Now Is, and Isn’t, the Time to Commit Murder in San Francisco

Photo: San Francisco in better times, the 1906 earthquake

If you are looking to get away with murder, make sure you do it in San Francisco.

But if you don’t get away with it and are too poor to afford a defense attorney of your own, watch out.

San Francisco homicide detectives are so busy, four of the 20 SFPD homicide officers are already near or at the maximum number of overtime hours they can claim for the fiscal year ending June 30. Because of injury or other long-term assignments, right now there are 13 investigators able to take on new cases.

Yes, the SF budget is stretched thin (like everywhere), and last year the notorious Board of Supervisors (hereafter referred to the “Board of Stupes”) made the decision to strictly limit overtime for city employees to 624 hours a year. That is not a typo. Six hundred twenty-four hours of overtime a year. The law was enacted to stop an abuse of overtime hours by city employees.

I am not even going to ask why not hire more police officers and promote more officers to detective/investigator.

Unfortunately the Board of Stupes forgot that some jobs are more important than others. One of those important jobs is responding to a homicide, which for some unreasonable reason, seem to happen more on the night shift. Officers take call and respond to a scene if needed.

The four officers have been instructed not to take any new cases, to not respond to calls if it means overtime, and to work on cases during normal business hours only.

Certainly the Police Officers Association gets it. "Those morons on the Board of Supervisors don't get it," said Gary Delagnes. "You don't put on a time restriction when you are investigating the ultimate crime. It is city government run amok.

"That's what I tried to tell those geniuses on the board—you can't treat a homicide cop like some maintenance guy who's worked too many hours. I told them, those homicide guys will burn through that overtime level by Christmas."

An example of a hamstringed investigation is the murder of 23-year old Jordan McKay, who was shot and killed last September while he rode his bike home at 1:40 a.m., headed toward his apartment in the Richmond District. His family and friends are grateful for the sensitivity shown by the detectives working to find McKay’s killer, but they are also facing the reality that those detectives are crippled in their efforts to keep the case from turning into a cold case.

Delganes says that detectives work in pairs and that each pair can be carrying as few as eight cases or as many as 12.

Inspectors whose overtime has been capped write questions for other detectives to use when interrogating or conducting interviews, while they are, of course, on overtime.

Inspector Valerie Matthews, one of the homicide detectives who has reached the overtime cap, has had to tell victim’s families that she can work on their loved one’s case during regular business hours only. She has her own stalled investigation, the killing of Jason de la Cruz and a friend last year in front of a Sunset District pizzeria. Officers were able to make an arrest, but because of conflicting witness statements, had to let the suspect go. Matthews and her partner are unable to work more leads in the case.

That is the good news for SF’s many thugs and gangstas, especially those who work at night. But there is also bad news—according to one source, the SF Public Defender’s office is very strapped and because of the Board of Stupes’ unwillingness to hire two paralegals to help with the backlog.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi said that his office would not be able to take on any more cases, including as many as seven homicide cases already on the books. One of these cases is that of Edwin Ramos, the admitted MS-13 gang member former juvenile offender illegal alien who gunned down three members of the Bologna family last summer in what has been described as a case of mistaken identity.

The city of San Francisco will be forced to hire private attorneys to provide free counsel for those suspects unable to pay for their own lawyers. No doubt that will cost a whole bunch more than paying a pair of paralegals.

Overtime cap crimps some S.F. homicide probes

Overtime limits: kiss of death to solving murders

City Denies Public Defenders Request to Hire More Staff

The Short Life of Riley Ann Sawyers and Seeking Justice for Her

~Little
Riley Ann Sawyers



‘Baby Grace’ was a beautiful 2-year old with long blonde hair and dressed in a size 2T pink outfit. She had little white sneakers with purple accents and lights built into them. Nobody knew who she was when her little remains, stuffed into a plastic container, washed up in Galveston Bay last October.

In November, Riley’s paternal grandmother, Sheryl Sawyers, called the sheriff’s office after she saw a sketch of Baby Grace. The nation learned that ‘Baby Grace’ was Riley Ann Sawyers and her mother Kimberly Dawn Trenor, 19, and her stepfather Royce Clyde Zeigler II, 24, had beaten her to death on July 24.

Trenor told investigators that she and her husband had beaten Riley with two leather belts. They also held her head underwater in the bathtub and Zeigler picked her up by her hair and threw her across the room, slamming her head into a tile floor.

The autopsy found that Riley had three skull fractures on the back of her head.

The parents also allegedly smothered the girl by pushing her face into a pillow in her room and into the cushions of a couch.

Trenor told investigators that during the beating, her husband gave the little girl child’s pain medication and covered her with a purple towel after she was dead.

That evening, the couple went to a local Wal-Mart and bought a blue plastic storage container. The plastic bin that contained the child’s body was kept in a storage shed in the backyard of their home for one to two months before they transported Riley’s remains and tossed them into the water near the Galveston Causeway.

The capital murder case against Kimberly Trenor began Tuesday. Ziegler will be tried separately.

During assistant district attorney Kayla Allen’s opening statements, the jury was told that Riley tried to stop her mother and stepfather from beating her to death by reaching out to her mother and saying, "I love you.” Allen also said Riley died for forgetting to say "please" and "yes, sir."

Testimony revealed that Trenor and Ziegler developed a list of things Riley needed to learn in order for her to “behave” better.

Rules for Riley – (1-6 were handwritten by Zeigler and 7-9 written by Trenor.)

1. being polite
2. Listen to mom & me
3. sleep @ 8 pm
4. nap @ 2 pm
5. toys stay in her room
6. puts toys back where she go em
7. behaves in public
8. never alone in our room
9. chocolate/cake or treats only as a reward
10. (was written in, but nothing was written beside it)

FBI forensic document examiner, Gabriel Watts, also told jurors that suicide notes were written on the same page.

To Whom It May Concern
I Royce Zeigler II leave my property to Kimberly Tenor Zeigler my wife. I take my own life because of guilt for past sins which I have confessed before I took my life. My wife Kimberly Zeigler is innocent and lived in fear … because of thought of what I would do to her. Also my family can go burn in hell for their stress that they've caused. So here I take my own life.
Sincerely,
Royce Zeigler II

Trenor wrote the following.
My heart is black dead. I can't live with myself after Riley. I go to be.
Kimberly Zeigler

Further evidence submitted to the court includes receipts from Wal-Mart for the items purchased by Trenor and Ziegler the night of July 24.

Receipt #1
- Shovel
- Kilz cement
- Trash bags
- Rubber gloves
- Two respiratory masks
- Duct tape
- Anchor chain

Receipt #2
- Latex gloves (small and large sizes)
- "Head to Toe"' baby wash
- Two bottles of bleach
- Large storage container (included child safety warning)

Sources

Galveston Daily News

ABC 13

Fox News

Click 2 Houston

Casey Anthony: January 30 Hearing

Update!

Judge Stan Strickland has ruled against the defense's motion to obtain material from TES. In the one page decision, stated that

The Court does not have jurisdiction to order a subpoena duces tecum as requested. The defense must avail itself of the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings to accomplish the this task. This would require the defense to show that the witness is material, and that has not been done in the instant pleading...

Judge Strickland also stated that the defense provided insufficient information to show that TES acted as an agent of the state.


The hearing today was short and to the point! To quote Ron Kuby, who kindly re-broadcast portions of the the hearing on InSession, Judge Strickland "cut through the BS." In just under an hour, he listened to the motions and either postponed rulings or ruled quickly with a minimum of argument.

Casey Anthony appeared in court in what I would call her "paralegal look." Jean Casarez was sitting just behind her and described her as wearing a blue jacket over her jail scrub pants. I noted that her hair was freshly washed and tied back on her head. She spent the majority of the time taking notes on a legal pad and at one point, beamed one of her famous smiles at her attorney, Jose Baez. She also chatted with Linda Kenney-Baden who was also present for the hearing.

The first motion to be addressed was Motion to Inspect the Crime Scene. Baez stated that he had attempted to contact the owner of the property to no avail. The owner's mother had called him, denying him access. The judge granted the motion, permitting the defense experts to examine the scene.

Jose Baez spoke briefly on the matter of information they want from Texas Equusearch. I couldn't quite follow his argument, but my friend donchais remarked that he was basically asking for information from the searchers as to "what they found AND didn't find...made my head spin."

Mark NeJame, representing TES put forward the same arguments he mentioned in his motion. He said that the motion was not made in the proper way. He explained that TES was not a material witness in the case and therefore there was no subpoena to send to Texas. He also stated that it, "baffles logic that those going out to find the remains would NOT report finding a child." He ended his comments by stating to Baez that, "your request is flawed."

Baez responded by stating that TES had been working with authorities and was paid by the authorities who were at the various search locations. He pointed out that NeJame's motion didn't address that particular issue. I noticed that Baez mentioned they were "paid." That pay was a mere $5000, a donation, actually. He didn't mention that the search has literally broken TES financially!

Baez requested that the judge issue a subpoena and that he would take it to Texas. He also pointed out that TES had opened an office in Orlando and was doing business in Texas.

Judge Strickland indicated that he would take the arguments under advisement and that both sides could submit further case law to him before he made a decision on the motion. He stated that he will rule on it later today. The judge also mentioned that Baez' term "doing business" may not be appropriate.

NeJame then addressed the fact that Baez hadn't mentioned that his contention that TES is an "arm" of the state of FL is not even in the pleadings. He then went on to mention the financial provisions in his motions as well as the chilling effect the granting of this motion would have on the volunteer searchers.

Baez' response was that NeJame had been following the case and was aware that TES "could" be an agent of the state. He then indicated that he has a bill stating that some of the tips were not in conformity with what the defense had asked for.

The judge reiterated that he will rule on the motion today.

Mark NeJame commented that the defense was aware that he was representing TES and sidestepped contacting him in the matter and went to TES directly.

The judge said that he was off topic and that he will rule on the motion today.

Baez next brought up the fact that Mark NeJame had represented the Anthonys and the judge told him to "file a motion" about it. Baez indicated he wouldn't do that.

The judgesaid he would rule on the motion today.

The motion to strike the defense witness list was moot since they have submitted a new one. It will be interesting to see it when it is released to the public.

Linda Kenney-Baden was next up at bat. She argued the defense motion to recuse the prosecution attorneys. She spoke at her usual fast pace, summarizing her motion to the judge. She mentioned a Mr. Chinais, who is Baez' attorney in this matter and listed his bona fides, among which was the fact that he, at one time, chaired the Florida Bar Ethics Committee. She indicated that he spoke to a Mr. Marvin who confirmed for her that "someone" from the State's Attorney's office had sent the complaint.

She informed Judge Strickland that it was his responsibility to launch his own investigation into the issue.

Next, she read the quote from Jose Baez's press conference after the infamous Todd Black press release which attacked Lawson Lamar. She pointed out that Baez had said, "I'm not going to throw out any accusations... it wasn't me that said..."

She again informed Judge Strickland that he needs to investigate this for himself and find out what the person's motivation was.

At that point, the judge gave her 30 seconds to finish!

State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick requested that the judge strike the motion, telling him that the assertions from the media are double, triple, hearsay. She pointed out that Ms. Baden's arguments mention a person not mentioned in the pleadings. In addition, the motion did not address HOW the State of Florida, through the filing, had harmed Ms. Anthony.

Drane Burdick said that if it's inconvenient to Mr. Baez, embarrassing, he can get a lawyer.

She summed up the prosecution position by stating that if some person in the office filed a complaint, it wasn't any member of the prosecution team and that the motion had no factual or legal support.

Baden spoke again briefly, saying that the judge has to find that out for himself.

Judge Strickland ended the debate by denying the motion. He indicated that, based on what he has heard, is a Florida Bar matter and that the factual base is thin.

Clarifying the matter, Jean Casarez mention on In Session that she had checked with the Bar Association and learned that no complaint had been filed. Someone from the State's Attorney's Office had merely faxed the articles to them and they opened their own investigation.

The remainder of the hearing concerned schedueling a trial date. The defense mentioned that there was a "mountain" of discovery that he needed to go through. The prosecution stated that it was likely the trial would not take place until later in the year.

Judge Strickland said he would set another hearing within the next 60-90 days. He also mentioned that a motion for change of venue had not been filed. Drane Burdick pointed out one may not be needed if the trial doesn't begin until later in the year. The judge said that Baez could file papers in the meantime if he so desired.

As a finale to the hearing, Bradley Conway, the Anthony family attorney waived the Anthonys' privilege in order to expedite the discovery process. He said that they love Casey and wants things to move along.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-five, Phil Spector Speaks

Phil Spector Speaks; Rachelle Talks Back, Again
Updated!

There was more drama today, but it happened outside the presence of the jury and it involved, yep, you guessed it, Spector's young wife, Rachelle.

Apparently, during the lunch hour or during some other court break, Spector's wife was observed by court staff taking pictures of a woman with blond hair in the hallway of the court building. It's not clear if the individual was posing for the photos or not.

Please understand that I did not take many notes on the following event. I was just sitting back and enjoying the fireworks. I may not have the events in the exact order or have all the statements that everyone said.

The afternoon break is called five minutes early, and Judge Fidler states he has some issues to go over outside the presence of the jury. The jury exits and then Public Information Office (PIO) department head, Allan Parachini and three members of his staff enter the well and face the judge. (The PIO works directly for the LA County Superior Court and are civilians. They are not officers or sheriff's.) Also in the well is a large, black man, Mr. Bowman (sp?) who is the attorney representing Mr. Jenkins (sp?) who must be Spector's bodyguard. (I find out later, that this man is "possibly" the bodyguard's uncle.) Judge Fidler first states that the issue was brought before the residing Superior Court head judge, but that judge kicked the matter back to his court to resolve, so that's why we're here.

A PIO staff member states Mrs. Spector was observed taking photos in the court building by the three staff members. She was approached and informed that she couldn't take photos. I believe the staff member demanded the camera be turned over and at first, Mrs. Spector would not relinquish the camera. I'm not clear about the order of events, but the bodyguard became involved and told the court employee that she had no right to take Mrs. Spector's property. At some point the court employee did obtain the camera from Mrs. Spector and was looking through the photos. During some point in the event, Mrs. Spector grabbed the camera back from the staff member and deleted photos.

Judge Fidler asks if there was any physical contact and the staff member states that "she grabbed the camera out of my hands." Fidler states that, "The fact that the camera was grabbed of the the employee's hands, that could be pursued in another court." He also mentions the possibility of an employee fearing for their safety or being threatened or harmed. Fidler addresses Mrs. Spector and talks about a prior event where she took photos inside the courthouse . "Mrs. Spector, we've had a conversation before, did we not?" Mrs. Spector denies taking the prior photos Fidler refers to. Fidler states she was told that taking photos inside the courthouse was illegal. Sitting in the first row and addressing the judge in a tone that I can only describe as disrespectful, Rachelle says something to the effect of, "She saw me delete ... she saw me delete the photos and she continued to look through my husbands private photos. She continued to look through them! She had NO RIGHT to look through my husband's photos!" Judge Fidler talks about the specific rules they have concerning photography inside the courthouse and why they have them. Rachelle says that they were told that they couldn't take pictures inside the courtroom. Fidler states, "I think a point is being missed." Judge Fidler asks Rachelle if she was here when the rules of the court were gone over. She replies, "No." Filder states, "If there is another incident, someone is going to jail."

Then Phil Spector stands up and wants to address the judge. In a very gravely and raspy voice Spector says, "I've been coming to this courthouse for two years. I've been taking pictures for memorabilia. I've been taking pictures in front of the sheriff's, I've been taking pictures in front of officers, I've been taking pictures in front of judges..." Fidler interrupts this saying, "Not this one." Spector continues, "... and nobody's said a word to me. This is the first time anyone has said anything to me."

Allan Parachini addresses the court and says, "If we had seen Mr. Spector taking any photos before we would have done the same thing."

Don't y'all find it interesting that Spector will stand up in open court and defend his penchant for memorabilia photo taking, but he's yet to take the stand to defend himself on murder charges.

At the end of the day Stuart James's testimony is complete. Look for an update on today's testimony over the weekend.

Update:
I was mistaken! Harriet Ryan has a short entry in the LA Times Blog. It was the bodyguard who was taking the photos! Now it makes sense why the bodyguard had legal representation in front of Judge Fidler. When the court employee confiscated the camera, Rachelle grabbed it out of her hand.

I'm wondering, did Rachelle, knowing she wasn't allowed to take any photos, tell their bodyguard to take the pictures to avoid being accused in the future?

Donna Fife's neighborhood—raw video

I have promised to keep up with the goings-on with the Donna Fife case. Please see my previous entries, “A Disaster Waiting to Happen” and “Update: Woman Killed by Neighborhood Menace”

The suspect, Richard Delgado, was scheduled to plea in court today; I promise an update as soon as I can learn if there were court proceedings.
In the meantime, I found this:

CBS 5 Video

This is raw video of Donna Fife’s neighborhood and also of a police spokesperson talking about the crime (two separate videos). Note the skid marks all over the neighborhood street and the size of the fence Delgado drove through. Neither are edited so both are a bit slow-moving.

The neighborhood street video is sad. There are no people in it, but you’ll see it was a sunshiney day with birds singing and airplanes overhead, taken the day after Donna’s murder.

There are also videos of the BART shooting on that same page. “Outrage in Oakland.”

If Donna’s cousin stops by and knows if there was a court appearance by neighborhood menace Delgado, please offer a comment. I'm positive this selfish bag of human cells will plead not guilty and come up with plenty of reasons why. In this country, that's his right. It's also my right to ensure that Donna Fife will not be forgotten!

The Latest on the January 30 hearing in the Case against Casey Anthony

It's been a busy day today in the case against Casey Anthony. I posted yesterday with all the information available at the time and updated it this morning. Since then, there is more!

The court has announced that a trial date will be set.

Judge Strickland ruled that Casey must attend all motions hearings.

Mark NeJame, representing Tim Miller and Texas Equusearch filed a motion to strike the defense motion for subpoena duces tecum. In a series of well-reasoned arguments with abundant case law referenced, NeJame explains that TES is not a Florida entity. He did indicate there was the Uniform Act which could be used to subpoena a material witness. However,

...the Uniform Act does not apply where there is a mere request for documents without an accompanying subpoena witness. (2)

Other nuggets from the motion include (my boldface):

...The Amended Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum is critically flawed in that it has failed to state or make a requisite showing that TES is a material witness in the case... (3)

A Subpoena Duces Tecum of the items requested by the Defendant, through her counsel, would be immaterial and irrelevant. None of thousands of searchers, who volunteered with TES, were ever at the exact spot where Caylee Anthony's remains were found. (5)

"... All that is required is that the subpoenaed materials be relevant to the investigation being conducted and that the subpoena not be overly broad or burdensome. A proper subpoena is one that is properly limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unduly burdensome. (6)

TES is a non-profit organization... It does not have the time, money or resources to pay for and provide the Defendant with all of the items requested. (8)

If this Honorable Court is inclined to grant this deficient application, TES respectfully requests that Defendant provide TES with adequate and sufficient advanced funds... and that the funds have come from a permissable source. (9)

Later in the motion, NeJame indicates that Jose Baez never collected the rest of the "tips" he had asked for and never paid for them.

In arguing against the disclosure of the names, addresses, and other information about the volunteers, NeJame cites the case of South Florida Blood Service vs. Rasmussen,

... the court held that such disclosure was not discoverable, as to do so would not protect the donors' constitutional privacy interests. (13)

In summarizing the motion, NeJame asserts that

The Defendant, through her counsel, claims that it has been reported that the searchers have been at this site. This claim lacks foundation and merit. The volunteers with TES never searched the exact location where Caylee Anthony's body was found. Furthermore, the Defendant, through her counsel, has failed to provide any source that supports their claim that the volunteers were at the site. The Defendant's request, through her counsel, is nothing more than an impermissible fishing expedition.

I'm looking forward to the debate about this in the courtroom tomorrow. Baez had better have done his homework if he expects anything from TES!

The second new motion was filed by the prosecution. Again, I'll give you the nuggets I thought were very good (again, boldface is mine):

The appropriate vehicle by which a defendant may have the issue reviewed by the trial court is a Motion to Disqualify. (2)

... the Florida Supreme Court has stated that disqualification is proper only if specific or actual prejudice can be demonstrated. (3)

It is difficult to ascertain from the pleading whether the factual basis for the defendant's motion is the filing of a bar complaint against Jose Baez, the manner in which any such complaint was made, the subject matter of the complaint, or the disclosure of such complaint by a third party. (4)

Linda Drane Burdick, who filed the motion on her own behalf and on that of her co-counsel, Jeffrey Ashton and Frank George. She further states that

...if any Assistant State Attorney affiliated with the case was to receive reliable information that any other lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, such misconduct would immediately be reported to the appropriate authority... Reporting any such violation, regardless of the status of pending litigation does not either legally or factually constitute "egregious behavior." (5)

Drane Burdick ends her motion with mention of the sources of the information upon which the motion was made.

The defendant's motion is wholly based upon the news media reports. The State of Florida would urge the court to deny without hearing any motion that cites as factual support the report of any news outlet. The media coverage to date has ranged from sensational to speculative to irresponsible to just plain wrong and should never for the basis for a motion in a court of law. (8)

Again, Baez had better do his homework! These two motions and the motions that they answer are going to create some fireworks.

There has been a lot of discussion going on about exactly why Casey doesn't want to go to court. This session should surely prove to her why she needs to be there. She needs to see her lawyer in action and judge how well he's representing her in her case.

Read Judge Strickland's ruling HERE.

NeJame's motion for TES

Prosecution motion HERE

See you all in court tomorrow! The major Orlando TV stations will be streaming it live tomorrow, January 30 at 8:30 AM.

For information about the other motions that have been filed recently, check HERE.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-four

January 28th, 2009

Defense Witnesses: #2 Stuart James (forensic scientist and blood spatter analysis expert; currently under first cross examination)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times; Bloomberg News for a short time in the afternoon; another possible gentleman, unconfirmed.

The Battle of the Blood Spatter Analysis Experts

Quite a bit happened today and I won't be able to write out a detailed report tonight. I filled up an entire side of my steno pad today. I will give a summary as best I can since I have some sewing orders I have to work on tonight. I do not know if I will be able to do a detailed entry on today's events later.

Truc is back in court today and if I overheard correctly, Fidler inquired at one point today if she was keeping a cup of hot tea at her table for her throat. She's wearing a dress I think I've seen before but I've never described to you. It's jet black, slim-lined and made of a flimsy, light weight material. The upper part of the dress, front and back is made of these 2" wide pleats. It's got a standard shirt type collar, like it might have buttons under the pleats down the front and a matching fabric belt that Truc has tied in a bow in front. The sleeves are three-quarter, and the dress has pockets because at one point, I saw her put her hands in her pockets. It looks lovely on her.

There were several supporters for Spector coming to court today. One of the early arrivals was an older black couple. I find out that the balding man is Bill Gardner "Rhapsody in Black," a DJ specializing in R&B from the 40's, 50's and 60's. Mr. Gardner can be heard on www.kpfk.org. When they arrived they introduced themselves to Rachelle and at one of the breaks the DJ shook Spector's hand.

The first hour and a half of court is taken up with arguments by the prosecution that the defense violated discovery rules by presenting to the prosecution six days ago, a power point presentation that Stuart James would use in his direct testimony (and not 30 days in advance as required by law). Inside the presentation are satellite spatter demonstrations that he did with a chair he purchased, as well as a ladies wool jacket. James testified outside the presence of the jury under questioning by Alan Jackson that it was his own idea to purchase the chair, the jacket and conduct these tests; Weinberg did not suggest that he do this. He also testified that the experiments were not meant to recreate the events of February 2003, but to be teaching/demonstration information for the jury only.

Right. I understand that he is an expert and under oath, but I found this very hard to believe. Judge Fidler ultimately ruled that the experiment demonstrations within the power point could be shown to the jury and that there were no discovery violations. This ruling really puzzled me. My guess would be that since AJ and Truc had a copy of the CD for six days, (and the amended version that took out some images and added more text from only two days ago) maybe Fidler felt they had plenty of time to review it. Maybe he felt that this did not seriously hamper or damage the prosecution's case. Who knows. But presenting this to the prosecution in the time that the defense did (according to James, he gave the defense a copy in early January) to me (my opinion only) smacks of the same tactics Weinberg has used with Dr. Seiden's testimony and holding back the discovery on that.

Later, under cross examination, James revealed that before he had the idea to perform these tests, his associate Mr. Pex had performed some similar spatter tests with a different jacket but the jacket was not made of 100% wool. James also revealed that Weinberg, Pex and James had all had a meeting together between the time that Pex did his earlier tests, and James did his later ones.

After the discovery inquiry, at 10:49 am, the courtroom is given a five minute break before testimony will start before the jury. At the defense table, I see that Spector is holding something in his left hand, and looking at it intently. It looks like a large clam-shell type compact. It's a mirror! Spector's hands are very small, so it's hard to tell, but this thing looks like it's about 5 inches by 6 inches. That's a pretty big clam shell mirror if you ask me. I see him take his right hand and touch either the lapel of his jacket, or his collar near his tie. It seems like he stares into this mirror for about a minute or more.

10:52 am: The jury is called and court starts a few minutes later. Sheriff Williams is in the bailiff box and there is a new sheriff sitting in the back row where Williams usually sits. The first half hour is taken up with James's CV. James states that he has written books, given lectures as well as teach individuals blood spatter analysis techniques. He is also a member of several forensic expert examiner's associations. In one group he has been accepted as a "fellow" (I'm assuming that's a prestigious designation) and there are only 12 other "fellows" in the organization. He handles about fifty cases a year. (I calculate that would come out to about a case a week.) The power point presentation is used to educate the jury on blood spatter and it's analysis.

During the afternoon session, the defense brought into the courtroom, the chair Lana Clarkson died in and pointed out various areas on the chair for James to opine on the nature and origin of the blood stains. The chair was placed in the well in front of the jury box, near the podium. One of the first things I noticed is, that up close, the chair is much lower to the ground than it appears in the photographs. The other thing I noticed was all the blood stains had faded to various shades of black. Mrs. Clarkson, who has sat in the front row just a little to the right of the podium area during the first and second trial, was in direct line of sight of the chair her daughter died in. She was no more than six feet from it. Throughout the time she had to sit there with that chair in front of her, up close, I saw her hold a kerchief up to her nose and heard her silently sob. That chair affected her and it affected me, too. From where I'm sitting, I try to see the spatter on the inside arm of the chair as it's manipulated and turned around. I can't. It's either lower than my line of sight of it's too small for me to see from where I'm sitting in the second bench row.

When the chair was brought in and Weinberg was asking James about specific stains on the chair, all the jurors in the back row stood up so they could see. You could tell the jurors were very interested in that chair. (When AJ was asking James questions on cross about stains on the chair, they did the same thing.)

Stuart James refuted several of Dr. Herold's conclusions about the blood spatter on Spector's white wool ladies jacket, the chair, the slip dress, Lana's wrists and hands as well as the luminol testing performed by Steve Renteria.

James testified he can't determine if the blood stains on Spector's white ladies wool jacket are impact or satellite spatter stains or a combination of both. He also testified that the blood stain on the folded edge of Spector's right jacket cuff was in his expert opinion a contact stain and not impact spatter. He also testified that the blood stain on the supposed "back side" of the white wool jacket had to have been facing a spatter event. James testifies that he doesn't agree that 1 millimeter stains could be labeled "mist like." In his expert opinion, 1 millimeter stains are associated with a beating.

James testified that the blood on the inner portion of the right arm of the chair was caused by satellite blood spatter (blood dripping into blood; possibly from the blood flow on the jacket or the purse strap) and not the back spatter coming from Lana Clarkson's mouth. James testified that according to the directional red arrows placed by Dr. Herold, the spatter on Lana's dress has many directions, further supporting his contention that some of this spatter is satellite spatter and not all back spatter from the gunshot wound. James testified that a directional spatter stain on Lana's left hand could not have happened if Lana was holding her hands in a specific position.

James testifies that he can not say where Lana's head was positioned with any certainty. He will only stated that it was somewhere within a 90 degree arc from front center. James states that from the blood stain analysis, he can't determine where Lana was positioned when she was shot. He could not determine whether Lana was slumped or sitting up.

When asked about the blood smear on Lana's left fatty thumb pad, and if it could be from something like a gun placed against the hand, James answers, "Well, that's speculation. As a scientist, I can't get into that." When James is asked if he could make a blood stain pattern analysis based on something somebody told him he answers, "I couldn't do that. It goes against everything that [we're trained to do]."

There was more detail testimony of course, but I'm trying to get this entry up tonight.

Under cross examination by Alan Jackson, Stuart James states that he charges $250.00 an hour. He billed approximately $35,000 for his services in the first trial and he's billed the defense team in this trial through November of 2008, approximately $18,000. He expects that he will bill the team for his services from November to present (that includes the experiments and testing and power point presentation as well as testifying on the stand) something in the range of another ten or twenty thousand dollars.

There was a bit more that AJ crossed James on before court recessed for the day and I hope to add to that, later. AJ also confiscated the ladies beige wool jacket James purchased for his experiments and entered it into evidence as a people's next in order #233.

During the afternoon session, a tall, jet black haired handsome man entered with a baseball cap on that the bailiff's told him he had to remove. At the end of the court day, Rachelle hugged this man and thanked him for coming. Later, leaving court for the day I was with him and two others in the elevator. He was chatting with Tawni Tyndall (who arrived in the afternoon all dressed up in a suit and her hair in a French twist) and Weinberg's AV clerk, Mr. Smith. From the conversation in the elevator, it appears he works with Tawni as a private investigator. After court was over, Weinberg hugged and kissed a young woman who came to court and sat with Rachelle and the short, older blond woman I've seen many times. It appears the short woman is Weinberg's wife (I understand she is an attorney) and the attractive young woman is his daughter. So some of the people coming to court are not necessarily personal friends of Spector and Rachelle's but more people who work for Spector's defense.

Court continues tomorrow with the cross examination of James by Alan Jackson.

Correction: In prior entries, I've identified Allan Parachini as head of the Public Information Office (PIO). He is the spokesperson for the LA County Superior Court. He works for the court and does not work for the county government. I apologize for any confusion in other entries and comments.

