HBO & David Mamet's Tele-Play on Phil Spector History

 Phil Spector prison booking photo.  

This is how Spector really looks.

UPDATE: 4/3
If you think that, the disclaimer that was placed at the beginning of Mamet's film is all that's needed to inform the public that the movie is totally a piece of fiction,  you are mistaken. A few moments ago, the following Google® search hit my blog:

"how did the prosecution deal with the bloodless white dinner jacket in the second Phil Spector trial"

Do you see how this film twists the facts regarding the evidence presented at both trials?

There was backspatter found on the front of Spector's jacket.  There was also a tiny spot of backspatter that was found on the edge fold of the end of the right jacket sleeve, indicating that fold was pointed directly at the source of the spatter.

During the first and second trial, the defense tried to tell the jury that if Spector had been in the vicinity of when Lana Clarkson was shot through the mouth, his white jacket would have been covered in blood.  The truth is, bloodstain analysis experts testified that backspatter from a high velocity event (gunshot wound) does not travel very far at all.  Backspatter droplets will be tiny, mist like.  And because of their size, they rarely travel more than 2-3 feet from the source (injury).  Sprocket.

UPDATE: 3/26 Corrected link to Harriet Ryan's article.

I had hoped to get this post up last week, but alas, real life responsibilities to Mr. Sprocket’s business kept me from writing.  HBO’s Spector movie aired Sunday, March 24th, 2013. My apologies. Sprocket.

It began over a week and a half ago. It seemed like every other email, tweet and Facebook posting I received, was about the upcoming release of David Mamet’s Phil Spector movie on HBO.  Sprocket!  Did you hear about the movie?  Rachelle is going to be on CNN’s Piers Morgan!  Are you going to see the movie?  Did you see Rachelle?  What do you think?  You have to write about it and tell the truth. The film totally trashes Lana.

Lana being Lana Clarkson, the tall, strikingly stunning woman who was murdered in Spector’s mansion in the early morning hours of February 3rd, 2003.  She had been shot through the mouth while sitting in a foyer chair, her purse on her shoulder, waiting to be driven home.  Spector was convicted of second degree murder on April 13th, 2009.  He is serving 19 years to life.

Some people consider me an authority on the Phil Spector case because I'm the only journalist who attended most of the first trial and every single day of the second.  It's the case that launched T&T and started me on my journey of attending murder trials and writing about them.

For me, the movie is old news.  I’ve known about the HBO film since it was announced that Al Pacino would play Spector back in October 2010. That’s how long it’s been.

I first reported on Mamet's film  when it was announced that Bette Midler had joined the cast. Midler had to drop out six days into filming due to an injury and Helen Mirren took over the role of defense attorney Linda Kenney Baden. As you can see, Mamet’s film has been in production for a long time.  Since the film was announced, I covered two first degree murder trials, Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder and Los Angeles County elected a new District Attorney.
 
Mamet has given interviews discussing the focus of his film as far back as June 2011.  I wrote about Mamet’s comments that he gave in a Slate.com article not long after that.

I’ve known from the very beginning that Mamet --who never followed the trial-- based his movie entirely on watching filmmaker Vikram Jayanti’s documentary, The Agony and the Estacy of Phil Spector, which was basically a love-letter account of Spector’s life and the murder charge, from Spector’s point of view.  (If you read any of the reviews of Mamet's film, most don’t mention this important fact.)

Although there are archival clips of other people in the documentary, Jayanti interviewed a single subject for his film, Spector --which begs the question, how objective could Jayanti’s ‘documentary’ be? Jayanti spent several months with Spector, much of it during the first trial.  Jayanti would come into court and hug Spector in the gallery.  Everyone who was there saw the public displays of affection. It was all part of the “show” if you ask me.  Jayanti was courting Spector, even during his murder trial.

So, if you can keep all that in context --that the film is not based on any of the facts presented at the trial-- then tune in to watch Al Pacino give an over the top performance as the maniacal Spector, and Helen Mirren in the role of sickly, mothering defense attorney, Linda Kenney Baden.

The Trial Bride
I can’t write a piece about Spector without mentioning his gold lamme-clad supporter and spouse. Phil Spector’s trial bride (Rachelle) recently appeared on CNN’s Piers Morgan talking about the film.  From what I read on Gary and Louis Spector’s Facebook pages, she was not invited to the start-studded premiere (although former prosecutor Alan Jackson was).  According to Rachelle, the trial bride and Spector were not consulted for the film.  As far as catching the Morgan show, I saw enough of the convicted murderer and the ‘screech she tries to pass as singing’ misses during two trials to last me ten lifetimes, which is why I took a pass on watching.

Reviews
Back when I first heard about the film I thought for certain I’d watch it, just to see what Mamet would do with his limited knowledge of the trial that convicted Spector.  But as more information came out about the film (Linda Kenney Baden inaccurately presented as Spector's lead attorney, Lana Clarkson’s character trashed, etc.) I decided it wasn’t worth my time.

Alan Jackson, who prosecuted both cases appeared on CNN 7AM weekend show on March 16th to talk about the overwhelming evidence that convicted Spector.  Unfortunately, I missed seeing Alan talk about the case of his career.

The LA Times’ Harriet Ryan wrote a very good piece  on the film.  During the first trial, Ryan worked for CourtTV and was in the courtroom every day that I was there.  She knows exactly what evidence was presented at trial.  She dropped in on the second trial a little over a dozen times.

Ken Levine’s review hit the nail on the head. It is a must read for the comparisons he makes and how Levine puts the film in context. Levine starts off his piece by stating: “If David Mamet had made LINCOLN, the official cause of the president’s death would be boating accident.”

My friend, historian and lecturer Barry Bradford saw the film and wrote a review titled, David Mamet Is A Murderer.  In Bradford’s view, Mamet committed two murders. Mamet “murdered the truth” and then “murdered the reputation of Lana Clarkson.”

All I can say now is, I’m glad it’s finally aired and reviews about the film are informing people about the incredible amount of creative license Mamet took in telling this story. If you would like to know more about the film, here are a list of reviews.

Robert Lloyd, LA Times TV critic
Robert Bianco in USA Today
Mail Online 
Ed Siegel in The Artery 
Tim Appelo in The Hollywood Reporter 
Matt Zoller Seitz on Vulture
Vikram Jayanti in The Daily Beast “My Dark Days With Phil”

Phil Spector's US Supreme Court Appeal

UPDATED 2-21-2012 Edited for accuracy


Phil Spector conviction booking photo


My wonderful friends in the MSM dropped me some news yesterday. Tomorrow, February 21st, 2012, it is expected the US Supreme Court will decide whether or not to hear Spector's appeal on his murder conviction in the death of Lana Clarkson. If they refuse to hear the appeal, his murder conviction is final. Does anyone want to place any bets on whether or not the Supreme Court will hear his appeal?

But it's not really "over". There still is one last appeal that Spector can file and it's a common one filed by many convicts. Spector can file a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. It's basically a civil suit filed against the warden of a prison with the allegation that the inmate is being wrongly imprisoned. It's an easy wager that Spector will file this writ. However, it rarely (if ever) results in a prisoner being released from custody.

People occasionally ask me how the trial bride, Rachelle Short Spector is doing. I haven't a clue how she's doing, but I expect she's not doing too bad, now that she has "the castle" all to herself (I'm betting she redecorated and tore out that hideous blood red carpeting) and she doesn't have to sleep with her husband any more. (I can't imagine that was ever a pleasant experience.) I mean, the thought of that just makes one go "Ick!" and cringe inside, doesn't it? Last anyone heard, she still visits her murdering hubby on weekends. What a fun trip up the I-5 that must be.

Thankfully, the Clarkson's civil suit was settled on the 9-year anniversary of Lana's death. The details of the settlement are unknown at this time, but it's a good bet that Spector did not admit to anything.

UPDATE 2-21-2012:
The US Supreme Court declined to hear Spector's appeal. They did not give any comment on the decision. I'll report as soon as I hear when Spector has filed the writ.

California Supreme Court Denies Phil Spector's Petition

Phil Spector prison booking photo




In a not so surprising move today, the California Supreme Court denies Phil Spector's petition for review of the Appellate Court's decision for his 2nd degree murder conviction in the death of actress Lana Clarkson. It's my understanding that Spector's only recourse is the United States Supreme Court. Good luck with that, Phil. You will have to survive on visits from your Trial Bride for at least the next seventeen years. I wonder how long that will last?

Rest in peace, Lana.

Phil Spector Appeal Do-Over Request: REJECTED

Phil Spector booking photo, after his conviction for second-degree murder in the death of Lana Clarkson

The California State of Appeal has rejected Phil Spector's request for a re-review. Spector's Appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan has previously indicated he will request a review by the California Supreme Court. However, this court is not obligated to hear his appeal. The remaining recourse after that would be the U.S. Supreme Court. It's my opinion that it would be highly unlikely that court would hear his appeal, also. I believe it's over for you, Phil. Your trial bride is going to be visiting you at Corcoran (well, hopefully) for a long time to come.

If you wish to comment on this story, please E-mail me. Sprocket.

Phil Spector Appeal: Oral Argument Hearing Notes

I am so glad that at the 11th hour, my friends in the mainstream media convinced me to attend the hearing for oral arguments in Spector's appeal. You know who you are and again, thank you for the encouragement to go. The argument that won me over, was appealing to my readers and giving my readers a glimpse of what the Appellate process is all about. What an interesting experience it was to hear oral arguments being presented before the California Second District Court of Appeals.

The hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30 am and I arrived in plenty of time. Here are some images of the front of the building I took with my cell phone from across the street.



The Ronald Reagan State Building at 300 S. Spring Street was built in 1990, before 9/11 and the implementation of security screening at many government buildings. The north set of doors into the building on Spring Street are now closed to the public and you have to enter through the south set of doors where the security screening scanners are set up.


The several glass doors are covered with an image overlay from California's State Seal. There were several notices on the doors. In bold red type one sign said: "Public entering the building are not allowed to have any sharp objects such as knives, blades, scissors, knitting needles, fingernail files, "Leatherman" multi-tools, etc." Another notice reads: "All service dogs or guide dogs must be on a leash and tagged at all times." And another: "No Weapons Allowed. All vehicles and persons are subject to search before entering." The biggest sign said: "ATTENTION: It is a misdemeanor trespass to "Intentionally Avoid Submission" to a safety screening station at a court or public building entrance where posted with warning signs that prosecution may result. CPC602y"

Here is a view of the back of the building.


After I cleared the first security checkpoint, I realized that I was in a wide open plaza that had an atrium feel to it. As you look up, you can see several open bridge-like catwalks at different levels. As I was writing this entry, I searched online for photos or sketches of the courtyard space but couldn't find any. When I stepped inside, I really wanted to take photos of the plaza so you could see the spacious, modernized mission-like design of the girders and catwalks. Even though I don't immediately see a sign stating no photography, I know there are rules against photography in county and federal court buildings so I don't take any. I call my friends who were meeting me and ask if they've arrived already. They are already here on the third floor in front of the Appellate court.

When I step out of the elevator on the third floor, there is a woman behind glass at an information booth. I ask her where the courtroom is that is hearing the Spector appeal. She informs me, "We only have one courtroom," and tells me which catwalk to take to get to the Appellate Court. After taking the catwalk, I see another security screening station that's manned by building personnel as well as several California Highway Patrol Officers. I see Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press, as well as defense attorneys Leslie Abramson and Dennis Riordan in line ahead of me. This article in the L.A. Times Blog should answer any questions as to why Leslie Abramson attended the hearing.

As I get closer to the security screening checkpoint, the very serious looking security personnel are telling everyone the same thing that's posted on the wall behind them, "Please remove all items from your pockets along with belts and watches before walking through the magnetometer." Also in front of me is Spector's greatest fan, Theresa, the schoolteacher who often wore Hawaiian type shirts during the second trial. She has a tall, blond-haired male friend with her. All our personal belongings have to go in the wood tray to be screened. All of our electronic equipment, including cell phones will be checked with the CHP officers. They are not allowed inside the courtroom. I note when Riordan passes through the screener it beeps.

The attorney in front of me is taking quite a while to get all of his belongings cleared through security. The CHP officer has opened his soft-leather briefcase and is looking through it all. When he is finally cleared, my bag and cell phone roll through the viewing scanner and I walk through. The CHP officer asks me if this is my cell phone. When I tell him it is, he takes my phone, puts a little numbered ticket around it and gives me a matching number with a clip on the end of it. I look at it and say to the officer, "Lucky number 75." He gives me a big smile back.

When I walk through the courtroom entry doors, I'm struck by how beautiful and stately the room looks. It's a large, high-ceilinged square shaped space with deep, rich wood paneling, a green marble wall behind the justice's bench and matching marble columns around the rooms' perimeter. The center of the space in front of the judge's platform consists of special seating just for counsel, a podium to present their arguments and in the right side of the space, a clerk's desk with a large computer screen. There is another desk area off to the left and closer to the judges where a CHP officer was seated. The center space is illuminated by six hanging upside-down half-dome lights. There are matching quarter-dome sconces on the marble columns. There's a little sign at the entrance to the counsel space to tell you "Counsel Only."

Along all three walls surrounding the center counsel space are several rows of seating covered by a low ceiling with recessed lighting. There are wide aisle spaces separating the gallery seating from the counsel area. I note the large, mission-style windows set near the ceiling on both sides of the justices, bringing in a nice dance of filtered light into the courtroom. The folding padded chairs were deep and comfortable. The seating areas against the side walls is roped off and people are taking seats in the section against the back wall behind the center counsel area, facing the justices.

I see Leslie Abramson shaking hands with Dennis Riordan in the counsel well. Against the back wall, there are two long rows of seats separated by a small aisle in the middle. My two friends are sitting in the back row near the entrance. In the front row section farthest from the courtroom doors sits Spector's loyal wife Rachelle, her Mommy, Nicole Spector, and Nicole's mother, Janis Zavala, Theresa and a few other supporters. Sitting in the front row, first seat across the aisle from them is Linda Deutsch. Leslie Abramson is back in the first seat across from Ms. Deutsch, sitting next to Nicole and when Abramson sees me, she stands up and loudly proclaims to the room, "THE SHIT WRITERS ARE HERE." Right afterwords, Harriet Ryan of the L.A. Times enters, gives me a smile and hello and takes the seat next to Linda. With another reporter in the room, Abramson quickly sits back down.

Donna and Fawn Clarkson arrive with Rod Lindblom's stunningly gorgeous wife, Caroline. I see Leslie Abramson get up and attempt to speak to Mrs. Clarkson. Louis Spector shows up with his long-time companion, Frieda. Next is Rod Lindblom who joins his wife and the Clarkson family. About this time, the CHP officer in the room addresses the gallery with the rules of the courtroom. He informs counsel to stay as close to the microphone as possible and that the proceeding are recorded. He tells the gallery that they can enter and leave the courtroom as needed. As more reporters and people arrive, it's like a who's who of the two trials. Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Channel 7 takes a seat with the other reporters off to our left in front of us. There is an attorney sitting to the left of one of my friends who is part of the representation of one of the cases being argued today. He tells us that during the trial, his side lost "badly". There are four cases being heard and we think the Spector appeal is first up.

Four justices take the bench. There are two men and two women and unfortunately, I cannot read the identifying placards in front of them. It's time to get my prescription glasses updated. My friend sitting next to me tries her reading glasses and cannot read the names either. I'll just have to try to take notes without identifying who's speaking. There's a loud, microphone type buzzing sound and apparently it's a cell phone belonging to one of the justices' on the bench. There's a bit of laughter from the courtroom and a sheepish smile from the male judge. The calendar is called and the counsel sides are asked to identify themselves and how many minutes they are requesting for argument. When the Spector appeal is called, Dennis Riordan identifies himself and states, "20 minutes and 2 minutes for rebuttal." Lawrence Daniels from the State's Attorney's Office identifies himself and states he will take 20 minutes as well.

The justices address counsel. "We have read what you've submitted and you don't have to start from scratch. (snip) Just hit the high points of your appeal and be prepared to answer questions."

The Spector case is not the first case up. It's a case involving a civil dispute between two neighbors over the cutting down, destruction of old-growth trees on a property that did not belong to the appellant. From what I can gather, the appellant wanted more sunlight onto her backyard for her pool and hired workers to cut down the trees clearly on her neighbor's property. She was ordered to pay over $240,000.00 in restitution costs. I believe she is disputing the cost of the trees and the devaluing of her neighbor's property. I find it interesting that, instead of paying what the court ordered her to pay, she spent her money on this appeal.

Spector's fan gets up and leaves the courtroom. (Sometime later, she does reenter.) As I'm admiring the room and taking notes on how to describe it, the beat reporter for City News arrives that I met during Spector retrial verdict watch. Since the back gallery seating was full, he takes a seat in the side gallery beside the door. The current case counsel are arguing the value of the trees when Tawni Tyndall, the private investigator for Spector's defense team shows up.

The next case up, the petitioner is Fireman's Fund. It's the case that the attorney sitting next to my friend is involved in. I'm totally lost following the merits of this case but I will describe it as best I can. It involves a whistle-blower (but that's not at issue), it's regarding "what did lawyers say to each other" and whether or not the trial judge's ruling, as one of the justices' described as, "too narrowly defined (the) attorney client privilege (and therefore) to be inconsistent with the 902 Code."

The next case up is the Spector case and one of the male justices leaves the bench. I believe one of the justice's says, "I have (asked) every attorney not to relive (their) briefs. (snip) Simply point to which manner of (prosecution? misconduct?) is unwarranted.

Rirodan: I could begin and end in the lead issue. I could rest on the fact that judges are meant to be impartial. Society is predicated on that judges are impartial.

Court: We agree. In what way did Judge Fidler .....

Riordan: ....pictures and images of Judge Fidler placed before the jury (in closing argument). ....(leading the jury with the impression)....and this judge is on our side.

I have in my notes that the courts asks Riordan to be more specific.

Riordan: No your honor, what occurred in this case... (the prosecution's closing arguments) It had pictures of its witnesses. Three pictures of Jaime Lintemoot. Three pictures of witnesses. It put up three pictures of Judge Fidler.

I note that Riordan's tone and presentation is very passionate. One could possibly mistake it for being nervous but I doubt that's the case for this seasoned appellate attorney.

Riordan: ...here's some pictures of Lintemoot, Lynne Herold, Judge Fidler. Ms. Do said, "Here is what Judge Fidler said about the testimony."

Court: (The) issue was where blood spatter appeared on the victim?

Riordan: (The) issue, during (the hearing outside the presence of the jury) Judge Fidler demonstrates what she was taking as, .... which apparently was less than clear.

My notes are not clear if Riordan states this but I believe it's the court who says,

"After the video was played it was before the jury."

Court: What he actually said was, "Why don't you show us; that would be best." As you can see just as I had to demonstrate to you. (snip) It seems to me what Judge Fidler said to Jaime Lintemoot was to help the jury to understand (snip) what she meant.

Riordan: But it wasn't (before the) jury!

Court: Would you agree with me, if Judge Fidler asked to to demonstrate (while she was) on the stand (in front of the jury) she .... it would be the same?

(I believe, but I'm not positive Riordan agrees.)

Court: I don't quite understand (how) putting his photo up prejudiced your client.

Riordan: It makes him a witness.

Court: Why does it make him a witness? That's a pretty interesting gimic.

Riordan: I don't know of any (judge?) who tried a case (where) that judge needs a little... (I'm sorry. Unfortunately, the rest of my note here doesn't make sense.)

