Thursday, December 4, 2008

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirteen of Testimony

December 3rd, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses:

#19 Mark Lillienfeld (Detective for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.; responsible for the investigation at the scene of the shooting; testimony completed)

#20 Jaime Lintemoot (LA County Coroner's Office, Senior Criminalist; collected evidence from Clarkson's body at the scene; under cross examination)

Accredited Press in the courtroom: None.

I apologize that there is no detailed entry up for today. I've been sewing every since I got home, trying to get two orders ready to go out. I still have about another hour of sewing left to do before I can get some sleep.

Before the afternoon break and outside the presence of the jury Alan Jackson presented arguments that Mr. Weinberg "opened the door" in cross examination of Detective Lillienfeld. This was in regards to questions that were asked about suicide, a study the LA County coroner did on area suicides from 2004-2006, as well as what facts went into Lillienfeld's conclusion where he determined that the shooting on February 3rd, 2003 was a homicide. AJ argued that this "opened the door" for the prosecution to bring in all of Spector's prior bad acts that were previously ruled inadmissible (the convictions, other 1101(b) witnesses, etc.) by Fidler.

Fidler was clear in ruling on this argument. He doesn't believe it's opened the door. [This evidence is not coming in.] "It's not going to happen. Not at this point. [We're] not going there."

Truc Do presented Jaime Lintemoot's testimony.

Weinberg started off his cross of Lintemoot with the following questions.

DW: Your name is "J A M I E" ?

JL: I don't spell it that way, but some people do.

DW: On page 1768 of the [grand jury] transcript it's spelled Jamie. Then during the [first] trial it's spelled J A M I E."

Fidler: You trying to make friends with the court reporters?

This elicited some big laughs from the jurors.

Today, the prosecution filed a motion to have the court compel the defense to adhere to the rules governing discovery regarding their expert witnesses. Weinberg in his opening statements to the jury promised them information on suicide and the different situations where suicide can occur. Here are a few quotes from their motion:

Page 4-5
"Again, if Mr. Weinberg plans to introduce evidence regarding suicidal tendencies and theories on why people commit suicide, his only avenue is to admit such information is through the testimony of an expert witness, particularly, a suicidologist. Because Mr. Weinberg can present evidence relative to eyewitness identification and suicide only through the consultation and testimony of expert witnesses and because the People, despite repeated demands, have yet to receive discovery from the defense of these expert witnesses, the People request that this Court intervene and issue a discovery order requiring the defense to provide all discoverable materials associated with those experts."

Also in the motion, the prosecution has asked for documentation on defense expert witness compensation but has yet to receive anything. Here is a small portion of the prosecution's argument.

Page 6
"Therefore, any written or oral statements or agreements evidencing the compensation of fees paid by the defendant to his expert witnesses are relevant written statements and the People are entitled to discover them at this time.

The defense in this case ignored this Court's order and protests the discovery of expert fees and compensation arguing that expert fees are not specifically addressed in the discovery statute. The defense, however, is ignoring the very spirit of the statute they are attempting to use as a shield. This Court is justified in requiring that the defendant immediately produce such information.

As stated above, the defense has yet to disclose to the people any discovery in connection with the above-mentioned allegations made during Mr. Weinberg's opening statement or the defense's experts' fees. In the event that Mr. Weinberg argues that no such discoverable material exists to date, or that such materials are privileged for one reason or another, the People would request that this Court conduct an incamera hearing with the defense i order to ascertain the validity of those claims. It appears, given the complexion of Mr. Weinberg's opening statement, that he has been provided substantive information by some or all of his experts, which information has not been provided to the People. Additionally, because the issues presented in this trial have not changed from the first trial, Mr. Weinberg has hand knowledge of such issues for over a year and, thus, any argument made by Mr. Weinberg that he must wait until the end of the People's case-in-chief to investigate new facts which would, in effect, produce new discovery is disingenuous at best. Undoubtedly, because Mr. Weinberg is well aware of the thirty days before trial cut-off date to submit all discovery to the People, his continued refusal to abide by the discovery statutes is tantamount to gamesmanship. This Court should tolerate it no longer."

Understand that when the defense was handed the motion at court, Mr. Weinberg complained that the prosecution has not given them one single item of discovery on the witnesses presented and even brought up for, I think the third time, the issue of Dr. Lynne Herold doing some more analysis.

I hope to expand on this entry over the weekend.

