What if Phil Spector didn't pull the trigger?

Steve,

As I recall, at some point, it would be in the best interests of these "associates" to say, "I have no further comment. I haved shared everything with you that I do know about the accused. I have no knowledge of the incident that you are investigating."

Bob

 

Have they bothered Veronica re: personality investigation?

 

Are you trying to say that the police reached a quick conclusion, and are now looking for facts to prove it? Unheard of!

 

Nah, not in LA. That's what I'm worried about; they think the solution is as simple as a personality profile.

 

Amazing, and depressing. Just what is Larry supposed to tell them about Phil? That's he's been known to carry a firearm? Everybody knows that. That he has/had a tendency toward eccentric, even manic behavior? Also documented, but that doesn't make him a killer. Neither Mark Ribowsky's or Ronnie Spector's books are terribly flattering(beyond acknowledging his obvious musical genius), but can't imagine the cops could glean any more from his longtime associates and friends than they could from those two tomes.

The one aspect that bugged me from the beginning was his fast bail. Robert Blake didn't get that treatment--instead, locked up, presumably because of the flight risk and the evidence was very strong. With Phil, he got out pretty soon, one must think mainly because, with no witnesses(and no direct forensic evidence?), it would have been tough to justify keeping him in custody. Both men had the money for bail; only one got it.

Thing is, Steve, if your scenario in the opening post is true, wouldn't it have been in Phil's best interest to tell his story from the outset? He does have that right: to tell the public what really happened. The police have no such obligation until trial(presuming there is one).

From the beginning, I've wanted to believe he's innocent, or that it was an accident. I still hold out that hope.

ED

 

While I admit this is a very weird case, let's be careful not to bend too far backwards to blame the victim here!

 

Nobody is; just an alternate scenario, nothing more. What sucks about this case is that neither side has said anything; there is so little to know.

ED

 

Ray,

In these types of cases, I think we are better to take the middle ground - that area without presumption. I guess I have too much training in some legal matters to presume that I have the facts to pass judgment on this case. Rather, I am open to all the possible explanations.....

Bob

 

When I was being sarcastic above, that was my point - the police too often close themselves off to any possible explanations, because they are the "experts" and once they reach a conclusion, however half-dashed, that's it, no more need to come up with other possibilities.

 

... while I am a big fan of 'Law and Order' ... I am not sure I would use any episode as a basis for my legal defense ... I would rely on 'Perry Mason'

All kidding aside ... it sounds good for Phil ... he obviously has the resources to sort this thing out.

 

I should have phrased that differently; Shapiro's the guy to do the talking. It's not unprecedented for lawyers to explain the facts about their clients' case, though we also know from experience they're adept at concocting all manner of alternate explanations for the crime.

Then again, the late, great Jerry Geisler once said that he not only didn't care if his client was guilty or innocent, he didn't necessarily want to know.
His point being, his only job was to defend his client to the best of his ability. Johnnie Cochran did that with OJ, and won, treating his job as a personal mission. If I ever needed a lawyer, those are the kind of guys I'd want. Especially if I were guilty.


ED

 

Look at it this way, as Steve stated above, "What if the chief of police made a statement to the waiting press that Phil did it and they arrested him because it was well known that he loved guns?" If the chief already told the press Phil commited the act (and I will assume he did) then how is he going to look if the police don't go forward? The chief is going to look like a fool when Phil is not charged and this footage or recording is broadcast on the news. Not only a fool, but a government official who was delinquent in his duties. CYA is a very big motivating factor.

 

A public relations expert who represents a specific side of a case.

All the best - Andrew

 

Exactly. What's really odd is that Phil has yet to be charged, which to me suggests that he either didn't do it or that there isn't nearly enough evidence to convict him if he did.

Little about this case makes sense. It's hard to fathom why Phil would have done it (despite his fondness for and proximity to guns) or why she would have killed herself (at least intentionally). My money's on this being an accident, though I have no idea which of them might have held the gun and/or pulled the trigger.

 

Friends,

A part of Forum life is taking risks and making a stand. Based on Steve's first post on this thread and now, his last, I believe Phil to be innocent of any criminal wrong doing. Now, that being my belief, I am at a loss to explain the behavior of the Police and the Court system beyond speculating that the Police do not like Phil for some reason. Perhaps, the Police know they lack sufficient evidence to make the charges stick, are afraid to make it public because of negative P.R. and are hoping that the case quietly fades away. I do not know....

Bob

 

If in fact the forensic evidence favors Phil Spector's claims -- which sound preposterous to me -- I'll be willing to wish him goodbye and good day. But I won't have any sympathy for him, or his ordeal.

If you go around brandishing weapons, occassionally firing them and pointing them at people, and someone gets killed in your house, well, guess what? You are primary suspect number one, and the police are going to proceed under the assumption you did it. Spend enough time trying to convince people you'll do them harm, and eventually they'll believe you.

 

What if the above was exactly what happened (and still going on) and most people don't want to believe it because it's not "sensational" enough and would prefer a fabricated, dramatized story to the truth, and/or because they feel the need to have a scapegoat to blame this sad event on?

 

What "character" was defamed? People thought he was a gun-happy recluse long before this episode.

 

What exactly *are* Phil's claims? I mean, I haven't heard any explanations for how/why the woman died from either the police or from Phil's camp.

Steve, how much of your scenario was put together from published reports or is it mere speculation? Quite frankly, I've heard very few details about what the cops have learned about her death (i won't say murder). Your version is as good as any.

It does indeed look like the police are just waiting for everyone to forget about this one. Very different from the Blake case.

Ray