The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 973,691 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

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

CA vs. Spector – Verdict Watch Day One

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 11, 2007

So the jurors deliberated a total of 4 hours yesterday, and asked for one piece of evidence. About an hour and a half into the deliberations, they asked if they could have the gun, the Colt Cobra that killed Lana. I have no speculation on why they wanted that, but maybe they want to recreate the shooting – since they have been to the scene and saw the chair she was sitting in, and now they saw the animations from the prosecution’s closing arguments, maybe they are trying to see exactly what the trajectory would be if Spector was standing over her. I’d like to think it’s something like that, but who knows? They had the gun for a total of about 15 minutes before giving it back to the bailiff.

The jury also chose a foreman – it’s juror number 10, the one who takes the copious notes. Not too surprising, I guess. I figured it would either be him or the Dateline producer. And what do we know about juror number 10, besides that he could be my long lost twin brother? Well, we know that he’s 32 years old, a civil engineer, and that he lives in Spector’s neighborhood and ran into Spector once at Target. He owns a gun that he keeps for hunting and home protection. He has a n uncle who is a cop in Idaho and who was shot during a bank robbery. And he has a friend who committed suicide, as well as two friends who were shot accidentally while hunting.

He should be a meticulous and thorough foreperson, which is a good thing for both sides. I think this case has to be won on the evidence, not on emotion, no matter how much Spector and the child bride would like to influence the jurors with positive spin publicity, “Team Spector” buttons and attacks on the character of the victim. The repeated attempts by the defense to cloud the facts of the case with inflammatory and derogatory attacks on the witnesses has been shameful, and it speaks volumes about their faith in the cold hard facts.

And this use of the press to leak propaganda is nothing new – Spector has been doing this since the night Lana died, starting with his conflicting stories to the police.

In light of Spector’s newest interview, and the publicity blitz that the defense has been mounting, I’ve been looking at some of Spector’s first statements, and the things he has said to different people at different times. Since Spector chose not to testify, what he has said in the past, and what he’s saying now in interviews,  is really the only record we have of what Spector says happened.

One thing really jumped out at me in Spector’s very first interview with Detective Pineda at the Alhambra City Jail later in the day on February 3, 2003. Pineda came to the interview room thinking that Spector wanted to give a statement. When informed that he is being charged with murder, Spector’s first question was “Of Who?” His second question was “What is happening at my house?”

Pineda is preparing to leave the room, since Spector has specifically asked for his attorney, Robert Shapiro, and has asked to make his allowed two more completed calls, and as Pineda is leaving, Spector says to him: “Don’t leave me alone too long.” I thought that was chilling. Just chilling.

And when Pineda is preparing to leave, and leave Spector alone, something in Spector must go off, some kind of switch must be thrown, because that’s when he goes off. He doesn’t have a gun to wave around to threaten anyone with, but he does have his mouth – and in lieu of a gun, he shoots that off:



So, what do we get from this? Well, the first thing that kind of puzzles me is Spector says he “owns the House of Blues”. If he “owns the House of Blues”, wouldn’t he know whether or not Lana was security there – or even employed there? He says in the statement that she “pretended” to be security there and “pretended” to work there. And he seems a lot more concerned that people are “rummaging through my house” than that a woman was like dead in his foyer. Or, maybe not a “woman”, maybe a “piece of shit” which is how he referred to Lana.

But, at least in this statement he says “She blew her fucking head open.” At the castle, when he was being arrested, and as someone was, according to him “Standing on my head” – he tries to tell the officers that he can “tell them what happened”.

So, he can “tell them what happened”, but he doesn’t know “how it happened, but it happened, and I’m sorry it happened.” But he remembers exactly what happened later. And remember, this is before he was even arrested, when he was in the middle of being hogtied and handcuffed, when the police are securing the scene. I think this is the “best evidence” of what really happened that night, because Spector hasn’t had time to think about the implications of what he says, he hasn’t formally been arrested, and he probably still thinks his connections and the fact that he “owns the House of Blues” may trump some dead woman in his house.

The officer who responded, Officer Rodriguez, also wrote a report containing some statements he heard Spector say. Again, this was *before* Spector was arrested, and when he was still calling this an accident.

So the whole “She blew her head off” wasn’t mentioned until Spector had been at the Alhambra City Jail for at least 9 hours. When the officers were on the scene, it was still an “accident”, he didn’t know “how it happened” and he was “sorry it happened.”

I’ve always thought Spector should have stuck with the “it was an accident” story. Take a plea to voluntary manslaughter, do a year or two in jail and spend the rest either on house arrest or on some kind of controlled supervision. Would have been cheaper, quicker and done with a lot less publicity. People are easier on you, too, if you cop to something, do a little time and then go on with your life. It isn’t as nasty as when you proclaim your innocence and then get away with it, the way OJ or Blake did. People tend to question your innocence for the rest of your life, and you are never mentioned again unless the parenthetical phrase is attached – “one time accused murderer”.

So it seems that the first time the whole “she blew her fucking head open” line was heralded was after Spector had a little time in a dark and lonely jail cell, and had time to work out a scenario in his head. Reasonable scenario? Well, that’s what the jury is now deciding. Because if they find it to be a reasonable scenario, Spector may just spend the rest of his life with that parenthetical “one time accused murderer” label.

And the suicide scenario wasn’t just something told to the police and then never spoken of again until court – in the Spring of 2003 Scott Raab interviewed Spector for an article in Esquire magazine. In this article Spector says:

“It’s ‘Anatomy of a Frame-Up,'” he says, still softly, not much above a purr. “There is no case. They have no case. I didn’t do anything wrong — I didn’t do anything. I called the police myself. I called the police. This is not Bobby Blake. This is not the Menendez brothers. They have no case. If they had a case, I’d be sitting in jail right now.”

We know that this is false, that he never called the police.

“She kissed the gun. I have no idea why — I never knew her, never even saw her before that night. I have no idea who she was or what her agenda was. They have the gun — I don’t know where or how she got the gun. She asked me for a ride home. Then she wanted to see the castle. She was loud — she was loud and drunk even before we left the House of Blues. She grabbed a bottle of tequila from the bar to take with her. I was not drunk. I wasn’t drunk at all. There is no case. She killed herself.”

So we see where the whole “Lana took the bottle from the House of Blues” story started. But this is probably just as false as “I called the police”. And why would Lana “ask me for a ride home”. She had her own car there. And how would she even know Spector had a castle? She thought he was a woman!

The article goes on to state:

In early March, Michelle Blaine sent out an e-mail proclaiming that an L.A. radio station would report that the Sheriff’s Department was going to announce that Lana Clarkson’s death was the result of an “accidental suicide,” and that Spector wouldn’t be charged. The Sheriff’s Department responded by saying that the matter was still being investigated as a homicide. Robert Shapiro issued a statement expressing confidence that a thorough investigation would show that his client had committed no crime. Lana Clarkson’s family and agent insist that she would not have killed herself. She was shifting gears, her agent said, hoping to land a sitcom part, trying stand-up comedy, and took the hostess gig at the House of Blues VIP room to make her rent and hook up with some showbiz heavyweights.

And there is the Genesis of “accidental suicide”. And notice how everything that comes from the defense side has been disproved in court, and everything coming from the prosecution side in the form of statements from the family and Lana’s agent – has been proven as true in court.

And Rachelle, she of the gag order yesterday from the judge, has also been spouting the defense side from the moment she received her first payment and agreed to be Spector’s “wife” for the camera.

In an early posting on her website, dated back in 2005, she posted the following:



How would you feel if you were being accused of the most awful crime possible?
Plus being rich, famous and have the media against you?

This man built his way up from nothing! Just because he was lucky enough to reach fame and financial success; The media, the people, and the justice system have an agenda to take him down! The media and the district attorney’s office bring up “alleged” issues from 40 years ago? They have nothing recent? Nothing new to talk about? There are not any police reports, any audio tapes, any video tapes…ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
….But hearsay of course from those who are probably out of work and want their 15 seconds of fame.
Phil Spector was secretly indicted. The grand jury heard only one side, in which could not be cross examined. His constitutional right to have a preliminary hearing was taken away. So the truth of what really happened is not out. The media does not mention that Lana Clarkson, this so-called angel, was a 40-year old washed up actress that could not keep a job, was on drugs and alcohol constantly, carried her own gun and played with it in her mouth. Did the police mention that it was her gun, not Phil Spector’s? Did the police fail to mention that the chauffeur was an illegal alien and could only understand a few words of english? Directly after the incident occurred he was threatened with deportation and put in hiding by the police. Did they fail to mention that Sheriff Meriman received a 1 million dollar book signing deal?
HMM…ohh….and isn’t it re-election time?
What a better way to get re-elected by ruining an innocent mans life?!
Please feel free to e-mail chelle about your thoughts on how to help Phil!

Which is full of deliberate misstatements, delusions and outright lies. “There are not any police reports….ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!” she crows, yet we know there *are* police reports from 2 of the 5 women who testified, and that’s not including any police reports from the people Spector threatened who *didn’t* testify.

Phil Spector was secretly indicted“. Ummm…no, Grand Juries are typically closed off to suspects. That’s the law. “The Grand Jury heard only one side, in which could not be cross examined.” Well, but see, that’s the way Grand Juries work, Rachelle. It wasn’t just done that way for Phil Spector – it’s done that way *every time*. And if Spector was so upset that he was “Secretly” indicted, then why did Spector file a motion to have the transcripts of the Grand Jury, which are public record, sealed?

His constitutional right to have a preliminary hearing was taken away.” Spector has no “right” to a preliminary hearing. And you know, you would think with the million dollar lawyers Spector has on retainer that someone would have explained this to the child bride –  you know, the one who thinks of herself as “intelligent”.

The media does not mention that Lana Clarkson, this so-called angel, was a 40-year old washed up actress that could not keep a job” You know, even Julia Roberts can’t keep a job. She only works fro a few months at a a time, then oooppps, un-fucking-employed again. By the way – when was the last time Rachelle had a job?

carried her own gun and played with it in her mouth.” This statement comes straight from Raul Julia Levy. And we know his “issues.”

Did the police mention that it was her gun, not Phil Spector’s?” And this is the kind of lies and propaganda that makes the whole defense team look like they are doing nothing but trying to subvert the truth and spread misinformation. The defense has conceded that this was Phi’s gun, and when the story changes from report to report, with them making denials and then retracting the denials, well, it makes them look like they are lying about everything, and everything they claim becomes suspect.

If you have the truth on your side, there’s no reason to lie about the little details. There’s no reason to claim “It was her gun, Not Phil Spector’s.” Because when it is eventually testified to and not disputed that it *was* Spector’s gun, people wonder “Hmmm…. now why would they have lied about that?” Rachelle does her husband no favors by trying to disseminate untruths.

“the chauffeur was an illegal alien and could only understand a few words of english?” Again, even if I *wanted* to believe the defense, and Phil Spector, if I read this statement, and believed it and then saw the videotape of Adriano DeSouza at the police station giving his statement to the officers, what am I to think? That Rachelle is correct in saying he “could only understand a few words of english“, or am I supposed to believe my own ears and my own eyes when I see him obviously able to understand and communicate on that videotape taken just hours after the shooting? 

“Please feel free to e-mail chelle about your thoughts on how to help Phil!” I think we should all email “Chelle” with our thoughts on how to best help Phil.

But looking at past statements, and seeing how the official story has developed over time and with time to reflect on what the “best defense” would be, and seeing the kinds of things that have been put forth as truth from the defense team, we can kind of get an insight into the recent article, and whether or not Linda Kenney Baden was correct in saying that Spector never gave an interview at all, and how much weight we should give statements attributed to Spector, and whether or not these are “official versions” of what really happened.

On Anthony Samuelson’s Blog, he reports on what the Mail on Sunday says is Vikram Jayanti’s account of what “might have happened” that night based on all the evidence that the defense wanted to introduce, but were unable to do so because of the pro-prosecution judge. Is this Spector’s latest “official version”? Could be. But judguing from past “official versions”, we can assess and weigh how much credence to lend it.

The most striking part of the article is saved up for the last page. “Let’s go to the House of Blues now. What follows is the scenario that could plausibly be spun from all the material the defence has sought to present. That doesn’t mean it’s true. Just a hypothetical version of events.”

Per the hypothesis, when her shift is over Clarkson picks up a bottle of tequila from the bar, joins the chauffeur in helping Spector to his limousine and then gets in with him. There is some sexual foreplay in the car on the way from the House of Blues. (This, given that she was fully clothed at the time of death, saliva traces on her breast and Spector’s genitals.) At the house Spector does what he frequently does and tells Clarkson that he has guns all over the house and that there is one in the drawer next to her chair. If that makes her uncomfortable she should leave. She responds that she’s pretty comfortable around guns.

The hypothetical version of events then has Clarkson taking off her false eyelashes, Spector being “spacy” which happens when he thinks someone wants something from him, she desperate to make an impression on a “weird but heaven-sent potential benefactor”, reaching for the draw, pulling out the gun and making a bid for his attention. She quickly loads the pistol from the box of bullets in the drawer next to the empty holster. She waves it about. He pays her no attention and so it’s time for a party trick. She puts the barrel of the gun in her mouth.

From this point the story, says Jayanti, can go two ways. She’s sloppy drunk and pulls the trigger by accident or she has a moment of horrified clarity. “She’s 40, washed up and desperate and always thought she’d be the next Marilyn Monroe.

I just think it’s rather unfortuante that the jury won’t have access to the same material we have. I think it would be helpful to them, as well, in judging the defense and the “quality and character” of their evidence, as Linda Kenney Baden put it.


42 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Verdict Watch Day One”

  1. A.D.A. said

    Fabulous job on the backstory, Kim.

    Re: the “Khaleej Times” article:
    “Spector… told the paper he had a “very interesting, abrupt, good, honest, accurate, truthful story to tell that proves beyond any question, any reasonable possibility of a doubt that it is impossible for me to have been near the deceased when she died.”


  2. Mindy said

    Chelle needs to shut the fuck up. Her husband picked this defense strategy, which by the way Chelle it was the wrong one. When your husband is behind bars you can have your 15 minutes of bullshit talk about how he was done wrong by everyone, but who will listen, noone I know. My advise would be take the money and run and never talk to anyone again because you got what you wanted.(THE MONEY)

  3. noor b said

    Kim, you must have been reading “He’s a rebel”.
    I finished reading it this weekend.

    Re “Phil Spector was secretly indicted” was, kinda, explained in the book.
    Abramson was Phil’s lawyer at the time.
    The issue of the missing fingernail came up again, and Judge Uranga reinstated an order to Abramson to turn it over to the DA or be forbidden to use it in the case.
    Abramson offered to bring in Dr. Lee, the judge did not buy it, and he set a preliminary hearing for oct. 20 (2003?)to deceide if there was enough evidence to go to trial.

    Abramson saw this hearing as an opportunity to hear the DA’s case and challenge it point by point.
    Steve Cooly, the DA at the time (he’s a judge now), was thinking along the same lines, and Dough Sortino, the other DA, then secretly impaneld a grand jury to hear the evidence.

    After Cutler took over the case from Abramson, he obtained a 3 month delay in the scheduled preliminary hearing, until Dec. 16.

    On Sept. 22 Phil and his team were notified to appear in court on the 27th.
    Then they knew they’d been outmaneuvered by the DA, and there would be no hearing on the evidence after all.
    Maybe that was what “intelligent” Rachelle was refering to.

    Thank you much or your blog everyday!
    You’re awesome!

  4. Sprocket said

    Vikram Jayanti has been working on a documentary (or book, according to his CTV interview) with Spector during the trial and has been in the courtroom many times. I often saw Spector hug and kiss this guy in the gallery before court started.

    I tried buying this paper in the US so I could read the article myself. However, the “color print” section that has the Spector interview is not included in the issues that are shipped to the US.

    It is totally ridiculous to think that Spector did not approve this latest attempt at reaching the jury, intentionally violating the Judge’s request at the beginning of the trial for all parties to “not speak to the press.”

  5. groo said

    Are those transcripts/reports evidence in the trial? Because “I didn’t mean to shoot her” sounds kind of like a confession.

  6. kennytal said

    pains me to still see those gifted posters still struggling with the simple beauty of the CA from PD and the animation.
    proves that there is more art than science in law and in the courtroom, as it should be in the banishement of junk science.

  7. Glenda said

    I understand the process–the defense is duty bound (not to mention dollar bound) to put forth the very best plausible story in order to put their client in the very best possible light. I get it. I used to defend teachers who were facing job actions in front of school boards and sometimes my ability to put a good face on the fireable offense got a little tricky or downright impossible. But I never, ever, EVER lied for my client. I did what I could with what I was given and the consequences fell where they fell.

    But, when the story changes constantly, when no one from the defense can prove a single theory, (Lana reaches in the drawer and loads the gun trying to be sexy??? Are you kidding me?) when Phil Spector himself cannot hold a story for more than 6 hours, then it crosses that line of aggresive defense work and gets in those murky waters of out and out lies. How can we believe anything they say? I have lost a great deal of respect for that team–perhaps that is why he fired the first two–they wanted him to plead voluntary manslaughter and he was arrogant enough to think he wouldn’t be convicted wouldn’t follow their advice. I mean, look at his arrogance while he is screaming in the jail–because he “owns” House of Blues (does he really?) and the police chief used to work for him, the police are supposed just roll over?

    I would LOVE to hear Shapiro’s take on this.

  8. LOL said

    I wouldn’t put any faith in what’s in a police report. Take Rampart for instance.

  9. LOL said

    If Detective Pineda really heard Phil Spector say I didn’t mean to shoot her it was an accident this would have been brought into the trial by the Prosecution. But it is a bunch of shit and that is why the Prosecution never brought in this evidence. Police in USA frame people all the time – take Rampart for instance!

  10. noor b said

    LOL, the prosecution did not bring it these statements, because they go either way, for and against the prosecution.

    Also, remember Cutler was pissing mad, because the DA did not bring in these statements, he could not make the opening statements he was planning to make.
    That took the defense totaly of guard.

  11. lizzie said

    Great job as always. I just read a post on CTV by Lynn Gweeny, page 2 Verdict Watch continues..Sept 11. It is a message from Phil Spector dated 9/29/04…three years ago. Coincidentally, it is laced with commas where they should not be…just like the email Mrs. S sent several weeks ago to the press when she took it upon herself to get some propaganda out. Seems like the same person could be responsible for both…unless the Mr. and Mrs. were taught grammar and punctuation a full three decades apart (since she is about 30 years younger than he) by the same person!!!

  12. LOL said

    If I had hours earlier seen someone put a gun in their mouth and blow their brains out and if I had been humiliated and hog tied and trampled on by the police – I might also say “Don’t leave me alone too long.” It might be a very reasonable thing to say under the circumstances.

  13. LOL said

    Groo asked

    “Are those transcripts/reports evidence in the trial? Because “I didn’t mean to shoot her” sounds kind of like a confession.”

    No Those transcripts are not in evidence because the Prosecution did not want to bring these transcripts/reports into evidence which is odd after fighting to enter this as evidence in Court and winning.

    As it turned out the Prosecution did a switch at the last minute and did not tell the defense until the Opening statements that the Prosecution had decided against using this evidence.

    I believe the Prosecution decided against using this evidence in Court because it would have tended to support Spector’s position .

  14. Katprint said

    If I were on the jury, we would be sending notes asking for bottles of the various liquors Phil Spector drank that night, to be sent in. Also maybe some ice, some margarita mix, and a blender. I don’t think I could closely re-examine all the evidence (particularly the crime scene photos and too-realistic disembodied tongue medical model) without a few drinks.

  15. Gail said

    Thanks Kim, another great entry as we wait for the verdict.

    Rachelle and Phil, both have problems telling the truth. Rachelle probably believed whatever Phil had to say! LOL It’s called the pick and choose game! This $tory or that $tory, or ooops maybe this $tory!

  16. Karen said

    As Lizzie suggested I just read Lynn Gweeny’s post on CTV message board. My favorite Phil Spector quote is this:

    “And, that her D&A was found on the gun, not mine”

    Phil Spector is such a tool (oh, and a murderer)

  17. RJ said

    LOL Says:
    ………if I had been humiliated and hog tied and trampled on by the police – ………………

    I suspect there are a lot of people besides me who would pay to see that.

  18. Hi Kim — I’m one of your Court TV Message Board fans! LOVE your blogs!

    On the archived, 5/22/07, version of Rachelle’s homepage she spoke about the prior bad act witnesses and referred to the “statue of limitations”. After some eyerolling, I tried to envision what a statue of limitations would be. Then I became downright INSPIRED! You can see the result at (or if it’s easier to click on).

    Click on “View Album” on the right-hand side if you want to see more Phil Spector “silly” photos I’ve put up during the trial (or click on “sedoniasunset” near the top left-hand side to see the other Spector albums containing, among others, comparisons of Dr. Baden to Captain Kangaroo and Bruce Cutler to Tor Johnson (of Ed Wood movies) and W.C. Fields.

  19. SeniorMoments said

    Kim, I’ve been reading your blog for weeks and I thank you for the detail and point of view. This one highlights for me what I think the jurors must feel when this is all over. When they see these ridiculous statements made by the Spectors I should imagine they will feel very angry and used, especially if they decide, mistakenly IMO, that he is not guilty. Just like the bullet and the blood, the truth doesn’t fly around corners!!

  20. Carolina said

    Hi Kim,

    Isn’t this wait agony? I have read some of this before and it made my flesh crawl and I am not a weak woman. He can add Sociopath to his other “list” of accomplishments.

    What is the legal excuse as to why these prior “statements could not be entered into evidence? Seems to me I remember reading that specter had already been given his Miranda rights.

    I have always thought that Rachelle had been hired for the role of “loving and devoted wife” for the duration of the trial. Did I miss something here? I need illumination, oh wise woman!

  21. LOL said

    Juror and Verdict Watch – 9/11/2007

    The juror who took the notes throughout the five-month trial is chief juror.

    The jury should commence with the physical and forensic evidence and ask whether it is possible to shoot someone inside the mouth and not get significant spray of blood, tissue and gunshot residue on your jacket or shirtsleeves just inches away? If the answer is no the jury is finished and should sign and turn in the Not Guilty verdict form.

    But if the jury thinks Phil Spector figured out a way in a few minutes to make the bloody mess go away, then it’s time to ask why Spector would want to murder a total stranger and the motives for Clarkson to kill herself. In that mix there is room to examine the possibility of playacting with a gun. Did Lana who had been drinking Tequila know it was loaded?

    If your still not satisfied that the government was able to prove its case it’s time to deal with Spector’s old girlfriends from decades past. The absence of injuries or police reports and their continued contact is a bit strange after their bedmate assaults them with a gun. Did the chance for fame and fortune bring these ladies – crawling out from under their rocks?

    As for the Limo driver it’s really simple. Did he really understand or even hear Phil Spector’s mumbling?

  22. A.D.A. said

    He finally “killed somebody”. Period.

  23. mbmb said

    LOL Says:
    September 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
    Juror and Verdict Watch – 9/11/2007

    LOL…whatever? Just remember this: Don’t go, Lana.

  24. Arm's Length said

    They all left with pleasant expressions. Not worried, not calm like yesterday, but thoughtful. Seemed like they all carried *stuff* out when they left for the day. No visible sign of impatience, stress, discontent. They left early, departing around 3:50 p.m. Yes, the foreman had a semi-smile, so hooray as always for Harriet getting something right. They also took an afternoon break as usual around 2:30 or so but it seemed short, since there was no need for any extra time for BoyWonder to drag his sorry ass back to his ergonomic chair, assisted by various staff persons.

    Alan Jackson cruised through the courtroom this afternoon and said hello, comments that we all are waiting with him. When he dropped in yesterday a person in court joked with Alan that he forget the “he’s guilty” jury instruction and we got a dazzling smile from our Star DA. Roger breezed through yesterday, but didn’t see any of the Legal Team Spector today.

    There aren’t that many people in there. Just pretty hard-core–Dominick, Mick Brown, the City News Service guy, Linda Deutsch, Steven from LA Weekly, Peter from the Times and some new *suits* from media that haven’t been in the courtroom, stopping in for a chance to scoop the cherry. Some reporters may be hanging in the media room like Matt and Spano. Beth buzzes around. Overall, it’s a pretty quiet place in Judge Fidler’s courtroom. Occasionally, the whispered word *Britney* could be heard and the various drugs which keep her up.

    I’m happy to report that it appears that there are a number of book-readers among those representing the First Estate (first? right me here.) Today the temp was set just a tad warmer than the freezingness yesterday; and I had no need for my fabulous alpaca shawl from Peru I’d thrown in my bag. (Kim: Seriously fabu, it’s like it melts around you, incredible drape. When my friend selected it at a boutique in Lima, the lady said, “Those are for the Peruvian ladies” and failed as she tried to turn my friend’s head with the lesser tourist products. The dye is to die for.)

    Gary Spector arrived today in court today, here from Colorado, with an Inside Edition camera guy and producer/whatever in tow. He arrived downtown with Louis and Frieda; he had two small bouquets–yellow roses and ribbons. One is for Rachelle.

    Arrangements seem to be underway for media availabilities–with the DAs, and another place for the Defense following the verdict announcement.

    With no traffic and at the right time of day, the travel time from Alhambra is about 20 minutes or so. Then it takes at least 10-15 minutes to get up and into the room; they are nothing if not SLOW. My guess is that the Defense has a fatly catered suite nearby since the gravy train is about to make a big-time stop.

    Some people think maybe tomorrow, some people think Friday, some say a week from Friday, and our sage, Ms. Deutsch, says “I quit trying to guess about juries.” Another insider who must remain anonymous said “One more day of freedom.”

    I didn’t get a chance to ask Mick Brown for his opinion of the BBC documentary producer-Khaleej-UK Mail connection, and Linda Baden’s limp-dick attempt to send the jury a message about how much Phil likes and trusts them, but maybe tomorrow. (Clues: if the words “reprehensible” and/or “unconscionable” are used in a document or statement it’s an indicator that Phil was involved in the copywriting.)

    (Compliments as always, Kim. Thanks for the entry.)
    (Lots of people downtown want to hear the word “Guilty.”)

  25. deja vu said

    LOL, I don’t understand your post. It is directly lifted from another blog, a crime blog, or are you the author of that blog? Confusing.
    Kim, thanks for your fantastic updates.

  26. Veronique said

    Thing is, Kim, the defense team isn’t *looking like* they’re trying to subvert truth, they’re subverting as fast as they can. Because it’s patently obvious from the outside that Phil played his little game with a gun, and this time it went too far. He shot her. He killed her. He probably didn’t mean to do either, at least as far as he didn’t mean for his personal power trips to be broadcast across the tabloids and on Court TV. And you’re right; if he had owned up to making a stupid fucking mistake, and actually been able to fake sincere remorse, he almost certainly could have done his time and been out by now. But he’s a complete and utter narcissist: he’s incapable of imagining Lana as human. She’s an inconvenience, and having the discourtousy to go and die when he was just pulling his patented Phil Spector FaceGun, not to mention having to put up with a prosecution and judge who don’t get just What A Big Name they are messing with has naturally infuriated him.

    But I don’t think prison really does it for someone like Phil. True punishment would be to be unrecognized…Phil? Phil who? Sorry, dude, we don’t have a reservation for you. And maybe impose a no-wig zone on his head.


  27. Cacafuego said

    Tampering with the evidence and trying to clean up the crime scene, along with the failure to call 911 (or ANYONE, for that matter) will put Spector under the jail for the rest of his natural life, regardless of wishful thinking by LOL and others.

  28. Kathy said

    Who is LOL? Lots of Lies!!

  29. Holy Toledo said

    All the posts are thought provoking and entertaining. WOW. I can’t believe you’ve got “arm’s length” right in CA! You’re incredible, Kim.

    I like the “sentencing” of Veronique. I’m sure JF would laugh if he read that. I wonder what the outcome could have been if JF would have presided over OJ’s trial. It’s hard to get past OJ, Blake and Jackson. You know they were guilty as hell.

    I don’t think it will be speedy deliberation. You’ve got a foreman that wrote all those notes. He would appear to be “anal”. Obviously, he’s a detail person and as foreman will set the pace. I’m thinking at least a week or longer.

    Keep on writing, Kim. You are superior to ET, 60 Minutes, Dateline, etc.

  30. A.D.A. said

    Lots of Lies! 🙂

    I’ve been thinking about Cacafuego’s post of 9/9/07 :
    ” 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.”

    The Teddy Bears second record was a formulaic flop. He produced the Ronnettes, NOT the Shirelles. (Maybe if he hadn’t imprisoned wife Ronnie & stopped her recording career, she’d have had a body of work.) A lot of people worked with him – once. The Ramones couldn’t endure him. Spector’s been holding artists at gunpoint for decades (till there weren’t any more). All this “legendary producer” BS is probably just buying into his PR machine. Cacafuego, maybe the wheels came off that machine, and Lana’s murder was his only way left to get attention…because he’s really, musically, no greater than a warm bucket of spit…and less than sh*t as a human being.

  31. Kim said

    “LOL” appears to be someone who really knows and understands what is actually going on. In fact, for every statement and every remark “LOL” has made, I can’t help but be in total agreement.

    As much as good ol’ Phil probably did have something to do with Lana’s death, and/or contributed or participated in some way, shape, or form to this “accident”, I can’t help but feel that the Prosecution did NOT prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Kenny-Baden raised some really good, (worth investigating further)points and I have every reason to believe that the Jury is going to have NO CHOICE but to bring back a “NOT GUILTY” verdict. To do otherwise would not be following the LAW and/or the instructions as put forth to them.

    In return, to return with a “guilty” verdict will no doubt cast a light on this jury as not being objective, impartial, or just. It will definately show that this jury deliberated and made a decision based on EMOTION and story-telling, not on actual, factual basis and reasoning. It will no doubt be the stepping stone and starting process to an APPEAL. To do their job right, and in accordance to the law, they have no choice but to bring back a NOT guilty verdict. Let us not forget the CALCRIM (sp?) That in itself, right there is what will leave them having no choice….

    “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means beyond any doubt whatsoever….They just don’t have it here – As I stated earlier, there is too much room here in the “doubt” department and as much as he DEFINATELY had something to do with her death, the DA just haven’t proven that in a manner that leaves one knowing that “for sure”.

    I guess time will be the “teller”, and the jury should take all the time they need. Regardless of who they are deliberating for, they are in a position where they hold a human being’s life in their hands. They hold his future in the balance, and so they have to be damn sure when they make their final decision.

    Being from Canada, we’ve just exonerated a fellow who has spent the last 50 years in a “guilty” shadow. Finally after all this time, he can stand proud because he WASN’T guilty. Now I’m not saying Phil didn’t do it, but the fact remains, it’s important that the jury really weighs all the evidence and remains unbiased and objective through this whole procedure.

    Not a mistake that any one wants to live with…Of that I’m sure!

    Well, I guess it’s back to “waiting”…

    Have a great day eh!

    Kim (Canada)

  32. skweekie said

    Posted by Kim: “Beyond a reasonable doubt means beyond any doubt whatsoever….”

    No it does not!

  33. Glenda said

    I guess that’s why we have trials–because not one of us can say for sure what happened. We have our beliefs and our gut reactions, but a jury trial, as imperfect a vehicle as it is, is the only way we have established to try to find “the truth”. It’s not always right, and sometimes horribly wrong on both sides, but it is obvious from the posts here that each of us sees something different in the evidence and none of us *knows*.

  34. Veronique said

    Kim, “beyond a reasonable doubt” does not mean “beyond any doubt.” Because it is almost impossible to prove something (especially something to do with human interaction and motivation) beyond all doubt, but it is feasible to prove something beyond the doubt a reasonable person (eg, NOT Chelle) might have.


  35. A.D.A. said

    Kim (Canada) – thanks for adding your location; nearly fainted here. 🙂

    “Reasonable doubt” does NOT mean beyond all doubt. Some states define it, some don’t. Law and common sense are not incompatible, and that’s why jurors are regular people. Together, they have more sense and a higher total IQ than all the attorneys in the courtroom. Smoke and mirrors only go so far with them.
    A trial before a judge (without a jury) is very different from a jury trial. The jury is the ultimate finder of fact; that cannot be disturbed on appeal. The judge rules only on the law in a jury trial.
    In states that define reasonable doubt, such things as “That which would cause a reasonable person to pause in the conduct of his affairs”, are offered. My State doesn’t define it, and attorneys are barred from trying to define it to the jurors. It’s up to them!
    Personally, I think that De Souza’s excited utterances, consistent speech and actions, (if he didn’t want to call attention to himself he could have pretended to sleep until Spector disposed of the body or called someone to call someone to call Shapiro to call the police) show his common sense and will be recognized as truth and veracity by the jurors’ common sense.
    An American jury is a wonderful thing – strong enough to blow away the smoke, and sensible enough to look at the window of truth.

  36. Sprocket said

    “Beyond a reasonable doubt” means beyond any doubt whatsoever….They just don’t have it here –

    Big eyeroll. You must have missed jury instructions 101. The judge clearly stated in his instructions to the jury that ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ does NOT mean beyond ‘all doubt.’ I was there. I heard him read the instructions to the jurors, and I paid attention. If you were watching it on TV you must have taken a bathroom break. It is difficult for those to understand who are unfamiliar with the laws of the US.

  37. noor b said

    The ‘Lectric Law Library’s Lexicon On
    * Reasonable Doubt *

    REASONABLE DOUBT – The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

    Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

  38. Kim said

    Apologies for my “Mis-statement” – I recognize my error upon re-reading…

    I still feel the prosecution has not delivered in alleviating the areas of doubt, whereas the defence has put enough on the table to assist in creating it!

    Kim (Canada)

  39. Trish said

    The defence has put a fairy tale on the table – It is absolutely beyond any doubt that a beautiful lady would NOT go to the home of a person she just met, find a gun and shoot herself. That only leaves one other person to have fired the gun.

  40. Kate said

    LOL -You must not have been keeping up. The prosecution deliberately chose NOT to bring in ANYTHING Spector said to police -not even the statement that he shot her by accident. They didn’t because it would also allow the defense to bring in every single self-serving statement he made as well. It was a move intended to force Spector to take the stand if he wanted the jury to hear those statements.

    Reasonable doubt must be based on REASON -that means the defense’s claim she first rejected than accepted his invitation, spent a couple of hours socializing with him, then got up and put her purse on her shoulder, left the candlelit living room, MYSTERIOUSLY found his gun, sat down in a chair by the back door and killed herself -NEVER-BEFORE-SEEN BEHAVIOR in this woman……is just as reasonable an explanation over the obvious. That Spector’s alcohol consumption resulted in him REVERTING to his known past behavior of pulling a loaded gun on a woman when he’s drunk and she wants to go home.

    No matter how I’ve tried, taking this along with the four major changes to his story that go from admissions of guilt to laying the blame on the dead person inconveniently lying in his house -means abandoning all common sense, intelligence and reason. Just can’t do it.

  41. Karen said

    Those two fucktards deserve each other. Can you think of a better match for either of them?

  42. LOL said

    KATE -I am not quite sure what you meant when you stated “LOL You must not have been keeping up” I did not have to set out in detail the Prosecution’s strategy to NOT to bring in ANYTHING Spector said to police -including Phil Spector’s alleged statement to the police that Phil shot Lana Clarkson by accident – to have understood the Prosecution’s strategy.

    In addition the statement that the police state that Phil Spector allegedly made to the police on or about Feb 3 2003 may have been coerced by the police – especially since there is evidence that the police tasered him and had been standing on his back all night and had hog tied him.

    In addition the fact that the Prosecution did not want Phil Spector’s alleged admission and the police person who heard this in the courtroom as evidence makes Phil Spector’s alleged admission of guilt highly suspect – That the Prosecution did not want to bring this into evidence should be a red flag to everyone – that the police may have written a false police report regarding Phil Spector allegedly saying this – to assist in convicting Phil Spector. If it is indeed a false police report at line 22 with a false admission – it is certainly not the first false police report in existence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: