It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:44 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I guess this thread might be... "Better late than never" :cool

Events some time ago (Death 2003, Trial 2009) and there has already been 2 trials. First Jury "hung" 10 - 2 in favor of conviction, then re-trial resulting in conviction. Spector sentenced to 19 years to life.

I was aware of the events as they happened and popped up in (tabloid) news, but I never followed the trial(s) or details of the case.

However... I just watched "The Movie" :roll

Link to Movie streamed

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=701&p=113515#p113515

Image

And my interest in trials .. and the sort of "Lynch Mob justice" that we see at True Gossip Forums was sparked.

The Movie opens with disclaimer....
Quote:
    "This is a work of fiction. It's not 'based on a true story.' ... It is a drama inspired by actual persons on a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the trial or its outcome."

But.... I suspect that was to preempt any possible legal action :cool
The movie clearly WAS based on real events and real people and depicted those events at least superficial accurately.
I would welcome any comments from People who followed the REAL events more closely.. who can refute any points made by the movie

Anyway.. with little knowledge of evidence beyond what was portayed in the movie... IF the evidence was as shown..... especially the lack of blood spatter on Spector's WHITE jacket... then I fail to see how Spector could have been found Guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).

From what I have seen and heard of Phil Spector.. the way he behaved on many occasions besides the events of the death, I dont have much regard or sympathy for him, and I do not TRUST the real life Linda Kenny Baden (or her husband) so it takes a lot for me to "be on her side" as it were :roll

Image

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
How Phil Spector was convicted of the murder of Lana Clarkson
Dan Glaister in Los Angeles
Tuesday 14 April 2009

The second trial of Harvey Phillip Spector for the murder of Lana Clarkson was dominated by one phrase: "I think I killed someone." The 69-year-old record producer, creator of pop's "wall of sound", was said to have uttered that phrase as he emerged from his home in the small hours of Monday, 3 February 2003.

Behind him, slumped in a fake Louis XIV chair, lay the body of Clarkson, a 40-year-old actor he had met earlier that night when she was working at the House of Blues venue on the Sunset Strip
[....]
For the second trial, almost six years after Clarkson's death, Spector downsized. Gone was the retinue of heavies that had marched into court with him every day the first time around. He was accompanied by just one bodyguard, and his young wife, Rachelle. His legal team was reduced to a single lawyer, Doron Weinberg. Facing him was the same lead prosecutor from the first trial, Alan Jackson.

Without the theatrics of that trial, Weinberg's speciality was studied doubt. De Souza, he noted, had been through eight variations of the phrase "I think I killed someone" in recounting events to investigators. Surely that suggested sufficient doubt to acquit, Weinberg argued.

But ultimately, Spector came up against a barrage of evidence. Clarkson had given no indication that she was suicidal, the defence's proffered explanation. Why would someone who was just about to shoot themselves go out and buy multiple pairs of shoes? The trial heard expert testimony that people rarely kill themselves on the spur of the moment, and almost never at the home of a stranger.

More damning for the defence was the judge's decision in both trials to allow evidence of prior acts by Spector involving women and guns. A parade of women at both trials described how Spector had turned from charm to menace, often fuelled by alcohol and medication. His penchant for waving guns in people's faces, they recounted, suggested an accident waiting to happen.

The gruesome imagery from the crime scene also made an impression the defence found hard to dispel. The dead actor, a cult success for her incarnation of the Barbarian Queen in the eponymous film, was reduced to a film noir cliche: the blonde starlet sprawled on a chair, the bottom of her mouth blown off, a 36 Colt under her left leg. Spector's assertions to interviewers before the first trial that she was the victim of accidental suicide never seemed more ridiculous.

...more at link
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/a ... son-murder

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:14 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Phil Spector jailed for a minimum of 19 years over Lana Clarkson murder
07:16, 30 May 2009, Updated 14:01, 28 Jan 2012
By Jody Thompson

Image

Legendary producer Phil Spector has been jailed for at least 19 years for murdering actress Lana Clarkson in the conclusion of the long-running court saga.

The 40-year-old woman died of a gunshot fired into her mouth while seated in the foyer of Spector's hill-top mansion in 2003. Spector, 69, looked straight forward and showed no emotion as Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler ordered a term of 19 years to life for second-degree murder plus four years for personal use of a gun.

Spector's wife Rachelle however insisted it "is a sad day for everybody involved".

She added "The Clarkson family has lost a daughter and a sister. I've lost my husband, my best friend. I feel that a grave injustice has been done and from this day forward I'm going to dedicate myself to proving my husband's innocence."

The jury was unanimous in its verdict last month of second degree murder, as required by Californian law.

In Spector's first trial, jurors deadlocked 10-2 with the majority favouring conviction. Clarkson was murdered on February 3, 2003, hours after meeting Spector at the House of Blues nightclub.

...more at link
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-n ... -19-396980

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:22 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Harvey Philip SPECTOR - Evidence photos

Murderpedia
http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/spector ... idence.htm

Example
Image
The white ladies' dinner jacket Spector was wearing the evening of the shooting was found on the floor of the master bedroom. There were small drops of blood on the jacket, as this sheriff's department photo demonstrates.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:39 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
The Phil Spector Murder Case: Conflicting Ballistics and Blood Spatter Testimony
Wednesday, February 17, 2016

In the morning of February 3, 2003, Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies responded to a call from the Alhambra mansion owned by Phil Spector, the 67-year-old music producer who became famous in the 1960s for his "wall of sound." In the foyer, the deputies found 40-year-old actress Lana Clarkson slumped in a chair. She had been shot once in the mouth by the .38-caliber Cobra revolver lying on the floor under her right hand. When the fatal shot had been fired, Clarkson and Spector were the only people in the house.

Spector's chauffeur told the police that at five in the morning, he heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot. Shortly after that, he said Spector came out of the mansion carrying a handgun. According to the driver, Spector had said, "I think I killed somebody."
[....]
Blood spatter analysts from the sheriff's office concluded that after the shooting, Spector had pressed the victim's right hand around the gun handle, placed the revolver temporarily into his pants pocket, later wiped it clean of his fingerprints, then laid it near her body. From the bloodstains on his jacket, the government experts concluded he had been standing within two feet of the victim when the gun went off. The absence of her blood spray on a nearby wall led the spatter analysts to believe that Spector had been standing between the victim and the unstained surface when he fired the bullet into her mouth. Gunshot residue experts found traces of gunpowder on Spector's hands.

The forensic work performed by the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office and the sheriff's department had not been flawless. A dental evidence technician had lost one of the victim's teeth; a criminalist had used lift-off tape to retrieve trace evidence from the victim's dress which had interfered with the serology analysis; and the corpse had been moved at the scene, causing unnatural, postmortem blood flow from her mouth which compromised that aspect of the blood spatter analysis

The Phil Spector murder trial got underway in May 2007. On June 26, the government rested its case. The defense led off with Dr. Vincent Di Maio, the former chief medical examiner of Bexar County, Texas. Dr. Di Maio, considered one of the leading experts on the subject of gunshot wounds, testified that he disagreed with the prosecution's experts who had asserted that blood spatter can travel only three feet from a person struck by a bullet. Dr. Di Maio said blood can travel more than six feet if a gun is fired into a person's mouth, the pressure from the muzzle gas that is trapped in the oral cavity creates a violent explosion. "The gas," he said, "is like a whirlwind, it ejects out of the mouth, out of the nose." (If the defendant had been standing six feet from the victim when the gun went off, he couldn't have placed the gun into her mouth.) Because 99 percent of intra-oral gunshot deaths are suicides, Dr. Di Maio opined that Lana Clarkson had killed herself. In the witness' 35 years as a medical examiner, he had seen only "three homicides that were intra-oral."

...more at link
http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.co.n ... urder.html

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 6177
Location: Fort Worth
I followed both trials, Rumpole. I only remember specific instances... The judge admonishing Bruce Cutler when Cutler was using his New York "questioning of witness" technique, LindaK-B constant mollycoddling Spector at the table, and the photos. I think I saw more of the first trial than second one.

I'm watching this over again as a refresher. (fyi)

Dominick Dunne's power,privilege and justice - Phil Spector



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:20 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
THX Molly... watching it now :)

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:07 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I have to say.. yet another example of Juries NOT understanding that the Judicial system we have chosen INTENTIONALLY includes the VERY HIGH standard of "BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT... in order to reach a verdict of GUILTY :(

Spector was not on trial for generaly being a "tool" and an asshole.. nor even for all the times he waved a gun around. He was NOT even on trial for ALLEGED previous instances of threatening women (sexual partners) with a gun. It should be noted that NONE of these women complained at the time of the alleged event. Clarkson's death COULD have been a similar incident gone horribly wrong, but THAT is pure speculation and those alleged incidents should NOT (IMO) be admissible evidence of anything.
I find the evidence of the blood (lack of) on Spector's WHITE jacket to be COMPELLING proof that he was not within several feet of Clarkson when the gun went off. It is certainly sufficient in itself to raise REASONABLE DOUBT.. and that is ALL the defense need do. They do not have to prove WHY Clarkson might comit suicide etc. My GUESS is that she did not really make a conscious dramatic decision to take her own life. I think she was just messing about putting a gun in her mouth and it went off by "accident"/.. Maybe Spector did shout at her (from some distance away) and startle her? Who knows? But that is Spector's contention and it was not disproved. It COULD be that Spector brought out the gun (as he had on past occasions it is alleged), but I don't believe he was holding the gun and standing close by when it went off.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 6177
Location: Fort Worth
Great closing argument, Rumpole. ;)

I felt for his second defense attorney when the verdict was read, he was devastated. :(

I still don't know what happened from the evidence. I only remember that both of them were extremely intoxicated (her w/ a mix of Vicodin), what did they do in those two hours in the house? :cool ... the craziest could have happened with a loaded gun. Only Phillip Spector knows.

I had a hard time believing the chauffeur heard what he thought he heard, even tho he testified exactly as he told the 911 operator that night. I think he was such a key witness. It seems like I remember something about "some" blood spatter inside the sleeve (cuff) of his white jacket.

After learning what Spector did to Leonard Cohen's career, I lost even more respect for him. He was a genius at an early age.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am
Posts: 6177
Location: Fort Worth
I'm not a big fan of Aphrodite Jones :roll , but this is very informative and I've only watched 10 minutes of it.

True Crime with Aphrodite Jones: Phil Spector (2010)



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:10 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I cant say I like the style of that Doco... in and of itself making assumptions, :)

Very much a "Justice FOR......" perspective. Rather that true JUSTICE! (which is blind)

The old canonization of a person decreed to be a "victim" and the vilification of the defendant with a PRESUMPTION OF GUILT.
Stressing how attractive Lana was, salt of the earth, generous. would help anybody in trouble etc.. the implication being that crimes are so much worse if the "victim" is Nice, attractive etc... I guess the corollary is that ugly, mean victims DO NOT deserve justice so much? :roll



VERY interesting that the initial poll of Jurors taken when they commenced deliberations was reported by one of the jurors as..
5 NOT GUILTY
4 Guilty
3 Undecided.

THAT seems to me to indicate REASONABLE DOUBT after the evidence presented.

The fact that after 12 days of deliberation some (apparently) were convinced by fellow jurors to "change their minds" is a worry, but even so 2 people remained convinced of his innocence

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:28 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Even at 2nd trial, initial Jury poll was..

2 Not Guilty
6 guilty
4 undecided.

It seems to me that the deliberation process become a competition... between jury factions rather than necessarily 12 individuals assessing the evidence. Initial divergent assessments to me indicate reasonable doubt.. in the evidence as presented.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:50 pm
Posts: 426
Are we simply not educating jury members properly? Sometimes I wonder.

_________________
The most fundamental and major decision that you have to make in your life is this: Do I live in a friendly or a hostile universe? Which is it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 1:42 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
WKC I do cringe at times when I see jury members interviewed. I am afraid that "average Joe" is NOT a very high standard.
However, some sort of Jury based system seems to be the best we can do? I have opined on the need for "professional Jurors" before. I wont do the long version again... but my idea is a jury pool, volunteers, selected, trained, on call.. much like military reserves. Paid WELL when called up

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:50 pm
Posts: 426
Well they are not lawyers or judges. They are average people with average life to deal with. I believe if they understood the legal process in more detail and the power they wield they would be more 'pro active' instead of just reacting to what they are shown.

_________________
The most fundamental and major decision that you have to make in your life is this: Do I live in a friendly or a hostile universe? Which is it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 2:35 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
There is some skill and thought required in what juries have to do. I think the notion of jurors being from divergent occupations is good.. an important part of the process... Bench trials decided by judges have their limitations too.... but the concepts of Innocent until.... and beyond reasonable doubt, clearly take some explanation.. maybe practice in applying them. Judges instruct juries on such things as relying on evidence presented.. not being swayed by emotion.. sympathy for the "victim" and family etc... but good lawyers pray on jurors and make such pleas.. which do effect jury decisions. I simply think the task of deliberating (on a serious crime) is beyond the average Joe... not to say with some instruction and training they could not be "trained"

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:50 pm
Posts: 426
First: You are obviously more educated than I.

Second: Trained jurors is hard. But it is a good idea. Then they could see through some of the legal BS and DRAMA put forth by both the prosecutors and the defendants.

Third: If we need to take this conversation to new thread or such... let us do so, kind sir.

_________________
The most fundamental and major decision that you have to make in your life is this: Do I live in a friendly or a hostile universe? Which is it?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:06 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I usually do my "Professional Jury" tirade after a verdict :cool

I dont expect it will ever happen. I'll stop soon :)

I'll just stretch my analogy with military reserves a bit :)

When there is need for a battle (or small war), even a "peace keeping mission" it would be seen as foolish to select a platoon of average citizens... you would select a squad from a pool of regular soldiers and or Reservists..even recent recruits would have had "basic training? and others would have had that plus experience in real situations before.

I think the economics of trained jury reservists would be such that they could be paid WELL.. eliminating the sort of financial glitches people often face when called to jury service, The sort of thing where literally several hundred people are called up for jury selection.. for a single case...many of who can not serve ultimately, and or are not competent would be eliminated. I am not sure I would allow lawyers (on both sides) to use psychologists and jury selection experts to cherry-pick jurors.. we could save a pile of money on that nonsense.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 4:24 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
When there is need for an important decision in life... people look for advice/decisions from people knowledgeable/trained in a given subject. For instance a decision concerning your (or your family's) health.. you would ask doctors, maybe nurses and pharmacists etc... you would be ill advised to make a decision based on the opinion of a few neighbors or the general opinion in social media :)

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:27 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Turning back to Phil Spector...

There is no doubt he was a bit nuts... especially when it came to guns. In hindsight he SHOULD have ben confronted a LOT earlier when he was waving guns around, even discharging guns, I think that was sufficient for charges to have been brought.. maybe even some jail time.. which just might have curtailed his psycho gun-play? I would like to think that with his foolish behavior he would have had his guns taken off him.. and not be permitted to carry? The women who came out at the time of his trial to report threats and coercion by Spector waving a loaded gun around.. SHOULD have complained at the time. Their testimony sounded serious enough for charges to have been laid.... again resulting in Spector being held responsible... locked up.. guns confiscated.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 488 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group