Friday, April 3, 2015

Was Lana Clarkson A Prostitute Who Played With Guns? That Is Clearly Relevant Evidence Re. Phil Spector

From: Kelley Lynch <>
Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:05 PM
To: ASKDOJ <>, "irs.commissioner" <>, Washington Field <>, "Division, Criminal" <>, "Doug.Davis" <>, Dennis <>, MollyHale <>, nsapao <>, fsb <>, rbyucaipa <>, khuvane <>, blourd <>, Robert MacMillan <>, a <>, wennermedia <>, Mick Brown <>, woodwardb <>, "glenn.greenwald" <>, lrohter <>, Harriet Ryan <>, "hailey.branson" <>, "stan.garnett" <>, sedelman <>, JFeuer <>,


This post from the Darwin Exception is interesting.  Raoul Julia Levy filed a State Bar Complaint against Jackass for misconduct in the Phil Spector matter.  He evidently has some details about Clarkson.  For instance, she tried to throw herself off a balcony and played sex games with guns.  He also apparently knew that she was depressed and suicidal.  I think Baby Doll Gibson is relevant.  If Clarkson was a prostitute, Phillip wouldn't have to shoot her for sex.  The theory is insane anyway.

I'm putting together an evidence package for federal court.  I want the federal court to understand how extensive this criminal harassment with respect to me is.  I want the court to understand that Kelly Green has been online spewing vitriolic comments about Spector, his wife, and Cutler since 2007.  

The Criminal Stalkers continue to target me and others.  That evidence will be presented in a supplemental filing to Judge Hess and then a federal court.

