminal records show he was never tried, convicted nor sentenced.

<<Because each count carried a maximum 5- to 10-year sentence, legal experts said Lay could have faced 20 to 30 years in prison.[2] However, he died while vacationing in Snowmass, Colorado on July 5, 2006, about three and a half months before his scheduled October 23 sentencing.[3] Preliminary autopsy reports state that he died of a heart attack caused by coronary artery disease. As a result of his death, on October 17, 2006, the federal district court judge who presided over the case vacated Lay's conviction.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay>>

[warhorse46]

Jayne,

I am delighted to be corrected by you. For sure I am not a lawyer or even very smart about legal stuff. My brother, ADA in New York state beat me up pretty good on the topic of "Conviction" and kept calling it "not complete until sentence is passed". I am sure I am misunderstanding something basic here but even with a jury verdict of guilty" no body goes to jail until "sentencing" What am I missing?

Mortie


Yes people do go to jail while awaiting sentencing after a guilty verdict. They wait in the county jail. People do not go to prison until they are sentenced. Jail & prison are two different facilities.

[warhorse46]

Here are some of the reasons I think an appeal can be looked at:

1. Allowing video taped testimony of Dianne Ogden to be used in trial, when the person cannot be cross-examined/questionned in any way.

2. Prosecutor’s misconduct during opening argument stating PS had a personal trait of hating women and had a history of rage constitutes an impermissible use of evidence to prove character and propensity which is against CA law in any trial.

3. Allowing the 5 PBAs. Evidence of uncharged offences is so prejudiced that its admission requires very careful consideration. Since prejudicial effect is shown in such evidence, uncharged offenses are only admissible if they have substantial probative value. In this case the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighs any probative value. It is not beyond dispute that PS pulled the trigger and subsequently this means that its cumulative prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value.

Nic


1. Diane Ogden was crossed on the tape. Not by the present defense attorney but by the then defense attorney. So that will not stand up.

2. Plenty of evidence was produced during the trial to support the statement that PS hated women through his own statements. Plenty of evidence was produced during trial to support the statement PS experiences rages. So that point will not stand up.

3. Prior bad acts evidence is allowed to show a pattern of behavior which the 5 witnesses did show. The scenario was the same up until the pulling of the trigger. That point will not stand up either.

[True2Blues]

CJ, there are over 225 million registerded guns in the US with a population of approximately 300 million people. Half, 150 million people in this nation have at least one gun in their household. By your calculation there are 75 million people (50%) with guns that are dangerous. Bolding by me. I would hope that you would reconsider your calculations otherwise move out of your neighborhood as half the people there are dangerous.

For your information most of the guns in this country that are used for criminal acts are not registered and obtained illegally. The people who use guns for the purpose of illegal activties is less than 10% of the population. Guns DO kill people but those are people with guns. And unless it is an accidental shooting it is the 10% not the 50% that you say are dangerous. :wink:

:thumbsup:

[dref99]

1. Diane Ogden was crossed on the tape. Not by the present defense attorney but by the then defense attorney. So that will not stand up.

2. Plenty of evidence was produced during the trial to support the statement that PS hated women through his own statements. Plenty of evidence was produced during trial to support the statement PS experiences rages. So that point will not stand up.

3. Prior bad acts evidence is allowed to show a pattern of behavior which the 5 witnesses did show. The scenario was the same up until the pulling of the trigger. That point will not stand up either.


Until any appeals are heard, we do not know what will or will not "stand up". Mr Weinberg said he would take the issue of the prior acts witnesses to appeal - until he does, it will not be tested.

I don't think any appeal will be successful, I believe JF was way too thorough to have provided an error in law, but I will wait for the courts to rule before being 100% certain.

jmo

[warhorse46]

Hi Jester...
I'm going to chime in on the tail end of your post. I am one of the gun owning public here in the U.S. I'll admit that neither of the guns I own have been fired in, ohh.. maybe 30 years or so. Neither of my guns are handguns though... One is a 22 rifle that I've had since I was 15 or so... The other is an antique.. a Belgian army rifle that is over 100 years old.

Perhaps it's a regional thing, but I know quite a few people who own guns. Most of them use their guns for hunting... And not just hunting for trophies, they hunt for food when it's in season. Not everyone here in the U.S. have habits like Phil had... Using the guns to threaten and intimidate people into doing what he wanted. I would say that the majority of the gun owners are law abiding people who don't break laws and who keep and use their guns safely. I think your 50% figure is wrong. I think there are far more law abiding gun owners than there are criminals.


