The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 970,886 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 – The Evidence is Done – And So Is Cutler

Posted by thedarwinexception on August 27, 2007

 This morning court gets started off with a bang. Bruce Cutler, fresh from wrapping his reality TV show, is standing at the lectern addressing the judge. He is asking the judge to approve his written application, done with Spector’s agreement and acknowledgement, to be relieved of his duties in this case. Cutler says that he and Spector have had a difference of opinion in trial strategy. Cutler wants to do part of the non forensic summary in closing arguments, and Spector doesn’t want him to. Spector probably wants Rosen, who has like, actually *been* at the trial, and actually presented some of the witnesses, to deliver closing arguments on this material. Cutler tells the judge “I’ve stayed here all these months planning to sum up. If that’s not the case, there’s nothing else I can do for Mr. Spector.”

The judge asks Spector if he agrees with Cutler’s application and his desire to be relieved of his responsibilities, and Spector stands and addresses the court, saying “That’s correct, I don’t want Cutler to do the summation”

So the judge grants Cutler’s application and with that. Cutler says he would like to thank his friends in the press corps, his colleagues at the defense table, Mr. Spector and his noble adversaries to the left of him, and he picks up his toys and leaves the sandbox.

The judge then asks the defense about their two sur rebuttal witnesses Jennifer Hayes and Punkin Pie, and tells them that he has re-read the testimony of Pie, Jennifer and Nili Hudson, and he has come to his rulings regarding what the defense would like them to come back and re-address. The specific amount of time that the two had spent with Lana in the last months of her life is admissible, Punkin explaining her Christmas letter is proper rebuttal, but the testimony of the Franklin party is not, since that was covered before, and neither is the whole daytime friends/nighttime friends testimony, as that is a statement of fact, not a state of mind issue. The judge also says that they can’t ask further about Lana’s job at House of Blues, since that was testified to previously.

The judge also rules against asking about L.B. Moon, or “the cowboy”, one of Lana’s last relationships. He also rules against the whole cocaine. drug testimony, as this could have been brought up before and wasn’t, and now has no relevance, since Lana was shown to have no drugs in her system at the time of her death. The judge rules, though, that the defense can have Pie testify as to Lana’s obsession with knowing where her purse was.

With that being settled, the judge only wants to make sure that he is clear on how the defense wants to deal with Cutler’s absence in front of the jury. The defense says that they would prefer that no mention be made of Cutler’s absence and the judge agrees with this, he just wanted to make sure that this is what the defense wanted.

And really, do you think the jury is going to notice? He’s been gone most of the trial, anyway.

The defense then re calls, as their next sur rebuttal witness, Jennifer Hayes.

Jennifer begins by answering questions about the amount of time she spent with Lana in the months before Lana’s death, and despite having testified the first time that she “had bigger fish to fry” and had to keep her kids out of rehab, and therefore didn’t have a lot of contact with Lana just before her death, she now says that she saw Lana at least twice a week during the latter part of 2002 and the early part of 2003. And since most of the contact she says she had with Lana was at “clubs” and “parties”, one wonders where the fuck her teenage kids were – and doesn’t she have like an infant? I guess she won’t have to worry about attending that “Mother of the Year” ceremony.

She says that she saw Lana at different clubs like “Level One”, “The China Club”, “Barfly” and, of course, the Backstage Club, most every Tuesday and Wednesday night. They were always there “supporting Pie”, and I can’t help but wonder why she wasn’t at home “supporting” her kids that needed rehab. Kids live what they learn, you know, and well, when Mom seems to be out clubbing two or three times a week, well, it’s no wonder she had “bigger fish to fry.”

Testimony then focuses on the Franklin party and Jennifer says that although she wasn’t there, she *WAS* invited – she just wants to make sure everyone knows that – she WAS invited. She says that while Pie and Lana were at the party they called her, trying to talk her into going. She declined, saying she was in her pajamas, and Lana told her “Oh, come on! They got me out of *my* pajamas to come – you can come too!” Pie told her on the phone that Lana had flipped out because Lana ran into Michael Bay at the party and he didn’t recognize her, and Lana, was so upset that she said she wanted to end it. Jennifer says that Pie told her Lana had a conversation with Peter Dobson and calmed down. This call lasted just a couple of minutes.

Jennifer then testifies that she got another call from Lana and Pie when they were in the car on their way home after the party. They called from Pie’s phone and they were both talking – and laughing. They were going back and forth on the phone and Pie repeated the earlier story about the snub from Michael Bay.

Jennifer then says that Pie called her again the next morning sometime before dawn where she got “the extended version” of the Michael Bay snub.

Dixon then gets up to cross examine the witness, and he points out that Hayes had testified that the first call from the party was after 11 pm at night, and that the second call was even later than that, since Pie and Lana were on their way home, and that the third call was before dawn. The witness agrees that this is correct.

Dixon then asks Jennifer “Well, gee, weren’t you a little irritated that they kept calling you at such a late hour? I mean, didn’t you have kids at home – and a new baby?”