All the best,

CA vs. Spector – Spank My BabyDol and Call me Julia

Posted by thedarwinexception on July 18, 2007
Lots of interesting “side issues” today in and out of court, starting with the strange and complicated story of Raul Julia Levy.
Raul Julia Levy was a potential witness for the defense. He was actually in the courtroom last week ready to take the witness stand. It is rumored that he will testify that he had an intimate relationship with Lana Clarkson, and that she was depressed and suicidal and that she once tried to throw herself off of a balcony while in his presence. Supposedly he would also testify that Lana was fond of guns and often used them as a tool for sexual foreplay. Of course, these were statements made by Anita Talbert, who is a self professed supporter and admirer of Phil Spector.
But, if true, one can understand why the defense would want to call him.
But, there’s a slight problem with Raul Julia Levy.
Raul Julia Levy claims that he is the eldest son of Raul Julia, he of “Addams Family” and “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” Fame. Julia Levy claims that Raul Julia abandoned him and his mother when Julia Levy was very young. He says that his mother is Margaret Levy, the daughter of Abraham Levy, he of “Levi Strauss” fame.
Last week when the defense had Julia Levy in the wings ready to testify, the defense asked the prosecution why they hadn’t turned over, as is required, their discovery materials on Raul Julia Levy. The prosecution asked for an  ex parte hearing in the judges chambers because of the sensitive nature of the material and that they were conducting an ongoing investigation of Mr. Julia Levy the contents of which wouldn’t be appropriate for open court. When the parties got back on the record after the in camera hearing, the judge agreed that the prosecution could have an additional week to turn over their discovery materials, and that the contents and results of this hearing, if proven to be true by the prosecution, could “irreparably harm” the defense’s case, and that the defense should be very glad that the judge ruled the way he did.
Today the defense got to look at the 10 inch thick discovery report of the prosecution and one wonders if they are indeed glad. If they knew nothing about Julia Levy’s background, I’m sure they were quite surprised. But a cursory Google search should have told them more than they wanted to know. And it would also uncover the fact that most mentions of Raul Julia Levy with any biographical materials are self edited sites such as Wiki and My Space.
In a scenario truly worthy of “Six Degrees of Separation” Raul Julia Levy is not who he claims to be – or at least, who he claims to be is certainly contested. There are several gaping holes in Julia Levy’s story, starting with the fact that Abraham Levy, who Julia Levy purports to be his grandfather, died without ever fathering any children. Julia Levy also claims that Abraham Levy “his beloved grandfather”, died when Julia Levy was 16. The only problem with that is, according to his stated birth date of 1971, that would put Abraham Levy’s death sometime in 1987 – Abraham Levy died in 1980. Julia Levy also claimed for quite a while on his website (since closed) that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming the movie “Kiss of the Spiderwoman” in Mexico. Only the movie wasn’t filmed in Mexico, it was filmed in Brazil. Julia Levy has since amended his story to say that he met his father while the elder Julia was filming a different movie – this time one that actually *was* filmed in Mexico.
The kicker, though, is that Raul Julia Levy was not born as Raul Julia Levy – he is actually Salvador Alba Fuentes, a petty criminal with a rap sheet from Mexico. And he didn’t go to Harvard, either, as he claimed on his “official website”. And most likely he was not, as he states on his “My Space” page, “The Howard Hughes of Mexico” nor is he involved in “Other business endeavors include working  to revive and expand the Mexican airlines,  Aerolineas Internacionales and, with his  family, restoring the San Felipe Villas resort located by the Sea of Cortez.  Beginning in January 2007 Julia-Levy,  along with his brother Jose Levy  (Attorney and Politician) established  The National Foundation for Education  of the Indigenous. The foundation  provides scholarships to various indigenous groups throughout Mexico. He will continue to volunteer his  time and resources to various  humanitarian efforts in the Los Angeles area.”
The elder Raul Julia left a widow – and two sons, one who is actually Raul Julia, Jr. and it was out of concern for this son and the confusion that Salvador Alba Fuentes could cause by claiming to be Raul Julia, Jr., that Merel Poloway Julia, the elder Julia’s widow, hired a private firm to investigate the background of this man she considered to be an imposter. She demanded that he submit to a paternity test, but he stalled this request by claiming that any tissue samples she might have to compare his DNA to wouldn’t be able to be confirmed as the elder Julia’s, nor could she confirm chain of custody. Merel Julia then  suggested that he submit to a Y chromosome paternity test using samples from her own two sons. Raul Julia Levy again stalled and said that he still had no idea if these were indeed his half brothers. Merel Poloway then offered to have her deceased husband exhumed, thinking that this, at least, would get rid of this imposter. Raul Julia Levy again declined, stating that no good DNA samples could be obtained from a corpse 11 years in the ground.
I am quite sure that all of this information (and much more) has been uncovered by the prosecution. One would assume they had access to the investigative reports that Merel Poloway Julia’s private team submitted, as well as Raul Julia Levy’s  rap sheet and true educational and biographical records.
And I’ll bet three Thanksgiving Punkin Pies that he nor his family have anything at all to do with Levi Strauss. Or that he went to Harvard. And I’ll also bet he never knew Lana Clarkson, intimately or otherwise. I mean, you would think if he *did* know Lana so well, he’d have a picture of her, and that it would be festooned and flashing with a neon banner on his My Space page. After all, he has a picture of himself with Kato Kaelin. And Kaelin is *so* “trial of LAST century”. Stupid ass.
The next interesting side issue today was Baby Dol Gibson, who the judge dragged into court to admonish. She is there with her lawyer, who argue to the court that Miss Gibson should not be subject to the court’s blanket gag order on all witnesses, since her testimony has been determined by the court to be inadmissible. Her lawyer explains that BabyDol Gibson has to make a living, and the way she does that is to write books and market them to the press through interviews and media articles, and that this gag order has put a crimp in all that. He tells the judge that her livelihood depends on whether or not she can contact and talk to the media. And, you know, it occurs to me that what better way is there for her to publicize her books than to stroll into court and ask for permission to publicize them?
Mr. Rosen confirms that the defense is not going to call her. The judge says that the parties had earlier discussed that if Spector took the stand and testified, that Gibson’s testimony could very well become relevant. Without Spector’s testimony, Gibson’s testimony is irrelevant. He asks Mr. Rosen if Mr. Rosen is now prepared to affirm to the court that Mr. Spector is not going to testify. Mr. Rosen says that he is not prepared to make that statement at this point.
Mr. Rosen then puts on the record that the defense team does believe that parts of Gibson’s testimony are relevant whether or not Spector testifies.
The judge points out that this has nothing to do with his ruling, and when the prosecution declines to comment on the matter.  the judge makes his ruling.
The judge then tells the court that he
“doesn’t care if Miss Gibson promotes her book – but that she’s not going to do it by bringing Ms. Clarkson into it – that’s real simple. As long as this trial is in existence, if you go out and promote your book, and you mention Lana Clarkson in any way, shape fashion or form, while this case is ongoing, I am ordering you not to do that – it is inappropriate, you are a potential witness in this case despite the comments that were just made, all witnesses are ordered not to talk to the media, especially since your testimony at this point. is inadmissible, it would be nothing but an attempt, in my view, to influence the jury, even though they are under an order not to read articles, but there’s a possibility that they do, so if you want to sell your book about your life, that’s fine, but you’re not going to mention Lana Clarkson, and if you do, you will be in violation of my order, and I will hold you in contempt, it’s that simple. Do you understand?”
Gibson then tells the judge that she understands and it was never her intention to disobey the court, that she was under the assumption that she was completely excused.
The judge says that’s fine, glad she understands, but he reiterates to her that he has no problem with her promoting her book, that he has no problem with whether she does or doesn’t, but that she may not in any “way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case. Other than that, you may talk about what you want. ”
Her lawyer, who must be fucking deaf, dumb or both, then asks the judge “well, what if in promoting her diaries someone points out or asks about Lana Clarkson’s name?” I guess “you may not  in any way shape form touch upon come close to or talk about Lana Clarkson or anything regarding the Phil Spector case” just wasn’t exactly clear as a fucking bell to him.
The judge tells him “Then she is to say to the reporter ‘I’m sorry, I cannot talk about that while the trial is ongoing.’.” And the lawyer nods his head like this had never occurred to him.
Which must remind the prosecution of something, because they then ask for a moment and come out of huddle with the information that any entries in Babydol’s book, according to their own investigation, have patently been doctored. They are forgeries, and that the prosecution would like a specific order that she not give any interviews regarding this trick book.
The judge says “I said anything to do with this trial and that would include any documents.”
Alan Jackson then goes on to point out that if an interviewer asks to see the book and the book opens up to that page, that would be inappropriate, to which the judge agrees, and says that “if she tries to do something like that…”
At this point, seeing her gravy train pull out of the station, Gibson pipes up with the fact that “Those documents” her “trick book”,  has been in the possession of law enforcement and under a chain of custody since 1999, so this allegation is really one against the people, and the chain of custody that law enforcement and the sense of scrutiny the evidence room maintains.”
The judge, clearly not giving a flying fuck about Gibson and her trick book, says “Well, I’ll leave that for others, I’ve been given a lot of information which is in my ruling and it’s all under seal, I don’t think I’ll make any comments at this time. You’ve made your statement, and that’s my ruling”.
Babydol’s lawyer then pipes up with “Well, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the people to make allegations of altering….that’s slanderous towards my client and totally inappropriate….”
The judge tells him “You can handle that somewhere else, I’m only concerned about the sanctity of my trial. Everyone understands and is on board. That’s it, thank you for coming down.”  (Get the fuck out of here was not actually said, but was clearly implied.)
And so we can finally get back to witnesses. James Pex, a blood spatter expert called by the defense was on the stand when the judge felt compelled to take a break to allow for his little spanking of the Babydol. Guess she could only stop by for a few minutes in between interviews. Pex retakes the stand after she goes off to find Entertainment Tonight reporters.
And James Pex is interesting in that one wonders if he is supposed to be Henry Lee version 2.0. He says upon taking the stand initially that he and Linda Baden Kelly just met 2 weeks ago, which would coincide with the whole Lee fiasco and when Lee could have first told the defense that their piddly ass case wasn’t worth tarnishing Lee’s reputation.
Pex is also interesting because he was one of the investigating officers for the Oregon State Police Department in the Dianne Downs murder case when she shot her three kids in the backseat of her car. He analyzed the blood spatter in the car and after determining that there was no blood on the steering wheel and determining the spatter on the seats in the car he concluded that the shootings could not have happened the way Downs reported.
Linda Kenny Baden leads the witness through direct testimony, where she has him testify that he had problems with the Luminol testing, and whether or not they were done correctly. One of the reasons he is concerned is because there was no presence of blood detected underneath the gun as it lay under Lana’s leg on the carpet. Pex states that there should be blood under the gun, which is rather confusing to me, because I think that is assuming an awful lot. It’s coming to a conclusion based on an assumed premise. Assuming that Lana was the only one who touched the gun that night, and that where it was found was exactly where it had been all night after she was shot, then yes, I would think that there should be blood on the carpet underneath the gun. But since we know that Phil Spector held the gun that evening *after* Lana was shot, even if one assumes for the sake of argument that he didn’t pull the trigger, we still know that he was holding the gun at *some* point, according to the testimony of DeSouza, who saw him with the gun in his hand, and the physical evidence of the blood in his pants pocket being consistent with a gun being placed inside of it.
And armed with this information, that Spector held the gun after she was shot, then I think that whether or not there is blood under the gun is irrelevant and proves nothing.
Linda Kenny Baden then employs a bit of sleight of hand and sneaky tactics.
She shows a picture to the witness of a very small piece of wire. This wire is from the taser gun that was unsuccessfully shot at Spector when the stormtroopers stormed the castle. In the picture the wire is visible under the right heel of Lana Clarkson, implying that the body – or at least the legs and/or feet – of the deceased were moved *after* the stormtroopers entered the premises, therefore calling into question any evidence of blood spatter, the placement of the gun and other physical elements of the crime scene.

Now, if you look closely at this picture, you can *barely* see the very thin wire underneath the heel of her right shoe. But this picture and the angle of this picture is quite misleading. It would appear from this angle that the right heel is flush with the floor, therefore making one assume that the leg would have had to have been moved in order for the wire to get underneath the heel. And we know she didn’t move the leg herself.
But if we look at the same thing from a different angle

it is much easier to see that actually, the toe of the foot was raised, as was a portion of the heel. It is much easier to imagine that the wire could have been inadvertently kicked or moved underneath the heel with no movement of the feet or legs. So this issue again, proves absolutely nothing once you are armed with all of the facts and the evidence.
Linda Kenny Baden also asks the witness about kinetic energy and “Stokes Law”, which is about as foreign to me as the earlier testimony from that creepy DiMaio about “Boyle’s Law”. But I do wish I had paid attention in Physics, because all of this testimony might make a lot more sense to me. And it might even make it more interesting, but I’m not putting any money on that last sentiment, because I can’t imagine Kenny Baden livening up anything she was questioning a witness about. I find myself distracted by her almost neon yellow hair color, her glasses that just don’t fit her face right, her strange accent and speech patterns and her almost eerie resemblance to a pug faced dog my grandmother used to own named “Tippy”.
On cross examination Alan Jackson doesn’t really need to do a lot, since the witness has already testified, during direct no less, that he has “not been to the scene of the crime” and that he “has not seen the physical evidence”. So, basically, the witness can only really testify with any authority in generalities. But Jackson does question the witness about his concerns with the way the Luminol testing was done, and the witnesses astonishment that there was no blood on the carpet underneath the gun. Jackson asks the witness if he would expect there to be blood on the carpet underneath the gun if the gun had been wiped down, greatly increasing the drying time of any blood that was left on the gun, and if the gun had been placed underneath the victim’s leg after it had dried.
The witness concedes that if these things were so, then, No, he would not expect to find blood underneath the gun, and that if the blood on the gun had dried then if the gun had been moved, he would expect to find “flakes” of blood on the carpet if the gun were later moved. Which leads Jackson to ask him if the gun *had* been moved, say, kicked across the carpet, after the blood on the gun had dried, then would the witness expect there to be “flakes” of blood consistent with this across the carpet. When the witness agrees that yes, he would expect to find these flakes, Jackson then asks that if there was no presence detected with luminol of any streaks or flakes across the carpet, if the witness would then assume that the gun was *not* kicked across the carpet, the witness says that this could be one interpretation.
Jackson then turns to the wire underneath Lana’s heel. Although I really thought he would just put up on the Elmo the other pictures showing the different angles of the foot, and ask the witness to determine if there were sufficient room for a wire to be kicked underneath the foot, Jackson instead uses his co-counsel as an exhibit, and has Dixon sit in his chair comfortably with his legs extended. Jackson then places a wire in front of Mr. Dixon, kicks it and has it land underneath Dixon’s shoe. I think the pictures from an alternate angle would have been more telling.
Jackson then gets into testimony concerning Velocity and then heat resistance. When the testimony moves towards any specific physical objects from the Spector crime scene, the witness has a more difficult time being pinned down, and his stock answer is “I didn’t see the physical evidence” or “I would have to examine that item more closely before rendering an opinion”. Which only highlights the fact that he isn’t Henry Lee, who actually did have access to the crime scene and the physical evidence.
But., in a nutshell, this witness could not really be relied upon to definitively offer an opinion on *this* case, since he did not have access to the physical evidence or the crime scene and wasn’t familiar with many of the prior witnesses testimony.
Although Linda Kenny Baden did ask him what color blood was, and he answered “red”. She also asked if a bullet comes out of the barrel of the gun, and he answered “yes”. And she described inflated cheeks as “chipmunk cheeks”. Since none of these things were challenged by the prosecution, I think we can assume they are definitely so.
And I, for one, am glad we finally got an expert opinion on the color of blood.
Dr. Joseph Anselmo, an oral surgeon and forensic odontologist who retired from the LA County Coroner’s office in 2004. He was first contacted in this case to confirm that the teeth at the scene were actually Lana’s and to determine if there was any soft tissue damage around the lips and so forth and if there was any evidence of blunt force trauma to the teeth. He says that he found no evidence of blunt trauma or soft tissue damage. He also says right off the bat that he is not qualified to comment on any aspect of the ballistics involved or the trajectory or path of the teeth that were affected by the bullet. All he can testify to is the trauma to the teeth themselves and the identification of teeth matter as teeth.
And then court ends.
For the rest of the week.
No more evidence will be presented until Monday.
But remember, blood is red.

Sprocket said

Last night, my husband wanted a recap of yesterday’s trial coverage. Weeks behind, and very tired, I just read him your coverage, lol!
You do a great job, each and every time. Btw, I gave you a shout on one of my recent entries.