We Ain't Gonna See It Live.

[Jayne]

Somebody out there...in the media...has to have some interest to keep up with those of us in these threads who have followed this trial from day ONE and are looking forward to this PS2.

This wasn't a glove that didn't fit...it wasn't an attorney who absconded with a bag of "goods" or a former Wife murdered...although..YES that was newsworthy.

Here there is a music industry ICON..who totes guns..threatens people, especially women who come to his Invite into his House..then wants to keep Captive. HEY..where was that "kidnapping" charge, btw? He wears a woman's coat (I really don't have a problem with that..BUT there was blood on it) then claims (only through his astute attorneys) that he didn't have it ON or was running toward her to SAVE her from herself, or somesuch when his guest allegedly SHOT HERSELF in HIS HOUSE? Newsworthy? Especially after the last Hung Jury and the TV and news coverage of that one?

Maybe the reason the Media isn't interested is because they TOO believe he's Guilty and don't want to take it to the waves? Not worth of their time or money? Maybe so. I guess I'd just let the whole thing go down the tubes (TV and all). If they don't cover it..then they're essentially saying he's guilty? Or not? Where are the former media people..the ones we all loved? Why can't they put in a petition to cover this trial? Beth Karas...absolutely great and not one sided...gotta give her that..I loved her commentaries. Loni and Marta? Jamie? Vinnie? Etc. Etc.?

I understand if it were a mass murderer in a little town..with little reknown..why bother? This is just a celebrity who had millions glued to the TV last year during PS1 who got them great ratings, I'm sure, and with comments back and forth on their sites and they had "fun" with it...to their not expense but recompense and more.

Just don't get it..why no one wants to step in here and televise or at least "report" as best they can or can afford on this PS2 trial. There are plenty of people who want this..who would respond...who could keep those reporters and stations ON CALL and IN BUSINESS for this trial. Upping their ratings and giving some reporter a KUDO in the news.

What's up with that?

If I were independently wealthy and didn't have to work a many hours a week job, I'd be petitioning to cover it...outside if not inside. I DO understand if JF wants to keep it outside the courtroom. Actually...it might end up better than last time..thinking about it!

jmo

J

(OK..you got it my friend..I tried to post this thread. )

[kennedy06]

Are you suggesting some sort of reverse discrimintation against PS because of his wealth and eccentric ways that they have already considered him guilty and not worth their time????

To be honest I consider the no interest comments by the media to be an insult to the memory of Lana C and to Phil's celebrity status. I post about the memory of Lana very respectfully.

He didn't grow up in Beverly Hills or the Castle he started off like most in modest surroundings. So if that is your angle your way off base this case isn't about money and who he can hire it is about him fighting for the best defense he can afford. He earned the money and the accolades. That shouldn't be held against him. On the other side no matter who he is or how much money he may have accumulated over the years he deserves the same vigorous prosecution as any lowlife gang member on the streets of Alhambra that is involved with a shooting.

Just because he is a man of wealth and leisure I think he deserves the same type of coverage as Joe 6 pack would. He is still relevant, heck I just looked over at youtube there are 2 newly added videos, one quite well done and complimentary I believe of him and the other well, while very dark in its satire of him and tacky at best. The second one they actually wrote a weird song about him. Even if its NOT my cup of tea, I think it DOES show he and this case are still relevant and still show that even as of yesterday he is still being thought about in different venues. Maybe not our way of expressing interest but, in their own way of supporting or whatever about him.

I agree with your comment about those being able to view our discussions without real expense to them but recompense.

Comparing his trial to OJ's first trial, at least one victim was known to the accused in this case she was a perfect stranger to him. It makes it even more of an interesting case to me. We may not have had a glove don't fit moment but, who knows with this next trial, for either side. That is a curious point you pointed out about the kidnapping charge!! She was sitting there in the chair with her purse straps on her, obviously waiting to leave.

He should have stuck with Shapiro, look what he did for OJ in his first trial. I can't help but wonder if he doesn't regret that decision now.

I have tried to picture him running towards her as you suggested but wouldn't he have to had been running sideways at her to only get the blood on one side of his ladies coat???? That would be awkward where would he have been running from? The bathroom, the couch??

This trial has more angles to it, it is hard to keep up with them all. If what the defense has tried to say she searched and found a gun then it is kind of a frightening idea that you would have to watch any guest that comes to your home.

