My2Cents let me know that Mr. Weinberg and Susan Matross (I've been spelling her name incorrectly) published an opinion piece in the LA Times.
Many of the statements made in this article are directly from Weinberg's closing argument. In fact, I would say the majority of them are. The statements about bias in crime labs the National Academy of Sciences (along with an image up on the screen) were presented as part of his closing argument. A hefty part of Weinberg's argument was accusing the LA County Sheriff's Crime Lab and the employees working on this case of bias. However, the image of the report Weinberg put up on the screen was objected to by the prosecution and the objection sustained by Judge Fidler because it was a report that was never admitted into evidence at the trial.
Some of the arguments Weinberg made in his closing are open to interpretation. For example, let's look at this statement:
"The sheriff's chief criminalist could not estimate how many hours or public dollars she had spent, because no one had required her to keep any records, but she proudly asserted that she had spent months just on the examination of every square inch of clothing seized as evidence."
Weinberg is referring to Dr. Lynne Herold here. Dr. Herold testified that no one in her department is required to log how many hours they spend on a particular case. (I believe she stated the only thing the LA County Crime Lab tracks is the number of hours that employees spend in court, testifying.) From what I remember of her testimony, I don't believe anyone in the crime lab has to keep these types of records. You also have to ask, for what purpose would they keep this type of record? Why would they need to? So what if they have to spend an inordinate amount of man hours on an investigation? Some investigations take longer than others. Some investigations are solved quickly because there is not a lot of evidence Some cases take longer because there is more evidence to examine. For Weinberg to characterize Dr. Herold's response as "proudly asserted," to me that's a very pro-defense slanted description of how she testified.
Let's look at this statement:
"The L.A. County coroner admitted that in addition to undertaking every conceivable test and analysis, his office held meetings involving doctors, criminalists, sheriff's crime lab personnel, sheriff's investigators and representatives of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office to determine whether the death of Lana Clarkson could be declared a homicide even though the medical evidence could not support that determination."
In this article (and in his closing argument) Weinberg omits the fact that the Chief Coroner, Dr. Lakshmanan also stated that it's not unusual for the medical examiner to be unable to determine the manner of death (MOD) from the autopsy. Many times they cannot determine MOD from the autopsy alone and have to turn to law enforcement investigation to give them that answer. From the way this statement is written, it sounds like what the coroner did was highly unusual. It's not.
Another statement:
"Nonetheless, in September 2004, more than 19 months after the death, Spector was indicted. At that point, for the first time, Spector and his representatives were given access to the prosecution's "scientific evidence."
And I would say, "Thank God!" This is the way it's supposed to be. It would be a breakdown in law enforcement's ability to effectively prosecute a case and keep the integrity of it's evidence secure for trial if they made the evidence in an active investigation available to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to look at it before a suspect was even indicted for a crime.
I find it interesting that Weinberg felt the need to address the reporting in the LA Times about how much Spector paid for his defense experts. Couple that with the fact that Weinberg went to great lengths not to turn over the amounts his expert witnesses were paid to the prosecution. The prosecution had to subpoena those records in a special type of subpoena to Weinberg. The subpoena wasn't delivered until just before the witness was called. When these witnesses did take the stand, many of them did not have their billing records with them. We also found out that several times Weinberg did not even pass the subpoena onto his witness. It was Weinberg who provided the amount that Dr. Spitz had billed. Dr. Spitz didn't even know.
There is a reason Weinberg fought so hard to keep the true amount that Spector spent on his experts from getting in front of the jury. It was a large amount of money and in my opinion, the reason is, it did not look good for his client.
P.S. Weinberg conveniently left out the fact that as a courtesy, Dr. Baden was able to observe the autopsy of Lana Clarkson. After the criminalist's were finished collecting evidence at the scene, it was released back to the defendant and his team was able to view it. They would have been able to observe the areas in the home where Spector left a blood trail. Anything beyond that (such as letting them view collected evidence) would have compromised the investigation. Weinberg conveniently omits a fact that the defense had something the prosecution did not. Complete access to question the defendant as to "what happened" that night. I'm sure the defendant would have been able to supply them with what was "missing" from his home, but I don't believe he returned to it for over a week.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Investing Time in the Service to Others
Giving one's time.
Have you ever donated your time to something you really believed in? You know, donated your time to a charity, or a food drive or helped a community clean up project? Have you done service to your church, or other faith based organization? Do you?
Have you read the stories about people who dedicate their whole lives to a cause of helping others, or a cause, often living in less than ideal conditions themselves for the sole purpose of being an asset to a community or a select group?
I am always awe inspired by these people who have found a calling that often doesn't pay them much money, yet their lives are rich and full of personal rewards by being of service to others. Whether it's the organization that was started to help an endangered species, or of pets or one that creates a food drive for a particular community, these stories always fill my heart with hope and appreciation for those individuals with the fortitude to dedicate their lives to worthy causes.
Most people I know who entered the field of healing arts do so because they want to be of service to others. Help people, in ways that give them personal rewards that go far beyond what a nice paycheck would give them. I am one of those people. Many years ago, when I choose to change career paths and become a bodyworker, my mother told me that when I was five, I talked about wanting to become a doctor. I spent over seventeen years in the financial sector, but that work never provided me with the deep, emotional satisfaction of service to others that working as a bodyworker has for the past twenty years. Not long after I became a bodyworker, for several years I donated my time to a little group called VAMP, which stood for Volunteer Aids Massage Project. VAMP went to the HIV/AIDS ward at the Century City Hospital, giving free bodywork to the patients who requested it. Back then, there was still a stigma about touching someone with AIDS or HIV, and I wanted to show people that they could get over their fear of this disease. As the organization grew, I was the one who trained new bodyworkers how to work on the patients in a hospital setting.
About the same time, I was teaching myself to sew. As I learned to make new things or designed something totally new, I often donated my new creations to charity auctions. Items such as throw blankets, Hot/Cold Packs, Purses, Market Bags, and even custom made wheelchair bags. I still donate a significant amount of my sewing work to charities and school fund raisers that have silent auctions. I've also donated hundreds of hours of bodywork sessions as well.
Many people have not understood why I chose to invest a large portion of my time in attending the Phil Spector murder trial and write about it. They didn't understand why I would dedicate such a large portion of my time to something where I wasn't receiving a paycheck. Some people probably think I have an underlying agenda to investing so much of my time. The reality is, there are many people that invest their time in a hobby or passion they feel a strong connection or interest in.
Part of the answer is rooted in my general nature where I receive a personal satisfaction from doing something that helps others. I like to do stuff like that. It makes me feel good. Ever since I first read Helter Skelter I've been fascinated with stories of true crime. One of the subjects in that genre that has interested me the most are serial killers and sociopaths. The sixty-four thousand dollar question has always been, "What is it that turns a new baby into a sociopath? Is it nurture? Is it nature? Or is it a combination of both?" Those are questions that have long captured my attention in looking at why someone becomes violent.
For many years now, I've been connected to a wonderful group of people who have followed criminal trials on television (former Court TV, now TruTV). Within the past few years, many have migrated to watching trials live streamed on the Internet. The big advantage is, there are no commercial interruptions or talking heads and it's the closest thing to being inside the courtroom. One place that many of us gather to talk about the trials we are watching is the Juror Thirteen web site and chat room. Juror Thirteen is the only web site I know of that searches for trials that are being live streamed on the Internet and provides a link to that streaming coverage.
In my life right now I would have to say that I'm very fortunate. I have a loving spouse who wholeheartedly believes in my desire to pursue my own interests. He even came to court with me a couple of times to show his support for my trial coverage efforts. The last few years I've been in a semi-retirement mode so I've had the opportunity to attend three high profile trials and several hearings on a few other cases. I consider myself lucky that at this time in my life, I am able to pursue a life long interest in true crime by attending a trial in person. When the reality set in that there would be no live coverage of Spector's retrial for second degree murder, I knew that I could step up to the plate and be of service to all the trial watching folks who wanted to see this trial but wouldn't be able to because the media had lost interest.
From the very beginning, my co-blogger donchais kept telling me that I did not have to write a detailed summary of each day of testimony. She continually reminded me that a short entry covering just the highlights of the day would suffice. However, it has been my general nature of wanting to give to my trial watching community of friends a feeling of being in the courtroom with me that drove me to write up detailed entries on each days proceedings.
Another thing that was an impetus for me to cover the second trial, was the failed attempt by the defendant to get me removed from the courtroom during the first trial. This campaign reared itself again even before opening statements started in the retrial and continued over the next five months. As each new intimidation tactic was thrown at me by either the defendant himself or his supporters, it only steeled my resolve to attend every day of trial and report as much of it as I possibly could. Once the trial reaches a conclusion, I will most likely talk about each one of those events.
The last thing that has kept me coming back to 106 for every day of testimony was an emotional bond that, for some unknown reason I felt to someone I don't even know, except to say hello to, and that's Mrs. Clarkson. When I attended the second trial, I paid homage to diarist Dominick Dunne by choosing to sit in the exact same spot I sat in for most of the first trial and that was next to him, behind Mrs. Clarkson. During the first trial, but even more so in the second, when I saw Mrs. Clarkson cry during the testimony of the medical examiners, my eyes would start to well up too, and the realization of what she and her family had lost with the death of Lana affected me. I didn't even know Donna and I felt a connection to her. I did not know her before the trial started and to this day I still don't know her or what her life is about, but I felt I understood her loss and the tragedy of it.
So here we are. We've finally reached that point where the jury has the case and they've started deliberating. And I'm still here, covering this case until a verdict is reached. Thank you very much everyone, for sticking with me these long months.
Have you ever donated your time to something you really believed in? You know, donated your time to a charity, or a food drive or helped a community clean up project? Have you done service to your church, or other faith based organization? Do you?
Have you read the stories about people who dedicate their whole lives to a cause of helping others, or a cause, often living in less than ideal conditions themselves for the sole purpose of being an asset to a community or a select group?
I am always awe inspired by these people who have found a calling that often doesn't pay them much money, yet their lives are rich and full of personal rewards by being of service to others. Whether it's the organization that was started to help an endangered species, or of pets or one that creates a food drive for a particular community, these stories always fill my heart with hope and appreciation for those individuals with the fortitude to dedicate their lives to worthy causes.
Most people I know who entered the field of healing arts do so because they want to be of service to others. Help people, in ways that give them personal rewards that go far beyond what a nice paycheck would give them. I am one of those people. Many years ago, when I choose to change career paths and become a bodyworker, my mother told me that when I was five, I talked about wanting to become a doctor. I spent over seventeen years in the financial sector, but that work never provided me with the deep, emotional satisfaction of service to others that working as a bodyworker has for the past twenty years. Not long after I became a bodyworker, for several years I donated my time to a little group called VAMP, which stood for Volunteer Aids Massage Project. VAMP went to the HIV/AIDS ward at the Century City Hospital, giving free bodywork to the patients who requested it. Back then, there was still a stigma about touching someone with AIDS or HIV, and I wanted to show people that they could get over their fear of this disease. As the organization grew, I was the one who trained new bodyworkers how to work on the patients in a hospital setting.
About the same time, I was teaching myself to sew. As I learned to make new things or designed something totally new, I often donated my new creations to charity auctions. Items such as throw blankets, Hot/Cold Packs, Purses, Market Bags, and even custom made wheelchair bags. I still donate a significant amount of my sewing work to charities and school fund raisers that have silent auctions. I've also donated hundreds of hours of bodywork sessions as well.
Many people have not understood why I chose to invest a large portion of my time in attending the Phil Spector murder trial and write about it. They didn't understand why I would dedicate such a large portion of my time to something where I wasn't receiving a paycheck. Some people probably think I have an underlying agenda to investing so much of my time. The reality is, there are many people that invest their time in a hobby or passion they feel a strong connection or interest in.
Part of the answer is rooted in my general nature where I receive a personal satisfaction from doing something that helps others. I like to do stuff like that. It makes me feel good. Ever since I first read Helter Skelter I've been fascinated with stories of true crime. One of the subjects in that genre that has interested me the most are serial killers and sociopaths. The sixty-four thousand dollar question has always been, "What is it that turns a new baby into a sociopath? Is it nurture? Is it nature? Or is it a combination of both?" Those are questions that have long captured my attention in looking at why someone becomes violent.
For many years now, I've been connected to a wonderful group of people who have followed criminal trials on television (former Court TV, now TruTV). Within the past few years, many have migrated to watching trials live streamed on the Internet. The big advantage is, there are no commercial interruptions or talking heads and it's the closest thing to being inside the courtroom. One place that many of us gather to talk about the trials we are watching is the Juror Thirteen web site and chat room. Juror Thirteen is the only web site I know of that searches for trials that are being live streamed on the Internet and provides a link to that streaming coverage.
In my life right now I would have to say that I'm very fortunate. I have a loving spouse who wholeheartedly believes in my desire to pursue my own interests. He even came to court with me a couple of times to show his support for my trial coverage efforts. The last few years I've been in a semi-retirement mode so I've had the opportunity to attend three high profile trials and several hearings on a few other cases. I consider myself lucky that at this time in my life, I am able to pursue a life long interest in true crime by attending a trial in person. When the reality set in that there would be no live coverage of Spector's retrial for second degree murder, I knew that I could step up to the plate and be of service to all the trial watching folks who wanted to see this trial but wouldn't be able to because the media had lost interest.
From the very beginning, my co-blogger donchais kept telling me that I did not have to write a detailed summary of each day of testimony. She continually reminded me that a short entry covering just the highlights of the day would suffice. However, it has been my general nature of wanting to give to my trial watching community of friends a feeling of being in the courtroom with me that drove me to write up detailed entries on each days proceedings.
Another thing that was an impetus for me to cover the second trial, was the failed attempt by the defendant to get me removed from the courtroom during the first trial. This campaign reared itself again even before opening statements started in the retrial and continued over the next five months. As each new intimidation tactic was thrown at me by either the defendant himself or his supporters, it only steeled my resolve to attend every day of trial and report as much of it as I possibly could. Once the trial reaches a conclusion, I will most likely talk about each one of those events.
The last thing that has kept me coming back to 106 for every day of testimony was an emotional bond that, for some unknown reason I felt to someone I don't even know, except to say hello to, and that's Mrs. Clarkson. When I attended the second trial, I paid homage to diarist Dominick Dunne by choosing to sit in the exact same spot I sat in for most of the first trial and that was next to him, behind Mrs. Clarkson. During the first trial, but even more so in the second, when I saw Mrs. Clarkson cry during the testimony of the medical examiners, my eyes would start to well up too, and the realization of what she and her family had lost with the death of Lana affected me. I didn't even know Donna and I felt a connection to her. I did not know her before the trial started and to this day I still don't know her or what her life is about, but I felt I understood her loss and the tragedy of it.
So here we are. We've finally reached that point where the jury has the case and they've started deliberating. And I'm still here, covering this case until a verdict is reached. Thank you very much everyone, for sticking with me these long months.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 4 Part II
March 26th, 2009: Continuation of Day 4 of Closing Argument & Jury Instructions. (unedited entry)
I get up inside the courtroom at 9:08 am. Jackson is putting a huge board up over by the jury with the 14 defense points. I bet this is the board where he is going to knock out each and every one of those points.
The cameraman is setting up right behind me to my left. More press enter the courtroom and set up their laptops in the back row. Yesterday, there were some signs taped to the back of the benches that said RESERVED. There was one where Linda Deutsch usually sits and one where Harriet Ryan usually sits. Their names were written in right below the huge printed letters.
9:13 am: Wendy calls the judge. I see Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly in the back row, who is writing on the LA Weekly's LA DAILY blog. I know there is someone in the back row on Twitter, posting short items periodically, but I'm not sure if it's the very tall slender man or one of the other reporters that I have not personally met. Harriet Ryan is here. (Her latest story is already up, here.)
Over on the defense side of the room, the benches are not packed with supporters like they were on Tuesday for Weinberg's closing arguments. Tawni Tyndall is there, along with Rachelle and Mrs. Weinberg. Harvey with the white hair is in the back row, and there are I think two people sitting behind Rachelle, but I believe one of them must be either a reporter (doesn't look like it) or a clerk for the defense. It's a 30's looking dark haired woman in a black skirt suit and she's got a legal pad on her lap. Beside her is a young man I've never seen before. Compare that to the six women friends of Lana Clarkson who are sitting in the second row behind Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter, Fawn.
Fidler asks Jackson about how much longer he has. He informs the court he has about 25 minutes. Some people in the courtroom are quite happy about getting 25 minutes of Jackson closing verses 10 minutes.
Weinberg then speaks to Fidler "off the record" even though court is on the record. He's upset that yesterday, just past 4:00 pm (when court usually ends) he "...realizes there apparently was some sort of agreement between the prosecution and the court to go until 4:30. The defense had no notice that this this was agreed to. What if our client had an appointment?" Wendy explains that she had received a note from Mr. Jackson requesting to go to 4:30 pm and she passed it onto the Judge. She inquired of the jurors if they could stay until 4:30 pm, and they didn't have any problem with it. She apologizes for any misunderstanding.
There are some last jury instructions that still have to be resolved . In instruction 315, Weinberg wants the word "noise" added in the part where the types of distractions are listed. Fidler denies the request stating he feels the instruction as written is adequate. Weinberg is objecting to some of the language in the 1101(b) instruction. He goes on and on and on with his argument about this. Fidler patiently explains to Weinberg that "We've discussed this at length. I totally disagree. If it's taken out of context, yes, but if you read the paragraph in context it makes perfect sense."
The last issue is that special instruction that Weinberg wants. The court has to stop for a moment, while the jurors file into the jury room at 9:23 am. A few moments after them, Spector enters the courtroom with Rachelle. Rachelle is wearing a stark white suit. It's different than the one with all the zippers on it.
Weinberg then objects to the prosecution "rewriting" their special jury instruction #1. Fidler explains that the instruction, as it was originally written by the defense, "If it doesn't track the other instructions, then it won't be given."
Weinberg argues that there is "nothing legally incorrect in the instruction the way the defense wrote it." Fidler a bit irritated states, "I could not agree with you less." Weinberg goes on and argues some more, stating basically the same thing he said before.
Fidler says, "What I'm saying is, in it's present form, I won't give it." Weinberg responds, "Then I ask for the opportunity to amend the instruction." Fidler replies, "Okay." So this means that Fidler will not read to the jury the instructions directly after Jackson is finished. The defense will probably call Riordan for advise during the break.
Jackson gets up to speak to the jury.
"Folks, thank you very much for your patience. I've only got about a half hour more." Jackson proceeds to go through the 14 points that the defense began and ended their case with. "With the slightest scrutiny you will see that each one falls like a tin soldier."
1. Intra-oral gunshot wounds are 99% suicide. "Statistics don't tell us anything about real life. [...] But everybody watches the game," Jackson states. Jackson then proceeds to give the jury a long example to "hit home" his point. There's a strenth Jackson has that few have and that is he a powerful orator. He can draw his audience in when he's showing them an example. You can't help but pay rapt attention to the details of what he is telling you.
Jackson takes the jury back to 1941, when our country was wracked by crisis and a looming world war. "We were just recovering from the stock market crash and the great depression. During this turbulent time, the country turned to a great American sport, and that was baseball. They were following it with more passion than we do today. [...] And the big star of the time that emerges was Joe DiMaggio who was playing for the New York Yankees. He started the season and for 10 games in a row, he hit safely."
And then he hit 20 games in a row safely. Soon, this was big news with Joe DiMaggio never missing a hit in 20 games. [...] Then it was 30 games and the whole country took notice. Then it was 40, 45, then 50 games in a row that Joe DiMaggio hit safely. [...] Joe DiMaggio was the obsession of this country in 1941. The supermarkets would close during the games and people would listen to the game on their transistor radios, transfixed. [...] And then he hit 55 games safely."
"When it came to game 56, the experts said, 'My God, this is impossible! It can't happen.' The 56th game, was against the Chicago Indians. 'The experts said, the odds, the statistics, it will never happen,' that Joe DiMaggio would hit 56 games safely."
Jackson continued. "Now, do you cut your radio off? Do you just turn off the game because the statistics say it can't happen? Mr. Weinberg says yes, turn your radio off. Or do you listen to the game, or watch the pitch? [...] Joe DiMaggio got 3 hits off that game 56. [...] Statistics; it means nothing. [...] Just because it's improbable, doesn't mean anything in this case. [...] It means absolutely zero in reality."
Once Jackson is finished with the first point, he marks a big red X over the item with a huge red magic marker. He does this each and every time he's finished explaining why that evidence doesn't "prove" what Weinberg said it proves.
Jackson addresses the next point, #2 Blood on front strap and the grip.
"Phil Spector had his hand on the grip and Lana Clarkson ended up dead! He got blood everywhere! He got blood on the door latch, on the door knob and the banister. To assume that he got blood everywhere else but not on the gun is ridiculous. [...] We know that only Phil Spector could have left the fingerprint that was left in blood on the front strap of the gun because Lana Clarkson didn’t get up afterwords and leave it there."
“DW: Objection! Detective Katz...
Jackson, with a big smile on his face says, "Actually, Dale Falicon said, latex gloved hands can leave a print if it’s “wet blood.” There’s no question the print was left in wet blood. Detective Katz didn’t leave that print (because he handled the gun about 14 hours later. Phil Spector left that print on the gun and the smear on the gun proves it was Phil Spector."
Jackson crosses off number two on the board.
#3 Spatter on the gun grip. "I've got two words for that," Jackson explains, "James Pex. The perjurer. [...] He’s the only person who said that spatter was on the gun grip.
DW: Objection! Dr. Di Maio also said...
Jackson, smiling again, responds to that, “Dr. Di Maio said he didn’t consider it. He said he only considered the blood on the metal. He didn’t consider the blood on the grip because he said, 'That’s argumentative.' James Pex came in here and six years later and told you he found new evidence. He said something no one else has ever said before." Jackson goes onto explain how he feels about his job as a prosecutor. He's speaking now with quite a bit of emotion. "I take my job as a prosecutor seriously. Very seriously. And that word, perjury is something I've never had to say before (to a jury). [...] Mr. Weinberg would have you just dismiss that as a mistake. [...] It was more than a mistake. [...] He falsified evidence!"
Jackson crosses off number three on the big board.
(It's around this time, in the packed courtroom I start to have a coughing fit. I'm all the way down on the far left of the second bench row. I can't get up to leave. I'm embarrassed because I'm interrupting Jackson's fantastic argument with my coughing. I don't have any water and I'm looking furiously around me to see if there is anyone I know near by me, that has any, but everyone has their eyes focused on Jackson. I turn my head into my right shoulder and put my mouth right up against my upper arm and cough into in like that, trying to muffle the sound as much as possible until the fit has passed.)
#4 No Phil Spector DNA on the gun.
"The evidence shows it doesn’t matter. The defense desperately needs something, some that shows science. That’s a complete red herring. No one ever tested his gun for DNA because it was his gun found in his home. [...] Steve Renteria tested areas for blood, for Lana Clarkson’s blood. He took samples to test the blood on the gun. Spector’s DNA would have been overwhelmed by the copious amount of blood that was on the gun. [...] The banister was tested and there was no DNA from Philip Spector there. The bloody diaper was tested and there’s no Phil Spector DNA found on the diaper. Steve Renteria was interested in the blood that was on that rag. [...] Is the defense saying that the banister in his own house, he never touched? That the diaper that came from his house, he never touched? [...] (That's the logic the defense would have you believe.) The fact that Phil Spector's DNA was not found on the gun was of no consequence. It was tested for blood."
Jackson takes the marker and crosses off another number.
#5 No spatter on Spector's right sleeve. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot; you must not believe that if something is missing it is of great importance." Jackson explains further that every expert who testified in this trial, even the defense experts who have written that phrase in their books tell you, you cannot make scientific conclusions about something you "expect to see." Jackson then goes over to Truc Do and performs two different demonstrations for the jury, showing how Lana's hands up near the gun could have prevented spatter from getting on Spector's sleeve. "What it proves is where Lana Clarkson's hands were."
Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.
#6 No GSR on Spector's clothing. "Just cross this off. His clothing wasn't tested for GSR. He's got too many guns. If they were so certain there would be no GSR on Spector's clothing, why didn't they test for it? They had access to the evidence. The reason they didn't test it is because if they did and found GSR, they would say it was meaningless because he has guns (all over the house).
Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.
#7 No Foreign biological material on Spector "For this, see number five. By the way, foreign biological material? That's what blood is. As far as to where it is on the sleeve, number seven is the same as number five. [...] Besides, even their own defense experts said that 70 percent of the time you do not get back spatter in a gunshot event. [...] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Jackson crosses off point number seven.
#8 No evidence of a struggle. "OH REALLY?" Jackson asks in a slight, mocking tone. "There were bruises on both bones of the right wrist. Contusions (on the inside) of the bottom lips. Regardless of what the defense said about the crane of the gun, you stick a gun in someone’s mouth the tongue is going to go someplace. [...] The defense would like you to believe that the bruising on the tongue on both sides was the same. Exactly the same. That's totally not true. Dr. Pena looked at that tongue. He took samples from it on both sides. On the right, it he determined it was postmortem congestion. [...] The bruise on the left was completely different. If there was no evidence of a struggle, how did the bruises get there? No evidence of a struggle except for the presence of a dead woman in your foyer!"
Jackson marks the next item off on the display.
#9 No Phil Spector DNA under Clarkson's fingernails "Ask yourselves about the other five women he pulls a gun on. [...] There wasn't a fistfight where people were scratching at each other with physical contact in those instances. [...] There wasn't a physical fight between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector."
Jackson crosses out this point with the red marker.
#10 Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands. "Everyone knows this showed physically, scientifically that Lana Clarkson didn't hold the weapon. She could not have." Jackson then reminds the jurors by gesturing with his hands where they saw with their own eyes that Jamie Lintemoot indicated she saw blood spatter. He then compares that on his hands to where Mr. Weinberg would have them believe she was indicating. While he's doing this, there are images up on the screen of Jamie Lintemoot indicating where she saw blood and right after that where Fidler indicated for the record that she demonstrated.
Jackson crosses off this item on the big display board.
#11 Directional Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands "This is consistent with Lana's hands being up in a defensive posture."
Jackson marks through this item with the red marker.
#12 GSR on Lana's hands "Her hands were in a defensive position. It wouldn't matter where her hands were! She was in a geomorphous cloud. She would have GSR on her ear! If you tested her face, her thighs, you would find GSR.
Jackson marks this item off of his display.
#13 Trajectory of the tooth fragments "If the teeth came out via 'gases,' there would not be any dentin on the back of the gun sight," Jackson explains. "The left tooth breaks off and flies to her right. The right one ends up on her abdomen. It tells us she could not have been sitting up; that she was in that position when she was shot." A photo of Lana's slumped position, where she was clearly retreating from Spector is up on the screen. "The only other explanation for that tooth not flying off to her right is because of where Phil Spector is standing. He's standing over her, within 2 to three feet of her."
Jackson marks a big red x through this item.
#14 The broken thumb nail "Mr. Pex stated the broken thumb nail proves Lana Clarkson's thumb was on the trigger. [...] Well I've got just one question for Mr. Pex: Where's the nail? If it broke when it was in the house, the Sheriff's crime lab would have found it. They never found it."
Jackson marks off the last item on the display.
It's 10:05 am, and Jackson continues with his closing argument. "Mr Weinberg tried mightly to reduce Phil Spector's pattern of violence to just some bad things. [...] He then stood up here and called every one of those women liars and having an agenda. [...] He reduces this to some character assassination. [...] Those shifting sands. [...] When Weinberg was questioning Dorothy Melvin, he brings up Phil Spector pulling guns on other men." (Now in closing argument, he tells you not to believe her.) "Five women who never met. [...] Shifting sands. Now, all these women have an agenda. Five women who never met were all liars? [...] Each incident proves, those women walked away by just luck. They got the empty chamber."
"When it's a woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. Think about these women." And as Jackson reads the name of each woman, their photo appears up on the screen in a circle. "Devra Robaitille. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dianne Ogden. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of Control. Phill Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Melissa Grosvenor. A woman. A loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dorothy Melvin. A woman. A loss of control. He reaches for what? A gun. CLICK! Stephanie Jennings. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! February 3rd, 2003. Lana Clarkson. A woman. loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. POW! She got the bullet. Lana Clakrson got the bullet. It's as simple as that."
"When you walked into this courtroom six months ago, you didn't know me. You didn't know Ms. Do, Mr. Weinberg or the Judge. You didn't know each other. But things have changed. Six months ago you didn't know Phil Spector, or what he does. But certainly over the last six months, things have changed."
"So I want to take you on a journey, to the parking lot of the House of Blues. It's a little after two in the morning. You can see the valet taking care of the last few cars in the lot. You can see this black Mercedes, brand spanking new. You can see Phil Spector, walking with a tall, beautiful blond. And you're just standing there, just looking. And you listen as Phil Spector starts talking to Lana Clarkson. And you listen as he invites her back to the castle."
"Phil Spector says to her, 'No, come back to my castle tonight. Just for one drink.' And she continues to say no, she's got things to do in the morning. (I have in my notes here that Weinberg says something at this point but I'm not sure if it's an objection, or part of Mr. Jackson stating that Weinberg would say this is an invention.) And Lana begs off, she tells him, 'No, I've been working all night, I need to get home.' And Phil Spector once again asks her, 'Come on, come on, we won't stay long.' [...] And then you see the driver open the door. You watch. You hear, a tiny crack in her voice, finally relenting. She just accepted his offer."
"If at that moment, right there, you could say one thing to Lana Clarkson... If you got only one shot, to say one thing, what would it be? What would you say? What would you tell her? If I asked you that question six months ago, you would have shrugged your shoulders. (You wouldn't know what to say to her.) But now you do. So let me ask you what it is you would say? You're all thinking the same thing, 'Lana, Don't go.' Say, 'Don't go.' You'd say, 'Lana, whatever you do, don't go.' And the reason you say that is because you know something she doesn't. Because you know the real Phil Spector. Like Dianne Odgen said, 'The demon behind the music.' Phil Spector is guilty of Lana Clarkson's murder. She's entitled to your justice."
Since Weinberg still wants to get his version of his special instruction before the jury, the Judge tells the panel that they will need to go into the jury room for just a moment. They file back in and Weinberg gets up to argue for a mistrial. Weinberg states there are two aspects to move for a mistrial. He first argues the "alcohol, women, loss of control...all the elaborate pattern." There's more, but I miss getting it down. Then Weinberg moves onto another issue and he appears to be quite a bit upset about this one. It's the broken acrylic nail. "For Mr. Jackson to say the acrylic nail was not in the house [...] At the last trial, that someone picked it up. And for him to say (in argument that it wasn't there is) beyond my imagination!" Weinberg goes on about how Stan White testified that it was a nail and that it had bullet wipe on it. "There's no way. [...] This man litigated for months that Henry Lee picked up that nail. [...] For him to say now... [...] And the court precluded us from calling Dr. Lee..."
Fidler addresses the first point. "Motion for a msitrial for pattern evidence is denied. [...] Mr. Jackson?"
Jackson's voice is raised and accusatory. "Is it a nail? I don't know. The reason we don't know is because Dr. Lee, HE STOLE IT! It was never determined because HE STOLE IT! We don't know because HE STOLE IT!"
Fidler addresses Weinberg. "I don't know what Dr. Lee found. (The court didn't preclude Dr. Lee.) The defense chose not to call him. [...] (What Dr. Lee recovered...) It was never established that it was a nail. It was possibly a nail, it was a triangular shaped item but it was never shown that it was a nail. [...] The prosecution is not bound to argue the same theory as in the last trial. (They can present a different theory.) (Weinberg, you were just out foxed by a younger, smarter fox on this issue.) [...] The motion for a mistrial is denied. [...] Work with each other regarding the instruction. [...] Let me add that the instruction as it was first written, is argument."
There is a short break. Jackson and Truc Do hug Mrs. Clarkson. At 10:47 am, we are back on the record but the jury is not present. Weinberg tells the court that he's had the opportunity to consult with Dennis Riordan. "It's his opinion that we are entitled to a pinpoint instruction to focus on anything that has not been proven as we have offered." Weinberg is not willing to rewrite his instruction. Judge Fidler tells him the instruction as offered he will reject. Weinberg responds, "With that ruling, our position is to accept the one (rewriting of his instruction) offered by the prosecution." Truc Do tells the court they have just a few moments to get the modified instructions ready for the jury, to make the necessary copies. I write in my notes that Donte is here. Truc Do says, "One moment your honor, we're having copies made." Fidler states that the reading of the instructions should take abut 45 minutes, which is what I predicted. The prosecution packs up their materials.
As all this is going on, I wonder, where are all the fans that were here for Weinberg's closing? Lana's family is here and sitting directly behind them are six of Lana's girlfriends who came to each day of closing arguments. Where are all of Spector's close family that came on Tuesday? I would think they would want to hear the opposing side's argument.
10:57 am: We're about ready for the Judge. Jackson makes a last minute check of his phone after the bailiff Kyles reminds everyone that their phones need to be turned off and that while the instructions are read to the jury, no one will be allowed to enter or leave. Fidler takes the bench.
Fidler addresses the jurors. "We have arrived at that part of the trial where I will be instructing you on the law (and what the) law requires." The Judge has a bit of a pause there and says something that makes the courtroom laugh. "Do not snack on pistachio nuts before you are to give jury instructions. I now know what my cat goes through when he gets a hairball." Fidler starts the instructions right at 11:00 am. I don't copy a single one down. Spector is staring straight at Fidler. At 11:15 am, I see that Rachelle is having a tough time keeping her eyes open.
11:34 am, from my notes we are all done with instructions. Weinberg asks to approach. There's a problem with an instruction. A typo, or something. I see that Weinberg is making an argument to the bench. The Judge indicates to the jurors and gallery that there is a paragraph in the instruction that should have been removed and it was missed and read to the jury. At first, the Judge was going to reread the instruction. But Weinberg and the people both agree to just have it removed from the written instructions that are given in hard copy to the jurors. That way, it won't stand out in the jurors minds. 11:36 am: The bailiff is sworn in to take charge of the jurors. He also swears to take care of the alternates. 11:37 am. The alternates are told that they would be escorted to another courtroom, #107, but they ask to get their belongings out of the jury room first.
That task is accomplished and once they finished, the twelve jurors start to gather up their notebooks and stacks of audio transcripts. Officer Williams takes the alternates to 107. The jurors now file into the jury room.
11:40 am: Fidler asks both parties about logistics and how they will handle possible read backs. Weinberg tells the court that he can be here in 15 minutes. Spector wishes to be present for all read backs, so those will happen in open court verses in the jury room by the court reporter. Weinberg requests that only the bailiff has contact with the jurors. Wendy will have phone contact if there is an emergency with a juror who might be sick. The Judge rules that 45 minutes will be the outside time limit for read backs if Spector wants to be here. We find out the jurors indicate they will not work through lunch this first day. We are asked to leave the courtroom. Outside in the hallway we learn that a single buzz indicates the start and stopping of deliberations. Two buzzes means the jurors have a question. Three buzzes means they have reached a verdict.
I get up inside the courtroom at 9:08 am. Jackson is putting a huge board up over by the jury with the 14 defense points. I bet this is the board where he is going to knock out each and every one of those points.
The cameraman is setting up right behind me to my left. More press enter the courtroom and set up their laptops in the back row. Yesterday, there were some signs taped to the back of the benches that said RESERVED. There was one where Linda Deutsch usually sits and one where Harriet Ryan usually sits. Their names were written in right below the huge printed letters.
9:13 am: Wendy calls the judge. I see Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly in the back row, who is writing on the LA Weekly's LA DAILY blog. I know there is someone in the back row on Twitter, posting short items periodically, but I'm not sure if it's the very tall slender man or one of the other reporters that I have not personally met. Harriet Ryan is here. (Her latest story is already up, here.)
Over on the defense side of the room, the benches are not packed with supporters like they were on Tuesday for Weinberg's closing arguments. Tawni Tyndall is there, along with Rachelle and Mrs. Weinberg. Harvey with the white hair is in the back row, and there are I think two people sitting behind Rachelle, but I believe one of them must be either a reporter (doesn't look like it) or a clerk for the defense. It's a 30's looking dark haired woman in a black skirt suit and she's got a legal pad on her lap. Beside her is a young man I've never seen before. Compare that to the six women friends of Lana Clarkson who are sitting in the second row behind Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter, Fawn.
Fidler asks Jackson about how much longer he has. He informs the court he has about 25 minutes. Some people in the courtroom are quite happy about getting 25 minutes of Jackson closing verses 10 minutes.
Weinberg then speaks to Fidler "off the record" even though court is on the record. He's upset that yesterday, just past 4:00 pm (when court usually ends) he "...realizes there apparently was some sort of agreement between the prosecution and the court to go until 4:30. The defense had no notice that this this was agreed to. What if our client had an appointment?" Wendy explains that she had received a note from Mr. Jackson requesting to go to 4:30 pm and she passed it onto the Judge. She inquired of the jurors if they could stay until 4:30 pm, and they didn't have any problem with it. She apologizes for any misunderstanding.
There are some last jury instructions that still have to be resolved . In instruction 315, Weinberg wants the word "noise" added in the part where the types of distractions are listed. Fidler denies the request stating he feels the instruction as written is adequate. Weinberg is objecting to some of the language in the 1101(b) instruction. He goes on and on and on with his argument about this. Fidler patiently explains to Weinberg that "We've discussed this at length. I totally disagree. If it's taken out of context, yes, but if you read the paragraph in context it makes perfect sense."
The last issue is that special instruction that Weinberg wants. The court has to stop for a moment, while the jurors file into the jury room at 9:23 am. A few moments after them, Spector enters the courtroom with Rachelle. Rachelle is wearing a stark white suit. It's different than the one with all the zippers on it.
Weinberg then objects to the prosecution "rewriting" their special jury instruction #1. Fidler explains that the instruction, as it was originally written by the defense, "If it doesn't track the other instructions, then it won't be given."
Weinberg argues that there is "nothing legally incorrect in the instruction the way the defense wrote it." Fidler a bit irritated states, "I could not agree with you less." Weinberg goes on and argues some more, stating basically the same thing he said before.
Fidler says, "What I'm saying is, in it's present form, I won't give it." Weinberg responds, "Then I ask for the opportunity to amend the instruction." Fidler replies, "Okay." So this means that Fidler will not read to the jury the instructions directly after Jackson is finished. The defense will probably call Riordan for advise during the break.
Jackson gets up to speak to the jury.
"Folks, thank you very much for your patience. I've only got about a half hour more." Jackson proceeds to go through the 14 points that the defense began and ended their case with. "With the slightest scrutiny you will see that each one falls like a tin soldier."
1. Intra-oral gunshot wounds are 99% suicide. "Statistics don't tell us anything about real life. [...] But everybody watches the game," Jackson states. Jackson then proceeds to give the jury a long example to "hit home" his point. There's a strenth Jackson has that few have and that is he a powerful orator. He can draw his audience in when he's showing them an example. You can't help but pay rapt attention to the details of what he is telling you.
Jackson takes the jury back to 1941, when our country was wracked by crisis and a looming world war. "We were just recovering from the stock market crash and the great depression. During this turbulent time, the country turned to a great American sport, and that was baseball. They were following it with more passion than we do today. [...] And the big star of the time that emerges was Joe DiMaggio who was playing for the New York Yankees. He started the season and for 10 games in a row, he hit safely."
And then he hit 20 games in a row safely. Soon, this was big news with Joe DiMaggio never missing a hit in 20 games. [...] Then it was 30 games and the whole country took notice. Then it was 40, 45, then 50 games in a row that Joe DiMaggio hit safely. [...] Joe DiMaggio was the obsession of this country in 1941. The supermarkets would close during the games and people would listen to the game on their transistor radios, transfixed. [...] And then he hit 55 games safely."
"When it came to game 56, the experts said, 'My God, this is impossible! It can't happen.' The 56th game, was against the Chicago Indians. 'The experts said, the odds, the statistics, it will never happen,' that Joe DiMaggio would hit 56 games safely."
Jackson continued. "Now, do you cut your radio off? Do you just turn off the game because the statistics say it can't happen? Mr. Weinberg says yes, turn your radio off. Or do you listen to the game, or watch the pitch? [...] Joe DiMaggio got 3 hits off that game 56. [...] Statistics; it means nothing. [...] Just because it's improbable, doesn't mean anything in this case. [...] It means absolutely zero in reality."
Once Jackson is finished with the first point, he marks a big red X over the item with a huge red magic marker. He does this each and every time he's finished explaining why that evidence doesn't "prove" what Weinberg said it proves.
Jackson addresses the next point, #2 Blood on front strap and the grip.
"Phil Spector had his hand on the grip and Lana Clarkson ended up dead! He got blood everywhere! He got blood on the door latch, on the door knob and the banister. To assume that he got blood everywhere else but not on the gun is ridiculous. [...] We know that only Phil Spector could have left the fingerprint that was left in blood on the front strap of the gun because Lana Clarkson didn’t get up afterwords and leave it there."
“DW: Objection! Detective Katz...
Jackson, with a big smile on his face says, "Actually, Dale Falicon said, latex gloved hands can leave a print if it’s “wet blood.” There’s no question the print was left in wet blood. Detective Katz didn’t leave that print (because he handled the gun about 14 hours later. Phil Spector left that print on the gun and the smear on the gun proves it was Phil Spector."
Jackson crosses off number two on the board.
#3 Spatter on the gun grip. "I've got two words for that," Jackson explains, "James Pex. The perjurer. [...] He’s the only person who said that spatter was on the gun grip.
DW: Objection! Dr. Di Maio also said...
Jackson, smiling again, responds to that, “Dr. Di Maio said he didn’t consider it. He said he only considered the blood on the metal. He didn’t consider the blood on the grip because he said, 'That’s argumentative.' James Pex came in here and six years later and told you he found new evidence. He said something no one else has ever said before." Jackson goes onto explain how he feels about his job as a prosecutor. He's speaking now with quite a bit of emotion. "I take my job as a prosecutor seriously. Very seriously. And that word, perjury is something I've never had to say before (to a jury). [...] Mr. Weinberg would have you just dismiss that as a mistake. [...] It was more than a mistake. [...] He falsified evidence!"
Jackson crosses off number three on the big board.
(It's around this time, in the packed courtroom I start to have a coughing fit. I'm all the way down on the far left of the second bench row. I can't get up to leave. I'm embarrassed because I'm interrupting Jackson's fantastic argument with my coughing. I don't have any water and I'm looking furiously around me to see if there is anyone I know near by me, that has any, but everyone has their eyes focused on Jackson. I turn my head into my right shoulder and put my mouth right up against my upper arm and cough into in like that, trying to muffle the sound as much as possible until the fit has passed.)
#4 No Phil Spector DNA on the gun.
"The evidence shows it doesn’t matter. The defense desperately needs something, some that shows science. That’s a complete red herring. No one ever tested his gun for DNA because it was his gun found in his home. [...] Steve Renteria tested areas for blood, for Lana Clarkson’s blood. He took samples to test the blood on the gun. Spector’s DNA would have been overwhelmed by the copious amount of blood that was on the gun. [...] The banister was tested and there was no DNA from Philip Spector there. The bloody diaper was tested and there’s no Phil Spector DNA found on the diaper. Steve Renteria was interested in the blood that was on that rag. [...] Is the defense saying that the banister in his own house, he never touched? That the diaper that came from his house, he never touched? [...] (That's the logic the defense would have you believe.) The fact that Phil Spector's DNA was not found on the gun was of no consequence. It was tested for blood."
Jackson takes the marker and crosses off another number.
#5 No spatter on Spector's right sleeve. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot; you must not believe that if something is missing it is of great importance." Jackson explains further that every expert who testified in this trial, even the defense experts who have written that phrase in their books tell you, you cannot make scientific conclusions about something you "expect to see." Jackson then goes over to Truc Do and performs two different demonstrations for the jury, showing how Lana's hands up near the gun could have prevented spatter from getting on Spector's sleeve. "What it proves is where Lana Clarkson's hands were."
Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.
#6 No GSR on Spector's clothing. "Just cross this off. His clothing wasn't tested for GSR. He's got too many guns. If they were so certain there would be no GSR on Spector's clothing, why didn't they test for it? They had access to the evidence. The reason they didn't test it is because if they did and found GSR, they would say it was meaningless because he has guns (all over the house).
Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.
#7 No Foreign biological material on Spector "For this, see number five. By the way, foreign biological material? That's what blood is. As far as to where it is on the sleeve, number seven is the same as number five. [...] Besides, even their own defense experts said that 70 percent of the time you do not get back spatter in a gunshot event. [...] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Jackson crosses off point number seven.
#8 No evidence of a struggle. "OH REALLY?" Jackson asks in a slight, mocking tone. "There were bruises on both bones of the right wrist. Contusions (on the inside) of the bottom lips. Regardless of what the defense said about the crane of the gun, you stick a gun in someone’s mouth the tongue is going to go someplace. [...] The defense would like you to believe that the bruising on the tongue on both sides was the same. Exactly the same. That's totally not true. Dr. Pena looked at that tongue. He took samples from it on both sides. On the right, it he determined it was postmortem congestion. [...] The bruise on the left was completely different. If there was no evidence of a struggle, how did the bruises get there? No evidence of a struggle except for the presence of a dead woman in your foyer!"
Jackson marks the next item off on the display.
#9 No Phil Spector DNA under Clarkson's fingernails "Ask yourselves about the other five women he pulls a gun on. [...] There wasn't a fistfight where people were scratching at each other with physical contact in those instances. [...] There wasn't a physical fight between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector."
Jackson crosses out this point with the red marker.
#10 Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands. "Everyone knows this showed physically, scientifically that Lana Clarkson didn't hold the weapon. She could not have." Jackson then reminds the jurors by gesturing with his hands where they saw with their own eyes that Jamie Lintemoot indicated she saw blood spatter. He then compares that on his hands to where Mr. Weinberg would have them believe she was indicating. While he's doing this, there are images up on the screen of Jamie Lintemoot indicating where she saw blood and right after that where Fidler indicated for the record that she demonstrated.
Jackson crosses off this item on the big display board.
#11 Directional Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands "This is consistent with Lana's hands being up in a defensive posture."
Jackson marks through this item with the red marker.
#12 GSR on Lana's hands "Her hands were in a defensive position. It wouldn't matter where her hands were! She was in a geomorphous cloud. She would have GSR on her ear! If you tested her face, her thighs, you would find GSR.
Jackson marks this item off of his display.
#13 Trajectory of the tooth fragments "If the teeth came out via 'gases,' there would not be any dentin on the back of the gun sight," Jackson explains. "The left tooth breaks off and flies to her right. The right one ends up on her abdomen. It tells us she could not have been sitting up; that she was in that position when she was shot." A photo of Lana's slumped position, where she was clearly retreating from Spector is up on the screen. "The only other explanation for that tooth not flying off to her right is because of where Phil Spector is standing. He's standing over her, within 2 to three feet of her."
Jackson marks a big red x through this item.
#14 The broken thumb nail "Mr. Pex stated the broken thumb nail proves Lana Clarkson's thumb was on the trigger. [...] Well I've got just one question for Mr. Pex: Where's the nail? If it broke when it was in the house, the Sheriff's crime lab would have found it. They never found it."
Jackson marks off the last item on the display.
It's 10:05 am, and Jackson continues with his closing argument. "Mr Weinberg tried mightly to reduce Phil Spector's pattern of violence to just some bad things. [...] He then stood up here and called every one of those women liars and having an agenda. [...] He reduces this to some character assassination. [...] Those shifting sands. [...] When Weinberg was questioning Dorothy Melvin, he brings up Phil Spector pulling guns on other men." (Now in closing argument, he tells you not to believe her.) "Five women who never met. [...] Shifting sands. Now, all these women have an agenda. Five women who never met were all liars? [...] Each incident proves, those women walked away by just luck. They got the empty chamber."
"When it's a woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. Think about these women." And as Jackson reads the name of each woman, their photo appears up on the screen in a circle. "Devra Robaitille. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dianne Ogden. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of Control. Phill Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Melissa Grosvenor. A woman. A loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dorothy Melvin. A woman. A loss of control. He reaches for what? A gun. CLICK! Stephanie Jennings. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! February 3rd, 2003. Lana Clarkson. A woman. loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. POW! She got the bullet. Lana Clakrson got the bullet. It's as simple as that."
"When you walked into this courtroom six months ago, you didn't know me. You didn't know Ms. Do, Mr. Weinberg or the Judge. You didn't know each other. But things have changed. Six months ago you didn't know Phil Spector, or what he does. But certainly over the last six months, things have changed."
"So I want to take you on a journey, to the parking lot of the House of Blues. It's a little after two in the morning. You can see the valet taking care of the last few cars in the lot. You can see this black Mercedes, brand spanking new. You can see Phil Spector, walking with a tall, beautiful blond. And you're just standing there, just looking. And you listen as Phil Spector starts talking to Lana Clarkson. And you listen as he invites her back to the castle."
"Phil Spector says to her, 'No, come back to my castle tonight. Just for one drink.' And she continues to say no, she's got things to do in the morning. (I have in my notes here that Weinberg says something at this point but I'm not sure if it's an objection, or part of Mr. Jackson stating that Weinberg would say this is an invention.) And Lana begs off, she tells him, 'No, I've been working all night, I need to get home.' And Phil Spector once again asks her, 'Come on, come on, we won't stay long.' [...] And then you see the driver open the door. You watch. You hear, a tiny crack in her voice, finally relenting. She just accepted his offer."
"If at that moment, right there, you could say one thing to Lana Clarkson... If you got only one shot, to say one thing, what would it be? What would you say? What would you tell her? If I asked you that question six months ago, you would have shrugged your shoulders. (You wouldn't know what to say to her.) But now you do. So let me ask you what it is you would say? You're all thinking the same thing, 'Lana, Don't go.' Say, 'Don't go.' You'd say, 'Lana, whatever you do, don't go.' And the reason you say that is because you know something she doesn't. Because you know the real Phil Spector. Like Dianne Odgen said, 'The demon behind the music.' Phil Spector is guilty of Lana Clarkson's murder. She's entitled to your justice."
Since Weinberg still wants to get his version of his special instruction before the jury, the Judge tells the panel that they will need to go into the jury room for just a moment. They file back in and Weinberg gets up to argue for a mistrial. Weinberg states there are two aspects to move for a mistrial. He first argues the "alcohol, women, loss of control...all the elaborate pattern." There's more, but I miss getting it down. Then Weinberg moves onto another issue and he appears to be quite a bit upset about this one. It's the broken acrylic nail. "For Mr. Jackson to say the acrylic nail was not in the house [...] At the last trial, that someone picked it up. And for him to say (in argument that it wasn't there is) beyond my imagination!" Weinberg goes on about how Stan White testified that it was a nail and that it had bullet wipe on it. "There's no way. [...] This man litigated for months that Henry Lee picked up that nail. [...] For him to say now... [...] And the court precluded us from calling Dr. Lee..."
Fidler addresses the first point. "Motion for a msitrial for pattern evidence is denied. [...] Mr. Jackson?"
Jackson's voice is raised and accusatory. "Is it a nail? I don't know. The reason we don't know is because Dr. Lee, HE STOLE IT! It was never determined because HE STOLE IT! We don't know because HE STOLE IT!"
Fidler addresses Weinberg. "I don't know what Dr. Lee found. (The court didn't preclude Dr. Lee.) The defense chose not to call him. [...] (What Dr. Lee recovered...) It was never established that it was a nail. It was possibly a nail, it was a triangular shaped item but it was never shown that it was a nail. [...] The prosecution is not bound to argue the same theory as in the last trial. (They can present a different theory.) (Weinberg, you were just out foxed by a younger, smarter fox on this issue.) [...] The motion for a mistrial is denied. [...] Work with each other regarding the instruction. [...] Let me add that the instruction as it was first written, is argument."
There is a short break. Jackson and Truc Do hug Mrs. Clarkson. At 10:47 am, we are back on the record but the jury is not present. Weinberg tells the court that he's had the opportunity to consult with Dennis Riordan. "It's his opinion that we are entitled to a pinpoint instruction to focus on anything that has not been proven as we have offered." Weinberg is not willing to rewrite his instruction. Judge Fidler tells him the instruction as offered he will reject. Weinberg responds, "With that ruling, our position is to accept the one (rewriting of his instruction) offered by the prosecution." Truc Do tells the court they have just a few moments to get the modified instructions ready for the jury, to make the necessary copies. I write in my notes that Donte is here. Truc Do says, "One moment your honor, we're having copies made." Fidler states that the reading of the instructions should take abut 45 minutes, which is what I predicted. The prosecution packs up their materials.
As all this is going on, I wonder, where are all the fans that were here for Weinberg's closing? Lana's family is here and sitting directly behind them are six of Lana's girlfriends who came to each day of closing arguments. Where are all of Spector's close family that came on Tuesday? I would think they would want to hear the opposing side's argument.
10:57 am: We're about ready for the Judge. Jackson makes a last minute check of his phone after the bailiff Kyles reminds everyone that their phones need to be turned off and that while the instructions are read to the jury, no one will be allowed to enter or leave. Fidler takes the bench.
Fidler addresses the jurors. "We have arrived at that part of the trial where I will be instructing you on the law (and what the) law requires." The Judge has a bit of a pause there and says something that makes the courtroom laugh. "Do not snack on pistachio nuts before you are to give jury instructions. I now know what my cat goes through when he gets a hairball." Fidler starts the instructions right at 11:00 am. I don't copy a single one down. Spector is staring straight at Fidler. At 11:15 am, I see that Rachelle is having a tough time keeping her eyes open.
11:34 am, from my notes we are all done with instructions. Weinberg asks to approach. There's a problem with an instruction. A typo, or something. I see that Weinberg is making an argument to the bench. The Judge indicates to the jurors and gallery that there is a paragraph in the instruction that should have been removed and it was missed and read to the jury. At first, the Judge was going to reread the instruction. But Weinberg and the people both agree to just have it removed from the written instructions that are given in hard copy to the jurors. That way, it won't stand out in the jurors minds. 11:36 am: The bailiff is sworn in to take charge of the jurors. He also swears to take care of the alternates. 11:37 am. The alternates are told that they would be escorted to another courtroom, #107, but they ask to get their belongings out of the jury room first.
That task is accomplished and once they finished, the twelve jurors start to gather up their notebooks and stacks of audio transcripts. Officer Williams takes the alternates to 107. The jurors now file into the jury room.
11:40 am: Fidler asks both parties about logistics and how they will handle possible read backs. Weinberg tells the court that he can be here in 15 minutes. Spector wishes to be present for all read backs, so those will happen in open court verses in the jury room by the court reporter. Weinberg requests that only the bailiff has contact with the jurors. Wendy will have phone contact if there is an emergency with a juror who might be sick. The Judge rules that 45 minutes will be the outside time limit for read backs if Spector wants to be here. We find out the jurors indicate they will not work through lunch this first day. We are asked to leave the courtroom. Outside in the hallway we learn that a single buzz indicates the start and stopping of deliberations. Two buzzes means the jurors have a question. Three buzzes means they have reached a verdict.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
How Long Before a Verdict is Reached?
There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about in this entry, but first I thought I would put up a poll to give everyone the opportunity to "guess" what day, and how many hours it will take for the Phil Spector jury to reach a verdict.
In this poll, you can cast your vote for what day you think they will come back. This poll will end Wednesday morning at 9:30 am.
In this poll, you can cast your vote for how many hours you think it will take. This poll will end Friday at 3:00 pm.
According to my calculations, I have the jury deliberating a total of 6 hours and 24 minutes so far. The jurors have the possibility of deliberating a total of seven hours each day if they took no breaks and deliberated through lunch. That's unlikely. Since we've already seen from Thursday and Friday that they have not deliberated through lunch and that they've taken breaks, they could deliberate as little as five hours each day. On Friday, even though they went home early, they deliberated a total of 3 hours and 53 minutes.
It's been brought to my attention that someone is claiming the defense team has been investigating the jurors Internet activity and that if the jurors convict Phil Spector, they will have to "face the music." (Would that music be, "Be My Baby?" Just wondering.)
First off, I recommend everyone take a good long look at the jury questionnaire (which you can view at the LA County Superior Court web site). You'll note that the juror's names are not asked for on the questionnaires, just their juror number. When the jurors are asked what city they live in, (Page 2, Question #3) they are also admonished NOT TO WRITE DOWN their street address. This was done to protect the privacy of the jurors from the media, because the juror questionnaires are public record.
Second, on Page 23, Section 8, the jurors are asked about their Internet viewing habits. You will note that they are NOT asked to supply the name of their Internet provider or their IP. (As a side note, even if they were required to provide it, the court would also have no way of knowing which individuals within an particular household accessed particular web sites.)
Third, I clearly remember during the vior dire process, Judge Fidler informing the room that the jurors would be known only by their juror number to the court, the prosecution and the defense team. This was to further protect the privacy of the jurors.
The Judge in the Phil Spector murder trial did not institute his own version of The Patriot Act, (and violating a number of laws set in place to protect citizens rights) just to track what the jurors are doing with their time away from jury service.
If there is any truth to the allegation that the defense team has found a way to monitor the jurors Internet habits, that would mean the defense team had found out the identities of the jurors, effectively violating their privacy the court has gone to great lengths to protect. That activity would be illegal and I believe the individuals partaking in any investigation of a juror (or jurors) would be subject to prosecution.
I've been busy most of the day today but I will be working on getting some detailed entries up on the closing arguments tonight and tomorrow. I will finish Jackson's summation on Thursday first, then go back and finish Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in that order.
One final note about the E-mail notification for when a verdict is reached. I had no idea I would get the response that I did. I've received 300 requests so far, with new ones coming in every hour. It's been very time consuming adding these names to the "Blind Carbon Copy" area of the draft E-mail. I've decided that come Tuesday evening at 9:00 PM Pacific Time, (12 midnight ET), I will no longer be adding requests to the list. When I return to 106, I'd like to be able to concentrate on writing while I'm waiting to hear the jury give us the three buzzes that indicate a verdict has been reached. As soon as the court confirms the three buzzes, I will send out the draft E-mail. So if you want to be added to the list, please do so as soon as possible.
I'd also like to add that I've really appreciated reading your kind words of support and thanks that were included in many of the verdict watch requests that I received. I'm sincerely apologize that I have not had the time to write back and thank you personally to everyone who took the time to add a little note.
In this poll, you can cast your vote for what day you think they will come back. This poll will end Wednesday morning at 9:30 am.
In this poll, you can cast your vote for how many hours you think it will take. This poll will end Friday at 3:00 pm.
According to my calculations, I have the jury deliberating a total of 6 hours and 24 minutes so far. The jurors have the possibility of deliberating a total of seven hours each day if they took no breaks and deliberated through lunch. That's unlikely. Since we've already seen from Thursday and Friday that they have not deliberated through lunch and that they've taken breaks, they could deliberate as little as five hours each day. On Friday, even though they went home early, they deliberated a total of 3 hours and 53 minutes.
It's been brought to my attention that someone is claiming the defense team has been investigating the jurors Internet activity and that if the jurors convict Phil Spector, they will have to "face the music." (Would that music be, "Be My Baby?" Just wondering.)
First off, I recommend everyone take a good long look at the jury questionnaire (which you can view at the LA County Superior Court web site). You'll note that the juror's names are not asked for on the questionnaires, just their juror number. When the jurors are asked what city they live in, (Page 2, Question #3) they are also admonished NOT TO WRITE DOWN their street address. This was done to protect the privacy of the jurors from the media, because the juror questionnaires are public record.
Second, on Page 23, Section 8, the jurors are asked about their Internet viewing habits. You will note that they are NOT asked to supply the name of their Internet provider or their IP. (As a side note, even if they were required to provide it, the court would also have no way of knowing which individuals within an particular household accessed particular web sites.)
Third, I clearly remember during the vior dire process, Judge Fidler informing the room that the jurors would be known only by their juror number to the court, the prosecution and the defense team. This was to further protect the privacy of the jurors.
The Judge in the Phil Spector murder trial did not institute his own version of The Patriot Act, (and violating a number of laws set in place to protect citizens rights) just to track what the jurors are doing with their time away from jury service.
If there is any truth to the allegation that the defense team has found a way to monitor the jurors Internet habits, that would mean the defense team had found out the identities of the jurors, effectively violating their privacy the court has gone to great lengths to protect. That activity would be illegal and I believe the individuals partaking in any investigation of a juror (or jurors) would be subject to prosecution.
I've been busy most of the day today but I will be working on getting some detailed entries up on the closing arguments tonight and tomorrow. I will finish Jackson's summation on Thursday first, then go back and finish Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in that order.
One final note about the E-mail notification for when a verdict is reached. I had no idea I would get the response that I did. I've received 300 requests so far, with new ones coming in every hour. It's been very time consuming adding these names to the "Blind Carbon Copy" area of the draft E-mail. I've decided that come Tuesday evening at 9:00 PM Pacific Time, (12 midnight ET), I will no longer be adding requests to the list. When I return to 106, I'd like to be able to concentrate on writing while I'm waiting to hear the jury give us the three buzzes that indicate a verdict has been reached. As soon as the court confirms the three buzzes, I will send out the draft E-mail. So if you want to be added to the list, please do so as soon as possible.
I'd also like to add that I've really appreciated reading your kind words of support and thanks that were included in many of the verdict watch requests that I received. I'm sincerely apologize that I have not had the time to write back and thank you personally to everyone who took the time to add a little note.
Friday, March 27, 2009
We Will Never Forget ...
Images from the funeral service for the four murdered Oakland police officers, Oakland Arena and Coliseum, March 27, 2009.
I was contemplating doing a quick entry this afternoon after the funerals today for the four murdered Oakland police officers, but I felt it best I not write what I was really feeling. I’m not in the mood for negative comments, so I’ve toned this down a whole lot.
Frankly, I am angry at every politician who spoke on the dais at the Oakland Arena earlier today. Each offered the usual “they were brave men, died doing what they loved to do, kept us safe.” NOT ONE politician stood up and said anything about doing anything to restore the rights of police to fully do their jobs. Even the president of the United States sent condolences, but failed to send a strongly worded message about how we—the majority of law-abiding citizens—are sick of our police being victims and how government officials at all levels simply need to be more supportive of law enforcement when creating any budget.
No one in the mainstream has even verbalized the need to restore rights back to the police. Michael Savage did, but I guess few consider Michael Savage mainstream ...
Oakland police are hamstrung. There is more concern about the rights of criminals and suspects than there are concerns for police safety. If the rumored facts of this case are true, those officers were doomed from the beginning of the traffic stop. The perp (Lovelle Mixon) jumped up through his ‘ride's sunroof and opened fire on the two motorcycle officers. Mixon then left the car, approached the cops, and put more bullets into them.
The officers weren’t allowed to have their guns drawn, at least until they saw a gun threatening them. They had stopped Mixon for expired tags, and were waiting for information about the vehicle.
The SWAT officers were doomed because we are told by media accounts that Mixon’s sister (now in jail on a drug warrant) claimed she was sleeping and didn’t know her brother was in her apartment. Running about in the apartment were her young children, so officers were tripping over kids as Mixon came out of a closet, AK-47 in hand and shooting at the officers.
There is a small but very vocal group of people in Oakland who relish utilizing the race card. At a “vigil” for Mixon on Wednesday night, one speaker claimed Mixon was a “victim” of genocide. (I say too late, the guy had a kid, a little boy who will no doubt take his daddy’s place in ‘da hood unless his mother does the right thing, get an education, and take that kid from ‘da hood. I doubt that will happen …)
Sgts. Dunakin, Romans, and Sakai and Officer Hege were victims of liberal politics that encourage a “I’m a victim of society” manner of thinking, and politicians, attorneys and judges who are more concerned with the rights of convicted felons and repeat offenders who are well-known to law enforcement.
Godspeed to the four officers, and strength to their families.
Phil Spector Verdict Watch Day 2
Hello everyone! At 9:35 am on my computer clock, the juror's buzzed that they started deliberating.
I have had an overwhelming response to the email notification request. I am adding your names as quickly as I can. I will be working on them over the next hour or so. Understand that they all have to be added to that draft email manually, so it's a lot of cut and paste. Please remember that it's very important that you put VERDICT WATCH REQUEST in the subject line.
9:41 am: Pat Kelly from the PIO office is here, the CNN reporter, Terri Keith from City News, Linda from San Diego, and a reporter from the UK Press Association is here.
10:47 am: Jury just buzzed. They are taking a break now. Just heard Wendy say they are going to deliberate until 3:00 pm today. From what I've overheard Wendy say, she is behind in getting the evidence books to the jurors.
10:56 am: I just overheard Wendy talking to someone on the phone. Apparently, the jurors are going to eat lunch and then go back to deliberating at 1:00pm because they want to leave early today. And just now, the sheriff Kyles said something to Wendy referencing the 3:00. I didn't hear all of it.
11:01 am: Just a few moments ago, I finally got caught up in adding everyone to the email list. Everyone, you would be better off clicking on the link on the blog to the right, that gives you an automatic notification when there is a new entry. I will post a new entry when a verdict is reached. If you've signed up for notification through the widget, you will get notified. I will not be adding any more names to my email list until much later this afternoon. I'd like to try to get working on getting my notes transcribed covering all of the closing arguments. I'm sure I'll hear about it if I don't transcribe more of the defense arguments.
11:03 am: The jurors just buzzed. They are back on the clock!
11:55 am: The bailiff Kyles tells the room that it's time for us to leave. Evidently, the caterer's have arrived and they need to bring the food in.
12:05 pm: I'm in the cafeteria now, starting my lunch. The jurors had not hit the buzzer yet to indicate they had stopped deliberating before we left but Wendy did indicate that she would let us know what the times on the jury clock were when we returned. We had heard earlier that they were going to start back up at 1:00 pm, but we won't be allowed in the courtroom until 1:30 pm. In the elevator down, I heard Pat Kelly explaining to the UK reporter, Rachael, that normally, they don't let the jurors leave early. That they have to deliberate to at least 3:00 pm, unless of course if someone is ill, or something like that. Once I know more about that (I'll ask this afternoon) I'll let you know.
1:29 pm: I'm heading back upstairs to the 9th floor.
1:39 pm: I'm back inside the jury room. A few more people have stopped by. Katie and Lisa are here chatting with Linda from San Diego and Sherri. Another reporter has shown up but I've never seen her before. Here are the revised jury clock times.
9:33 am: Started.
10:50 am: Break.
11:02: am: Started.
12:10 pm: Lunch Break.
1:22 pm: Started
I'm going to look at the latest comments then I'm going back to writing up Jackson's final closing arguments.
1:45 pm: The woman who entered is not a reporter. She's a member of the PIO. She's one of the few I've never seen before.
1:46 pm: Wendy says, "Rickey, are you ready?" He answers, "Sure." He gets the cart and the big binders of evidence are put on it. He takes them into the jury room. I faintly heard the bailiff call out, "Mail call!"
1:49 pm: Right before the bailiff emerged, I heard a bit more noise in the jury room for just a second. Nothing audible or recognizable; just loud voices.
2:51 pm: Buzz! The jury is ready to go home.
2:59 pm: Just like during the breaks and out of the jury's presence side bars, we can hear a bit of laughter in the jury room.
3:00 pm: The jurors file out of the jury room. Now they have left the courtroom accompanied by their bailiffs. When they join up with the alternates in the hallway, we can hear them greet each other.
Court is done for the day.
I have had an overwhelming response to the email notification request. I am adding your names as quickly as I can. I will be working on them over the next hour or so. Understand that they all have to be added to that draft email manually, so it's a lot of cut and paste. Please remember that it's very important that you put VERDICT WATCH REQUEST in the subject line.
9:41 am: Pat Kelly from the PIO office is here, the CNN reporter, Terri Keith from City News, Linda from San Diego, and a reporter from the UK Press Association is here.
10:47 am: Jury just buzzed. They are taking a break now. Just heard Wendy say they are going to deliberate until 3:00 pm today. From what I've overheard Wendy say, she is behind in getting the evidence books to the jurors.
10:56 am: I just overheard Wendy talking to someone on the phone. Apparently, the jurors are going to eat lunch and then go back to deliberating at 1:00pm because they want to leave early today. And just now, the sheriff Kyles said something to Wendy referencing the 3:00. I didn't hear all of it.
11:01 am: Just a few moments ago, I finally got caught up in adding everyone to the email list. Everyone, you would be better off clicking on the link on the blog to the right, that gives you an automatic notification when there is a new entry. I will post a new entry when a verdict is reached. If you've signed up for notification through the widget, you will get notified. I will not be adding any more names to my email list until much later this afternoon. I'd like to try to get working on getting my notes transcribed covering all of the closing arguments. I'm sure I'll hear about it if I don't transcribe more of the defense arguments.
11:03 am: The jurors just buzzed. They are back on the clock!
11:55 am: The bailiff Kyles tells the room that it's time for us to leave. Evidently, the caterer's have arrived and they need to bring the food in.
12:05 pm: I'm in the cafeteria now, starting my lunch. The jurors had not hit the buzzer yet to indicate they had stopped deliberating before we left but Wendy did indicate that she would let us know what the times on the jury clock were when we returned. We had heard earlier that they were going to start back up at 1:00 pm, but we won't be allowed in the courtroom until 1:30 pm. In the elevator down, I heard Pat Kelly explaining to the UK reporter, Rachael, that normally, they don't let the jurors leave early. That they have to deliberate to at least 3:00 pm, unless of course if someone is ill, or something like that. Once I know more about that (I'll ask this afternoon) I'll let you know.
1:29 pm: I'm heading back upstairs to the 9th floor.
1:39 pm: I'm back inside the jury room. A few more people have stopped by. Katie and Lisa are here chatting with Linda from San Diego and Sherri. Another reporter has shown up but I've never seen her before. Here are the revised jury clock times.
9:33 am: Started.
10:50 am: Break.
11:02: am: Started.
12:10 pm: Lunch Break.
1:22 pm: Started
I'm going to look at the latest comments then I'm going back to writing up Jackson's final closing arguments.
1:45 pm: The woman who entered is not a reporter. She's a member of the PIO. She's one of the few I've never seen before.
1:46 pm: Wendy says, "Rickey, are you ready?" He answers, "Sure." He gets the cart and the big binders of evidence are put on it. He takes them into the jury room. I faintly heard the bailiff call out, "Mail call!"
1:49 pm: Right before the bailiff emerged, I heard a bit more noise in the jury room for just a second. Nothing audible or recognizable; just loud voices.
2:51 pm: Buzz! The jury is ready to go home.
2:59 pm: Just like during the breaks and out of the jury's presence side bars, we can hear a bit of laughter in the jury room.
3:00 pm: The jurors file out of the jury room. Now they have left the courtroom accompanied by their bailiffs. When they join up with the alternates in the hallway, we can hear them greet each other.
Court is done for the day.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Phil Spector Verdict Notification
UPDATE: You must get your request in by 9:00 PM Pacific Time, or 12 midnight, ET, on March 31st, 2009. All requests submitted after that date will not make it on the list.
After many requests, I have relented and decided that I will send out a mass email as soon as a verdict is reached. To get on the list, here is what you need to do. Send me an E-mail through the blog. My E-mail address is on my profile page. In the subject line, you must write:
VERDICT WATCH REQUEST.
What I will do, is get an email ready in draft form and just keep adding emails to that list. When a verdict is reached, I'll send out that E-mail. All email addys will be under "Blind CC" so your email addy will not be shared with anyone else.
If you have a question, please leave a comment. I'm quite strapped for time right now, and I may not be able to answer your question via E-mail.
I can't stress to you how important it is to write "VERDICT WATCH REQUEST" in the subject line. I've received 75 requests just this morning to be added to the pending email list. These requests are mixed in with my regular E-mail I have to answer. Please understand that I don't have any way to do this automatically. I have to add all these email addy's manually to my draft E-mail.
After many requests, I have relented and decided that I will send out a mass email as soon as a verdict is reached. To get on the list, here is what you need to do. Send me an E-mail through the blog. My E-mail address is on my profile page. In the subject line, you must write:
VERDICT WATCH REQUEST.
What I will do, is get an email ready in draft form and just keep adding emails to that list. When a verdict is reached, I'll send out that E-mail. All email addys will be under "Blind CC" so your email addy will not be shared with anyone else.
If you have a question, please leave a comment. I'm quite strapped for time right now, and I may not be able to answer your question via E-mail.
I can't stress to you how important it is to write "VERDICT WATCH REQUEST" in the subject line. I've received 75 requests just this morning to be added to the pending email list. These requests are mixed in with my regular E-mail I have to answer. Please understand that I don't have any way to do this automatically. I have to add all these email addy's manually to my draft E-mail.
Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 4
Hello everybody! I'm in the hallway outside 106. I don't type well with my computer on my lap, so I hope you will bear with me. I will be back to hand written notes from the second row for the last of Jackson's summation and jury instructions.
Once the jury goes inside the jury room to deliberate, I will move to the back row and get back on my laptop.
Our usual group is already here waiting to get in: Linda, Sherri, Katie, Lisa, and the young man studying for the bar. I just saw My2Cents is at the end of the hall. Four of Lana's girlfriends are sitting to my right on the benches. Pattie, Ann, Maryianne, and Nili. The ladies tell me that Annmerie is on her way.
Ann and Patti show me photos of Punkin before Lana was killed.
Harvey with the white hair is hear, a few other fans that have come the last couple of days and Teresa, the schoolteacher who has been here the most out of all of Spector's supporters.
8:58 am: Counsel was supposed to start right now, but we've not been let into court. Weinberg and his staff just passed a moment ago. The CNN reporter is here, along with the camera men and Aphrodite Jones.
Truc and Jackson just passed me in the hallway.
It's 10:28 am, and the rebuttal closings are finished. There is a short break because Weinberg is asking for his special instruction to be included. As it was written by him it's been rejected. Fidler told him, "It's argument, and it's out." Weinberg did not accept the rewritten instruction that the prosecution presented. Both parties are supposed to get together and rewrite that instruction. Weinberg is probably on the phone right now, talking with Riordan.
Jackson, Truc Do and Joshua are all at the podium. There are a few people in the gallery, mostly the press in the back row. I'm still in the second row, able to use my computer because court is not in session.
Jackson closed with the same scenario he did in the first trial, taking the jury back to the parking lot of the House of Blues, as if they were voyeur in those early morning hours, where Phil Spector is inviting Lana Clarkson back to his castle. And Jackson said those same words he said last time, "Don't go."
More to come...
10:47 am: Looks like we're ready to go! The defendant has filed back in and is at the defense table.
11:40 am: The jury entered the jury room. 11:43 am: Court is out of session and we are on verdict watch.
I will try to find out if the jurors will deliberate through lunch.
12:10 pm: I'm down in the cafeteria right now. I don't have a "precise" jury clock at this point. While Harriet Ryan, myself, and the CNN reporter were asking Pat Kelly from the PIO office about notifications, a single buzzer went off. That was about 11:50 am. We find out from the bailiff later that a single buzzer means they have started deliberations. Two buzzes means they have a question. Three buzzes means they've reached a verdict.
The bailiff did tell us that they would not be having a working lunch today. They were going to break, have a relaxing lunch and then get back to work. I hope to report when they've selected a foreperson.
I'm going to eat my lunch now, and then work on getting an entry up on the final part of Jackson's rebuttal closing.
