Sunday, March 29, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 4 Part II

March 26th, 2009: Continuation of Day 4 of Closing Argument & Jury Instructions. (unedited entry)

I get up inside the courtroom at 9:08 am. Jackson is putting a huge board up over by the jury with the 14 defense points. I bet this is the board where he is going to knock out each and every one of those points.

The cameraman is setting up right behind me to my left. More press enter the courtroom and set up their laptops in the back row. Yesterday, there were some signs taped to the back of the benches that said RESERVED. There was one where Linda Deutsch usually sits and one where Harriet Ryan usually sits. Their names were written in right below the huge printed letters.

9:13 am: Wendy calls the judge. I see Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly in the back row, who is writing on the LA Weekly's LA DAILY blog. I know there is someone in the back row on Twitter, posting short items periodically, but I'm not sure if it's the very tall slender man or one of the other reporters that I have not personally met. Harriet Ryan is here. (Her latest story is already up, here.)

Over on the defense side of the room, the benches are not packed with supporters like they were on Tuesday for Weinberg's closing arguments. Tawni Tyndall is there, along with Rachelle and Mrs. Weinberg. Harvey with the white hair is in the back row, and there are I think two people sitting behind Rachelle, but I believe one of them must be either a reporter (doesn't look like it) or a clerk for the defense. It's a 30's looking dark haired woman in a black skirt suit and she's got a legal pad on her lap. Beside her is a young man I've never seen before. Compare that to the six women friends of Lana Clarkson who are sitting in the second row behind Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter, Fawn.

Fidler asks Jackson about how much longer he has. He informs the court he has about 25 minutes. Some people in the courtroom are quite happy about getting 25 minutes of Jackson closing verses 10 minutes.

Weinberg then speaks to Fidler "off the record" even though court is on the record. He's upset that yesterday, just past 4:00 pm (when court usually ends) he "...realizes there apparently was some sort of agreement between the prosecution and the court to go until 4:30. The defense had no notice that this this was agreed to. What if our client had an appointment?" Wendy explains that she had received a note from Mr. Jackson requesting to go to 4:30 pm and she passed it onto the Judge. She inquired of the jurors if they could stay until 4:30 pm, and they didn't have any problem with it. She apologizes for any misunderstanding.

There are some last jury instructions that still have to be resolved . In instruction 315, Weinberg wants the word "noise" added in the part where the types of distractions are listed. Fidler denies the request stating he feels the instruction as written is adequate. Weinberg is objecting to some of the language in the 1101(b) instruction. He goes on and on and on with his argument about this. Fidler patiently explains to Weinberg that "We've discussed this at length. I totally disagree. If it's taken out of context, yes, but if you read the paragraph in context it makes perfect sense."

The last issue is that special instruction that Weinberg wants. The court has to stop for a moment, while the jurors file into the jury room at 9:23 am. A few moments after them, Spector enters the courtroom with Rachelle. Rachelle is wearing a stark white suit. It's different than the one with all the zippers on it.

Weinberg then objects to the prosecution "rewriting" their special jury instruction #1. Fidler explains that the instruction, as it was originally written by the defense, "If it doesn't track the other instructions, then it won't be given."

Weinberg argues that there is "nothing legally incorrect in the instruction the way the defense wrote it." Fidler a bit irritated states, "I could not agree with you less." Weinberg goes on and argues some more, stating basically the same thing he said before.

Fidler says, "What I'm saying is, in it's present form, I won't give it." Weinberg responds, "Then I ask for the opportunity to amend the instruction." Fidler replies, "Okay." So this means that Fidler will not read to the jury the instructions directly after Jackson is finished. The defense will probably call Riordan for advise during the break.

Jackson gets up to speak to the jury.

"Folks, thank you very much for your patience. I've only got about a half hour more." Jackson proceeds to go through the 14 points that the defense began and ended their case with. "With the slightest scrutiny you will see that each one falls like a tin soldier."

1. Intra-oral gunshot wounds are 99% suicide. "Statistics don't tell us anything about real life. [...] But everybody watches the game," Jackson states. Jackson then proceeds to give the jury a long example to "hit home" his point. There's a strenth Jackson has that few have and that is he a powerful orator. He can draw his audience in when he's showing them an example. You can't help but pay rapt attention to the details of what he is telling you.

Jackson takes the jury back to 1941, when our country was wracked by crisis and a looming world war. "We were just recovering from the stock market crash and the great depression. During this turbulent time, the country turned to a great American sport, and that was baseball. They were following it with more passion than we do today. [...] And the big star of the time that emerges was Joe DiMaggio who was playing for the New York Yankees. He started the season and for 10 games in a row, he hit safely."

And then he hit 20 games in a row safely. Soon, this was big news with Joe DiMaggio never missing a hit in 20 games. [...] Then it was 30 games and the whole country took notice. Then it was 40, 45, then 50 games in a row that Joe DiMaggio hit safely. [...] Joe DiMaggio was the obsession of this country in 1941. The supermarkets would close during the games and people would listen to the game on their transistor radios, transfixed. [...] And then he hit 55 games safely."

"When it came to game 56, the experts said, 'My God, this is impossible! It can't happen.' The 56th game, was against the Chicago Indians. 'The experts said, the odds, the statistics, it will never happen,' that Joe DiMaggio would hit 56 games safely."

Jackson continued. "Now, do you cut your radio off? Do you just turn off the game because the statistics say it can't happen? Mr. Weinberg says yes, turn your radio off. Or do you listen to the game, or watch the pitch? [...] Joe DiMaggio got 3 hits off that game 56. [...] Statistics; it means nothing. [...] Just because it's improbable, doesn't mean anything in this case. [...] It means absolutely zero in reality."

Once Jackson is finished with the first point, he marks a big red X over the item with a huge red magic marker. He does this each and every time he's finished explaining why that evidence doesn't "prove" what Weinberg said it proves.

Jackson addresses the next point, #2 Blood on front strap and the grip.

"Phil Spector had his hand on the grip and Lana Clarkson ended up dead! He got blood everywhere! He got blood on the door latch, on the door knob and the banister. To assume that he got blood everywhere else but not on the gun is ridiculous. [...] We know that only Phil Spector could have left the fingerprint that was left in blood on the front strap of the gun because Lana Clarkson didn’t get up afterwords and leave it there."

“DW: Objection! Detective Katz...

