Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-two

March 4th, 2009

Defense Witnesses:
#15 Jennifer Hayes Riedl ( ; testimony finished)
#16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist & suicideologist; under direct examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times

There was a lot that happened today but I'm quite tired so unfortunately I will be summarizing most of it. Linda from San Diego tells me that when she tried to get a clarification from Fidler's clerk, Wendy, as to what the dark days were about she was told, "Oral surgery." (Thank you Linda!) Several people reported to me that Spector's vehicle now has a handicapped placard hanging from the rear view mirror.

The first noteworthy item is Rachelle Short's "mommy" is in the gallery. I know this is her mother because back during the first trial, Rachelle Short still had personal photos on her "" website. One photo was of the woman seated in the courtroom and the Jpeg title of the image was "Mommy." Mommy gets introduced to Doron Weinberg. Jennifer Barringer comes over and gives Mommy a hug. Tran Smith comes over and introduces himself to Mommy.

Outside the presence of the jury, Jackson tells the court that they were first informed yesterday (around) noon that the defense has changed their mind and they will now call Professor Elizabeth F. Loftus, Ph.D. (Did I not say that Weinberg would pull a rabbit out of a hat?) Jackson reminds the court that Weinberg told us that she would not be called. Jackson states that he can't even address the 402 relevance to put on an expert without knowing anything that she is going to testify to. That would be tantamount to malpractice. Jackson states that he needs to know what she's being called about, the areas of expertise and relevance to the case.

Weinberg states, "The only thing to add to that representation is to explain our position. [...] Mr. Jackson said, 'We all know what she's going to testify to.' We are calling to talk to general areas of observation. We had not been intending to call her. [...] What has changed is the testimony of Detective Tomlin (and the current state and view of the record). Tomlin purported not to know about things, to know what other investigators know. [...] It was my thought that the jury ned to know information they have to get from other sources. (I know I don't have all of his explanation exact, but that's what I have in my notes.)

Fidler: Such as?

Weinberg looks through his papers and finding what he was searching for and I only catch a bit of it until I realize he's reading from case law. Then he reads from another case law. He goes onto say "Because Tomlin purported not to know... [...] She is available a week from Thursday and I'd interview her Sunday night."

AJ: Whatever Mr. Weinberg has at this point [...] Her testimony over the years has been far reaching. [...] All the way to the bizarre extremes that people can implant memories in people. I find it interesting that Detective Tomlin could take about memory implant, weapon focus...

(Here is one web page that states Professor Loftus, at one point was being sued.)

DW: I can certainly eliminate implanted memory, weapon focus....

Jackson asks about scheduling and Weinberg replies that we could call her during sur-rebuttal or call her out of turn. Jackson states that it's not acceptable to call this witness within his rebuttal case. Weinberg states that he "should be done this week" on the provision that they will be working this Friday. Yep. Testimony would be presented this Friday. Weinberg would then potentially end his case with Ms. Loftfus.

Fidler states that he is not going to preclude her from testifying. "As to whether or not we go dark for a couple of times, I'll let you know."

Jennifer Hayes Riedl is back on the stand under cross. She sharply dressed in all black. She still has a hint of the Gloria Swanson look going with the 3" thick stretchy headband that's covering a good part of her forehead.

Hayes Riedl testifies that in her first sit down with Tyndall she didn't know that Tyndall was an investigator for the defense and that there would be a trial. "I don't recall that she said that to me. .....I'm sure that I didn't know that it was an interview," she replies.

TD: But you offered a lot of info about your friend?

JHR: I wouldn't call it offering.

TD: So you were just remembering things about Lana Clarkson?

JHR: I wouldn't call it remembering.

TD: So it wasn't an interview where you were trashing your friend Lana?

JHR: We wern't trashing our friend Lana! [...] We did not believe it to be an interview! You're taking it out of context. We said a lot of things.

Truc then confronts her with her prior testimony, direct examination from the first trial by Roger Rosen. Rosen asked her if it was an interview, she didn't disagree. Rosen also asked her if she understood that it was a pending trial, and that he (Spector) was the defendant, and that she answered "Yes." Hayes Riedl claims that she doesn't remember that testimony.

Hayes Riedl confirms the second interview with Tyndall.

TD: It was in that second interview, that you told Ms. Tyndall, "She wasn't cute anymore, she wasn't getting acting jobs anymore, but she dated everyone and their dog."

Truc asks her if she invited Ms. Tyndall to the Backstage Cafe to see Pie. "It wasn't Ms. Tindall's invitation. You invited her?" Truc asks her if seeing Tyndall's report would help her memory. Several times she has to ask Hayes Riedl if that will help and Hayes Riedl won't answer the question. She starts to exhibit the same anger and frustration she did last Thursday, but it's quite a bit muted from last week.

JHR: I don't remember doin that! I said that three times! I don't need to see a report. If it says that...

TD: The report says that you all stayed there until 1:45 am.

JHR: Was it a Tuesday night? If it was I would have been there.

TD: Would you like to look at the report?

JHR: I don't know if I remember being there with Ms. Tyndall.

Hayes Riedl is getting angry now and arguing with Truc Do.

TD: Ms. Hayes, would it help you to remember to look at the report?

JHR: I just don't remember that night at Backstage.

TD: Ms. Hayes, I'm asking you to answer my question.

JHR: I AM answering you! NO!

TD: You ultimately paid for those drinks? [...] But if it's in her report, you don't dispute it at all?

JHR: I don't dispute it that it's in her report.

TD: So if Ms. Tyndall said that you offered to pay for drinks....

JHR: I'm sure it's true.

Truc asks her if she had several more contacts with Ms. Tyndall. Truc asks her if she got defensive aobut the questions about Ms. Tyndall. "Was there some reason you didn't want to be associated with Ms. Tyndall?" There's an objection and it's sustained.

There are more questions about LB Moon. I note that Hayes Riedl is making an effort not to argue with Truc Do this time, but she has raised her voice and beein a bit combative. I note that has she leans her body forward in the witness chair to get her mouth close to the microphone, she looks quite sad. Truc goes over what she has testified at this trial about LB Moon, and that Lana never discussed that relationship with her. Truc then confront's her with her conflicting testimony from the last trial where she testified that Lana spoke to her about LB Moon.

10:17 am: Harvey with the white hair enters 106.

TD: That's completely different than last time.

JHR: I don't remember that.

