Hello everyone! At 9:35 am on my computer clock, the juror's buzzed that they started deliberating.
I have had an overwhelming response to the email notification request. I am adding your names as quickly as I can. I will be working on them over the next hour or so. Understand that they all have to be added to that draft email manually, so it's a lot of cut and paste. Please remember that it's very important that you put VERDICT WATCH REQUEST in the subject line.
9:41 am: Pat Kelly from the PIO office is here, the CNN reporter, Terri Keith from City News, Linda from San Diego, and a reporter from the UK Press Association is here.
10:47 am: Jury just buzzed. They are taking a break now. Just heard Wendy say they are going to deliberate until 3:00 pm today. From what I've overheard Wendy say, she is behind in getting the evidence books to the jurors.
10:56 am: I just overheard Wendy talking to someone on the phone. Apparently, the jurors are going to eat lunch and then go back to deliberating at 1:00pm because they want to leave early today. And just now, the sheriff Kyles said something to Wendy referencing the 3:00. I didn't hear all of it.
11:01 am: Just a few moments ago, I finally got caught up in adding everyone to the email list. Everyone, you would be better off clicking on the link on the blog to the right, that gives you an automatic notification when there is a new entry. I will post a new entry when a verdict is reached. If you've signed up for notification through the widget, you will get notified. I will not be adding any more names to my email list until much later this afternoon. I'd like to try to get working on getting my notes transcribed covering all of the closing arguments. I'm sure I'll hear about it if I don't transcribe more of the defense arguments.
11:03 am: The jurors just buzzed. They are back on the clock!
11:55 am: The bailiff Kyles tells the room that it's time for us to leave. Evidently, the caterer's have arrived and they need to bring the food in.
12:05 pm: I'm in the cafeteria now, starting my lunch. The jurors had not hit the buzzer yet to indicate they had stopped deliberating before we left but Wendy did indicate that she would let us know what the times on the jury clock were when we returned. We had heard earlier that they were going to start back up at 1:00 pm, but we won't be allowed in the courtroom until 1:30 pm. In the elevator down, I heard Pat Kelly explaining to the UK reporter, Rachael, that normally, they don't let the jurors leave early. That they have to deliberate to at least 3:00 pm, unless of course if someone is ill, or something like that. Once I know more about that (I'll ask this afternoon) I'll let you know.
1:29 pm: I'm heading back upstairs to the 9th floor.
1:39 pm: I'm back inside the jury room. A few more people have stopped by. Katie and Lisa are here chatting with Linda from San Diego and Sherri. Another reporter has shown up but I've never seen her before. Here are the revised jury clock times.
9:33 am: Started.
10:50 am: Break.
11:02: am: Started.
12:10 pm: Lunch Break.
1:22 pm: Started
I'm going to look at the latest comments then I'm going back to writing up Jackson's final closing arguments.
1:45 pm: The woman who entered is not a reporter. She's a member of the PIO. She's one of the few I've never seen before.
1:46 pm: Wendy says, "Rickey, are you ready?" He answers, "Sure." He gets the cart and the big binders of evidence are put on it. He takes them into the jury room. I faintly heard the bailiff call out, "Mail call!"
1:49 pm: Right before the bailiff emerged, I heard a bit more noise in the jury room for just a second. Nothing audible or recognizable; just loud voices.
2:51 pm: Buzz! The jury is ready to go home.
2:59 pm: Just like during the breaks and out of the jury's presence side bars, we can hear a bit of laughter in the jury room.
3:00 pm: The jurors file out of the jury room. Now they have left the courtroom accompanied by their bailiffs. When they join up with the alternates in the hallway, we can hear them greet each other.
Court is done for the day.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
73 comments:
Oh LORD above let there be peace for Lana and her family. All these years, all the BS, all the expense. It's time for Mr. Spector to own up....I'm praying LORD
I watched the whole first trial and have been glued to this BLOG since the second started. Even I need PEACE of mind that there is still sanity among us and justice can be done.
I know you are swamped but would love to hear your wrapup on Alan's closing arguments.
After 5 months of testimony, I'm sure the jury will take their time. At least I hope so. Wee Phil needs to go away for life.