I would think those that thought JF was unfair to PS would be those that would fight the hardest to get coverage. It is one thing for a few the courtroom to see and hear and know of rulings but it is another for the world to see!!

JMO as always

[Jayne]

NO, Kennedy..I did NOT suggest it..LKB did..that he was running towards her to stop her..remember that? Or that he was so many feet away and just got "spurted" with blood..while the entire floor between them was blood free? Hello? Guess it was the Blood Spatter Fairy instead of the Tooth Fairy?

Yeah..I agree..he'd have had to been doing the foxtrot or two step or better yet...the Tango...to get the blood on his jacket that way..IF he had it on (which I do believe..and I do believe he was within just 24-30 inches of her at the time..at arms length, if you get what I mean)..and if he didn't...where was it? hanging from the ceiling with only the left lapel and side near her blood spurting like Linda Blair's spewing? At least she hit everything in the room, not to mention the entire jacket of the "preacher"!

Then..they'll say...it was such a self inflicted shot and the blood was everywhere..OR..NO...it was just "contained" due to it being in the back of her skull/spinal column..so little got out. OK..then? How did it get on his jacket? He couldn't have been running towards her..right? Otherwise, like I said..there would have been blood all over the floor and the rest of the foyer. No..that was LKB's claim..I remember it distinctly from PS1.

But..what if she was correct? and the little guy with the broom (Aesop's fables) came in and swept up the floors but forgot PS's jacket? What if Lana herself got out of the chair and "cleaned up" before expiring? Wasn't it Spitz or whoever..claimed she could be like a chicken with it's head cut off..still moving about? Dancing and singing Da Do Run Run? (NO I know he didn't say that...I'm just expounding in ridiculousness..)

[kipswife]

hey everyone,

went to jury selection on friday. will write it up tomorrow morning. needless to say, it was really interesting and the highlight of my trip

m

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by kipswife

hey everyone,

went to jury selection on friday. will write it up tomorrow morning. needless to say, it was really interesting and the highlight of my trip

m

YEAH..can't wait to hear about it..do it NOW!

J

[Shotzie]

If I remember right Sprocket that went almost everyday to trial one and reported back to us, is planning on going again. so hopefully we can get a little insight to what is going on..no tv..bummer

[kennedy06]

I have tried to post often to show there is interest to the point I'm sure many are tired of my posts. I think the legal edge is the best chance of gavel to gavel. They are done with OJ now. He did a great job with that and gave us some good interviews also. I have emailed them again asking for PS coverage as I hope everyone else has. After watching his intro on the consumer segment he seems like just the guy to listen to us! Lets hope he does

CW did let us know that there will be some coverage by our IS channel. So there is still hope for some coverage. I can't see Lisa, Jamie and Ashley not wanting to discuss it. They did a great job last time.

As snowbird posted I find something strange about this lack of coverage also. There could be how many years before another celebrity trial barring any sports figures and they don't want to cover this most unusual one?

JMO

Originally Posted by kennedy06

I have tried to post often to show there is interest to the point I'm sure many are tired of my posts. I think the legal edge is the best chance of gavel to gavel. They are done with OJ now. He did a great job with that and gave us some good interviews also. I have emailed them again asking for PS coverage as I hope everyone else has. After watching his intro on the consumer segment he seems like just the guy to listen to us! Lets hope he does

CW did let us know that there will be some coverage by our IS channel. So there is still hope for some coverage. I can't see Lisa, Jamie and Ashley not wanting to discuss it. They did a great job last time.

As snowbird posted I find something strange about this lack of coverage also. There could be how many years before another celebrity trial barring any sports figures and they don't want to cover this most unusual one?

JMO

I've thought of trying to enlist some help from the 350 or so people that are always posting in the Caylee Anthony topic. Actually, I've been one of them at times. I'll come here and find no one around then go there to watch the action. I'd like to tell the people viewing that thread that they just may not get to watch the trial of Casey Anthony for the same reason we are not getting to watch the Spector trial.

With the economy going south we don't have the chance of a snowball in heck getting anyone to make the investment in televising anything right now, but it looks like TPTB have been putting this on the back burner for some time.

It seems that one network still has a lock on all the trial coverage contracts or whatever the court gives you to allow you to tape the trial. But that network is no longer seriously interested in trial coverage, doing the barest minimum necessary to keep alive the fiction of there being trial coverage available to the public.

