UPDATED
I had some errands I needed to get done so I did not go to court today. While picking up a heavy box off my patio slated for The Goodwill, I lifted with my back instead of using my legs. I heard (and felt) a noticeable "pop." Fearing I had totally ruined my low back for weeks to come, I tried to stretch it out. Yep. Seriously strained; no more court for me this week. I've made an appointment with my chiropractor and hopefully he can get me back in shape by next Monday or Tuesday. It's not easy sitting, and I'll probably take something for the pain before I got to bed, but I will try to put up some more notes tomorrow afternoon.
Posters on Court TV have been talking about Bruce Cutler, every since Peter Y. Hong's article in the LA Times came out this morning. (I don't know how long that link to the story will be good.)
Especially troubling to some people was this comment:
"He's my soul mate," Cutler says of the music producer. "We get one another."
That comment raises some very interesting questions about Cutler, and the individuals he finds a personal connection with.
There's no question that Bruce Cutler is a very theatrical person, and he is a large (although muzzled) presence in the courtroom. I'm reminded of a pit bull, with his huge barrel chest and nonexistent neck. I sometimes think he's about to explode, but the only thing confining him are his perfectly tailored suits.
Dominick Dunne, who actually likes Cutler, caught a ride from him when his limo failed to pick him up one day after court. Sitting in the back of the limousine with Cutler, with their heads resting against the back of the seat, Mr. Dunne said he felt like he was going to see the Don himself.
Yesterday, I had a discussion with another trial watcher about the DNA found on the bullets in the murder weapon. If you remember, Linda Kenney Baden in her opening statement, specifically said that Lana's DNA was found on the bottom of the cartridges. Yet, the criminalist, Steve Renteria, specifically testified he only swabbed the bullet's themselves, and not the cartridges. The trial watcher felt that Linda Kenney Baden would not make such a claim in her OS, if it wasn't true, and felt that the defense must have performed their own DNA testing on the bullets. I feel the defense did not test the bullets, but to know for sure, we'll have to wait until the defense puts on it's case in chief.
Jurors #7, 8, & 9 are all on their second notebook. Yesterday, at times I observed juror #5, a well dressed black woman, turn her head to look at Plourd while he asked a question, then turn her head back to the witness when they answered. Back and forth it went like that for some time. It's very hard to read this jury. (It's not like I'm any sort of jury expert anyway. This is only the second trial I've had the opportunity to attend.) I rarely see any facial expressions among the group. There are a few of the male jurors who often sit with their arms folded across their chests, and a few of the group who occasionally take a glance out at the gallery, as the gallery looks back at them.
UPDATE: 6-13-07 10:40 am
I was pretty tired last night, and forgot to mention a little gallery drama. There is this one trial watcher who has been there off and on. I’ll call this person W. W is part of the public and is not part of the regular press. Monday, during the morning break, Ciaran McEvoy and Dominick left their seats to step outside the courtroom. During that time, W moved from their seat in the third row and moved up to the second row to sit where Ciaran was sitting. W was then overheard to have said when they sat down, “You snooze, you lose.”
When I heard (later in the day) that W said this, I was flabbergasted. There is a hierarchy in the courtroom. The accredited press gets to sit exactly where they want, and they usually have their favorite spots. The general public is usually told by the court’s public liaison where to sit. I am lucky that Steven saves a spot for me in the second row. When Ciaran and Dominick came back from break, Steven and myself had to scoot down a bit to make room for them. No way in the world would I have done something like this. I give the reporters in the room the respect they deserve, and can’t imagine trying to overtake someone else’s spot.
In the afternoon session, W’s cell phone went off. The bailiff came over, and W was quickly ejected from the courtroom. At the end of court as I exited the courtroom, there was W waiting outside, hopping mad. W was talking to someone else, saying something about giving the bailiff (and I paraphrase), ”...a piece of their mind...” As I was walking away I was thinking, Leave your cell phone on, you lose.
Showing posts with label Bruce Cutler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bruce Cutler. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Trial Notes, 5-23-07
It’s almost 9:15 am. There is not one recognizable soul in the hallway. So, I'm wondering if they started early. Inside the courtroom, I only see Court TV reporters Harriet Ryan and another whose name I don't know. The defense attorneys are here, but not the prosecution. Another case is having a hearing in Fidler’s court. Slowly, some reporters start to show up. Steve Dunleavy, Steven from LA Weekly, and David K. Li. Russ arrives with Alan P. from the court’s public relations office. It’s 9:20, and the courtroom is virtually empty. Lana’s mother, sister and attorney arrive. Plourd, Rosen and Linda Kenney Baden are here. Everyone is waiting to see if Robert Shapiro shows up today and will be put on the stand. David K. Li asks if Linda Kenney Baden’s name is written with a hyphen or without a hyphen. Alan says, “I’m the Public Information Officer. I can provide that.” It’s determined there is no hyphen in her last name.
Brunon arrives. I’m wondering if the prosecutors are still with Shapiro. Everyone is expecting him. Steve Dunleavy, the famous New York Post reporter is admiring the shine on David K. Li’s shoes. “That’s one hell-of-a shine,” he says. “I can see my face in it.” Patrick Dixon finally enters the courtroom. The LA Times reporter Peter Y. Hong arrives as well as the prosecutor’s clerk who controls all their photo and document exhibits on the Elmo.
9:30 am.
No Alan Jackson. No Judge. Sara Caplan arrives. The tall black haired attorney for Lana’s family arrives. Linda Deutch finally slips into the courtroom. Russ, Steve Dunleavy, Steve Mikulan and another reporter all kvetch a bit. Rosen and LKB are in deep conversation. A gentleman I’ve seen before chats with the attorneys on both sides and now is chatting with LKB.
The prosecutions case file (it’s transported into court each day on a rolling cart, usually by Ed) finally gets here, and Ed goes through a few items. Sara Caplan and Linda Deutch chat a bit now. Cutler arrives along with the young bald Asian prosecutor we saw a few days ago. Ah, the gray suited man with stark white hair is Sara Caplan’s attorney. The judge is finally on the bench.
The defense is trying to get some sort of discovery issues. They are stating that the prosecution has stuff they’ve not received. Now I have some notes that I am having a hard time deciphering.
After discussing how we should do this, asked his boss Doyle to speak with Captain Kyle Jackson; to the Robbery Homicide Division and what they needed and how to proceed. Maybe I can figure this out later.
The defense is now asking for anything the prosecution has from Bill Pavelic. Something about an e-mail from Pavelic to an “E. Wiley.” And that’s it.
The defense makes a motion to object to the entire proceedings. The Judge responds that his role is to safeguard the process, to ensure that nothing improper occurs. The judge cites a case to support his ruling. Jackson gets Caplan kicked from the courtroom for a moment. The judge reads the ruling. “That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m taking action.”
Sara Caplan takes the stand again. Her attorney sits in the jury box, and Rosen is asking the questions. She states she had worked on cases with Dr. Lee before. From what she recalls, about three or four times. “It didn’t look like what was in those vials.” Now, with the way Rosen is asking the questions, he’s implying that the white particles on the floor... trying to imply that the white particles might be the falling down ceiling.
Now Alan Jackson asks her a question.
A: The object I saw on the ground was not cotton swabs.
Then the judge says he has some questions for Ms. Caplan. The judge is looking over a transcript of her prior testimony and reads it back to her.
Q: Why are you changing your testimony? Did you see Henry Lee pick something up and put it in a vial?
A: Yes.
I think there is one more question or two and then Alan Jackson gets up to present arguments to their position. One of his most memorable statements is, “Is Dr. Lee lying or is he incompetent? Which is it?”
When Alan Jackson finishes, Chris Plourd gets up to argue the defense position. Plourd argues about the number of criminalist at the crime scene. That “piece” definitely not there when those criminalists were there. It was not Sara Caplan’s responsibility to observe or supervise Dr. Lee. “There’s no evidence that Sara Caplan watched Dr. Lee’s testimony on TV. They (the prosecution) clearly lost something. There’s no evidence that the defense lost anything.” Plourd keeps using the phrase over and over again, “Dr. Lee testified to....” He tried to say there’s no clear evidence something was picked up. Then Brunon gets up to speak. “From a legal point of view, the whole issue has been speculative,” he says. “Mr. Jackson says his case is damaged. We ask, in what way?” Brunon says, “Suppose Dr. Lee did pick something up and do lose it. Again, how does that specifically hurt their case?”
Patrick Dixon jumps up, and he appears really upset in his tone. “It goes right to the heart of this case your honor!”
The judge is ready to rule. The complete transcript of that ruling can be found here. And for those who missed it, Judge Fidler ruled that Dr. Henry Lee was not credible, and that Sara Caplan's testimony was the most credible. He also states that the people can call any witnesses who testified at this hearing to impeach the testimony of Dr. Lee.
It’s 1:05 pm. Lunch is almost over. Spector and his wife and bodyguards arrive and go into the courtroom. They immediately exit the courtroom, and head down towards the other end of the hallway. I’ve heard that the court has given them a room that they can gather in to conference. There is a group of six new trial watchers waiting together in the hall. At first, I thought they were here for another trial, but after seeing them speak to one of the court public liaison's staff, I’m pretty sure it’s a good bet these individuals are part of some sort of production company. I can just tell by the way they look and are interacting with each other. Besides, why would a group of people coming down to court, contact the court’s public liaison office? Cutler arrives and enters the courtroom.
There’s a mass of people waiting butt not so many that I won’t get in. My thought is more about getting my same bench seat. A deputy approaches who is packing double heat. Steven says, “Two guns! Boy! Is he ready for trial!”
1:28 pm. Everyone is almost here, waiting to get into court. A woman with a juror badge is looking for Eric Leonard, and was asking some of the other reporters if he’s around. She’s a fan, and wanted to try to see him. One of the Court TV cameramen explains gives the woman a description of what Eric looks like, and that Eric is probably in the media room on the 12th floor. Linda Deutch arrives, and Dominick Dunne is here.
1:35 pm. The Judge finally takes the bench. A new witness takes the stand, and I notice that Patrick Dixon is chewing gum. Steven whispers to me, “In his twenty five hundred dollar suit.”
The next witness is David Ridgs, and he’s a paramedic-firefighter for the Alhambra Fire Department. Alan Jackson conducts the direct examination. The witness talks about his training and explains that an EMT paramedic has more training than an EMT1, 2, or 3. When it comes to declaring death, the witness testifies that the pronouncement can only come from an MD. However, a paramedic can make a determination of death, and that happens through an assessment of the four basic life functions.
Ridgs testifies that they are on shift for 24 hours, and that he started at 8 am the prior day. Ridgs and his partner got the call out and stopped at the staging area. Staging areas are usually used in regards to crew safety. They staged at Grandview and Norwood, and that it wasn’t “out of the ordinary” to stage at a death scene.
1:45 pm Beth Karas comes into the courtroom. This is around the time she usually comes in for the afternoon session, after she’s finished giving on air commentaries. The jury is alert and watching the witness. The witness says they arrived at the staging scene around 6:05 to 6:10 am. The paramedics initially met with police officers at the gate and then at the north side of the address. The witnesses understanding of the initial call was that there were shots fired and there may be a shooting victim. In his career, the witness testified that he made maybe twenty or more death determinations.
I see Alan Jackson lean into Lana’s mother and whisper to her. This is something that I see a lot in the days ahead. Mr. Jackson will let Lana’s mother know when photo’s of her daughter’s body are up on the screen, so she can avert her eyes. There’s a close up of Lana’s face on the Elmo. Her head is slumped to her left. There are close up photos now of Lana’s right side, and the witness is asked about blood on Lana's left side.
A: No significant amount of blood on (Lana’s) left side.
Q: Did there appear to be any more on her right?
A: Yes. (snip) The majority of blood was on the patient’s right side even though she was leaning to the left.
Q: Did you notice the blood on her chest?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check for vital signs?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check the carotid?
A: Yes. (snip) If I recall, I checked the carotid pulse on the right; the exposed side.
The witness testifies that he manipulated the victims head to check her airway. Lana’s mother has a tissue to her face. She’s looking down. She doesn’t look up. She now hold the tissue in her hands, looking down. Something comes over me, watching Lana’s mother. It’s an overwhelming sense of sadness I feel for her.
The witness testifies that he looked for a gun shot wound, but the officer at the scene asked him to keep the (movement of her body) to a minimum. The coroner would determine cause of death, once he got there. Using a heart monitor, the witness attached patches to determine if he could see a heart rhythm. He couldn’t find one. Lana had been dead enough time for a determination at 6:25 am.
Direct testimony ends, and Linda Kenney Baden will conduct the cross.
The witness is asked who he saw in the foyer area. He saw six people.
Q: Were you ever asked to diagram the area?
A: No.
Q: Did yo know any of the six people? (I think there might have been a photo up on the Elmo that the witness was asked to look at; not sure.)
A: No.
Q: Did yo you see any of these (six people) wearing gloves?
A: I can’t remember.
Q: Even though you told the police off they could preserve the scene, they could do (that) without you?
A: That’s correct.
Q: There is going to be some disturbance of the scene? (Regarding his handling of the body to determine if the victim is dead.)
A: That’s correct. (snip) We were advised by our captain that shots were fired.
More detailed questions are asked.
Q: You could not find a gun shot wound?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Why did you make these notes?
A: My captain, Mark Lingle, said this might be a crime scene.
LKB is now crossing the witness with his interview with detectives. Images of the lower steps are put up on the Elmo. The step! I can see the wood of the first step! There isn’t any “gouge” in it like Dr. Lee claims. At least, from this angle of the photo, I’m not seeing a “gouge.” My back is killing me! These court benches with be what eventually wrecks my body. My low back is aching terribly, and I try to stretch it out while I am sitting.
More photos of Lana dead in the chair she was sitting in.
Q: Who asked you to leave those patches there?
A: A police officer who was photographing (the scene).
The witness now reviews a report. Now, with these next rapid fire questions, LKB is trying to say that in his exam, he moved her head to where it was in the photographs, and it was his manipulation that smeared the blood. In the images, I’m noticing, one of the patches to the the heard has a blood smear from where the patch was.
The witness says that he’s not experienced in microscopic blood flow.
Q: Did you ever see any of the foyer officers again?
A: I could have. I don’t remember.
LKB asks if he saw the tazer leads, and the witness replies that he only remembers seeing the leads themselves.
Q: Did anyone explain to you (what happened) before you arrived?
A: No.
Q: Did anyone explain to you that there had been an altercation?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any other interviews besides the one in March, 2007?
A: Not that I recall.
Redirect of the witness. The prosecutor gets the witness to say that the images of Lana up on the screen are exactly how he found her when she first arrived. Mr. Jackson gets the witness to make it clear, that at the time of his interview with detectives, he didn’t have access to those photographs to refresh his memory.
Recross of the witness. There are more questions regarding the prior statement that Lana’s chin was resting in the “center of the chest,” and if he had ever seen a tazer lead under a shoe at the crime scene before.
The judge finally calls the afternoon break. The famous law professor, Stan Goldman, is in the courtromm talking to Beth Karas, Harriet Ryan and other Court TV people in the room. I listen in as best I can and scribble some notes. They are discussing the legality of the Dr. Henry Lee debacle, entering into another trial in the future. The professor can’t conceive of a situation where that could come in. It’s now that Beth talks to me about what I had observed/overheard between Cutler & Rosen days ago. She tells me, that as long as I am not purposefully trying to invade a private room that the defense is meeting in, anything that I observed or overhear here in the courtroom I can write about. That’s what I had thought.
Spector sits at the defense table. The chair is turned around 180 degrees from the defense table, and he appears to be staring at the floor. His wife is on the first bench, attending to some items in her purse. Spector yawns. His hands are clasped, and they’re shaking slightly. It appears to be a blank stare on his face, and then he yawns again.
3:10 pm Break is over. I overheard Steve Dunleavy recounting the story where Spector attacked him. Dunleavy repeats Spector’s statement to him, “I’ll kill you!” with the ‘karate’ type movements directed towards him, and the threatening message Spector left on his answering machine days later. Spector had purposefully shoved into Dunleavy with his shoulder, and in response to that, Dunleavy punched him in the nose!
The next witness is called. Peneda Rodrigeuz? Do I have that right? Esther is her first name. Peneda is her married name, Rodriguez was her maiden name I think. I do not note who does the direct examination of this witness, but I think it's Patrick Dixon. She was a detective and assigned a regular type car, not a black and white. She heard the radio traffic and telephoned the watch commander that she was in route.
Q: This was a serious crime in your city and you needed to be involved.
A: That’s correct.
She identifies the residence via images up on the overhead screen. She notified her supervisor after arriving at the scene. Sergeant Santana (sp?) authorized that a GSR kit should be utilized at the scene. She performed the GSR test kit on Adriano DeSouza, and then drove DeSouza to the police station. The officer explains the training she received for performing the GSR test. (Now my notes are not clear as to whether or not she performed the GSR test on DeSouza at the scene, or at the police station.) She then describes her procedures for performing the test, then booked the test into evidence.
The direct examination is done, and Linda Kenney Baden will cross the witness. The witness testifies that yes, she filed a report regarding everything she did.
Q: In fact, you made an assumption it was a crime scene.
A: That’s correct.
Q: In the reports you drafted on February 3rd and February 7th, you called the address a crime scene?
A: Yes.
Linda Kenney Baden paces a bit. LKB asks if she did anything else at the scene. She spoke to DeSouza at the scene, and was making inquiries about the scene with the other officers present. There are a few more questions, asking the witness if she spoke with the EMT, etc.
Cross is finished, and redirect begins.
The witness is asked why she thought it was a crime scene, and she explains. Redirect is finished, and LKB recrosses the witness again.
Q: Was that the only reason? Because you had talked to DeSouza, is that correct?
A: That’s correct.
And this witness is excused for the time being.
I don’t have any more notes in my book, but I do specifically remember out on the street, as I was waiting for the light to cross, I turned to one of the group of six people who I thought were from a production crew, and asked why did they decide to come to court today. The man replied, “Just thought we’d come down and watch the trial.” Steven was walking with me, because I remember saying, “Well, there’s more to that story....” and we both had a chuckle.
Brunon arrives. I’m wondering if the prosecutors are still with Shapiro. Everyone is expecting him. Steve Dunleavy, the famous New York Post reporter is admiring the shine on David K. Li’s shoes. “That’s one hell-of-a shine,” he says. “I can see my face in it.” Patrick Dixon finally enters the courtroom. The LA Times reporter Peter Y. Hong arrives as well as the prosecutor’s clerk who controls all their photo and document exhibits on the Elmo.
9:30 am.
No Alan Jackson. No Judge. Sara Caplan arrives. The tall black haired attorney for Lana’s family arrives. Linda Deutch finally slips into the courtroom. Russ, Steve Dunleavy, Steve Mikulan and another reporter all kvetch a bit. Rosen and LKB are in deep conversation. A gentleman I’ve seen before chats with the attorneys on both sides and now is chatting with LKB.
The prosecutions case file (it’s transported into court each day on a rolling cart, usually by Ed) finally gets here, and Ed goes through a few items. Sara Caplan and Linda Deutch chat a bit now. Cutler arrives along with the young bald Asian prosecutor we saw a few days ago. Ah, the gray suited man with stark white hair is Sara Caplan’s attorney. The judge is finally on the bench.
The defense is trying to get some sort of discovery issues. They are stating that the prosecution has stuff they’ve not received. Now I have some notes that I am having a hard time deciphering.
After discussing how we should do this, asked his boss Doyle to speak with Captain Kyle Jackson; to the Robbery Homicide Division and what they needed and how to proceed. Maybe I can figure this out later.
The defense is now asking for anything the prosecution has from Bill Pavelic. Something about an e-mail from Pavelic to an “E. Wiley.” And that’s it.
The defense makes a motion to object to the entire proceedings. The Judge responds that his role is to safeguard the process, to ensure that nothing improper occurs. The judge cites a case to support his ruling. Jackson gets Caplan kicked from the courtroom for a moment. The judge reads the ruling. “That’s exactly what I’m doing. I’m taking action.”
Sara Caplan takes the stand again. Her attorney sits in the jury box, and Rosen is asking the questions. She states she had worked on cases with Dr. Lee before. From what she recalls, about three or four times. “It didn’t look like what was in those vials.” Now, with the way Rosen is asking the questions, he’s implying that the white particles on the floor... trying to imply that the white particles might be the falling down ceiling.
Now Alan Jackson asks her a question.
A: The object I saw on the ground was not cotton swabs.
Then the judge says he has some questions for Ms. Caplan. The judge is looking over a transcript of her prior testimony and reads it back to her.
Q: Why are you changing your testimony? Did you see Henry Lee pick something up and put it in a vial?
A: Yes.
I think there is one more question or two and then Alan Jackson gets up to present arguments to their position. One of his most memorable statements is, “Is Dr. Lee lying or is he incompetent? Which is it?”
When Alan Jackson finishes, Chris Plourd gets up to argue the defense position. Plourd argues about the number of criminalist at the crime scene. That “piece” definitely not there when those criminalists were there. It was not Sara Caplan’s responsibility to observe or supervise Dr. Lee. “There’s no evidence that Sara Caplan watched Dr. Lee’s testimony on TV. They (the prosecution) clearly lost something. There’s no evidence that the defense lost anything.” Plourd keeps using the phrase over and over again, “Dr. Lee testified to....” He tried to say there’s no clear evidence something was picked up. Then Brunon gets up to speak. “From a legal point of view, the whole issue has been speculative,” he says. “Mr. Jackson says his case is damaged. We ask, in what way?” Brunon says, “Suppose Dr. Lee did pick something up and do lose it. Again, how does that specifically hurt their case?”
Patrick Dixon jumps up, and he appears really upset in his tone. “It goes right to the heart of this case your honor!”
The judge is ready to rule. The complete transcript of that ruling can be found here. And for those who missed it, Judge Fidler ruled that Dr. Henry Lee was not credible, and that Sara Caplan's testimony was the most credible. He also states that the people can call any witnesses who testified at this hearing to impeach the testimony of Dr. Lee.
It’s 1:05 pm. Lunch is almost over. Spector and his wife and bodyguards arrive and go into the courtroom. They immediately exit the courtroom, and head down towards the other end of the hallway. I’ve heard that the court has given them a room that they can gather in to conference. There is a group of six new trial watchers waiting together in the hall. At first, I thought they were here for another trial, but after seeing them speak to one of the court public liaison's staff, I’m pretty sure it’s a good bet these individuals are part of some sort of production company. I can just tell by the way they look and are interacting with each other. Besides, why would a group of people coming down to court, contact the court’s public liaison office? Cutler arrives and enters the courtroom.
There’s a mass of people waiting butt not so many that I won’t get in. My thought is more about getting my same bench seat. A deputy approaches who is packing double heat. Steven says, “Two guns! Boy! Is he ready for trial!”
1:28 pm. Everyone is almost here, waiting to get into court. A woman with a juror badge is looking for Eric Leonard, and was asking some of the other reporters if he’s around. She’s a fan, and wanted to try to see him. One of the Court TV cameramen explains gives the woman a description of what Eric looks like, and that Eric is probably in the media room on the 12th floor. Linda Deutch arrives, and Dominick Dunne is here.
1:35 pm. The Judge finally takes the bench. A new witness takes the stand, and I notice that Patrick Dixon is chewing gum. Steven whispers to me, “In his twenty five hundred dollar suit.”
The next witness is David Ridgs, and he’s a paramedic-firefighter for the Alhambra Fire Department. Alan Jackson conducts the direct examination. The witness talks about his training and explains that an EMT paramedic has more training than an EMT1, 2, or 3. When it comes to declaring death, the witness testifies that the pronouncement can only come from an MD. However, a paramedic can make a determination of death, and that happens through an assessment of the four basic life functions.
Ridgs testifies that they are on shift for 24 hours, and that he started at 8 am the prior day. Ridgs and his partner got the call out and stopped at the staging area. Staging areas are usually used in regards to crew safety. They staged at Grandview and Norwood, and that it wasn’t “out of the ordinary” to stage at a death scene.
1:45 pm Beth Karas comes into the courtroom. This is around the time she usually comes in for the afternoon session, after she’s finished giving on air commentaries. The jury is alert and watching the witness. The witness says they arrived at the staging scene around 6:05 to 6:10 am. The paramedics initially met with police officers at the gate and then at the north side of the address. The witnesses understanding of the initial call was that there were shots fired and there may be a shooting victim. In his career, the witness testified that he made maybe twenty or more death determinations.
I see Alan Jackson lean into Lana’s mother and whisper to her. This is something that I see a lot in the days ahead. Mr. Jackson will let Lana’s mother know when photo’s of her daughter’s body are up on the screen, so she can avert her eyes. There’s a close up of Lana’s face on the Elmo. Her head is slumped to her left. There are close up photos now of Lana’s right side, and the witness is asked about blood on Lana's left side.
A: No significant amount of blood on (Lana’s) left side.
Q: Did there appear to be any more on her right?
A: Yes. (snip) The majority of blood was on the patient’s right side even though she was leaning to the left.
Q: Did you notice the blood on her chest?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check for vital signs?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check the carotid?
A: Yes. (snip) If I recall, I checked the carotid pulse on the right; the exposed side.
The witness testifies that he manipulated the victims head to check her airway. Lana’s mother has a tissue to her face. She’s looking down. She doesn’t look up. She now hold the tissue in her hands, looking down. Something comes over me, watching Lana’s mother. It’s an overwhelming sense of sadness I feel for her.
The witness testifies that he looked for a gun shot wound, but the officer at the scene asked him to keep the (movement of her body) to a minimum. The coroner would determine cause of death, once he got there. Using a heart monitor, the witness attached patches to determine if he could see a heart rhythm. He couldn’t find one. Lana had been dead enough time for a determination at 6:25 am.
Direct testimony ends, and Linda Kenney Baden will conduct the cross.
The witness is asked who he saw in the foyer area. He saw six people.
Q: Were you ever asked to diagram the area?
A: No.
Q: Did yo know any of the six people? (I think there might have been a photo up on the Elmo that the witness was asked to look at; not sure.)
A: No.
Q: Did yo you see any of these (six people) wearing gloves?
A: I can’t remember.
Q: Even though you told the police off they could preserve the scene, they could do (that) without you?
A: That’s correct.
Q: There is going to be some disturbance of the scene? (Regarding his handling of the body to determine if the victim is dead.)
A: That’s correct. (snip) We were advised by our captain that shots were fired.
More detailed questions are asked.
Q: You could not find a gun shot wound?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Why did you make these notes?
A: My captain, Mark Lingle, said this might be a crime scene.
LKB is now crossing the witness with his interview with detectives. Images of the lower steps are put up on the Elmo. The step! I can see the wood of the first step! There isn’t any “gouge” in it like Dr. Lee claims. At least, from this angle of the photo, I’m not seeing a “gouge.” My back is killing me! These court benches with be what eventually wrecks my body. My low back is aching terribly, and I try to stretch it out while I am sitting.
More photos of Lana dead in the chair she was sitting in.
Q: Who asked you to leave those patches there?
A: A police officer who was photographing (the scene).
The witness now reviews a report. Now, with these next rapid fire questions, LKB is trying to say that in his exam, he moved her head to where it was in the photographs, and it was his manipulation that smeared the blood. In the images, I’m noticing, one of the patches to the the heard has a blood smear from where the patch was.
The witness says that he’s not experienced in microscopic blood flow.
Q: Did you ever see any of the foyer officers again?
A: I could have. I don’t remember.
LKB asks if he saw the tazer leads, and the witness replies that he only remembers seeing the leads themselves.
Q: Did anyone explain to you (what happened) before you arrived?
A: No.
Q: Did anyone explain to you that there had been an altercation?
A: No.
Q: Did you have any other interviews besides the one in March, 2007?
A: Not that I recall.
Redirect of the witness. The prosecutor gets the witness to say that the images of Lana up on the screen are exactly how he found her when she first arrived. Mr. Jackson gets the witness to make it clear, that at the time of his interview with detectives, he didn’t have access to those photographs to refresh his memory.
Recross of the witness. There are more questions regarding the prior statement that Lana’s chin was resting in the “center of the chest,” and if he had ever seen a tazer lead under a shoe at the crime scene before.
The judge finally calls the afternoon break. The famous law professor, Stan Goldman, is in the courtromm talking to Beth Karas, Harriet Ryan and other Court TV people in the room. I listen in as best I can and scribble some notes. They are discussing the legality of the Dr. Henry Lee debacle, entering into another trial in the future. The professor can’t conceive of a situation where that could come in. It’s now that Beth talks to me about what I had observed/overheard between Cutler & Rosen days ago. She tells me, that as long as I am not purposefully trying to invade a private room that the defense is meeting in, anything that I observed or overhear here in the courtroom I can write about. That’s what I had thought.
Spector sits at the defense table. The chair is turned around 180 degrees from the defense table, and he appears to be staring at the floor. His wife is on the first bench, attending to some items in her purse. Spector yawns. His hands are clasped, and they’re shaking slightly. It appears to be a blank stare on his face, and then he yawns again.
3:10 pm Break is over. I overheard Steve Dunleavy recounting the story where Spector attacked him. Dunleavy repeats Spector’s statement to him, “I’ll kill you!” with the ‘karate’ type movements directed towards him, and the threatening message Spector left on his answering machine days later. Spector had purposefully shoved into Dunleavy with his shoulder, and in response to that, Dunleavy punched him in the nose!
The next witness is called. Peneda Rodrigeuz? Do I have that right? Esther is her first name. Peneda is her married name, Rodriguez was her maiden name I think. I do not note who does the direct examination of this witness, but I think it's Patrick Dixon. She was a detective and assigned a regular type car, not a black and white. She heard the radio traffic and telephoned the watch commander that she was in route.
Q: This was a serious crime in your city and you needed to be involved.
A: That’s correct.
She identifies the residence via images up on the overhead screen. She notified her supervisor after arriving at the scene. Sergeant Santana (sp?) authorized that a GSR kit should be utilized at the scene. She performed the GSR test kit on Adriano DeSouza, and then drove DeSouza to the police station. The officer explains the training she received for performing the GSR test. (Now my notes are not clear as to whether or not she performed the GSR test on DeSouza at the scene, or at the police station.) She then describes her procedures for performing the test, then booked the test into evidence.
The direct examination is done, and Linda Kenney Baden will cross the witness. The witness testifies that yes, she filed a report regarding everything she did.
Q: In fact, you made an assumption it was a crime scene.
A: That’s correct.
Q: In the reports you drafted on February 3rd and February 7th, you called the address a crime scene?
A: Yes.
Linda Kenney Baden paces a bit. LKB asks if she did anything else at the scene. She spoke to DeSouza at the scene, and was making inquiries about the scene with the other officers present. There are a few more questions, asking the witness if she spoke with the EMT, etc.
Cross is finished, and redirect begins.
The witness is asked why she thought it was a crime scene, and she explains. Redirect is finished, and LKB recrosses the witness again.
Q: Was that the only reason? Because you had talked to DeSouza, is that correct?
A: That’s correct.
And this witness is excused for the time being.
I don’t have any more notes in my book, but I do specifically remember out on the street, as I was waiting for the light to cross, I turned to one of the group of six people who I thought were from a production crew, and asked why did they decide to come to court today. The man replied, “Just thought we’d come down and watch the trial.” Steven was walking with me, because I remember saying, “Well, there’s more to that story....” and we both had a chuckle.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Trial Notes, 5-9-07
Inside the courtroom, we are all waiting for the trial to start. I’m sitting in the second row on the far left next to Steven from the LA WEEKLY. Steven has a new article about the trial online. The black female sheriff comes over to me. I start to panic. What did I do now? She’s actually apologizing to me for yesterday, saying she sometimes has the same habit. But the worst news is, the Judge told her to check out my jaw chewing! I’m mortified. The Judge noticed my bad habit.
There are very few reporters today, and it was easy to get a seat into court. Spector is wearing glasses today. Since there have been quite a few posters on the Court TV forum that have been admiring Alan Jackson’s looks, I try to check his left hand to see if he’s wearing a wedding ring. He’s not. I make a note to remember to tell the poster’s that Mr. Jackson appears to be single. Spector surveys the gallery. His hands are not currently shaking. As he’s sitting, his elbow is resting on the arm of the chair, and he has his had sort of in front of his chin, almost holding it. Steven and I chat about how we both forgot our notebooks. He brought a script to a play with him to read, and he’s writing on the back pages of that. I grabbed my notebook from 4-26-07, and ended up writing on the back side of the pages.
I look over to check out Rachelle, Spector’s wife. She has her overly streaked hair in two french braids that end in two pigtails. I find this hairstyle an odd choice for court. A friend is with her. It’s not one of the bottle blondes, but a very thin, attractive woman. The Judge is on the bench. Rosen is trying to argue against new tape recordings coming in as evidence by the prosecution. They “have no bearing; foundation, relevancy, argument.” Jackson says they should wait until the witness testifies. The Judge says he can’t rule until he hears her testimony.
The attorneys and Spector stand when the jurors enter the courtroom. Stephanie Jennings is the next witness on the stand. She has a facial deformity. It looks like she has no nose. I wonder if, maybe she had a bad plastic surgery. I can’t tell from my notes, but I believe that Alan Jackson is presenting this witness. The witness says she lives in Philadelphia. She makes her living as a photographer. I miss writing down the year, but she was attending the Philadelphia Music Alliance (award ceremony) and she was covering the event, taking pictures of Spector. After she was through taking photographs, she was introduced to Spector. Jackson puts up a photo of her and Spector together taken at the ‘94 music conference. Jackson asks her if that’s her in the photo. She replies yes. Jackson then asks the witness to explain why she looks different than in the photo.
OBJECTION! Relevance! OVERRULED!
A: I had a car accident. It was two years ago. It was a very bad car accident. I totaled my car.
Jackson then asks her when she next met Spector again. She was having a drink at the bar of “Elaine's Restaurant.” She was emerging from the bathroom, and she saw Spector coming out of the restroom also. She tapped him on the shoulder and reintroduced herself by saying, “I photographed you (at the Philadelphia Music Alliance). He replied to her, “I almost shot you.” He then asked her to join his table. The witness can’t remember the other individuals in the party. The whole group went back to the Carlyle Hotel. It was fun. Everyone was having a good time, joking and laughing. There were at least four or five people in the group.
Q: Did your relationship become intimate?
A: Yes.
It was kind of a long distance relationship. The witness states that the suite that Spector was staying in, was a suite that he “shared” with Princess Diana. “It was a long distance relationship.”
Q: Were there phone calls, cards, and letters?
A: Yes.
Q: How long?
A: Two years. ... He called and asked if I wanted to go to the rock and Roll Hall of Fame after party. He said I would have my own room.
Q: How did you get to the event?
A: Phil sent a limo for me.
She attended just the after party, not the event itself.
Q: Where was the party?
A: The Wilshire Astoria. (sp?)
The witness testifies that she took one of her cameras with her to the party, but she had more cameras and other equipment with her back at her room in her camera bag.
Q: Was it a substantial amount of equipment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check into your room before the party?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he drinking?
A: Yes. He was drinking at the party.
Q: Can you describe how much?
A: I can’t give you an exact estimate. He was never without a drink.
Q: Towards the end of the evening, can you explain his demeanor.
A: Extremely drunk. Loud, insulting.
Q: Was his gait steady or unsteady?
A: Unsteady. ... I was ready to leave. I was tired. I hadn’t seen Phil for over an hour. I went back to the (Carlyle) Hotel via a taxi and went to sleep.
One of Spector’s bodyguards knocks on her door to her room, and says to her, “Phil wants you to go to his room.” She refuses. She’s tired, she wants to go back to sleep. Within five minutes, there’s another knock on her door.
Q: Who was at the door?
A: Phil was. ... He asked me to come over to his room. He was drunk and loud and demanding that I come over to his room. He said he was paying for the room. He was angry and loud. I tell him I can pay for my own room. We started arguing. I started packing my bags.
Q: Was it your intention to take your bags?
A: Yes.
The witness testifies that Spector's main demand was, she had to leave her bags there. He was trying to prevent her from taking her camera equipment with her down to the desk to pay for the room. “He was following me around the room yelling. I went into the bathroom to gather my things (toiletries), since that was the last place I still hadn’t packed up yet. “He came into the bathroom and slapped me and pushed me. I in turn, shoved him He fell into the tub and the shower curtain came down.” Spector left the room and then came back into the room with a gun. It was a small gun; the witness was not sure which type of gun.
Q: As you think back, what type of gun?
A: I’m not 100% positive.
Q: Did he point it at you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he move a chair and set it in front of the door?
A: Yes. Yes, he did point it in my direction. ... I sat on the bed, crying. ... I picked up the phone and dialed 911. ... I just wanted to leave. He was..... I was not leaving the room without my bags. He thought I was calling my mom.
Q: Why did he think that?
A: He said, “You can call your mom all you want. She can’t help you now.”
Q: What was said to the 911 operator? What was the gist (of the conversation)?
A: She asked if this was a domestic dispute. Was I at the Carlyle. Did someone have a gun.
At some point, the witness was able to give the information to the 911 operator because Spector left the room to investigate a commotion Spector heard in the hallway.
Q: Did you see what Mr. Spector did with the gun?
A: No.
The police arrived, and some came into the room. Some were in the hall. “The police were treating me like I was a call girl.”
Q: Did they appear to know Phil Spector?
A: Yes.
Q: You felt like they didn’t take you seriously?
A: What was I to do?
She didn’t know what to do. The manager gave me money to take the train back to Philadelphia. I didn’t know what to do. I just wanted to get back home.
Q: Did Mr. Spector ever mention to you about this gun?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever bring it up?
A: No.
Q: Did you go to this event again?
A: He said I would have my own room, and that he would be leaving and that I wouldn’t be alone with him.
Q: Never alone with him again?
A: No.
After this second awards event, her contact with him was only by phone. The last time she had heard from him, was when he asked her to fly to New York for a job to do some photography wok. He wanted her to leave that day. Since I couldn’t leave her current assignment that day, then the offer was off. Prior to that, after the Carlyle incident, she was invited to his birthday party. “I was supposed to meet him as his date. I did not. I was seeing someone else, and I didn’t think it was appropriate. So I stood him up.”
After that, she received threatening phone calls from Spector, telling her she would never work in this business again.
Q: At some time, did you hear about Lana Clarkson?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Were you contacted by a writer?
A: I was contacted by many different media people. ... A writer wanted to talk to me about Phil Spector and use my photos.
Q: Did you know what paper he was with?
A: Initially, no. ... I believed it was going to be an article on Phil Spector, not about me. ... I later learned it was the National Inquirer.
She found out when she read the article. The witness said she was paid $12000.
Q: Did you think it was for being interviewed for the article?
A: No. I believed the money was for the use of my photographs.
Detective Tomlin contacted her. He was relentless in calling. He called her attorney. She was subpoenaed.
Q: Did you speak with the media since?
A: No.
Court recesses for the morning break. I’m now able to get a peek at what Rachelle is wearing. It’s a matching tan/beige~ish suit jacket with matching shorts! SHORTS! SHORTS! And heels! I am totally flabbergasted she wore SHORTS to court! Phil an Rachelle talk and she is smiling and laughing. A bottle blonde shows up and joins Rochelle's friend on the defense side. I notice there are several more public people in the gallery today. There’s one woman who has shown up who is not with the press, but does appear to know Linda Deutsch and several other reporters. From what I’ve overheard of her conversations, she’s recovering from some sort of injury. Maybe she’s a reporter, but just not using her credentials?
Back on the record.
It’s now time for cross by Rosen.
Q: In January ‘95 were you aware of why he had bodyguards?
OBJECTION! Relevance! SUSTAINED!
Q: Regarding the second knock, didn’t you invite him into the room?
A: I don’t believe I invited him into the room
Rosen goes over her interview with the detectives. He’s using the transcript to try to impeach differences in her testimony. During that initial interview with detectives, she said the gun wasn’t pointed anywhere specific. On direct, she said Phil was pointing the gun at her. So, her testimony is not exactly the same.
I notice Juror #6 writing in his notebook, or, he’s leaning forward. He’s not watching the attorney or the witness. Ah, I see #6 finally looks up. He’s just going over his own notes.
Rosen tries to show that in her interview with detectives, she’s is more casual. She had been around guns. Rosen asks her if she knows about the Sullivan Act.
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Rosen is now crossing her on the “romantic" relationship. Her first interview was with detectives Tomlin & Forneya (sp?). There’s a contradiction that’s dated to ‘96. ( I can’t remember what this note refers to. Damn.)
Rosen now puts a contract up on the Elmo. It looks like a contract to talk about Phil Spector; an interview. The contract is dated February 5, 2003. So, the witness did talk to someone before the investigators. Rosen goes over every detail of this contract. The amount was for $1,000 instead of $1,200. Standard legalese contract that appears to contradict her testimony. Rosen confers with Cutler.
No more questions from the defense.
Redirect by Dixon.
Q: It was a standard contract, correct?
A: Yes.
She didn’t review it with her attorney before she signed it. She was always under the impression the article was supposed to be about Phil Spector instead of herself. On redirect, Dixon gets the witness to say that in her experience, there were “two” Phil Spectors. That he could just “snap.” Dixon tries to get in something about “personal knowledge.”
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED! Redirect is over. Rosen recrosses.
He’s trying to challenge her on her testimony. He’s trying to say she’s lying. That her statement to police is quite different, but (imho) is it really? She says that she didn’t think he would purposefully shoot someone.
Q: Did you feel threatened?
A: No, not exactly. (I’m not sure but I think this is from her statement to detectives, that Rosen is reading back, or getting into testimony.)
The witness is now saying that what Rosen is saying is out of context of the transcript.
There’s no redirect of the witness.
The lunch recess is called, the jury is excused. Someone, a “custodian of records” is going to be next .
Lunch break is over, and the defense arrives like a big wedge of bodies, the bodyguards getting people to move out of the way. The second Cutler arrives, he’s followed by reporters. Steven and I sit over by the jurors in the second row. As I watch Spector and Rachelle together, I’m struck by the fact that I’ve seen very little if any intimate touching between them. I see them standing and talking often, but Phil always has his hands clasped together, like they are now.
I see a new person in the gallery sitting behind me whom I’ve never noticed before. He asks me a ton of questions. Some of them quite perplexing. We are all waiting in the courtroom and I see that Lana’s mother hasn’t arrived back from lunch yet. The attorneys are debating an issue of a tape recording. The prosecution is trying to get in the recording. Beth Karas comes in and sits in a row behind me, right beside the Court TV guys who are monitoring the cameras on small control station. The defense is objecting to this tape, saying it’s highly prejudicial. The prosecution says something about leaving the jurors with a false impression. Roger Rosen is getting very emotional and riled up. The Judge says he won’t rule yet on the jurors time. He needs more information. The next witness is called. Vickie Daniels Mathews.
Vickie Mathews is a Police Communications Technician for the city (state?) of New York. She’s a S.P. R.N.T. which stands for Special Police Reporting Network Technician. She searched through the NYC microfiche and found the 911 call that Stephanie Jennings made from the Carlyle Hotel. The witness recovered those logs and gave them to the DA’s office. The prosecutor goes over all the coded text in the report and what it actually means. The witness is here to testify and explain what all the codes mean.
Direct questioning begins. the witness is asked to explain all the different codes and abereviations on the report and what they mean regarding the 911 call. It’s all very tedious and boring testimony. Finally a question is asked that becomes funny.
Q: “Slow down.” What it means....does it mean for units to conoiter (sp?), group together?
A: It means exactly what it says. Slow Down.
There is a bit of laughter over this in the courtroom.
The call started at 6:23a m and ended at 6:31 am.
Cross by the defense begins. The witness has been with the NY Police department 17 years. They get millions of calls. Back then, the calls are taped. They don’t have a tap recording of the call because the tape of this call was erased as a matter of course on April 14, 1995.
Q: Are there roll call sheets?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you asked to find an (roll call sheets/) reports.
A: No. Not my job.
Rosen goes over every excruciating detail of the call, often repeating the information the prosecution got out on direct. It’s very repetitive and often is very exasperating. Steven and I feel like this is the most boring type of testimony there is. The cross of basically boring information. I notice the jurors are not taking notes. The jurors are watching the Elmo, with photos of the actual 911 generated report of the call and all the coded words.
Rosen gets the witness to read off where it says: ML standing by phone, with “ML” meaning = male.
Q: It doesn’t say sitting in chair in front of door with a gun? ... Nothing that says the male pointed a gun at Stephanie Jennings! Nothing in box C (on the form) that this is a serious crime and to get there (asap)!
After more of this, this witness is finally excused.
The next prosecution witness is called. Melissa Grosvenor, and direct examination begins.
In May of 1991 she was working as a waitress.
Q: In May 1991, did you meet a man named Phil Spector.
A: My sister and I lived in New York. We were friends of Ahmet Ertegun, and we were invited to a party. At this party (which I believe was held in a restaurant). Spector noticed her and said, “Where are you going?” Spector tried to get her to join his table where he had a part of guests. The witness declined. She had other plans, and left.
Q: Did you know who he was?
A: No, I did not.
Later, she found out that Spector asked her sister for her phone number. “We went out to dinner. He was real charming , and we had a lot of fun.” They started dating. It was a platonic relationship.
Q: How often would you go out?
A: A couple of times a month. We would go to basketball games. I would go to parties with him.
Q: In that dating time, after a year did he move?
A: He moved from one hotel to the Waldorf.
Q: The restaurant where you worked, how close to the Waldorf was that?
A: Just across the street.
Phil invited her to Los Angeles. His assistant handled all the details. She cleared her schedule to have four days off from work. However, when the ticket was sent over to her, it was only a one way ticket. She called Phil, asking why there was only a one way ticket. He said, “Oh well, maybe we’ll play it by ear. Maybe we’ll only stay one or two days.” And the witness didn’t question that. It sounded reasonable. A driver picked her up at LAX, and took her to a hotel in Pasadena. Later, she got picked up for dinner by his driver and they had dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
Q: Did Phil drink with dinner?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you drink?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the first time, you had ever been to his house?
A: Yes.
The prosecutor asks the witness about the effects of alcohol (on Spector).
A: He wasn’t stumbling drunk, but he was drunk. Back at his house, he was slurring his words some. He was playing the same song over and over. (He was) dancing and drinking.
Q: After a period of time, did you have enough?
A: Yes. When I told him I wanted to go home, to leave, he pointed his finger at me and his demeanor changed.
The prosecutor asks what did she do next.
A: I sat down on a chair with my handbag. ... He came back in and he had a gun with a shoulder holster. ... He held the gun within inches of my face and said “If you leave I’m going to kill you.”
Q: Did you know if the gun was loaded?
A: I didn’t want to test it.
Q: Had you ever seen this type of behavior before?
A: No, I had not.
Recess is called, and we have the afternoon break. As I get up to stretch from sitting still for so long, it’s now that I see the first signs, the first glimpse of any intimacy between Spector and Rachelle. She touches his suit jacket in a playful, childlike way, with her hands, in small short pawing like motions several times. She’s smiling as she does this. Phil appears to be very animated while he’s talking to Rochelle now. He’s point his finger, and appears to be stressing a point. I’m across the room, so I don’t hear what is being said. From Spector's gestures, it’s like he’s giving Rachelle his own explanation (I’m speculating here: of what actually happened with this witness) and stressing a point.
On the same row/bench as me, there is a reporter from NBC Dateline. She asked me who I was with. Behind me, is the gentleman who was asking me all these perplexing questions. He’s dressed very casually and has a cross between a goatee and a full beard. When I asked him why he came to court, he tells me he’s a comedy writer, and that he thought that he would come down and see what the trial was like, how it was going. He tells me about his experience of getting to see one day of testimony at the OJ Simpson trial. It was the day of Mark Furman testimony, and the “playing of the tapes” with the racial slurs.
I see Spector watching the gallery from his seat at the defense table. The comedy writer talks to Beth Karas. Break is over, and the jury enters. After they are seated, I see Alternate #6 look out over the gallery.
The prosecution continues with it’s direct examination. The witness says that she was sitting in a chair crying hysterically. She then closed her eyes and fell asleep, sitting up in that chair. The next thing she knew, she was awakened by Spector tapping her on her foot. She noticed he didn’t have the gun or the holster. Spector asked her if she wanted to go get breakfast. She replied, “Yes, I did.” She just wanted to get out of there, and breakfast was an easy way to do that. She didn’t say anything about the incident (with the gun). “I was afraid to.” The witness said Spector drove her back to her hotel and she packed her things. She said a ticket was sent over. (For her to return to New York.)
Q: How long were you in Los Angeles?
A: I spent 19 hours.
Q: Did you tell someone about this (event)?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Who did you tell?
A: My family, friends. ... I asked Fran (a friend) to take me home.
Q: When you went back to work, you resumed your job, correct?
A: Yes.
The witness states that after the event, she often saw Spector in the restaurant where she worked. At some point, she left NY and moved someplace else. She’s not sure how often she saw Spector in the restaurant, but it was more than ten times. And during the time he was in the restaurant, she had to serve him.
Q: Was he always pleasant?
A: In the restaurant (yes). Not when he called me up. ... He threatened me. He left me messages. He said, “I’ve got machine guns. I know where you live. You know what I can do.”
It’s not clear from my notes, but I believe an objection is called, and the attorneys have a side bar with the judge. While this is going on, I see the Dateline reporter ask a gentleman in the front row, (who appears to be holding the witnesses’ handbag) who he is, and how old the witness is. I later find out that this gentleman is the witnesses husband.
Back to questioning the witness.
Q: How did you get here?
A: They (detectives) came to my house in Wyoming. I was subpoenaed. ... In 1989, Polegi was my maiden name. ... I was convicted of bank fraud.
Direct questioning ends. This is what they were trying to keep out. I show this comment to Steven because we are too close to the jury to whisper. I observe the Dateline reporter give her business card to the witnesses husband. The attorney’s are currently in a sidebar with the judge, possibly having to do with the prior conviction of the witness. Everyone in the courtroom is watching the judge and attorneys. Especially the jury.
It’s 3:30 pm and cross examination finally begins. The question is will Cutler cross? He gets up from his chair and it looks like it’s going to be him, but he sits down again. Rosen will do the cross.
Q: Ms. Grosvenor, you are a convicted felon?
A: Yes.
Q: Federal Court of Georgia, correct? US District Court, Southern District of Georgia?
I miss writing down her answer here. From my notes, it appears the witness is confused because she doesn’t know precisely which court it was. The defense enters the conviction document into evidence, and the judge makes a comment about the numbering of the documents that the jury finds amusing. The judge and the attorneys are now litigating which documents they can show the jury.
Q: (You were) convicted in 1989?
A: Yes sir.
Q: (It was) a felony?
A: Yes.
Q: And that felony was embezzlement of bank funds; convicted in Federal Court where?
A: Augusta, Georgia.
The attorneys approach the bench again. Rosen it appears, still wants to get something in about this witness. The comedy writer chats with Beth Karas again, and the jury fidgets. Some are watching the judge; some are taking notes. The witness waits on the stand. It’s now that I think that Judge Fidler reminds me a lot of Bruce Willis, except, the judge is probably quite a bit smarter.
I see jurors #7 and #8 whisper, smile and laugh to each other. Juror #9 coughs. They all appear to be bored. I see juror #9 look out onto the gallery, but most still have their eyes on the judge and the attorneys at the sidebar. And the witness continues to wait.
3:45 pm, Rosen finally continues his cross.
Rosen puts up a job application document up on the Elmo.
Q: On October 31, 1988, you made an application to be a flight attendant. When you signed it, you signed it that it was true and complete. You signed it.
A: Yes sir.
Rosen shows that her employment history is incomplete on the form. That she was fired from the bank is not on the form.
Q: So, she knew when you wrote that, that it was a lie, correct.
A: Correct.
Q: On the job application it asks “Have you ever been dismissed or asked to leave for a job, and you checked no. That was a lie, (wasn’t it)?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew when you signed that you were giving false information (didn’t you)?
A. That’s correct.
Rosen now goes onto talk about when the witness lived with her sister, Angela, and that she is now estranged from her sisters. At one point they were very close. Although my notes end here, from memory I will try to fill in the rest of the cross. Rosen is asking her questions about “didn’t you say to your sister,” (blah, blah, blah), and the witness denies most of what Rosen asks. On one question, she does correct him and say what she actually said to her sister. In her final answer to one of Rosen’s questions, the witness gets in that “My sister is a drug addict, which is why I no longer have a relationship with her. I’ve stopped giving her money. I believe she is getting money from Phil Spector.” That’s from memory, and I’m not sure it’s exact, but that’s the gist of what she said.
The witness is released from the stand, and court comes to a close for the day.
Outside the courtroom, Sandi Gibbons is responding to reporters questions about which witnesses will come next. Sandi says she thinks there are about 10 more witnesses left to go, and that we still haven’t heard from the chauffeur. That he will probably be on the stand next week. There are some redacted documents that will be available to the press through her (or the attorney’s ???) office, tomorrow.
I hear Linda Deutsch say that Henry Lee might be testifying (in the discovery issue) next Wednesday. Linda says, “The defense said that.”
On the 17th, there won’t be any court. Peter Y. Hong says, “Chinese newspapers said, Dr. Lee left Taiwan. It was in the Chinese Daily News. He was on a cold case; a 1980’s murder case.” In the elevator down, I ask the Dateline reporter (I’ve been admiring her locks; she’s got great hair.) if the gentleman in the front row of court was the witnesses husband. She replied, “Yes.”
On the trip home, I’m grateful that I get a seat on the train and the bus. It was a long day, and I am worn out.
I hope you have enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
There are very few reporters today, and it was easy to get a seat into court. Spector is wearing glasses today. Since there have been quite a few posters on the Court TV forum that have been admiring Alan Jackson’s looks, I try to check his left hand to see if he’s wearing a wedding ring. He’s not. I make a note to remember to tell the poster’s that Mr. Jackson appears to be single. Spector surveys the gallery. His hands are not currently shaking. As he’s sitting, his elbow is resting on the arm of the chair, and he has his had sort of in front of his chin, almost holding it. Steven and I chat about how we both forgot our notebooks. He brought a script to a play with him to read, and he’s writing on the back pages of that. I grabbed my notebook from 4-26-07, and ended up writing on the back side of the pages.
I look over to check out Rachelle, Spector’s wife. She has her overly streaked hair in two french braids that end in two pigtails. I find this hairstyle an odd choice for court. A friend is with her. It’s not one of the bottle blondes, but a very thin, attractive woman. The Judge is on the bench. Rosen is trying to argue against new tape recordings coming in as evidence by the prosecution. They “have no bearing; foundation, relevancy, argument.” Jackson says they should wait until the witness testifies. The Judge says he can’t rule until he hears her testimony.
The attorneys and Spector stand when the jurors enter the courtroom. Stephanie Jennings is the next witness on the stand. She has a facial deformity. It looks like she has no nose. I wonder if, maybe she had a bad plastic surgery. I can’t tell from my notes, but I believe that Alan Jackson is presenting this witness. The witness says she lives in Philadelphia. She makes her living as a photographer. I miss writing down the year, but she was attending the Philadelphia Music Alliance (award ceremony) and she was covering the event, taking pictures of Spector. After she was through taking photographs, she was introduced to Spector. Jackson puts up a photo of her and Spector together taken at the ‘94 music conference. Jackson asks her if that’s her in the photo. She replies yes. Jackson then asks the witness to explain why she looks different than in the photo.
OBJECTION! Relevance! OVERRULED!
A: I had a car accident. It was two years ago. It was a very bad car accident. I totaled my car.
Jackson then asks her when she next met Spector again. She was having a drink at the bar of “Elaine's Restaurant.” She was emerging from the bathroom, and she saw Spector coming out of the restroom also. She tapped him on the shoulder and reintroduced herself by saying, “I photographed you (at the Philadelphia Music Alliance). He replied to her, “I almost shot you.” He then asked her to join his table. The witness can’t remember the other individuals in the party. The whole group went back to the Carlyle Hotel. It was fun. Everyone was having a good time, joking and laughing. There were at least four or five people in the group.
Q: Did your relationship become intimate?
A: Yes.
It was kind of a long distance relationship. The witness states that the suite that Spector was staying in, was a suite that he “shared” with Princess Diana. “It was a long distance relationship.”
Q: Were there phone calls, cards, and letters?
A: Yes.
Q: How long?
A: Two years. ... He called and asked if I wanted to go to the rock and Roll Hall of Fame after party. He said I would have my own room.
Q: How did you get to the event?
A: Phil sent a limo for me.
She attended just the after party, not the event itself.
Q: Where was the party?
A: The Wilshire Astoria. (sp?)
The witness testifies that she took one of her cameras with her to the party, but she had more cameras and other equipment with her back at her room in her camera bag.
Q: Was it a substantial amount of equipment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you check into your room before the party?
A: Yes.
Q: Was he drinking?
A: Yes. He was drinking at the party.
Q: Can you describe how much?
A: I can’t give you an exact estimate. He was never without a drink.
Q: Towards the end of the evening, can you explain his demeanor.
A: Extremely drunk. Loud, insulting.
Q: Was his gait steady or unsteady?
A: Unsteady. ... I was ready to leave. I was tired. I hadn’t seen Phil for over an hour. I went back to the (Carlyle) Hotel via a taxi and went to sleep.
One of Spector’s bodyguards knocks on her door to her room, and says to her, “Phil wants you to go to his room.” She refuses. She’s tired, she wants to go back to sleep. Within five minutes, there’s another knock on her door.
Q: Who was at the door?
A: Phil was. ... He asked me to come over to his room. He was drunk and loud and demanding that I come over to his room. He said he was paying for the room. He was angry and loud. I tell him I can pay for my own room. We started arguing. I started packing my bags.
Q: Was it your intention to take your bags?
A: Yes.
The witness testifies that Spector's main demand was, she had to leave her bags there. He was trying to prevent her from taking her camera equipment with her down to the desk to pay for the room. “He was following me around the room yelling. I went into the bathroom to gather my things (toiletries), since that was the last place I still hadn’t packed up yet. “He came into the bathroom and slapped me and pushed me. I in turn, shoved him He fell into the tub and the shower curtain came down.” Spector left the room and then came back into the room with a gun. It was a small gun; the witness was not sure which type of gun.
Q: As you think back, what type of gun?
A: I’m not 100% positive.
Q: Did he point it at you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he move a chair and set it in front of the door?
A: Yes. Yes, he did point it in my direction. ... I sat on the bed, crying. ... I picked up the phone and dialed 911. ... I just wanted to leave. He was..... I was not leaving the room without my bags. He thought I was calling my mom.
Q: Why did he think that?
A: He said, “You can call your mom all you want. She can’t help you now.”
Q: What was said to the 911 operator? What was the gist (of the conversation)?
A: She asked if this was a domestic dispute. Was I at the Carlyle. Did someone have a gun.
At some point, the witness was able to give the information to the 911 operator because Spector left the room to investigate a commotion Spector heard in the hallway.
Q: Did you see what Mr. Spector did with the gun?
A: No.
The police arrived, and some came into the room. Some were in the hall. “The police were treating me like I was a call girl.”
Q: Did they appear to know Phil Spector?
A: Yes.
Q: You felt like they didn’t take you seriously?
A: What was I to do?
She didn’t know what to do. The manager gave me money to take the train back to Philadelphia. I didn’t know what to do. I just wanted to get back home.
Q: Did Mr. Spector ever mention to you about this gun?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever bring it up?
A: No.
Q: Did you go to this event again?
A: He said I would have my own room, and that he would be leaving and that I wouldn’t be alone with him.
Q: Never alone with him again?
A: No.
After this second awards event, her contact with him was only by phone. The last time she had heard from him, was when he asked her to fly to New York for a job to do some photography wok. He wanted her to leave that day. Since I couldn’t leave her current assignment that day, then the offer was off. Prior to that, after the Carlyle incident, she was invited to his birthday party. “I was supposed to meet him as his date. I did not. I was seeing someone else, and I didn’t think it was appropriate. So I stood him up.”
After that, she received threatening phone calls from Spector, telling her she would never work in this business again.
Q: At some time, did you hear about Lana Clarkson?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Were you contacted by a writer?
A: I was contacted by many different media people. ... A writer wanted to talk to me about Phil Spector and use my photos.
Q: Did you know what paper he was with?
A: Initially, no. ... I believed it was going to be an article on Phil Spector, not about me. ... I later learned it was the National Inquirer.
She found out when she read the article. The witness said she was paid $12000.
Q: Did you think it was for being interviewed for the article?
A: No. I believed the money was for the use of my photographs.
Detective Tomlin contacted her. He was relentless in calling. He called her attorney. She was subpoenaed.
Q: Did you speak with the media since?
A: No.
Court recesses for the morning break. I’m now able to get a peek at what Rachelle is wearing. It’s a matching tan/beige~ish suit jacket with matching shorts! SHORTS! SHORTS! And heels! I am totally flabbergasted she wore SHORTS to court! Phil an Rachelle talk and she is smiling and laughing. A bottle blonde shows up and joins Rochelle's friend on the defense side. I notice there are several more public people in the gallery today. There’s one woman who has shown up who is not with the press, but does appear to know Linda Deutsch and several other reporters. From what I’ve overheard of her conversations, she’s recovering from some sort of injury. Maybe she’s a reporter, but just not using her credentials?
Back on the record.
It’s now time for cross by Rosen.
Q: In January ‘95 were you aware of why he had bodyguards?
OBJECTION! Relevance! SUSTAINED!
Q: Regarding the second knock, didn’t you invite him into the room?
A: I don’t believe I invited him into the room
Rosen goes over her interview with the detectives. He’s using the transcript to try to impeach differences in her testimony. During that initial interview with detectives, she said the gun wasn’t pointed anywhere specific. On direct, she said Phil was pointing the gun at her. So, her testimony is not exactly the same.
I notice Juror #6 writing in his notebook, or, he’s leaning forward. He’s not watching the attorney or the witness. Ah, I see #6 finally looks up. He’s just going over his own notes.
Rosen tries to show that in her interview with detectives, she’s is more casual. She had been around guns. Rosen asks her if she knows about the Sullivan Act.
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Rosen is now crossing her on the “romantic" relationship. Her first interview was with detectives Tomlin & Forneya (sp?). There’s a contradiction that’s dated to ‘96. ( I can’t remember what this note refers to. Damn.)
Rosen now puts a contract up on the Elmo. It looks like a contract to talk about Phil Spector; an interview. The contract is dated February 5, 2003. So, the witness did talk to someone before the investigators. Rosen goes over every detail of this contract. The amount was for $1,000 instead of $1,200. Standard legalese contract that appears to contradict her testimony. Rosen confers with Cutler.
No more questions from the defense.
Redirect by Dixon.
Q: It was a standard contract, correct?
A: Yes.
She didn’t review it with her attorney before she signed it. She was always under the impression the article was supposed to be about Phil Spector instead of herself. On redirect, Dixon gets the witness to say that in her experience, there were “two” Phil Spectors. That he could just “snap.” Dixon tries to get in something about “personal knowledge.”
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED! Redirect is over. Rosen recrosses.
He’s trying to challenge her on her testimony. He’s trying to say she’s lying. That her statement to police is quite different, but (imho) is it really? She says that she didn’t think he would purposefully shoot someone.
Q: Did you feel threatened?
A: No, not exactly. (I’m not sure but I think this is from her statement to detectives, that Rosen is reading back, or getting into testimony.)
The witness is now saying that what Rosen is saying is out of context of the transcript.
There’s no redirect of the witness.
The lunch recess is called, the jury is excused. Someone, a “custodian of records” is going to be next .
Lunch break is over, and the defense arrives like a big wedge of bodies, the bodyguards getting people to move out of the way. The second Cutler arrives, he’s followed by reporters. Steven and I sit over by the jurors in the second row. As I watch Spector and Rachelle together, I’m struck by the fact that I’ve seen very little if any intimate touching between them. I see them standing and talking often, but Phil always has his hands clasped together, like they are now.
I see a new person in the gallery sitting behind me whom I’ve never noticed before. He asks me a ton of questions. Some of them quite perplexing. We are all waiting in the courtroom and I see that Lana’s mother hasn’t arrived back from lunch yet. The attorneys are debating an issue of a tape recording. The prosecution is trying to get in the recording. Beth Karas comes in and sits in a row behind me, right beside the Court TV guys who are monitoring the cameras on small control station. The defense is objecting to this tape, saying it’s highly prejudicial. The prosecution says something about leaving the jurors with a false impression. Roger Rosen is getting very emotional and riled up. The Judge says he won’t rule yet on the jurors time. He needs more information. The next witness is called. Vickie Daniels Mathews.
Vickie Mathews is a Police Communications Technician for the city (state?) of New York. She’s a S.P. R.N.T. which stands for Special Police Reporting Network Technician. She searched through the NYC microfiche and found the 911 call that Stephanie Jennings made from the Carlyle Hotel. The witness recovered those logs and gave them to the DA’s office. The prosecutor goes over all the coded text in the report and what it actually means. The witness is here to testify and explain what all the codes mean.
Direct questioning begins. the witness is asked to explain all the different codes and abereviations on the report and what they mean regarding the 911 call. It’s all very tedious and boring testimony. Finally a question is asked that becomes funny.
Q: “Slow down.” What it means....does it mean for units to conoiter (sp?), group together?
A: It means exactly what it says. Slow Down.
There is a bit of laughter over this in the courtroom.
The call started at 6:23a m and ended at 6:31 am.
Cross by the defense begins. The witness has been with the NY Police department 17 years. They get millions of calls. Back then, the calls are taped. They don’t have a tap recording of the call because the tape of this call was erased as a matter of course on April 14, 1995.
Q: Are there roll call sheets?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you asked to find an (roll call sheets/) reports.
A: No. Not my job.
Rosen goes over every excruciating detail of the call, often repeating the information the prosecution got out on direct. It’s very repetitive and often is very exasperating. Steven and I feel like this is the most boring type of testimony there is. The cross of basically boring information. I notice the jurors are not taking notes. The jurors are watching the Elmo, with photos of the actual 911 generated report of the call and all the coded words.
Rosen gets the witness to read off where it says: ML standing by phone, with “ML” meaning = male.
Q: It doesn’t say sitting in chair in front of door with a gun? ... Nothing that says the male pointed a gun at Stephanie Jennings! Nothing in box C (on the form) that this is a serious crime and to get there (asap)!
After more of this, this witness is finally excused.
The next prosecution witness is called. Melissa Grosvenor, and direct examination begins.
In May of 1991 she was working as a waitress.
Q: In May 1991, did you meet a man named Phil Spector.
A: My sister and I lived in New York. We were friends of Ahmet Ertegun, and we were invited to a party. At this party (which I believe was held in a restaurant). Spector noticed her and said, “Where are you going?” Spector tried to get her to join his table where he had a part of guests. The witness declined. She had other plans, and left.
Q: Did you know who he was?
A: No, I did not.
Later, she found out that Spector asked her sister for her phone number. “We went out to dinner. He was real charming , and we had a lot of fun.” They started dating. It was a platonic relationship.
Q: How often would you go out?
A: A couple of times a month. We would go to basketball games. I would go to parties with him.
Q: In that dating time, after a year did he move?
A: He moved from one hotel to the Waldorf.
Q: The restaurant where you worked, how close to the Waldorf was that?
A: Just across the street.
Phil invited her to Los Angeles. His assistant handled all the details. She cleared her schedule to have four days off from work. However, when the ticket was sent over to her, it was only a one way ticket. She called Phil, asking why there was only a one way ticket. He said, “Oh well, maybe we’ll play it by ear. Maybe we’ll only stay one or two days.” And the witness didn’t question that. It sounded reasonable. A driver picked her up at LAX, and took her to a hotel in Pasadena. Later, she got picked up for dinner by his driver and they had dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
Q: Did Phil drink with dinner?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you drink?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the first time, you had ever been to his house?
A: Yes.
The prosecutor asks the witness about the effects of alcohol (on Spector).
A: He wasn’t stumbling drunk, but he was drunk. Back at his house, he was slurring his words some. He was playing the same song over and over. (He was) dancing and drinking.
Q: After a period of time, did you have enough?
A: Yes. When I told him I wanted to go home, to leave, he pointed his finger at me and his demeanor changed.
The prosecutor asks what did she do next.
A: I sat down on a chair with my handbag. ... He came back in and he had a gun with a shoulder holster. ... He held the gun within inches of my face and said “If you leave I’m going to kill you.”
Q: Did you know if the gun was loaded?
A: I didn’t want to test it.
Q: Had you ever seen this type of behavior before?
A: No, I had not.
Recess is called, and we have the afternoon break. As I get up to stretch from sitting still for so long, it’s now that I see the first signs, the first glimpse of any intimacy between Spector and Rachelle. She touches his suit jacket in a playful, childlike way, with her hands, in small short pawing like motions several times. She’s smiling as she does this. Phil appears to be very animated while he’s talking to Rochelle now. He’s point his finger, and appears to be stressing a point. I’m across the room, so I don’t hear what is being said. From Spector's gestures, it’s like he’s giving Rachelle his own explanation (I’m speculating here: of what actually happened with this witness) and stressing a point.
On the same row/bench as me, there is a reporter from NBC Dateline. She asked me who I was with. Behind me, is the gentleman who was asking me all these perplexing questions. He’s dressed very casually and has a cross between a goatee and a full beard. When I asked him why he came to court, he tells me he’s a comedy writer, and that he thought that he would come down and see what the trial was like, how it was going. He tells me about his experience of getting to see one day of testimony at the OJ Simpson trial. It was the day of Mark Furman testimony, and the “playing of the tapes” with the racial slurs.
I see Spector watching the gallery from his seat at the defense table. The comedy writer talks to Beth Karas. Break is over, and the jury enters. After they are seated, I see Alternate #6 look out over the gallery.
The prosecution continues with it’s direct examination. The witness says that she was sitting in a chair crying hysterically. She then closed her eyes and fell asleep, sitting up in that chair. The next thing she knew, she was awakened by Spector tapping her on her foot. She noticed he didn’t have the gun or the holster. Spector asked her if she wanted to go get breakfast. She replied, “Yes, I did.” She just wanted to get out of there, and breakfast was an easy way to do that. She didn’t say anything about the incident (with the gun). “I was afraid to.” The witness said Spector drove her back to her hotel and she packed her things. She said a ticket was sent over. (For her to return to New York.)
Q: How long were you in Los Angeles?
A: I spent 19 hours.
Q: Did you tell someone about this (event)?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Who did you tell?
A: My family, friends. ... I asked Fran (a friend) to take me home.
Q: When you went back to work, you resumed your job, correct?
A: Yes.
The witness states that after the event, she often saw Spector in the restaurant where she worked. At some point, she left NY and moved someplace else. She’s not sure how often she saw Spector in the restaurant, but it was more than ten times. And during the time he was in the restaurant, she had to serve him.
Q: Was he always pleasant?
A: In the restaurant (yes). Not when he called me up. ... He threatened me. He left me messages. He said, “I’ve got machine guns. I know where you live. You know what I can do.”
It’s not clear from my notes, but I believe an objection is called, and the attorneys have a side bar with the judge. While this is going on, I see the Dateline reporter ask a gentleman in the front row, (who appears to be holding the witnesses’ handbag) who he is, and how old the witness is. I later find out that this gentleman is the witnesses husband.
Back to questioning the witness.
Q: How did you get here?
A: They (detectives) came to my house in Wyoming. I was subpoenaed. ... In 1989, Polegi was my maiden name. ... I was convicted of bank fraud.
Direct questioning ends. This is what they were trying to keep out. I show this comment to Steven because we are too close to the jury to whisper. I observe the Dateline reporter give her business card to the witnesses husband. The attorney’s are currently in a sidebar with the judge, possibly having to do with the prior conviction of the witness. Everyone in the courtroom is watching the judge and attorneys. Especially the jury.
It’s 3:30 pm and cross examination finally begins. The question is will Cutler cross? He gets up from his chair and it looks like it’s going to be him, but he sits down again. Rosen will do the cross.
Q: Ms. Grosvenor, you are a convicted felon?
A: Yes.
Q: Federal Court of Georgia, correct? US District Court, Southern District of Georgia?
I miss writing down her answer here. From my notes, it appears the witness is confused because she doesn’t know precisely which court it was. The defense enters the conviction document into evidence, and the judge makes a comment about the numbering of the documents that the jury finds amusing. The judge and the attorneys are now litigating which documents they can show the jury.
Q: (You were) convicted in 1989?
A: Yes sir.
Q: (It was) a felony?
A: Yes.
Q: And that felony was embezzlement of bank funds; convicted in Federal Court where?
A: Augusta, Georgia.
The attorneys approach the bench again. Rosen it appears, still wants to get something in about this witness. The comedy writer chats with Beth Karas again, and the jury fidgets. Some are watching the judge; some are taking notes. The witness waits on the stand. It’s now that I think that Judge Fidler reminds me a lot of Bruce Willis, except, the judge is probably quite a bit smarter.
I see jurors #7 and #8 whisper, smile and laugh to each other. Juror #9 coughs. They all appear to be bored. I see juror #9 look out onto the gallery, but most still have their eyes on the judge and the attorneys at the sidebar. And the witness continues to wait.
3:45 pm, Rosen finally continues his cross.
Rosen puts up a job application document up on the Elmo.
Q: On October 31, 1988, you made an application to be a flight attendant. When you signed it, you signed it that it was true and complete. You signed it.
A: Yes sir.
Rosen shows that her employment history is incomplete on the form. That she was fired from the bank is not on the form.
Q: So, she knew when you wrote that, that it was a lie, correct.
A: Correct.
Q: On the job application it asks “Have you ever been dismissed or asked to leave for a job, and you checked no. That was a lie, (wasn’t it)?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew when you signed that you were giving false information (didn’t you)?
A. That’s correct.
Rosen now goes onto talk about when the witness lived with her sister, Angela, and that she is now estranged from her sisters. At one point they were very close. Although my notes end here, from memory I will try to fill in the rest of the cross. Rosen is asking her questions about “didn’t you say to your sister,” (blah, blah, blah), and the witness denies most of what Rosen asks. On one question, she does correct him and say what she actually said to her sister. In her final answer to one of Rosen’s questions, the witness gets in that “My sister is a drug addict, which is why I no longer have a relationship with her. I’ve stopped giving her money. I believe she is getting money from Phil Spector.” That’s from memory, and I’m not sure it’s exact, but that’s the gist of what she said.
The witness is released from the stand, and court comes to a close for the day.
Outside the courtroom, Sandi Gibbons is responding to reporters questions about which witnesses will come next. Sandi says she thinks there are about 10 more witnesses left to go, and that we still haven’t heard from the chauffeur. That he will probably be on the stand next week. There are some redacted documents that will be available to the press through her (or the attorney’s ???) office, tomorrow.
I hear Linda Deutsch say that Henry Lee might be testifying (in the discovery issue) next Wednesday. Linda says, “The defense said that.”
On the 17th, there won’t be any court. Peter Y. Hong says, “Chinese newspapers said, Dr. Lee left Taiwan. It was in the Chinese Daily News. He was on a cold case; a 1980’s murder case.” In the elevator down, I ask the Dateline reporter (I’ve been admiring her locks; she’s got great hair.) if the gentleman in the front row of court was the witnesses husband. She replied, “Yes.”
On the trip home, I’m grateful that I get a seat on the train and the bus. It was a long day, and I am worn out.
I hope you have enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Trial Notes, 5-7-07
9:11 am
I finally arrive on the 9th floor. The hallway just out side Judge Fidler’s court is full of jurors waiting for other courts. There’s no Spector. No Dunne. No AP reporter.
Alan from the court’s public relations office pokes his head out of the courtroom and surveys the hallway. Harriet Ryan who is writing the Court TV blog on the case is sitting right beside David K. Li as usual. I see Russ and say hello. At 9:25 am, the bodyguards lead Phil, his wife and another woman into the courtroom. I get in and get a seat in the row right behind Steven Mikulan from LA Weekly. We had chatted in the hallway a few minutes ago about the days he missed. Phil is wearing a blue suit with a pink shirt. Mr. Cutler arrives, and some of the reporters shout at him from the gallery, “Mr. Cutler! Mr. Cutler! How do you feel!!?”
I see the AP reporter talking with another woman I haven’t seen before. She’s in the public group like me, but she seems to know some of the reporters personally. I see the reporter John Spano go up to the front of the courtroom and extend his hand to Cutler and introduce himself. At first, it appears like Cutler doesn’t want to shake his hand. All of Spector’s defense team appear to be here, but I’m shocked at how different Linda Kenney Baden’s hair looks. It’s obviously been professionally streaked, and it’s in an up swept do. It’s a big improvement over the stark blond color she’s had since the beginning of trial. I can’t say the same for the outfit she is wearing though. It may be a designer suit jacket, but it is not flattering on her.
It’s 9:35 am and the judge still hasn’t taken the bench. Ah, there he is. He’s not in his robes. He’s by his clerk’s desk, witnessing some legal documents and signing stuff that has been brought to his court.
Steven and I identify Lana’s mother who enters and sits right in the front row. She’s been here every day of I trial I believe. Every day that I’ve been here, a man who has been identified to me as her boyfriend is right by her side. There is also a younger woman sitting on her other side of Lana’s mother in the front row, but I don’t know who that is. I look around the rest of the gallery and spot Joe Dominick from Los Angeles Magazine. Dominick Dunne and Eric Leonard from KFI are not here today. 9:40 am, still no judge on the bench. The AP reporter gets up and goes over to speak to the man sitting right beside Spector's young wife. A tall slender bottle blond, impeccable make-up and dress, comes in and sits on the defense side and chats with the bodyguards. 9:45 am, still on judge. Sandy G. from the DA’s office finally arrives. 9:47 am, Dixon, Jackson and Rosen emerge from the judge’s chambers. I missed seeing them go in. 9:49 am the judge asks if counsel are ready. Dixon nods his head. There are a few issues before the court.
Judge: Mr. Cutler, are you better?
The first issue before the court is about the e-mail communication with one of the jurors, #6. The attorney’s for the Los Angeles Times contacted the court, concerned that there might be an issue of whether or not a juror has been affected by communication he received. The second issue is about another juror, #7, who said that they think a photographer with a telephoto lens was taking photos of them and brought that to the court’s attention.
Juror #6, the first issue is discussed. I look over at Joe Dominick who is in the same row, and I notice that he is a “hooking” left hander. Juror #6 is brought into the courtroom and questioned by the judge. He’s asked if this communication incident would affect his ability to be impartial on the jury. He said it would not. The rest of the jury is brought in, and the judge asks juror #7 to explain their concerns, and the judge, communicating to the gallery, that woe is the person who would end up before him, if they are found to be taking photographs of any of the jurors.
The next witness takes the stand. Chris Russ, a police officer. Patrick Dixon questions the witness.
He is currently employed as an officer of the Pasadena Police Dept., in the “Standards and Procedure's Department.” This is one of the officers that responded to the scene when Dorothy Melvin contacted the police about getting her handbag back from Spector’s house in 1993. At the time of Melvin’s incident report, he had been with Pasadena six months. Prior to that he was with another agency in northern California for eleven years. In July, he was assigned to patrol work with his partner, and they got a call to report to 1210 S. Arroyo in Pasadena.
The photo of Phil and Dorothy Melvin at a party is put up on the screen for the officer to identify.
Q: When did you first meet Dorothy Melvin?
A: It was on the roadway. She was next to her parked car. She was at her boyfriend’s residence. He produced a gun and forced her to leave the residence.
The witness says that he didn’t know of Phil Spector.
Q: Did you have a face to face confrontation at this residence?
A: Yes I did. I explained why we were there and asked to search the house for the purse.
Q: Was he pleasant and courteous or upset and angry?
A: He was pleasant.
The officer and his partner read off the nature of the call, that it was a possible robbery and the presence of the gun. One of the officers would have briefed the sergeant. There is quite a bit more testimony as to all that they had to do to get the purse. Phil got upset and started making accusations against the officers and the officers left the house. They put in a call the sergeant. The sergeant arrived and the sergeant was able to get Phil to let them search the house. The purse was found underneath a dining room table. It was returned to Ms. Melvin.
Cross of the witness by Roger Rosen. I am able to see that most of Rosen’s notes are hand written.
Q: You started with the Linkson (sp?) Police Department?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Today your title is sergeant?
A: Correct.
Rosen is asking about his report writing class that he took when he became an officer. There are more questions about reports and making sure that all things of importance are documented. Rosen is basically insinuating that the witness didn’t adequately fill out a detailed description of the event. There were no supplemental reports, and Rosen makes a big deal that the title on the pages the report is written on says “Crime Report.”
The witness tries to explain that this is just the form they use, and that the report was forwarded to detectives for information only. The report is marked that way on the selection box and in the narrative.
I notice that Phil's hands are held together, fingers interlocked. His elbows are resting on the arms of the chair. His hands are shaking.
Rosen verifies the name of the witnesses partner DHALSTEIN (sp?).
I hear the clacking of Harriet Ryan’s computer. She’s typing very fast for the Court TV blog.
Rosen makes a big point that there is nothing in the report about Dorothy getting hit on the head, or that the officers even noted that. The witness states that he observed Dorothy lean forward and show her head to his partner. However, there’s nothing about that in the report that Dorothy applied neosporin to her supposed head injury.
Now Rosen is asking him about his interview with detectives in 2004, who were investigating the murder of Lana. He and his partner were interviewed.
Q: Do you remember what you said about any head injuries?
(From my notes here I think the officer did not remember specifically), and Rosen asks him to read from the investigators report of their interview with him. Rosen is going on and on about not taking any photographs of Dorothy’ Melvin’s head. But, it wasn’t because of Melvin’s head injuries that they were there at Spector’s residence. It was because of a robbery and a man wielding a gun. Rosen is trying to get the officer to say that since it’s not in the report, it didn’t happen, and there’s no photographs to verify it. Therefore, Dorothy Melvin wasn’t really injured. The witness stated that he remembered Dorothy Melvin showing her head to his partner.
Q: But there’s nothing in the report! The report doesn’t contain anything regarding a fifth of vodka! It doesn’t contain any information that Spector pointed a gun at her.
A: The report says “displayed a gun.”
Q: The report contains no statement that she was terrified. The report does not contain information that a gun was pointed at her! No statement that she could feel the welts on her head. There’s nothing in the report about charges, threatening to charge Mr. Spector.
Rosen is going over every tiny item of Dorothy Melvin’s testimony that’s not in this officer’s report.
Q: There’s nothing in the report about Phil Spector threatening to sue you.
The officer did recall it, but it’s not in the report. Rosen then attempts to make a big deal that there is a difference between “displaying” a gun verses “pointed at.”
Q: Was he drunk?
A: No.
Redirect by Dixon
Q: If someone displays or points a gun at you, both are serious situations, correct?
A: That’s correct.
On redirect, the prosecutor get the witness to explain the reason the report says “crime report.” It’s not “really” a crime report. The witness recalls both officers talking to her but didn’t over hear everything that was said about Dorothy Melvin. Dixon gets the witness to point out that Spector wasn’t given a test for alcohol because he wasn’t driving a vehicle.
Recross by Rosen.
Rosen goes over again, the difference between the word displayed verses pointed.
The judge calls for a break. At break, I go to the restroom, but the male sheriff right inside the courtroom doors won’t let me back in until break is over. As I wait, Spector is escorted out with his bodyguards. As he passes, I smile at him and he smiles back. I see Roger Rosen and Patrick Dixon chatting about something as they head back to the courtroom. I hear low laughter coming from Patrick Dixon. Back in the courtroom, Beth Karas comes in to observe some of the trial. Steven tells me it was strange in the men’s room, with Phil and all the bodyguards. I watch some of the gallery, and the interesting way that Joe Dominick holds his paper and pen to take notes.
Steven says that those massive bodyguards are not really equipped to move fast or chase after anyone. They’re really only useful to keep space between Spector and anyone who might want to throw acid on him or something. We’re back on the record.
The prosecution is about to play a tape of recorded phone messages from Phil to Dorothy. And I’m thinking, geez! This is like, ten years old! You have to wonder about someone who saves this stuff after all these years. The defense objects citing “352” to these recordings coming in and heard by the jury. It’s explained to the defense that this was already litigated. “Oh, you did rule on it.” The defense says they are objecting to some, and the prosecution said they removed the ones they had objected to. Defense is still objecting to any of them coming in. They’re now objecting as to the use of language. The judge over rules the objection. Cutler then stands up. It’s like he’s just now hearing that these tapes are coming in, and he says, “Something is getting past me?? Is this being played now?” Man, was he asleep at the defense table?
The jury enters the courtroom. A transcript of the audio phone messages is given to each juror. The defense wants the judge to make sure that the jury knows the actual evidence is the audio recording and not the transcript. The audio is filled with rambling messages.
“So where are you, and call us, and don’t be so mysterious...” I’m amazed at the use of the word “we” verses “I” in Phil’s first message to Dorothy. “We hope this is the right number to reach us at....” In this first message, he only uses the word “we” instead of “I.” It’s weird.
Then, there are messages that are clearly relating to “after” the assault.
“I want you to know it was the right thing to do...” “I really understand. It’s okay.”
Then a second and third apology.
“In any event, I don’t have any ill will...”
Fourth message/apology: “You never did anything. It was all my behavior...” “My behavior was inexcusable...” I apologize. I wish you well and I am sorry because you deserve a lot better than that.”
Fifth message. He mentions something about his “nipple ring” that I miss getting in my notes.
“I ws expecting a return call. But be careful what you say to me because nothing is worth your life.”
Sixth message. “You deal with my lawyers from now on. Your F***** and you will see papers Monday morning!”
And that’s the end of the morning session. Recess until 1:30 pm There are more issues before the judge. Rosen is objecting to tape recordings that the Jennings witness brought to court with her. The judge says he will wait until the witness testifies, and then he’ll rule on their admissibility.
At lunch I step outside the building to get some fresh air. I’m close enough now that I can see the letters etched into the building. It says, CITY HALL. It’s the original building. I see Joe Dominick pacing outside with a cell phone glued to his ear.
Passing time is slow, even though I had brought a book. I try to stretch out my low back as I stand. It helps some.
1:11 pm
Back up on the 9th floor, the reporters start straggling back in. Dawna shows up! I hadn’t seen her at court for several days. LKB is talking to the Court TV reporter, Michael about her hair and what happened but since she said to him that it was “off the record,” I’ll respect that and not write what she said. Dawna says that the ANS case is still big news and that story has been occupying most of her time. The reporters chat and joke among themselves, waiting for court to start up again. I tell her that there has been a lot of criticism of LKB’s hair on the forums. Dawna says, “It’s a shame,” that her appearance is being criticized, “...because she’s such a brilliant attorney.”
1:35 pm
We’re back on the record. The attorneys are going over an audio tape that was brought in by the next witness. Jackson is not going to use it in his case in chief, but Rosen needs time to listen to it. There are not that many people observing the trial today. Rosen and Cutler are conferring with each other, and Cutler wants to hear the tape. They’ll have to do it during the next break. The judge brings in the jurors. One of the reporters clarifies for me who is who in the front row. They think the taller, dark haired man is Lana’s mother’s boyfriend, and the shorter, silver haired man is her attorney.
The next witness on the stand is Dianne Ogden. She’s a sharp looking woman. It’s not until days later that I find out she’s still relatively young. She’s actually pregnant. She met Spector in 1982. Naughty (sp?) Egan, Spector's publicist introduced her to Phil. At the time, she was a talent casting coordinator. She was extensively involved in the entertainment industry. Dixon questions the witness.
Q: In 1982 were you involved in the entertainment industry?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you involved with the Grammys?
A: Yes.
Q: (I missed the question)
A: It was her assistant who wanted to get us together. Not Phil. I didn’t know him, no. (snip) He was funny. I thought he was a gentleman.
Q: Dinner was late?
A: 9-10 pm
Spector asks her if she wanted to see his home. At the time, it was off Sunset Blvd., in the hills. The witness says it was an interesting house. It looked like a castle. It was kinda scary. He had a popcorn machine. He was drinking, but not at his home.
“He had a buzzer to lock the doors” (snip) “I couldn’t get out. I tried the doors, I couldn’t get out! I thought it was odd because I’d never seen that side of Phil before. I was laughing because I was nervous.”
Spector finally unlocked the door, and she left. In 1988, the witness saw him again. Its now that the black female deputy comes over to me with a napkin in her hand telling me to give her my gum. I get this bewildered expression on my face and say, “I don’t have any gum.” Complete embarrassment here. I have a nervous habit that I’ve had since a child that starts when I’m totally engrossed in something and I don’t even know I’m doing it. I start gnawing on the inside of my cheek. I’m paranoid. I now think the deputy sheriff has it out for me, and she’s looking for any reason to kick me out of the courtroom.
The prosecutor now takes the witness to an event she experienced with Spector. It was a bad experience. Her voice immediately becomes very emotional. This was a dinner party that she helped arrange for several people at Spector’s house. She thought it would be okay since several people were there. Everyone had left and she was the last person to leave and she was trying to get out of the house. Suddenly, Spector had a rifle in his hand on her right side. The witness is getting even more emotional, just talking about this event. She then suddenly turns and says something to the judge.
“Can I say something. I just want to say, I did not want to come here! I was subpoenaed to come here. Two plain clothes police officers came to my home in Park City, Utah. Came to my door at 7:30 am in the morning! My children were with me and I was terrified.”
This was a year after Lana Clarkson was killed. The witness had never contacted LE.
Q: (That night, ) did you know if Spector has been drinking?
A: Yes. I don’t know how much.
Q: (missed this)
A: I couldn’t understand (what was happening). This was not my Phil. This was not the man I loved. I can’t even describe it. It was demonic. (snip) I sat down. I said, “Don’t do that!” He had a pistol to my face. He put the pistol here, there ( The witness demonstrates with her hand where Spector put the gun on her face.). It reminded me of my step father. (snip) It just scared the hell out of me.
Q: Did he repeatedly touch your face with the gun?
A: Yes. (She wrote about this in her journal.) “He wanted me to go upstairs to the bedroom.
Q: Did you spend the night there?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you want to be there?
A: No. He did it by gunpoint! He wanted to rape me! (snip) He had me take off some of my clothes and he tried to have intercourse with me. It was icky.
Q: Did you have sex with him?
A: He tried.
Q: (missed this)
A: The next morning, he was singing in the bathroom, in the shower. Like nothing had happened. (snip) It was weird that.... no discussion. He never mentioned it. He never said he was sorry.
Q: There was no reference to what had happened?
A: He said he was going to blow my brains out! (snip) That was not romantic if we were going to make love.
Q: (missed this; something about seeing him again)
A: I did see him again. (snip) I thought he had a drinking problem. I still cared about him. (snip) After a period of time passed, I went to his house again.
The witness describes how Spector chased after her to her car with an “uzi.” He was slamming it with one hand against the window. She could see in her rear view mirror Spector running after her. “He was screaming nonessential things. He was yelling. He wouldn’t stop yelling.”
“I thought, That’s it.”
I notice that the jury appears to be very attentive.
(Afterwards) “I know that he called me a few times.” The witness states that she got married in 1990 and moved to Florida. “He sent me cards, roses. He was a very thoughtful man.”
The court recesses for the afternoon break. Steven and I discuss the witness. Finally! Some decent testimony/action. She’s a great witness. She reminds us of Goldie Hawn.
2:50 pm Back on the record. I feel Dixon played that really well. He got her to say rape. And the defense will try to tear her testimony apart.
Q: You didn’t report this to the police?
A: I wanted to protect him. (snip) Maybe I should have done it. (called police) Maybe it would have helped him.
End of Direct. Cutler gets up and he’s going to do the cross.
Q: Have we ever spoken?
A: No.
Q: Have we ever discussed this case?
A: No.
Q: Was 1998 your last contact (with Mr. Spector)?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know... (Cutler is using a big booming voice here)
A: It never culminated in a real romantic relationship. It was never a sexual relationship.
Q: What is a casual dating (relationship)?
A: It could mean a kiss; having dinner and being friends.
Q: You never had sex?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Did you also think Phil was guilty?
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: About the first incident; there was nothing about a gun?
A: correct.
Q: Did your relationship with Phil change?
A: Yes.
Q: You worked for him as an assistant?
A: Yes. Part time out of my home. (snip) I enjoyed working for him. I trusted him.
Q: 1988 was the first incident with a gun...
Then something in my notes here about 3/89...No, 3/89... It appears she’s disputing the date of the first incident. Cutler brings her a paper to review. It’s the investigators report. She says that the first incident occurred in 1989, in spite of what the report says. “I may have said ‘88. (snip) I don’t know if he taped the interview.”
Q: Did you say there was a lot to love about Phil Spector?
A: Yes. (snip) He helped Ike Turner. He was very generous.
Q: (I miss writing this one down.)
A: I was surprised by the two detectives. I could have said that.
Cutler is trying to pull out inconsistencies in her interview with the Los Angeles Detectives and her statements today.
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED! (I have no notes what this one is about. Sorry!)
Q: Do you recall....
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED
Judge: The question is improper. The question is sustained.
It appears the detective’s report has several errors relating to one of the party guests. The report says one man’s “wife” was there, but the witness says it was the man’s son. She’s sure because the man was not married at the time. He had a girlfriend.
Q: Did you know Philip had guns?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know it was an Uzi?
A: Philip told me it was.
Q: Did he fire a gun in your presence?
A: No.
Q: Did you fool around with a gun in his presence? (I’m not sure about the accuracy of this question.)
A: No.
Q: Did you provocatively play with a gun in his presence?
A: No.
The witness responds with all of these “NO’s” very emphatically. The judge is now admonishing Cutler. I notice juror #6 yawns, same as I do right now. The jury fidgets about a bit and so do I. For me, it’s these hard wood benches with no cushions. The judge now admonishes Cutler over questions about her handbag. His voice is booming and accusing.
Judge: (To Cutler) You will not yell or point at a witness. I told you before. DO NOT YELL. The Judge (at the jury??) (unsure about my notes here) about Cutler’s booming voice. The Judge is really shutting Cutler’s theatrics down.
Q: Did you form an opinion? (Cutlers voice is booming again!) Did you.... (snip) How tall.... (snip)
OBJECTION!
Q: What did you read (about this case)?
Q: What did you hear (about this case)?
Judge: Mr. Cutler! You need to stop yelling. Now Dixon getting upset and raising his voice!. It’s now that Cutler makes this amazing statement! “I get exercise... (did he say exercise or excited?)...Something goes off in your head.” It’s totally amazing that cutler says this, because this is what the prosecution thinks Spector did. Lose it. Lose control.
Judge: Even if the devil made you do it.....
Cutler: You’ve totally....
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Cutler gets very animated now.
Q: Didn’t you tell Mr. Bennett (I don’t get this name correct). (snip) You don’t know what Paul Schaffer told investigators about you?
A: No I do not!!!!
OBJECTION! Improper form.
Judge: Mr. Cutler! I’ve told you too many times. If you hear my voice, STOP TALKING!
Q: You never mentioned that before? (snip) You just added that! The pocketbook never came up! There, with Spector!
Earlier, on direct, she states that she was getting ready to leave, and her “...pocketbook was over her shoulder, and I wanted to leave.” So now, Cutler is trying to get her to admit that she just added that today on the stand. She never said that with the investigators before.
Q: You told Bennet (don’t know if this is the correct name) on the very first day... (of their interview with her)....
Q: Did you ever act professionally?
A: NO!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Are you acting today?
A: NO!!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: You threw in that bit about the rape! “Blow my brains out!” That’s not in the report either!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Ms. Ogden, You have intentionally...
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Have you intentionally..... (snip) Blow my brains....That’s an uzi....
OBJECTION! ARGUMENT! SUSTAINED!
The witness needs to use the restroom so the judge calls a recess. Steven says, she drank too much water on the stand. Cutler is trying to impeach her with the detectives report, saying she embellished and added these other statements to match what happened to Lana.
It’s now that I observe Cutler and Rosen off to the far left, right next to the jury box. (The jurors are not in the courtroom) They are discussing elements of the witnesses testimony. Cutler is very animated saying “Blow my brains out! The pocketbook! Come on Roger! You don’t let that go! Rosen who is listening to Cutler but his eyes are downcast is shaking his head while Cutler is talking.
Some reporters have speculated that Rosen and Cutler don’t get along, and that Cutler’s histrionics won’t play well with the jury. The Judge, watching the dramatics of Cutler, is making these great facial expressions. There’s some talk that I don’t totally get. I miss it, but I have snippets of it in my notes. Someone says, “The dynamic duo of the prosecutions office.”
Judge: Which one is Robin?
It’s 4:10 pm. Looks like court is going to go long today, to get this witness finished on the stand, so she doesn’t have to come back to court again. Back on the record now.
Spector and the rest of the attorneys stand and the jury comes in. Phil (?) says something to Cutler and Cutler responds, “I know.” Cutler is bringing in a document as new defense exhibit.
Cutler: Mark this defense exhibit H, as in Happiness?
Judge: If only.
A tape is now played for the jury. This is a tape that the prosecution did not want to use as a part of their case. I can’t tell from my notes if this is Dianne Ogden’s tape, or not. Yes, it is. Cutler gets the witness to admit that there are no dates on the tape.
Q: On the tape, is this before the gun incident?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you send Philip an e-mail in late 2002?
A: No I don’t have his e-mail address.
Judge: It’s 4:30. We need to wrap it up or put it over into Wednesday.
Cutler: It’s a wrap.
Prosecution: No more questions your honor.
I finally take a note of what color kerchief Spector has in his coat lapel pocket: Its baby blue. The jury won’t be in tomorrow, and they will be continuing the discovery issue. Spector takes his 977 waver not to appear. The Judge says on 5/23, there will be no morning session.
And that’s the end of my notes. It takes me longer to get back home on this day, finally pulling into my driveway after 6:00 pm. The fur kids let me know chow time is late.
I hope you have enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
I finally arrive on the 9th floor. The hallway just out side Judge Fidler’s court is full of jurors waiting for other courts. There’s no Spector. No Dunne. No AP reporter.
Alan from the court’s public relations office pokes his head out of the courtroom and surveys the hallway. Harriet Ryan who is writing the Court TV blog on the case is sitting right beside David K. Li as usual. I see Russ and say hello. At 9:25 am, the bodyguards lead Phil, his wife and another woman into the courtroom. I get in and get a seat in the row right behind Steven Mikulan from LA Weekly. We had chatted in the hallway a few minutes ago about the days he missed. Phil is wearing a blue suit with a pink shirt. Mr. Cutler arrives, and some of the reporters shout at him from the gallery, “Mr. Cutler! Mr. Cutler! How do you feel!!?”
I see the AP reporter talking with another woman I haven’t seen before. She’s in the public group like me, but she seems to know some of the reporters personally. I see the reporter John Spano go up to the front of the courtroom and extend his hand to Cutler and introduce himself. At first, it appears like Cutler doesn’t want to shake his hand. All of Spector’s defense team appear to be here, but I’m shocked at how different Linda Kenney Baden’s hair looks. It’s obviously been professionally streaked, and it’s in an up swept do. It’s a big improvement over the stark blond color she’s had since the beginning of trial. I can’t say the same for the outfit she is wearing though. It may be a designer suit jacket, but it is not flattering on her.
It’s 9:35 am and the judge still hasn’t taken the bench. Ah, there he is. He’s not in his robes. He’s by his clerk’s desk, witnessing some legal documents and signing stuff that has been brought to his court.
Steven and I identify Lana’s mother who enters and sits right in the front row. She’s been here every day of I trial I believe. Every day that I’ve been here, a man who has been identified to me as her boyfriend is right by her side. There is also a younger woman sitting on her other side of Lana’s mother in the front row, but I don’t know who that is. I look around the rest of the gallery and spot Joe Dominick from Los Angeles Magazine. Dominick Dunne and Eric Leonard from KFI are not here today. 9:40 am, still no judge on the bench. The AP reporter gets up and goes over to speak to the man sitting right beside Spector's young wife. A tall slender bottle blond, impeccable make-up and dress, comes in and sits on the defense side and chats with the bodyguards. 9:45 am, still on judge. Sandy G. from the DA’s office finally arrives. 9:47 am, Dixon, Jackson and Rosen emerge from the judge’s chambers. I missed seeing them go in. 9:49 am the judge asks if counsel are ready. Dixon nods his head. There are a few issues before the court.
Judge: Mr. Cutler, are you better?
The first issue before the court is about the e-mail communication with one of the jurors, #6. The attorney’s for the Los Angeles Times contacted the court, concerned that there might be an issue of whether or not a juror has been affected by communication he received. The second issue is about another juror, #7, who said that they think a photographer with a telephoto lens was taking photos of them and brought that to the court’s attention.
Juror #6, the first issue is discussed. I look over at Joe Dominick who is in the same row, and I notice that he is a “hooking” left hander. Juror #6 is brought into the courtroom and questioned by the judge. He’s asked if this communication incident would affect his ability to be impartial on the jury. He said it would not. The rest of the jury is brought in, and the judge asks juror #7 to explain their concerns, and the judge, communicating to the gallery, that woe is the person who would end up before him, if they are found to be taking photographs of any of the jurors.
The next witness takes the stand. Chris Russ, a police officer. Patrick Dixon questions the witness.
He is currently employed as an officer of the Pasadena Police Dept., in the “Standards and Procedure's Department.” This is one of the officers that responded to the scene when Dorothy Melvin contacted the police about getting her handbag back from Spector’s house in 1993. At the time of Melvin’s incident report, he had been with Pasadena six months. Prior to that he was with another agency in northern California for eleven years. In July, he was assigned to patrol work with his partner, and they got a call to report to 1210 S. Arroyo in Pasadena.
The photo of Phil and Dorothy Melvin at a party is put up on the screen for the officer to identify.
Q: When did you first meet Dorothy Melvin?
A: It was on the roadway. She was next to her parked car. She was at her boyfriend’s residence. He produced a gun and forced her to leave the residence.
The witness says that he didn’t know of Phil Spector.
Q: Did you have a face to face confrontation at this residence?
A: Yes I did. I explained why we were there and asked to search the house for the purse.
Q: Was he pleasant and courteous or upset and angry?
A: He was pleasant.
The officer and his partner read off the nature of the call, that it was a possible robbery and the presence of the gun. One of the officers would have briefed the sergeant. There is quite a bit more testimony as to all that they had to do to get the purse. Phil got upset and started making accusations against the officers and the officers left the house. They put in a call the sergeant. The sergeant arrived and the sergeant was able to get Phil to let them search the house. The purse was found underneath a dining room table. It was returned to Ms. Melvin.
Cross of the witness by Roger Rosen. I am able to see that most of Rosen’s notes are hand written.
Q: You started with the Linkson (sp?) Police Department?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Today your title is sergeant?
A: Correct.
Rosen is asking about his report writing class that he took when he became an officer. There are more questions about reports and making sure that all things of importance are documented. Rosen is basically insinuating that the witness didn’t adequately fill out a detailed description of the event. There were no supplemental reports, and Rosen makes a big deal that the title on the pages the report is written on says “Crime Report.”
The witness tries to explain that this is just the form they use, and that the report was forwarded to detectives for information only. The report is marked that way on the selection box and in the narrative.
I notice that Phil's hands are held together, fingers interlocked. His elbows are resting on the arms of the chair. His hands are shaking.
Rosen verifies the name of the witnesses partner DHALSTEIN (sp?).
I hear the clacking of Harriet Ryan’s computer. She’s typing very fast for the Court TV blog.
Rosen makes a big point that there is nothing in the report about Dorothy getting hit on the head, or that the officers even noted that. The witness states that he observed Dorothy lean forward and show her head to his partner. However, there’s nothing about that in the report that Dorothy applied neosporin to her supposed head injury.
Now Rosen is asking him about his interview with detectives in 2004, who were investigating the murder of Lana. He and his partner were interviewed.
Q: Do you remember what you said about any head injuries?
(From my notes here I think the officer did not remember specifically), and Rosen asks him to read from the investigators report of their interview with him. Rosen is going on and on about not taking any photographs of Dorothy’ Melvin’s head. But, it wasn’t because of Melvin’s head injuries that they were there at Spector’s residence. It was because of a robbery and a man wielding a gun. Rosen is trying to get the officer to say that since it’s not in the report, it didn’t happen, and there’s no photographs to verify it. Therefore, Dorothy Melvin wasn’t really injured. The witness stated that he remembered Dorothy Melvin showing her head to his partner.
Q: But there’s nothing in the report! The report doesn’t contain anything regarding a fifth of vodka! It doesn’t contain any information that Spector pointed a gun at her.
A: The report says “displayed a gun.”
Q: The report contains no statement that she was terrified. The report does not contain information that a gun was pointed at her! No statement that she could feel the welts on her head. There’s nothing in the report about charges, threatening to charge Mr. Spector.
Rosen is going over every tiny item of Dorothy Melvin’s testimony that’s not in this officer’s report.
Q: There’s nothing in the report about Phil Spector threatening to sue you.
The officer did recall it, but it’s not in the report. Rosen then attempts to make a big deal that there is a difference between “displaying” a gun verses “pointed at.”
Q: Was he drunk?
A: No.
Redirect by Dixon
Q: If someone displays or points a gun at you, both are serious situations, correct?
A: That’s correct.
On redirect, the prosecutor get the witness to explain the reason the report says “crime report.” It’s not “really” a crime report. The witness recalls both officers talking to her but didn’t over hear everything that was said about Dorothy Melvin. Dixon gets the witness to point out that Spector wasn’t given a test for alcohol because he wasn’t driving a vehicle.
Recross by Rosen.
Rosen goes over again, the difference between the word displayed verses pointed.