Jackson, with a big smile on his face says, "Actually, Dale Falicon said, latex gloved hands can leave a print if it’s “wet blood.” There’s no question the print was left in wet blood. Detective Katz didn’t leave that print (because he handled the gun about 14 hours later. Phil Spector left that print on the gun and the smear on the gun proves it was Phil Spector."

Jackson crosses off number two on the board.

#3 Spatter on the gun grip. "I've got two words for that," Jackson explains, "James Pex. The perjurer. [...] He’s the only person who said that spatter was on the gun grip.

DW: Objection! Dr. Di Maio also said...

Jackson, smiling again, responds to that, “Dr. Di Maio said he didn’t consider it. He said he only considered the blood on the metal. He didn’t consider the blood on the grip because he said, 'That’s argumentative.' James Pex came in here and six years later and told you he found new evidence. He said something no one else has ever said before." Jackson goes onto explain how he feels about his job as a prosecutor. He's speaking now with quite a bit of emotion. "I take my job as a prosecutor seriously. Very seriously. And that word, perjury is something I've never had to say before (to a jury). [...] Mr. Weinberg would have you just dismiss that as a mistake. [...] It was more than a mistake. [...] He falsified evidence!"

Jackson crosses off number three on the big board.

(It's around this time, in the packed courtroom I start to have a coughing fit. I'm all the way down on the far left of the second bench row. I can't get up to leave. I'm embarrassed because I'm interrupting Jackson's fantastic argument with my coughing. I don't have any water and I'm looking furiously around me to see if there is anyone I know near by me, that has any, but everyone has their eyes focused on Jackson. I turn my head into my right shoulder and put my mouth right up against my upper arm and cough into in like that, trying to muffle the sound as much as possible until the fit has passed.)

#4 No Phil Spector DNA on the gun.

"The evidence shows it doesn’t matter. The defense desperately needs something, some that shows science. That’s a complete red herring. No one ever tested his gun for DNA because it was his gun found in his home. [...] Steve Renteria tested areas for blood, for Lana Clarkson’s blood. He took samples to test the blood on the gun. Spector’s DNA would have been overwhelmed by the copious amount of blood that was on the gun. [...] The banister was tested and there was no DNA from Philip Spector there. The bloody diaper was tested and there’s no Phil Spector DNA found on the diaper. Steve Renteria was interested in the blood that was on that rag. [...] Is the defense saying that the banister in his own house, he never touched? That the diaper that came from his house, he never touched? [...] (That's the logic the defense would have you believe.) The fact that Phil Spector's DNA was not found on the gun was of no consequence. It was tested for blood."

Jackson takes the marker and crosses off another number.

#5 No spatter on Spector's right sleeve. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot; you must not believe that if something is missing it is of great importance." Jackson explains further that every expert who testified in this trial, even the defense experts who have written that phrase in their books tell you, you cannot make scientific conclusions about something you "expect to see." Jackson then goes over to Truc Do and performs two different demonstrations for the jury, showing how Lana's hands up near the gun could have prevented spatter from getting on Spector's sleeve. "What it proves is where Lana Clarkson's hands were."

Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.

#6 No GSR on Spector's clothing. "Just cross this off. His clothing wasn't tested for GSR. He's got too many guns. If they were so certain there would be no GSR on Spector's clothing, why didn't they test for it? They had access to the evidence. The reason they didn't test it is because if they did and found GSR, they would say it was meaningless because he has guns (all over the house).

Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.

#7 No Foreign biological material on Spector "For this, see number five. By the way, foreign biological material? That's what blood is. As far as to where it is on the sleeve, number seven is the same as number five. [...] Besides, even their own defense experts said that 70 percent of the time you do not get back spatter in a gunshot event. [...] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Jackson crosses off point number seven.

#8 No evidence of a struggle. "OH REALLY?" Jackson asks in a slight, mocking tone. "There were bruises on both bones of the right wrist. Contusions (on the inside) of the bottom lips. Regardless of what the defense said about the crane of the gun, you stick a gun in someone’s mouth the tongue is going to go someplace. [...] The defense would like you to believe that the bruising on the tongue on both sides was the same. Exactly the same. That's totally not true. Dr. Pena looked at that tongue. He took samples from it on both sides. On the right, it he determined it was postmortem congestion. [...] The bruise on the left was completely different. If there was no evidence of a struggle, how did the bruises get there? No evidence of a struggle except for the presence of a dead woman in your foyer!"

Jackson marks the next item off on the display.

#9 No Phil Spector DNA under Clarkson's fingernails "Ask yourselves about the other five women he pulls a gun on. [...] There wasn't a fistfight where people were scratching at each other with physical contact in those instances. [...] There wasn't a physical fight between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector."

Jackson crosses out this point with the red marker.

#10 Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands. "Everyone knows this showed physically, scientifically that Lana Clarkson didn't hold the weapon. She could not have." Jackson then reminds the jurors by gesturing with his hands where they saw with their own eyes that Jamie Lintemoot indicated she saw blood spatter. He then compares that on his hands to where Mr. Weinberg would have them believe she was indicating. While he's doing this, there are images up on the screen of Jamie Lintemoot indicating where she saw blood and right after that where Fidler indicated for the record that she demonstrated.

Jackson crosses off this item on the big display board.

#11 Directional Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands "This is consistent with Lana's hands being up in a defensive posture."

Jackson marks through this item with the red marker.

#12 GSR on Lana's hands "Her hands were in a defensive position. It wouldn't matter where her hands were! She was in a geomorphous cloud. She would have GSR on her ear! If you tested her face, her thighs, you would find GSR.

Jackson marks this item off of his display.

#13 Trajectory of the tooth fragments "If the teeth came out via 'gases,' there would not be any dentin on the back of the gun sight," Jackson explains. "The left tooth breaks off and flies to her right. The right one ends up on her abdomen. It tells us she could not have been sitting up; that she was in that position when she was shot." A photo of Lana's slumped position, where she was clearly retreating from Spector is up on the screen. "The only other explanation for that tooth not flying off to her right is because of where Phil Spector is standing. He's standing over her, within 2 to three feet of her."

Jackson marks a big red x through this item.

#14 The broken thumb nail "Mr. Pex stated the broken thumb nail proves Lana Clarkson's thumb was on the trigger. [...] Well I've got just one question for Mr. Pex: Where's the nail? If it broke when it was in the house, the Sheriff's crime lab would have found it. They never found it."

Jackson marks off the last item on the display.