I believe Riordan is arguing that there has been no other case like this, where the trial judge's image was included in the closing argument. I have that the court disagreed; answered back with a different interpretation saying, "That's all that it is, why don't you tell me the difference." Riordan again presents his view of how this prejudiced his client, and I believe he cites at least one case because the court responds:

Court: We don't have that situation here. (snip) The last ten minutes, is that all we've been talking about?

It's right at this time that DDA Alan Jackson shows up and takes a seat in the first gallery row near the door.

I believe the court states that Lintemoot testified at both trials and Riordan goes over the closing argument again.

Court: Isn't that a leap from the cases you've cited?

The court lists several cases and the details of each and after each one says, "And that's not this case." Riordan states again no where in (California?) any case where the prosecution put up pictures of the judge. Riordan's tone and delivery continues to be very passionate.

Court: Are you going to spend your entire argument time on this (one) point? I think you should shift gears.

Riordan does shift gears and moves onto the 1101b witnesses, uncharged brandishing offenses.

The Ewoldt case law is discussed.

Unknown: It's clear in Ewoldt, (you) must meet stringent standards, but it doesn't seem identity is the issue here.

Court: Was identity really the issue?

Riordan: It's the whole issue your honor!

I have in my notes the next statements, but I'm not certain who said what.

Unknown: In this case, we know either Ms. Clarkson took her own life or Mr. Spector (did). That's not the type of identity that Ewoldt meant.

Court: The court instructed the jury (it could) consider other crimes. .... (the) result of accident, mistake or suicide.

Unknown: (Most likely the court.) What's wrong with that?

(I miss writing down Riordan's response.)

Court: This case, at very early in the morning there were only two people....

Unknown: Instructions have to be given on the evidence. The instructions (should?) support the evidence of this case.

The court now lists cases where the facts involve two people. "People vs. Wells from the 1940's. People vs. Woods, a seven-year-old died in foster care. (snip) What happens when, he says, he goes (0utside) and states he kills someone?"

Riordan: What he actually said, "I think I may have killed somebody."

(This is not exactly what DeSouza testified to in both trials. I feel I need to add here, that I watched the entire video taped interview of DeSouza at the police station during the second trial, and saw a portion of it during the first trial. It was very clear to me from the video that DeSouza completely understood the questions that the officer's were asking him. He had a good understanding of the English language. The problem was the officers. To me, it was the officers who had difficulty understanding DeSouza's accent, which is why they kept asking him the same question, phrased differently.)

Riordan: I submit to you, there has never been a (case) where a judge's picture has been used in closing arguments. (snip) And the judge's statements. (snip) ...is when Mr. Weinberg says, (asks? that jury) be instructed that what you said is (not testimony) and the judge refuses.

Court: You've said that several times now.

(Please understand this is not word for word what Riordan argued. There were many statements and arguments that I missed writing down from Riordan and the court.)

Larry Daniels steps up to give the responding argument.

Daniels: The appellant received a fair trial.

Daniels goes on to address the picture the appellant dwelled on. This was an unusual situation. "It's highly unusual for any trial (to be video taped). (snip) They were admitted to give context and meaning to Jaime Lintemoot's testimony. "

The Court questions Daniels on the closing argument issue the appellant brings up.

Daniels: The judge simply clarified (her testimony).

Daniels explains that the video tape was no different that a court reporter's transcript being read back. The court asks another question about Fidler's restating and redemonstrating Lintemoot's testimony and gestures.

Court: That was permissible because? Trial judges do that all the time to clarify a point of fact. I think I've done it. (I believe my co-judges have done it.) That doesn't mean we're testifying. It meas we're clarifying an incident of fact.

Unknown: I don't think there's any problem to showing that in prior trial. Akin simply to a reporter's transcript.

Court: But in this case you've got a video tape. Focus on this explanatory difference.

Daniels: I think it's better. Your not bound only by words. (snip) The appellant did not object before the video tape was entered into evidence. He didn't object on these grounds. It was raised during the second time it was played. There was no objection at the first trial (in the special hearing).

Daniels: During the closing argument, the defense objected to the video. In closing, the video (was) shown in slow motion, Jaime Lintemoot's pointing and.... (snip) Judge Fidler was just a corroboration of what they showed.. Even if you assume it was prejudicial, it wasn't (prejudicial error?)....

Daniels moves onto the 1101b evidence. He lists several cases that I try to write but I don't think I have them all or the correct spellings.

People vs. Whisenhunt, that other evidence could be introduced to prove non-accident.
People vs. Lisenba.
People vs. Catlin
People vs. (?Andrews?)

Court: What part does the Doctrine of Chances play?

Daniels explains how the Doctrine of Chances applies to the gun being brought into play.

Court: It was highly prejudicial evidence.....

(I miss writing down Daniels response.)

Unknown: (Most likely the court.) And the justification is this doctrine of chances...

Daniels: The question about the Doctrine of Chances comes into play because the defense did argue the possibility of accident.

(I think the defense had to argue the possibility of accident in the retrial because Fidler ruled to give the jury the option of involuntary manslaughter. That was a different situation than the first trial, where the only charge was second degree.)

Daniels then brings up all the post incident behavior of Spector. His "true statement." The wiping of Clarkson's face, the attempted clean-up of the scene. The backspatter on Spector's jacket that proved he had to have been within arms-length of Clarkson. The bruising on her arms and wrists that showed a struggle.

Court: Counsel focusing on.... (the errors?) not as such that it would taint and be enough for reversal.

The State is finished and Reardon gets up for his rebuttal.

Riordan: The government completely misrepresented the facts.

Riordan goes over each and every time when Weinberg objected (to the video tape coming into evidence).

Riordan: The Doctrine of Chances was not - - it wasn't a jury instruction.

Court: What do you think it is?

Riordan: No evidence of a fired gun (ever before). No evidence of a gun placed in someones mouth. (snip) You can't say a gun was fired when ... if a gun has never been fired before.

Court: We're not the trier of facts.

That's the last note I have covering oral arguments.

It seemed to me that throughout the entire hearing in many instances, the justice's took an adversarial position to each counsel's argument, forcing them to defend their position. It didn't necessarily say to me that each and every time they did that, they did not agree with the argument being presented.

As everyone slowly leaves the courtroom, they pick up their cell phones and laptops that were checked with the CHP officer. Witnesses tell me Rachelle was shedding tears during oral arguments. My friends and I make our way down to the plaza level, find a bench and chat about the Cameron Brown case that probably won't go to trial until next year. As we're trying to decide where to go to have lunch, Miriam Hernandez asks if we've seen Ms. Deutsch. I look over to my left where I last saw her and she's no longer there. It was only about three minutes ago. The reporters must be trying to find where the defense is going to set up to make a statement about the hearing.

Linda Deutsch reported the following statement by Dennis Riordan.

Outside court, Riordan said it was impossible to predict what the court might do and noted that "the tenor of questions shifted" depending on the issues being addressed.

I find that quite interesting since I've been told that others supporting the appeal (on the web) have indicated it's practically a slam dunk that the court will reverse the trial verdict.

As I was discussing the Brown case with my friends, Rachelle's entourage of family and supporters approached. As they got nearer, they started to slow down but didn't stop. They kept on going. Once they past us, Rachelle's Mommy curled her right wrist up almost into a fist and made a gesture with her finger. Maybe I should have taken a video. It would have been much better than simply a worded description.

If you wish to comment on this entry, please E-mail me at sprocket.trials AT gmail.com with your comment or question and it will be published if it meets T&T's commenting guidelines. Your E-mail address will NOT be published. If you wish to remain anonymous that will be honored. In the near future after the Anthony case is settled, T&T will be possibly moving to a new blogging platform with different commenting capability options. We will give you plenty of notice when that happens. Sprocket

The Latest Phil Spector News

Many of you have written me asking if there's any Spector news. (For those of you who've been living in a cave the last couple of years, at the end of a retrial, Phil Spector was convicted of second degree murder in the death of Lana Clarkson on April 13th, 2009. His attorneys have since filed an appeal.) I've been very busy sewing nonstop for the past two months, getting ready for my busiest season, so I haven't been inside a courtroom in ages nor have I been able to keep up with Spector news. I want to say a big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to send me news articles over the past several months when anything hits the press regarding Phil Spector. Y'all know who you are, and I so appreciate your time in sending me the links.

There is a bit of big news that happened today. The State of California Attorney Generals Office filed their "Respondent's Brief" to Spector's Appeal, Case No. B216325, Second Appellate District, Division Three. You can read all 160 pages of the document here. The index alone is five pages but the "table of authorities" (listing the cases ruled on to support arguments) goes another 12 pages. Spector's reply brief deadline is November 2nd, 2010.

Over the summer, Spector's trial bride, Rachelle Short Spector was promoting her album, Out of My Chelle and posting music videos of herself on her web site singing and learning choreographed dance steps. (In the background of one of the videos, you can see the infamous "fountain" in the motor court behind Spector's mansion.)

Rachelle gave quite a few news outlet interviews as well as made the rounds on any radio show that would have her. Here's one that gets a bit wacky with KLSG's John Matthews. The Telegraph's Mick Brown did an excellent review of the album.

Although sources tell me someone named "Graham" was seen in studio with Rachelle producing, in interview after interview Mrs. Spector insists that her husband produced the album in his off time during the second trial. (Remember during the first trial, Spector was involved with award winning documentary film maker Virkam Jayanti about his life, The Agony and the Ecstasy of Phil Spector.) If that was really the case, I wonder why it took so long after the trial ended in a conviction for Mrs. Spector to find someone to make a video of her singing. You would think her husband would have wanted to be involved in that, too.

Recently, HBO released a statement that Al Pacino would be starring in a still unnamed project about the life of Phil Spector. Pacino is a wonderful actor and I can't wait to see how he will transform himself into the legendary producer. Especially that receding chin. I wonder if Pacino ever met Spector and if not, maybe Spector will let Pacino visit him in jail for a little one-on-one preparation for the role. I also can't wait to see who will portray Spector's various wives.

Months ago, the MSM indicated that Donna Clarkson's civil case against Spector for the death of her daughter, Lana was in "mediation." I've not heard any news that the status of that case has changed. That may not change until the Second Appellate District Court rules on Spector's appeal.

Last but not least, on December 13th, 2010 a hearing has been scheduled where Robert Shapiro will present a motion to Judge Malcolm Mackey, (Department 55, Stanley Mosk Courthouse) in an effort to get Phil Spector's lawsuit against him dismissed. The case is set for trial March 7th of next year. In the mean time, I'll try to find out if Spector will be let out for the hearing or the possible trial. What are the chances that Spector will be allowed out of prison to take the stand, if he pays for the cost of keeping him in custody, like he was allowed to do to see his personal dentist a while back? Anyone have a guess?

Rachelle Spector Talks to KSLG's John Matthews

Take a listen to this interview with Rachelle Short Spector on KLSG. It makes me wonder if I attended the same two trials she did. I sat through about 80% of the first trial and 100% of the second trial.

Rachelle mentions Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, as covering both trials. That's kind of a stretch on the second trial. I know Harriet Ryan of the LA Times was at the retrial about 12 full days of the 60 plus days that I attended. Linda Deutsch, even less than that.

mControl is Back with WALL OF GUILT BLOG

Michelle Blaine is back with her new blog Wall Of Guilt, about an old employer, convicted murderer Phil Spector.

The Telegrpah's MICK BROWN on "OUT OF MY CHELLE"

I have my own opinion about the "trial bride" (Rachelle Short Spector, fourth wife of convicted murderer Phil Spector) and her soon to be released album Out of My Chelle, but I'm recommending you read the excellent piece by Mick Brown in The Telegraph.

Spector Case Featured on True Crime with Aphrodite Jones

Set your VCR's or DVR's. True Crime with Aphrodite Jones featuring the Spector case will air on the ID (Investigation Discovery) channel at 7:00 pm EST on April 1, 2010. I'm not positive, but I believe there might be some air-time with DDA Alan Jackson.

Several of you have written me about a recent online article concerning Phil Spector being assaulted while in prison. When you read something online, you always have to consider the source. For those of you who have lived in a cave the last few years, Phil Spector was convicted April 13th, 2009 of second degree murder in the shooting death of Lana Clarkson in the foyer of his mansion like home on February 3rd, 2003. His first trial ended in a hung jury.

Here are my thoughts on the article. First off, this appeared on the "Gossip" page of the NY Daily News and the source was Steven Escobar, a friend and pen-pal of Spector. What does that tell you? It was not reported on CNN, the New York Times or the Associated Press.

Secondly, this event supposedly occurred back in November or earlier of last year. If it did happen, it's very old news.

Third, the article states that back then a "spokesperson" for Spector's wife, Rachele Short initially corroborated the report but Short later denied it.

Was Spector roughed up by another inmate? Who cares? My opinion is that the entire point of the article was to mention this little blurb:

The former Playboy model also says he's excited that an album they worked on before his conviction will come out June 8. "I do lead vocals," she chirps.

"My husband is so proud of me, and I'm so proud of him for withstanding what he's withstanding."

To some people, any kind of publicity is good publicity, regardless. If Spector does have an album coming out and there is income from the sale of that album, expect the attorney's representing Clarkson's family in the civil suit against Spector to include this new album in their forensic audit of Spector's assets.

It's Official: Phil Spector is Moving to a Better Prison

I still don't understand how anyone considers anything regarding Spector newsworthy anymore, but since the accredited press is finally confirming what I thought was another sympathy ploy by Rachelle Short Spector and the Spector's press agent, here's the latest on all things Phil.

According to Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Phil Spector is being moved to Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, the prison where CaliGirl9 originally thought he would go. According to prison officials, Spector is being moved to take care of other outgoing prisoners who need the mental health services at Corcoran.

At Coalinga there's infamous Erik Menendez for Spector to trade notes with, although prison officials indicate Spector will be housed in a "special needs yard" (meaning, kept away from other prisoners in his own private cell) much like the current accommodations.

With Coalinga comes the possibility of catching "Valley Fever." According to Splash News, Valley Fever has killed 16 prisoners in the past four years and Spector is terrified he might get it. Imagine how terrified Lana Clarkson was in the final hours of her life with the barrel of a gun shoved in her mouth.

The new prison will also mean Rachelle will have a longer drive straight up the I-5 to visit her CONVICT husband. How sad. I'm playing my little violin for her.

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.

CDCR Denies Manson Note to Spector

Several weeks ago, a story went like lightening around the web that a corrections office at the prison where Phil Spector is serving out his 19-to-life sentence, hand delivered a note from Charles Manson to the Wall-of-Sound producer.

Many of you wrote me to see if I had seen the story. From the very beginning I said I didn't believe the story and that was based on two things. First, I knew that Manson and Spector were housed in totally separate facilities, miles apart. Second, the story originated from Rachelle Short Spector. That second aspect alone should have made everyone chuckle when they heard the story.

Today, the Sacramento Bee is reporting that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is denying the story. From the Bee:

But corrections officials on Thursday moved to quash the rumors.

An investigation "showed there was not contact between the two inmates," said California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman Terry Thornton. "For an employee to take a note from an inmate to another inmate would be staff misconduct."

(snip)

Corrections officials noted Spector and Manson are imprisoned four miles apart – Spector at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison and Manson at the California State Prison, Corcoran.

Does anyone really think that a corrections officer working at one facility housing Manson would take the time to hand deliver a note to an inmate at a completely different prison?

There is the possibility that Rachelle was just repeating what her convicted-of-second-degree-murder-husband wrote her from prison. However, I tend to think the story originated from Spector's young wife. During Spector's highly publicized first murder trial in 2007, I was in the courtroom and heard Rachelle tell CNN In Sessions (formerly CourtTV) correspondent Beth Karas that the obvious wig on Spector's head was "his real hair."

Tonight you can hear Rachelle spin again on ABC's 20/20. Check your local listings for show times.

Will You Pay to Hear Rachelle Spector Speak?

In Hollywood at the Egyptian Theatre on Friday, July 31st, at 7:30pm, Rachelle Spector will introduce the film, The Big T.N.T. Show. This is a 1966, 93 minute film where her convicted-of-second-degree murdering husband Phil Spector, took over as musical director. Reserve your tickets now before the show sells out.

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.

Phil Spector, Unwigged

The Smoking Gun got the goods on Spector's latest prison photo. Thank you to all the T&T readers who alerted us to the release of his prison mug shot.



Seeing as how Spector's young wife, Rachelle Short told Beth Karas during the first trial that the mass of wild curls on his head was "his real hair," I'm wondering if this is the first time she's seen him without his "weave."

Phil Spector Relocated to DOCR & Rachelle Short's 15 Minutes

UPDATE: June 6th, 2009
Rachelle Short on YouTube speaking to the Associated Press. One has to wonder how dim the bulbs are in Rachelle and Spector's brains after hearing Rachelle talk about the guilty verdict: "... We did not expect this at all. This came as a total shock and total surprise."

June has brought the Los Angeles area some much needed rain and a bit of gloom as well as Rachelle Short (Mrs. Phil Spector) in front of the camera. The good news is, TMZ was the first to break the story that Phil Spector has been moved out of the LA County Jail system and handed over to the State's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Phil's first stop on his way to serving a life sentence is North Kern County State Prison, right outside Delano, which is 30 miles north of Bakersfield, California. That's a boring, 90 minute drive up Interstate 5 to the 99. He will be there for some time under evaluation until a more permanent location is chosen. Our own CaliGirl9 (who knows way more about the California DOCR than I do) weighed in earlier on where he might go, and I've re posted her thoughts, here:

I'd like to throw a new wrinkle into the "where will he go?" question. Back in the days of Court TV, we had a thread going about just this thing. To summarize: he'd first be taken to the county jail, and then likely within 30 days, be transferred to a SoCal intake center (Chino is one). After an evaluation as to which facility would be best, Harv would then be transferred to another facility. I'm still going with my guesses of Vacaville (California Medical Facility), Pleasant Valley (where he might catch valley Fever, a common occurrence) or Soledad, in that order. Corcoran is too tough a place for him, even with the protective housing unit. So it's unlikely he'll be producing music with Charlie Manson. Unless Harv is being treated for drug abuse, in which case he'd end up in Corcoran's drug treatment facility. But I still think CMF's the place. Edmund Kemper is there.

First off, I want to thank all the loyal T&T readers who sent me emails or left comments alerting us to the latest news reports about Spector and the Trial Bride.

Ever since her husband was sentenced to 19 years to life on May 29th of this year and the gag order imposed on her by Judge Larry Paul Fidler during the first trial lifted, Rachelle has been talking to any reporter or gossip show willing to listen. I missed it, but I hear she first showed up on the TV show, Inside Edition. According to Michelle Blaine, in this interview she claimed Spector's empire was worth around 50-million. If Donna Clarkson's attorney's were not aware of the show before, I bet they have a copy of the taped show now. In subsequent reports and interviews, she claimed that Spector is suffering financially and that he would have to take out loans to fund an appeal. (I wonder what "bank" would fund that cause?)

UPI also put out a report online, but it's not clear if this is just a rehash of the Inside Edition interview. It's interesting that UPI reports Rachelle said, "I handle and run all of his businesses. I'm like his protector." One wonders if Spector really has lost his mind if he put a former Jerry's Deli waitress in charge of his supposedly 50-million-dollar empire.

The next interview to show up on the net was one with Miriam Hernandez, of Local ABC Channel 7. I have to add that Miriam Hernandez is a beautiful woman. Tall, slender and each time I saw her down at the Criminal Court building, she was the epitome of a polished professional woman, impeccably dressed. In a section of this video, you can see Rachelle playing that famous white piano. Fortunately for the viewing public, the sound is muted in that area of the tape.

The latest interview with the most interesting information was with Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times. I have to hand it to Harriet; she's the real McCoy and an excellent reporter. I have no idea how she sat through that interview and kept a straight face the entire time.

During his first trial, Spector spent about six months working with famed film producer Vikram Jayanti to produce a documentary on his work. Until recently, the video of the taping could not be seen by anyone in the US. I haven't seen it yet, but I don't think the information in it will be much different that the article that came out in the UK's Daily Mail back in September, 2007.

I personally don't think Rachelle's time in the sun will last very long but who knows, she just may do something tabloid newsworthy in the future. In the mean time, she joins a long list of women who are married to men behind bars, standing behind them through the lonely days (and nights) ahead. It's the perfect arrangement when you think about it. She has all the financial perks (if there are any left) and she no longer has to keep an (alleged) diary of Spector's antics as insurance against future harm.

Thank you T&T reader for the latest from the Associated Press. The reporter who interviewed her is not identified. There is also this interview with Abbey Hood of the Beverly Courier. Here's also a YouTube video about North Kern State Prison.

Phil Spector Sentenced for Murder Tomorrow

After following this case for more than two years, Spector will be sentenced for murdering Lana Clarkson tomorrow at 11:00 am in Department 106. Although I have attended every day of the retrial, I have not been guaranteed a seat for the sentencing. I will try my best to get a seat for this final day. If I do get a seat, hopefully I will be blogging in real time from the back row. If I am unable to get a seat in the back row, I'll take hand notes and publish later.

According to Harriet Ryan, from her latest report in the Los Angeles Times, Fidler has granted Spector's request to wear regular clothes at his sentencing. I'm betting that will also include one of his wigs. It will be interesting to see if it's the same one he went to jail in, (my sources tell me it was "misplaced" for a time) or if Rachelle or Donte bring him a different one to wear. I'll also be on the lookout to see if he is sporting the large yarmulke Radar Online reported.

Ryan also reported that Spector will not speak at the sentencing but that Donna Clarkson will read from a prepared statement. The prosecution team will answer questions after the sentencing in a press room on the 18th floor of the Criminal Court Building.

I apologize to T&T's loyal readers that I am far behind on publishing several stories that I've promised (Crime Lab visit; Jury Duty; Complete Closing Arguments). Real Life has taken over my time as virtually every waking moment has been helping Mr. Sprocket get his new truck ready for going into business, as well as ensure that all the proper paperwork is filed with the State Contractor's Board. We are barely half-way finished with all the prep work that needs to be done before Mr. Sprocket's tool boxes, shelving units and equipment can be permanently bolted in. (You can follow our progress on that project on my Facebook Page). Hopefully, once that's completed I'll be able to work on those stories in a few weeks.

I'll be on Talk Radio One tonight, sometime after 9:30 pm.

And if you missed it, Mick Brown of the Telegraph has an excellent wrap up piece on the case as well as a small audio recording from when he interviewed Spector six weeks before the murder. Spector's voice is clear and had not yet started to deteriorate.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-four Part II

March 9th, 2009 (unedited, draft entry)

Prosecution Rebuttal Witnesses: (out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule)
#34 Lisa Bloom (licensed attorney, TruTV's In Sessions anchor and analyst for CBS Morning News; testimony complete)

Defense Witnesses:
# 16 Dr. Richard Seiden, Ph. D. (psychologist and suicidologist; testimony complete)
#17 Dr. Mary Goldenson (psychologist Lana Clarkson called; testimony complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: One possible individual, unidentified

Sometimes the things that go on out in the hallway or gallery or argued inside the well without the jury present are more interesting than testimony. There were moments today where that was certainly the case.

When I arrived on the ninth floor, I see Lisa Bloom in the hallway chatting with Tom Messerau. She's wearing an all red, short sleeve dress that's cinched at the waist. It has ruffles around the v-neck collar in front. I was surprised to see her in the hallway sitting on a bench by herself. I thought she would be upstairs with the prosecution team. (TMZ has a short clip where they interviewed her outside the rear entrance of the Criminal Court building.)

I introduce myself to her, tell her I know Beth Karas and am covering the case for my blog. I told her that there was a lot of speculation on whether or not she would testify. I ask her if she can talk about her leaving In Sessions. She replies "Sure." She tells me that they wanted to renew her contract for a 9th year but she decided not to. She's leaving in June of this year to move back to Southern California. She's currently in a long distance relationship for the last year and a half. I acknowledge that can be hard. Lisa also mentioned that her daughter is going off to college soon so she will be "free." She will still have her role as an analyst for CBS news that will be expanding and she has "other projects in the fire." Lisa asked me how many days is it into the trial. I was at a momentary loss as to what day of trial it was and told her she needed to ask Jackson. (I was stumped because I completely forgot what day we were on and because I know that my day counting is not exactly right. I started from testimony and not from the first day of trial.)

Right after that Jackson and Truc Do approach with their rolling cart. I tell Alan that I didn't ask her any questions about the case and they head into the courtroom. I stay outside in the hallway to call donchais and give her and update.

9:28 am: As soon as I got inside the courtroom I was informed that shortly before my arrival, the court clerk, Wendy, informed counsel that Harvey with the white hair called the court this morning wanting to know the status of the case. Mr. Weinberg asked her, "Why was he calling?" Weindy replied, "Because his photo was up on the screen." I was told that afterwards, Mr. Weinberg smiled, put his hand to his forehead and shook his head.

You have to wonder why Harvey was inquiring about the status of the case? Why didn't he come on down to the court the last few days to sit and ask Spector himself? Could Harvey be worried about something?

There's a bit of a bustle in the well. The defense team seem to be real taken with Lisa Bloom being here and they are all getting introduced to her. Rachelle, Mommy and Tawni Tyndall are in the first row. No other supporters have shown up for the morning session. Josh and Lisa chat about the dismal job situation for attorneys. I overhear Lisa tell Josh that an attorney she knows posted a job that pays nothing! Nothing! He got 25 applications. People would rather be working so they can gain the experience. Cindy puts what looks like another day's transcript on Judge Fidler's desk. As I'm looking as the desk, there appear to be three tall piles of each days transcript. Diane gives Truc and Weinberg a copy of yesterday's transcript also.

It's 9:44 am, and people in the gallery are chatting. There is a new person in the gallery carrying a book that waves to Susan, Weinberg's paralegal. Interesting. He doesn't sit on the defense side of the room. 9:47 am Wendy calls the jury. Spector standing, stares at Lisa Bloom in the front row. At 9:50 am we hear Fidler's footsteps on the terrazzo floor. Juror #1 waves to the bailiff Kyles, who asks if anyone needs notebooks.

Jackson asks the court to take a witness out of order to accommodate the witness's schedule. Jackson calls Lisa Bloom to the stand.

Lisa Bloom states she is currently an anchor woman for TruTV, formerly known as Court TV (she often still calls it Court TV) In Sessions. She has her own show, Lisa Bloom: Open Court. She is also a legal analyst for CBS Morning News. Before that, she was a practicing attorney at her mother's law firm of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. Before that she was an attorney for the law firm of Robinson & Silverman.

Bloom started at Court TV in June of 2001. It's now TruTV. It's the same network, same channel just a different name. Her show was originally with Vinnie Politan but now it's just her. Her show is called Lisa Bloom, Open Court.

AJ: In 2007, did CourtTV run coverage of the first trial.

LB: Yes they did. Gavel to gavel coverage. [...] In 2007 CourtTV was covering it extensively.

Juror #9 from the first trial comes in and sits behind me in the third row.

Bloom testifies that she often has guests on her show that are related in some way to the cases her station covers.

AJ: Do you know Greg Sims?

LB: Yes. We've been friends since the early 90's. We were neighbors when I lived in an apartment building in Pacific Palisades. We were friends before I moved to New York.

AJ: When did you become aware of Lana Clarkson's death?

LB: Immediately.

AJ: Back in 2003, were you covering this story? (Did you learn of it from being in the news industry?)

LB: (I would say I'm more (aware of) crime sews than regular citizens.

AJ: When did you first talk to Greg Sims about Lana Clarkson's death?

LB: Shortly after the shooting.

AJ: Were you speaking to him as a newswoman or more as a friend?

LB: As a friend. [...] He said, "Oh my God! I knew Lana Clarkson and I soke to her in the week before she died. " He said he had a party at his suite at the St. Regis. He said she was weepy and said. That she talked for a long time and after they talked she felt better. [...] He said that she was like about 90% of actresses in Hollywood that got drunk. She was down and upset but by the end of the night she was feeling better. [...] I asked him at the time, "Was she suicidal?" And he said, "Absolutely not."

AJ: Did (he say) she ever say anything to him to (suggest she was going to kill herself)?

LB: I asked him that and he said, "Absolutely not."

AJ: Did you say anything at that time, "Oh you have to do an interview?"

LB: We were mostly just talking about it. [...] He was upset that anyone would make any suggestion that she would kill herself.

AJ: At what point did you ask him to be on your show.

LB: I contacted him and wanted him to come on my show and he agreed.

AJ: It was during that trial (the first trial) that you had him on as witness?

LB: Well, we call them guests.

Laughter in the jury box and a bit in the courtroom.

AJ: When you have a guest on, do you do any pre interviews or do you just have them come on?

LB: Yes we do pre interviews of our guests.

Bloom did a pre-interview with him right before the show. The taping of his appearance happened in her studio in New York. She's certain it was during a time that he was in New York because she knows her network would not have paid to fly him out to New York.

LB: I went over the story with him. I wanted to be accurate. He told me the same story. [...] He stated that at the end of the conversation she felt better, as friends do...

AJ: What else did he say?

LB: At the time the trial was under way, and one of the defense theories was suicide. He said, "Absolutely not. She would never kill herself."

The segment of the CourtTV show that Greg Sims was on is played for the court again.

AJ: Is that a portion of your interview with Mr. Sims?

LB: Yes.

Is that consistent with what he had previously told you in the pre-interview?

LB: Yes.

Is that consistent with the conversation you had in 2003?

LB: Yes.

AJ: Is your show a tabloid show?

LB: Absolutely not. [...] We don't do three or five minute sound bites covering a trial. It's a gavel to gavel show on trial coverage. [...] I take my job and my credibility very seriously. I would never have anyone on that would say something untrue and when I've found someone lying on my show, I cal them on it.

AJ: Was Greg Sims compensated for his appearance on your show?

LB: No one is.

AJ: Is there anything inconsistent with what you've seen on this video?

LB: Nothing inconsistent.

That's pretty much it for direct examination and Weinberg gets up to cross Lisa Bloom.

DW: I take it you came here from New York?

LB: Yes.

DW: Did you come her voluntarily?

LB: I was subpoenaed.

DW: You're not being ordered by another court? [...] You simply received a subpoena and agreed to come?

LB: No. It wasn't that simple.

Lisa Bloom explains that there were discussions back and forth between the attorneys representing her network. Weinberg also makes a point that Bloom does not remember the specific dates that she was first contacted by Mr. Jackson. She knows it was recent, the prior week. She can't remember the specific date that Sims was on her show or when he testified in the first trial or when the first trial started.

DW: Who did you talk to?

LB: Mr. Jackson. Then I had to talk to the attorneys at the station.

DW: What did he (Jackson) tell you?

Bloom doesn't remember exactly but basically that Greg Sims changed his testimony.

DW: So you don't know what Mr. Jackson said?

LB: I can tell you the essence but I can't tell you the exact words. He was telling me....

DW: You had a conversation with your friend. (Do you remember when that was?)

LB: Yes. I dcan't give you the exact date.

DW: In 2007 when you were covering Spector trial number 1, were you thinking about this? [...] Did you express negative opinions about Mr. Spector? [...] Did you call him a "nebbish little Jewish guy?"

LB: (Lisa laughs.) I may have. Do you know I'm Jewish?

DW: Yes, I know.

LB: That's not necessarily a negative statement. I call my boyfriend a nebbish little Jewish guy.

The courtroom laughs at her comment.

Weinberg accused her of being biased and forming an opinion about Spector's guilt. Lisa Bloom states that she watched all the testimony from the first trial and after seeing all the evidence, she felt the prosecution proved it's case. At one point, he confronts her that her co-host at that time, Vinnie Politan took the opposite viewpoint as her. Lisa Bloom points out that her former co-host used to be a prosecutor. He often would take the opposite side to make the show more interesting. I believe it's at this point that Lisa Bloom admits that yes, there is an "entertainment" aspect to her show.

Weinberg reads Sim's testimony from this trial for her to consider. He reads where Sims hems and haws and says he believes that there could have been an accident.

DW: Would you say that sounds like he said she was suicidal?

LB: No.

DW: You went to his wedding?

LB: Yes. [...] I was one of his bridesmaids got sick so I was asked to fill in. And I put on a ridiculous dress and I did it.

Weinberg now plays an audio clip where she talked about Greg Sims on her show. She talks about how he's an honest guy and that he has parties at his St. Regis suite as part of his networking for business. She describes the suite and that she had been there on an occasion (or two?). (I think on the clip of her show she mentioned that he was a father and had two kids. That comes to my mind as I write this.)

LB: I agree with everything she said.

DW: What you said was "What you see is what you get?" (About Mr. Sims.)

Weinberg plays another video excerpt from her show and confronts her that what he said on the show was "very depressed" and not "weepy and sad" as she described.

DW: You said what he said (in his testimony at trial #1) was consistent (with what he had told you)?

Weinberg is now trying to make her out to be a tabloid journalist. She insists that the "tenor" of the conversation was consistent. Weinberg now reads other sections of Sim's testimony to her from the first trial.

LB: I don't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.

Weinberg goes over statement after statement of Sim's testimony and each time Bloom responds that she doesn't remember any of the specific testimony from the first trial.

That's about it for cross and Jackson steps back up to redirect.

Jackson gets it clarified that his office served a subpoena in Atlanta at her network's headquarters. Bloom agrees that there were several discussions back and forth between the prosecution and her networks attorneys before they accepted the subpoena. It was either in direct, or in redirect here, where Jackson asks her how many cases she's covered on her network as well as gets it stipulated to the date that Sims appeared on her show.

AJ: If someone in a murder case, not this case, any case, say a rapist or murder made a confession, is that something that sticks out in your mind?

LB: Yes.

AJ: A confession would be very important, correct? [...] And conversely, if someone had made a confession that she said she was going to kill herself?

LB: Yes. That would be something that would stick out in my mind. [...] I would have had him on my show sooner.

Jackson then presents Bloom with other testimony by Sims in the second trial.

LB: If he had ever told me that Lana said she never had a reason to live, that would have stuck out in my mind, and he never said that to me.

Jackson presents to Bloom another statement from this trial by Sims, where he said, "She didn't have a reason to live."

LB: That's inconsistent with what he told me.

That's the end of redirect and Weinberg on recross, tries to get Bloom to comment on Lana Clarkson's letters (emails?). The prosecution objects and the objection is sustained. Weinberg asks her about her first conversation with Mr. Jackson. Bloom states that it was the week prior. She states that the conversation was only a two to three minute conversation.

There is a last redirect of this witness. Jackson asks her, "Last Friday was the first time we fleshed out your testimony?" Bloom agrees that's correct. And that's it for this witness. I have to say that Lisa Bloom smiled a lot on the stand and appeared very relaxed and personable, even under cross. She was very careful about what she said and at one point, was careful not to "put words" into Mr. Sim's mouth. She stated that as a journalist, she's careful about when she puts "quotes" around statements. She would only state that the "tenor" of the conversation was the same. I think she did well on direct and cross.

It's 10:42 am, and a break is called. Allan Parachini is in the back of the courtroom. The jury has gone back into the jury room and counsel are going over some issues with the court.

Fidler: (Addressing Jackson and Truc) You were going to prepare a transcript and what questions Ms. Do can ask?

Truc Do informs the court she may be rethinking her questions of Dr. Seiden. "We sent the tape to the transcription unit and even with a rush, the tape would take a week. [...] I've reviewed the tape. I'm not going to go into the area that (we previously discussed).

Weinberg now addresses the court. He feels there is a discovery violation via Lisa Bloom's testimony. "No one's talked to her? How did you (Jackson) ask such specific information (of Greg Sims)? [...] Her answers don't solve the mystery. [...] There was a conversation...."

AJ: When I had asked the questions of Mr. Sims, I had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before my conversation with Greg Sims.

Weinberg goes onto argue that there were specifically more questions to Greg Sims. One of the questions he brings us is a statement Jackson made as part of a question. I remember Jackson saying this. 'When Lisa walked you down to the street...' [...] That's not a question you ask. [...] That's something you just asked (without a prior conversation)? (If I'm remembering correctly, I believe Weinberg accuses the prosecution of lying, but I'm not positive.)

Jackson insists he had never spoken to Ms. Bloom before. He denies lying to the court. He states he based his questions to Mr. Sims on "what he knows" about how those shows are conducted and from information he's received from other sources.

Fidler mentions again the breakdown in communication between the two counsels. "It's clear that you can't stand each other. [...] I don't see any discovery violation. [...] Irregardless Mr. Weinberg, I saw your cross. You were not prejudiced in any way."

At this point the rest of the court room gets to take a break and the court reporters change. I see Spector get up from the defense table and go over to Rachelle and Mommy to speak to them in the first row. Spector says something to Mommy and Rachelle that several other people in the courtroom overhear. Three other trial watchers told me what they heard Spector say to Mommy and Rachelle after Lisa Bloom left the stand. It was a similar statement to what we've heard Spector say about women before. I will say that the word "bitch" was used.

After they overheard what Spector said, they discussed what they overheard amongst themselves. After that, they also observed Mommy staring at them and discretely pointing at them while she's talking to Spector. I observed her pointing at me and talking to Tawni Tyndall. Afterwards, (I'm assuming Mommy was probably trying to get Spector to be quiet) he was observed going over to Weinberg's paralegal, Susan and animatedly pointing at the gallery. If you're going to make demeaning statements about women Phil, it's probably not a good idea to do it where other people can hear you.

11:09 am, Fidler takes the bench. Weinberg tells the court they have another brief witness out of order. Dr. Mary Goldenson. Dr. Goldenson is a clinical psychologist with a doctorate in psychology. She testifies she, "Works with individuals and families going through crisis. [...] I do full spectrum counseling from the light to serious." She states she has been practicing 37 years.

Weinberg presents an email that Lana wrote to her.

DW: Do you know Lana Clarkson?

Dr. G: Yes. I recrived a call. She was recommended from one of her friends. [...] She called and said she really wanted to see me, but it was mostly about her insurance. She was working with SAG to work it out so she could see me."

DW: Did she ever come in?

Dr. G: No, she never did.

There is a quick side bar and then it's to cross examination.

Jackson brings up the original email that Lana wrote her. The date is corrupted. It's 1904 which is obviously incorrect. Then Jackson presents another email, a response Lana got back from Jennifer Sykes about calling Dr. Goldenson. That email is dated in March, 2002. Dr. Goldenson could not remember if that refreshed her memory as to when the phone call was received from Lana Clarkson.

Jackson asks her about the other things she does besides individual and family counseling. Dr. Goldenson states that she also does something she calls "Self Introspection" work, "Interpersonal Therapy" work and "Psycho-dynamic Therapy." In general, career and personal development work and helping people improve their personal dialog or speaking skills.

On redirect, Weinberg asks her if she knows Jennifer Sykes. If I'm recalling correctly, I don't believe she did. At the last trial, she was asked if she received the phone call in December oof 2oo2 or possibly early January of 2003. Dr. Goldenson thinks that she probably had a better memory back then, and that probably was correct.

In recross, Jackson presents her with the fact that Mr. Rosen supplied her with a date and she agreed, and that possibly that might not have been correct and the date of the email might be a more accurate time frame of when she received the call. She thinks that she was probably correct in her prior testimony (of the December date) but also adds, "It was vague then and it's vague now." The jury laughs at that. And that's it for Dr. Goldenson.

It's 11:30 am and Dr. Seiden is back on the stand under cross examination by Truc Do.

Truc Do starts off by touching briefly on the issue of the five boxes of emails, the 12,017 pages of emails. "Were you aware that those emails were from approximately the last two years of her life?

Dr. S: I know there was a CD.

TD: Were you aware that they represented the last two years of Lana Clarkson's life.

Dr. S: I wasn't aware of the time (frame).

TD: You stated you could not rule out suicide?

Dr. S: Right.

TD: You todl the jury based on the psychological review of the case?

Dr. S: Yes. It was bassed on the documents sent to me.

TD: Your opinion is based solely as to what you call psychological factors?

Dr. S: yes.

TD: Because you state that that (you're) not qualified (to evaluate the physical evidence), you wouldn't take into (consideration) other factors? [...] So your opinion does not take into count the physical evidence and witness statements at the scene?

Dr. S: that's correct. That's my training and expertise (the psychological aspects).

TD: Given the limits of your opinion, let's assume, what if I told you there was a video. So if I told you there was a video or the scene, you would still tell the jury...

Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do.

Dr. S: What video tape? What are you trying to get me to say?

TD: I'm just trying to show you the limitations of your opinion.

Dr. S: Would i still say [...] (if ) I saw a video? [...] So if I saw a video that clearly showed she didn't commit sucicide, yes, I would change my opinion.

Weinberg makes an objection and counsel approach the bench.

TD: So then your opinion could be based on non-psychological factors? [...] Dr. Seiden, in my question in askiny you about a hypothetical, you would consider that, even thou it's not psychological factors? [...] So then you would (consider) ....

Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do.

Dr. S: That's not what I was, I was asked to do.

TD: Who told you that information was the only information that was done by our office? (The letter from Doug Sortino that had the 30 interviews and the 30 emails.)

Dr. S: Well, I relied on what the District Attorney sent Dr. Lakshmanan.


TD: did you get the entire medical records or just certain documents that Mr. Weinberg picke out.

Dr. S: I don't know.

TD: Is there any other basis to your opinion other than psychological factors?

Dr. S: What do you mean?

TD: Did you consider any other factors?

Dr. S: No.

TD: Are you certain about that? [...] Do you recall we asked you (in that meeting on February 6th).... [...] Do you recall that you told us on that date that it was an intra-oral gunshot wound. That in your experience, and you thought that was an anomaly? [...] In your experience, you did consider non-psychological facts.

Dr. S: But I didn't give it that much weight.

TD: So you did tell us about a non-psychological factor (that you considered)?

Dr. S: yes.

TD: Did you have any strategy meeting with Mr. Weinberg, since you certainly did consider other non-psychological factors?

Dr. S: I had never seen anything like this case before.

TD: In act, you told us about the article by Dr. Hawley, the article that references three intra-oral homicides, that you brought to Mr. Weinberg's attention?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: So it made no difference t you what the other non-psychological evidence was?

Dr. S: I wasn't asked to consider it. I have no background in criminialistics.

TD: so I asked you if you considered the fact that Lana Clarkson was killed with Mr. Spector's gun?

DW: Objection! Under 352, he said he didn't consider (it)!

Fidler: Approach!

It's 11:48 am and this is a long sidebar. Rachelle's eyes are closed. Jackson comes back to the podium and whispers in Truc's ear.

TD: You did not consider any physical evidence at the scene?

Dr. S: No.

TD: You didn't consider any manipulated evidence at the scene?

Dr. S: (No.)

TD: You didn't consider anything that a witness said at the scene?

Dr. S: No.

TD: So you are aware of a witness, Adriano De Souza said he saw blood, a gun in Mr. Spector's hand and (that Mr. Spector confessed)?

Dr. S: It didn't factor into what I was asked to do.

TD: You did say that you considered the factor of alcohol on Lana Clarkson?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: Specifically, alcohol will hisinhibit the cerebral cortex?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: And that includes impulsive rage?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: And that includes impulsive anger?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: And that includes impulsive violence?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: In fact, you have written articles on alcohol and impulsive violence?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: I've noticed that you've also written substantially on alcohol and violence.

Truc reads severa titles to articles he's written.

TD: So, not just limited to impulsive suicide, but also impulsive violence that (leads) to homicide?

Dr. S: (Yes.)

TD: (Have you not written that) suicide may be a different means of expressing aggression? [...] (That) homicides and are expressions of violence?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: And that suicide is violence turnd on ones' self?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: And homicide is violence turned on another person?

Dr. S: Correct.

TD: If there was a history of Lana Clarkson harming herself, a history of Lana Clarkson turning a gun on herself, it would certainly strengthen you opinion?

I don't have Dr. Seiden's answer in my notes but I believe he agrees with this.

TD: And you know there are not threats or physical harm against herself (in her writings)?

Dr. S: Well, there are some "coded" threats.

TD: You are aware of no evidence of Lana Clarkson harming herself or had harmed herself (in the past)?

Dr. S: Correct.

TD: But you would consider a history or behavior of ideation of harming others? [...] There is (such a thing as) impulsive homicide? [...] You've written about that, correct?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: You also....

Dr. Seiden interrupts Truc Do to say that he is willing to "recant about the DMV opinion, but there's so much other evidence."

TD: What other evidence of impulsive behavior?

Dr. S: I don't know... that other people brought up that she was demanding and impulsive. John Barrons....

TD: So you're saying that any kind of impulsive behavior indicates a risk of suicide? [...] Isn't it mostly impulsive agression and not any impulsive (behavior)?

Judge Fidler interrupts that we've reached the noon recess.

It's right after the lunch break is called that several people approached me to tell me about what they overheard Spector say at the morning break.

At 1:28 pm, Jackson and Truc Do arrive with their cart. I note that there are not any Spector supporters in court for the afternoon session yet. Spector leaves the defense table and goes to speak to his bodyguard standing in the ante chamber of the entrance to 106. Spector finds something funny because Spector is smiling as he walks away from the bodyguard.

Wendy, Fidler's clerk is asking Weinberg if we are doing Friday this week. Weinberg says that Mrs. Spector can't do Friday. I believe Wendy also states that a juror has appointment on Friday that "they didn't want to miss." So it looks like we will not be having testimony on this Friday, either.

1:38 pm, we're waiting to hear Fidler's footsteps and there they are, one minute later.

TD: We were last talking about impulsivity and your input on regards to suicide.

Dr. S: Correct.

TD: There is such a thing as impulsive homicide?

Dr. S: Correct.

TD: Are you aware that there is such a things as Impulsive Disorder? That there is such a term?

Dr. S: I'm not familiar with it.

Truc Do brings up the DSM on this disorder and what it has to say about impulsive control disorder. Truc brings up the fact that the essential feature of this disorder is the failure to control (impulses)... (I'm not positive, but I believe Dr. Seiden interrupts Ms. Do again when he answers.)

Dr. S: I don't get what you are saying. I never said she had....

TD: I'm not saying you did. Does the DSM say that?

Dr. S: Yes.

Truc goes over the different categories of Impulsive Control Disorder.

TD: Would you read this on the screen?

Dr. S: ICD is a failure to resist impulse, drive, or temptation, to perform a harmful act to self or others. (Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) Explosive; Kleptomania; Setting Fires; Gambling; Trichotillomania (pulling out hair). When the last term is explained Fidler smiles, and Truc Do says, "I wasn't going to go there." There's a bit of laughter in the courtroom.

Dr. S: I never said she had....

TD: Dr. Seiden, I never suggested you did.

Truc puts up another quote from the DSM regarding, I think, "Intermittent Explosive Disorder."

"...failure to resist aggressive impulses resulting in serious assaults..."

TD: This particular disorder is also defined as not being porportional to the (specific) stimuli?

Dr. S: Yes. As not as porportional.

TD: Would you also agree that Intermittent Explosive Disroder would be significant factor in impulsive homicides?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: In your opinion, that you cannot rule out (homicide), you would also consider the destructive behavior of someone, a subject to other human beings?

Dr. S: I wasn't asked. [...] But I've not said that. What is your question?

TD: My question is, you cannot rule out homicide. Would you also consider that subjects history in explosive behavior?

DW: Objection! Approach!

Dr. S: I've never said she had this! I wasn't asked.

TD: Dr. Seiden, we're not limited t owhat you've been asked to review. Please just focus on my question. [...] In your opinion, that you can not rule out [...] that subjects destructive behavior...

Dr. Seiden interrupts again.

Dr. S: To what end?

TD: Please just answer the question. If hypothetically, Lana Clarkson said on seven different occasions [...] that would certainly.... [...] Now this is the flip side. That suicide is simply agression turned on it's side (I think she means inward, but she said side.)?

Dr. S: Correct.

TD: It's your opinion that you can't rule out homicide?

DW: Objection!

Fidler: Overruled! It's an opinion. He can be crossed on it.

TD: That you cannot rule out homicide? [...] In that opinion, would you consider that suspects... [...] I'll be specific. There's only two people I'm talking about. The other half of the equasion.

DW: Objection!

Fidler: In any event, the bottom line is...

Weinberg tells Fidler he wants to make a longer argument. Fidler agrees and the jury is asked to step out. What then transpires is one of the longest sidebars in the case. And Weinberg, during the entire time, argued and argued and argued with Fidler.

DW: This is a complete peversion of cross examinaton and transparently so! This is character evidence issue! He was asked to look at records, to look at the psychological state of that person and reeach an opinion. All he said is he can't rull out homicide. He didn't rule it out because he hasn't studied anything! [...] To use that as an excuse to bring out (aspects) on Mr. Spector, (character evidence)... It's 352 and it's irrelevant! [...] The other thing is, it's pure character evidence! [...] The envelope gets pushed a little further. [...] You're now allowing the prosecution to present character evidence [...] and now, after having mis-characterized the evidence! It's just an artifical way to get around what you told them they couldn't say! [...] It's completely artificial mechanism to tell the jury he shot Ms. Clarkson! This is beyond silly! It's unfair, prejudicial and contrary to the rulings of what you determined as scope! It is a violation of California Evidence Code 1101 & 809!

TD: In the interview, (we conducted with him) he knew the facts. He knew the statement of the witness and he had an opinion. He told us he could not rule out homicide. [...] He testified that he is an expert on factors of impulsive suicide. [...] This is the same as Dr. Pena. It doesn't exclude us from crossing him on this issue.

DW: You can't just do it because you want to prove something! [...] He never rendered an opinion s to whether this is a homicide! contrary to Dr. Pena who wrote an opinion! [...] No one has suggested that the psychological profile proves homicide!

Weinberg continues to argue and and argue and I have to stop writing. I just can't write anymore of this.

Fidler: When you say that you can't rule that out, that's an opinion! He has an expertise and he's written on that. [...] But his opinion can be tested! [...] The bottom line is, when he said he can't rule it out... [...] Mr. Weinberg! You can look at me incredulously; I'm trying to give yo my ruling!

Weinberg says something that now really sets Fidler off, but I miss getting it written down. I think it's something, implying that the court has not done something. Fidler raises his voice at Weinberg.

Fidler: THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME (that you have insinuated).... [...] Mr. Jackson specifically uses the Kelly case that uses the term "Pattern."! It's one of the exceptions under 1101(b)!! [...] Souch as, not limited to... is "Pattern!" [...] So, I'm going to let the people... [...] Now they've gone into another place and have gone into his writings. [...] He's admitted that he did consider other things in this case. I'll listen to the tape right now.

Weinberg asks to talk to his witness.

Jackson asks the court, "Is this a case where we can all talk to the witness?" The court agrees and AJ leaves the courtroom after Weinberg. The gallery whispers. Susan leaves the gallery and goes out to Weinberg. When both counsel return we are back on the record.

DW: Before we get this highly prejudicial questions before the jury I'd like to have a 402 hearing to find the purpose of these questions. The prosecution can't ask if homicide can't be excluded because Mr. Spector committed an act of violence twenty-five years ago [...] or a confession! [...] They're trying to say, "Here's something else you may have committed!"

Fidler: If you think the people [...]If you're saying it's not an opinion, then what's his purpose for being here?

Weinberg continues to argue that the prosecution is trying to prevent his witness from rendering an opinion on the things he considered to not being able to exclude homicide.

Fidler: Those acts have already been put before the jury. They are legitimately offering to challenge the opinion.

TD: This entire line of questioning goes to the bias of the witness. If he's an unbiased witness then he can certainly render an opinion. He can testify that the destructive behavior of Lana Clarkson equals not ruling out suicide, because he is being paid to say this. Can we ask whether other evidence in this case would influence his opinion?

Fidler: I want you to expand on that bias.

Back and forth. Back and forth it goes. (I have a note here at this point in the proceedings. At one point jackson is speaking and Weinberg tried to interrupt Jackson. Jackson stopped, angered and said loudly, "Excuse me!!" Truc Do gently touched his arm to try to calm him down.)

Weinberg still argues that the prosecution is trying to get in character evidence of Mr. Spector.

Fidler: I'm sorry but Mr. Jackson said they can cross him to go to whether, if he knows this fact or that (fact). [...] He can be given the criteria that the jury has already heard.

DW: I think we should have a formal offer of proof. [...] Mr. Jackson keeps saying "all the facts of this case." It's absolutely unpresceidented and prejudicial!

Weinberg is still arguing and I just note the time, 2:33 pm because I can't write anymore. But then I pick up my pen again. Weinber keeps saying, "He only rendered an opinion aobut her mental state." He's like an energizer bunny. He keeps going and going and going.

Fidler looks quite tired with this back and forth. In all the trials I've watched on TV and live streaming, I've never seen anything like this.

DW: The prosecution is trying to get the witness to comment on other evidence! How can this be legitimate?

Do: I want to show the jury that the witness cannot answer my questions. He has been fighting and resisting the entire cross examination.

Judge Fidler: Prosecution may ask witness a hypothetical dealing with history of Mr. Spector has influenced his conclusions. This will help the jury determine the witnesses' competence, bias, or incompetence. I have ruled.

When Rachelle and Mommy come back into the courtroom, they have a large back of some type of snack food. They take several pieces out of the bag before Rachelle puts it under her seat near her bag.

Truc is back at the podium and Weinberg approaches the podium and places a bottle of water on the shelf inside. Truc asks, "Is that for me?" Weinberg doesn't answer her.

2:57 pm the jury is back in the courtroom and a minute later we hear Judge Fidler's footsteps.

TD: Dr. Seiden, let's take a step back. You know in this case ther were two people in the (house)?

Dr. S: Yes. Ms. Clarkson and Mr. Spector.

TD: The only thnkg you can rule is natural death?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: You told the jury you looked through (the packet that Mr. Weinberg sent to you)?

Dr. S: I looked through the same stuff the District Attorney....

TD: You also used the factor of impulsive....

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: You also used the factor of a readily available weapon?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: You've also written that in your professional opinion, suicide and homicide are just opposite sides of the coin?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: You said that if you knew of ( any self destructive behavior)... you said that you would (consider the) past if there was a history of violent impulses of Lana Clarkson?

Dr. S: I'm not familiar. I'm knowledgeable of the subject.

TD: Is there such a thing as impulsive homicide?

Dr. S: Yes, there is.

TD: All of those factors are evidenct in impulsive homicides?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: Now I'm ging back. I'll be specific. In your consultations with Mr. Weinberg, did he make you aware that Mr. Spector exhibited seven past violent incidents? That in 1977, Mr. Spector put a gun to the temple of Ms. Robatillie and told her that he would blow her fucking head off? [...] Did he tell you about a time in 1989 when Mr. Spector waived a gun all over someone's face and threatened to kill them?

Dr. S: He told me in general terms that there were incidents but not the specifics.

TD: If you want to rule out homicide, would you consider destructive behavior towards others?

DW: Objection!

Looking on over at the jury I see some roll their eyes.

Fidler rules that the last two questions and answers are to be stricken from the record.

TD: Would you consider prior incidents of Mr. Spector to exclude suicide? [...]

Dr. Seiden states he thinks he can't exclude it.

TD: Prior impulsive violence of Mr. Spector towards other human beings?

Dr. S: Yes

TD: In combination with a loaded gun?

Dr. S: Yes.

TD: Are you using the same factors to not rule out homicide? Such as, alcohol use of Mr. Spector?

Dr. S: Yes

TD: Does that strengthen your opinon that you can't rule out homicide?

Dr. S: You asked me this before. That and..

TD: So to be fair, and to be objective, (if) there was that evidence, wouldn't it....

Dr. S: I've never made an opinion on whether its homicide.

TD: Let's go back to the video tape. [...] You are aware that Mr. De Souza said...

DW: Objection!

Fidler orders counsel back to the bench.

TD: What we're hearing from you, is that Mr. Spector's history of violence would not make a difference one way or another.

Dr. S: I said I've never been asked to make that opinion.

TD: Have you ever expressed an opinion of all those factors....

Dr. S: I don't remember could you refresh my memory?

Truc Do now quotes from one of his articles titled, "Gun deaths, biting the Bullet on the (I miss getting the rest of the article's title.) "Homicide attempts most frequently result from temporary, accute, emotional outbursts that are usually catalyst by the effects of alcohol consumption. Having a loaded gun around the house during such a powder keg scenario increases the odds that simple assaults will go beyond black eyes and broken jaws and cause far more serious injuries and even death."

Dr. S: Not based on what I reviewed.

TD: So that nothing I've given you, even the facts of Mr. Spector's statement and confessing makes you change your opinion that it could rule out suicide.

Dr. S: No.

Weinberg gets up to redirect his witness. He has Dr. Seiden go back over what he has testified to before about Lana Clarkson and her state of mind.

DW: It suggests to you does it not an impulsive act?

Dr. S: Correct.

Weinberg reads the Schapiro email once again.

DW: Could it be conceived that she never considered suicide ideation?

Dr. S: No. (These remarks could be considered suicide ideation.)

3:26 pm: Spector's number one fan enters 106. A few minutes later, Sandi Gibbons enters the courtroom.

Now Weinberg goes over a letter Lana wrote to Hugo Quackenbush. I don't believe I've ever seen this letter before. He starts to read parts of it but Truc objects and asks that the entire letter be read. It refers to the holiday season and it mentions the Brentwood Blonds play.

DW: Is there anything here that goes along with what we've been talking about?

Dr. S: The "cry for help" and "without you I' would not still be here."

Juror #5 smiles. Juror #8 looks at her hair. Juror #9 doesn't take a single note. Juror's #3 and #4 don't take any notes, as well as #10, #11, and #12.

Weinberg finishes is redirect at 3:54 pm. The jurors are told there will not be any more testimony until Thursday at 9:30 am when they are ordered back and Fidler leaves the bench.

I want to give a special acknowledgment to Sedonia Sunset, who has been editing my entries for me. I'm about two weeks behind now. I just have not had the time to go back and insert all her corrections. Thank you so much for your all your time and energy you put into editing my drafts.