a) I no longer have any faith in legal systems and b) whatever the reality, he remains probably the greatest single creative force in pop music from the 20th century.

Yes, if not for Phil Spector, my childhood would have been minus some of it's greatest Pop sounds - See My Baby Jive, Angel Fingers, Ball Park Incident, etc. Roy Wood was very much inspired by Phil Spector.

So, i take it you beleive this to be another miscarriage of justice?

Not at all Pete; I don't know the details, haven't seen the evidence, was not in court.

Whatever the validity or lack of it in the verdict, he remains a true genius in production.

So that means you do think he's innocent?

No Toby but this is what frightens me about people today.

When someone says they have no faith in the judicial system, everyone assumes he is saying he disagrees with the verdict.

Not necessarily true. It simply means that just because the system has found him guilty no longer means he is guilty or even that it is more likely than not.

We all have to be black or white these days.

Why? Because it's a better story - and that is all that matters.

So "JK thinks Spector is innocent" is a simpler and better story than "JK says Spector remains the greatest producer of all time and he has no faith in the legal system".

Are we incapable of seeing shades of gray these days?
Apparently so.

Okay, so if he'd been acquitted, would you still have said "I no longer have any faith in legal systems."

I very much doubt it.

You should realise that most of your readers have far more intelligence than you seem to think.

I would have been pleased for him just as now I'm sad for him but sadly my faith in the legal systems is totally destroyed and it would take more than the odd acquittal to revive it.

The answer to that question is on these boards. Even before Spector was arrested, JK repeatedly stated that he had no faith in the legal system. So I have to assume that the Spector verdict would have little impact on JK's general view of the system.

The appeal court in the UK, and apparently in the USa too, is continuously overturning wrongful convictions. Very few are reported in the media. A friend of mine had his conviction overturned after two years. Despite his local paper devoting a full page to his conviction, they ignored his appeal victory. It's apparently not in the public interest to acknowledge too many errors within the system. It would undermine public confidence. Better to keep their senses numbed by more celbrity gossip. The public seem to prefer the ostrich response too.

Sorry JK, I cannot agree with you at all. Spector was good for what he did but please don't turn him into a victim here. Think about the woman who took a bullet in the head. Now I don't know if he is truly guilty but until told otherwise that is what he is "guilty".

I am sure there are many victims of miscarriages of justice and I really sympathise with them. If Spector is one of them then I hope and pray evidence turns up that would acquit him. If not then he should remain locked up.

Pete Clarke wrote:
Okay, so if he'd been acquitted, would you still have said "I no longer have any faith in legal systems."

I very much doubt it.

You should realise that most of your readers have far more intelligence than you seem to think.
Excellent points... and in the post below yours, nicely side-stepped too

But just in case I'm wrong, here's what was said in court.

1. Spector has a history of threatening women with guns. He particularly likes to play russian roulette. At least five women have testified to that they were subected to this sadistic ritual.

2. In the moments following the shooting, Spector wandered into his front garden and told his neighbour "I think I just killed someone".

3. The forensic blood-splatter evidence was conclusive. He was right next to her when the gun went off.

It is inappropriate for you to place your comments regarding your lack of faith in the justice system next to Spector's name.

Whatever his merits as a record producer, he is clearly a danger to women and deserves to be locked up.

Ah Pete I apologise - I didn't realise you were there. Unfortunately all my information was gathered from the media which I don't trust, or (worse) hearsay from others who read it in the media and pretended to be there.

So I'll continue to be sceptical. But you can feel free to condemn, if you know so much more.

I repeat - I have no idea whether he's guilty or innocent.
I do know two things.
He was a great producer and I have no faith at all in the judicial systems.

Where do I live JK?

Obviously not too near the court, Pete, or you'd be aware of such things as the comment being to his driver, not to a "neighbour".

Still what do facts or details matter when you are simply shoring up a prejudice?

Yup, got me there.

It was a while ago, and my memory of who he said that to was a little fuzzy.

But he still said it!

As all good investigators point out, it's all in the details. Fuzzy memories help convict the wrong people. I haven't followed the re-trial at all. Until this morning's news I didn't know there was a retrial. So, I'm not sure why one jury was able to convict with such certainty when another was not. Was there new evidence, or had media coverage since the first trial helped to create a shift in mood? I understand there is to be an appeal.

It sounds like he's been a bizarre person, but only solid facts should determine the outcome of a trial. If he did not kill the actress then I wish him luck.

Out of curiosity, did the other women who claim to have been put in danger by him come forward before his arrest, or did they decide to make their claims only after this case came to light?

Of course, getting back to JK's original point, even if he is guilty he was still a very talented and successful music producer. One thing has little to do with the other.

Very sad day for music - also for the friends and family of the person who died.

No one is above the law. But I understand the cynical approach to justice these days. Court verdicts tend to hinge on how good the representation is for the defendant in comparison to the prosecution. Evidence is rarely needed to convict - see Sion Jenkins ( No evidence ) Jill Dando Case ( no evidence ) - yet in both instances men were put away for murder when not a single jot of evidence was offered by the prosecution except a "story" to manipulate the jury.

The media often backs the story as JK will say I am sure.

Then that means that ALL OF US on here really have NO IDEA of what really happened.

Hence JK's comments.

Until you have seen the system first hand working you dont really know how corrupt and wrong it actually is.

That is why I have not got a clue whether Spector is guilty or innocent. I have never seen the evidence and I dont trust trials anymore having seen so many miscarriages of justice. They may get a 70% rate success - but that is really not good enough.

what is the alternative ?
no justice system ?
survival of the fittest or the best shot ?
there will always be some doubt in a lot of cases and there will be miscarriages of justice BUT again what is the alternative
unless you can replace it with something better then we have to stick with what we have
whether spector is a genius or a saint an angel or whatever is irrelevant, if he did the deed he deserves to go down
a young woman was murdered, let's not forget that
and there was plenty of evidence in this case as there was in the oj simpson case