Someone mentioned in one of the blogs or here that perhaps a private party could tape the trial and people could pay-per-view to watch it. Guess it's a little late for even that now.

[nsm]

Originally Posted by snowbird01

I can't believe the stations that Live Stream really believe there is not enough interest in this trial. Its not like he is just Joe-6pack. This is a famous man - and famous for being nutty - which is always interesting
to the general public - or there would be no Nat. Enquirer and other such rags. There is something strange about this lack of coverage.

Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

[nsm]

I hope it ends like the OJ trial, with PS having to put his hands behind his back and being led to jail.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/philspectortrial/

Here's a link to the petition to have the trial televised. I put it in links, but this will be convenient if you are reading here.

[JopNop]

Originally Posted by NavyMom58

I have to ask myself where the media is getting this information that no one is interested in the PS trial, some third world country? I think if they would just spend the time and REALLY check, they would find more than enough interest.

I guess Trutv would rather show reruns of the Candid Camera trial for the 5th time!

I would like to think that a station devoted to trials and criminal justice would be all over this live trial!

Go figure!

Originally Posted by nsm

Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

It is purely up to the Judge to allow cameras in the courtroom. Whether the networks decide to do it is another issue. Petition all you like but if TruTV has something scheduled for that time slot we are SOL

[kipswife]

morning all,

so going to court was amazing. i took notes so i will rewrite them for you and add other thoughts in as i go. feel free to ask questions, maybe i will be able to answer them.

I got up early on friday morning and got a ride downtown ( about ten blocks from my hotel ) to the Stanley Moss courthouse. I go inside and take the elevator to the top floor which is only the sixth floor. After wandering around the sixth, fifth, and fourth floor, i finally found someone to ask and was told i was in the wrong courthouse. GREAT....i needed to go outside and over two blocks. cool...i can do that, good thing i got there by 8:30 so i had time.
I get to the criminal courthouse and so through sercurity, find the elevator with a hundred other people and take it to the 9th floor. there is another sercurity checkpoint on the 9th floor and the guards there are very helpful. they point me to Judge Filder courtroom. I am so excited. as i go down the hallway, i see about 100 or so perspective jurors. many different types of people, all ages, sizes, race. it was quite a selection of the population of LA. I am now standing in front of the courtroom of the Honorable Judge Larry Paul Fidler. I open the door and go in. WOW. room holds about 80 people, seems larger on TV. there are 2 other people in the gallery, who have other business with the court before juror selection starts. it is about 9:15 now. we are suppose to start about 10 am.
there are four rows of seats and i am sitting at the end of the third row so when PS walks in, he will have to walk within 3 feet of me. so will everyone else for that matter. so i sit now and wait. there is the judge's bench up there. this really is great. i see a different chair up at the defense table....didnt PS have a special type of chair?
someone just brought in a huge stack of papers....atleast 15 inches tall. I hear them say that they are the questions for the panel. just the first panel. i see a box of questions on the outside table and sneak a peak at them. pretty general questions....didnt get to look at them for long. should have taken one. people in the courtroom now are the baliff, who is a big fellow, the court clerk who is named wendy and the stenograhper who's forearm is covered with a tattoo.
I see the judge...he just walked out to sign some papers. he is quite handsome...but i do have a thing for a shiny head. he signed some papers and went back to chambers. i justed walked out to the little girls room and the hallway is now packed with people,
judge is now on the bench for another matter. takes two minutes and the only other person in the gallery is now leaving. i am now sitting alone here. no PS yet, no AJ yet. it is now 9:45. just heard the clerk say that they expect the trial to be over by late Jan.

