CA vs. Spector – Don’t Convict Him Because You Hate Him…

 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.