Spector planted the gun, prosecutor says

Prosecutor Pat Dixon, one of Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley’s most trusted aides, got the last word in the Phil Spector murder trial this afternoon. He ridiculed defense suggestions that Spector was trying to help Lana Clarkson, the actress he is accused of murdering four years ago.

“He murdered her. He killed her. He wasn’t trying to help her,” Dixon said. The evidence shows that Spector, who was seen holding the murder weapon immediately after the fatal shot was fired, “planted” it on Clarkson to make it look like suicide, Dixon said.

Dixon told jurors that Spector actually tried to press the gun into Clarkson's hand, accounting for two blood transfer stains on her thumb.

“He staged a crime scene. He staged it by planting the gun where it was found by police,” Dixon said.

Judge Larry Paul Fidler told jurors they will get the case Monday. The trial opened April 28.

-- John Spano

Comments

[John McMichael]

Dixon is right Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson. The driver spoke english well enough to answere all the defense questions. Why would Phil Spector feel not guilty knowing he never called for assistance for Miss Clarkson. We are suppose believe he wasn't trying to cover up the crime during the 45 minutes before help arrived thanks to the driver.

[Vigilante]

Not since the trial of O.J. Simpson has L.A. Justice been so on trial.

[TopNach]

To all the old farts who run the newsrooms in this city -- NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHIL SPECTOR!!

[JJ]

HELLO TO LOS ANGELES AND YOUR WONDERFUL STAFFERS:

CONGRATULATIONS TO PATRICK DIXON, AND ALAN JACKSON. FANTASTIC CLOSING AND TO THE POINT!!!
OUR "GOVERNMENT" STILL RULES, JUST MAYBE ONCE AN HONEST CLEAR CUT "GUILTY" VERDICT WILL RING OUT IN LOS ANGELES

GOD BLESS AMERICA, JUST ONCE MAYBE LADY JUSTICE WILL HAVE THE BLINDFOLD OFF. GOOD LUCK TO THE JURY.
JJ

[Quinn Harmon]

Phil alerted his driver to call for help and then he left the door open and invited police in when they arrived less than 10 minutes after DeSouza's call. It's not Phil's fault the cops wasted time going through the lengthy procedure of setting up a command post before entering the house. Phil was no threat to the cops and they could have entered the house immediately.

Driver DeSouza came up with the "I think I killed somebody" after being grilled, coached and threatened with immediate deportation if he didn't cooperate and say what the police wanted him to say.

Phil Spector's life has been ruined by an unstable alcoholic druggie woman and continues to be ruined by overzealous prosecutors who desperately need a high-profile conviction.

[Trudy]

Looks like someone's not been paying attention. Rachelle, is that you?

[Cher]

Quinn, As to you comment about DeSouza's statement "I think I killed somebody". It was on 911 call he made right after the murder. Makes me wonder if you have seen any of this trial or just listening to Phil.

[DIane Geary]

I wonder how many women would go to a strangers house, yet a ugly stanger to kill herself. I know i would not. And many of my friends would not. Why would we want to shoot ourself in the face when we could just take sleeping pills or something else. NOT A GUN TO THE MOUTH.

[jk]

The real crimes in this judicial nightmare ( in addition to the seemingly bias of the judge against Mr. Spector )is that Mr. Spector is being both raked over the coals by the media and tried in the ( pseudo ) court of public opinion.
No one knows what happened at Spector's house on the night in question except for Mr. Spector and the late Ms. Clarkson. That being stated, many of the contributors to this "little piece of electronic space designed to further
'kill Phil," have forgotten the very real fact that no expert,
whether from the defense or the prosecution can, with any certainty whatsoever, place that gun in his hand. No matter what kind of histrionics and dramatic leaps Jackson and his cohorts choose to display, that fact remains.
Long live the meaning behind the notions of ( 1 ) "innocent until proven guilty" ( it's not the other way around folks ), and ( 2 ), "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." In Spector's case, there is a plethora of reasonable doubt and it is my hope that the jury does the right thing.
Incidently:
I voted for Bush. . .,
both times!

[Michael]

"Incidently:I voted for Bush. . ., both times!" OK, jk, you have demonstrated that you disregard reality when it comes to voting, so it makes sense that you disregard reality in this murder trial. The evidence against Phil is overwhelming and no reasonable person can conclude otherwise. That being said, I won't be surprised by an acquittal, and not because the prosecution did a poor job. I think there are fundamental problems with our criminal justice system when it comes to handling this sort of trial that is based largely on forensic evidence. Most people don't understand reasonable doubt, they don't understand science, and they have poor critical reasoning skills. If Phil does get off, I can't wait for "If I Did It, part 2."

[jk]

You are, first off, Michael, not saying anything. You're typing on a keyboard. And "fundamental problems" should be followed by "are," not "is." Your sentence was initially in singular, then in plural form. You must adjust for such sytax-errors. Critical thinkers and great scientists, such as yourself, should be able, at least, to apply basic grammar skills when communicating.
Get your tenses straight too, and check your own reality. Perhaps then your grandiose intellect will be taken seriously.

[jk]

Grammar 101:
Book titles are italicized or underlined. Every scientific genius and literary theorist knows that.
I guess you were just too busy today quantifying mechanics while pouring over the works of Derrida to think about that bothersome little incidental.

[jk]

Forgot to add that if you still want to be in the running for the Pulitzer, or the Nobel, it would behoove you to fix the numerous comma splices and run-on sentences before submitting your final draft ( s ). After all, it is one thing to be romanticized as an "eccentric genius," but quite another to be deemed "straight stupid."

[Michael]

Excuse me? Here's the sentence:
" I think there are fundamental problems with our criminal justice system when it comes to handling this sort of trial that is based largely on forensic evidence." The "is" refers to "trial," which happens to be singular. And are you seriously suggesting that it would have been better for me to write "That being typed" rather than "That being said"? I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with Strunk and White before you try to play grammar cop. I'm not a scientist and I never claimed to be, although I do have a Ph.D. and I have been published. How about you? I've never read Derrida and have no intention of doing so. Postmodern silliness has no appeal to me. Perhaps you could comment on my comments and not spew criticisms of my writing that are based on your difficulties with reading comprehension. And by the way, I'd be happy to underline book titles if I knew how to underline in this message. But of course, since you can't deal with the message, you shoot the messenger. So I'll get back to actual discussion and expand a bit on my view of this and other high profile celebrity trials. The problems start with jury selection. The pool of potential jurors who can take four, five, or more months out of their lives to serve is limited. I don't know how that might skew the jury, but I suspect that it does. Secondly, many potential jurors with expertise relevant to the case are routinely excluded by attorneys on both sides. I can't imagine a psychologist or psychiatrist being allowed to serve on the Spector jury, even though crucial elements of the case are based on questions of motive, behavior, and state of mind. Thirdly, the sheer length of the trial, the large number of witnesses and exhibits, and the ability of good defense attorneys to challenge every detail of the prosecution's case make it difficult for anyone to figure out what's really important and how to put it all together. Anyway, this is the first of these cases that I have been able to watch for any length of time and I found it fascinating and frustrating. I'm glad the jury is taking the time to deliberate, but waiting for the verdict is hard.

[jk]

Points well taken. And congrads on the Ph.D.; I know how hard it is to achieve that one. We also share the commonality of being published writers: The Historian, California Quarterly, Mosaic, Ahimsa, and one other quarterly that covers the Cal State University system ( damn. . ., I can't remember the name of the particular mag, but the year was 2004 ).
As for the Spector case, you've given me much to ponder although I am obviously pro defense, and am hoping against hope that Mr. Spector is found "not guilty." It seems the press and most others hung that poor man before his trial ever started. That is what infuriates me most. We are supposed to be a nation founded on the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty--beyond a reasonable doubt. "Reasonable Doubt," however, is what most agonize over. I feel, from what I've learned concerning this trial, that there is just too much of it.
A jury cannot send a person to prison for the rest of his or her life if there is palpable uncertainty over what exactly happened.
As for the Bush comment, I did vote for him ( and am glad I did ) and stated so because Mr. Spector, it was alledged, had spoken to a Brit tabloid rep and commented, and I paraphase: "That all members of the jury hate me--they voted for Bush."
Again, points well taken--especially concerning the jury pool.
I'm pinning some of my faith on the civil engineer; he's probably a lot like my husband, the physicist. They've scientific minds and are moved by logic rather than by emotion.

[jk]

Doc. . ., evidently last evening's blogs have not yet been posted, so allow me the opportunity to state that my punctuative "oversights" should be considered as freebies for either folly or fodder--which ever suits your fancy. In light of my utterly rude words, I felt I owed them to you.
In response to your query concerning Will's and E.B.'s
__Elements. . .__, that's an affirmative although, admittedly, I've not removed that handbook from the shelf in a long, long while. Many, if not all UD and PG instructors at my old school required the use of Turabian's __Theses, and
Dissertations__. Nowadays, however, I prefer to use Diana Hacker's __Writer's Reference__, or __Bedford Guide__ when needed. No person can match her penchant for stream-lining both Chicago, and APA styles of documentation.
By any chance, was the focal point of your dissertation,
your ( anti ) thesis that is, based on any particular aspect of the judicial system? Specifically, "trial by jury?"
Some times, albe them not often, I've thought about what I'd do if ever I found myself "river deep and mountain high," in trouble with the law. Probably, if not absolutely, I'd nix "trial by jury" in favor of another reasonable alternative. In Spector's case, however, he and his defence council made a wise decision, even if it turns out to be just a roll of the dice, or a mere shot in the dark. . ..

[Michael]

Well, jk, I appreciate the more civil tone. I'm sure no one here is interested in my dissertation. In fact, I haven't been interested in my dissertation since I finished it 27 years ago. It had nothing to do with the criminal justice system. Here's another speculation on why these trials (e.g., OJ, Blake) can go so terribly wrong. As opposed to a "normal" trial, these jurors must be well aware that they and their decision will be intensely scrutinized. I have to think that this awareness creates a different psychological "environment" than that experienced by jurors in normal trials. So you have an unrepresentative group of people, you take them out of their normal lives for months and put them in this surreal situation, you don't allow them to discuss their thoughts and observations until deliberations, and you flood them with contradictory information (testimony, exhibits, arguments). They are under enormous pressure to come up with a verdict, which means there must intense group pressure in the jury room to reach consensus. All the while, the jurors are aware that their verdict will be scrutinized, analyzed, and criticized, no matter what that verdict is. Acquittal might seem to be the safest option in this sort of situation. After all, the jurors don't have to commit to what they really think happened. They can just tell themselves (and others) that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt even if they think the defendant is guilty. Of course, all of this is speculation. I was stunned by the OJ verdict because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. The evidence against Blake was not overwhelming, but it seemed clear to me that he was guilty. So the puzzle for me has been how well-meaning people of reasonable intelligence can see and hear the evidence and get the verdict so wrong. It would be interesting to interview the jurors in depth about all this.

[MEG]

I didn't know much about Phil Spector before this trial, except that he was some sort of former big time music type, so I bring no bias to this assessment. Here are the key unexplored questions that come to my mind on the case: 1) Whose gun was it? Phil Spector offered that up to the scene. Just how and why did that happen? I doubt Lana Clarkson asked if he had one handy; that she just needed to kill herself right then?; 2) Why would any person who wanted to commit suicide choose that particular time, place and means? I've known a number of people who have committed suicide and all did it quietly,privately, and with a lot of advance planning; "accidental suicide" is an oxymoron; 3) What woman, who had just bought 5 or 6 pairs of new shoes, would kill herself the same day without getting a chance to wear them?!!? That's total nonsense!! We love our new shoes too much to do that!! Really, I'm serious about this; it's something men would not understand; 4) Why didn't Phil Spector testify if he is innocent?? Obviously he didn't want to be cross examined under oath; and 5) Much has been made of Lana Clarkson's "fading career", alleged depression, drinking/partying etc ....the same could easily be said of Phil Spector from what I can see!! If he isn't a sorry chracacter, nobody is! And what's with the child bride? The one he was running around town on?? Phil Spector is just a misogynistic creep who finally got caught, unfortunately too late for Lana Clarkson. I can't imagine he won't be found guilty. But if he isn't, it will outrank the OJ Simpson verdict as a miscarriage of justice. ( And if I've committed grammatical faux pas here, I'm sure they'll be corrected by others, who seem more interested in puerile prattle than the case itself.)

[jk]

Doc, what poignant words you've written, and I thank you--you're being a Doc for 27 years now
( that would, however, make your opinions even more insightful )--for taking the time to type them out. Your insights are absolutely astounding and I have to state that I've not thought about the 'psychological' profiles of individual jurors although I am certain that once a person has made up his or her mind, nothing will change that opinion.
I feel that your comment concerning the "enormity of pressure" is thoroughly appropriate for all high profile--emotionally draining cases.
There is now, a "hung jury." This could likely be your 'thesis' explaining the difference between those driven by science as opposed to those driven by sense and what can occur when neither side can reach that 'melding point' in order to deliver a firm verdict.
In either case, I don't envy this jury; their burden has been immensely difficult, and none of the twelve, so it seems, is willing to toss out their beliefs.
Concerning O.J, yes, I agree that he was guilty as sin and should have taken his 'free walk' like that of a man who barely escaped the throes of a relative death sentence. He, instead, chose to laugh in the face of his victims and their families; time and time again.
That is a slap in the face to our judicial system and another reason why 'trial by jury' leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many.
Your comments regarding the stress, the 'out of element,' and the "surrealism"' ( to borrow your word ) of sitting on a jury for months on end, is an outlandish concept to most--a 'surrealism' that upwards of 99% of the population will never have to face. Honestly, I never thought about that. . . .
Blake's case, on the other hand, was, I believe, doomed from the beginning. There was little, if no sympathy for the victim on the part of the jury--no matter how awful that reads. Ms. Bakley was portrayed as a "non moral" person and the defence made that fact their greatest ally--just as the defence, in the OJ case, insinuated that OJ's ex-wife--was of questionable morality and behavior herself.
Spector's case, I honestly believe, is one that 'begs' for a not guilty. No one, from the prosection to the defence, can absolutely place that gun in his hands; no one, on either side can prove that he pulled/pushed, that trigger. And that's the reasonable doubt.
I'm not surprized that the jury is at impasse.
As for your dissertation? Okay. . ., again, point well taken that you 'don't want to remember. . .,' but then again, I'm certain that it was pretty damned awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do feel that our judicial system is a damned good one, perhaps the best in the world, but I also feel that the shortcomings of this system leave a little, at least, to be desired. Your takes on "juries," and "surrealism" being just a few of those which hopefully, in the future, will be addressed!!!
Thank you, Doc, for the lessons you've so well taught this bitchy person whose opines come from the heart.

[jk]

Hi, MEG;
Your questions posed are perhaps akin to those which have caused a 'hung jury.' No one, really, can predict human behavior at any given time, under any given circumstance.
The problems with the Spector case ring substantially of reasonable doubt, and if were on that jury, no body could convince me otherwise. You bring up strong points in favor of prosecution--of a guilty verdict-- yet the proof, as to just who pulled-pushed that trigger is just not there. That is the problem. No jury can convict when there are questions as to exactly-- who in the hell-- did the deed.
Our Constitution protects every one of us from having to testify, and this fact cannot legally be used as an indicator of either one's guilt or innocense.
Ms. Clarkson, god rest her soul, wasn't the greatest actress to set foot on a soundstage. That was apparent. But rest assured, that should Mr. Spector be found either innocent or guilty, somewhere up the road, her family is now, and will be in the future, waiting to collect their fortune from him in civil court.
That, I think, is horrible, disgusting, and very telling.
As for grammar? All I can state is 'sorry for my rude conduct.' I was thorougly wrong.

[jk]

Okay. . . , and you got me on the shoes except that I hate shoes and so, I do my best to buy the funkiest ones I can find and wear them as infrequently as possible.
But honestly, when it comes to living, to getting joy out of life, it's not my shoes that bring me such joy.
Be fair. Please. Mr. Spector's royalties roll in--he was a damn genius when it came to music. He inspired, and still inspires. As for 'child bride,' I do think she's shown a maturity that few her age demonstrate, and I am almost certain that he loves his precious daughter too.
I like that word, misogynistic!!! I don't think I've ever used it in a sentence. I'm going to make a mental note and do just that as soon as the opportunity arises.

[Chris mankey]

"Phil Spector's life has been ruined by an unstable alcoholic druggie woman and continues to be ruined by overzealous prosecutors who desperately need a high-profile conviction."

Phil spector's life was ruined by the fact he's a creepy misogynist who committed murder.