Tonight: Sprocket on Talk Radio One Discussing Lazarus Case

UPDATED!

Tonight around 7:30 PM Pacific Time, I will be a guest on Marc Germain's Talk Radio One, online radio show discussing the Stephanie Lazarus case. I'm only slated at the moment to be on for about ten minutes. If you can't listen live, the audio of his shows are usually available to listen to online by the next day.

Link to Thursday's show.

UPDATE
If you go to THIS LINK, at Talk Radio One, you can click on the audio recording to listen.

Radio Interview with Marc Germain on Talk Radio One

Update: Link added. Sprocket.

This evening, I was part of a panel discussing the Casey Anthony case and Cindy Anthony's fact-twisting testimony today with Marc Germain of Talk Radio One. As soon as the show is archived, I'll put up the link. I'm on with two other guests and it's the first segment right at 8:00pm PT. Sprocket.

Talk Radio One, June 23rd, 2011, show.

Directly under the "share this" link is a speaker image and next to that is an arrow. Click on the arrow to listen to the show. There are also links to download the MP3 file. Sprocket.

Phil Spector Appeal: Riordan Requests a Do-Over From the 2nd District Court of Appeals

Phil Spector and his hairdo at one of his pretrial hearings





Since I've been knee-deep in covering the James Fayed murder-for-hire trial in Dept. 109 and oblivious to Spector news, I'd like to give a big thanks to Marc Germain of Talk Radio One for the heads up on this story.

The Associated Press is reporting that Phil Spector's appellate attorney Dennis Riordan, has filed a petition with the California 2nd District Court of Appeals for a "second look" at their unanimous decision affirming the conviction of Phil Spector of second degree murder in the death of Lana Clarkson. The appellate ruling came down on May 2nd, 2011 after oral arguments were heard on April 12th of this year.

This is no surprise to me since back when the 2nd District Court of Appeals published their decision, Riordan indicated he would file this petition.

LA Times Blog Riordan vows to appeal

NY Times ArtsBeat: Riordan vows to appeal decision

2nd District Court of Appeals Decision

Dr. Conrad Murray Prelim: Day 5 Part I

Please refer to the MSM (mainstream media) for 100% accuracy. If you are copying and pasting to other web sites before the edit, please be sure to include a link-back to this specific entry and this disclaimer with your copy. Thank you, Sprocket.

8:18 am

I’m on the Red Line train. I’m one train earlier than what I had planned so that’s great. I’ll have a few more minutes to get inside the overflow room today. Mr. Sprocket dropped me off at the North Hollywood Station. I’m not sure it’s confirmed yet, but I believe I’m going to be on Marc Germain’s radio show, Talk Radio One. It’s an online show. Here’s the link:

Talk Radio One


Tentative time I will be on is 8:15 p.m. Pacific Time. I’ve been on Marc’s show before when I was covering Phil Spector’s retrial.

Many of you have left comments asking about the trial notes for Day 2 of the prelim. I will try my best to get those prior days notes up as soon as possible.

Testimony is scheduled to resume at 10:00 a.m. today. However, there is a hearing at 9:00 a.m. to go over motions or other matters with the attorneys. The District Attorney’s office has been tight lipped about what witnesses are going to take the stand next. It’s anyone’s guess but my guess would be either more coroner investigators/lab analysts, the coroner himself or the detective who interviewed Dr. Murray with his counsel present.

I can’t remember who told me this (I think it was In Session’s correspondent Beth Karas but I’m NOT positive) but one of Dr. Murray’s attorneys is J. Michael Flanagan. Apparently, Flanagan is noted for achieving an acquittal for a defendant in another case involving propofol.

I'm on the 9th floor, waiting to get into the overflow courtroom.

Finally got into Department 109, the new courtroom for the media overflow. This courtroom is an exact replica of Pastor’s courtroom. I was down at the other end of the hall to watch the Jackson family enter the courtroom. Jackson’s mother, father, La Toya and Jermaine are the faces I recognized.

The overflow room is almost empty. Pat Kelly from the PIO finally arrived. The screen is angled differently than in Department 110, towards the far right corner. So there are certain seats in the back row that are obstructed by the video equipment. I’m in a plastic chair near the door, right in line with the screen. Michael, who produced the first Spector trial for In Sessions is in the back row along with some other reporters I don’t recognize.

It’s past 9 a.m. and we don’t have sound or picture. We’re probably missing motion arguments. A quick thank you to all the new T&T readers from all over the globe.

9:14 a.m. Still waiting for a feed.

Finally the feed has come on, break into middle. Bailiffs said 9:30 a.m. but they were wrong.

(Sprocket note: I’m not going to be talking about the content of the Jpeg or voice mail.)

Defense Attorney Chernoff: Have had investigators look at Dr. Murray's phone for data, and to make sure no personal attorney/client privilege has been (released?) A special master was appointed by the Court.

Judge Pastor asks for Chernoff to explain the master process and what it entailed.

(Sprocket note: So this is all about investigating Dr. Murray’s phone very recently, and ensuring no attorney/client information is released.)

Deputy District Attorney Walgren said he would only be introducing a limited amt of information (at this hearing). Chernoff is objecting to some content (Sprocket note: voice mails? Jpegs?)

Judge Pastor says we can go into chambers and I can make a ruling.

Judge Pastor: All this material was obtained by the court late, late this afternoon.

Walgren feels all this can be all done very quickly. Judge Pastor is not crazy about burning CD’s. He states he’s techo-challenged.

DDA Walgren: We will be calling toxicologists to the stand today or tomorrow. There will be summary report of that finding that will be introduced. No problem from the defense about that.

Counsel now goes into chambers with the court reporter.

I see Ms. Brazil still at the counsel table. She’s wearing an all black outfit. Brazil has very short, like a pixie cut blond hair. She’s also very slim and (I’m guessing) about 5’4” tall. That’s just a guess. I could be way off. I’ve seen her before in the Lily Burk prelim. She usually wears a pantsuit and her clothes are perfectly tailored.

While the parties are in chambers, Pat passes around the sign-in sheet to see what media is here every day. One of the reporters came in late and I was getting them up to date on what little we heard from 9:14 a.m. until counsel went into chambers.

There are only seven of us inside Dept 109. The camera is still live in Department 107 and I can barely make out Dr. Murray at the defense table.

9:42 a.m. We’re still waiting.

9:55 a.m. Long in-chambers conference.

9:58 a.m. They’re coming out of chambers. Chernoff and Flanagan were in there with Walgren. I can see the defense team, but I can only see Brazil at the prosecution table. Angle of the camera can’t get all of that table and the witness stand.

I “hope” we get audio on time.

I think I finally see Walgren at the prosecution table. I see Chernoff and I think Low talking, standing at defense table.

10:02 a.m. No Judge Pastor on the bench yet.

Some reporters are reading a newspaper while we wait in the overflow room. If we were in the courtroom, we wouldn’t be allowed to do that.

I “think” I see Ms. Benson talking to defense counsel. Now she’s speaking to prosecutors. Ms. Benson is Judge Pastor’s clerk. Now she’s heading back into Pastor’s chambers.

Come to order 10:08 a.m.
In camera proceeding concerning certain documentation. Court has determined that certain materials contained on computer files are privileges and are not discloseable to the People, and significant materials are NOT as Mr. Chernoff acknowledged. Our expert burned a new file and gave it to the People.

Next witness will address these matters.

Walgren requests 20 minutes to review amended materials. Judge Pastor gives him 15 minutes. Recess.

10:31 a.m. I’m back inside the courtroom. I “think” I recognize the reporter next to me from the Anthony Pellicano federal wiretapping trial but I’m not positive.

Judge Pastor takes bench.

Walgren is ready to proceed

Walgren asks to approach because he says he’s confused about one area.

Everyone goes to the bench.

Witness #17—Stephen J. Marx, computer forensic examiner

DDA stipulate that iPhone is the phone recovered on July 28th, 2009. All stipulate.

DDA discussed Marx’ background, employment on July 28th, 2009 Computer forensic examiner in the DEA. Now since retired. Was employed 7-8 years. responsible for extracting compter evidence and present it for evidence (at trial).

DDA Q: Conducted an examination of the iPhone?
Marx: Yes I did.

DDA Q: Familiar wit the term screen shot. As it relates to an iphone?
Marx: It will save whats been on the screen in the memory of the iPhone.

DDA Q: By what format is it saved ?
Marx: Jpeg.

DDA Q Placed somewhere specifically on the iPhone. On the phone or in space?
Marx: Both. (explains)

Unallocated space v. allocated space: allocated on a device that it is actively using, and it will recall that data. Unallocated, it has determined that it no longer needs the data that’s saved there and it can be overwritten in time.

DDA Q: Once in allocated space, as new files come in they will eventually overwrite?
Marx: (short answer yes.) It will be set up to be written by new data.

DDA Q: Did conduct analysis of this iPhone as related ot the unallocated space.
Marx: Yes.

DDA Q: Did you find some screen shots?
Marx: Yes I did.

DDA Q: In analysing thes screen shots, is there a way to determin the date at which the person looked at that particular screen shot.?
Marx: Some of them yes, some contain the date of the image.

DDA Q: Complete analysis that was done, there was a large number of screen shots discovered. Yes there was but only a limited number was to which he was able to assign a date?
Marx: That’s correct.

Showing People’s 46 through 50, showing to Defense counsel.

(Sprocket note: Darn. We won’t be able to see these exhibits.)

Defense attorney Chernoff : I have seen them and I have no objections.

DDA Q: Can you describe what’s being shown in people’s 46?
Marx: This is an expanle of what we are dicussing.
DDA Q: This reflects on this screen sot, that was most recently updated on June? July 26th?
Marx: Yes.

DDA Q: Does this reflect 7:03, am that someone was viewing this screen shot?
Marx: Yes.

DDA Q: People’s 46, focusing on June 25th, 2009 at 9:45 am, does that reflect that this person was reviewing this screen shot at that time?
Marx: Yes it does.

DDA Q: Did you also recover an e-mail?
Marx: Yes I did.

DDA Q: Where on the iPhone was that recovered?
Marx: That was in the database where the phone stores e-mail.

Part of a thread referred to as a series of communications.

DDA Q: E-mail June 25, 2009, with the greeting of Hi Conrad, with signature, Bob Taylor, of Bob Taylor’s Insurance of London. See the header there, Mr. Marx?
Marx: Yes I do.

DDA Q: Came from a sender based in London England?
Marx: Yes
DDA Q: 5:54 am, that time is that the time interpereted in Los Angeles? Based on that header as sent from UK, 5:54 a.m. in Los Angeles.

Marx: Yes, correct.


DDA Q: Reviewed contents of that e-mail?
Marx: Yes I have.

I have reviewd ...

DDA Q: … specific inquires regarding the health of MJ?

Marx: That’s correct.

DDA Q: In that e-mail, let me freeze this (image on ELMO) and a copy to the witness. The time you recovered the email from the iPhone, were the substance of the contents as displayed in People 48.
Marx: Depends on the allocation method I used to bring it up, but yes, that’s the substance.

You’re the only doctor that’s been consulted during the period, and that your records go back to 2006 when you first met Michael Jackson.

Informal questions about MJ health.

DDA Q: Were you able to confirm through your data discover—strike that.
Were you able to obtain a screen shot to determine that that e-mail was read?
Marx: Yes I was.

Peoples 50 for identification up on ELMO

DDA Q: Do you see the from Bob Taylor and to Conrad. June 25 2009, 5.54 a.m., and you can see the top half of the “Conrad.”

So this reveals to you that this screen was viewed by the possessor of that iPhone.
Marx: That’s correct.

DDA Q: Locate that there was a response to that e-mail?

People’s 49: Was this was the responsive e-mail?
Marx: Yes it is.

DDA Q: Subject is the previous/same
From Conrad (says e-mail)
Marx: Yes it is.
DDA Q: To Bob Taylor.
Marx: Yes. (Indicates its’ a reply to e-mail) Yes it is.
Sent 11:17 o8 a.m.

DDA Q: PDT?
Marx: Yes.

DDA Q: Time in LA is 11:17 am?

Marx: Yes it is.

DDA Q: Substance of e-mail, Dear Bob signed Conrad Murray.

Marx: That autorization of release of medical records, to get insurance.

He was denied the autorization to release the medical records.

As far as the statements of his health published by the press, let me say they are all volicious to say the (illegible)??? Signed Conrad Murray.

DDA Q: Were you able to confirm that this email was sent from the iPhone.

Marx: Was able to determine that it was created on the iPhone.

Goes over the detail of these phone records and verification questions.

DDA Q: Nothing furhter.

Defense attorney Chernoff Cross.

Q: In additon to the emails we have seen today. were there were forwarded emails attached from the insurance broker
Marx: Yes there were.

Q: Did they seem to be sent back and forth regarding company officials rep MJ and AEG. Question about if the communication was with someone (I miss the name) from AEG.


(Sprocket note: Clerical issue. Walgren restate numbering issue. Goes over the Exhibit numbers and what they are specifically. I check with reporter next to me who believes it was Conrad Murray denying the release of his medical records regarding Michael Jackson.)

Witness #18 Tim Lopez

DDA Q: (Ms. Brazil direct.) Through questioning, establishes Lopez’ background. Employed as a pharmacist for 15 years. Business owner of Applied Pharmacy Services, located in Las Vegas, Nevada. Describes his duties as owner; clientelle is patients that have been directed by a doctor/facility.

How is [does] your pharmacy compare to, say a corner pharmacy?
Lopez: We known as a (compounding?) medicine only.

DDA Q: They specialize.
Lopez: Yes.

DDA Q: Let’s say your pet needs a specific medication and it’s not available in a particular dose/size.

Do you deal with physicians directly to provide a particular medication their patient might need?
Lopez: Yes.

Through questioing, DDA establishes that in June (Sprocket note: year illegible, may be 2008) received a phone call from Conrad Murray. He identified himself as African American and that most of his patients were African Amercan and that some of these patients suffer from vitaliago. He was asking about bedoquin product, regarding the strength it comes in. Murray was interested in the 20% strength.

Lopez took contact number and do a search for the ability to get it.

DDA Q: That’s because you don’t stock that percentage?
Lopez: Yes.
He conducted a search from his suppliers for that product. He couldn’t find it.

Dr. Murray didn’t call me back so I didn’t follow up. Didn’t tell him that he was unable to obtain the Benoquin.

Received a call in March, 2009 from Dr. Murray. Asked if I was the same person spoken to previously. I said I was, and Murray inquired as to why he (Lopez) didn’t call back. I explained that in 2008 my pharmacy was in a move transition and that I lost phone records.

He was calling again about Benoquin 20% and it’s availablity.

Took his contact information again and checked a little more throughly. Lopez did call him back about the drug, April 21st. Told Murray he had been successful in locating a 20% solution.

I told him that I found a supplier and that if he needed more beyond that he couldn’t get it.

He told me that he would like it in packages of 30 gram tubes.

DDA Q: Will you be able to estimate for me the size of a tube you were able to obtain.

Lopez: About the length of a pen,

DDA Q: Similar to about a tube of toothpaste?
Lopez: Yes.

DDA Q: Did Dr. Murray place an order?
Lopez: Yes. He ordered 40 of the 30 gram, 20%.

DDA Q: In your practice in general, in specifically. Describe the process that you go through to ensure that the person is a physcian and allowed to order the medication.

Lopez: I go through and check if the doctor is an MD, DO, or DVM.
Get phone, DEA number, Doctor number. (Lopez explains DEA number.)

DDA Q: Did Dr. Murray provide you with all the required information?
Lopez: Yes.

DDA Q: Where did his license originate from?
Lopez: Nevada.

DDA Q: When he placed this order from you, did he specificy who is patient was?

Lopez: He said his patient was African American and that he would instruct in the dispersal of it’s use.

DDA Q: Is that common?
Lopez: When it’s used on a trial basis, that’s normal.

Dr. Murray came in and picked up his initial order.

Came up to the window, met him, shook his hand and explained that if there was anything we needed to do to change the formulation etc. He said he would pay for the order and let me know. He paid for the order via company check.

DDA Q: Is there any time that he discussed subjequent delivery?

Lopez: Yes, he asked if he could have (orders) delivered to his office.

DDA asks another question. Lopez identifies Murray.

DDA Q: Next contact he had with Dr. Murray.
Lopez: Several days after April 3rd, he came in to tell me he was happy with the cream.

DDA Q: Did he ask if you were able to provide medications for his other clinics?
Lopez: Yes. He asked about propofol and saline bags.

DDA Q: Did he asked about what strength propofol?

Lopez: He asked about the specific price of propofol that you would be able to provide and saline bags.

DDA Q: Were able to provide him with the informtaiton?

Lopez: Subsequent phone calls, I was able to give him the relevant informaiton.
After that, he placed an order for propofol and saline bags. Telephone order.

DDA Q: What was the quantity of Propofol. One carton of 100ml bottles. Ten inside the carton. And 2 specific formultions of propofol?
Lopez: Yes. One bottle of 100mil, and it was packaged in a package of 10 from supplier in a sealed carton. We deliver to his office in Las Vegas.

There are 10 individual vials, and they are sealed. That one order, contains 10 vials = 100 ml volume. Twenty milleter vial, and has 25 indiviuals vials in that pack.

DDA Q: Which is a larger size?
Lopez: The 100 mil is larger.

DDA Q: What else did he order?
Lopez: Nine saline bags. And renewed the Benoquin.
He asked us to deliver to his office in Las Vegas.

DDA Q: Did you comply with his request?
Lopez: Yes. I used a courier service.

DDA Q: Did the courier of the office call you when the delivery?
Lopez: Yes. Dr. Murray asked if part of the order could be delivered in Santa Monica.

I said it was no problem. He gave an address to the courier. Said he had a clinic in the Los Angeles facility.

DDA Q: Said he saw patients at the LA location that he wanted to have the medications sent there.
Lopez: Yes. Yes, he said they (meds) would be under his control. (Lopez verifies the address of Nicole’s apartment in Santa Monica (SM). Testimony paraphrased.)

The courier returned to the pharmacy with that location. The remainder came back to the pharmacy.

Shipped to Santa Monica per Dr. Murray’s request.

On next date, ordered 2 separate orders of propofol. Ordered 4 boxes. Each box has 10 10m.

Packaging the same manner as before. Second order on April 28th 2009; 25 individual vials.

DDA Q: Was that order to be delivered to SM address?

Lopez: Yes.

DDA Q: Another order. Prior to order, did Dr. Murray ask about lorazapam and (Sprocket note: didn’t hear clearly). Wanted inject diazapam?

Are any of those available in any other form?

Lopez: Also available in oral lorazapam.

DDA Q: Did he also placed an order for a tray, of lorazapam vials and two trays of diazapam.

Lopez: Total of 20 diazapam yes. Total of 10 of lorazapam yes.

Still verified his DEA numbers.

Murray instructed Lopez to mail these to SM and he complied with that request.

DDA Q: Did you have a conversation with Dr. Murray?
Lopez: Discussed the Benoquin cream. Wanted to know if there was a formula that was less greasy, and wanted to know if they could put it in a larger package and if it could “look better.”

DDA Q: Did Dr. M inquire about about hydroquinine? (Sprocket note: not sure what was asked)

Lopez (paraphrased): Asked about what strengths needed. Described same patient population and wanted to try that.

He inquired about energy formulations, some formulations that would give increased wakefulness. I suggested many drugs that had a side effect of alertness. He didn’t want it to be non-narcotic and as natural as possible.

He didn’t want something prescription, he wanted something over the counter. Told him it had to have something with caffeine in it, he couldn’t get away from that.

(Sprocket note: Discussed something else. I missed it.)

DDA Q: Did he say that it was he himself that was in need of some energy formulation? You gave him some ideas and that you would get back to him.

Lopez: Yes.

He said his patient was complaining of injection pain, and wanted to know if I could make a topical analgesic. He indicated he wanted a lidocaine only.

DDA Q: Does it come in a cream?
Lopez: It comes in a gel.

DDA Q: It also comes in an injectable form?
Lopez: Yes it does.

DDA Q: So some products to reduce injection site pain?
Lopez: Yes.

Telephonic order May 12th. New.

Ordered 4 boxes of propolfol 100 mil in each box.
1 box of 20ml vial 25mi
tow trays of diazlpam
lidocane 2% cream I made for him, 60 grams.

1 tray of floazinal? Used to reverse benzodaiazipines.

DDA Q: Did he want these items shipped to SM address?
Lopez: Yes.

(Paraphrasing testimony) May 14th 2009. Another phone conversation, discussing placement of an order.

Briefly dicussed Benoquin, wanted to change vehicle of what it sits in to make it less greasy and sticky on the skin. Worked on different formuatons to make that work.

(Murray said) the lidocane 2% was not strong enough.
DDA Q: What did you do.

Lopez: I made it 4%.

DDA Q: Did you prepare samples to address his concern?

Lopez: Sent him three 10 gram samples to see which one best suited his needs.
Products sent include:

4% lidocane cream 60 gram
1 Benoquine in specific base
1 Benoquin in specifc base
1 Benoquin in specific base

At the time, I was planning a trip, so I was going to the airport, I could save him on the shipping.
DDA Q: What was Dr. Murray’s response.

Lopez: He said that wasn’t necessary, just ship it FedEx to SM address.

DDA Q: Turning now to June 1st 2009 conversation. Picking up on energy request he had made some weeks prior.

Essentially 3 products available over the counter and could put them in 1 capsule. Was that agreeable to Dr. Murray?
Lopez: Yes it was.

DDA Q: Did you (combine) caffeine, aspirin and ephedrine?

Lopez: Yes. Made 30 capsules. Made that formulation.

DDA Q: Were those items included placed (in an order) later on in June.
Lopez: Yes it was.
DDA Q: Did you include these energy on a different invoice?
Lopez: I included them with the shipment.

June 10, 2009 another 1 tray of lidocaine injectable
25 ????
4 boxes of propofol 10mil (40 individual vials)
2 propofol 20 mi, total of 50 bottles
20 2 60 gram Benoquin
30? capsules of energy formulation.

DDA Q: Where shipped to?
Lopez: Santa Monica.
(paraphrasing testimony) June 15th 2009, Murray placed another order.

DDA Q: Did he comment about the energy formula?

Lopez: He was happy with the results and required about pricing.

(Through testimony, other items ordered)
1 tray lorazapam 10 lite (?)vial injectable
2 trays injectable diazapam injectable 20 vials

DDA Q: Saline bags?
Lopez: Ordered 12 normal saline bags.

DDA Q: Where were these items shipped to ?

Lopez: Santa Monica.

DDA Q: During any of these orders, did Dr. Murray ever disclose the name of any patient that the order would be used by?
Lopez: No.

DDA Q: June 25th, 2009, did you hear on the news that Michael Jackson had died?
Do you remember the last time you had a conversation with Dr. Murray?

Lopez: 23 or 24th.

It sounded like Dr. Murray was driving the car with the window down...it was very noisy it was brief conversation. Never talked to him again after that.

DDA produces an invoice. People’s 52.
Sales receipt for an order from Dr. Murray.

DDA Q: What does it reflect?

Lopez explains (paraphrasing) 66# generated by the software.
First receipt tracks his first order of the Benoquin cream.

DDA Q: Another order, another receipt. date April 6th, 2009

Lopez: Yes
DDA Q: Reflects the customer Conrad Murray?
Lopez: Yes.
(paraphrasing) Reflects first purchases for propofol.

10 vials of propofol
25 individual vials
Benoquin
saline

DDA Q: (Another exhibit)
Lopez: FedEx bill shows that I sent a package to the SM address.

DDA Q: Is that the Applied Pharmacy account number with FedEx?

DDA Q: Does it reflect the shipping of propfol, in exhibit 53?

Lopez: Yes.
Verifies the misspelling on the FedEx invoice of Nicole’s last name.
Verifies the address, etc.

DDA presents next exhibit 55.
Another Applied Pharmacy receipt.
Date April 26th, 2009, Dr Murray’s next order

4 trays of propofol 100 mil
1 tray of 20 mil
shipped to CM at his request.

DDA Q: Do you recognize another receipt FedEx receipt that corresponds to the above shipment?
Lopez: Signed for looks like a P. Maria.
Verifies all the information on the FedEx receipt.

DDA produces Exhibit 57 Another Applied Pharmacy receipt?
Lopez: Yes.
DDA Q: … Or rather Invoices?
Lopez: Yes.
Benzodiapazenes
Dated April 30th 2009
lorazapam
diazapam.

Next exhibit FedEx tracing receipt corresponds with the above invoice, verifying the name, address, etc.

DDA produces Exhibit 59
Another Applied Pharm receipt
5/12 2009 purchase by Murray, M.D.

Receipt reflects
2 orders 100 mil and 20 mil and lorazapam, diazapam

4 individual trays of the propofol and 1 tray of the 25 (ans)

Exhibit 60 reflects FedEx shipping invoice.
Lopez verifies that it goes with the above order. Looks like it’s signed by someone named P. Mason.

Exhibit 61 APS sales receipt 5.14 2009
Subject of delivery
Lidocaine 4% cream.
DDA Q: Was also shipped to SM address?
Lopez: Yes.

Exhibit 62 reflects FedEx invoice.

Exhibit 63
DDA Q: Recognize peoples 63 as one of your sales June 10, 2009?

lists items on invoice (Sprocket note: can’t catch any of this)

Lopez: Yes.

DDA and Lopez go through several exhibits.
Fed 64 reflecting FedEx receipt corresponding with above exhibit.
Signature appears to be Nicole’s.

Exhibit 65 AP sales receipt.
Reads off contents of invoice quickly.

Exhibit 66 FedEx receipt.

Final delivered June 16th, 2009

DDA Q: How many vials of lidocaine injectiable did Dr. Murray (unintelligible)

Lopez: 25 of the 30

DDA Q: How many vials of the lorazapam

Lopez: Ten (trays?)

60 of the 2 liter of diazapam.

Propofol: smaller vials total #? 125 vials of this?

Larger? 130 vials.

Cross by defense attorney Low.

Q: Is it fair to say as a pharmisst, part of your job is to provide prescirption medicaiton to doctors?
Lopez: Yes.

Q: There are a lot of laws and rules and regs your supposed to (comply with)?

Lopez (paraphrsasing): Before you [can] be a good pharmacist, is follow the rules, is before filling a new prescription, you need to verify the validity … of the license.

Q: No one can just call up and get some medicine sent.
Lopez: That’s correct.

Q: Like a good pharmacist you did that in the case of Dr. Murray?
Lopez: Yes.
Q: And everything checked out.
Lopez: Yes.

Q: Is it true, there are not restrictions on where these meds can be sent?
Lopez: Can you repeat that?

Q: Do you not have the same laws and protocols as to where you send it?

Lopez: I just send it to where he directs.

(That question is broad.)

Q: Other than that, you have no other due dilligence?

(Sprocket note: apparently, there are no other verifications that he needs to do, prior to shipping those medicaitons. [ed. note: meaning it was okay to send medications to a private residence])

Q: Now, you can’t ship them to someone who should not have them...correct. So when you ship them you don’t have any restrictions as to only shipping that drug to a hospital do you?
Lopez: No. I just know that he’s a licensed physician. (and that he’s allowed to deliver).

Q: Asks about the first order, shipped to his clinic via Lopez’ own courier.

And the courier, Juda, said he thought Dr. Murray was one of the nicest people he had ever met?
Lopez: That’s correct.

Q: Very common, is it not, that when doctors order they don’t put the patient’s name, and that’s for privacy. Sometimes until the procedure is done, only the doctor knows who the patient might be.

At this time, Dr. Murray did not tell you who his patients were in (Santa Monica)?
Lopez: No.

Defense attorney asks questions about a patient’s privacy, and about a high-profile patient, and that there would people out there who could get this information and write their story.

Q: So, if someone was going to make sure to ensure that patient’s privacy, you wouldn’t send that to a high profile person’s house now would you?

(Objection, sustained.)

More question about high profile clients, and selling information. (Objection, sustained.)

(Sprocket note: 11:59 a.m. still going strong.)

Q: Also another doctor that you were selling propofol to?

Lopez: No.

Q: How about David ????

Lopez: No.

Q: The larger ones that held 100ml. How could you open those vials? How could you get the solution out of the vial?

Lopez: A needle.

I suppose there is another device (I miss the rest of the answer.)

That’s it no redirect.

Back at 1:15 p.m.

I just got an e-mail from Marc Germain confirming the 8:15 p.m. show time for tonight.

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: Question & Answers III

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

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

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

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Twenty-six

January 13th, 2008 (unedited, draft entry)

Prosecution Witnesses:

#31 Dr. Lynne Herold (LA Co. Sheriff's Office senior criminalist, blood spatter analyst and crime scene re constructionist; direct testimony complete)

Accredited Press inside the courtroom: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times for a short period in the am and in the afternoon session.

Where was Lana, where was the gun and where was Spector when the gun went off?

Dr. Herold was my favorite witness during the first trial. I remember when she testified back then and the defense tried to discredit her in their cross examination. I think it was at the lunch break or one of the breaks, I clearly remember her looking at AJ and with a smile on her face saying, "You knew this was going to happen." It was a tedious day of testimony with many items covered but AJ got it all in. He tied it all up and showed all all the physical evidence at the scene is consistent and tells a story.

Fawn was back in court today along with John Taylor, one of Mrs. Clarkson's attorneys. When she came into court and sat down I heard Mr. Jackson ask her, "How was your vacation?" So it's possible that Fawn may have been on an extended trip. Weinberg leans back in his chair and is nervously playing with his lips again. I notice him doing this quite a bit lately. It's just something new I've observed.

The courtroom is pretty empty at 9:30 am, but there is a new, elderly looking couple sitting at the end of the second row, right where Linda Deutsch used to sit. When Rachelle and Spector enter at around 9:33 am the couple gets up to sit with Rachelle in the first bench row on the right. Like I've seen several times before, Rachelle introduces herself to them. It's obvious they've never met before. I think I spoke too soon. More people enter the courtroom and sit in the back row. Right before court is about to start, AJ leans in and informs Donna and Fawn that they will be starting off with photos of the crime scene and then there will be close ups of Lana's face. All throughout the trial, Lana's family has avoided looking at the gruesome photos of their loved one up on the overhead projection screen.

9:35 am: Harriet Ryan enters and John Taylor turns around and says hello to her.

9:40 am: Bailiff Kyle calls for cell phones and pagers to be turned off. Dr. Herold asks the DA's clerk, Josh to help her in turning off the sound on the phone or maybe it to turn off her phone completely, I'm not sure. A few minutes later we are still waiting to start. John Taylor goes over to speak to Harriet. I get more details on why we are having so many half days next week. One juror wants to go to temple on Chinese New Years, another juror has a long standing orthodontist appointment for one of their children.

9:46 am: We are still waiting to start and I'm not sure what the hold up is. Three minutes later Fidler takes the bench and AJ introduces about twenty more evidence photos. These are all enlarged photos of the crime scene or evidence items he is going to present. Most of them are huge, about 10" x 14" that throughout the day, he will "publish" to the jurors. That simply means they are handed to the jurors to look at directly.

AJ goes over a particular point with Dr. Herold. That you can't take a single drop or a single stain and draw a conclusion from that. "That's correct," Dr. Herold answers. Dr. Herold states that as part of her investigation she reviewed every single photograph that was taken by every agency. She mentions later that some photos she even looked at using a photographer's "loop." She did not review the police reports but she did review the pathology report and the neuro-pathology report and I believe other reports that came out of the coroner's office.

Dr. Herold clarifies that the actual evidence photos are more clear than the projected photos on the screen and clearer than the enlarged photos.

Throughout the rest of the day, Dr. Herold testifies to the blood flow and blood back spatter on Ms. Clarkson's body. Dr. Herold goes over every piece of physical evidence that she examined. Lana Clarkson's jacket, her slip dress, her stockings, her shoes and the purse. Phil Spector's white ladies wool jacket, his black shirt and black pants. The bloody diaper. The non bloody diaper. The gun. The unspent cartridges left in the weapon. The chair Lana was seated in. And with every item, Dr. Herold details the blood that was found (or not found) on every item and makes a determination as to what type of blood it is (flow or spatter) and whether or not the blood has a directionality to it. At the very end of the day, Dr. Herold through her crime scene reconstruction was able to determine where Lana Clarkson was positioned and the orientation of her head; where the gun was situated; and where Phil Spector's white, wool jacket was in relation to the gun discharging.

1. Through the blood flow down the right side of Lana's jacket, onto the back side of the chair and down onto the purse, as well as the directional blood back spatter on Lana's slip dress and various areas of the chair, Dr. Herold was able to determine that Lana Clarkson was sitting in the chair with her head slightly off center, turned to the right.

2. From the natural dentin tooth material found on the rear portion of the gun sight, Dr. Herold concluded that the gun was in Lana's mouth held upright in it's natural position. The gun sight of the Colt Cobra was positioned just behind Lana's two front teeth.

3. From the microscopic blood back spatter found on Spector's white jacket, Dr. Herold concluded that because the size of the spatter and it's pattern on the jacket was "mist like" this meant the jacket was within two to three feet of the "blood letting" (gun firing) event.

Here are some (but not all of the) facts that Dr. Herold testified to today.

The position of Ms. Clarkson's head:
The location of large amounts of blood flow on the right back side of Lana's jacket, and the front of her jacket that also soaked into the fabric covering the back of the chair on the right side as well as the blood flow, led Dr. Herold to conclude that Ms. Clarkson's head was slightly off to the right when the gun was fired was leaning to the right directly after. The absence of blood flow on the right side of the chair as well as evidence photos that were taken before the purge event showing no blood on the left side of Ms. Clarkson's jacket as well as the directionality back spatter pattern on the slip dress and chair support this conclusion.

Ms. Clarkson was seated:
The piece of porcelain tooth material (as well as other items) that was found on the abdomen area of Ms. Clarkson's slip dress helped Dr. Herold conclude that Ms. Clarkson was seated at the time of the gun being fired.

The gun was wiped down:
Every surface of the gun had areas, crevices, where there was blood in depression areas but not blood in the upper surface areas directly beside those depressions. The gun handle on both sides. The front strap. The chamber. The barrel where "Colt Cobra 38 Special" is engraved in the gun. The recessed, three dimensional medallions on each side of the handle. The gun sight. The area of the gun just directly behind the hammer. The phenomenon of some faint, discoloration on the barrel of the gun that Dr. Herold described as "molding" on that does not typically occur with "blue metal" support her conclusion that the gun was wiped down with a wet item, possibly the Curity diaper. On one section of the metal frame of the gun, there appears to be a fabric pattern from a potential "wiping" event. Dr. Herold also stated that if the gun was somehow kicked or disturbed during the "take down" in the foyer, an the gun slid on the carpet, that would not explain the absence of blood on all sides and various other surfaces of the gun.

The smokeless powder:
Three millimeter sized items of smokeless powder were found. One was lodged in Ms. Clarkson's soft palate. One piece was found on the gun and one piece was found on Spector's white wool jacket. Dr. Herold concluded that all three pieces are consistent with coming from a single discharge event.

The backspatter on Ms. Clarkson's hands:
Dr. Herold testified that if Ms. Clarkson was holding the weapon with two hands, one or more thumb on the trigger and her fingers interlaced around the handle of the gun, it would have been physically impossible for the backs patter to have gotten on the backside (dorsal) of Ms. Clarkson's wrists. The same could be said that if Ms. Clarkson some how was able to hold the gun in one hand and point the weapon at herself, the back spatter would not have been able to have landed on the dorsal side of her wrists in that scenario, either.

The bloody Curity diaper:
The diaper contained diluted blood, undiluted blood and clotted blood. The diaper appears to have been "wet" with some water first, and not after the blood got on the diaper. If the blood was on the diaper first and then the diaper was moistened, then all the blood on the diaper would have been diluted. It was not.

The outer edge of the back spatter pattern:
The outer edge of the back spatter pattern did not go beyond the lace edge of Ms. Clarkson's slip dress or the padded front edge of the chair. Ms. Clarkson's slip dress, from the way she was seated in the chair was bunched up in folds, high up on her thighs. There was no blood on Ms. Clarkson's hose or her shoes.

Spector's left pant's pocket:
The blood found on the inside of Spector's left pants pocket led Dr. Herold to conclude that either a bloody hand or a bloody gun was placed in that pocket. There was no blood on the outside of Spector's pants, or any blood that flowed through from the outside to inside the pocket. That led Dr. Herold to her conclusion to how the blood ended up on the pocket.

Spector's white wool ladies jacket:
Because of the capillary action of blood into the woven wool fibers, she was unable to determine any directionality of the microscopic blood back spatter on the white jacket. There are transfer blood contact stains around the area of the buttons on each side of the front area. The stains are the same size range and look like the size of digits. Because of the size and location, it looks like bloody finger stains. There is a leading edge blood droplet on the folded edge of the left jacket sleeve cuff. The location of the droplet would be on the underside of the wrist area. This stain was an impact spatter stain that occurred not only on the surface but also deeply into the fibers. Because of it's location, the cuff had to be pointing towards the blood letting event, or basically, towards Lana Clarkson's mouth. The entire blood back spatter pattern led Dr. Herold to conclude the pattern on the jacket was from a "high energy event." She excluded coughing as possible source of the back spatter.

Conclusion:
Taking all this evidence into consideration: the dress, Lana's jacket, the pantyhose, Spector's pants, his shirt, Spector's Jacket, the chair, the carpeting, as well as the purse, Dr. Herold concluded that Mr. Spector was on Lana Clarkson's right hand side, so as the right hand panel of Spector's jacket was exposed within two to three feet of Lana Clarkson's mouth.

AJ then does a demonstration with the witness placing himself within 3 feet of Dr. Herold. He places his hands as if one hand has a weapon, and the other hand is holding Ms. Clarkson's arm. He places Dr. Herold's hands up in a defensive posture on Spector's hands. He then asks her if this demonstration is consistent with the pattern on the slip dress? Yes. Is this consistent with the pattern on the jacket? Yes. Is this consistent with the pattern of back spatter found on the gun (bullets in the chamber)? Yes. Based on the pattern(s) that she (Dr. Herold) saw, that at least one arm (Spector's) was lifted towards Lana Clarkson's mouth, and her hands wer raised and holding his hands.

Court ends for the day with this powerful demonstration.

For those of you who have emailed me and asked for an update on Scout Kitty, I will have some pictures of him and how he's adjusting to inside life up on the blog in a few days. At around 9:30 pm this evening, I did another radio interview with Marc Germain of Talk Radio One.

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fourteen of Testimony

December 4th, 2008

Prosecution Witnesses:
#20 Jaime Lintemoot (LA County Coroner's Office, Senior Criminalist; collected evidence from Clarkson's body at the scene; testimony completed, then recalled to the stand for a second time; testimony completed for the second call)

#21 Robert Keil (Criminalist with the LA County Sheriff's Office; collected evidence in the foyer, downstairs bathroom and the second floor dressing room; testimony completed)

After Robert Keil testified Jaime Lintemoot was recalled to the stand.

#22 Sean Heckers (Alhambra Police Dept. Officer; transported Spector to Alhambra Police Station; performed GSR test on Spector's hands; testimony completed)

Accredited Press in the courtroom: One possible individual in the afternoon session.

The fur was flying in the late afternoon today between the prosecution and the defense, but it all happened outside the presence of the jury. Although there wasn't any yelling and screaming, the tension in the room was quite apparent to the few of us still in the courtroom after the jury went home early. But before I get into that, let me tell you that I was too tired last night to mention in my story yesterday that the prosecution believes it will easily wrap up it's case before the holiday break. And, I learned today that the defense's case will probably not even take three weeks. If the prosecution puts on a rebuttal case, and I have every reason to believe that it will, this case could be settled sometime in late January, depending on what happens in the jury room.

I arrive inside the courtroom around 9:25 am. Spector walked into court this morning wearing an Obama button. It's big, at least 3-4" across. He's not allowed to wear it in the courtroom when the jury is present, so I'm sure it will come off his lapel soon. There are two gentlemen in the row behind me to my left. The second sheriff in the room who sits in the back row in one of the nice padded comfy chairs tells them that reading newspapers or magazines in the courtroom is not allowed. Pat Kelly from the Public Information Office (PIO) is here sitting in the back row. There is someone from the PIO office more often than there is an accredited reporter here. I'm also surprised that Linda from San Diego is here again. The fact that she comes to the trial sometimes twice a week is true dedication. It's a struggle for me to get out the door in time to make the 8:39 am train and my ride is only a half hour.

Jaime Lintemoot is back on the stand under cross. There's a photo up on TMZ of Spector that looks nothing like how Spector appears in court every day. Under the harsh florescent lights his hair is dark brown and scraggly. And his face has some strange angles to it now that don't show up in the photo.

As the jury files in Alternate #18 is coughing and it's clear she needs some water or something. But she sits down and court starts soon after. Weinberg is bringing us back to where he left off in his cross of Lintemoot and questions about blood spatter. He's trying to get a clarification from the witness about where she observed the blood spatter on Clarkson's hands and wrists. We wait a moment for an exhibit to be brought up on the ELMO and Jennifer Barringer can't get the image to load. We wait for her to try to figure out what's wrong. Juror #18 is struggling again not to cough, and another juror, I think it's the Asian woman #16, speaks up and asks Fidler if number #18 can go to the restroom. Fidler says, "Certainly." As she gets up to go, Fidler addresses Weinberg, "The pressure is off," meaning, he's been given a reprieve to get the computer glitch fixed. I can almost hear #18 coughing in the jury room and just as I make that note Juror #1 raises her hand and asks Judge Fidler if she can go in and get the juror some lozenges. "Certainly! Of course!" he replies.

AJ has been struggling to fight off a cold and a bit of a cough for about four weeks now. Jennifer, still working on getting that image up says, "I think I'm going to wear a mask." AJ responds, "I knew I was going to get blamed for this."

When the jurors get back in the jury box Weinberg tells them, "I appreciate the timing."

Lintemoot is adamant. She can't say for sure where the spots [blood spatter] were based on that photograph. She's certain there were more than two, but doesn't recall the number of spots. Weinberg outlines several spots on Clarkson's right hand but Lintemoot can't say from the photo if those were blood spots. She clarifies that she swabbed the hand as an external stain.

Weinberg now puts up a photo of Clarkson's left hand and questions Lintemoot in detail about an elongated stain. He wants her to say that it is spatter with a directionality but she won't commit to any of that. He's also trying to get her to say the spatter was not on the lateral edge, but she says she can't testify to that either.

Now there are numerous questions about GSR, which is known shorthand for gunshot residue. My education about GSR began when I first heard Steven Dowell testify at the Robert Blake murder trial. GSR is made up of three particles: lead, barium and antimony. When studied under a special scanning electron microscope, a GSR particle that contains all three elements is considered "highly specific" to GSR. If the particle contains one or only two of the elements it is labeled by criminalists "consistent with" GSR. That's because lead can be found in several items besides GSR, and having single lead particles on you is not necessarily a slam dunk that the particle came from the firing of a weapon.

Weinberg shows that photograph of a revolver being fired and a big cloud of smoke and gases ("copious amounts" were Weinberg's description) surrounding the weapon. There are questions about the various areas of the gun that GSR could "escape" from the chamber. Lintemoot testifies that burnt and unburnt gunpowder is also inside the cloud. Lintemoot describes again how she used the GSR Kit "sticky discs" on Clarkson's hands as well as what the discs look like. Weinberg asks, "The examiners wouldn't know exactly what area of the sticky disc would pick up from what area of the hand?" "That's correct,"Lintemoot responds.

But think about this question for a moment. A sticky disc is nothing more than sticky tape at the end of flat piece that has a handle on top. To perform the test kit, the criminalist touches various parts of the index finger down to the palm of the hand and the back of the hand. How would "where" a GSR particle landed on someone's hand make any whit of difference? The kits' goal is to determine if it can be found. Not to determine which microscopic particle was found on what millimeter of someone's hand. The question tries to lead you to believe that something is wrong because the question can not be determined. That is the nature of how Weinberg cross examines the prosecution's witnesses. It's my opinion that Weinberg is a master at obfuscation.

A tall black man enters carrying a back pack. He sits in the back row. Spector watches the images on the ELMO. His back is turned to the jurors. From my position I can't really tell if he is looking up at the screen or not.

Lintemoot describes a "tape lift." It's a 5" x 7" piece of sticky tape attached to a plastic backing. Once the tape lift is placed on the area to try to lift evidence it's then placed back on the plastic backing. Lintemoot performed a tape lift on the abdomen area of Clarkson's dress. Weinberg's next question implies that a tape lift is somewhat intrusive. Lintemoot states that in general, criminalists avoid areas that are wet. A photo of the tape lift is put up on the ELMO. Lintemoot states she doesn't know if the spots lifted on the tape lift were blood or not.

Weinberg asks, "This is a surface that has some wet on it, correct?" Lintemoot replies, "No obvious wet." Weinberg asks, [about the tape lift] "It was being criticized?" There was a meeting at the Coroner's Office where questions were raised about the policy of doing the tape lift. The tape lift could have contaminated the blood spatter analysis. Lintemoot states that if she didn't perform the tape lift, the fibers [that she observed on the dress in the abdomen area] could have been lost.

Cross ends and redirect begins.

Truc asks if the Sheriff's crime lab had a question about the evidence. Lintemoot states, "I believe there were questions. some people say they were criticisms." The defense's photo of a smoke cloud surrounding a gun is put back up and Lintemoot testifies that there are several factors that determine the size and components of a gas cloud that a gun emits. She testifies that GSR can be wiped off the hands through washing them or it can come off through contact of putting one's hands in pockets.

Two black suited gentlemen enter and sit in the third row. They nod acknowledgment to the back pack carrying man in the back row. A few people enter with lanyards around their necks. One woman I've seen in the building before.

Lintemoot states she did not see any obvious blood stains on the slip [dress], so she went ahead and performed the tape lift. It did not appear to be wet. Truc puts up a photo of Clarkson seated in the chair and Lintemoot points out on the image precisely where she did the tape lift. Lintemoot states again that she's not an expert in blood spatter analysis.

Another gentleman wearing a white shirt and tie enters just as the two suited black men leave.

Redirect is over and Weinberg then recrosses the witness on GSR again. Lintemoot gives an example that GSR is a lot like glitter. "If you have glitter on your hands and you shake someone's' hand you can leave glitter on their hands." Weinberg asks, "Some [GSR] would fall away but most would transfer to a cloth?" Lintemoot responds, "I can't say that."

Blood spatter is brought up again. Weinberg asks her a question again about where the spatter was found on Clarkson's wrists and hands. It's a question he asked earlier in cross and Lintemoot stated during the first time that where Weinberg was describing was incorrect. He was demonstrating on his own hand and trying to say that the blood did not extend beyond the mid line of the back side of the hand. That the blood she observed was more in the thumb edge area.

All the time when the prosecution and the defense were trying to be anatomically correct about describing "where" the blood was on the back of the hands and writs that Lintemoot said she observed at the scene, I was biting my tongue because I wanted to raise my hand to say, "I can give you the correct terms! I know the proper directional anatomy." One of the words Lintemoot used to describe the lateral edge was "exterior." That's a poor term. It either dorsal (hand backside) or palmar. The edge of the hand/wrist along the thumb is called the lateral edge. The side associated with the pinkie fingers is the medial edge.

Weinberg tries to narrow down again that the only thing she found on the hands was blood, not fibers and that the blood was only on the medial (wrong term) half area of the back side of the hands. Lintemoot responds, "Correct." I immediately knew that when Lintemoot answered correct, she had to have been confused by the question and that this answer contradicted what she said earlier, and contradicted her testimony in the first trial. And, I knew exactly what Weinberg's purpose was. If Clarkson was holding the gun towards herself with both hands, a thumb on the trigger and her fingers grasping the handle, the only part of her hands and wrists that would be exposed to the direction of her face and ultimately the blood spatter would be that lateral edge of her hand and wrist. This would be Weinberg's "proof" that the blood spatter on Clarkson's hands supports a finding of suicide.

Amazingly, there's no redirect of this witness to clear up this, to me, glaring error and the next witness is called to the stand.

Truc presents the next witness. Robert Keil walks with a slight limp as he takes the stand. He is a senior criminalist with the LA County Sheriff's Department and is currently assigned to the Scientific Services Bureau. He gives a brief CV. During 2002 through 2003 he worked for trace evidence collection to respond to scenes and the collection of evidence. Trace evidence could be virtually anything.

I see out of the corner of my eye that Sherri enters the courtroom and sits in the back row. AJ leans in and speaks to Truc, apologizes to Judge Fidler and then leaves the courtroom. Keil testifies that he collected mostly non-blood related items from the scene. A few moments later, AJ reenters the courtroom. A man with a walker enters and sits on the very edge of the third bench row. It's an older black man, and the jacket he's wearing appears to have a USPS postal eagle patch on the shoulder. Keil states that when he entered the residence, he did not see the weapon by Ms. Clarkson. He believes it was already collected. He observed the white tooth material on Ms. Clarkson's body that Jaime Lintemoot collected. A casually dressed white man enters and sits in the back row.

The items that Keil collected are presented. The images at the scene with the evidence number placards are put up on the ELMO and the witness identifies everything he collected. He collected item #4, the thumb latch lock that was on the floor by the back door. He wore gloves to collect evidence. He collected item #5 which was pieces of cosmetic dental material and pieces of wood by the stairwell wall.

1o:45 am: The morning recess is called. Weinberg approaches AJ and Truc to speak. Afterwards, I watch AJ and Truc whisper back and forth. I can't make out what they're saying but it's obvious that AJ is very animated and quite possibly upset. He's gesturing with his hands and pointing to the hands. Now it's obvious. AJ is very upset and he's shaking his head. I'm betting this is all about the "correct" that Weinberg elicited from Lintemoot about where she found the blood spatter on Clarkson's hands and wrist areas. I'm thinking that he might have to clear this up through another witness, or maybe call Lintemoot back to the stand.

At the break, Truc leaned into Mrs. Clarkson and apologized to her for having to show such graphic photos of her daughter. While she's apologizing, I can see out of the far corner of my eye that Spector is turned towards our direction, staring. Looking over at Rachelle, I see that she's wearing a pair of glasses again. At 11:00 am the jury is called back into the courtroom. When the jury enters, Juror #18 appears to be a bit better but I think she's still suffering.

Keil testifies that to collect item # 5 he got down on his hands and knees and used a pair of forceps to pick up the items. He then goes through and identifies the next items he collect via the photos up on the ELMO. Items #10 and #11 on the stairs. He collected items from the bathroom but NOT the bloody rag [diaper] on the floor in front of the toilet. "I did observe it appeared to be wet and had blood on it."

Keil testifies that he went to the second floor and in the dressing room area found the jacket on the floor. He closely examined it and noted there was blood. He contacted Detective Lillienfeld and got an item number for the jacket. After it was photographed in n place he picked it up and noticed more blood on the front of the jacket. He performed a Kastle-Meyer (KM)
test on the jacket for blood. He describes the blood stain on the jacket as being a fine mist. He identifies a crime lab photo of the jacket and then his direct is finished.

During cross Keil states how long he's been with the Sheriff's Department and that he's familiar with the personnel there. He verifies that he saw other personnel at Spector's residence. There are several questions about his arrival at the scene, what time he entered and how he entered the residence. To his best memory, he arrived before the coroner's people arrived. He believes the coroner's staff arrived slightly after he did. He states again that he doesn't remember seeing the firearm. Again he states that they came after him and he didn't initially see them i the residence.

Keil did not write an individual report of his work at the scene. He was there as an assistant to Renteria. However, his hand written notes were included in Steve Renteria's official report. He states that the lowest number of evidence he collected was #4. In collecting the lock lever, he did not examine this particular lock lever. He agrees with Weinberg that they are normally screwed in.

Regarding the positioning on the floor of the lock lever, Weinberg asks the witness to speculate on it's location.

DW: It's consistent with it landing if it just fell off the door?

Objection! Calls for speculation. The objection is sustained.

There's another question and that one is objected to also. Fidler says, "That's speculation."

Weinberg still tries to make the point that the lock lever would be three feet away from the door if the door was closed.

DW: Do you have any way of knowing whether the tooth fragments hit the wood stairwell? [...] You have no facts....?

Objection! Fidler asks the witness directly about this and he replies that he doesn't not know how the trajectory of the tooth fragment [fell]. He states that the items on the stairs are approximately 12 to 15 feet away from Ms. Clarkson, "As the crow flies."

He asks about the eyelashes he collected. "Was there anything about them that made it appear there was nothing else other than they had been intentionally placed there?"

Keil states that he did not inspect the toilet. When he went upstairs, no one accompanied him. He was largely by himself. To his knowledge, he did not know if any one else had been through the area or not [before him]. Keil acknowledged that not all the clothing in the dressing area was "carefully arranged." "There were other pieces of clothing thrown around?" Weinberg asks. "Yes," Keil replies. He took possession of the jacket and placed it in an evidence bag.

DW: As soon as you saw the blood on it you knew it was going and put it in an evidence bag?"

RK: Correct.

He did not find any blood upstairs [in any other location]. He inspected trash cans and inspected the bathrooms upstairs. And then a series of questions to Keil, rapid fire. Did you see anything that appeared to be thrown away or hidden? Did you see anything that appeared to be secreted or destroyed? Weinberg asks Keil these questions several different ways about the upstairs rooms and bathrooms.

Weinberg then moves onto the living room area. Keil went into the living room and states that he saw the alcohol. More rapid fire questions about the living room. Did you find anything that indicated a struggle? Did anything appear [that there was] an attempt to hide, throw anything away?

Then the bar area off the living room is shown up on the ELMO. "Is this the way you found it?" Weinberg asks. "Yes," Keil responds. Weinberg asks if there is a sink at the bar, and if there was anything to lead him to believe that something was "washed down the sink. "Did you see anything that suggested anyone, [or there showed evidence to] destroy anything?" "No," Keil testifies.

That's it for cross and Truc stands up to redirect her witness.

TD: How certain are you that the coroner's arrived after you?

RK: Not very.

Truc shows him the evidence log, that an individual from the coroner's office arrived at 5:30 pm, about a half hour before he did. He still doesn't recall seeing the weapon by Clarkson's foot/calf when he arrived. He doesn't remember looking for it or seeing it in place. His focus was not on the body. Renteria was at the location prior to him for several hours.

Keil states that he looked at all items in general in the area of the dressing room. He examined them visually and some were tested with the KM test. He didn't test other areas and not the toilet.

Truc is finished with redirect and Weinberg wants to cross this witness again.

DW: Where was the sign up sheet?

RK: The sign up was at the gate entry to the property.

Weinberg asks him about the coroner's staff being detained for some time before they were allowed into the residence. Weinberg then asks about the gun again and testifying at the last trial.

A short, older balding man in casual clothes enters. He has a notepad in hand and I can tell he has a copy of the prosecution's motion that I obtained from Sandi Gibbons the evening before. I believe I've seen this man before at the first trial, and I think he is a member of the accredited press but I do not know if he's with a paper or with a radio station.

Keil's last statement on the stand is, "My understanding is the gun was picked up but I didn't see it." There's no redirect so we are finished with this witness. Fidler rules that we will take our lunch break ten minutes early rather than start with another witness.

After the jurors enter the jury room, I see Spector turn in his seat and look at the gallery. Fidler enters his chambers and then comes out to show a magazine cover to AJ. It appears to be the magazine Lawyers, and the cover has a large photo on the front and the word TAZERS. Holding the magazine Fidler states, "All you need to know."

I'm late getting back into the courtroom after lunch. Sherri and I went over to the underground city and on the way back I got a pair of trouser stockings because my legs felt a bit cold with my short socks. I changed into them before I went back into the courtroom. The first think I notice is Jaime Lintemoot is back on the stand. The prosecution recalled her. As I sit down to try to quickly take a note, Truc is stating there was some confusion as to where the blood spatter was on Clarkson's hands and wrists. She's finished and I don't know if this is redirect or direct since I was 10 minutes late.

Weinberg gets up to cross and asks Lintemoot how it came about that she is now on the stand again.

DW: You're are a senior technician and you try to do a good job?

JL: Yes, I do.

DW: Did you tell anyone to photograph the back of the wrist?

Weinberg is insinuating with his questions that she is some how to blame that the photographer did not adequately take enough photos of Clarkson's hands. There is only one photograph of her left hand that is presented into evidence and it's more of a side shot of the lateral side of the hand wrist, and the coroner's tag held beside the hand covers the fingers. It seems to me that Weinberg has a perturbed tone to his voice. Lintemoot states that she does not know if the photographer was forensically trained or not. She states that she directed photos to be taken [of the hands], but she does not know what [all] photos were taken. Weinberg is confronting her on the fact that there is no photo of the "back" (dorsal) of Clarkson's hand.

Under redirect, Truc goes over her prior testimony about the blood spatter on the hands. There is a short recross and then she is off the stand.

AJ presents the next witness, Sean Heckers, an officer with Alhambra Police Department. He's been with Alhambra for 13 years. Officer Heckers is wearing a suit. He's not in uniform. At the time of the shooting, he was assigned to field operations as a patrol officer. He was coming onto day shift at 6 am on February 3rd, 2003. He was asked to "suit up and assist with a call" at 1700 Grandview. To "suit up" means to put on his uniform. He drove to the scene in his patrol car. He went to the scene with his partner, Derek Gilliam. They were both dressed as officers. Heckers states he was there at the scene as an additional body. Sergeant Gary Lagnard was also there.

"Shortly after afterwards, I was asked to transport the individual in the back of the patrol car," Heckers testifies.

The balding man I think is accredited press is back in the courtroom.

Heckers identifies several photos of the residence on the ELMO. He states that when he arrived Spector was being detained at that time. He transported him back to the Alhambra Police station in the police car Spector was already seated in, not the car he arrived in. When they arrived at Alhambra station he escorted him back to the holding cell area. There are bench seats there and he seated him at a bench seat. Heckers then performed a GSR test on Spector's hands. He explains the GSR kit that they are round cylinders with a cap. After completing the test he booked them into evidence. Heckers testifies that during the transport he smelled alcohol on Spector. And that's the end of Heckers direct testimony.

Under cross, Heckers states that he didn't know who had the vehicle before him or where it had been. Question after question after question of Heckers asked him if he remembered Spector being handcuffed. He didn't. Weinberg tries to get him to admit that Spector was handcuffed but he's firm. He doesn't remember if Spector was handcuffed. Weinberg puts the full image polaroid photos of Spector with his pants pockets turned inside out and Heckers states, that yes, he's handcuffed in that photo but he still doesn't specifically recall Spector being handcuffed.

Under redirect, AJ asks if Heckers took the photos and he states he did not. He states he doesn't know where the photos were taken. And then that's it for this witness. It's 2:10 pm and the prosecution has run out of witnesses. Fidler informs the jury that this sometimes happens. The jury goes back into the jury room and the court reporters make their change. Spector, Rachelle and their lone bodyguard leave the courtroom. Since this will be a hearing outside the presence of the jury, he waives his right to appear. Unfortunately, the second court reporter can't get her computer that's attached to her reporting machine to work and we sit for about ten minutes or so waiting for a reporter to get their machine up and running. There's lots of chatter in the well and a bit in the gallery while the court reporter tries to get things going. Fidler jokes about the old machines and how they didn't have this problem. AJ and Truc pack up their computers and huge case binders. The defense also packs up and Jennifer Barringer leaves. The bailiff's then escort the jury out of the jury room. One of the DA's clerks brings copies of the people's motion to AJ and Truc.

This is where the real fireworks begin. Fidler says to the court, "Back on the record with the dueling discovery requests. Let the charges begin. Who wants to go first?"

Weinberg is the first to speak. Again he states that he never received any documentation from the prosecution on any witness who has testified in the retrial. Truc Do speaks up and reminds Mr. Weinberg that before Officer Cardella testified she e-mailed him about his statement. She also states that Weinberg got notification from Mr. Jackson about Jennings and Melvin. Ms. Do asks him to point out specifically where the witnesses testified to things that he was not made aware of before trial. "It's not like Mr. Jackson and I sat down with each witness before they testified again." Truc states that she is new to this trial and many times the first time she has even met the witness has been either the day before or right before they are about to testify. "If there are witnesses that he can point out to where there are changes [we'd like to hear them]."

Weinberg then gives Jaime Lintemoot's testimony. "Now Cardella. He didn't say what was in his report. [...] Riggs testimony about moving the head." Weinberg again brings up for the third time Dr. Lynne Herold and that she did some more experiments and we don't have what she's going to say on that.

AJ then speaks about Dr. Herold. I remember when AJ mentioned to Weinberg about Dr. Herold. It was in the well area and it was brief. He described exactly what it was about. Weinberg only had one question at for AJ at the time at it was, "Will it change her testimony?" AJ told him at the time, no. It's just an experiment she did with measurements. It appeared that Weinberg was satisfied with that response at the time. AJ tells the court that "Mr. Weinberg has access to Dr. Herold and he can sit down and talk with her. [...] Mr. Weinberg wants a script before we begin. [...] I don't know what it is he wants. I haven't spoken to Steven Renteria [about the case] except to say hello in a hallway, or anyone else."

Weinberg then says "Mr. Jackson knows what discovery is. [...] I didn't know I could talk to Dr. Herold. I have no idea about a measurement or what measurement."

And back and forth it goes between both sides. The prosecution insisting there is nothing else that they have to hand over, and Weinberg insisting the prosecution has made discovery violations. At some point, Judge Fidler states that I'm sure you can call up Dr. Herold, and with a laughing tone to his voice mentions something to the effect that Dr. Herold will talk to just about anyone who calls her up. AJ mentions something about that it has to do with how Dr. Herold determined the exact distance of items from Ms. Clarkson's body because she knew the height of Ms. Clarkson's body.

Ms. Do speaks up and says something to the effect that she want's to make it clear that it is not the way Mr. Weinberg has painted it. There is a tactic by Mr. Weinberg to deflect away from the discovery violations that the people have filed against him. Either AJ or Ms. Do mention the Jaime Lintemoot demonstration.

After hearing the arguments Judge Fidler states, "Based on everything I've heard, the prosecution has not made any discovery violations." He then goes on to state that if there is a problem in Mr. Weinberg communicating with Dr. Herold, then her statements about the measurements should be put in writing.

AJ then presents their motion to the court. He mentions a name of a woman I have not heard before, who would testify to counteract De Souza's testimony. The name I believe I hear is Elizabeth Loftless. Later on in the hearing it's mentioned that she is a psychologist. AJ then mentions Weinberg's opening argument and the several times he alluded to the impulsivity of suicide and details about the specifics of suicide.

Weinberg states that regarding Dr. Richard Seiden, "We have nothing." I intend to but I haven't yet. I've just consulted with him."

AJ states that it's obvious he's consulted with him. And we find out that he did have a meeting with Mr. Seiden. AJ states he feels that this is gamesmanship by the defense. Then there's the fees.

Mr. Weinberg replies, "I won't characterize Mr. Jackson's argument. I'll just respond to it." And as he's speaking, his tone is so "nice." He's not yelling or screaming but I'm just left with the sense that something isn't "right" with what he's saying. I can’t put my finger on it why I don’t believe Weinberg. Weinberg is arguing that he shouldn't have to provide the fee info. He doesn't feel he should. He argues that the prosecution wants to know the fee information so they know which witnesses will testify so they will know what the defense case in chief will be. Weinberg says that "They came to Seiden because of an article that appeared in (I believe) a local paper on impulsive suicides and we reached out to him. [...] The information I gave the jury about suicide was general information [..] what everyone know is out there. [...] I think I have moved with more than what I'm required to do."

Weinberg insists that, "I don't know if I'm going to call him [the suicideologist] because I don't know what they're [the people] going to do. [..] And although we have consulted with Dr. Loftless, I don't think we are going to call her."

Weinberg is shrewd. It's an interesting argument but I don't think it holds any weight at all. Weinberg is trying to say that he doesn't know what Dr. Pena is going to say on the stand. What a bunch of crap. Did he not read the first trial? Didn't Dr. Pena state that he ruled the death a homicide in the first trial? He's not going to suddenly change his testimony and say oops, I made a mistake; it's a suicide. Weinberg has read the first trial transcript. He forkin''' well knows what Dr. Pena is going to say. This was just a big stall not to turn over his discovery.

AJ refutes Weinberg's statements. "Mr. Weinberg continues to say that this is only a tactic to see what our case is going to be. But that's exactly what 1054 [discovery] entitles the people to. [...] That's the rule of the law of the land."

AJ continues about the suicideologist. In regards to Mr. Seiden, all the documentation from the coroner's office was sent to Dr. Seiden's office. AJ finds it hard to believe that Mr. Weinberg has not communicated with him at least by e-mail. He believes they have exchanged e-mails and that he's met with him.

Weinberg defends his actions. "There's no great secret here." He tells the court that the documents were sent to Dr. Seiden two weeks ago. Ms. Do speaks up and says, "Now we're hearing that he sent documents two weeks ago. [...] He told us during jury selection that he sent the packet then. [...] We're not going to have any more conversations [with the defense] off the record."

The issue is, both sides are entitled to discovery 30 days before the witness takes the stand. Weinberg states that Dr Seiden goes on vacation in mid December and would not be available until January 25th. With the way the prosecution's case is going, they are going to wrap up in four or five more witnesses, in another week or so. (I don't think that's correct and I think it will be longer.) The only other date Dr. Seiden could testify is December 17th. That would not give the people their 30 days to prepare for the witness.

Fidler now feels he has enough information to rule. He has to balance the obligation of people verses the latitude of the defense. Fidler states that refusing to let a witness testify is tantamount to "judicial suicide." So once the discovery from Weinberg is turned over, if the people state that they are not ready for this witness then the case will take a break and they will go on recess. That's Fidler's remedy. Weinberg informs the prosecution that he will have the discovery for them tomorrow, either written or oral. Fidler states that, "His [experts] fees are a part of the report." Fidler orders Weinberg to turn over the fees his experts have been paid.

Weinberg states that he has a problem with that. "They [people's experts] don't have to disclose how they are paid. [...] All we know are 100-75 names on a list." Weinberg believes the fees can be revealed through cross. He doesn't believe they are required to turn them over as a part of discovery. Fidler responds, "Once you make the decision that they're being called, you are obligated to turn over the fees."

Weinberg doesn't let it go. He has two problems with this fees matter. "Because now that reveals to the prosecution who they are going to call. [...] It reveals defense strategy. I will respectfully decline and take a writ." Fidler says, I believe a fee is a part of an expert's report." I respect your opinion, [but I disagree with it]."

AJ says, "I would expect the court for notice of the writ." (Meaning, order him to get it done within a date.) Fidler requests the defense to prepare it "as soon as possible." Weinberg states that Mr. Riordan will be working on the writ.

Weinberg then has one notice for the court. Mr. Spector needs surgery as soon as possible on his vocal cords. Fidler acknowledges that when he heard Mr. Spector speak (yesterday? today?) that he noticed the raispiness in his voice. They are requesting a Friday and Monday off. Fidler says, "Of course." The dates they will take off is not stated in court at this time.

I waited for the prosecution to exit the courtroom so I could ask them, "What is a writ?" Truc Do does her best to explain it to me. A writ is an appeal of a judge's ruling while the case is ongoing. If the writ is accepted by the upper courts for review, the case stops until the upper courts decision is reached. That's my understanding of what I was told. When I researched "writ" on the net, for law it basically means a written order issued by a court. After more digging, I believe Truc was explaining to me a writ of certiorari, but I could easily be wrong about that.

Court resumes Monday morning at 9:30 am.

P.S. I almost forgot! I gave a radio interview with Marc Germain of Talk Radio One about my coverage of the Spector case on Thursday evening. You can listen to the broadcast at this link. I'm about 40 minutes into the first hour. Mr. Germain asked me to be back on the show this coming Tuesday at 9:00 pm. I have to thank Steven Mikulan of the LA WEEKLY for mentioning my trial coverage to Marc.

PHIL SPECTOR RETRIAL - QUICK LINKS

This page was last updated on 2/4/2017 at 12:45pm PT Sprocket.


THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS
12/14/2010 Appellant's Reply Brief
10/13/2010 State of California Respondent's Brief
03/14/2010 Appellant's Opening Brief

POST TRIAL COVERAGE
2009
04/14/2009 The Day After
04/15/2009 Spector News Stories & Video
04/18/2009 The Wrongful Death Suit by the Clarkson Family
04/27/2009 Jury Duty, Phil Spector & Other News

05/05/2009 Court Stories You Haven't Heard From the Spector Trial
05/21/2009 Alan Jackson's Sentencing Recommendations
05/28/2009 Phil Spector Sentenced Tomorrow
05/29/2009 Phil Spector Sentencing Today
06/02/2009 Phil Spector Civil Case Motions
06/05/2009 Phil Spector Relocated to DOCR & Rachelle's 15 Minutes
06/10/2009 Phil Spector Unwigged
06/23/2009 Phil Spector Moves Into Corcoran
07/31/2009 CDCR Denies Manson Note to Spector
08/21/2009 Phil Spector Farts, the MSM Stops to Listen
09/02/2009 It's Official: Phil Spector Moving toa Better Prison
2010
03/12/2010 Phil Spector Appeals Murder Conviction
03/14/2010 Phil Spector Appeal: Full Document
03/24/2010 Phil Spector Case on True Crime With Aphrodite Jones
06/03/2010 The Telegraph's Mick Brown on "Out of My Chelle"
07/04/2010 mControl is Back with WALL OF GUILT Blog
08/06/2010 Rachelle Spector Talks to KSLG's John Matthews
10/13/2010 The Latest Phil Spector News
12/13/2010 The Latest Phil Spector News II
12/14/2010 The Latest Phil Spector News III
2011 - 2012
03/07/2011 Phil Spector Appeal: Date Set for Oral Arguments
04/12/2011 Phil Spector Appeal: Oral Arguments Heard Today
04/13/2011 Phil Spector Appeal: Oral Argument Hearing Notes
04/29/2011 Phil Spector: Wrongful Death Civil Suit Trial Date

05/02/2011 Phil Spector Murder Conviction Upheld by Appellate Courts
05/18/2011 Phil Spector Appeal: Riordan Requests a Do-Over
05/24/2011 Bette Midler Set For HBO's Phil Spector Telefilm
05/27/2011 Phil Spector Appeal Do-Over Request: REJECTED!
06/12/2011 David Mamet: Brillian Filmmaker or Just Plain Stupid?
06/16/2011 Phil Spector's Attorney Files Appeal with California Supreme Court
08/17/2011 California Supreme Court Denies Review of Spector Appeal
02/03/2012 Lana Clarkson: Nine Years Ago Today
02/20/2012 Phil Spector's US Supreme Court Appeal 
04/08/2012 Leonard Cohen's Never Ending Drama With Kelley Lynch
2013 - 2017
02/19/2013 Alan Jackson Says Goodbye to the DA's Office 
03/25/2013 HBO & David Mamet's Tele-Play on Phil Spector History
08/02/2013 Roger Rosen, Former Spector Attorney's Law Career is Over 
12/13/2014 Here's What Happened to Punkin Pie, Lana Clarkson's Former "Friend"
02/03/2015 Lana Clarkson 4/5/1962 - 2/3/2002
02/03/2017 Remembering Lana: 4/5/1962 -2/3/2003

THE RETRIAL
Spector Retrial Facts
Jury Clock
Opening Statements
Opening Statements, Part II

Miscellaneous Documents & Links
Public Documents At LA Co. Superior Court
The Esquire Interview/Article by Scott Raab

Miscellaneous T&T Pretrial & Trial Coverage
11/11/08 Retrial Update I
11/16/08 Retrial Update II
11/25/08 Retrial Update III
12/07/08 Retrial Update IV
12/15/08 Retrial Update V

2/15/09 Questions &Answers I
2/20/09 Questions & Answers II
2/27/09 Questions & Answers III

3/22/09 Phil Spector Statements  (Transcript of various statements made to police.)
03/21/09 Colt Cobra 38 Special Trigger Pull (Guest Entry)
03/26/09 Phil Spector Verdict Notification
3/28/09 How Long Before A Verdict Is Reached?
3/31/09 Defense Atty Opinion Piece in LA Times 


THE RETRIAL
Prosecution Witnesses
Day 1: #1 Vincent Tannazzo; #2 Dorothy Melvin
Day 2: #2 Dorothy Melvin
Day 3: #2 Dorothy Melvin
Day 4: #3 Officer Chris Russ; #4 Vickie Daniels-Mathews; #5 Devra Robataille
Day 5: #5 Devra Robataille
Day 6: #6 Rommie Davis; #7 Stephanie Jennings; Special Hearing Witnesses: Detective Richard Tomlin; DA Investigator Brian Bennett
Day 7: #8 Dianne Ogden (video tape), #9 Kathy Sullivan, #10 Sophia Holguin; Special Hearing Witness: Judge Douglas Sortino
Day 8: #10 Sophia Holguin; #11 Euphrathes Anthony Lalonvriz; #12 Melissa Grosvenor
Day 9: #13 Gamaliel Catalan; #14 Sandra Hill; #15 Adriano De Souza
Day 10: #15 Adriano De Souza
Day 11: #15 Adriano De Souza; #16 Officer Brandon Cardella
Day 12: #17 James Hammond; #18 David Riggs; #19 Mark Lillienfeld
Day 13: #19 Mark Lillienfeld; #20 Jaime Lintemoot;
Day 14: #20 Jaime Lintemoot; #21 Robert Keil; #22 Sean Heckers
Day 15: #23 Thomas Kerfoot; #24; Dan Anderson; #25 Steven Dowell; #26 Michelle Lepisto
Day 16: #27 Steve Renteria
Day 17: #27 Steve Renteria
Day 18: #28 James Carroll; #29 Dr. Louis Pena
Day 19: #29 Dr. Pena
Day 21: #29 Dr. Pena
Day 22: #29 Dr. Pena
Day 23: #29 Dr. Pena;
Day 24: #29 Dr. Pena; #30 Dr. John Andrews
Day 25: #30 Dr. John Andrews; #31 Dale S. Falcion; #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 26: #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 27: #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 28: #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 29: #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 30: #32 Dr. Lynne Herold
Day 31: #32 Tabitha Stowell; #33 Donna Clarkson; prosecution rests.

Defense Witnesses
Day 32: #1 Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran
Day 34: #2 Stuart James
Day 35: #2 Stuart James
Day 35, Part 2: #2 Stuart James
Day 36: #3 Nicole Spector; #1 Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran
Day 37: #1 Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran
Day 38: #1 Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran; #4 Dr. Spitz
Day 39: #4 Dr. Sptiz
Day 40: #4 Dr. Spitz; #5 James Pex
Day 41: #5 James Pex
Day 42: #5 James Pex
Day 43: #6 John Barons; #7 Thomas Fortier; #8 David Schapiro
Day 44: #9 Eric Poticha; #10 Detective Richard Tomlin
Day 45: #10 Detective Richard Tomlin; #11 Marc Hirschfeld
Day 46: #10 Detective Richard Tomlin; #12 Dr. Vincent Di Maio
Day 47: # 12 Dr. Vincent Di Maio; #13 James Hammond
Day 48: #14 Greg Sims
Day 49: #14 Greg Sims; #15 Jennifer Hayes Riedl
Day 52: #15 Jennifer Hayes Riedl; #16 Dr. Richard Seiden
Day 53: #16 Dr. Richard Seiden
Day 54: #16 Dr. Richard Seiden; #17 Dr. Mary Goldenson
Day 57: #18 Dr. Elizabeth Loftus
Day 57 Part II: #18 Dr. Elizabeth Loftus

Prosecution Rebuttal Witnesses
Day 54: #34 (rebuttal #1)Lisa Bloom
Day 57: #35 (rebuttal #2) Officer Steven Katz
Day 58: #36 (rebuttal #3) Nick Terzian; #37 (rebuttal #4) Officer Ester Rodriguez
Day 58 Part II: (rebuttal #3) Nick Terzian; #37 (rebuttal #4) Officer Ester Rodriguez

Non Testimony Days:
Day 20: No witnesses
Day 33: No witnesses
Day 50: No Testimony
Day 51: No Testimony
Day 55 & 56: No Testimony
Day 59: No testimony

CLOSING ARGUMENTS
Day 1: Truc Do
Day 2: Doron Weinberg
Day 3: Doron Weinberg; Alan Jackson
Day 4: Alan Jackson

VERDICT WATCH
Verdict E-Mail Notification
Day 1: Deliberations
Day 2: Deliberations
Day 3: Deliberations
Day 4, Part II: Deliberations
Day 5: Deliberations
Day 6: Deliberations
Day 7: Deliberations
Day 8: Deliberations
Day 9: VERDICT!


TALK RADIO ONE INTERVIEWS
www.talkradioone.com
December 4, 2008
December 9, 2008
December 12, 2008
December 22, 2008
January 6, 2009
January 13th, 2009 With Gary Spector @ 8:00 pm
January 20th, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
January 29th, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
February 5th, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
February 12th, 2009 @ 9:00 pm with Juror #9 Ricardo Enriquez
February 26th, 2009 @9:15 pm
March 5th, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
March 12th, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
March 20th, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
April 2nd, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
April 9th, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
April 13th, 2009 @ 8:00 pm with Gary Spector

BLOG TALK RADIO ~
Juror Thirteen & Denny Griffin April 8th, 2009 45 min show
Juror Thirteen & Denny Griffin April 22nd, 2009 45 min show