Ladies and Gentlemen............PS has just walked into the courtroom with two bodyguards and the wifey. he is walking right towards me, he has to turn next to me. i am the only person in the room. when he looked at me it was like he was either trying to figure out if he had seem me before or knew me. i never took my eyes away from his. his expression is blank. he is a strange looking guy. not much taller than me and i am only 5'3" on a tall day. he is dressed in a dark suit (very nice one) with a bright white shirt and a white silk tie. great two tone shoes. wifey sits in the front row across from my section. not much to say about her....will leave it at that for now. wifey ask PS if he would like some coffee, he answered with a raspy voice. wifey and bodyguard leave room to go get coffee. PS's lawyers arrive...dont recognize anyone of them. two women and one man. maybe one of the women is jury selection person.
So now i am just sitting here and PS is just feet from me....why, why did Lana go home with him. he is soooooo creepy, even when he smiles. i am still the only person in the gallery. PS stares at me and I dont look away. no way will i look away from this creep...he doesnt scare me. he is pityfull, really. PS sits slumped in his chair, his arms are hanging down the outside of the chair, shoulders slumped too. His chair is actually facing me, so if he looks up I am what he sees. I am always looking at him, just so he knows he is a freak show to watch.
Alan Jackson just walked in....wow....wow....wow...talk about good looking. his new assistant DA is with him. AJ is really handsome.
wifey just returned with PS's cup of coffee, which is almost as big as he is. wifey just said something about how when she goes to the gym, people think she is a cop because she is hanging out with cops/sercurity so much she now takes on their behaviors.....whatever.
PS is now talking about the VP debate last nite with his lawyers. he is saying how he should answers questions like Palin did. he is being very aminated right now. talking about how he should answer whatever is asked by talking about something totally different from the questions. talk about his carreer or such. i would bet my money that he is voting for Obama...that could change my vote (just kidding). wifey has a nasty laugh.
just got informed by the court staff that there may not be any public seats when the jury comes in because there are so many of them. cant stand in the entrance. i dont want to leave....damn it.
PS is now up talking to his wife but his voice is so raspy i cant make out what he is saying ...... and i am really trying to hear it.
jurors are now coming in...i have been told that the most important part of this selection is to make sure the jurors stay anatomist. they dont want anyone to be identifed....do they do that for all LA jurys, I wonder.
I just got kicked out because there were not enough seats.....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. the bodyguards are in the hallway too. doesnt look like i will be getting back in this morning and i have other things i would like to do this afternoon.
this was so worth doing, I just cant tell you guys how fun it was.
PS is not the first killer i have ever seen....went to susan polks trial everyday. saw ed kemper in (santa cruz killer) prison once. PS takes the cake though....he is creeper than either of them and kemper killed like five women and his mother.

that is all i have about my trip to court. i wish i were better able to express the how it felt to be there and be part of the process, even a tiny bit. i know that you guys understand. so glad i have some people to share this with.....hubby thinks i am goofy at times with trials but he loves me anyway.

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by nsm

Maybe PS doesnt want it....does he have that option? Or for that matter, does any defendant have the right NOT to have cameras in the courtroom?

Some do...it depends on the case and particularly the age of the defendant, particularly a young child who is a witness. I don't know whether to call it a "right" but it's a protective matter by the Court/State. Some children as potential witnesses are even protected from taking the stand and instead do a taped video or deposition - it all depends on the state, court, circumstances. I honestly can't tell you..right now without researching it..whether PS would have any right or say about cameras in the courtroom. I could NOT believe it..in another case on these boards where the defendant was "pro per" and actually got to Question/"witness" the child victim..I think it was the case where he maliciously and brutally killed her brother and tortured her as well. Just Sickening that that poor child Had to take the stand and be questioned by the very monster who hurt her and her brother. I say it's just fine to allow a defendant to represent himself, but to allow him to question a victim, especially a child, on the stand, I find reprehensible, even if the child/guardian agrees. Let the public defender step in, whether the defendant likes it or not..for that limited purpose, perhaps. Sorry..that was sort of a tangent. But it made me think..what if PS defended himself and was questioning the PBA witnesses? They're obviously adults and could hold their own and PS would probably not want to be questioning them anyway - he'd blow it after his first question, I'd imagine. What a fiasco that would be. 3d person, 1st person...almost like "Who's on First?"

Frankly, I'd think He would want the publicity, on camera..but maybe not, since it isn't his most favourable light. And the defense could be arguing and motioning (although I haven't heard of it) about No Cameras..arguing for a Fair Trial the benefit of which outweighs the right of the media and public..However, trials are "public"..can't get around that one. There are interesting "reads" out there on First Amendment, public trials, cameras, etc. Wish I could quote or cite them for you, but I don't have it handy right now and I was foolish enough to not "save them to favourites"...do a google search if you're interested in reading about it. I found it rather fascinating.

I know this was no real answer..but maybe a little bit?

J

[Jayne]

You write wonderfully, IMO...you made it interesting..with humour and "facts". I saw PS's photo going into trial..I have to agree that he looked particularly DAPPER (NOT to get into that Fashion Thing again..but he DID..IMO...won't say the same for Chelle...who I don't mean to be MEAN, but she dresses like a teenager..Heck why not Match Him in Style? Anyway...no slams at me for that, please..)