It's 10:05 am, and Jackson continues with his closing argument. "Mr Weinberg tried mightly to reduce Phil Spector's pattern of violence to just some bad things. [...] He then stood up here and called every one of those women liars and having an agenda. [...] He reduces this to some character assassination. [...] Those shifting sands. [...] When Weinberg was questioning Dorothy Melvin, he brings up Phil Spector pulling guns on other men." (Now in closing argument, he tells you not to believe her.) "Five women who never met. [...] Shifting sands. Now, all these women have an agenda. Five women who never met were all liars? [...] Each incident proves, those women walked away by just luck. They got the empty chamber."

"When it's a woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. Think about these women." And as Jackson reads the name of each woman, their photo appears up on the screen in a circle. "Devra Robaitille. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dianne Ogden. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of Control. Phill Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Melissa Grosvenor. A woman. A loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dorothy Melvin. A woman. A loss of control. He reaches for what? A gun. CLICK! Stephanie Jennings. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! February 3rd, 2003. Lana Clarkson. A woman. loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. POW! She got the bullet. Lana Clakrson got the bullet. It's as simple as that."

"When you walked into this courtroom six months ago, you didn't know me. You didn't know Ms. Do, Mr. Weinberg or the Judge. You didn't know each other. But things have changed. Six months ago you didn't know Phil Spector, or what he does. But certainly over the last six months, things have changed."

"So I want to take you on a journey, to the parking lot of the House of Blues. It's a little after two in the morning. You can see the valet taking care of the last few cars in the lot. You can see this black Mercedes, brand spanking new. You can see Phil Spector, walking with a tall, beautiful blond. And you're just standing there, just looking. And you listen as Phil Spector starts talking to Lana Clarkson. And you listen as he invites her back to the castle."

"Phil Spector says to her, 'No, come back to my castle tonight. Just for one drink.' And she continues to say no, she's got things to do in the morning. (I have in my notes here that Weinberg says something at this point but I'm not sure if it's an objection, or part of Mr. Jackson stating that Weinberg would say this is an invention.) And Lana begs off, she tells him, 'No, I've been working all night, I need to get home.' And Phil Spector once again asks her, 'Come on, come on, we won't stay long.' [...] And then you see the driver open the door. You watch. You hear, a tiny crack in her voice, finally relenting. She just accepted his offer."

"If at that moment, right there, you could say one thing to Lana Clarkson... If you got only one shot, to say one thing, what would it be? What would you say? What would you tell her? If I asked you that question six months ago, you would have shrugged your shoulders. (You wouldn't know what to say to her.) But now you do. So let me ask you what it is you would say? You're all thinking the same thing, 'Lana, Don't go.' Say, 'Don't go.' You'd say, 'Lana, whatever you do, don't go.' And the reason you say that is because you know something she doesn't. Because you know the real Phil Spector. Like Dianne Odgen said, 'The demon behind the music.' Phil Spector is guilty of Lana Clarkson's murder. She's entitled to your justice."

Since Weinberg still wants to get his version of his special instruction before the jury, the Judge tells the panel that they will need to go into the jury room for just a moment. They file back in and Weinberg gets up to argue for a mistrial. Weinberg states there are two aspects to move for a mistrial. He first argues the "alcohol, women, loss of control...all the elaborate pattern." There's more, but I miss getting it down. Then Weinberg moves onto another issue and he appears to be quite a bit upset about this one. It's the broken acrylic nail. "For Mr. Jackson to say the acrylic nail was not in the house [...] At the last trial, that someone picked it up. And for him to say (in argument that it wasn't there is) beyond my imagination!" Weinberg goes on about how Stan White testified that it was a nail and that it had bullet wipe on it. "There's no way. [...] This man litigated for months that Henry Lee picked up that nail. [...] For him to say now... [...] And the court precluded us from calling Dr. Lee..."

Fidler addresses the first point. "Motion for a msitrial for pattern evidence is denied. [...] Mr. Jackson?"

Jackson's voice is raised and accusatory. "Is it a nail? I don't know. The reason we don't know is because Dr. Lee, HE STOLE IT! It was never determined because HE STOLE IT! We don't know because HE STOLE IT!"

Fidler addresses Weinberg. "I don't know what Dr. Lee found. (The court didn't preclude Dr. Lee.) The defense chose not to call him. [...] (What Dr. Lee recovered...) It was never established that it was a nail. It was possibly a nail, it was a triangular shaped item but it was never shown that it was a nail. [...] The prosecution is not bound to argue the same theory as in the last trial. (They can present a different theory.) (Weinberg, you were just out foxed by a younger, smarter fox on this issue.) [...] The motion for a mistrial is denied. [...] Work with each other regarding the instruction. [...] Let me add that the instruction as it was first written, is argument."

There is a short break. Jackson and Truc Do hug Mrs. Clarkson. At 10:47 am, we are back on the record but the jury is not present. Weinberg tells the court that he's had the opportunity to consult with Dennis Riordan. "It's his opinion that we are entitled to a pinpoint instruction to focus on anything that has not been proven as we have offered." Weinberg is not willing to rewrite his instruction. Judge Fidler tells him the instruction as offered he will reject. Weinberg responds, "With that ruling, our position is to accept the one (rewriting of his instruction) offered by the prosecution." Truc Do tells the court they have just a few moments to get the modified instructions ready for the jury, to make the necessary copies. I write in my notes that Donte is here. Truc Do says, "One moment your honor, we're having copies made." Fidler states that the reading of the instructions should take abut 45 minutes, which is what I predicted. The prosecution packs up their materials.

As all this is going on, I wonder, where are all the fans that were here for Weinberg's closing? Lana's family is here and sitting directly behind them are six of Lana's girlfriends who came to each day of closing arguments. Where are all of Spector's close family that came on Tuesday? I would think they would want to hear the opposing side's argument.

10:57 am: We're about ready for the Judge. Jackson makes a last minute check of his phone after the bailiff Kyles reminds everyone that their phones need to be turned off and that while the instructions are read to the jury, no one will be allowed to enter or leave. Fidler takes the bench.

Fidler addresses the jurors. "We have arrived at that part of the trial where I will be instructing you on the law (and what the) law requires." The Judge has a bit of a pause there and says something that makes the courtroom laugh. "Do not snack on pistachio nuts before you are to give jury instructions. I now know what my cat goes through when he gets a hairball." Fidler starts the instructions right at 11:00 am. I don't copy a single one down. Spector is staring straight at Fidler. At 11:15 am, I see that Rachelle is having a tough time keeping her eyes open.

