Tags : :
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 Spector 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.
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 Spector 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.....
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."