convicted on flimsier evidence.

It was Spector's money, not his long-faded fame, which stalled the case. He could spend millions on defence lawyers and, crucially, the 'expert' witnesses who cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each and will chip away at such crucial prosecution evidence as 'blood-splatter'.

"Even when Spector was at his peak, he was a behind-the-scenes person," said Jean Rosenbluth, law professor at the University of Southern California. "In the end, money matters more than celebrity. This is not quite like the other cases: he was almost convicted, not acquitted, and it says more about the resources you can buy when you are on trial."

Jurors revealed the key 'doubts': prosecutors failed to place the gun in Spector's hand, while defence experts, including Vincent DiMaio (right) planted

‘Whether you are buying a car, a boat or a defence, the bigger the budget the better the ride’

the doubt that 'blood spatter' on his clothes showed he was too far from Clarkson to have pulled the trigger; and while the defence claimed that Clarkson committed suicide, prosecutors failed to counter with a psychological profile showing her unlikely to do that.

It seems preposterous, but it was enough. Defence money buys time as well as argument, and after more than five long months in the rarefied world of the jury bench, two jurors found those 'doubts' reasonable enough.

"The money used for forensic experts was key, and it is clear that they spent serious time thinking about this case," said Loyola University law professor Stan Goldman.

It is not over yet: the experts also warn that conviction rates go up in retrials as prosecutors patch the holes in their case - and particularly if the defendant's bank account runs dry.