Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Curious Vanity Fair Article on Stephanie Lazarus

Complete Series on Fact Checking Mark Bowden's Article HERE.
UPDATE: June 21st, 2012 10:00 AM, for clarity
UPDATE: June 22nd, 2012 1:30 AM, to Factual Error #7 
UPDATE: June 23rd, 2012 7:00 PM
ADDITIONAL Factual Error #8

I confess I’m a long time reader of Vanity Fair. I’ve always considered it a quality magazine with experienced, talented investigative journalists. I would wait with anticipation when the next issue came out just to read Dominick Dunne’s coverage of the latest high profile trial he was attending.  One of the things I learned sitting next to him for many months in the first Phil Spector trial was getting the story right. I remember the disappointed expression Dominick had on his face when he told me he wouldn’t be at court the next day because he had to spend time with his editor and fact checker before his next article went to press. Although he would miss a day of court, Dominick knew how important it was to accurately source his material and get the facts straight.

So when I finally got a copy of the July 2012 issue of Vanity Fair and read Mark Bowden’s lengthy article on the Stephanie Lazarus case -- which I covered -- I was puzzled because it raised a lot of troubling questions.

When I first read Bowden's article something struck me as slightly off.  It had to do with the quoted statements of Lazarus and the detectives.  Initially, I thought it was just a matter of Bowden dropping words or smoothing out the dialogue for readability.  Then I consulted the transcript of the interrogation and compared what was actually said to the dialogue Bowden quotes in his Vanity Fair article. In multiple places, they do not line up. In at least one instance, Bowden actually adds a line of dialogue that does not appear in the video or transcript. Here is the first dialogue quoted in Vanity Fair:

Vanity Fair Article Page 124:

 
Vanity Fair Article Page 124:
Page 10 of the Official Transcript, Video Time 01:36

Vanity Fair Article Page 125:

Bowden shuffled the sequence of what was actually said. Note the numbers of the transcript pages below.
Page 14 of the Official Transcript, Video Time 04:13

Page 17 of the Official Transcript, Video Time 07:31

Page 16 of the Official Transcript, Video Time 05:57

Page 19 of the Official Transcript, Video Time 08:51

Factual Errors
I am also compelled to set the record straight regarding multiple factual errors I noticed in the article. 

#1.Vanity Fair Article Page 124: 

 When Stephanie Lazarus left her desk to accompany Detective Jaramillo to the interview room in the jail, she did not bring her weapon with her. 

#2. Vanity Fair Article Page 125:

Sherri Rasmussen's sister, Teresa Lane, verified for me that at age 16, Sherri Rasmussen enrolled in a nursing program at Loma Linda University. Years later, she worked as a nurse at U.C.L.A. Medical Center. 

#3. Vanity Fair Article Page 129: 

The sole mention of Stephanie Lazarus in the Rasmussen case file is a chrono entry on November 19th, 1987.  This document was entered into evidence at trial. (Address and phone numbers have been redacted for privacy.) The first entry on that page, dated 11/18, notes the Rasmussen family is flying into Los Angeles on "11/23/87" for a press conference. The press conference was reported on in the Los Angeles Times on November 24th, 1987.  
Rasmussen Case File Chronological Record Document

#4. Vanity Fair Article Page 146:

Sherri Rasmussen’s widower, John Ruetten testified on February 15th, 2012 and February 16th, 2012.  Ruetten said he reconnected with Lazarus in Hawaii in 1989.  Ruetten testified that during the following year and a half, he and Stephanie were sexually intimate on two occasions.

#5. Vanity Fair Article Page 148

There was no evidence presented at trial that proved Lazarus came to Sherri's home that day with the specific intention to kill her. Former FBI profiler and crime scene analyst Mark Safarik testified for the prosecution on February 24, 2012, the 26th anniversary of the murder. I remember that was a very difficult day for the Rasmussen family.  In Safarik's analysis of the case file -- the evidence, the crime scene photographs, and after visiting the scene of the crime -- he testified that it is impossible to know for certain the exact sequence of events that transpired when Sherri Rasmussen was killed.

#6. Vanity Fair Article Page 148:
 
Van Nuys Homicide Detectives confirmed to me that John Ruetten informed them in 2009 that his former girlfriend Stephanie Lazarus was an LAPD officer.  When the detectives ran Lazarus’ name through Groupwise, the LAPD's E-mail directory, they saw that she was still on the job and worked downtown in Commercial Crimes. Not a single member of the Van Nuys Homicide Unit recognized her name or in any way considered her an "esteemed colleague." 

#7. Vanity Fair Article Page 148:

UPDATE: June 22nd, 2012 1:30 AM
Clip #7 from Vanity Fair, (above) has been updated to include a few more lines of text.

On February 9th, 2012,  undercover Detective Roberto Morales, testified that Lazarus was sitting outside in the Costco food court when he observed her drinking from a cup with a lid and straw.   After she threw the cup in the trash and walked away Morales retrieved the discarded cup.

In Matthew McGough's article on the Lazarus investigation, published in the June 2011 issue of  The Atlantic magazine, he reported that the cup and straw with Lazarus's DNA were collected on May 27th, 2009, and the crime lab completed its DNA analysis two days later on May 29th, 2009.

On February 9th, 2012, Sergeant James Hensley confirmed on the witness stand that he delivered the cup and straw to the crime lab on May 27th, 2009.  Later in the trial, Detective Greg Stearns testified that he was assigned the case on May 29th, 2009. This was the same day that the DNA results were confirmed. A special thank you to T&T reader and commenter "EvictObama" for drawing my attention to this additional factual error in Mark Bowden's Vanity Fair article.

UPDATE: June 23rd, 2012 7:00 PM
Additional Factual Error

#8. Vanity Fair Article Page 126:

Bowden appears to be talking about the 1986 investigation, yet the "saliva swab" was not tested in 1986.  The "saliva swab" was not located until December 2004 after a search of the Los Angeles County Coroner's freezers. The swab was never tested for blood type. It was tested for DNA in February 2005. 

Continued in Part II.... 

Friday, June 1, 2012

The Race For Los Angeles County District Attorney, Part II

With the June 5th, 2012 vote less than a week away, many watching the politics of this race are saying "ABC: ....Anyone But Carmen (Trutanich)". I tend to agree with that statement.

Joe Friday at Los Angeles Dragnet has been closely keeping his eye on all the candidates, especially Trutanich.  Joe Friday has documented Trutanich's failed campaign promises as well as other questionable tactics.  In his latest entry, he appeared on local Fox Ch. 11 to speak to the lies that Joe Friday states Trutanich has fed the public.

This past Tuesday, KPCC hosted a debate between five of the six candidates vying for the largest prosecutor's office in the nation. You can watch a video of the debate here.  Expectedly, Trutanich declined to attend.

Trials and Tribulations endorses DDA Alan Jackson for the next Los Angeles County District Attorney. I personally know Jackson, his character and his dedication to victims of crime and public safety.  DDA Jackson is endorsed by more law enforcement agencies than any other candidate as well as several government leaders.  DDA Jackie Lacey is endorsed by the current District Attorney, Steve Cooley, National Women's Political Caucus and local radio station KFI 640's "John & Ken".  City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is endorsed by Governor Jerry Brown and LA Co. Sheriff Leroy D. Baca.  DDA Danette Meyers is endorsed by former DA Gil Garcetti, several Democratic organizations and the Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA). 

If no single candidate gets over 50% of the vote on June 5th, there will be a run-off election in November 2012.

Los Angeles Times Article on the candidates.
State-wide Police groups endorse Jackson & Lacey.
Local ABC Ch. 7 Report.
Local NBC Ch. 4 Report.
Alan Jackson Web Site.
Jackie Lacey Web Site.


Thursday, February 2, 2012

Mark Berndt Was Investigated in 1993





Mark Berndt



For those of you in the Los Angeles area, you might have heard about the recent arrest Monday of elementary school teacher Mark Berndt. Berndt, 61, a teacher with over 30 years experience at Miramonte Elementary School, has been charged with molesting 23 children.

Sandi Gibbons, Director of Communications at the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office released the following statement.

Statement by Sandi Gibbons
Director Communications
Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office


The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department investigated allegations against Mark Berndt involving a September 1993 incident. On Feb. 23, 1994, the evidence was presented to the District Attorney’s Office. After careful evaluation, it was determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove a crime occurred.

All District Attorneys in California follow uniform standards in filing criminal cases. A prosecutor cannot ethically file criminal charges if the evidence fails to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Berndt was an elementary teacher with the Los Angeles County Unified School District (LAUSD). According to The Huff Post, an online newspaper:

On Monday, Berndt was arrested on allegations that he bound and gagged students at Miramonte Elementary School, placed live cockroaches on their faces and fed them his own semen on spoons and in cookies.

His habit of photographing what the children described as a "game" is what aroused the suspicions of a photo technician at a Redondo Beach CVS, who turned the pictures over to Redondo Beach police in the fall of 2010. By December, the case was being investigated by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, and by January 2011, Mark Berndt was out of the classroom.

So Mark Berndt was on the LAUSD's radar back in 1993, but the DA's office did not have enough evidence at the time to move forward with a prosecution. It will be interesting to see how many more children come forward with allegations of abuse.

Daily Breeze article


LA Weekly article


LA Times NOW Blog

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Bette Midler set for HBO's Phil Spector telefilm

The LA Times is reporting that Bette Midler has joined the cast of HBO's telefilm of Phil Spector's murder trial, directed by David Mamet. Midler will play defense attorney Linda Kenny Baden. Interesting casting choice.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Dr. Conrad Murray Arraignment on Involuntary Manslaughter Charges


Dr. Conrad Murray, (right) and his attorney, Ed Chernoff at today's arraignment.



Updated 11:30 am
I now understand why the case is going to trial so quickly. According to the LA Times, Dr. Murray invoked his right for a speedy trial. Judge Pastor commented that it was unusual. I agree. Thanks to Judy for the tip.
___________
First off, I did not attend the arraignment. I knew it would be very short and I did not know beforehand if I would get a seat inside the courtroom. With those odds, I was not willing to dedicate several hours of my day to go downtown for an arraignment that lasts only a few minutes.

Mainstream media (MSM) reports that jury selection will start March 28th of this year. I'm very surprised that a trial date has been set so soon. I would have expected there to be a long delay before a jury selection starts. Hey, I'm not infallible. Understand however, that this date may change once prosecutors present motions to introduce evidence at trial and the defense tries to block that evidence and, vice versa.

Dr. Murray pled not guilty at today's quick arraignment. Or rather, according to E Online, he first said, "I am an innocent man." When Judge Pastor asked again for his plea, that's when he stated his plea of not guilty. Ed Chernoff, one of Dr. Murray's three attorneys gave a brief statement outside the courthouse on the Temple Street Plaza. When questioned by E Online reporter Ken Baker, Chernoff stated he did not know that Dr. Murray would make the "innocent" statement.

Although many Michael Jackson fans have petitioned the District Attorney's office to increase the charges, that has not happened and I correctly predicted that would not happen.

District Attorney Spokesperson, Sandi Gibbons stated that Judge Pastor is considering allowing cameras inside the courtroom. There is a pretrial hearing to hear arguments on the issue scheduled for February 7th, 2011. Dr. Murray does not have to attend that hearing. If a defendant files the appropriate paperwork with the court, he is not required to attend all pretrial hearings in the case. Apparently, Dr. Murray's attorneys have made that filing.

If cameras are allowed inside the courtroom, then I would most likely not cover this case. I "may" try to attend the February 7th hearing, but that's not set in stone. Often it depends on what my personal commitments are at the time.

Added 4:35 PM
Short video from hearing.
(Video was from E! online, and is no longer available. Sprocket.)

Monday, October 19, 2009

Steve Mikulan & the LA WEEKLY Part Ways

Over a week ago, Ciaran McEvoy told me that the LA Weekly gave Steven Mikulan his walking papers on October 9th.

(This is a very belated entry because this is the same day that Mr. Sprocket got laid off from his new job and not only have I been trying to finish sewing orders, I've been busy helping him try to find jobs in his field~which are very scarce at the moment.)

This was sad news for the LA Weekly, where Mikulan had worked for 25 years as a theatre critic and later, reporting on local politics and high profile trials.

LA Observed was the first to announce Mikulan's firing.

Marc Cooper
praises Mikulan's writing. Peter Hong of the LA Times left the following comment there:

"Steve Mikulan’s trial stories read like a Los Angeles version of Murray Kempton’s dramatic courtroom storytelling. His reports from the Phil Spector trial were gutsy and lucid. Steve, by his example, pushed others in the mass market press corps to be more ambitious — precisely what an alternative press guy is supposed to do, right ?"

I spoke to Kevin Douglas Grant, senior editor at Neo Tommy about how I met Steven and through him, the great group of journalists I got to sit with at the first Phil Spector trial.

I wish Steven the best. He is one of the finest writers I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

UPDATE:
Steven is now writing for The Wrap. Here is his latest piece on the Anna Nicole Smith drama, the preliminary hearing of Howard K. Stern and doctors Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor on drug charges.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Cameron Brown Retrial; Closing Arguments, Part I

First, I need to point out that I've been spelling the defense co-counsel's name wrong for the entire case. I had it as Veretsian. It's Yeretsian! Judge Pastor did pronounce her name as if it started with a "Y" but I thought that was how it was pronounced. My error.

I end up driving into downtown because I couldn't find a parking spot at the Red Line Station in North Hollywood. The city replaced all the street parking around the Red Line with metered parking and the lot was full. When I get into downtown, I park in my usual $9.00 a day favorite lot on Broadway below 2nd Street. As I'm walking up Broadway, I see Ted a half-a-block in front of me. I walk as slow as I can as not to overtake him.

But inside the Criminal Justice Center, I'm unable to escape Ted. I won't go into detail today but that's a story for another time.

Once inside 107 other cases are waiting to be heard and the gallery is full of people I've never seen before. Patty and Ted have reversed rows. Ted is now in the first row and Patty is in the second. Ted corrals a cameraman waiting to film the closings and engages him in conversation. He's on the other side of the room so I don't know what's being said.

Mavis the court reporter first up. I really like Mavis. She's always taken the time to say hello or ask how I'm doing. I freely admit I'm a fan of the staff in 107.

Two tall, very professional looking women DDA's are chatting at the prosecution table. One of them says, "Murders are hard to settle [....] they want life (with parole) [...] not life." Another attorney, a tall man takes two older black women aside. They go into the ante chamber to talk. The same thing happens with an older black attorney with graying hair. He asks to speak to the several young women to my left and they step outside the courtroom.

The DDA's and other counsel chat at the prosecution table. It's 8:44 am and Pastor's courtroom is not starting on time. Two nicely dressed older black women enter. Their hair is perfectly coiffed and they're wearing nice jewelry. Lots more different people enter. Most are black but some appear to be Hispanic. Their dress ranges from casual jeans like me to nicely dressed.

I'm guessing that it's two different cases that are waiting to be heard instead of one.

8:47 am: The bailiff calls out to everyone to turn off their cell phones. Judge Pastor comes out and asks to see counsel. He apologizes for his tardiness. He didn't expect Spring Street to be closed. He must have had to go completely around the block to get into the underground parking garage. That would take a while.

JP: So what's the latest?

I think it's one DDA and two defense counsel who are speaking to Judge Pastor at sidebar.

Behind me in the third row is a pretty blond woman reading from a huge black binder, much like the binders I've seen DDA's file their cases in. She has a nice over sized black leather bag that I'm admiring and a black pantsuit on. I vacillate back and forth throughout the court day whether she is DA staff or a reporter. A colleague of hers comes through the inner doors of 107 and she calls out to him by name to come over.

Even though Mavis is at her desk, it sounds as if the discussion at side bar is off the record. The other clue is, Judge Pastor has not called any cases into the record. Judge Pastor then says to the bailiff, "Bring out Mr. Rankins." There's still quite a bit of chatter in the courtroom.

At 8:58 am, a black man wearing a blue prison uniform is brought out. I miss getting the man's first name. Markee? Rankins represented by Mr. White and DDA Ms. Hollingsworth. There's an significant development in the case. I don't get it all precisely. Ms. Hollingsworth is telling Judge Pastor that, "... another individual came forward who said another individual (told them?) and confessed." I believe she goes onto say, "This defendant, Mr. Rankins has been sitting in fail for something that [he did not do)." The DDA is moving to dismiss under 1385.

Judge Pastor says, "Anything Mr. White?" "I'll not say anything, your honor," he replies.

Judge Pastor then addresses the sheriff's in the room. He wants to know if it's possible to get a forthwith release from the courthouse. ".... But I would rather not have Mr. Rankins not even go back to county."

Several people in the gallery stood up and shouted with glee and clapped when the case against Mr. Rankins was dismissed. He had quite a few supporters in the gallery. This man was in jail for two years, accused of murder by several eye witness testimony that identified him as the guilty party. As I'm reading back over my notes, I'm remembering that the DDA said there was something about an investigation of another case where they were tape recording gang members and this new evidence came to light.

I do not know if the accused was released forthwith or if he did have to go back to county lockup to be released.

Judge Pastor asks to see counsel on the next case at sidebar.

The pretty woman in black behind me gets up to speak to Hum's assistant Susan Kim. Around this time, the accredited press shows up: Denise Nix from the Daily Breeze and Greg Risling from the Associated Press. We chat about the jury visit. There's even more people in the courtroom now.

There are three people in the front row who know Harris but I've never seen before. I later learn that two of them are Harris's aunt and uncle and the other older man may have been his father. Lisa thought she overheard one say it was a Harris family tradition to go to all of his closing arguments.

The defendant in the next case is brought out and the DDA's staff for this case enters 107 shortly after. Another reporter enters. It's Jack Leonard from the LA Times who also covered the opening statements. Judge Pastor states that he's received more requests from the media for taped coverage of the closings, LA Times and KABC. Hum and Harris both have no objections. Pastor authorizes the placement of non-intrusive cameras. There are also people here from Inside Edition. Judge Pastor will not allow the cameramen to set up in the back right corner by the jury box and he makes it clear that the jurors and the gallery is not to be filmed or photographed. The cameras are set up back in the clerk's desk area pointed at the podium and I try to get out of the line of sight just in case.

It doesn't appear that KTLA showed up but Inside Edition did. A bit later, two more cameramen show up to take photos. I should also note that Brown's parents are inside the courtroom. Lynne Brown is sitting next to Patty Brown in the second row. Mrs. Brown senior has a bit of a shake to her body (possibly Parkinson's?) and she walks with a cane. It appears her health has taken a turn for the worse since the first trial.

Katie is sitting beside me and I ask her if she can tell what color Craig Hum's suit is under the fluorescent lights. It looks like a grayish green against his white shirt. It's a stunning color on him. He's also wearing a dark olive green tie with tiny dots or hints of red in the pattern that compliment his suit perfectly. Terri Keith from City News shows up. Another tall, female reporter also shows up. (I think this is the Inside Edition staff.)

9:45 am the case is finally called. The jurors file into the courtroom. Judge Pastor had already read to them some of the jury instructions Monday after the site visit. Judge Pastor then goes into his explanation to the jurors the closing arguments and that it's not testimony.

Hum steps up to present his opening argument. (Hum will get two bites at the apple. The first argument and then the rebuttal argument.) He first thanks the jurors for their service.

CH: We've been together a little over two months now.

He tells them that they have "two duties." First to decide the facts from all the evidence from our visit to all of the sites; that's the first duty. Their second duty is to take those facts and decide whether or not the defendant is guilty.

Hum then explains to the jurors the charges against Brown.

CH: The defendant is charged with one court of murder.

He's also charged with two special circumstances; murder by means of lying in wait and murder by financial gain and that they will be required to determine if those special circumstances are true or not. To determine of Lauren was murdered three things need to be proven.

1. A human being was killed.

2. The killing was unlawful. (Hum explains that.)

3. The killing was done with malice and forethought.

Hum then goes onto explain malice and implied malice. Malice is the intention, unlawfully to kill a human being. From the California Penal Code, implied malice is:

"It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing shows an abandoned and malignant heart."

Hum explain the law requirement for conviction of murder and also states there is expressed and implied malice in this case.

CH: But here we have both types of malice and we only have to have one (for conviction). [...] It really is that simple and that straight forward.

Hum goes over the aspects of first degree murder and second degree. He explains that there is no time required or no planning required for first degree. He then explains the first special circumstance of murder by lying in wait.

CH: Waiting for opportunity to act. Concealment of purpose. Take victim by surprise.

Hum then goes over the second special circumstance. That the murder was intentional. That it was carried out for financial gain, or maybe to end a financial obligation. Although these issues "need not be a dominant, substantial or significant motive."

10:00 am: Cameron Brown's mother leaves the courtroom and his father follows not long afterwords. They do not stay inside 107 for any more of the prosecution's closing argument.

Hum goes over the jury instructions and the credibility of the witnesses. He asks them to consider the "bias or interest or other motive of the defense witnesses [...] because some of the defense witnesses had a bias or interest. [...] Only two people witnessed what happened at Inspiration Point and one of them, Lauren is dead."

Hum reminds the jurors that Judge Pastor explained to them a bit about circumstantial evidence and that it is equal to direct evidence. He reminds the jurors that we've been together about two months now. "Lauren's mother testified over a-month-and-a-half ago. Approximately forty-five people testified in the people's case."

CH: One of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, the crime scene: Inspiration Point. You can look at photos, but until you get out there, until you see what Inspiration Point is like, you can't get a true feeling of what it's like at Inspiration Point. [...] It also shows you that the defendant's statements, of what (he said) they went on was a complete lie."

(Hum will call Brown a liar many more times in his opening closing and his rebuttal closing.)

CH: There's absolutely no way that things happened the way the defendant said it did. [...] There is no way that Lauren would have wanted to take a 1.5 mile hike! [...] There's no way that Lauren wanted to do that hike. There is no way that Lauren led that hike!"

Hum's voice is loud and impassioned as he's making these statements.

CH: That's his story. She wanted to go out there. [...] The defendant is lying and innocent people don't' need to lie.

I see that juror #6 is looking down towards her left. I wonder if she's crying.

Hum talks about the testimony of Sarah Key-Marer, and that "the defense tried to portray this as (relationship with Brown) as just a fling. [...] That's because they can't explain how he treated her. [...] He told his friends, (several of them) that he got her pregnant. [...] (He then) tried to get her deported!" Hum continues with his examples of what Brown did to Sarah.

CH: These actions shows just how vindictive the defendant is.

Hum then moves onto the child support and how Brown wanted custody for Lauren.

CH: He never even met her! [...] He claimed in court documents this is in Lauren's best interest. [...] How would he even know? He's never even met her.

Hum moves onto the hatred Brown had for his own mother and then the adoption. Hum states that Sarah told detectives the next day after Lauren died, that Brown had agreed at one time to the adoption.

CH: The defendant told her the adoption had to happen within 30 days or thins are going to get ugly.

The discussion about adoption was in February and he was getting married in March.

CH: Patty's 47. She's not going to have kids! [...] He's getting married and he wants this done before.

As Hum talks about this he also mentions that Patty wanted Lauren. As Hum says this Patty shakes her head. The bailiff immediately gets up and speaks to Patty about her actions. I'm told that the bailiff specifically asked her if she understood him. (Judge Pastor made it clear when he addressed the gallery before the jury was brought in that he did not want any type of actions from the gallery in response to the arguments by counsel. Patty appears to have not have heard Judge Pastor's instruction to the courtroom.) Afterwords, Ted turns around to speak to Patty who slightly shakes her head a second time in response to his questions.

CH: (When the adoption didn't happen in that time frame...) Now there's no way that he's going to give Sarah what she wants.

Hum goes over the statements that Lauren makes, that Greg is only her step father and Josh is only her step brother.

CH: The defendant made false exaggerations about Sarah, about child abuse. [...] The defendant lied. [...] He told Jan Meuler, that Lauren told him that Sarah kicked her in the kitchen [...] and grabbed her on the mouth and threw her down. [...] The defendant does this to torment Sarah through Lauren. [...] The behavior is calculated to hurt Sarah. [...] The defendant was using Lauren as a tool to get back at Sarah for messing up his life. [...] So Lauren was the perfect tool, to hurt Sarah.

Hum goes over Lauren's last day of life. "She's crying. she's crying all day," Hum continues. I see Sarah touches her nose with a tissue. Her eyes appear wet.

CH: Lauren is reaching out to her teacher, crying, as she was carried away. [...] The defendant was concerned how Patty found out but couldn't care less how Sarah found out.

Hum details Sarah's reaction (of hysterics and throwing up) verses Brown's reaction.

CH: The defendant never said one word to Sarah how Lauren died. [...] The defendant refused to tell her how Lauren died. [...] He was mocking, making fun of her (with the phone calls) Hellllooooo. [...] It just goes to sow ow much he hated her.

Hum then goes over the LAX incident that was recorded on video and audio. He details how Brown wrote out a statement.

CH: Who does that!!!! He wanted her arrested for a crime he totally fabricated! [...] Who does that! [...] He's nasty, vindictive, spiteful.

Hum describes Lauren, and mentions all the witnesses who described her as sweet and happy and liked to please.

CH: She was careful. She was cautious. She was not a tomboy. [...] She gets scared when she's carried too close to the pier at Huntington Beach! [...] Everyone who knew her said that. [...] All of them said, this is what Lauren was like. This is what she liked to do. [...] And who did the defense put up to contradict that? [...] Brown's mother. [...] Lauren didn't hike. (There's) testimony to that. [...] There's no way that Lauren would run down that slope. [...] We saw testimony and video of those girls throwing the golf balls.

Hum then goes over the witnesses who observed Lauren and knew her personality and the testimony of the teacher who observed the defendant with Lauren.

CH: All these people knew Lauren and all these people claim Lauren would never do what the defendant (said she) did. [...] the defendant just happens to have a disposable camera with him. (Something he's never done before.) [...] To show that Lauren is having a great time. [...] After playing on the beach [...] Lauren just takes off hiking. [...] The defendant claims that Lauren was leading on the hike. [...] She was 'much to energetic and he couldn't keep up.' [...] His family testified that he was this fit, outdoors man, yet, he's claiming that he couldn't keep up.

Hum then goes over the testimony of witnesses who observed him lead this climb up to Inspiration Point from the gully.

CH: The testimony of Mr. Omar completely contradicts the defendant's story. He (Mr. Omar) has no motive to lie. [...] Mr. Omar is not the only witness. [...] Mr. Witherow sees the defendant and Lauren on the road when hiking up to Portuguese Point and Lauren is trying to keep up. [...] He sees them three times. [...] Each time the defendant is in front and Lauren is behind. [...] So how is that Lauren leading the defendant and the defendant is having trouble keeping up? [...] The defendant is lying!

(It's now I realize that Brown and Lauren went up to Inspiration Point from the same trail that we went on, Sunday.)

CH: Again, putting aside ALL the evidence at the cliff, autopsy, the bio-mechanical evidence, [...] why would we believe him as to what he said happened there when he lied about everything that happened going up to Inspiration Point!!!!?? [...] Dr. Berkowitz testified that Lauren would not have initiated that hike, or continued to participate in a voluntary manner. It would not have happened. She said, "Absolutely not!" [...] Dr. Berkowitz found the hike really strenuous. [...] She thought that Lauren would not have initiated it and that the defendant was lying.

CH: If the defendant lied about everything else, then why would we believe him when he said that Lauren slipped and fell? It just didn't happen.

It's 11 am. Hum has argued about an hour and 15 minutes. The courtroom is very busy and bustling during the break. Ted comes over and corrals LA Times reporter Jack Leonard. He first asks Jack if he is related to Eric Leonard from KFI. Jack tells him no. Ted then proceeds to complain that the female KFI reporter at the first trial was (or still is) dating DDA Hum. (As if this is a terrible breach of a reporter's ethics.)

At 11:17 am, Hum steps back up to the podium.

CH: ...Other things the defendant told Detective Leslie. Lauren led the defendant out on Inspiration Point. They were going to look at the view. [...] Why didn't they stay on Portuguese Point? [...] Because there were lots of people there. [...] He told Detective Leslie he sat four feet from the edge. [...] A 120 foot drop. [...] That's the area that the defendant said Lauren was running around in. [...] (It's) different than what he told his friend. [...] Different from what he told Detective Brothers.

Hum then shifts to the defense bio-mechanical expert on the way Lauren went over the cliff.

CH: In none of the three different versions does the defendant say that's what happened! (The stumble fall; the trip; the somersault.) [...] (In the first version) ...he says he didn't see her go over. (In the second) he heard and "Oh," and he sees her feet going over the cliff. (In the third version) ...he sees Lauren's left side as Lauren goes over. He saw the back left part of her body with her arms out as she was going over the cliff.

Hum now moves onto the testimony of Mark Thompson, then moves back to inconsistent statements by Brown.

CH: He tells Detective Leslie he couldn't see her in the water. He tells Captain Curcio he looks over the cliff and sees Lauren in the water. [...] He spends five-and-a-half minutes on that 911 call. [...] The call where the defendant claimed he ust can't stop crying. [...] The chuckle on the tape to sunbathers that they will have to get dressed.

Hum then moves onto Brown's behavior at the scene.

CH: He takes his time to undress. He takes the time to kick off his wet underwear before he gets dressed. [...] They bring in the lawyer's wife's double's artner to say different people react differently. [...] Captain Curcio was so devastated, he had to be sent home!!! [...] The defendant wanted to talk about the election!!!! [...] His wet boots! It's all about him! [...] He's concerned about being filmed by the media, his car and his surfboards. [...] During the three hour interview, Detective Leslie testified he hadn't seen a reaction like this in his 10 year career in homicide. [...] He took no responsibility. [...] He blamed Lauren for her death. "It's not my fault. She's the one who wanted to be up there. I just followed her." [...] He volunteered to Detective Leslie that he has photos of her having fun. [...] Only three photos. Then nothing. (If she was having such fun on this hike, why no photos of her on the hike?)

Hum states that Brown told Lieutenant Erickson he heard a slipping sound.

CH: Deputy Falicon (testified) there was no evidence of that. [...] He never mentioned her name during the entire three hour interview. [...] (When the detectives confronted him about his lack of emotion) ...he say he cried on the 911 call.

Hum then moves onto Scott Simonson's testimony and his call to Brown after Lauren's death.

CH: (Scott testified that Brown said) "I can't dwell on it. I have to move on. I can't let it ruin my life. I have to move on." [...] When it's all about him, he's very emotional.

Hum goes over the lies he told Detective Lillienfeld about how the homicide detectives came to his home and stole his computers.

CH: Two days after the murder he's checking out surf reports.

Hum states they had clear evidence of Patty being the "driving force" behind the defendant getting Lauren away from Sarah. Hum then goes over the evidence under the bed with the cut out photos of Sarah's head, the black candles and the black figurines. "That's creepy."

CH: The defendant pointed to it (the point from where he was and where Lauren fell) from the archery range and described it to Brothers and Erickson. [...] "That sloping area" [...] described it and pointed to it from the archery range. They found no child size footprints. [...] All the physical evidence contradicts the defendants story because he's lying.

Hum moves onto Dry Hayes's testimony and the "cheap shot" that Dr. Oppenhaven (sp?) said about Dr. Hayes "is a complete lie. [...] If there was anything to that...." (they would have put on evidence of that.) Hum details Dr. Hayes testimony about Lauren's fall and explains that it had two conditions.

CH: (Dr. Hayes testified) #1. Lauren could not have fallen and had these injuries because they were not consistent with a fall. (Because of that) #2. she had to have been thrown.

Hum points out that Dr. Chinwah who performed the autopsy and Dr. Hayes both came to their conclusions independent of each other.

CH: There's only a limited area that Lauren could have left that cliff and ended up where she was.

Hum then goes over several defense witnesses (most I did not see) and the problems with their testimony. Brown's mother. Mr. Deitzler (sp?), Mark Thompson.

CH: Not a single woman came into court to say anthing nice about the defendant.

(It's not in my notes, but I remember this. I believe it's at this point Hum also points out that the defense did not call Brown's wife to the stand to testify on his behalf. When Hum says this, Patty, who is leaning forward with her elbows on the bench back in front of her, makes a gesture. She moves her hands outward, turning her palms up. When she does that, the bailiff has to come over and speak to her again.)

Hum then talks again about the defense expert, Dr. Oppenhaven. That she is a part-time medical examiner, not board certified in her specialty. She explained that she didn't prepare a report because "...That's where you have to be precise." (I believe it's at this point where Hum goes into more detail about past errors she had in other cases where she completely got the MOD ~manner of death~ wrong, and in one case where she did an autopsy, a murder would have gotten off scott free!)

Hum then moves onto Dr. Beckwith, and that the defense called him to agree with Dr. Oppenhaven. His areas of expertize were SIDS, birth defects or kidney tumors.

CH: Again, it goes to show how desperate they are. [...] Dr. Karim (sp?) testified about [....] He's not board certified; he doesn't do any testing. [...] "Hey, I see signs of disassociation. [...] This condition only lasts for 30 days so I can't test for it." [...] Dr. Siegmund. [...] It's not is particular area of expertise. Again. No Siegmund report.

Hum mentions the golf ball videos and states something to the effect that they were made to show Lauren. All throughout his opening argument, Hum is very passionate in his delivery.

CH: When you look at all the evidence together, one horrible inescapable conclusion. [...] This man threw his daughter off the cliff. He did it.

It's about 12:15 pm and Judge Pastor is asking everyone to be back in the courtroom by 1:15 pm.

To be continued in Part II....

I would like to commend accredited press reporter Denise Nix (who covers a ton of cases for the Daily Breeze at any one time) for taking the time to write out a detailed, five part report on the closing arguments. It's a very detailed account of the closings. I would have sworn she had a copy of DDA Hum's written notes. Well done, Denise, well done.

Monday, August 31, 2009

California Station Fire Claims Two Firefighters

September 2nd, 2009: LA Times Photo Gallery of the Station Fire.

There are several active fires in California right how. However, the Associated Press is reporting that Sunday evening, in the Station Fire north of La Canada/Flintridge and south of Acton, two firefighters lost their lives on Mount Wilson after the vehicle they were in rolled over.

There there are numerous radio, TV and cell phone towers on Mount Gleason that are threatened. The Station Fire has burned over 42,000 acres. It is only 5% contained as I write. Thousands have been ordered to evacuate as over 12,000 homes are in the path of the blaze.

Update!
At least 18 structures have been destroyed by the Station Fire with more in danger today as the fire is predicted to spread and increase in size with the increased dry heat conditions.

Update!
The Station Fire had doubled in size overnight to 85,000 acres. At the current time, Mt. Wilson appears to be safe. LA Now Blog Update

Update! 106,000 acres burned and only 5% contained as of 6:00 pm, August 31st.

Update! September 1st, 2009 It appears Mount Wilson Observatory will be saved.

Thousands Flee Wildfires

Firefighter Hourly

California Dept. of Forestry, Fire Information

Map of Station Fire

LA County Fire Grows Overnight


Updated Fire Map


Friday, August 21, 2009

Phil Spector Farts, the MSM Stops to Listen

Soap-box rant #134.
The only reason I'm writing about this (in a rare for me, "rant" form) to begin with is because y'all out there, T&T's loyal readers keep sending me every story that hits the news with Spector in it, wanting to know if I've seen it and what do I think.

What do I think? To tell the truth, I'm sick of it. Are y'all as sick of it as I am? It will not be soon enough if I never see another mainstream media story (the Associated Press again) about Phil Spector and his latest antics, IN PRISON. That's right, PRISON. Spector is again complaining about being, IN PRISON.

For those of you who have been living in a cave, Phil Spector was found guilty of second degree murder in the death of actress Lana Clarkson on April 13th. He was sentenced to 19 years-to-life on May 29th, 2009.

So here's the latest. Someone in prison made the mistake of giving Spector pen and paper, and now he's writing every single one of his suck-up-fawning-hanger's-on about how terrible things are and how afraid he is, IN PRISON. Apparently, delusional Spector, who is currently housed in the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison near Corcoran, thinks there is someplace "better" that the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDC&R) should have placed him because he is in fear for his life. A "better" PRISON with people that are "just like him." Wake up Phil. You are where you belong, among murderers just like yourself.

So this Spector "admirer," (who probably wet himself when Spector wrote him back) passes Spector's letters onto Spector's publicist and suddenly,the Associated Press is reporting everything in these letters as the hottest news since sliced bread. You have to wonder how professional the Associated Press is, when they print Spector's letters from PRISON as news.

Once this story hits the press, California prison officials now have to do an investigation. With our state as broke as it is, unnecessary man hours are spent investigating Spector's latest written antics. And then they have to issue a press statement, dispelling the ramblings of the disgruntled music producer. And that's exactly what happened. Hours later, the Associate Press publish a statement issued by the DOC&R, that prison officials spoke to Spector and he states he's not fearful. Did the AP get two news stories out of a few rambling, delusional letters?

Let me address the "former Playboy" model label for Rachelle. There's something to be said about "stretching the truth" to it's limits. Rachelle did appear topless in Playboy, but not because Playboy photographed her. What she did was, she sent in a black and white topless photo of herself to Playboy and it was published in their "Grapevine" section. I wrote about that during the first trial! While her photo did appear in Playboy, she was never a model that Playboy "chose" to photograph.

And who cares how many times per week, or how many miles Rachelle drives to visit her CONVICT husband? If she's on the road, at least she's not in front of a camera, protesting his innocence.

I do know there was a hearing in the civil case on Thursday, August 2oth, in Pasadena. I was still too sick from the flu to go find out Judge Jan A. Pluim's rulings on the latest motions.

Phil Spector in pictures
, courtesy the LA Times.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Phil Spector Moves Into Corcoran

UPDATED!

According to Harriet Ryan of the Los Angles Times, Phil Spector has been moved to permanent digs in Corcoran. He's in a medium security, special needs unit. There's no question this is a prisoner who has "special needs."

His wife Rachelle appears happy about the move. According to Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Rachelle claims her husband was mistreated at the North Kern County facility. Now that Spector is all settled in, I'm wondering if Rachelle will move to Corcoran (or a cozy little house in Fresno) to be close to her husband like she recently indicated in prior news reports.

I was quite bemused to learn this from Harriet's article:
"Spector will be permitted to have musical instruments in his cell, and inmates in his unit often sing and play music together, [prison spokesperson Stephen] Smith said."
I can envision it now, Spector creating a new prison-wall of sound with his fellow inmates. T&T readers, are you wondering as we are if Rachelle will have the chauffeur drive her up to sing on a few selections? Maybe the CD will be in stores for the many Phil Spector fans out there, just in time for the holidays. But I wouldn't get your hopes up too quickly. Phil may decide to wait a bit until he releases his next big production. There still is that pesky wrongful death suit looming on the horizon.

Update: June 24, 2009

Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press has written a newer article with more quotes from Rachelle Short (Spector) about her husband's requests. From the article:

"He wants a TV and an iPod or something like that for listening to music," Rachelle Spector said Tuesday. "And he would like to be able to receive e-mail."

Good luck with that email request Phil As far as Spector creating any new music in prison, Rachelle had this to say:
"He has not requested an instrument, and I doubt if he will," she said.
One never knows what the future may bring. It's still all very new and it will take a while for Spector to get acclimated to his private cell and surroundings. Spector could change his mind in the future about wanting an instrument. In time, he could show an interest in guiding his fellow inmates in their musical careers or orchestrating a live performance.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Phil Spector Sentencing Today

UPDATE: 6:00 pm
I'll be on TALK RADIO ONE tonight around 8:00 pm.

I'm finally home. I wanted to give y'all a little update on what happened after the sentencing as well as report on some news I missed. I forgot to mention that very late, Juror #1 showed up and greeted the other jurors. She got a seat inside the courtroom with #7, #18 and #8. I did not see my friend LS get a seat, but they did get inside the courtroom right before Linda-from-San-Diego.

Rachelle was dressed down, compared to other outfits she has worn to court. It was a loose fitting pantsuit. She wasn't wearing those four or five inch heeled pumps and not much makeup on her face. Her hair was worn straight down, and her roots were showing. She also needs a good trim. Her split ends made Linda Kenny Baden's hair during the first trial look good. After the sentencing, a trial watcher informed me that in the parking lot before the sentencing, they observed Mrs. Spector and first defense team attorney Roger Rosen, right by the I {heart} Phil-mobile standing very close together and exchanging some intimate touching. I've zero idea what that's all about.

It was very difficult to hear from where I was sitting. There was a lot of moving around of sheriffs and detectives right by the door and the PIO staff.

Before the sentencing, the "Team Spector" button wearing fan made a point to send her "Back to Mono" button wearing fan over to me to tell me that she was not a "fan" but a personal friend of Spector. She was sitting across from me in the hallway, reading on the blog what I was writing about her. After she told Miriam Hernandez from Channel 7 that she last spoke to Spector at the closing arguments, she made a point to come over to me herself and say that she spoke to Spector on the phone yesterday. I didn't overhear her tell Miriam that and I would think that if she did speak to him on the phone yesterday, why did she say it was at the closing arguments? Did she at first forget? It made me wonder.

There were quite a few people who had never been in the courtroom that showed up and got a seat. Sherri was the only one who didn't get in and I heard afterwards that she was quite disappointed.

When the sentencing was over, out in the hallway Linda Deutsch was asking me what jurors were in the courtroom and I answered her. Several other reporters immediately picked up their pens and were scribbling what I said. These were all new reporters who would not have known what the jurors looked like to begin with.

Several of us wanted to go to the DA's press conference and we headed up to the 18th floor. Our hopes were soon dashed when the security guard told us that since we were not press we could not attend. We thought that maybe we could wait until Alan Jackson came up because when we left, he was still inside the courtroom, talking to the jurors who attended the sentencing in the gallery. The security guard told us we could not wait in the elevator area. We would have to vacate the floor.

Not long after the verdict was read, through a coincidence, LS found out where Spector went to lunch through both trials. It was at the little restaurant in the plaza of the Catholic Church on Temple Street. After the sentencing, I treated Linda, LS and one of T&T's regular readers (who could not attend much of the trial) Deidre, to lunch at this little cafe. The food was good and inexpensive. We talked about the trial and what a long road it's been. Not long after we sat down, we saw that three of the jurors from the second trial were having lunch at another plaza table about ten yards away. After their lunch was finished, one of the jurors, smiling, came over to sit with us. I gave my word that I would not repeat anything the juror discussed with us, but it was a delightful, almost two hour chat about what went on inside the jury room. We also shared with the juror what went on outside in the gallery regarding motions and pleadings outside their presence.

We learned that the defense had an impromptu press conference in the elevator bay on one of the floors (I think the 12th) where Rachelle spoke to the press. We were slightly disappointed to have missed that but not very.

About an hour ago, I spoke to Dominick Dunne on the phone and updated him on the sentencing. I asked him about his book, A Solo Act and he said it should be in stores in early December. Dominick also said that today, he has felt better than he has in over a year. "Let's hope this lasts for a while," he said.

Below is a complete transcript of Donna Clarkson's victim impact statement, courtesy of John Taylor, the Clarkson family attorney.

DONNA CLARKSON, mother of LANA CLARKSON, gave the following statement in open court at the Phil Spector sentencing hearing today:

“Lana was my first child, my oldest child, a precious gift.

She was the big sister to Fawn and Jeff and always helped me care for the two of them. Family was important to her and we all spent a lot of time together.

Lana had a great sense of humor. She was very funny and fun to be with. She made everybody laugh. Lana was caring, spiritual, very smart and hard working. She was generous.

She lit up a room when she walked into it. She viewed life as the glass half full. She was the eternal optimist, not only for herself, but for all of us.

She was a fan of everybody and was a cheerleader for everyone.

She was loyal to her friends. She was a great listener and took the time to listen, because she was interested. She remembered people’s names, birthdays, and things that were special to them. Lana made people feel important, because she believed that each person was important.

From the time she was a small child reciting nursery rhymes, Lana knew she would be an actress. She was a working actor her entire adult life. she was the consummate professional...always on time, prepared, and enthusiastic. She loved her craft.

I’m very proud of Lana and the wonderful and special person she was. I’m proud to be her mother.

More than six years ago, February 3, 2003, Lana was taken from us.

No one should suffer the loss of a child - it’s not the normal way we expect life to go.

Since that day, I have prayed for the truth to be told. I prayed for the faith and strength to endure the process. My overwhelming sense of loss was heightened by the trials.

The pictures were extremely shocking and painful. It was hard for us not to correct all the misinformation we heard concerning Lana. As I sat in the courtroom I just wanted to raise my hand and say “Excuse me, your honor...May I clarify these points?”

We have remained silent to help ensure a fair trial, so the truth could be ascertained.

The impact of Lana’s loss has changed all of our lives. I can no longer spend time with her and just have lunch or go to a movie, or go shopping. Her sister, Fawn, and brother, Jeff, no longer have their big sister to share their lives with.

All our plans together are destroyed. Now I can only visit her at the cemetery.

There is a hole in our hearts. My beautiful daughter, I miss you so. I miss looking into your extraordinary and vibrant eyes.

I trust the Court will be fair.

Thank you.”

I have to admit that while she was reading her statement I started to cry, because it sounded at times like her voice was about to break.

Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times coverage of the sentencing.

Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly tweeted from the courtroom on todays proceedings.

AFP report on the sentencing.

Linda Deutsch of the AP reports.

One short video clip on the sentencing.
-------

11:25 am: Spector is quickly taken from the courtroom. People start to mill out.

11:20 am: He is not entitled to and good time work credits. Restitution has been made. Judge reads the amounts. Defentant must pay an additonal 200 to victim fund; 25 court security fee and one other 200.00 fee. Judge checking on any other fees. Fidler states that restitution will be paid to any civil judgement.

Weinberg requests that medical records be transfered with him "forthwith." He also requests that he be transfered to Dept. of Corrections as quickly as possible. Riordan waives reading of apellate issue. That's it. Nothing else.


11:12 am: Judge: We have to discuss the law. He discusses case law. There is a case that Judges cay not considerthe mitigatin (Lincoln makes that clear).

There are two addtiona matters. There has been no motion for a new trial. Old case, people verses Edgeman.(sp?) That was ruled that it was incompentence of counsel, not to ask for a new trial.

Weinberg answers, and then makes the motion for a new trial.

Judge states he reviewed the jury verdict and denies the motion for a new trial.

Now goes over the restitution to Fawn Clarkson, plus 10% interest since time of sentencing. You can either accept that, or set aside hearing.

Weinberg states that they will tender restitution. They've prepared two cashiers checks. Court will find that restitution has been made.

Jackson accepts the restitution. Tabling the issue of the disclosure.

Fidler mentions his request for looking into the financial records. AJ speaks on behalf of the family and accepts for the family.

Ed Lozzi sent a letter to the Judge. Will not affect sentencing.

Mr. Spector to you want to be heard at all? No.

The defendant is inellgble for probation. Sentenceine to term 15 years to life. For the enhancement, the court selects the presumptive mid term of 4 years. He gets credit for time served. Plus the one day when arrested 47 days credit. Judge is checking something in a book.

11:11 am: AJ brings up all the other incidents of a gun that the court heard. "There are agravating circumstances ahat are attendant in this case.... we believe that is a just sentence."

10:10 am: AJ wants to be heard only briefly. He reads code law pleading for the four years.

11:07: Weinberg speaks. Spector still disputeds the ruling. Weinberg goes through his motion for 3 years for the gun charge. He goes through the aggrivating throug hte mitigating issues. The extra year may affect how his circumstances of his incarceration.

11:04 am: Donna Clarkson will speak. Her voice starts to break. Lana had a sense of humor and made everyone laugh. She was smart hardworking. She lit up a room when she walked in. She was the enternal optimist. not only for herself but for everone. She was a chealrlead, she was loyal to her friend.s and a great listener. She rememberped people and hteir birhtdas. Lana made you feel important because she felt each person was.

From the time she was a small child, she knew she would be an actress. I know what a wonderful special person she was, I'm proud to be her mother. nO one should suffer the loss of a child.
since that time I've prayed for the truth be told the strenght for the rpocess.

Al though the trial I wanted t rais my ahd and say excuse me your honor, can I clarify these points. There his a hold in our heart our beautful daughter, I miss you so I miss looking into your beautiful and vibrant eyes.
I trust the court to be fair.



11:03 am: Spector has entered weraing a brown wig. Fidler takes the bench.

11:01 am: Four sheriff's around the defense table. The bailiff from the second trial is not here. Another sheriff just cam in from the jail area. Several detectives are standing near the door along with a sheriff.

10:59 am: There are three camers pointed at the defense table. Weinberg, his paralegal, Susan and Riordan are there.

10:58 am: A few more minutes to sentencing. Pat Dixon arrived and Joshua is here. 10:57 am: Linda-in-San-Diego got in, but Sherri did not get a seat yet. Spector's bodyguard is in the back row. LS and Sherri didn't get a seat.

10:55 am: Louis and Frieda are in and a few public. Susan Mattros hugs Rachelle who is sitting in the first row.

10:54 am: Lana's family enters. I get waves and smiles from Fawn, Rod Lindblom, Bill Ferguson and John Taylor. 10:53 am: Just a warning. My real time, fast typing is terrible, and full of typos so be forewarned.

10:52 am: Maryann, one of Lana's friends smiles and waves to me as she enters 106.

10:48 am: Many in the media are sitting in the jury box. there are cameramen there. Harriet Ryan arrives. She sits down at the other end with Steve Futterman from CBS. They are still trying to get the connection going to use the internal wiring of the building to send out their feed to their network. I just heard it's not working. There is a video camera near the witness box and several cameramen in the jury box. While I was waiting to get in, one of the Sheriff's brought out a huge standing mirror. It must have been about 15" tall and 12" inches wide. That was most likely for Spector to check his makeup.

10:47 am: I'm inside 106 sitting against the back wall with Steven Mikulan to my left and beside him Miriam Hernandez. Many of Spector's fans in the hallway got seats. The jurors got seats. Dennis Riordan is here. More press arrives.

10:40 am: The hallway is really bustling. Nili Hudson comes over to give me a hug.

10:38 am: I just pulled my only string and it worked. I will get seat after the media is seated. Steve Mikulan from the LA Weekly arrived and told me "No game playing" pointing at my laptop. That Steven; always the jokester.

10:34 am: Alan Jackson shows up. He greets Juror #9 from the first trial and quickly enters 106.

10:31 am: Two jurors from the first trial are chatting with two jurors from the second about the lunches they would be served. The alternate #18 comes up and joins them.

10:28 am: Liz is taking the names of all the jurors from the two trials who showed up. It appears they will get seats.

10:26 am: Rachelle went into 106.

10:24 am: #9 from the first trial introduces me to one of the alternates from the first trial who came down.

10:20 am: Just a reminder, I have no idea if I will get a seat from the lottery or not. It will depend on how many reporters show up .

10:16 am: Earlier, I heard Allan Parachini state that he has received no requests from any family members for seats for the sentencing. The sheriff's bring out the pink suitcase. That must be what the wig was carried in.

10:14 am: Louis and Frieda arrive. They hug a woman with short black hair. Juror #9 from the first trial arrives and I direct him on where to get a ticket.

10:12 am: Linda Deutsch rounds the corner from the elevator bay. She stops to talk to a gentleman at the center of the hall.

10:11 am: Answering a comment. It's doubtful the presser will be streamed since the sentencing is not going to be streamed.

10:10 am: The hallway is now filling up with reporters and general public.

10:08 am: I was wrong the jurors did not go in already. They are still in the hallway. Rachelle arrived with a bright pink suitcase and a suit for Spector to wear. Her hair is down. This is the first time I've seen her hair down since the first trial.

10:07 am: A T&T reader stops by to introduce themselves to me.

10:06 am: I see Weinberg speaking to another gentleman at the end of the hall near the elevators.

10:04 am: Linda tells me the other juror is #8.

10:01 am: I got my red ticket. The three jurors who showed up got into the courtroom already.

I have no guaranteed seat. 9:56 am: I see three of the jurors have shown up. #7, #18 and I can't remember which number the other juror is. I think I see Carrol Connors. Sure looks like her.

9:55 am: Just about an hour to go.

9:54 am: I just learned from Gary (who I met during verdict watch) that the camera is just for TV. The sentencing will NOT be live streamed anywhere on the Internet.

9:51 am: Lisa and Kathie arrived. They went on vacation (not together) the week before a verdict was reached.

9:50 am: The pool camera showed up and entered 106 to get set up.

9:46 am: The group of reporters are talking with Parachini again. I forgot to mention that Sherri arrived about 10 minutes ago. She, Linda and LS are all sitting together on the bench at the end of the hall. Mostly the hallway is quiet now and I can almost hear what Allan is saying to Miriam.

9:43 am: The jurors fro 105 finally get to go into their courtroom so the hallway has thinned out a bit.

9:41 am: The blond hands Miriam her card. Down with the reporters I see a familiar reporter-face but I don't know his name. I think he's in radio though.

9:38 am: Miriam Hernandez comes over to speak to the "Team Spector" wearing blond who tells her the last time she spoke to Spector was at the closing arguments. I think I over hear her tell Miriam that "Rachelle has been very depressed" but I'm not positive on that.

9:35 am: The clerk for Department 105 calls for her jurors. They are all standing by the door, waiting to get in.

9:31 am: Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Channel 7 is down near the center of the hall chatting with Terri Keith and Mona. I do not see a camera operator yet, but it's still early.

9:30 am: I find out that the young people wearing the badges are all interns in the DA's office. A young woman told me that they are "supposed" to wear them.

9:25 am: Some of Spector's bodyguards from the first trial spoke to the press. The man who was the single bodyguard during the second trial doesn't appear to be among the roup.

9:23 am: Mrs. Benson from courtroom 107 calls for her jurors.

9:21 am: Ah. I see Spector's #1 fan hanging out near the women's restroom. She's nervously pacing.

9:19 am: There are quite a few people standing around, many with bades on them. I'm not close enough to see what department they are with. I also see some reporters I've never seen before. It's obvious because they have lanyards with their photo as another press card.

9:07 am: I'm on the 9th floor. I splurged and drove into downtown today. Linda-in-San-Diego is here as well as my friend LS (law student) who has taken a rare break from their 24/7 studies for the bar in July.

In the lobby I saw a young woman wearing a "Team Spector" button with a woman friend who is wearing a "back to mono" button. Right now she is sitting directly across from me in the hall. The "Team Spector" bottle blond fan is a study in color. She is wearing a blue gray print dress with a gray sweater, wide black belt, Pippi Longstocking knee-high, black and gray striped socks with open-toed blue suede heels as well as carrying a large hot pink plastic purse.

Just a moment ago I saw Lisa from the DA's office rolling a cart into courtroom 107. She worked on the Spector case behind the scenes. She must be working on a case before Judge Pastor. Allan Parachini, Department Head of the Court's Public Information Office is already here.

I now see Terri Keith from City News talking to Allan Parachini and I think I see the sketch artist, Mona, who I met at the Blake trial along with another gentleman.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Stacey Barker Arraignment Postponed



~Emma Barker


18-month-old Emma Barker was apparently suffocated by her mother, Stacey, as far as authorities can determine. Authorities also believe little Emma died at least four or five hours before her mother reported the child missing.

Barker, 24, is charged with one count each of murder, assault on a child causing death and child abuse.

Authorities say it appeared the girl's body, showed no visible signs of trauma.

Coroners conducted an autopsy and other tests to determine the cause of death, but the findings have been temporarily sealed at the request of detectives investigating the case.

Barker was arrested last Thursday because of indications she might be a flight risk and disappear. She is being held on $1 million bail.

Barker is scheduled to be arraigned May 11, in Lancaster.

LATimes.com
The Press Enterprise

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Spector Defense Attorney's Opinion Piece in the LA Times

My2Cents let me know that Mr. Weinberg and Susan Matross (I've been spelling her name incorrectly) published an opinion piece in the LA Times.

Many of the statements made in this article are directly from Weinberg's closing argument. In fact, I would say the majority of them are. The statements about bias in crime labs the National Academy of Sciences (along with an image up on the screen) were presented as part of his closing argument. A hefty part of Weinberg's argument was accusing the LA County Sheriff's Crime Lab and the employees working on this case of bias. However, the image of the report Weinberg put up on the screen was objected to by the prosecution and the objection sustained by Judge Fidler because it was a report that was never admitted into evidence at the trial.

Some of the arguments Weinberg made in his closing are open to interpretation. For example, let's look at this statement:

"The sheriff's chief criminalist could not estimate how many hours or public dollars she had spent, because no one had required her to keep any records, but she proudly asserted that she had spent months just on the examination of every square inch of clothing seized as evidence."

Weinberg is referring to Dr. Lynne Herold here. Dr. Herold testified that no one in her department is required to log how many hours they spend on a particular case. (I believe she stated the only thing the LA County Crime Lab tracks is the number of hours that employees spend in court, testifying.) From what I remember of her testimony, I don't believe anyone in the crime lab has to keep these types of records. You also have to ask, for what purpose would they keep this type of record? Why would they need to? So what if they have to spend an inordinate amount of man hours on an investigation? Some investigations take longer than others. Some investigations are solved quickly because there is not a lot of evidence Some cases take longer because there is more evidence to examine. For Weinberg to characterize Dr. Herold's response as "proudly asserted," to me that's a very pro-defense slanted description of how she testified.

Let's look at this statement:

"The L.A. County coroner admitted that in addition to undertaking every conceivable test and analysis, his office held meetings involving doctors, criminalists, sheriff's crime lab personnel, sheriff's investigators and representatives of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office to determine whether the death of Lana Clarkson could be declared a homicide even though the medical evidence could not support that determination."

In this article (and in his closing argument) Weinberg omits the fact that the Chief Coroner, Dr. Lakshmanan also stated that it's not unusual for the medical examiner to be unable to determine the manner of death (MOD) from the autopsy. Many times they cannot determine MOD from the autopsy alone and have to turn to law enforcement investigation to give them that answer. From the way this statement is written, it sounds like what the coroner did was highly unusual. It's not.

Another statement:

"Nonetheless, in September 2004, more than 19 months after the death, Spector was indicted. At that point, for the first time, Spector and his representatives were given access to the prosecution's "scientific evidence."

And I would say, "Thank God!" This is the way it's supposed to be. It would be a breakdown in law enforcement's ability to effectively prosecute a case and keep the integrity of it's evidence secure for trial if they made the evidence in an active investigation available to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to look at it before a suspect was even indicted for a crime.

I find it interesting that Weinberg felt the need to address the reporting in the LA Times about how much Spector paid for his defense experts. Couple that with the fact that Weinberg went to great lengths not to turn over the amounts his expert witnesses were paid to the prosecution. The prosecution had to subpoena those records in a special type of subpoena to Weinberg. The subpoena wasn't delivered until just before the witness was called. When these witnesses did take the stand, many of them did not have their billing records with them. We also found out that several times Weinberg did not even pass the subpoena onto his witness. It was Weinberg who provided the amount that Dr. Spitz had billed. Dr. Spitz didn't even know.

There is a reason Weinberg fought so hard to keep the true amount that Spector spent on his experts from getting in front of the jury. It was a large amount of money and in my opinion, the reason is, it did not look good for his client.

P.S. Weinberg conveniently left out the fact that as a courtesy, Dr. Baden was able to observe the autopsy of Lana Clarkson. After the criminalist's were finished collecting evidence at the scene, it was released back to the defendant and his team was able to view it. They would have been able to observe the areas in the home where Spector left a blood trail. Anything beyond that (such as letting them view collected evidence) would have compromised the investigation. Weinberg conveniently omits a fact that the defense had something the prosecution did not. Complete access to question the defendant as to "what happened" that night. I'm sure the defendant would have been able to supply them with what was "missing" from his home, but I don't believe he returned to it for over a week.