CA vs. Spector – Punkin Pie with a Side order of Snide

Only three hours of testimony today, with court wrapping up at the noon hour. And we really needed court to end early today, because after the testimony of Jennifer Hayes, we all need a really long hot shower. What a disgusting little person she is.

Jennifer Hayes looks to be around 40, but is trying to look 20 and is behaving like a teenager. She’s all those female “friends” you had in High School wrapped up into one. You know the ones – the ones that would stop you in the hall and say “OH! I *LOVE* your shirt!” and then after you leave they would turn to their BFF standing next to them and roll their eyes. The passive aggressive teenage Heather friend. That’s who this witness is – all grown up and botox’ed. And she was most definitely *not* Lana’s “very, very  good friend” as she described it. Unless she describes a lot of her “very, very good friends” as “a melty little person, she was pathetic, she crumbled She liked to take drugs with her alcohol. She was belligerent”. Because that’s how she described her “very, very good friend”, Lana Clarkson.

Hayes contradicts herself so often and so easily that it’s really hard to tell what her testimony actually is. She started her direct examination late yesterday afternoon with Roger Rosen
pointing out that she was subpoenaed. Hayes agreed, but said that she “wanted to be here to tell the truth”. On cross examination today by Dixon, she said she *didn’t* want to be here, and said that “if you had *my* life, you wouldn’t want to be here, either.” Later she also included her father in the reasons she didn’t want to be there, for some reason. I don’t know, maybe he liked the Barbarian Queen movies or something.

She also flip flopped around on what exactly Lana’s state of mind was. First she said that Lana was “hopeful” and had a “good outlook”, then she said that Lana was depressed, that she hated her job at House of Blues, that she hated borrowing clothes for a $9.00 an hour job, that she borrowed money from anyone and everyone she could just to pay her bills, and that she was in a horrible, horrible situation. Dixon tried to pin the witness down on exactly what she meant with her conflicting testimony, but all he could get her to say was that Lana had a “game face”, one that she put on when she was working or looking for work, and that this was in no way related to the ‘real Lana”, the one who was depressed, dysfunctional, and overwhelmed with life.

Of course, this makes one wonder that if Lana so easily slipped between the two realities, as this witness suggests, exactly what state of mind Lana would have been in at Phil Spector’s castle? Would she have had her brave “game face” on, or would she have been the crumbling, melty person Hayes says she *really* was?

And despite her testifying that Lana was her “very, very good friend”, and that when you are Hayes friend, it’s an “intense relationship, when you are in my life, you know all the sordid little details of my life and I know all the sordid little details of yours”, she seems to have not been so intimately involved with Lana. For one, she hadn’t even spoken to Lana, according to phone records, in the last 6 months of Lana’s life. When Dixon points this fact out to her, she agrees that No, she hadn’t spoken to Lana, but that there were very good reasons for that – she had “bigger fish to fry”, she testifies, what with having two children she was trying to keep out of rehab. WTF? Where did that come from, and how much you want to bet that hearing this in open court on national TV made her kids go running for the crack pipe? And number 2, she testifies that “Oh, yes, Lana *always* lived in the “cottage” -for the whole 8 years I knew her.” Which makes one wonder who the hell was living there that she was having an intense relationship with, since Lana only lived in the cottage the last 2 years of her life.

Hayes also did the one thing that a witness should never, ever, ever do in front of a jury. She changed her entire demeanor, tone, attitude and testimony when going from direct to cross. When the Prosecutor got up to question her she was almost hostile, with a snotty, dismissive air that made her look pathetic and untrustworthy. And the fact that she never missed an opportunity to denigrate Lana and besmirch her name and reputation made her look even more unlikable and unbelievable. When she was asked if Lana was a neat person, she couldn’t just say “yes, she was neat”, no she had to throw out “She wasn’t neat – she was anal retentive.” Vicious.

She testified that it was “so sad” that Lana had to take that “horrible, horrible job for $9.00 an hour” and that Lana was “so upset and so distraught” when Lana came to Hayes’ nice home in a nice neighborhood after Hayes had her last child, and poor Lana had to sit there and *see* how well her friends were doing, and it must have been “just horrible” for Lana, knowing that poor Lana had *none* of these things. One wonders why she didn’t flop her lips over her shoulder and reach into her Gucci handbag and give Lana some money, you know, since they were such “very, very good friends.”

The only interesting part of Hayes testimony is that concerning “Punkin Pie”. Pie is Hayes “very best friend” and she met Lana through Pie, who was also Lana’s best friend. One wonders if the close relationship between Pie and Lana might not be the impetus for some of Hayes’ “back stabbing under the guise of being friends” testimony. Jealous much?

Hayes got sucked into all this mess when she agreed to go to a meeting that Punkin Pie was having with one of the defense’s investigators. She ended up answering a lot of the investigator’s questions for Punkin Pie, since “I am Pie’s memory”. WTF? Well, we have one wonderful cross examination of Pie to look forward to if she’s allowed to testify, seeing’s how Miss Botox here just threw her BFF’s credibility out the window.

Finally they scrape through the vitriol left on the witness stand by this hateful bitch and get her off the stand.

And next up – more of absolutely nothing.

The defense calls Richard Tomlin back to the stand. Which I thought was going to be great. It’s always interesting when the defense calls a police investigator or person from the sheriff’s department because, really, what is the prosecution going to do? Question his credibility? Question his motives? Attack his procedures? If a police officer is called by the defense, there’s usually a good reason for it and you know it’s going to be great testimony.

Well, you’d think that, huh? Not in this case.

Looking nothing but desperate and as though they are grasping at straws, Roger Rosen starts asking this witness about his official reports. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Tomlin, that in your report of your interview with Dorothy Melvin, there is no mention of the fact that Phil Spector was drinking vodka from a round bottle with a handle?”

“Ummm. no, it just says he was drinking vodka.”

“But, isn’t it true, sir that it does NOT say that it was from a round bottle with a handle?”

“You’re right, it doesn’t say that.”

And you almost expect Rosen to shout out “AHA! Mr. Tomlin!”

Oh for the love of fucking God.

Rosen goes on and on and on asking questions like “Is it true Mr. Tomlin that in your *OFFICIAL* report of your interview with Stephanie Jennings it does NOT say that Phil Spector picked at his food as she testified he did here in open court?”

You know, because if he didn’t pick at his food, there’s no fucking way he could have pulled a gun on her.

But, that’s OK, Rosen. Keep those prior acts witnesses names right there in front of the jury – that will help your case. Because you know, if it doesn’t *SAY* in the official police report of the interview with Rommie Davis that Phil had 3 daiquiris, well, it just must not be so. And ignore those fucking receipts we showed you jury, rely on the way this guy writes his reports, instead.

And thank God for Alan Jackson. He began his cross with this little exchange

“I’m Alan Jackson.”
To which Tomlin replied: “I know that.”
At which point Jackson smiled and said “I know. I was trying to break the ice

Hey, it gets the courtroom laughing, which can only mean they are awake. Something that was in question after the four different *OFFICIAL* police reports Rosen had to nitpick his way through.

Jackson seems to be on the right path with the cross, pointing out that SURPRISE! the report isn’t’ a fucking transcript, it’s a summary, for Christ’s sake, and just because it doesn’t say in there that the person being interviewed blinked their eyes in between questions, that doesn’t mean the fucking person wasn’t blinking.

The defense is sinking fast, I fear. If fair weather friends and unimportant omissions in summary reports are the best they can come up with, they better hope Phil has the funds to track down Henry Lee in China and drag his ass back here to testify. Either that, or Phil better start wig shopping for his prison ‘do.

Tomorrow Jackson will continue with his cross of Tomlin, and there are rumors and murmurings that Punkin Pie, she of the “no memory”, will be the next defense witness. One hopes she can remember where the court house is and that her “very, very good friend” Jennifer Hayes will be on hand to help her answer questions.