1:30 pm: I'm back inside the courtroom in the back row. Weinberg and his paralegal are setting up on the defense table. Ah. I think they are going over their evidence book. Apparently, that's still not inthe jury room yet.
1:43 pm: All counsel are back in the courtroom. It looks like they are doing a last minute run through of exhibits and something with the jury instructions. When the instrucitons were read to the jury, there was one instruction that should have had a few sentences removed and it was not removed. So, before they were given to the jury in the jury room, both parties agreed to just have those sentences removed before the jury would be given their copies.
1:45: pm: Truc and Weinberg are going over it looks like copies of the instructions.
1:46: pm: My2Cents is here on their computer as well as the CNN reporter. Louis Spector and his companion, Frieda are here. A man I don't recognize is here in the back row in the plastic seats. In a jacket, shirt, no tie and black jeans.
1:48 pm: Wendy tells both parties, "I want each of you to go through each other's books and go through them because I'm not turning anything over until you've both approved each other's books."
1:51 pm: Truc and Weinberg are going through a book together and Susan and Jackson are going through something together. Ah. Jackson and Susan are done.
1:54 pm: Just a reminder, for those of you who may not remember, the jurors from now on will be escorted to their cars out of the courthouse by a different route. They will go through a hallway that's behind the clerk's desk. Linda from San Diego and Louis are discussing moies.
1:58 pm: The Daily Mail has photos of Spector. These are not from today (the tie and suit are different); I think they are from yesterday. You can see the heavy makeup on his face. Maybe that's what the big mirror was for that I saw him use several times at the defense table. Maybe he was checking his makeup.
2:03 pm: Katie enters 106 a few minutes ago and sits with Linda from San Diego. It looks like they are almost finished getting the exhibit books to the jury. Weinberg and Susan are packing up. Jackson and Truc Do are still leafing through books.
2:05 pm: Looks like the books are on Wendy's desk, and Truc and Jackson are going over a few last items being pulled out of the people's books.
2:07 pm: Weinberg, Susan, Truc Do and Jackson are still going over some last items. Louis just told me that he just got off the phone with Gary and to tell me Gary said "Hello." HI GARY!!!
2:09: Court is once again in session! Fidler is on the bench! Inner courtroom doors close. Back on record. Correcte version of instrucitons. Gone over all exibit books. Everyone satisfied? We are your honor, Jackson. No problem with the jury forms? No you honor. We have phone numbers to reach you all Fidler asks? Mr. Weinberg, you may get a call from Mr. Parachini, if there's a verdict reached, they will set aside a courtroom for them if he wants to talk to the media.
2:11 pm: And that's it. Jackson and Truc say goodbye to those of us in the gallery and they head out. It's just me, CNN, My2Cents, Louis, Frieda, Katie, Linda and Lisa in the courtroom.
2:25 pm: There is a single buzz from the jury room. The bailiff enters and then a moment later comes back out. He goes back out. We find out that the buzz was letting Wendy know that the jury will need to leave early next Wednesday, at 3:30 pm. So looks like they are planning ahead. Harriet Ryan, who stopped in for a moment, asked Wendy if we know yet who the jury foreperson is. Wendy called the Judge and then told us a few moments ago, that unless the jury communicates with the bailiff who it is, they won't know.
3:54 pm: Terri Keith from City News enters 106. Pat Kelly from the PIO department entered a few minutes before her. We are waiting to see if there's anything that can be observed from from the jurors body language
3:56 pm: Buzz! This means they are done for the day. I don't know how this tracks out on the jury clock.
Today, from Wendy, the jury deliberated from: 11:52 to 11:55 am. Then 1:15pm to 2:10 pm. Then from 2:22 pm to 3:55 pm.
4:00 pm: By my computer clock, the jurors still have not emerged from the jury room. The bailiff is back by his desk.
4:01 pm: Single buzz again. They're ready to exit. Bailiff says, "Let's go." From the jury room we hear, "There's one guy still in the bathroom." The bailiff enters the jury room.
4:03 pm: They exit the regular way they came in. They did not ext the way they did during the first trial.
And that's it. Court is over.
Once the jury goes inside the jury room to deliberate, I will move to the back row and get back on my laptop.
Our usual group is already here waiting to get in: Linda, Sherri, Katie, Lisa, and the young man studying for the bar. I just saw My2Cents is at the end of the hall. Four of Lana's girlfriends are sitting to my right on the benches. Pattie, Ann, Maryianne, and Nili. The ladies tell me that Annmerie is on her way.
Ann and Patti show me photos of Punkin before Lana was killed.
Harvey with the white hair is hear, a few other fans that have come the last couple of days and Teresa, the schoolteacher who has been here the most out of all of Spector's supporters.
8:58 am: Counsel was supposed to start right now, but we've not been let into court. Weinberg and his staff just passed a moment ago. The CNN reporter is here, along with the camera men and Aphrodite Jones.
Truc and Jackson just passed me in the hallway.
It's 10:28 am, and the rebuttal closings are finished. There is a short break because Weinberg is asking for his special instruction to be included. As it was written by him it's been rejected. Fidler told him, "It's argument, and it's out." Weinberg did not accept the rewritten instruction that the prosecution presented. Both parties are supposed to get together and rewrite that instruction. Weinberg is probably on the phone right now, talking with Riordan.
Jackson, Truc Do and Joshua are all at the podium. There are a few people in the gallery, mostly the press in the back row. I'm still in the second row, able to use my computer because court is not in session.
Jackson closed with the same scenario he did in the first trial, taking the jury back to the parking lot of the House of Blues, as if they were voyeur in those early morning hours, where Phil Spector is inviting Lana Clarkson back to his castle. And Jackson said those same words he said last time, "Don't go."
More to come...
10:47 am: Looks like we're ready to go! The defendant has filed back in and is at the defense table.
11:40 am: The jury entered the jury room. 11:43 am: Court is out of session and we are on verdict watch.
I will try to find out if the jurors will deliberate through lunch.
12:10 pm: I'm down in the cafeteria right now. I don't have a "precise" jury clock at this point. While Harriet Ryan, myself, and the CNN reporter were asking Pat Kelly from the PIO office about notifications, a single buzzer went off. That was about 11:50 am. We find out from the bailiff later that a single buzzer means they have started deliberations. Two buzzes means they have a question. Three buzzes means they've reached a verdict.
The bailiff did tell us that they would not be having a working lunch today. They were going to break, have a relaxing lunch and then get back to work. I hope to report when they've selected a foreperson.
I'm going to eat my lunch now, and then work on getting an entry up on the final part of Jackson's rebuttal closing.
1:30 pm: I'm back inside the courtroom in the back row. Weinberg and his paralegal are setting up on the defense table. Ah. I think they are going over their evidence book. Apparently, that's still not inthe jury room yet.
1:43 pm: All counsel are back in the courtroom. It looks like they are doing a last minute run through of exhibits and something with the jury instructions. When the instrucitons were read to the jury, there was one instruction that should have had a few sentences removed and it was not removed. So, before they were given to the jury in the jury room, both parties agreed to just have those sentences removed before the jury would be given their copies.
1:45: pm: Truc and Weinberg are going over it looks like copies of the instructions.
1:46: pm: My2Cents is here on their computer as well as the CNN reporter. Louis Spector and his companion, Frieda are here. A man I don't recognize is here in the back row in the plastic seats. In a jacket, shirt, no tie and black jeans.
1:48 pm: Wendy tells both parties, "I want each of you to go through each other's books and go through them because I'm not turning anything over until you've both approved each other's books."
1:51 pm: Truc and Weinberg are going through a book together and Susan and Jackson are going through something together. Ah. Jackson and Susan are done.
1:54 pm: Just a reminder, for those of you who may not remember, the jurors from now on will be escorted to their cars out of the courthouse by a different route. They will go through a hallway that's behind the clerk's desk. Linda from San Diego and Louis are discussing moies.
1:58 pm: The Daily Mail has photos of Spector. These are not from today (the tie and suit are different); I think they are from yesterday. You can see the heavy makeup on his face. Maybe that's what the big mirror was for that I saw him use several times at the defense table. Maybe he was checking his makeup.
2:03 pm: Katie enters 106 a few minutes ago and sits with Linda from San Diego. It looks like they are almost finished getting the exhibit books to the jury. Weinberg and Susan are packing up. Jackson and Truc Do are still leafing through books.
2:05 pm: Looks like the books are on Wendy's desk, and Truc and Jackson are going over a few last items being pulled out of the people's books.
2:07 pm: Weinberg, Susan, Truc Do and Jackson are still going over some last items. Louis just told me that he just got off the phone with Gary and to tell me Gary said "Hello." HI GARY!!!
2:09: Court is once again in session! Fidler is on the bench! Inner courtroom doors close. Back on record. Correcte version of instrucitons. Gone over all exibit books. Everyone satisfied? We are your honor, Jackson. No problem with the jury forms? No you honor. We have phone numbers to reach you all Fidler asks? Mr. Weinberg, you may get a call from Mr. Parachini, if there's a verdict reached, they will set aside a courtroom for them if he wants to talk to the media.
2:11 pm: And that's it. Jackson and Truc say goodbye to those of us in the gallery and they head out. It's just me, CNN, My2Cents, Louis, Frieda, Katie, Linda and Lisa in the courtroom.
2:25 pm: There is a single buzz from the jury room. The bailiff enters and then a moment later comes back out. He goes back out. We find out that the buzz was letting Wendy know that the jury will need to leave early next Wednesday, at 3:30 pm. So looks like they are planning ahead. Harriet Ryan, who stopped in for a moment, asked Wendy if we know yet who the jury foreperson is. Wendy called the Judge and then told us a few moments ago, that unless the jury communicates with the bailiff who it is, they won't know.
3:54 pm: Terri Keith from City News enters 106. Pat Kelly from the PIO department entered a few minutes before her. We are waiting to see if there's anything that can be observed from from the jurors body language
3:56 pm: Buzz! This means they are done for the day. I don't know how this tracks out on the jury clock.
Today, from Wendy, the jury deliberated from: 11:52 to 11:55 am. Then 1:15pm to 2:10 pm. Then from 2:22 pm to 3:55 pm.
4:00 pm: By my computer clock, the jurors still have not emerged from the jury room. The bailiff is back by his desk.
4:01 pm: Single buzz again. They're ready to exit. Bailiff says, "Let's go." From the jury room we hear, "There's one guy still in the bathroom." The bailiff enters the jury room.
4:03 pm: They exit the regular way they came in. They did not ext the way they did during the first trial.
And that's it. Court is over.
Justice for Jersey – High Court Mistrial?
On March 17, British MP John Hemming and Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret appeared in the High Court to present testimony and evidence of the ineffectiveness of the Jersey legal system.
The application was made to force Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, to intervene with issues stemming from child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, the illegal sacking of Graham Power, the harassment and besmirching of Lenny Harper and the basically inept ability of the good-old-boy network, run by Phil and Bill Bailhache, to provide justice in Jersey.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the two judge panel – Lord Richards and Justice Tugendhat – should never been allowed to preside over the hearing. Both judges should have recused themselves or been immediately disqualified.
Lord Richards has a history of accusations against him for sexual perversion. He was tried for exposing himself to a woman. This alone should have disqualified him because he can’t be seen as impartial based on that experience. He should never be allowed to hear cases related to sexual deviancy.
Justice Tugendhat, it seems, served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – knows the whole good-old-boy network AND was appointed to that office by none other - Phil Bailhache! So, Tugendhat can be impartial? I think not.
And, why do you suppose that Tugendhat didn’t reveal this little tidbit until the opening of the hearing? This hearing has been looming for some months!
Now the real circus begins.
The hearing was scheduled as the final business of the day for the court. Two hours were blocked for the presentation of evidence. One has to wonder why then, Senator Syvret was actually limited to one hour.
Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant's case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number of points, which I had already covered - and introduced digressions down paths, which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant's case to be left unstated.
The judges rejected the Application on a single, narrow, ground; that we should attempt a Judicial Review of the Jersey judiciary - before that self-same judiciary.
Now, how the hell would that work? The whole purpose of the hearing was due to the fact the Jersey judiciary can’t be trusted.
No opinion was rendered on the facts and evidence presented and the judges didn’t comment on the duties of Jack Straw.
So, not a total defeat - just a new skirmish to plan.
John and I are already working-up a substantive Judicial Review case to bring before the court in Jersey - which will be fascinating in itself - as they'll have to produce a court competent to hear the matter.
And - we are going to bring a much broader range of complaints to the attention of Jack Straw - some deeply alarming material. And when he fails again to act on that - then we bring a fresh Judicial Review application against Straw - on all the broader issues.
As Stuart oft says, “you can’t make this stuff up!”
Senator Stuart Syvret Blog
The application was made to force Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, to intervene with issues stemming from child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, the illegal sacking of Graham Power, the harassment and besmirching of Lenny Harper and the basically inept ability of the good-old-boy network, run by Phil and Bill Bailhache, to provide justice in Jersey.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the two judge panel – Lord Richards and Justice Tugendhat – should never been allowed to preside over the hearing. Both judges should have recused themselves or been immediately disqualified.
Lord Richards has a history of accusations against him for sexual perversion. He was tried for exposing himself to a woman. This alone should have disqualified him because he can’t be seen as impartial based on that experience. He should never be allowed to hear cases related to sexual deviancy.
Justice Tugendhat, it seems, served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – knows the whole good-old-boy network AND was appointed to that office by none other - Phil Bailhache! So, Tugendhat can be impartial? I think not.
And, why do you suppose that Tugendhat didn’t reveal this little tidbit until the opening of the hearing? This hearing has been looming for some months!
Now the real circus begins.
The hearing was scheduled as the final business of the day for the court. Two hours were blocked for the presentation of evidence. One has to wonder why then, Senator Syvret was actually limited to one hour.
Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant's case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number of points, which I had already covered - and introduced digressions down paths, which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant's case to be left unstated.
The judges rejected the Application on a single, narrow, ground; that we should attempt a Judicial Review of the Jersey judiciary - before that self-same judiciary.
Now, how the hell would that work? The whole purpose of the hearing was due to the fact the Jersey judiciary can’t be trusted.
No opinion was rendered on the facts and evidence presented and the judges didn’t comment on the duties of Jack Straw.
So, not a total defeat - just a new skirmish to plan.
John and I are already working-up a substantive Judicial Review case to bring before the court in Jersey - which will be fascinating in itself - as they'll have to produce a court competent to hear the matter.
And - we are going to bring a much broader range of complaints to the attention of Jack Straw - some deeply alarming material. And when he fails again to act on that - then we bring a fresh Judicial Review application against Straw - on all the broader issues.
As Stuart oft says, “you can’t make this stuff up!”
Senator Stuart Syvret Blog
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 3
Doron Weinberg finished his closing argument at 2:10 pm. Fidler then asked Jackson if he needs any time to set up any presentations. Jackson says no, and quickly stands up to take the podium.
Jackson starts off by telling the jury, "You've heard almost two solid days of what I would call a filibuster. [...] Not a word that he said, was evidence. [...] That was an attempt to distance you from the facts. If it's not here (slapping his hand on the ledge of the witness box) or in a binder at Wendy's desk, it's not evidence. [...] Mr. Weinberg on 3/24 told you, 'I want to be straight forward, This is a difficult case.' [...] Well, I want to tell you about this case."
And Jackson goes back to where he tells the jury the case starts, at the House of Blues where Phil Spector meets Lana Clarkson and asks her to go home with him. At first she's reluctant but then relents and agrees to go home with him. Lana's got to do things the next day so she makes arrangements to move her car and she goes back to the castle with Spector to have a drink. And after a few hours, Lana Clarkson wants to go home. And Phil Spector does what he does time and time and time again. He pulls a gun and this time the gun goes off. He goes out to Adriano De Souza and says, 'I think I killed somebody.' And then he realizes, I just told somebody! I've got to get rid of these bloody clothes. I got to get rid of this bloody gun. He goes upstairs, grabs a diaper and he wipes her face off. And he waits. That's how difficult this case is. Mr. Weinberg wants you to think that this is the most difficult case. This case is straight forward. I just showed you this straight forward case in under a minute. 1. Women. 2. Alcohol. 3. Loss of control. 4. He pulls a gun.
Court normally ends at 4:00 pm but today it went way over. At almost exactly 4:30 pm, Judge Fidler asks Jackson how much longer he has. He states that normally, he would have to close the courtroom now but he can sometimes extend it a little bit. Jackson tells the court he has about ten minutes more. Judge Fidler looks on over at the jurors and asks if anyone has a problem with staying longer. Juror #5 raises her hand and says, "I have to go," and that effectively ended Jackson's hopes of finishing the last few minutes of his summation today.
Outside in the hallway, Jackson was disappointed that he didn't meet his own goal of getting all his argument finished by the end of the day today.
Court resumes tomorrow at 9:00 am for Judge Fidler to go over with counsel any last minute issues. Court resumes for the jury at 9:30 am. At that time, Jackson will finish the prosecutions closing summation. I expect immediately afterwards, the jury will be instructed. Last year, jury instructions took 30 minutes. I expect them to go a little bit longer than that, probably 40-45 minutes, depending on how fast Judge Fidler can read them.
It's doubtful I will be able to get any more notes covering today up tonight. I expect I will be transcribing my notes from inside 106 while I'm on jury watch. I hope the free WIFI at the courthouse works tomorrow.
More to come....
Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly weighs in on closing arguments.
Harriet Ryan for the LA Times, story written for tomorrow morning.
Jackson starts off by telling the jury, "You've heard almost two solid days of what I would call a filibuster. [...] Not a word that he said, was evidence. [...] That was an attempt to distance you from the facts. If it's not here (slapping his hand on the ledge of the witness box) or in a binder at Wendy's desk, it's not evidence. [...] Mr. Weinberg on 3/24 told you, 'I want to be straight forward, This is a difficult case.' [...] Well, I want to tell you about this case."
And Jackson goes back to where he tells the jury the case starts, at the House of Blues where Phil Spector meets Lana Clarkson and asks her to go home with him. At first she's reluctant but then relents and agrees to go home with him. Lana's got to do things the next day so she makes arrangements to move her car and she goes back to the castle with Spector to have a drink. And after a few hours, Lana Clarkson wants to go home. And Phil Spector does what he does time and time and time again. He pulls a gun and this time the gun goes off. He goes out to Adriano De Souza and says, 'I think I killed somebody.' And then he realizes, I just told somebody! I've got to get rid of these bloody clothes. I got to get rid of this bloody gun. He goes upstairs, grabs a diaper and he wipes her face off. And he waits. That's how difficult this case is. Mr. Weinberg wants you to think that this is the most difficult case. This case is straight forward. I just showed you this straight forward case in under a minute. 1. Women. 2. Alcohol. 3. Loss of control. 4. He pulls a gun.
Court normally ends at 4:00 pm but today it went way over. At almost exactly 4:30 pm, Judge Fidler asks Jackson how much longer he has. He states that normally, he would have to close the courtroom now but he can sometimes extend it a little bit. Jackson tells the court he has about ten minutes more. Judge Fidler looks on over at the jurors and asks if anyone has a problem with staying longer. Juror #5 raises her hand and says, "I have to go," and that effectively ended Jackson's hopes of finishing the last few minutes of his summation today.
Outside in the hallway, Jackson was disappointed that he didn't meet his own goal of getting all his argument finished by the end of the day today.
Court resumes tomorrow at 9:00 am for Judge Fidler to go over with counsel any last minute issues. Court resumes for the jury at 9:30 am. At that time, Jackson will finish the prosecutions closing summation. I expect immediately afterwards, the jury will be instructed. Last year, jury instructions took 30 minutes. I expect them to go a little bit longer than that, probably 40-45 minutes, depending on how fast Judge Fidler can read them.
It's doubtful I will be able to get any more notes covering today up tonight. I expect I will be transcribing my notes from inside 106 while I'm on jury watch. I hope the free WIFI at the courthouse works tomorrow.
More to come....
Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly weighs in on closing arguments.
Harriet Ryan for the LA Times, story written for tomorrow morning.
Chalk one up for Jose Baez?
Today’s hearing before Judge Stan Strickland was relatively brief and to the point. State’s Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton argued his motion and Jose Baez argued his. Casey Anthony swore to the truthfulness of her affidavit. The parties went in camera for more detailed questioning by the judge. After a short break, the parties resumed their seats. Judge Strickland ruled he found no conflict of interest. Case closed. Baez won!
The question here is: What has attorney Baez won? Mainly, the State’s representative will be off of his back about the source of Casey’s funding for her "Dream Team."
On the other hand, this victory will more than likely preclude any future, post-conviction argument by Casey Anthony that her attorney had any conflict of interest. Thus, this pre-trial victory could lead to a post-trial loss. Did Baez really win anything?
What did bother me personally during the hearing was Baez’s off-topic comment that the defense was learning more and more that Casey is innocent.
Ashton objected strongly to this statement, saying that Baez was clearly speaking to the cameras (surprise) and that it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Judge Strickland agreed and put an end to the situation.
The very end of the hearing was one for the books. As the judge was asking if there was anything else, Baez (I always have to have the last word) stated that due all the "leaks" in the case, that the Court should advise the State that what happens in camera stays in camera. The judge politely did so and Ashton stood, with his hands in the air and said, "We don’t need to be reminded of our ethical obligations." It was obvious that he was very upset by this and that such commentary was getting tired. The judge agreed and the session broke up. Click HERE to see the exchange for yourself!
I would suppose that Jose Baez believes this was a second "win" for him today. He looked over at an angry Ashton with one of his more incredible smirks on his face. "Are you alright?, "he asks. Ashton answers, "NO." The smirk on Baez's face grew.
But did Jose Baez "score" in that little skirmish? I don’t think so.
The question here is: What has attorney Baez won? Mainly, the State’s representative will be off of his back about the source of Casey’s funding for her "Dream Team."
On the other hand, this victory will more than likely preclude any future, post-conviction argument by Casey Anthony that her attorney had any conflict of interest. Thus, this pre-trial victory could lead to a post-trial loss. Did Baez really win anything?
What did bother me personally during the hearing was Baez’s off-topic comment that the defense was learning more and more that Casey is innocent.
Ashton objected strongly to this statement, saying that Baez was clearly speaking to the cameras (surprise) and that it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Judge Strickland agreed and put an end to the situation.
The very end of the hearing was one for the books. As the judge was asking if there was anything else, Baez (I always have to have the last word) stated that due all the "leaks" in the case, that the Court should advise the State that what happens in camera stays in camera. The judge politely did so and Ashton stood, with his hands in the air and said, "We don’t need to be reminded of our ethical obligations." It was obvious that he was very upset by this and that such commentary was getting tired. The judge agreed and the session broke up. Click HERE to see the exchange for yourself!
I would suppose that Jose Baez believes this was a second "win" for him today. He looked over at an angry Ashton with one of his more incredible smirks on his face. "Are you alright?, "he asks. Ashton answers, "NO." The smirk on Baez's face grew.
But did Jose Baez "score" in that little skirmish? I don’t think so.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 2
I get to court a little after 8:00 am. The regular morning group is there. Linda from San Diego, the young man studying for the bar, Sherri, Joe and Ron from Phoenix. Slowly some of Lana's friends show up. At 8:34 am the both Diane and Cindy the court reports arrive with their equipment. Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Ch 7 arrives a few minutes later. She's always dressed to the nines but that's also because she does report on air. More familiar faces start showing up; Donte, Harvey with the white hair, My2Cents, as well as quite a few I've never seen before. Some of the new faces indicate that they are "family." Overnight, Spector's family tree grew exponentially. I didn't understand where all these family members came from. Where were they all throughout the trial? It wasn't until I read Michelle Blaine's blog this evening that I got my own "AHa" moment. Michelle confirmed that Rachelle Short sent out another plea to have all of Spector's extended "family" show up at court to support him. (I mean, how else would his extended family "know" that he needs their support at his murder trial?)
At least twelve to fifteen people from the accredited press showed up today. This left the PIO office with the task of holding a lottery for the few remaining seats. Many people who have attended the trial on a more regular basis did not get in. Ron, who drove from Phoenix didn't make it as well as My2Cents (although they did get a seat in the afternoon session) and the guy studying for the bar. (So long Ron! It was great meeting you and I'm sorry that you didn't get to hang with us trial ladies more!) I would say that the inside of the courtroom was mostly packed with Spector's "family." If Linda from San Diego hadn't arranged for us to be admitted after the press, it's doubtful that I would have had a seat. Richard Gabriel is back as well as the Joyce Danelen look alike. Louis Spector and Frieda also arrive and are given seats.
The last people to enter the courtroom are Spector and Rachelle, who's wearing the palest coral pantsuit with a dark, black looking top underneath. The over-belt appeared to be almost four inches thick and cinched tight around her waist.
Before Weinberg begins his closing arguments he has a complaint about the Jamie Lintemoot video that was shown in the prosecution's closing arguments. I miss most of the first statement where Weinberg says something to the effect that the prosecution turned a court (judge?) into a witness (without being?) cross examined. "Not only was the tape shown, but at the end of the tape [...] it came at a hearing regarding evidence... (it wasn't testimony in front of the jury)." Weinberg's main concern is there were still photos from it. Three photos of Jamie Lintemoot (the tape did show the images in slow motion), "...and three pictures of you in it in support of the prosecution. [...] That's totally inappropriate."
Judge Fidler asks the people to respond. I think Jacksons first words are "Completely unnecessary. [...] The previous six times Mr. Weinberg complained about this, it was for the (recording complying?) within the preview of the court. [...] Because it was a hand gesture and the witness was clearing it up."
Fidler asks, "Do you plan on using it in your closing?" Jackson replies, "Yes, your honor."
Weinberg adds, "What I was complaining about was your image (Fidler, at the end of the tape)."
Jackson speaks again and then Fidler addresses Weinberg and says, "I'll give it some thought and let you know later."
Weinberg now has the podium facing the jury. He has a binder with a stack of notes inside. The page I see on top, and many of the pages I see throughout the day are all hand written. Since I'm sitting in the second bench row directly in front of the jurors beside Terri Keith from City News, I can only see some of the faces of the jury. Those that I can see, it's just a profile view.
Weinberg starts out addressing the jury that we've been together for a long time now, over several holidays, and complimenting them. "We've had an inordinate amount of legal and forensic facts to get through together." He tells them something like he's never seen "a group more thoughtful; bonded. [...] But now I want to be straight foreword. [...] If you knew only the case from the outside it looks like a lot of evidence. [...] And if you believe Adriano De Souza, it looks like he did it; (and you may be thinking) he probably did it. [...] But you look like the kind of people who are objective and fair.'
Weinberg takes the time to talk a bit more about the type of jury that they seem to be. "Some of you hate guns and have really strong opinions about guns. some of you came here and think that (paid experts) they can manipulate and fool the jury. And some of you said it was better to convict a guilty person than let them go free." (Weinberg is referring to their jury questionnaires they filled out.)
"The reason you are on the jury with attitudes that most people have (is because) that you are fundamentally fair and are going to judge the case on the evidence you heard. Some of you in the jury room are going to find you have different ideas bout trials. What I'd like to do, would be able to sit down with each one of you and answer your individual concerns. (But since I can't do that, what I have to do is think what the common denominators are (and try to address all of those). So what I'm telling you is I'm going to be there for a while. [...] Phil Spector did not kill Lana Clarkson. that's what the evidence shows. [...] Despite the presentation that Ms. Do had, it is not the case here. [...] The problem with their case is that it relies on the starting proposition he is a bad person and so he must have done it."
Weinberg states that the investigation and prosecution was "not to independently investigate what happened here, but to prove that he did it. [...] There's one question and one question only: has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not with speculation, not with theory but with facts. [...] Is the evidence clear beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] I believe that the evidence shows that he didn't (kill Lana Clarkson). [...] It probably would be easier if we worked under Scottish law. They have three options: guilty, not guilty and not proven."
Juror's $ 6 and 7 have their pens ready to take notes but I don't see any writing going on. Weinberg continues about the structure of the US Justice system and that we don't have the option of the Scottish system. I note here that Weinberg is speaking in a low soft voice for the beginning of his summation. It's a tone that is totally different than how he has addressed witnesses throughout the trial.
"The bedrock of our system is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] This is a circumstantial evidence case, because one one has told you it wasn't video taped and it wasn't recorded. [...] The prosecution has a theory that they want you to believe. [...] Although yesterday, Ms. Do went over some of the law instructions..." Weinberg now educates the jury on "CALCRIM" and other jury instructions that the judge will give them. He brings up an instruction that states, "You must be convinced the people have proven each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt..." Weinberg stresses the point that if one conclusion points towards innocence, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
From where I'm sitting, I can see a perfect profile of Mrs. Clarkson in the front row. To me, the expression on her face is a combination of sadness and stoicism.
"The burden is on the prosecution. It's a heavy burden and it should be. [...] I'm not saying Phil Spector is guilty but don't convict him because they didn't prove their case. I'm saying because he's innocent. [...] I think we should address it, why Phil Spector didn't testify. [...] It is the burden of the prosecution to exclude all reasonable possibilities. [...] So if/when the defendant testifies, it reduces the prosecution's burden. [...] So when a defendant says, 'Here's what happened.' what he really says, is, to tell the jury to choose between tow versions. So the defendant give us his most absolute right. [...] So why should he do that? [...] By giving an explanation in a circumstantial case, the defense fundamentally makes the prosecutions case less harder. [...] If a defendant testifies, you may not believe him because sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction." Weinberg goes onto say something to the effect that "this is his job" to make the prosecution's case harder to prove.
(I will interject only this one comment on Weinberg's entire summation, specifically addressing this point where if a defendant testifies, he makes the prosecution's case against him much easier to prove. My question back would be, what about the truth Mr. Weinberg? I would think that the ultimate goal of a five month murder trial is a search for the truth, and not a means to obfuscate the quest for the truth.)
"Let me talk about the attitude that people are expected to believe about (wealthy defendants). [...] That high paid experts are hired guns to say what they want to say. [...] The truth is the opposite in this case."
"Since they (LE) heard Mr. De Souza's version in that supposed confession, everyone involved in this case is making that expectation of homicide come true. [...] They spent 40 hours at the scene. The examined and micro scoped and collected and they left with all the evidence. [...] The prosecution took possession of all the evidence then some defense (staff?) experts were allowed on the scene. [..] Then for the next year and a half, the crime lab did whatever they wanted to do."
"Dr. Herold testified they could do any test they wanted to do. [...] But each expert had no idea how many hours they worked on this case. No idea. [...] But Dr. Herold spent months looking at Mr. Spector's clothing. [...] The coroner's office had many staff meetings with the DA's staff, with their own staff; the meetings were on, 'Can we make this a homicide?' [...] They needed outside evidence."
"So even though the evidence was not there, Mr. Spector was indicted. They (criminalists) had no idea how may man hours and time and money spent on that case. YOUR money. [...] They can look at all the evidence and spend all this time and money without reporting it to anyone."
AJ: Objection! That's completely improper!
Fidler: Sustained!
"Ms. Do said that Dr. Seiden just cashed a check. Dr. Seiden, who sits on boards of suicide prevention... do you think he really would do that? But how else are we going to get the evidence to you?" Weinberg goes on about how Spector had "no choice" to defend himself. "There are not charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people. [...] You judge these people on what they say and the merits of their life's work."
Weinberg then questions the honesty and prejudice of people working for government agencies verses people who are hired as an expert witness to (supposedly say whatever the defense wants them to say). "If that's all they did, they wouldn't last in the field. [...] They told you they often turn down work. [...] In law enforcement context, you have a built in pressure and built in bias because they have the same employer."
Weinberg reminds the jury of Dr. Herold's statement that she "practiced with Mr. Jackson" the hand and body placement positions of Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector, and that Mr. Weinberg tired to get her to demonstrate on him, she wouldn't, she testified, "You're different." Weinberg states that the defense experts agreed with the prosecution at times on some points but "tell me of one (prosecution) witness" that (did the same when he cross examined them).
At this time one of the jurors (I can't see which one) has a coughing fit and the Judge asks them if they need to take a break. So we take an early break. Linda Kenny Baden who is in the courtroom again today give an affectionate pat on Weinberg's arm when he comes over to where she's sitting in the gallery. Mrs. Weinberg comes over to speak to some Spector supporters (or maybe these are personal friends of the Weinberg family) in the third row near me, Sherri and Linda. I also note that Weinberg's daughter is here. The defense got a lot of people to show up. There's lots of socializing and chatting in the aisle by the defense supporters and I see Rachelle hug quite a few people. I note that there are quite a few faces I've never seen before.
1o:34 am: We're back on the record and Weinberg is talking about the close working relationship the LA County Sheriff's lab has with law enforcement. "(There is a strong) relationship of entities to each other and they work routinely with each other and that working influences (their work) and it is a bias. [...] They support each other and they come with a bias."
Weinberg puts up on the screen an image of a NPR flier or announcement of a study that was released last year. Jackson objects. "That's not evidence in this case." Fidler requests a side bar.
While they are at the sidebar, I read what's up on the screen and start writing as fast as I can. 'The study states separating crime scene analyst from the investigation of cases.'
The sidebar is over and Weinberg addresses the jury. "We don't need acknowledgment of the (separation of) science (from LE). We know it. [...] But you have to understand that they are not true independent scientists in the truest sense."
Weinberg touches on the issue of Lana Clarkson and her state of mind. "I take no pride in talking about the sadness and despair of Lana Clarkson [...] it has to be explained now. [...] But that doesn't mean I can stop to point out the point she had reached in her life... [...] It's to talk about what really happened here. [...] The prosecution asked you to go with your gut, your emotion. [...] But I'm going to talk about facts. [...] The prosecution was trying to get you to see me as untrustworthy but I'm hoping you don't see me that way."
Weinberg says something about "...the first part of (the prosecution's case was) Mr. Spectors history [...] and Mr. De Souza was in-between [...] and so therefore he must have done it with drama and accusation! [...] The third part, what really happened? [...] Who was Lana Clarkson and where was she in her life? [...] What the prosecution thinks. [...] What science shows. [...] What Lana Clarkson was, where she was in her life. [...] How accurate was Adriano De Souza in what he thinks he heard. [...] The five women, who all had an agenda, what effect (did) time have on their memory? [...] Dr. Herold: an expert on everything except pathology. [...] (I asked her), Can you say that Mr. Spector fired that shot? Her answer: 'No.'
"On February 16th, 2008, we met with Dr. Herold. And we asked her, 'Is there any physical evidence or forensic fact that proves Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No." I asked her, 'Is there an inconsistent fact?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No.' Dr. Herold acknowledged that."
Weinberg continues to point to the science with testimony up on the screen. He states again that there isn't a single piece of (physical?) evidence that (proves) Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. "Since then, the prosecution has tried to find some evidence that was inconsistent and based on that you should tend to find Mr. Spector innocent." Weinberg then lists fourteen separate items that support the theory of Spector's innocence.
1.) Intra oral gunshot wound: 99% of intra oral gunshot wounds are suicides. Weinberg mentions the history of all the medical examiner's who testified and that in their entire careers, they had not seen any that were homicides. The only exception to this is Dr. Di Maio who testifies that he saw three, and that there was a clear explanation for each one. He mentions that Dr. Pena thinks that he saw one, years ago, but there was also a second defendant involved at the scene. Weinberg gives the jurors an analogy of an investment, where 99% of those who invest will lose money. Is that an investment you would use? He also gives an example of a doctor who tells you that you need surgery but 99% of the people who had the surgery died. "Do you really think that people who report what they think they heard or think they saw are 99% correct? It's more like 50 or 60%."
"How do you get the gun in the mouth, particularly one with such a short barrel? How do you keep it in? [...] There's no evidence the gun was forced or shoved into the mouth. [...] You saw that hard metal crane. It would have left a bruise."
"I don't want to spend any time on this involuntary manslaughter charge. (Weinberg makes a few more statements but I miss getting them about this issue.)
Weinberg talks about how the prosecution made a big deal about intra-oral suicides were through the soft palate and points out that the autopsy report says the bullet went through the hard and soft palate. "That's exactly what this bullet did. It went through the hard and soft palate. [...] So how do you take a scientific fact and ignore it? [...] They combed all the literature and they found three cases of homicide. [...] The prosecution's case is a story; in-between is science (and facts). [...] That's what the prosecution's case is. It's a story. But this case is about facts."
2.) Blood on forward portions of the gun grip: A photo of the blood on the front strap of the gun and the grip is up on the screen. Weinberg holds the gun with no gloves on. To me, he's handling it very carelessly. Weinberg goes over the blood on this area of the gun and that the "prosecution didn't explain it. If Spector was holding the gun, how (did) the blood get on the front strap and the grip? How does blood get on there?" Weinberg kept his hand on the gun and putting it in various positions the entire time he is talking about it.
3.) Spatter on the gun grip: Now Weinberg explains satellite spatter and impact forward and back spatter to the jury. The photo up on the screen is a very enlarged photo of the "checker" pattern on the grip of the gun. He focuses on a specific area where his experts testified there was spatter (and not a transfer) pattern. Weinberg then explains how the blood that is supposedly on the dorsal side of Lana's wrists could have gotten there, if Lana was holding the gun on herself. "Dr. Di Maio talked about how spatter is a mist. There is a parabolic arc and they drop down. [...] The mist could easily have landed on the wrist in a parabolic arc. [...] It was Mr. Jackson who asked, but Ms. Do made you believe it was a question I asked. [...] The prosecution presents that there was blood on there and then wiped off. [...] Did they put any witnesses on to prove that? [...] You would think that with the way the prosecution presented it's case that 'we' would have to prove that's spatter on the grip of the gun."
"I asked Dr. Heorld about the blood on the gun grip and whether or not it could be spatter and she said she would have to go back and look at original photographs. [...] And now compare that to Jamie Lintemoot and what Dr. Herold did when presented with Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. [...] And when presented with that Dr. Herold said, 'Oops. Change that.' [...] There's no way to explain that spatter on the grip of the gun (if Spector's hand is completely covering the grip)."
Weinberg then explains James Pex and the prosecution's accusation that he lied to the jury. "He said it was a Colt Cobra. He was mistaken. It was a Smith & Wesson. That's all it was and it was virtually inconsequential." Weinberg goes over the questions by Jackson about the differences in the two weapons which Weinberg state are minor differences since they were both snub nosed barrel weapons. "They think that by finding one mistake they can discredit their entire testimony. [...] But how many mistakes did Jamie Lintemoot and Adriano De Souza make? [...] The prosecution didn't put on a rebuttal case to refute that was spatter. They didn't call Dr. Herold back to state it.
4.) Phil Spector's DNA was not on the gun: "They didn't do 'handler' DNA. Their experts testified they didn't swab parts of the gun that didn't have blood on them. [...] You've seen the blood on the gun. [...] With the exception of one area, the gun was very lightly smeared. [...] Yet Steve Renteria swabbed only seven areas; only bloody areas and in not one of those areas did they find Mr. Spector's DNA. [...] They did find foreign DNA mixed in with Lana Clarkson's blood on the cartridges. A single DNA markers that was not from Lana Clarkson or Mr. Spector. [...] Either one of the police officer's touched it or a long time ago someone touched the cartridge. [...] Think about what that means."
"Phil Spector's DNA was found in the blood in the pocket (of this pants). Spector's DNA was found on the doorknow and door latch. But five spots on the gun and Spector's DNA is not in any of them. (Yes, there is a discrepancy that earlier Weinberg said seven areas were tested and here he said five. I believe he misspoke. I'm just writing what I heard.) [...] Steve Renterial said there was so much blood on the gun it must have overwhelmed (Spector's DNA). But no. Spector's DNA was no where on the gun."
5.) No spatter on Phil Spector's right sleeve: "Now onto the jacket. [...] It's a very light beige jacket, practically white. [...] There's no spatter on the right sleeve; only on the seam (on the backside) only. [...] James Pex did tests and studies on firing a weapon and what spatter you would expect to see on a person's sleeve who is holding the weapon." Weinberg puts up the photo of spots on a sleeve cuff from one of Pex's experiments. "There's 10-12 spots on the sleeve. [...] That's what you expect to find when you fire a weapon close range." A photo of the wool jacket is put up on the screen. "This is not the jacket of a person who fired a weapon."
6.) There is no GSR on Phil Spector's clothing: "There's no GSR on Spector's jacket. [...] If Phil Spector shot Lana Clarkson you would expect ot see some GSR on Spector's clothing. [...] From Dr. Herold's notes, 'there's no smokeless powder of obvious morphology.' But then she comes into court and she's got a photograph. [...] Even if she was right about that, with the person who owns guns, and put his jacket on the floor where there are guns (in the room), it means nothing.
7.) There is no foreign biological material on Phil Spector: " There was no foreign material found on Phil spector in his hair, or on his face. [...] There was no GSR. [...] The only foreign biological material on Phil spector was in fact Lana clarkson's DNA on his scrotum. [...] Steve Renteria told you that there was (percentages?) one in 96 thousand chance that it was someone other than Lana Clarkson. That was the only foreign DNA on Phil Spector.
8.) There is no evidence of a struggle: There was no disturbance of furniture. They looked at the carpet and there were deep indentations in the carpet showing the furniture had not been moved. The photos on the bureau was undisturbed. There was nothing knocked over except a statue and the police did that."
9.) Phil Spector's DNA is not under Lana Clarkson's fingernails: "There was no evidence of a struggle."
10.) Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands: "There was spatter on her hands. It was seen at seen at the scene. [...] These are the only four photos of Lana Clarkson's hands. No others were directed to be taken." The photos up on the screen have circles around several areas of the hands. Weinber states those noted areas "appear to be spatter."
AJ: Objection! There are circles on these exhibits. There is no testimony that said this is spatter.
Fidler: The problem is, this is argument.
AJ: As long as the jury is aware that there is no testimony (that states that).
Fidler: If they wern't aware of it, they are now.
Weinberg continues. "Each of our defense experts had a different way to hold the gun in their analysis. That tells you that they didn't rehearse."
11.) Directional spatter on Lana Clarkson's left hand.
12.) Presence of GSR on both of Lana Clarkson's hands: "There's copious amounts. The people who did the tests did not document where it came from (specifically) on her hands. But we know that both hands were close to her mouth. [...] Phil Spector had essentially no GSR on his clothing. [...] But yet, by the prosecution's (demonstration), both people had to have GSR on them (since) their hands were in the same vicinity. [...] The prosecution suggested that maybe he washed his hands but ther'es no way to wash GSR out of fabric. [...] He as handcuffed, taken to the police stations and no one noticed that the sleeve was wet (if it was)?"
13.) Trajectory placed the tooth fragments: "Those fragments flew ten to fifteen feet. They were projected out (wards) a great deal. [...] One fell on her lap. The prosecution contends it hit Phil Spector. [...] It could have hit her lip and just fallen down."
14.) The broken acrylic thumbnail: "There's no evidence that there was a struggle. [...] Detective Lillienfeld agrees that if could have broken off in pulling the trigger. 'I think so,' he replied to my question about that."
Weinberg then reviews in general the 14 points. "Fourteen pieces of forensic evidence all point in the same direction. Weinberg then moves onto other physical evidence that was collected at the house. He states it was all left out, for LE to find and collect. It wasn't hidden or destroyed. "Phil Spector's DNA shows up on the brandy sniffers, the eyelashes and on her hands. Not on the bruises, like Ms. Do suggested, but on her hands. [...] Phil Spector's DNA is found on everything except the gun and the bullets."
The afternoon recess is called. Before everyone leaves, Fidler tells the counsel that he would like to see them briefly at the bench.
Back on the 9th floor, waiting for the afternoon session to begin the regular group sees that even more people have shown up to support Spector. More people who claim they are "family." Dan Kessell is here. While I was waiting by the door, Spector was standing not more than two feet from me and I saw him hug several new people that arrived to show their support. I heard Spector say to an older looking man, red-faced man with thinning hair, "That was a great opening!"
When I get inside the courtroom for the afternoon session, I'm in the second row and sitting to my left is a black man in a Laker's jersey that Allan Parachini is addressing as "Judge." I ask him his name and he tells me he is Judge Kelvin Filer, who is a judge serving in Compton. He came to the closings in the hopes of seeing Jackson give his closing argument. When Jackson sees him he comes over and gives him a big hug. Judge Filer, who at one time was a defense attorney says that he remembers when Jackson was first trying cases. This was either when he was opposite Jackson in the courtroom, or when Jackson was first starting out and presenting cases in his courtroom. It's taking some time to get the afternoon session started. The PIO is still trying to seat more of the people who are Spector's long lost relatives. As I look around the room I see that Aphrodite Jones is putting on makeup again. Court finally gets started around 1:41 pm.
Weinberg now goes into a presentation of all the prosecution's misrepresentations (of the facts of the case) and there are quite a few that he reviews with the jury.
More to come..
I've still got about 34 more pages of notes to transcribe for this day, but it's midnight and I have to make a decision. As much as I'd like to get the rest of these notes up, I've only had less than six hours of sleep for the last two days. I have to get some rest. This summation I will have to try to update, when I'm on jury watch.
Everyone should also know that Mr. Weinberg is far from finished with his closing argument. In his binder, it appears he has a stack of at least 40 or maybe 50 pages of hand written notes. I tried to count today the number of pages he has turned in his stack to see how far along he was and I only counted something like fifteen or sixteen pages. So be prepared. If I am right and Weinberg has that many pages of hand written notes still to go through, we may not get to Jackson's rebuttal closing tomorrow. Understand that Weinberg mostly spent the rest of the day going over the physical evidence. He had not addressed the 1101(b) witnesses in full and only touched a tiny bit on De Souza's testimony as the last few statements of the day. It's my opinion that he has much more to still present to the jury.
At least twelve to fifteen people from the accredited press showed up today. This left the PIO office with the task of holding a lottery for the few remaining seats. Many people who have attended the trial on a more regular basis did not get in. Ron, who drove from Phoenix didn't make it as well as My2Cents (although they did get a seat in the afternoon session) and the guy studying for the bar. (So long Ron! It was great meeting you and I'm sorry that you didn't get to hang with us trial ladies more!) I would say that the inside of the courtroom was mostly packed with Spector's "family." If Linda from San Diego hadn't arranged for us to be admitted after the press, it's doubtful that I would have had a seat. Richard Gabriel is back as well as the Joyce Danelen look alike. Louis Spector and Frieda also arrive and are given seats.
The last people to enter the courtroom are Spector and Rachelle, who's wearing the palest coral pantsuit with a dark, black looking top underneath. The over-belt appeared to be almost four inches thick and cinched tight around her waist.
Before Weinberg begins his closing arguments he has a complaint about the Jamie Lintemoot video that was shown in the prosecution's closing arguments. I miss most of the first statement where Weinberg says something to the effect that the prosecution turned a court (judge?) into a witness (without being?) cross examined. "Not only was the tape shown, but at the end of the tape [...] it came at a hearing regarding evidence... (it wasn't testimony in front of the jury)." Weinberg's main concern is there were still photos from it. Three photos of Jamie Lintemoot (the tape did show the images in slow motion), "...and three pictures of you in it in support of the prosecution. [...] That's totally inappropriate."
Judge Fidler asks the people to respond. I think Jacksons first words are "Completely unnecessary. [...] The previous six times Mr. Weinberg complained about this, it was for the (recording complying?) within the preview of the court. [...] Because it was a hand gesture and the witness was clearing it up."
Fidler asks, "Do you plan on using it in your closing?" Jackson replies, "Yes, your honor."
Weinberg adds, "What I was complaining about was your image (Fidler, at the end of the tape)."
Jackson speaks again and then Fidler addresses Weinberg and says, "I'll give it some thought and let you know later."
Weinberg now has the podium facing the jury. He has a binder with a stack of notes inside. The page I see on top, and many of the pages I see throughout the day are all hand written. Since I'm sitting in the second bench row directly in front of the jurors beside Terri Keith from City News, I can only see some of the faces of the jury. Those that I can see, it's just a profile view.
Weinberg starts out addressing the jury that we've been together for a long time now, over several holidays, and complimenting them. "We've had an inordinate amount of legal and forensic facts to get through together." He tells them something like he's never seen "a group more thoughtful; bonded. [...] But now I want to be straight foreword. [...] If you knew only the case from the outside it looks like a lot of evidence. [...] And if you believe Adriano De Souza, it looks like he did it; (and you may be thinking) he probably did it. [...] But you look like the kind of people who are objective and fair.'
Weinberg takes the time to talk a bit more about the type of jury that they seem to be. "Some of you hate guns and have really strong opinions about guns. some of you came here and think that (paid experts) they can manipulate and fool the jury. And some of you said it was better to convict a guilty person than let them go free." (Weinberg is referring to their jury questionnaires they filled out.)
"The reason you are on the jury with attitudes that most people have (is because) that you are fundamentally fair and are going to judge the case on the evidence you heard. Some of you in the jury room are going to find you have different ideas bout trials. What I'd like to do, would be able to sit down with each one of you and answer your individual concerns. (But since I can't do that, what I have to do is think what the common denominators are (and try to address all of those). So what I'm telling you is I'm going to be there for a while. [...] Phil Spector did not kill Lana Clarkson. that's what the evidence shows. [...] Despite the presentation that Ms. Do had, it is not the case here. [...] The problem with their case is that it relies on the starting proposition he is a bad person and so he must have done it."
Weinberg states that the investigation and prosecution was "not to independently investigate what happened here, but to prove that he did it. [...] There's one question and one question only: has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not with speculation, not with theory but with facts. [...] Is the evidence clear beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] I believe that the evidence shows that he didn't (kill Lana Clarkson). [...] It probably would be easier if we worked under Scottish law. They have three options: guilty, not guilty and not proven."
Juror's $ 6 and 7 have their pens ready to take notes but I don't see any writing going on. Weinberg continues about the structure of the US Justice system and that we don't have the option of the Scottish system. I note here that Weinberg is speaking in a low soft voice for the beginning of his summation. It's a tone that is totally different than how he has addressed witnesses throughout the trial.
"The bedrock of our system is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] This is a circumstantial evidence case, because one one has told you it wasn't video taped and it wasn't recorded. [...] The prosecution has a theory that they want you to believe. [...] Although yesterday, Ms. Do went over some of the law instructions..." Weinberg now educates the jury on "CALCRIM" and other jury instructions that the judge will give them. He brings up an instruction that states, "You must be convinced the people have proven each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt..." Weinberg stresses the point that if one conclusion points towards innocence, you must accept the one that points to innocence.
From where I'm sitting, I can see a perfect profile of Mrs. Clarkson in the front row. To me, the expression on her face is a combination of sadness and stoicism.
"The burden is on the prosecution. It's a heavy burden and it should be. [...] I'm not saying Phil Spector is guilty but don't convict him because they didn't prove their case. I'm saying because he's innocent. [...] I think we should address it, why Phil Spector didn't testify. [...] It is the burden of the prosecution to exclude all reasonable possibilities. [...] So if/when the defendant testifies, it reduces the prosecution's burden. [...] So when a defendant says, 'Here's what happened.' what he really says, is, to tell the jury to choose between tow versions. So the defendant give us his most absolute right. [...] So why should he do that? [...] By giving an explanation in a circumstantial case, the defense fundamentally makes the prosecutions case less harder. [...] If a defendant testifies, you may not believe him because sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction." Weinberg goes onto say something to the effect that "this is his job" to make the prosecution's case harder to prove.
(I will interject only this one comment on Weinberg's entire summation, specifically addressing this point where if a defendant testifies, he makes the prosecution's case against him much easier to prove. My question back would be, what about the truth Mr. Weinberg? I would think that the ultimate goal of a five month murder trial is a search for the truth, and not a means to obfuscate the quest for the truth.)
"Let me talk about the attitude that people are expected to believe about (wealthy defendants). [...] That high paid experts are hired guns to say what they want to say. [...] The truth is the opposite in this case."
"Since they (LE) heard Mr. De Souza's version in that supposed confession, everyone involved in this case is making that expectation of homicide come true. [...] They spent 40 hours at the scene. The examined and micro scoped and collected and they left with all the evidence. [...] The prosecution took possession of all the evidence then some defense (staff?) experts were allowed on the scene. [..] Then for the next year and a half, the crime lab did whatever they wanted to do."
"Dr. Herold testified they could do any test they wanted to do. [...] But each expert had no idea how many hours they worked on this case. No idea. [...] But Dr. Herold spent months looking at Mr. Spector's clothing. [...] The coroner's office had many staff meetings with the DA's staff, with their own staff; the meetings were on, 'Can we make this a homicide?' [...] They needed outside evidence."
"So even though the evidence was not there, Mr. Spector was indicted. They (criminalists) had no idea how may man hours and time and money spent on that case. YOUR money. [...] They can look at all the evidence and spend all this time and money without reporting it to anyone."
AJ: Objection! That's completely improper!
Fidler: Sustained!
"Ms. Do said that Dr. Seiden just cashed a check. Dr. Seiden, who sits on boards of suicide prevention... do you think he really would do that? But how else are we going to get the evidence to you?" Weinberg goes on about how Spector had "no choice" to defend himself. "There are not charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people. [...] You judge these people on what they say and the merits of their life's work."
Weinberg then questions the honesty and prejudice of people working for government agencies verses people who are hired as an expert witness to (supposedly say whatever the defense wants them to say). "If that's all they did, they wouldn't last in the field. [...] They told you they often turn down work. [...] In law enforcement context, you have a built in pressure and built in bias because they have the same employer."
Weinberg reminds the jury of Dr. Herold's statement that she "practiced with Mr. Jackson" the hand and body placement positions of Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector, and that Mr. Weinberg tired to get her to demonstrate on him, she wouldn't, she testified, "You're different." Weinberg states that the defense experts agreed with the prosecution at times on some points but "tell me of one (prosecution) witness" that (did the same when he cross examined them).
At this time one of the jurors (I can't see which one) has a coughing fit and the Judge asks them if they need to take a break. So we take an early break. Linda Kenny Baden who is in the courtroom again today give an affectionate pat on Weinberg's arm when he comes over to where she's sitting in the gallery. Mrs. Weinberg comes over to speak to some Spector supporters (or maybe these are personal friends of the Weinberg family) in the third row near me, Sherri and Linda. I also note that Weinberg's daughter is here. The defense got a lot of people to show up. There's lots of socializing and chatting in the aisle by the defense supporters and I see Rachelle hug quite a few people. I note that there are quite a few faces I've never seen before.
1o:34 am: We're back on the record and Weinberg is talking about the close working relationship the LA County Sheriff's lab has with law enforcement. "(There is a strong) relationship of entities to each other and they work routinely with each other and that working influences (their work) and it is a bias. [...] They support each other and they come with a bias."
Weinberg puts up on the screen an image of a NPR flier or announcement of a study that was released last year. Jackson objects. "That's not evidence in this case." Fidler requests a side bar.
While they are at the sidebar, I read what's up on the screen and start writing as fast as I can. 'The study states separating crime scene analyst from the investigation of cases.'
The sidebar is over and Weinberg addresses the jury. "We don't need acknowledgment of the (separation of) science (from LE). We know it. [...] But you have to understand that they are not true independent scientists in the truest sense."
Weinberg touches on the issue of Lana Clarkson and her state of mind. "I take no pride in talking about the sadness and despair of Lana Clarkson [...] it has to be explained now. [...] But that doesn't mean I can stop to point out the point she had reached in her life... [...] It's to talk about what really happened here. [...] The prosecution asked you to go with your gut, your emotion. [...] But I'm going to talk about facts. [...] The prosecution was trying to get you to see me as untrustworthy but I'm hoping you don't see me that way."
Weinberg says something about "...the first part of (the prosecution's case was) Mr. Spectors history [...] and Mr. De Souza was in-between [...] and so therefore he must have done it with drama and accusation! [...] The third part, what really happened? [...] Who was Lana Clarkson and where was she in her life? [...] What the prosecution thinks. [...] What science shows. [...] What Lana Clarkson was, where she was in her life. [...] How accurate was Adriano De Souza in what he thinks he heard. [...] The five women, who all had an agenda, what effect (did) time have on their memory? [...] Dr. Herold: an expert on everything except pathology. [...] (I asked her), Can you say that Mr. Spector fired that shot? Her answer: 'No.'
"On February 16th, 2008, we met with Dr. Herold. And we asked her, 'Is there any physical evidence or forensic fact that proves Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No." I asked her, 'Is there an inconsistent fact?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No.' Dr. Herold acknowledged that."
Weinberg continues to point to the science with testimony up on the screen. He states again that there isn't a single piece of (physical?) evidence that (proves) Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. "Since then, the prosecution has tried to find some evidence that was inconsistent and based on that you should tend to find Mr. Spector innocent." Weinberg then lists fourteen separate items that support the theory of Spector's innocence.
1.) Intra oral gunshot wound: 99% of intra oral gunshot wounds are suicides. Weinberg mentions the history of all the medical examiner's who testified and that in their entire careers, they had not seen any that were homicides. The only exception to this is Dr. Di Maio who testifies that he saw three, and that there was a clear explanation for each one. He mentions that Dr. Pena thinks that he saw one, years ago, but there was also a second defendant involved at the scene. Weinberg gives the jurors an analogy of an investment, where 99% of those who invest will lose money. Is that an investment you would use? He also gives an example of a doctor who tells you that you need surgery but 99% of the people who had the surgery died. "Do you really think that people who report what they think they heard or think they saw are 99% correct? It's more like 50 or 60%."
"How do you get the gun in the mouth, particularly one with such a short barrel? How do you keep it in? [...] There's no evidence the gun was forced or shoved into the mouth. [...] You saw that hard metal crane. It would have left a bruise."
"I don't want to spend any time on this involuntary manslaughter charge. (Weinberg makes a few more statements but I miss getting them about this issue.)
Weinberg talks about how the prosecution made a big deal about intra-oral suicides were through the soft palate and points out that the autopsy report says the bullet went through the hard and soft palate. "That's exactly what this bullet did. It went through the hard and soft palate. [...] So how do you take a scientific fact and ignore it? [...] They combed all the literature and they found three cases of homicide. [...] The prosecution's case is a story; in-between is science (and facts). [...] That's what the prosecution's case is. It's a story. But this case is about facts."
2.) Blood on forward portions of the gun grip: A photo of the blood on the front strap of the gun and the grip is up on the screen. Weinberg holds the gun with no gloves on. To me, he's handling it very carelessly. Weinberg goes over the blood on this area of the gun and that the "prosecution didn't explain it. If Spector was holding the gun, how (did) the blood get on the front strap and the grip? How does blood get on there?" Weinberg kept his hand on the gun and putting it in various positions the entire time he is talking about it.
3.) Spatter on the gun grip: Now Weinberg explains satellite spatter and impact forward and back spatter to the jury. The photo up on the screen is a very enlarged photo of the "checker" pattern on the grip of the gun. He focuses on a specific area where his experts testified there was spatter (and not a transfer) pattern. Weinberg then explains how the blood that is supposedly on the dorsal side of Lana's wrists could have gotten there, if Lana was holding the gun on herself. "Dr. Di Maio talked about how spatter is a mist. There is a parabolic arc and they drop down. [...] The mist could easily have landed on the wrist in a parabolic arc. [...] It was Mr. Jackson who asked, but Ms. Do made you believe it was a question I asked. [...] The prosecution presents that there was blood on there and then wiped off. [...] Did they put any witnesses on to prove that? [...] You would think that with the way the prosecution presented it's case that 'we' would have to prove that's spatter on the grip of the gun."
"I asked Dr. Heorld about the blood on the gun grip and whether or not it could be spatter and she said she would have to go back and look at original photographs. [...] And now compare that to Jamie Lintemoot and what Dr. Herold did when presented with Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. [...] And when presented with that Dr. Herold said, 'Oops. Change that.' [...] There's no way to explain that spatter on the grip of the gun (if Spector's hand is completely covering the grip)."
Weinberg then explains James Pex and the prosecution's accusation that he lied to the jury. "He said it was a Colt Cobra. He was mistaken. It was a Smith & Wesson. That's all it was and it was virtually inconsequential." Weinberg goes over the questions by Jackson about the differences in the two weapons which Weinberg state are minor differences since they were both snub nosed barrel weapons. "They think that by finding one mistake they can discredit their entire testimony. [...] But how many mistakes did Jamie Lintemoot and Adriano De Souza make? [...] The prosecution didn't put on a rebuttal case to refute that was spatter. They didn't call Dr. Herold back to state it.
4.) Phil Spector's DNA was not on the gun: "They didn't do 'handler' DNA. Their experts testified they didn't swab parts of the gun that didn't have blood on them. [...] You've seen the blood on the gun. [...] With the exception of one area, the gun was very lightly smeared. [...] Yet Steve Renteria swabbed only seven areas; only bloody areas and in not one of those areas did they find Mr. Spector's DNA. [...] They did find foreign DNA mixed in with Lana Clarkson's blood on the cartridges. A single DNA markers that was not from Lana Clarkson or Mr. Spector. [...] Either one of the police officer's touched it or a long time ago someone touched the cartridge. [...] Think about what that means."
"Phil Spector's DNA was found in the blood in the pocket (of this pants). Spector's DNA was found on the doorknow and door latch. But five spots on the gun and Spector's DNA is not in any of them. (Yes, there is a discrepancy that earlier Weinberg said seven areas were tested and here he said five. I believe he misspoke. I'm just writing what I heard.) [...] Steve Renterial said there was so much blood on the gun it must have overwhelmed (Spector's DNA). But no. Spector's DNA was no where on the gun."
5.) No spatter on Phil Spector's right sleeve: "Now onto the jacket. [...] It's a very light beige jacket, practically white. [...] There's no spatter on the right sleeve; only on the seam (on the backside) only. [...] James Pex did tests and studies on firing a weapon and what spatter you would expect to see on a person's sleeve who is holding the weapon." Weinberg puts up the photo of spots on a sleeve cuff from one of Pex's experiments. "There's 10-12 spots on the sleeve. [...] That's what you expect to find when you fire a weapon close range." A photo of the wool jacket is put up on the screen. "This is not the jacket of a person who fired a weapon."
6.) There is no GSR on Phil Spector's clothing: "There's no GSR on Spector's jacket. [...] If Phil Spector shot Lana Clarkson you would expect ot see some GSR on Spector's clothing. [...] From Dr. Herold's notes, 'there's no smokeless powder of obvious morphology.' But then she comes into court and she's got a photograph. [...] Even if she was right about that, with the person who owns guns, and put his jacket on the floor where there are guns (in the room), it means nothing.
7.) There is no foreign biological material on Phil Spector: " There was no foreign material found on Phil spector in his hair, or on his face. [...] There was no GSR. [...] The only foreign biological material on Phil spector was in fact Lana clarkson's DNA on his scrotum. [...] Steve Renteria told you that there was (percentages?) one in 96 thousand chance that it was someone other than Lana Clarkson. That was the only foreign DNA on Phil Spector.
8.) There is no evidence of a struggle: There was no disturbance of furniture. They looked at the carpet and there were deep indentations in the carpet showing the furniture had not been moved. The photos on the bureau was undisturbed. There was nothing knocked over except a statue and the police did that."
9.) Phil Spector's DNA is not under Lana Clarkson's fingernails: "There was no evidence of a struggle."
10.) Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands: "There was spatter on her hands. It was seen at seen at the scene. [...] These are the only four photos of Lana Clarkson's hands. No others were directed to be taken." The photos up on the screen have circles around several areas of the hands. Weinber states those noted areas "appear to be spatter."
AJ: Objection! There are circles on these exhibits. There is no testimony that said this is spatter.
Fidler: The problem is, this is argument.
AJ: As long as the jury is aware that there is no testimony (that states that).
Fidler: If they wern't aware of it, they are now.
Weinberg continues. "Each of our defense experts had a different way to hold the gun in their analysis. That tells you that they didn't rehearse."
11.) Directional spatter on Lana Clarkson's left hand.
12.) Presence of GSR on both of Lana Clarkson's hands: "There's copious amounts. The people who did the tests did not document where it came from (specifically) on her hands. But we know that both hands were close to her mouth. [...] Phil Spector had essentially no GSR on his clothing. [...] But yet, by the prosecution's (demonstration), both people had to have GSR on them (since) their hands were in the same vicinity. [...] The prosecution suggested that maybe he washed his hands but ther'es no way to wash GSR out of fabric. [...] He as handcuffed, taken to the police stations and no one noticed that the sleeve was wet (if it was)?"
13.) Trajectory placed the tooth fragments: "Those fragments flew ten to fifteen feet. They were projected out (wards) a great deal. [...] One fell on her lap. The prosecution contends it hit Phil Spector. [...] It could have hit her lip and just fallen down."
14.) The broken acrylic thumbnail: "There's no evidence that there was a struggle. [...] Detective Lillienfeld agrees that if could have broken off in pulling the trigger. 'I think so,' he replied to my question about that."
Weinberg then reviews in general the 14 points. "Fourteen pieces of forensic evidence all point in the same direction. Weinberg then moves onto other physical evidence that was collected at the house. He states it was all left out, for LE to find and collect. It wasn't hidden or destroyed. "Phil Spector's DNA shows up on the brandy sniffers, the eyelashes and on her hands. Not on the bruises, like Ms. Do suggested, but on her hands. [...] Phil Spector's DNA is found on everything except the gun and the bullets."
The afternoon recess is called. Before everyone leaves, Fidler tells the counsel that he would like to see them briefly at the bench.
Back on the 9th floor, waiting for the afternoon session to begin the regular group sees that even more people have shown up to support Spector. More people who claim they are "family." Dan Kessell is here. While I was waiting by the door, Spector was standing not more than two feet from me and I saw him hug several new people that arrived to show their support. I heard Spector say to an older looking man, red-faced man with thinning hair, "That was a great opening!"
When I get inside the courtroom for the afternoon session, I'm in the second row and sitting to my left is a black man in a Laker's jersey that Allan Parachini is addressing as "Judge." I ask him his name and he tells me he is Judge Kelvin Filer, who is a judge serving in Compton. He came to the closings in the hopes of seeing Jackson give his closing argument. When Jackson sees him he comes over and gives him a big hug. Judge Filer, who at one time was a defense attorney says that he remembers when Jackson was first trying cases. This was either when he was opposite Jackson in the courtroom, or when Jackson was first starting out and presenting cases in his courtroom. It's taking some time to get the afternoon session started. The PIO is still trying to seat more of the people who are Spector's long lost relatives. As I look around the room I see that Aphrodite Jones is putting on makeup again. Court finally gets started around 1:41 pm.
Weinberg now goes into a presentation of all the prosecution's misrepresentations (of the facts of the case) and there are quite a few that he reviews with the jury.
More to come..
I've still got about 34 more pages of notes to transcribe for this day, but it's midnight and I have to make a decision. As much as I'd like to get the rest of these notes up, I've only had less than six hours of sleep for the last two days. I have to get some rest. This summation I will have to try to update, when I'm on jury watch.
Everyone should also know that Mr. Weinberg is far from finished with his closing argument. In his binder, it appears he has a stack of at least 40 or maybe 50 pages of hand written notes. I tried to count today the number of pages he has turned in his stack to see how far along he was and I only counted something like fifteen or sixteen pages. So be prepared. If I am right and Weinberg has that many pages of hand written notes still to go through, we may not get to Jackson's rebuttal closing tomorrow. Understand that Weinberg mostly spent the rest of the day going over the physical evidence. He had not addressed the 1101(b) witnesses in full and only touched a tiny bit on De Souza's testimony as the last few statements of the day. It's my opinion that he has much more to still present to the jury.
How is Casey Paying Baez? Hearing Tomorrow
The Orlando Sentinel has just reported that there will be a hearing tomorrow morning before Judge Stan Strickland concerning a motion filed by the State's Attorney, Jeffrey Ashton. The hearing will take place at 10:30 AM according to MyFoxOrlando.
The Motion to Determine Potential Conflict of Interest and Waiver asks the judge to make an inquiry to determine the existence of any potential conflict of interest and establish the Defendants knowledge of and waiver of any such potential conflict of interest.
Among the reasons he felt this was necessary were:
At the bond hearing on July 22, 2008, the court heard extensive testimony as to financial status of the Defendant and her parents George and Cindy Anthony, which established little, if any, net worth on the part of George and Cindy Anthony and none on the part of the Defendant. (Para 3)
...approximately eight different lawyers have been retained to represent the Defendant in different aspects of this case and numerous experts have been announced as having been retained in this matter. (Para 4)
Ashton went on to explain that... logic dictates that certain conclusions must be drawn. First and foremost among these conclusions is that the Defendant's seeming conversion from pauper to princess did not come from the sale of some tangible asset... The only asset that appears available to the Defendant is her story or otherwise valueless items, such as photographs or video tapes...
He also stated that...Such precarious financial relationships are fraught with potential for claims of conflict of interest... Since the value of her "story" may change based upon the outcome of this case, such an arrangement could easily be argued by the Defendant, in the inevitable post conviction motion, as giving the attorney an incentive to advise his client in a manner that increased the value of the property as held, as opposed to advising her as to the course that was in her best interest.
This motion strikes to the heart of the mystery surrounding Casey Anthony's finances. Who is in control of her business deals? Who is signing the contracts for licensing fees for pictures and videos? What deals have been made for the future?
Shortly after Ashton submitted his motion to the court, defense attorney Jose Baez fired back with an Objection And Motion To Strike The State's Motion To Determine Potential Conflict Of Interest.
Baez wrote in his motion that the State had filed the objection among its own speculation, possibility based on rumors of tabloid news broadcasts. (Para 2)
Actually, when you go back and read the State's motion, there is no mention of such things as, "We heard rumors that... We read in the National Enquirer....." or anything of the sort. Mr. Ashton simply pointed out that there was a lot of money all of a sudden and there could be some logical conclusions drawn based on what they know of the situation.
Baez continues by mentioning that the State is out to retaliate for his previous motion for Sanctions against them (which he lost). He states in his 6th paragraph that the State is trying to interfere with his client's Constitutional Right to counsel.
If you read the State's motion, it clearly states that, The State is not requesting that, based upon the findings of this inquiry, the court block counsel's representation of the Defendant. We have no interest in interfering with the Defendant's right to counsel of her choice.
Finally, and as usual, Baez takes it to the usual level of his legal arguments:
... this motion has been filed solely to harass and embarrass the Defendant's counsel, and to possibly deflect attention away from the pending Motion for Sanctions as well as the future motions of misconduct stemming from the release of discovery which involves the unauthorized videotaping of the Defendant's counsel, while meeting with the Defendant. (Para 7)
That's quite a bit to take in within one sentence! First, Baez feels that the State's attorney is out to "get" him and make him look bad. Then, he says that it's obvious that the State is trying to deflect from other motions filed by him and to be also filed in the future!
I will say this right out. I am NOT a legal eagle. I've followed my share of trials and I can't recall so many motions filed stating that the prosecution is out to "harass and embarrass the defense. My problem with all of this is that this case is all about the law. While Mr. Baez might have some legal basis for his arguments, it would be nice to see that particular case law cited! Without proper foundation, these arguments resemble a schoolyard fight, not a case in the courts of law.
Finally, attached to this motion is a Sworn Affidavit by Ms. Anthony herself, stating that Mr. Baez doesn't have the ability to market her or Caylee's story. That still doesn't answer the question as to what was asked in the State's motion. It also doesn't explain how she obtained the money to pay Mr. Baez's retainer. If I recall correctly, Casey had told him at their first jail meeting that she had money in the bank and would pay him. I suppose Mr. Baez bought that story from Ms. Liar Liar.
The most interesting part of these documents filed by Baez was Casey's own personal contribution. Ms. Casey added, in her own handwriting:
I believe that Mr. Ashton is angry because I have refused to take a plea agreement for a crime that I DID NOT COMMIT.
Let's see, the only "deal" offered so far has been the one that expired in September. It offered immunity to Casey for information leading to the location of Caylee. That wasn't a "plea agreement" and she turned it down anyway. The State took the death penalty off the table; I can't imagine what plea agreement she could think of at this point. Oh, YES! Casey lives in her own fantasy world and she probably thinks there is a deal on the table!
It does appear that this should be quite a hearing. There has been no mention made as of yet if it will be held in public or in camera. Let's all keep an eye out for news of live coverage. I hope to see you all in court tomorrow!
Note: WESH has announced it will be streaming the video live tomorrow. That means that there should be more than one feed.
The Motion to Determine Potential Conflict of Interest and Waiver asks the judge to make an inquiry to determine the existence of any potential conflict of interest and establish the Defendants knowledge of and waiver of any such potential conflict of interest.
Among the reasons he felt this was necessary were:
At the bond hearing on July 22, 2008, the court heard extensive testimony as to financial status of the Defendant and her parents George and Cindy Anthony, which established little, if any, net worth on the part of George and Cindy Anthony and none on the part of the Defendant. (Para 3)
...approximately eight different lawyers have been retained to represent the Defendant in different aspects of this case and numerous experts have been announced as having been retained in this matter. (Para 4)
Ashton went on to explain that... logic dictates that certain conclusions must be drawn. First and foremost among these conclusions is that the Defendant's seeming conversion from pauper to princess did not come from the sale of some tangible asset... The only asset that appears available to the Defendant is her story or otherwise valueless items, such as photographs or video tapes...
He also stated that...Such precarious financial relationships are fraught with potential for claims of conflict of interest... Since the value of her "story" may change based upon the outcome of this case, such an arrangement could easily be argued by the Defendant, in the inevitable post conviction motion, as giving the attorney an incentive to advise his client in a manner that increased the value of the property as held, as opposed to advising her as to the course that was in her best interest.
This motion strikes to the heart of the mystery surrounding Casey Anthony's finances. Who is in control of her business deals? Who is signing the contracts for licensing fees for pictures and videos? What deals have been made for the future?
Shortly after Ashton submitted his motion to the court, defense attorney Jose Baez fired back with an Objection And Motion To Strike The State's Motion To Determine Potential Conflict Of Interest.
Baez wrote in his motion that the State had filed the objection among its own speculation, possibility based on rumors of tabloid news broadcasts. (Para 2)
Actually, when you go back and read the State's motion, there is no mention of such things as, "We heard rumors that... We read in the National Enquirer....." or anything of the sort. Mr. Ashton simply pointed out that there was a lot of money all of a sudden and there could be some logical conclusions drawn based on what they know of the situation.
Baez continues by mentioning that the State is out to retaliate for his previous motion for Sanctions against them (which he lost). He states in his 6th paragraph that the State is trying to interfere with his client's Constitutional Right to counsel.
If you read the State's motion, it clearly states that, The State is not requesting that, based upon the findings of this inquiry, the court block counsel's representation of the Defendant. We have no interest in interfering with the Defendant's right to counsel of her choice.
Finally, and as usual, Baez takes it to the usual level of his legal arguments:
... this motion has been filed solely to harass and embarrass the Defendant's counsel, and to possibly deflect attention away from the pending Motion for Sanctions as well as the future motions of misconduct stemming from the release of discovery which involves the unauthorized videotaping of the Defendant's counsel, while meeting with the Defendant. (Para 7)
That's quite a bit to take in within one sentence! First, Baez feels that the State's attorney is out to "get" him and make him look bad. Then, he says that it's obvious that the State is trying to deflect from other motions filed by him and to be also filed in the future!
I will say this right out. I am NOT a legal eagle. I've followed my share of trials and I can't recall so many motions filed stating that the prosecution is out to "harass and embarrass the defense. My problem with all of this is that this case is all about the law. While Mr. Baez might have some legal basis for his arguments, it would be nice to see that particular case law cited! Without proper foundation, these arguments resemble a schoolyard fight, not a case in the courts of law.
Finally, attached to this motion is a Sworn Affidavit by Ms. Anthony herself, stating that Mr. Baez doesn't have the ability to market her or Caylee's story. That still doesn't answer the question as to what was asked in the State's motion. It also doesn't explain how she obtained the money to pay Mr. Baez's retainer. If I recall correctly, Casey had told him at their first jail meeting that she had money in the bank and would pay him. I suppose Mr. Baez bought that story from Ms. Liar Liar.
The most interesting part of these documents filed by Baez was Casey's own personal contribution. Ms. Casey added, in her own handwriting:
I believe that Mr. Ashton is angry because I have refused to take a plea agreement for a crime that I DID NOT COMMIT.
Let's see, the only "deal" offered so far has been the one that expired in September. It offered immunity to Casey for information leading to the location of Caylee. That wasn't a "plea agreement" and she turned it down anyway. The State took the death penalty off the table; I can't imagine what plea agreement she could think of at this point. Oh, YES! Casey lives in her own fantasy world and she probably thinks there is a deal on the table!
It does appear that this should be quite a hearing. There has been no mention made as of yet if it will be held in public or in camera. Let's all keep an eye out for news of live coverage. I hope to see you all in court tomorrow!
Note: WESH has announced it will be streaming the video live tomorrow. That means that there should be more than one feed.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 1
Closing Arguments (unedited, draft entry)
The battle over what the evidence proves began in closing arguments today.
I get to the 9th floor around 8:00 am and there are several people I know already there. Linda from San Diego, and Sherri are sitting on the bench at the far end of the hall. Linda tells us that she called the Public Information Office (PIO) and asked if it was at all possible for seats to be reserved for the three of us. Linda has always been the gutsy, outgoing person in the gallery and not shy about talking to new people who would show up in the courtroom. I would not have even thought to call the PIO and ask because my experience at the first trial and at the Muira hearings I attended, I could not get on their reserved seating list because I'm not an accredited journalist. Needles to say, I'm glad Linda did call. I would have to say that besides myself, Linda and Sherri are the other two people who have attended the largest portion of testimony.
Also at the end of the 9th floor hallway when I arrived was Ron, a very nice man I met last Monday who had driven in from Phoenix for a week of testimony only to have the trial end in the afternoon session. He told us that last Monday was his first time in Los Angeles and he drove down many of the main, well known streets such as Hollywood, Sunset and Wilshire Boulevard's just to see the sights. As more familiar gallery faces showed up, we were trying to think up other noteworthly landmarks for Ron to visit in his down time this week. Soon the hallway was filled with many of the die hard public faces I had come to know over the past five months (such as the young man studying for the bar, Mr. Cane, My2Cents, Katie and Lisa) and a new face or two like the pretty young woman, an actress who flew down from San Francisco to hear the closings.
While we are all waiting, the prosecution team shows up and the sheriff's unlock the doors for them.
When I saw spied Juror #9 from the first trial down by the elevator bay, I said excuse me to the person I was speaking to and walked towards him to give him a hug. Like me, Juror #9 is a sensitive person and hugging to us just comes naturally. While we were waiting for the PIO to show up, another trial watcher I've come to know confirmed that it was Dan Kessel who has shown up several times at trial to support Spector.
When the PIO staff do arrive, they tell us there are 30 news organizations on the reserved seating list but assure us that most of those won't show up. At 8:58 am I'm inside the courtroom. I don't get to sit in my regular seat because the second row is being reserved for the DA staff and friends of Lana Clarkson. The third row is for the public and those reporters on laptops. I get a seat close to the far right in the third bench row. Over on the defense side of the room I see Spector's #1 fan, Teresa and the very thin Anita Talbert staring at me again.
Miriam Hernandez is here and I ask someone in the back row if they know what organization the still photographer is with. It's the LA Times. More and more reporter's show up and the courtroom is already three quarters full.
Soon, Lana's friends show up and sit right in front of me in the second row. I get to meet Pattie and Nili, who thank me for the trial coverage. They tell me they were barred from attending any of the trial because they were on the official witness list. Over on the defense side of the room sitting with Anita Talbert is a tiny, older blond woman who is a possible close match for Joyce Danelen, although I don't know if it is her or not. (During the first trial, it was speculated among the accredited press that Spector had loaned Ms. Danelen a large sum of money and that's why she was so vocally supportive of him.)
9:09 am: Tawni Tyndall arrives and sits in with Anita and the older woman. A moment later, I see Jackson, Truc and Weinberg enter Fidler's chambers. Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press in in the row in front of me on the end, her usual seat. More press arrives and the PIO staff are trying to get people to move down to the left so they can squeeze more bodies into the seats. Aphrodite Jones arrives and gets squeezed into the third row on my right. I find out that it's KABC who is filming the closing arguments today. Dr. Baden's brother, Robert Baden is in the second bench row on the defense side of the room.
9:22 am: John Taylor, Donna Clarkson and Fawn arrive and sit in the front row. Several people from the DA's office are sitting to the far left in the second bench row. I see Richard Gabriel, the defense's jury consultant is barely squeezed onto his seat next to the aisle in the second bench row. Also on the defense side is a large man that somewhat resembles David Crosby.
9:25 am: Mrs. Weinberg arrives and right after that all counsel enter Fidler's chambers again. Truc and Jackson enter and I believe that Weinberg's paralegal, Susan has to find him because he comes into 106 and goes straight to Fidler's chambers. Looking around behind me I notice Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly has grabbed one of the plastic chairs against the back wall and is opening his laptop. But the question that's on my mind and the trial watcher to my left is, Where is the defendant? The attorneys are back out of Fidler's chambers just as quickly as they went in.
In the far left back corner of the courtroom are the video camera as well as the still photographer. I see Harriet Ryan on her laptop in that far corner as well as a member of the PIO staff. Some of the other reporters I recognize, others I do not. Right behind me is My2Cents and next to them is the reporter for CNN who asks me a few questions and I give her the information on how to get to the blog.
9:29 am: The rest of Mrs. Clarkson's legal team is finally here: Rod Lindblom and Bill Ferguson. Weinberg stops to speak to Linda Deutsch and I overhear him tell her that he just received a text message (I'm betting that was from Rachelle) that there was an accident on a freeway. Maybe this is why the defendant is late.
Two minutes later the defendant arrives to a very tightly packed courtroom. Spector is wearing his regular get up, one of his long, Edwardian frock coats. A few people ask me if his garb is unusual and I tell them that he always dresses like that. Rachelle is wearing skin tight, bright white pants and a matching jacket. From where I'm sitting, the jacket and pants almost look like they are leather, but they are probably a type of spandex material. The short-waisted jacket has a 3" point-tip collar with an offset zipper on the far left front side. There are also zippers at the sleeve cuffs, and several zippers on the front of the jacket. What's interesting to me is the top she is wearing underneath. I can just see small a portion of the print that is peeking out from underneath the jacket at the cuffs and waist. It appears to be a "reverse leopard" print of black spots on bright yellow.
9:31 am: Wendy calls the jury. Louis Spector and his companion Frieda enter and try to find seats. The PIO staff asks the third bench row to try to squeeze together some more, but Louis and Freida do not get seats together for the first half of the morning session. I see Pat Dixon at the far left, climbing over the video camera tripod legs to get to his reserved seat in the second bench row.
Fidler takes the bench. He tells the jury he is going to take a couple of minutes to talk to them. They've spent six months together going over all the testimony from both parties. He reminds them that everything they are to consider is to come only from the courtroom. He reminds them that they are not to use computers or cell phones to research information on the case. I almost miss it, but Fidler states that either a juror pointed it out to him or that he's talking about a recent article in the news of jurors researching cases on their cell phones. He goes onto talk about this is especially problematic if a juror does this research and then passes it onto other jurors. "If it be radio, television, or the internet, or if anyone tries to influence you please let us know. [...] Let me just ask you, has anyone read anything? (There is a short pause while Fidler waits for an answer from the jury.) No positive responses." (It's very interesting this talk with the jury. This is the first time I've ever noticed Fidler mentioning the internet, in fact, I believe it's the only time.)
Fidler then goes onto explain the closing arguments. He states that the prosecution gets to passes to argue their case. They will go first, then the defense and then the prosecution again. He reminds the jury that the purpose of closing arguments is to sharpen the evidence and how to persuade you to view it. He informs the jury that it's important to remember that the arguments are not evidence. The evidence is the witness testimony. Closing arguments are an attempt to persuade you; it's not evidence. He tells them that in a trial this long, it's possible that both sides might misstate the evidence or testimony in their closing arguments. The thing to remember is, we can always go back to the trial transcript and have it read back if you have a question. He states again that the arguments are not evidence and with that he asks "So with that in mind are the people read to begin?"
Truc Do, dressed in a subdued charcoal gray suit gets up to present the first argument. She speaks in a pleasant and authorative voice. A KABC has a short clip where you can finally see and hear Truc Do in action. Isn't she as pretty as I've described? The lights are dimmed in the courtroom and as Truc starts to talk to the jury, a very detailed and well produced video presentation will play throughout her entire argument. For over two hours the jury will stare transfixed at the screen as she takes them through the state's evidence and what it proves.
Truc thanks the jurors for their sacrifice of spending six months together. "We have spent six months in a world that most don't belong to. [...] A world where people are treated golden." Truc goes onto describe this world of power and privilege where someone can be dismissed by putting them on a train. (Stephanie Jennings) "A world where an assault with a gun can be overshadowed by the awe of a John Lennon guitar. (Dorothy Melvin) [...] It's a world where you can buy a defense by paying $419,000 for expert testimony."
Then Truc switches to Lana Clarkson's world. "In Lana Clarkson's world, she worked a lifetime to pursue a life of fame. And as it is for most of us, it's a life of struggle." Truc mentions that Lana was not ashamed to consider putting on a costume for a part at an amusement park, to play the role of Zena. She was willing to work at the House of Blues. "Lana saw no shame in those jobs, because she was willing to work."
Truc goes onto talk about how deals are made in the entertainment world, over drinks, because it's who you know. "All Lana knew on February 3rd, 2003 was that Phil Spector was a VIP. He was told by her supervisor to treat him as golden. [...] She was reluctant but willing to go have a drink with him. [...] In three hours her dream ended with a single gunshot. [...] She didn't know about the "All women are fucking cunts who deserve a bullet in their heads. [...] She didn't know about a man with an impulsive rage and impulsive anger. [...] She didn't know about five other women. She would be the last in a long line. She didn't know any of that."
DW: Objection! This is character evidence!
Fidler: Overruled!
Truc doesn't miss a beat and continues after Fidler rules. " This truth is not complicated. [...] It's about a man who has a history of playing Russian roulette with the lives of six women. Lana just happened to be the sixth woman to get the bullet."
Truc then goes over the three charges that are before the jury: second degree, involuntary manslaughter and and a gun charge accusation.
She starts off with explaining the law regarding murder. While she's talking non stop without looking at a single note, the wording of the law is up on the overhead video screen. She outlines the two categories of second degree murder, and that the key to understanding it is the "conscious disregard" for someone's actions causing the death of another human being. Truc Do explains how the law defines malice. It can either be an expressed intent to kill (and this case is not about that) or it can be implied malice via certain conduct. The key is a conscious disregard to human life. With implied malice, there's no requirement that someone acknowledge an intent to kill.
Do then gives the jury an example of something everyone is familiar with, drinking and driving to explain what second degree murder looks like. A man is arrested twice for drunk driving. From those two arrests, there is no injury to himself or anyone else. The third time he crashes into an SUV and kills a family of four. The man is charged with four counts of second degree murder. She explains that it doesn't matter what his excuse is. It doesn't matter that he says he didn't mean to harm anyone. She explains that it doesn't matter that he says he was swerving to avoid hitting another vehicle. "Under the law, that man who drank and drove will be charged with second degree murder no matter what the excuse is."
"In this case we have something that everyone knows is a danger: A loaded gun. Even children know that." Truc then put's firearm expert Jim Carroll's testimony up on the screen. "...want to treat all firearms as if they are loaded at all times. We don't want to point firearms at anything we are not willing to kill or destroy." Truc reminds the jurors that when every single witness in this case who handled the weapon, they never pointed it at anyone even though everyone knew that the bailiff had ensured that the weapon was rendered safe. "Everyone in this courtroom knows a gun, a loaded gun is dangerous."
Truc explains the involuntary manslaughter charge. "This is a lesser offence that the judge is required to instruct under the law. [...] Lana's death is nothing less than a second degree murder. [...] Phil Spector took a loaded gun and pointed it at Lana Clarkson. That's second degree."
Truc then gives an example of what would be involuntary manslaughter. A man is sleeping and he is woken up by a crowd of teenagers standing 25 yars from where he is. He waves a weapon around so they see it, trying to scare them and the gun goes off. (Next to me, my seatmate to my left whispers to me this is exactly like the Clint Eastwood movie, Grand Torino.) "That is not what we have here," Truc explains. "There is a line between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and Mr. Spector has crossed that line." She goes onto explain that that (in their deliberations) they must decide on the and eliminate the second degree charge first before they can get to involuntary manslaughter.
And last, Truc goes over the gun accusation charge.
Now, Truc puts up on the overhead screen the law for second degree murder and what must be proven to get there. She starts off with the fact that Spector confessed (to his driver) that he fired the fatal shot. Moments later Adriano De Souza called 911. "The physical evidence proves he held the gun when it went off." Truc then tells the jury afterwords, Spector "acted with a consciousness of guilt" by attempting to clean up the scene and never calling 911.
Truc then puts up an image of sand dunes on the screen. She tells the jury that this image is not a "screen saver" image. It's a photo of from South Vietnam, where her family came from. It's a beach of sand dunes. In reviewing the accredited press reports, it's only ace reporter Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly who correctly copies down the name of the South Vietnam beach that Truc identifies: Mui Ne. "(These) sand dunes are shaped by the winds off the South China Sea. [...] They are never the same. [...] You would be lost if you relied on them to know hwere you are. [...] Nothing the defense has presented to you has been constant."
Truc goes onto state that the defense's case has been like these shifting sand dunes. It's a theme she presents over and over again in her argument. That when the defense was unable to deliver on the promises they made in their opening statement, they continually shifted strategies to try to discredit the prosecution witnesses, or have the evidence prove something it didn't.
Truc states that the shifting sands started with the testimony of Adriano De Souza. She reminds the jury what Mr. Weinberg promised in his opening statement what he would show about De Souza's testimony. And when he failed to discredit what he saw and heard, the sands shifted and he put on Dr. Loftus to testify about how lighting and sound can affect eyewitness testimony. But the law tells you how you can look at those issues.
"Adriano De Souza has been constant with what he saw and heard." Truc continues to detail each and every observation De Souza made and statement to police. "He's been constant, consistent and unwavering." Truc explains to the jury that "...the law will tell you how to interpret eyewitness testimony, and lets go over those points. [...] At 5:02 am, he called 911 and immediately gave a statement. [...] 8:35 am he was interviewed by Pineda and Kennedy. [...] 9:45 am he was interviewed by Fortier and Tomlin."
Throughout the presentation, Truc plays various audio clips of Adriano's 911 call and his video taped interrogation. Up on the screen is either the text or a visual of what she is discussing. "In that last (one) he gave specific details (to) the 911 operator," Truc clarifies for the jury. She then plays the tape from the Tomlin and Fortier interview. "Those are the salient facts that Mr. De Souza saw and heard."
Truc then goes over what the law states they should consider in eyewitness testimony with the words up on the screen. How well did he see or hear? How closely did he pay attention. How was the lighting and how far away was the witness.
Truc mentions that Mr. Weinberg brought up in his opening statement that the fountain was so loud that De Souza couldn't have heard what he heard. He even played an audio recording for the jurors that was part of a video tape of De Souza explaining what he did in the motor court in the rear of the residence. She reminds the jurors that they were there at the scene and they saw that they could have a conversation. And all while she is discussing these points, up on the screen images are slowly put up one by one of the rear entrance and the lights on in the sconces outside and the overhead light on the porch.
Then Truc goes over in detail, De Souza's testimony on cross examination where Weinberg tries to get De Souza to admit certain things. She explains that he wasn't under any kind of stress when Spector stepped out of the house. And all this testimony she is reviewing is up on the overhead screen.
ADS: Sir, I was not confused (in answering a question by Weinberg).
DW: When did you go into a little bit of a shock?
ADS: You know, it wasn't until I realized that somebody like could be dead inside the house.
There's a question about him being scared.
ADS : I didn't say I was scared at that moment. I didn't know what happened at the -- I saw the legs and stepped aside. [...] I was not scared.
"This is key to you understanding that Adriano De Souza was spot on with what he observed. [...] He was spot on and never went back," Truc details for the jury.
Weinberg makes another objection and Fidler overrules the objection.
"You've head testimony that Mr. De Souza was not allowed back in the crime scene," Truc continues. She then explains that De Souza describe what Spector wore the moment he stepped out on the porch. He knew that even though the last time he saw Spector being led away by police, he wasn't wearing the white jacket. She points out that De Souza told police in the interview that he believes there was blood on Spector's hand, but he's not positive about that. Truc asks the jury how would De Souza know that there was blood left on the door knob, or blood left on the banister.
The next issue Truc addresses is the audio interview with Kennedy and Pineda and how Weinberg suggested to the jury that De Souza was "fed information" by those officers. She specifically goes over where De Souza correct Pineda, putting his hand up to his face, on the right side of Lana's face. She reminds the jurors that Lana's head was moved from the left to the right and that had to have happened after De Souza saw Lana's body. "Was he consistent? Is he certain?" Truc asks the jurors. (These are two more of the statements on the list the law gives for how to interpret eyewitness testimony.)
The last item on the law list for eyewitness testimony is the question whether or not De Souza is confident in what he saw and heard. "He (Weinberg) brought in a last minute hail Mary witness because he couldn't shake De Souza's testimony. He brought in Dr. Loftus to tell you about memory because they couldn't shake De Souza."
Truc then goes over the testimony of De Souza where he is being asked how certain he is of what Spector said, and Truc tells the jury, "But the law tells you you can consider confidence (of the witness)." Truc talks about those who learn second languages they learn by parroting. "they couldn't shake his confidence so they bring in Dr. Loftus to tell you that (the connection to confidence and accuracy is weak). [...] They couldnt prove those things they told you so the sands shifted."
There are words up on the screen now that are overlayed onto a booking photo of Phil Spector on the left and Lana Clarkson, dead, on the right. It's the words that are consistent in each of the statements De Souza made to various individuals.
911 call: "I killed"
Officer Cardella: "I killed"
Kennedy & Pineda: "I killed"
Fortier & Tomlin: "I killed"
"In each one, De Souza said the same thing. "I killed. [...] So when you have directly Phil Spector confessed, that's evidence of guilt."
Truc then moves onto the physical evidence in the case and how the law instructs the jury to interpret it.
The backspatter. Dr. Herold testified that it was within arms reach of Lana Clarkson. Dr. Pena testified that bruises were on Lana Clarkson's hands and wrists. Backspatter was on Lana Clarkson's wrists absolutely proves that Lana could not have been holding the gun. Dr. Herold testified that the blood spatter tells us Spector was within arms reach. Truc goes over more of Dr. Herold's testimony. She also details that Stuart James confirmed the backspatter came from the firing event, and that he was within one-and-a-half to two feet from the gun going off.
Truc goes over next the blood stain on the leading edge of Spector's left sleeve cuff.
The next thing Truc addressed was the shifting sands of Weinberg's questioning of Dr. Pena about how Lana could have gotten bruises. He first suggested that there was some other cause. He suggested he got bruises on her arm from her job. He asked Dr. Pena if a patron at the House of Blues could have grabbed her arm asking Lana to "get me a beer." Right after Truc says this, Lana's friend turn to each other and laugh. Weinberg then asked Dr. Pena if Lana could have gotten those bruises when her arms fell from in front of her face at hit the arm of the chair she was sitting in. After that, through the testimony of Dr. Spitz, the defense suggested that the bruises on her hands and wrists were received at the coroner's office when her body was turned to be photographed! "The truth shifts with whatever direction the wind blows. [...] This should tell you it's not truth; it's evidence of convenience."
"Mr. Spector's DNA was found on her wrist. [...] In those three swabs, the profile was consistent with a mixture of Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector's DNA."
DW: Objection! Absolutely no evidence of DNA on bruises!
Weinberg objects again that an image up on the screen is not an image of her hand that contains a bruise. I believe the objections are overruled.
Truc Do states that Dr. Pena testified those were bruises on those wrists. The next thing that Truc goes over in detail is Jamie Lintemoot's testimony as to where the blood was on Lana's wrists. She plays the video again from the first trial of where Lintemoot demonstrates she saw spatter. "I expect Mr. Weinberg to argue that you can't rely on Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. [...] However, this is what (he said) in his opening statement, when they started. They were fine with her testimony from the first trial when they thought that she would present testimony of blood on hands. [...] That Lintemoot said, "That's spatter. That's spatter that I saw.
Fidler calls the morning recess. Some people get up to leave the courtroom because they need to go to the restroom but the PIO office tells them they might not get their seat back because there are other people waiting in the hall that they are still trying to seat. There are a few more people who show up and sit on the defense side. Spector gets up from his seat to whisper to Rachelle. I see Spector's bodyguard in the back row against the wall, stand up and motion to Williams who is in the bailiff box. Williams gets up to see what he wants. A few people who were waiting to get inside the courtroom sneak in when people leave their seats.
11:08 am: Wendy calls the jury. During the break, this very thin, homeless looking man (he looks like a ghoul right out of a Wes Craven movie) partially balding with a shock of white hair slips into 106 and sits on the defense side in the row of plastic chairs. He was in 106 a week or so ago and people commented on how strange he looked.
11:11 am: Fidler retakes the bench. Truc continues back on what Weinberg said in his opening statement. "When we started this trial, he was fully going to accept her (Lintemoot) testimony. That it was going to be "here" and not "here." Truc demonstrates where Weinberg thought Lintemoot would describe where she saw backspatter on Lana Clarkson verses where Lintemoot said she saw it. I believe her testimony is either played again or her testimony text is up on the screen. "1 swab backside of right wrist. [...] I saw mist like drops. [...] Three areas swabbed. The watch area, the smear on the left wrist and the right wrist."
Truc goes over the series of events where they had to bring Lintemoot back in the afternoon because Truc did not see exactly where Weinberg was pointing when he was cross examining her on where she saw the blood. She goes over in detail how Lintemoot in error, was accepting of Weinberg's demonstration and that she "misspeakes" and says hands in answer to Weinberg asking her if it was Lana's hands where she saw the spatter. Truc reminds the jury that Weinberg then asks Lintemoot if she is familiar with the concept of blood spatter, and questioned her extensively on that. "(He) completely accepted that testimony whe he thought it was convenient. [...] There were questions about her training and he accepted her testimony."
Then Truc goes over how Lintemoot was recalled in the afternoon. "And Jamie Lintemoot testified that it was NOT where Weinberg indicated and she clarifies that. Now Lintemoot's testimony is not convenient."
DW: Objection! That was not testimony! That was outside the presence!
TD: That's not correct.
Weinberg asks to approach and there is a sidebar off to the side of Fidler's bench. A couple of minutes later, the sidebar is finished.
"Once it became clear that spatter on the backside of Lana Clarkson's wrist was inconsistent with Lana Clarkson holding the gun (up on the screen is the image from James Pex's power point demonstration of a woman's hands holding the gun), you saw the biggest shifting sands just change the hand position. [...] Now she's just a toxicologist. [...] Let's use Dr. Lakshmanan to confuse what Lintemoot meant by wrists. [...] Then, you can't even believe your own eyes. [...] Even after playing the pate on cross of Dr. Lakshmanan, Weinberg still says that it's "here" (the webbing of the thumb) and not "here" (the area where a watch would be worn).
Truc now plays in slow motion the video of Lintemoot demonstrating in a circular motion the area on the backside of Lana's wrists the area she saw spatter. She then plays the judge clarifying for the record the same area. Truc then tells the jury that the defense shifted again and Weinberg states that no expert can rely on something that someone saw. Shifting sands. "But Weinberg told you in his opening statement that you could rely on her testimony. [...] Then, they agree it's there. [...] Then, what do they do, is make blood travel around corners. [...] Dr. Di Maio testified, stating "blood, looping over and hitting the back of the hand. [...] You had Weinberg say in opening statement: Blood doesn't travel around corners. You'll hear that from every scientist. [...] Shifting sands."
Truc then sums up again the physical evidence. "We could stop here. That is overwhelming evidence that he killed her. But we also have a confession. And we also have consciousness of guilt. [...] The law tells you that you can consider evidence that shows consciousness of guilt. [...] What was Spector doing (upstairs while Lana was downstairs? [...] He didn't call 911. [...] He goes up to his room and takes off the jacket and drops it on the floor. He doesn't use the phone that's there in the room. [...] He gets a diaper rag. The same type of rag that was found in this room." Up on the screen at this time are several different images. One is the bloody diaper next to the other diaper that was found. Another image is of a phone in the room and on the file cabinet below the phone is a classic sign of a gun pointing at the observer that says, 'Forget the dog. Beware of the owner.' "What did he do? He smeared blood on her hair and face. Forty minutes. [...] Everything he did shows consciousness of guilt."
Truc asks the jurors, how dies the gun get to that location (photo of the gun by Lana's left calf) after Adriano De Souza saw it in Spector's hand. "You know from Dr. Herold the gun had been wiped. The next image up on the screen is a close up of blood on the hammer of the gun. "You should look at, also, there's blood on the hammer. That's Mr. Spector, wiping the gun down. Did he do a good job? Of course not. [...] When he touched the door knob he put her blood there. When he touched the banister, he put her blood there. [...] When they did the GSR, what didn't they find? Her blood on his hands! He washed his hands! that' shows consciousness of guilt. He can wash his hand of her blood, but he can't wash his hands of her murder."
Truc tells the jury that Weinberg told you what does history teach us. But look at what history? Let's look at the history of Phil Spector. "All women are fucking cunts and deserve a bullet in their heads." Images of the five 1101(b) witnesses are up on the screen. [...] And Lana Clarkson happened to be the last woman who happened to get the bullet. [...] So you can add that to the totality of the physical evidence and then you've got the history."
"Judge Fidler will instruct you on how you can use the testimony of these witnesses." Truc gives an example of an arsonist who is accused of starting seven fires, and that he was in the vicinity of other fires that were set. "Are you going to say that it's a mere mistake? A mere coincidence? [...] You should know that you have a different level of proof with the 1101(b) witnesses. [...] That there is only a preponderance of hte evidence. [...] The evidence is a pattern that Phil Spector is a demonic maniac who assaults a woman with a gun. [...] So let's listen to their voices."
Truc Do reads statement after statement of the 1101(b) witnesses. They are not in any particular order. They are all mixed up. The text of the statement is up on the screen with a photo of the woman who said it. When it comes to Dianne Ogden's testimony, clips of the video tape of her testimony are played for the jurors. Truc tells the jurors that Spector is ignited into rage "bu the loss of control." The victim's statements are shown and read to the jurors about wanting to go home, from every witness. Then Odgen's testimony is played where she described Spector during her assault. "Ht was like he was demonic. It was scary. [...] It scared the hell out of me."
Again and again and again, statements by the prior girlfirends are put up on the screen with their photo. Devra talks about feeling and remembering the cold gun against her temple. More statements, over and over. Truc tells the jury, "Five voices. Same story. [...] In everyone of these incidents, Mr.s Spector demonstrates a concious disregard for human life." More of Dianne Ogden's testimony is played for the jurors. "And then I couldn't even listen any morey. What was I going to do. I was thinking, he's going to kill me." More and more statements are up on the screen. More expressions that Truc explains that show a "conscious disregard for himan life."
Truc then shifts to Lana Clarkson. "The defense is so desperate to ignore the man's history that they've taken Lana Clarkson's life and rewritten it. [...] They took a few words she once said and distorted it out of perportion. [...] They took from this person's life, a few emails, a few traffic tickets and a few hard times and reduced it. They ignored the 12,000 other pages of emails available to them. [...] Who could [...] anyone of us survive that? We'd all end up looking like Lana."
Truc then puts up on the screen letters that Lana wrote in the last month of her life. The first up is a letter she wrote to a friend on December 31st, 2002. Truc reads sections of the letters. "I've got a new job. [...] So glad to put 2002 and these trials and tribulations behind me." Then another letter, this one written on January 2nd, 2003. She's talking about standing on her feet all day at work. "She's busy, she's living her life, she's doing a work-out boot camp, she's got a new job. She's going (forward)." Then another letter is put up. "What you see of this woman's last few days are normalcy. [...] The last thing she ever wrote, was to reserve a place at a birthday party. Her words were, "Can't wait!" Then she goes shopping with her mother and buys eight pairs of shoes. I'm a woman and I'm kind of biased about shoes. And she gives her mother her love and goes off to work. [...] The fact tath will never change is Lana Clarkson died within three hours of meeting Phil Spector. [...] They will never change the fact that he cleaned up the crime scene. [...] They will never change the history of Phil Spector, that there has been the history of Phil spector holding a gun."
"If we could go back, and tell Lana about the other five women. If we culd tell Lana about Phil Spector playing Russian Roulette with the lives of women. So when we go back, and see her getting into the car with him, not knowing the real Phil Spector." Truc mentions the history of Spector drinking that night at the various places he stopped. The history of Spector drinking at his residence with Lana. And Lana wants to go home. "She's got things to do the next morning. She's got to get her car. she's got her purse on her shoulder. She's sitting at the back door. [...] so when you think about these women, they have one voice [...] And that her death was a murder waiting to happen in his world and that her death was foretold."
Truc then is silent as she plays up on the screen more statements by the 1101(b) witnesses with their photos. And then Lana Clarkson's photo, dead in the chair above them."
And that's the end of her closing argument. It was powerful. I saw some of Lana's friends weeping at the end of the presentatio, right at the lunch hour. Fidler tells the jury that the defense thought the prosecution would be up all day. They will continue tomorrow morning with their opening statement. Their presentation is not finished and is not here so the jury is released for the day and ordered back tomorrow morning at 9:30 am. When Fidler tells the jury this I'm dumbfounded. Weinberg had at least a week's notice as to when closing arguments would begin. I heard the prosecution state outside the jury's presence last week that they would only be arguing for an hour total between Jackson and Truc. You have to wonder, was this a ploy by Weinberg to delay, so that he could change his closing argument to address many of the issues that Truc Do brought up? That's my opinion.
After the jury files back into the jury room, it's no surprise that Weinberg has some objections. Weinberg once again requests a mistrial because he states the prosecution went far afield of what the 1101(b) witnesses can be used for. He states the prosecution alleged everything was identical. "What we got was a history of the extreme disreguard and a loss of control. [...] This goes far afield from what you allowed. [...] That's pure character evidence. It's nothing to do with the original basis they were to be presented to the court. [...] This goes so far beyond the parameters the court presented." Weinberg says that again after a few more arguments inbetween. "This goes far beyond...."
Truc responds to Weinberg's allegations. "I believe I stayed completely withing the parameters the court states."
Weinberg argues again, "In no other instance was there ver any evidence that in all those other incidents (Mr. Spector fired a weapon)."
Fidler rules. "In any event, I don't beleive there is any legal grounds for a mistrial."
I hang out in the hallway waiting for the prosecution. When Truc finally emerges, I tell her that I thought her analogy of the "shifting sands" to describe the defense strategy was brilliant. Every time she described a shifting strategy by the defense, there would be that image of the shifting sand dunes of Vietnam on the screen, but this time in black and white, instead of the first, dramatic image in color she showed the jury. And I tell her that now we know her nationality, as to where she's from. I told her that my readers had been asking. It's then that she tells me she was born in Vietnam.
Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 am
FoxLA has a report by Terri Keith of City News Service.
KNBC has a story up on this morning's closings by Truc Do.
Here is KTLA's coverage and CNN.Crime's story, which has some inaccurate information. They state the prosecution called a suicideologist, but it was the defense who called Dr. Seiden.
The battle over what the evidence proves began in closing arguments today.
I get to the 9th floor around 8:00 am and there are several people I know already there. Linda from San Diego, and Sherri are sitting on the bench at the far end of the hall. Linda tells us that she called the Public Information Office (PIO) and asked if it was at all possible for seats to be reserved for the three of us. Linda has always been the gutsy, outgoing person in the gallery and not shy about talking to new people who would show up in the courtroom. I would not have even thought to call the PIO and ask because my experience at the first trial and at the Muira hearings I attended, I could not get on their reserved seating list because I'm not an accredited journalist. Needles to say, I'm glad Linda did call. I would have to say that besides myself, Linda and Sherri are the other two people who have attended the largest portion of testimony.
Also at the end of the 9th floor hallway when I arrived was Ron, a very nice man I met last Monday who had driven in from Phoenix for a week of testimony only to have the trial end in the afternoon session. He told us that last Monday was his first time in Los Angeles and he drove down many of the main, well known streets such as Hollywood, Sunset and Wilshire Boulevard's just to see the sights. As more familiar gallery faces showed up, we were trying to think up other noteworthly landmarks for Ron to visit in his down time this week. Soon the hallway was filled with many of the die hard public faces I had come to know over the past five months (such as the young man studying for the bar, Mr. Cane, My2Cents, Katie and Lisa) and a new face or two like the pretty young woman, an actress who flew down from San Francisco to hear the closings.
While we are all waiting, the prosecution team shows up and the sheriff's unlock the doors for them.
When I saw spied Juror #9 from the first trial down by the elevator bay, I said excuse me to the person I was speaking to and walked towards him to give him a hug. Like me, Juror #9 is a sensitive person and hugging to us just comes naturally. While we were waiting for the PIO to show up, another trial watcher I've come to know confirmed that it was Dan Kessel who has shown up several times at trial to support Spector.
When the PIO staff do arrive, they tell us there are 30 news organizations on the reserved seating list but assure us that most of those won't show up. At 8:58 am I'm inside the courtroom. I don't get to sit in my regular seat because the second row is being reserved for the DA staff and friends of Lana Clarkson. The third row is for the public and those reporters on laptops. I get a seat close to the far right in the third bench row. Over on the defense side of the room I see Spector's #1 fan, Teresa and the very thin Anita Talbert staring at me again.
Miriam Hernandez is here and I ask someone in the back row if they know what organization the still photographer is with. It's the LA Times. More and more reporter's show up and the courtroom is already three quarters full.
Soon, Lana's friends show up and sit right in front of me in the second row. I get to meet Pattie and Nili, who thank me for the trial coverage. They tell me they were barred from attending any of the trial because they were on the official witness list. Over on the defense side of the room sitting with Anita Talbert is a tiny, older blond woman who is a possible close match for Joyce Danelen, although I don't know if it is her or not. (During the first trial, it was speculated among the accredited press that Spector had loaned Ms. Danelen a large sum of money and that's why she was so vocally supportive of him.)
9:09 am: Tawni Tyndall arrives and sits in with Anita and the older woman. A moment later, I see Jackson, Truc and Weinberg enter Fidler's chambers. Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press in in the row in front of me on the end, her usual seat. More press arrives and the PIO staff are trying to get people to move down to the left so they can squeeze more bodies into the seats. Aphrodite Jones arrives and gets squeezed into the third row on my right. I find out that it's KABC who is filming the closing arguments today. Dr. Baden's brother, Robert Baden is in the second bench row on the defense side of the room.
9:22 am: John Taylor, Donna Clarkson and Fawn arrive and sit in the front row. Several people from the DA's office are sitting to the far left in the second bench row. I see Richard Gabriel, the defense's jury consultant is barely squeezed onto his seat next to the aisle in the second bench row. Also on the defense side is a large man that somewhat resembles David Crosby.
9:25 am: Mrs. Weinberg arrives and right after that all counsel enter Fidler's chambers again. Truc and Jackson enter and I believe that Weinberg's paralegal, Susan has to find him because he comes into 106 and goes straight to Fidler's chambers. Looking around behind me I notice Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly has grabbed one of the plastic chairs against the back wall and is opening his laptop. But the question that's on my mind and the trial watcher to my left is, Where is the defendant? The attorneys are back out of Fidler's chambers just as quickly as they went in.
In the far left back corner of the courtroom are the video camera as well as the still photographer. I see Harriet Ryan on her laptop in that far corner as well as a member of the PIO staff. Some of the other reporters I recognize, others I do not. Right behind me is My2Cents and next to them is the reporter for CNN who asks me a few questions and I give her the information on how to get to the blog.
9:29 am: The rest of Mrs. Clarkson's legal team is finally here: Rod Lindblom and Bill Ferguson. Weinberg stops to speak to Linda Deutsch and I overhear him tell her that he just received a text message (I'm betting that was from Rachelle) that there was an accident on a freeway. Maybe this is why the defendant is late.
Two minutes later the defendant arrives to a very tightly packed courtroom. Spector is wearing his regular get up, one of his long, Edwardian frock coats. A few people ask me if his garb is unusual and I tell them that he always dresses like that. Rachelle is wearing skin tight, bright white pants and a matching jacket. From where I'm sitting, the jacket and pants almost look like they are leather, but they are probably a type of spandex material. The short-waisted jacket has a 3" point-tip collar with an offset zipper on the far left front side. There are also zippers at the sleeve cuffs, and several zippers on the front of the jacket. What's interesting to me is the top she is wearing underneath. I can just see small a portion of the print that is peeking out from underneath the jacket at the cuffs and waist. It appears to be a "reverse leopard" print of black spots on bright yellow.
9:31 am: Wendy calls the jury. Louis Spector and his companion Frieda enter and try to find seats. The PIO staff asks the third bench row to try to squeeze together some more, but Louis and Freida do not get seats together for the first half of the morning session. I see Pat Dixon at the far left, climbing over the video camera tripod legs to get to his reserved seat in the second bench row.
Fidler takes the bench. He tells the jury he is going to take a couple of minutes to talk to them. They've spent six months together going over all the testimony from both parties. He reminds them that everything they are to consider is to come only from the courtroom. He reminds them that they are not to use computers or cell phones to research information on the case. I almost miss it, but Fidler states that either a juror pointed it out to him or that he's talking about a recent article in the news of jurors researching cases on their cell phones. He goes onto talk about this is especially problematic if a juror does this research and then passes it onto other jurors. "If it be radio, television, or the internet, or if anyone tries to influence you please let us know. [...] Let me just ask you, has anyone read anything? (There is a short pause while Fidler waits for an answer from the jury.) No positive responses." (It's very interesting this talk with the jury. This is the first time I've ever noticed Fidler mentioning the internet, in fact, I believe it's the only time.)
Fidler then goes onto explain the closing arguments. He states that the prosecution gets to passes to argue their case. They will go first, then the defense and then the prosecution again. He reminds the jury that the purpose of closing arguments is to sharpen the evidence and how to persuade you to view it. He informs the jury that it's important to remember that the arguments are not evidence. The evidence is the witness testimony. Closing arguments are an attempt to persuade you; it's not evidence. He tells them that in a trial this long, it's possible that both sides might misstate the evidence or testimony in their closing arguments. The thing to remember is, we can always go back to the trial transcript and have it read back if you have a question. He states again that the arguments are not evidence and with that he asks "So with that in mind are the people read to begin?"
Truc Do, dressed in a subdued charcoal gray suit gets up to present the first argument. She speaks in a pleasant and authorative voice. A KABC has a short clip where you can finally see and hear Truc Do in action. Isn't she as pretty as I've described? The lights are dimmed in the courtroom and as Truc starts to talk to the jury, a very detailed and well produced video presentation will play throughout her entire argument. For over two hours the jury will stare transfixed at the screen as she takes them through the state's evidence and what it proves.
Truc thanks the jurors for their sacrifice of spending six months together. "We have spent six months in a world that most don't belong to. [...] A world where people are treated golden." Truc goes onto describe this world of power and privilege where someone can be dismissed by putting them on a train. (Stephanie Jennings) "A world where an assault with a gun can be overshadowed by the awe of a John Lennon guitar. (Dorothy Melvin) [...] It's a world where you can buy a defense by paying $419,000 for expert testimony."
Then Truc switches to Lana Clarkson's world. "In Lana Clarkson's world, she worked a lifetime to pursue a life of fame. And as it is for most of us, it's a life of struggle." Truc mentions that Lana was not ashamed to consider putting on a costume for a part at an amusement park, to play the role of Zena. She was willing to work at the House of Blues. "Lana saw no shame in those jobs, because she was willing to work."
Truc goes onto talk about how deals are made in the entertainment world, over drinks, because it's who you know. "All Lana knew on February 3rd, 2003 was that Phil Spector was a VIP. He was told by her supervisor to treat him as golden. [...] She was reluctant but willing to go have a drink with him. [...] In three hours her dream ended with a single gunshot. [...] She didn't know about the "All women are fucking cunts who deserve a bullet in their heads. [...] She didn't know about a man with an impulsive rage and impulsive anger. [...] She didn't know about five other women. She would be the last in a long line. She didn't know any of that."
DW: Objection! This is character evidence!
Fidler: Overruled!
Truc doesn't miss a beat and continues after Fidler rules. " This truth is not complicated. [...] It's about a man who has a history of playing Russian roulette with the lives of six women. Lana just happened to be the sixth woman to get the bullet."
Truc then goes over the three charges that are before the jury: second degree, involuntary manslaughter and and a gun charge accusation.
She starts off with explaining the law regarding murder. While she's talking non stop without looking at a single note, the wording of the law is up on the overhead video screen. She outlines the two categories of second degree murder, and that the key to understanding it is the "conscious disregard" for someone's actions causing the death of another human being. Truc Do explains how the law defines malice. It can either be an expressed intent to kill (and this case is not about that) or it can be implied malice via certain conduct. The key is a conscious disregard to human life. With implied malice, there's no requirement that someone acknowledge an intent to kill.
Do then gives the jury an example of something everyone is familiar with, drinking and driving to explain what second degree murder looks like. A man is arrested twice for drunk driving. From those two arrests, there is no injury to himself or anyone else. The third time he crashes into an SUV and kills a family of four. The man is charged with four counts of second degree murder. She explains that it doesn't matter what his excuse is. It doesn't matter that he says he didn't mean to harm anyone. She explains that it doesn't matter that he says he was swerving to avoid hitting another vehicle. "Under the law, that man who drank and drove will be charged with second degree murder no matter what the excuse is."
"In this case we have something that everyone knows is a danger: A loaded gun. Even children know that." Truc then put's firearm expert Jim Carroll's testimony up on the screen. "...want to treat all firearms as if they are loaded at all times. We don't want to point firearms at anything we are not willing to kill or destroy." Truc reminds the jurors that when every single witness in this case who handled the weapon, they never pointed it at anyone even though everyone knew that the bailiff had ensured that the weapon was rendered safe. "Everyone in this courtroom knows a gun, a loaded gun is dangerous."
Truc explains the involuntary manslaughter charge. "This is a lesser offence that the judge is required to instruct under the law. [...] Lana's death is nothing less than a second degree murder. [...] Phil Spector took a loaded gun and pointed it at Lana Clarkson. That's second degree."
Truc then gives an example of what would be involuntary manslaughter. A man is sleeping and he is woken up by a crowd of teenagers standing 25 yars from where he is. He waves a weapon around so they see it, trying to scare them and the gun goes off. (Next to me, my seatmate to my left whispers to me this is exactly like the Clint Eastwood movie, Grand Torino.) "That is not what we have here," Truc explains. "There is a line between second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and Mr. Spector has crossed that line." She goes onto explain that that (in their deliberations) they must decide on the and eliminate the second degree charge first before they can get to involuntary manslaughter.
And last, Truc goes over the gun accusation charge.
Now, Truc puts up on the overhead screen the law for second degree murder and what must be proven to get there. She starts off with the fact that Spector confessed (to his driver) that he fired the fatal shot. Moments later Adriano De Souza called 911. "The physical evidence proves he held the gun when it went off." Truc then tells the jury afterwords, Spector "acted with a consciousness of guilt" by attempting to clean up the scene and never calling 911.
Truc then puts up an image of sand dunes on the screen. She tells the jury that this image is not a "screen saver" image. It's a photo of from South Vietnam, where her family came from. It's a beach of sand dunes. In reviewing the accredited press reports, it's only ace reporter Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly who correctly copies down the name of the South Vietnam beach that Truc identifies: Mui Ne. "(These) sand dunes are shaped by the winds off the South China Sea. [...] They are never the same. [...] You would be lost if you relied on them to know hwere you are. [...] Nothing the defense has presented to you has been constant."
Truc goes onto state that the defense's case has been like these shifting sand dunes. It's a theme she presents over and over again in her argument. That when the defense was unable to deliver on the promises they made in their opening statement, they continually shifted strategies to try to discredit the prosecution witnesses, or have the evidence prove something it didn't.
Truc states that the shifting sands started with the testimony of Adriano De Souza. She reminds the jury what Mr. Weinberg promised in his opening statement what he would show about De Souza's testimony. And when he failed to discredit what he saw and heard, the sands shifted and he put on Dr. Loftus to testify about how lighting and sound can affect eyewitness testimony. But the law tells you how you can look at those issues.
"Adriano De Souza has been constant with what he saw and heard." Truc continues to detail each and every observation De Souza made and statement to police. "He's been constant, consistent and unwavering." Truc explains to the jury that "...the law will tell you how to interpret eyewitness testimony, and lets go over those points. [...] At 5:02 am, he called 911 and immediately gave a statement. [...] 8:35 am he was interviewed by Pineda and Kennedy. [...] 9:45 am he was interviewed by Fortier and Tomlin."
Throughout the presentation, Truc plays various audio clips of Adriano's 911 call and his video taped interrogation. Up on the screen is either the text or a visual of what she is discussing. "In that last (one) he gave specific details (to) the 911 operator," Truc clarifies for the jury. She then plays the tape from the Tomlin and Fortier interview. "Those are the salient facts that Mr. De Souza saw and heard."
Truc then goes over what the law states they should consider in eyewitness testimony with the words up on the screen. How well did he see or hear? How closely did he pay attention. How was the lighting and how far away was the witness.
Truc mentions that Mr. Weinberg brought up in his opening statement that the fountain was so loud that De Souza couldn't have heard what he heard. He even played an audio recording for the jurors that was part of a video tape of De Souza explaining what he did in the motor court in the rear of the residence. She reminds the jurors that they were there at the scene and they saw that they could have a conversation. And all while she is discussing these points, up on the screen images are slowly put up one by one of the rear entrance and the lights on in the sconces outside and the overhead light on the porch.
Then Truc goes over in detail, De Souza's testimony on cross examination where Weinberg tries to get De Souza to admit certain things. She explains that he wasn't under any kind of stress when Spector stepped out of the house. And all this testimony she is reviewing is up on the overhead screen.
ADS: Sir, I was not confused (in answering a question by Weinberg).
DW: When did you go into a little bit of a shock?
ADS: You know, it wasn't until I realized that somebody like could be dead inside the house.
There's a question about him being scared.
ADS : I didn't say I was scared at that moment. I didn't know what happened at the -- I saw the legs and stepped aside. [...] I was not scared.
"This is key to you understanding that Adriano De Souza was spot on with what he observed. [...] He was spot on and never went back," Truc details for the jury.
Weinberg makes another objection and Fidler overrules the objection.
"You've head testimony that Mr. De Souza was not allowed back in the crime scene," Truc continues. She then explains that De Souza describe what Spector wore the moment he stepped out on the porch. He knew that even though the last time he saw Spector being led away by police, he wasn't wearing the white jacket. She points out that De Souza told police in the interview that he believes there was blood on Spector's hand, but he's not positive about that. Truc asks the jury how would De Souza know that there was blood left on the door knob, or blood left on the banister.
The next issue Truc addresses is the audio interview with Kennedy and Pineda and how Weinberg suggested to the jury that De Souza was "fed information" by those officers. She specifically goes over where De Souza correct Pineda, putting his hand up to his face, on the right side of Lana's face. She reminds the jurors that Lana's head was moved from the left to the right and that had to have happened after De Souza saw Lana's body. "Was he consistent? Is he certain?" Truc asks the jurors. (These are two more of the statements on the list the law gives for how to interpret eyewitness testimony.)
The last item on the law list for eyewitness testimony is the question whether or not De Souza is confident in what he saw and heard. "He (Weinberg) brought in a last minute hail Mary witness because he couldn't shake De Souza's testimony. He brought in Dr. Loftus to tell you about memory because they couldn't shake De Souza."
Truc then goes over the testimony of De Souza where he is being asked how certain he is of what Spector said, and Truc tells the jury, "But the law tells you you can consider confidence (of the witness)." Truc talks about those who learn second languages they learn by parroting. "they couldn't shake his confidence so they bring in Dr. Loftus to tell you that (the connection to confidence and accuracy is weak). [...] They couldnt prove those things they told you so the sands shifted."
There are words up on the screen now that are overlayed onto a booking photo of Phil Spector on the left and Lana Clarkson, dead, on the right. It's the words that are consistent in each of the statements De Souza made to various individuals.
911 call: "I killed"
Officer Cardella: "I killed"
Kennedy & Pineda: "I killed"
Fortier & Tomlin: "I killed"
"In each one, De Souza said the same thing. "I killed. [...] So when you have directly Phil Spector confessed, that's evidence of guilt."
Truc then moves onto the physical evidence in the case and how the law instructs the jury to interpret it.
The backspatter. Dr. Herold testified that it was within arms reach of Lana Clarkson. Dr. Pena testified that bruises were on Lana Clarkson's hands and wrists. Backspatter was on Lana Clarkson's wrists absolutely proves that Lana could not have been holding the gun. Dr. Herold testified that the blood spatter tells us Spector was within arms reach. Truc goes over more of Dr. Herold's testimony. She also details that Stuart James confirmed the backspatter came from the firing event, and that he was within one-and-a-half to two feet from the gun going off.
Truc goes over next the blood stain on the leading edge of Spector's left sleeve cuff.
The next thing Truc addressed was the shifting sands of Weinberg's questioning of Dr. Pena about how Lana could have gotten bruises. He first suggested that there was some other cause. He suggested he got bruises on her arm from her job. He asked Dr. Pena if a patron at the House of Blues could have grabbed her arm asking Lana to "get me a beer." Right after Truc says this, Lana's friend turn to each other and laugh. Weinberg then asked Dr. Pena if Lana could have gotten those bruises when her arms fell from in front of her face at hit the arm of the chair she was sitting in. After that, through the testimony of Dr. Spitz, the defense suggested that the bruises on her hands and wrists were received at the coroner's office when her body was turned to be photographed! "The truth shifts with whatever direction the wind blows. [...] This should tell you it's not truth; it's evidence of convenience."
"Mr. Spector's DNA was found on her wrist. [...] In those three swabs, the profile was consistent with a mixture of Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector's DNA."
DW: Objection! Absolutely no evidence of DNA on bruises!
Weinberg objects again that an image up on the screen is not an image of her hand that contains a bruise. I believe the objections are overruled.
Truc Do states that Dr. Pena testified those were bruises on those wrists. The next thing that Truc goes over in detail is Jamie Lintemoot's testimony as to where the blood was on Lana's wrists. She plays the video again from the first trial of where Lintemoot demonstrates she saw spatter. "I expect Mr. Weinberg to argue that you can't rely on Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. [...] However, this is what (he said) in his opening statement, when they started. They were fine with her testimony from the first trial when they thought that she would present testimony of blood on hands. [...] That Lintemoot said, "That's spatter. That's spatter that I saw.
Fidler calls the morning recess. Some people get up to leave the courtroom because they need to go to the restroom but the PIO office tells them they might not get their seat back because there are other people waiting in the hall that they are still trying to seat. There are a few more people who show up and sit on the defense side. Spector gets up from his seat to whisper to Rachelle. I see Spector's bodyguard in the back row against the wall, stand up and motion to Williams who is in the bailiff box. Williams gets up to see what he wants. A few people who were waiting to get inside the courtroom sneak in when people leave their seats.
11:08 am: Wendy calls the jury. During the break, this very thin, homeless looking man (he looks like a ghoul right out of a Wes Craven movie) partially balding with a shock of white hair slips into 106 and sits on the defense side in the row of plastic chairs. He was in 106 a week or so ago and people commented on how strange he looked.
11:11 am: Fidler retakes the bench. Truc continues back on what Weinberg said in his opening statement. "When we started this trial, he was fully going to accept her (Lintemoot) testimony. That it was going to be "here" and not "here." Truc demonstrates where Weinberg thought Lintemoot would describe where she saw backspatter on Lana Clarkson verses where Lintemoot said she saw it. I believe her testimony is either played again or her testimony text is up on the screen. "1 swab backside of right wrist. [...] I saw mist like drops. [...] Three areas swabbed. The watch area, the smear on the left wrist and the right wrist."
Truc goes over the series of events where they had to bring Lintemoot back in the afternoon because Truc did not see exactly where Weinberg was pointing when he was cross examining her on where she saw the blood. She goes over in detail how Lintemoot in error, was accepting of Weinberg's demonstration and that she "misspeakes" and says hands in answer to Weinberg asking her if it was Lana's hands where she saw the spatter. Truc reminds the jury that Weinberg then asks Lintemoot if she is familiar with the concept of blood spatter, and questioned her extensively on that. "(He) completely accepted that testimony whe he thought it was convenient. [...] There were questions about her training and he accepted her testimony."
Then Truc goes over how Lintemoot was recalled in the afternoon. "And Jamie Lintemoot testified that it was NOT where Weinberg indicated and she clarifies that. Now Lintemoot's testimony is not convenient."
DW: Objection! That was not testimony! That was outside the presence!
TD: That's not correct.
Weinberg asks to approach and there is a sidebar off to the side of Fidler's bench. A couple of minutes later, the sidebar is finished.
"Once it became clear that spatter on the backside of Lana Clarkson's wrist was inconsistent with Lana Clarkson holding the gun (up on the screen is the image from James Pex's power point demonstration of a woman's hands holding the gun), you saw the biggest shifting sands just change the hand position. [...] Now she's just a toxicologist. [...] Let's use Dr. Lakshmanan to confuse what Lintemoot meant by wrists. [...] Then, you can't even believe your own eyes. [...] Even after playing the pate on cross of Dr. Lakshmanan, Weinberg still says that it's "here" (the webbing of the thumb) and not "here" (the area where a watch would be worn).
Truc now plays in slow motion the video of Lintemoot demonstrating in a circular motion the area on the backside of Lana's wrists the area she saw spatter. She then plays the judge clarifying for the record the same area. Truc then tells the jury that the defense shifted again and Weinberg states that no expert can rely on something that someone saw. Shifting sands. "But Weinberg told you in his opening statement that you could rely on her testimony. [...] Then, they agree it's there. [...] Then, what do they do, is make blood travel around corners. [...] Dr. Di Maio testified, stating "blood, looping over and hitting the back of the hand. [...] You had Weinberg say in opening statement: Blood doesn't travel around corners. You'll hear that from every scientist. [...] Shifting sands."
Truc then sums up again the physical evidence. "We could stop here. That is overwhelming evidence that he killed her. But we also have a confession. And we also have consciousness of guilt. [...] The law tells you that you can consider evidence that shows consciousness of guilt. [...] What was Spector doing (upstairs while Lana was downstairs? [...] He didn't call 911. [...] He goes up to his room and takes off the jacket and drops it on the floor. He doesn't use the phone that's there in the room. [...] He gets a diaper rag. The same type of rag that was found in this room." Up on the screen at this time are several different images. One is the bloody diaper next to the other diaper that was found. Another image is of a phone in the room and on the file cabinet below the phone is a classic sign of a gun pointing at the observer that says, 'Forget the dog. Beware of the owner.' "What did he do? He smeared blood on her hair and face. Forty minutes. [...] Everything he did shows consciousness of guilt."
Truc asks the jurors, how dies the gun get to that location (photo of the gun by Lana's left calf) after Adriano De Souza saw it in Spector's hand. "You know from Dr. Herold the gun had been wiped. The next image up on the screen is a close up of blood on the hammer of the gun. "You should look at, also, there's blood on the hammer. That's Mr. Spector, wiping the gun down. Did he do a good job? Of course not. [...] When he touched the door knob he put her blood there. When he touched the banister, he put her blood there. [...] When they did the GSR, what didn't they find? Her blood on his hands! He washed his hands! that' shows consciousness of guilt. He can wash his hand of her blood, but he can't wash his hands of her murder."
Truc tells the jury that Weinberg told you what does history teach us. But look at what history? Let's look at the history of Phil Spector. "All women are fucking cunts and deserve a bullet in their heads." Images of the five 1101(b) witnesses are up on the screen. [...] And Lana Clarkson happened to be the last woman who happened to get the bullet. [...] So you can add that to the totality of the physical evidence and then you've got the history."
"Judge Fidler will instruct you on how you can use the testimony of these witnesses." Truc gives an example of an arsonist who is accused of starting seven fires, and that he was in the vicinity of other fires that were set. "Are you going to say that it's a mere mistake? A mere coincidence? [...] You should know that you have a different level of proof with the 1101(b) witnesses. [...] That there is only a preponderance of hte evidence. [...] The evidence is a pattern that Phil Spector is a demonic maniac who assaults a woman with a gun. [...] So let's listen to their voices."
Truc Do reads statement after statement of the 1101(b) witnesses. They are not in any particular order. They are all mixed up. The text of the statement is up on the screen with a photo of the woman who said it. When it comes to Dianne Ogden's testimony, clips of the video tape of her testimony are played for the jurors. Truc tells the jurors that Spector is ignited into rage "bu the loss of control." The victim's statements are shown and read to the jurors about wanting to go home, from every witness. Then Odgen's testimony is played where she described Spector during her assault. "Ht was like he was demonic. It was scary. [...] It scared the hell out of me."
Again and again and again, statements by the prior girlfirends are put up on the screen with their photo. Devra talks about feeling and remembering the cold gun against her temple. More statements, over and over. Truc tells the jury, "Five voices. Same story. [...] In everyone of these incidents, Mr.s Spector demonstrates a concious disregard for human life." More of Dianne Ogden's testimony is played for the jurors. "And then I couldn't even listen any morey. What was I going to do. I was thinking, he's going to kill me." More and more statements are up on the screen. More expressions that Truc explains that show a "conscious disregard for himan life."
Truc then shifts to Lana Clarkson. "The defense is so desperate to ignore the man's history that they've taken Lana Clarkson's life and rewritten it. [...] They took a few words she once said and distorted it out of perportion. [...] They took from this person's life, a few emails, a few traffic tickets and a few hard times and reduced it. They ignored the 12,000 other pages of emails available to them. [...] Who could [...] anyone of us survive that? We'd all end up looking like Lana."
Truc then puts up on the screen letters that Lana wrote in the last month of her life. The first up is a letter she wrote to a friend on December 31st, 2002. Truc reads sections of the letters. "I've got a new job. [...] So glad to put 2002 and these trials and tribulations behind me." Then another letter, this one written on January 2nd, 2003. She's talking about standing on her feet all day at work. "She's busy, she's living her life, she's doing a work-out boot camp, she's got a new job. She's going (forward)." Then another letter is put up. "What you see of this woman's last few days are normalcy. [...] The last thing she ever wrote, was to reserve a place at a birthday party. Her words were, "Can't wait!" Then she goes shopping with her mother and buys eight pairs of shoes. I'm a woman and I'm kind of biased about shoes. And she gives her mother her love and goes off to work. [...] The fact tath will never change is Lana Clarkson died within three hours of meeting Phil Spector. [...] They will never change the fact that he cleaned up the crime scene. [...] They will never change the history of Phil Spector, that there has been the history of Phil spector holding a gun."
"If we could go back, and tell Lana about the other five women. If we culd tell Lana about Phil Spector playing Russian Roulette with the lives of women. So when we go back, and see her getting into the car with him, not knowing the real Phil Spector." Truc mentions the history of Spector drinking that night at the various places he stopped. The history of Spector drinking at his residence with Lana. And Lana wants to go home. "She's got things to do the next morning. She's got to get her car. she's got her purse on her shoulder. She's sitting at the back door. [...] so when you think about these women, they have one voice [...] And that her death was a murder waiting to happen in his world and that her death was foretold."
Truc then is silent as she plays up on the screen more statements by the 1101(b) witnesses with their photos. And then Lana Clarkson's photo, dead in the chair above them."
And that's the end of her closing argument. It was powerful. I saw some of Lana's friends weeping at the end of the presentatio, right at the lunch hour. Fidler tells the jury that the defense thought the prosecution would be up all day. They will continue tomorrow morning with their opening statement. Their presentation is not finished and is not here so the jury is released for the day and ordered back tomorrow morning at 9:30 am. When Fidler tells the jury this I'm dumbfounded. Weinberg had at least a week's notice as to when closing arguments would begin. I heard the prosecution state outside the jury's presence last week that they would only be arguing for an hour total between Jackson and Truc. You have to wonder, was this a ploy by Weinberg to delay, so that he could change his closing argument to address many of the issues that Truc Do brought up? That's my opinion.
After the jury files back into the jury room, it's no surprise that Weinberg has some objections. Weinberg once again requests a mistrial because he states the prosecution went far afield of what the 1101(b) witnesses can be used for. He states the prosecution alleged everything was identical. "What we got was a history of the extreme disreguard and a loss of control. [...] This goes far afield from what you allowed. [...] That's pure character evidence. It's nothing to do with the original basis they were to be presented to the court. [...] This goes so far beyond the parameters the court presented." Weinberg says that again after a few more arguments inbetween. "This goes far beyond...."
Truc responds to Weinberg's allegations. "I believe I stayed completely withing the parameters the court states."
Weinberg argues again, "In no other instance was there ver any evidence that in all those other incidents (Mr. Spector fired a weapon)."
Fidler rules. "In any event, I don't beleive there is any legal grounds for a mistrial."
I hang out in the hallway waiting for the prosecution. When Truc finally emerges, I tell her that I thought her analogy of the "shifting sands" to describe the defense strategy was brilliant. Every time she described a shifting strategy by the defense, there would be that image of the shifting sand dunes of Vietnam on the screen, but this time in black and white, instead of the first, dramatic image in color she showed the jury. And I tell her that now we know her nationality, as to where she's from. I told her that my readers had been asking. It's then that she tells me she was born in Vietnam.
Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 am
FoxLA has a report by Terri Keith of City News Service.
KNBC has a story up on this morning's closings by Truc Do.
Here is KTLA's coverage and CNN.Crime's story, which has some inaccurate information. They state the prosecution called a suicideologist, but it was the defense who called Dr. Seiden.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Phil Spector Statements
When Spector was in the process of being arrested at his residence, Alhambra Police Officer Bea Rodriguez wrote in her report that she heard Spector confess to causing the death of Lana Clarkson. Here is her sworn testimony from the Grand Jury being questioned by Doug Sortino. All of the information below has been transcribed from PDF documents off of the LA County Superior Court web site.
Grand Jury Testimony of Bea Rodriguez:
Starting at Page 368, LINE 20:
Q: Now as you were doing that, could you hear whether or not the person that had been detained, the person you have identified, was making any statement?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he talking quietly, yelling? How would you characterize the level of his voice?
A: I would say he was loud.
Q: And were you paying attention to some of
the things that he was saying?
Page 369:
A: Yes, I was.
Q: I want to show you what’s been marked as -- I will put it the other way.
I will show you what has been marked as
People’s 18. The diagram that is up on the board behind you, do you see that diagram?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Does that accurately show, in diagram form,
this foyer area that you made entry to on the morning of
February 3rd of 2003?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Can you please point out on the diagram,
using that pointer that is right next to you, the
position -- the location you were at or how you had
positioned yourself as you were covering this hallway and
the portion of the foyer area?
Ms. Priver: Careful you don’t roll backwards.
The Witness: It was this area (pointing).
Mr. Sortino: For the record, she was pointed to
what appears to be the intersection of the foyer and the
hallway leading to the west, directly -- actually just to
the side of the foot of the stairs, roughly between the
foot of the stairs and the doorway to the bathroom.
Ms. Priver: Yes.
Mr. Sortino: You can resume your seat.
Ms. Priver: Be careful it doesn’t roll off the
step there, your seat, when you sit down.
Q: By Mr. Sortino: Let me ask you one other
Page 370:
question. When you looked at the victim and saw her that
morning, did you see any weapon in her vicinity?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What kind of a weapon did you see?
A: It looked like a handgun, a small handgun.
Q: Where was it in relation to the victim?
A: Under her feet.
Q: Now, as you were standing at the foot of
that stairway, or roughly by the entry to the bathroom
covering the hallway, you said you could hear the suspect
that was detained making statements?
A: Yes.
Q: And initially when you were covering that
hallway, were you alone or was there another officer
assisting you?
A: I was alone.
Q: As you were standing there alone covering
that hallway, what did you hear the suspect say?
A: He said, “What’s wrong with you guys? What
are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an
accident.”
Q: Do you recall any other statements that he made?
A: Something to the effect that he had an
explanation for it.
Q: And this all occurred while you were
standing in that area covering the hallway?
A: Yes, it did.
Page 371:
Q: At some point were you joined by one of the
other officers to assist you in covering the hallway?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Who was that:
A: It was Officer Cardella.
Q: And did that occur before or after you
heard these statements you have just recounted to the
Grand Jury?
A: After I heard the statements.
Q: Later that morning did you return to the
Alhambra Police Department?
A: Yes I did.
Q: that same morning:
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Was the incident still fresh in your
memory?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Did you document those statements in your
report?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And when you documented them in your --
strike that.
At the time you wrote your report and
documented those statements, did you believe it was
important to document exactly what the suspect had said
that you had heard?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you do something when you wrote your
report to indicate that those statements were exactly
what you heard the suspect say?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What did you do?
A: I put them in quotations.
Q: In your report?
A: Yes, I did.
----------------------------------
Officer Page, hearing Spector start to speak, turned on his tape recorder. Here is a complete transcript of that recording.
Transcription of tape-recorded statements of Phillip Spector, by Alhambra Police Department Office Page at 1700 Grandview Drive on February 3, 2003.
SPECTOR: Phillip Spector
RODRIGUEZ: Alhambra P.D. Officer Bea Rodriguez
CARDELLA: Alhambra P.D. Officer Brandon Cardella
HAMMOND: Alhambra P.D. Officer James Hammond
PAGE: Alhambra P.D. Officer Mike Page
KENNEDY: Alhambra P.D. Officer Garrett Kennedy
JUAREZ: Alhambra P.D. Officer Enrique Juarez
UNKNOWN: Unknown Alhambra P.D. Officers
***: Unintelligible
SPECTOR: Just as me and I’ll tell you. I’m not Robert Blake
CARDELA: Bea?
SPECTOR: ..what the hell is wrong with you?
CARDELLA: ***
SPECTOR: Oh, what the fuck is wrong with you?
RODRIGUEZ: Brandon?
SPECTOR: Oh, Jesus Christ.
RODRIGUEZ: Brandon?
SPECTOR: It feels good.
CARDELLA: Okay.
RODRIGUEZ: I got that one.
SPECTOR: What the hell is wrong with you?
RODRIGUEZ: ***.
CARDELLA: I know. Hold that, that cover.
RODRIGUEZ: There’s, un, an area over here.
SPECTOR: What are you, what are you worried about?
CARDELLA: Mike’s upstairs?
RODRIGUEZ: No, we’ll do that afterwards. ***.
SPECTOR: What are you concerned about?
CARDELLA: ***.
SPECTOR: Ph, God. LAPD works for me.
CARDELLA: I’m with Bea.
HAMMOND: Cardella, are you with Bea?
CARDELLA: Yeah, I’ m with Bea.
HAMMOND: Okay, I got the upstairs with Mike.
SPECTOR: What are you worried about?
HAMMOND: We’re over here on your left, Cardella/
SPECTOR: I can tell you what happened.
PAGE: Only if you want to.
SPECTOR: If you’re gonna arrest me, just tell me what happened.
HAMMOND: Mike, I got the stairs. You don’t have to worry about them.
SPECTOR: The dog was locked up. *** was a little schnauzer. What the fuck is wrong with you. Hay Romaine -- he’s a lieutenant in your fucking police department. What the hell is wrong with you people? Oh, Jesus Christ.
PAGE: Nine, be advised, we have one detained --
SPECTOR: Oh --
PAGE: -- clearing the house.
SPECTOR: --Jesus. You know, you’re acting stupid. Get the fuck off of me! This is stupid. I’m sorry there’s a dead woman here. But I’m sorry but this happened. I can explain ti but if you’d just give me a chance. I mean, you know. What the hell are you acting like assholes. You thin you’re acting so fucking important, man.
UNKNOWN: [Over the radio] Sam to Nine, has the house been cleared yet?
SPECTOR: Okay, okay, okay, ***.
HAMMOND: That’s negative --
PAGE: Negative.
HAMMOND: -- we’re searching the bottom half, uh, towards the east --
SPECTOR: Bottom half, bottom half, bottom --
HAMMOND: -- the west is secured and also the, uh, motorcade is secured at this time. We’ve still got the upstairs after the west -- the east is secured.
SPECTOR: Now, wait a minute now. If you want to search the bottom half --
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Keep the channel clear, please.
SPECTOR: --and the upstairs, ask me.
PAGE: What’d he say?
HAMMOND: Cardella, please keep it clear.
SPECTOR: Why are you standing on my head, asshole? Jesus fucking Christ. I’m not drunk and I’m not stupid. I can tell you what happened. You don’t have to handcuff me. I can tell you what happened. What’s wrong with you people? Jack Mapel worked for me. Jesus Christ, the chief of police worked for me. If you want me to call him, I’ll call him. I don’t want to be an asshole. I’m sorry this happened. I don’t know how it happened, but it happened and I’m sorry this happened. But, excuse me --
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Sam to Nine, I have additional officers I can send up to assist you.
SPECTOR: --but I don’t need to be tied up like a pig. Okay, I’ll hang ***.
HAMMOND: 10-4, send ‘em straight up the, uh --
PAGe: Turn.
HAMMOND: -- front, uh, garden area ---
SPECTOR: ***.
HAMMOND: 888 door 999
PAGE: Front door.
HAMMOND: 10-4, tell ‘em to make the first left --
PAGE: ***.
SPECTOR: Why do you keep stepping on em? What the fuck ***.
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Roger.
SPECTOR: The gun went off accidentally. She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don’t understand what the fuck you people is wrong with you. Jack Mapel worked for me. He worked for the chief of police. Oh, God. I’m just gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep?
UNKNOWN: ***.
SPECTOR: Do you have to step on my back?
HAMMOND: I don’t want you to get up. Just stay where you’re at.
SPECTOR: No, but do you have to step on my back like an asshole. Jesus Christ, I mean it’s a God-fucking disgrace. I mean, I wouldn’t step on your back ‘cause you would probably ***, Jesus Christ.
HAMMOND: We got Tamayo out there too.
PAGE: Have him -- Nine to Tamayo --
SPECTOR: I’m sorry this happened.
PAGE: -- come in the front door.
SPECTOR: I don’t know how it happened. It scared the shit out of me that happened.
HAMMOND: This is gonna be the door they come up. So, don’t get surprised, Mike if we have *** --
PAGE: Okay.
HAMMOND: -- ***.
SPECTOR: If you’re gonna arrest me, arrest me. I own this castle, I live here, and I’m sorry this happened. And I, I see what happened.
HAMMOND: We have more officers coming back from behind you.
SPECTOR: Oh dear God.
HAMMOND: -- and we’re gonna want him out of here.
JUAREZ: Okay.
HAMMOND: Okay. Uh, has he been searched, Mike?
PAGE: Briefly.
HAMMOND: Brief cursory search.
PAGE: We got-- he’s got a probe in him -- at least one.
HAMMOND: Got at least one probe. Okay, you have to cut the probe -- or cut the wires. And then you stay, stay here. Let them take *** --
SPECTOR: If Jack Mapel were alive --
HAMMOND: -- stay here, make sure this area is secure, all right?
SPECTOR: -- if Jack Mapel were alive, he wouldn’t allow this shit to be done.
HAMMOND: There’s a gun by her feet --
SPECTOR: And I live you guys.
HAMMOND: -- *** revolver.
SPECTOR: -- but I’m sorry. You know -- excuse me --
PAGE: You want me to put that right here?
SPECTOR: -- excuse me. When I see the damage that’s been done -- this is the most devastating thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
HAMMOND: *** tell him to come straight up.
SPECTOR: Oh, come on now. Jesus Christ. *** right now.
HAMMOND: cut the wires and get him out of here. Cut the wires and take him to the car.
SPECTOR: Cut the wires and what?
RODRIGUEZ: Mike?
PAGE: Yeah.
RODRIGUEZ: ***.
SPECTOR: Are you arresting me?
HAMMOND: Here. Here’s the knife, cut ‘em.
UNKNOWN: Okay we got the --
HAMMONd: Don’t pull ‘em. There’s at least one stuck in him Cut ‘em.
UNKNOWN: Cut the --
SPECTOR: No -- before you do, I want to call my lawyer ***. I’m sorry. Don’t hurt me.
KENNEDY: Put your hands ***.
SPECTOR: ***.
HAMMONd: He’s not been searched very well -- cursory search.
SPECTOR: What are you doing *** --
HAMMOND: Search him well.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
HAMMOND: That’s pretty much been, uh, secured -- quick walk through, so --
UNKNOWN: ***.
HAMMOND: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: All right.
[Background Radio Transmissions]
[END OF RECORDING]
----------------------------------------------------
Police reports.
Below are three police reports documenting more of Spector's statements.
Officer Page:
Alhambra Police Department
211 South First Street Alhambra CA 91801
Supplemental Report
Date 02/03/2003 Time 05:02
This is a controlled document for official use only. Unauthorized release of redistribution without permission is prohibited
parties
Spector, Phil S(uspect) - address given
De Souza Adriano R(eporting) - address and phone given
While at APF, I monitored a radio call of possible shots fired at Pyrenees Castle (1700 Grand View). Dispatch further advised that the RP stated that he had heard one shot, that he had seen his boss with a gun in his hand and that he had shot a woman inside the castle. I responded to the location from APD to assist units assigned to the call.
Upon arrival, I made contact with Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond, Rodriguez, Tamayo and Sgt LaGuard. Ofcr Cardella was speaking with the RP (later id'd as R-De Souza). After he finished speaking with him, he advised me that R-De Souza was the driver of the resident at 1700 Grand View. On this date, he had returned to the address to pick up his boss and had driven to the rear of the location. As he was waiting outside the location, he heard what he believed to be a gun shot coming from inside. R-De Souza went to the rear door and opened it. When he did, he observed S-Spector standing in the foyer with a gun in his hand and a female sitting in a chair near the door with blood on her face. When S-Spector saw R-De Souza, he said "I think I killed her." R- De Souza told Ofcr Cardella that he left at that time to call the police.
Based on the information we had at the time, I determined that officers needed to approach the house to check the welfare of the female and the resident (later id'ed as S-Spector. I directed Ofcr Cardella to lead the approach and entry to the location with the ballistic shield. In order following Ofcr Cardella was myself and Ofcrs Hammond, Rodriguez and Tamayo. Ofcrs Kim and Seki took a stationary position at the rear gate to the location on Alta Vista. Prior to entering the north driveway gate, we used a jacket to cover a security camera that was pointing at the north gate.
Once we entered the gate, I saw that the stairs immediately inside the gate on the south side of the driveway led directly to the front (north) doors of the residence. Since there was no cover available, if we were to approach the location by the stairs, I directed Ofcr Cardella to approach the location via the driveway, which led around to the rear of the location.
After following the driveway to the multi car garage, which was near the gate on Alta Vista, I was advised by Sgt. LaGuard that a K-9 unit was possibly available. We waited near the east side of the garage until we were advised that no K-9 unit was available. While we were waiting, we observed a burgundy sedan parked on the east side of the residence. We approached the sedan and Ofcrs Tamayo and Rodriguez cleared it of any possible suspects. I stationed Ofcr Tamayo at the northeast corner of the residence so that he could cover the front door if the suspect attempted to flee in that direction. Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond, Rodriguez and I proceeded to the doorway of the garage located on the northwest side of the building. After reaching the door and entering, I stationed Ofcr Cardella at the door so that he could observe the rear door to the residence while Ofcrs Hammond Rodriguez and I cleared the garage. As we started to do so, we realized that the top floor was being Converted into a living area, with the bottom floor having been divided and containing no vehicles.
As we were clearing the top floor of the garage, Ofcr Cardella advised us via radio that he could see the suspect inside the house and that he thought he was coming outside. We returned to Ofcr Cardella's position, and positioned ourselves behind him and the ballistic shield so that we could observe the rear door of the residence. After a short time (approximately 15 seconds), I observed a white male with shoulder length hair wearing a black shirt and black pants exit the back door of the residence and stand at the top of the stairs leading to the driveway. The suspect had both hands inside his front pants pockets.
Ofcr Cardella verbally identified himself as an Alhambra Police Officer and told the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets. The suspect looked in our direction, but failed to take his hands out of his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again ordered the suspect to remove his hands so that we could see them. The suspect removed his hands from his pockets and raised them over his head and held them there for approximately 3 seconds, then placed them back into his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again told the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets, but he started to turn towards the rear door, then said "You've got to come in and see this". He then stepped into the doorway and out of our sight.
Since we knew the suspect was near the rear door, I told Ofcr Cardella to move out of the garage and take a position near the rear door so that we could keep him as contained as possible. We approached to the east of the door, then moved west at an angle until we were approximately 4 feet from the bottom step that led to the rear door.
We could see the suspect standing in the rear doorway, still with his hands in his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again ordered the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets, but the suspect made no attempt to do so. After Ofcr Cardella issued the order for the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets several more times, and the suspect refused to comply, I fired my M26 Air Taser, which was pointed at the suspect. I observed the top dart make contact to the upper chest area of the suspect, and the lower dart move towards the suspect's lower body. When the darts struck the suspect, I saw that the suspect showed no visible signs of incapacitation. The suspect started to back away from us, so I told Ofcr Cardella to move towards the suspect. As Ofcr Cardella started to move, I removed the cartridge from the end of my Air Taser and followed him, with Ofcrs Hammond and Rodriguez following me.
We entered the house. with the suspect approximately 3 feet inside the foyer. Ofcr Cardella struck the suspect with the ballistic shield and shoved him backwards towards the staircase. he then dropped the shield and moved to my left, allowing me to move forward. I reached the suspect and placed the M26 Air taster against his upper body and activated it. l Again I saw no visible signs of incapacitation on the part of the suspect, so I continued moving forward and shoved the suspect against the staircase again, then grabbed him with my left hand and forced him to the ground. I landed with my left knee on the suspect's back, and my right knee on the ground next to his right side.
When the suspect landed on the ground, he was lying face down with his right arm extended straight above his head, and his left arm was underneath his body with his left hand protruding out the right side of his upper body. I grabbed his left hand with my left hand, and his right arm with my right hand. Due to the position I was in, the HK MP5 that I had moved to my back slid around to where it was easily within reach of the suspects left hand.
During the struggle for the suspect's right arm, I was forced to discard the M26 Air taser, which landed to the right of our position. When I looked to see where it was, I observed a female sitting slouched in a chair approximately 4 feet away from where we were on our right. The female was white with blond hair, and her head was lolled to the left. She was also wearing a black dress. I also saw that she had a bloodied face and chest and was not responding to what was happening immediately in front of her.
Concerned that the suspect could possible take control of my HK MP5, I yelled to Ofcr Cardella to remove the weapon from my body and place it away from us. I had to yell to Ofcr Cardella due to the fact that the suspect was also yelling, as was Ofcr Hammond. Because I was focused on keeping the suspect from gaining control of my weapon and yelling instructions to Ofcr Cardella, I did not hear what the suspect said. I directed Ofcr Hammond to take control of the suspect's right arm, so that I could release him in order to allow Ofcr Cardella to remove the MP5 sling from my body, which they did. After the weapon was removed from the immediate area, I pulled the suspect's left arm out from underneath his body and moved it back behind his back. Ofcr Hammond moved the suspect's right arm behind his back, and we were able to place him into handcuffs. After the suspect was restrained, I conducted a cursory pat down search of the suspect's body and found no weapons.
I knelt with my left knee in the small of the suspect's back, my left hand on the suspect's upper back and trained my handgun on the stairs behind us. Since we did not know if there were any additional victims or suspects inside the residence, I directed Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond and Rodriguez to start searching the west wing of the ground floor, which they did. I asked Sgt La Guard to have officers who had arrived at the command post to respond to the house to assist us with searching. While waiting for these officers to arrive, I heard the suspect say "I can tell you what happened".
I turned on my micro cassette recorder that was in my left breast pocket of my uniform shirt. Since I did not want to engage the suspect in conversation and divert my attention from the unsecured stairway. I did not respond to his statements. Ofcr Hammond assisted Ofcrs Cardella and Rodriguez with the clearing of several rooms, he returned to my position to take over the controlling of the suspect. When Ofcr Hammond assumed control of the suspect, I retrieved my MP5 which Ofcr Cardella had placed inside and to the left of the rear door.
After retrieving my MP5, I looked at the female and observed that she was not breathing and appeared to be lifeless. I also saw that on the floor, under her left leg, near her ankle was a small black revolver with blood on it's wood grips. I moved back to the left of Ofcr Hammond and continued to cover the stairs. While I was standing near the suspect, I heard that he was still talking, so I removed my cassette recorder and placed it on the stairs near the suspect. At this point, additional officers arrived and took control of the suspect. I moved to where Ofcr Cardella and Rodriguez were still searching the residence and assisted them. We conducted a thorough search of the house without locating any additional victims or suspects.
After completing my search, I found that Cpl Juarez had removed my cassette recorder from the stairs after the suspect had been removed from the house. When he heard that I was looking for my recorder, he found me and returned it. I noticed that the cassette tape had been removed and he informed me that he had given it to Ofcr Kennedy, who was handling the initial crime report. I left the location and responded back to APD for debriefing.
Upon arrival at APD, Lt Nater advise me to retrieve the cassette from Ofcr Kennedy. I responded back to 1700 Grand View gained possession of the tape from Ofcr Kennedy.
Upon returning to APD, I played back the portion of the tape that I had made while the suspect was in the foyer. As I reviewed it, I heard the suspect make the following statements
LAPD works for me
I will tell you what happened
I'm sorry there's a dead woman here, and I'm sorry this happened
I'm not drunk, and I'm not stupid. I can tell you what happened
I'm sorry this happened, I don't know how it happened
The gun went off accidentally
She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake
I want to go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep
I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened. it scared the shit out of me that it happened
I see the damage that's been done ... this is the most devastating thing I've ever seen in my life
The suspect made several additional statements but it was difficult to hear exactly what was said due to the recorder being inside my pocket. The tape was given to LASO Detectives Fournier and Tomlin on this date at 1315 hrs for their investigation.
----------------
Officer Pineda (now Rodriguez)
Alhambra Police department
Investigations Division
Supplemental Report
Suspect Spector, Philip
Victim Clarkson, Lana
Crime 187PC
Report Date 02/03/03
Report by Cpl Pineda Date 02/18/03
On 02/03/02 at 0505 hours, I was enroute to the Alhambra Police Department in an unmarked detective police car equipped with a police radio. I heard the initial broadcast of information regarding a shot heard and a woman down at 1700 S. Grandview Drive. Based on the further radio traffic, I telephoned the Watch Commander (Lieutenant David Nater #153) and advised that I was enroute to be of assistance. I advised Lt. Nater that I would contact Detective Daniel Rodriguez #110 because he would be available to assist as well. While at the Alhambra Police Department, I heard confirmation that one subject was dead. I advised Lt. Nater that I would respond to the scene to gather initial information for notification to my supervisor, Sergeant Debbie Santana #215, and the deployment of on-coming detectives.
On 02/03/03 at 610 hours, I arrived on scene and contacted Officer Henry Reyes #224 at the command post (north side entry gate of the property). I asked for an update on the activity and then entered the crime scene. Before entering the vehicular gate, I observed a brand new (dealer advertised plates) black, Mercedes Benz, parked in front of the property's address plaque (facing west toward the front vehicular gate). Someone advised me that the vehicle was driven by the property owner's chauffer. I also observed a medium size dog crate on the ground just outside the vehicular gate. I asked another officer to provide information on the animal inside. I was advised that there was a dog inside and that the San Gabriel Valley Animal Control office had been notified to pick up the dog because no resources were available to stand by with it. I then walked up the numerous north side front yard steps leading to the glass front doors. I found the front doors wide open and several officers inside the foyer. I observed the decedent (later identified as vict-Clarkson, Lana) on a light colored chair near the south wood entry door. An Alhambra Fire Department paramedic was removing monitoring equipment from her chest. The medic was not making any life saving efforts. I saw, what appeared to be, fresh blood coming from the areas of her mouth, nose, and her right ear. I observed a small caliber, short barrel revolver (poss 2" barrel, blue steel, wood grips) on the carpet slightly under her left calf. Slung on her right shoulder was a faux leopard print hobo style purse. I did not observe any obvious forms of identification. Due to the circumstances, I believed she was dead.
In an effort to determine the victim's identity and maintain scene preservation, I contacted the handling patrol officer, Officer Garrett Kennedy #233. Officer Kennedy was outside of the vehicular gate (north side of property) interviewing a male subject dressed in black pants, white dress shirt, black tie, and a black jacket. This subject was later identified as the reporting party, Adriano De Souza. I listened as Officer Kennedy interviewed R/P-De Souza. I stepped away from the interview to take a telephone call from Sgt Santana. She had been notified of this crime scene and telephoned me for an update. She advised that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Homicide Division (now referred to as LASD-Homicide) was going to take-over the investigation. She advised that we (the Alhambra units on scene) would maintain the crime scene until LASD- Homicide arrived. I then returned to the interview of R/P-De Souza. I tape recorded part of that interview (later booked into property by me).
I heard R/P-De Souza give the general sequence of events leading up to his last contact with the suspect (later identified as susp-Spector, Philip). R/P-De Souza explained that he was working as the driver for susp-Spector the evening of 02/02/03. On 02/03/03, he transported a lady and susp-spector to susp-Spector's home so they could have a drink. At one point, R/P-De Souza said he thought the woman was named "Lena" or "Lana". R/P-De Souza did not know the woman's last name or her vehicle license number. He described vict-Clarkson's car as a black, Mercury, Cougar. He advised that vict-Clarkson had parked her car a distance away from the House of Blues (5430 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, 323} 848-5100) before they headed to susp-Spector's home. The last time he saw vict-Clarkson was when he dropped off both susp-Spector and her at the front yard (north side) steps. The next time he saw susp-Spector was when he gave him his items at the back door (approximately 20-30 minutes later). Prior to hearing a shot, the last time he saw susp-Spector was when he gave susp-Spector his leather bag, cell phone, and portable dvd player at the back door. These items were found on a chair just inside the read (south) wooden door. He heard a shot, but didn't see anything. The last time he saw either party is when susp-Spector opened the rear door holding a handgun. R/P-De Souza then saw vict-Clarkson on the chair with blood on her face.
R/P-De Souza advised that he asked susp-Spector, "What happened , sir?" R/P-De Souza further advised "he was completely drunk." R/P-De Souza said that susp-Spector said, "I think I killed somebody." R/P-De Souza said he looked inside and saw a woman on the floor with blood on her face. He confirmed that this was the same woman he had driven to the Spector home earlier. He clarified that she was slumped on the chair with her legs in front of her. R/P-De Souza demonstrated that susp-Spector had a gun in his right hand. R/P-De Souza described the gun as a black revolver. R/P-De Souza tried fleeing the scene in the black Mercedes Benz. As he was driving (via the circular driveway leading to the north entry gate) he called susp-Spector's secretary (Michelle, unknown last name at 949} 584-1977) and left a message. he advised that he telephoned 9-1-1 and stayed on the line until the police officers arrived. R/P-De Souza confirmed that the black Mercedes Benz (at the location entry) was the vehicle he had been using.
Via telephone, Sergeant Santana advised that LASD-Homicide detectives wanted to complete a gunshot residue evidence collection (GSR) kit on R/P-De Souza. I then requested a GSR kit be brought to my location. While I was waiting for the GSR kit, I requested consent to search the Mercedes Benz from R/P-De Souza. he advised that the car belonged to susp-Spector. I clarified that he has control of the vehicle as susp-Spector's driver. He then signed the "Consent to Search" form. In the presence of R/P-De Souza and Officer Kennedy, I searched the car. I used gloves to search through the car interior and the trunk. The trunk was empty (aside from the spare tire and tools). The interior did not have any personal items. I found a remote control in the visor, miscellaneous vehicle papers, and the empty trunk (except for the spare tire and tool kit.) Sergeant Santana telephoned and advised that LASD-Homicide detectives requested that R/P-De Souza respond to the Alhambra Police Department for further interview and the completion of a GSR. I asked R/P- De Souza if he would accompany me (in my car) for further interview. He consented. I left the scene at 0650 hours and drove R/P-De Souza to the Alhambra Police Department.
On 02/03/03 at 0745 hours, I completed a GSR kit on R/P-De Souza. I booked the kit into property.
While at the Alhambra Police Department, I requested Records Supervisor Donna Aggers display a Department of Motor Vehicle photograph of a subject with a California Drivers License number of S0021518 by the name of Philip Spector with an address in Pasadena and a different date of birth than the subject in custody. The subject in custody provided the name of Philip Spector with an address in Alhambra. I wanted to confirm/refute the possibility that the subjects were the same people. She was able to display the DMV photo, but not provide a copy to the jailor booking the subject in the jail. She requested CSI Jailer Diana Valarde #574 responded to the Records Section and view the photo on the computer Screen. Ms. Aggers advised that CSI jailer Valarde identified the DMV photo as that of the subject in custody. (See attached color copy of the photo Ms. Aggers was able to print several days later.) I completed a vehicle check on susp-Spector and discovered he had two cars registered to him (both having the same address in Pasadena as his California Drivers License). None of the cars registered to susp-Spector were the Mercedes Benz the driver had used.
On 02/03/03, I contacted Michelle Blaine at the front counter of the Alhambra Police Department. She was in the company of a subject by the name of Jay Romaine. LASD-Homicide Detective Paul Fournier and Detective Richard Tomlin had arrived and completed an interview with R/P-De Souza. At approximately 1045 hours, I escorted Ms. Blaine to the Investigations Bureau so she could speak with LASD-Homicide detectives (regarding the message R/P De Souza left her).Mr. Romaine was left in the public lobby area.
While LASD-Homicide Detectives Fournier and Tomlin interviewed Ms. Blaine, I contacted the jail. Jailer Valarde advised that susp-Spector wanted to speak to a detective. I interrupted the interview with Ms. Blaine and advised Detectives Fournier and Tomlin. I was asked to confirm if susp-Spector had retained counsel or if he wanted to talk freely.
On 02/03/03 at 1143 hours, I entered the jail. At 1145 hours, I took a call inside the jail from a female subject identifying herself as a friend of susp-Spector as Rommie Davis (home/office 818} 752-9393; cellular 818} 422-9024). Ms. Davis said she wanted to speak to susp-Spector. I advised that I would confirm that susp-Spector had received his entitlement of completed phone calls and then I would return her call. (She did not want her name or information released to the media). I was told he had made his allotted phone calls (three), but that the phone numbers he provided were incorrect. I then contacted susp-Spector by having him moved to the jail interview room. I noticed that susp-Spector displayed symptoms of intoxication. he emitted the odor of an alcoholic beverage from his breath and person (he was now wearing a tan jail shirt and tan jail pants). I noticed that his eyes were blood shot and watery. At some point during the conversation I started to tape record the conversation. Tape recording was the easiest/least intrusive way to document any spontaneous statement susp-Spector made. I asked him if he wanted to speak to a detective. He said "no. I would like to have my phone calls first." Since the jailers are responsible for his phone calls, I told him that I would be leaving. As I started to walk away, he engaged me in conversation regarding his phone calls.
I tried to clarify that he wanted to speak to "Jay Rommie" because I thought Jay Romaine was also known by name of "Rommie." Once he found out that Jay Romaine was at the Police station he wanted to visit with him. He also wanted to visit with Ms. Blaine. I left susp-Spector in the attorney/client room and spoke to Jailer Valarde. I then re-contacted susp-Spector. I advised him that he had made one completed call and that he was allowed two more completed calls. he then replied by saying "No. I would like to see whoever wants to see me." I then began to speak, but he cut me off by saying "I would like to make those phone calls later." I then tried to clarify if he wanted to speak with a detective. he did not answer my question. Instead, he asked if he could have visitations. I told him he could not have visitations at that moment. I tried to redirect his attention to the fact that he could make his phone calls now. I transcribed the rest of the conversation as follows
Susp-Spector: "Well, I would like to see the people that want to visit me."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. And you don't want to speak to me?"
Susp-Spector: " Well, I mean, but, but, I can't see them first?"
Det Pineda: "Would you like to speak to the Sheriff's ah ... detectives?"
Susp-Spector: No, I can't see them first?"
Det Pineda: "No. You can speak to us now. Because the opportunity is open to you right now"
Susp-Spector: " No, but I would like to talk to them to find out what the hell is going on"
Det Pineda: "Okay, I can tell you what you're arrested for ..."
Susp-Spector: "... Michelle and, and, Jay ..."
Det Pineda: "Oh, Michelle is talking with the Sheriff's Department Detectives."
Susp-Spector: "Can I just talk to them first?"
Det Pineda: "Ah... I can arrange for that later, but I don't want to wait around if you're not going to talk to me"
Susp-Spector: "Well, no, I just want to talk to them so I can find out what the hell is going on."
Det Pineda: "Okay, Well, you're being charged with murder."
Susp-Spector: "I'm being charged with murder?"
Set Pineda: "Yes. That's one of the things (unintelligible)"
Susp-Spector: "Of whom?"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Well ... Ah... I don't have her name yet, but ...um ... Have you contacted your attorney?"
Susp-Spector: "No. I haven't been allowed to do a damn thing. That's why I wanted to talk to, to ... um ... Jay and ... Michelle."
Det Pineda: "Okay."
Susp-Spector: "Can I talk to Jay and Michelle first?"
Det Pineda: "Um ... Michelle ... You can't talk to her because she's talking to somebody else right now. And jay ... I'll I'll see what I can arrange with the jail because the laws says ..."
Susp-Spector: " Let me talk to Jay and Michelle. Um, in, in the other room"
Det. Pineda: "We can't, we can't bring them inside the jail, but ..."
Susp-Spector: "Oh, I can go out ..."
Det Pineda: " You've made one completed call ..."
Susp-Spector: "I haven't made any calls. I swear to you. I have not made any calls."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. (unintelligible) I, ... (Unintelligible) telling me, but the jailers have laws when you make a call. Those two calls ..."
Susp-Spector: "To whom?"
Det. Pineda: "Those two calls that you, uh, made."
Susp-Spector: "No, no. I made one call to a wrong number."
Det Pineda: "There's two calls you made to a wrong number because they have three calls all together."
Susp-Spector: "Two, eight, one, twenty-nine was the wrong number."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So you want to speak to Jay Romaine, right?"
Susp-Spector: "yeah"
Det. Pineda: "That's the name, because there's a Rommie? But she's a, she's a woman."
Susp-Spector: "Rommie was the person I wanted call who's assigned to reach Robert Shapiro."
Det. Pineda: "Oh, oh, okay. So did you want to get a hold of Rommie?"
Susp-Spector: "To reach Robert Shapiro for me, but if I could get a hold of ..."
Det. Pineda: "Jay"
Susp-Spector: "Jay or Michelle ..."
Det. Pineda: "Okay"
Susp-Spector: "They could reach Robert Shapiro for me."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So let me do this. Um, let me make arrangements to see if, if we could have Jay come over here."
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: " 'Cause this is kind of where he would visit. Okay? if you can get off the counter (unintelligible) ... What I'm going to do is ... temporarily keep you right here ..."
Susp-Spector: "What's happening to my house?"
Det. Pineda: "Uh ... I don't know because I'm not there right now."
Susp-Spector: "Oh, you mean they're there?"
Det. Pineda: "I'm not at your house. No."
Susp-Spector: "No, but I mean what happened at my house?"
Det. Pineda: "That I, that's what I would like to ask you."
Susp-Spector: "No, but I mean what's happening at my house?"
Det. Pineda: "Uh, I don't know because I'm not there."
Susp-Spector: "Can I get my attorneys there? I mean ... How do I ... See I mean, how, how do I get ... How do I find out what is going on?"
Det. Pineda: "Okay, Well I've already ..."
Susp-Spector: "I can tell you what happened, but I can't tell, tell anybody what's going on there now."
Det. Pineda: "Well I don't know either. If you want to tell me what happened, great. You ..."
Susp-Spector: "But then ..."
Det. Pineda: "You were arrested for ... murder."
Susp-Spector: "Of whom?"
Det. Pineda: ""Okay. Well, that's one thing we want to figure out. Um ..."
Susp-Spector: "This is the most bizarre, nonsense, in the, in the ... This is absurd. This (unintelligible)"
Det. Pineda: "Okay, okay. Well let me, make arrangements. You want to get a hold of your ... Is Robert Shapiro going to be your attorney?"
Susp-Spector: "yeah"
Det. Pineda: "On record? Okay. Let me see what I can do about that ..."
Susp-Spector: "How do I get hold of Robert?"
Det. Pineda: "Um ... You said through Jay, right?"
Susp-Spector: "Well, I mean, I mean if you can get a hold of Robert. I, I thought Michelle could get hold of Robert"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Well, Michelle is talking to detectives right now. So let me see what I can do. Okay? I'll be right back."
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Thank you"
Susp-Spector: "Don't leave me alone too long"
Det. Pineda: "Well, you can see me through the window"
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: "Alright. Take it easy."
Susp-Spector: "This is terrible, this is ... Imean a (unintelligible)
Det. Pineda: "Okay"
My conversation with susp-Spector ends momentarily. We resume the following conversation
Det. Pineda: "Okay Mr. Spector. What was it that you were saying?"
Susp-Spector: "You heard what I said"
Det. Pineda: "So you don't want to tell me again?"
Susp-Spector: "I, I already told you what I said"
Det. Pineda: "No, I ... You didn't answer my questions. Did you want to speak to Rommie Davis, because she's called. And she said she can get Robert Shapiro for you"
Susp-Spector: "I want him down here. I'm going to make you fucking people pay for this. This is bullshit."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So you don't want the call to go through?"
Susp-Spector: "This is nonsense. You people have had me here six fucking hours. Maybe nine hours. And you have me locked up like some God damn fucking terd. In some fucking piece of shit. And you treat me. And while this person eats, and shits, and farts (while pointing to a jailer). And you have me jerking around. And (unintelligible) somebody comes over to my fucking house. Who pretends to be security at the House of Blues. And comes over to my house. Remember ... I own the House of Blues. Where this lady pretended to work. Okay? And then just blows her fucking head open in my fucking house. And then comes over, and then and then. Then these people come over and arrest me and bang the shit out of my fucking ass. And beat the shit out of me. And then you pretend and arrest me. And then pretend like your fucking Alhambra. And then, then the Mayor of Alhambra wants me to have Bono come and sing at the anniversary. And bullshit. This is nonsense. This is absolute fucking nonsense. I don't know what the fucking lady, what her problem is. But she wasn't a security at the House of Blues. And she was a piece of shit. And I don't know what her fucking problem was. But she certainly had no right to come to my fucking castle, blow her fucking head open, and say (unintelligible) murder. What the fuck is wrong with you people?".
Det. Pineda: "Tell you what I'm going to do ..."
Susp-Spector: "What?"
Det. Pineda: "I said, tell you what I'm going to do ..."
Susp-Spector: "Yeah. I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm going to be fucking ... Somebody's gonna pay for the fucking. I've been locked up for the fucking last twelve fucking hours. And you fucking people come to my house. And you rummage through my fucking house. And you, you tie me down like a fucking pig. And you know while somebody's dieing there. And you kno, ana, and, and, and it scared the shit out of everybody. While somebody commits suicide ... "
Det. Pineda: "Mr Spector go ahead and have a seat ... I'm going to call Ms. Davis back. You can talk to her on this phone when the phone rings ..."
Susp-Spector: "I just want to get the fuck outta here ..."
Det. Pineda: "Don't pick up the phone until it rings ... Do you understand?"
Susp-Spector: (Silence)
Det. Pineda: "If you don't wish to answer it's ... That's fine. I'll put the call through."
Susp-Spector: "Charge me with murder"
I left susp-Spector in the attorney/client room. The tape continued recording me while I had a short conversation with Ms. Rommie Davis. I left the jail at 1224 hours after a brief conversation with susp-Spector to facilitate the call between Ms. Rommie and susp-Spector. I booked this recording into property.
On 02/03/03 at 1230 hours, I contacted Robert Shapiro in the lobby of the Alhambra Police Department. I confirmed that he was retained as susp-Spector's attorney of record. Mr Shapiro requested that I cease all questioning. I advised Mr Shapiro that his client didn't want to speak to me and no one was asking him questions. I further advised Mr Shapiro that the jail staff was making arrangements to facilitate his conference with susp-Spector. I left Mr Shapiro in the public lobby.
On 02/03/03 at approximately 1315 hours, a subject named Hough, Kim Gregory (CDL#D4380534, work 323 } 848-5125) said he worked at the Foundation Room of the House of Blues. He advised people know him as Kim Gregory. On 02/03/03 (between 0215 and 0220hours) he saw susp-Spector leave (via the elevator) at the House of Blues with a friend/co-worker. His friend's name was "Lana Clarkson" Gregory said he had tried to telephone vict-Clarkson this morning, but he didn't receive a return call. He inquired if vict-Clarkson was the deceased female (at Spector's home) he had heard about. I told him I could not identify the decedent, but I would like all the information he had for his friend. Gregory advised that vict-Clarkson was a tall, 38 year-old woman who lived in Venice. While I spoke to him on the phone, I initialed a DMV check for vict-Clarkson. I discovered vict-Clarkson's California drivers license information as well her car registration information. None of this information came back to an address in Venice. Gregory advised that she had not been working a the House of Blues (as a door hostess) for very long. He gave me two telephone numbers that he had used to contact vict-Clarkson: home 310-822-8498; cellular 310-709-8766). Gregory had last seen susp-Spector wearing a white jacket, black shirt, and black pants. His hair was long. susp-Spector had ordered one or two drinks that evening. Vict-Clarkson was wearing an all black pantsuit that had a halter-style top. When I terminated the call, I provided LASD-Homicide Detective Tomlin with vict-Clarkson's information. I also provided the telephone information to Sgt Santana in an effort to have her confirm the residence of vict-Clarkson.
On 02/03/03, I located the crime scene investigation photo logs. Photographs of the crime scene were taken on four rolls of film by Corporal Gabriel Ponce #123. The film rolls are as follows #03-11, #03-45, #03-46, #03-47 (see film logs)
On 02/03/03, while at the Alhambra Police Department I was advised that the videos (from all the police units that responded to the initial call for service) were removed from the cars and booked into evidence by Officer Tai Chi Seki #220. I photocopied the "Officers Daily Assignment Sheets" used by the Alhambra Police Department. This form is used to keep track of the employees (officers and CSOs) who worked a particular shift. The following information is logged on the form: shift, unit beat assignment, vehicle, guns (see copies). The officers are responsible for notifying Dispatch of the vehicle and weapons they are putting into service for their work shift. The dispatchers complete the eform with the information provided by the officers. The following officers were driving the corresponding police cars:
Corporal Michael Page #133 Unit #758
Officer Efren Tamayo #225 Unit #762
Officer Beatrice Rodriguez #202 Unit #763
Officer Brandon Cardella #194 Unit #764
Officer Steven Kim #122 Unit #765
Sergeant Gary La Guard #141 Unit #567 Chevy Suburban
Officer Tai Chi Seki $220 Unit #768
Officer James Hammond #195 Unit #770
On 02/03/03, I directed Detective Kenny Lee #173 to take photographs and photo copies of the property (less clothing) taken off of susp-Spector. At 1600 hours, while inside the jail, Det. Lee took digital photographs of the following:
$348 dollars cash
Two pairs of prescription glasses
paper with a list of people's phone numbers
Credit cards/business cards
Receipt for House of Blues (02/03/03 at 0210 hours, $13.50 bill - $463.50 paid)
Items of jewelry (2 watches/2 rings)
Key ring with one "Ace" key and two smaller keys
Pouch with medical type supplies
Lipstick, 2 lancets
Obstetrical towelette
Baggie with pills and a package of Listerine Pocketpals
Oral-B dental proxibrush
Det. Lee gave me the photocopies, diskette and four Polaroids pictures taken by a Jailer Valarde. I later booked these items into property. Color copies of the digital photos were printed prior to booking the diskette.
On 02/03/03 at 1425 hours, I returned to the crime scene. I met with the detectives in charge of the crime scene (LASD-Homicide Detective Sergeant Steve Katz and Detective Mark Lillienfield). While at the scene Sgt. Santana advised that one of the telephone numbers I provided for vict-Clarkson returned to an address in Venice. She provided that information to LASD-Homicide detectives and I provided that information to the detectives on scene.
On 02/03/03 1700 hours, Alhambra Police Detective Martin Ng #226 escorted susp-Spector's car (Mercedes Benz, s430, VIN# WDBNG70J02A297947, black) as it was towed via flatbed by Al's Tow to LASD-Temple station (per LASD-Homicide request). He released the keys to LASD-Temple Deputy Garry Claypool. (See CHP 180-Vehicle Rep[ort). The car was later returned to susp-Spector's home (per LASD-Homicide) on 02/04/03
According to jail records the following is an account of susp-Spector's stay in Alhambra police Department custody:
Arrested 02/03/03 0609 hours
Arrived at Alhambra PD jail 02/03/03 0628 hours
Medical check inside the jail 02/03/03 0629 hours
(Alhambra fire Dept paramedics #71 Jaime Olmos #216 and Michael Brown #224)
Susp-Spector left the jail 02/03/03 1652 hours
(Taken to medical facility for evidence collection by Sgt. Santana)
Susp-Spector returned to the jail 02/03/03 1838 hours
Susp-Spector released on bail 02/03/03 1900 hours
(Return date set for 03/03/03)
In the morning of 02/04/03, I telephoned Glory Sprigs of the California Highway Patrol. I verbally requested her agency not release the 9-1-1 call. A follow-up letter was sent to CHP by Sgt Santana. I requested a copy of the CHP dispatch tape be sent to the Alhambra Police Department. I also made a similar request from Alhambra Police Department Lieutenant Don Craton #115 for the Alhambra Police Department dispatch tape. Lt. Craton booked the 9-1-1 tape into property.
On 02/04/03, I requested information from the Code Enforcement Section of the City manager's office at Alhambra City hall. On 02/06/03, I received an envelope containing the property information of 1700 S. Grandview. Susp-Spector owns two properties (1700 Grandview Drive and 2937 Terrace Avenue). The second property (2937 Terrace Avenue) is a short street north west of the Grandview drive location. I booked into property a map of the Grandview property. The information I received from Code Enforcement was that there were two calls for service at the Grandview address. The first call for service was dated 05/28/98 for weed/rubbish abatement. Color photos were included as part of the investigation. The second call for service was dated 10/19/98 for weed/rubbish abatement. Color photos were included as part of the investigation. For both instances compliance was accomplished. these records are included with this report.
On 02/04/03 at 0945 hours, I returned to the crime scene. Some time that morning, I was present when LASD-Homicide Det Sgt Katz removed a starter pistol (in a shoulder holster) from the top drawer of a cabinet in the foyer. This cabinet was located south of the entryway to the east living room. it was a blue steel. 2" revolver made in Japan. It was void of any ammunition. He took possession of the pistol.
While at the crime scene, LASD-Homicide detectives requested Cpl. Page and Officer Kennedy return to the crime scene to assist them in recreating the scene as they encountered susp-Spector. They responded to the scene on 02/04/03.
On 02/04/03 at 2005 hours, I was still at the location when the crime scene and susp-Spector's vehicle were released to Robert Shapiro and his staff. No further uniformed presence was maintained at the location. I took custody of the Major Incident Log and later booked them into property (See copies).
On 02/05/03, I contacted Det. Ng and requested he locate the four rolls of film taken by Cpl Ponce on 02/03/03. He located them and maintained custody of them until I met with him on 02/06/03.
On 02/06/03 in the afternoon, I responded to a public photofinishing shop with four rolls of film taken by Cpl Ponce. I was present while the film was processed. The CSI film that I had processed were rolls #03-11, #03-45, #03-46, #03-47. (See film logs). Two 5"x7" copies of each photograph and the negatives were booked into property.
On 02/06/03, I requested all calls for service that Alhambra Police Dept had for the time susp-Spector was living at the 1700 Grandview location. (05/22/98 - 02/03/03). I received the following information
04/16/99 Light pole damaged (Alhambra Police Officer Ruben Soriano called)
10/24/99 Traffic accident (car into a pole)
05/14/02 Road hazard (Alhambra Fire Dept Captain Craig Toups called)
There were no calls for service that Alhambra Police Department had for the time susp-Spector owned the 2937 Terrace location (09/08/00 - 02/03/03)
On 02/06/03 at 1300 hours, I recovered the air taser gun used on susp-Spector. Sgt. La Guard advised that he had given Cpl Page the taser gun from the watch sergeant's car. The Alhambra Police Department had not deployed or used any air tasers since it was used on sup-Spector[sic] on 02/03/03. Sgt. la Guard retrieved the air taser from the watch sergeant's car. Since the air taser had been put back into service since the 02/03/03, it was loaded with a new cartridge. I booked the gun (as removed from the police vehicle) into property.
On 02/06/03 at 1310 hours, I telephoned the Los Angeles Department Animal Care and Control - Downey Shelter (11258 S. Garfield, Downey 90242). I spoke to Animal Control Officer II Carmen Garcia regarding an animal recovery from 1700 S. Grandview Drive. She advised that on 02/03/03 at 0705 hours she took into protective custody a dog per the Alhambra Police Department. On 02/05/03 at 1600 hours, Michelle Blaine (secretary to susp-Spector), came to the shelter and took custody of the dog after paying a fee of $66.80. Ms. Blaine took custody of the dog for the owner (unknown to me).
On 02/07/03 at 645 hours, I contacted Officer Brandon Cardella #194. I made an inquiry into the fact that there were two Alhambra Fire Department personnel who responded into the crime scene (Paramedic Rodney Merino #005 and Paramedic David Riggs #218). Officer Cardella clarified that Paramedic Riggs came inside the house and his partner stayed outside of the house. This fact was misstated by Corporal Henry Juarez #191 in his supplemental report.
On 02/07/03 I contacted Officer Derek Gilliam, #234. he had originally taken susp-Spector's clothes from him inside the jail. I inquired if the "black boots" listed on the booking sheet were also booked into evidence. Officer Gilliam advised that since susp-Spector was not wearing them inside his cell, he did not taken [sic] from susp-Spector's property. The jailors had left susp-Spector's boots (per standard practice) in a crate with the remaining portion of his property (As photographed by Det. Lee).
------------------------------------------------------
Officer Gilliam:
Officer Gilliam
Alhambra Police Department Supplemental Report 02/03/2003 13:30
Parties Spector Phillip S(uspect) 1700 Grandview Dr Alhambra Ca 91801
Upon arrival to Alhambra police Dept. at approx 0530 hours, I was advised by W/C Sgt Oda (222) that a possible shooting was being investigated by fellow officers at Pyrenees Castle (1700 S. Grandview Dr.) and that I need to respond immediately to assist. Officer Heckers (135) and I immediately took an available unit and began responding to the location.
Upon arrival at approx 0559 hours I saw Ofcr. Reyes outside the closed gate of the residence. Ofcr Reyes told me that they are searching the inside of the residence and would like assistance. We entered the front gate, walked up several steps and entered the residence through the double doors, located at the front of the residence. Upon entering the house I observed a blond, female slouched in a chair located on the east side of the entrance hallway, directly across from the stairwell. Officer Hammond requested my assistance upstairs. When walking up the stairs I briefly turned to my left and saw the female with her legs stretched out directly in front of her. I saw blood coming from both nostrils and blood coming from the right side of her mouth. I saw her arms over the arm rests of the chair. her lower lip was either swollen of she had an extreme under bite. She was wearing black short dress with black fishnet nylons. her hair was dish water blonde.
I arrived at the top of the stairs with Ofcr Reyes, Ofcr Hammond and Corp Page we continued our search of the house. I was told to cover the balcony which approx. covers the north side of the upstairs of the residence. Officer Cardella advised all officers that were upstairs that all was clear. officer Hammond, Officer Reyes, Officer Tamayo and I then searched the garage area and advised that it was clear.
While monitoring my portable radio, I heard Officer Heckers transporting S-Spector to A.P.D. for booking. Knowing that S-Spector was uncooperative at the residence I chose to respond to the station to assist Officer Heckers. Upon my arrival I entered the jail and found S-Spector sitting on the waiting bench in the booking area and Officer Heckers standing to the left of him.
S-Spector was very belligerent and began calling the jailor a "fat ass" He refused to talk to anyone and kept making obnoxious statements to the jailor. S-Spector was extremely angry and kept asking if we were doing anything about the dead lady in his residence. I responded "Yes". He continued to ignore our request to cooperate during the booking process and he continued to deny us any form of response. S-Spector asked if he could call Robert Shapiro, immediately I told him "the quicker he cooperates the quicker he will be allowed to make his phone call, but we need to know who he is". The jailors photographed him and he continued to become more and more defensive and belligerent. I smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his breath and when he talked he had very dry mouth. His words slurred together and he had a tough time maintaining his balance. His eyes were bloodshot and continually asked me to call "Robert" for him. I told him that I do not know Robert's phone number and that we will definitely provide him the opportunity to make his call. The jailors who were present continued to try to get him to answer their questions, but he was very uncooperative.
The jailors then chose to put him in an interview room to hopefully sober up and relax. I was instructed by Sgt Oda to sit with him until he was willing to cooperate. He started to tell me about his song writing and some of the big names he worked with, and relationship with George Harrison. I told him that I believe my uncle is friends with George Harrison and he asked who my uncle was and I told him Terry Gilliam from Month Python. He laughed and rambled on about another officer a long time ago who had told him that he had family in show business as well. I told his I was being honest and that I had no reason to lie to him. S-Spector told me that he had owned the rights to Monty Python at one time. He then looked at me with a blank stare and said "Do you know there is a dead woman in my house and what are you doing about it". I advised him that we had officers at his home providing protection for the crime scene. He looked at me again with a blank stare and asked me what happened at his house. I told him "I wasn't there and so I did not know what happened". he repeated the question two more times with a lot more anger and emotion each time and I repeated the same answer each time manner in hopes of settling him down. He told me that she worked at the House of Blues and was a friend of his. S-Spector changed the subject and told me about some of the bands that he had worked with in the past such as Bush, Bono, The Beatles, and then after the beatles he began mumbling and I couldn't understand what he was saying. he told me that he has an up and coming performance with Bono in New York and said that he had to go because he needed to get on a plane to new York.
S-Spector looked at the ground and slowly raised his head stating to me "I don't know where she got the gun from but she started waiving it around". He said that he told her to put it down, he said, she refused. S-Spector told me that she began singing his songs that he wrote such as: you've lost that loving feeling and Da Do run run. he stated that she stuck the gun to her head and pulled the trigger. he then said that he continually tired to wake her.
During the time he was telling me about the victim and her actions, he was extremely animated with his actions. S-Spector took his right hand and formed it into a gun by folding his three lower fingers (pinky to middle finger) pointing his index finger straight out, and holding his thumb in a manner which reflects the hammer of a gun. He would put it to the right side of his head and move his thumb in the same manner that a hammer on a gun would move. When he would pretend to pull the trigger he showed me the way her head went back and how she wouldn't move. A couple of times he would hold the position of his head on the back of the chair for approx 5-10 seconds I was a little concerned because each time he performed the scenario it was done with more and more emotion and he would hold his head back longer. During one of the demonstrations he looked at me smirked and said "you don't pull a gun out on me" and did a slight giggle. he made this statement slightly quieter than all of his other statements. He asked me again if I had Roberts phone number and I advised him that I did not.
I asked him if he was willing to cooperate with the jailors now so that we could get his booking process done and allow him to make his phone calls. S-Spector stated "Yes. OK" We exited the interview room and walked back over to the jailers front desk. I had him remove both of his watches and attempt to remove his rings. He was unable to remove his rings so I allowed him to keep them on his fingers. He provided us with all the information with a slight hesitation, but upon completion he made his phone calls. At this time Corp. Juarez (191) came into the jail and asked S-Spector if he would be willing to perform a breathalyzer test, he stated "No" I also asked him and he repeated he was still unwilling to do the test.
I then requested S-Spector to remove his clothing so that I could collect as evidence. At this point, he was very cooperative with us. The jail provided him with clothing. I watched S-Spector as he changed his clothes and after he took them off he set them on the floor of the cell. I collected the evidence off of the floor using Diamond Grip Plus, powder free latex exam gloves and put each piece of clothing in a separate bag to avoid any contamination. I then folded the tops of the bags and requested the assistance of officer Kim to help me staple and secure the evidence (see property sheet for further details)
---------------------------------------------------------
Special thanks to loyal T&T reader Kim who transcribed the three officers reports. Sprocket.
Grand Jury Testimony of Bea Rodriguez:
Starting at Page 368, LINE 20:
Q: Now as you were doing that, could you hear whether or not the person that had been detained, the person you have identified, was making any statement?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he talking quietly, yelling? How would you characterize the level of his voice?
A: I would say he was loud.
Q: And were you paying attention to some of
the things that he was saying?
Page 369:
A: Yes, I was.
Q: I want to show you what’s been marked as -- I will put it the other way.
I will show you what has been marked as
People’s 18. The diagram that is up on the board behind you, do you see that diagram?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: Does that accurately show, in diagram form,
this foyer area that you made entry to on the morning of
February 3rd of 2003?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Can you please point out on the diagram,
using that pointer that is right next to you, the
position -- the location you were at or how you had
positioned yourself as you were covering this hallway and
the portion of the foyer area?
Ms. Priver: Careful you don’t roll backwards.
The Witness: It was this area (pointing).
Mr. Sortino: For the record, she was pointed to
what appears to be the intersection of the foyer and the
hallway leading to the west, directly -- actually just to
the side of the foot of the stairs, roughly between the
foot of the stairs and the doorway to the bathroom.
Ms. Priver: Yes.
Mr. Sortino: You can resume your seat.
Ms. Priver: Be careful it doesn’t roll off the
step there, your seat, when you sit down.
Q: By Mr. Sortino: Let me ask you one other
Page 370:
question. When you looked at the victim and saw her that
morning, did you see any weapon in her vicinity?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: What kind of a weapon did you see?
A: It looked like a handgun, a small handgun.
Q: Where was it in relation to the victim?
A: Under her feet.
Q: Now, as you were standing at the foot of
that stairway, or roughly by the entry to the bathroom
covering the hallway, you said you could hear the suspect
that was detained making statements?
A: Yes.
Q: And initially when you were covering that
hallway, were you alone or was there another officer
assisting you?
A: I was alone.
Q: As you were standing there alone covering
that hallway, what did you hear the suspect say?
A: He said, “What’s wrong with you guys? What
are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an
accident.”
Q: Do you recall any other statements that he made?
A: Something to the effect that he had an
explanation for it.
Q: And this all occurred while you were
standing in that area covering the hallway?
A: Yes, it did.
Page 371:
Q: At some point were you joined by one of the
other officers to assist you in covering the hallway?
A: Yes, I was.
Q: Who was that:
A: It was Officer Cardella.
Q: And did that occur before or after you
heard these statements you have just recounted to the
Grand Jury?
A: After I heard the statements.
Q: Later that morning did you return to the
Alhambra Police Department?
A: Yes I did.
Q: that same morning:
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Was the incident still fresh in your
memory?
A: Yes, it was.
Q: Did you document those statements in your
report?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And when you documented them in your --
strike that.
At the time you wrote your report and
documented those statements, did you believe it was
important to document exactly what the suspect had said
that you had heard?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you do something when you wrote your
report to indicate that those statements were exactly
what you heard the suspect say?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What did you do?
A: I put them in quotations.
Q: In your report?
A: Yes, I did.
----------------------------------
Officer Page, hearing Spector start to speak, turned on his tape recorder. Here is a complete transcript of that recording.
Transcription of tape-recorded statements of Phillip Spector, by Alhambra Police Department Office Page at 1700 Grandview Drive on February 3, 2003.
SPECTOR: Phillip Spector
RODRIGUEZ: Alhambra P.D. Officer Bea Rodriguez
CARDELLA: Alhambra P.D. Officer Brandon Cardella
HAMMOND: Alhambra P.D. Officer James Hammond
PAGE: Alhambra P.D. Officer Mike Page
KENNEDY: Alhambra P.D. Officer Garrett Kennedy
JUAREZ: Alhambra P.D. Officer Enrique Juarez
UNKNOWN: Unknown Alhambra P.D. Officers
***: Unintelligible
SPECTOR: Just as me and I’ll tell you. I’m not Robert Blake
CARDELA: Bea?
SPECTOR: ..what the hell is wrong with you?
CARDELLA: ***
SPECTOR: Oh, what the fuck is wrong with you?
RODRIGUEZ: Brandon?
SPECTOR: Oh, Jesus Christ.
RODRIGUEZ: Brandon?
SPECTOR: It feels good.
CARDELLA: Okay.
RODRIGUEZ: I got that one.
SPECTOR: What the hell is wrong with you?
RODRIGUEZ: ***.
CARDELLA: I know. Hold that, that cover.
RODRIGUEZ: There’s, un, an area over here.
SPECTOR: What are you, what are you worried about?
CARDELLA: Mike’s upstairs?
RODRIGUEZ: No, we’ll do that afterwards. ***.
SPECTOR: What are you concerned about?
CARDELLA: ***.
SPECTOR: Ph, God. LAPD works for me.
CARDELLA: I’m with Bea.
HAMMOND: Cardella, are you with Bea?
CARDELLA: Yeah, I’ m with Bea.
HAMMOND: Okay, I got the upstairs with Mike.
SPECTOR: What are you worried about?
HAMMOND: We’re over here on your left, Cardella/
SPECTOR: I can tell you what happened.
PAGE: Only if you want to.
SPECTOR: If you’re gonna arrest me, just tell me what happened.
HAMMOND: Mike, I got the stairs. You don’t have to worry about them.
SPECTOR: The dog was locked up. *** was a little schnauzer. What the fuck is wrong with you. Hay Romaine -- he’s a lieutenant in your fucking police department. What the hell is wrong with you people? Oh, Jesus Christ.
PAGE: Nine, be advised, we have one detained --
SPECTOR: Oh --
PAGE: -- clearing the house.
SPECTOR: --Jesus. You know, you’re acting stupid. Get the fuck off of me! This is stupid. I’m sorry there’s a dead woman here. But I’m sorry but this happened. I can explain ti but if you’d just give me a chance. I mean, you know. What the hell are you acting like assholes. You thin you’re acting so fucking important, man.
UNKNOWN: [Over the radio] Sam to Nine, has the house been cleared yet?
SPECTOR: Okay, okay, okay, ***.
HAMMOND: That’s negative --
PAGE: Negative.
HAMMOND: -- we’re searching the bottom half, uh, towards the east --
SPECTOR: Bottom half, bottom half, bottom --
HAMMOND: -- the west is secured and also the, uh, motorcade is secured at this time. We’ve still got the upstairs after the west -- the east is secured.
SPECTOR: Now, wait a minute now. If you want to search the bottom half --
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Keep the channel clear, please.
SPECTOR: --and the upstairs, ask me.
PAGE: What’d he say?
HAMMOND: Cardella, please keep it clear.
SPECTOR: Why are you standing on my head, asshole? Jesus fucking Christ. I’m not drunk and I’m not stupid. I can tell you what happened. You don’t have to handcuff me. I can tell you what happened. What’s wrong with you people? Jack Mapel worked for me. Jesus Christ, the chief of police worked for me. If you want me to call him, I’ll call him. I don’t want to be an asshole. I’m sorry this happened. I don’t know how it happened, but it happened and I’m sorry this happened. But, excuse me --
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Sam to Nine, I have additional officers I can send up to assist you.
SPECTOR: --but I don’t need to be tied up like a pig. Okay, I’ll hang ***.
HAMMOND: 10-4, send ‘em straight up the, uh --
PAGe: Turn.
HAMMOND: -- front, uh, garden area ---
SPECTOR: ***.
HAMMOND: 888 door 999
PAGE: Front door.
HAMMOND: 10-4, tell ‘em to make the first left --
PAGE: ***.
SPECTOR: Why do you keep stepping on em? What the fuck ***.
UNKNOWN: [over the radio] Roger.
SPECTOR: The gun went off accidentally. She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don’t understand what the fuck you people is wrong with you. Jack Mapel worked for me. He worked for the chief of police. Oh, God. I’m just gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep?
UNKNOWN: ***.
SPECTOR: Do you have to step on my back?
HAMMOND: I don’t want you to get up. Just stay where you’re at.
SPECTOR: No, but do you have to step on my back like an asshole. Jesus Christ, I mean it’s a God-fucking disgrace. I mean, I wouldn’t step on your back ‘cause you would probably ***, Jesus Christ.
HAMMOND: We got Tamayo out there too.
PAGE: Have him -- Nine to Tamayo --
SPECTOR: I’m sorry this happened.
PAGE: -- come in the front door.
SPECTOR: I don’t know how it happened. It scared the shit out of me that happened.
HAMMOND: This is gonna be the door they come up. So, don’t get surprised, Mike if we have *** --
PAGE: Okay.
HAMMOND: -- ***.
SPECTOR: If you’re gonna arrest me, arrest me. I own this castle, I live here, and I’m sorry this happened. And I, I see what happened.
HAMMOND: We have more officers coming back from behind you.
SPECTOR: Oh dear God.
HAMMOND: -- and we’re gonna want him out of here.
JUAREZ: Okay.
HAMMOND: Okay. Uh, has he been searched, Mike?
PAGE: Briefly.
HAMMOND: Brief cursory search.
PAGE: We got-- he’s got a probe in him -- at least one.
HAMMOND: Got at least one probe. Okay, you have to cut the probe -- or cut the wires. And then you stay, stay here. Let them take *** --
SPECTOR: If Jack Mapel were alive --
HAMMOND: -- stay here, make sure this area is secure, all right?
SPECTOR: -- if Jack Mapel were alive, he wouldn’t allow this shit to be done.
HAMMOND: There’s a gun by her feet --
SPECTOR: And I live you guys.
HAMMOND: -- *** revolver.
SPECTOR: -- but I’m sorry. You know -- excuse me --
PAGE: You want me to put that right here?
SPECTOR: -- excuse me. When I see the damage that’s been done -- this is the most devastating thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
HAMMOND: *** tell him to come straight up.
SPECTOR: Oh, come on now. Jesus Christ. *** right now.
HAMMOND: cut the wires and get him out of here. Cut the wires and take him to the car.
SPECTOR: Cut the wires and what?
RODRIGUEZ: Mike?
PAGE: Yeah.
RODRIGUEZ: ***.
SPECTOR: Are you arresting me?
HAMMOND: Here. Here’s the knife, cut ‘em.
UNKNOWN: Okay we got the --
HAMMONd: Don’t pull ‘em. There’s at least one stuck in him Cut ‘em.
UNKNOWN: Cut the --
SPECTOR: No -- before you do, I want to call my lawyer ***. I’m sorry. Don’t hurt me.
KENNEDY: Put your hands ***.
SPECTOR: ***.
HAMMONd: He’s not been searched very well -- cursory search.
SPECTOR: What are you doing *** --
HAMMOND: Search him well.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
HAMMOND: That’s pretty much been, uh, secured -- quick walk through, so --
UNKNOWN: ***.
HAMMOND: Yeah.
UNKNOWN: All right.
[Background Radio Transmissions]
[END OF RECORDING]
----------------------------------------------------
Police reports.
Below are three police reports documenting more of Spector's statements.
Officer Page:
Alhambra Police Department
211 South First Street Alhambra CA 91801
Supplemental Report
Date 02/03/2003 Time 05:02
This is a controlled document for official use only. Unauthorized release of redistribution without permission is prohibited
parties
Spector, Phil S(uspect) - address given
De Souza Adriano R(eporting) - address and phone given
While at APF, I monitored a radio call of possible shots fired at Pyrenees Castle (1700 Grand View). Dispatch further advised that the RP stated that he had heard one shot, that he had seen his boss with a gun in his hand and that he had shot a woman inside the castle. I responded to the location from APD to assist units assigned to the call.
Upon arrival, I made contact with Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond, Rodriguez, Tamayo and Sgt LaGuard. Ofcr Cardella was speaking with the RP (later id'd as R-De Souza). After he finished speaking with him, he advised me that R-De Souza was the driver of the resident at 1700 Grand View. On this date, he had returned to the address to pick up his boss and had driven to the rear of the location. As he was waiting outside the location, he heard what he believed to be a gun shot coming from inside. R-De Souza went to the rear door and opened it. When he did, he observed S-Spector standing in the foyer with a gun in his hand and a female sitting in a chair near the door with blood on her face. When S-Spector saw R-De Souza, he said "I think I killed her." R- De Souza told Ofcr Cardella that he left at that time to call the police.
Based on the information we had at the time, I determined that officers needed to approach the house to check the welfare of the female and the resident (later id'ed as S-Spector. I directed Ofcr Cardella to lead the approach and entry to the location with the ballistic shield. In order following Ofcr Cardella was myself and Ofcrs Hammond, Rodriguez and Tamayo. Ofcrs Kim and Seki took a stationary position at the rear gate to the location on Alta Vista. Prior to entering the north driveway gate, we used a jacket to cover a security camera that was pointing at the north gate.
Once we entered the gate, I saw that the stairs immediately inside the gate on the south side of the driveway led directly to the front (north) doors of the residence. Since there was no cover available, if we were to approach the location by the stairs, I directed Ofcr Cardella to approach the location via the driveway, which led around to the rear of the location.
After following the driveway to the multi car garage, which was near the gate on Alta Vista, I was advised by Sgt. LaGuard that a K-9 unit was possibly available. We waited near the east side of the garage until we were advised that no K-9 unit was available. While we were waiting, we observed a burgundy sedan parked on the east side of the residence. We approached the sedan and Ofcrs Tamayo and Rodriguez cleared it of any possible suspects. I stationed Ofcr Tamayo at the northeast corner of the residence so that he could cover the front door if the suspect attempted to flee in that direction. Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond, Rodriguez and I proceeded to the doorway of the garage located on the northwest side of the building. After reaching the door and entering, I stationed Ofcr Cardella at the door so that he could observe the rear door to the residence while Ofcrs Hammond Rodriguez and I cleared the garage. As we started to do so, we realized that the top floor was being Converted into a living area, with the bottom floor having been divided and containing no vehicles.
As we were clearing the top floor of the garage, Ofcr Cardella advised us via radio that he could see the suspect inside the house and that he thought he was coming outside. We returned to Ofcr Cardella's position, and positioned ourselves behind him and the ballistic shield so that we could observe the rear door of the residence. After a short time (approximately 15 seconds), I observed a white male with shoulder length hair wearing a black shirt and black pants exit the back door of the residence and stand at the top of the stairs leading to the driveway. The suspect had both hands inside his front pants pockets.
Ofcr Cardella verbally identified himself as an Alhambra Police Officer and told the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets. The suspect looked in our direction, but failed to take his hands out of his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again ordered the suspect to remove his hands so that we could see them. The suspect removed his hands from his pockets and raised them over his head and held them there for approximately 3 seconds, then placed them back into his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again told the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets, but he started to turn towards the rear door, then said "You've got to come in and see this". He then stepped into the doorway and out of our sight.
Since we knew the suspect was near the rear door, I told Ofcr Cardella to move out of the garage and take a position near the rear door so that we could keep him as contained as possible. We approached to the east of the door, then moved west at an angle until we were approximately 4 feet from the bottom step that led to the rear door.
We could see the suspect standing in the rear doorway, still with his hands in his pockets. Ofcr Cardella again ordered the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets, but the suspect made no attempt to do so. After Ofcr Cardella issued the order for the suspect to take his hands out of his pockets several more times, and the suspect refused to comply, I fired my M26 Air Taser, which was pointed at the suspect. I observed the top dart make contact to the upper chest area of the suspect, and the lower dart move towards the suspect's lower body. When the darts struck the suspect, I saw that the suspect showed no visible signs of incapacitation. The suspect started to back away from us, so I told Ofcr Cardella to move towards the suspect. As Ofcr Cardella started to move, I removed the cartridge from the end of my Air Taser and followed him, with Ofcrs Hammond and Rodriguez following me.
We entered the house. with the suspect approximately 3 feet inside the foyer. Ofcr Cardella struck the suspect with the ballistic shield and shoved him backwards towards the staircase. he then dropped the shield and moved to my left, allowing me to move forward. I reached the suspect and placed the M26 Air taster against his upper body and activated it. l Again I saw no visible signs of incapacitation on the part of the suspect, so I continued moving forward and shoved the suspect against the staircase again, then grabbed him with my left hand and forced him to the ground. I landed with my left knee on the suspect's back, and my right knee on the ground next to his right side.
When the suspect landed on the ground, he was lying face down with his right arm extended straight above his head, and his left arm was underneath his body with his left hand protruding out the right side of his upper body. I grabbed his left hand with my left hand, and his right arm with my right hand. Due to the position I was in, the HK MP5 that I had moved to my back slid around to where it was easily within reach of the suspects left hand.
During the struggle for the suspect's right arm, I was forced to discard the M26 Air taser, which landed to the right of our position. When I looked to see where it was, I observed a female sitting slouched in a chair approximately 4 feet away from where we were on our right. The female was white with blond hair, and her head was lolled to the left. She was also wearing a black dress. I also saw that she had a bloodied face and chest and was not responding to what was happening immediately in front of her.
Concerned that the suspect could possible take control of my HK MP5, I yelled to Ofcr Cardella to remove the weapon from my body and place it away from us. I had to yell to Ofcr Cardella due to the fact that the suspect was also yelling, as was Ofcr Hammond. Because I was focused on keeping the suspect from gaining control of my weapon and yelling instructions to Ofcr Cardella, I did not hear what the suspect said. I directed Ofcr Hammond to take control of the suspect's right arm, so that I could release him in order to allow Ofcr Cardella to remove the MP5 sling from my body, which they did. After the weapon was removed from the immediate area, I pulled the suspect's left arm out from underneath his body and moved it back behind his back. Ofcr Hammond moved the suspect's right arm behind his back, and we were able to place him into handcuffs. After the suspect was restrained, I conducted a cursory pat down search of the suspect's body and found no weapons.
I knelt with my left knee in the small of the suspect's back, my left hand on the suspect's upper back and trained my handgun on the stairs behind us. Since we did not know if there were any additional victims or suspects inside the residence, I directed Ofcrs Cardella, Hammond and Rodriguez to start searching the west wing of the ground floor, which they did. I asked Sgt La Guard to have officers who had arrived at the command post to respond to the house to assist us with searching. While waiting for these officers to arrive, I heard the suspect say "I can tell you what happened".
I turned on my micro cassette recorder that was in my left breast pocket of my uniform shirt. Since I did not want to engage the suspect in conversation and divert my attention from the unsecured stairway. I did not respond to his statements. Ofcr Hammond assisted Ofcrs Cardella and Rodriguez with the clearing of several rooms, he returned to my position to take over the controlling of the suspect. When Ofcr Hammond assumed control of the suspect, I retrieved my MP5 which Ofcr Cardella had placed inside and to the left of the rear door.
After retrieving my MP5, I looked at the female and observed that she was not breathing and appeared to be lifeless. I also saw that on the floor, under her left leg, near her ankle was a small black revolver with blood on it's wood grips. I moved back to the left of Ofcr Hammond and continued to cover the stairs. While I was standing near the suspect, I heard that he was still talking, so I removed my cassette recorder and placed it on the stairs near the suspect. At this point, additional officers arrived and took control of the suspect. I moved to where Ofcr Cardella and Rodriguez were still searching the residence and assisted them. We conducted a thorough search of the house without locating any additional victims or suspects.
After completing my search, I found that Cpl Juarez had removed my cassette recorder from the stairs after the suspect had been removed from the house. When he heard that I was looking for my recorder, he found me and returned it. I noticed that the cassette tape had been removed and he informed me that he had given it to Ofcr Kennedy, who was handling the initial crime report. I left the location and responded back to APD for debriefing.
Upon arrival at APD, Lt Nater advise me to retrieve the cassette from Ofcr Kennedy. I responded back to 1700 Grand View gained possession of the tape from Ofcr Kennedy.
Upon returning to APD, I played back the portion of the tape that I had made while the suspect was in the foyer. As I reviewed it, I heard the suspect make the following statements
LAPD works for me
I will tell you what happened
I'm sorry there's a dead woman here, and I'm sorry this happened
I'm not drunk, and I'm not stupid. I can tell you what happened
I'm sorry this happened, I don't know how it happened
The gun went off accidentally
She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake
I want to go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep
I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened. it scared the shit out of me that it happened
I see the damage that's been done ... this is the most devastating thing I've ever seen in my life
The suspect made several additional statements but it was difficult to hear exactly what was said due to the recorder being inside my pocket. The tape was given to LASO Detectives Fournier and Tomlin on this date at 1315 hrs for their investigation.
----------------
Officer Pineda (now Rodriguez)
Alhambra Police department
Investigations Division
Supplemental Report
Suspect Spector, Philip
Victim Clarkson, Lana
Crime 187PC
Report Date 02/03/03
Report by Cpl Pineda Date 02/18/03
On 02/03/02 at 0505 hours, I was enroute to the Alhambra Police Department in an unmarked detective police car equipped with a police radio. I heard the initial broadcast of information regarding a shot heard and a woman down at 1700 S. Grandview Drive. Based on the further radio traffic, I telephoned the Watch Commander (Lieutenant David Nater #153) and advised that I was enroute to be of assistance. I advised Lt. Nater that I would contact Detective Daniel Rodriguez #110 because he would be available to assist as well. While at the Alhambra Police Department, I heard confirmation that one subject was dead. I advised Lt. Nater that I would respond to the scene to gather initial information for notification to my supervisor, Sergeant Debbie Santana #215, and the deployment of on-coming detectives.
On 02/03/03 at 610 hours, I arrived on scene and contacted Officer Henry Reyes #224 at the command post (north side entry gate of the property). I asked for an update on the activity and then entered the crime scene. Before entering the vehicular gate, I observed a brand new (dealer advertised plates) black, Mercedes Benz, parked in front of the property's address plaque (facing west toward the front vehicular gate). Someone advised me that the vehicle was driven by the property owner's chauffer. I also observed a medium size dog crate on the ground just outside the vehicular gate. I asked another officer to provide information on the animal inside. I was advised that there was a dog inside and that the San Gabriel Valley Animal Control office had been notified to pick up the dog because no resources were available to stand by with it. I then walked up the numerous north side front yard steps leading to the glass front doors. I found the front doors wide open and several officers inside the foyer. I observed the decedent (later identified as vict-Clarkson, Lana) on a light colored chair near the south wood entry door. An Alhambra Fire Department paramedic was removing monitoring equipment from her chest. The medic was not making any life saving efforts. I saw, what appeared to be, fresh blood coming from the areas of her mouth, nose, and her right ear. I observed a small caliber, short barrel revolver (poss 2" barrel, blue steel, wood grips) on the carpet slightly under her left calf. Slung on her right shoulder was a faux leopard print hobo style purse. I did not observe any obvious forms of identification. Due to the circumstances, I believed she was dead.
In an effort to determine the victim's identity and maintain scene preservation, I contacted the handling patrol officer, Officer Garrett Kennedy #233. Officer Kennedy was outside of the vehicular gate (north side of property) interviewing a male subject dressed in black pants, white dress shirt, black tie, and a black jacket. This subject was later identified as the reporting party, Adriano De Souza. I listened as Officer Kennedy interviewed R/P-De Souza. I stepped away from the interview to take a telephone call from Sgt Santana. She had been notified of this crime scene and telephoned me for an update. She advised that the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Homicide Division (now referred to as LASD-Homicide) was going to take-over the investigation. She advised that we (the Alhambra units on scene) would maintain the crime scene until LASD- Homicide arrived. I then returned to the interview of R/P-De Souza. I tape recorded part of that interview (later booked into property by me).
I heard R/P-De Souza give the general sequence of events leading up to his last contact with the suspect (later identified as susp-Spector, Philip). R/P-De Souza explained that he was working as the driver for susp-Spector the evening of 02/02/03. On 02/03/03, he transported a lady and susp-spector to susp-Spector's home so they could have a drink. At one point, R/P-De Souza said he thought the woman was named "Lena" or "Lana". R/P-De Souza did not know the woman's last name or her vehicle license number. He described vict-Clarkson's car as a black, Mercury, Cougar. He advised that vict-Clarkson had parked her car a distance away from the House of Blues (5430 Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, 323} 848-5100) before they headed to susp-Spector's home. The last time he saw vict-Clarkson was when he dropped off both susp-Spector and her at the front yard (north side) steps. The next time he saw susp-Spector was when he gave him his items at the back door (approximately 20-30 minutes later). Prior to hearing a shot, the last time he saw susp-Spector was when he gave susp-Spector his leather bag, cell phone, and portable dvd player at the back door. These items were found on a chair just inside the read (south) wooden door. He heard a shot, but didn't see anything. The last time he saw either party is when susp-Spector opened the rear door holding a handgun. R/P-De Souza then saw vict-Clarkson on the chair with blood on her face.
R/P-De Souza advised that he asked susp-Spector, "What happened , sir?" R/P-De Souza further advised "he was completely drunk." R/P-De Souza said that susp-Spector said, "I think I killed somebody." R/P-De Souza said he looked inside and saw a woman on the floor with blood on her face. He confirmed that this was the same woman he had driven to the Spector home earlier. He clarified that she was slumped on the chair with her legs in front of her. R/P-De Souza demonstrated that susp-Spector had a gun in his right hand. R/P-De Souza described the gun as a black revolver. R/P-De Souza tried fleeing the scene in the black Mercedes Benz. As he was driving (via the circular driveway leading to the north entry gate) he called susp-Spector's secretary (Michelle, unknown last name at 949} 584-1977) and left a message. he advised that he telephoned 9-1-1 and stayed on the line until the police officers arrived. R/P-De Souza confirmed that the black Mercedes Benz (at the location entry) was the vehicle he had been using.
Via telephone, Sergeant Santana advised that LASD-Homicide detectives wanted to complete a gunshot residue evidence collection (GSR) kit on R/P-De Souza. I then requested a GSR kit be brought to my location. While I was waiting for the GSR kit, I requested consent to search the Mercedes Benz from R/P-De Souza. he advised that the car belonged to susp-Spector. I clarified that he has control of the vehicle as susp-Spector's driver. He then signed the "Consent to Search" form. In the presence of R/P-De Souza and Officer Kennedy, I searched the car. I used gloves to search through the car interior and the trunk. The trunk was empty (aside from the spare tire and tools). The interior did not have any personal items. I found a remote control in the visor, miscellaneous vehicle papers, and the empty trunk (except for the spare tire and tool kit.) Sergeant Santana telephoned and advised that LASD-Homicide detectives requested that R/P-De Souza respond to the Alhambra Police Department for further interview and the completion of a GSR. I asked R/P- De Souza if he would accompany me (in my car) for further interview. He consented. I left the scene at 0650 hours and drove R/P-De Souza to the Alhambra Police Department.
On 02/03/03 at 0745 hours, I completed a GSR kit on R/P-De Souza. I booked the kit into property.
While at the Alhambra Police Department, I requested Records Supervisor Donna Aggers display a Department of Motor Vehicle photograph of a subject with a California Drivers License number of S0021518 by the name of Philip Spector with an address in Pasadena and a different date of birth than the subject in custody. The subject in custody provided the name of Philip Spector with an address in Alhambra. I wanted to confirm/refute the possibility that the subjects were the same people. She was able to display the DMV photo, but not provide a copy to the jailor booking the subject in the jail. She requested CSI Jailer Diana Valarde #574 responded to the Records Section and view the photo on the computer Screen. Ms. Aggers advised that CSI jailer Valarde identified the DMV photo as that of the subject in custody. (See attached color copy of the photo Ms. Aggers was able to print several days later.) I completed a vehicle check on susp-Spector and discovered he had two cars registered to him (both having the same address in Pasadena as his California Drivers License). None of the cars registered to susp-Spector were the Mercedes Benz the driver had used.
On 02/03/03, I contacted Michelle Blaine at the front counter of the Alhambra Police Department. She was in the company of a subject by the name of Jay Romaine. LASD-Homicide Detective Paul Fournier and Detective Richard Tomlin had arrived and completed an interview with R/P-De Souza. At approximately 1045 hours, I escorted Ms. Blaine to the Investigations Bureau so she could speak with LASD-Homicide detectives (regarding the message R/P De Souza left her).Mr. Romaine was left in the public lobby area.
While LASD-Homicide Detectives Fournier and Tomlin interviewed Ms. Blaine, I contacted the jail. Jailer Valarde advised that susp-Spector wanted to speak to a detective. I interrupted the interview with Ms. Blaine and advised Detectives Fournier and Tomlin. I was asked to confirm if susp-Spector had retained counsel or if he wanted to talk freely.
On 02/03/03 at 1143 hours, I entered the jail. At 1145 hours, I took a call inside the jail from a female subject identifying herself as a friend of susp-Spector as Rommie Davis (home/office 818} 752-9393; cellular 818} 422-9024). Ms. Davis said she wanted to speak to susp-Spector. I advised that I would confirm that susp-Spector had received his entitlement of completed phone calls and then I would return her call. (She did not want her name or information released to the media). I was told he had made his allotted phone calls (three), but that the phone numbers he provided were incorrect. I then contacted susp-Spector by having him moved to the jail interview room. I noticed that susp-Spector displayed symptoms of intoxication. he emitted the odor of an alcoholic beverage from his breath and person (he was now wearing a tan jail shirt and tan jail pants). I noticed that his eyes were blood shot and watery. At some point during the conversation I started to tape record the conversation. Tape recording was the easiest/least intrusive way to document any spontaneous statement susp-Spector made. I asked him if he wanted to speak to a detective. He said "no. I would like to have my phone calls first." Since the jailers are responsible for his phone calls, I told him that I would be leaving. As I started to walk away, he engaged me in conversation regarding his phone calls.
I tried to clarify that he wanted to speak to "Jay Rommie" because I thought Jay Romaine was also known by name of "Rommie." Once he found out that Jay Romaine was at the Police station he wanted to visit with him. He also wanted to visit with Ms. Blaine. I left susp-Spector in the attorney/client room and spoke to Jailer Valarde. I then re-contacted susp-Spector. I advised him that he had made one completed call and that he was allowed two more completed calls. he then replied by saying "No. I would like to see whoever wants to see me." I then began to speak, but he cut me off by saying "I would like to make those phone calls later." I then tried to clarify if he wanted to speak with a detective. he did not answer my question. Instead, he asked if he could have visitations. I told him he could not have visitations at that moment. I tried to redirect his attention to the fact that he could make his phone calls now. I transcribed the rest of the conversation as follows
Susp-Spector: "Well, I would like to see the people that want to visit me."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. And you don't want to speak to me?"
Susp-Spector: " Well, I mean, but, but, I can't see them first?"
Det Pineda: "Would you like to speak to the Sheriff's ah ... detectives?"
Susp-Spector: No, I can't see them first?"
Det Pineda: "No. You can speak to us now. Because the opportunity is open to you right now"
Susp-Spector: " No, but I would like to talk to them to find out what the hell is going on"
Det Pineda: "Okay, I can tell you what you're arrested for ..."
Susp-Spector: "... Michelle and, and, Jay ..."
Det Pineda: "Oh, Michelle is talking with the Sheriff's Department Detectives."
Susp-Spector: "Can I just talk to them first?"
Det Pineda: "Ah... I can arrange for that later, but I don't want to wait around if you're not going to talk to me"
Susp-Spector: "Well, no, I just want to talk to them so I can find out what the hell is going on."
Det Pineda: "Okay, Well, you're being charged with murder."
Susp-Spector: "I'm being charged with murder?"
Set Pineda: "Yes. That's one of the things (unintelligible)"
Susp-Spector: "Of whom?"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Well ... Ah... I don't have her name yet, but ...um ... Have you contacted your attorney?"
Susp-Spector: "No. I haven't been allowed to do a damn thing. That's why I wanted to talk to, to ... um ... Jay and ... Michelle."
Det Pineda: "Okay."
Susp-Spector: "Can I talk to Jay and Michelle first?"
Det Pineda: "Um ... Michelle ... You can't talk to her because she's talking to somebody else right now. And jay ... I'll I'll see what I can arrange with the jail because the laws says ..."
Susp-Spector: " Let me talk to Jay and Michelle. Um, in, in the other room"
Det. Pineda: "We can't, we can't bring them inside the jail, but ..."
Susp-Spector: "Oh, I can go out ..."
Det Pineda: " You've made one completed call ..."
Susp-Spector: "I haven't made any calls. I swear to you. I have not made any calls."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. (unintelligible) I, ... (Unintelligible) telling me, but the jailers have laws when you make a call. Those two calls ..."
Susp-Spector: "To whom?"
Det. Pineda: "Those two calls that you, uh, made."
Susp-Spector: "No, no. I made one call to a wrong number."
Det Pineda: "There's two calls you made to a wrong number because they have three calls all together."
Susp-Spector: "Two, eight, one, twenty-nine was the wrong number."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So you want to speak to Jay Romaine, right?"
Susp-Spector: "yeah"
Det. Pineda: "That's the name, because there's a Rommie? But she's a, she's a woman."
Susp-Spector: "Rommie was the person I wanted call who's assigned to reach Robert Shapiro."
Det. Pineda: "Oh, oh, okay. So did you want to get a hold of Rommie?"
Susp-Spector: "To reach Robert Shapiro for me, but if I could get a hold of ..."
Det. Pineda: "Jay"
Susp-Spector: "Jay or Michelle ..."
Det. Pineda: "Okay"
Susp-Spector: "They could reach Robert Shapiro for me."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So let me do this. Um, let me make arrangements to see if, if we could have Jay come over here."
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: " 'Cause this is kind of where he would visit. Okay? if you can get off the counter (unintelligible) ... What I'm going to do is ... temporarily keep you right here ..."
Susp-Spector: "What's happening to my house?"
Det. Pineda: "Uh ... I don't know because I'm not there right now."
Susp-Spector: "Oh, you mean they're there?"
Det. Pineda: "I'm not at your house. No."
Susp-Spector: "No, but I mean what happened at my house?"
Det. Pineda: "That I, that's what I would like to ask you."
Susp-Spector: "No, but I mean what's happening at my house?"
Det. Pineda: "Uh, I don't know because I'm not there."
Susp-Spector: "Can I get my attorneys there? I mean ... How do I ... See I mean, how, how do I get ... How do I find out what is going on?"
Det. Pineda: "Okay, Well I've already ..."
Susp-Spector: "I can tell you what happened, but I can't tell, tell anybody what's going on there now."
Det. Pineda: "Well I don't know either. If you want to tell me what happened, great. You ..."
Susp-Spector: "But then ..."
Det. Pineda: "You were arrested for ... murder."
Susp-Spector: "Of whom?"
Det. Pineda: ""Okay. Well, that's one thing we want to figure out. Um ..."
Susp-Spector: "This is the most bizarre, nonsense, in the, in the ... This is absurd. This (unintelligible)"
Det. Pineda: "Okay, okay. Well let me, make arrangements. You want to get a hold of your ... Is Robert Shapiro going to be your attorney?"
Susp-Spector: "yeah"
Det. Pineda: "On record? Okay. Let me see what I can do about that ..."
Susp-Spector: "How do I get hold of Robert?"
Det. Pineda: "Um ... You said through Jay, right?"
Susp-Spector: "Well, I mean, I mean if you can get a hold of Robert. I, I thought Michelle could get hold of Robert"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Well, Michelle is talking to detectives right now. So let me see what I can do. Okay? I'll be right back."
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: "Okay. Thank you"
Susp-Spector: "Don't leave me alone too long"
Det. Pineda: "Well, you can see me through the window"
Susp-Spector: "Okay"
Det. Pineda: "Alright. Take it easy."
Susp-Spector: "This is terrible, this is ... Imean a (unintelligible)
Det. Pineda: "Okay"
My conversation with susp-Spector ends momentarily. We resume the following conversation
Det. Pineda: "Okay Mr. Spector. What was it that you were saying?"
Susp-Spector: "You heard what I said"
Det. Pineda: "So you don't want to tell me again?"
Susp-Spector: "I, I already told you what I said"
Det. Pineda: "No, I ... You didn't answer my questions. Did you want to speak to Rommie Davis, because she's called. And she said she can get Robert Shapiro for you"
Susp-Spector: "I want him down here. I'm going to make you fucking people pay for this. This is bullshit."
Det. Pineda: "Okay. So you don't want the call to go through?"
Susp-Spector: "This is nonsense. You people have had me here six fucking hours. Maybe nine hours. And you have me locked up like some God damn fucking terd. In some fucking piece of shit. And you treat me. And while this person eats, and shits, and farts (while pointing to a jailer). And you have me jerking around. And (unintelligible) somebody comes over to my fucking house. Who pretends to be security at the House of Blues. And comes over to my house. Remember ... I own the House of Blues. Where this lady pretended to work. Okay? And then just blows her fucking head open in my fucking house. And then comes over, and then and then. Then these people come over and arrest me and bang the shit out of my fucking ass. And beat the shit out of me. And then you pretend and arrest me. And then pretend like your fucking Alhambra. And then, then the Mayor of Alhambra wants me to have Bono come and sing at the anniversary. And bullshit. This is nonsense. This is absolute fucking nonsense. I don't know what the fucking lady, what her problem is. But she wasn't a security at the House of Blues. And she was a piece of shit. And I don't know what her fucking problem was. But she certainly had no right to come to my fucking castle, blow her fucking head open, and say (unintelligible) murder. What the fuck is wrong with you people?".
Det. Pineda: "Tell you what I'm going to do ..."
Susp-Spector: "What?"
Det. Pineda: "I said, tell you what I'm going to do ..."
Susp-Spector: "Yeah. I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm going to be fucking ... Somebody's gonna pay for the fucking. I've been locked up for the fucking last twelve fucking hours. And you fucking people come to my house. And you rummage through my fucking house. And you, you tie me down like a fucking pig. And you know while somebody's dieing there. And you kno, ana, and, and, and it scared the shit out of everybody. While somebody commits suicide ... "
Det. Pineda: "Mr Spector go ahead and have a seat ... I'm going to call Ms. Davis back. You can talk to her on this phone when the phone rings ..."
Susp-Spector: "I just want to get the fuck outta here ..."
Det. Pineda: "Don't pick up the phone until it rings ... Do you understand?"
Susp-Spector: (Silence)
Det. Pineda: "If you don't wish to answer it's ... That's fine. I'll put the call through."
Susp-Spector: "Charge me with murder"
I left susp-Spector in the attorney/client room. The tape continued recording me while I had a short conversation with Ms. Rommie Davis. I left the jail at 1224 hours after a brief conversation with susp-Spector to facilitate the call between Ms. Rommie and susp-Spector. I booked this recording into property.
On 02/03/03 at 1230 hours, I contacted Robert Shapiro in the lobby of the Alhambra Police Department. I confirmed that he was retained as susp-Spector's attorney of record. Mr Shapiro requested that I cease all questioning. I advised Mr Shapiro that his client didn't want to speak to me and no one was asking him questions. I further advised Mr Shapiro that the jail staff was making arrangements to facilitate his conference with susp-Spector. I left Mr Shapiro in the public lobby.
On 02/03/03 at approximately 1315 hours, a subject named Hough, Kim Gregory (CDL#D4380534, work 323 } 848-5125) said he worked at the Foundation Room of the House of Blues. He advised people know him as Kim Gregory. On 02/03/03 (between 0215 and 0220hours) he saw susp-Spector leave (via the elevator) at the House of Blues with a friend/co-worker. His friend's name was "Lana Clarkson" Gregory said he had tried to telephone vict-Clarkson this morning, but he didn't receive a return call. He inquired if vict-Clarkson was the deceased female (at Spector's home) he had heard about. I told him I could not identify the decedent, but I would like all the information he had for his friend. Gregory advised that vict-Clarkson was a tall, 38 year-old woman who lived in Venice. While I spoke to him on the phone, I initialed a DMV check for vict-Clarkson. I discovered vict-Clarkson's California drivers license information as well her car registration information. None of this information came back to an address in Venice. Gregory advised that she had not been working a the House of Blues (as a door hostess) for very long. He gave me two telephone numbers that he had used to contact vict-Clarkson: home 310-822-8498; cellular 310-709-8766). Gregory had last seen susp-Spector wearing a white jacket, black shirt, and black pants. His hair was long. susp-Spector had ordered one or two drinks that evening. Vict-Clarkson was wearing an all black pantsuit that had a halter-style top. When I terminated the call, I provided LASD-Homicide Detective Tomlin with vict-Clarkson's information. I also provided the telephone information to Sgt Santana in an effort to have her confirm the residence of vict-Clarkson.
On 02/03/03, I located the crime scene investigation photo logs. Photographs of the crime scene were taken on four rolls of film by Corporal Gabriel Ponce #123. The film rolls are as follows #03-11, #03-45, #03-46, #03-47 (see film logs)
On 02/03/03, while at the Alhambra Police Department I was advised that the videos (from all the police units that responded to the initial call for service) were removed from the cars and booked into evidence by Officer Tai Chi Seki #220. I photocopied the "Officers Daily Assignment Sheets" used by the Alhambra Police Department. This form is used to keep track of the employees (officers and CSOs) who worked a particular shift. The following information is logged on the form: shift, unit beat assignment, vehicle, guns (see copies). The officers are responsible for notifying Dispatch of the vehicle and weapons they are putting into service for their work shift. The dispatchers complete the eform with the information provided by the officers. The following officers were driving the corresponding police cars:
Corporal Michael Page #133 Unit #758
Officer Efren Tamayo #225 Unit #762
Officer Beatrice Rodriguez #202 Unit #763
Officer Brandon Cardella #194 Unit #764
Officer Steven Kim #122 Unit #765
Sergeant Gary La Guard #141 Unit #567 Chevy Suburban
Officer Tai Chi Seki $220 Unit #768
Officer James Hammond #195 Unit #770
On 02/03/03, I directed Detective Kenny Lee #173 to take photographs and photo copies of the property (less clothing) taken off of susp-Spector. At 1600 hours, while inside the jail, Det. Lee took digital photographs of the following:
$348 dollars cash
Two pairs of prescription glasses
paper with a list of people's phone numbers
Credit cards/business cards
Receipt for House of Blues (02/03/03 at 0210 hours, $13.50 bill - $463.50 paid)
Items of jewelry (2 watches/2 rings)
Key ring with one "Ace" key and two smaller keys
Pouch with medical type supplies
Lipstick, 2 lancets
Obstetrical towelette
Baggie with pills and a package of Listerine Pocketpals
Oral-B dental proxibrush
Det. Lee gave me the photocopies, diskette and four Polaroids pictures taken by a Jailer Valarde. I later booked these items into property. Color copies of the digital photos were printed prior to booking the diskette.
On 02/03/03 at 1425 hours, I returned to the crime scene. I met with the detectives in charge of the crime scene (LASD-Homicide Detective Sergeant Steve Katz and Detective Mark Lillienfield). While at the scene Sgt. Santana advised that one of the telephone numbers I provided for vict-Clarkson returned to an address in Venice. She provided that information to LASD-Homicide detectives and I provided that information to the detectives on scene.
On 02/03/03 1700 hours, Alhambra Police Detective Martin Ng #226 escorted susp-Spector's car (Mercedes Benz, s430, VIN# WDBNG70J02A297947, black) as it was towed via flatbed by Al's Tow to LASD-Temple station (per LASD-Homicide request). He released the keys to LASD-Temple Deputy Garry Claypool. (See CHP 180-Vehicle Rep[ort). The car was later returned to susp-Spector's home (per LASD-Homicide) on 02/04/03
According to jail records the following is an account of susp-Spector's stay in Alhambra police Department custody:
Arrested 02/03/03 0609 hours
Arrived at Alhambra PD jail 02/03/03 0628 hours
Medical check inside the jail 02/03/03 0629 hours
(Alhambra fire Dept paramedics #71 Jaime Olmos #216 and Michael Brown #224)
Susp-Spector left the jail 02/03/03 1652 hours
(Taken to medical facility for evidence collection by Sgt. Santana)
Susp-Spector returned to the jail 02/03/03 1838 hours
Susp-Spector released on bail 02/03/03 1900 hours
(Return date set for 03/03/03)
In the morning of 02/04/03, I telephoned Glory Sprigs of the California Highway Patrol. I verbally requested her agency not release the 9-1-1 call. A follow-up letter was sent to CHP by Sgt Santana. I requested a copy of the CHP dispatch tape be sent to the Alhambra Police Department. I also made a similar request from Alhambra Police Department Lieutenant Don Craton #115 for the Alhambra Police Department dispatch tape. Lt. Craton booked the 9-1-1 tape into property.
On 02/04/03, I requested information from the Code Enforcement Section of the City manager's office at Alhambra City hall. On 02/06/03, I received an envelope containing the property information of 1700 S. Grandview. Susp-Spector owns two properties (1700 Grandview Drive and 2937 Terrace Avenue). The second property (2937 Terrace Avenue) is a short street north west of the Grandview drive location. I booked into property a map of the Grandview property. The information I received from Code Enforcement was that there were two calls for service at the Grandview address. The first call for service was dated 05/28/98 for weed/rubbish abatement. Color photos were included as part of the investigation. The second call for service was dated 10/19/98 for weed/rubbish abatement. Color photos were included as part of the investigation. For both instances compliance was accomplished. these records are included with this report.
On 02/04/03 at 0945 hours, I returned to the crime scene. Some time that morning, I was present when LASD-Homicide Det Sgt Katz removed a starter pistol (in a shoulder holster) from the top drawer of a cabinet in the foyer. This cabinet was located south of the entryway to the east living room. it was a blue steel. 2" revolver made in Japan. It was void of any ammunition. He took possession of the pistol.
While at the crime scene, LASD-Homicide detectives requested Cpl. Page and Officer Kennedy return to the crime scene to assist them in recreating the scene as they encountered susp-Spector. They responded to the scene on 02/04/03.
On 02/04/03 at 2005 hours, I was still at the location when the crime scene and susp-Spector's vehicle were released to Robert Shapiro and his staff. No further uniformed presence was maintained at the location. I took custody of the Major Incident Log and later booked them into property (See copies).
On 02/05/03, I contacted Det. Ng and requested he locate the four rolls of film taken by Cpl Ponce on 02/03/03. He located them and maintained custody of them until I met with him on 02/06/03.
On 02/06/03 in the afternoon, I responded to a public photofinishing shop with four rolls of film taken by Cpl Ponce. I was present while the film was processed. The CSI film that I had processed were rolls #03-11, #03-45, #03-46, #03-47. (See film logs). Two 5"x7" copies of each photograph and the negatives were booked into property.
On 02/06/03, I requested all calls for service that Alhambra Police Dept had for the time susp-Spector was living at the 1700 Grandview location. (05/22/98 - 02/03/03). I received the following information
04/16/99 Light pole damaged (Alhambra Police Officer Ruben Soriano called)
10/24/99 Traffic accident (car into a pole)
05/14/02 Road hazard (Alhambra Fire Dept Captain Craig Toups called)
There were no calls for service that Alhambra Police Department had for the time susp-Spector owned the 2937 Terrace location (09/08/00 - 02/03/03)
On 02/06/03 at 1300 hours, I recovered the air taser gun used on susp-Spector. Sgt. La Guard advised that he had given Cpl Page the taser gun from the watch sergeant's car. The Alhambra Police Department had not deployed or used any air tasers since it was used on sup-Spector[sic] on 02/03/03. Sgt. la Guard retrieved the air taser from the watch sergeant's car. Since the air taser had been put back into service since the 02/03/03, it was loaded with a new cartridge. I booked the gun (as removed from the police vehicle) into property.
On 02/06/03 at 1310 hours, I telephoned the Los Angeles Department Animal Care and Control - Downey Shelter (11258 S. Garfield, Downey 90242). I spoke to Animal Control Officer II Carmen Garcia regarding an animal recovery from 1700 S. Grandview Drive. She advised that on 02/03/03 at 0705 hours she took into protective custody a dog per the Alhambra Police Department. On 02/05/03 at 1600 hours, Michelle Blaine (secretary to susp-Spector), came to the shelter and took custody of the dog after paying a fee of $66.80. Ms. Blaine took custody of the dog for the owner (unknown to me).
On 02/07/03 at 645 hours, I contacted Officer Brandon Cardella #194. I made an inquiry into the fact that there were two Alhambra Fire Department personnel who responded into the crime scene (Paramedic Rodney Merino #005 and Paramedic David Riggs #218). Officer Cardella clarified that Paramedic Riggs came inside the house and his partner stayed outside of the house. This fact was misstated by Corporal Henry Juarez #191 in his supplemental report.
On 02/07/03 I contacted Officer Derek Gilliam, #234. he had originally taken susp-Spector's clothes from him inside the jail. I inquired if the "black boots" listed on the booking sheet were also booked into evidence. Officer Gilliam advised that since susp-Spector was not wearing them inside his cell, he did not taken [sic] from susp-Spector's property. The jailors had left susp-Spector's boots (per standard practice) in a crate with the remaining portion of his property (As photographed by Det. Lee).
------------------------------------------------------
Officer Gilliam:
Officer Gilliam
Alhambra Police Department Supplemental Report 02/03/2003 13:30
Parties Spector Phillip S(uspect) 1700 Grandview Dr Alhambra Ca 91801
Upon arrival to Alhambra police Dept. at approx 0530 hours, I was advised by W/C Sgt Oda (222) that a possible shooting was being investigated by fellow officers at Pyrenees Castle (1700 S. Grandview Dr.) and that I need to respond immediately to assist. Officer Heckers (135) and I immediately took an available unit and began responding to the location.
Upon arrival at approx 0559 hours I saw Ofcr. Reyes outside the closed gate of the residence. Ofcr Reyes told me that they are searching the inside of the residence and would like assistance. We entered the front gate, walked up several steps and entered the residence through the double doors, located at the front of the residence. Upon entering the house I observed a blond, female slouched in a chair located on the east side of the entrance hallway, directly across from the stairwell. Officer Hammond requested my assistance upstairs. When walking up the stairs I briefly turned to my left and saw the female with her legs stretched out directly in front of her. I saw blood coming from both nostrils and blood coming from the right side of her mouth. I saw her arms over the arm rests of the chair. her lower lip was either swollen of she had an extreme under bite. She was wearing black short dress with black fishnet nylons. her hair was dish water blonde.
I arrived at the top of the stairs with Ofcr Reyes, Ofcr Hammond and Corp Page we continued our search of the house. I was told to cover the balcony which approx. covers the north side of the upstairs of the residence. Officer Cardella advised all officers that were upstairs that all was clear. officer Hammond, Officer Reyes, Officer Tamayo and I then searched the garage area and advised that it was clear.
While monitoring my portable radio, I heard Officer Heckers transporting S-Spector to A.P.D. for booking. Knowing that S-Spector was uncooperative at the residence I chose to respond to the station to assist Officer Heckers. Upon my arrival I entered the jail and found S-Spector sitting on the waiting bench in the booking area and Officer Heckers standing to the left of him.
S-Spector was very belligerent and began calling the jailor a "fat ass" He refused to talk to anyone and kept making obnoxious statements to the jailor. S-Spector was extremely angry and kept asking if we were doing anything about the dead lady in his residence. I responded "Yes". He continued to ignore our request to cooperate during the booking process and he continued to deny us any form of response. S-Spector asked if he could call Robert Shapiro, immediately I told him "the quicker he cooperates the quicker he will be allowed to make his phone call, but we need to know who he is". The jailors photographed him and he continued to become more and more defensive and belligerent. I smelled a strong odor of alcohol emitting from his breath and when he talked he had very dry mouth. His words slurred together and he had a tough time maintaining his balance. His eyes were bloodshot and continually asked me to call "Robert" for him. I told him that I do not know Robert's phone number and that we will definitely provide him the opportunity to make his call. The jailors who were present continued to try to get him to answer their questions, but he was very uncooperative.
The jailors then chose to put him in an interview room to hopefully sober up and relax. I was instructed by Sgt Oda to sit with him until he was willing to cooperate. He started to tell me about his song writing and some of the big names he worked with, and relationship with George Harrison. I told him that I believe my uncle is friends with George Harrison and he asked who my uncle was and I told him Terry Gilliam from Month Python. He laughed and rambled on about another officer a long time ago who had told him that he had family in show business as well. I told his I was being honest and that I had no reason to lie to him. S-Spector told me that he had owned the rights to Monty Python at one time. He then looked at me with a blank stare and said "Do you know there is a dead woman in my house and what are you doing about it". I advised him that we had officers at his home providing protection for the crime scene. He looked at me again with a blank stare and asked me what happened at his house. I told him "I wasn't there and so I did not know what happened". he repeated the question two more times with a lot more anger and emotion each time and I repeated the same answer each time manner in hopes of settling him down. He told me that she worked at the House of Blues and was a friend of his. S-Spector changed the subject and told me about some of the bands that he had worked with in the past such as Bush, Bono, The Beatles, and then after the beatles he began mumbling and I couldn't understand what he was saying. he told me that he has an up and coming performance with Bono in New York and said that he had to go because he needed to get on a plane to new York.
S-Spector looked at the ground and slowly raised his head stating to me "I don't know where she got the gun from but she started waiving it around". He said that he told her to put it down, he said, she refused. S-Spector told me that she began singing his songs that he wrote such as: you've lost that loving feeling and Da Do run run. he stated that she stuck the gun to her head and pulled the trigger. he then said that he continually tired to wake her.
During the time he was telling me about the victim and her actions, he was extremely animated with his actions. S-Spector took his right hand and formed it into a gun by folding his three lower fingers (pinky to middle finger) pointing his index finger straight out, and holding his thumb in a manner which reflects the hammer of a gun. He would put it to the right side of his head and move his thumb in the same manner that a hammer on a gun would move. When he would pretend to pull the trigger he showed me the way her head went back and how she wouldn't move. A couple of times he would hold the position of his head on the back of the chair for approx 5-10 seconds I was a little concerned because each time he performed the scenario it was done with more and more emotion and he would hold his head back longer. During one of the demonstrations he looked at me smirked and said "you don't pull a gun out on me" and did a slight giggle. he made this statement slightly quieter than all of his other statements. He asked me again if I had Roberts phone number and I advised him that I did not.
I asked him if he was willing to cooperate with the jailors now so that we could get his booking process done and allow him to make his phone calls. S-Spector stated "Yes. OK" We exited the interview room and walked back over to the jailers front desk. I had him remove both of his watches and attempt to remove his rings. He was unable to remove his rings so I allowed him to keep them on his fingers. He provided us with all the information with a slight hesitation, but upon completion he made his phone calls. At this time Corp. Juarez (191) came into the jail and asked S-Spector if he would be willing to perform a breathalyzer test, he stated "No" I also asked him and he repeated he was still unwilling to do the test.
I then requested S-Spector to remove his clothing so that I could collect as evidence. At this point, he was very cooperative with us. The jail provided him with clothing. I watched S-Spector as he changed his clothes and after he took them off he set them on the floor of the cell. I collected the evidence off of the floor using Diamond Grip Plus, powder free latex exam gloves and put each piece of clothing in a separate bag to avoid any contamination. I then folded the tops of the bags and requested the assistance of officer Kim to help me staple and secure the evidence (see property sheet for further details)
---------------------------------------------------------
Special thanks to loyal T&T reader Kim who transcribed the three officers reports. Sprocket.
Justice for Jeffrey
Officer Fontana's brother Greg and his mom Sandy
(below) Officer Jeffrey Fontana Memorial
I wrote about the murder of San José police officer Jeffrey Fontana in February, and the trial of his killer which started last month. Unfortunately for me, real-life work has made it impossible for me to attend this trial, even though the courthouse is a short 10-stop, 15-minute light rail ride away.
However, Officer Fontana’s brother Greg is blogging about this trial. Please check out his blog and offer your support for his family.
Justice for Jeffrey
I don't believe I have ever read about a trial that has so many witnesses who "can't remember" because they've since had blows to the head for whatever reason (motorcycle accidents!) or have killed off brain cells for other reasons (drug and alcohol abuse?). One witness took the Fifth and refused to testify. Some truly upstanding citizens are involved as witnesses in this case!
Our thoughts are with Officer Fontana's family as they are forced to watch a "fine" defense attorney point his fingers at another suspect, claiming his newly-retarded client is innocent of the whole thing! Deputy District Attorney Lane Liroff is doing his very best to make sure the right thing is done for Jeff, his family, those who loved him and of course SJPD!
Justice for Jeffrey: Slain cop’s brother blogs about trial of suspected killer
Is Justice Delayed Justice Denied?
Why Try So Hard to Maintain Order in Oakland, California?
From top left, clockwise: Oakland PD’s Officer John Hege, Sgt. Daniel Sakai, Sgt. Mark Dunakin, and Sgt. Ervin Romans died carrying out their duties as police officers in Oakland.
Update—Officer Hege has died.
I think by now anyone who has read my rantings knows I am a law-and-order type. I hold the utmost respect for the men and women who choose to devote their lives to the job of law enforcement in its many shapes and forms, but I have a special admiration for those out in the field, assigned with keeping the majority of the population safe from a small but increasingly vile group of evildoers who seem to enjoy inflicting their cruelty and chaos on all of us.
And for me, one of the most repulsive crimes is that of murdering a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty. Period.
On March 21, 2009, the worst of humankind reared its ugly head in Oakland, California. I’ve introduced you to Oakland in previous entries about the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) incident on January 1 of this year, when a BART police officer (I believe accidentally) killed a passenger who was being detained for fighting on one of the trains.
My father was born in Oakland in the 1920s. The Oakland of my father’s time—a city he described as beautiful, safe, culturally rich and vibrant—is long gone. Frankly, today it’s ‘da hood, and though city officials are working hard to gentrify the city, it seems to be a losing battle. Police are overworked investigating gang-related crimes, from graffiti to drug trafficking to assault and of course, the murder that no one knows anything about and ends up unsolved.
Yesterday three Oakland police officers were murdered during two separate incidents, but caused by one perp. Today three families are in mourning, another officer is in an Oakland hospital on life support, a fifth is home recovering from minor injuries.
Incident #1 started as a simple traffic stop at 1:15 p.m. Gunned down at that crime scene were Sgt. Mark Dunakin, age 40, who died later at Oakland’s Highland Hospital, and officer John Hege, age 41, who is clinging to life in grave condition. The suspect, Lovelle Mixon, age 26, who used an assault rifle (weapon #1) on the motorcycle officers, fled the scene.
Mixon was no Boy Scout. The convicted felon was on parole for an assault with a deadly weapon, and was also wanted on a no-bail warrant. Sad to say, the city of Oakland is chock full of his type.
Incident #2 occurred two hours later as 200 officers from Oakland PD, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, BART Police and the California Highway Patrol searched the area for Mixon. After locating the suspect thanks to an anonymous tipster, SWAT officers formed a perimeter around the building and went to work trying to contact the suspect. Eventually police entered the apartment, and Mixon jumped out of a closet with a second assault weapon (yes, that’s weapon #2), killing SWAT team members Sgt. Ervin Romans, age 43, and Sgt. Daniel Sakai, age 35, both of whom died at Highland Hospital. A fifth officer, yet unidentified, was grazed by bullets but was treated and released.
(An aside about Highland Hospital. If you suffer from a gunshot wound, it is the place to be. It is where all of the gunshot victims end up. The staff is highly skilled in the treatment and trauma surgery required after innocent citizens and hoodlums end up on the wrong side of a weapon.)
Mixon was killed by the officers who were obviously in fear of their lives.
Former Oakland mayor and current California Attorney General Jerry Brown (a Democrat who is also the former governor of California and wants the job yet again), said this incident “is bad because he’s [Mixon] a state ward, he’s a state parolee, they let him out. There are hundreds of shooters walking around the East Bay. Our parole system isn’t working.”
I am going to refrain from any political sniping though it pains me to do so.
As officers gathered outside Highland Hospital, waiting to hear any news about their fallen friends, a group of protesters organized and taunted the officers. It is theorized the group that taunted the police are individuals experienced in civil unrest, looking for any excuse to scream about police brutality in response to the BART shooting.
I encourage readers to click on the links below for detailed accounts of this senseless act.
I’m not sure what the answer is for Oakland. My late father told me the city started going down the tubes in the 1960s after President Johnson signed sweeping legislation creating plenty of “entitlement” programs, and that was the beginning of the end for many communities just like Oakland. Gang violence is epidemic, high school dropout rates are abysmal, and many children are raised by undereducated single women with absent baby daddies. Attorney General Brown’s remark about Mixon being a state ward leads me to believe he ended up in the foster care system for an unknown reason (unknown by me).
I also know Oakland isn’t a unique case. The city of Richmond, a short drive from Oakland on Interstate 80, is turning into a smaller-scale Oakland. San Francisco is no longer the picturesque city you remember from travel brochures. And how long has Detroit, Michigan, been an unsafe place?
Please join me in praying for strength for the families of Sgts. Dunakin, Romans and Sakai, who lost their lives trying to save Oakland from itself, and pray for a miracle for Officer Hege. Hopefully the fifth officer makes a full recovery and is able to overcome the horror of what he lived through.
And to the fools in Oakland who seem to think police are bad—you’d better hope that there are still police around to take care of your needs should you be unfortunate enough to need his or her services someday.
(There is also a photo available of the fine young felon who started this tragedy, but I chose not to include his photo.)
3 Oakland cops killed, 1 critically injured; parolee slain in gunbattles
3 Oakland officers killed, one critically hurt
Three police officers killed in Oakland shootings
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Colt Cobra 38 Special Trigger Pull
Guest Entry by Mort Snerd!
One of the mysteries of the Spector murder trial is whether or not Lana Clarkson could have had the strength to turn the weapon on herself and fire. Firearms expert James Carroll testified the Colt Cobra requires 11 pounds of pressure to fire the weapon without the hammer pulled back. With the hammer pulled back, it requires 4.5 pounds of pressure to fire the weapon. At my request, T&T's own "firearms expert," Mortie, has been kind enough to outline an example of what 4.5 pounds of trigger pull would feel like to fire the Colt Cobra in the already primed position. Sprocket.
Here is a simple experiment you can try at home and be your own “Sprocket” or “Joe Friday”. Realize this is only an experiment and is not an accurate demonstration of firing a real Colt Cobra. It is only to demonstrate the difficulties and problems with human anatomy, specifically tensions and articulations in your hand. No cow heads or chickens will be hurt doing this exercise.
1. Locate a black/blue steel paper clamp as shown below. The 1” size has (at least from Staples) had about 4 pounds of pressure to open it. I measured the force with an old fish scale (spring type) and that would have been a good brook trout.
2. Take a pen of any type but make sure it is thick enough to be clamped securely in the 1” clip. Make sure there is a gap left where the spring closes about 1/8” so the pen is securely held.
3. Now take the clip and using your right hand (or left if you prefer) hold the clip using your index finger and your palm. I have not put the pen in the clip for purposes of clarity.
4. With the clip in this position and pen inserted in the clip, rotate your fist directly in front of your face so that your thumb just touches your nose. This is the distance that hand holding a Colt Cobra 2” barrel would have to be to create the measurements made and confirmed by both the prosecution and defense lawyers for the placement of the gun in Lana Clarkson's mouth.
5. Now squeeze your index finger and let the pen drop free from the clip. Some people cannot squeeze hard enough but most will be able to do this. It is not comfortable and if you have arthritis (like me) it hurts. You will also understand some of the dynamics of the human hand and tensions in your ligaments. Now put your self in the position where a year earlier, both of your wrists were in casts from being broken and then re-injured. It is inconceivable and impossible for me to think that a woman would take this position to commit suicide.
Mortie
One of the mysteries of the Spector murder trial is whether or not Lana Clarkson could have had the strength to turn the weapon on herself and fire. Firearms expert James Carroll testified the Colt Cobra requires 11 pounds of pressure to fire the weapon without the hammer pulled back. With the hammer pulled back, it requires 4.5 pounds of pressure to fire the weapon. At my request, T&T's own "firearms expert," Mortie, has been kind enough to outline an example of what 4.5 pounds of trigger pull would feel like to fire the Colt Cobra in the already primed position. Sprocket.
Some experiments to try
Here is a simple experiment you can try at home and be your own “Sprocket” or “Joe Friday”. Realize this is only an experiment and is not an accurate demonstration of firing a real Colt Cobra. It is only to demonstrate the difficulties and problems with human anatomy, specifically tensions and articulations in your hand. No cow heads or chickens will be hurt doing this exercise.
1. Locate a black/blue steel paper clamp as shown below. The 1” size has (at least from Staples) had about 4 pounds of pressure to open it. I measured the force with an old fish scale (spring type) and that would have been a good brook trout.
2. Take a pen of any type but make sure it is thick enough to be clamped securely in the 1” clip. Make sure there is a gap left where the spring closes about 1/8” so the pen is securely held.
3. Now take the clip and using your right hand (or left if you prefer) hold the clip using your index finger and your palm. I have not put the pen in the clip for purposes of clarity.
4. With the clip in this position and pen inserted in the clip, rotate your fist directly in front of your face so that your thumb just touches your nose. This is the distance that hand holding a Colt Cobra 2” barrel would have to be to create the measurements made and confirmed by both the prosecution and defense lawyers for the placement of the gun in Lana Clarkson's mouth.
5. Now squeeze your index finger and let the pen drop free from the clip. Some people cannot squeeze hard enough but most will be able to do this. It is not comfortable and if you have arthritis (like me) it hurts. You will also understand some of the dynamics of the human hand and tensions in your ligaments. Now put your self in the position where a year earlier, both of your wrists were in casts from being broken and then re-injured. It is inconceivable and impossible for me to think that a woman would take this position to commit suicide.
Mortie
Friday, March 20, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Sixty
I did not attend court today.
Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times is reporting that jurors will have the option of involuntary manslaughter when they decide Spector's fate.
Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times is reporting that jurors will have the option of involuntary manslaughter when they decide Spector's fate.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial Day Fifty-nine
Update 2!
Thursday, March 19th, 2009
Today, Judge Fidler will rule on final jury instructions. I will report as soon as a decision is made on the lesser included charge.
Update: 1:00 pm
After all that Judge Fidler still didn't rule on the lesser included! He will rule on that tomorrow when counsel meet in court again at 10:30 am. I have already decided not to go since I am way behind at home.
9:19 am: I'm inside 106 and the only other person there is Linda from San Diego. I notice that there is sunlight coming into the courtroom from the jury room door that has been left open. I get up out of my regular seat to walk down to the far left of the second bench row and try to take a peek in from the gallery. The court reporter Cindy is at her desk and I mention that I've never seen inside the jury room. She replies, "It's just a room." I don't see much. There is a short, wide hallway, a table on the far left with what might be a microwave and a television on a stand behind that. The actual jury room table is out of view. The courtrooms ~at least on the 9th floor~ are all designed where the jury rooms (and I believe the Judge's chambers) have windows.
When Jackson and Truc Do enter the courtroom, I ask Wendy if it's possible to know why the court is dark on March 30th and the 31st. She tells us that the 31st is a State holiday, honoring Cesar Chavez. She also adds that it's customary when a holiday falls on an odd day like Tuesday, most of the courts also take the day before or the day after off.
Wendy asks Weinberg, "Is Mr. Riordan here?" Weinberg responds, "He's trusted this delicate operation to me." When Wendy sees the new table of contents for the defense exhibits she says, "This is a beautiful table of contents." Weinberg responds, "I take full credit."
Truc Do is wearing a dress I don't think I've seen before. It's a deep purple dress with a matching fabric belt. It has pockets and a v-neck with ruffles. All parties mention that the courtroom is hot and Truc takes off her black jacket she's wearing with her dress. It's then that I see that her dress is sleeveless. Even Weinberg took off his jacket. When Fidler finally takes the stand, even he mentions that it's hot in 106 and that he's already put in a request.
Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times enters 106 and sits in her familiar spot in the back row.
When Jackson came into court and sees Linda from San Diego and myself, he makes a comment that we are "hard core" trial watchers because this part of the case, going over exhibits and jury instructions even he would rather not be here. I say to him, "I wouldn't normally be here except for the fact of the defendant's repeated efforts to try to intimidate me."
The first issue that Fidler addresses is a question that Weinberg made of Ester Rodriguez that the people objected to and the objection was sustained. Fidler wanted to get on the record the clarification of his ruling on that issue. Even after Fidler explains his position, Weinberg states for the record that he understands the court's position but he disagrees with it. One of his arguments is something to the effect of, "The defense has been foreclosed from examining [...] them on prior conflicting testimony." As Weinberg continues to argue, Fidler has what I can only describe as an exasperated expression on his face.
The next issue that is discussed is the involuntary manslaughter charge and whether or not it will be included for the jury. Fidler tells the court, "I have a rough idea of what People v. Lee is and People v. Garcia is." Fidler then tells the prosecution that he would like them to refresh Fidler's memory on the 1101(b) witnesses. He won't tell them why, but he is asking them to just go along with him for now and that it has to do with what he thinks is his resolution. Jackson pauses for a time and then tells the court that he is getting his thoughts together. The court tells him to take his time.
Jackson then goes through the 1101(b) witnesses. First he presents Dianne Ogden and the two events that happened to her in summary. Fidler asks, "Did he ever point the gun at her in the second incident?" Jackson responds, "Yes." Next is Stephanie Jennings, then Dorothy Melvin, then Devra Robitaille and last, Melissa Grosvenor. Jackson states that in every incident, at every point, a gun was pointed at each of the women.
Fidler then states what he believes are the facts of Lee. "Lee stands away from all other cases. [...] In Lee, the gun was always between them. There is no testimony that ever said the gun was pointed at her. [...] The people's theory is based on the other incidents. [...] In any event, using that to [...] And in Lee, the description (it was) without further incidents (prior brandishing) is a close contact wound."
In continuing with his train of thought to the people, Fidler asks something to the effect of, "Your prior is [...] show me some substantial evidence [...] give me evidence that it happened any other way."
Jackson responds to Fidler's request. "How did the gun get in her mouth?" He states that he can think of any number of ways and he describes them. He goes onto say, "The question is of intent. Did he intend, (or) tell her to open her mouth?"
There are quite a few more statements by everyone but I don't write them all down. Fidler says something about "Brandish and a completed assault are not (?) events." Jackson continues with, "We believe that there could be a reasonable interpretation where Spector pulls the gun (and a juror could infer themselves how the gun got there)." Fidler speaks again. Then Jackson mentions that Weinberg in questioning every one of the 1101(b) witnesses stated Spector waves a gun around. "Given that we know he waves it (the gun), given that he points it." Jackson finishes with, "I don't know if that gets you any closer. [...] We don't have to know how it got to that point." Fidler, trying to be funny states, "Every time I think I'm close, they drag me back." He then clarifies that this is a line from the Sopranos.
Truc Do then argues a bit more for the people. I think it's Truc who mentions that in People v. Garcia, there are witnesses to verify that there was an assault. There's no question that it wasn't a brandishing. (I'll add a note here that I believe both sides prepared motions on the lesser included issue.)
Weinberg speaks so quickly that I don't get the main thrust of his argument. To start, he says something to the effect, "There is no problem with the court in respect to (invulnerability?) in ruling..." He argues that in Lee, "We don't know what happened." He argues that there is a conflict with 1101(b) witnesses where (there is absence of mistake). He has more argument but I miss getting that last part of it written down.
Jackson states, "We're not going to work on some legal fiction. [...] We are interested in what the law requires. [...] Do I think it's required by law? Yes I do." (This is the crux of why the people have requested the lesser included. Their argument is they feel it is required by law.)
After all this, it's when Fidler waffles and won't give a ruling. "I'll give you a decision this afternoon. Even if we're not in session, I'll get it to you and put it on the record." (Later, at the end of court, he asks both parties if he can give them his decision tomorrow, when they meet at 10:30 am.) At that point, I was going to leave because I did not see the point of staying, however I'm glad I did.
They go over the people's exhibits that number #1 through #299. They withdrawal exhibit #286 which has to do with the MySpace profiles. Weinberg objects to many of the prosecution's exhibits being stylized as to "crime scene." Fidler reminds him that he's told the jury many times that this is just one party's view of the case and not facts in evidence and he overrules on this objection.
Weinberg objects to several documents. He starts with #41(b) which I believe is an image of the Viagra blister pack and that objection is overruled. He objects to the images of the other weapons that were found as well as the images of the holsters and those are overruled.
10:32 am: Pat Dixon enters 106.
Fidler removes exhibits #287 and #288 which were the NIMH's (National Institute of Mental Health) descriptions on depression. The people already indicated that they would not come in. Fidler states he also excludes the information on Intermittent Explosive Disorder. He feels that these documents might take the jurors down "the wrong path."
Weinberg requests that Lana Clarkson's resume be excluded and he's initially overruled. (Later, Fidler states that he will rule on the resume as well as the CV of the defense expert witnesses probably tomorrow.) Weinberg then goes into a long argument to exclude the video tape from the first trial of Jamie Lintemoot's testimony (describing where she saw blood on Lana Clarkson's wrists). His grounds were that it was not produced during her examination. It was only produced during expert opinion. Fidler rules but Weinberg continues to argue. He goes on and on and on trying to get the video out but Fidler stands by his ruling.
Then the defense's exhibits are reviewed and the people are objecting to specific documents. The first exhibit, #500, is a page of transcript testimony from the first trial. Fidler states that, "It can be used to refresh a witness's testimony but basically they cannot be admitted." The people also object to exhibit #501 because (I believe) it's a duplicate of a prosecution exhibit and Fidler does not allow duplicate exhibits. He feels it doesn't matter "who" introduces the exhibit, it draws undue attention to an exhibit if it's duplicated.
Weinberg then goes off on Fidler for removing his exhibits. His tone and demeanor is very upset and angry. He feels that it isn't fair since the defense introduced the exhibit first and it's putting a disadvantage on the defense to have all of "their" exhibits removed when they were the one's who first introduced the exhibit! Fidler says to him, "You're getting excited over something that I don't believe is that important." Weinberg won't let the issue go though, and Fidler snaps back, "I'm NOT going to leave it both in! The answer is no!" He then says to Weinberg, "Mr. Weinberg! You're mad-dogging me!" He actually said that! And then he says something about the look on Weinberg's face staring at him. I can't see Weinberg's face because his back is to me but the Judge obviously reacted to the face that Weinberg gave him.
The people object to defense exhibit #502 and #503 being duplicates of the people's #157. Weinberg is upset again because these are exhibits he introduced first, so I'm gathering from his complaint that these exhibits should be in the defense's book and not the prosecution's. He gives the same argument and Fidler has to explain to him, again, that this is not important whose book the exhibits are in and he will make sure the jury understands that. "I'm going to tell the jury exactly [...] This is a non-issue. It's a made up issue," Fidler states to Weinberg.
Truc Do objects to the Pasadena Police Report on the Dorothy Melvin incident. I then learn something I did not know. Police reports are considered hearsay (because they often contain language of witnesses and/or rely on witness statements). I did not know this. The people want a clarification as to what defense exhibit #506 is. It's a CD and they wish to know the content. Weinberg's response is, "The clerk has it." Jackson's response shows he's clearly irritated by Weinberg's rebuffed answer and asks him directly, "Well, what is it!" We don't get an answer from Weinberg.
More exhibits are removed because they are duplicates of the people's exhibits. The people object to the defense expert's CV's being introduced because not all items on the CV's were discussed in testimony, therefore they argue, they are hearsay. When the people object to that then Weinberg objects to Lana Clarkson's resume on the same grounds. The people also object to many witnesses hand written notes being introduced because they are not official documents. One such example is the notes Dr. Pena took of a staff meeting.
Sometime before 11:00 am, Harriet Ryan leaves. Weinberg then states that he didn't realize that so many of his exhibits would be objected to and therefore he needs to go back through the people's exhibits in the same manner that his exhibits were gone through. Court is finally recessed at 11:30 am. They will reconvene at 10:30 am tomorrow to make the final decisions on jury instructions as well as exhibits.
Just an afterthought, there was no mention of special instruction #1 that the defense wanted.
P.S. I'm still planning on updating the entry on the last day of testimony as well as putting up an entry of all of Spector's statements he made at the house as well as the Alhambra Police Station. At this time, I'm not sure when I'll get that completed.
Update 2: 4:50 pm
After I published this last update, I realized I forgot to give everyone information on closings! Weinberg asks Fidler about having reserved seats or extra seats for the defense. Fidler tells him to let the clerk know (but I believe he adds that it's got to be a reasonable number. It can't be people far removed). Fidler states that he doesn't think there is much media interest but he does say that closing arguments will be filmed. There is no mention that it will be live streamed. Wendy adds that from the number of calls she's been receiving, she believes that there is a lot of interest in the closings and that quite a few people will be showing up. On the first floor, as Linda from San Diego and I exit the elevator, I see Allan Parachini just clearing the security on the first floor. He looks to be in a big rush but I ask him, "Mr. Parachini, Judge Fidler stated that there will be cameras in the courtroom for closings. Is that confirmed?" Allan states, "Yes, there will be cameras." Since it's apparent he was in a hurry to get to wherever he is going I don't bother him with another question.
It is unknown how the court will handle the press and public that show up for this trial. The Public Information Office could take names on whomever shows up first like they did for opening statements, or they could decide draw tickets. For those of you planning on going to closing arguments, be aware that the gallery is quite limited in it's seating. Keep in mind that both sides will get seats for their supporters. And, I suspect that there will be several members from the district attorney's staff that will automatically get seats.
When vior dire was in progress, they were barely able to seat all 75 jurors in the gallery at one time and also have a seat for Rachelle and Spector's bodyguard. During vior dire there was only a single seat for the press and no seats for the public. I only got to sit in the press seat next to the door when the press did not show up. Regardless, I still recommend getting to court early if you plan on trying to get in.
Before court started for the day, I asked Joshua how long the prosecution will argue. He indicated that in total (Jackson and Truc Do) the prosecution will argue about one day. So I ask, in total, about five hours? Joshua thinks that's about right. I also ask about how long the defense will argue. He states that the defense will argue a day-and-a-half. I expect closings will take three days and we will be lucky if the jury gets instructed on Wednesday. I predict the jurors will get instructed on Thursday and get the case directly after.
Thursday, March 19th, 2009
Today, Judge Fidler will rule on final jury instructions. I will report as soon as a decision is made on the lesser included charge.
Update: 1:00 pm
After all that Judge Fidler still didn't rule on the lesser included! He will rule on that tomorrow when counsel meet in court again at 10:30 am. I have already decided not to go since I am way behind at home.
9:19 am: I'm inside 106 and the only other person there is Linda from San Diego. I notice that there is sunlight coming into the courtroom from the jury room door that has been left open. I get up out of my regular seat to walk down to the far left of the second bench row and try to take a peek in from the gallery. The court reporter Cindy is at her desk and I mention that I've never seen inside the jury room. She replies, "It's just a room." I don't see much. There is a short, wide hallway, a table on the far left with what might be a microwave and a television on a stand behind that. The actual jury room table is out of view. The courtrooms ~at least on the 9th floor~ are all designed where the jury rooms (and I believe the Judge's chambers) have windows.
When Jackson and Truc Do enter the courtroom, I ask Wendy if it's possible to know why the court is dark on March 30th and the 31st. She tells us that the 31st is a State holiday, honoring Cesar Chavez. She also adds that it's customary when a holiday falls on an odd day like Tuesday, most of the courts also take the day before or the day after off.
Wendy asks Weinberg, "Is Mr. Riordan here?" Weinberg responds, "He's trusted this delicate operation to me." When Wendy sees the new table of contents for the defense exhibits she says, "This is a beautiful table of contents." Weinberg responds, "I take full credit."
Truc Do is wearing a dress I don't think I've seen before. It's a deep purple dress with a matching fabric belt. It has pockets and a v-neck with ruffles. All parties mention that the courtroom is hot and Truc takes off her black jacket she's wearing with her dress. It's then that I see that her dress is sleeveless. Even Weinberg took off his jacket. When Fidler finally takes the stand, even he mentions that it's hot in 106 and that he's already put in a request.
Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times enters 106 and sits in her familiar spot in the back row.
When Jackson came into court and sees Linda from San Diego and myself, he makes a comment that we are "hard core" trial watchers because this part of the case, going over exhibits and jury instructions even he would rather not be here. I say to him, "I wouldn't normally be here except for the fact of the defendant's repeated efforts to try to intimidate me."
The first issue that Fidler addresses is a question that Weinberg made of Ester Rodriguez that the people objected to and the objection was sustained. Fidler wanted to get on the record the clarification of his ruling on that issue. Even after Fidler explains his position, Weinberg states for the record that he understands the court's position but he disagrees with it. One of his arguments is something to the effect of, "The defense has been foreclosed from examining [...] them on prior conflicting testimony." As Weinberg continues to argue, Fidler has what I can only describe as an exasperated expression on his face.
The next issue that is discussed is the involuntary manslaughter charge and whether or not it will be included for the jury. Fidler tells the court, "I have a rough idea of what People v. Lee is and People v. Garcia is." Fidler then tells the prosecution that he would like them to refresh Fidler's memory on the 1101(b) witnesses. He won't tell them why, but he is asking them to just go along with him for now and that it has to do with what he thinks is his resolution. Jackson pauses for a time and then tells the court that he is getting his thoughts together. The court tells him to take his time.
Jackson then goes through the 1101(b) witnesses. First he presents Dianne Ogden and the two events that happened to her in summary. Fidler asks, "Did he ever point the gun at her in the second incident?" Jackson responds, "Yes." Next is Stephanie Jennings, then Dorothy Melvin, then Devra Robitaille and last, Melissa Grosvenor. Jackson states that in every incident, at every point, a gun was pointed at each of the women.
Fidler then states what he believes are the facts of Lee. "Lee stands away from all other cases. [...] In Lee, the gun was always between them. There is no testimony that ever said the gun was pointed at her. [...] The people's theory is based on the other incidents. [...] In any event, using that to [...] And in Lee, the description (it was) without further incidents (prior brandishing) is a close contact wound."
In continuing with his train of thought to the people, Fidler asks something to the effect of, "Your prior is [...] show me some substantial evidence [...] give me evidence that it happened any other way."
Jackson responds to Fidler's request. "How did the gun get in her mouth?" He states that he can think of any number of ways and he describes them. He goes onto say, "The question is of intent. Did he intend, (or) tell her to open her mouth?"
There are quite a few more statements by everyone but I don't write them all down. Fidler says something about "Brandish and a completed assault are not (?) events." Jackson continues with, "We believe that there could be a reasonable interpretation where Spector pulls the gun (and a juror could infer themselves how the gun got there)." Fidler speaks again. Then Jackson mentions that Weinberg in questioning every one of the 1101(b) witnesses stated Spector waves a gun around. "Given that we know he waves it (the gun), given that he points it." Jackson finishes with, "I don't know if that gets you any closer. [...] We don't have to know how it got to that point." Fidler, trying to be funny states, "Every time I think I'm close, they drag me back." He then clarifies that this is a line from the Sopranos.
Truc Do then argues a bit more for the people. I think it's Truc who mentions that in People v. Garcia, there are witnesses to verify that there was an assault. There's no question that it wasn't a brandishing. (I'll add a note here that I believe both sides prepared motions on the lesser included issue.)
Weinberg speaks so quickly that I don't get the main thrust of his argument. To start, he says something to the effect, "There is no problem with the court in respect to (invulnerability?) in ruling..." He argues that in Lee, "We don't know what happened." He argues that there is a conflict with 1101(b) witnesses where (there is absence of mistake). He has more argument but I miss getting that last part of it written down.
Jackson states, "We're not going to work on some legal fiction. [...] We are interested in what the law requires. [...] Do I think it's required by law? Yes I do." (This is the crux of why the people have requested the lesser included. Their argument is they feel it is required by law.)
After all this, it's when Fidler waffles and won't give a ruling. "I'll give you a decision this afternoon. Even if we're not in session, I'll get it to you and put it on the record." (Later, at the end of court, he asks both parties if he can give them his decision tomorrow, when they meet at 10:30 am.) At that point, I was going to leave because I did not see the point of staying, however I'm glad I did.
They go over the people's exhibits that number #1 through #299. They withdrawal exhibit #286 which has to do with the MySpace profiles. Weinberg objects to many of the prosecution's exhibits being stylized as to "crime scene." Fidler reminds him that he's told the jury many times that this is just one party's view of the case and not facts in evidence and he overrules on this objection.
Weinberg objects to several documents. He starts with #41(b) which I believe is an image of the Viagra blister pack and that objection is overruled. He objects to the images of the other weapons that were found as well as the images of the holsters and those are overruled.
10:32 am: Pat Dixon enters 106.
Fidler removes exhibits #287 and #288 which were the NIMH's (National Institute of Mental Health) descriptions on depression. The people already indicated that they would not come in. Fidler states he also excludes the information on Intermittent Explosive Disorder. He feels that these documents might take the jurors down "the wrong path."
Weinberg requests that Lana Clarkson's resume be excluded and he's initially overruled. (Later, Fidler states that he will rule on the resume as well as the CV of the defense expert witnesses probably tomorrow.) Weinberg then goes into a long argument to exclude the video tape from the first trial of Jamie Lintemoot's testimony (describing where she saw blood on Lana Clarkson's wrists). His grounds were that it was not produced during her examination. It was only produced during expert opinion. Fidler rules but Weinberg continues to argue. He goes on and on and on trying to get the video out but Fidler stands by his ruling.
Then the defense's exhibits are reviewed and the people are objecting to specific documents. The first exhibit, #500, is a page of transcript testimony from the first trial. Fidler states that, "It can be used to refresh a witness's testimony but basically they cannot be admitted." The people also object to exhibit #501 because (I believe) it's a duplicate of a prosecution exhibit and Fidler does not allow duplicate exhibits. He feels it doesn't matter "who" introduces the exhibit, it draws undue attention to an exhibit if it's duplicated.
Weinberg then goes off on Fidler for removing his exhibits. His tone and demeanor is very upset and angry. He feels that it isn't fair since the defense introduced the exhibit first and it's putting a disadvantage on the defense to have all of "their" exhibits removed when they were the one's who first introduced the exhibit! Fidler says to him, "You're getting excited over something that I don't believe is that important." Weinberg won't let the issue go though, and Fidler snaps back, "I'm NOT going to leave it both in! The answer is no!" He then says to Weinberg, "Mr. Weinberg! You're mad-dogging me!" He actually said that! And then he says something about the look on Weinberg's face staring at him. I can't see Weinberg's face because his back is to me but the Judge obviously reacted to the face that Weinberg gave him.
The people object to defense exhibit #502 and #503 being duplicates of the people's #157. Weinberg is upset again because these are exhibits he introduced first, so I'm gathering from his complaint that these exhibits should be in the defense's book and not the prosecution's. He gives the same argument and Fidler has to explain to him, again, that this is not important whose book the exhibits are in and he will make sure the jury understands that. "I'm going to tell the jury exactly [...] This is a non-issue. It's a made up issue," Fidler states to Weinberg.
Truc Do objects to the Pasadena Police Report on the Dorothy Melvin incident. I then learn something I did not know. Police reports are considered hearsay (because they often contain language of witnesses and/or rely on witness statements). I did not know this. The people want a clarification as to what defense exhibit #506 is. It's a CD and they wish to know the content. Weinberg's response is, "The clerk has it." Jackson's response shows he's clearly irritated by Weinberg's rebuffed answer and asks him directly, "Well, what is it!" We don't get an answer from Weinberg.
More exhibits are removed because they are duplicates of the people's exhibits. The people object to the defense expert's CV's being introduced because not all items on the CV's were discussed in testimony, therefore they argue, they are hearsay. When the people object to that then Weinberg objects to Lana Clarkson's resume on the same grounds. The people also object to many witnesses hand written notes being introduced because they are not official documents. One such example is the notes Dr. Pena took of a staff meeting.
Sometime before 11:00 am, Harriet Ryan leaves. Weinberg then states that he didn't realize that so many of his exhibits would be objected to and therefore he needs to go back through the people's exhibits in the same manner that his exhibits were gone through. Court is finally recessed at 11:30 am. They will reconvene at 10:30 am tomorrow to make the final decisions on jury instructions as well as exhibits.
Just an afterthought, there was no mention of special instruction #1 that the defense wanted.
P.S. I'm still planning on updating the entry on the last day of testimony as well as putting up an entry of all of Spector's statements he made at the house as well as the Alhambra Police Station. At this time, I'm not sure when I'll get that completed.
Update 2: 4:50 pm
After I published this last update, I realized I forgot to give everyone information on closings! Weinberg asks Fidler about having reserved seats or extra seats for the defense. Fidler tells him to let the clerk know (but I believe he adds that it's got to be a reasonable number. It can't be people far removed). Fidler states that he doesn't think there is much media interest but he does say that closing arguments will be filmed. There is no mention that it will be live streamed. Wendy adds that from the number of calls she's been receiving, she believes that there is a lot of interest in the closings and that quite a few people will be showing up. On the first floor, as Linda from San Diego and I exit the elevator, I see Allan Parachini just clearing the security on the first floor. He looks to be in a big rush but I ask him, "Mr. Parachini, Judge Fidler stated that there will be cameras in the courtroom for closings. Is that confirmed?" Allan states, "Yes, there will be cameras." Since it's apparent he was in a hurry to get to wherever he is going I don't bother him with another question.
It is unknown how the court will handle the press and public that show up for this trial. The Public Information Office could take names on whomever shows up first like they did for opening statements, or they could decide draw tickets. For those of you planning on going to closing arguments, be aware that the gallery is quite limited in it's seating. Keep in mind that both sides will get seats for their supporters. And, I suspect that there will be several members from the district attorney's staff that will automatically get seats.
When vior dire was in progress, they were barely able to seat all 75 jurors in the gallery at one time and also have a seat for Rachelle and Spector's bodyguard. During vior dire there was only a single seat for the press and no seats for the public. I only got to sit in the press seat next to the door when the press did not show up. Regardless, I still recommend getting to court early if you plan on trying to get in.
Before court started for the day, I asked Joshua how long the prosecution will argue. He indicated that in total (Jackson and Truc Do) the prosecution will argue about one day. So I ask, in total, about five hours? Joshua thinks that's about right. I also ask about how long the defense will argue. He states that the defense will argue a day-and-a-half. I expect closings will take three days and we will be lucky if the jury gets instructed on Wednesday. I predict the jurors will get instructed on Thursday and get the case directly after.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-eight, The Prosecution Rests Their Rebuttal Case!
UPDATE March 17th, 2009: NO SUR-REBUTTAL CASE BY THE DEFENSE!
The next time counsel will be before the jury, will be for closing arguments. Closing arguments are expected to start on Monday, March 23rd at 9:30 am, and could take as long as three-and-a-half days.
Calling only two more witnesses, Nick Terzian and Alhambra Police Officer Ester Rodriguez (aka Corporal Pineda) the prosecution rested it's rebuttal case. As court ended, the defense still had not decided whether or not to put on a sur-rebuttal case. Spector could not talk to Weinberg at this time about it. He had a doctor's appointment. I overheard Weinberg say in the well that he might know by 4 or 5 pm, which would be too late for the court.
Jurors were let go this afternoon around 2:40 pm without knowing for certain if they would return tomorrow for more testimony or return next Monday for the start of closing arguments. They were told that Wendy would call them in the morning and let them know if they would need to return tomorrow afternoon and to let their employer's know that this would still be considered a jury day.
There are several issues that counsel stated they will go over outside of the court's time. That includes deciding on which evidentiary items will be sent in with the jurors (Jackson indicated to the court that there are hundreds of items of evidence that need to be decided upon) as well as finalizing the detailed wording for some jury instructions. Jackson indicated that they would do their best to get as much of this decided outside of the court's time. All the court will be involved with will be the final decision on the involuntary manslaughter charge and the special instruction that the defense wants added. I'm guessing that those issues would be finalized on most likely, Thursday. If I am able to get notice on that, I'll go downtown and cover it.
There was a disagreement between the two parties as to when to start closing arguments. Weinberg wanted them started this Thursday, then the weekend break and then he would deliver his closing on Monday. This would give plenty of time for Ms. Do's rebuttal closing. The prosecution was opposed to that. They wanted to start on Monday and go straight through. Fidler tended to agree with that. Weinberg has an appellate issue that he got transferred down to Los Angeles County on March 25th, in the afternoon. That's why Weinberg wanted to start closings early, to not come up tight against that time where he would be arguing in this case, and also have to argue another case in the afternoon.
Fidler asked Weinberg if he could call the Judge on that case and see if they would agree to a postponement. So, it appears that Fidler is going to call another Judge to see if Weinberg's appellate issue can be moved to another day and time.
It's estimated that closing arguments could take anywhere from two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half days. Fidler does have a seminar that he is attending on Friday the 27th in a building across the street. He stated that he could be called and be in the courtroom in ten minutes if the jury needs anything, so the jury will be able to deliberate on that date. Monday, March 30th and Tuesday March 31st are dark days, but I don't know the reason.
Linda Kenny Baden and her brother-in-law, Robert Baden were in the courtroom today, sitting in the gallery on the defense side. I have no idea why they were here. Also in the courtroom sitting in the back row where Harriet Ryan would normally sit was the defense's jury consultant, Richard Gabriel, who took quite a few notes while he was watching the jury.
More to come....
The next time counsel will be before the jury, will be for closing arguments. Closing arguments are expected to start on Monday, March 23rd at 9:30 am, and could take as long as three-and-a-half days.
Calling only two more witnesses, Nick Terzian and Alhambra Police Officer Ester Rodriguez (aka Corporal Pineda) the prosecution rested it's rebuttal case. As court ended, the defense still had not decided whether or not to put on a sur-rebuttal case. Spector could not talk to Weinberg at this time about it. He had a doctor's appointment. I overheard Weinberg say in the well that he might know by 4 or 5 pm, which would be too late for the court.
Jurors were let go this afternoon around 2:40 pm without knowing for certain if they would return tomorrow for more testimony or return next Monday for the start of closing arguments. They were told that Wendy would call them in the morning and let them know if they would need to return tomorrow afternoon and to let their employer's know that this would still be considered a jury day.
There are several issues that counsel stated they will go over outside of the court's time. That includes deciding on which evidentiary items will be sent in with the jurors (Jackson indicated to the court that there are hundreds of items of evidence that need to be decided upon) as well as finalizing the detailed wording for some jury instructions. Jackson indicated that they would do their best to get as much of this decided outside of the court's time. All the court will be involved with will be the final decision on the involuntary manslaughter charge and the special instruction that the defense wants added. I'm guessing that those issues would be finalized on most likely, Thursday. If I am able to get notice on that, I'll go downtown and cover it.
There was a disagreement between the two parties as to when to start closing arguments. Weinberg wanted them started this Thursday, then the weekend break and then he would deliver his closing on Monday. This would give plenty of time for Ms. Do's rebuttal closing. The prosecution was opposed to that. They wanted to start on Monday and go straight through. Fidler tended to agree with that. Weinberg has an appellate issue that he got transferred down to Los Angeles County on March 25th, in the afternoon. That's why Weinberg wanted to start closings early, to not come up tight against that time where he would be arguing in this case, and also have to argue another case in the afternoon.
Fidler asked Weinberg if he could call the Judge on that case and see if they would agree to a postponement. So, it appears that Fidler is going to call another Judge to see if Weinberg's appellate issue can be moved to another day and time.
It's estimated that closing arguments could take anywhere from two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half days. Fidler does have a seminar that he is attending on Friday the 27th in a building across the street. He stated that he could be called and be in the courtroom in ten minutes if the jury needs anything, so the jury will be able to deliberate on that date. Monday, March 30th and Tuesday March 31st are dark days, but I don't know the reason.
Linda Kenny Baden and her brother-in-law, Robert Baden were in the courtroom today, sitting in the gallery on the defense side. I have no idea why they were here. Also in the courtroom sitting in the back row where Harriet Ryan would normally sit was the defense's jury consultant, Richard Gabriel, who took quite a few notes while he was watching the jury.
More to come....
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-seven Part II, REBUTTAL!
March 12, 2009
Defense Witnesses:
#18 Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (professor of psychology at UC Irvine; testimony complete)
Prosecution Rebuttal:
#35 Steven Katz (LA Co. Sheriff's Lieutenant; former detective and partner to Detective Lillienfeld; testimony complete)
Accredited Press inside the courtoom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times; Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press; Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly
When Spector arrives in 106, I notice there is a button on the lapel of his jacket. It's not one of the big "Obama" or "Team Spector" buttons. This is much smaller and there are several words on it. He passes so quickly I can't read what the button says. I know he has to take it off once he's at the defense table.
9:38 am Harriet Ryan arrives. A few minutes later Wendy is calling the judge. There are no supporters sitting over on the defense side of the room.
There's no jury yet. Fidler informs the court that he received a note from Juror #11. "I'll just read it," he says.
"Harvey Fisher was scheduled to play in a foursome. When we recognized each other he switched to another group. We did not speak." Jackson asks the court to explain the foursome. There's a bit of embarrassment and laughter from the courtroom. Fidler answers, "Must be golf."
The jury is brought in. There are a few more people in the gallery today than usual. Juror #7 waves to the bailiff for another notebook. She is a juror who takes quite a few notes, but not as many as Juror #1.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus takes the stand and a bit of her thirty-seven page CV is presented to the jury. She is a professor of psychology at UC Irvine and also a professor of law since 2002. Before that she taught at University of Washington in Seattle for 29 years. She has also received six honorary degrees at several universities, including the law degree from John Jay Criminal Justice. She is also a member of many honorary societies. She's also a member of the National Academy of Scientists.
9:49 am Linda Deutsch arrives.
Dr. Loftus states it's an honor to be elected to that organization. Weinberg states he's not going to go through all of her CV, but then he starts reading from it. She was selected as one of the top 100 most distinguished psychologists.
Dr. L: Yes. I believe that's how I got the job at Irvine.
After she said that, she did something interesting with her face; it was an expression that I've seen featured on that new show on Fox, Lie To Me, but for the life of me I can't remember what emotion they said it meant.
Dr. Loftus is the author of 22 books, two of which are Eyewitness Testimony and Memory. She obtained her Ph. D. in 1970 and has been testing and publishing on memory ever since. AT some point, its mentioned that after the 60 minutes show she did on Sunday, she was contacted by the FBI to write an article.
Dr. Loftus is asked questions about memory.
Dr. L: In general, memory doesn't work like a video tape. It's much more complex. In general, there are three main stages. 1: acquisition, which is the laying down stage. 2: retention and then 3: retrieval. To explain these basic elements and how they're put down, she gets up from the witness box and stands in front of the bulletin board and draws on some white paper that has been put up there to show the three different elements. She now looks like she's a professor, teaching a class.
DW: The final memory produced; how reliable is it?
I look on over at the jury. $5's arms are crossed. #11 is not taking notes.
Dr. Loftus states that the more time you have to look at something will result in better memory. In studies, she has found that subjects are not very good at estimating time. "They tend to over estimate. They think they have longer than they did," she testifies. Dr. Loftus states that in regards to auditorally, some of the same laws apply, no matter if visual or audio. She testifies that there are some laws that apply to visual memory that don't apply to auditory, but those mostly have to do with expectations in regards to racial identity.
Dr. Loftus states that at an event, if the lighting is better, the subject takes in better information. If the lighting is poor, they take in fewer informational details. Weinberg asks her about information taken in that auditory. "It's kinda like lighting. If there's distraction you may not take in as much memory."
DW: How about focus?
Dr. L: Certainly if you are distracted it could affect the accuracy (of the memory).
DW: What about the witnesses condition?
Dr. L: Certainly if the witness is tired or overly stressed, that can affect the accuracy of the acquisition of memory.
DW: How about if someone was up for 22-27 hours?
Dr. L: Although I can't cite a study, in my opinion it would be.
DW: Lets talk about stress.
Dr. L: If someone is stressed, it could affect the acquisition, especially for peripheral information.
Dr. Loftus explains some studies that have been done on soldiers and the stress that they are under in interrogations. The stress is so great that they are unable to correctly identify the individual who tortured them.
Dr. Loftus gives the example of a test study they've done with a two minute bank robbery. There are two versions of the tape. The tapes are basically very similar except at the end of one, a young boy gets shot in the face. What they've found in their studies is that, the subjects could not remember many of the common elements of both films. They determined that the subjects focused on the violence and that caused them not to be able to accurately remember peripheral information. "Stress creates problems for memory. [...] There is a fair degree of consensus that stress affects memory. [...] The peripheral details specifically (are affected in memory).
DW: Have you also studied expectations?
Dr.L: Yes. People in her field have studied this.
She gives the example of a black man and a white man on the subway. The white man is holding a weapon and as the story is told and migrated to one person after another, the black man is holding the weapon. What they've found is when it comes to racial components, "If someone has a particular expectation, it affects what they actually see."
DW: Sometimes people hear or see what they expect to see rather than....
Dr. L: Yes. [...] Tendency to fill in the facts is how memory works.
DW: Is there any way to determine if the filled in memory is correct?
Dr. L: In the lab we know because we have to tape but it's difficult to tell in the real world. There really isn't no way to tell the difference.
DW: Because people think they've seen it?
Dr. L: There's no way to tell.
DW: People do create false memories?
Dr. L: That's what the research shows.
DW: Honest people?
Dr. L: These are people that don't know that they have created false memory.
Juror #8 is fiddling with her hair again.
DW: Once memory is acquired, can it be corrupted?
Dr. L: Yes. [...] Sometimes people are exposed to post event information. That is, they get exposed to new information that they are given. New information or they hear another witness. That post (information) can (possibly) destroy (their previous memory).
10:21 am: Louis Spector and Frieda arrive in 106.
DW: So even if memory is fresh it can be affected by other factors?
Dr. L: Yes.
DW: Not anything nefarious?
Dr. L: Yes.
Dr. Loftus clarifies that she doesn't study lying. There are other professors who study that.
DW: Your studies are mostly of honest people try to do an honest job?
Dr. L: Right. [...] Leading questions show the witness can succumb to post event information.
Dr. Loftus gives the example of lab tests they have done with suggestion. Having a subject watch a video of a car stopping at a stop sign and then asking them about the car at the yield sign.
Dr. L: We can do it to ourselves. Our own inferences and events can distort our own past memories.
Next is a whole discussion about how the level of confidence on one's memory is associated to accuracy.
Dr. L: The level of confidence is only weakly related to accuracy. [...] Confidence is malleable. [...] You can make someone more confident via your feedback.
DW: The mind can amend it's own memory?
Dr. L: Yes.
10:29 am: I observe Tran Smith whispering to Spector and then right afterward, placing his hand on Spector's right shoulder for a moment. Rachelle's eyes are closed.
DW: There can be negative suggestion so that a witness can change their memory?
Dr. L: Absolutely. There was a study by Wells at Ohio State University.
DW: After the first retrieval, memory can be affected and at subsequent retrievals?
Dr. L: Things that happen at subsequent retrieval states can act like (post additional information is added).
DW: The number of times something is said, does that tell us something about accuracy?
Dr. L: No, it's not related.
DW: What about confidence?
Dr. L: You're a little bit more accurate if you're confident But the connection is a weak one.
DW: Confidence is malleable, what does that mean?
Dr. L: It can be changed. Just like accuracy.
I take the time to look on over at the jury. #8 and #9 are not taking notes. #10 has his had over the lower part of his face. To me, #5 looks like she has a frustrated look on her face.
An example of police line ups is given and that clapping occurred after an identification. Dr. Loftus states that external event, "...could have an effect on memory." I think there might have been a few more questions and then the direct exam is finished.
10:44 am: The morning break is called. Weinberg asks that the diagram that Dr. Loftus drew be admitted into evidence. Truc Do, Jackson and Weinberg talk in the well. I believe I overhear Jackson ask about Dr. Loftus's fees. $500.00 an hour. Weinberg greets Linda Deutsch. Linda and Harriet Ryan ask him some questions. I ask Jackson if he's celebrated his new position yet. He indicates that he really hasn't had the time since he's been up very late working on this information. "This stuff, the language, it's so archaic," he replies. Jennifer Barringer approached Harriet Ryan to speak to her. Linda Deutsch asks about Dr. Loftus's CV, and then I see Linda Deutsch speak to Dr. Loftus.
During the break, I get the opportunity to meet two lovely T&T readers who drove all the way from Costa Mesa to attend the trial. We discussed the jury instructions yesterday and what might happen. The involuntary manslaughter charge is the one that has everyone talking. Because of that I will add some more arguments that were presented on Wednesday so you can get a flavor of how the arguments went and what the issues are, specifically.
Fidler stated yesterday that, "The decision (Lee) isn't easy to understand the basis (of adding involuntary), but where's the difference? (Between Lee and Spector.) There are some more known facts with Lee."
Weinberg pointed out yesterday in one of their many arguments against is that there are, "...two significant differences between this trial and the last trial. The court is going to give an 1101(b) instruction that states Spector's prior history can be taken into account. So, you're saying on one hand it's an accident, (involuntary) and on the other hand you have the 1101(b) showing an absence of mistake." Weinberg goes over the prosecution's theory in the last trial about the blood evidence and what it proves. "In this case, this trial, (the prosecution states) all this blood evidence is only explained (by the gunshot, back spatter), but we also have Ms. Clarkson grasping each others hands and the gun went off. [...] You can't look at all that and conceive there was a brandishing." Weinberg goes over all they new prosecution theory about the physical evidence and continues, "Because the prosecution said there was a struggle and it only happened this way (you can't then also argue brandishing)."
Truc Do then presents an excellent argument describing the differences and that "...at minimum, he pulled the gun."
Dennis Riordan argues, "There's no way to connect this brandishing with the gun inside the mouth." Fidler responds with, "Clearly with Lee, it's up against the head. That goes beyond waving the gun around. That goes beyond brandishing. [...] In Lee, (it's the) same. There's no substantial brandish because it's a contact wound."
Riordan continues, "The act of a gun in the mouth is not a misdemeanor. [...] But if you've got a crime that can't be categorized..." Weinberg adds, "The Lee case doesn't stand for... [...] But yet the court say you should give this [...] under the defense request. [...] Lee is concedingly opaque." Jackson states, "I will simply add that the brandishing begins with Lee. A murder gets through brandishing, assault, and then gets to murder."
The defense argues that in Lee, there very clearly was a struggle. (And this is true. In Lee, another witness was present who saw Lee retrieve the gun and go after his wife; the daughter. We don't have that here.) The arguments continue, and I believe this statement is by the prosecution. "All we know for certain is, (the gun ends up in the mouth). How did it get there? We don't have to define that. Did he do it with conscious or unconscious disregard?" Weinberg responds to that with, "You can't have opposite theories that are mutually exclusive."
Fidler asks, "What if Lee stands for the proposition that (if) you don't have a witness [...] that in every case Lee stands for you have to give a lesser included?" Riordan responds with, "If Lee stood for that, it doesn't state it." There were a few more arguments after that and then Fidler states that he is going to hold off unless someone can give him case law where a defendant requested lesser and it was turned down.
11:06 am: The jury is called. A few people tell me they think Dr. Loftus did a good job on direct. A man who came in yesterday carrying a book and said hello to Susan is back in the courtroom sitting by Rachelle. The bailiffs tell us everyone in the courtroom has to move down all the way to the left. They must be bringing in a class of students. Yes. That's exactly what happens.
11:08: Fidler takes the bench.
Jackson steps up to cross Dr. Loftus.
AJ: You have been supplied with certain documentation, certain reports (have you not)?
Dr. L: I was provided with the 911 transcript and interview transcripts.
AJ: The words ADRIANO DE SOUZA never came out of your mouth, correct?
Dr. L: That's correct.
DW: Your Honor, may we approach?
There's a bench conference. I can see Jackson presenting his arguments at the bench and then it's over.
Fidler: We're going to strike the last two questions and answers.
AJ: You're not here to render any kind of opinion in this case?
Dr. L: Correct.
AJ: You're not testifying whether someone is right or wrong [...] (You're stating about certain) specific (situations?) and stimuli that might affect memory in general?
Dr. L: That's correct.
AJ: Several of the studies that you've dealt with involve repressed memory prior to 1990?
Dr. L: No. After 1990 I focused on memory that happened years ago.
AJ: After 1990, much of your memory focused (on recovered memory)?
Dr. L: Most of my work is on malleable memory and false memory.
AJ: Most of your work is on child molestation memory that comes to the forefront?
Dr. L: Most commonly they are suggesting there was years of abuse and now (years and years later) they are just remembering.
Dr. Loftus talks about how roughly half of her testifying is in civil verses criminal cases. She's testified in criminal cases about 100 times.
AJ: The lions share of your criminal work is for the defense?
Dr. L: I've consulted with the prosecution probably five to six times but have only testified once for the prosecution.
AJ: Your a professional defense witness insofar as ....
Dr. L: Only once have they (prosecution) asked me to testify. [...] I'm not knocking on their door.
AJ: This is your book (one of the 22), Witness For The Defense, with your picture on the book?
Dr. L: Well it's an old picture.
AJ: Do you believe that it's your job to be as neutral and as independent (as possible) as a (previewer?) of facts?
Dr. L: I try to be.
AJ: Have you admitted in the past that it's difficult for you (to remain objective)?
Dr. L: Yes, if I believe if the person is innocent. [...] But sometimes it's hard.
AJ the reads a quote from one of her books and asks her if she agrees with that.
Dr. L: I would agree with myself.
AJ: You're certainly not suggesting that any witness in this case is wrong?
Dr. L: Correct.
Jackson asks Dr. Loftus to explain "verbatim" verses gist.
Dr. L: Verbatim is the actual words that are said and gist is the (overall scene).
AJ: Verbatim is sometimes called surface words?
Dr. L: I don't think I've used "surface words" but have seen verbatim verses gist.
AJ: Unless you have a special reason to remember those words, they drop off after a few days?
Dr. L: Yes.
AJ: Gist lasts longer than verbatim?
Dr. L: Yes. Gist; that's true. Gist lasts longer than verbatim.
AJ: Lets talk about out of context events that might stay in memory longer.
Jackson gives Dr. Loftus an example of a statement such as, "I got a flat tire last night."
AJ: The gist could be?
Dr. L: Car trouble.
Jackson then goes through some examples of variation of that statement that could be remembered.
AJ: Is there anything different in the gist?
Dr. L: There is a similarity in the gist.
AJ: Dr. Loftus, let's say I told you I got a flat tire last night. And within seconds, you called the Judge about that flat tire. Because you're the one making the information to the Judge, that would not be subject to post incident information?
Dr. L: That's correct. [...] Yes, it would be less subjected to post event (information).
Jackson clarifies that quite a few of Dr. Loftus's studies have been on weapon focus. That she has performed a lot of studies on what people fixate on.
Dr. L: Yes. If there's a weapon people fixate on it. [...] If there isn't one there, then ....
The eye tends to literally drop to that weapon and how well they (the subject) can identify (it). Dr. Loftus states this results in a, "....reduced ability to focus on other aspects such as the face of the individual holding the weapon."
Jackson goes over with Dr. Loftus the phenomenon of expectation. Someone seeing a weapon where none exists and there is an expectation of that. People can mistale an inoculous item for a weapon. Two studies are discussed. The first study investigated information of "racial cues" on identifying weapons. People misidentified tools as guns when identifying a black man. Jackson asks her about a black face verses a white face. Dr. Loftus states, "There's something about being primed with a black (face) and an innocent object (that get's transposed), primed with a gun."
The second study she did and wrote about was "Cross a Thin Blue Line" (I think that's the full name of the study). This was the study of police officers who shoot a white verses a black individual. There is a racial inherent in the study. Dr. Loftus states, "Those are some of the studies. I also mention the 1940's study, (I stated earlier)."
Jackson now asks Dr. Loftus about the connection between confidence and accuracy, and the fact that there are other studies that show there is a strong link and not necessarily a weak one.
AJ: There is a whole different group of psychologist that disagree. That there is a collection of psychologists taht there is a strong correlation between confidence and accuracy?
Dr. Loftus explains that there was a review that took every study that looked at the connection between confidence and accuracy and in averaging out all these studies, there is a connection, it is slightly higher for those with confidence but the overall review of all the studies...the majority of psychotherapists agree. The connection is weak.
Jackson then confronts her with a quote from her book "Eyewitness Testimony" that there are other studies that sow there is a high correlation between accuracy and confidence. "Did I read that correctly?"
Dr. L: Yes, you read that correctly.
So what everyone in the room takes from this is that there are a wide variety of studies that look at confidence and accuracy.
Now Jackson goes over stress and memory. Jackson put up on the ELMO an image from one of Dr. Loftus's books, it's Yerkes Dodson Curve. And it describes the level of memory performance upon waking, increase awareness, alert arousal (the optimum time) and the downward curve where extreme stress will bring it down. The best description of the curve would be an arch, like the one in St. Louis, MO. The top of the arch is "alert arousal" and as more stress is added, then then the level of memory performance decreases.
Pat Dixon enters 106.
The "alert arousal" is where you are at your peak.
Jackson gives an example of someone just holding a gun and not doing anything with it. He asks at what point on the curve would the level of memory awareness be. Then, he demonstrates pulling the gun on someone.
AJ: But now, I point the gun at you and that certainly would raise someone's (stress levels)?
Fidler: And on that note, we'll break for lunch.
During the lunch hour, I almost miss eating, choosing to have a long chat with Ciaran McEvoy, reporter for the Los Angeles Daily Journal on the front steps of the Criminal Court Building. Ciaran interviewed Weinberg several months ago and wrote an article featuring him. Ciaran found Weinberg to be a very likable person. When he was doing background for his article, Ciaran thoroughly researched the allegations that Weinberg and a co-counsel received under-the-table monies from a drug trafficker they represented. There was an order to show cause hearing in Federal court in San Francisco. Weinberg hired John Kerker, considered on the nation's top trial lawyers to represent him. The Judge found the allegations to be meritless. This all happened quite a few years ago during the federal government's "war on drugs" campaign. I want to make it clear that Weinberg was never charged with any wrong doing.
I had just enough time to grab a quick lunch and make it back inside 106 before court resumed. In the second row to my left of where I usually sit is Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly. I give Steven a brief update on the latest with the jury instructions as well as what Dr. Loftus has testified to so far.
1:37 pm, Fidler takes the bench.
Jackson picks back up where he left off discussing stress and it's effect on memory performance. Dr. Loftus states that in relation to Yerkes Dodson Curve, "I can't precisely place things at one specific spot (on the curve)." Jackson then reads from her book, Eyewitness Testimony. I think I have the quote right he read: "When a gun is present there is a gun focus perphrial...." This was in regards to weapon focus studies. In going back to the example Dr. Loftus gave of the boy being shot in the face in the bank robbery film, Jackson asks, "But they didn't tend to forget the boy shot in the face?"
Dr. L: Correct. I didn't see any evidence of that.
AJ: As yoy get new information about events, your stress level can change?
Dr. L: Yes.
Jackson then goes over with Dr. Loftus what an "orienting response" is and "seeing things in and out of context." Jackson asks about examples of out of context events or items.
AJ: Some studies have been done for things that are novel and out of context?
Dr. L: We know that the eye is drawn to the unusual object of the scene. We know that's to be true.
AJ: An orienting response actually leads to higher levels of (accuracy)?
Dr. L: I don't know (that study) speficially, but I agree; it's drawn (the eye) to an unusual item at the scene.
So, in essence, it's possible the eye will be drawn to an unusual object.
AJ: And most of your study....?
Dr. L: Well, we do a lot of study of other items; stop sign to yield sign; car yellow or green.
AJ: Another group works on study memory and spoken statements? [...] (And the) role of arousal for the studies in conversation? [...] High interactional statements and low inter-actional statements?
Dr. L: I don't know those terms. I don't know what them mean.
AJ: Statements that deal with a great deal of speaker and listener interaction?
DW: Objection! Sidebar.
AJ: (Are you aware of) studies that focus on remembering? That study shows that (certain) words have a higher memory impact in conversation?
Dr. L: That wouldn't surprise me if that situation was found.
Jackson goes onto ask if Dr. Loftus is familiar with these studies that shows the information has a higher practical content [...] that surface words [...] have an impact on the person.
Dr. L: If you have a study that shows that....
Jackson gives the example of being called into her bosses office and her boss tells her, "I have cancer." That's a type of conversation that would stick with someone, because it's conveying dramatic, high impact information. ( Through many of Jackson's examples, he would use that example of Dr. Loftus being called into the bosses office and the stress level that might occur. For some reason, Dr. Loftus all through out Jackson's cross was not very receptive to these examples of being called into the office.) Jackson makes the point that statements with high impact words in out of context situations would stay with an individual longer, because they have an impact on the listener.
AJ: (That the) familarity of the speaker has a higher level of (recall experience?)?
Dr. L: That would not surprise me.
Jackson asks Dr. Loftus if studies show that a higher level of intelligence correlates to better memory (retrieval). Jackson give an example of someone who is college educated, been in the military.
DW: Objection!
Fidler: Overruled!
AJ: Higher levels of education do indicate having higher levels of memory recall?
Dr. L: Yes. That's the general understanding.
Jackson asks several more questions that I don't get and then his last question to Dr. Loftus:
AJ: You're not saying that anyone in this case is right or wrong?
Dr. L: Correct.
Weinberg gets up to redirect his witness. He brings up out of context statements that Adriano De Souza made to Detective Tomlin.
DW: What if someone says at one point "not sure" then later says they are?
Dr. Loftus says there might be a situation where in their confidence, they're not sure.
The afternoon break is called at 2:45 pm. The two ladies who drove up from Costa Mesa say goodbye. They are leaving early to beat the traffic. During the break I ask Josh (Linda tells me he prefers to be called Joshua) when does he start working as a DDA. "In June," he replies with a big smile on his face. He will start in misdemeanor court, which is where all new DDA's start. There was a point in Jackson's cross where he did get confused with one of Dr. Loftus's quotes from her many books. He was asking her about it but it was from a book of hers that he didn't have so he wasn't able to show it to her.
In my opinion, I don't know how this helped the defense that much. Dr. Loftus admitted that she doesn't specifically study about remembering words, and that she wasn't an expert on that. And, she wasn't giving the jurors an opinion on any individual's specific testimony. I note that Harriet Ryan has left already but Linda Deutsch is still here. Steven Mikulan left at the break. I will add that Dr. Loftus at times was very funny on the stand and appeared to communicate well with the room. There were many times though when Jackson asked her a question about something she wrote and she said she couldn't remember.
3:07 pm: Fidler retakes the bench and Weinberg continues with his redirect.
Weinberg then turn's Jackson's example of a flat tire around, giving a different hypothetical by replacing the statements with similar statements that Adriano De Souza gave, such as, "... they said they think they had a flat tire."
AJ: Objection! Incomplete hypothetical!
There's a sidebar at the bench. Dr. Loftus stares at the jury during the arguments at sidebar. When Weinberg returns to the podium, he changes his question. There are quite a few more questions but I'm tired and I don't write them down. When Weinberg is finished, there is no recross from the prosecution. Weinberg rests his case and the people call Detective Steven Katz, their second rebuttal witness.
Truc Do presents the witness. Officer Katz works for the LA Co. Sheriff's office at a Leutenant. He is no longer a detective. He is a shift watch commander. He's been with the department 26 years. He was asked to conduct an investigation at the house after the shooting death of Lana Clarkson. When he first arrived, he did not collect any evidence, he just examined items visually. Truc Do states that Officer Katz has been asked to testify about three things: 1.) When and how many times did he handle the gun; 2.) (I miss this but I believe it's about his documentation of the evidence he observed); 3.) What lights were on outside and immediately inside the residence.
Officer Katz states that the coroner's staff arrived at 5:45 pm and the gun was left in place for the coroner to observe. The gun was handled by himself once at 6:00 pm.
TD: Did anyone else handle that gun?
SK: No.
TD: So just once, and no one else?
SK: Yes mam.
Once the coroner left the scene, he described everything that was going on and Detective Lillienfeld was writing evrything down that he stated was going on. He was describing the blood to Detective Lillienfeld who wrote it down. The gun was left in place for 12 hours. The blood on the gun appeared to be dry.
SK: There was no transfer of blood onto my gloves from the firearm.
Truc Do has Officer Katz look at his notes and Detective Lillienfeld's notes. Katz goes over his notes and how he wrote his notes. He describes leaving space between each item he noted on his pad because he knew he would be going back later, and filling in informaiton.
SK: But I left space because i knew i would be puttin in evidentiary other info at another time. That's pretty standard and how I do it.
Later, he transferred some of the information notes from Detective Lillienfeld's notebook to his at a more convenient time. Truc Do asks him if he went over any documentation while he was waiting out in the hallway all day. Katz states, "I went through my notes while waiting."
Katz details what lights were originally on at the scene, and that he was there (until?) 11 pm. He states that he took notes as to what lights were on, when the detectives were at the scene. Katz explains how the scene was "secured." The outside sconce lights right outside the rear entrance were on.
TD: Lights were not turned on by you or any officers?
SK: Yes man.
Katz testifies that the outside porch ceiling lights were also on. Inside the foyer, a sconce light directly beside the rear entrance was on. The candle sconces were also on.
That's it for direct and Weinberg starts cross.
Officer Katz states that he arrived at the scene around 1:30 or 1:15 pm. "I'm not sure when Tomlin or Fortier arrived. The lights in the sconces were on when they got there.
DW: Do you know whether the front door was open?
TD: Objection!
Fidler: Sustained!
DW: Do you know whether the Alhambra Police (when they) arrived if they turned on the lights?
SK: I don't know.
With respect to the gun, Weinberg confronts him that he put the information about bullets, that was put in his report on page 11 (the typed report), then the put in the report, later, about Dr. Pena.
DW: Why would you write in your hand writen notes...
Weinberg asks this question with an incredulous tone in his voice. Weinberg then puts up a series of photographs that were taken of the gun while Katz is holding it. There are quite a few photos of the gun taken at the scene.
DW: How long did you handle the gun?
SK: Maybe a minute.
DW: All those photos, taken within a minute?
SK: Yes. I was [....] The photographer was moving around me, taking photos as I was handling the gun.
Weinberg asks him something about why he picked the gun up at that time and Katz replies something to the effect of, "If you knwo of some other way to pick up the gun, I'd like to hear it."
DW: Bob Kyle stated he arrived at 6:00 pm and he testified that the gun was already picked up.
TD: Objection! Your honor, this is not appropriate.
DW: Are you aware that Bob Kyle testified that when he arrived the gun was picked up? [...] (Are you aware that) Dr. Pena testified they arrived at 5:45 pm, and they were not allowed into the house?
SK: We were not finished. [...] When they cam in the gun was still there.
Weinberg now confronts Katz with Jamie Lintemoot's testimony, where she said that when they arrived it had already been removed by detectives.
Truc Do asks to approach I think after this question.
Weinberg then confronts Katz with his last note in his notebook where it says at 18:00 hours (6:00 pm), "Recovered Weapon." Weinberg confronts him with "why" he didn't add the word "examined" when he indicated he recovered the weapon. To me, Officer Katz replies with one of the best lines of the trial, not only by what he says but the way he delivers it. "Mr. Weinberg, I know it upsets you that I didn't write examined ... (but the truth is, that's when the weapon was recovered and documented).
I believe there is redirect but I don't write any more notes. Court finishes a few minutes before 4:00 pm. The jury is excused and ordered back on Monday at 9:30 am. There is a short discussion about the prosecution's rebuttal case. They think they will finish testimony next week and we may get to argument by the end of next week.
It's at this time that Fidler addresses Spector and he formally gives up his right to testify. Weinberg tells Wendy that Spector has a "medical appointment" Monday at 3:30 pm. They will need to leave court by 2:30 pm on Monday to make that appointment. As I was leaving court, I see that Dr. Loftus was still on the 9th floor. I think she might have gone in and listened to another trial in another courtroom. I see her approach the defense team, smiling, and then sit with them for a bit before I stepped into the elevator bay to go home.
There is a T&T reader who has been transcribing some of the relevant police reports containing Spector's statements at the scene, that are in PDF format on the LA Co. Superior Court web site into text format for me. I hope to get all her efforts into a blog entry sometime soon.
Here are the cases that are being used to decide on jury instructions.
People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal. Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847] This case is being used by the defense to give a special instruction.
And the other case having to do with adding a lesser charge in jury instructions is People v. Lee. Here is the beginning of the actual decision: (Thank you so much to the individual who forwarded the text of the complete ruling to me.)
Defense Witnesses:
#18 Dr. Elizabeth Loftus (professor of psychology at UC Irvine; testimony complete)
Prosecution Rebuttal:
#35 Steven Katz (LA Co. Sheriff's Lieutenant; former detective and partner to Detective Lillienfeld; testimony complete)
Accredited Press inside the courtoom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times; Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press; Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly
When Spector arrives in 106, I notice there is a button on the lapel of his jacket. It's not one of the big "Obama" or "Team Spector" buttons. This is much smaller and there are several words on it. He passes so quickly I can't read what the button says. I know he has to take it off once he's at the defense table.
9:38 am Harriet Ryan arrives. A few minutes later Wendy is calling the judge. There are no supporters sitting over on the defense side of the room.
There's no jury yet. Fidler informs the court that he received a note from Juror #11. "I'll just read it," he says.
"Harvey Fisher was scheduled to play in a foursome. When we recognized each other he switched to another group. We did not speak." Jackson asks the court to explain the foursome. There's a bit of embarrassment and laughter from the courtroom. Fidler answers, "Must be golf."
The jury is brought in. There are a few more people in the gallery today than usual. Juror #7 waves to the bailiff for another notebook. She is a juror who takes quite a few notes, but not as many as Juror #1.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus takes the stand and a bit of her thirty-seven page CV is presented to the jury. She is a professor of psychology at UC Irvine and also a professor of law since 2002. Before that she taught at University of Washington in Seattle for 29 years. She has also received six honorary degrees at several universities, including the law degree from John Jay Criminal Justice. She is also a member of many honorary societies. She's also a member of the National Academy of Scientists.
9:49 am Linda Deutsch arrives.
Dr. Loftus states it's an honor to be elected to that organization. Weinberg states he's not going to go through all of her CV, but then he starts reading from it. She was selected as one of the top 100 most distinguished psychologists.
Dr. L: Yes. I believe that's how I got the job at Irvine.
After she said that, she did something interesting with her face; it was an expression that I've seen featured on that new show on Fox, Lie To Me, but for the life of me I can't remember what emotion they said it meant.
Dr. Loftus is the author of 22 books, two of which are Eyewitness Testimony and Memory. She obtained her Ph. D. in 1970 and has been testing and publishing on memory ever since. AT some point, its mentioned that after the 60 minutes show she did on Sunday, she was contacted by the FBI to write an article.
Dr. Loftus is asked questions about memory.
Dr. L: In general, memory doesn't work like a video tape. It's much more complex. In general, there are three main stages. 1: acquisition, which is the laying down stage. 2: retention and then 3: retrieval. To explain these basic elements and how they're put down, she gets up from the witness box and stands in front of the bulletin board and draws on some white paper that has been put up there to show the three different elements. She now looks like she's a professor, teaching a class.
DW: The final memory produced; how reliable is it?
I look on over at the jury. $5's arms are crossed. #11 is not taking notes.
Dr. Loftus states that the more time you have to look at something will result in better memory. In studies, she has found that subjects are not very good at estimating time. "They tend to over estimate. They think they have longer than they did," she testifies. Dr. Loftus states that in regards to auditorally, some of the same laws apply, no matter if visual or audio. She testifies that there are some laws that apply to visual memory that don't apply to auditory, but those mostly have to do with expectations in regards to racial identity.
Dr. Loftus states that at an event, if the lighting is better, the subject takes in better information. If the lighting is poor, they take in fewer informational details. Weinberg asks her about information taken in that auditory. "It's kinda like lighting. If there's distraction you may not take in as much memory."
DW: How about focus?
Dr. L: Certainly if you are distracted it could affect the accuracy (of the memory).
DW: What about the witnesses condition?
Dr. L: Certainly if the witness is tired or overly stressed, that can affect the accuracy of the acquisition of memory.
DW: How about if someone was up for 22-27 hours?
Dr. L: Although I can't cite a study, in my opinion it would be.
DW: Lets talk about stress.
Dr. L: If someone is stressed, it could affect the acquisition, especially for peripheral information.
Dr. Loftus explains some studies that have been done on soldiers and the stress that they are under in interrogations. The stress is so great that they are unable to correctly identify the individual who tortured them.
Dr. Loftus gives the example of a test study they've done with a two minute bank robbery. There are two versions of the tape. The tapes are basically very similar except at the end of one, a young boy gets shot in the face. What they've found in their studies is that, the subjects could not remember many of the common elements of both films. They determined that the subjects focused on the violence and that caused them not to be able to accurately remember peripheral information. "Stress creates problems for memory. [...] There is a fair degree of consensus that stress affects memory. [...] The peripheral details specifically (are affected in memory).
DW: Have you also studied expectations?
Dr.L: Yes. People in her field have studied this.
She gives the example of a black man and a white man on the subway. The white man is holding a weapon and as the story is told and migrated to one person after another, the black man is holding the weapon. What they've found is when it comes to racial components, "If someone has a particular expectation, it affects what they actually see."
DW: Sometimes people hear or see what they expect to see rather than....
Dr. L: Yes. [...] Tendency to fill in the facts is how memory works.
DW: Is there any way to determine if the filled in memory is correct?
Dr. L: In the lab we know because we have to tape but it's difficult to tell in the real world. There really isn't no way to tell the difference.
DW: Because people think they've seen it?
Dr. L: There's no way to tell.
DW: People do create false memories?
Dr. L: That's what the research shows.
DW: Honest people?
Dr. L: These are people that don't know that they have created false memory.
Juror #8 is fiddling with her hair again.
DW: Once memory is acquired, can it be corrupted?
Dr. L: Yes. [...] Sometimes people are exposed to post event information. That is, they get exposed to new information that they are given. New information or they hear another witness. That post (information) can (possibly) destroy (their previous memory).
10:21 am: Louis Spector and Frieda arrive in 106.
DW: So even if memory is fresh it can be affected by other factors?
Dr. L: Yes.
DW: Not anything nefarious?
Dr. L: Yes.
Dr. Loftus clarifies that she doesn't study lying. There are other professors who study that.
DW: Your studies are mostly of honest people try to do an honest job?
Dr. L: Right. [...] Leading questions show the witness can succumb to post event information.
Dr. Loftus gives the example of lab tests they have done with suggestion. Having a subject watch a video of a car stopping at a stop sign and then asking them about the car at the yield sign.
Dr. L: We can do it to ourselves. Our own inferences and events can distort our own past memories.
Next is a whole discussion about how the level of confidence on one's memory is associated to accuracy.
Dr. L: The level of confidence is only weakly related to accuracy. [...] Confidence is malleable. [...] You can make someone more confident via your feedback.
DW: The mind can amend it's own memory?
Dr. L: Yes.
10:29 am: I observe Tran Smith whispering to Spector and then right afterward, placing his hand on Spector's right shoulder for a moment. Rachelle's eyes are closed.
DW: There can be negative suggestion so that a witness can change their memory?
Dr. L: Absolutely. There was a study by Wells at Ohio State University.
DW: After the first retrieval, memory can be affected and at subsequent retrievals?
Dr. L: Things that happen at subsequent retrieval states can act like (post additional information is added).
DW: The number of times something is said, does that tell us something about accuracy?
Dr. L: No, it's not related.
DW: What about confidence?
Dr. L: You're a little bit more accurate if you're confident But the connection is a weak one.
DW: Confidence is malleable, what does that mean?
Dr. L: It can be changed. Just like accuracy.
I take the time to look on over at the jury. #8 and #9 are not taking notes. #10 has his had over the lower part of his face. To me, #5 looks like she has a frustrated look on her face.
An example of police line ups is given and that clapping occurred after an identification. Dr. Loftus states that external event, "...could have an effect on memory." I think there might have been a few more questions and then the direct exam is finished.
10:44 am: The morning break is called. Weinberg asks that the diagram that Dr. Loftus drew be admitted into evidence. Truc Do, Jackson and Weinberg talk in the well. I believe I overhear Jackson ask about Dr. Loftus's fees. $500.00 an hour. Weinberg greets Linda Deutsch. Linda and Harriet Ryan ask him some questions. I ask Jackson if he's celebrated his new position yet. He indicates that he really hasn't had the time since he's been up very late working on this information. "This stuff, the language, it's so archaic," he replies. Jennifer Barringer approached Harriet Ryan to speak to her. Linda Deutsch asks about Dr. Loftus's CV, and then I see Linda Deutsch speak to Dr. Loftus.
During the break, I get the opportunity to meet two lovely T&T readers who drove all the way from Costa Mesa to attend the trial. We discussed the jury instructions yesterday and what might happen. The involuntary manslaughter charge is the one that has everyone talking. Because of that I will add some more arguments that were presented on Wednesday so you can get a flavor of how the arguments went and what the issues are, specifically.
Fidler stated yesterday that, "The decision (Lee) isn't easy to understand the basis (of adding involuntary), but where's the difference? (Between Lee and Spector.) There are some more known facts with Lee."
Weinberg pointed out yesterday in one of their many arguments against is that there are, "...two significant differences between this trial and the last trial. The court is going to give an 1101(b) instruction that states Spector's prior history can be taken into account. So, you're saying on one hand it's an accident, (involuntary) and on the other hand you have the 1101(b) showing an absence of mistake." Weinberg goes over the prosecution's theory in the last trial about the blood evidence and what it proves. "In this case, this trial, (the prosecution states) all this blood evidence is only explained (by the gunshot, back spatter), but we also have Ms. Clarkson grasping each others hands and the gun went off. [...] You can't look at all that and conceive there was a brandishing." Weinberg goes over all they new prosecution theory about the physical evidence and continues, "Because the prosecution said there was a struggle and it only happened this way (you can't then also argue brandishing)."
Truc Do then presents an excellent argument describing the differences and that "...at minimum, he pulled the gun."
Dennis Riordan argues, "There's no way to connect this brandishing with the gun inside the mouth." Fidler responds with, "Clearly with Lee, it's up against the head. That goes beyond waving the gun around. That goes beyond brandishing. [...] In Lee, (it's the) same. There's no substantial brandish because it's a contact wound."
Riordan continues, "The act of a gun in the mouth is not a misdemeanor. [...] But if you've got a crime that can't be categorized..." Weinberg adds, "The Lee case doesn't stand for... [...] But yet the court say you should give this [...] under the defense request. [...] Lee is concedingly opaque." Jackson states, "I will simply add that the brandishing begins with Lee. A murder gets through brandishing, assault, and then gets to murder."
The defense argues that in Lee, there very clearly was a struggle. (And this is true. In Lee, another witness was present who saw Lee retrieve the gun and go after his wife; the daughter. We don't have that here.) The arguments continue, and I believe this statement is by the prosecution. "All we know for certain is, (the gun ends up in the mouth). How did it get there? We don't have to define that. Did he do it with conscious or unconscious disregard?" Weinberg responds to that with, "You can't have opposite theories that are mutually exclusive."
Fidler asks, "What if Lee stands for the proposition that (if) you don't have a witness [...] that in every case Lee stands for you have to give a lesser included?" Riordan responds with, "If Lee stood for that, it doesn't state it." There were a few more arguments after that and then Fidler states that he is going to hold off unless someone can give him case law where a defendant requested lesser and it was turned down.
11:06 am: The jury is called. A few people tell me they think Dr. Loftus did a good job on direct. A man who came in yesterday carrying a book and said hello to Susan is back in the courtroom sitting by Rachelle. The bailiffs tell us everyone in the courtroom has to move down all the way to the left. They must be bringing in a class of students. Yes. That's exactly what happens.
11:08: Fidler takes the bench.
Jackson steps up to cross Dr. Loftus.
AJ: You have been supplied with certain documentation, certain reports (have you not)?
Dr. L: I was provided with the 911 transcript and interview transcripts.
AJ: The words ADRIANO DE SOUZA never came out of your mouth, correct?
Dr. L: That's correct.
DW: Your Honor, may we approach?
There's a bench conference. I can see Jackson presenting his arguments at the bench and then it's over.
Fidler: We're going to strike the last two questions and answers.
AJ: You're not here to render any kind of opinion in this case?
Dr. L: Correct.
AJ: You're not testifying whether someone is right or wrong [...] (You're stating about certain) specific (situations?) and stimuli that might affect memory in general?
Dr. L: That's correct.
AJ: Several of the studies that you've dealt with involve repressed memory prior to 1990?
Dr. L: No. After 1990 I focused on memory that happened years ago.
AJ: After 1990, much of your memory focused (on recovered memory)?
Dr. L: Most of my work is on malleable memory and false memory.
AJ: Most of your work is on child molestation memory that comes to the forefront?
Dr. L: Most commonly they are suggesting there was years of abuse and now (years and years later) they are just remembering.
Dr. Loftus talks about how roughly half of her testifying is in civil verses criminal cases. She's testified in criminal cases about 100 times.
AJ: The lions share of your criminal work is for the defense?
Dr. L: I've consulted with the prosecution probably five to six times but have only testified once for the prosecution.
AJ: Your a professional defense witness insofar as ....
Dr. L: Only once have they (prosecution) asked me to testify. [...] I'm not knocking on their door.
AJ: This is your book (one of the 22), Witness For The Defense, with your picture on the book?
Dr. L: Well it's an old picture.
AJ: Do you believe that it's your job to be as neutral and as independent (as possible) as a (previewer?) of facts?
Dr. L: I try to be.
AJ: Have you admitted in the past that it's difficult for you (to remain objective)?
Dr. L: Yes, if I believe if the person is innocent. [...] But sometimes it's hard.
AJ the reads a quote from one of her books and asks her if she agrees with that.
Dr. L: I would agree with myself.
AJ: You're certainly not suggesting that any witness in this case is wrong?
Dr. L: Correct.
Jackson asks Dr. Loftus to explain "verbatim" verses gist.
Dr. L: Verbatim is the actual words that are said and gist is the (overall scene).
AJ: Verbatim is sometimes called surface words?
Dr. L: I don't think I've used "surface words" but have seen verbatim verses gist.
AJ: Unless you have a special reason to remember those words, they drop off after a few days?
Dr. L: Yes.
AJ: Gist lasts longer than verbatim?
Dr. L: Yes. Gist; that's true. Gist lasts longer than verbatim.
AJ: Lets talk about out of context events that might stay in memory longer.
Jackson gives Dr. Loftus an example of a statement such as, "I got a flat tire last night."
AJ: The gist could be?
Dr. L: Car trouble.
Jackson then goes through some examples of variation of that statement that could be remembered.
AJ: Is there anything different in the gist?
Dr. L: There is a similarity in the gist.
AJ: Dr. Loftus, let's say I told you I got a flat tire last night. And within seconds, you called the Judge about that flat tire. Because you're the one making the information to the Judge, that would not be subject to post incident information?
Dr. L: That's correct. [...] Yes, it would be less subjected to post event (information).
Jackson clarifies that quite a few of Dr. Loftus's studies have been on weapon focus. That she has performed a lot of studies on what people fixate on.
Dr. L: Yes. If there's a weapon people fixate on it. [...] If there isn't one there, then ....
The eye tends to literally drop to that weapon and how well they (the subject) can identify (it). Dr. Loftus states this results in a, "....reduced ability to focus on other aspects such as the face of the individual holding the weapon."
Jackson goes over with Dr. Loftus the phenomenon of expectation. Someone seeing a weapon where none exists and there is an expectation of that. People can mistale an inoculous item for a weapon. Two studies are discussed. The first study investigated information of "racial cues" on identifying weapons. People misidentified tools as guns when identifying a black man. Jackson asks her about a black face verses a white face. Dr. Loftus states, "There's something about being primed with a black (face) and an innocent object (that get's transposed), primed with a gun."
The second study she did and wrote about was "Cross a Thin Blue Line" (I think that's the full name of the study). This was the study of police officers who shoot a white verses a black individual. There is a racial inherent in the study. Dr. Loftus states, "Those are some of the studies. I also mention the 1940's study, (I stated earlier)."
Jackson now asks Dr. Loftus about the connection between confidence and accuracy, and the fact that there are other studies that show there is a strong link and not necessarily a weak one.
AJ: There is a whole different group of psychologist that disagree. That there is a collection of psychologists taht there is a strong correlation between confidence and accuracy?
Dr. Loftus explains that there was a review that took every study that looked at the connection between confidence and accuracy and in averaging out all these studies, there is a connection, it is slightly higher for those with confidence but the overall review of all the studies...the majority of psychotherapists agree. The connection is weak.
Jackson then confronts her with a quote from her book "Eyewitness Testimony" that there are other studies that sow there is a high correlation between accuracy and confidence. "Did I read that correctly?"
Dr. L: Yes, you read that correctly.
So what everyone in the room takes from this is that there are a wide variety of studies that look at confidence and accuracy.
Now Jackson goes over stress and memory. Jackson put up on the ELMO an image from one of Dr. Loftus's books, it's Yerkes Dodson Curve. And it describes the level of memory performance upon waking, increase awareness, alert arousal (the optimum time) and the downward curve where extreme stress will bring it down. The best description of the curve would be an arch, like the one in St. Louis, MO. The top of the arch is "alert arousal" and as more stress is added, then then the level of memory performance decreases.
Pat Dixon enters 106.
The "alert arousal" is where you are at your peak.
Jackson gives an example of someone just holding a gun and not doing anything with it. He asks at what point on the curve would the level of memory awareness be. Then, he demonstrates pulling the gun on someone.
AJ: But now, I point the gun at you and that certainly would raise someone's (stress levels)?
Fidler: And on that note, we'll break for lunch.
During the lunch hour, I almost miss eating, choosing to have a long chat with Ciaran McEvoy, reporter for the Los Angeles Daily Journal on the front steps of the Criminal Court Building. Ciaran interviewed Weinberg several months ago and wrote an article featuring him. Ciaran found Weinberg to be a very likable person. When he was doing background for his article, Ciaran thoroughly researched the allegations that Weinberg and a co-counsel received under-the-table monies from a drug trafficker they represented. There was an order to show cause hearing in Federal court in San Francisco. Weinberg hired John Kerker, considered on the nation's top trial lawyers to represent him. The Judge found the allegations to be meritless. This all happened quite a few years ago during the federal government's "war on drugs" campaign. I want to make it clear that Weinberg was never charged with any wrong doing.
I had just enough time to grab a quick lunch and make it back inside 106 before court resumed. In the second row to my left of where I usually sit is Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly. I give Steven a brief update on the latest with the jury instructions as well as what Dr. Loftus has testified to so far.
1:37 pm, Fidler takes the bench.
Jackson picks back up where he left off discussing stress and it's effect on memory performance. Dr. Loftus states that in relation to Yerkes Dodson Curve, "I can't precisely place things at one specific spot (on the curve)." Jackson then reads from her book, Eyewitness Testimony. I think I have the quote right he read: "When a gun is present there is a gun focus perphrial...." This was in regards to weapon focus studies. In going back to the example Dr. Loftus gave of the boy being shot in the face in the bank robbery film, Jackson asks, "But they didn't tend to forget the boy shot in the face?"
Dr. L: Correct. I didn't see any evidence of that.
AJ: As yoy get new information about events, your stress level can change?
Dr. L: Yes.
Jackson then goes over with Dr. Loftus what an "orienting response" is and "seeing things in and out of context." Jackson asks about examples of out of context events or items.
AJ: Some studies have been done for things that are novel and out of context?
Dr. L: We know that the eye is drawn to the unusual object of the scene. We know that's to be true.
AJ: An orienting response actually leads to higher levels of (accuracy)?
Dr. L: I don't know (that study) speficially, but I agree; it's drawn (the eye) to an unusual item at the scene.
So, in essence, it's possible the eye will be drawn to an unusual object.
AJ: And most of your study....?
Dr. L: Well, we do a lot of study of other items; stop sign to yield sign; car yellow or green.
AJ: Another group works on study memory and spoken statements? [...] (And the) role of arousal for the studies in conversation? [...] High interactional statements and low inter-actional statements?
Dr. L: I don't know those terms. I don't know what them mean.
AJ: Statements that deal with a great deal of speaker and listener interaction?
DW: Objection! Sidebar.
AJ: (Are you aware of) studies that focus on remembering? That study shows that (certain) words have a higher memory impact in conversation?
Dr. L: That wouldn't surprise me if that situation was found.
Jackson goes onto ask if Dr. Loftus is familiar with these studies that shows the information has a higher practical content [...] that surface words [...] have an impact on the person.
Dr. L: If you have a study that shows that....
Jackson gives the example of being called into her bosses office and her boss tells her, "I have cancer." That's a type of conversation that would stick with someone, because it's conveying dramatic, high impact information. ( Through many of Jackson's examples, he would use that example of Dr. Loftus being called into the bosses office and the stress level that might occur. For some reason, Dr. Loftus all through out Jackson's cross was not very receptive to these examples of being called into the office.) Jackson makes the point that statements with high impact words in out of context situations would stay with an individual longer, because they have an impact on the listener.
AJ: (That the) familarity of the speaker has a higher level of (recall experience?)?
Dr. L: That would not surprise me.
Jackson asks Dr. Loftus if studies show that a higher level of intelligence correlates to better memory (retrieval). Jackson give an example of someone who is college educated, been in the military.
DW: Objection!
Fidler: Overruled!
AJ: Higher levels of education do indicate having higher levels of memory recall?
Dr. L: Yes. That's the general understanding.
Jackson asks several more questions that I don't get and then his last question to Dr. Loftus:
AJ: You're not saying that anyone in this case is right or wrong?
Dr. L: Correct.
Weinberg gets up to redirect his witness. He brings up out of context statements that Adriano De Souza made to Detective Tomlin.
DW: What if someone says at one point "not sure" then later says they are?
Dr. Loftus says there might be a situation where in their confidence, they're not sure.
The afternoon break is called at 2:45 pm. The two ladies who drove up from Costa Mesa say goodbye. They are leaving early to beat the traffic. During the break I ask Josh (Linda tells me he prefers to be called Joshua) when does he start working as a DDA. "In June," he replies with a big smile on his face. He will start in misdemeanor court, which is where all new DDA's start. There was a point in Jackson's cross where he did get confused with one of Dr. Loftus's quotes from her many books. He was asking her about it but it was from a book of hers that he didn't have so he wasn't able to show it to her.
In my opinion, I don't know how this helped the defense that much. Dr. Loftus admitted that she doesn't specifically study about remembering words, and that she wasn't an expert on that. And, she wasn't giving the jurors an opinion on any individual's specific testimony. I note that Harriet Ryan has left already but Linda Deutsch is still here. Steven Mikulan left at the break. I will add that Dr. Loftus at times was very funny on the stand and appeared to communicate well with the room. There were many times though when Jackson asked her a question about something she wrote and she said she couldn't remember.
3:07 pm: Fidler retakes the bench and Weinberg continues with his redirect.
Weinberg then turn's Jackson's example of a flat tire around, giving a different hypothetical by replacing the statements with similar statements that Adriano De Souza gave, such as, "... they said they think they had a flat tire."
AJ: Objection! Incomplete hypothetical!
There's a sidebar at the bench. Dr. Loftus stares at the jury during the arguments at sidebar. When Weinberg returns to the podium, he changes his question. There are quite a few more questions but I'm tired and I don't write them down. When Weinberg is finished, there is no recross from the prosecution. Weinberg rests his case and the people call Detective Steven Katz, their second rebuttal witness.
Truc Do presents the witness. Officer Katz works for the LA Co. Sheriff's office at a Leutenant. He is no longer a detective. He is a shift watch commander. He's been with the department 26 years. He was asked to conduct an investigation at the house after the shooting death of Lana Clarkson. When he first arrived, he did not collect any evidence, he just examined items visually. Truc Do states that Officer Katz has been asked to testify about three things: 1.) When and how many times did he handle the gun; 2.) (I miss this but I believe it's about his documentation of the evidence he observed); 3.) What lights were on outside and immediately inside the residence.
Officer Katz states that the coroner's staff arrived at 5:45 pm and the gun was left in place for the coroner to observe. The gun was handled by himself once at 6:00 pm.
TD: Did anyone else handle that gun?
SK: No.
TD: So just once, and no one else?
SK: Yes mam.
Once the coroner left the scene, he described everything that was going on and Detective Lillienfeld was writing evrything down that he stated was going on. He was describing the blood to Detective Lillienfeld who wrote it down. The gun was left in place for 12 hours. The blood on the gun appeared to be dry.
SK: There was no transfer of blood onto my gloves from the firearm.
Truc Do has Officer Katz look at his notes and Detective Lillienfeld's notes. Katz goes over his notes and how he wrote his notes. He describes leaving space between each item he noted on his pad because he knew he would be going back later, and filling in informaiton.
SK: But I left space because i knew i would be puttin in evidentiary other info at another time. That's pretty standard and how I do it.
Later, he transferred some of the information notes from Detective Lillienfeld's notebook to his at a more convenient time. Truc Do asks him if he went over any documentation while he was waiting out in the hallway all day. Katz states, "I went through my notes while waiting."
Katz details what lights were originally on at the scene, and that he was there (until?) 11 pm. He states that he took notes as to what lights were on, when the detectives were at the scene. Katz explains how the scene was "secured." The outside sconce lights right outside the rear entrance were on.
TD: Lights were not turned on by you or any officers?
SK: Yes man.
Katz testifies that the outside porch ceiling lights were also on. Inside the foyer, a sconce light directly beside the rear entrance was on. The candle sconces were also on.
That's it for direct and Weinberg starts cross.
Officer Katz states that he arrived at the scene around 1:30 or 1:15 pm. "I'm not sure when Tomlin or Fortier arrived. The lights in the sconces were on when they got there.
DW: Do you know whether the front door was open?
TD: Objection!
Fidler: Sustained!
DW: Do you know whether the Alhambra Police (when they) arrived if they turned on the lights?
SK: I don't know.
With respect to the gun, Weinberg confronts him that he put the information about bullets, that was put in his report on page 11 (the typed report), then the put in the report, later, about Dr. Pena.
DW: Why would you write in your hand writen notes...
Weinberg asks this question with an incredulous tone in his voice. Weinberg then puts up a series of photographs that were taken of the gun while Katz is holding it. There are quite a few photos of the gun taken at the scene.
DW: How long did you handle the gun?
SK: Maybe a minute.
DW: All those photos, taken within a minute?
SK: Yes. I was [....] The photographer was moving around me, taking photos as I was handling the gun.
Weinberg asks him something about why he picked the gun up at that time and Katz replies something to the effect of, "If you knwo of some other way to pick up the gun, I'd like to hear it."
DW: Bob Kyle stated he arrived at 6:00 pm and he testified that the gun was already picked up.
TD: Objection! Your honor, this is not appropriate.
DW: Are you aware that Bob Kyle testified that when he arrived the gun was picked up? [...] (Are you aware that) Dr. Pena testified they arrived at 5:45 pm, and they were not allowed into the house?
SK: We were not finished. [...] When they cam in the gun was still there.
Weinberg now confronts Katz with Jamie Lintemoot's testimony, where she said that when they arrived it had already been removed by detectives.
Truc Do asks to approach I think after this question.
Weinberg then confronts Katz with his last note in his notebook where it says at 18:00 hours (6:00 pm), "Recovered Weapon." Weinberg confronts him with "why" he didn't add the word "examined" when he indicated he recovered the weapon. To me, Officer Katz replies with one of the best lines of the trial, not only by what he says but the way he delivers it. "Mr. Weinberg, I know it upsets you that I didn't write examined ... (but the truth is, that's when the weapon was recovered and documented).
I believe there is redirect but I don't write any more notes. Court finishes a few minutes before 4:00 pm. The jury is excused and ordered back on Monday at 9:30 am. There is a short discussion about the prosecution's rebuttal case. They think they will finish testimony next week and we may get to argument by the end of next week.
It's at this time that Fidler addresses Spector and he formally gives up his right to testify. Weinberg tells Wendy that Spector has a "medical appointment" Monday at 3:30 pm. They will need to leave court by 2:30 pm on Monday to make that appointment. As I was leaving court, I see that Dr. Loftus was still on the 9th floor. I think she might have gone in and listened to another trial in another courtroom. I see her approach the defense team, smiling, and then sit with them for a bit before I stepped into the elevator bay to go home.
There is a T&T reader who has been transcribing some of the relevant police reports containing Spector's statements at the scene, that are in PDF format on the LA Co. Superior Court web site into text format for me. I hope to get all her efforts into a blog entry sometime soon.
Here are the cases that are being used to decide on jury instructions.
People v. Sears (1970) 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal. Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847] This case is being used by the defense to give a special instruction.
And the other case having to do with adding a lesser charge in jury instructions is People v. Lee. Here is the beginning of the actual decision: (Thank you so much to the individual who forwarded the text of the complete ruling to me.)
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN B. LEE, Defendant and Appellant.
No. S060352.
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
20 Cal. 4th 47; 971 P.2d 1001; 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625; 1999 Cal. LEXIS 1309; 99 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1644; 99 Daily Journal DAR 2094
March 4, 1999, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Rehearing Denied April 14, 1999, Reported at: 1999 Cal. LEXIS 2192.
PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco County. Super. Ct. No. 145602. Lenard D. Louie, Judge.
DISPOSITION: The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
SUMMARY:
CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY
In a prosecution for murder, defendant was convicted of the voluntary manslaughter of his wife. There was evidence that defendant quarreled with his wife, the quarrel escalated into shoving and pushing, defendant broke off the argument, defendant went to another room and obtained a loaded gun, and the gun was fired at close range while in contact with the victim's head. There was also evidence that defendant was intoxicated. (Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. 145602, Lenard D. Louie, Judge.) The Court of Appeal, First Dist., Div. Three, No. A070167, reversed, concluding that even though the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of second degree murder, defendant's conviction of voluntary manslaughter was reversible, because the evidence of provocation was insufficient.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It held that the Court of Appeal erred in reversing defendant's conviction. The lead opinion stated that the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the conviction on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that defendant acted under provocation by the victim. Further, the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, because the jury might have convicted defendant of involuntary manslaughter had such an instruction been given, the error in permitting the jury to return a voluntary manslaughter verdict was prejudicial. The verdict established that, in convicting defendant of voluntary manslaughter under the instructions given, the jury necessarily found all of the facts necessary to establish second degree murder even if the jury incorrectly believed that malice was negated by heat of passion or intoxication. Therefore, although the trial court erred in failing to instruct on misdemeanor manslaughter as a form of involuntary manslaughter, that error could not have prejudiced defendant, because the involuntary manslaughter instructions that were given permitted conviction of that offense on other proper theories. Thus, since the jury rejected a finding of involuntary manslaughter, and since the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of a greater crime than that for which he was convicted, any error was favorable to defendant. He could not complain of errors favorable to him. (Opinion by Baxter, J., with George, C. J., and Chin, J., concurring. Concurring opinion by Brown, J. Dissenting opinion by Mosk, J., with Werdegar, J., concurring. Dissenting opinion by Kennard, J.)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Casey Anthony: March 12 Pre-Trial Hearing, Score: Conway 1/2, Baez 0
The title of this article may be a bit flippant, but after today, it's appropriate! One motion was granted, sort of, and two were essentially declared moot. One defense motion was denied.
The hearing began at 3:05 PM. In attendance were George and Cindy Anthony sitting behind their daughter in her support. Jose Baez and Linda Kenney Baden representing Casey Anthony sat with their client, Casey Anthony who fidgeted with various items of her clothing throughout the proceedings. Bradley Conway was there to represent George Anthony. Judge Stan Strickland presided over the hearing.
Bradley Conway began the proceeding by discussing his Motion To Restrict Disclosure. Conway basically explained that the information did not have evidential value and would only embarrass and annoy the family. He also made a point of stating that the police had broken into George's car after he was taken to the hospital following his suicide attempt, thus gaining access to the letter. He also indicated that if, at a future time, the contents of the letter were to be decided to be of evidential value, he would be willing to argue a motion at that time.
State's Assistant Attorney Linda Drane-Burdick indicated that they "didn't have a dog in this fight" and had no opinion on the issue.
Judge Stan Strickland pointed out that the media had not been noticed about the hearing and did not have any representatives present. He granted the motion saying that nothing in the suicide note was relevant to case at this point. He did state the issue could be reopened if the media filed a motion.
Since Jose Baez is a fan of baseball analogies, I'll say the defense team was next at bat. Before he begins his arguments, he asks the judge to not allow the cameraman to zoom-in on Casey's notes this time. The judge stated he wasn't aware of that happening, but assures Baez that they will not do this. I'm wondering if that's the reason we only had a rear-view of the last hearing. Perhaps that was the judge's way of "punishing" the cameraman!
The first motion argued was the Amended Motion To Compel DNA Bench Notes-Reports And Standards. Linda Kenney-Baden told the court that the defense needed all of this information. They needed more than the reports. They needed the bench notes and a whole lot of other stuff I missed because she speaks very, very fast! Suffice it to say, they want it all and they want it NOW! She used a movie analogy. "It's like buying a ticket to a movie but not watching it and saying you saw the movie." Get it?
State's Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton pointed out to the judge that the State had turned over all material they have to the defense. The State does not have the materials the defense is asking for and is not required to provide the materials the defense is asking for.
Then, we got into a discussion we have heard a number of times before. The judges of the State of Florida do not have jurisdiction over Federal entities such as the Oak Ridge Labs and the FBI. If the defense wants this information, Ashton said (possibly for the umpteenth time in this case) that all they have to do is make two phone calls to these entities and ask for it. Then, it is up to those entities to decide what they will give the defense.
Kenney-Baden pointed out that the FBI does not send bench notes to 3rd parties (the defense). The prosecution has to ask for it. She indicated that that the judge could ultimately preclude testimony during trial if the defense wasn't given this information.
Ashton stated that it is not incumbent on him to get this information. He also said he didn't want to be put in a position where he was "in the middle" of the situation between the defense and the Oak Ridge Labs and the FBI. He pointed out that this court's subpoena power ends at the state line. He added that the judge can't order him to get information for the defense. He also said that counsel will get bench notes if they make two phone calls.
Ashton added that after the defense found anything missing after that, he would deal with them. The defense can call him and he'll tell them what he objects to.
Judge Strickland declared that this issue was moot. He pointed out to Kenney-Baden that she hadn't even tried to get the information she wanted. He told her she doesn't have a letter from either of these entities denying her access to it. He also informed the defense that they should do what they can to get the information they want and file another motion later if necessary. At that point, he seemed to indicate that he wouldn't expect the prosecution to get the information unless the defense proved they HAD to get it through them.
The judge said they should wait for the objections (from the prosecution) and see what the FBI and Oak Ridge labs give them.
Kenney-Baden asked, "If the labs say no and (Ashton) objects, do we need to go back to court to discuss the issues?
The judge responded, "yes."
Ashton then indicated that the defense had already received a copy of the DNA parentage report.
Ashton then turned the discussion over to an attorney for Orlando County's Office of the Medical Examiner, Robert Guthrie. He stated he was in the process of gathering all the information asked for by the defense. (I'll spare you the details!) The exception was the material the defense wanted about the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia's arrangements with Discovery Health and that she may object. In the end, Kenney-Baden stated that she will accept the documents from the ME's office by March 20 and will "go from there"( in the information they want from Dr. Garavaglia).
In the end, there was no decision on this motion. Some items have been resolved and others are bound to come up at a future date!
Next up was a motion originally filed on January 23. It is a Motion For Sanctions. Since this portion of the hearing gave viewers a glimpse as to what the trial may bring, I'm going back to the videotape and give you some detailed information (unless there was a commercial.)
Baez opened with the following statement:
Uh, Judge, from, I guess, uh, prior to us, uh, once we arrived, um, uh, I pretty much laid it out in my thirteen paragraph motion, the facts that gave rise to what we believe, ah, has put us in a position where we are required to ask for sanctions.
I will spare you, dear readers, and myself from anymore transcriptions!
He stated that the State may call some witnesses and that he would prefer to leave his argument until after the testimony is given, with the Judge's permission. If not, he stated he was willing to outline it for the court.
At this point, Drane-Burdick pointed out that this is an evidentiary motion, filed by Mr. Baez, and it is incumbent upon him to produce evidence in support of his motion. If Baez didn't want to do so, she said she would like the court to strike the motion. She also pointed out that she had asked Baez to withdraw the motion as moot.
Drane-Burdick also stated that if he chose to continue, she would be happy to cross-examine any witnesses he would provide.
Baez then stated he would lay out the facts himself. Drane-Burdick objected, stating that if Mr. Baez wants to testify, she will be able to cross-examine him!
Baez agreed to lay out the facts "as they are."
At this point, the judge, slowly and methodically began to explain to Baez that he has brought the motion for sanctions, claiming the State has failed to provide him with information... He thought better of it and calls for a sidebar. It lasted quite a while.
After the sidebar, Baez called his one-and-only witness to the stand. It is CSI2 Gerardo Bloise. Baez tried to make a joke and asked, it's GERARDO, not GERALDO. That one fell flat for many reasons.
The issue in this motion for sanctions is that the defense claimed the white plastic garbage bag that had originally been in the car. By the time Dr. Henry Lee came to examine the car on November 14, the bag and its contents weren't there. Biological and entomological evidence had been sent out to experts David Hall (botanist) and Neil Haskell (entomologist) for study on July 16, the day the bag was taken from the dumpster at Amscot where an employee had thrown it. Neither of these gentlemen were on the State's witness list.
Baez questioned CSI Bloise extensively about his job description and what work he had done to process the car. Blosie stated that it was his job to inspect the car and process the evidence it contained. He did this with his supervisor, Michael Vincent.
Bloise stated he collected some hairs from the trunk and that they were immediately sent to the FBI labs. Baez asks about the nature of the testing done to the hair and Linda Drane-Burdick objected, pointing out that this information has nothing to do with the motion.
This combination of Baez questions and Drane-Burdick objections occurred with many of the questions asked. Many of Baez's questions had nothing to do with the motion.
Baez asked about the garbage bag. Bloise testified the bag wasn't in the car when he received it. He didn't remember when he was told there was garbage in the trunk.
Baez kept asking if anyone ever told him about the bag and Bloise continued saying he didn't remember. Bloise frequently mentioned that the questions that were being asked of him would be better asked of his supervisor, Michael Vincent.
He also asked if Michael Vincent sent out just the bag for testing. He asked if there were any liquids in the bag, was the bag moist, was anything else sent to Dr. Haskell the 28th? Baez refreshed Bloise's memory with Michael Vincent's report. Bloise added that maggots and pupa were sent out.
Bloise also testified that he collected and preserved the garbage. When asked by Baez if he was aware of the evidential value of the garbage, he responded that that was Dr. Haskell's job.
There was yet another objection by Drane-Burdick to limit the questions to the content of the motion.
Moving over a lot of questions here, Baez finally got to Dr. Lee's visit on November 14. Baez stated they were there to inspect the car and its contents. Bloise stated the garbage from the bag was in the evidence section and it was brought over for Dr. Lee to inspect. Bloise also testified that he advised Dr. Lee that the garbage bag was in the Tennessee lab.
Baez then asked about Bloise's notes. Bloise explained that it was SOP to take his notes and write a report from them on his computer and then destroy the notes. Baez went over and over and over this information again and again and again until Drane-Burdick objected.
Baez somehow mentioned that Dr. Lee discovered 17 hairs in the trunk. They were collected by CSI and sent out for testing.
Once he mentioned the 17 hairs, Drane-Burdick objected yet again as to the relevance and Baez was finished with the witness.
Drane-Burdick, in her cross-examination of the witness elicited the fact that Lee was afforded the opportunity to place the car on the lift to further examine it. However, Lee had to catch a plane and didn't get around to doing that. She went on to elicit that that Lee ended the inspection voluntarily. Other facts that came out were that Lee was informed immediatly that the garbage bag was in Tennessee.
Drane-Burdick also asked Bloise when he destroyed his notes. He explained that he routinely destroys his notes once his report is memorialized on the computer.
Baez then questioned Bloise again. The main thrust was that Bloise's report was written 1/1/09. Bloise explained (yet again) that every time he worked on evidence from the case, he would take notes and then write a report on it, destroy his notes. His "report" was actually an accumulation of all his entries made as he worked with evidence. 1/1/09 was the date that his supervisor signed the report.
Somewhere earlier on, Baez had asked Bloise if he took notes during Dr. Lee's examination of the car. Bloise answered that he hadn't. Later in the questioning he asked Bloise where his notes were that he told Dr. Lee the bag was in a lab in Tennessee. Bloise again said he took no notes.
After again telling Bloise he wrote his report 1/1/09 and Bloise again explained the procedures he followed... it was over.
To summarize, Baez stated that he and his team were never informed that material was taken from the car and sent to Haskell and Hall.
I didn't quite follow it at this point, but Baez pulls an A-Rod analogy for Dr. Haskell.
One thing I don't understand about today is that the bag was removed from the car at Amscot and was not in the car when Bloise examined it. Why he was called about this information, which he only learned about later, is beyond me. He essentially processed what he was given, period.
Baez kept repeating that the State failed to disclose this information at the time, in spite of the fact that Bloise testified under oath he told Dr. Lee about the bag and had inspected the garbage retrieved from it. Baez stated that the State should pay for a return visit by Dr. Lee to complete his examination.
Drane-Burdick pointed out that Baez, through his own witness, proved that they were aware of the facts, CSI Bloise had testified that he had informed Lee about the disposition of the questioned evidence and that they were in his own motion! She also pointed out that they had, although they didn't have to, stood there by Dr. Lee and informed him of the status of the investigation.
She also pointed out that, until the defense team and their experts came out to the crime scene where LE was excavating the bones and evidence in December, they hadn't made any effort to review the evidence.
In the end, Judge Strickland denied the motion. He said, "For sanctions, you need misconduct." He also indicated to the defense that discovery is a continuing process and that the defense would get information as it became available to the State.
Okay, loyal readers, if this is a hint at what is to come, it's going to be one tough trial to follow!
The final motion to be discussed today was the Motion to Compel Copies of the Screen Shots or Printouts Concerning the Forensic Examination Done of the Computer of Ricardo Morales which was filed January 23.
I'm just going to summarize this one in as short a manner as possible. There was something the defense felt they didn't have from the computer. Drane-Burdick pointed out that Yuri Melich wrote a report about the computer search and said investigators hadn't found anything of evidential value. The report also indicated that material had been deleted the day it was taken by LE. In the report, it said that the deletions were automatic.
The defense already had the copy of the entire hard drive, but wanted all the notes and reports. Obviously, they don't want to pay an expert of their own to do all the analysis. In the end, it seemed to end up that the prosecution agreed to supply them with something or other.
Unfortunately, I couldn't understand much of what happened because Linda Kenney-Baden was apparently still at the podium and was breathing heavily into the microphone, which drowned out most of the main points of the end of the hearing.
If anybody out there heard something I didn't, please let me know!
Many thanks to Sedonia Sunset for being my fresh set of eyes and helping me to edit.
The hearing began at 3:05 PM. In attendance were George and Cindy Anthony sitting behind their daughter in her support. Jose Baez and Linda Kenney Baden representing Casey Anthony sat with their client, Casey Anthony who fidgeted with various items of her clothing throughout the proceedings. Bradley Conway was there to represent George Anthony. Judge Stan Strickland presided over the hearing.
Bradley Conway began the proceeding by discussing his Motion To Restrict Disclosure. Conway basically explained that the information did not have evidential value and would only embarrass and annoy the family. He also made a point of stating that the police had broken into George's car after he was taken to the hospital following his suicide attempt, thus gaining access to the letter. He also indicated that if, at a future time, the contents of the letter were to be decided to be of evidential value, he would be willing to argue a motion at that time.
State's Assistant Attorney Linda Drane-Burdick indicated that they "didn't have a dog in this fight" and had no opinion on the issue.
Judge Stan Strickland pointed out that the media had not been noticed about the hearing and did not have any representatives present. He granted the motion saying that nothing in the suicide note was relevant to case at this point. He did state the issue could be reopened if the media filed a motion.
Since Jose Baez is a fan of baseball analogies, I'll say the defense team was next at bat. Before he begins his arguments, he asks the judge to not allow the cameraman to zoom-in on Casey's notes this time. The judge stated he wasn't aware of that happening, but assures Baez that they will not do this. I'm wondering if that's the reason we only had a rear-view of the last hearing. Perhaps that was the judge's way of "punishing" the cameraman!
The first motion argued was the Amended Motion To Compel DNA Bench Notes-Reports And Standards. Linda Kenney-Baden told the court that the defense needed all of this information. They needed more than the reports. They needed the bench notes and a whole lot of other stuff I missed because she speaks very, very fast! Suffice it to say, they want it all and they want it NOW! She used a movie analogy. "It's like buying a ticket to a movie but not watching it and saying you saw the movie." Get it?
State's Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton pointed out to the judge that the State had turned over all material they have to the defense. The State does not have the materials the defense is asking for and is not required to provide the materials the defense is asking for.
Then, we got into a discussion we have heard a number of times before. The judges of the State of Florida do not have jurisdiction over Federal entities such as the Oak Ridge Labs and the FBI. If the defense wants this information, Ashton said (possibly for the umpteenth time in this case) that all they have to do is make two phone calls to these entities and ask for it. Then, it is up to those entities to decide what they will give the defense.
Kenney-Baden pointed out that the FBI does not send bench notes to 3rd parties (the defense). The prosecution has to ask for it. She indicated that that the judge could ultimately preclude testimony during trial if the defense wasn't given this information.
Ashton stated that it is not incumbent on him to get this information. He also said he didn't want to be put in a position where he was "in the middle" of the situation between the defense and the Oak Ridge Labs and the FBI. He pointed out that this court's subpoena power ends at the state line. He added that the judge can't order him to get information for the defense. He also said that counsel will get bench notes if they make two phone calls.
Ashton added that after the defense found anything missing after that, he would deal with them. The defense can call him and he'll tell them what he objects to.
Judge Strickland declared that this issue was moot. He pointed out to Kenney-Baden that she hadn't even tried to get the information she wanted. He told her she doesn't have a letter from either of these entities denying her access to it. He also informed the defense that they should do what they can to get the information they want and file another motion later if necessary. At that point, he seemed to indicate that he wouldn't expect the prosecution to get the information unless the defense proved they HAD to get it through them.
The judge said they should wait for the objections (from the prosecution) and see what the FBI and Oak Ridge labs give them.
Kenney-Baden asked, "If the labs say no and (Ashton) objects, do we need to go back to court to discuss the issues?
The judge responded, "yes."
Ashton then indicated that the defense had already received a copy of the DNA parentage report.
Ashton then turned the discussion over to an attorney for Orlando County's Office of the Medical Examiner, Robert Guthrie. He stated he was in the process of gathering all the information asked for by the defense. (I'll spare you the details!) The exception was the material the defense wanted about the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia's arrangements with Discovery Health and that she may object. In the end, Kenney-Baden stated that she will accept the documents from the ME's office by March 20 and will "go from there"( in the information they want from Dr. Garavaglia).
In the end, there was no decision on this motion. Some items have been resolved and others are bound to come up at a future date!
Next up was a motion originally filed on January 23. It is a Motion For Sanctions. Since this portion of the hearing gave viewers a glimpse as to what the trial may bring, I'm going back to the videotape and give you some detailed information (unless there was a commercial.)
Baez opened with the following statement:
Uh, Judge, from, I guess, uh, prior to us, uh, once we arrived, um, uh, I pretty much laid it out in my thirteen paragraph motion, the facts that gave rise to what we believe, ah, has put us in a position where we are required to ask for sanctions.
I will spare you, dear readers, and myself from anymore transcriptions!
He stated that the State may call some witnesses and that he would prefer to leave his argument until after the testimony is given, with the Judge's permission. If not, he stated he was willing to outline it for the court.
At this point, Drane-Burdick pointed out that this is an evidentiary motion, filed by Mr. Baez, and it is incumbent upon him to produce evidence in support of his motion. If Baez didn't want to do so, she said she would like the court to strike the motion. She also pointed out that she had asked Baez to withdraw the motion as moot.
Drane-Burdick also stated that if he chose to continue, she would be happy to cross-examine any witnesses he would provide.
Baez then stated he would lay out the facts himself. Drane-Burdick objected, stating that if Mr. Baez wants to testify, she will be able to cross-examine him!
Baez agreed to lay out the facts "as they are."
At this point, the judge, slowly and methodically began to explain to Baez that he has brought the motion for sanctions, claiming the State has failed to provide him with information... He thought better of it and calls for a sidebar. It lasted quite a while.
After the sidebar, Baez called his one-and-only witness to the stand. It is CSI2 Gerardo Bloise. Baez tried to make a joke and asked, it's GERARDO, not GERALDO. That one fell flat for many reasons.
The issue in this motion for sanctions is that the defense claimed the white plastic garbage bag that had originally been in the car. By the time Dr. Henry Lee came to examine the car on November 14, the bag and its contents weren't there. Biological and entomological evidence had been sent out to experts David Hall (botanist) and Neil Haskell (entomologist) for study on July 16, the day the bag was taken from the dumpster at Amscot where an employee had thrown it. Neither of these gentlemen were on the State's witness list.
Baez questioned CSI Bloise extensively about his job description and what work he had done to process the car. Blosie stated that it was his job to inspect the car and process the evidence it contained. He did this with his supervisor, Michael Vincent.
Bloise stated he collected some hairs from the trunk and that they were immediately sent to the FBI labs. Baez asks about the nature of the testing done to the hair and Linda Drane-Burdick objected, pointing out that this information has nothing to do with the motion.
This combination of Baez questions and Drane-Burdick objections occurred with many of the questions asked. Many of Baez's questions had nothing to do with the motion.
Baez asked about the garbage bag. Bloise testified the bag wasn't in the car when he received it. He didn't remember when he was told there was garbage in the trunk.
Baez kept asking if anyone ever told him about the bag and Bloise continued saying he didn't remember. Bloise frequently mentioned that the questions that were being asked of him would be better asked of his supervisor, Michael Vincent.
He also asked if Michael Vincent sent out just the bag for testing. He asked if there were any liquids in the bag, was the bag moist, was anything else sent to Dr. Haskell the 28th? Baez refreshed Bloise's memory with Michael Vincent's report. Bloise added that maggots and pupa were sent out.
Bloise also testified that he collected and preserved the garbage. When asked by Baez if he was aware of the evidential value of the garbage, he responded that that was Dr. Haskell's job.
There was yet another objection by Drane-Burdick to limit the questions to the content of the motion.
Moving over a lot of questions here, Baez finally got to Dr. Lee's visit on November 14. Baez stated they were there to inspect the car and its contents. Bloise stated the garbage from the bag was in the evidence section and it was brought over for Dr. Lee to inspect. Bloise also testified that he advised Dr. Lee that the garbage bag was in the Tennessee lab.
Baez then asked about Bloise's notes. Bloise explained that it was SOP to take his notes and write a report from them on his computer and then destroy the notes. Baez went over and over and over this information again and again and again until Drane-Burdick objected.
Baez somehow mentioned that Dr. Lee discovered 17 hairs in the trunk. They were collected by CSI and sent out for testing.
Once he mentioned the 17 hairs, Drane-Burdick objected yet again as to the relevance and Baez was finished with the witness.
Drane-Burdick, in her cross-examination of the witness elicited the fact that Lee was afforded the opportunity to place the car on the lift to further examine it. However, Lee had to catch a plane and didn't get around to doing that. She went on to elicit that that Lee ended the inspection voluntarily. Other facts that came out were that Lee was informed immediatly that the garbage bag was in Tennessee.
Drane-Burdick also asked Bloise when he destroyed his notes. He explained that he routinely destroys his notes once his report is memorialized on the computer.
Baez then questioned Bloise again. The main thrust was that Bloise's report was written 1/1/09. Bloise explained (yet again) that every time he worked on evidence from the case, he would take notes and then write a report on it, destroy his notes. His "report" was actually an accumulation of all his entries made as he worked with evidence. 1/1/09 was the date that his supervisor signed the report.
Somewhere earlier on, Baez had asked Bloise if he took notes during Dr. Lee's examination of the car. Bloise answered that he hadn't. Later in the questioning he asked Bloise where his notes were that he told Dr. Lee the bag was in a lab in Tennessee. Bloise again said he took no notes.
After again telling Bloise he wrote his report 1/1/09 and Bloise again explained the procedures he followed... it was over.
To summarize, Baez stated that he and his team were never informed that material was taken from the car and sent to Haskell and Hall.
I didn't quite follow it at this point, but Baez pulls an A-Rod analogy for Dr. Haskell.
One thing I don't understand about today is that the bag was removed from the car at Amscot and was not in the car when Bloise examined it. Why he was called about this information, which he only learned about later, is beyond me. He essentially processed what he was given, period.
Baez kept repeating that the State failed to disclose this information at the time, in spite of the fact that Bloise testified under oath he told Dr. Lee about the bag and had inspected the garbage retrieved from it. Baez stated that the State should pay for a return visit by Dr. Lee to complete his examination.
Drane-Burdick pointed out that Baez, through his own witness, proved that they were aware of the facts, CSI Bloise had testified that he had informed Lee about the disposition of the questioned evidence and that they were in his own motion! She also pointed out that they had, although they didn't have to, stood there by Dr. Lee and informed him of the status of the investigation.
She also pointed out that, until the defense team and their experts came out to the crime scene where LE was excavating the bones and evidence in December, they hadn't made any effort to review the evidence.
In the end, Judge Strickland denied the motion. He said, "For sanctions, you need misconduct." He also indicated to the defense that discovery is a continuing process and that the defense would get information as it became available to the State.
Okay, loyal readers, if this is a hint at what is to come, it's going to be one tough trial to follow!
The final motion to be discussed today was the Motion to Compel Copies of the Screen Shots or Printouts Concerning the Forensic Examination Done of the Computer of Ricardo Morales which was filed January 23.
I'm just going to summarize this one in as short a manner as possible. There was something the defense felt they didn't have from the computer. Drane-Burdick pointed out that Yuri Melich wrote a report about the computer search and said investigators hadn't found anything of evidential value. The report also indicated that material had been deleted the day it was taken by LE. In the report, it said that the deletions were automatic.
The defense already had the copy of the entire hard drive, but wanted all the notes and reports. Obviously, they don't want to pay an expert of their own to do all the analysis. In the end, it seemed to end up that the prosecution agreed to supply them with something or other.
Unfortunately, I couldn't understand much of what happened because Linda Kenney-Baden was apparently still at the podium and was breathing heavily into the microphone, which drowned out most of the main points of the end of the hearing.
If anybody out there heard something I didn't, please let me know!
Many thanks to Sedonia Sunset for being my fresh set of eyes and helping me to edit.
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-Seven, THE DEFENSE RESTS
The defense rested today with the testimony of Dr. Loftus. In my opinion, they ended with a whimper and not a bang. At the end of the day, outside the presence of the jury, Phil Spector waived his right to testify.
I will have an update on today's proceedings much later tonight. Be forewarned; I did not take that many notes today. Listening to the expert on memory almost put me to sleep, other people in the gallery asleep and some of the jury looked like they wanted to take a nap, too.
Right after Professor Loftus testified, Officer Steven Katz (former detective and partner to Detective Lillienfeld, now Lieutenant) took the stand and testified as part of the prosecution's rebuttal case. His testimony is complete. In my opinion, he had one of the best lines of the trial in answer to a question on cross.
More to come...
I will have an update on today's proceedings much later tonight. Be forewarned; I did not take that many notes today. Listening to the expert on memory almost put me to sleep, other people in the gallery asleep and some of the jury looked like they wanted to take a nap, too.
Right after Professor Loftus testified, Officer Steven Katz (former detective and partner to Detective Lillienfeld, now Lieutenant) took the stand and testified as part of the prosecution's rebuttal case. His testimony is complete. In my opinion, he had one of the best lines of the trial in answer to a question on cross.
More to come...
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day 55 & 56
Updated!
No testimony was presented today. Just arguments on jury instructions.
First off, I have a clarification. At the end of court today, Wendy asked Mr. Weinberg about Friday's, through the end of the trial and whether or not court will be in session on Friday through the end of the trial. Weinberg replied that Mr. Spector had a standing (medical?) appointment on Friday, so that day is out. I don't know if this "corrects" what I believe I heard on Monday or if it's "in addition to" what I believe heard on Monday.
Regardless, watching paint dry is more exciting that trying to follow the arguments for jury instructions. I will have an update on yesterday's and today's proceedings much later tonight.
Oh! I almost forgot! Another DDA passed me in the hall right at the end of the lunch break and told me to congratulate Alan (Jackson). He was promoted to "Assistant Head" of Major Crimes division in the DA's office. After I congratulated him, I asked him if he knew about this. He said that it came as a total surprise. Truc also learned just as I was getting ready to step into the elevators that Josh, their clerk through this trial, got hired as a DDA. T&T Congratulates Jackson and Josh on their new job assignments.
A profile on Alan Jackson.
Update: March 11th, 2009, 9:15 pm
I did not attend jury instructions yesterday, but in my comments on Day 54, I covered a little bit of what happened. Not much.
Today, jury instructions were so boring, towards the end I almost fell asleep. I took quite a bit of notes, but decided not to transcribe them all. Dennis Riordan came down from the Bay area to assist Weinberg in crafting jury instructions. There were only three people in the gallery in the morning and two in the afternoon. I was the only one who stayed until the end, which was about 3:00 pm.
On about 95% of the instructions to be used in this trial, the defense had no objection There are still some instructions where language has to be modified or newly crafted to accommodate the circumstances of this case. Both parties will be working on those instructions over the coming days.
There are two new significant issues in this trial. The first being that there will be a jury instruction on the 1101(b) witnesses. There wasn't in the last trial. Second, the prosecution feels they and the court, have a sua sponte duty to ask for lesser included's in jury instructions. What this means is, the prosecution is asking that the charge of manslaughter be added for the jury to consider. The defense also wants a special instruction and the people are opposed to it. That still needs to be decided.
Last year, I clearly remember Fidler ruling that because the gun was inside Ms. Clarkson's mouth, that ruled out manslaughter. However, Fidler is reconsidering that ruling because of a case on this issue, Lee. Unfortunately, I don't have the specific case number and I will try to get it tomorrow.
Truc Do does the majority of the prosecution's presentation on jury instructions. I will try to sum up the basic tenor of the argument to include the charge of manslaughter.
TD: We think we have a duty, sua sponte based on brandishing. [...] In terms of factual patterns with Lee... [...] Based on Lee, we have at minimum, the defendant committed a brandishing (act). On Lee (the court ruled) it had a duty to charge, even if there is other circumstantial evidence that proved (a higher charge of murder). [...] At minimum, the defendant has brandished.
DR: She died while there was a firearm in her mouth. We don't believe there is any way to argue [....] There isn't a rational argument that this is less than second degree murder. I, we just don't see (it). The people have said a brandishing, either that brandishing led to Mr. Spector putting the gun in Ms. Clarkson's mouth and on that, we have second degree.
Fidler: I'm going to respond. The question is, do I have a sua sponte duty to give it (the lesser charge). When I started to (this) the first time and trying to interpret Lee, I thought the same. My original thought was, the gun is in the mouth. [...] But that's where it finishes. [...] But the brandishing, (it's) there in the beginning. Like Ms. Do said in her argument, that's the actual result. (In Lee, the court ruled ~in that case~ "the gun against the head." That's not brandishing either, (yet they ruled that the lesser included charge should be given). It's not where it ends up (but it's where it starts). [...] We don't know how it got there, si I think Lee says that it (the charge) has to (be given). (So that's where I'm at) but I'm willing to listen.
The rest of the afternoon all three parties, prosecution, defense and court present arguments on the manslaughter issue and some time on the special instruction the defense wants added.
There was a short discussion on how many witnesses are left. Weinberg stated that his last witness is Dr. Loftus. Jackson told me after court that they are "trying" to keep their rebuttal witnesses down to "less than a half dozen" but they are not sure even at this point who all they are going to call. They believe they will call three or five, and those witnesses will take "two or three days."
It is unknown at this time if Weinberg is going to put on a sur-rebuttal case or not. I asked Jackson a hypothetical that, if Weinberg puts on Punkin Pie as part of a sur-rebuttal case, could he then put on witnesses to counter her testimony and how many times can that go back and forth? Jackson stated that yes, he could put on a witness to counter Pie, and the Judge could decide how far he would let that go on, with new witnesses called, back and forth.
Jackson did state that they will be calling a rebuttal witness out of order within the defense case ( believe Detective Katz) tomorrow morning. I got the impression that this is going to be a very short witness, and then we go onto Dr. Loftus. If, if, if, Weinberg choose NOT to put on a sur-rebuttal case, we could possibly get to closing arguments by the end of next week, or the beginning of the following week. It all depends on what the defense decides to do.
Court starts tomorrow at 9:30 am. I also want to give a little "nice to meet you" to a gentleman I got to talk to for just a moment at the end of the day on Monday. I forgot to mention him in my notes for that day. He is an avid T&T reader who traveled cross country with his daughter and while in Los Angeles, decided to drop in on the trial. I wanted to tell him that I'm sorry I had to run and that our chat was so short.
P.S. I have also wanted to give a shout out to a blog I've been reading the past month or so, The Aries Point, and this is just as good a time as any. The Aries Point has taken a look at Phil Spector's astrological chart and posted a few entries on it. I have always had a passing interest in astrology. Not because I follow or study it but because I find the whole premise behind astrology intriguing. Please note that the blogger states they are a "student" of astrology.
No testimony was presented today. Just arguments on jury instructions.
First off, I have a clarification. At the end of court today, Wendy asked Mr. Weinberg about Friday's, through the end of the trial and whether or not court will be in session on Friday through the end of the trial. Weinberg replied that Mr. Spector had a standing (medical?) appointment on Friday, so that day is out. I don't know if this "corrects" what I believe I heard on Monday or if it's "in addition to" what I believe heard on Monday.
Regardless, watching paint dry is more exciting that trying to follow the arguments for jury instructions. I will have an update on yesterday's and today's proceedings much later tonight.
Oh! I almost forgot! Another DDA passed me in the hall right at the end of the lunch break and told me to congratulate Alan (Jackson). He was promoted to "Assistant Head" of Major Crimes division in the DA's office. After I congratulated him, I asked him if he knew about this. He said that it came as a total surprise. Truc also learned just as I was getting ready to step into the elevators that Josh, their clerk through this trial, got hired as a DDA. T&T Congratulates Jackson and Josh on their new job assignments.
A profile on Alan Jackson.
Update: March 11th, 2009, 9:15 pm
I did not attend jury instructions yesterday, but in my comments on Day 54, I covered a little bit of what happened. Not much.
Today, jury instructions were so boring, towards the end I almost fell asleep. I took quite a bit of notes, but decided not to transcribe them all. Dennis Riordan came down from the Bay area to assist Weinberg in crafting jury instructions. There were only three people in the gallery in the morning and two in the afternoon. I was the only one who stayed until the end, which was about 3:00 pm.
On about 95% of the instructions to be used in this trial, the defense had no objection There are still some instructions where language has to be modified or newly crafted to accommodate the circumstances of this case. Both parties will be working on those instructions over the coming days.
There are two new significant issues in this trial. The first being that there will be a jury instruction on the 1101(b) witnesses. There wasn't in the last trial. Second, the prosecution feels they and the court, have a sua sponte duty to ask for lesser included's in jury instructions. What this means is, the prosecution is asking that the charge of manslaughter be added for the jury to consider. The defense also wants a special instruction and the people are opposed to it. That still needs to be decided.
Last year, I clearly remember Fidler ruling that because the gun was inside Ms. Clarkson's mouth, that ruled out manslaughter. However, Fidler is reconsidering that ruling because of a case on this issue, Lee. Unfortunately, I don't have the specific case number and I will try to get it tomorrow.
Truc Do does the majority of the prosecution's presentation on jury instructions. I will try to sum up the basic tenor of the argument to include the charge of manslaughter.
TD: We think we have a duty, sua sponte based on brandishing. [...] In terms of factual patterns with Lee... [...] Based on Lee, we have at minimum, the defendant committed a brandishing (act). On Lee (the court ruled) it had a duty to charge, even if there is other circumstantial evidence that proved (a higher charge of murder). [...] At minimum, the defendant has brandished.
DR: She died while there was a firearm in her mouth. We don't believe there is any way to argue [....] There isn't a rational argument that this is less than second degree murder. I, we just don't see (it). The people have said a brandishing, either that brandishing led to Mr. Spector putting the gun in Ms. Clarkson's mouth and on that, we have second degree.
Fidler: I'm going to respond. The question is, do I have a sua sponte duty to give it (the lesser charge). When I started to (this) the first time and trying to interpret Lee, I thought the same. My original thought was, the gun is in the mouth. [...] But that's where it finishes. [...] But the brandishing, (it's) there in the beginning. Like Ms. Do said in her argument, that's the actual result. (In Lee, the court ruled ~in that case~ "the gun against the head." That's not brandishing either, (yet they ruled that the lesser included charge should be given). It's not where it ends up (but it's where it starts). [...] We don't know how it got there, si I think Lee says that it (the charge) has to (be given). (So that's where I'm at) but I'm willing to listen.
The rest of the afternoon all three parties, prosecution, defense and court present arguments on the manslaughter issue and some time on the special instruction the defense wants added.
There was a short discussion on how many witnesses are left. Weinberg stated that his last witness is Dr. Loftus. Jackson told me after court that they are "trying" to keep their rebuttal witnesses down to "less than a half dozen" but they are not sure even at this point who all they are going to call. They believe they will call three or five, and those witnesses will take "two or three days."
It is unknown at this time if Weinberg is going to put on a sur-rebuttal case or not. I asked Jackson a hypothetical that, if Weinberg puts on Punkin Pie as part of a sur-rebuttal case, could he then put on witnesses to counter her testimony and how many times can that go back and forth? Jackson stated that yes, he could put on a witness to counter Pie, and the Judge could decide how far he would let that go on, with new witnesses called, back and forth.
Jackson did state that they will be calling a rebuttal witness out of order within the defense case ( believe Detective Katz) tomorrow morning. I got the impression that this is going to be a very short witness, and then we go onto Dr. Loftus. If, if, if, Weinberg choose NOT to put on a sur-rebuttal case, we could possibly get to closing arguments by the end of next week, or the beginning of the following week. It all depends on what the defense decides to do.
Court starts tomorrow at 9:30 am. I also want to give a little "nice to meet you" to a gentleman I got to talk to for just a moment at the end of the day on Monday. I forgot to mention him in my notes for that day. He is an avid T&T reader who traveled cross country with his daughter and while in Los Angeles, decided to drop in on the trial. I wanted to tell him that I'm sorry I had to run and that our chat was so short.
P.S. I have also wanted to give a shout out to a blog I've been reading the past month or so, The Aries Point, and this is just as good a time as any. The Aries Point has taken a look at Phil Spector's astrological chart and posted a few entries on it. I have always had a passing interest in astrology. Not because I follow or study it but because I find the whole premise behind astrology intriguing. Please note that the blogger states they are a "student" of astrology.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-four Part II
March 9th, 2009 (unedited, draft entry)
Prosecution Rebuttal Witnesses: (out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule)
#34 Lisa Bloom (licensed attorney, TruTV's In Sessions anchor and analyst for CBS Morning News; testimony complete)
Defense Witnesses:
# 16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist and suicidologist; testimony complete)
#17 Dr. Mary Goldenson (psychologist Lana Clarkson called; testimony complete)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: One possible individual, unidentified
Sometimes the things that go on out in the hallway or gallery or argued inside the well without the jury present are more interesting than testimony. There were moments today where that was certainly the case.
When I arrived on the ninth floor, I see Lisa Bloom in the hallway chatting with Tom Messerau. She's wearing an all red, short sleeve dress that's cinched at the waist. It has ruffles around the v-neck collar in front. I was surprised to see her in the hallway sitting on a bench by herself. I thought she would be upstairs with the prosecution team. (TMZ has a short clip where they interviewed her outside the rear entrance of the Criminal Court building.)
I introduce myself to her, tell her I know Beth Karas and am covering the case for my blog. I told her that there was a lot of speculation on whether or not she would testify. I ask her if she can talk about her leaving In Sessions. She replies "Sure." She tells me that they wanted to renew her contract for a 9th year but she decided not to. She's leaving in June of this year to move back to Southern California. She's currently in a long distance relationship for the last year and a half. I acknowledge that can be hard. Lisa also mentioned that her daughter is going off to college soon so she will be "free." She will still have her role as an analyst for CBS news that will be expanding and she has "other projects in the fire." Lisa asked me how many days is it into the trial. I was at a momentary loss as to what day of trial it was and told her she needed to ask Jackson. (I was stumped because I completely forgot what day we were on and because I know that my day counting is not exactly right. I started from testimony and not from the first day of trial.)
Right after that Jackson and Truc Do approach with their rolling cart. I tell Alan that I didn't ask her any questions about the case and they head into the courtroom. I stay outside in the hallway to call donchais and give her and update.
9:28 am: As soon as I got inside the courtroom I was informed that shortly before my arrival, the court clerk, Wendy, informed counsel that Harvey with the white hair called the court this morning wanting to know the status of the case. Mr. Weinberg asked her, "Why was he calling?" Weindy replied, "Because his photo was up on the screen." I was told that afterwards, Mr. Weinberg smiled, put his hand to his forehead and shook his head.
You have to wonder why Harvey was inquiring about the status of the case? Why didn't he come on down to the court the last few days to sit and ask Spector himself? Could Harvey be worried about something?
There's a bit of a bustle in the well. The defense team seem to be real taken with Lisa Bloom being here and they are all getting introduced to her. Rachelle, Mommy and Tawni Tyndall are in the first row. No other supporters have shown up for the morning session. Josh and Lisa chat about the dismal job situation for attorneys. I overhear Lisa tell Josh that an attorney she knows posted a job that pays nothing! Nothing! He got 25 applications. People would rather be working so they can gain the experience. Cindy puts what looks like another day's transcript on Judge Fidler's desk. As I'm looking as the desk, there appear to be three tall piles of each days transcript. Diane gives Truc and Weinberg a copy of yesterday's transcript also.
It's 9:44 am, and people in the gallery are chatting. There is a new person in the gallery carrying a book that waves to Susan, Weinberg's paralegal. Interesting. He doesn't sit on the defense side of the room. 9:47 am Wendy calls the jury. Spector standing, stares at Lisa Bloom in the front row. At 9:50 am we hear Fidler's footsteps on the terrazzo floor. Juror #1 waves to the bailiff Kyles, who asks if anyone needs notebooks.
Jackson asks the court to take a witness out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule. Jackson calls Lisa Bloom to the stand.
Lisa Bloom states she is currently an anchor woman for TruTV, formerly known as Court TV (she often still calls it Court TV) In Sessions. She has her own show, Lisa Bloom: Open Court. She is also a legal analyst for CBS Morning News. Before that, she was a practicing attorney at her mother's law firm of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Before that she was an attorney for the law firm of Robinson & Silverman.
Bloom started at Court TV in June of 2001. It's now TruTV. It's the same network, same channel just a different name. Her show was originally with Vinnie Politan but now it's just her. Her show is called Lisa Bloom, Open Court.
AJ: In 2007, did CourtTV run coverage of the first trial.
LB: Yes they did. Gavel to gavel coverage. [...] In 2007 CourtTV was covering it extensively.
Juror #9 from the first trial comes in and sits behind me in the third row.
Bloom testifies that she often has guests on her show that are related in some way to the cases her station covers.
AJ: Do you know Greg Sims?
LB: Yes. We've been friends since the early 90's. We were neighbors when I lived in an apartment building in Pacific Palisades. We were friends before I moved to New York.
AJ: When did you become aware of Lana Clarkson's death?
LB: Immediately.
AJ: Back in 2003, were you covering this story? (Did you learn of it from being in the news industry?)
LB: (I would say I'm more (aware of) crime sews than regular citizens.
AJ: When did you first talk to Greg Sims about Lana Clarkson's death?
LB: Shortly after the shooting.
AJ: Were you speaking to him as a newswoman or more as a friend?
LB: As a friend. [...] He said, "Oh my God! I knew Lana Clarkson and I soke to her in the week before she died. " He said he had a party at his suite at the St. Regis. He said she was weepy and said. That she talked for a long time and after they talked she felt better. [...] He said that she was like about 90% of actresses in Hollywood that got drunk. She was down and upset but by the end of the night she was feeling better. [...] I asked him at the time, "Was she suicidal?" And he said, "Absolutely not."
AJ: Did (he say) she ever say anything to him to (suggest she was going to kill herself)?
LB: I asked him that and he said, "Absolutely not."
AJ: Did you say anything at that time, "Oh you have to do an interview?"
LB: We were mostly just talking about it. [...] He was upset that anyone would make any suggestion that she would kill herself.
AJ: At what point did you ask him to be on your show.
LB: I contacted him and wanted him to come on my show and he agreed.
AJ: It was during that trial (the first trial) that you had him on as witness?
LB: Well, we call them guests.
Laughter in the jury box and a bit in the courtroom.
AJ: When you have a guest on, do you do any pre interviews or do you just have them come on?
LB: Yes we do pre interviews of our guests.
Bloom did a pre-interview with him right before the show. The taping of his appearance happened in her studio in New York. She's certain it was during a time that he was in New York because she knows her network would not have paid to fly him out to New York.
LB: I went over the story with him. I wanted to be accurate. He told me the same story. [...] He stated that at the end of the conversation she felt better, as friends do...
AJ: What else did he say?
LB: At the time the trial was under way, and one of the defense theories was suicide. He said, "Absolutely not. She would never kill herself."
The segment of the CourtTV show that Greg Sims was on is played for the court again.
AJ: Is that a portion of your interview with Mr. Sims?
LB: Yes.
Is that consistent with what he had previously told you in the pre-interview?
LB: Yes.
Is that consistent with the conversation you had in 2003?
LB: Yes.
AJ: Is your show a tabloid show?
LB: Absolutely not. [...] We don't do three or five minute sound bites covering a trial. It's a gavel to gavel show on trial coverage. [...] I take my job and my credibility very seriously. I would never have anyone on that would say something untrue and when I've found someone lying on my show, I cal them on it.
AJ: Was Greg Sims compensated for his appearance on your show?
LB: No one is.
AJ: Is there anything inconsistent with what you've seen on this video?
LB: Nothing inconsistent.
That's pretty much it for direct examination and Weinberg gets up to cross Lisa Bloom.
DW: I take it you came here from New York?
LB: Yes.
DW: Did you come her voluntarily?
LB: I was subpoenaed.
DW: You're not being ordered by another court? [...] You simply received a subpoena and agreed to come?
LB: No. It wasn't that simple.
Lisa Bloom explains that there were discussions back and forth between the attorneys representing her network. Weinberg also makes a point that Bloom does not remember the specific dates that she was first contacted by Mr. Jackson. She knows it was recent, the prior week. She can't remember the specific date that Sims was on her show or when he testified in the first trial or when the first trial started.
DW: Who did you talk to?
LB: Mr. Jackson. Then I had to talk to the attorneys at the station.
DW: What did he (Jackson) tell you?
Bloom doesn't remember exactly but basically that Greg Sims changed his testimony.
DW: So you don't know what Mr. Jackson said?
LB: I can tell you the essence but I can't tell you the exact words. He was telling me....
DW: You had a conversation with your friend. (Do you remember when that was?)
LB: Yes. I dcan't give you the exact date.
DW: In 2007 when you were covering Spector trial number 1, were you thinking about this? [...] Did you express negative opinions about Mr. Spector? [...] Did you call him a "nebbish little Jewish guy?"
LB: (Lisa laughs.) I may have. Do you know I'm Jewish?
DW: Yes, I know.
LB: That's not necessarily a negative statement. I call my boyfriend a nebbish little Jewish guy.
The courtroom laughs at her comment.
Weinberg accused her of being biased and forming an opinion about Spector's guilt. Lisa Bloom states that she watched all the testimony from the first trial and after seeing all the evidence, she felt the prosecution proved it's case. At one point, he confronts her that her co-host at that time, Vinnie Politan took the opposite viewpoint as her. Lisa Bloom points out that her former co-host used to be a prosecutor. He often would take the opposite side to make the show more interesting. I believe it's at this point that Lisa Bloom admits that yes, there is an "entertainment" aspect to her show.
Weinberg reads Sim's testimony from this trial for her to consider. He reads where Sims hems and haws and says he believes that there could have been an accident.
DW: Would you say that sounds like he said she was suicidal?
LB: No.
DW: You went to his wedding?
LB: Yes. [...] I was one of his bridesmaids got sick so I was asked to fill in. And I put on a ridiculous dress and I did it.
Weinberg now plays an audio clip where she talked about Greg Sims on her show. She talks about how he's an honest guy and that he has parties at his St. Regis suite as part of his networking for business. She describes the suite and that she had been there on an occasion (or two?). (I think on the clip of her show she mentioned that he was a father and had two kids. That comes to my mind as I write this.)
LB: I agree with everything she said.
DW: What you said was "What you see is what you get?" (About Mr. Sims.)
Weinberg plays another video excerpt from her show and confronts her that what he said on the show was "very depressed" and not "weepy and sad" as she described.
DW: You said what he said (in his testimony at trial #1) was consistent (with what he had told you)?
Weinberg is now trying to make her out to be a tabloid journalist. She insists that the "tenor" of the conversation was consistent. Weinberg now reads other sections of Sim's testimony to her from the first trial.
LB: I don't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.
Weinberg goes over statement after statement of Sim's testimony and each time Bloom responds that she doesn't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.
That's about it for cross and Jackson steps back up to redirect.
Jackson gets it clarified that his office served a subpoena in Atlanta at her network's headquarters. Bloom agrees that there were several discussions back and forth between the prosecution and her networks attorneys before they accepted the subpoena. It was either in direct, or in redirect here, where Jackson asks her how many cases she's covered on her network as well as gets it stipulated to the date that Sims appeared on her show.
AJ: If someone in a murder case, not this case, any case, say a rapist or murder made a confession, is that something that sticks out in your mind?
LB: Yes.
AJ: A confession would be very important, correct? [...] And conversely, if someone had made a confession that she said she was going to kill herself?
LB: Yes. That would be something that would stick out in my mind. [...] I would have had him on my show sooner.
Jackson then presents Bloom with other testimony by Sims in the second trial.
LB: If he had ever told me that Lana said she never had a reason to live, that would have stuck out in my mind, and he never said that to me.
Jackson presents to Bloom another statement from this trial by Sims, where he said, "She didn't have a reason to live."
LB: That's inconsistent with what he told me.
That's the end of redirect and Weinberg on recross, tries to get Bloom to comment on Lana Clarkson's letters (emails?). The prosecution objects and the objection is sustained. Weinberg asks her about her first conversation with Mr. Jackson. Bloom states that it was the week prior. She states that the conversation was only a two to three minute conversation.
There is a last redirect of this witness. Jackson asks her, "Last Friday was the first time we fleshed out your testimony?" Bloom agrees that's correct. And that's it for this witness. I have to say that Lisa Bloom smiled a lot on the stand and appeared very relaxed and personable, even under cross. She was very careful about what she said and at one point, was careful not to "put words" into Mr. Sim's mouth. She stated that as a journalist, she's careful about when she puts "quotes" around statements. She would only state that the "tenor" of the conversation was the same. I think she did well on direct and cross.
It's 10:42 am, and a break is called. Allan Parachini is in the back of the courtroom. The jury has gone back into the jury room and counsel are going over some issues with the court.
Fidler: (Addressing Jackson and Truc) You were going to prepare a transcript and what questions Ms. Do can ask?
Truc Do informs the court she may be rethinking her questions of Dr. Seiden. "We sent the tape to the transcription unit and even with a rush, the tape would take a week. [...] I've reviewed the tape. I'm not going to go into the area that (we previously discussed).
Weinberg now addresses the court. He feels there is a discovery violation via Lisa Bloom's testimony. "No one's talked to her? How did you (Jackson) ask such specific information (of Greg Sims)? [...] Her answers don't solve the mystery. [...] There was a conversation...."
AJ: When I had asked the questions of Mr. Sims, I had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before my conversation with Greg Sims.
Weinberg goes onto argue that there were specifically more questions to Greg Sims. One of the questions he brings us is a statement Jackson made as part of a question. I remember Jackson saying this. 'When Lisa walked you down to the street...' [...] That's not a question you ask. [...] That's something you just asked (without a prior conversation)? (If I'm remembering correctly, I believe Weinberg accuses the prosecution of lying, but I'm not positive.)
Jackson insists he had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before. He denies lying to the court. He states he based his questions to Mr. Sims on "what he knows" about how those shows are conducted and from information he's received from other sources.
Fidler mentions again the breakdown in communication between the two counsels. "It's clear that you can't stand each other. [...] I don't see any discovery violation. [...] Irregardless Mr. Weinberg, I saw your cross. You were not prejudiced in any way."
At this point the rest of the court room gets to take a break and the court reporters change. I see Spector get up from the defense table and go over to Rachelle and Mommy to speak to them in the first row. Spector says something to Mommy and Rachelle that several other people in the courtroom overhear. Three other trial watchers told me what they heard Spector say to Mommy and Rachelle after Lisa Bloom left the stand. It was a similar statement to what we've heard Spector say about women before. I will say that the word "bitch" was used.
After they overheard what Spector said, they discussed what they overheard amongst themselves. After that, they also observed Mommy staring at them and discretely pointing at them while she's talking to Spector. I observed her pointing at me and talking to Tawni Tyndall. Afterwards, (I'm assuming Mommy was probably trying to get Spector to be quiet) he was observed going over to Weinberg's paralegal, Susan and animatedly pointing at the gallery. If you're going to make demeaning statements about women Phil, it's probably not a good idea to do it where other people can hear you.
11:09 am, Fidler takes the bench. Weinberg tells the court they have another brief witness out of order. Dr. Mary Goldenson. Dr. Goldenson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate in psychology. She testifies she, "Works with individuals and families going through crisis. [...] I do full spectrum counseling from the light to serious." She states she has been practicing 37 years.
Weinberg presents an email that Lana wrote to her.
DW: Do you know Lana Clarkson?
Dr. G: Yes. I recrived a call. She was recommended from one of her friends. [...] She called and said she really wanted to see me, but it was mostly about her insurance. She was working with SAG to work it out so she could see me."
DW: Did she ever come in?
Dr. G: No, she never did.
There is a quick side bar and then it's to cross examination.
Jackson brings up the original email that Lana wrote her. The date is corrupted. It's 1904 which is obviously incorrect. Then Jackson presents another email, a response Lana got back from Jennifer Sykes about calling Dr. Goldenson. That email is dated in March, 2002. Dr. Goldenson could not remember if that refreshed her memory as to when the phone call was received from Lana Clarkson.
Jackson asks her about the other things she does besides individual and family counseling. Dr. Goldenson states that she also does something she calls "Self Introspection" work, "Interpersonal Therapy" work and "Psycho-dynamic Therapy." In general, career and personal development work and helping people improve their personal dialog or speaking skills.
On redirect, Weinberg asks her if she knows Jennifer Sykes. If I'm recalling correctly, I don't believe she did. At the last trial, she was asked if she received the phone call in December oof 2oo2 or possibly early January of 2003. Dr. Goldenson thinks that she probably had a better memory back then, and that probably was correct.
In recross, Jackson presents her with the fact that Mr. Rosen supplied her with a date and she agreed, and that possibly that might not have been correct and the date of the email might be a more accurate time frame of when she received the call. She thinks that she was probably correct in her prior testimony (of the December date) but also adds, "It was vague then and it's vague now." The jury laughs at that. And that's it for Dr. Goldenson.
It's 11:30 am and Dr. Seiden is back on the stand under cross examination by Truc Do.
Truc Do starts off by touching briefly on the issue of the five boxes of emails, the 12,017 pages of emails. "Were you aware that those emails were from approximately the last two years of her life?
Dr. S: I know there was a CD.
TD: Were you aware that they represented the last two years of Lana Clarkson's life.
Dr. S: I wasn't aware of the time (frame).
TD: You stated you could not rule out suicide?
Dr. S: Right.
TD: You todl the jury based on the psychological review of the case?
Dr. S: Yes. It was bassed on the documents sent to me.
TD: Your opinion is based solely as to what you call psychological factors?
Dr. S: yes.
TD: Because you state that that (you're) not qualified (to evaluate the physical evidence), you wouldn't take into (consideration) other factors? [...] So your opinion does not take into count the physical evidence and witness statements at the scene?
Dr. S: that's correct. That's my training and expertise (the psychological aspects).
TD: Given the limits of your opinion, let's assume, what if I told you there was a video. So if I told you there was a video or the scene, you would still tell the jury...
Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do.
Dr. S: What video tape? What are you trying to get me to say?
TD: I'm just trying to show you the limitations of your opinion.
Dr. S: Would i still say [...] (if ) I saw a video? [...] So if I saw a video that clearly showed she didn't commit sucicide, yes, I would change my opinion.
Weinberg makes an objection and counsel approach the bench.
TD: So then your opinion could be based on non-psychological factors? [...] Dr. Seiden, in my question in askiny you about a hypothetical, you would consider that, even thou it's not psychological factors? [...] So then you would (consider) ....
Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do.
Dr. S: That's not what I was, I was asked to do.
TD: Who told you that information was the only information that was done by our office? (The letter from Doug Sortino that had the 30 interviews and the 30 emails.)
Dr. S: Well, I relied on what the District Attorney sent Dr. Lakshmanan.
TD: did you get the entire medical records or just certain documents that Mr. Weinberg picke out.
Dr. S: I don't know.
TD: Is there any other basis to your opinion other than psychological factors?
Dr. S: What do you mean?
TD: Did you consider any other factors?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Are you certain about that? [...] Do you recall we asked you (in that meeting on February 6th).... [...] Do you recall that you told us on that date that it was an intra-oral gunshot wound. That in your experience, and you thought that was an anomaly? [...] In your experience, you did consider non-psychological facts.
Dr. S: But I didn't give it that much weight.
TD: So you did tell us about a non-psychological factor (that you considered)?
Dr. S: yes.
TD: Did you have any strategy meeting with Mr. Weinberg, since you certainly did consider other non-psychological factors?
Dr. S: I had never seen anything like this case before.
TD: In act, you told us about the article by Dr. Hawley, the article that references three intra-oral homicides, that you brought to Mr. Weinberg's attention?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: So it made no difference t you what the other non-psychological evidence was?
Dr. S: I wasn't asked to consider it. I have no background in criminialistics.
TD: so I asked you if you considered the fact that Lana Clarkson was killed with Mr. Spector's gun?
DW: Objection! Under 352, he said he didn't consider (it)!
Fidler: Approach!
It's 11:48 am and this is a long sidebar. Rachelle's eyes are closed. Jackson comes back to the podium and whispers in Truc's ear.
TD: You did not consider any physical evidence at the scene?
Dr. S: No.
TD: You didn't consider any manipulated evidence at the scene?
Dr. S: (No.)
TD: You didn't consider anything that a witness said at the scene?
Dr. S: No.
TD: So you are aware of a witness, Adriano De Souza said he saw blood, a gun in Mr. Spector's hand and (that Mr. Spector confessed)?
Dr. S: It didn't factor into what I was asked to do.
TD: You did say that you considered the factor of alcohol on Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Specifically, alcohol will hisinhibit the cerebral cortex?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive rage?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive anger?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: In fact, you have written articles on alcohol and impulsive violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: I've noticed that you've also written substantially on alcohol and violence.
Truc reads severa titles to articles he's written.
TD: So, not just limited to impulsive suicide, but also impulsive violence that (leads) to homicide?
Dr. S: (Yes.)
TD: (Have you not written that) suicide may be a different means of expressing aggression? [...] (That) homicides and are expressions of violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that suicide is violence turnd on ones' self?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And homicide is violence turned on another person?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: If there was a history of Lana Clarkson harming herself, a history of Lana Clarkson turning a gun on herself, it would certainly strengthen you opinion?
I don't have Dr. Seiden's answer in my notes but I believe he agrees with this.
TD: And you know there are not threats or physical harm against herself (in her writings)?
Dr. S: Well, there are some "coded" threats.
TD: You are aware of no evidence of Lana Clarkson harming herself or had harmed herself (in the past)?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: But you would consider a history or behavior of ideation of harming others? [...] There is (such a thing as) impulsive homicide? [...] You've written about that, correct?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You also....
Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do to say that he is willing to "recant about the DMV opinion, but there's so much other evidence."
TD: What other evidence of impulsive behavior?
Dr. S: I don't know... that other people brought up that she was demanding and impulsive. John Barrons....
TD: So you're saying that any kind of impulsive behavior indicates a risk of suicide? [...] Isn't it mostly impulsive agression and not any impulsive (behavior)?
Judge Fidler interrupts that we've reached the noon recess.
It's right after the lunch break is called that several people approached me to tell me about what they overheard Spector say at the morning break.
At 1:28 pm, Jackson and Truc Do arrive with their cart. I note that there are not any Spector supporters in court for the afternoon session yet. Spector leaves the defense table and goes to speak to his bodyguard standing in the ante chamber of the entrance to 106. Spector finds something funny because Spector is smiling as he walks away from the bodyguard.
Wendy, Fidler's clerk is asking Weinberg if we are doing Friday this week. Weinberg says that Mrs. Spector can't do Friday. I believe Wendy also states that a juror has appointment on Friday that "they didn't want to miss." So it looks like we will not be having testimony on this Friday, either.
1:38 pm, we're waiting to hear Fidler's footsteps and there they are, one minute later.
TD: We were last talking about impulsivity and your input on regards to suicide.
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: There is such a thing as impulsive homicide?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: Are you aware that there is such a things as Impulsive Disorder? That there is such a term?
Dr. S: I'm not familiar with it.
Truc Do brings up the DSM on this disorder and what it has to say about impulsive control disorder. Truc brings up the fact that the essential feature of this disorder is the failure to control (impulses)... (I'm not positive, but I believe Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do again when he answers.)
Dr. S: I don't get what you are saying. I never said she had....
TD: I'm not saying you did. Does the DSM say that?
Dr. S: Yes.
Truc goes over the different categories of Impulsive Control Disorder.
TD: Would you read this on the screen?
Dr. S: ICD is a failure to resist impulse, drive, or temptation, to perform a harmful act to self or others. (Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) Explosive; Kleptomania; Setting Fires; Gambling; Trichotillomania (pulling out hair). When the last term is explained Fidler smiles, and Truc Do says, "I wasn't going to go there." There's a bit of laughter in the courtroom.
Dr. S: I never said she had....
TD: Dr. Seiden, I never suggested you did.
Truc puts up another quote from the DSM regarding, I think, "Intermittent Explosive Disorder."
"...failure to resist aggressive impulses resulting in serious assaults..."
TD: This particular disorder is also defined as not being porportional to the (specific) stimuli?
Dr. S: Yes. As not as porportional.
TD: Would you also agree that Intermittent Explosive Disroder would be significant factor in impulsive homicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: In your opinion, that you cannot rule out (homicide), you would also consider the destructive behavior of someone, a subject to other human beings?
Dr. S: I wasn't asked. [...] But I've not said that. What is your question?
TD: My question is, you cannot rule out homicide. Would you also consider that subjects history in explosive behavior?
DW: Objection! Approach!
Dr. S: I've never said she had this! I wasn't asked.
TD: Dr. Seiden, we're not limited t owhat you've been asked to review. Please just focus on my question. [...] In your opinion, that you can not rule out [...] that subjects destructive behavior...
Dr. Seiden interrupts again.
Dr. S: To what end?
TD: Please just answer the question. If hypothetically, Lana Clarkson said on seven different occasions [...] that would certainly.... [...] Now this is the flip side. That suicide is simply agression turned on it's side (I think she means inward, but she said side.)?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: It's your opinion that you can't rule out homicide?
DW: Objection!
Fidler: Overruled! It's an opinion. He can be crossed on it.
TD: That you cannot rule out homicide? [...] In that opinion, would you consider that suspects... [...] I'll be specific. There's only two people I'm talking about. The other half of the equasion.
DW: Objection!
Fidler: In any event, the bottom line is...
Weinberg tells Fidler he wants to make a longer argument. Fidler agrees and the jury is asked to step out. What then transpires is one of the longest sidebars in the case. And Weinberg, during the entire time, argued and argued and argued with Fidler.
DW: This is a complete peversion of cross examinaton and transparently so! This is character evidence issue! He was asked to look at records, to look at the psychological state of that person and reeach an opinion. All he said is he can't rull out homicide. He didn't rule it out because he hasn't studied anything! [...] To use that as an excuse to bring out (aspects) on Mr. Spector, (character evidence)... It's 352 and it's irrelevant! [...] The other thing is, it's pure character evidence! [...] The envelope gets pushed a little further. [...] You're now allowing the prosecution to present character evidence [...] and now, after having mis-characterized the evidence! It's just an artifical way to get around what you told them they couldn't say! [...] It's completely artificial mechanism to tell the jury he shot Ms. Clarkson! This is beyond silly! It's unfair, prejudicial and contrary to the rulings of what you determined as scope! It is a violation of California Evidence Code 1101 & 809!
TD: In the interview, (we conducted with him) he knew the facts. He knew the statement of the witness and he had an opinion. He told us he could not rule out homicide. [...] He testified that he is an expert on factors of impulsive suicide. [...] This is the same as Dr. Pena. It doesn't exclude us from crossing him on this issue.
DW: You can't just do it because you want to prove something! [...] He never rendered an opinion s to whether this is a homicide! contrary to Dr. Pena who wrote an opinion! [...] No one has suggested that the psychological profile proves homicide!
Weinberg continues to argue and and argue and I have to stop writing. I just can't write anymore of this.
Fidler: When you say that you can't rule that out, that's an opinion! He has an expertise and he's written on that. [...] But his opinion can be tested! [...] The bottom line is, when he said he can't rule it out... [...] Mr. Weinberg! You can look at me incredulously; I'm trying to give yo my ruling!
Weinberg says something that now really sets Fidler off, but I miss getting it written down. I think it's something, implying that the court has not done something. Fidler raises his voice at Weinberg.
Fidler: THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME (that you have insinuated).... [...] Mr. Jackson specifically uses the Kelly case that uses the term "Pattern."! It's one of the exceptions under 1101(b)!! [...] Souch as, not limited to... is "Pattern!" [...] So, I'm going to let the people... [...] Now they've gone into another place and have gone into his writings. [...] He's admitted that he did consider other things in this case. I'll listen to the tape right now.
Weinberg asks to talk to his witness.
Jackson asks the court, "Is this a case where we can all talk to the witness?" The court agrees and AJ leaves the courtroom after Weinberg. The gallery whispers. Susan leaves the gallery and goes out to Weinberg. When both counsel return we are back on the record.
DW: Before we get this highly prejudicial questions before the jury I'd like to have a 402 hearing to find the purpose of these questions. The prosecution can't ask if homicide can't be excluded because Mr. Spector committed an act of violence twenty-five years ago [...] or a confession! [...] They're trying to say, "Here's something else you may have committed!"
Fidler: If you think the people [...]If you're saying it's not an opinion, then what's his purpose for being here?
Weinberg continues to argue that the prosecution is trying to prevent his witness from rendering an opinion on the things he considered to not being able to exclude homicide.
Fidler: Those acts have already been put before the jury. They are legitimately offering to challenge the opinion.
TD: This entire line of questioning goes to the bias of the witness. If he's an unbiased witness then he can certainly render an opinion. He can testify that the destructive behavior of Lana Clarkson equals not ruling out suicide, because he is being paid to say this. Can we ask whether other evidence in this case would influence his opinion?
Fidler: I want you to expand on that bias.
Back and forth. Back and forth it goes. (I have a note here at this point in the proceedings. At one point jackson is speaking and Weinberg tried to interrupt Jackson. Jackson stopped, angered and said loudly, "Excuse me!!" Truc Do gently touched his arm to try to calm him down.)
Weinberg still argues that the prosecution is trying to get in character evidence of Mr. Spector.
Fidler: I'm sorry but Mr. Jackson said they can cross him to go to whether, if he knows this fact or that (fact). [...] He can be given the criteria that the jury has already heard.
DW: I think we should have a formal offer of proof. [...] Mr. Jackson keeps saying "all the facts of this case." It's absolutely unpresceidented and prejudicial!
Weinberg is still arguing and I just note the time, 2:33 pm because I can't write anymore. But then I pick up my pen again. Weinber keeps saying, "He only rendered an opinion aobut her mental state." He's like an energizer bunny. He keeps going and going and going.
Fidler looks quite tired with this back and forth. In all the trials I've watched on TV and live streaming, I've never seen anything like this.
DW: The prosecution is trying to get the witness to comment on other evidence! How can this be legitimate?
Do: I want to show the jury that the witness cannot answer my questions. He has been fighting and resisting the entire cross examination.
Judge Fidler: Prosecution may ask witness a hypothetical dealing with history of Mr. Spector has influenced his conclusions. This will help the jury determine the witnesses' competence, bias, or incompetence. I have ruled.
When Rachelle and Mommy come back into the courtroom, they have a large back of some type of snack food. They take several pieces out of the bag before Rachelle puts it under her seat near her bag.
Truc is back at the podium and Weinberg approaches the podium and places a bottle of water on the shelf inside. Truc asks, "Is that for me?" Weinberg doesn't answer her.
2:57 pm the jury is back in the courtroom and a minute later we hear Judge Fidler's footsteps.
TD: Dr. Seiden, let's take a step back. You know in this case ther were two people in the (house)?
Dr. S: Yes. Ms. Clarkson and Mr. Spector.
TD: The only thnkg you can rule is natural death?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You told the jury you looked through (the packet that Mr. Weinberg sent to you)?
Dr. S: I looked through the same stuff the District Attorney....
TD: You also used the factor of impulsive....
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You also used the factor of a readily available weapon?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You've also written that in your professional opinion, suicide and homicide are just opposite sides of the coin?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You said that if you knew of ( any self destructive behavior)... you said that you would (consider the) past if there was a history of violent impulses of Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: I'm not familiar. I'm knowledgeable of the subject.
TD: Is there such a thing as impulsive homicide?
Dr. S: Yes, there is.
TD: All of those factors are evidenct in impulsive homicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Now I'm ging back. I'll be specific. In your consultations with Mr. Weinberg, did he make you aware that Mr. Spector exhibited seven past violent incidents? That in 1977, Mr. Spector put a gun to the temple of Ms. Robatillie and told her that he would blow her fucking head off? [...] Did he tell you about a time in 1989 when Mr. Spector waived a gun all over someone's face and threatened to kill them?
Dr. S: He told me in general terms that there were incidents but not the specifics.
TD: If you want to rule out homicide, would you consider destructive behavior towards others?
DW: Objection!
Looking on over at the jury I see some roll their eyes.
Fidler rules that the last two questions and answers are to be stricken from the record.
TD: Would you consider prior incidents of Mr. Spector to exclude suicide? [...]
Dr. Seiden states he thinks he can't exclude it.
TD: Prior impulsive violence of Mr. Spector towards other human beings?
Dr. S: Yes
TD: In combination with a loaded gun?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Are you using the same factors to not rule out homicide? Such as, alcohol use of Mr. Spector?
Dr. S: Yes
TD: Does that strengthen your opinon that you can't rule out homicide?
Dr. S: You asked me this before. That and..
TD: So to be fair, and to be objective, (if) there was that evidence, wouldn't it....
Dr. S: I've never made an opinion on whether its homicide.
TD: Let's go back to the video tape. [...] You are aware that Mr. De Souza said...
DW: Objection!
Fidler orders counsel back to the bench.
TD: What we're hearing from you, is that Mr. Spector's history of violence would not make a difference one way or another.
Dr. S: I said I've never been asked to make that opinion.
TD: Have you ever expressed an opinion of all those factors....
Dr. S: I don't remember could you refresh my memory?
Truc Do now quotes from one of his articles titled, "Gun deaths, biting the Bullet on the (I miss getting the rest of the article's title.) "Homicide attempts most frequently result from temporary, accute, emotional outbursts that are usually catalyst by the effects of alcohol consumption. Having a loaded gun around the house during such a powder keg scenario increases the odds that simple assaults will go beyond black eyes and broken jaws and cause far more serious injuries and even death."
Dr. S: Not based on what I reviewed.
TD: So that nothing I've given you, even the facts of Mr. Spector's statement and confessing makes you change your opinion that it could rule out suicide.
Dr. S: No.
Weinberg gets up to redirect his witness. He has Dr. Seiden go back over what he has testified to before about Lana Clarkson and her state of mind.
DW: It suggests to you does it not an impulsive act?
Dr. S: Correct.
Weinberg reads the Schapiro email once again.
DW: Could it be conceived that she never considered suicide ideation?
Dr. S: No. (These remarks could be considered suicide ideation.)
3:26 pm: Spector's number one fan enters 106. A few minutes later, Sandi Gibbons enters the courtroom.
Now Weinberg goes over a letter Lana wrote to Hugo Quackenbush. I don't believe I've ever seen this letter before. He starts to read parts of it but Truc objects and asks that the entire letter be read. It refers to the holiday season and it mentions the Brentwood Blonds play.
DW: Is there anything here that goes along with what we've been talking about?
Dr. S: The "cry for help" and "without you I' would not still be here."
Juror #5 smiles. Juror #8 looks at her hair. Juror #9 doesn't take a single note. Juror's #3 and #4 don't take any notes, as well as #10, #11, and #12.
Weinberg finishes is redirect at 3:54 pm. The jurors are told there will not be any more testimony until Thursday at 9:30 am when they are ordered back and Fidler leaves the bench.
I want to give a special acknowledgment to Sedonia Sunset, who has been editing my entries for me. I'm about two weeks behind now. I just have not had the time to go back and insert all her corrections. Thank you so much for your all your time and energy you put into editing my drafts.
Prosecution Rebuttal Witnesses: (out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule)
#34 Lisa Bloom (licensed attorney, TruTV's In Sessions anchor and analyst for CBS Morning News; testimony complete)
Defense Witnesses:
# 16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist and suicidologist; testimony complete)
#17 Dr. Mary Goldenson (psychologist Lana Clarkson called; testimony complete)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: One possible individual, unidentified
Sometimes the things that go on out in the hallway or gallery or argued inside the well without the jury present are more interesting than testimony. There were moments today where that was certainly the case.
When I arrived on the ninth floor, I see Lisa Bloom in the hallway chatting with Tom Messerau. She's wearing an all red, short sleeve dress that's cinched at the waist. It has ruffles around the v-neck collar in front. I was surprised to see her in the hallway sitting on a bench by herself. I thought she would be upstairs with the prosecution team. (TMZ has a short clip where they interviewed her outside the rear entrance of the Criminal Court building.)
I introduce myself to her, tell her I know Beth Karas and am covering the case for my blog. I told her that there was a lot of speculation on whether or not she would testify. I ask her if she can talk about her leaving In Sessions. She replies "Sure." She tells me that they wanted to renew her contract for a 9th year but she decided not to. She's leaving in June of this year to move back to Southern California. She's currently in a long distance relationship for the last year and a half. I acknowledge that can be hard. Lisa also mentioned that her daughter is going off to college soon so she will be "free." She will still have her role as an analyst for CBS news that will be expanding and she has "other projects in the fire." Lisa asked me how many days is it into the trial. I was at a momentary loss as to what day of trial it was and told her she needed to ask Jackson. (I was stumped because I completely forgot what day we were on and because I know that my day counting is not exactly right. I started from testimony and not from the first day of trial.)
Right after that Jackson and Truc Do approach with their rolling cart. I tell Alan that I didn't ask her any questions about the case and they head into the courtroom. I stay outside in the hallway to call donchais and give her and update.
9:28 am: As soon as I got inside the courtroom I was informed that shortly before my arrival, the court clerk, Wendy, informed counsel that Harvey with the white hair called the court this morning wanting to know the status of the case. Mr. Weinberg asked her, "Why was he calling?" Weindy replied, "Because his photo was up on the screen." I was told that afterwards, Mr. Weinberg smiled, put his hand to his forehead and shook his head.
You have to wonder why Harvey was inquiring about the status of the case? Why didn't he come on down to the court the last few days to sit and ask Spector himself? Could Harvey be worried about something?
There's a bit of a bustle in the well. The defense team seem to be real taken with Lisa Bloom being here and they are all getting introduced to her. Rachelle, Mommy and Tawni Tyndall are in the first row. No other supporters have shown up for the morning session. Josh and Lisa chat about the dismal job situation for attorneys. I overhear Lisa tell Josh that an attorney she knows posted a job that pays nothing! Nothing! He got 25 applications. People would rather be working so they can gain the experience. Cindy puts what looks like another day's transcript on Judge Fidler's desk. As I'm looking as the desk, there appear to be three tall piles of each days transcript. Diane gives Truc and Weinberg a copy of yesterday's transcript also.
It's 9:44 am, and people in the gallery are chatting. There is a new person in the gallery carrying a book that waves to Susan, Weinberg's paralegal. Interesting. He doesn't sit on the defense side of the room. 9:47 am Wendy calls the jury. Spector standing, stares at Lisa Bloom in the front row. At 9:50 am we hear Fidler's footsteps on the terrazzo floor. Juror #1 waves to the bailiff Kyles, who asks if anyone needs notebooks.
Jackson asks the court to take a witness out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule. Jackson calls Lisa Bloom to the stand.
Lisa Bloom states she is currently an anchor woman for TruTV, formerly known as Court TV (she often still calls it Court TV) In Sessions. She has her own show, Lisa Bloom: Open Court. She is also a legal analyst for CBS Morning News. Before that, she was a practicing attorney at her mother's law firm of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Before that she was an attorney for the law firm of Robinson & Silverman.
Bloom started at Court TV in June of 2001. It's now TruTV. It's the same network, same channel just a different name. Her show was originally with Vinnie Politan but now it's just her. Her show is called Lisa Bloom, Open Court.
AJ: In 2007, did CourtTV run coverage of the first trial.
LB: Yes they did. Gavel to gavel coverage. [...] In 2007 CourtTV was covering it extensively.
Juror #9 from the first trial comes in and sits behind me in the third row.
Bloom testifies that she often has guests on her show that are related in some way to the cases her station covers.
AJ: Do you know Greg Sims?
LB: Yes. We've been friends since the early 90's. We were neighbors when I lived in an apartment building in Pacific Palisades. We were friends before I moved to New York.
AJ: When did you become aware of Lana Clarkson's death?
LB: Immediately.
AJ: Back in 2003, were you covering this story? (Did you learn of it from being in the news industry?)
LB: (I would say I'm more (aware of) crime sews than regular citizens.
AJ: When did you first talk to Greg Sims about Lana Clarkson's death?
LB: Shortly after the shooting.
AJ: Were you speaking to him as a newswoman or more as a friend?
LB: As a friend. [...] He said, "Oh my God! I knew Lana Clarkson and I soke to her in the week before she died. " He said he had a party at his suite at the St. Regis. He said she was weepy and said. That she talked for a long time and after they talked she felt better. [...] He said that she was like about 90% of actresses in Hollywood that got drunk. She was down and upset but by the end of the night she was feeling better. [...] I asked him at the time, "Was she suicidal?" And he said, "Absolutely not."
AJ: Did (he say) she ever say anything to him to (suggest she was going to kill herself)?
LB: I asked him that and he said, "Absolutely not."
AJ: Did you say anything at that time, "Oh you have to do an interview?"
LB: We were mostly just talking about it. [...] He was upset that anyone would make any suggestion that she would kill herself.
AJ: At what point did you ask him to be on your show.
LB: I contacted him and wanted him to come on my show and he agreed.
AJ: It was during that trial (the first trial) that you had him on as witness?
LB: Well, we call them guests.
Laughter in the jury box and a bit in the courtroom.
AJ: When you have a guest on, do you do any pre interviews or do you just have them come on?
LB: Yes we do pre interviews of our guests.
Bloom did a pre-interview with him right before the show. The taping of his appearance happened in her studio in New York. She's certain it was during a time that he was in New York because she knows her network would not have paid to fly him out to New York.
LB: I went over the story with him. I wanted to be accurate. He told me the same story. [...] He stated that at the end of the conversation she felt better, as friends do...
AJ: What else did he say?
LB: At the time the trial was under way, and one of the defense theories was suicide. He said, "Absolutely not. She would never kill herself."
The segment of the CourtTV show that Greg Sims was on is played for the court again.
AJ: Is that a portion of your interview with Mr. Sims?
LB: Yes.
Is that consistent with what he had previously told you in the pre-interview?
LB: Yes.
Is that consistent with the conversation you had in 2003?
LB: Yes.
AJ: Is your show a tabloid show?
LB: Absolutely not. [...] We don't do three or five minute sound bites covering a trial. It's a gavel to gavel show on trial coverage. [...] I take my job and my credibility very seriously. I would never have anyone on that would say something untrue and when I've found someone lying on my show, I cal them on it.
AJ: Was Greg Sims compensated for his appearance on your show?
LB: No one is.
AJ: Is there anything inconsistent with what you've seen on this video?
LB: Nothing inconsistent.
That's pretty much it for direct examination and Weinberg gets up to cross Lisa Bloom.
DW: I take it you came here from New York?
LB: Yes.
DW: Did you come her voluntarily?
LB: I was subpoenaed.
DW: You're not being ordered by another court? [...] You simply received a subpoena and agreed to come?
LB: No. It wasn't that simple.
Lisa Bloom explains that there were discussions back and forth between the attorneys representing her network. Weinberg also makes a point that Bloom does not remember the specific dates that she was first contacted by Mr. Jackson. She knows it was recent, the prior week. She can't remember the specific date that Sims was on her show or when he testified in the first trial or when the first trial started.
DW: Who did you talk to?
LB: Mr. Jackson. Then I had to talk to the attorneys at the station.
DW: What did he (Jackson) tell you?
Bloom doesn't remember exactly but basically that Greg Sims changed his testimony.
DW: So you don't know what Mr. Jackson said?
LB: I can tell you the essence but I can't tell you the exact words. He was telling me....
DW: You had a conversation with your friend. (Do you remember when that was?)
LB: Yes. I dcan't give you the exact date.
DW: In 2007 when you were covering Spector trial number 1, were you thinking about this? [...] Did you express negative opinions about Mr. Spector? [...] Did you call him a "nebbish little Jewish guy?"
LB: (Lisa laughs.) I may have. Do you know I'm Jewish?
DW: Yes, I know.
LB: That's not necessarily a negative statement. I call my boyfriend a nebbish little Jewish guy.
The courtroom laughs at her comment.
Weinberg accused her of being biased and forming an opinion about Spector's guilt. Lisa Bloom states that she watched all the testimony from the first trial and after seeing all the evidence, she felt the prosecution proved it's case. At one point, he confronts her that her co-host at that time, Vinnie Politan took the opposite viewpoint as her. Lisa Bloom points out that her former co-host used to be a prosecutor. He often would take the opposite side to make the show more interesting. I believe it's at this point that Lisa Bloom admits that yes, there is an "entertainment" aspect to her show.
Weinberg reads Sim's testimony from this trial for her to consider. He reads where Sims hems and haws and says he believes that there could have been an accident.
DW: Would you say that sounds like he said she was suicidal?
LB: No.
DW: You went to his wedding?
LB: Yes. [...] I was one of his bridesmaids got sick so I was asked to fill in. And I put on a ridiculous dress and I did it.
Weinberg now plays an audio clip where she talked about Greg Sims on her show. She talks about how he's an honest guy and that he has parties at his St. Regis suite as part of his networking for business. She describes the suite and that she had been there on an occasion (or two?). (I think on the clip of her show she mentioned that he was a father and had two kids. That comes to my mind as I write this.)
LB: I agree with everything she said.
DW: What you said was "What you see is what you get?" (About Mr. Sims.)
Weinberg plays another video excerpt from her show and confronts her that what he said on the show was "very depressed" and not "weepy and sad" as she described.
DW: You said what he said (in his testimony at trial #1) was consistent (with what he had told you)?
Weinberg is now trying to make her out to be a tabloid journalist. She insists that the "tenor" of the conversation was consistent. Weinberg now reads other sections of Sim's testimony to her from the first trial.
LB: I don't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.
Weinberg goes over statement after statement of Sim's testimony and each time Bloom responds that she doesn't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.
That's about it for cross and Jackson steps back up to redirect.
Jackson gets it clarified that his office served a subpoena in Atlanta at her network's headquarters. Bloom agrees that there were several discussions back and forth between the prosecution and her networks attorneys before they accepted the subpoena. It was either in direct, or in redirect here, where Jackson asks her how many cases she's covered on her network as well as gets it stipulated to the date that Sims appeared on her show.
AJ: If someone in a murder case, not this case, any case, say a rapist or murder made a confession, is that something that sticks out in your mind?
LB: Yes.
AJ: A confession would be very important, correct? [...] And conversely, if someone had made a confession that she said she was going to kill herself?
LB: Yes. That would be something that would stick out in my mind. [...] I would have had him on my show sooner.
Jackson then presents Bloom with other testimony by Sims in the second trial.
LB: If he had ever told me that Lana said she never had a reason to live, that would have stuck out in my mind, and he never said that to me.
Jackson presents to Bloom another statement from this trial by Sims, where he said, "She didn't have a reason to live."
LB: That's inconsistent with what he told me.
That's the end of redirect and Weinberg on recross, tries to get Bloom to comment on Lana Clarkson's letters (emails?). The prosecution objects and the objection is sustained. Weinberg asks her about her first conversation with Mr. Jackson. Bloom states that it was the week prior. She states that the conversation was only a two to three minute conversation.
There is a last redirect of this witness. Jackson asks her, "Last Friday was the first time we fleshed out your testimony?" Bloom agrees that's correct. And that's it for this witness. I have to say that Lisa Bloom smiled a lot on the stand and appeared very relaxed and personable, even under cross. She was very careful about what she said and at one point, was careful not to "put words" into Mr. Sim's mouth. She stated that as a journalist, she's careful about when she puts "quotes" around statements. She would only state that the "tenor" of the conversation was the same. I think she did well on direct and cross.
It's 10:42 am, and a break is called. Allan Parachini is in the back of the courtroom. The jury has gone back into the jury room and counsel are going over some issues with the court.
Fidler: (Addressing Jackson and Truc) You were going to prepare a transcript and what questions Ms. Do can ask?
Truc Do informs the court she may be rethinking her questions of Dr. Seiden. "We sent the tape to the transcription unit and even with a rush, the tape would take a week. [...] I've reviewed the tape. I'm not going to go into the area that (we previously discussed).
Weinberg now addresses the court. He feels there is a discovery violation via Lisa Bloom's testimony. "No one's talked to her? How did you (Jackson) ask such specific information (of Greg Sims)? [...] Her answers don't solve the mystery. [...] There was a conversation...."
AJ: When I had asked the questions of Mr. Sims, I had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before my conversation with Greg Sims.
Weinberg goes onto argue that there were specifically more questions to Greg Sims. One of the questions he brings us is a statement Jackson made as part of a question. I remember Jackson saying this. 'When Lisa walked you down to the street...' [...] That's not a question you ask. [...] That's something you just asked (without a prior conversation)? (If I'm remembering correctly, I believe Weinberg accuses the prosecution of lying, but I'm not positive.)
Jackson insists he had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before. He denies lying to the court. He states he based his questions to Mr. Sims on "what he knows" about how those shows are conducted and from information he's received from other sources.
Fidler mentions again the breakdown in communication between the two counsels. "It's clear that you can't stand each other. [...] I don't see any discovery violation. [...] Irregardless Mr. Weinberg, I saw your cross. You were not prejudiced in any way."
At this point the rest of the court room gets to take a break and the court reporters change. I see Spector get up from the defense table and go over to Rachelle and Mommy to speak to them in the first row. Spector says something to Mommy and Rachelle that several other people in the courtroom overhear. Three other trial watchers told me what they heard Spector say to Mommy and Rachelle after Lisa Bloom left the stand. It was a similar statement to what we've heard Spector say about women before. I will say that the word "bitch" was used.
After they overheard what Spector said, they discussed what they overheard amongst themselves. After that, they also observed Mommy staring at them and discretely pointing at them while she's talking to Spector. I observed her pointing at me and talking to Tawni Tyndall. Afterwards, (I'm assuming Mommy was probably trying to get Spector to be quiet) he was observed going over to Weinberg's paralegal, Susan and animatedly pointing at the gallery. If you're going to make demeaning statements about women Phil, it's probably not a good idea to do it where other people can hear you.
11:09 am, Fidler takes the bench. Weinberg tells the court they have another brief witness out of order. Dr. Mary Goldenson. Dr. Goldenson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate in psychology. She testifies she, "Works with individuals and families going through crisis. [...] I do full spectrum counseling from the light to serious." She states she has been practicing 37 years.
Weinberg presents an email that Lana wrote to her.
DW: Do you know Lana Clarkson?
Dr. G: Yes. I recrived a call. She was recommended from one of her friends. [...] She called and said she really wanted to see me, but it was mostly about her insurance. She was working with SAG to work it out so she could see me."
DW: Did she ever come in?
Dr. G: No, she never did.
There is a quick side bar and then it's to cross examination.
Jackson brings up the original email that Lana wrote her. The date is corrupted. It's 1904 which is obviously incorrect. Then Jackson presents another email, a response Lana got back from Jennifer Sykes about calling Dr. Goldenson. That email is dated in March, 2002. Dr. Goldenson could not remember if that refreshed her memory as to when the phone call was received from Lana Clarkson.
Jackson asks her about the other things she does besides individual and family counseling. Dr. Goldenson states that she also does something she calls "Self Introspection" work, "Interpersonal Therapy" work and "Psycho-dynamic Therapy." In general, career and personal development work and helping people improve their personal dialog or speaking skills.
On redirect, Weinberg asks her if she knows Jennifer Sykes. If I'm recalling correctly, I don't believe she did. At the last trial, she was asked if she received the phone call in December oof 2oo2 or possibly early January of 2003. Dr. Goldenson thinks that she probably had a better memory back then, and that probably was correct.
In recross, Jackson presents her with the fact that Mr. Rosen supplied her with a date and she agreed, and that possibly that might not have been correct and the date of the email might be a more accurate time frame of when she received the call. She thinks that she was probably correct in her prior testimony (of the December date) but also adds, "It was vague then and it's vague now." The jury laughs at that. And that's it for Dr. Goldenson.
It's 11:30 am and Dr. Seiden is back on the stand under cross examination by Truc Do.
Truc Do starts off by touching briefly on the issue of the five boxes of emails, the 12,017 pages of emails. "Were you aware that those emails were from approximately the last two years of her life?
Dr. S: I know there was a CD.
TD: Were you aware that they represented the last two years of Lana Clarkson's life.
Dr. S: I wasn't aware of the time (frame).
TD: You stated you could not rule out suicide?
Dr. S: Right.
TD: You todl the jury based on the psychological review of the case?
Dr. S: Yes. It was bassed on the documents sent to me.
TD: Your opinion is based solely as to what you call psychological factors?
Dr. S: yes.
TD: Because you state that that (you're) not qualified (to evaluate the physical evidence), you wouldn't take into (consideration) other factors? [...] So your opinion does not take into count the physical evidence and witness statements at the scene?
Dr. S: that's correct. That's my training and expertise (the psychological aspects).
TD: Given the limits of your opinion, let's assume, what if I told you there was a video. So if I told you there was a video or the scene, you would still tell the jury...
Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do.
Dr. S: What video tape? What are you trying to get me to say?
TD: I'm just trying to show you the limitations of your opinion.
Dr. S: Would i still say [...] (if ) I saw a video? [...] So if I saw a video that clearly showed she didn't commit sucicide, yes, I would change my opinion.
Weinberg makes an objection and counsel approach the bench.
TD: So then your opinion could be based on non-psychological factors? [...] Dr. Seiden, in my question in askiny you about a hypothetical, you would consider that, even thou it's not psychological factors? [...] So then you would (consider) ....
Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do.
Dr. S: That's not what I was, I was asked to do.
TD: Who told you that information was the only information that was done by our office? (The letter from Doug Sortino that had the 30 interviews and the 30 emails.)
Dr. S: Well, I relied on what the District Attorney sent Dr. Lakshmanan.
TD: did you get the entire medical records or just certain documents that Mr. Weinberg picke out.
Dr. S: I don't know.
TD: Is there any other basis to your opinion other than psychological factors?
Dr. S: What do you mean?
TD: Did you consider any other factors?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Are you certain about that? [...] Do you recall we asked you (in that meeting on February 6th).... [...] Do you recall that you told us on that date that it was an intra-oral gunshot wound. That in your experience, and you thought that was an anomaly? [...] In your experience, you did consider non-psychological facts.
Dr. S: But I didn't give it that much weight.
TD: So you did tell us about a non-psychological factor (that you considered)?
Dr. S: yes.
TD: Did you have any strategy meeting with Mr. Weinberg, since you certainly did consider other non-psychological factors?
Dr. S: I had never seen anything like this case before.
TD: In act, you told us about the article by Dr. Hawley, the article that references three intra-oral homicides, that you brought to Mr. Weinberg's attention?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: So it made no difference t you what the other non-psychological evidence was?
Dr. S: I wasn't asked to consider it. I have no background in criminialistics.
TD: so I asked you if you considered the fact that Lana Clarkson was killed with Mr. Spector's gun?
DW: Objection! Under 352, he said he didn't consider (it)!
Fidler: Approach!
It's 11:48 am and this is a long sidebar. Rachelle's eyes are closed. Jackson comes back to the podium and whispers in Truc's ear.
TD: You did not consider any physical evidence at the scene?
Dr. S: No.
TD: You didn't consider any manipulated evidence at the scene?
Dr. S: (No.)
TD: You didn't consider anything that a witness said at the scene?
Dr. S: No.
TD: So you are aware of a witness, Adriano De Souza said he saw blood, a gun in Mr. Spector's hand and (that Mr. Spector confessed)?
Dr. S: It didn't factor into what I was asked to do.
TD: You did say that you considered the factor of alcohol on Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Specifically, alcohol will hisinhibit the cerebral cortex?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive rage?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive anger?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that includes impulsive violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: In fact, you have written articles on alcohol and impulsive violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: I've noticed that you've also written substantially on alcohol and violence.
Truc reads severa titles to articles he's written.
TD: So, not just limited to impulsive suicide, but also impulsive violence that (leads) to homicide?
Dr. S: (Yes.)
TD: (Have you not written that) suicide may be a different means of expressing aggression? [...] (That) homicides and are expressions of violence?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And that suicide is violence turnd on ones' self?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: And homicide is violence turned on another person?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: If there was a history of Lana Clarkson harming herself, a history of Lana Clarkson turning a gun on herself, it would certainly strengthen you opinion?
I don't have Dr. Seiden's answer in my notes but I believe he agrees with this.
TD: And you know there are not threats or physical harm against herself (in her writings)?
Dr. S: Well, there are some "coded" threats.
TD: You are aware of no evidence of Lana Clarkson harming herself or had harmed herself (in the past)?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: But you would consider a history or behavior of ideation of harming others? [...] There is (such a thing as) impulsive homicide? [...] You've written about that, correct?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You also....
Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do to say that he is willing to "recant about the DMV opinion, but there's so much other evidence."
TD: What other evidence of impulsive behavior?
Dr. S: I don't know... that other people brought up that she was demanding and impulsive. John Barrons....
TD: So you're saying that any kind of impulsive behavior indicates a risk of suicide? [...] Isn't it mostly impulsive agression and not any impulsive (behavior)?
Judge Fidler interrupts that we've reached the noon recess.
It's right after the lunch break is called that several people approached me to tell me about what they overheard Spector say at the morning break.
At 1:28 pm, Jackson and Truc Do arrive with their cart. I note that there are not any Spector supporters in court for the afternoon session yet. Spector leaves the defense table and goes to speak to his bodyguard standing in the ante chamber of the entrance to 106. Spector finds something funny because Spector is smiling as he walks away from the bodyguard.
Wendy, Fidler's clerk is asking Weinberg if we are doing Friday this week. Weinberg says that Mrs. Spector can't do Friday. I believe Wendy also states that a juror has appointment on Friday that "they didn't want to miss." So it looks like we will not be having testimony on this Friday, either.
1:38 pm, we're waiting to hear Fidler's footsteps and there they are, one minute later.
TD: We were last talking about impulsivity and your input on regards to suicide.
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: There is such a thing as impulsive homicide?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: Are you aware that there is such a things as Impulsive Disorder? That there is such a term?
Dr. S: I'm not familiar with it.
Truc Do brings up the DSM on this disorder and what it has to say about impulsive control disorder. Truc brings up the fact that the essential feature of this disorder is the failure to control (impulses)... (I'm not positive, but I believe Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do again when he answers.)
Dr. S: I don't get what you are saying. I never said she had....
TD: I'm not saying you did. Does the DSM say that?
Dr. S: Yes.
Truc goes over the different categories of Impulsive Control Disorder.
TD: Would you read this on the screen?
Dr. S: ICD is a failure to resist impulse, drive, or temptation, to perform a harmful act to self or others. (Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) Explosive; Kleptomania; Setting Fires; Gambling; Trichotillomania (pulling out hair). When the last term is explained Fidler smiles, and Truc Do says, "I wasn't going to go there." There's a bit of laughter in the courtroom.
Dr. S: I never said she had....
TD: Dr. Seiden, I never suggested you did.
Truc puts up another quote from the DSM regarding, I think, "Intermittent Explosive Disorder."
"...failure to resist aggressive impulses resulting in serious assaults..."
TD: This particular disorder is also defined as not being porportional to the (specific) stimuli?
Dr. S: Yes. As not as porportional.
TD: Would you also agree that Intermittent Explosive Disroder would be significant factor in impulsive homicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: In your opinion, that you cannot rule out (homicide), you would also consider the destructive behavior of someone, a subject to other human beings?
Dr. S: I wasn't asked. [...] But I've not said that. What is your question?
TD: My question is, you cannot rule out homicide. Would you also consider that subjects history in explosive behavior?
DW: Objection! Approach!
Dr. S: I've never said she had this! I wasn't asked.
TD: Dr. Seiden, we're not limited t owhat you've been asked to review. Please just focus on my question. [...] In your opinion, that you can not rule out [...] that subjects destructive behavior...
Dr. Seiden interrupts again.
Dr. S: To what end?
TD: Please just answer the question. If hypothetically, Lana Clarkson said on seven different occasions [...] that would certainly.... [...] Now this is the flip side. That suicide is simply agression turned on it's side (I think she means inward, but she said side.)?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: It's your opinion that you can't rule out homicide?
DW: Objection!
Fidler: Overruled! It's an opinion. He can be crossed on it.
TD: That you cannot rule out homicide? [...] In that opinion, would you consider that suspects... [...] I'll be specific. There's only two people I'm talking about. The other half of the equasion.
DW: Objection!
Fidler: In any event, the bottom line is...
Weinberg tells Fidler he wants to make a longer argument. Fidler agrees and the jury is asked to step out. What then transpires is one of the longest sidebars in the case. And Weinberg, during the entire time, argued and argued and argued with Fidler.
DW: This is a complete peversion of cross examinaton and transparently so! This is character evidence issue! He was asked to look at records, to look at the psychological state of that person and reeach an opinion. All he said is he can't rull out homicide. He didn't rule it out because he hasn't studied anything! [...] To use that as an excuse to bring out (aspects) on Mr. Spector, (character evidence)... It's 352 and it's irrelevant! [...] The other thing is, it's pure character evidence! [...] The envelope gets pushed a little further. [...] You're now allowing the prosecution to present character evidence [...] and now, after having mis-characterized the evidence! It's just an artifical way to get around what you told them they couldn't say! [...] It's completely artificial mechanism to tell the jury he shot Ms. Clarkson! This is beyond silly! It's unfair, prejudicial and contrary to the rulings of what you determined as scope! It is a violation of California Evidence Code 1101 & 809!
TD: In the interview, (we conducted with him) he knew the facts. He knew the statement of the witness and he had an opinion. He told us he could not rule out homicide. [...] He testified that he is an expert on factors of impulsive suicide. [...] This is the same as Dr. Pena. It doesn't exclude us from crossing him on this issue.
DW: You can't just do it because you want to prove something! [...] He never rendered an opinion s to whether this is a homicide! contrary to Dr. Pena who wrote an opinion! [...] No one has suggested that the psychological profile proves homicide!
Weinberg continues to argue and and argue and I have to stop writing. I just can't write anymore of this.
Fidler: When you say that you can't rule that out, that's an opinion! He has an expertise and he's written on that. [...] But his opinion can be tested! [...] The bottom line is, when he said he can't rule it out... [...] Mr. Weinberg! You can look at me incredulously; I'm trying to give yo my ruling!
Weinberg says something that now really sets Fidler off, but I miss getting it written down. I think it's something, implying that the court has not done something. Fidler raises his voice at Weinberg.
Fidler: THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME (that you have insinuated).... [...] Mr. Jackson specifically uses the Kelly case that uses the term "Pattern."! It's one of the exceptions under 1101(b)!! [...] Souch as, not limited to... is "Pattern!" [...] So, I'm going to let the people... [...] Now they've gone into another place and have gone into his writings. [...] He's admitted that he did consider other things in this case. I'll listen to the tape right now.
Weinberg asks to talk to his witness.
Jackson asks the court, "Is this a case where we can all talk to the witness?" The court agrees and AJ leaves the courtroom after Weinberg. The gallery whispers. Susan leaves the gallery and goes out to Weinberg. When both counsel return we are back on the record.
DW: Before we get this highly prejudicial questions before the jury I'd like to have a 402 hearing to find the purpose of these questions. The prosecution can't ask if homicide can't be excluded because Mr. Spector committed an act of violence twenty-five years ago [...] or a confession! [...] They're trying to say, "Here's something else you may have committed!"
Fidler: If you think the people [...]If you're saying it's not an opinion, then what's his purpose for being here?
Weinberg continues to argue that the prosecution is trying to prevent his witness from rendering an opinion on the things he considered to not being able to exclude homicide.
Fidler: Those acts have already been put before the jury. They are legitimately offering to challenge the opinion.
TD: This entire line of questioning goes to the bias of the witness. If he's an unbiased witness then he can certainly render an opinion. He can testify that the destructive behavior of Lana Clarkson equals not ruling out suicide, because he is being paid to say this. Can we ask whether other evidence in this case would influence his opinion?
Fidler: I want you to expand on that bias.
Back and forth. Back and forth it goes. (I have a note here at this point in the proceedings. At one point jackson is speaking and Weinberg tried to interrupt Jackson. Jackson stopped, angered and said loudly, "Excuse me!!" Truc Do gently touched his arm to try to calm him down.)
Weinberg still argues that the prosecution is trying to get in character evidence of Mr. Spector.
Fidler: I'm sorry but Mr. Jackson said they can cross him to go to whether, if he knows this fact or that (fact). [...] He can be given the criteria that the jury has already heard.
DW: I think we should have a formal offer of proof. [...] Mr. Jackson keeps saying "all the facts of this case." It's absolutely unpresceidented and prejudicial!
Weinberg is still arguing and I just note the time, 2:33 pm because I can't write anymore. But then I pick up my pen again. Weinber keeps saying, "He only rendered an opinion aobut her mental state." He's like an energizer bunny. He keeps going and going and going.
Fidler looks quite tired with this back and forth. In all the trials I've watched on TV and live streaming, I've never seen anything like this.
DW: The prosecution is trying to get the witness to comment on other evidence! How can this be legitimate?
Do: I want to show the jury that the witness cannot answer my questions. He has been fighting and resisting the entire cross examination.
Judge Fidler: Prosecution may ask witness a hypothetical dealing with history of Mr. Spector has influenced his conclusions. This will help the jury determine the witnesses' competence, bias, or incompetence. I have ruled.
When Rachelle and Mommy come back into the courtroom, they have a large back of some type of snack food. They take several pieces out of the bag before Rachelle puts it under her seat near her bag.
Truc is back at the podium and Weinberg approaches the podium and places a bottle of water on the shelf inside. Truc asks, "Is that for me?" Weinberg doesn't answer her.
2:57 pm the jury is back in the courtroom and a minute later we hear Judge Fidler's footsteps.
TD: Dr. Seiden, let's take a step back. You know in this case ther were two people in the (house)?
Dr. S: Yes. Ms. Clarkson and Mr. Spector.
TD: The only thnkg you can rule is natural death?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You told the jury you looked through (the packet that Mr. Weinberg sent to you)?
Dr. S: I looked through the same stuff the District Attorney....
TD: You also used the factor of impulsive....
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You also used the factor of a readily available weapon?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You've also written that in your professional opinion, suicide and homicide are just opposite sides of the coin?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You said that if you knew of ( any self destructive behavior)... you said that you would (consider the) past if there was a history of violent impulses of Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: I'm not familiar. I'm knowledgeable of the subject.
TD: Is there such a thing as impulsive homicide?
Dr. S: Yes, there is.
TD: All of those factors are evidenct in impulsive homicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Now I'm ging back. I'll be specific. In your consultations with Mr. Weinberg, did he make you aware that Mr. Spector exhibited seven past violent incidents? That in 1977, Mr. Spector put a gun to the temple of Ms. Robatillie and told her that he would blow her fucking head off? [...] Did he tell you about a time in 1989 when Mr. Spector waived a gun all over someone's face and threatened to kill them?
Dr. S: He told me in general terms that there were incidents but not the specifics.
TD: If you want to rule out homicide, would you consider destructive behavior towards others?
DW: Objection!
Looking on over at the jury I see some roll their eyes.
Fidler rules that the last two questions and answers are to be stricken from the record.
TD: Would you consider prior incidents of Mr. Spector to exclude suicide? [...]
Dr. Seiden states he thinks he can't exclude it.
TD: Prior impulsive violence of Mr. Spector towards other human beings?
Dr. S: Yes
TD: In combination with a loaded gun?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Are you using the same factors to not rule out homicide? Such as, alcohol use of Mr. Spector?
Dr. S: Yes
TD: Does that strengthen your opinon that you can't rule out homicide?
Dr. S: You asked me this before. That and..
TD: So to be fair, and to be objective, (if) there was that evidence, wouldn't it....
Dr. S: I've never made an opinion on whether its homicide.
TD: Let's go back to the video tape. [...] You are aware that Mr. De Souza said...
DW: Objection!
Fidler orders counsel back to the bench.
TD: What we're hearing from you, is that Mr. Spector's history of violence would not make a difference one way or another.
Dr. S: I said I've never been asked to make that opinion.
TD: Have you ever expressed an opinion of all those factors....
Dr. S: I don't remember could you refresh my memory?
Truc Do now quotes from one of his articles titled, "Gun deaths, biting the Bullet on the (I miss getting the rest of the article's title.) "Homicide attempts most frequently result from temporary, accute, emotional outbursts that are usually catalyst by the effects of alcohol consumption. Having a loaded gun around the house during such a powder keg scenario increases the odds that simple assaults will go beyond black eyes and broken jaws and cause far more serious injuries and even death."
Dr. S: Not based on what I reviewed.
TD: So that nothing I've given you, even the facts of Mr. Spector's statement and confessing makes you change your opinion that it could rule out suicide.
Dr. S: No.
Weinberg gets up to redirect his witness. He has Dr. Seiden go back over what he has testified to before about Lana Clarkson and her state of mind.
DW: It suggests to you does it not an impulsive act?
Dr. S: Correct.
Weinberg reads the Schapiro email once again.
DW: Could it be conceived that she never considered suicide ideation?
Dr. S: No. (These remarks could be considered suicide ideation.)
3:26 pm: Spector's number one fan enters 106. A few minutes later, Sandi Gibbons enters the courtroom.
Now Weinberg goes over a letter Lana wrote to Hugo Quackenbush. I don't believe I've ever seen this letter before. He starts to read parts of it but Truc objects and asks that the entire letter be read. It refers to the holiday season and it mentions the Brentwood Blonds play.
DW: Is there anything here that goes along with what we've been talking about?
Dr. S: The "cry for help" and "without you I' would not still be here."
Juror #5 smiles. Juror #8 looks at her hair. Juror #9 doesn't take a single note. Juror's #3 and #4 don't take any notes, as well as #10, #11, and #12.
Weinberg finishes is redirect at 3:54 pm. The jurors are told there will not be any more testimony until Thursday at 9:30 am when they are ordered back and Fidler leaves the bench.
I want to give a special acknowledgment to Sedonia Sunset, who has been editing my entries for me. I'm about two weeks behind now. I just have not had the time to go back and insert all her corrections. Thank you so much for your all your time and energy you put into editing my drafts.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Case Management Hearing for Nicholas Sheley Case- Tentative Trial Dates Set, But Where Will The Trial Be Held?
Guest Entry from katfish!
Today, Tuesday, March 3, at 1:15 p.m., there is a Case Management Hearing at the Knox County Courthouse in Galesburg, IL in the murder case of accused spree killer, Nicholas Sheley. Sheley is charged with killing Ronald Randall,65, of Galesburg last June. If convicted, Sheley will face the death penalty.
For readers not familiar with the Sheley case, he is accused of killing 6 people in Illinois and 2 in Missouri. After the trial here in Knox County, Sheley will head over to Whiteside County, IL to be tried and then down to Festus, MO, near St. Louis for the final trial related to this alleged killing spree. On the right hand side of the page here at katfish ponders is a section entitled Labels, if your click on Nicholas Sheley your will see all of the entries related to Sheley in chronological order from most recent down.
I entered the courthouse at about 1:10. Normally I slide straight through the metal detectors, but today I had to stop and get scanned. I got a new watch for Christmas, and that tripped me up. An old friend of mine is working the scanner…he told me, “they are up on second floor.” So I head up the two flights of stairs to the large courtroom. When I reached the courtroom right at 1:15 the only people in there was one bailiff, the clerk and 2 of the victim’s family.
Today’s hearing was originally scheduled as a conference so there may not be too many in attendance. Right after I take a seat behind Ronald Randall’s sisters and say hello, we notice a guy take a seat in the back on the defense side. He is the jail administrator, that means Sheley is in the building. Sheley is brought in through the basement and up the only elevator to the second floor where he is held until court starts.
Knox County is very cautious about security with Sheley, he is always accompanied by a number of Sheriff Department employees. I look over my shoulder and notice the Sheriff, David Clague sitting behind me…stealth… I didn’t see or hear him come in. LOL! Two bailiffs move the long wooden defense table to angle away from the gallery. As I said, they are cautious with Sheley, moving the table makes room for the Deputies guarding Sheley, but also puts a little extra room between him and the gallery.
Continue reading at katfish ponders....
Katfish also has another entry up on the Sheley case. His wife seeking half the reward monies paid out to those who were instrumental in her husband's capture. Keep reading at katfish ponders...
Other stories that katfish has been covering are: Hanna Mack, Casey Anthony, Dominick Arceneaux and the Haleigh Ann Marie Cummings Case.
Today, Tuesday, March 3, at 1:15 p.m., there is a Case Management Hearing at the Knox County Courthouse in Galesburg, IL in the murder case of accused spree killer, Nicholas Sheley. Sheley is charged with killing Ronald Randall,65, of Galesburg last June. If convicted, Sheley will face the death penalty.
For readers not familiar with the Sheley case, he is accused of killing 6 people in Illinois and 2 in Missouri. After the trial here in Knox County, Sheley will head over to Whiteside County, IL to be tried and then down to Festus, MO, near St. Louis for the final trial related to this alleged killing spree. On the right hand side of the page here at katfish ponders is a section entitled Labels, if your click on Nicholas Sheley your will see all of the entries related to Sheley in chronological order from most recent down.
I entered the courthouse at about 1:10. Normally I slide straight through the metal detectors, but today I had to stop and get scanned. I got a new watch for Christmas, and that tripped me up. An old friend of mine is working the scanner…he told me, “they are up on second floor.” So I head up the two flights of stairs to the large courtroom. When I reached the courtroom right at 1:15 the only people in there was one bailiff, the clerk and 2 of the victim’s family.
Today’s hearing was originally scheduled as a conference so there may not be too many in attendance. Right after I take a seat behind Ronald Randall’s sisters and say hello, we notice a guy take a seat in the back on the defense side. He is the jail administrator, that means Sheley is in the building. Sheley is brought in through the basement and up the only elevator to the second floor where he is held until court starts.
Knox County is very cautious about security with Sheley, he is always accompanied by a number of Sheriff Department employees. I look over my shoulder and notice the Sheriff, David Clague sitting behind me…stealth… I didn’t see or hear him come in. LOL! Two bailiffs move the long wooden defense table to angle away from the gallery. As I said, they are cautious with Sheley, moving the table makes room for the Deputies guarding Sheley, but also puts a little extra room between him and the gallery.
Continue reading at katfish ponders....
Katfish also has another entry up on the Sheley case. His wife seeking half the reward monies paid out to those who were instrumental in her husband's capture. Keep reading at katfish ponders...
Other stories that katfish has been covering are: Hanna Mack, Casey Anthony, Dominick Arceneaux and the Haleigh Ann Marie Cummings Case.
Casey Anthony: The Motions Continue
Lawyers are due back in court on Thursday, March 12, at 3:30 PM. They will be arguing two defense motions. The first is one filed by Jose Baez on January 23. In it, he requests the information from Ricardo Morales' computer. Read motion here. I'm supposing that at this point, Ricardo is ever so sorry he thought that the "Win her over with chloroform." picture was cool.
In the second motion, the defense asks for DNA information, bench notes, reports, and standards. This lengthy motion was filed on January 28. Read motion here. I originally discussed this motion prior to the January 30 hearing. If you would like to read a summary, check it out here.
Fox35 also reported that an affidavit concerning DNA reports and procedures was also filed by Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, an expert for the defense. This could possibly be related to the previously mentioned defense motion. As of this time, this document has not been made available to the public. If and when it does, I will post a link here.
The third motion to be discussed at the hearing will be one submitted by George and Cindy Anthony's attorney, Bradley Conway, on March 3. The motion asks the judge to not allow the release of the document recovered from Anthony's car following his suicide attempt on January 22.
In the motion, Conway indicates that the release of the document because it contains very personal information intended for nobody other than Mr. Anthony's family. He also states that disclosing this document now would create substantial risk of unnecessary annoyance and embarrassment...
Conway also indicated that the document is related to George Anthony's suicide attempt and used to "Baker Act" him. As such, he believes that this is medical information protected by statute.
Since this is an evidentiary hearing, Casey Anthony will have to attend.
WESH has already announced it will televise the hearing and I would expect other stations to carry it as well.
See you all in court Thursday!
In the second motion, the defense asks for DNA information, bench notes, reports, and standards. This lengthy motion was filed on January 28. Read motion here. I originally discussed this motion prior to the January 30 hearing. If you would like to read a summary, check it out here.
Fox35 also reported that an affidavit concerning DNA reports and procedures was also filed by Dr. Larry Kobilinsky, an expert for the defense. This could possibly be related to the previously mentioned defense motion. As of this time, this document has not been made available to the public. If and when it does, I will post a link here.
The third motion to be discussed at the hearing will be one submitted by George and Cindy Anthony's attorney, Bradley Conway, on March 3. The motion asks the judge to not allow the release of the document recovered from Anthony's car following his suicide attempt on January 22.
In the motion, Conway indicates that the release of the document because it contains very personal information intended for nobody other than Mr. Anthony's family. He also states that disclosing this document now would create substantial risk of unnecessary annoyance and embarrassment...
Conway also indicated that the document is related to George Anthony's suicide attempt and used to "Baker Act" him. As such, he believes that this is medical information protected by statute.
Since this is an evidentiary hearing, Casey Anthony will have to attend.
WESH has already announced it will televise the hearing and I would expect other stations to carry it as well.
See you all in court Thursday!
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-four: Lisa Bloom Takes The Stand
Breaking News!
TruTV's In Sessions anchor and attorney Lisa Bloom takes the stand as an out of order, prosecution rebuttal witness.
Lisa will be leaving In Session in June. She has been in a long distance relationship and as her daughter heads off to college, she will be returning to the sunshine state. Lisa is an analyst on CBS and that role will be expanding.
Ms. Bloom will most likely counter the testimony of Greg Sims. Stay tuned for an update!
TruTV's In Sessions anchor and attorney Lisa Bloom takes the stand as an out of order, prosecution rebuttal witness.
Lisa will be leaving In Session in June. She has been in a long distance relationship and as her daughter heads off to college, she will be returning to the sunshine state. Lisa is an analyst on CBS and that role will be expanding.
Ms. Bloom will most likely counter the testimony of Greg Sims. Stay tuned for an update!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Update VII
UPDATED!
I've updated Day 52's entry to include the direct examination of Dr. Seiden. The update is at the bottom of the entry and is dated March 7th, 2009.
I am forging ahead and tackling my notes on Day 53, (March 5th) which covers the rest of Dr. Seiden's direct examination and the beginning of Truc Do's cross. When I get that completed, I will update this entry.
Day 53 has been updated to include the rest of Dr. Seiden's direct testimony and Truc Do's cross examination. Just scroll down a little ways until you see the "update."
I've updated Day 52's entry to include the direct examination of Dr. Seiden. The update is at the bottom of the entry and is dated March 7th, 2009.
I am forging ahead and tackling my notes on Day 53, (March 5th) which covers the rest of Dr. Seiden's direct examination and the beginning of Truc Do's cross. When I get that completed, I will update this entry.
Day 53 has been updated to include the rest of Dr. Seiden's direct testimony and Truc Do's cross examination. Just scroll down a little ways until you see the "update."
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-three
Updated!
March 5th, 2009
Defense Witnesses: #16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist; under first cross examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times & Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press for a short period in the afternoon session.
I have been trying to catch up around the house this evening so I'm sorry that I don't have much in the way of notes today. I promise to try to get my notes from yesterday finished tomorrow, and notes from today finished over the weekend. I did do Talk Radio One this evening. I come on a little after 9:30 PM PT. The archived show should be up after 11:00 PM, PT.
I will say that on direct examination Dr. Seiden came across different than the other paid experts that have testified in this case so far. As a witness, he's very dry, and a bit boring. Dr. Seiden admittedly, stated he rarely testifies in trials. Out of the gate, he came across well. I did note that right after he answered what he had been paid in the trial so far, $6,000, two of the jurors in the back row, #5 and #6, looked at each other and smiled. Dr. Seiden's cross examination began about 10:10 AM this morning and even though court was excused early today, Truc Do is still not finished.
I have to say that, in my opinion, Truc Do did an excellent cross of Dr. Seiden today. In fact, I think this cross was better than her cross of Dr. Lakshmanan and Jennifer Hayes Reidl. The cross was that good that the last hour or so of trial I just sat and listened to her discredit the witness and didn't take any notes. Truc wasn't stumped a single time, but Dr. Seiden was. Truc knew the material better than Dr. Seiden, who many times could not remember what he said to Alan Jackson and Truc Do in an interview they did with him on February 6th, 2009.
Truc pointed out many inconsistencies in Dr. Seiden's testimony, even using his own prior writings and papers to show that his conclusions written in those papers are in conflict with his testimony regarding his Golden Gate Bridge study and his "percentages" of the suicides he testified are "spontaneous." Truc Do also showed the jury how any study that extrapolates the self reporting thought process of survivors of attempted suicide (labeled "spontaneous, unplanned") to those who actually do commit suicide, is flawed.
Weinberg has one more witness after Seiden and that's (I believe) Dr. Mary Goldensen, a therapist Lana Clarkson contacted, but never saw for therapy. One of the last things Weinberg informs the court is regarding Punkin Pie. "That's a question whether she will be called now or another time. I will let counsel (and the court) know (by Friday)," Weinberg states.
So Weinberg still hasn't decided at this late date, whether he is going to call Pie as part of his case-in-chief or in sur-rebuttal. I have no idea what that means. I am speculating here with not a shred of evidence to support this thought. I'm wondering if she has made herself scarce.
More to come on Wednesday's entry and this entry...
Just thought I'd add that there was a ton of press camped out in the front and rear entrance to the Criminal Court Building today in hopes of getting a shot of Chris Brown arriving. They were there when I arrived around 9 AM and they were still there when I exited the building around 3:25 PM. At first, I heard the court appearance would be at 1 PM on the fifth floor. I later learned that it was moved to 3:30 PM. Spector, Rachelle and Rachelle's mother were photographed trying to get past the gauntlet of photographers on their way out of the courthouse.
Update! March 8th, 2009 4:00 PM
I'm inside 106 at 9:24 am. There's lots of bustling going on inside the well. Jackson and Truc are going through books and files. Josh, their clerk is getting other books for them. Wendy thinks she's coming down with something and there is talk about just about everyone they know is sick again.
9:35 am: The bailiff Kyles calls for the cell phones to be turned off. Spector hasn't arrived yet. Fidler takes the bench right after Weinberg stepped outside 106 for a moment. Fidler, jokingly asks Jackson for the people's motion. Jackson replies, "Fat chance." Weinberg comes back in a moment later and apologizes to the court. He states he has a witness under subpoena and she's not here. (I find out later that this must be Dr. Goldenson, the therapist.) He also mentions that "Mr. Spector is running late.
I have a note here, and I'm remembering the discussion but I don't have in my notes that Weinberg is speaking. I'm pretty certain it is for the entire paragraph.
DW: I understand that Dr. Seiden testimony involved effects of alcohol on people and questions about Mr. Spector on... [...] I asked Ms. Do if there are any questions involving other conduct and Mr. De Souza... [...] She declined to tell me. (Too bad.) [...]I just wanted to inform the court.
From what I'm remembering, I'm guessing this has to do with questions the prosecution asked Dr. Seiden during their meeting on February 6th.
Fidler: I'll have to listen to all his testimony. It depends on what conclusion he already draws.
Fidler leaves the bench. A tall suited man wanders into 106, looks in and then leaves. I overhear the court reporter's discussing how to spell the last name of Hayes Riedl's friend, also named Jennifer. It's "Sykes." Weinberg wanders in and out of 106, possibly waiting for his missing witness. He then stands at the podium.
9:42 am: An older looking couple who have been here several times before to support Spector enter and sit on the defense side of the room. Spector enters with Mommy. Rachelle enters about 20 seconds later. She's wearing a very form fitting brown pantsuit and carrying her blanket. Dr. Seiden takes the stand. I'm so tired I yawn. Too little sleep trying to keep the house up and still get to court on time. Fawn and John Taylor chat.
9:44 am: Bailiff Kyles calls for cell phones to be turned off again. Spector has a reddish looking drink inside an arrowhead water bottle. There are just a few people in the gallery today. There are interesting looking men in the back row. They don't look familiar to me at all. Tran Smith enters 106 and goes up to the podium. He shows Weinberg a message on his blackberry then exits 106.
9:49 am: Jurors enter the courtroom and right behind them Fidler enters. Weinberg has his witness still under direct examination.
DW: Yesterday, we reviewed a number of documents, primarily emails and some medical records. I've got just a few additional items for you to look at. A medical record from a Dr. Kudrow's file is introduced. I think he states that this is a result of an MRI from a Dr. Enselmo (sp?) reported to Dr. Kudrow. This record is put up on the overhead.
'Severe headaches. History of multiple motor vehicle accidents with head trauma.'
Next, Weinberg asks Dr. Seiden if there was a DMV history. He starts to answer that "She had.."
TD: Objection! Not in evidence.
Fidler: Even if the doctor looked at certified records, they have to be marked into evidence.
Juror #7 looks at #8 and they both smile to each other.
Weinberg presents records for Dr. Seiden to review.
DW: Do those records support the suggestion that in the last few years of her life she was driving in a reckless and dangerous manner?
Dr. S: It supports it. [...] When all these are put together, it does suggest someone of a reckless nature.
I could swear I just saw Juror #7 wink at Juror #18. Weinberg has Dr. Seiden look as some past medical records from Cedars Sinai. In 2001 she reported for migraine headaches and some depression. The next issue Weinberg has Dr. Seiden address is Greg Sims testimony. Dr. Seiden states something to the effect that he asked if there were bouts of long periods of crying. And this fit the bill. Dr. Seiden also states that Mr. Sims was so concerned about her that he called her the next day. Weinberg then asks his witness a very leading question.
DW: Wasn't it the best friend he called?
AJ: Objection: Mr. Weinberg is testifying. (Unfortunately, I did not note the ruling.)
Dr. Seiden states he also reviewed Dr. Lakshmanan's study of suicides and the percentage of women who committed suicides in those years.
Juror #5 has her arms crossed and her eyes closed. Juror #11 is in a familiar posture with his left elbow resting on the chair arm, his chin in his hand and his fingers slightly covering his mouth.
Weinberg brings out the fact that Dr. Seiden spoke with Jackson and Truc Do and spent about two hours with them at their request?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Now Weinberg goes directly to his conclusions. To paraphrase: Sometimes ending one's own life, or, including an emotional, that is, to end a pain also include reckless acts, that results in someones death, even accidental.
Dr. S: This is the whole linchpin of suicide prevention. [...] To get them through the dangerous points.
DW: You're not being asked to give an opinion as to the whether Lana Clarkson took her own life.
TD: Objection!
Fidler: It's not a question so I will sustain it.
DW: Based on your experience, [...] is expressive [...] Did you find suicide ideation in the case of Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Weinberg now goes back over the specific statements that helped Dr. Seiden reach this conclusion. On the first statement, Weinberg asks, "They're not clear statements?" And Dr. Seiden answers, "They are suggestive."
DW: Is the existence of suffering financial pressure, is that a risk of suicide?
Dr. S: Yes it is.
DW: And did you find that her (writings supported that)?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Question after question, of many of the risk factors for suicide and whether or not he found that in reviewing the record.
DW: And feelings of failure of ones' career?
Dr. S: I certainly found that here.
Dr. Seiden goes on about Lana's broken wrists. Weinberg mentions the documents that he reviewed in the packet sent from Doug Sortino to Dr. Pena. Weinberg asks Seiden about Jon Barrons testimony, and that she was upset about that failure. Dr. Seiden goes onto say that, "... Because everyday she had headaches." When he says that, Jackson and Truc Do look at each other with this totally puzzled expression on their faces. Truc Do shakes her head.
DW: Is it possible to exclude suicide in the evidence of this case?
Dr. S: I don't believe any professional could exclude it.
And that's the last question under direct. It's 10:11 am, and Truc Do gets up to cross Dr. Seiden.
Truc Do starts off with a review of his qualifications. He's a licensed psychologist. She asks him if he's currently a member of any psychiatric association.
Dr. S: No. At one time I was.
TD: Let's start off where Mr. Weinberg left off. That as a (psychotherapist?) you can't rule out suicide?
Dr. S: That's correct.
TD: And you also can't rule out homicide?
Dr. S: that's correct.
Truc Do now moves onto his research on impulsive suicides. "You testified that the time interval is five minutes or less?
Dr. S: that's the conventional standard.
TD: And impulsive suicide is not defined by the method chose?
Dr. S: Not necessarily defined that way.
TD: When we flew up to meet with you on February 6th, one area we talked about was, is an impulsive suicide defined by the method chosen. Your answer was no.
Dr. S: It's not synonymous with the method chosen.
I believe my notes here say that Dr. Seiden asks about the recording of the interview, and Truc Do replies that we wanted to clarify with you (that point). The jury is smiling.
Under cross, Dr. Seiden admits that the method doesn't tell you if it's suicide or not. Jackson interjects something for Truc Do and Weinberg objects. He asks the court that only Ms. Do be allowed to offer information to the witness. Fidler, bemusedly smiling, tells Jackson that the proper way is to pass Ms. Do a note. Jackson, making a point of how ridiculous this objection is, gets up from the prosecution table, goes over to Truc Do and whispers in her ear. There's laughter in the jury box over the comedy of the exchange.
TD: Are you telling the jury that suicide doesn't involve an intention to die?
Dr. S: It's to end pain.
Truc Do confronts him with an article written in 1989. It's his own words where he said the firearm is paired with the intent to die.
Dr. S: Can I see it?
TD: You don't remember what you wrote? [...] And where do you say "ending pain" or....
Dr. S: This is a statistical article.
TD: You stated that 40% of suicides are impulsive (and it was) your case work you relied upon? [...] You began consulting around September 2008? [...] And you've been on the case for about seven months? [...] All those materials were sent to you prior to 2008? (I think this is a misspeak.) [...] The medical records were not? [...]
Dr. S: The emails and investigative report and the coroner were given to me (later?).
TD: When did you get the Greg Sims testimony? [...] The last date you did any work was December, 2008? [...] And any work (that) was reviewed prior to that date? [...] Everything that you received prior....
Dr. S: After we met I received more emails and medical records.
TD: You've not made any reports. In fact, Mr. Weinberg wrote the report?
DW: I wrote a summary.
Dr. S: I wrote a revised paragraph. [...] (The report) ...it was submitted to me by counsel and I rewrote the final paragraph.
TD: You have not written (any summary about your conclusions)? [...] Mr. Weinberg wrote what you have testified (to), a five page statement?
Dr. S: Except for a paragraph that I rewrote.
TD: A paragraph that you revised, after you had met with us?
Dr. S: I sent him a revised paragraph by mail.
TD: In anticipation of that five page statement [...] there was something about impulsive suicides and statistics [...] Do you remember that?
10:20 am: A Spector supporter arrives.
Truc Do reads him a paragraph (I believe from the five page statement).
TD: We asked you about that?
Dr. S: Not really. Refresh my memory.
Truc Do asks to approach the bench. During the sidebar, Juror's #5 and #6 look at each other whisper and smile. Tran Smith speaks to Rachelle and Mommy. Josh and Fawn exchange a few words.
TD: Dr. Seiden, my question is when we flew out to talk to you (about) the statistics that we... (that 50% or more of suicides are impulsive).
Dr. S: I suppose so. I don't remember exactly.
TD: We asked you if you agreed with that. [...] We asked several times.
Dr. S: As opposed to the 40%?
TD: Will you take my word for it that you said it?
Dr. S: I suppose.
TD: I asked you where you got the statistics from?
Dr. S: I don't remember every question you asked.
Truc Do brings up all the reporting centers, and that, "All thse institutions compiled statistics for stats that.... [...] Do you have a CDC statistic that states if suicide are impulsive?
Dr. S: No I did not.
TD: Yesterday, you told Mr. Weinberg that 40% of all suicides are unplanned, correct?
Dr. S: That's correct.
TD: You also told Mr. Weinberg that you researched various organizations on those statistics, correct? (There's no answer from Dr. Seiden.) Did you research the CDC? [...] The NBDRS?
Dr. S: No.
TD: The NMIH?
Dr. S: No.
TD: The Injury Prevention Control Center (statistics)?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Isn't the reason that none of those organizations (don't have a percentage) is because that's an impossible statistic to compile? [..] That the only true and reliable source of that data is the person who is dead? [...] I want to be more clear, none of these organizations can ask a dead person if they spent five minutes or less contemplating death, correct?
Dr. S: I was talking about those who survive. [...]
TD: These national organizations that compile data, do not compile statistics on the number (of impulsive suicides)?
Dr. S: I don't understand your question [...] It's been long known in the field that there is....
TD: So you believe attempted suicides mirror the motivations of actual suicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: How are you going to report to the CDC [...] if someone contemplated for five minutes or five days? [...] So the percentages you talked about was on suicide attempters?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Who did not succeed and then you debriefed them?
Dr. S: Some of them.
Isn't that the general attempters, you're going to assume that's the same that (of those) that are dead?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: What are you relying upon? Your own study that you had done yourself, the Golden Gate Study?
Dr. S: Among others.
TD: You told us about others?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You're sure about that?
Dr. S: Yes.
Truc Do goes over Dr. Seiden's Golden Gate study.
TD: How many people did you interview?
Dr. S: About a dozen or so. [...] of 515 attempts. [...] through (research?) some behavior there were that was suspicious... [...] I want to add that I also reviewed police reports.
TD: Didn't you tell us that 50% of suicides were impulsive? [...] Didn't you tell us that based on this study you could support that 40%...
Dr. S: Then I misstated it. It's based on (another study).
TD: Isn't it true that your study doesn't support your testimony of 40%?
Dr. S: There are several studies on this topic, with 40%, 50% even the Scotland poisoning study showed 67%. I misstated to you the percentage on February 6th. I didn't base it on my own study.
Truc Do now confronts him with a conclusion on his Golden Gate Bridge study that he wrote in 1990. "You wrote in 1990, that many of the people on the Gold Gate Bridge had fantasized about it for a long time."
TD: Are you aware of the demographics Marin County keeps, a demographics on the Golden Gate Bridge that the majority of people traveled from other counties?
Dr. S: I believe they got that information from me. [...] That's a chamber of commerce hypothesis.
10:54 am: The morning break is called.
During the morning break, Truc Do speaks to Fawn and Mrs. Clarkson about the "auto accidents." I overhear Fawn say that one accident, she was driving and not Lana and the other accident she was rear-ended!
Spector greets a nicely dressed older looking man in a suit. He's with a friend and the suited man introduces his friend to Spector. The gentlemen then shake Rachelle Short's hand. The first image that comes to mind is this man looks a bit like a younger Robert Evans, with the stark white silk kerchief in his lapel pocket. I have no idea who the gentleman is. He could be in the music or entertainment industry, but that's just a guess. For Spector to greet him the way he did and introduce him to Rachelle, this is someone quite different that the usual crowd who shows up to sit in court and show the jury they support Spector. Right after this, we are back on the record outside the presence of the jury.
AJ: Now it is in agreement to have the tape transcribed.
DW: There are no inconsistencies. Just a continuing attempt to break the agreement. There's no place where they.
Fidler: Neither of you can bind the court to an agreement. [...] There are inconsistencies. [...] The problem is, [...] neither party [...] that the witness would have a lack of memory, so I'm turning this tape over to the people.
DW: Please! I'm going to say this is a 352 issue to send this witness home. They're not going to want to go ahead [...] (it's) insufficient to interrupt [...] The court is intruding between an agreement between (both parties) The court has conducted no investigation or analysis! [...] The court is inserting itself into an agreement!
Fidler: That's about the SECOND OR THIRD TIME that you've said that! I take umbrage and it's NONSENSE!
Weinberg then goes back over the same argument as yesterday, AGAIN! The same argument! On and on and on he goes. "The two of them took notes. there's nothing to discover!" Weinberg continues to argue. "They're attempting to use the tape for a completely different purpose! Weinberg then brings up the Dr. Herold tape, again. "To now say this is a discovery issue is a completely different issue!"
Jackson and Truc are both leaning against the jury box. I can barely hear that Jackson says to Truc Do, "He just goes on and on and on." Jackson then looks at his watch. It's 11:16 am.
AJ: I'm certainly not going to address everything concerned, but one thing Mr. Weinberg didn't address is the truth.
Fidler: The bottom line is, [...] I believe the witness does not have a complete memory of the case. [...] A Judge's solemn obligation is to ensure that the truth is presented to the jury.
DW: So they can prepare that transcript [...] as to whether or not [...] that it can be used.
AJ: Mr. Weinberg acts like this is one big trick.
Then Fidler really gets angry. He raises his voice and his face looks real mad.
DW: Is the prosecution going to get to listen to the tape?
Fidler is shouting. "I ALREADY STATED THAT!"
Boy, is he angry. Then Fidler back pedals! First, he stated that the tape would be handed over to the people to transcribe. Now he's saying that the people will have someone transcribe it, but the tape and transcription is to be delivered directly to him! All that bellyaching by Weinberg worked, again. Fidler addresses the people, "Any other questions?"
AJ: Not after that.
Fidler: Bring the jury out.
11:23 am: Fidler apologizes to the jury. He tells them that they had another on of their discussions and that, "It was a heated one, on my part."
Truc Do asks if Dr. Seiden read the police reports. (I don't have the answer.)
TD: Are you in any way changing the conclusions of your research?
Dr. S: No, not at all.
TD: There's no mention in there of impulsive suicides, correct?
Dr. S: Correct.
11:28 am: Mrs. Weinberg enters 106. Weinberg fiddles with his lips again.
TD: You said you wouldn't find it in the CDC or the other studies?
Dr. S: I said that?
TD: Did you call Mr. Weinberg after we met with you?
Dr. S: Yes. [...] I asked him about Punkin Pie's testimony because, because you were so concerned about it.
TD: Characteristics of...
Fidler: (To Weinberg) It will be gone into..
TD: I'm sorry?
Fidler: It was a response to an arched eyebrow.
Truc Do then goes over the article where Dr. Seiden did get the 40% figure. She then asks him if he remembers telling them at the February 6th meeting, that the time impulsive suicides contemplated was one hour. Truc asks Dr. Seiden, "Isn't that a big difference?" Dr. Seiden replies that the "five minute" figure is within the 1 hour or less figure. Truc Do then asks the next question with an incredulous tone in her voice.
TD: Five minutes is between 1 hour or less?
The jury box erupts in laughter.
TD: Where in the literature are you going to find that there is a 1 hour (time frame)?
Dr. S: It was my best estimate at the time.
TD: Could you cite me a study that says 1 hour or less?
Dr. S: I probably could not.
TD: The estimate you gave us was prompted (by) ..... (our inquiry?) [...] Then afterwards you came up with the 2001 article, after our questions? [...] You now came up with that research after you had been on this case for seven months?
(Unfortunately, I don't have Dr. Seiden's answers in my notes.)
TD: Isn't it true that that article is not supportive of your conclusion?
Truc Do reads from the article where he obtained his 40% figure. The article even states at the end that there are inherent flaws in the research..
TD: Do you see inherent flaws in the method?
Dr. S: The best source (the dead person) is not available.
TD: I'm talking about those you interview. [...] Isn't there a problem with self reporting? [...] You assume they are being forthright and truthful?
Truc Do spells it out for the jury.
TD: Isn't it easier for the reporting person to say afterwards, that they didn't think about it, than to admit they had thought about it for five days, five weeks or five months? [...] Didn't the author's of that study admit it's an inherent flaw? [...] And thesea re the reports you as an expert rely on?
Dr. S: It's the best estimate.
TD: It's an assumption?
Dr. S: It's not an assumption. It's....
Truc Do moves onto the study performed by Dr. Laksmanan.
TD: Did you look at the autopsy reports, that were part of the study?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Was it part of what Mr. Weinberg provided?
Dr. S: No.
TD: And you've published studies on the difference between the way that, masculine and feminine ways of commiting suicide. [...] Men use firearms where as women use pills or gas? [...] Isn't it true taht 90% of suicides by men are with firearms?
Dr. S: No. The national statistics of suicide by firearms is for men and women.
TD: Suicide by firearms are 90% committed by men.
Dr. S: Yes but suicides by men are more frequent than women.
The lunch break is called. Over lunch I take some notes on my impression of Dr. Seiden. It's obvious that Dr. Seiden has not testified very oftne in a court of law. His memory is very faulty and he is not correctly remembering the facts of the case. The inherent flaw of all of these studies is the researchers' own admissin that the surviving subjects tendency to not admit to prior suicide ideation. It's easier to state that they only thought about it for five minutes instead of admitting that they thought about it for weeks and months.
1:38 pm: Back inside the courtroom, we wait for Judge Fidler.
Truc Do is going over with Dr. Seiden the statistics on suicide on firearm by men and women. She shows him the most recent statistics (years 2003 & 2005 I believe), and 90% are by men. She then goes over Dr. Lakshmanan's study of 755 suicides by firearms, 80 of which were by women. That comes out to 11%. Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if Los Angels County is consistent with the national average.
Dr. S: Correct.
Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if he's been in the field (psychology) for about 40 years, and he confirms that.
TD: You are aware that Lana Clarkson was killed in Mr. Spector's home?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: And that Lana Clarkson just met Mr. spector on that morning?
Dr. S: (Yes.)
TD: Based on your 40 years of experience in the field, what is the percentage of suicides of a person who comes into the home of a complete stranger?
Dr. S: I've noever known or seen (any) statistics.
TD: In a complete stranger's home. You have not seen a single case where any of those circumstances (exist)?
Dr. S: I think so.
TD: Is that what you told Mr. Jackson and I that...
Dr. S: Unequivically, no.
Truc Do asks another question that I miss, but I do get Dr. Seiden's answer.
Dr. S: I've never seen any statistics where a suicide is committed in the home of a stranger.
Truc Do asks him again and says something to the effect that she doesn't want to put words in his mouth.
Dr. S: Not that I can remember.
TD: Would you agree that tis a statistical anomaly?
Dr. S: In my experience (it hasn't occurred).
TD: You said on direct that you looked at John Barrons (testimony?)?
Dr. S: Well, I looked at it, It wasn't significant. It was hardly a determing factor.
TD: (Do you remember) telling me and Mr. Jackson that you didn't consider it. That you thought it was amusing?
1:48 pm: A Spector supporter wearing a cowboy hat enters 106.
Now Truc Do moves onto another area, Greg Sims's testimony. Truc asks Dr. Seiden if there was anything else that he asked of Mr. Weinberg.
Dr. S: I asked him if there was any evidence of copious crying.
TD: so that's an incidence that you asked Mr. Weiberg that if there was, any other witness information? And Mr. Weinberg was... [...] You mostly based your opinion about her emails and what she said to others?
Dr. Seiden states that he based his opinion on mostly her emails. He reviewed the packet of information from Doug Sortino to Dr. Pena. "Doug Sortino sent Dr. Pena thirty emails." Truc Do asks him where in the cover letter did it state that Mr. Sortino states he is sending thirty emails?
1:53 pm: Harriet Ryan and Linda Deutsch enter 106.
Truc Do presents the cover letter to Dr. Seiden. She points out that the letter states that Doug Sortino is enclosing thirty interviews along with a DVD. He's confusing interviews with the thousands of emails on Lana's hard drive. Dr. Seiden doesn't seem to see the big difference.
Dr. S: Well, they were sequentially numbered.
Truc Do confirms that he received and reviewed the medical records after he was interviewed by herself and Mr. Jackson.
TD: You had at least seven months to ask for all the information in this case. Did you ever call me or Mr. Jackson?
Dr. S: No. And you didn't volunteer anything either.
TD: You didn't interview anyone, either? [...] Or Lana's family? [...] Or Lana's friends?
Dr. S: I didn't interview anybody.
1:59 pm: Spector's number one fan enters 106. It's about this time that I really cut back on my note taking, put my pad down and just listen to the cross.
Truc Do goes over with Dr. Seiden the number one risk factor that's listed in any literature for suicide risk is depression. She then reads him a statement:
'75% of person who commit suicide had a previous history or threat.'
TD: That statement is your own writing. [...] So that you have published that 75% of people had a previous history [...] and you quoted (in) your Golden Gate study, in your study you are quoting Ed Schneidman (sp?)?
Truc Do then confronts him with the National Institute of Mental Health's standards for depression. She first confirms with him first that the statements she's using are from the Institute of Clinical Depression. She puts up on the screen the text that they have published on suicide and their definition of depression. The text is gone over with him. He keeps insisting that all this information is for major depression only, but that's not how the text is titled.
TD: You came to a conclusion about someone that you never met?
Dr. S: That's true.
TD: You don't think that it would have helped you, (if you had spoken to her family, friends)?
Dr. S: Do you think that the things they they (would say would be any different than the police reports of six years ago)?
Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if it would have made any difference if he knew that Lana was taking a creative writing class?
TD: Do you think that Lana's writing in her emails was Lana going for that melodramatic flair?
Dr. S: It's possible. I have no idea.
Truc Do then asks Dr. Seiden if Mr. Weinberg told him that those were the only emails of Lana's? She confronts Dr. Seiden with the fact that the defense was given a copy of Lana's hard drive, and on that hard drive were 12,017 PAGES of emails. Jackson then lifts a huge box onto the prosecution table. Then another box, and then another. FIVE LARGE file type boxes filled with those 12,017 pages are placed on the prosecution table. I'm shocked. I can't help staring at those boxes. Dr. Seiden said he based his opinion mostly on Lana's writings. (Later, I asked people in the gallery if they saw the jury's reaction to the five huge boxes being placed on the prosecution table. Everyone I spoke to said they did not look at the jury. Like me, they were fixated on those boxes themselves.)
TD: You see it now but did Mr. Weinberg tell you that? (There were thousands of pages of emails.) [...] Did Mr. Weinberg tell you there were this many emails?
Dr. S: I didn't know that there were....
TD: Does that change your opinion?
Dr. S: I'm glad I didn't have to read them.
TD: You do mean her emails [...] is what is most important to you?
Dr. S: It is the most important.
Weinberg is leaning back in his chair, chewing on the arm of his spectacles.
Truc Do brings up the fact that there wasn't a single email written in the last two months of her life that had any depressive or negative statements in them.
I'm not sure if it's at this point, but at one point, Truc Do goes over Lana's DMV report with Dr. Seiden and that medical report about auto accidents from Dr. Kudrow that mention concussions. The three items on her DMV report were minor moving infractions such as turning left on a no left turn. Truc Do confronts Dr. Seiden with the fact that if he had interviewed Lana's sister, Fawn, he would have found out that one accident, Lana wasn't even driving. And that if he had spoken to Mrs. Clarkson, he would have found out that another accident, Lana was rear-ended. She then asks him if put the DMV report and Dr. Kudrow's report together and came up with his opinion that she was a reckless person. He admits that's what the records suggested. She then asks him that, knowing what he knows now, that would tend to negate his opinion that she was a reckless driver? Dr. Seiden agrees.
Truc Do then asks Dr. Seiden if it would be helpful to him if he knew what Lana was doing in the last days of her life. Some of the information is new to him. He did not receive it from Mr. Weinberg.
She then confronts him with an article he wrote in conjunction with another individual and this article was conveniently left off of his CV that was provided to the prosecution.
Glancing over at Rachelle, her eyes are closed.
Truc Do then goes over with Dr. Seiden a "scale" he helped develop for suicide ideation.
When Truc is going over everything he considered as far as Lana's writings, he also offered, "I also considered something that's not admissible." (Unforkin' believeable! I can't believe he said this!)
TD: Objection!
Fidler strikes the statement from the record.
The afternoon break is called. A trial watcher tells me at the break they overheard Mommy say to a Spector fan, "She's just trying to turn everything around." A black man with a type of ID badge that tells me he's probably a detective with the Sheriff's office comes in and greets Jackson and Truc, who gives him a hug. I note that the supporters that came in the afternoon today are a different lot than the people who came yesterday.
3:06 pm: The jury is called and a few minutes later, Fidler takes the bench.
TD: When you said you could not rule out suicide, you did not take into consideration the physical evidence?
Dr. S: No. (I'm not qualified to review it.) I was asked to (review) areas of my expertise.
TD: You did not consider the statements of other people at the scene?
Dr. S: No I did not.
TD: And you did not consider the history of, and the impulsivity of the other individual involved at the scene?
DW: Objection! Sidebar!
After the sidebar, Judge Fidler releases the jurors for the day. He orders them back Monday morning at 9:30 am. Jackson states there is another matter to address outside the jury's presence, so Fidler stays on the bench. Spector and his group leave. It's now that Fidler states he will need to review the transcript and audio tape of Dr. Seiden's interview with Jackson and Truc Do.
The discussion with the court is about scheduling. It's now that Weinberg states in regards to Punkin Pie, "That's questionable whether she will be called now or another time. I will let counsel know, tomorrow." Fidler states that if it turns out that we wrap up on Monday, he suggests that "We would use that time to work on jury instructions." Jackson states that he has a rebuttal witness that can only testify on Monday.
And that's it. Court is adjourned.
I want to add here that I still will try to get Truc Do's cross of Dr. Lakshmanan finished sometime soon. I'm also working on getting an entry up that is a transcript of all the statements Spector made in the presence of LE at his home and at the Alhambra Police Station. A thoughtful T&T reader has transcribed a few of the reports into simple text form for me. Once I get a few more of the officer's reports transcribed over, I will put that entry up.
I also wanted to tell you that I came across a photogrpaher's Flickr page of photographs that were taken at the end first trial. There are photos of Spector, Rachelle, Dominick Dunne, Beth Karas and a few others.
March 5th, 2009
Defense Witnesses: #16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist; under first cross examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times & Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press for a short period in the afternoon session.
I have been trying to catch up around the house this evening so I'm sorry that I don't have much in the way of notes today. I promise to try to get my notes from yesterday finished tomorrow, and notes from today finished over the weekend. I did do Talk Radio One this evening. I come on a little after 9:30 PM PT. The archived show should be up after 11:00 PM, PT.
I will say that on direct examination Dr. Seiden came across different than the other paid experts that have testified in this case so far. As a witness, he's very dry, and a bit boring. Dr. Seiden admittedly, stated he rarely testifies in trials. Out of the gate, he came across well. I did note that right after he answered what he had been paid in the trial so far, $6,000, two of the jurors in the back row, #5 and #6, looked at each other and smiled. Dr. Seiden's cross examination began about 10:10 AM this morning and even though court was excused early today, Truc Do is still not finished.
I have to say that, in my opinion, Truc Do did an excellent cross of Dr. Seiden today. In fact, I think this cross was better than her cross of Dr. Lakshmanan and Jennifer Hayes Reidl. The cross was that good that the last hour or so of trial I just sat and listened to her discredit the witness and didn't take any notes. Truc wasn't stumped a single time, but Dr. Seiden was. Truc knew the material better than Dr. Seiden, who many times could not remember what he said to Alan Jackson and Truc Do in an interview they did with him on February 6th, 2009.
Truc pointed out many inconsistencies in Dr. Seiden's testimony, even using his own prior writings and papers to show that his conclusions written in those papers are in conflict with his testimony regarding his Golden Gate Bridge study and his "percentages" of the suicides he testified are "spontaneous." Truc Do also showed the jury how any study that extrapolates the self reporting thought process of survivors of attempted suicide (labeled "spontaneous, unplanned") to those who actually do commit suicide, is flawed.
Weinberg has one more witness after Seiden and that's (I believe) Dr. Mary Goldensen, a therapist Lana Clarkson contacted, but never saw for therapy. One of the last things Weinberg informs the court is regarding Punkin Pie. "That's a question whether she will be called now or another time. I will let counsel (and the court) know (by Friday)," Weinberg states.
So Weinberg still hasn't decided at this late date, whether he is going to call Pie as part of his case-in-chief or in sur-rebuttal. I have no idea what that means. I am speculating here with not a shred of evidence to support this thought. I'm wondering if she has made herself scarce.
More to come on Wednesday's entry and this entry...
Just thought I'd add that there was a ton of press camped out in the front and rear entrance to the Criminal Court Building today in hopes of getting a shot of Chris Brown arriving. They were there when I arrived around 9 AM and they were still there when I exited the building around 3:25 PM. At first, I heard the court appearance would be at 1 PM on the fifth floor. I later learned that it was moved to 3:30 PM. Spector, Rachelle and Rachelle's mother were photographed trying to get past the gauntlet of photographers on their way out of the courthouse.
Update! March 8th, 2009 4:00 PM
I'm inside 106 at 9:24 am. There's lots of bustling going on inside the well. Jackson and Truc are going through books and files. Josh, their clerk is getting other books for them. Wendy thinks she's coming down with something and there is talk about just about everyone they know is sick again.
9:35 am: The bailiff Kyles calls for the cell phones to be turned off. Spector hasn't arrived yet. Fidler takes the bench right after Weinberg stepped outside 106 for a moment. Fidler, jokingly asks Jackson for the people's motion. Jackson replies, "Fat chance." Weinberg comes back in a moment later and apologizes to the court. He states he has a witness under subpoena and she's not here. (I find out later that this must be Dr. Goldenson, the therapist.) He also mentions that "Mr. Spector is running late.
I have a note here, and I'm remembering the discussion but I don't have in my notes that Weinberg is speaking. I'm pretty certain it is for the entire paragraph.
DW: I understand that Dr. Seiden testimony involved effects of alcohol on people and questions about Mr. Spector on... [...] I asked Ms. Do if there are any questions involving other conduct and Mr. De Souza... [...] She declined to tell me. (Too bad.) [...]I just wanted to inform the court.
From what I'm remembering, I'm guessing this has to do with questions the prosecution asked Dr. Seiden during their meeting on February 6th.
Fidler: I'll have to listen to all his testimony. It depends on what conclusion he already draws.
Fidler leaves the bench. A tall suited man wanders into 106, looks in and then leaves. I overhear the court reporter's discussing how to spell the last name of Hayes Riedl's friend, also named Jennifer. It's "Sykes." Weinberg wanders in and out of 106, possibly waiting for his missing witness. He then stands at the podium.
9:42 am: An older looking couple who have been here several times before to support Spector enter and sit on the defense side of the room. Spector enters with Mommy. Rachelle enters about 20 seconds later. She's wearing a very form fitting brown pantsuit and carrying her blanket. Dr. Seiden takes the stand. I'm so tired I yawn. Too little sleep trying to keep the house up and still get to court on time. Fawn and John Taylor chat.
9:44 am: Bailiff Kyles calls for cell phones to be turned off again. Spector has a reddish looking drink inside an arrowhead water bottle. There are just a few people in the gallery today. There are interesting looking men in the back row. They don't look familiar to me at all. Tran Smith enters 106 and goes up to the podium. He shows Weinberg a message on his blackberry then exits 106.
9:49 am: Jurors enter the courtroom and right behind them Fidler enters. Weinberg has his witness still under direct examination.
DW: Yesterday, we reviewed a number of documents, primarily emails and some medical records. I've got just a few additional items for you to look at. A medical record from a Dr. Kudrow's file is introduced. I think he states that this is a result of an MRI from a Dr. Enselmo (sp?) reported to Dr. Kudrow. This record is put up on the overhead.
'Severe headaches. History of multiple motor vehicle accidents with head trauma.'
Next, Weinberg asks Dr. Seiden if there was a DMV history. He starts to answer that "She had.."
TD: Objection! Not in evidence.
Fidler: Even if the doctor looked at certified records, they have to be marked into evidence.
Juror #7 looks at #8 and they both smile to each other.
Weinberg presents records for Dr. Seiden to review.
DW: Do those records support the suggestion that in the last few years of her life she was driving in a reckless and dangerous manner?
Dr. S: It supports it. [...] When all these are put together, it does suggest someone of a reckless nature.
I could swear I just saw Juror #7 wink at Juror #18. Weinberg has Dr. Seiden look as some past medical records from Cedars Sinai. In 2001 she reported for migraine headaches and some depression. The next issue Weinberg has Dr. Seiden address is Greg Sims testimony. Dr. Seiden states something to the effect that he asked if there were bouts of long periods of crying. And this fit the bill. Dr. Seiden also states that Mr. Sims was so concerned about her that he called her the next day. Weinberg then asks his witness a very leading question.
DW: Wasn't it the best friend he called?
AJ: Objection: Mr. Weinberg is testifying. (Unfortunately, I did not note the ruling.)
Dr. Seiden states he also reviewed Dr. Lakshmanan's study of suicides and the percentage of women who committed suicides in those years.
Juror #5 has her arms crossed and her eyes closed. Juror #11 is in a familiar posture with his left elbow resting on the chair arm, his chin in his hand and his fingers slightly covering his mouth.
Weinberg brings out the fact that Dr. Seiden spoke with Jackson and Truc Do and spent about two hours with them at their request?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Now Weinberg goes directly to his conclusions. To paraphrase: Sometimes ending one's own life, or, including an emotional, that is, to end a pain also include reckless acts, that results in someones death, even accidental.
Dr. S: This is the whole linchpin of suicide prevention. [...] To get them through the dangerous points.
DW: You're not being asked to give an opinion as to the whether Lana Clarkson took her own life.
TD: Objection!
Fidler: It's not a question so I will sustain it.
DW: Based on your experience, [...] is expressive [...] Did you find suicide ideation in the case of Lana Clarkson?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Weinberg now goes back over the specific statements that helped Dr. Seiden reach this conclusion. On the first statement, Weinberg asks, "They're not clear statements?" And Dr. Seiden answers, "They are suggestive."
DW: Is the existence of suffering financial pressure, is that a risk of suicide?
Dr. S: Yes it is.
DW: And did you find that her (writings supported that)?
Dr. S: Yes I did.
Question after question, of many of the risk factors for suicide and whether or not he found that in reviewing the record.
DW: And feelings of failure of ones' career?
Dr. S: I certainly found that here.
Dr. Seiden goes on about Lana's broken wrists. Weinberg mentions the documents that he reviewed in the packet sent from Doug Sortino to Dr. Pena. Weinberg asks Seiden about Jon Barrons testimony, and that she was upset about that failure. Dr. Seiden goes onto say that, "... Because everyday she had headaches." When he says that, Jackson and Truc Do look at each other with this totally puzzled expression on their faces. Truc Do shakes her head.
DW: Is it possible to exclude suicide in the evidence of this case?
Dr. S: I don't believe any professional could exclude it.
And that's the last question under direct. It's 10:11 am, and Truc Do gets up to cross Dr. Seiden.
Truc Do starts off with a review of his qualifications. He's a licensed psychologist. She asks him if he's currently a member of any psychiatric association.
Dr. S: No. At one time I was.
TD: Let's start off where Mr. Weinberg left off. That as a (psychotherapist?) you can't rule out suicide?
Dr. S: That's correct.
TD: And you also can't rule out homicide?
Dr. S: that's correct.
Truc Do now moves onto his research on impulsive suicides. "You testified that the time interval is five minutes or less?
Dr. S: that's the conventional standard.
TD: And impulsive suicide is not defined by the method chose?
Dr. S: Not necessarily defined that way.
TD: When we flew up to meet with you on February 6th, one area we talked about was, is an impulsive suicide defined by the method chosen. Your answer was no.
Dr. S: It's not synonymous with the method chosen.
I believe my notes here say that Dr. Seiden asks about the recording of the interview, and Truc Do replies that we wanted to clarify with you (that point). The jury is smiling.
Under cross, Dr. Seiden admits that the method doesn't tell you if it's suicide or not. Jackson interjects something for Truc Do and Weinberg objects. He asks the court that only Ms. Do be allowed to offer information to the witness. Fidler, bemusedly smiling, tells Jackson that the proper way is to pass Ms. Do a note. Jackson, making a point of how ridiculous this objection is, gets up from the prosecution table, goes over to Truc Do and whispers in her ear. There's laughter in the jury box over the comedy of the exchange.
TD: Are you telling the jury that suicide doesn't involve an intention to die?
Dr. S: It's to end pain.
Truc Do confronts him with an article written in 1989. It's his own words where he said the firearm is paired with the intent to die.
Dr. S: Can I see it?
TD: You don't remember what you wrote? [...] And where do you say "ending pain" or....
Dr. S: This is a statistical article.
TD: You stated that 40% of suicides are impulsive (and it was) your case work you relied upon? [...] You began consulting around September 2008? [...] And you've been on the case for about seven months? [...] All those materials were sent to you prior to 2008? (I think this is a misspeak.) [...] The medical records were not? [...]
Dr. S: The emails and investigative report and the coroner were given to me (later?).
TD: When did you get the Greg Sims testimony? [...] The last date you did any work was December, 2008? [...] And any work (that) was reviewed prior to that date? [...] Everything that you received prior....
Dr. S: After we met I received more emails and medical records.
TD: You've not made any reports. In fact, Mr. Weinberg wrote the report?
DW: I wrote a summary.
Dr. S: I wrote a revised paragraph. [...] (The report) ...it was submitted to me by counsel and I rewrote the final paragraph.
TD: You have not written (any summary about your conclusions)? [...] Mr. Weinberg wrote what you have testified (to), a five page statement?
Dr. S: Except for a paragraph that I rewrote.
TD: A paragraph that you revised, after you had met with us?
Dr. S: I sent him a revised paragraph by mail.
TD: In anticipation of that five page statement [...] there was something about impulsive suicides and statistics [...] Do you remember that?
10:20 am: A Spector supporter arrives.
Truc Do reads him a paragraph (I believe from the five page statement).
TD: We asked you about that?
Dr. S: Not really. Refresh my memory.
Truc Do asks to approach the bench. During the sidebar, Juror's #5 and #6 look at each other whisper and smile. Tran Smith speaks to Rachelle and Mommy. Josh and Fawn exchange a few words.
TD: Dr. Seiden, my question is when we flew out to talk to you (about) the statistics that we... (that 50% or more of suicides are impulsive).
Dr. S: I suppose so. I don't remember exactly.
TD: We asked you if you agreed with that. [...] We asked several times.
Dr. S: As opposed to the 40%?
TD: Will you take my word for it that you said it?
Dr. S: I suppose.
TD: I asked you where you got the statistics from?
Dr. S: I don't remember every question you asked.
Truc Do brings up all the reporting centers, and that, "All thse institutions compiled statistics for stats that.... [...] Do you have a CDC statistic that states if suicide are impulsive?
Dr. S: No I did not.
TD: Yesterday, you told Mr. Weinberg that 40% of all suicides are unplanned, correct?
Dr. S: That's correct.
TD: You also told Mr. Weinberg that you researched various organizations on those statistics, correct? (There's no answer from Dr. Seiden.) Did you research the CDC? [...] The NBDRS?
Dr. S: No.
TD: The NMIH?
Dr. S: No.
TD: The Injury Prevention Control Center (statistics)?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Isn't the reason that none of those organizations (don't have a percentage) is because that's an impossible statistic to compile? [..] That the only true and reliable source of that data is the person who is dead? [...] I want to be more clear, none of these organizations can ask a dead person if they spent five minutes or less contemplating death, correct?
Dr. S: I was talking about those who survive. [...]
TD: These national organizations that compile data, do not compile statistics on the number (of impulsive suicides)?
Dr. S: I don't understand your question [...] It's been long known in the field that there is....
TD: So you believe attempted suicides mirror the motivations of actual suicides?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: How are you going to report to the CDC [...] if someone contemplated for five minutes or five days? [...] So the percentages you talked about was on suicide attempters?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: Who did not succeed and then you debriefed them?
Dr. S: Some of them.
Isn't that the general attempters, you're going to assume that's the same that (of those) that are dead?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: What are you relying upon? Your own study that you had done yourself, the Golden Gate Study?
Dr. S: Among others.
TD: You told us about others?
Dr. S: Yes.
TD: You're sure about that?
Dr. S: Yes.
Truc Do goes over Dr. Seiden's Golden Gate study.
TD: How many people did you interview?
Dr. S: About a dozen or so. [...] of 515 attempts. [...] through (research?) some behavior there were that was suspicious... [...] I want to add that I also reviewed police reports.
TD: Didn't you tell us that 50% of suicides were impulsive? [...] Didn't you tell us that based on this study you could support that 40%...
Dr. S: Then I misstated it. It's based on (another study).
TD: Isn't it true that your study doesn't support your testimony of 40%?
Dr. S: There are several studies on this topic, with 40%, 50% even the Scotland poisoning study showed 67%. I misstated to you the percentage on February 6th. I didn't base it on my own study.
Truc Do now confronts him with a conclusion on his Golden Gate Bridge study that he wrote in 1990. "You wrote in 1990, that many of the people on the Gold Gate Bridge had fantasized about it for a long time."
TD: Are you aware of the demographics Marin County keeps, a demographics on the Golden Gate Bridge that the majority of people traveled from other counties?
Dr. S: I believe they got that information from me. [...] That's a chamber of commerce hypothesis.
10:54 am: The morning break is called.
During the morning break, Truc Do speaks to Fawn and Mrs. Clarkson about the "auto accidents." I overhear Fawn say that one accident, she was driving and not Lana and the other accident she was rear-ended!
Spector greets a nicely dressed older looking man in a suit. He's with a friend and the suited man introduces his friend to Spector. The gentlemen then shake Rachelle Short's hand. The first image that comes to mind is this man looks a bit like a younger Robert Evans, with the stark white silk kerchief in his lapel pocket. I have no idea who the gentleman is. He could be in the music or entertainment industry, but that's just a guess. For Spector to greet him the way he did and introduce him to Rachelle, this is someone quite different that the usual crowd who shows up to sit in court and show the jury they support Spector. Right after this, we are back on the record outside the presence of the jury.
AJ: Now it is in agreement to have the tape transcribed.
DW: There are no inconsistencies. Just a continuing attempt to break the agreement. There's no place where they.
Fidler: Neither of you can bind the court to an agreement. [...] There are inconsistencies. [...] The problem is, [...] neither party [...] that the witness would have a lack of memory, so I'm turning this tape over to the people.
DW: Please! I'm going to say this is a 352 issue to send this witness home. They're not going to want to go ahead [...] (it's) insufficient to interrupt [...] The court is intruding between an agreement between (both parties) The court has conducted no investigation or analysis! [...] The court is inserting itself into an agreement!
Fidler: That's about the SECOND OR THIRD TIME that you've said that! I take umbrage and it's NONSENSE!
Weinberg then goes back over the same argument as yesterday, AGAIN! The same argument! On and on and on he goes. "The two of them took notes. there's nothing to discover!" Weinberg continues to argue. "They're attempting to use the tape for a completely different purpose! Weinberg then brings up the Dr. Herold tape, again. "To now say this is a discovery issue is a completely different issue!"
Jackson and Truc are both leaning against the jury box. I can barely hear that Jackson says to Truc Do, "He just goes on and on and on." Jackson then looks at his watch. It's 11:16 am.
AJ: I'm certainly not going to address everything concerned, but one thing Mr. Weinberg didn't address is the truth.
Fidler: The bottom line is, [...] I believe the witness does not have a complete memory of the case. [...] A Judge's solemn obligation is to ensure that the truth is presented to the jury.
DW: So they can prepare that transcript [...] as to whether or not [...] that it can be used.
AJ: Mr. Weinberg acts like this is one big trick.
Then Fidler really gets angry. He raises his voice and his face looks real mad.
DW: Is the prosecution going to get to listen to the tape?
Fidler is shouting. "I ALREADY STATED THAT!"
Boy, is he angry. Then Fidler back pedals! First, he stated that the tape would be handed over to the people to transcribe. Now he's saying that the people will have someone transcribe it, but the tape and transcription is to be delivered directly to him! All that bellyaching by Weinberg worked, again. Fidler addresses the people, "Any other questions?"
AJ: Not after that.
Fidler: Bring the jury out.
11:23 am: Fidler apologizes to the jury. He tells them that they had another on of their discussions and that, "It was a heated one, on my part."
Truc Do asks if Dr. Seiden read the police reports. (I don't have the answer.)
TD: Are you in any way changing the conclusions of your research?
Dr. S: No, not at all.
TD: There's no mention in there of impulsive suicides, correct?
Dr. S: Correct.
11:28 am: Mrs. Weinberg enters 106. Weinberg fiddles with his lips again.
TD: You said you wouldn't find it in the CDC or the other studies?
Dr. S: I said that?
TD: Did you call Mr. Weinberg after we met with you?
Dr. S: Yes. [...] I asked him about Punkin Pie's testimony because, because you were so concerned about it.
TD: Characteristics of...
Fidler: (To Weinberg) It will be gone into..
TD: I'm sorry?
Fidler: It was a response to an arched eyebrow.
Truc Do then goes over the article where Dr. Seiden did get the 40% figure. She then asks him if he remembers telling them at the February 6th meeting, that the time impulsive suicides contemplated was one hour. Truc asks Dr. Seiden, "Isn't that a big difference?" Dr. Seiden replies that the "five minute" figure is within the 1 hour or less figure. Truc Do then asks the next question with an incredulous tone in her voice.
TD: Five minutes is between 1 hour or less?
The jury box erupts in laughter.
TD: Where in the literature are you going to find that there is a 1 hour (time frame)?
Dr. S: It was my best estimate at the time.
TD: Could you cite me a study that says 1 hour or less?
Dr. S: I probably could not.
TD: The estimate you gave us was prompted (by) ..... (our inquiry?) [...] Then afterwards you came up with the 2001 article, after our questions? [...] You now came up with that research after you had been on this case for seven months?
(Unfortunately, I don't have Dr. Seiden's answers in my notes.)
TD: Isn't it true that that article is not supportive of your conclusion?
Truc Do reads from the article where he obtained his 40% figure. The article even states at the end that there are inherent flaws in the research..
TD: Do you see inherent flaws in the method?
Dr. S: The best source (the dead person) is not available.
TD: I'm talking about those you interview. [...] Isn't there a problem with self reporting? [...] You assume they are being forthright and truthful?
Truc Do spells it out for the jury.
TD: Isn't it easier for the reporting person to say afterwards, that they didn't think about it, than to admit they had thought about it for five days, five weeks or five months? [...] Didn't the author's of that study admit it's an inherent flaw? [...] And thesea re the reports you as an expert rely on?
Dr. S: It's the best estimate.
TD: It's an assumption?
Dr. S: It's not an assumption. It's....
Truc Do moves onto the study performed by Dr. Laksmanan.
TD: Did you look at the autopsy reports, that were part of the study?
Dr. S: No.
TD: Was it part of what Mr. Weinberg provided?
Dr. S: No.
TD: And you've published studies on the difference between the way that, masculine and feminine ways of commiting suicide. [...] Men use firearms where as women use pills or gas? [...] Isn't it true taht 90% of suicides by men are with firearms?
Dr. S: No. The national statistics of suicide by firearms is for men and women.
TD: Suicide by firearms are 90% committed by men.
Dr. S: Yes but suicides by men are more frequent than women.
The lunch break is called. Over lunch I take some notes on my impression of Dr. Seiden. It's obvious that Dr. Seiden has not testified very oftne in a court of law. His memory is very faulty and he is not correctly remembering the facts of the case. The inherent flaw of all of these studies is the researchers' own admissin that the surviving subjects tendency to not admit to prior suicide ideation. It's easier to state that they only thought about it for five minutes instead of admitting that they thought about it for weeks and months.
1:38 pm: Back inside the courtroom, we wait for Judge Fidler.
Truc Do is going over with Dr. Seiden the statistics on suicide on firearm by men and women. She shows him the most recent statistics (years 2003 & 2005 I believe), and 90% are by men. She then goes over Dr. Lakshmanan's study of 755 suicides by firearms, 80 of which were by women. That comes out to 11%. Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if Los Angels County is consistent with the national average.
Dr. S: Correct.
Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if he's been in the field (psychology) for about 40 years, and he confirms that.
TD: You are aware that Lana Clarkson was killed in Mr. Spector's home?
Dr. S: Correct.
TD: And that Lana Clarkson just met Mr. spector on that morning?
Dr. S: (Yes.)
TD: Based on your 40 years of experience in the field, what is the percentage of suicides of a person who comes into the home of a complete stranger?
Dr. S: I've noever known or seen (any) statistics.
TD: In a complete stranger's home. You have not seen a single case where any of those circumstances (exist)?
Dr. S: I think so.
TD: Is that what you told Mr. Jackson and I that...
Dr. S: Unequivically, no.
Truc Do asks another question that I miss, but I do get Dr. Seiden's answer.
Dr. S: I've never seen any statistics where a suicide is committed in the home of a stranger.
Truc Do asks him again and says something to the effect that she doesn't want to put words in his mouth.
Dr. S: Not that I can remember.
TD: Would you agree that tis a statistical anomaly?
Dr. S: In my experience (it hasn't occurred).
TD: You said on direct that you looked at John Barrons (testimony?)?
Dr. S: Well, I looked at it, It wasn't significant. It was hardly a determing factor.
TD: (Do you remember) telling me and Mr. Jackson that you didn't consider it. That you thought it was amusing?
1:48 pm: A Spector supporter wearing a cowboy hat enters 106.
Now Truc Do moves onto another area, Greg Sims's testimony. Truc asks Dr. Seiden if there was anything else that he asked of Mr. Weinberg.
Dr. S: I asked him if there was any evidence of copious crying.
TD: so that's an incidence that you asked Mr. Weiberg that if there was, any other witness information? And Mr. Weinberg was... [...] You mostly based your opinion about her emails and what she said to others?
Dr. Seiden states that he based his opinion on mostly her emails. He reviewed the packet of information from Doug Sortino to Dr. Pena. "Doug Sortino sent Dr. Pena thirty emails." Truc Do asks him where in the cover letter did it state that Mr. Sortino states he is sending thirty emails?
1:53 pm: Harriet Ryan and Linda Deutsch enter 106.
Truc Do presents the cover letter to Dr. Seiden. She points out that the letter states that Doug Sortino is enclosing thirty interviews along with a DVD. He's confusing interviews with the thousands of emails on Lana's hard drive. Dr. Seiden doesn't seem to see the big difference.
Dr. S: Well, they were sequentially numbered.
Truc Do confirms that he received and reviewed the medical records after he was interviewed by herself and Mr. Jackson.
TD: You had at least seven months to ask for all the information in this case. Did you ever call me or Mr. Jackson?
Dr. S: No. And you didn't volunteer anything either.
TD: You didn't interview anyone, either? [...] Or Lana's family? [...] Or Lana's friends?
Dr. S: I didn't interview anybody.
1:59 pm: Spector's number one fan enters 106. It's about this time that I really cut back on my note taking, put my pad down and just listen to the cross.
Truc Do goes over with Dr. Seiden the number one risk factor that's listed in any literature for suicide risk is depression. She then reads him a statement:
'75% of person who commit suicide had a previous history or threat.'
TD: That statement is your own writing. [...] So that you have published that 75% of people had a previous history [...] and you quoted (in) your Golden Gate study, in your study you are quoting Ed Schneidman (sp?)?
Truc Do then confronts him with the National Institute of Mental Health's standards for depression. She first confirms with him first that the statements she's using are from the Institute of Clinical Depression. She puts up on the screen the text that they have published on suicide and their definition of depression. The text is gone over with him. He keeps insisting that all this information is for major depression only, but that's not how the text is titled.
TD: You came to a conclusion about someone that you never met?
Dr. S: That's true.
TD: You don't think that it would have helped you, (if you had spoken to her family, friends)?
Dr. S: Do you think that the things they they (would say would be any different than the police reports of six years ago)?
Truc Do asks Dr. Seiden if it would have made any difference if he knew that Lana was taking a creative writing class?
TD: Do you think that Lana's writing in her emails was Lana going for that melodramatic flair?
Dr. S: It's possible. I have no idea.
Truc Do then asks Dr. Seiden if Mr. Weinberg told him that those were the only emails of Lana's? She confronts Dr. Seiden with the fact that the defense was given a copy of Lana's hard drive, and on that hard drive were 12,017 PAGES of emails. Jackson then lifts a huge box onto the prosecution table. Then another box, and then another. FIVE LARGE file type boxes filled with those 12,017 pages are placed on the prosecution table. I'm shocked. I can't help staring at those boxes. Dr. Seiden said he based his opinion mostly on Lana's writings. (Later, I asked people in the gallery if they saw the jury's reaction to the five huge boxes being placed on the prosecution table. Everyone I spoke to said they did not look at the jury. Like me, they were fixated on those boxes themselves.)
TD: You see it now but did Mr. Weinberg tell you that? (There were thousands of pages of emails.) [...] Did Mr. Weinberg tell you there were this many emails?
Dr. S: I didn't know that there were....
TD: Does that change your opinion?
Dr. S: I'm glad I didn't have to read them.
TD: You do mean her emails [...] is what is most important to you?
Dr. S: It is the most important.
Weinberg is leaning back in his chair, chewing on the arm of his spectacles.
Truc Do brings up the fact that there wasn't a single email written in the last two months of her life that had any depressive or negative statements in them.
I'm not sure if it's at this point, but at one point, Truc Do goes over Lana's DMV report with Dr. Seiden and that medical report about auto accidents from Dr. Kudrow that mention concussions. The three items on her DMV report were minor moving infractions such as turning left on a no left turn. Truc Do confronts Dr. Seiden with the fact that if he had interviewed Lana's sister, Fawn, he would have found out that one accident, Lana wasn't even driving. And that if he had spoken to Mrs. Clarkson, he would have found out that another accident, Lana was rear-ended. She then asks him if put the DMV report and Dr. Kudrow's report together and came up with his opinion that she was a reckless person. He admits that's what the records suggested. She then asks him that, knowing what he knows now, that would tend to negate his opinion that she was a reckless driver? Dr. Seiden agrees.
Truc Do then asks Dr. Seiden if it would be helpful to him if he knew what Lana was doing in the last days of her life. Some of the information is new to him. He did not receive it from Mr. Weinberg.
She then confronts him with an article he wrote in conjunction with another individual and this article was conveniently left off of his CV that was provided to the prosecution.
Glancing over at Rachelle, her eyes are closed.
Truc Do then goes over with Dr. Seiden a "scale" he helped develop for suicide ideation.
When Truc is going over everything he considered as far as Lana's writings, he also offered, "I also considered something that's not admissible." (Unforkin' believeable! I can't believe he said this!)
TD: Objection!
Fidler strikes the statement from the record.
The afternoon break is called. A trial watcher tells me at the break they overheard Mommy say to a Spector fan, "She's just trying to turn everything around." A black man with a type of ID badge that tells me he's probably a detective with the Sheriff's office comes in and greets Jackson and Truc, who gives him a hug. I note that the supporters that came in the afternoon today are a different lot than the people who came yesterday.
3:06 pm: The jury is called and a few minutes later, Fidler takes the bench.
TD: When you said you could not rule out suicide, you did not take into consideration the physical evidence?
Dr. S: No. (I'm not qualified to review it.) I was asked to (review) areas of my expertise.
TD: You did not consider the statements of other people at the scene?
Dr. S: No I did not.
TD: And you did not consider the history of, and the impulsivity of the other individual involved at the scene?
DW: Objection! Sidebar!
After the sidebar, Judge Fidler releases the jurors for the day. He orders them back Monday morning at 9:30 am. Jackson states there is another matter to address outside the jury's presence, so Fidler stays on the bench. Spector and his group leave. It's now that Fidler states he will need to review the transcript and audio tape of Dr. Seiden's interview with Jackson and Truc Do.
The discussion with the court is about scheduling. It's now that Weinberg states in regards to Punkin Pie, "That's questionable whether she will be called now or another time. I will let counsel know, tomorrow." Fidler states that if it turns out that we wrap up on Monday, he suggests that "We would use that time to work on jury instructions." Jackson states that he has a rebuttal witness that can only testify on Monday.
And that's it. Court is adjourned.
I want to add here that I still will try to get Truc Do's cross of Dr. Lakshmanan finished sometime soon. I'm also working on getting an entry up that is a transcript of all the statements Spector made in the presence of LE at his home and at the Alhambra Police Station. A thoughtful T&T reader has transcribed a few of the reports into simple text form for me. Once I get a few more of the officer's reports transcribed over, I will put that entry up.
I also wanted to tell you that I came across a photogrpaher's Flickr page of photographs that were taken at the end first trial. There are photos of Spector, Rachelle, Dominick Dunne, Beth Karas and a few others.
Greyhound Cannibal Disturbing Evidence Revealed in Court
Warning – Graphic evidence now part of public record. Proceed with caution!
Li had few friends, those he had describe him as having mental problems, but never knew him to be violent.
- At approximately 8:30 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2008, Li began to repeatedly stab Tim McLean, for no apparent reason.
- Tim McLean struggled and tried to escape, as evidenced by a number of defensive wounds.
- Li came to the front of the bus and tried to exit. The bus driver was able to close the door on Mr. Li’s arm, with the bloody knife extended outside of the bus.
- Mr. Scyrup, another Greyhound driver who pulled over to help, realized that Li was severing the head of Tim McLean. Scyrup got off the bus, as he realized that Tim McLean was dead and could not be helped.
- Li went to the front of the bus, holding the severed head of Tim McLean in one hand and a black-handled knife in the other hand. He motioned that he wished to be let off the bus.
- Li threw the head of Tim McLean into the stairwell and then returned to the back of the bus and continued to mutilate the body of Tim McLean with a buck knife and a pair of scissors.
- Li appeared to smell, and then eat parts of Tim McLean’s flesh. He also appeared to lick blood from his fingers and hands. Mr. Li continued to carry Tim McLean’s internal organs and various body parts throughout the bus, later returning to bag them in white plastic garbage bags. He also carried the head of Tim McLean from time to time.
- After arrest, found in Li’s pants pocket was a plastic bag containing Tim McLean’s ear, nose, and tongue.
- A variety of Tim McLean’s body parts and organs were found throughout the bus.
- The tip of the knife blade was located in the skull of Tim McLean in the forehead area just above the inner aspect of the right eyebrow.
- The autopsy reveals that the cause of death of Tim McLean was multiple stab wounds.
- The body of Tim McLean showed evidence of damage in excess of 100 areas, ranging from abrasions to a large gaping wound of the chest.
- The eyes were missing and not recovered.
- The internal organs were recovered, in plastic bags, in 4 separate areas of the bus.
- Dr. Littman, the pathologist, estimates that one third of the heart of Tim McLean was never recovered and it is presumed that Mr. Li ate it.
- Tim McLean’s eyes were never recovered, and are presumed to have been eaten also.
Li denies eating the flesh of Tim McLean.
Carol deDelley, Tim’s mother, said, "The laws are grossly inadequate in circumstances like this. NCR (not criminally responsible) may have its place or may be correct in some circumstances. I don't think so, not in this one. And now every year we will have to undergo a review to ensure the public is safe from Mr. Li."
Li had few friends, those he had describe him as having mental problems, but never knew him to be violent.
- At approximately 8:30 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2008, Li began to repeatedly stab Tim McLean, for no apparent reason.
- Tim McLean struggled and tried to escape, as evidenced by a number of defensive wounds.
- Li came to the front of the bus and tried to exit. The bus driver was able to close the door on Mr. Li’s arm, with the bloody knife extended outside of the bus.
- Mr. Scyrup, another Greyhound driver who pulled over to help, realized that Li was severing the head of Tim McLean. Scyrup got off the bus, as he realized that Tim McLean was dead and could not be helped.
- Li went to the front of the bus, holding the severed head of Tim McLean in one hand and a black-handled knife in the other hand. He motioned that he wished to be let off the bus.
- Li threw the head of Tim McLean into the stairwell and then returned to the back of the bus and continued to mutilate the body of Tim McLean with a buck knife and a pair of scissors.
- Li appeared to smell, and then eat parts of Tim McLean’s flesh. He also appeared to lick blood from his fingers and hands. Mr. Li continued to carry Tim McLean’s internal organs and various body parts throughout the bus, later returning to bag them in white plastic garbage bags. He also carried the head of Tim McLean from time to time.
- After arrest, found in Li’s pants pocket was a plastic bag containing Tim McLean’s ear, nose, and tongue.
- A variety of Tim McLean’s body parts and organs were found throughout the bus.
- The tip of the knife blade was located in the skull of Tim McLean in the forehead area just above the inner aspect of the right eyebrow.
- The autopsy reveals that the cause of death of Tim McLean was multiple stab wounds.
- The body of Tim McLean showed evidence of damage in excess of 100 areas, ranging from abrasions to a large gaping wound of the chest.
- The eyes were missing and not recovered.
- The internal organs were recovered, in plastic bags, in 4 separate areas of the bus.
- Dr. Littman, the pathologist, estimates that one third of the heart of Tim McLean was never recovered and it is presumed that Mr. Li ate it.
- Tim McLean’s eyes were never recovered, and are presumed to have been eaten also.
Li denies eating the flesh of Tim McLean.
Carol deDelley, Tim’s mother, said, "The laws are grossly inadequate in circumstances like this. NCR (not criminally responsible) may have its place or may be correct in some circumstances. I don't think so, not in this one. And now every year we will have to undergo a review to ensure the public is safe from Mr. Li."