Phil Spector Appeal: 2009

[♫Rock*Star♫]

"Spector is set to appeal in 2010 and if he fails at the state court of appeal, Lifson said Spector plans to go to the federal court of appeal in Washington."

Phil Spector 'not doing great' ~ BBC News July 29th, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8175056.stm)

Thanks to SailorsMom60 for originally posting this link. :)

[♫Rock*Star♫]

Note: Hal Lifson is Phil Spector's publicist.

[SailorsMom60]

"Spector is set to appeal in 2010 and if he fails at the state court of appeal, Lifson said Spector plans to go to the federal court of appeal in Washington."

Phil Spector 'not doing great' ~ BBC News July 29th, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8175056.stm)

Thanks to SailorsMom60 for originally posting this link. :)

Hi Rock*Star,
I wonder who expects to go to prison and "do great"? It ain't Club Med!:laugh:

[Alibi Ike]

Hi Rock*Star,
I wonder who expects to go to prison and "do great"? It ain't Club Med!:laugh:

You've got that right! Get out the hankies for poor Phil. He's afraid of being contacted by Manson? Maybe he should recall how petrified Lana was when he shoved a loaded gun in her mouth. At least he and Manson have something in common, they're both murderers.

[tartangirl]

My definition has always been like this for the place where PS spends each and every day and night for the next 19 years.


PRISON

1. a state of confinement or captivity

2. a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers specifically an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes.

Seems like he is where he belongs.

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

[SailorsMom60]

My definition has always been like this for the place where PS spends each and every day and night for the next 19 years.


PRISON

1. a state of confinement or captivity

2. a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers specifically an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes.

Seems like he is where he belongs.

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



Hello TG,
Well, there you have it by definition... it is what it is...
BTW thanks for providing the link I posted earlier. :biggrin:

[bchand]

My definition has always been like this for the place where PS spends each and every day and night for the next 19 years.


PRISON

1. a state of confinement or captivity

2. a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers specifically an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes.

Seems like he is where he belongs.

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



Seems to me he's in the state of denial;

· Spector wants TV, music player for new prison cell. Phil Spector is hoping to get a few comforts of home in his new prison cell, and a television, iPod and computer access are at the top of his list.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/phil-spector.html


Give prisoners computer access and they might not even mind BEING there.

[Details]

I think he's so used to having enough power and money and slight residual fame, to get anything he wants, he's not realizing those don't work in prison.

Heh - he's freaked out at realizing what company he has chosen for himself. You could still be collaborating with decent people - or wannabes anyway - if you hadn't murdered Lana.

[Nic99]

Once again, here is the information I previously posted, which has been okayed by CW and the link is attached, as some requested (due to time differences I was unable to respond at the time!). Because another thread was posted ontop of mine, due to the BBC link, I felt it unnecessary to run 2 threads again, so here it is:

On July 27, 2009, the Los Angeles County Superior Court Clerk and Court Reporter filed the official trial court record on appeal—triggering a due date of September 9, 2009 for the music producer’s appellate counsel to file his opening brief on appeal.

The case has been assigned to Division Three of the Second Appellate District; meaning that three of the following judges will most likely hear the appeal:

Presiding Justice Joan D. Klein
Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey
Associate Justice Patti S. Kitching
Associate Justice Richard D. Aldrich

The three judges to whom the case has been assigned is not publicly known at this time.

Here is the link, straight to the Californian Courts:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1909478&doc_no=B216425

[True2Blues]

Seems to me he's in the state of denial;

· Spector wants TV, music player for new prison cell. Phil Spector is hoping to get a few comforts of home in his new prison cell, and a television, iPod and computer access are at the top of his list.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/phil-spector.html


Give prisoners computer access and they might not even mind BEING there.

It seems PS wasn't aware, when he Chose to murder Lana, that he wasn't supposed to like it in prison. It's not a reward, it's a place criminals are sent to be punished.

I'm glad he doesn't like it. He'll never accept responsibility and feel remorse for the murder he committed. Not getting what he wants, missing his freedom and having his money taken in a Civil Trial are the only things that will affect him.

[Nic99]

It seems PS wasn't aware, when he Chose to murder Lana, that he wasn't supposed to like it in prison. It's not a reward, it's a place criminals are sent to be punished.

I'm glad he doesn't like it. He'll never accept responsibility and feel remorse for the murder he committed. Not getting what he wants, missing his freedom and having his money taken in a Civil Trial are the only things that will affect him.

Of course he realises he wasn't supposed to like it in prison. He is an innocent man imo and that is my opinion and you have yours as do most others here.

He is, imo, an innocent man, that was judged by previous behaviour and not much more imo. The scientific evidence never really proved anything, crikey, the lack of blood splatter. I will not denegate Lana, but I do believe she had her issues and unfortunately because guns are available in the US, there was one just there.

Roll on the appeal and an innocent man is set free.

[Deannalynn]

Of course he realises he wasn't supposed to like it in prison. He is an innocent man imo and that is my opinion and you have yours as do most others here.

He is, imo, an innocent man, that was judged by previous behaviour and not much more imo. The scientific evidence never really proved anything, crikey, the lack of blood splatter. I will not denegate Lana, but I do believe she had her issues and unfortunately because guns are available in the US, there was one just there.

Roll on the appeal and an innocent man is set free.

I'll settle on rolling with boxes of bullets that matched that gun with the serial numbers removed. In addition, I think I'll roll with 9 phones in a house and not the hand of Phil Spector picked one up. And finally, I'll roll with the "I didn't mean to do it" It was an accident."
Oops, one more drum roll. Walking outside and stating to De Souza, "I think I killed somebody."
JMO

[Nic99]

I'll settle on rolling with boxes of bullets that matched that gun with the serial numbers removed. In addition, I think I'll roll with 9 phones in a house and not the hand of Phil Spector picked one up. And finally, I'll roll with the "I didn't mean to do it" It was an accident."
Oops, one more drum roll. Walking outside and stating to De Souza, "I think I killed somebody."
JMO

Okay, well the serial numbers removed means nothing imo. Anyone could have picked up that gun with the bullets in, serial numbers removed or not, means nothing. 9 phones well, he went and said to DeSouza 'Somebody has been killed', that doesn't mean he killed them either.

JMO

[True2Blues]

I'll settle on rolling with boxes of bullets that matched that gun with the serial numbers removed. In addition, I think I'll roll with 9 phones in a house and not the hand of Phil Spector picked one up. And finally, I'll roll with the "I didn't mean to do it" It was an accident."
Oops, one more drum roll. Walking outside and stating to De Souza, "I think I killed somebody."
JMO

I agree. Besides, this was real, not a movie, no huge wave of blood would have rolled across the room. The human mouth is only so big. With a gun shoved in her mouth and the hands of both Lana and the murderer outside of her mouth, there wouldn't be a huge spray over everything in the room.

[SailorsMom60]

Ho hum! Another routine appeal destined for the trash.

Ho Hum is right. It will never fly. It's just a matter of something done when ANYONE is convicted of murder.
All convicted murderers get an automatic appeal.

Hi vonna!:seeya:

[Nic99]

I agree. Besides, this was real, not a movie, no huge wave of blood would have rolled across the room. The human mouth is only so big. With a gun shoved in her mouth and the hands of both Lana and the murderer outside of her mouth, there wouldn't be a huge spray over everything in the room.

Oh come on, the length of his arms meant he couldn't be that close, it was said he must have been quite far from her at the time, which means its impossible that he could have killed her. If it was him there would have been alot more blood splatter and there wasn't.

[hiitsme]

I'll settle on rolling with boxes of bullets that matched that gun with the serial numbers removed. In addition, I think I'll roll with 9 phones in a house and not the hand of Phil Spector picked one up. And finally, I'll roll with the "I didn't mean to do it" It was an accident."
Oops, one more drum roll. Walking outside and stating to De Souza, "I think I killed somebody.
JMO

Absolutely, and we must all roll with the fact that PS is a murderer, was convicted and will probably never see the light of day again. It's likely that he will not know who he is or where he is by the time all of his appeals are exhausted. It's a no win situation for poor Phil and a win win one for the innocent people he may have encountered in the future.

[Deannalynn]

Okay, well the serial numbers removed means nothing imo. Anyone could have picked up that gun with the bullets in, serial numbers removed or not, means nothing. 9 phones well, he went and said to DeSouza 'Somebody has been killed', that doesn't mean he killed them either.
JMO


My bold....
I didn't catch this part of the trial Nic99. IIRC, Adriano De Souza testified and told the jury exactly what Phil Spector said when he walked out and approached De Souza.
Please let me know where I missed this.
JMO

[True2Blues]

Okay, well the serial numbers removed means nothing imo. Anyone could have picked up that gun with the bullets in, serial numbers removed or not, means nothing. 9 phones well, he went and said to DeSouza 'Somebody has been killed', that doesn't mean he killed them either.

JMO

Removed serial numbers are a Federal offense. It means that the gun was most likely purchased illegally and may mean that someone wants to hide the history of the weapon and the hands it's been through. The bullets in the gun were a match to bullets in Spector's house that weren't produced after 1973 and are rare.

Since you don't live here, you may not realize that there is a great deal of inaccurate hype about guns. Contrary to pictures painted by gun haters, loaded weapons are not laying in the streets waiting to be picked up by any passer by. In this case there was a holster that fitted this weapon perfectly and matched others from the same company, that were in the house.

[Nic99]

My bold....
I didn't catch this part of the trial Nic99. IIRC, Adriano De Souza testified and told the jury exactly what Phil Spector said when he walked out and approached De Souza.
Please let me know where I missed this.
JMO

DeSouza told the trial what he 'thought' he heard, big difference. English was not his first tongue and I cannot take his words as totally accurate due to his interpretation. He was not exactly a credible witness imo and has since been found out as such imo.

[True2Blues]

Oh come on, the length of his arms meant he couldn't be that close, it was said he must have been quite far from her at the time, which means its impossible that he could have killed her. If it was him there would have been alot more blood splatter and there wasn't.

So you keep saying. Forensic evidence says otherwise. We'll just have to disagree.

[SailorsMom60]

My bold....
I didn't catch this part of the trial Nic99. IIRC, Adriano De Souza testified and told the jury exactly what Phil Spector said when he walked out and approached De Souza.
Please let me know where I missed this.
JMO

Yep, what I heard was that PS said "I think I killed somebody"! ADS said it during the 911 call, and in the courtroom...at both trials..never faltered in his testimony on that at all.

[Nic99]

Removed serial numbers are a Federal offense. It means that the gun was most likely purchased illegally and may mean that someone wants to hide the history of the weapon and the hands it's been through. The bullets in the gun were a match to bullets in Spector's house that weren't produced after 1973 and are rare.

Since you don't live here, you may not realize that there is a great deal of inaccurate hype about guns. Contrary to pictures painted by gun haters, loaded weapons are not laying in the streets waiting to be picked up by any passer by. In this case there was a holster that fitted this weapon perfectly and matched others from the same company, that were in the house.

No, I didn't think loaded guns were lying around in the street, but I do know that guns are rife in the US and almost a part of every household, hence the gun crime, due to opportunists. This does not mean that PS picked up that gun, anyone could have imo.

[Nic99]

Yep, what I heard was that PS said "I think I killed somebody"! ADS said it during the 911 call, and in the courtroom...at both trials..never faltered in his testimony on that at all.

Means zilch coming from him. He just wanted to stay in the states and was worried about being deported. He misinterpreted 'I think somebody has been killed' imo.

[Deannalynn]

DeSouza told the trial what he 'thought' he heard, big difference. English was not his first tongue and I cannot take his words as totally accurate due to his interpretation. He was not exactly a credible witness imo and has since been found out as such imo.

Nope! That's not the way it went down, Nic99.:sneaky:

[SailorsMom60]

Nope! That's not the way it went down, Nic99.:sneaky:

Right Deannalynn! Not the way at all! He was very credible and after all, the ones who mattered(jurors) knew it.

[Nic99]

Nope! That's not the way it went down, Nic99.:sneaky:

Well, you believe everything you hear from someone who was desparate to stay in the US and I believe what I feel is accurate. We differ. I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine.

[True2Blues]

No, I didn't think loaded guns were lying around in the street, but I do know that guns are rife in the US and almost a part of every household, hence the gun crime, due to opportunists. This does not mean that PS picked up that gun, anyone could have imo.

Gun ownership is a right here. The great majority of gun owners are very responsible people. They don't carry illegally and don't use them to constantly threaten and abuse people, as PS has done throughout his life. He's what we call the Worst Example.

I have to disagree about anyone could have picked up that gun. Evidence pointed very strongly to the fact that the gun and ammo came from PS's house, which means that only people in that house could have had access to that weapon. The person who would know for sure where it was is the home owner. Unless a constant parade of people moved through that house on a daily basis, that limits the number of people with access.

As it stands, of the only two people in the house when the murder occurred, one ended up dead, the other outside saying "I think I killed somebody" to the 911 caller.

[Nic99]

Gun ownership is a right here. The great majority of gun owners are very responsible people. They don't carry illegally and don't use them to constantly threaten and abuse people, as PS has done throughout his life. He's what we call the Worst Example.

I have to disagree about anyone could have picked up that gun. Evidence pointed very strongly to the fact that the gun and ammo came from PS's house, which means that only people in that house could have had access to that weapon. The person who would know for sure where it was is the home owner. Unless a constant parade of people moved through that house on a daily basis, that limits the number of people with access.

As it stands, of the only two people in the house when the murder occurred, one ended up dead, the other outside saying "I think I killed somebody" to the 911 caller.

