The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 973,480 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 – Inside the Minds of the Jurors

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 27, 2007

[Disclaimer: I have spoken to two separate jurors – one strictly in email and one by both email and phone – neither of whom is number 9 and neither of whom wants to be identified either by gender, ultimate conclusion as to guilt or innocence or juror number, so I shall not reveal this information. But some of my information comes from them. Their accounts were strikingly simialr, and strikingly similar to juror # 9 Ricardo Enriquez, who has spoken publicly.]

So we will have another trial – and in honor of Estron in AFCA, I shall say “There’s another 6 months of my life I shall never get back!” Just because I know he hates that phrase.

The trial should probably take place early next Spring, with an initial hearing on October 3rd for the District Attorney’s office to formally announce to the judge that they are going to go forward with the prosecution, although they have already announce publicly they will do so. Roger Rosen asked the judge for a 60 day delay for the initial hearing and status conference, but the judge set the date for next week.

Spector will continue to remain out of custody on his million dollar bond, but I fear his dancing in the driveway is a little premature. This is not a complete victory and retrials have the reputation of favoring the prosecution, although this defense team will get another shake up, since Phil has fired Bradley Brunon and Roger Rosen. Brunon, because he cross examined the 5 prior bad acts witnesses, whom the jury said at their press conference yesterday they ultimately believed, and Rosen because he cross examined Adriano DeSouza, whom the jurors also said they believed. So they are both gone. Linda Kenney Baden remains for now, but once Phil hears that the jurors didn’t like the fact that she was married to one of the experts, well, he’ll probably fire one of them, too. Since Spector expressed a deep affection for Linda Kenny Baden, it will probably be Michael Baden who has to hit the road, so there goes the whole “Aha” moment in a retrial.

John Taylor and Rod Lindblom also spoke briefly yesterday, mostly to just express their faith in the District Attorney’s office and to say that they supported the decision to retry. They also thanked the media for leaving the Clarkson’s alone and they said on behalf of Donna Clarkson and Lana’s family that they won’t rest until justice is done. The civil trial is now on the back burner, since they can’t proceed until the criminal case is resolved, mostly because they can’t put Spector on the stand in a civil trial while he has pending criminal charges. One hopes that after two criminal cases Spector has a little bit of money left for a civil judgment.

Three jurors spoke at a press conference yesterday afternoon – coincidentally, it was the same three jurors who lobbied to be the foreperson – numbers 9, 12 and 10. Number 10 was ultimately chosen in a secret ballot, and he was one of the holdouts for not guilty, along with number 1 (the one who refused to look at the pictures and who Rosen seemed eager to replace, by the way), who flip flopped and kept going back and forth between guilty and not guilty, ultimately determining that she was going to vote with the foreperson no matter what he decided, and switching back to not guilty when it was clear number 10 was not budging from his position. But at one point, the vote was 11-1 with only the foreperson holding out for not guilty. When asked to explain to the others exactly what the scenario was that he was following to reach his conclusions, he started with the fact that maybe DeSouza told Spector that he was going to go get help, and at that point the jury decided they were hopelessly deadlocked.

The jurors at the press conference said that it would have been helpful to have had the psychological profile at their disposal. A couple of the jurors said that it would have been a tool they could have used to convince the “holdouts” that Lana did not commit suicide, since the two holdouts kept bringing this fact back to the others as “reasonable doubt”. One juror expressed concern that number 10’s personal experience with his friend committing suicide was the reason for his strong conviction that this could have been a likely scenario.

The jurors said that they never believed the scenario that Spector was across the room when the gun went off. All of them, even the holdouts, believed that he was much closer to Lana when the gun was fired.

Juror number 9 – in the press conference, said that he was quite disappointed with the paid experts of the defense, and said that it was curious to him that Michael Baden was married to one of the lawyers and that it looked odd that while he was testifying she was gone, and then when he got off the stand, she was back. He said that he had seen Baden on HBO, but that he would now question expert testimony in cases.

The jurors at the press conference also said that they were not impressed with the long, tedious, boring CV’s of the defense experts (weren’t we all) and that Juror 9 as well as other jurors,  said they were much more impressed with Lynne Herold, that she was down to Earth, friendly and didn’t have an axe to grind or a book to sell. More than one of the jurors said that they were less than impressed with the defense experts because they did not take Spector’s past history with women into account when reaching their conclusions. One thought that this made their entire opinion suspect and threw out all the defense experts opinions because of it. The entire juror decided that because of the conflicting forensic opinions, they would set this aside and see if they could reach a consensus without it. Although 10 (11 if you count the flip flopping of number 1), thought that there was still enough evidence *besides* the forensics to determine that Spector was guilty, but since the 1 (2 if you count the flip flopper) didn’t think this way, they were never going to reach a unanimous verdict. Juror number 1 actually lamented at one point “Gee, it’s too bad there wasn’t a video camera in the foyer!”

The five prior bad acts witnesses were important to the jurors and the guilty voters thought that Lana may have reacted differently to Spector than they did because Lana didn’t know Spector. They thought that she could have fought back, where the other women didn’t.

Inside the jury room, there was no marker throwing as there was in the Jeffs jury room, although #9 did say that he “threw the F bomb”. # 9 was pushing for a vote the first day, and the second day, but the foreperson was reluctant to take a vote. On the third day, # 9 said that if a vote wasn’t taken, that he was going to ring the buzzer and go to the judge with his concerns, reminiscent of the Scott Peterson jury, who ultimately overthrew their foreperson for not taking votes. When the foreperson acquiesced, the initial vote was 4 guilty, 5 not guilty and 3 undecided. Every subsequent vote had to be lobbied for, the foreperson was reluctant to do so without much coercion and threats of revolt. One juror mentioned that they were very intimidated by the two strong personalities of the foreperson and juror number 9, who were so diametrically opposed and seemed to clash frequently.

