When the U.S. Attorney's Office released a Pellicano trial memo that didn't accuse them of any wrongdoing, several Hollywood names immediately contacted the feds about whether they will still have to testify against the P.I. at al. And I'm told the answer is yes. That means they'll be on tenterhooks for the full 8-to-10 weeks total time that the trial is expected to last, including the feds' case, the defense case and any government rebuttal.
I've been asked to provide particulars concerning the behind-the-scenes of the trial. Two benches in the courtroom at the Roybal Building have been reserved for the media. Those benches will accommodate approximately 14 people. Media seats will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. One bench has been reserved for the general public. There'll also be an “overflow” courtroom provided with audio from the trial. No cell phones will be allowed into the courtroom. There is no press room in the Roybal Building.
Innocent until proven guilty, even when the odds are against the defendant.
Although Pellicano should be punished IF he’s guilty, we’re not there yet.
25 years ago Anthony Pellicano was thought to be the only detective in the Chicago who could find the birthparents of adoptees who were placed through prestigious private agencies.
At the time that I contacted Anthony, he was recently divorced. Anthony spoke well of his ex-wife and was very proud of their three young children. He was always a gentleman and a family man.
Anthony teased me because I didn’t give my own child what he called a “greaseball name”. I still remember the names of his children. Since none were named after fictional Coppola characters, and one was, in fact, a female derivative of “Luca”, I now refuse to believe much of what I read in Vanity Fair Magazine.
I look at the media’s timeline of events since then, and I wonder if Pellicano filed bankruptcy because he didn’t collect a dime from me. I never hired him. I couldn’t afford his $20,000 fee. I was young.
From the very beginning, Pellicano assured me that he would never have to do anything illegal to find my mother, and he was right. Although I didn’t know at the time, the information he was public record.
Although Pellicano talked to me for months and I never hired him, he never retaliated. He wasn’t nasty.
While it seems that Pellicano may have surrounded himself with “Barbie Doll types” in California; the women he worked with in Chicago were by no means glamourous. Two to whom he planned to “outsource” my search were very ordinary looking women, whom I later learned he would have only given $1,000.
I have never preoccupied the lives of moviestars. It must be very hard for people who rely solely on public acceptance to earn a living.
The allegations are horrible. I am eager to read about the outcome of the case.
Comment by Baby L — March 3, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Why is so much time being spent on this topic and so little on the poor people losing their jobs at New Line.
The loss of 75% of those jobs (and that is just for starters) and an entire company, which provided opportunities to newcomers to the industry, should be given a bit more acknowledgment and concern. This is a continuing trend which does not seem to be stopping any time soon.
Comment by dona — March 3, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
Are you really gonna cover every minute detail of this trial? Not interesting.
Comment by Already Bored — March 3, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
In California, without a warrant signed by a judge, it is crime to record a conversation without the consent of both parties. On the phone or in person, it doesn’t matter, it’s the same crime.
Some will say it is okay if there is no expectation of privacy. This is false. Some will say you can record, but you just can’t use the tapes in court. This is false. It is illegal without consent of both parties. Here is the statute:
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html
Comment by BenFranklin — March 4, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
To Ben Franklin: Yes. But I’m anxious to see what the U.S. Attorney has in the form of actual unsupressed evidence. This a criminal case.
I don’t deny the U.S. Attorney’s ability to prosecute, but 100,000 people testifying to hearsay is still hearsay.
Pellicano is representing himself. In Nov. 2003, he plead because he was guilty. Today Pellicano is unrepresented. Will there even be a trial? Is he unrepresented because he’s capable of negotiating his own plea? Will a matter of this magnitude continued and reset, over and over again until after the November elections? If so, I think Pellicano will end up with a Presidential Pardon. Illinois still likes Pellicano.
Comment by BabyL — March 5, 2008 @ 9:48 am