11:34 am, from my notes we are all done with instructions. Weinberg asks to approach. There's a problem with an instruction. A typo, or something. I see that Weinberg is making an argument to the bench. The Judge indicates to the jurors and gallery that there is a paragraph in the instruction that should have been removed and it was missed and read to the jury. At first, the Judge was going to reread the instruction. But Weinberg and the people both agree to just have it removed from the written instructions that are given in hard copy to the jurors. That way, it won't stand out in the jurors minds. 11:36 am: The bailiff is sworn in to take charge of the jurors. He also swears to take care of the alternates. 11:37 am. The alternates are told that they would be escorted to another courtroom, #107, but they ask to get their belongings out of the jury room first.

That task is accomplished and once they finished, the twelve jurors start to gather up their notebooks and stacks of audio transcripts. Officer Williams takes the alternates to 107. The jurors now file into the jury room.

11:40 am: Fidler asks both parties about logistics and how they will handle possible read backs. Weinberg tells the court that he can be here in 15 minutes. Spector wishes to be present for all read backs, so those will happen in open court verses in the jury room by the court reporter. Weinberg requests that only the bailiff has contact with the jurors. Wendy will have phone contact if there is an emergency with a juror who might be sick. The Judge rules that 45 minutes will be the outside time limit for read backs if Spector wants to be here. We find out the jurors indicate they will not work through lunch this first day. We are asked to leave the courtroom. Outside in the hallway we learn that a single buzz indicates the start and stopping of deliberations. Two buzzes means the jurors have a question. Three buzzes means they have reached a verdict.


Anonymous said...

Doron Weinberg:

Most. Annoying. Defense Lawyer. Ever.

My hat's off to Judge Fidler for keeping his cool. I still think about that judge who has recused himself from the Dr. William Ayres child molestation case because of his "antipathy" for Weinberg.

Allyne said...

Awesome job, Sprocket. You really do put us right in the courtroom. Thank you for being our eyes and ears.

Chelsea said...

Great job Sprocket...I feel like I was there...

Chelsea said...

Here's hoping we get 3 buzzes this week...
Do not pass go
Do not collect $200
Straight to jail...
what are the chances, if found guilty, Spector would be immedietly remanded into custody? Could they let him remain on bail until sentencing??

Anonymous said...

Sprocket . . . it was well worth the wait. Thanks for getting this up and, once again, for being our eyes and ears in the Court. Get some rest before the jury goes back to the grindstone on Wednesday.

~Corrina said...

Hi Sprocketgal,

You have mentioned a few times now that you look over during court and Rachelle's eyes are either closed, or in this case she's having a hard time staying awake.

I have also heard that on a few occasions she hasn't made it for morning sessions but pops in during the afternoon. But if Dan Kessel is sitting next to her I hear she lights up like a Christmas tree.

I wonder if anyone knows if she herself is on some type of medication? Or is Spector just not getting his money's worth?

If it were my husband on trial, you betcha, I'd be awake and alert, even if meant downing energy drinks or shots as we discussed on

Yes, this must get tedious for everyone, but IMO, if I were a juror and I looked over and saw
Mrs. Spector dozing, I'd wonder
what is the point of her presence?

Just something minor--but not really--that I wanted to bring up.
Thanks Sprocket!

Anonymous said...

Another great morning read with my coffee.
Wish I could have been there. Wish TruTV could have been there. Wish Lana could have been there.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much Sprocket. Oh, what I would have given to have been in the court room for the closing. Jackson is a gifted Attorney. Not only does he know the law, but he is a master story teller. How I remember the "don't go". I keep trying to put myself in the jurors chair. I am biased toward guilty, I admit, but I keep trying to justify this being a suicide and it never computes for me. I hope the jury will see that.
You, my dear are also a master story-teller. Take a couple of days off...(generous of me don't you think!) We appreciate you.

caroleigh said...

What a fantastic reporting. Dear sprocket, I feel as though I were sitting right next to you. I hope you had a good weekend and caught up on your sleep. A.J. is just the greatest,, especially his sentence ....................... Pow---- She Got The Bullet ....
It is unbelievable that true TV did not cover this. But actually I think you did a better job than they would have, because we hear it all, no commercials or silly interviews.
Thank You so much for your honest and unbiased reporting. Justice for Lana is coming soon, just a six year delay and we people were able to follow it all thanks to you
Great Work, Good Job,, Thank you ................ From Vancleave Mississippi

Anonymous said...

Thanks Sprocket, Great job and so worth the wait. Get some rest and take care of that cough.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Sprocket. Get some rest in the next two days. I have wondered if Phil will go directly to jail or if he will be allowed to remain out on bail? He should have never been out on bail in the first place in my opinion. Do you know why bail was allowed?

Anonymous said...

Wow Sprocket! Amazing coverage! Thank you. I was wondering when were the alternates picked? Did they know during the whole trial or were they picked just before deliberations? Also, how many alternates are there? Can you tell me the male/female make up of the jury? Thanks, for your consideration.


Christine said...

I think Jackson should have mentioned in point #1 that statistics don't really count when there is evidence that the gun has been forced into someone's mouth. That those points create a new statistic.

If I were a juror I would have thought "Joe Dimaggio comparison = hogwash"

Now I'm just telling this because I definitely believe Spector's guilty but think that example was a bit far fetched. Otherwise, I think AJ is a brilliant prosecutor and has presented a fine case in most respects. And also believe the defense's case has been a shambles.

CaliGirl9 said...

Wow, Judge Fidler has a cat with hairballs. I thought it wasn't possible to respect him more than I already do ... lucky cat!

I do wonder what the jury would think if they knew there were more than five prior "bad acts" witnesses out there. Five is plenty for me, but imagine if more testimony had been allowed in that area. (And I'm not talking about "historical" gun episodes, such as that with John Lennon or the Ramones, which of course is now being denied. Only those incidents with women ...)

Bologna sandwiches and California Department of Corrections denim for Harvey by Good Friday ...

Anonymous said...

It takes real dedication to provide this service--for free. Thank you.

I agree that if I were on this jury, I would not care for Weinberg. I would go for the doll-face with the kiss curl-hair.

Most certainly PS will be immediately remanded to jail, at the objection of his attorney.

Anonymous said...

I just watched the video clip and thought that the woman (?) on the defense side was Phil Spector. Then I realized Phil was standing next to this other person. They both look exactly alike! Same hair, same body type, even similar facial structure.

Anonymous said...


Is there someplace we can read the jury instructions? Also, what was the special instruction that the defense wanted, and what special instruction was finally given to the Jury.


