CA vs. Spector – Red Carpet Defense for Red Carpet Justice
Posted by thedarwinexception on September 6, 2007
Today is the defense’s turn to answer the arguments raised by Alan Jackson yesterday for the state. I am surprised to see Linda Kenney Baden has come to court – after the whole “Don’t Go” speech from yesterday, I thought Linda Kenney Baden would be so overwhelmed and discouraged she may join Henry Lee on the slow boat to China, telling the rest of the defense team “You want me back? It will cost you a lot of money!”
And they may have bribed her – because after 15 minutes of her closing argument, it’s quite apparent that she isn’t the animated, dramatic Alan Jackson – but more importantly, she isn’t even the fiery, passionate Linda Kenney Baden we saw in openings, where she wasn’t exactly impressive, but at least she was tolerable with a well flowing, even, somewhat engaging story to tell with 10 well defined and clear points and reasons to back each one up.
This time Linda Kenney Baden comes to the podium she brings a foot thick binder with her and she stands there and reads from it – and it’s not a dramatic reading, either, it’s more the monotone boring ass kind of reading tenured professors who don’t really give a fuck anymore give. And she doesn’t even attempt to bring out the prosecution’s big chart with her 10 points on it and tell the jury why each one of those red “X’s” should be taken off. She sort of has points – but they are different points and they aren’t numbered or clearly defined, and her presentation is sort of all over the place.
And where Alan Jackson had Power Point presentations, clips of testimony and an extemporaneous off the cuff delivery style, Linda Kenney Baden stares at her binder and reads her sentences in a flat monotone style, without even enough inflection, enthusiasm or emphasis on some of the major points so that the jury knows when she is actually saying something important. And then every 5 minutes she has the jury read testimony she flashes on the ELMO. And during every break I half expect Rosen to ask the judge to poll Juror number one because she isn’t reading the testimony on the overhead.
And all of this really is a shame, because Linda Kenney Baden *does* have some important, valid points. She made a couple that even got me thinking “hmmmmm…..”, but the important valid points are so lost in the monotone sea of the silly ass points that make no damned sense that it’s going to be hard for any but the hardiest juror to stay focused and alert enough to weed through them and pick out the valid ones.
But you have to wonder if Linda Kenney Baden’s downtrodden and uninspired performance has anything at all to do with the brilliant and mesmerizing performance her opponent gave yesterday, or if she’s just still sick.
But we start the day with more objections to the prosecution’s opening statement, most of which the judge overrules. When the jury files in and takes their seats, the judge does give them a couple of admonishments based on the defense’s objections – one telling the jurors that the clips Alan Jackson showed yesterday of the witnesses were “news broadcasts” and therefore one dimensional, and that their own memories of the testimony should rule, one telling the jurors that despite what Jackson said yesterday, that the doctor/patient privilege doesn’t apply in criminal cases and that Lana may or may not have been “murdered” twice, only they could decide if a murder had occurred, and he told the jurors that in the case of Punkin Pie waving from the stand to the gallery and the tequila bottle being part of the bar in Spector’s home, that these things aren’t testimony or part of the evidence, and just because Jackson saw these things, they are not to be considered as evidence.
The judge also told the jurors that the prosecution may have implied that the defense counsel got together and came up with Pie’s testimony about the purse and how Lana always kept her purse on her shoulder. The judge told the jury that there is no reason to think that the defense has done any such thing. And that the judge decides what evidence is admissible, so the defense “assassinating” Lana’s character and presenting evidence of her past behavior is perfectly proper and sanctioned by the court.
Baden starts by explaining to the jury that the state has in no way proven their theory of the case, that they’ve come up with several different scenarios as to how the gun actually got into Lana’s mouth – either it “fell in” while Phillip was brandishing it in her face, or she screamed and it got in her mouth, or that she was talking and it go tin her mouth, or even that it got in as a result of a “big gust of wind” – she opines that it must be “San Andreas’ Fault”.
She says that that the state has Phillip all over the room – he was in front of her, he was in her face, he was to the right of her, but the state never quite says how exactly all of this happened -and that’s their burden, which they haven’t met.
Baden tells the jury that despite the billions of dollars the state has behind them, access to a multitude of forensics experts, their own crime lab, they offered nothing to the jury except personalities and stories. Speculation rather than certainty, emotion rather than evidence and fiction rather than fact.