I'm sorry you didn't make it back Inside..but waiting for the rest of your story. And..glad you didn't get stopped by security..I was concerned about that..NOT that you're a criminal, mind you, LOL...I had just posted to be careful what is in your purse, etc.

Gheesh..I really wish you could have heard the jury questions..did you get back inside?

Glad you had a Great Time...I thought about you...kindly...and not jealously..just with a tad bit of "nice envy" (not Green (although CA is!)!

J

Before the OJ trial CNN was announcing trial coverage every day. Of course, that got interrupted by the bailout coverage, but I think they were surprised to find so little interest in the trial by most people. Ergo, no one is interested in second trials. Ergo, no one is interested in the Spector re-trial.

They couldn't be more wrong. How can the media be so wrong about what people actually want to watch. Perhaps it is because they are always pitching to a different market than the one they have. If middle aged, middle classed people watch trials, switch to something the 19-year-olds want. Instead of a steady, smaller audience they fight over the pickings in the bigger ones.

[kennedy06]

Feed back

Hey TruTV if no gavel to gavel camera I would take a link to just listen to the coverage!! How about that!!

JMO

[ms1950]

Trial watchers may have an opportunity to watch the retrial of Phil Spector! The site, The Legal Edge is attempting to set up a live stream of the trial, gavel to gavel! Many of you may have watched the OJ trial there. If you are interested in seeing the trial (as I am) please go there and sign up. Here's the deal though, it will be presented pay per view. If enough of us want to watch the whole trial, costs go down, The more the merrier! So, if all you peps want to watch this guy go down, let's unite and do it!

I really love trial watching and I know you guys do too.

I hope it was okay to post this, I'm just real excited that we may be able to catch the whole trial instead of sound bites.

Thanks!

[Lana]

I would LOVE to be able to watch it. Been looking forward to it. I just don't know if I can afford it.

[warhorse46]

I would love to watch the trial live & I just do not understand why networks are saying there is not enough interest in watching a retrial.

[warhorse46]

Go here & leave a comment.

http://blog.thelegaledge.com/?p=56#comment-47

[Cornblossom]

It's my understanding,as with all pay per views if you don't pay you don't watch. I can afford the 35.00 a month,I can afford whatever Michel sets as a price...but what I have against this idea is if I pay my money and then miss some of the trial...that's going to tick me off..and I mean if it's my fault,audio fault or visual fault. What if your computer crashes? Is the trial going to be archived? Am I going to end up reading a blog anyway?
I'm VERY surprised this isn't going to be shown on Tv..unless they are slipping a new concept in on us...if you want to see a certain trial bad enough-it'll be pay per view.

[kennedy06]

I guess this is good for our own IS to see the interest also!

Count me in!

[True2Blues]

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it.

[Cornblossom]

Originally Posted by True2Blues

I don't understand either Warhorse. There were a lot of people online following the testimony live. If the 'ratings' that they all claim weren't good were from Nielson, then they aren't worth anything anyway. Not for a small specialized network like CTV/IS.

No one asked me if I was watching PS1. Did they ask you?

Besides, I know that there have been requests to cover the trial going in to IS and CNN for months now. If there wasn't any interest in the case why would that be happening?

What I do recall is CNN taking over online coverage when CTV became TruTV and having a greeting that said something about CNN hoping to be able to air more than one trial at a time, like Extra had done on CTV, so people could choose what to watch. If they'd made that effort, we might not be begging everyone to carry the PS trial now.

Is there something really spectacular coming up in November? Some big case that caused headlines? I could at least see where a decision had to be made in that case, but so far, all I'm seeing are canned trials. I just don't get it.

It is my understanding that the trials weren't going to be rated anyway, so how do they know no interest was shown? LOL

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by Cornblossom

It's my understanding,as with all pay per views if you don't pay you don't watch. I can afford the 35.00 a month,I can afford whatever Michel sets as a price...but what I have against this idea is if I pay my money and then miss some of the trial...that's going to tick me off..and I mean if it's my fault,audio fault or visual fault. What if your computer crashes? Is the trial going to be archived? Am I going to end up reading a blog anyway?
I'm VERY surprised this isn't going to be shown on Tv..unless they are slipping a new concept in on us...if you want to see a certain trial bad enough-it'll be pay per view.

