The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 975,430 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

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

CA vs. Spector – Revisiting Opening Statements – Linda Kenny Baden

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 3, 2007

 Here is the transcript of Linda Kenny Baden’s opening statement. Since her major points were broken down into 10 points, we can actually score her based on her own promises. 10 out of 10 would be a perfect score, meaning that she proved through testimony each of her ten points. How do you score her?

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Good morning Judge Fidler. I think I spoke to some of you last Wednesday or last Thursday, and others earlier this week on Monday, and others I’ve never spoken to directly. So this is the first time I’m addressing all of you directly. As you know and have heard, my name is Linda Kenny Baden, and it’s a pleasure to finally get to speak to all of you in an opening statement to represent Phillip Spector.

Lee start out by saying Phillip Spector is innocent

Jackson: Objection, this is argument

The evidence will show

Fidler; Thank You

that the science proves he is innocent. Not only does he stand before you presumed innocent , the scientific facts will tell you that he is factually innocent. The scientific facts will show you that the government is selling you a story, because they are not giving you all the scientific facts or all the correct scientific facts or even most of the scientific facts. We have one unimpeachable witness, who, the evidence will show you, has no motive for or against anybody, the witness has no motive to lie, for or against any person. The witness has no memory problems, the witness has no language problems, and that witness is called science. One of the reasons that we use science in any area of investigation, especially a criminal investigation, because it can tell you whether witnesses who have memory problems or language problems or motives to lie, are mistaken, wrong or mere out lying

Jackson: Your honor, once again, I have to object, this is argument

Fidler: You know what, in a way it’s a form in a opening statement it may be used in a sort of a storybook fashion, I’m going to allow it right now, the objection is overruled.

The science will tell you here who did what. The science will tell you what happened. The science will tell you through the evidence of science, that Phillip Spector did not shoot, did not shoot, Lana Clarkson, the decedent, that he did not hold the gun and that he did not pull the trigger. That is one of the central issues in this case. Who was holding the gun. Not who may have found it. Not who may have exposed it. Not who may have owned it. Not where it came from. Only who was holding the gun when the gun went off. The science will tell you that Phillip Spector was not holding the gun in the decedent’s mouth. The science will tell you that he was not close enough – he was not close enough  – to hold the gun in the decedent’s mouth. The evidence will show you that the government’s case is a story, made up from people who were not there. The science was there. And it will tell you what happened. And the science does not need fancy PowerPoint presentations. It does not need colors of green and red and gold and blue. It does not need circles and it does not need lists.

Dixon: Objection, isn’t this argument at this point?

Fidler: No, it’s still appropriate opening statement. I’ll allow it.

It does not need lists, .Because we’re going to give you, and we’re going to show you, through the science, and you’ll see it as it comes in, and we’re going to talk about some of them now, just so you’ll have a background. The science will show you in itself, and let you will then make the judgments, you will  make the lists, you will draw the circles, you will make the conclusions.

Science will show you that her death was caused by what is called a self inflicted gunshot wound. That means you did it to yourself. Science, unfortunately, cannot tell you what was in her mind. Science can tell you that the decedent was holding the gun, that the decedent had the barrel in her mouth, with her lips loosely closed on the barrel and it was she, the decedent, who pulled the trigger. Science may also have suggested that she even loaded the gun.

Mr. Jackson yesterday gave you some hypothesis. Scientific hypothesis from what he expects are his witnesses. Hypothesis are merely that. They are speculations, they are not proof and hypothesis have inconsistencies and assumptions and prejudgments in them. What you heard from Mr. Cutler, and what you will see from the science, is that somehow, conclusions were formed that Phillip Spector committed a homicide, a murder, before conducting an unbiased investigation through the science. That the government ignored the science, or bent the science, when it didn’t show, when it didn’t support their findings, or may have shown that Phillip Spector did not hold the gun, did not pull the trigger, was not close enough to do that and is innocent.

The science will tell us what really happened. From the get go, there was an assumption, before the first police report was written, that he was guilty. In scientific community this is called engaging in a fallacy. And there will be testimony on this. It’s called circular reasoning in the scientific community. If you assume that a murder is committed and you structure an investigation to demonstrate that, then it’s not an objective scientific investigation. The scientific evidence here does not support the less reliable evidence that they are going to be putting before you, such as witness recollections, witness statements, because the witnesses, the science will show, either made mistakes, didn’t remember properly, or told deliberate untruths.

And we’d like to summarize now for you, Mr. Plourd and I, Chris Plourd, who will be working with me during this case, the 10 areas, the 10 areas, that are based on scientific fact, that proves that Phillip Spector was not holding the gun, did not discharge the gun, did not put the gun in the mouth, and proves his innocence.

The first: The location of the bullet wound. The location of the wound and the bullet path of the wound shows it was a self inflicted wound. The wound in this case, and you’re going to hear from the experts, it’s called an intra-oral wound, and that’s a technical term, that the forensic pathologists use, that is those who are trained in the investigation of unnatural deaths or deaths that occur early in life, they call it an intra oral wound, that means, that means, that the gun was in her mouth,  her lips were closed around the gun loosely, and that the barrel was in her mouth at the time that the gun went off. This is what is called a classic self inflicted type of injury. Classic self inflicted type of injury. And it means that somebody volitionally placed the gun in her whole mouth. The wound is in the tongue. Part of the wound. Which means that the bullet grazed the tongue. The wound is an inch and a half back in the tongue. After your tongue, you know, you all have lips, and you have teeth, and your whole mouth is about two inches. The barrel of this gun was two inches. That’s how they know the barrel, science knows, was in the mouth, all the way in the mouth. Science will tell you that the general view of forensic pathologists is that you do not swallow a gun like that unless you are volitionally doing it. You’re doing it to yourself. So in addition to the fact that it was intra oral, and in addition to the location of the tongue wound all the way back, the bullet grazed her tongue. In addition to that it means it was also like a contact type wound, it had what’s called a stellite appearance. Which in fancy words means a star shaped appearance. That’s how come they can tell the barrel was against or on top of the tongue.