Your posts are wonderful and upstage the great Harriet Ryan. Rock on Sprocket. We love ya'!
Thank you Sprocket.
You are truly generous and gracious.
Just as important, thank you to Mr. Sprocket.
The commitment and sacrifice each of you have made on our behalf humbles me.
I sincerely appreciate your time and your willingness.
Here's hoping, wishing and praying for retribution.
Sprocket, we can't thank you enough for your riveting coverage of this trial. If it weren't for you, we would only have the biased reporting of people like Linda Deutsch, who spins her reports to favor whatever celebrity is in trouble. I'm surprised AP still tolerates the old bat & her bias. And what a letdown Harriet Ryan with the LA Times has been, she is following in Deutsch's slanted footsteps.
Janelle Peterson
Calabasas
Sprocket The Rocket, thank God we have you. I need to empty cat litter pans, do the dishes, clean house. But I keep running back here to the computer looking for the word. The good word................ we have a verdict! And that is guilty guilty guilty!
Does anyone have any idea how much time he will serve? I hope Fiddler gives him every day and every minute that he deserves.
He and Bernie would make a nice couple
I remember the last trial, RS was all over the blogs, posting as anonymous defending her "husband", once the jury had the case.
I think she's back......
Where is Spector during deliberations? How much time will be given to both sides once a verdict is reached? Was this discussed?
Please don't allow Mr. Spector one more day of freedom. If they don't reach a verdict by 3PM today, Spector has a (4) day weekend! Enough is enough!
I am concerned that they want to quit early, why? Could they be in disagreement with one another as was the case if the first trial?
The very nonchalant approach is similar, again which worries me.
They should deliberate through the weekend, get it done!!
Jeez, these jurors already want to leave early! What if they drag this out again like the last trial? They probably can't wait to get home and get on the internet and read the blogs...
GUILTY!
I know where Spector is. At home, peering over his wifes shoulder as she posts as anonymous on all the blogs.....
Just one more post of deep gratitude for you, Sprocket. I'll be tuned in to this site until we hear those six magic letters.
G
U
I
L
T
Y
Answering questions:
Leaving me a comment saying "Phil Spector is innocent!" is fine. I would publish that.
But leaving me the same comment and then adding what you think of me, or accusing me of this or that, won't be published. I've asked people to be respectful to each other, that means to me, too.
I will be working on my entry of Jackson's last 25 minutes of closing as soon as I'm finished answering these comments.
Linda Deutsch:
I have the utmost respect for Linda Deutsch. She is highly regarded among her peers. I understand that some believe that her reporting is very pro defense.
I have tried very hard to make my reporting this year, as neutral as possible. To use adjectives that were neutral and not biased. It has not been easy.
I can't remember if it was in a comment on one of the entries or in an email I received about Harriet Ryan. I would have to disagree with the negative comments about Harriet's writing.
Harriet has a way of pulling the story together in a nice, concise way. And she has to do it in a limited amount of space. I am just reporting what I hear and copying down as much of the story as I can, and I have the luxury of no editor and as much space as I want. It takes someone with years of experience to do what she does and do it as effortlessly as she does.
I believe for the manslaughter charge it's something like 15 o 18 years. For the involuntary manslaughter charge, it's 2 or 4. The gun charge though, would automatically add ten years, regardless.
I have ZERO idea where Spector is staying, waiting for the verdict. I'm guessing that he's at home.
PHIL IS INNOCENT.
I was wondering if PS would commit suicide before the verdict comes in. He must feel that thngs will go against him and can't face the years of prison that await him.
PHIL IS GUILTY.
That's a fantastic idea,Hey, Phil Spector you reading this?
Just open your mouth, put the gun in, pull the trigger just like last time! Another accidental suicide! Need any help?
Sprocket- would you happen to know how much advance notice there might be from a jury verdict - to the in court formal announcement time? I live about a half hour from the courthouse and would love to be able to swing downtown, if possible, to be present for the verdict.
Guilty or not guilty, the case has not been proven beyond a resonable doubt.
SPECTOR IS....NOT PROVEN.
This place is getting brutal. I believe Spectore is guilty too...without any question. However, some of these comments wishing death should be removed. Sprocket's readers have always been civil.. C'mon guys.
Thanks Sprocket for your reporting; much appreciated.
Hope TruTV realizes they missed a great opportunity and decide to televise the civil trial. Would think that would be a slam dunk for the Clarksons and also hope the Goldman's give them some advice on how to collect. Bet RS fears that more than she fears her hubby.
Best regards. Bill
To those who feel Spector is innocent, please explain this, as I completely and utterly fail to understand:
If Spector is innocent then why isn't he saying it himself? I absolutely do not get it.
Any normal person would be jumping up and down trying to explain their innocence. I know I certainly would. You certainly would. We all would.
If she pulled the trigger, I would be telling everybody the story, even if I was engaged in some sort of bizarre behavior that night that would prove embarrassing to me. Or if I had "freaked out" and didn't call 911, and ran around trying to clean up because I was temporarily "out of my head." But if she pulled the trigger, then I'm not guilty of second degree murder.
However, if I had pulled the trigger, then I would certainly shut up and let the lawyers figure out a defense.
Please, Spector fans and those who think she indeed committed suicide in from of him, explain all this to me.
Sprocket you are the greatest! Thanks for all your hard work. All you guys talking about Spector shooting himself, just think about him sitting in his cell with no perks, he'd probably die from just that alone miserably.
Not Proven:
Isn't that exactly what Weinberg said in his closings, about the Scottish judicial system, that they had three choices, one of them being "not proven?"
Suggestions for Spector to use a gun on himself:
I'm not going to censor that comment. If anyone recalls, a Spector supporter made the exact same suggestion to me, on air, when they called into one of the shows I did on Talk Radio One.
Why:
Please don't ask me to explain WHY I approve some comments and not others. Having the opportunity to leave a comment here is a courtesy. If it gets too cumbersome having to reject so many, I'll just turn the feature off.
I think the facts speak for themselves. If someone you barely know commits suicide in your home, YOU IMMEDIATELY CALL 911, if not to help save their life....to save your own ass. You don't trot around for 40 minutes trying to clean up and then NEVER call police with a zillion phones at your easy reach. The only reason for the 40 minutes and the NO CALL to 911 would be if you were trying to cover up something YOU had done. 'NUFF SAID!!!!!!!! Common sense.
I agree, Sprocket, Harriet Ryan is good & does not have an easy job. She was a CourtTV producer before she went to work for the Times when the first Spector trial ended. However, I lost respect for her when she pandered to Mrs. Spector by printing her website in a story focusing on RS's harassment of someone at the retrial. Bad choice of story & highly unprofessional in my opinion, but she hasn’t been working in the major leagues for very long so I suppose that excuses her.
Janelle
He pulled a gun on at least 5 women.
Lana was the 6th.
Guilty
Any questions?
Sprocket,
Where are you spending your time when you are in 106? Did you say you would be in the Jury room? If you are, where are the jurors? I'm sure I read that in one of your posts.
Ron B
And, for you Spector supporters, HE HAD THE GUN IN HIS HAND AND SAID "I THINK I KILLED SOMEBODY". Wake up, for chr.st sake. Your man killed Lana and he must pay for it.
Where am I?:
I'm in the ground floor cafeteria while 106 is closed during the lunch hour (12 noon to 1:30 pm).
I'm going to pack up now and head back up to the 9th floor.
Harriet Ryan:
Consider this: If Harriet Ryan wasn't in the courtroom when Judge Fidler ruled the photographs on Rachelle Short's website were illegal, would anyone have known about this? Answer: No.
NO GSR, SO THE GUN WAS NOT IN HIS HANDS,HOWEVER THERE WAS GSR IN BOTH OF HERS,,,,,,HE IS INNOCENT,THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT,,,SPROCKET GREAT JOB, BUT IM FOR THE DEFENSE SINCE DAY ONE AND WELL WE ALL KNOW YOUR FOR THE PROSECUTION,,,,,,,,
Hi Sprocket-
Thank you again for keeping us all in the loop and being patient with emotions running high.
I'm concerned that Spector will flee before the verdict comes down, hope someone is keeping an eye on him. But that leads me to another concern, has he bribed a juror thus doesn't need to flee?
All the garbage about no GSR on him, no blood splatter on hands, etc, he had 40 minutes to ALTER THE CRIME SCENE INCLUDING HIMSELF.
plus, she was pushing him and the gun away so naturally, her hands were up by her mouth.
Sprocket,
I think the reason the jury wants to leave early today is because after choosing a foreman they took a vote. They all voted guilty. The foreman told them they would come back after the long weekend then vote again before ringing the buzzer 3 times. GUILTY!!!!
My only concern is that the jury is so casual about deliberating and wanting to get off early. When do they come back this next week? Aren't MOnday and Tuesday dark days? At this point I just want to see a guilty verdict and if it isn't want to get over the terrible injustice of it not being that.
YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GSR IF YOU THINK NO GSR ON HIS HANDS MEANS WAS DIDN'T HOLD THE GUN. HE WASH HIS HANDS AND SHOOK IT OFF HIS JACKET. GSR IS LIKE A FINE DUST. EASY TO REMOVE FROM SKIN OR CLOTHING.
and no im not rachelle,my mane is sandi007
You misstate the facts Anonymous. We don't know if there was GSR on Mr. Spector because he was never tested for GSR. Hope the jury listened better than you did.
Carol
GSR:
I have to say a few words about GSR. GSR is something I first learned about by attending the Robert Blake trial. I also learned quite a bit about spatter and directional spatter from that case, too, but this is about GSR.
Most police agencies don't test clothing for GSR. I know the lab that handled the evidence for the LAPD in the Blake shooting didn't. The detectives WANTED them to test the clothing, and they wouldn't. So, what they did was, they took the clothing to the Coroner's office, and asked them to test it! This was in the Blake case mind you.
From the Blake case, I also learned about how pesky GSR can be, especially in secondary transfer. You can pick GSR up just by being in an environment where it is. This was something that the LA County Coroner's office determined when Steven Dowell did a case study of whether or not GSR could be picked up from the back seat of patrol cars, even though the officers they had tested for the experiment, had not fired a weapon.
In this case, People v. Spector, Spector's clothing was not tested for GSR. Even if they did test it for GSR and found some, it would be meaningless because Spector's home was an environment for weapons. GSR can easily transfer from one item to another through quick contact; it's just the nature of GSR.
So, continuing the mantra that there's "NO GSR on Spector, therefore he's innocent" is not a logical or meaningful argument. You might as well say, "He wears a wig so he couldn't have done it!" I mean, the NO GSR on his clothing is just as meaningful as that.
Sprocket is right.
Although I personally believe that he is guilty - it is hatred (towards women) and disregard for human feelings has brought us into this courtroom.
Let's rise above that and show some basic respect and empathy for our fellow humans and maybe there will be a few less twisted individuals on this earth.
If we expect those close to PS to keep an open mind that the PS they know (who may be a PS that we do not know) could do such a thing - than we have to keep the same open mind that allows them to express (within reason) their opinion.
Arrrrrghhh!! Do we have to hear AGAIN how there was no GSR on PS??? There was testimony that he washed his hands, and his clothes were not examined because with all the guns he had around the house, it would not be unusual for him to have GSR on his clothing!!!
good point sprocket,but with alL due respect,,there is still reasonable doubt (alot),,
Thank you Sprocket. Excellent explanation. That poster said he/she was for the defense from day one, so no amount of logic is going to mean anything to him/her.
Just try to remember if he is found "Not Guilty" there is a true difference between Not Guilty and Innocent.
well im glad that you guys cleared that up!!!! bye sprocket,
The only people who can say there is reasonable doubt at this point are either not able to listen to the evidence, or unable to comprehend that when 1 + 2 + 3 are added together that indeed there is a sum which is accepted by anyone who believes numbers exist.
Sprocket your reporting is BETTER than any of the reporters. You make me feel I am right there. I hope you your hubby and the kitties have a great restful weekend.
"I THINK I KILLED SOMEBODY"
The only "doubt" was that he wasn't sure she was really dead when he walked out the door. He was too drunk to know for sure.
you know what strikes me as funny? just reading all these comments here can you just imagine what must be going on in the jury room? I dare say that we could not get 12 random of us together to decide whether the sun was shining or not, much less decide this case. Hard to imagine having to decide something as important as this case. I couldn't be one of the jurrors, I would have to start slapping people. tee hee. Thanks again Sprocket, you have done an outstanding job. Meanwhile we wait. I hope we are not here still waiting on Memorial day.
Nan
Reasonable Doubt:
People have been trying to define it for years. Even Weinberg tried in his closing to define it for the jurors but Fidler would not allow it. Weinberg (outside the jury's presence stated he had been making that argument for years in other cases.) Fidler then immediately handled to Jackson and Weinberg a recent case law on the issue, specifically indicating that no one but the Judge via jury instructions can tell the jury what exactly reasonable doubt is.
For some Spector supporters, reasonable doubt is the fact that there wasn't a video recording of the crime. Juror #10 was like that. I think nothing else would suffice.
In Jackson's closing, he systematically went through all of the forensic evidence that Weinberg presented as "proof" that Spector did not shoot Lana Clarkson, and effectively deconstructed each and every one.
DNA on the gun:
Spector supporter's think this is a huge issue, that there was no Spector DNA found on the weapon. They think this is proof beyond that reasonable doubt that he didn't fire the weapon. First off, the weapon was never tested for DNA. It was tested for blood. There was blood all over that weapon.
There argument is, since Spector's DNA was not there, he didn't handle the weapon and didn't fire it.
Second, when the blood on the banister was tested, there was no Spector DNA in that sample. With the same logic, that means Spector never touched that banister in his own home.
Third, when the bloody diaper was tested, there was no Spector DNA found on that either. So with that same logic, Spector never picked up the bloody rag or handle.
DNA doesn't just "go away." It has been found years later on items. The real reason there was no Spector DNA found in the blood is exactly what Steve Renteria testified to. It's that the large amount of DNA from the blood OVERWHELMED the "touch DNA" that might have been on those items.
Touch DNA is quite different in how strong the expression is compared to the large amount you find in blood from a gunshot wound. Steve Renteria testified to that. When you touch something, you leave your DNA there. However, it may not be able to be detected by current methods. (Ergo, there's not enough for our current methods to detect.)
Sprocket . . . you are having way too much fun responding to our meandering blog entries. Get to work woman . . . we are all still waiting for your take on the AJ closing. LOL.
Oh, that was COMICAL, the person who tried to leave a comment that I could be sued for libel by Rachelle.
I believe she had to be instructed by Judge Fidler to remove illegal photographs from her website. That's in the court record.
I've always been up front about the fact that I have a bias. I've never tried to hide it from anybody. So, accusing me of having a bias on my OWN blog because I'm unwilling to approve defense spin rhetoric is, in my opinion, more comedy.
I am under no obligation to publish ANY comments by ANY of my readers. Sheesh! (I'd like to see the law that requires me to do so. ROTFLMAO!) For me to be charged and successfully convicted of libel, the individual charging who have to show that I significantly harmed them in some way.
If you don't like the entries here, if you don't like the comments here, go start your own blog and get your readers to leave comments, lol!
Everyone here at T&T, all the contributors have put in lots of hard work to make this blog what it is. I've put in the hard work of attending this trial every day, so I get to decide what gets published on my blog. End of story.
Oh my goodness, I didn’t remember Harriet as being the reason for RS’s illegal courtroom pics being exposed. I just remember thinking her article promoted what RS was doing by publishing the direct link to the site. Thanks, Sprocket.
Janelle
Robert Blake and OJ could argue that they were not there when the crime happened so that their testimony would not shed light on the evidence.
Phil Spector WAS there when this happened. If he is innocent - why did he waive his right to testify?
All you PS supporters? If he was innocent - why doesn't he tell what really happened? Why? Because his attorneys do not want to add perjury to his list of crimes.
Simple as that.
I know most of us can't wait for the guilty verdict. But just imagine the knot that must be in little Phil's stomach right now.
As guilty as I believe PS is, as an attorney, there is no way I'd put him on the stand. Can you imagine what AJ would do to him given how he spent the 40 minutes before the police arrived? That, as they say, would not be pretty for him. Another blogger said if they were in his shoes they'd be proclaiming their innocence from the highest mountain. I agree, but then I did not do the stupid/evil things that PS did prior to being visited by the police. Saying "What do you expect . . . I was drunk!" is not likely to get much traction or sympathy.
Sprocket, have you confirmed that the jury is leaving at 3?
Jeeez, they didn't even wait till 3!
Someone should write a book about LA juries
Thank you for being there Sprocket
The way I look at it, even if there is a hung jury, take Philly to court a third time. Never mind the money he has already spent, all the stress has got to be taking years off his life.
This has been a very long ordeal for the jury. They rightfully need a break. They have finally obtained a little 'down time', and will begin serious deliberations on Wednesday.
Remember, they didn't even have the Evidence books until this afternoon. Please remember WE have chosen to follow this trial, they have not. It is rather selfish for anyone to DEMAND the amount of time the jury spends deliberating.
I agree with Liz. Seems to me they must like the catered meals and short hours. I couldn't believe one of them couldn't give Alan Jackson 10 more minutes to finish his closing arguments. After all these months of being there everyday you would think they would know Phil is GUILTY!!!
I seem to remember Vinnie Politan say that the average jury takes 1 day of deliberation for each full week of testimony, so this could go on for some time. Personally, I think the jury will come back before the end of next week, even though there are only 3 days of work for them and Wednesday will be a shorter day than usual.
I trust this jury to go over all of the evidence and come to a verdict they can live with. That's all we can ask of them.
Carol
I guess we can all get a little rest from the anxiety until Wed.
I think the jury will benefit with a little mental vacation and come back refreshed and ready to work.
Sprocket, what can I say, I marvel at your knowledge and the things you have learned. You have a gift for teaching and writing. I know your love of sewing, but this too comes across as a passion for you. Thank you for all of your hard work, and thank you for the lessons in the law. Maybe I will take up trial watching in my home town. You never know, it could be interesting!
Tess
Rachelle could sue Sprocket for libel? Please.
In the first place, she would have to show an intent to damage her "reputation". What's to damage?
Secondly, it is very hard to sue for libel in this country--just ask any public person who has been smeared by tabloids and "Confidential"-style exposes since the 1950's. The lawyer fees quickly exceed any monetary awards--and a legit atty would tell her so.(Not that a smear has occurred here).
Thirdly, I would think RS has a few more priorities ahead of this one.
Why do the pro-Spector groupies out there always come back with these nutty ideas? Its laughable.
Wes J.
Libel:
What's so funny, is they keep telling me that I better notify Mr. Sprocket to advise him of the situation because he could lose his house. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!
To even suggest that Mr. Sprocket has a say in what I spend my time and energy on, is even more comical.
Hope you can get to describing AJ's closing arguments soon. Ignore the comments here and hope you get to it soon.
Good work.
During the first trial, did any of you read The Darwin Exception? She covered the trial and wrote the most hilarious, rip roaring coverage of the trial.
Unbeknown to most, the defense team tried a similar tactic with Kim, threatening her with legal action because of what she was writing on her blog. I believe the emails came out of Bradley Brunon's office.
A single response from Kim shut that door pretty quick.
Kim was never sued and wrote what ever she wanted covering the trial. Oh and Kim, controls what comments are published on her blog, too.
The stuff this individual is leaving, is not only comical, it just shows how desperate some people are.
I was kinda hoping for one of those FridaIy afternoon guilty VERDICTS Its time for Phil to go to Alcatraz with the birdman!!!!
If Lana did kill herself--How did she wipe her finger prints off the gun after she shot herself, that would be a pretty amazing task
I hope that after all this is wrapped up and over that you will devote a single blog to your experiences with the defense trying to intimidate you and any other things you didn't really mention during the trial.
Okay Ladies, How many of you put your purse over your shoulder when you are planning on walking out the door? I know I do! That in itself should show that Lana was wanting to LEAVE!
I wonder why the mad man's entourage is writing to you, dear Sprocket, when they could be out pre-celebrating at Dan Tana's or the House of Blues. HA.
Post a Comment