The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 972,520 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 – A Trip to the Castle

Posted by thedarwinexception on August 9, 2007

This morning was the jury viewing of the Pyrenees Castle Phil Spector calls home – along with his chicky wife who used to be his assistant’s assistant – and his mother in law, from some reports.

The jurors were brought in three separate  ans (there’s 18 jurors if you count the 6 alternates who also got to go along), and they entered the house in these three groups. They were allowed to see the foyer, the bathroom area where the diaper was found, they were allowed to go up the stairs – but not to go any further than the landing, they were allowed to look into the bar area which is off the living room behind a glass door, and they were allowed to actually sit in the replacement chair that closely matches the one Lana died in.

Phil was there, as well, dressed in sweats and sandals. He hung back from the gathered looky – loos, along with his chicky wife, also shod in sandals.

Linda Deutsch, the defense’s nominated sole press reporter allowed to go along, who the press themselves later endorsed as their choice, as well, reports that the home is “elegant”, but, that of course, is quite subjective. I think my zipper curtains are quite “chic”, too, but I’m quite sure they would be considered “shabby chic” (without the chic), by most red blooded American gay men. She reported that the home is decorated in “early medieval” to match the whole ‘castle” thing Phil has going on – complete with suits of armor, urns, statuary and tapestries. Which fits, really, I can see Phil Spector waving his gun around telling people he was going to “get medieval on their ass.”

Deutsch also reported their was a Picasso etching in the living room, deep wine red carpet and drapes (the better to cover the blood stains with?) , and that there was a little boy statue in the fountain, presumably one of the peeing ones, because she said this statue wasn’t “functioning”. And see, I would have reported this statue as being “tacky”, no reports on whether or not Deutsch found it “elegant”.

For today only, part of the decor also included enlargements of some of the photos already entered into evidence mounted on poster board and placed in positions where they matched the surroundings, the better to orient the jurors. Next to the replica chair, on the dresser that held the gun, were three photos of Lana lying dead in the original chair, taken from different angles. In the bathroom were photos of the diaper where it was found the morning Lana was killed.

It was reported that the jurors were animated and actively taking notes, and were very intense. They had asked the judge if they would be allowed to sit in the chair, and when permission was granted, several tried it out, trying to recreate the position Lana was found in – slumped in the chair with her legs in front of her.

Deutsch also reported that the fountain was quite loud, and that it could be heard when the jurors were in the foyer. She said she couldn’t actually quantify the volume, but that the foyer area was much quieter once the door was closed. The jurors wanted to try some experiments of talking or yelling from the courtyard area to see what could be heard and what couldn’t, but this was not allowed, as it there could be no way to know the noise levels or levels of voices that evening. But Deutsch said that the jurors were having no problems hearing each other as they stood in the driveway and talked amongst themselves, making a list to give to the judge concerning evidence and things they would like to see.

They talked for a few minutes, and then handed the judge their list, which consisted of 10 questions:

“Can we go upstairs to the room where the jacket was found?”

The judge said no to this one, because the upstairs could not be recreated to the condition it was in on the night in question.

“Can we sit in the chair?”

The judge permitted them to sit in the chair, and several did, but he did so with the admonition that it was not the original chair, only a close copy.

“Can we sit in the black car with the door closed?”

The judge denied this request because the original Black Mercedes that DeSouza was driving that evening has been sold or traded – this car was just a Crown Vic car that the LA Sheriff’s department brought over to place in the approximate position DeSouza said the Mercedes was in when Spector came out of the door and said “I think I killed somebody”.  Since DeSouza testified that the AC was on in the Mercedes, and due to different levels of volume in different AC systems, the judge found that it would not be probative for the jurors to sit in a different make and model of car to judge any noise levels.

Can you close the window on the landing?”

 The judge granted this request and had the window closed.  

“Can you make the helicopters go away?”

Different media outlets had several helicopters flying overhead taking long shots of the jurors – the court officer persuaded these news organizations to call off the helicopters temporarily.  

“Can someone make a loud noise?”

The judge denied this request, since there was no way to know the exact level of voices and sounds on the night in question.  

“Can someone stand in the door and speak in a conversational tone?”

 No. Same reason as above.

“Can we go into the bar room off the living room?”

The judge allowed them to look into the area, but they weren’t allowed to enter the room or walk around in it. 

“Was the telephone in the foyer in working order that night?”

To the left of the chair where Lana died is a small telephone table that holds an old fashioned rotary dial phone. The jurors were informed that this phone is operational and was so on the night in question.

“Does the pump have a variable motor?’

No, one speed only.

After the jury viewing of the Castle, the jurors are returned to court, where they have lunch and are then brought back into the courtroom to be told that there will be no witnesses today.

But he judge does tell them that he expects testimony to be completed next week, that there will then be a break for them of one to two days while he and the attorneys go over jury instructions, and that then there will be one day of jury instructions along with the final arguments.

He also updates them on the status of Ms. Baden, who is severely ill with an undiagnosed virus. He tells the jury that depending on the update he will receive from the defense next week, he may or may not postpone final arguments to await her return. This is to be determined later, and will be wholly dependent on what the doctor tells him. He says that this may be a good thing for the jury, anyway, since they are now at the 4 month mark – which is how long he had originally told them this trial would last. He says that several jurors have said that they would like to have *some* time with their children who are on school breaks before they return to school, and that if they have to delay final arguments, they may get their wish.

Juror 4 also discloses that he has a familial relationship with one of the officers at the scene of the jury viewing. The judge asks the standard “will this influence your deliberations” question and the juror says “no, I haven’t even seen the guy in years.”

The prosecution then introduces a one page document of the lease that Lana signed when she moved into the cottage that was her residence when she died. The prosecution wants the defense to stipulate to the lease and the conditions that are included therein as well as some facts apparently told to the prosecution by the landlady. The defense so stipulates to the lease and the following facts: That the lease was signed in September 1999 to begin October 1, 1999, that the landlord was informed and agreed that because of the vagrancy of the entertainment industry that there were months when Lana may be late with the rent, and this was agreeable to the landlady, that Lana was a responsible tenant who took care of the property, that Lana always paid the rent, including any applicable $50 late charges, that at the time of her death Lana owed $130 in rent and late charges, and that in the entire time that Lana lived there, no one had ever given her an eviction notice or threatened her with one.

The judge then excuses the jurors, and they take some legal matters up outside of the jury’s presence.

Before the jurors had come into court today, the defense had told the judge that the bulk of their case was over and that they only anticipated call one more major witness – Dr. Michael Baden, on Monday and that they would then be recalling a prosecution expert witness – Dr. Pex, making his the lucky 13th expert to take the stand. They then would be calling some housekeeping and foundational Computer Records Custodians, and that would end their case in chief.

Once they formally rest, the prosecution anticipates calling Devra Robotaille, the fifth prior pattern witness, and maybe their own neuropathologist, they haven’t quite decided on the latter.

The judge then goes on the record to voice something he has concerns about, although he says he is reluctant to do so, but he feels a need to inform everyone.

He explains that the press was present outside of the Spector residence today when the jury did their walkthrough. (And he wants to thank the LA Sheriff’s Department and Alhambra Police department for coordinating everything so well). He says he has made sure that the press has had access to every part of this trial and that he thinks this is important. He has allowed the cameras to be present in the court, and he allowed ONE member of the press corps to be present at the viewing. That was his ruling, and his alone, that one member of the press pool be allowed access. After he made this ruling, Mr. Rosen opined that Linda Deutsch would be the one that the defense would nominate, the State also endorsed her, and the remaining press members also voted to have her represent them. It was after this meeting where Linda Deutsch was selected by the press that a court officer came to the judge asking if there could be one other reporter at the scene – and the judge said that he would ask the defense if this would be acceptable, since this is a private residence and Mr. Spector’s house. The defense said no. They indicated their reasons, but declined. After this at least one member of the press confronted Mr. Rosen in the hall and made rude remarks. This was not appropriate, says the judge and he does not need any unnecessary distractions during this trial. It was not the defense’s decision to have one reporter – that was the judge’s decision, and there should be no rumors, speculation or reports the Mr. Spector influenced this ruling He didn’t. Move on. (and for an inside look at the whole incident involving Rosen and the member of the press, check out Sprocket’s Blog.)

