GUILTY CA - Lana Clarkson, 40, fatally shot, Alhambra, 3 Feb 2003

[blondekj]

Tomorrow morning is the Sara Caplan Denouement!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[lisafremont]

Maybe so. But if the print was in the arch, above where it would strike the surface then I say=== salesperson.

 

[panthera]

I really doubt it....prints are more fragile than that. Lana was walking on those shoes all night long, presumably on carpeted floors, so even if the print was in the raised arch area, it would have been smudged.

I think that print will remain an unsolved mystery.

I was wondering about that too, like how long they'd last but I'd imagine the only way it'd belong to a salesperson is if she hadn't worn them at all. I know the defense is harping on the scene being altered & disturbed by the police trying to apprehend PS and whatnot, but there's no way the gun moved from Lana's right side to where it was found on the carpeted floor without leaving blood on the carpet and Adriano also said PS was holding a gun when he went outside. I hope the jury has some common sense!!

 

[Wrinkles]

Hiya Gang,

Yup... Lisa...thought about the shoe salesman too (or someone who looked at them and tried them on prior to Lana)

... Loved your keyboard head banging and comment on the other thread (typical Ad and why we love's ya!)

Ad, you wrote:
>>I didn't hear the testimony, but as a gun owner for 30+ years now I have never heard a gun advertised as being resistant to fingerprints, and it would disgust me to hear it.<<

Yah... As a former Annie Oakley, I've never met a gun that could wipe blood off itself!

W

 

[Wrinkles]

Resistant to fingerprints:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment032100a.html

>>
As promised, here’s the second half of Smith & Wesson's Faustian agreement with HUD, again decoded in [brackets]. If you missed Part I, click here.

* Warnings about safe storage and handling included with all firearms within six months.
[Every firearms manufacturer already includes a safety manual with the gun.]

* Manufacturers will not sell firearms that can readily be converted into fully automatic weapons or that are resistant to fingerprints.
[The first item has been illegal since 1934. The second item is a slap at Intratec, which has advertised a particular model as resistant to fingerprints.]
<<

 

[Wrinkles]

http://www.cpsmlaw.com/publications/assault.shtml

>>
ASSAULT WEAPONS: THE CASE AGAINST THE TEC-9

Consumer Attorneys of California
Annual Seminar 1996
<<

>>B. Navegar Produced Brochures Promoting TEC-9 as "Resistant to Fingerprints."

Navegar brochures advertised the "TEC-KOTE" finish available on the TEC-9 as providing "excellent resistance to fingerprints." People who didn't know any better could understand this to mean that fingerprints would not be left on the weapon. <<

 

[blondekj]

I was wondering about that too, like how long they'd last but I'd imagine the only way it'd belong to a salesperson is if she hadn't worn them at all. I know the defense is harping on the scene being altered & disturbed by the police trying to apprehend PS and whatnot, but there's no way the gun moved from Lana's right side to where it was found on the carpeted floor without leaving blood on the carpet and Adriano also said PS was holding a gun when he went outside. I hope the jury has some common sense!!

I just don't see how a jury could possibly acquit unless somebody gets to at least one of them...and then a hung jury would be the outcome. Of course Phil is old enough that a hung jury might buy him enough time to die on his own.

Cutler's presence on the defense team really makes me distrust them. I would not be at all surprised to discover that he had somehow bought off a juror.

 

[Wrinkles]

Hiya Panthera and All

Panthera, you wrote:
>>but there's no way the gun moved from Lana's right side to where it was found on the carpeted floor without leaving blood on the carpet and Adriano also said PS was holding a gun when he went outside. I hope the jury has some common sense!!<<

Right-e-oh!

I keep thinking that this whole continuation (blah blah blah) in the trial is merely to build the income of the defense attornies and make a showing for "nodding Phil." On the other hand...I hope they can't pull off the type of injustice of the OJ thing...

Common sense:
If he "cared" he would have called 911 and sat and waited for help.
If he had a "brain" (he knew how to produce records and steal the money of young musicians) - he knew how to NOT touch a crime scene and wait for police.
If he had "common sense", he would not have been strident with police.
If he had been "human", he would have been crying into his hands and shaking when 911 and the police arrived.
If he was not "guilty", he would not have touched the gun or wiped the blood off it. Dead people don't wipe their own blood off of guns.

This whole thing is another cat and mouse game to see if a guilty man can get off the hook. And that leads me to the question, why isn't this murderer in jail waiting...who let him out on bail?

They have sedated Spector so that he can't explode in the court room. Has anyone watched him walk into the court room? I can't imagine how he could do so as sedated as he appears.

Finally... He remarried, right? Is that chick actually living at the house with him, or does she sneak away as soon as she makes the appearance of going there. I can't imagine that Spector could "change his spots" (he is wacko, per his family's interviews) and not threaten her or make her crazy. So, the only thing I can think is that if a chauffeur is delivering he and she to the house in a limo, she is going out, hidden, in the next vehicle. OR, she is a paid bride with a body guard or two on her at all times.

The marriage thing, if I have this right and that young chick who is showing up with him is his wife, was a "tactic" and you can BET someone is protecting her. I wonder what she is earning...

At anyrate, I can only think that this jury is chomping at the bit to do a "guilty" verdict in the first 5 minutes of deliberation.

Just my opinion...

W

 

[panthera]

Hiya Panthera and All

Panthera, you wrote:
>>but there's no way the gun moved from Lana's right side to where it was found on the carpeted floor without leaving blood on the carpet and Adriano also said PS was holding a gun when he went outside. I hope the jury has some common sense!!<<

Right-e-oh!

I keep thinking that this whole continuation (blah blah blah) in the trial is merely to build the income of the defense attornies and make a showing for "nodding Phil." On the other hand...I hope they can't pull off the type of injustice of the OJ thing...

Common sense:
If he "cared" he would have called 911 and sat and waited for help.
If he had a "brain" (he knew how to produce records and steal the money of young musicians) - he knew how to NOT touch a crime scene and wait for police.
If he had "common sense", he would not have been strident with police.
If he had been "human", he would have been crying into his hands and shaking when 911 and the police arrived.
If he was not "guilty", he would not have touched the gun or wiped the blood off it. Dead people don't wipe their own blood off of guns.

This whole thing is another cat and mouse game to see if a guilty man can get off the hook. And that leads me to the question, why isn't this murderer in jail waiting...who let him out on bail?


Just my opinion...

W

I completely agree with what you've listed as "common sense" and not only didn't he call 911 on one of the 14 useable phones in his "castle" but he fought with police after they finally were able to enter the premises. I really hope that this doesn't go the way of OJ or Blake either. I think he was allowed to post bail because the highest charge is 2nd degree murder, but that's only a guess. I don't live in LALA land either!

 

[panthera]

I just don't see how a jury could possibly acquit unless somebody gets to at least one of them...and then a hung jury would be the outcome. Of course Phil is old enough that a hung jury might buy him enough time to die on his own.

Cutler's presence on the defense team really makes me distrust them. I would not be at all surprised to discover that he had somehow bought off a juror.

I have that same uneasy feeling about Cutler too, knowing the outcome of the Gotti trials. I really would hate to think that any of these jurors are there dishonestly. :doh:

 

[Ragnar]

From a parallel discussion elsewhere:

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Originally posted by Ragnar

Anchors and analysts are coming from a different POV. HL is a frequent guest on many of these networks and/or programs. People who 'put butts in the seats', or more properly in this case 'put eyes on the tubes' tend to get a lot of leeway.

Quite frankly, many of these 'experts' only know what they've heard. They've been told that HL is famous, world-renowned and well respected, so they just accept it as fact. If he did something wrong it must be an honest mistake because they've already been told what to believe and lack either the capacity or the will to do the critical thinking required to actually form their own opinions.

Most posters on the CTV boards are much better informed on these topics and have actually formed their own opinions of HL based on what they have seen of him from real trial testimony, not just from reputation. [/FONT][FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]

So these experts don't know anything about the law or Dr. Lee? They rely strictly on what they've heard from other people and just accept it?

I'm sorry but I can't agree with this. They aren't called experts for nothing. Many of these people have legal backgrounds and most certainly know a lot more about Dr. Lee than the average poster on these boards.

As for most posters on the CTV boards being "much better informed" on these topics, I find that a hard pill to swallow as well.

And yes, many people on these boards have formed their own opinion of Lee, and a negative one at that. Many seem to forget however that much of his career has been as a witness for the prosecution, and he has often times helped in putting criminals in jail.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, this is much of what we're up against. Some of you will recognize the answer, but just to refresh everyone's recollection, think of OG as the respondent.

:doh:
[/FONT]

 

[lisafremont]

I'm with you, Rags, but not in Vancouver! How are ya, btw! You've been missed.

SPY magazine used to assemble lists of "coasters" -- people who earned a reputation and then dined out on it for years, never doing another positive thing. Dr Henry Lee is a coaster.

Real coasters are useful for protecting furniture however. That's more than can be said for Henry Lee.

My disdain for him is based on two of his performances. The first was his "something wrong" turn at the Simpson trial. There he told the jury that there was another set of footprints which were proven to be trowel-marks in the concrete from when the sidewalk was made.

The second performance occurred in NC at the Michael Peterson case where he told the jury that there was "too much blood for a beating" a statement which is just ludicrous on the face of it. The jury agreed and convicted the killer Dr Lee had been paid to lie for. And that is my opinion.

There's also his arrogance and attitude that he is above any question, which is quite untrue if you watched his being dismantled by Alan Jackson on cross.

 

[Bee Charmer]

Tomorrow morning is the Sara Caplan Denouement!!!

And for this, we are most truly grateful!!

Thanks for the posts on the prints Lisa!! I agree, the print
on the bottom of the shoe is totally irrelevant and more
then likely originated at the store. Defense is desperate.....
.....again.

 

[nellydee]

I'm with you, Rags, but not in Vancouver! How are ya, btw! You've been missed.

SPY magazine used to assemble lists of "coasters" -- people who earned a reputation and then dined out on it for years, never doing another positive thing. Dr Henry Lee is a coaster.

Real coasters are useful for protecting furniture however. That's more than can be said for Henry Lee.

My disdain for him is based on two of his performances. The first was his "something wrong" turn at the Simpson trial. There he told the jury that there was another set of footprints which were proven to be trowel-marks in the concrete from when the sidewalk was made.

The second performance occurred in NC at the Michael Peterson case where he told the jury that there was "too much blood for a beating" a statement which is just ludicrous on the face of it. The jury agreed and convicted the killer Dr Lee had been paid to lie for. And that is my opinion.

There's also his arrogance and attitude that he is above any question, which is quite untrue if you watched his being dismantled by Alan Jackson on cross.

Mornin Lisa! I have to say that I also believe he is motivated by the almighty dollar. It is rumored that he received $100,000 dollars for this case! I am sure he could find a way to "spin" the science for that amount of money.:twocents:

 

[Ragnar]

I'm with you, Rags, but not in Vancouver! How are ya, btw! You've been missed.

SPY magazine used to assemble lists of "coasters" -- people who earned a reputation and then dined out on it for years, never doing another positive thing. Dr Henry Lee is a coaster.

'Morning Lisa et. al. :dance:

Coasters, LOL. If you are of a certain generation you'll understand this.

Coasters, aka guest stars on 'The Love Boat' and/or 'Fantasy Island', or guests on 'The Merv Griffin Show.'

:crazy:

 

[Wrinkles]

As per Henry Lee... unloading my mind here...

A couple of things... An expertise can be had by principled and unprincipled people. The issue isn't whether Dr. Lee made a right judgement about that which he picked up (what it scientifically meant), the issue is "did he pick it up" and "did he save it" (and study it.) My bet would be that he picked it up, saved it, studied and his expertise saw precisely what it meant. Further, the chances are that he knew exactly what that something would mean for the guy who was paying his wage, if the prosecution experts saw it too. Enter morals, ethics or lack thereof...

My 13 year old granddaughter and I watched Lee on the stand... I was fairly shocked that my granddaughter saw what she did, i.e. she sensed that Lee was lying through his teeth. She almost went ballistic when she saw it, it was like it was perfectly clear to her. I felt the same way she did, but she was outraged - I was a bit taken aback by how profoundly she reacted.

While Lee was on the stand... It seems I remember him repetitively turning his head to the judge to respond, almost as if to say, "You ARE going to believe 'me' here aren't you judge?" (as if to rest on his laurels thinking the judge would be swayed.) For some reason, this very much felt like a child trying to get out of a lie, and actively working to influence the one person they thought might buy their BS (I'm a good boy, I would never do that, I am above reproach, you aren't going to believe this about me now are you?) I think that the judge quickly felt the antics, thus his later comment about "who will I believe, it will be Caplan." I believe the judge clearly saw through Lee. AND he may know Caplan's ethics...

Something else... Didn't Lee say something to the affect, "I have to do it all, I don't have a helper, I have to log and warehouse all this information myself." When I heard that, it felt like a confession of a lie. It felt like he was trying to give an excuse for a lie he was trying to get out of i.e. "I can accidentally lose things, this is a big job." For me, that was an admission of the lie. Only, in my opinion, he didn't "accidentally" lose it, and why make a defense/excuse for losing something when you supposedly never had it in the first place?

And what if he did have someone helping him to do his work... Then they might have seen or logged or studied whatever was picked up, and they could be called to be a witness? If I were an unprincipled person, I would find it convenient to work alone - kinda like "doing things in darkness."

As per the argument of "why would an expert lose their reputation?" Well, this argument was had on our front porch with my neighbor, who is an expert witness at times, my granddaughter and I. Oddly, my granddaughter is best friends with the neighbor woman and would typically side with and defend her. I don't think the kid's eyes were clouded by the "reputation" thing, she doesn't fully understand the importance of one yet, AND she remembered what she saw on the stand. She was adamant that she didn't buy Lee's story. She didn't bend an inch... Nor did I.

Finally... It occurred to me... Spector is rolling in money, he probably couldn't give a wuff about his children inheriting it, it is ALL for his purposes and he only has X years to live (he doesn't want to do that in prison). He can pay someone a WHOLE lot to not have picked something up, to never have seen it...to "maybe" lose their reputation (to do damage control later). Further, how much would Lee need to retire... How gladly might he give up expert witness jobs, to do live in the lap of luxury on his last high paying job? How gladly might he give up "doing it all himself" to just go play now?

If an expert's truth is worth a lot (seeing what a piece of evidence means), how much more might an expert's loss of a piece of evidence and a lie be worth? And how many people lacking ethics would comfort themselves by saying, "I was hired to help...I'm just doing my job." And if a person didn't lose their license to practice due to a "maybe lie" - and you don't need a license to retire...well then... Just some thoughts...

This droning defense garbage (look here, no look there, no look here) feels like a parallel to an ongoing painful interogation which would break someone down enough to make them confess something they never did, or never believed i.e. to break the jury down mentally and emotionally and into a possible belief, "Okay okay...let me go, she commited suicide, okay?" Let's hope that the jury gets refreshed when they go home and can clearly sort out the obvious nonsense and stick with what seems very evident i.e. Spector killed Lana, he is using his money to try to buy off a bunch of minds.

Just my opinion, just thinking, while we wait for the beginnings today.

W

PS. Its really refreshing to read the thoughts of the minds responding in this thread - it feels like old WS days.

PSS. And yes, Lisa, dontcha know that the judge saw the arrogance and attitude too?

 

[Wrinkles]

Coverage?

Anyone know who is covering the trial and when? Court TV has Niphong? KTLA, I don't see a link for trial coverage?

HALP??

w

ps. just heard on Court TV, half hour approx. (9:30am) they are going to Spector trial.

 

[Niner]

boy! This thread sure took off when Lisa invited her friends... That's IS good!!! LOL!

Welcome to all you new posters!! This is a great web site! I too am waiting for the trial to start this morning... I keep hearing "buzzing" noises, but nothing yet on the screen... there IS court today, eh??

Need to catch up on my reading here, as I'm only on page 20 of Part 1... yikes!!

 

[lisafremont]

I played and replayed Roger Rosen's motion for mistrial and took notes. Don't have the time or the stomach to transcribe verbatim, so instead:

a paraphrase of Roger Rosen’s motion for mistrial

Mr Diamond solicited himself to the DA’s office. AJ passed him along to LA Co. homicide officers Vic Petrocini & another one whose name he can’t remember, and then the matter was brought to the court (Fidler) who then appointed a special master, Laurie Levinson.

All of this was occurring during voir dire or the OS and no one on the defense team know about this. Court and DA’s didn’t contact us. No notice to the defense.

Although the DA and the Court felt this was proper way to go, we felt this wasn’t appropriate, esp. in the case of the appt. of a special master. We were already along in trial and certain tactical decisions had been made by the defense and we felt that we were disadvantaged in this. We should have been notified about the special master.

This dovetails into the search warrant issue. DA wanted access to the defendant’s home in the middle of the trial. This properly should have been given to another judge. The Court has been led to believe that info obtained would be used to rebut Dr Lee and he hasn’t even been called yet.

That leads us to a third issue--- Sara Caplan. I won’t recapitulate everything in this regard but 3 or 4 points bear repeating.
1. She never saw anything being taken from the scene
2. She never said it was a piece of acrylic nail
3. She doesn’t know what it was.
4. She described it as “whitish”, irregular or jagged in shape and I believe she said “the size of a whole nail” not a small piece, which is the piece in question.

That has led the Court to assume that HL has done something wrong. [Something wrong!] Dr Lee didn’t do anything wrong at all. And we believe the Court is springboarding to that conclusion based on the testimony of Sara Caplan.

We understood this subject matter would be held for rebuttal but now it’s being brought in in the govt’s CIC. It gets us back to improper contact between Gregory Diamond and the DA’s office and then it was handled as it was.

Mr Spector has never ever waived the privilege in this case.
1. PS was not present at that hearing.
2. No one who represented him was authorized to waive the privilege.
and a subissue:
who called Miss Caplan
Court wanted her as a witness
“It wasn’t that we brought her as a voluntary witness.”

The govt. takes the position this opens the door to all this evidence coming in their CIC.

And that leads us to subpoena of HL. Procedures were not properly followed. Interstate subp’s require judicial intervention. But it was just faxed on a machine! The DA suffered no sanction as a result of this.

The defendant is entitled to the right of a fair trial and all this indicates that Phil Spector has not been receiving his rights. And we move for a mistrial.

 

[lisafremont]

Boy, the defense is fighting hard against this. They know that this is powerful!!