She tells the jurors that she wants each of them to be the “seekers of truth” – that she wants each of them to be “mini investigators” – I guess when you are married to THE Michael Baden, you can just randomly crown people “mini investigators” – she tells the jurors that she wants them to see what they see, not what the prosecution sees or what the defense sees, that she wants the jurors to go where the prosecution has stopped, since the jurors have spent months with the evidence, they are more capable of determining the truth than the original investigators were, since they determined what happened in the first 15 minutes after the shooting, without seeing as much evidence as the jury has seen.
Linda Kenney Baden explains that even though the state carries a heavy burden – the burden of proof – they spent 2/3 of their case and their arguments engaging in accusations and demonization of the defense’s witnesses, rather than what evidence they have that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Phillip Spector is guilty of this crime – they have engaged in a campaign to make the defense prove that he is innocent and have accused the defense’s witnesses of out and out lying and the defense’s experts of selling their souls and putting their professional reputations on the line – for Phillip Spector? A man none of them even know?
Linda Kenney Baden then tells the jury that the defense is going to call the government on the carpet of justice – because this is not a red carpet of justice. She said that the government decided within minutes of this shooting that Phillip Spector was guilty – because he was a celebrity. She says that they want a notch in their celebrity conviction belt and have decided that this case is just the one that will do it for them. She said that the government is basing their case on a bunch of women that Phillip had relationships with 10, 20 and 30 years ago, and that this proves Phillip had a motive to murder this woman whom he had just met. She says that this is a nice story, but that stories don’t trump science and stories don’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
Linda Kenney Baden starts her review of “reasonable doubt” with the jury by showing them the white jacket – she says that this jacket alone is enough to establish reasonable doubt and prove that there was no way Phillip Spector could have been in the face of Lana Clarkson putting a gun in her mouth and pulling the trigger. Baden says the absolute lack of scientific evidence on the right arm of this jacket in the form of blood spatter, GSR and tissue proves that he was not close enough to Lana Clarkson to have pulled the trigger.
She says that there is no GSR on this jacket – none. She says that there is no tissue on this jacket – none and that there would be more than “None” if his right arm was anywhere near her face when the gun went off. She says this was not a “spatterless” shooting and the lack of spatter on the right sleeve or the cuffs of the jacket proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Phillip was not standing within that 3 foot radius of the cone of blood spatter and tissue and teeth and gun shot residue that would have resulted from the shooting.
She asks the jury to take a good look at that jacket and decide for themselves what is there and what isn’t there. She says that what isn’t there is evidence of Phil Spector’s innocence. No blood and no spatter on the right arm proves beyond a reasonable doubt he didn’t do it.
Baden says the government wanted the public and the media to ignore the lack of scientific evidence in this case and they wanted to instead create a stage show where cute jokes and slamming of podiums and scandalous gossip fit for the tabloids replaced the forensic evidence they lacked.
There was no gunshot residue on the jacket, either, and if Phillip was the shooter, there would be more than none.
Linda Kenney Baden next turns to the gun as the second item that proves Spector’s innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. She says that the pictures from the crime scene of the gun show that there was still a lot of blood on the grip. Not that the gun was actually in this same condition when it reached the lab for testing, but at the scene the photos show that the grip was covered in blood. Baden says that this proves Spector’s innocence, since if he was holding the grip with the barrel of the gun in Lana’s mouth, there would be no blood on the grip. It’s only when the gun is turned around, if she is holding it, that the grip would be exposed to receive blood spatter on it.
Baden points out that Science is still the most important witness, it is still impartial, unbiased and although it is dry and boring, it is also factual. Although it’s not meant to entertain the masses and the media, you can’t confuse that with a lack of passion. Because science is very passionate.
And you just know that this speech is really meant to say “This next part is going to bore the fuck out of you, so get ready.” And wouldn’t you know it, she was right.
Yesterday Jackson took the jurors back – back to the parking lot, back as observers on a dark night in the early morning hours and asked them to observe and advise the victim in a very compelling and engaging scenario.
Today Linda Kenny Baden asks the jurors to go back, too, she asks them to become the Alhambra Police Officers who first arrived at the scene. But her scenario is not engaging and not compelling, mostly because she is reading it from her binder, and she asks the questions not in a conversational tone, as though she is talking *with* the jurors, but as she is reading out of her binder, she is more or less talking *at* the jurors, not drawing them in and engaging them in any way.
Burt she asks the jurors to imagine they are the first responding officers at the scene – she asks them to form opinions only from the information they see – that there is a shooting, that the wound location has not been determined, that what potential witnesses see and hear can sometimes be unreliable, that they have to look around at the crime scene and notice that there is no evidence of a struggle – there is nothing overturned, nothing broken, and she asks the jurors if this scene would necessarily suggest to them that this was homicide – because the Alhambra Police Officers had the same info and they decided that it was.
Even once they took Spector into custody and determined that there was no spatter on his clothes, no spatter on his hair, no blood under his nails or GSR on his clothing – they still thought that it was a homicide. Detective Fournier’s statement to DeSouza in their first interview with him hours after the shooting says it all, Baden suggests, when Fournier told DeSouza “This is going to be a high profile case – Spector is very wealthy – this is going to be big!” That is not an unbiased investigation, she tells the jurors.
Dr. Pena went to the scene and couldn’t determine the location of the entry wound. He hadn’t done any investigation yet, and he hadn’t done the autopsy, but he wrote in his notes when he went back to his office after visiting the scene that this was a homicide. The coroner then consulted Dr. Anselmo, the forensic dentist that the defense called to the stand. The coroner consulted Anselmo because he still wasn’t sure if this was a gunshot fired from outside or inside the mouth. He wanted Anselmo to look and see if there was nay underlying root damage to the teeth, which would suggest that the gun had been forced into the mouth,. Anselmo could find no such damage.
Baden says that any first year forensic student would have been able to determine immediately that this was an intra oral wound, but Pena wasn’t eager to commit to that. She shows Pena’s testimony where he indicates that he had “hoped” it was a gunshot form outside of the mouth Why? Baden asks. Because that would be a much easier case for the state. A shot from outside of the mouth would definitely be a homicide. An intra oral wound would suggest suicide, and they didn’t want that.
Baden explains that the stippling alone, on the inside of the lip and gum line said that this was an intra oral wound, and that’s not even looking at the copious amounts of GSR inside the mouth. The stippling suggests that Lana Clarkson’s lips were loosely closed around the muzzle of the gun – and Baden says that if you are struggling with someone who is forcing a gun into your mouth you don’t loosely close your lips around the barrel – this is clear evidence that this was a volitional act. And despite the government poo-poo’ing the statistics – 99% of all intra oral wounds are self inflicted. Because people don’t let other people put guns in their mouths without a struggle. And there was no struggle here.
Despite this evidence of a volitional act – the stippling and the mouth being loosely closed around the barrel – the government continues to suggest that there was a struggle between Lana and Spector. Baden says that if there was a struggle, you have to consider the size, weight and age of the parties involved to determine what the outcome of that struggle would be. Baden says we know from Michael Bay that Lana was not a shrinking violet. Bay said that if he had disrespected her – she would have slapped him, so we can assume that Lana would have fought Spector had he been trying to make her do something she didn’t want to do. Baden says we would see signs of a fight or struggle, and there is no evidence of that here. Further proof of Spector’s innocence.
Baden also points out that the angle and trajectory of the bullet is important evidence that there was no struggle. The bullet path was straight on midline – which is the classic position if you are sitting in a low chair and pointing a gun inside your own mouth,. Baden says that if there had been a struggle we would not have such a straight on wound.
Baden also says that the government would have the jury believe that the missing piece of nail is evidence of a struggle – but is that just misdirection? Baden reminds the jurors that the criminalist Jamie Lintermoot testified that she found a piece of nail on Lana’s abdomen, but that she never tested it, and neither did Lynne Herrold. Baden says that the reason this important piece of exculpatory evidence was not tested was because the conviction of hits celebrity was more important – and that if Herrold was more responsible and unbiased she would have referred to Phillip by his first name on the stand, as she did Lana Clarkson.
And speaking of nails and little white things, Baden then addresses the Henry Lee issue by telling the jury that the prosecution is trying to contend that Henry Lee hid or concealed evidence form them, and is trying to imply that this esteemed scientist stole something for someone he did not even know. She says that this is more misdirection on the part of the government – since they had the crime scene for 38 hours before Henry Lee even came along and they had turned over the scene to the defense only after they were confident there was nothing left there of any evidentiary value to them. Investigator Keel said on the stand that there was a lot of “white stuff” left at the scene – some of it was plaster. The detectives and crime scene personnel had left it there because it was meaningless, and the government knew this. But they are complaining and misguiding this jury by bringing up a piece of white evidence when the white something they actually had in evidence they weren’t even testing.
Baden then moves to the blood spatter evidence, and outlines how this also proves her client’s innocence.
DiMaio told this jury on the stand that the effect of the gasses in an intra oral wound are equivalent to someone dropping an SUV in someone’s mouth – that there is over 2,500 pounds of pressure that is being released into the closed cavity of the head. These wounds are not comparable to regular gunshot wounds and the same presumptions and science do not apply. Despite this, and despite the utter lack of experience of any of the state’s crime scene personnel with these wounds, Dr. Pena and Lynn Herrold offered their opinions to the DA’s office with absolutely no experience with intra oral wounds and without consulting any higher authorities who could have told them that this was an obvious suicide.
The lack of experience on the part of Dr. Herrold should not reflect on Spector – they didn’t even document the left side of Lana Clarkson’s jacket, and this ineptitude allowed the purge to happen at the coroner’s office. This purge obscured whatever spatter may have been on the left side of Lana’s jacket and slip she was wearing as a dress.
Since there is no way to know what that pattern is on the left side of the body, there can be no reliable assumptions made as to any pattern of blood spatter on the decedent’s body – but what we can tell is that there was blood on her upper slip, blood on her dress, blood on the jacket and blood to the hem, and this proves that Phillip Spector could not have shot her, since there is no void area where he would have been to block the spatter.
This void area is like placing you hand on a sheet of paper and spray painting around it. You will have an outline of the hand when you are through. The same principle applies here – if Spector had been in front of her holding a gun in her mouth as the prosecution suggests, then there should be an are on her dress where there is no spatter – where his body blocked it., Since there isn’t, this is reasonable doubt that he was there at all.
And Herrold’s inexperience with intra oral wounds was also apparent when she testified that back spatter could only travel 3 feet. Baden tells the jurors that this is totally and absolutely untrue. Herrold testified that she was relying on the course she took from Stuart James in December of 2006 for her opinions, only James testified that he would never have taught her such a thing because it was not true. Baden tells the jury that in this case, inches count, because the government’s theory is that Phillip Spector is right on top of the victim or to the right of her or to the left of her – and every inch that you get back away form that 3 and 1/2 foot cone of spatter is an inch of reasonable doubt. Baden says that in this case, there are many, many feet of doubt.
Baden also addresses the “twisting” of the sleeve that Jackson had talked about the day before. She said that the jacket in this case was not Jackson’s jacket – that it was Lana’s jacket, and the buttons are where the buttons are – that there’s no twisting of the sleeve to manipulate the jacket – that this was the sheriff’s own crime lab, for God’s sake. Baden says that there was definitely tissue on those buttons, and the prosecution’s explanation that it was due to the purge and the incompetence of the coroner’s office doesn’t explain it because Lintemoot testified that the spatter didn’t go down to the buttons.
Baden then says that there are three different explanations for the spatter that was on the left hand side of Spector’s jacket – and none of them involve him being the shooter, since scientifically we know that this was impossible. Baden says that these three way are:
- He threw his hands up to protect his face when she shot herself (which would also explain the spatter on the triceps area on the back of the sleeve.
- Pex testified that this spatter could be due to satellite spatter
- The agonal breaths we know that she took – and we know that Phillip was near her immediately after the shooting because he ran to her to render aid with the cloth diaper.
So there are three ways the spatter could have gotten onto the left side of his jacket, and none of them involve being the shooter. Just because he had spatter on the left side of his jacket, that doesn’t mean he shot her. Lynne Herrold said this spatter was “mist like” – which means that she had already determined they were of a high velocity characteristic – which means that she had the same mindset as the investigators, the coroner and the police in this case, who all determined within 15 minutes that this was a homicide. After that everything that proved his innocence – like the fact that he had no spatter on his clothes or on the cuffs of his sleeves – was ignored by Dr. Herrold.
The government insists that there was some kind of struggle between these two people – but where did the teeth end up? The teeth ended up at the bottom of the stairs and on the stairs. They didn’t get blocked by anybody or go through anybody – or over anybody. There was enough explosive force in this gunshot to propel these teeth all the way up the stairs, and they went straight out of her mouth. After the shot, some of the tooth material gets caught on the sight of the gun, and this tooth material ends up in her lap.
Dr. Herrold never went to the scene of the crime. But she testified that Lana’s head was turned tot he right at the time of the shot. Why does she say this? Because that’s where the state needs to place Phillip. But Herrold’s scenario makes no sense with the scientific evidence. If Lana’s head was to the right the teeth would have flown out to the right – and they didn’t, they flew straight out of her mouth and landed at the base of the stairs and on the stairs.
Baden then talks about the luminol evidence in the case and what it can and cannot show. She explains to the jury that the government maintains that the blood only went 2 to 3 feet out form the chair, and that they are basing this determination on the fact that luminol was sprayed and no blood was found on the carpet. She reminds the jury that they heard form top experts in blood collection that luminol is not the proper tool to make a determination such as this. Luminol procedures are not reliable in determining the distance of blood spatter. She says that the jury should keep in mind that experts have testified that when you have a high traffic crime area such as this one was, that blood can be trampled into the fibers of the carpet, obliterating it, and that when there is a high traffic crime scene area it is proper procedure for everyone to wear bootees and for planks to be put down on area where there will be traffic. Neither procedure was followed in this case. Baden suggests that even CSI gets this part right.
Baden tells the jury to keep in mind that both Drs. Pex and James testified that if you spray as much luminol as was used in this case that it dilutes the blood and makes it impossible to identify. And they both said that you have to wait 48 hours after the blood dries to get accurate readings – that was not done in this case, either.
Because of all this, Baden suggests to the jury that they cannot rely on the accuracy of statements saying “there was no blood on the carpet” – that there is no way to actually know if there was blood on the carpet or not.
Baden the gets into Lana’s position in the chair and how this does not prove what the state would like it to prove.
Baden says it is clear that Lana slumped in the chair after she was shot. We know this because three different experts testified that people move after death. And despite the fact that the government fought the fact that Lana took agonal breaths as she lay dying, their own expert, Dr. Pena, testified at the grand jury that this is what happened. He testified under oath at that proceeding that Lana took 2 to 3 breaths after she was shot. The government’s theory and this expert’s testimony did not change until he got on the stand in this trial. And why did his testimony change? Because it no longer fit in with their theory, and they wanted there to be no way that Lana could have expired the blood onto the jacket. But since Lana moved after death there is no way the jury can reliably use her posture to fix the blood spatter pattern or use this posture as evidence of a struggle.
And we do know that Lana took breaths. Starting with the testimony of the state’s own witness at the Grand Jury proceedings. We know her heart was beating – every one of the experts agreed with this. And there was blood throughout her lung tissue, also seen and noted by Dr. Pena. There was also blood in the alveoli of her lungs, and this could not have been due to gravity. Gravity would not account for the East/West movement of the blood in the lungs – it would explain why blood went straight down the trachea to say, the stomach, but there was no evidence of blood in her stomach. Baden says that the prosecution obviously focused too much on Stokes and Boyle’s laws and they forgot Newton’s law of gravity – gravity would take the blood straight down, not side to side as would need to be to get into the alveoli. But, bottom line, Pena was maintaining up until this very trial that Lana took 2 to 3 agonal breaths after she was shot – and these agonal breaths could account for the spatter on Spector’s jacket as he was at her side rendering aid.
And he was rendering aid – all this talk about cleaning of the scene is hogwash. He did not clean the scene. He was trying to help her. And he did not wipe the gun down – we saw from the pictures that there was still blood on the gun when the photos were taken – and the policemen who stormed the castle could easily have moved the body or the head when they were hogtieing and wrestling Spector to the ground. There was an unidentified fingerprint on the bottom of her shoe that could also have been caused by these policemen.
And it is not fair to base all their evidence on the business of the purse – people don’t get convicted because of a purse on a shoulder or blood on a strap of a purse – people get convicted because of evidence – and they have none. They simply change the facts to fit their theories.
Baden then gets into the DNA evidence and reminds the jurors that there was none of Spector’s DNA on the bullets. There was, however, a third, unidentified parties DNA on the bullets. Baden says this is proof positive that Spector did not wipe down the gun, since he has no magic wand that can remove his DNA but leave Lana Clarkson’s and some unidentified person’s DNA.
Baden then addresses the fact that Jackson had commented that the smears on Lana’s wrists and the smear on the gun matched up and that this showed that Spector tried to press the gun into Lana’s hand. Baden says that this is crap – that Lana’s pulse was taken by the first responders and that the blood smears on her wrists could easily have been caused by that. She also shows a picture of a smear mark on the slip and says that this smear is consistent with the gun rubbing against it as it fell to the floor from her hands after the shot was fired.
Baden then talks again about he contusion on the tongue that Pena characterized as “blunt force trauma” from the gun being forced into Lana’s mouth. Baden points out that Pena never testified to this contusion before the first time he said it on this witness stand and that this opinion did not appear in any of his reports. She says that this is another of the government’s “explanations after the facts” and reminds the jurors that there were no teeth broken in and there was no underlying root damage and that none of the scientific evidence supports a gun being forced into Lana’s mouth. She says that this surely is a blunt force trauma injury, but that it was caused by the tongue hitting the back molars, and that the same mirror image of trauma to the other side of the tongue is also visible with molar impressions.
Baden then explains away the bruises on the wrists. Baden says that this is not proof of a struggle, because we know that Lana was taking drugs that caused her to bruise easily and may even have caused spontaneous bruising. She also says that it makes no sense for someone to be holding a person’s wrists with two hands and be holding a gun at the same time. And she also reminds the jury of Pena’s testimony when he said that the bruises could have occurred up to a week before the night of her death.
Baden then turns to Spector’s arrest and his time in the hospital after his arrest. She wonders how the list of phone numbers got to the jail, and she says that since the list made it to the police station, this obviously meant that someone handled and went through Spector’s white jacket – since that’s where the list was.
Baden points out that Spector’s physical examination at the hospital revealed no bruises on his body from the taller, heavier, athletic Lana. She said that there was nothing found under his nails, and that there was no blood on his palms, although there was DNA from Lana Clarkson on his palms, proving that he did not wash his hands or try to conceal evidence – how could he have washed off GSR and blood but leave Lana’s DNA behind?
Baden says that Spector’s urine sample was not preserved or refrigerated as it needed to be if they wanted to later perform alcohol testing on it Spector was not drunk, but Lana did say that she had hurt herself while drinking tequila.
Baden says that sexual contact between the two was not discussed by the state, but that we know there was some sort of contact since her DNA was found on his scrotum and his DNA was found on her nipple. Baden says that the state does not remind the jurors of this because it goes against their theory – that Spector became enraged after he took a Viagra and wanted sex and she denied him. But this is ridiculous, since there was obvious sexual contact between them, and there was no evidence of non-consensual sexual activity – and Phillip had a third parties DNA also on his penis and scrotum – (she says he was “busy that night”) – it makes no sense that he would kill this woman because she wouldn’t service him. Baden says that this Viagra theory was another example of evidence after the facts. It was an afterthought, They did not test for Viagra, and their excuse that testing was too expensive flies in the face of reason. They had what they were calling a “high profile case” where their theory was that this man killed a woman for not having sex with him, yet they balk at paying for the testing of the Viagra?
Baden then turns to the psychological autopsy that was requested by Steven Dow of the Medical Examiner’s office and was denied by the DA’s office. Baden points out that Dr. Pena said he could not tell who was holding the gun from the autopsy alone, and that he relied on other factors, but Baden points out that Pena did not have all of the evidence, which is shown by the fact that he stated in his autopsy report that Lana had no history of depression,. We know that Lana did have a history of depression. But Pena asked for none of these materials and he was given none of them when they were found. Pena’s conclusions are meaningless since he didn’t have all the evidence.
Steven Dow requested the psychological autopsy after he found some of the first round of emails in Lana’s computer. What he found, we don’t know, and why he wanted this psychological autopsy because of what he found, we don’t know. All of these materials were stored in the coroner’s office and never shown to Dr. Pena. The investigators also did not find a calendar in Lana’s apartment for 2003, this information was never given to Pena. Neither were the details of her recent breakup with L.B. Moon, the man she thought she was going to marry.
Her emails proved the she had a history of blackout drinking, that she had saved an email from SAG for a depression screening clinic. She had trashed her apartment during a depressive episode and the DA knew she had been on medication a long time that caused her to bruise easily. The DA’s office also had the email where Lana expressed that she wanted “chuck it all” because it was “all too much for this girl to bear” – none of these were offered to Dr. Pena to allow him to make an informed decision. When the psychological autopsy was suggested, the DA said that THEY had determined that the background investigation of Lana Clarkson was complete – but a psychological autopsy is a medical procedure – not a legal one.
Then the box of Lana Clarkson’s papers and documents was put into a box in the coroner’s office and Pena never saw it.
There is no reason for the prosecutor’s to castigate Punkin Pie and Jennifer Hayes – they only have to look to Lana’s own words to corroborate these witnesses testimony. Lana herself said that she had hurt herself in the past drinking tequila, Lana said that she had serious addictions to pain killers and that she was so financially and emotionally distressed that she wanted to chuck it all. Baden tells the jury that the defense is not saying these things to besmirch the character of ;Lana Clarkson, but they only want the jury to have all the information that Dr. Pena didn’t have. Baden tells the jury that they are presenting this evidence because the prosecution minimizes it. Lana was so distraught that she resorted to writing forged letters to say she was better than she was. She was so depressed she was reaching out to therapists.
Baden tells the jury that she is not suggesting that Lana intentionally committed suicide. Suicide just means that this was a self inflicted wound. That could be because of accident or recklessness. It doesn’t have to be planned – it can be a spur of the moment act.
The science in this case shows that the wound was self inflicted. The real mystery here is why it was self inflicted, and there is ample evidence to find that she could have wanted to shoot herself – but a psychological autopsy was not done. Because that didn’t fit in with the state’s theory.
She could have easily found Phillip’s gun. Rommie Davis testified that he told her right away that he carried a gun. It is conceivable he told Lana this information, as well.
The government thinks if you are sympathetic to Lana Clarkson, that you will convict Spector – and that’s wrong — they want you to hate Phillip. They want you to see Lana as happy Lana, hopeful, bright and naive – the vulnerable victim against the evil madman.
That’s why the state tried to malign Punkin Pie – they need to making her in order to sell their picture of happy Lana – we may laugh at the way Pie came into court -t he way she was dressed – or undressed, but remember that Lana chose this woman as her best friend for over a decade – if you laugh at Pie – you are really laughing at Lana.
They don’t care who they malign in order to sell “Happy Lana” – they malign our experts who come in here and tell you that this wound was self inflicted – they imply that these men who have lifetimes of service and reputations would throw all that away for this man Philip Spector that they do not even know – for a paycheck? They have all testified that they charge the same amount no matter who they are working for.
They even malign Daniel Stark – a FIREFIGHTER. and he went on to show the state that he wasn’t a liar – that there really were two different time stamps on the forms he was testifying about. (Baden plays the clip of Stark’s testimony where he says :You make me out to be a liar – and I’m not!)
Baden then says that anytime the defense presented a witness who conflicted with the State’s “Happy Lana’ theory they were denigrated. She says that unlike Jackson’s’ huge box of files he showed to the jury yesterday, she doesn’t have that – but what she does have is all the books her experts have written, and she makes a pile next to the podium of big fat textbooks. She says that her experts may be retired, but they are still considered reputable and respected in their fields and that they aren’t going to stake their reputations on someone they don’t even know.
And then, after spending all this time bitching about the state maligning her witnesses she goes on to malign Adriano DeSouza – she says that DeSouza doesn’t know what the hell Spector said that night, and she shows several different clips of different statements DeSouza has made – and then she puts up portions of his testimony to show that he doesn’t know “the English” – as she puts it – repeatedly.
She shows how DeSouza confuses pronouns and repeatedly uses wrong words- wallet for valise, “she” for “he” – “It” for “her”. She shows about 10 different examples of this, tells the jury he can’t be trusted, and we end for the day.
She says she has about an hour left – but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Dixon says he will be finished before the end of the day tomorrow, and that the judge should have his 20 -30 minutes for jury instructions.
So, what do you think so far? If you were Dixon, what would you be pulling out to attack?