The judge then asks Mr. Rosen if he has anything to add. He doesn’t.

The defense also asks the judge if he can give the jury a “clarification” that on the night in question the radio and the television were playing. The defense says that this was testified to by one of the officers at the scene – the defense also says that they know the music was playing because no one knew how to turn off the music and it was still playing when the house was turned over to the defense the following night.

The prosecution objects and say that the only mention on the record that there was any music playing that night is that when Officer Tomlin arrived at the scene the music was playing, there is no mention as to the levels, and no evidence that the music was playing upon Lana’s entrance that night, nor at the time of the shooting.

The judge says that this is not an appropriate topic for him to instruct the jury on, as no one is able to determine the level of the music, and that if the defense would like this information presented to the jury, they will have to do so in the form of witnesses, if they haven’t already gotten it on the record through previous witnesses.

The defnese then asks the court to order an initial exam of their witness Mark Hirschfield, who is an executive with ABC. He will be leaving Wednesday, and since the defense expects having to call him during their sur rebuttal case, they would like his testimony on the record. Rosen says that he can make an initial offer of proof, and will write up his formal offer and present it to the court this afternoon.

The judge asks what the offer of proof is, and the defense then explains the situation.

It seems that Donna Clarkson had presented some letters to the prosecution early last week, and the defense anticipates that the Prosecution is going to use these letters in evidence. Lana had given her mother these letters, one of which purports to be from this ABC executive. The problem is, he has said that he never wrote this letter, which extols the virtues of the acting abilities of Lana Clarkson, and his excitement at the receipt of the the DVD of “Lana Unleashed” and how great and terrific the DVD is.

The defense wants to put Mr. Hirschifeld on the stand to testify that he didn’t write this letter, that the signature is not his, that the letter is not on his letterhead and that there are factual errors in the letter, as well, such as the fact that the letter thanks him for casting Lana in “3’s Company”, something he had nothing to do with.

The prosecution responds that they have not offered the letters as evidence, and they are not going to. Since they are not planning to use these letters, there is no need for the defense to call this witness in their sur-rebuttal case.

The defense then says that they want to use the letters themselves – to show Lana’s state of mind – why would she give these to her mother, when she obviously knew that they weren’t real letters from Mr. Hirschfield?

The judge says if they want to use the witness in their case in chief, then they can just call the witness on Monday. There will be no need to preserve his testimony. The prosecution hints that they may have other problems with this witness, but the judge says that argument will be for another day.

The judge then asks if they would like to take up the matter of the “Bennett Issue” – this is the matter where the defense wants to introduce statements Punkin Pie made to Officer Bennett which corroborates her statements on the stand. The defense wants them introduced under the “prior Consistent statement” evidence rule. Bennett interviewed Punkin Pie in April 2005 and she allegedly told him that Lana was depressed, that she had been disrespected at a party by Michael Bay, and that there was phone call between them a few days before her death in which she expressed that she “didn’t want to go on”.

The defense believes that these are all “prior consistent statements”, but the judge points out that in order to be “prior consistent statements”, they have to meet certain rules of the evidence code.

In order to qualify, the witness has to have her credibility challenged on the stand – which the judge agrees has happened here. And the statements have to have been made *before* bias is alleged to have arisen. Since it was brought out on cross examination that her supposed “bias” came within days of Lana’s death, when the family gave her the cold shoulder and it was alleged that she felt “marginalized” and “squeezed out” by the family, which was in February of 2003, these statements made to Bennett in April of 2005 are not “prior consistent statements”. They are after she was all pissed off and possibly had motivation to change her story.

Brunon argues that the judge is drawing conclusions about the witnesses bias, that these conclusions should be left to the jury – whether or not it has been proven that the witness had bias at all. Brunon argues that they should give all these facts to the jury and let them sort it out.

The judge responds that no, he is required to see if the evidence fits within the letter of the law, and that these are foundational questions that he has to answer before the jury gets the facts.

The judge says that he will make a final ruling on Monday.

The defense then mentions that 2 of their sur rebuttal witnesses will be a psychologist and a clinical therapist – and that they anticipate there might be a question of privilege, and that the way they understand it, Lana’s family now holds that privilege. They are not certain if this is going to be an issue, but they would like to mention that it may be a ruling the judge will have to make in the next few days.

The judge asks who these witnesses are, and what their offer of proof is, and the defense says that one name – the psychiatrist, was mentioned in Lana’s day planner, so they know that she had contact with this person, and that one is a clinical psychologist who treats in the areas of addictions, and that her name was mentioned in the last batch of emails they managed to recover. The defense says that both are under subpoena, and that one, has made a report, a very brief report, since she had issues with privilege without a waiver of such.

The prosecution stands and says that the defense should start their briefs now, because in talking to the family, they will be asserting privilege.

The last issue raised this afternoon by the defense is that they would like the judge to limit the questioning of the witness Devra Robotaille. The defense says that they understand that the judge has already ruled on this, but they would like him to reconsider. There are two incidents that Robotaille will testify about – one dating back to the 1970’s. The defense says that this is too remote in time to be relevant, and they would like the judge to limit the questioning to the second incident only, which happened in the early 80’s.

Dixon responds that the defense is correct – this *has* already been ruled on and the judge already deemed it admissible. Basically the judge has already said that since the two situations are virtually identical, they can both be testified about – in both incidents Miss Robotaille was at a party with Spector, he was drinking, she wanted to leave, and when she wanted to leave she found a gun in her face.

 The defense then responds saying “well, if the incidents are identical, why does the prosecution need both of them?” The prosecution will get in the evidence they want with just one incident.

The judge rules and says “No, I’ve already ruled on this – and my ruling stands. If this 70’s incident was the *only* incident, then it is remote and inadmissible, but the fact that it’s older than the others is actually probative – it reinforces the people’s theory that this is a continuing pattern, it’s just that with this evidence the pattern goes back even further.”

And with that ruling, court is done for the day – and for the week. Monday Dr. Michael Baden himself will take the stand. Which should be interesting.


21 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – A Trip to the Castle”

  1. JayDee said

    I was initially concerned that Linda had made a reporting error, but instead she appears to have accurately recounted an apparent misunderstanding that one or more jurors have about the state of the evidence. She indicates there’s a belief among some that DeSousa was in the car with the door closed when Spector made the statement to him. His testimony indicates that he’d gotten out of the car at that point. Hopefully, the prosecution will remedy this misunderstanding in closing, because it has the potential of figuring significantly in the deliberations.

  2. jshuler43 said

    Interesting that chicky wife’s mother lives with them. I guess she doesn’t trust Phil alone with her daughter either!

  3. Tony said

    Greetings from London, England where we have real castles!

    I agree with what so many others have said; you are a very entertaining writer. When in your wonderful country (which fortunately is often by reason of my job) I try to watch the Court TV trials in the background whilst working in my office. I was fascinated by the Spector trial and suffered withdrawal symptoms when I had to return to London a month or so ago. So it was great to find your Blog. Reading your reports is actually far better than watching Court TV!

    Whilst it seems clear that Spector is guilty of causing Lana’s death, am I alone in thinking that Judge Fidler does come across as having a strong prosecution bias in this case?

  4. Greetings from London, England where we have real castles!

    Greetings! And please, tell us how Spector’s castle holds up compared to yours!

    And thanks for the kind words – I’m glad you can keep up to date through the blog! I would never be able to live in England with that whole pesky “we like to have fair trials and no press coverage” thing they have going on. We Americans love nothing more than watching the rich and famous fall from grace nice and up close – and with running commentary!

    am I alone in thinking that Judge Fidler does come across as having a strong prosecution bias in this case?

    Oh no, you are not alone – but keep in mind that before he was a judge, Fidler was a defense attorney.

    I think that bias is perceived only because of what the attorneys have to work with and the laws as they are written in California. The whole “1108B – Prior Acts” law, which comes to play very much here probably *is* slanted towards the prosecution, so when judges rule on it in the proseuction’s favor, he may get some of the “blame” for being “pro prosecution”, but he *is* following the law as it is written, and has been upheld by the California Appeals Courts.

    And in this case, the defense really has nothing to work with – they are quite probably grasping at straws or mounting a defense of “let’s ask for *everything* and hope we get *something*. Which, when it inevitably leads to many of their motions being denied, can reflect onthe judge as being “anti defense”.

    I mean, these are the same attorneys who wanted to call “Raul Julia Levy” and “BabyDol Gibson” witnesses with serious “issues”. I think some of the judge’s rulings have actually *helped* them, even though the defense doesn’t see it that way. But while it sure would have been entertianing for the viewers to have Levy on the stand, it surely would have been disastrous for the defense case.

    But I think the judge has been extremely wise and fair to both sides – with the sheer number of attorneys involved, with a less competent judge there to rein in all the personalities, this case could have gone off the skids long, long ago.


  5. Hopefully, the prosecution will remedy this misunderstanding in closing, because it has the potential of figuring significantly in the deliberations.

    You know, I was confused about this bit of reporting, myself. I kept wondering “Why the hell do they wnat to sit in the car with the door closed and AC on? What does that prove?”

    I hope that AJ really emphasizes the point that DeSouza was OUTSIDE the car when he heard the statement. As you say, that really CAN have signifcant impact on deliberations.

    Hopefully the prosecution noticed this confusion and will remedy it.


  6. poplife said

    The gunshot was heard w/ the door closed.

  7. ScienceFiend said

    Thank you for the well-detailed update. I watched it and had been confused as to who was purported to have given Donna these letters. So the defense said that Lana had given these letters to her mother? Strange that they suddenly popped up right now, 4 years later. Just when needed to delay the trial more and further break up the state rebuttal case. JMHO and speculation, but I think it more likely that these were recently mailed to Mrs.Clarkson. Considering the defense’s (LKB) OS about LC’s DNA on the BACK end of the bullets, I think I’ll wait until Monday to hear from more Reliable Sources.

  8. groo said

    The defense so stipulates to the lease and the following facts: That the lease was signed in September 1999 to begin October 1, 1999, that the landlord was informed and agreed that because of the vagrancy of the entertainment industry that there were months when Lana may be late with the rent,…

    Hopefully, the lease refers to the “vagaries” of the entertainment industry.

  9. Hopefully, the lease refers to the “vagaries” of the entertainment industry.

    HA! I went back and listened – AJ said “Vagrancies” – but he could have just misspoke. And I should have edited it, anyway, it’s not like I don’t take a few “liberties” with the testimony. But I was trying to actually transcribe what he said.

    So, now we know I can’t be an editor *or* a transcriptionist. Is there anything left?


  10. I watched it and had been confused as to who was purported to have given Donna these letters.

    Well, I don’t blame you. That *was* hard to follow, because they kep throwing the word “daughter” around, and Lana has a sister, Fawn.

    I only assumed it was Lana herself who they are saying gave the letters to Donna because the alternative would be Fawn gave them to Donna.

    If Fawn gavet he letters to Donna, there would be no way for the defense to claim that Lana knew the letters weren’t real. They would not be able to establish *when* Fawn got the letters. If she found them in the house after Lana’s death, there would be no way to know if Lana believed them – she could have known they were a joke, and that’s why she didn’t show them to anyone.

    But since the defense is touting “Look – she gave these to her mother – and she knew they weren’t real!” They have to have some kind of basis for presenting that – either through Donna or some other kind of proof that Lana herself was handing them out.

    JMHO and speculation, but I think it more likely that these were recently mailed to Mrs.Clarkson.

    Well, if they were and the defense puts them into evidence, the proscution will rip them apart. The defense would have no way to show that Lana even knew of the letters. And what the defense is trying to prove through these letters is that Lana herself forged them, in an attempt to bolster her dying career to her relatives.

    Which I don’t entirely understand, anyway. Hirschfield said there were some factual errors in the letters – like the fact that it said “Thanks for casting me in 3’s Company” and he had nothing to do with casting Lana in 3’s Company – wouldn’t Lana also know who casted her in that show? Why would *she* make that error?

    I’m not going to put a lot of stock in these letters unless and until they show me the Word program on Lana’s laptop where the saved file was found – which is a possibility, if you think about it – maybe these letters came up as files saved on her computer and were part of the last batch found with all these “computer experts” – who are also supposed to be their next witnesses.


  11. Lol said

    The Lynch mob mentality is alive and kicking in California.

    Just because director MICHAEL BAY testified that he did not snub Lana at a Hollywood Party does not mean that Spector is guilty of murder.

    As far as Lynch Mobs it is usual for the first member to appear and strike you 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 – your employee your chauffeur.

    Once Spector’s Chauffeur Adriano DeSousa called the Police – the police quickly joined the Lynch Mob.

    After that as Spector’s Lawyer Bruce Cutler said

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

    But who started that rumor – It must be remembered that it was Spector’s Chauffeur DeSousa. And it is necessary to consider the original source.

    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 for Adriano to not get nailed himself for murder or for that matter deported.

    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. These old girlfriends are also part of the problem if Phil Spector did it – for not coming forward sooner which would have saved Lana’s life .And their testimony now does no good because it 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 in – and not allowing the Madam’s testimony in is showing a bias against the defense.

    Also the Court by not allowing Bruce Cutler to do his thing and Brucify any of the prosecution’s witnesses – this gag is also helping to obscure the truth and credibility of the Prosecutions witnesses. Whatever your biases and preferences…Overall an unfair trial.

  12. trialwatcher said

    Perhaps you have been ignoring the states’ evidence. it takes nothing to figure out a stranger doesn’t go to someone’s house,
    sit and begin to think, hum, now is a good time to kill myself,
    let me see what I can find to do it, look around and open the drawer, get the gun( already loaded) and say oh here is something I can do it with..and wait til spector is within 2 feet or defense speculation, 6 feet and put the gun in her mouth and blow herself away…if it doesn’t make sense, it isn’t true
    (direct quote from judge judy)

  13. Lol said

    There is also another quote “The Truth is stranger than Fiction” Also you don’t go into another person’s house and break both your wrists – but Lana did! And she did this before she ever knew Phil Spector.

  14. Lol said

    Here is another quote “The Truth is stranger than Fiction” Also you don’t go into another person’s house and break both your wrists – but Lana did! And she did this before she ever knew Phil Spector.

  15. trialwatcher said

    that’s an accident, totally different, how many people have accidents in a place other than home (lots)

    now think about when was the last time you invited someone to your home and they started looking around for a weapon to kill themselves with?

  16. Holy Toledo said

    I’d like to ask “LOL” one question. If someone commited suicide in your house, would you go outside and say to whoever you saw first “I think I just killed someone”….unless you did. There’s no lynching mob here. Mr. Spector lynched himself and he did it because he did it. And you’re right….truth is stranger than fiction just as it is in this case.

    As far as the old girlfriends coming out of the woodwork – I thought one of them didn’t want to testify but had to. And should they have pressed charges…hell, yes. But should we blame victims, hell no. But it’s common to do that, especially violence against women, e.g. what was she doing out late walking, why did she let him in her house, what did she do to provoke him, etc.

  17. Lol said

    To Holy Toledo et al
    You are making an assumption that Phil Spector’s chauffeur Adrian DeSouza’s testimony is true even though there are many reasons that Adriano may be motivated to not tell the truth. We don’t know what the truth is as far as Phil Spector making that statement to Adriano he may not have made that statement. Certainly what he said to the police hours later conflicts with what Adriano said.

    Also I agree one should not blame victims for being victimized but when victims fail to press charges (because of fear, intimidation or humiliation, or because they want to remain friendly with the person that victimizes them then they leave the door open for the predator to cause more serious harm to either them or new victims and thus although we should not blame the victims for being victimized – if they don’t press charges or try and reach safe ground to make a complaint after they have been victimized – this lack of taking any action opens the door for them or others to be harmed by the same predator because no-one has the courage to make the complaint and act on it, or perhaps if you are the manager of Joan Rivers you need to be oppressed and remain silent in order to retain the comfortable job.
    This dynamic of not pressing charges also came into play in the Virginia massacre when two students who were stalked did not press charges against a fellow student who had been stalking them. Because those students did not press charges that maniac was able to get a gun and shoot 33 innocent people.

    I don’t respect victims who only come forward to tell of their victimization years after the fact and when they never pressed charges at the time and it is also possible that their testimony is not true because they did not press charges at the time.

    Also it is possible that Lana was drunk and was fooling around with guns as she fooled around before at someone’s house in 2001 and broke both her wrists before she ever knew Phil Spector. Lana Clarkson had already been a danger to herself in 2001, whether that be an accident or not and maybe her shooting herself in the mouth was another accident – the final one.

  18. trialwatcher said

    Spectors’ history of violence with women and guns is no secret. Did you hear he pulled a gun on John Lennon?
    And he dined with Yoko afterwards. That was just something he did. It was accepted since he was no harm to anyone at the time.Because a victim doesn’t come forward and file complaints, does not mean he did not do it. What about all those priests? some victims didn’t come forward for 20 years, some were grown men, but found the courage to step forward. Would you blame the victims in that are still not addressing the facts..Facts..the gun was in his house. How would she know? An innocent man calls the police if he see’s an accidental shooting if he is following logic. He doesn’t wipe her face if he is trying to help and wait 40 minutes and lo it is not he that calls the police, it is a temporary driver that does it, ( where is the logic to frame Spector) and then he keeps the police at bay to the extent that he has to be tasered to get control of him, (did you know Spector was going to Mental health and was on 5 different meds to keep him stable at the time of the shooting)
    Logically, he would gladly open the door to help since he cared so much to help her (which I doubt since he called the dead victim filthy names later)

    He changes clothes and tell the police it was an accident, I didn’t mean to do it later. His own experts have said first a suicide, then an accidental suicide, then she was playing with the gun and it accidently went off. Three theories and that is just what they are,..theories are possibilities, not facts..

  19. Lol said

    It is all a question of what facts we want to believe, there are facts and modus operandis against both Phil Spector and Lana Clarkson and in Lana Clarkson’s case the modus operandi cannot be disputed – she was “accident prone” in public and in other peoples houses we know the first accident was self inflicted, Currently there are theories and no-one knows for sure what the facts are – apart from perhaps Phil Spector. Phil Spector has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not sure that any honest jury would be able but a Lynch Mob might.

  20. trialwatcher said

    Spector also said to the police, it was an accident I didn’t mean to do it..I don’t know if it was let in, I don’t think it was, but his history is fact. My, how it sounds so (the same) as other things Spector has done . Has he repeated something in his history? To ignore the facts of the case and assume a stranger who was invited to his house, I might add, would, on the spur of the moment, shoot herself in the mouth no less, does not pass the ” laugh test”. It certainly didn’t include pulling guns on people. Why was she buying 7 pair of shoes the same day if she had suicide on her mind…it’s not logical at all, period!

    We weren’t privy to his history, but he is a mental patient who hears voices and looses touch with reality. His medication is for schizophrenia. He repeated this in an interview he gave years ago
    read some facts

    <a href=””

    Why are ignoring his history. All we discuss is Lana’s history. Weigh all the facts, not just those that tend to lean towards your opinion.

  21. trialwatcher said

    I see demons

    my code was a mistake, her hopefully is the link to above

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 )

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: