Showing posts with label mControl Blogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mControl Blogs. Show all posts
Sunday, July 4, 2010
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Phil Spector Retrial: Day Thirty-two
Updated!
The Defense Begins
Hello everyone, I'm at the Tokyo Library on the extended lunch break. I'll have a full report on today's events much later tonight.
Several motions were presented this morning to Judge Fidler today outside the presence of the jury. Weinberg made the expected motion to dismiss the case, basically arguing that there wasn't one piece of scientific evidence that proved Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. The motion was denied.
The next motion was regarding the "emails." I will have more on this later, but the tentative ruling by Judge Fidler is, that unless the defense can show to Judge Fidler that the fountain in the rear courtyard of Spector's house only has one speed or level, (i.e. "on" or "off"), then during a jury visit, the fountain will not be on. The prosecution was requesting that because of the information revealed in the emails, they were objecting to a jury visit during the retrial. Fidler over ruled the prosecution's request. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Weinberg still wants to proceed with a jury visit if the fountain is off. I will say this about fountains. I have several. One on my front porch, several table top fountains in my house and a large one in the back yard. Each fountain I have as a flow control on the fountain pump itself; not with an switch to adjust the water flow. It remains to be seen what type of controls the fountain has on Spector's property.
Fidler also made some rulings as to what the suicidologist Dr. Seiden can and can not say to the jury. There are tentative rulings, and more to be argued later. Look for my update later tonight.
Updated Monday, January 26th, 2009, 11:00 pm:
Defense Witnesses:
#1: Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, (Chief Medical Examiner and Coroner for Los Angeles County; currently under direct examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom:
Morning Session: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times
Afternoon Session: Harriet Ryan, Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Kathryn, US corespondent for The Telegraph, UK ,and a representative from Bloomberg News. Partway through the afternoon session, Aphrodite Jones, crime author, arrived.
I miss my 8:30 am train but I get inside the courtroom just in time. There's virtually no one in the courtroom except me and Donte, one of Spector's adopted sons. He's sitting in the back row on one of the plastic chairs intently texting on his phone. I'm wondering if anyone told him that Spector would not be here in the morning since they are only going to argue motions. Speaking of emails today, maybe he got left off the email list.
Harriet Ryan is here in her usual bench seat along the back wall. AJ, Truc, Weinberg and Susan are here and Cindy is the court reporter covering the morning session. Bailiff Kyle is not here so Sheriff Williams is the bailiff box. There are other Sheriff's filling the second seat where Williams usually sits. The court clerk, Wendy is absent this morning. Weinberg asks Williams if he minds if he goes and looks at the calendars behind Wendy's desk that detail the dark days for a three month period at a time. For those of you who haven't been inside 106, behind Wendy's desk area, there are three calendars hanging in a row on the back wall. There are always three calendars up there covering a 90 day period. The days where court is dark are marked out with a black "X."
A public person, an older gentleman who was here a few weeks ago is back and peppering me with lots of questions and opinions. He doesn't stay long since he has to go to another court for his jury duty service at 10:00 am.
Allan Parachini comes out of the Judge's chamber's area and greets Harriet Ryan. 9:41 am, Josh, the people's clerk comes in with papers for AJ. The thing that is holding up the hearing for motions is the fact that there is no clerk. I don't know if that's a rule that there must be a clerk before the Judge can take the bench. I know the Judge came out for a moment to start court but when he realized there was no one to replace Wendy he went back into chambers. Court staff try to drum up a clerk to sit in for the morning session.
Allan Parachini and Harriet whisper very quietly in the back row. A clerk is found! But it's not a clerk, it's an administrator, upper level I believe, a woman that Allan knows and smiles and greets her when she comes in. She fills in for Wendy. Allan stays to talk to Harriet and at 9:47 am the inner doors close. Fidler takes the bench at 9:49 am. Judge Fidler states that there are two motions that he's aware of that are still to be litigated: reviewing the scene and the scope of the defense expert testimony or if there will be any expert. Fidler states that they will start with the scene first but Weinberg interrupts and asks for his motion to be heard that he believes supersceeds. Fidler apologizes and says, "Of course."
This is the standard defense motion for a dismissal citing that the prosecution has not met their burden. (I'm not positive if this is for dismissal or a motion for "acquittal," since I do have that word in my notes.) Weinberg outlines every issue that he feels supports his motion stating there isn't enough evidence (to continue the trial). He starts with the autopsy and the fact that the examination could not determine manner of death. He moves onto the testimony of Dr. Herold and that the scientific evidence can't put the gun in Spector's hand, "...except for one pseudo exception, the evidence is consistent with Lana Clarkson [...] making the shot herself." As to "...the blood on the back of the wrist, and "if" it was there, [...] that's not evidence, it's lay opinion."
Weinbergs argument moves onto blood spatter analysis and the fact that Jamie Lintemoot "even by her own opinion" was not a spatter expert. Weinberg states that Adriano's testimony was "problematic." There are more arguments and I'm sure you get the gist of where he was going.
When it's the people's turn, AJ gets up and states, "The evidence is overwhelming. Very seldom do we have so much evidence. He also mentions something to the effect (to counter a statement by Weinberg) that it's "rarely" a single piece of evidence that points to guilt but a totality of the evidence. AJ then goes onto outline his first point, the "pattern of violence" that, when presented with a particular set of circumstances, he (Spector) reacts violently." AJ moves onto the scene and the fact that "clearly he had an amorous intent," specifically mentioning the 2 missing viagra tablets in the three-piece blister pack found in his valise. Lana's position in the chair and her ready to leave in the fact that she had her jacket on, her purse on her shoulder and her shoes. That the "gun was Spector's. He would be the only one who knew where it was."
The five 1101(b) witnesses are mentioned by name. Adriano who was approximately 15 feet from the event when the gun was discharged. AJ goes over the events right after the gun being fired in detail, and Spector's statement and actions directly afterwards, that when De Souza asked him, "What happened, sir?," Spector just shrugged his shoulders in response. "The consciousness of guilt. He didn't call for help. He didn't cry out for help, or say a woman just shot herself." AJ also details the manipulation at the scene with the bloody diaper (rag), attempting in his drunken state to clean up the scene.
10:03 am, Pat Dixon enters and sits in the back row on the right. "And the only evidence that fits the scientific evidence is the scene Ms. Do and I presented to the court."
Weinberg gets one more rebuttal argument to the people's presentation. "With the litany of evidence and how much (0f it) is fabricated, [...] Mr. Jackson said this is a pattern and the court admonished (the people for using that term). Evidently there is nothing this court can do stop Mr. Jackson from using this evidence for what the court told him not to. [...] What does that have to do with Dorothy Melvin? [...] He wanted her to leave because he thought she was stealing. [...] What does that have to do with Stephanie Jennings? He wanted her to go to a party. [...] What does this have to do...? It's completely fabricated and consistently used by the prosecution and the law forbids [it]. That evidence shouldn't be used for pattern."
Fidler then interrupts Weinberg because he doesn't want to lose a train of thought he's got going that contradicts the argument about the prosecution using the word pattern to describe the 1101(b) witnesses. He says, "There was a later discussion. We had a big talk about it. [...] And then we discussed whether or not 'pattern' was acceptable language for the case."
Not long after this, Judge Fidler rules and states, "The fact that there is another explanation is irrelevant to the fact whether or not the case can proceed." Ergo, motion denied. Spector doesn't get a pass, you must put on a defense.
The email issue is discussed. Fidler doesn't buy Weinberg's argument that the defense jury consultant was trying to say, "The fountain shouldn't be toned down. There's no suggestion that the defense is going to do anything. [...] There's is no reason the visit will be inappropriate. [...] The fountain was under the control of LE (for two days). [...] The fountain wasn't manipulated last time. [...] There's nothing that could affect the fairness."
AJ doesn't go over every point in their motion, but does point out the words, "...make sure it's up 'full bore,' which may suggest that it could be in a different position. [...] The email says, we don't want the prosecution to control the jury view. We want to control the jury view. [...] The reason we did include the email, is to establish that Mr. Spector said, ' If things don't go the way I want them to go I will speak up.' [...] That's why we don't think it's a good idea in this case."
Weinberg immediately objects to the word "up" stating that's not in the email. He continues to defend Spector's email and pleads with Fidler that, "You have seen Mr. Spector's behavior through both trials. He's not going to act out."
I could swear Judgle Fidler almost rolls his eyes and replies that "full bore" is clearly an indication that a more reasonable inference can be drawn (that full bore does mean "up"). "I'm sorry, but there may have been manipulation. There is not enough evidence to support that so..." Fidler rules that, "...there will be a jury visit but the fountain will be off. If necessary it will be explained to the jury without casting any aspersions." Weinberg responds, "I'll consider that, your honor."
They try to hammer out a date for the jury visit. Fidler explains to Weinberg that it's the Sheriff's office that has to arrange with the Alhambra police the jury visit and it is a complicated thing. It can't be accomplished this Thursday, but next Monday is a possibility as well as the following Thursday.
Weinberg then comes back and says, "I think the courts ruling is unfair and seriously prejudice's the defense." Weinberg brings up the recording, but Fidler counters that the tape recording is misleading. Weinberg believes that there is only an on or off setting for the fountain. Fidler states that if Weinberg presents him evidence that there is only an on or off setting on the fountain then he will revisit his ruling. Michelle Blaine on her blog states that when she worked for Spector, the fountain had three settings: low, medium and high.
Then AJ brings up the last point in the prosecution's motion and that's Mrs. Spector's presence at the jury viewing. "She should not be allowed to stand there as the dutiful wife." Fidler states that at the first viewing, "In hindsight, Mrs. Spector should not have been there." It's her home and she can be upstairs, but not in view of the jurors during the visit.
The last issue that Weinberg brings up is the media presence at the viewing. He outlines the fact that at the last trial, only one reporter was allowed to go. Weinberg now tells the court, "I've been asked," to get the court to approve both Linda Deutsch and Harriet Ryan attending the visit. I'm surprised at this because I was under the impression that he was not going to bring this up to the judge, or mention the reporter's names. Fidler states, "I don't frankly care." The people do not appear to have any objection. Fidler replies, "If that works out for everyone they will coordinate with Mr. Parachini.
The last issue that is argued is Dr. Sieden and what he's allowed to opine on for the defense. The case that is being used as a partial guide is a 2008 Federal case, Moses vs. Payne (sp?) , Judge Fidler states his position and that one issue he is firm on is "trial by mathmatics. [...] Statistics have no place in court." Weinberg feels that the court needs to separate out the "expert testimony from the psychological autopsy" issue.
10:39 am: Donte leaves 106.
Weinberg argues that the Federal case mentioned Moses vs. Payne (sp?) "...has no value to California. [...] Dr. Sieden will talk about understanding the nature of suicide. [...] The people put on witnesses to suggest that because Lana Clarkson was making plans, she couldn't have committed suicide. Now having the prosecution put on those witnesses, [they want to] now preventing the defense from putting on an expert. [...] It would be patently unfair to allow the prosecution and then not allow the defense (to counter that testimony). [...] We have never suggested that Dr. Sieden would or should do a psychological autopsy. "
As Fidler is listening to Weinberg, I see a slight furrowing of his upper brow and forehead and his hand is resting in front of his mouth, elbow on his desk. Fidler responds, "Are you suggesting that he be allowed to use statistics?" Weinberg responds, "There is a line between what is a statistic and what science teaches us." He goes on to mention the prosecution's witnesses and what they suggest. He then replies, "In fact, a majority [of suicides] doesn't happen that way." Weinberg says that statistics is an overly broad comment. Fidler is clear. "I"m not going to allow that type of testimony. [...] (To infer) ....the majority.... the numbers are completely misleading. [...] When you say that, it's misleading.
Weinberg responds, "Well, you allowed it at the first trial." I think Fidler is a teeny bit irritated by that and responds, "It wasn't objected to. I rule on objections that are before me." Weinberg asks, "If medical science says (intra-oral gunshot wound) is virtually always suicide, what is wrong with saying..?"
Fidler replies, "There is a lot wrong with using numbers. [...] when someone uses numbers, it's allowing an expert to use numbers for an issue they are not allowed to testify to."
There is more argument back and forth by both sides. AJ asks if the issues covered "in camera" will be addressed. Weinberg states that at this time, he is not intending to go there. Fidler also replies that he did some serious rethinking about that issue. That's interesting because it means Fidler could reverse his in camera ruling. Weinberg says again that he doesn't think he is going to go there.
They really haven't hammered out what Sieden can and cannot testify to. Fidler states that "Clearly under California law, Dr. Sieden can testify generally. [...] Factors that are common for suicide; factors beyond the realm of common knowledge. [However,] he can not make conclusions about Lana Clarkson or if she fits into a pattern."
AJ then says to the court that he wants to understand that the door is not closed, and repeats what he believes is is understanding about Fidler's tentative ruling.
1. No statistics, subject to what Dr. Pena testified to or case law. (If Dr. Pena testified to statistics, then the defense can present.)
2. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she committed suicide
3. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she was suicidal or that she fell into a group with those risk factors.
The details of how Spector's emails fell into the prosecution's hands are cleared up by Weinberg. Spector was trying to send the email to a different Michelle and the email program automatically dropped in Michelle Blaine's name. Weinberg asks that the attachment to the people's motion (which is a copy of the email) not be made part of the public record. Fidler replies, "I don't think it's appropriate to seal it." Besides, it was already in the public domain.
And that's it for the morning session.
In the afternoon session, several members of the press showed up, more people from the general public and several supporters for Spector. There is a still photographer from the Associated Press in the gallery near the end of far left end of the second bench row. He has a big camera with a telescopic lens on a tripod. Some of the Spector supporters are men I think have come to court before one or two times. Then Harvey with the white hair arrives and later in the day the short tiny woman with blond hair shows up. Rachelle is wearing a very light brownish colored, form fitting pantsuit and for the first time during this trial, her hair is not in a clip holding it all together tightly in the back. Her hair is French braided into two braids on each side of her head. It's very similar to how she sometimes wore it at the first trial. Spector is in a black suit, big dark red kerchief in his suit pocket and a white shirt.
Before court even begins, or Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran even takes the stand, there are more arguments as to where Weinberg is going with this witness and whether or not Dr. Lakshmanan can talk about the study he did regarding LA County suicides from 2004 through 2006.
When Dr. Lakshmanan does take the stand at 1:54 pm, he is asked endless questions about Jamie Lintemoot's activities at the scene and what "his understanding was" of where Jamie Lintemoot was describing the blood found on Lana Clarkson's hands and wrists.
Through this witness, Weinberg is trying to ask questions about what the coroner's office does and doesn't do in regards to investigating a decedent's "state of mind." There were several objections and a few bench conferences and towards the end of the day the jury was asked to step out of the room for more arguments and that continued until a few minutes before 4:00 pm.
All and all, I would have to say that the defense case did not start off with a bang but more like a perpetually stalling car with many stops and restarts. Court continues tomorrow at 9:30 am.
I had hoped to transcribe the people's motion completely to deny the jury visit, but it's way late and I'd like to get to bed before midnight. Below is the email that was attached to the people's motion.
From: PHILLIP SPECTOR
Subject: Re: FW: Site visit
Sate: August 9, 2007 7:41:07 PM PDT
To: ROGERJROSEN
Cc: rgabriel, kennybaden, dnacjp, sbrunon, brunonlaw, chelle@rachellemarie.com, michelle@btprods.com, jennifer.barringer, tawni.tyndall
roger: re richard's email below. the prosecution is not allowed to bring anything. i won't allow it. it's still my fucking house. evidence, and exhibits are not prosecution props. and the prosecution will do no leading around. or rachelle and i will join in too. i am warning you now. this is still my house. not the judges. you better take control of this situation or i will. i will not have dickhead or jerkoff running things. or they will run into me. tell me now. or i will have four bodyguards here. not that i need them. i have a big mouth. and nobody with substitute anything for the mercedes. the mercedes is gone. phillip.
On Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Richard Gabriel wrote:
Roger:
Fountain will be on full bore for site visit tomorrow, yes? Also, will prosecution and you be narrating by pointing out certain things during the site visit or will the jury just arrive, stand in the courtyard, go in through the front door and visit the rooms in silence? What is the procedure? I read a Court TV article which said that: The prosecution will bring some if its own props to the jury view. In addition to evidence photos, which they are expected to use inside the house to identify the locations of evidence, the authorities are also bringing a black Crown Victoria Sedan. I ask because jurors may use tomorrow to make some concrete conclusions about the case and I don't want narration from prosecution of fidler. I don't want them subtly directing the jury's attention to things they want them to focus on. This means having them spend more time in the bathroom or the living room than in the foyer or the courtyard.
Special thanks for Sedonia Sunset for helping with my edit this morning. Sprocket.
The Defense Begins
Hello everyone, I'm at the Tokyo Library on the extended lunch break. I'll have a full report on today's events much later tonight.
Several motions were presented this morning to Judge Fidler today outside the presence of the jury. Weinberg made the expected motion to dismiss the case, basically arguing that there wasn't one piece of scientific evidence that proved Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. The motion was denied.
The next motion was regarding the "emails." I will have more on this later, but the tentative ruling by Judge Fidler is, that unless the defense can show to Judge Fidler that the fountain in the rear courtyard of Spector's house only has one speed or level, (i.e. "on" or "off"), then during a jury visit, the fountain will not be on. The prosecution was requesting that because of the information revealed in the emails, they were objecting to a jury visit during the retrial. Fidler over ruled the prosecution's request. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if Weinberg still wants to proceed with a jury visit if the fountain is off. I will say this about fountains. I have several. One on my front porch, several table top fountains in my house and a large one in the back yard. Each fountain I have as a flow control on the fountain pump itself; not with an switch to adjust the water flow. It remains to be seen what type of controls the fountain has on Spector's property.
Fidler also made some rulings as to what the suicidologist Dr. Seiden can and can not say to the jury. There are tentative rulings, and more to be argued later. Look for my update later tonight.
Updated Monday, January 26th, 2009, 11:00 pm:
Defense Witnesses:
#1: Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, (Chief Medical Examiner and Coroner for Los Angeles County; currently under direct examination)
Accredited Press inside the courtroom:
Morning Session: Harriet Ryan of the Los Angeles Times
Afternoon Session: Harriet Ryan, Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press, Kathryn, US corespondent for The Telegraph, UK ,and a representative from Bloomberg News. Partway through the afternoon session, Aphrodite Jones, crime author, arrived.
I miss my 8:30 am train but I get inside the courtroom just in time. There's virtually no one in the courtroom except me and Donte, one of Spector's adopted sons. He's sitting in the back row on one of the plastic chairs intently texting on his phone. I'm wondering if anyone told him that Spector would not be here in the morning since they are only going to argue motions. Speaking of emails today, maybe he got left off the email list.
Harriet Ryan is here in her usual bench seat along the back wall. AJ, Truc, Weinberg and Susan are here and Cindy is the court reporter covering the morning session. Bailiff Kyle is not here so Sheriff Williams is the bailiff box. There are other Sheriff's filling the second seat where Williams usually sits. The court clerk, Wendy is absent this morning. Weinberg asks Williams if he minds if he goes and looks at the calendars behind Wendy's desk that detail the dark days for a three month period at a time. For those of you who haven't been inside 106, behind Wendy's desk area, there are three calendars hanging in a row on the back wall. There are always three calendars up there covering a 90 day period. The days where court is dark are marked out with a black "X."
A public person, an older gentleman who was here a few weeks ago is back and peppering me with lots of questions and opinions. He doesn't stay long since he has to go to another court for his jury duty service at 10:00 am.
Allan Parachini comes out of the Judge's chamber's area and greets Harriet Ryan. 9:41 am, Josh, the people's clerk comes in with papers for AJ. The thing that is holding up the hearing for motions is the fact that there is no clerk. I don't know if that's a rule that there must be a clerk before the Judge can take the bench. I know the Judge came out for a moment to start court but when he realized there was no one to replace Wendy he went back into chambers. Court staff try to drum up a clerk to sit in for the morning session.
Allan Parachini and Harriet whisper very quietly in the back row. A clerk is found! But it's not a clerk, it's an administrator, upper level I believe, a woman that Allan knows and smiles and greets her when she comes in. She fills in for Wendy. Allan stays to talk to Harriet and at 9:47 am the inner doors close. Fidler takes the bench at 9:49 am. Judge Fidler states that there are two motions that he's aware of that are still to be litigated: reviewing the scene and the scope of the defense expert testimony or if there will be any expert. Fidler states that they will start with the scene first but Weinberg interrupts and asks for his motion to be heard that he believes supersceeds. Fidler apologizes and says, "Of course."
This is the standard defense motion for a dismissal citing that the prosecution has not met their burden. (I'm not positive if this is for dismissal or a motion for "acquittal," since I do have that word in my notes.) Weinberg outlines every issue that he feels supports his motion stating there isn't enough evidence (to continue the trial). He starts with the autopsy and the fact that the examination could not determine manner of death. He moves onto the testimony of Dr. Herold and that the scientific evidence can't put the gun in Spector's hand, "...except for one pseudo exception, the evidence is consistent with Lana Clarkson [...] making the shot herself." As to "...the blood on the back of the wrist, and "if" it was there, [...] that's not evidence, it's lay opinion."
Weinbergs argument moves onto blood spatter analysis and the fact that Jamie Lintemoot "even by her own opinion" was not a spatter expert. Weinberg states that Adriano's testimony was "problematic." There are more arguments and I'm sure you get the gist of where he was going.
When it's the people's turn, AJ gets up and states, "The evidence is overwhelming. Very seldom do we have so much evidence. He also mentions something to the effect (to counter a statement by Weinberg) that it's "rarely" a single piece of evidence that points to guilt but a totality of the evidence. AJ then goes onto outline his first point, the "pattern of violence" that, when presented with a particular set of circumstances, he (Spector) reacts violently." AJ moves onto the scene and the fact that "clearly he had an amorous intent," specifically mentioning the 2 missing viagra tablets in the three-piece blister pack found in his valise. Lana's position in the chair and her ready to leave in the fact that she had her jacket on, her purse on her shoulder and her shoes. That the "gun was Spector's. He would be the only one who knew where it was."
The five 1101(b) witnesses are mentioned by name. Adriano who was approximately 15 feet from the event when the gun was discharged. AJ goes over the events right after the gun being fired in detail, and Spector's statement and actions directly afterwards, that when De Souza asked him, "What happened, sir?," Spector just shrugged his shoulders in response. "The consciousness of guilt. He didn't call for help. He didn't cry out for help, or say a woman just shot herself." AJ also details the manipulation at the scene with the bloody diaper (rag), attempting in his drunken state to clean up the scene.
10:03 am, Pat Dixon enters and sits in the back row on the right. "And the only evidence that fits the scientific evidence is the scene Ms. Do and I presented to the court."
Weinberg gets one more rebuttal argument to the people's presentation. "With the litany of evidence and how much (0f it) is fabricated, [...] Mr. Jackson said this is a pattern and the court admonished (the people for using that term). Evidently there is nothing this court can do stop Mr. Jackson from using this evidence for what the court told him not to. [...] What does that have to do with Dorothy Melvin? [...] He wanted her to leave because he thought she was stealing. [...] What does that have to do with Stephanie Jennings? He wanted her to go to a party. [...] What does this have to do...? It's completely fabricated and consistently used by the prosecution and the law forbids [it]. That evidence shouldn't be used for pattern."
Fidler then interrupts Weinberg because he doesn't want to lose a train of thought he's got going that contradicts the argument about the prosecution using the word pattern to describe the 1101(b) witnesses. He says, "There was a later discussion. We had a big talk about it. [...] And then we discussed whether or not 'pattern' was acceptable language for the case."
Not long after this, Judge Fidler rules and states, "The fact that there is another explanation is irrelevant to the fact whether or not the case can proceed." Ergo, motion denied. Spector doesn't get a pass, you must put on a defense.
The email issue is discussed. Fidler doesn't buy Weinberg's argument that the defense jury consultant was trying to say, "The fountain shouldn't be toned down. There's no suggestion that the defense is going to do anything. [...] There's is no reason the visit will be inappropriate. [...] The fountain was under the control of LE (for two days). [...] The fountain wasn't manipulated last time. [...] There's nothing that could affect the fairness."
AJ doesn't go over every point in their motion, but does point out the words, "...make sure it's up 'full bore,' which may suggest that it could be in a different position. [...] The email says, we don't want the prosecution to control the jury view. We want to control the jury view. [...] The reason we did include the email, is to establish that Mr. Spector said, ' If things don't go the way I want them to go I will speak up.' [...] That's why we don't think it's a good idea in this case."
Weinberg immediately objects to the word "up" stating that's not in the email. He continues to defend Spector's email and pleads with Fidler that, "You have seen Mr. Spector's behavior through both trials. He's not going to act out."
I could swear Judgle Fidler almost rolls his eyes and replies that "full bore" is clearly an indication that a more reasonable inference can be drawn (that full bore does mean "up"). "I'm sorry, but there may have been manipulation. There is not enough evidence to support that so..." Fidler rules that, "...there will be a jury visit but the fountain will be off. If necessary it will be explained to the jury without casting any aspersions." Weinberg responds, "I'll consider that, your honor."
They try to hammer out a date for the jury visit. Fidler explains to Weinberg that it's the Sheriff's office that has to arrange with the Alhambra police the jury visit and it is a complicated thing. It can't be accomplished this Thursday, but next Monday is a possibility as well as the following Thursday.
Weinberg then comes back and says, "I think the courts ruling is unfair and seriously prejudice's the defense." Weinberg brings up the recording, but Fidler counters that the tape recording is misleading. Weinberg believes that there is only an on or off setting for the fountain. Fidler states that if Weinberg presents him evidence that there is only an on or off setting on the fountain then he will revisit his ruling. Michelle Blaine on her blog states that when she worked for Spector, the fountain had three settings: low, medium and high.
Then AJ brings up the last point in the prosecution's motion and that's Mrs. Spector's presence at the jury viewing. "She should not be allowed to stand there as the dutiful wife." Fidler states that at the first viewing, "In hindsight, Mrs. Spector should not have been there." It's her home and she can be upstairs, but not in view of the jurors during the visit.
The last issue that Weinberg brings up is the media presence at the viewing. He outlines the fact that at the last trial, only one reporter was allowed to go. Weinberg now tells the court, "I've been asked," to get the court to approve both Linda Deutsch and Harriet Ryan attending the visit. I'm surprised at this because I was under the impression that he was not going to bring this up to the judge, or mention the reporter's names. Fidler states, "I don't frankly care." The people do not appear to have any objection. Fidler replies, "If that works out for everyone they will coordinate with Mr. Parachini.
The last issue that is argued is Dr. Sieden and what he's allowed to opine on for the defense. The case that is being used as a partial guide is a 2008 Federal case, Moses vs. Payne (sp?) , Judge Fidler states his position and that one issue he is firm on is "trial by mathmatics. [...] Statistics have no place in court." Weinberg feels that the court needs to separate out the "expert testimony from the psychological autopsy" issue.
10:39 am: Donte leaves 106.
Weinberg argues that the Federal case mentioned Moses vs. Payne (sp?) "...has no value to California. [...] Dr. Sieden will talk about understanding the nature of suicide. [...] The people put on witnesses to suggest that because Lana Clarkson was making plans, she couldn't have committed suicide. Now having the prosecution put on those witnesses, [they want to] now preventing the defense from putting on an expert. [...] It would be patently unfair to allow the prosecution and then not allow the defense (to counter that testimony). [...] We have never suggested that Dr. Sieden would or should do a psychological autopsy. "
As Fidler is listening to Weinberg, I see a slight furrowing of his upper brow and forehead and his hand is resting in front of his mouth, elbow on his desk. Fidler responds, "Are you suggesting that he be allowed to use statistics?" Weinberg responds, "There is a line between what is a statistic and what science teaches us." He goes on to mention the prosecution's witnesses and what they suggest. He then replies, "In fact, a majority [of suicides] doesn't happen that way." Weinberg says that statistics is an overly broad comment. Fidler is clear. "I"m not going to allow that type of testimony. [...] (To infer) ....the majority.... the numbers are completely misleading. [...] When you say that, it's misleading.
Weinberg responds, "Well, you allowed it at the first trial." I think Fidler is a teeny bit irritated by that and responds, "It wasn't objected to. I rule on objections that are before me." Weinberg asks, "If medical science says (intra-oral gunshot wound) is virtually always suicide, what is wrong with saying..?"
Fidler replies, "There is a lot wrong with using numbers. [...] when someone uses numbers, it's allowing an expert to use numbers for an issue they are not allowed to testify to."
There is more argument back and forth by both sides. AJ asks if the issues covered "in camera" will be addressed. Weinberg states that at this time, he is not intending to go there. Fidler also replies that he did some serious rethinking about that issue. That's interesting because it means Fidler could reverse his in camera ruling. Weinberg says again that he doesn't think he is going to go there.
They really haven't hammered out what Sieden can and cannot testify to. Fidler states that "Clearly under California law, Dr. Sieden can testify generally. [...] Factors that are common for suicide; factors beyond the realm of common knowledge. [However,] he can not make conclusions about Lana Clarkson or if she fits into a pattern."
AJ then says to the court that he wants to understand that the door is not closed, and repeats what he believes is is understanding about Fidler's tentative ruling.
1. No statistics, subject to what Dr. Pena testified to or case law. (If Dr. Pena testified to statistics, then the defense can present.)
2. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she committed suicide
3. Dr. Sieden can not opine that she was suicidal or that she fell into a group with those risk factors.
The details of how Spector's emails fell into the prosecution's hands are cleared up by Weinberg. Spector was trying to send the email to a different Michelle and the email program automatically dropped in Michelle Blaine's name. Weinberg asks that the attachment to the people's motion (which is a copy of the email) not be made part of the public record. Fidler replies, "I don't think it's appropriate to seal it." Besides, it was already in the public domain.
And that's it for the morning session.
In the afternoon session, several members of the press showed up, more people from the general public and several supporters for Spector. There is a still photographer from the Associated Press in the gallery near the end of far left end of the second bench row. He has a big camera with a telescopic lens on a tripod. Some of the Spector supporters are men I think have come to court before one or two times. Then Harvey with the white hair arrives and later in the day the short tiny woman with blond hair shows up. Rachelle is wearing a very light brownish colored, form fitting pantsuit and for the first time during this trial, her hair is not in a clip holding it all together tightly in the back. Her hair is French braided into two braids on each side of her head. It's very similar to how she sometimes wore it at the first trial. Spector is in a black suit, big dark red kerchief in his suit pocket and a white shirt.
Before court even begins, or Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran even takes the stand, there are more arguments as to where Weinberg is going with this witness and whether or not Dr. Lakshmanan can talk about the study he did regarding LA County suicides from 2004 through 2006.
When Dr. Lakshmanan does take the stand at 1:54 pm, he is asked endless questions about Jamie Lintemoot's activities at the scene and what "his understanding was" of where Jamie Lintemoot was describing the blood found on Lana Clarkson's hands and wrists.
Through this witness, Weinberg is trying to ask questions about what the coroner's office does and doesn't do in regards to investigating a decedent's "state of mind." There were several objections and a few bench conferences and towards the end of the day the jury was asked to step out of the room for more arguments and that continued until a few minutes before 4:00 pm.
All and all, I would have to say that the defense case did not start off with a bang but more like a perpetually stalling car with many stops and restarts. Court continues tomorrow at 9:30 am.
I had hoped to transcribe the people's motion completely to deny the jury visit, but it's way late and I'd like to get to bed before midnight. Below is the email that was attached to the people's motion.
From: PHILLIP SPECTOR
Subject: Re: FW: Site visit
Sate: August 9, 2007 7:41:07 PM PDT
To: ROGERJROSEN
Cc: rgabriel, kennybaden, dnacjp, sbrunon, brunonlaw, chelle@rachellemarie.com, michelle@btprods.com, jennifer.barringer, tawni.tyndall
roger: re richard's email below. the prosecution is not allowed to bring anything. i won't allow it. it's still my fucking house. evidence, and exhibits are not prosecution props. and the prosecution will do no leading around. or rachelle and i will join in too. i am warning you now. this is still my house. not the judges. you better take control of this situation or i will. i will not have dickhead or jerkoff running things. or they will run into me. tell me now. or i will have four bodyguards here. not that i need them. i have a big mouth. and nobody with substitute anything for the mercedes. the mercedes is gone. phillip.
On Wednesday, August 8, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Richard Gabriel wrote:
Roger:
Fountain will be on full bore for site visit tomorrow, yes? Also, will prosecution and you be narrating by pointing out certain things during the site visit or will the jury just arrive, stand in the courtyard, go in through the front door and visit the rooms in silence? What is the procedure? I read a Court TV article which said that: The prosecution will bring some if its own props to the jury view. In addition to evidence photos, which they are expected to use inside the house to identify the locations of evidence, the authorities are also bringing a black Crown Victoria Sedan. I ask because jurors may use tomorrow to make some concrete conclusions about the case and I don't want narration from prosecution of fidler. I don't want them subtly directing the jury's attention to things they want them to focus on. This means having them spend more time in the bathroom or the living room than in the foyer or the courtyard.
Special thanks for Sedonia Sunset for helping with my edit this morning. Sprocket.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Phil Spector Retrial: Opening Statements
Prosecution and defense opening statements were presented today in the retrial of Phil Spector who is facing one count of second degree murder in the February 3rd, 2003 shooting death of Lana Clarkson.
I have lots of notes and I can't possibly transcribe them all. This will be a very short highlight of today's events and when I get the free time, I will put up more detailed notes on the opening statements later. Mr. Sprocket came to court with me today but did indicate that he probably won't be back until closing arguments. There were some familiar faces in the gallery; Linda Deutsch, Harriet Ryan, Donte, Miriam Hernandez, Louis Spector and his companion Frieda, and lots of new ones like blog reader Linda and her friend Paula, who is working towards a degree in criminal justice.
In the afternoon session I see Detective Tomlin as well as Juror #9 who said he is going to come whenever he can. Ciaran McEvoy, now with the LA Daily Journal was also a welcome, familiar face. The Clarkson family and their attorneys were there, sitting in the front row. There were quite a few reporters that I didn't recognize, but I did get to meet the Telegraph's US correspondent, Kathryn, who I sat next to in the third row in the morning session.
The courtroom ended up being packed with a mix of general public and seasoned reporters. There were five reporters on laptops in the back row, Harriet being one of them.
A man who was a juror on the Black Widow trial that Truc Do prosecuted, brought his wife to the morning session thinking that Do would be presenting part or all of the opening statement. I believe they left around lunch time when they learned that AJ would be handling the entire opening.
AJ hit it out of the ballpark. At least, that was my impression. To me, some jurors appeared transfixed soon after the lights were dimmed and the prosecutions slide presentation was up on the ELMO; AJ took them on a journey of the five women in Spector's life with whom he became enraged when they told him they wanted to go home. I watched one alternate in the front row who looked like her jaw was hanging open a ways the entire time AJ was speaking.
Very early on in his presentation, AJ put up on the ELMO the words that Vincent Tannazzo testified to in Spector 1. "Women are all f***ing "C's". They all deserve a bullet in their heads." This was to show the "real" Phil Spector.
I freely admit I am a fan of AJ. I've had the opportunity to see him work his magic not only in Spector 1, but in pre-arraignment hearings on the Kazuyoshi Miura matter, a case that sadly ended when Miura took his own life less than 12 hours back on US soil.
But don't start thinking that this trial is a "slam dunk" for AJ and Ms. Do yet. Weinberg is a worthy adversary whose courtroom style is low key and worlds away from that dysfunctional group of combative egos in round 1. His best argument that I heard in the courtroom was bringing to the jurors attention that Adriano DeSouza, in speaking to the 911 operators and other sheriffs immediately after Lana's death, "...reconstructed the critical statement eight different ways..." of what Spector said when exiting the house, before settling on, "I think I killed somebody."
Weinberg points out that what he initially said to the first 911 operator was "I think, I think he said, I killed somebody. It's my English. I"m not sure." Weinberg then says the evidence will show "...officers then promote and encourage the most incriminating of the eight versions."
Where Burce Cutler, in a loud accusatory voice, claimed DeSouza didn't understand English, was napping and having a little siesta in the car with snacks and cookies, Weinberg tells the jurors that,
"He's a human being, and he's not sure what he heard. [...] Adriano has convinced himself what Mr. Spector said. He's the star of the case. Mr. DeSouza is wrong because he's a human being. He's not a tape recorder. We will prove to you that his perception was wrong. If it wasn't for the confession, we wouldn't be here."
Weinberg plans on attacking the credibility of Vincent Tannazzo. Weinberg told jurors that Vincent Tannazzo, supposedly a retired LE, only came forward with his statements recently, at the first trial and the evidence will show he is not what he appears to be.
Another argument that I felt had some merit were the ones based on the science. There was no GSR on Spector; no blood spatter on Spector's right sleeve jacket; the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with a self inflicted wound. There was no evidence of a struggle between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector and there was no evidence of Spector's DNA under Lana's nails nor was there any torn clothing.
It remains to be seen whether or not the jury will consider it crucial that 1) the physical evidence could not answer manner of death and Dr. Pena was directed by his superiors not to order a psychological autopsy on Lana, instead utilizing an independent investigator to help them "determine the facts." Weinberg told the jury, "Lana Clarkson's body would look exactly the same if she was shot or responsible for shooting herself.
One of the weakest arguments for me was, "The evidence will show that there was physical evidence of sexual intimacy before she died. Phil Spector's DNA was on Lana Clarkson's left breast. Lana Clarkson's DNA was found on Phil Spector's scrotum. There's no basis of fact that he didn't want her to leave because he wanted sexual activity [...] in the face of those DNA facts.
To me, that's not enough DNA to prove Spector was "satisfied" with the outcome of the sexual contact. To buttress the claim that Spector was not holding Lana against her will, Weinberg tells the jurors that he still had the driver outside, waiting to take her home. That's not holding her against her will.
Weinberg skips over the facts about the dead bolt latch. The set screw was tampered with so that the exterior latch part of the bolt could instantly be pulled off with the bolt in the extended position, effectively locking someone inside the house.
I don't know how to get a feel for this jury, yet. It's a new trial and like I've mentioned before, a totally different vibe in the courtroom from last time. Towards the end of the court day, three male jurors in the back row had their arms crossed in front of their chests. One of those jurors nervously rocked a bit in his chair. It appeared to me at times that Juror #6, the research scientist was closing his eyes and possibly napping.
Dorothy Melvin will be the first witness in the box tomorrow morning. She's put on a little bit of weight, cut and curled her hair and I didn't recognize her at all!
Read Michelle Blaine's blog for her comments on Weinberg's claim that Lana was depressed and near the end of her rope. Michelle gets it spot on.
I hope to get a more detailed transcript up of opening statements but it will take me several days to get it up.
I have lots of notes and I can't possibly transcribe them all. This will be a very short highlight of today's events and when I get the free time, I will put up more detailed notes on the opening statements later. Mr. Sprocket came to court with me today but did indicate that he probably won't be back until closing arguments. There were some familiar faces in the gallery; Linda Deutsch, Harriet Ryan, Donte, Miriam Hernandez, Louis Spector and his companion Frieda, and lots of new ones like blog reader Linda and her friend Paula, who is working towards a degree in criminal justice.
In the afternoon session I see Detective Tomlin as well as Juror #9 who said he is going to come whenever he can. Ciaran McEvoy, now with the LA Daily Journal was also a welcome, familiar face. The Clarkson family and their attorneys were there, sitting in the front row. There were quite a few reporters that I didn't recognize, but I did get to meet the Telegraph's US correspondent, Kathryn, who I sat next to in the third row in the morning session.
The courtroom ended up being packed with a mix of general public and seasoned reporters. There were five reporters on laptops in the back row, Harriet being one of them.
A man who was a juror on the Black Widow trial that Truc Do prosecuted, brought his wife to the morning session thinking that Do would be presenting part or all of the opening statement. I believe they left around lunch time when they learned that AJ would be handling the entire opening.
AJ hit it out of the ballpark. At least, that was my impression. To me, some jurors appeared transfixed soon after the lights were dimmed and the prosecutions slide presentation was up on the ELMO; AJ took them on a journey of the five women in Spector's life with whom he became enraged when they told him they wanted to go home. I watched one alternate in the front row who looked like her jaw was hanging open a ways the entire time AJ was speaking.
Very early on in his presentation, AJ put up on the ELMO the words that Vincent Tannazzo testified to in Spector 1. "Women are all f***ing "C's". They all deserve a bullet in their heads." This was to show the "real" Phil Spector.
I freely admit I am a fan of AJ. I've had the opportunity to see him work his magic not only in Spector 1, but in pre-arraignment hearings on the Kazuyoshi Miura matter, a case that sadly ended when Miura took his own life less than 12 hours back on US soil.
But don't start thinking that this trial is a "slam dunk" for AJ and Ms. Do yet. Weinberg is a worthy adversary whose courtroom style is low key and worlds away from that dysfunctional group of combative egos in round 1. His best argument that I heard in the courtroom was bringing to the jurors attention that Adriano DeSouza, in speaking to the 911 operators and other sheriffs immediately after Lana's death, "...reconstructed the critical statement eight different ways..." of what Spector said when exiting the house, before settling on, "I think I killed somebody."
Weinberg points out that what he initially said to the first 911 operator was "I think, I think he said, I killed somebody. It's my English. I"m not sure." Weinberg then says the evidence will show "...officers then promote and encourage the most incriminating of the eight versions."
Where Burce Cutler, in a loud accusatory voice, claimed DeSouza didn't understand English, was napping and having a little siesta in the car with snacks and cookies, Weinberg tells the jurors that,
"He's a human being, and he's not sure what he heard. [...] Adriano has convinced himself what Mr. Spector said. He's the star of the case. Mr. DeSouza is wrong because he's a human being. He's not a tape recorder. We will prove to you that his perception was wrong. If it wasn't for the confession, we wouldn't be here."
Weinberg plans on attacking the credibility of Vincent Tannazzo. Weinberg told jurors that Vincent Tannazzo, supposedly a retired LE, only came forward with his statements recently, at the first trial and the evidence will show he is not what he appears to be.
Another argument that I felt had some merit were the ones based on the science. There was no GSR on Spector; no blood spatter on Spector's right sleeve jacket; the trajectory of the bullet was consistent with a self inflicted wound. There was no evidence of a struggle between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector and there was no evidence of Spector's DNA under Lana's nails nor was there any torn clothing.
It remains to be seen whether or not the jury will consider it crucial that 1) the physical evidence could not answer manner of death and Dr. Pena was directed by his superiors not to order a psychological autopsy on Lana, instead utilizing an independent investigator to help them "determine the facts." Weinberg told the jury, "Lana Clarkson's body would look exactly the same if she was shot or responsible for shooting herself.
One of the weakest arguments for me was, "The evidence will show that there was physical evidence of sexual intimacy before she died. Phil Spector's DNA was on Lana Clarkson's left breast. Lana Clarkson's DNA was found on Phil Spector's scrotum. There's no basis of fact that he didn't want her to leave because he wanted sexual activity [...] in the face of those DNA facts.
To me, that's not enough DNA to prove Spector was "satisfied" with the outcome of the sexual contact. To buttress the claim that Spector was not holding Lana against her will, Weinberg tells the jurors that he still had the driver outside, waiting to take her home. That's not holding her against her will.
Weinberg skips over the facts about the dead bolt latch. The set screw was tampered with so that the exterior latch part of the bolt could instantly be pulled off with the bolt in the extended position, effectively locking someone inside the house.
I don't know how to get a feel for this jury, yet. It's a new trial and like I've mentioned before, a totally different vibe in the courtroom from last time. Towards the end of the court day, three male jurors in the back row had their arms crossed in front of their chests. One of those jurors nervously rocked a bit in his chair. It appeared to me at times that Juror #6, the research scientist was closing his eyes and possibly napping.
Dorothy Melvin will be the first witness in the box tomorrow morning. She's put on a little bit of weight, cut and curled her hair and I didn't recognize her at all!
Read Michelle Blaine's blog for her comments on Weinberg's claim that Lana was depressed and near the end of her rope. Michelle gets it spot on.
I hope to get a more detailed transcript up of opening statements but it will take me several days to get it up.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Phil Spector Retrial: The Prosecution's Recent Motions
A few days ago, I received a copy of the prosecutions motions to present a sixth 1101(b) witness (also known as "prior bad acts" or "PBA"), as well as to include deceased Dianne Ogden's testimony from Spector's first trial at his upcoming second trial. You can purchase a copy of the motion from the Los Angeles County Court's web site, but I am reproducing a section of it here for those who can not purchase it.
----------
Page 1
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
By: ALAN JACKSON, Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
210 W. Temple Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHILLIP SPECTOR,
Defendant.
Case No. BA2552333
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF OTHER
CRIMES
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 8:30 AM
Court: Department 106
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE FIDLER, AND TO DORON WEINBERG, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, PHILLIP SPECTOR:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON JULY 29, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, the People of the State of California will move this court to admit evidence of defendant Spector's gun-related violence against victim Norma Kemper as evidence of other
crimes, pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 1101(b).
This Motion to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes will be based on the attached Points and Authorities as well as any and all facts recited herein, statutory and case law authority, the court file, and all oral arguments and documents submitted on the People's behalf at the hearing on the Motion.
Dated: July 14, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Cooley
District attorney of Los Angeles County
Page 2
By (signature here) Alan Jackson/ by RSG
ALAN JACKSON
Deputy District Attorney
Page 3
Steve Cooley
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
By: ALAN JACKSON, Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
210 W. Temple Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHILLIP SPECTOR,
Defendant.
Case No. BA2552333
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF
OTHER CRIMES
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 8:30 AM
Court: Department 106
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2003, Phillip Spector shot Lana Clarkson to death in the foyer of his Alhambra home. After the shooting, Spector, who was intoxicated and who had been drinking alcohol all evening, opened the back door to the house, stood in the doorway and told Adriano DeSouza, his driver, "I think I killed somebody." Only Spector and Clarkson were in the house at the time. Within minutes, the police were on the scene, and Spector was eventually taken into custody.
Defendant Spector has an on-going pattern of gun-related violence against women stemming from alcohol consumption; particularly, women in whom he has a romantic interest
Page 4
and whom he seeks to control, if even against their will. In the People's first prosecution of Spector, this court ruled as admissible under Evidence Code section 1101(b) the testimony of five women each of whom testified about Spector's gun-related violence against them occurring between the mid 1970's and 1995---Devra Robitaille in the mid- 1970's and again in the mid- 1980's, Dianne Ogden-Halder in 1988, Melissa Grosvenor in 1991, Dorothy Melvin in 1993 and Stephanie Jennings in 1995. In January of 2008, the People learned of another female victim: Norma Kemper. On January 15h, 2008, Kemper told investigators that on the night after Spector hired her as an assistant in 1996, she and Spector went to dinner whereupon Spector, intoxicated and angry that she rebuffed his advances, displayed a small hand gun inside his suit jacket and said, "You know I could kill you right now." Following the investigators' interview, the People timely disclosed this information to defense counsel. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101(b), the People seek to admit the incident involving Kemper as evidence of (1) common plan or scheme, (2) the existence of implied malice and (3) the absence of mistake or accident.
II. SPECTOR'S ADDITIONAL HISTORY OF GUN-RELATED VIOLENCE
The five gun-related incidents previously admitted into evidence by the court all occurred as a result of what was described as a change in Spector's personality after he consumed alcohol. The newly discovered incident involving Norma Kemper further demonstrates this ever-present pattern that Spector's gun-related violence stems from alcohol consumption. This similarity between the incident involving Kemper and the shooting of Lana Clarkson is extremely probative evidence that pointedly addresses the People's theory of the case.
A. The 1996 threatened assault of Norma Kemper
Norma Kemper met Spector in 1996 after her interviewed and hired her over the phone to be his assistant. Kemper held this position for 4 years, from 1996 to 2000. She worked mainly from her home but was in Spector's Alhambra home on several occasions. At no time during her employment with Spector did Kemper engage in anything other than a strictly business relationship with him.
Page 5
On the evening after Spector hired her, Kemper was invited to eat dinner with Spector and his friend, Jay Romaine, at Dan Tana's restaurant. She was picked up by Spector in his car and taken to the restaurant. When they arrived, Spector and Romaine sat on one side of the table and Kemper on the other side. During the evening, Spector consumed several alcoholic beverages. While Kemper does not remember if she had consumed any alcoholic beverages, she states that if she had, it would have only been one since she rarely drinks. At one point, Spector leaned over the table and tried to kiss her. Kemper rebuffed his advances and told him to stop. Spector sat back and opened up his suit jacket. Kemper saw he was wearing a shoulder holster with a small hand gun inside. Upon brandishing his gun, Spector said to Kemper, "You know I could kill you right now."
Kemper became very angry but calmed down as the evening progressed. After dinner, Spector took her to the House of Blues where he continued to consume alcoholic beverages. Upon arriving at the House of Blues, Kemper told Spector that she wanted to go home. After Spector repeatedly ignored her requests to leave, she had a friend who she saw at the restaurant take her home. The next day, Kemper told Spector that he would regret it if he ever harmed her.
At the January 15 meeting with investigators, Kemper stated that Spector was drunk at the time of the incident at Dan Tana's. Additionally, she said that whenever Spector drank alcohol and took his psychiatric medication together, his personality would change and he would become "mean."
----------
The following twenty-one pages contain the rest of the argument to support the motion. It's very detailed and specific. There are numerous cases cited to support the argument that this testimony qualifies to be admitted into evidence under 1101(b). It took me almost an hour to read the entire motion and argument to donchais over the phone, while the Rosa trial was on lunch break. If you would like an understanding as to this specific piece of California Evidence Code law, and why this incident qualifies to be admitted under 1101(b), I recommend you download a copy of the motion and read it for yourself. It's very educational.
Page 17 of the argument has some more relevant information:
----------
B. Probative Value is Not Outweighed by Prejudical Effect
Like the use of Spector's uncharged firearm assaults to prove common design or plan, the use of his uncharged firearm-related violence to show the knowledge required for implied malice survives any challenge under California Evidence Code section 352.
Again, Spector's plea of not guilty places the basic issue of his mental state at issue. (People v. Steele, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1243-1244.) Moreover, his mental state and state of sobriety has been and will undoubtedly continue to be disputed at trial. The issue, therefore, is material to the prosecution's case, and that materiality increases the probative value. (Id. at 1246).
Another fact bolstering the probative value of this uncharged act of violence is that while Norma Kemper had heard about a previous incident between Spector and Dorothy Melvin, she does not know the specific facts of that incident nor does she know any of the other victims of the uncharged crimes already deemed admissible by this court. Thus, it is unlikely she colored or shaded her statement to fit the facts of the other uncharged crimes. (See People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 404-405). Moreover, she told her husband about the incident at the time it happened. Additionally, she did not contact the prosecution in this case, investigators found her.
None of the uncharged crimes resulted in Spector's prosecution or criminal conviction. The prejudicial effect of this, however, is not appreciable since the uncharged crimes are far less inflammatory than the charged offense. There is, therefore, little likelihood of jurors punishing Spector for the earlier acts even if they disbelieve he was involved in the Clarkson homicide. (Id. at 405).
---------
You have to remember that this is the same Judge who allowed Vince Tannazzo to take the stand. Does anyone remember what Tannazzo told the jury? Tannazzo told the jury about two separate incidents that occurred two years in a row, at Christmas parties hosted by Joan Rivers. According to Tanazzo, Spector called all women the "C" word (even Judge Fidler couldn't say it in his courtroom) "who deserve a bullet in their f***ing heads." The other fact that weighs more for Fidler to let Kemper testify is the fact that this event occurred in 1996, and all the other 1101(b) witnesses were earlier, the latest being Stephanie Jennings in 1995. I'm betting Fidler will allow Kemper to testify.
Donchais and I both thought it was more than a bit strange that she continued to work for Spector for four years after this incident. I would have immediately hired a cab to get home that night from Dan Tana's ~ much less gotten back in the limo for a ride to The House of Blues ~ but not Kemper. Why did she stay to work for him? It's hard to fathom, but did Spector have charisma back then? I can't imagine that a job with Spector was the be all to end all, but it must have been for Kemper. Michelle Blaine has her own take on it.
The prosecutors' are also seeking to admit Dianne Ogden's testimony in the first trial via video tape and transcript. This motion was a short 10 pages verses 26. I'll skip the argument intro that details Ogden's testimony and go straight to the sections that support admitting her testimony.
----------
Page 5
II. MS. OGDEN IS LEGALLY UNAVAILABLE PURSUANT TO CAL. EVID. CODE § 240.
When a declarant is "dead or unable to attend or to testify at the hearing because of then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity," they are considered "unavailable as a witness." Cal. Evid. Code § 240(a)(3) 2008. the de
----------
(And before y'all ask, no, I do not have a copy of Ogden's death certificate. However, the LA Times article indicated the cause of death was accidental overdose of prescription medications.)
----------
III. MS. OGDEN'S FORMER TESTIMONY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CAL. EVID. CODE § 1291 AND IS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.
Hearsay evidence may be admitted if it meets the requirements of the exception for former testimony offered against a part to a former proceeding. The proffered evidence meets the requirements for this exception. Evidence Code § 1291 reads in pertinent part:
Evidence of former testimony is not made inadmissible by the
hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and . . . [t]he
party against whom the former testimony is offered was a part to
the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had
the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an
interest and motive similar to that which he has at the hearing.
In order for a witness's former testimony to be used for any purpose, the proponent must show the testimony was given under oath in a former proceeding by an unavailable witness, and it is offered against one who was a party to the former proceeding and who had the same right and
Page 6
opportunity to cross-examine. finally, a similar interest and motive in cross-examining must exist when the former testimony was given, as he or she would have at the present trial.
The California Supreme court has applied this well reasoned rule to situations where the defendant's motive in cross-examination may differ somewhat from his motive in the present trial. People v. Carter (2005) 3 Cal.4th 114, 1173. As such, when it comes to analyzing the admissibility of prior testimony for Cal. Evid. Code § 1291 purposes, the courts have held that the defendant's motive in cross-examination "need not be identical, only similar." Id. In the instant matter, Spector's motive in cross-examination is therefore more than adequately similar to meet the evidence code standard.
In this case the declarant is unavailable because she passed away on December 29, 2007. Her former testimony was given under oath, during the first trial in the same action. (See Exhibit B, RT 1944-1945). The facts fit the requirements because the testimony is being offered against the defendant, who was a party to the former proceeding. Mr. Spector had the right and opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Ogden during the first proceeding. He did so on May 7th, 2007. The interest and motive in cross-examining Ms. Ogden in the prior proceeding is clearly similar to that which he has in the present trial. Ms. Ogden's testimony was previously deemed relevant and admissible in the People's case-in-chief pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code§ 1101(b). The People presently intend to use that same testimony for the same reasons, and California courts have sanctioned such use.
IV. THE USE OF MS. OGDEN'S VIDEOTAPED TESTIMONY IS PERMISSIBLE, EVEN PREFERRED.
The People seek to introduce Ms. Ogden's former testimony by way of both the certified
Page 7
reporter's transcript, as well as the videotape of the prior proceeding. Such use of video evidence is permissible and even preferred by courts as the most accurate evidence of former testimony. In a criminal prosecution a party may introduce a videotape of the testimony of an unavailable witness if such a video evidence exists. (Cal. Pen. code § 1345). In People v Moran (1974) 39 Cal. App.3rd 398, 407-412 the court held that a videotape of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who died before trial was admissible at trial. Id. (See also, People v. Ware (1978) 78 Cal App 3d 892 [videotape testimony allowed]).
In this case Ms. Ogden's testimony was videotaped in the Court's and the defendant's presence. The original transcript with the reporter's certification is presumed to be authentic under Cal. Evid. Code § § 1452 and 1453. Dianne Ogden's testimony was properly transcribed and videotaped on May 7, 2007. The videotaped testimony in this case therefore clearly meets the same authentication standard.
Moreover, in Moran the court even made reference to instances where the videotaped evidence was more accurate than the transcript in which some words had been juxtaposed. Moran, 39 Cal. Ap.3rd at 406, fin. 4. It goes without saying that a jury is the instant matter would be benefited by watching the live taped testimony of Ms. Ogden, having the advantage of hearing exactly what she said, and being able to observe her demeanor, inflection and attitude during testimony as well. (See Moran, 39 Cal. App.3rd at 406, fn. 4 [court noting that videotaped testimony can be more accurate than the reporter's transcript alone.]).
Finally, the appropriate redactions for sidebar discussions, objections, rulings and other arguments made outside the presence of the jury have been made to the trial transcript and videotape that will be provided to the jury. Additionally, the redacted videotape of the Ms.
Ogden's testimony is available for the court's review.
Page 8
V. THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS NOT RELEVANT.
Evience Code section 350 states, "No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." (Cal Evid. Code § 350 (2008)). The circumstances surrounding the death of Dianne Ogden are not relevant to the proceedings and should thus be inadmissible. Specifically, the cause of her death has no tendency "to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Cal. Evid. code § 210 (2008)).
In the event that this court finds such evidence relevant, however, it should still be excluded because the degree of relevancy it may possess is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time, create confusion of the issues and/or mislead the jury.
Evidence Code section 352 provides that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if it's admission will "necessitate undue consumption of time" or confuse the jury. (Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (a) (2008)). Moreover, the power of the trial court to exclude evidence under this section was specifically preserved under Proposition 8.
In People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 576, the core issue to be decided was whether the defendant committed first degree murder. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of California found that the trial court properly excluded evidence that the victim had been under the influence of heroin during a previous arrest and struck a proper balance between the evidence's slight probative value and the substantial chance of prejudice and confusion. The court explained that:
The prosecution is accorded protection under Cal Evid. Code §
352, similar to that of the defense, from the use of prejudicial
evidence with little probative value. . . Moreover, evidence that is
relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in
Page 9
wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler
without it. The "prejudice" referred to in § 352 applies to
evidence . . .which has very little effect on the issues. Thus, the
balancing process mandated by § 352 requires consideration of the
relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be
drawn from it, whether the evidence is relevant to the main or only
a collateral issue, and the necessity of the evidence to the
proponent's case as well as the reasons recited in § 352 for
exclusion.
(Id. at 585 italics added.)
Furthermore, in Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3rd 284, the court set forth relevant factors which judges should weigh as follows:
Reasonable exercise of trial court discretion. . . requires that the trial
judge balance the probative value of the offered evidence against
its potential of prejudice, undue consumption of time, and
confusion. . . That balancing process requires consideration of the
relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be
drawn from it, whether the evidence is relevant to the main or only
a collateral issue, and the necessity of the evidence to the
proponent's case as well as the reasons recited in section 352 for
exclusion...
(Id. at 291, italics added)
The evidence at issue here, Dianne Ogen's cause of death, is peripheral to the key issues to be resolved by the jury, will entai undue consumption of time and will tend to confuse the jury. for those reasons, any reference to or evidence of her cause of death should properly be excluded.
CONCLUSION
Since the previous testimony of the witness meets the requirements of Cal. Evid. Code § 1291 and for all the reasons stated above, the People respectfully request that this Court introduce the testimony in video format in the above entitled case. Additionally, this court should exclude any reference to or evidence of the cause of Dianne Ogden's death.
Page 10
Dated July 14, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney of
Los Angeles Country
By
(signature here) Alan Jackson/ by RSG
ALAN JACKSON
Deputy District Attorney
----------
So what does everyone think of the argument to present Dianne Ogden's testimony by videotape and exclude the jury from hearing about her cause of death? Do you think these motions will succeed on July 29th?
CNN.Crime
----------
Page 1
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
By: ALAN JACKSON, Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
210 W. Temple Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHILLIP SPECTOR,
Defendant.
Case No. BA2552333
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF OTHER
CRIMES
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 8:30 AM
Court: Department 106
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE FIDLER, AND TO DORON WEINBERG, COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT, PHILLIP SPECTOR:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON JULY 29, 2008, or as soon thereafter as the Motion can be heard, the People of the State of California will move this court to admit evidence of defendant Spector's gun-related violence against victim Norma Kemper as evidence of other
crimes, pursuant to California Evidence Code Section 1101(b).
This Motion to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes will be based on the attached Points and Authorities as well as any and all facts recited herein, statutory and case law authority, the court file, and all oral arguments and documents submitted on the People's behalf at the hearing on the Motion.
Dated: July 14, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Cooley
District attorney of Los Angeles County
Page 2
By (signature here) Alan Jackson/ by RSG
ALAN JACKSON
Deputy District Attorney
Page 3
Steve Cooley
District Attorney of Los Angeles County
By: ALAN JACKSON, Deputy District Attorney
Major Crimes Division
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
210 W. Temple Street, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PHILLIP SPECTOR,
Defendant.
Case No. BA2552333
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF
OTHER CRIMES
Date: July 29, 2008
Time: 8:30 AM
Court: Department 106
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
On February 3, 2003, Phillip Spector shot Lana Clarkson to death in the foyer of his Alhambra home. After the shooting, Spector, who was intoxicated and who had been drinking alcohol all evening, opened the back door to the house, stood in the doorway and told Adriano DeSouza, his driver, "I think I killed somebody." Only Spector and Clarkson were in the house at the time. Within minutes, the police were on the scene, and Spector was eventually taken into custody.
Defendant Spector has an on-going pattern of gun-related violence against women stemming from alcohol consumption; particularly, women in whom he has a romantic interest
Page 4
and whom he seeks to control, if even against their will. In the People's first prosecution of Spector, this court ruled as admissible under Evidence Code section 1101(b) the testimony of five women each of whom testified about Spector's gun-related violence against them occurring between the mid 1970's and 1995---Devra Robitaille in the mid- 1970's and again in the mid- 1980's, Dianne Ogden-Halder in 1988, Melissa Grosvenor in 1991, Dorothy Melvin in 1993 and Stephanie Jennings in 1995. In January of 2008, the People learned of another female victim: Norma Kemper. On January 15h, 2008, Kemper told investigators that on the night after Spector hired her as an assistant in 1996, she and Spector went to dinner whereupon Spector, intoxicated and angry that she rebuffed his advances, displayed a small hand gun inside his suit jacket and said, "You know I could kill you right now." Following the investigators' interview, the People timely disclosed this information to defense counsel. Pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101(b), the People seek to admit the incident involving Kemper as evidence of (1) common plan or scheme, (2) the existence of implied malice and (3) the absence of mistake or accident.
II. SPECTOR'S ADDITIONAL HISTORY OF GUN-RELATED VIOLENCE
The five gun-related incidents previously admitted into evidence by the court all occurred as a result of what was described as a change in Spector's personality after he consumed alcohol. The newly discovered incident involving Norma Kemper further demonstrates this ever-present pattern that Spector's gun-related violence stems from alcohol consumption. This similarity between the incident involving Kemper and the shooting of Lana Clarkson is extremely probative evidence that pointedly addresses the People's theory of the case.
A. The 1996 threatened assault of Norma Kemper
Norma Kemper met Spector in 1996 after her interviewed and hired her over the phone to be his assistant. Kemper held this position for 4 years, from 1996 to 2000. She worked mainly from her home but was in Spector's Alhambra home on several occasions. At no time during her employment with Spector did Kemper engage in anything other than a strictly business relationship with him.
Page 5
On the evening after Spector hired her, Kemper was invited to eat dinner with Spector and his friend, Jay Romaine, at Dan Tana's restaurant. She was picked up by Spector in his car and taken to the restaurant. When they arrived, Spector and Romaine sat on one side of the table and Kemper on the other side. During the evening, Spector consumed several alcoholic beverages. While Kemper does not remember if she had consumed any alcoholic beverages, she states that if she had, it would have only been one since she rarely drinks. At one point, Spector leaned over the table and tried to kiss her. Kemper rebuffed his advances and told him to stop. Spector sat back and opened up his suit jacket. Kemper saw he was wearing a shoulder holster with a small hand gun inside. Upon brandishing his gun, Spector said to Kemper, "You know I could kill you right now."
Kemper became very angry but calmed down as the evening progressed. After dinner, Spector took her to the House of Blues where he continued to consume alcoholic beverages. Upon arriving at the House of Blues, Kemper told Spector that she wanted to go home. After Spector repeatedly ignored her requests to leave, she had a friend who she saw at the restaurant take her home. The next day, Kemper told Spector that he would regret it if he ever harmed her.
At the January 15 meeting with investigators, Kemper stated that Spector was drunk at the time of the incident at Dan Tana's. Additionally, she said that whenever Spector drank alcohol and took his psychiatric medication together, his personality would change and he would become "mean."
----------
The following twenty-one pages contain the rest of the argument to support the motion. It's very detailed and specific. There are numerous cases cited to support the argument that this testimony qualifies to be admitted into evidence under 1101(b). It took me almost an hour to read the entire motion and argument to donchais over the phone, while the Rosa trial was on lunch break. If you would like an understanding as to this specific piece of California Evidence Code law, and why this incident qualifies to be admitted under 1101(b), I recommend you download a copy of the motion and read it for yourself. It's very educational.
Page 17 of the argument has some more relevant information:
----------
B. Probative Value is Not Outweighed by Prejudical Effect
Like the use of Spector's uncharged firearm assaults to prove common design or plan, the use of his uncharged firearm-related violence to show the knowledge required for implied malice survives any challenge under California Evidence Code section 352.
Again, Spector's plea of not guilty places the basic issue of his mental state at issue. (People v. Steele, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1243-1244.) Moreover, his mental state and state of sobriety has been and will undoubtedly continue to be disputed at trial. The issue, therefore, is material to the prosecution's case, and that materiality increases the probative value. (Id. at 1246).
Another fact bolstering the probative value of this uncharged act of violence is that while Norma Kemper had heard about a previous incident between Spector and Dorothy Melvin, she does not know the specific facts of that incident nor does she know any of the other victims of the uncharged crimes already deemed admissible by this court. Thus, it is unlikely she colored or shaded her statement to fit the facts of the other uncharged crimes. (See People v. Ewoldt, supra, 7 Cal.4th at 404-405). Moreover, she told her husband about the incident at the time it happened. Additionally, she did not contact the prosecution in this case, investigators found her.
None of the uncharged crimes resulted in Spector's prosecution or criminal conviction. The prejudicial effect of this, however, is not appreciable since the uncharged crimes are far less inflammatory than the charged offense. There is, therefore, little likelihood of jurors punishing Spector for the earlier acts even if they disbelieve he was involved in the Clarkson homicide. (Id. at 405).
---------
You have to remember that this is the same Judge who allowed Vince Tannazzo to take the stand. Does anyone remember what Tannazzo told the jury? Tannazzo told the jury about two separate incidents that occurred two years in a row, at Christmas parties hosted by Joan Rivers. According to Tanazzo, Spector called all women the "C" word (even Judge Fidler couldn't say it in his courtroom) "who deserve a bullet in their f***ing heads." The other fact that weighs more for Fidler to let Kemper testify is the fact that this event occurred in 1996, and all the other 1101(b) witnesses were earlier, the latest being Stephanie Jennings in 1995. I'm betting Fidler will allow Kemper to testify.
Donchais and I both thought it was more than a bit strange that she continued to work for Spector for four years after this incident. I would have immediately hired a cab to get home that night from Dan Tana's ~ much less gotten back in the limo for a ride to The House of Blues ~ but not Kemper. Why did she stay to work for him? It's hard to fathom, but did Spector have charisma back then? I can't imagine that a job with Spector was the be all to end all, but it must have been for Kemper. Michelle Blaine has her own take on it.
The prosecutors' are also seeking to admit Dianne Ogden's testimony in the first trial via video tape and transcript. This motion was a short 10 pages verses 26. I'll skip the argument intro that details Ogden's testimony and go straight to the sections that support admitting her testimony.
----------
Page 5
II. MS. OGDEN IS LEGALLY UNAVAILABLE PURSUANT TO CAL. EVID. CODE § 240.
When a declarant is "dead or unable to attend or to testify at the hearing because of then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity," they are considered "unavailable as a witness." Cal. Evid. Code § 240(a)(3) 2008. the de
----------
(And before y'all ask, no, I do not have a copy of Ogden's death certificate. However, the LA Times article indicated the cause of death was accidental overdose of prescription medications.)
----------
III. MS. OGDEN'S FORMER TESTIMONY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CAL. EVID. CODE § 1291 AND IS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE.
Hearsay evidence may be admitted if it meets the requirements of the exception for former testimony offered against a part to a former proceeding. The proffered evidence meets the requirements for this exception. Evidence Code § 1291 reads in pertinent part:
Evidence of former testimony is not made inadmissible by the
hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness and . . . [t]he
party against whom the former testimony is offered was a part to
the action or proceeding in which the testimony was given and had
the right and opportunity to cross-examine the declarant with an
interest and motive similar to that which he has at the hearing.
In order for a witness's former testimony to be used for any purpose, the proponent must show the testimony was given under oath in a former proceeding by an unavailable witness, and it is offered against one who was a party to the former proceeding and who had the same right and
Page 6
opportunity to cross-examine. finally, a similar interest and motive in cross-examining must exist when the former testimony was given, as he or she would have at the present trial.
The California Supreme court has applied this well reasoned rule to situations where the defendant's motive in cross-examination may differ somewhat from his motive in the present trial. People v. Carter (2005) 3 Cal.4th 114, 1173. As such, when it comes to analyzing the admissibility of prior testimony for Cal. Evid. Code § 1291 purposes, the courts have held that the defendant's motive in cross-examination "need not be identical, only similar." Id. In the instant matter, Spector's motive in cross-examination is therefore more than adequately similar to meet the evidence code standard.
In this case the declarant is unavailable because she passed away on December 29, 2007. Her former testimony was given under oath, during the first trial in the same action. (See Exhibit B, RT 1944-1945). The facts fit the requirements because the testimony is being offered against the defendant, who was a party to the former proceeding. Mr. Spector had the right and opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Ogden during the first proceeding. He did so on May 7th, 2007. The interest and motive in cross-examining Ms. Ogden in the prior proceeding is clearly similar to that which he has in the present trial. Ms. Ogden's testimony was previously deemed relevant and admissible in the People's case-in-chief pursuant to Cal. Evid. Code§ 1101(b). The People presently intend to use that same testimony for the same reasons, and California courts have sanctioned such use.
IV. THE USE OF MS. OGDEN'S VIDEOTAPED TESTIMONY IS PERMISSIBLE, EVEN PREFERRED.
The People seek to introduce Ms. Ogden's former testimony by way of both the certified
Page 7
reporter's transcript, as well as the videotape of the prior proceeding. Such use of video evidence is permissible and even preferred by courts as the most accurate evidence of former testimony. In a criminal prosecution a party may introduce a videotape of the testimony of an unavailable witness if such a video evidence exists. (Cal. Pen. code § 1345). In People v Moran (1974) 39 Cal. App.3rd 398, 407-412 the court held that a videotape of the preliminary hearing testimony of a witness who died before trial was admissible at trial. Id. (See also, People v. Ware (1978) 78 Cal App 3d 892 [videotape testimony allowed]).
In this case Ms. Ogden's testimony was videotaped in the Court's and the defendant's presence. The original transcript with the reporter's certification is presumed to be authentic under Cal. Evid. Code § § 1452 and 1453. Dianne Ogden's testimony was properly transcribed and videotaped on May 7, 2007. The videotaped testimony in this case therefore clearly meets the same authentication standard.
Moreover, in Moran the court even made reference to instances where the videotaped evidence was more accurate than the transcript in which some words had been juxtaposed. Moran, 39 Cal. Ap.3rd at 406, fin. 4. It goes without saying that a jury is the instant matter would be benefited by watching the live taped testimony of Ms. Ogden, having the advantage of hearing exactly what she said, and being able to observe her demeanor, inflection and attitude during testimony as well. (See Moran, 39 Cal. App.3rd at 406, fn. 4 [court noting that videotaped testimony can be more accurate than the reporter's transcript alone.]).
Finally, the appropriate redactions for sidebar discussions, objections, rulings and other arguments made outside the presence of the jury have been made to the trial transcript and videotape that will be provided to the jury. Additionally, the redacted videotape of the Ms.
Ogden's testimony is available for the court's review.
Page 8
V. THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS NOT RELEVANT.
Evience Code section 350 states, "No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." (Cal Evid. Code § 350 (2008)). The circumstances surrounding the death of Dianne Ogden are not relevant to the proceedings and should thus be inadmissible. Specifically, the cause of her death has no tendency "to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." (Cal. Evid. code § 210 (2008)).
In the event that this court finds such evidence relevant, however, it should still be excluded because the degree of relevancy it may possess is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will necessitate undue consumption of time, create confusion of the issues and/or mislead the jury.
Evidence Code section 352 provides that the court in its discretion may exclude evidence if it's admission will "necessitate undue consumption of time" or confuse the jury. (Cal. Evid. Code § 352 (a) (2008)). Moreover, the power of the trial court to exclude evidence under this section was specifically preserved under Proposition 8.
In People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 576, the core issue to be decided was whether the defendant committed first degree murder. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of California found that the trial court properly excluded evidence that the victim had been under the influence of heroin during a previous arrest and struck a proper balance between the evidence's slight probative value and the substantial chance of prejudice and confusion. The court explained that:
The prosecution is accorded protection under Cal Evid. Code §
352, similar to that of the defense, from the use of prejudicial
evidence with little probative value. . . Moreover, evidence that is
relevant to the prime theory of the defense cannot be excluded in
Page 9
wholesale fashion merely because the trial would be simpler
without it. The "prejudice" referred to in § 352 applies to
evidence . . .which has very little effect on the issues. Thus, the
balancing process mandated by § 352 requires consideration of the
relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be
drawn from it, whether the evidence is relevant to the main or only
a collateral issue, and the necessity of the evidence to the
proponent's case as well as the reasons recited in § 352 for
exclusion.
(Id. at 585 italics added.)
Furthermore, in Kessler v. Gray (1978) 77 Cal.App.3rd 284, the court set forth relevant factors which judges should weigh as follows:
Reasonable exercise of trial court discretion. . . requires that the trial
judge balance the probative value of the offered evidence against
its potential of prejudice, undue consumption of time, and
confusion. . . That balancing process requires consideration of the
relationship between the evidence and the relevant inferences to be
drawn from it, whether the evidence is relevant to the main or only
a collateral issue, and the necessity of the evidence to the
proponent's case as well as the reasons recited in section 352 for
exclusion...
(Id. at 291, italics added)
The evidence at issue here, Dianne Ogen's cause of death, is peripheral to the key issues to be resolved by the jury, will entai undue consumption of time and will tend to confuse the jury. for those reasons, any reference to or evidence of her cause of death should properly be excluded.
CONCLUSION
Since the previous testimony of the witness meets the requirements of Cal. Evid. Code § 1291 and for all the reasons stated above, the People respectfully request that this Court introduce the testimony in video format in the above entitled case. Additionally, this court should exclude any reference to or evidence of the cause of Dianne Ogden's death.
Page 10
Dated July 14, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
STEVE COOLEY
District Attorney of
Los Angeles Country
By
(signature here) Alan Jackson/ by RSG
ALAN JACKSON
Deputy District Attorney
----------
So what does everyone think of the argument to present Dianne Ogden's testimony by videotape and exclude the jury from hearing about her cause of death? Do you think these motions will succeed on July 29th?
CNN.Crime
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Phil Spector Stiffs the Westin-Bonaventure
I missed this breaking story yesterday because I was at the hospital waiting for Mr. Spocket to get out of surgery to repair a torn distal bicepital tendon. Look for that story soon on my sewing blog.
Nine months since Spector's first defense team flew the coop after winning him another year of freedom, the Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites ~where most of the out of town attorneys and expert witnesses were housed~ filed suit yesterday in LA Superior Court against Spector, the Trial Bride and Spector's agent for non payment of a bill of over 100 thousand dollars. According to TMZ,
The hotel says when they sent a letter demanding to get paid, Spector refused to pay, instead demanding a serious discount.
Does Spector have a history of demanding discounts? From my understanding, the reason it took so long for Spector and his new counsel Doron Weinberg to sign an agreement was because Spector wanted a discount on his legal bill if he was convicted. (Unfortunately, I can't tell you how I know that.) My friend SeniorMoments said, "I'm sure he has money hidden away but he has a sense of noblesse oblige - everything is owed to him!"
Back in September, Michelle Blaine wrote that Spector still hadn't paid his attorney's who represented him in his lawsuit against her, to the tune of $30,000. She's even funnier in her latest piece, an open letter to any defense attorney who might be foolish enough to represent Spector in his latest legal woes.
Does anyone find it ironic that Spector, who has a habit of stiffing attorneys and extended hotel tabs ~not to mention even refusing at times to pay his electric bill~ is suing Robert Shapiro, of OJ Simpson fame and cofounder of Legal Zoom, for breach of contract to get the 1 mil back he paid him. Lest anyone forget, it was Shapiro who, on the night Spector was arrested for alledgedly shooting Lana Clarkson in the foyer of his rundown, tacky Alhambra "Castle," got him out of jail that very same day on a 1 million bond.
As of today, Spector has been walking around free for five years, four months and sixteen days since Clarkson's death. He should be kissing Shapiro's feet for this extended liberty because judgement day is just around the corner.
Nine months since Spector's first defense team flew the coop after winning him another year of freedom, the Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites ~where most of the out of town attorneys and expert witnesses were housed~ filed suit yesterday in LA Superior Court against Spector, the Trial Bride and Spector's agent for non payment of a bill of over 100 thousand dollars. According to TMZ,
The hotel says when they sent a letter demanding to get paid, Spector refused to pay, instead demanding a serious discount.
Does Spector have a history of demanding discounts? From my understanding, the reason it took so long for Spector and his new counsel Doron Weinberg to sign an agreement was because Spector wanted a discount on his legal bill if he was convicted. (Unfortunately, I can't tell you how I know that.) My friend SeniorMoments said, "I'm sure he has money hidden away but he has a sense of noblesse oblige - everything is owed to him!"
Back in September, Michelle Blaine wrote that Spector still hadn't paid his attorney's who represented him in his lawsuit against her, to the tune of $30,000. She's even funnier in her latest piece, an open letter to any defense attorney who might be foolish enough to represent Spector in his latest legal woes.
Does anyone find it ironic that Spector, who has a habit of stiffing attorneys and extended hotel tabs ~not to mention even refusing at times to pay his electric bill~ is suing Robert Shapiro, of OJ Simpson fame and cofounder of Legal Zoom, for breach of contract to get the 1 mil back he paid him. Lest anyone forget, it was Shapiro who, on the night Spector was arrested for alledgedly shooting Lana Clarkson in the foyer of his rundown, tacky Alhambra "Castle," got him out of jail that very same day on a 1 million bond.
As of today, Spector has been walking around free for five years, four months and sixteen days since Clarkson's death. He should be kissing Shapiro's feet for this extended liberty because judgement day is just around the corner.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Phil Spector Trial Evidence Part Two: Guest Entry by Mort Snerd
And other Spector tidbits.
Mort Snerd wanted to add some additional images as well as address some issues raised by an anonymous commenter in the last entry on this subject. For the record, Mort has a lifetime of knowledge and experience about firearms. Mort's parents owned guns and Mort has been involved in teaching about guns and gun safety to several generations of his extended family.
Below, Mort answers some of anonymous's comments in bold:
I've kept the spelling errors intact. Sprocket.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:13 AM
Also the Cobra is not made of steel and is very light.
Not a true statement. The barrel and cylinder are made of steel to withstand the pressures involved.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:13 AM
If the gun weighed more the back-blast would have been less.
Not a true statement. Back blast is created by the detonation of gunpowder in a cartridge. Recoil is the apparent reaction of the gun to being fired. Heavier guns "apparent" recoil is less.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
I saw the making of a film of where the cobra with +p ammunition was stuck inside a little hole in a small watermellon. What a mess it made and the watermellon split open. It was stronger than the woman's soft mouth tissue.
The test was not valid enopught to enter as evidence because a watermelon is not a living human mouth.
Your point is that Lana Clarkson's head was made from a watermelon and was not human and made of bones, teeth, brains and soft tissue?
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
Blowing out her teeth caps was simple.
Not a true statement. Evidence was admitted showing that the front sight ramp of the Colt is what did the damage to the upper front teeth.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
Your S&W pictured is a lot heavier and has much less recoil. The Cobra was NOT designed to shoot the higher powered +p rounds either.
True statement and so stated in my original post. I was unable to find a top view of a Colt Cobra to use, so I used a gun in my collection that is as close a representation to size as I could. If the reader of this forum wants, they can examine the photo's themselves.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 10:16 PM
The Smith and Wesson in the picture looks very much like a 2 1/2 " bbl Mod 66 .357 magnum. That's a very heavy gun with little recoil.
True statement. The S&W is made from stainless steel and is 4 pounds while the Colt is an aluminum frame and STEEL barrel and cylinder and weighs 1 pound. Both guns can and do fire the .38 caliber cartridge. As to its "apparent" recoil when firing, that is a extremely subjective measurement.
Attached are two pictures, the first is a photo taken from the gallery of the court house as evidence item #1 was introduced in Phillip Spector's trial and is the actual weapon that fired the fatal round.
The second picture is the full side view of the gun I used in the "cone" pictures, they are the identical model, style and manufacturer. Only thing I have done was to remove the serial number for obvious reasons. Please realize that the first photo is taken from the courtroom gallery and since it is a high angle shot to the screen, the picture is somewhat distorted. The second picture is totally undistorted and a right angle view of an identical gun.
Mortie
Thank you very much Mort.
Below are a few more Spector tidbits, from Sprocket.
On another note, Michelle Blaine has a great entry up over on her blog about Spector's Team Spector MySpace Page. Check it out.
I heard back from author Mick Brown about Spector's exact time-of-birth on December 26th, 1939. Mick writes:
The date I have in the book - December 26, 1939 (? - don't have a copy with me!) - is definately right. I can't tell you the exact time of birth, but I think it was just after midnight of the 25th - within the first one or two hours of the 26th. His mother would joke about the timing and giving birth to 'the next Jesus'.
Thank you so much Mick. I hope that helps the astrology student who was asking for that information.
Remember that article that came out on Spector in the September 9th, 2007 issue of the Sunday Daily Mail's magazine section, Live? It was by that documentary-maker, Vikram Jayanti, who I often saw in court during the last half of the trial giving Spector warm hugs every time he showed up. That magazine issue was not included in the Sunday editions that were available here in the US. A few online papers reported on the story, causing a bit of a ruckus in court where Linda Kenny Baden actually got up and told Fidler something to the effect that the statements in the article attributed to Spector were not approved by him. She basically obfuscated the truth since everyone knows Spector was working with this guy on a film for months, and he's just another Spector mouthpiece, so Spector can testa-lie to the press without getting on the witness stand.
Back in September, I called upon my friends over on the Blood Type Diet message board if anyone in the UK could find me that issue of Live and about a month later, one of the members tracked one down and sent it to me. There were reports in the news a few months ago that the documentary, "Phil Spector: The Agony and Ecstasy " would air in the UK on BBC Arena sometime in mid April. I've recently learned that there was supposed to be a press screening for journalists, but it was canceled and has not been rescheduled. As soon as I hear anything I'll post about it. I wonder what sanctions Fidler can place on Spector if/when that show ever airs. Sometime in the near future, donchais and I will put up an entry about the article, comparing some of the quoted statements in the story to other documented sources.
Mort Snerd wanted to add some additional images as well as address some issues raised by an anonymous commenter in the last entry on this subject. For the record, Mort has a lifetime of knowledge and experience about firearms. Mort's parents owned guns and Mort has been involved in teaching about guns and gun safety to several generations of his extended family.
Below, Mort answers some of anonymous's comments in bold:
I've kept the spelling errors intact. Sprocket.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:13 AM
Also the Cobra is not made of steel and is very light.
Not a true statement. The barrel and cylinder are made of steel to withstand the pressures involved.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:13 AM
If the gun weighed more the back-blast would have been less.
Not a true statement. Back blast is created by the detonation of gunpowder in a cartridge. Recoil is the apparent reaction of the gun to being fired. Heavier guns "apparent" recoil is less.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
I saw the making of a film of where the cobra with +p ammunition was stuck inside a little hole in a small watermellon. What a mess it made and the watermellon split open. It was stronger than the woman's soft mouth tissue.
The test was not valid enopught to enter as evidence because a watermelon is not a living human mouth.
Your point is that Lana Clarkson's head was made from a watermelon and was not human and made of bones, teeth, brains and soft tissue?
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
Blowing out her teeth caps was simple.
Not a true statement. Evidence was admitted showing that the front sight ramp of the Colt is what did the damage to the upper front teeth.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 12:43 PM
Your S&W pictured is a lot heavier and has much less recoil. The Cobra was NOT designed to shoot the higher powered +p rounds either.
True statement and so stated in my original post. I was unable to find a top view of a Colt Cobra to use, so I used a gun in my collection that is as close a representation to size as I could. If the reader of this forum wants, they can examine the photo's themselves.
Anonymous said... April 2, 2008 10:16 PM
The Smith and Wesson in the picture looks very much like a 2 1/2 " bbl Mod 66 .357 magnum. That's a very heavy gun with little recoil.
True statement. The S&W is made from stainless steel and is 4 pounds while the Colt is an aluminum frame and STEEL barrel and cylinder and weighs 1 pound. Both guns can and do fire the .38 caliber cartridge. As to its "apparent" recoil when firing, that is a extremely subjective measurement.
Attached are two pictures, the first is a photo taken from the gallery of the court house as evidence item #1 was introduced in Phillip Spector's trial and is the actual weapon that fired the fatal round.
The second picture is the full side view of the gun I used in the "cone" pictures, they are the identical model, style and manufacturer. Only thing I have done was to remove the serial number for obvious reasons. Please realize that the first photo is taken from the courtroom gallery and since it is a high angle shot to the screen, the picture is somewhat distorted. The second picture is totally undistorted and a right angle view of an identical gun.
Mortie
Thank you very much Mort.
Below are a few more Spector tidbits, from Sprocket.
On another note, Michelle Blaine has a great entry up over on her blog about Spector's Team Spector MySpace Page. Check it out.
I heard back from author Mick Brown about Spector's exact time-of-birth on December 26th, 1939. Mick writes:
The date I have in the book - December 26, 1939 (? - don't have a copy with me!) - is definately right. I can't tell you the exact time of birth, but I think it was just after midnight of the 25th - within the first one or two hours of the 26th. His mother would joke about the timing and giving birth to 'the next Jesus'.
Thank you so much Mick. I hope that helps the astrology student who was asking for that information.
Remember that article that came out on Spector in the September 9th, 2007 issue of the Sunday Daily Mail's magazine section, Live? It was by that documentary-maker, Vikram Jayanti, who I often saw in court during the last half of the trial giving Spector warm hugs every time he showed up. That magazine issue was not included in the Sunday editions that were available here in the US. A few online papers reported on the story, causing a bit of a ruckus in court where Linda Kenny Baden actually got up and told Fidler something to the effect that the statements in the article attributed to Spector were not approved by him. She basically obfuscated the truth since everyone knows Spector was working with this guy on a film for months, and he's just another Spector mouthpiece, so Spector can testa-lie to the press without getting on the witness stand.
Back in September, I called upon my friends over on the Blood Type Diet message board if anyone in the UK could find me that issue of Live and about a month later, one of the members tracked one down and sent it to me. There were reports in the news a few months ago that the documentary, "Phil Spector: The Agony and Ecstasy " would air in the UK on BBC Arena sometime in mid April. I've recently learned that there was supposed to be a press screening for journalists, but it was canceled and has not been rescheduled. As soon as I hear anything I'll post about it. I wonder what sanctions Fidler can place on Spector if/when that show ever airs. Sometime in the near future, donchais and I will put up an entry about the article, comparing some of the quoted statements in the story to other documented sources.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Spector & the "Child Bride" on the Red Carpet
Updated!
TMZ.com is reporting:
Wearing a modified "Golden Girl" chestnut brown wig, lady killer Phil Spector, 68, perkily appeared at a red carpet event in Beverly Hills this week with his living 27-year-old blonde wife, Rachelle -- who happens to look shockingly like the late Lana Clarkson. He's unbeweaveable! He's got killer taste in blondes!
We've all seen Rachelle Short's inappropriate behavior and attire in the courtroom, ~looks like the child bride is still stuck on cheap gold lame~ so this latest stunt by the bought and paid for spouse comes as no surprise. Man! Those chicklets sure do take up some space on the photo don't they? Rachelle, I recommend you go back to your fix-it dentist and get a redo.
Special thanks to kathlb for the heads up on this story!
Update: 7:11 pm
OMG! Michelle at MControl Blogs has some links up on her site! They are photographs of Rachelle's "somewhat" tasteful T&A shots that you can find here and also a calendar, here.
TMZ.com is reporting:
Wearing a modified "Golden Girl" chestnut brown wig, lady killer Phil Spector, 68, perkily appeared at a red carpet event in Beverly Hills this week with his living 27-year-old blonde wife, Rachelle -- who happens to look shockingly like the late Lana Clarkson. He's unbeweaveable! He's got killer taste in blondes!
We've all seen Rachelle Short's inappropriate behavior and attire in the courtroom, ~looks like the child bride is still stuck on cheap gold lame~ so this latest stunt by the bought and paid for spouse comes as no surprise. Man! Those chicklets sure do take up some space on the photo don't they? Rachelle, I recommend you go back to your fix-it dentist and get a redo.
Special thanks to kathlb for the heads up on this story!
Update: 7:11 pm
OMG! Michelle at MControl Blogs has some links up on her site! They are photographs of Rachelle's "somewhat" tasteful T&A shots that you can find here and also a calendar, here.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Which Video Tape Did The Jurors Watch?
Update!
According to this article on MsNBC, there is another video (besides Adriano DeSouza's police interview) that the jurors could be watching. This is a video of Adriano in the back of the castle near the fountain, pointing out various things to detectives.
Because there were several days in June that I missed, I don't remember when this video was entered into evidence (if it ever was), or through which witness. I just don't recall this video at all being presented at trial.
If this video is in evidence and the jurors are watching it, then everyone needs to read this entry at mControl Blogs, and judge for yourself if the fountain at the castle only has one flow setting or not.
Personally, I would put more factual weight into Harriet Ryan's reporting on the Court TV blog, than I would a report out of the Associated Press with no byline.
Update: 9:10 am.
I stand corrected. Thank you Lynn Gweeny, for finding verification that this video was entered into evidence, and it was described in a Harriet Ryan blog article as a "sheriff's department video tape filmed at Spector's estate."
According to this article on MsNBC, there is another video (besides Adriano DeSouza's police interview) that the jurors could be watching. This is a video of Adriano in the back of the castle near the fountain, pointing out various things to detectives.
Because there were several days in June that I missed, I don't remember when this video was entered into evidence (if it ever was), or through which witness. I just don't recall this video at all being presented at trial.
If this video is in evidence and the jurors are watching it, then everyone needs to read this entry at mControl Blogs, and judge for yourself if the fountain at the castle only has one flow setting or not.
Personally, I would put more factual weight into Harriet Ryan's reporting on the Court TV blog, than I would a report out of the Associated Press with no byline.
Update: 9:10 am.
I stand corrected. Thank you Lynn Gweeny, for finding verification that this video was entered into evidence, and it was described in a Harriet Ryan blog article as a "sheriff's department video tape filmed at Spector's estate."
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Guest Entry: Sedonia Sunset's take on the trial
Court TV poster Sedonia Sunset originally posted a fabulous synopsis on the trial on the Court TV Phil Spector Forum. Sedonia Sunset generously agreed to have me put her writings up on the blog. Thank you Sedonia Sunset!
This Trial Has Everything!
Many of us are "obsessed" with this trial, but I think it's the overall drama of the story that sucks us in like a real-life soap opera -- the fact that we have a community of people to discuss it with is a big part, in my opinion, of how and why we get sooooo entrenched with the trial. It also strikes a chord in all of us or we wouldn't be here. Many thanks go to KTLA.com who, unlike Court TV (yet, ironically, via the Court TV feed) provided on-line gavel-to-gavel coverage. Thank goodness for KTLA.com, KNBC.com and high-speed Internet access!
The Prosecution said Lana Clarkson was a plucky go-getter who was still striving to overcome obstacles and become a Hollywood STAR. Yes she had suffered hard times after a debilitating injury, but she was well on the mend, back to work in a place where she could make very high-level Hollywood connections. Even if the $9 an hour pay was downright pitiful -- it was the networking that mattered, and her prospects were looking up. She was scheduled to film a commercial less than a week after the shooting. She had stopped Phil Spector from coming into the exclusive Foundation Room at the House of Blues because he wasn't wearing the required wristband. She had made what was probably a fatal mistake earlier in the evening -- she referred to Phil as "MRS". Spector, mistaking him for a woman. Well, he was wearing a longish, curly wig, high heels, and a long, white lady's dinner jacket. She had no idea who he was. Someone set her straight and told her to treat him "golden" like Dan Akroyd, one of the famous owners of the House of Blues.
The Prosecution said that Phil Spector reverted to his decades-long pattern of getting drunk and pulling a gun on a woman trying to leave. This time though, a gun ended up in a woman's mouth! Lana was sitting by the back door with a purse on her shoulder, which clearly indicated that she was about to leave. Her life was brutally ended in a split-second when a bullet transected her spine and completely severed her spinal cord. The Defense, on the other hand, said she was a severely depressed, disabled, poverty-stricken, washed-up 40-yr-old has-been party girl who was habitually drunk and drugged, and impulsively shot herself when she saw a gun and an opportunity.
Phil Spector didn't act like an innocent man. He initially went outside, gun in bloody hand, somewhat dazed, and told the limo driver: "I think I killed somebody." The driver, Adriano DeSouza, saw the gun, the blood and Lana's outstretched legs. DeSouza high-tailed it out of there lest he ALSO be shot, and immediately called for help. Not knowing the exact situation inside the house, the police took 40 minutes to secure the premises before rushing the suspect to subdue him. They had to subdue him -- he did not follow their commands. They even attempted to taser him, but one of the tasers prongs did not connect correctly and the other one missed him. Much later, Phil claimed that they tasered him with 100,000 volts of electricity. They finally had to tackle him using a riot-shield because he would NOT stand still and keep his hands up.
Once tackled, Phil ranted and raved and threatened their jobs. He also said, "I can explain" and "It was an accident -- I didn't mean to shoot her!" Unfortunately, those statements didn't come into the trial, but they are in legal documents. Before the police stormed the castle, it was clear that Phil attempted to clean things up and stage the scene. He never called 911, despite having 14 working phones in the house. He wiped down the gun and placed it under her left shoe (possibly mistaking his right for her right). He washed his hands and took off his jacket. Did he switch wigs? Maybe. It wasn't brought up. He used a diaper wetted with toilet water where he presumably washed his hands and flushed away the excess blood. I still wonder if the fountain outside was ever tested. He probably tried to flush the diaper, but it didn't work.
Many of us have known men like Phil Spector. Well, maybe not the rich and powerful part, but certainly the abusive, neurotic, woman-hating part. We've all known women like the trashy, attention-seeking opportunist with the ridiculous name of "Punkin Pie," the desperately trendy, youth-obsessed and spiteful Jennifer Hayes-Reidl, and the staunch and loving long-term TRUE best friend, Nili Hudson. We also recognize gold-digging, spoiled, bratty, self-entitled, mouthy piranhas like Rachelle Spector. We can empathize with Lana's ambitions and her ups and downs.
The prosecution lawyers were also intriguing, from AJ, the charming, boyish, eager, whip-sharp, up-and-coming prosecutor to Pat Dixon, his more-experienced and calmer mentor. For some reason I tend to visualize them as Chance and Shadow from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey -- the eager, headstrong young bulldog and the older, wiser and more patient golden retriever. Of course, AJ is much smarter and more cautious than Chance, but overall personalities seem to fit. AJ is so engaging, however, that I can't help letting a little cynicism in by remembering a scene from Ally McBeal. A new lawyer in the firm practices his various kinds of instant smiles ~boyish, happy-go-lucky, wry, sensitive, brilliant, aw-shucks, seductive, etc.,~ to the tune of "Another One Bites The Dust." He explained that it was a skill that needed to be practiced and exercised, just like any other skill. Does AJ practice his smiles? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect Roger Rosen practices his scowls without even trying. Perhaps they are both just naturally gifted and go with their strong points.
Then there are the defense lawyers, Bruce Cutler, the theatrical real life mob lawyer who looks like a cross between Tor Johnson, WC Fields, and Don Rickles. Roger Rosen is the intense, angry, tie-flipping guy nobody likes who is so tightly wound that you'd need a tractor to pull the needle out of his butt. Looks-wise, he reminds me of Mitch Pileggi, who played Assistant Director Walter Skinner in the X-Files. In a hilarious aside, a Google search on "Roger Rosen" resulted in the following title: "Now You've Got Your Period - Google Books Result" LOL! Chris Plourd is the guy who bores everyone into a stupor and gamely takes the fall for the rest of the team.
Bradley Brunon was so smarmy many people felt the need to take a long, HOT, disinfecting shower after listening to him. LKB was Phil's token female-lawyer, mother and shrewd-operator with the loud, grating, headache-inducing voice and her own soap opera that includes her husband (who bears a striking resemblance to Captain Kangaroo) being a major witness. LKB considerately became deathly ill for two-plus weeks, during which time her husband testified out of her presence. No conflict of interest there, no siree! Out of sight, out of mind! At least until AJ cross-examines him into the dust over it.
There were the defense's expert witnesses. Dr. Henry Lee, the "rock star of forensics" who was officially declared by Judge Fidler to have concealed evidence, fled to China to avoid testifying in front of the jury and being eviscerated by the prosecution on live TV.
Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the exceptionally arrogant, pompous blowhard repeatedly waved off (literally) questions he considered annoying by condescendingly saying "Oh, never mind," clearly indicating that it wasn't worth bothering to even deign to speak to anyone who wasn't also a world famous scientist/ninja pathologist, who testified he has easily disarmed gun-wielding assassins (yes, pural!). He insisted that Lana ~and any other person with an IQ above that of a potato~ would have done the same if Phil Spector had really held a gun on her. It's just common sense, after all.
Dr. Werner Spitz, the elderly pathologist with the heavy German accent and lisp, testified that, yes, legs do bend mid-thigh, blood spatter can skip over half of a long, tall body, jump over the carpet, make a right-hand turn, and land on someone wearing a white jacket! And dead people with severed spines and shattered backbones can breathe, cough and blow raspberries.
That brings us back to Dr. Michael Baden ~the aforementioned Captain Kangaroo doppelganger~ (a description courtesy of Steven Mikulan of the LA Weekly), who has no idea what the term "conflict of interest" means. Baden doesn't see the slightest connection between that term and his testifying for the man that his wife is currently representing in a murder trial. He does concede that there are big bucks coming into both their bank accounts courtesy of Phil Spector. With no tipping of their hand to the prosecution, the defense, in a clear discovery violation, sprung Dr. Baden's "A-HA" moment on them. Dr. Baden said that her spine must not have been completely severed, so she could expirate blood onto Phil's jacket while Spector was tenderly and considerately washing her bloody face with a toilet-water-soaked diaper. Lana's spine must have been severed during the clumsy transport to the coroner's office, not by the exploding bullet that was positioned about two inches from her spine when the trigger was pulled. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Our own CTV poster, Intrepid, referred to the four big-name defense expert witnesses as the "quadrafecta of piffle." LOL! So many of us were disillusioned after watching this quadrafecta of piffle that we will forevermore be highly suspicious of any expert-for-hire witness. That's probably a good thing, so maybe we should thank them for that nugget of wisdom they managed to impart.
Dr. Lynne Herold became an idol to many of us with her calm, patient and logical explanations of her findings. She does not look or talk like a celebrity, and she makes no attempt to be one. She does her job and reports her findings, period. LKB tried, in vain, to trip her up, but Dr. Herold refused to take the bait, pointing out that the laws of physics cannot be changed; it is what it is. If she didn't know an answer, she said so and would not go outside her area of expertise no matter how many times LKB tried to goad her into doing so. If something could have happened in more than one way, she said so. She also placed Phil Spector within about 2 feet of the "blood-letting event." She left us with two renewed catchphrases: "It is what it is," and "Your point is?" She easily outsmarted LKB without even chipping a nail and LKB did NOT forget it. While lashing out at Dr. Herold in her closing argument, wherein she pointedly refused to refer to her as "Dr." Herold, LKB's spite and a seething, childish grudge against a clearly superior opponent shone through for all to see.
Then there was the sleaze factor, from the illustrated paramedic (aka Tattoo Boy) to the sorriest and most tasteless display of sagging, untethered "cleavage" since the Granny character in Playboy cartoons, to the siliconed, spray-tanned, razor-taloned, cock-eyed-due-to-bad-facelift-and/or-Botox mom whining about keeping her kids out of rehab while she partied 4 nights a week, and eagerly trashing her "best friend" at every turn. And let's not forget the Hollywood Madam, Jody "Baby Doll" Gibson who is trying to peddle her upcoming book. She had an obviously doctored trick book and claimed that Lana was a hooker in her stable who was turned on by "sex play" with guns. She dramatically marched into court with her lawyer ~who looked like a cross between Col. Sanders and the Travelocity gnome~ only to be told to take her obviously doctored trick book and stuff it where the sun don't shine (which is hard to do considering her profession and the barely-there skirt-- there aren't too many places on her that the sun doesn't shine), at least until after the verdict.
Oh, and Raul Julia-Levy. He claims to be the illegitimate son of deceased actor Raul Julia. He does look like him. Unfortunately he has baggage several inches thick, including all kinds of aliases, falsified records and convictions. He was going to claim Lana liked to do cocaine with him and loved to play with guns during sex. He was kept out of the trial, but gamely tramped all over the Internet using his own name ~and various sock-puppets~ trying to convince people he was who he said he was. The last I heard, he was trying to sue the prosecutor's office or judge or somebody for defamation of character, or something like that. Whatever.
Then there were the five, 1101B, prior bad act witnesses (PBA). That's only five out of approximately nineteen witnesses, women and men, on whom Phil Spector allegedly pulled guns. The judge only allowed five of them and he picked which ones they would be. The Defense pulled yet another dirty trick and told the jury during closing arguments that the prosecution hand-picked only five women to tell fabricated stories, saying there were no other incidents, blithely ignoring Phil's actual previous conviction for gun-related charges.
Face it, Phil is just a gun-wielding kind of guy -- that's his idea of romance. Many a guy will flatter, wheedle, cajole, bribe, clown, pet, nibble, and even cry, if necessary, to persuade the object of his lust to give in to his carnal desires. Some of them simply proposition every woman they see, theorizing that one out of every ten women will say yes, no matter how obnoxious, repulsive and unknown the guy might be. Phil, on the other hand, shrieks at the top of his lungs at the objects of his lust, calling them "f-----g c---s" while spit flies in his uncontrollable rage. He puts a fine point on it by holding guns on them and threatening to blow their f-----g brains out if they don't do what he says. There's a giant mirror behind the chair in the foyer. Does he maneuver his "dates" into that chair so he can watch himself being "masterful"? He's a producer; every scenario must play out according to his direction and no one else's. Every man has his own repertoire of seduction techniques; it's all a matter of going with what has works, I guess. Stick with the classics and all that. He even brings guns into the picture with platonic dates, just to impress them, because what woman wouldn't be favorably impressed by a man carrying a gun that's longer than he is and reminding them of Elmer Fudd? What a manly, macho man!
Where was I? Oh yes, the PBA witnesses, all of whom simply were trying to leave:
1) There was the practical Dorothy Melvin who did not want her boss at the time, Joan Rivers, to have her name brought into the matter. She called the police and had them retrieve her purse.
2) There was the professional photographer, Stephanie Jennings, who called 911, but Phil convinced them that she was a hooker. She wouldn't go to his room and simply wanted to go to sleep or, after his hissy fit, leave.
3) There was the emotional, girlish former Hollywood music planner, Diane Ogden, with her gripping memory of attempted rape at gunpoint ~thwarted only by Phil's inability to perform~ despite the fact that she would have had sex with him if he'd only been "nice about it." She did not consider rape at gunpoint to be "romantic". She foolishly allowed herself to be alone with him again some months later and he chased her down the driveway with an Uzi.
4) There was the angry, and rightly so, Southern Belle, Melissa Grosvenor, with a somewhat shady past and a drug-addicted sister (who, along with another sister) aired their dirty laundry in court for all the world to see. Can you imagine Thanksgiving at Mom's house this year?
5) And then there was Devra Robataille, an extremely petite British musician, who went all "Mumsy" on Phil and sternly lectured her way out of having him blow her brains out not once, but twice!
There was the former detective, Vince Tanazzo, who did security work for Joan Rivers's Christmas parties. He had to "escort" Phil out of her parties two years in a row because Phil was threatening to blow even more women's brains out. I believe he had a gun on at least one of the occasions, but I could be wrong about that -- he certainly alluded to the fact the he did. One of the women he allegedly threatened was Walter Cronkite's daughter, but that was not revealed in testimony.
And let's not forget Phil's "little woman", Rachelle Short Spector, 26 (he's 67). Did she marry the ugly, gun-toting, egomaniacal, misogynistic, platform-shoe-wearing, frockcoat-adorned, bizarre-wig-bedecked senior citizen for love or money? He married her only after his assistant, Michelle Blaine turned down his proposal. It's pretty obvious that the marriage was for show so that the jury and public will see that there is a women who isn't afraid he'll blow her brains out if she gets up and "leaves" him to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. And there are three hefty bodyguards and lots of meds that make sure of it.
Rachelle showed up for court every day, often with her Mommy in tow, imperiously having a bodyguard carry her totebag and blankie. On several occasions she has spoken to the press, leaving an indelible impression of an air-headed bimbo EACH time. She makes inane accusations and declarations of love on her websites, past and present, and displayed her vast legal knowledge by referring to a "statue of limitations."
The judge clamped down on her testifying-by-proxy through the media by placing a gag order on her and Phil Spector and anyone else who might be acting as his mouthpiece. Most people would be cowed or at least SHUT THEIR MOUTH while THE JUDGE is talking directly to them and ORDERING them to do or NOT do something, but not Rachelle! No, she sassed back at him over and over and argued and carried on until he threatened her with contempt. Chris Plourd, ever the fall-guy, rushed over to her to try to get her to put a sock in it, but she ignored him, other than to protest that the judge was talking TO her, WHILE the judge was talking TO her. Interestingly, Roger Rosen and LKB COMPLETELY ignored the ENTIRE exchange. COMPLETELY. Was it planned in yet another attempt at a mistrial? How could they NOT be surprised and taken aback by such an outrageous outburst and conduct by the defendants OWN WIFE?
And speaking of the judge, there is the stern, but fair, and sometimes humorous Judge Fidler, who is a dead ringer for Bruce Willis! He's savvy to most of the tricks either side attempts to play on each other and swiftly puts the kibosh on them whenever possible, or attempts to remedy the situation without causing a mistrial. And make no mistake, from the moment the Prosecution's side rested, the Defense tried over and over again to get a mistrial because they can see their case going down in flames. The judge keeps a tight rein on his courtroom and is ever cognizant of not letting the trial turn into an OJ-like circus while trying to avoid things like eating well-meaning (but inadvertently poisoned) cookies brought by the ever-classy Beth Karas.
And then there were the monumental defense blunders. The Henry Lee fiasco, the Kenny/Baden conflict of interest, the major smack down of Bruce Cutler by the judge for dramatically yelling and pointing at Diane Ogden and slamming the table/podium, even the AIR (not to mention leaving mid-trial to film a TV show for several weeks and then finally resigning), the posing of Phil to be pointing a gun (using his fingers as a mock-gun), and showing Lana's "showcase" reel.
The Defense meant to show the reel to say that Lana was a bad actress with no prospects. Instead, they brought her to life -- she talked, she laughed, she BREATHED. She wasn't particularly funny, and the audio was awful, but that's what writers and technicians are for. It wasn't supposed to be for the viewing public. It was a portfolio of sorts, to be shown only to people in the industry to show her range of talent. She looked FABULOUS! Most importantly, it showed her alive. She was certainly nicer to look at in that than in the gruesome photos of her slumped in a chair in Phil's foyer, with her black eye, messed-up hair and blood pooling from her nose and mouth. Dr. Spitz had said she looked "peaceful". An incredulous AJ thundered back what so many of us were thinking: "SHE'S ***DEAD***, DOCTOR!!!"
Everywhere we turned there was Hollywood razzle-dazzle and the nuts and bolts of Hollywood. This included testimony by a famous director, Michael Bay and testimony by a failed playwright/producer/director that had to take a bus 3000 miles across the country to testify because he was afraid to fly. We heard about making Mercedes commercials, making blockbuster movies, making low-budget Roger Corman movies, and renting costumes from a little San Fernando Valley shop called Valentino's. Even the buildings are famous places! There's even a "CASTLE", FGS, with 88 steps to the front entrance and a HUGE satellite dish above the back door. Talk about the lives of the rich and/or famous! What more could you ask for? It's no wonder we're hooked on this trial! It has EVERYTHING: sex, drugs and rock and roll!
There were a multitude of "talking heads" on news and legal shows. Some knew what they were talking about and some didn't. The most egregious one was Anita Talbert, a friend of Phil Spector who appeared on Court TV shows several times, spouting complete and utter nonsense. She made outrageous claims such as Lana having taken TWELVE Vicadin that night. Testimony by Dr. Pena, however, revealed she had a LESS than a therapeutic dose in her system. Just about everything she spouted came directly from Phil Spector, who publicly lied at every turn between the night of the murder and the beginning of the trial. A story of her dancing around with the gun and singing Da Doo Run Run seems to be a particular favorite. He also said she was standing up when she shot herself (wrong), and he couldn't have done it since she was so much taller and stronger than he was. He ranted and raved at the police station, referring to her as a piece of shit mere hours after he shot her in the mouth. He said she brought the gun, yet on the stand even defense experts were compelled to testify that it belonged to Spector.
Will Phil run? Hard to say -- he's stuck it out this long, after all. Still, we already know he wears wigs. He COULD wear a disguise and possibly slip out of the country. What would he look like in a disguise? When TV shows invoke Phil's name, they almost ALWAYS play a snippet of "Be My Baby" or "To Know Him Is To Love Him" and other songs he produced. They really should pick a better song, not produced by him, but sung by the Beatles, with whom he also had connections: The Fool On The Hill.
This Trial Has Everything!
Many of us are "obsessed" with this trial, but I think it's the overall drama of the story that sucks us in like a real-life soap opera -- the fact that we have a community of people to discuss it with is a big part, in my opinion, of how and why we get sooooo entrenched with the trial. It also strikes a chord in all of us or we wouldn't be here. Many thanks go to KTLA.com who, unlike Court TV (yet, ironically, via the Court TV feed) provided on-line gavel-to-gavel coverage. Thank goodness for KTLA.com, KNBC.com and high-speed Internet access!
The Prosecution said Lana Clarkson was a plucky go-getter who was still striving to overcome obstacles and become a Hollywood STAR. Yes she had suffered hard times after a debilitating injury, but she was well on the mend, back to work in a place where she could make very high-level Hollywood connections. Even if the $9 an hour pay was downright pitiful -- it was the networking that mattered, and her prospects were looking up. She was scheduled to film a commercial less than a week after the shooting. She had stopped Phil Spector from coming into the exclusive Foundation Room at the House of Blues because he wasn't wearing the required wristband. She had made what was probably a fatal mistake earlier in the evening -- she referred to Phil as "MRS". Spector, mistaking him for a woman. Well, he was wearing a longish, curly wig, high heels, and a long, white lady's dinner jacket. She had no idea who he was. Someone set her straight and told her to treat him "golden" like Dan Akroyd, one of the famous owners of the House of Blues.
The Prosecution said that Phil Spector reverted to his decades-long pattern of getting drunk and pulling a gun on a woman trying to leave. This time though, a gun ended up in a woman's mouth! Lana was sitting by the back door with a purse on her shoulder, which clearly indicated that she was about to leave. Her life was brutally ended in a split-second when a bullet transected her spine and completely severed her spinal cord. The Defense, on the other hand, said she was a severely depressed, disabled, poverty-stricken, washed-up 40-yr-old has-been party girl who was habitually drunk and drugged, and impulsively shot herself when she saw a gun and an opportunity.
Phil Spector didn't act like an innocent man. He initially went outside, gun in bloody hand, somewhat dazed, and told the limo driver: "I think I killed somebody." The driver, Adriano DeSouza, saw the gun, the blood and Lana's outstretched legs. DeSouza high-tailed it out of there lest he ALSO be shot, and immediately called for help. Not knowing the exact situation inside the house, the police took 40 minutes to secure the premises before rushing the suspect to subdue him. They had to subdue him -- he did not follow their commands. They even attempted to taser him, but one of the tasers prongs did not connect correctly and the other one missed him. Much later, Phil claimed that they tasered him with 100,000 volts of electricity. They finally had to tackle him using a riot-shield because he would NOT stand still and keep his hands up.
Once tackled, Phil ranted and raved and threatened their jobs. He also said, "I can explain" and "It was an accident -- I didn't mean to shoot her!" Unfortunately, those statements didn't come into the trial, but they are in legal documents. Before the police stormed the castle, it was clear that Phil attempted to clean things up and stage the scene. He never called 911, despite having 14 working phones in the house. He wiped down the gun and placed it under her left shoe (possibly mistaking his right for her right). He washed his hands and took off his jacket. Did he switch wigs? Maybe. It wasn't brought up. He used a diaper wetted with toilet water where he presumably washed his hands and flushed away the excess blood. I still wonder if the fountain outside was ever tested. He probably tried to flush the diaper, but it didn't work.
Many of us have known men like Phil Spector. Well, maybe not the rich and powerful part, but certainly the abusive, neurotic, woman-hating part. We've all known women like the trashy, attention-seeking opportunist with the ridiculous name of "Punkin Pie," the desperately trendy, youth-obsessed and spiteful Jennifer Hayes-Reidl, and the staunch and loving long-term TRUE best friend, Nili Hudson. We also recognize gold-digging, spoiled, bratty, self-entitled, mouthy piranhas like Rachelle Spector. We can empathize with Lana's ambitions and her ups and downs.
The prosecution lawyers were also intriguing, from AJ, the charming, boyish, eager, whip-sharp, up-and-coming prosecutor to Pat Dixon, his more-experienced and calmer mentor. For some reason I tend to visualize them as Chance and Shadow from the movie Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey -- the eager, headstrong young bulldog and the older, wiser and more patient golden retriever. Of course, AJ is much smarter and more cautious than Chance, but overall personalities seem to fit. AJ is so engaging, however, that I can't help letting a little cynicism in by remembering a scene from Ally McBeal. A new lawyer in the firm practices his various kinds of instant smiles ~boyish, happy-go-lucky, wry, sensitive, brilliant, aw-shucks, seductive, etc.,~ to the tune of "Another One Bites The Dust." He explained that it was a skill that needed to be practiced and exercised, just like any other skill. Does AJ practice his smiles? Maybe, maybe not. I suspect Roger Rosen practices his scowls without even trying. Perhaps they are both just naturally gifted and go with their strong points.
Then there are the defense lawyers, Bruce Cutler, the theatrical real life mob lawyer who looks like a cross between Tor Johnson, WC Fields, and Don Rickles. Roger Rosen is the intense, angry, tie-flipping guy nobody likes who is so tightly wound that you'd need a tractor to pull the needle out of his butt. Looks-wise, he reminds me of Mitch Pileggi, who played Assistant Director Walter Skinner in the X-Files. In a hilarious aside, a Google search on "Roger Rosen" resulted in the following title: "Now You've Got Your Period - Google Books Result" LOL! Chris Plourd is the guy who bores everyone into a stupor and gamely takes the fall for the rest of the team.
Bradley Brunon was so smarmy many people felt the need to take a long, HOT, disinfecting shower after listening to him. LKB was Phil's token female-lawyer, mother and shrewd-operator with the loud, grating, headache-inducing voice and her own soap opera that includes her husband (who bears a striking resemblance to Captain Kangaroo) being a major witness. LKB considerately became deathly ill for two-plus weeks, during which time her husband testified out of her presence. No conflict of interest there, no siree! Out of sight, out of mind! At least until AJ cross-examines him into the dust over it.
There were the defense's expert witnesses. Dr. Henry Lee, the "rock star of forensics" who was officially declared by Judge Fidler to have concealed evidence, fled to China to avoid testifying in front of the jury and being eviscerated by the prosecution on live TV.
Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the exceptionally arrogant, pompous blowhard repeatedly waved off (literally) questions he considered annoying by condescendingly saying "Oh, never mind," clearly indicating that it wasn't worth bothering to even deign to speak to anyone who wasn't also a world famous scientist/ninja pathologist, who testified he has easily disarmed gun-wielding assassins (yes, pural!). He insisted that Lana ~and any other person with an IQ above that of a potato~ would have done the same if Phil Spector had really held a gun on her. It's just common sense, after all.
Dr. Werner Spitz, the elderly pathologist with the heavy German accent and lisp, testified that, yes, legs do bend mid-thigh, blood spatter can skip over half of a long, tall body, jump over the carpet, make a right-hand turn, and land on someone wearing a white jacket! And dead people with severed spines and shattered backbones can breathe, cough and blow raspberries.
That brings us back to Dr. Michael Baden ~the aforementioned Captain Kangaroo doppelganger~ (a description courtesy of Steven Mikulan of the LA Weekly), who has no idea what the term "conflict of interest" means. Baden doesn't see the slightest connection between that term and his testifying for the man that his wife is currently representing in a murder trial. He does concede that there are big bucks coming into both their bank accounts courtesy of Phil Spector. With no tipping of their hand to the prosecution, the defense, in a clear discovery violation, sprung Dr. Baden's "A-HA" moment on them. Dr. Baden said that her spine must not have been completely severed, so she could expirate blood onto Phil's jacket while Spector was tenderly and considerately washing her bloody face with a toilet-water-soaked diaper. Lana's spine must have been severed during the clumsy transport to the coroner's office, not by the exploding bullet that was positioned about two inches from her spine when the trigger was pulled. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Our own CTV poster, Intrepid, referred to the four big-name defense expert witnesses as the "quadrafecta of piffle." LOL! So many of us were disillusioned after watching this quadrafecta of piffle that we will forevermore be highly suspicious of any expert-for-hire witness. That's probably a good thing, so maybe we should thank them for that nugget of wisdom they managed to impart.
Dr. Lynne Herold became an idol to many of us with her calm, patient and logical explanations of her findings. She does not look or talk like a celebrity, and she makes no attempt to be one. She does her job and reports her findings, period. LKB tried, in vain, to trip her up, but Dr. Herold refused to take the bait, pointing out that the laws of physics cannot be changed; it is what it is. If she didn't know an answer, she said so and would not go outside her area of expertise no matter how many times LKB tried to goad her into doing so. If something could have happened in more than one way, she said so. She also placed Phil Spector within about 2 feet of the "blood-letting event." She left us with two renewed catchphrases: "It is what it is," and "Your point is?" She easily outsmarted LKB without even chipping a nail and LKB did NOT forget it. While lashing out at Dr. Herold in her closing argument, wherein she pointedly refused to refer to her as "Dr." Herold, LKB's spite and a seething, childish grudge against a clearly superior opponent shone through for all to see.
Then there was the sleaze factor, from the illustrated paramedic (aka Tattoo Boy) to the sorriest and most tasteless display of sagging, untethered "cleavage" since the Granny character in Playboy cartoons, to the siliconed, spray-tanned, razor-taloned, cock-eyed-due-to-bad-facelift-and/or-Botox mom whining about keeping her kids out of rehab while she partied 4 nights a week, and eagerly trashing her "best friend" at every turn. And let's not forget the Hollywood Madam, Jody "Baby Doll" Gibson who is trying to peddle her upcoming book. She had an obviously doctored trick book and claimed that Lana was a hooker in her stable who was turned on by "sex play" with guns. She dramatically marched into court with her lawyer ~who looked like a cross between Col. Sanders and the Travelocity gnome~ only to be told to take her obviously doctored trick book and stuff it where the sun don't shine (which is hard to do considering her profession and the barely-there skirt-- there aren't too many places on her that the sun doesn't shine), at least until after the verdict.
Oh, and Raul Julia-Levy. He claims to be the illegitimate son of deceased actor Raul Julia. He does look like him. Unfortunately he has baggage several inches thick, including all kinds of aliases, falsified records and convictions. He was going to claim Lana liked to do cocaine with him and loved to play with guns during sex. He was kept out of the trial, but gamely tramped all over the Internet using his own name ~and various sock-puppets~ trying to convince people he was who he said he was. The last I heard, he was trying to sue the prosecutor's office or judge or somebody for defamation of character, or something like that. Whatever.
Then there were the five, 1101B, prior bad act witnesses (PBA). That's only five out of approximately nineteen witnesses, women and men, on whom Phil Spector allegedly pulled guns. The judge only allowed five of them and he picked which ones they would be. The Defense pulled yet another dirty trick and told the jury during closing arguments that the prosecution hand-picked only five women to tell fabricated stories, saying there were no other incidents, blithely ignoring Phil's actual previous conviction for gun-related charges.
Face it, Phil is just a gun-wielding kind of guy -- that's his idea of romance. Many a guy will flatter, wheedle, cajole, bribe, clown, pet, nibble, and even cry, if necessary, to persuade the object of his lust to give in to his carnal desires. Some of them simply proposition every woman they see, theorizing that one out of every ten women will say yes, no matter how obnoxious, repulsive and unknown the guy might be. Phil, on the other hand, shrieks at the top of his lungs at the objects of his lust, calling them "f-----g c---s" while spit flies in his uncontrollable rage. He puts a fine point on it by holding guns on them and threatening to blow their f-----g brains out if they don't do what he says. There's a giant mirror behind the chair in the foyer. Does he maneuver his "dates" into that chair so he can watch himself being "masterful"? He's a producer; every scenario must play out according to his direction and no one else's. Every man has his own repertoire of seduction techniques; it's all a matter of going with what has works, I guess. Stick with the classics and all that. He even brings guns into the picture with platonic dates, just to impress them, because what woman wouldn't be favorably impressed by a man carrying a gun that's longer than he is and reminding them of Elmer Fudd? What a manly, macho man!
Where was I? Oh yes, the PBA witnesses, all of whom simply were trying to leave:
1) There was the practical Dorothy Melvin who did not want her boss at the time, Joan Rivers, to have her name brought into the matter. She called the police and had them retrieve her purse.
2) There was the professional photographer, Stephanie Jennings, who called 911, but Phil convinced them that she was a hooker. She wouldn't go to his room and simply wanted to go to sleep or, after his hissy fit, leave.
3) There was the emotional, girlish former Hollywood music planner, Diane Ogden, with her gripping memory of attempted rape at gunpoint ~thwarted only by Phil's inability to perform~ despite the fact that she would have had sex with him if he'd only been "nice about it." She did not consider rape at gunpoint to be "romantic". She foolishly allowed herself to be alone with him again some months later and he chased her down the driveway with an Uzi.
4) There was the angry, and rightly so, Southern Belle, Melissa Grosvenor, with a somewhat shady past and a drug-addicted sister (who, along with another sister) aired their dirty laundry in court for all the world to see. Can you imagine Thanksgiving at Mom's house this year?
5) And then there was Devra Robataille, an extremely petite British musician, who went all "Mumsy" on Phil and sternly lectured her way out of having him blow her brains out not once, but twice!
There was the former detective, Vince Tanazzo, who did security work for Joan Rivers's Christmas parties. He had to "escort" Phil out of her parties two years in a row because Phil was threatening to blow even more women's brains out. I believe he had a gun on at least one of the occasions, but I could be wrong about that -- he certainly alluded to the fact the he did. One of the women he allegedly threatened was Walter Cronkite's daughter, but that was not revealed in testimony.
And let's not forget Phil's "little woman", Rachelle Short Spector, 26 (he's 67). Did she marry the ugly, gun-toting, egomaniacal, misogynistic, platform-shoe-wearing, frockcoat-adorned, bizarre-wig-bedecked senior citizen for love or money? He married her only after his assistant, Michelle Blaine turned down his proposal. It's pretty obvious that the marriage was for show so that the jury and public will see that there is a women who isn't afraid he'll blow her brains out if she gets up and "leaves" him to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night. And there are three hefty bodyguards and lots of meds that make sure of it.
Rachelle showed up for court every day, often with her Mommy in tow, imperiously having a bodyguard carry her totebag and blankie. On several occasions she has spoken to the press, leaving an indelible impression of an air-headed bimbo EACH time. She makes inane accusations and declarations of love on her websites, past and present, and displayed her vast legal knowledge by referring to a "statue of limitations."
The judge clamped down on her testifying-by-proxy through the media by placing a gag order on her and Phil Spector and anyone else who might be acting as his mouthpiece. Most people would be cowed or at least SHUT THEIR MOUTH while THE JUDGE is talking directly to them and ORDERING them to do or NOT do something, but not Rachelle! No, she sassed back at him over and over and argued and carried on until he threatened her with contempt. Chris Plourd, ever the fall-guy, rushed over to her to try to get her to put a sock in it, but she ignored him, other than to protest that the judge was talking TO her, WHILE the judge was talking TO her. Interestingly, Roger Rosen and LKB COMPLETELY ignored the ENTIRE exchange. COMPLETELY. Was it planned in yet another attempt at a mistrial? How could they NOT be surprised and taken aback by such an outrageous outburst and conduct by the defendants OWN WIFE?
And speaking of the judge, there is the stern, but fair, and sometimes humorous Judge Fidler, who is a dead ringer for Bruce Willis! He's savvy to most of the tricks either side attempts to play on each other and swiftly puts the kibosh on them whenever possible, or attempts to remedy the situation without causing a mistrial. And make no mistake, from the moment the Prosecution's side rested, the Defense tried over and over again to get a mistrial because they can see their case going down in flames. The judge keeps a tight rein on his courtroom and is ever cognizant of not letting the trial turn into an OJ-like circus while trying to avoid things like eating well-meaning (but inadvertently poisoned) cookies brought by the ever-classy Beth Karas.
And then there were the monumental defense blunders. The Henry Lee fiasco, the Kenny/Baden conflict of interest, the major smack down of Bruce Cutler by the judge for dramatically yelling and pointing at Diane Ogden and slamming the table/podium, even the AIR (not to mention leaving mid-trial to film a TV show for several weeks and then finally resigning), the posing of Phil to be pointing a gun (using his fingers as a mock-gun), and showing Lana's "showcase" reel.
The Defense meant to show the reel to say that Lana was a bad actress with no prospects. Instead, they brought her to life -- she talked, she laughed, she BREATHED. She wasn't particularly funny, and the audio was awful, but that's what writers and technicians are for. It wasn't supposed to be for the viewing public. It was a portfolio of sorts, to be shown only to people in the industry to show her range of talent. She looked FABULOUS! Most importantly, it showed her alive. She was certainly nicer to look at in that than in the gruesome photos of her slumped in a chair in Phil's foyer, with her black eye, messed-up hair and blood pooling from her nose and mouth. Dr. Spitz had said she looked "peaceful". An incredulous AJ thundered back what so many of us were thinking: "SHE'S ***DEAD***, DOCTOR!!!"
Everywhere we turned there was Hollywood razzle-dazzle and the nuts and bolts of Hollywood. This included testimony by a famous director, Michael Bay and testimony by a failed playwright/producer/director that had to take a bus 3000 miles across the country to testify because he was afraid to fly. We heard about making Mercedes commercials, making blockbuster movies, making low-budget Roger Corman movies, and renting costumes from a little San Fernando Valley shop called Valentino's. Even the buildings are famous places! There's even a "CASTLE", FGS, with 88 steps to the front entrance and a HUGE satellite dish above the back door. Talk about the lives of the rich and/or famous! What more could you ask for? It's no wonder we're hooked on this trial! It has EVERYTHING: sex, drugs and rock and roll!
There were a multitude of "talking heads" on news and legal shows. Some knew what they were talking about and some didn't. The most egregious one was Anita Talbert, a friend of Phil Spector who appeared on Court TV shows several times, spouting complete and utter nonsense. She made outrageous claims such as Lana having taken TWELVE Vicadin that night. Testimony by Dr. Pena, however, revealed she had a LESS than a therapeutic dose in her system. Just about everything she spouted came directly from Phil Spector, who publicly lied at every turn between the night of the murder and the beginning of the trial. A story of her dancing around with the gun and singing Da Doo Run Run seems to be a particular favorite. He also said she was standing up when she shot herself (wrong), and he couldn't have done it since she was so much taller and stronger than he was. He ranted and raved at the police station, referring to her as a piece of shit mere hours after he shot her in the mouth. He said she brought the gun, yet on the stand even defense experts were compelled to testify that it belonged to Spector.
Will Phil run? Hard to say -- he's stuck it out this long, after all. Still, we already know he wears wigs. He COULD wear a disguise and possibly slip out of the country. What would he look like in a disguise? When TV shows invoke Phil's name, they almost ALWAYS play a snippet of "Be My Baby" or "To Know Him Is To Love Him" and other songs he produced. They really should pick a better song, not produced by him, but sung by the Beatles, with whom he also had connections: The Fool On The Hill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
