The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 969,692 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 – Don’t Convict Him Because You Hate Him…

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 7, 2007

 Okay – sorry people, but I’m in a “mood” today. Mostly because I can’t find any fucking knitting needles in a size “0”. I have a whole foot high glass vase full of knitting needles. Every size in the world – 5 pairs of some sizes – except for size “0”. I went to Wal Mart *and* Joann’s tonight looking for size 0 knitting needles. Neither place had them. So now I’m pissed off and in a snit.

And I’m quite afraid that Linda Kenney Baden is going to get the brunt of my snit today. Mostly because she won’t shut the fuck up and sit down. Jesus fucking Christ.

Like I said yesterday – she does have some absolutely great points. She really, really does. But instead of standing there and cherry picking her own facts and pulling out those totally compelling and legitimate points (and she knows what they are, I’m sure she does), she intermixes them with totally off the wall shit like “And Phillip wasn’t *cleaning up* the scene – he was wiping down her face! He was *rendering aid*.” Oh shut the Hell up Linda Kenney Baden – if he wanted to render fucking aid, why didn’t he da-do-run-run over to a fucking phone and call 911? And these stupid ass points drown out the really great things she could hammer home – like the whole Calcrim instruction on circumstantial evidence. If it was me and I had all that damned time that she seems to have to sit there and read out of her binder – I would have sat there for 2 hours just reading that instruction over and over and over until I was quite sure the fucking jury had it memorized. It would have been better than the whole “He thought DeSouza was going for help – that’s why he didn’t call anyone!” argument. Because that was just fucking nuts.

But first, let’s leave Linda Kenney Baden for a moment and get to the gossip.

So Judge Fidler was in a snit today, too. Mostly because Rachelle Spector, PR child bride of Phil Spector, went on Court TV today with Jami Floyd and ran her mouth about how the Judge is predisposed to the Prosecution and treats Phil like he’s guilty. And she read a prepared statement that ended with her flinging her arms out and saying “I Love My Husband!” Like that didn’t look staged and scripted. Fucking fool. And Fidler must have been catching up on this right before court, since he came in and made an announcement that if the “families and friends of those involved in the case” kept running around and giving interviews and spouting the propaganda and party line of those they speak for, that he was going to slap a gag order on the lot of them.

And shame on Jami Floyd for kissing this bitch’s ass in the first place – and that of Nicole Spector yesterday – and giving them both a platform to parrot their father and “husband’s” statements. If he wants the public to know something, let him get up on the stand and say it. Under oath. I understand that Jami’s show is the “Best Defense” and that she gives a stage to those who otherwise wouldn’t have a forum to speak – like that nasty Anita wench – but the “Best Defense” in this case isn’t giving Phil Spector a voice to get a message across that he doesn’t have to be cross examined on. Because Lord knows Jami Floyd isn’t going to ask any questions any more difficult of either of them than “Tell me how it feels for you to see your loved one go through this.” And it’s a good thing I didn’t have those size 0 knitting needles when Jami said “Well, it’s certainly clear that Phillip surrounds himself with intelligent, beautiful women – first Nicole and now you, Rachelle”, because at about that point I was looking for something appropriate to stick in my fucking eardrums so I didn’t have to hear any more of that shit.

Having admonished Rachelle and Nicole, the judge then tells the court that none of the witnesses will be released from their admonishment to not speak to anyone regarding the case unless and until there is a verdict in the case. So they better just shut up.

So after all of this is when Linda Kenney Baden gets up to finish out her closing argument – and it really is more of the same, boring, monotonous crap she spewed yesterday. She really needed a good editor, or someone to go through with her and pick out the 4 or 5 things that *really* screamed “reasonable doubt” and just committed those few arguments to memory so she didn’t have to stand there and read them out of a notebook, and hammered them home with some conviction (pardon the pun) and enthusiasm, then read that circumstantial evidence rule a few times and then shut up and sit down. Sometimes less is more.

But she begins where she left off yesterday – with a few more examples of how DeSouza apparently didn’t know English – and at least today Baden isn’t repeatedly saying “the English” so it looks like *she* doesn’t quite have the whole concept of grammar down, either.

She then flashed the CALCRIM rule of oral statements made by the defendant on the ELMO. And this is one of those 4 or 5 “good points” she could have made. She should have left out all the shit about “DeSouza doesn’t know the English” and just showed the jury this.

You have heard evidence that the defendant made an oral or written statement before the trial. You must decide whether or not the defendant made any such statement, in whole or in part. If you decide that the defendant made such a statement, consider the statement, along with all the other evidence, in reaching your verdict. It is up to you to decide how much importance to give to such a statement. You must consider with caution evidence of a defendant’s oral statement unless it was written or otherwise recorded.

She then reminded the jury of DeSouza’s bias towards the prosecution because of the help the state was giving him in securing a green card to stay in the United States. Only she didn’t put it anywhere near that succinctly. She said things like “the government adopted this witness”, which kind of made no sense, the way she said it, and she also said that DeSouza was uncertain of what he saw or heard, at least up until he got to court.

Then she says that despite what DeSouza says that Spector said, that Spector was acting in a totally opposite manner to the statement DeSouza attributed to him. She says that DeSouza says that Spector *confessed*, yet when DeSouza asked Spector “What happened, sir?” that DeSouza has Spector shrugging in response, as if he didn’t know what happened. Not exactly the font of information he was when he confessed. Which is a semi valid point. It does seem odd he would be confessing in one breath and then shrugging in response to the question of “What happened, Sir?

But even these *semi* valid points get lost because she follows them up with bullshit like “And how did Phil get out the door with a gun in his hand? He had to unlock the door *and* unlock the latch bolt – we know that because there was blood on both – he couldn’t do that with a gun in his hand. And we *know* he’s right handed!” Get the fuck out of here! I’ve unlocked and opened a door with three bags of groceries in my arms and a kid on each hip. I think I could manage to turn a fucking door knob with my left hand *even though* I’m right handed and holding a gun. For the love of God.

She then says that the reason Phil went out the door at all was to “raise his cry for help”. He *knew* Desouza was out there and that DeSouza could get help – I guess because Phil forgot the number to 911 – because, you know, they might have been able to help, too. She then asks what happened when he went out to “raise his cry for help” – he says something to DeSouza – and DeSouza takes off down the driveway, and Spector stands there and watches him do this, and then DeSouza comes back up the driveways and gets the car, and takes off. She says that the *natural* inference that Spector made was that DeSouza was running off to get help. Because, of course, DeSouza would naturally have to *drive* to go get help – it wouldn’t be easier to just like, call and ambulance or something. No, Spector was just going to let DeSouza just go in search of a EMT.

And she says that there’s no evidence that DeSouza actually saw a gun in Spector’s hand, because DeSouza never said he saw a gun before – which is an absolute misstatement, since he says on the original 911 call “I saw the gun in his hand”. But she says now that it was just more likely he peeked in the door and saw the gun near her foot and “confabulated” (that’s a psychological term, she points out), “confabulated” seeing the gun in Spector’s hand – what he really saw was the diaper in Spector’s hand. Because even though Spector is right handed, he actually *could* open the door with a diaper in his hand. Just not a gun.

Baden points out that Dr. Pena based his whole “homicide” theory on DeSouza’s statements, so it would have been nice for someone to tell Dr. Pena that DeSouza was uncertain in his statements. He needed to know *all* the facts before basing his conclusions on someone as unreliable and unsure as DeSouza.

Baden then shows a snippet of DeSouza’s testimony – it’s the part where he is being asked the time lapse between the time he heard the gunshot and the time he saw Spector emerge from the back of the house. DeSouza says on the stand that it was “2 or 3 minutes” after he got back to the car after getting out to look around and go around the fountain trying to find the source of the sound he heard.

Baden then says that if the investigation of the sound took the 1 or 2 minutes” that DeSouza testified it did, that this was a total of 4 to 5 minutes between the sound of the shot and Spector’s emergence form the back door. She said that why would someone wait that long before coming out and confessing “I think I killed somebody”. Which, again, is a good point. “I think I killed somebody” really does sound like a classic “excited utterance”. It’s not something that I would expect to hear 5 minutes after the event, when someone has had time to reflect and get over the initial shock and panic. But, again, her halfway valid point that she should be hammering home and delivering with enthusiasm gets lost in the monotonal delivery and ridiculous “facts” that surround it.

Baden then asks where Spector was when the police arrived. She says that there is evidence that the back door was open and Spector was standing on the back stairs waiting for the police – right where you would expect him to be if he had thought that DeSouza had gone off to find help. Baden says that the fact that the back door had remained open the entire time is also proof that Spector was not trying to clean up the scene, since that is not something he would have done with the door wide open. Which is a stupid point because it’s not like the guy lived on a like a major fucking highway or anything – she acts like there were families walking by and looking in the door. But she offers the open door as proof that he wasn’t cleaning up the scene or manipulating the evidence before the police arrived.

She also says that Spector did not resist arrest, since he invited the police in when they got there.

Baden then gets into the 1001B prior bad acts women, and explains to the jury that these women had nothing to do with motive and had no similarity to Lana Clarkson, since all these women who came in and testified were women that Phil had had relationships with. They weren’t women that he had just met, and that all of them testified that there was a period where he was nice and sweet and kind and gentlemanly with them – it wasn’t until they had been going out for quite a while that they had these problems with him. Which is a really novel defense “He couldn’t have killed her, Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury – they were only on their first date and Phil never pulls a gun on a woman until they’ve been on at least three dates!”

Baden then goes down through the list of the five prior bad acts women and discredits each one – Dorothy Melvin “She lied when she said she had head injuries”, Melissa Grosvenor “She’s a convicted felon – is that all they could find?” Dianne Ogden – “She said Phil reminded her of her stepfather who was so mean to her – I’ll leave it at that”. Stephanie Jennings – “She sold her story to a tabloid then came in here with a compilation of edited sound bites of answering machine tapes. Did you hear on those tapes when Phil said I’m calling you back after you left 7 messages? We only heard one side of that conversation.” And Devra Robiltaille – “She left for years and when she came back she called her good friend Phil and asked him for a job – even after being held at gunpoint by him years before – and she sold her story – and she’s the one who says the tapes are wrong and the transcripts are wrong – and she didn’t know where he lived.” But Baden shouldn’t have mentioned that whole “she got it wrong where he lived” thing. Because, you know, she was from England and probably didn’t know Hollywood and LA very well – and we know how confusing it can get about knowing LA and where your “good friends” live – because even Jennifer Hayes couldn’t get that right.

The she throws in the little tidbit of “And did you notice the size of all these women – very petite – the last one was only 4 foot 11.” And I’m not quite sure what Baden means by that. Is she implying that Lana wasn’t Phil’s “type” or is she implying “and see – they were all able to survive Phil and a gun – how come Lana couldn’t?” Because the former is stupid seeing’s how Phil probably knew how tall she was when he brought her home and the latter is just fucking icky.

Baden then asks the jurors why they heard so much about these women – why the prosecution spent so much time on them, and she offers that it’s because the state wants the jurors to hate Phil Spector. She says that the prosecution wants the jurors to make the leap from “He’s a bad person” to “he killed Lana Clarkson”. The state wants them to hate him and convict him based on that hatred.

She then says that the state had the list of phone numbers and names that Phil Spector had in the pocket of his white jacket. That this list had a lot of names on it and many of them were women – She wants the jury to ask themselves why they didn’t hear from any of these women. Why did the state just offer them convicted felons? You know, instead of the state parading a bunch of women saying “Oh, I went out with Phil and he was lovely to me.” Because that’s going to happen.

Baden then goes through an exhaustive list of the evidence that proves reasonable doubt – spending a lot of time on the white jacket and the lack of blood spatter, GSR and and tissue and tooth material found on it. She also recaps the fact that the rest of his clothes had not evidence on them, and that his body showed no bruises or blood or sings that he struggled with anyone.

She then recaps the evidence that this was a self inflicted wound, including the fact that 99% of all intra oral wounds are suicides, that there were no injuries on Lana’s body to suggest force or a struggle, there were no wounds on the outside of her mouth to suggest a gun was forced into it and there was stippling on the inside of her lips to suggest that she had closed her lips loosely around the barrel. There was also copious amounts of GSR on her hands.

She then reminds the jury that the physical evidence can all be questioned – including the lack of blood on the carpet, since the luminol testing cannot be relied upon to prove blood presence and that the body posture cannot be relied upon because of the police actions in the foyer when they wrestled Spector to the ground.

And she says the there was no motive for Spector to kill a woman he had just met, especially when there was evidence they had already had some sexual contact.

Baden says there was plenty of government mistakes and manipulations in this case – starting with their homicidal Mindset and the fact that they declared this a homicide 15 minutes into the investigation. And they never did a psychological autopsy on the victim, even though one of the Medical Examiners had requested they do so. There are no ear or eyewitnesses in this case except for DeSouza, who cannot be trusted, and the 5 women who testified are certainly not proof of motive of any kind.

Baden then finally gets round to reviewing the actual law – something she should have been doing for like at least the last hour.

She starts with the admonition that they have to presume Spector is innocent, and that the state has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. She then describes reasonable doubt as a doubt that a reasonable person would find compelling.

She then gets to the best defense she has – the California circumstantial evidence law.

If the facts support an inference that points to both guilt and innocence – you must find for the facts that support innocence. Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proven, you must be convinced that the people have proven each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

Each and every fact.

Each and every fact has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt –

Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. You must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty.

You must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion support ed by the evidence is one of guilt.

If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and the other to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable. If one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and the other to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.

If you can draw 2 or more reasonable conclusions from the evidence and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and the other to guilt you must choose the one that points to innocence.

She then, very wisely, illustrates this with a small debate from this case. If, for example, let’s say the jury is to decide that Phillip retrieving the diaper to wipe Lana’s face down is ONE reasonable scenario and a reasonable interpretation of the facts. There is also the reasonable scenario and reasonable interpretation that he retrieved the diaper to clean up the scene. Two reasonable scenarios. The jury decides that they are both reasonable interpretations.

If this is the case, they have to adopt the stance that Phillip retrieved the diaper to wipe her face down. Because there are two scenarios that the jury finds reasonable interpretations, and one of them points to innocence and one to guilt. The jury must ALWAYS find for the one that points to innocence if there are two reasonable scenarios.

And Baden doesn’t spend NEARLY enough time explaining this. This is her best defense, and she decides to “attack the government and their mindset” rather than go through every damned reasonable alternative for every piece of evidence in this case and outline it all for the jury. She’s an idiot.

She tells the jury it’s very easy to convict someone who you don’t like, but that even if they don’t like Spector, they can’t use this as a basis for their conviction. They needed to ask themselves questions as they go through the evidence – has the state really proved their case or are they just attacking the defense’s case – do they have a clear cut theory – are you certain of what they are posturing, are they presenting you real concrete certainty or just supposition and wishes? Are they playing into your emotions?

She then asks another actually valid question – and this, again, is a point she should have at least hammered home: Why haven’t they told you exactly where Phillip was standing? Why haven’t they told you exactly how the gun got into her mouth? Why haven’t they told you exactly what happened? Is it possible to NOT have reasonable doubt if the state cannot even offer you the facts as they happened?

She then goes through a list of the government’s failures and fuckups – things like they state didn’t test the stomach contents, they didn’t preserve Spector’s urine, they didn’t protect her hands before transportation, they didn’t do the psychological autopsy….on and on and on.

Luckily they stop for break.

And Alan Jackson is on his feet objecting to several things Baden has said – including the fact that she attacked the 5 prior bad acts witnesses. Remember Linda Kenney Baden nattered on and on about “:why would they bring you a convicted felon – how did they pick these people?” As well as “Spector couldn’t have done this – he just met Lana – all these *other* women he had relationships with!”

Well, the state had just such a case of Spector pulling a gun on a woman he just met in the form of Deborah Strand – only the court said they couldn’t call her. And now Jackson wants a curative statement form the judge telling the jury that they did have other women – that they didn’t just handpick these special -t hat the court actually limited the state to these women.

The judge is going to think about a curative statement.

When Baden gets back up to rattle on some more she says that “Yeah, she was wrong when she said there was 1- points of reasonable doubt in her opening statement – because actually there are over 80 of them” 80 – and each and every one is reasonable doubt.

She then gets into a summary of what the Defense knows about Lana Clarkson – and what they know from her friends – Hayes, Schapiro, Sims and Barons and Punkin Pie. Lana was distraught, Lana wanted kids, Lana wanted to kill herself, Lana borrowed 30K for her video, Lana was fired, Lana was depressed about L.B. Moon, Lana wanted fame, Lana heard voices.

The only interesting thing about this whole presentation is that Baden does conked that Bay probably wasn’t lying on the stand – in fact, she kind of concedes that *no one* was lying – that Bay probably just didn’t see Lana and Lana took it as a diss.

She then kind of sums it up by saying “In his opening statement, Mr. Jackson said that the evidence was going to paint a picture of a man who took a loaded pistol and placed it in the mouth of Lana Clarkson and shot her to death. Did you hear any scientific evidence that said they could even establish that he was holding the gun? None of their experts placed the gun in his hand (valid point alert). Then Baden shows a montage of video clips of the state’s witnesses saying they could come to no certain conclusions as to who was holding the gun followed by all of the defense experts saying that they could say with absolute certainty that Lana pulled the trigger and the gun wasn’t in Spector’s hand.

Baden says that he absence of evidence means that the state was not able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because Spector has had bad incidents in his life from 30 years ago this isn’t a reason to convict him.

Linda Kenney Baden then says that she has a little “by the way” – she says that Jackson attacked her husband as being non biased and non objective- which was a perfectly legitimate argument to make – but she says that the defense had moral, legal and ethical obligations to their client to call every witness and person who had information to offer in this case – no matter who he was and especially expert witnesses who had been part of the case two years longer than she had been.

Baden ends with the admonishment tot he jury that it’s time for them to make things right. She shows them the coroner’s report, and there are boxes that list manner of death. She tells the jury that the box for “Homicide” was checked off 15 minutes after they started their investigation. Now, almost 5 years later, it’s time for them to check the right box.

Dixon then gets up to give the final argument in the matter before the court.

He tells the jurors that he won’t be as long as his two colleagues – and we are all thankful for that, I am sure.

Dixon says that after listening to Linda Kenney Baden, it seems to him that the defense is trying to say that the gun was never in the defendant’s hand. Dixon says “Really?”

He reminds the jury that Adriano DeSouza *said* he saw Spector with the gun in his hand – Dixon says that we all heard DeSouza say that – and Dixon plays the tape, once again, of DeSouza saying to the CHP 911 operators “I saw him with a gun in his hand.”

And that one was really easy, because even I caught that misstatement.

Dixon then points out that it is really kind of disingenuous for Baden to say that Spector came out and asked DeSouza for “aid”, and that Spector assumed DeSouza had just trotted off to find help. DeSouza FLED! He FLED because he saw a GUN in Spector’s HAND. He FLED because he saw a dead BODY inside the doorway of Spector’s house! He was AFRAID! He saw blood on Spector’s hand. He told the 911 operator that he did not want to go back inside the house because Spector had a gun and he was afraid!

He plays the Transfer call to the Alhambra police again, and I get to laugh at “Seal Inspector” one last time, and this was an easy rebuttal point, as well, because it’s another misstatement I recognized as one.

Dixon also points out that DeSouza’s language skills are apparent – he is understanding what the operators say – he is telling them what is going on and what is happening – he is spelling Spector’s name – “Seal Inspector” notwithstanding.

Dixon says that Desouza stood up to three days of cross with Mr. Brunon without an interpreter and anyone who can do that is fluent in English. And anyone who can do that without uppers is special, too.

Dixon then plays the interview from later that morning between DeSouza and investigators. DeSouza repeats 6different times that Spector said “I think I killed somebody”

Dixon says that everything Spector did  – and more importantly, everything he didn’t do – tells you that Spector had a consciousness of guilt and that he shot Lana Clarkson. He compares and contrast the way Spector acted with the way DeSouza reacted. DeSouza immediately got on a phone – Spector never called for help. According to the defense her spine isn’t transected and she’s sitting there breathing for 2 to 4 minutes – why isn’t Spector on the phone getting help?

Spector then places the gun underneath Lana’s left foot – Herrold testified that there were blood transfer stains on Lana’s hands. Her spine as transected – she couldn’t move – the defendant went back in the house and tried to put the gun back in her hand – this was a staged crime scene.

What did Spector do next? He washed his hands. And Miss Baden said “No, we know he didn’t wash his hands because there was Lana Clarkson’s DNA on his hands.” But we know that Lana’s blood was in his pockets – he probably put his hands in his pockets after he washed his hands and before he was tested for DNA. Dr Herrold testified that the gun was wiped down and she gave you the reasons why that was – because of the blood in the lands and grooves.

Then what did Spector do? He went upstairs and dumped his coat and waited around until the police came.

Dixon then reads to the jury the instruction they will receive on consciousness of guilt and the fabrication of evidence:

If the defendant tried to create false evidence, that conduct may show that he was aware of his guilt. If you conclude that the defendant made such an attempt, it is up to you to decide its meaning and importance. However, evidence of such an attempt cannot prove guilt by itself.

The defense would have you believe that Lana was so depressed and so suicidal, despite going to work that day, despite buying shoes that day, that she went to Spector’s house, found a gun, and shot herself.

Sure 2002 was a tough year, but she was revering, she was getting jobs again, she took this “corporate job” for some money and some networking.

So how did she end up going with Spector? At first she didn’t know who he was – she thought he was a woman – but she probably went with him because she thought he was a powerful man- she may have thought he could introduce her to other powerful people and help her with her career.

The defense knew all the history of Lana – but they also knew Spector’s history -and all the defense experts refused to consider the history of Spector. And there were 2 people in the room – if they wanted to review Lana’s history – why wouldn’t they want to know Spector’s.

Dixon then plays a video of Spitz, Baden and DiMaio all saying that they don’t need to know what Spector did to know what happened that night. That only Lana’s history was considered. Spitz said “Who knows what you do when you’re drunk?” Well, Spector was drinking that night. Spector has a motive history – He drinks, he is with a female, they try to leave and then he goes into what Rommie Davis called “Phil Mode”.

The drinking is very important – each of the women said that the night the guns were pulled on them that Spector was drinking. And Rommie Davis said something very important –  that that weekend was the first weekend she had ever seen him drinking – and that they had been “dating” for almost a year.

But none of the defenses experts wanted to hear this state of mind evidence for Spector – or know his mindset and state of mind about women – as Vincent Tannazzo testified to.

Dixon then plays the witness Tannazzo’s statement about “the fucking cunts” and “all women deserve a fucking bullet in the head.”

And what is the difference between these five women who testified and Lana? Each and every one of them knew Phil Spector – they knew the switch in the “Phil Mode” – each of them was able to escape and control that – Devra Robitaille said she was able to escape by acting “British” – Lana didn’t know Phil, she didn’t know what to do or how to react. And Linda Kenney Baden said “oh, she was big, she should have overcome him”, but I would suggest to you that when Dr. DiMaio suggested that Lana just reach out and grab the barrel to disarm Spector – that’s ridiculous to suggest she should have done that.

Lana did not have a background with Phil – she didn’t know she could just at “British” or fall asleep in the chair or wait – she had bruises on her arm – from a struggle?

With each of the five women there was a “Phil Mode” – he was drinking – she wants to leave – he pulls a gun – there is a time of terror and then there is an escape. Except with Lana – Lana didn’t escape because she didn’t know how to escape from Phil Mode.

As tot eh science in this case – the defense would have you believe that the defendant could not have been holding the gun because of the GSR and blood spatter evidence.

You heard from Steve Dowell and Christine Pinto – two GSR experts. There was no expert in this case who told you that you would be able tot ell who fired the gun from the GSR evidence. The experts told you that GSR can only identify someone who was in the vicinity of a gun that had been fired. And Christine Pinto told you 90% of the GSR on your hands is gone in the first hour after the gun is fired. And what is the difference between Phil Spector and Lana Clarkson in this case? She was dead! She wasn’t up walking around, washing her hands, playing in the toilet with a diaper as he was.

Dixon then outlines that the other portion of the defense’s case is based on the back spatter – and he puts up a chart of the ever evolving defense theories of explaining away the spatter – through the 72 inches of Henry Lee – to the raspberries of Spitz, the slight exhale, the cough, the prime rib defense and the “She’s Alive!” theory and the “AHA” moment.

Dixon asks if this is unbiased, objective and impartial science – and how can it be when the one coming up with it is married to the defense attorney. Dixon says that Baden is supposed to be like the judge is – fair and impartial. And would anyone here have a problem with the judge being married to an attorney in the case? Of course they would.

Dixon then outlines the defense’s final theory – the vagus nerve – which is the final 11th Hour Hail Mary – and oh yeah, Spitz, who testified to it? He read it in a book the night before.

Dixon then shows a series of animations – the same animation from four different perspectives. They show Phil Spector, in a long white jacket, standing over Lana Clarkson, seated in a chair, and putting a gun in her face and shooting. There is no blood, but it does show her body slumping down in the chair after the shot is fired, and Dixon walks the jury through relevant issues such as :”See how her hands are up and exposed and receptive to GSR – see how the front left panel of his jacket is exposed and receptive to blood spatter – the recoil of the gun would expose the tricep area of the back of sleeve to receive some spatter”

I like the animations – they are illustrative and look like they came from my Sims 2 game.

Dixon ends his statement by telling the jury – Phil Spector told Adriano DeSouza that night that he killed somebody – he didn’t just kill somebody – he killed Lana Clarkson – we are asking you to hold him responsible for that.

Advertisements

72 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Don’t Convict Him Because You Hate Him…”

  1. loveyvondoodlesocks said

    wonderful recap as always Kim! I had to stop listening to LKB after too many ridiculous stmts because she was making my head spin and I thought I was going to barf. I can’t imagine how the jurors felt; They had to endure her for most of the day and couldn’t turn her off like I could. When she talked about Lana’s lips being closed around the gun barrel (then placing that nasty pink pen in her mouth – like we needed a visual) thus proving it was suicide I almost fell off my chair. How ridiculous is that stmt? There are many possible reason’s her lips could have been around that barrel and it doesn’t prove a thing. Did she ever stop and think Lana may have had to gulp or swallow while after the gun was shoved in her mouth? It’s kinda unnatural to swallow with your lips open! This is just one of dozens, maybe hundreds of idiotic stmts LBK made. It was insulting to listen to and I had to turn her off, so thanks for the recap here. I knew reading your blog would not only be more tolerable, but entertaining as well.
    P.S. Hope you find the zero size knitting needles. My Gawd girl, what are you knitting…barbie panties…something very small!!!

  2. A.D.A. said

    THANK YOU! You must be tired – and sorry about the size zero needles. Your every wish should be fulfilled. You made me laugh out loud twice.
    You don’t call it? What will it be? Is he a goner? I’ve offered to double my bet (and I get an extra $25 each if he takes the bimbo wife and her mother out, too.) The red-eyed little creep! He’s out of places to spend his money, and out of people to control. Sounds like his own lawyers are sick of him, especially the female one. Will he make it through the weekend?
    Well, hope your own weekend is a happy and successful one. I appreciate you!

  3. Kathy said

    As always your article is fantastic! I may be able to shed some light on why Mr. Spector said, “I think I killed someone” followed by a shrug of his shoulders when asked, “What happened sir?” When your adrenline is very high after a tramatic moment your brain is unable to comprehend what happened. It acts as a protective mechanism. Or just maybe its like when your 10 year olds breaks your favorite lamp (when you have warned them a million times to stop throwing the football in the house) and you ask what the fuck happened and they just shrugg their shoulders with this dumb ass look of I don’t know!! And your only response at the time is, “Well, who should I ask?” As for the word, “confabulated” I have a new word for scrabble.

  4. Jim said

    I love the line of thinking: “You know how when you first start dating, everything is so fresh and new. You’re charming , you’re funny, you’re on your best behaviour. Of course, 3 or 4 months into the relationship…sure, you pull a gun on a gal to keep her from leaving your place. Sure, you threaten your lover with a loaded gun when she denies you sex. But NOT on the FIRST DATE! What would Miss Manners say!”

  5. rogerr said

    Thank you for your observations on Jamie Floyd acting as part of the Phil Spector Public Relations team while Mrs. Spector was on her show. I will not even describe it as an interview since a real journalist conducting a real interview would have asked some real tough questions in response to the sunny picture that Mrs. Spector was putting forth. If Mrs. Spector wants to go on TV putting forth the defense propaganda about science being objective than she should be ready to answer questions that challenge that propaganda. How about, “Mrs. Spector have you ever seen your husband drunk with or without a gun. Does he still keep loaded guns in the house? Are you aware of all the other people besides those who testified in court that say they have seen your husband banishing guns about in a threatening manner? Are you ever scared to refuse his sexual advances? etc. atc.” If Mrs. Spector doesn’t want to answer fine, than the viewers can evaluate why not.

    It is bad enough that CourtTV is pulling a “Heidi Game” on its viewers (A network TV station cut away from a close game in the fourth quater to show the beginning of the movie Heidi). Now they are acting as a conduit for the Spector defense team. CourTV has had loyal viewers following this trial foe months on television and on its online site. Now at the dramatic conclusion they have stopped showing live testimony on television in favour of a Star Jones show. On their wibsite they are not even bothering to post the testimony that they do not show on television. I suspect that their loyal viewers will not be very loyal in the future to a network that seems to have no regaard for their viewing habits. I know I will never trust them to follow a story again. Actually, I am just not ever going to watch their network again.

  6. A.D.A. said

    P.S. I feel guilty now! Phil’s a human being. I don’t wish him to die;just think he will. Thank God I am not in Phil Spector’s platform shoes, frock coat, and wig tonight!
    My BFF emailed me earlier this week that she would forgive the bet if I lose, Provided I wear a t-shirt that says, “I love Phil Spector”. I emailed her an early photo of Kenney-Baden huddling him and asked if it’d count if the words were obscured by vomit.
    My BFF: “…he is one of those wormy little things that survives all kinds of immoral and disgusting events. I bet he lives through the trial.”
    I think every lawyer associated with this trial now will lose status no matter what the verdict, and they know it. It’s hard to reconcile ethics to the pack of lies spun by a control freak. Bet seeing Rachelle’s big fake ugly mouth lying about Philip’s hair today really capped it off (no pun intended).

  7. susanp said

    Once again,, you are, of course, clear and concise-what a gift you have. Have you covered other trials? If court tv would replace Star Jones with you I would actually watch.

    It is hard for me to imagine anything but a guilty verdict in this case-if they acquit I might just go out and burn down my neighbors house as they do in some places (especially LA) when they are not happy with the outcome of a trial.

    Let’s pray for justice.

  8. Marie said

    I have size 0 needles if you need them. I had to get them at a local knitting store because no one else has them. Or you can order them online.
    But I digress. Loved the blog, I laughed outloud as usual. I appreciate it, because for some insane reason I decided to really work a lot these few weeks, not knowing that closing arguments would be now. ACK. Bad timing. Thanks for the updates!

  9. tess said

    This is a wonderful concise recap. I did watch most of it, but like the majority had to silence it for awhile. I liked Mr. Dixon’s closing and I really like the animation at the end. Nothing fancy, but sure did focus your attention as to how this could have happened. I was wondering, if anyone knows, since M2 is going to be the only choice, will the jurors every know that the defense is also in favor of the all or nothing verdict.

  10. RJ said

    Another excellent job. Thank you.

    RE: Jami. Interesting that I heard Lisa Bloom opine yesterday, while talking to a guest, that a journalist needs to ask the hard questions, to get to the truth, and not to just pitch softballs. None of the talking heads on CTV seem willing to give an honest assessment. For example, Lisa discribed Baden’s closing as somewhat “plodding”, as I recall. As opposed to a more accurate discription; “disaster”.

    One point as an FYI. RE: the gun and blood. The lands and grooves are the rifling inside the barrel. They impart spin to the bullet. I think the blood was in the “checkering” on the grip. The checkering is the cross-hatch design in the wood grips.

    Again, thanks for a great update. Very entertaining and very accurate.

  11. You don’t call it? What will it be? Is he a goner?

    I hate calling it – as much as I hope he’s convicted, I know there’s always a chance of acquittal just because of the circumstantial evidence law. There *are* two “reasonable” scenarios here, and it could be argued by a fervent juror that maybe she *was* suicidal. It doesn’t have to be MORE reasonable just AS reasonable.

    But there’s always the kicker that Phil is not a likeable guy – I mean, people *liked* OJ – and that helped him. That’s why LKB made such an issue of “don’t convict him because he’s a bad guy” – she knows he isn’t the most sympathetic defendent. And jurors won’t work as hard to find reasonable doubt for someone they don’t like to begin with.

    But I’m hoping for a conviction, because I do think he’s guilty as hell, but if I was a juror faced with that instruction on circumstantial evidence, I know I may have to work real hard to hold on to some of the elements of the crime to come up with a guilty verdict – when you weigh some of the specific elements there probably are two reasonable explanations for them, and you MUST go with the one that points to innocence.

    I think the longer the jury is out, the more likely it is that Spector will be acquitted, because they are going through each element to weigh the evidence in light of that instruction. If they come back quickly, that means they didn’t have to do that, and he’ll probably be found guilty.

    So I’m hoping they are back Monday or Tuesday.

    Kim

  12. I love the line of thinking: “You know how when you first start dating, everything is so fresh and new. You’re charming , you’re funny, you’re on your best behaviour. Of course, 3 or 4 months into the relationship…sure, you pull a gun on a gal to keep her from leaving your place. Sure, you threaten your lover with a loaded gun when she denies you sex. But NOT on the FIRST DATE! What would Miss Manners say!”

    LKB is boring as hell, but every once in a while she wakes me up with her lunacy. When she started in on the whole “But of COURSE he didn’t pull a gun – they just MET!” thing, I swear to God I started laughing and said out loud to the computer “Oh My God, tell me she didn’t just go there.”

    You can tell she’s a good lawyer and worth every penny Phil pays her – it would be difficult for most of us to stand up there and make that argument with a straight face.

    Kim

  13. Thank you for your observations on Jamie Floyd acting as part of the Phil Spector Public Relations team while Mrs. Spector was on her show.

    I don’t begrudge Jami Floyd her right to have Spector supporters on her show. Some of the guests she has can bring deep insight into the Character and mindset of Spector – she had Spector’s abandoned sons on her show and I liked seeing their interviews. But they weren’t there with the little cheer skirt on and the rah rah pompoms waving. They were objective, said they wished their father well, but this is what they knew of the man…and went on to give some background on Spector.

    And they didn’t comment on the proceedings and the prosecution team and the JUDGE for Christ’s sake. That was inappropriate of Rachelle and Jami Floyd should certainly have known better than to allow it. And Floyd should also have known that Nicole was a witness and there has been a longstanding admonishment by the judge that doesn’t allow participants to comment on the case while the case is still being adjudicated. Did Floyd forget the whole hauling of Baby Dol Gibson into court?

    Having Nicole on TV was a blatant attempt by the defense for some positive PR after the devestating closing argument of Alan Jackson, and for Jami to be a party to that was totally and utterly irresponsible. She threw out her ethics as both a former attorney and a journalist. Totally inappropriate of her.

    And the ass kissing was just the icing on the cake. If you are going to court the ire of the judge – well, at least make it worth it and ask some of the tough questions. Her platitudes and brown nosing ALMOST made me wish for Nancy Grace to be sitting there instead. She wouldn’t have kissed Rachelle’s ass, anyway.

    Kim

  14. I have size 0 needles if you need them. I had to get them at a local knitting store because no one else has them. Or you can order them online.

    Are you kidding me???? You really have a pair??? What do you want for them??

    We don’t have a “local knitting store” – I wish we did. I would be awash in specialty yarns – and size 0 needles.

    I know I can order them onlinme – but I looked at Joann’s and for a 2.00 pair of needles, they want $8.00 in shipping charges -a dn on eBay I couldn’t find an auction for just these needles – there are sets of needles, but not just these. And I don’t NEED a whole set of needles – I have tons already.

    But let me know what you want for the ones you have, if you are willing to give them up.

    Kim

  15. Damn you are good!! Spoken like a true lady!!Truthful!! Insightful! Honest!! (Did I miss anything?)

    P.S. Can get your needles but they are in Tehachapi, CA..won’t be up there until Sunday…Can you wait? I will mail. No charge..my gift for you.

  16. Lajet said

    LOL. My husband gets really irritated at some of the stuff I tell him about the Spector trial – he so hates injustice. Well, I’m reading today’s report, and laughing out loud – several times. So he asks what I’m laughing about. I tell him, and ask if he wants me to read it to him (which I can’t do without lots of breaks where I can’t stop laughing) – warning him it’s about Phil Spector. Well, he loved it! You have made the Phil Spector trial palatable – while acknowledging that the defense does have a case – somewhere, if they can find it.

    By the way, I checked my stash of inherited knitting needles that I never use, and couldn’t find any size 0. However, I would more than willing to check with my mom (who probably doesn’t knit anymore although has knitted some terrific sweaters in the past) if you can’t find a pair.

  17. kennytal said

    a classic case of a bad defendant led to a bad defense and it is a “lock” that PS will be found guilty. oftentimes, when “the wheels come off” for the defense early in a case, there is absolutely no way the defense can recover. i predict the jury will make short work of this lengthy case and then let the many appeals begin. Bruce Cutler was very smart to cut and run and save his reputation.

  18. Maureen said

    Brilliant….I appreiciate your wading through all the crap to bring out the relevant points in her CA.

    I feel he will walk…even though I believe the Pros. made their case handily!!!

    Love your Blogs!!!

  19. Sprocket said

    Bravo, bravo! Excellent as always.

  20. P.S. Can get your needles but they are in Tehachapi, CA..won’t be up there until Sunday…Can you wait? I will mail. No charge..my gift for you.

    Wow – *exotic* knitting needles all the way from Cally Forn I ay?

    Really, I will pay for them – I don’t want you to go out of your way for me – but I would LOVE a pair of size 0’s. If you are out that way – get them and let me know how much I owe you. And sure I can wait – my other option of getting them online at Joann’s promised delivery times of two weeks – even with $8.00 shipping. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR…….

    I hate living in a backwards town with no Mom & Pop craft store. We had one in Florida I was at all the time. Lots of neat little stuff you couldn’t find in a Joann’s or Wal Mart. And it smelled so good – like fresh linen and flowers.

    And from the seeming interest at the fair, with tables and tables of gorgeous hand made quilts and needlework and hand sewn and knitted items, you’d think we would have a craft store here in town.

    Another business I’ll have to open here.

    After a movie theater

    And a dog groomers

    And a fucking bookstore.

    Kim

  21. Unsolved said

    Without a doubt, you are the funniest person alive. Thanks for all the laughs that you imbeded in the unvarished truth.

    I just know that Phil is adding Linda Baden to his list of “Fucking Cunts” that deserve a bullet in the head. When one considers her pathetic closing arguement, who could really blame him.

  22. Unsolved said

    Have mercy, just reread my post…..how I miss spell check!!

  23. scopettg said

    Wow… professional. Hehehe…

  24. Carolina said

    Bravo Kim!

    The final animations were a chilling ending to this trial. Bravo to the prosecution, the best I have seen in many years. Dixon’s calm folksy “forgetful” manner was in perfect contrast to Alan Jackson’s commanding and dynamic closing. I suspect that LKB’s name will be added to the long list of paid trial shills who careers have been ruined by their sloopy, greedy testimoney, opps! I mean “testimony”. She may have made some good points, but I bet the jury had already been lulled into a coma when she made them.

    How long does everyone think the jury will be out?

  25. luvgabe said

    A billion “thanks” for all the time and work you put into reporting and summarizing the Spector trial. For every person who actually writes a comment on your blog, there are at least ten others who remain silent but appreciative of you. You are a GIFTED writer, humorist, and knitter!

  26. acala said

    The very thing LKB says makes De Souza not credible (his needing a green card) is what makes him believable in my eyes. Knowing he was illegal and could be deported, he still did the right thing and called 911. There was some confabulating going on, all right, several hours of it in the defense’s closing argument.

  27. Mindy said

    You are the best, love reading everything you say and I will not stop just because the trial will be over soon. I live in Florida if you need any supplies in the future, let me know that’s how much I like what you say even if I do not know you, I feel I do only because you say it like it is and that’s a breath of fresh air in these times.

  28. njgill said

    Drop off your dog for grooming at Kim’s while you catch a movie, then go next door to the craft store (featuring yarns spun from the shorn hair of the pooches), then step into the book store to find pattern books for your knitting, true-crime dramas written by your proprietress, and more. Periodic appearances by cute kids in cuter outfits, Formerly Dead neighbors, new BFFs, and husbands who don’t listen (and isn’t that all of them?) It’ll be the biggest thing to hit Malone since the last prison opened, and watch how you talk about it or Kim will stab you with a size 0 needle.

  29. Cacafuego said

    The jury would have to stand on its head in a bucket of water for 20 minutes in order to find a “reasonable doubt” alternative to De Souza’s testimony. That and the fucking with the crime scene/failing to call 911 will put him behind bars for the rest of his weasly life. Assuming Phil doesn’t decide to huff his Mercedes’ tail pipe before it goes to the jury Monday.

    As for Jami Floyd and the rest of the talking heads cluttering up what’s left of CourtTV, it’s pretty obvious that once it finally morphs into TruTV whatever little is left of the previous incarnations journalistic ethics will be flushed down the toilet. I’ve been waching it daily throughout the week for the last 7 years–but once the Spector trial is over, I’m done with them. I’ll miss Vinnie Politan and Jack Ford, both of whom I suspect are looking for new jobs, but I’ll get over it.

    And I suspect the CourtTV message board will not survive the mutation into TruTV, either. It’s pretty clear the new bosses couldn’t give a rat’s ass about what their old viewers care about or are interested in. And anyone who is into Beaver Patrol: Waikiki or whatever the hell it’s called probably isn’t literate enough to bother with posting on a forum. As it is, the message board over there is fucked beyond repair–the moderators reward the trolls and banish indiscriminately. And you can’t say fuck. Or shit. Or even troll, apparently, without it being turned into ****s. And given posters like danniegirl and a few other die-hard Spector fans, who are the most tedious fart-knockers this side of the Michael Jackson floons,a few choicely placed fuckwads and shit-for-brains are desperately needed, if only for therapeutic release.

  30. Gin said

    Thanks for all the time and work you have put into these daily reports. I will miss the reports but continue to read your blog. ( I know where Malone is after looking it up in our dusty atlas.) You make Malone interesting. How did you end up there? Where did you attend college? You write so well. I think you should write a screenplay or sitcom and sell it to the networks about life in Malone. Your DH, his nutty friends, your family and your excentric neighbors. Hells bells, girl you cant make this shit up.

    So again thank you for the logical and intuitive reports on the Spector trial. Cant wait for your next installment.

  31. A.D.A. said

    FIX THE PAYPAL ACCOUNT. YOU DESERVE $$$.
    $8 shipping ain’t shit, if you want something!

  32. FIX THE PAYPAL ACCOUNT. YOU DESERVE $$$.

    I don’t see anything wrong with my paypal account – but it’s not under this email address, which is probably why that one isn’t accepting funds – it’s not registered.

    My paypal account is under my other email address – adirondackian at the same suffix.

    But I think I am set for the needles – through the largesse and generosity of one of the commenters here.

    But I thank you kindly.

    Kim

  33. skweekie said

    If Kim would ever murder Paul with a size 0 knitting needle, would she appear at the front door holding the needle in her right hand? Would the nutty neighbor call 911 or would Holly? How much blood spatter would result from a aize 0 stab wound? Would Paul fall to the floor like a pithed frog, or would he maliciously spit blood on one of Kim’s sewing projects? Would the cute little girl wear the outfit if it was covered with satellite spatter? And what about prior bad acts? I’m sure there are people who Kim has already threatened with bodily harm. I’m sure they would testify. Will Henry Lee return from China with the missing ball of yarn?

    LKB and MB will be looking for a new case to bray about. This could be the one that restores their careers.

    Think about it. It could happen.

  34. LOL said

    In regards to Dixon ending his statement by telling the jury – “Phil Spector told Adriano DeSouza that night that he killed somebody – he didn’t just kill somebody – he killed Lana Clarkson – we are asking you to hold him responsible for that.”

    I would not convict anyone based on Brazilian Adriano DeSouza’s testimony because his testimony was not consistent, he had trouble with English, and because he is a puppet of the state and could be deported any day and especially if the jury find the defendant not guilty.

  35. LOL said

    Don’t convict him because you hate him. To know him is to love him!

  36. A.D.A. said

    re: Phil Spector
    He was a brilliant producer! From “Be my baby” to “The long and winding road”, he was a genius. He is also insane, a piece of shit, and a total control freak. All the unrealized angst, the need for love and security – from “To know him is to love him” (when he wrote and sang his father’s epitaph with the Teddy Bears) to “Imagine” – he produced that!

    Do you know the story of how he shot a gun into the ceiling during the Beatles last session ( Personally, I like “Long and winding road”, strings and all, despite SIR PAUL’S protestations now, and sparser rerelease), when John Lennon said, “Phil, if you’re gonna kill me, kill me. But I need me fucking ears”?

    One biography I read says that this small Jewish man went to the bathroom while touring with the Teddy Bears, and several husky local thugs cornered him in the restroom and urinated on him, and he’s had bodyguards ever since.

    I love his early music…I’m such a motherf*ckin’ cliche.

    I love him and I hate him. If he kills himself, he will become an icon, universally mourned and remembered, and Lana Clarkson is a B actress who died. If he lives, he’s the piece of murdering sh*t he is – acquitted, hung jury, or guilty.

    Ain’t life a bitch? He died with Starsailor.

    Wonder if he’s pouring over Lenny Bruce’s death photos tonight, trying to figure it out?
    BTW, have you noticed that when you put “Rachelle Spector” into Youtube you get video of NICOLE, mislabelled, with comments about how obscenely hot she is? (Not the mediocre cheap c*nt who accepted his second choice proposal since the murder.)
    Andy Warhol was right.

  37. LOL said

    Don’t convict him because you hate his hair. Everybody loved Phil Spector’s hair in the 1960’s and 1970’s – he fit right into those times.

    People are focusing on his hair and not focusing on Phil Spector’s white jacket which proves innocence and reasonable doubt.

    People are getting excited at how talented Alan Jackson is as an actor in his closing argument with his “Lana don’t go scene.”

    Alan Jackson has the looks of an actor and thats what he should be, an actor – not a prosecutor.

    Alan shouldn’t be a prosecutor as he gets too emotional and wrapped up in his own POV which he embellishs with his lies, omissions and misrepresentations and that is dangerous for any defendant and justice.

    A prosecutor is supposed to be happy if they are wrong about a defendant. They are supposed to be searching for the truth? I don’t see that happening in this case.

    Why are ordinary talents like Prosecutor Alan Jackson and and accident prone Lana Clarkson in their own desperation for fame – willing to tear down another’s legendary reputation in order to grab the limelight?

    Why is Alan Jackson so jealous of Phil Spector’s fame? Does Alan Jackson have such low self esteem that he needs to put Phil down in in order to feel better about himself or is he after the fame and the limelight himself literally at the expense of Phil Spector?

  38. LOL said

    Everybody loved Phil Spector’s hair in the 1960’s and 1970’s – he fit right into those times.

    People are focusing on his hair and not focusing on Phil Spector’s white jacket which proves innocence and reasonable doubt.

    People are getting excited at how talented Alan Jackson is as an actor in his closing argument with his “Lana don’t go scene.”

    Alan Jackson has the looks of an actor and thats what he should be, an actor – not a prosecutor.

    Alan shouldn’t be a prosecutor as he gets too emotional and wrapped up in his own POV which he embellishs with his lies, omissions and misrepresentations and that is dangerous for any defendant and justice.

    A prosecutor is supposed to be happy if they are wrong about a defendant. They are supposed to be searching for the truth? I don’t see that happening in this case.

    Why are ordinary talents like Prosecutor Alan Jackson and and accident prone Lana Clarkson in their own desperation for fame – willing to tear down another’s legendary reputation in order to grab the limelight?

    Why is Alan Jackson so jealous of Phil Spector’s fame? Does Alan Jackson have such low self esteem that he needs to put Phil down in in order to feel better about himself or is he after the fame and the limelight himself literally at the expense of Phil Spector?

  39. kennytal said

    Alan Jackson will be just fine. I would be more concerned about the reputations of the defense attorneys and defense expert witnesses. No need to put AJ down, unless you have esteem problems yourself. As for fame and limelight, they go to those who have talent and luck, not those who criticize.

  40. JayDee said

    Just as a matter of interest: Pat Dixon actually got the “Phil mode” reference backwards. It’s the phrase Dorothy Melvin used to explain the moment when he was chasing her down the driveway with the shotgun and she pointed out that she couldn’t leave because the gate was locked. She said that, upon hearing that, he temporarily reverted to “Phil mode”, which she described as behaving normally as distinguished from the rage mode that he’d been in prior to that.

  41. A.D.A. said

    LOL: Who cares about PS’s balding head? The only person talking about his hair is that dolt “wife” of his.

    Wow, isn’t that AJ truly gorgeous (hair’s real, too)!! Remember when he took his jacket half off? Didn’t it cross your mind how good he probably smelled through that crisp white shirt?

  42. Jassyca said

    “LOL” = Loser on ludes

    So what makes a person “unlikeable”? Maybe it’s the way they threaten innocent people with guns? Maybe it’s the way they belittle and hold in contempt (“fucking cunts”, his abused adopted sons, even his *mother* for God’s sake, etc.) anyone who is not themselves?

    Yeah, “LOL”, I can see why you’d be afraid that people might judge others by their ACTIONS.

  43. Cacafuego said

    Having read TEARING DOWN THE WALL OF SOUND, it’s pretty clear that Spector has been creepy since his teens,loony since his 20s, dangerous since his 30s, and finally lethal in his 60s.

    Of particular note, it’s interesting that January 31st, 2003 was when it was announced that the Spector-free verson of LET IT BE would be released later that year. That’s the day Spector was reported to have started his boozing jag.

    Lana was killed Feb. 3, 2003.

    No doubt he felt the need to reassert his ego/importance with some hapless woman due to this blow to his legacy, and Lana just happened to be the one who finally ended up in his clutches.

    Wrong place, wrong time defined.

  44. As it is, the message board over there is fucked beyond repair–the moderators reward the trolls and banish indiscriminately. And you can’t say fuck. Or shit. Or even troll, apparently, without it being turned into ****s.

    You can’t swear, either??? You know, I really would never survuve over there. Never.

    Someone else said that if you say anything innocuous to another poster like “Well, you’re an idiot” – well, that’s enough to get you banned. And I think someone here called Pie a pig and got banned. But I didn’t realize you couldn’t slip in a well placed “fuck” here and there.

    I think you can figure out for yourself how long I’d last.

    I don’t like content moderated forums, to begin with, so I have’t really bothered going over there – although it’s too bad, the people from there who seem to be reading here are all really sharp and intelligent people. I’m sure I would enjoy their content, but the whole “You can’t say anything I disagree with” attitude of moderation just turns me right the fuck off. To me, that’s not a forum, that’s a pedestal.

    Kim

  45. If Kim would ever murder Paul with a size 0 knitting needle, would she appear at the front door holding the needle in her right hand?

    Left hand – I’m left handed, actually.

    Would the nutty neighbor call 911 or would Holly?

    That would have to be Milo – he’s the only one in the house smart enough to besides Paul and I. Zombie ass doesn’t have a phone, and Holly would be too busy chewing up something. She chewed the living room floor last night, so she’s on the chain gang, today. Chained to the wood stove with someone saying to her “Bad Girl!” whenever they walk by.

    Chewed the fusking floor! Who the hell does that??? And Why???

    How much blood spatter would result from a aize 0 stab wound? Would Paul fall to the floor like a pithed frog, or would he maliciously spit blood on one of Kim’s sewing projects?

    The FUCKER! He gets another stab for that!

    And what about prior bad acts? I’m sure there are people who Kim has already threatened with bodily harm. I’m sure they would testify.

    That would be the guy across the street, I’m sure. I yelled at him a few days ago when his fat little kid was “playing” the other day. The kid was starting at the top of the street, which is a pretty steep hill, with a wagon tied to a rope dragging behind the kid’s bicycle. He’d get halfway down the hill then let go of the rope holding the wagon, and the wagon would careen wildly down the street until it crashed into our porch.

    And, of course, every time it smashed intot eh porch the dogs would bark their fool fucking heads off. Not to mention that the sound itself was fucking annoying.

    So I finally went outside and said to the kid “KID! What the fuck? Cut it the fuck out!” And he says to me “Get back inside – nobody’s talking to you.” Which only pissed me off even more, so I went across the street and yelled to the kid’s father. The kid was behind me saying “He won’t come out, he doesn’t care – my father said I could do it…”

    Finally the guy comes out of the house and I said to him “Look Dude, if your kid keeps smashing that fucking wagon into my house I swear to God I’m going to come over here and shove the fucking thing right up your ass handle first. I’m fucking sick of your wild ass brat terrorizing the fucking street. Get a fucking grip on him or I will.”

    He yelled a tthe kid to get in the house and snacked his head as he was walking by, but I didn’t feel as sorry for the kid getting smacked as I usually do becuase I had had my fill of him and his fucking wagon.

    Think about it. It could happen.

    Even if it couldn’t, it made me laugh.

    Kim

  46. RJ said

    LOL? Is that you dannie?

    You’re an idiot. But thanks for sharing.

  47. LOL said

    Is Jassyca being unkind when she says “LOL” = Loser on ludes

    Phil Spector is not on trial for threatening innocent people with guns? He is on trial for the “murder” of Lana Clarkson – no more – and no less – just one count.

    In response to ” “LOL”, I can see why you’d be afraid that people might judge others by their ACTIONS.”

    I am not afraid to judge “others” by their actions, when I see their actions. I haven’t seen the action for which Phil Spector is on trial – have you Jassyca?

    I didn’t see what happened to Lana Clarkson on 3rd Feb 2003 – Did anyone else out there. If you did speak up – or forever hold your peace.

  48. LOL said

    Why is Judge Larry Fidler getting on Rachelle Spector’s case for speaking out on TV and showing her support for her husband? Why is this trial and the press surrounding it so one sided?

    Is the Government – trying to help the Prosecution by only having a negative and dehumanizing point of view against the defendant Spector with all those horrifyingly biased television anchors and newspaper reports.

    In any society that is unfair the victim of unfairness is maligned and dehumanized prior to the torture and during it so as to justify it.

    I thought in America a person was innocent until proven guilty? Has this concept eroded just recently?

  49. Cacafuego said

    LOL: You’re Rachelle, aren’t you? Or one of the other parasitic loons hanging off Spector’s dessicated carcass like ticks. Or maybe you’re Phil yourself. It doesn’t really matter, because your arguments are incoherent and irrelevant, regardless of the cyber-piehole they spew from.

    BTW: The “Government” isn’t trying Spector. The State of California a/k/a “The People” is doing that. Why? Because one of their People was killed, and they wanna know why. Spector would only be tried by “The Government” if he was in Federal Court.

    And I wouldn’t compare being ridiculed for your ludicrous PERSONAL choices, such as wearing a Hair Bear Bunch wig to court or Frankenstein-monster thick shoes or marrying a woman young enough to be your grandchild with being TORTURED. It’s not like he’s being raped by german shepherds and slowly fed feet-first into a plastics shredder. (Hmmmm)

    As to Phil’s dignity and self-respect: this is a man who has, in the past, spray painted his hair gold and silver with actual paint, not hair dye, and then threatened those who snickered at it with a gun. He works hard to justify feeling picked on by going out of his way to GET picked on.

  50. susanp said

    the trial is now over and PS is guilty.

  51. Gail said

    A good Sunday afternoon to all! Well well well who let the Pissers in? LOL

    I predict the jury will CONVICT! No instant verdict as the jurors will review the evidence to be fair, it has been a long trial and they owe it to the defendant. A Common Courtesy

    Deliberations will last 4 to 5 days.

    No doubt in my mind the jurors will throw much
    of the medical science in the garbage, for who are they to have to try and muddle through the goobleygook? I beleive the D dug themselves a hole here. Either that or the jury will side with the P, as their expert’s theories were not all over the place and changing as they went. But where did the D have to go anyway?

    LKB must think the jurors weren’t paying attention during the trial when she tried to change the evidence in her CAs.

    Two major points will send him up the river. imo

    1. ADS’s testimony (not a bird in hand, but a gun in hand)

    2. 5PBAs

    Thank you Kim, you have done a superb job! Plus it is really fun to read here, it brightens my day. I think you have put Malone on the map! 🙂 Malone would be nothing without you. Have you made your local papers yet? just wondering 😉

  52. LOL said

    The following points from Gail do not make Spector guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

    1. Adriano DeSouza is not perfectly credible he was an illegal when he “heard” Spector. He is the Prosecution’s Puppet and doesn’t speak or understand English perfectly. Also Desouza does come with a motive to lie in order to gain his green card – he is two inches away from being deported by the Immigration service
    2. The five women are still alive today despite their testimony. Why is that? Doesn’t that support that Phil Spector is not a murderer?

  53. bim said

    Wow…Why couldn’t I have found this blog months ago where I can read in 5 minutes a well written summary of the day’s trial events instead of pouring over countless lame ass posts at CTV where the posts are recycled rhetoric with more emphasis on winning a popularity or “number of posts” contests?

    To the owner of this blog, Kim I believe… Your writing talent is exceptional. Your blog is going to save me a butt load of time and lower my blood pressure.

  54. Katprint said

    Kim, it’s kind of cool you’ve got Rachelle or possibly Phil Spector himself (whichever one is “LOL”) reading your blog and posting comments. You are such a celebrity.

    And yeah, get some sort of paypal link so we can kick in a bit of money here and there, to pay the amusement value and keep our karma in balance.

  55. A.D.A. said

    to LOL: You still alive? Or have you left the Castle for the weekend – just in case?

  56. LOL said

    Prosecutor Alan Jackson has sold the Jury, The People of California the Media and the rest of the world a fallacy, misrepresentatin and incomplete story of Lana Clarkson- with Prosecutor Alan Jackson’s closing argument – his “Lana don’t go scene.”

    Why didn’t Prosecutor Alan Jackson go further back in time with his “Lana Don’t Go scene” to just prior to the time when Lana left her home on Christmas Eve in 2001 to go to a party where Lana “accidentally” broke both her wrists before she ever knew Phil Spector.

    With Alan Jackson distorting the facts in this way to the Jury (and everyone else) by not taking his Lana don’t go scene further back in time – we forget that everyone should have been shouting “Lana don’t go.. Lana Don’t Go ” in 2001,
    and also shouting

    “Lana don’t drink not Tequila…or you may have a great fall!” – and she did just this breaking both her own wrists on Christmas Eve 2001 “accidentally”- and a year prior to Lana going home to Spector’s house in 2003 in the middle of the night where she drank and had another accident. She’d had an accident in 2001 where she broke both her wrists, why isn’t it an accident this time? Should we rely on Puppet of the State DeSouza’s testimony who is motivated to get his Green Card?

  57. A.D.A. said

    Kim – you probably did that kid a bigger favor by making his dad finally smack him on the head than all the rest of his parenting; probably changed their sorry lives! You are so funny and truly awesome!!
    I agree completely with Bim.

  58. A.D.A. said

    Skweekie, you’re pretty darned awesome yourself. Wish I could make Kim laugh! I’d be button-bustin’ proud all day!

  59. skweekie said

    LOL says: “1. Adriano DeSouza is not perfectly credible he was an illegal when he “heard” Spector. He is the Prosecution’s Puppet and doesn’t speak or understand English perfectly. Also Desouza does come with a motive to lie in order to gain his green card – he is two inches away from being deported by the Immigration service.”

    He could not hear because he was illegal?

    Besides the truly bizarre mental picture you have painted of a country full of deaf illegal immigrants, you ignore the fact that within the first 5 minutes of the killing, ADS was on the telephone saying exactly what he testified to in court. It is on tape, we all heard it at the trial….except you obviously. He hadn’t even met the prosecution team or anyone from law enforcement when he made his statements to the 911 operator.

    Oh, what’s the use. I’d rather have a kid ramming his wagon into my house than argue any further with this person.

  60. LOL said

    5 minutes after the gun went off the game was up for Adriano De Sousa and he knew it – because he knew the authorities would eventually be informed of his working illegally in US. Before the gun went off he could work illegally without a hassle. As soon as the gun went off he a motive to lie to get out of being a suspect for murder and to assist his illegal working status, and not be deported. That this possible motivation is there cannot be disputed and after the gun went off DeSouza has not had his independance any longer and that makes his testimony suspect and a cause of reasonable doubt! Because he is the California State’s Puppet now.

  61. A.D.A. said

    Gee, De Souza is such a fast-thinking genius, a criminal mastermind! Why was he driving a car?

    Hmm…deportation – or tiny orange jumpsuit and being p*ssed on by more thugs – yes, clearly De Souza had more to lose.

    LOL (a/k/a Puppet) hope your “dad” smacks you upside the head, too.

  62. A.D.A. said

    LOL – I get you! It’s my AHA moment. She got drunk at PS’s and fell down on the gun, right? Egad!

  63. sbak007 said

    LOL Come say these things to my face tomorrow. I would love to share some of my feelings with you,

  64. Jassyca said

    Cacafuego: LOL can’t be Rachelle because he/she can form complete sentences. And they can do it without extraneous and un-necessary punctuation in in-appropriate places. However, I will grant you that in order to believe what they keep spewing (like believing Rachelle about “that” being Phil’s “real hair”) requires a complete lack of firing neurons. So I can totally see why, at first glance, you might think that’s Rachelle.

    It’s probably just a troll. Perhaps a troll from CourtTV message boards (COUGH*danniegirl*COUGH), or the trial blogs (good God, did anyone else see how it EXPLODED with trolls in the last two days of the trial?) or just some random internet kook.

    LOL: You’re right, Alan Jackson’s “don’t go” fantasy “didn’t go” back far enough. Instead of going back to February 3, 2003, Alan should’ve gone back to April 26, 1940 (ie, 9 months before Phil was born) and said to Benjamin “PULL OUT, you fool!” Or convinced Ben to ask Bertha for a blow job instead. I think we *all* would have been better off.

  65. LOL said

    The question of whether Phil Spector is innocent or guilty and the facts to determine that has disappeared.
    Is this Jassyca’s chance to be really disgusting and demeaning which I believe is innapropriate and harmful and won’t bring Lana back to life regardless of who took her life.

  66. LOL said

    In response to

    “Gee, De Souza is such a fast-thinking genius, a criminal mastermind! Why was he driving a car?”

    De Souza in fact was a fast-thinking genius a criminal mastermind as he was a Brazilian National who took a job in the USA illegally driving a car or parking cars at a LA spot long before he was Spector’s Chauffeur.

    Adriano De Souza also became a fast thinking genius a criminal mastermind on Feb 3rd 2003 morning – when he saw Lana Clarkson in Phil’s foyer dead – seeing Lana dead – set off Adriano’s adrenalin – – people who are high on adrenalin act in strange ways when they believe they are under attack – for instance take the people jumping out of the Skyscrapers in NY on 911 –

    De Souza on Feb 3rd 2003 had a motive to make up his story against Spector so as to get out of being a murder suspect. Once DeSouza that story had started he could not turn back, then the green card motivation naturally followed when the Immigration problem and deportation problems manifested itself.

  67. Nancy said

    To Jassyca & Skweekie,
    ‘Youse guys are so worthy to post comments on Kim’s blog!!
    A priceless combination of truth, logic, and hysterically funny smart-ass remarks!
    Also,
    fuck, hell, damn, shit. There.
    I’m not very inventive, but now I can go back to the CTV board and not feel thwarted.
    Yeah, that IS better.
    I just hope someone is not so offended that they just keel right over into a politically correct coma.
    Keep up the potty-mouth, Kim. There is nothing in this trial as abso-fuckin-lutely
    evocative of the whole mess as your famous:
    “What the fuck??!!”

  68. Jassyca said

    LOL: The possibility that anyone might be stupid enough to slurp up the crap that vomits forth from between the meat flaps on your face is *levels* more disgusting than anything I can say. Fortunately, no one here has the required lack of the braincells that’s necessary to buy the shit you’re peddling. Although that seems to have escaped your notice. The ability to disregard the obvious must be a prerequisite for joining Team Spector.

    Speaking of which, I’m curious. Aside from possessing the ability to ignore an elephant in a room, just exactly *how* low must one score on a standardized IQ test in order to join Team Spector? Clearly, anything above 85 puts one out of the running. Is it based on a curve with extra weight given to those willing to wear an adult diaper while sitting at the keyboard?

  69. LOL said

    Re: Jassyca’s “Fortunately, no one here has the required lack of the braincells that’s necessary to buy the shit you’re peddling.”

    Speak for yourself honey!

  70. Jassyca said

    # LOL Says:
    September 11th, 2007 at 3:42 pm

    Re: Jassyca’s “Fortunately, no one here has the required lack of the braincells that’s necessary to buy the shit you’re peddling.”

    Speak for yourself honey!
    —————

    My oh my. What a stunning come-back. Right up there with other “brilliant” grade-school witticisms like, “I’m rubber, you’re glue” and “takes one to know one” (no, actually it doesn’t).

    Thinking *hurts* for you, doesn’t it? My apologies for making you to so. However, you missed the part where I said I believe your lies. You missed it because.. I don’t. I just t’ain’t dumb enough.

    Oh, thought of something else Benjamin could’ve been doing April 26, 1940 that would’ve made the world a helluva nicer place now.

    “fap fap fap fap fap ooohh fap fap fap fap ohhhh fap-fap-fap OOOhh! fap-fap-FAP-FAP-FAP! AHHHHHhhhhh.. drip drip”

  71. today Baden isn’t repeatedly saying “the English” so it looks like *she* doesn’t quite have the whole concept of grammar down, either.

    ROTFLMAO!!! Love your whole coverage of the trial!!

  72. A.D.A. said

    Oh, you folks make me laugh so hard!

    You know what? If they don’t reach a verdict today, they are going to learn about the O.J. thing, the “California Karma”. They are not going to want to be as stupid as that jury was. Maybe this weekend Michael Jackson will get picked up for another little one, too (God forbid).

    I’m surprised the defense hasn’t made a Motion for Sequestration!

    “It’s my happening, and it’s freaking me out.” Right, LOL? (Fuck Roger Ebert’s expert opinion!)

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: