AJ CLOSING: A LOOK at the DEFENSE'S "14 POINTS"

[My 2 Cents]

A majority of AJ's CLOSING consisted of going though POINT-by-POINT, each of Weinberg’s “14 POINTS”. The 14 points that Weinberg told the jury the day before, proved Phillip Spector’s innocence.

After addressing each POINT, AJ would step to the board and mark a HUGE BIG RED "X" though it.

Someone asked if I could place the POSTS for EACH of these "14 POINTS" on a separate thread. I hope this is OK to put them here, in one spot.

[My 2 Cents]

1. Intra Oral Gunshot Wounds - 99% Suicide

AJ started by just talking to the jury, about the year – 1941. The nation was just coming out of the long, hard years of the Great Depression. And EVERYONE was in love with the Great, All-American-Past-Time, BASEBALL. And then AJ starting talking about JOE DIMAGGIO. The year, 1941. And “Joltin Joe” has an unprecedented 55 Game HITTING Streak. It is now, specifically, July 16, 1941. And an entire nation has halted everything, and turned on their radios. Listening as Joe steps into the batter’s box. . . WHAT are the ODDS that Joe will get HIT NUMBER 56? What are the ODDS that Joe would continue this winning streak?

It had NEVER been done before, or since. Do you think anyone is going to TURN OFF THEIR RADIO AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE “PERCENTAGES” SAY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN?

IF YOU WERE MR WEINBERG, HE’D TELL YOU TO TURN OFF YOUR RADIO. HE’D TELL YOU THE PERCENTAGES SAY IT CAN’T HAPPEN.

WELL IT DID HAPPEN. And NOT just ONCE, NOT TWICE but 3 TIMES that day in game #56. It has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE and it has NEVER BEEN SINCE. PERCENTAGES - WHEN YOU'RE DISCUSSING REALITY . . they become meaningless.

THE REALITY IS . . IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS
THE REALITY IS . . THESE STATISTICS MEAN NOTHING, . . . in REALITY

(It was a very effective "story" to help a person visualize how percentages and numbers, can only mean so much in REAL LIFE. He definitely made his point. SIDE NOTE: AJ is an excellent oral speaker. He is very gifted in this area.)

AJ then walks over to the easel and marks a BIG RED X across NUMBER 1.

[My 2 Cents]

2. BLOOD ON FORWARD POSITION OF GUN:

AJ explained that a partial BLOODY FINGER PRINT was left on the gun. The blood belonged to LANA CLARKSON.

DW: OBJECTION, MISTATES EVIDENCE. It could have been left by a latex glove by someone at the crime scene.

AJ: No, the testimony was it could have been left by a latex glove IF THE BLOOD WAS STILL WET.
(Oh that AJ, he doesn't miss a thing. And "ditto" for Weinberg, except that, he doesn't miss an "opportunity" - - - to misstate the testimony.)

THE GUN WAS NEVER TOUCHED BY CRIME SCENE PERSONS UNTIL 13 HOURS LATER. HOW LONG BEFORE THAT BLOOD TOOK TO DRY? 20 MINUTES MAX? THAT PRINT WAS LEFT BY ONE PERSON AND HE’S SITTING RIGHT THERE. PHILLIP SPECTOR. HE LEFT THAT PRINT ON THE GUN. LANA COULDN’T HAVE LEFT THAT PRINT.

AJ crosses off one more POINT with a BIG RED X.

[My 2 Cents]

3. SPATTER ON THE GUN GRIP

One Word: PEX . . . “PEX THE PERJUROR”

James Pex – “He lied about it. EXPERT AFTER EXPERT TESTIFIED THAT THERE WAS NO SPATTER ON THE GUN GRIP. Only PEX, the guy called in at the last minute from Oregan that LIED on the STAND. THAT PERJURED HIMSELF. (paraphrased . . but something very much like that)

AJ crosses that number off the chart.

[My 2 Cents]

4. SPECTOR’S DNA NOT ON GUN

AJ: COMPLETE “RED HERRING” . . . NO ONE TESTED THAT.

DNA doesn’t evaporate. We can find DNA on something decades later.
Defense said that “We only found Lana Clarkson’s DNA”

Of course we found Lana’s DNA, the gun went off in her mouth. But we didn’t test for Spector’s DNA. WHY? And why is this statement ridiculous?

BECAUSE SPECTOR OWNS THE GUN. OF COURSE HIS DNA WAS ON THE GUN. ARE YOU SAYING HE OWNED A GUN AND NEVER TOUCHED IT?

BLOOD ON THE BANISTER
BLOODY DIAPER AROUND THE CORNER

DW says that Spector’s DNA never came back positive on bloody rag & bloody banister.

SO IS THE NEW DEFENSE THEORY . . .
Lana fires gun
Lana dissects her spine
Then Lana walks upstairs and gets a wet diaper from up there
Lana gets her blood on the banister on the way up
Lana gets the blood on the door knob & door latch?

AJ: Cross this number off your list.

[My 2 Cents]

5. NO SPATTER ON THE RIGHT SLEEVE

ALL the EXPERTS AGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

“ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE”

Even the defense’s own experts AGREE with this statement.

AJ conducts a simple demonstration between him and Truc sitting in her chair. He had Truc point her arm and AJ played the role of LANA, putting his hands up to defend or push away the hand with the gun. Then he reversed it and he played the part of the person holding the gun. Showing from both angles how the hands in a defensive position would block spatter from getting on Spector’s right cuff – the right arm that held the gun. AJ also pointed out the part of the hand that might get back spatter on it – and then reminded the jury that this is coincidentally the same location that Lana did have back spatter mist on her wrists. It was a very simple demonstration - no props, Truc didn't even get out of her regular chair or move over in front of jury . . . BUT it was totally effective, especially since it was so simple. AJ walking over to Truc's seat, 30 second demonstration of the most obvious way a person would place their hands to push or fight back a gun pointed at them . . . and the visual off ALL THAT WAS EXPOSED and ALL THAT WAS BLOCKED. Very effective.

I believe that AJ said THAT SPECTOR HAD BLOOD ON HIS RIGHT SLEEVE, BUT NOT THE CUFF - BECAUSE THE HANDS BLOCKED THE CUFF ON THE RIGHT HAND.

AJ marks a BIG RED X through number 5 on the board.

[My 2 Cents]

6. NO GSR ON CLOTHING

AJ: “We have beat this DEAD HORSE enough”

His clothing WASN’T TESTED. “HE HAS GUNS ALL OVER THE HOUSE. ALL HIS CLOTHES ARE COVERED IN GSR.

“DEFENSE HAD SAME ACCESS TO CLOTHING EVIDENCE AS US.”
“WHY DIDN’T THEY TEST FOR IT?”

DW: “OBJECTION . . they’re reverting the burden of proof”
JF: “ OVER RULED”

AJ: Another BIG Red X.

[My 2 Cents]

7. NO FOREIGN “BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL” ON SPECTOR

AJ: “Biologically Material" was ALL OVER SPECTOR. And you know what “biological material” is, right? It’s blood. He states that #7 and #5 are exactly the SAME point.

AJ: Lana’s blood on his jacket, . . .and by the way, he had blood on his right sleeve. I missed part of what he said next – but it ended with . . . 70% of the time – there is NO BACK SPATTER on ANYTHING. (I think he may have been talking about intra oral gunshot wounds - not sure though)

Crosses through the number 7 with another BIG RED X

[My 2 Cents]

8. NO EVIDENCE OF STRUGGLE

Bruises on her wrists
Contusion on Lana's lips
Bruise on the right side of her tongue

AJ talks about this in more detail. Defense has suggested the bruises were symmetrical. AJ said Dr Pena testified that he examined entire tongue in depth, taking samples, etc and only the right side of the tongue had that bruise.

AJ then says, “Oh yeah, one last thing that indicates a STRUGGLE . . . A DEAD WOMAN IN YOUR FOYER.

[My 2 Cents]

9. NO SPECTOR DNA UNDER LANA’S NAILS

AJ: This wasn’t a fist fight. One of the two people had a gun. Then AJ points to Spector - - that man right over there. 3rd seat from the end. AJ said a bit more but I didn’t get it. He definitely emphasized: One person had a gun and the other didn’t. This wasn’t some bar fight brawl.

Crosses through with BIG RED X number 9.

[My 2 Cents]

10. SPATTER ON LANA’S HANDS

AJ: “I am surprised the defense would put this up.”

THIS POINT PROVES THAT LANA DIDN’T FIRE THE GUN. DIDN’T PULL THE TRIGGER. THIS POINT DOESN’T HELP THE DEFENSES CASE - IT SUPPORTS THAT LANA COULD NOT HAVE FIRED THE GUN.

He reminds the jury of the photo that the DEFENSE PRESENTED by PEX, that showed the most likely way that Lana held the gun. In that picture, provided by the defense – SPATTER COULD NOT GET ON THE BACK OF LANA’S WRISTS.

AJ then discussed the testimony by Jamie Lintemoot. How many times JL pointed to the BACK OF HER WRISTS (not hands ), where the watch face sits. ALL the testimony on this, even Judge Fidler stating for the record where JL was pointing to on her hand, the video from PS1 that also shows JL pointing to the same location on the back of wrist.

Another BIG RED X gets crossed off the list. #10

[My 2 Cents]

11. DIRECTIONAL SPATTER

Sorry Folks . . . somehow I must have missed this one.
(Check out T&T - I am sure Sprocket caught it all)

[My 2 Cents]

12. GSR ON LANA’S HANDS

“She was shot in the mouth, of course she does.”

AJ then explained that GSR floats. If Lana would have had her hands resting on her lap – she would have still had GSR on them. Lana’s ear would have GSR on it. A gun went off in her mouth. She is going to have a lot of GSR all over her.

BIG RED X Number 11

[My 2 Cents]

13. TOOTH FRAGMENTS

THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING, I THOUGHT.

AJ explained that the LEFT tooth fragment flew quite far AND THE OTHER landed in Lana Clarkson’s lap. Right on her abdomen. And then AJ points to a spot a little above the general belly button area. The LEFT tooth fragment landed exactly where we would expect it to, based on the location of Lana and the recoil of this gun.

However, the location of the RIGHT tooth fragment and where it landed tells us Spector was standing WITHIN A 2 FT RADIUS, and blocked the RIGHT tooth fragment from flying across the room like the LEFT TOOTH. BUT IT ALSO TELLS US THAT LANA WAS LEANING WAY BACK IN THE CHAIR. (AJ leans back in one of the regular attorney chairs and points to location the RIGHT tooth fragment landed.) He explains that IF LANA WHERE SITTING UP NORMAL IN THE CHAIR. THE TOOTH FRAGMENT COULD NOT HAVE STAYED ON HER LAP, NOT AT THE SPOT WHERE IT WAS FOUND. IT WOULD HAVE FALLEN OFF. IT HIT SPECTORS JACKET THAT WAS IN A 2 FT RADIUS AND THEN BOUNCED BACK ONTO LAP, WHILE SHE WAS LEANING BACK.

AJ walks over and places a BIG RED X across point #13.

[My 2 Cents]

14. BROKEN ACRYLIC NAIL

“PEX told us,. . .WHERE’S THE NAIL?”

AJ then discussed the "broken nail" on Lana Clarkson's hand.
AJ asked the jurors . . . SO WHERE IS THE NAIL? IF IT BROKE WHEN THE GUN WAS FIRED - - WHERE IS IT? . . . “Smoke & Mirrors”

THE DEFENSE AND THE STATE WENT THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE AREA WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB – SOMEONE WOULD HAVE FOUND IT. WE DIDN'T FIND ANY BROKEN NAIL. WHERE IS IT?

IT'S NOT THERE BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE WHEN SHE ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE THAT NIGHT OR SOMEONE WOULD HAVE FOUND IT.

OMG . . . that was AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!

WEINBERG CAME UNGLUED OVER THIS - - - AFTER AJ FINISHED AND JURY ESCORTED OUT . .. WEINBERG MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL. HE WAS FURIOUS!!!!!!! See separate post regarding this.

[My 2 Cents]

MORE ON "POINT #14 - THE BROKEN MISSING NAIL"

AJ finishes his closing and Jury Leaves and Weinberg jumps up and asks for MISTRIAL . WEINBERG CLAIMS - - UNFAIR!!!
DW says it is not fair - no way to fix this error now. must allow mistrial. Its not the defense's fault that Dr Henry Lee not allowed to testify, yadda yadda yadda.

AJ: I AM FLABBERGASTED. FLABBERGASTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DR HENRY LEE FOUND SOMETHING . . .AND HE STOLE IT! STOLE IT! I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS . . .BUT HE STOLE IT.WHAT DID HENRY LEE FIND - I DON'T KNOW.

DW: NOW STATES THAT DR LEE DID FIND A NAIL, "EVERYONE BELIEVES IT WAS A NAIL AND HE WAS KEPT OFF THE STAND"

JF: I DIDN'T KEEP HIM OFF THET STAND. THAT WAS THE DEFENSES DECISION. NOTHING WAS EVERY ESTABLISHED AS TO WHAT HE FOUND. AND YOU CHOSE NOT TO CALL HIM TO TESTIFY.

MOTION DENIED

OMGOSH . . YOU CAN'T BUY ENTERTAINMENT LIKE THAT!!!! :lol:

ha, ha . . did weinberg just admit that dr lee found lana's nail? ha, ha . . . i think he did.

[dreamlawyer]

Thanks so much for posting this! It's sad that those of us that followed PS1 couldn't have seen this or any of PS2. I't sounds like AJ did an awesome job, as usual. I'm sooooooooo upset that we couldn't have seen this on IS., but why beat a dead horse again :angry: AJ is such a fine atty, nothing, nothing gets by him. What an excellent advocate he has been for Lana and her family, here's to hoping and praying that this jury uses their common sense and convicts this killer this time!

[lane99]

Re: location of the wound...


To go back, virtually 99 years, to show that the 99% statistic is not relevant is, I think, a counterproductive way to address this issue.

You're making it far too likely that someone will fixate on the notion that, sure, this MIGHT not be a suicide, but if it weren't, that would be as improbable as Dimaggio's hitting streak.

If Spector is acquitted or the jury hangs, speaking of odds, I'd give odds that any non-guilty voter will cite this statistic as figuring in their decision. So it was important to make the jury understand it's limited value here.

There was a much better way to explain why a statistic like this has very little probative value in the determining the facts of any specific INDIVIDUAL case.

p.s. very useful thread

[dreamlawyer]

Re: location of the wound...


To go back, virtually 99 years, to show that the 99% statistic is not relevant is, I think, a counterproductive way to address this issue.

You're making it far too likely that someone will fixate on the notion that, sure, this MIGHT not be a suicide, but if it weren't, that would be as improbable as Dimaggio's hitting streak.

If Spector is acquitted or the jury hangs, speaking of odds, I'd give odds that any non-guilty voter will cite this statistic as figuring in their decision. So it was important to make the jury understand it's limited value here.

There was a much better way to explain why a statistic like this has very little probative value in the determining the facts of any specific INDIVIDUAL case.

p.s. very useful thread

IF this jury acquits or hangs and cites that statistic as figuring in their decision they are not doing the job that they swore to do! Closing arguements are NOT EVIDENCE!!!! The jury is only to consider the facts and evidence presented in the case when making their decisions.

[lane99]

I think it was presented as evidence, wasn't it?? It certainly was in the first trial.

Incidentally, I personally don't even believe this statistic is true. My guess is that 99% is overstating the facts. Still, I don't doubt the vast majority of interoral wounds are the result of suicide.

[kellabeck]

But what percentage of suicides by intraoral gunshot wound are committed by holding a gun UPRIGHT with two hands on the grip and the thumbs on the trigger as the defense insist happened?

My guess is that the vast majority of IoGW suicides are through the roof of the mouth straight into the brain, gun held normally but to the side and upward. Why on earth would someone shoot herself in the back of the throat, risking terrible injury but not sure death?

The reality is that the gun was held UPRIGHT as an assailant would hold it, not as a suicide would.

[kaa]

Hey great job. Can you give me live stream to the trail I live in Mississippi and cant find one.Would be a great help

kaa

[oodi1]

Hey great job. Can you give me live stream to the trail I live in Mississippi and cant find one.Would be a great help

kaa

Hi kaa,

There was no live stream of the trial. Nothing going on in court now anyway... the jury is in deliberations.

[My 2 Cents]

Re: location of the wound...


To go back, virtually 99 years, to show that the 99% statistic is not relevant is, I think, a counterproductive way to address this issue.

You're making it far too likely that someone will fixate on the notion that, sure, this MIGHT not be a suicide, but if it weren't, that would be as improbable as Dimaggio's hitting streak.

If Spector is acquitted or the jury hangs, speaking of odds, I'd give odds that any non-guilty voter will cite this statistic as figuring in their decision. So it was important to make the jury understand it's limited value here.

There was a much better way to explain why a statistic like this has very little probative value in the determining the facts of any specific INDIVIDUAL case.

p.s. very useful thread


Hi Lane99,
Your concerns with the way AJ approached this 1st point may be 100% MY FAULT and the way I posted about it. I was trying to grasp a chunk of what AJ was saying about each of the 14 points. And my post may have done a disservice to AJ. This 1st point , INTRA ORAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS - 99% SUICIDE was quite LONG, and I only mentioned such a small part of it. (Sprocket will probably explain it much better)

This was the BEGINNING of a NEW DAY and AJ’s 1st objective seemed to be to engage the jury (and he most definitely did). Make sure they were listening to what he had to say about the DEFENSE’S 14 POINTS and what they meant in terms of Spector’s guilt or innocence.

AJ is a Master STORYTELLER. By this, I do NOT mean that he is great at “making up stories”. What I mean is that he is a great Orator. He ENGAGES the “audience” that he’s addressing and is good at bringing his “POINT” to “LIFE”, so to speak. His “story” about Joe DiMaggio was just AJ getting their attention AND in the process he supplied the jury with a memorable reminder that STATISTICS are just DATA, not REALITY. During a crime scene investigation, putting STATISTICS and AVERAGES 1st, over evidence - - - would be a bit like PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. When dealing with REAL LIFE and REALITY, don’t worry about percentages/statistics/odds . . . Just follow the EVIDENCE and see where it leads you.

I personally think, that this POINT, . . . out of the DEFENSE's 14 POINTS, is the strongest of the 14. People can get really hung up on a percentage figure that is as high as this one. And they forget - all that matters is what the EVIDENCE shows. Statistics play no role in that. I also agree with YOU - the quoted "99%" is probably very over-stated. However, whatever it is, . . . it doesn't matter.

[dref99]

My 2 Cents........ I just have one thing to say.... You rock and thank you.... ok two things. :thumbsup:

There is a third thing to say - dref agrees with you :seeya:

[lane99]

Hi Lane99,
...When dealing with REAL LIFE and REALITY, don’t worry about percentages/statistics/odds . . . Just follow the EVIDENCE and see where it leads you...

Right.


...I also agree with YOU - the quoted "99%" is probably very over-stated. However, whatever it is, . . . it doesn't matter.

And right, again. For the most part, the stat would only come into play if someone picked up a case at random, and without knowing ANYTHING else about it other than the location of the wound, for whatever reason wanted to take a GUESS as to the manner of death (homicide vs. suicide).

Other than that, as you say, it's incumbent upon a rational and objective observer to...follow...the...evidence...in...this...specifi c...case.

[Lyndawitha"Y]

Hi Lane99,
Your concerns with the way AJ approached this 1st point may be 100% MY FAULT and the way I posted about it. I was trying to grasp a chunk of what AJ was saying about each of the 14 points. And my post may have done a disservice to AJ. This 1st point , INTRA ORAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS - 99% SUICIDE was quite LONG, and I only mentioned such a small part of it. (Sprocket will probably explain it much better)

This was the BEGINNING of a NEW DAY and AJ’s 1st objective seemed to be to engage the jury (and he most definitely did). Make sure they were listening to what he had to say about the DEFENSE’S 14 POINTS and what they meant in terms of Spector’s guilt or innocence.

AJ is a Master STORYTELLER. By this, I do NOT mean that he is great at “making up stories”. What I mean is that he is a great Orator. He ENGAGES the “audience” that he’s addressing and is good at bringing his “POINT” to “LIFE”, so to speak. His “story” about Joe DiMaggio was just AJ getting their attention AND in the process he supplied the jury with a memorable reminder that STATISTICS are just DATA, not REALITY. During a crime scene investigation, putting STATISTICS and AVERAGES 1st, over evidence - - - would be a bit like PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. When dealing with REAL LIFE and REALITY, don’t worry about percentages/statistics/odds . . . Just follow the EVIDENCE and see where it leads you.

I personally think, that this POINT, . . . out of the DEFENSE's 14 POINTS, is the strongest of the 14. People can get really hung up on a percentage figure that is as high as this one. And they forget - all that matters is what the EVIDENCE shows. Statistics play no role in that. I also agree with YOU - the quoted "99%" is probably very over-stated. However, whatever it is, . . . it doesn't matter.


Speaking of stats and liklihoods, I dont think Dr. Spitz addresed the odds of someone who puts guns into faces and aims at so many times over the years, that the gun would go off????..Phil is fortunate that his gun play didnt backfire before he made his millions...Lana would be alive today, and Phil wouldnt not have the money to buy and pay for less than accurate, off the wall spin of evidence by experts, and others...
It seems to me that Pex is now toast, Henry Lee likewise, and Baden along with Spitz once again demonstrated just how far money will pay for squewed testimony!!

IMO, Phil should be found guilty of 2nd degree, and I do hope that he gets taken to the cleaners by Lana's mother!!! I'll just bet tho, that most his money is either off shore, or in trust to lawyers by now..Chelle, best be lookin for other accomodations, as I doubt Phil will provide for her..given his attitude towards women!

LMS

[kennedy06]

Looking back at Sprocket's #13 which has a little more detail and my2cents description I have would like to know others opinion of how her tongue was bruised and how her teeth became broken and the dentin on the gun sight. Thanks, all along I'm thinking well the gun slipped in there but if it broke a tooth or teeth going in that would take a little more than a slight touching of the surface I would think. Thanks

[oodi]

Looking back at Sprocket's #13 which has a little more detail and my2cents description I have would like to know others opinion of how her tongue was bruised and how her teeth became broken and the dentin on the gun sight. Thanks, all along I'm thinking well the gun slipped in there but if it broke a tooth or teeth going in that would take a little more than a slight touching of the surface I would think. Thanks

I had always assumed that the tongue was bruised by the gun being in her mouth before it went off. We have no idea how long it was there before the trigger was pulled. As for the dentin on the gun sight, I would think that the gun could have scraped her teeth during recoil, or when it was pulled out of her mouth. If I remember correctly, LC had caps on her front teeth. But what I don't remember is if those caps were actually broken, or if they just came off, leaving just what was left of her natural teeth after prepping for the caps.

[kennedy06]

That is how I thought it may have occurred but when I read Sprocket's #13 and she wrote about the trajectory of the the teeth and gases I began to think was AJ implying they were knocked out ahead of time and then thrown out by the gases?

[oodi]

That is how I thought it may have occurred but when I read Sprocket's #13 and she wrote about the trajectory of the the teeth and gases I began to think was AJ implying they were knocked out ahead of time and then thrown out by the gases?


I suppose either scenario is possible. I know I had a crown come off when the hygenist was flossing during a cleaning... so it doesn't always take a lot of force. It could also be that the caps were loosened before the gun went off, and then the blast blew them completely out.