Defense whipped over alleged lapse

Phil Spector’s lawyers began the day this morning on the defensive, and stayed that way.

At issue was Dr. Michael Baden’s “epiphany” - also known as his “Aha!” moment -- when he realized last Sunday, after 4 1/2 years of study, that victim Lana Clarkson might have lived for several minutes after she was shot and coughed blood onto Spector’s jacket. The prosecution says Spector was sprayed with blood when he shot the 40-year-old actress. The defense suggests she shot herself.

Judge Larry Paul Fidler earlier found that the defense deliberately sprang the surprise testimony on the prosecution and that sanctions are warranted, although he has not decided what.

The brouhaha led today to some of the sharpest exchanges in the trial to date.

Defense attorney Bradley Brunon insisted that he knew nothing of the new evidence until Baden testified under questioning by another defense lawyer, Christopher Plourd. Roger Rosen then told Fidler he wasn’t aware of the new opinion, either.

When Brunon suggested that Fidler should avoid penalizing Spector for any sins committed by his lawyers, the judge exploded.

“That is really offensive,” Fidler said to Brunon. “You better withdraw that comment. You better withdraw that comment.”

Brunon also argued that the defense's 24-hour delay in disclosing Baden’s new theory did not hurt prosecutors, and asked tht Fidler not consider excluding the testimony.

“Exclusion is a possible remedy,” Fidler insisted. “I haven’t determined that it’s the appropriate remedy.”

Brunon pointed out that anything Fidler does to punish the lawyer will inevitably hurt Spector. Fidler noted that all defense attorneys “look for a way to get around” state law that both sides disclose relevant new evidence to their opponents.

“I have no doubt, let me say that as clearly as I can, that this was done to gain tactical advantage,” Fidler said.

In the end, Fidler decided to let the testimony stand, but to direct jurors to take the defense's lapse into consideration when weighing Baden's believability.

Comments

[naro]

It is so pathetic that the defense has to bring in at the last minute the hired hand Baden, the husband of one of the lawyers to give any evidence that the defense thinks it needs. His credibility here is nil.

[George Choderker]

Phil Spector's defense lawyers have been outstanding at eliciting from the testimony of both their own wittnesses, and those of the prosecution, that there IS reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Spector shot Lana Clarkson. There is an obviously large distinction to be made by the prosecution's task of provng guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that of the defense, which need only to demonstrate that reasonable doubt exists, and to convey that doubt in jurrors' minds through skillful lawyering.

[JimL]

The prosecution is falling apart because their theories are not backed by science. A good example being the blood found in the lungs that Dr. Baden mentioned. The prosecution has no answer for this other than to bring up a conflict of interest with one of the defense lawyers. A weak response. Not only is there NO proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it looks like the defense has proven Spector's actual innocence!

[Chod on that]

George, you got to be kidding! All the defense has shown is there is no doubt there are plenty of "Experts" that will say anything for a price. Only an idiot has any doubt of Mr. Spectors guilt. Remember intent need not be proved, only reckless disregard. Now as to the idiocy of the jury, that remians to be seen. Fortunately for the future of justice, you are not on it.

[DGS]

The blood in her lungs do not prove that she shot herself OR that Spector shot her. The blood could have gotten there either way.

[DCT]

We have to say choked on vomit, I mean, we can't say if it was her vomit.

One can't necessarily dust for vomit.

I rest my case.

Just replace vomit with blood. I call it the "Spinal Tap" defense.

[JL]

DGS,

The blood in the lungs proves she did continue to breath for a few minutes following the gunshot. That supports the defense theory over the blood splatter location and how it (the blood) got there (on Spector's jacket). The prosecution case does not have eye witnesses. Its' case is built like a building. It starts with a foundation (the theory) and then starts building on top of it and doing so must rely upon one "serial" assumption on top of another. The problem is that when one is disproved or brought into question, all of them become weaker. Like a weak supporting structure in a building, it is about to tumble into nothing. The defense is dismantling the prosecution case by showing how its theory is impossible. No amount of argument by DA Jackson is going to change science. That is the reason you will not see him re-calling any of the LA Coroner's people to refute Baden's testimony. Its over. Not Guilty will be the verdict.

[George Choderker]

The defense has done very well, I think, with several of the prosecution's own wittnesses, who, perforce, are there to serve the prosecution's theories as to what happened that morning at Spector's house. That they are paid county employees, as are the prosecutors, binds them in a common cause to seek justice. As to Spector's experts: Of course, they are there to support different conclusions than the prosecutors have reached, otherwise, why would they be there? Several of them testified that they've been prosecution wittnessess in the past; and have worked pro bono many times.

It's easy to be cynical regarding their opinions, I realize, when you consider the obscene fees they command. This does not, however, mean that they are perjurers.

Regarding the personal attack on my sanity, please know that I served as a juror at the same courthouse where the Spector trial is being heard, on a trial that charged the defendants with attempted murder. We, the jurors, convicted one of them, and found the other not guilty due to reasonable doubt created by his lawyer. As with the Spector lawyers, this lawyer was very effective in sowing those seeds of reasonable doubt. Such is the system, and I believe strongly in the precept that it is far more desirable to society that 100 guilty should go free, than to punish one who is innocent. My sanity was never at issue during delibertions, though those of the defendant found innocent were heated at times, if not testy!

With Spector, there is evidence that points to guilt. There is also much to consider that points to doubt of his guilt. My initial posting, please remember, comments on the skill of Spector's lawyers in leading the jury to conclude that their doubts, if any, are reasonable, which is the judicial requirement in deliberations.

[Chris Johnson]

Give the jury some credit. In the end they know what is fact and what is fantasy.

[CindyK]

George and JimL, you two are clearly also being paid for by the defense! "The prosecution is falling apart because their theories are not backed by science"?!?! You're fooling yourselves, or most likely, you're in someone's pocket. Get a clue. It looks really bad for Spector; only the lawyers for the defense don't think so.

[America's Criminal Defense Group]

Anthony Partipilo, 34 year criminal defense attorney for America's Criminal Defense Group, raises questions in regards to whether or not they analyzed the clothing and blood spatter evidence for saliva or stomach contents. If the theory is that the blood came from Ms. Clarkson's mouth, wouldn't there be some type of oral or stomach residue present on Mr. Spector's jacket?

If Baden's testimony is truthful, it would truly be a shame to punish Spector for the poor timing. All in all, with Judge Fidler's instructions to the jury, the timing of the testimony will be something for the jury to consider when weighing this evidence. This is why it is so important, when representing someone in this type of criminal trial, to have all evidence and experts well prepared before trial. That way, evidence will be properly considered, and the aura that an "epiphany" leaves, will not immunize the importance of this possible theory.

[Gary]

The defense started the trial by saying "the science will prove Phil Spector is innocent" and what they meant was "pay no attention to ALL THE PRIOR INCIDENTS." However, it turns out the defense's science proves nothing other than they're willing to present any bizarre theory in an attempt to create doubt. That and dirtying up the victim - that's their million dollar strategy And they just look like a bunch of sleazy liars, changing the stories around. I mean come on, Phil Spector was there; he should be able to say whether it was an accident or if she "took her own life". Here's a simple little science experiment: put on a suit jacket, look at yourself in the mirror and raise your hands to where they would be if you shot yourself. Where are the sleeve buttons? Spector cleaned up the scene with a wet diaper (a diaper?), washed up (while not dialing 911) and still had gun residue on his hands. I especially loved in the opening statements where Cutler tried to impeach the limo driver by saying he was "taking a siesta" (you know how those Latinos love their siestas) and that he was "full of cookies and soda." I've seen rodeo clowns with more integrity. This overpaid defense team is bombing and trying to drag things out for as long as possible because they know these are the last days of freedom for the Tycoon of Teen.

[Cecil Archer]

There is certainly an offensive odor emanating from the presentation of the defence. They are grabbing at straws.

[Julie S.]

There is a difference in a blood spray from a bullet, and the bloody gurgle from dying; ONLY a bullet causes a spray! Unless, Baden of course, wishes to change hs theory again, and say she sneezed it out her nose - which is impossible!

I've never heard of a person not dying immediately from a bullet severing their spinal column - to me, if I were on the jury, the Defense would look like a bunch of clowns with this their final grasp at straws. Scientific evidence has been given that he's guilty beyong the shadow of a doubt - the Defense is now just doing a puppet show, and try and distract the jury with paid for lies.

[EdC]

Yeah. What he said!

[Gloria]

The problem I have with Alan Jackson is that he is so fixated on what people get paid, and he goes on and on with it, of course people are not going to work pro bono they are expert witnesses, I would like to know what he gets paid.
I find it insulting that he goes on about the fees.
Dr Baden was on the case back in 2003, at that time his wife was not an attorney for the defense, because there were other lawyers, such as Bob Shapiro, and leslie abramson, I am sure they are professional enough not to have to lie about anything.

[john d fl]

1200 grams of fluid inhaled!! 21/2 pounds realistic?

[mimi]

I agree with DGS-- the blood could have got there either way. I disagree, and strongly, with George-- the defense lawyers are putting on expensive experts twho are willing to testify that day is night, black is white-- whatever-- they are doing nothing but blowing a smoke screen. I don't see the defense doing anything but running up a big bill. Anyone with any common sense can see that Dr. Baden's testimony is nothing but garbage in, garbage out. Baden is starting with the pre-supposition that Spector didn't kill Clarkson, and he has worked hard to come up with a plausible explanation for how it could have happened that way. For him to say that there is a "reasonable scientific certainty" that Clarkson pulled the trigger is the most shameless over-reaching I have ever heard. There is an equal degree of scientific certainty that in alternate dimension, none of this has happened, and Phil and Lana are married with children by now. Maybe Rosen, Brunon and company should find a theoretical physicist who will testify that Lana is actually alive and well and living on the other side of the veil. They have tried everything else. You can't blame a lawyer for defending a client to the best of their ability, but I draw the line at making stuff up. I've tried to keep an open mind. I am so thoroughly turned off, it isn't funny. And JW-- after your ugly, vicious remarks about "one more dead #### in Hollywood", you have even less credibility, sniping about the news coverage and comments you consider biased. Hey-- I started watching this trial because it looked interesting. I'm not biased. But I am disgusted by the defense antics.

[You have to be kidding]

The defense in this case is pathetic. Baden's "new" theory" is a joke--he is saying that the .38 caliber pistol fired in her mouth and blew apart her tongue, severed her spine and blew teeth and tissue all over the place didn't kill Clarkson immediately. Wow! Then he wants the jury to believe that she lived for several minutes while Spector tried to help her!

I think that he should just continue testifying because the jury must be thinking, "This idiot must think that we're a bunch of dummies".

The only thing more amusing than the defense experts is the reaction of the various posters who think that Spector must be innocent because Clarkson must have committed suicide and didn't die immediately.

I have shot countless rounds of 38 specials and 357 magnums with my Smith & Wesson Model 10 and 19. Let me tell you, if you put either of those barrels into a person's mouth and pull the trigger the result will be instant death. Period. Only a fool would believe anything else.

Spector is guilty and the defense is making a fool of themselves. Spector had threatened women in the past with loaded guns, and he came out of the house with the bloody pistol and said that he killed someone. Lock him up for 25 years to life. The jury will not be fooled.

[JJ]

George:All I can say is julie help!!!Have you ever heard of Ethics. No matter where or by whom the forensic scientist works only for truth. After 4+ yrs. why Dr. Baden who is normally a well respected...he did not answer the question. He deliberately stated Lana's thumb,I assume print...Well Philly boy had his diaper mmm,wiped her face and gun. Dr. Baden knew the Defense was losing, and he had to come up with a last minute ahaa moment
after 4 yrs. Amazing. I heard a Forensic scientist and he stated Baden was splitting hairs!!!
The testimony under oath by Baden must be complete and truthful. Anything else would be totally unacceptable.jj By the way all have a safe and happy weekend.

[JW]

Mimi...YOU owe me an apology..what you quoted below is not from me. You need to read more carefully.....and be sure of what you are doing...you should also listen more carefully to the trial. See how easy it is to be MISTAKEN!!! I would never utter such words as you have attributed to me...I saw that post too and found it distasteful and disgusting. If you were on the wtiness stand though I am sure you would be so positive that I made those comments. Is really fun to impeach you now. Go back and check and you will see how wrong you are. See below comment in quotes from you.

." And JW-- after your ugly, vicious remarks about "one more dead #### in Hollywood",." from MIMI

Baden was credible. And I agree with George. And the news media is biased in my opinion MIMI...whether you like it or not.

Have fun Mimi going back and correcting yourself!

[Michael]

"It starts with a foundation (the theory) and then starts building on top of it and doing so must rely upon one "serial" assumption on top of another. The problem is that when one is disproved or brought into question, all of them become weaker. Like a weak supporting structure in a building, it is about to tumble into nothing." When I read this stuff I begin to think I must be in Wonderland. The above quote applies to the defense case, not the prosecution's. The defense is in a pickle here. Either Spector killed Clarkson or she killed herself. Those are the only two options. The case against Spector is simple and straightforward: he did to Clarkson what he has done to other women, only this time the gun went off, probably during a struggle. The forensic and other evidence is clear and supports Spector's guilt. So what is the defense to do? Put forth a preposterous scenario in which a woman commits suicide in a stranger's house with a gun she had no way of knowing was there. Then ignore much of the evidence and try to twist the rest with half truths and junk "science." I suppose you Spector apologists think OJ was innocent, too. Jeez

[JW]

Yes, of course, myself, George and any other who listens to the evidence and doesn't cast aspersions on the defense are ALL ON THE DEFENSE payroll and receiving HUGE BUCKS to post what we are posting. Why, Mimi has already declared ME NOT CREDIBLE based on what someone else posted. Gee...this sounds like the Spector trial to me...ROFL

[joanne murphy]

I find the defense premise preposterous. Why would a woman suddenly decide to commit suicide---by shooting erself in the face, no less!---in the home of a man she barely knows? Clarkson and Spector had only just met the previous evening. Is a woman going to bear her innermost torments to a complete stranger?

And as she was in the home of a strange man, how would she even know where the gun was kept and how to attain access to it?

No, the defense theory of suicide stinks to high heaven. Lana's family has testified that she was not despondent and was in fact, quite hopeful about her remaining prospects in showbiz---which was WHY she was trying to hook up with Spector in the first place.

[JW]

After reading all the posts here it is absolutely clear to me that NONE of you are biased for the prosecution! YAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA...

How much is the prosecution paying you to post what you all are posting? Hey...what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Each time one posts something that is not in total favor to the prosecution, either there is a personal attack OR an accusation made that the poster must be from the defense team or in their pocket.

Do ya really think the defense team reads these posts???? And what good would it do them if they did? Certainly doesn't change who is on the jury OR the scientific facts of the case...they are what they are whether one likes them or not.

Bring on the attack dogs now!

[JW]

BTW..OJ Simpson trial has nothing to do with the Spector trial although some bring it up. Since you mentioned it:

1. If it doesn't fit you must acquit...HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

2. How many of you have signed the petition by Denise Brown to help prevent the publishing of this outrageous book by the Goldman Family?

[JW]

BTW..OJ Simpson trial has nothing to do with the Spector trial although some bring it up. Since you mentioned it:

1. If it doesn't fit you must acquit...HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!

2. How many of you have signed the petition by Denise Brown to help prevent the publishing of this outrageous book by the Goldman Family?

[john d fl]

CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN HOW SOMEONE COULD INHALE 1200 GRAMS OF LIQUID? BADEN TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR FLUID TO ENTER THE LUNGS POST DEATH. POSSIBLY SHE DID EXHALE/INHALE ONCE AFTER THE SHOT BUT THE SPLATTER ON SPECTOR WAS SMALL, CONSISTENT WITH A HIGH VELOCITY. EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE SPLATTER ONLY EXTENDED OUT TO HER MID THIGH (2 FT OR SO). SPECTOR WAS SEEN WITH A BLOODY GUN IN HIS HAND, STATED THAT THOUGHT HE KILLED SOMEBODY, CLEANED THE GUN, WIPED MS CLARKSON’S MOUTH AND LIKELY HIS HANDS, FACE, PUT THE GUN BACK ON THE FLOOR AND NEVER CALLED 911 FOR HELP. IS THIS THE ACTIONS OF AN INNOCENT MAN? I THINK NOT!! DURING THE DEFENSES OPENING STATEMENTS THEY CLAIMED THAT THE GUN WAS NOT SPECTORS. BUT DURING CROSS OF THE DEFENSES EXPERTS THEY CONCEDED THAT THE GUN WAS HIS. YOU REALLY HAVE TO TRY TO BELIEVE HIS THEORY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.

[Lou]

The defense team is pitiful and probably because Spector is calling all the shots! There's no way he isn't in charge of their strategy and the ad nauseum witness list and recalls that serve no purpose in determining who shot the gun!

[A.O.]

Oh ! my : We have have the lung issue for the pro P.S. to rally behind and to declare his innocence . Well not so fast, lets work this out and see where it leads. Dr. Pena stated while on the stand , the lungs were 3 times the normal weight, caused by blood/fluid . I guess the pro P.S. will indicate where the shot rang out, he ran over and taking the gun away from her, then walked out to tell what happened to the limo driver who quickly looked and seen Lana , motionless. This leads to 2 possibilities since P.S. will not tell us 1. Lana let out one powerful cough of 18 spots that hit P.S. white jacket of a distance of 6-10 feet away and by a miracle none hit floor between the two. The problem is that it was not a cough but the gun shot that produce the blood spatter and again no evidence of blood on the floor between the two. 2. This leads to the second possibility. P.S. seeing what Lana is about to do, dashed to Lana in an attempt to get the gun away from her , but failed, an instance to late but took the 18 blood spots with none hitting the floor or wall . The problem with this possibility is Lana's head would recoil back and up the millisecond after the blast in a cone shape dispersion thus would have reflected on P.S. jacket , but then again P.S. twisted and held the opposite arm up to take the 18 blood spots. But this would lead back to him 1-2 feet away, not 6-10 feet away. No , there is a separation between the lungs and the gunshot. The term alive means different things to some. in medicine I feel the term Brain dead means the person is deceased. As for some non-believers, Lana's head was to one side with heavy bleeding as indicated by the chair , no coughing, sneezing just oozing out her mouth. ( hey everyone had a wisdom teeth pulled, remember when the dentist told not spit after he packed it ) Phil was the last person with the gun and even showed it to the limo driver. I'm sure there are other possibilities but I feel the jury will not have a problem with reasonable doubt. What ever they decide, it will be correct. My doggy tells me : If it was an accident, then Phil should called 911 or go to the limo driver and call 911 and wait for the police at that point tell the police what happened. My doggy wants to know why humans do not behave normal. Woof !

[I've_got_it]

They went back to his place, had a drink, he shows her Lennon's guitar, etc.

She says I have to leave, he says wait one moment - goes in the bathroom, takes off his clothes and false eyelashes and comes out in his fright wig all full of Viagra ready to trot.

She takes one look at him and shots herself in self-defense.

Case closed.

[Michael]

Dear JW: Attending to facts and drawing the only reasonable conclusion from those facts (i.e., that Spector is guilty) does not constitute "bias for the prosecution." Dismissing facts and drawing preposterous conclusions does constitute bias for the defense.

[JW]

Dear Michael,

The most preposterous conclusions I have seen thus far have been written by some who post here. I don't believe everything the prosecutor says....the Duke prosecutor is a perfect example why. And I don't beleive everything the state witnesses say...they are paid to keep their jobs and of course their testimony will be in agreement with the prosecuttion. I don't believe everything the defense attys say or the defense witnesses. But, I do give credibility where it is due. And I do believe some of the defense witnesses made credible statements and/or conclusions...some of the prosecution wittness ditto...I strive to stay open minded UNTIL every thing is in and the case has gone to jury. I wasn't in PS home on Feb 3rd and neither were you or any one else who posts here. Too many innoccent folks are being freed from prison today because of over zealous prosecutors and jumping to conclusions. Barry Sheck took this baby on and has proven it. The jury MAY or MAY NOT agree with what you say. We shall see.

Have a great day.

JW

[JW]

Michael...one more thing. Not every one sees things the same.....what I noted was any time one posted a comment that was not favorable to the prosecution, they were either attacked personally..or accused of being on defense team...which of course is just plain silly. I had not seen a single post responding in kind to ones who posted negatively to the defense. I was simply "snarking". Opinions should be respected whether you are on the same page or not. There are many who disagree with your assessment in your note to me...but we respect your opinion and your right to post same. This Spector stick points in both directions....frankly..will be glad when it is history.

This is my last post....I know I just made the day for many of you. Actually, I will be traveling out of country for few weeks and hopefully, this trial will de DONE!

[JJ]

JW: GO ENJOY YOURSELF. MOST AGREE YOUR OPINIONS WOULD SEEM YOU ARE ON THE DEFENSE PAYROLL. GOD HELP THE CLARKSON FAMILY.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT SPECTOR GAVE AN INTERVIEW THAT HE WAS MANIC-DEPRESSANT, BIPOLAR & YOU WILL READ IN MICK BROWN'S BOOK "TEARING DOWN THE WALL OF SOUND", PHL SPECTOR'S OWN WORDS RECORDED, FOR 4 FULL HOURS-I AM A VERY TORTURED SOUL,I HAVE DEVILS INSIDE ME!!!!!.AND I TAKE MEDICATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, BUT HE WAS NOT SURE HE WAS "S"??

SORRY FOR THE CAPITALS, GOD KNOWS HOW MANY MEDS HE WAS ON, BUT I REPEAT, THIS MAN SHOULD NEVER OWN GUNS!!!!! MY OPINION.

ALL REMEMBER THIS INTERVIEW WAS PRIOR TO LANA CLARKSONS DEATH.

We will have to wait for Jury Deliberation. But they will never know what Meds. he was on, but he sure needed Medical-Psychiatric Supervision.
My opinion with all the women that he held at gun point, Spector did not like Rejection, and stems from early childhood, when his father committed suicide,may he RIP. Please do not misunderstand, I have compassion for people that have mental illness, in fact any kind of illness.

I just wish one of these women called the Police, and maybe this tragedy would have been prevented.

Respect to all.
jj