Anonymous said...

I find it amazing that Weinberg was upset that he did not get early notification about Jackson going past 4:00 with his closing. Weinberg has done everything possible to blind side the prosecution all through this trial. He claimed he was not ready to present his closing because he did not know that Jackson would finish his rebuttal in a few hours (even though Jackson said in advance he would do it in one hour). He has brought on witnesses without advance notice to the prosecution of the subject of their testimony. He has repeatedly tried every stunt he can. Then he claims that it was unfair for Jackson to go past 4 because poor Phil might have had an appointment. Hogwash.


Anonymous said...

I watched the video and I have to agree the person next to Phil looks like him. I thought Oh No!!! He hasn't been cloned. LOL Phil sure doesn't look like a happy camper.

Anonymous said...

I knew Judge Fidler was a cat person. I'm thinking Bruce Willis for the movie.

caroleigh said...

Sprocket I have a question that's just killing me !
Did the jury hear the tape when Officer Page turned his tape recording on during the takedown the night of the murder at the castle ?

I know it was played for the grand jury,but did Judge Fiddler allow it to be played at this jury?

Anonymous said...

Jamie Floyds take on the trial is that it will be another "hung jury".

Anonymous said...

blah blah blah,he is innocent,,,,,,everyone is just hating on him,ond only the prosecution side is being heard by this judge,,this should have been a mistrial from the start!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Jamie Floyd says it makes it so? I don't think so. She has a history of being wrong. There is no way it will be hung this time.

Sprocket, thank you for all your hard work. Take care of yourself.

Anonymous said...

As much as I dislike DW and defense lawyers like him, I have to say that he is an excellent attorney.

This is the job of a defense attorney: to derail the prosecution; to press for a mistrial; to object to everything; and to persuade a jury.

You have to admit, DW is doing his job. These people don't think about ethics or justice; they are participants in a big chess game and they have big egos.

Let's all hope he loses the game this time. But we cannot say, in this context, that he is a bad lawyer.

Ash said...

One thing about Jamie Floyd is that she never really followed the retrial. She doesn't know about James Pex (perjurer), Greg Sims, all of the crap that Whingberg has pulled. She is a defense attorney and she will always be for the defendent no matter how guilty they may me. And that is the last word.

nd said...

Hi Sprocket, thank you just doesn't say enough for the magnificent work you've done covering this trial.

You are truly one of Lana’s heroes. You have kept her quest for justice alive in the public eye, unlike standard media who report infrequently. You are the reason we all know what is REALLY happening in that courtroom. The defense obviously doesn’t want the details of Lana’s murder to be publicized again so you have been their target, imo. Your brilliant work and strength under undue pressure is enormously admired & appreciated by all of us who are awaiting the conviction of Lana’s killer. Counting chickens with fingers crossed.

Many many many thanks, Sprocket.

Anonymous said...

blah, blah, blah? Everyone is hating on him?

Thought this blog was for adults, not children who aren't intelligent enough to understand the overwhelming evidence that proves Mr. Spector is guilty.

Anonymous said...

Re: Verdict watch poll

Next week is a short week, and the jurors are leaving at 3:00 PM on their first day back.

It is also hard to predict whether the jurors' individual opinions on guilt or innocence will solidify over the 4 day week-end.

In any event, my vote would be for a verdict AFTER Friday next—which was not a poll option.

Sprocket said...

Rachelle's alertness:
Understand that I don't spend long blocks of time looking over at Rachelle, and I don't know how she's reacted to Dan Kessell. I remember him showing up at the first trial and coming down to the second trial early on, and getting his photo taken in the hallway with Spector by Rachelle. I have noticed that she stopped wearing the dark colors and is wearing very bright or bolder colors. She has gotten a "killer" wardrobe out of her marriage contract.

He was eligible for bail because he put up the bond. This is one thing that Robert Shapiro did for him that was worth his weight in gold. He got Spector out on bail. I don't know what Fidler will rule but it's my opinion that it's doubtful he will remain out on bail until sentencing when it comes to a conviction of second degree murder.

Alternates:The alternates were picked during voir dire after the jury was seated and sworn in. It was known from the beginning which jurors were the alternates. The jury is now made up of six men and six women. There are now five alternates left. One alternate was randomly chosen after the original juror #5 asked to be excused from service due to financial hardship.

Joe DiMaggio:
I guess you would have to have been there Christine. To me, the 1941 DiMaggio hitting streak was quite a powerful argument to explain why you cannot rely on statistics to tell you what happened in a single, real life event.

The woman beside Spector:
I feel the need to defend Weinberg's paralegal, Susan Mattross, a very nice woman whom I've seen up close in person. She is a small framed, slender boned woman who happens to have short dark hair. When you see her face straight on, she looks nothing like Spector at all.

Officer Page tape recording: Fidler did not have any ruling one way or the other as to this evidence being presented to the jurors.

Did the jury hear this? The answer is NO for both trials. The prosecution chose not to introduce this testimony at trial. This was part of their trial strategy that, if Spector's words were to be brought forth as testimony, it would have to be by Spector himself taking the stand and saying them to the jury himself.

I have to say that I think Weinberg did an excellent job of doing all that he could for his client. I honestly think he was hampered by the facts of the case and Spector's behavior.

Carol L Beck said...

I believe that in our great state of California that a convicted person has to go through a pre-sentencing procedure to determine where he will spend his time. This includes a psychological review amongst other things. I believe Mr Spector would go through that procedure at CIM Chino. If this is indeed the case, Mr. Spector will be handcuffed immediately and then shipped to Chino. His bail will be refunded and he will be on his way through the system.

~Corrina said...

Sprocket, someone who's been in court told me about Rachelle reacting over-the-top happy to see Dan Kessel-she patted the seat next to her and acts a little too happy to be around him. This person is a trustworthy source. Just thought I should add that.
Falling asleep while your hubby is on trial = NOT impressive.

Anonymous said...

Verdict on Wednesday and he will be immediately taken into custody. I cannot wait for his mug shot. No more makeup, bodyguards or hairpieces for Philip. Whose your daddy now, Philly?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mrs S sees the writing on the wall and is considering Dan Kessel as her next sugar daddy? lol

Anonymous said...

Maybe sleeping in court is the only rest Rachelle gets. I bet Phil rants and raves 24-7 telling Rachelle contact so and so. Help Me!!! do something. Jamie Floyd thought O.J. was innocent too. Thank you Sprocket for all you do. You are the best. Rest and take care of yourself. We need you.

Anonymous said...

A few comments:

1. Jamie Floyd has not followed the second trial, so i doubt that she has the knowledge base to believe it will be a hung jury again. The first trial was hung only because of one moron. She gets paid to take the defense side, and she will no matter what. She is not an unbiased commentator in any sense. I think another hung jury is the best possible outcome for Spector, so she is predicting the best possible result.

2. I do not think that Weinberg has been an excellent attorney for Spector in this trial. He has put on a disjointed defense with witnesses who do not support his case. He treats the court (Fidler) with apparent contempt. I think a lot of his actions are aimed at giving Riordan something to appeal if there is a conviction. I suspect that he has alienated some of the jurors with his antics. Having said this, I know that he did not have a lot of ammunition to work with. His client is obviously guilty. What I hold against him is his total disregard for the rules. I know he has to represent his client to the best of his ability, but he does not have to violate the court rules he is supposed to follow. He constantly violated discovery rules. If the prosecution did half of what he did, there would certainly be a mistrial. He is an officer of the court and has no duty to behave unethically for his client. He complains about not being treated as an insider of the LA courts, but his actions show that he does not care. He treats the judge with disdain, and treats court rules with contempt. He is looking for any avenue to get a mistrial. An attorney who was going to practice in LA would not behave in this way. He does not care about the LA courts, he is going back to San Francisco after this trial.


Anonymous said...

I love Jamie Floyd. She is simply pro-defense. She demands the state to prove their case. I would love to see Jamie in action. I wonder if she reads this blog. If so, Hi Jamie! Keep up the great work you do for all of us!

Anonymous said...

Golly Sprocket, to listen to your account of AJ's closing, the jury will be back before noon on Wednesday with a guilty verdict on murder in the second degree.

On the other hand.....

Anonymous said...

SPROCKET! *WOW* I am speechless! I feel like I WAS THERE.....IN THE COURTROOM! What a fabulous job you have done here in relaying the closing argument. BRAVO!~ And....THANKS, again, for your commitment and perseverance!!~


CaliGirl9 said...

Carol, you are correct but I do think some of the bail is retained (not at all positive, just anecdotal stuff I remember from my time working in corrections. Things certainly could have changed.).

I do agree that Chino is the likely first Department of Corrections place, though there is a second intake center somewhere in SoCal, I just can't remember which one. But Spector will go to the county jail first. Then when there's a bus and space available, he'll be dressed in an attractive Department of Corrections jumpsuit and board the bus for Chino. The evaluation process can take one to two months.

I've gone on record as saying he'll end up in Vacaville, because it is where the sick and small inmates (and not real dangerous ones with a noted exception: Edmund Kemper. Kemper is apparently a pussycat.) end up. It's a place for weak and easily-victimized predators.

I also think that Pleasant Valley and Soledad are likely places too.

At any rate, all serve cold boxed meals (usually bologna or turkey) sandwiches for lunch.

shari said...

HOLY COW GIRLFRIEND....that was the best!!!!!!!!! I too felt like I was right there with ya. They need to hire you for TRU TV. Not only do you know and understand your legalese, but you write so well that it REALLY COMES TO LIFE. Thanks so much Sprockie...looking forward to the verdict. S.

P.S. to blah, blah, blah....just keep blahing, no one is buying.

cherylt said...

Any chance there is more video clips like that anywhere? It was so GREAT to hear AJ's voice again. (sigh - I miss him so..)

I wonder why no news org has put these full closings on their website(s). I would think that may boost their business...

Anonymous said...

Those of you who are already speculating about where in the California Department of Corrections that Phil Spector will be housed are getting a head of yourselves.

To go to prison, Spector must first be found guilty by a unanimous jury.

Anonymous said...

I was thinking today, how awful for Donna Clarkson to outlive her daughter. I have always heard this is so painful for a parent. Especially in the tawdry circumstances as presented here.

For years PS worked with high-caliber people at the upper stata of musical show-biz. So who shows up to support him? A senior-citizen singer of "horoscope-themed" ditties and a musical producer-entrepreneur by the name of Kessel that nobody can identify with any legendary project. That kind of support ain't much. And as for Rachelle, taking momento-type photos at a murder trial, I won't even touch that one.

How lucky we are to have someone credible, reasonable, and "well-balenced" available to us to give us the low-down...bias or no.
Wes J.

Anonymous said...

Great Job Sprocket,
Have enjoyed reading and having a glimse of Alan Jackson once again. Thank you for your reporting of this second trial. Without your day to day reporting none of us would have known anything. Thank you Thank you Thank you

in Tx

Anonymous said...

This has been a very difficult trial with no media. I was disappointed. No one came to our recue but you, Sprocket. Thank you Sprocket for everything you have done to get this trial to all of us. You have taken a lot of your time out traveling back and forth and getting this trial to all of us and I thank you for that. I feel like I was there everyday.
Your passion for the legal system is incredible. The same passion we have to get Spector put where he should have been put back in 2003.
Money can be evil when it's in the wrong hand.
Lock him up your honor, Murder2.

GuiltyIndeed said...

Jackson did a great job. I felt I waa there thanks to your blog.

How sad that Spector never contributed much, if anything, to society after 1970. He abused women and HIS children. This behavior speaks volumes about Spector. How truly sad.

How sad that his own life was lived resting on some musical achievements in the 1950s & 1960s.

How sad he abandoned his own kids.


I hope we get a guilty verdict tomorrow.

A million thanks to you.

Anonymous said...

Agree with GuiltyIndeed, How sad also that money has allowed this defendant to remain free for so long and buy this high priced Defense team.

Barry said...


You have mentioned that the Court PIO is approachable. I would like this question to be answered by the PIO.

"Given the changing face of media - the shift away from television and newspapers and towards internet as a major source of news, shouldn't the courts devise a system of accrediting bloggers as they do traditional journalists?"

Anyone who was been reading Sprocket's blog knows that she IS a journalist - and a SUPRERB one at that. Jami Floyd is considered a journalist; yet she always presents her opinion - so do Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Charles Krauthammer.

When I read the Anderson Cooper piece, I realized that there had been a chance that Sprocket might not have been allowed in to the courtroom, while some blow dried nitwit who needed a diagram to know which one was Weinberg and which one was Jackson, was allowed in because she had a microphone.

Barry said...

Not seeing Weinberg every day, it is hard for me to say whether his arguing was a good strategy or not. But it is my general impression that he has done an excellent job defending his client.

Every American is promised their day in court under our Constitution. And the State MUST PROVE their case - the job of the defense is to make that as hard as possible.

In this case, the State HAS proven their case. Spector IS guilty. Yet he deserves a vigorous and hard working defense.

Weinberg is hampered by several factors:

(1) His client is guilty
(2) His client has past behavior that is harmful to a claim of innocence.
(3) His client is mentally unstable and has proven to be a terrible witness in past trials.
(4) His client and his wife have both made public statements attacking the judge, DA and/or the victim.
(5) The victim is a tremendously sympathetic character, not a trouble making lout who was roaming the streets looking for trouble.

As such, his best defense is to poke a hole here, raise a question there. Because he has so much money, he can afford to buy a defense few of us can imagine hiring for ourselves. His experts are among the most respected people in their fields. Yet, his experts look foolish not because they are stupid or corrupt, but because they are defending an illogical position. Dr, Harrold, by contrast, lacks their fame, but sounds reasoned and balanced because her opinions are supported by the facts,

Anonymous said...


Sprocket said...

PIO Office:

I think I need to clarify something here. The Public Information office is the court's liaison with the public. They make the decisions as to who gets on a seating list. A particular judge in one courtroom may allow cameras or a lot of media; another judge may deny cameras for a particular case and give preference in seating to the families. It may just depend on the particular judge.

I do not know their criteria for getting one's name/listing on a list. It may be as simple as which station/news organization calls first, and that's who they call off, the next down the line. That's how it was for the first trial and that's how it was for Miura.

From my past experience, I did not think that I "could" get on a seating list, and it was only the foresight of Linda, calling the office and asking to get on the list that I was able to get a seat every day of closings.

It may be, that they don't have a hard and fast rule, and that they do take into account regular public that have attended the trial every day; I don't know.

The seating of this trial was certainly different than that of the first trial, the Blake trial or the Miura hearings I attended, and I think that was because there was no media interest. Sherri, Linda and I came the most of anyone who showed up.

The thing that professional journalists have, that their accreditation and degree gives them, is the training to report neutrally. If you look at my entries covering the first trial, I did not report neutrally, nor did I write neutrally when I was attending the Robert Blake trial.

Covering this trial in the most neutral reporting that I could has been an interesting challenge for me. My friends in the accredited press tell me that I have to step back and not get emotionally involved in the story. From my perspective of following true crime, that's very hard to do.

Spector's contributions:
There's no social law that says that Spector is required to continue to contribute to the world of music. He had tremendous success when he was young. That's an accomplishment that most don't make. I understand where some might see that differently, but I don't see where it should be seen in a negative light that Spector's achievements were mostly in an earlier era.

Spector chose to retreat from the world either because of his own inner troubles or possibly because of his struggle with mental illness (that he himself has acknowledged). I don't think that's a negative. It is what it is.

Anonymous said...

Dang, Alan Jackson is cute!! Sprocket, there has been one thing missing in your excellent reporting:

The question is, is AJ married?

Sprocket said...

Jackson's marital status:
Jackson is not married. However, he is attached to a lovely woman whom I've met and spoken to. I sat next to her during part of the closing arguments.

She is quite pretty, tiny, with dark hair and very smart! I've noticed she has a gorgeous ring of diamonds and rubies that she wears on her RIGHT hand.

Anonymous said...

I think Barry's comments on the defense strategy are very good and well said as far as defense of a client in an ideal world.

But I do believe from what I've gathered from this trial that Weinberg has not done a service to his client by irritating the judge so many times with obfuscation and endless bickering.

Maybe this is the only way Weinberg sees of getting any sort of concession on the part of the court, but with a judge like Fidler, who is brilliant himself, I think that he has alienated himself as a person to respect.

Anonymous said...


What happens if the jury announces they have reached a verdict this week and Phil decides not to return to court to hear what he knows will be a guilty verdict? Can they go in to his house and drag him to court? How long do they have to wait before doing so?

Sprocket said...

Spector no-show for verdict:

This is a big "IF" understand. There has been nothing so far to suggest that Spector will not show for the verdict.

I do not know what the procedure is. I would imagine that he would be given a reasonable amount of time to show and if he doesn't show, then I'm GUESSING here, the judge revokes his bail and the sheriff's try to retrieve him.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the answer on AJ's marital status. Darn, he is a sight for sore eyes.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Phil Spector's accomplishments aren't an issue in this trial, however it seems so unfair that someone of wealth can "buy" a defense. I too believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and the Defense Lawyer's job is to make the State prove it's case, but an endless bank account to muddy the evidence seems like cheating. Highly paid witnesses have lied and manipulated evidence in this trial and gotten away with it. Henry Lee continues to be a part of trials with no repercussions. It doesn't speak well of the lawyers that defend this type of defendant. I just wonder how they sleep after its all over if their clients get off.

Johnny Cochran was a great Defense Lawyer and he got O.J. off. My hope is that when he got to the other side, his defendants "victims" Nicole and Ronald were standing right there waiting to talk.

If Phil Spector does go down for this the only consolation is that years of buying his way through life comes to a stop. The fact that he has spent a tremendous amount of money for nothing will be icing on the cake! And yes to keep my sanity I believe Lana will one day have the chance to set the record straight to EVERYONE who doubts Phil Spector's guilt.

Former Driver said...

The main reason PS didn't produce music the past 25 years is that he was blacklisted by the music industry. Managers of music artists refused to let their clients work with PS because of his reputation. There are so many more episodes of his pulling gun on people than what was brought forth in his criminal trials. He has pulled guns on chauffers, assistants, and women several other times. Unfortunately, in this industry if you come out in public with these stories, your career is shot because you now have a reputation as a 'tattle tale'.

Take the chauffer incident for example. If this driver had made it public that Spector pulled a gun on him for not getting to a place quick enough, do you think he would get any more business in the entertainment industry? So much illegal activity goes on in these automobiles, that drivers are required to sign a contract that they will never report any illegal conduct by celebrities to the media. These contracts also state that if a driver is ever contacted by the police, he/she is to refuse to speak to them, and refer them to the company's legal counsel.

I personally know PS was considered by the music industry as a nut case ready to explode. Management and insurance companies refused to let their clients work with him unless the musical artist would sign a release absolving any liability from damages inflicted by PS. And of course, these artists finally got the point.

Regardless of the verdict outcome, I sincerely hope he stays on his medication for the benefit of himself, his family, and strangers he meets at nightclubs.

Anonymous said...

There have been several comments regarding the tactics of Doron Weinberg, Spector's attorney. A book that should interest readers of this blog is "The Criminal Justice Club" by Walt Lewis. This book is available on Amazon. Walt Lewis is a former Deputy District Attorney with the L.A. District Attorney's office with over 30 years experience.

In this book, Mr. Lewis clearly defines the different roles of the prosecutor and the defense attorney on pages 22-37. For example, the rules on discovery are not the same for the defense lawyer as they are for the prosecutor.

Mr. Lewis writes in part, "The role of the defense attorney in the criminal justice system is very different than the role of the prosecutor. The public will not likely be made aware of the defense attorney's role in the criminal justice system from watching television or reading newspapers. The defense attorney's job is to get the best possible deal (plea bargain) for his client. The fact that the defense attorney believes, or even knows, his client is guilty of committing the crime is irrevelant."

David From TN

Anonymous said...

Please take the former limo driver posting at March 31, 2009 12:18 PM as "David" with a healthy grain of salt.

The first tip off that he is full of hot air is his claim that drivers in the entertainment industry are required to sign contracts stating that “that if a driver is ever contacted by the police, he/she is to refuse to speak to them, and refer them to the company's legal counsel.” Any such contractual provision would be void as against public policy, and would invalidate the entire agreement.

Second, Phil Spector was never “blacklisted” in the entertainment industry—no matter what this anonymous driver claims he heard from the back of a Town Car. In fact, if you read Phil Spector’s 2004 interview in Vanity Fare it discusses the various projects that Spector had been involved in up to that point. Moreover, there is no way to “blacklist” someone with his own record label.

To be sure, Phil Spector stepped on a lot of toes on the way up (which is also touched on in the article) but this limo driver is not credible on any level.

Anonymous said...

I've got news for Jamie Floyd, who, after the 1st set orf closing arguments said that Alan Jackson has NO evidence. Hey Jamie, what do you want for evidence? It would be nice if every murder had a video camera complete with full lighting and surround sound to go along with it but it rarely happens. Jamie thinks there is no evidence against the maniac? I have rarely seen such a mountain of evidence so compelling as the prosecution presented. Gimme a break!

Anonymous said...

The suicide theory is so asinine. Did either of the prosecutors really hit home that Lana had the handbag ON and was ready to GO? Sometimes things are way too overanylyzed thanks to crafty defense lawyers. Some of them could convince weak-minded jurors of just about anything by their repeating their idiotic notions over and over and over again. The Reginald Denny case was a good example. The jury saw the tape so many times of Mr. Denny having a brick crush his skull they became desensitized to it. Yes, I understand everybody is intitled to a defense but even in sporting events, defenses have to play by rules. Today's defense attorneys can lie, cheat, stonewall and fabricate stories with feew restraints. It's sickening

cherylt said...

Hey Sprocket,

Just curious - do u happen to know where we can see more (if not all) of the closings arguments? Or are there only snippets out there?


cherylt said...

Jon,you are right on re: JF. She thinks EVERYONE is innocent and would probably have fought hard for Dahmer to be freed. No one is guilty to her, even after a jury has found it. She is often so off my, IMO, that I just don't listen to her "last word" anymore but it just makes me angry. But I did hear the one (unfortunately) that u r talking about, and I don't know what trial she may be talking about. She obviously hasn't read anything HERE and is relying on her memory of the last trial.

Who knows what goes on in her head? I just don't get how certain defense attornies can truly believe their clients are always innocent. And even if they are not, it's a game to them, to get them off. This is especially horrible when the person is guilty as sin and very likely to re-offend in a violent manner.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Just wanted u to know there are others that feel the same way. She never met a guilty person... :)

jewels said...

Hi Sprocket,

Sorry if I sent this twice. I was wondering if you know what Dianne Ogden's cause of death was? I haven't been able to find anything on the internet.


Anonymous said...

If Jamie Floyd is right and there is no evidence against Spector, we are all in trouble. All anyone has to do to get away with murder is shoot someone when no one is looking, wipe the gun down, throw it at the feet of the victim and claim they committed suicide. She is truly ridiculous. I agree with a previous poster, JF never met a guilty person.

I know attorneys will fight for their clients even if they know the client is guilty. They have an obligation to do that. But they still have rules they should follow, and too many don't.


my2cents said...

Dear "Former Driver",
I would LOVE to hear more of what you have to say. I hope you'll share more of it here, AND you're welcome to also pop on over to the Phil Spector InSession board and share info there as well. (Sorry Sprocket - I'm trying to "steal" one of your viewers. LOL)

With regards to ANONYMOUS @1:34PM,
Maybe "blacklisted" is the wrong term, but there are many articles written that acknowledge a lot of high profile singing artists that refused to work with Spector OR stopped in the middle of projects with Spector, because he was so difficult to work with and ineffective in accomplishing anything close to what the had hoped he could bring to the table. Celine Dion was a recent artist who tried and then walked away. Even the lessor known group Starsailor fired Spector. His "Best Bud" John Lennon even refused to have anymore contact with Spector due to his unstable behavior, all the way up until his death. And with regards to what Phil Spector says in "interviews" . . they don't carry a lot of weight, for many. As I am sure many are aware of what Spector said to reporters, magazines, on video and via personal e-mails regarding Lana Clarkson and ALL of that has been proven to be bold faced LIES (i.e....she was standing went she pulled trigger, it was her gun not mine, she didn't work at HOB, I own HOB, I called 911, and so on). SO. . . Please "Former Driver", post a few more comments. I'm sure everyone (except ANONY @1:34pm) would love to hear MORE. Thanks for sharing.

Anonymous said...

Has the jury sent a note to the judge yet (for example to tell the court they would like to leave early tomorrow) that would be signed by the foreman and therefore tell us who the foreperson is?

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about the rightess brothers. They had a monster hit with you've lost that lovin feeling and spector was so diffcult to work with that they broke the contract with him and he sued them and won millions of dollars but they didnt care they just wanted to get away from spector

caroleigh said...

I, like millions of others are waiting for word from you Dear Sprocket.
Of course we want to know everything. What PS is wearing, what RS is wearing and what is Specter's demeanor.
I do have a question,,,
If guilty, I must assume he will be remanded immediately into the prison system. When he puts on prison garb (hopefully brilliant orange jumpsuit) does he get to keep his wig? If not, I can't wait for the mug shot!
Waiting Patiently In Vancleave Mississippi!