Some jurors seemed to believe outright the statement of DeSouza and did not question his ability to understand and interpret the statements he attributed to Spector. The foreperson (and later his follower number 1), wanted to hear the videotaped statement to police again to determine exactly what DeSouza had said to police the morning of the shooting. After listening to the tape again, they thought that this bolstered their claim that DeSouza may not have heard exactly what he thought he heard. They pointed to the fact that DeSouza said in the taped interview “My English is not so good”. Jurors 1, 10 & 11, the initial not guilty holdouts, had a problem with DeSouza’s stammering on the tape when explaining what Spector said and thought he may have added something to the phraseology. Although it is interesting to note that the foreperson actually spent time in Brazil and speaks fluent Portuguese.

Juror number 9 was asked his impression of Spector, and he said that he, like Lana, at first thought that Spector was a woman, it wasn’t until the judge introduced the defendant that he realized this man with the long tunics and shiny shirts was Phil Spector. Number 1 said that she was “creeped out” by the way Spector stared at her. One of the jurors I corresponded with said that they thought at first that Rachelle Spector was Phil’s daughter, and was confused when Nichole took the stand and said *she* was his daughter, since they couldn’t reconcile both women being related to Phil.

One of the jurors I corresponded with also said that they were ashamed to have been on this jury, that they would probably need a lot of time before they could speak openly and publicly, although they really would like the opportunity, because it was a large part of their life for such a long time, and there is a lot of frustration and stress that they have stored up. I hope that all the jurors are ultimately satisfied with their service, and content in the fact that they know they did the right thing and came to the only conclusion they could have under the existing laws and jury instructions. Because that is, finally, all we can expect of jurors.


68 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Inside the Minds of the Jurors”

  1. A.D.A. said

    Did these jurors seek you out? Did you seek them out? Did someone ask you to speak to them? I thought you stayed up on the mountain and observed; shocked that you’re into the mix…very interesting, though, and the jurors’ confusion about the “sisters” Spector is hilarious – in a sad and pathetic way.

    What? No comments about these jurors’ hair and clothing? And you call yourself a respectable blogger?

  2. robbird said

    Although I have enjoyed your blog, I am dismayed that the jurors knew about it and didn’t hesitate to immediately contact you. Did they really listen to the judge not read anything or discuss the trial while it was going on. It doesn’t seem that way. Are we now going end up with jurors who are swayed by opinions of bloggers? And is this what we want of our justice system? Or are we going to have to sequester all juries just to be fair to everyone? Sometimes innocent people do end up on trial, not saying that in this case, and if public opinion is against them, then there is no hope for justice if juries listen to bloggers and not the evidence.

  3. I am dismayed that the jurors knew about it and didn’t hesitate to immediately contact you.

    I don’t believe they “knew about it” while the trial was in progress. Why would they? Let’s face it, I’m not exactly a “high profile” blog.

    Actually the one juror who even mentioned where they found me said it was from the Court TV message boards, which I can understand. If I was a juror in a case being covered by Court TV, once the trial was done, that’s probably the first place I would go.

    Wouldn’t you? I mean, if they followed the rules, they’ve not been able to read anything on the case, and where would the logical place be to go and “catch up”?


  4. WCofCA said

    Thanks Kim! This is very enlightening. I am so curious about the foreman and his motivation. I think he was able to sway the others initially and ultimately the one other holdout. I sincerely believe that with any other juror this would have been decided quickly with a guilty verdict. The prosecution proved their case (brillantly!) and the defense was a mess. I am happy to see juror number 9 giving us information about the deliberations and overshadowing the foreman who isn’t forthcoming at all. Hell, he wouldn’t even say which way he voted during the press conference.

  5. Erin said

    Excellent Kim. I just watched Juror #9 on CTV. He said that Juror #1 who voted NG was “creeped out” at the way PS stared at her. That sounds weird, and almost out of a John Grisham novel. Also, at the end of the interview, number #9 said condolences to Lana’s mother and her sister, and began to break down a bit as he said he wished there was more they could have done. They cut away, but it was apparant that he was in tears.

  6. Cacafuego said

    The foreman–Juror #10–was Bought. Everything I’ve read & heard from Juror #9 (and wittnessed with my own eyes at the original live press conference) tells me that was the case. He better be keeping his nose reeeealllly clean for the next 90 days, because he is no doubt being looked into by either the state or investigative journalists even as we speak.

  7. brdsnbs said

    Hi Kim.

    I found your blog through the Court TV message board as well so that makes perfect sense to me. I thought that #9, #10 and the Dateline producer (can’t remember his #) were the three who wanted to be foreman. Am I wrong?


  8. I thought that #9, #10 and the Dateline producer (can’t remember his #) were the three who wanted to be foreman. Am I wrong?

    I was told it was 9, 10 and the “NBC electrician” – #12. But I’m not sure if the electrician and the Dateline guy are the same person, I didn’t really keep track of the jurors and their numbers very well.

    But you could very well be right.


  9. Julie said

    Juror # 10 went through 16 notebooks, The man never quit writing and according to Juror # 9 in deliberations just sat and kept saying “I’m listening”.

    That man was there to get his notes for a book not for deliberations or for justice.

  10. Kathy said

    Hi Kim.
    If I were a law student, you would be the person I’d want teaching me. Thanks for all your great insight and knowledge. You crack me up. One question: If you were on the jury, would you be so disciplined as to not come home each day after jury duty and not look at what was being said on the internet?

  11. Cacafuego said

    I listened to Juror #10’s live & unscheduled call-in interview with Ashleigh Banfield. Wow. The last time I heard a phone interview like that, when the person calling in was caught lying & contradicting themselves so blatantly, was when Nancy Grace caught Melinda Duckett, the mother of missing 2-year-old Trenton Duckett, in an evasive answer/quasi-lie. (Melinda later committed suicide when she learned that the police were coming to arrest her for her child’s disappearance & likely murder.) Apparently #10 is used to being the smartest guy in the room–depending on the size of the room. He even lied to Ashleigh, claiming no one knew which way he voted. He. Talked. Like. This. Like. Someone. Trying. To . Figure. Out. What. To….Say. Even. With. The. Smallest. Question. And, with his reasoning, he sounded weirdly like DiMaio talking about disarming armed assailants. Very suspicious behavior. To quote Uncle Junior, he’s going to have G-Men so far up his ass he’ll be tasting Brylcreem.

  12. rogerr said

    I am curious about the statement that the foreman made at the beginning of the conference that was something to the effect of: I know this desicion is controversial. How did he know that?

  13. Marge said


    JMO but I think by continuing to blog on Phil Spector we are just fueling that ego maniac. Let it go people. When the next trial begins no holes barred! Truly, don’t try to second guess and analyze . They are human beings, they had a right to vote their conscience. Whether we agree with them or not. That’s how the system works. Let the DA “analyze the outcome” and bring justice for Lana and her family. It’s a mistrial not a “Free Pass” for Spector.

  14. Sea said

    Excellent writing as always Kim. Was great to get a feel for what some of the other jurors were thinking in there.

  15. Holy Toledo said

    I just listened to the tape of #10 with Ashleigh. There is something seriously wrong with this guy. I’ll let it at that.

  16. […] a fascinating look into the mind of the jurors on the Darwin Exception today – in this country of course it’s a serious crime to seek out jurors to discuss what […]

  17. Kendall said

    I have posted here a couple times before that there would be hold-outs, NGs, and it would be because they were PAID!!! That would be the only way because Alan Jackson and Pat Dixon were remarkable, right on target, with all of their arguments.

    I believe this man, the freaky foreman, would never have changed his mind as it was set as soon as he was approached by his “neighbor”. It was mentioned that #1 said she was creeped out by Spector’s “stares” and I believe she sat behind the foreman. Were they both intimidated by him? For Spector to stick around ’till the end confirms this fact of “PAYOFF” in my mind. He knew “this jury” wouldn’t convict him.

    At the press conference as soon as the foreman started speaking I thought “what a strange man” and he reminded me of Warren Jeffs. His speach pattern, the pausing between every word, the color of the shirt, even the looks. That was before I found out he was Mormon. I believe he thinks that he is a “prophet” and tries to dictate to others what they should believe. That would explain his control over juror #1.

    I live in Los Angeles and I would have convicted Phil Spector. Not a doubt. I believe he is guilty and will do it again. I wouldn’t be surprised if “Chelle” is next.

  18. Sprocket said

    Congratulations Kim on being contacted by two of the other jurors.

  19. A.D.A. said

    Cacafuego – C’mon, tell us your other two faovorite lines from BVOD now!

  20. A.D.A. said

    re: “Congratulations Kim on being contacted by two of the other jurors.”

    “other” than what?

  21. lizzie said

    Thanks Kim! Great insight into some of the jurors’ minds. I agree with Kendall’s comments above. Maybe Mr. & Mrs will do some celebrating….a few drinks, a few more drinks. Oh, yes, then Chelle will tell Phil she is leaving him. And….we know what comes next!! Almost seven decades of dysfunction will not suddenly correct itself.

  22. pj said

    Great job Kim! I do feel for the juror who said they were ashamed to be on this jury…. they should all take pride in the major chunk of their lives they offered up for those 5 months.

  23. Cacafuego said

    Juror #10 has been leaked to the media, apparently. I don’t know what his surname is, but his first name is “Ben”. And he’s a Mormon. And one that lives .032 miles from Spector, according to reports.


    Wouldn’t be that hard to stroll over and stuff an envelope or two of small, unmarked bills into a mail box while walking your dog at all. Nope.

  24. abbi_normal said

    Thank you for all the information you have provided. What an honor it is to have your behind-the-scene insight into this creepy fucked up person (I will not call him a man or a human being, because I don’t think he is either of those things)

    I love your blog and I read it daily, and check for updates several times a day, and I can’t wait for the next one. Keep up the good work, and be safe and careful!

  25. Gail said


    I can certainly understand a juror feeling ashamed of being on this jury. What a pity to have to feel that way after giving one’s service and time for many months. No doubt there are 9 more like this. If YOU are reading here, know that your journey was greatly appreciated and I sincerely hope you are able feel better about yourself soon. Maybe the sooner you are able to express yourself you will feel some relief. I find getting things off my chest works for me. But Please don’t feel ashamed. This wasn’t your fault and it was totally out of your control.

    I’m glad you contacted Kim, as she is the best. Hopefully you felt somewhat better after conversing with her.

    I was very impressed with Ashleigh Banfield’s segment on CTTV today! She won a gold star in my book. She gets it, just like you and the other 9 jurors! Ashley isn’t an attorney, she is like most of us out here, a regular person and is often so refreshing. Give her a call!

    Thanks Kim, great entry AGAIN! 🙂

    (Have more to say, but I won’t mention it in the same text as addressing the :)Honorable Juror 🙂 )

  26. Cacafuego said

    Juror #10 is Ben Willardson.

    Ben. Willard.

    To quote Phil Ken Sebben: “Ha-HA! Rat!”

  27. Julie said


    Ashleigh Banfield asked #10 what it was that made him give a not guilty verdict and he said he would be talking to the prosecutors and the defense team about where they went wrong…

    What did he think he was there for? To analyze the defense and prosecutors performance???

  28. Gail said

    Hey again!

    I’m busting with what juror #10 had to say on Ashley Banfield’s segment today! !!!!-just incase someone missed it-!!!!

    First off, AB let him know, she knew he was one of the NGs. He was very confused that she would know what his verdict had been, as he said, he hadn’t disclosed his verdict. Low and behold he discovered from A, his NG verdict had been disclosed by another juror! This guy was unbelievable, as he must have thought his vote was un-discoverable, private, or secretly guarded!!!!!! LOL what’s with that???? Didn’t he listen to JF or is this guy void of COMMON SENSE? I guess it was something he didn’t know! LOL He admitted, he hadn’t been watching CTTV, he was totally shocked he had been outed as a NG!!!!

    BEST part tho, the arrogant and pompous juror foreperson, when noting he had all the answers for the mistakes made in the trial to AB, she offered to give him the contact numbers for the prosecution and defense. Juror #10 informed AB, he had already contacted them yesterday to point out their errors!!!!!

    Baffling however, when AB asked him her last question (last as she must have had enough-as there were no more questions), he suddenly became confused and seemed to be floundering. Maybe his confusion ticked her off, more likely it was his attitude tho, but who knows! He asked her for some time to recollect his thoughts. lol Also it was time for a commercial, and juror #10 thought that was a ‘good thing’ allowing time for him to recover his line of thought or whatever!

    Nopey nope tho LOL, AB thanked him for calling and wrapped him up and sent him away! 😉

    He definetly was not in control today! 🙂

    In addition, he talked so so s l o w. Actually his manner was very annoying!

  29. rogerr said

    “content in the fact that they know they did the right thing and came to the only conclusion under the exsisting laws and jury instructions. Because that is, finally, all we can expect of jurors.”

    Two of them somehow found a different conclusion. The case for not guilty was so totally weak that the jury foreman who seems so out of touch with everyone could only get one other fool to go along with him.

    We can certainly ask more of them. Use your brains and do not fall for the character assisinations and voodo science the defense threw out there.

  30. louise said

    Could not agree more. Kim, your blog is insightful and intelligent, but as you admit, one person’s opinion. It’s scary that jurors are making bloggers their first stop after verdict.

    Sprocket is totally out of control. She’s a loose cannon, and will end up as a cautionary tale. I have said for months that Betsy somehow believes the trial is all about her and her opinions and it will be interesting to see what happens when her bubble bursts.

    If I were involved in the court system in ANY way, I would bring the blog issue to the attention of all judicial professionals.

    Although I have enjoyed your blog, I am dismayed that the jurors knew about it and didn’t hesitate to immediately contact you. Did they really listen to the judge not read anything or discuss the trial while it was going on. It doesn’t seem that way. Are we now going end up with jurors who are swayed by opinions of bloggers? And is this what we want of our justice system? Or are we going to have to sequester all juries just to be fair to everyone? Sometimes innocent people do end up on trial, not saying that in this case, and if public opinion is against them, then there is no hope for justice if juries listen to bloggers and not the evidence.

  31. lovey von doodlesocks said

    Congrats Kim for snagging those juror interviews! Inquiring minds were just dying to know all about the deliberation process, and you did a great job delivering that information to us! It’s amazing to me that one person (juror #10) could have such an influence on another (juror #1) and decide to vote how *the foreman* voted. I only hope that one day she will speak publically as to why she couldn’t form her own opinion. After reading that she was the juror who would not take a LOOK-SEE at the crime scene photos, I’m left wondering if she even LISTENED to the testimony? How can any reasonable person NOT come to the conclusion that PS is guilty? I guess I should give her the benefit of doubt since she has not come forth and spoken publically. I hope one day that she will speak and clear this matter up for us. I watched the press conference immediatly after the mistrial and also the foreman’s interview on Banfield and Ford. I was NOT impressed. His idea of reasonable doubt is unrealistic IMO. I’m not even sure if that guy could convict even if he saw PS kill Lana with his own eyes. He talked in circles until he was so tightly wound he lost his train of thought. Someone should be keeoing tabs on his Target shopping trips in the future -make sure that buggy isn’t fuller than usual – if you get my drift.

  32. deja vu said

    The foreman sounds crazy. I mean clinically. The streaming writing — writing everything down — I was worried when I heard that. Not sane behavior. Really a shame as there should have been a conviction. Kim, you’re great, but I will never get over your 11th hour 2nd-guessing and suddenly finding “reasonable” doubt. Any question of Phil Spector’s guilt is completely UNreasonable. Alan Jackson was fantastic and I think this is a true shame. Justice was not served because of one lunatic juror and his acolyte.

  33. Karen said

    Thanks for your blog. I enjoy reading it each and everyday. I am very curious to know if the jurors you talked to had voiced their opinions about Punkin Pie or Jennifer Hayes. It seems to me if #1 & #10 thought that Lana was depressed and suicidal, how much weight did they put into the testimony of these two characters. Just wondering. Keep up the good work.

  34. Missy said

    I agree with Rogerr’s comments above. How could #10 possibly know that a hung jury would be “controversial” in this case? I believe he knew that because he was following the case in the media. I think that may have been one of the things that made him adamant about voting NG — he knew HIS vote would be controversial and that would garner more attention for HIM once he decided to talk.

    Along with the speech he gave thanking all the little people (other jurors) for “their” service (as if he were above all the rest and not part of the whole), and then his little lecture on how the justice system should and did work, I really think he believed he would be seen as a justice crusader — the maverick hero willing to stand alone and take the “controversial” heat for the sake of justice and the American way.

    I think we saw his true character when he arrogantly told a reporter, “I’m not finished,” during the initial interview. I guess he feels superior to the reporters as well.

    I was shocked to read that he thought Adriano might have told PS that he would get help. There is absolutely NOTHING in evidence to support that — you can’t just make things up and use them to support your verdict. You can use only what came into evidence during the trial.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with this guy if he’d just step up to the plate and tell the truth about why he voted the way he did…explain why he felt there was reasonable doubt.

    Ben is a COWARD.

  35. I am very curious to know if the jurors you talked to had voiced their opinions about Punkin Pie or Jennifer Hayes.

    OH HELL!!! I didn’t even think to ask that!!! What an idiot I am!

    I will write and ask.

    Dumb. Thanks for reminding me.


  36. William said

    My God this Ashleigh woman from the tv show was so BIAS…Gee if youre going to be in this position be fair!!!!!

  37. noor b said

    WOW, how disturbing and very scary these words are, about a juror who did his civil duty, and came to the conclusion that this was the right decision for him after listening to all the evidence present to him over 5 months of testimony.

    After listening to this man for about 15 minutes, this is your judgement:

    “The foreman–Juror #10–was Bought…..”
    “To quote Uncle Junior, he’s going to have G-Men so far up his ass he’ll be tasting Brylcreem…..”
    “There is something seriously wrong with this guy….”
    “I believe this man, the freaky foreman…..I thought “what a strange man” …..”
    “this creepy fucked up person (I will not call him a man or a human being…..”
    ““Ha-HA! Rat!”…..”
    “the arrogant and pompous juror foreperson…..”
    “make sure that buggy isn’t fuller than usual …..”
    “The foreman sounds crazy. I mean clinically…..”

  38. barney said

    Many have stated they think Juror #10 could have been bribed. I too believe it’s a possibility.

    Bennington J. Wentworth has a wife Romeo and reportedly 3 small dogs. They live in a 132224 Sq. foot, two bedroom, 1 bath home, (built in 1933) on a tiny 4800 sq. ft lot only blocks from Spector. According to PUBLIC INFORMATION on, and Willardson’s address is 1943224 Lady Godiva Ave., Alhambra.

    Just to let NON-Californians know the price of Real-estate in the LA area, sets the value of Wentworth’s home at $5,495,825. — for this very small, old 2 bedroom on 1/10th of an acre.

    Raising 3 small dogs in a two bedroom one bath home must be terribly insulting for such an intellectually superior engineer. Perhaps Juror #10 has a home move in his future plans?

  39. rogerr said

    Let’s face it the judicial system did not work in the Spector case as juror #10 claims. Because of him a man who has continualy threatened women with guns and murdered one of them is free. As Kim’s blogs have so smartly pointed the defense case was to attack Lana Clarkson and make up the science as they went.

  40. Glenda said

    It is too sad. . .just too sad. I am not angry with the foreperson–he probably did what he believed was best. I wasm however, struck by his apparent arrogance during the press conference right after. Who knows. I don’t believe the whole “buy off” theory. I think he really thought he was smarter than everyone else and it became a poisonous situation. The jury certainly had an opportunity to take care of that situation (ie Scott Peterson as Kim said) but chose not to.
    I just hope that the DA learned a lot from their conversations with the jurors and will be able to pin point those items for further explanation NEXT TIME.

  41. Meg said

    Louise, I for one, enjoy Sprocket’s “Trials & Tribulations blog. I believe she has reported from “behind the scenes” at the Phil Spector trial. She transported us all with her as she reported from the courtroom.

    Keep blogging Sprocket – Louise is a loose cannon.

  42. Tony said

    William, I tivo’d Ashley Banfield and she was the “only voice of reason” on Court TV yesterday.

    She is biased because she uses common sense. Phil Spector got away with murder – until the retrial. I enjoyed watching Ashley Banfield’s segment – she said what 90% of anyone watching this trial feels.

    Let us hope for justice for the Clarkson family.

  43. Cacafuego said

    Well, Noor B, you should know about people sneaking around behind people’s back, trying to get away with unethical crap, since your own behavior towards Sprocket (which seems to be born of jealousy re her becoming friends with Dominic Dunn) has revealed you to be the kind of woman who bolster’s Spector’s view of out gender. I don’t really care for being lectured by a neeny-nana-boo-boo stick-you-head-in-doodoo type. Since my dislike of Spector comes from being personally associated with people who had, shall we say, “tense” experiences with the man in the music business (what the hell–two of them are dead, so there’s no point in protecting them–Johnny & Dee-Dee Ramone–and I have met Ronnie Bennett socially through a mutual friend) let’s just say I have a better understanding of the lengths to which he’s likely to have gone to secure a mistrial than you do.

  44. Arm's Length said

    I am happy to read that two jurors contacted you due to the trust you have established, and that they seemed to feel the need to express their opinions on this travesty of a jury.

    A Mormon juror and victims of abuse should be sorted OUT. The Mormon believes that the rest of us are TRASH, doomed to hell, the woman deserved to kill herself (blood atonement) and that he is a vessel of truth. They love to be *persecuted* as most cult members do. It gives them a chance to stand even taller for their bizarre beliefs about women, families and the *Gentiles* or non-members. This cult, in my opininon, is no less threatening than Scientologists; they are unable to separate their religious beliefs from daily lives regardless of what they say. Pathetic.

    Fucking pathetic. This guy should be OUTED for his dishonesty and his bizarre religious agenda. His prejudicial disbelief of what an *illegal* immigrant would say based on his RACIST mission to the heathens in Brazil is staggering. He manipulated our judicial system and put a murderer back on the streets as a means of getting attention. Well, attention is what he will get.

    Ben Willardson

    ((Thank you #9, and the two jurors with what must be an aweful feeling of remorse and shame; how sad for good people to have to endure the effects of a dishonest man who sides with a murderer with whom he identifies more than he does with the woman he killed, the women he terrorized, and the women he will threaten and/or kill in the future.
    He has more in common with Phil Spector the outcast, as he does with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, the murderous hypocritical outcasts, whom he plans to join someday in the Celestial Kingdom, a good place for men with blood on their hands))

    For details about the Mormon beliefs, one can visit the website. There you can read up on all the secret crap and their bizarre beliefs, their Court of Love, their policy of shunning, and other oddities, which are NOT in any way Christian.

    Obviously, I am not a supporter of Mitt Romney.

    We love you Kim, and we trust you.

    I will post about the fight in the hall, Roger’s witness intimidation, and the bizarre cult of the defense soon, their obvious attempts to be in touch with a juror. I am still recovering from the shocking travesty of this jury.

    OTHER JURORS and alternates. Thank you. The situation must have been very uncomfortable and depressing. And now, those of you who are able, should tell your stories. And that includes telling them to Kim if that’s the best way for you. Do not be complicit by keeping the secrets of bad guys. You have our aloha.

  45. anon said

    Louise: Yes. Sprocket is a bully in blinders.

  46. Holy Toledo said

    I think someone else may have mentioned this but I assume jurors are subject to background checks. I’m wondering if the jury information form asks if the potential juror takes medications and if so, what for. I’m pretty perceptive. There is something wrong with juror #10. Yes, he comes off as pompous but it’s more than that. He thanks the jury (which is the judge’s job),he uses 12 or 16 notebooks to record his observations, he wants to be foreman,he resists taking straw votes, he tells the press not to interrupt him (hahaha), that’s the nature of reporters otherwise they’d never get their question on the floor, when AB asked him what evidence would it take to convict Spector, he was at a loss for words. You know why? Because he already had his mind made up before the trial and NOTHING was going to stop him. If he’s not diagnosable, he’s very dishonest and deceitful because he took a job and agreed to be OPEN minded and he wasn’t. I really don’t think at this point he was bribed but that would explain a lot. I think it’s something else and I admit I don’t know what it is but I do smell something rotten in Denmark, this case LA. As far as him being a civil engineer, I don’t think that explains it although people gravitate to jobs for a reason, good and bad. Didn’t he say he wished there’d been a video camera in the foyer because then you’d know what happened for sure? This tells me he is simply not equipped to be a fair juror. And it’s so sad for Lana’s family that he was accepted to be on the jury. It’ll take time but this, too, will pass, and truth will find its way and justice will be served.

  47. A.D.A. said

    Look around you. Rachelle Specter exists. We’ve watched “Sprocket” deteriorate since DD mentioned her blog. There are a lot of flakes out there, a lot of people different from each other, and “fame” affects people. I agree that PS was/is guilty, guilty, guilty, and I couldn’t believe the verdict!
    It troubles me, though, that because Juror #10 (an apparent flake) was not stuck during voir dire, and reached a verdict with which none of us agree, that his address and information are being published. Voir dire is the process of eliminating those too wierd to consider the evidence as potential jurors. He was not struck. He got on that jury. He was even elected foreman.
    Is it right to punish Juror #10 for his service as a juror? Because, I think that’s what’s happening. Who would wish to serve on a jury if their personal information is going to be rooted out and published?
    Who would have the courage to be a holdout juror, if this level of public scrutiny is the result of an unpopular verdict?
    Maybe he’s bought, maybe he’s just wierd, maybe he’s just wrong. Let him be. Eh?

  48. IdyllEyes said

    Why don’t the ‘powers that be’ just subpoena his computer and phone records and see if he followed the judges instructions about avoiding anything having to do with the trial? If someone’s fate depends on a juror following the instructions then there should be a condition that if any juror’s behavior is reported or seen to be questionable, the option to access means of communication with the general public should be available to the Court. Maybe, this ability for the Court to monitor information flow to and by jurors should be a law used only under very questionable situations. If not, the State is just going to have to bear the expense of sequestration to avoid miscarriages of justice. In some cases, we have to give up certain rights to make a process equitable.

  49. Arm's Length said

    What’s happening? (credit: Dominique Dunne’s fine line in *Poltergeist*)


    Did that juror fail his oath? Interesting point brought up by a poster at the Los Angeles Times website:,1,1694818.story?coll=la-headlines-california

    35. After listening to #10 jury foreman after the verdict and on CT. T.V. A person is who they are, This said, my question is Why would he wish to be on a case and to top it a foreman ? The preemptory challenges must have been exhasted, but he failed the oath within the handbook. The perfect person in an imperfect world . He is defective.
    Submitted by: A.O.
    5:36 PM PDT, September 27, 2007


    It will be a nice thing to see if the L A Times can do a deep, analytical, tough, focused piece of journalism on this trial, and the antics of the cast of characters. The OUTLANDISHNESS of the bizarre piece of theatre we have just endured. Meanwhile, we stand-by appreciatively while the jurors contact Weblog writers. Thank you, Darwin; the other information sources are rough and random. And, thank you Dominick (we don’t get enough of him; he should be given time to go on tv to talk about whatever he wants to), and Ashley, the ballsiest so far.

    Where are the distinguished crime writers? Where are the reporters who should be able to go beneath the surface of a news event, a murder trial, a culturally signficant public event? Who the hell ARE THESE PEOPLE who said OK to Phil Spector?

    TRADITIONAL MEDIA: Tell us something we don’t already know. Go deep on like Tawny Tindall, the Backstage Cafe, the criminal activities of Phil Spector, Bruce Cutler’s television career, something about ALL THE mONEY And how much does Phil have? Details on his catalog and other investments. Sitting in that courtroom, we could just FEEL the money moving around in there. We KNEW that there was heavy intense activity every night with Spector manic. (Steven Mikulan at LA Weekly can’t do it alone.)

    AN AWARD!!
    We need to enter TheDarwinException in the Webbys if there’s a category.
    Has Pulitzer expanded to include Webloggers yet?

  50. noor b said

    Cacafuego, I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

    Where in my post did I bring up anything about Sprocket?

    You must be “talking” to the wrong person.

    Ah, I just read your other 3 posts, you did not like me quoting the filth that came out of your mouth.

    You’re saying that I’m trying “to get away with unethical crap, since my own behavior towards Sprocket etc etc”?
    Hm mm, I’m unaware of that.
    You’re Sprockets private messenger or something?
    If that what she thinks, maybe she can contact me, and talk about it.

  51. Glenda said

    Whoa feelings are running high, huh?
    Well, I did something to make myself better–I sent an email to the DA’s office telling them that I appreciated all the hard work and fine presentation that they made in the Spector trial, that I hoped they learned valuable information from their conversations with the jurors and that I was supporting them and hoping that the next trial is a satisfactory result for the Clarkson family. This is the contact email–I got the first information from Sprocket’s blog and then investigated it for myself.

    I agree that Kim should receive some kind of amazing award for all the time, hard work and expertise she loaned to we the readers.

  52. Glenda said

    Sorry, an edit–should have said “Well, I did something to make myself feel better” Not saying I’m a better person because of this. . .

  53. Kathy said

    Kim, Did the jurors say anything about Jennifer and Pumpkin Pie?

  54. A.D.A. said

    You don’t need to use a preemptory challenge to remove a juror for cause. A cause strike is ALWAYS available to protect the integrity of the makeup of the jury; just have to uncover the cause, which ain’t always easy…
    I don’t like #10, I think he’s WRONG, and that “follower” woman juror is an embarassement to her gender, and equally culpable. (Given Gotti’s bribed jury foreman, the authorities are surely watching $$$.)

    Some people, though are just A$$holes, and sometimes they DO get on juries. I think AJ, Dixon, et al, have a lot of class to be thanking the jurors, instead of whining and finger-pointing, which would indicate unbelief in the system.

    I think AJ believes in what he is doing, will ultimately prevail, and will end up as big a superstar as our Miss Kim will be. I wish AJ, Dixon, et al, a better veniere next time, a more effective voir dire, and a retrial which results in conviction. Rock on.

  55. Arm's Length said

    Well you are a better person, Glenda.

    Did you happen to mention TheDarwinException as a/the sign of intelligent
    life? I think Jackson especially will appreciate this work. He is among the deeper readers, and understands a comment like, “it’s easier than Proust.”*

    (*regarding Orhan Pamuk)

    With Dixon,though, we most savor his ban from the good parking lot because of once punching a reporter there.

  56. Kendall said

    When it was said that Ben #10 was an Alhambra resident I had no idea he is literally a 30-second drive away. Yes, its that close. Less than a minute away. He can see Spector’s dungeon every morning and everynight, all the time. Very suspicious!

  57. carolina said

    Dear Kim.

    After taking a few days to recover from the horrendous verdict (and foreman), I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, intelligent, insightful coverage of this spectacle. I am sure that I am not alone in thanking you for your blog. I hope your health permits you to continue to blog about whatever you may desire. I will be there!

  58. anon said

    BARNEY #38: WTF??????

    This is my #1 complaint with “citizen journalism” – any crackpot (BARNEY #38) can
    go to the lengths of “outing” the jurors, addresses, home values – and draw conclusions about whether or not they were “bribed”. Based on what? Are you an investigator?
    BAD on so many levels. Shame on you.

    BARNEY – what do you want people to do with that information? Would you like it if someone was inviting stalkers to your house???

    All of the jurors had to suffer enough, being in that trial all day every day. The degree of rage directed at the NG jurors and the defense team, defendant, wife, etc. is incredibly disturbing. None of you know what happened, you weren’t there.

    If I had been a juror at this trial, I’d be getting a restraining order against BARNEY ASAP.

  59. Donald said

    Hello to all you butt heads. #10 had is a great guy and a good friend. yes he took lots of notes but where all his page full on both sides. Or was only hafle the pages full so nots could be added on the other side or questions he might have. Putting his address out there is not smart, it can be used against the person who put it up on this website if something happens to him or his family. Know he has friends watching his back so think twice. Don’t foget #9 can be suied for saying #10 name. The court told them all that there information will be sealed. When #9 said #10 name he could be in for some trouble. Why don’t u look into #9 family and friends. You will find he has secrets of his own.

  60. CARose said

    This is the first time I’ve ever participated in one of these things. I feel compelled to so here, because of the very difficult day my office has had, as well as my colleague, Juror #10, and especially his wife and children. They, along with #10, have been the recipients of threats, the product of blog sites like these. Did it occur to any of you, Kim and the other bloggers, that #10’s friends and colleagues have been monitoring blog sites like these ever since the verdict, and reporting to the authorities anything that sounds like a threat? Well, it’s being done.

    You people appear to have no sense of the harm your actions can cause to people who had nothing to do with the verdict with which you take issue. I’m not talking about #10, who I believe did the best job he could; none of you bloggers care about that. I’m talking about his wife and kids. What harm did they do to you?

    Barney: You need more than a restraining order. You need an arrest warrant issued against you, and a cellmate named “Spike.” Don’t even try to claim you didn’t know about the harm your little “outing” on this site was going to do to #10’s wife and kids. Don’t like what you’re getting here? Too bad. It’s what you deserve for contributing to the terrorizing of little kids. Take it like a man.

    Abbi_Normal: If you are who I think you are, CA transplant to VA, call your old CA school friend. We need to talk. “You know what I want to say…”

    Arm’s Length: You have a right to voice your frustration with the verdict. I’m not Mormon, but I believe you crossed a line here. Are you aware your attacks on someone’s religion reeks way too much of similar diatribes have been voiced against Jewish people and Catholics? Been to any good cross burnings lately? Does this site serve as your hood?

    A.D.A.: Please keep in mind, under the law jurors are required to appear for voir dire and serve on the jury if they are selected. #10 did his duty, at great cost to him and his family. You’d be surprised at how many critics of jurors have never served, and in fact either throw away their summons or work very hard to get out of jury service (including being less than honest with the judge and attorneys about their views or circumstances). People like #10 are considered the ideal jurors by the Court system because their employer provides unlimited time for jury service. In fact, the people at #10’s office, myself included, get a jury summons every one to two years, like clockwork. I have been required to serve on several juries involving criminal charges (only one was a hung jury, by the way). It’s a thankless task, being the jurors of last resort and doing the duty for a lot of other people who sadly think they have “better things to do.” You and your friends here give the term “thankless task” a whole new depressing meaning.

    I will say this, though, to all of you. Thanks to blog sites like these and the threats to #10 that have been the product of them, I and #10’s other colleagues now have a “get out of jury duty free” card next time we’re summoned, whether the Court likes it or not. So, next time you superior intellects on this Darwin site, particularly any of you in California, get a jury summons, improve the jury pool and serve, especially on a long and difficult case. If you vote a Not Guilty in the final verdict, have the courage and integrity to report back to your friends here and explain your vote, especially if it’s a case that involves a rape or homicide. Then see whether you can take what you’ve been dishing out.

  61. Kathy said

    Anon, I agree 100 percent. I think its the people like Barney, which will prevent judges from allowing cameras in the courtroom. I love watching the court proceedings, however my entertainment should not come at the expense of the safety and privacy of any juror. I too say, shame on Barney, and all the others who published this juror’s private information.

  62. Did it occur to any of you, Kim and the other bloggers, that #10’s friends and colleagues have been monitoring blog sites like these ever since the verdict,

    As the author and moderator, I must ask if you happened to notice that the info posted containing private details of Juror #10 has been redacted – has been for days.

    Actually, I shouldn’t have let it get through to begin with, but when someone else commented on it, I went back and looked at it (since I obviously hadn’t the first time) and edited the comment to remove the identifying information. If you actually read the posts in the blog rather than just ego googling on your colleagues name, you would see that personally I support Juror 10, and his decision, if that was his decision.

    However, supporting a decision and agreeing with it are two different things, and no, I don’t agree with his decision, which I think you’ll find is not a distinctive opinion.

    Which leads me to my next question:

    #10’s friends and colleagues have been monitoring blog sites like these ever since the verdict

    “Since the verdict?” Are you sure about that? I mean, his friends and colleagues were under no media blackout order. Why have you only been “monitoring sites like these” SINCE THE VERDICT? Are you sure none of his friends and colleagues were monitoring these sites BEFORE the verdict? There were lots of days off for the jury, and you sure as hell found “sites like these” rather quickly.

    I think it’s rather odd that your statement bothers me on a much deeper level than “Barney’s” did. And you know, statements such as yours get investigated, too.

    Thanks to blog sites like these and the threats to #10 that have been the product of them, I and #10’s other colleagues now have a “get out of jury duty free” card next time we’re summoned

    Number one – you sound proud of that. I guess you aren’t such as civic minded American to begin with if you crow about the fact that you can “get out of” jury duty.

    And number 2 – No, you don’t have a “get out of jury duty free’ card. What are you going to tell the court – “See, my friend wanted face time on National TV but he didn’t want his identity known, so he went to a press conference carried nationally and didn’t give his name, but somehow those cagey people found out who he was, anyway.” The judge will simply tell you to serve your jury duty and then shut the fuck up afterwards and don’t give national press conferences. Quick – does anyone know Juror # 4’s name – or alternate number #1’s name?

    Sounds like your buddy wants his cake and wants to eat it too. Publicity is a nasty thing – you get publicized. Ask Britney Spears. If he wanted to remain anonymous – there’s a way to do that. Shut the fuck up and go home – don’t go in front of a bunch of cameras and microphones and try to “educate” everyone else because you think you know what’s best – and certainly don’t think that in this day and age no one is going to be able to figure out who the fuck you are. Fromt eh juror questionaires everyone knew his occumpation – and once he put his face before the camera it didn’t take Sherlock Fucking Holmes or Tawni Tyndall to go to the Alhambra Utility website and match a fucking face to a name.

    Sounds like so much sour grapes to me. He thought he was going to be the lone hero and that he would be popular and feted and given parades in his honor by the public. Sorry, he bet on the wrong horse.

    But I feel your pain – the guy *must* be a pain in the ass to work with. He. talks. so. slow. And he does sound like one of those “know it alls” – bet he’s always telling you why you’re wrong even you know you’re right. I’d get another job, if I were you.


  63. CARose said

    Hi Kim:

    The blog on your site last night (October 1st) still had Barney’s unedited entry with the juror’s information on his full name, his wife’s name and info on his kids and a lot of specifics about his house and its address. Barney’s entry was a clear threat; it was an open invitation to people to not only go after Juror #10, but his family. It was for this reason I sounded off on your blog at all. I get a real visceral response when I see kids being threatened. I make no apologies in giving you and the blog participants a reality check. Kim, I won’t argue with you about your efforts to edit the entry to protect Juror #10’s family. I will state your editing commands on Barney’s blog were not in effect at the time I posted my comments last night.

  64. Paula said

    Gosh, I would be thrilled to death if #10 was never able to serve on a jury again! The guy never did figure out what “reasonable” meant. He was way out there!
    I have to go with the Mormon slant on this one. This whole deal may have come down to some pretty strong religious views. Perhaps he felt Lana had no business working at the HOBs or going to strange mens houses. Suppose he viewed her as a bit loose and maybe she deserved what she got. Who knows? I certainly hope that during the voir dire process of the next trial, the prosecution gets in touch with the jurors religious views as well as their feelings towards the opposite sex. After all, we’ve come a long way baby. Some men just can’t accept it.

  65. brdsnbs said

    Hi Kim,

    I read this last post (by you) this morning, about 14 hours ago. My initial thought was ‘Wow! Kim is pretty pissed off.’ I’ve always believed that I am articulate enough to fight with my words, rather than my fists. When I read your post this morning my second thought was ‘I’d really hate to have to go toe-to-toe with Kim.’ It would be a tough battle. However, when it comes to the Spector trial, in just about every aspect, I agree with your point of view. When I read this morning, I was at a loss for words. I really expected to come back this evening and find many responses, either pro or against what you had to say. I’m a little puzzled to see no response. I just wanted to let you know that I fully agree with you and I couldn’t have said it better (or nearly as good, I concede) myself. YOU GO GIRL!!!

    With Sincere Admiration,

  66. Kathy said

    Hi Kim: I have enjoyed your blog a lot. I think you offer great insight. I appreciate that you have taken the time, to inform and educate, as well as entertain the many people that read your blog. It is with all due respect that I ask you this:
    Do you really believe that Juror # 10’s not guilty vote was based on a desire to be the lone hero, honored in parades, etc? Perhaps Juror # 10 would rethink his decision to walk in front of the cameras, but wouldn’t it be just as easy or easier for any member of the public who happened to attend the trial, spending day after day studying the faces of these jurors, to connect the face to the Alhambra utility website? Did it really make any difference that he went before the cameras. I tend to think it didn’t. He would have been identified regardless of the national tv coverage. Thank you for allowing me to post.

  67. Kim (Canada) said

    Never a dull moment when a “Kim’s” around – don’t I know it! And I’m thinkin’ “Squiggy’d” be right in there with “us” eh? LOL…

    And so she said it best….I mimick Squiggy’s sentiments EXACTLY!

    Another Ki-oops..Admirer,


  68. patty said

    Have no fear, Barneys information is incorrect anyway!

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: