Feb. 2 thru Feb.23

[hiitsme]

After reading Sprocket's blog detailing Alan Jackson's cross, I am at a loss as to how that outrageously expensive testimony helped the defense theory that Lana held the gun and pulled the trigger. He conceded to a few crucial points which favor the prosecution. I will admit that I find "blood spatter" analysis confusing, so for that amount of money I was expecting an AHA moment from Mr. James. In my view, Alan Jackson has once again leveled the playing field.

[dref99]

Originally Posted by True2Blues

What's the big deal? There is no law in the Universe, written or unwritten, that says every person must read one specific blog and deem it the greatest piece of reporting ever to be done.

It's a matter of personal preference, not an attack and worth attacking over. No one said don't read it. Read what you like and we'll do the same. Why is everyone taking this so personally? Geesh.

I have not overly praised or criticised anyone - I simply am trying to understand why folks are determined not to read the most useful information available about the trial. I enjoy discussing the legalities of the issues, and the evidence as presented by both sides. The more people who join the discussion the more interesting it may become, but if you cannot for some reason, read the detail of the sessions, it becomes rather difficult to discuss.

The way it appears, AJ cross examined the most recent witness - highlighting that all the PP presentation was for "teaching jurors" and did not replicate anything in this case.

Followed up by discussing how could an example of blood falling 100cm (that's a meter - over 3feet) and many other examples be relevant to this case. Things started to sound a little like an aha moment again, and a brief comment by the witness (then corrected) that an "exception to gravity" occurred.

I did not read alot of benefit to the defense in this session, but if anyone saw it differently, please give some details.

Regardless, I am still impressed with Weinberg, He seems to keep well away from surrounding events - concentrating purely on the PS defense - in comparison to some of the lawyers in trial 1.

jmo

[dref99]

Originally Posted by hiitsme

After reading Sprocket's blog detailing Alan Jackson's cross, I am at a loss as to how that outrageously expensive testimony helped the defense theory that Lana held the gun and pulled the trigger. He conceded to a few crucial points which favor the prosecution. I will admit that I find "blood spatter" analysis confusing, so for that amount of money I was expecting an AHA moment from Mr. James. In my view, Alan Jackson has once again leveled the playing field.

How come you said that so much better than me - using half the number of words

[hiitsme]

Originally Posted by dref99

How come you said that so much better than me - using half the number of words

That's a compliment, because I have difficulty with short concise responses. You just outlined the details I had in mind before I posted!

[Spectorfan8]

Hello everyone,

After sleeping on it and talking to a friend, he helped me decide to stay.


Spectorfan8 is BACK!!!!

[tartangirl]

Sometimes things just make sense after a good night's sleep and a quiet talk with a friend.

You should stay as long as you can....it is getting juicy..is that possible with a murder trial?...and you will feel better seeing it to the end.

No matter how we all feel here, some posters are good to have around. I think you just might be one of those posters.

take care,

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

[Spectorfan8]

Originally Posted by tartangirl

Sometimes things just make sense after a good night's sleep and a quiet talk with a friend.

You should stay as long as you can....it is getting juicy..is that possible with a murder trial?...and you will feel better seeing it to the end.

No matter how we all feel here, some posters are good to have around. I think you just might be one of those posters.

take care,

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

Touche'

[kennedy06]

Since I missed the turnover of the threads I will thank my2cents for the link to the hotel lawsuit. It was interesting to read the agent was dropped from the suit, though the name Jennifer B. sounds very similar to the name Sprocket mentions as sitting at the defense table? Maybe a coincidence or I'm missing something.

As for Joe F., I also wonder who he/she is but they do seem to mention a thing or two at times that Sprocket doesn't like a cell phone going off or whatnot. So I guess it is just a guess as to who is really writing that blog but, I would take it they are in that courtroom many times or at least they are getting a heads up from someone that is

[kennedy06]

So today is Feb 2. We can once again look back on the events in both Phil's and Lana's lives that led up to that fateful night. I was thinking about Lana's shoes the mary janes a shoe that gives the sense of innocents and sensibility. hmmm

Tomorrow Feb 3 a date that touched the music industry with, Richie Valens, The Big Bopper, Buddy Holly, Joe Meek and Phil, all having a collision with fate on that date. Just a coincidence but still such a defining date for their lives.

[kennedy06]

I should clarify my post, I speak of the Mary Janes that Mrs. C mentioned in her testimony, in a complimentary way on Lana's behalf.

[hiitsme]

Originally Posted by Spectorfan8

Hello everyone,

After sleeping on it and talking to a friend, he helped me decide to stay.


Spectorfan8 is BACK!!!!

You have good friends! Besides, as a NG you patiently and probably, at times, painfully sat through the pros. case! Now that the defense is "at bat" you must be at least curious as to what they'll present. In any event, I'm glad you're back too.

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by Spectorfan8

Hello everyone,

After sleeping on it and talking to a friend, he helped me decide to stay.


Spectorfan8 is BACK!!!!

I'm glad to see you thought it over and decided to stay Spectorfan8!

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by GuiltyIndeed

After reading Sprocket's blog for Thursday's testimony... on recross, it appears the expert for the defense just agreed that some of the back spatter (on the white jacket) came from the gunshot event.

This does not bode well for the defense!

Even though the defense in the last trial threw all of those names around and mentioned their books last time, the books themselves still supported what the State's witnesses said.

These Defense witnesses can speculate about whether or not it's possible for some 'million to one' chance rarity to have occurred, but when it comes back to what most likely happened, it goes back to what was stated by the State's witnesses.

[dref99]

Originally Posted by Spectorfan8

Hello everyone,

After sleeping on it and talking to a friend, he helped me decide to stay.


Spectorfan8 is BACK!!!!

great idea of you and friend - welome back

[My 2 Cents]

Does any one else find it odd that the defense can present testimony, such as James' Power Point presentation, that has NOTHING to do with the facts in evidence for this case? I don't understand why JF would allow the PP presentation. It seemed that James' testimony, via AJ's cross, is that ALL those tests, photos, etc did NOT represent what happened to LC. And James only stated this AFTER he was asked it by AJ. So why is it even allowed to be shown or discussed? It only served to confuse jurors - thinking it must somehow relate to what happened on 2/3/03. It seems like DW would go thru the roof if AJ tried to present evidence like that (and I can't see AJ trying to "confuse" the jurors with misleading info anyway).

I was also surprised that James could testify on the stand what the other 2 (3?) "blood spatter" experts (that James discussed these results with) thought. The experts also being paid by Spector. I thought that was considered HEARSAY, since the defense can subpoena those experts and have them testify that they agreed with James. How can AJ cross exam these 2 or 3 people to verify that they in fact did agree with James' conclusions about these tests? This would avoid the issue of whether James is understanding what these experts really meant - - let them speak for themselves and let AJ have an opportunity to cross exam them. (Heaven forbid, if Punkin Pie was picked to be the spokesperson for ALL of Lana's friends, with regards to them being in agreement to Lana's state of mind.)

[kennedy06]

Maybe AJ has a copy of all three of their bills and payments made to them! Birds of a feather and all.

[My 2 Cents]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

Maybe AJ has a copy of all three of their bills and payments made to them! Birds of a feather and all.

Yes K6, I agree. But what I was actually wanting to express with regards to James' testimony (about what these 3 OTHER EXPERTS THOUGHT). James' is speaking for them. I thought that was an OBJECTION because it is 100% HEARSAY.

James said, on direct from DW:
"James states this blood stain on Spector's cuff is a transfer stain. To back up his opinion, he stated that three professional associates, who he has the utmost respect for and their combined total expertize is over 100 years of experience, all agree that this stain is a transfer stain, and not spatter.

It seems to me (but what the heck do I know . . ha, ha). Just thought it odd and not allowed. IMO . . AND GLAD AJ cleared it up (blood spatter vs transfer stain on cuff) on cross . . IMO.

[Spectorfan8]

Originally Posted by NavyMom58

Glad you had a chance to re-think it and you decided not to leave.

thank you, after all we need a NG on here. Right?

SF8

[Spectorfan8]

Originally Posted by Mort_Snerd

The thought process are not hard to understand when you compare it to the guilty thought processes. Two people listen to the trial and come to two different conclusions. For whatever reason there was one juror in trial 1 who felt that the state did not meet the burden of beyond a resonable doubt. It is a very tough standard and he has no reason to have to defend his final opinion. My opinion of Harvey Philip Spector is that he guilty of first degree premeditated murder. Taking a loaded gun out from concelment removed any possibility of "accidental" in my opinion. I would not force this opinion on anyone else even though some folks think I am arrogant, long winded and pompous. People who own guns and are trained in their use will understand where I am coming from. I do have respect for the logic and beliefs of 2 of the NG's but the others are just fact wackers with no supplied logic to back up the boom-boom of their drum beat. I for one and very pleased to see SF8 stay. I admire the posters courage to stay. Thank you!

