Phil Spector, innocent?
David Mamet’s “Phil Spector” HBO film is an embarrassment to all Mamet fans and a total disgrace as history.
I am a historian. I analyze films.
Rarely, if ever, has a historical movie been worse in relating actual events than the HBO film “Phil Spector.”
David Mamet committed two murders. First, he murdered the truth. Then he murdered the reputation of Lana Clarkson, whose only real crime was to get in a car and go home with an egomaniacal misanthrope with a penchant for guns.
I don’t know if the bizarre disclaimer before the film – which essentially gave Mamet permission to simply make up fictional stories about real people during a real trial – was Mamet’s idea or that of a network which would be liable for the many blatant lies told in a supposedly historical film, but either way it set the tone for an evening of sheer nonsense. Was Phil Spector innocent? No.
Check out the weird disclaimer:
(This film is) not based on a true story. It is a drama inspired by actual persons in a trial, but it is neither an attempt to depict the actual persons, nor to comment upon the trial or its outcome.”
Was Phil Spector innocent? After watching the film, Ricardo Enriquez, a juror in the actual trial told me:
“Total fantasy and not a bit of resemblance to the events connected to the trial that I participated.”
Was Phil Spector innocent? Mamet does not believe Spector is guilty. In that regard, he disputes Phil Spector himself, who confessed at least twice – once to his limo driver, once to police officer Bea Rodriquez. Mamet also disputes 22 out of 24 jury members who heard all of the facts, not Mamet’s stories. He also disputes the trial court, several appellate courts, and the United States Supreme Court, all of which affirmed the conviction. To arrive at his bizarre conclusion, Mamet’s movie must do two important things. First, he must ignore or distort the forensic evidence. Then he must ignore all common sense. That is quite a burden, even for a filmmaker of Mr. Mamet’s enormous talent.
In fairness, Mr. Mamet never claimed to be telling the truth. When the mainstream media mostly ignored the retrial, as the evidence against Spector was overwhelming and his guilt obvious, the blog Trials and Tribulations edited by Sprocket (twitter: @SprocketTrials) followed the case minute by minute. She was harassed and bullied by Spector’s wife. Was Phil Spector innocent? Search the blog for specific topics that interest you about the REAL facts of the case.
Did Blood Splatter Patterns Prove Phil Spector Innocent?
The film argues that blood splatter patterns in Spector’s home could be interpreted as indicating Lana Clarkson shot herself. Assuming that was true, it ignores why the blood splatter patterns were inconsistent. They were marred because Phil Spector, instead of calling 911 or offering Lana Clarkson any first aid whatsoever, spent 45 minutes wiping down the crime scene – including Ms. Clarkson – with a diaper he dipped in the toilet. By trying desperately to clean up the crime scene, including changing clothes, wiping down the bannister, wall and smearing the blood on Lana Clarkson, Phil Spector attempted to cover up his crime.
After Phil Spector shot and killed Lana Clarkson, he confessed to his limo driver who clearly saw the gun in Spector’s hand outside the house. When the police arrived – remember that Mr. Spector did not choose to call them – they found the gun behind the left foot of the right handed Ms. Clarkson. Think about that. In Mr. Mamet’s warped view, the right handed Lana Clarkson shot herself in the mouth from the front and died instantly, but the gun somehow ended up behind her left foot. During the time Phil Spector refused to call the police or offer any first aid to Lana Clarkson, he put the gun he had carried out of the house back inside and placed it on the wrong side of Lana Clarkson.
Phil Spector confessed a second time. This time he told a police officer, who gave a statement under oath.
Q: As you were standing there alone covering
that hallway, what did you hear the suspect say?
A: He (Phil Spector) said,
“What’s wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn’t mean to shoot her. It was an accident.”
The injuries to Lana Clarkson’s hands indicate her palms were up in a defensive posture. One of her acrylic nails was actually stolen off the carpet by a member of Phil Spector’s defense team. How do we know? Sara Caplan, another lawyer DEFENDING Spector testified under oath that she saw it happen!
Was Lana Clarkson So Depressed That She Killed Herself In A Stranger’s Home She Had Never Been To With A Gun She’d Never Seen Before?
Again and again, in the fantasy world of the David Mamet movie about the Phil Spector trial, the real evidence is ignored. As in so many rape cases, the defense theory appears to be blame the victim for the crime perpetrated against her. On the day she was murdered by Phil Spector, Lana Clarkson had asked her mother to buy her several pairs of new shoes for her new job. Her desk, surrounded by uplifting motivational posters and sayings, was neatly laid out with the information she needed to do her taxes. Her purse was over her shoulder, indicating she was ready to leave Spector’s bizarre castle and head home. It is true that her film career had dried up, but she was working, optimistic and resilient. The “friend” (“Punkin Pie” and, no, I am not making that up!) who testified Lana Clarkson was depressed and suicidal not only changed her story over time, but was exposed as having lied under oath by famous director Michael Bay. Her weird behavior and obviously made up testimony in the first trial was so patently false that she was barely used in the second trial.
Was Phil Spector innocent? On the basis of Spector’s confessions, his refusal to call 911 or administer any first aid to Lana Clarkson, and the overwhelming weight of the forensic evidence, coupled with common sense, clearly shows Spector’s guilt. And that is before we add in his long documented history of threatening women with firearms when they tried to leave his home. His misanthropic, jealous and violent attitudes towards women (attested to by Ronnie Spector, his son, and testified to under oath by many people, including a former NYC detective) make it impossible to believe Phil Spector innocent. When David Mamet had no evidence to prove Phil Spector innocent, he simply ignored the facts. That is not my interpretation. David Mamet said “I don’t give a s**t about the facts” Twenty-two out of 24 jurors who heard all of the evidence in the Phil Spector trial agreed. The only way to prove Spector is innocent is to do what David Mamet did. Murder the truth.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR A MEMBER OF THE JURY THAT HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE? LEAVE IT IN THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW AND I WILL TRY TO GET YOU AN ANSWER!