The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 970,486 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.

CA vs. Spector – Well Hung

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 26, 2007

Well, so much for that. The jury was hung 10 -2 after 6 total ballots, and the judge has declared a mistrial.

If you live in Southern California – hide your daughters – Phil Spector is on the loose and free to kill again. So to sum this all up – this week we’ve had a jury in Utah come back with the wrong verdict and we’ve had a jury in California just unable to come back with any verdict at all. Great week for the justice system in America.

Hopefully a little bit of good can come out of all that we’ve learned, though. Maybe the legislature in Utah will raise the age of consent to something more in line with what we know of children’s ability to consent and reason and understand. Maybe there is one or two young girls who will have seen Elissa Wall on the stand and summon the courage to come forth and get herself out of a similar situation. Maybe some FLDS women will see that the world outside of the community they live in holds more opportunity and more promise for them – and more rights.

Maybe Law Enforcement in California will keep a sharper eye on Phil Spector so that nothing like this can ever happen again. Even though he’s now married to that retarded fucking Rachelle, I don’t wish a bullet in her head. Maybe Phil will dump her gold digging ass before she can spend too much more of his money.

And maybe next time Phil Spector is prosecuted we will find a jury who can make a decision of more import and gravity  than “we want to write on easels with a marker”.

But, the greatest good that will come out of all this is that the best TV show of the summer is being renewed for another season – it will be kind of like the new “Lost” schedule – 6 months on, a hiatus of 8 or 9 months, and then a new and exciting season with new guest stars, new supporting cast, new exciting location shoots and plots, but most importantly, the main character played by the same actor.

This is Hollywood, after all.

Advertisements

66 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Well Hung”

  1. A.D.A. said

    Your title is perfect! Not only is he walking, PS’s name has been used in the same sentence as “well hung”. A red letter day indeed (for the mudering twerp)! 🙂 Thanks, Kim, for the marvelous blog.

  2. Glenda said

    Well hell. I had a feeling this would happen but kept hoping that they would find a way to use their common sense and find him guilty.

    Kim, what do you think the prosecution could/can do differently to bring a verdict?

  3. Hank said

    Not Kim, but I think they need to bring in Spector’s comments to the cops. The big problem the prosecution had was that there was no physical evidence that put the gun in Spector’s hand.

    He supposedly said to one of the policemen “I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation for this.”

    That puts the gun in his hand and any statement he made later to the contrary would be less believable than this statement.

  4. Marie said

    What happens with the civil trial? Does that go on hold?

  5. mbmb said

    Kim,

    I love your blog and will keep reading it no matter what. But, I’m so sad about this mistrial in the Spector case. Just wanted you to know that…

  6. rogerr said

    Kim,
    On yesterdays blog you said it was not Jeffs responsibility to take care of the girl. Please, explain. Did he not claim complete control over her? So how could he also be not responsible?

  7. Erin said

    Whatever my dispair I feel at the moment; I cannot fathom the crushing let down for the Clarkson’s.

    Thanks for the blog Kim. At least we can resume activities we put off for 5 months. For the Clarkson’s, Lana is as dead as ever, and those bastards trashed her memory.

  8. Holy Toledo said

    Probably like everyone else, I saw this coming, incredulous as it seemed to be after watching quite a bit of the trial. All I can say is “boo, hiss”. LOL is LOL I suppose.

    I didn’t follow the trial that much in the early stages but wondered why what Spector said to the police “I didn’t mean to kill her….it was an accident….WHY WAS THIS NOT ADMITTED…why would the prosecution opt not to admit this?????

    You hate to place individual jurors. They worked long and hard. After I learned about Mr. Copious Notetaker being the foreman, I pretty much knew it was over. So I’m not surprised, just disgusted.

    You deserve a Pulitzer Prize for your writing and I thank you.

  9. Cacafuego said

    The interview with the 3 jurors was particularly telling. Especially in that the foreman gave off hinky vibes that had the talking heads on KTLA agreeing that he was one of the 2 NGs. He is also the one who lives near Spector. In any case, it was clear from his behavior that he was the WRONG person to have beens elected foreman of that jury. Personally, I think the hung jury was the result of 1 stupid/weak-minded juror (apparently a woman, from what was said) and 1 bought juror (possibly the foreman). The one juror who looked like Cheech Marin made it clear that the majority of the jury viewed the defense’s experts as crooked idiots and that the entire suicide “defense” insulted his intelligence. Believe me, this is nothing Spector’s lawyers wanted to hear. The jurors did, however, suggest what the DA could do to strengthen their case–add a psychological autopsy of Lana. That and allowing Spector’s “self-serving” statements in re how Lana supposedly died, since they now realize they can’t bait him into taking the stand, should spell his conviction the second time around–provided they sequester the damn jury.

    Rabbi Nuelander and the Menendez Brother juries both hung, but managed to convict a second time. Retrials invariably favor the prosecution. If Spector wasn’t the rich meglomaniac I know him to be, he would have his lawyers be brokering a plea agreement for Involuntary Manslaughter even as I type.