Mortie

Mortie,

I totally agree with you on people having different opinions.
Thank you, I am glad that I stayed too.

SF8

[My 2 Cents]

Originally Posted by spectorfan8

hello everyone,

after sleeping on it and talking to a friend, he helped me decide to stay.


Spectorfan8 is back!!!!

welcome back sf8

You're a thoughtful, respected poster on InSession and I always welcome your comments. I am glad to hear that you are staying. Keep all the "G" posters on their toes! Besides, . . . a "Thelma" without a "Louise", just wouldn't be the same, now would it?

Also . . . Happy Groundhog's Day Everyone
So ALL of those posters living in Pennsylvania, did Punxsutawney Phil see his shadow? Do we know how many more weeks of winter are left? (Because here in So Calif that is important . . .ha, ha - - Sorry, not trying to be mean to those, up to there elbows, in snow.)

[Spectorfan8]

Originally Posted by My 2 Cents

welcome back sf8

You're a thoughtful, respected poster on InSession and I always welcome your comments. I am glad to hear that you are staying. Keep all the "G" posters on their toes! Besides, . . . a "Thelma" without a "Louise", just wouldn't be the same, now would it?

Also . . . Happy Groundhog's Day Everyone
So ALL of those posters living in Pennsylvania, did Punxsutawney Phil see his shadow? Do we know how many more weeks of winter are left? (Because here in So Calif that is important . . .ha, ha - - Sorry, not trying to be mean to those, up to there elbows, in snow.)

Thank you. Yes, there will be six more weeks of winter. I hate it, but like you, I live on the south east coast.LOL For those in the snow keep warm.
I always like to read your posts after you have been to court, first rate reporting!!

[GPSpector]

Great. A new month and a new thread.

[GPSpector]

Originally Posted by My 2 Cents

Does any one else find it odd that the defense can present testimony, such as James' Power Point presentation, that has NOTHING to do with the facts in evidence for this case? I don't understand why JF would allow the PP presentation. It seemed that James' testimony, via AJ's cross, is that ALL those tests, photos, etc did NOT represent what happened to LC. And James only stated this AFTER he was asked it by AJ. So why is it even allowed to be shown or discussed? It only served to confuse jurors - thinking it must somehow relate to what happened on 2/3/03. It seems like DW would go thru the roof if AJ tried to present evidence like that (and I can't see AJ trying to "confuse" the jurors with misleading info anyway).

I was also surprised that James could testify on the stand what the other 2 (3?) "blood spatter" experts (that James discussed these results with) thought. The experts also being paid by Spector. I thought that was considered HEARSAY, since the defense can subpoena those experts and have them testify that they agreed with James. How can AJ cross exam these 2 or 3 people to verify that they in fact did agree with James' conclusions about these tests? This would avoid the issue of whether James is understanding what these experts really meant - - let them speak for themselves and let AJ have an opportunity to cross exam them. (Heaven forbid, if Punkin Pie was picked to be the spokesperson for ALL of Lana's friends, with regards to them being in agreement to Lana's state of mind.)

I think it was DW's version of the "Chewbacca" defense

[dref99]

Originally Posted by My 2 Cents

Does any one else find it odd that the defense can present testimony, such as James' Power Point presentation, that has NOTHING to do with the facts in evidence for this case? I don't understand why JF would allow the PP presentation. It seemed that James' testimony, via AJ's cross, is that ALL those tests, photos, etc did NOT represent what happened to LC. And James only stated this AFTER he was asked it by AJ. So why is it even allowed to be shown or discussed? It only served to confuse jurors - thinking it must somehow relate to what happened on 2/3/03. It seems like DW would go thru the roof if AJ tried to present evidence like that (and I can't see AJ trying to "confuse" the jurors with misleading info anyway).

I was also surprised that James could testify on the stand what the other 2 (3?) "blood spatter" experts (that James discussed these results with) thought. The experts also being paid by Spector. I thought that was considered HEARSAY, since the defense can subpoena those experts and have them testify that they agreed with James. How can AJ cross exam these 2 or 3 people to verify that they in fact did agree with James' conclusions about these tests? This would avoid the issue of whether James is understanding what these experts really meant - - let them speak for themselves and let AJ have an opportunity to cross exam them. (Heaven forbid, if Punkin Pie was picked to be the spokesperson for ALL of Lana's friends, with regards to them being in agreement to Lana's state of mind.)

Apart from the fact that JF is doing all in his power to avoid an appeal (which appears to me as "over" support for the defense, but probably is not)

I remember in trial one the accolades for defense experts taking days. (To not show bias - there was a fair amount of time listing resumes for the prosecution as well). No doubt the PP was to assist in explaining the expertise and in showing to the jurors what the expertise is all about - as "a jury training aid" Under the rules JF sets, this would be (and obviously was) acceptable.

As for the other experts, it was mentioned on the blog (I think) that at least one of them will be called - as for the other, it does sound like hearsay to me - but my knowledge has no authority behind it whatsoever, and perhaps they will both be called.

It would seem that a lot of money is spent on experts and alot spent in disagreeing with their conclusions. Some jury members did say in trial 1 that they all disregarded the defense "experts" but perhaps an "aha" moment had something to do with that.

I did like the image painted (that we could only read about) of trying to get below the chair to indicate that the chair was low to the ground & there was not a high distance for anything to fall.

jmo

[kennedy06]

Since today is Feb 2, Lana's last day with her Mother, meeting and emailing friends and living life as she knew it I thought it would be nice to do something in honor of her today. I don't write as eloquently as the majority here so I am limited in my efforts. I looked in the TDW of S at the words of her friend Bill Craig (pg 196 and paraphrasing) she was proud of getting her job, it was the VIP room, she would be meeting people at the top.

She did meet a member of that special VIP Lounge that night as we all know, and that meeting brings us to this board to post.

So, I'll post this utube song many of us have heard before as my way of noting the date and paying my respects to someone I never knew but have come to know through this trial, the lyrics can be found by clicking more on the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vjku...eature=related

[kennedy06]

Shopping for shoes, helping pick up photos a few weeks earlier, we learn of a Mother's love for her daughter during this retrial.

From this article for ABC Primetime in 2005:

She was so deeply affected by her daughter's death that she has kept Clarkson's cell phone activated for two years --

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Ente...=442185&page=1

[My 2 Cents]

Well, he may NOT be the "Official" PUNXSUTAWNEY PHIL because he resides in Alhambra. But this (Alhambra) PHIL also stuck his spiky little head outside today (2/2/09) and saw his SHADOW as well. Because this PHIL (6 years after Lana's death) is still NOT sitting in a windowless jail cell or inside any prison. However, ALHAMBRA PHIL may not be as lucky as PUNXSUTAWNEY PHIL. He may NOT get a chance to experience 6 more weeks of winter. If the defense rests in another couple of weeks, then this PHIL may be sitting inside a prison cell, with no doors or windows, come the 1st day of Spring and this may have been the last Groundhog's Day that "ALHAMBRA" PHIL gets to stick his head outside to check for any shadow . . or ANYTHING for that matter.

. . . Sorry, my lame attempt at Groundhog's Day humor, a la (PUNXSUTAWNEY) Phil.

[My 2 Cents]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

Shopping for shoes, helping pick up photos a few weeks earlier, we learn of a Mother's love for her daughter during this retrial.

From this article for ABC Primetime in 2005:

She was so deeply affected by her daughter's death that she has kept Clarkson's cell phone activated for two years --

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Ente...=442185&page=1

Thanks K6, that was a very nice article. I had not read that before. How touching - her Mom keeping Lana's cell phone number activated, and all the very tasteful and classy statements Mrs Clarkson made. It would be so much easier (and no one would fault her for it), to say what was really on your mind and rip into Phil Spector and the way he has handled her daughter's death . . . but she doesn't. That says a great deal about Mrs Clarkson, and it gives us, the outsider, a glimpse at the type of role model and mother she was to Lana and her siblings.

[dref99]

yesterdays (tis later than I thought) testimony - short day
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/

[My 2 Cents]

Originally Posted by kennedy06

Since today is Feb 2, Lana's last day with her Mother, meeting and emailing friends and living life as she knew it I thought it would be nice to do something in honor of her today. I don't write as eloquently as the majority here so I am limited in my efforts. I looked in the TDW of S at the words of her friend Bill Craig (pg 196 and paraphrasing) she was proud of getting her job, it was the VIP room, she would be meeting people at the top.

She did meet a member of that special VIP Lounge that night as we all know, and that meeting brings us to this board to post.

So, I'll post this utube song many of us have heard before as my way of noting the date and paying my respects to someone I never knew but have come to know through this trial, the lyrics can be found by clicking more on the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vjku...eature=related

Following YOUR LEAD K6 . . . and your idea in honoring Lana on the anniversary of her death, I started a separate thread for paying tribute to her and/or her family members on this day. The "youtube" video you selected is a wonderful choice. I tried to move it over to that thread . . . but I couldn't do it - I'm "technically" challenged. Perhaps you wouldn't mind reposting it over there.

Thanks for the video and great reminder of who Lana was. And what a gorgeous woman she was - - I get so furious when I think of Dr DiMaio (or was it Dr Spitz) up on the stand implying that Lana was so 'over-the-hill' for the movie business, because ya know, she's "NOT exactly a PARIS HILTON" anymore, or some such ridiculous statement.

[dref99]

Harriet Ryan reported on the evidence of Nicole Spector
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...tor-trial.html

[hiitsme]

Originally Posted by dref99

Harriet Ryan reported on the evidence of Nicole Spector
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...tor-trial.html

I would venture to say that there are women who are simply forgiving, and then there are those who just like "bad boys" especially rich and famous ones. Who's to say this makes them liars? Mentioning DM again may just remind the jury of the PBA against her as well as those against the other women who also testified to having a gun put to their face by PS.

[tartangirl]

Originally Posted by NavyMom58

6 years today...I wonder if PS has thought about it...

For Lana

If he has forgotten, please tell me he has not, I would hope someone reminds him by word or by deed....


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

[My 2 Cents]

Originally Posted by Mort_Snerd

Just finished with the FedEx folks at getting a good discount on shipping rates. There is a package on its was to you with about 5,000 pounds of snow that I removed from my driveway. Oh by the way, I sent it COD.

Mortie

PS Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow, more winter ahead, thank you!

Well Mortie, . . . if it is any consolation, OUR freeways are ugly and we don't get to enjoy those beautiful "changing Fall colors" each October.
But I do look forward to the 5,000 lbs of snow, that will be quite a hit in our neighborhood.

[wasapi]

Regarding Nicoles testimony;

During the first trial, wasn't the only thing Nicole testified about was which hand her father uses? And if my memory is correct, why didn't she testify about this trip with DM the first time?

[Spectorfan8]

Originally Posted by wasapi

Regarding Nicoles testimony;

During the first trial, wasn't the only thing Nicole testified about was which hand her father uses? And if my memory is correct, why didn't she testify about this trip with DM the first time?

Not sure, but it could be because Ms. Melvin changed her testimony from the first trial. Maybe the defense thought it would help in letting the jury know for sure that Ms. Melvin did continue to see Mr. Spector.
I only offer my opinion.


SF8

[GPSpector]

Originally Posted by wasapi

Regarding Nicoles testimony;

During the first trial, wasn't the only thing Nicole testified about was which hand her father uses? And if my memory is correct, why didn't she testify about this trip with DM the first time?

Wow, I just read on T&T about my Sister on the Stand.

She never ceases to amaze me.

She claims she moved out of my fathers house while still living with him Must be a creative writing technique.

Also, she claimed our father is 69 because he was born on Dec 26th 1939. Sorry, He was born, December 26, 1940. Check what ever reference you want on that. My father will be 69 this year.

[wasapi]

Originally Posted by Casper

I just finished reading the article.

Am I missing something but didn't Nicole just admit that she was WITH Ms Melvin and Mr PS alone? Implying that Ms Melvin lied about never being alone. How could Ms Melvin be "alone" with Mr PS if Nicole is with them both?

Also, stating what Ms Melvin said is pure Hearsay and if she repeated hat on the Stand, they could call call Ms Melvin to rebuttal it or just deny its entry into evidence.

Why is it that everytime I hear her speak, I shake my head and ask, : "Does she not hear what she is saying?"

Casper, I was wondering the exact same thing. Unless Nicole testified that though they all 3 went to Toronto, still there were periods of time that she was off by herself and Ms Melvin and her father were alone together during those times, her testimony seems to contridict itself.

Again, it is so frustrating not being able to hear the testimony. I hate speculating when I don't know the facts.

[wasapi]

Originally Posted by GPSpector

Wow, I just read on T&T about my Sister on the Stand.

She never ceases to amaze me.

She claims she moved out of my fathers house while still living with him Must be a creative writing technique.

Also, she claimed our father is 69 because he was born on Dec 26th 1939. Sorry, He was born, December 26, 1940. Check what ever reference you want on that. My father will be 69 this year.

Gary, she does seem to have selective memory, as well as the ability to rewrite history.

Those skills could come in handy. Amazing.

[GPSpector]

Originally Posted by wasapi

Gary, she does seem to have selective memory, as well as the ability to rewrite history.

Those skills could come in handy. Amazing.

I was impressed with her starting Collage at age 17 though, even if the School year starts August/September and her Birthday is in October. I was still impressed.

I graduated HS at 19 but only because my Birthday is in May and Graduation was in June.