The Wall Of Sound Remains Unbreached -
Robert Hillburn/LA Times on Mick Brown's "book"
Eu penso que eu matei alguém
'I think I killed somebody'
Mick Brown
12:04AM GMT 12 Mar 2007
Audio: The Spector Tapes
Later this month, Phil Spector, one of pop music's greatest producers, creator of the Wall of Sound and records such as You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin', will stand trial in Los Angeles for the murder of B-movie actress Lana Clarkson.
The long-delayed case is certain to rival the O J Simpson trial in terms of courtroom drama, a hearing that will shine a light into the darkest corners of a life touched by genius, but afflicted by insecurity, failed relationships, heavy drinking, an obsession with guns and explosive losses of temper.
I TEND TO DOUBT IT WILL RIVAL OJ BUT DOMINICK DUNNE'S COVERAGE HERE IS PATHETIC. FAILED RELATIONSHIPS? WELL, THERE WAS VERONICA SPECTOR WHO EVIDENTLY
WASN'T AN APPROPRIATE WITNESS FOR THE DA. ODD. NEITHER WAS DEBORAH HARRY. STRANGE. MARKY RAMONE. RETRACTED THE STORIES. LEONARD COHEN. GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GRAND JURY BUT NOT A JURY TRIAL? SEEMS SUSPECT. I'VE NEVER SEEN PHILLIP DRINK HEAVILY. HE HAS NO OBSESSION WITH GUNS BUT THE GOLD DIGGERS UNDERSTAND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS - CALL A COP, LIE, HAVE THEM TAKE A REPORT, AND - WHEN NECESSARY - HEAD INTO COURT. OF COURSE THESE GOLD DIGGERS FORGOT TO FILE REPORTS AT THE TIME SO THEY ARE PROBABLY ENTIRELY FRAUDULENT AND FICTIONAL. THIS LINE OF THINKING WILL NOT WORK FOR MICK BROWN'S BOOK OR THE ANGLE HE APPEARS TO BE TAKING.
In the Saturday magazine, we published the first exclusive extract from Mick Brown's new biography of Spector, in which he traced the origins of his demons and dreams. In this compelling second instalment, he examines the events leading up to Lana's death - a death, Spector claims, that was the result of accident or suicide.
THE TELEGRAPH IS CLEAR ABOUT THEIR MOTIVE AND ATTEMPTING TO HELP MICK BROWN SELL BOOKS AT THE SAME TIME. THEY APPEAR TO KNOW LANA PERSONALLY BUT NOT
SPECTOR. NOT ONLY DOES SPECTOR CLAIM IT WAS AN ACCIDENT OR SUICIDE - IT WAS. INCONVENIENT AND GETS IN THE WAY OF SALACIOUS REPORTING ON THE PART OF THE TELEGRAPH.
It's an old axiom that actresses die twice in Hollywood, the first time around their mid-thirties, when they can no longer pretend to play young.
Related Articles
I WOULD ASSUME THAT WHEN YOU'RE OVER 40 AND NEVER REALLY HAD A CAREER YOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE UP THE ILLUSION THAT YOU'RE AN ACTRESS.
10 March 2007: Mick Brown: Spector's dreams and demons
12 Mar 2007
8 February 2005: The Spector Trial
12 Mar 2007
At the age of 40, Lana Clarkson, an actress who had appeared in 15 movies and countless TV shows, had hit a lean time in her career, and was trying to get back on her feet.
PRIMARILY BARBARIAN QUEEN. NOT SURE THAT'S A MOVIE, HOWEVER.
For Lana, 2002 had been a particularly difficult year. The roles that had made her a minor cult star in her twenties, and sustained her through her early thirties, had all but dried up.
She had been named after the Hollywood movie star Lana Turner, a fact that seemed to set her destiny in stone.
Growing up in California's Napa Valley, she dreamt of being an entertainer, and when the family moved to Los Angeles in 1978, when Lana was 16, she began a career in acting and modelling.
DID MICK BROWN FIND THE STORY I DID - ABOUT LANA CLARKSON'S FAMILY LIVING IN A COMMUNE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE SHE WAS FED THE MEAT OF HER CHILDHOOD PONY?
SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE WERE ON LSD AT THAT COMMUNE.
At 20 she made her film debut in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, playing the role of a geekish schoolteacher's improbably beautiful wife. She had one line of dialogue: "Hi..."
SO DID REBECCA DEMORNAY - COHEN'S INCREDIBLY ANNOYING EX.
Her big break came in 1985, in Barbarian Queen, as Amethea, a warrior in a fur leotard, leading a slave uprising.
I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD VIEW THIS AS A BIG BREAK. IT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT BE AN ENTRY TO THE PORN INDUSTRY.
It was a part the statuesque Lana seemed made for, and became the passport to a succession of similarly low-budget films, such as Amazon Women on the Moon and The Empress Strikes Back, which brought her a large and devoted fan base.
Semi-nudity was an almost obligatory requirement of such films, but Lana was never comfortable with it. ]
SURE. DID SOMEONE HOLD A GUN TO HER HEAD?
According to her friend, the celebrity hairstylist Eric Root, Lana "wanted to be a superstar. And she was gorgeous enough."
BEAUTY'S RELATIVE AND WHAT ELSE WOULD HER HAIRDRESSER SAY? HE WAS PART OF HER IMAGE.
Her dream of fame is the oldest story in Hollywood. She worshipped the twin doomed deities of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, and collected Monroe memorabilia, covering her walls with pictures of the star.
ACTUALLY CORRUPTION AND LA CONFIDENTIAL STORIES ARE SOME OF THE OLDEST IN HOLLYWOOD. ELVIS AND MARILYN WEREN'T DEITIES AND NEITHER IS JIHAD GIANELLI'S
DOG WHO SHITS OR VOMITS ON PUJAS AND HAS IT OUT FOR SHARMAPA - ANOTHER TARGET OF MICK BROWN'S WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE 16TH KARMAPA. WHY WOULD THE
16TH KARMAPA LEAVE TIBET WITHOUT ONE OF THE SINGULAR MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS IN HIS LIFE - THE BLACK CROWN? ONLY A LIAR OR IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THIS.
"This is not to imply that I wish to live the sort of lonely and narcotics-shrouded existence she did," she wrote on her website. "What I love about her is her essence, her work and her commitment to it."
UNFORTUNATELY, SHE DID LEAD THE LIFE OF SOMEONE SHROUNDED IN DRUGS AND ALCOHOL.
Lana knew everybody. She was said to have dated Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.
WELL, NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK HERE. YOU'RE SO VAIN COMES TO MIND HOWEVER.
Answering fans' queries on her website, Lana was careful not to give too much of herself away - "I prefer to keep my love life private!" she wrote in one posting, then hinted teasingly at revelations to come.
HOW ABOUT HER BABY DOLL GIBSON TRYSTS? HER LOVE AFFAIR WITH RAUL LEVY WHO SAID SHE PLAYED KINKY SEX GAMES WITH GUNS AND TRIED TO THROW HERSELF OFF A BALCONY IN FRONT OF HIM? DIDN'T MICK BROWN GOOGLE THESE
THINGS? WHY DID BROWN THINK THE JUDGE GAGGED GIBSON AND EVERYONE WITH A SENSE OF DECENCY?
"As far as past relationships, there have been some great loves (some of them famous), but you'll have to read about them in my book. That won't be completed for a couple of years yet."
WOW! NOT RELATIONSHIPS WITH FAMOUS PEOPLE. FOR THE RECORD, I WAS NOT LEONARD COHEN'S LOVER. UNFORTUNATELY, I MUST NOW WRITE A BOOK. I WANT TO SET
THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR MY CHILDREN. AND, IF POSSIBLE, I WANT TO HELP MY DEAR FRIEND PHIL SPECTOR. I ALSO NEVER HAD SEX WITH OLIVER STONE EVEN THOUGH LEONARD COHEN HAS ACCUSED ME OF DOING THAT - HIS FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE WHEN HE HEARD I WAS REPORTING HIS TAX FRAUD TO THE IRS.
By the mid-1990s, Lana's film and television career was on the wane and she would say that nowadays she considered herself a comedienne.
THIS VIDEO OF HER AS LITTLE RICHARD COULD ACTUALLY PROVE HOW SERIOUS HER DRUG PROBLEM WAS. ONLY THE LOST ANGELES DISTRICT LUNATIC WOULD ATTEMPT TO
GLAMORIZE THIS SITUATION.
She devised a stand-up routine, developing a range of comic characters, along the lines of Tracey Ullman, and started working small comedy clubs. Lana's shows were always full. But in the absence of acting roles, she needed something else.
WHERE WERE HER SOLD OUT SHOWS? WHAT ELSE DOES SHE NEED? RIGHT - VICODIN.
In December 2002 she applied for a job as hostess at the House of Blues on the Sunset Strip, across from the Chateau Marmont Hotel. The Foundation Room, or VIP lounge, of HOB is frequented by high rollers from the rock and film worlds. Membership costs $1,000 (£500) a year; champagne, $250 a bottle.
LOTS OF EXCESS IN HOLLYWOOD AND YET PHILLIP IS DEMONIZED FOR HELPING WAITRESSES BY LEAVING THEM EXTREMELY GENEROUS TIPS THAT ANYONE WOULD APPRECIATE.
It wasn't Lana's first choice for a job but she told friends she enjoyed the work, and was optimistic it would lead to better things. "I am going to meet people," she told one friend. "And it might get me another job."
WHAT WAS HER FIRST CHOICE FOR A JOB? MAYBE GOING HOME WITH PHIL SPECTOR WOULD HELP HER GET ANOTHER JOB. SHE CLEARLY THINKS LIKE THAT.
She worked from 6pm until 2am. It was 1.45am on February 3 when Phil Spector walked in. The details of what occurred would emerge during the next two years, from a combination of police evidence, the coroner's report and testimony to a grand jury.
THE DETAILS DIDN'T EMERGE. THE POLICE REPORTS ARE DERANGED AND SOUND LIKE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE STORMING THE BASTILLE. AH, THE GRAND JURY. MICK
BROWN KNOWS - LEONARD COHEN TESTIFIED AGAINST PHIL SPECTOR. I GUESS BROWN WAS UNABLE TO GOOGLE ALL THE VERSIONS OF COHEN'S STORIES - INCLUDING THE ONE WHERE HE'S BITING INTO REVOLVERS IN HAMBURGERS IN A DARK PERIOD.
At a few minutes before 7pm on February 2, Adriano De Souza, Spector's stand-in driver, arrived at the producer's secluded home, the Alhambra castle.
HOW SECLUDED WAS HIS HOME? SOUNDS SO MYSTERIOUS.
Spector had a dinner date with a woman friend, Romy Davis. Two hours later, Spector dropped Davis off at her home and returned to the restaurant - he had made another assignation with a waitress, Kathy Sullivan.
DID PHILLIP MAKE AN ASSIGNATION? HOW ODD.
They ended up at the House of Blues, arriving at 1.30am. According to the police, Spector had been drinking at each stop along the way, consuming three, possibly four, daiquiri cocktails as well as two Navy Grog cocktails, each containing three shots of different kinds of rum.
WAS IT THREE OR FOUR? DID HE FINISH THEM? DO WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS? VIDEO FOOTAGE? OVER HOW MANY HOURS? HOW ABOUT CLARKSON'S TEQUILLA CONSUMPTION? THAT SOUNDED FAIRLY HEAVY.
Lana was waiting at her post at the entrance of the Foundation Room to greet new arrivals.
THE HOUSE OF BLUES SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUND OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
There was a moment's confusion; Lana did not know or recognise Spector and initially refused to let him into the members-only area.
