Phillip and his lawyers wearily stand up when the jury come & go. I can't help but note how hunched over Phillip is - like he's in prayer. There's an aura of threadbareness about this trial. Not well attended - when I get there I thought maybe it had been postponed again. Phil doesn't even have the same number of bodyguards like at that first trial - now he's down to one skinny guy in a black suit - there were at least four burly guys last year. This is like an off-broadway play that's getting no audience but the producer's have plenty of money so it's going to go on despite the poor box office. Is there no interest cause Phil's just a famous producer? That's been theorized by some (actually only Beth Lapides) But I'm not buying it. What if it was Spielberg? Or Steve Jobs? or Warren Buffett? There's something else going on. This trial is too good for the masses. Too nuanced. That's right. Too nuanced. I said it and I'll say it again.
I watched the cross by the defense guy Weinberg (very much with the attitude of "hey we're all adults here) of the ex New York Detective. Tanazzo with a thick New York accent who supposedly heard Phil say something about all women needing a bullet in their head about 10 or was it 20 years ago at a party for Joan Rivers. A Christmas party yet. The frustrated Detective when Weinberg presses about the year this happened in -. "Counselor! (that condescending "counselor" that all cops use everywhere but New York cops do it best) I worked the Christmas parties okay?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment