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

Here you go for you Spector addicts. Hi Vonna.

[vonna]

Originally Posted by eagleeer

Here you go for you Spector addicts. Hi Vonna.

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

Originally Posted by vonna

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

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

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

Eagle

[Details]

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

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by Details

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

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

[sunstar]

Originally Posted by Details

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

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

[kennedy06]

Would he be eligible for parole?

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

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

[Jayne]

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

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

J

[Anakerie]

Originally Posted by Jayne

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

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

J

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

[bearwds]

Originally Posted by Jayne

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

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

J

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

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

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

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

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


bearwds

[cali650]

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

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

[cali650]

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

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

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

[bearwds]

Originally Posted by Jullie

Glad I found this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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


bearwds

[True2Blues]

Originally Posted by Jullie

Glad I found this thread.

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

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

[barskin&co.]

Originally Posted by Dianna

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

Phillip Spector 2nd degree murder (GUILTY)

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

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

[Jayne]

Originally Posted by Why?

now to answer Anakerie.....

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

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

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

jmo

J

[Daisy'sMom]

Originally Posted by Jullie

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

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

[Daisy'sMom]

Originally Posted by Nic99

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

Nic

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

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by Nic99

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

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

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

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

Nic

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

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

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

[dref99]

Originally Posted by warhorse46

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

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

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

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

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

jmo

[warhorse46]

Originally Posted by dref99

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

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

jmo

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

[vonna]

Originally Posted by dref99

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

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

jmo

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