Hayes says, oh no, this didn’t bother her in the least  – that she was quite used to late night calls and that it wasn’t unusual at all for her to be getting calls so late at night – or early in the morning.

Dixon then asks the witness to confirm her earlier testimony that the second call included a laughing, much calmer Lana and she says yes, it did, but that she wasn’t calm or laughing about the Michael Bay incident, that she was laughing over other things.

Dixon asks if the calls were made to her cell phone or house phone and if all the calls were on the same phone, but the witness can remember none of these details.

Dixon then asks if she still characterized Lana as a “dear friend” and the witness says “Absolutely”. Which, juxtaposed with her testimony, really does seem rather strange.

Dixon then points up again that Hayes sure seemed to be spending a lot of time “clubbing” for someone with a new baby – and Hayes points out that she had a live in nanny. Which makes it all OK. I guess.

On redirect the witness is asked again about the late night calls and why they didn’t bother her – the witness says that she *always* gets late night calls – she has kids that are out late (answering the mystery as to why they are in rehab), and she has friends that live in other countries (who apparently don’t understand the concept of “time zones”) and that Pie and Lana often went to after hour parties that she did not attend (on the nanny’s night off?) and that they would often call her to tell her what she was missing.

She is then asked about the second phone call and the laughing Lana and she again says that Lana was not laughing about the Bay incident – that they were talking about Hayes, in fact.

Hayes then testifies that she misses her friend, that Lana loved her kids, that they shared their lives and she was an amazing person and that Hayes still has difficulty dealing with the loss of her drunk, high, depressed, suicidal, broke, addict friend.

And thankfully this bitch leaves. Probably to go see her kids in rehab and wonder how the fuck they got there.

When we come back from break Brunon again is whining to the judge. This time he is complaining that when Spitz was on the stand the court made a comment that his answers were non responsive and that Spitz was giving narrative answers, and that Rosen, who had made an objection to some questioning by Alan Jackson, should not blame Jackson for the witnesses rambling, because that’s what the witness was doing.

The judge says that he did not mean this as a diss to Spitz, that all the expert witnesses had a tendency to answer as doctors, not as witnesses, and that the state’s witnesses were prone to this as well. Brunon wants the judge to tell the jury this, that he wasn’t complaining about Spitz in particular, and the judge says that he will.

The jury is brought back in and we are treated to the third appearance of Richard Tomlin on the stand. This guy has got to be thinking “what the fucking Fuck?”

Brunon asks the witness if there was music playing at the Castle when he responded to the call on February 3, 2003, and the witness says that yes, there was opera music playing and that it continued to play as the scene was processed. Eventually someone figured out how to turn the music off and did so. Tomlin says he didn’t see any speakers but that the music was being piped all throughout the house. He doesn’t remember if the music was still playing at the time of the sound test the next day.

Alan Jackson crosses the witness and asks if he would refer to this as loud, blaring music or gentle, soft background music, and the witness says it was the latter. Tomlin says that they were holding normal conversations, had no trouble hearing each other and didn’t have to raise their voices above normal speaking tones.

Then the witness we have been waiting for comes into the courtroom – the flaky, crusty Pie herself. She states her name as “Punkin Laughlin” and actually doesn’t look half bad – she and Jennifer Hayes must have been to the same “put it in a bun like a schoolmarm” hairdresser this morning, since this is the style they both have chosen, but at least Pie has a shirt on under her jacket today.

Rosen asks the Pie if, at the behest of Rosen, she prepared a summary from her date book of the events and dates that she had been with Lana from the end of 2001 through 2003.

The witness says that yes, she did prepare such a list.

She starts with an event at the end of 2001 – Pie and Lana went to a party given by Michael Damien at his studio home in the valley on the 23rd or 24th of the month.

And this catches my attention, and I’m wondering if this is Michael Damien – the guy from Young and the Restless that played the rock star Danny something that was married to Cricket something who was later married to Paul the lawyer and got caught in bed with Danny when he came back to her after having the kid with the Phyllis girl only it wasn’t really his kid she drugged him and only said they had sex when they really didn’t. You know – that guy.

Not that I watched the show – my aunt watched it and it was on in the afternoon when I was there and helping her after her accident.

But he was really cute. And I can’t imagine why he would have Pie at one of his parties. She seems a little…..used…..compared to him.

She then goes through about 15 dates that she and Lana were together – including things like a “Bad Company” and an “Allman Brothers” concert, Jennifer Hayes baby shower – surprised she didn’t just have her nanny do that event for her so she could go clubbing – a bunch of parties and birthday parties and Christmas parties and club dates – and she says that these events are in addition to their regular “clubbing” events on Tuesday and Wednesday nights when they would be together.

Rosen then asks the Pie about the Christmas letter. He quotes her the line that was read to the jury by Nili Hudson that says “My Lana, my best friend, my right hand and my inseparable sister, was violently and abruptly taken from me at the hands of Phil Spector.” Rosen asks Pie what she meant by this statement.

Pie then comes out with one of  the most insensible, rambling, lamest ass excuses I’ve ever heard in my life – and I had three kids who were forever giving me lame ass excuses. None of them came close to this pile of shit – and this bitch is an adult who should fucking know better.

Pie says that she included this line because she has friends “all over the world from all different walks of life” and she was explaining to them why they hadn’t heard from her, or gotten their cards and letters that she was normally so good at sending. Which you know, would explain why she would say “Well, Lana, my best friend and my soul sister and my right hand and my inseparable sidekick  – DIED or PASSED AWAY or KICKED THE BUCKET” – that doesn’t explain why she would include the editorialization of “At the hands of Phil Spector!” I mean, does it? Does that explain it? No – I don’t think so.

Then she tells us “I wanted to BROADLY explain why they hadn’t heard from me…:” BROADLY??? Who the fuck does this bitch think she’s fooling? Broadly would be “my friend died” – that’s broadly. NAMING THE PERP is not BROADLY.

I can’t even believe Rosen is believing this pile of shit. Even he has to realize this is NOT an explanation for what she said – it makes no fucking sense.

She continues (believe it or not), and says “The reason I put it that way was because I was trying not to describe it one way or another as to what happened – because no one knows what happened” (Ummmm….Pie, Phil Spector knows, now doesn’t he?), and some people would know about it and some had no idea. I was trying to be politically correct by not saying too much – I was trying to keep it simple.”

Which is completely and utterly diametrically opposed to what she put it in her Christmas letter – she wasn’t “simple”, she wasn’t “not describing it one way or another” she says Lana died at the hands of another – that’s not “not describing it one way or another.” I think that’s making a pretty clear fucking stand on what you think happened, right?

Who the fuck prepared this witness and agreed to let her get on the stand and say this shit? It makes her look like a fucking moron. And it’s insulting to the jury that she thinks this is a reasonable explanation. If *I* was her – I would have said something halfway fucking credible like “Oh, at this point I was still going through the stages of grief, and when I wrote this letter I was up to “blame” and I was blaming Phil Spector, and wrote this. Of course, as I moved through the stages I realized that this was just my grief speaking, and he wasn’t the only one I blamed during that period – I blamed myself, I blamed her mother, I blamed her other friends – it was just where I was at emotionally, at that time. I no longer blame him and realize that Lana had her own demons and that as hard as it is to accept, that she took her own life, and Mr. Spector had nothing to do with it. But that was then and this is now…”

Anything other than this incredible unbelievable poo she’s slinging from the stand. “Oh I said “Lana died at violently and abruptly at the hands of Phil Spector” – because I was just trying to keep it broad and vague out of respect for the family, because they were recipients of the letter, too. You know, not saying anything one way or the other, mind you. Just keeping it all ginger like and conscious of the family and our mutual friends.” What the fuck?

I swear to God, if any of my friend’s ever commits suicide, I’m going to send out a Christmas letter, and just out of respect for the family, and to keep it really BROAD and not inject my opinion into it anywhere, I’m just going to say in my letter “My friend was violently and abruptly taken from me at the hands of Tom Hanks.” I mean, you can’t really read anything into that, right – it doesn’t really MEAN anything, just that I’m being vague – since no one knows what happened.

She’s a fucking maroon if I’ve ever seen one.

Dixon gets up to cross examine and he points out that one of the dates in Pie’s date book says that Lana was with her on 1/17/2002 at the Cat Club – just three weeks after her injury to her wrists. He asks if Lana went out partying with that medical apparatus thing on her injuries – the “halo” appliance, and Pie seems to think “Sure! Not a problem”. 

He also points out that Pie has no actual recollection of any of these events – can’t remember the venues or the dates or the events other than from reading her notes in her date book. She can’t remember where, exactly, the Bad Company concert was, for instance, just that it was “somewhere in Orange County”.

Dixon then asks when she sent out these Christmas letters, and how many people received them, and she says that she assumes they were sent sometime in December, but that sometimes she didn’t get around to it until January or even March, and that because of everything going on, she was late that year getting the letters out, but it was probably sometime around the New Year. She says that she sends them to like 100 of her closest friends.

Dixon then gets specifically to the last line of the letter, and says “OK – you described this as you being political correct?” Yes. “As not describing one way or another how you felt?” Yes. “as not giving an opinion?” Yes. “But you say that Lana was violently and abruptly taken from you at the hands of Phil Spector! Isn’t that a distinct opinion?”

“No, that was just my way of saying what the situation was.”

“But you could have said that she simply passed away – or even that she passed away at his house…:”

“Yeah, I could have…”:

“Yet you say that she was abruptly taken away at the hands of Phil Spector – that’s an opinion, isn’t it?”

“That was my way of describing the situation.”

“You denied seeing Rick Brody at Ann Marie’s wedding and telling him that you hoped that they would “fry the bastard” when talking about Phil Spector – you said that that was something you would never say, because you didn’t believe it, but isn’t that basically what you said here – that in your opinion, she died at the hands of Phil Spector – and isn’t that what you told to 100 of your closest friends and acquaintances in your Christmas letter?”

“That’s not what I meant.”

“Well, isn’t that what you believed in December of 2003, that your best friend died at the hands of Phil Spector?”

“No, I didn’t believe that.”

“And when you talked to Officer Tomlin, the day that she died, you said that she was never suicidal and never depressed you told him the truth, didn’t you?”

“Because someone told me to say that.”

“Well, who told you to say this in the letter?’

“I didn’t want to hurt people”.

“Who? Was Phil Spector on your mailing list?”

I laughed really hard at that, by the way.

Rosen gets up to redirect and really, he can’t do anything  to make anything Pie says sound any more believable, because no one is buying the shit she is trying to sell. It’s just not a saleable product. And all the “Oh, you were trying to encompass the whole situation weren’t you?” “You were trying to be sensitive to the family, right?” that Rosen tries to polish the turd with just makes it sound all the more fucking stupid.

She is finally excused. But she isn’t excused from making me have to listen to her lame ass excuse. My kids really were coming up with better ones than that when they were 10.

Rosen then has an interminable amount of “newly discovered” emails he wants to publish to the jury. He puts them on the ELMO one by one and allows the jury to read them. These are all the emails that say things like “I hurt myself with tequila”, “I’m having major withdrawals from Pain Pills”, “I’m falling in and out of love”, “I’m having money problems”, and they are all out of context and they are all dated 1904 so you don’t know when they were or who half of them were written to or why or in response to what.

These are the kinds of emails you don’t want people going through after you die – so let this be a lesson to us all – clean out your “sent” and “received’ folders once a week. I mean, I write shit to people too – you know, have you ever begged off being with someone you didn’t like by saying  “Oh, I would so love to go with you this weekend, but fuck, we just can’t afford it right now.” or “Oh, I’d love to go with you this weekend, but damn, I’m so pissed off about work and it’s stressing me out so much, I just can’t get away right now!” Or how about “I’d love to, but you know, I have *GOT* to get to the hairdressers – 40 is coming quick and I look like Hell – I’m so GRAY!” And none of this means anything – you just don’t want to spend a whole weekend with the writer of the email. Well, guess what? The next thing you know, someone is going to kill you and then these emails will be up on an ELMO somewhere proving you were broke, a failure in your career and over the fucking hill.  So clean out your email folders. I shit you not.

When we come back from break, the judge tells the assemblage that Beth Karas poisoned the court and the staff. The Court TV remote reporter brought cookies for Judge Fidler and his staff and three of them came down with food poisoning . She brought him another treat again today and he wouldn’t eat it, asking her “Are you kidding me?”

The prosecution then stands and tells the court that they would like to enter the Passport of Melissa Grosvenor into evidence. It seems that when her sister, Angela Pileggi, testified that Melissa was in Atlanta stealing a plaque during the Masters Tournament in 2005, she was sorely mistaken. Miss Grosvenor was actually in Spain on somebody’s private yacht.

The judge asks how they are going to enter the Passport with no foundation, and Jackson offers that a passport is a government document and can be entered under the evidence code of “official records’. Brunon objects as says “no, these stamps on the passport aren’t official US documents”. Jackson argues that it’s the passport itself that is what he is asking the court to recognize, not the stamps, the stamps the jury can decide on, they only add to the weight of the evidence, they aren’t the evidence themselves.

The judge rules that the passport can’t be authenticated by simply being a “government document” – that the government doesn’t keep a copy, that maybe a blank passport is an official document, but one that has been stamped isn’t. He tells the prosecution that if they want to get Grosvenor here to testify and authenticate the document, that this would be proper rebuttal, but they need to have her here by tomorrow.

Alan Jackson says he has a “last ditch” attempt to convince the judge – he says that this *is* an official government document because a person can’t burn it, or throw it away, or sell it, that it belongs to the government and is really only “on loan” to the individual named on it.

The judge says “Sorry, nice try, but I still think it’s not an official government document”.

Rosen then wants a stipulation regarding the dates and events in Pie’s date book, and Dixon says “No way”, since he went over Lana’s day planner and none of the dates or events match up with those on Pie’s list. Rosen counters that the ones that don’t match are clearly events that Lana would have been attending with Pie – such as “Level One” events, which is a club Pie was promoting at the time. Dixon says no, he won’t stipulate to this list. The judge allows the defense to move the entire date book into evidence, to be pared down later when exhibits are vetted.

The prosecution does agree to a stipulation that the transcript of the interview in St. Pete with Devra Robiltaille says “he came and put a gun to my head, and said if you leave I will pull the trigger. I wasn’t trying to leave – it wasn’t violent or anything – he never hit me or tried to get me to take drugs – he wasn’t on drugs and he wasn’t drinking or anything – he wasn’t violent he never hit me or shoved me – he just quietly said if you leave I will pull the trigger.”

This passage isn’t offered for the truth or to verify that this is a correct transcription of the tape – just that the transcript says this.

And the defense rests – subject to the exhibit conference and those other remaining issues.

The prosecution wants a little time to work on the Melissa Grosvenor issue and the court takes another break.

The prosecution also has a pending motion to admit the telephone records between Lana and Jennifer Hayes – and the defense has an outstanding motion regarding the “outrageous government conduct” charge, which concerns the whole Bill Pavelic email and charges.

When court resumes, the prosecution says that they don’t have any more witnesses – so they must have given up on getting Grosvenor here to testify about the passport, and the judge tells the jury that the evidence portion of this case is finished. He tells them that they need a couple of days to go over jury instructions, and that closing arguments will begin on September 5th. He anticipates that these will take 2 days, and that from here on out, they should anticipate being here on Fridays. He then tells them he will expect them all back on 9 am on the 5th.

After the jury is excused for a long needed rest, the judge asks Mr. Plourd and the defense about the whole “outrageous government conduct” motion, and whether or not they are ready to proceed with this. Plourd tells the court that they were unable to obtain an affidavit from Mr. Pavelic. The judge tells the defense that while it’s nice to make allegations, it’s even nicer when you have evidence to back up such allegations, and that everything he has received about this issue has been hearsay.

Linda Kenney Baden then tells the court that the specific allegations they are concerned about concern two robbery/homicide policemen who were sent to interview Gregory Diamond in this case before the judge had appointed the special master, which the judge had to do because the interview dealt with matters that were privileged. The officers went to Mr. Diamond falsely stating that they were there representing Judge Fidler himself. The defense would like a hearing on this issue.

As they were investigating this issue, that is when Bill Pavelic came forward alleging that Mr. White was a government informant, and sending emails to all parties involved in this case saying the same thing.

Plourd says that there is an audiotape of the interview between the two officers and Diamond, but the judge points out that even if everything the defense is saying were true, there is no basis for any misconduct, since the prosecution has never hear this audiotape, that it was sealed and never turned over to them.

Plourd says the basis is that one of the detectives is married to a Deputy DA who works in the DA’s office.

Fidler still wants to know what the specific allegations are – and asks if they are prepared to offer evidence and witnesses – the judge says that if all of this is just allegations, that he’s not interested. He points out that this motion was filed two months ago and they still don’t have anything to present, not even an affidavit from Pavelic – and that he may have gone on TV with his allegations, but apparently he isn’t prepared to repeat them in court under oath.

So this may be a dead issue, but tomorrow we have the boring issue of jury instructions. I have to get out my 1600 page CALJIC book and study up so I can follow along tomorrow. Let’s see if we can make jury instructions FUN!

Advertisements

39 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – The Evidence is Done – And So Is Cutler”

  1. Marie said

    Good thing you weren’t prepping Pie, you made a lot more sense.
    Great reporting as always!

  2. Veronique said

    Waitaminute. A passport isn’t an official government document? I thought a passport practically DEFINED official government document.

    V.

  3. A.D.A. said

    How sweet you are, really. You are the only person on earth who would attempt to make jury instructions FUN! – a fan

  4. noor b said

    Fantastic!

    Wow, you’re good!

    I read somewhere that you are a lawyer, not practicing anymore, I assume.
    Nobody could catch all the testimony and “translate” it for us, the way you do.

    3 kids eh?
    What stories they could tell 🙂

  5. Lajet said

    another great summary. Thanks.

  6. Betty Dominic said

    Thanks for such an informative summary again.
    Will you be doing closing arguments as I will be out of town and unable to watch?
    I really hope you will
    Thanks again.

  7. elicia said

    beth karas, murderess via tainted cookies? she has the perfect cover job ~ too bad she didnt offer them to Phil.

  8. enlightenme said

    I agree with Marie, it’s a good thing for the prosecution that you weren’t the one prepping Pie.

    She gives a whole new dimension to “lying through your pie-hole”.

    Great article, as always. Had me laughing like a hyena!

  9. susan said

    # Betty Dominic Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Thanks for such an informative summary again.
    Will you be doing closing arguments as I will be out of town and unable to watch?
    I really hope you will
    Thanks again.

    Are you kidding, if the Defense were smart they would have Kim give their closing arguments for them…..Kim you are brilant!

  10. Gail said

    I was always taught, one was to clean up their own shit, so I hope Cutler at least left behind his sand shovel for his ex-colleagues for the honey dippen. You know, the ones without a shred of common sense!

    DESPERATION=PIE!

    I think this has been the most disjointed and unprepared defense team ever–ever ever to my recollection!

    Look Up^ does Cutler have his lower lip out pouting or does he not have an upper lip?

    Thanks Kim, as usual you are hilarious!

  11. CarolynNVa said

    Bravo Kim! Excellent blog!

  12. llylabrat said

    “flaky, crusty Pie” is perfect! i had just been calling her the fuckin’ bitch.

  13. Jim said

    You always make me laugh, but that bit with the Christmas letter pointing the finger at Tom Hanks had me laughing so hard I had to get up and do dishes for 10 minutes, I couldn’t even read the rest of your post I was laughing so hard.

    Paraphrasing Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now “Some day this trial is going to end…”

  14. Sedonia Sunset said

    LOVE your blog, as always! I was LOL (VERY loud)! I have a question for you: Do you think Bruce Cutler looks more like <a href=”http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x149/sedoniasunset/Misc%20Phil%20Spector/?action=view&current=bcvstorjohnson.jpg”<Tor Johnson (he played the monster in many Ed Wood movies) or WC Fields?

    Sedonia Sunset

  15. susanp said

    Is it possible that the defense brought back Pie to make sure that PS is convicted so they will have a continuing job with him?
    I do believe that the defense has missed it’s best theory of a possible suicide. If I were such a beautiful woman as Lana was and found myself spending an evening with such a creep I might throw it all away.
    I will be sad to have this case end and not be getting your great thoughts. What’s up next?

  16. barskin said

    While I was listening to the latest installment in the Pie Chronicles yesterday, I kept thinking, “I can’t wait to read Kim’s take on this one.” And you came through, as expected. Thanks again, to both Pie in all her idiocy and you for your wit, for the laughs!

  17. Glenda said

    The thing that has stood out to me each time the “Christmas letter” was read in court was Pie’s description of how depressed SHE was, how down SHE was after breaking up with her future husband and father of her children, how Lana cheered HER up and got her through the holidays, how Lana encouraged HER to eat right, to exercise, to get her shit together.

    And then, all of a sudden, it is Lana who is depressed, down, suicidal??? When did she possibly have time to do that in between going to clubs to support Pie and being Pie’s cheerleader? I kept wanting the Prosecution to jump on that and they never did.
    Of course, one must pick and choose because Pie gives one such a banquet of options to select from in a cross. I agree Kim–my kids could have come up with better reasoning if I had caught them red handed in bed with a dude smoking a joint at 17.

    It seems to me that the defense should have left it alone after Lilli (whatever her name was) read the letter. It would have just been a piece of the evidence. They turned it into a HUGE elephant in the room that has now been plastered into their minds right before closing. Pie said Phil did it. Pie couldn’t explain why she said Phil did it. Pie is a liar. Not a smart move.

    And really, who told her to tell the policeman at the scene that Lana was not depressed or suicidal? When did she have time to confer with spin doctors? And where were the spin doctors when she told this same policeman that she thought Phil did it? Can’t have it both ways, Ms Pie.

  18. Bill (IObject!) said

    As usual, Kim, as usual. Brilliant. Hilarious. Informative. Insightful.

    What the fuck more can any reader ask for.

    As always,

    Bill

  19. Vor100 said

    Kim…absolutely amazed at your writing! I wish I had that talent because you’ve said everything I can’t put into words. Without a doubt, I believe Hayes & Pie’s testimony yesterday put the nails in Phil Spector’s coffin…I am going to miss reading your daily take on the truly pathetic Team Spector defense. You, sprocket, dini, cca and many other posters have made this trial so very interesting. I want to say thank you to all of you who kept the rest of us up-to-date and informed. That was a lot of hard work and personal sacrifice. Thank you all.

  20. Hawk said

    I do not understand the fascination people have with things like this case. Who cares? It’s not interesting and it’s certainly not newsworthy!

  21. Glenda said

    Then what are you doing reading a blog about it? 🙂

  22. CloseReader said

    Great job, as always. Absolutely the BEST BEST BEST source of accurate information on this trial (shorter versions would be the L.A. Times IMO.)

    Your section on emails and what we should do with them is a real side-splitter (I have had them come up in court by a judge with shit for brains–). I have sent links to friends, specifying that email section. SO FUNNY and so true. I needed that LAUGH!! and serious reminder.

    So, yesterday was one of Roger’s HUGE days–he was giddy with excitement after the departure of Bruce: giddy, silly, happy, gay. The BEST DAY of his life, he PROPELLED into that chair to the left of the one. He is comfortable with creeps; he and Phil are a lot alike. Manipulative, narcissistic, etc.
    Some people experience the illusion of first-blush popularity through this murder trial.

    Raise your hand if you ever thought Cutler was going to do “closing?”
    Mine’s down. It was VERY OBVIOUS he was fixin’ to say “Adios.” Won a cuppa somethin’ on that one. Almost won my fisticuffs-in-the-courthouse bet last week, but there still is time.

    Wonderin’—could you hear various jurors yelling “…next…” when they were done reading this or that email?? Somethings you guys can hear better over CTV sound and some things not. The email sequence was fairly ho-hum in visible juror impact.

    The jurors were definitely in the GET THE FUCK ON WITH IT, ROGER stage yesterday. Damn I’d love to hear juror chat on Roge.

    This jury is cool, can’t wait till you all can see them. I have confidence in them, they are not dumb, they are Anglenos, no they haven’t *missed* a thing…do not underestimate the group intelligence, or the group community.

    We wait to hear how the judge will phrase all of his instructions and explain Henry Lee and his gang.

    I am SURE the defense has convinced the accused that they have one juror–all that pointing at them and chats between Phil and Cruce (i think i’ll leave that typo there). Trust me–Phil and Cruce were tight till the very end. TIGHT. The two of them worked this thing out weeks ago, and even the tiniest DROP of intuition had one just waiting to see how he was going to pull off not sitting by a murderer as the verdict is read, now that the tv show is done (I’m wondering—did bad news about the tv career feed into Bruce’s gotta-go timing?)

    Let’s see–what was dumber:
    -posting Lana’s emails
    -taking the jury through Devra’s terror one more time, or
    -calling Miss Pie again?

    Big hero: DaSouza. Got what his mama gave him–he instinctively did the RIGHT thing. Huge shock to Philly. HUGE.

    Big winner: Bruce Cutler. Period.

    (Methinks Miss Pie’s testimony got the Clarkson ladies laughing out loud, shaking their heads in amazement and disbelief; she is important and provides the important counter-relief against this comedy (tregedy involves the heroic fall, and this case does not involve a hero’s fall; Phil is NOT the stuff of Sophocles.)

    Ya da gal Missy. We’s hangin’…
    (Love the hypothetical set-up of evidence on the web should Paul get funny around some sort of power tool, and then round-up friends to tes.ti.fy.)

  23. CloseReader said

    PS

    sorry; Pie was well prepared by Tawni, hours and hours, observed by anyone who passed through the hallway at the Courthouse. Someone took her shopping for a new outfit and worked over the facial redness problem. Overall, and considering, Pie exceeded expectations!

  24. IndyGena said

    I LOVE reading the blogs to this trial – especially this one. I have no idea what I will do in my spare time once it all ends and the jury finds Mr. Spector guilty, guilty, guilty. Guess we can look forward to the numerous appeals.
    Gotta say that the Pie was one of the dumbest moves the defense made… what a bunch of idiots!

  25. Margret Kendall said

    You have put the thoughts in my head perfect in your writing. Pie is nothing but a professional opportunist. I am sure she expects remuneration for her ridiculous and unworthy performance.

  26. barskin said

    Don’t listen to Sedonia Sunset. Bruce Cutler has won the Don Rickles look-a-like contest 10 years in a row. He’s like the Lance Armstrong of the Rickles competition, without the performance enhancing drugs contraversy, of course.

  27. LOL said

    Let us get things straight. First there is no justice – only money.
    Second – Lets get things straight – It takes weird courage to say in front of millions that you did not disclose everything to the police in Feb 2003 – and so Pie’s public admission – may have the ring of truth – even if the rest is nonsense.

    Second – Let us get things straight – Bruce Cutler a nice lawyer from New York had no option but to quit this trial because of Judge Larry Fidler’s demand that Cutler not probe the Prosecutions’ female witnesses testimony too deeply for cracks and flaws below the surface.

    Bruce Cutler a legendary New York lawyer became a stranger in a strange courtroom who got shot down and gagged by the Judge – Larry Fidler, and was prevented from properly representing -Phil Spector, because of the Fidler of the Courtroom – and not the Phantom of the Opera.

    This trial is just a crap shoot. And its costing Phil and the LA Tax payers a million dollars for each crap.

  28. CloseReader said

    As an LA taxpayer, may I say that this trial is worth every fucking penny.

  29. barskin said

    LOL, you live up to your name. No, Bruce Cutler was not reprimanded for looking “too deeply for cracks and flaws below the surface” of the PBA witnesses. He was told not to yell and point at witnesses. PERIOD. He was cross examining them with the same style he used on people like Benny “the lip” Rigatoni. He forgot that they were not made guys who turned states’ witnesses; they were decent women who experienced horrors at the wrath of Phil Spector for exercising what they believed was their right to leave his presence.

    Oh, and you may think “It takes weird courage to say in front of millions that you did not disclose everything to the police in Feb 2003.” Really? If “the rest is nonsense, then how can you believe for one second that she honestly “did not disclose everything to the police in Feb 2003?” Good try at sticking up for La Pie, but I think that’s a lost cause.

    But, gosh, LOL, aren’t you the merry optimist? When others look at what is and ask, “why,” you look at what’s why and ask, “what is?”

  30. LOL said

    Will LA Tax payers agree that this trial is worth every penny if Phil Spector walks?

    Or is this trial really worth every penny because it makes for good theater in LA, and entertainment in poking fun at the accused, and the abused.

    Isn’t a person innocent until proven guilty. Lets see what the jury does now.

  31. LOL said

    Is Barskin message intended to be unfriendly?

    I don’t see how anyone can say that Phil Spector’s ex-girl friends were “decent” women as if they were so decent they would have risen above their fear and horror (so as to protect their careers such as managing Joan Rivers (and make money) or protecting their on-going relationship with Phil and come forward far sooner to complain against Phil Spector for his alleged behavior which would have curtailed “it” far earlier and may have even saved a life and so I can hardly call Phil Spector’s ex-girlfriends the ones I saw decent women. I call them cowards, and liars and part of Keeping the problem alive if the problem really existed. After all they were free to leave Phil at any time – but they didn’t leave for some reason. They stayed for more abuse.

    Judge Larry Fidler should have kept his thumb off the scales of justice and let Bruce Cutler brucify these stupid string of female witnesses who were too dopey to press charges against Phil Spector for alleged wrongdoing and instead stayed in the same dysfunctional relationship with Phil for years and years after and allowed him from time to time to put a gun up to their heads but NOT shoot them.

    However in the Hollywood Hills on Christmas Eve 2001 Lana Clarkson made the distinction of doing harm to herself in front of others – before Phil Spector was ever in her self inflicted picture of two broken wrists and thus I don’t believe Phil Spector should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

    Because there is reasonable doubt in that Lana inflicted serious harm upon herself before she ever knew Phil Spector and before Lana ever to a risk in going home with him – a stranger – at 2 in the morning and thus it is also reasonable to believe that Lana may have also inflicted serious harm upon herself again on Feb 3rd 2003 for final time.

  32. holy toledo said

    Bravo!!!

    Did I get this right. Pie sent the xmas letter to 100 of her closest friends…100 closest friends???? She’s a complete idiot to say that.
    And did she send the letter to Lana’s family at xmas time and remind them of Lana’s death. I simply cannot believe this woman could be so friggin’ stupid and insensitive. This defies imagination.

    You know what I wish? I hope the jurors find your blog after the trial so they can have some really good belly laughs. They deserve it. And Kim, you deserve to be paid. Christ, a thimble???? Aw, come on…..

  33. Hermit said

    Should Phil Spector be found guilty, I just wonder if any of the baliffs will mention to Phil that they will pull their guns on him if he tries to leave the courtroom…

    Would that be karma or irony? Maybe both. Karmony!

  34. Great coverage, nice to meet other Spector trial junkies! Hey yall!

    I used your photo of Pie’s cleavage today on my blog (July 12 post)–so thank you.

    I might have to work during closing arguments, so I’ll be back to read your account.

  35. PS: I also quoted you, if that’s okay. You are fantastic!

    (((hugs))) Thanks for seeing through the hype.

    If he walks, I will tear my hair out.

  36. Glenda said

    LOL I applaud you. While I don’t see the evidence through your lens AT ALL, you have the courage of your convictions to state what you believe in the midst of a bunch of bloggers who obviously don’t share the same opinion. Good for you.

    I don’t understand how you came to those conclusions, but it will be interesting to see if the jury saw it from your perspective or from mine. I agree that at this point it is a crap shoot. I don’t want an innocent man to go to prison, but I don’t want a dangerous man to walk just because he has a name (like others we could list here) and celebrity trials have a way of turning on a dime when you least expect it.

  37. LOL said

    Thanks Glenda

    All points of view should be considered and screened for fallacies in reasoning and/or fallacies in fact and any other fallacies that might come into play.

    As far as my conclusions I believe there is room reasonable doubt.

    This is because Lana inflicted serious harm upon herself by breaking both her wrists at a christmas party in 2001 before Lana Clarkson ever knew Phil Spector – and before Lana ever went home with Phil Spector, a complete stranger in her black slip at 2 in the morning in Feb 2003.

    As Lana in Dec 2001 inflicted serious harm upon herself by breaking both her wrists before Lana Clarkson ever knew Phil Spector it is reasonable to believe that Lana may have also inflicted serious harm upon herself again on Feb 3rd 2003 as the tendancy to inflict harm upon herself cannot be disputed as she did it to herself and was “accident” prone.

    It is possible that what Phil Spector did or did not do in the past may be superfluous and the stream of allegedly abused girlfriends could just be a diversion and red herring fallacy – which takes away from what Lana Clarkson was doing to herself i.e. Lana’s accident prone tendancy which was first demonstrated in 2001 when she broke both her wrists at a time before she ever knew Phil Spector.

    It is possible that what happened on 3rd Feb 2003 was another self inflicted harm against Lana upon herself. The final “accident” to an accident prone individual – Lana Clarkson.

  38. Nancy said

    Fishy.

  39. Hawk said

    To Glenda, well I happened to be sauntering by and took a few minutes to read some of the commentary on about this case – that’s why!

    I bet you and the others were equally absorbed by the O.J. trial…yes?

    To each their own. Neither good nor bad. Just my opinion.

    Enjoy and have a blessed day – whatever that may look like for you!

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: