Phil Spector's defence lawyer Christopher Piourd yesterday scored something of a mini-win while questioning coroner Dr Louis Pena in the ongoing Spector murder trail. As previously reported, Pena testified on Tuesday that he was convinced the death of actress Lana Clarkson at Spector's home in 2003 was homicide, mainly because of bruising on her tongue and arms which suggested someone had forced the gun that killed her into her mouth. But when questioned by Piourd yesterday Pena admitted he couldn't testify for certain as to who was holding the gun that killed Clarkson.
Looking for clarification, Piourd reportedly asked Pena: "Let's get it very basic. You can't tell who was holding the gun?"
To which Pena responded "That's correct".
However Pena said that the fact there was gun residue on Clarkson's hands didn't necessarily mean, as the defence argue, that she must have been holding the gun at the time it fired. Asked about the residue, he told the court: "There are two ways to look at it. It implies the person could have been holding a weapon at the time of discharge or could be in the vicinity".
Pena also admitted that a number of errors made at the crime scene may have concealed forensic evidence that could have helped provide more clues to exactly what happened in the moments before Clarkson's death. That included the way Clarkson's body was moved, so to allow blood to flow out of her mouth and soak the side of her dress, compromising evaluation of the garment for blood spatter. Also the loss of a tooth fragment which was seemingly the fault of a forensic dentist who broke a vial containing the bit of tooth. Whether that is the bit of tooth that the prosecution claim the defence later found and concealed I'm not sure.
The case continues.