The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 970,321 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.

CA vs. Spector – Michael Bay: “I Did Not Have Contact With That Woman!”

Posted by thedarwinexception on August 6, 2007

We finally get back to testimony this afternoon – there was no court this morning, as the court and all interested parties on both sides of the aisle have gone for the pre-screening at the Grandview Castle of Phil Spector in anticipation of the jury making the same trip Thursday morning. It must have been a bad morning for the defense – maybe the fountain at the Castle wasn’t loud enough to block DeSouza from hearing the words “I think I killed somebody” – Roger Rosen comes to court this afternoon all snarky and pissed off at someone or something – mostly whoever happens to be sitting in the witness chair, which, unluckily for Nick, happens to be Nick Terzian first thing to finish talking about Lana and his relationship with her as her agent.

Of course, it’s also possible that at some point over the weekend someone went up to Roger Rosen and hit him in the head and asked him “What the fuck were you thinking putting that video on, you idiot?” I mean, it’s possible and all, because if I lived in LA and I saw him over the weekend, well, that’s what I would have done. Really, I would have. You don’t know me – I’m like that.

So Nick Terzian, looking all snappy in a beautiful aqua colored tie gets back on the stand for some more droning, rambling, irrelevant and pointless questioning from Roger Rosen. And it isn’t long into questioning when we get the first “What the fuck was that?” moment of the day, when Rosen says to the witness “Last week when Mr. Jackson was questioning you, you said that you considered Lana Clarkson a marketable and Bible actress…”

The witness answers him and says “I said VIABLE not BIBLE.”

And really, Rosen couldn’t figure that out on his own? What the fuck is a “Bible actress?” Or maybe Rosen was all excited to point out that she could only play Jezebel, Bathsheba and Delilah. For the love of Pete. Bible actress. What the fuck was he thinking?

The Rosen starts arguing statistics with the witness, who says that he read about the “90% working actors, 10% A list actors” in some SAG newsletter, and Rosen wants the volume, date and page number of the newsletter. I mean, why is this important? So Lana was a working actor – she made money at it for 20 damned years without having to take what she called a “corporate job”, why can’t Rosen just concede that she was a hard working actress – that she wasn’t Julia Roberts raking in $20 mill per picture, but that she – at the very least  – supported herself for a number of years working. What if the statistic really says “1% are “A listers” – the rest are homeless and hungry?” What then? Then
she wants to suddenly kill herself?? She didn’t kill herself the other 20 years she was in the business and apparently, according to the defense, not very talented and not booking jobs and living in poverty. I just don’t understand the defense’s “If the acting is shit – you must acquit” defense. It makes no sense to me.

Rosen then quotes some statistics of his own which make even less sense – that 5% of SAG actors make between 5K and 10K a year. Which is dumb if you think about it, because it isn’t in context – does that mean the other 95% make more than that?

Rosen then starts asking the witness if he ever was at her apartment and if he knew how much rent she paid. The witness says “no” and “No.” Most likely Rosen wanted him to testify to her Marilyn Monroe shrine.

Rosen then turns to the play written, directed, conceived, produced, casted and staged by John Barons, the infamous “Brentwood Blondes” thing. He asks the witness if Lana getting fired from such a prestigious and noteworthy project would ruin her reputation in Hollywood, and the witness, who never even heard of this play and didn’t know Lana was doing it, said “Ruin her reputation? A PLAY? No, I don’t think so, I don’t even think word would get around Hollywood about it – not a play – not unless it was Broadway or something.”

Rosen then says “Well, what if she went in to the cast and announced that she and the director had re-written the entire play and that wasn’t true, would that be good for her?”

And the witness says “Well, it wouldn’t be good for the writer.”

Rosen then asks a lot of stupid questions that have nothing to do with nothing, like where she got her costumes from for all those “dress up” auditions, and where she got her hair done, and what the witness meant when he said that Lana couldn’t work with broken wrists because she was “selling her hands, body and face”, and if she had such a high callback rate and hold rate, as the witness testified on direct – name the projects she got put on hold for in 2001 and 2002.

The only question Rosen asks that might even be in the same ball park as “makes a difference” is “How many times did you see her in 2000 and 2001 – vis a vis”, which used to mean “face to face” a long time ago, but now most people use it to mean “relative to”, so it kept grating on me – just say “face to face”, for god’s sake – it’s the same number of syllables.

The witness answers that he probably saw her half a dozen times both years.

Then Rosen tells the judge that “we need a sidebar” and the jury is sent out and Rosen asks the witness to read a stack of emails that’s like as thick as my head, and while the witness is reading the judge takes the time to tell the attorneys that with regards to the viewing on Thursday morning, many of the news media outlets had presented motions so that they could have a presence at the jury showing, and although the judge was prepared to hear arguments, he has decided to not entertain those, and instead rules that there will be no cameras present, there will be no photographers present, since this is, after all, private property, and he will allow the collected media pool to designate one representative to go to the viewing and then report back to all of them. Roger Rosen suggests that perhaps the media could choose Linda Deutsch, and the judge says that’s nice, but he’ll let the press decide that amongst themselves.

Back to the witness, who is now finally though reading the stack of emails Rosen had given him, and still outside of the jury’s presence, Rosen asks him one question “OK, after reading all those emails, does that in any way change your opinion of her marketability as an actress?”

And now let’s hold up here – what the FUCK is this guy thinking? Why in the world would he expect this witness, or *any* person, to change their view of a person’s job abilities after reading some stupid emails? Because I can’t think of any situation in the world where, after having someone be successful in your presence for 10 years or more, where reading an email after they are dead would make you go “Well, I’ll be a sonofabitch, I guess I was wrong! That person *wasn’t* good at their job!” Use your head, people.

So after having to suffer through 30 minutes of this guy reading emails, it was all for nothing. The judge rules that this witness is *not* the person who will be able to introduce these emails, even though they may be admissible at some point, through some witness. Just not this one.

And then we have re-direct, with Alan Jackson bringing up all the things I was thinking during the cross examination, anyway, like how a gig that pays $5.00 per performance is probably not high profile enough to affect anyone’s reputation, either positively or negatively, and that the fact that the guy who wrote/produced/directed/casted/staged the thing is now a bartender in Atlanta probably never hit the Hollywood radar, either.

Jackson also brings up the fact that since Terzian was only Lana’s print and commercial agent – not her film agent or screenplay agent or comedy reel agent, the reason he never “marketed” “Lana Unleashed” was not because he thought it sucked, but because that just wasn’t in his purview as her agent.

He didn’t need that reel to shop Lana around for commercials and print ads because Lana had been in this business for over 20 years – casting directors knew her. And he also knew that the way Lana presented the reel to him wasn’t as a “finished, theatrical quality” project, but as a “work in progress” and the reel wasn’t meant for the public, but for casting directors who only knew her as the “blonde Amazon bombshell”, if they were casting an ordinary looking nun, this was something she could send them to show she could be that, too.

Terzian also says that, yes, he testified on Cross that roles got fewer and fewer for actresses as you got older in the business, but that the competition also got thinner. You were competing against less people for those roles. And yes, he only saw Lana 6 times a year or so – but they spoke often on the phone.

In closing Jackson asks if Lana was a marketable, VIABLE (not BIBLE) actress at the time of her death, and was that displayed in the reel she made? And the witness, standing by Lana and her talent, says “Look, Lana had a resume that was over 2 pages long with over 50 credits – I don’t stand alone in saying she had talent, I didn’t do the hiring, I just sent her on jobs – the directors and casting agents and people who hired her over all of those years for those 50 jobs – those are the ones to ask if she had talent.”

Jackson then asks if she was upbeat and positive about her prospects as an actress at the time of her death, and the witness answers “Absolutely”.

Rosen re-crosses – again arguing with the guy that Lana’s reel was so bad it was worth shooting herself over – and he has to have *some* reason to give to the jury as to why she was depressed enough to kill herself, because the next witness up is MICHAEL BAY! and he’s going to say that it wasn’t because he dissed her!

Yes, Michael Bay takes the stand – and right away he identifies himself as a Movie Director, and gives a list of some of the movies he has directed – “The Island”, “Pearl Harbor”, “Bad Boys”, and he does get in a plug for “Transformers”, but he doesn’t say “Now in a theater near YOU!”

He says he started directing commercials and films in 1989, that he still directs commercials occasionally, that he has a commercial company for producing commercials for Nike, Victoria’s Secret, GM Motors and the like.

He says he knew Lana Clarkson when he first started in Hollywood, and had directed her in a comedy style commercial for Mercedes where she played a German Inspector. He thinks he might have directed her in a follow up commercial for Mercedes – but he’s not sure.

He says that he was responsible for casting the commercial, and that he is the one that chose her for the role. He got to know her outside of the set when he would see her around town at parties for “Propaganda” a film and music video company he worked for in his early years, and that he invited her to parties at his home and that she sent him Chocolates for Christmas.

Jackson asks Bay if he would recognize Lana if she walked into a room, and Bay answers “Of course – she was a six foot two blonde and she was funny – I like funny people – of course I would know her. I knew her by name, it wasn’t a ‘I know the face, but can’t quite recall the name…’ kind of thing, I knew Lana.”

Jackson asks if he attended a party at the home of Jeff Franklin in January of 2003, and Bay says yes, that he was there. He says the party took place somewhere in the Hollywood Hills at Franklin’s house. He remembers it being the third week of January, and he remembers it was on a Saturday evening. He went to the party with a friend named Craig Katz. Who was not his date.

Bay says there were 350-400 people at the party, but he never saw Lana – and had absolutely no contact with her that evening. He was there 2 and a half to 3 hours and never saw her. He never looked around the room and recognized anyone to be Lana. He would have known her if he had seen her.