If nothing else, it's showing who cares what the viewers do want to see and who doesn't. It's not like no one has showed an interest in seeing PS2 aired. There have been requests going in for weeks, months, to IS and CNN.

Even though IS doesn't provide an address for programming like CTV did. I guess they were trying to make it clear the viewer's interest isn't welcome. It didn't stop us, but then no plan is perfect.

If this were any other case, I wouldn't be willing to pay $35.00 a month to see it and that's a fact, so anyone planning to run away with that idea is in for a disappointment.

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by Cornblossom

It is my understanding that the trials weren't going to be rated anyway, so how do they know no interest was shown? LOL

I remember them saying that too, so why should they care?

Unless they are looking at Neilson ratings from the last trial, I have no idea where that came from. If they actually wanted an accurate idea of how many watched that trial, they should have checked the message boards. That trial was busy all day and half the night.

They've gotten actual requests to air PS2, shouldn't that tell them something? It's the only trial I have ever requested they carry.

[Cornblossom]

Originally Posted by True2Blues

I remember them saying that too, so why should they care?

Unless they are looking at Neilson ratings from the last trial, I have no idea where that came from. If they actually wanted an accurate idea of how many watched that trial, they should have checked the message boards. That trial was busy all day and half the night.

They've gotten actual requests to air PS2, shouldn't that tell them something? It's the only trial I have ever requested they carry.

I'm not interested in half the trials they've been showing,that didn't stop them from showing them LMAO Yet...there's this big boo haha about showing a trial like the Spector trial? what gives? A trial is a trial...doesn't cost any more to set up a Spector trial as it did an OJ one. IMO

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by Cornblossom

I'm not interested in half the trials they've been showing,that didn't stop them from showing them LMAO Yet...there's this big boo haha about showing a trial like the Spector trial? what gives? A trial is a trial...doesn't cost any more to set up a Spector trial as it did an OJ one. IMO

Exactly. It's still a murder trial, it isn't required that anyone had to see the first to watch the second and actual viewers are asking that it be covered.

A live trial beats canned trials any day as far as I'm concerned.

[kennedy06]

Just to add a little paranoia to the mix, I have wondered if someone in particular doesn't want it shown or someone that may work for them. I can remember checking out in the grocery store and the lady bagging the groceries mentioned getting home to watch the trial and how her elderly mother watched it. Needless to say we struck up a conversation!

Heck in a conversation with my physician he asked what had I been up to, I chuckled watching the PS trial and even he started asking me questions about it and new many facts himself. I don't get this no interest either. Of course its not on everyones minds but enough for magazines, newspapers,tv station's news coverage and documentary type specials to mention the trial and PS.

I dont think there will ever be another trial like the 1st OJ trial,they can't expect that, but I do believe as far as trial interest and coverage goes this trial had to have ranked in the top 10. JMO

JMO

[Cornblossom]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

Just to add a little paranoia to the mix, I have wondered if someone in particular doesn't want it shown or someone that may work for them. I can remember checking out in the grocery store and the lady bagging the groceries mentioned getting home to watch the trial and how her elderly mother watched it. Needless to say we struck up a conversation!

Heck in a conversation with my physician he asked what had I been up to, I chuckled watching the PS trial and even he started asking me questions about it and new many facts himself. I don't get this no interest either.

JMO

my doctor had the waiting room TV turned to the trial..everyone was watching it.....and no one complained! One reason why I didn't mind making appointments during that trial.

[Jayne]

I don't know the answer here...I realize there are many of us who WANT this coverage, even if we can't watch it (day by day...meaning me and maybe others?)..but we'd be willing to GET IT..since we'd get to be able to watch videos of it?

Again...I'm willing to shell out $20 per month..even though I'd probably ever see a moment of trial...to ensure that it IS there for my fellow posters..and be able to access an archive, so to speak and see what other's saw.

BUT..I want reassurances that my $20 a month is not going for nothing.

Believe me..I've read the posts as to how much it costs...Sure..I work for a firm..they Bill at X amount of dollars but I get paid Xless amount of dollars per hour.
I'm still saying..and I may be indeed wrong..but with even two employees at 10K per month..there is another 10K for equipment, licenses, etc. and those licenses..if contracted appropriately among all the other cases..might come up to 2K per case? It depends..I'm just saying that 35 a month is a bit too much for a monthly fee. I'd say..how about $5.00 per month...no rebates, just for the opportunity..then as you view.. $2.00 per day...if you view 20 days per month..that's $45.00 per month. Id' think from all of our interest in this trial that just might be a better deal..get a monthly "low fee"..then charge per day per view, even if it is not live but saved video?