December 3rd, 2008, updated Trial Notes

9:31 am: I see Alan Parachini and two of his staff members emerge from Fidler's courtroom. Linda from San Diego is here. Mrs. Clarkson and one of her attorneys are sitting in the first row directly in front of me. The sheriff who sits in the back of the room is in one of the comfy swivel chairs. Spector's bodyguard sits in the back row near the door in one of the plastic chairs. There's no one else in the courtroom. Spector is wearing a black pinstripe suit, a red tie and a white shirt. He's turned to face the gallery and he stares in my direction. I avoid his gaze.

9:35 am: Weinberg is in his usual position of casually leaning back in his chair as far as it rocks. I'm reminded of Cutler sitting in the same spot doing the exact same thing.

9:36 am the jury is called and they enter a moment later. Detective Lillienfeld is still on the stand under direct examination.

Lillienfeld identifies and points out areas on the death weapon. He goes over how he used his pen to open the dresser drawer. The other guns in the residence (well, those that were allowed into evidence) are removed from their evidence wrappers and entered into evidence. The 357 magnum revolver, another 38 revolver and the shotgun. Lillienfeld testifies that he recovered two other hunter holsters. The detective puts on gloves before he handles the weapons. He displays the colt cobra and the other weapons to the jurors. At the same time, there are photos up on the ELMO and Lillienfeld is describing the areas of the home where the weapons were found. He explains to the jurors that a 357 gun will fire a 38 ammo, but not the reverse. A 38 will not fire 357 ammo.

He testifies that the 357 was loaded with six live 38 caliber Plus P ammo, the same type that was found in the Colt. He presents he shotgun and photos of the ELMO of where it was found in the residence; Spector's master bedroom closet.

The ammo was removed from the gun and booked into evidence. The two holsters are not removed from their evidence bags and presented to the jurors. The two holsters, the larger ones were found upstairs but were made to fit other guns. They do not fit the 357 or the other 38. (I bet they fit some of the guns that were not allowed into evidence.) All the weapons recovered were loaded except the shotgun.

More ammo was recovered from the residence and Lillienfeld describes in detail exactly how many rounds of Plus P, and how many rounds of Speer were recovered and exactly where they were found. There was a total of 64 rounds. 29 Plus P; 35 Speer.

Lillienfeld testifies to the other evidence that was found at the residence and booked into evidence. The thumb lever found on the floor beside the open rear door. Photo's of where it was found are up on the ELMO. Lillienfeld describes the mechanism and that it's supposed to be on the spindle that's attached to the lock in the door.

Lillienfeld then introduces other items of evidence that were collected, such as the several pieces of tooth material. He also introduces the valise and the initials PS on the outside. The items that I write down that were found in the valise are, identification, a passport, two driver's licenses, a type of personal ID, eyeglass cases, medication, Mylanta and a 3 blister pack of Viagra.

There was a DVD player under the valise. It was a small portable DVD player with a movie inside. It was a movie, Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye. It's a movie Lillienfeld is familiar with. It's a James Cagney mainstream film from the 1950's.

10:08 am: Sherri enters and sits in the back row. A moment later Detective Tomlin enters and sits in the front row. He has that familiar, large reddish brown file folder with him.

Lillienfeld states there were two cell phones attached to the valise. Photos of the living room are up on the ELMO. There were lit candles on top of the fireplace and that was the only lighting in the room. Background music was playing. Next up on the ELMO are photos of the bathroom right off the foyer beside the stairwell. He identifies the brandy sniffer, the eyelashes on top of the toilet tank and the diaper on the floor. He states it is a "Curity" brand diaper, like what was used years ago.

Lillienfeld testifies that the diaper looked wet and bloody. To me, the blood on the diaper still had a sheen to it. It appeared to still be wet. The fabric of the diaper looked soaked, like a wash cloth.

AJ: I know pictures can be deceiving, especially when it's two dimensional. How close is that diaper to the toilet?

ML: About fifteen inches.

The blood smear on the stairwell banister is introduced. Lillienfeld states that he can tell the difference between a blood drop an a blood smear. Item #20, the blood smear on the back door inside door knob is introduced. There is no visible blood on the back door thumb lever found on the floor.

