"Oh, That Old Charlatan"

A funny thing happened on my way to meet Leonard Cohen. I bumped into a friend near the station, told her who I was going to see and waited for the reaction. I wasn't hoping for an awed whisper - everybody is too old for that now - but perhaps a slight widening of the eyes. Instead she said, "Oh, that old charlatan," and started laughing.


http://www.alanfranks.com/Leonard_Cohen.html

Leonard Cohen - A Charlatan (In The Truest Sense Of The Word)

A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.

The word comes from French charlatan, a seller of medicines who might advertise his presence with music and an outdoor stage show. The best known of the Parisian charlatans was Tabarin, who set up a stage in the Place Dauphin, Paris in 1618, and whose commedia dell'arte inspired skits and whose farces inspired Molière. Ultimately, etymologists trace "charlatan" from either the Italian ciarlare, to prattle; or from Cerretano, a resident of Cerreto, a village in Umbria, known for its quacks.^[1]

In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence people. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using roleplaying. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long since left town by the time the people who bought his "snake oil" or similarly named tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

Hieronymous Bosch paints a scene of a Renaissance mountebank fleecing incredulous gamblers.

In reported spiritual communications, a charlatan is a person who fakes evidence that a spirit is "making contact" with the medium and seekers. This has been challenged successfully by skeptics who wrote passwords and gave them to people of trust, containing a password that should be spoken by the person if he ever tried to make contact, to validate the truth of the claim. No such claim has been verified. Notable people who have successfully debunked the claims of purported supernatural mediums include Brazilian writer Monteiro Lobato and magician Houdini.

Synonyms for "charlatan" include "mountebank", "shyster", and "quack". "Mountebank" comes from the Italian montambanco or montimbanco based on the phrase monta in banco - literally referring to the action of a seller of dubious medicines getting up on a bench to address his audience of potential customers.^[2]

"Quack" is a reference to "quackery" or the practice of dubious medicine.

Wikipedia

Leonard Cohen - A Man Only Quantico Could Love & Truly Appreciate

Kelley Lynch's take on Leonard, based on the 20 years she worked for him, confirms the impressions I have. Her perceptions paint a portrait few fans would recognize. In her e-mails she describes him as:

A tireless micro-manager who employs a network of spies and informers who work for money,
favours, or the sheer joy of belonging.

An insatiable gossip who, over the years, has turned against all his friends, and constantly slanders them in private.

A narcissist totally obsessed with polishing his image as a modest genius who is also an enlightened Buddhist scholar, gifted poet and songwriter.

An artist deeply envious of people above him in the music business (e.g. Bob Dylan, Phil Spector,
the Beatles etc.), and also of genuine spiritual teachers like Chogyam Trungpa.

An abusive misogynist whose current girlfriend, Anjani Thomas, regularly sees (saw) a therapistspecialized in treating combat veterans suffering from post traumatic stress.

A recovering alcoholic addicted to prescription methamphetamines and hard core internet
pornography.

A delusional megalomaniac who actually believes he "wrote the Bible" and whose secret hobby is
studying serial killers.

A tormented manic-depressive who told Lynch he sometimes locks himself up at night because of an overwhelming urge to "go out and murder people."

Add to this list: a pathological liar and thief.

...

From inside his world of shadows and paranoia, Leonard gives repetitive interviews in which he acts the role of an old-fashioned sage stranded in an era that has forgotten how to be polite and decent. He used to talk about "love" and "justice" but actually practiced secrecy, control, and blind obedience to some unknown deity. In friends and followers, he rewards loyalty and punishes honesty. In his mind, and the minds of the people he secretly works for, the end justifies the means. These were never my values, or the values I was taught to live by.

Excerpt from Ann Diamond's letter to Simon

Leonard Cohen - Your Classic Narcissistic Personality Disorder Individual

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined.^[10] To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, he/she may also manifest wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply).

Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements.^[11] With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

This excerpt explains Leonard Cohen's response to working with Phil Spector. He felt humiliated when Phillip didn't want to finish the album and couldn't tolerate working with a legend. Cohen absolutely has a self-perceived sense of grandiosity.

Phil Spector's lawyers seek rehearing of appeal

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

(05-18) 16:15 PDT LOS ANGELES, (AP) --

Lawyers for music producer Phil Spector have asked an appeals court to take a second look at his arguments for a new trial.

In a petition to the California 2nd District Court of Appeal, the attorneys said the court's rejection of Spector's murder conviction appeal has left the legal community incredulous.

They suggested the court failed to consider the defense claim that the trial judge violated his neutrality in the case by allowing the prosecution to show a videotape of himself in closing arguments.

Spector was convicted two years ago of shooting actress Lana Clarkson to death at his Alhambra mansion in 2003. He's serving 19 years to life in prison on a second-degree murder conviction.

His first trial ended in a hung jury; the second ended in a conviction.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/18/national/a161535D99.DTL

Conversation With Detective Mark Lillenfeld - LA County Sheriff's Department

I advise ML that I know Phil Spector and intend to write a book, that will include information about an ex-partner of mine in LA (music industry); and that I intend to present the facts rather than argue my personal belief that Phillip is innocent. I inform him that I want to present a fair and well balanced overview and not the limited view permitted by the trial court.

Mark Lillenfeld:

I'm not the primary guy. There were 10 detectives helping the lead detective. The lead detective is Rich Tomlin. He was the top dog. I was in charge of the scene investigation and played a minor role. Rich Tomlin's number is 323-890-5630. He's a good guy.

KL: Why did the Sheriff's Department handle this investigation? [We discuss the fact that this can give the appearance of a conflict of interest …]

ML: Good question. The Sheriff's Department is the chief law enforcement agency in California under the Constitution. We are mandated to provide other smaller municipalities (with less financial resources) with assistance - such as investigations; bomb squads; SWAT. For almost 100 years, the Sheriff has provided homicide investigations for smaller police departments. We have a lot of expertise as well. We provide that service for many other municipalities - Alhambra, Menlo Park, Sierra Madre, etc.

KL: Are guns normally left at the scene of suicides for the investigators - and not left at the scene of homicides? This makes no sense to me. I explain that I've seen references to this repeatedly on the internet; possibly testimony at the trial; etc.

ML: In any type of death investigation - whether criminal (murder) or non-criminal death, the physical evidence would be reviewed; memorialized by photographs; etc.

KL: Was your mind made up, initially, as to whether this was a homicide vs. suicide?

ML: No. Not at all. When we roll up to a death scene - more often than not ... the information we got from the uniform cops at Alhambra ... is like the game of Telephone. Did you play that when you were young? [Gives me an example - Richard Nixon was a communist ... by the end of whisper down the lane it becomes ... Jane Fonda is a ballerina]. No pre-conceived idea that it was a murder.

We discuss the fact that I know Phillip; have a very good understanding of who he is; and was present for one incident presented at trial – the Carlyle - and know it was fabricated.

KL: I ask ML if the Sheriff's Department basically believes that all of PS's experts testified inaccurately, lied, etc.

ML: The rule of court governing expert witnesses - In California, everything is codified ... and then delineate what is or is not admissible. The Spector case became a battle of the experts. Clearly Mr. Spector's experts were cross-examined well and made [to appear] disingenuous. Since that time, it has been proven the case - [mentions Baden and Lee ... I suggest that we disregard these experts since there are myriad problems here from many many perspectives ... ML asks who I have in mind and I say Dr. Spitz] ... Dr. Spitz is a brilliant guy. He is well respected in his field. There is a minor criminal charge against him in the mid-West. He's well respected. [I note that accusing expert witnesses has become a problem and mention that Jules Zalon, a lawyer I know, raised this as a particularly discerning problem these days. I also note that this could happen to ML]. As far as his testimony in the Spector matter - it seemed kind of disingenuous. Our pathologist, Dr. Pena ...

At this point, I note that there is an Internal Memo at the DA's office (generated with respect to Killer King) essentially stating that Pena is willing to lie for his job/boss; possibly alter documents; and his credibility was seriously called into question. ML is "not familiar" with this memo.

ML: On a professional level, Dr. Pena ... he has been very ethical and bright. I have never had a problem with the guy.

KL: Dr. Pena stated, on the stand, that he could not conclude whether this was a suicide or homicide ... I ask ML for his personal opinion.

ML: I would say that this is a criminal homicide. In my own professional opinion, it is a criminal death. (mentions that this is his area of expertise - homicide).

KL: A lot of people believe Phillip was set up.

ML: [He is aware of this and states that] ... I'm from the mid-West. I'm open minded. I believe in the Constitution. [Notes that weird things happen in LA].

KL: Are Alan Jackson and Pat Dixon professional?

ML: [He believes they are professional ..., "I do"] ... They are human. AJ - I like him personally and professionally. If I was murdered I would want him handling the prosecution. I wouldn't want him dating my sister. [Believes he's ethical, bright, articulate.]

KL: Is Pat Dixon professional?

ML: He is a very bright guy. Seasoned. 35 years. He is professional. He has some quirks that not everyone loves. He's good at what he does ... [I believe ML said he was "beholden" to him but not sure I understand that].

ML and I discuss the Goodwin case for a moment. I note that after reading a bit about it, it is too complicated at first glance and will confuse issues I want to address in my book. I note that, somehow, the case seems dangerous - hit men and all. We discuss the fact that I worked in the music industry and understand artists, the amount of drugs, etc., in LA; my friend who died of drugs/alcohol; Eric's niece who shot herself in the head; etc. ML mentions the tv show "Entourage" and we do discuss excess in LA.

That's basically the end of the conversation. Mark Lillenfeld was professional; forthcoming; seemed entirely genuine; and believes Philip is guilty.

I left a message for Detective Tomlin (323-890-5630) and let him know that I would like to go back and review his testimony before speaking.

NOTE: At some point, ML asks if I was a witness in the PS matter. I explain that, while I was told I was probably a witness, I fought this because I have absolutely nothing to add to the mix … Phillip told me what happened (this is what the experts concluded) and there was no point in my taking the stand to say I liked Phillip. That’s my personal opinion and I cannot address personally what happened at Phillip’s house that night – apart from repeating what Phillip personally told me occurred. ML agreed – there was no point in my taking the stand. I advised him that I have spoken with Brian Bennett and Bill Frayeh – who I ultimately found to be entirely professional although for quite a while we were in adversarial positions.

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