Additionally there’s no damage to the decedent’s mouth. Outside her mouth. If somebody points a gun and shoots it in front of your face, you’re going to have damage outside the mouth,. You’re going to have damage on the lips. If somebody pushes a gun in your mouth that you don’t want to go there, you’re going to have broken front teeth. And those teeth will be broken out here, in. Not in, out. The decedent’s teeth were not broken by somebody pushing a gun inside her mouth. They were broken from the inside out, and I’ll talk with you a little bit more about what the importance of that is, but what it does mean, for now, in terms of the bullet path and the bullet wound is that no one shoved a gun through her teeth inside a mouth.

Now, we don’t have the answer to what was in her mind when she put the barrel in the mouth. Was she acting recklessly because of her history? Because of things that happened that night or some other reason? But what we do know is that she put the barrel in her mouth. We know she was drinking, we know she was taking pills. You’ll hear that from the state’s witnesses, we believe the evidence will show. We know that she had hurt herself before when she was drinking tequila. The state, the evidence will show, had the decedent’s computer. We know that in her computer, she wrote that she “hurt myself, of course, injured as usual by drinking tequila.” We know that tequila was consumed by the decedent that night, because her fingerprints are around the neck of the bottle. She had been on years of pain medication, we know, for a very long time, for some unbearable, excruciating and extraordinarily headaches and chronic pain she was having. We know, because the state gave it to us, the government gave it to us, that less than two months before she died, in December 2002 she wrote that she really trashed her apartment in the midst of a depression. We also know that in that same December, less than two months before she died, she said “I am going to tidy my affairs and chuck it, because it’s really all too much for this girl to bear anymore”. According to people that knew her, she was depressed over the holidays, the evidence will show. She had a history of depression going back to 1994 of the type where she couldn’t stop crying. Ladies and gentlemen, these are her words, I am not interpreting them. So what she was thinking when the gun was fired by her own hand, we cannot tell you. We can only tell you what the facts are.

The path of the wound. The path of the wound. The path of the bullet wound is consistent and entirely characteristic of a self inflicted wound. This is from their coroner. A forensic examiner named Dr. Pena. See the path is slightly upward. The same path you would get if you were holding a gun yourself. Upward. Upward. Not if somebody is shooting standing in front of you shooting downward. It’s even more important here, because the evidence will show that the decedent was seated in a chair that was very low to the ground. Only about 15 inches off the ground. Only about 15 inches off the ground. So the path of the wound entirely, entirely shows that she was seated low and yet, the trajectory of the wound, and the trajectory is a fancy word meaning bullet path, is slightly upward, exactly as it would be if she were holding the gun in front of her mouth and in her mouth.

The evidence will tell you, and is going to show you, that the first police on the scene, who were untrained in scientific reconstruction, thought the decedent had been shot elsewhere. They thought that there was good evidence that she had been shot on the stairs and moved. And that’s why, the reason why, is because when she shot herself, the gasses of the gun caused her teeth to project right up onto the stairwell. So they believed initially that somehow, Phillip Spector, tiny man, carried Lana Clarkson down and placed her in the chair. Apparently, the dates not proceeding on that story. But that’s how the story got birth. Because the teeth were elsewhere. When that evidence, when that evidence, did not explain the physical evidence, when it was very clear that that hypothesis, that speculation, was not true and did not fly, the next thing the coroner was looking for, was some evidence based on a belief that Phillip had somehow shoved the gun up through her teeth and shot her through her teeth. Through her teeth. So they looked for something scientifically called bullet wipe. Very simply, on the tip of a bullet, when it leaves a gun, there’s a black substance, a chemical substance, that is black. And so, when it’s shot it leaves against something, it leaves a wipe. It leaves a black wipe. That’s why it’s called bullet wipe. It’s very simply a scientific principle. There was no bullet wipe. None. So now, they could not explain, the evidence will show, the physical evidence that pointed to the undisputed fact that this was a self inflicted wound, because the gun was not shot outside her mouth, there was no bullet wipe, the gun was in her mouth, all the way, in her mouth, loosely closed, and you’ll hear why they can tell that when we get to specific testimony, and the trajectory of the gun wound and the actual stellite shape of the gun wound, showed that it was characteristic of a self inflicted wound.

Yesterday Mr. Jackson told you that there was going to be testimony or something that a woman would not have shot herself in the mouth. That simply is old school thinking and untrue.

Jackson: Objection you honor, That was not a part of my opening statement, I never made that statement.

Fidler. Again, ladies and gentlemen, an opening statement is not evidence and it will not be judged as such.

We are going to show you through evidence, and we are not going to just sit back, we are going to present evidence to you, and the people that are going to be discussing some of the evidence about the gunshot wound are people that have written several of the textbooks that are used by the people in their industry. In fact, the evidence will show you, that one of our people that will be talking to you, Dr. Vncent DiMaio, who just retired as the pathologist senior head of a major county in Texas where Mr. Jackson is from, as y’all heard, I’m practicing my y’all, Mr. Jackson

Jackson: Keep working on it

Thank you. It’s tough when you are from Jersey to say it. Dr. Vincent DiMaio. His book is because he met with Dr. Pena, is on Dr. Pena’s desk. So you’re going to hear from some of the lead people that have written textbooks on these matters, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Luckily, Mr. Spector, because of who he had been, is able to, just as if you had a heart condition, or if you had something wrong with you and you were dying of cancer, you’d want to go to the best you can go to, you want to go to the best you can go to. There’s nothing wrong with that. And it’s the people, that even the people Mr. Jackson will be presenting for you, go to to get some of their information.

So, what do we know first. Location and path of the wound. This is a self inflicted intra oral gunshot wound, which means volitional conduct on her part. Is a key finding of physical evidence that science uncovered. It is a key finding that says this is a self inflicted wound.

Next: Blood Spatter. The pattern and distribution of the blood spatter, the pattern and distribution of the blood spatter, shows that Phillip Spector did not shoot that gun. Now, I just discussed with you the nature of an intra oral wound, and it’s crucial for the understanding in a scientific way, in order to discuss the blood spatter, that this wound was intra oral. To look at the blood pattern analysis that Mr. Jackson talked to you about yesterday, Mr. Jackson told you, and I know I have this right, that blood spatter can only go out, in a gunshot wound such as this, 36 inches, or a maximum, a maximum, of three feet. The evidence is going to show you that that was a misleading statement and untrue. And whoever gave him that information is wrong. We had Dr. Henry Lee, the criminalist who has taught a lot of the criminalists in the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department, also another author of one of the major textbooks in crime scene investigation, and some of our other people, Dr. Werner Spitz, who has written the lead textbook in forensic pathology, listen, listen yesterday to what Mr. Jackson relayed to you he anticipated that the evidence would be on the science. Whoever gave him the hypothesis that blood spatter from an intra oral gunshot wound can only go three feet is taking their information not from wounds that are intra oral. Now what do I mean by that?

And let me just digress for one second before I tell you what I mean by that. I’m sorry and I apologize if I seem a bit callous in talking about this item, when you’re talking about the death of any person, but when you discuss science, these are the kind of items that the criminalists and the forensic pathologists look at, and this is the terms they use, and this is how they discuss them, and so for me, to try to explain what I believe the evidence will show to you in the future, I have to use the same type of terms and discussions that they do, and they’re used to it, obviously, because they do it every single day of their life, that is their life. So I don’t mean to appear callous to the death of anyone when I’m discussing that with you.

Intra oral gunshot wounds are not your normal gunshot wound that occurs when you shoot somebody in a large part of their body, or through their arms or anything of that sort. And many of the tests that were done with blood spatter are done unfortunately with animals, to see how much blood spatter can go through. But there is a difference when there is a wound in the mouth when there is no exit to that wound. And here you heard Mr. Jackson tell you that the bullet went in and never exited. Now why is that important? When a gun goes off, the gasses, the gasses with the gun are huge and enormous. Enormous. Enormous pressure. If the wound goes through – a head, or a body or is in a body cavity, Mr. Jackson told you that’s forward spatter, it takes, it goes through with energy and it goes through the body, goes through the body. But if there is an intra oral wound without an exit, without an exit, the gasses have, they’re trapped in the head cavity, they have no place to go, so what happens is a person becomes almost like a chipmunk, they expel back out. They expel back out, and there is no forward spatter, all the gasses accumulate and become hugely pressurized and expel back out.


I ended with it explodes out of your mouth with the gasses. Kind of like, and you’ll hear evidence of this, kind of like the principle in a soda can, generic, I don’t want a product placement here. If you open it you’ll hear a poof, and there’s a little gasses and if you really shake it up, it explodes out. And the lips are more pliable, the mouth is more pliable, so it really goes out, it just doesn’t go out like a little nozzle, it really goes out. Like a cone shape.

The reason why there’s not that many actual studies is because we don’t go around putting guns in people’s mouths and shooting them to try to get actual studies of what happens with intra oral gunshot wounds. So therefore, you have to, the evidence will tell you, rely on a lot of the experience of the forensic pathologists that have been doing this for hundreds of years. And one of them that we will bring before you will be Dr. Werner Spitz who wrote the textbook that’s in it’s fourth edition that all the people in the industry rely on, And they will tell you, the people that do this every day, the forensic pathologists that see intra oral gunshot wounds, that blood, and also the criminalists, Dr. Lee does this, that this type of intra oral, not a normal gunshot wound to the body where there’s an in and out, or a gunshot wound to an arm, or a gunshot wound where there’s forward spatter, but this type of intra oral wound with the build up of the pressure, and because it’s in the head, expels blood spatter out 72 inches – 6 feet. And at times even more. It can go 7 or 8 feet. And you’re going to hear about some evidence that’ll suggest that happened here.

