Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Here's the link to the Telegraph:
Click on the link on the right that says: Spector Juror speaks out.
Per your request, here is the link to contact the Los Angeles County's District Attorney:
One of the Jurors thought that Lana was bitter and depressed because of a failed relationship. One Juror, actually bought Pie's stories about the things Lana said. Several Jurors, did not change their vote until the very last vote taken.
Juror #9 has been wanting to talk about this and what happened in the jury room and talking is very much a catharsis, and I can totally understand that. He is relieved to hear that there are people out there, who think like he thinks, and came to the conclusions he came to. I've pointed him in the direction of the Court TV message board, Court TV Extra, as well as Kim and Michelle's blogs.
Funny thing, Juror #9 felt the same way as many of you who posted on the "Fashion" threads. LKB's hair and wardrobe were terrible! He couldn't believe she wore clothes that didn't fit! Ya gotta love this guy everybody! Really!
This is such a sad day for Lana's family. I can't help but think, if only something could have been done....
P.S. I had my highest numbers to date on Wednesday. 4,946 page loads in a single day. 3,206 unique visitors. And another: 100,343 page loads to date.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
He emailed me at my blog.
The Not Guilty votes were #1 & #10!
More later! He is so funny and he has a lot to say!
Updated 9:01 pm.
Scoop! First interview with juror #9 happened here people!
Juror #9 found out about my blog from a friend of his who emailed the url to him, and told him that he needed to look at this blog. Juror #9 emailed me at my blog telling me that I got it wrong. Juror #3 was NOT the not guilty vote; it was Juror #1. He also included his phone number and told me to call him.
I called him immediately. He will be doing an interview with Beth Karas tomorrow, and I think he's going to be on "The Early Show," tomorrow too; not positive about the specific show. He has a lot to say and he's going to let it all out. He will verify on those shows that what I am now writing is true.
All the arguments that the Court TV posters went through on the board, this jury went through those same arguments in the jury room.
The jurors did not believe that Lana was still alive/breathing after she was shot. They were not impressed with ANY of the defense experts.
Juror #10 felt that Dr. Pena could not put the gun in Lana's hand, and that was a big hurdle for him. He also felt that it was perfectly reasonable to think that Lana, who had never been to Spector's house before, would open a drawer, find the gun, pull it out and shoot herself. He had friends who commited suicide without any warning or any diagnosis. Juror #10 thought that scenario was perfectly reasonable because his mother-in-law does the same thing at his house. Comes over, opens drawers and pulls things out. I kid you not. Juror #10 thought that since Desouza was an illegal alien, nothing he said could be trusted.
Juror #1 tried to demean Lana, and Juror's #9 and #6 were determined to not let that happen. It appears there was some type of judgment on Lana making the decision to go home with Phil Spector for a drink at 2:30 am. Sad.
Some of the discussion centered around the DNA that was on Spector's scrotum. Some jurors actually thought that Lana had given Spector oral sex. Yep. Just from that miniscule DNA that was found, not on his penis, but on his scrotum! Unbelieveable! Juror #9 was not one of those jurors. He clearly indicated that he believed there was no evidence of this.
Some of the arguments for Lana committing suicide were: She had just had oral sex with Spector, and realizing that she had just had sex with this creepy old shriveled up man, got so despondent she decided to kill herself. (I just told that to Mr. Sprocket and he rolled his eyes and laughed!) Yes. That was one of the arguments for Not Guilty.
Another argument/excuse for Spector not calling 911 was the perception that Spector thought of himself as a "King," so of course he wouldn't call 911; someone else would do that. After informing the DeSouza that someone was dead, Spector expected DeSouza to call. To some of these jurors, that was a perfectly reasonable scenario.
It was amazing to get to talk to Juror #9. He's very friendly and funny. He's passionate about his position and feels that Lana's family deserves justice. It appeared to me that he was frustrated that he spent five months on this trial, and this was the end result. Oh, and all that time we thought Juror #9 and #8 were friends? Not so.
Juror #9 cleared up what many believe was a huge misunderstanding by DeSouza's testimony, and Juror #6 (I think I got that right), agreed. People who are not native speakers, when they hear a foreign language, they parrot it. Repeat what they hear verbatim. That's how they learn the language to begin with. The Juror's who were Guilty, felt that when DeSouza was talking about his English not being good, they felt he meant that DeSouza was not being understood by the officers or the 911 operators. Not that DeSouza didn't understand, because Juror #9 said it was clear DeSouza didn't have any problem understanding English, or understanding what he heard. It was that DeSouza was frustrated that "he" was not getting his message across clearly; that the officers were not understanding HIM.
I wish I had taken notes while we talked, but I was just so excited to be talking to him, the opportunity to hear what he had to say, that I paced the house the entire time. You are really going to enjoy hearing from him. He's a down to earth person, and very grounded in logic and reason. I got a good feeling talking to him. I can't wait to see his interviews tomorrow.
Almost forgot this. Beth Karas was his touchstone. He always looked for her in the afternoon. Since many did not know her name, their nickname for her was "two scoops," like ice cream, because she always wore pastel colors. He thought that since I was always watching the jury, he thought that I was a jury consultant!
Update: 11:00 pm.
Juror #9 said the yelling anyone heard would have been him.
NBC live streaming just reported that the vote was 10:2 in favor of conviction.
Update: 2:24 pm.
From the L.A. Times...
""We will try Phil Spector again," said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley. Gibbons said her office was disappointed."
Court TV's Harriet Ryan's latest reporting is here.
Via the NBC News-chopper 4, Spector and Trial Bride did a "bit of a dance" for the overhead cameras, waving. Rachelle, leaning up to her husbands side and her arms around him, gyrates her groin area into his hip. They are smiling and waving to the cameras, Spector waving the two finger "peace" sign.
Regarding the "humping" of her husband for the camera. The purchased Trial Bride never disappoints in continuing to behave in a most despicable manner. Cheap, white trash.
Update: 4:30 pm.
KNBC full after trial report
Court TV Harriet Ryan's blog update.
Could it just be that the jurors have a question? This is unlikely since jury instructions specifically state that they are to continue deliberations while the court makes arrangements to answer their question.
If it's deadlocked (again) , will the Judge speak to the juror's individually to find out what the problem is, will he charge them to continue their deliberations, or will he accept a hung jury at this point? Meanwhile, we all wait for 1:30 pm, PT.
Maybe with the TV and VCR in the room, they are going to take more notes while watching the video. Looks like they are dug in for the long haul.
The thing I find interesting about Rachelle Short's denial (through her husband's legal counsel) that she was the one who posted the threat towards a sitting Superior Court Judge, is, who made all the many posts with that "Chelle" MySpace account before the threat? A recent post that comes to mind is the one that the anonymous (cough, cough) "Chelle" put up on September 1st, at 1:43pm stating "HAPPY ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY TO US!!!!!!
It does beg the question, IF (and that's a huge if in my book) Child Bride is telling the truth and she did not make the post, then,
a) how come she let someone impersonate her for so long, or
b) when was it specifically that the account got hacked?
Inquiring minds want to know, lol! Personally, I think she would look stunning if Spector and Child Bride were given matching sets of silver bracelets, courtesy of the LA County Sheriffs. Now that would be a high fashion statement worth reporting!
Update: September 26th, 8:25 am.
Thanks to Court TV poster and "top sleuth" in my book, steffaroob4, here are some more "Chelle" comments on another MySpace page. I keep telling you everyone, Google cache is your friend!
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Latest report from Harriet Ryan on the Court TV Blog, indicates the court takes any threat on a Judge seriously, even those that are supposedly anonymous comments on Team Spector's MySpace page. Thanks steffaroob4!
"According to the defense, Rachelle Spector says she was not the author of the post and doesn't know who was. It has since been removed from her site.
She denies it, said defense attorney Christopher Plourd, adding that he was aware of the investigation."Yeah. Right, lol! Who of you out there believes that? I mean, come on, lol! Rachelle has also said that Spector's wigs are "his own hair," and that she met Spector "at a restaurant." She fails to mention that it was Jerry's Deli, where she was working as a waitress.
I bet this defense team just "loves" the child bride, since she's been such a great source of help in crafting their defense.
Update: 11:40 am.
Here is the California penal code for threatening a civil servant, including a Judge. A big thanks to my Court TV friend Sherbie for finding and posting this.
Update: 12:55 pm.
Court TV's Harriet Ryan has expanded her reporting on the Team Spector MySpace page comment.
According to this article on MsNBC, there is another video (besides Adriano DeSouza's police interview) that the jurors could be watching. This is a video of Adriano in the back of the castle near the fountain, pointing out various things to detectives.
Because there were several days in June that I missed, I don't remember when this video was entered into evidence (if it ever was), or through which witness. I just don't recall this video at all being presented at trial.
If this video is in evidence and the jurors are watching it, then everyone needs to read this entry at mControl Blogs, and judge for yourself if the fountain at the castle only has one flow setting or not.
Personally, I would put more factual weight into Harriet Ryan's reporting on the Court TV blog, than I would a report out of the Associated Press with no byline.
Update: 9:10 am.
I stand corrected. Thank you Lynn Gweeny, for finding verification that this video was entered into evidence, and it was described in a Harriet Ryan blog article as a "sheriff's department video tape filmed at Spector's estate."
Monday, September 24, 2007
Memories are made of BS
Rosen: So, Mr. Deesowza, when Mr. Spector came outside to talk to you, what did you say was in his right hand?
De Souza: A gun.
Rosen: Could it have been a cuddly little puppy?
De Souza: It was a gun.
Rosen: Did anyone ever explain to you that here in America, we often have puppies that are the same size as a gun?
De Souza: I know what I saw. It was a gun.
Rosen: Could it have been a kitten?
De Souza: No. Gun.
Rosen: And when you saw this object, that was the size of a puppy or a kitten, did you offer it anything to eat?
De Souza: Gun.
Rosen: Little birdie?
De Souza: Gun.
Cell phone conversation not entered into evidence
Mrs. Plourd: Honey, on your way home, would you please pick up a quart of milk?
Mr. Plourd: When you say milk, are you referring to a white liquid?
Mrs. Plourd: (Sighing audibly) Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Plourd: So if I brought home a quart of a liquid that was not white, would it be milk?
Mrs. Plourd: No, it wouldn't.
Mr. Plourd: If someone showed you a liquid that was not white, and claimed that it was milk, would they be right or wrong? (If you know.)
Mrs. Plourd: They would be wrong.
Mr. Plourd: So milk is white. Is that correct?
Mrs. Plourd: Yes.
Mr. Plourd: Are you an expert on milk?
Mrs. Plourd: No.
Mr. Plourd: Do you read any of the technical journals that are about milk?
Mrs. Plourd: No.
Mr. Plourd: Have you had any articles published about milk?
Mrs. Plourd: No.
Mr. Plourd: I would like to move on now, if I may, to the unit of measurement known as a quart. Do you consider yourself to be an expert...
Mrs. Plourd: Bring me some double-A batteries, too.
Mr. Plourd: When you refer to "double-A", is that a particular size of battery that is familiar to you?
Mrs. Plourd: If you only knew.
Mr. Plourd: If we could, let's clarify the term "battery".
The bodyguards that were in court every day have often been a topic on the blogs and the Court TV Phil Spector forum. I thought this excerpt would give everyone an interesting perspective on why Spector has bodyguards, and how far back into his past he's been employing them.
Excerpt from Chapter 11, "The Wall of Sound, It Kinda Sounds Tired," pages 159-160.
(Timeline, January, 1964. "Gold Star" was a recording studio Spector used almost exclusively.)
On his journey to London, Spector had been shadowed by a powerful and imposing presence that went by the name of Red--or "Big Red," as Spector called him. Red would be the first in a succession of bodyguards that Spector would hire over the years, partly for protection, but mostly it seemed as a demonstration of his rising status and power. "Phil wanted to be Elvis and Frank Sinatra combined," one friend remembers. "Those were his heroes. And he wanted that kind of persona, and cool, aloof thing, the entourage--all that protected crap."
Spector's flamboyant appearance--the hair, the elevator shoes, the ruffled shirts--had always drawn stares, and sometimes insults, but now with bodyguards at his side, he seemed almost to relish the prospect of confrontation, safe in the knowledge that if anybody caused trouble he had muscle on hand to deal with it.
"In 1965, you walk into a Hollywood restaurant looking like Phil Spector, there would be silence," Denny Bruce says. "Like, what the hell is that?! Which is why he'd have bodyguards. He would stand there with shades on, a P. J. Proby billowing shirt, a vest, two guys behind him. 'What's so funny?' He antagonized people. And he enjoyed that attention."
"Phil thrived on being different," Nedra Talle says. "He didn't want to just be a little Jewish boy. So he developed a look, but with that look he got a lot of harassment. People would be calling him faggot and all kinds of things, and he'd just have to swallow it. But when he had his bodyguards with him, it got to be that he would pick fights. We'd be in a restaurant and he'd walk out first, and it would be just like a magnet where people would be drawn to say something to him. Then Phil would say something back to them, and just when it was getting ugly he would step back and his two guys would step out from behind and handle the situation. It was like a trap."
Like LaLa Brooks, Nedra sensed that Spector's braggadocio was actually compensation for a much deeper underlying insecurity. Spector, she thought, was "a tortured soul." He had told the Ronettes the story of how when touring with the Teddy Bears he had been set upon in a lavatory and pissed on.
"When he told us that, something inside of me went out to him. I loved that song, 'To Know Him,' and the thought of this little guy who was too small to defend himself getting pissed on for just trying to do his thing, it broke my heart. So I always thought that, with the bodyguards, Phil was just getting his own back."
But to others, it seemed that Spector never quite knew when to stop. On one occasion, he even instructed his bodyguards to beat up Larry Levine, after an argument at Gold Star. "I walked out of the studio," Levine remembers, "and he sent these guys out to hit me--a couple of young gorillas. They didn't know what to do; they obviously weren't going to hit me. It was just another way of exhibiting power."
During cross examination of DeSouza, Brunon really went after DeSouza's command and understanding of the English language. Because of that blunder, the Judge ruled the prosecution could introduce on redirect, DeSouza's interview with Alhambra Police officers, just hours after the early morning shooting death of Lana Clarkson.
The video was played in court over two days. I saw the second half of the playing of the video to the jurors. Although DeSouza's accent was hard for me to understand, it was crystal clear that DeSouza could understand the questions the officers put to him, and a translator was never needed.
So that begs the question, what part of his testimony do people think the jury wanted to listen to? Using logic people, IF Lana killed herself, why would that gun ever be in Spector's hands when he exits the back door? DeSouza said he clearly saw him holding a gun on the witness stand, and even demonstrated how he saw Spector holding the gun. He also stated that he saw blood on Spector's finger. It's one of the reasons he wanted to leave the property as quickly as possible. To me, this is one piece of testimony that sinks him completely, and there was nothing presented that ever contradicted that. There wasn't one defense witness that said he was imagining what he saw.
Cocobaby had a great comment on the Court TV forum:
Check out Pat Dixon's closing argument again (at least the first 20 minutes). He begins by saying "The defense is based on the theory that Spector never had the gun in his hand" then he goes, "Really, I thought I heard Adriano DeSouza tell us on the witness stand that he saw PS with a gun in his hand, indeed I did, I heard him say that and so did you," and goes on and on about AD seeing the gun in PS's hand.
If the jury believes that AD saw PS with a gun in his hand-it's over. Fingers crossed that the jury are logical bunch. It really shouldn't take this long imo, I can't imagine what they are hung over!!!!
If Spector is innocent, why did he pick the gun up and walk outside with it and make a declarative statement? These are not hard questions for the jurors. They are ones that should come back with logical answers to these questions.
I think Bill Maher on his show summed it up best, and if you haven't seen the video clip of his comments, you should. (To see Bill Maher's clip on Spector, there's a link in my blog entry on YouTube at the very end.) It's hysterical.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Have you read recently what some of Spector's supporters are saying over on the TEAM SPECTOR MySpace page?
Child Bride is standing by the money, lol!
Updated: September 24th, 12:20 pm.
Well, well, well. Appears like Team Spector just removed Child Bride's comment from their MySpace page.
Here it is for everyone that missed it.
Thanks to Lynn Gweeny, here is a link to a great article on The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, by James Q. Whitman. It's a PDF document that will download to your computer. Here is an excerpt from the document.
The “reasonable doubt” rule is notoriously difficult to define, and many judges and scholars have deplored the confusion it creates in the minds of jurors. Yet ”reasonable doubt” is regarded as a fundamental part of our law. How can a rule of such fundamental importance be so difficult to define and understand?
The answer, this paper tries to show, lies in history. The ”reasonable doubt” rule was not originally designed to serve the purpose it is asked to serve today: It was not originally designed to protect the accused. Instead, it was designed to protect the souls of the jurors against damnation. Convicting an innocent defendant was regarded, in the older Christian tradition, as a potential mortal sin. The purpose of the ”reasonable doubt” instruction was to address this frightening possibility, reassuring jurors that they could convict the defendant without risking their own salvation, as long as their doubts about guilt were not ”reasonable.” In its original form, the rule thus had nothing to do with maintaining the rule of law in the sense that we use the phrase, and nothing like the relationship we imagine to the values of liberty. This helps explain why our law is in a state of such disquieting confusion today. We are asking the ”reasonable doubt” standard to serve a function that it was not originally designed to serve, and it does its work predictably badly.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Excerpt is from Chapter 8: "He Wanted to Be Thought Of as Interesting," pages 123-124
Note: "Bono" is Sonny Bono, of Sunny & Cher. "Nitzsche" is Jack Nitzsche.
In his autobiography Bono writes that Spector "wanted to be thought of as interesting." He was obsessed by his appearance and how other people would see him. Spector, Bono and Nitzsche would sometimes take photos of each other, practicing the coolest way of sitting in a car or striking a pose--sunglasses on, sunglasses off . . . "He would put one arm on the window, try steering with one finger, all sorts of different poses," remembered Bono. "Then he would have me stand outside the car and ask how he looked."
For a while, Spector harbored an infatuation with the singer Jackie DeShannon. One day he asked Bono, "If she saw me driving, do you think she'd like me better with my glasses on or off?"
Bono replied that he had no idea.
With a handful of surreptitious phone calls, Bono was able to find out DeShannon's schedule and calculate that she would be driving down Sunset Strip at a certain time. Spector and Bono stationed themselves on the street and, when DeShannon drove past, set off in pursuit. At length they pulled alongside her car. "Phil positioned himself so that he was sitting almost completely sideways," Bono remembered. "Most of his back was toward the window. He was, he thought, looking as cool as possible. From Jackie's point of view though, he was barely visible."
For a mile Spector drove parallel to DeShannon, holding the pose, until at last DeShannon turned off the Strip, apparently oblivious to the fact that it was Spector in the car beside hers. Spector, Bono remembered, was "crestfallen. 'Damn,' he said, 'the sunglasses probably scared her.'"
Spector's fastidiousness about his wardrobe and appearance could be comical, but it seemed to hint less at vanity than at some more troubling, underlying insecurity. Preparing for a recording session or a meeting, he would spend hours posturing in front of the mirror, matching different shirts and jackets, testing colognes and experimenting with different ways of combing his fast-thinning hair, which only Annette Merar was allowed to cut.
"And every single strand would have to be perfect . . . 'Okay, so fix it at the back to make it compensate for the bit at the font that's long.' But to me he was adorable, and a very sexy guy. I remember one occasion when we were living on Fifty-eighth Street, and he was going off to work dressed in a Beau Brummel kind of velvet vest and a jacket; his hair was perfect; he was just mesmerizing, and I just loved him so hard, but I never said anything. He walked out and closed the door and it was . . . 'Oh my God.' He was my type of guy."
Spector's obsession with his appearance would never leave him. For years afterward, whenever he was in company he would leave the room at frequent intervals to preen and primp in front of a mirror. "It wasn't arrogance or egotism," Annette says. "It was like the opposite that drove him to be perfect."
__________________________End of excerpt
It's clear that Annette Merar loved Spector and even after all these years spoke of him in a very affectionate and warm tone. But wow! The obsessiveness about his appearance speaks volumes about his deep set insecurities regarding his looks. (We can understand a bit more now, that huge mirror behind the chair where Lana Clarkson was murdered.) Spector's wardrobe obsession has been clearly evident at his murder trial. I can't help but mention that the child bride has had a similar problem with her wardrobe selections, too.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Just a few minutes ago, the Spector jury were read new instructions, and are sent back into the jury room to begin deliberation again.
Here is an unofficial transcript of the new instructions given to the jurors. Special thanks to Court TV poster Blogger who offered their transcription of the modified instruction CalCrim 520, on murder.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm now going to attempt to answer the questions that you had the other day. I'm going to be reading some additional instructions to you, repeating an instruction and hopefully, that will be able to cover all the areas that you had concerns of, concerns with.
The question of whether the instruction should be, one instruction; I think it was actually you were concerned with, special number three. And I'm going to instruct you on special number three in a second. But I just want to just, and I think this will also apply to another question that you had. I'm going to reread to you just from the very first instruction that I gave you, CalCrim 200.
Pay careful attention to all of these instructions, and consider them, together. Okay? That's the first thing that I will instruct you which would answer question number one. Your second question, concerns, special instruction three and I'm going to get to that, in just a moment. Your third question was whether in determining the weight of the evidence, the totality of the evidence should be considered, or the weight of one specific instruction. And again, I will instruct you from CalCrim 200, that you are to pay careful attention to all of the instructions, and consider them, together. Okay? I think that will answer your fourth question which had to do with totality.
Question number five, on whether you can view the clothing articles on a mannequin, the answer to that is no for two reasons. Number one, the clothing is no longer in the condition that it was, when the relevant matters took place. And number two, the clothing is not in evidence, and you may not view items that are not in evidence. The pictures are in evidence, there have been explanations given and you are bound by that. So you will not be given the clothing that was not introduced into evidence to view.
Question number six. The jurors are having problems with the concept of reasonable doubt, and I will simply, I'm going to reread to you the reasonable doubt instruction. They moved the, when we changed instructions from what was then known as CalJur to CalCrim they moved the reasonable doubt instruction. I used to know right were to look for it.
The fact that a criminal charge has been filed against the defendant is not evidence that the charge is true. You must not be biased against the defendant just because he has been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption, requires that the people prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever I tell you the people must prove something, I mean they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, unless I specifically tell you otherwise. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you, with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt, because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. In deciding whether the people have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he is entitled to an acquittal, and you must find him not guilty.
You asked, the next question you asked, was whether it is appropriate for one juror to believe a fact is reasonable, while another believes the fact to be unreasonable, in such a case, with that situation, make the juror unreasonable, the answer is no. If one juror finds the evidence, and concludes there is a reasonable doubt based on that evidence, it does not mean that juror is being unreasonable because others disagree with he or she, him or her, pardon me. Each juror decides for themselves whether there is a reasonable doubt, on any element, or any other aspect with that as what you are applying. It applies to each juror individually. Course you talk to each other and you come to, you know, you discuss matters, and you may decide, whether or not a doubt is reasonable or possible or whatever. But the fact that one juror differs from the other, that does not make that juror unreasonable. Okay?
The next question dealt with instruction number three. I'm about to give you a special instruction on that. And that is, as far as this is now special instruction number six. During our discussion yesterday, one or more of you sought clarification of an elaboration on the meaning of special instruction number three. Upon reflection, I have decided that the other instructions I have given you adequately state the principles of law you are to apply in deciding this case. Rather than attempt to further explain special instruction number three, I am withdrawing it. You therefore are to rely on the remaining instructions in your deliberations from this point forward. In withdrawing special instruction number three from your consideration, I do not intend to comment in any way on the correctness of the individual or collective opinions expressed by you in your deliberations to this point, nor do I intend to suggest anything about what opinions each of you should express or positions you should take in any further deliberations. In your deliberations from this point forward, do not consider, the now withdrawn special instruction number three. Treat it as though, you had never heard of it.
I'm also now going to read you, uh, we're going to modify, and have modified, CalCrim 520, which is the instruction on murder. I'll ask that you listen to it because the language is now different. And at some point we will get you at least one corrected copy of the instructions; I don't know that I'm going to make individual ones available to you, but we will get these corrected copies of the instructions I am now reading to you in to you, but you certainly, when I'm done. And I will have one further instruction to read after this. You may go ahead and begin your deliberations.
The defendant is charged in count one with murder. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the people must prove that: 1) the defendant committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson. Such as, placing the gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged. Pointing the gun at or against her head at which time it entered her mouth and discharged. Pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house, causing a struggle which resulted in the gun entering her mouth and discharging.
By using these examples I am not suggesting that any of these acts took place. These are inferences you may draw from the evidence but are not required to do so. You may reject them. These are only possibilities that you may consider.
The act committed by the defendant must be more than drawing or exhibiting a firearm in the presence of Lana Clarkson in a rude, angry, or threatening manner.
And 2.) When the defendant acted he had a state of mind called a malice of forethought. There are two kinds of malice of forethought, express malice and implied malice. Proof of either is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder. The defendant acted with express malice if he unlawfully intended to kill. The defendant acted with implied malice if
1) he intentionally committed an act; 2) the natural consequences of the act were danger to human life; 3) at the time he acted he knew his act was dangerous to human life; and 4) he deliberately acted with conscience disregard for human life.
Malice of forethought does not require hatred or ill-will toward the victim. It is a mental state that must be formed before the act that causes death is committed. It does not require deliberation, or the passage of any particular period of time. If you find the defendant guilty of murder as a matter of law it is murder of the second degree.
Finally, I am going to give you special instruction number four, and this has to do with how you should now consider your, um, deliberations. What I'm now going to do right now ladies and gentlemen, is have further instructions on directions to give you as to count one.
To assist you in your further deliberations, I am going to further instruct you as follows. Your goal as jurors should be to reach a fair and impartial verdict, if you are able to do so, based solely on the evidence presented, and without regard for the consequences of your verdict. It is your duty as jurors, to carefully consider, weigh, and evaluate all of the evidence presented in the trial, to discuss your views regarding the evidence and listen to and consider the views of your fellow jurors. In the course of your further deliberations, you should not hesitate to reexamine your own views or to request your fellow jurors to reexamine theirs. You should not hesitate to change a view you once held, if you are convinced it is wrong, or to suggest other jurors change their views, if you are convinced they are wrong.
Full and effective jury deliberations require a frank and forthright exchange of views. As I previously instructed you, each of you must decide the case for yourself, and should do so only after a full and complete consideration of all the evidence with your fellow jurors. It is your duty as jurors to deliberate with the goal of arriving at a verdict on the charge, if you can do so with out balance (?) to your individual judgement. Both the people, and the defendant, are entitled to the individual judgement of each juror. As I previously instructed you, you have absolute discretion to conduct your deliberations in any way you deem appropriate.
You may wish to consider changing the methods you have been following at least temporarily, and try new methods. For example, you may wish to consider having different jurors lead the discussions for a period of time, or you may wish to experiment with reverse role playing, by having those on one side of an issue present and argue the other sides position and vice versa. This might enable you to better understand the others' position. By suggesting you should consider changes in your methods of deliberations, I want to stress I am not dictating or instructing you how to conduct your deliberations. I merely (?) find you may find it productive to do whatever is necessary to ensure each juror has a full and fair opportunity to express his or her views and consider and understand the views of the other jurors.
I also suggest you reread CalCrim instructions 200, and CalCrim instruction 35-50. The integrity of a trial requires the jurors at all times during the deliberations conduct themselves as required by the instructions. CalCrim instruction 200 defines the duties of a juror. The decision the jury renders must be based on the facts, and the law. You must determine what facts have been proved from the evidence received in the trial, and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence, or by stipulation. Second, you must apply the law I state to you to the facts as you determine them, and in this way arrive at your verdict. You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with the law. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments, or at any other time during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.
CalCrim 35-50 defines the jury's duty to deliberate. The decisions you make in this case must be based on the evidence received in the trial and the instructions given by the court. These are the matters... These are matters this instruction requires you to discuss for the purpose of reaching a verdict. CalCrim 35-50, is also an instruction which recommends how jurors should approach their task. You should keep in mind the recommendations this instruction suggests, when considering additional instructions, comments and suggestions I have made in the instructions now presented to you. I hope my comments and suggestions, may have some assistance to you. You're ordered to continue your deliberations at this time. If you have other questions, concerns, requests, or any communications you desire to report to me, please put those in writing on the form that my bailiff has provided you with. Have them signed and dated by your foreperson, and then please notify the bailiff. You may resume your deliberations at this time and we will take the alternates back to their waiting area.
Update 7:46 pm.
A little crowing here. Just past 86,000 page loads; 60,000 unique visitors; and 34,000 returning visitors. Thank you everybody for stopping by!
This Trial Has Everything!
Many of us are "obsessed" with this trial, but I think it's the overall drama of the story that sucks us in like a real-life soap opera -- the fact that we have a community of people to discuss it with is a big part, in my opinion, of how and why we get sooooo entrenched with the trial. It also strikes a chord in all of us or we wouldn't be here. Many thanks go to KTLA.com who, unlike Court TV (yet, ironically, via the Court TV feed) provided on-line gavel-to-gavel coverage. Thank goodness for KTLA.com, KNBC.com and high-speed Internet access!
The Prosecution said Lana Clarkson was a plucky go-getter who was still striving to overcome obstacles and become a Hollywood STAR. Yes she had suffered hard times after a debilitating injury, but she was well on the mend, back to work in a place where she could make very high-level Hollywood connections. Even if the $9 an hour pay was downright pitiful -- it was the networking that mattered, and her prospects were looking up. She was scheduled to film a commercial less than a week after the shooting. She had stopped Phil Spector from coming into the exclusive Foundation Room at the House of Blues because he wasn't wearing the required wristband. She had made what was probably a fatal mistake earlier in the evening -- she referred to Phil as "MRS". Spector, mistaking him for a woman. Well, he was wearing a longish, curly wig, high heels, and a long, white lady's dinner jacket. She had no idea who he was. Someone set her straight and told her to treat him "golden" like Dan Akroyd, one of the famous owners of the House of Blues.
The Prosecution said that Phil Spector reverted to his decades-long pattern of getting drunk and pulling a gun on a woman trying to leave. This time though, a gun ended up in a woman's mouth! Lana was sitting by the back door with a purse on her shoulder, which clearly indicated that she was about to leave. Her life was brutally ended in a split-second when a bullet transected her spine and completely severed her spinal cord. The Defense, on the other hand, said she was a severely depressed, disabled, poverty-stricken, washed-up 40-yr-old has-been party girl who was habitually drunk and drugged, and impulsively shot herself when she saw a gun and an opportunity.
Phil Spector didn't act like an innocent man. He initially went outside, gun in bloody hand, somewhat dazed, and told the limo driver: "I think I killed somebody." The driver, Adriano DeSouza, saw the gun, the blood and Lana's outstretched legs. DeSouza high-tailed it out of there lest he ALSO be shot, and immediately called for help. Not knowing the exact situation inside the house, the police took 40 minutes to secure the premises before rushing the suspect to subdue him. They had to subdue him -- he did not follow their commands. They even attempted to taser him, but one of the tasers prongs did not connect correctly and the other one missed him. Much later, Phil claimed that they tasered him with 100,000 volts of electricity. They finally had to tackle him using a riot-shield because he would NOT stand still and keep his hands up.
Once tackled, Phil ranted and raved and threatened their jobs. He also said, "I can explain" and "It was an accident -- I didn't mean to shoot her!" Unfortunately, those statements didn't come into the trial, but they are in legal documents. Before the police stormed the castle, it was clear that Phil attempted to clean things up and stage the scene. He never called 911, despite having 14 working phones in the house. He wiped down the gun and placed it under her left shoe (possibly mistaking his right for her right). He washed his hands and took off his jacket. Did he switch wigs? Maybe. It wasn't brought up. He used a diaper wetted with toilet water where he presumably washed his hands and flushed away the excess blood. I still wonder if the fountain outside was ever tested. He probably tried to flush the diaper, but it didn't work.
Many of us have known men like Phil Spector. Well, maybe not the rich and powerful part, but certainly the abusive, neurotic, woman-hating part. We've all known women like the trashy, attention-seeking opportunist with the ridiculous name of "Punkin Pie," the desperately trendy, youth-obsessed and spiteful Jennifer Hayes-Reidl, and the staunch and loving long-term TRUE best friend, Nili Hudson. We also recognize gold-digging, spoiled, bratty, self-entitled, mouthy piranhas like Rachelle Spector. We can empathize with Lana's ambitions and her ups and downs.
The prosecution lawyers were also intriguing, from AJ, the charming, boyish, eager, whip-sharp, up-and-coming prosecutor to Pat Dixon, his more-experienced and calmer mentor. For some reason I tend to visualize them as Chance and Shadow from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey -- the eager, headstrong young bulldog and the older, wiser and more patient golden retriever. Of course, AJ is much smarter and more cautious than Chance, but overall personalities seem to fit. AJ is so engaging, however, that I can't help letting a little cynicism in by remembering a scene from Ally McBeal. A new lawyer in the firm practices his various kinds of instant smiles ~boyish, happy-go-lucky, wry, sensitive, brilliant, aw-shucks, seductive, etc.,~ to the tune of "Another One Bites The Dust." He explained that it was a skill that needed to be practiced and exercised, just like any other skill. Does AJ practice his smiles? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect Roger Rosen practices his scowls without even trying. Perhaps they are both just naturally gifted and go with their strong points.
Then there are the defense lawyers, Bruce Cutler, the theatrical real life mob lawyer who looks like a cross between Tor Johnson, WC Fields, and Don Rickles. Roger Rosen is the intense, angry, tie-flipping guy nobody likes who is so tightly wound that you'd need a tractor to pull the needle out of his butt. Looks-wise, he reminds me of Mitch Pileggi, who played Assistant Director Walter Skinner in the X-Files. In a hilarious aside, a Google search on "Roger Rosen" resulted in the following title: "Now You've Got Your Period - Google Books Result" LOL! Chris Plourd is the guy who bores everyone into a stupor and gamely takes the fall for the rest of the team.
Bradley Brunon was so smarmy many people felt the need to take a long, HOT, disinfecting shower after listening to him. LKB was Phil's token female-lawyer, mother and shrewd-operator with the loud, grating, headache-inducing voice and her own soap opera that includes her husband (who bears a striking resemblance to Captain Kangaroo) being a major witness. LKB considerately became deathly ill for two-plus weeks, during which time her husband testified out of her presence. No conflict of interest there, no siree! Out of sight, out of mind! At least until AJ cross-examines him into the dust over it.
There were the defense's expert witnesses. Dr. Henry Lee, the "rock star of forensics" who was officially declared by Judge Fidler to have concealed evidence, fled to China to avoid testifying in front of the jury and being eviscerated by the prosecution on live TV.
Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the exceptionally arrogant, pompous blowhard repeatedly waved off (literally) questions he considered annoying by condescendingly saying "Oh, never mind," clearly indicating that it wasn't worth bothering to even deign to speak to anyone who wasn't also a world famous scientist/ninja pathologist, who testified he has easily disarmed gun-wielding assassins (yes, pural!). He insisted that Lana ~and any other person with an IQ above that of a potato~ would have done the same if Phil Spector had really held a gun on her. It's just common sense, after all.
Dr. Werner Spitz, the elderly pathologist with the heavy German accent and lisp, testified that, yes, legs do bend mid-thigh, blood spatter can skip over half of a long, tall body, jump over the carpet, make a right-hand turn, and land on someone wearing a white jacket! And dead people with severed spines and shattered backbones can breathe, cough and blow raspberries.
That brings us back to Dr. Michael Baden ~the aforementioned Captain Kangaroo doppelganger~ (a description courtesy of Steven Mikulan of the LA Weekly), who has no idea what the term "conflict of interest" means. Baden doesn't see the slightest connection between that term and his testifying for the man that his wife is currently representing in a murder trial. He does concede that there are big bucks coming into both their bank accounts courtesy of Phil Spector. With no tipping of their hand to the prosecution, the defense, in a clear discovery violation, sprung Dr. Baden's "A-HA" moment on them. Dr. Baden said that her spine must not have been completely severed, so she could expirate blood onto Phil's jacket while Spector was tenderly and considerately washing her bloody face with a toilet-water-soaked diaper. Lana's spine must have been severed during the clumsy transport to the coroner's office, not by the exploding bullet that was positioned about two inches from her spine when the trigger was pulled. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Our own CTV poster, Intrepid, referred to the four big-name defense expert witnesses as the "quadrafecta of piffle." LOL! So many of us were disillusioned after watching this quadrafecta of piffle that we will forevermore be highly suspicious of any expert-for-hire witness. That's probably a good thing, so maybe we should thank them for that nugget of wisdom they managed to impart.
Dr. Lynne Herold became an idol to many of us with her calm, patient and logical explanations of her findings. She does not look or talk like a celebrity, and she makes no attempt to be one. She does her job and reports her findings, period. LKB tried, in vain, to trip her up, but Dr. Herold refused to take the bait, pointing out that the laws of physics cannot be changed; it is what it is. If she didn't know an answer, she said so and would not go outside her area of expertise no matter how many times LKB tried to goad her into doing so. If something could have happened in more than one way, she said so. She also placed Phil Spector within about 2 feet of the "blood-letting event." She left us with two renewed catchphrases: "It is what it is," and "Your point is?" She easily outsmarted LKB without even chipping a nail and LKB did NOT forget it. While lashing out at Dr. Herold in her closing argument, wherein she pointedly refused to refer to her as "Dr." Herold, LKB's spite and a seething, childish grudge against a clearly superior opponent shone through for all to see.
Then there was the sleaze factor, from the illustrated paramedic (aka Tattoo Boy) to the sorriest and most tasteless display of sagging, untethered "cleavage" since the Granny character in Playboy cartoons, to the siliconed, spray-tanned, razor-taloned, cock-eyed-due-to-bad-facelift-and/or-Botox mom whining about keeping her kids out of rehab while she partied 4 nights a week, and eagerly trashing her "best friend" at every turn. And let's not forget the Hollywood Madam, Jody "Baby Doll" Gibson who is trying to peddle her upcoming book. She had an obviously doctored trick book and claimed that Lana was a hooker in her stable who was turned on by "sex play" with guns. She dramatically marched into court with her lawyer ~who looked like a cross between Col. Sanders and the Travelocity gnome~ only to be told to take her obviously doctored trick book and stuff it where the sun don't shine (which is hard to do considering her profession and the barely-there skirt-- there aren't too many places on her that the sun doesn't shine), at least until after the verdict.
Oh, and Raul Julia-Levy. He claims to be the illegitimate son of deceased actor Raul Julia. He does look like him. Unfortunately he has baggage several inches thick, including all kinds of aliases, falsified records and convictions. He was going to claim Lana liked to do cocaine with him and loved to play with guns during sex. He was kept out of the trial, but gamely tramped all over the Internet using his own name ~and various sock-puppets~ trying to convince people he was who he said he was. The last I heard, he was trying to sue the prosecutor's office or judge or somebody for defamation of character, or something like that. Whatever.
Then there were the five, 1101B, prior bad act witnesses (PBA). That's only five out of approximately nineteen witnesses, women and men, on whom Phil Spector allegedly pulled guns. The judge only allowed five of them and he picked which ones they would be. The Defense pulled yet another dirty trick and told the jury during closing arguments that the prosecution hand-picked only five women to tell fabricated stories, saying there were no other incidents, blithely ignoring Phil's actual previous conviction for gun-related charges.
Face it, Phil is just a gun-wielding kind of guy -- that's his idea of romance. Many a guy will flatter, wheedle, cajole, bribe, clown, pet, nibble, and even cry, if necessary, to persuade the object of his lust to give in to his carnal desires. Some of them simply proposition every woman they see, theorizing that one out of every ten women will say yes, no matter how obnoxious, repulsive and unknown the guy might be. Phil, on the other hand, shrieks at the top of his lungs at the objects of his lust, calling them "f-----g c---s" while spit flies in his uncontrollable rage. He puts a fine point on it by holding guns on them and threatening to blow their f-----g brains out if they don't do what he says. There's a giant mirror behind the chair in the foyer. Does he maneuver his "dates" into that chair so he can watch himself being "masterful"? He's a producer; every scenario must play out according to his direction and no one else's. Every man has his own repertoire of seduction techniques; it's all a matter of going with what has works, I guess. Stick with the classics and all that. He even brings guns into the picture with platonic dates, just to impress them, because what woman wouldn't be favorably impressed by a man carrying a gun that's longer than he is and reminding them of Elmer Fudd? What a manly, macho man!
Where was I? Oh yes, the PBA witnesses, all of whom simply were trying to leave:
1) There was the practical Dorothy Melvin who did not want her boss at the time, Joan Rivers, to have her name brought into the matter. She called the police and had them retrieve her purse.
2) There was the professional photographer, Stephanie Jennings, who called 911, but Phil convinced them that she was a hooker. She wouldn't go to his room and simply wanted to go to sleep or, after his hissy fit, leave.
3) There was the emotional, girlish former Hollywood music planner, Diane Ogden, with her gripping memory of attempted rape at gunpoint ~thwarted only by Phil's inability to perform~ despite the fact that she would have had sex with him if he'd only been "nice about it." She did not consider rape at gunpoint to be "romantic". She foolishly allowed herself to be alone with him again some months later and he chased her down the driveway with an Uzi.
4) There was the angry, and rightly so, Southern Belle, Melissa Grosvenor, with a somewhat shady past and a drug-addicted sister (who, along with another sister) aired their dirty laundry in court for all the world to see. Can you imagine Thanksgiving at Mom's house this year?
5) And then there was Devra Robataille, an extremely petite British musician, who went all "Mumsy" on Phil and sternly lectured her way out of having him blow her brains out not once, but twice!
There was the former detective, Vince Tanazzo, who did security work for Joan Rivers's Christmas parties. He had to "escort" Phil out of her parties two years in a row because Phil was threatening to blow even more women's brains out. I believe he had a gun on at least one of the occasions, but I could be wrong about that -- he certainly alluded to the fact the he did. One of the women he allegedly threatened was Walter Cronkite's daughter, but that was not revealed in testimony.
And let's not forget Phil's "little woman", Rachelle Short Spector, 26 (he's 67). Did she marry the ugly, gun-toting, egomaniacal, misogynistic, platform-shoe-wearing, frockcoat-adorned, bizarre-wig-bedecked senior citizen for love or money? He married her only after his assistant, Michelle Blaine turned down his proposal. It's pretty obvious that the marriage was for show so that the jury and public will see that there is a women who isn't afraid he'll blow her brains out if she gets up and "leaves" him to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. And there are three hefty bodyguards and lots of meds that make sure of it.
Rachelle showed up for court every day, often with her Mommy in tow, imperiously having a bodyguard carry her totebag and blankie. On several occasions she has spoken to the press, leaving an indelible impression of an air-headed bimbo EACH time. She makes inane accusations and declarations of love on her websites, past and present, and displayed her vast legal knowledge by referring to a "statue of limitations."
The judge clamped down on her testifying-by-proxy through the media by placing a gag order on her and Phil Spector and anyone else who might be acting as his mouthpiece. Most people would be cowed or at least SHUT THEIR MOUTH while THE JUDGE is talking directly to them and ORDERING them to do or NOT do something, but not Rachelle! No, she sassed back at him over and over and argued and carried on until he threatened her with contempt. Chris Plourd, ever the fall-guy, rushed over to her to try to get her to put a sock in it, but she ignored him, other than to protest that the judge was talking TO her, WHILE the judge was talking TO her. Interestingly, Roger Rosen and LKB COMPLETELY ignored the ENTIRE exchange. COMPLETELY. Was it planned in yet another attempt at a mistrial? How could they NOT be surprised and taken aback by such an outrageous outburst and conduct by the defendants OWN WIFE?
And speaking of the judge, there is the stern, but fair, and sometimes humorous Judge Fidler, who is a dead ringer for Bruce Willis! He's savvy to most of the tricks either side attempts to play on each other and swiftly puts the kibosh on them whenever possible, or attempts to remedy the situation without causing a mistrial. And make no mistake, from the moment the Prosecution's side rested, the Defense tried over and over again to get a mistrial because they can see their case going down in flames. The judge keeps a tight rein on his courtroom and is ever cognizant of not letting the trial turn into an OJ-like circus while trying to avoid things like eating well-meaning (but inadvertently poisoned) cookies brought by the ever-classy Beth Karas.
And then there were the monumental defense blunders. The Henry Lee fiasco, the Kenny/Baden conflict of interest, the major smack down of Bruce Cutler by the judge for dramatically yelling and pointing at Diane Ogden and slamming the table/podium, even the AIR (not to mention leaving mid-trial to film a TV show for several weeks and then finally resigning), the posing of Phil to be pointing a gun (using his fingers as a mock-gun), and showing Lana's "showcase" reel.
The Defense meant to show the reel to say that Lana was a bad actress with no prospects. Instead, they brought her to life -- she talked, she laughed, she BREATHED. She wasn't particularly funny, and the audio was awful, but that's what writers and technicians are for. It wasn't supposed to be for the viewing public. It was a portfolio of sorts, to be shown only to people in the industry to show her range of talent. She looked FABULOUS! Most importantly, it showed her alive. She was certainly nicer to look at in that than in the gruesome photos of her slumped in a chair in Phil's foyer, with her black eye, messed-up hair and blood pooling from her nose and mouth. Dr. Spitz had said she looked "peaceful". An incredulous AJ thundered back what so many of us were thinking: "SHE'S ***DEAD***, DOCTOR!!!"
Everywhere we turned there was Hollywood razzle-dazzle and the nuts and bolts of Hollywood. This included testimony by a famous director, Michael Bay and testimony by a failed playwright/producer/director that had to take a bus 3000 miles across the country to testify because he was afraid to fly. We heard about making Mercedes commercials, making blockbuster movies, making low-budget Roger Corman movies, and renting costumes from a little San Fernando Valley shop called Valentino's. Even the buildings are famous places! There's even a "CASTLE", FGS, with 88 steps to the front entrance and a HUGE satellite dish above the back door. Talk about the lives of the rich and/or famous! What more could you ask for? It's no wonder we're hooked on this trial! It has EVERYTHING: sex, drugs and rock and roll!
There were a multitude of "talking heads" on news and legal shows. Some knew what they were talking about and some didn't. The most egregious one was Anita Talbert, a friend of Phil Spector who appeared on Court TV shows several times, spouting complete and utter nonsense. She made outrageous claims such as Lana having taken TWELVE Vicadin that night. Testimony by Dr. Pena, however, revealed she had a LESS than a therapeutic dose in her system. Just about everything she spouted came directly from Phil Spector, who publicly lied at every turn between the night of the murder and the beginning of the trial. A story of her dancing around with the gun and singing Da Doo Run Run seems to be a particular favorite. He also said she was standing up when she shot herself (wrong), and he couldn't have done it since she was so much taller and stronger than he was. He ranted and raved at the police station, referring to her as a piece of shit mere hours after he shot her in the mouth. He said she brought the gun, yet on the stand even defense experts were compelled to testify that it belonged to Spector.
Will Phil run? Hard to say -- he's stuck it out this long, after all. Still, we already know he wears wigs. He COULD wear a disguise and possibly slip out of the country. What would he look like in a disguise? When TV shows invoke Phil's name, they almost ALWAYS play a snippet of "Be My Baby" or "To Know Him Is To Love Him" and other songs he produced. They really should pick a better song, not produced by him, but sung by the Beatles, with whom he also had connections: The Fool On The Hill.
If you have been totally engrossed in this trial, I believe the best source of information about Phil Spector is Mick Brown's book, Tearing Down the Wall of Sound. Brown interviewed more than one hundred people, and has an extensive compilation of bibliography (books, periodicals, newspapers, broadcasts, websites) listed in the back. It's a well researched account, and a compelling read, of Spector's life.
Until the trial comes back on live today, browse around some the links I've provided in my "Places to go" list.
P.S. I almost forgot! When I went down to the courthouse on Tuesday, a woman approached me and handed me a written note. It said, "Are you Sprocket?" It was Court TV poster and Guest Blogger Cocobaby! She said she saw my handbag and could tell it was handmade. Not only is she a very nice and witty person, she's quite pretty, too.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fidler asked the attorneys to argue for a lesser included charge, and they did as he complied. After that, the Judge changed his mind and decided at this late date he could not add the lesser charge. It would be as if he was sending a message to the jurors that if they can't convict on this charge, try this one. It's all in the timing. So Fidler rules that it would not be proper to give them a new option now because that would be as if he was trying to coerce the jury. So that option is off the table, and those of us who strongly feel that Spector is guilty of second degree all heave a big sigh of relief.
After questioning the jury and getting some feedback, Judge Larry Fidler rules that special instruction #3 was in conflict with the law and will be tossed, and there will be no new arguments presented to the juror to explain the loss of instruction #3.
This is one of the instructions the defense wanted so badly, and this is why the defense hired Dennis Riordan in the first place and pays him the big bucks. He's there to come in a muck things up as much as possible. I'm sure he was the one who crafted this instruction, and the people were opposed to this instruction from the very beginning. It wasn't because they couldn't understand murder two, it was because it pigeonholed the prosecution into proving a very narrow window of facts, and that's against the law.
Although one of the jurors, #12, asked to see some of the clothing, Fidler ruled that they would not be able to provide the articles of clothing for their review because 1) the were never entered into evidence and 2) they are no longer in their original condition.
The Judge says that he is going to include in the jury instructions a modified "Moore" instruction (after the attorney's argued the specific points they wanted tossed) as well as read back the reasonable doubt instruction.
All in all, I think this is good news. It makes more sense now, why there was such a wide split among the jurors when the rest of the thinking world ~who's brains had not yet turned to melted cheese~ this was a clear case of second degree murder. It was the mucked up special jury instruction the defense got in. Even at the bitter end, the defense has tried to throw a wrench into the workings of this trial.
I know I read it somewheres, that after the jury declared they were at an impasse, Rachelle Short was crying. I wasn't at the courthouse today so I didn't see if she had tears in her eyes or not. But if this was true, Poor Baby. If there really is a hung jury, I'm sure Phil will force your foot stomping hiney to honor your contract and continue pretending to be a "loving" wife for the next couple of years. Ah, true love lives at the Spector castle.
And that comment about being the "next Beyonce." Honey, you will never be the next Beyonce. More like the next sorry assed Anna Nicole Smith. Beyonce at least has the looks (she didn't have to pay the surgeon or get her teeth replaced), the talent (you're going to be a big hit as a trombone player), and a devoted man in a decent age range~ one not on trial for murder I might add. All you got are new tata's an over sized rock and a grille.
I'm giving a shout out to a another blogger commenting on the Spector trial. There are not a lot of entries at Just My Opinion, but that doesn't matter. I like it when I see someone who thinks like I do.
"Sep 16 2007 7:37P
Let him have all your worries and cares for he is always thinking about you and watching everything that concerns you. 1st Peter 5:7
It will be alright, have faith. "
Here is the King James Version for The First Epistle of Peter, Chapter 5, verse 7:
7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.
Is it coincidence that a Team Spector lover chose this verse, and made sure to include the "5:7" in the posting?? You decide.
It is interesting in light of the fact that Mick Brown wrote in, Tearing Down the Wall of Sound, on page 96:
"Spector was proud of his Jewish ancestry, and would observe Jewish holidays, but he had no religious belief, and as he grew odler he would beome an avowed athiest."
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
I went down to the courthouse this afternoon, but I didn't get in. (I will expand on this entry later tonight, to flesh out my story.) Alan Parachini let in virtually any media that showed up, even when they showed up late, and even if it didn't appear that they were on the court's media list. That left a SINGLE SEAT for the public. One of his staff, Meredith, let in an single trial watcher who had been there in the morning on jury watch. The accredited press will always get preferential treatment over the public, and this was clearly the case this afternoon. In my opinion, that stinks.
After the proceedings, I talked to several reporters. One in the know reporter (who asked not to be quoted) said that there were seven jurors grouped together that they thought were possibly in a "guilty" group. That was their guess. I don't know when this reporter observed this, but they did. #2, #4, #7, #8, #9, #10 (Unfortunately, I can't remember the number the reporter told me of the 7th juror in the group.)
This reporter said that even though #9, did say (when questioned by the Judge) that a clarification of doubt verses reasonable doubt might help, the reporter felt the verbal pausing when responding as well as their body language indicated that it wasn't juror #9 who needed that information specifically, but likely other jurors did and this was their opinion as to what might help.
What follows is my opinion on several issues. Sadly, again, Californians have shown the world that when they enter a jury box to determine guilt or innocence, their brains turn into melted cheese. California is known for its' cheese, and now it's confirmed that our brains are made of it too. This washed up former music producer is so guilty, I could tell it from opening statement. Sadly, though, we have melted cheese in that jury box, and melted cheese is what it is, not much use for anything other than ham sandwiches.
I believe that members of the jury had a hard time understanding second degree murder and implied malice, in addition to being totally confused about the difference between reasonable doubt and "all doubt." Crap. Everybody has doubts. This jury though had melted cheese for brains and couldn't tell the difference.
To me, it is very suspicious what appeared on the Team Spector MySpace page late in the evening of September 17th. Very suspicious. Spector has several investigators who are in his deep pockets. What goes through my mind, is, did any of these investigators, during this trial, follow jurors home just like that white haired guy followed CCA all the way to his stop on the Metro Red Line, and question him? Here is the link for you to reread the entry on that event and then ask yourself, Is it possible?
Update: 9:10 pm.
Some Court TV posters appear to be upset with my "generalizations" of Californians, indicating that it's only celebrity trials that have this problem and citing other trials where a just verdict was reached. OF COURSE I'm talking about celebrity justice! Did I really need to clarify that? I attended about 90% of the Blake trial. Blake was guilty, but that jury found him not guilty. Afterwards, we found out their brains were made of melted cheese when they were interviewed on the John and Ken Show on KFI640. Mark my words. When the Spector jury is interviewed, we will discover the same thing.
But back to the anger and pain and shock that most are feeling. All I can really think of at this moment is Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter Fawn. An absolute hell they must be going through right now. It makes me so sad to think that 4.5 years later, they still don't have justice for their daughter. I urge everyone to keep them in your thoughts and prayers. They need us now to be strong for them.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Last but not least, here is a real treat of a blog that you ABSOLUTELY must read. Although relatively new, it's packed with lots of behind the scenes insider information. The blog is called mCONTROL BLOGS and once you read, you will NOT be disappointed!
And, I'm reposting this so nobody misses it. bchand's latest laughs starring the forensic experts.
OJ has been arrested. Here's the news story off of CNN just a half hour ago!
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (CNN) -- Las Vegas police arrested O.J. Simpson on Sunday amid an investigation into an alleged armed robbery at a hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, a source close to the investigation said.
O.J. Simpson was arrested Sunday amid an investigation into an alleged robbery at a Las Vegas hotel.
Simpson was arrested at his room in the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas, the source said.
On Saturday, Las Vegas police arrested Walter Alexander and seized two guns in connection with the alleged armed robbery, the source said.
"I don't know why they arrested him," Simpson said Sunday. "I've stayed in contact with the police and the truth will come out."
Simpson had already been questioned during the investigation into several items of sports memorabilia that were taken from collectors at a room in the Palace Station Hotel and Casino. Simpson has said the items belonged to him.
Alexander was arrested Saturday night and charged with two counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a deadly weapon, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of burglary with a deadly weapon, the source said.
The Arizona resident was arrested on his way to McCarran International Airport, the source said.
During searches Saturday, police recovered two guns they believe were used in the alleged robbery, the source said.
Simpson, 60, acknowledged that he entered the man's room with a group of friends, one of whom was posing as a potential buyer, after being tipped off that some of his personal items were for sale there.
Among the items were things he hadn't seen in years or that had been stolen, he said. They included photographs of his family and himself as a child, and photographs and negatives taken by his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. Simpson said friends helped him carry the items from the room, but no guns were involved and the incident was not a robbery.
On Saturday, Simpson said that he and one of the alleged victims, Alfred Beardsley, spoke by telephone and agreed the incident had been blown out of proportion.
Beardsley confirmed the conversation to celebrity Web site TMZ.com, saying Simpson apologized to him and told him he regretted the incident.
The other alleged victim, Bruce Fromong, a sports memorabilia collector, said that two of the men accompanying Simpson pointed guns at the other occupants of the room in what he described as "a home invasion-type robbery."
Fromong testified for Simpson's defense in the 1997 wrongful death trial stemming from a civil lawsuit filed by the family of Ron Goldman, who was killed in 1994 alongside Simpson's ex-wife.
Simpson was acquitted of the murders in 1995, but the jury in a 1997 civil trial found him liable and awarded the Goldmans $33.5 million for their son's wrongful death.
Fromong testified that prices for Simpson memorabilia had dropped substantially since the 1995 verdict. His testimony was part of the defense's contention that Simpson could not afford to pay the Goldmans.
Also on Friday, Thomas Riccio, a former business associate of Simpson, told KVVU television in Las Vegas that he told Simpson about the sale.
Riccio said someone told him last month that he wanted to auction some of Simpson's possessions by placing them on consignment. Riccio added that when he called Simpson to tell him about the planned sale, the former athlete told him the items had been stolen.
Riccio said that as he was being shown the items in the hotel room, Simpson entered the room and seized the items. He said there was no break-in and no gun was used.
Simpson's ex-wife and Goldman -- a waiter who had gone to her Los Angeles, California, home to return a pair of glasses -- were fatally stabbed outside her townhouse June 12, 1994. A jury found Simpson not guilty of the crimes.
Simpson recently wrote a book originally titled "If I Did It" and planned to publish it himself, but a public outcry led to the cancellation of his book deal.A bankruptcy judge subsequently awarded the Goldmans the rights to the book in light of their inability to collect the wrongful death award. They retitled the book "If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer," which is in bookstores.
Update: 12:30 pm.
Don't miss bchand's latest laughs starring the forensic experts.
Update: 3:00 pm.
Is OJ whistling "If I Only Had A Brain" from The Wizard of Oz in this video?
At the last minuite I'm adding a bit of very dry wit from Court TV poster Dunlurken, commenting on O.J. Simpson's arrest today in Vegas:
Dunlurken: He has an alibi. He was out cutting someone's throat.
With this recent turn of events, there is hope that Simpson finally takes up permanent residence inside a jail cell. I'm just surprised it took this long.
Even though I really need to get cracking on some sewing orders, I had thought that I would go visit 106 today, to drop off some printed materials for Mr. Dunne but I kept getting delayed at home. It was either one more kitty hair ball mess to clean up off the floor, or some other chore that couldn't wait until I got home. I did finally get out the door in the early afternoon and arrived on the 9th floor a little after 2:00pm.
I went directly up to the 9th floor and peeked in but I didn't see Dominick. So I trekked all the way down to the Court TV filming area to ask Beth Karas if she had seen him since I didn't see him in the courtroom. She indicated that if he wasn't in the courtroom, he might be on the 18th floor media room. Then it finally dawned on me that I could just call him, lol! When I got him on the phone, he said he was back in the courtroom so I headed back into the building, past the first floor security and past the 9th floor security once again.
The courtroom is virtually empty, with reporters and a few public people I recognized sitting here and there. It's so quiet even the slightest noise reverberates throughout the room. As I sit down beside Dominick I notice that he looks very tired, and he tells me that he's completely exhausted. It's just a little after 2:00pm, and he's already given about ten on air interviews so far. Not only that, he has agreed to do a few more before the day is over.
Peter Y. Hong of the LA Times is in the back row on his laptop, as well as John Spano, but Spano is getting ready to leave and takes off. There are a few whispers and one could hear a pin drop. I see an older gentleman who I originally met at the Robert Blake trial that I named at that time "Mr. Cane." He is in deep conversation with Mick Brown. Mick catches my eye, smiles, and I wave back. Mr. Cane has been at this trial quite a bit, sitting in the back row against the wall in the plastic chairs near the door. The Court TV camera operators are here and sitting next to them in Beth Karas's regular seat is Gary Spector. He looks exactly like he did in the interviews on TV. He has a great smile. Michael Christian is in the back row, working away on his laptop. There are a handful of reporters that I don't recognize. I do see Harriet Ryan and our regular bailiff in her Plexiglas box but thats about it.
I leave the courtroom to go to the 13th floor snack room and get a Vitamin Water. In the hallway I run into Sandi Gibbons who smiles and gives me a hello.
It's 3:10 pm now, and the ticking of the clock is the noisiest thing in the room. Dominick steps outside to make some calls and Alan Parachini has been in and out with one his his staff several times. I finally turn around and introduce myself as "Sprocket" to Gary. He tells me that he goes home today. He can't stay any longer it appears. He tells me that every time the jury comes out he gets nervous, and that maybe it's a good thing that he's going home. I wonder if he ever got to even see his father. How sad, if he didn't. He said that he brought flowers for Rachelle and Mrs. Clarkson when he arrived at the courthouse on Monday afternoon, but I tell him that they had already left the courthouse by the time he arrived. I ask him if he's been able to spend some time with Louis and his companion and he indicated that they've been together every day.
I can hear someone in the back row whispering. The interviews that Dominick has done have all been on the recent events in Las Vegas. It's totally ironic that O.J. Simpson is being investigated for robbery on the very same day that the book he wrote, If I Did It, is being released. Dominick says, the OJ debacle has overshadowed this trial. That's all anyone wants to talk about. We talk about his appearance on Star Jones's show on Court TV, and I tell him that I thought he did very well on that interview. I also tell him that all the Court TV posters thought he did a great job too, and the members were very pleased that he corrected Jones for calling him "Nick," and also stating very clearly that she was on "the opposite side" of the O.J. case than him. Apparently, the ratings for her show are not good. I'm sure that will be good news for the Court TV posters.
It's 3:17 pm, and the Laloya law professor Stan Goldman comes in to sit beside someone I don't know over on the far right of the courtroom. I had seen him in the hallway, earlier. Alan Parachini is in the back row talking to the camera operators and a reporter sitting in the far left corner. I start and stop and start and stop reading Mick Brown's book, Tearing Down the Wall of Sound. That's so I can take some notes as to what is going on around me.
A large, bald sheriff with a big white mustache exited a bit earlier and now comes back in. He sits in a chair right beside the regular bailiff. His chair is directly in front of the little door to the waiting cell area where Spector will be quickly whisked if he is convicted. That will be a very frightening time for Spector, who has difficulty being alone.
3:25 pm. Even I can hear a few words of the bailiff as she makes a phone call, all the way on the other side of the room.
3:27 pm. Another female sheriff enters and stops off to chat for a moment with the regular bailiff. Another officer enters and stops to chat with his fellow officers, too. Then the new female bailiff heads towards the back past Wendy's desk, and I'm under the impression she heads into Judge Filder's chambers (I find out later how wrong I am about that).
3:29 pm. The male deputy who just entered now leaves. I finally see Wendy. She's been in the courtroom all this time. Her short frame was hidden behind the wall surrounding her desk area. I could barely see her. The phone on the half wall shelf, strategically hid her face. Another young, pretty Indian looking woman reporter enters and sits in the front row with two other young looking female reporters. Many people are reading books, or talking softly. But even in this mostly empty room, the sound echoes loudly. Mr. Cane leaves and comes back in again.
3:35 pm. The bald sheriff with the mustache exits the room again, and returns about four minutes later. Rachelle is discussed a bit, and where it actually was that she was working when she met Spector.
3:45 pm. Harriet Ryan reenters the courtroom. Reporters start to file back in to watch the jurors exit the jury room. Dominick is still outside on a phone call. Another male deputy enters to chat with the two already in the room. Just like I remember during the trial, I can hear Wendy on her computer and the clacking of the keyboard. The court reporter emerges from the rooms behind Wendy's desk, and stands to talk with her and the sheriff who just entered the room.
3:48 pm. Peter Hong reenters the courtroom, also waiting for any glimmer of expression or manner in the jurors when they emerge from deliberations. It's pretty quiet, and we can hear laughter in the hallway outside the courtroom.
3:55 pm. Miriam Hernandez comes in to also wait for the jury to appear, and Mr. Cane also comes back in. Verdict watch is pretty boring and these cold hard benches don't make it any easier. It's no different than how bad they were during the trial.
3:58 pm. We hear a single buzzer from the jury room. A silver haired man and a blondish middle aged woman in a black dress enter the courtroom. Alan Parachini immediately gets up when they enter to go talk to the woman.
The jury starts to exit, but the clerk tells them to wait. Juror #5 is out the door, then back in and then across the room very quickly to the area behind Wendy's desk. I have to tell you that this is the first time that I am observing the jury exit the jury room during deliberations. At the time I'm observing this, I was unaware that the procedures for them leaving the building are different than when the trial was ongoing. During the trial, the jurors exited through the gallery into the hallway. So, from what I'm seeing, I think that Juror #5 has gone into the Judge's chambers. (That wasn't the case, but it was what I immediately thought.) Another group of jurors exits the jury room but not all of them, and they head on back to the area behind Wendy's desk. I write in my notebook, The Judge's chambers! But not all the jurors have exited the jury room. From when the door opened, I can still see Juror #9 inside. There are more jurors still inside the jury room.
4:02 pm. Now Wendy gets up from her desk and goes over to enter the jury room. Four more jurors finally exit. Juror's #7, #12, #6, #9. They all head back over to the area behind Wendy's desk. As I look over my shoulder towards the back of the courtroom, there are several more reporters, including Beth Karas and Ciaran McEvoy who had entered and observed the exit. As I see Beth, she mouth's the words to me, "What do you think?" Erroneously thinking that the jurors are all in the Judge's chambers, I mouth back, "Hung jury." Beth shakes her head no, and mouths the words, "Too early." Right afterwards, the bailiffs make everyone exit the courtroom.
Out in the hallway, I ask Beth why we were asked to exit, because I think the jurors are all in with the Judge. It's why I thought there was a hung jury. Beth gives me a smile and explains to me that the exiting of the jurors has changed to this hallway (that I didn't know about) that is behind where Wendy's desk is, but is before where the Judge's chambers are. It's how the Judge enters and exits the courtroom. Having been enlightened, I now realize that Beth is right. It is way to early for a hung jury. I say goodbye to Dominick and head back to the budget parking lot.
There has been quite a bit of discussion on the court TV message boards about juror #5 exiting the room rather quickly, and the expression on her face. It's also been coupled with Mick Brown's latest piece in the London Daily Telegraph. There is a lot of worry that juror #5 could be a long holdeout for a not guilty vote. Here is a brief excerpt from the Telegraph article:
There is a belief among the press that the defence - who of course have their own jury consultants even more highly trained, and paid, than the journalists - targeted number five as being most sympathetic to their case. It was she - or so it is speculated - that was in the back of their minds when they pressed for the introduction into evidence of Miss Clarkson's show reel, Lana Unleashed, one segment of which featured her in excruciating black face essaying a Little Richard impersonation.
Watching it, juror five's demeanour froze in fury. Was it merely coincidence that shortly afterwards when the defence's key forensic expert Michael Barden took the stand, he spent an inordinate length of time pointing out that his credentials included investigating the murders of Martin Luther King and the civil rights worker Medgar Evers, and name dropping OJ Simpson's black attorney Johnnie Cocharane and Oprah Winfrey? Clearly, here was a man who had been primed.
Yesterday juror five was the first to leave the jury room, a minute or so before the others. Some in the audience thought she looked unhappy. Evidence of some dissent behind the wooden door? Or perhaps she was simply running late for a hairdressing appointment.I did not notice a "clenched jaw" (as one trial watcher posted on the Court TV forums) or an unhappy expression on juror #5's face. That's because I was startled when she exited the jury room so quickly, and really didn't get a good look at her face when she bolted across the room. I will also say, that when Spector's defense team chose to play Lana Unleashed, I could not take my eyes off of Lana's sister, Fawn's face. She was sobbing throughout the entire playing of the video, and I started to cry, too watching her. So, I can not verify if what Mick Brown reported about juror #5's demeanor during the Little Richard impersonation is accurate or not. I will say that he is a professional, and if he's reporting it, most likely a reporter did observe her expression and interpreted it in that manner.
Meanwhile, over on the Court TV message board, there were a few posts that just had me laughing, and these specific entries stood out.
new book coming out !
a collabaration by o j simpson and phil spector.
i did it, he did it .........we both did it
Book by Dr. Michael Baden on OJ alleged (roflmao) incident:
"Now That's What I Call A Vegas Nerve!"
Thank you flea_bailey and MyrnaTurner for making me laugh.