Jackson asks Bay to recall when it was that he last saw Lana, and he starts out by saying “I remember opening the Metro section of the newspaper and seeing Phil Spector…” and the defense objects that the witness is being non responsive. The judge explains that the witness is trying to set up the time in his mind, and the defense asks if he could set it up silently. The judge overrules their objection, and Bay goes on to say that he was “reading the Metro, and I saw a picture of Lana Clarkson, and immediately my heart was heavy and I thought ‘Oh my God – when was the last time I saw her?” He remembers that he was filming Bad Boys 2 in Florida until July of 2002, so it would have had to have been after that – at least 8 or 9 months before her death.

Jackson asks Bay if Bay had seen Lana 2 or 3 days before she died if he would have remembered that, and Bay says “Well, anyone would – she was a friend, and when you hear of a friend’s death, your mind immediately goes back to the last time you saw them.” Bay also says that if he had disrespected Lana at a party the way it was reported to have happened, that Lana would have slapped him, not crumbled – because she was funny like that, and saucy.

Bay also says that if he had seen Lana at the party, he would have crossed the room to say Hi to her.

Brunon gets up to cross the witness, and immediately gets into the whole “If the acting is shit, you must acquit” defense, trying to get Bay to admit that the reason that Lana was never in any of his movies was because she just wasn’t that talented, and that there was a reason that out of the 30 second spot for a car commercial, Lana only had 6 or 7 seconds on screen – it wasn’t because they were trying to sell cars and needed to have the camera on, you know, the cars, it was because she couldn’t act – even though it wasn’t even a speaking role.

He then gets in to a year by year recitation of “The Films and Commercials of Michael Bay” and asks why Lana wasn’t offered any roles in any of these productions. Bay points out that he didn’t offer a role to Tom Hanks, either, but that doesn’t satisfy Brunon.

Bay repeats that he got a Christmas present from Lana – it was chocolates and a copy of her tape. Brunon wants to know if, based on the tape, if he had offered any parts to Lana, and Bay says he didn’t even look at it at the time.

Bay can’t recall the last occasion he saw Lana – where it was or specifically what it was or even when it was – he knows that Lana was at a masquerade party he gave in 2002, but he doesn’t recall how she was dressed. He says he may have seen her at a party for the “Propaganda” film and music video company party or maybe at the Mercedes wrap party.

Brunon then gets into what Bay may have told the DA about the “Franklin party” when they first contacted him – Bay recalls that he told them that he thought he was at the party, but that he would have to think back to it. And once he thought back to it, he clearly remembered he was there. He said that when he remembers things in his life, he remembers them against the timeline of the movies he is making – and that he had to think back to what he was doing after Bad Boys 2 wrapped to remember if he was at this particular party or not. After he thought about it, he remembered he was.

Brunon asks if Bay made an attempt to meet all 350 people at the party, and Bay said No, that he’s generally shy at such events, and that he probably actually spoke with maybe 40 people that evening. He names a few of the people that he remembered being there, and says that he spent the majority of the evening outside where a tent had been set up, but that there were people inside, outside, in the courtyard and in the foyer area. He also thinks that this may have been the year that the party ended when the police were called on a noise complaint, but he’s not sure.

Brunon asks if missing people in a crowd is unusual, and Bay says no.

But, of course, Pie didn’t testify that Lana was upset because Michael Bay missed her in the crowd, but that Lana was upset because he didn’t recognize her when she went up to greet him.

On redirect, Jackson gets the witness to say that of course he didn’t know everyone at the party, but he did know Lana, and he did not have CONTACT with her, nor did she have contact with him.

And Michael Bay is excused. Subject to recall.

The judge informs the jury that there will be no court session tomorrow as he has 2 medical appointments. That Wednesday will be a full day and that Thursday morning will be the viewing of the castle, with testimony in the afternoon.

He then excuses the jury and takes up pending issues with the attorneys.

The first issue has to do with the defense’s motion to call yet another expert -this one a neuropathologist. They wish to call Jan Leetsma. The prosecution objects because they have no discovery on this witness and no time to prepare for his testimony. The defense wants to call him because he will testify that Lana could have taken several breaths after she was shot, which would bolster the testimony of both DiMaio and Spitz, who said the same thing. They feel that they must call this witness, since the prosecution brought out on cross examination that neither Dimaio nor Spitz was a neuropathologist, so they feel they have to offer one. And then they say “It’s our responsibility so we can maintain “COMPETENCY AS COUNSEL”.

Which is just about the funniest thing I’ve heard all day – even better than the whole bible vs. viable thing. THESE people?? Are they kidding me, here? The same people who brought “Lana Unleashed” to an Elmo in a courtroom near you for all the jury to see are now worried about the importance of “Competency as Counsel?” Oh, honey, that ship has LONG since sailed – and took Henry Lee along with it  See him? He’s waving Buh-bye from the poop deck.

Jackson stands up to tell the judge that the defense has long before now known that Dr. Pena was going to testify that there was no way that Lana took any breaths after she was shot – since he testified to that same evidence back in September of 2004 at the Grand Jury hearing. John Andrews, a neuropathologist, was consulted and his consultation was included in the reports of Dr. Pena, and he agreed with Dr. Pena’s assessment. Just because DiMaio has Lana shooting her legs out and has her head flopping back and forth and Spitz has her folding her legs underneath her so no blood gets on them and has her expirating blood and giving Phil Spector the raspberry – this is all stuff the defense has come up with at the 11th hour. The prosecution’s case has always been the same. There is no “element of surprise” in Pena’s testimony, therefore, calling a brand new witness to testify against him on reubttal is improper.

Jackson says that he does not have time to prepare for a whole new expert witness and the judge asks because of background or because of material – and Jackson tells him “both”.

Jackson also offers that even though the expert witnesses Spitz and DiMaio were both cross examined on their not being neuropathologist’s, it’s not as though either one of them were hesitant or shy in putting forth opinions outside their given realm of expertise – he says “Dimaio was holding himself out as a casting director, for goodness sake”, and Spitz was not holding back on giving any testimony he felt he had an opinion on – whether he was an expert or not.

The judge warns Jackson that if he rules that this witness cannot testify, then Jackson is going to have to be extremely careful in his closing arguments that he does not hold out his experts as “better” experts because they relied on a neuorpathologist. It would be reversible error for Jackson to have a witness excluded and then allude to the fact that the defense didn’t call that witness.

Realizing that he doesn’t want to have to walk any tightropes during closing, Jackson concedes that this may be a problem, and the judge says the defense can call their expert.

The second issue the judge needs to rule on is Devra Robotaille, the fifth “prior bad act” witness he had ruled the prosecution could call. The prosecution wants to call her as a rebuttal witness and the defense objects, saying she doesn’t “rebut” anything.

The prosecution argues that the defense has tried to impeach the testimony of Melissa Grosevener, and this witness rebuts that – which is not a good argument. They also say that she rebuts Pie’s testimony concerning the Kessel brothers – not a good argument. And finally they say that she rebuts the testimony that 99.9% of intra oral gun shot wounds are suicides, as she presents another explanation for such wounds – better, but still not a strong argument.

The defense says that all these arguments are stupid, and they present case law, and the judge says he’ll have a look at it and rule on this matter later.

The final issue before the judge is one concerning Punkin Pie – the defense had submitted “prior statements’ of Pie’s to the court that they wanted to introduce to bolster her testimony and the judge has concerns that these are not “prior” statements, as they were made during the time she was still maintaining that she couldn’t “tell the truth” due to the advice she was being given. The defense will re-submit the statements, and they will revisit the issue.

And with that, we are done until Wednesday. Tomorrow court will be dark. Hopefully Rosen comes back in a better mood.

Advertisements

35 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Michael Bay: “I Did Not Have Contact With That Woman!””

  1. Lajet said

    Great line: “If the acting is S***, you must acquit.” Laughed out loud – really. Thanks again.

  2. kennytal said

    it must be that old musty double breasted suit that Roger is wearing that is irritating him. i thought that he prided himself on sartorial spendor or is he dressing down for the jury.

  3. kennytal said

    oops. forgot, yes, as Lajet noted, that line, “If acting is sh**, you must acquit” is priceless. rolf

  4. Catherine said

    Oh my gosh Kim! I am all grown up and currently having to share a bed with my mother who is sound asleep (too many and so scared and curious about tomorrow. I hope I didn’t wake her with my laughing! Who could stifle laughing at this masterpiece you have created!? You are hilarious! I laughed so many times!

    You nailed this one – but then you always do. I loved it! Thank you so much and please don’t stop writing such interesting stuff about what to expect.

    You are so “swell” or “cool” or whatever!!

  5. luvgabe said

    Two of your fans already wrote about your line: “’If the acting is shit – you must acquit’ defense.” But that won’t stop me from saying “brilliant!” and “funny!” Thanks a big bunch 🙂

  6. Sue said

    Did you go to law school? How do you do this? And you’re knitting. You’re way more marketable that Harriet Ryan or Linda Deutsch and maybe even Mr. D. Dunne. Sorry DD, if you read this comment. Hey, I’d put a pair of those bold black glasses on you, buy you a Nancy Grace or Beth Karas outfit and put your butt on TV. OK, maybe it would have to be HBO. You could start with Bill Maher. He’s pretty damn funny too. I don’t even turn on Court TV anymore. You smoked them, left them advertising in the dust, cleaned their clock, juiced them. Why would anyone waste their time. I don’t. You know what I’d like to do? I’d like to accompany you to LA for closing arguments and jury watch. Hell, I’d even pay your way.

  7. Sue said

    I just checked the Franklin County Fair site. I’m pretty sure you’re a shoo-in for the “Quack Up” contest.

  8. You’re way more marketable that Harriet Ryan or Linda Deutsch and maybe even Mr. D. Dunne.

    Oh Gosh no, I’m nowhere near their league – I repsect all those people a lot – well, maybe Linda Deutsch is a little too “pro defense” for me – and her writing is boring – but they are some of my heroes – especially Dominick. I adore his writings.

    You could start with Bill Maher. He’s pretty damn funny too

    I love him – he’s so funny and clever.

    I’d like to accompany you to LA for closing arguments and jury watch. Hell, I’d even pay your way.

    Anytime!! HAHA!

    I keep wishing some NY celebrity will off their wife or a stranger or something. Have a great trial here. I mean, really, is that too much to ask? Martha Stewart is a criminal now, why can’t she like go crazy and stab one of her minions with her crafting shears?

    Kim

  9. T. Albert said

    I also thought old Rosen was in a piss-poor mood, as was Brunon. I almost fell over when Michael Bay was talking about how busy he was and Brounon said “congratulations” really sarcastic; who peed in his Cherios? I agree with you, this “Defense” is laughable. If this is what I get for the $$$$’s Spector laid out, I’d go with a court appointed lawyer.

  10. Sue said

    Nooooo, not Martha again. She already got railroaded once. In spite of her monotone and boring ass crafts, I like Martha. Maybe one of Rudy’s ex’s will off him if he gets elected. That’s a likelihood. You’re selling yourself short. I’m thinking maybe Rolling Stone ought to pick you up. Sure DD is good. I like him a lot but he’s just a little staid and the rich and famous cases are so out of my league, I usually am glad someone offed them. Hell, I’m starting to sound like you. I gotta find another blog.

  11. Susan said

    Your Spector posts are brilliant. In fact, your “coverage” of this trial is by far, the best. I hope the wonderful and brilliant Mr. D Dunne appreciates your talent wants to collaborate with you.

    Yes, Kim you’re THAT good! I agree, best line ever: “If the acting is S***, you must acquit.” Thanks for brilliant coverage, keeping me informed and always, always amused.

  12. Hey, Kim, if you take one of these TV gigs, can I be your knitting coordinator? You know, finding you special yarn (that the network pays for), digging up unusual patterns for inspiration (that the network pays for), hunting down fancy handmade needles (that the network pays for), and so on. I think I’d be really good at that.

    The problem I have with Dominick Dunne is that he turns every case into his daughter’s murder by some rich and socially prominent guy who got off free. I mean, I’m really sorry his daughter was killed and I too think it’s terrible that they never caught and punished the killer, but all the same that doesn’t mean that every time a woman is killed that the killer is the nearest rich and famous guy in the neighborhood. Or that it’s his job to denounce and excoriate the rich and famous dude so thoroughly that everyone will believe the dude did it, no matter what the jury finds, and will shun him forever. However, to read his writings, you’d sure think it was.

    Ann Rule, whose writing I much prefer to Mr. Dunne’s, kind of got into the betraying husband/boyfriend offing the innocent wife/girlfriend to avoid a divorce/take her property/get the insurance rut for a while. However, one of her recent books is about a betraying wife offing an innocent husband for the insurance. OK, I exaggerate, but she really isn’t interested in just one particular type of murder. Mr. Dunne’s range is a lot more limited, from what I’ve read.

    Since I almost never know anything about the rich and famous people, who are usually Easterners, I find those cases a lot less interesting than the SoCal cases. I may not know the people in the cases, but at least I know the neighborhoods and the landmarks. I also understand the social structure a lot better. Which is why I have to ask, if Lana was such a great actress, in so much demand, why was she working as a hostess at House of Blues?

  13. Hey, Kim, if you take one of these TV gigs, can I be your knitting coordinator?

    Hey! Good Idea!! Sure! But don’t hold your breath waiting for someone to pay me for this crap.

    I mean, I’m really sorry his daughter was killed and I too think it’s terrible that they never caught and punished the killer,

    They did catch and punish the killer – if you feel that the 3 or 4 years the guy spent in jail “punishment” – personally, I don’t. The guy was her boyfriend.

    Ann Rule, whose writing I much prefer to Mr. Dunne’s,

    I hate Ann Rule’s writing – she’s the only true crime author I can’t read. I always get so mad when I find out a case I really want to read about is being written by her. I don’t like her style at all, she writes like a bad romance novelist.

    if Lana was such a great actress, in so much demand, why was she working as a hostess at House of Blues?

    She was just coming out of having the casts on her wrists, and a year of rehab and recuperating where she couldn’t work. She needed to get “back into the scene”, and start networking again with the people in the industry who were in a position to hire her. And she needed a steady income after not working for a year while she worked her way back into the business. She had a print job in December, and another that was to shoot a few days after her death, but she thought that the job at HOB was high profile enough and in a location where she could network with the people she needed to let know that she was “back”.

    And the prosecution isn’t trying to “prove” that she was in great demand or a “great” actress. It’s the defense that is trying to say that after 20 years of supporting herself *without* taking a job like the one at HOB, that it finally occured to her “Hey I suck! I should just kill myself!” Which is really dumb and not believable.

    They would have been *MUCH* better off with an “accident” defense. “This was an accident, he was playing with the gun, never meant for it to go off…” They would have had more to work with and more things to appeal to the jurors with – this is just sad and turning any potential sympathizers off.

    Kim

  14. Maria said

    If the acting is shit – you must acquit” defense

    Priceless LMAO

  15. […] CA vs. Spector – Michael Bay: “I Did Not Have Contact With That Woman!” [image]We finally get back to testimony this afternoon – there was no court this morning, as the court and all […] […]

  16. Mike said

    Rosen says to the witness “Last week when Mr. Jackson was questioning you, you said that you considered Lana Clarkson a marketable and Bible actress…” … What the fuck was he thinking?

    Just a guess: I wonder if the transcript came out “Bible actress,” (the reporter’s machine is phonetic, and viable sounds something like Bible, so when it was transcribed it might have been translated to Bible instead of viable) and the defense was asking so that the correct response would be preserved in the record.

    At the same time, I have no clue why the defense would care about the distinction, except that maybe they think a Bible actress might be less likely to kill herself in Phil’s entry than a viable actress, and God knows they don’t want the jury to get confused.

    Or is that all too much of a stretch?

    — Mike —

  17. Trixiesmom said

    Thank you for your succinct and accurate summary of the Spector trial. You always seem to hit the nail on the head with your common sense and perceptiveness. And I love your sense of irony/satire… “If the acting is sh-t, you must acquit”…ROF!…You are a gifted writer!

  18. Maria said

    “face to face”, for god’s sake – it’s the same number of syllables.

    So Funny. You have me peeing my pants hahahahaha

  19. poplife said

    wow, just wow! another superb entry! congrats on your win at the fair!

  20. Glenda said

    I agree with one of the fans up there–I used to run into the break room at the office and turn on the TV during the day to catch parts of the action. Now, I read Kim and then watch CTV in the mornings with Perky and Jerky just to get a recap of what I already know and feel very superior.

    I like DD and try to watch his show, but I think he is running out of ridiculously wealthy people who have killed someone foolishly. I’m sorry Kim, I do like reading Ann Rule and have all of her books. But I can promise that if you wrote a book I’d have it on my bedstand for sure.

    Congrats on the awards and prizes–its been a better week for you than it has for the defense. Perhaps you should teach Rosen how to knit.

  21. Glenda said

    PS I LOVED the “if the acting is shit you must acquit”. And isn’t Michael Bay just too cute?

  22. Lol said

    Is Punkin Pie a liar – as Michael Bay for the prosecution would have us believe -or are people just jumping to conclusions far too quickly?

    Michael Bay – was in court to disprove PIE’s prior testimony that named Michael Bay as a catalyst for Lana Clarkson’s suicide after he snubbed her at a party.

    Bay admitted attending the party, but didn’t see Lana & so would not have been able to snub her, and thus Punkin Pie has given false testimony about Bay – according to Bay.

    Is it possible that Michael Bay was so engrossed in what he was doing at the party that he did not notice Lana an actress he could not care two hoots about, and so Lana may have thought that Bay snubbed her. Or could it be that Bay did see her, did snub her and is lying?

    Or is Pie lying and making all this up – on that point!

    Punkin Pie testified previously that the Clarkson family lawyers etc had told her just after Lana died to not to say anything to the police about Lana’s suicidal thoughts prior to Lana’s death. If you were in Punkin Pie’s shoes and if the Lana Clarkson family lawyer and others tampered with you in a criminal investigation by telling you to withhold information about Lana Clarkson’s suicidal thoughts heard a few days before she died. What would you do in that situation that is if you were able to shrug off this oppression later?If it is true that Punkin Pie was initially told to cover up Lana’s suicidal thoughts after Lana’s death – and went along with it – then Pie may have also gone along with the story of Spector’s alleged guilt for a year or more.

    But if Pie set herself free of her oppression & revealed what her best friend Lana Clarkson said to Pie days before Lana Clarkson died – then it is also possible that at the trial Pie was too embarrased to admit that she had initially made disparaging remarks against Spector in 2003 -in front of him at the trial in July 2007.

    So I wouldn’t give up on Pie until you absolutely have to!

    I don’t think director Michael Bay holds the answer. He wasn’t that much of a friend to Lana obviously.

    And as a director I am surprised he does not acknowledge that an actress who is depressed about their career faltering under the pressure of broken wrists when it was all downhill after the Hollywood Hills party of Christmas 2001, may not make a point of slapping Bay in the face.

  23. Abigail said

    In the random universe of true crime and couture sewing techniques, I somehow found The Darwin Exception. Go figure. So, I read your Spector blogs and liked them a LOT, and then discovered you’re a Sewing Divas fan . . . so I like YOU a lot. And then I looked at ‘Neighbors.’

    Not long ago, I was a San Francisco to West Virginia transplant. It was forced on me by marriage and blind love. Then I titrated. I told folks in WV that I was there because of witnesses relocation — and they believed me. I took pictures. LOTS of pictures.

    Now that my SSRIs have kicked in and I’m back in land of fog and eclectic textile shopping, and along the way managed to bring my mountain man with me (he’s learning the language and culture), I will continue to read your blog and hope that you win the acclaim that you so justly deserve.

  24. I wonder if the transcript came out “Bible actress,” (the reporter’s machine is phonetic, and viable sounds something like Bible, so when it was transcribed it might have been translated to Bible instead of viable) and the defense was asking so that the correct response would be preserved in the record.

    No, I’m sure the defense would love to blame this one on the reporter, but Rosen was reading from his own notes -w e could see the dais and what he was reading from.

    And the court reporter has often stopped the proceedings to ask the witness or the attorney to clarify a word or phrase. I’m betting she got this one right, the phrase “viable actress” is one that has been used a dozen times during the trial, which is why it was so ludicrous for Rosen to get it wrong.

    Kim

  25. I’m pretty sure you’re a shoo-in for the “Quack Up” contest.

    What the hell is that?? I can’t find it on the fair site.

    Kim

  26. Perhaps you should teach Rosen how to knit.

    Oh Crap! Now THAT’S something I would fly to California for – now where’s that poster that said they’d pay my way?

    Kim

  27. And isn’t Michael Bay just too cute?

    Isn’t he??? And I hear he swears and curses quite a bit – and he says he likes funny people – I’m funny – in a strange and odd sense – I’m betting he’d like me!

    Kim

  28. So I wouldn’t give up on Pie until you absolutely have to!

    I think that time has come.

    She lied to the police – with or without encouragement – it doesn’t matter – she still lied.

    And that Christmas letter she sent out proves she lied.

    Then she lied ont he stand to cover up her previous lies.

    She is doing all this to get her 15 minutes – amybe even to generate interest in the failed pilot she shot for TV.

    Besides – I just don’t like her – anyone that comes to court dressed the way she was dressed with her mammaries all hanging out all over the place implies that she would very much like this to be the “Punkin Pie Show”.

    She’s an attention seeker.

    Kim

  29. I told folks in WV that I was there because of witnesses relocation — and they believed me.

    I could SO do that. Perfect.

    These people already think I’m a devil worshipper. One of the useless twins, after they moved out of here, had it going around town that the reason they had to get out of here was that I worshipped the devil. Paul saw one of his friends who hadn’t stopped by in a while and that’s what the friend said “Your wife is a devil worshipper”.

    Paul couldn’t understand this, so he called one of the useless twins and asked whaat the fuck that was all about and the uselees twin said “She is! We know it’s true! We saw the book on the bookshelf!”

    It was “The Satanic Verses”.

    Kim

  30. groo said

    Consider yourself lucky that the useless twins didn’t put out a fatwa on your ass.

  31. lol said

    The Lynch mob mentality is alive and well in Hollywood and today director Michael Bay joined the club.

    Because BAY testified that he did not snub Lana at a Hollywood Party and so therefore did not cause LANA CLARKSON to commit suicide and THUS the underlying conclusion is that Spector must be a murderer because MICHAEL BAY did not snub Lana.

    Regarding Lynch Mobs it is usual for the first member of the Lynch Mob to appear and strike when you are down as Spector was on Feb 3 2003 with a dead girl in his house. It is usually someone you might even trust perhaps your very own chauffeur.

    Then once Spector’s Brazilian Chauffeur Adriano DeSousa made the phone call to the Police – the police quickly joined the original Lynch Mob Member and Adriano DeSouza’s version of events.

    After that as Spector’s Lawyer Bruce Cutler said

    “They [the police] had Murder on their minds”

    But who started that rumor – It was Spector’s Brazilian Chauffeur DeSousa.

    Then the Prosecution and the press joined that Lynch Mob and elevated Adriano DeSousa a Brazilian Chauffeur who is working in the US with no work permit to someone who should be believed when possibly DeSousa’s underlying motive was or still is – to gain his residency by nailing Spector, and also to not get nailed himself for murder.

    And then Spector’s old girl friends who are amazingly enough – still alive – they joined the Lynch Mob when if they had been so concerned for their lives – they should have reported Spector at the time he allegedly threatened them. These old girlfriends are only cowards or fame seekers now. And their testimony does not prove that Spector murdered Lana.

    And so the California court system itself is embracing the Lynch Mob mentality in allowing all these women into the court – but not allowing the Madam’s testimony into the court so that the jury can determine the facts.

    Also the Court by not allowing Bruce Cutler to do his thing and Brucify any of the prosecution’s witnesses – this gag order also helped to obscure the truth and credibility of the Prosecutions’ witnesses and this also adds to the Lynch Mob Mentality whether intended or not.

  32. lol said

    thedarwinexception Says:
    August 10th, 2007 at 11:12 am

    So I wouldn’t give up on Pie until you absolutely have to!

    I think that time has come.

    She lied to the police – with or without encouragement – it doesn’t matter – she still lied.
    It does matter if there was encouragement at a time when her good friend had died horribly. And if there was encouragement perhaps those people who were encouraging had something to gain for covering up suicide – like money – and that should be our focus!

    And that Christmas letter she sent out proves she lied.
    The letter may prove that Pie has a poor memory and her friend the house designer said that.

    Then she lied ont he stand to cover up her previous lies.
    Does this mean that everything she said was untrue?.

    She is doing all this to get her 15 minutes – amybe even to generate interest in the failed pilot she shot for TV.

    I do not think you can say for sure that you know Pie’s intent.

    Besides – I just don’t like her –

    I think this is what is swaying you

    anyone that comes to court dressed the way she was dressed with her mammaries all hanging out all over the place implies that she would very much like this to be the “Punkin Pie Show”.

    And even if it was Pie’s show while she was on the stand – some of her important testimony could be true such as witness tampering so she would remain silent and Lana’s suicidal talk – it is for the jury to weigh the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

  33. Because BAY testified that he did not snub Lana at a Hollywood Party and so therefore did not cause LANA CLARKSON to commit suicide and THUS the underlying conclusion is that Spector must be a murderer because MICHAEL BAY did not snub Lana.

    Michael Bay wasn’t there to prove Spector is a murderer – he was there to prove Punkin Pie is a liar.

    Regarding Lynch Mobs it is usual for the first member of the Lynch Mob to appear and strike when you are down as Spector was on Feb 3 2003 with a dead girl in his house.

    Well, who’s fault was that?

    Then once Spector’s Brazilian Chauffeur Adriano DeSousa made the phone call to the Police – the police quickly joined the original Lynch Mob Member and Adriano DeSouza’s version of events.

    DeSouza, who was repeating Spector’s version of events – to wit: “I think I killed somebody”.

    “They [the police] had Murder on their minds”

    They have a woman in a chair dead with a bullet wound in her head, it’s not her house, it’s not her gun, the only person in the house with her at the time never called police and tried to wipe down the body as well as the gun and then resisted the police when they came to the scene.

    Why *WOULDN’T* they have “Murder on their mind?”

    But who started that rumor – It was Spector’s Brazilian Chauffeur DeSousa.

    No – Sepctor did. Even if he NEVER told the chauffer anything, he started that rumor by NOT CALLING FOR HELP. If he wanted his version of events to get to the police before anyone else’s version did – he should have called the police first.

    DeSousa’s underlying motive was or still is – to gain his residency by nailing Spector, and also to not get nailed himself for murder.

    Well too bad that’s not working out for him. The prosecution can’t help with immigration issues – and he still has problems with that – and “not get nailed himself for murder?” Are you saying HE shot Lana? Well, then fuck – why DIDN’T Spector call the cops again? I mean, since this guy walked into his house ans shot a woman? Spector didn’t call the cops – why?

    they should have reported Spector at the time he allegedly threatened them.

    Several of the did – or didn’t you hear that part of the testimony. And many of the other dozen witnesses Spector threatened with a gun but who DIDN’T testify also called the police on him.

    but not allowing the Madam’s testimony into the court so that the jury can determine the facts.

    What “facts” would those be? That she doctored her trick book? Or that Lana was a high price call girl? Which is it? Was Lana so broke that she shot herself in the head out of depression, the way the defense says, or was she a high price call girl, the way Baby Dol Gibson says? You can’t have it both ways. And if she *was* a high price call girl, how does that prove that Spector didn’t shoot her, or is it just that the fact she’s a call girl makes it OK that Spector shot her?

    Also the Court by not allowing Bruce Cutler to do his thing and Brucify any of the prosecution’s witnesses – this gag order also helped to obscure the truth and credibility of the Prosecutions’ witnesses and this also adds to the Lynch Mob Mentality whether intended or not.

    Oh yeah, because yelling and screaming at witnessesd for no reason at all REALLY brings the facts out.

    You’re a loon.

    Kim

  34. The letter may prove that Pie has a poor memory and her friend the house designer said that.

    Oh I see – she forgot that for a whole year she thought her friend was taken from her “abruptly and violently by Phil Spector.”

    You’re a loon.

    Kim

  35. […] CA vs. Spector – Michael Bay: “I Did Not Have Contact With That Woman!” [image]We finally get back to testimony this afternoon – there was no court this morning, as the court and all […] […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: