The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 971,584 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 – He Had Me at “Don’t Go”

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 5, 2007

5 months ago, you didn’t know the real Phil Spector – but things have changed. Now that you know who he is and what he is and what he does, and his violent history with women and guns, now that you know all this, let’s go back, outside of this courtroom, let’s move out to the parking lot, the parking lot adjacent to the House of Blues, the one you’ve seen so many photographs of, this parking lot. It’s February 3, 2003, it’s late at night, actually it’s early in the morning, it’s dark out.. The lot’s beginning to empty. Go with me to that location, mentally take yourselves with me to that location. The lot’s not full, the valets are starting to clean up for the night. And you see over towards the side a big shiny black Mercedes, and as you look to your left standing in that parking lot, you see Philip Spector emerge from the House of Blues, he’s wearing all black except for a big white jacket, it’s oversized, a little too big for him, too big on the shoulders, too long, sleeves too baggy, and he steps out of the House of Blues accompanied by a tall beautiful blonde with blonde ringlets. She’s taller than he is and she’s wearing an above the knee slip dress, a black jacket and she has a leopard skin purse slung over her right shoulder. As you stand in that parking lot think about where you are and what you’re seeing. As you stand in the parking lot you begin to hear them talk and you overhear their conversation, you can hear as Phil Spector begins to insist that Lana Clarkson come back to his castle. He tries to coax her back to the location. And you listen as she constantly says “no, thank you, no, I can’t go, I’ve got to work tomorrow, no thank you, but I can’t join you Mr. Spector” And you listen as he continues to try to lure her back to his castle. Back to the Alhambra castle. “Come back to my castle and see my castle.” And then, just then, you think you hear in her voice a little crack –  she may begin to relent, she may actually accept his offer. You’re standing in that parking lot and you’re watching this conversation. Let me ask you a question. If you could say but one thing to Lana Clarkson right then, standing at the back of that Mercedes, in that parking lot, just one thing, you can say but one thing to her, one sentence, one phrase, even two little words, even if you had to whisper it, what would you say? Had I asked you that question 5 months ago, when you first walked into this courtroom, you couldn’t answer it, you’d shrug, and you’d say “I don’t know what I’d say to her”. But now that you know the real Phil Spector, now that you know who he is, and what he is, and what he does, what would you say? Even if you had to whisper it so he couldn’t hear, all of you, all 17 of you are thinking the same thing, you’d lean over and you’d whisper “don’t go”. Don’t go. You’d simply say “Lana, Don’t Go.” And the reason every one in this jury box thought the same thing, maybe the words a little bit different, but the thought was the same. The reason that you would say that is because you know something she didn’t know. You know the real Phil Spector. And if you thought to yourself  “I’d tell her not to go” it’s because you know in your heart of hearts, after hearing all of this evidence, you know in your heart of hearts, he’s responsible for her death. He killed her.

And with that powerful little scenario we begin closing arguments.

Frankly, I think Alan Jackson could have sat down after that little speech. He had them at “Don’t Go.” Or at least he had me. I swear to God I got cold chills up and down my spine and my eyes welled up with tears when Jackson leaned over the jury box, put his hands up against his mouth and whispered “Don’t Go” – even though I was shouting at him the same two words two sentences before he got there.

Sure, there was more powerful argument later – the big red “X’s” he squeakily put through each item in the chart of “10 Reasons Science will Prove Lana Was Holding The Gun” Linda Kenney Baden had outlined in her opening statement, the picture flashed on the ELMO of Phil Spector standing pointing his finger like a gun with the words imposed in red underneath  “I Think I Killed Somebody” (which Jackson opined could have been more frankly spoken as “I think I FINALLY killed somebody”), and the slap in the face to the entire defense team when he ended with the montage from “Lana Unleashed” of the Steely Dan song “Peg” playing “So won’t you smile for the camera, you know I love you better….” as Lana in her different costumes, roles and skits from the reel flashed on the screen, all with her brilliant smile and bright sparkling eyes. “That” Jackson told the jurors, “That was the real Lana Clarkson”. As opposed to what Jackson called the “Defense of Desperation” we had seen for the last four months, and the second murder of Lana Clarkson.

DEFENSE QUALITY AND CHARACTER

Jackson said that Lana had been murdered twice – the first time by Phil Spector and the second time by the defense team when they trashed her character in the courtroom.

Jackson pointed out that there’s a big difference between clinical depression accompanied by suicidal ideation and the normal ups and down of being human. He said Lana was never diagnosed with the former and of course experienced the latter. And since she was never diagnosed and the defense couldn’t prove she was either depressed nor suicidal, she had never attempted suicide before, and they couldn’t even say that she ever engaged in high risk or reckless behavior, they turned instead to Punkin Pie and Jennifer Hayes to prove this for them. Jackson said that Pie was the Mikey of the defense team – “Give it to Pie – she’ll say anything!” So they brought in Lana’s two bestest friends in the whole wide world – although he told the jury to take a quick peek a the telephone records he had introduced, because in the last three months of Lana’s life she neither called nor received a call from Jennifer Hayes – oh, not any emails, either – and these two witnesses, who parroted everything the other said, because, of course, Hayes was Pie’s memory, got on the stand and trashed their “bestest friend in the whole wide world.”

And why would they do that? Jackson asked.

Jackson suggested the jury look to Punkin Pie for the answer to that – and look to the way she was dressed the first time she came into court. Jackson asked if she looked like a sincere friend who wanted to tell the truth about her BFF or if she looked more like someone who was chasing the limelight. Jackson even pointed out that this was a woman who, when she decided that the name “Irene Elizabeth” wasn’t working for her didn’t go and change it to Suzie – she changed it to a Thanksgiving Day dessert. What does that suggest? Someone who wants the focus all on her and wants to draw attention to herself.

Jackson suggested that Pie was nothing more than an attention seeker and when the family exiled her after her little interview with Star Magazine, she felt angry, bitter and vindictive. She had no way to garner the attention she so desperately sought, and no way to capitalize on her book deal. That is, not until she picked up that Vanity Fair magazine and noticed that 2 of Phil Spector’s “side men”, the Kessel Brothers, men he thought of like sons, were co-owners of the very restaurant she was promoting. Jackson drew a timeline of Pie’s changing story. When she was still “in” with Lana’s family, attending and organizing memorial services, getting attention as the distraught best friend, she had told Detectives who landed on her doorstep the very day Lana died that Lana was a happy, positive person, that she was never depressed and certainly never suicidal. After the family told her “thanks, but no thanks”, and “froze her out”, and the very next time she spoke with authorities after reading the Vanity fair article and learning that the Kessel Brothers were close to the man who killed her best friend, suddenly, her story did a complete 180 degree turnaround. Now Lana was a basket case with a “game face” that she put on for the public and a “real face” that only she (and her back up best friend Jennifer Hayes – who didn’t even know where Lana lived, according to the erroneous testimony she gave), ever saw. Jackson asked if it was just coincidence that Pie suddenly dropped all the *other* clubs she had been promoting and now exclusively worked for the Backstage Club – the one the Kessel brothers happen to co-own, and where she now derives 100% of her income.

Jackson reminded the jury that when they are evaluating the evidence they needed to judge the character and quality of the witnesses testifying, and the character and quality of the testimony being given. And he suggested that Pie’s character and quality is going to come up quite short.

And Jennifer Hayes as well, the best friend that telephone records would suggest Lana never called and never received a call from, nor an email, and who didn’t know that Lana only lived at the cottage for the last year of her life, and who seemingly couldn’t be trusted to even be giving her own testimony, Jackson suggested that she was basically just testifying the way Pie told her to, since many of the phrases they used such as “game face”, “night time friends and daytime friends” and “:Lana didn’t like the House of Blues job – she was pulling out chairs for people she used to beat out for parts” were identical and sounded planned and rehearsed. Jackson also implicated Tawni Tyndall, the defense investigator,  in this whole “parroting”, since she never taped any of the people she interviewed and she interviewed Pie and Hayes together at the same time, unlike the prosecution’s investigator, who turned over tapes to the defense of all interviews they participated in.

Jackson also brought up the return of the Pie – when she was brought back to basically say that Lana always had her purse on her shoulder – that it was an obsession with Lana – and he pointed out that we might be able to believe this except for the fact that we have dozens and dozens of photos of Lana, at clubs, on vacation, and at parties – and in none of them do we see Lana with her purse on her shoulder.

But Pie and Jennifer weren’t the only issues Jackson attacked when he spoke of the “Quality and Character” of the defense and their attack on Lana. He also spoke about Tawni Tyndall’s blatant lie to Fireman/EMT Liverpool about her identity, and how they disregarded Liverpool’s statement that no, Lana apparently wasn’t drunk when he answered the call when she broke her wrists – although Jackson did say “What the hell was that all about, anyway?” and “Why are we litigating the issue of whether or not Lana got drunk at a Christmas party a year before she died?” He recognized this as a collateral issue and an attempt by the defense to paint Lana as some kind of party animal, but that if they wanted to go there, he wasn’t going to let the issue go. He had the reports that she wasn’t drunk, he had the base report, and he even had Liverpool himself – despite Tawni Tyndall’s misrepresentations to Liverpool so the prosecution wouldn’t know she spoke to him. Jackson characterized this as just another attempt by the defense to manipulate the evidence to the jury and he reminded them again to scrutinize the “Quality and Character” of the evidence.

Jackson also told the jury to evaluate the photos that eh defense used when having witnesses identify Lana – especially when they put EMT Stark on the stand. Despite the fact that Lana is one of the few victims in a court of law to have professional head shots available to use, most times attorneys are forced to use DMV photos, the defense chose to use a photo of her with her leg up on a table that was strewn with beer bottles. Jackson asked the jury to question why this was so, and what the defense was trying to say by using photos like this. And he also asked them to evaluate the very first thing EMT Stark testified he told the defense team when they came to him asking him questions. He didn’t say “yes, I remember this woman”, or “yes, I remember the incident”, he said “I think I can help you.” What does that imply about the quality and character of this witness?

Jackson also brought up the defense’s aborted attempt at showing that Lana had stolen the tequila bottle from the House of Blues. This was alluded to in Cutler’s opening statement when he said that “where the tequila came from” would be “a query in this case”. Jackson said that the defense dropped this line of questioning when it was testified to by the House of Blues employees that stealing a bottle of liquor would be an impossibility with their strict inventory procedures, besides the fact that Lana didn’t even agree to leave with Spector until they were out in the parking lot. But he told the jury that this attempt to smear the victim by painting her as a thief was part and parcel part of their effort to manipulate and misguide the jury and that it was another example of the shameless “quality and character’ of their defense. He told the jury to keep these tactic in mind when they were evaluating whether the defense’s case was one of trustworthiness or manipulation.

Jackson also told the jury about the Paxil Lana was taking and how she was taking it for the severe headaches she suffered from – not, as the defense would suggest, for depression, and he asked if the jury thought that the defense would have told them that – and would the defense have told them about the tazer wire they kept saying was proof Lana’s foot was moved? Why was it up to the prosecution to show them the photos from another angle – and why did Linda Kenney Baden state in her “10 Points” that Lana’s DNA was on the bottom of the bullets and that this proved Lana loaded the gun? Would the defense have told the jury that this was an out and out lie? The defense had the same reports the prosecution had – and the prosecution knew this wasn’t so, Why would Linda Kenney Baden promise this to the jury? Was it another case of manipulation and trickery – was this the sign of a trustworthy defense?

