Phil Spector murder case investigators were always looking for two pieces of evidence – 1) incriminating traces of Phil Spector's DNA, and 2) some of Phil Spector's hair, as it's made of 100% spun gold and starlight and, as such, is fairly valuable.
Sadly for the investigators, though, they were unable to find either. While the strands of Phil Spector hair alone would have been worth enough to place a downpayment on a large beachside house, the Phil Spector DNA would have probably been enough to convict Phil Spector for the murder of Lana Clarkson. And now a leading criminalist has taken to the stand to admit that no trace of Phil Spector's DNA could be found on the gun that killed Clarkson. Granted, that could be because enough DNA spurted out of Lana Clarkson's face when she was shot in the face to cover up Spector's DNA, but what can you do?
We didn't know that DNA could be used to solve crimes, you know – as far as we were concerned, DNA was just a way to find out who got Anna Nicole Smith pregnant or who got Mel B pregnant or how many women James Brown got pregnant, but apparently DNA can be used to tell if little old men murdered big tall women too.
Prior to yesterday's testimony by criminalist Steve Renteria, Phil Spector couldn't have been looking forward to the day's events. After all, not only did a jury think Phil Spector was guilty , but the driver who Phil Spector apparently confessed to thought Phil Spector was guilty and a coroner strongly implied that Phil Spector was guilty. And an investigator thought that Phil Spector might have even done a sex-murder. And everyone saw Phil Spector's blood-covered gun. And Phil Spector's defence wasn't even allowed to call Lana Clarkson a nutter. In fact, apart from the defence realising that Phil Spector was a midget, the murder trial was starting to look a little one-sided.
Everyone must have been expecting more of the same when criminalist Steve Rentaria took to the stand, but there was a surprise in store – Renteria claimed that none of Phil Spector's DNA could be found on the gun that killed Lana Clarkson. The San Jose Mercury reports:
A criminalist testified Monday that the music producer's DNA was not detected on the gun that killed Lana Clarkson, but suggested it might have been hidden under the large amount of the actress' blood on the weapon. Sheriff's criminalist Steve Renteria, called by the prosecution, also acknowledged that numerous items analyzed by the crime lab showed the DNA only of the dead woman.
However, it's not so cut and dry as that – Renteria claims that Phil Spector's DNA could have been covered up by Lana Clarkson's blood, and also that a cloth nappy was found elsewhere in Phil Spector's house containing four bloodstains, three solely made from Clarkson's DNA and the fourth containing a small trace of male DNA. As well as all that, Renteria claims that the wall and carpet near Clarkson's shooting were missing the usual blood spray, suggesting that something was placed in front of Lana Clarkson when she died and later removed.
In other news, the judge presiding over the Phil Spector murder trial has rejected a bid by Phil Spector's defence to call a mistrial after claims that prosecutors had deliberately withheld information about a witness who claimed that the defence was hiding evidence. Sadly the judge chose not to call a mistrial, which is a real shame as we'd simply love to plough through endless Phil Spector court reports all over again. No, really.
Read more:
DNA Evidence Focus Of Spector Trial – San Jose Mercury
T. G. says
The idea that Lana Clarkson committed suicide is so ludicrous on the surface that one wonders where the defense got the nerve to build such a case. On gullible California juries? Thank God this jury weighed the evidence using their commonsense while giving due weight to the evidence. About 30 hours worth.
And yes, every man and woman has the right to a defense. But are we really to believe that the so called absence of DNA evidence on the gun was all we needed to know? So she killed herself? So how about the absence of blood spatter on the surrounding carpet and so forth?
So you see, arrogant and well paid lawyers will argue evidence to the exclusion of all other evidence. But I think in this case, the jury’s common sense was overwhelming.