Yes, the gun and ammo did come from PS's house, but that still does not mean that it was him that picked up the gun imo. Lana was known for being inquisitive and the gun was in the drawer next to where she was sitting unfortunately. What about all the enquiring kids who pick up guns and shoot their parents we hear about it in the US. Does that mean it wasn't them, even though they were in the house? No different here imo.

[True2Blues]

Yes, the gun and ammo did come from PS's house, but that still does not mean that it was him that picked up the gun imo. Lana was known for being inquisitive and the gun was in the drawer next to where she was sitting unfortunately. What about all the enquiring kids who pick up guns and shoot their parents we hear about it in the US. Does that mean it wasn't, even though they were in the house? No different here imo.

Lana wasn't a child and there was no evidence presented that showed she went through any drawers or cupboards in PS's house. Evidence that she was "inquisitive"? Never heard any facts, just speculation by attorneys, which isn't evidence to be considered by a jury. One thing that was proven, Lana didn't own a gun, but knew how to handle one safely.

As for children shooting themselves, another thing that is over hyped and shouted from the roof by gun haters, and something unrelated to this case. There's a huge difference between the minds of children and adults, to me anyway.

[True2Blues]

Hi! I am amazed that people can put so much stock in what is - at best - an exercise in futility!

It has to be done, to show that the court proceedings were carried out correctly. Once that's established, it will be over.

[Deannalynn]

Well, you believe everything you hear from someone who was desparate to stay in the US and I believe what I feel is accurate. We differ. I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine.

I actually respect your thoughts and opinion on this Nic99. I just have a different take on it. I followed the trial and so did 12 jurors who absolutely unequivocally believed De Souza, too. They had no problem believing what they heard. Of course this trial did not begin with De Souza and end with De Souza. There was a whole lot in between that proved 100% Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson. Based on the totality of this murder case I think there's a good chance this appeal you speak of will not fly.
JMO

[Nic99]

Kennedy: Yes, there was talk about Lana being inquisitive re: looking through peoples drawers and the like in the past. I will have to look way back to find it now, but it was there. I do not wish to put Lana down at all in any of my posts and wish to avoid such, but it was a point that was previously made unfortunately.

[kennedy06]

I had deleted my post since True had covered the inquisitive question already. I also remember nothing about this being fact and/or presented as such during the trials.

So will the civil trial be basically like the criminal trial so to speak, does anyone know? Like the same witnesses and testimony given again, things like that?
JMO

[Nic99]

I actually respect your thoughts and opinion on this Nic99. I just have a different take on it. I followed the trial and so did 12 jurors who absolutely unequivocally believed De Souza, too. They had no problem believing what they heard. Of course this trial did not begin with De Souza and end with De Souza. There was a whole lot in between that proved 100% Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson. Based on the totality of this murder case I think there's a good chance this appeal you speak of will not fly.
JMO

Wow thanks Deannalynn for respecting my opinion and I mean that. I do feel like a 'black' sheep here and I know that I am, but, I am still entitled to voice my opinions and I know that 99% of posters here don't agree with me, so that is fine, but I can still voice mine. I know there was a whole lot inbetween, but, I feel that inbetween has not convinced me that PS is guilty, that is my opinion only and I feel the appeal has a chance to fly imo. We will have to wait and see. It does not mean that I don't respect others opinions, because I do totally, as long as they are not abusive.

[Deannalynn]

Kennedy: Yes, there was talk about Lana being inquisitive re: looking through peoples drawers and the like in the past. I will have to look way back to find it now, but it was there. I do not wish to put Lana down at all in any of my posts and wish to avoid such, but it was a point that was previously made unfortunately.

You may have this information confused with Juror number 10 in trial one, Nic99. He indicated his mother in law went through he and his wives drawers every time she came to visit. I believe she was nosey and not inquisitive. Of course that's what he alluded to.
IIRC...

[True2Blues]

I had deleted my post since True had covered the inquisitive question already. I also remember nothing about this being fact and/or presented as such during the trials.

So will the civil trial be basically like the criminal trial so to speak, does anyone know? Like the same witnesses and testimony given again, things like that?
JMO

That's a good question. I know they can have things in a Civil trial that are different. Burden of proof is on the Plaintiff and to a lesser degree than beyond a reasonable doubt. I would think all of the same evidence allowed in the Criminal trial would be admissible, or most of it anyway.

[Nic99]

You may have this information confused with Juror number 10 in trial one, Nic99. He indicated his mother in law went through he and his wives drawers every time she came to visit. I believe she was nosey and not inquisitive. Of course that's what he alluded to.
IIRC...

Yup I definitely remember something regarding looking through peoples' drawers, etc. I would have to look back, but it was there. Nosey or inquisitve, well, I suppose it could mean one and the same thing tbh imo.

[Anakerie]

I had deleted my post since True had covered the inquisitive question already. I also remember nothing about this being fact and/or presented as such during the trials.

So will the civil trial be basically like the criminal trial so to speak, does anyone know? Like the same witnesses and testimony given again, things like that?
JMO
I am curious about how the civil trial will go too, Kennedy. I've never watched one from the "outside" before. I was on a jury for one years and years ago, but that one involved a horrific auto accident and one side was suing the other side for damages, pain & suffering and all that. Sat there in the jury box listening to testimony for the whole week, went home for the weekend and we were done 30 min. after we returned on Monday morning, the case had been settled and the jury was released..

[vonna]

You may have this information confused with Juror number 10 in trial one, Nic99. He indicated his mother in law went through he and his wives drawers every time she came to visit. I believe she was nosey and not inquisitive. Of course that's what he alluded to.
IIRC...

I believe you're right, Deannalynn. Somehow his MIL's inquisitiveness has been twisted to implicate actions Lana took.

[Details]

No, I didn't think loaded guns were lying around in the street, but I do know that guns are rife in the US and almost a part of every household, hence the gun crime, due to opportunists. This does not mean that PS picked up that gun, anyone could have imo.You are wrong. They are not a part of almost every household - not remotely close. According to stats - only 25% own a gun. Somewhere around a third of households have a gun in it.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=581409 I'm not pro-gun - but I think maybe living so far away, you've got a warped view of America. Guns are not everywhere.

The reason for the gun crime is not that criminals walk into a house, opportunistically pick up a handy gun, and use it - it's because criminals tend to own guns! Those with the mindset to become criminals (they like the thought of controlling others and getting what they want through power) naturally want to own guns.

As I recall - there's no debate that this is PS's gun - that was uncontested at the trial. The defense theory was that she went looking, found a gun of his that happened to be loaded, and killed herself with it - with magic spatter that somehow got on his jacket while almost completely avoiding all the carpet between him and her (in their theory).

[Details]

Means zilch coming from him. He just wanted to stay in the states and was worried about being deported. He misinterpreted 'I think somebody has been killed' imo.He said it in the 911 phone call. There's no pressure that can be applied, no deal that can be made, that can go backwards in time and change that 911 call - and his story has never changed from that phone call on out.

[Anakerie]

He said it in the 911 phone call. There's no pressure that can be applied, no deal that can be made, that can go backwards in time and change that 911 call - and his story has never changed from that phone call on out.

Why argue, Details? We all know that the poster won't change their mind.. The trial is over, Phil has been judged guilty and will sit in prison for a good long while. The appeal process is just barely getting started and most folks know that the appeals process can take years.

The initial papers have to be filed in Sept. according to the LA Courts site, but the appeals court probably won't even glance at those papers until sometime next year. I'm still curious as to what grounds Riordan will use for the appeal and what kind of precedents will be cited.

[Details]

Why argue, details? We all know that the poster won't change their mind.. The trial is over, Phil has been judged guilty and will sit in prison for a good long while. The appeal process is just barely getting started and most folks know that the appeals process can take years.

The initial papers have to be filed in Sept. according to the LA Courts site, but the appeals court probably won't even glance at those papers until sometime next year. I'm still curious as to what grounds Riordan will use for the appeal and what kind of precedents will be cited.I just don't believe in allowing misinformation to be left uncorrected. We know the truth - but any lurker who drops by can be misinformed if something that is not correct is left uncorrected.

[Anakerie]

I just don't believe in allowing misinformation to be left uncorrected. We know the truth - but any lurker who drops by can be misinformed if something that is not correct is left uncorrected.
Ahh... So true. It's happened many times before and probably will happen many times more in this case and in others.. **sigh** Sad, isn't it?

[SailorsMom60]

Why argue, Details? We all know that the poster won't change their mind.. The trial is over, Phil has been judged guilty and will sit in prison for a good long while. The appeal process is just barely getting started and most folks know that the appeals process can take years.

The initial papers have to be filed in Sept. according to the LA Courts site, but the appeals court probably won't even glance at those papers until sometime next year. I'm still curious as to what grounds Riordan will use for the appeal and what kind of precedents will be cited.

I'm curious about that myself. I think it's an exercise in futility though, as I believe that JF and the prosecution were very careful NOT to have an issue!

[oodi]

I'm curious about that myself. I think it's an exercise in futility though, as I believe that JF and the prosecution were very careful NOT to have an issue!

Ditto that!!! JF even made sure that the defense's game playing to try to "sneak" their way into grounds for appeal was foiled.

[vonna]

Ditto that!!! JF even made sure that the defense's game playing to try to "sneak" their way into grounds for appeal was foiled.

I'd bet that any objection JF took under advisement was thoroughly researched before being overruled. I'd also bet that there are no VALID grounds for appeal. Guess if Phil wants to put the money he is making for his song which appears in a Vialis commercial into an appeal it will just help revive a stagnant economy.

[Dtviewer3]

Means zilch coming from him. He just wanted to stay in the states and was worried about being deported. He misinterpreted 'I think somebody has been killed' imo.

And Spector claiming he didnt kill Lana means 'zilch' to me since he just wanted to stay out of jail.

It defies all logic and common sense that Lana killed herself AND De souza heard Spector 'wrong'.

Nope, didnt fly at trial either. Hope Spector is making himself comfortable in his 'new' castle...........

[RootBeer]

Wow thanks Deannalynn for respecting my opinion and I mean that. I do feel like a 'black' sheep here and I know that I am, but, I am still entitled to voice my opinions and I know that 99% of posters here don't agree with me, so that is fine, but I can still voice mine. I know there was a whole lot inbetween, but, I feel that inbetween has not convinced me that PS is guilty, that is my opinion only and I feel the appeal has a chance to fly imo. We will have to wait and see. It does not mean that I don't respect others opinions, because I do totally, as long as they are not abusive.

Hi Nic, I still believe that Lana killed herself either on purpose or accidentally.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

Yup I definitely remember something regarding looking through peoples' drawers, etc.

snipped

What you remember is Bennington (juror #10) explaining to the media that his (Bennington's) mother-in-law was the type of person who would look through other people's drawers.

There is no trial testimony, in either trial, that claims Lana was the type of person who would look through other people's drawers.

None at all.

[kellygreen]

Tonight, Rachelle returns to the small screen to talk about her career and Phil's appeal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8201515&page=1

Sounds like can't miss tv--ABC 20/20

[Alibi Ike]

Tonight, Rachelle returns to the small screen to talk about her career and Phil's appeal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8201515&page=1

Sounds like can't miss tv--ABC 20/20

It should be riveting! ABC must have had a shortage of newsworthy stories.

[jaxback]

Tonight, Rachelle returns to the small screen to talk about her career and Phil's appeal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8201515&page=1

Sounds like can't miss tv--ABC 20/20

What career?

[SailorsMom60]

I'd bet that any objection JF took under advisement was thoroughly researched before being overruled. I'd also bet that there are no VALID grounds for appeal. Guess if Phil wants to put the money he is making for his song which appears in a Vialis commercial into an appeal it will just help revive a stagnant economy.

Good morning, vonna!
I agree with you. JF hasn't been a judge all these years by making mistakes. He was very thorough the rulings he made.

[kennedy06]

Tonight, Rachelle returns to the small screen to talk about her career and Phil's appeal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8201515&page=1

Sounds like can't miss tv--ABC 20/20

Thank you Kelly. I read the entire article..hmmm..

Well at least now I can sort of understand why he may have been sleeping naked on the prison floor and supposedly had no eating utensils. An important little detail of why he may have been was to have left out from the original telling of the story I believe... it makes a little more sense now if the story is accurate. JMO

Like your sig line also.

[Shevarash]

Okay, well the serial numbers removed means nothing imo. Anyone could have picked up that gun with the bullets in, serial numbers removed or not, means nothing. 9 phones well, he went and said to DeSouza 'Somebody has been killed', that doesn't mean he killed them either.

JMO

Interesting quote of "Somebody has been killed"!

Was there a third person in the house at the time? I am only aware that there were two people in the house, Phil and Lana.

Thank you,
Shevarash

[kennedy06]

This is just getting bizarre...I don't know whether to post this on the RS entertainment thread or here but it does concern the CM and PS connection so I guess it can be posted on either. What must this warden think? Then there is the 20/20 show and I can't help but wonder what the Clarkson family may feel or all the people in his past...what a strange world we live in at times is all I can say! JMO

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

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2071027.html

[hiitsme]

Interesting quote of "Somebody has been killed"!

Was there a third person in the house at the time? I am only aware that there were two people in the house, Phil and Lana.

Thank you,
Shevarash

Good point and from what I remember, the only person who ever said those 4 words was Spector's attorney during closing arguments. It was just another lame, failed attempt to twist what ADS said and heard.

[hiitsme]

This is just getting bizarre...I don't know whether to post this on the RS entertainment thread or here but it does concern the CM and PS connection so I guess it can be posted on either. What must this warden think? Then there is the 20/20 show and I can't help but wonder what the Clarkson family may feel or all the people in his past...what a strange world we live in at times is all I can say! JMO

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

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2071027.html

Thanks for those Kennedy. The Mrs. lost her credibility a long time ago. The Clarkson's are a strong dignified family and are probably silently watching her self destruct. If Spector condones her actions and lies he should be in the psycho ward.