Truc confronts her with meeting Mr. Weinberg. She then corrects herself and states that she met with the new lawyer and introduced herself before she came in. Truc asks her if there were a number of other people there. Truc asks if there is a reason her testimony came up and Hayes Reidl replies, "It didn't even come up."

TD: Is there any reason your testimony changed?

JHR: Absolutely not!

TD: You testified under direct about the Backstage Cafe?

JHR: If you say so.

Truc goes over again about how her friend Pie required her to be there at her events. And that Pie would call her. That she testifid that she would recieve these phone calls from Pie and that she would have to show up. Hayes Riedl agrees. Hayes Riedl states that Punkin Pie woudl always call her and Lana and we would be there. She states, "That was her job (during the day), her thing to call everyone on her list."

Truc is now going over the time Hayes Riedl has testified that Lana came over to borrow clothing from her. Hayes Riedl replies, "And she wanted to show me that tape." Truc asks her if Lana called her. "I don't know if she called me or if Pie called me."

More Spector supporters show up so that the benches on the right side are full.

Truc asks her if this conversation happened somewhere at the end of 2002. Hayes Riedl says, "I couldn't tell you. She had her binder with her." Truc asks if it would help if she told you that Lana got her job in mid December. "No, it wouldn't," Hayes Riedl replies.

TD: Ms. Hayes, could you look at these 33 names on this E-mail list and tell me if your name appears there.

Hayes Riedl insists that she doesn't even know if she had an E-mail account then. She never dealt with E-mail. Truc takes out a page of Lana Clarkson's address book and shows it to her. She shows her where her name and address is listed and below it, an E-mail address with "JenH8" in it.

TD: Tell us if you see HenH8 in any one of those E-mail addresses?

And what happens next is the most comical yet today. Hayes Riedl looks over the list and says, "It's obviously here right? You handed it to me, right? Because it's here right?"

Truc just stands back and waits while Hayes Riedl rambles on. She finally tells Hayes Riedl, "It's not on the list Ms. Hayes." She has to tell Hayes Riedl more than once that her email isn't on there. She was such a "good friend" to Lana that when Lana sent out that email to 33 girlfriends, Hayes Ridel's name wasn't on it.

JHR: So it's not here? So it isn't. So what's your point?

TD: You clearly didn't receive it?

JHR: So are you saying I'm not her friend?

TD: That's not what I'm asking Ms. Hayes. [...] Ms. Tyndall asked you in December and how you knew about Lana requesting clothes. You told Ms. Tyndall you received the E-mail.

JHR: Maybe Pie showed it to me. [...] She came to my house and I hooked her up with my other friend Jennifer (Sikes -sp?)!

TD: But you didn't talk to her much on the phone?

JHR: I never talked to her on the phone. I talked to pie but I saw Lana. I don't even talk to my kids on the phone!

TD: I'm asking, did you speak to her on the phone anytime after October, 2002, to the time she died?

Hayes Riedl then gets quite sarcastic and nasty in her tone with her answer.

JHR: I guess we weren't friends then, and I'm a big fat liar. And I'm making all of this up. It's all a fantasy.

Truc asks her if she ever said that Punkin Pie was her best friend. Hayes Riedl obviously can't remember if she did or not and is asking Truc, "Does it say that?"

TD: Do you need to know that before you answer that under oath? [...] Do you know who Dan Kessel is?

JHR: I know the man.

TD: Did you know whether Dan or David Kessel were partial owners of the Backstage Cafe?

JHR: No.

TD: Did you know if Barney Kessel, their father, ever recorded with Phil Spector? [...] Did you know that they had been bodyguards for Mr. Spector?

Hayes Riedl denies knowing this. However, Truc confronts her with Tyndall's report again from that first meeting. That during that meeting with Tyndall, the connection of Dan Kessel to Spector is brought up. At that meeting Pie was telling Tyndall that she knew Dan Kessel and she was going to call him right that moment because Pie did not know that Dan Kessel knew Phil Spector.

JHR: As far as I know, Ian Copeland is the owner.

Truc then asks Hayes Riedl about when she came to court last week to testify. Truc asks her if she sat on the benches in the hallway and waited. She asks her if she was talking to someone.

JHR: I talked with several people.

Truc then presents a photo up on the ELMO and wants to enter several MySpace pages into evidence. What is up on the screen now, is a photo of Harvey with the white hair, otherwise known as Harvey Sid Fisher. (Google him readers.) Truc asks her, "When did you meet him?"

JHR: I met him at the last trial.

TD: Oh. So you met him before?

JHR: I met him last time.

Truc asks her if the gentleman she sees here in court is the man Harvey she spoke to. She asks if she knows that this man is a friend of Spector's.

JHR: I don't know that he told me.

At this point Weinberg objects and states, "Before we start showing things from other people, we need to approach."

In the gallery, Harvey Sid Fisher and Tyndall speak and smile at each other. Then Fisher and Rachelle whisper to each other. There are lots of whisperings back and forth in the gallery on the defense side.

From the sidebar, Fidler is asking the jury to step out and they will take a break. Fisher and Tyndall continue to talk. Spector gets up from his seat and the Clarkson family leave.

I stay in the courtroom and watch who speaks to whom. Fisher leaves the courtroom then comes back in. Hayes Riedl gets off the stand and sits on the defense side with her friend she brought to court with her. Hayes Riedl and Tyndall whisper. Hayes Riedl and Tran Smith whisper. Tyndall is smiling. Jennifer Barringer comes over and speaks to Hayes Riedl and Tyndall. Now, Tyndall and Barringer are at the defense table with Susan, going over a notebook of Tyndall's. Hayes Riedl and Mommy whisper. Either first thing in the morning or at the break, Hayes Riedl gets introduces to Mommy. I saw them shake hands, but I can't remember if it was now or earlier.

Fidler retakes the bench and addresses the court. He states that he's reviewed the documents provided to me from MySpace. Fidler asks the witness to step outside. For the record, Truc goes over all the "friends" connections on the Team Spector MySpace, the Kessel's MySpace page, the MySpace pages for Punkin Pie as well as the MySpace page for the Backstage Cafe. Truc points out that most of these listings show the individual as the "first friend" or within the top ten friends. Truc states that all this goes to bias of the witness and that all these links are probative (to that bias). As Truc is speaking, Spector leans forward at the defense table and stares at Truc as she speaks.

Fidler states that he first wants to make a comment and address the courtroom. "Last week after everyone left an observation was made. Several people on EACH SIDE (of the courtroom) were making faces or nodding or shaking heads." Fidler continues in a very stern voice. "This better end if you can't control it. The jurors don't like it! Knock it off on both sides! The jurors know which side is which!"

Fidler addresses the MySpace pages. "The connection. It is so tenuious. I'm not going to allow it. The recognition doesn't measure up. So, no, that's my ruling. [...] The questions about Mr. Fisher, we'll let those stand. [...] This MySpace is pure speculation."

TD: Can I ask about Mr. Fisher's MySpace?

Fidler: No. It doesn't show what you want it to show.

11:10 am: Hayes Reidl is back on the stand.

Truc asks Hayes Reidl if she was out there for several hours talking to Fisher. Hayes Riedl denies that she was talking to Fisher the entire time. She insists she was only talking to him for a very short time.

TD: So if there were witnesses that saw you talking (to him for several hours)? [...] Did he come as a fan, Mr. Fisher?

JHR: I don't know his purpose in life.

Truc asks her what they talked about. She insists that they talked about golf. That the first time she met him she initiated the conversation because he had on a funny golf shirt and she comes from a family of golfers. She insists their conversation was only about golf.

TD: Did you learn in your conversations with Mr. Fisher if he was a fan of Mr. Spectors? [...] Did you learn from anyone else that he was a fan of Mr. Spector?

JHR: What are you asking me right now?

TD: I'm asking you (what you talked about).

Truc asks her if she spoke to the woman beside him, Mrs. Spector, Spector's wife.

Hayes Riedl then, in my opinion, tells a lie, since I saw her get introduced to Mommy and shake Mommy's hand.

JHR: I have no idea who she is. [...] I don't even know who that man was. What are you trying to get me to say?

And that's it for cross.

Weinberg gets up and the first thing he asks her is, "Did anyone from the Clarkson family speak to you?"

JHR: Not a single person from her family spoke to me.

(I'm not surprised.) Hayes Riedl testifies, "Yes, I loved Lana. [...] I still love her." Weinberg asks her if she was very close to Lana Clarkson, and she testifies, "Yes."

DW: Do you tend to believe that if all the facts were known about Lana Clarkson they might prove that Phil Spector was not guilty?

And then it was like a light switch. All that mean and nasty tone she had just moments ago with Truc is gone and Hayes Riedl acts as if she is overcome with emotion.

JHR: Could you slow down? I'm starting to get sick to my stomach.

Her tone is as if she is going to start to cry. She's sounds quite emotional and her eyes look like they are a little red but I do not see any tears on her face.

DW: Do you believe if the truth were known about Lana Clarkson's emotional state, it might support that Lana Clarkson took her own life?

JHR: Yes I do.

Now the emotion gets more dramatic and she acts like she is breaking down on the stand. (After Hayes Riedl is off the stand, I asked as many people as I could in the gallery what they thought of her emotional outburst. Not a single person I spoke to thought it was believable. Every single person thought it was an act. Some stated that they thought those were "crocadile tears" she was crying.)

DW: Do you think that...

JHR: I believe that I can't hid the truth. [...] This is the hardest thing I've ever done of my life. I have lost everything in my professional life by being involved in this trial! [...] I will never speak to the press! I will never speak to anyone about this trial!

Weinberg asks if she had any jealousy of Lana and she states that they were not jealous of each other. "I will love Lana 'til the day I die. It is what it is. [....] I'm sorry that she's gone and I'm sorry for the family's loss.

DW: Has anybody told you what to say?

JHR: No, not anybody.

DW: Not Mr. Fisher?

JHR: Not anybody.

DW: You knew Lana Clarkson but you knew her socially?

JHR: I only knew her socially. [...] I knew her because I went to places that she house sat.

After Weinberg moved off these "sensitive" questions Hayes Riedl appeared to get over her emotional outburst quite quickly. Weinberg tries to introduce a photo of Lana in a red dress posing somewhat provocatively. The prosecution objects, the image is taken down, there's a sidebar and it's not put back up on the ELMO again.

DW: You testified that in 2002 you didn't do email.

JHR: Not me personally. Everybody knows that.

Weinberg asks some questions about LB Moon and Hayes Riedl goes into this long rambling answer.

JHR: The other thing that I would like to make clear, this information triange, Lana, Pie and I were all on the phone together. (That maybe Pie would call, not necessarily me, but we would all be on the phone, together.)

There's quite a bit more cross on a group of women friends that Lana called "Jen's Psycho Support Group." The woman Jennifer Sikes (sp?), Hayes Riedl testifies, " one of my closest friends." Weinberg asks some questions about and exhibit and trying to get it marked.

JHR: Can I say something?

Fidler: No. there's no question beofre you.

Weinberg asks Hayes Riedl if Lana put on various "persona's" for different people. Hayes Riedl states, "That was her 'game face.' Those were her (Lana's) words.

More questions about LB Moon and if it would surprise her to know questions. The last few questions Weinberg asks Hayes Riedl are if Lana knew about guns.

JHR: She bragged about it all the time about her knowledge and use of guns in the movies.

DW: Did she say she would go to the shooting range?

JHR: Yes. The Beverly Hills Gun Club.

Weinberg is done with his redirect and Truc, only asks Hayes Riedl one question on recross.

TD: Would you tell the jury if you weren't telling the truth?

JHR: I would absolutely tell the jury if I wasn't telling the truth.

(How I kept from laughing at that answer is beyond me.) It's about 11:45 am and the next witness is called.

The next defense witness is Dr. Richard Seiden. He's a psychologist who has studied suicide.

For the rest of the afternoon, Dr. Seiden is under direct examination. He is almost done with his direct when court ends for the day. I will have more notes on Dr. Seiden's testimony over the weekend. Towards the end of the day, Dr. Seiden goes over many E-mails that Lana wrote. He gives his opinion on the many depressed and sad statements in these E-mails.

More to come, when I can get caught up over the weekend. I also find out from some trial watchers that stayed a bit later that there may not be testimony this Friday, but next Friday. Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Short Update: March 5th, 2009, 7:50 am
When the lunch break is called, most all of Spector's supporters were milling around him in the hallway. I overheard someone in the group say, "Guilty by association." Maybe they thought that was funny. But what was interesting, was that not one of the men who stopped came to 106 in the morning came back for the afternoon session, not even Fisher. The only people who were there for the afternoon to sit with Rachelle were Tyndall, Mommy and Mrs. Weinberg. Spector's number one fan did show up at 3:30 pm like clockwork.

Update! March 7th, 2009 5:01 PM

Dr. Seiden takes the stand and his CV is presented. He's a psychologist. His specialty within that field is suicidology. It's the scientific review of suicide and it's prevention. I've given up on listing someone's CV. Anyone can do a Google search of any of the defense expert witnesses and find out all about them.

While the CV is being read, I look on over at the jury. Juror #5 closes her eyes, Juror #8 fiddles with her hair and Juror #14 nervously moves her pen back and forth between her fingers. Juror #1 leans forward and is watching Weinberg's witness. This is nothing new. She's done this all throughout the trial, no matter who is on the stand. Juror #11's arms are crossed over his chest. Juror #1 and Juror #2 now take a note. Juror #5's arms are now crossed over her chest.

Dr. Seiden states he's testified on a number of occasions, but it's been awhile since he's testified. He states he never paid any attention to the first case. He first came to the attention of Weinberg through an article in a Sunday paper called "The Urge to End it All." The author's of the article interviewed Dr. Seiden because of his research on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Dr. Seiden did a research study on the bridge titled Where Are They Now? (PDF doc) Dr. Seiden tracked 515 people (from the very opening of the bridge through 1978) who were detained on the Golden Gate Bridge (those that were interrupted in the process of jumping or those that jumped and survived). Six percent of those individuals went onto kill themselves (some other way). Dr. Seiden states that other studies also showed only 10% of people went onto commit suicide. (This is the national average.)

The lunch recess is called. Weinberg's wife is back inside the courtroom. When I get back from lunch, the gentleman beside me tells me that on an "Elvis Australia" web site, Phil Spector is listed as a "ghost producer" on several Elvis movies. He doesn't give me the URL, so I'm not positive if I have the right one. I did a small amount of searching and could not find what he was referencing.

1:42 pm: We hear more of Dr. Seiden's CV. He also consults with the Glendon Association, a non-profit, based in Santa Barbara. This organization produces books, films, etc., having to do with suicide (and it's prevention). Dr. Seiden also states that he's lectured and written about alcoholism and drug abuse. If I heard correctly, he published in those areas for 10-12 years. He also received an award for his Golden Gate Bridge work. He occasionally consults and bills for his time. For his work so far on this case he's billed $6,000. He will be sending another bill for his time in Los Angeles.

When Dr. Seiden mentions how much he's been paid, Juror #5 smiles and looks over at Juror #6 who also smiles.

His interest in the field came from his clinical background. He saw the devastation suicide had on families. In 1978 he did his study on the Golden Gate Bridge looking at survivors; a total of 515 people. (He learned about the relationship of impulsivity to suicide.) There are two types of suicide. 1. Those that are premeditated over a long period of time and symptoms of depression. 2. Spur of the moment decision.

Dr. S: But when a fortuitous situation occurs with drugs such as alcohol and the presence of an opportunity ~ such as a weapon ~ (impulsive suicides make up 40% of all suicides).

It's varied, but some studies show it's around 40%. Dr. Seiden mentions a study in Scotland about self poisoning. Dr. Seiden states the time interval between premeditation and the (act) itself, that about one third (in the Scotland posioning study) self-reported they hadn't thought about it before the attempt. Dr. Seiden states that the pharmacology business took note of the impulsive overdosing of prescription medications. To counteract that they started putting pills in blister packs, and it takes time to open them. "By that time, (that they would get enough packs opened) the crisis would blow over."

Dr. Seiden now gives the example of old "coke-gas" ovens in England and the fact that they were very toxic. When natural gas was discovered and started to be used in ovens, there was a noticeable one-third drop in suicides. This is because it took longer for the natural gas to take effect. This phenomenon (drop in suicide rates after a method of suicide is rendered more difficult) has been observed in other areas.

Dr. Seiden states that suicide occurs in a crisis. "Whether it's financial or (?). If we can get them past the crisis point, it can be averted. There are similar cases of the Duke Ellington Bridge and a well known bridge in Toronto. Also with a land bridge here, the Arroyo Seco Bridge in the 30's. Had several people jump there. Same with the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State building. On all these locations, they put suicide barriers to keep individuals from using this location and the suicide rates dropped.

Juror #5 has her eyes closed and is taking no notes.

Dr. S: there are a category of people that do kills themselves impulsively.

Going back to the premeditated ones, Dr. Seiden states that the "vast majority do not leave a note. Only 33% leave notes. With the study Dr. Lakshmanan did, only 15% left notes.

DW: What if people are deliberately planning (their daily activities). Do they stop everything and...

Dr. S: No. This is not typical (stopping everything).

Weinberg reads from something published by the former Coroner of Los Angeles, who instituted the psychological autopsy procedures, Ted (Theodore) Curphy. Dr. Seiden states he is familiar with his work.

DW: Impulsive people also go on and make plans, appointments, do things? [..] How long is that period? (From the time they first have the thought until starting the act of suicide.)

Dr. S: Five minutes or less, between act and though about premeditation and acted out. Some are only one second. [...] It comes out of the blue. But when you go back, (and interview those who attempted and survive), and they've ruminated [...] that there's something that triggers it, such as alcohol.

DW: The event comes as a surprise to the people that know them?

Dr. S: It definitely does.

DW: Does the fact that people seem happy and upbeat (mean anything)?

Dr. S: (They are) laughing on the outside and crying on the inside.

DW: What about questions about prior attempts?

Dr. S: It's not necessarily the case. They may have had previous attempts or not.

DW: But is there an ending of life (that may appear under the surface)?

Dr. S: It's a sub-intention. Largely unconscious.

DW: Are there some people that try to stop some emotional or physical pain?

Dr. S: In talking to survivors, that's true. They just want relief of the (emotional or physical) pain.

DW: They're not necessarily trying to end their life but a particular emotional pain?

Dr. Siden answers in the affirmative.

DW: Let's focus on your work on family and friends. (Do they have difficulty accepting?)

Dr. S: They're not inclined to accept it.

Weinberg now reads Dr. Seiden a question from one of his papers/articles. It has to do with the distortion of "informants" (meaning close family).

DW: People close to a decedent don't believe it's a suicide. They think it's a homicide?

Dr. D: Well, they also could think it's an acccident. [...] The number of suicides are probably higher because of obfuscation.

DW: There are people who keep those statistics? [...] At least 30,000 suicides each year?

Dr. S: Yes.

DW: Impulsive suicide are not brought on by clinical depression?

Dr. S: That's more of the premeditated. [...] The impulsive (has) a feeling of hopelessness.

DW: Can impulsive suicides or an act resulting in one's own death, could it be a result of a moment of stress? (Even something possibly very minor?)

Dr. S: Yes. It could be precipitated by almost anything. But alcohol is the chief culprit.

DW: Are firearms common in suicides?

Dr. S: They are the most common.

Weinberg presents statistics from the CDC studies.

Dr. S: Firearms are more likely to be used in suicide verses homicide.

DW: 550% of gunshot deaths were suicides 45% are homicides? [...] And with women?

Dr. S: Some feel it's the leading (cause of death in women) and some say it's the second. Depends on whose (statistics). [...] Whether it's #1 or #2, rates of suicide among women, the rates are on the side... (I miss getting the rest of this answer.)

DW: Some years poisoning is more (among women) and some years it's firearms are more prevalent?

Dr. S: Yes, but it's changed. [...] The two most frequent sites for suicide are the temple and the mouth.

DW: When you have a situation when, a situation is undetermined, is there something to look for?

Dr. S: Every case is unique but when we look at large populations, certain factors definitely emerge.

Weinberg asks Dr. Seiden about the common risk factors of impulsive suicides.

DW: Is depression or suicide ideation a risk factor for suicide?

Dr. S: Yes. People have no hope.

DW: Alcohol?

Dr. S: People who use alcohol are already depressed and it makes them feel better.

DW: Alcohol has a dis-inhibiting effect on our brains?

Dr. S: Definitely. It's correlated.

(I'm not sure if this is a question or an answer.) [...] The influence of alcohol and drugs on the cognative process; on the operation of the act...

DW: How about the fact of someone who used psychedelics or marijuana at an early age? [...] What about alcohol use or binge drinking and black outs.

I note that all the male friends who showed up this morning are gone. None of them came back for the afternoon, not even Harvey with the white hair.

Dr. Seiden describes the difference between daily and binge drinking.

DW: What about evidence with struggles to control drinking?

Dr. S: Well, yes if (there's evidence of that).

DW: What about financial stressors, financial difficulties?

Dr. S: During bad economic times, suicide rates increase.

Dr. Seiden goes onto mention that with our current economic situation across the country, we are bound to see the suicide rate increase.

DW: What about the loss of a relationship or the recent loss of a relationship?

Dr. S: That's one of the most important things.

DW: What about the loss of a career or disappointment in a career?

Dr. S: Oh, same thing.

DW: (What about) impulsive behavior?

Dr. S: Impulsive behavior creates impulsive suicides.

DW: Each of these elements is a risk?

Dr. S: Yes.

DW: Consolidated, they create a higher risk?

Dr. S: Yes.

DW: In this case, you reviewed a number of materials and papers?

Dr. Seiden states the materials he reviewed (or Weinberg asks him if he reviewed these documents). He reviewed reports of interviews and emails they (defense) supplied. He also reviewed the medical records. He also reviewed emails authored by people (?) ....(and Lana's emails) in her own words.

DW: Did you review a number of emails?

Dr. S: Yes.

DW: Did you review testimony by other witnesses? [...] Read testimony?

Dr. S: I read part of the testimony by Greg Sims from the last trial.

(Interesting how the defense only presented him testimony by Greg Sims and not any by Punkin Pie, or Jennifer Hayes Riedl. It was selected testimony they gave him.)

Dr. S: (In reviewing Lana's email writings) She put a positive aspect on things but that was also mixed with depressed statements and a feeling to "chuck it all." [...] People who put a face on, a "mask" to the public.

DW: In depression, is it something that's constant or is it ups and downs?

Dr. S: Some people have the blues. It's not always constant.

DW: Did you find evidence of mercurial or shifting moods?

Dr. S: Yes.

Weinberg now goes over several of the emails that he supplied to Dr. Seiden. He reviews specific statements with him and asks him if he finds any of them significant. Dr. Seiden states he's reviewed all the emails in their entirety. I believe the first email Weinberg puts up is one of the emails Lana wrote to David Schapiro.

DW: Is that expressive of depressive ideation and hopelessness?

Dr. S: Oh yes.

Another email sent to David Schapiro is presented. (Remember, these are the emails that Schapiro, who knew Lana, testified that he felt she was being overly dramatic and saying anything just to get him to loan her money. He testified that he never believed she was indicating any desire to end her life.)

Dr. S: It's consistent with depressive ideation and hopelessness. [...] Yes. It's is expressive of the child she wants, the family she wants.

TD: Objection! Where is that (in the email)?

A sidebar is requested although I don't have who requested it. It's possibly Fidler.

Email after email is presented and then Weinberg asks after each one if the statements are descriptive of depressive ideation. And Dr. Seiden testifies yes after each question. Now there are some new emails I've never seen before.

This email is dated September, 2002.

"...major withdrawal from pain pills....falling in and out of love...trying to stay sober....working out and going broke..."

Another email dated August 2002:

"....Yeah, I bailed early and went on a rampage. I was so ticked off about being stood up.....headed over the hill with an old party buddy....we got hammered...."

Another email dated July 8th, 2002:

"....this has honestly been one of the worst years of my life... [...] I was so depressed about my car, my life, I just couldn't stay in my house for another minute....."

Another email, or this might be part of the last one, since I don't have a date for it.

Another email dated November, 2002.

"...I'm so sorry I failed in the $ department. I totally screwed up my account....miscalculated and am fucked. My cell phone is off and I have no money for rent...."

The afternoon break is called. Pat Dixon steps into 106 for a moment and then steps back out. Spector, still sitting in his seat at the defense table, turns and faces the gallery with his head down. Jackson, Truc and Weinberg discuss something in the well.

2:58 pm: We're still on break. Spector is standing at the defense table now in front of his chair and yawns. Jackson, Cindy, Truc and Josh chat at the podium.

We're back on the record but outside the presence of the jury. Jackson addresses the court.

AJ: We flew up to meet Dr. Seiden (in the Bay area). We requested to tape record the interview with Dr. Seiden. Based on Dr. Seiden's testimony, there are at least, five or six points that were testified inconsistently (with what he told us during that interview).

It was agreed by both parties that the witness would keep a copy of the tape. Beyond that, both sides have different versions of what the actual agreement was. Truc Do is asking that the tape be turned over and Weinberg is objecting.

Weinberg now brings up the tape recording of Dr. Herold. "They don't have a right to the recording that was for him and by him." Weinberg brings in the details of the agreement they had about Dr. Herold being taped and the agreement being if there was a disagreement, it would be turned over to the court. Weinberg states that the agreement was the same as the one with Dr. Herold.

AJ: That's the most complete perversion of events. (It?) had to know that the defense didn't want them to know what we are going to question. (What I have, that last sentence doesn't make sense. It must be that AJ counters how the situation is much different that the Dr. Herold issue because they are not claiming privilege.)

Weinberg again brings in his perception of events. This agreement was exactly like the agreement before with Dr. Herold. The prosecution was there, they took notes. They should not be allowed to listen to the tape.

Fidler rules there is no privilege on the tape. But he states that it's not clear what the agreement actually was. Fidler states he's quite surprised that given the animosity between the two sides, that they didn't guard against this happening by memorializing the agreement in some way.

DW: They've been trying to get their hands on this tape for a couple of weeks!

AJ: Two weeks ago I told him to listen to it and get prepared. He didn't want to! (When you think about that, doesn't that sound ridiculous that Weinberg refused to listen to it, especially after the prosecution urged him to?) Now he's trying to say we set this up. There's no set-up! [...] Now we've got to get the court involved! It's like kindergarten at recess!

There then ensues a big back and forth argument. Weinberg insisting the agreement was exactly like the Dr. Herold agreement. Jackson points out that during the Dr. Herold interview, the defense didn't want us there or to hear his questions to Dr. Herold because of attorney client privilege. This isn't the same situation. The prosecution is not claiming privilege.

AJ: My God! Sometimes I think I'm in the twilight zone here!

Judge Fidler is totally frustrated. "Legally, as I've indicated there's no reason someone can not have the tape."

Weinberg won't stop. He keeps coming back with the same argument. "The same terms were as to Dr. Herold! [...] They're saying the circumstances are different." I believe it's at this point that Weinberg states that only Judge Fidler can listen to the tape. The prosecution (I believe it's at this point) agrees that it's fine with them if Fidler listens to the tape. The prosecution doesn't have a problem with that at all. They will point out to Fidler where it is that there are discrepancies on the tape regarding his direct examination and the interview they conducted with him.

Weinberg now states that the agreement was that the tape would be listened to only if there were "...inconsistencies in cross examination, not direct."

TD: Now Mr. Weinberg has clearly added to the agreement. [...] The concern was that if there was any inconsistency.

The prosecution didn't want this to turn into a "he said she said" situation which clearly it has now.

Fidler states he's going to take the tape and listen to it. He rules that, "If I determine there are some inconsistencies then they (the tape) will be turned over. [...] Nobody's going to be disadvantaged by this. We're just going to lose some time." Fidler also rules that the cross examination will go on.

When the jury is finally let back into the courtroom, it's 3:27 pm and Fidler apologizes to them. "We had some unexpected discussions." Spector's number one fan arrives in 106.

Another email is introduced that I've never seen before. Lana is writing about a man she is seeing who canceled a trip and that she's about to lose her house.

Another email, this one to Hugo Quackenbush where specific phrases are focused on.

The next item appears to either an email or a letter that's part of a medical file. It's addressed to Dr. Kudrow. Weinberg reads from the items where Lana states to Dr. Kudrow that she: 'drinks rarely and has a healthy diet and exercise.' Dr. Seiden responds, "She certainly had a life long history of drug and alcohol (abuse)."

Juror's #10, 11 and 12 are not taking any notes. Weinberg reads another email. Juror #5 is not taking notes. I observe the jury looking at the screen and reading the text that's highlighted and enlarged.

Another email is presented and it's addressed to "Cowboy."

Truc Do asks to approach the bench. Rachelle's eyes are closed.

The letter to "Cowboy" is reviewed. It doesn't appear to be dated. Most of the first page of the letter is read. As I try to scan the letter quickly it seems to me the Cowboy said something to Lana, possibly at a party. I think his claim was she didn't remember what was said. She's telling him that's not true, that she remembers everything that was said and to bolster her point she states, '(I've) only had three times in my life where I "blacked out" drinking.' (The words, "blacked out" were in quotes in the letter.) It was only those three times where she couldn't remember her what she said or did. The letter then goes onto to point out the unkind things he said and did. So with Lana putting the words "blacked out" in quotes, my thought is, the Cowboy accuses her of blacking out and not remembering and Lana brings this statement back up to him. (I think I have all of this right.).

I believe Weinberg asks Dr. Seiden about this letter and what it implies. The next thing he shows Dr. Seiden is a copy from Lana's date book, although I don't believe the actual date is mentioned in direct examination. Weinberg asks him if there is a notation there that says, 'First day sober,' and what this might mean.

Dr. S: Certainly a concern about her drinking.

Weinberg now moves onto the famous medical intake questionnaire from July 28, 2001. He points out Lana's reference to severe and constant headaches, her referencing her broken leg, and the drugs she's taken for pain. Truc Do asks to approach briefly. Weinberg points out her bruised and broken ribs in relation to a horseback riding incident. He brings up her self reporting that she smoked marijuana for 25 years. (I feel the need to point out that it's quickly glossed over that she had stopped smoking 2 years and 3 months prior to this form being completed.)

Weinberg brings out Lana's reference to alcohol on this form 'Rarely now used to drink in the past.' He brings up the phrase we've heard many times now, 'Parents were hippies; used to take psychedelics from the time I was 7.' Weinberg points out that Lana self reported on the form, 'all four grandparents were alcoholics.' Dr. Seiden responds, "All four grandparents gives her a predisposition (for alcoholism)." Weinberg has highlighted a section of the form that says, 'dad a drug addict.' Her headaches are mentioned again. 'headaches: bad.' The last page of the form is put up on the ELMO. This is where Lana checked off any medical health issue she had by the ones listed on the form. Lana put four check marks by "headaches," and Weinberg points this out.

Dr. S: That kind of pain, chronic, that doesn't respond to treatment is certainly a risk factor.

Every single item checked on the form, Weinberg asks Dr. Seiden if that is a risk factor for either depression or suicide. As I look up from writing I note that Rachelle's eyes are closed again.

We reach 4:00 pm and Fidler calls the end of court for the day. The audio tape recording is handed to Judge Fidler. Jurors are ordered back tomorrow at 9:30 am


Anonymous said...

Thank you Sprocket - I have been checking and checking this page hoping for your post! It's only 7 p.m. here (but it's Thursday) and so I've been awake and anxious to read what's been happening! Thanks so much.
Hope you get a good sleep!

Anonymous said...

I guess Elizabeth Loftus is going to say that eyewitness testimony can be false. And that you can't believe AD.

Linda in Tx

Anonymous said...

Ok, Sprocketgal, let me get this straight...we are supposed to believe that Ms. Reidl has NO idea that Harvey Sid Fisher is a big fan/friend of Phil Spector's when...he was on Court TV several times last year defending Phil... Team Spector shows up as his number one friend on his Myspace...that he shows up to court dare I say just as much and perhaps more than any other Spector supporter? (Ok, ok, maybe we'll have to call this a tie between him and Spector's number one fan).

It's hard for me to believe the guy wouldn't be able to contain himself about his fanatical "Phil love" in speaking with this woman!

Interesting that once again Dan Kessel is brought up.. (btw thanks for the explanation that you and Anon did about him)... we're supposed to believe she NEVER knew of the close connection the Kessels have with Spector? But what, she's going to call the guy? Oh come off it! Does she take the jury and Judge...and the rest of us for a bunch of complete idiots?

And to top it all off, she's cozying up to "Mommy" but isn't supposed to know Rachelle either??

WTF?? Talk about another case of a completely unsympathetic...but more importantly, PERJURED witness!!

Sidenote..I don't get why Fidler won't use the Myspace connection as it seems quite traceable and valid to me?!

Wow, this woman is truly indeed a piece of least Gloria Swanson had TALENT!


Anonymous said...

is pumpkin pie going to testify?

donchais said...

JHR - OMG!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like jhr and the Spector crowd thought she did a masterful job and that little Phil should be acquitted forthwith. Jeez, what a pathetic show.
Guess pie is next; she should be shaking in her booties.
Hope the prosecution has developed some new rebuttal evidence/witnesses to these two ".......".
Thanks again Sprocket.

Anonymous said...

They were "required" to attend promo nites at a niteclub? I never heard anything so goofy.

Honestly, she sounds like a petulent child, a spoiled child. Its good to know her career as an interior designer was ruined. Mr Dunne's trashing of her in Vanity Fair probably was the crowning blow. I am trying to figure out how this woman helps the defense.

I did a little research, mindful of a defense witness that we are expecting:
KORSAKOFF'S SYNDROME: A neological disorder marked by severe amnesia despite clear perception and full consciousness,resulting from chronic alcoholism or head causes the patient to attempt to compensate by confabulation (the formulation of false memories, perceptions, or beliefs).

I am beginning to think we have more than one defense witness who is afflicted....
Wes J.

Anonymous said...

JHR - Can you say epitome of backstabbing BITCH?

Anonymous said...

I hope the reading of the verdict is shown on live TV.

David From TN

Anonymous said...

Is Harvey Sid Fisher the Harvey who keeps attending the trial in support of Spector?

Anonymous said...

Why is this woman lying so often?What's in it for her? Her testimony sounds like it's from a bad Lifetime movie.

Anonymous said...

I believe Harvey the Entertainer is one of those fellas who does gigs at nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Seriously. (I am not a resident at such a place--yet!!)
Then I heard a sample of his "singing" and figured out why his itenerary page on his website is empty......

ritanita said...


I just don't get the joy in "Spectorville" after that testiphony.

I remember J H-R's testimoney from the first trial and I was aghast at how she depicted her "good friend."

Now, it gets even worse since she obviously has the memory of a gnat and can't remember anything.

The attitude she depicted can't positively affect the jury, or am I a hopeless optimist?

Anonymous said...

Did I understand correctly that DW said he would wrap up by THIS Friday or did he mean next Friday? If he means this Friday, perhaps they won't be calling Pie at all!

Anonymous said...

What does Mrs. Weinberg look like?

Anonymous said...

Re JHR's "memory" I think the least she could have done was review her former testimony so she could keep her lies straight.

Anonymous said...

"Would you tell the jury if you weren't telling the truth?"

It's a great trick question: you would lie to the jury and then tell them that it was lie?

I wonder what the jury members think when they hear that.

Anonymous said...

JHR is pathetic. Her testimony did one thing: It ruined her credibility. She might have even taken Pie down with her before Pie even testifies. It's comical.

Oh, and speaking of comical:
"I would absolutely tell the jury if I wasn't telling the truth." I fell out of my chair and spewed Diet Coke all over my monitor.

Great reporting as usual, Sprocket. Thank you for your tenacity and wonderful writing skills!

Anonymous said...

Seems like Weinberg has gotten into a little trouble himself:

Keker also successfully defended attorney Doron Weinberg in 1994, when Weinberg and
Penelope M. Cooper were accused of taking cash under the table to defend convicted
Oakland drug lord Rudy Henderson.

Anonymous said...

Source for Weinberg accused of taking cash under the table from a druglord:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like JHR was a real ASSet to the defense!

Anonymous said...

It seems Elizabeth Loftus has written some scholarly stuff about how memory is unrealiable. This will be, I imagine, the reason Weinberg has called her, to say that the memory of people who testified was flawed, especially, no doubt, Adriano de Souza. But it would seem to me that this could cause him even more problems.

Maybe (heh heh) Weinberg has used Jennifer Hayes Riedl with her "flawed" memory as an example to the jury that after such a long time you just can't remember certain details, that you aren't necessarily lying, you just don't remember. As if any of us would remember a rambling conversation in a night club over a few glasses of wine.

Of course this would mean the jury has to believe as well that a single utterance made in an extremely vivid and frightening situation is flawed just like the ramblings and prepared answers made to order for the defense by some of the prosecutions witnesses.

The jury is not going to buy this. Otherwise, life would truly be meaningless, if memory in general is so bad then none of us could remember anything. That's my take on it, in any event. I have many very old memories corroborated by family members and others, and as I tell mine to them they not only remember but often add details that help me see that event more clearly as well --Christine

Anonymous said...

The comments of ADS were documented by a number of people shortly after they were made - I find it difficult to see how "memory" or "false testimony" comes into the story at all - there are tapes of phone calls (to 911 and MB's answer machine) and interviews and documentation by the investigators from minutes after Lana was killed. He fled in terror, from "his boss" with a gun, so I do wonder what a "memory" expert can provide to change this testimony.

Maybe Ms Loftus will opine on why the defense witnesses cannot remember events from previous times or previous testimony

Sprocket - many thanks - as always

SC Girl said...

Sprocket - I just want to add my thanks to you for all your hard work covering this trial. You do a great job and it is very much appreciated. Thanks Again!

Anonymous said...

I wonder who has more credibility
Punkin PIE
Greg Simms

My guess would be none of them

I hope Rachelle will really like to poor, she will be after this trial and the civil suit

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, did you find out for sure what the two dark days were for? Did Spector look as if he'd had surgery?

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, you rock!
I have a different timeline question. It's about the event leading up to JHR testifying. Am I right that it starts with her tagging along on an interview Pie had with the defense? How long after Lana's death was this? Did Pie contact the defense to set this up? So after this meeting, JHR and Pie went out for drinks at the Backstage with the defense investigator? Thanks for all your good work. I check the blog often, looking for your update! Tim in Los Feliz

Anonymous said...

So JHR's email address is/was JenH8, huh? How utterly appropriate that her email name would reflect her as a person, i.e., Jen HATE I wonder if that's on her license plate.

Re not remembering her testimony from before, I don't believe for a SECOND that she doesn't have it recorded. I'm not anywhere NEAR as vain as Ms. H8, but if I knew I was going to be on national (or even INTERnational) TV in a high-profile celebrity trial, you'd better believe I would have it recorded on a DVR or, at the very LEAST, a VCR, and I would probably have friends or family record it, too, just in case the power went out. Hell, I'd do that if I knew in advance that I was going to be on LOCAL TV! How often does THAT happen, after all?

Why does it not surprise me that she doesn't talk on the phone to her kids, either? How does a person get this far along in life and not realize what a stone cold, viperous BITCH she is and at least try to tone it down a little when on public display? We all have an inner bitch who occasionally slips out, but her's apparently has free reign to be on parade ALL the time.

I'm wondering if she's covering up something with the big headbands. She may have had some work done, such as a lift or hair plugs (although I think a snug headband could compromise the success of the latter).

Thank you so much, Sprocket, for such wonderful eyewitness reporting!

Anonymous said...

Hey, I just thought of something: Do you think we could get Harvey the white-haired Entertainer and John Barons together? They could produce a show......

Anonymous said...

That was well worth the wait, thanks as always.

I would have payed to see this moment:
AJ: My God! Sometimes I think I'm in the twilight zone here!


Anonymous said...

Betsy thanks again for all this work....don't know how you stay on top of it all. The arguments between lawyers sounds tedious to me; can't make sense of the legalities much of the time. Does Weinberg not care if the jurors think he's a jackass?

I don't think Spector had anything to do with any Elvis movies: Hal Wallis was the producer, the Colonel was also on hand to keep an eye on things (and get his 50% agents fee)...they didn't need any helpers. Besides, the end-product was subpar as far as Spector would be concerned.

If truly Lana was so taken with drugs and drink, how did she maintain those gorgeous looks and figure? She would have been dissapated 10 yre prior.
Wes J.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, as always, a very interesting report. What is it with these people that they answer questions that vary so much just in a matter of weeks? It only demonstrates how they are only testifying to aid the defense at any cost rather than be consistent and totally truthful.

Sprocket said...

Spector/Elvis connection:

I've been forwarded a link to the page that covers this. It's broken up to fit the blogger comment box.

I must have misunderstood or misheard. I could have sworn the individual said he was ghost producing some of Elvis's films. Sorry for the confusion.

Expert Witnesses:

An expert witness is only as good as the material he's been given.

Anonymous said...

I agree about "substance abuse" and the physical, tell-tale signs that are NOT apparent in this case.
I have read a ton of bios of stars afflicted with this illness, from silent screen stars like Jeanne Eagels to Jayne Mansfield, Elvis, Montgonery Clift, etc etc. ALL exhibited the physical and/or mental symtoms....where is the documentation in this case?

I would also think pre-employment screening at the House of Blues would include a drug screen, for obvious reasons.

Sprocket said...

Drug screening:

That's a good question. I'll ask on Monday.

Sprocket said...

I thought I would add a link to an article about Dr. Loftus.

(Thank you to the T&T reader who forwarded the link to me!)

It's about her testimony on behalf of Scooter Libby. After you read this article, let me know what you think about Dr. Loftus and what her testimony might be for the defense.

Anonymous said...

1. Elizabeth Loftus is, generally, a very respectable researcher who has done excellent work on memory, false memories, and eyewitness testimony.

Her work is not "out there". To the contrary, she is someone who had debunked the crackpot theories of others who are the ones that are "out there".

I expect she'll talk in general terms, not particularly relevant to this case, in a defense attempt to divert attention from the relevant facts of Lana's death

2. I can hardly believe that Jennifer person was allowed to testify that "yes, she thinks Spector might be innocent based on what she knew of Lana's state of mind".

I doubt such a statement is permissable by law. And if such a question was asked, the prosecution should have objected immediately.

3. I'm curious: have the "friends' of Lana who've apparently suggested she was "suicidal" provided any evdience that they took any measures to get help at the time for their friend to deal with her supposedly dangerous mental state?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Elvis-Spector connection. Spector ghost produced songs from some of Elvis' movies, most notably 'Viva Las Vegas'.

At the time, Elvis' career was on a downturn, and then regained top 10 status with some of his Spector produced songs. Yes, the Colonel had a hand on EVERYTHING - to the point he would not let Elvis record songs written by some of the biggest songwriters/hitmakers because of their royalty fees. Thus it appears Mr. Spector did this as a gift.

Elvis was extremely loyal and returned the favor by performing Spector produced hits/songs throughout the rest of his career. The finale of his last recorded appearance, just six weeks before his death was 'Unchained Melody' - which Spector produced for the Righteous Brothers.

Anonymous said...

I quote Lane 99: "I'm curious: have the "friends' of Lana who've apparently suggested she was "suicidal" provided any evidence that they took any measures to get help at the time for their friend to deal with her supposedly dangerous mental state?"

----That is an extremely good question/observation. It would seem just common sense that if you strongly suspect someone is suicidal (a harm to oneself or a harm to others) you need to report it. It is professional ethics to do so in some states. The least you should do as a "friend" would be to network with other friends to support and get help for the person in need.

best, Christine