tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post4817102025283476765..comments2024-02-24T18:44:39.324-08:00Comments on Trials & Tribulations: Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-fourSprockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-69563556963971480582009-01-29T16:59:00.000-08:002009-01-29T16:59:00.000-08:00Weinberg's courtroom antics in this case remind me...Weinberg's courtroom antics in this case remind me of something I heard quite a few years ago about defense attorney trial tactics. It goes something like this: If you have a strong case, you pound on the facts. If you have a loser case, you pound on the table. All of Weinberg's discovery stall tactics and weak attempts to confuse the jury by spending an inordinate amount of time on meaningless minutiae are nothing more than an advanced state of table-pounding. As you pointed out, he is very good at his craft. But that's what crafty lawyers are supposed to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-3765859247576757342009-01-29T14:29:00.000-08:002009-01-29T14:29:00.000-08:00Thank you for awnsering my question about Phil Spe...Thank you for awnsering my question about Phil Spector's hair. I felt very sorry for Lana's mom for having to sit there and stare at that chair. <BR/><BR/>the mirror thing made me chuckle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-80107817447113601852009-01-29T07:38:00.000-08:002009-01-29T07:38:00.000-08:00Anon @ 11:19 pm:All that testimony about satellite...Anon @ 11:19 pm:<BR/>All that testimony about satellite spatter and that what's on the dress and the chair arm is satellite, the problem is, there's not a source that could have had enough velocity to create it. Her heart was no longer pumping. She was slumped back, and not forward. More cross is coming; this was just the beginning.<BR/><BR/>Anon @ 11:33 pm:<BR/>Once Jackson made his objection to the witness's power point presentation and the accusation of the discovery violation, Weinberg did as he usually does when confronted with discovery violations, he deflects the blame by accusing the prosecution of the same thing. Weinberg stood up and said, something to the effect of, I thought I would be polite and not complain about everything the prosecution did in violation. Then he brings up Dr. Herold's testimony, and a litany of things she said that that were not in any notes, or mentioned in the first trial. Weinberg then said to the judge, IF I'm ruled against, then I want all of those items just mentioned that Dr. Herold testified to striken from the record! His voice was a bit loud and his tone was irritated.<BR/><BR/>Now, it has to be something quite agreegous (sp?) for a judge to go back, and strike testimony. It's rarely done when there are other remedies, such as give the prosecution more time to review the discovery.<BR/><BR/>What I think is more likely, the judge knows the case, he knows the evidence and he feels that the prosecution "has what it has" to prosecute the case.<BR/><BR/>Judge Fidler asked the prosecution if the last minute changes to the DVD where photos were removed and text was added was a significant change from when he received the CD/DVD six days ago. AJ replied that it was not. On that response, as well as the witnesses testimony outside the presence of the jury that these experiments were NOT intended to replicate the crime, Fidler ruled. Fidler also stated that he was "sure" that one of AJ's first questions on cross (if it was not brought out on direct) would be to clear up this issue that the demonstrations were not meant to replicate the scene. With that thought process, Fidler went forward and did not rule against the defense and stated the experiments could be shown to the jurors.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, to me it was a clear example of Weinberg waiting until the last minute to turn something over. Weinberg is a very good at his craft. There's no question about that.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-42633265300931362862009-01-29T07:16:00.000-08:002009-01-29T07:16:00.000-08:00Dear Anon 1/28@11:33PM:“Do you think he's had plas...Dear Anon 1/28@11:33PM:<BR/><BR/>“Do you think he's had plastic surgery and a face lift?”<BR/><BR/>Try plastic surgeries and face lifts, so many in fact that his face is deformed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-41423246322529579192009-01-28T23:33:00.000-08:002009-01-28T23:33:00.000-08:00The expert witness thing is really something. I w...The expert witness thing is really something. I went to an insurance trial where a doctor goes around telling how mold can kill you. This was so these people could collect umpteen bucks from the ins. company over a leak in the basement. He has made a huge business out of this mold stuff, and his charge to testify was very comparable if not more than what the blood spatter guy charges. Enough for most of us to live well for a year! The Badens make a living at it too. It's a whole cottage industry!<BR/><BR/>The thing about the mirror. What a great detail for you to put in. What an image!<BR/><BR/>I think Fidler let that in because he is bending over backward not to give cause for a mistrial. If that happens, then even if Spector is convicted, there will be more waste of the court's time, that is if Spector lives long enough. Sometimes he looks very fit though except for his stoned stare and the tremors. Do you think he's had plastic surgery and a face lift?<BR/><BR/>Thanks again Sprocket for all your efforts and making it so interesting for us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-59112804526512575912009-01-28T23:19:00.000-08:002009-01-28T23:19:00.000-08:00Very interesting and informative post. It is alway...Very interesting and informative post. It is always difficult to judge how a jury will react to an expert being paid so much money, but he sounds credible, and from what you have reported so far it sounds like the prosecution has not done any damage to him on cross.<BR/><BR/>BTW, what impression did you get from the power point presentation?<BR/><BR/>Informative or too slick?<BR/><BR/>How did the jury react to it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com