Phil Spector - is he guilty or not?

Does he look innocent? Hell no.

“Oh she kissed the gun”

bullshit, and I just looked into this right now.

The movie left me with reasonable doubt as to Spector’s guilt, partly because of the script and partly because of how Pacino was directed (or chose) to portray the man. But Pacino is not Spector, and the script is not video footage of what actually happened, but rather a dramatization created by a writer(s).

Yet despite more doubt than I had in the past, I continue to believe down deep that Spector is guilty.

I am reading this which would allow me to conclude the man was guilty of murder no matter how many forensic scientists the defense provided….

“The emergency call from Spector’s home, made by Spector’s driver, Adriano de Souza, quotes Spector as saying, “I think I’ve killed someone”. De Souza added that he saw Spector come out the back door of the house with a gun in his hand”.

We have a witness that places Spector at the scene of the crime, with the murder weapon uttering “I think I killed someone”.

Well, the gun in his hand is pretty damning, but they also said that the gun the girl was shot with was found on the floor by her left foot. Were there two guns?

I also think he is guilty, but I can’t explain why he didn’t get more blood on himself than just a few tiny droplets. At least, his right sleeve should have been drenched in blood.

In an interview before his death (the one after his death hasn’t been published yet), John Lennon spoke of his struggles with Phil Spector, and that Lennon feared for his life because of Spector’s gunplay.
The movie Mahogany has a photographer named Sean (played by Anthony Hopkins), that also enjoyed gun games. I believe that was based on Spector. That movie was made in 1975.
Yeah, I am beyond reasonable doubt here.

@Skaggfacemutt They also found:

“In the bathroom off the foyer, police investigators found a blood-soaked cloth on the floor and a wet hand towel on the sink. Blood was found on a door handle, on the stairway and railing, and on a man’s coat hanging in an upstairs dressing room.”

@Cruiser So, the plot thickens. I am just trying to put together in my mind, a scenario that would fit the evidence, and having a hard time doing that. If he took off his coat, shot the girl, cleaned up the mess, put his coat back on, that might do it, except his shirt would then be covered with blood, and it wasn’t. Kind of reminds me of the Lizzie Borden case. How she escaped being covered with blood is a mystery. That was such a gruesome crime, you would think that her hair would even be dripping with gore, and it wasn’t.

@Skaggfacemutt the only thing I can’t find description of is the type of wound other than it was through the mouth and severed the spine. It appears it was a 38 caliber revolver and those are not high powered and hence not made much of a “splash” and could have been contained in the mouth for the most part. Some expert testified on behalf of the defense that she was still alive for a while and bleeding into her lungs and “supposedly” Phil tried to pick her up and blood spilled out all over him. Also there were teeth scattered all over the entryway and that could either be from impact of the bullet which to me would only indicate he fired the shot or from when the gun was fired with the barrel in her mouth and shattered the teeth upon recoil kickback. In that case either could have fired the gun. But for me the kicker is the bullet severed her spine with a shot into the mouth and out the back of her neck and the to me indicates a point blank shot only Phil could have pulled off as I don’t see how anyone could pull that shot off in a suicide.

I heard that the bullet did not exit the skull at all, but lodged in the top rear part of the skull, which is why all the blood and brain matter sprayed out the nose and mouth. So anyway, the white coat that he was wearing literally had such a tiny few droplets that they could hardly be detected. The rest of his clothes – shirt, pants, socks, had no blood at all. And he didn’t have time to change. So I am puzzled.

@Skaggfacemutt Here is some actual evidence that says the bullet severed her spine. There is a picture of the white ladies dinner jacket he was wearing and shows quite a bit of blood splatter. The rest of the evidence and arguments give an indication as to why the first trial resulted in a hung jury.

@Cruiser Thanks for the link, that is very interesting. I would still expect his jacket to have a lot more blood on it than that. I guess it is a fact that he tried to mop up the blood – wearing this white jacket, or at least wearing the shirt underneath, and still managed not to get any significant amount of blood on himself, so maybe he is just really careful (??) The web page says that they found the gun by the body, but the limo driver said that Mr. Spector had it in his hand when he came out and said “I think I just killed someone.” What do you know about that?

@Skaggfacemutt I have never shot anyone, but know enough about guns and ammo to know a 38 cal handgun is one of the least powerful handguns. That coupled with the barrel apparently in the mouth which IMHO would contain a lot of the splatter you might be expecting. Do note how little blood was on the arm of the chair she was sitting in and actually mirrored the amounts on his jacket.

There is also all those other pieces of blood stained cloths and diaper and hand prints on the stair rail etc. that indicate Mr. Spector was a busy man after the shooting and planting the gun at her side to make it look like a suicide would only take seconds.

The smoking gun for me is the lack of blood on the gun itself. That to me indicates it was wiped down to remove his prints and also removed most of the blood.