The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 975,430 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.
  • Advertisements

CA vs. Spector – Spank My BabyDol and Call me Julia

Posted by thedarwinexception on July 18, 2007

Lots of interesting “side issues” today in and out of court, starting with the strange and complicated story of Raul Julia Levy.

Raul Julia Levy was a potential witness for the defense. He was actually in the courtroom last week ready to take the witness stand. It is rumored that he will testify that he had an intimate relationship with Lana Clarkson, and that she was depressed and suicidal and that she once tried to throw herself off of a balcony while in his presence. Supposedly he would also testify that Lana was fond of guns and often used them as a tool for sexual foreplay. Of course, these were statements made by Anita Talbert, who is a self professed supporter and admirer of Phil Spector.

But, if true, one can understand why the defense would want to call him.

But, there’s a slight problem with Raul Julia Levy.

Raul Julia Levy claims that he is the eldest son of Raul Julia, he of “Addams Family” and “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” Fame. Julia Levy claims that Raul Julia abandoned him and his mother when Julia Levy was very young. He says that his mother is Margaret Levy, the daughter of Abraham Levy, he of “Levi Strauss” fame.

Last week when the defense had Julia Levy in the wings ready to testify, the defense asked the prosecution why they hadn’t turned over, as is required, their discovery materials on Raul Julia Levy. The prosecution asked for an  ex parte hearing in the judges chambers because of the sensitive nature of the material and that they were conducting an ongoing investigation of Mr. Julia Levy the contents of which wouldn’t be appropriate for open court. When the parties got back on the record after the in camera hearing, the judge agreed that the prosecution could have an additional week to turn over their discovery materials, and that the contents and results of this hearing, if proven to be true by the prosecution, could “irreparably harm” the defense’s case, and that the defense should be very glad that the judge ruled the way he did.

Today the defense got to look at the 10 inch thick discovery report of the prosecution and one wonders if they are indeed glad. If they knew nothing about Julia Levy’s background, I’m sure they were quite surprised. But a cursory Google search should have told them more than they wanted to know. And it would also uncover the fact that most mentions of Raul Julia Levy with any biographical materials are self edited sites such as Wiki and My Space.

In a scenario truly worthy of “Six Degrees of Separation” Raul Julia Levy is not who he claims to be – or at least, who he claims to be is certainly contested. There are several gaping holes in Julia Levy’s story, starting with the fact that Abraham Levy, who Julia Levy purports to be his grandfather, died without ever fathering any children. Julia Levy also claims that Abraham Levy “his beloved grandfather”, died when Julia Levy was 16. The only problem with that is, according to his stated birth date of 1971, that would put Abraham Levy’s death sometime in 1987 – Abraham Levy died in 1980. Julia Levy also claimed for quite a while on his website (since closed) that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming the movie “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” in Mexico. Only the movie wasn’t filmed in Mexico, it was filmed in Brazil. Julia Levy has since amended his story to say that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming a different movie – this time one that actually *was* filmed in Mexico.

The kicker, though, is that Raul Julia Levy was not born as Raul Julia Levy – he is actually Salvador Alba Fuentes, a petty criminal with a rap sheet from Mexico. And he didn’t go to Harvard, either, as he claimed on his “official website”. And most likely he was not, as he states on his “My Space” page, “The Howard Hughes of Mexico” nor is he involved in “Other business endeavors include working  to revive and expand the Mexican airlines,  Aerolineas Internacionales and, with his  family, restoring the San Felipe Villas resort located by the Sea of Cortez.  Beginning in January 2007 Julia-Levy,  along with his brother Jose Levy  (Attorney and Politician) established  The National Foundation for Education  of the Indigenous. The foundation  provides scholarships to various indigenous groups throughout Mexico. He will continue to volunteer his  time and resources to various  humanitarian efforts in the Los Angeles area.”

The elder Raul Julia left a widow – and two sons, one who is actually Raul Julia, Jr. and it was out of concern for this son and the confusion that Salvador Alba Fuentes could cause by claiming to be Raul Julia, Jr., that Merel Poloway Julia, the elder Julia’s widow, hired a private firm to investigate the background of this man she considered to be an imposter. She demanded that he submit to a paternity test, but he stalled this request by claiming that any tissue samples she might have to compare his DNA to wouldn’t be able to be confirmed as the elder Julia’s, nor could she confirm chain of custody. Merel Julia then  suggested that he submit to a Y chromosome paternity test using samples from her own two sons. Raul Julia Levy again stalled and said that he still had no idea if these were indeed his half brothers. Merel Poloway then offered to have her deceased husband exhumed, thinking that this, at least, would get rid of this imposter. Raul Julia Levy again declined, stating that no good DNA samples could be obtained from a corpse 11 years in the ground.

I am quite sure that all of this information (and much more) has been uncovered by the prosecution. One would assume they had access to the investigative reports that Merel Poloway Julia’s private team submitted, as well as Raul Julia Levy’s  rap sheet and true educational and biographical records.

And I’ll bet three Thanksgiving Punkin Pies that he nor his family have anything at all to do with Levi Strauss. Or that he went to Harvard. And I’ll also bet he never knew Lana Clarkson, intimately or otherwise. I mean, you would think if he *did* know Lana so well, he’d have a picture of her, and that it would be festooned and flashing with a neon banner on his My Space page. After all, he has a picture of himself with Kato Kaelin. And Kaelin is *so* “trial of LAST century”. Stupid ass.

The next interesting side issue today was Baby Dol Gibson, who the judge dragged into court to admonish. She is there with her lawyer, who argue to the court that Miss Gibson should not be subject to the court’s blanket gag order on all witnesses, since her testimony has been determined by the court to be inadmissible. Her lawyer explains that BabyDol Gibson has to make a living, and the way she does that is to write books and market them to the press through interviews and media articles, and that this gag order has put a crimp in all that. He tells the judge that her livelihood depends on whether or not she can contact and talk to the media. And, you know, it occurs to me that what better way is there for her to publicize her books than to stroll into court and ask for permission to publicize them?

Mr. Rosen confirms that the defense is not going to call her. The judge says that the parties had earlier discussed that if Spector took the stand and testified, that Gibson’s testimony could very well become relevant. Without Spector’s testimony, Gibson’s testimony is irrelevant. He asks Mr. Rosen if Mr. Rosen is now prepared to affirm to the court that Mr. Spector is not going to testify. Mr. Rosen says that he is not prepared to make that statement at this point.

Mr. Rosen then puts on the record that the defense team does believe that parts of Gibson’s testimony are relevant whether or not Spector testifies.

The judge points out that this has nothing to do with his ruling, and when the prosecution declines to comment on the matter.  the judge makes his ruling.

The judge then tells the court that he

“doesn’t care if Miss Gibson promotes her book – but that she’s not going to do it by bringing Ms. Clarkson into it – that’s real simple. As long as this trial is in existence, if you go out and promote your book, and you mention Lana Clarkson in any way, shape fashion or form, while this case is ongoing, I am ordering you not to do that – it is inappropriate, you are a potential witness in this case despite the comments that were just made, all witnesses are ordered not to talk to the media, especially since your testimony at this point. is inadmissible, it would be nothing but an attempt, in my view, to influence the jury, even though they are under an order not to read articles, but there’s a possibility that they do, so if you want to sell your book about your life, that’s fine, but you’re not going to mention Lana Clarkson, and if you do, you will be in violation of my order, and I will hold you in contempt, it’s that simple. Do you understand?”

Gibson then tells the judge that she understands and it was never her intention to disobey the court, that she was under the assumption that she was completely excused.

The judge says that’s fine, glad she understands, but he reiterates to her that he has no problem with her promoting her book, that he has no problem with whether she does or doesn’t, but that she may not in any “way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case. Other than that, you may talk about what you want. ”

Her lawyer, who must be fucking deaf, dumb or both, then asks the judge “well, what if in promoting her diaries someone points out or asks about Lana Clarkson’s name?” I guess “you may not  in any way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case” just wasn’t exactly clear as a fucking bell to him.

The judge tells him “Then she is to say to the reporter ‘I’m sorry, I cannot talk about that while the trial is ongoing.’.” And the lawyer nods his head like this had never occurred to him.

Which must remind the prosecution of something, because they then ask for a moment and come out of huddle with the information that any entries in Babydol’s book, according to their own investigation, have patently been doctored. They are forgeries, and that the prosecution would like a specific order that she not give any interviews regarding this trick book.

The judge says “I said anything to do with this trial and that would include any documents.”

Alan Jackson then goes on to point out that if an interviewer asks to see the book and the book opens up to that page, that would be inappropriate, to which the judge agrees, and says that “if she tries to do something like that…”

At this point, seeing her gravy train pull out of the station, Gibson pipes up with the fact that “Those documents” her “trick book”,  has been in the possession of law enforcement and under a chain of custody since 1999, so this allegation is really one against the people, and the chain of custody that law enforcement and the sense of scrutiny the evidence room maintains.”

The judge, clearly not giving a flying fuck about Gibson and her trick book, says “Well, I’ll leave that for others, I’ve been given a lot of information which is in my ruling and it’s all under seal, I don’t think I’ll make any comments at this time. You’ve made your statement, and that’s my ruling”.

Babydol’s lawyer then pipes up with “Well, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the people to make allegations of altering….that’s slanderous towards my client and totally inappropriate….”

The judge tells him “You can handle that somewhere else, I’m only concerned about the sanctity of my trial. Everyone understands and is on board. That’s it, thank you for coming down.”  (Get the fuck out of here was not actually said, but was clearly implied.)

And so we can finally get back to witnesses. James Pex, a blood spatter expert called by the defense was on the stand when the judge felt compelled to take a break to allow for his little spanking of the Babydol. Guess she could only stop by for a few minutes in between interviews. Pex retakes the stand after she goes off to find Entertainment Tonight reporters.

And James Pex is interesting in that one wonders if he is supposed to be Henry Lee version 2.0. He says upon taking the stand initially that he and Linda Baden Kelly just met 2 weeks ago, which would coincide with the whole Lee fiasco and when Lee could have first told the defense that their piddly ass case wasn’t worth tarnishing Lee’s reputation.

Pex is also interesting because he was one of the investigating officers for the Oregon State Police Department in the Dianne Downs murder case when she shot her three kids in the backseat of her car. He analyzed the blood spatter in the car and after determining that there was no blood on the steering wheel and determining the spatter on the seats in the car he concluded that the shootings could not have happened the way Downs reported.

Linda Kenny Baden leads the witness through direct testimony, where she has him testify that he had problems with the Luminol testing, and whether or not they were done correctly. One of the reasons he is concerned is because there was no presence of blood detected underneath the gun as it lay under Lana’s leg on the carpet. Pex states that there should be blood under the gun, which is rather confusing to me, because I think that is assuming an awful lot. It’s coming to a conclusion based on an assumed premise. Assuming that Lana was the only one who touched the gun that night, and that where it was found was exactly where it had been all night after she was shot, then yes, I would think that there should be blood on the carpet underneath the gun. But since we know that Phil Spector held the gun that evening *after* Lana was shot, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that he didn’t pull the trigger, we still know that he was holding the gun at *some* point, according to the testimony of DeSouza, who saw him with the gun in his hand, and the physical evidence of the blood in his pants pocket being consistent with a gun being placed inside of it.

And armed with this information, that Spector held the gun after she was shot, then I think that whether or not there is blood under the gun is irrelevant and proves nothing.

Linda Kenny Baden then employs a bit of sleight of hand and sneaky tactics.

She shows a picture to the witness of a very small piece of wire. This wire is from the taser gun that was unsuccessfully shot at Spector when the stormtroopers stormed the castle. In the picture the wire is visible under the right heel of Lana Clarkson, implying that the body – or at least the legs and/or feet – of the deceased were moved *after* the stormtroopers entered the premises, therefore calling into question any evidence of blood spatter, the placement of the gun and other physical elements of the crime scene.

Now, if you look closely at this picture, you can *barely* see the very thin wire underneath the heel of her right shoe. But this picture and the angle of this picture is quite misleading. It would appear from this angle that the right heel is flush with the floor, therefore making one assume that the leg would have had to have been moved in order for the wire to get underneath the heel. And we know she didn’t move the leg herself.

But if we look at the same thing from a different angle

it is much easier to see that actually, the toe of the foot was raised, as was a portion of the heel. It is much easier to imagine that the wire could have been inadvertently kicked or moved underneath the heel with no movement of the feet or legs. So this issue again, proves absolutely nothing once you are armed with all of the facts and the evidence.

Linda Kenny Baden also asks the witness about kinetic energy and “Stokes Law”, which is about as foreign to me as the earlier testimony from that creepy DiMaio about “Boyle’s Law”. But I do wish I had paid attention in Physics, because all of this testimony might make a lot more sense to me. And it might even make it more interesting, but I’m not putting any money on that last sentiment, because I can’t imagine Kenny Baden livening up anything she was questioning a witness about. I find myself distracted by her almost neon yellow hair color, her glasses that just don’t fit her face right, her strange accent and speech patterns and her almost eerie resemblance to a pug faced dog my grandmother used to own named “Tippy”.

On cross examination Alan Jackson doesn’t really need to do a lot, since the witness has already testified, during direct no less, that he has “not been to the scene of the crime” and that he “has not seen the physical evidence”. So, basically, the witness can only really testify with any authority in generalities. But Jackson does question the witness about his concerns with the way the Luminol testing was done, and the witnesses astonishment that there was no blood on the carpet underneath the gun. Jackson asks the witness if he would expect there to be blood on the carpet underneath the gun if the gun had been wiped down, greatly increasing the drying time of any blood that was left on the gun, and if the gun had been placed underneath the victim’s leg after it had dried.

The witness concedes that if these things were so, then, No, he would not expect to find blood underneath the gun, and that if the blood on the gun had dried then if the gun had been moved, he would expect to find “flakes” of blood on the carpet if the gun were later moved. Which leads Jackson to ask him if the gun *had* been moved, say, kicked across the carpet, after the blood on the gun had dried, then would the witness expect there to be “flakes” of blood consistent with this across the carpet. When the witness agrees that yes, he would expect to find these flakes, Jackson then asks that if there was no presence detected with luminol of any streaks or flakes across the carpet, if the witness would then assume that the gun was *not* kicked across the carpet, the witness says that this could be one interpretation.

Jackson then turns to the wire underneath Lana’s heel. Although I really thought he would just put up on the Elmo the other pictures showing the different angles of the foot, and ask the witness to determine if there were sufficient room for a wire to be kicked underneath the foot, Jackson instead uses his co-counsel as an exhibit, and has Dixon sit in his chair comfortably with his legs extended. Jackson then places a wire in front of Mr. Dixon, kicks it and has it land underneath Dixon’s shoe. I think the pictures from an alternate angle would have been more telling.

Jackson then gets into testimony concerning Velocity and then heat resistance. When the testimony moves towards any specific physical objects from the Spector crime scene, the witness has a more difficult time being pinned down, and his stock answer is “I didn’t see the physical evidence” or “I would have to examine that item more closely before rendering an opinion”. Which only highlights the fact that he isn’t Henry Lee, who actually did have access to the crime scene and the physical evidence.

But., in a nutshell, this witness could not really be relied upon to definitively offer an opinion on *this* case, since he did not have access to the physical evidence or the crime scene and wasn’t familiar with many of the prior witnesses testimony.

Although Linda Kenny Baden did ask him what color blood was, and he answered “red”. She also asked if a bullet comes out of the barrel of the gun, and he answered “yes”. And she described inflated cheeks as “chipmunk cheeks”. Since none of these things were challenged by the prosecution, I think we can assume they are definitely so.

And I, for one, am glad we finally got an expert opinion on the color of blood.

Dr. Joseph Anselmo, an oral surgeon and forensic odontologist who retired from the LA County Coroner’s office in 2004. He was first contacted in this case to confirm that the teeth at the scene were actually Lana’s and to determine if there was any soft tissue damage around the lips and so forth and if there was any evidence of blunt force trauma to the teeth. He says that he found no evidence of blunt trauma or soft tissue damage. He also says right off the bat that he is not qualified to comment on any aspect of the ballistics involved or the trajectory or path of the teeth that were affected by the bullet. All he can testify to is the trauma to the teeth themselves and the identification of teeth matter as teeth.

And then court ends.

For the rest of the week.

No more evidence will be presented until Monday.

But remember, blood is red.


16 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Spank My BabyDol and Call me Julia”

  1. Que Barbara said

    You know, I’m a little shook up by the photos of Lana Clarkson’s feet. Your commentaries are so compelling, I tend to forget that this is a real murder trial, that someone actually died, and this is not just a blog story.

  2. Weirdsley said

    The part I liked bestest about today was when BabyDoll came into the courtroom and I swear to god, Rosen looked at her and then got this expression like there was something nasty on his shoe. He looked like he wanted a shower now please. You couldn’t script these things!

  3. noor b said

    You are AWESOME

    I missed today’s viewings on CTV live, because of family circumstances, but you mannaged to bring it alive for me.
    Thank you!

    Please write a book, about anything, I will buy it and read it, and tell all my friends to read it, and they will.

  4. Missy said

    First of all, I adore your blog! Love the smart, all-inclusive reporting and especially the sharp (and wonderfully BITING) wit! Yours is such a refreshing take on this trial, and I thank you very much for sharing your talents with us! 🙂

    Regarding the third of the Skankapalooza witnesses the defense has offered up (Baby Dol Gibson, accompanied by her Ron Popeil Pocket Gnome Attorney), I found it laughable that THEY would complain that she is being slandered by the prosecution. Gibson has not only doctored an entry in her book to try to pass Lana off as a call girl, but then she and Weiss have the unmitigated gall to appear in open court and beg for permission to publicly trash Lana Clarkson. Yet Gibson is the one being slandered.

    Hello…reality check on aisle one! Somebody needs to slap those gigantic, over-botoxed, lyin’ lips right off her face.

    Here’s what I think Weiss was getting at in asking the judge that stupid question about what to do should a media person point out the “L”Ana “Cl” entry in an interview: I believe he and Skanky had in mind that they might circumvent the order by telling media ahead of interviews that Gibson couldn’t bring up the subject, but that the media certainly could point it out on their own. I believe the judge’s order precludes that from happening…but I will be shocked if it doesn’t, and if Gibson & Gnome don’t simply blame the media and feign innocence and ignorance about it.

    Fortunately, Judge Fidler is no one’s fool. So I’d love to see them try that and suffer the consequences.

    I found Pex to be a refreshingly honest witness, unwilling to go the distance I’m sure the defense wanted from him. In fact, he ended up more a state’s witness than a help to the defense. Seems to be the way it has gone throughout the trial.

    At this point, I say to the defense: Bring Cutler in and let him loose — you have diddly squat to lose by unleashing him. Also put Spector on the stand. What the hell…go for broke! (Of course, that’s all for the benefit of a trial watcher like myself, not for the defense…but I’m the one who matters here!). 😉

    Thank you again for your most excellent commentary! Have a great weekend 🙂

    ~ Missy

  5. poplife said

    Well, I think we also now know that Baby Dol and Phil buy their eyelashes at the same taco stand.
    Kudos again, you have my chipmunk cheeks hurting!

  6. You know, I’m a little shook up by the photos of Lana Clarkson’s feet. Your commentaries are so compelling, I tend to forget that this is a real murder trial, that someone actually died, and this is not just a blog story.

    I feel the same way sometimes when I am watching the trial. I’ll be chuckling over “Punkin Pie” and her down to the navel top, or BabyDol Gibson with her collagen filled lips and bright pink lipstick, and then we’ll get a witness like Pex and they start showing photos of the crime scene with Lana sitting in the chair, and it all comes rushing back that this woman is dead, that no matter what else is going on with trick books and phony boyfriends and girlfriends who want to write books and publicize their music promotion businesses, that this woman will *always* be dead, and no matter what the defense tries to paint her as, she didn’t deserve to die in the way she did.

    It is all rather jarring when the horrible death of this woman comes at you in the photos, and believe me, the pictures of the feet are as much as I’ll ever post.


  7. The part I liked bestest about today was when BabyDoll came into the courtroom and I swear to god, Rosen looked at her and then got this expression like there was something nasty on his shoe. He looked like he wanted a shower now please. You couldn’t script these things!

    When it comes to facial expressions, Rosen is my favorite. Did you see him when Jackson was doing the little wire experiment with Dixon? That was absolutely priceless. I thought he was going to start jumping up and down screaming.


  8. Please write a book, about anything, I will buy it and read it, and tell all my friends to read it, and they will.

    Ha! That would be a hoot. Like I explain to everyone, I really can’t write all that well. I just take good notes and I have a gift for judging others and pointing out their flaws. Comes from years of being anti social.

    But thanks! And I’m glad you are enjoying my rantings.


  9. Regarding the third of the Skankapalooza witnesses the defense has offered up (Baby Dol Gibson, accompanied by her Ron Popeil Pocket Gnome Attorney), I found it laughable that THEY would complain that she is being slandered by the prosecution. Gibson has not only doctored an entry in her book to try to pass Lana off as a call girl, but then she and Weiss have the unmitigated gall to appear in open court and beg for permission to publicly trash Lana Clarkson. Yet Gibson is the one being slandered.

    I thought that was all rather disingenuous as well. Much the same as her hurried and pointed attempts to get on the record that her trick book “has been in police custody – with chain of evidence – since 1999”. No mention of the fact that she and the defense investigators have also had *access* to it. She just had to make sure she kept the appearance of integrity about the whole thing so she could peddle it better.

    I found Pex to be a refreshingly honest witness, unwilling to go the distance I’m sure the defense wanted from him. In fact, he ended up more a state’s witness than a help to the defense. Seems to be the way it has gone throughout the trial.

    I found him quite creidble as well. Too bad he couldn’t really offer much since he never had access to the evidence. I think the defense would have done better to hire this guy out of the gate rather than Henry Lee. This witness is nowhere near as arrogant as Lee, and therefore much more likeable and believable.

    Take Care and glad you are enjoying the blog.


  10. houdini said

    well i was in the courtroom today when that trashpile BabyDol came in looking like Barbie the Trailer Trash Tart. her bangs were platinum while the rest of her hair looked like Linda Kenny Badens. LKB’s hair has split ends from the crown to the nape of her neck, then i guess some cheap extensions below that. BabyDol sports a Pam Anderson barb wire tat around her right ankle and is built like a brick house. she and the Travelocity Gnome, Weiss, were quite the striking pair. They could be poster children for a German oompah parlor paired together.

    love to Tippy who has much better “hair”, but the resemblance is striking.


  11. Sprocket said

    Last night, my husband wanted a recap of yesterday’s trial coverage. Weeks behind, and very tired, I just read him your coverage, lol!

    You do a great job, each and every time. Btw, I gave you a shout on one of my recent entries.

  12. Dave said

    It is so sad that Lana actually had to die for this script. The defense’s presentation would make a wonderful night time/prime time sit-com/soap. The people appearing on their behalf just keep getting more bizarre. Who names these people? Do they get together and have parties on the weekends where they get drunk and do cosmetic work on each other? It’s too bad the defense actually managed to tone Phil Spectacle down (including finding someone for him to marry. That one is as good a laugh as a wife for Michael Jackson). I miss Phil’s wild hair – just a real drain clogger. Does he have any hair of his own, or just more wigs than Dolly Parton? Speaking of hair, I bet that Clairol is making a fortune off of the defense’s women. The defense need a good ole southern “Muffin Top” to add to their defense line-up. They fit the criteria, bottle blonde hair AND a Toni home perm (that has been in too long), along with a midriff top and “Daisy Dukes” (nothing like seeing 225-lbs stuffed into those size 6 “Daisy Dukes”); let’s see Rosen’s face on one of them… A new meaning for “Gag Order”…

    Thanks for the update, I can’t wait for the next one.

  13. Glenda said

    I absolutely love every word of your coverage–it is so pointed and graphic. However, as the proud owner of an adorable pug, I would like to protest that my darlin Max is MUCH cuter than Linda. MUCH! So let’s be careful with those comparisons 🙂

    I have been trying since the beginning of the trial to fathom why she bothers me. It could be the hair (honey you are way too old for hair that long), it could be glasses (I personally buy my reading glasses at Walgreens for $10 and they look better than those), it could be her voice (she and Michael both have very strange, nasal accents. Don’t you know pillow talk between them is just too fun??). It could be that she keeps calling Lana Clarkson, “the decendent”. Damn it, she has a name and you are not admitting your client’s guilt by showing that much respect!

    Anyway, had to defend my pug’s honor and say thanks for the fun!

  14. Weirdsly said

    So there I am, sitting on Court TV minding my own beeswax, and slacking at work, when someone in Vancouver posts that BabyDoll was scheduled to phone in an interview to CFUN (?) radio station! No one could believe it, and when we checked their website it was true!
    Then the chatter started as we were all holding our breath, PRAYING that she’d give an interview, shovel some dirt on poor Lana and get her skank-o-licious ass thrown in jail.

    I can honestly say EVERYONE was extremely disappointed that she canceled the interview.

    But there is always hope that in a few days she’ll forget what the judge said and put her high heel firmly in her mouth.

    Absolutely love your blog

    Cheers! – Julie

  15. Micheal Bay, who Punkin Pie testified didn’t recognize Clarkson thus sparking a suicidal spiral, denies the incident on his website. He calls Pie a liar. Of course, people in Hollywood never lie, right?

    I am wondering what the Darwin Exception has to say about the lack of blood on Phil after he supposedly shot Lana in the face. The only blood on Phil was on the back of his jacket arm in the tricep area, ie not exactly spray from a gunshot. Why not up the arm of his jacket and on the cuffs of his shirt? Even if Clarkson had her hands between the Phil and the gun, that could not stopped all the blood spray, could it? One of her hands seems like it was partially in her mouth since she lost a fingernail (I assume from the gun going off), so it was not a blood spray shield. Did he change his clothes?

  16. Catherine said

    You are an excellent writer and I too would buy “your” book Kim!

    Isn’t it interesting that we are in the middle of a huge Hollywood trial complete with money and power galore; celebrities names being dropped left and right and a parade of the most physically, personally and morally unattractive people imaginable? LKB, Pumkin Pie, Jennifer whateverhernameis and of course Spector himself just to name a few. It certainly blows the myth that you need to be attractive to play in this arena. Where are all the make-over shows when you need them?

    Unfortunately the only person that seemed to be genuine, sincere and absolutely physically beautiful is the victim, Lana Clarkson.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: