The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 973,472 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 – Would You Like Another Piece of Pie?

Posted by thedarwinexception on August 15, 2007

 As is normal in this case, the day starts out with hearings and motions before the judge. Today we have Mr. Dixon for the state standing at the podium telling the judge that the State takes issue with the fact that they have learned the defense plans on calling Leslie Abramson, one of the many lawyers in the “Defending Phil Spector” parade of attorneys, to the stand to testify. The state feels that these communications are privileged and should not be testified to.

The Judge says that he cannot rule on whether or not the testimony is privileged unless he knows what she is planning on saying, and Bradley Brunon for the defense stands and offers to the court that Leslie Abramson has been asked to testify regarding Michael Baden’s communications to her – the timing of his findings and that he had concluded that this was a self inflicted wound long before his wife became involved in the case.

Which, as we know, really isn’t the issue. The Prosecution has no problem with the fact of when Baden concluded this was a self inflicted wound – the state has problems with when he came to this new conclusion, the “Aha!” moment that Baden himself has testified just occurred to him last Sunday – and his wife *was* involved with the case then. It’s not that he concurs with the 27,000 other defense experts that is the problem – it’s the fact that he molded his testimony to fit certain facts that the defense needed to be testified to, even outside of those other experts testimony. None of them took issue with the fact that the spine was completely severed by the bullet – but when the defense needed to have Lana breathing – Baden is the one who stepped forward, willing to testify to such. And *that* is the issue – and Leslie Abramson coming in to court to say “Oh – Michael Baden *always* thought this was a self inflicted wound” really isn’t going to prove much.

Then the defense drops a huge bombshell – guess who’s coming back for more?? Punkin Pie!!! Yes, the flaky, crusty pie herself will be back in court on sur-rebuttal. Along with Jennifer Botox Hayes and poor second fiddle EMT Daniel Stark. Pie will be coming back to try and rebut the evidence concerning her Christmas letter wherein she said that her best friend was taken from her “violently and abruptly” by Phil Spector. I don’t know what she’s going to say to clear this mess up – but it will be interesting. She is also going to rebut the testimony of Michael Bay – who said that she was a fucking loon – he never dissed Lana. The defense says they also have a witness named “Tanara”, who was also at the Franklin party and remembers seeing Lana and remembers that Lana came up to her all upset saying “Where’s Pie? Where’s Pie?” Stark is being recalled to rebut the testimony of his one time EMT partner Liverpool who didn’t even remember him, but said that if Stark thought that he was incorrect in saying Lana had no alcohol in her system, he should have heard him say that over the speaker that was in the back of the ambulance and corrected him.

The Judge then gets into the discovery violation and says that he is still not sure which remedy he is going to impose for this violation – he is down to either a very firm and narrow jury instruction or striking the testimony completely – he is not sure which.

Alan Jackson has concerns about this indecision, since he is now on cross examination of this witness and doesn’t know how far he should go in crossing the witness on this testimony if the testimony is only going to be stricken, anyway, and he is also concerned that if he crosses on this medical opinion, then it just opens the door for the defense, on re-direct, to further damage the state by bringing out more long, drawn out testimony in this area.

Jackson tells the judge that he is prepared to simply cross the witness on the timing issue alone – when he came up with this theory, how he came up with it, and not delve into the medical issues themselves. He would ask the judge, though, to allow the defense to re-direct the witness on the timing issues only.

The judge says that this is perfectly proper and within his ruling, and he shall do that.

Regarding the Leslie Abramson issue, Alan Jackson tells the court that if the defense wants to put her on the stand and the defendant wants to waive privilege, the defense needs to realize that they cannot pick and choose privilege, once the defendant waives it for one thing, they are going to waive it for all things, and that they are opening a Pandora’s box here.

The judge defers ruling on this issue, and calls for the jury.

Alan Jackson continues his cross with a little passive aggressive jab at Michael Baden. Yesterday Jackson had showed him a picture of the three buttons on Lana’s jacket and asked the doctor if he could see that the sleeve and buttons were obviously soaked in blood The doctor kept saying “Oh, I can’t see that…Oh, Its; not clear…Oh, I don’t know…” So today Jackson brings in another photo and asks if this was is clearer. Of course, the context and implications have long since subsided, and the doctor says “Yes, that looks like blood”.

The Jackson gets back to the point he was making yesterday when recess was called – that of Baden’s apparent non-independence, non – objective and non impartial stance while testifying in this case. He has the witness agree that objectivity and independence are important to maintain as an expert, and he reminds the witness that he had testified that he had a personal relationship with one of the defense attorneys. The witness answers that yes, Linda Kenney Baden is his wife.

Jackson asks the witness what exactly Baden’s definition of “Conflict of Interest” is. Baden says that this is a legal term, not a medical term and he doesn’t know exactly what it means.

Jackson tries to help the witness with the definition by asking if it is true that Conflict of Interest is any situation where a professional’s opinion can be influenced by personal interests. Baden says he can’t accept that because he is often in situations where there are different competing interests between a lawyer and a client. For instance, if a lawyer is writing a book about a case, maybe that could be a conflict of interest. He says he is involved with lots of cases where the attorneys will benefit from the involvement in a case – just as Jackson may someday be a judge – is that a conflict of interest?

Jackson asks, a little incredulously, that I might someday be a judge? That’s your definition of Conflict of Interest? Baden says – well, yes, once I go down that path, I don’t know where to move the line.

Jackson then asks the witness if he agrees that any situation where a professionals opinion may be influenced by their personal or financial relationships are at odd is a Conflict of Interest.

Baden says no – that this is not agreeable to him, because an expert will give his opinion no matter which side it helps, every opinion they give in a case is going to hurt one side – someone is always going to be on the different side – that’s not a conflict of interest – as long as the professional says the truth, there is not conflict of interest.

Jackson says “Well the person who is hurt or on the other side is usually not your wife…” The objection is sustained.

Jackson then says to the doctor – you said that Conflict of Interest is a legal term, not a medical one, but isn’t it true that in the AMA codes of ethics there are some rules which pertain to conflict of interest? Baden says he doesn’t know that to be true – he is not familiar with the AMA’s code of Ethics. 

Jackson is a little doubtful of this claim, and says to the doctor – “After 47 years of being a medical professional, you aren’t familiar with the AMA’s code of Ethics? Are you aware that there is a rule, E 8.19 – regarding the treatment of family members? This rule says that a medical professional should not treat members of their family because personal feelings may influence there treatment.”

Baden says “Well, I’m guilty! Mea Culpa! I treat my family members – I am aware of this concept – but it is much violated.”

Jackson counters “So, doctor you think that if there is a violation of the Code of Ethics by others than it’s OK for everyone?”

Baden again says that he treats his wife and children when they are sick. Jackson tells him “Well, according to the AMA – the Governing Body of….”

And at this, Baden cuts him off and tells him “no, no, you are wrong – this is not the governing body – you are making a mistake…the AMA is a union, and there are plenty of doctor’s who do not even belong to the AMA.”

Jackson then says “Yes, but doctor, doesn’t the AMA frown on any activity by physicians that could compromise the physician’s professional medical judgment,”

Baden then says “No, it doesn’t frown on doctor’s treating their families medically if the situation is such that they think they can handle it – I would diagnose strep in one of my family members although I might not operate on them.”

Jackson asks “Why?”

And the doctor, right on top of things as usual, answers “Why What?”

Jackson says “Doctor – why would it not be appropriate for you to treat a family member with a very serious condition?”

“Well, it would be my level of competence! I’m not qualified to perform surgery – but a competent brain surgeon could operate on his child.”

“You do know that the AMA would disagree with that.”

“I don’t know that. It depends on who is available – it would be *better* to have someone else perform surgery – but if it was me and 10 psychiatrists – then I would do it myself – I’m not saying in the best of circumstances that it wouldn’t be best to get another competent professional – because of the emotion involved.”

Jackson sees that maybe Baden *does* get the point, and he says “And how does emotion play into it, doctor, is that part of the Conflict of Interest?”

“I don’t know what Conflict of Interest means –  it can play a part with emotion.”

“In this case, doctor, don’t you have a personal interest in the outcome of the case?”

“Well, I have a personal interest relative to Mr. Spector – I agreed some years ago to evaluate the pathology aspects of this case, and my interest is in Mr. Spector – not the lawyers, I made my conclusions before my wife was involved.”

“Your report was dated February 14th, 2008 – did you have any opinions of findings that predate that? Any notes or other memorializations?” No, I don’t. And this is one part of Baden’s testimony that I actually believe. It is typical for experts not to write anything down, that way, they don’t have to turn these notes over to the other side – no notes – no discovery. The problem here was Baden got caught. He made opinion s and findings – even attended the autopsy – all before his wife was brought on board. If he had made notes or written shit down that actually predated her involvement in the case, well, it would look a lot better for Mr. Baden.

And, of course, none of this matters a bit, anyway, because his final conclusions weren’t even made until last Sunday.

“The date of your report, sir, ” Jackson continues, “That date is *after* your wife was involved in the case, right?” Yes.

Jackson then asks the doctor “You also have a financial interest in this case, do you not? You have received monies so far in excess of $80,000, correct?” The doctor agrees, and then adds that he also received an additional $10K in May for coming out for some preliminary hearing, and that he is planning on submitting another bill for an additional $10K or $20K more for the testimony this week.”

Jackson says “So, all told, you will receive in excess of $110K for your employment as a consultant in this case?” Which the doctor says is so. Jackson then points out that for the $110K he prepared a 3 page report – and the doctor is quick to point out that he didn’t *JUST* prepare a report – that he did other things, too, and he memorialized his findings in the report, but he was in constant and ongoing conversations with the attorneys all throughout his involvement in the case and that they knew at all times what his opinions were because he would tell them what his opinions s were as he got more information. Sure he wasn’t asked to make a written report until February of this year, because he had received the entirety of the information at that time, but that doesn’t mean he hadn’t formed opinions or drawn conclusions until then.

And Jackson is all over this like white on rice – knowing that if the doctor was making oral reports to the attorneys that the defense had an obligation to report these and turn them over to the prosecution. Baden follows Jackson right down the merry path.

“So you’ve been giving oral reports since when?” “Oh, since the beginning, since February of 2003.” “How many oral reports have you given?” “Dozens and dozens.” “And you never wrote any of these reports down?” “No” “And did you give these reports to Shapiro, Abramson, Cutler, Rosen, Plourd, Brunon?” “Oh yes, to all of them.” And what about your wife, Linda Kenney Baden?” “At some point, yes.” “When would that be, doctor?” “Well, when she was first approached to become Mr.. Spector’s attorney – she asked what my opinion was of the charges and the case and the evidence – because she didn’t want to get involved with defending a guilty person.” Which, of course, is objected to and stricken.

“So, doctor, you’ve been giving oral reports and your only written report is dated February of 2007?” And the doctor agrees that this is so. Jackson then asks to approach the bench. Want to guess what he’s complaining about?

They come back from sidebar and Jackson continues asking the doctor about his inherent conflict of interest issues. He asks how many times he has had conversations with his wife regarding his testimony and the doctor says that although he can’t cite a specific number, he is comfortable with “dozens and dozens”. Jackson also asks if the doctor has been on various :field trips in this case where his wife was also present, and the doctor says that yes, they went to he sheriff’s crime lab together to look at some of the physical evidence in the case.

Jackson points out that his wife was there in her capacity as Phil Spector’s lawyer, and he was there as the supposed neutral, object expert in the case. The doctor agrees that these were their roles, apparently not seeing the conflict still. 

Jackson then says to the doctor “You have an additional personal interest in this case, do you not, sir? Watching your wife succeed in her endeavor?”

The doctor still maintains that he has no interest in the affairs of his wife, and says that no, this is not important to him, that the only interest he has is that altruistic one of seeing justice done and ensuring that Phil Spector gets a fair trial. He says he has no special interest in how the lawyers do – now or in the future, and that he and his wife will stay married no matter the outcome in this case.

you have additional personal interest – watching your wife succeed in her endeavor – no the most important thing – only interest I have is that PS gets fair hearing – I don’t’ care what happens to Plourd or Rosen or my wife as far as their future goes – we will remain married no matter the outcome

Jackson then asks Baden if this altruistic vision of “fair trial for Phil” also extends to the State and to Lana Clarkson and her family, and Baden tells Jackson that if Phil gets a fair trial, then by extension, the state will get one, too.

Jackson then tries one more time: “In your capacity as Linda Kenney Baden’s husband – you have competing interests, do you not – to tell the truth as an expert, and to make sure your wife has some success.” The doctor emphatically insists that this is not the case. He says that if the prosecution team had called him to ask his opinion, he would have told them the exact same thing that he was telling the defense. Which I doubt. I mean, do you believe that, that the good doctor would have told the prosecution “Oh, you want to pay me $110K?? Oh, too bad, I think she killed her own self. Damn!” But the doctor tells Alan Jackson that he is going to have the same opinion no matter who is asking, and if he had a conflicting theory, well, the defense would just have to deal with that. And I still don’t believe it – Baden change his mind and suddenly backtrack and say something opposite to what this team wanted to hear? Yeah, after Spector declares bankruptcy and Baden  has gone to the bank to make sure his check had cleared – that’s the only time he’s going to change his opinion.

Jackson kind of knows this, too, because next he tells the doctor “If you considered something or found something out that weighed against Phil Spector – you’d be sleeping on the couch for several months, would you not?” There is an objection, which the judge sustains – saying it calls for speculation.

Jackson has to get one more little dig in, and he says to the doctor “You have to answer to an even higher authority, don’t you, doctor – that higher authority being your wife.” Baden says “No, that’s not the way it works, sir. If I found something contrary to the defense’s case – they wouldn’t call me, they wouldn’t have me here answering questions.” But despite the protestations of Dr. Baden, there are 9 men on that jury, and each one of them knows that yes, there is a higher authority.

And Jackson tells the doctor “Except in this case your theory was created so that you *could* be called.”

Jackson then turns to the other experts in this case, and accuses the doctor – and his wife, behind the scenes – of orchestrating the experts for the defense. He points out that their reports are all dated within 5 days of each other, and that he was the one responsible for bringing Dr. Leestma into the case – the doctor says that this isn’t true, that he wasn’t the one who made the initial call to Lesstma, but Jackson tells him that this is what Lestam testified to.

Jackson then asks the doctor  if it’s true that Linda Kenney Baden was never scheduled to be the one who performed the direct examination of Dr. Baden,  and Baden says that yes, this is true. Jackson asks why that is, and the Doctor says “because of the very things you bring up – I was already a witness when she was asked to come aboard and she consulted with Mr. Spector to make sure he didn’t have any problems with the conflict of interest and it was decided that she was not going to be involved in preparing me or examining me as a witness because of the potential conflict of interest.”

Jackson then says “I thought you didn’t know what Conflict of Interest meant!” And the doctor says “Well, I’m just repeating what she told me – she said it had a specific legal meaning.”

“Ummm….doctor isn’t it just any interest that has a conflict? Is that too simple? And isn’t the real reason she wasn’t performing the direct examination because then the conflict of interest would be obvious and glaring to this jury?” The doctor says this is not the case, that it was because “someone like you” would make it appear to be dirty and it would harm the client.

“And there’s nothing dirty about it, right?” Right, the doctor agrees.

Jackson continues with “Isn’t it true that she may not be performing the examination, but that she’s working behind the scenes, and that she, along with yourself, have been orchestrating this expert testimony?” The doctor says that this is absolutely false. The doctor praises the other experts and says that they are each the very best in their fields – these are the men that wrote the books, the standards for each of their expertise – the doctor says that he is a schmiel compared to them and that in no way would he ever be presumptuous enough to try to direct them.

Jackson decides to explore this area and he says tot he doctor “Sir, you stated that this was a self inflicted wound, right? And that you came to this conclusion based on 4 things, right? And those four things were:

  1. It was an intra oral wound
  2. The amount of GSR on the victim compared to that on Phil Spector
  3. The blood and tissue on the victim’s clothes
  4. That there was no scientific evidence of the gun in Phil Spector’s hand.

The doctor says that this is correct.

Jackson then asks if the doctor was aware of Dr. DiMaio’s testimony. The witness answers that he heard a potion of it. Jackson asks if the witness is aware that DiMaio said this was a self inflicted gunshot wound and that he based this opinion on 4 things – those things were:

  1. It was an intra oral wound
  2. The amount of GSR on the victim compared to that on Phil Spector
  3. The blood and tissue on the victim’s clothes
  4. That there was no scientific evidence of the gun in Phil Spector’s hand.

Jackson then asks if the doctor was aware of Dr. Spitz testimony. The witness answers that he heard a potion of it. Jackson asks if the witness is aware that Spitz said this was a self inflicted gunshot wound and that he based this opinion on 4 things – those things were:

  1. It was an intra oral wound
  2. The amount of GSR on the victim compared to that on Phil Spector
  3. The blood and tissue on the victim’s clothes
  4. That there was no scientific evidence of the gun in Phil Spector’s hand.

Jackson asks if these other 2 experts opinion sound at all familiar, and Baden says yes, but that’s because these things are what are apparent to an independent pathologist. Jackson says – “and it’s not because you attempted or assisted with Linda Kenney Baden or any of the other attorneys to coordinate the other witnesses?” “Absolutely not” says Baden. “These four basis for the opinions of three different expert witnesses were all reached independently of each other?” “To my knowledge, yes.”.

We then have the familiar (since it was done with two other witnesses) exercise of going through the 4 basis of the opinion and pointing out why it is foolish to base the opinion that this was a self inflicted wound on these 4 areas – because intra oral wounds are *not* always suicides, because of course Lana had more GSR on her than Spector did – she was dead and in a chair and he was up running around wetting his hands and putting his hands in his pocket and opening the door and transferring blood all around – that there is blood and tissue on the clothes and the buttons on the sleeves, but that means nothing since she also had a purge of blood and it was impossible to determine what blood and tissue was there before or after the purge, and the blood spatter on the backs of Lana’s hands and wrist that Lintemoot testified about were not only consistent with her hands on the gun, they were also consistent with having her hands in front of her face in a defensive position – and of course there was evidence that Phil Spector held the gun – it’s just that the witness overlooked it in his zeal to testify “correctly” for the defense.

Jackson then gets into what yesterday, in front of the judge, he called the “centerpiece” of Baden’s testimony – the spine transection – or the lack thereof. He has the doctor reiterate his position that the spine was not completely transected by the bullet, but was, instead, transected during transportation. He asks when the doctor came up with this, and the doctor repeats that it was just Sunday when this “Aha!” moment occurred to him. Jackson asks the doctor if it’s true that he has had access to all the materials in this case, from all the sources, and if he did not even *attend* the autopsy himself – and if he has actually been on this case over 4 and a half years, and yet, still, he only came up with this theory two days ago. The doctor says that yes, this is what happened.

Jackson continues to question the timing, asking the doctor if he was not aware of all of this information 4 years ago – the weight of the lungs, the and the blood and edema they contained. The doctor says that it just didn’t register, that since this was not the question he was trying to answer at the autopsy, it was not the focus of his attention, that it only became the focus of his attention after the cross of the other experts…

“Yes, doctor, you were aware of my cross of Leestma and Spitz and you were aware that the defense was trying to proffer a theory that Lana Clarkson breathed in and breathed blood and you were aware that after cross that that theory was not holding water, because her spine was completely severed, right?”

“Well, that’s not completely correct – the finding was that there was blood in the alveoli, that was there, she had to have inhaled it, that’s a given, and why it happened – that’s another issue – when you brought up on cross examination that you can’t have that many breaths with a completely severed spine, well, that’s when I reviewed the autopsy report and saw that the lungs weighed 1800 grams after she was shot, and by the way, her brain was swelled as well, and it was my opinion that somehow breathing had to occur – and that’s when I remembered from my youth when I went to scenes we had to immobilize the neck when there was ahead injury because the spinal cord is fragile and if it’s not immobilized then transportation can tear it further.

“And you just came up with this epiphany on Sunday – you had to think back to your youth to remember that necks have to be immobilized? After 47 years in medicine? The rest of us see this during every football game we watch that when the linebacker goes down the first thing the field doctors do is put a big old collar on his neck – and you, you have to go back to your youth to remember that this has to happen? And it took you 4 and a half years to do this?”

The doctor says that yes, it took him that long.

“Doctor, you got to LA on Thursday, right? This past Thursday? And you were with your wife, weren’t you?” The doctor says yes, that his wife is ill.

“And you met intermittently with the defense team, right?” Yes.

“The fact is, doctor, when you sat down with Christopher Plourd, and started talking about your testimony, he indicated to you that Dr. Spitz and Dr. Leestma didn’t hold up so well on cross, and that *YOU* had to figure out how to put Lana’s spine back together to fit their new theory.”

The doctor protests and says that this is completely not true.

“You were at the autopsy, doctor, and there’s not a word in that report about spinal cord transection occurring during transportation, right?” Right. “And you have no notes to suggest that you came up with this before Sunday, right?” Right.

“But you were with your wife over the weekend and you and Linda Kenney Baden talked about the case, didn’t you?”

The doctor says “Not a lot”, because, of course, she is sick and on medications.

“And doctor, after you had time with you wife over the weekend, you met with Plourd on Sunday and according to you this opinion came to you the very first time on Sunday”

“Yes, if I had thought of it earlier I would have talked about it with Dr. Dimaio and Dr. Spitz and Dr. Leestma – at no time did I ever speak to them before Sunday and I didn’t talk to my wife about it – it wasn’t that big a deal – I just made sense of some info that was contradictory.”

“And all of those doctors and none of them have said that her spine was not completely and utterly transected by the gunshot wound.” Yes, I know this.

“And in this case you have charged to date – somewhere around 110K which represents about 40 days of actual work.”

“Well, not quite. There were 30 days that I was here working and I am not charging for many of the days I worked on this case back in my New York offices.”

“Well, doctor, if you weren’t spending those 40 days coming up with this theory what have you been doing?  The most you can point to is this 2.5 page report.”

“That is the only document I was asked to put into writing.”

 “For $110K?”

Jackson then gets into the history of Lana and what the doctor looked at with regards to her mental state – he reads the emails that Plourd had shown the doctor yesterday – the ones that Baden said showed an overall sense of sadness, and after Jackson read the entire emails, they don’t seem to have this sadness that Baden spoke of. There were parts that said “”Oh, I’m so sad”, but the general overall tenor was one of optimism and hope.

Alan Jackson then asks the witness if he considered Phil Spector’s history the same way he seemed to have considered Lana’s, and if Baden was aware of the statements attributed to Spector through Vincent Tanazzo. Baden says he know that there were statements made, and that there were various allegations with regards to women in the past.

Jackson then asks the witness if, in his report, he stated that there was no forensic evidence that Spector was holding the gun – and Baden says yes, he made that statement in his report.

We then go through one of Alan Jackson’s favorite exercises for reminding the jury about just how bizarre this whole case is when a witness is talking about suicide – he goes through the whole “Whose house was she in, whose gun did she use, whose ammunition was it, who invited her there, was she a stranger there, who wetted the diaper, who got the blood all over, who *didn’t* call the police despite the 14 phones, who said “I think I killed somebody” – and then asks if the doctor considered all these factors when determining histories and who was holding the gun.

The doctor says yes, he considered all these things.

Jackson says “And you concluded that Lana Clarkson’s hands were on the gun, with her buttons facing her face, while she was either looking at or playing with the gun.”

“I think it was self inflicted – I have no idea if it was suicide, that would presuppose that I knew what she was thinking and I can’t know what was in her head, but I think she was reckless and depressed and those factors came into play.”

“And because she was reckless and depressed, she intentionally put the gun in her mouth and shoots herself?”

“I can’t read her mind, and I can’t say if it was intentional, but I can say that she pulled the trigger.”

“You don’t know what she was thinking, but that would help, right?”

“It would be nice, but it would only tell me whether is was intentional or not, it wouldn’t tell me cause of death, only manner of death. What was in her head would only tell me the classification, whether it was accidental or suicide. I don’t need to know what was in Phil Spector’s mind for that – once I know that it’s self inflicted, then Spector’s state of mind is irrelevant.”

Then we have the next favorite exercise of Alan Jackson’s, he goes through the details of the four pattern witnesses who testified, highlighting the similarities in their stories to Lana’s story. Outlining, once again, for the jury the familiar story of Spector drinking, inviting a woman back to his home and freaking out when she wanted to leave and waving a gun around.

And the impartial, objective and completely independent expert witness testifies that he reviewed this material and decided it had no bearing.

Plourd then begins his redirect of the witness, and starts with a picture taken at the Sheriff’s crime lab by the defense that the prosecution used in it’s cross examination. It shows a person sitting in a chair modeling Lana Clarkson and a mannequin standing before the model with all four hands of the two models in front of the face of the person sitting in the chair. The prosecution had Baden testify that this would result in all four hands having GSR on them, because all four were in the same vicinity.

Plourd guides the witness through this same scenario and asks what evidence would *not* fit with this scenario – for instance, the tooth material that flew out of Lana’s mouth would not have a clear shot to the end of the stairwell where it was found if there were a person standing in front of her the way the picture depicts. Plourd asks if this was the only configuration that the model and mannequin were place din for illustrative purposes and Baden says no, that there were several, and that none of the configurations accounted for the way that the evidence – blood spatter, teeth, nail material, ended up.

Baden says that in many of the configurations that blood and spatter would have ended up on the left side of Spector’s jacket – not the right.

At this point, Baden is excused so that defense witness Eric Poticha can take the stand before he has to leave town.

He is called to the stand and is sworn in. Bradley Brunon asks him to spell his name and he asks the witness  if he has always spelled his name that way and the witness says “yes”.  Poticha says that he was with Fox TV Studios and was the Vice President of Television Development. He knew Lana, and was very fond of her and they were friends.

Brunon shows him one of the three letters that were purportedly written by Studio Execs praising Lana and her DVD. Poticha says that this is the first time he is seeing this letter.

Poticha agrees that the letter is addressed to Lana – and then his cell phone goes off. The judge quips “And that is the end of your testimony.”

Poticha says that he is aware that Lana’s company was called “Living Doll Productions”, but that he doesn’t know offhand the exact address.

Like the NBC executive, the witness says that this is not his signature, not his title and not the name of the division of the network that he worked for. And as the letter is read the witness says that no, he doesn’t remember writing these things.

Poticha doesn’t remember when he first met Lana, he thinks it was in 2001 or 2002 in his office.

Brunon then shows the witness the section called “Special Thanks” and points out the name “Eric Patitia”. Poticha says that he encouraged Lana, that he thought she was talented and did a good job, but that he doesn’t know why she would single him out for Special Thanks.

The witness seems much more at ease and comfortable when Dixon gets up to question him. It is apparent that he is not comfortable testifying against Lana. He obviously felt a genuine affection for her.

Dixon has the witness testify about his feelings for Lana, and he says that she was a charming, talented and classy lady. He liked her sincere smile. The witness says that when he received the reel from Lana she had sent it to him in an old film canister filled with candy.

The witness testifies that he helped Lana out with introductions and “leads” – people who may have helped her with her career.

It’s obvious that he is not upset about Lana doing a little “padding of her resume” using his name. It seems from the way he talks of her that he probably would have written a letter with much of the same praise if she had asked him. He testifies that he had introduced her to a friend of his named Vespo who had a low budget production company and some camera equipment that perhaps he would make available to Lana.

On re-direct Brunon says “You called Lana talented, charming and classy – yet she sent out letters forged with your name – would you consider that “talented clever and classy?” The witness says no.

Brunon then asks if any of the leads that the witness sent Lana’s way ever got her any paying jobs. The witness says not that he’s aware of. And since he’s back to being obviously reluctant and uncomfortable, I half expect him to say “They might have, you know, if Phil hadn’t shot her in the head first.”

Baden comes back on the stand for about 5 minutes before recess is called for the day. They are just discussing standard transportation procedures. And I kind of like that they made Baden wait in the hall and then only let him get 5 minutes on the stand. Maybe that will knock some of the arrogance out of him.

But I doubt it.


13 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Would You Like Another Piece of Pie?”

  1. LAnon said

    You are the best, you totally aced a day full of complicated manuevers and convuluted testimony on the part of Dr.Bad.

    Oxygen thin in courtroom. It was really pretty sickening.

  2. Dave said

    This is sounding like Dr. Bad is the one who got Phil’s old mouthpieces canned so wifie-poo could get the job. Her recent absence is looking as phony as Henry Lee’s trip to China with a “nail companion”…

  3. rogerr said

    That Jackson forced Badon to admitt that the pose involving the manequin in which he even used lana and Spector’s names, and in which the manequin was posed loke Spector holding the gun to Lana’s face, and in which Lans was not even touching the gun, would result in Lana get Gun Shot Residue on her hands was HUGE. Especially since he had just agree that Spector had spread Lana’s blood all over the place and washed his hands. I cannot imagine the jury not having an “aha” moment of their own at that time. The “aha” being that this wind bag thinks we are to stupid to realize that he loke the other defense witnesses choose what evidence they want to make important and ignore what does not help them. The defense even seemed depressed and subdued after that. As to the blood on the jackett, the defense put on its own little demonstration to try to explain why the blood was only on the left panel. As they were posing the lawyer acting as Spector would only have needed to turn a little to present the left side of the jackett to the mouth of the lawyer posing as Lana. Does the defense actually think that the jurors did not notice that? There is nothing the defense can do to right their ship now.

  4. groo said

    You rock, Kim!!

  5. Holy Toledo said

    I don’t know how you do it but you do.

    $110,000 – see the dough that’s out there for writing a 2.5 page report. You could buy Malone.

    Was there any report of a juror hurling their breakfast or lunch after listening to this asshole, Badman. Can’t call him a Doctor. He’s one poor excuse for a human being let alone a Doctor.

    Keep up the excellent reporting. IN YOU I TRUST

  6. luvgabe said

    I hope the jury sees Baden’s arrogance as he danced around the issue of “conflict of interest.” That Baden did not know what the term means after 40+ years in the medical profession is ludicrous.

    Thanks, Kim, for your great reporting!

  7. Gail said

    More ‘SUPERB’ reporting Kim! Thank you so much!

    Catching up on your blog and listening to CTTV at the same time, one guest opined, the Badens are getting ‘fat’ on this trial! 😉 lol No Comment LOL

  8. Carolina said

    As usual, magnificent reporting Kim, You have eloquently summed up a very uncomfortable and nauseating afternoon of testimony. I loved AJ’s comments inferring that PS didn’t get much work out of Dr.Baw-done for his $110,000.

    I for one am looking forward to another serving of “burnt” Pie, she’s got lots of ‘splaining” to do and it should be delicously served up by Alan Jackson!

  9. MRB said

    Kim, love your awesome blog. I missed yesterday, but, don’t feel like I missed a thing. Excellent work. Michael Baden and his wife are scumbags from Hell.

  10. Kim

    Agree with everything everyone else has said. I don’t know how you do it, either.

    I need your spin on the hugs and kisses letter, please.


  11. […] CA vs. Spector – Would You Like Another Piece of Pie?  As is normal in this case, the day starts out with hearings and motions before the judge. Today we have Mr. Dixon for […] […]


    Baden, give Phil Spector back his money. You are a old goat that needs to retire.
    Phil Spector is innocent but your stupidity sure messed up Phil’s case.
    I talked to Leslie Abramson and know her ex husband, she is one nasty………….. fill in the blank.
    OMG, will Phil Spector get a fair trial?

    Thank you,
    Joyce Danelen

  13. Kate said

    Baden proved to the jury exactly what conflict of interest is -when he took the opportunity to tell the jury his wife wouldn’t defend a guilty person! Who is he kidding? And how the heck would Baden know if the guy was guilty or not anyway? He wasn’t there. I do think she probably asked him if it was possible to get Spector acquitted using their interpretation of the medical evidence -but that is a far cry from pretending his wife asked him about the case because she didn’t want to defend a guilty person!

    What did he hope the jury would take away from that gratuitous comment? Hmmm?

    But most importantly, that is a comment that NO OTHER forensic pathologist the defense could have hired would EVER have said at all. Only her spouse would have.

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: