Phil spector retrial update

Posted by Sprocket at PM. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Betsy A. All rights reserved. Betsy Ross Linens - New Post. Donation to Sprocket's Trial Coverage. All messages to other writers will be forwarded. All we ask is that you be respectful. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process.

We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion. Follow SprocketTrials Tweet. Comments Atom. Throughout the week, I will attempt to update my entries for January 7th and 8th. There should be a full week up testimony this week, barring any unforeseen circumstances. The following week will be a very short week. Federal holiday on Monday, and Tuesday, the jurors had requested the day off the watch the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Wednesday is a half day, due to a juror asking for the afternoon off for a doctor's post-op check up to surgery performed over the Christmas break. That leaves only one-and-a-half days for testimony. The last week in January is expected to be a full week of testimony.

Correction: January 20th will be dark only for the morning session. January 21st, court will be dark for the afternoon session. January 22nd, court will end early at pm. January 26th, court will be dark for the morning session only. Court will be dark from February 12th through February 16th.

Posted by Sprocket at AM. January 12, at AM Anonymous said She was called to the stand by the defense. A strange move, one would think. January 12, at AM Geralyn said January 12, at PM Anonymous said January 12, at PM CaliGirl9 said January 12, at PM Sprocket said January 12, at PM Unknown said January 13, at PM Post a Comment. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Betsy A. All rights reserved. Betsy Ross Linens - New Post. Donation to Sprocket's Trial Coverage.

All messages to other writers will be forwarded. All we ask is that you be respectful. Stern has been charged in L. Now WHO will cover this one for us???

We dare not impose on our Sprocket, lest we wear out our collective welcomes. Wes J. If Howard K. Stern is tried in LA Superior Court, it will probably receive a fair amount of media coverage. Can you clear this up Spector enters the courtyard,gun in hand Steven Katz in the rebuttal case states until photo and documentation is completed no one touches the gun from where it fell at Lana"s feet. Am I missing what here??????? Love your blog but I am so confused on this point.

More to come Thanks as always for all of your work. Folks, Sprocket's interview from last night is up over at Talk Radio One.

You're killin' us here Sprocket. And again as stated above NO PIE!!!!! Amazing LOL. Putting Pie on the stand just shows how desparate Weinberg must be. She was a total disaster in thw first trial and showed herself to be a liar and complete idiot. I can only imagine that she will drag the defense of this scumbag Spector down even farther.

Do you think Jackson would like to get her on the stand again. I would love to see him rip her apart and put Spector in prison where he has belonged for the past six years. Please tell us what the "line" was..! I see there are others here who are dying to know! Thanks so much we're not worthy for all your great coverage of this trial. If not for you, we would all be in the dark and wouldn't be able to visualize what Weinberg is like. I have a pic in my head and it tells me that he has the correct name!

Sprocket said the prosection asked to include involuntary manslaughter. Do I recall this request was also made at the 1st trial? The defense also opposed it in the first trial and so did Judge Fidler until the jury deadlocked. Fidler alomost gave a manslaughter instruction at that point in the first trial but changed his mind, instead redoing the murder instruction. It is in the second trial that it looks like Fidler will instruct on manslaughter. The defense does not want it, because the thinking is that it might make the jury more likely to convict Spector of SOMETHING and even with a manslautghter sentence and a gun enhancement Spector at age 68 would probably spend the rest of his life in jail.

I am still waiting for my update, and no I will not be up till 3am again waiting. In the first trial the one juror, Number 10, was a peculiar person. I believe that his feelings toward his mother in law were the deciding factors in the way he voted, not the complete picture. It only proves that "rational" people are perhaps not the ones who have any sense.

At least that seems the general consensus. It seems that a manslaughter charge would have made no difference to Number 10, and he had the ability to control to a degree that he was able to deadlock the jury and has certainly gotten his 15 minutes of fame, however questionable.

This neighbor also swayed the other not-guilty juror who was wishy-washy in deliberations, according to fellow jurors. If someone was trying to murder you, would you open your mouth?

Would you allow someone to put a loaded gun into it? I wouldn't. If someone were trying to force me to do anything I did not want done, I would purse my lips so the gun could not enter. Ask yourselves, seriously. If you are going to pull the trigger, you would not get my assistance. Think about this. She had to have opened her mouth. The gun was not forced into her mouth. Whoever pulled that trigger had her permission.

If someone told her, "Open your mouth, I am going to put a gun in it. There is absolutely no evidence of any struggle. Whe had to have put the gun in her own mouth. He could have done something to MAKE her open her mouth, like hit her or otherwise cause her pain so that opening her mouth to scream was involuntary.

Or she could simply have started to scream because of the situation and he took advantage of the moment to shove the gun in. Also, he could have been tapping the gun against her face the way he did with others and she was trying to talk him out of it, giving him an opportunity.

If she was fighting him off, but then he cocked the gun I think it was one where it could be cocked by pulling back on the hammer OR by pulling halfway, but I could be wrong about that -- for sure it could be cocked by pulling it halfway -- I remember that from the first trial. She might have then held still and complied with his orders in the desperate hope that he would come to his senses and STOP once he had gotten his way by putting the gun in her mouth, knowing that he would NOT stop and it might go off if she continued to fight.

I think there are a myriad of ways that the gun could have ended up in her mouth, I don't think it's as simple as saying ahead of time that you would not open your mouth if you were being assaulted and someone was trying to shove a gun in your mouth.

It's one of those things where you don't really KNOW how you will react until it happens to you. The surprise alone could cause you to make a decision that is fatal. By mlegroner's logic, what we have been told was the St.

Valentine's Day Massacre was actually a mass suicide. I was familiar with his work. I couldn't believe it, but those were the words coming out of his mouth. Defense attorney Doron Weinberg attacked Tannazzo's account, saying Tannazzo changed the dates he had given for the incidents when he testified at Spector's trial last year. Tannazzo said he couldn't remember what years that the parties occurred.

He said he worked for Rivers for seven or eight years and still does occasional work for the TV personality. Melvin, one of five women set to testify about Spector's past, repeated a harrowing story she told last year of Spector threatening her with guns at his Pasadena home in She said they had been dating on and off when he invited her to visit.