Sic transit gloria Phili
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:45 am
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Sic transit gloria Phili
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:40 pm
Yet another round of "how the mighty have fallen"...
Posted: 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!
I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:48 pm
I haven't clicked the link, but I assume it's regarding Phil Spector?
Posted: 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.
Posted: 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!
I get it!Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:11 pm
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.Lord Foul wrote:I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:46 pm
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.matrixman wrote: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.Lord Foul wrote:I hope they give him life, but his stardom will probably net him the minimum sentence. Sad!
Posted: 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.
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.
Posted: 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.