Another law abiding gun owning citizen here. We have both long guns used for hunting & hand guns as we are both licensed to carry in our state. I agree with you that the number of unsafe gun owners is lower than 50%. PS certainly fell into the unsafe gun owner category.

[warhorse46]

Until any appeals are heard, we do not know what will or will not "stand up". Mr Weinberg said he would take the issue of the prior acts witnesses to appeal - until he does, it will not be tested.

I don't think any appeal will be successful, I believe JF was way too thorough to have provided an error in law, but I will wait for the courts to rule before being 100% certain.

jmo



:smile: Read my signature line. All of my posts are my own opinion unless otherwise stated. My reply to that post falls in that category.:smile:

[vonna]

Until any appeals are heard, we do not know what will or will not "stand up". Mr Weinberg said he would take the issue of the prior acts witnesses to appeal - until he does, it will not be tested.

I don't think any appeal will be successful, I believe JF was way too thorough to have provided an error in law, but I will wait for the courts to rule before being 100% certain.

jmo

I completely agree that JF was "way too thorough" and further believe that he had access to opinions that would confirm his own. Obviously, only when the appeal is turned down will we know for sure.

[marabeth]

Absolutely wrong. The Spector media machine was working full blast for 6 years, churning out blather about the victim non-stop. At his trial, the defense had the best rent-a-heads money could buy. This vedict was won by virtue of a strong forensic and circumstantial case and a jury that did it's job diligently and without outside influence. If Phil Spector had not been rich and a celebrity, the defense would have been laughable.



Indeed and I am so relieved that the jury did their job well..May Lana rest in peace.

[cali650]

[QUOTE=Themis;13136318]


No doctor testified on PS's behalf in either trial. It was widely reported by Beth Karas & many others of his long psych treatment for mental issues & his long term psych medications. He has tardive dyskinesia. With this disease as with Parkensons the limbs to no shake constantly. The tremors can be stopped by certain activities like placing them together or on something. Read about it here.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tardive/tardive.htm

Beth is charming and I love to watch her and think she's sharp but she does make mistakes. She has neither a degree in nursing, nor in medicine, nor any advanced degree in psych. Her guess is as good as mine. You can link anywhere you want but overall, it is irrelevant.
I observed, in person, his shakes and they are more likely related to his drug intake. He's not as shaky when he's in his zombie swing.

What physician has gone on the record about PS's medical condition?

[cali650]

I saw one of the shows recently - had no idea it was an old re-run. It was an interesting concept - but, in fact, it was a lousy show IMO. Bruce could have skipped it and finished doing his duty as an attorney for PS. He and his reputation would have been much better off.

But hypothetically it is a great way to launder money. And hypothetically a nice career change for a guy with a record as a dirty cop who once worked in the casino business.

[Mort_Snerd]

Yes it is. Although the 5th Circuit Court covers the New Orleans area, since it is a Federal Court, it's decisions can be used in other areas. The "abatment" is not fully automatic, it has to be applied for by the defense. The defense would also make a motion at the sentencing hearing to "vacate" the jury verdict as that is not automatic as well.

Mortie


When I read your post..it reminded of what happened to the Enron Scandal..and the conviction of Kenneth Lay..who died before his sentencing..and this is what I found:

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

His verdict apparantly was vacated..:

[edit] Abatement of conviction
On October 17, 2006, since Lay died prior to exhausting his appeals, his conviction was abated.[14][15] Precedent in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court governing the district where Lay was indicted,[16] indicates that abatement had to be automatically granted. When abatement occurs, the law views it as though he had never been indicted, tried and convicted.[17][3] The government opposed Lay's attorneys' motion for abatement, and the Department of Justice issued a statement that it "remains committed to pursuing all available legal remedies and to reclaim for victims the proceeds of crimes committed by Ken Lay."[18][19] Civil suits are expected to continue against Lay's estate. However, according to legal expert Joel Androphy, claimants may not seek punitive damages against a deceased defendant, only compensatory damages.[20]

Is this what you are referring to Mortie?...No doubt that is why the "Suicide Watch" is usual post conviction in Verdict phase of trials.?

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

Abatement in pleading, a legal defence to civil and criminal actions based purely on procedural and technical issues involving the death of parties and changes in their status


LMS:glare:

BTW..Happy Memorial Day to my US Friends:wub: