Mark Your Calendar

Robitaille said Spector threatened her a second time with a shotgun, at another party, in 1986. She acknowledged she was paid to tell her story to a London newspaper last March. When asked by Dixon if she was afraid when Spector pointed the shotgun at her head, Robitaille responded:

"In all honesty, I have to say no."

Plan your fall calendar: Representatives for both sides said that closing arguments won't begin until after Labor Day, Sept. 3.

-- John Spano

Comments

[A.O.]

Even as bias as me and my doggy are, I was disappointed with Mr. Dixion and Ms. Robitaille testimony. There were problems , no fault to her, but of the transcripts caused by very sloppy recorder. The D.A. aids should have know better and had some common sense. If a restaurant is noisy, Then move to a quieter location or another restaurante or hold another interview. They were very aware the Defense would zero in on this. The only good thing was, she was number #5 who had a weapon pointed at her head. Maybe its best to leave it alone, or extend the case another week and accomplish very little if any. Dr. Andrews I hope explains the fluid in the lungs since he took part in the autopsy. Mrs. J .W . I hope you have a pleasant safe trip, I will miss your comments but enjoyed the paradigm shifts.

[nan]

Thought she did a credible job. Man does Mr. S have a mommy complex. She was consistent, a bit tarnished and that looks like honesty.

There is a HUGH difference between someone transcribing an informally taped conversation and a certified court reporter transcribing a deposition proceeding of questions and answers under oath, Certified deposition transcripts are carefully prepared in a multi step process by highly trained licensed professionals. Mr. Rosen's short "speeches" to the wits he cross examines are nothing compared to the directions and instructions given the witness in a deposition proceeding. The witness in a deposition further is placed under oath. Once the transcript is prepared, it is then provided to the witness for them to read and make any corrections necessary to make sure it accurately reflects what they said at the deposition. Then, only then, the witness signs the deposition transcript, again, under oath, that it accurately reflects their testimony. More times than not, even with trained, experienced licensed court reporters in a controlled environment where attorneys are trying to get a clear record, mistakes do happen.
Compare that whole process with the "transcripts" of the informal, by that I mean, not under oath, taped from an unknown type of recorder(s) hidden and/or placed on a surface, questions not asked by attorneys, back and forth conversation-broken up questions and answers- among many people in a noisy public setting. Even if the people who tried their best to transcribe the conversation were incredibly experienced and talented, they tried their best but never then provided the written draft to the witness or the questioners to review for accuracy or completeness.
Putting all this info in front of the jury would be a snooze fest, and doesn't impact the fact that, by and large, her testimony was just that, a consitent personal recollection.
So she went back in the 80's. Really, I don't think she anticipated "it" would happen again. Mr. S apologized and made up for the 1st instant. She gave him another chance and finally left. He didn't do it again.
She sure split fast after #2.

Makes sense.