|
Title: Phil Spector Jury hung Post by: raj on September 27, 2007, 08:41:40 AM The two clowns who voted to acquit Lana Clarkson's killer oughta be hanged
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070927/music_nm/spector_dc;_ylt=AphpWddvZsPwtmySEqu35cFxFb8C (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070927/music_nm/spector_dc;_ylt=AphpWddvZsPwtmySEqu35cFxFb8C) Um, yeah. Depressed person goes home with old, formerly hot shot record producer, finds gun (in a house she's never been to before) and decides then and there to commit suicide. Who the hell are these mouth breathers? Title: Re: Phil Spector Jury hung Post by: Andrew on September 27, 2007, 08:48:54 AM Based on everything I read (and common sense), the two holdouts are idiots.
Personally, I think that crap like this happens too often. The judge should have held the jury. "You're not being dismissed until you have reached a verdict. I don't care if it takes years." Title: Re: Phil Spector Jury hung Post by: Mr. DS on September 27, 2007, 11:05:53 AM Its absolutely amazing. Spector's driver heard him say that he though he killed someone. The prosecution had multiple women on the stand saying Spector had a gun to their head at one point. That and all else already mentioned. Justice?
Title: Re: Phil Spector Jury hung Post by: Torgo on September 27, 2007, 10:05:55 PM They'll eventually get him. Should have happened during this trial however. Phil Spector is a nutbar and has always been.
He's also waved a gun around during studio sessions on multiple occasions. Title: Re: Phil Spector Jury hung Post by: Jason on September 28, 2007, 01:35:14 AM I was on a jury earlier this year, and I'm guessing a couple of you guys have done it as well, and it's the most frustrating thing in the world when you get someone who fails to look at the evidence, and has made up their mind before even going away, and refuses to listen to rational argument.
One of the cases I was on was a robbery case, and why the crown prosecution service chose to pursue that particular case with the miniscule amount of evidence they had was mystifying. The guy did it, it was obvious, but there was no way it could actually be proved. The three prosecution witnesses completely contradicted each other amongst other things, and there wasn't a shred of 'hard' evidence, so the obvious decision was a reluctant 'Not Guilty' due to lack of proof. For two days we sat in this room because two people "had a hunch" that the guy had done it. No amount of explaining the law to them, reasoning with them or debate was going to sway them. I could have quite happily murdered one of them with a coke can - he was simply a pompous idiot with no concept of the real world. *steps off soapbox* |