[Nic99]

You are wrong. They are not a part of almost every household - not remotely close. According to stats - only 25% own a gun. Somewhere around a third of households have a gun in it.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=581409 I'm not pro-gun - but I think maybe living so far away, you've got a warped view of America. Guns are not everywhere.

The reason for the gun crime is not that criminals walk into a house, opportunistically pick up a handy gun, and use it - it's because criminals tend to own guns! Those with the mindset to become criminals (they like the thought of controlling others and getting what they want through power) naturally want to own guns.

As I recall - there's no debate that this is PS's gun - that was uncontested at the trial. The defense theory was that she went looking, found a gun of his that happened to be loaded, and killed herself with it - with magic spatter that somehow got on his jacket while almost completely avoiding all the carpet between him and her (in their theory).

Thanks for the information. I actually find that figure shocking. One in three households is extremely high imo and is very scary to think that it is as high as that. I do not have a warped view of America at all; I was just touching on the gun issue and you have confirmed that to me.

I have not debated whether this was PS's gun or not, that did not come into my post. I just said that anyone could have picked it up, just because it belonged to him does not mean that he did imo. The splatter was tiny, but I won't bring all that up again. We will have to see what the appeal brings imo.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

Tonight, Rachelle returns to the small screen to talk about her career and Phil's appeal.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8201515&page=1

Sounds like can't miss tv--ABC 20/20

From the link:

"It was so funny 'cause he looks up at me and he's like, 'May I kiss you?' And I'm like, 'No,'" said Rachelle laughing. "Like, no one has probably ever turned him down before, like, ever."

Like, I guess she, like, missed the testimony from both trials. Like.

[oodi]

This is just getting bizarre...I don't know whether to post this on the RS entertainment thread or here but it does concern the CM and PS connection so I guess it can be posted on either. What must this warden think? Then there is the 20/20 show and I can't help but wonder what the Clarkson family may feel or all the people in his past...what a strange world we live in at times is all I can say! JMO

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

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2071027.html

It sounds to me like RS is now trying to use Manson to attract more attention to herself. She sure knows how to pick 'em!

[oodi]

From the link:

"It was so funny 'cause he looks up at me and he's like, 'May I kiss you?' And I'm like, 'No,'" said Rachelle laughing. "Like, no one has probably ever turned him down before, like, ever."

Like, I guess she, like, missed the testimony from both trials. Like.

LOL... she sure had no problems taking on the "valley girl" mentality.

[Anakerie]

Thank you Kelly. I read the entire article..hmmm..

Well at least now I can sort of understand why he may have been sleeping naked on the prison floor and supposedly had no eating utensils. An important little detail of why he may have been was to have left out from the original telling of the story I believe... it makes a little more sense now if the story is accurate. JMO

Like your sig line also.
Don't count on truth from Rachelle about Phil... One of her stories is being disputed in the Sacramento Bee today.. The one about Manson passing notes to Phil? False, according to the CDCR...
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2071027.html

They're not even in different buildings in the same facility. They are in different facilities 4 miles apart.

I think the only thing that would make me watch an interview with Rachelle is if the interviewer questioned her on the false stories she's been telling.. Like the Manson thing... Or the "It's his real hair" story, among others... Maybe Cindy A. and Rachelle could compare notes on how to spin a tale.


ETA: Sorry for repeating what others have already said/linnked.. lol, I guess I should read the whole thread before commenting... Back to lurk mode I go!

[oodi]

Don't count on truth from Rachelle about Phil... One of her stories is being disputed in the Sacramento Bee today.. The one about Manson passing notes to Phil? False, according to the CDCR...
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2071027.html

They're not even in different buildings in the same facility. They are in different facilities 4 miles apart.

I think the only thing that would make me watch an interview with Rachelle is if the interviewer questioned her on the false stories she's been telling.. Like the Manson thing... Or the "It's his real hair" story, among others... Maybe Cindy A. and Rachelle could compare notes on how to spin a tale.


ETA: Sorry for repeating what others have already said/linnked.. lol, I guess I should read the whole thread before commenting... Back to lurk mode I go!

No lurking Anakerie!!! :tongueside:

It's not like none of the rest of us have ever done that! I'm probably more guilty than most for doing it! :blushing:

[Alibi Ike]

She must have missed the part in American Government classes that trials are based on actual facts... not wishful thinking.

Wishful thinking? You are being too kind. It's surprising that ABC would air something like this. It would perhaps boost the ratings on the Jerry Springer show.

[Nic99]

You may have this information confused with Juror number 10 in trial one, Nic99. He indicated his mother in law went through he and his wives drawers every time she came to visit. I believe she was nosey and not inquisitive. Of course that's what he alluded to.
IIRC...

Yes I do remember that being said, but there was another mention of when Lana was around her friends' houses, but, I was just trying to make my point and don't want to say anything bad about Lana personally, so will leave it there.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

I hope that the segment with Rachelle is a very short one.. I can't imagine her being interesting enough for more than 5 or 10 minutes.. lol.. I can't figure out why 20/20 would even consider interviewing her...

You might be right about that five or ten minutes.

My Comcast information for tonight's episode of 20/20 is void of any mention of the convicted murderer or his wife.

I too can't figure out why 20/20 would consider interviewing the convicted murderer's wife.

But I'll watch.

I intend on keeping up with all of the convicted murderer's wife's lies.

[Deannalynn]

You might be right about that five or ten minutes.

My Comcast information for tonight's episode of 20/20 is void of any mention of the convicted murderer or his wife.

I too can't figure out why 20/20 would consider interviewing the convicted murderer's wife.

But I'll watch.

I intend on keeping up with all of the convicted murderer's wife's lies.

They are not sharing the entire hour with her, I imagine. They may only have her on for 15 minutes at best unless they fully intend to show clips of Lana Clarkson's murder. May be revisiting the trial. They do things like that when the guest is not expecting it. Dunno
JMO

[Anakerie]

You might be right about that five or ten minutes.

My Comcast information for tonight's episode of 20/20 is void of any mention of the convicted murderer or his wife.

I too can't figure out why 20/20 would consider interviewing the convicted murderer's wife.

But I'll watch.

I intend on keeping up with all of the convicted murderer's wife's lies.
ROFL! I went to the 20/20 website and watched a couple of the videos... Would you believe Rachelle says she "designed" a car? And she bought the Lexis Hybrid for Phil.. ROFLMAO!

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/

I don't need to watch 20/20 tonight.. I just had my laugh for the day........... :lol:

[hiitsme]

ROFL! I went to the 20/20 website and watched a couple of the videos... Would you believe Rachelle says she "designed" a car? And she bought the Lexis Hybrid for Phil.. ROFLMAO!

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/

I don't need to watch 20/20 tonight.. I just had my laugh for the day........... :lol:

As you eluded to recently, this qualifies at best as Entertainment. But, I really don't get it. She was an unknown before she met PS and still is one now to probably most people in this world. For those who are familiar with the trial, she is still unknown and at best, the wife of a murderer. Why has she gotten this main stream media attention?

[SailorsMom60]

I'm disappointed that 20/20 would stoop to showing what I have seen so far in the clips. They used to be so reputable!

[True2Blues]

I'm disappointed that 20/20 would stoop to showing what I have seen so far in the clips. They used to be so reputable!

Not anymore, apparently, you're right about that.

[kennedy06]

Can't anybody get their story straight

At the bottom of this article it says the note may have been a prank

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-spector-manson,0,63437.story?track=rss

JMO
paraphrasing

[True2Blues]

Can't anybody get their story straight

At the bottom of this article it says the note may have been a prank

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-spector-manson,0,63437.story?track=rss

JMO
paraphrasing

That reporter doesn't have the facts straight either, it's a 19 to life sentence, not 15 to life.

I wouldn't be surprised if PS wrote the note himself.

[SailorsMom60]

That reporter doesn't have the facts straight either, it's a 19 to life sentence, not 15 to life.

I wouldn't be surprised if PS wrote the note himself.


They don't care if it's correct, as long as someone will read it. The days of great journalists are long gone!

[Deannalynn]

They don't care if it's correct, as long as someone will read it. The days of great journalists are long gone!

You are so right, SailorMom60...I have heard so much that is so not true. The journalists are only interested in getting a story out and it doesn't matter if it's correct or not, as long as they make their deadline.:sneaky: JMO

[kennedy06]

That reporter doesn't have the facts straight either, it's a 19 to life sentence, not 15 to life.

I wouldn't be surprised if PS wrote the note himself.

If it was another inmate and a possible prank as the prison official in the article says, that inmate has to be laughing his butt off over this, look at how this has spread through the papers!

Now you would think with all the mail that prison has probably read of CM they would know his handwriting by now and know it when they see it.

Oh there is a 4 page hand written letter by CM on the murder auction site..so maybe someone who writes Phil or his counterparts could suggest they go there and read it, handwriting is a little sloppy and in pencil and it is to a woman writing to CM in prison many many years back but hey at least in the future if there are anymore letters delivered maybe they could compare the handwriting to know for sure. Just a thought!

I guess we will have to see how this all turns out.

JMO

I won't link to the murder auction site but if someone really wants it just add .com and look for CM name. Like to back up what I post:smile:

JMO oh and only looked there one day because it was mention in a news article, thanks.

[RootBeer]

I'm disappointed that 20/20 would stoop to showing what I have seen so far in the clips. They used to be so reputable!

Rachelle is now on tv showing the castle and the crime scene.

[tulpje]

Rachelle is now on tv showing the castle and the crime scene.


I saw the show.
It's incredible the treasures that are in "the castle".

Wow!
What's in there is a fortune in it self.

[dref99]

Yes, the gun and ammo did come from PS's house, but that still does not mean that it was him that picked up the gun imo. Lana was known for being inquisitive and the gun was in the drawer next to where she was sitting unfortunately. What about all the enquiring kids who pick up guns and shoot their parents we hear about it in the US. Does that mean it wasn't them, even though they were in the house? No different here imo.

My bold - how about a link for such a comment - and if the link is something said by Phil Spector or his laywers - then best find another. Having followed the reports on the murder of Lana for many years, I have never seen nor heard such a remark.

What "enquiring kids" may or may not do has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Only two people were in the house and one of them died. The other then wandered outside and said "I think I killed someone". How many times does this have to be explained to you - perhaps English is not your first language? Cannot think of another reason for you to continually post incorrect information.

jmo

[Deannalynn]

My bold - how about a link for such a comment - and if the link is something said by Phil Spector or his laywers - then best find another. Having followed the reports on the murder of Lana for many years, I have never seen nor heard such a remark.

What "enquiring kids" may or may not do has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Only two people were in the house and one of them died. The other then wandered outside and said "I think I killed someone". How many times does this have to be explained to you - perhaps English is not your first language? Cannot think of another reason for you to continually post incorrect information.

jmo

Good morning dref99...I have to totally agree with your post. It's one thing to have an opinion and back it up with rock evidence and another thing to pull nonsense out of the air as if it happened and it was part of discovery and trial.(s)
Right now Spector is making as much noise as he can in hopes everyone will believe he is the innocent one in the death/murder of Lana Clarkson. He thinks his appeal will get put through. (Don't think so)
This is what all the hoopla is with the "Manson" fake note. It was planned of course because "Manson" continues to get coverage after all these years. I don't think for a minute that Rachelle would have got any air time (especially with 20/20) if it were not for the fake note dreamed up by the two of them.:sneaky:
JMHO

[wcrapkin]

I believe Spector has legitimate grounds for appeal, but that those grounds will be rejected. Prior bad act evidence is usually not admissible, but many appellate courts have allowed prior bad acts to establish modus operandi. In this case Spector brandishing a gun on multiple women is so clearly similar to the facts of the Clarkson case that the appeals court will likely find no abuse of discretion here. It's like in the Michael Peterson case and the death of Elizabeth Ratliff. If Ratliff had died any other way her death probably would not have been admissible, but given that she was found on the bottom of the stairwell just like Kathleen the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the two deaths were so similar that it was admissible.

[Alibi Ike]

I believe Spector has legitimate grounds for appeal, but that those grounds will be rejected. Prior bad act evidence is usually not admissible, but many appellate courts have allowed prior bad acts to establish modus operandi. In this case Spector brandishing a gun on multiple women is so clearly similar to the facts of the Clarkson case that the appeals court will likely find no abuse of discretion here. It's like in the Michael Peterson case and the death of Elizabeth Ratliff. If Ratliff had died any other way her death probably would not have been admissible, but given that she was found on the bottom of the stairwell just like Kathleen the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the two deaths were so similar that it was admissible.

Even though you think Spector has grounds for an appeal, your futher comments are the reasons I believe an appeal will not be granted. I agree that the MP case is another great example where prior bad acts or circumstances are relevant and admissable. In the Spector case, especially the second time around, I'm sure that this respected judge made sure he crossed all the T's and dotted all of the I's before allowing anything that would cause an appellate frenzy!

[vonna]

I saw the show.
It's incredible the treasures that are in "the castle".

Wow!
What's in there is a fortune in it self.

Let's hope something is done with them before the walls cave in. It doesn't look as if anything has been done about maintenance.

[Anakerie]

Let's hope something is done with them before the walls cave in. It doesn't look as if anything has been done about maintenance.
I didn't watch 20/20 last night.. I sort of got hooked on Dateline.. So what's the review of Rachelle's "performance" for the show? Did she say anything worth hearing?

[Alibi Ike]

I didn't watch 20/20 last night.. I sort of got hooked on Dateline.. So what's the review of Rachelle's "performance" for the show? Did she say anything worth hearing?

I think the deafening silence from the supporters speaks for itself. When she spoke from the heart, sigh, about her husband's best bro John Lennon and his glory days before she was even born, I was even more convinced of her paid to say speech. Then the dramatic reenactment of Lana's suicide, in her view, put the icing on the cake. Just my opinion, of course.

[Anakerie]

I think the deafening silence from the supporters speaks for itself. When she spoke from the heart, sigh, about her husband's best bro John Lennon and his glory days before she was even born, I was even more convinced of her paid to say speech. Then the dramatic reenactment of Lana's suicide, in her view, put the icing on the cake. Just my opinion, of course.
So her performance on the show last night was essentially what was in the videos on the 20/20 web page yesterday.. I only watched a couple of the videos yesterday, and at that, the only one I watched start to finish was the one about her buying cars for Phil and designing smart-cars... After the car one, I decided not to watch any more of her blathering.

[Alibi Ike]

So her performance on the show last night was essentially what was in the videos on the 20/20 web page yesterday.. I only watched a couple of the videos yesterday, and at that, the only one I watched start to finish was the one about her buying cars for Phil and designing smart-cars... After the car one, I decided not to watch any more of her blathering.

Smart choice to end it there. It was nothing more than blathering, as you say. I read only a few sentences of what was to come yesterday thinking I'd wait for the entertainment in "prime time"! It was not even entertainment, just a sad desperate attempt for attention. What were the producers of 20/20 thinking?

[Deannalynn]

Let's hope something is done with them before the walls cave in. It doesn't look as if anything has been done about maintenance.

Good afternoon Ms. Vonna...
Maintenance he77, the last time I seen the inside it looked like the bathrooms had not been scrubbed. That's general home maintenance and the walls have not been painted since the building was brought up.

Just what the heck with all that money he has/had, the entertaining he did and the bragging to females to come to his castle, impressed him or the women??
FGS, being a woman and visiting his GREAT castle when invited would have turned me off in a New York minute!
JMHO

[vonna]

Good afternoon Ms. Vonna...
Maintenance he77, the last time I seen the inside it looked like the bathrooms had not been scrubbed. That's general home maintenance and the walls have not been painted since the building was brought up.

Just what the heck with all that money he has/had, the entertaining he did and the bragging to females to come to his castle, impressed him or the women??
FGS, being a woman and visiting his GREAT castle when invited would have turned me off in a New York minute!
JMHO

Good afternoon! Wouldn't you have thought Rachelle would have insisted on sprucing up the place instead of just being concerned with material things she could acquire?

[Nic99]

Good afternoon Ms. Vonna...
Maintenance he77, the last time I seen the inside it looked like the bathrooms had not been scrubbed. That's general home maintenance and the walls have not been painted since the building was brought up.

Just what the heck with all that money he has/had, the entertaining he did and the bragging to females to come to his castle, impressed him or the women??
FGS, being a woman and visiting his GREAT castle when invited would have turned me off in a New York minute!
JMHO

They went because they were invited, no-one forced them to go. Who said they went for the castle? I don't remember that being said by any of them? They went because they wanted to be in his company, for whatever reason they had personally imo. Nothing to do with the castle imo.

[True2Blues]

Good afternoon! Wouldn't you have thought Rachelle would have insisted on sprucing up the place instead of just being concerned with material things she could acquire?

Hi Vonna,
Actually, I think Rachelle being interested in what she can get for Rachelle and not wanting to waste money fixing the house sounds exactly right.

[Alibi Ike]

Good afternoon Ms. Vonna...
Maintenance he77, the last time I seen the inside it looked like the bathrooms had not been scrubbed. That's general home maintenance and the walls have not been painted since the building was brought up.

Just what the heck with all that money he has/had, the entertaining he did and the bragging to females to come to his castle, impressed him or the women??
FGS, being a woman and visiting his GREAT castle when invited would have turned me off in a New York minute!
JMHO

OMG, Castle? I agree and as it turned you off in a NY minute I would have been gone in a NY minute. Outside of his awards and trophys so to speak that place is a dump!

[Nic99]

OMG, Castle? I agree and as it turned you off in a NY minute I would have been gone in a NY minute. Outside of his awards and trophys so to speak that place is a dump!

Exactly, they didn't go for the castle, they went for the awards and trophies and PS, his achievements and himself imo. Else, why did so many of them go back?

[Alibi Ike]

Exactly, they didn't go for the castle, they went for the awards and trophies and PS, his achievements and himself imo. Else, why did so many of them go back?

I guess we almost agree that the place is hardly a castle. You of all people who reside in England, with the most rich history and magnificent castles, must have wanted to puke when you saw the inside of this dump. I am sure these women and men, as well, went back to socialize, perhaps talk about the industry and his career, but for sure not one of them expected to have a gun put to their head when they were simply ready to go home. The little man definitely had a problem.

[Nic99]

I guess we almost agree that the place is hardly a castle. You of all people who reside in England, with the most rich history and magnificent castles, must have wanted to puke when you saw the inside of this dump. I am sure these women and men, as well, went back to socialize, perhaps talk about the industry and his career, but for sure not one of them expected to have a gun put to their head when they were simply ready to go home. The little man definitely had a problem.

I just said that they didn't want to go back for the castle imo, no matter what it was like or not. I believe they went back because they were interested in Phil Spector and, maybe his achievements came into that where some were concerned. I don't really care what his castle looks like tbh; who am I to judge someone's home.

You already know how I feel about the gun issue and I don't believe he was guilty of the crime imo. I have my reasons and I have posted them many times before.

[Deannalynn]

Exactly, they didn't go for the castle, they went for the awards and trophies and PS, his achievements and himself imo. Else, why did so many of them go back?

Well....! I BEG to differ.:huh: After Spector chased the poor woman around with a gun quite a few times not many did return IIRC...
JMO and what I heard in trial...:sneaky:

[Nic99]

Well....! I BEG to differ.:huh: After Spector chased the poor woman around with a gun quite a few times not many did return IIRC...
JMO and what I heard in trial...:sneaky:

Oh yes they did return and he hardly 'chased' them around with guns. Why would they return if they were scared? Makes no sense, unless they weren't scared and knew that nothing would awful would happen imo. You are talking decades ago with some and they still kept in touch with him.

[Deannalynn]

Oh yes they did return and he hardly 'chased' them around with guns. Why would they return if they were scared? Makes no sense, unless they weren't scared and knew that nothing would awful would happen imo. You are talking decades ago with some and they still kept in touch with him.

Nah....Not true, Nic99
jmo

[Nic99]

Nah....Not true, Nic99
jmo

Yes it is and if you followed the trial as closely as you say, you would know it is true. Some of the women did go back, because they thought a lot of him and obviously didn't believe that he was a threat imo.

[Deannalynn]

Yes it is and if you followed the trial as closely as you say, you would know it is true. Some of the women did go back, because they thought a lot of him and obviously didn't believe that he was a threat imo.

With all due respect Nic99, you are correct when saying "some" went back. I listened to the trial very carefully. They did fear a threat. A professional threat. Phil Spector said he would ruin their careers.
Can't argue with me on that one!
Phil Spector (in addition) called a few and left horrific messages on their voice mail, too.
Recall that?

[Nic99]

With all due respect Nic99, you are correct when saying "some" went back. I listened to the trial very carefully. They did fear a threat. A professional threat. Phil Spector said he would ruin their careers.
Can't argue with me on that one!
Phil Spector (in addition) called a few and left horrific messages on their voice mail, too.
Recall that?

Thanks for veryifying what I did say was true rather than not, as in your previous post. I do not deliberately post things that are not. Yes, he did threaten one woman in a professional manner, no more, no less. Yet they chose to return, so they knew him and knew that he didn't mean it in any harmful way imo.

[Alibi Ike]

Yes it is and if you followed the trial as closely as you say, you would know it is true. Some of the women did go back, because they thought a lot of him and obviously didn't believe that he was a threat imo.

You, for whatever reason will not listen to logic when it comes to PS. However, the women who lived to testify against him, and did so most credibly, had an advantage of knowing him which probably saved their lives. While 1 or 2 went back to his humble abode, for whatever reason, they made it perfectly clear that PS would not be putting a gun to their heads again. Lana was totally blindsided and therefore took the bullet for so many before her in the same situation. To this day, I shiver to think of the fear that Lana felt at the moment he shoved that gun into her mouth when all she wanted to do was go home.

[Nic99]

You, for whatever reason will not listen to logic when it comes to PS. However, the women who lived to testify against him, and did so most credibly, had an advantage of knowing him which probably saved their lives. While 1 or 2 went back to his humble abode, for whatever reason, they made it perfectly clear that PS would not be putting a gun to their heads again. Lana was totally blindsided and therefore took the bullet for so many before her in the same situation. To this day, I shiver to think of the fear that Lana felt at the moment he shoved that gun into her mouth when all she wanted to do was go home.

Yes, they knew him and knew that he wouldn't harm them, which is why they chose to go back. I have deep sympathy for Lana's family that she is no longer here, but, I do not believe PS pulled that trigger. That is the conclusion I have come to in my own research and the reason I continually post here, amongst the majority on here. My opinion is different from yours, but I do respect your opinion, as I hope you may respect mine.

[Alibi Ike]

Yes, they knew him and knew that he wouldn't harm them, which is why they chose to go back. I have deep sympathy for Lana's family that she is no longer here, but, I do not believe PS pulled that trigger. That is the conclusion I have come to in my own research and the reason I continually post here, amongst the majority on here. My opinion is different from yours, but I do respect your opinion, as I hope you may respect mine.

Yes, you are in the minority, not only on these boards but overwhelmingly in the polls of public opinion. If you are a woman it is very hard to believe that you have never conceded that it is a proven fact that Spector has pulled guns on women to control them, prevent them from leaving, and to ultimately have sex with them. The latter being totally repulsive. If you are still living when the "fat lady sings" and all of Spector's appeals are denied, I hope you can move on, that is if you are still with us. Maybe none of us will be here. LOL. I am quite confident of the outcome so I do enjoy the back and forth banter.

[Deannalynn]

Thanks for veryifying what I did say was true rather than not, as in your previous post. I do not deliberately post things that are not. Yes, he did threaten one woman in a professional manner, no more, no less. Yet they chose to return, so they knew him and knew that he didn't mean it in any harmful way imo.

Nope! not true, Nic99...:sneaky:

[Nic99]

Yes, you are in the minority, not only on these boards but overwhelmingly in the polls of public opinion. If you are a woman it is very hard to believe that you have never conceded that it is a proven fact that Spector has pulled guns on women to control them, prevent them from leaving, and to ultimately have sex with them. The latter being totally repulsive. If you are still living when the "fat lady sings" and all of Spector's appeals are denied, I hope you can move on, that is if you are still with us. Maybe none of us will be here. LOL. I am quite confident of the outcome so I do enjoy the back and forth banter.

Yes I too am confident in the outcome of the appeal imo. Yes, I can move on anytime, as I hope you can too, LOL. I know this is a case that many feel strongly about, but I do too, its just that I am in the minority on this board, but there are many out there who do feel PS is innocent of the crime as do I and some on this board. I will post my reasons again for an appeal imo on this thread and hope that some discussion will come out of that.

[Nic99]

Nope! not true, Nic99...:sneaky:

So you are now saying that what I posted and you agreed with isn't true, I wish you would make your mind up:confused:

[Deannalynn]

Yes, they knew him and knew that he wouldn't harm them, which is why they chose to go back. I have deep sympathy for Lana's family that she is no longer here, but, I do not believe PS pulled that trigger. That is the conclusion I have come to in my own research and the reason I continually post here, amongst the majority on here. My opinion is different from yours, but I do respect your opinion, as I hope you may respect mine.

Er, "research?" I believe this case went to trial and 12 jurors researched the facts and came to a GUILTY verdict. Yep, that's what I recall, Nic99. What you have researched is and has no bearing on whatever you have decided in this case. It's over Nic99. Phil Spector is doing 19 years to life.
12 jurors are confident Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson and thats the way our legal system is run.
The appellate court will hear a case when it's deemed necessary but in this case I am highly sure this will not make it to appeal.
In addition, I do respect your opinion.
However, please do not pull things that are just not true out of mid air as it is annoying my friend. Give us some substance to work with.
JMO

[Deannalynn]

Yes I too am confident in the outcome of the appeal imo. Yes, I can move on anytime, as I hope you can too, LOL. I know this is a case that many feel strongly about, but I do too, its just that I am in the minority on this board, but there are many out there who do feel PS is innocent of the crime as do I and some on this board. I will post my reasons again for an appeal imo on this thread and hope that some discussion will come out of that.

Peat, peat and repeat Nic99. You keep saying you are the minority on this board. There is nothing wrong with being the minority. There is nothing wrong with you having your opinion and so now we can put a lid on that issue. What I would like to see you post is real valid reasons why Phil Spector should be heard on appeal. "F.A.C.T.S." Not fiction..
JMO-MOO

[Nic99]

Er, "research?" I believe this case went to trial and 12 jurors researched the facts and came to a GUILTY verdict. Yep, that's what I recall, Nic99. What you have researched is and has no bearing on whatever you have decided in this case. It's over Nic99. Phil Spector is doing 19 years to life.
12 jurors are confident Phil Spector murdered Lana Clarkson and thats the way our legal system is run.
The appellate court will hear a case when it's deemed necessary but in this case I am highly sure this will not make it to appeal.
In addition, I do respect your opinion.
However, please do not pull things that are just not true out of mid air as it is annoying my friend. Give us some substance to work with.
JMO

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I am not pulling anything out of mid air and I am sorry if it is annoying to hear a differing opinion on this board, but that is life, people do not all believe the same thing imo.

I don't believe I am pulling anything out of mid air, I am going by what I have read on the net and the trial notes. I had saved my appeal issues but the ??? computer lost it, so I will have to do it all again and its getting late here, so will try and sort out.

[SailorsMom60]

With all due respect Nic99, you are correct when saying "some" went back. I listened to the trial very carefully. They did fear a threat. A professional threat. Phil Spector said he would ruin their careers.
Can't argue with me on that one!
Phil Spector (in addition) called a few and left horrific messages on their voice mail, too.
Recall that?
Hi Deannalynn,
Actually you both are right, some did go back because of their jobs, but refused to be left alone with him again. That's the testimony I recall from the women.

[Nic99]

I believe Judge Fidler was wrong to allow the testimony of the 5 PBAs, especially DO who could not be cross-examined in the 2nd trial, a huge error on his part imo. Many of these instances happened years ago and people may argue that they should have been allowed due to the similarities in this case, but imo the highly prejudicial content from the very start during opening arguments by AJ right through to the closing arguments, stating that PS could have killed when drunk overstepped the mark imo in Section 1101 and meant that this should not have been allowed due to the prejudicial content outweighing the probative content imo.

A DeSouza was not a credible witness imo. He was working illegally in the US due to his visa being expired and subsequently had been found out to be a liar and was just desparate to stay in the US imo. English was not his first language and he could so easily have misheard PS’s words. Overall, he was not a credible witness in this case and should never have been allowed.

The physical evidence and the autopsy did not exclude the possibility of suicide in this case. The lack of blood splatter on PS was apparent, and the actual splatter that was there showed that it would not be possible for a man of his height to be in the position to shoot the gun. Blood does not travel around corners and the splatter on his jacket is more consistent with him raising his arms in a natural defensive motion imo.

The testimony of a non-credible witness and the errors in allowing the prejudicial argument to outweigh the probative does not make for an overwhelming guilty verdict imo.

Those are a few of my reasons for a successful appeal in this case; we will have to wait and see what happens.

imo

[Deannalynn]

I believe Judge Fidler was wrong to allow the testimony of the 5 PBAs, especially DO who could not be cross-examined in the 2nd trial, a huge error on his part imo. Many of these instances happened years ago and people may argue that they should have been allowed due to the similarities in this case, but imo the highly prejudicial content from the very start during opening arguments by AJ right through to the closing arguments, stating that PS could have killed when drunk overstepped the mark imo in Section 1101 and meant that this should not have been allowed due to the prejudicial content outweighing the probative content imo.

A DeSouza was not a credible witness imo. He was working illegally in the US due to his visa being expired and subsequently had been found out to be a liar and was just desparate to stay in the US imo. English was not his first language and he could so easily have misheard PS’s words. Overall, he was not a credible witness in this case and should never have been allowed.

The physical evidence and the autopsy did not exclude the possibility of suicide in this case. The lack of blood splatter on PS was apparent, and the actual splatter that was there showed that it would not be possible for a man of his height to be in the position to shoot the gun. Blood does not travel around corners and the splatter on his jacket is more consistent with him raising his arms in a natural defensive motion imo.

The testimony of a non-credible witness and the errors in allowing the prejudicial argument to outweigh the probative does not make for an overwhelming guilty verdict imo.

Those are a few of my reasons for a successful appeal in this case; we will have to wait and see what happens.

imo

I have already read this Nic99...
I still maintain the trial was absolutely fair and Judge Paul Fidler made sure all the i's were dotted and the T's were crossed.
Judge Fidler was very careful as he knew waaaay ahead that Phil Spectors attorney Whineberg was going to do anything or attempt to do something in order to get an appeal.
I continue to believe this will not happen. I would bet on it if I was a gambler. That's how sure I am.
JMO

[SailorsMom60]

I have already read this Nic99...
I still maintain the trial was absolutely fair and Judge Paul Fidler made sure all the i's were dotted and the T's were crossed.
Judge Fidler was very careful as he knew waaaay ahead that Phil Spectors attorney Whineberg was going to do anything or attempt to do something in order to get an appeal.
I continue to believe this will not happen. I would bet on it if I was a gambler. That's how sure I am.
JMO

I agree, Deannalynn,
JF was right on top of everything. He knew what he was doing, that's why only a few of the PBAs were allowed. There were many more.

I don't think you can appeal on a witness who was not "credible" I think it's up to the jury to decide that. Otherwise, there would be appeals all over the charts about ALL witnesses in any trial EVER!

[Eagleeye]

Okay, well the serial numbers removed means nothing imo. Anyone could have picked up that gun with the bullets in, serial numbers removed or not, means nothing. 9 phones well, he went and said to DeSouza 'Somebody has been killed', that doesn't mean he killed them either.

JMO

Bolding by me.

Why do you obfuscate what was really said by Adriano DeSouza on the stand, "I think I killed somebody?" I watched every minute of that trial and that is what he said on the stand. You are being disengenuous to quote the trial record improperly.

[Eagleeye]

What you remember is Bennington (juror #10) explaining to the media that his (Bennington's) mother-in-law was the type of person who would look through other people's drawers.

There is no trial testimony, in either trial, that claims Lana was the type of person who would look through other people's drawers.

None at all.

Rock, his first name was Benjamin not Bennington. I won't post his last name though I know it.

[Juror #9]

Rock, his first name was Benjamin not Bennington. I won't post his last name though I know it.

It was Bennington

[♫Rock*Star♫]

Rock, his first name was Benjamin not Bennington. I won't post his last name though I know it.

Umm... no.

Juror #10's first name is Bennington.

I know his last name too & I won't post it as well. :)

[Eagleeye]

//snipped//

A DeSouza was not a credible witness imo. He was working illegally in the US due to his visa being expired and subsequently had been found out to be a liar and was just desparate to stay in the US imo. English was not his first language and he could so easily have misheard PS’s words. Overall, he was not a credible witness in this case and should never have been allowed.



imo

Show us one link that proved that Adriano DeSouza was a liar. He spoke very good English and articulated what he heard very well. He must have been a credible witness since the second Jury convicted PS. Don't fight it. Your dog just won't hunt here. IIRC Juror 9 said he understood him perfectly. BTW, did you watch the same two trials that I did? One would think not.

[Eagleeye]

Umm... no.

Juror #10's first name is Bennington.

I know his last name too & I won't post it as well. :)

You are apparently terribly missinformed. His name is Benjamin W i l l a r d s o n and he is a Sanitary Engineer for the City of Los Angeles. He also lived 10 blocks from Phil Spector. Please, I do not wish to belabor this. Drop it.

[♫Rock*Star♫]

You are apparently terribly missinformed. His name is Benjamin W i l l a r d s o n and he is a Sanitary Engineer for the City of Los Angeles. He also lived 10 blocks from Phil Spector. Please, I do not wish to belabor this. Drop it.

Bennington is his name.

Plain as day.

I agree. Do not belabor this. :)

[Anakerie]

It was Bennington

:seeya: Waving hello to Juror #9.. Good to see you.. :-)


Now, Rock and Eagle? Please, can we drop the argument over Ben-Ten's first name?

We don't need to derail the thread with an argument over him..

[Juror #9]

You are apparently terribly missinformed. His name is Benjamin W i l l a r d s o n and he is a Sanitary Engineer for the City of Los Angeles. He also lived 10 blocks from Phil Spector. Please, I do not wish to belabor this. Drop it.

You are wrong about the first name and corrrect on the last name, and he lives a couple of blocks away from Spector. I know cuz I was one of the jurors on the first tiral, and on the way to viewing of the crime scene he pointed to his house as we made our way up the hill.

[Eagleeye]

You are wrong about the first name and corrrect on the last name, and he lives a couple of blocks away from Spector. I know cuz I was one of the jurors on the first tiral, and on the way to viewing of the crime scene he pointed to his house as we made our way up the hill.

I do stand corrected. He does live two blocks from the front gate of the Castle at 1900 Grandview. However, I still dispute his name but I am going to drop it. Serves no purpose to argue about it. And I surely do know who you are Ricardo. And to this day I still do not understand why you and the others didn't get Ben-10 dismissed for not deliberating. In any event I do think Justice was finally served.

[Eagleeye]

Oh yeah, hey...Juror 9.. you are the engineer, right?

Don't start Arguendo. LOL Juror 10 was the Engineer.

[kellygreen]

I believe Judge Fidler was wrong to allow the testimony of the 5 PBAs, especially DO who could not be cross-examined in the 2nd trial, a huge error on his part imo. Many of these instances happened years ago and people may argue that they should have been allowed due to the similarities in this case, but imo the highly prejudicial content from the very start during opening arguments by AJ right through to the closing arguments, stating that PS could have killed when drunk overstepped the mark imo in Section 1101 and meant that this should not have been allowed due to the prejudicial content outweighing the probative content imo.

A DeSouza was not a credible witness imo. He was working illegally in the US due to his visa being expired and subsequently had been found out to be a liar and was just desparate to stay in the US imo. English was not his first language and he could so easily have misheard PS’s words. Overall, he was not a credible witness in this case and should never have been allowed.

The physical evidence and the autopsy did not exclude the possibility of suicide in this case. The lack of blood splatter on PS was apparent, and the actual splatter that was there showed that it would not be possible for a man of his height to be in the position to shoot the gun. Blood does not travel around corners and the splatter on his jacket is more consistent with him raising his arms in a natural defensive motion imo.

The testimony of a non-credible witness and the errors in allowing the prejudicial argument to outweigh the probative does not make for an overwhelming guilty verdict imo.

Those are a few of my reasons for a successful appeal in this case; we will have to wait and see what happens.

imo

Nic, after re-reading your appeal arguments, I'm hoping Team Spector focuses on the arguments you raise--using your arguments, I believe this is how the state will win the appeal.

My dad always said, "people never change, only their circumstances and opportunities change"--and this is so true with the 5 PBA witnesses allowed to testify: PS gets drunk, woman wants to leave, then PS pulls gun on woman. The only difference between the 5 PBAs and Lana, is that Lana is dead. It's really time to give up on the DO issue. DO was cross examined during PS1--and here in the colonies, our state and federal courts allow the testimony of witnesses from a prior trial to be read into the court record if the witness is unavailable for court (and death of the witness counts as being unavailable). Why do you think Whineberg didn't fight harder to exclude DO's testimony? He knew it was a losing battle and DO's testimony was going to be entered into the PS2 trial record. So the entire DO argument just doesn't fly.

Your theory that DeSouza wasn't a credible witness is, well, incredible! AD admitted he was working in this country illegally--he never lied about his immigration status and once he became a witness he couldn't leave the country. And this whole thing about what he might have heard--give it a rest--not one witness stated AD did not hear PS say, "I think I killed somebody." Oh, sure, PS had witnesses who said AD may have misheard Spector's words, but not one witness testified that AD did mishear Spector's words. What basis do you use for excluding the testimony of AD? Let's remember there were 3 people on the castle property the night Lana was murdered: one couldn't testify, one wouldn't testify, and one did testify--so that makes AD a most credible witness.

As to the physical eveidence and the autopsy, what PS2 witness testified that Lana did commit suicide? I certainly don't remember anything in Whineberg's summation stating that any witness provided evidence that Lana did commit suicide. Once again, we heard she may have commited suicide, but there were no facts to back up that "theory".

I do happen to agree with you about a non-credible witness; however, it wasn't AD, it was the gun "expert" PS relied on--you remember, the man to whom JF issued the Miranda warning.

Do you really believe AJ's argument that PS was drunk, fired his gun, and killed Lana was prejudicial? Not even Team Spector denied PS was drunk. On this side of the pond, it's the state's responsibility to lay out the facts for the jury--and no one, not even Team Spector, denied PS was drunk.

Finally, your statement about an "overwhelming guilty verdict" perplexes me--but it's late and I'm going to chalk this up to a difference in wording. I don't know what the UK requires for a guilty verdict, but here in the colonies, we required guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--we don't require guilty beyond any/and or all doubt, we don't require overwhelming guilty--just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I stated earlier, I do hope Team Spector uses your agruments--then I believe the state will win the appeal.

[hiitsme]

Nic, after re-reading your appeal arguments, I'm hoping Team Spector focuses on the arguments you raise--using your arguments, I believe this is how the state will win the appeal.

My dad always said, "people never change, only their circumstances and opportunities change"--and this is so true with the 5 PBA witnesses allowed to testify: PS gets drunk, woman wants to leave, then PS pulls gun on woman. The only difference between the 5 PBAs and Lana, is that Lana is dead. It's really time to give up on the DO issue. DO was cross examined during PS1--and here in the colonies, our state and federal courts allow the testimony of witnesses from a prior trial to be read into the court record if the witness is unavailable for court (and death of the witness counts as being unavailable). Why do you think Whineberg didn't fight harder to exclude DO's testimony? He knew it was a losing battle and DO's testimony was going to be entered into the PS2 trial record. So the entire DO argument just doesn't fly.

Your theory that DeSouza wasn't a credible witness is, well, incredible! AD admitted he was working in this country illegally--he never lied about his immigration status and once he became a witness he couldn't leave the country. And this whole thing about what he might have heard--give it a rest--not one witness stated AD did not hear PS say, "I think I killed somebody." Oh, sure, PS had witnesses who said AD may have misheard Spector's words, but not one witness testified that AD did mishear Spector's words. What basis do you use for excluding the testimony of AD? Let's remember there were 3 people on the castle property the night Lana was murdered: one couldn't testify, one wouldn't testify, and one did testify--so that makes AD a most credible witness.

As to the physical eveidence and the autopsy, what PS2 witness testified that Lana did commit suicide? I certainly don't remember anything in Whineberg's summation stating that any witness provided evidence that Lana did commit suicide. Once again, we heard she may have commited suicide, but there were no facts to back up that "theory".

I do happen to agree with you about a non-credible witness; however, it wasn't AD, it was the gun "expert" PS relied on--you remember, the man to whom JF issued the Miranda warning.

Do you really believe AJ's argument that PS was drunk, fired his gun, and killed Lana was prejudicial? Not even Team Spector denied PS was drunk. On this side of the pond, it's the state's responsibility to lay out the facts for the jury--and no one, not even Team Spector, denied PS was drunk.

Finally, your statement about an "overwhelming guilty verdict" perplexes me--but it's late and I'm going to chalk this up to a difference in wording. I don't know what the UK requires for a guilty verdict, but here in the colonies, we required guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--we don't require guilty beyond any/and or all doubt, we don't require overwhelming guilty--just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I stated earlier, I do hope Team Spector uses your agruments--then I believe the state will win the appeal.

Wonderful post! The apple certainly didn't fall far from the tree here!:wink:

[kennedy06]

I have heard his 4th wife speak and she mentions there was just 1 spot blood spot behind the elbow I believe she mentioned it again in the ABC interview. I thought there were 18 and on mainly on one panel of the white jacket. Though our old CTV evidence photos are officially gone, they maybe on another site or two. This article below.. once again articulates 18 spots. I listened to the ABC interview and was given the idea he was rendering aid and it was satellite spatter. I don't know why any of that wasn't challenged with past testimony or at least a quick review of the court documents by the show.

I feel like a slow molding process is taking place for potential future jurors for the civil trial. Phil would be in prison most likely, who would benefit the most from PS winning that civil trial? Not PS unless that little store in the prison starts selling weekend passes!

Coat his reputation with enough Saintly paint and maybe all will be forgotten and CD sells might go up who knows maybe a movie...I think this is all about future sales myself but that is just my opinion. Oh no I have suddenly had snapshots of Graceland in my mind.


I have a suggestion so he is getting supposed letters or whatever,and has nothing to do in his 5 x 9 cell... how about a book on how to survive in prison? They are out there, read a few pages the other day in one...I think showing your weak side to the rest of the prisoners by the form of a letter read to the world, like someone reading your diary...well I just think that my be in the list of Don'ts.

Best PR PS could have would be to stand up be a man, become the best Father if he hasn't already..better late than never IMO....take the stand in the civil trial... well my suggestions could go on...but geesh don't let her read anymore of your whiny letters outloud and have the camera scan them upclose so that everyone can read them!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291073,00.html?sPage=fnc.entertainment/celebtrouble

All just my opinion only

[FloA]

Hello Folks,

Can't really believe people are still rehashing the PS trials. Then again, I'm still celebrating the fact that the bad boy is basking in the flourescent lighting of his 6 by 8 foot cell.

Anyway, to add a new slant (or maybe not)....suppose each of the 5 PBA victims had pressed charges against Phil for having threatened to kill them. He'd get up to 10 years for each offense equaling 50 years.
Okay, I know. Timelinewise that wouldn't have been possible, but I'd like to think of any possible scenario where Lana would still be alive.

As it is, he got what's coming to him for his PBAs at the tragic expense of Ms. Clarkson.

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Threats_to_kill

Just my opinion, folks.

[SailorsMom60]

Hello Folks,

Can't really believe people are still rehashing the PS trials. Then again, I'm still celebrating the fact that the bad boy is basking in the flourescent lighting of his 6 by 8 foot cell.

Anyway, to add a new slant (or maybe not)....suppose each of the 5 PBA victims had pressed charges against Phil for having threatened to kill them. He'd get up to 10 years for each offense equaling 50 years.
Okay, I know. Timelinewise that wouldn't have been possible, but I'd like to think of any possible scenario where Lana would still be alive.

As it is, he got what's coming to him for his PBAs at the tragic expense of Ms. Clarkson.

http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Threats_to_kill

Just my opinion, folks.

Hello FloA,
I wish they had pressed charges at the time. I never understood why they didn't. Maybe they pitied him. I don't know. I wonder if any of them think if they had, Lana might be alive today.

[FloA]

Hello FloA,
I wish they had pressed charges at the time. I never understood why they didn't. Maybe they pitied him. I don't know. I wonder if any of them think if they had, Lana might be alive today.

Hello SailorsMom.

Yep, I've wondered if they regret not having him held accountable for his terroristic actions. "If only(s)", "could haves" and "should haves" are inconsequential, sadly.:sad:

[Deannalynn]

Hello FloA,
I wish they had pressed charges at the time. I never understood why they didn't. Maybe they pitied him. I don't know. I wonder if any of them think if they had, Lana might be alive today.

I think down deep inside they were scared of what he could or would do if they did press charges. He was like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when he drank. They just wanted to keep the peace as best they could. He appeared like a weak harmless little boy when he was sober.
In addition, he always bragged about practically owning the chief of police, IIRC. They were best buddies according to Spector.
JMO

[Shevarash]

Thanks for veryifying what I did say was true rather than not, as in your previous post. I do not deliberately post things that are not. Yes, he did threaten one woman in a professional manner, no more, no less. Yet they chose to return, so they knew him and knew that he didn't mean it in any harmful way imo.

What about the statement that Adriano DeSouza was deported?

Shevarash

[Alibi Ike]

What about the statement that Adriano DeSouza was deported?

Shevarash
I do not believe he was deported and don't recall any proof to back up the statement. The sad thing is that this innocent man, who spoke English quite well and never waivered from what he heard and did that night, was vilified for being honest and telling the truth.

[Details]

I think down deep inside they were scared of what he could or would do if they did press charges. He was like a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde when he drank. They just wanted to keep the peace as best they could. He appeared like a weak harmless little boy when he was sober.
In addition, he always bragged about practically owning the chief of police, IIRC. They were best buddies according to Spector.
JMOHe had power and prestige in the field most of them worked in or aspired to work in, in the town as well. We've seen more than a few people who try to press charges against someone powerful being financially and personally destroyed.

The one that called the police - they were just entirely ready to dismiss everything, take Spector's word only - sure sounds like he maybe did nearly own the chief of police - back then.

[Nic99]

What about the statement that Adriano DeSouza was deported?

Shevarash

I apologise if I made an unintentional error in stating that imo A DeSouza was deported. However, I do remember reading an article in the LA Times where it said his deportation would proceed after the trial, so assumed that is what has since happened. The link below refers to the comment. Also, regarding my comments about AD misinterpreting what he heard; this can also be seen in the same article, see below. I know this was back in 2007, but nothing changed during the 2nd trial regarding AD's testimony, so am providing a link to show you where I have seen this, as requested:

Quoted: LA Times:

DeSouza said in court he was certain of what Spector told him, but Brunon cited a transcript showing he told police he was uncertain because of his English.

Brunon continued to point out examples of DeSouza's use of different words to describe events in different interviews, asking him several times, "Why have you changed" your testimony?

Brunon showed a videotape of DeSouza speaking to police outside of Spector's house after the shooting. Standing near the doorway where he said he encountered Spector, DeSouza described what he saw to two investigators. The loud roar of the fountain in the courtyard can be heard in the background.

Brunon asked DeSouza if, with the fountain gushing, his own excited state having seen Clarkson's dead body, and Spector possibly being drunk, he misheard the producer. "Do you think you might have heard 'I think somebody's been killed ?' "

"No," DeSouza answered.

After Brunon's cross-examination, prosecutor Alan Jackson asked DeSouza if he understood his immigration status would be addressed after the trial, with no special treatment in exchange for his testimony except for the postponement of his deportation proceeding.

Quotes snipped from link below

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/22/local/me-spector22

[oodi]

Thanks for proving the point that so many of us have been trying to make....

1. No testimony that PS ever said "Someone has been killed."

2. ADS consistently stating that PS said "I think I killed someone."

3. ADS had nothing to gain from his testimony, as he knew that deportation proceedings would continue.

4. No evidence that the deportation proceedings have concluded, and that in fact ADS has been deported.

[Nic99]

Thanks for proving the point that so many of us have been trying to make....

1. No testimony that PS ever said "Someone has been killed."

2. ADS consistently stating that PS said "I think I killed someone."

3. ADS had nothing to gain from his testimony, as he knew that deportation proceedings would continue.

4. No evidence that the deportation proceedings have concluded, and that in fact ADS has been deported.

I never said that there was testimony, I said he could have easily misinterpreted what PS said, as was said in the article. You know full well that is the point I was making. I also never stated that he had anything to gain from his testimony, but he certainly knew that he couldn't lie to the police so had to tell them that he was illegal, and, as such, was not credible due to this crime imo. Why didn't he renew his visa before? He is not as white as you may make out imo.

He changed his testimony as stated and also stated that his English was not good at the time. Yeah very credible to change your testimony of course :rolleyes: I mean he hadn't even been drinking had he, so what has his excuse for memory loss?

Believe what you like and pick and choose what you wish, but we will always differ on this, so do not twist what I was saying to suit.

imo

[hiitsme]

Your apologetic posts as to the information you are providing are quite frequent. Are you just hoping that no one will question your source or memory? As you so frequently like to refer to some here as kids, I will emphatically say, you are not playing with the kids, so please get your ducks in a row before posting your personal opinions as fact.

[oodi]

I never said that there was testimony, I said he could have easily misinterpreted what PS said, as was said in the article. You know full well that is the point I was making. I also never stated that he had anything to gain from his testimony, but he certainly knew that he couldn't lie to the police so had to tell them that he was illegal, and, as such, was not credible due to this crime imo. Why didn't he renew his visa before? He is not as white as you may make out imo.

He changed his testimony as stated and also stated that his English was not good at the time. Yeah very credible to change your testimony of course :rolleyes: I mean he hadn't even been drinking had he, so what has his excuse for memory loss?

Believe what you like and pick and choose what you wish, but we will always differ on this, so do not twist what I was saying to suit.

imo

Bolding mine...

This certainly sounds like a very racist comment. I hope that was NOT your intent.

[Nic99]

Your apologetic posts as to the information you are providing are quite frequent. Are you just hoping that no one will question your source or memory? As you so frequently like to refer to some here as kids, I will emphatically say, you are not playing with the kids, so please get your ducks in a row before posting your personal opinions as fact.

I don't recall having apologised before, I was being polite! I backed up what I said with an article which showed 'everything' I said, so you could all see where it came from. My ducks are nicely lined up thanks.

[Nic99]

Bolding mine...

This certainly sounds like a very racist comment. I hope that was NOT your intent.

For goodness sake, have you never heard the saying before! 'Someone being white or whiter than white'. It is not in anyway racial and I certainly am not and do not appreciate the remark.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/whiter+than+white

This is the context in which it was meant and I am sure its not just a UK saying?

[jaxback]

I apologise if I made an unintentional error in stating that imo A DeSouza was deported. However, I do remember reading an article in the LA Times where it said his deportation would proceed after the trial, so assumed that is what has since happened. The link below refers to the comment. Also, regarding my comments about AD misinterpreting what he heard; this can also be seen in the same article, see below. I know this was back in 2007, but nothing changed during the 2nd trial regarding AD's testimony, so am providing a link to show you where I have seen this, as requested:

Quoted: LA Times:

DeSouza said in court he was certain of what Spector told him, but Brunon cited a transcript showing he told police he was uncertain because of his English.

Brunon continued to point out examples of DeSouza's use of different words to describe events in different interviews, asking him several times, "Why have you changed" your testimony?

Brunon showed a videotape of DeSouza speaking to police outside of Spector's house after the shooting. Standing near the doorway where he said he encountered Spector, DeSouza described what he saw to two investigators. The loud roar of the fountain in the courtyard can be heard in the background.

Brunon asked DeSouza if, with the fountain gushing, his own excited state having seen Clarkson's dead body, and Spector possibly being drunk, he misheard the producer. "Do you think you might have heard 'I think somebody's been killed ?' "

"No," DeSouza answered.

After Brunon's cross-examination, prosecutor Alan Jackson asked DeSouza if he understood his immigration status would be addressed after the trial, with no special treatment in exchange for his testimony except for the postponement of his deportation proceeding.

Quotes snipped from link below

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/22/local/me-spector22

If you are under the impression that DeSouza was automatically going to be deported for being in the U.S. illegally, then you mistaken about what "deportation proceeding" actually means. It does not mean being processed for deportation, as you seem to think it does. It is one or a series of hearings on the alien's status and the charges against him/her with the final decision about removal up to the court.

According to Section 237 of the Immigration & Nationality Act, there are six classes of deportable aliens who CAN be removed after a hearing. Not WILL be removed, but CAN be removed. DeSouza's offense would fall under #1, which is defined as an adjustment of status and includes having worked without authorization or overstayed their time in the U.S.

If you really believe that with all of the deportation problems this country is having with convicted criminals that the educated and employed DeSouza could not have pleaded his case - with or without an immigration lawyer - successfully, I absolutely disagree. jmo

[Anakerie]

If you are under the impression that DeSouza was automatically going to be deported for being in the U.S. illegally, then you mistaken about what "deportation proceeding" actually means. It does not mean being processed for deportation, as you seem to think it does. It is one or a series of hearings on the alien's status and the charges against him/her with the final decision about removal up to the court.

According to Section 237 of the Immigration & Nationality Act, there are six classes of deportable aliens who CAN be removed after a hearing. Not WILL be removed, but CAN be removed. DeSouza's offense would fall under #1, which is defined as an adjustment of status and includes having worked without authorization or overstayed their time in the U.S.

If you really believe that with all of the deportation problems this country is having with convicted criminals that the educated and employed DeSouza could not have pleaded his case - with or without an immigration lawyer - successfully, I absolutely disagree. jmo
Thank you for that information, Jax... I had wondered about the process a few times in the past, but had never gone googling to find out how the process works.

The impression I had of Mr. De Souza was of an honorable man who was trying to improve himself by getting a student visa here to go to school and who had to do some "moonlighting" in order to make ends meet. If he was going to school and living in the LA area, I can imagine that he needed extra money to get by. LA is not a cheap place to live.... I do hope he is doing well and wish we had some way of finding out how he's getting on.

[jaxback]

Thank you for that information, Jax... I had wondered about the process a few times in the past, but had never gone googling to find out how the process works.

The impression I had of Mr. De Souza was of an honorable man who was trying to improve himself by getting a student visa here to go to school and who had to do some "moonlighting" in order to make ends meet. If he was going to school and living in the LA area, I can imagine that he needed extra money to get by. LA is not a cheap place to live.... I do hope he is doing well and wish we had some way of finding out how he's getting on.

My pleasure.:smile: I admired DeSouza and had the same impression of him that you did. I wish him well and would also like to know who he is doing.

And as a recent ex-Angeleno myself, I can vouch for the fact that it is a very expensive city to live in!:biggrin:

[oodi]

My pleasure.:smile: I admired DeSouza and had the same impression of him that you did. I wish him well and would also like to know who he is doing.

And as a recent ex-Angeleno myself, I can vouch for the fact that it is a very expensive city to live in!:biggrin:

LOL... I think you mean HOW he is doing.

Or was the Freudian slip intended? :biggrin:

[Nic99]

If you are under the impression that DeSouza was automatically going to be deported for being in the U.S. illegally, then you mistaken about what "deportation proceeding" actually means. It does not mean being processed for deportation, as you seem to think it does. It is one or a series of hearings on the alien's status and the charges against him/her with the final decision about removal up to the court.

According to Section 237 of the Immigration & Nationality Act, there are six classes of deportable aliens who CAN be removed after a hearing. Not WILL be removed, but CAN be removed. DeSouza's offense would fall under #1, which is defined as an adjustment of status and includes having worked without authorization or overstayed their time in the U.S.

If you really believe that with all of the deportation problems this country is having with convicted criminals that the educated and employed DeSouza could not have pleaded his case - with or without an immigration lawyer - successfully, I absolutely disagree. jmo

Thanks for your detailed information on US Immigration. I took the proceed part to mean the deportation would proceed after his testimony, not could, because that was not stated. My post was in my opinion, but was backed up with a link, so posters could see where I got the information from at the time. I did not realise you were having so many problems with convicted criminals awaiting deportation.

[hiitsme]

LOL... I think you mean HOW he is doing.

Or was the Freudian slip intended? :biggrin:

Priceless oodie

I just cut up an onion for our dinner and quickly read this and my eyes are stinging! OT, I know but how can anyone stay away from the wonderful people wanting the inevitable end for PS and still enjoying the commentary as we await his final fate.

[jaxback]

LOL... I think you mean HOW he is doing.

Or was the Freudian slip intended? :biggrin:

Totally unintended! But he was kinda cute.....:biggrin:

[jaxback]

Thanks for your detailed information on US Immigration. I took the proceed part to mean the deportation would proceed after his testimony, not could, because that was not stated. My post was in my opinion, but was backed up with a link, so posters could see where I got the information from at the time. I did not realise you were having so many problems with convicted criminals awaiting deportation.

Drug dealers, pedophiles and murderers among others in jails here wating deportation - which should be automatic in their cases, imo.

And no, before any jumps, I am NOT anti-immigration. I would just prefer people to come here legally and pull their weight.

[oodi]

hiitsme... New rule... no cooking and reading the forums at the same time. It could be hazardous! :tongueside:

jaxback... I agree. But Alan Jackson is so much more appealing. Come to think of it, so is the other Alan Jackson! I could look at the both of them all day long! :thumbsup:

I know... I need to get my mind out of the gutter. :blushing:

[Deannalynn]

I apologise if I made an unintentional error in stating that imo A DeSouza was deported. However, I do remember reading an article in the LA Times where it said his deportation would proceed after the trial, so assumed that is what has since happened. The link below refers to the comment. Also, regarding my comments about AD misinterpreting what he heard; this can also be seen in the same article, see below. I know this was back in 2007, but nothing changed during the 2nd trial regarding AD's testimony, so am providing a link to show you where I have seen this, as requested:

Quoted: LA Times:

DeSouza said in court he was certain of what Spector told him, but Brunon cited a transcript showing he told police he was uncertain because of his English.

Brunon continued to point out examples of DeSouza's use of different words to describe events in different interviews, asking him several times, "Why have you changed" your testimony?

Brunon showed a videotape of DeSouza speaking to police outside of Spector's house after the shooting. Standing near the doorway where he said he encountered Spector, DeSouza described what he saw to two investigators. The loud roar of the fountain in the courtyard can be heard in the background.

Brunon asked DeSouza if, with the fountain gushing, his own excited state having seen Clarkson's dead body, and Spector possibly being drunk, he misheard the producer. "Do you think you might have heard 'I think somebody's been killed ?' "

"No," DeSouza answered.

After Brunon's cross-examination, prosecutor Alan Jackson asked DeSouza if he understood his immigration status would be addressed after the trial, with no special treatment in exchange for his testimony except for the postponement of his deportation proceeding.

Quotes snipped from link below

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/22/local/me-spector22

De Souza stated, Phil Spector walked out holding the gun in his hand. I would find it odd in any circumstance if anyone holding the murder weapon would have said, " I think somebody's been killed."
Spector was clearly very intoxicated and I believe he thought his regular driver was out there instead of De Souza.
JMO

[Nic99]

De Souza stated, Phil Spector walked out holding the gun in his hand. I would find it odd in any circumstance if anyone holding the murder weapon would have said, " I think somebody's been killed."
Spector was clearly very intoxicated and I believe he thought his regular driver was out there instead of De Souza.
JMO

I agree, Spector was intoxicated at the time, so could have easily said 'I think somebody's been killed'. Who knows for sure; I don't and imo DeSouza could have misinterpreted, because he said his English was not great or words to that effect in the article I linked.

JMO too.

[jaxback]

hiitsme... New rule... no cooking and reading the forums at the same time. It could be hazardous!

jaxback... I agree. But Alan Jackson is so much more appealing. Come to think of it, so is the other Alan Jackson! I could look at the both of them all day long! :thumbsup:

I know... I need to get my mind out of the gutter. :blushing:

That's not the gutter, that's just a nice happy place!:laugh:

I'm a fan of both AJ's myself.

[Deannalynn]

I agree, Spector was intoxicated at the time, so could have easily said 'I think somebody's been killed'. Who knows for sure; I don't and imo DeSouza could have misinterpreted, because he said his English was not great or words to that effect in the article I linked.

JMO too.

If someone appeared that inebriated in front of me and a sober man next to him, who would I likely believe. The sober (De Souza) man who clearly knew what he heard come out of Spectors mouth. In addition, it wasn't like they were having some big party and he walked out and said, "I think somebody's been killed." There was two people in the house, Nic99, T.W.O.
Spector was alive!

[Nic99]

If someone appeared that inebriated in front of me and a sober man next to him, who would I likely believe. The sober (De Souza) man who clearly knew what he heard come out of Spectors mouth. In addition, it wasn't like they were having some big party and he walked out and said, "I think somebody's been killed." There was two people in the house, Nic99, T.W.O.
Spector was alive!

Yes, I know there were two people that were left alive there, but, Phil had only met Lana that night and its likely that AD didn't even know her name anyway, so saying 'somebody' could have happened imo.

[Alibi Ike]

[QUOTE=SanLewy;13332374]Johnny Cash, bless his soul, did prison shows at Folsom and San Quentin, but he never did a show in that hell-hole they call Corcoran.[/QUOTE

Perhaps just a prelude as to where he's going next!

[Details]

Yes, I know there were two people that were left alive there, but, Phil had only met Lana that night and its likely that AD didn't even know her name anyway, so saying 'somebody' could have happened imo."somebody" can only be killed, if there's a killer. There are only two people in the house, he did not say suicide, nor someone shot herself (even if we put the words you claim into Spector's mouth - as opposed to those that the driver has said he said from the 911 call on out) - he said "killed". Two people, one dead, the only possible killer is the other one.

[Nic99]

"somebody" can only be killed, if there's a killer. There are only two people in the house, he did not say suicide, nor someone shot herself (even if we put the words you claim into Spector's mouth - as opposed to those that the driver has said he said from the 911 call on out) - he said "killed". Two people, one dead, the only possible killer is the other one.

Not necessarily, the 'somebody' could have killed themselves imo. 'Somebody has been killed' - don't forget he had been drinking and his words may have been slightly muddled imo.

[Anakerie]

Not necessarily, the 'somebody' could have killed themselves imo. 'Somebody has been killed' - don't forget he had been drinking and his words may have been slightly muddled imo.
It would be nice if, for a change, you would use what was actually testified to at the trials, or even what was said during the 911 call instead of what you are imagining for whatever reason or motives. The quote should be "I think I killed somebody."

By the way, there is a message with a link for you on the Mrs. Spector thread. Enjoy.

[Nic99]

It would be nice if, for a change, you would use what was actually testified to at the trials, or even what was said during the 911 call instead of what you are imagining for whatever reason or motives. The quote should be "I think I killed somebody."

By the way, there is a message with a link for you on the Mrs. Spector thread. Enjoy.

Yes, I know what DeSouza claimed was said in the trial thank you. I am saying and have said over, that he could have misinterpreted. He admitted his English was not great, at the time, and I am just stating what he may have heard imo.

Yes, I saw the message and chose to ignore it.

[Anakerie]

Yes, I know what DeSouza claimed was said in the trial thank you. I am saying and have said over, that he could have misinterpreted. He admitted his English was not great, at the time, and I am just stating what he may have heard imo.

Yes, I saw the message and chose to ignore it.
You are stating your opinion of what you would like for him to have heard/said. Your opinion on that statement is rather meaningless wishful thinking, since the man was consistent in what he said from the 911 call until the 2nd trial. Spin away, Nic. Those of us who followed the trial, listened to the recordings and heard the testimony know the truth.

[Nic99]

You are stating your opinion of what you would like for him to have heard/said. Your opinion on that statement is rather meaningless wishful thinking, since the man was consistent in what he said from the 911 call until the 2nd trial. Spin away, Nic. Those of us who followed the trial, listened to the recordings and heard the testimony know the truth.

You are choosing to believe one man's word. How do you know that he did not misinterpret what he thought he heard. You don't imo. You are just agreeing that is what he heard, because that is what he said he heard. It does not mean that is what was said imo. I did follow the trial and I know what was said at testimony; it does not mean that is what actually happened imo:rolleyes:

[oodi]

You are stating your opinion of what you would like for him to have heard/said. Your opinion on that statement is rather meaningless wishful thinking, since the man was consistent in what he said from the 911 call until the 2nd trial. Spin away, Nic. Those of us who followed the trial, listened to the recordings and heard the testimony know the truth.

I agree!

I'm all for debating the case, but the debate should be based on facts... not figments of imagination. I also do not appreciate the continuous spreading of these types of falsehoods. It would be very confusing for someone else on the forum that might read the thread, and who didn't follow the case as closely. It would make it difficult for them to discern the facts from fiction.

[Nic99]

I agree!

I'm all for debating the case, but the debate should be based on facts... not figments of imagination. I also do not appreciate the continuous spreading of these types of falsehoods. It would be very confusing for someone else on the forum that might read the thread, and who didn't follow the case as closely. It would make it difficult for them to discern the facts from fiction.

I followed the trial closely and, believe it or not, not everything someone says in a trial is actually true imo. Just because AD said that is what he heard, does not imo mean that is actually what he heard. I am stating what I believe he may have heard imo. I don't believe he was credible due to his illegal visa and cannot believe what he said. That is my opinion.

[oodi]

I followed the trial closely and, believe it or not, not everything someone says in a trial is actually true imo. Just because AD said that is what he heard, does not imo mean that is actually what he heard. I am stating what I believe he may have heard imo. I don't believe he was credible due to his illegal visa and cannot believe what he said. That is my opinion.

It is a FACT that ADS testified to what he heard. Your opinion on what you think PS actually said is NOT a fact in this case.

[Eagleeye]

I followed the trial closely and, believe it or not, not everything someone says in a trial is actually true imo. Just because AD said that is what he heard, does not imo mean that is actually what he heard. I am stating what I believe he may have heard imo. I don't believe he was credible due to his illegal visa and cannot believe what he said. That is my opinion.

Come on Nic, what does an illegal visa have to do with what he knew he heard from PS? Just because he didn't report his status makes him a liar about anything he says. I guess there would be no point in posting the transcript of the trial or a video of ADS testifying since, you think that his being illegal makes him a complete liar. You have beat this drum for far too long. Is it beneath you to admit you may be wrong?

[Deannalynn]

I followed the trial closely and, believe it or not, not everything someone says in a trial is actually true imo. Just because AD said that is what he heard, does not imo mean that is actually what he heard. I am stating what I believe he may have heard imo. I don't believe he was credible due to his illegal visa and cannot believe what he said. That is my opinion.

So, what you are saying is because De Souza had an Illegal Visa he was not a credible witness knowing that Spector walked out of his house right to De Souza, stopped and said, "I think I killed somebody".
Please try and make your mind up as to your reason why you want to believe that statement of fact was not said. (Besides should have, could have)
In addition I don't know what all the hoopla is anyway. This issue is not the sole reason for the verdict.
If this is the only reason for an appeal, they may as well drop his paperwork in the round file.:sneaky: That is my opinion.

[Deannalynn]

"somebody" can only be killed, if there's a killer. There are only two people in the house, he did not say suicide, nor someone shot herself (even if we put the words you claim into Spector's mouth - as opposed to those that the driver has said he said from the 911 call on out) - he said "killed". Two people, one dead, the only possible killer is the other one.

ITA, details. Normally as a rule a drunk will tell you exactly what is on their mind. They don't embellish or lie when they are communicating with you. Especially if a tragedy just happened. Knowing Spector and his way of referring to woman I would imagine he would have walked out and approached De Souza like he did and said, "The B**ch just killed herself." That was his normal vocabulary when referring to woman, as we all have heard through both trials.
Spector would not have been holding the murder weapon and he certainly would have followed protocol and called 911 or asked De Souza to call an ambulance. No??
JMO

[True2Blues]

So, what you are saying is because De Souza had an Illegal Visa he was not a credible witness knowing that Spector walked out of his house right to De Souza, stopped and said, "I think I killed somebody".
Please try and make your mind up as to your reason why you want to believe that statement of fact was not said. (Besides should have, could have)
In addition I don't know what all the hoopla is anyway. This issue is not the sole reason for the verdict.
If this is the only reason for an appeal, they may as well drop his paperwork in the round file.:sneaky: That is my opinion.


Actually, I don't think ADS and his testimony are grounds for this appeal. This appeal is to assess whether the court made any mistakes in procedure. De Sousa was on the spot, he called 911 and his story stayed the same from start to finish.

The only other person on the property at the time of the murder is a perfectly reasonable witness and as was already said, the question of his credibility was up to the jury and they made it. That's the end of that.

[Deannalynn]

Actually, I don't think ADS and his testimony are grounds for this appeal. This appeal is to assess whether the court made any mistakes in procedure. De Sousa was on the spot, he called 911 and his story stayed the same from start to finish.

The only other person on the property at the time of the murder is a perfectly reasonable witness and as was already said, the question of his credibility was up to the jury and they made it. That's the end of that.

We have been saying "that's the end of that" since Spector was found guilty,True.:confused::biggrinjester:

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Come on Nic, what does an illegal visa have to do with what he knew he heard from PS? Just because he didn't report his status makes him a liar about anything he says. I guess there would be no point in posting the transcript of the trial or a video of ADS testifying since, you think that his being illegal makes him a complete liar. You have beat this drum for far too long. Is it beneath you to admit you may be wrong?

Goodness eagleeye..One would think he got convicted because an illegal alien testified...What about the gun in his hand when PS said it..what about the time lapse that PS held LE outside of his Castle..took off his coat upstairs, wiping down Lana's face with a wet diaper he soaked in a toilet for crying in the gravy...Sorry..PS was not convicted because of just one item of evidence...and for the record..Lana was a proverbial newbie to PS..she didnt know him at House of Blues..and I am sure by the second hour at the Castle she wished she never met the guy...She would have had no way of knowing his predilictions for guns..much less know he kept them in drawers in his foyer...Man..I just cant fathom some who want to insist PS was a victim..Yep..he was..and a long overdue one at that...He finally got caught intimidating..with loaded gun..and his human fraility caused him to KILL somebody..someone he only knew for a few hours..and I dont think Lana would even had the time to even contemplate...I am willing to bet..all she wanted to do was get back in that LIMO..and go HOME!!

LMS

[True2Blues]

We have been saying "that's the end of that" since Spector was found guilty,True.:confused::biggrinjester:

I know! :laugh:

[Deannalynn]

Goodness eagleeye..One would think he got convicted because an illegal alien testified...What about the gun in his hand when PS said it..what about the time lapse that PS held LE outside of his Castle..took off his coat upstairs, wiping down Lana's face with a wet diaper he soaked in a toilet for crying in the gravy...Sorry..PS was not convicted because of just one item of evidence...and for the record..Lana was a proverbial newbie to PS..she didnt know him at House of Blues..and I am sure by the second hour at the Castle she wished she never met the guy...She would have had no way of knowing his predilictions for guns..much less know he kept them in drawers in his foyer...Man..I just cant fathom some who want to insist PS was a victim..Yep..he was..and a long overdue one at that...He finally got caught intimidating..with loaded gun..and his human fraility caused him to KILL somebody..someone he only knew for a few hours..and I dont think Lana would even had the time to even contemplate...I am willing to bet..all she wanted to do was get back in that LIMO..and go HOME!!

LMS

Lana Clarkson absolutely wanted to go home the moment Phil Spector made a crude advance at her. That's when Lana said, it's time for me to go home, will you take me to my car. That didn't sit well with Phil Spector because he was always use to getting his way with whatever he wanted with woman. (by force)
He was drunk (very drunk) and the old Phil Spector came to surface.
Lana Clarkson was not going anywhere til he got his way with her. Lana Clarkson put her purse on her shoulder and felt safe to enter Phil Spectors foyer and sit in the chair in hopes he would call for the driver.
Instead Philip Spector walked over to his drawer pulled out his loaded gun and decided Lana wasn't going anywhere.
God only knows what what going through her mind the last moments of her life. Her family, her career and her God who she began to pray to.
Unfortunately that didn't save Lana as Phil shoved the gun in her mouth and told her she would do what he wanted her to do and wasn't going anywhere until he told her she was.
Lana lifted her hands around Spectors to try and remove the gun from her mouth and that angered Spector even more and that's when he pulled the trigger and killed her.
JMO based on the both trials.:unsure:

[SailorsMom60]

Lana Clarkson absolutely wanted to go home the moment Phil Spector made a crude advance at her. That's when Lana said, it's time for me to go home, will you take me to my car. That didn't sit well with Phil Spector because he was always use to getting his way with whatever he wanted with woman. (by force)
He was drunk (very drunk) and the old Phil Spector came to surface.
Lana Clarkson was not going anywhere til he got his way with her. Lana Clarkson put her purse on her shoulder and felt safe to enter Phil Spectors foyer and sit in the chair in hopes he would call for the driver.
Instead Philip Spector walked over to his drawer pulled out his loaded gun and decided Lana wasn't going anywhere.
God only knows what what going through her mind the last moments of her life. Her family, her career and her God who she began to pray to.
Unfortunately that didn't save Lana as Phil shoved the gun in her mouth and told her she would do what he wanted her to do and wasn't going anywhere until he told her she was.
Lana lifted her hands around Spectors to try and remove the gun from her mouth and that angered Spector even more and that's when he pulled the trigger and killed her.
JMO based on the both trials.:unsure:

This is a far more credible scenario than what the defense (or Rachell for that matter) would like us to believe.
This was a scene played out MANY time in Phil's home with many women. That's FACT!
Whether he pulled the trigger on purpose or not, he brought the gun, he murdered Lana!
Phil Spector is a convicted murderer, living in a prison where he belongs.
According to his wife, he is "unhappy"...sorry, no sympathy for him in my world.

[dref99]

I agree, Spector was intoxicated at the time, so could have easily said 'I think somebody's been killed'. Who knows for sure; I don't and imo DeSouza could have misinterpreted, because he said his English was not great or words to that effect in the article I linked.

JMO too.

DeSouza understood perfectly - his concern was that other people may not understand him NOT that he misunderstood what Spector said.

This was all covered in 2 trials - and DeSouza was proven to be an intelligent reliable witness - who rang 911 - when the person who had killed Lana Clarkson was too stupid or too drunk or just too guilty to do this one small act.

[Nic99]

Come on Nic, what does an illegal visa have to do with what he knew he heard from PS? Just because he didn't report his status makes him a liar about anything he says. I guess there would be no point in posting the transcript of the trial or a video of ADS testifying since, you think that his being illegal makes him a complete liar. You have beat this drum for far too long. Is it beneath you to admit you may be wrong?

We are never going to agree, that is quite obvious, however, I can 'beat my drum' as you so call it, as long a I wish. This is a message board where all opinions are allowed; even if they are different. It does not mean I have to admit I am wrong, just because I don't agree with others. All my posts are my opinion and I am entitled to that. I am not the one continually bringing up DeSouza; I am just answering those who are questionning my reasons continually about him and I have given them in response.

imo

[Shevarash]

Not necessarily, the 'somebody' could have killed themselves imo. 'Somebody has been killed' - don't forget he had been drinking and his words may have been slightly muddled imo.

"Killed" is not normally used in describing situations where a suicide has occurred.

Shevarash

[Shevarash]

I apologise if I made an unintentional error in stating that imo A DeSouza was deported. However, I do remember reading an article in the LA Times where it said his deportation would proceed after the trial, so assumed that is what has since happened. The link below refers to the comment.

Yes, well I believe the jury were wrong and were prejudiced against PS due to AJ and also the testimony of Adianno DeSouza, who has now been
extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant,

Your statement that "I made an unintentional error" rings false when examined against the declarative statement you made of "who has now been extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant." Mr. Adriano Desouza has never been found guilty of being an "illegal immigrant" at any trial OR INS hearing.

Shevarash

[Deannalynn]

Your statement that "I made an unintentional error" rings false when examined against the declarative statement you made of "who has now been extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant." Mr. Adriano Desouza has never been found guilty of being an "illegal immigrant" at any trial OR INS hearing.

Shevarash

Good catch, Shevarash.:thumbup:

[Deannalynn]

DeSouza understood perfectly - his concern was that other people may not understand him NOT that he misunderstood what Spector said.
This was all covered in 2 trials - and DeSouza was proven to be an intelligent reliable witness - who rang 911 - when the person who had killed Lana Clarkson was too stupid or too drunk or just too guilty to do this one small act.

Underlined by me.
Dref99. I have attempted to explain this the way you have. (short and to the point)
IIRC, De Souza was in the interrogation room and LE was asking him a load of questions quickly and he was responding when he said, "My English isn't real good." In other words slooow down, pal.
This was his respond to LE when they had him in the room right after the murder. It had nothing to do with what he heard from Spectors mouth to De Souza's ears. Five simple words, "I think I killed somebody".
MO based on the interview...

[Nic99]

Your statement that "I made an unintentional error" rings false when examined against the declarative statement you made of "who has now been extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant." Mr. Adriano Desouza has never been found guilty of being an "illegal immigrant" at any trial OR INS hearing.

Shevarash

Yes and I explained why I thought he had; because I read it as he would be deported after his testimony, etc (as per the link provided, which stated the the deportion proceed would start after his testimony) and presumed that had since been done. Therefore, my statement does not ring 'false' as you say.

I have already been all over this and it has been answered, so why are you continuing to rehash it.

[oodi]

Good catch, Shevarash.:thumbup:

Ditto that!

And the rehashing stems from the falsehoods continually being perpetuated.

[Deannalynn]

Yes and I explained why I thought he had; because I read it as he would be deported after his testimony, etc (as per the link provided, which stated the the deportion proceed would start after his testimony) and presumed that had since been done. Therefore, my statement does not ring 'false' as you say.

I have already been all over this and it has been answered, so why are you continuing to rehash it.

Good morning Nic99. You have a great passion to hang in there for Phil Spector and you believe he did not kill Lana Clarkson just as much as the majority of the posters here know he did.
Hang in there Nic99. Obviously, after two trials and a verdict by 12 jurors who took a great amount of time deliberating, these 12 jurors did not rush to judgement. That's what is important about this murder case.
12 of Phil Spector's peers took a great amount of time and found him guilty of the murder after rehashing this entire case for many days and hours.
JMO

[Deannalynn]

This is a far more credible scenario than what the defense (or Rachell for that matter) would like us to believe.
This was a scene played out MANY time in Phil's home with many women. That's FACT!
Whether he pulled the trigger on purpose or not, he brought the gun, he murdered Lana!
Phil Spector is a convicted murderer, living in a prison where he belongs.
According to his wife, he is "unhappy"...sorry, no sympathy for him in my world.

Good afternoon SailorsMom60...

The sad part about this true story is Lana Clarkson was killed instantly by the hands of Phil Spector.
The pathetic part of this true story is Rachelle having the audacity to publicly voice her sympathy for her husband, feeling sorry for him, complaining about his unhappiness in prison when he the one who ended Lana's life is still eating, sleeping, breathing and LIVING.
He ought to keep his mouth shut and just do his time. Rachelle needs
to quit making a spectacle of herself.
NO ONE believes that ridiculous lie and cry for help for her poor murderous husband.

The next best thing forthcoming is on a front page newspaper. (in bold letters)

"Appellate motion denied in Philip Spector's appeal."

JMO
"

[Shevarash]

Yes and I explained why I thought he had; because I read it as he would be deported after his testimony, etc (as per the link provided, which stated the the deportion proceed would start after his testimony) and presumed that had since been done. Therefore, my statement does not ring 'false' as you say.

I have already been all over this and it has been answered, so why are you continuing to rehash it.

Your profile states that you live in the UK, where the English language and grammar was born.

You made a Declarative statement, in the past tense, of “who has now been extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant.” Then to attempt to cover up your error, you say “I made an unintentional error”. Thus, in my opinion, your statement does ring false.

I will continue to rehash misstatements until they are corrected just as you continue to rehash Mr. Adriano Desouza ability to understand the English language.

Shevarash

[Nic99]

Your profile states that you live in the UK, where the English language and grammar was born.

You made a Declarative statement, in the past tense, of “who has now been extradited from the US as an illegal immigrant.” Then to attempt to cover up your error, you say “I made an unintentional error”. Thus, in my opinion, your statement does ring false.

I will continue to rehash misstatements until they are corrected just as you continue to rehash Mr. Adriano Desouza ability to understand the English language.

Shevarash

Sheesh Shevarash,

I have already answered this post. I made an unintentional error as I stated, because according to the link I read (one of many), it stated that ADS's deportation would proceed, etc, etc, after his testimony. So I presumed this had happened after his testimony, as stated. Get it.

Yes, I am in England, where the language and punctuation were born. Apostrophes are my speciality in punctuation.