Monday, August 27, 2007

Lana Clarkson - the search for Justice.

The Phil Sphincter, pardon Specter trial.

What a defense fiasco that is! It's the spaghetti method directed
by none other than wee Harvey Phil Specter himself. Throw
something, anything at the victim and see if it sticks. The
defense has proceeded from one madcap theory and
careening to yet another, after they've come to realize that
yah, the public isn't buying this, so the jury probably isn't either.

It's occasionally the norm for defense attorney's to stipulate that no
bashing or trashing of the victim will occur in a trial. However, that's
not the reality. Even more so in this case.

This is a trial about Phil Specter and his actions regarding Lana
Clarkson's demise at his home. But you sure would have to wade
through the muck the defense has thrown up to realize that.
Every thing the defense can point to and say "that makes the
victim look dirty, let's use it" has either been thrown into their
case, or an attempt has been made to use it.

Many are appalled at the defense lawyer's behaviour in this trial.
Absolutely. Appalled. I'm one of them. In my opinion ethics
seems to be a concept missing from their vocabulary.

The defense forensic experts. HA! For many years, some of
these same people, the so called experts have been revered by
many in the public and professional eye.

Not anymore.

Michael Baden for instance. From his HBO performances on Autopsy,
to the "expert" testimony in a lengthy myriad of trials, Baden has
until recently come across on the stand/television as a reputable
and reliable witness.

His recent testimony in not only the Specter trial, but in one or two
others has shown trial watchers that sometimes even
formerly respected "experts" tailor their testimony to fit a given
theory advanced by whomever is paying them. Even if it flies into
direct conflict with known forensics, or reasonable, rational beliefs.

Dimaio. yeassss. Another one bites the dust.....

Spitz... ditto.

I've read where professionals in the field of forensics are calling for
industry standards for experts to follow when testifying. It's
something that many are looking for at this time, particularly
in light of the warped theories put forth by none other than these
three former "experts." They aren't the only has been's
testifying in court these days. There are others out there who
appear to have no moral compass, testifying to evidence in areas
in which they are NOT qualified. Just like these three yahoos.

I agree with them. Bring on the standards. Shine some light
on the "profession of testifying for money."