SHE REALIZED WHO HE WAS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
Spector began to complain loudly, and another House of Blues employee, Euphrates Lalondriz, came to smooth things over, telling Lana who Spector was and that he was to be treated "like Dan Ackroyd - like gold". (Ackroyd has a share in the club.)
WHO WOULDN'T COMPLAIN? I TRIED TO LEAVE THE VIP ROOM. MY EX-HUSBAND AND I WERE THERE, AT THE INVITATION OF THE REGGAE PERFORMER WHO WANTED TO SPEAK
TO HIM ABOUT PRODUCING HIS ALBUM, WHEN I DECIDED TO LEAVE. I HEADED FOR THE EXIT SIGN AND SOME INSANE BOUNCER STARTED AN ARGUMENT WITH US. LINDSEY NEARLY HIT HIM. I ASKED FOR THE MANAGER, EXPLAINED WHO WE WERE, AND WAS OFFERED A LIFE TIME MEMBERSHIP. IT WAS AND REMAINS A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE.
Spector ordered a shot of Bacardi 151 rum "straight up". When Kathy Sullivan ordered only water, Spector grew angry, telling her to "get a f****** drink". Sullivan, who had been complaining of tiredness, refused and Spector told her: "That's it - you're going home."
ST I SEE PHILIP HAD IT WITH KATHY.
Spector called for Lana and told her to walk Sullivan to his car and tell De Souza to take her home, then return to collect Spector. He had purchased an $8.50 alcoholic drink and a $5 water and left a tip of $450. After settling the bill, Spector tried to order another drink but was told the bar was closed.
MOST PEOPLE CALL FOR THE STAFF WHEN THEY NEED SOMETHING. NICE OF PHILLIP TO SHIP KATHY HOME WITH HIS DRIVER. I WONDER WHAT THEY GOSSIPED ABOUT ON THE
WAY HOME.
At around 2am, Lalondriz overheard Lana on his headset asking if she could accept an invitation from Spector to have a drink.
SOUNDS OUTRAGEOUS.
Lalondriz heard the club manager tell her that she could not drink, but could sit with Spector. Lana was seen talking to Spector for a few minutes before the two walked out of the room together.
HOW CONVENIENT FOR THE HOUSE OF BLUES. I SEE THEIR LAWYERS THOUGHT THEY HAD LIABILITY.
Two minutes later, De Souza saw Spector emerge from the club, helped by Lana. As De Souza opened the door, Spector invited Lana to go home with him. She declined.
WHY WAS CLARKSON WALKING WITH HIM IF SHE WASN'T LEAVING WITH HIM?
Spector then offered her a lift to her car, which Lana accepted. During the drive, Spector continued to press his invitation, "More than once. Two, three times," according to De Souza. Finally, Lana relented.
THIS SOUNDS DERANGED. TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT PHILLIP. FOUR PERJURED STATEMENTS TO IMMIGRATION. AND VOILA - A GREEN CARD. INTERESTING HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS.
At the House of Blues employee parking lot, Lana got into her car. De Souza and Spector now followed Lana to a side street off La Cienega Boulevard where she parked her car.
As Lana got into Spector's Mercedes, she leant forward to De Souza and told him, "This will be quick. Only one drink." Spector turned to her. "You don't need to talk to the driver."
LANA CLARKSON NOW CONTROLS PHIL SPECTOR'S DRIVER. THE SITUATION IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL. I HAVE WITNESSED THIS SO MANY TIMES, IT IS NOT FUNNY. SEE SCOTT RABBS ARTICLE IN ESQUIRER AND THE SITUATION WITH BILL PAVELIC AND MICHELLE BLAINE WHO APPEARED TO BE ABOUT READY TO PROJECTILE VOMIT.
They arrived at Spector's home at about 3am. Spector and Lana got out and set off up the 88 steps towards the house. According to De Souza, Spector had some difficulty walking.
WHY?
Around 15 minutes later, Spector came out of the back door. According to De Souza "he looked mad" and disoriented. For the next 90 minutes or so De Souza waited in the car.
DID HE LOOK DISORIENTED? WHAT COULD THAT POSSIBLY MEAN? FELL ASLEEP IN THE CAR. HAD A SIESTA. ATE SOME SNACKS. WAS LISTENING TO THE RADIO. FOUNTAIN ON. AN ILLEGAL WORKER IN THE U.S. IS ABOUT TO BE FORCED TO ENCOUNTER THE POLICE OVER WHAT COULD BE - IN HIS MIND - A MURDER.
Then at 5am he heard what he would later describe as a soft popping sound. De Souza, who had served in the Brazilian military, thought he recognised it as a gunshot. He got out of the car, but could see nothing amiss and returned to the Mercedes.
DID SOMEONE FROM THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY THINK A GUNSHOT SOUNDED LIFE A SOFT POPPING SOUND? THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY MIGHT WANT TO VET THEIR SOLDIERS MORE CAREFULLY. THE DRIVER SEES NOTHING AND PROBABLY NEVER GOT OUT OF PHILLIP'S CAR. COMPLETELY IRRELVANT IN ANY EVENT.
It was then that Spector emerged from the back door, dressed in the clothes he had worn that evening. In his right hand was a revolver, which he was holding across his body. De Souza could see blood on the back of Spector's hand.
DID HE EMERGE FROM THE BACK DOOR? ISN'T PHILLIP LEFT HANDED? WHY WOULD HE BE HOLDING A GUN ACROSS HIS BODY? HOW DID HE SEE BLOOD ON THE BACK OF PHILLIP'S HAND - DOES HE HAVE XRAY VISION? OH RIGHT, MICK BROWN AND THE DA AND GOLD DIGGERS ARE WRITING THIS ... WHAT AM I THINKING?
It was at that point, according to De Souza, that Spector said: "I think I killed somebody." Looking past him into the hallway, De Souza could see Lana, slumped in a chair with blood on her face.
HE WASN'T GAZING PAST HIM OR LOOKING LOVINGLY IN HIS EYES? I SAW CLARKSON SLUMPED. IT LOOKED LIKE SHE FELL BACK INTO THE CHAIR AND PHILLIP WOULD HAVE TO BE STRATTLING HER TO HAVE SHOT HER IN THE MOUTH WHICH SOUNDS DERANGED.
He asked: "What happened, sir?" Spector shrugged and said, "I don't know." He then turned back towards the house.
SIR. I THOUGHT PHILLIP JUST SAID HE KILLED HER SO WHY WOULDN'T HE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NOW?
De Souza tried to call 911 on his mobile phone, but was so shaken he was unable to make the call. He climbed back into the car and set off back down the drive.
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT HE TRIED TO CALL 911 PRIOR TO CALLING BLAINE? WHY DID HE TAKE PHILLIP'S CAR? WAS HE GOING TO STEAL IT?
Part of the way down, he stopped and telephoned Spector's assistant, Michelle Blaine, leaving a message on her voice mail: "You have to come here. I think Mr Spector killed somebody." He then continued down the driveway to the entrance and dialled 911.
THE PERFECT STORM BEGINS. BLAINE HAS STOLEN NEARLY $1 MILLION FROM PHILLIP.
The first police car arrived at the gate of Spector's house shortly after 5am.
WHERE'S THE AMBULANCE?
According to Officer Michael Page, Spector appeared "mildly agitated". Spector was told to put his hands up, and did so before putting them back into his pockets. He turned to go into the house saying: "You got to come see this."
REALLY. MILDLY AGITATED. HE TOLD HIS COUSIN ANTHONY THAT PHILLIP LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GOING FOR A GUN. PHILLIP INVITES THEM INTO HIS HOUSE AND WHAT
UNFOLDS IS PSYCHOTIC.
He was again warned to take his hands out of his pockets and, when he refused, Page fired a Taser dart at him. It didn't work. Spector backed further into the house, pursued by another officer. Another dart was fired, again with no effect, and Spector was restrained and handcuffed.
THE TASER DART WORKED. PAGE IS A PATHETIC LIAR AND SO ARE HIS COWORKERS. TWO TASERS HAD NO EFFECT. TO SAY PHIL SPECTOR WAS RESTRAINED IS AN OUTRAGE.
Then Page looked up and saw the body of Lana slumped in a chair.
AMAZING. PERHAPS PAGE THOUGHT HE WAS AT A FOOTBALL GAME INITIALLY. WHY DIDN'T PAGE BRING A MEDIC IN WITH HIM?
"She had what appeared to be a single entry gunshot wound to the mouth," the police report would state. Broken teeth - her teeth - were scattered about the foyer and an adjacent stairway. Lying on the floor under her left leg was a Colt.38-calibre six-shot revolver. A check of the weapon serial number was negative. There was blood splattered on the weapon.
MY GOD. WHAT PHIL SPECTOR WITNESSED IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE WEAPON, ACCORDING TO BRUCE CUTLER, WAS NOT PHIL SPECTOR'S. WHEN PEOPLE SHOOT THEMSELVES THERE IS USUALLY BLOOD SPATTER ON THE WEAP0N.
One of the attending officers, Beatrice Rodriguez, said she heard Spector say: "What's wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation."
SHE'S A LIAR AND HER BUDDIES DIDN'T HEAR THIS EXCHANGE.
That statement was not captured on tape. But immediately afterwards Officer Page activated his cassette recorder, and captured the subsequent exchanges between Spector and police.
WHY DID PAGE DECIDE TO ACTIVATE THE CASSETTE RECORDER NOW RATHER THAN WHEN THEY FIRST APPROACHED PHILLIP? WHY DID PAGE HAVE SOMEONE THROW SOMETHING OVER
THE VIDEO CAMERA? PAGE THINKS LIKE THIS: WE COULD HAVE LEGAL LIABILITY. THIS IS A CELEBRITY. LET'S COVER UP ANY EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING IN CASE WE SCREW UP.
Spector continued: "If you're gonna arrest me, just tell me what happened... Jesus. You know you're acting stupid. Get the f*** off of me! This is stupid. I'm sorry there's a dead woman here. But I'm sorry but this happened. I can explain it but if you'd just give me a chance... You don't have to handcuff me. I can tell you what happened. What's wrong with you people? Jack Maple worked for me. Jesus Christ, the chief of police worked for me...
REALLY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST SOMEONE TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED - SINCE YOU WEREN'T THERE. WHO WOULDN'T BE SORRY THERE WAS A DEAD WOMAN IN THEIR HOUSE
AND WHO WOULDN'T RUSH TO THEIR AID? LAPD DID WORK FOR PHIL SPECTOR - SEE JAY ROMAINE/LAPD ROBBERY HOMICIDE. I THINK HE WAS PROBABLY ARMED. MAYBE HE WAS ONE OF THE ARMED MEN LEONARD COHEN ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT. ARMED TO THE TEETH EVIDENTLY.
'I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened, but it happened and I'm sorry this happened. But, excuse me... The gun went off accidentally. She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don't understand what the f***, you people, is wrong with you? Jack Maple worked for me. He worked for the chief of police. Oh, God. I'm just gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep"
POOR PHILLIP.
The coroner's report would later note that the weapon found under Lana's leg was "apparently taken" from a holster, which the police found, also stained with blood, in a drawer in the hall.
WHY WAS IT APPARENTLY TAKEN FROM A HOLSTER? SO THE GUN WAS PLACED BACK IN THE HOLSTER AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS BLOOD ON IT? SOUNDS INSANE.
Although Lana's blood remained in the engraving and in other recessed areas of the weapon, the gun had been wiped after the shooting. In a powder room off the hall, police found a cloth soaked in both water and Lana's blood lying on the floor.
PHILLIP RUSHED TO HER AID.
In an upstairs dressing room, thrown on the floor, police found the white jacket that Spector had been wearing that evening; the left sleeve and front of the jacket were covered in a mist-like spray of Lana's blood. A search of the house uncovered 13 other guns and ammunition of the same type as that in the Colt.38.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN AROUND BLOOD THAT'S ALL OVER? IT SMELLS TERRIBLY. IT IS THICK AND STICKY. I KNOW. LORCA COHEN'S DOG IMPALED HIMSELF ATTEMPTING TO GET OUT OF HER APARTMENT AND THE ENTIRE FLAT WAS COVERED IN BLOOD. I HAD TO CHANGE MY CLOTHES AND WASH UP AFTER CLEANING UP.
Two cocktail glasses, one containing trace amounts of alcohol, were found. Toxicology showed Lana's blood contained "therapeutic levels" of Vicodin, an opiate-based painkiller.
WHAT IS A THERAPEUTIC LEVEL OF VICODIN? IT'S A POWERFUL OPIATE-BASED PAINKILLER THAT SHOULD NOT BE MIXED WITH ALCOHOL AND GUNS.
Paramedics waited for almost an hour before being allowed in. At 6.24am, five hours after her first meeting with Phil Spector, Lana Clarkson was pronounced dead.
COPS ARRIVED AT 5 AM. THEREFORE, IT TOOK ONE AND A HALF HOURS FOR THE POLICE TO BRING IN MEDICS. PHIL SPECTOR FOUND THIS UNCONSCIONABLE - AS DO I.
Tearing Down the Wall of Sound by Mick Brown (Bloomsbury) can be ordered for £14.99 plus £1.25 p&p from Telegraph Books (0870 428 4112)
BROWN WILL NOW PROFIT OFF OF PHIL SPECTOR'S SUFFERING AND ALIGN HIMSELF WITH BLAINE, SPROCKET, THE DARWIN EXCEPTION, AND OTHER SHADY CHARACTERS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631681/I-think-I-killed-somebody.html
Showing posts with label Truc Do. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truc Do. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Cyber-terrorists - Kelly Green & Sprocket - Descend Online With Their Vile Rhetoric - The Mouth Pieces For LA Confidential
Blogger kellygreen said...
Apparently today is judgement day for Spector. Yep, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 is the day the Supremes will decide wether or not they will hear Spector's case. So, what do your guys think: will the Supremes hear his case or will they tell Spector that he's going to die alone in a dank prison cell?
February 21, 2012 1:40 AM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4410281564721246856&postID=2880935757215465539
kellygreen said...
Honestly, does anyone care about the trial bridezilla? The second she realizes he's only going to leave prison in a body bag, she'll be gone as will ALL his money! They deserve one another.
February 21, 2012 1:48 AM
Sprocket said...
What was "really gone" was that music career she pursued. Maybe she really thought she was the next Whitney Houston....
February 21, 2012 4:53 AM
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/02/phil-spectors-us-supreme-court-appeal.html
Apparently today is judgement day for Spector. Yep, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 is the day the Supremes will decide wether or not they will hear Spector's case. So, what do your guys think: will the Supremes hear his case or will they tell Spector that he's going to die alone in a dank prison cell?
February 21, 2012 1:40 AM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4410281564721246856&postID=2880935757215465539
kellygreen said...
Honestly, does anyone care about the trial bridezilla? The second she realizes he's only going to leave prison in a body bag, she'll be gone as will ALL his money! They deserve one another.
February 21, 2012 1:48 AM
Sprocket said...
What was "really gone" was that music career she pursued. Maybe she really thought she was the next Whitney Houston....
February 21, 2012 4:53 AM
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/02/phil-spectors-us-supreme-court-appeal.html
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
David Mamet Convinced Of Phil Spector's Innocence
The writer/director explains why he decided to make a movie for HBO about the disgraced music producer, who is now in prison on second-degree murder charges for the 2003 killing of Lana Clarkson:
Mr. Mamet says he didn't care about the trial as it was happening, but when his agent urged him to see a 2009 documentary on Mr. Spector, he became intrigued. He went from considering Mr. Spector a killer to questioning his guilt in the 2003 murder of Lana Clarkson. Watching the film, he says he found himself thinking: "There's no way he killed that girl. He got convicted of 'I don't like you."
Al Pacino will star in the HBO movie.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/david_mamet_convinced_of_phil_1.html
Monday, May 23, 2011
Justice! LA Confidential Style - Concealment, Witness Tampering, Judicial Misconduct, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Probable Juror Misconduct
-
Regarding Psychological Mechanisms and an Illusive Critter - The Truth.
If you were in Punkin Pie's shoes and if the Lana Clarkson family lawyer and others tampered with you in a criminal investigation by telling you to withhold information about Lana Clarkson’s suicidal thoughts heard a few days before she died. What would you do in that situation that is if you were able to throw off this oppression later?
If it is true that Punkin Pie had initially been oppressed by others into keeping Lana Clarkson's suicidal thoughts to herself then Pie may have initially gone along with the story of Spector's alleged guilt for a year or more.
But once Pie set herself free of her oppression in having to keep silent and cover up what her best friend Lana Clarkson had said to Pie days before Lana Clarkson died - then it is possible that at the trial Pie was too embarrased to admit that she initiallly had made disparaging remarks against Spector in front of him.
What Happens When Government Uses Bloggers As Their Mouthpieces & Vehicles For Their High Profile Celebrity Sport Trials
Full Court Coverage
What happens when defense counsel and ordinary citizens blog about high-profile trials?
Posted Jan 1, 2008 3:04 PM CDT
By Stephanie Francis Ward
Some say Los Angeles prosecutor Alan Jackson has movie-star looks. Others compare him to a game-show host. But the most unusual characterization of the man who prosecuted music producer Phil Spector on murder charges likened him to a bulldog named Chance in the 1993 Disney movie Homeward Bound. “Of course, AJ is much smarter and more cautious than Chance, but overall personalities seem to fit,” wrote Betsy Ross in Trials & Tribulations, her blog that focused on the Spector prosecution.
A semiretired massage therapist who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Sherman Oaks, Betsy Ross (yes, that’s her real name) regularly attended Spector’s trial in the 2003 killing of B-movie actress Lana Clarkson. She was one of at least three nonjournalists who blogged about the trial regularly, but the only one to merit a mention in Dominick Dunne’s column in Vanity Fair.
“I was trying to bring my readers into the courtroom with me,” says Ross, who blogs under the handle “Sprocket.” Her observations took a decidedly pro-prosecution lean. And Ross’ writing style often includes details and descriptions that would probably not be included in mainstream press coverage.
The case ended in a mistrial on Sept. 26, but Ross continues to write about Spector on her blog, and she plans to cover his retrial.
The Spector trial—which ended in a hung jury—is Ross’ second. Her first was the murder trial of actor Robert Blake, who in 2005 was acquitted of murdering his wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley. Also a fan of true crime message boards, Ross posted her observations about Blake’s trial on the boards. Later, after copying and pasting significant blocks of text, she started Trials & Tribulations; she now posts links to her blog on various message boards.
(Los Angeles district attorney’s office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office would not comment on Trials & Tribulations because of the pending retrial.)
...
Read the entire article:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/full_court_coverage/
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Preserving the Value of Unanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Anti-Deadlock Instructions by Emil J. Bove III
C. CALIFORNIA’S APPROACH: THE PHIL SPECTOR TRIAL
California rejected the Allen charge in 1977,201 and, perhaps relatedly, trials
in its state courts appear to end in deadlock-related mistrials more frequently
than the national average.202 Like Arizona’s court rules, California’s court rules
also permit flexible action by the trial court when the jury reaches an “impasse”:
(a) Determination
After a jury reports that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, the
trial judge may, in the presence of counsel, advise the jury of its duty to
decide the case based on the evidence while keeping an open mind and
talking about the evidence with each other. The judge should ask the jury if it
has specific concerns which, if resolved, might assist the jury in reaching a
verdict.
(b) Possible further action
If the trial judge determines that further action might assist the jury in
reaching a verdict, the judge may:
(1) Give additional instructions;
(2) Clarify previous instructions;
(3) Permit attorneys to make additional closing arguments; or
(4) Employ any combination of these measures.203
The most notable distinction from Arizona’s rule is that California does not
suggest that the evidence may be reopened upon a question from the jury.
Music producer Phil Spector’s recent murder trial presents an example in
which the trial court risked stretching this rule so far that the proceedings would
damage the legitimacy of the jury process. Spector was accused of killing
actress Lana Clarkson in 2003.204 The much-publicized trial lasted four
months.205 After deliberating for seven days, the jury indicated that it was
deadlocked, noting that the split was seven votes to five but following the
judge’s instructions not to reveal which side had the majority.206 Three jurors
suggested that additional instructions would be helpful, including more guid-
The judge then “elicited a back-and-forth with several jurors as he sought to
pinpoint what issues they were stuck on.”208 The jurors indicated disagreement
about the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and that they were confused about
how to weigh the evidence and interpret an instruction regarding the elements
of second-degree murder.209 Following this exchange, the judge rejected the
option of additional instructions on lesser-included offenses, agreeing with the
defense that such instructions might coerce the jury into believing that a verdict
was necessary at all costs.210 In the end, the judge simply re-read most of the
instructions, removing language he said misstated the law and adding additional
instructions about “reasonable doubt.”211 After about another week of additional
deliberation, the judge declared a mistrial due to the deadlock.212 Upon being
discharged, jurors indicated that two “holdouts” in favor of Spector had prevented
the conviction.213
The biggest problem with the judge’s actions in this case is that there is a
great risk in conducting the type of back-and-forth that took place in this trial; it
injects too many unknowns into the process. Jurors are likely to put great
emphasis on everything that the judge says or asks. Even subtle facial expressions
from the judge risk the type of influence that the anti-coercion principle
seeks to avoid—the judge should not inappropriately affect the deliberations
taking place in the jury room while they are in progress. Juries frequently ask to
review evidence or to have testimony read to them, and some interaction with
the court during deliberations is probably unavoidable in many cases. Nonetheless,
these interactions should be circumscribed as much as possible. That is
why both the Arizona and California rules permit the judge to solicit indications
via notes from the jury about questions or other things that might help it reach a
verdict, but the rules suggest that conducting this inquiry through in-court
conversation is not appropriate. The judge in the Spector case seems to have run
afoul of the rule and risked tainting the process.
Second, the judge’s alterations to the jury instructions were probably a
mistake. He was correct not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included charge of
manslaughter after it had reached an impasse.214 Substituting a lesser-included
charge after deliberations had begun would suggest to the jury that the court
preferred some type of conviction in the case, even if on a different charge,
rather than a mistrial.
By removing part of the initial murder instruction, however, the judge
conveyed a “not-so-subtle message to the jury that there may be more ways to
find Spector guilty than they have been thinking of . . . .”215 The jury could infer
from the new instruction that, because the initial instruction was so incorrect
that it had to be removed, they should look more carefully at the charge in the
first place. If the latter instruction seemed more permissive, it would suggest to
the jury that it should look more carefully at convicting Spector. Essentially, by
making this change, the judge “alter[ed] the rules by which a jury makes a
decision.”216 Even if a curative measure was available for the erroneous instruction
in the first place, the judge impermissibly invaded the province of the jury.
The close, public scrutiny of his actions meant that, even if the jury had reached
a verdict, society would certainly not have accepted it as a legitimate stamp of
disapproval of Spector’s actions.
The interaction illustrates the fragility of the symbolism associated with the
jury system. The rules in both Arizona and California offer judges wide latitude
in dealing with and “assisting” split juries, but most trial courts are hesitant to
go beyond re-reading instructions before declaring a mistrial. Their actions
demonstrate appropriate regard for the sanctity of the jury’s deliberations and
the symbolic legitimacy that attaches to verdicts resulting from a process
requiring unanimous verdicts. Departing too far from contemporary antideadlock
instructions to “assist” the jury through the procedures available in
these states might reduce the incidence of mistrials, but these actions also risk
damaging the perceived legitimacy of the criminal process. Most judges do not
go too far with the more radical methods of dealing with divided juries. Nor
should they.
CONCLUSION
This Note articulated some instrumental principles to guide the debate regarding
anti-deadlock instructions. Properly defined, the primary concern in handling
a divided jury is that the judge may coerce jurors in a way that taints the
ultimate verdict, prevents it from being the product of the jury’s deliberations,
and limits the extent to which the community accepts the products of the
criminal justice system as legitimate. The sanctity of the deliberation room and
the concept that the verdict is solely the jury’s should be paramount concerns.
Although unanimity does not necessarily provide major benefits in terms of
instruction would look. . . . The defense will easily argue that if the jury then comes back with a guilty verdict on manslaughter, it was ‘a tainted compromise verdict . . . .’”) ...
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/97-1/Bove.PDF
California rejected the Allen charge in 1977,201 and, perhaps relatedly, trials
in its state courts appear to end in deadlock-related mistrials more frequently
than the national average.202 Like Arizona’s court rules, California’s court rules
also permit flexible action by the trial court when the jury reaches an “impasse”:
(a) Determination
After a jury reports that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, the
trial judge may, in the presence of counsel, advise the jury of its duty to
decide the case based on the evidence while keeping an open mind and
talking about the evidence with each other. The judge should ask the jury if it
has specific concerns which, if resolved, might assist the jury in reaching a
verdict.
(b) Possible further action
If the trial judge determines that further action might assist the jury in
reaching a verdict, the judge may:
(1) Give additional instructions;
(2) Clarify previous instructions;
(3) Permit attorneys to make additional closing arguments; or
(4) Employ any combination of these measures.203
The most notable distinction from Arizona’s rule is that California does not
suggest that the evidence may be reopened upon a question from the jury.
Music producer Phil Spector’s recent murder trial presents an example in
which the trial court risked stretching this rule so far that the proceedings would
damage the legitimacy of the jury process. Spector was accused of killing
actress Lana Clarkson in 2003.204 The much-publicized trial lasted four
months.205 After deliberating for seven days, the jury indicated that it was
deadlocked, noting that the split was seven votes to five but following the
judge’s instructions not to reveal which side had the majority.206 Three jurors
suggested that additional instructions would be helpful, including more guid-
The judge then “elicited a back-and-forth with several jurors as he sought to
pinpoint what issues they were stuck on.”208 The jurors indicated disagreement
about the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and that they were confused about
how to weigh the evidence and interpret an instruction regarding the elements
of second-degree murder.209 Following this exchange, the judge rejected the
option of additional instructions on lesser-included offenses, agreeing with the
defense that such instructions might coerce the jury into believing that a verdict
was necessary at all costs.210 In the end, the judge simply re-read most of the
instructions, removing language he said misstated the law and adding additional
instructions about “reasonable doubt.”211 After about another week of additional
deliberation, the judge declared a mistrial due to the deadlock.212 Upon being
discharged, jurors indicated that two “holdouts” in favor of Spector had prevented
the conviction.213
The biggest problem with the judge’s actions in this case is that there is a
great risk in conducting the type of back-and-forth that took place in this trial; it
injects too many unknowns into the process. Jurors are likely to put great
emphasis on everything that the judge says or asks. Even subtle facial expressions
from the judge risk the type of influence that the anti-coercion principle
seeks to avoid—the judge should not inappropriately affect the deliberations
taking place in the jury room while they are in progress. Juries frequently ask to
review evidence or to have testimony read to them, and some interaction with
the court during deliberations is probably unavoidable in many cases. Nonetheless,
these interactions should be circumscribed as much as possible. That is
why both the Arizona and California rules permit the judge to solicit indications
via notes from the jury about questions or other things that might help it reach a
verdict, but the rules suggest that conducting this inquiry through in-court
conversation is not appropriate. The judge in the Spector case seems to have run
afoul of the rule and risked tainting the process.
Second, the judge’s alterations to the jury instructions were probably a
mistake. He was correct not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included charge of
manslaughter after it had reached an impasse.214 Substituting a lesser-included
charge after deliberations had begun would suggest to the jury that the court
preferred some type of conviction in the case, even if on a different charge,
rather than a mistrial.
By removing part of the initial murder instruction, however, the judge
conveyed a “not-so-subtle message to the jury that there may be more ways to
find Spector guilty than they have been thinking of . . . .”215 The jury could infer
from the new instruction that, because the initial instruction was so incorrect
that it had to be removed, they should look more carefully at the charge in the
first place. If the latter instruction seemed more permissive, it would suggest to
the jury that it should look more carefully at convicting Spector. Essentially, by
making this change, the judge “alter[ed] the rules by which a jury makes a
decision.”216 Even if a curative measure was available for the erroneous instruction
in the first place, the judge impermissibly invaded the province of the jury.
The close, public scrutiny of his actions meant that, even if the jury had reached
a verdict, society would certainly not have accepted it as a legitimate stamp of
disapproval of Spector’s actions.
The interaction illustrates the fragility of the symbolism associated with the
jury system. The rules in both Arizona and California offer judges wide latitude
in dealing with and “assisting” split juries, but most trial courts are hesitant to
go beyond re-reading instructions before declaring a mistrial. Their actions
demonstrate appropriate regard for the sanctity of the jury’s deliberations and
the symbolic legitimacy that attaches to verdicts resulting from a process
requiring unanimous verdicts. Departing too far from contemporary antideadlock
instructions to “assist” the jury through the procedures available in
these states might reduce the incidence of mistrials, but these actions also risk
damaging the perceived legitimacy of the criminal process. Most judges do not
go too far with the more radical methods of dealing with divided juries. Nor
should they.
CONCLUSION
This Note articulated some instrumental principles to guide the debate regarding
anti-deadlock instructions. Properly defined, the primary concern in handling
a divided jury is that the judge may coerce jurors in a way that taints the
ultimate verdict, prevents it from being the product of the jury’s deliberations,
and limits the extent to which the community accepts the products of the
criminal justice system as legitimate. The sanctity of the deliberation room and
the concept that the verdict is solely the jury’s should be paramount concerns.
Although unanimity does not necessarily provide major benefits in terms of
instruction would look. . . . The defense will easily argue that if the jury then comes back with a guilty verdict on manslaughter, it was ‘a tainted compromise verdict . . . .’”) ...
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/97-1/Bove.PDF
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Phil Spector Appellate Co-Counsel Charles Sevilla
Charles Sevilla
After receiving his law degree from the University of
Chuck has argued cases at all appellate levels, including several times before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a frequent speaker and presenter at legal conferences. Chuck has published books on legal humor and two novels about a fictional New York City defense lawyer, John Wilkes. He has authored numerous law review articles and is the co-author of a legal text, California Criminal Defense Practice, used by lawyers and in law schools throughout the country.
Chuck's complete resume (PDF 23K) including Bar activities and selected published opinions is available here.
http://www.charlessevilla.com/publications.htm
“Under California law, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct if he or she makes use of ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods' when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted.”
“A “reasonable probability” means “ ‘merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 455.)”
“A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.” ( Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 832, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) “If there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would understand the prosecutor's statements as an assertion that defense counsel sought to deceive the jury, misconduct would be established.” ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1302, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1.”
“Further, accusations that counsel fabricated a defense or misstated facts in order to deceive the jury are forbidden. (E.g., People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 30–31, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 211 P.3d 520.) The prosecutor's statement in closing argument that Dr. Kalish “got paid seven grand to meet for two hours with the defendant and come up with an excuse,” was not an argument based on the evidence. Rather, it was an unfair suggestion to the jurors that they should disregard Dr. Kalish's testimony because his testimony had been bought and paid for by defense counsel.”
People v. Higgins (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1075
Monday, April 18, 2011
An Unwitting Phil Spector Witnessed Clarkson Shoot Herself - No Doubt For Maximum Impact
Unwitting audience clap and cheer as teenager stabs himself to death on stage at open mic night
By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 12:59 AM on 18th April 2011
A troubled 19-year-old stabbed himself to death on stage at an open mic night after playing a song called Sorry For All the Mess.
Kipp Rusty Walker repeatedly plunged the six-inch blade into his chest as the audience clapped and cheered in the mistaken belief it was piece of performance art.
But when he collapsed in a pool of his own blood they started screaming in horror and rushed to help him, but his wounds were too severe and he died soon after.
Public suicide: Kipp Rusty Walker, who killed himself after playing a number on the keyboards at an open mic event in Bend, Oregon.
The bizarre suicide has left the community of Bend in Oregon stunned and wondering why he would end his life in such a public way.
But questions will be asked of mental health authorities after it emerged that Walker had told friends of his plan and had threatened to kill himself before.
On that occasion he had been taken in for treatment but was released back into the community.
Walker took his own life at the Strictly Organic Coffee Company in front of around 15 people during its open mic night.
He got up on stage and performed the number on the keyboard before killing himself.
He was taken to hospital but died shortly after.
Strictly Organic's co-owner Rhonda Ealy told TV news station KTVZ of the confused reaction among the audience as the horror unfolded.
Scene of the suicide: The venue when the teenager repeatedly stabbed himself
She said: ‘It was really unclear at first what was even happening.’
‘You know it is an open mic and it's a performance, people at first thought it was some sort of theatre.
‘Most people never have to see anything like that in their entire lives, and never have before, so it is a life-changing experience’.
One of Walker’s friends claimed that he had been planning to kill himself in a public place for some time.
The friend said: ‘It was almost like he wanted to prove a point, like there's no point in being scared of death because it's going to happen to us anyway,’
He added that Walker told him he first wanted to kill himself on March 20, so he told his parents who took him to the psychiatric unit at St Charles Medical Centre in Bend.
Walker, described as a transient, was released a few days later.
The friend added that there was nothing he could do to help Walker.
'I actually told him, I was like, "Dude, this is going to mess a lot of people up",' the friend said.
A 'life changing experience': Rhonda Ealy, the co-owner of the Strictly Organic Coffee Company in Bend, Oregon, is horrified that some of her customers had to witness a public suicide
The suicide has split opinion in Bend. Some people are sympathetic to Walker’s plight, others are outraged over his actions.
On the website of newspaper The Oregonian, one reader going by the name of Quashi wrote: ‘As the aunt of a talented young artist who also took his life at the age of 19, I am so saddened that he was not able to reach out to his friends and family for help.
‘We will never know the level of pain he suffered from so deeply that he chose to take his own life. Nor will he ever know the pain felt by those he left behind. This lasts forever.’
Another reader, Judahlevi, commented: ‘It is always a tragic act for someone to take their own life since all life is precious.
‘Nonetheless, he did not have the right to do this in front of an audience. The horrific memories of someone stabbing himself to death on stage in front of them is not something for anyone to have to be subjected to, or have to live with.
‘It is psychologically damaging for everyone in the audience, whether they admit it or not.
‘I feel more sympathy for the audience than the "performer".'
Another commenter who said he was a doctor added that such a public suicide could be to ‘demonstrate to others who are "normal" that there are others suffering to the point of suicide.'
‘It's kind of an "in your face you lucky b****** kind of approach", be it jumping from a bridge/tower or shooting/stabbing yourself in public.’
Bend Police Lieutenant Chris Carney said Walker’s family live in Alaska and have been notified.
He added that the incident was unlike anything he’d ever seen.
‘You know, 19 years with the Police Department, I can't think of any event similar to this where somebody's done something in such a public forum and not said anything in the process. So at this point, we still don't know the reason why he chose to do this, why he chose this location or anything and we probably never will would be my guess,’ he said.
A spokesman for St Charles Health System said officials would be working with Bend Police Department and the Deschutes County Public Health Department, to ‘discuss resources that are available in the community for those struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts.’
No investigation has begun into any potential errors in his treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)