I'm really trying to back this up but trying to be fair to myself, of course!, and others.

MJB has my $20 per month..if he can work something out like this...because if he took $5 per month..he might actually get 45 out of me..just one little person..

jmo

j

[True2Blues]

It doesn't matter how much you may be willing to spend over all. This is a case of will there will be enough there to pay for the equipment, personell and upload to get it out in the first place.

This trial isn't part of the budget at TLE, they have already decided to put their $$ money into other things. What is being offered, as I understand it, is the organization and coordination of providing a live feed of the trial. The money is on those who want the feed to exist.

No one is going to lease equipment or run it for what they 'might' get when it's over. The equipment has to be paid for, the people need to eat and pay bills and no one will be uploading for free.

That money has to be provided before the equipment is handed over, the feed goes up, and regularly to the people who need to make a living running it. It HAS to be there or there is no feed.

This is a do it yourself project, it has to be supported as it goes. It's not what we'd prefer, but if we want it, we're going to have to pay for it and that's the bottom line.

If 1000 people cannot be found who will commit to $35.00 a month there will be no feed. If more are found, the amount will go down.

It is what it is.

[Joan-Pa.]

There is no way that TLE or Michel will know who is watching how many hours a day, or if they are at work and can't watch, so the money has to come up front, and equal for everyone, or it will not be seen.
When he reconsidered airing it, he stated that he would still probalby show 4 or 5 shorter trials live, and would do this one extra, or sperately but would have to do it as a 'pay for view' to cover the cost to do it seperately from the other trials he would be covering. He was trying to do it as a favor to all of us that were dissapointed that IN SESSION and KTLA wouldn't be covering it.
I know i assumed that IS/CTV would be covering it, since they did the first, and was shocked that they are not. Big mistake on their part.

So If we want to see this trial, we have to go by Michel's rules, and hopefully get enough people willing to pay and watch.
That is are only choice.

[Cornblossom]

Will you get your money back if you can't watch it after paying for it?
Are you helping pay for everyone to watch it or just yourself? I mean there's some people here I wouldn't want to watch it if they couldn't.
You have 1,000 viewers(payers) this month,but not that many the second month.......does "production" shut down?
You send money for a three month trial and it only lasts 2 months?

[coinoutlet]

Count me in ...and $35 is not too steep for the number of hours of entertainment that will be provided.

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by True2Blues

It doesn't matter how much you may be willing to spend over all. This is a case of will there will be enough there to pay for the equipment, personell and upload to get it out in the first place.

This trial isn't part of the budget at TLE, they have already decided to put their $$ money into other things. What is being offered, as I understand it, is the organization and coordination of providing a live feed of the trial. The money is on those who want the feed to exist.

No one is going to lease equipment or run it for what they 'might' get when it's over. The equipment has to be paid for, the people need to eat and pay bills and no one will be uploading for free.

That money has to be provided before the equipment is handed over, the feed goes up, and regularly to the people who need to make a living running it. It HAS to be there or there is no feed.

This is a do it yourself project, it has to be supported as it goes. It's not what we'd prefer, but if we want it, we're going to have to pay for it and that's the bottom line.

If 1000 people cannot be found who will commit to $35.00 a month there will be no feed. If more are found, the amount will go down.

It is what it is.

OK..I get your point..my cyber fellow poster.

I'm out...I don't have 35 a month..but if he or anyone wants to take 20 per month..as "extra" then I'm in. and, like I said.. I will not get to view a thing..except after the fact..it's all for everyone else's benefit...so that's why I say $20. Pay per view for not getting to view.



J

[tartangirl]

For me the question is who does not want to see the second Phil Spector murder trial? All my contacts are saying yes to seeing it ...and seeing it all.

We have all used our voices, and our typing skills to show our displeasure with the decisions made by many media outlets to ignore this trial. We now have a chance to have the trial brought to us gavel to gavel. Who could ask for anything more? Well, sitting in that courtroom with all the prime subjects would just about make my life more than dang happy right now. The world is a mess, our country is at odds with itself and this is almost one little thing that I can use some control over.

Hells Bells, YES....I want to see it

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

When does this trial start? We have to pay to watch it?