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

[Moe]

I'm really looking forward to Michael Bay's testimony, what is left of the defense case will be put away tommorow. This is perhaps the worst defense team I have ever seen, the jury most likely hates them all by now.

 

[yadler]

Ditto, in spades. If Jackson can further impeach Punkin I will be one very happy camper.

 

[fundiva]

I'm really looking forward to Michael Bay's testimony, what is left of the defense case will be put away tommorow. This is perhaps the worst defense team I have ever seen, the jury most likely hates them all by now.

After the prosecution's rebuttal with Michael Bay and Lana's other friend, I think the prosecution has totally discredited Punkin Pie. This should also take some of the "star" factor out of the trial for Spector. The jury can either believe a washed up Punkin and Phil, or they can believe a current well known director in Hollywood. It was great to hear Lana's friend read a Christmas form letter from Punkin to everyone stating that Lana had been in great spirits and had been the one to lift Punkin up after her relationship ended. Also in the letter, Punkin believed Phil Spector murdered her friend and wanted him to burn. That totally contradicts her testimony about her believing it was a suicide.

 

[Niner]

Hi Niner! From what I've read, the Judge and attorneys are going to the Castle on Monday to preview what the defense wants the jury to see. So you're probably right that court will start after the "lunch break". Thanks for the link about Dr. Lee. I don't get to see the live trial anymore since going back to work ~ just the recaps on CTV Extra.

Hi panthera! you were right about everyone going to the Castel Monday morning - don't you have a computer at work? You can watch the trial @ KTLA web site, you know??!!

 

[Niner]

...snip...
After the prosecution's rebuttal with Michael Bay

DARN!!?? urg!! I missed that...

 

[panthera]

Hi panthera! you were right about everyone going to the Castel Monday morning - don't you have a computer at work? You can watch the trial @ KTLA web site, you know??!!

Hi Niner! Yes I have a computer at work, but all I can do is read posts while I've got other windows open to switch back to in a hurry if someone walks up to my desk! And I think someone would definitely notice if I was watching the trial with the volume on! It doesn't sound like I'm missing much right now anyway and will definitely be watching the closing arguments on Extra afterward.

 

[wandering]

After the prosecution's rebuttal with Michael Bay and Lana's other friend, I think the prosecution has totally discredited Punkin Pie. This should also take some of the "star" factor out of the trial for Spector. The jury can either believe a washed up Punkin and Phil, or they can believe a current well known director in Hollywood. It was great to hear Lana's friend read a Christmas form letter from Punkin to everyone stating that Lana had been in great spirits and had been the one to lift Punkin up after her relationship ended. Also in the letter, Punkin believed Phil Spector murdered her friend and wanted him to burn. That totally contradicts her testimony about her believing it was a suicide.

And the letter was written 10 months after the murder. The defense tried to suggest that it was a normal reaction to loss, but I am unwilling to accept that, given it was 10 months. I've gotten over deaths/blame in two or three months. One does not carry on with that as "grief reaction" for 10 months, unless there really is something valid to consider.

 

[fundiva]

And the letter was written 10 months after the murder. The defense tried to suggest that it was a normal reaction to loss, but I am unwilling to accept that, given it was 10 months. I've gotten over deaths/blame in two or three months. One does not carry on with that as "grief reaction" for 10 months, unless there really is something valid to consider.

The defense probably didn't know the letter existed until the prosecution produced it. Methinks Punkin Pie wasn't totally upfront with the defense, by letting them know all the comments and letters she made stating that Spector was a murderer, because she wanted her 15 minutes. I guess the defense thought they could discredit any of Lana's friends comments, but having it in writing would put a wet towel on their suicide defense.

 

[Nova]

I completely agree. Some of the experts in this case have zero credibility. They're more like advocates for Spector than impartial experts.

I, too, am concerned about the reliability of forensic experts. Much of the time I'm left not knowing what to believe and I suspect that is true of many juries as well. (We know the OJ jury pretty much shrugged off the DNA testimony. That may have been in part because they knew the conclusion they wanted to reach, but I doubt it helped that it was so difficult to sort through the testimonies about contamination.)

As with psychotherapists, I think part of the problem is the way the legal system intersects with other disciplines. Academic careers are made by taking contrary points of view and advocating for them; the most successful advocates (in academia as in law) successfully convince themselves that they really believe the view they are advancing. This doesn't necessarily mean they are lying to collect a fee (though it also doesn't prove they aren't), it's the nature of scientific inquiry.

Unfortunately, this may or may not have much to do with objective fact, and the jury as trier of fact may not know how to integrate the advocacy they hear. In science, peer review eventually sorts the wheat from the chaff, but jury members are not normally the "peers" of the experts who testify and juries don't have the luxury of review over long periods of time.

Further complicating the process is the popularity of TV "procedurals," which almost always show scientific investigation as certain (and instant!) and unquestionable (at least until additional evidence arrives). This bears little relation to the way evidence must be analyzed and interpreted in real life.

As our judicial system becomes more and more dependent on forensic evidence, the problems can only grow.

:/rant off:

 

[Niner]

Hi Niner! Yes I have a computer at work, but all I can do is read posts while I've got other windows open to switch back to in a hurry if someone walks up to my desk! And I think someone would definitely notice if I was watching the trial with the volume on! It doesn't sound like I'm missing much right now anyway and will definitely be watching the closing arguments on Extra afterward.

well, panthera, if you had head phones no one would hear what you are listening to! I do that at work, and think I'm in a conference on the phone or something!! LOL! It works for me! At least I can work - and listen to what's going on!! And about this "Extra" - is that something ON TV, or the net? Do you have to pay special for that (if it's TV)! As I will probably be out of the country, by the time the final arguments start - darn!!! I leave on the 20th of August and won't be back until Sept 7th... do you think they will be finished by then?? I hope not - I know you ALL want it to be over, already!! LOL! but can't you wait for me??!!

So - we have the last "expert" Monday from the Defense, and then they are going to rest - ?? - yes? And then? the jury instructions?? and then... closing arguments?? Maybe even this coming week??!! I hope so! Don't want to miss Alan Jackson's closing...

 

[panthera]

well, panthera, if you had head phones no one would hear what you are listening to! I do that at work, and think I'm in a conference on the phone or something!! LOL! It works for me! At least I can work - and listen to what's going on!! And about this "Extra" - is that something ON TV, or the net? Do you have to pay special for that (if it's TV)! As I will probably be out of the country, by the time the final arguments start - darn!!! I leave on the 20th of August and won't be back until Sept 7th... do you think they will be finished by then?? I hope not - I know you ALL want it to be over, already!! LOL! but can't you wait for me??!!

So - we have the last "expert" Monday from the Defense, and then they are going to rest - ?? - yes? And then? the jury instructions?? and then... closing arguments?? Maybe even this coming week??!! I hope so! Don't want to miss Alan Jackson's closing...

Thanks for your help but I wouldn't get away with the headphones either! It seems the jury might get the case at the last week of the month from what I've read (on another site) but who knows! Dr. Baden's scheduled for tomorrow, Monday and I'm not sure after that ~ the State still has more rebuttal I believe.

Here's the link to CTV Extra:

http://www.courttv.com/extra/home.aspx?sProp6=exsuccesslogin

 

[Wrinkles]

Oh Dr. Baden....

The tissue on the sleeve of the coat, could it have PURGED when this body was turned with all that fluid in the "heavy lungs" (more weighty than normal in autopsy lungs)? You know, like it was earlier mentioned?

Oh as I look at this... I wonder who has checked out Ms. Baden's sickness. If she is as ill as they say, it is a sadness, but isn't it just so opportune to have her out of the courtroom at the same time her husband is there?

If this doesn't appear to be a setup, I'm just clearly blown away...

W

 

[Wrinkles]

YES!

Someone tell me how the "contortionist" Lana turned her arm so that at the time of shooting herself brain matter ended up on the buttons of her jacket.

OH SOMEONE HELP ME WITH THE STUPIDITY OF THIS CRAP! AJ HELP US to get clear that this did NOT happen?

w

 

[Wrinkles]

Oh My Gosh The Buttons!

Get Him Aj!

oh my God...Baden says the buttons were facing the mouth, is he CRAZY? Oh but was Spector twisting Lana's arm with on hand, and aiming the gun with the other?

W

EDIT: If I take my left hand and place the back of it just under my chin, with my left elbow pointed as upward it might be...then I can spew onto my buttons, and this is a defensive hand position, not a trigger pulling position. So if it wasn't purge, it was defensive. My opinion

 

[Jeana (DP)]

All of my forensic heros seem to be bitting the dust one by one. How can I ever look at them the same way again???? I've always known that expert opinions could be bought, but I've always though a great deal about DiMaio and Baden. After watching their performances on the witness stand during this trial, I doubt if I'll ever be able to believe anything that comes out of either of their mouths ever again.

I do have a shred of hope left for California juries, however, which isn't easy after the O.J., Blake and Jackson cases. If they don't convict Spector for Clarkson's murder there will be nothing left to believe but that "Hollywood" can get away with ANYTHING. Even old, shriveled up, dusty, thought-he-was-already-dead Hollywood.

 

[William N]

Here is a quote from Daniel Petrocelli's book, "Triumph of Justice," about the Simpson civil trial. Petrocelli was the attorney for the Goldmans.

"In the criminal trial, Dr. Baden posited that Ron oozed blood for ten, fifteen, perhaps twenty minutes before he died. The purpose of this testimony was to enable the defense to argue that Ron, unarmed, battled an infinitely more powerful, knife-wielding professional athlete in a tiny, caged area for more than a quarter of an hour. The sole purpose of this argument was to devise a murder scenario lasting long enough to disqualify Simpson as the perpetrator. For his services, Dr. Baden was being paid more than $100,000. Plus he got to be on television."

Also, when Werner Spitz (a defense witness in the Spector trial) testified for the plaintiffs, Baden actually went on Geraldo Rivera's TV show to criticize Spitz's testimony. This was a direct violation of the gag order. The next day, Judge Fujisaki told Baden that he would be barred from testifying if he did it again.

Petrocelli pointed out in his book that Baden was acting as an advocate for Simpson, even appearing at press conferences. Dr. Baden seems to be doing the same for Phil Spector.

 

[Squishified]

I guess I need to start watching this trial again.
I got bored when the defense started and haven't watched since. Why are trials so long in CA??
I absolutely LOVE Alan Jackson. I wish he could prosecute every high profile case.

 

[sherri79]

I guess I need to start watching this trial again.
I got bored when the defense started and haven't watched since. Why are trials so long in CA??
I absolutely LOVE Alan Jackson. I wish he could prosecute every high profile case.

i think they take so long because they get more days off than the maytag repairman.

 

[Nova]

All of my forensic heros seem to be bitting the dust one by one. How can I ever look at them the same way again???? I've always known that expert opinions could be bought, but I've always though a great deal about DiMaio and Baden. After watching their performances on the witness stand during this trial, I doubt if I'll ever be able to believe anything that comes out of either of their mouths ever again.

I do have a shred of hope left for California juries, however, which isn't easy after the O.J., Blake and Jackson cases. If they don't convict Spector for Clarkson's murder there will be nothing left to believe but that "Hollywood" can get away with ANYTHING. Even old, shriveled up, dusty, thought-he-was-already-dead Hollywood.

Amen. I share your pain. And I have been ON a California jury (which functioned quite well eventually), but celebrity trials are very discouraging.

I still can't get past the idea that ANYBODY believes an attractive actress chose to commit suicide by shooting herself in the face in a stranger's foyer.

 

[Nova]

i think they take so long because they get more days off than the maytag repairman.

Years ago, I was on a "three week" trial that lasted three months. A lot of the time they take off is devoted to other matters and the judge isn't actually on vacation, but, yeah, it seems they would want to get on with it.