Jackson then attacked Bruce Cutler and his use of the term “siesta” when describing DeSouza taking a nap. Jackson says this is one of the most blatantly racial slurs he’s ever heard in a courtroom – and that there’s a word for that in English – we call it a NAP. And By the way, he adds, DeSouza is Brazilian – he was speaking Portuguese. And according to DeSouza’s interviews and testimony – he wasn’t even taking a nap – and he sure as hell wasn’t taking a siesta.

But Jackson points all of this out to the jury as Spector’s “Defense of Desperation” – trashing the victim, manipulating and blatantly lying about the evidence and using subtle words, phrases and subliminal messages to imply that the witnesses and the victim aren’t worthy of the juries attention and consideration.

BUYING THE SCIENCE

Jackson says that the second prong of the defense’s two tiered defense, the 50% of the time they weren’t trashing Lana, they spent bending and twisting the science with their “checkbook defense”. Jackson tells the jury to ask themselves if this was real science or if it was just paid scientists. Jackson says the defense consistently bent and twisted the true science and that they would try one thing, only to find that this didn’t work, so they would try something else. Jackson repeats what Linda Kenney Baden stated in her opening statement – that there was one unimpeachable witness in this case – but Jackson points out that their one unimpeachable witness was paid over $200,000 for their opinions, and that their one unimpeachable witness removed and concealed evidence from the crime scene and that their one unimpeachable witness ended up being married to one of the defense lawyers.

Jackson then unveils a large chart with Linda Kenney Baden’s “10 Points” on it, and systematically goes down through the list crossing off each one of her points as “unproven”.

The bullet trajectory – which was testified to by Dr. Pena and the defense experts as being front to back, with all the experts also saying that it didn’t matter what position the head was in – that this was not going to prove who was holding the gun. Cross that one off – it doesn’t, as Linda Kenney Baden promised, lead us to the inescapable conclusion that Lana was holding the gun and shot herself.

The blood spatter point is the next to be crossed off, as Jackson reminds the jurors that Linda Kenney Baden promised them Henry Lee was going to come in and testify that the blood spatter could travel 72 inches. Jackson says that if Lee could have testified to that – he would have, and they never saw Dr. Lee.

The tissue on the sleeve is next – Jackson reminds the jurors about the whole twisting of the sleeve in order to line the buttons up with the mouth and how Dr. Baden refused to identify the obvious blood on the buttons and the sleeve as blood. And he reminds them again about “Quality and Character” of testimony and witnesses.

Then we cross of “GSR” from the list, as Jackson reminds the jurors of the testimony of Chris Pinto and all the other experts who agreed that GSR is a cloud and it lands on anything in it’s path – and that it can’t be quantified as “she had 36 particles on her and there was only 2 on him, therefore she fired the gun” – and he reminds the jurors that Spector washed his hands and there was testimony that GSR can be 90% erased with just normal activity after exposure. Jackson tells the jurors that even in DiMaio’s own book he says that GSR can’t be used to tell who fired a gun – but of course he wouldn’t agree to that on the stand – he wrote the book before he was getting paid by Spector.

Jackson chuckles a little at number 5 on the list -t eh tooth material, because he says this one proves exactly the opposite of what Linda Kenney Baden said it would prove. She had said that the tooth material flying across the room scientifically proved that no one was standing in front of Lana blocking the path the bullets took – but she forgot that there was also tooth material on Lana’s lap –  proving that someone *was* standing there and blocking at least one piece. The rest could have flown over his shoulder or over his head – but that one piece of tooth didn’t just fall out of her mouth – something blocked it.

The DNA on the bullets he simply crosses off and calls a lie. The reports don’t say that, nothing says that, and Linda Kenney Baden didn’t even go there with the Firearms witnesses because she *knew* the reports didn’t say that.

Jackson scoffs at the size disparity issue and wonders how this is going to prove anything “scientifically” as Linda Kenney Baden suggested, and says that in Texas they have a saying – “God made all men and women and Samuel Colt made them all equal”. Guns are the great equalizer, and no matter who is bigger than who – if one of them has a gun – he wins. He also laughs at DiMaio’s suggestion that Lana should have just reached up and grabbed the cylinder, rendering the gun unable to be fired, and wonders if DiMaio is some sort of Ninja pathologist, or if his stories of disarming two or three muggers in his time means that he has some sort of big “S” on his chest when he rips his shirt off.

The blood clotting on the diaper, Jackson admits, he doesn’t understand. He thinks that Linda Kenney Baden wanted to use this as some sort of proof that Spector was trying to render aid and not clean up the scene, but Jackson suggests that a better way to render aid might have been to like, call 911. He also reminds the jurors that he defense’s own expert said that the blood on the diaper would take 15 minutes to clot, and Jackson asks the jury to think about what Spector might have been doing ion those 15 minutes, since he wasn’t calling for help.

Jackson then turns to the blood on the gun, and how Linda Kenney Baden said that the gun was not wiped down, instead it was kicked across the carpet. Jackson reminds the jury that there was absolutely no blood on the carpet, therefore it would have been impossible for this to be true.

The last item to be crossed off the list as “not proven as promised” is the nail issue. Jackson tells the jury that despite three different experts saying “I say the nail was broken on the gun trigger, therefore it’s so” not one of them could back up their opinion with any science or reasoning other than “I said so” to prove that the nail was broken as Lana pushed the trigger on the gun. Jackson said it is just as likely that Lana broke the nail at the House of Blues or on her car door or any other place as it was that it was broken on the gun. It could have been broken off during a struggle over the gun. And the only thing we know about the nail is that Henry Lee picked up a little white thing and never turned to over to the court. Jackson says that the broken nail means nothing more than that her nail was broken.

Jackson then asks the jury “So what happens when your science falls apart? You change the science”.

He then goes through the ever evolving defense theories – from opening statements and the theory that the blood flew 72 inches across the room to land on Spector’s jacket – and the promise that Henry Lee was going to come and testify that this was so. But Lee never came, so the defense changed their theory of one to a slight exhale of blood, but then DiMaio didn’t stand up under cross because Lana’s spine was transected and of course she couldn’t breathe after death – so they changed their theory again to one of “satellite spatter” – it was now satellite spatter on the jacket – only when Mr. James got on the stand, under cross he had to admit the no, not all of the blood on the jacket could be satellite spatter – he meant only a few drops COULD have been satellite spatter. So the defense changed again – this time to Dr. Spitz and the raspberry theiry – now Lana was blowing raspberries when she died, and we now had Spector running to her side as she did so. When that didn’t work out, we have another change, now Lana coughed, only when Leetsma gets on cross examination and Jackson asks him the timing – he says it’s instantaneous – at the moment of death, but, oops, that places Spector right by Lana’s side at the time of death again. Jackson reminds the jury that they even got in the “prime rib” defense, when they asked Mark Scott Taylor if the blood could be meat from dinner. Even Taylor had to laugh and say “no, it was her blood”. (But at least that clears up why they called a zoologist – I didn’t catch that the first time around).

So when none of this works, what do you do? You bring in the clean up hitter – Dr. Baden, who brings Lana back to life and says that he got this wonderful AHA thought – that she was alive ALIVE and breathing, and breathing and coughing and spitting and drowning in her blood for 2 to 4 minutes. And where was Phil while she was gurgling and sputtering and sucking in 3 pounds of blood? He was wiping off the gun and wiping down her face. 

The defense’s unimpeachable and unbiased witness – science – seems to change every time they put a new witness on the stand.

And the witnesses delivering this unimpeachable and unbiased witness of science? What is their character and quality? Jackson says that DiMaio is the best money Spector ever spent – since he was a witness in everything from fluid dynamics to ballistics to physics to martial arts. And Spitz? All he did was sit on the stand and blow raspberries and talk about jumping blood that landed on Lana’s hem but seemed to magically jump over her thighs, feet, the carpet, take a right hand turn and fly across the room to land on the left hand side of Spector’s jacket – and he actually agreed with that! And neither of these witnesses took Spector’s history into account, although both of them would go on for days about Lana’s history – they both said Spector’s history didn’t count – and of course it wouldn’t he’s signing the checks! And Baden, of course, Baden was fighting the “battle of the vows”, Jackson said. Which does he honor – his vow to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” or his vow to “love honor and obey”. He has a clear conflict of interest, even though he’s been through 10 years of medical school yet doesn’t know what that phrase means. Baden came up with his “aha” moment while he was sharing a hotel room with one of the defense attorneys – but sees no apparent conflict of interest in that – and Spitz, well, Spitz came back into court after Baden testified to back Baden up, and based his entire opinion on a paragraph of a book he read the night before. Quality and Character of the witnesses. Quality and character of the testimony.

Jackson calls this the “Pay and Say” defense. “If you pay it, I will say it” and “If you pay enough, I’ll say enough”. But why? Why would they do this? Because all three of these witnesses, Dimaio, Spitz and Baden are retired. They have no accountability to anyone anymore – except themselves – and their spouses.

TRUE SCIENCE

To contrast with this “bought and paid for science”, Jackson outlines for the jury the real science in the case, and says that unlike DiMaio, who was an expert on everything, that Dr. Pena – who is accountable to someone and can’t come to court and overstate his qualifications or be bought – said that there was bruising on the tongue consistent with a blunt force trauma, that there were bruises on the wrists, and that he admitted that an autopsy in this case won’t tell you what happened, that you had to look “:off the table” and that in his opinion, this was a homicide.

Jackson also talks about Dr. Andres, the neuropathologist who actually examined Lana’s spine, and that he said the blood got into the lungs from gravity and the simple movement after death and during transport and autopsy and that Andrews was different form the defense experts in that he had actual medical literature cites for everything he testified to – including spinal shock. When Jackson asked the defense experts for cites, they had none to give him.

Dr. Lynne Herrold answered three questions during her testimony – one of which was “Where was Phil Spector” – she used the actual evidence found at the crime scene, the spatter, the tooth on the lap, the stain pattern and the placement of the blood on the jacket – the totality of the available evidence – something the defense experts seemingly didn’t want to hear about – and she determined that Spector was standing within a few feet of Lana when the gun went off – which is backed up by all the available literature, which says that High Velocity spatter such as in this case goes anywhere from 6 inches to 3 feet. And James and Pex – both defense witnesses agreed with this finding. Jackson reminds the jury that he asked both of these witnesses “If the blood spatter ends at the hem of the skirt, where does that place the jacket?” and both said that the jacket would have to be within that range.

This is the true science in the case, the firearms experts that the prosecution called, the ballistics experts, Steve Renteria who found no blood on the carpet or anywhere on the stairs or walls – not the questionable bought and paid for experts called by the defense. If you hire enough lawyers who hire enough experts who are paid enough money, you can get them to say just about anything you want them to, you can get them to wear a tutu to court. And if you find enough witnesses who are indebted to you financially or otherwise – like Punkin Pie – you can get them to say anything, too.

Jackson says that this is the “real” Phil Spector – he is used to throwing money at a problem and getting it to go away. He is used to spending money to impress people, and he reminds the jury of the flamboyant tips that were testified to just on the night Lana was killed. an $18.00 bar bill and a $300 tip, a $30.00 bar bill and a $500 tip. This is the “real” Phil Spector. And what do we know now about the real Phil Spector and what lead up to all of this?

THE REAL SPECTOR

Phil Spector had a pattern that night – at each of his stops along the way his drinking was escalating. From the Grill to Trader Vic’s, to Dan Tanna’s, to the House of Blues. That’s how it starts with Spector – that’s when the real Spector begins to emerge. He was drinking at least 2 drinks at the Grill with Rommie Davis – at Trader Vic’s he had 2 more drinks – Navy Grog’s, which is equal to 6 shots of rum. At Dan Tanna’s he had 2 daiquiris, Kathy Sullivan testified to that, and he had Bacardi 151 at House of Blues – Sophia Holquin said he had ordered another but she wouldn’t serve him. And this is his pattern of drinking.

Rommie Davis said she had been seeing him platonically for almost a year and she said up to this point she had never seen him drink before, but she said that night as he drank he “wasn’t his usual self”, Kathy Sullivan joined him at the grill, and they went to Dan Tanna’s – she said he started to get snippy and and angry and loud, when she told him she didn’t want to drink he barked at her “Just sit down and have a fucking drink”. He was rude enough when he said this that the waitress felt uncomfortable. Kathy Sullivan was embarrassed – but Phil wanted control – the real Phil Spector was beginning to emerge.

Then Phil started hitting on the waitress – “I’d like to show you my castle”, she says she has a boyfriend and no thanks. Phil was on the prowl and on the move. He set his sights on Lana Clarkson. How did he get her to go back to the castle with him.? Why would she go with a man she didn’t know and had just met? Remember that Euphrates Lalondez had told her earlier in the evening, when she failed to recognize Spector “Treat him like gold” Now she’s standing in a parking lot with a guy she’s just been told to treat as though he owns the place, like Dan Akroyd, and she took this job for connections – Nick Terzian, her agent had told her to take the job for that reason, for networking, for contacts, so she’s probably thinking – “one drink, what’s one drink? Don’t piss the guy off – he’s a contact, he’s important – he’s golden”. That’s her motivation.

But we get a small insight into her mind when she insists that she move her car. She doesn’t want it in the parking garage that closes at 3 am. Why? Because she plans on going back to get it and wants it unavailable. If she planned on being gone long – she would have just left it in the garage where it was safe.

DeSouza drops them off at the front – so she gets the full effect of the 88 steps to the castle door – and Desouza, who has spent more time with Phil that night than anyone – says that he is unsteady on his feet, that he smelled of alcohol, that his speech is slurred. Not out of his mind drunk, but under the influence.

DeSouza drives around to the back of the residence and as he’s sitting in the car he hears a pop – he gets out of the car, walks around, walks around the fountain, and the sound is so out of place he doesn’t recognize it as a gunshot. Not more than 1 minute later the back door opens and he says that Spector emerges holding a gun in his right hand. Spector looks at DeSouza and says “I think I killed somebody:” And this was before he had time to think about it or think of the implications of what he was admitting.

Jackson then plays the two calls DeSouza made that night -t he first to Michelle Blaine, Spector’s assistant, and then the call to 911. Jackson then points out that despite the defense’s theory that DeSouza was so illiterate and had such a language problem that he couldn’t know what Spector had said, it was the 911 operators who kept misunderstand DeSouza – DeSouza never had a problem understanding what they were saying. And I laugh AGAIN when the 911 operator misunderstands DeSouza’s naming of Phil Spector – and asks DeSouza “Seal Inspector?” Never fails to make me laugh.

Jackson them asks the jury to think about the difference in reaction between DeSouza and Spector. DeSouza hears the shot, sees Spector with a gun, sees the body of Lana Clarkson and runs and calls people and calls 911 – he’s panicked, he’s frantic – you can hear the panic in his voice. What what Phil Spector doing? Well, DeSouza sees the gun in Phil’s hand – but where did it end up? Where does the jacket end up? What about the diaper? What was Spector doing while DeSouza was calling for help for Lana? He wasn’t calling for help – was it that he was so panicked he couldn’t? That’s how the system was developed – for panicked people – so that even when you are at your most panicked and traumatic state – you still know to CALL 911. DeSouza knew what to do – and they would have you believe he couldn’t even understand English.

The “real” Phil Spector was busy trying to cover up the mess he had made – of the real Lana Clarkson –

THE REAL LANA

Jackson then takes us through the last full day of Lana’s life – it was a beautiful day he says, as Nili testified to. Nili hd gone to Lana’s that day because she was at the beach with a friend. Lana declined their invitation to join them, because she was meeting her mother to go shopping for shoes for her aching feet – and she ended up buying 7 pairs. She had woken up that morning and made her bed, fixed her hair – Nili testified it was all in ringlets – gotten dressed and cleaned up – not exactly the actions of someone ready to end their life.

It’s nice that Pie and Jennifer can come in and testify that no one except they knew “the real Lana” – but there is absolutely no corroboration for their characterization of her except each other.

Jackson goes through what some of Lana’s other friends said about her- that she was happy, upbeat, positive, and repeats what her co-workers said – that she went the extra mile and was doing well in her job – she was scheduled to emcee an employee party at House of Blues. She had also accepted an e-vite to Anne Marie Donahue’s husband’s party for the following week and had jobs lined up through her agent.

Jackson then reads Lana’s email message from her website to Carlos, the young man who had asked her for advice.

Jackson then asks if Lana had a “real face” and a “game face” – why would she not show her “real face” to Dr. Kudrow, the one person in the world who she knew would have to maintain her privacy under doctor/patient privilege. He reads an excerpt of Lana’s letter to him where she describes herself as “I maintain a healthy diet, and am a happy, upbeat, positive and successful person”. Jackson asks the jury why Lana would lie to this doctor – who was trying to help her with her longstanding chronic migraine headache problem – why would she put on her “game face” for him, of all people? Which Lana is the real Lana?

Jackson then SNAPS the defense by playing the reel of the “real Lana” the clips from “Lana Unleashed”. Jackson says that THIS is the real Lana.

2ND Degree Murder

 

In California, 2nd Degree murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a person with a conscious disregard for human life. Second degree murder also requires “malice aforethought” – what is that? There are two types of malice – expressed and implied. Express is just that, an utterance or expression of malice “I’m going to kill you”. Implied malice is a conscious disregard for human life – an intentional act that a person knows is dangerous, but does anyway. The expression of malice is implied by the conduct.

Was it proven? He had me at “Don’t Go”.

Advertisements

35 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – He Had Me at “Don’t Go””

  1. Judy said

    Kim – Ohmygosh you are such a brilliant writer! I’ll read anything you write. I’m not much into knitting, children’s clothing (I NEED to buy a piece from you for my niece!), or for that matter some stranger’s fight with their husband over pizza delivery! But I’m addicted, I want to be your BFF, I promise I live in Texas and so will not be walking into your home anytime soon!

    Seriously, are you planning on writing a book because you would be huge. I can see you writing anything, but I’d love to read a detective book or something to that effect. With your grasp of making the most difficult facts fascinating and your outrageous sense of humor, I think it would be the start of something big. Whatever it is – a knitting manual – I promise I will buy.

  2. I want to be your BFF, I promise I live in Texas and so will not be walking into your home anytime soon!

    OK – since you live far, far away, you can be my new BFF. Just promise you won’t call, you won’t come to visit and that I won’t have to buy you like birthday presents or put you on my nonexistent Christmas card list.

    I can see you writing anything, but I’d love to read a detective book or something to that effect.

    I should write a book about my whole life – the crazy didn’t start with Malone, you know. My mother is a psychopathic bird lady who loves to call the cops on her neighbors and loves to stir up “drama” amongst my siblings and I because it gives her something to sit back and watch.

    Then there was the guy I married and got an annullment from because he wasn’t really a contractor like he said he was – he was a bank robber. Ooopps! Yeah, you just knew that wasn’t going to work out.

    My brother actually saved me from him – maybe the next time my brother writes me about coming to get his crap, I’ll ask him to write a guest entry – he’s a lot funnier than me, and he can probably tell *that* story better….

    Then there’s the whole drama over my Aunt’s death and the crazy ass relatives who bought my Aunt a headstone with advertising on it….

    Yeah, It just never ends.

    Maybe I’ll make that a series on the blog: Chapter 1 of the book I’ll never write, Chapter 2, Chapter 3…..

    Kim

  3. Lajet said

    THANKS ONCE AGAIN. I’ve been waiting all day to see the recap, and I wasn’t disappointed. I was very afraid your satellite wasn’t going ot get fixed by the guys this morning.
    I’ll miss your recaps when the PS trial is over.

  4. Trixiesmom said

    Another accurate and concise summary. How do you do it in such a short time? I am truly in awe! Yes, please do write a book — not matter what the subject matter, I’m sure it would be riveting!

  5. Carolina said

    Kim,

    Fantastic recap! My internet server was down all day and after CTV went off for the day I was LOST!!!! Your recap was my only hope and as usual, was excellent. Mr. Alan Jackson put his heart and soul into the closing and from his exhausted apperance today he must have spent the entire weekend on it.

    Thank god the server is back up so I can witness in person, the implosion of Linda Kenney Baden! I am also really bummed out your recaps are coming to an end. I am homebound and reading your hilarious postings are a highlight of my day. Perhaps you could feature some of your family’s funny history in future postings?

    YOU have a real talent and I have found some of your postings extremely touching, the one you wrote about Paul last winter had me in tears. You have made a lot of BFF’s out here in cyberland!

  6. houdini said

    Wow Kim….another stellar write up! i missed some of today since i was on a plane and missed the entire morning session. i came in on the 3rd of the BIG RED X’S and saw it from there until i was crying. since i missed the “don’t go” i really appreciate what you wrote here and the concise summation of the remainder of AJ’s passionate closing argument.

    dini

  7. Gail said

    Kim, terrific entry as usual!

    Kim you are my main server, at least for the most part. Sometimes I can get the feed and other time it’s horrible, then I get so disgusted I wait for you. I really appreciate your time and devotion in reporting this asshole’s trial. It’s gone on forever it seems, and I really can’t remember another being so long–well how long was OJ’s trial? That trial was my salvation tho as I had broken my shoulder and was homebound the entire trial. If not for the trial I would have gone nuts here.

    Alan Jackson was terrific! No doubt in my mind, the jury will find PS GUILTY! Just sitting here wondering what kind of a night LKB is having, as I can’t even imagine her sleeping tonight. Loved the XXXXXXXXXX by AJ on her 10 points, LOL what a riot! He is definetly good!

    Loved his slamming the D attorneys for their “Defense of Desperation” and oh yeah the term Spector’s “checkbook defense”, and also loved him making the D’s experts a new Aholes too! Just telling it how it was, AJ did, he did!

    Oh there is so much more, I could go on and on right now, it’s the excitement in me, but I will spare all! lol

    There is not a chance in hell there will be hung jury IMO, because who would want to be that lone juror/s who would want to look that stupid?

  8. Dave said

    Kim, my thanks for your detailed recap of Alan Jackson’s closing argument. What he did was amazing. We knew it was going to be good, but he was absolutely superb. He just plain nailed it.

    And remember – the next time your old man knocks over the satellite dish, you can always just say to yourself, “Hey – things could be a lot worse. I’m not Linda Kenny-Baden!”

  9. Jim said

    Great recap, Kim, as usual!

    This novice did take a little bow (to self) (in mirror) when the Tequila bottle came up… Hurray for me!

    Hey, I read somewhere in the news about Spector snorting or laughing with derision at some point during Jackson’s presentation. I didn’t see it. Did you? Any idea when that happened (like what AJ was talking about?)

    Can’t wait for your next post!
    Jim

  10. Tony from London, England said

    Thank you for another superbly written report.

    Whatever happened to the matter of Dr Henry Lee suppressing evidence? Did the Judge decide to give the adverse instruction to the Jury? I thought a decision on that was going to be made prior to the start of closings.

    If the Judge does give an adverse instruction, won’t that create an obvious appeal point thereby (unnecessarily) exposing to risk an otherwise very powerful prosecution case?

  11. Hey, I read somewhere in the news about Spector snorting or laughing with derision at some point during Jackson’s presentation. I didn’t see it. Did you? Any idea when that happened (like what AJ was talking about?)

    Yes, it was as Jackson was talking about the second of Linda Kenney Baden’s 10 points of non proven scientific evidence, the blood spatter and how Henry Lee didn’t come and testify about it. That’s why I remember exactly where Jackson was – because there was no reason to laugh about that, but Spector found it terribly amusing. I mean, there were several parts of Jacksons statement that could conceivaby be amusing – to either side – but not this part.

    But Spector laughed – a full on laugh, then he turned in his seat so that his entire back was to the judge, probably looking to speak to his wife or someone right behind him, then he turned back around and with his head leaning to the right, he had his forhead leaning against his right fist, laughing some more.

    Bizarre. I had no idea why he found this particular argument so fucking amusing.

    But I wondered if the judge would admonish Spector, since just before this, at the previous break, the judge had admonished the court watchers that they shouldn’t laugh, shake their heads, stretch or yawn while arguents were taking place. And I’m quite sure the judge had to have seen Spector’s little display.

    Kim

  12. Whatever happened to the matter of Dr Henry Lee suppressing evidence? Did the Judge decide to give the adverse instruction to the Jury? I thought a decision on that was going to be made prior to the start of closings.

    Yes, the judge is going to give a pinpoint instruction regarding this matter and the Beden discovery violation matter. The exact wording hasn’t been worked out, in fact, the defense was still submitting their own versions of the instruction yesterday. But it will be something along the lines of “The defense has legal obligations to turn over all evidence in a timely matter, if you find the testimony of Sara Caplan credible, this means there was a deliberate concealment of evidence by the defense team, which may have limited the State’s ability to present their case.”

    If the Judge does give an adverse instruction, won’t that create an obvious appeal point thereby (unnecessarily) exposing to risk an otherwise very powerful prosecution case?

    Well, anything and everything can be a point for appeal, but a successful point for appeal is generally something that can be found with certainty to be error, or that goes against the spirit and/or intent of written law. Since there is a specific CALCRIM instruction already approved and written for violation of discovery issues, and this is what the judge is using to base his pinpoint instruction on, I doubt that there would be any reversible error found with regards to this issue.

    This judge has tried very, very hard to make all his decisions extremely bulletproof, citing specific case law with every single ruling. Very wise judge.

    Kim

  13. barskin said

    What a brilliant recap befitting Alan Jackson’s brilliant Closing Arguments! I have been appreciating your great wit for a while, but today, your intelligence and thoughtfulness showed through. Thanks, so much! Great job!

  14. susanp said

    Even before Jackson’s closing I told my husband that AJ was an incredible prosecutor. Win or lose this case he was the best. After the closing I know that was an understatement. Where was he during the OJ case. Poor PS- faced with a judge who is not fazed by celebrities and a brilliant prosecutor.

    By the way, I too willbuy your book. But does it really have to be about knitting? I see a future for you as Dominic Dunne’s sidekick.

    Also, my husband thinks I’m crazy to be so caught up in this case.

  15. Holy Toledo said

    Bingo. Shazaam. Holy Toledo. Wowsie. The list goes on. I know who you are now. You’re Alan Jackson’s clone. Who else could have done what you did. You’ve got friends all over the world admiring you. You could travel gratis the rest of your life so get the hell out of Malone. I can just imagine the capers you would encounter and could write about.

    Now I’m dead serious. You have a remarkable talent and skill. If you don’t put it to good ole American capitalistic venture, I’m going to quit being your very best girl friend. And one last thing: He had me too at *Don’t Go*.

  16. Kim…reading this makes me feel like I’m in the courtroom…wonderful recap!!!

    that Baden Beotch…ummm, it must suck being her right now…LOL

    thanks!!!

    oh and if you get sick of your new BFF, I’m “probably” available…and no, I’m not sending you money or helping you with your fabric reorganization…it just ain’t gonna happen. You’re quite competent.

    Have a great day!

    With friendship,
    Lisa

  17. Meg said

    Kim, You have a gift for writing. I too look forward to your entry every day. Your summations of this trial are brilliant.

    Alan Jackson is the most talented prosecutor/orator I have had the privilege to watch and listen to. He keeps his audience engaged and involved in his summations etc. I am not sure how this trial will end however from everything I have read and watched Phil Spector is guilty of second degree murder under California law. My “common sense” tells me that the prosecution has proved their case beyond any resonable doubt.

    I do extend my condolences to Lana Clarkson’s mother and sister. This trial has to be so unbearable to watch and listen to. Lana sounds like a wonderful woman with a very bright future.

    Thank you again – please keep it up – write a novel… It would be a best seller

  18. Jen said

    Me too.

  19. Pam said

    Without even reading the first word of the first paragraph, YOU had ME with your title! Can’t wait to read every word.

  20. brdsnbs said

    Kim,

    Once again, you’ve captured the day’s events perfectly!

    I find myself wondering how in the hell you’re going to make any sense out of what’s gone on today. You’ve seriously got your work cut out for you. You might consider adding a disclaimer at the beginning so people don’t think you fell and hurt your head.

    Another ‘Kim’

  21. Kathy said

    Kim, Good thing LKB’s husband and she made some bucks testifing because those Larimar nuggets she is wearing cost some big bucks.

  22. JoAnn Yellott said

    am a new admirer love your website and blog hope to see more

  23. […] CA vs. Spector – He Had Me at “Don’t Go” 5 months ago, you didn’t know the real Phil Spector – but things have changed. Now that you know who he is and […] […]

  24. Sprocket said

    Hey Kim, if I get you an autographed Vanity Fair, can I be your new BFF?

    J/K 😀 😀

    Keep the wonderful recaps coming! You’re the best!

  25. Hey Kim, if I get you an autographed Vanity Fair, can I be your new BFF?

    I’m thinking what I *really* want is for you to get that picture of Spector holding out his hand in the shape of a gun – you know the picture. Then have Spector autograph that for me – have him sign it “Shoot Ya Later! Love Phillip.”

    Then you would be my BFF. And my hero.

    Kim

  26. Daisy said

    Kim,
    Thanks for your sterling recap of AJ’s closing arguments yesterday. I got laid off this past April and have watched almost every bit of this trial. Though I’m very, very glad to have started a new job this week, I was totally freaked out that I was going to miss the closing arguments!

    You’ve made my missing it live bearable. Because, I KNOW (from reading and thotoughly enjoying your blog since Sprocket first turned all us CTV Message Boarders on to it) that you are telling it like it is. I don’t know how you post such thorough reports so quickly! Thanks for your great wit and good sense.

    I’d read any book you wrote. (And PAY for it, too!) I’m soooo looking forward to your coverage of LKB’s CA’s today.
    Best regards,
    ~Daisy

  27. Sprocket said

    ROTFLMAO! I’ll see what I can do, lol!

  28. groo said

    Kim, the second best thing about your coverage of the trial is that people beyond the world of afca (alt.fan.cecil-adams) have had the opportunity to be exposed to you.

  29. Helene said

    Dear Kim,

    Reading your great summary has started the chills on the back of my neck, even though I watched this day of the summary, your rendidtion made it even more real. Last night I was skirting the Internet and read a summary of events from a British tabloid that made me doubt what I had heard and seen and made me question the reality of my opinion.

    Many years ago I was in Lana’s shoes. I was a model and worked for Playboy as a travelling bunny working the VIP Room in clubs all around the US and London. I was also looking to “further my career” and made some of the same poor choices with important people who I was encouraged to “make sure they had a great time”.

    I got into some seedy situations but lucky for me/unlucky for Lana – nothing ever happened to this horrendous extent.

    Once again thanks for the great summary. It is sad that because of the changing of CTV and difficulty in viewing this trial it has really not been noticed enough by the general public. Just us CTV junkies is not enough but….

    I am rambling, thank you

  30. MsTery said

    Hey Kim- great writing and for pete’s sake put down those knitting needles and pick up a pencil!! Write a book- we will ALL buy it!! Your style is so prefect- your writing so raw and real that I am riveted by everyone of your blogs. Keep up the great work!!!

  31. Nancy said

    Hey Kim,
    YOU are The World’s Greatest BFF!
    YOU entertain ME, AND you don’t want anything back in return.
    YOU don’t want any obligations and neither do I. How refreshing. I’ll sign up to be your “non-BFF” as long as I don’t have to do anything….like sign something, or answer back.
    Thank you, non-BFF, for the fine detailed reporting and bitingly logical commentary….as usual.
    Damn funny, too.
    How did the Ukranian Freedom Day Parade go, and where’s the peeectures?
    Nancy

  32. Hey Kim,
    YOU are The World’s Greatest BFF!
    YOU entertain ME, AND you don’t want anything back in return.
    YOU don’t want any obligations and neither do I. How refreshing. I’ll sign up to be your “non-BFF” as long as I don’t have to do anything….like sign something, or answer back.

    Yea, well, we’ll see if you still feel that way when I start including your daily exploits in my blog posts and start talking about you behind your back – I do that, you know. Ask my husband!

    How did the Ukranian Freedom Day Parade go, and where’s the peeectures?

    Oh! That’s right! I haven’t updated you all!

    She’s definitely Russian!! She plans on going to Moscow this winter, which is how she will get out of freezing to death, since she still has no lights.

    Paul asked her why she would be going to Russia in the dead of winter, and if it wasn’t like, colder there than it was here, and she said “No, it’s warmer there becuase they have more cars now.”

    I don’t know what the fuck that meant, but that’s what she said.

    I haven’t seen her for like 4 days – ever since I went to the store and bought her cammembert cheese. I had never heard of cammembert cheese, and didn’t really know what I was looking for, but I found it. It was round in foil wrapping and even though it was like 4 inches around and one inch thick, it was like $9.00. No wonder I never heard of it. Mamma didn’t make no mac and cheese with that expensive cammembert shit.

    Kim

  33. […] DarwinException will know how suitable, as well as convenient, a form of shorthand this will be. Here is how Kim opens her posting of September 5th He Had Me at “Don’t Go” 5 months ago, you […]

  34. Stephen G. said

    Hello–

    I am the voice of 20-20 hindsight, writing during the defense case in Spector II, after the jury hearing the above “powerful” prosecution arguments initially voted 4 for guilty, 5 for not guilty, 3 undecided, then hung after 44 hours of deliberations.

    No evidence that Lana Clarkson engaged in suicidal ideation? How about the email she wrote to a TV writer (who turned her down days before her death for a $200 loan so she would not be evicted) on December 8, 2002 stating that she was going to “tidy up her affairs” and chuck it all because there was just too much pain for one girl to bear?

    No evidence that Lana Clarkson engaged in high risk behavior? I would say getting legally drunk (1.2 BA), downing pain pills, going home with a stranger at 2:00 am, then (as the prosecution’s DNA evidence suggests) giving him oral sex, is pretty darn “high risk”.

    Soon we will be reading about the same “powerful” prosecution arguments and wondering will there be a Spector III trial?

  35. Terry McCabe said

    Yes, going home with Phil Spector was indeed high-risk behavior, considering that he shot her dead.

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: