Totally impossible to have a fair retrial.

www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27spector.html?hp

Justice stinks - not only in the UK.


Whether innocent or guilty, Phil is a victim.

Not being funny, but surely courts can impose an injunction on media covering it. Maybe then we could have had a verdict either way. I'm not sure whether I feel sorry for Phil Spector or not, but you're right he is a victim in this.

If you had not had a 'trial by media' I suspect that you would have been found 'not guilty' given the appalling 'lack of evidence' that was thrown out by the court.

No retrial in my view and it's all the media's fault.

It's sad that nobody seems to realise that the only victim here is the girl who's life was taken by this horrible excuse for a man.

Since the trial began, I've read quite a bit about Spector and his history of gun-related incidents.

As far as I'm concerned, he killed her. It was his gun, and the crime was committed in his house.

Even if (and this is an enormous if) she pulled the trigger herself - and I seriously doubt this - why on earth was the gun in the room in the first place.
Does anyone seriously believe that she just arrived in his house for the fist time, found where he hid his gun and then killed herself. I mean, come on...

Also, I'm wondering why there was no forensic evidence in terms of gunshot residues on their hands - both the girl and the producer. Surely, if she had in fact killed herself there would have been evidence to back this up...

A terrible, terrible day for justice. Just goes to show that if you're rich enough, you can still very easily get away with murder in the states.

Can someone please explain to me? If you're innocent unless proven guilty, if a jury cannot give a guilty verdict, you're innocent, aren't you?

Or has the global judicial system finally given up the pretence and admitted you're guilty unless you can prove your innocence?

The worry is that if you ask a Judge that question, then I don't think they know the answer.

If the jury could not decide, then yes he is not guilty and he is free.

Come on JK, you know exactly where I am coming from...

I take it you also think OJ Simpson is not a murderer...?

I stand by my previous post.

And just as we have to accept that people are sometimes wrongly convicted of an offence, we have to accept that sometimes people get away with it.

Yes, we live in a democracy and everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. My view is they proved his guilt. It's just a shame that two out of the eight jurors did not agree.

Like in the case of Harold Shipman, I was not in the court and did not hear all the nuances of evidence.

On media coverage it looks like Spector "did it" - but from personal experience I can promise you, it usually does (better story).

My point is - if you accept the system (I don't) you should accept the results.

I don't accept the system. It often gets it very very wrong (Sally Clark).

But if it is TRULY "innocent until or unless proven guilty", Spector is innocent. However many jurors held out - the net result was ACQUITTAL.

Ditto OJ Simpson.

How or why is neither here nor there.