The judge calls for a break. At break, I go to the restroom, but the male sheriff right inside the courtroom doors won’t let me back in until break is over. As I wait, Spector is escorted out with his bodyguards. As he passes, I smile at him and he smiles back. I see Roger Rosen and Patrick Dixon chatting about something as they head back to the courtroom. I hear low laughter coming from Patrick Dixon. Back in the courtroom, Beth Karas comes in to observe some of the trial. Steven tells me it was strange in the men’s room, with Phil and all the bodyguards. I watch some of the gallery, and the interesting way that Joe Dominick holds his paper and pen to take notes.
Steven says that those massive bodyguards are not really equipped to move fast or chase after anyone. They’re really only useful to keep space between Spector and anyone who might want to throw acid on him or something. We’re back on the record.
The prosecution is about to play a tape of recorded phone messages from Phil to Dorothy. And I’m thinking, geez! This is like, ten years old! You have to wonder about someone who saves this stuff after all these years. The defense objects citing “352” to these recordings coming in and heard by the jury. It’s explained to the defense that this was already litigated. “Oh, you did rule on it.” The defense says they are objecting to some, and the prosecution said they removed the ones they had objected to. Defense is still objecting to any of them coming in. They’re now objecting as to the use of language. The judge over rules the objection. Cutler then stands up. It’s like he’s just now hearing that these tapes are coming in, and he says, “Something is getting past me?? Is this being played now?” Man, was he asleep at the defense table?
The jury enters the courtroom. A transcript of the audio phone messages is given to each juror. The defense wants the judge to make sure that the jury knows the actual evidence is the audio recording and not the transcript. The audio is filled with rambling messages.
“So where are you, and call us, and don’t be so mysterious...” I’m amazed at the use of the word “we” verses “I” in Phil’s first message to Dorothy. “We hope this is the right number to reach us at....” In this first message, he only uses the word “we” instead of “I.” It’s weird.
Then, there are messages that are clearly relating to “after” the assault.
“I want you to know it was the right thing to do...” “I really understand. It’s okay.”
Then a second and third apology.
“In any event, I don’t have any ill will...”
Fourth message/apology: “You never did anything. It was all my behavior...” “My behavior was inexcusable...” I apologize. I wish you well and I am sorry because you deserve a lot better than that.”
Fifth message. He mentions something about his “nipple ring” that I miss getting in my notes.
“I ws expecting a return call. But be careful what you say to me because nothing is worth your life.”
Sixth message. “You deal with my lawyers from now on. Your F***** and you will see papers Monday morning!”
And that’s the end of the morning session. Recess until 1:30 pm There are more issues before the judge. Rosen is objecting to tape recordings that the Jennings witness brought to court with her. The judge says he will wait until the witness testifies, and then he’ll rule on their admissibility.
At lunch I step outside the building to get some fresh air. I’m close enough now that I can see the letters etched into the building. It says, CITY HALL. It’s the original building. I see Joe Dominick pacing outside with a cell phone glued to his ear.
Passing time is slow, even though I had brought a book. I try to stretch out my low back as I stand. It helps some.
1:11 pm
Back up on the 9th floor, the reporters start straggling back in. Dawna shows up! I hadn’t seen her at court for several days. LKB is talking to the Court TV reporter, Michael about her hair and what happened but since she said to him that it was “off the record,” I’ll respect that and not write what she said. Dawna says that the ANS case is still big news and that story has been occupying most of her time. The reporters chat and joke among themselves, waiting for court to start up again. I tell her that there has been a lot of criticism of LKB’s hair on the forums. Dawna says, “It’s a shame,” that her appearance is being criticized, “...because she’s such a brilliant attorney.”
1:35 pm
We’re back on the record. The attorneys are going over an audio tape that was brought in by the next witness. Jackson is not going to use it in his case in chief, but Rosen needs time to listen to it. There are not that many people observing the trial today. Rosen and Cutler are conferring with each other, and Cutler wants to hear the tape. They’ll have to do it during the next break. The judge brings in the jurors. One of the reporters clarifies for me who is who in the front row. They think the taller, dark haired man is Lana’s mother’s boyfriend, and the shorter, silver haired man is her attorney.
The next witness on the stand is Dianne Ogden. She’s a sharp looking woman. It’s not until days later that I find out she’s still relatively young. She’s actually pregnant. She met Spector in 1982. Naughty (sp?) Egan, Spector's publicist introduced her to Phil. At the time, she was a talent casting coordinator. She was extensively involved in the entertainment industry. Dixon questions the witness.
Q: In 1982 were you involved in the entertainment industry?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you involved with the Grammys?
A: Yes.
Q: (I missed the question)
A: It was her assistant who wanted to get us together. Not Phil. I didn’t know him, no. (snip) He was funny. I thought he was a gentleman.
Q: Dinner was late?
A: 9-10 pm
Spector asks her if she wanted to see his home. At the time, it was off Sunset Blvd., in the hills. The witness says it was an interesting house. It looked like a castle. It was kinda scary. He had a popcorn machine. He was drinking, but not at his home.
“He had a buzzer to lock the doors” (snip) “I couldn’t get out. I tried the doors, I couldn’t get out! I thought it was odd because I’d never seen that side of Phil before. I was laughing because I was nervous.”
Spector finally unlocked the door, and she left. In 1988, the witness saw him again. Its now that the black female deputy comes over to me with a napkin in her hand telling me to give her my gum. I get this bewildered expression on my face and say, “I don’t have any gum.” Complete embarrassment here. I have a nervous habit that I’ve had since a child that starts when I’m totally engrossed in something and I don’t even know I’m doing it. I start gnawing on the inside of my cheek. I’m paranoid. I now think the deputy sheriff has it out for me, and she’s looking for any reason to kick me out of the courtroom.
The prosecutor now takes the witness to an event she experienced with Spector. It was a bad experience. Her voice immediately becomes very emotional. This was a dinner party that she helped arrange for several people at Spector’s house. She thought it would be okay since several people were there. Everyone had left and she was the last person to leave and she was trying to get out of the house. Suddenly, Spector had a rifle in his hand on her right side. The witness is getting even more emotional, just talking about this event. She then suddenly turns and says something to the judge.
“Can I say something. I just want to say, I did not want to come here! I was subpoenaed to come here. Two plain clothes police officers came to my home in Park City, Utah. Came to my door at 7:30 am in the morning! My children were with me and I was terrified.”
This was a year after Lana Clarkson was killed. The witness had never contacted LE.
Q: (That night, ) did you know if Spector has been drinking?
A: Yes. I don’t know how much.
Q: (missed this)
A: I couldn’t understand (what was happening). This was not my Phil. This was not the man I loved. I can’t even describe it. It was demonic. (snip) I sat down. I said, “Don’t do that!” He had a pistol to my face. He put the pistol here, there ( The witness demonstrates with her hand where Spector put the gun on her face.). It reminded me of my step father. (snip) It just scared the hell out of me.
Q: Did he repeatedly touch your face with the gun?
A: Yes. (She wrote about this in her journal.) “He wanted me to go upstairs to the bedroom.
Q: Did you spend the night there?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did you want to be there?
A: No. He did it by gunpoint! He wanted to rape me! (snip) He had me take off some of my clothes and he tried to have intercourse with me. It was icky.
Q: Did you have sex with him?
A: He tried.
Q: (missed this)
A: The next morning, he was singing in the bathroom, in the shower. Like nothing had happened. (snip) It was weird that.... no discussion. He never mentioned it. He never said he was sorry.
Q: There was no reference to what had happened?
A: He said he was going to blow my brains out! (snip) That was not romantic if we were going to make love.
Q: (missed this; something about seeing him again)
A: I did see him again. (snip) I thought he had a drinking problem. I still cared about him. (snip) After a period of time passed, I went to his house again.
The witness describes how Spector chased after her to her car with an “uzi.” He was slamming it with one hand against the window. She could see in her rear view mirror Spector running after her. “He was screaming nonessential things. He was yelling. He wouldn’t stop yelling.”
“I thought, That’s it.”
I notice that the jury appears to be very attentive.
(Afterwards) “I know that he called me a few times.” The witness states that she got married in 1990 and moved to Florida. “He sent me cards, roses. He was a very thoughtful man.”
The court recesses for the afternoon break. Steven and I discuss the witness. Finally! Some decent testimony/action. She’s a great witness. She reminds us of Goldie Hawn.
2:50 pm Back on the record. I feel Dixon played that really well. He got her to say rape. And the defense will try to tear her testimony apart.
Q: You didn’t report this to the police?
A: I wanted to protect him. (snip) Maybe I should have done it. (called police) Maybe it would have helped him.
End of Direct. Cutler gets up and he’s going to do the cross.
Q: Have we ever spoken?
A: No.
Q: Have we ever discussed this case?
A: No.
Q: Was 1998 your last contact (with Mr. Spector)?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you know... (Cutler is using a big booming voice here)
A: It never culminated in a real romantic relationship. It was never a sexual relationship.
Q: What is a casual dating (relationship)?
A: It could mean a kiss; having dinner and being friends.
Q: You never had sex?
A: That’s correct.
Q: Did you also think Phil was guilty?
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: About the first incident; there was nothing about a gun?
A: correct.
Q: Did your relationship with Phil change?
A: Yes.
Q: You worked for him as an assistant?
A: Yes. Part time out of my home. (snip) I enjoyed working for him. I trusted him.
Q: 1988 was the first incident with a gun...
Then something in my notes here about 3/89...No, 3/89... It appears she’s disputing the date of the first incident. Cutler brings her a paper to review. It’s the investigators report. She says that the first incident occurred in 1989, in spite of what the report says. “I may have said ‘88. (snip) I don’t know if he taped the interview.”
Q: Did you say there was a lot to love about Phil Spector?
A: Yes. (snip) He helped Ike Turner. He was very generous.
Q: (I miss writing this one down.)
A: I was surprised by the two detectives. I could have said that.
Cutler is trying to pull out inconsistencies in her interview with the Los Angeles Detectives and her statements today.
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED! (I have no notes what this one is about. Sorry!)
Q: Do you recall....
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED
Judge: The question is improper. The question is sustained.
It appears the detective’s report has several errors relating to one of the party guests. The report says one man’s “wife” was there, but the witness says it was the man’s son. She’s sure because the man was not married at the time. He had a girlfriend.
Q: Did you know Philip had guns?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you know it was an Uzi?
A: Philip told me it was.
Q: Did he fire a gun in your presence?
A: No.
Q: Did you fool around with a gun in his presence? (I’m not sure about the accuracy of this question.)
A: No.
Q: Did you provocatively play with a gun in his presence?
A: No.
The witness responds with all of these “NO’s” very emphatically. The judge is now admonishing Cutler. I notice juror #6 yawns, same as I do right now. The jury fidgets about a bit and so do I. For me, it’s these hard wood benches with no cushions. The judge now admonishes Cutler over questions about her handbag. His voice is booming and accusing.
Judge: (To Cutler) You will not yell or point at a witness. I told you before. DO NOT YELL. The Judge (at the jury??) (unsure about my notes here) about Cutler’s booming voice. The Judge is really shutting Cutler’s theatrics down.
Q: Did you form an opinion? (Cutlers voice is booming again!) Did you.... (snip) How tall.... (snip)
OBJECTION!
Q: What did you read (about this case)?
Q: What did you hear (about this case)?
Judge: Mr. Cutler! You need to stop yelling. Now Dixon getting upset and raising his voice!. It’s now that Cutler makes this amazing statement! “I get exercise... (did he say exercise or excited?)...Something goes off in your head.” It’s totally amazing that cutler says this, because this is what the prosecution thinks Spector did. Lose it. Lose control.
Judge: Even if the devil made you do it.....
Cutler: You’ve totally....
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Cutler gets very animated now.
Q: Didn’t you tell Mr. Bennett (I don’t get this name correct). (snip) You don’t know what Paul Schaffer told investigators about you?
A: No I do not!!!!
OBJECTION! Improper form.
Judge: Mr. Cutler! I’ve told you too many times. If you hear my voice, STOP TALKING!
Q: You never mentioned that before? (snip) You just added that! The pocketbook never came up! There, with Spector!
Earlier, on direct, she states that she was getting ready to leave, and her “...pocketbook was over her shoulder, and I wanted to leave.” So now, Cutler is trying to get her to admit that she just added that today on the stand. She never said that with the investigators before.
Q: You told Bennet (don’t know if this is the correct name) on the very first day... (of their interview with her)....
Q: Did you ever act professionally?
A: NO!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Are you acting today?
A: NO!!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: You threw in that bit about the rape! “Blow my brains out!” That’s not in the report either!
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Ms. Ogden, You have intentionally...
OBJECTION! SUSTAINED!
Q: Have you intentionally..... (snip) Blow my brains....That’s an uzi....
OBJECTION! ARGUMENT! SUSTAINED!
The witness needs to use the restroom so the judge calls a recess. Steven says, she drank too much water on the stand. Cutler is trying to impeach her with the detectives report, saying she embellished and added these other statements to match what happened to Lana.
It’s now that I observe Cutler and Rosen off to the far left, right next to the jury box. (The jurors are not in the courtroom) They are discussing elements of the witnesses testimony. Cutler is very animated saying “Blow my brains out! The pocketbook! Come on Roger! You don’t let that go! Rosen who is listening to Cutler but his eyes are downcast is shaking his head while Cutler is talking.
Some reporters have speculated that Rosen and Cutler don’t get along, and that Cutler’s histrionics won’t play well with the jury. The Judge, watching the dramatics of Cutler, is making these great facial expressions. There’s some talk that I don’t totally get. I miss it, but I have snippets of it in my notes. Someone says, “The dynamic duo of the prosecutions office.”
Judge: Which one is Robin?
It’s 4:10 pm. Looks like court is going to go long today, to get this witness finished on the stand, so she doesn’t have to come back to court again. Back on the record now.
Spector and the rest of the attorneys stand and the jury comes in. Phil (?) says something to Cutler and Cutler responds, “I know.” Cutler is bringing in a document as new defense exhibit.
Cutler: Mark this defense exhibit H, as in Happiness?
Judge: If only.
A tape is now played for the jury. This is a tape that the prosecution did not want to use as a part of their case. I can’t tell from my notes if this is Dianne Ogden’s tape, or not. Yes, it is. Cutler gets the witness to admit that there are no dates on the tape.
Q: On the tape, is this before the gun incident?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you send Philip an e-mail in late 2002?
A: No I don’t have his e-mail address.
Judge: It’s 4:30. We need to wrap it up or put it over into Wednesday.
Cutler: It’s a wrap.
Prosecution: No more questions your honor.
I finally take a note of what color kerchief Spector has in his coat lapel pocket: Its baby blue. The jury won’t be in tomorrow, and they will be continuing the discovery issue. Spector takes his 977 waver not to appear. The Judge says on 5/23, there will be no morning session.
And that’s the end of my notes. It takes me longer to get back home on this day, finally pulling into my driveway after 6:00 pm. The fur kids let me know chow time is late.
I hope you have enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Trial Notes, 4-30-07
I get out the door quite late this morning, despite the fact I set my alarm for 6 am. My husband was cleaning out his work van over the weekend, and needed my help backing out of our very narrow (built in 1941) driveway so he could get to work. There are literally inches between the van and the house and the fence on the other side with the big mirrors pulled in. So it does take a bit of maneuvering to back it out of the driveway.
As I ride the Red Line this morning, I take some notes to tell you about the different stations. Each one is slightly different in the materials used for the floor, column dressings, and seating. The most colorful station is the one just north of the Cahuenga Pass at Universal City. The entire station is done in vibrant mexican style tiles. Some tiles are huge. They are images of historical people, and they tell a story. Along the track in the Hollywood and Vine station, the poured concrete walls have molded into their design, a continuous old style sprocketed film strip, painted a muted azure blue. At the Hollywood and Western station, the support columns are covered in maze of multicolored six inch square tiles. Even the designs and patterns in the floors using various materials are different at each stop. The North Hollywood station has the most interesting displays of local history done in tile on the walls of the kiosk area, such as this tile mural of Amelia Earhart. However, to me the station is spoiled by huge, floor to ceiling McDonald’s advertising. surrounding the columns in the shape of huge carpenters biscuits.
As I pass through the Court of Flags plaza today, I take the time to count how many flags are there. There are 19 poles, but one flag is missing. The Liberty Tree Flag from 1775. As I approach the rear of the court building, I can tell I am very late because there are no cameramen waiting on the railing. As I pass through the 9th floor security and round the corner, virtually no one is in the hallway. Everyone is inside already. It’s now that I realize that court must start at 9:30 am instead of 10 like I had assumed. The prosecution’s male clerk leaves the courtroom and I ask him if there are any public seats left. He doesn’t know. When I try the door it is locked, but the deputy just inside opens it. There is a suited woman beside me, being somewhat forceful with the deputy claiming to be a defense attorney and wanting to “just look inside” the courtroom. As he’s deciding how to respond to her, I politely ask the deputy if there are any public seats left. He says there is one seat left. My hope is rising. The deputy lets me inside, pointing to the seat I can take.
The Judge is already on the bench speaking to the jury. The courtroom is packed today with almost a third more media/public than there was last Thursday. Lots of new faces that I had never seen before. The Judge is talking to the jury about the 48 Hours show that aired on Saturday, and that the prosecutor in that case (about the execution style killing of Mickey Thompson and his wife) was Alan Jackson.
Judge: Did anyone happen to see it?
There’s no response from the jury.
Judge: Well, so much for their ratings.
Small amount of laughter erupts from the courtroom. The judge then instructs the jury that they are in recess until Wednesday, explaining again that court would be closed tomorrow due to the demonstrations that would be occurring in downtown LA. I’m trying to find out what’s wrong. Why no testimony today? The jury exits the courtroom, filing back into the jury room.
One of the massive bodyguards in the row of seats against the wall behind me sees that I have a note pad and motions and points to my pad, asking for a sheet of paper. I’m thinking I better give him one. He hands it to the slender man beside him who starts to write something down.
There is a matter before the court. It has to do with two defense witnesses who appear to have spoken with the media about this case. The two witnesses are Dr. Wecht and Dr. Lee. In Dr. Lee’s case, there is some question as to whether or not he did, but in Wecht’s case, there is no question that he did. The Judge says, “I’m ordering all parties to notify their witnesses not to discuss the case.” And the Judge goes onto talk about sanctions by the court if they don’t comply.
Mr. Jackson then brings up a motion (motions?) that he is filing under seal, (from the public) and it appears the defense either has an objection to that or some other concern about it, or maybe their own motion filings and can they file under seal. The Judge indicated that it can be filed under seal, but he will make the final determination as to whether or not it remains under seal. It will stay under seal until he reviews it.
I finally dawns on me why there’s no testimony. At the defense table, there’s no Bruce Cutler. Why is he missing? Is it like the Blake case, and there was a family emergency or death? Is this some sort of tactic that mob lawyers usually pull? The sheriff’s call out for everyone in the gallery to remain seated, and the jury emerges from the jury room, and files past everyone for the front door to exit the courtroom. I hear some mumbling that Wednesday may also be a no court day also, if Cutler is still out. After the jury leaves, and the judge finally leaves the bench, everyone starts gathering their things and filing out. Since I’m standing right at the door, waiting for those beside me to get up so I can exit also, Dominick Dunne walks by. He sees me and gives me a smile and a hello.
Outside the courtroom, I finally get a full on look at Alan Jackson up close when he emerges from the courtroom. Many of the poster’s comments here are accurate. He is handsome. As he passes, a reporter asks him if the public liaisons office will know if court might be delayed again on Wednesday. Alan tells him that he doesn't know. Check with the court. The reporters are all waiting outside for the rest of Spector’s defense team to emerge, because they're hoping they will find out what’s wrong with Cutler. Several of the reporters speculate. One wonders if he got tennis elbow at the polo lounge. Steven is advising a new reporter on the restaurants close by where he can get a decent lunch, and is also trying to remember if Cutler ever mentioned (in his book I’m assuming) a health issue. Nothing is coming to his mind except possibly high blood pressure. As he heads for the elevators I imagine he will be doing a lot of research trying to see if he can find something out. Spector emerges from the courtroom. He is wearing another one of those calf length long coats, with his hands clasped in front of him. He is supported at the elbow on his left by his wife, Rachelle Short and on the other by a bodyguard who tells us to “watch out” so that they can pass, clearing the way. As he is led, Spector stares, zombie like, straight ahead.
I see several reporters exchange business cards. It’s now that I finally see Dawna, sitting on a bench. But I don’t recognize her. Russ tells me that court starts at 9:30 am, and they should have known something was up because they let them into the courtroom earlier that usual. Rosen emerges from the courtroom, and he says to the mass of reporters, “He has an appointment with a doctor today.” And that’s all he will say. Rosen and the AP reporter exchange smiles and pleasantries, and he leans in to give her a kiss on the cheek. One reporter fires questions at him one after another. Was he in the hospital? etc. Rosen appears to get a bit irritated with this and fires back in a loud voice, “Frankly, it’s none of my business and it’s none of your business.” Then he has a big smile on his face and it’s clear that’s all he’s going to say. I overhear the AP reporter kind of whisper low to another reporter, “I think I can find out.”
The reporters are shuffling about, almost like all the air has been let out of their balloons. Everyone is looking at everyone else, and I can visualize everyone wondering, what story am I going to be forced to work on today? (For me, it will be laundry and gardening.) I listen while the AP reporter and a handsome reporter I’ve never seen before, talk about the “lesser included” charges. (I later find out this is Joe Dominick.) Could the jury settle on one of those? From something that I read here on the forum, I was under the impression that the Judge had already ruled that the state was limited to second degree murder. So, I say, “No.” But at the same time, the AP reporter is nodding her head saying yes. I shut up. I’m thinking I probably don’t know what I’m talking about. The handsome reporter wonders if it could actually be involuntary manslaughter, and the AP reporter says, that there are several attorney’s around town that believe that should be the charge.
As I head toward the exit, Dawna says hello to me, and it’s then that I recognize her. Over the weekend she got virtually all her hair cut off and is sporting a very new look. She looks so different with a short, almost pixie type haircut. I repeat to Dawna what I overheard the AP reporter say, and my thought that the only charge allowed was the second degree charge. Didn’t the Judge rule on that? Dawna says, “Today?” I reply, “No. In earlier rulings.” She’s puzzled, because she doesn’t think the Judge made a ruling like I think he did. She seemed to think though, that the AP reporter would really know the case.
Dawna points out to me the famous writer Joe Dominick, who wrote that great piece in Los Angeles Magazine, and we ride down on the elevator with him. Dawna and I tell Joe about how limited the Court TV coverage is, (they often repeat the same scene, over and over) and there’s actually more on Court TV Extra, available online. But even that coverave isn't everything that goes on at trial. When we reach the first floor, we say our good-byes until Wednesday.
I finally take the time to use the stairs down to the Red Line. Consequently, I miss a train by about 5 seconds and have to wait about 15 minutes for the next one.
I hope you enjoyed my trial notes for today. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
As I ride the Red Line this morning, I take some notes to tell you about the different stations. Each one is slightly different in the materials used for the floor, column dressings, and seating. The most colorful station is the one just north of the Cahuenga Pass at Universal City. The entire station is done in vibrant mexican style tiles. Some tiles are huge. They are images of historical people, and they tell a story. Along the track in the Hollywood and Vine station, the poured concrete walls have molded into their design, a continuous old style sprocketed film strip, painted a muted azure blue. At the Hollywood and Western station, the support columns are covered in maze of multicolored six inch square tiles. Even the designs and patterns in the floors using various materials are different at each stop. The North Hollywood station has the most interesting displays of local history done in tile on the walls of the kiosk area, such as this tile mural of Amelia Earhart. However, to me the station is spoiled by huge, floor to ceiling McDonald’s advertising. surrounding the columns in the shape of huge carpenters biscuits.
As I pass through the Court of Flags plaza today, I take the time to count how many flags are there. There are 19 poles, but one flag is missing. The Liberty Tree Flag from 1775. As I approach the rear of the court building, I can tell I am very late because there are no cameramen waiting on the railing. As I pass through the 9th floor security and round the corner, virtually no one is in the hallway. Everyone is inside already. It’s now that I realize that court must start at 9:30 am instead of 10 like I had assumed. The prosecution’s male clerk leaves the courtroom and I ask him if there are any public seats left. He doesn’t know. When I try the door it is locked, but the deputy just inside opens it. There is a suited woman beside me, being somewhat forceful with the deputy claiming to be a defense attorney and wanting to “just look inside” the courtroom. As he’s deciding how to respond to her, I politely ask the deputy if there are any public seats left. He says there is one seat left. My hope is rising. The deputy lets me inside, pointing to the seat I can take.
The Judge is already on the bench speaking to the jury. The courtroom is packed today with almost a third more media/public than there was last Thursday. Lots of new faces that I had never seen before. The Judge is talking to the jury about the 48 Hours show that aired on Saturday, and that the prosecutor in that case (about the execution style killing of Mickey Thompson and his wife) was Alan Jackson.
Judge: Did anyone happen to see it?
There’s no response from the jury.
Judge: Well, so much for their ratings.
Small amount of laughter erupts from the courtroom. The judge then instructs the jury that they are in recess until Wednesday, explaining again that court would be closed tomorrow due to the demonstrations that would be occurring in downtown LA. I’m trying to find out what’s wrong. Why no testimony today? The jury exits the courtroom, filing back into the jury room.
One of the massive bodyguards in the row of seats against the wall behind me sees that I have a note pad and motions and points to my pad, asking for a sheet of paper. I’m thinking I better give him one. He hands it to the slender man beside him who starts to write something down.
There is a matter before the court. It has to do with two defense witnesses who appear to have spoken with the media about this case. The two witnesses are Dr. Wecht and Dr. Lee. In Dr. Lee’s case, there is some question as to whether or not he did, but in Wecht’s case, there is no question that he did. The Judge says, “I’m ordering all parties to notify their witnesses not to discuss the case.” And the Judge goes onto talk about sanctions by the court if they don’t comply.
Mr. Jackson then brings up a motion (motions?) that he is filing under seal, (from the public) and it appears the defense either has an objection to that or some other concern about it, or maybe their own motion filings and can they file under seal. The Judge indicated that it can be filed under seal, but he will make the final determination as to whether or not it remains under seal. It will stay under seal until he reviews it.
I finally dawns on me why there’s no testimony. At the defense table, there’s no Bruce Cutler. Why is he missing? Is it like the Blake case, and there was a family emergency or death? Is this some sort of tactic that mob lawyers usually pull? The sheriff’s call out for everyone in the gallery to remain seated, and the jury emerges from the jury room, and files past everyone for the front door to exit the courtroom. I hear some mumbling that Wednesday may also be a no court day also, if Cutler is still out. After the jury leaves, and the judge finally leaves the bench, everyone starts gathering their things and filing out. Since I’m standing right at the door, waiting for those beside me to get up so I can exit also, Dominick Dunne walks by. He sees me and gives me a smile and a hello.
Outside the courtroom, I finally get a full on look at Alan Jackson up close when he emerges from the courtroom. Many of the poster’s comments here are accurate. He is handsome. As he passes, a reporter asks him if the public liaisons office will know if court might be delayed again on Wednesday. Alan tells him that he doesn't know. Check with the court. The reporters are all waiting outside for the rest of Spector’s defense team to emerge, because they're hoping they will find out what’s wrong with Cutler. Several of the reporters speculate. One wonders if he got tennis elbow at the polo lounge. Steven is advising a new reporter on the restaurants close by where he can get a decent lunch, and is also trying to remember if Cutler ever mentioned (in his book I’m assuming) a health issue. Nothing is coming to his mind except possibly high blood pressure. As he heads for the elevators I imagine he will be doing a lot of research trying to see if he can find something out. Spector emerges from the courtroom. He is wearing another one of those calf length long coats, with his hands clasped in front of him. He is supported at the elbow on his left by his wife, Rachelle Short and on the other by a bodyguard who tells us to “watch out” so that they can pass, clearing the way. As he is led, Spector stares, zombie like, straight ahead.
I see several reporters exchange business cards. It’s now that I finally see Dawna, sitting on a bench. But I don’t recognize her. Russ tells me that court starts at 9:30 am, and they should have known something was up because they let them into the courtroom earlier that usual. Rosen emerges from the courtroom, and he says to the mass of reporters, “He has an appointment with a doctor today.” And that’s all he will say. Rosen and the AP reporter exchange smiles and pleasantries, and he leans in to give her a kiss on the cheek. One reporter fires questions at him one after another. Was he in the hospital? etc. Rosen appears to get a bit irritated with this and fires back in a loud voice, “Frankly, it’s none of my business and it’s none of your business.” Then he has a big smile on his face and it’s clear that’s all he’s going to say. I overhear the AP reporter kind of whisper low to another reporter, “I think I can find out.”
The reporters are shuffling about, almost like all the air has been let out of their balloons. Everyone is looking at everyone else, and I can visualize everyone wondering, what story am I going to be forced to work on today? (For me, it will be laundry and gardening.) I listen while the AP reporter and a handsome reporter I’ve never seen before, talk about the “lesser included” charges. (I later find out this is Joe Dominick.) Could the jury settle on one of those? From something that I read here on the forum, I was under the impression that the Judge had already ruled that the state was limited to second degree murder. So, I say, “No.” But at the same time, the AP reporter is nodding her head saying yes. I shut up. I’m thinking I probably don’t know what I’m talking about. The handsome reporter wonders if it could actually be involuntary manslaughter, and the AP reporter says, that there are several attorney’s around town that believe that should be the charge.
As I head toward the exit, Dawna says hello to me, and it’s then that I recognize her. Over the weekend she got virtually all her hair cut off and is sporting a very new look. She looks so different with a short, almost pixie type haircut. I repeat to Dawna what I overheard the AP reporter say, and my thought that the only charge allowed was the second degree charge. Didn’t the Judge rule on that? Dawna says, “Today?” I reply, “No. In earlier rulings.” She’s puzzled, because she doesn’t think the Judge made a ruling like I think he did. She seemed to think though, that the AP reporter would really know the case.
Dawna points out to me the famous writer Joe Dominick, who wrote that great piece in Los Angeles Magazine, and we ride down on the elevator with him. Dawna and I tell Joe about how limited the Court TV coverage is, (they often repeat the same scene, over and over) and there’s actually more on Court TV Extra, available online. But even that coverave isn't everything that goes on at trial. When we reach the first floor, we say our good-byes until Wednesday.
I finally take the time to use the stairs down to the Red Line. Consequently, I miss a train by about 5 seconds and have to wait about 15 minutes for the next one.
I hope you enjoyed my trial notes for today. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Trial Notes, 4-26-07
I should just face reality. I have a hard time getting out the front door when I want to. There’s always “one last thing” I want to try to get done, and consequently, I get started later than I really wanted. I had hoped to leave the house by 7:30am, (and get downtown an hour later) but my hair still wasn’t dry, and I hadn’t packed my lunch or found my pair of red suede moc’s I’d been saving. It’s always something.
My ride on the Orange Line was almost exactly like the first experience in February, except I was struggling getting all my change out of the ticket kiosk, (it does take a bit of time to pick up 17 one dollar coins) while the bus driver waited patiently for me to get my change and board. This bus had video feeds, and I was looking forward to seeing something interesting, but for most of the trip, all it showed was a map and where the bus was on the map. And as the bus went a few blocks, so did the little bus image on the map. This is supposed to entertain us? The landscaping along the Orange Line is more visually appealing than the video, and for the first time, I noticed how the vegetation is much more developed at the eastern end of the line, since it was completed first. Woah! The bus just swayed real hard; the driver took the curve around Fulton Ave. really fast. I think he was going over 50mph! For the rest of the trip, I squint to try to watch his speedometer.
The Red Line part of the journey was a little tiring because I had to stand for most of the trip. Once in downtown, I exited the tunnel through the Temple street exit. Since that was the first time I used that exit, I had to get my bearings, because I wasn’t sure exactly where I was. The exit is right beside the Court of Flags,
on Hill Street, half way between First and Temple. From the Court of Flags, you can see across the Criminal court parking lot to what appears to me to be one of the older court buildings.
I’m embarrassed that I don’t know which building this is, but I thought you would enjoy an image of it. (I find out later this is City Hall.) I’ve seriously thought of bringing my good camera downtown, but I would have nowhere to store it if, for some reason, the sheriff's decided not to let me bring it past the security checkpoints. So for now, I’m reluctantly settling for the grainy images from my old cell phone.
As I pass through the Court of Flags plaza and reach Broadway, the back of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center comes fully into view.
I can see a group of photographers about seven in all, on the railing overlooking the parking lot waiting for Phil to arrive. You can barely see them in this photo.
And, in the west corner of the lot, a lone photographer with a tripod and long range lens. Across the deep set lot I can see Spring street, which is where Court TV has set up their filming area for Beth Karas’s on air commentary.
Through pm’s warhorse46 said I should go over to the taping area, and introduce myself to Beth. When I did, she was just about to go on air, and did not have time to talk. I just had enough time to mention that I had met her briefly before at the Robert Blake trial, and that I was friends with Linda Sweetingham (a former print reporter for CourtTV) .....Beth said, “You mean Lisa...” Oh boy. “I’m sorry! Yes, I meant Lisa.” I must have turned beet red in the face. You see, I was so nervous I totally misspoke Lisa's first name. Although you might not guess it from my post on various crime forums, I’m actually a very shy, introverted type person. I have a difficult time introducing myself to total strangers and carrying on a conversation. I will often trip over my own words. You will never see me on camera, being interviewed like Marlene Newell (sp?) was at the Scott Peterson trial. I would be so nervous, I would probably look and sound like a total idiot, lol!
As I arrive on the 9th floor and pass through the second security checkpoint, I see a mass of reporters waiting for Judge Fidler’s courtroom to open. I see Russ, an on-air reporter for a news organization I got to know during the Blake trial. I also recognized the reporter who covered the Blake trial for the LA Weekly, Steve Mikulan, and reintroduced myself. If LA Weekly News (Online) has his stories, I encourage you to stop by and check them out. He wrote some great articles covering the Blake case, and I’m sure he will have a witty, insightful take on this case, too. As I lean against a wall to wait, Steve is in the process of editing a story he’s already printed out, and I mention to him that he has a very unusual way he holds his pen. It’s one of the things I notice when I meet people and see them write is their handedness. I’m always on the lookout for other lefties like myself. We talk a bit about the different ways people hold their pens. Steve mentioned that it was a madhouse at the courthouse yesterday, and I know that I probably would not have been able to get in to observe.
Steve mentions that Cutler only spoke for 45 minutes yesterday, and will continue with his closing today. He also mentions that the rules of this courtroom are much more strict than at the Van Nuys Courthouse. The reporters won’t be able to go in or out whenever they need to file stories. Steve says that if you leave, you won’t be allowed back in. That the sheriff's don’t even want the reporters to leave at the morning and afternoon breaks. And I'm thinking, I better go pee when I can. I also see that the famous AP reporter Linda Deutsch is already there as well as Dominick Dunne.
As some might know, I’m a big fan of Mr. Dunne. I’ve read several of his novels, and his diary is the first thing I read when my Vanity Fair arrives in the mail. Phil’s main defense attorney arrives and talks to Dominick for a bit. After he steps away, I get the courage up to approach Mr. Dunne, and reintroduce myself to him, mentioning that I met him at the Blake trial, and that he signed one of his books for me then. I ask him if in the coming weeks, he could autograph another one of his books for me, and he assured me that he would. I’m ecstatic that I even got my courage up to speak to him.
After scanning the crowd and not seeing Alan Parachini. from the court’s Public Relations office, I finally see their representative, a young woman carrying the numbered badges they give to the reporters who have registered and checked in for a seat to cover this trial. She says that once the deadline has passed for reporters to check in, she’ll see how many seats are left. At this point, she feels I have a good opportunity to get in to observe. My day is looking even better.
Three tall and enormously wide individuals come out of the courtroom and pass me in the hall. They are massive human beings. I remember hearing on TV that Phil surrounded himself with huge bodyguards because he is such a small person. These guys are not just big, I mean they are really big. What goes through my mind though, is the thought that, being next to these men really amplifies the impression people get of Phil being a small man. I think this is intentional. Sandi Gibbons, the District Attorney’s public relations officer arrives soon after I get a seat in the back row of benches on the left side. There is an empty space next to Russ, and it’s nice to sit next to a familiar face, where I can occasionally feel comfortable asking a question or two. I have a good full view of the jurors, the judge and the witness stand. I can barely see Phil through the crowd of reporters though.
The Court TV control camera is in the far left corner at the end of the second bench isle from the back. There are two men sitting very close together in swivel chairs hunched over this control screen. Behind them are two lens cameramen with compact cameras that can zoom in on the defense and prosecution tables, as well as the judge and witness box. (Later, at the morning break, I find out that the men holding the cameras have been standing that entire time, and will do so all through out the day.) Eric Leonard from KFI is sitting in the row in front of me, and notices me for the first time. He smiles and says hello.
Court comes into session. There is a discovery issue that must be discussed before the jury can be brought in. This is regarding evidence collection that Dr. Henry Lee did on behalf of the defense on February 4, 2003. The issue is over three years old and still has not been resolved. After requesting it numerous times, last October, Dr. Lee finally turned over a blood sample that he collected during his time in the house. However, it wasn’t until April 20, that the prosecution actually received the “55 photographs” he took, that actually puts that evidence into context. The prosecution has requested these photographs for at least two years. This is a blatant discovery violation by the defense Mr. Jackson contends. Jackson says they haven’t had time to do any real analysis on this yet. My question is, was it Dr. Lee who stalled in getting this sample and images to the defense? Or, did the defense attorneys stall in turning this discovery item over to the prosecution, because, supposedly it is the prosecution’s evidence. I don’t particularly understand that specific point of law, but the judge said that the evidence is clearly the prosecution’s.
Judge Fidler: You still haven’t answered why did you turn it over so late.
Defense: I don’t know why the delay. Dr. Lee did do presumptive test. (on the blood)
snip
Mr. Jackson: Now that we have photos, that puts it in context. We received from Dr. Lee, a dried, cracked, sample...
Judge Fidler: Where were the photos? Why late?
The defense appears to still be dancing around for an answer, and at the same time, they are wanting the sample back to do DNA testing, because the prosecution is not going to do DNA at this time. The prosecution says, Woah! We just got the photographs that put the blood sample in context. We’re not ready to release it back. The judge then interrupts Mr. Jackson and says, “You might want to stop because I’m about to rule in your favor.”
Judge Fidler: (The defense has) ...no firm leg to stand on. There’s one other issue. (It appears) Mr. Brunon KNOWS one of the jurors.
Holy carp! How did that happen? From what I’m gathering, it appears Mr. Brunon was not in court for all of the voi dire. One of the jurors used to work for the building management, where Mr. Brunon had an office location. Mr. Brunon says he knows the jurors first name, but at this time can’t remember his last name. He just knows he’s sitting somewhere near the left edge of the jury box. Since he can’t remember his last name and is not sure of his juror number, the judge decides to bring out the entire jury. The judge explains to the jury that Mr. Brunon was not here for (the entire?) voi dire.
The Judge then describes something about a case People vs Cruse (spelling?) and he says a case number that I didn’t get the complete number (224.350?), and that Justice Krouse (spelling?) answers all the defense questions. I’m not sure what this refers to; it might be this particular issue. The Judge then jokingly says something to Mr. Brunon about plastic cups would be provided for water for you, but then you will be billed for them by the court building. This must be in reference to something else that has happened prior.
The Judge says the jurors are numbered 1-9 at the top from right to left and the right front row as numbers 10-12 and then the alternates. Mr. Brunon says the jurors number (of the individual he knows) and the judge asks him to stand. The juror is asked if he knows Mr. Brunon, and he replies that he does; that he used to work for the building where Mr. Brunon has/had an office. The judge asks about the nature of their relationship, and did he feel that knowing Mr. Brunon would affect his ability to be impartial. The juror said it would not, and so he is still on the jury.
Cutler now moves on to continue his opening argument. As those of you who have seen portions of his opening statement on TV, Cutler continually used the phrase “murder on their minds” to describe the behavior of the police when they first when to Phil Spector’s “castle,” and that thought process and focus never wavered (by LE). That the police and prosecutors went to great lengths to speak to “any and everybody....and taping their interviews...” who might have had contact with Phil, at any one time. Another phrase that was constantly in use (because this is opening statement and not evidence) was, “the evidence will show.” Cutler went onto describe how the police over reacted in the arrest of Phi Spector. That there was no need to tackle him, no need to tazer him. Or instead, (why not), “Phillip, come with us. Could you come with us?” Cutler said that the house is a landmark, and the local PD know it as “The Castle.” Cutler was very firm that, “the evidence will show there was no confession. (DeSouza) He’s not a substitute father...” (Is Cutler trying to imply that only a priest can take a confession?) “You will consider it in the context of that statement with murder on their mind.”
Cutler now goes into the differences in the size of the “decedent” and Phil Spector. Cutler never mentions Lana’s name. And I can tell that this is on purpose. It’s to depersonalize her. She was 5 feet 11 inches and 160 pounds. Phil is 5 feet 4 inches and 130 pounds. Lana was drinking alcohol and pills.....what did that have on her judgment? “Take it into context.” Cutler mentions the Carlyle Hotel Incident: “You’ll see from evidence in New York...unlike California they don’t look to a woman if you have a gun. You have to have a carry permit.” (This is down right misleading. Of course we have carry permits here in California, too.) He didn’t, and he wasn’t. She was given train fare. The hotel room was all paid for by Phil.” He mentions something during this section on the Carlyle Incident about her “not” being a prostitute, and that “The ladies all continued to see Philip.” Cutler goes onto say that this woman took photos she had of Phil and sold her story to the National Enquirer.
“Bear in mind, DeSouza is not a witness to what happened inside the house. He was in the Brazilian army. Keep all this in mind, when evaluating evidence.” Cutler goes onto talk about the prior incidents and makes a point to say that “no one prosecuted Phil. No one sued. All saw him afterwards.” And then Cutler says several times something (to me) that is amazing. He repeats it. “What Mr. Jackson said is not evidence.” Well, what you are saying is not evidence either Cutler lol! He looks like a mob lawyer, and is somewhat dramatic. I’m getting bored with this guy now, and I look around for Mr. Dunne in the courtroom.
Cutler says, “A case can be scripted; choreographed, put to together, to make it show that these events go together.” (The same could be said for what the defense will try to do.) He’s implying that, Phil pulling a gun on women in the past is coincidental. It has no relation to this event that happened inside his home. “This is not a spectacle or event. It’s covered because of the achievements of Mr. Phil Spector.” “These were not patterns. These were isolated incidents.” (Oh really?) I notice for the first time that several reporters in the back row along side me are working their story on their laptops. In some respects I wish I had brought my laptop, but I only have the one battery, and it’s only good for two hours, if that. Cutler says, “It’s not a crime, to take a friend out to dinner.” And it’s now I think, what a statement! This is total obfuscation. Cutler says, “There are times for when you reach a pinnacle (in your life/career, and) it’s lonely...” It’s around this time that Peter Jackson objects to statements as arguments. And the judge sustains the objections. Peter Jackson objects to another statement by Cutler, and the judge sustains that objection again. Cutler reminds me of a bull dog. He says, “It was not a crime scene, no matter how many markers or tape they put up. It was a death scene; not a crime scene.” Cutler then goes on to say that “Alcohol, pain killers, a starter’s pistol; that doesn’t hurt. Evidence will show...(she was) a big strong, take charge assertive woman....whatever she was doing there, she took her life...”
Cutler tries to get into his opening argument, “Phil says to me every day, I’m not guilty. I did not shoot her.” Jackson objects; the judge sustains the objection, and the judge goes the extra mile to admonish the jury to disregard the statements by Cutler. There’s more statements like this, “lack of evidence,” .... “there’s nothing similar with this event to other events”..... “This was an accident; not at the hand of Phillip.” Cutler closes by saying, “I want to thank each and every one of you to sit on this case. .....thank the judge and his staff.....for making me feel at home in a foreign place.”
Next up is Linda Kenny Baden to talk about “the science.” Baden opens with the statement, “The scientific evidence will show you that government is giving you a story.” There is one witness with no motive or ties or language problems, and that witness is science. .... Science will tell you who did what.”
Her opening statements were very compelling in the way they were delivered. She goes into detail, covering 10 points as to why the science “proves” that Phil could not have been the one to have held the gun, because he couldn’t have been close enough. It’s at this point that Peter Jackson objects several times to the manner in which Ms. Baden is giving her opening statement, which he is claiming is argument. The judge over rules Mr. Jackson several times stating . “No, this is a story. It’s allowed.”
Baden says that science may even tell you that she (Lana) loaded the gun herself. That the government ignored the science. Phil did not hold the gun. He did not pull the trigger. He wasn’t close enough. She says they (PD) “used circular reasoning...” Her ten points included, location of the bullet wound, and she went into detail about the unique attributes of an “intra oral wound,” and that they are “classically self inflicted.” “The bullet graised the tongue.” “You do not swallow a gun like that unless you do it to yourself.” She went into great detail on the path that the police went in their investigation and how they went off track by at first thinking that Phil shoved the gun in her mouth in front of her teeth, but that proved to not be the case. She states that science will show that her mouth was around the barrel of the gun, her lips resting loosely on the barrel. There was no damage to the outside of her mouth. And, the fact that her front teeth (dental caps) were propelled forward and not inward, down the throat substantiates this.
She went onto say that the "...path of the bullet wound entry is consistent with a self inflicted gun shot wound.....path slightly upward.” She points out that the decedent was sitting on a low chair, only 15 inches off the ground. (As I type this, I actually take the time to measure the folding chair I sit on at my computer desk. The top of the cushion rests at 16 inches and the top edge of my dining room chair cushion rests at 18 inches.) “She was seated low.... the trajectory of the bullet was slightly upward....” I look on over at the jury. They seem alert; attentive. I notice several of the alternates in the front row nearest me taking notes.
Baden mentions a few famous forensic pathologists. Dr. Vincent Miao and his book Gunshot Wounds, and later, Dr. Lee and his book, and also mention’s Dr. Werner Spitz. And I think, so Lee is actually going to testify? After that horrendous job he did at the Michael Peterson trial? Sheesh! It appears that, according to these experts, the blood spatter from an intra oral wound can supposedly be projected out much farther than the prosecution has let the jurors to believe in their opening statement. Baden apologizes at this point for appearing callous. “Intra oral wounds are not your normal gunshot wounds. There is a difference where there is no exit wound. ... The gasses of the gun are huge and enormous. ... There is no forward spatter and they (the blood) go back out. ...The mouth/head becomes like a chipmunk." And she demonstrates for the jurors by puffing her cheeks out.
It’s now that we get our morning break, and I finally get to stretch and go to the restroom. I don’t want to be stuck in that courtroom needing to pee, and once leaving, not be able to be let back in by the deputy’s. I see the same prosecution clerk who worked on the Blake trial, but I can’t remember his name. From my understanding, back then, he was still in law school. I wonder if he’s passed his boards by now. I see Phil milling around at break, and I’m trying to look at the swveral tall, attractive bottle-blonde women near the defense side, and which one is Phil’s wife. The bodyguards are sitting against the back wall, in chairs right beside the entrance to court. Who are all these women? Are they staff of the attorneys? Are they girlfriends of Phil's wife? I ask Russ to point out which one is Phil's wife. The gentleman who is seated to my right points her out. Rachelle Short has her highlighted brown/blondish hair pulled to the back of her head with a cascade of curls falling down to her upper back/shoulder blade area.
Break is over, and we are back on the record. The Prosecution brings up an issue before Baden continues her arguments. The images up on the overhead Elmo, are two of the photos that Dr. Henry Lee took. Since the prosecution just got those images on Friday, the prosecution doesn’t want them introduced to the jury until the discovery violation issue is resolved. The defense argues that, they are eventually going to come in, so...(what’s the harm?) Jackson struggles for a rebuttal argument, saying something to the effect that he can’t believe this is what they are using for an argument ... and the judge smiles when he replies, “I hear these kinds of arguments all the time,” and rules in Jackson’s favor. The photos are taken down.
Baden continues her opening statement. It’s more detailed science on intra oral gunshot wounds. She puts up a photo of a book by the distinguished Werner Spitz. Baden makes a conclusion regarding part of Jackson’s opening statement (describing where Phil was standing, as close as Lana’s slip). She says, “That way to determine distance is wrong.” Baden goes into great length and detail to show that there is a tremendous amount of spatter material on “the decedent” but virtually very little on Phil. Consequently, he had to be much farther away. It’s now that I have the thought that this woman reminds me a tiny bit of Leslie Abramson (spelling).
She puts up an image of blood splatter on Phil’s right side jacket, and goes into detail where evidence was not found.
“None on his pants.
None on his shirt.
None on his (shirt) cuff.
None in his hair.
None on his shoes.”
And here is where she makes the startling argument (to me) that, “The absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt.” “Phil has no tissue on him.” It’s here that the thought goes through my mind about Phil’s wife. I wonder about a woman who marries a man charged with murder, and still has to face that charge. I notice alternates taking notes and a couple, are resting their hands on their head and/or chins.
Baden: “No GSR on his shirt. None on his clothes.” The judge takes off his glasses and leans to the side with his right hand fingers holding the temple of his glasses. He appears (to me) to be fiddling with his glasses. He finally sets them down and folds his hands in front of him. A few of the jurors appear to fidget, but no one appears sleepy or yawning. They still seem alert. Baden mentions the name of a famous forensic dentist, called an orodontist (spelling?) who worked on the Ted Bundy case (How is that relevant?). Baden says, “Because the teeth are on the stairs (it shows) no one stood in front of her.” It’s here that she talks about how Phil’s DNA was not found on the bullets inside the gun. LE only found Lana’s and some other person’s DNA. There’ is an image up on the screen, of a gun with the round chamber area pulled away to show the six bullets in their chambers. She talks about the “trace” DNA that was found on this area of the bullets, and that it was not Phil’s. If accurate, this to me is a huge point that the prosecution will have to address.
Baden mentions the “blood on ‘diaper’ cloth' was clotted. “Phil had a lot of diapers in the house. They were used for different things.” Huh? I think who uses diapers? These must be a cloth type diaper and obviously not a disposable one. I finally notice that the location of the clock is on the wall directly behind me. As I’m watching this defense attorney deliver these compelling statements, I have a terrible, catty, judgmental thought about her. Why do older women who have dark hair think they can be more attractive as a blonde? And when they do go blonde, why do they get these terrible dye jobs? Like I said, it was a pretty catty thought.
When Baden tells the judge that she does have a bit more statement, the judge decides they would break now (it’s right an noon), and start up again after lunch. It’s always a mad rush to the very slow elevators. There are only four elevators that service the 1-11th floors, and they are slow as molasses. Since I will be bringing my lunch, I know I’m going to eat in the building cafeteria. It’s convenient, and it will easier to get back to court on time. Steve tells me that we need to be back at 1:15pm sharp. No later. He also asks me if I know how the coffee is in the cafeteria. I tell him that I don’t drink coffee, so I wouldn’t know.
In the cafeteria, I choose a table right next to where Dominick sits. An officer at the table across from me, engages Mr. Dunne with a few questions, and another woman comes up to him to talk to him. He’s very polite and gracious. Always talking to everyone who approaches him. When I finish my lunch, it’s 12:50 pm and I go back upstairs to wait for the courtroom to open again. While I’m waiting, a sheriff comes out in the hallway and says in a loud voice to everyone, “Watch your comments!” Jurors file out behind him, and another sheriff brings up the rear. There are only three reporters in the hallway waiting for court to restart. One is typing up her story on her laptop, the other two are making notes like I am on notepads. The woman asks us about Werner Spitz, “Is he a pathologist? And, who was the gunshot expert? DiMiao?” “Yes,” I say.
The reporters talk about the per diem they get from their employers, and listening in, I wonder about that; which news agencies are more generous with these types of benefits than others. I’m also guessing it just depends on what type of contract negotiations they went through when they were hired. Another reporter I had spoken to briefly before lunch joined us in the hallway. This time, I introduced myself and found out she is Dawna Kaufman, and she works for American Media. She is a very nice woman, who has a very positive energy about her. I ask her, who are all these tall, bottle-blonde women associated with the defense? She laughs and says, I know! Who are they? I tell her my real name and that I had attended the Blake trial. Most everyone asks if I’m in law school, and I tell them, no, I’ve just a public person, who’s had a fascination with true crime ever since my late teens. I mention that I was down here for one of the pretrial hearings, and wrote about that on several of the crime forums. She says to me, “You must be Sprocket. You’re famous.” I was completely startled by that statement, because I'm thinking, Huh? NOT famous by any stretch, lol! Dawna and I talk about our viewpoints on the JonBenet case, and I found her perspective interesting, given the fact that she is a reporter. I ask Dawna how she felt Linda Kenney Baden was doing, and she felt that she is doing very well. She felt the issue of the trace DNA on the bullet cartridges would need to be addressed by the prosecution, and I think she's right.
Dawna mentions to a few nearby reporters the fact that the attorneys (and reporters) kept referring to Lana as 41 years old. Dawna says she looked it up. Lana was two months shy of her 41st birthday; she was really 40 when she died. Several of the reporters discuss this, because they were all under the impression that she was 41. A sharply dressed reporter walks up to me and Dawna and introduces himself to me, but he says his name so quickly that I don’t catch it; just that he works for “Fox.” I don’t know if that’s our local Fox channel, or Fox News. The Fox reporter talks about the show “24” (he's a big fan) and American Idol, and what a “disgrace” that telethon show they aired was, and how shocking it was that the contestant Jordan got such a low vote turnout. I agree. I was quite disappointed in the whole hype surrounding it and how they used this show to drum up donations to this charity they developed. Finally, the courtroom opens up, we all file in.
Inside the courtroom, Russ tells me that there will be no court on Tuesday, May 1st, due to some demonstration that will be going on downtown. As we wait for Judge Fidler to get seated, Russ says he feels the judge is “very engaged; very confident. He’s very much in control of his courtroom.” When Judge Fidler takes the bench, he addresses the jury and says, “Remember when I talked about everyone having to serve jury duty?" He’s holding up his own jury summons! It’s too funny and many in the courtroom laugh. The Judge opens it up to see if there will be a conflict with this trial. His reporting date is sometime in August, and with a smile the Judge says, “We’re safe!”
Baden continues her opening statement. She talks about the actual position of the gun is really unknown, because it could easily have been moved during the “take down” of Phil in his “narrow, only ten feet wide entrance hallway.” (I'm thinking, gee, a 10 foot wide entrance hall is pretty wide to me.) I look over to observe the jury. Juror #2 is looking down and taking notes. #9 is taking notes. They appear somber, and one of the alternates appears to be having trouble staying awake. At least, her eyes are closing for a few seconds then opening again. Baden closes by saying, “If you listen to the science, through science, (this will) bring truth to justice....”
The prosecution is ready to proceed with their first witness, but they can’t locate her. It’s around 1:50pm, and I position myself to get a good view of the witness box. The witness is still not here.
“I’m sorry for the delay.....and I’ve just been told the CSCL elevators have just swallowed another human being." (From my notes, I can’t tell if Jackson or the Judge said this.) Laughter erupts in the courtroom. The judge then makes a comment about the inefficiency of the elevators. From where I’m sitting, I can see the Court TV control console feed, and as they flip from camera view to camera view. Peter Jackson tells the court, “I’ve just been told the witness is 59 seconds away. Judge Fidler, “How did you calculate that?”
The first witness is Dorothy Melvin, but she has to sit on the witness stand for a bit while the attorneys approach the bench and discuss an issue. I see the Court TV camera zoom in on Phil, and I can see one attorney has his arm around Phil, and he stays like that for a bit. Pat Dixon then takes the podium to question the prosecution’s first witness.
Dorothy Melvin is asked about when she first met Phil Spector, and the details surround those events. She first met Phil she said in the early 90’s. She wouldn’t be pinned down more specifically than that. At the time, she was Joan River’s manager; a job she held for approximately 20 years. She said the time span that she started dating Phil lasted about two years. When asked how often they went out, she said that was difficult to answer. The testimony quickly gets to the July 4th weekend of 1993. She talks about flying from New York to Los Angeles, and first visiting her parents. She then drove to Phil’s home at the time, 1210 Arroyo, in Pasadena. She had to call him a few times on her car phone on how to get there. She had never been to his Pasadena home before. She arrived somewhere between 8 and 10 pm. Later during cross she said it was somewhere between 9 and 10 pm.
She said, "He showed me around (the house) ots of beautiful things to see...him playing the piano....(he was) drinking from a round bottle with a handle....we talked....he talked...I talked......He drank virtually a full bottle down.” She said they went to the second floor and shot some pool. At some point in the evening he disappeared. But that wasn’t unusual; Phil often did that. She sat down on the sofa and fell asleep, and then sometime early on in the next morning (just before light) she woke up. The prosecution asked about her clothing and what she was wearing. She was wearing a short black dress with a fuscia jacket. When she woke up, she called out for Phil but he didn’t answer. She found him outside, and he was pointing a gun at her mercedes.
Dixon: What type of gun was it?
DM: Snub nose revolver.
It’s then that we learn that this witness is very familiar with firearms. She has shot off all types of guns that the prosecutor asks her about. Dorothy starts screaming at Phil, asking him “What are you doing?”
Dixon: He was pointing the gun right at you?
DM: Yes. In a loud threatening voice, he started screaming at me to get the F back into the house......and take my clothes off.
This goes on for some time, Phil waving a gun at her and screaming at her to get her clothes off . Then Dorothy said something sharp hit my head. I see juror #9 is taking notes. Back in the house, Dorothy says that Phil has her handbag, going through it, and he’s pulled out various items, and he pulls out her lipstick, and confronts her, WHAT IS THIS??!!!! And she says back to him that it was a lipstick. Apparently, Phil was accusing her of taking things from his house. The witness was terrified of Phil, and manages to get in her car to escape the property, but she can’t get out. The gate at the end of the drive doesn’t automatically open. She hears what she says sounds like a shot gun being cocked, as Phil finally approaches her car screaming at her to leave. She’s screaming back that she can’t; the gate is closed! And at that moment, it’s like a switch has gone off in Phil's head. He realizes that the gate is closed, and Dorothy says, he finally responds to that in a normal voice about the gate being closed. Eventually, the gate is opened and she can leave the property, but she leaves without her purse. As soon as she does, she calls 911 and tells them her approximate address. Officers arrive at her location, and Dorothy goes back to the police station with the officers, where they get ice for her forehead wounds. (Understand, there is quite a bit more testimony in regards to the series of events, and how she gets her purse back.)
Every time Dorothy talks about what the police officer’s say, the defense jumps up and objects. The judge, every time allowed her to comment, but reminded the jurors that what the witness says the officers said is hearsay. Rosen then objects to another statement in a very aggressive manner and the Judge admonishes him on that. He tells Rosen that there is no need for that in this courtroom. Dixon needs a moment to confer with Jackson, and I see Dominick get up to leave the courtroom. I bet the sheriffs let him back in. Dixon asks a few more questions about the times that Dorothy saw Phil after that event, and she made it clear that she was never alone with Phil after that incident. The prosecution said they were finished with this witness and the Judge called for a break at 2:45pm.
I really did need to stretch my legs. I get to see Phil standing up in the defense area. He’s wearing a long black suit jacket and has a white (appears to be silk) kerchief folded into his lapel pocket. His bodyguards surround him. He stays in the courtroom talking to his wife and one of the bottle-blondes. They are all talking very low, leaning in to whisper to each other.
I sit down outside the courtroom by the Fox reporter I met earlier. I apologize to him, that I didn’t catch his name. He says his name is Bob Massey (spelling?). As Phil walks by, he smiles at Mr. Massey and says hello. His wife is holding his arm, like he is being led. Bob speculates that Cutler will handle the cross of this witness. He feels the judge is very sharp and knows his rules of evidence. Mr. Massey and I talk about watching people, their expressions, body language and what that reveals about them. As a 19 year bodyworker, this is something I’m very familiar with. I mention that there are a couple of scientists who have broken facial expressions down to miniscule, individual muscles, involuntary muscles that we can’t control, and what they reveal about a person’s emotions. We talk about what it must be like for Phil's wife to sit there, and listen to this testimony.... what must be going through her mind. Bob said he watched her for a bit while Dorothy was testifying, and she appeared fidgety. He noticed she was sitting on her hands. I mention that I find it interesting that, this much younger, beautiful woman married a man who had a charge of murder hanging over him. Bob asks me what news agency I’m with, and I tell him that I’m not with any organization; I’m just a public person following this trial. And Bob responds with something that I’ve heard several times today when I say who I am, “Good for you.” These reporters have been a little surprised but definitely encouraging to me in my effort to attend this trial.
I mention to Bob that I attended about 90% of the Blake criminal trial. Bob mentioned that he observed the preliminary trial in that case. (I missed it.) Tom Messerau is a good friend of his. Bob felt that Messerau won that trial for him because he got so much thrown out and dismissed during the prelim. We then talk about our opinions on what we felt really happened to Bonnie Lee Blakely, and if Robert was the shooter. Break is over, and we head back into court.
Finally, at 3:05 pm, Rosen stands up to cross this witness. Rosen asks Dorothy, “How do you like to be addressed? Miss, Ms, Miz?” Rosen puts back up the photograph that the prosecution introduced of a smiling Dorothy and Phil taken at a party. Rosen asks Dorothy about the ribbon in the photo on Phil’s lapel. Dorothy says, that ribbon represents the loss of his son when his boy was 9 years old. Rosen asks another question, and Dorothy answers it not as he wanted, and Rosen is very forceful with her and says, “That’s not what I asked you!” The Judge immediately admonishes Rosen: “We are not going to have those type of questions between attorney’s and witnesses." I thought that was interesting. The Judge really rules his courtroom, and won’t let these attorney’s get away with badgering witnesses.
Rosen goes over her testimony in detail, wanting to find out who she discussed her testimony with and when she first talked about this incident. Rosen appears to be getting agitated with the witness, and in the next statement, asks about, “...when you were injured.” Dorothy replies, “I was assaulted.” Good for her! Rosen questions her, “You’re absolutely certain about pointing out these injuries on your head and bumps and contusions to the police?” Dorothy replies, “Yes. Two bumps and a small cut.” Dorothy then describes what she calls “...going into Phil mode...” explaining that was when he was screaming. Then he would instantly switch to “charming” for a moment then go back to being a lunatic.
Rosen: Did you slam a door in his face?
DM: No.
Rosen: Did you push him?
DM: No.
Rosen: You stayed in contact with him?
DM: He stayed in contact with me.
The defense wants to put up on the overhead elmo projection some emails, but the prosecution has a concern with the jury seeing the e-mail address and the attorneys approach the bench. The Judge rules that the e-mail address be blocked out on the e-mails that are put up on the elmo, and given to the jury.
Rosen then goes over some correspondence. He puts up on the screen several post cards that Phil wrote to her. Rosen tried to make a big deal of the fact that she still had them. She replied that they were in with a lot of other correspondence that she kept. Rosen put up on the screen an e-mail from Phil from 2002. The e-mail is addressed to “Dorothy and Toto,” something that the witness admitted Phil used to tease her about. I note that the e-mail is signed, “Phil, aka The Prince of Darkness" in a very gothic style type of font.
A second e-mail is presented that is signed “Love, Phillip.”
Rosen: He sent you postcards after the incident, Correct?
DM: Yes.
Prosecution objects again to the defense exhibits, and I believe this is where the Judge has the defense block out the address on the postcards, so they will not be visible.
Looking over at the jury, I think they look as tired as I feel. It’s very close to 4pm. Sitting still on a hard bench in the gallery with just a thin pad does get to your low back after hours on end. Rosen is still going over more postcards, with the witness that appear to be humorous. He’s bringing this out to stress Phil’s “charming” side. Rosen gets the witness to admit that Phil is “very funny, and talented,” and she agrees.
Rosen: You didn’t know Lana Clarkson?
DM: No.
Rosen: You were not at the residence (on the night Lana died).
DM: No, I was not.
Rosen: Anything you have read about this case...
Jackson: Objection!
Judge: Sustained!
Rosen: You attended his parties, yes?
DM: Yes.
Rosen: You did not bring a civil suit against him?
DM. I’m not litigious.
Rosen: He never fired a weapon?
DM. No, he did not.
Rosen: Never had you hold a hand gun?
DM: (no notes for response)
n: Never put the gun in your mouth?DM: No.
Rosen: You were not given the weapons to examine? (The gun he pointed at her and the shotgun.) You can’t tell the jury that those weapons were loaded?
DM: No, I can not. When you deal with guns, you assume they are loaded.
Rosen: Did he ever threaten to sue?
DM: Yes.
Rosen: Did he ever sue?
DM: No.
Cross ends. Redirect continues.
Dixon: Did you ever respond to those cards?
DM: They did not require one.
Dixon: Were you ever alone with him afterwards?
DM: No.
Recross begins.
Rosen brings up the fact that on January 23, 2003, you sent him an e-mail requesting all e-mails be rerouted to a new address? There is cross talk over the attorneys, while Dorothy is answering, explaining that it was a global e-mail that went out to all the e-mail addresses she had on her computer. The Judge says, “Stop, stop, stop,” and Dorothy finally stops talking.
Judge: Did you still have his e-mail in your computer?
DM: Yes.
Rosen brings up another e-mail she sent Phil, and he reads it to her. It’s an e-mail with an off color joke about a cardiologist, a gynecologist and a proctologist in it. The Judge says, (to Rosen) “In retrospect, maybe you should have had the witness read the e-mail.” There’s laughter in the courtroom.
Rosen: I thought the jury would enjoy it.
Dorothy says she doesn’t remember the e-mail she sent, or even get the joke.
Judge: I’m not going to comment or explain the punch line.
Small amount of laughter erupts in the courtroom. The gallery is getting very restless. Well, at least I am. It is after 4pm and I’m ready to move already. I check the clock. It’s 4:10pm, and the attorneys are still going, trying to get the witness released and not have to call back, which is why the Judge continued court past 4pm.
Rosen: Were the postcards still in your possession?
DM: It wasn’t that long ago and it was with all other mail from other people.
Rosen: (I know he asked a question, but I didn’t write it down.)
DM: I never was out of contact.
Dorothy goes onto say that the contact was ended when two detectives (called on her).
Rosen: They told you...
DM: No. I ended contact on my own.
Dorothy, in trying to answer another question by Rosen says that, “He was sending me clippings about the alleged murder.”
Both the defense and the prosecution say they have no more questions of this witness, and the jury is excused for the day. The court goes back on the record. This was really interesting. Jackson brings up an issue with the court. He says, that the defense opened doors--to witness knowing/experiencing prior bad acts. Jackson says, “This falls in line with the Tizano (spelling?) incident." (I realize this is an event that has been ruled as inadmissible!) “The prosecutions test is cross corroborating. She KNEW his history of (pulling) guns.” (Dorothy witnessed this earlier prior event where Phil went ballistic at a party thrown by Joan Rivers and was, from what I'm gathering, escorted off the premises and/or arrested.) Jackson makes a great argument, that he can bring her back to ask her if she knew of any other incidents....because the defense led the jury to believe that she had never seen Phil like this before, that this was her first experience with Phil pulling out a gun. But it wasn’t.
Judge: When faced with an angry woman--he didn’t shoot. (If I’m understanding my notes correctly, he’s rephrasing the defense rebuttal argument against all of this other stuff coming in.)
So! This could mean other evidence previously ruled out could be ruled in. The Judge says he will give it some thought. He says he might let in a question to the witness, just a simple, did she know of any other (incidents). Then the Judge goes onto say that Mr. Dixon was responsible for explaining the joke to Ms. Melvin.
As I exit the court, I see Dominick Dunne visiting with Dorothy Melvin, and they are chatting up a storm. In the elevator down, several of the reporters are asking each other if they heard the complete joke and did they get it. One of the reporters, in reference to the gun testimony says, “Just assume everyone is armed.”
On the Red Line home, I have the opportunity to observe several of my fellow passengers. There’s quite a diverse collection of faces and souls. I’m happy to be on my way home, while at the same time, I’m trying to see how I can arrange my schedule next week to attend as much of the trial as possible. I was lazy this morning and in the evening. I took the escalator verses climbing or taking the stairs down. I hope to do better in the future, like I had promised myself in February.
I hope you enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
My ride on the Orange Line was almost exactly like the first experience in February, except I was struggling getting all my change out of the ticket kiosk, (it does take a bit of time to pick up 17 one dollar coins) while the bus driver waited patiently for me to get my change and board. This bus had video feeds, and I was looking forward to seeing something interesting, but for most of the trip, all it showed was a map and where the bus was on the map. And as the bus went a few blocks, so did the little bus image on the map. This is supposed to entertain us? The landscaping along the Orange Line is more visually appealing than the video, and for the first time, I noticed how the vegetation is much more developed at the eastern end of the line, since it was completed first. Woah! The bus just swayed real hard; the driver took the curve around Fulton Ave. really fast. I think he was going over 50mph! For the rest of the trip, I squint to try to watch his speedometer.
The Red Line part of the journey was a little tiring because I had to stand for most of the trip. Once in downtown, I exited the tunnel through the Temple street exit. Since that was the first time I used that exit, I had to get my bearings, because I wasn’t sure exactly where I was. The exit is right beside the Court of Flags,
on Hill Street, half way between First and Temple. From the Court of Flags, you can see across the Criminal court parking lot to what appears to me to be one of the older court buildings.
I’m embarrassed that I don’t know which building this is, but I thought you would enjoy an image of it. (I find out later this is City Hall.) I’ve seriously thought of bringing my good camera downtown, but I would have nowhere to store it if, for some reason, the sheriff's decided not to let me bring it past the security checkpoints. So for now, I’m reluctantly settling for the grainy images from my old cell phone.
As I pass through the Court of Flags plaza and reach Broadway, the back of the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center comes fully into view.
I can see a group of photographers about seven in all, on the railing overlooking the parking lot waiting for Phil to arrive. You can barely see them in this photo.
And, in the west corner of the lot, a lone photographer with a tripod and long range lens. Across the deep set lot I can see Spring street, which is where Court TV has set up their filming area for Beth Karas’s on air commentary.
Through pm’s warhorse46 said I should go over to the taping area, and introduce myself to Beth. When I did, she was just about to go on air, and did not have time to talk. I just had enough time to mention that I had met her briefly before at the Robert Blake trial, and that I was friends with Linda Sweetingham (a former print reporter for CourtTV) .....Beth said, “You mean Lisa...” Oh boy. “I’m sorry! Yes, I meant Lisa.” I must have turned beet red in the face. You see, I was so nervous I totally misspoke Lisa's first name. Although you might not guess it from my post on various crime forums, I’m actually a very shy, introverted type person. I have a difficult time introducing myself to total strangers and carrying on a conversation. I will often trip over my own words. You will never see me on camera, being interviewed like Marlene Newell (sp?) was at the Scott Peterson trial. I would be so nervous, I would probably look and sound like a total idiot, lol!
As I arrive on the 9th floor and pass through the second security checkpoint, I see a mass of reporters waiting for Judge Fidler’s courtroom to open. I see Russ, an on-air reporter for a news organization I got to know during the Blake trial. I also recognized the reporter who covered the Blake trial for the LA Weekly, Steve Mikulan, and reintroduced myself. If LA Weekly News (Online) has his stories, I encourage you to stop by and check them out. He wrote some great articles covering the Blake case, and I’m sure he will have a witty, insightful take on this case, too. As I lean against a wall to wait, Steve is in the process of editing a story he’s already printed out, and I mention to him that he has a very unusual way he holds his pen. It’s one of the things I notice when I meet people and see them write is their handedness. I’m always on the lookout for other lefties like myself. We talk a bit about the different ways people hold their pens. Steve mentioned that it was a madhouse at the courthouse yesterday, and I know that I probably would not have been able to get in to observe.
Steve mentions that Cutler only spoke for 45 minutes yesterday, and will continue with his closing today. He also mentions that the rules of this courtroom are much more strict than at the Van Nuys Courthouse. The reporters won’t be able to go in or out whenever they need to file stories. Steve says that if you leave, you won’t be allowed back in. That the sheriff's don’t even want the reporters to leave at the morning and afternoon breaks. And I'm thinking, I better go pee when I can. I also see that the famous AP reporter Linda Deutsch is already there as well as Dominick Dunne.
As some might know, I’m a big fan of Mr. Dunne. I’ve read several of his novels, and his diary is the first thing I read when my Vanity Fair arrives in the mail. Phil’s main defense attorney arrives and talks to Dominick for a bit. After he steps away, I get the courage up to approach Mr. Dunne, and reintroduce myself to him, mentioning that I met him at the Blake trial, and that he signed one of his books for me then. I ask him if in the coming weeks, he could autograph another one of his books for me, and he assured me that he would. I’m ecstatic that I even got my courage up to speak to him.
After scanning the crowd and not seeing Alan Parachini. from the court’s Public Relations office, I finally see their representative, a young woman carrying the numbered badges they give to the reporters who have registered and checked in for a seat to cover this trial. She says that once the deadline has passed for reporters to check in, she’ll see how many seats are left. At this point, she feels I have a good opportunity to get in to observe. My day is looking even better.
Three tall and enormously wide individuals come out of the courtroom and pass me in the hall. They are massive human beings. I remember hearing on TV that Phil surrounded himself with huge bodyguards because he is such a small person. These guys are not just big, I mean they are really big. What goes through my mind though, is the thought that, being next to these men really amplifies the impression people get of Phil being a small man. I think this is intentional. Sandi Gibbons, the District Attorney’s public relations officer arrives soon after I get a seat in the back row of benches on the left side. There is an empty space next to Russ, and it’s nice to sit next to a familiar face, where I can occasionally feel comfortable asking a question or two. I have a good full view of the jurors, the judge and the witness stand. I can barely see Phil through the crowd of reporters though.
The Court TV control camera is in the far left corner at the end of the second bench isle from the back. There are two men sitting very close together in swivel chairs hunched over this control screen. Behind them are two lens cameramen with compact cameras that can zoom in on the defense and prosecution tables, as well as the judge and witness box. (Later, at the morning break, I find out that the men holding the cameras have been standing that entire time, and will do so all through out the day.) Eric Leonard from KFI is sitting in the row in front of me, and notices me for the first time. He smiles and says hello.
Court comes into session. There is a discovery issue that must be discussed before the jury can be brought in. This is regarding evidence collection that Dr. Henry Lee did on behalf of the defense on February 4, 2003. The issue is over three years old and still has not been resolved. After requesting it numerous times, last October, Dr. Lee finally turned over a blood sample that he collected during his time in the house. However, it wasn’t until April 20, that the prosecution actually received the “55 photographs” he took, that actually puts that evidence into context. The prosecution has requested these photographs for at least two years. This is a blatant discovery violation by the defense Mr. Jackson contends. Jackson says they haven’t had time to do any real analysis on this yet. My question is, was it Dr. Lee who stalled in getting this sample and images to the defense? Or, did the defense attorneys stall in turning this discovery item over to the prosecution, because, supposedly it is the prosecution’s evidence. I don’t particularly understand that specific point of law, but the judge said that the evidence is clearly the prosecution’s.
Judge Fidler: You still haven’t answered why did you turn it over so late.
Defense: I don’t know why the delay. Dr. Lee did do presumptive test. (on the blood)
snip
Mr. Jackson: Now that we have photos, that puts it in context. We received from Dr. Lee, a dried, cracked, sample...
Judge Fidler: Where were the photos? Why late?
The defense appears to still be dancing around for an answer, and at the same time, they are wanting the sample back to do DNA testing, because the prosecution is not going to do DNA at this time. The prosecution says, Woah! We just got the photographs that put the blood sample in context. We’re not ready to release it back. The judge then interrupts Mr. Jackson and says, “You might want to stop because I’m about to rule in your favor.”
Judge Fidler: (The defense has) ...no firm leg to stand on. There’s one other issue. (It appears) Mr. Brunon KNOWS one of the jurors.
Holy carp! How did that happen? From what I’m gathering, it appears Mr. Brunon was not in court for all of the voi dire. One of the jurors used to work for the building management, where Mr. Brunon had an office location. Mr. Brunon says he knows the jurors first name, but at this time can’t remember his last name. He just knows he’s sitting somewhere near the left edge of the jury box. Since he can’t remember his last name and is not sure of his juror number, the judge decides to bring out the entire jury. The judge explains to the jury that Mr. Brunon was not here for (the entire?) voi dire.
The Judge then describes something about a case People vs Cruse (spelling?) and he says a case number that I didn’t get the complete number (224.350?), and that Justice Krouse (spelling?) answers all the defense questions. I’m not sure what this refers to; it might be this particular issue. The Judge then jokingly says something to Mr. Brunon about plastic cups would be provided for water for you, but then you will be billed for them by the court building. This must be in reference to something else that has happened prior.
The Judge says the jurors are numbered 1-9 at the top from right to left and the right front row as numbers 10-12 and then the alternates. Mr. Brunon says the jurors number (of the individual he knows) and the judge asks him to stand. The juror is asked if he knows Mr. Brunon, and he replies that he does; that he used to work for the building where Mr. Brunon has/had an office. The judge asks about the nature of their relationship, and did he feel that knowing Mr. Brunon would affect his ability to be impartial. The juror said it would not, and so he is still on the jury.
Cutler now moves on to continue his opening argument. As those of you who have seen portions of his opening statement on TV, Cutler continually used the phrase “murder on their minds” to describe the behavior of the police when they first when to Phil Spector’s “castle,” and that thought process and focus never wavered (by LE). That the police and prosecutors went to great lengths to speak to “any and everybody....and taping their interviews...” who might have had contact with Phil, at any one time. Another phrase that was constantly in use (because this is opening statement and not evidence) was, “the evidence will show.” Cutler went onto describe how the police over reacted in the arrest of Phi Spector. That there was no need to tackle him, no need to tazer him. Or instead, (why not), “Phillip, come with us. Could you come with us?” Cutler said that the house is a landmark, and the local PD know it as “The Castle.” Cutler was very firm that, “the evidence will show there was no confession. (DeSouza) He’s not a substitute father...” (Is Cutler trying to imply that only a priest can take a confession?) “You will consider it in the context of that statement with murder on their mind.”
Cutler now goes into the differences in the size of the “decedent” and Phil Spector. Cutler never mentions Lana’s name. And I can tell that this is on purpose. It’s to depersonalize her. She was 5 feet 11 inches and 160 pounds. Phil is 5 feet 4 inches and 130 pounds. Lana was drinking alcohol and pills.....what did that have on her judgment? “Take it into context.” Cutler mentions the Carlyle Hotel Incident: “You’ll see from evidence in New York...unlike California they don’t look to a woman if you have a gun. You have to have a carry permit.” (This is down right misleading. Of course we have carry permits here in California, too.) He didn’t, and he wasn’t. She was given train fare. The hotel room was all paid for by Phil.” He mentions something during this section on the Carlyle Incident about her “not” being a prostitute, and that “The ladies all continued to see Philip.” Cutler goes onto say that this woman took photos she had of Phil and sold her story to the National Enquirer.
“Bear in mind, DeSouza is not a witness to what happened inside the house. He was in the Brazilian army. Keep all this in mind, when evaluating evidence.” Cutler goes onto talk about the prior incidents and makes a point to say that “no one prosecuted Phil. No one sued. All saw him afterwards.” And then Cutler says several times something (to me) that is amazing. He repeats it. “What Mr. Jackson said is not evidence.” Well, what you are saying is not evidence either Cutler lol! He looks like a mob lawyer, and is somewhat dramatic. I’m getting bored with this guy now, and I look around for Mr. Dunne in the courtroom.
Cutler says, “A case can be scripted; choreographed, put to together, to make it show that these events go together.” (The same could be said for what the defense will try to do.) He’s implying that, Phil pulling a gun on women in the past is coincidental. It has no relation to this event that happened inside his home. “This is not a spectacle or event. It’s covered because of the achievements of Mr. Phil Spector.” “These were not patterns. These were isolated incidents.” (Oh really?) I notice for the first time that several reporters in the back row along side me are working their story on their laptops. In some respects I wish I had brought my laptop, but I only have the one battery, and it’s only good for two hours, if that. Cutler says, “It’s not a crime, to take a friend out to dinner.” And it’s now I think, what a statement! This is total obfuscation. Cutler says, “There are times for when you reach a pinnacle (in your life/career, and) it’s lonely...” It’s around this time that Peter Jackson objects to statements as arguments. And the judge sustains the objections. Peter Jackson objects to another statement by Cutler, and the judge sustains that objection again. Cutler reminds me of a bull dog. He says, “It was not a crime scene, no matter how many markers or tape they put up. It was a death scene; not a crime scene.” Cutler then goes on to say that “Alcohol, pain killers, a starter’s pistol; that doesn’t hurt. Evidence will show...(she was) a big strong, take charge assertive woman....whatever she was doing there, she took her life...”
Cutler tries to get into his opening argument, “Phil says to me every day, I’m not guilty. I did not shoot her.” Jackson objects; the judge sustains the objection, and the judge goes the extra mile to admonish the jury to disregard the statements by Cutler. There’s more statements like this, “lack of evidence,” .... “there’s nothing similar with this event to other events”..... “This was an accident; not at the hand of Phillip.” Cutler closes by saying, “I want to thank each and every one of you to sit on this case. .....thank the judge and his staff.....for making me feel at home in a foreign place.”
Next up is Linda Kenny Baden to talk about “the science.” Baden opens with the statement, “The scientific evidence will show you that government is giving you a story.” There is one witness with no motive or ties or language problems, and that witness is science. .... Science will tell you who did what.”
Her opening statements were very compelling in the way they were delivered. She goes into detail, covering 10 points as to why the science “proves” that Phil could not have been the one to have held the gun, because he couldn’t have been close enough. It’s at this point that Peter Jackson objects several times to the manner in which Ms. Baden is giving her opening statement, which he is claiming is argument. The judge over rules Mr. Jackson several times stating . “No, this is a story. It’s allowed.”
Baden says that science may even tell you that she (Lana) loaded the gun herself. That the government ignored the science. Phil did not hold the gun. He did not pull the trigger. He wasn’t close enough. She says they (PD) “used circular reasoning...” Her ten points included, location of the bullet wound, and she went into detail about the unique attributes of an “intra oral wound,” and that they are “classically self inflicted.” “The bullet graised the tongue.” “You do not swallow a gun like that unless you do it to yourself.” She went into great detail on the path that the police went in their investigation and how they went off track by at first thinking that Phil shoved the gun in her mouth in front of her teeth, but that proved to not be the case. She states that science will show that her mouth was around the barrel of the gun, her lips resting loosely on the barrel. There was no damage to the outside of her mouth. And, the fact that her front teeth (dental caps) were propelled forward and not inward, down the throat substantiates this.
She went onto say that the "...path of the bullet wound entry is consistent with a self inflicted gun shot wound.....path slightly upward.” She points out that the decedent was sitting on a low chair, only 15 inches off the ground. (As I type this, I actually take the time to measure the folding chair I sit on at my computer desk. The top of the cushion rests at 16 inches and the top edge of my dining room chair cushion rests at 18 inches.) “She was seated low.... the trajectory of the bullet was slightly upward....” I look on over at the jury. They seem alert; attentive. I notice several of the alternates in the front row nearest me taking notes.
Baden mentions a few famous forensic pathologists. Dr. Vincent Miao and his book Gunshot Wounds, and later, Dr. Lee and his book, and also mention’s Dr. Werner Spitz. And I think, so Lee is actually going to testify? After that horrendous job he did at the Michael Peterson trial? Sheesh! It appears that, according to these experts, the blood spatter from an intra oral wound can supposedly be projected out much farther than the prosecution has let the jurors to believe in their opening statement. Baden apologizes at this point for appearing callous. “Intra oral wounds are not your normal gunshot wounds. There is a difference where there is no exit wound. ... The gasses of the gun are huge and enormous. ... There is no forward spatter and they (the blood) go back out. ...The mouth/head becomes like a chipmunk." And she demonstrates for the jurors by puffing her cheeks out.
It’s now that we get our morning break, and I finally get to stretch and go to the restroom. I don’t want to be stuck in that courtroom needing to pee, and once leaving, not be able to be let back in by the deputy’s. I see the same prosecution clerk who worked on the Blake trial, but I can’t remember his name. From my understanding, back then, he was still in law school. I wonder if he’s passed his boards by now. I see Phil milling around at break, and I’m trying to look at the swveral tall, attractive bottle-blonde women near the defense side, and which one is Phil’s wife. The bodyguards are sitting against the back wall, in chairs right beside the entrance to court. Who are all these women? Are they staff of the attorneys? Are they girlfriends of Phil's wife? I ask Russ to point out which one is Phil's wife. The gentleman who is seated to my right points her out. Rachelle Short has her highlighted brown/blondish hair pulled to the back of her head with a cascade of curls falling down to her upper back/shoulder blade area.
Break is over, and we are back on the record. The Prosecution brings up an issue before Baden continues her arguments. The images up on the overhead Elmo, are two of the photos that Dr. Henry Lee took. Since the prosecution just got those images on Friday, the prosecution doesn’t want them introduced to the jury until the discovery violation issue is resolved. The defense argues that, they are eventually going to come in, so...(what’s the harm?) Jackson struggles for a rebuttal argument, saying something to the effect that he can’t believe this is what they are using for an argument ... and the judge smiles when he replies, “I hear these kinds of arguments all the time,” and rules in Jackson’s favor. The photos are taken down.
Baden continues her opening statement. It’s more detailed science on intra oral gunshot wounds. She puts up a photo of a book by the distinguished Werner Spitz. Baden makes a conclusion regarding part of Jackson’s opening statement (describing where Phil was standing, as close as Lana’s slip). She says, “That way to determine distance is wrong.” Baden goes into great length and detail to show that there is a tremendous amount of spatter material on “the decedent” but virtually very little on Phil. Consequently, he had to be much farther away. It’s now that I have the thought that this woman reminds me a tiny bit of Leslie Abramson (spelling).
She puts up an image of blood splatter on Phil’s right side jacket, and goes into detail where evidence was not found.
“None on his pants.
None on his shirt.
None on his (shirt) cuff.
None in his hair.
None on his shoes.”
And here is where she makes the startling argument (to me) that, “The absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt.” “Phil has no tissue on him.” It’s here that the thought goes through my mind about Phil’s wife. I wonder about a woman who marries a man charged with murder, and still has to face that charge. I notice alternates taking notes and a couple, are resting their hands on their head and/or chins.
Baden: “No GSR on his shirt. None on his clothes.” The judge takes off his glasses and leans to the side with his right hand fingers holding the temple of his glasses. He appears (to me) to be fiddling with his glasses. He finally sets them down and folds his hands in front of him. A few of the jurors appear to fidget, but no one appears sleepy or yawning. They still seem alert. Baden mentions the name of a famous forensic dentist, called an orodontist (spelling?) who worked on the Ted Bundy case (How is that relevant?). Baden says, “Because the teeth are on the stairs (it shows) no one stood in front of her.” It’s here that she talks about how Phil’s DNA was not found on the bullets inside the gun. LE only found Lana’s and some other person’s DNA. There’ is an image up on the screen, of a gun with the round chamber area pulled away to show the six bullets in their chambers. She talks about the “trace” DNA that was found on this area of the bullets, and that it was not Phil’s. If accurate, this to me is a huge point that the prosecution will have to address.
Baden mentions the “blood on ‘diaper’ cloth' was clotted. “Phil had a lot of diapers in the house. They were used for different things.” Huh? I think who uses diapers? These must be a cloth type diaper and obviously not a disposable one. I finally notice that the location of the clock is on the wall directly behind me. As I’m watching this defense attorney deliver these compelling statements, I have a terrible, catty, judgmental thought about her. Why do older women who have dark hair think they can be more attractive as a blonde? And when they do go blonde, why do they get these terrible dye jobs? Like I said, it was a pretty catty thought.
When Baden tells the judge that she does have a bit more statement, the judge decides they would break now (it’s right an noon), and start up again after lunch. It’s always a mad rush to the very slow elevators. There are only four elevators that service the 1-11th floors, and they are slow as molasses. Since I will be bringing my lunch, I know I’m going to eat in the building cafeteria. It’s convenient, and it will easier to get back to court on time. Steve tells me that we need to be back at 1:15pm sharp. No later. He also asks me if I know how the coffee is in the cafeteria. I tell him that I don’t drink coffee, so I wouldn’t know.
In the cafeteria, I choose a table right next to where Dominick sits. An officer at the table across from me, engages Mr. Dunne with a few questions, and another woman comes up to him to talk to him. He’s very polite and gracious. Always talking to everyone who approaches him. When I finish my lunch, it’s 12:50 pm and I go back upstairs to wait for the courtroom to open again. While I’m waiting, a sheriff comes out in the hallway and says in a loud voice to everyone, “Watch your comments!” Jurors file out behind him, and another sheriff brings up the rear. There are only three reporters in the hallway waiting for court to restart. One is typing up her story on her laptop, the other two are making notes like I am on notepads. The woman asks us about Werner Spitz, “Is he a pathologist? And, who was the gunshot expert? DiMiao?” “Yes,” I say.
The reporters talk about the per diem they get from their employers, and listening in, I wonder about that; which news agencies are more generous with these types of benefits than others. I’m also guessing it just depends on what type of contract negotiations they went through when they were hired. Another reporter I had spoken to briefly before lunch joined us in the hallway. This time, I introduced myself and found out she is Dawna Kaufman, and she works for American Media. She is a very nice woman, who has a very positive energy about her. I ask her, who are all these tall, bottle-blonde women associated with the defense? She laughs and says, I know! Who are they? I tell her my real name and that I had attended the Blake trial. Most everyone asks if I’m in law school, and I tell them, no, I’ve just a public person, who’s had a fascination with true crime ever since my late teens. I mention that I was down here for one of the pretrial hearings, and wrote about that on several of the crime forums. She says to me, “You must be Sprocket. You’re famous.” I was completely startled by that statement, because I'm thinking, Huh? NOT famous by any stretch, lol! Dawna and I talk about our viewpoints on the JonBenet case, and I found her perspective interesting, given the fact that she is a reporter. I ask Dawna how she felt Linda Kenney Baden was doing, and she felt that she is doing very well. She felt the issue of the trace DNA on the bullet cartridges would need to be addressed by the prosecution, and I think she's right.
Dawna mentions to a few nearby reporters the fact that the attorneys (and reporters) kept referring to Lana as 41 years old. Dawna says she looked it up. Lana was two months shy of her 41st birthday; she was really 40 when she died. Several of the reporters discuss this, because they were all under the impression that she was 41. A sharply dressed reporter walks up to me and Dawna and introduces himself to me, but he says his name so quickly that I don’t catch it; just that he works for “Fox.” I don’t know if that’s our local Fox channel, or Fox News. The Fox reporter talks about the show “24” (he's a big fan) and American Idol, and what a “disgrace” that telethon show they aired was, and how shocking it was that the contestant Jordan got such a low vote turnout. I agree. I was quite disappointed in the whole hype surrounding it and how they used this show to drum up donations to this charity they developed. Finally, the courtroom opens up, we all file in.
Inside the courtroom, Russ tells me that there will be no court on Tuesday, May 1st, due to some demonstration that will be going on downtown. As we wait for Judge Fidler to get seated, Russ says he feels the judge is “very engaged; very confident. He’s very much in control of his courtroom.” When Judge Fidler takes the bench, he addresses the jury and says, “Remember when I talked about everyone having to serve jury duty?" He’s holding up his own jury summons! It’s too funny and many in the courtroom laugh. The Judge opens it up to see if there will be a conflict with this trial. His reporting date is sometime in August, and with a smile the Judge says, “We’re safe!”
Baden continues her opening statement. She talks about the actual position of the gun is really unknown, because it could easily have been moved during the “take down” of Phil in his “narrow, only ten feet wide entrance hallway.” (I'm thinking, gee, a 10 foot wide entrance hall is pretty wide to me.) I look over to observe the jury. Juror #2 is looking down and taking notes. #9 is taking notes. They appear somber, and one of the alternates appears to be having trouble staying awake. At least, her eyes are closing for a few seconds then opening again. Baden closes by saying, “If you listen to the science, through science, (this will) bring truth to justice....”
The prosecution is ready to proceed with their first witness, but they can’t locate her. It’s around 1:50pm, and I position myself to get a good view of the witness box. The witness is still not here.
“I’m sorry for the delay.....and I’ve just been told the CSCL elevators have just swallowed another human being." (From my notes, I can’t tell if Jackson or the Judge said this.) Laughter erupts in the courtroom. The judge then makes a comment about the inefficiency of the elevators. From where I’m sitting, I can see the Court TV control console feed, and as they flip from camera view to camera view. Peter Jackson tells the court, “I’ve just been told the witness is 59 seconds away. Judge Fidler, “How did you calculate that?”
The first witness is Dorothy Melvin, but she has to sit on the witness stand for a bit while the attorneys approach the bench and discuss an issue. I see the Court TV camera zoom in on Phil, and I can see one attorney has his arm around Phil, and he stays like that for a bit. Pat Dixon then takes the podium to question the prosecution’s first witness.
Dorothy Melvin is asked about when she first met Phil Spector, and the details surround those events. She first met Phil she said in the early 90’s. She wouldn’t be pinned down more specifically than that. At the time, she was Joan River’s manager; a job she held for approximately 20 years. She said the time span that she started dating Phil lasted about two years. When asked how often they went out, she said that was difficult to answer. The testimony quickly gets to the July 4th weekend of 1993. She talks about flying from New York to Los Angeles, and first visiting her parents. She then drove to Phil’s home at the time, 1210 Arroyo, in Pasadena. She had to call him a few times on her car phone on how to get there. She had never been to his Pasadena home before. She arrived somewhere between 8 and 10 pm. Later during cross she said it was somewhere between 9 and 10 pm.
She said, "He showed me around (the house) ots of beautiful things to see...him playing the piano....(he was) drinking from a round bottle with a handle....we talked....he talked...I talked......He drank virtually a full bottle down.” She said they went to the second floor and shot some pool. At some point in the evening he disappeared. But that wasn’t unusual; Phil often did that. She sat down on the sofa and fell asleep, and then sometime early on in the next morning (just before light) she woke up. The prosecution asked about her clothing and what she was wearing. She was wearing a short black dress with a fuscia jacket. When she woke up, she called out for Phil but he didn’t answer. She found him outside, and he was pointing a gun at her mercedes.
Dixon: What type of gun was it?
DM: Snub nose revolver.
It’s then that we learn that this witness is very familiar with firearms. She has shot off all types of guns that the prosecutor asks her about. Dorothy starts screaming at Phil, asking him “What are you doing?”
Dixon: He was pointing the gun right at you?
DM: Yes. In a loud threatening voice, he started screaming at me to get the F back into the house......and take my clothes off.
This goes on for some time, Phil waving a gun at her and screaming at her to get her clothes off . Then Dorothy said something sharp hit my head. I see juror #9 is taking notes. Back in the house, Dorothy says that Phil has her handbag, going through it, and he’s pulled out various items, and he pulls out her lipstick, and confronts her, WHAT IS THIS??!!!! And she says back to him that it was a lipstick. Apparently, Phil was accusing her of taking things from his house. The witness was terrified of Phil, and manages to get in her car to escape the property, but she can’t get out. The gate at the end of the drive doesn’t automatically open. She hears what she says sounds like a shot gun being cocked, as Phil finally approaches her car screaming at her to leave. She’s screaming back that she can’t; the gate is closed! And at that moment, it’s like a switch has gone off in Phil's head. He realizes that the gate is closed, and Dorothy says, he finally responds to that in a normal voice about the gate being closed. Eventually, the gate is opened and she can leave the property, but she leaves without her purse. As soon as she does, she calls 911 and tells them her approximate address. Officers arrive at her location, and Dorothy goes back to the police station with the officers, where they get ice for her forehead wounds. (Understand, there is quite a bit more testimony in regards to the series of events, and how she gets her purse back.)
Every time Dorothy talks about what the police officer’s say, the defense jumps up and objects. The judge, every time allowed her to comment, but reminded the jurors that what the witness says the officers said is hearsay. Rosen then objects to another statement in a very aggressive manner and the Judge admonishes him on that. He tells Rosen that there is no need for that in this courtroom. Dixon needs a moment to confer with Jackson, and I see Dominick get up to leave the courtroom. I bet the sheriffs let him back in. Dixon asks a few more questions about the times that Dorothy saw Phil after that event, and she made it clear that she was never alone with Phil after that incident. The prosecution said they were finished with this witness and the Judge called for a break at 2:45pm.
I really did need to stretch my legs. I get to see Phil standing up in the defense area. He’s wearing a long black suit jacket and has a white (appears to be silk) kerchief folded into his lapel pocket. His bodyguards surround him. He stays in the courtroom talking to his wife and one of the bottle-blondes. They are all talking very low, leaning in to whisper to each other.
I sit down outside the courtroom by the Fox reporter I met earlier. I apologize to him, that I didn’t catch his name. He says his name is Bob Massey (spelling?). As Phil walks by, he smiles at Mr. Massey and says hello. His wife is holding his arm, like he is being led. Bob speculates that Cutler will handle the cross of this witness. He feels the judge is very sharp and knows his rules of evidence. Mr. Massey and I talk about watching people, their expressions, body language and what that reveals about them. As a 19 year bodyworker, this is something I’m very familiar with. I mention that there are a couple of scientists who have broken facial expressions down to miniscule, individual muscles, involuntary muscles that we can’t control, and what they reveal about a person’s emotions. We talk about what it must be like for Phil's wife to sit there, and listen to this testimony.... what must be going through her mind. Bob said he watched her for a bit while Dorothy was testifying, and she appeared fidgety. He noticed she was sitting on her hands. I mention that I find it interesting that, this much younger, beautiful woman married a man who had a charge of murder hanging over him. Bob asks me what news agency I’m with, and I tell him that I’m not with any organization; I’m just a public person following this trial. And Bob responds with something that I’ve heard several times today when I say who I am, “Good for you.” These reporters have been a little surprised but definitely encouraging to me in my effort to attend this trial.
I mention to Bob that I attended about 90% of the Blake criminal trial. Bob mentioned that he observed the preliminary trial in that case. (I missed it.) Tom Messerau is a good friend of his. Bob felt that Messerau won that trial for him because he got so much thrown out and dismissed during the prelim. We then talk about our opinions on what we felt really happened to Bonnie Lee Blakely, and if Robert was the shooter. Break is over, and we head back into court.
Finally, at 3:05 pm, Rosen stands up to cross this witness. Rosen asks Dorothy, “How do you like to be addressed? Miss, Ms, Miz?” Rosen puts back up the photograph that the prosecution introduced of a smiling Dorothy and Phil taken at a party. Rosen asks Dorothy about the ribbon in the photo on Phil’s lapel. Dorothy says, that ribbon represents the loss of his son when his boy was 9 years old. Rosen asks another question, and Dorothy answers it not as he wanted, and Rosen is very forceful with her and says, “That’s not what I asked you!” The Judge immediately admonishes Rosen: “We are not going to have those type of questions between attorney’s and witnesses." I thought that was interesting. The Judge really rules his courtroom, and won’t let these attorney’s get away with badgering witnesses.
Rosen goes over her testimony in detail, wanting to find out who she discussed her testimony with and when she first talked about this incident. Rosen appears to be getting agitated with the witness, and in the next statement, asks about, “...when you were injured.” Dorothy replies, “I was assaulted.” Good for her! Rosen questions her, “You’re absolutely certain about pointing out these injuries on your head and bumps and contusions to the police?” Dorothy replies, “Yes. Two bumps and a small cut.” Dorothy then describes what she calls “...going into Phil mode...” explaining that was when he was screaming. Then he would instantly switch to “charming” for a moment then go back to being a lunatic.
Rosen: Did you slam a door in his face?
DM: No.
Rosen: Did you push him?
DM: No.
Rosen: You stayed in contact with him?
DM: He stayed in contact with me.
The defense wants to put up on the overhead elmo projection some emails, but the prosecution has a concern with the jury seeing the e-mail address and the attorneys approach the bench. The Judge rules that the e-mail address be blocked out on the e-mails that are put up on the elmo, and given to the jury.
Rosen then goes over some correspondence. He puts up on the screen several post cards that Phil wrote to her. Rosen tried to make a big deal of the fact that she still had them. She replied that they were in with a lot of other correspondence that she kept. Rosen put up on the screen an e-mail from Phil from 2002. The e-mail is addressed to “Dorothy and Toto,” something that the witness admitted Phil used to tease her about. I note that the e-mail is signed, “Phil, aka The Prince of Darkness" in a very gothic style type of font.
A second e-mail is presented that is signed “Love, Phillip.”
Rosen: He sent you postcards after the incident, Correct?
DM: Yes.
Prosecution objects again to the defense exhibits, and I believe this is where the Judge has the defense block out the address on the postcards, so they will not be visible.
Looking over at the jury, I think they look as tired as I feel. It’s very close to 4pm. Sitting still on a hard bench in the gallery with just a thin pad does get to your low back after hours on end. Rosen is still going over more postcards, with the witness that appear to be humorous. He’s bringing this out to stress Phil’s “charming” side. Rosen gets the witness to admit that Phil is “very funny, and talented,” and she agrees.
Rosen: You didn’t know Lana Clarkson?
DM: No.
Rosen: You were not at the residence (on the night Lana died).
DM: No, I was not.
Rosen: Anything you have read about this case...
Jackson: Objection!
Judge: Sustained!
Rosen: You attended his parties, yes?
DM: Yes.
Rosen: You did not bring a civil suit against him?
DM. I’m not litigious.
Rosen: He never fired a weapon?
DM. No, he did not.
Rosen: Never had you hold a hand gun?
DM: (no notes for response)
n: Never put the gun in your mouth?DM: No.
Rosen: You were not given the weapons to examine? (The gun he pointed at her and the shotgun.) You can’t tell the jury that those weapons were loaded?
DM: No, I can not. When you deal with guns, you assume they are loaded.
Rosen: Did he ever threaten to sue?
DM: Yes.
Rosen: Did he ever sue?
DM: No.
Cross ends. Redirect continues.
Dixon: Did you ever respond to those cards?
DM: They did not require one.
Dixon: Were you ever alone with him afterwards?
DM: No.
Recross begins.
Rosen brings up the fact that on January 23, 2003, you sent him an e-mail requesting all e-mails be rerouted to a new address? There is cross talk over the attorneys, while Dorothy is answering, explaining that it was a global e-mail that went out to all the e-mail addresses she had on her computer. The Judge says, “Stop, stop, stop,” and Dorothy finally stops talking.
Judge: Did you still have his e-mail in your computer?
DM: Yes.
Rosen brings up another e-mail she sent Phil, and he reads it to her. It’s an e-mail with an off color joke about a cardiologist, a gynecologist and a proctologist in it. The Judge says, (to Rosen) “In retrospect, maybe you should have had the witness read the e-mail.” There’s laughter in the courtroom.
Rosen: I thought the jury would enjoy it.
Dorothy says she doesn’t remember the e-mail she sent, or even get the joke.
Judge: I’m not going to comment or explain the punch line.
Small amount of laughter erupts in the courtroom. The gallery is getting very restless. Well, at least I am. It is after 4pm and I’m ready to move already. I check the clock. It’s 4:10pm, and the attorneys are still going, trying to get the witness released and not have to call back, which is why the Judge continued court past 4pm.
Rosen: Were the postcards still in your possession?
DM: It wasn’t that long ago and it was with all other mail from other people.
Rosen: (I know he asked a question, but I didn’t write it down.)
DM: I never was out of contact.
Dorothy goes onto say that the contact was ended when two detectives (called on her).
Rosen: They told you...
DM: No. I ended contact on my own.
Dorothy, in trying to answer another question by Rosen says that, “He was sending me clippings about the alleged murder.”
Both the defense and the prosecution say they have no more questions of this witness, and the jury is excused for the day. The court goes back on the record. This was really interesting. Jackson brings up an issue with the court. He says, that the defense opened doors--to witness knowing/experiencing prior bad acts. Jackson says, “This falls in line with the Tizano (spelling?) incident." (I realize this is an event that has been ruled as inadmissible!) “The prosecutions test is cross corroborating. She KNEW his history of (pulling) guns.” (Dorothy witnessed this earlier prior event where Phil went ballistic at a party thrown by Joan Rivers and was, from what I'm gathering, escorted off the premises and/or arrested.) Jackson makes a great argument, that he can bring her back to ask her if she knew of any other incidents....because the defense led the jury to believe that she had never seen Phil like this before, that this was her first experience with Phil pulling out a gun. But it wasn’t.
Judge: When faced with an angry woman--he didn’t shoot. (If I’m understanding my notes correctly, he’s rephrasing the defense rebuttal argument against all of this other stuff coming in.)
So! This could mean other evidence previously ruled out could be ruled in. The Judge says he will give it some thought. He says he might let in a question to the witness, just a simple, did she know of any other (incidents). Then the Judge goes onto say that Mr. Dixon was responsible for explaining the joke to Ms. Melvin.
As I exit the court, I see Dominick Dunne visiting with Dorothy Melvin, and they are chatting up a storm. In the elevator down, several of the reporters are asking each other if they heard the complete joke and did they get it. One of the reporters, in reference to the gun testimony says, “Just assume everyone is armed.”
On the Red Line home, I have the opportunity to observe several of my fellow passengers. There’s quite a diverse collection of faces and souls. I’m happy to be on my way home, while at the same time, I’m trying to see how I can arrange my schedule next week to attend as much of the trial as possible. I was lazy this morning and in the evening. I took the escalator verses climbing or taking the stairs down. I hope to do better in the future, like I had promised myself in February.
I hope you enjoyed my trial notes. Please understand that my notes should not be used in place of a more exact transcript of the trial. Although I tried to be as accurate as possible when I was quoting someone, I’m sure you will find some statements that do not exactly match Court TV’s Extra coverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
