Sic transit gloria Phili

Post by **Prebe** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:45 am

www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/13/phil.spect ... ef=topnews

Post by **aliantha** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:40 pm

Yet another round of "how the mighty have fallen"...

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:12 pm

Some of the greatest music people are crazy murderers. Carlo Gesualdo, for example, murdered his wife and her lover. Spector was always eccentric, so it's hardly surprising. I figured, for his fame, he'd walk away from this, even though I suspected he did it. I'm sure there was some pretty damning evidence going his way, especially from what little I'd read.

I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!

Post by **danlo** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:48 pm

I haven't clicked the link, but I assume it's regarding Phil Spector?

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:01 pm

It's a virulent pop-up ad about Phil Spector's murder case, otherwise known as a new article.

Post by **danlo** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:59 pm

Sort of like Fox News saying they have no hand in promoting the "tea party" rallies?

I get it!

Post by **matrixman** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!

I know I'm naive, but it still puzzles me why the system thinks a person's "stardom" should have any bearing on that sort of thing.

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:46 pm

matrixman wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!
I know I'm naive, but it still puzzles me why the system thinks a person's "stardom" should have any bearing on that sort of thing.

Because of money, power, influence. He'll either soften the sentence with some back-dealing or the judge will make an example of him and give him life; or perhaps something in between, so both parties are satisfied.

Post by **Prebe** » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:50 pm

I have a feeling that most people automatically assume that because of a persons "stardom" that person might get off cheaper.

I think that these people (as they demonstrably do in non-celeb cases) would react COMPLETELY differently if placed on a jury.

I think that if a celebrity gets off cheaper, it's not a direct result of his/her stardom, it's a result of money comming from that stardom buying a good lawyer.

Post by **matrixman** » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:29 am

Thanks, guys, for clarifying the matter. So stardom itself is not the factor, but the star's money (in hiring a good lawyer). Yes, that makes more sense.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Sic transit gloria Phili

Sic transit gloria Phili