(As I think about that thumb lever on the ground with no blood on it I wonder how Spector opened the back door. He must have taken the thumb lever off with his left hand and touched the door knob with his right, gun still in hand. I also take a mental note of which witnesses still need to testify. Maybe Detective Tomlin, maybe not. Dr. Herold; Steve Renteria, James Carroll, Steven Dowell, Jaime Lintemoot, Dr. Pena maybe one or two more criminalists and I think the orthodontist. I can't remember if the defense called him first though.)

Lillienfeld introduces photos of the bedroom turned into a dressing room and the white jacket lying on the floor. AJ asks, "Is it your expert opinion of attending 1,000 crime scenes that that jacket was discarded in some haste?

Objection! Calls for speculation! Fidler says, "I agree."

AJ follows with several questions about the jacket and how it was not "neatly put away." The next thing Lillienfeld introduces are the 14 working telephones found in the residence. Photos identifying each one are put up and Lillienfeld points to each phone in the photos. There were 12 land line phones in addition to the two cell phones on the valise. Lillienfeld "star 69'd" all the land line phones to ensure they were all working. He also checked the cell phones for service. Three of the phones were in the same room with Ms. Clarkson. There were 3 phones between five and six feet from where Lana's body laid.

AJ: Based on your review of the crime scene, [...] that there was a sexual overtone [to the scene]?

Objection! Fidler explains why the witness can answer and over rules the objection.

Lillienfeld explains the time of night, the music playing softly, the alcohol, the brandy sniffers, the tequila, the overall ambiance played into his assessment of the scene.

AJ: Were the lights dim?

ML: Yes.

AJ: You mentioned there were candles?

ML: Yes.

AJ: Did that play into your determination?

ML: Yes.

Direct is finished and cross begins.

Weinberg asks Lillienfeld about how long he's worked for the Sheriff's Department and how many cases. Weinberg says that Mr. Jackson has been a prosecutor for a number of years and asks Lillienfeld how many times he's worked with Mr. Jackson.

ML: Before this case, about one time, for about an hour.

DW: You worked together on one other case with Mr. Jackson?

ML: Yes.

Weinberg questions him on his knowledge of the history of the castle. Lillienfeld states he know of the castle. Lillienfeld is asked about he incident log and who initiated it. The Alhambra Police. Lillienfeld was not aware of what went on [at the scene] by the Alhambra Police before the Sheriff's Department arrived. Rich Tomlin and his partner were put in charge of the case.

DW: You don't know what was moved and what wasn't? [...] You don't know if everything in the house was in the exact location?

ML: The answer to your question is no.

The defense introduces photos that were taken of the scene with several people in the foyer while Ms. Clarkson's body was still in the room. It's a photo that appears to have been taken from the stairwell or the stairwell landing. Weinberg has Lillienfeld identify the people that he can in the photo. Now there are questions about the "deep pile carpet" in the foyer. Lillienfeld states he doesn't know how deep the pile carpet was. Next are questions about blood spatter but the morning break is called.

At the break I chat with Sherri and the bailiff who sits in the back of the courtroom. This officer tells me that he "just came off patrol for this assignment in the criminal court." He says that he prefers to be out in the field.

When court resumes, Weinberg asks the detective to identify the individuals in another photo that appears to have been taken from the stairwell landing. There are seven people in the photo. Renteria, Lintemoot, Dr. Pena, Tomlin, Fortier, are the names I catch that Lillienfeld identifies. Blood spatter is brought up again, and the red, pile carpet "with some depth to it." Lillienfeld states that he and another officer (I think his partner) got on their hands and knees and shone flashlights into the carpet looking for other blood evidence, close to the carpet. Lillienfeld states that 20 to 25 people were in and out of the residence before luminol was performed. Lillienfeld identifies the three photographers at the scene. Susan Garcia, Carnel Carter and Gill Jartillo (sp?).

There were no notes taken of who took which photos. There we no notes by the Alhambra officers who took what photos. There was no report by the coroner's office who took what photographs. The TASER was discussed. TASER stands for Thomas A Swift Electric Rifle. Weinberg goes over with Lillienfeld how a taser works. Then another photograph for Lillienfeld to identify more people in the photo at the scene.

Weinberg is trying to make it appear that these officers trampled all over the scene and destroyed blood spatter evidence. The next thing Weinberg goes over is the taser wire under the shoe.

DW: There's no way that taser wire came out from the gun [aimed at Mr. Spector] and went under the shoe

ML: That's correct.

Weinberg has Lillienfeld look at a close up of the shoe and the "lack of shadow" under about 1" of the heel. On direct, AJ had asked Lillienfeld a hypothetical about the possibility that someone at the scene walking around accidentally got the taser wire hooked on their shoe and it got pulled under Lana's shoe. Weinberg asks about this and Lillienfeld gives an example of washing your car with a hose and the hose gets caught under the wheel of the car.

DW: If that were true, wouldn't it [taser wire] be more taught? [...] How could a wire [that appears in the photo] that was loosely wound be pulled under the heel? [...] It would also lead one to believe that someone else put it in that wound up position?

Weinberg is really focusing on this, trying to make it appear that the officers staged or moved things at the scene. I think AJ needs to clear up what's obvious to me but might not obvious to others. The taser wire is probably wound up on something inside the device before it's fired. It's a thin flexible wire. After it might have been pulled tight from catching on someone's shoe and then released, to me, that thin type of wire would have bounced back into a loose position.

DW: Isn't it as likely that when there are four or more people [in the small foyer, someone] could have bumped Mr.s Clarkson? [...] Is he aware of any facts that make one more probable than the other?

Objection! "Over ruled. I'm going to allow it," Fidler states.

DW: You have no facts that make one more likely?

Weinberg fights back on the photograph perspective angle. "From this angle it appears that the gun is away from her leg. (Another photo is shown to the witness.) And there is very little shadow. In this photo, it appears that the gun is completely under her leg. [...]

It's Lillienfeld's contention that of the photos he saw, the gun is in the same position. (That it's not been moved.)

DW: And you left it there for what purpose? (The tone of Weinberg's voice is one of disbelief.)

ML: We left it there for the coroner to see the totality of the scene.

DW: So you've left weapons at scenes for coroner's? (Weinberg's tone is still one of disbelief.)

ML: Guns are left at scenes many times.

Weinberg tries to make the connection with his questions that detectives usually leave weapons at suicides, not homicides. Weinberg asked Lillienfeld if the reason he did that [leave the weapon] was because he thought that the death was a suicide.

DW: You don't know who opened the drawer?

ML: No.

DW: Did you know if it was open at 3 am on February 3rd?

ML: No.

DW: Did he ever try to find out?

ML: No.

DW: Did you ask for anyone to check [the dresser] for fingerprints?

ML: No.

DW: Do you know if the gun was ever in the holster?

ML: No, I do not.

Weinberg asks Lillienfeld if he's ever investigated any intra-oral gunshot wound [crime scenes before]. Lillienfeld talks about a case he investigated. A man named Parrish was killed by an intra-oral gunshot. Mr. Cook was a serial killer and he had an accomplice who was never apprehended. The fifty to sixty intra-oral gunshot woulds he's investigated were suicides. Weinberg tries to get in through this witness the percentage of intra-oral gunshot wounds that are suicides. He tries three times and each time he's shot down by AJ's objections which Fidler sustains.

DW: Did you investigate this as a suicide?

ML: No.

DW: On the basis of the driver's information, you based that it was a murder?

ML: Wrong. Just based on the statement of the driver I did not determine it was a murder.

DW: Did you take any steps to have Mr. Spector closely examined?

ML: I did not. I'm just a foot soldier. I believe it was done.

DW: Did you have any [direction?] to have Ms. Clarkson to be examined?

ML: that's done through the coroner's office.

DW: Did you tell Ms. Nelson that Spector said he shot her? (Barbara Nelson is a criminalist with the coroner's office.)

ML: I'm not aware of relaying that information to Ms. Nelson.

Lillienfeld states that he did speak to Dr. Pena. Weinberg insists that Lillienfeld was at a meeting that Dr. Pena wrote about in his notes. A meeting of several individuals that took place five months after the case started. Lillienfeld is certain he did not attend any meeting. Weinberg shows him a page from a coroner's note/report. Lillienfeld says he sees his name but he doesn't recall being there. Lillienfeld states that he doesn't know from that list if that really is a list of names at a meeting. Weinberg asks him if he participated in any meetings with Barbara Nelson or Lynne Herold, or with Jim Carroll or Lt. Rosenberg?

ML: No sir.

The lunch recess is called and Sherri and I head over to the underground city to eat lunch. I make an entry in my notes that it appears Weinberg is trying to raise doubt about police procedures and whether or not the crime scene was contaminated or not.

When the lunch break is over, Weinberg tells the court that he was just handed a discovery issue motion by the prosecution. "It's the second month of trial, and I have not received a single document of discovery from the prosecution in this trial. [...] Monday, Cardella came in and the first I learned of his testimony was Sunday evening. [...] He testified more than outside his report. [...] More bits of information from each witness has come in or amplified what they are going to say. " Weinberg mentions Dr. Lynne Herold again. "Dr. Herold presented new theories that were not in her report. Same with Dr. Pena. [...] I've not received a word."

AJ rebuts Weinberg's arguments. He says something to the effect that the record can be disjointed but Weinberg has already received 20,000 pages of discovery on the case. Weinberg says again that he's received zero "new" discovery. AJ responds, "Mr. Weinberg has everything we have. We've memorialized our request in writing for any new discovery." Fidler states "We will take up the discovery issues on Thursday." All during this discussion, Lillienfeld is still on the stand.

Back on the record, cross continues. Lillienfeld states that the gun was examined by his partner, Detective Katz. Now photos of the gun are up on the ELMO and Weinberg has him identify areas of the gun that have blood on them.

Detective Tomlin enters the courtroom. There are many questions about blood on the gun. Then Weinberg does what I can only call a "bait and switch" move. After showing an area of the gun to Lillienfeld that has quite a bit of blood on it, he then shows him a photo of the gun but from the other side of the (I think it's called the trigger guard area.) gun where there is very little blood. It's a totally different side of the gun and I see what Weinberg is trying to do immediately. It's similar to the previous photo perspective questions he's asked before.

Weinberg tries to get the witness to say that the blood could have been removed through his partner Katz's handling but Lillienfeld denies that. He's certain that the blood was already dried. Then Weinberg asks some interesting questions related to the romantic setting of the room.

DW: Do you have any facts that, that would lead you to believe that Ms. Clarkson did not share in the romantic?

Lillienfeld states that where Ms. Clarkson was found is a fact that would support her not sharing of the romance nature of the setting.

DW: Before that....?

Weinberg states that there are no facts to support that Spector took the Viagra that night. "Do you have knowledge or facts about whether or not there was evidence of sexual activity? [...] You don't know if there was sexual activity that had been completed?" "Correct," he responds. "There was no sign of torn clothing, buttons torn off or anything?

Weinberg gets Lillienfeld to state the hands were examined and nothing was discovered under Ms. Clarksons nails. Lillienfeld states, "Except she had acrylic nails and one nail was broken." Weinberg takes this opportunity to switch to intra-oral gunshot woulds again and how one would handle a gun if self inflicted and that the nail breaks when that happens. Lillienfeld states that he's never encountered an intra-oral gunshot would where someone wore acrylic nails. Questions about the teeth material were asked and the direction they went from Ms. Clarkson's body.

Weinberg asks questions about if Lillienfeld knew if the phones were used from 3:oo am to 5:3o am, if he knew when the shotgun was collected and when he turned over Spector's clothing to the crime lab. Lillienfeld testifies that he could not tell when the water was put on the diaper. There was no blood found in any drain in the house. Lillienfeld doesn't know if the diaper had been wet with faucet water first. Question after question about the clothing and that it was "out in the open" and not hidden. Weinberg wraps up his cross with questions about whether or not Lillienfeld was present when Spector was taken to Alhambra PD, when he arrived at at the scene, (2 pm on February 3rd, 2003), and how law enforcement had "complete control" of the scene. Weinberg goes over many names and asks if they were at the scene or not.

DW: Is it fair to say that law enforcement had complete ability to examine that scene?

ML: Correct.

Cross is finished and redirect begins.

Lillienfeld states that yes, there were certain things that were submitted for prints and some that were not. After so many hours they turned the crime scene over to Mr. Spector's attorneys and their crime scene team. There was nothing to prevent Mr. Spector's team from printing the bureau if they wanted to. "What was your intent to leave the gun there?" AJ asks. Lillienfeld states, "The intent was to freeze [it] in time so that Dr. Pena could observe it."

AJ: Was it your intent to leave that crime scene in as pristine a condition as possible?

ML: Yes.

AJ: Did you toss the gun around and open the chamber?

As AJ asks this question, he's tossing a water bottle from hand to hand. AJ asks for another photo and Truc Do asks the court if they can take a break since she is having difficulty getting an image up on the ELMO. Fidler responds in a joking manner, "And you have the reputation of being the absolute technical wizard in the office."

During the break I note that no accredited press has shown up for the afternoon session. There is a public person in the back row, but it's someone I haven't seen before. People chat during the break and AJ and Weinberg speak.

When the short break is over, the photo is up on the ELMO and AJ asks Lillienfeld if one can "smear dried blood." He clears up the blood on the gun photo issue. He puts up a photo from the crime lab, where the blood is clearly visible when photographed at the crime lab. AJ then moves onto the blood in drains issue and the toilet and asks Lillienfeld if the toilet has a "trap." Lillienfeld testifies, "The toilet doesn't have a trap. If the toilet flushed, blood evidence would be lost."

AJ clears up why the shotgun was not collect that night but years later. At the time of the incident, they [LE] didn't know that Mr. Spector had assaulted a woman with a shotgun. Once they obtained that information they went back to recover the weapon.

AJ then moves onto the questions about evidence of a struggle. The detectives turned the body of Ms. Clarkson over to the coroner's office. "Would you consider bruising, fresh bruising, a sign of a struggle?" AJ asks. "Yes," Lillienfeld responds. "Fresh bruising on the wrist area, sign of a struggle?" AJ presses on. "Yes," he replies. Lillienfeld also states that, "I've never seen a woman suicide victim with an intra-oral gunshot wound. [...] I've never see a woman suicide shoot herself in the head."

Then AJ gets Lillienfeld to clarify about the conclusion the detective made about the scene of the shooting. The location of death; she'd never been to it before. The manner of death; the weapon was not hers. The time of death. The confines of the location. The manner of which she was dressed. The manner in which the purse was on her shoulder. The dead bolt lever off the door; that meant she might not have been able to leave. Her car [was] parked beyond [the area of the residence]. That she took care that she could get to her car [She made sure it was moved beyond the employee parking lot. That she had just worked a shift.]

AJ: Was there any evidence that anyone in the house searched the house for a gun?

ML: No.

AJ asks some rapid fire questions. In his experience, sex can be a part of a motivator for a crime? Anger can play a part? Rage can play a part? And that's it for redirect. I know a recross is coming.

Weinberg talks about blood smears and dried blood and that dried blood can "flake off." Weinberg then brings Lillienfeld's answer to one of AJ's questions back to him.

DW: In 'his' experience, he's never had a woman kill herself with a gun in the face. Did you know that in this county 75 women..

AJ: Objection!

Fidler: I want you to approach.

The counsel step back after the bench conference.

DW: Are you aware of a study that 2004, 2005, 2006 Dr. Lachmana (No one can pronounce the correct name of the LA County coroner, and they don't try) did into intra-oral gunshot wounds?

ML: No, I did not.

DW: Have you studied suicide?

ML: As a police officer I have a knowledge [of it]. I've experienced a family member.

Weinberg presses on asking several questions on suicide. Are you aware that some suicides are not planned? And that alcohol could pay a role? [...] Are you aware of the possibility that psychotropic drugs may play a role? [...] Do you know how much alcohol Ms. Clarkson had in her system or what it's effect may have been on her system? [...] Do you know for a fact that the gun was in the dresser? Lillienfeld answers no to virtually all these questions. "Do you have any information that she went looking for a gun or may have seen the gun?" Weinberg asks. "No," Lillienfeld states.

Before the next re redirect can begin, AJ asks to approach the bench. They are going to argue a point of law and the jury exits the courtroom. I wrote about this issue in my short entry at the top of this post.

During redirect, AJ gets it in front of the jury that statistics in and of themselves are not facts. They don't tell you anything about the facts of the crime scene. Lillienfeld states that his opinion is based on facts at the scene that this was a homicide.

There's one last recross by Weinberg asking questions whether he studied suicide. Lillienfeld has not. "The coroner is the one who determines [cause and manner of death]. It's not for homicide detectives to determine?" Weinberg asks. "Correct," Lillienfeld replies.

And that's it! Lillienfeld is off the stand. I'm surprised that his testimony was so quick, considering all the evidence he introduced.

The next witness called is Jaime Lintemoot. Truc Do presents the witness. Lintemoot is a senior criminalist with the Los Angeles County coroner's office. She's been with them for seven years. A criminalist is someone who is trained to observe and collect evidence. She states that basically she is a toxicologist 80% of the time and approximately 20 percent of the time she assists in collecting evidence. She was notified about the case around 12:30 pm on February 3rd, 2003, by her boss, Dan Anderson. A team of about four or five people were assembled and they went out to the scene. At the [staging area on the street] they were asked to wait about a half hour.

A tall, slender man wearing glasses with salt and pepper hair enters and sits in the row behind me. I've seen him many times in the courtroom before. I believe he is a senior member of the DA's office but I don't know his name.

Before Lintemoot even entered the scene, she started to take notes and document her activities. Inside the residence the first thing she did was examine the body under a ultraviolet light. She collected a piece of white material off the body (the photo of that material is up on the ELMO and she identifies it) and then performed a GSR test on Ms. Clarkson's hands.

She explains that GSR is made up of three particles; lead, barium and antimony. Out of the corner of my right eye, I see that Spector's fan enters and sits in the row behind me. She noted that the right thumbnail was a broken nail. She swabbed the wrists. She saw red, mist-like drops on Ms. Clarkson's wrists. She did not know if it was blood. She had no test with her to test for blood. Phenalthaline is one such test.

Lintemoot states that she ordered photographs taken of the hand, but the quality of the photos taken were poor. She also performed a tape lift from the front of Ms. Clarkson's dress. She saw fiberus materials on the dress but the lab was never able to determine what they were. She took swabs from Ms. Clarkson's mouth at the scene and there was blood. She collected a hair from her left breast and also collected a lipstick. It was under her left breast. Lintemoot states that she changed gloves in between each piece of evidence collection. She collected the purse that was resting on the floor. Lintemoot testifies as to how the strap was over Ms. Clarkson's shoulder and the strap was twisted.

Lintemoot testifies she noted the blood trailing down the right side of her body and onto her purse. She did not observe any blood flow on the left side of the jacket. When there is a intra-oral wound, there is a possibility that the head can purge that blood and contaminate evidence. To prevent that possibility, she wrapped Ms. Clarkson's head in a sheet. However, a purge did happen at the coroner's office and the left side of Lana's jacket is contaminated by the purge. During all this testimony, there is a photo of Lana lying on an exam table at the coroner's office. When Lintemoot describes the purge from Lana's head, I can see tears falling down Mrs. Clarkson's cheeks. It's hard for me not to be affected by her crying.

3:45 pm: Sandi Gibbons from the DA's office enters and sits with the tall slender gentleman.

Lintemoot describes removing Ms. Clarkson's clothing and performing the sexual assault kit. She took the nail scrapings from both hands. Since the thumbnail was broken, she had the medical examiner excise the entire nail for evidence. She finished her duties at 9:45 pm that day.

With only ten minutes left in the court day, Weinberg starts his cross about how Lintemoot spells her first name. Weinberg asks, "You did not assume Ms. Clarkson was a victim or that there was a homicide?" Lintemoot states, "Either one is a crime." He asks her if she's familiar with the concept of blood spatter, but she is not an expert. She does not remember if the bullet exited the body.

And that's it for the days testimony.


Anonymous said...

Thank you,
Thank you,
Thank you.
Your coverage of Harvey's trial is wonderful.
Hopefully, OJ will get squeezed for life tomorrow, and there'll be no Punkin Pie in our future.....

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for covering this trial. Without you we would never know what's going on. The media sure has let us down by not covering the retrial. Keep up the good work. You are doing such a great job. I feel I'm right there when I read your coverage. Happy Holidays from here in the Peach state

Anonymous said...

I'm very interested what Judge Fidler will rule on this motion from the state....sounds like a blatant disregard of a previous discovery order.(Calling it gamesmanship is being very polite, IMO) Since the defense just received the motion maybe they will cough up the discovery over the weekend....or was his opening a bunch of hooey???
FGS, why grill a witness on an inconsistent spelling of his name by someone else? I don't get that at all.
That would be nice if Punkin Pie didn't come into this trial, but as long as the defense is sticking with the suicide defense she'll probably be there. Just a thought, perhaps she is the defense expert and the compensation is paid in the form of a bartab. LOL! Something about her and her crispy friend brings out the "katty" side of me.

I had to fly to Tampa because of a family emergency.....I'll be here at least a week. :~(

Anonymous said...

I know your days are long and those nights are short and you're not getting enough rest, but, we really appreciate all your hard work. If it weren't for you, we'd have nothing. Shame on Court TV for dropping the ball as there is alot of interest. Just God Bless and know we are greateful.