It’s a crazy idea, I know. I mean, just look at the guy, with his succession of fright wigs and a history of being a crazy mofo who always seems to be threatening people with his many guns. No way he could NOT have killed Lana Clarkson. It was his gun and it happened in his home. Slam dunk.
Except.
Except there was blood spatter on his jacket but only one drop on his sleeve. If he had forced the barrel of his gun into her mouth most of the splatter would have landed on his sleeve.
Except how could he force his gun into the mouth of a tipsy, not drunken, six-footer who had played a “barbarian queen” and an “Amazon woman” and who was only somewhat drunk, when Spector is 5’-4", 135lbs, 22 years older, and LOTS drunker.
Except people eat a bullet to kill themselves. They are not fed bullets by others.
The defense is trying to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the jurors. For my money, that seed is the size of a coconut. I jumped to the conclusion of his guilt like everybody else, but now I see that he’s likely innocent, and not in an OJ Simpson or Robert Blake way. He simply did not kill that woman. For that matter, I’m not sure she committed suicide. I think she was trying to look sexy, fellating the gun, when it went off. A tragic accident.
Cite? I mean, do you actually have some quality sources in which professional forensics experts explain that the splatter would all have to go on his sleeve? I think a lot of stuff would factor into the answer to that question. I can imagine different angles in which an assailant is holding a gun and a whole host of other things would impact the blood spray.
A lot of stuff that “seems simple” from a layman’s perspective isn’t really true when it comes to forensics. For example one thing a lot of people use to discredit the idea that actor George Reeves committed suicide was the fact that the shell casing was found under his body. But when you read about this case you will find that crime scene experts will say they have seen weapons/shell casings from suicides end up under the body many times, as well as all over the room in general. It’s just an example of something intuitive (“how could the casing be under his body if he shot himself while seated??”) perhaps from a layman’s perspective that necessarily doesn’t mean anything. Just because he has blood splatter that didn’t hit his jacket in the precise manner you logically think it should have doesn’t mean he didn’t commit a murder.
Professional wrestler Paul Wight is somewhere in the height range of 6’10"-7’1" tall and his weight is somewhere around 400 lbs. Do you think someone who pulled a gun on him would have to physically subdue him in order to get him on his knees? To make him open his mouth? Of course not, the vast majority of human beings are going to do whatever the fuck they are told to do when someone has a gun on them. Guns are a great equalizer, you don’t have to be capable of physically subduing someone to make them compliant. Many police officers are tough individuals, but there are smallish cops, too. There are small female cops who regularly lock up big, strong men. How? Because they have all kinds of tools (as well as, of course, authority) to gain compliance without having to be the physical equal of the people they arrest.
Again, there’s nothing about the size difference between the two people that would suggest to me Spector would be incapable of pulling a gun on her and making her get on her knees and open her mouth. How big are you? Imagine if a dwarf pulled a gun on you and told you to kneel, and open your mouth, would you do it? I bet you probably would, because it doesn’t matter how much bigger you are than a dwarf, being shot by a tiny person is just as lethal as being shot by a big person–and as a rational human being you will understand that. Fearing for your life you’ll do pretty much anything when someone points a gun at you and tells you to do it, unless you think you have some chance of escaping.
People shouldn’t jump to conclusions either way. The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this man committed murder. I haven’t examined the State’s evidence, or, to be honest, followed the trial whatsoever. I was only vaguely aware it was even going on. So I have no idea if they’ve satisfied that requirement. I do know that your misgivings wouldn’t bring me, as a juror, to the conclusion that reasonable doubt existed in the face of reasonable evidence. But, again, I don’t know what evidence the prosecution has submitted.
TV and movies have a lot to answer for. They make it appear normal for somebody to be innocent despite all of the evidence pointing to their guilt. And viewers start to believe this kind of thing actually often happens. The reality is that over 99% of the time, the reason that all of the evidence points at the obvious suspect is because he committed the crime.
I always pay attention to what the lawyers say. If they try to cloud the issues then I figure they have a reason for that.
So the defense told the jury not to act like vigilantes.
Huh? If I remember rightly, a vigilante is someone who takes the law into his own hands. Being on the jury, aren’t they supposed to be the ones who execute the law?
What’s next? You don’t have any right to judge him?
Is Michael Baden good enough? He was one of the professional forensics experts the defense used. And the husband of one of the defense attorneys, just one of the many WTF? aspects of the case. But I generally accept his findings. (loftily) “I generally accept his findings.” Heh. There is a freedom in being a layman that professionals lack, especially pros who have to give testemony.
I’d tell him to fck off, “Go ahead and shoot me, loser. I present a nice, big target, but just try to hit something vital,” but most people aren’t nearly as self-destructive as I am. Sure as hell I’d fight him for the gun if he got close enough to stick it in my mouth, though. And dwarvish folk, like skinny little old guys in bad wigs, often have skeletal problems. I’d sit on him and crush him like a dried leaf. But, like I said, I’m self-destructive enough to mout off but not enough to ignore that you are better off fighting than complying, especially if your attacker is an old psycho dwarf with a piddling little Colt Cobra .38. A girl gun. The mental math tells you to fight, and to laugh at him while you fight, and Clarkson spent long enough in Hollywood and was sober enough to know her arithmetic. And anyway, no matter how much he paid you, would you fck that creep? Maybe she sobered up enough to not chose A Fate Worse Than Death.
I can’t believe they found only 11 guns on his property. The man simply does not live up to his reputation. And I can’t imagine why he’d parade those bad wigs if he weren’t planning to cop an insanity plea.
I think (from the comfort of my computer chair) that he probably did do it, but if the prosecution’s own forensic witnesses admit that there’s no evidence of that, I’d refuse to convict.
This strikes me as possibly the wrong thing to say to a dwarf who has a gun pointed at you. Depending on the height of said little person, there might just be something vital in his line of fire which you’d want to preserve, this applying especially but not exclusively to male people.