Now, when Mr. Jackson yesterday told you that it only goes out 3 feet, remember, the state is going to try to prove to you that Mr. Spector had to be close to Lana Clarkson, because the only way somebody could put a gun in somebody’s mouth and shoot it is if they’re pretty close. They tried to tell you yesterday, and Mr. Jackson told you also when he told you about the three feet, which is absolutely wrong, that the size of the spatter on Lana Clarkson’s slip and the size of the spatter on Mr. Spector’s white, white coat, was equal in size and therefore that meant, according to, and he put the name of Dr. Lynne Herrold up on the PowerPoint slide, that meant that Mr. Spector was standing as close to her as her slip was on her and that would take him within the three foot range. That’s what they told you. You can all remember that. The evidence is going to prove to you that that way to look at blood pattern analysis is misleading and wrong. You will be hearing and you will make the judgment, you will be able to make the determination, not because we tell you, but because of what you hear, the evidence will show, that to determine how far an item is, such as a white jacket, is away from somebody or far away from somebody, to make a distance determination of how far somebody is standing away from when a gun is shot, you don’t just look at the size of the spatter, that is not complete, that is not a complete analysis, you have to look at the size of the spatter, you have to look at the numbers of the spatter on the garments, and you have to look at the density, and I’m going to show you some pictures of what I mean in a second. And the density means unit area. In other words, if I have a unit three feet here or 12 inches here and there maybe let’s say 100 here, then if somebody is standing next to you, there should be equal distribution of that spatter, that unit area. So you don’t just look at size. You have to take all three into account to make a valid and complete determination of distance scientifically. And here, it kind of gets drowned out a little bit, but you’re going to see the actual evidence, this is just a prelude to what we’re going to discuss. See these little dots here, drops here all over, that’s what we’re talking about when we call spatter. This is the right side of the jacket. Again, you see, different spatter. Again. All sorts of spatter. The left side of the jacket all sorts of spatter and tissue. It’s all over her clothes, her jacket, her slip. It’s even on the chair. The arm of the chair. It goes all over just as I tell you. It goes out into that cone. And that’s just the spatter you can see and hear. You’re going to hear testimony, evidence is going to come before you, that some of the spatter was actually, was obscured. Because there was something called a purge. And I just want to demonstrate to you, if blood comes out or something is put in blood, it may cover up some of the spatter that’s below it, as blood comes out. At the medical examiner’s office – accidentally, accidentally, and her jacket was actually put in some of the blood, obscuring some of the what would be the blood spatter under it.

You have to compare the size, the numbers and the density on Lana Clarkson, against the white jacket of Phillip Spector. Because if he’s standing in that three foot zone, if he’s standing close to her or next to her, there would be an equal distribution of the size, the number and the density. Common sense that Mr. Jackson alluded to, If I got my arm into his face, and spatter comes out, it’s going to get all over my arm, my coat, it’s going to go up my coat, inside my sleeves, it’s going to go in the, the, I’m not wearing one, but the shirt cuff. It’s going to be all over. Common sense.

Here, here, in this case, the spatter was all over her jacket, her slip, her chest. Mr. Jackson said, and I believe I have this quote right, that Spector’s jacket was covered with blood. I thank him for showing the picture for us of Phillip’s jacket because it was not covered with blood. That whole right sleeve was not covered with blood of the size, the density. It wasn’t covered with blood at all. The jacket had, at the very most, on the left hand side only, only, the left hand side. At the very most, 18 blood spatters. And I say at the most because only 7 tested positive under DNA for blood. So there may be as little as 7. But assuming 18, because it doesn’t matter. Because they’re very diverse, they’re kind of like spread out. There’s no pattern, they’re random. They are not of the same density, they’re not of the same numbers, that would have to be found if he were standing next to her and shot her.

The reason why is because, the evidence will show you, he was not standing next to her and shot her. Because his right arm was not up in her mouth holding a gun. In addition to the fact that we know the spatter goes around, because it’s on the chair, it’s on her jacket, it’s on her slip, and all, and it’s on the armchair. There was none on Phillip Spector’s pants. There was none on the shirt he was wearing. I don’t have them, but the men’s shirt. There was none on the cuff, that comes out and you guys will know what I’m talking about, out of your jacket. There was none underneath the cuff here. There was none in his hair, there was none on his shoes. As compared to the amount of the spatter that Lana Clarkson the decedent had. If Spector was standing, if Phillip was standing, close enough to the decedent to put the gun barrel all the way in her mouth, and pull the trigger, he would have had an equal distribution, an equal pattern. If he was up there it would have been all over him, like it was all over her, and it wasn’t.

And we’re able to tell this even though some of the spatter from the decedent was actually removed. And you’re going to hear that some of the rules of collection were not followed, that on her hands the coroner’s investigators took off because they wanted to test it, at the time in Spector’s house, they took off spatter off her hands to test it. Before properly photographing it and documenting it. And later on, and you’re going to hear evidence, I expect the evidence is going to show, that there was kind of a big brouhaha between the coroner and certainly some disagreement, and the sheriff’s lab criminalists, because they couldn’t tell from the pictures what was spatter on her hands and arms and what was freckles. And each said it was not my job.

But in any event, despite all that, we still have enough, because we have, thank God, a white coat, and we have, thank God, her jacket, and we have her slip, and we have his shirt, and we have his pants, and we have all that. And the spatter shows it was a self inflicted wound, that Phillip Spector was simply too far way, that his jacket was too far away, and he was too far away to be holding the gun.

What you will hear, I anticipate, is negative evidence, and the evidence will show that the absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt. And evidence of proof of innocence.

We’ve gone through two areas. Number three. the tissue. Right after blood spatter comes out in an intra oral wound, right after it comes out of your mouth and your nose, the gasses build up from the gunshot wound and body tissue comes out with it. Some of it can be brain tissue. She is loaded with it. Her left sleeve is loaded with it. That’s all that white stuff that you see there. Loaded with it. She’s got tissue on other parts, too. Now, his clothes have none. Have none. Not his shirt, not his shirt cuff, not his pants, not his shoes, not his hair, not his jacket. None. Tissue, because it has a little bit more of a mass to it, when it’s mixed with blood, may even go further. May go further, than blood spatter. And you’re going to hear some evidence here that that probably occurred here. He has none on him. The reason why, is if he were standing close to her, he would. And the reason why is because he wasn’t. The evidence will show you that. And you’re also going to hear that when our forensic pathologists and our criminalists were given the court’s permission to view the evidence last May at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s department lab, one of the things they saw on this left sleeve was this on buttons. Buttons. And they saw that they’re loaded with blood and tissue. And they also saw that the buttons had a kind of a hazy, or kind of like a melted greasy appearance. So we had those buttons tested. And it confirmed that this was tissue on those buttons. Something that the government had not done as of last May. And that, you will hear, is extremely important, because it fixes the position of her hands. That for the tissue which comes after the blood to get on these buttons she had to have her hands in this classic gun holding position. Had to. So that was an extremely important piece of evidence that no one had looked at until we looked at it. And the tissue goes around kind of like the blood spatter, it’s concentric, and it’s, again, all over her and it’s not on him. And it proves scientifically that he, Phillip, was not near her when she was shot. He was not within that zone of within three feet, and really, when you look at him, he’s a very small, diminutive man, and you can see, you don’t need me to tell you, short arm reach, so he may even had to be closer than three feet if, the government is correct in what they told you yesterday that he put a gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger.

What I anticipate you’re going to hear is negative evidence of any tissue on Phillip, and the evidence will show that the absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt. And evidence of proof of innocence.

Gunshot residue. Number 4. The abundance of gunshot residue on her and the lack of gunshot residue on his clothes said he was not near enough to shoot her. He could not be close enough to shoot her. And let me explain what gunshot residue is. It’s called in common parlance GSR for short. GSR. Now, when you fire a gun, and this is a picture of a revolver being fired. And the revolver, we’ll talk about, that’s what’s involved here. You have a lot of combustion because the powder and the primer has to hit and go with the cartridge and push it out, it’s all very scientific and they’ll explain it better than I will, but, you can see it, you can see it.. What happens is all these little particles, that little mist here, because here’s the bullet, see the bullet over here? These are mists of particles, and these are burnt, flying, you can see this is burning, this is burnt stuff, so everything is very hot, and very burnt. Some if it turns black and burns these particles and make like a black soot, and some of them don’t burn, some of them don’t burn, so you have burned and unburned particles. But there’s lots of them. Lots of them. You can see it better. See it goes backwards, it goes upwards, it goes downwards, it goes forward.

According, I anticipate, to their own experts, because we’ve had something called discovery in this case, that it’s undisputed that when you have a revolver and there’s a gap here between the cylinder and the gun, because it kind of twirls around, it’s a piece that fits in, there’s also a lot of these particles that come out of there. Not just the front, they come out here and in the back. It’s called a cylinder gap. It goes out, in an intra oral wound, like a cloud, you can see it, a gas cloud. And it goes back, top, side and bottom. 2 and a half feet. 2 and a half feet. They looked at the decedent. They looked at her slip, her jacket, the sleeve of her jacket. They analyzed her mouth, her suit, and her hands. And what did they find? There was a lot of this gunshot residue on her. A lot. A lot on her hands. A lot on her jacket. With Phillip’s clothes, they microscopically analyzed every piece of his shirt. They found none. They analyzed the first four inches of the right sleeve of his jacket. They found none. And there’ll be no dispute that he’s right handed.

Tests show, and you’ll hear, that when GSR or gunshot residue comes out and lands on clothes, it’s very hardy. It can stay around. There’s studies that show it can even stay around after clothes have been laundered. It’s very hardy. 40 minutes after the police are called and get there, and they have Phillip, and they get his clothes, and his jacket comes down to the police station. Nothing is on those clothes. No gunshot residue, which would have to be there if he were in two and a half feet of the decedent.

Mr. Jackson yesterday told you, or intimated, that the evidence would show that Phillip washed his hands because he had two particles of gunshot residue on his hands. The evidence is going to show you that that was misleading. That because there are two gunshot particles, you see these particles get airborne, and I anticipate that their own coroner criminalist in this case, who authored a study, that said you can pick up these gunshot particles just by being in a room where her gun has gone off. You can pick them up by being in a police car, which is where he was, you can pick them up by being handcuffed with police handcuffs, some minor particles such as two, and you can pick them up even in a police station, because they get airborne and they stay around where guns are. They’re kind of around. If anyone shoots a gun in a room, and stays around there would be particles around here that anyone can pick up. To suggest that because he had two particles, only one of which was specific to actually gunshot residue, one could have been from other stuff, rather than merely being in a room that a gun had gone off in, or being in a police car, or being handcuffed, or being in a police station, is to give it a bent on the evidence that doesn’t necessarily mean so. It means nothing.

On the other hand, we can compare his hands and his clothes, the evidence will show, against hers. She was covered in gunshot residue. Her mouth was covered with GSR. Her hands were covered with GSR. Phillip Spector was not covered with GSR. His shirt was not covered. His cuffs were not covered of his sleeves. His jacket was not covered. Why? It’s an absence of evidence. And it proves, we will suggest, when we get there, that the evidence will show, that this means that he did not shoot that gun. He was simply too far away to be holding the gun and get GSR on his clothes. Too far away. It’s not supposition, it’s not hypothesis, scientific facts that we will present to you. The evidence will show that this absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt and evidence of proof of innocence.

Number 5: the decedent’s teeth. You now are all anticipating that when a gun is shot, you all know, that the gasses, again, build up and come out. And they are very powerful and very strong. In addition here too, is going to be evidence, and we’ll show you pictures in a second that the gun sight, the sight of the gun, which is up here, got caught. On Lana Clarkson’s front teeth, crowns, and then there’s some tooth material. And embedded the teeth into the sight. Particles of teeth into the sight. Other particles, that’s tooth material embedded into the sight of the gun, other particles went flying. In the directionality of where she was seated. There are particles found here – number 5. There’s particles up on the stairs, particles10 and 11. Because of the power of the gunshot wound and the force of the projection of the gun hitting the teeth.

Now, their dentists, because they were initially looking for the tooth being broken in because they believed that Phillip Spector had shoved the gun in her mouth, initially looked at the teeth and said “we can’t tell”. But at the autopsy it was confirmed, and you’ll hear evidence of this, the evidence will show you, that if she was shot in front of her teeth, the teeth would have gone back into the throat and down the oral canal. There were none. All of the particles of the teeth were either embedded in the gun or shot outward. Again, intra oral self inflicted gunshot wound, the evidence will show .One particle of the tooth was actually lost, by one of the forensic dentists. And they use a fancy word in the forensic dentists,  they call them odontologists. And what it means, is a dentist trained, they do this kind of stuff for investigation. it’s a forensic dentist, we’re going to simplify it. But they lost one of the pieces of the front tooth. So we asked a prominent forensic dentist Dr. Richard Suveron who works for the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner’s Office, which is also another big metropolitan area. And you’ll hear about his experience, including him identifying a man named Ted Bundy as a serial killer through dental evidence. We asked Dr. Suveron to look at the teeth that were there, and, even though they lost a piece, and see if he could reconstruct it, and tell us 100% how the teeth were fractured, outside in, inside out. The finding that he made, you will hear, further confirmed the autopsy finding, that the teeth were blown outward from an intra oral gunshot wound. That means that the gasses, again, from the gun, and the recoil of the gun catching on her top two front  teeth pushed the teeth outwards. No one shoved a gun in her mouth. And remember, there was also tooth material on the floor. The location of the teeth on the stairwell, the location of the teeth near the stairs, shows that no one was standing in font of that trajectory of Lana Clarkson, the decedent, no one. Additionally, you saw that fine tooth material which is on, you’ll hear testimony ,on her clothes and all, that there was no tooth material found on Phillip Spector. There were no fine particles of tooth material ever identified under a microscope. There was none caught in any cuff of his sleeve. There was none on his jacket. There was none on his pants. There was none on his shoes. There was none on his socks and there was none on him at all. Again, the evidence will show that this absence of evidence is absence of proof of guilt and evidence of proof of innocence.

DNA. I’m not even going to try to spell that one for you. We all know what it is without really knowing what it is. It’s a scientific, it’s a very scientific important, and responsible in the criminal justice system for both proving people are guilty and proving people are innocent. Unlike GSR, the tissue and the blood spatter, DNA does not necessarily prove who was holding the gun at discharge, but it shows who was not holding the gun at discharge, not holding the gun at discharge. They wanted to find out, the government you will hear, that they wanted to find out who loaded the gun, who loaded the bullets in the gun. And sometimes the bullets can be called cartridges – here they are, right here, see them. And you see that the investigator, we know when this picture was taken, it was taken about 6:40 in the morning, right after Mr. Spector was arrested and taken into custody about 6:09, about 6:40 in the morning, because in another picture you’ll see, we anticipate, there’s an investigators watch which shows the time, and you see that they wear gloves, the investigators, and the reason why they wear gloves, is because they don’t want to handle with their own skin, raw skin, a piece of what may be evidence. Because when you handle something, like I’m handling this pen or I’m handling this, or I touch Mr. Plourd on his face, you transfer your DNA to that item you’re handling, Trace amounts of DNA, it’s called trace evidence. So that’s why they use gloves, and that’s important, and it’s an important thing for an investigator to use gloves. So they took the bullets to the crime lab and they asked Mr. DNA to give us the answer about who loaded the gun. And what did Mr. DNA say? Not Phillip Spector. There was no DNA from Phillip Spector on the back of the cartridges that were swabbed that were remaining in the gun and the one cartridge that had been emptied.

The Los Angeles Sheriff Departments website even discusses this principle of trace evidence. It was developed by a French Professor named LaCarde and it’s the basis of all the crime labs in the United States and the principle basically is that every contact leaves a trace. Every contact leaves a trace. It’s the principle that’s been solving crimes for 100 years. Here, when they swabbed the back of these cartridges here, they found only Lana Clarkson’s DNA and some other unknown person. Some other unknown person. Not Phillip Spector’s DNA. There is no magic wand that somebody could try to pathetically clean up a crime scene and take bullets out of a gun and a magic wand wipe off your DNA and leave two other people’s DNA on the cartridges. In science, that can’t be done. Again, the evidence will show, the absence of evidence, DNA evidence, belonging to Phillip Spector on these cartridges is absence of proof of guilt and evidence of proof of innocence.

Number 7 – Mr. Cutler touched on this and I mentioned it, it’s the physical size disparity issue between Mr. Spector – by the way, this is a picture, just so you see, when we talked about the lab, this is the Sheriff Departments crime lab, some of our criminalists and Dr. Lee, some of our blood spatter people, and Dr. Herrold who you heard from Mr. Jackson yesterday, last May as we’re all examining the evidence. Going back to the physical size disparity, Mr. Cutler initially started to tell you about it and I just want to discuss it a little more, because the physical size disparity and the physicality and lack of physicality of Phillip Spector on his part, confirms the fact that he could not have gone up there and shoved the gun in Lana Clarkson’s mouth and shot it under the facts that you have at this scene and this death scene. She’s nearly 6 feet tall, much like our lovely Court Sheriff’s Officer, Miss Trower, she is younger, he is diminutive, and you’ll hear evidence that at the time, they did testing of Mr. Spector’s blood, when they arrested him, they took his blood, they tested him. They found in his blood, what is called a neuroleptic, it is a drug that was found in his system, they only tested for one, even though you’re going to hear evidence that there was some issue that he needed his medication for another one. But they found this is in his system, and they know, finding this in his system, what this drug is. Some of you may, seated here, have seen Mr. Spector’s hands shake, that is one of the side effects of this drug that he was on that night. Because they tested his blood and they found it. It kind of mirrors or mimics a Parkinsonian like tremor and some of the reasons, some of the ways you don’t show it is by putting your hands in your pockets, much like Michael Fox the actor does when he acts now. The prosecution told you he was drunk. The science shows he was not standing next to her. The physical size disparity, the medical disparity, and all the things the prosecution tells you about with regard to his physical capabilities, Confirm, confirm and support the science, that he did not go up to Lana Clarkson and push a gun in her mouth and shoot her.

Number 8 – the blood clotting on the diaper. The evidence is going to show you it shows innocence, not as Mr. Jackson indicated to you yesterday that it shows guilt, because it’s some type of clean up of a scene. Mr. Jackson told you that the blood on the diaper was clotted, and that it needed five minutes to get that way, and therefore he imputed to you and suggested to you some type of guilt on behalf of Mr. Spector, on behalf of Phillip, because it needed so long to clot that clearly Phillip came into the house later on and developed some kind of quote, as he said, pathetic plan, to clean Lana Clarkson’s face for some reason with this cloth and all. Again the evidence is going to show you that whoever gave Mr. Jackson his information about the clot on the diaper is misinformed. The clot on the diaper is called clotted coagulate, and it goes back again to that intra oral gunshot wound. When there is that intra oral gunshot wound in the head you get spatter, but you also get, as we saw with the tissue, blood that comes out in clumps, in clumps, because it has what’s commonly called snot, saliva, brain tissue or other tissues in it. But it has other stuff in it. It’s not pure. The studies which show that blood needs 4 to 5 minutes to coagulate are studies done with pure and pristine blood, we will show you, with a test tube. So if you go to a doctor and they put alcohol to make sure the needle is clean, and they withdraw your blood and then you put it in a test tube, and if the test tube doesn’t have some kind of preservative, it’ll stop clotting after 4 or 5 minutes. That’s not the case when blood comes out in clumps, as coagulated clots from an intra oral gunshot wound.. It can’t happen immediately. And if there’s a cloth around the area, which would be a diaper, and the evidence is going to show you that diapers were in Mr. Spector’s house. They were used for a number of purposes, they were all around, and somebody picks up a cloth to try to help somebody, and gets, remember, coagulated clotted blood on it, that could be evidence and is evidence of innocence, not evidence that somebody is trying to clean up a crime scene, as was imputed to you. My God, can you imagine if that hadn’t been done? He’d be considered a monster. And the diaper was left right there. Right there, where the police could have it, and it wasn’t washed off. And you’ll hear that from the spatter experts. If something is diluted and washed there’d be water in it and you can either have water on the diaper before or water after. But this clot was on top was on top of the diaper. The clot wasn’t washed off it was on top of the diaper.

Sherlock Holmes, and I like him because the author of Sherlock Holmes, had three names, Arthur Conan Doyle, and since I’ve become Linda Kenney Baden I kind of like people with three names, once said that “circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little bit, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.” This scientific evidence does not show guilt or proof of clean up of a scene.

Number 9 – The evidence will show that Mr. Spector did not try to cover up the scene and the gun was not planted or wiped. Mr. Cutler alluded initially how do you react to this stuff. Who knows, there’s no scientific studies on that. But, we have pictures of the gun, and you’re going to be seeing them at the scene. You see all this blood here, and there’s blood on top of the grips here, by the way, because I think there may be some evidence, you see how grips of guns are kind of striated, you don’t get fingerprints off that, you barely ever get fingerprints off the nature of the metal of the gun, they look for DNA now. There’s blood here and here and all the way down here, and you see blood all over that gun.. If someone’s wiping a gun down, this would all be wiped off, and there is blood – at the scene. That gun then goes through the lab, you’ll hear, and it gets tested. Some of the blood gets taken off it to do DNA. And it’s not examined microscopically until June of 2003, so the pictures become very important to show you that at the scene this gun has got a lot of blood on it, and the evidence is going to suggest to you by the time it’s looked at in June of 2003 it’s not in the same condition. Mr. Jackson said something to you about you’re going to hear from a Mr. Carroll who’s going to say that if somebody killed themselves the gun would be across the room, and therefore there was some attempt by Mr. Spector to plant the gun.

Jackson: I just want to lob my objection for the record that I never said anything like that

Fidler: Again, I’ll remind the jury that opening statements are not evidence.

Unfortunately they break for lunch at this point, and I can’t find the video for the last part. I think her tenth point was about the acrylic fingernail, and how since it was cracked and broken, that proves she pulled the trigger herself.


8 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Revisiting Opening Statements – Linda Kenny Baden”

  1. Kim said

    Is there no way that he might of changed his clothes and rid of the ones he was in fact wearing?

    OK – 2 questions….Sorry ;~) .. LOL!

    That ‘friggin’ white jacket – Is is not possible that it was hanging on…say a coat rack, or door knob or thrown over another chair in the entrance way, thereby making it plausible to have collected blood only on the one side or half –
    Perhaps after changing his clothes, to similar ones (ie. black pants, white shirt), he then threw on the jacket thereby making it difficult for anyone who did see him earlier(the chauffer, club patrons, etc.) to notice an obvious change in clothing, and in that protection, completely disposing himself of incriminating blood, brain matter and/or gunshot evidence which might have collected itself on his clothes….

    How is it that there was no other evidence of blood and such on him, and/or his clothes. Why is there only specific sides/sections of the coat with blood stain evidence…

    Just wondering what your take on this would be….perhaps I’ve missed something somewhere that answered to that….If so, I send my apologies

    Best regards,
    Kim (Canada)

  2. T.Albert said

    Both LKB and BS’s OS’s are soooo long winded. It seems when you have no evidence on your side, you just talk and talk and talk and hope something sticks. What a crock of crap her 10 points are. She ACTUALLY said the gun was not wiped. I do not think ANY of these points has been made by the defense, but then I believe he’s guilty as sin. Thanks for the transcript, I had forgotten how wildly the defense has gone this way and when that did not work, they went that way and so on.

  3. LOL said

    The trial showed many experts in unity in thesis and evidence – but nevertheless two different conclusions emerged.

    Linda Kenney Baden is on point when she said who was holding the gun at the time of Lana Clarkson’s death – is the central issue of this case.

    And Linda Kenney Baden is also correct in saying that the government’s case is a story, made up from people who were not in the room when Lana Clarkson died.

    For instance Adriano De Sousa was not in the room when Lana Clarkson died and I am wondering if this trial is all because Phil Spector’s Brazilian Chauffeur Adriano De Sousa did not have a work permit to work in US and did not want to be arrested for murder or deported from the USA?

    In this terrible situation – there must have been a great pressure on Adriano De Sousa who was frightened and who wanted to protect himself from the fallout – but Adriano De Sousa knew he could not protect himself without giving himself up to the authorities and thus De Sousa may have been motivated to distance himself from the death scene as much as he could by taking advantage of Phil Spector’s plight – in order to get Adriano himself off a murder rap initially and then later in order to secure a work permit for himself in the United States.

    Adriano DeSouza was in need of severing his relationship with Phil Spector after seeing Lana Clarkson dead in Spector’s house – and Spector had trusted and shown Adriano his vulnerability in showing Adriano – Lana.

    This showing – opened up the possibility for Adriano DeSousa to BETRAY his boss Phil Spector- and it is quite possible that Adriano De Sousa fabricated that he heard an admission of guilt from Phil Spector – he had a motive to do this.

    Also because of Adriano De Sousa’s US Immigration and possible deportation problems – it is more likely that the Chauffeur Adriano De Sousa was not free to give an independent or true account of what he heard and saw, and his unfortunate Immigration problem also opened up a possibility that DeSousa could be used by the California Prosecution as a puppet to say things against Phil Spector which are not true.

  4. Hey LOL, I did not LOL at your points but I did not see unity in the evidence or the motive for the driver to have killed the victim (which you seem to implie). As far as the driver lying to stay in the US, that’s Phil’s best argument, but its always a stretch to prove an outright lie instead of an honest mistake.

  5. Kat said

    Didn’t De Sousa tell the 911 operator he thought his boss had killed someone? Chances are, he wouldn’t have been thinking quick enough to make up this story after being in shock by what he saw.

    IMO, there is just no way around the evidence. Spector killed Lana and then tried to cover it up before the police got there.

    Yes, the central issue in this case is who was holding the gun at the time it went off. Since Lana couldn’t have tried to clean up the gun and the crime scene, there is only one person left.

  6. LOL said

    To OJ’s Real Killers
    I did not imply the driver had any motive to kill the victim.

    When someone dies horribly and you are at the death scene you are initially a suspect whether you have a motive to kill or not and even if it is not a murder but a suicide. Everyone who can be tied to the death scene -is a suspect initially!

    You stated previously “As far as the driver lying to stay in the US, that’s Phil’s best argument, but its always a stretch to prove an outright lie instead of an honest mistake.”

    I agree but nothing needs to be proven because regardless of whether the Jury does not believe Adriano DeSousa’s testimony or even if the Jury does believes Adriano DeSousa’s testimony was honest mistake neither would change the verdict for Spector because the verdict would be NOT GUILTY.

  7. LOL said

    If you were illegally working in USA would it not cross your mind when you called 911 to report an alleged murder – that you would be under suspicion for murder initially – and in addition you would face the US Authorities for working illegally in the US with deportation as the end result?

  8. Jay said

    Let’s see here.
    The gun was wiped down. Why would an innocent person do that?

    No call to 911 when a person is sitting dead in your hallway? Why wouldn’t an innocent person call?

    Why would a woman have a bag on her shoulder if she is going to “play with the gun” or shoot herself?

    And who’s gun and ammunition was that?

    Are at least 3 (and more likely 5) of these prior acts women telling us that Phil has put a gun to their face as they try to leave?

    Doesn’t the spatter evidence show that Lana had her hands on the gun when it was fired in her mouth? That being the case wouldn’t that block a good deal of spatter?

    and how about those bruises on Lana’s wrists? Just a coincidence I guess.

    The drivers statements immediately after the incident seem to be reasonable. However, forget his statements and the circumstantial evidence still holds.

    Be careful of “scientific evidence”. Let us remember the glove at the time of the trial didn’t fit OJ. Yet does anyone really think he is innocent? If so please check out the photo’s found after the trial, but taken before the crime, that show him in those “dumb ass shoes” that he said he would never wear. Yet that very rare shoe print was found at the scene of the crime. But the glove didn’t fit!!

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: