Friday, February 27, 2009

Lee Anthony deposition made public

Here are the videos of Lee Anthony's deposition.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

Rough Draft Transcripts

Part 1
Part 2

I haven't had a chance to view or read it all. I will be doing that as time permits. I'd love to hear your comments and questions.

Phil Spector Retrial: Question & Answers III

Back by popular demand, it's Friday's weekly Q&A. Ask, and I will try my best to answer.

Yesterday, I did another radio interview on Talk Radio One. I'm on at about 9:15 pm or there abouts.


Alan Jackson's cross of Dr. Di Maio has been added to the end of the entry for Day 47.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Forty-nine, DISCOVERY VIOLATION!

February 26th 2009 (unedited, draft entry)

Defense Witnesses:
#14 Gregory Sims (acquaintance/friend of Lana Clarkson; hosted an impromptu party at his hotel suite a week before Lana died; testimony complete)
#15 Jennifer Hayes Riedl ("friend" of Lana Clarkson; under first cross examination)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: One possible individual, unidentified

Even though I miss the 8:39 am train, I was lucky there wasn't a line at security. I get on the 9th floor right at 9:30 am. After yesterday's late night of getting my notes up yesterday, I did not take nearly the amount of notes that I usually do. For most of the time, I sat back and just enjoyed the cross examinations by Jackson and Truc Do.

There are two suited ladies in court today, sitting right beside where I normally sit. I find out later in the day the woman next to me is Ann Murphy, an Associate Professor at Gonzaga School of Law. She tells me that she is writing an evidence text book and she is using the Spector trial as a teaching case. Her friend that she brought with her is one of her third year law students.

Before the jurors are brought in, there are two issues that are litigated. The first is the Jamie Lintemoot issue. Fidler starts off with Weinberg's statements about how, (he) "thought I was being unfair and that I was unfair." Fidler reviews what happened with Lintemoot's testimony and that she clearly stated she was trained to identify spatter but she was not a blood spatter analyst. That's all she was able to testify to. So Weinberg's accusation is, "Completely belied by the record and does not support the allegation."

As usual, Weinberg contests Fidler's ruling. He goes back over testimony by Lintemoot in 2007 and 2008. Fidler tells him, "You're talking apples and oranges Mr. Weinberg." Weinberg goes onto say that, "I think we are (aware?) ....the woman has limited training. I questioned her to establish that and she can't tell what it was." The tone that Fidler takes when he next speaks to Weinberg tells me that Fidler has reached the end of "his rope" with Weinberg on this issue.


DW: And I respectfully disagree.

The next issue is the discovery violation accusation regarding the new and improved Greg Sims testimony. Fidler states that there's nothing in the notes (Tyndall's) that......have any bearing on the matter." Fidler states that he reviewed the witness's testimony from the last trial. He also states, "Before we go any further, I want to go back and look at his specific testimony (from yesterday). It's 9:46 am and we wait while Fidler reads the testimony. While Fidler is reading, Tawni Tyndall is going over her notes in the gallery with Jennifer Barringer and points some things out to her. Barringer passes the notes onto Weinberg who reviews them and right afterwards, does that nervous habit with his forefinger and his lips.

During the hearing, Mr. Sims tried to enter the courtroom and he had to be told to leave. After he leaves, his son (he stated from the stand yesterday that his son was with him) and another young man with him enter 106. Bailiff Kyles makes them leave.

Judge Filder highlights some of the 2007 testimony that has bearing on the ruling he's about to give. He then states, "There may be a (?) in degree, but there's clearly a difference [...] that was not gone over in the first trial. [...] That's a significant difference."

Weinberg brings something up from Tyndall's report where Tyndall asked Sims if she was suicidal. Weinberg then brings up all the phrases Lana has used in her emails and Weinberg argues that, "These are words of despair that she used. [...] The prosecution knew that he was asked about suicide. All I asked him about was despair." Weinberg continues to argue that he has given the same type of testimony as the last time. He also states, "It's indistinguishable from her email to Dr. Krueger. (sp?) [...] Was she talking about suicide? Well, she may have because it was the same type of language. [...] There's no discovery violation here.

AJ: Clearly there is.

Alan Jackson clears up the Tyndall report and adds, "That's totally different from, Lana Clarkson told me about not having a reason to live. [...] Then Mr. Weinberg asks him, 'Did she say that she didn't want to go on?' Oh yeah. She did say she didn't want to go on. Mr. Weinberg fed to him the very question that he said he had disclosed the night before."

DW: Mr. Jackson is being... (I'm sorry, but there is a characterization statement implied here and I miss getting it in my notes.)

A hot temper erupts from Jackson. He interrupts Weinberg and tells the court, "Mr. Weinberg makes these (characters assignations) and it's sophomorphic and I'm sick of it!" Fidler, patiently smiling says, "Mr. Jackson...." Jackson responds, "I'm calmed down (now) your Honor."

DW: There's absolutely no basis for some assumption that he told us something different.

Fidler: Before I make a ruling, (adressing Jackson) assume some discovery violation. [...] The discovery rules don't speak to rules of prejudice. (This is the crux of why I'm sure Weinberg wasn't too worried about this being ruled a discovery violation.)

AJ: Now that the cat is out of the bag, that's something we would have vetted before the (testimony before) the jury. [...] I'll just have to take care of it through cross.

Jackson goes into detail what might have happened if this had been properly discovered. Fidler offers to Jackson the right to question him. Fidler then rules that "(I'm) finding there is a violation. I have cautioned every person to tell the other side, (if there is something new) before they go on the stand so that this doesn't happen. [...] I've offered you to interview him before hand. [...] I find there's no prejudice."

When the jury enters, Juror #18 has a coughing fit that won't stop. Fidler asks her if something set her allergies off. It appears someone in the courtroom near her is wearing perfume. It's not the court reporter. The court offers her to take a different seat in the jury box. She declines and we wait for her fit to pass. Fidler, trying to be humorous says, "Occasionally I wear Courtroom #5 but not today."

When court finally starts, Jackson does what he does so well and that's cross examination. In virtually everything that Jackson asked him, Sims was trying to anticipate where Jackson was going. At one point, Jackson even called him on that and to not "try to anticipate my question's Mr. Sims."

When he testified, I notice that his posture on the stand is a bit stand-offish. His head is thrown back a bit and his chin is raised. Jackson asked him quite a few questions about the entertainment business and that it's very much a reputation business and it's more about "who you know." The witness is continually reluctant to agree with Jackson, saying that there are those instances where people do come out of nowhere and make it big.

Jackson goes over every step of his history with this case in reverse order. That in 2007 he testified. Before that he had a formal interview with Tawni Tyndall and before that an interview on Court TV and before that he spoke to the producer of Court TV. "In any of these conversations you have never once mentioned that LANA CLARKSON WANTED TO DIE!" And Sims's response to that is, "I don't believe I was ever asked the question before." In a tone of heavy disbelief, Jackson states, "Your answer to me is that you don't believe you were ever asked? [...] That's kind of an important detail [...] that's because that is the defense case."

Jackson confronts him with his statement at this trial where he said, "She was as down as I've ever seen anybody. [...] As down and as despondent...." [...] When you were asked that question last year, you said the exact opposite."

Sims's was confronted with several pieces of his testimony from the first trial and how markedly different it was from this trial. Each time, the witness states that he believes his characterization is no different. (Interesting, those are exactly the words that Weinberg used in argument on the violation.) Throughout the cross, Sims is slightly argumentative with AJ. Jackson focuses on specifics and points out that this is a new level to his testimony. Sims struggles to answer. He pauses and looks over at Mr. Weinberg and stumbles over a few of his words.

Jackson enters into evidence his Court TV interview. Weinberg asks to approach the bench. He asks that the transcripts being passed out to the jurors not be looked at, that they be turned over. The Judge orders the jurors to put the transcripts face down. There's a bit of a discussion at the bench. Turning around, I see that Pat Dixon is in the gallery in the fourth bench row. Not long after, the morning recess is called and an amendment to the transcript needs to be made.

At 11:05 am the break is over and when Sims is back on the stand, AJ asks him who he was talking to in the hallway. Sims states he was talking to his son and a friend he brought with him. AJ asks him if he was talking to Mr. Weinberg. He was. "If you were so reluctant to be here why would you go out to talk to Mr. Weinberg? I'm a nice guy. Why won't you talk to me?"

Sims gives the most ridiculous answer I've heard yet. "This is a hostile situation. [...] I didn't think I was supposed to talk to you. Not that they told me that." (Yeah. Right.) Before the Court TV tape is played for the jurors, Fidler addresses the jurors that the facts are to be determined by them.

The interview on Court TV is remarkably different than his testimony in the first trial and even more so than his testimony in the second trial. At the end of the Court TV tape, Sims states that under no circumstances would she (Lana) have killed herself. On the tape he says that he felt really strongly (about) that and she would not have killed herself.

When confronted with this glaring inconsistency, Sims has a very "lawyerly" sounding answer for the jury. "That wasn't accurate. That wasn't under oath. [...] This was entertainment and it was a show and I regret doing it. [...] There have been no pluses (to testifying in this trial) and I was protecting someone at that point in my life."

Sims also stated, "I had the reality to confront what really happened and testify under oath." Jackson confronts him with, "And your testimony has changed." Sims states, "I don't believe it changed. I added to it." He repeats that response for the next question Jackson asked him.

In cross, Jackson brings up the fact that he booked showings at the Backstage Cafe. Sims points out that he never made any money on these events. It was just something he did.

AJ: You stated you are in the music business. Is it a coincidence that Phil Spector is in the music business?

Sims gets angry with the implications of Jackson's question. He denies there is any connection, saying "Absolutely not and I resent it (the implication)!!"

AJ: And Punkin Pie is in the music business.?

GS: She is marginally. She's a promoter.

Sims denies knowing that the former co-owners of the Backstage Cafe were Dan and Dave Kessell. He denies knowing that the Kessell brothers used to work for Phil Spector as bodyguards. "I did not know that!" he testifies.

AJ: So it's just a coincidence?


Overall, I think Jackson did an excellent job of crossing Sims, and destroying his credibility as a witness. Although he had some pat answers, his testimony changed too many times. Still, you have to wonder why would someone change their testimony so dramatically? Not once, but twice? I have nothing to support this, just my own gut feeling and sense that something isn't right. My feeling is, the prosecution is missing a piece of the puzzle. That there is some underlying unknown information out there, that would solve the mystery to the ever dramatically changing testimony.

During redirect Sims testifies that he did not have anything to gain by being associated with the defense in this case. He states that it's not a case to be associated with in a good way. He states that he's never spoken to Phil Spector to this day. Sims states that no one on the defense team, or anyone else told him what to say. Weinberg then asks his witness many questions about Punkin Pie. The prosecution made objections but Fidler overrules with his reasoning being, "to save time." Weinberg makes a valiant effort to rehabilitate his witness. Sims states, "I had a lot of pressure from people to not be helpful (to the defense)." He states he's telling the truth on the stand.

In recross, Jackson asks, "If you weren't telling the truth, would you tell us?" He then asks a question about his friend Lisa Bloom, and his feeling that her show was a "basic entertainment show." Jackson asks, "Did you call her and tell her that you lied?" Sims responds, "I don't feel that I lied." Jackson goes over the fact that not one of the interviews he did with Tawni Tyndall was tape recorded. Not a single one. However, there was one interview that was tape recorded. Sims replies that if there was, he didn't know about it. Jackson reminds him of the Court TV interview. He also asks him if he had a conversation before or after the interview with his friend, Lisa Bloom. Sims denies that he talked to Lisa before or after the show.

Jackson confronts him that he did have a conversation with Ms. Bloom after the show. "And didn't you tell Lisa bloom the exact same thing?" (Interesting. If in fact he did say the same thing to Lisa Bloom, I'm wondering if the prosecution will call her in rebuttal?) Sims states that he also feels very strongly that something could have happened.

Weinberg has a few questions on redirect. "Do you strongly agree with that or do you still have some doubt?" Sims testifies, "From what I know now, I believe there could be something that happened." (It's not clear in my notes what he's implying and it's somewhat vague in my mind. He was either implying that she could have accidentally killed herself or that she was so despondent that she intentionally killed herself.)

And that's it for Greg Sims.

~Jennifer Hayes Riedl testifying in 2007 at the first trial.

For the afternoon recess, Jennifer Hayes Riedl is called to the stand. However, before they proceed, there is a evidentiary hearing in the judge's chambers. On the stand I hear Fidler say "402 Hearing," and then everyone goes into chambers.

While Sims was testifying, his young son and what appeared to have been his son's friend were sitting on the defense side of the room. I wondered what that was all about if testifying for the defense was so distasteful to him. Jennifer has a friend with her at court, a woman who looks quite a bit older than her. A few in the courtroom wonder if it was her mother that came with her. Just like last time, her makeup, especially her eye makeup is very dark and overdone. She is dressed in almost all black and is wearing a silk type scarf on her head like a large, wide band that covers a good portion of her forehead. The first thing that comes to my mind is Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard. Many, many times throughout her testimony on direct and cross, she started to ramble off on a tangent and her answer would be ruled non-responsive. During cross, she was very combative with Truc, totally lost about the relevance of some of the questions and several times got angry and yelled. At one point, Fidler had to intervene.

Hayes Riedl testifies that she's currently a chef. She's been a chef and a designer for over 20 years. When asked to pin down "when" Hayes Riedl met Punkin Pie, she states she knows it was after she came back to the US after living abroad, so it was after 1991; sometime in early 1992. She met Pie at a club she was promoting called Tattoo. She saw Pie at night and talked to her during the day. She sometimes went out with Pie, three or four times a week. Over the years, the times they socialized was a tremendous amount. Hayes Riedl states that she's not very good with dates and years but she's good with "detail." She states that often times she's forgotten her family member's birthdays.

Hayes Riedl states she met Lana at one of Pie's clubs (she promoted). Her and Lana and Pie became friends and they "spent a tremendous amount of time together." She identifies two photos of Pie and Lana together. They are not really recent photos because Pie is much thinner in them. Nothing like what she looked like on the stand in 2007. Hayes Riedl states the two of them (Lana, Pie) were "thick as thieves."

For a time, Hayes Riedl talks in complimentary tones about Lana. "Lana was a great girl. She was outgoing, demonstrative. [...] If she was there you knew it. Always fun to be around. Always knew she was there. [...] She spent a lot of time with her, but not a lot of time on the telephone; not too much." Hayes Riedl describes Lana's "tiny, tiny house" on the canals in Venice. Her brother's trailer was parked on the lot and he lived in the trailer. Hayes Riedl testifies that Lana had a computer. It was a desktop model and that she worked at it all the time.

She testifies about having her baby in April, 2002. That the last year of Lana's life, she had a lot of trouble with her children so she didn't have as much occasion to see Lana much that year. (No mention of the two kids in rehab this time.) She describes the decor in her cottage and states that Marilyn Monroe was her idol. "She talked about her often."

Hayes Reidl talks about the Backstage Cafe and that it was started approximately in the late 90's. She testifies that she and Lana, as Pies close friends were "required" to be at the events that Pie promoted. "We were required to be there as bookends." On and on about how Pie "required" they had to show up at these events. Hayes Reidl testifies about sitting down with Lana and helping her with the sketch video that she was working on.

Hayes Reidl states that, "Lana asked her for her opinion on the video; wanted to know what I thought of it." Hayes Reidl testifies Lana was trying to shift her career to more comedic work. She states that she never told Lana what she thought of the video because she didn't have time and had personal issues to deal with. Weinberg asks her if it would refresh her memory if he showed her what she said last time. "Why? Did I say I showed it to somebody?" Hayes Reidl replies. Once she reads the transcript she says, "Yeah. I remember my old partner Jamie Gold. He wasn't interested in it."

Weinberg has to prompt Hayes Reidl on her memory of the reception Lana received about the video. She then remembers there was some incident (where she showed it to an ad agency) and, "They made her cry. [...] I do remember that she was horribly upset about it. [...] I remember her leaving in tears. [...] I have to say she was very diligent about taking the steps she needed to take."

When asked about Lana's success in pursuing her career, Hayes Reidl responds, "Her success happened before I knew her. [...] She did have a lot of commercial success, so she was successful (in that area)."

DW: Was she discouraged?

JHR: Very. [...] She was hoping the project was going to be successful but nobody was biting. Nothing was materializing as of yet.

DW: What did you know about her financial situation?

JHR: Dire. [..] She wasn't able to pay her bills. I don't know how she was (paying bills).

DW: Did she ask to borrow money?

JHR: She asked a lot of people, yeah.

DW: Did you know of anyone to help her?

When asked about the House of Blues job, Hayes Riedl testifies, "She was positive that she had the job. [...] That's when she had the big meltdown (at Jennifer's house) and she was being paid $9.00 an hour to pull out chairs for people she used to beat out for parts. [...] And then she burst into tears and had a complete meltdown. [...] She was talking about a specific person who was wearing a huge carat diamond, drove a Bentley and living in a 20 million dollar home."

Hayes Riedl states that, "Lana often would point to a big house on a hill, or a family and say, Why don't I have that? [....] She just romanticized it." When asked about L. B. Moon, "She was hoping that he was the one. (But it didn't work out.) [...] Lana was a very vain woman. Proud is a better word than vain. I don't want to sound like a mean person."

Hayes Riedl goes into great detail about Lana going out all the time. "But the problem is, she was fragile. She was exhausted. If someone said the wrong thing to her (she fell apart). [...] At the end of her life, she had been like this for years. One year. Two years. Three years (before her death). [...] You can't drink and drink like that and be like that and just lose it."

DW: Did you know her to use alcohol?

JHR: When she was at my house, when she was sititing or when she was at the cottage, there was no drugs or alcohol.

DW: Did she ever try to stop drinking?

JHR: She had her health kicks, yes. [...] Lana was what I would describe as an extremist.

DW: What effect did alcohol have on her behavior?

JHR: She would become belligerent.

DW: Did she get depressed with alcohol?

JHR: Not in a public setting. In a private setting, yes.

A photograph from Hayes Riedl's baby shower is presented into evidence. It's not put up on the ELMO but is passed around to the jurors. She talks about how Lana was the only one drinking at the shower, and that you can see the casts on Lana's wrists in the photo. "That was a tough day. It was crazy. It was all about Lana that day. [...] It was hard. It was hard to talk over her. [...] She and Pie were drinking that day, but I think Pie only had one drink. [...] She was taking painkillers for her wrists injuries."

DW: Did you not see her for a time after she got her casts off?

JHR: She was mad at me because of a baby shower present. I got two of the same present and because I didn't tell Lana that her present was "better" she didn't talk to me for a long time.

Regarding the broken wrists, "That was absolutely devastating for her. [...] She was at the end of her rope, that's what she said. [...] She said she had it. [...] She was sobbing, sobbing, sobbing." Hayes Riedl continues to ramble on for a bit until I believe Truc Do objects.

Weinberg is finished with his direct and Truc asks for an early break. As Hayes Reidl sits down, her friend that's with her in court is overheard to say, "Excellent."

During the break, I spoke to a few people in the courtroom and asked them what they thought of Hayes Riedl's direct testimony. The word "Bitch," was mentioned several times.

Under cross, Truc asks Hayes Riedl if the first time she saw Lana's video was when Lana was borrowing good clothes from her. Truc asks if Lana's brother Jeff and her sister Fawn spent some time with Hayes Riedl's children.

TD: Punkin Pie has describe the three of you as "thick as thieves" and "the three musketeers?"

Truc also states in the past Hayes Riedl has stated that they "have each other's back" and that Lana was a good friend and that she would have been that way with Hayes Riedl. When asked when was the last time she talked to Pie she states, "I haven't talked to Pie. I don't talk to anyone in my prior life. [...] Not since the last trial."

TD: Still, at that time, you were friends with Pie? [...] Losing Lana was devastating? [...] You still miss her today?

JHR: Being here is very difficult.

TD: It's a difficult thing to do, to speak ill of Lana?

JHR: Yes.

TD: Let me use your words.... (And this is something that Truc does for the rest of her cross today. She confronts Hayes Riedl with all the things she's said about Lana.) In terms of closeness....

JHR: She shared what she wanted to share. [...] We shared at the moment, so yes we are very intense in the same way.

TD: In those ten or so years, you got to know someone very well? [...] She shared her personal life?

Truc asks Hayes Riedl about the L. B. Moon relationship.

JHR: I don't know about that relationship. That didn't work out. [...] NO. She DID NOT SPEAK TO ME (about the relationship) other than it didn't work out.

Hayes Riedl becomes very combative with Truc. Truc asks her if she knew that Mr. Moon lived out of state and was in law school in Oklahoma at the time.

TD: Were you aware that she was still seeing Mr. Moon at the time that she died?

DW: Objection! Sidebar!

When Truc returns, her questions are now phrased differently but she still is able to ask them.

TD: Would it surprise you to know that two weeks before her death, she was making plans for him to meet her family?

JHR: Nothing would surprise me. (This answer is delivered very defiant tone.)

TD: Would it surprise you to know that two weeks before her death, she was making plans for her to meet his family?

JHR: Nothing would surprise me.

Truc confronts her that she testified that when Lana came to her house, to borrow clothes for the new job it was two weeks before her death. "And yet, Lana did not mention anything about Mr. Moon?" Hayes Riedl starts yelling at Truc that the time Lana came over must have happened before Lana made those plans then. Again, Truc confronts Hayes Riedl with her prior testimony and that her answers were different than this year.

Truc confronts her on her testimony that she "didn't use email." "It wasn't really my thing. I had an assistant."

TD: So you were not included in the mass email Lana sent to thirty five of her girlfriends?

JHR: I'm not sure. I don't recall.

Truc reads her the E-mail dated January 6th, 2003. Hayes Riedl was included on that list. Hayes Riedl states she knew about that information but she states she never read the E-mail. Now Truc asks her about the interview she and Pie did with Tawni Tyndall on December 28th, 2005. This was over a five hour interview at a restaurant. Hayes Riedl states she never knew who she was going to meet when Pie asked her to go along. "I went there to take my friend to a meeting."

TD: Did you not say to Ms. Tyndall that, "The video was torture to watch?"

JHR: Are you trying to say I'm a bad friend for watching that tape?

TD: Did you not say to Ms. Tyndall that Lana was a very jealous? [...] You said this about the friend you loved?


Fidler: Mam, mam. You're just to answer the questions.

TD: Did you also tell Ms. Tindall, about this friend that you loved, "She was a total sex kitten. Her family did this totally inappropriate sexy memorial? [...] Did you tell Ms. Tyndall Lana was the most selfish person you'd ever met? [...] Did you and Punkin Pie, in remembering your friend that she was not a hooker, a floozie, like most girls in this town because she didn't have five bucks in her account? [...] Did you not say to Ms. Tyndall, "Careful what you wish for, you might get it, and that she should have gone home with him?"

Truc then moves onto a second interview she had with Ms. Tyndall at her home on January 17th, 2006 from about 4:o5 pm to 9:13 pm.

TD: Did you not say to Ms. Tyndall, that "Lana was dating anyone and everyone and that she would go out with anyone?" [...] You would say that about your friend?

TD: Did you tell Ms. Tyndall, that Lana had gained weight and it was all in her hips?

JHR: You're taking this out of context! You're making this like Mean Girls!

So Truc then reads the entire statement in context and it sounds just as bad. Hayes Riedl defends her statement saying something to the effect that if your sister had put on weight, wouldn't you tell her?

TD: Did you not say to Ms. Tyndall, that "Lana slept with everybody. She couldn't not sleep with them?" [...] You took that as an opportunity to trash your friend?

JHR: That was how it was with Lana.

TD: After you talked to Ms. Tyndall, you invited her to go to the Backstage Cafe with you so she could see Pie?

JHR: Honestly, I don't recall that.

TD: So was the interview finished or was that a social event? [...] And you and Ms. Tyndall ordered some drinks?

Hayes Riedl doesn't remember this at all. Truc asks her if it would help her to look at Ms. Tyndall's report.

TD: That when Ms. Tyndall reached for the check, you told her, you said, "I'll take care of it?"

JHR: I don't really remember it.

It's 4:00 pm and Fidler calls the end of court for the day. Court resumes Monday morning at 9:30 am.

With friends like Hayes Riedl, no one would ever need an enemy
. During one of the breaks, I saw Harvey with the white hair having what appeared to be a close, lengthy conversation with Weinberg. Later, Harvey was observed in the hallway talking to Jennifer Hayes Riedl.
It's my opinion that both of these witnesses's were effectively neutralized on cross examination.

Lee Anthony deposition to be public, Jose Baez files motion to block release of "embarrassing" photos of Casey


February 26, 5:00

As many of you may have heard, Lee Anthony gave his deposition this morning. The Morgan&Morgan law firm will be releasing the video. Until then, here are rough draft transcripts !

Part 1
Part 2

Lee Anthony is scheduled to give his deposition tomorrow morning at 9 AM at the law offices of Morgan & Morgan.

Television cameras will be invited into the downtown courtroom Friday, according to attorney John Morgan.

Morgan said Gonzalez's name was taken in a public forum, so it should not be cleared behind closed doors.

According to Lee's attorney, Thomas Luka, he will not answer questions if media present. The Orlando Sentinel reported that The pair will leave if Keith Mitnik with the Morgan & Morgan law firm allows reporters to attend the interview.

Luka then plans to file a motion to ask the court to keep his client from answering questions in front of the media.

This is going to be one interesting morning! Set your alarm clock!

Orlando Sentinel

Baez files new motion

A hearing has been scheduled for 4:15 Monday, March 2.

In a Motion For Protective Order, Casey Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez asks that the court to issue a protective order preventing the release of ... Casey's Photobucket images he received on February 25.

Baez states that many of the hundreds, if not thousands of pictures are irrelevant to the case and are only being released with the motive of embarrassing or harassing the Defendant, or at the very least, painting the Defendant in a negative light.

I have to wonder if these are the photographs that the FBI agent mentioned to George during their interview.

According to Baez, Law enforcement has already leaked images throughout this case, many of which were taken long before Caylee Marie Anthony went missing. Additionally, many of theso (sic) images have been used for sensationalizing this case and painting the Defendant in a negative way.

The interesting thing about this statement is that Baez accuses LE of "leaking" the photographs. We all know very well that the photographs on her Photobucket account out in the public weren't leaked at all. In the first days of the case, many people downloaded them directly from Casey's Photobucket! It actually took the media a while to catch on. I can remember all the "bombshells" that were dropping on Nancy Grace days after the internet-savvy public were well aware of them.

Baez goes on to request that the State of Florida choose which pictures that will be used in the trial and not release the remainder of "irrelevant" photographs.

At the end of the motion, Baez has attached a picture of the Casey Doll which is dressed in an American flag to demonstrate what can happen if the remainder of the photographs are released.

This should be one very interesting hearing!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Forty-eight, Another Discovery Violation?

February 25th, 2009

Defense Witnesses:
#12 Dr. Vincent Di Maio (famed forensic pathologist, author and former Bexar County, Texas coroner; testimony complete)

#14 Gregory Sims (acquaintance/friend of Lana Clarkson; hosted an impromptu party at his hotel suite a week before Lana died; currently under cross examination)

Special Hearing outside the presence of the jury:

#4 Tawni Tyndall (defense investigator; Tawni is the fourth witness to testify in a hearing(s) outside the presence of the jurors)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: None identified

Just when I think not much will happen in a short, half day of trial testimony, we have a day like today. I am wondering if down the road, what happened today will be compared to Baden's "AHa" moment in the first trial.

I get to the Criminal Court building about 9:20 am. Right before I enter, I realize that I have left my steno notebook at home. There's no time to walk three blocks to the underground city and buy one from CVS. I'm just going to wing it and hope there is someone who can let me have some paper.

When I get inside 106, I see the DA's clerk, Josh is sitting at the end. I tell him I forgot my notebook and ask if I could have 4-5 sheets from his yellow legal pad. Kindly, he immediately tears out five sheets of paper from his pad. I'm fortunate that I have a book with me that I can use to write on. For a moment there, I thought I was going to have to write in the margins of the book I've been reading on the train, The Tipping Point.

There's a man who has been sitting in the back row a few times, now sitting in the first row. He looks like he's either a reporter or a young attorney. The large, soft-leather briefcase he carries makes me thing he might be an attorney, but the reason I think he might be more of a reporter is that he doesn't wear a suit jacket; just a white shirt and tie. Bailiff Kyles comes over to inquire who he is and he then moves to the second row, close to the jurors.

9:32 am: The jury is called. There are three Spector supporters in the second row sitting behind Tawni Tyndall and Rachelle Short in the first row. Dr. Di Maio is back on the stand under redirect. The jurors ask for more notebooks after they come in, and the Bailiff, Kyles, tells them to speak up, because he's only making one trip. Juror #3 gets a new book and another juror gets a second book from a juror that already had one.

9:35 am: Donte Spector enters 106.

Weinberg is going over with Dr. Di Maio the distance that spatter may travel. Dr. Di Maio states that not only does he refer to the experts in Europe, but that his opinions stem from "...that and practical experience and articles." Weinberg asks if it's also based on personal observation, and Dr. Di Maio answers, "Yes."

DW: You have reviewed and seen spatter travel various distances?

Dr. DM: Yes.

Weinberg now asks him the question Mr. Jackson asked about GSR and it being microscopic.

DW: Those are what analysts consider. [...] But in the firing of a bullet, there are other items that could be (considered?) to make up GSR: soot, gunshot fragment, burnt, and partially burnt gunpowder?

There are more questions detailing what you can and can not be seen visually to the naked eye.

DW: Scientists would agree that... (there's more of the question but I miss it)

AJ: Objection! Scientists would agree....

Fidler: Sustained.

DW: Is the term GSR used sometimes to describe both, loosely?

Dr. DM: Yes. Technically, it's incorrect, but used loosely, yes.

DW: Do you know Dr. Spitz? [...] Have you written articles with Dr. Spitz and you have an opinion about Dr. Spitz?

Dr. DM: He's considered to be the (number one ) standing pathologist in the US.

Dr. Di Maio talks about how there is a friendly competition between the two since they both have books out on similar subjects.

Weinberg now asks questions about his starting point for his mode of death (MOD) to be intra-oral suicide. "And that standing alone, give you a probability....?" Weinberg asks.

AJ: Objection!

Fidler: Sustained!

Weinberg now moves onto horizontal verses vertical and that suicide gunshot wounds go upward. "Are the diagrams anatomically correct?" (He's asking about the diagrams in the coroner's report!)

Dr. DM: No. Women's heads are different.

Dr. Di Maio goes onto explain that even when they autopsy them they cut open the skulls in a different place than they do men.

DW: In regards to intra-oral (suicides) you would expect it to go upward?

Dr. DM: Suicide; yes. To go up.

DW: You expect it to go through the hard or soft palate?

Dr. DM: That's typically the case.

Weinberg then goes over the text of the autopsy report that details the trajectory of the bullet.

Course: Hemmoragic wound trac passes through the oral cavity, dorsum of tongue, hard and soft palate and into the soft posterial pharyngel tissue...

DW: So it did pass through the soft palate?

Dr. DM: Yes.

Now there are several questions about what he could see in the photos of Lana Clarkson's hands at the scene.

DW: Did you see blood spatter in the photo?

Dr. DM: Only on a photograph of Ms. Clarkson's left hand.

DW: Is this the only blood spatter you have seen?

Dr. DM: Yes. It's on the radial aspect of the left hand.

Weinberg wrestles with which side that Dr. Di Maio is talking about on the wrist. Weinberg keeps wanting to use the terms "inner and outer" getting them mixed up in pure anatomical terms. He asks if one side is the lateral side, (pointing to the medial) and Dr. Di Maio corrects him that the other side is the lateral side.

DW: Have you ever seen a photo, or other documentation, recordation, (of blood spatter) on the backs of Ms. Clarkson's wrists?

Dr. DM: No. Just on the backs of hands.

DW: Would you as an expert, consider (a) blood stain that is not recorded?

Dr. DM: If it's not recorded [...] especially not documented. If only going by memory, you can't really consider it.

Weinberg now asks Dr. Di Maio to consider a hypothetical and he gives an example that is almost the exact events of Jamie Lintemoot's involvement in the case.

DW: Assume an employee in your office, not a spatter expert. Assume that they have a photographer (photograph the scene). Assume further she writes notes of blood on wrists. And later writes a report of blood on both hands and wrists. Assume further she's at a meeting where she describes and explains to medical staff that she saw blood on right wrist on the back.

(At this point, Josh hands me a spiral notepad! I'm saved! I can only guess that he obtained one from the Bailiff for me.)

DW: And assume further that she testifies further that [...] then testifies further that she didn't mean to characterize and that she saw pinprick like spatter on the back of wrists.

AJ: Objection. That's an incomplete hypothetical.

Fidler asks for a sidebar. I think he is addressing AJ when he says, "I think I know what you're going to say."

At the sidebar, Fidler speaks and during that, Weinberg has a tiny "no" shaking of his head. Now shaking his head again. AJ is speaking but his back is directly towards me, facing the judge so I can't hear anything he says. At one point I "think" I hear Truc Do address Weinberg and say, "....Want me to get it for you?"

As I look around the courtroom I notice there are two new Sheriff's in the back of the room. The young Asian man whom I'm guessing is a part of the DA staff enters and sits in the third bench row. Dr. Di Maio is leaning back in the witness chair, looking off toward the jury.

I could swear I heard Fidler say, "Don't do that! [...] False!" Weinberg had stepped away from the bench for a moment. Understand that's what I think I might have heard but I'm not positive at all. After the sidebar, Weinberg leans over and speaks to Susan below a whisper.

Weinberg then gets back to redirecting his witness.

DW: Rather than give you a complicated hypothetical... [...] If you as a medical examiner have reviewed the records and the phrase "back of wrists" doesn't appear anywhere and only photos that show blood [...] Would any verbal statement by (a) person, can you ( consider it)?

(Right after Weinberg states that he won't give his witness a complicated hypothetical, I look over at the jury. Most of the back row is smiling.)

Dr. DM: No it would not. It's too long. Too many bodies. You can't really consider (it).

Weinberg now puts up on the screen an image of Lana's right hand and the chipped nail.

DW: Have you seen that in connection with people who have shot themselves?

Dr. DM: Oh yes. [...] It happens all the time.

DW: Have you seen this phenomenon, a broken nail [...] with broken nails in connection with suicides in intra-oral wounds?

Dr. DM: Yes, certainly.

DW: And have you seen it with suicide in intra-orals?

Weinberg now moves onto the "KM" testing that Steve Renteria did. At first, Dr. Di Maio is confused by the term "KM" testing and Weinberg explains "Kastle-Meyer." Weinberg puts up on the ELMO a diagram that I don't remember. It was created by Steve Renteria and it's a schematic drawing of a jacket that has hand written notes on it as to where he did KM testing for blood. Weinberg points out an area of the jacket at the top that tested KM negative. He asks Dr. Di Maio what it means on the diagram where it says "KM +" and Dr. Di Maio testifies that means it was positive.

DW: How many places do you see (that show positive for blood)?

Dr. DM: Only five. One, two, three, four. I believe it's four.

DW: So about four perhaps five spots are confirmed blood?

Dr. DM: Yes.

DW: You just made mention of a spot on the back of the jacket. Is there any way that spatter could have gotten on the back of the jacket?

Dr. DM: No sir.

DW: There was a fair amount of blood on the gun?

AJ: Objection! Vague.

Fidler: Clarify please.

DW: Do you have any idea (of a) way that blood could get on the handle from a spatter event? [...] Could that amount of (blood) have gotten there anyway?

Dr. DM: If it's falling against a hand or a dress.

DW: So it could be do to spatter smearing? [...] So that amount of blood could have gotten on it?

Harvey with the shock of white hair enters 106 and sits beside Rachelle.

DW: But if the gun is held in a position, being (of the handle being exposed)?

At this point, I write that Dr. Di Maio is rambling. I can't catch exactly what point he's making and it doesn't make any sense which makes it harder to take notes. My notes here are quite scattered and unconnected. (But if blood get rubbed again it, it could get there. See?) Another suited man enters who looks like an attorney. The next statement, I'm not sure if it's asked as a question or answered. "The mouth would be propped open [...] due to the gases [...] and out comes material."

DW: And additional (material) comes out the nose?

Dr. DM: Oh yeah. Yes.

Weinberg plays the animated video again of a photo of a Golt Cobra that morphs into an animated gun that goes off into a diagram of a woman's head. It shows the wound track into the head and the spatter that comes out of the mouth and nose.

DW: Again, this is not intended to reproduce anything in this case. [...] But this is a general indication?

Dr. DM: Yes. It comes out as mist and droplets. [...] They (experts) all agree on that. They only argument is how far it goes. [...] That's right. It stops when smaller and the larger drops go farther.

I look on over at the jury. It appears that #5 has her eyes closed for a moment. #4 is rocking in his seat and I can see no note taking from jurors #4 through #9 as well as #17 and #18. Understand that from where I'm sitting, I cannot see clearly the lap of jurors #1-3, or #10-14.

Weinberg now moves onto the "checkering" and the little raised spaces and the groves on the handle of the gun. A photo of the checker pattern is up on the ELMO.

DW: There are a few of these little projections that have blood droplets on them?

Weinberg then asks about the amount of blood on the gun.

Dr. DM: There's not that much blood on the gun.

There now are questions about the swabs that were taken of the gun to test for DNA. Weinberg asks if all of them tested to Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector's (DNA) was not connected to any of the seven spots (tested). Weinberg then gives Dr. Di Maio a hypothetical. Say someone took a gun and forced it in the mouth (and shot them). Then a few minutes later they went outside to speak to somebody and then they came back inside and (placed? dropped?) the gun.

DW: Would you expect that person's DNA to be on the gun?

AJ: Objection! Foundation! (I believe this is sustained because of the following questions.)

DW: Does your work involve DNA experience?

Dr. DM: Well, yes.

Dr. Di Maio goes onto state that he's worked two cases where he had to determine whether or not DNA was involved/found on a weapon. At this point, Fidler states he's going to allow him to continue to testify. Dr. Di Maio goes on to talk about one of the first cases of DNA testing was done through his office. (I'm assuming that was back when he was Bexar County Coroner.)

DW: Have you supervised any DNA testing?

Dr. DM: I'm not a DNA analyst. [..] I've seen some results.

DW: Not that you've done any testing, but you've reviewed?

There's more testimony about DNA transfer and prior cases he's been involved in. He rambles on about one case that he was involved in where he refused to testify.

Alan Jackson objects, and Fidler steps in to question Dr. Di Maio.

Fidler: Are you an expert in DNA transfer?

Dr. Di Maio pauses. He hems and haws. He states that he doesn't, "...think there is any training in transfer DNA available." AJ renews his objection to strike all testimony of DNA based on the answer. (Unfortunately, I don't have the ruling here. At the same time, I can't believe Weinberg is trying to get Dr. Di Maio to testify about transfer DNA. He clearly stated he's not an expert. But listen to some of the next questions that come. He is still trying to get this testimony in.)

DW: Do you have experience in determining the presence or absence of DNA on objects?

Dr. DM: Years ago, I set up a laboratory....

Several more questions then on transfer DNA.

Dr. DM: Transfer occurs. [...] Everyone knows that.

There are questions about if he's consulted on cases involving DNA. And Dr. Di Maio states, "There isn't much in the literature on transfer DNA." The witness states that he's read what literature there is on it.

AJ: Objection! Again.

I believe it's at this point that AJ states that he can read the literature too. I'm not clear on my notes here, it's either Fidler or AJ that states something about "not casting aspersions," and Fidler states, "But to determine a ruling, I have to listen to it." (The question.) AJ then replies, "Then I have to listen to it, too." Fidler states, "If you wish to stay in the courtroom."

Dr. DM: Basically, I have case materials. [...] There are limited studies. [...] Transfer (DNA) the actual incident (of studies) [...] Nobody knows. [...] I've read the literature in the field.

DW: You're familiar? Do you have an opinion?

AJ: Objection!

Fidler states again he needs to hear the hypothetical before he can rule. Weinberg gives the same hypothetical again about someone firing a gun then goes outside to speak to someone then comes back inside and puts the gun down.

Fidler: I'm going to sustain the objection.

AJ asks to "move to strike" all DNA testimony. (I'm not certain, but I believe Fidler responds that only those points where there's limited knowledge. That part in my notes isn't clear and I'm sorry about that.)

Weinberg now goes back to a question that Mr. Jackson asked. "What part of your analysis (included) that there was little spatter on the right sleeve?'"

Dr. DM: You had to have (an) arm, six inches from the mouth and material would have come out on the right sleeve.

Weinberg then lists a litany of areas where there was spatter and then the last listing is, "There was no spatter on the right sleeve? [...] Was it significant to you there was no evidence of bruising to Ms. Clarkson's face? That was inconsistent with blunt force trauma?'

Dr. DM: Yes.

Weinberg then asks about the size disparity between the two individuals. And he asks a hypothetical about a struggle of wrist grabbing. It's similar to what the prosecution contends in their demonstration of where Spector was grabbing Lana's wrists.

DW: Would the size (of the individuals) make a difference?

Dr. DM: Yes.

More questions about a struggle and no evidence of the gun being forced into the mouth. Weinberg mentions the difference in height, age, weight.

DW: Would that make a difference?

Dr. DM: Yes.

Weinberg asks one more time what his conclusion is about the manner of death, and that he has, "no doubt" about it?

Dr. DM: That's correct.

AJ steps up to recross and states he's going to be brief. He asks something about anything Dr. Di Miao has heard to change his opinion and then he asks him if he was being as truthful as possible.

AJ: If the facts in this case establish that Mr. Spector was within arms length of Ms. Clarkson. [...] If the facts of this case establish that she could not be holding the gun. [...] And if in fact that Mr. Spector walked out of the house and admitted that (he killed her); would that corroborate or contradict (your conclusion)?

Dr. DM: You could use it for corroboration but I don't really use witness statements.

I seem to remember he had one more question but I don't have it in my notes. Weinberg then asks a few more questions.

DW: You don't make your (determination) on any one fact?

Dr. DM: No. I kind of refer to it as a puzzle. [...] You consider the (spec?) but you have to disregard it. [...] And when you par it down, your conclusion is beyond a medical certainty?

Dr. DM: Yes.

It's 10:30 am and the morning break is called early. This break lasts almost a half hour.

Weinberg wants a hearing about the ruling of striking Dr. Di Maio's testimony on transfer DNA. Because of the limitations Fidler has placed in this testimony of Dr. Di Maio, he's now asking that Jamie Lintemoot's testimony about the spatter on the back of the wrists and Dr. Herold's testimony about the fabric pattern be striken from the record.

Fidler: Motion to strike is denied.

Totally ignoring the court's ruling Weinberg presses on and asks if the court is finding Jamie Lintemoot is a blood spatter expert.

(I don't have it in my notes but I believe AJ speaks a few sentences. I believe these statements are AJ's.) "She is trained to recognize spatter. She is not a spatter analyst."

Weinberg speaks again about Lintemoot's testimony. Fidler, sounding exasperated, "The statement you just made is exactly what the prosecution just said!

DW: That's not what I'm talking about.

Fidler: We'll talk about it now.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief. In my opinion, it's a desperate attempt to get Jamie Lintemoot's testimony tossed on describing the spatter on the wrists.

Weinberg presses on, arguing his points to Fidler and he's not saying anything that I haven't heard before. I look over at Spector and his right hand, resting in his lap is shaking.

DW: There's not a shred of evidence that she was talking about blood on wrists.

Alan Jackson and Truc are standing off to the side by the jury box. They are not even sitting at their seats. It's like they are watching a train wreck. I take the time to look at Truc's outfit. It's a basic black pantsuit. Her top has ruffles around the V front and little tiny stretch pleats around the bottom It's a cute, tiny, black and white check print. Weinberg is now trying to say that Jamie Lintemoot's demonstration of where she saw spatter was NOT in the "watch" area on the wrists but in the area near the webbing between the thumb and forefinger.

Oh my gosh! Fidler's tone is not happy!


Weinberg continues to argue with the judge.

DW: The court tells me I have to accept her altered testimony and (the) court allowing the most important, single piece of evidence in the prosecution's case and I (think it's fabricated). [...] I believe two things. That the defense should not be constrained because she came in here six years later and said, no, no, no.

Weinberg continues with his argument.

Fidler asks the people if they have anything to say.

AJ: I don't think there's anything to say that. [...] The argument is ridiculous.

Fidler tells him that he has never precluded him from using that in argument. Fidler goes on about the hypothetical he tried to present to the jury, where he left out an important part of Lintemoot's testimony.

Fidler: You can't pretend that the testimony didn't take place and I put the word pretend "in quotes," and that's why I objected and ruled to it.

I think that's it. Fidler leaves the bench. AJ leans in and asks Mrs. Clarkson, "How are you holding up?" She leans in quite close to AJ to answer him so I do not hear what she says. I see Spector sitting in the second bench row, talking to a gentleman with salt and pepper hair. The supporter is wearing black rimmed glasses and has a bit of a beard under his nose and around his mouth. I see a gentleman in the gallery on the plastic chairs sitting with a much younger man. The Bailiff asks him who he is and I overhear that he's a witness. More Spector supporters show up.

1o:58 am: Wendy calls the jury.

The next witness is Gregory Sims.

Gregory H. Sims testifying for the defense at the first trial in 2007.

Mr. Sims is wearing black pants, a bright white shirt and a black jacket with no tie. Sims states he is an independent producer and personal manager. "That means I produce films outside the studio system."

Sims testifies about what work he's produced. "I did a couple of the early George Clooney films. I did an Amanda Peet project Touch Me." He also produced a critically acclaimed project Suddenly Naked. He state's he's represented Golden Globe and Academy winners. Recently, he's been involved on the music side, working with a superstar in Europe. He's been in the entertainment business for over 30 years.

Weinberg gets the witness to state that he is not here as a volunteer, he was subpoenaed. He testified last year under subpoena also.

DW: Did you know a woman who is known by the name of Punkin Pie? [...] How long have you known her?

GS: Since 1989.

DW: How did you meet?

GS: Originally on a film I produced called To Die For, a retelling of the Dracula story.

DW: Did you develop a personal friendship?

GS: Yes. [...] More so when she did her music producing.

DW: And you've remained friends to this day?

GS: Yes sir. [...] She's a close friend.

Sims states he knew her more, spent more time with her as to her promotions. He explains that Pie did the promotions on Tuesday nights at a club/restaurant called The Backstage. She knew several owners of that club, including Ian Copeland, who passed away.

DW: There were performances there?

GS: There were.

DW: There were also lots of people you knew there?

GS: (I) did a lot of networking there. [...] You never knew what celebrities or who would show up there.

DW: Do you know when that began, her promotions?

GS: I think the 70's.

DW: If you were in town, you would be at the Backstage on Tuesday nights?

GS: Mostly.

Sims testifies that he knew Lana Clarkson through Punkin. He met her at the Backstage at first. Sims states that they were never anything more than friends.

DW: Would Lana participate in those Tuesdays?

GS: She was there quite a bit.

DW: Did you know about their relationship?

GS: They were best friends. [...] They would say they were best friends. [...] Pie always had the same table (at Backstage). They were always hugging, and kissy face with each other, like best friends are. [...] They were close friends.

Sims states that in 2001 he was involved in a small, low budget film where Lana had a small part. It was not a significant role. During that time, 2003, when he was in town he lived and worked out of a hotel suite in Century City.

DW: You entertained and hosted parties there?

GS: I did.

Weinberg now gets his witness to testify about an impromptu party that happened in his suite in early 2003 on a Tuesday night. As the Backstage closed, people would show up at his hotel suite and it turned into a big party. He came home at midnight that night and most everyone came.

Weinberg puts up a photo on the ELMO of Lana with some other people. Sims identifies Pie and Lana in the photograph.

DW: Does that photo look like the Backstage Cafe?

Sims stares intently at the photo.

GS: I don't know. It doesn't. [...] Everybody looks familiar. [...] I don't know who the guys are.

Weinberg asks how many people were at that party in his suite at the high point and Sims states, "About 40."

DW: You learned that Lana Clarkson died on a Sunday? [...] Do you know when this party occurred in relation to her death?

GS: It was a week before. A matter of days.

DW: Pie and Lana came to the hotel?

GS: Pie left before Lana.

Sims played host and saw her drink alcohol. She was drinking a lot that night. Weinberg now asks if there was a point where only one guest was left, and that was Lana.

GS: It was about 1:30 or 2. (am)

DW: Did Lana indicate to you in any way (her state of mind)? [...] And she was talking and opening up?

GS: She was in a distressed state.

DW: She was inebriated?

GS: Yes.

DW: Was she depressed?

AJ: Objection! He's not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

Fidler states that he could give a "lay person's opinion."

GS: My lay opinion [...] she was very depressed. [...] I talked to her for about an hour-and-a-half. [...] She did most of the talking. [...] I was a shoulder to cry on.

DW: Did she cry?

GS: She was part weeping. [...] She talked about being very unhappy in (her life? career?). She said, "I hate all the motherfucker's in this business!" [...] Her career was not going very well. [...] I talked about my kids and she was interested in that. She wanted some and it was a very bad night for her, that's all.

DW: Was there a particular topic? Job? Career?

GS: I'd just state it was a bad night.

DW: What did she say about her career?

GS: That it wasn't going very well.

Weinberg asks questions about her demeanor that night and Sims states something to the effect that she was in a bad state.

GS: She was generally a very upbeat person.

The degree to which she was distressed was extreme. There are questions about the small film role she had in his production. Sims states, "I didn't produce it. I sold it. She was dating a friend who (directed? produced?) it."

DW: How much was she paid?

AJ: Objection! Foundation!

Fidler asks the witness if he knows. Sims states that he thinks it was a SAG minimum wage. Everyone on the film got SAG minimum wage. She worked one day so that would be about three to four hundred dollars.

Sims states she had talked about a relationship that had just finished.

DW: Did she continue to drink when she talked?

GS: She did. [...] Her intoxication reached a point where she wasn't functioning very well. [...] And she would repeat and repeat. She did talk about being at the end of her rope. [...] And I talked to her about talking to someone, therapy. And I can't remember if she said that she was going or had gone. [...] And I was talking to her about all the members of my family who went to therapy and how it helped.

DW: Was there anything hopeful about her tone that night?

GS: No.

DW: Had you ever seen her in that tone before?

GS: No.

Weinberg asks about the highs and valleys of an actor's career and what Sims has seen.

GS: I've seen people in a bad way. That's as down as I've seen anybody.

DW: Was there any resolution to the discussion?

GS: No. At some point Pie came and took her away. [...] Both of us helped her get to the elevator. [...] My recollection is she talked about how she didn't want to go on.

DW: Roughly, what time did Pie come back?

GS: About 3, 3:30 (am).

DW: And she continued to drink the entire time?

GS: She did. [...] She was not real functional at that point. [...] We had to support her and help her walk.

DW: What was your concern?

GS: I felt badly about her. [...] I felt badly for her.

DW: Did you discuss with Pie your (concerns?) observations?

GS: It was something that Pie was more familiar with.

DW: Did you see Lana after that?

GS: No.

DW: Did you tell anybody besides Pie?

GS: In the immediate days, no. [...] I might have discussed (it) with my wife.

DW: Did you discuss (it with anyone) later? [...] Was it your intention to get involved in this case? [...] Did you get involved prior?

GS: One of the people I talked to was my friend Lisa Bloom. At that time, she was not working for Court TV. (Later) she became an anchor on Court TV [...] and her producer called me. [...] At the time (it happened) I think she was working for her mother's law firm.

Sims states he got a call after the trial started. (The producer) wanted to know if I would be willing to talke about the Foundation Room and the entertainment industry. After a few days he did agree because Lisa wanted him to do it. "Mainly because Lisa is a good friend. [...] She was at my wedding."

DW: Did you do it because you got paid or wanted to get involved in the trial? [...] Have you given your best memory on that Tuesday-Wednesday?

GS: Yes sir.

DW: Have you exaggerated any part of it?

GS: No.

When AJ gets up to cross, one of the first things he asks is, when was the last time he talked to Tawni Tyndall.

GS: Today.

AJ asks when was the last time before that.

GS: Yesterday.

AJ asks when was the last time he went over with her the sum and substance of last year's testimony.

GS: Yesterday.

AJ asks if Mr. Weinberg was present at that meeting. Sims states that yes, he was. Sims states that the conversation took place at an office on Hill Street. (Weinberg has rented office space in Pershing Square for his participation in this trial.)

AJ: Was Ms. Tyndall taking notes?

Sims isn't sure.

AJ: Was Mr. Weinberg taking notes?

GS: Maybe.

AJ: Were you shown your testimony from last year?

(If I'm remembering correctly, I think Sims says he wasn't.)

AJ: And you were going over with Mr. Weinberg the questions you would be asked?

GS: Minimally.

AJ: Your honor, may we approach.

At the bench, I see that AJ speaks and as he's speaking Weinberg shakes his head. Weinberg continues to shake his head when he addressed Judge Fidler. Some of the jurors whisper among each other.

Fidler then addresses the jurors. It's 11:30 am, and Fidler tells them it's doubtful that they will get back to them. Since three of you have asked off for religious purposes, he is releasing them now.

After the jurors exit, Fidler asks AJ if he wants the witness to step outside or stay.

AJ: It would be beter if Mr. Sims steps outside.

I note that the young man who came with him stays in the courtroom. AJ goes over a point and then says, "Ms. Tyndall may become a witness. Could we have her step outside?" Ms. Clarkson's attorney leans into AJ and tells him that Sim's had a friend come with him. I hear AJ state that he can't kick him out. Tran Smith gets up from the defense table and asks the young man who came with Sims to step outside.

AJ: I don't know what else to say. Yet again, the prosecution has been blindsided by another defense discovery violation.

AJ then goes into a chronology of Sim's interviews. But he gets it mixed up at first and then corrects himself. The witness first went on Court TV. Then he had a phone interview with Tawni Tyndall. Then interviewed by Tawni Tyndall.

AJ: NONE of those particulars include this statement. NOT ONCE did he say in prior testimony that Lana Clarkson said that she was so despondent that she didn't want to go on.

AJ goes onto say that "Up until this point, we've had no other witnesses besides Punkin Pie to make that type of statement."

AJ: Now, all of a sudden for Mr. Sims to come to court and say.... (Mr. Weinberg said,) "Yes, he told me last night at 6 pm that she was in such dispair that she didn't want to go on." [...] It should have been memorialized! We should have been told! The entire defense case rests (on this issue of suicide) and now this statement. And Mr. Weinberg said "I didn't think it was all that much different." (Weinberg must have said that at the sidebar.) Not once in this transcript (I think he means prior trial testimony) did he say that she was so despondent she couldn't go on.

I believe AJ also added that when Sims testified before, he stated that he had seen people with that type of ups and downs before.

AJ: This is a major, MAJOR discovery violation.

DW: My reading of it was this was no different from other people. [...] That to me, is consistent (with his prior testimony) that she had hit a wall. [...] I heard what the man said was entirely consistent with his testimony before. She hit a wall. [...] To me, the entire meaning of that (his testimony was) she was at the end of her tether. [...] I do not consider his testimony... (From memory, I believe here, Weinberg says either inconsistent, or a discovery violation.)

Fidler states that he wants to hear from Ms. Tyndall, "I'd like to find out before we go on." Tyndall is called to the stand.

Weinberg leaves the courtroom and we are expecting him to come back in with Ms. Tyndall. But at least 30 seconds or a minute pass before he comes back inside 106 without Ms. Tyndall and says to Fidler, "Do you want me to tell you what Ms. Tyndall says?"

Fidler: No. I want her brought in.

DW: Oh, I'm sorry your honor. (I misunderstood.)

I was struck dumb by what Weinberg just did. My jaw literally dropped and then I got very mad. It was clear to me, sitting in the gallery that Fidler stated he wanted to hear from Ms. Tyndall directly, but Weinberg conveniently went out and spent time talking to her and ignored what the judge instructed.

Tawni Tyndall enters the courtroom. She stops and places her large bag on the floor by the second bench row on the defense side.

Fidler: Would you come on up please. Come over and be sworn in.

Tyndall is sworn in and takes the stand.

Alan Jackson addresses Judge Fidler. "Do you want to ask or do you want me to ask?" Fidler responds, "Why don't you. I don't want to take a particular side."

AJ asks Tyndall about the first time she spoke to Mr. Sims on the telephone. And from the get go, Tyndall is vague in her answers and many times states she did not recall. Tawni Tyndall pauses noticeably before she answers.

TT: I don't recall. I believe so. [...] I served him a subpoena at the Backstage. [...] I may have taken some notes later.

AJ: At some point, you did sit down and have a substantial interview? [...] And we received those notes.

AJ asks, "In that first interview, did Mr. Sims ever express to you that (the statement about Lana not wanting to go on)? [...] Your notes (of your interview with Mr. Sims) certainly say nothing to the effect that Lana couldn't go on?" There's a pause.

TT: I don't think so.

AJ moves onto asking questions about yesterday. He asks her if Sims said that yesterday, about him saying "Lana Clarkson, end it all or end her life."

TT: We weren't discussing anything new.

AJ asks if she took any notes. Tawni pauses before she answers. At first she says no, then adds that the only notes she took were timekeeping notes.

AJ: For what purpose?

TT: For billing purposes.

AJ: For billing purposes? Do you have those?

TT: Yes. In my bag.

AJ asks another question I miss and then with another pause, Tyndall says, "I believe he said something about having some recollection about her ending her life."

AJ: Is there a reason that you did not memorialize (it)?

TT: Well, that had been said before.

AJ: By other witnesses yes, I'm talking about yesterday.

TT: I'm explaining why. [...] Mr. Weinberg asked if he had any questions. I heard... [...] during (about the) last trial.

AJ: What did Mr. Weinberg say when Mr. Sims said that?

Tyndall pauses.

TT: I don't recall.

AJ: Where did the conversation go from there?

Tyndall pauses again before answering.

TT: I just don't remember.

AJ: After that phrase was used, where did the conversation go from there?

TT: I just don't remember. [...] Mr. Weinberg had a folder that was lighlighted.

(Are any of you dear readers, believing her at this point?)

AJ: There was follow up conversation about that specific (issue)?

(I'm sorry, but I don't have her answer.) AJ confronts her.

AJ: Ms. Tyndall. You're a professional investigator and you know what this trial is about. [...] And the defense case is centered around suicide.

Tyndall then makes her biggest pause yet before answering.

TT: I don't know that the defense case centers on suicide. [...] Accident is a possibility.

With an incredulous tone in his voice, AJ asks, "You won't even concede?" Tyndall replies again that it could be suicide or it could be an accident. AJ asks her another question about the interview.

TT: I'm telling you I don't remember. [...] We did discuss the fact that they were in that room that night.

Tyndall goes onto say that she recalls that they discussed several things. AJ lists specific items for her. That she was drinking. She was fully dressed. She was crying. She was sitting on the bed. Tyndall states that she doesn't recall the particular order. AJ asks her again about the "not wanting to go on" statement.

TT: I'm sure it was explored but to what degree... (Tyndall can't remember).

AJ then asks to see her notes. He then asks for ALL her notes involving this witness. Weinberg objects to the prosecution seeing all the notes and requests that Fidler review them. Tyndall at some point (I think it was earlier) had retrieved her bag. When Fidler asks to see the notes she starts pulling papers out of her file folder and hands them to Fidler.

Fidler asks if Weinberg has any questions for the witness. Weinberg then goes onto ask leading question after leading question.

DW: You don't remember specific words that Sims used?

TT: No, I don't.

DW: The meeting was set up so that I could meet Mr. Sims?

Tyndall states the meeting went from about 5:15 to 6 pm. Less than an hour.

AJ: Objection! Leading.

Fidler, smiling, tells Weinberg to ask in a nonleading manner. After Fidler instructs Weinberg, he pauses, almost as if he is struggling to ask a question without leading. I can't remember if he asks one more question. I seem to remember that he does. Before Tyndall leaves the stand she has the audacity to ask for her notes back from Fidler! He tells her that she will get them back, but that he's going to review them. Tyndall leaves the stand. I think she exits the courtroom, but I'm not certain at this point.

AJ then tells the court that he only has one other thing to suggest, about the statement Lana said, "I don't want to go on."

AJ: All I want to do is put him, Mr. Weinberg, an officer of the court under oath. However the court wants to do that, because he's the only other witness (that can testify to what was said)."

Fidler: I'm not putting him on the stand under oath. He can make a statement. [...] (Addressing AJ) Do you want to talk about Mr. Sims today or do you want to wait until tomorrow?

AJ appears to be struggling with the enormity of what just happened. He tells the court he is deciding. He puts both his hands to his face and rubs his face. I couldn't help but think that he had to be quite upset about what just happened. That those statements got before the jury and the first time he heard them was from the witness stand. He had no warning. This is exactly what happened the first trial with the Baden "Aha" moment. Baden made statements before the jury that the prosecution never heard until they were spoken in front of the jury.

AJ then heads towards the exit and states, "Since he's already here." I think that he's just going to speak to him outside but Sims comes back in and he takes the stand.

AJ: When you were just outside, just now, what did Ms. Tyndall say? What were you talking about?

GS: That you guys were just discussing what my testimony was. [...] Whether I had to come back at 9:30 [...] I wasn't really talking to her.

AJ: You were talking about your conversation last night? [...] Did you tell them or reveal to them (about) Lana Clarkson revealing she didn't want to live? Want to go on?

The witness looks a little panicked.

AJ: All I'm asking you is in (the) course (of your discussion) at what point did you reveal to them (the statement) I don't....did you say, "I don't want to live?" [...] I'm asking what you said to them.

The witness appears a bit frightened and AJ tries to put him at ease. "I'm not accusing you of anything and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I know that's a pretty hot seat. I've been there. All I'm asking is you've got some information." (I'm trying to get that information from you.) "Who else was there?"

GS: Susan was there.

AJ: You did tell them statements you indicated today? [...] Are you telling me you did not tell them? [...] After you said, (the phrases) were there more questions about it?

GS: Probably. To some degree.

AJ: When you made statements to Mr. Weinberg, do you remember at what point was it in the conversation?

GS: Vaguely. In the middle, maybe.

AJ: That's all your honor.

The witness is ordered back at 9:30 am, and court will start at the same time.

Cindy and George Anthony's lawyer to appear in court today


The hearing has just concluded. I managed find a feed. Unfortunately, there was a problem with both the sound and the video and I wasn't able to hear Bradley Conway's main arguments. I was also unable to get a continuing feed to hear all of the responses by Keith Mitnik, the attorney for Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.

In fairness to both parties here, I'll just go over the content briefly and give the judge's decision.

The main thrust of the discussion concerning the Anthony's mental condition and their stress levels. Apparently, Conway did not provide medical information as to their fitness to testify at the depositions. Towards the end of the hearing, Mitnik agreed that George, having recently attempted suicide could wait. He stated that Cindy Anthony's deposition was more important and should go on.

In his decision, Judge Rodriguez addressed the admission of media for live broadcast and coverage first. He allowed the media (television, print, etc.) 20 days to go back to their legal departments to have them prepare amicus briefs for the court as to why they should be allowed. He also allowed Conway the same 20 days to prepare medical information concerning how the depositions should be done (allowing for the Anthony's health situations). In addition, the judge ruled out written interrogatories as inappropriate in this situation. So, eventually, the George and Cindy Anthony will have to appear in person.

At that point, Mitnik asked that, if he went out and though about it for an hour, and came back and stated that the Morgan&Morgan premises was private property and he could bar the press from entering, could the judge allow the depositions to go on tomorrow. The judge did not allow for this as he had already stated the media had 20 days to file amicus briefs.

Mitnik then asked if he could schedule new depositions now for a date after the hearings, just in case. The judge allowed for this. This was the one humorous moment in the hearing. Judge Rodriguez directly addressed WFTV reporter Kathi Belich to ask her when sweeps week was! The judge doesn't want there to be any possibility that these depositions could be broadcast live during this particular week!

Yesterday, Bradley Conway, the attorney for Bradley Conway filed a Motion For Protective Order with Judge Jose Rodriguez who is presiding over the civil suit filed by Zenaida-Fernandez Gonzales and counter suit filed by Casey Anthony.

The Anthony's are scheduled to appear at the Morgan law firm tomorrow to give a deposition in the case. According to Conway's motion, the Anthony's were being subject to a circus-like atmosphere since it had been stated that he would invite the media to "watch, video tape and televise the depositions..." In addition, he stated that the motion was "...Intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress and create undo burden on the aforementioned deponents."

To bolster his argument, Conway also cited the fragile emotional condition of George and Cindy. He cites George's recent suicide attempt and the fact that both are seeking professional help in dealing with Caylee's death and the pending charges against Casey.

One item in the motion directly references the effect the deposition could have in the case against Casey Anthony. Conway states, "Mr. Morgan's proclamations create a circus like atmosphere surrounding a legal proceeding that affects not only the lives of the deponents, but may affect the integrity of the criminal case filed by the State of Florida against the Defendant in this case."

Conway also mentions that the Morgan firm could use written interrogatories to spare the Anthony's appearance in person. He also suggests that depositions could be placed under protective order and subsequently be redacted and placed under seal.

Finally, Conway indicates that Casey's attorneys have filed a Motion to Dismiss and is set to be heard in a hearing in May. He recommends that the depositions should be postponed until after that hearing.

What will the judge decide? Stay tuned for an update. As of now, there is no indication as to whether or not the hearing will be live-streamed.

Motion For Protective Order

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Forty-seven

Update 2!
February 24, 2009

Defense Witnesses:
#12 Dr. Vincent Di Maio (famed forensic pathologist, author and former Bexar County, Texas coroner; finished with first cross examination)
#13 James Hammond (Alhambra Officer; part of the entry team and take-down of Spector in the foyer; testimony complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: None identified

Vincent, I hardly knew ye

Dr. Vincent Di Maio performing a demonstration for the jury during the first trial in 2007.

I almost didn't recognize that it was Dr. Di Maio testifying on the stand today. I mean, it looked like him, it sounded like him with regular ramblings off onto tangents, and all the exaggerated facial ticks and eyebrow raising were there, but this was a very different Dr. Di Miao on the stand today than from the first trial. A much more calmer, subdued Dr. Di Maio, if you can envision that. But let me go back to the beginning of the day.

9:25 am: I get inside 106 a moment or two before the defense team. Weinberg, Barringer and Susan. I'm the only one in the gallery.

9:27 am: I hear the prosecution's cart. It's AJ and Josh, their clerk. I see an officer in the gallery. I'm guessing he's an officer because his face is familiar. A minute or two later, another public person enters. Also, one of Spector's occasional supporters steps into 106, doesn't see anyone and steps back out again. Wendy informs counsel that a few of the jurors have asked for Wednesday afternoon off to go to Mass on Ash Wednesday. Tran Smith wanders in and the court reporter, Diane sets up. Two suited gentlemen come in and one goes over to Wendy's desk and tells her, "I have a case that's going to 102 days."

When court finally goes on the record it's outside the presence of the jury. He brings up a recent Sheriff Baca rant in the press about violent offenders being out on bail and specifically mentioned Phil Spector. Fidler replies, "Thank you, Sheriff Baca."

Weinberg wants the jury admonished and I miss what else he recommends but from Fidler's response it might have been asking Fidler to order Sheriff Baca. I'm not sure. Fidler agrees with giving the jurors another direct instruction not to read or follow anything about the case but he also says, "I don't have any authority over Sheriff Baca. [...] (He's a separate entity.) I have no authority over (the) sheriff."

Weinberg's second issue is to present a motion for a mistrial over the playing of the Vincent Tannazzo interview in the cross of the defense case. He states that it's "....highly prejudicial hearsay. [...] calling into veracity to play entire tape under 356 (EVIDENCE Code) or provide the jury with [...] credibility is such that both rationales are plainly incorrect."

Fidler denies the motion on the reasons presented the day before when he ruled that it could be presented. "That this is the same that Mr. Tannazzo testified to, the content heard before, but I did not allow it (in) for that reason. [...] Motion denied."

The jurors are brought out and Bailiff Kyles gives juror's #4 and #11 new notebooks. After everyone is seated Fidler admonished the jury not to read about the case in the press.

Although Dr. Di Maio is currently under direct, they decide to take an witness out of order so he doesn't have to wait. That's the individual whom I thought was an officer in court.

This witness is James Hammond. He was subpoenaed by the defense team. Weinberg asks if he met with the DA's office this morning. He said he met with them to find out why he was being called back.

Hammond was one of four officers who entered Spector's residence with several other officers on the scene.

Truc enters 106 at 9:44 am.

Hammond states that Officer Tamayo was outside. Officer Rodriguez was inside the house. Hammond states that they entered the residence single file.

DW: Officer Cardella was carrying a bullet shield?

JH: Yes he was.

I note that Donna Clarkson and Fawn did now come to court this morning.

Weinberg puts up on the ELMO a previously shown photo of the scene with the bullet shield on the floor of the foyer. When asked if this is the shield, Hammond states, "It's possible." The quality of the photo is poor in showing the shield. Weinberg asks if the shield was used after they shot the taser gun and Hammond replies, "Yes it was."

Two clerks enter 106 and sit in the third row.

DW: And there was some jostling?

JH: I was the closest to Ms. Clarkson. I didn't see anyone come in contact with her and I didn't come in contact with her.

DW: Did anyone kick the gun?

JH: I didn't see anyone.

DW: How long were you with the Alhambra Police at that point?

JH: I think a little bit over two years.

Weinberg asks him about the directions of the house and which way the back door is facing, which way the front door is facing and which direction Lana was nearest. After that, Weinberg points out his report that he wrote covering the events. In his report he has written that the revolver is pointing East.

And that's the sole reason for calling this witness. Weinberg is using this witness to bolster his claim that the gun was disturbed by Alhambra police in the take down, because Officer Hammond wrote in his report that the direction the gun was facing was East.

JH: I testified about that three times. That my report is in error. That the photographs are now the gun was.

DW: You took the time to go over with officers the direction, orientation (of things). You wrote that the gun was pointed East?

JH: Yes I did write that.

Direct is finished. Weinberg takes his seat and leans back in his chair and does the flicking of his right forefinger on his lips. It almost looks like he tries to stop himself at one point but he does continue to drag his forefinger across his lips.

In AJ's cross, he establishes that the entire entry team did not enter the house. Tamayo stayed outside. AJ asks if the reason Mr. Spector had to be tasered is because Mr. Spector wouldn't follow commands. Hammond replies, "That's correct."

AJ: You were the closest one to her. Did you fall on her? [...] Did you kick things around? [...] You took Mr. Spector down on the left side of the room and Ms. Clarkson wasn't disturbed. [...] You didn't spin the gun did you?

JH: Correct.

AJ: That's not anything an officer would do

JH: Correct.

AJ: Mr. Weinberg asked you, "By the time the Sheriff's got there the gun was facing West." And you were documenting and photo documenting the scene exactly as you found it?"

AJ puts up photographs of the scene that were taken by Alhambra police and verifies that these were taken before any Sheriff's officers arrived. These are entered into evidence. Corporal Ponce took the photographs. AJ presents the proof sheets of the photo's taken by the Alhambra Officer, before the Sheriff's even got there.

AJ: Is that the direction you found it? [...] And you didn't spin it or play with it?

More photos that the Alhambra Officer took are entered into evidence. A few more questions are asked and AJ ends with, "What's the best evidence of how something was at the scene?" And I believe Hammond replies, "The photos."

In redirect, Weinberg goes over again the directions and who was standing where. He brings up the photo of the taser wire under Lana's shoe.

DW: You don't know how it got there?

JH: I don't.

DW: With respect to placement of the gun [...] And you were told to go to the East Wing, behind Ms. Clarkson's body. [...] By the time you knew which way East was, Ponce was still not there. [...] When did he come in? [...] There were no photographs before Ponce came in?

JH: No.

DW: And you're telling the ladies an the gentlemen of the jury that you were wrong?

JH: That's correct.

There's no recross and AJ asks for a sidebar.

I notice that the tall, slender handsome man with jet black hair is sitting next to Rachelle. There are a couple other supporters in the second row, older looking men I've seen before.

It's 10:11 am. Dr. Di Maio is back on the stand. Juror #7 looks out at the gallery.

More of Dr. Di Maio's CV is entered into evidence. He was asked ot participate in an investigation on an international level, involving war crimes in Yugoslavia. Dr. Di Maio doesn't remember how long ago that was. Dr. Di Maio goes over the various California counties that have recently employed him. He states he's personally performed about 9,000 autopsies and reviewed about 25,000. In Texas, suicides average over 200 a year. 14% of those were gunshot wounds to the head. He's handled a couple hundred intra-oral gunshot wounds over the years. The books he's written are gone over again.

Truc Do steps out of the courtroom.

Weinberg goes over everything Dr. Di Maio looked at; all the medical reports, etc. Dr. Di Maio states it's a self inflicted gunshot wound. "Within a medical certainty," he adds. Weinberg asks, "What does that mean."

Dr. DM: Well, it's like in court, beyond a reasonable doubt.

AJ: Objection. That's for a trier of fact.

There's a bit more that AJ adds to his objection.

Fidler: I would agree. The answer is stricken and the jury admonished.

Dr. Di Maio testifies that intra-oral gunshot wounds, in excess of 99% of them are suicides.

DW: Is this statistics?

Dr. DM: This is pattern recognition. [...] I've seen three homicides by intra-oral. One was an execution with two assailants. [...] One was three or four kids fooling around and they put a rifle barrel in another's mouth. [...] Another one, someone was in a bar. [...] A 45, full barrel.

10:23 am: Pat Dixon enters 106.

DW: Have you ever seen a suicide ever involving a short barrel snub nose (revolver)?

Dr. DM: No. They are all suicides.

Dr. Di Maio now presents the factors that support his finding of suicide. The first is "the GSR."

10:27 am: Another Spector supporter enters that I've seen before. There are now three casually dressed guys in the third row behind Rachele. Another person shows up at 10:32 am.

Dr. Di Maio talks about the five thousand pounds of pressure of gases in the mouth from the gun. Juror #14 is having trouble staying awake.

Dr. Di Maio states the gas created the stealate wounds and fractures in the para (?) bone structures. (I'm not positive with what word he used to describe the bone structures that were fractured. He could have meant the parietal bones, which are just above the temporal (temple) bones of the skull [exterior] or he could have meant the palatine bones, which are posterior to the the maxilla [interior].)

Dr. Di Maio states that the caps on the teeth were blown out by the gases and not the recoil of the gun. I look back at Mr. Dixon. I could swear that he had a surprised expression on his face when listening to Dr. Di Maio's testimony.

Dr. Di Maio is pointing to various areas on the back of his hands where he believes Jamie Lintemoot described seeing blood stains. AJ tries to get the record clear as to "where" Dr. Di Maio is pointing and he's not cooperating. All AJ wants is the record clear. He's not even on cross with Dr. Di Maio. His eyebrows went up at least six, seven times during this exchange.

It appears like Juror #5 is struggling to stay awake, too. She closes her eyes several times. Spector is in his all white outfit with a long, Edwardian black jacket.

During the break, Weinberg brings up the issue AJ brought up at the bench earlier, that AJ might not be ready for cross. Weinberg states he's requesting that cross not be delayed, "Unless there's some unusually good reason, Dr. Di Maio is scheduled to testify in Houston on Thursday."

AJ states he is not asking for a lot of time for cross. He may be able to complete his preparation over a lunch hour. He states he certainly doesn't want to mess with anyones schedule.

11:08 am: There's some boisterous laughter from the jury room.

Back on the record, Weinberg shows a photo from Dr. Di Maio's book to the jurors of a suicide victim's hands and how they were holding the weapon that killed them. Dr. Di Maio also testifies that there is "spatter" on the grip of the firearm and that supports his finding of "self inflicted." This is new testimony for Dr. Di Maio from the first trial. Weinberg asks, "And no way for blood to be there with someone else's shooting?"

Weinberg now puts up the blow up images of the blood on checker pattern of the grip. These are the same photos that James Pex stated showed back spatter. This is deperate. Dr. Di Miao may know a little about spatter from visiting crime scenes, but he is not a blood stain analysis expert. Not even close. For Weinberg to put these photos in front of him that Pex testified to, it appears to me that this is a last minute, pull whatever we can with this witness ploy.

AJ objects, but Fidler states he will let him testify that in his experience and way he's testified, he can answer.

After the enlarged photos of the left gun grip are identified, the right side of the grip checker pattern is displayed. Dr. Di Maio states the blood stains appear to him to be spatter.

11:18 am: Spector looks at the jury, and I can see a fuller view of his face. He then looks out at the gallery for a second and then goes back to staring at whatever he usually focuses on at the defense table. Spector is sitting back in his chair. His left elbow is resting on the chair arm and his fingers are bent in front of his mouth area. His right hand is in his lap, shaking.

Dr. Di Maio is now testifying about the crane of the gun and it's length. He gets the length wrong, and AJ has to supply the correct length of the crane. I make a note about Dr. Di Maio's facial twitches and eyebrow raising. Juror #14's eyes look to be all the way closed for a moment. Spector has his standard orange drink and man-bag at the table. Juror's #5, 7, 8, and 9 are all leaning back in their chairs. They are hearing basically the same testimony for the fourth time now. Juror #4 is in his typical position of rocking his chair. Juror #11 has his arms cross and is rocking his chair, too. Spector is reading a white paper with what appears to be handwriting on it. He takes a pair of tiny glasses out of his left inside jacket pocket and puts them on to read the paper.

Dr. Di Maio is now rambling on about what neurological disorders he thinks Spector has because it appears his facial muscles are frozen.

AJ: Objection! Sustained. Testimony stricken.

Dr. Di Maio continues on about his mother having Parkinson's and Parkinsonian.

I believe this testimony is objected to also and sustained.

DW: When did you first meet him?

Dr. DM: 2006.

AJ: Objection! Three years later.

DW: Is it your opinion that it's something that onsets suddenly? [...] Is it something that could be present in 2003?

AJ: Objection! There's no foundation for that.

Fidler asks if AJ wants to approach. After the bench conference, Fidler informs the jurors, "Any question regarding parkinson's or parkinsonian is stricken from the record.

Weinberg asks about the difference in the size of the two people (at the house that night).

Dr. DM: It's not a major factor just a contributory factor.

The blood alcohol and drugs in Lana Clarkson's system are gone over Dr. Di Maio states that the alcohol, the Vicodin and the Benadryl are all "central nervous system depressants." He also states, "That's where people get drunk and do stupid things. That's what they do."

DW: You knew her size?

Dr. DM: Yes.

DW: Five feet-eleven, six-feet and 160 pounds?

Dr. DM: Yes.

Dr. Di Maio talks about the number of drinks that Ms. Clarkson had to have had in her blood stream: Five to six drinks. There is a lot of testimony back and forth as to "how much" alcohol is in how much proof liquor.

11:34 am: Spector writes on the white paper he was reading earlier. The paper is handed to Tran Smith. Smith looks at Spector and nods his head. Tran appears to be writing on the paper now.

Now Dr. Di Maio is rambling on about transfer DNA (I didn't realize that he was also a DNA expert) and that the gun was tested on several areas and Spector's DNA was not found on the gun. Dr. Di Maio goes onto say, "Every member of the jury has DNA of the person next to them on them."

Weinberg moves onto the tongue. Dr. Di Maio testifies that the "bruising" found on the tongue was "caused by the exploding gases. [...] The tongue is all muscle and difficult to injure. [...] It's protected by the surrounding bony structures and the teeth. [...] You can't force a gun in (and injure it). [...] The tongue is solid muscle."

Juror #5's eyes are closed again and Juror #8 has strands of her hair in her hand and she's looking at them intently.

Weinberg moves onto the bruises on Ms. Clarkson's wrists. Dr. Di Maio testifies that "trying to date bruises is a quagmire. [...] All they can say is if it's yellow it's old. (You) can't really date bruises. [...]

DW: There's no way to look at bruises and say that they occur in ten minutes or ten hours ago?

Dr. DM: No. [...] People have tried to date them microscopically. They can't.

11:48 am: A woman's phone goes off in the back row.

Dr. Di Maio is now testifying about the lack of photographs at the scene that document bruises. He states he doesn't see photographs of bruises at the scene prior to autopsy.

Now Weinberg asks Dr. Di Maio questions about what other evidence he reviewed. He states he reviewed E-mails, transcripts of conversations with friends. "She appeared to be depressed due to financial situation and the job.

DW: Did that play any role (in your determination of MOD)?

Dr. DM: A minor part. It might play into why she lost control. A minor role.

Weinberg now asks if the fact that Spector wiped her face, if it had any effect on his analysis.

Dr. DM: No, not really.

Weinberg now moves onto the spatter on Spector's jacket.

Dr. DM: It indicates that he was within a few to several feet of Ms. Clarkson. but there's no spatter on the right arm (jacket sleeve).

DW: Have you seen spatter on [...] at crime scenes?

Dr. DM: Yes.

DW: In your work as an investigator?

Dr. DM: Coroner, yes.

Weinberg asks Dr. Di Maio his opinions about blood spatter analysis and he states that there are no studies on people. It's done on sponges. The only study that probably significant is shooting live animals.

Fidler: We'll take our recess at this point.

From what I've seen so far, Dr. Di Maio's testimony appears choreographed; scripted. There was one point, when Weinberg asks him if he was an expert, and the question is objected to, Weinberg makes the reasoning, "Well, I asked him because I know he was going to say no. He's not a spatter expert."

(Real life responsibilities kept me from starting on this day's testimony until very late. Regardless of the fact that I spend at least four hours each night working on a detailed entry, I do have things I am responsible for that take precedence over sitting at my computer for so long. Since Wednesday is a short day tomorrow, I hope to have everything caught up tomorrow evening. More to come...)

Updated: February 25th, 2009 7:15 am:
Sherri and Linda from San Diego didn't come to court today. Usually I leave the building to eat my lunch Mr. Sprocket fixes, I decide to eat in the cafeteria because I brought a book The Tipping Point, and because afterwards I'm going to hit the 11th floor and see if I can get my March 9th Jury summons for the Metropolitan Courthouse postponed until a later date. I pick a table by the window so I can get good phone reception and call Mr. Sprocket. Not long after I sit down, I see Jennifer Barringer pushing some tables together in the same general area that I'm sitting. Weinberg, Susan and Dr. Di Maio join her. I believe Tran does later since I see him near the grill line, later. They have brought binders with them that are already opened before Dr. Di Maio sits down. By this time, I'm finished with my lunch and head up to the 11th floor.

I'm estatic! I get my jury duty extended to a date in late April. Now I won't be forced to miss that day of trial.

1:30 pm: I'm finally back in 106. Spector is not at the defense table. Unusually, he's sitting with Rachelle in the first bench row, surrounded on the other side by Tran Smith. His supporters are sitting in the row behind him. The dress Truc is wearing today is that sleek black three-quarter sleeves, form fitting dress with pockets. As you can probably guess, Truc has to me, what I would describe as a model like figure. I bet she could wear almost anything and look good in it.

1:33 pm: The jury is being called. They are getting boisterous. I can hear the laughter in the gallery.

1:36 pm: We wait for Fidler to take the bench.

Weinberg asks Dr. Di Maio about one of his specialties. It's wound ballistics. Weinberg then asks him if he's familiar with the operation of the Colt Cobra 38 and a Smith & Wesson 37? Weinberg puts up a photo on the ELMO of these two weapons side by side. Now, why would he do this? A S&W has nothing to do with this case but it was the weapon that James Pex did his first experiments with on September 3rd, 2008.

Dr. Di Maio talks about how the weapons fire the same ammunition and that the ammo is essentially the same. Weinberg asks if the muzzle pressure would be the same. Dr. Di Maio says, no, it's not going to make any difference.

DW: Would there be any difference to expect that one cwould create more back spatter than another

AJ: OBJECTION! No foundation!

Another question is asked, objected to and sustained.

Another question is asked, objected to and sustained.

Fidler states, "Unless his proven to be an expert in ballistics... (he can't testify to that).

Another question is asked, objected to and sustained.

Weinberg now tries to lay a foundation.

DW: Have you stidued different kinds of ammunition on wounds?

Dr. DM: Yes.

DW: And whether there is a difference between wounds and muzzle pressure?

Dr. DM: (Yes.)

Weinberg then asks if the "bulk of spatter" is the same or different to the gas (expelled gases).

Dr. DM: Generally, the large the cartridge, the more gas you get.

I believe AJ objects and Fidler steps in and says, "This line of questioning I see a problem with." Fidler tells the jurors to step into the jury room. After they do, Fidler continues, "I want to see (voir dire to see if he is able to testify to this). "He went to wound channel, to gases to now blood spatter."

AJ: This is the first time I've ever heard of this. I've been given no discovery. This is clearly to fix something, to clean up what Pex messed up. [...] He's going to come her and clean up...

AJ continues on a bit more and then I only catch a small part of Weinberg's response.

DW: ...We are complicating something that has nothing to do with discovery. [...] This man has testified about....

Fidler speaks and points one something to the effect it's one thing to talk about wound channels but he's going into details that Pex testified to.

I believe AJ also stated that he had not seen the defense photo up on the screen comparing the Colt Cobra to the S&W 37. They did all this direct without any notice to the prosecution.

After this discussion, Weinberg agrees not to ask questions about back spatter.

Unbelievable. Totally unbelievable. I can't believe they tried this desperate move. They tried to use a coroner, who is not a spatter expert, to say that the spatter created by the S&W would be no different than the spatter created by the Colt Cobra. I think this is the main reason they decided at the last minute to have Dr. Di Maio testify. The jurors file back in and I see Spector get a tiny item, a small pill like tin out of his man-bag.

When they start up again, it appears that's it for direct and AJ steps up to cross. He immediately confronts Dr. Di Maio on the last few questions he was asked.

AJ: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Weinberg about James Pex?

Dr. DM: No. He mentioned names but did not explain.

More to come when I get back from court today....

Update: February 28, 2009

Jackson asks what conversations he had with Weinberg about this issue?

Dr. DM: He said there was something about guns in the testimony.

AJ: Did you come into this court and clean up the Pex (issue)?

DW: Objection! Argumentative! (I don't think he wins this objection.)

Dr. DM: I have no idea what the gentleman testified to.

AJ: Are you aware that Mr. Pex came into this courtroom and testified [...] and it was later found that those photos were found to be made with a totally different weapon entirely?

Dr. DM: No.

DW: Objection! Sidebar! (Weinberg loses this objection. He opened the door.)

Jackson puts the photos back up on the ELMO. He goes over every tiny detail of the differences between these two weapons. He asks Dr. Di Maio to state all the differences between the two weapons for the jury. The housing, the rubber grip, the aluminum frame, the chamber housing is smaller in diameter, the way the hand would wrap around the grip would be different. The grim, the frame size, the cylinder, the crane, the ejector rod as well as the front sight: all are different.

Dr. DM: Two completely different guns.

Jackson goes over how much Dr. Di Maio has been paid for his participation in this trial. It's $42,000 for the first two years. He bills about $400 an hour, of $3,200 a day. Depending on how much longer he is on the stand, he stands to make approximately another $8,000. Jackson points out that this fee is "ultimately paid by Mr. Spector." Dr. Di Maio replies, "I assume so."

AJ: Did you bring any billing statements with you?

Dr. DM: No.

AJ: Did Mr. Weinberg tell you to bring them?

I believe Jackson then asks him if he was served with a subpoena to produce them and Dr. Di Maio says no. Dr. Di Maio insists that he doesn't have any documentation to back up his prior billing other than, he might have "one or two" billing statements back at the office.

Jackson then moves on to the four main pieces of evidence that Dr. Di Maio used to determine MOD. Number one was the fact that 99% of intra-oral gunshot wounds are suicides. Number two was the GSR distribution. Number three was the back spatter on hands and tissue found on Ms. Clarkson's left jacket sleeve. Number four was the gun; the spatter on the gun.

AJ: And that's the physical evidence you based (MOD)? The sleeves, the cuffs, the DNA...? [...] The bruising of the tongue and the toxicology has nothing to do with it (MOD)? It's the back spatter on the gun and lack of it on the sleeve?

Dr. DM: The research (on spatter) in this country is not good research.

Dr. Di Maio is referring to the Karger (sp?) experiments, who did experiments on animals in Germany. Jackson points out that a calf's head is markedly different than a human head. Jackson moves onto GSR. Dr. Di Maio agrees that GSR is microscopic particles.

AJ: If an expert testified that an expert they could see it with the naked eye, they wouldn't know what they are talking about?

Dr. DM: That's right.

Jackson gets Dr. Di Maio to agree that, this finding of GSR, "by itself is not diagnostic." Jackson questions, "As a matter of fact, GSR is like finely ground pepper. It doesn't embed on the skin. It's on the (surface) of the substance it's on, correct?"

Dr. DM: That's correct.

AJ: You said it's not a statistic, it's a probability. Could you explain that?

Dr. DM: It's a pattern and the probability is.. (I have in my notes that Dr. Di Maio rambled on a bit here and I miss the rest of his answer.)

The next issue Jackson crosses Dr. Di Maio on is his testimony that the pressure in Ms. Clarkson's mouth from the firing of the weapon was 5,000 PSI. Jackson get's Dr. Di Maio to acknowledge that the 5,000 PSI is actually the muzzle pressure as it emerges from the gun, and according to Boyle's Law, pressure times volume equals constant.

AJ: That pressure dissipated within 2 THOUSAND'S of a second!

All Dr. Di Maio will concede to is that it takes some time to dissipate.

The afternoon break is called. I see pat Dixon in the back of the courtroom. Weinberg is speaking to his witness. Tran Smith leans in to whisper directly in Spector's ear. It's 3:09 pm now and we are waiting for Fidler to take the bench. Two of Dr. Di Maio's four points he's conceded could be support for homicide. I note that Dr. Di Maio is a world of difference on the stand. I have some very rough notes but I'm not sure if they are from testimony or just notes. Detective Tomlin enters 106. He's a witness in a gang trial that's starting down at the other end of the hall in courtroom 101.

Jackson is going over with Dr. Di Maio the positioning of how, I think, Pex felt the gun had to have been held. First, Dr. Di Maio admits that he's not a blood spatter expert. Di Maio believes the gun was held differently that what was demonstrated by James Pex. He thinks it was held in the manner that he often sees suicides hold it. There are quite a few questions about blood spatter and the way it travels. Di Maio testifies that the blood could have come out of Ms. Clarkson's mouth in a type of parabolic arc and landed on the back of her hand(s).

Jackson moves onto the "tissue" on Lana Clarkson's left jacket sleeve. He testified that the buttons on that sleeve had tissue matter and that supports suicide. Jackson shows Dr. Di Maio photos of the inside sleeve of Lana's jacket. The photos show the blood is soaked through and had to have happened during the "purge" event at the morgue. Dr. Di Maio agrees that the matter on the left sleeve could not be supportive of her firing the weapon since the evidence shows the sleeve was contaminated.

It's about 3:30 pm and Spector's #1 fan, Teresa (sp?) enters. She's wearing what she usually wears when she arrives this time of day: sweatshirt and sweatpants.

Jackson presents Dr. Di Maio the very enlarged photograph of the gun under Lana's leg. Dr. Di Maio agrees that the blood on the grip looks like a smear in that photograph. I've been quite surprised by this cross Dr. Di Maio is a much different witness.

Jackson then goes over to the clerk, Wendy's desk and obtains from her the enlarged photographs of the front strap of the gun. He presents these images to Dr. Di Maio but he is not willing to accept that the two photographs were "stitched" together via a computer program. Jackson is confronting Dr. Di Maio with the fact that the crane of the gun would block any spatter coming directly into contact with the front strap of the gun. Dr. Di Maio testifies that, "The blood comes out in a cloud."

Jackson presents an hypothetical to Dr. Di Maio, using a demonstration of straight lines from the the barrel area of the gun th the front strap. Jackson is visually presenting to Dr. Di Maio how it would be impossible for the spatter to reach the front strap of the gun. Dr. Di Maio answers, "But you're showing a two dimensional image and it's three dimensional. [...] It travels turbulently first then it will fly straight."

Jackson goes over Dr. Di Maio's testimony about the physical disparity between Lana and Spector. Dr. Di Maio responds, "No. I said if there is a struggle." Jackson comes back with a saying he learned in Texas. "You know the phrase, God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal?" Jackson doesn't get the phrasing just right but Dr. Di Maio is familiar with the phrase. He still replies, "If there is a struggle." I believe another question is asked about another portion of his direct testimony and Dr. Di Maio replies, "All I said is people do stupid things." And AJ responds, "And sometimes people do things like pull a gun on an unarmed woman."

Jackson asks Dr. Di Maio if he reviewed Lana's emails. I believe he answered that he did but added that, "My opinion is not based on the emails." He did not use her mental state to make his final diagnosis. Jackson asks Dr. Di Maio that if he took any one of those four elements independently, every one of the particulars, every one taken on its own, they could each be consistent with homicide. Dr. Di Maio doesn't disagree, but states that he didn't make his MOD on a single element.

Jackson asks, "Assume the facts of the case indicate that Phil Spector was standing within arms reach, [...] and assume the physical evidence proves that Lana Clarkson could not be holding the gun, (what would your MOD be)?

Dr. DM: Well, you'd have to mode it a homicide.

AJ: Did you consider the statement "I think I killed somebody?"

Dr. DM: Once you start reading eyewitness statements going into court [...] (and later they are) getting out when DNA shows they're innocence...

I think there might have been a question or two more but I don't get it.

It's 3:57 pm and Fidler, seeing the two sheriff's in the back of the courtroom says, "The Bailiff's are here.

DW: For me?

AJ: What did he do this time?

And that's it. Court is over for the day.