    In any case, I can’t see either Phil or his braying jackass of a wife staying quiet until the retrial.

  10. Erin said

    despair…damn typo’s

  11. Katprint said

    Scott Peterson’s appellate attorney is undoubtedly revising his brief to claim ineffective assistance of counsel because Peterson’s trial attorney did not hire experts to testify that Laci was suicidal and probably killed herself. There was SO MUCH LESS evidence in the Peterson case yet that jury was able to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

  12. Cathy said

    Want to thank you for all your blogs, have enjoyed them and learned allot.
    I am sad and disappointed tonight. My heart is breaking for Lana and her family.

  13. noor b said

    from your blog sept. 12th:

    So here is my list of “Shit that Still Bothers Me About this Case”, and things that may still bother the jury, as well. And I challenge all of you to list the one thing, or several things, in this case that still bother you from the “other side”.

    1. The biggest thing that bothers me – The prosecution never put the gun in Spector’s hand. None of the experts for the prosecution could testify that Phil was ever holding the gun. This bothers me because that’s the reason Robert Blake was found Not Guilty – several jurors said after the verdict “they couldn’t put the gun in his hand”. And this *is* a problem in this case. If even one expert or witness for the prosecution could have said “we found some trace evidence….” or even if Spector’s DNA had been found on the bullets, I would feel a lot better. When you contrast this lack of testimony with the fact that every single defense expert placed the gun in Lana’s hand, I think this is a problem for the prosecution

    The prosecution never did put the gun in PS’s hands. That’s the key right there.
    Will ever be able to do that?

  14. Kay said

    Could you give your insights on what will happen if there is a re-trial?
    Would Judge Fidler be the judge for the re-trial? Would Mr. Dixon and Mr. Jackson be the prosecutors? Would the trial be held in the same location? I am assuming that the defendant could change lawyers if he wanted to.
    Thank you for the information you have posted. It helped me understand and keep everything in perspective.

  15. Cacafuego said

    Kay:
    Yes, Fidler is the judge for the retrial, barring his death or his own recusal. Dixon & Jackson will be the prosecutors barring one of them being appointed to the bench or dying. The only variable re the retrial are Spector’s attornies. Given that he had –what? 5? 6? 7?–odds are some of probably won’t return.

  16. Mindy said

    Is it possible to send/or forward this to the ones that need to know this information. It is right on and this world needs to wake up and see things for what they are and not what they think they are.

  17. Diane Lee said

    To Noor B – Poster #13 – Its obvious you did not watch the trial or any testimony. The driver saw the gun in Spector’s hand and along with a little blood on his hand. He reiterated this numerous times in 9ll calls and in his interview with the police. What do you want??? Perhaps a live video on CNN would convince you. You’re a fucking idiot.

  18. Kim, what do you think the prosecution could/can do differently to bring a verdict?

    Don’t put any more damned engineers on the jury.

    Actually, the only thing they *can* do differently next time is streamline the case, condense it a little, make it tighter – keep the days the jury is sitting around doing nothing to a minimum. They can bring in the prior statements, and they can add lesser related charges. Other than that, their case can’t really change a whole lot.

    Generally, retrials favor the prosecution, but in this instance, a retrial might well favor the defense. Baden’s “Aha!” moment won’t seem so “AHA!” if they go with that theory, and maybe Henry Lee will make an appearance with time and distance between himself and the “destroying evidence” charges.

    But no matter *what* theory they go with, it will be one theory and not an evolution, the way it was this time. I’ll be anxious to see which one they pick.

    Kim

  19. What happens with the civil trial? Does that go on hold?

    Probably. But at least the Clarkson’s know they can probably convince a jury beyond a “preponderance of the evidence” – 10 -2 is a good thing for them.

    Kim

  20. On yesterdays blog you said it was not Jeffs responsibility to take care of the girl. Please, explain. Did he not claim complete control over her? So how could he also be not responsible?

    Because legally, morally and ethically her parents are responsible for her, not her spiritual leader. Any more than If I’m Catholic I can say it was the Pope’s fault that I didn’t eat meat on Fridays because my parents wouldn’t feed it to me on his say so.

    I think if her parents want to follow some goofy fucking religion, that’s fine and dandy, let them do that, but the minute they have children they need to re-evaluate what this means to their children and get them the hell out of there when they know that the kids are in danger. I blame her mother more than I blame Jeffs, because her mother has the greater responsibility to her.

    Kim

  21. “I didn’t mean to kill her….it was an accident….WHY WAS THIS NOT ADMITTED…why would the prosecution opt not to admit this?????

    The prosecution fought (and won) to be able to admit these statements. They decided, however, to not admit them because if these statements came in, then everything Spector said to the police would come in – including all the self serving statements like “She had no right to come in my house and blow her fucking head off.” The prosecution wanted the only thing the jurors heard Spector say that night to be “I think I killed somebody”, not his phony ass excuses after he had time to think them up.

    Besides the fact that it derailed the defense’s case. They wanted those self serving statements in, too, and the only way they could admit them was to put Spector on the stand. And Cutler had based his opening statement around the fact that he was sure the prosecution was going to use them. When Jackson never mentioned the statements in his opening, Cutler asked for more time to give his statement saying the proseuciton had “denuded” him.

    Kim

  22. In any case, I can’t see either Phil or his braying jackass of a wife staying quiet until the retrial.

    After the driveway dance and her humping his leg like the in heat bitch she is, I can’t see it either.

    I’m thinking the celebrations are a bit premature.

    Kim

  23. The prosecution never did put the gun in PS’s hands. That’s the key right there.
    Will ever be able to do that?

    Well, now that you bring this up…..

    I had a VERY smug smile on my face when the very first answer the three jurors gave to the medias questions was ‘THEY NEVER PUT THE GUN IN PHIL’S HAND”.

    I could say “I TOLD YOU SO’

    But I won’t.

    Kim ~ I TOLD YA SO (So I lied – sue me – I had to say it ONCE).

  24. Yes, Fidler is the judge for the retrial, barring his death or his own recusal.

    Or the defense makes a motion for him to be replaced because of the “threats” against him that were attributed to Rachelle (but eventually never proven to be from her), and the judge’s perceived bias against the defense because of them.

    Maybe Rachelle is crazy like a fox.

    Kim

  25. To Noor B – Poster #13 – Its obvious you did not watch the trial or any testimony. The driver saw the gun in Spector’s hand and along with a little blood on his hand. He reiterated this numerous times in 9ll calls and in his interview with the police. What do you want??? Perhaps a live video on CNN would convince you. You’re a fucking idiot.

    Given that the jurors saw the trial and the testimony, and the very first thing they said when asked about why they were hung was “The prosecution didn’t put the gun in Phil’s hand”, I think the point is a valid one.

    Kim

  26. Diane Lee said

    Can’t place the gun in his hand?? Only 2 jurors had elective amnesia.

  27. anon said

    Hung Jury –
    Exactly the outcome I predicted.

    Also predicted – Sprocket and Dini’s bitter, bitter comments about the women on the jury who didn’t support their viewpoint. There is something WRONG with those gals – why do they hate women so much?

  28. Cacafuego said

    Expect the pros. to hammer and hammer HARD on the trial on Spector tampering with the crime scene. They didn’t really do that as much as they should have, and the jurors all said that his post-shooting behavior was a big factor for all of them voting for guilt.

    And I think the foreman needs to be invetigated, either by the state or a couple of enterprising journalists. His behavior/body language during the press conference screamed “guilty”. But of what?

  29. Cathy said

    The thing I don’t get is why did the prosecution let the jury foreman in at all? They knew that the had a family memeber or friend that shot him or herself and there was a question if it was an accident or suicide. That should have raised questions about him knowing the defense theory of her being depresed and the suicide nonsense. He also lived near Specter and saw him at Walmart or Target. I think too that there was some fishy connection there. I just don’t get why he was picked at all! Without him I do believe that they could have gotten a guily verdict. He was able to pull or bully one other person with him and that was that.

  30. Kim (Canada) said

    Just found this on the Court Tv web site – I know you touched on this the other day…

    “A day after polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs was convicted of rape as an accomplice for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry her older cousin and have sex with him, the woman’s ex-husband has been charged with rape.

    Allen Steed, 26, was charged with one count of rape in Washington County, Utah, for having sex with Elissa Wall after their arranged wedding in 2001.”

    Wasn’t sure if they were going to lay the charge against him, but it looks like they have at this point….

    Fonzie

  31. skweekie said

    Kim, I’m not understanding your stance (or the juror’s) about putting the gun in his hand. How many murder trials actually put the gun in the defendant’s hand? This one was aa close as you can get without eyewitnesses to the crime. The driver saw the gun in his hand.

  32. skweekie said

    Sprocket ought to take down that blog by dini about juror #3, which is nothing more than a character assasination based on nothing. Until it is perfectly certain who the NG jurors were, I think what was posted about #3 is extremely unfair.

  33. How many murder trials actually put the gun in the defendant’s hand? This one was aa close as you can get without eyewitnesses to the crime. The driver saw the gun in his hand.

    And to you and me – that would be enough. Personally I didn’t need anything more than DeSouza saying he saw the gun in Phil’s hand, the 5 word confession, the clean up act, and the “No, I didn’t think to call 911 – never crossed my mind”. I didn’t need to hear from the experts, I didn’t need the parade of “Me Too!” women, nothing else, that would have been enough for me. All the rest was icing on the file filled cake.

    But I like to play the “what is the jury thinking?” game. I like to look at the particular jurisdictions laws, I like to pick apart the jury instructions and do the “OK – I’m deliberating, what am I thinking if I’m NOT voting guilty?” game. And I’m pretty good at it. Usually I can guess what the jury is going to say are their “sticking points”, and judging just from the brief things the 3 jurors who spoke this afternoon said, I got it right, since the first thing they said was “they didn’t put the gun in Phil’s hand”.

    This is a CSI age, remember. Jurors want fucking DNA on the inside trigger lock of the gun and flashing neon blood on the victim’s body that sings and dances and says “He Did It! He Did It!”

    And it’s not that DeSouza didn’t SAY “I saw the gun in his hand” – the jurors could have all believed him and STILL wanted more. It’s that the prosecution’s experts – down to the very last one of them – each answered “I Don’t Know” or “I can’t tell you that from the evidence” when the defense got up to cross examine them and asked “So – can you say with any degree of certainty WHO was holding the gun?”

    Contrast that with the defense experts – each one of who had a very strong opinion on who WAS holding the gun and said so very emphatically.

    And remember that Dr. Pena did not base his “homicide” conclusion on the body or on the autopsty – he had to go to “other sources”. He said he could not tell whether it was a homicide or suicide simply from the autopsy or the body. Coupled with the fact that none of the prosecution experts could “put the gun in Phil’s hand”, that gave 2 jurors plenty of “reasonable doubt”.

    And yes, 10 other jurors put their common sense back into the picture – and realized that you didn’t necessarily even NEED to put the gun in Phil’s hand, that women don’t buy 7 pairs of shoes, make plans for next week, land a new modeling job and then go to some stranger’s house and blow their fucking head off, but 2 people just couldn’t get past the whole “I need singing and dancing DNA markers”.

    Kim

  34. rogerr said

    Kim,
    You didn’t answer my question. Of course her parents brainwashed idoits who failed miserably in their responsiblity to protect and take care of their child. My question is how can Jeffs claim to be the Prophet in charge of his flock telling them what to do and then not be responsible for what they do?

  35. Sprocket ought to take down that blog by dini about juror #3, which is nothing more than a character assasination based on nothing. Until it is perfectly certain who the NG jurors were, I think what was posted about #3 is extremely unfair.

    Not my blog, not my call.

    But I think it would be an unfair assessment even if that juror *was* identified as the one who voted not guilty. Jurors are duty bound to vote the way they think is best and to go by their own conscience and the way they see the evidence. Not to do so would be to subvert the law and the system. To engage in character assassinations based on the way that a juror voted is irresponsible and arrogant, and makes light of the court, the system, and the dedicated juries that uphold the law and vote the way they feel they must, even though it may be the unpopular choice.

    Kim

  36. skweekie said

    Kim, thanks for the explanation. Do you think that the outcome would have been different with a midwestern jury (or any other part of the country for that matter). We in Chicago just conviceted several mob bosses for murders many years old. Not a gun in any hand in this case. Just testimony from associates.

  37. Gail said

    Kim:
    Given that the jurors saw the trial and the testimony, and the very first thing they said when asked about why they were hung was “The prosecution didn’t put the gun in Phil’s hand”, I think the point is a valid one.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    What a weak excuse by a juror/s!
    As for the gun in Harvey’s hand, I guess 10 of the jurors got it right! We can agree to disagree, not valid at all to me. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine from the evidence as to who had the gun in hand! You’re are not going to have a video! It is common sense (to me and 10 others) who had the gun in hand from the evidence presented.

    As for Jeffs, NOT a wrong verdict at all and Thank be the Gods—the jury got it right! Elissa Wall has RIGHTS! They were violated! GUILTY! Congrats to her, that she was able to come forward and put fucking polyamist child molestor wannabegod Jeffs in jail! 😉 wonder what God is telling him now? 😉 LOL

    My thoughts and prayers this evening are for Lana’s mother, Donna and her sister, Fawn.

    Elissa Walls is not done yet. 🙂 She should be honored for her strength and hopefully she is a trail blazer for others who are having their rights violated and being abused!

    Gail

  38. rogerr said

    I have no problem calling the jurors who voted for aquittal idiots or unethical possers with some kind of hidden agenda. As you have pointed out time and time again on your blog the defense case was mostly voodoo science and character assisination. Spector’s behavior as shown by the prior bad act witnesses, DeSouza, and himself (after the murder) point to murder way beyond any intelligent or honest persons resonable doubt. Thus anyone who voted for aquittal is either stupid or unethical. For you after months of attacking the defense, to defend the two people who voted to set free this man who has threatened so many women with guns is beyond my understanding. Did you not believe all the things you have written for months now? If the defense was immoral and unbelievable, and attacted daily by you, how is okay for someone to fall for their act?

  39. Mike said

    Don’t put any more damned engineers on the jury.

    Oh man, I hope you’re kidding!

    I’m an engineer, and I’ll bet I understand the science presented by both sides better than the attorneys on either side do, and better than all the defense experts. I don’t know who the holdout jurors were, but I’m betting the engineers weren’t thinking Lana could have kept breathing after she was dead, or that blood spatter could have followed a roller-coaster path on the way to Phil’s sleeve. Couldn’t put the gun in Phil’s hand? So what? I deal with probabilities every day – I rarely know things with absolute certainty, but I always know beyond a reasonable doubt before I decide what to do.

    I don’t know if it’s the engineers on the jury who voted to acquit, but I’ll bet they understand reasonable doubt better than most of the other jurors.

    — Mike —

  40. My question is how can Jeffs claim to be the Prophet in charge of his flock telling them what to do and then not be responsible for what they do?

    I guess I don’t follow you.

    If this was a different crime – say a 14 year old boy who killed a 9 year old classmate – who would we be pointing the finger at -his parents, or his spiritual advisor?

    Kim

  41. She should be honored for her strength and hopefully she is a trail blazer for others who are having their rights violated and being abused!

    I think she is an incredible young lady. I only wish that her press conference audio tape could be broadcast to all the FLDS women in place of that stupid fucking “Home Ec” course.

    It wos a wrong verdict – but it had the right effect – it did put Jeffs in jail, which is exactly where he should be. I just wish it was for the right charge.

    But if it gets him in jail, it has the desired effect.

    Kim

  42. Katy said

    You think the verdict in the Jeffs case was wrong? I think you are wrong to think that. This guilty verdict will hopefully empower young girls to say NO, and hopefully get out of this cult that endorses the rape of young girls in the name of ‘religion’. GMAB!!

  43. WCofCA said

    Kim, the thing I will miss more than anything is reading your daily posts. And, what I will look forward to is reading your daily recap during the retrial.

    I agree with the post that said the jury foreman should be investitgated. I can’t help but wonder how he could have taken all those notes and come to the conclusion that he did. I believe his mind was made up before the trial started. I would love to see the “history” on his computer. Clearly we watched something different than he did.

    Thank you so much for the great reporting and fun you gave so many of us during this trial. If you write a book I will be first in line to buy it. You are a wonderful writer Kim!

  44. Spector’s behavior as shown by the prior bad act witnesses, DeSouza, and himself (after the murder) point to murder way beyond any intelligent or honest persons resonable doubt. Thus anyone who voted for aquittal is either stupid or unethical.

    Or sees things differently than you do.

    For you after months of attacking the defense, to defend the two people who voted to set free this man who has threatened so many women with guns is beyond my understanding.

    I’m only one person with one viewpoint – as are you. The defense and the prosecution chose 12 people who they wanted to be the ultimate triers of the facts. We have to ultimately respect their decisions. do I think that 2 of them were wrong? Yes, I think 2 of them are wrong. Do I think they are “stupid”? Now how would I know that – I don’t know them. Do I think they are “unethical”? No, I don’t. But I would think they were unethical if I found out that they had voted guilty when they didn’t honestly believe that.

    Did you not believe all the things you have written for months now?

    Probably

    If the defense was immoral and unbelievable, and attacted daily by you, how is okay for someone to fall for their act?

    Because I am not GOD. I have no more insight into any of this than you, or her over there, or him, or that other guy standing behind that one legged midget. The jurors are honor bound to vote the way their conscience dictates. If someone’s conscience dictates that they vote in some way other than what *I* think – why does that mean that I am right and they are wrong? Just because I said so? Just because I believe my way is the right way *more* than they do?

    Do I think that the defense was a joke and a farce and fucked up and nasty and sometimes cruel? Sure. Does that mean everybody in the world who doesn’t agree with me is stupid and unethical? Ummmmm…. I’m betting not.

    Kim

  45. Kim, the thing I will miss more than anything is reading your daily posts.

    Why? Where are you going?

    This blog was here long before the Spector trial, and hopefully it will be here long after. I’ll still be posting every day.

    Kim

  46. WCofCA said

    Do I think that the defense was a joke and a farce and fucked up and nasty and sometimes cruel? Sure. Does that mean everybody in the world who doesn’t agree with me is stupid and unethical? Ummmmm…. I’m betting not.

    And this is exactly what makes you a great reporter/writer Kim!

  47. Cacafuego said

    The fact that the jury foreman was one of the NGs and was clearly unwilling/unable to handle the deliberations properly (or they wouldn’t have been sent back) and hsi subsequent guilty-as-shit behavior at the press conference suggests to me that he may have, indeed, been unethical. That, coupled with this passage from pages 372 -373 of Mick Brown’s TEARING DOWN THE WALL OF SOUND–the following is Spector’s own words in his last interview before he shot Lana Clarkson:

    “That’s how I figured I’d get by. I cheated. People ask me today, do you play computer games?–the guys at the studio. I don’t play if I can’t win. I don’t play anything if I can’t win. And I’m never going to win against a computer , so what the fuck do I want to play for? To lose? So those guys playing, they’re morons. When I was a kid everyone used to get ectastic playing at Monopoly or Scrabble. I just figured out, Shit, if it’s all about the winning…so I just went out and bought another Monoply game, took the money and hid it in my pocket, and then go to people’s houses and add an extra one hundred or five hundred and I’d win every time. I’d beat Nicole playing Monopoly when she was 12. Beat the shit out of her! I don’t care!”

    It actually goes on for another paragraph or two, about how he delighted in cheating in order to win. If he’s willing to do that for fuckin’ Scrabble & Monopoly, odds are he was going hog wild playing for his life. So some investigation into the foreman is, indeed, in order, given his rather dubious behavior during & after the trial, not to mention his physical proximity to Spector. Wouldn’t be hard for your employees to leave a nice, fat envelope in someone’s mailbox without attracting too much attention, if they live & work in the same general area.

  48. Gail said

    Kim, as for the charge/Jeffs trial, I’ll have to review some of the info on the charges. I dunno really and right now I am too tired to look back.

    I’m not going anywhere anyhoo, and I will be reading your entries daily. One good thing from the HPS trial is so many of us found your blog. 🙂 Better yet, it is eveident you are not just blathering on on, as you do have a lot of knowledge regarding the law and the system.

    You are a talented writer! On occasion you tell such funny stories about your daily life, that are so hysterical! I love your outlook on life. LOL There isn’t a camper I have noticed lately which I haven’t had the vision of Paul and friends atop of drinking beer! LMBO

  49. rogerr said

    I would be pointing my finger at both if they told him to do it. Just as I point my finger at both Jeffs and her parents. That seems pretty logical and simple. Jeffs claims control, with that goes responsibility.

  50. rogerr said

    Well, if you have no insight, than why should I read your blog? If you are not sure that you believe what you write, why should I read your blog? AS to someone’s conscience, what good is conscience without intelligent thought? Even the Bible says “love without knowledge is like a clanging bell” (or something to that effect).

    I actually do think you have insight, I just find it inconsistent that you praise the prosectution and attack the defense team for months, than say it is ok to ignore the brilliant prosecution case and fall for the defense bs.

  51. lula said

    Sprocket ought to take down that blog by dini about juror #3, which is nothing more than a character assasination based on nothing. Until it is perfectly certain who the NG jurors were, I think what was posted about #3 is extremely unfair.
    Not my blog, not my call.

    But I think it would be an unfair assessment even if that juror *was* identified as the one who voted not guilty. Jurors are duty bound to vote the way they think is best and to go by their own conscience and the way they see the evidence. Not to do so would be to subvert the law and the system. To engage in character assassinations based on the way that a juror voted is irresponsible and arrogant, and makes light of the court, the system, and the dedicated juries that uphold the law and vote the way they feel they must, even though it may be the unpopular choice.

    Kim

    TO ALL
    Still curious about why Dini’s (and Sprockets) nasty remarks about the female juror’s appearance have anything to do with how she voted. This is just the most recent in a long list of judgements FROM WOMEN, ABOUT OTHER WOMEN THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL- VICIOUS CRITICISM on age, looks, clothing, hair, nails, etc. I don’t think anyone on the jury or in the courtroom felt they were auditioning for America’s Next Top Model. Possibly Dini and Sprocket would like to show us their glamour shots and we can compare THEM with Linda KB and Rachelle.

  52. Expect the pros. to hammer and hammer HARD on the trial on Spector tampering with the crime scene. They didn’t really do that as much as they should have, and the jurors all said that his post-shooting behavior was a big factor for all of them voting for guilt.

    That was one of my biggest problems with the “Phil didn’t do it” faction. An innocent person doesn’t disturb the crime scene – and I agree the prosecution didn’t focus on this as much as they should have.

    Kim

  53. There isn’t a camper I have noticed lately which I haven’t had the vision of Paul and friends atop of drinking beer!

    Thanks – that made me laugh after a hard day.

    Kim

  54. Well, if you have no insight, than why should I read your blog?

    I didn’t say I had NO insight – I have MY OWN insight – just as you do. If you like and enjoy may particular insight, you read my blog, if you don’t then you move on.

    If you are not sure that you believe what you write, why should I read your blog?

    Did I say I don’t believe what I write? Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. I may change my mind about some things, and I’m sure I specualte on some things, but I probably believe it when I write it.

    AS to someone’s conscience, what good is conscience without intelligent thought? Even the Bible says “love without knowledge is like a clanging bell” (or something to that effect).

    I actually do think you have insight, I just find it inconsistent that you praise the prosectution and attack the defense team for months, than say it is ok to ignore the brilliant prosecution case and fall for the defense bs.

    Because it’s simply MY OPINION. I AM NOT GOD. I don’t have SPECIAL insight. THIS IS MY OPINION. I could (GASP) BE WRONG. I don’t aspire to be Kim Warren Jeffs Junior. I don’t think people should take what I say so seriously and with such gravity and import that if I tell them to drink the Kool Aid they blindly do so.

    Intelligent people can differ in how they perceive things. You’re an intelligent guy. I’m fairly intelligent (God, I feel like Rachelle). But we can DISAGREE. It doesn’t mean that if and when we disagree one of us is suddenly unintelligent or unethical.

    I watched Baden’s testimony and thought he was lying out his ass. But if you watched his testimony and thought he was completely believeable, and you said so, why would that make one of us wrong? You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. We see something differently. Your feelings and perceptionc CAN’T BE WRONG. It’s not a FACTUAL issue. You or I could be wrong about WHAT HE SAID, since that is a factual issue that could be proved or disproved fromt eh evidence, But your perceptions and your interpretations and your feelings are NOT WRONG.

    That would be like telling me I’m stupid and unethical to like Stephen King – because YOU think he sucks.

    And since there are 12 people in the jury room who ALL have a right to their own perceptions and their own feelings and their own interpretations, they can’t be wrong. And to attack them because they did their job and made their voice known is arrogant and irresponsible.

    If you look back at the post I made explaining the problems that I thought the jury would be having with the case, you can see that way back then, I SAID there were things that were going to be “sticking points” – even though I still believed that Spector was guilty as shit, and that the defense did not really do that great a job with their defense, I saw and acknowledged the prosecution’s potential problems. It’s not like I’m sitting here blindly singing the praises of one side or another and being a rah rah cheerleader with my eyes closed.

    And respecting the jury’s decision – and those that made it – is a huge part of the legal system. I am in no way going to sit here and gnash my teeth and tear my hair out over the fact that 2 people “fell for the defense’s BS” – I predicted that the prosecution had some holes in their case and that the defense had some good points.

    That 2 people agreed with me is not a huge surprise.

    Kim

  55. I would be pointing my finger at both if they told him to do it. Just as I point my finger at both Jeffs and her parents. That seems pretty logical and simple. Jeffs claims control, with that goes responsibility.

    I *think* we agree on this.

    But if Jeffs had such control why didn’t the girl just marry the cousin, sleep with him and shut her mouth like a good sheep?

    Kim

  56. Kathy said

    Better HUNG than NOT QUILTY. Phil Spector spent millions on a defense only to manage a 10-2 hung jury.That’s 10 QUILTY and The best part (if there is one) is that he will have to spend more of “Chelles” money on a new trial. I can’t image we will see four high money attorney’s and (I lost count of the expert witnesses) on his defense in the retrial. Even the Mendez brothers ran out of money at some point. If I were the Spector Team I would not be dancing for joy at this point. The next jury will have wised up and not pick a foreman who takes books of notes and not listening to the trial. While we are still in mild shock over the outcome of this trail the Clarkson family and the defense attorneys have to be feeling totally devasteted. Good o’ Phil better be looking at the plea deal which was offered in the beginning. He probably would have been out of jail and still have his millions of dollars. Maybe Lana’s best acting job will be to haunt the castle.

  57. Holy Toledo said

    Your blog was sensational, nothing short. I don’t understand why people are attacking you now. This trial is and was a PROCESS and we all were processing the information as they argued it. After the process, we make decisions. Most of us thought he was guilty as hell of “something to do with Lana’s death”. However, none of us sat in those jurors’ chairs day in and day out so how can we really know what they know. I don’t like the outcome either but to sling arrows at you because you tried to look objectively at it all AFTER closing arguments is unfair. It was a process and you shared your thoughts and feelings as we went along then lightbulbs started going off. I remember thinking…”oh shit, she’s probably right, dammit”.

    Sprocket’s blog started out very interesting. Afterall, she was THERE in the courtroom and that was priceless as they remind us on TV. At some point, she started dissing Rachelle and making comments about people’s clothing and I wished she hadn’t. I don’t know why she did. Maybe she got too damned bored sitting there with nothing to do but listen to pricks….but she did write things that were extraneous to the trial and I thought it was getting catty but, hell, this is America, I didn’t have to read it.

    OK, I’m done with all that.

    Now here’s one for you. I decided to get in the here and now a couple weeks ago and bought a 46″ TV, HD, HBO (so I can see/listen to Bill Maher), the whole works…bundled my phone, broadband….hey, life with the hogs is good. Well, it’s been one disaster after another. I won’t bore you with most of it but would you believe one (of three) cable guys asked to use my bathroom and THEN PLUGGED it up AND didn’t bother to tell me his shit was such a load, it wouldn’t go down and it’s not one of those Al Gore toilets either. I go to the bathroom later and here’s all this brown water so I flushsd it and then my worst fears were realized….the water didn’t go anywhere but up, up, up and thank God it crested just in time or I would have locked up and sold the house.

    So I lost some of my “fire” for this verdict having to deal with trying to get in the 21st century. Nothing gets your attention like no phone service, no WWW, a toilet that won’t flush and then a mistrial, mistrial being the least of my worries.

    Bye now.

  58. noor b said

    Diane Lee Says:
    September 26th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
    To Noor B – Poster #13 – Its obvious you did not watch the trial or any testimony. The driver saw the gun in Spector’s hand and along with a little blood on his hand. He reiterated this numerous times in 9ll calls and in his interview with the police. What do you want??? Perhaps a live video on CNN would convince you. You’re a fucking idiot.

    For your info I did watch the trial, right here on my laptop, that was great, no commercials.
    Yes, you are right the driver saw the gun in PS’s hand, AFTER THE SHOOTING.

    The driver never stated to 911: I saw Phil hold the gun when it went of.

    Nobody has ever called me a “f*****g idiot.
    Wonder if you would say that to me face to face. 😦

  59. brdsnbs said

    I just finished watching the interview (Bloom & Politan) this morning with Juror #9 on CTV. During the last week or so of I’ve been wondering, ‘what the fuck is wrong with those jurors, what trial were they watching, where did they find these idiots!’ Turns out, you could have swapped #9 with any number of us. I felt his anger, frustration and sadness. At the end of the interview he addressed Lana’s family and it made him cry. I cried.

    Turns out, Spector fired Dixon and Plourd yesterday. I pray to God, for the sake of Lana’s family and the safety of women in California (including my 21 year old daughter) that this murderer, Phil Spector, is re-tried and convicted sooner rather than later. I’m emotionally drained.

    Squiggy

  60. A.D.A. said

    Dear Kim Warren Jeffs Junior:

    You keep us all informed and amused, coddle us when we’re discouraged, kick us when we’re uppity, calm us when we abuse you and each other because we’re frustrated…what a big INTELLIGENT Mother Hen you are! Plus, your incisive and unbiased summaries are simply the best reporting available.
    Rock on! This blog is the most fun place to gather since ancient Athens. Please don’t ask me to marry my cousin.

  61. rogerr said

    Kim,
    What I don’t understand is why calling the defense team all sorts of nasty stuff is fine, but because a someone who fell for their line is beyond reproach just because they happened to have been selected to be on a jury. Does being on a jury make a person a diety of some sort?

    Also, why is correct for you to state that the Jeffs’ jurors are wrong, but if I call the two Spector jurors wrong, I am acting like I think that I am God?

    Society has to make intelligent judgements about right and wrong. To say that because someone’s conscience guided their decision does not necessarily excuse that desicion. Just an extreme example would be the people who particapated in the murder of six million Jews. Their consciences were clear, but they were wrong just as their leader was.

    Please know that I am not meaning to attack you personally. I just don’t understand why you think it is right to critisize and state that the Jeffs jurors were wrong, and that the Spector defense was wrong; yet, state that you think the two Spector jurors were wrong but should not be critisized for being wrong.

  62. Does being on a jury make a person a diety of some sort?

    No – it just makes them the people who are the ultimte trier of fact. ULTIMATE trier. We have to respect their decision, if nothing else. And I do.

    Also, why is correct for you to state that the Jeffs’ jurors are wrong, but if I call the two Spector jurors wrong, I am acting like I think that I am God?

    You didn’t call them wrong, you called them stupid and unethical. To me, there’s a difference. Maybe you don’t see a difference, but I do.

    I just don’t understand why you think it is right to critisize and state that the Jeffs jurors were wrong, and that the Spector defense was wrong; yet, state that you think the two Spector jurors were wrong but should not be critisized for being wrong.

    Intelligent people can disagree. I think the Jeffs jury was wrong. I think the two Spector holdouts were wrong. But I don’t think any of them were stupid or unethical. Again, I see a large difference. And being a denizen of AFCA, I’ve learned long ago that it is more convincing to state your opinion on why someone is wrong by explaining it, giving cites and trying to convince by logic and reason why they are wrong than to say “You’re wrong – and you’re stupid and unethical to boot”.

    Kim

  63. rogerr said

    I said stupid “or” unethical.

  64. Has America given up completely on the concept of reasonable doubt and now settled for “Get the bastards we hate (or that the media tells us to hate) and to hell with the evidence”? Why is juror after juror more than willing to admit that they based their judgment on how well they liked the defendant and not on how well they understood the actual evidence?

    It seems that verdicts are based on luck in selecting intelligent and honest people instead of idiots. Spector got 10 idiots. Scott Peterson got 12. Fr Gerald Robinson got 12. By some miracle, OJ got zero idiots. Is that justice, or dumb luck?



  65. skweekie said

    On what Spector juror quote do you base your assertion that he or she based his or her decision on whether or not they liked the defendant?

  66. AnonA said

    Kim:

    First visit to your site. I love it. Your respect for the legal system is commendable. You separate yourself from your peers by acknowledging the importance of proper legal codes and the intergrity of trial by jury. I, too, believe PS shot LC but the laws still apply. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution when a case goes to trial, MOO

    I do not understand the attack-the-opposite-opinion mentality that dominates CTV board. IMO, Debating the case does not make one a “Phil did’t do it faction member but You even argued that point gracefully. What a refreshing change of pace.

    ps: The zombie story made me LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: