Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Phil Spector Verdict Watch Day 3

9:30 am: Hi everybody. I'm inside the courtroom and we just heard the first BUZZ exactly at 9:30 am (by my computer clock) that the jury has started deliberations. There are a bunch of attorney's and family in the courtroom for another case but the Judge is not on the bench yet. I got to see Dr. Carroll Adams for a moment who updated me on the Cameron Brown case. He said that Judge Pastor just returned from medical leave and is on the bench today. There is another case 107 will be trying before Cameron Brown that should take about two weeks. So they might get to starting the Brown case by the end of the month.

Inside 106, Juror #9 from the first trial Ricardo is there chatting with Linda from San Diego. Sitting next to me in the back row is Lindy, the CNN reporter. She tells me her official title is a producer. Pat Kelly from the PIO office is in the third row and I see her on a laptop. That's the first time I've seen her on one in 106.

I don't know if it's a case update in the matter that's going to be heard or not. There is a pretty, blond female prosecutor at the desk and she's got a big file in front of her. Once I know more, I'll try to write about it. I'm not that good on the laptop writing while people are speaking. Believe it or not, I'm better taking those type of notes by hand.

9:45 am: Linda from San Diego just told me that when the jurors came in, they didn't look any different than how they normally dress.

9:50 am: Wendy comes over to talk to Ricardo and give him a hug. They discuss the catering and Wendy says it's a struggle dealing with the different caterers. She also mentioned that she is trying to feed jurors and still adhere to Lent.

10:00 am: Pat Dixon just popped into the current case all set up to speak to the pretty female prosecutor. He left already.

10:04 am: Someone just asked in the comments what my final E-mail tally was. It's easier for me to answer here. I haven't counted them all yet. It's for certain over 325, possibly closer to 350. If there is NO VERDICT today, I will add more email addy's tonight, but not until then.

10:06 am: Bailiff Kyles just entered the jury room. Have no clue what for.

10:09 am: Katie and Lisa just showed up and are sitting to my left. Katie gave me a ride home last Friday and I left my sweater in her car. She brought it for me today.

I'm in the far back left corner of the courtroom. Lindy is reading the paper and Linda from San Diego and Juror #9 are still chatting. Terri Keith from City News is at the other end of the room on one of the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door.

10:20 am: My best guess on the other case is they are waiting for a defendant. Everyone at the table looks like an attorney. Just saw Fidler come out of his chambers for a moment then go back in. He was not in his robes. He was wearing a shirt, tie and a sweater vest. It's a look he's obviously comfortable with because I've seen him dressed like that several times.

Uh oh. Mr. Sprocket just called. I've got to step outside and call him back.

10:28 am: While I was on the phone in the hallway, I saw Wendy leave 106 and enter 107. I tiptoed over and opened the door to 107. The inner courtroom doors were propped open and I saw her enter 107's jury room. My best guess is, she is taking lunch requests, but I don't know that for certain.

10:32 am: BUZZ! They must be stopping for a bathroom break.

Someone just asked about the jury clock in the comments. Right now, we are at about 7 hours and 25 minutes by my calculations.

Katie is asking Ricardo about what it was like in the jury room. Juror #9 says, "The first day we kinda sat there looking like now what." And Ricardo suggested there be a straw poll. Juror #10 said they couldn't do that. Richardo says, "After listening to the first five women, it was hard for him to listen to the defense case. [...] He did not believe a single one of the defense experts."

10:41 am: BUZZ! They've started deliberating again.

10:43 am: Sherri finally arrived.

Ricardo tells us a little more about what went on in the first trial deliberations. "In the jury room during the first trial, people looked up to Ben because he was an engineer and an Elder in his faith. And they looked up to #2, because he was more outspoken and a newsman. He had a funny way of talking."

10:49 am: Linda Deutsch arrived and is speaking to Pat Kelly from the PIO. She's not even sitting down. Looks like, yep she leaves.

Ricardo says that Wendy told him the case we are waiting on now was something that happened in Lancaster. He thinks there are two defendants, and someone was set on fire.

11:03 am: Ricardo just told me that Wendy told him there will be a hearing this afternoon at 1:30 pm about Weinberg's LA Times article. Ricardo told Wendy that he saw Weinberg downstairs. Wendy said the only reason they are holding it in the afternoon is because they didn't think Weinberg was here.

It's quite noisy right now. Lots of chatting among the parties in the other case, and everyone in the back row is quite loud. The bailiff went into the little room underneath the screen, and one of the attorney's went in there too. So maybe the defendants are almost ready. Maybe they are putting them in street clothes.

11:21 am: We are still waiting on this other case. Richardo is still chatting about the first trial and what the jurors thought of all the attorneys. Chris Plourd put a lot of the jurors to sleep. The jurors were amazed that Plourd had Spector stand up and put his arm out as if he pointed a gun. During discussions, they couldn't believe he did that.

11:24 am: It's a woman defendant that's been brought in. The bailiff is unlocking her handcuffs now and attaching them to her chair.

Shes looks quite young. She has long hair. Now they are taking her back already. What's wrong? She's in jail blues.

11:27 am: Lindy says the guy who was twittering was Michael Linder from KABC radio. He's not here today.

11:31 am: Just heard Wendy say that lunch is here early for the jury. Wendy says to another officer that Officer Williams is across the hall with her other alternates.

11:33 am: TWO BUZZES!!!!

Officer Kyles is not in the courtroom right now, so I think they have to locate him.

11:37 am: Kyles enters from the jail area and is making his way over to the jury room.

11:39 am am: Kyles came back out and now is over at Wendy's desk. He did not have a paper in his hand.

11:42: am: BUZZ! They've stopped deliberating and Kyles just went into the jury room.

Answering a question in the comments area. Ricardo says, "I think he delayed the first straw poll because he felt we couldn't make an informed decision until they reviewed evidence."

11:45 am: Kyles just exited with a piece of paper in his hand!

11:45 We've just been informed that a juror is not well, needs to see a doctor and they won't be deliberating past 12 noon. And, something is going on in the other case. Fidler just stepped out for a second and then went back into chambers.

11:38 am: Juror #9 (from the second trial) is escorted out of the jury room by a bailiff. This must be the juror who is sick.

There are THREE defendants in the other trial. A woman in blue, a man in blue and a man in orange that have just been brought in and are now sitting behind the attorneys in the well.

Fidler is on the bench in the other case. Discovery motions. One of the defense attorney is asking about the penalty phase. And an attorney is also stating he doesn't know if he has all the photos.

Ms. Green is the prosecutor.

Doesn't sound like there are any issues that the court needs to address. Don't know if we want do deal with severance now or wait until specific pieces of evidence.

Ms. Green is asking for a witness to be ordered to be on call. Ordering more witnesses. They are calling a witness, the people in this case.

Danny Smith is the witness. In 2003 he was a deputy sheriff homicide division. At time he was a deputy for 20 years. He's currently retired. Investigated a missing person report regarding a William Whiteside. Also he was in contact with someone and those conversations were recorded.

The person was Valerie Martin, who was living with William Whiteside. She was his girlfriend. She was the reporting party, that William Whiteside was missing.

She went into another room in the trailer, changing her clothes and he heard noise. His partner and him went to investigate, and Valerie Martin was trying to escape from the trailer. She ran around the corner, started running south, when he caught up with her, she fell on the grass. Do you see Valerie Martin in the courtroom right now? Yes. He identified the individual.

When he first saw her running he yelled to his partner that she was running. One of them handcuffed her and asked her why she was running. They requested a female deputy from Lancaster for a female search. They waited for a shot period of time and there were no female deputies available.

They have to clear the courtroom to feed the jury. They will return at 1:45 pm for this case because they have a hearing at 1:30 in the Spector case.

And that's it. We're being kicked out.

I'll be back on once I get set up in the cafeteria.

12:36 pm: I'm in the cafeteria right now finishing up my lunch. Before I left 106 I tried to get a clarification from Wendy when the jury clock officially ended. Was it when they buzzed twice to get the bailiff in the jury room to let Kyles know a juror was sick, or was it the other single buzz I heard later. Wendy didn't know, so I don't have an "official" ending time on deliberations as of right now, but she said she would have to get that information to me later.

The juror who was ill, #9, a young man did not look green when he left but that really is hard to tell.

Regarding the hearing at 1:30 pm, I don't know who called for the hearing. It could have been the prosecution or it could have been the court. That is unknown. I do know that Linda from San Diego says she saw Mr. Jackson in the hallway before I arrived. She stated he had a paper in his hand when he entered 106 but she doesn't believe he still had it when he exited just a minute later. She said she wasn't sure.

Understand, Fidler may not see a problem with Mr. Weinberg's response to the LA Time's article. I've not seen the article in the paper; I've only seen it online where it is categorized in the OPINION section there. Remember, most everything in the article was put before the jury as part of Weinberg's closing argument, so I don't believe much of it is anything new.

Even if Fidler has a problem with it, I don't know what type of sanctions could be leveled against the defense now anyway. The jury is in deliberations. They can't be interfered with now. Maybe it is something serious, I honestly don't know. We'll hopefully find out at 1:30 pm.

12:57 pm: Apparently there is some confusion as to which juror is ill. It is Juror #9 from THIS TRIAL. I know it's a bit confusing since Juror #9 from the FIRST trial, Ricardo, was in the gallery in the morning.

1:22 pm: The hallway is packed with jurors from other courtrooms. Just saw Mr. Weinberg walk towards 106 and try the door. It's locked. He's still down there. I'm near the elevators grabbing the nearest seat.

Linda, who has been up on the 9th floor since 1:10 pm says she hasn't seen the jurors come out of 106 but they COULD HAVE left before that time. We don't know.

1:25 pm Looks like Weinberg entered 106. I'm heading down there now. More in a bit.

1:32 pm: Spector's #1 fan is here, dressed very casually. AJ, Truc, Joshua and one of the DA's clerks are here. So is Linda Deutch from the AP and Terri Keith from City News. When I left for lunch, I saw Linda at the other end of the hall and told her about the juror going home ill.

Wendy: Counsel ready for the jurors? (Or maybe she said Judge. Dunno.)

Judge on the bench. Prosecution called the meeting. Weinberg is asking for this in camera.

Simply want to bring to the court's attention something of note. Jackson brings up Weinberg's article

It is our position that is patently inappropriate. Mr. Weinberg is an experienced trial lawyer and he knows better. This should stop.

My concern was not for the jury, because after the court's admonition I don't think anyone is looking at the articles.

I think the court needs to at least inquire to see if the jury has [...] at least inquired to see if they've seen anything over the last few days.

Weinberg now speaks about where the article in the Times was in a place where the jurors might have avoided it. It was the second time in a very short period that individuals who have ties to the prosecution mentions me and my blog entry on Spector's statements.

The timing of that was extremely troubling and curious.

2:04 pm: I'm down in the cafeteria. The hearing is over. I was having trouble typing and keeping up so I reverted to hand notes inside the courtroom.

Weinberg used for his defense of writing the LA Times piece the entry that I put up on this blog regarding Spector's statements as well as the LA Times article. He states that what he wrote only appeared online and you had to go through a series to steps to find it.

When my blog is mentioned Judge Fidler interjects that he doesn't read blogs because he's not savvy enough to find them on the Internet. But he does read the LA Times.

There's more that I will get to when I get home. The last thing that Weinberg complains about is, my real time updates from the courtroom, insinuating that I am reporting information before the attorney's get it. He doesn't believe that should be happening. He mentions my reporting of the hearing at 1:30 and he also mentions my reporting that a juror is ill.

Fidler responds something to the effect that the public is here, if something is announced but he also agrees that something should not be released before the attorney's receive it. Wendy speaks up and states that she called Mr. Weinberg. Wendy also clarifies for the record that she told the PIO and they announced it to the room.

Ah, Mr. Weinberg, it's called the first amendment. As much as the defendant, and now Mr. Weinberg tries these tactics to intimidate me, I'll still keep coming back to report on this trial.

I'm going to head back home now. As soon as I get home an in my comfy chair, I'll update what I can from memory and the sketchy notes.

3:47 pm: Hi everybody! I'm home! What a blatant attempt by Weinberg to intimidate me. If you want to know what's going on inside the courtroom Weinberg, then put one of your staff in there to sit and wait. I'm putting in the hours. I hear the information announced just like everyone else in the courtroom does. This is so sad that Weinberg is worried about what a mere blogger is writing. I would think he would be more worried about the jury.

I'm going to go through the 40 or so comments that have been left since I've been traveling, get something to munch on and then add to what happened today in the afternoon session.

4:08 pm: Oh and by the way, I was not kicked or escorted from the courtroom. I left the courtroom when the hearing was over, just like Weinberg did. The Judge did not address me and tell me I couldn't be inside the courtroom, waiting on verdict watch. I've done nothing wrong. The only thing I've done is report on this trial. The reality is, the defendant and his wife can't stand that and now his attorney is trying to imply that I'm doing something wrong by waiting for the jury to reach a verdict and reporting what's announced inside 106.

It's a public space. I have every right to be there. It's desperate, if you ask me and shows where Mr. Weinberg is focusing his time. I'll write up more details from the hearing as soon as possible.

Update! April 1st, 2009, 5:53 pm

I find out in the hallway just before we go into 106 that it's the prosecution that called for the hearing at 1:30 pm. Inside 106, the defendant is not present for this hearing. It's Jackson that brings it to the court's attention about the piece in the Times that Mr. Weinberg wrote. Weinberg interjects that, before they begin, he feels that maybe this is better served by addressing this in chambers. He does not want to do this in open court. That's interesting. The Judge doesn't see any reason why they have to do that and so Weinberg has to settle for this being discussed in open court.

Since I was trying to type on my laptop what the attorney's were saying, I wasn't doing very well transcribing. Jackson spoke first. "It is our position that is patently inappropriate. [...] Mr. Weinberg is an experienced trial lawyer and he knows better. [...] This should stop. [...] My concern was not for the jury, because after the courts admonition I don't think anyone is looking at the articles. [...] I think the court needs to alt least inquire to see if the jury has at least inquired to see if they've seen anything over the last few days."

Weinberg then responds. Weinberg now speaks about where the article in the Times was not in a place where the jurors might have avoided it. Weinberg states that he felt he needed to respond to the Times article because it was the second time in a very short period that individuals who have ties to the prosecution (Weinberg must be referring to me, but who could he be talking about from the LA Times?). He then brings up the entry I posted where I COPIED DOCUMENTS THAT WERE IN FILED IN MOTIONS FROM THE LA SUPERIOR COURT WEB SITE. (These were all of Spector's statements AND the police reports the officers filed.) Weinberg states the blogger wrote misinformation, or maybe he said, "misleading" information. I'm not positive on the word. But that was his implication. Then, from memory, I believe he said something to the effect of, 'Information that was inadmissible to the jurors.' He then says "The timing of that was extremely troubling and curious." He then goes on about the LA Times article and his need to address it.

I wasn't able to keep up covering the hearing on my laptop so I put it down and switched to writing by hand.

Weinberg states, "My comments were not to influence the jury. It was in the "Blowback" section of the LA Times."

Judge Fidler asks if this was in the paper or only online.

Weinberg clarifies that it was online only and that you had to go look for it. Weinberg continues with, "My concern is for the criminal justice system only. [...] My opinion is that if there happens to be another acquittal, then the public would see it as justice for pay. [...] That is the reason, but I take it that the jurors are “not” (reading the Internet)."

Weinberg clarifies that the article, "is virtually what I said to the jury in court. Otherwise, it is exactly what I told the jury. [...] I only included the information from the NSA, in response to what the Times had reported in their own story. [...] I do think the Times story was implied to sway public opinion. I could have found some shill who signed it for me, (but I didn't)."

Jackson counters with, "The timing is what I’m concerned about. [...] I could care less about his personal opinion. [...] What I’m concerned about is, the first statement (in the article) is, in effect (an attempt) to influence public opinion and the timing. [...] Why didn’t he wait a few days until the case was resolved? [...] If this wasn’t an attempt to influence the jury... As an officer of the court, if he doesn’t know better then he’s ignorant. [...] Ms. Do and I didn’t write the LA Times article. [...] We were just as shocked to see the LA Times article as (he was). [...] This court told the attorneys not to try this case in the media."

Jackson goes on to say that that’s what they’ve done. They've honored the courts request. “My concern is to maintain the deliberating sanctity of this jury."

Weinberg responds, "If they were worried about the sanctity, we would have heard Monday or Tuesday about a terrible article in the Times. [...] I was worried about influencing public opinion and this was an attempt (to rectify that)."

Fidler addresses the court. "I did read on Monday the editorial. The Times is free to publish in its editorial section on any subject they wish. I was worried there was a concern about the jury. [...] My preference would be, there is no formal gag order on the attorneys. I’ve asked for your best judgment. [...] A juror has the flu.[...] I’m concerned about it spreading to other jurors. If jurors are intact tomorrow... (I will poll them on if they’ve read anything) ...I worry that the illness might spread. [...] If something like this happens again, please call me. Mr. Weinberg, you can reach me through the DA's office. [...] If we have a problem let's talk about it."

Judge Fidler then addresses the issue of bloggers. "About bloggers. I don't read them. I'm not savvy enough to find them. [...] I do read coverage in the Times. [...] I don’t know whether they (or the AP) have ties to the prosecution. I think the coverage in the Times has been fair. I don’t think anything else needs to be done."

Jackson states that they do not need to be here for the inquiry into the jurors. Weinberg says the same thing.

Weinberg then states, “I also don’t read blogs, but others do. Bloggers ought not to be getting information before lawyers or public get it. A blogger who has been sitting in the courtroom reported (?) at 11:30 am and then reported that a juror was ill at 11:45 am."

Fidler responds something to the effect that the public is here, if something is announced, (it's public knowledge) but he also agrees that something should not be released before the attorney's receive it.

Wendy speaks up when Mr. Weinberg first talks about this and tells him that he was called. She then adds, "For the record, I’ve announced it to the PIO and they announce it to the court."

And that was it. Hearing was over and the counsel exit for the next hearing to take place. Like I mentioned above, I wasn't "removed" from the courtroom. I wasn't addressed by the Judge. No one told me that I could not go back tomorrow and report in real time what was happening inside the courtroom.

How different is my jury verdict watch reporting different from the first trial, where you had cameras inside the courtroom recording everything that happened? There were accredited reporters writing blogs from inside this same courtroom then, too. How is this different? (As an aside, Lisa Sweetingham when she was with Court TV did the exact same thing for the Robert Blake trial during verdict watch in that case.) The truth is, it isn't. I'm not writing anything illegal. What I am doing is I am writing exactly what the other public individuals in the room are also seeing and hearing. If I hear a buzzer, I write about it. If I see the bailiff go inside the jury room I write that. Nothing different than what the other public people in the courtroom are also seeing and hearing. I would also like to point out that I was sitting in the far left corner of the courtroom in the back row. I had to wait until information reached me. I wasn't in the well of the court, right next to Wendy's desk, getting "insider information." I think it's quite sad that a defense attorney feels the need to try to insinuate that I'm somehow doing something wrong, in the hopes of possibly removing me from the courtroom. That has been a tactic of the defendant and his wife for a long time now. So far, it hasn't worked. I'm still here. I will continue to cover this trial until it's conclusion. You can count on that.


Anonymous said...

Hi Sprocket,

What was the final tally on the amount of readers that requested email notification when you hear the (3) magic sounds? My guess is 200+


Anonymous said...

I love that you are updating all the details!! Thank you Sprocket.

Anonymous said...

I am sitting in my office hitting
F5 on my keyboard every 5 minutes. LOL

Chelsea said...

Thanks Sprocket. Have a great day today! Try to visualize us as the "Verizon people" in the commercials....following your every move.

Anonymous said...

What do you mean "NO VERDICT today"? Think positive, Sprocket! There has to be a verdict today...I am getting nothing done at work!

Anonymous said...

F5 is refresh? Thanks for that tip!!

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, thank you SO much. I don't know what we would do without you!!

Your updates are helping keeping us sane :)

Anonymous said...

Yep...we're the Verizon folks!

Sprocket, you're so awesome! Thank you for bringing it to us live, and for doing what you do!!


Barry said...


I LOVE your "Verizon people" comment! Every time my iphone beeps to tell me I have a new email I get hopeful it is from Sprocket!

Sprocket, I wonder if you have chatted with others who were in the court room during closing arguments, and if so, how they "read" the jury's body language....

Did you catch up on sleep and housework this weekend?

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU!!!! I feel like I am right there with you, your style of writing is WONderful! I love it!!!

Anonymous said...

My 10 year old son is the one who told me F5 was refresh! LOL

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, where do we stand on the jury clock? Do you know how long they have been deliberating?

Anonymous said...

Your 10 year old son is very smart,
I had no idea.

IF, and that's IF they are already taking a break, they are being way too nonchalant about this.

Okay, I might be over-reacting.

I hope.

Anonymous said...

My take on the bathroom break that just occurred. They collectively decided take a break after they had discussions leading towards a guilty verdict. They plan on polling themselves after the break. Get ready for the 3 buzzes! I feel it....

Anonymous said...

Listened again last night to your radio interviews, you have a fabulous grasp on all of this mess!! Loved how you handled "Cop Paul",'re the best!

Queen Bee from the I/S boards

Andy said...

Dear Sprocket,

thank you so much for your great coverage of this trial.

I´m a 34 years old criminal defense attorney from Germany and when Lana Clarkson died I was preparing for my final exams, so I do my best to follow that case from its very beginning.

I really enjoy your posts over the last months and admire your passionate work. Your vivid descriptions of what was going on in the courtroom were more understandable for me than the coverage of the first trial on court tv. Your coverage filled my understanding of your legal system with life. Thank you for that.

And even now you make my day. Its evening here, my last client is gone for today and I have to do a lot of paperwork, but your real time coverage makes it feel much better …

I really hope you won´t get tired of doing your great work of delivering insights into courtrooms many thousand miles away …

Thank you


Anonymous said...

That F5 kiddo is one smart cookie....out of the mouths of babes...I'm almost 60 and just learned something new today! Keep strong Sprocket. We're depending on you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much Sprocket, I love reading your posts!! Thank God for you when TruTV didn't cover this trial.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket...........will you be able to sit in on the hearing today regarding Weinberg's article?? Oh how I do hope so, I'm not budging from this laptop......I hope he gets his... ahem....head handed to him on a platter...was that diplomatic enough?:)

QueeeenBeee from I/S Boards

Anastasia said...

Just another person saying THANK YOU! I was so disappointed that this was not give us great mental pictures! Keep it up!

Anonymous said...

Can you ask Ricardo why he thinks that juror #10 delayed taking the first poll and why Ricardo thinks that if he wasn't foreperson it would have made a difference?


Anonymous said...

What do two buzzes signify again? I am going blank here......

Anonymous said...

I am confused!! Are they halting the deliberations because a juror is ill?

Anonymous said...

Please describe Juror #9 - male or female, approx. age? I really hope this isn't some stress related illness!


Anonymous said...


Can you tell us if Juror #9 looked physically ill or emotionally distraught.

Also, can you tell us more about this juror? Occupation, etc?


Anonymous said...

Will they ever have a full day of deliberation?!!!

Anonymous said...

Re hearing on LAT letter to editor:

Rule 5-120 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, subpart (c):

“Notwithstanding paragraph (A), a member may make a statement that a reasonable member would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the member or the member's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.”

Anonymous said...

Oh no - does this mean we won't get that verdict today with a juror being ill - assume it does! Thanks Sprocket for keeping us informed - we soo appreciate it. UK watcher

Anonymous said...

two buzzes = a question

Anonymous said...


Can you ask the court clerk who signed the note regarding quitting at noon?

That is the foreperson.

Anonymous said...

What will happen now that the one juror got taken ill? Will an alternate be called and they will have to get him/her up to speed? Dying to know about the potential fur-flying episode re: JF and DW...Thanks again for your devotion.

Anonymous said...

I'm so thankful for your constantly updated site. Fingers crossed here for a swift GUILTY verdict!


Carol L Beck said...


If a juror can no longer continue to deliberate they will have an alternate juror take his/her place and all deliberations must start over from the beginning. Hope the juror feels better tomorrow!


Anonymous said...

Senior Moments:

If the juror seats are allocated the same as in the last trial, #9 is a male - and I'm very unhappy to hear of his illness. From my observations he seemed to be one of the jurors the most engaged by the prosecution's case.

Poisoning? (kidding) :-)

To my eyes, his face and body language seemed to be on the defensive and skeptical during the Weinberg closing but when Jackson got up to rebut -- the muscles relaxed, hands came down from the mouth, you could feel a connection. The way people respond when they find credibility in the speaker. With the caveat that it's next to impossible to "read" a jury...

This glitch kind of worries me though, and I'm hoping it's only a very little bug or ache and nothing serious.

A million thanks again to Sprocket!

Pal of Lana

Anonymous said...

Dear Pal of Lana:

what makes you think that Juror #9 is the one wo is sick?

Sprockt was discussing the FORMER Juror #9 from trial #1 but not in the context of being ill.

Anonymous said...

Experts cost a fortune when you want them to LIE for you, lol.

Thank you for everything, Sprocket!


Anonymous said...

All of Dorie Weinberg’s actions lead me to assume that he is more concerned about his paycheck from the wee wigged one rather than his “integrity.” I’ll bet he has one of those double-secret illegal contracts with his speck of a client, that he’ll get a bigger payout for a mistrial or acquittal. Maybe the speck promised him the million bucks he had to pay for bond as a bonus if he gets off.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 12:56pm

From Sprocket's blog regarding ill juror:

"11:38 am: Juror #9 (from the second trial) is escorted out of the jury room by a bailiff. This must be the juror who is sick."

Anonymous said...

Is Juror #9 the research scientist?

Anonymous said...

okay ... everything from weinberg speaking ... on ... I'm having a hard time understanding ... he mentioned this blog ... prosecution mentioned this blog ... I'm confused.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sprocket:

An "editorial" is NOT an "article". There is a huge difference.

Anonymous said...

Hasn't this juror had plenty of time to be sick?

Anonymous said...

Sprocket: "The timing of that was extremely troubling and curious."

And then there was no more ... hitting refresh refresh refresh ...

Sprocket! If Weinberg is having you arrested give a shout out girl! We'll all come bail you out! :):):)

Anonymous said...

Come in Sprocketr, over.....

Anonymous said...

The sick juror will be back, pronto.

But it is Doron Weinberg who makes me ill.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, exactly what was said concerning your blog and its connection with the proceedings? I would imagine that if there was anything legally wrong with what you are doing that there would have been something done way before now.

Anonymous said...

Did the remaining jurors stay for lunch and then call it a day? It doesn't sound like they are there long enough to make any progress. Thank you Sprocket. Your coverage is awesome.

Ron, from Phoenix said...

You know, it's a real shame Spector's utterances to the police, while they were searching the house for any other occupants, "What's wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation for this", didn't come out in court. That, with, "I think I killed somebody", would have made this a lot easier for the jury.

ritanita said...

Sprocket, Thanks for the clarification. I will be waiting for the rest of the juicy details.

Again, thanks for the time and effort.

Anonymous said...

This is nonsense. I come to work when I am sick. The juror needs to do his job. It is not like he required medical assistance. He walked out. Judge Fidler needs to get these guys moving. There is a guilty and dangerous man still walking the streets of LA. Get with it, guys!

P.S. If it is something serious, I will be the first to apologize. However, if it's not I am highly disappointed

Anonymous said...

Sounds like your blog is not only keeping us informed but is really getting under the skin of the Defense. Go Sprocket!!!

Anonymous said...

If there was any doubt that DW was tweeking on your fine blog, now that has been answered.

You deserve a medal.


Anonymous said...

That's too funny! He must be paying someone to monitor your blog......on Spector's dime! That's priceless!! Gotta wonder; why does he feel so threatened?? Rock on, Lady!!

Softball Mom

kate said...

Does Whineberg think that the jury is reading your blog or something so he feels that he has to say something to the LA times?

Anonymous said...

OMG. Sprocket, You are the greatest. Don't take any SHITTTTT. from Whineberg either. Man you must really be getting to them, but I don't understand why? To me Whineberg's antics are so high school. I am glad Judge Fidler stop him and stood up for you along with the rest of the court. Whineberg, for good sake take it like a man and just shut the f up and stop wasting the courts time with all this bullsh.Of course, I am t heeing everytime Whineberg brings you up so don't take it to heart. I have been on your side forever.

Anonymous said...

Nice smack-down on Weinberg! And thanks for all your great work today!

Anonymous said...

My guess is the defense is getting desperate. They are coming up with anything now to call for a mistrial. Sprocket stay tough and hang in there. We all love you and your reporting. You have done nothing wrong. Keep up the good work. Whineberger grow up. This isn't highschool law or the clickity click group your client is in big trouble and if you couldn't put on a defense to prove not quilty stop harrassing Sprocket. She had nothing to do with Lana's Murder your client did that on his own.

Christine said...

Re the most important thing, the jury deliberations, it just seems that one obstacle after another seems to be occurring. First the two dark days and now a sick juror?

Barry said...


So Weinberg is afraid that his client's own words, available in public records, are being reported. One would think if his client was innocent, he would be sending Sprocket a dozen roses for publicizing the proud declarations of an innocent man...

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, aren't you ashamed for one-upping and upsetting Mr. Weinberg. You're just too fast and too tech savy. LOL... I just bet your a real pain in his side. Funny if the quick reporting was such a problem you'd think there would be complaints on both sides hummmm? I'm only hearing one familiar whine...

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Whineberg is grasping.....also trying to intimidate you...and he can't do it.Keep up the good work Sprocket. Tom Petty wrote a song called
" I Won't Back Down":...reminds me of you Sprocket. Stick it to them.

Anonymous said...

Re: Weinberg

Spector’s statements to police have been in the public domain for a long time, so Sprocket did not publish anything new or secret. And Sprocket is not a part of this trial, thus can write whatever she pleases. Also, as I recall, CourtTV and numerous media outlets reported on every little detail surrounding the first trial, minute by minute. So what would be different now? Nothing, other than Weinberg trying to divert attention from his own improper behavior. He must be really desperate to be pulling these stunts, imo. And besmirching Sprocket is not helping his case, lol.

Anonymous said...

I am extremely upset that the members have reached a guilty verdict. 8 hours?? Please...someone must be holding out. No, no, no, no, no. This is so wrong. I will never have any faith in our system if they don't return a guilty verdict. I won't watch Court TV again either. Screw it...I will be done

Anonymous said...

Hi Sprocket,
Just want to say thank you again and tell you that we so admire & appreciate your terrific coverage of this case. It’s interesting that the defense tries to muscle you into silence, if you weren’t hitting a nerve or two they wouldn’t bother. So, congratulations to you! And I have to laugh because attacking you will not get them anywhere, other than to bring more attention to the crime committed by Spector.

Anonymous said...

Does Weinberg think he can crush the first amendment to the Constitution and way-lay bloggers at the same time? Good gawd. What's next, tossing the judge out due to "prejudice" (as claimed before the start of PS2)?
There would be nobody left in the courtroom..........

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to dog the jury ... they took a huge amount of time out of their lives to listen to this case ... Wendy herself said she was a little late getting the evidence books to them ... Any good jury needs to look at/reflect upon/talk about the evidence ... no matter what they believe when they walk into deliberations ... I have every belief that they will come to a guilty verdict ... they just want to do a fair and diligent job reviewing evidence. And they also have to choose between the two guilty options they have before them. For all we know ... they've decided he is guilty and are now debating if they can go for 1st degree or not.

Anonymous said...

I am really admiring your determination Sprocket. I just want you to know that your coverage of this second trial is really appreciated.

Kudos to you and thank you for all the hard work !

CaliGirl9 said...

I wish I was in a position to attend EVERY SINGLE DAY of the Ayers trial that Weinberg will be dealing with up here in the Bay Area. I admit I don't know much about that trial, only that it's a child molestation trial, and at this time, I have no leaning toward guilt or innocence because I just don't have the information (haven't been paying attention).

It's in the county just north of me (same city/courthouse as the Scott Peterson trial), but no real convenient public transportation and a BEAR of a drive in the mornings and afternoons.

Imagine how he's going to fight to keep THAT guy out of prison. Oh well, I understand Corcoran and Pleasant Valley are chock full 'o those types, if his client is indeed guilty.

I just don't have the time or the $$$$ to turn down work. Just the idea of getting under his skin like that makes me smile though.

Liz said...

Thank you yet again for your great reporting sprocket.

I had thought Weinberg had sensibly decided to stay well away from other than evidence events (when he did not speak for Mrs Spector during the discussions on use of a camera in the court) - but it seems not.

Given that the defendant and his wife have been gagged by the Judge, are they using their attorney to speak to the press on their behalf? Not a smart move for any attorney - especially at this point in the trial.

For 5 years I had only seen one person pulling the strings in this defense - I had thought Weinberg would hold his own - it seems not.

Any thoughts on why the jury don't seem able to get it together and simply deliberate - would be appreciated.

Anonymous said...

You're providing a valuable public service relating events that occur in a public forum. The fact that Weinberg is bothered by your work just shows you're making a difference...

One concern I do have about the trial is that I think long cases tend to make some jurors think, "Well, we spent half a year on this; it CAN'T be this simple, this open and shut"...

I can't imagine the frustration of the majority of jurors in the first trial, and I hope the same thing isn't going on now...

Anonymous said...

Keep the Spunk,
until the jury convicts the skunk.

A million thanks.

Anonymous said...

Caligirl9: We would welcome your presence at the Dr. Ayres trial. I just informed San Mateo County Chief Deputy DA Steve Wagestaffe about Weinberg writing that op-ed about the Spector case while the jury is deliberating. I wanted to warn him about the tactics Weinberg might pull on the Ayres trial. He said he would forward it to Melissa McKowan, the prosecutor on the case.

We think that Weinberg might ask for a plea deal with Dr. Ayres. According to the prosecutor back in December, he's already asked about this but then reneged when he heard it would mean a life sentence for his client.

But given that 40 or so victims have come forward, we just can't see Weinberg figuring out an explanation to discredit each and every one of these victims. And if he loses the Spector trial, we think he REALLY won't be in the mood for a jury trial in the Ayres case.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, thanks for your tireless and faeless reporting. I spent alot of time watcing the first trial, and if not for we would know next to nothing about this second and hopfully last trial for Phil also known for his quick draw and fearsome cursing of women Thanks Rich

Geralyn said...

We truly appreciate everything you do and we are behind you 200%!Just don't get how Specter and his business partner...err, I mean wife, (silly me)are so bothered by your coverage. Seriously, does he think he can intimidate everyone and not face justice?


Anonymous said...

Just saw a short clip on the Spector trial on headline news. It showed a picture of Spector starring out in the gallery. What was he or whom was he giving the evil eye to? Not you I hope.

Anonymous said...


You do not even need to explain yourself bering in that courtroom. I think I can say on behalf of everyone who reads this column, you are a vigilant and dedicated reporter for whom we owe a great thanks.

In your statement about public service the other day I must remark I am surprised no one thanked you at that moment when you took a step away speaking on all people who take the time to keep the public informed and aware.

I, too, have felt the impact of the Clarkson loss and feel their pain needs to get some closure and justice. I worry about what money and prestige buy, and how this trial must only go one way if there really is a God.

You made us all a part of what we could not be ourselves and I, personally, am grateful to you for your diligence and dedication.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I need to put a face to our Sprocket! Sprocket, is there a photo of you on this site somewhere? If not, I certainly understand. I can visualize all the players except for our wonderful reporter!

Anonymous said...

There was a short segment about the Spector trial on Jane Velez-Mitchell's HLN show. A clip of Spector showed him leaning back against the defense table staring toward the spectators.

David From TN

CaliGirl9 said...

Anonymous at 4:41, please contact me through the contact info on the homepage. Sprocket will forward your information to me. Maybe if there is a pair of us willing to do this, I might be able to take a day or two from work a week, as I do have the flexibility to work from home. I just do not have the physical stamina to do that drive every day, and sit on those awful court benches with my crummy back!

I know Sprocket would love the opportunity to share coverage of that trial; child molestation is a despicable crime and there is just no excuse for anyone getting away with it if proven guilty.

Anonymous said...

From South Carolina..........We say, "Forever Sprocket."

Anonymous said...

From South Carolina..........We say, "Forever Sprocket."

Sprocket said...

Spector staring at the gallery:

He's done this many times. It's not new. He's stared at me many times. I just look away.

I've had my image Photo-shopped to distraction by the defendant's wife, on the Internet more than enough. So I think I will pass on putting it out there again.

The jury:
I don't know what's going on in that jury room. They will come back with a verdict when they are ready.

Chelsea said...

I bet RS is beside herself that she can't run around talking to anyone who will listen....or post her whiney diatribes on her My Space.....and if anyone is monitoring Sprocket's blog and reporting to Weinberg, it's probably her....
You rock Sprocket!
keep on keepin on....
we will be right here...
behind you...
like the Verizon people..
the towels may be scratchy..
but we've got you covered...

Anonymous said...

Keep at it Sprocket! Who does Weinberg think he is anyway? He can whine until the cows come home, but like you said - you've done nothing but report the facts from the courtroom. He's just desperate as all get out and is trying to pull out all stops. He knows his client is guilty as sin and is fearful the jury feels the same way. Let him throw all the little tantrums he wants; It's actually providing some comic relief! Too bad, so sad...the writing is on the wall. I think his client is going down this time!

Anyway, thanks again for your dedication! Weinberg and Co. and try to intimidate you all they want, but it's never going to happen. They have NO idea how strong and determined you are! You go girl, and keep at it!


Anonymous said...

Stay clear of that flu bug Sprocket. We need you healthy as we wait for Buzz Buzz Buzz The guilty verdict for the Wee One is coming soon. We are Sprocket fans down here in Georgia.

Anonymous said...

He (Whine-O) doesn't think a blogger should get info before the public gets it? What is a blogger if not a member of the public?
And anyway, if we out here in the hinterlands (NC in my case) waited on somebody else, we would get nothing, cause there is NO other coverage.
Wes J.

Anonymous said...

Photo: Oh, I (we) certainly understand and I will not visit sites associated with RS to see anything.

Our family (around a dozen of us chat nightly about this trial) is extremely proud of you and the work you do. Keep up the excellent reporting.

Buzz Buzz Buzz said...

I wonder if the wee wigged one is getting any sleep these days? lol

jewels said...

Moron Whineberg:

Grasping at (blogger's) straws--got nothing else.

Keep at it, Sprocket--you do, indeed, rock!

Waiting for the musical sound of "buzz-buzz-buzz".

Anonymous said...

Great work Sprocket! It's extra-rewarding to know you've gotten under the skin of the defense. Weinberg has unveiled every dirty trick in the book, including some...

I hope and pray that this is the last night of freedom for the killer.

Anonymous said...

All Hail Queen Sprocket!!!!!

Give 'em hell and do it with your usual class:)

and I agree with Anon, we ARE Sprocket fans down here in Georgia, and admire her "Steel Magnolia" backbone.

QueeeenBeeee from the I/S boards

Anonymous said...

Wow, I was out all day and just got home now. Its 11:30 my time. I am stunned at the turn of events today. Mr. Whineberg has just lost any credibility and respect that he might have had. I have to admit it was probably very tenuous at best, but he is just without at sense at all. For someone who is supposed to be a decent attorney, he has imploded. I am very proud of you Sprocket. You have always been forthright and honest in your reporting. I think its time for Little phil and his gnomes to call it a day. He needs his little jumpsuit and his little cot and his lttle stainless steel toilet. Mr. Whiney needs a refresher course in the law.

The Observer-Los Angeles Trials said...

Joe has his thoughts about this nonsense....

Capone said...

Looking very forward to Rachelle Spector's mother raising her eyebrow and glaring at the gallery upon a guilty verdict. I also hope she says something stupid while glaring, so we can ask the deputies to arrest her for assault. Same goes for Rachelle.

We are waiting for you 'Mommy' to do something stupid, which based on your faux endeavors to look younger than you obviously are, will be hilarious.

Anonymous said...

A somewhat amusing April Fool's 'news item.'

Christine said...

The flu, let's just hope that they are able to keep working and get this thing done. I'd hate to see a big breakdown in the jury because of something like that.

Seems things are getting more and more crazy, what with the accusations against Sprocket and other obstacles.

cake fairy said...

When I saw the picture of Spector staring out at the Gallery all I could think of was that he looks haunted. Whether or not they find him guilty - I think one part of his eternal punishment will be to slip silently into insanity. I hope they find him guilty. You never know with juries but this one should be a no brainer.

Thanks again Sprocket - you are much appreciated.