Almost forgot. The DA's investigator has inspected the fountain but Alan told the court that he has not been able to speak to him yet. Hopefully, he will have that issue cleared up for the court this evening. This issue need to be resolved because the Sheriff's Dept. needs to schedule and arrange the site visit, tentatively scheduled for February 5th. I don't know the time. I don't believe it's been fixed yet. I also will add that before the afternoon session, there was a short discussion with the Judge outside the presence of the jury.

It was a bit of a spat that Weinberg initiates. Weinberg is concerned that the prosecution is purposefully disrupting the defense's case by waiting for the last moment to bring up these discovery violations. He's concerned that the prosecution will continue to do this. Weinberg asks that if hearings are needed, rather than take up the jury's time, another time could be found to bring these issues to the court.

Alan Jackson replies, "Well, sure. Tit for tat. This gets so childish. [...] I agree that another time should be (scheduled). [...] If you stop giving me stuff late, I'll stop raising it late."

Also, I asked Detective Tomlin at the end of the day if he gets to take the chair home with him and he said, "Yes."

Casey Anthony: Motions, motions, and more motions!

UPDATE! January 29, 2009

I have posted all the motions available and given a brief summary of each. Today, two more motions have been released to the public.

The first motion was filed by the Department of Corrections asking Judge Strickland for a clarification of his Order of January 23. In the Motion for Clarification, the DOC indicates that

...this court did not consider the effect such an order would have on prisoner transport operations...

According to News 13

We should learn Thursday if Casey Anthony will be in court Friday for the latest hearing. Judge Stan Strickland is expected to rule on motions filed by Anthony's defense lawyers trying to keep her from appearing.

The second motion was filed yesterday by Jose Baez. It is an Amended Motion to Compel DNA Bench Notes/Reports and Standards. The 24 item motion asks for a superabundance of records from all labs. The information asked for includes

All updated Curriculum Vitae of all experts, analysts, examiners, criminalists, and lab personnel... (1)

All ASCLAD documents for the past twelve years. The list of items included is quite voluminous.
(2)

All government contracts, grants and communications between Oak Ridge Laboratories involving the section relating to Dr. Arpad Vass for the last twelve years. (16)

All contracts, records of payments, documents, memos or any written items including but not limited to drafts, proposals or otherwise involving any media shows by, with, and/or between the Orange County Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and/or Dr. Jan Garavaglia or her agents or related media entities including but not limited to Discovery Channel, Discovery Health, or its media company that produces on behalf of the same. (19)

A copy of the DNA parentage report... (23)

I highly recommend reading this particular motion. If granted, I can't begin to imagine the amount of paperwork this will entail! I'm thinking something about the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica!

Also, based on an article this morning in the Sentinel, the Motion to Recuse will not be addressed tomorrow.


Next Friday morning's motions hearing in the case against Casey Anthony is looking to be quite a memorable event. WESH will be carrying the hearing live at 8:30 AM. Keep checking local stations to see which other ones may be carrying it as well.

For those of you who plan to view the hearing on Friday, here is a ritanita Primer on the motions which will likely be discussed.

State of Florida's Motion to Strike Defense Witness List This motion, originally filed by the State on December 9, states,

On November 20, 2008, the defendant files a document titled Defense Witness List listing three (3) witnesses under "Category A: and otherwise incorporating "the entire State's Witness List by reference."

The motion goes on to cite case law to support the motion. By failing to provide a list of witnesses to the prosecution, they are hindering the ability of the prosecution to depose these people.

There is also a Motion To Inspect Crime Scene, filed on January 20. Apparently, the owner of the property hasn't contacted the defense to give them permission to inspect the property and Baez wants the judge to issue a subpoena.

The defense originally filed a motion on December 11, which was heard in an emergency hearing on December 12. At that time it was ruled that, since the remains had not been officially identified, he did not have the standing for this to be allowed. By Wednesday, December 17, we were treated to videos showing Dr. Lee, Linda Kenney-Baden, and other defense experts of the newly formed "Dream Team" peering at the crime scene from behind the yellow crime-scene tape. The scene was released by law enforcement on December 20.

Next up is a Motion to Compel Screen Shots or Printouts Concerning the Forensic Examination Done on the Computer of Ricardo Morales. Ricardo is the ex-boyfriend of Casey's who had a romantic picture of a man and a woman with the caption, "win her over with chloroform" posted on his MySpace page. In the motion, Baez states,

"While the State is now in the process of providing the hard drive to Morales' computer and have not yet provided a copy of the screen shots, printouts, Excel charts or forensic analysis of the deleted files. We are entitled to know what it was that the State felt was not "incriminating" in order to compare it to any computer analysis that we may wish to perform in this regard."

Obviously, the chloroform is the issue here! Is Ricardo heading under the bus with this?

The next motion is the AMENDED APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. In this motion, Baez is again asking Texas Equusearch records. As you may recall, this motion was originally heard during the January 8 hearing. It was pointed out that this organization is in Texas and not under the jurisdiction of the Florida courts. (When have we heard this before?) In addition, Tim Miller had not been notified and was not in court. According to this motion, Baez has asked for all the information and has not been given them.

I hope that Tim Miller appears in court with his attorney, Mark NeJame for this. Although I can't find a transcript, I recall Tim stating, with some anger, that Baez wouldn't get a "scrap" of paper from him.

The next motion deals with Casey appearing at future motions hearings. At the January 8 hearing, Judge Strickland ordered Casey brought from the jail to attend the hearing since Baez had not had her sign a waiver. He also stated that Casey needed to sit through the entire hearing that day.

The judge went further on this issue by issuing an Order on January 23 which, while allowing that Casey had the legal right to file such waivers, she would have to appear at all such hearings in the future.

On January 27, Baez filed a NOTICE OF OBJECTION to the Judge's order. Included with the order is a signed waiver from Casey as well as an article from the Sentinel which stated

Anthony sported a dark blue jail-issued jumpsuit and jail-issued flip-flops. Officials shackled her wrists and ankles. Her dark hair fell just past her shoulders, much longer than her first mug shot taken in July.

In Baez' motion, he states that in this little paragraph,

... the media have focused on the appearance of the Defendant and have generated unsubstantiated rumors regarding the Defendant's physical condition further lessening the integrity of the process...

The motion has more to say, but it seems that Baez wants to keep Casey away from the court room since this is such a "circus" of a case. I can't help but wonder, though. Is he afraid of Casey's demeanor? Is he afraid she will have an emotional meltdown? Is he afraid of what she will learn about her case during these hearings? We shall see!

I wonder if Baez will have Casey ready to appear "just in case" or if he will be totally defiant of the judge's order and stand by her waiver. Either way, there could be some fireworks.

The last two motions are essentially Jose Baez temper tantrums, in my opinion.

Baez filed a Motion For Sanctions against the prosecuting attorneys. This motion deals with evidence from the case sent to Dr. Neal Haskell and Dr. David Hall. Baez states that these two gentlemen are not on the State witness list. In addition, when Dr. Lee examined the contents of the white plastic trash bag found in the trunk of Casey's car, the white bag was not made available to him and the defense was not notified where it was. Apparently, it, along with hair and vegetation from the bag had been sent to Dr. Haskell in October, 2008. There is a lot more in the motion, but you can read it for yourself at the link!

There are no specific sanctions mentioned in the motion.

The last motion available now is a real hum-dinger. It's an EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECUSE. Baez accuses the prosecutors of,

...interfering with the 8th Amendment Right of Counsel...

...on January 26, 2009, it was reported that the Florida Bar Association has "told Eyewitness News (www.wftv.com) that 'someone from the State Attorney's Office forwarded the news releases (about Jose Baez related to alleged remarks made about the prosecutor and/or entertainment deals going into the pocket of Baez) and that's why the Bar opened an investigation...

This Prosecutor's Office anonymously reporting if true... is egregious behavior.

Again, you have to read this motion for yourself to believe it. Listening to the legal experts on TV last night, I have to agree with what they were saying. Baez wants the entire prosecution team, from Lawson Lamar on down, to be removed from the case. I can only wonder what Strickland is going to say to this!

Perhaps one of the best reviews of this last motion comes from WFTV's Bill Sheaffer's.

View Video Here

Maybe this is one of the reasons Baez doesn't want Casey in the courtroom?

See you all at the hearing!

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-three

January 27th, 2009

Defense Witnesses:
None

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times

I'm late. I don't make my train and I have to wait for the 8:50 am. It means I barely have enough time to hit the restroom and get on the 9th floor from the train station.

When I enter the building, I see that the Spector's and their bodyguard are just clearing the first floor security checkpoint. Spector is passing something to Rachelle from either his hip pocket or an inside jacket pocket.

When I get inside the courtroom Linda-in-San Diego tells me that Truc is ill and there will be no court today. Yesterday morning, I did overhear that she wasn't feeling well and that's why AJ presented the bulk of her motions. She spoke very little yesterday. I guess whatever she was under the weather with yesterday has finally hit her "full bore."

There are two new Spector supporters over on the defense side I've never seen before but it appears as if Spector did recognize the very large man in tennis shoes. That request Rachelle Short put out on Spector's MySpace page is still bringing people into court to sit with Rachelle and hopefully get to shake Spector's hand. I'm wondering if that's the only reason these people who don't know Spector show up. Who knows if the jury has any understanding of who these people are or what their motive is for being there. Spector and Susan have a smile or a joke at the defense table. Spector has a big grin on his face. I just see the tail end of the exchange where Susan is smiling and giving Spector an affectionate pat on the arm, or even might have leaned in closer to him to say something. It was quick and I'm sorry I missed the full exchange. Pat Kelly from the PIO arrives. Harriet Ryan enters 106.

Fidler takes the bench. Weinberg is suggesting that since Truc is ill, that maybe they could take Stewart James out of order for the afternoon session, since that will be AJ's witness to cross. AJ has two reasons to object to this. First, Ms. Do has on her computer all the exhibits. Her computer is a MAC and AJ can not operate a MAC; he can't even open the files. Judge Fidler responds jokingly, "You don't have to explain to me."

Three more Spector supporters come to sit with Rachelle. One of them, a tall woman with short gray hair has been here before.

AJ states it is important to his cross examination to use the exhibits. The second issue is that Ms. Do will be presenting part of the closing argument. So, he feels she needs to be here for all testimony. AJ states, "I couldn't feel worse about this."

I think it's Weinberg who speaks up and suggests the other alternative is to break the order of witnesses and start with Stuart James tomorrow. That way Ms. Do could be here to observe testimony and she wouldn't be required to cross. Weinberg is not insisting that the defense continue with Dr. Lakshmanan tomorrow. Harriet exits 106 for a few moments but she quickly returns.

9:40 am: The jury is excused and a few issues are discussed. Weinberg is reporting back on the fountain. He tells the court, "advising the court the fountain only has two settings. It only has ON or OFF. I spoke with Richard Gabriel, who is of absolute integrity... [...] If the court wishes to inquire on that in any way [...] (Understand that this is contrary to what Michelle Blaine has posted in this entry on her blog.)

AJ asks the court to propose that an investigator look at the fountain. Weinberg has no objection to that. Fidler wants the parties to work out the time and place amongst themselves and that he will sign an order "if needed" as a backup. (After court, someone tells me they overheard AJ speaking with Susan to arrange for the investigation of the fountain sometime today.)

Weinberg then brings up the psychological autopsy. "I know the psychological autopsy, that is Ms. Do's bailiwick. [...] I don't know if Mr. Jackson is able to fully respond, but I want to react." Fidler asks, "If you have any cases, certainly I want to look at them."

Weinberg says, "Yes there are and I want to make a couple of comments. WE use them in this trial. We use them all the time. We use DNA. [...] The challenge is to the technique or results."

Fidler responds, "It doesn't prove he was guilty. It proves he was there."

There's more discussion back and forth between Fidler and Weinberg and Weinberg gives the following description and cases. I don't write down the case law numbers, but I did take note of the brief descriptions he gave.

--- A case for giving statistics; a shooting would result from a gang challenge.

---Random matched statistics for DNA profiles.

---Results GAUDETTE study, the probability of matching pubic hairs. (All I can think of is poor Officer Sean Heckers, who had to observe the plucking of genital hairs from Spector).

---Expert testimony about a fateful (?) sparsity of marijuana verses (something that I miss).

---Correlation between amphetamine levels and behavior to affect driving.


---Estimate the actual use of cocaine and seized quantity.

There are a few more cases, where Weinberg just lists the case law. I see AJ and the DA's clerk, Josh, writing everything down.

AJ tells Fidler the only other thing is regarding the STD's. (I think I have that right). These are the subpoena's that were under seal for the expert fees until Weinberg is going to call the witness. AJ is supposed to get the fee information on the experts. AJ states, "Rather than showing the fees until the witness is going to be called, James Pex and Stuart James, I was informed of certain fees. [...] It's not responsive to the court order. [...] The information asked for, billing and invoice information." If I heard AJ correctly, all he received were a few totals of what the expert billed.

Weinberg states, "I don't know why they have to certify, notify and be treated as potential (criminals?). (I was pretty amazed at that comparison Weinberg made.) [...] When I crossed Dr. Herold (and asked her similar questions about how much time she spend on the case) she replied 'I don't know.' [...] That was okay for a prosecution witness. [...] But why a different standard for the defense?" Weinberg argues that he "broke down the expenses," and goes onto imply that his experts shouldn't have to account for when they did what.

Fidler states something to the effect of, that if Weinberg feels there are records by the LA Co. Crime Lab that need to be discovered that can be looked into, but in regards to the defense expert witness, "I don't think those records are free from subpoena. [...] Unless there's a privledge, then it needs to be produced." Weinberg says verbally in open court to AJ that he will get that information to him "today." I'm not holding my breath and I bet AJ isn't either. Weinberg has made similar promises in open court and then reneges or doesn't deliver later.

And that's it for the day.

After court is over, I see one of the new Spector fans get introduced to Spector as he stops in the aisle by the defense area. It's a short partly balding man with longish hair and glasses. He shakes Spector's hand and says his name, "Bart." I don't clearly hear the last name. Outside in the hallway, Linda Deutsch shows up just as everyone is exiting 106 and waits to speak to Weinberg. Here's hoping that Truc is feeling well enough tomorrow to attend court, which should resume at 9:30 am.

Justice for Nisha?

Everyone who knew Antwanisha Morgan was overjoyed that she was going to break the cycle of single motherhood, drugs and gang membership that most young people from San Francisco’s tough Bayview District fall into. The 17-year old had been actively researching colleges and was planning a trip to visit historically black colleges in the South. She’d already been accepted to four colleges, including Oklahoma State and California State University East Bay. She was active in her church, a community volunteer and forensics and criminal justice junkie who planned to pursue that interest into a college education and ultimately her career.

The 5’1” dynamo known as “Nisha” was raising money for the bus tour by producing and acting in a play at the Bayview Opera House—the play was about teen issues. She was also on the Praise dance team, attended Bible study and was the anchor for South San Francisco High's TV morning announcements.

That all ended on the mean streets of SF on March 16, 2007, when Nisha was killed by a bullet wound to the chest, an innocent victim of that city’s uncontrolled gang violence. She was shot outside a Bayview community youth center at Third Street and Quesada Avenue, a supposed safe place where the teen was a popular volunteer, helping younger kids with their homework.

Nisha’s mom Malika Crosby stopped by the center at about 7:40 p.m. to pick her children up after finishing her shift as a clerk at SF General Hospital’s x-ray department. She noticed her kids were still having fun with friends and after sharing a slice of pizza, Crosby told Nisha she’d be right back after running some quick errands. While putting fuel in her car at a gas station on Third Street, Crosby heard the siren of the ambulance and police responding to her daughter’s shooting, at about 8:10 p.m. Her son then phoned her, yelling and screaming.

Malika Crosby got to the scene of the shooting before the ambulance, and saw her daughter lying on the sidewalk. Crosby crumpled to the sidewalk at the sight of her dying daughter.

Nisha’s killers simply drove up to the group of teens, one youth getting out of the car and opening fire, another remaining in the car and yelling “You see how we do!” Two of Nisha’s friends were wounded; one boy, thought to have been the main target, was hit in the hip. Another possible target had left the group of kids just moments before.

Four gang members were “ruled guilty” of Nisha Morgan’s murder on January 16.

“Ruled guilty” is something that happens in juvenile court. Consequently, the four will serve time in the California Youth Authority (CYA) until the age of 25.

According to the SF Chronicle:

Prosecutors said they had opted against trying any of the four defendants in adult court—where convictions could have sent them to prison for 25 years to life—because of the need to keep all the defendants together to avoid having one pass the blame to another in separate trials.

In adult court, they said, the cases would be separated because of the rules of evidence that bar juries from hearing statements by one defendant against another.

Back in March and into April 2007, several people were arrested. Four boys, aged 14, 15, 16 and 17 years (later revealed to be Eddie Robinson and Derrick Beauregard, respectively) were arrested. Kamisha Gray, a 22-year old woman who was believed to have been driving the car, was not charged. Robinson and Beauregard are both now 18.

The SF District Attorney’s office, lead by Kamala Harris (who is notorious for undercharging or not charging at all—how did Kamisha Gray escape any sort of prosecution?) elected to charge all as juveniles, claiming that the rules of evidence in juvenile court made it easier to win convictions!

Prosecutors stated that the four boys were members of a Portrero Hill gang and were on the prowl for a bit of retaliation against Bayview kids after a pissing match at a talent show dance contest two weeks prior to Nisha’s muder.

Defense attorneys said the four boys were just unlucky to have been at the scene at the time of the shooting and were innocent.

Unlike so many gang-related incidents that go to trial, there were eyewitnesses unafraid to come forward and testify. One of those witnesses, when asked why she chose to take the stand and possibly endanger her life, replied, “Because I want this to come to an end.”

Too bad more witnesses didn’t come forward to make a decent prosecutable case in adult court.

Robinson was found by Judge Lillian Sing to have been the shooter. After he gunned down Nisha in 2007, he was arrested and convicted as an adult in Arkansas for aggravated robbery. He’s been sentenced to 10 years in Arkansas, and he will likely serve that sentence first.

Dear readers, do the math. Eddie Robinson isn’t going to do a day in a California prison for Nisha’s murder. If Arkansas makes him serve every single day of his 10-year sentence, he will be too old to serve time in the CYA.

Nisha’s family is far more understanding of the DA’s decision to try this case in juvenile court, and they are far more forgiving than I would be. Nisha’s great-aunt Juanita Miles, said, "This is all we wanted from day one, justice for Antwanisha, not street vengeance. The bottom line is, no matter how much time they got, this won't bring Antwanisha back."

God bless Nisha’s family for not being as angry as I think most of us would be.

The “criminal justice” system in SF is a joke. The DA was elected into office promising to never use the death penalty ever. Even when SF police officer Isaac Espinoza was killed in the line of duty she did not seek the death penalty against the killer. I have written about the Bologna family murder and how the DA declined to prosecute the suspected gunman, Edwin Ramos, for a concealed weapon incident a couple of months before he gunned down ½ of a family in the Excelsior district. Recall that Ramos, an illegal alien and known gang member, had been arrested early in 2008, when during a routine traffic stop, a passenger dropped a gun (that was later linked to a fresh murder) from a car driven by Ramos. The DA declined to prosecute because she felt Ramos had no way of knowing one of his passengers was in possession of a gun.

Imagine that, a car full of gang members without a gun? Oh please!

San Francisco, like most any U.S. city, is also suffering a budget crisis. Never mind that there are over 9000 SF city and county employees earning more than $100K a year. Last year, in its infinite wisdom, the SF Board of Supervisors (better known as the Board of Stupes) passed an ordinance limiting overtime pay for city employees to 624 hours. That includes homicide detectives.

Four of the 20 detectives have been told they cannot take on new cases, as they have nearly used all of their overtime through the fiscal year ending June 30. (I will be writing a blog entry about this in the next few days.)

When will the citizens of San Francisco learn to not vote in a soft-on-crime DA? Harris, who appears to be a fine example of affirmative action run amuck (she is touted as SF’s first female District Attorney, the first African American elected as District Attorney in California, and the first Indian American elected to the position in the United States). She ran unopposed for re-election in 2007.

While she is credited with increasing the SF DA’s office conviction rate, she also selectively prosecutes those cases. Witness Nisha Morgan’s case. It is a prime example of under-prosecution if there ever was.

And Californians, heads up. Kamala Harris plans to run for Attorney General of our fine state.

We will never know how much of a difference Antwanisha Morgan would have made in this world. Thanks to SF’s reputation as easy on crime, there is little deterrent to wanna-be gangsta thugs making a reputation for themselves by gunning down gifted, innocent young people like Nisha Morgan.

What will it take for us to make it stop? How many good, innocent kids have to die?

Slain teen had made right choices

Bright Future Awaited 17-Year-Old SF Murder Victim

Second youth arrested in death of teenager

4 gang members murdered girl, S.F. judge rules

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-two

Updated!

The Defense Begins
Hello everyone, I'm at the Tokyo Library on the extended lunch break. I'll have a full report on today's events much later tonight.

Several motions were presented this morning to Judge Fidler today outside the presence of the jury. Weinberg made the expected motion to dismiss the case, basically arguing that there wasn't one piece of scientific evidence that proved Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. The motion was denied.

The next motion was regarding the "emails." I will have more on this later, but the tentative ruling by Judge Fidler is, that unless the defense can show to Judge Fidler that the fountain in the rear courtyard of Spector's house only has one speed or level, (i.e. "on" or "off"), then during a jury visit, the fountain will not be on. The prosecution was requesting that because of the information revealed in the emails, they were objecting to a jury visit during the retrial. Fidler over ruled the prosecution's request. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Weinberg still wants to proceed with a jury visit if the fountain is off. I will say this about fountains. I have several. One on my front porch, several table top fountains in my house and a large one in the back yard. Each fountain I have as a flow control on the fountain pump itself; not with an switch to adjust the water flow. It remains to be seen what type of controls the fountain has on Spector's property.

Fidler also made some rulings as to what the suicidologist Dr. Seiden can and can not say to the jury. There are tentative rulings, and more to be argued later. Look for my update later tonight.

Updated Monday, January 26th, 2009, 11:00 pm:

Defense Witnesses:
#1: Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, (Chief Medical Examiner and Coroner for Los Angeles County; currently under direct examination)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom:
Morning Session: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times
Afternoon Session: Harriet Ryan, Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Kathryn, US corespondent for The Telegraph, UK ,and a representative from Bloomberg News. Partway through the afternoon session, Aphrodite Jones, crime author, arrived.

I miss my 8:30 am train but I get inside the courtroom just in time. There's virtually no one in the courtroom except me and Donte, one of Spector's adopted sons. He's sitting in the back row on one of the plastic chairs intently texting on his phone. I'm wondering if anyone told him that Spector would not be here in the morning since they are only going to argue motions. Speaking of emails today, maybe he got left off the email list.

Harriet Ryan is here in her usual bench seat along the back wall. AJ, Truc, Weinberg and Susan are here and Cindy is the court reporter covering the morning session. Bailiff Kyle is not here so Sheriff Williams is the bailiff box. There are other Sheriff's filling the second seat where Williams usually sits. The court clerk, Wendy is absent this morning. Weinberg asks Williams if he minds if he goes and looks at the calendars behind Wendy's desk that detail the dark days for a three month period at a time. For those of you who haven't been inside 106, behind Wendy's desk area, there are three calendars hanging in a row on the back wall. There are always three calendars up there covering a 90 day period. The days where court is dark are marked out with a black "X."

A public person, an older gentleman who was here a few weeks ago is back and peppering me with lots of questions and opinions. He doesn't stay long since he has to go to another court for his jury duty service at 10:00 am.

Allan Parachini comes out of the Judge's chamber's area and greets Harriet Ryan. 9:41 am, Josh, the people's clerk comes in with papers for AJ. The thing that is holding up the hearing for motions is the fact that there is no clerk. I don't know if that's a rule that there must be a clerk before the Judge can take the bench. I know the Judge came out for a moment to start court but when he realized there was no one to replace Wendy he went back into chambers. Court staff try to drum up a clerk to sit in for the morning session.

Allan Parachini and Harriet whisper very quietly in the back row. A clerk is found! But it's not a clerk, it's an administrator, upper level I believe, a woman that Allan knows and smiles and greets her when she comes in. She fills in for Wendy. Allan stays to talk to Harriet and at 9:47 am the inner doors close. Fidler takes the bench at 9:49 am. Judge Fidler states that there are two motions that he's aware of that are still to be litigated: reviewing the scene and the scope of the defense expert testimony or if there will be any expert. Fidler states that they will start with the scene first but Weinberg interrupts and asks for his motion to be heard that he believes supersceeds. Fidler apologizes and says, "Of course."

This is the standard defense motion for a dismissal citing that the prosecution has not met their burden. (I'm not positive if this is for dismissal or a motion for "acquittal," since I do have that word in my notes.) Weinberg outlines every issue that he feels supports his motion stating there isn't enough evidence (to continue the trial). He starts with the autopsy and the fact that the examination could not determine manner of death. He moves onto the testimony of Dr. Herold and that the scientific evidence can't put the gun in Spector's hand, "...except for one pseudo exception, the evidence is consistent with Lana Clarkson [...] making the shot herself." As to "...the blood on the back of the wrist, and "if" it was there, [...] that's not evidence, it's lay opinion."

Weinbergs argument moves onto blood spatter analysis and the fact that Jamie Lintemoot "even by her own opinion" was not a spatter expert. Weinberg states that Adriano's testimony was "problematic." There are more arguments and I'm sure you get the gist of where he was going.

When it's the people's turn, AJ gets up and states, "The evidence is overwhelming. Very seldom do we have so much evidence. He also mentions something to the effect (to counter a statement by Weinberg) that it's "rarely" a single piece of evidence that points to guilt but a totality of the evidence. AJ then goes onto outline his first point, the "pattern of violence" that, when presented with a particular set of circumstances, he (Spector) reacts violently." AJ moves onto the scene and the fact that "clearly he had an amorous intent," specifically mentioning the 2 missing viagra tablets in the three-piece blister pack found in his valise. Lana's position in the chair and her ready to leave in the fact that she had her jacket on, her purse on her shoulder and her shoes. That the "gun was Spector's. He would be the only one who knew where it was."

The five 1101(b) witnesses are mentioned by name. Adriano who was approximately 15 feet from the event when the gun was discharged. AJ goes over the events right after the gun being fired in detail, and Spector's statement and actions directly afterwards, that when De Souza asked him, "What happened, sir?," Spector just shrugged his shoulders in response. "The consciousness of guilt. He didn't call for help. He didn't cry out for help, or say a woman just shot herself." AJ also details the manipulation at the scene with the bloody diaper (rag), attempting in his drunken state to clean up the scene.

10:03 am, Pat Dixon enters and sits in the back row on the right. "And the only evidence that fits the scientific evidence is the scene Ms. Do and I presented to the court."

Weinberg gets one more rebuttal argument to the people's presentation. "With the litany of evidence and how much (0f it) is fabricated, [...] Mr. Jackson said this is a pattern and the court admonished (the people for using that term). Evidently there is nothing this court can do stop Mr. Jackson from using this evidence for what the court told him not to. [...] What does that have to do with Dorothy Melvin? [...] He wanted her to leave because he thought she was stealing. [...] What does that have to do with Stephanie Jennings? He wanted her to go to a party. [...] What does this have to do...? It's completely fabricated and consistently used by the prosecution and the law forbids [it]. That evidence shouldn't be used for pattern."

Fidler then interrupts Weinberg because he doesn't want to lose a train of thought he's got going that contradicts the argument about the prosecution using the word pattern to describe the 1101(b) witnesses. He says, "There was a later discussion. We had a big talk about it. [...] And then we discussed whether or not 'pattern' was acceptable language for the case."

Not long after this, Judge Fidler rules and states, "The fact that there is another explanation is irrelevant to the fact whether or not the case can proceed." Ergo, motion denied. Spector doesn't get a pass, you must put on a defense.

The email issue is discussed. Fidler doesn't buy Weinberg's argument that the defense jury consultant was trying to say, "The fountain shouldn't be toned down. There's no suggestion that the defense is going to do anything. [...] There's is no reason the visit will be inappropriate. [...] The fountain was under the control of LE (for two days). [...] The fountain wasn't manipulated last time. [...] There's nothing that could affect the fairness."

AJ doesn't go over every point in their motion, but does point out the words, "...make sure it's up 'full bore,' which may suggest that it could be in a different position. [...] The email says, we don't want the prosecution to control the jury view. We want to control the jury view. [...] The reason we did include the email, is to establish that Mr. Spector said, ' If things don't go the way I want them to go I will speak up.' [...] That's why we don't think it's a good idea in this case."

Weinberg immediately objects to the word "up" stating that's not in the email. He continues to defend Spector's email and pleads with Fidler that, "You have seen Mr. Spector's behavior through both trials. He's not going to act out."

I could swear Judgle Fidler almost rolls his eyes and replies that "full bore" is clearly an indication that a more reasonable inference can be drawn (that full bore does mean "up"). "I'm sorry, but there may have been manipulation. There is not enough evidence to support that so..." Fidler rules that, "...there will be a jury visit but the fountain will be off. If necessary it will be explained to the jury without casting any aspersions." Weinberg responds, "I'll consider that, your honor."

They try to hammer out a date for the jury visit. Fidler explains to Weinberg that it's the Sheriff's office that has to arrange with the Alhambra police the jury visit and it is a complicated thing. It can't be accomplished this Thursday, but next Monday is a possibility as well as the following Thursday.

Weinberg then comes back and says, "I think the courts ruling is unfair and seriously prejudice's the defense." Weinberg brings up the recording, but Fidler counters that the tape recording is misleading. Weinberg believes that there is only an on or off setting for the fountain. Fidler states that if Weinberg presents him evidence that there is only an on or off setting on the fountain then he will revisit his ruling. Michelle Blaine on her blog states that when she worked for Spector, the fountain had three settings: low, medium and high.

Then AJ brings up the last point in the prosecution's motion and that's Mrs. Spector's presence at the jury viewing. "She should not be allowed to stand there as the dutiful wife." Fidler states that at the first viewing, "In hindsight, Mrs. Spector should not have been there." It's her home and she can be upstairs, but not in view of the jurors during the visit.

The last issue that Weinberg brings up is the media presence at the viewing. He outlines the fact that at the last trial, only one reporter was allowed to go. Weinberg now tells the court, "I've been asked," to get the court to approve both Linda Deutsch and Harriet Ryan attending the visit. I'm surprised at this because I was under the impression that he was not going to bring this up to the judge, or mention the reporter's names. Fidler states, "I don't frankly care." The people do not appear to have any objection. Fidler replies, "If that works out for everyone they will coordinate with Mr. Parachini.

The last issue that is argued is Dr. Sieden and what he's allowed to opine on for the defense. The case that is being used as a partial guide is a 2008 Federal case, Moses vs. Payne (sp?) , Judge Fidler states his position and that one issue he is firm on is "trial by mathmatics. [...] Statistics have no place in court." Weinberg feels that the court needs to separate out the "expert testimony from the psychological autopsy" issue.

10:39 am: Donte leaves 106.

Weinberg argues that the Federal case mentioned Moses vs. Payne (sp?) "...has no value to California. [...] Dr. Sieden will talk about understanding the nature of suicide. [...] The people put on witnesses to suggest that because Lana Clarkson was making plans, she couldn't have committed suicide. Now having the prosecution put on those witnesses, [they want to] now preventing the defense from putting on an expert. [...] It would be patently unfair to allow the prosecution and then not allow the defense (to counter that testimony). [...] We have never suggested that Dr. Sieden would or should do a psychological autopsy. "

As Fidler is listening to Weinberg, I see a slight furrowing of his upper brow and forehead and his hand is resting in front of his mouth, elbow on his desk. Fidler responds, "Are you suggesting that he be allowed to use statistics?" Weinberg responds, "There is a line between what is a statistic and what science teaches us." He goes on to mention the prosecution's witnesses and what they suggest. He then replies, "In fact, a majority [of suicides] doesn't happen that way." Weinberg says that statistics is an overly broad comment. Fidler is clear. "I"m not going to allow that type of testimony. [...] (To infer) ....the majority.... the numbers are completely misleading. [...] When you say that, it's misleading.

Weinberg responds, "Well, you allowed it at the first trial." I think Fidler is a teeny bit irritated by that and responds, "It wasn't objected to. I rule on objections that are before me." Weinberg asks, "If medical science says (intra-oral gunshot wound) is virtually always suicide, what is wrong with saying..?"

Fidler replies, "There is a lot wrong with using numbers. [...] when someone uses numbers, it's allowing an expert to use numbers for an issue they are not allowed to testify to."

There is more argument back and forth by both sides. AJ asks if the issues covered "in camera" will be addressed. Weinberg states that at this time, he is not intending to go there. Fidler also replies that he did some serious rethinking about that issue. That's interesting because it means Fidler could reverse his in camera ruling. Weinberg says again that he doesn't think he is going to go there.

They really haven't hammered out what Sieden can and cannot testify to. Fidler states that "Clearly under California law, Dr. Sieden can testify generally. [...] Factors that are common for suicide; factors beyond the realm of common knowledge. [However,] he can not make conclusions about Lana Clarkson or if she fits into a pattern."

AJ then says to the court that he wants to understand that the door is not closed, and repeats what he believes is is understanding about Fidler's tentative ruling.

1. No statistics, subject to what Dr. Pena testified to or case law. (If Dr. Pena testified to statistics, then the defense can present.)

2. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she committed suicide

3. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she was suicidal or that she fell into a group with those risk factors.

The details of how Spector's emails fell into the prosecution's hands are cleared up by Weinberg. Spector was trying to send the email to a different Michelle and the email program automatically dropped in Michelle Blaine's name. Weinberg asks that the attachment to the people's motion (which is a copy of the email) not be made part of the public record. Fidler replies, "I don't think it's appropriate to seal it." Besides, it was already in the public domain.

And that's it for the morning session.

In the afternoon session, several members of the press showed up, more people from the general public and several supporters for Spector. There is a still photographer from the Associated Press in the gallery near the end of far left end of the second bench row. He has a big camera with a telescopic lens on a tripod. Some of the Spector supporters are men I think have come to court before one or two times. Then Harvey with the white hair arrives and later in the day the short tiny woman with blond hair shows up. Rachelle is wearing a very light brownish colored, form fitting pantsuit and for the first time during this trial, her hair is not in a clip holding it all together tightly in the back. Her hair is French braided into two braids on each side of her head. It's very similar to how she sometimes wore it at the first trial. Spector is in a black suit, big dark red kerchief in his suit pocket and a white shirt.

Before court even begins, or Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran even takes the stand, there are more arguments as to where Weinberg is going with this witness and whether or not Dr. Lakshmanan can talk about the study he did regarding LA County suicides from 2004 through 2006.

When Dr. Lakshmanan does take the stand at 1:54 pm, he is asked endless questions about Jamie Lintemoot's activities at the scene and what "his understanding was" of where Jamie Lintemoot was describing the blood found on Lana Clarkson's hands and wrists.

Through this witness, Weinberg is trying to ask questions about what the coroner's office does and doesn't do in regards to investigating a decedent's "state of mind." There were several objections and a few bench conferences and towards the end of the day the jury was asked to step out of the room for more arguments and that continued until a few minutes before 4:00 pm.

All and all, I would have to say that the defense case did not start off with a bang but more like a perpetually stalling car with many stops and restarts. Court continues tomorrow at 9:30 am.

I had hoped to transcribe the people's motion completely to deny the jury visit, but it's way late and I'd like to get to bed before midnight. Below is the email that was attached to the people's motion.

From: PHILLIP SPECTOR
Subject: Re: FW: Site visit
Sate: August 9, 2007 7:41:07 PM PDT
To: ROGERJROSEN
Cc: rgabriel, kennybaden, dnacjp, sbrunon, brunonlaw, chelle@rachellemarie.com, michelle@btprods.com, jennifer.barringer, tawni.tyndall

roger: re richard's email below. the prosecution is not allowed to bring anything. i won't allow it. it's still my fucking house. evidence, and exhibits are not prosecution props. and the prosecution will do no leading around. or rachelle and i will join in too. i am warning you now. this is still my house. not the judges. you better take control of this situation or i will. i will not have dickhead or jerkoff running things. or they will run into me. tell me now. or i will have four bodyguards here. not that i need them. i have a big mouth. and nobody with substitute anything for the mercedes. the mercedes is gone. phillip.

On Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Richard Gabriel wrote:

Roger:

Fountain will be on full bore for site visit tomorrow, yes? Also, will prosecution and you be narrating by pointing out certain things during the site visit or will the jury just arrive, stand in the courtyard, go in through the front door and visit the rooms in silence? What is the procedure? I read a Court TV article which said that: The prosecution will bring some if its own props to the jury view. In addition to evidence photos, which they are expected to use inside the house to identify the locations of evidence, the authorities are also bringing a black Crown Victoria Sedan. I ask because jurors may use tomorrow to make some concrete conclusions about the case and I don't want narration from prosecution of fidler. I don't want them subtly directing the jury's attention to things they want them to focus on. This means having them spend more time in the bathroom or the living room than in the foyer or the courtyard.

Special thanks for Sedonia Sunset for helping with my edit this morning. Sprocket.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-one

January 22nd, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses:
#32 Tabitha Stowell (producer of infomercials; Lana was currently in a test trial of a product slated for an infomercial; testimony complete)

#33 Donna Clarkson (mother of murder victim, Lana Clarkson)

Accredited Press inside the Courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times; Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press (about 20 minutes)

The Prosecution Rests
It was a very short day today. Testimony lasted less than an hour and the prosecution rested their case. The defense will begin their case the following Monday at 1:30 pm. A juror has an appointment in the morning.

9:29 am: Before trial starts, I chat for a moment with AJ, asking him if the defense ever turned over the "real" witness list. He did not. All AJ and Truc will get is a day (or possibly two) notice on who the next witness will be. Marky Ramone is back in court today. I see him in the ante chamber with Weinberg and Susan. Ramone is wearing skin tight black leather pants and the old "Converse" style high top tennis shoe with the big, round white toe, but the shoe tops appear to be made of black leather. He sits in the second row with Rachelle Short.

Harriet Ryan is in her usual spot in the back row sitting next to Pat Kelly from the PIO. Susan hands some exhibits to AJ in the well and he and Truc start to review them. Weinberg is in his usual posture of leaning way back in his chair and playing with his lip again. Weinberg tells AJ, "I don't know how much of that we are going to use." I wonder if he loads the prosecution with exhibits and data that they have to absorb and then doesn't use it at all. I see AJ nod as Truc and AJ review the documents. I turn around and say hello to Pat Kelly. I see AJ pointing out something to Truc on one page of the document. From what I can see from my seat, it's several pages with six to eight colored text blocks with text inside the colors. Over at the defense table, Spector's hand shakes as he holds a paper cup.

9:39 am: The Clarkson's are not here yet, and no jurors, however Fidler takes the bench. AJ tells the court they have another witness. They also state that Mr. Weinberg has agreed and the prosecution has agreed not to ask Donna Clarkson any questions about the drug use raised in the medical intake form that Lana filled out. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the jury would have taken well to the mother of the victim being crossed about this.

9:41: The Clarkson family arrives. Fawn and all three of her legal team that I have seen in court on various days are here. Rod Lindblom, John Taylor and Bill Ferguson. There are motions that are mentioned that are not discussed at this time. There's something about some emails that if they became public could compromise something. Judge Fidler recommends to the prosecution that they file the motions under seal and that they may be unsealed at a later date.

Tabitha Stowell is called to the stand. She is a producer of infomercials. Truc asks her to explain to the jury what those are. Back in 2003, she was an associate producer for, I think she says "Branward" but I'm sure I got the name wrong, and she was producing an infomercial on a "lateral thigh trainer." As an associate producer her job was mainly dealing with the talent. She is talking real fast and smiling, Judge Fidler asks her to slow down. The jury laughs. Truc asks what do they (the actors) get for participating in the program. Stowell explains that they get free training, a diet plan and the product at the end of the month long trial period. The actor's do not get paid (money). They do however, have the possibility of being seen in the industry via the infomercial.

The workout sessions Lana had were with a trainer named Peter Virgile. The producers were looking for people that needed to lose five to fifteen pounds. Stowell interviewed Lana, and she identifies the familiar photo we saw all through the first trial and at the beginning of this trial up on the ELMO as Lana Clarkson. Stowell hired Lana Clarkson, and she began her training with the personal trainer. Stowell presents the workout schedule for Lana. She kept in contact with Lana. There were a total of fifteen actors that were hired. Stowell states that usually she would call once a week to check up on them. "For this part of the program, I believe it was Friday that I called," Stowell states. "How often did you talk to her?" Truc asks. "AT that point I believe I talked to her two to three times. Stowell also verified with Virgile that Lana did in fact attend the training.

Stowell called Lana on January 31st, 2003. Lana told her that she wouldn't be there that weekend but she would be back on Monday. "And when did you find out that she was killed?" Truc asks.

DW: Objection! To the word killed.

Fidler takes the time to explain to the jury that each side has a particular view of the case and that this is the people's. (It doesn't go to the fact of the matter.) Fidler over rules the objection.

The prosecution is finished with this witness and there are no questions on cross. The next witness is Donna Clarkson.

Donna Clarkson is wearing a suit that has a little something on it that commemorates her daughter. It is a black suit, with a little tiny ruffle of sheer leopard fabric around the entire edge of the cuffs, collar and lapel of the suit. For those of you who don't know, Lana loved many things in a leopard print. Even her niche in the Columbarium at the Hollywood Forever Cemetery where her ashes rest is lined with leopard fabric. It's a perfect touch. (You can see a picture of the Columbarium at this link. Lana's niche is on the upper floor of the Columbarium.) Truc Do presents the prosecution's last witness. In a soft voice that almost quavered at times, Donna Clarkson spoke about the last days of her daughter's life. (There is a photo of Donna on the stand where you can see what she is wearing in Harriet Ryan's story in the LA Times.)

TD: You are a psychiatric nurse, correct?

DC: Yes.

TD: You've been a nurse for thirty years, correct?

DC: Yes.

TD: Your daughter is Lana Clarkson (correct?)

DC: Yes.

TD: She is the oldest of your three children?

DC: Yes.

Donna Clarkson testifies that she was "very close" with her daughter and "we often had lunch." Truc Do then goes over the last few days of her daughter's life. I believe she states that she had lunch with her daughter on Friday and that she went to work that night at the House of Blues. Donna testifies that on Saturday, she attended a "Comic-Con" convention. Donna Clarkson explains what the Comic-Con is and that her daughter had a big fan following from her two Barbarian Queen movies she made with Roger Corman. Donna states that Lana went to sign autographs for fans at the convention. Donna states that her daughter enjoyed that and she went to work that night.

Truc moves onto the day Lana and her mother went shopping for black, flat shoes. Donna explains about how at Lana's job at the House of Blues, she had to stand a lot and she didn't have any flat shoes. Lana ended up taking eight pairs and Donna paid for them. They were all flat shoes. Lana was supposed to go to the Comic-Con that day also but it got late and she didn't go. Donna testifies that she was already dressed in the same outfit that she was found in when they went shopping. Donna testifies that Lana had with her a long, heavy skirt because sometimes she had to stand out side and she would wear the long skirt if she got cold. The long skirt was found in her leopard handbag at the scene.

Donna mentions that on this night, Lana was supposed to be an "MC" for an awards show that night at the House of Blues and that she was looking forward to that.

TD: Did you say goodbye?

As Truc asks this question and Donna answers, she starts to tear up a bit on the stand and hearing her voice wavering, I start to cry too. I have to take a moment to remove my glasses and wipe my eyes.

DC: She said, Thank you for the shoes, mom. I love you.

Lana was supposed to call her the next day.

TD: Was that the last time you saw your daughter alive?

DC: Yes.

Donna Clarkson said she was at (I believe) Lana's home when she got the news of her daughter's death and that her other children were with her.

The pair of shoes she was wearing on the night of her death were one of the pairs that she had purchased for her daughter. Donna states that her daughter called these shoes "Mary Janes" and they were her favorite. Donna Clarkson testifies that she and her children had all entered Lana's home together (I believe with LE) and after that "they" (LE) told them what happened.

Truc asks Donna about an appointment Lana had to have her taxes prepared the next day. Donna states that all her tax papers were laid out on the table in Lana's home.

TD: For this appointment, did the documents appear organized to you?

DC: Yes.

DW: Objection as to whether or not the items were organized.

Fidler: Over ruled.

DC: She was ready for her tax appointment.

Donna Clarkson testifies that her daughter had run a web site, and that she had applied to incorporate her company. She successfully incorporated her company and she found that out before her death. Donna Clarkson found out after her death that she had a Siemens commercial, a print ad she was to shoot in the next few days. Truc presents an invoice to Donna to look at dated February 4th, 2003. The invoice is for a print ad, and Donna testifies that it is the agent copy (of the booking).

TD: Did you know if your daughter made plans to attend a birthday party by her friend Annemarie Donoghue?

DC: She spoke briefly about it.

TD: Did you know Annmarie?

DC: Yes. [...] It was a party for a friend, Lee.

Truc has her look at a printout of an invitation acceptance list with her daughter's name on it. She reads what her daughter wrote to accept the invitation. "Can't wait. xoxo, love Lana."

The prosecution's first exhibit, that familiar photo of Lana Clarkson is up on the ELMO.

TD: Where did this photo come from?

DC: It was her last photo shoot. [...] Lana paid for the film developing; I paid for the processing and duplication of all photos.

Donna states the day the photos were taken but I miss hearing the date. Donna Clarkson states she "thinks" she picked up and paid for the photos on January 9th, 2003. Truc hands her a copy of the receipt for the photos and Donna reads that yes, the date is January 9th, when she paid for the photos.

TD: And the exhibit #1 is one of those head shots?

DC: Yes.

One after another, several more head shots are put up on the ELMO and Donna Clarkson identifies each one as photos that were taken at Lana's last photo shoot. Donna states that she went with her daughter to pick up the head shots. They had ordered 200 prints.

And that's the end of Donna Clarkson's direct testimony.

Weinberg states that he does have a few questions for cross.

DW: Did you have regular email?

DC: I didn't have a computer.

(This is something that I've known for some time, but Mrs. Clarkson had asked me not to put it in my blog and I complied with her request.)

DW: Did she have a best friend?

DC: Yes, Nili Hudson.

DW: You told Detective Tomlin on December 3rd, someone whom he should talk to more?

DC: Nili Hudson.

10:12 am: Linda Deutsch enters 106.

DW: Would it refresh your memory (if I showed you Detective Tomlin's report)?

Detective Tomlin's report is given to Donna to read.

DC: Well, I don't believe I said that because I... [...] I said it again. It states that there but that's not correct.

DW: Didn't she talk to her every day? (Lana and Punkin)

DC: She didn't even visit her all the time she broke her wrists.

DW: Do you know where Detective Tomlin got the information where, Donna Clarkson said (to talk) to Punkin Pie?

DC: I don't know.

At some point Donna states that "she" (Punkin) wasn't even around much those last few months. Weinberg presses her on Punkin being Lana's best friend. Donna states that Lana had "many best friends" and that "she said that at the memorial." Many people had come up to her at the memorial to tell her that "Lana was their best friend."


DW: Are you denying that you told Detective Tomlin [...]?

DC: No I'm not denying it. (I don't remember it.)

DW: You told us about Barbarian Queen? (That was produced in the 80's?) [...] That was the last film she was in?

DC: No, that's not correct. [...] I didn't bring her resume with me today.

Donna then mentions several other film projects Lana did. Weinberg then moves onto the showcase that Lana produced. I don't have in my notes who said this, whether it was a question or answer: She had completed the showcase prior to Christmas 2001.

DW: She had borrowed money? [...] Many thousands of dollars?

Donna replies that she had paid most everyone back. I believe Weinberg asks her again about the money she owed. I believe that Donna also mentions that Hugo told her, Donna, he didn't want the debt repaid.

DC: Hugo told her (Lana) he didn't want the money back.

(Hugo was the gentleman who loaned her the money for her comedy showcase.)

DW: At the end of 2003, she was in dire financial (straights)?

DC: I don't know that.

DW: She asked you to pay for the shoes?

DC: I offered to pay.

DW: It was about $150.00 for those shoes.

DC: That's pretty good for eight pairs of shoes. [...] It's hard to find flat black shoes. [...] That was like a little miracle.

DW: You went to the House of Blues on several occasions?

DC: Yes I did.

DW: During the trial last year, [...] you went back through her things... (and found some letters)?

DC: No, that's not correct. [...] I gave the documents prior to that. [...] It was in a (scrap) book. It was fairly empty.

DW: You found three letters addressed to Lana, correct? [...] And they appeared to be highly complimentary to Lana?

DC: Yes.

The defense enters the letters into evidence and Donna identifies them as the letters she found. Weinberg presents the letters to Donna and reads the names of the people the three letters say they are from.

DW: Do you know anything about (these letters)?

DC: I had never seen them before.

DW: You don't know who created them?

DC: I have no knowledge of them.

DW: Did you or anybody ask people not to speak about your daughter in the press?

Donna replies no. Weinberg presses on and mentions Ed Lozzi.

DW: Do you know Mr. Lozzi?

DC: I don't know him.

DW: Did anyone on your behalf (ask Mr. Lozzi not to speak to the press)?

DC: I know there was an attorney involved.

I believe it's AJ who asks to approach and/or there is an objection. The jury is asked to leave and Donna is questioned outside the presence of the jury.

DW: The issue is what you knew or whether you (directed anyone not to speak to the press)?

DC: I was asked if I knew of Ed Lozzi. [...] I don't know anything of him.

DW: Was there a conversation that you had....

DC: I told Mr. Lindblom that I had no knowledge...

At some point, Donna explains that Mr. Lindblom was Lana's entertainment attorney. She also states something to the effect that Lozzi was saying things in the press and publishing things that were not true. It was Lindblom's job to handle all that.

DC: I don't know if Mr. Lindblom spoke or emailed him [Mr. Lozzi].

Weinberg asks her if she knew that Mr. Lozzi said (I think this is correct) that Lana had handled guns?

DC: Do I know of Mr. Lozzi stating that? I read it.

Weinberg is trying to find out if "she" was a participant of any conversation with Rod Lindbloom as to what to say to Ed Lozzi. Donna states something to the effect of, that Mr. Lozzi was claiming in the press, things he could not prove (such as having represented Lana at one time). He didn't have any documentation to back that up. Donna does mention that she seems to remember one time, long ago, of Lana having lunch with someone once and the description could have fit Mr. Lozzi.

Weinberg asks again if she was involved in directing what was said to Mr. Lozi.

DC: You have to talk to Mr. Lindblom.

DW: I understand that.

DW: You know Dr. Pena?

DC: I saw his testimony. [...] Well, I saw some of his testimony.

DW: You spoke to him on the telephone?

DC: I believe it was only once.

And that's it for cross. There is no redirect of Donna and AJ tells the court that the people rest their case.

Unfortunately, I don't have in my notes at what point the jury is brought back in. I'm not positive if it was at the end of the questions about Mr. Lozzi or if it was after all of Weinberg's questions.

When the jury is brought back in, Fidler tells them that court is over for the day and that like it or not they get to eat lunch! (It's around 10:30 am.) It was too late to call off the caterer, and rather than waste the taxpayer's money, they get to eat lunch early. The jury is ordered back Monday, January 26th at 1:30 pm. A juror has an appointment that morning, so court will only be in session in the afternoon.

After the jury leaves, Weinberg brings up the jury site visit. There is also some discussion about the bloody chair and getting it to court and trying to "store" it. It's determined that (if the chair is needed) Detective Tomlin will take custody of the chair and take it home with him. He will be responsible for bringing it to court. By Tuesday, he will let Tomlin know (whether or not the chair will be needed).

Weinberg makes an argument to the court that "many of these exhibits have crime scene" on them. He wants Fidler to admonish the jury about this. Judge Fidler says to Weinberg, "Like I said earlier to the jury, each side has their theory of the case...." Fidler states that he will craft some language to the jury.

AJ asks for the prosecution to have an ex parte meeting with the court in chambers about the site visit. He asks the Judge if they want them to follow him into chambers (now). It's decided that motions mentioned at the start of the proceedings will be heard next Monday at 9:30 am. It wasn't until just now that I noticed in the back far left corner of the courtroom a photographer was taking pictures.

As the people slowly exit the gallery, Linda Deutsch and Harriet Ryan speak to Weinberg in the aisle between the first and second bench row. I try to overhear what was said and it's about the site visit. I overhear Weinberg say to Linda and Harriet that he would propose that "both of you" attend the jury visit.

This is interesting. Linda Deutsch has rarely been in the courtroom for the entire prosecution case. Harriet Ryan has. Last year, the judge ruled that only one reporter could go in the site visit. Spector's attorney's last year indicated that "Mr. Spector" wanted only Linda Deutsch on the site visit. The Judge stated then that he could not compel the press who to choose. Last year, Linda Deutsch lobbied people to choose her. I know this because she even approached me to support her back then. A meeting with all the members of the press was held in courtroom 105 for them to vote on who was going to be the press representative to observe the jury visit. Luckily for Mr. Spector, Linda Deutsch did get the most votes. Please don't misunderstand. I like Ms. Deutsch, have the utmost respect for her and she is highly respected among her peers.

Whomever is chosen to attend the site visit, I will try my best to get a briefing from them but understand, these reporters are not obligated to give me one.

Special thanks to Sedonia Sunset for her time and effort in helping to edit many of my entries. Sprocket.

George Anthony Goes Missing, Found in Daytona Beach, Hospitalized, Jose Baez: Charges to Bar Association Clarified

George Anthony has been under a great deal of stress due to the murder of his granddaughter Caylee and the subsequent investigation and arrest of his daughter Casey for homicide.

The father of Casey Anthony, who is charged with first-degree murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee, has been taken to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation after he was reported missing and having suicidal thoughts, authorities said.

George Anthony was reported missing late Thursday night from his Orange County home but was located a few hours later at the Hawaii Motel on U.S. Highway 1 in Daytona Beach.
"He had text-messaged family members that he wanted to end his life," Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said.

Local 6 News reported that a suicide note was also found in George Anthony's car. The note is in the possession of the Orange County Sheriff's Office.

"I'm being told by sources close to the investigation that the note included wording like 'I want to go be with Caylee,'" Local 6 News reporter Jessica D'Onofrio said.

George Anthony's wife, Cindy Anthony, and their attorney, Brad Conway, reported him missing after he failed to arrive at a 4 p.m. Thursday meeting with them, officials said.

"George has been through a lot. The entire Anthony family has been through a lot. George is OK. Thank God," Conway said. "Had it not been for a cooperative effort between Orange County and Volusia County, I don't know what the outcome would have been."

According to Brad Conway, the family attorney, (She's doing) as well as can be expected, but she's good," Conway said. "George is safe, and he's with us, so it's all good."

According to the article, Casey was informed of the situation.

This situation shows clearly the mental toll Casey's behavior has taken on the family. Police had removed a gun purchased in September from the wheel-well of his vehicle. At that time, Casey had been bailed out for the second time and there were angry protesters outside the house. At the time, there was a great deal of discussion as to whether the gun, which George had purchased in August, was for the protesters or for himself.

George has been taken into custody under the Florida Baker Act which provides for a 72 hour psychiatric hold. He was taken to Halifax Medical Center for observation.

Let's hope that George gets the help he needs at this difficult time.

Baez Bar Complaints Being Investigated

According to WFTV,

The Bar has confirmed it has two open investigations. The first involves Jose Baez's PR firm, Press Corp Media, run by Todd Black. In the past, Baez's spokesperson has released statements to the media about State Attorney Lawson Lamar and prosecutors
In one release, it states, "Lawson Lamar is facing tough opposition and having a missing baby is a perfect springboard for free commercial time." Another release states, "The prosecution has manipulated and shamelessly used the media in the reporting of false distorted … evidence."

Sources told Eyewitness News officials are looking into whether or not Baez violated a rule that states lawyers can't make false statements about judges or legal officials.

The second investigation deals with Baez possibly violating advertising rules, where he claimed to have more credentials and experience than he really did.

The two complaints are in addition to an informal complaint made to the State Attorney's Office. Sources told Eyewitness News there are allegations that Baez maybe using entertainment deals to fund his defense team.

I hope that Baez's ethical issues are cleared up soon and that the discovery process moves on so that there can be a trial. In the end, this case isn't about the circus, the media, Jose Baez, George and Cindy Anthony. It's about justice for a precious child who lost her life. It's all about Caylee.

Update: Woman Killed by Neighborhood Menace

(Photo of Donna Fife. She will not be forgotten.)

Richard Delgado, the 19-year old admitted gang member who ran over Donna Fife on Monday night was formally charged with her murder today (January 22). He is being held without bail.

According to San José Police Department investigator’s notes, Delgado glared at Fife as she wrote down his auto license number and yelled, “I’m going to get you” before driving a Honda Civic over her.

Due to that remark, Delgado could face life in prison because the crime was premeditated.

He will next appear in Santa Clara County Superior Court on January 29 when he is expected to offer a plea.

Condolences to Donna's family. It is double-tragic when a person dies while trying to do the right thing in keeping her neighborhood safe. Hopefully the SJPD and the Santa Clara County court system will do the right thing by Donna, and that Richard Delgado gets his just desserts.

San Jose Mercury News diagram of crime scene

Court document: San Jose man yelled 'I'm gonna get you' before running over neighbor

Dishing Up The Goods On Jersey or, Time To Take The Trash Out

As we all know, some members of the States of Jersey and the police force are doing their damnedest to destroy the reputations of Lenny Harper and Graham Power, as well as making a mockery out of the investigation into child abuse. In order to do so, they set about ‘investigating’ the investigation utilizing several UK police forces.

The irrepressible Senator Syvret recently asked the Home Affairs Minister just how much this ‘investigating’ the investigation was costing the decent folks in Jersey. Well, to trash Lenny, Graham and the child abuse investigation, a whopping £310,000!

All of this thrashing and trashing has a much more serious consequence. Warcup and Gradwell during the infamous presser in November - tearing the investigation to shreds - have basically handed defense attorneys for those who could and should be brought to trial, an out. “The case is moot. Your top cops have said so.”

Do not forget, Warcup admitted to the press he had "ripped up evidence" from the investigation! In my opinion that smacks of being illegal, yet he still has a job!

And, what about Graham Power?

Remember, the same day of Warcup and Gradwell’s presser, Bill Ogley and Andrew Lewis set-about getting rid of Power. Power was summarily told he had an hour to decided whether to retire or be suspended immediately. Graham didn’t need an hour to think about it – his immediate answer was no and stated he would contest the actions against him.

In the assembly, Simon Crowcroft proposed the States review the suspension and disciplinary procedures used against Mr. Power. Specifically to determine whether they were correctly and lawfully undertaken. This came about after Graham issued a 12/1/08 statement to all States members. The document lays out how his suspension was illegal and an abuse of power.

The full document can be read on Senator Syvret’s blog. It’s a doozy and well worth the read!

So, the States took up this discussion yesterday and here are a few jaw-droppers!

During the Power, Ogley, Lewis meeting, Ogley took volumes of written notes. Those notes are deemed to have been heavily sanitized before being distributed as ‘minutes’ of the meeting. Power requested copies of all notes taken by Ogley as evidence of what occurred during that meeting.

Ogley destroyed them! Yup, illegally destroyed the minutes - illegally destroyed evidence! The current Home Affairs Minister even admitted he was ‘horrified’ when he learned Ogley destroyed evidence.

Well, the long-and-short of the Assembly debate to review Power’s suspension was apparently too much for the States – the proposition was thrown out!

Seems to me, Power was not the appropriate person to have been suspended – a couple of other names come to my mind!

A Disaster Waiting to Happen …

The residents of Thainwood Way in southeast San José were tired of being victims of kids having too good a time speeding their cars through their neighborhood, screeching tires well into the night, practicing donuts on the corner.

A 25-year resident of Thainwood Way, 46-year old Donna Fife had had enough of the kids and their irresponsible driving habits. Yes, San José Police Department had been called to the Silver Creek area numerous times, but were unable to enforce any laws because they had not personally viewed the infractions. Neighborhood troublemaker Richard Delgado, age 19, was one of the most egregious offenders, responsible for plenty of skid marks left near Silver Creek Valley and Yerba Buena Roads.

On Monday, January 19 at 11 p.m., Fife heard a crashing sound and went outside to investigate. She found Delgado had crashed a family member’s Lincoln into a neighbor’s fence. Fife rapped on the neighbor’s door and told him, “Richard knocked down your fence, did you know that?”

Delgado was quite notorious in the neighborhood. An admitted Norteño gang member, Delgado does not have a driver’s license but does have a criminal history including theft and reckless driving. In September 2008, he pleaded no contest to driving without a license and reckless driving—he crashed a car over a curb near his grandmother’s house. His jail sentence was suspended.

That didn’t stop him from driving. Delgado, who lived with his grandmother, continued to drive and terrorize the neighborhood in family vehicles, including a black Lincoln and a Honda Civic.

While Fife was at the neighbor’s door, Delgado backed the Lincoln out of the fence, drove the car around the corner, abandoned it and ran home to get another car, the Honda. Fife followed Delgado and was standing in Delgado’s neighbor’s front yard, on the lawn, writing down the license plate number to give to police, when Delgado backed the car out of the driveway (of course leaving a skid mark), then pulled forward over the curb, onto the sidewalk, onto the lawn and running over Fife head-on. According to another neighbor, Delgado ran over Fife’s stomach and face. He then drove off, abandoned that car and took off on foot, where he was shortly apprehended by police responding to the second call.

Donna Fife died on her neighbor’s cold wet lawn in her husband Mark’s arms.

SJPD/911 was called 11:03 p.m., but because at that time was only a damaged property call, with no harm to human life, police response was slow. Police showed up at 11:25 p.m., two minutes after receiving a 911 call regarding the suspect running over the woman with his car.

Delgado’s family claims he’s a “goodhearted person to his family” and was just confused. “I believe he panicked after he hit the fence. He didn’t know what he was doing,” said his aunt, Raquelle Delgado. She said that she knows none of the neighbors likes Richard.

Delgado spent 83 days in jail for the theft of two bicycles at nearby Silver Creek High School. He and a friend used a handsaw to cut through the bikes’ locks and then confronted the owners with an air gun. He applied for a driver’s license last March and May but the license was not issued because he did not fill out the application properly or pay the fees.

In October, he was convicted of throwing trash out of a car window. He failed to appear in court 15 days later, and fined for misdemeanor charges.

Neighbors said Delgado has been an out-of-control pain in the neighborhood’s side since he was a child.

This is a sad case of the police failing to protect a neighborhood, the court system failing to come down hard on a repeat offender (who was no longer a juvenile), an admitted gang member, and most of all, a family who let a male child run amuck well past childhood. Yes, it is hard to control adult children. But Richard Delgado’s family created a self-indulgent monster and helped that monster to thrive and become an expert in creating chaos. It’s fairly easy to keep car keys away from someone; what else is going on in that household?

This is one of these cases that I hope not only ends up in life in prison for the defendant, but also a nice fat civil suit against Delgado and his family—because you are ultimately responsible for whomever drives your car, and the Delgado family acted recklessly by knowingly and repeatedly letting the troubled teen drive without a license. It won’t make the Fife family feel any better, but the Delgado family may take notice of their failure to act and how a decent citizen paid for the Delgado’s indulgence with her life.

Delgado is cooling his jets in the Santa Clara County jail, charged with the murder of Donna Fife. Mark Fife is planning his wife’s funeral.

Unlicensed San Jose driver strikes, kills woman in front yard

San Jose man arrested after neighbor is fatally run down

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty

January 21st, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses:

#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; testimony complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times

I don't even know where to begin. The testimony was so very hard to transcribe today and I may not even attempt to put up a detailed entry on what little notes I did take down. (If I do, it will be over the weekend.) It was the most excruciating day of testimony in the trial so far and it was difficult to sit through. There were times where I don't believe I've ever seen a cross take so long or go through so much convoluted suppositions to try to discredit testimony. It's my personal opinion that in his very detailed and extensive effort to discredit Dr. Herold as a witness (and her conclusions), Weinberg lost the jury. I could easily be wrong, but at times I thought that besides the prosecution and many in the gallery, even Judge Fidler was having a tough time enduring the seemingly endless questions and re questions about what Dr. Herold said in the first trial, what she said in the grand jury, what she said two days ago and the tiny, minute differences between all that testimony.

Two aging rockers came to support Spector today. One of them was Mark Ramone. The other old-rocker-type looking man had strange hair. It was blond, but there were parts of it, like long strings that were dyed black. After they arrived, Rachelle Short got Spector's attention at the defense table to let him know who showed up to support him today. To me, it looked as if it took Spector a while to register who had come to court. Once he did, he smiled at them. There is another supporter in court today. An older bald black man with a goatee. He was here last week. I did notice that Spector had his medium sized, half moon shape, black leather "man bag" with him today. It was sitting on the defense table in front of him.

Court went a little beyond the 12 noon hour to get Dr. Herold's cross, redirect and last cross in before court ended for the day so she did not have to be called back tomorrow. Donna Clarkson, Lana Clarkson's mother will take the stand tomorrow morning and talk about the last days of her daughter's life. I think this will be a very powerful witness for the prosecution to end their case with. I'm already wondering how Weinberg will handle her on cross.

The Case Against Casey Anthony

New Documents Released

Reading just the headlines on the usual Florida television sites today pretty much says it all. There was duct tape over Caylee's mouth, complete with a heart sticker. A Pooh blanket, clothing, and a toy were also found with what remained of this sweet little girl.

I've only begun to wade through the documents which include information detectives received from some of Cindy's co-workers. I was surprised to learn that after retrieving the car from Amscot, Cindy went back to work. Her supervisor suggested she go home and call the police, but Cindy said she had a lot of work to do. The supervisor then went to her supervisor who told Cindy to go home.

From the co-workers, detectives learned that Casey would drop Caylee off at her job so she could go to "work." In addition, co-workers heard all about a Nanny named Zanny, the trip to Tampa, and the car accident. The supplementary report where you can all read this for yourself can be found in a number of places.

So far, I've identified 284 pages of information. Not all the sites have the exact same documents, so try more than one.

Also today, the defense filed a motion to inspect the crime scene. Apparently, the defense has had no response from the owner of the property who lives in Winter Park. There is no date set for a hearing on this.

Enjoy reading the documents and let us here at Trials and Tribulations know what struck you as the most interesting.


WESH
WFTV
MyFoxOrlando

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-nine

Updated!
January 20th, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses:

#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; under second cross examination)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times

Just so you know, this was a very difficult day to take notes. Many of the questions were long and complicated, referring to first trial testimony or grand jury testimony. Often times, Weinberg was on this third question before I even got the entire first question and answer written down. And I have to say this about Dr. Herold because it's something I've noticed. I'm taking a guess that she's generally a happy person because she smiles a lot. Or, another possibility could be because she found some of Weinberg's questions humorous, such as, "Do you remember being shown this photograph by the defense in the first trial?" Dr. Herold has stated many times on the stand that she reviewed every photograph taken in this case by various agencies: Alhambra, LA Co. Coroner's office and the LA Co. Crime Lab many times in her reconstruction of the crime scene. She's looked at all the photographs so many times, often with a loop magnifier. But when she's asked a question like this from Weinberg, she smiles that big smile of hers and gives a laugh because she can't remember "every photo" the defense team presented to her in the first trial. When that question was asked towards the end of the court day, I chuckled along with her.

When I take the red line train in the afternoon, two sheriff's board our car and check every one's ticket one by one. When I finally get up on the 9th floor at 1:24 pm, Linda-in-San-Diego is in the hallway. She tells me she has been here all morning because there wasn't a later train that she could take.

I see Fawn emerge from the ladies room and she has a friend with her. Mrs. Clarkson does not come to court today. (I'm not positive, but I believe at the end of the court day I overheard Fawn say her mother has a sore throat and is resting.) Inside the courtroom about 1:29 pm I see Pat Kelly from the PIO is in the back row, sitting next to the bailiff, Mr. Williams. The courtroom is busy and there are documents being dropped off for other cases. Judge Fidler emerges from his chambers, out of his robe, to sign documents for (what I believe are) undercover detectives. I note that he is wearing a pale green shirt and a dark green sweater vest.

A few Spector fans show up. It's a youngish looking couple I've never seen before and a much older, short balding man I've never seen before either. Rachelle Short gets Spector's attention at the defense table to let him see that the older gentleman is here.

A few weeks ago, I heard from a reliable source inside the courtroom that this is the first trial where Weinberg has presented a case in front of a jury in fifteen years. (1/21/09 1:06 pm: Please see my comment addressing this.)

It's 1:38 pm and we haven't started yet. I see the defense's model head exhibit is sitting on the defense table. Wendy asks counsel if they are ready and Weinberg says he needs a few more moments. Truc takes the time to leave the courtroom for a moment.

1:40 pm: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times enters and takes her usual seat in the back row. A few minutes later the jury is called. Dr. Herold is still on the stand. AT 1:43 pm Judge Fidler takes the bench.

AJ gets up to present more redirect testimony. He says that he just has a couple of points to go over before he is finished with his redirect. His first question is about the mottling on the gun and he presents another photo to Dr. Herold that he publishes to the jurors. He doesn't have an enlargement of the photo, so I don't get to see the specifics that Dr. Herold is testifying to. Dr. Herold states that this is a photo that she took through the stereo microscope. It's the left side of the gun, and I believe they are concentrating on the area of the frame that is in front of the cylinder and below the barrel. Dr. Herold describes the mottling in this area that she sees on the gun.

The next questions have to do with Lana Clarkson's shoes, and Weinberg's questions about the fingerprint found on the "sole" of one of the shoes that could not be sourced to anyone. From what I gather of Weinberg's cross on this issue (with Dr. Herold and other witnesses) the defense has implied that the print got there via the officers involved in the "take down" of Spector in the foyer area because, if there is a print on the sole of your shoe and you are walking on your shoes it most likely would not be there for very long.

In redirect, AJ has Dr. Herold describe exactly where the print was found via an evidence photograph that she directed to be taken in the lab. It's a photo that has four images on it showing all four sides of both shoes. One photo is of the bottom of the shoes. You can see on the soles, that there is an area of the arch of the sole that is a contour and this area of the sole does not "hit the ground" so to speak. It's "up off the ground." The print was located in the arch area of the right shoe, near the pinkie toe side. This testimony easily negates the defense's suggestion at to "when" that print could have been placed on the sole of the shoe.

AJ now moves onto the blood on the inside portion of the right chair arm. This was an area that Mr. Weinberg went into lengthy detail on in cross. A photo is put up on the ELMO and Dr. Herold identifies the specific stains she was talking about under cross. There are two stains that were discussed. One stain (that had a green marker on it labeled 40-2; it was tested by Steve Renteria for DNA) is clearly a back spatter stain that tells you directional spatter. It is the classic "exclamation point" type of spatter and one of the things a blood spatter analyst looks for. The other stain is lower down on the chair arm, and it does look like it has a "tail" to it but it's totally different than the first stain. This stain has a gravity pulled tail. Dr. Herold testifies, "The exclamation point stain is the type of shape that you look for to solidly identify size and width. [...] The other shaped stain [...] I can't assign it the nice directional drop you would do an analysis on."

AJ goes over the size of blood found on all the items of evidence and asks Dr. Herold to outline the size of blood comparisons on various items. Then AJ has Dr. Herold do a demonstration. He makes a sub millimeter dot with a pencil lead on a piece of white foam board and asks Dr. Herold to place one of her red arrows on the board towards the dot. Dr. Herold states that the dot would be a sub millimeter by the size of the lead (that AJ told her it was; .7 millimeter). When she is discussing the size of drops that were found on Spector's white wool jacket, many of the stains were sub millimeter.

The next item discussed is the booking photos of Spector at the Alhambra Police Station and Weinberg's questions on cross as to whether or not she could see the "white, mineral staining" in the photos. AJ asks, "How would you describe the resolution of the Polaroid photos?" "Poor," Dr. Herold testifies. AJ then asks Dr. Herold if the sleeve was wet (at the time the photo was taken) would she necessarily see the white mineral stains. Dr. Herold testifies that she went back over the photos with a jeweler's loop and she could not tell from the photo if the stains are present. She also states, "The minerals could possibly not have been completely dry and the minerals crystallized yet." There are a number of things that can affect the rate of drying (Dr. Herold names them) and whether or not those minerals would be visible.

AJ is finished with his cross at 2:00 pm and Weinberg gets up to recross the witness.

DW: Mr. Spector to your knowledge was subdued by a number of officers?

Dr. H: I was told that, yes.

DW: And that he was transported and his clothes collected.

Dr. H: I have supposed that. [...] I have not seen any of the police reports. I was told there was an altercation. [...] The only thing (I reviewed) beyond lab reports is a paramedic report.

DW: Have you ever encountered any reference anywhere to the shirt being wet when they apprehended (Mr. Spector? [...] Have you seen any reference anywhere? [...] Did you conduct any research to see if his sleeve was wet at the time of the arrest?

Dr. H: I don't know what you mean by research.

I believe Weinberg explains that by any questioning of anyone else. There are several more questions about possible research or questioning she did (or didn't do).

Dr. H: No, I don't believe I did.

Weinberg moves onto the stains on the chair and the directional spatter. He asks her about its direction and if it's a few degrees off from "straight down." He is asking Dr. Herold if the drop "came from above. [...] Ms. Clarkson wasn't above the drop was she?"

Dr. H: We have a perspective issue here.

Dr. Herold outlines how that area of the chair was exposed to her mouth and was a target for the directional spatter.

DW: Isn't that evidence of another spattering event close and above the arm (of the chair)?

Dr. H: Yes and no.

I think I see where Weinberg is going with this. If there is a "second" spattering event, he can suggest in argument that this second spattering event was the source of the blood on Spector's jacket. Weinberg is on these specific blood stains and won't get off of it. I can see why now. Dr. Herold states there was other directional spatter on the purse strap. Weinberg asks her if the stains on the chair are secondary spatter from the purse. Dr. Herold says no. Weinberg asks her if there is any spatter on the arm or purse that could be secondary spatter. Dr. Herold is firm in her "no" answer and goes onto explain why. Weinberg moves on but says that he will return to this issue. I think he has to because this must be crucial to his closing argument.

With Weinberg's next comments, AJ objects to the "editorializing." Fidler sustains the objection but also states that "you both do it."

Weinberg then goes over his meeting with Dr. Herold back last year before the trial started. (I believe this was in September.) "I had asked you whether you could say that Phil Spector could have shot Lana Clarkson. [...] On redirect Mr. Jackson asked if you could put Phil Spector's finger on the trigger. [...] And you said it has something you can't necessarily find [...] fingerprints or DNA [...]" Dr. Herold states, "That's not exactly what I remember what was said." She clears up what was specifically said. "Unless you have a way to time the placing of a fingerprint or the DNA, it won't tell you [who pulled the trigger]," Dr. Herold continues.

DW: Is it possible for a person to fire that gun without pulling the trigger?

Dr. H: No.

DW: Is there any physical evidence to suggest that Ms. Clarkson was shot in any other way?

Dr. H: No. The gun had to discharge for her to be shot.

DW: Does the physical evidence establish that Phil Spector shot the gun?

Dr. H: The physical evidence tells you where the objects were in relation to each other. [...] To the best of my ability I can account for all the items and the blood [on them] with the demonstration (that the prosecution presented with Ms. Do).

Given the testimony (by Jamie Lintemoot) of the spatter on her wrists [...] limits that possibility as to where her hands were during the spattering event. (I believe this is Dr. Herold's statement and not a question by Weinberg. I'm sorry that my notes are not clear here.)

There is an objection around this time. AJ wants Dr. Herold to be able to finish her answers. Dr. Herold often pauses to think and sometimes Weinberg takes that as if she's finished with her answer and continues with another question, sometimes talking over her. Dr. Herold apologizes and then Fidler tells her there's nothing to apologize about. There is some laughter from the bench, Dr. Herold and the jury over this.

DW: Have you worked other cases where there were two people and it wasn't possible to determine who did the shooting?

Dr. H: Yes.

DW: How many cases?

Dr. H: I'm thinking back to the last two years.

Dr. Herold makes a general encompassing statement about women (girlfriends, wives) who were shot by either boyfriends or husbands). There is a question about "other potential sources of spatter" but I don't have the surrounding questions as to which it relates.

DW: Did any of these cases involve intra oral?

Dr. H: I can't remember. [...] The one's I'm thinking of are head wounds.

DW: Isn't it true that you've never examined [an intra oral gunshot wound]?

Dr. H: If I said that it's not true.

Dr. Herold states that she has worked cases and seen [others] in the lab. Most have been "through and through" [gunshot wounds] though.

Weinberg now goes back over the conversation he had with her. He also mentions her testimony in the first trial and her testimony at the grand jury. He then says, "[...] And I asked you if there was a single piece of evidence that said (I think he continues about whether or not Weinberg now goes back over the conversation he had with her. He also mentions her testimony in the first trial and her testimony at the grand jury. He then says, "[...] And I asked you if there was a single piece of evidence that said (I think he continues about whether or not Spector fired the weapon) [...]" Weinberg goes on to mention her testimony last Thursday, that is in contrast to her prior testimony. He mentions her commenting on Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. (I apologize my notes are not more clear here. I was writing as fast as I could.)

DW: When did you learn that Jamie Lintemoot said anything about back spatter?

Dr. H: December 30th, 2008. [...] I am aware that Jamie Lintemoot testified in the first trial. [...] I've always said that the photos of that spatter were insufficient to determine (anything) about it.

Weinberg puts up Jamie Lintemoot's report up on the ELMO, and Dr. Herold testifies that she doesn't believe she's seen Jamie Lintemoot's report. Weinberg highlights the following statement in the report. "Small red stains were also observed on both the decedent's hands and wrists."

DW: Jamie Lintemoot wrote in March, 2003, "Small red stains were also observed on both the decedent's hands and wrists."

Weinberg asks Dr. Herold what she considers the "area of the hand," and AJ objects.

DW: Are you aware that Jamie Lintemoot refers to the "meat of the hand...."

AJ: Objection! Misstates the evidence. (I'm sorry, but I do not have in my notes whether or not Judge Fidler sustained or overruled the objection. I'm tending to believe he sustained it.)

Weinberg is now asking Dr. Herold about a meeting held in the Coroner's office in March of 2004. Dr. Herold states she doesn't know; she would have to look up the answer. She states she wasn't there at the meeting.

DW: You know there were several questions about handling of the evidence at the coroner's office.

Dr. H: I don't know.... I was told....

DW: You're also aware are you not that the tape lift hand compromised the blood stain evidence?

Dr. H: No I am not. I was the one who inquired about the size of the tape lift. [...] I was concerned about the size used because that's a lot of area to cover in the electron microscope. [...] Then I went back and scanned the tape lift. It did cause the blood stain to fracture and move around. [...] So I talked to her (Jamie Lintemoot) about using tweezers to pick up fibers, and that was Monday morning quarterbacking.

DW: Isn't it your recollection that your question was that it compromised the evidence?

Dr. H: I wasn't there. I wouldn't say it compromised it to the point... you could still reconstruct it.

Dr. Herold makes it clear that "she" didn't use the term "compromised." She wasn't at the meeting. (Whomever was at the meeting used the term.)

Weinberg now moves onto the hand photos, and what she knows about what photos are available of the hand.

DW: Are you depending on (for your analysis) where Jamie Lintemoot said the blood was?

Dr. H: Yes and no. [...] I'm depending on the photographs and the testimony given to me on December 30th, 2008. [...] She and I talked and she described it as "pinprick and small sized on the back of the wrists to me. [...] She was distraught that the photographs did not photograph what she had seen.

Dr. Herold goes into more detail about this issue.

DW: (Your) conversation with Jamie Lintemoot, was when?

Dr. H: [It] must have been in the spring of 2003.

DW: Do you have any note telling you about Jamie Lintemoot telling you about the blood on the wrists?

Dr. H: No.

DW: Do you know if Jamie Lintemoot is a blood spatter expert? (I believe Weinberg asks this next statement as a question.) She said she couldn't describe the stains because she's not a blood spatter expert? Yes, Dr. Herold replies.

2:45 pm: The afternoon break is called.

This is an area of Dr. Herold's testimony that is very damaging to the defense and Weinberg has to find a way to discredit her any way he can. Later in the afternoon, Weinberg will ask questions that will give him the opportunity to argue that his experts are the more knowledgeable experts because the specialize in blood spatter analysis only.

At the break, the older, short Spector fan is introduced to Weinberg and shakes his hand. Harvey with the shock of white hair arrives and sits with the other defense supporters. At the defense table, I can see that Spector has a little "man bag" with him today.

3:01 pm: Wendy calls the jury and by 3:04 pm we are back on the record.

Weinberg continues with the point about Jamie Lintemoot's testimony.

DW: I want to make sure I understand the history here. [...] You spoke to her in the spring of '03?

Dr. H: Yes.

DW: Did you speak to her since?

Dr. H: No.

DW: Its' only when you were told that she testified that you rethought the (case)?

Dr. H: I was asked a question to review the transcript?

DW: Who asked you to do that?

Dr. H: Mr. Jackson.

DW: Where did Jamie Lintemoot state it as high impact?

Dr. H: She didn't. I did.

Weinberg goes over this in more detail. Weinberg I believe asks, "The first time [...] she now tells it as mist like spatter?"

Dr. H: No, no. Back in the spring, she described them as small pin prick [like stains]. [...] Again, [...] she used those terms; small, pin prick; so I was conservative and said the photographs could not determine [...] At that time, I wasn't willing to make any interpretation.

DW: Because as a scientist, if you can't see it you can't define it?

Dr. H: In some cases, that's true.

Weinberg continues to ask her about the evidence that she reviewed.

DW: In fact, you've been previously asked to answer hypotheticals at the grand jury and at the first trial?

3:15 pm: The Spector supporters who came to court today, reenter the courtroom.

This is a complicated question where, Dr. Herold is read her testimony from the grand jury. It appears that during the grand jury, she was asked a similar question regarding Jamie Lintemoot's testimony and she answered differently then. Dr. Herold explains the difference.

Dr. H: So, yes, I made a statement at the grand jury that appears different, but we were talking about a different location (that was pointed out to me).

Weinberg then moves to questions she was asked at the first trial, and if she remembers a specific question about misting. She replies, "Well, I've testified (at the grand jury and first trial), I can't keep track of all the testimony." Weinberg reads her the first trial testimony question and asks her, "At the first trial, you would not commit; [...] Do you remembr saying that?" (Weinberg is implying that she changed her testimony in this trial from the first trial.)

Dr. H: However, there is a difference. What I said that time and [...] they didn't specify a position (of the spatter, given the hypothetical she was given). [...] I was more definitive in that [answer]. I said the hands would have to be up and facing the [spattering event]. [...] That's different than this trial where I was asked [...] and Jamie Lintemoot's testimony as to where it was located.

With this last exchange, to me, Dr. Herold stands her ground that her answers were different because the questions were different.

DW: What means do you have to confirm or verify (this)?

Dr. H: I have no means to (verify). I have been asked to interpret her testimony.

DW: Now you've taken at least two classes on blood stain analysis. [...] Isn't it true that as a scientist you're only supposed to (opine on what) you can personally observe or see?

Dr. H: And that's what I've done until the attorney's get a hold of a case and ask me to do (hypothetical interpretations).

DW: Okay. I think we can move on.

DW: You stated that you can exclude Mr. Spector from being more than two to three feet away. [...] Your testimony says nothing about what Mr. Spector could have been doing? [...] He could have been helping her? [...] He could have been recoiling from her?

Dr. H: Unlikely because of the right (side) panel (of the jacket).

Weinberg asks her several more rapid fire questions about what Spector "could have been" doing, at the time the gun was discharged.

DW: You're not a specialist (in blood spatter) are you?

Dr. H: I would answer that I am, it's not the only thing I do. [...] Not all cases are served by having a specialist because you (could have) other materials (that the specialist would not see or be able to interpret).

Dr. Herold gives the example of the tooth material found on the rear portion of the gun sight.

Dr. H: And that a strict specialist would not have seen or identified that material. [...] Once you understand blood stain analysis, you apply it to every other single case (you observe).

Dr. Herold states that on strictly reconstruction analysis, she performs about ten to twenty a year.

DW: Is it in your opinion there was only one blood spatter event?

Dr. H: Yes and no. [...] There were at least three bloody objects moving about: Spector, the bloody rag, the gun. [...] There was blood that moved or removed (and) dripped blood on the banister. [...] All are a result of the gun shot, but all were moved/removed subsequently.

Weinberg then moves onto questions about satellite spatter.

DW: Isn't it a fact that there was satellite spatter from the blood flow out of her mouth?

Dr. H: No.

DW: Are you aware that Dr. Henry Lee and Stewart James wrote a report....

AJ: Objection! Facts not in evidence.

Counsel approach the bench to argue the objection out.

3:30 pm: Sandi Gibbons from the DA's office and Pat Dixon enters a few moments later. They sit beside each other. While counsel are at the bench, I whisper to Sandi, asking her about the Roman Polanski hearing for tomorrow. She tells me the hearing is off and that she will tell me later the details.

Spector's #1 fan arrives and sits with the defense. My understanding is this individual is a school teacher. This could be why they are often coming to the trial so late in the day.

DW: Could reasonable experts have a difference of opinion?

Unfortunately, I don't get Dr. Herold's answer exact; I just have pieces of it. She says something to the effect of, "The experts have not had an opportunity to discuss (as a group?) [...] I believe I'm the one who has evaluated all the evidence and have eliminated one possibility."

DW: Do you consider Stewart James a recognized expert?

Dr. H: Yes. [...] Yes I know him and yes I consider him to be an expert.

Weinberg now moves onto the distance of spatter and the size of the spatter on Spector's white ladies wool jacket that have been described as a millimeter or less.

DW: In fact, some of the droplets on Spector's jacket were larger than that?

Dr. H: Some of them were; not all of them.

Weinberg goes over the gases expelled from the discharge of the weapon and where they would go.

Dr. H: No. That's a misinterpretation of the physics of the gasses.

Next come questions about a book that Kish and James wrote together and Weinberg questions her about questions where AJ read from the book. Here is the quote from the book. "Shooting into exposed blood will tend to have the small spatter go farther out to four feet."

DW: And then you went onto say, "But that's blood into blood? Do you remember saying that?

Dr. Herold asks to see the transcript. Sandi Gibbons exits 106. The jury and everyone else waits for Dr. Herold to read the transcript. A few jurors yawn. Dr. Herold explains that yes, blood into blood can go father as forward spatter. That will not change the millimeter size. Forward or back, (that small sized spatter) can only go as far as four feet.

DW: You've stated that the blood spatter did not go beyond the hem of her skirt....

Dr. H: Yes.

DW: And I asked you days ago, if the blood could have gone to the hose, and if it could have fallen off (when she was moved by the coroner's or when she was put on the exam table) or when the panty hose were removed. You said you didn't think that was the case.

Dr. H: No. I don't believe that's what I said.

Dr. Herold goes onto describe what she did and did not observe regarding the pantyhose.

DW: Did you check the packaging for flakes?

Dr. H: Yes. (Another question about blood on the hose.) Well, I know there was blood because of the purge.

DW: In fact there were flakes on the packaging....

Dr. H: Yes, but that's different from spatter.

DW: You talked about flakes. Mr. Jackson asked about flakes and you said no.

Dr. Herold explains that she took that to mean spatter. Weinberg states that he doesn't want to go into anything lengthy at this hour so he moves onto another area. 3:51 pm: Pat Dixon leaves. Weinberg moves back to the gun.

DW: Didn't you state that (on this area of the gun) you saw an area of cloth impression?

Weinberg is using a prosecution photo that has a big red arrow on it.

Dr. H: I don't know who put the arrow there or what the purpose of the arrow is.

TD: I put the arrow there.

Weinberg is now asking for the prosecutions large photo exhibits, #204 which is an enlargement of #78. It's a photo of the blood smear on the right side of the gun. Weinberg goes over her testimony that she saw fabric pattern on the gun. Dr. Herold believes she testified at the grand jury that blood was moved or removed.

DW: But you never said (at the) last trial or the grand jury "fabric impression?" [...] Do you remember if you were shown this photo by the defense at the first trial?

Dr. Herold smiles and laughs and says, "I don't know if I've been shown this specific photo or not. Weinberg goes on to say, "Last year this was (labeled defense exhibit) six X (XXXXXX). This year we got smarter and started with number 500.

DW: Do you remember being asked if there were ridge like impressions?

AJ interrupts the questioning asking for context be added.

Judge Fidler responds. "Here's what we're going to do. We've reached the hour. She can look at it over night and we'll be in recess until tomorrow am."

As the people in the gallery exit, the short bald man (I think he is even shorter than Spector) and Spector hug in the aisle. Spector shakes the hands of the couple who come and says, "Congratulations." Fawn and her friend exit the courtroom. Weinberg and AJ discuss an issue in the well and I believe AJ says he has to think about it.

As I exit the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center, I see the three Spector fans on the southeast corner of Broadway and Temple. They are looking across Temple street at the building on the northeast corner. One individual was pointing at the building and comparing it to a large piece of photo paper with three black and white photo images on it. I could not see what the images were as I passed.

New Member of T&T Team

It's official now. CaliGirl9, who has written many excellent guest entries about issues covering San Francisco and the surrounding area has graciously agreed to be a regular contributor to Trials & Tribulations. She will be posting her own entries on noteworthy stories she decides to cover. donchais, ritanita and myself are honored to have CaliGirl9 join the blogging team.

Outrage in Oakland

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) cops were on edge the night of New Year’s Eve, 2008, into New Year’s Day 2009. There had already been two major incidents involving guns—one incident at the West Oakland Station and a second at the Embarcadero Station in San Francisco. So when BART officers responded to the Fruitvale Station at 2 a.m. following a report of two groups of riders were fighting on a train that had taken off from the West Oakland Station headed toward Dublin/Pleasanton, transit officers boarded the train at the Fruitvale Station in Oakland. They investigated and detained several people, including 22-year old Oscar Grant, a supermarket butcher from Hayward and baby daddy of a 4-year old daughter.

Grant was no Boy Scout. He had been sentenced to 16 months in state prison back in 2007 after running from a traffic stop while in possession of a loaded pistol. He tossed the weapon into the air and hid in a gas station near his home; San Leandro police shot him with a Taser during the arrest process. He’d also been convicted of drug dealing and had been released from prison on September 23, 2008.

But people do not wear their arrest or felony records and there was no way the BART officers could have known his history.

A brief aside about the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland. In the late 1990s, a $100 million mixed-use development project was planned and built adjacent to this station. The Fruitvale region of Oakland is, frankly, the ‘hood. The development project consisted of housing, shops, offices, a library, a childcare facility, a pedestrian plaza and other community services. Sounds nice, doesn’t it. It didn’t work. It is still the ‘hood.

If it is at all possible, always avoid the Fruitvale Area of Oakland, California.

After a brief scuffle, police had the unarmed Grant restrained, on his belly, hands behind his back. Witnesses claim Grant asked the officers not to tase him. Grant briefly struggled while on the ground, and an officer restrained him with his knee. A second officer, Johannes Mehserle, appears to be trying to handcuff Grant.

What happens next is clear on video but not clear on reasoning. Officer Mehserle draws a duty weapon and shoots Grant in the low back, the bullet ricocheting off of the concrete and hitting him in the chest. Grant died a few hours later at Highland Hospital, a place that gets more than its fair share of gunshot wounds. (Oakland had 124 homicides and nearly 7,900 violent crimes reported in 2008; in 2007 it was ranked as the 5th most deadly U.S. city.)

In one of the better-quality videos of the incident, Mehserle, a 27-year old two-year veteran BART officer, looks somewhat stunned when the gun went off. Did he think he was grabbing a Taser? We have no way of knowing; Mehserle has not spoken to BART internal affairs or other authorities on the advice of his attorney, Christopher Miller.

On January 7, the day he was to face an internal investigation, Mehserle resigned from BART and took his family to Lake Tahoe to avoid the media pressure and death threats. His first child was born on January 2.

BART does issue Tasers to its officers, but does not have enough of the devices to give to each officer. It is not known if Mehserle was wearing a Taser that morning. Many police agencies order officers to wear the device opposite their dominant hand, forcing the officer to reach over his body to retrieve the weapon. A Taser has a safety device that must be unarmed, along with a trigger and a laser sighting—just like a duty handgun.

Attorney John Burris is already on the case, and has filed a $25 million claim against BART on behalf of Grant’s mother Wanda Johnson, and his daughter, Tatiana. Burris worked on the Rodney King civil case and has litigated several damage awards from local Bay Area police departments.

Thus far I have failed to mention what civil rights advocates are screaming most loudly about: Oscar Grant was black, Johannes Mehserle is white. So what is about to come makes “perfect” sense.

Grant was buried on January 6.

On January 7, a “peaceful” protest which began at the Fruitvale Station soon turned into a full-fledged riot, resulting in numerous burned, overturned or otherwise vandalized cars, 300 downtown businesses suffering broken windows and ultimately the arrest of 105 protesters (70 of those were booked and released). The next day Grant’s mother appeared for the first time at a news conference, asking for a stop to the violence. “I know it's a frustrating time, but Oscar would not want to see all the violence.”

Of course the riots were justified in the minds of the protestors because of the “white versus black” angle of the crime. Nevermind that many of the businesses vandalized in the riot belonged to enterprising African Americans.

Officer Mehserle was arrested on January 13 in Nevada, and returned to Alameda County the next day. He pled not guilty to a murder charge on January 15, waiving his right to a quick preliminary hearing. There will be a bail hearing on January 26 in Oakland.

Because Mehserle has refused to speak to anyone about the incident, the charge at this time is murder I. If and when he speaks to the authorities regarding his state of mind during the incident, charges could be dropped to murder II or manslaughter. Did he accidentally draw the Taser? Did he think he was removing handcuffs from his service belt? Was he going for a gun?

"When you basically have a situation of an unlawful, intentional killing of one individual by another, and that's all you know—and that's really all we know in this case—then that's a murder," said Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff.

A repeat of the January 7 riot occurred on a smaller scale on January 14 following what was a peaceful protest outside of Oakland’s City Hall. A small group of protesters broke away from the main group, and yet again innocent local businesses and cars parked along the street were vandalized.

On Thursday, January 15, 41-year old Ken Carrethers went to the local media and claimed that Officer Mehserle used excessive force on him on November 15, after what Carrethers describes as a derogatory remark about transit police, but what Mehserle reported as Carrethers using profanities and directing threats toward the officers.

Also on January 15 and again on January 17, Napa police responded to a report of a suspicious package at the home of Mehserle’s parents.

In an LA Times editorial, Joe R. Hicks correctly observes:

But the emotional reactions to Grant's death raise a related issue. Why have activists in Oakland, or in other urban communities plagued by criminality and gang warfare, consistently turned a blind eye to the "black on black" killings that have occurred all around them for decades?

A recent study by James A. Fox and Marc L. Swatt of Northeastern University in Boston found that "from 2002 to 2007, the number of homicides involving black male juveniles as victims rose by 31% and as perpetrators by 43%."

The typical response whenever a white police officer shoots or mistreats a black person—regardless of the circumstances—is for activists to hit the "go" button and organize protests against "racist cops." However, when a black thug pumps several slugs into another black person, it's just assumed to be the high cost of living in the 'hood.

There is so much we do not yet know about this crime. No doubt there will be a request for a change of venue (hello Southern California!). But Joe Hicks is correct: Oakland, where is your outrage at black-on-black violence? Your young men are killing each other! When will you go to bat for them? There will be justice for Oscar Grant, but what about the 16-year-old victim of a drive-by? Why is his (or her) life less precious than Grant’s?

Video 1

Video 2

A well-done summary article
Was shooting a fatal error?

Behind murder charge against ex-BART officer

BART calls meeting on killing, gets flak

BART appeals for calm as footage shows shooting

BART shooting victim's family decries violence

Man accuses Mehserle of excessive force

What Oakland should be protesting

BART shooting victim's family files claim

Fruitvale Transit Village Project

A New President; Phil Spector Retrial Continues

Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn in as our 44th president.

At 1:30 pm PT, Phil Spector's retrial for second degree murder of Lana Clarkson continues. Dr. Lynne Herold, senior criminalist for the LA Co. Sheriff's Office is still under redirect by prosecutor Alan Jackson.

‘White House Boys’ Call For Others to Come Forward

Alleged abuse at the Florida Industrial School for boys during the 1950s and 1960s is currently under investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice acknowledged the abuse by placing a plaque in front of the White House this past October. The school in Marianna, Florida is now known as the Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys.

Robert Straley and Michael O’McCarthy, two of the men who were abused at the reform school and formed the group the White House Boys, gave depositions to FDLE and are urging others to come forward and tell their stories.

FDLE is investigating the claims of abuse and the unidentified graves located where the segregated, black side of the school once was.

In 2006, Straley saw video of what some believe led to the death of 14-year-old Martin Lee Anderson at the Bay County Boot Camp. It was that video that caused Straley to remember the night he was escorted to what former child prisoners call the “rape room”. It is believed the underground room is still located underneath the Dozier administration building.

Straley realized that many others were suffering from the same hellish memories and decided to go public in an effort to help them. When he contacted journalist O’McCarthy about the story, he had no idea that O’McCarthy had also been abused at the school.

According to Straley and O’McCarthy, some 300 to 400 people have come forward, all with claims of having been abused at the school.

They say they have also received calls from a few long-time residents who say the search for bodies isn’t off the mark, but they are looking in the wrong place.

The anonymous callers claim some boys were tilled straight into the soil of local rural fields. Kids from the school were often used as child labor in the local farm community.

Straley is careful to say not every adult at the school was abusive; it was just a handful of men, “the night watchers,” who terrorized the young men.

If you have information on what possibly occurred at the Florida School for Boys contact:

Robert Straley or Michael O’McCarthy, at thewhitehouseboys@gmail.com

Or

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement, (850) 410-7000

Statements from The White House Boys – 11/1/08
(WARNING: Disturbing content)

jcfloridian.com

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-eight

Updated!
January 15th, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses:

#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; under redirect)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times

Today is the first day that I miss some trial testimony. I caught the train in time but the red line had two train breakdowns in both directions. When we reached the Universal Studio Station, the train just sat there for like forever. Then we were told there was a train breakdown ahead of us and they were going to try to move the train. If they could not move the train then we would switch to the north bound track to get through the Cahuenga pass. We wait quite a bit of time before the train engineer tells us we are moving to the other track. All I could think about was the train crash in Chatsworth, and a train coming on the northbound track while we headed south. We use the North track to stop at the Hollywood & Highland Station, as well as Hollywood and Vine. After that we switch back to the south bound track. Once we reached MacArthur Park Station, we were told we would have to disembark because that train was ordered back to North Hollywood. The train was packed and everyone had to get off. I only had three stations to go, but I didn't want to try to figure out what surface bus or buses I would have to take, so I stayed put. We waited another twenty minutes or so before there was another train headed south. When I arrived inside 106 it was a few minutes before 10 am.

Inside the courtroom I notice that Rachelle Short is absent and there are no supporters on the defense side. The defense investigator from the first trial, Tawni Tyndall is in the courtroom sitting on the left in the third row. Dr. Herold is still under cross. There are more photos of the scene put up on the ELMO and Harriet Ryan enters around 10 am.

Weinberg is trying to get Dr. Herold to say that the edges of where the tooth material landed (item #5 near the stairs in the foyer and item #10 on the sixth stair step) is the "outer boundary of the "cone." (The cone being a type of pattern that spatter analysts typically see.) Dr. Herold responds, "What do you mean by cone? What do you mean by boundary?" Weinberg is trying to apply spatter analysis physics to the teeth material. Dr. Herold testifies, "Not only do they have different shapes and properties [...] so they would have different flight paths (than blood spatter). She goes on to say that she's not an expert in solid object aerodynamics. I can't give an estimate or evaluation." The point Weinberg is trying to make is that if her head is positioned in the direction Dr. Herold concludes it was (slightly to the right of center towards true north) how are all the fragments ending up to the south? Dr. Herold, holds her ground that this is not precisely correct, and she would rather graph it out over lunch before answering. Weinberg agrees to table this issue until after lunch.

Weinberg asks about the fabric pattern she testified is on the right side of the gun when there's nothing in her notes. She did not testify to it at the first trial. She doesn't remember being asked. I don't have it in my notes but IIRC, she states that she believes this is documented in the photographs and the notes she made on each photograph.

"Is there a discipline in criminlistics for evaluating fabrics on metal?" Weinberg asks. "Yes; fabric impressions," Dr. Herold answers. "Was her work on this reviewed?" Weinberg continues. "Yes." Dr. Herold mentions the name of a criminalist that I fail to get and states she would have to check records as to when that review occurred.

Weinberg then asks if there are people who specialize in blood spatter analysis. Dr. Herold agrees that there are. He asks her, "Stewart is one, correct?" Dr. Herold states that there is a James Stewart and a Stewart James who are both experts. Dr. Herold is asked to detail her education on blood spatter analysis. Soon after joining the LA. Co. Coroner's Office, (She worked there before switching to the Sheriff's Crime Lab) she took her first class in blood stain pattern analysis from (I believe) Herb McDonald and Elaine (?). She also attended several workshops that were less than 40 hours. In 2006, three years after this case, she took an advanced class with Stewart James and Paul Kish. "So if I understand correctly, after this case, you took an advanced class before you were about to testify [...] and the Sheriff's Office paid for that correct?" "Well, part of it. They paid for the tuition and gave a per Diem." Dr. Herold indicates that basically the per Diem did not cover her daily expenses. (From this testimony I'm speculating that Weinberg will argue that since she's only had a few classes in blood pattern analysis, (Dr. Herold does lots of different types of analysis) she's not really an expert and the defense experts are the true specialists.)

Weinberg asks her if spatter occurs faster than recoil and muzzle flip. She says that "at least part of it is faster than that." "And there is spatter on the crane and cylinder?" Weinberg questions again. Dr. Herold agrees. Weinberg then asks, "And that is consistent with what you know about spatter?" Dr. Herold agrees. Weinberg now goes onto Spector's jacket and the piece of spatter on the back upper portion of the right sleeve, near the seam. I don't know who made this statement: "One piece of spatter [...] almost in the armpit."

Weinberg asks, "If there was a single spatter event (the gunshot wound) wouldn't that mean that the back of Mr. Spector [...] (I'm sorry. I don't have the rest of this question but I think you get the gist.) Dr. Herold responds. "There didn't have to be a single spatter event. I know there was a time when Spector moved around the house. [...] I also don't know the exact position of every stitch of clothing [...]"

Weinberg asks, "The hand would have to be either like this, or this?" (Weinberg has raised his right hand high up over towards his left shoulder. "Well, not necessarily the hand," Dr. Herold responds. "The spot is on the back of the center sleeve, is it not?" he asks. "Well, in the studio photo, yes, but not necessarily while the jacket is worn." she replies. Weinberg continues, "You know that Phil Spector is right handed?" Dr. Herold states she doesn't necessarily "know" that, but she believes she's been told that. "How does a piece of impact spatter get back here?" (This time, Weinberg has his right arm crossed over his chest and his left arm trying to point to the back where the spatter is. I'm not sure what he's trying to prove with this demonstration. That maybe her analysis of the scene is flawed and this one piece of spatter doesn't fit, or maybe to show that Spector couldn't have been standing where he was with the gun pointed at Ms. Clarkson with this piece of spatter.) Weinberg presses on. Dr. Herold thinks for a moment before she answers, "I guess we'll need to get the mannequins out." Weinberg doesn't press that answer at the moment and nothing more is said.

The next issue Weinberg moves onto is how far spatter travels. Weinberg asks if small spatter can travel up to four feet. Dr. Herold agrees. "Is there anything that causes you to limit it in this case to two feet?" Weinberg asks. "I base that on my experience," Dr. Herold answers. Weinberg asks her if she found spatter on the slip dress edge and Dr. Herold said she found spatter on the lacy edge of the slip dress. "And you concluded that the distance to the hem edge of the dress was 2.5 feet?" He questions. "No. I said it was three feet," Dr. Herold answers.

Weinberg asks about blood on the chair. "You found even larger items on the inside arm of the chair?" Dr. Herold partly disagrees. "What you're describing is actually in blood pattern analysis considered "medium" [size spatter].

A short, older bottle blond woman comes in who obviously knows Tawni Tyndall. It's a woman I saw during the first week or so of the trial sit with Rachelle. She sits over on the defense side and Tawni joins her. Now I'm guessing that this woman might work with Tawni or the defense team in some way and was not one of Spector's or Rachelle's friends.

Weinberg scores a point regarding the pantyhose.

DW: Do you know if Jamie Lintemoot looked at the pantyhose?

Dr. H: No, I do not.

DW: Pantyhose are elastic are they not? (I believe Dr. Herold answered that she agrees.)

Weinberg implies that there might have been blood on the pantyhose and in the process of moving Ms. Clarkson's body from the scene and then to an autopsy table and then removing the pantyhose from the body, dried blood might have fallen off.

DW: Can you exclude the possibility of there being blood spatter there and it fell off in the transport?

Dr. H: No, I cannot.

(With this admission, Weinberg may argue in closing that the spattering event could have extended farther from Ms. Clarkson which means Mr. Spector was standing farther away from Ms. Clarkson when she was shot.)

DW: Intra oral (gunshot wounds) are a little bit different than others are they not?

Dr. H: No.

DW: The bullet doesn't exit and the gases have to go somewhere?

The short bottle blond now is speaking with the young clerk operating the ELMO.

Dr. H: Part of the energy of the shot is doing tissue damage internally. The gases will be escaping through [into]other areas: lungs, sinus (cavities), the nose.

DW: So you don't think that the gases would propel the blood farther?

Dr. H: No.

DW: Is this an area where experts can differ?

Dr. H: (With a smile on her face) Several experts had a different opinion in the first trial. [...] [it] (blood) will still be under the forces of physics [...]

DW: Do you know abut experiments in Europe where spatter travels six to eight feet?

Dr. H: Not of that size. (mist like) I have the papers with me.

Dr. Herold explains that the mist like spatter in those experiments did not extend past two feet, so the six to eight feet distance does not apply to the mist like spatter seen on Spector's jacket.

DW: Forward and back spatter, both are controlled by [the] same laws, under same governing principals?

Dr. H: You see more going forward verses back.

DW: Did you know that Dr. Pena testified that he's seen spatter travel ten to fifteen feet in suicides.

AJ: Objection! Vague. Misstates the evidence.

For Judge Fidler to rule, he needs to see Dr. Pena's testimony and Weinberg did not bring that section of this trial transcript. Fidler has to look it up. Weinberg asks another question about Dr. Pena and AJ objects again, stating Dr. Pena was talking about "through and through" gunshot wounds. (I believe Judge Fidler ruled in favor of the prosecution. I can't remember if the testimony was read back. But I hope you do see what Weinberg is doing and has done throughout his entire cross. He will take a piece of testimony out of context and ask a witness to comment on it, in an effort to elicit testimony favorable to his client. Whenever this happens, usually AJ has been on it fast, with an objection that it misstates the evidence. Other times, like with Dr. Herold or Dr. Pena, they have asked to read the testimony complete "in context" before they answer.)

DW: Let's look at the jacket. There was not a single spot of blood on the right side [of Mr. Spector's jacket) except a contact stain [correct]?

Dr. H: Except there was blood on the sticky disc. Not sure if it was from the left or right sleeve.

Weinberg asks how many hours she spent on the jacket (looking at it under the high powered microscope) and Dr. Herold says "At least a week." (Dr. Herold goes onto explain that the process of testing materials found on a sticky disc, which strips the glue that picks up the items are in will destroy the lighter materials on the disc, such as blood. This is why they did not strip the sticky discs and also why they could not trace the blood to Ms. Clarkson or Mr. Spector. This is why the piece of smokeless powder that was found on the sticky disc stayed on the disc and was not put through more analysis.)

Weinberg goes back to the spatter on the right chair arm and what stains are spatter and what stains are not. 11:35 am Detective Tomlin enters 106. The questioning is long, drawn out and tedious. Weinberg is questioning Dr. Herold on "why" there is no spatter pattern in a specific area on the chair if Ms. Clarkson's head was in the position she testified it was. Dr. Herold states the purse strap was covering this area and she found spatter on the purse strap. To me, the jury looks very bored. One juror was leaning forward and dropping their head and turning it from side to side to try to stretch out their neck. Afterwards, they sit back up. Other jurors are slumped in their chairs. 11:20 am, Harvey with the shock of white hair enters and sits with Tawni and the short woman.

11:41 am: Several members of the jury are still slouching in their seats forward and back. I'm wondering if they are totally lost. Some look like they are. I'm wondering if Weinberg is oblivious to it. 11:49 am, Harriet Ryan leaves 106. A few moments after Harriet Ryan leaves, Judge Fidler, maybe sensing that the jury is bored to tears (or maybe he is) states that we will take our lunch break early since he has to be somewhere outside the building.

1:29 pm: Lunch is over and the courtroom is finally opened. Rachelle Short comes to court for the afternoon session. She's dressed in a very form fitting light gray pantsuit with tiny white pinstripes about 3 inches apart and carrying a large silver lamme purse. It's interesting. The one other time that I remember her only attending the afternoon session, she had on a light colored suit then, too, and not the usual very dark colors she normally wears for this trial.

Two very casually dressed twenties looking women come into the courtroom and sit behind me. One woman kept asking me questions. "Did they do the pictures today? ... Will they show pictures? ... Have you gotten to know Phil?" "No," I reply, asking her, "Why would I?" The woman presses on. "Have you gotten to talk to him?" "No," I answer. You can just imagine what I was thinking with all these questions.

1:40 pm: Wendy calls the jury.

Weinberg starts the afternoon off by asking Dr. Herold about smokeless powder.

DW: Identification of smokeless powder is that a specific specialty? (Another question about GSR.)

Dr. H: There are several things that can be GSR (gunshot residue).

DW: Are you one of the people that does the identification in the lab?

Dr. H: I'm not the one who does primer residue. (I believe she states that's Jim Carroll.) [...] I'm the one that did the smokeless powder.

DW: Is that typical that different people would handle [this]?

Dr. H: Yes.

DW: That's standard in your office?

Dr. H: Yes.

(I think the next question is about the sticky discs, because in my notes I have Dr. Herold answering: "Michelle Lepisto or her maiden name Lomis (witness #26) did the GSR analysis on one of them.")

Three older gentlemen enter and sit with Rachelle. One of them I've seen in the courtroom before.

DW: When did you first examine the jacket and sticky disc for smokeless powder?

Dr. H: The exact date?

DW: Or when did you write your report?

They review Dr. Herold's report. Dr. Herold testified on direct that a piece of smokeless powder was found on the sticky disc used on Spector's white jacket sleeve(s). Her report states, "no smokeless powder of obvious morphology." Weinberg sees this as a contradiction; he believes her report states there is no smokeless powder at all. "There is no place else in the report that states you found smokeless powder," he contends. Dr. Herold explains that's how she wrote it but what she meant was, there was none that had "obvious morphology." She did take digital images of the smokeless powder that she found, and those are included in her report. Weinberg questions this again. "That meant to you there was no "obvious" smokeless powder, not that there was no evidence at all?" "That's what I wrote," she testifies, "with attached pictures."

Weinberg continues to question Dr. Herold on GSR and the FBI standards for testing and evaluating GSR. (Supposedly, the FBI has abandoned testing individuals for GSR.) Dr. Herold patiently explains to Weinberg the difference. "You're talking apples and oranges. One doesn't apply to the other." Weinberg challenges her on that and Dr. Herold has to explain again that these are all different.

(They are talking about bullet fragments, lead, antimony, barium, smokeless powder and Dr. Herold states all are different in regards to analysis. Smokeless powder is different than lead, barium and antimony. All are "gunshot residue" per sae, but what I'm getting from her testimony is, smokeless powder would only be present if a gun has been fired. With highly specific and consistent with GSR particles, these can be picked up even though a gun has not been fired in the individuals vicinity.)

DW: Someone who has one particle on them does not necessarily mean they are in the room when the gun goes off?

Dr. H: [Correct.]

DW: Are you aware that the jacket was handled by police officers? (This is a total misstatement of the evidence presented.)

Dr. H: I don't believe it was. [...] I believe [officers pointed it out] and criminalist [Robert Keil] picked it up and collected it.

DW: Do you know for a fact that the police did not handle it?

Dr. H: No.

(I'm not positive what Weinberg is trying to imply with this line of questioning. Is he really going to argue that the smokeless powder got on the white jacket via police handling it?)

Weinberg moves onto the diagram that Dr. Herold insisted on doing (a birds eye view of the foyer with items placed to scale) before she answered Weinberg's question about the location of the tooth material. Weinberg insists that all the tooth fragments are "south" of Lana Clarkson's head. Dr. Herold says for about the 20th time today, "Yes and no." She agrees that, "According to 'true north' the items are /south' of her. [However,] they are 'north' of the line of her body/head alignment." (You would have to see the diagram to understand what she is saying. It was obvious to me, but I'm wondering if it was to the jury.)

Weinberg asks about the stain on the right sleeve of Spector's black shirt. There was no way to "source the moisture stain. Dr. Herold states that the stain was pure water. Weinberg asks her about when she received the clothing. "Didn't Alhambra Police have it for a week before they turned it over? Weinberg asks her. Dr. Herold states, "That's typical with all the police departments [sending evidence to the Sheriff's lab]." Weinberg asks, "Do you know anything about it?" (The storage space where the Alhambra PD kept the clothing.) "That space specifically?" Dr. Herold asks back? [...] "No," she replies.

(I'm wondering if Weinberg will try to argue that the water stain on Spector's right shirt cuff could have happened when he was at the station in police custody.)

Weinberg shows her a photo of Spector taken at the Alhambra jail with his pockets taken out and asks her, "Can you see any evidence of any mineral deposit on that white (? the shirt is black) shirt?" "No," Dr. Herold responds. (Ah. Maybe I missed hearing Weinberg correctly. Maybe he is asking if she saw any mineral deposits on ~the shirt~ that are white.)

DW: Are you aware that Phil Spector was examined by a nurse on February 3rd, Nurse Cari Caruso? [...] He was examined by a nurse and no trace found? [...]

Dr. H: That he was examined for trace materials? I'm trying to be polite here.

DW: It's a sexual assault exam.

Dr. H: To me, that's different than examining the clothes for trace.

DW: In regards to [the] clothes. You found nothing else and then you found [...] Did you find any blood? [...] Did you find anything else other than the one particle of smokeless powder? Did you find any foreign tissue?

Dr. H: I didn't get any shoes [for Spector]. I found nothing on [the] socks. [...] I found blood in the [pants] pocket.

DW: The shirt?

Dr. H: I found no blood on the shirt

DW: And other than [what you] already stated, you found no GSR powder on the pants, shirt or socks?

I believe Dr. Herold answers, "other than what I already stated" but it's not in my notes.

Weinberg moves back to the sexual assault kit collected from Spector. Dr. Herold states that she was never given any part of the sexual assault kit. That would have been handled by Steve Renteria, first.

DW: Is it your view that it [the scientific evidence] does not prove that Phil Spector
fired the gun?

Dr. H: I have to phrase it in my way. It is my view that the physical evidence [she reviewed] does not answer the question, who's finger was on the trigger.

DW: And based on the evidence that you have seen and examined, there is no physical evidence that is inconsistent with Lana Clarkson having pulled the trigger?

Dr. H: Correct. In terms of strict physical evidence, that won't tell you who's finger was on the trigger.

Evidence that she's examined that she's reviewed, it does not exclude the possibility. Weinberg is finished with his cross.

2:39 pm: Juror #11 raises their hand for a break.

During the break, Spector and Weinberg are at the edge of the well near the little gate. Weinberg is looking through one of his big black binders, laying on the low wall edge; Spector is beside him while Weinberg looks through the binder. Spector is saying something to him and Weinberg, still focused on the binder material, shakes his head back and forth several times, as Spector makes a small gesture. I find out a few minutes later from someone who overheard, that Spector was asking if Weinberg had asked a question [in a] wrong way of the witness.

2:54 pm: AJ is pacing in the well. There's only an hour left and he wants to get in as much redirect as he can before the long weekend. I'm certain that Dr. Herold will be back next Tuesday. There's no way they can finish with her today. AJ is ready for the jury but it appears several jurors still need to use the restroom in the jury room. Spector gets up from his seat to lean in and speak to Rachelle. During the break, Linda from San Diego tells AJ he needs to wake the jury up. The jury did appear a bit lulled before they went on break.

3:00 pm: Wendy calls the jury and at 3:02 pm Fidler takes the bench.

AJ first takes care of a little housekeeping and enters Dr. Herold's pencil diagram and more enlarged photos into evidence. All these photos look like they are 12" x 14." They are huge.

AJ: There's nothing that is inconsistent with Phil Spector pulling the trigger?

Dr. H: No.

AJ: What are you talking about when you say "finger on the trigger?"

(Unfortunately, my notes are a mess for Dr. Herold's answer, so I'll just type what I have.) "Fingerprints, DNA, or something about time. Even if it was a print or DNA associated with Lana Clarkson's blood, which would time the incident.... because there is a time gap of movement of the gun," Dr. Herold states.

AJ: So, there are a thousand things that could transfer DNA or fingerprints [in that time]? [...] There's hardly ever a single piece of evidence that ties someone to a crime?

Dr. H: Yes. Other than an eye witness it's the totality [of the evidence].

AJ: Taking Jamie Lintemoot's testimony into consideration from the first trial, the second trial and her reports, is there anything inconsistent with Lana Clarkson holding the gun?

Dr. H: Yes. The blood stain on the back of her wrists.

AJ asks Dr. Herold about the position that Weinberg demonstrated to the jury and Dr. Herold responds that the positioning he demonstrated would be impossible [for the blood spatter to get] on Lana Clarkson's wrists.

AJ: And that [single piece of] directional blood spatter on the webbing of the [left] thumb would be inconsistent with that [Weinberg's] scenario also?

Dr. H: Yes.

AJ goes over the blood stain smears found on Lana's left fatty thumb pad palm, and the scenario that Weinberg suggested that the stain was caused by the blood on the right side of the gun, and her holding the weapon towards herself. The evidence photo shows part of the stains and you can see that there is a void area between them.

AJ: Is that [stain on her wrists] consistent with what you see all the way up [...] That portion of the thumb was not consistent with the demonstration that Mr. Weinberg did was it?

Dr. H: No.

AJ: That [blood stain] is consistent with Phil Spector placing the gun in Lana Clarkson's left hand?

Dr. H: That is possible.

AJ: You don't simply take one item [of evidence] and look at it in a vacuum?

Dr. H: No.

AJ: That would be looking in a vacuum?

Dr. H: Correct.

AJ: That would be wrong?

Dr. H: I can't take a question in isolation. I have to take in all the evidence. I'm sorry, before I say yes or no, it looks like I'm hesitating, but I'm considering everything.

Regarding the blood spatter on Spector's white wool jacket, AJ asks several questions.

AJ: There are things you can exclude, correct? [...] You can exclude Phil Spector was standing across the room, correct? [...] You can exclude that he was standing more than three feet away, correct? [...] You can exclude it came from coughing [...] or sneezing [...] or CPR...? (Dr. Herold does answer "yes" to all these questions.)

AJ: The only thing left for the source of blood on Mr. Spector's jacket was the gunshot event and he has to be where?

Dr. H: Within two to three feet.

AJ moves on to discussing control of evidence in the crime lab. In cross, Mr. Weinberg went into detail over the fact that the individuals at the crime lab can look at the evidence any time they want, but the defense had to make an appointment and on one occasion, there were individuals from the crime lab who were observing them the entire time. (Dr. Herold corrected Mr. Weinberg and said those individuals were from the DA's office.) AJ asks Dr. Herold what the prosecution has to do if they want to make an appointment. "Schedule an appointment," she replies. AJ asks if the defense was given "unfettered" access to all the evidence. I believe she replies "yes". AJ goes onto detail how the defense team was waiting outside the crime tape at the scene, ready to enter once the scene was cleared.

AJ also asks if experts from the defense, Dr. Baden and Dr. Wecht were allowed access to the autopsy? Dr. Herold replies yes. "Did Dr. Lee and (?) look at evidence?" AJ asks. "I hauled in approximately 100 pieces and they were there four hours," she replies. Regarding the second defense team, the judge ruled that the prosecution was not allowed to even know who showed up at the lab. A special master had to be appointed. I had to meet with the special master to to train him on how to handle evidence. She remembers when this happened because it was Mother's Day weekend. (I found this very interesting that Weinberg went so far as to request this of the judge. It shows just how far he went to keep the prosecution off guard as to "who" his expert witnesses are really going to be. It went farther than just not turning over the "real list" verses the "fake list.")

AJ: Did you or anyone ever tell them they couldn't look at anything?

Dr. H: No.

AJ: Didn't someone come and make slides? (I believe the answer is yes.) Didn't Mr. Butters come and take the weapon apart?

Dr. H: They couldn't get the gun back together. Jim Carroll wouldn't do it; he didn't want to destroy evidence. Another expert was somehow able to get the gun back together. (For some reason, I just find this comical.)

AJ: Pex, Stewart James also came and were given access, correct? (I believe Dr. Harold answers "yes".)

In fact on eight different occasions, defense attorney experts or both came and looked at evidence, correct?

Dr. H: Correct.

AJ then brings up the argument that occured in her office between himself and Mr. Weinberg and that eventually, she did have a conversation with Mr. Weinberg alone. Dr. Herold said about that "Teeth were barred. I will mention that it was only among the men." The room erupts in laughter. AJ asks her about his request that there be a tape recording and the fact that he never received the tape recording. The recording would only be used if there was a discrepancy as to what was said.

AJ moves onto the blood smear pattern on Ms. Clarkson's left fatty thumb pad area. "Would Mr. Weinberg's demonstration account for the stain on the gun?" AJ asks. Dr. Herold replies, "The exposure is wrong."

There is a question about "muzzle flip" but I don't get the set up question. AJ asks if this is consistent with it happening after the gun was shot? Dr. Herold responds, "By definition it has to be because it's in blood." (I'm sorry I don't have more detail on this line of questioning.)

AJ then goes over the "stringy blood clotting" found on the bloody diaper, and the time frame from when it could be visibly seen in that state. Five to fifteen, three to fifteen. Dr. Herold states that, "It may not be apparent or appear stringy in three to fifteen minutes, depending on the environment. After the 15 minutes, it goes into the big, gobby state. [...] There are some studies that state it would take an hour [to get to that point]."

AJ: Blood got on that diaper with a passage of at least minutes?

Dr. H: Yes.

AJ then moves onto a blood spot on the right side of the gun by a screw in the frame. Dr. Herold states this blood drop is on top of smeared blood (underneath). The blood drop dripped down on the right side of the frame. "Which side was the gun on the carpet?" AJ asks. Dr. Herold said the right side.

AJ: The drop was apparently thick and dry before it was on the carpet?

Dr. H: If it was wet, then I would have expected to see transfer marks [onto the carpet].

AJ: That drop is on top of other blood on that frame? (Dr. Herold responds yes.) [...] Is that more scientific evidence that it was somehow manipulated after the event?

Dr. H: There was blood moved or removed.

AJ goes onto say that she was immediately incapacitated so it had to have been moved [the blood] after the event.

AJ then asks Dr. Herold to explain her pencil drawing diagram, and the tooth material that was found on Lana's slip dress. The tooth was not stuck to her as if it was wet blood attached to it. AJ asks why there was no teeth material found in the area to the right. Because something was most likely blocking it's trajectory.

AJ then put up the enlargement photos he had first entered into evidence. These are different blow up photos of the "white spot" on the front strap of the gun, that Dr. Herold testified was blood and Weinberg questioned that. The new photos are photos of this strap area that were taken from different angles, and you can see that the "white spot" is pink.

AJ: That's actually red blood in the photograph?

Dr. H: Yes.

AJ asks Dr. Herold about how far spatter travels and Dr. Herold testifes that you have to also define it by size, event, surroundings, target. The Carver article is brought up where scientists in Germany shot several calves. (They must not have PETA, I believe AJ comments.) In that paper the size range we're talking about (mist like spatter) only flew nineteen inches.

AJ brings up the fact that James Pex, a defense expert published on the phenomenon of backspatter mist droplets less than 1 millimeter can go back as far as two feet. Dr. Herold said she relied on that book. AJ brings up a statement by Stuart James (in his book), that extremely fine spatter may often travel twelve inches, but because of their very low density, can sometimes travel no more than two to three feet. AJ asks Dr. Herold if he wrote that before he was hired [by the defense]. Yes, James wrote that before he was hired by the defense.

Dr. Herold is asked about that outer perimiter of blood spatter on Ms. Clarkson. When she didn't find any (in an area) she went onto look at Lana' shoes. "And those had how much blood on them?" AJ asks. "None," she replies.

The statement Dr. Herold made famous at the first trial, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," is discussed. AJ asks Dr. Herold if Mr. Kish, a co-author of a book written by Pex, Kish and other experts was the one who originally coined that term. Dr. Herold says, "Mr. Kish coined that phrase, especially in blood stain patterns [analysis]."

3:52 pm: Sandi Gibbons, the DA's spokesperson enters the courtroom and sits in the back row. Dr. Herold apologizes that in using the laser pointer, it has bounced off the wall and possibly hit someone in the jury. Judge Fidler states, "I think the lasers are low light and cannot harm anyone." Dr. Herold reads off writing on the side of the laser and says, "It says her danger, blah, blah, blah." Fidler responds, "Shows what I know." Dr. Herold says, "Well, there are a room full of attorney's here," and the courtroom erupts in laughter.

AJ asks Dr. Herold about the high velocity spatter on the cuff edge of Spector's jacket. She states that she relied on "Benton's latest book," that the spatter was deep impact. AJ puts up some photographs from the book and compares them to the spatter on the jacket. Dr. Herold testifies that the spatter on the cuff edge (that she observed) is imbedded deep into the fibers and not resting on the surface. The photos in the book show that a transfer stain stays on the surface of the fibers. It gets on the fiber tendrils but not deep into the fibers.

AJ then moves onto a piece of evidence that on the surface, is very hard to explain. That blood spatter on the "backside" of Spector's white wool ladies jacket. AJ puts up on the ELMO an image of Spector in the parking lot at the House of Blues from their security cameras. You can see that the jacket is quite long on him. AJ mentions that Spector has high heels on in the photo, or "platform shoes." Dr. Herold agrees that the jacket appears to be baggy and down to his knees [n the photo]. The jacket is particularly baggy. AJ then shows Dr. Herold the booking photo of Spector and asks her to note the platform shoes he's wearing in that photo.

AJ asks her if she remembers a statement by Pex, something about "you would normally see spatter on the lower [portion] of jacket sleeves." Then AJ and Truc Do do a demonstration for the jury. For the record, they state that this is not an "exact" demonstration; the parties are not the same height as the defendant and the victim. Ms. Do leans back in the chair just like Ms. Clarkson was found, dead, and her face slightly to the right of center. It's a very detailed demonstration, with AJ's hands and arms in a specific position. You can clearly see in this demonstration how the spatter could have gotten on that baggy underside of the sleeve. AJ asks Dr. Herold in the demonstration which side of the jacket is exposed to Ms. Do's face; to Ms. Do's wrists.

AJ: Does that scenario account for every single bit of blood?

Dr. H: No. It accounts for the back spatter.

AJ: Is there anything inconsistent in this scenario [with Phil Spector firing the weapon]?

Dr. H: No.

AJ: And in a suicide, you usually dont see manipulation of the evidence after the event?

Dr. H: Correct.

And that's the end of testimony for the day. The demonstration, in my opinion was a very powerful note to end on before the long weekend break. After the jury exits, Spector is standing at the defense table reading a piece of yellow notepad paper. The Clarkson family leave the courtrooom. Court resumes next Tuesday, January 20th at 1:30 pm.

Casey Anthony's Video, August 14

In his recent set of motions to the court on January 8, Jose Baez petitioned the court for the video records of Cindy and George Anthony's visit with their daughter on August 14, 2008.

According to the prosecution attorney, Linda Drane-Burdick, the fact that the defense had not received the video was an apparent oversight. I can't help but wonder if the prosecution was doing a favor for the defense here!

Yesterday, this video was made public. Bloggers and posters on various message boards, as well as me, are wondering if Baez opened a Pandora's Box with this video. It does not show his client in a very favorable light. It shows Casey at her narcissistic best. She uses personal pronouns referring to herself about 378 times (yes, I counted), mentions her daughter's name 5 times, and refers to Caylee as "she" exactly 4 times. In the meantime, she shows a nasty temper and her great ability to manipulate her gullible parents numerous times.

I think a person working on a doctoral degree in abnormal psychology would have a field day with this video. I am just going to point out a few of the things that struck me the most.

As the video begins, Cindy Anthony is crying. George has the phone and greets her cheerfully as is his way. Casey greets him back with a hint of laughter in her voice. Casey then immediately asks,

Why is she crying already?

Doesn't Casey understand that her mother is exhausted and grieving for Caylee?

George mentions that it's because they miss her and Casey echoes his words. There is no other mention of her mother and the discussion moves on to the butterfly T-shirts her parents are wearing. Casey says she likes them and the conversation continues.

George hands the phone over to Cindy who is still crying and Casey gives her eyes a poke with her finger and says that "she" didn't last long. To the news that reports say Caylee may have drowned in the pool, Casey answers, Surprise, surprise! with a little giggle in her voice.

When Cindy mentions all the bad materials that have been published, Casey brags that she hasn't received any such information.

They discuss the "secret" meeting with George Anthony. Casey mentions that she has discussed with whom she shold have this meeting with Jose Baez and that she has decided it should be her father. George is thrilled with this. He goes so far as to thank her more than once. He also tells her that she should not go through her lawyer to request the meeting. Casey rejects speaking to Lee, since he will do nothing but ask her questions, and her mother, who will dominate the conversation. She chooses the one who she has been the most "distanced" from. She chooses the one who calls her "beautiful" and is not exactly the one in control of the family!

The very same day, Casey wrote this note to Sheriff Beary

Sir,

I ask your help at this time. If there is any way that I can have a meeting set-up with my father (George Anthony) I would in every way appreciate it. I know it is an unusual request, but it is important nonetheless.
I was told that you could help me in this manner. I truly hope that it can be done, and without causing any trouble.

Thank you so much for all of the help you have offered to my family, and to helping find my daughter.

Sincerely,
Casey Anthony

We later learn that such a meeting was arranged for that same evening. According to the police reports released on November 26, that George Anthony was brought to the jail and waited from 7:30 PM until about 9 PM to meet with Casey. At the time, Casey was meeting with attorney Adam Gabriel. Sergeant Allen had made it clear that the meeting was entirely Casey's decision. She could meet with her father alone or with her attorney. In the end, Casey rejected her father's visit.

Whether or not Casey was affected by her attorney's opinion, I have to wonder why she had spoken to Jose Baez about such a meeting and why the attorney with her at the time talked her out of it.

The rest of the video goes on and on and on. Casey whines to her parents constantly about her problems, seemingly glossing over their situation. She also loads her parents with a guilt trip for not getting her out of jail by mentioning that they had an opportunity (what, with the reward money?) to get her out. Mind you all, Leonard Padilla says that this was the very day Casey was informed that he would be bailing her out.

Thank you to Greta Van Susteren for the following quotes from Casey (with my personal, perhaps sarcastic comments).

I am upset now. The media is going to have a freaking field day with this. I wasn't even supposed to take this.

Since Baez was in New York at the time, one has to wonder whether that boat trip with Geraldo was worth it!

My entire life has been taken from me. Everything has been taken from me. You don't understand. Everybody wants me to have answers. I do not have any answers because I do not know what is going on.

However, she did know what did happen back in June! In addition, she's apparently viewed an episode of Nancy Grace and doesn't like what she's hearing there!

That is why I have not been calling, why I have not been taking calls, because I am trying to make sure that I am not going to give anybody else anything else to throw against me. But even with me giving them nothing, they are still doing it.

Casey, Casey. Anything you had to say pales in comparison to what was found of your daughter a short, convenient, distance from your own house.

I have been here a month, out of contact with everybody except you guys on a rare occasion that I get to see you, and my attorney. Do you understand? What am I supposed to learn from that? What am I supposed to learn, the first week and a half?

Perhaps you could learn what happens when you kill your little girl?

There is nothing more that I can say or do until I'm home, and even then, I do not know what I can do from that point. But I can least do something other than sit on my butt on day and read or look up stuff for my case, because that has to be my focus right now.

Casey did get home. We know from Leonard Padilla and Tim Miller how useful she was to her case. She also says here that she can only focus on her case right now. She was only charged with negligent child abuse at the time. Perhaps she already knew exactly what charges would be coming. I doubt she was referencing check forgery!

I do not have access to the Internet. I can't make phone calls. I can't go anywhere.

That was Casey's whole life before being arrested. In her whole 31 days of Caylee being "missing," she had all of those. It didn't work then, and it certainly didn't work whenever she was out on bond.

I am going to just walk away right now, because I am frustrated and I'm angry, and I don't want to be angry. This is the first time I have truly been angry this entire time.

Is anyone out there buying this?

But I'm so beyond frustrated with all of this that I can't even swallow right now. It hurts.

What does really hurt, Casey?

Video
Documents
Van Susteren

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-seven

January 14th, 2009. (unedited, draft entry)

Prosecution Witnesses:
#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; under first cross examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan from the Los Angeles Times

The highlight of cross examination occurred today when Dr. Herold was asked what happened during her first meeting with Mr. Weinberg. Dr. Herold replied, "I ended up with two attorneys yelling at each other [and nothing was accomplished]." The entire courtroom erupted in laughter.

When Weinberg arranged his interview with Dr. Herold, she notified the prosecution. Mr. Jackson and Truc Do showed up for the meeting. Mr. Weinberg insisted that the prosecutors did not have the right to be there during the interview. From my understanding, the prosecution felt they did. During the shouting match, someone indicated that Dr. Herold had the right to have an attorney present, so she called the legal representative for the sheriff's office. That attorney told her she had the absolute right to have anyone she wanted at the meeting. At this point, Judge Fidler said to Dr. Herold, "I want to thank you for keeping me out of it." Dr. Herold said, "It reminded me of two school boys."

It was then suggested that the meeting be tape recorded and Mr. Jackson could listen to it later. One party was not happy with that claiming the interview was "work product." Eventually, Mr. Weinberg tape recorded the conversation and Dr. Herold also tape recorded the conversation "as a back up." I could not see Mr. Jackson's face so I have no idea what his expression was during this event.

Dr. Herold testified today that there was no physical evidence that indicated to her "who" pulled the trigger. When Dr. Herold met with Weinberg on September 16th, 2008 she was asked if there was a single piece of evidence that was inconsistent with Lana shooting herself. Dr. Herold testified, "I said no, at that time. Except I was given new testimony since that time about blood spatter on the back of the hands. [...] She was given Jaime Lintemoot's transcript of her testimony on December 30th." Taking that evidence in consideration, the scenario of Ms. Clarkson holding the weapon no longer fits all the evidence. However, the evidence that "she's seen" Weinberg asks, is not inconsistent with Lana shooting herself.

Dr. Herold is an excellent witness. She takes her time to review the evidence in her mind before she answers. Several times on the stand when she didn't reply quickly, she would say, "I'm thinking." Throughout the day, I observed Weinberg asking Dr. Herold general, broad questions and each and every time Dr. Herold would break the question down and either clarify each point or explain why she could not answer that question without more information.

Weinberg in vain tried to get Dr. Herold to tell the jury how many hours she spent working on this case. Each and every time Dr. Herold said they do not have a bookkeeping method in place in the Sheriff's crime lab to document how many hours individuals spend on specific cases. She's a salaried employee and she works on more than one case at a time. She gets paid the same regardless of what case she examines. She did say that there is a procedure to document how many hours are spent testifying. Dr. Herold did agree that a lot of time was spent on this case. She states that when she testified that she looked at literally every inch of clothing, she did. She does not know if there is a procedure in place for detectives.

During the morning break I observed that Spector's supporters chat very loudly and laugh with Rachelle while they are standing in the gallery in front of the inner courtroom doors.

During direct examination, Dr. Herold testified that the two blood smears on either side of a "void area" on Lana's left thumb pad area could have been a transfer stain that appears to match a bloody stain on the left grip and front strap of the gun. Under cross examination, Weinberg tried to get Dr. Herold to agree that Lana's left hand would "had to have" been lifted first, before the gun could have been placed against it. "The gun is not that close to her body to state that," Dr. Herold replied." Weinberg tried to get Dr. Herold to agree that it was possible that there was spatter within that blood smear. Dr. Herold stands her ground stating the entire blood smear was not visible in the photo so she could not make that conclusion.

Weinberg presented an alternate possibility for that blood smear. First, he shows Dr. Herold a blood smear spot on the right side of the gun that also includes the "mottling" previously testified to. Weinberg put on latex gloves and demonstrated how Lana might have been holding the gun towards herself. His left thumb is on the hammer of the gun and his right hand is also surrounding the gun and the right thumb would be on the trigger.

Weinberg also presented a directional blood back spatter stain on the dorsal side of Lana's hand. The spatter is like an exclamation point (!) and it's between the proximal most joint of the left thumb and the metacarpal-distal joint of the pointer finger, (first knuckle). These are my anatomical descriptions, not Dr. Herold's.

Dr. Herold insisted that, the way Mr. Weinberg was holding the weapon, yes, that could account for the back spatter, however, it was inconsistent with the way the weapon was in Lana's mouth when the shot was fired. Back and forth the questions and answers go. Dr. Herold was very insistent that the spatter could not have gotten on that area of the dorsal side of the hand if Lana was holding the weapon in that manner.

After the lunch break, Fawn comes to court and she looks very sharp. Her hair is fixed up in a complicated twist that reminds me just a little of a 40's hairstyle. It's very attractive and several people compliment her on it and how nice she looks.

The other issues that were discussed in the afternoon session were the time it actually takes for clotted blood to be observed with the naked eye. In the first trial, Dr. Herold said "three to five minutes," and that's a general observation because there are so many variables. In this trial, she said "five minutes." Weinberg spent some time on this point, asking her what references she used to state the five minutes. He also brought to her attention a textbook written by Kish (sp), James, (Stewart James, defense expert) and Sutton that states the presence of cerebral spinal fluid can speed up the blood clotting process. Dr. Herold says that the book does not source a reference to a study so she can not look back to the literature.

Weinberg presents saliva as an alternate source for the "mottling" on the gun. Dr. Herold states that would not explain "all" the mottling since there was mottling observed on the metal frame of the gun, not just the barrel.

During the first part of the afternoon session an older couple enters. The rail thin woman is wearing one of those huge three or four inch "TEAM SPECTOR" buttons on her winter coat and wearing sunglasses . I could tell by the expression on Judge Fidler's face that he was not happy about this. The bailiff's ordered her to remove the button and her sunglasses. The woman looked quite a bit like Anita Talbert but I could not swear that it was her. She did speak extensively to Spector during the afternoon break.

There was more testimony about various blood stains on the gun and whether or not a specific round spot was blood spatter on the metal frame as well as an area of the leather handle of the gun. At 3:30 pm, Juror #9 holds up their hand and reminds the court that he has a doctor's appointment and Wendy apologizes for the oversight. Court ends for the day and will resume tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Ed Halverson Stuns Court at Sentencing

~Elizabeth Halverson

District Judge David Barker sentenced Ed Halverson to three to ten years in jail for domestic battery with a deadly weapon. Halverson took an Alford plea on Oct. 24, avoiding a trial when he pleaded guilty to the one count after he attacked Judge Halverson with a frying pan on Sept. 4. Attempted murder charges against him were in the end, dropped.

Former Judge Elizabeth Halverson was also in court Wednesday to testify against her estranged husband. She believes he should be locked up for much longer. Testifying through tears, she said that the attack could have killed her.

Ed Halverson spoke briefly in court, saying he was not at fault.

"If she hadn't pulled a knife on me, I wouldn't have clocked her."

Elizabeth Halverson told KVBC: "No justice for victims, especially for those who live with their abusers," says Elizabeth Halverson. "If a stranger came in, would they be giving him domestic violence? I don't think so."

"With everything that happened, what I had left was my brain and my ability to go back and work as an attorney and produce stuff. And with this brain injury, I can't go back and do that right now."

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-six

January 13th, 2008 (unedited, draft entry)

Prosecution Witnesses:

#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; direct testimony complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times for a short period in the am and in the afternoon session.

Where was Lana, where was the gun and where was Spector when the gun went off?

Dr. Herold was my favorite witness during the first trial. I remember when she testified back then and the defense tried to discredit her in their cross examination. I think it was at the lunch break or one of the breaks, I clearly remember her looking at AJ and with a smile on her face saying, "You knew this was going to happen." It was a tedious day of testimony with many items covered but AJ got it all in. He tied it all up and showed all all the physical evidence at the scene is consistent and tells a story.

Fawn was back in court today along with John Taylor, one of Mrs. Clarkson's attorneys. When she came into court and sat down I heard Mr. Jackson ask her, "How was your vacation?" So it's possible that Fawn may have been on an extended trip. Weinberg leans back in his chair and is nervously playing with his lips again. I notice him doing this quite a bit lately. It's just something new I've observed.

The courtroom is pretty empty at 9:30 am, but there is a new, elderly looking couple sitting at the end of the second row, right where Linda Deutsch used to sit. When Rachelle and Spector enter at around 9:33 am the couple gets up to sit with Rachelle in the first bench row on the right. Like I've seen several times before, Rachelle introduces herself to them. It's obvious they've never met before. I think I spoke too soon. More people enter the courtroom and sit in the back row. Right before court is about to start, AJ leans in and informs Donna and Fawn that they will be starting off with photos of the crime scene and then there will be close ups of Lana's face. All throughout the trial, Lana's family has avoided looking at the gruesome photos of their loved one up on the overhead projection screen.

9:35 am: Harriet Ryan enters and John Taylor turns around and says hello to her.

9:40 am: Bailiff Kyle calls for cell phones and pagers to be turned off. Dr. Herold asks the DA's clerk, Josh to help her in turning off the sound on the phone or maybe it to turn off her phone completely, I'm not sure. A few minutes later we are still waiting to start. John Taylor goes over to speak to Harriet. I get more details on why we are having so many half days next week. One juror wants to go to temple on Chinese New Years, another juror has a long standing orthodontist appointment for one of their children.

9:46 am: We are still waiting to start and I'm not sure what the hold up is. Three minutes later Fidler takes the bench and AJ introduces about twenty more evidence photos. These are all enlarged photos of the crime scene or evidence items he is going to present. Most of them are huge, about 10" x 14" that throughout the day, he will "publish" to the jurors. That simply means they are handed to the jurors to look at directly.

AJ goes over a particular point with Dr. Herold. That you can't take a single drop or a single stain and draw a conclusion from that. "That's correct," Dr. Herold answers. Dr. Herold states that as part of her investigation she reviewed every single photograph that was taken by every agency. She mentions later that some photos she even looked at using a photographer's "loop." She did not review the police reports but she did review the pathology report and the neuro-pathology report and I believe other reports that came out of the coroner's office.

Dr. Herold clarifies that the actual evidence photos are more clear than the projected photos on the screen and clearer than the enlarged photos.

Throughout the rest of the day, Dr. Herold testifies to the blood flow and blood back spatter on Ms. Clarkson's body. Dr. Herold goes over every piece of physical evidence that she examined. Lana Clarkson's jacket, her slip dress, her stockings, her shoes and the purse. Phil Spector's white ladies wool jacket, his black shirt and black pants. The bloody diaper. The non bloody diaper. The gun. The unspent cartridges left in the weapon. The chair Lana was seated in. And with every item, Dr. Herold details the blood that was found (or not found) on every item and makes a determination as to what type of blood it is (flow or spatter) and whether or not the blood has a directionality to it. At the very end of the day, Dr. Herold through her crime scene reconstruction was able to determine where Lana Clarkson was positioned and the orientation of her head; where the gun was situated; and where Phil Spector's white, wool jacket was in relation to the gun discharging.

1. Through the blood flow down the right side of Lana's jacket, onto the back side of the chair and down onto the purse, as well as the directional blood back spatter on Lana's slip dress and various areas of the chair, Dr. Herold was able to determine that Lana Clarkson was sitting in the chair with her head slightly off center, turned to the right.

2. From the natural dentin tooth material found on the rear portion of the gun sight, Dr. Herold concluded that the gun was in Lana's mouth held upright in it's natural position. The gun sight of the Colt Cobra was positioned just behind Lana's two front teeth.

3. From the microscopic blood back spatter found on Spector's white jacket, Dr. Herold concluded that because the size of the spatter and it's pattern on the jacket was "mist like" this meant the jacket was within two to three feet of the "blood letting" (gun firing) event.

Here are some (but not all of the) facts that Dr. Herold testified to today.

The position of Ms. Clarkson's head:
The location of large amounts of blood flow on the right back side of Lana's jacket, and the front of her jacket that also soaked into the fabric covering the back of the chair on the right side as well as the blood flow, led Dr. Herold to conclude that Ms. Clarkson's head was slightly off to the right when the gun was fired was leaning to the right directly after. The absence of blood flow on the right side of the chair as well as evidence photos that were taken before the purge event showing no blood on the left side of Ms. Clarkson's jacket as well as the directionality back spatter pattern on the slip dress and chair support this conclusion.

Ms. Clarkson was seated:
The piece of porcelain tooth material (as well as other items) that was found on the abdomen area of Ms. Clarkson's slip dress helped Dr. Herold conclude that Ms. Clarkson was seated at the time of the gun being fired.

The gun was wiped down:
Every surface of the gun had areas, crevices, where there was blood in depression areas but not blood in the upper surface areas directly beside those depressions. The gun handle on both sides. The front strap. The chamber. The barrel where "Colt Cobra 38 Special" is engraved in the gun. The recessed, three dimensional medallions on each side of the handle. The gun sight. The area of the gun just directly behind the hammer. The phenomenon of some faint, discoloration on the barrel of the gun that Dr. Herold described as "molding" on that does not typically occur with "blue metal" support her conclusion that the gun was wiped down with a wet item, possibly the Curity diaper. On one section of the metal frame of the gun, there appears to be a fabric pattern from a potential "wiping" event. Dr. Herold also stated that if the gun was somehow kicked or disturbed during the "take down" in the foyer, an the gun slid on the carpet, that would not explain the absence of blood on all sides and various other surfaces of the gun.

The smokeless powder:
Three millimeter sized items of smokeless powder were found. One was lodged in Ms. Clarkson's soft palate. One piece was found on the gun and one piece was found on Spector's white wool jacket. Dr. Herold concluded that all three pieces are consistent with coming from a single discharge event.

The backspatter on Ms. Clarkson's hands:
Dr. Herold testified that if Ms. Clarkson was holding the weapon with two hands, one or more thumb on the trigger and her fingers interlaced around the handle of the gun, it would have been physically impossible for the backs patter to have gotten on the backside (dorsal) of Ms. Clarkson's wrists. The same could be said that if Ms. Clarkson some how was able to hold the gun in one hand and point the weapon at herself, the back spatter would not have been able to have landed on the dorsal side of her wrists in that scenario, either.

The bloody Curity diaper:
The diaper contained diluted blood, undiluted blood and clotted blood. The diaper appears to have been "wet" with some water first, and not after the blood got on the diaper. If the blood was on the diaper first and then the diaper was moistened, then all the blood on the diaper would have been diluted. It was not.

The outer edge of the back spatter pattern:
The outer edge of the back spatter pattern did not go beyond the lace edge of Ms. Clarkson's slip dress or the padded front edge of the chair. Ms. Clarkson's slip dress, from the way she was seated in the chair was bunched up in folds, high up on her thighs. There was no blood on Ms. Clarkson's hose or her shoes.

Spector's left pant's pocket:
The blood found on the inside of Spector's left pants pocket led Dr. Herold to conclude that either a bloody hand or a bloody gun was placed in that pocket. There was no blood on the outside of Spector's pants, or any blood that flowed through from the outside to inside the pocket. That led Dr. Herold to her conclusion to how the blood ended up on the pocket.

Spector's white wool ladies jacket:
Because of the capillary action of blood into the woven wool fibers, she was unable to determine any directionality of the microscopic blood back spatter on the white jacket. There are transfer blood contact stains around the area of the buttons on each side of the front area. The stains are the same size range and look like the size of digits. Because of the size and location, it looks like bloody finger stains. There is a leading edge blood droplet on the folded edge of the left jacket sleeve cuff. The location of the droplet would be on the underside of the wrist area. This stain was an impact spatter stain that occurred not only on the surface but also deeply into the fibers. Because of it's location, the cuff had to be pointing towards the blood letting event, or basically, towards Lana Clarkson's mouth. The entire blood back spatter pattern led Dr. Herold to conclude the pattern on the jacket was from a "high energy event." She excluded coughing as possible source of the back spatter.

Conclusion:
Taking all this evidence into consideration: the dress, Lana's jacket, the pantyhose, Spector's pants, his shirt, Spector's Jacket, the chair, the carpeting, as well as the purse, Dr. Herold concluded that Mr. Spector was on Lana Clarkson's right hand side, so as the right hand panel of Spector's jacket was exposed within two to three feet of Lana Clarkson's mouth.

AJ then does a demonstration with the witness placing himself within 3 feet of Dr. Herold. He places his hands as if one hand has a weapon, and the other hand is holding Ms. Clarkson's arm. He places Dr. Herold's hands up in a defensive posture on Spector's hands. He then asks her if this demonstration is consistent with the pattern on the slip dress? Yes. Is this consistent with the pattern on the jacket? Yes. Is this consistent with the pattern of back spatter found on the gun (bullets in the chamber)? Yes. Based on the pattern(s) that she (Dr. Herold) saw, that at least one arm (Spector's) was lifted towards Lana Clarkson's mouth, and her hands wer raised and holding his hands.

Court ends for the day with this powerful demonstration.

For those of you who have emailed me and asked for an update on Scout Kitty, I will have some pictures of him and how he's adjusting to inside life up on the blog in a few days. At around 9:30 pm this evening, I did another radio interview with Marc Germain of Talk Radio One.

Haut de la Garenne - Not the Only Crime in Jersey

What is wrong with people in Jersey? No, I’m not talking about the majority of decent folks. I’m talking the Bailhaches’, Warcups’, et al.

In what appears to be another half-cocked, last ditch effort to intimidate the formidable Lenny Harper, the Jersey Attorney General, wee Billy Bailhache and crew, have – from my point of view – lied, libeled and slandered Lenny.

Additionally, they have issued an order for Lenny to appear in court to answer questions about evidence he is being accused of holding back. The absurdity of the order is, it is unenforceable in the United Kingdom – see, Lenny retired to Scotland.

Just who the hell does Bailhache think he is? Is the Attorney General really that ignorant of the law and arrogant enough to think his orders carry weight in the entire United Kingdom?

The good Senator Stuart Syvret, who provides the only truthful source of news in Jersey, informs us Lenny has come out swinging.

From Senator Stuart Syvret blog:

Letter from Lenny Harper

To Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache;

12th January, 2009

Dear Attorney General,

I write in reply to your letter of 8th January 2009 which I received at 5.05pm today. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the things you say in this letter as you have obviously been misled by someone in the States of Jersey Police.

Officers of Strathclyde Police did indeed call at my address when I was out, and I did call them as I was on my way to Northern Ireland. Furthermore I spoke to the Crown Office in Edinburgh on Friday 9th January 2009 and for the first time was told that I was being requested to attend court to produce “day books”, which I had already told David Warcup several times, do not exist. (Furthermore, as you will see below, he has other corroboration that they do not exist.) This was the first indication that I had of any evidence I was expected to give. As I told the PF, it is not good enough that someone should be treated in this fashion. I was never asked for a statement, never told I may be called to give evidence, and was clearly expected to interrupt any plans in Northern Ireland or elsewhere at short notice. As it happens, I have changed plans I made, but for family reasons.

Dealing with the points in your letter, Detective Inspector Fossey is obviously confused with the book I have already described to David Warcup. I kept a scribble book which contained nothing relevant, nor indeed, evidential to the Operation Rectangle. I have described what it did contain in my letter to Mr Warcup – a lot of medical detail in respect of my wife who was ill at the time, and many other matters relating to pre-retirement issues such as removals, pension, and other matters connected to day to issues of my life in Jersey. I would also remind you that for most of my time as SIO on this enquiry, DI Fossey was away from Jersey on a Command Course. Mr Warcup is also aware that we were being briefed on security matters by operational security officers at New Scotland Yard, and their advice, minuted and now in the possession of the States of Jersey Police, was that we should not use day books. I duly complied with this.

I am afraid I do not know who DC Kitchen is, nor indeed if he even signed my retirement card. I certainly do not remember any such comment as you describe on any of my cards, although it may be it did not register with me as anything other than a joke. In any event, I did not have a safe, as Mr Warcup will no doubt confirm. The only safe was Mr Powers. I certainly do not remember any such briefing as you suggest, and it would not have been necessary anyway, as I have been involved in so many murder enquiries, that I am very aware of the responsibilities of officers.

I have only ever received one letter from the good Mr Warcup and that was dated the 5th September. It seems strange that he e mailed me a copy of that one, but somehow did not e mail me a copy of the letter which he alleges he sent later and which I never received. Rather a co-incidence I think. It might prove useful for him to provide you with the computer record of the typing of that letter so that he can confirm it was indeed typed on the date you quote. Again, coincidentally, he has never challenged (nor indeed even replied to) my assertion to him that he never sent any such letter.

I am not surprised to see you state that there is a danger the prosecutions may be discharged if I do not produce these documents. Someone in all of this, and maybe even more than one person, is as aware as I am that these documents do not exist and will therefore be impossible to produce. It does not take a highly suspicious mind to conclude that it is all a ploy to get rid of the prosecutions and blame the “failure” to produce non- existent documents.

I am sure you are aware that I can only attend the court in Jersey voluntarily. The order is not enforceable in the United Kingdom. You are right in stating that I hold highly the interests of the victims. However, in these matters you quote, I have no evidence whatsoever to give. I have never been asked for a statement and have never been given an indication that I should be required to give evidence. Instead, I have been made aware by journalists and others of false briefings being given to the media by certain senior staff in the SOJP. They and others have leaked e mails which have appeared in the media in forms which bear little resemblance to their true content. Yet, when I have made Freedom of Information requests for these e mails in order that the truth should be revealed, those requests have been refused. Furthermore, they have spent many thousands of pounds trying to get Sussex Police to implicate me in Official Secrets Act and Data Protection offences on no evidence – indeed, evidence is in the public domain that the document concerned was served on the High Court in London before the media published it. Six journalists and two others have informed me that Sussex Police have approached them and tried to get them to implicate me. Yet, once again, when I provide evidence that certain police officers and politicians in Jersey have leaked e mails, the SOJ Police refuse to even investigate. Add this to the many people telling me that certain of them are falsely briefing the media against me, and it is not hard to see why I would need to be stupid to expose myself to these people. One only has to see how they have treated Graham Power and others who made the mistake of supporting the enquiry. However, I have already given an undertaking to the Crown Office in Edinburgh that I will attend any United Kingdom court and answer any questions there in respect of what I have said.

May I now deal with the Court Order? Steve Baker has obviously been given false information which he has inadvertently given to the court. I will deal with the matters as they appear in the Order.

As I have already stated, there are no day books in relation to Operation Rectangle. I did not know until today what Operation Cannon was and so it follows that I have none for that either.

I only ever had one note book whilst in the SOJP as I used it for evidence of arrests and searches and my involvement in those was minimal. I think the last entry in it referred to Norman Wood and there is no mention of the enquiry whatsoever in the book. I also believe that I left it with the SOJP. However, I am not 100% sure and will undertake to search my packing boxes to see if it is there and will send it if it is. In any event, the SOJP records will confirm the non issue of any further notebooks to me.

All policies and decisions were recorded, as recommended by NSY, in the policy books, e mails, and reports which are ALL in possession of the SOJP. I have no documents whatsoever which the SOJP do not have. This also applies to paras. C and d as outlined in the order.

There it stands. I have no unused material of any sort, whether day books or anything else. I have informed David Warcup of this several times. If I had any evidence to give which was of importance to the victims I would do so. This attempt to persuade people that I have unused material is simply a ploy to then say my refusal to co-operate must result in the cases being discharged. Then, conveniently, I will get the blame. I have no evidence of course, as to whom it is that is orchestrating this. However, it fits in with the desperate attempts to implicate myself in the leaking of documents whilst at the same time acquiescing by consent and indifference to rather stronger allegations against others of the same thing. As I have stated earlier I am happy to answer any questions in a United Kingdom court but I am sorry to say that the lies, false briefings, and vindictiveness shown by certain elements in Jersey make me unable to comply with your request to attend and tell the court in person that these documents do not exist.

Yours sincerely,

Leonard Harper

So, is it not apparent to you that Bailhache and his cronies are doing their utmost to derail the prosecutions in the child abuse scandal and set Lenny up as the fall guy?

Phil spector Retrial: Day Twenty-five

Monday, January 12th, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses:

#30 Dr. John Andrews (LA Co. Deputy Coroner and Forensic Neuropathologist; assisted autopsy on Ms. Clarkson's brain and spinal cord; testimony complete)

#31 Dale S. Falcion (LA Co. Sheriff's Office criminalist; did fingerprint comparisons on evidence found at the scene to Phil Spector and Lana Clarkson; testimony complete)

#32 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; currently under direct examination)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: None identified.



Has the murder weapon revealed new evidence?

See that tiny piece of metal on the inside portion of the handle of the gun? That's called the "front strap" of the gun. When the gun was examined back in 2003, a tiny partial print was discovered on this piece of metal that's only about three-eighth's of an inch wide. The partial print is even smaller than that. At the time, forensic examiners determined that this print had "no value" for comparison purposes but today, this tiny, partial print may tell us something about when that print got on the weapon and who possibly could have placed it there.

In September of last year, Mr. Falcion was asked by Mr. Jackson to take a look at enlarged micro-photographs of the "front strap" on the Colt Cobra. There is a partial print of some type but it is of no value to compare to a latent print. However, Mr. Jackson asked Falcion if he had an opinion as to whether the print came first, or if the blood came first. Was the print left in the blood after the gun was covered in blood? Falcion testified that it was his expert opinion that the print was left in wet blood already on the front strap. Since we have heard expert testimony that once Lana Clarkson was shot, she was immediately rendered incapacitated, there is only one other individual who could have left that partial print on the gun: Philip Spector.

In the afternoon session, memorable Dr. Lynne Herold took the stand and placed Spector's white ladies jacket he was wearing on the night of the murder within "two to three feet" of the gun firing.

More to come, when I find the time.

Mrs. Spector, You've Been Served

In the 9th floor hallway of the Criminal Court building right after Rachelle Short exited Judge Fidler's courtroom for the lunch break, she was served with papers regarding the civil suit brought against her and her husband and their agent by the Westin Bonaventure. Back in June of last year, the Westin Bonaventure filed court papers suing Mr. and Mrs. Spector over non-payment of a hotel bill totaling over $104,000.

During the first trial, Phil Spector and his wife Rachelle stayed at the Westin Bonaventure. They also reserved rooms for their legal team and experts that testified in the first trial. According to this story, Phil Spector didn't pay the bill in the hopes of getting a discount. Immediately after receiving the papers today, Rachelle Short threw the papers on a bench in the hallway of the 9th floor.

Phil Spector Retrial: Status Update

Updated!
Here is where the case stands. At this point, I am hopeful that the prosecution is able to wrap up their case by the end of the week.

Witnesses left to present:

Dr. John Andrews is currently on the stand about to undergo his first cross examination. Dr. Andrews is a forensic neuropathologist that assisted in the autopsy on Lana Clarkson's brain and spinal cord.

Dale S Falicon, LA. Co. Sheriff's Office criminalist, fingerprint expert.

Dr. Lynne Herold, LA. Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter expert and crime scene analysist. Dr. Herold will put Mr. Spector's jacket within 2 feet of the gunshot wound.

Nick Terzian, Lana Clarkson's print ad agent.

Donna Clarkson, Lana's mother.

Throughout the week, I will attempt to update my entries for January 7th and 8th. There should be a full week up testimony this week, barring any unforeseen circumstances. The following week will be a very short week. Federal holiday on Monday, and Tuesday, the jurors had requested the day off the watch the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama. Wednesday is a half day, due to a juror asking for the afternoon off for a doctor's post-op check up to surgery performed over the Christmas break. That leaves only one-and-a-half days for testimony. The last week in January is expected to be a full week of testimony.

Correction: January 20th will be dark only for the morning session. January 21st, court will be dark for the afternoon session. January 22nd, court will end early at 2:45 pm. January 26th, court will be dark for the morning session only. Court will be dark from February 12th through February 16th.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-four

January 8th, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses:

#29 Dr. Louis Pena (LA Co. Deputy Coroner; performed the autopsy on Ms. Clarkson; testimony completed)

#30 Dr. John Andrews (LA Co. Deputy Coroner and Forensic Neuropathologist; assisted autopsy on Ms. Clarkson's brain and spinal cord; direct testimony complete)

Accredited press inside the courtroom:
Harriet Ryan from the Los Angeles Times in the morning session as well as John Spano, also from The LA Times; a possible unidentified man in the afternoon session.
(Correction: John Spano has not worked for the LA Times for some time, and is now a practicing attorney.)

The "Team Spector" MySpace plea ad, requesting people come down to the courthouse in support of Spector to let the jury know Spector is innocent pulled in a few new faces today. In the morning session, there were three gentlemen that appeared to be in Spector's age range that showed up for the first time. Two were formerly from England (now living in Pasadena). I overheard one of the men indicate he was Ian Whitcomb, and had recorded with Spector in the 60's. (Maybe this song?) In the afternoon, the two Englishmen left and were replaced by two more new faces from Spector's era. Rachelle introduced herself to the men who arrived for the afternoon and I have to say that to me, it did not appear that Spector knew any of these people at all.

The defense went over in selected detail today with Dr. Pena, a medical history form Ms. Clarkson filled out as a new patient where she detailed her prior marijuana and cocaine use. Weinberg insinuated today that because all four grandparents of Ms. Clarkson were alcoholics, a father that was a drug addict and that since alcoholism can be inherited, Ms. Clarkson was also an alcoholic. The only other support the defense offered for this was her femoral blood alcohol level at the time or her death and a few emails, one where she states she "injured herself with tequila" and another email where Ms. Clarkson wrote she was "16 days sober."


Weinberg also tried to imply that the form Ms. Clarkson filled out stated "she" took psychedelic drugs since the age of 7. Under redirect, Truc Do had Dr. Pena read the entire statement on the intake form, which made it clear (to me) she stated her parents were hippies that took psychedelic drugs since she was 7. At one point, Weinberg insinuated that since Ms. Clarkson had some very high highs and very low lows, she was possibly manic depressive. (I promise to have more on Dr. Pena's recross over the weekend.) When Dr. Pena finally got off the stand in the late afternoon, he probably rushed out of courtroom as fast as he could. He had been on the stand five consecutive days straight.

Over the lunch break I learn that because the suicidologist will be testifying for the defense, Judge Fidler, first in an in camera hearing and later in open court, will allow in even more medical history of Ms. Clarkson that was ruled inadmissible in the first trial.

A little after 3:00 pm, AJ presents the next witness, Dr. John Andrews who has an impressive and extensive CV. Dr. John Andrews testified that once Ms. Clarkson's spine was severed she would have been unable to move, take a breath, or voluntarily blink. Dr. Andrews stated that because of the location of the severing of the spine (just above the 1st cervical vertebrae and below the pons), it would have been impossible for Ms. Clarkson's body to exhibit decerebrate posturing.

As Spector was leaving the courtroom, he turned to one of his new fans and said, "Did you hear that guy up there? He's wrong."

Court resumes Monday, January 12th at 9:30 am. The following week, court will be dark for the Federal holiday on January 19th. The jurors had asked for the morning of the 20th off to watch the inauguration. Today, it appears a juror needs that afternoon for a doctor's appointment also. I've also heard that court will only be half day on the 21st, but I'm not positive about that.

During the afternoon session, Sandi Gibbons from the DA's office was kind enough to give me a copy of the prosecution's opposition motion to dismiss Polanski's motion to dismiss. At 178 pages, it's almost an inch thick. If the Spector courtroom is dark the afternoon of January 21st, I hope to get into this hearing.

More to come...

Hearing Day for the case against Casey Anthony

Update #2!

This hearing went on so long, I'm just going to post my unedited notes for those who couldn't watch the hearing.

The hearing in Judge Stan Strickland's courtroom got underway and then came to a grinding halt when the prosecution did not accept Jose Baez's verbal waiver by Casey Anthony to be present. He stated that Casey has to expressly waive her presence and has to be in court to do so.

Judge Strickland commented that when they had gone to take Casey to court, she refused. Jose Baez felt that would be adequate to waive her right to be present.

The Asst. State's Attorney pointed out that they could bring Casey from the jail within 35-45 minutes. The prosecution feels that this hearing is of significant evidentiary value and she should be available for questioning by the court.

Judge Strickland then recessed to research the issue.

When he returned and as Jose Baez began to argue that all "these...," he was interrupted by the Judge who said they would bring her over and continue with the hearing until then..

We should be hearing from Casey in person today!

Linda Drane-Burdick begins by stating that the prosecution has not refused to turn over the, rather their contention is that if the photographs should leave the jurisdiction, the Florida Laws have "no teeth."

The only individuals who have access to the disks now are the ME and herself. The experts for the State have access to the photos via a secure computer with passwords. The only other copy of the photos is the one she has to present to the prosecution.

Drane-Burdick points out that this is not an unusual situation. There are other cases where photos are sensitive and exempt from public record. Experts come to the office of the State Attorney to view them.

In this case, they would give the disks to Baez and allow him to show him to the experts within his presence. If they were sent out of state, the experts would not be bound by Florida statutes.

She says they are not attempting to restrict the defense's access, only to protect the sensitive information and to protect the memory of the deceased.

The judge states he is "stumped" on this. He would like to find a way to give them access with less restriction. He is with her "in spirit."

She also suggests that the court could fashion other remedies within the confines of the laws.

Jose Baez is then addressed by the judge. He says he doesn't expect he would "do such things" but that he's seen his experts speaking on tv and lacks total confidence.

Baez says there is word out there that there is a deal pending for sale. He wants to send the images to Henry Lee, Dr. Kathy Reichs, Dr. Fierro, Dr. Werner Spitz, Linda Kenney-Baden, and possibly the forensic entomologist, Dr. Timothy Huntington, the forensic botonist, Dr. Bach.

The judge asks if there are any states he's left out! He's concerned with the number of locations and the possibility for leaks.

Baez says that since he's been charged with the remains of Caylee Anthony, he has not said a word about them and has been careful with the information. He has to rely on the confidentiality agreements with them all. He feels they are the foremost experts and would not ruin their reputations by selling the images.

The judge wants to know what remedy Baez has. He suggests the State bring them down to Florida to examine them.

Baez replies that there is no one remedy which would "clean the slate." He can't assure the judge that the photographs could get out, but not from him or his people.

The Anthony's attorney, Brad Conway speaks for them. He says it would be a nightmare for them if the photos were to get published. They understand that the lawyers or the experts would not leak them, they are concerned with the "middle people."

Ms. Drane-Burdick mentions the number of people who would receive the photos again. She also brings up the legislation which was passed to deal with the internet dissemination of the pictures.

She doesn't want the court to deny access, but that it is restrictions on duplication and transmission of the documents.

The judge's concern is that experts might have to make multiple visits to Orlando if they decide they want to see the pictures again. Drane-Burdick points out that the defense chose experts from all over the country.

The judge asks if they could make copies of the disks and have them sent out to the experts and returned within a time limit. Drane-Burdick replies "if you want me to tell you I told you so."

Baez points out that there could be a problem with distinguishing these photos from others that the Sheriff's Office has and that he already has.

He goes on to state that there have already been numerous "leaks" and doesn't want the defense blamed if there are "leaks" of photos other than the ones on these disks.

Baez says he is willing to sign any agreement he and Drane-Burdick comes to. The judge replies that his signature on a paper would have no weight in another state like North Carolina.

The judge will come to a decision on this.

The judge mentions the issue of a Special Master to oversee the interviews with Dominic Casey. Baez says that he wants to be present during any questioning or have the Special Master appointed because Mr. Casey was employed by the defense at one time and matters of privilege could arise.

Drane-Burdick states he's already talked to LE concerning subsequent events and that the issue is moot. Mr. Baez can address the issue when the documents become public.

Court takes a break as Jose Baez wants a moment with his client before she appears in court.

Casey Anthony enters the courtroom, is sworn in and answers questions from the judge. She states that she gave Jose Baez her verbal waiver. She will be required to appear for future substantive hearings.

Jose Baez claims that in the future she will sign written waivers. The State feels that she should be present so if there are issues do not have to be brought up at a future date.

Judge Strickland rules he will decide on a case-by-case basis.

Casey remains in the courtroom for the remainder of the hearing.

Jose Baez adresses the court on previous motions and suggests a remedy for the photographs. They would to agree to set up a secure data base on his server in his office that is secure and password-protected. They would use the same contractor as the ME's office used.

Drane-Burdick would also want assurance that the photographs would not be duplicated if the system could be set up.

The judge likes this idea, assuming it could be set up. He grants the states motion to restrict until the secure site is set up. He wants a sworn affadavit from Baez' people they have not reproduced the photos.

Baez addresses the issue of Dominic Casey. He requests that, before the information is turned over to the prosecution, the judge review it in camera to be sure there is no privileged information. The prosecution agrees.

Baez asks again for information of Zenaida Gonzalez which was granted under the original case. The prosecution says he already has everything that has been reduced to writing. Baez says there are only two reports when he's heard there is a whole binder of information. The prosecution states that if Baez wants more, he'll have to file a motion and do depositions.
The motion is denied.

Baez also wants the DNA results from George, Cindy, and Lee Anthony. The prosecution says that the FBI is still in possession of that. Baez asks for it within 30 days. The judge grants the motion.

The next items are the fingerprint results. The prints were taken on December 12 and sent to the FBI. The judge asks if Baez was given a copy of the print cards. Baez asks for 60 days. Reports do not exist at this point and the motion is denied without prejudice.

Baez would like to verify the veracity of Tony Lazzaro's calendar. This has been discussed before. The prosecution mentions that there's no way to copy the desk calendar and Baez is free to visit the Sheriff's office to examine it. Baez offers to go there and xerox it piece by piece so he can have the information. They offered the inspection months ago and Jose has 15 days to go there and inspect it.

Baez is asking again to inspect and test the hair. The prosecution has a problem with testing. He says that if he can do a test if one of his experts wants and it is not destroyed. The hair is expected back within 2 weeks. The motion is granted. Any testing would be dealt with later.

Baez goes on to the maps, photos, and reports. The prosecution says no such maps exist. Apparently, Baez wants the maps the Sheriff's Office used in the search. The prosecutor is still confused as to what he is asking for.

Drane-Burdick points out that there is no reason to preserve maps where Caylee wasn't found. It is also pointed out that the prosecution will give them whatever they can get for the area where the body was found. It is pointed out that the prosecution can't give him what they don't have. Baez could also do some depositions.

In his request for the video visitation, Baez points out he received the same videos later released to the public. He is asking now for the one from August 14. The prosecution though he had it. They will deal with it.

Next up is the application for a subpoena duces tecum for the EquiSearch records. The judge points out there is nobody from EquiSearch there. Drane-Burdick points out that the court has no jurisdiction in Texas. She doesn't know if EquuSearch would be willing to turn those records over to Baez.

Baez points out that they did work with the Sheriff's Office. The judge says that they may just give the information to them. Baez is free to subpoena them, but they are in Texas. The judge doesn't rule on this.

Baez also brings up the reports about the car. He has still not received them. He has received the photographs. Drane-Burdick says the reports are quite voluminous and they are still working on them. She is willing to try and get incomplete reports if the judge so orders.

Baez says, "I can't wait another 7 months for them."

Drane-Burdick says that they are under no obligation to prepare reports, and also points out that they have other obligations as well as these reports! The judge allows 30 days.

Baez next mentions the search warrant affadavits and the prosecution has no objection.

Next! They polygraphs that were granted under the previous case still haven't been provided to him. Drane-Burdick's says that it's her recollection is that the State would provide a list of names of those polygraphed, but not the reports. They are inadmissable, but Baez can inquire who was tested. Baez says that the names are no good without the results. There is a discussion of the difference between discoverability and admissability.

The judge says he's never had this issue before.

Drane-Burdick says the polygraphs were done by the FBI and if they are willing to release the results, the prosecution will turn them over to them.

There is no action taken on the motion.

With that, the hearing is adjourned.

A new date will be set for the pre-trial hearing originally to take place January 15.

Fox News

CNN

Update #1!

The first hearing is over and Judge Rodriguez made a very fair decision. He gave Zenaida Gonzalez' attorney, Keith Mitnick a choice. He could either postpone the deposition or use written interrogatories and receive replies from Casey Anthony within 30 days.

The decision allows for Zenida's rights to clear her name as quickly as possible while allowing Casey Anthony to maintain her Fifth Ammendment rights. If the results of the written answers do not suffice, Casey could be deposed at a future date.

Mitnick chose to submit written questions and will wait the 30 days for a reply from Casey and her attorneys.

The hearing was not without its awkward moments. Baez Law Firm attorney Jose Garcia was standing in for the attorney of record for the case, Jonathan Kasen. Mr. Garcia had intended to have Mr. Kasen plead the motion over the telephone. However, Judge Rodriguez pointed out that arrangements for this would have had to been made quite a while ago. That given, Garcia then asked Jose Baez to argue the motion. Mitnick objected, pointing out that Mr. Baez was not the attorney of record on the case. Garcia then conferred with Baez and called him as a witness! This also was not allowed and Mr. Garcia had to do the arguments on his own.


Well, we have two hearings today!

The first is in Judge Rodriguez' courtroom at 11:00 AM.

The second is in Judge Strickland's courtroom at 1:30 PM.

As of now, Fox35 will be carrying both hearings.

Visit back for updates on both hearings!

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-three

January 7, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses:

#29 Dr. Louis Pena (LA Co. Deputy Coroner; performed the autopsy on Ms. Clarkson; currently under redirect)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: One possible gentleman in the back row, unidentified.

Due to Truc Do presenting to Dr. Pena, Lana Clarkson's activities over the last few days before her death and asking him to consider them regarding Ms. Clarkson's "state of mind" the prosecution will be adding a few more witnesses to their witness list as proof of those activities.

Since I need to work on sewing orders tonight and tomorrow, I will be updating this entry covering yesterday's testimony and today's events over the weekend.

January 7th, 2009, Trial Notes: (unfinished, draft entry)

9:09 am: We are supposed to start at 9:15 am to day but I hear Wendy say one of the jurors is late. Judge Fidler comes out to sign some documents for detectives and he’s wearing a very nice sweater vest with a matching tie. From here, the color of the vest and tie look like a very pale olive color with a cream shirt. He looks sharp.

There are two people in the front row who greet Mr. Jackson when he comes in. The suited gentleman is holding a large file folder. Mrs. Clarkson is back. I then hear the bailiff say the juror is going to be 30 to 40 minutes late. So much for trying to get as much as possible out of this day.

Spector gets up from the defense table to sit with Rachelle in the front row. He reads a white sheet of paper with some typing on it. Rachelle puts her arm around Spector’s shoulder.

AJ and the man in the front row talk a bit about Ric Ocampo and his assignment in a Compton courthouse handling misdemeanors. There’s an interesting coincidence. A young man who was a student intern in the DA’s office when Ric was there, went to law school, graduated, and is now Judge Ocampo’s calendar deputy. A tall slender gentleman from the DA’s office enters and sits beside AJ & Truc’s clerk.

9:27 am: Pat Kelly from the PIO enters. Two student looking individuals enter. Rachelle is now leaning her head on Spector’s left shoulder. Spector’s head is slumped down and it appears as if his eyes are closed. Other than a bit of chatter between AJ, Truc and the court reporter (they’re discussing rock bands) the courtroom is virtually silent.

The day before I found out that the young man who is filling in covering all the AV (audio/video) for the defense is from New York and works in Jennifer Barringer’s office. Detective Tomlin, Bill Ferguson (one of Mrs. Clarkson’s attorneys) and Mrs. Clarkson reenter the courtroom. After a time, Spector slowly moves back to his seat at the defense table.

Dr. Pena is still on the stand.

Juror #15 finally arrives and when she enters the jury room to join the other jurors there is a cry of like, “Hooray!” It’s 9:55 am and we are waiting for Judge Fidler to take the bench.

Truc begins her redirect of Dr. Pena. She starts off with the gun in the mouth with Clarkson’s purse over the shoulder issue questions by Weinberg and clarifies that Weinberg took the issue out of context from the last trial. Weinberg interrupts Ms. Do to state that she’s misstating evidence. While the Judge is looking over the first trial transcript, Ms. Do asks to present the question another way. Truc asks if the purse on the shoulder was was swayed his opinion in MOD. Pena states that one point wasn’t an issue that swayed his opinion on self inflicted verses homicide.

Truc then proceeds to the 26 female suicides in the study that Dr. Lakshmanan conducted. Weinberg objects. He states that for the record, he “received no such evidence.” He then goes onto repeat again what he states is the only discovery he ever received from the prosecution.

Truc moves onto the left bruise to the tongue, and clears up any confusion that was caused under cross. I remember when Dr. Pena was asked this in the first trial and I remember his answer. In the first trial he did tell the jury that he didn’t think the bruise was caused by an explosion so his testimony is consistent with this trial.

10:14 am: Some Spector supporters show up and sit with Rachelle. It’s two men who have come to court once or twice before for this trial. One man I believe came to part of the first trial. A few moments later, a break is suggested.

Outside the presence of the jury, Truc and Weinberg battle out the issue of the data that Dr. Pena states Mr. Weinberg requested. Weinberg is denying he ever asked the doctor to compile this information. Dr. Pena has stated that it’s in his notes of the meeting with Weinberg to compile this data. Weinberg states, “There’s absolutely no question that I did not receive this in discovery.” AJ explains that it was his understanding that this was something the defense requested. He goes onto say, “This is nothing that we were going to use in our case in chief.” Dr. Pena just complied with the defense’s request. Weinberg replies, “Let me set the record straight. The only thing I’ve receive from the prosecution because the original trial transcript are two small documents.” (This is the same statement he’s made every time he’s complained about discovery violations by the prosecution.)

I note that there are a few other public people in the gallery. AJ explains what he believe happened. That there was an unintentional oversight. AJ just assumed that Dr. Pena forwarded a copy of this document to the defense. Dr. Pena stated on the stand that he made sure to add a note (that may be somewhere back at the office with his copy) to AJ to please forward this to the defense. Weinberg insists that he did not request this information. Fidler rules that this was an innocent error and there was no intentional discovery violation. Weinberg is given time to go over these reports that he requested be compiled.

Weinberg presses on with the Judge. “The document we were given is dated June 8th, 2008. It’s addressed to AJ. It was sent “to” Mr. Jackson. I find that completely inconsistent with what Mr. Jackson first testified to.”

Truc says, “Mr. Weinberg opened the door with questions on cross to Dr. Pena and to Detective Lillienfeld about suicide cases they’ve investigated.

Weinberg still complains that the prosecution didn’t turn it over.

Fidler states “I still don’t see it as deliberate. I’m not going to let Ms. Do us it until you have the ability to review the material. I’m not precluding it, [I’m just tabling it for now.

Weinberg states “It doesn’t appear that this information will support her conclusion.”

Fidler tables the material and it can be gone into later. The court reporter’s work out switching right after these issues are discussed. Spector needs a break to use the restroom and the bodyguard escorts him down. After they leave Rachelle gets up to join them. I wonder if she is still going into the restroom with him like I was told she did during the first trial.

10:48 am: Louis Spector and Frieda arrive and a few moments later the jury reenters the courtroom.

Back on the record. Truc has Dr. Pena review the 24 cases that Dr. Lakshmanan identified in his 2004-2006 study. This was all gunshot wound suicides in those years and there were 755. A few of the statistics of this study were presented 11% were women (80). Weinberg objects to this and they approach the bench.

More statistics are presented that are a bit different. 755 total, 80 females, 675 males. Of the 80 females 24 were intra oral GS wounds. Truc presents the first case for Dr. Pena to review. Weinberg objects again. “It appears that all Ms. Do is doing os talking about issues they have no first hand knowledge about.” Counsel approaches the bench again.

Weinberg is objecting more today than he was during direct. Weinberg is nodding his head as Fidler rules. As AJ speaks Weinberg is shaking his head. Fidler speaks and now Weinberg is shaking his head. I’m not clear who won this round.

Back on the record, Dr. Pena admits that he tried to review this material and he pooped out at midnight. He only got through the first case in the huge binder. Truc states they will return to this issue after he’s read the cases.

Truc asks Dr. Pena, “In your personal cases [...] did you have a prior case of a woman with no psychiatric history; no prior attempts and goes to a stranger’s home and commits suicide?” “No,” Dr. Pena testifies.

Truc moves onto the bruise on the tongue. Truc goes over other injuries in the autopsy report that he did not assign causes to the injuries and this ins normal and standard. Normally, the coroner does not opine on how an injury occurred. Prior to AJ and Ocampo asking him what might have caused that bruise, he had never considered it before. The defense tried to make it appear as if he “reconsidered” the cause. That was actually the first time he considered what the cause could have been, right before the first trial started.

Truc now addresses the barrel and the crane of the gun. Truc has Dr. Pena look at the anatomical head again. He states that the spine on the model is not accurately placed inside the head. Dr. Pena states that the tongue in the head is not to scale or accurately depict Ms. Clarkson’s tongue.

TD: Aren’t there a lot of variables that you can not account for, [in regards to the gun entering Ms. Clarkson’s mouth]?

TD: What if Lana had her mouth open to scream? [...] What if Mr. Spector had forced the gun into her mouth? [...] What if the gun was twisted to the side so that it entered her mouth on it’s side? [...] There are lots of “what ifs,” correct?” [...] (All this time, that familiar photo of Lana, smiling is up on the ELMO) She has quite a big beautiful smile, doesn’t she?

DW: Objection! Relevance.

TD: There’s just too many “what ifs,?

The last area Truc is going to go into are the e-mails. Dr. Pena states that he did not fin any evidence of suicidal idolation in her e-mails. The e-mails didn’t come up during the last trial. During the first trial he did have a whole box of writings and e-mails.

TD: It was certainly more than the four e-mails that Mr. Weinberg read to you, correct?

Dr. P: Yes.

Now Truc does something that I felt was sorely needed. She goes over a selection of Lana’s e-mails with Dr. Pena. These e-mails go from the time of her wrist accident up until her death. The first one she starts off with is date stamped 1/5/2002. It’s a mass e-mail to many people. She tells everyone about her injured wrists. The next e-mail is dated 2/28/2002. It’s very upbeat about attending the Grammy's. Another e-mail dated 3/4/2002. The next one is dated 2/9/2002.

TD: I’m sorry to go so far back in time about her injuries, but Mr. Weinberg asked about her state of mind regarding this injury.

The next e-mail is three months after her injury. She’s back out with friends and having a ball. The next e-mail is dated 3/15/2002. This e-mail is about asking someone to look into her possibly playing “Zena” at Universal studios to supplement her income.

Each and every time, Truc is asking Dr. Pena to evaluate the e-mail in regards to Lana’s state of mind regarding her injury.

Another e-mail, in September, 2002. She got the Chesterfield Cigarette girl Gig for [Europe] and in this e-mail she wrote how thankful she was to be on the planet.

TD: Dr. Pena, she appears to be upbeat and positive about her career?

(The first trial jury after they hung IIRC, stated they would have want to have a psychological autopsy. E-mail after e-mail after e-mail about her positive attitude.)

Another e-mail is presented to Dr. Pena. It’s a follow up, a “P.S.” to one that Weinberg presented where she stated she wanted to stay in. She’s asking someone if they want to go see “Young Frankenstein” on the big screen.

Dr. P: That was a good movie, Young Frankenstein. [....] This shows an upbeat attitude and wanting to go out.

Weinberg then asks to approach the bench and there is a conference.

The gentleman and woman in the front row who spoke with AJ leave the courtroom. Fidler calls the lunch break early and court resumes at 1:00 pm.

More to come.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-two

January 6th, 2009

Prosecution Witnesses

#29 Dr. Louis Pena (LA Co. Deputy Coroner; performed the autopsy on Ms. Clarkson; currently under redirect)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times during the morning session.

It was a short day today, but what a day it was. Not only was Truc wearing one of my favorite outfits (dark gray pantsuit with a very delicate, deep V-neck top with silk like buttons and embroidery), but legally, I think she hit one out of the ball park with her redirect of Dr. Pena.

She makes it clear to the jury that Dr. Pena does not have a bias by asking him how he sees himself. Pena simply responds, "I work for the coroner's office." She also brings out more of Dr. Pena's character on the stand. We learn that even though he's testified hundred's of times, it's the least favorite thing he has to do as part of his job. He tells us that he has anxiety about testifying and that each time he takes the stand it's like the first time.

One thing that is more apparent today is Weinberg's fidgeting. He leans back in his chair (he does this often) and he has this nervous habit of taking his right forefinger and moving it up and down over his lips, almost like he is plucking guitar strings.

One of the brilliant techniques Truc utilized was taking statements from Dr. Di Maio and Dr. Spitz's books, pointing out that these were defense witnesses at the first trial and showing where Dr. Pena's testimony agreed with what these experts said.

10:28 am: Harriet Ryan and Harvey, the Spector supporter with the white hair enter the courtroom within a minute of each other.

Every area that Weinberg attempted to discredit Dr. Pena, Truc clears up.

During the morning break, I hear Spector say a few words to Rachelle. To me, it doesn't sound like Spector had his vocal surgery. When the morning break is over, three jurors, #1, #2 and #17 ask for another notebook.

Not long afterwards, I hear a noise from the defense table. Spector has torn off a sheet of yellow paper from a legal pad with writing on it, looks it over for a moment, then passed it to Weinberg.

One funny moment was when Truc handed Dr. Pena Dr. Di Maio's book Handbook of Forensic Pathology, (apparently a new book) and Dr. Pena, like an excited child said, "Oh I haven't seen this!" Laughter erupted in the court room as he then said, "I'll have to buy this."

Truc goes over Dr. Pena's process of coming to his conclusion of manner of death. "When you spoke to her family, did you know Ms. Clarkson's mother, Donna Clarkson is a psychiatric nurse?" Dr. Pena replied, "I knew there was a specialty. [...] I knew her and her mother were close." And Truc presses on, questioning that Ms. Clarkson stated that her daughter did not have any suicidal idolation or tendencies. Dr. Pena states that there was nothing in the medical record (clinical history) of suicidal ideation either. I see Weinberg chewing on his pen.

Weinberg had brought up the fact that back in '94, Clarkson sought therapy for depression. Truc gets Dr. Pena to explain that all we have is a computer print out of an appointment date and a diagnostic code. There are no detailed therapy reports. Dr. Pena explains that by law, therapists (Ms. Clarkson saw a social worker) are required to shred their (inactive) files after five years. "And that's why we don't know anything else about those records."

Dr. Pena does tell us about the diagnostic code. It's for "adjustment disorder with anxiety." Truc asks, "Anxiety isn't all that unusual is it?" "No," Dr. Pena replies. "In fact, that's what you've been going through, correct?" Truc asks. Dr. Pena replies, "Oh yeah." The courtroom erupts in laughter. Dr. Pena goes onto explain that there is a complicated process the therapist goes through to put a "scale" on the anxiety. "So for me sitting here, I'm probably at a 60. [...] If you're at 100, that's perfect," Dr. Pena states. "What about the judge," Truc asks, and the jurors laugh again. With a smile on his face, Judge Fidler states he's probably at 90. If I'm recalling correctly (it's not in my notes) Dr. Pena stated that the therapist put Ms. Clarkson on the scale at 60.

Truc then goes over the chronological history of his autopsy investigation and what happened at each meeting. She goes over every detail and how his investigation progressed. Dr. Pena testifies that at all the meetings that were held before his autopsy report was finalized, there were no DA's staff present. The first meeting with members of the DA's office didn't happen until October 13th (or 14th), 2003, long after he reached his conclusion of homicide and the report was finalized. Dr. Pena states that the DA's did not have any input with him in rendering his opinion.

Then piece by piece, Truc goes over every item that Dr. Pena factored in to reach his conclusion on MOD. "Did you factor in Mr. De Souza's statement? Did you factor in that Mr. De Souza also said he saw a gun in Spector's hand? Did you factor in that (in his experience) suicide doesn't usually happen in another person's presence?" Dr. Pena adds that he doesn't know of any other case report where someone goes on a date and then shoots herself. :Did you factor in that the purse was on her shoulder?" Dr. Pena goes through his logic process that most people would put a gun to the temple, and that with that purse on her shoulder, it would have been more of a process to put the gun in her mouth verses to her temple. Dr. Pena had already testified that when they see a intra-oral gunshot wounds, it's usually with the gun pointed "feet to head" or, the soft palate (the roof of the mouth). Dr. Pena also states that he factored in the fact that Clarkson went to Spector's home after she found out who he was and in his mind she probably did that to boost her career. To him, that was a hopeful thought process. (When Dr. Pena said this on the stand, Spector's supporter Harverywas shaking his head "no" back and forth very vigorously and Rachelle Short was grinning the entire time.)

Truc asks Dr. Pena if he factored in the bloody rag and the fact that since Clarkson suffered a complete dissection of the spine, she would have been unable to use the rag. Dr. Pena states that he also factored in the information that the gun was wiped down and that there was blood in Spector's pocket. Those two facts were significant items to him. Dr. Pena also factored in Dr. Herold's report that Spector's white jacket was within 2 to 3 feet of the gun going off. Dr. Pena factored in the bruises and their position on her right wrist.

And that's how testimony ended for the day. Truc got a mini review of the prosecution's case of every piece of evidence that goes to show the manner of death was a homicide. It was an almost seamless presentation of the facts of the case.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9:15 am. Lunch will be short, one hour from 12 noon until 1 pm. Then, court resumes and will end at 2:15 pm. I'm not sure if it's a juror that needs the afternoon off or not.

It's my guess that Dr. Pena will still be on the stand for most, if not all of the day tomorrow. As the courtroom emptied, the two camera operators from the first trial stopped in to say hello to Mr. Jackson. They are covering parts of another trial in the building, but it's not "gavel to gavel." Just opening, closings and highlights. I'll try to find out tomorrow which trial.

Catching up on the case against Casey Anthony

COMMENTARY

I've been gone for a while, but I've been closely following the case against Casey Anthony. With Caylee's positive identification by the medical examiner, I was hoping that the circus surrounding this case would end and that the serious business of court procedure would flow more smoothly.

That did happen for a short time. The defense wasn't allowed to "assist" the CSI team and the FBI in the painstaking sifting of soil at the scene. Henry Lee was limited to the view he could get from his camera, behind the yellow tape. I wasn't surprised that the defense then turned around and ignored that piece of land where little Caylee's remains were found. They knew there was nothing more to find.

Now, Caylee's tiny bones rest in a funeral home, waiting for Dr. Werner Spitz to examine them on his own. Since Jose Baez requested the documentation from the "autopsy" conducted by Orlando County Medical Examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia, little Caylee's funeral has had to be put on indefinite hold.

Today, the news about the case has focused on those remains. According to WESH,

The discs include X-rays and photos of her body, which were supposed to be delivered to the defense under a court's order. But in a new motion, the Orange-Osceola State Attorney's Office said it has concerns that the images will be reproduced and sold, according to WESH 2 reporter Bob Kealing.

In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive. That is why prosecutors want the judge to place special restrictions on digitized images of the remains before they hand them over to attorney Jose Baez and his defense team.

In court documents prosecutors say they have three discs ready to hand over, but they want the judge to order Baez not to reproduce those images in any way. They also want restrictions placed on whom Baez can show the images.

I don't know if the prosecution will prevail in this instance, but the motion does bring up a number of questions that have never been answered about the proceeds from the licensing of those pictures and videos. Who did receive all the money?

The Baez Law Firm also got a verbal spanking from civil judge Jose Rodriguez. From WFTV

Casey Anthony's defense team wanted to avoid having her testify in connection with the civil trial, which could then be used against her in her criminal trial. Baez had hoped the deposition could be delayed until after the criminal trial.

During Tuesday morning's brief meeting, the judge refused to hear the request and scolded Jose Baez's team for personal attacks against Morgan and Morgan, the law firm representing Gonzalez, and said Baez was taking the profession to a new low.

The judge told Baez to stick to the law and said that the request for a hearing didn't follow proper protocol and that there was not enough notice given to make such a request.

Apparently, Jose Baez and his attorneys haven't learned proper procedure for filing motions despite assistance provided them by Judge Stan Strickland last year! I hope they all get on a learning curve about basic court procedures.

As far as the verbal spanking that the Baez Law Firm received, perhaps they also need to learn that it's not nice to snipe at the opposition in the actual counter suit. Paragraph 7 of the suit states:

The Plaintiff and her attorneys knew this when they filed said lawsuit yet went through with this frivolous lawsuit so as to generate publicity and press for their law firm. A law firm, it should be noted, which utilizes highway billboards in order to advertise their services. This lawsuit allows them to generate further publicity for their law firm without paying thousands of dollars for a billboard.

Somehow, I'm not quite following that legal argument! Indeed, I'm thinking just WHO here is benefitting from the publicity in this case the most.

As I recall, the whole issue in this situation is that after Morgan filed the case on Zenaida Gonzalez' behalf, The Baez Law Firm filed a counter suit. According to Morgan, that left Casey Anthony open to deposition in support of her counter suit. From what I understand, Casey's taking the 5th to questions asked of her would cause her to lose her suit. It's a very bizarre situation!

There will be a hearing on the matter this Thursday, January 8.

Meanwhile, things have been pretty quiet on the Anthony Family Front. That's probably because they are all now listening to their lawyers for a change. Oh, and their all waiting for full immunity before interacting with Law Enforcement again.

It does seem like the circus is starting up again. I haven't even begun to mention the ways. The Meter Reader, the Psychic, Leonard Padilla, etc., etc., etc.!

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-one

January 5th, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses:

#29 Dr. Louis Pena (LA Co. Deputy Coroner; performed the autopsy on Ms. Clarkson; 1st cross examination complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times, Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly and Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press all for short periods in the morning session only.

The last I heard, court was supposed to start at 9:00 am for a 402 hearing with Dr. Pena and I made a point to get to court early. Linda in San Diego had taken the train up and I got a chance to catch up with Dr. Carroll Adams on what's happening in the Cameron Brown retrial in 107, Judge Pastor's courtroom. There will be a pretrial hearing in that case tomorrow. Originally, it was scheduled for January 20th, but that date was canceled. It's very possible this trial will start right around the time that Spector ends and I'll get a chance to drop in on most of it. If you don't know about this case, Cameron Brown was charged with throwing his four year old child off Inspiration Point in Rancho Palos Verdes almost eight years ago. The first trial ended in a hung jury. It was not because some jurors thought he was innocent; they could not agree on the degree of guilt. I think this will be an interesting trial and I hope to attend some of it. It just depends on how long the trial will be and whether or not I can stay caught up on sewing. Pastor's court starts promptly at 8:30 am and that will factor into my decision.

Court in 106 didn't start until 9:30 am and the first hour was taken up with a collateral issue as well as the parties trying to push for or against this 402 hearing. Weinberg didn't want it, he argued that it "wasn't proper in this case," the judge did, mentioning the cases that supported his position for the hearing. No matter what Fidler said, like the energizer bunny, Weinberg kept coming back with many of the same arguments I've heard four or five times before and stating his position to Fidler that he would not be asking Pena any questions that were not asked in the first trial. He also stated he would not be presenting any documents that had not already been admitted in the first trial.

Spector's adopted son Donte is in court today sitting next to Rachelle Short in the front row. There are a few other public people in court today as well as two young 30-ish looking young men, one of which I believe used to work in Weinberg's office. There was also another slightly older gentleman who along with these two, greeted Weinberg in the hallway. All three men sat in on the morning session. Spector is wearing a black suit, and a black shirt with a white collar. No two toned shoes today. He's wearing an almost neon blue tie with a light blue handkerchief in his suit pocket. Rachelle is wearing nondescript dark colors. There is a long black scarf wrapped around her neck and she is swathed in her familiar dark purple blanket.

Weinberg then argues that he doesn't want to ask Dr. Pena questions on the stand, he wants to present questions he will ask Pena outside the presence of the prosecution. He wants to know if the limitations he's already been given (no psychological autopsy questions) just cover this cross or do they also cover if Weinberg presents Dr. Pena as his own witness. Fidler has to think about that for a moment and then address it. He asks to hear from the people.

Truc Do presents the people's position on the psychological autopsy and reminds the court that the coroner's office does not perform a psychological autopsy when there is a finding of homicide. It's only done where there is a finding of suicide or there is a question as to whether or not the death is an accident or a suicide. Juror #5 is not wearing a t-shirt today.

Weinberg argues that the purpose of cross examination is not to ask Dr. Pena his opinion on a psychological autopsy, it's to get in what he did nor did not consider when he came to his conclusion. "I'm not going to ask him his opinion; I'm going to asks him if he considered (specific things)."

Truc defends the prosecutions position again and Weinberg comes back with quotes directly from the autopsy report where Dr. Pena states the specific things he utilized to come to the conclusion of homicide. (No evidence of clinical depression in the medical file, speaking to Mrs. Clarkson about her daughter's state of mind.) Fidler states he will limit what Weinberg can cross at this time until the psychological autopsy position is resolved. Weinberg continues to argue his position with the court . Fidler's tone in response appears (to me) to get a bit terse. He can't specifically rule because Dr. Pena has changed his testimony on several things. He feels that he needs to hear some of Dr. Pena's answers before he will rule how far Weinberg can go. Weinberg comes back again to the judge, continuing to press his opinion.

10:20 am: Detective Tomlin enters the courtroom. I also notice that Harriet Ryan is in the back row in her usual spot. I'm not positive when she came in. Weinberg also informs the court that his co-counsel, Jennifer Barringer is ill and will not be back for several weeks. One of his assistants will be handing all the defense AV (audio and video) exhibits.

At this point, nothing is settled. Weinberg states that he still has many questions to go before he reaches the point of contention. One of Mrs. Clarkson's attorneys Bill Ferguson, enters the courtroom and the jury is called. Mrs. Clarkson is not in the courtroom. During the first trial she and her daughter Fawn, would leave the courtroom during Dr. Pena's testimony.

Weinberg refreshes Dr. Pena with the questions they ended with before the holiday break. Questions about the bruises, questions about Dr. Pena going to the scene, and that there was no evidence of a struggle at the death scene. Weinberg puts up a an image of the bureau with the open drawer and asks Pena to focus on the several picture frames on top. Pena agrees that the photos were not knocked over, and that "everything you saw gave no indication that had been a struggle." Dr. Pena agrees.

Through the next hour or so of questioning, Weinberg points out several inconsistencies in Dr. Pena's testimony from the first trial, this trial and the grand jury. He asks Dr. Pena how many draft reports he had before his final report was issued. There were three drafts. Weinberg questions him in detail about hand written changes to the first draft and what his thought process was. Weinberg tries to get Dr. Pena to state that there "is evidence" as to the position of Clarkson's head when her spine was transected. Weinberg states that the trajectory of the false teeth and how far they traveled tells us what position her head was in. Dr. Pena refuses to comment. He states, "That's a tough one."

There are many questions about how many intra-oral gun shot autopsies Dr. Pena previously looked at. Since 1994, he's performed 273 autopsies that were ruled suicides. Four were women that used a handgun intra-orally. The Dr. Lachmana study is brought up again. I think Dr. Pena held up pretty well under this section of cross.

11:11 am: Linda Deutsch enters and sits in her favorite spot.

There are several questions about when Clarkson was photographed at the coroner's office and when her body was cleaned for autopsy. Dr. Pena is asked about testimony he gave in the first trial, where Chris Plourd asked him questions about observing blood "spatter" or blood "stains." In several areas of questioning, Dr. Pena has stated that the testimony he gave at the first trial "is incorrect." Dr. Pena went on to explain that during the first trial, he was on the stand for four days and he was exhausted. And when Plourd asked him to identify a spot of Clarkson's hands he said blood "stains" verses blood "spatter," he clarifies that "spatter" is not a term that the coroner's office uses.

At this point, the prosecution objects to a question the defense asks and the jury is asked to step into the jury room for a few minutes. The jury is called back in for another ten minutes of cross and then the lunch break is called.

After lunch, when I get back up on the 9th floor, Donte is in the hallway talking to the defense team. Each time I've seen Spector supporters in court, I've seen them leave with Spector at the lunch break, but I've never seen them arrive back to court with him. It makes me think that they don't even lunch with Spector, although I don't know for certain one way or the other.

I forgot to mention that there is a second podium in the courtroom in the well of the court that Weinberg has placed extra files on and it blocks my view of several of the jury members.

While we wait for court to resume, Rachelle and Donte chat. I hear the noise of a cell phone keys being punched and on of the bailiffs tells Donte to tun his phone off. There is no accredited press for the afternoon session.

1:36 pm: Cross examination resumes and Weinberg brings up another inconsistency in Dr. Pena's testimony from the first trial. During the morning session Dr. Pena did state that he suffers from short term memory loss which is why when he is asked what he testified to during the first trial, he has said he doesn't remember. Weinberg points out that Dr. Pena rendered his opinion on MOD months before he received the final forensic evidence from the Sheriff's crime lab. Dr. Pena in his defense states that he had the verbal, oral data, just not the final reports.

Dr. Pena states that he interviewed Mrs. Clarkson three days after the death and this was the only person from he family he interviewed. Weinberg asks if he talked to anyone else about Clarkson's "state of mind." Very few jurors appear to be taking notes. Weinberg brings up something from Clarkson's medical file, that back in '94 she sought help for depression and Pena states that he did not know that. Pena states that he knew from the medical records she was a social drinker.

Weinberg asks, "Didn't you say, "If it wasn't for that statement (Adriano De Souza's testimony of what Spector said to him.) we wouldn't be here to me and Ms. Matros back in May 2008?" Dr. Pena replies, "I'm not saying I didn't say it. I'm saying it's not in my notes of the meeting and I don't remember."

Weinberg questions Dr. Pena's logic about searching for a weapon. Dr. Pena has stated he felt that if Clarkson was searching for a weapon, there would have been more drawers open. Weinberg asks, "How do you know the drawer wasn't (already) open?" Dr. Pena says he doesn't. There are more questions like this and I start to nod off.

There is another short break for arguments outside the presence of the jury. Fidler rules against the prosecution and states that Dr. Pena could be crossed on matters that he did not testify to under direct. All the meetings, manner of death and how Dr. Pena reached his conclusion of homicide were ruled acceptable for cross. Fidler states there is no definite ruling yet on psychological autopsy coming in, but that relates to a suicidologist. Fidler states, "However, what we have here is a coroner, not a suicidologist. It's what the doctor relied on to do his job. [...] I can't prevent the defense from crossing him, he used these issues to determine MOD." Fidler addresses Truc Do and says, "If you have some other offer...."

Truc Do presents her argument that it's tenuously related... it's collateral. Fidler responds that it's not collateral. Truc Do argues there is a difference between a collateral issue and collateral impeachment. There will be no 402 hearing. Weinberg effectively sidestepped Judge Fidler having this hearing. Fidler states he is seeing where the questioning is going of Dr. Pena and nothing appears out of order. He rules, "At this point, I feel it is fair game for cross."

2:24 pm the jury is called back in. Weinberg is able to cross Dr. Pena in detail asking him if he considered x, y, and z, (the statements Clarkson made in emails.) and would they change his opinion.

Weinberg then begins with the emails. Question after question is asked and several of Clarkson's emails are read in court. Weinberg continued asking whether or not that information changed his opinion to MOD. At one point, it's almost as though they are getting combative with each other. I think Dr. Pena defended his logic and conclusions well. At one point, Dr. Pena asked to read the entire email and he felt the email was a positive, upbeat one and not a depressive one. Dr. Pena's answers several times that "it made no difference (to his conclusion) to know this email." When he says that, I hear Spector's #1 fan (who is sitting in the row behind me to my right) make some audible sounds, in response to that. I note out of the corner of my eye that her arms are crossed across her chest and it sounds to me as though she can't believe Dr. Pena's answers.

2:52 pm: The afternoon recess is called. During the break, regarding the defense's cross on the emails, I overhear someone standing in the gallery say, "It's a bullshit, desperate attempt to bait the jury. It didn't work in the first trial and it won't work this time."

3:08 pm: The jury reenters the courtroom. Another email, written to a "Peter" is presented and Weinberg tries to state that the email is not dated. Truc Do corrects Weinberg and states it's dated 12-15-02. "Would it have made any difference to you?" Dr. Pena says no. Another email dated 12-16-02 is presented that also talks about Clarkson getting the Marilyn Monroe part. "Would it have made any difference to you that shortly after she got the Marilyn Monroe part, she was fired (from it)?" Dr. Pena says no.

The first cross ends with a whimper. Judge Fidler then ends court for the day since the HVAC (air conditioning) is not working and it's quite warm in the courtroom.

Court resumes at 9:30 am tomorrow for redirect. Court will only be half day because Judge Fidler has a personal appointment.

Scout Kitty Update & Phil Spector Retrial Status

Scout Kitty Update

On Tuesday, Scout got the last of his stitches removed. Here you can see how his incision is doing. It's healing nicely.


He kept tearing up the stretchy bandage trying to get to his wound area that we finally removed it. After that, he proceeded to pull out as many of his stitches that he could reach. His sneezing and watery eyes cleared up just like the vet said they would. However, he did pass the virus onto Jumpy since they do like to sleep near each other in the office beds.


Jumpy is now on the tail end of his sneezing and watery eyes. He should be over that in another few days. Scout is slowly adapting to being an inside kitty. He still tells us on a daily basis he wants to go out but the good news is he is now playing on the monster cat tree where he used to avoid it. Again, thank you so much to all of you that were so generous and made a donation to help cover the cost of Scout's operation.

Phil Spector Retrial: Where the case stands

Before court broke for the holidays Dr. Pena was still on the stand under his first cross examination. As court ended, Judge Fidler ruled that there would be a "402 hearing" which is a type of hearing outside the presence of the jury. Weinberg did not feel that a 402 hearing was "a good idea" but Fidler over ruled him.

Dr. Pena's testimony is in a holding pattern because the defense is arguing that they should be allowed to cross him on MOD (manner or "mode" of death) even though the prosecution did not present any evidence about that. Truc Do just asked him questions on the autopsy itself and COD (cause of death). The defense also wants to question Dr. Pena on "psychological autopsy" and what went on in the many department meetings from the time of the autopsy, to the time he finally determined a MOD, many months later.

The prosecution is fighting this. When court resumes on Jan 5th at 9:00 am, motions will be heard on how far the scope of the cross can go and the psychological autopsy issue will also be resolved. Fidler has tentatively stated that any mention of a psychological autopsy may not come in. Fidler is waiting for the defense to complete their motion on the issue. Once that is resolved Dr. Pena will take the stand and will be asked questions by Weinberg outside the presence of the jury. Fidler will rule on a question by question basis whether or not Weinberg can ask those questions in front of the jury.

Once all that is settled there could possibly be a redirect and recross of this witness.

Once he is off the stand the prosecution has three more witnesses. They are going to call a witness they used in their rebuttal case last time, Dr. John Andrews. They are also going to call one of the forensic fingerprint analysts at the Los Angeles Co. Sheriff's Dept., Dale S. Falicon. Then last, Dr. Lynn Herold. Dr. Herold will be the witness that puts Spector's white ladies jacket within 2 to 3 feet of the gun being fired. (Incidentally, Michelle Blaine has stated on her blog that the white jacket was hers and was part of a skirt and jacket suit set.)

If things go smoothly, all that could take four days, maybe five. Then the prosecution rests and the defense puts on their case. It wasn't until one day before the holiday break was to commence that the defense was willing to "hand over" their "real list" of witnesses verses the "fake list." Weinberg has stalled the entire trial despite the many requests by the prosecution. He was legally within his rights, but most attorneys will let the other side know what witnesses they are going to call from their big list; Weinberg just chose not to be accommodating to the prosecution. You could call this one of Weinberg's "gamesmanship" tactics.

I can't wait to find out if Weinberg "did" turn over to the prosecution his discovery on Dr. Seiden, the suicidologist as ordered. He was supposed to do that by the end of the day, Dec 23rd, the day he was up in the Bay area, representing Dr. Ayres, on trial for child molestation. You can read up on the status of Weinberg's other client, here.

Considering the typical delays, this trial is proceeding ahead. If you have any extra time off over the holidays, there are plenty of seats in the courtroom. The Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center is an older building built in the 1960's. It's located at 210 W. Temple and takes up the entire block between Broadway and Main Street. Judge Fidler's courtroom is on the 9th floor, Department 106. After you clear the 9th floor security area, turn to your left. 106 is at the very end of the hall on the far right. Fidler usually starts his court at 9:30 am. Court is scheduled to start on January 5th at 9:00 am to hear motions outside the presence of the jury.

Where to Park: Most parking within a block west or south of the courthouse runs about $16 to $18.00 for all day. There are two $9.00 a day lots two and a half blocks directly south. One is on the west side of Main Street and the other is on the west side of Broadway.

Public Transportation: If you are near a Metro rail or subway line I highly recommend taking public transportation. The courthouse is one block away from the Civic Center station on the Red Line. When you exit the red line, head for the Temple Street escalators. Once you reach the street, walk through the Court of Flags plaza and down the steps in the center of Broadway. You will clearly see the rear entrance to the building from the stairs.

Happy New Year!

Wishing all our readers a bright and happy new year!