James Arthur Ray Sweat Lodge Trial: Day 40

Judge Darrow Hears Arguments

Judge Darrow made a written ruling on the most recent mistrial motion yesterday, without even hearing oral arguments this morning. I read it last night and I think it was a big defeat for the defense. Not just because they did not get the requested mistrial but because they didn't get much of anything they wanted. And I'm reading between the lines but I pick up a certain impatience from Judge Darrow, with the defense team.

He did preclude Richard Haddow from testifying for the prosecution as requested by the defense. Personally, I don't think the prosecutors were serious about that. I think they were just calling the defense's bluff. They forced the defense to discredit him as an expert and state once and for all that they would not be calling him. Very well played, I must say. Not only did Judge Darrow affirm that the defense will not be calling Haddow, he stated that the defense has chosen not to call another expert on the matter. He also reiterated that they can't cite the Haddow report in a way that doesn't comply with the rules of evidence. Finally, he ruled that there will be no further sanction against the State over this Brady violation, beyond his preclusion as a State witness. So this decision all but completely puts the Haddow matter to bed.

Also settled in this ruling, is the matter of the prosecutorial misconduct claim that I described here as their accusing the prosecution of lawyering. He ruled that whatever occasional, leading questions were asked or hearsay evidence elicited were properly dealt with through objections and stricken testimony.

Judge Darrow also reiterated his now clear understanding that there is nothing new or novel in the carbon dioxide issue, nor the matter of where participants were seated in the sweat lodge. This means the defense can no longer argue that the State is using Brady material every time they talk about carbon dioxide poisoning, which was largely their basis for this last mistrial motion. Frankly, they looked like fools, arguing passionately that carbon dioxide had never been mentioned and then having transcripts of their own year old discussions of carbon dioxide read to them.

The irony of Luis Li repeatedly arguing that the organophosphate theory is part of the State's "own evidence" when the defense has so completely fumbled openly and repeatedly stated carbon dioxide evidence is not lost on me. The former is taken from a snippet of background noise, spoken by an unidentified person, which I do not believe was ever included in a transcript. The latter is the product of direct interviews of State witnesses by the defense and remains transcribed and fully available in the defenses's "own evidence." Still, you kind of have to admire Li for continuing to be so strident on that odd bit of hearsay that the State missed. And that, unfortunately is where I came in this morning. Or, should I say, that's the point at which CNN finally decided to start running the feed of the trial. I'm still not quite sure what they were arguing this morning because I missed the beginning. I just know that Li was really worked up and ranting about how the State has not been "sandbagged" by the organophosphate defense.

At least part of the hearing had to do with Dr. Kent's proposed appearance as a State witness; something else the defense failed to notice at the time he was added and fully disclosed on March 14. Funny how the defense keeps getting "sandbagged" with information they have in their "own evidence" so often.

Dr. Matthew Dickson

Dr. Dickson is a medical witness retained by the State at $400 an hour... and worth every penny. He's an attending physician at Yuma Regional Medical Center. He specializes in emergency medicine and is the EMS Medical Director for that county. He is extremely familiar with heat related illness, having seen a lot of it in Yuma, Arizona. I've been to Yuma... in the summer... and it's hot. He has also seen many cases of hypercapnia, or carbon dioxide poisoning.

More interesting, he is, to my recollection, the only medical professional we've heard from thus far who has actually treated cases of organophosphate poisoning -- not many because, as he explained, it's uncommon. But his knowledge of the effects is more than academic. He rather quickly demystified some of the assumptions that have been bandied about the courtroom on organophosphates. He explained that most of the cases he's seen have been amongst farm workers, except for one incident of members of the military who were accidentally sprayed by helicopters treating crops. He also explained that reaction to residential products containing organophosphates is generally mild because the concentrations in home pesticides is extremely low. In other words, he gutted the organophosphate argument.

Dickson explained a bit about the spectrum of heat related illness and he placed the demarcation between heat exhaustion and heatstroke at a "change in mental status." In other words, that "altered state" that James Ray was pushing sweat lodge participants towards.

Aggressive cooling with cold water and evaporation is the best way to cool a heat exposure victim down, according to Dickson. So hosing people down in the cooling desert air of late afternoon would have been ideal for bringing the temperature down. He did warn that you would need to be careful not to cool patients too quickly because the temperature would drop about 2 degrees every 10 minutes and the victim could get too cold. Thinking back on testimony from people who described themselves as shivering would seem to attest to that. More to the point, it confirms absolutely that the temperature taken by paramedics when they arrived at least 20-30 minutes later would not have reflected the temperatures at the point of injury.

Worse, in terms of getting an accurate temperature reading, patients did not have a rectal temperature taken until they were in the hospital. Reading the ear membrane or armpit he described as fairly useless for that purpose because they don't read the core temperature as the extremities begin to cool.

For those reasons, Dickson doesn't put a lot stock in measured temperature when it comes to diagnosing heat related illness. He puts a lot more emphasis on other clinical observations and symptoms, such as mental state. Even in cases where people have not been hosed down immediately after exposure, he says that EMS workers are so good at cooling and hydrating patients with IV fluids that the high temperature is long past by the time a patient gets to the ER. He also affirmed that artificial resuscitation will pump IV fluids through the body and rehydrate tissues.

Dehydration is not a necessary component of heatstroke. It often happens concurrently because we sweat when we're hot and it can make heat related illness worse, but not all heatstroke patients are dehydrated. So that's another medical professional who has affirmed my own understanding of that. Dickson also affirmed that the humidity level in the sweat lodge would have made cooling the body impossible because, again, perspiration could not evaporate and it's the evaporation that cools the body.

Dickson also explained that from the time you click over from heat exhaustion to heatsroke, death can occur in as little as an hour. He explained in fairly graphic terms how the organs can begin to break down, at a certain point irrevocably. He also gave a thorough explanation of DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation, which is what happened with Liz Neuman. This is where the arteries begin to break down from the heat and the body attempts to plug the holes with clots. This exhausts the body's supply of clotting factors and results in internal bleeding.

Much of Dickson's description of end stage heatstroke described what we know of Neuman's situation, including her descent down the Glasgow Coma Scale from 15 to 3, including that people can still speak (and decline to leave a sweat lodge??) even as they are descending towards that deathly 3 where she was when paramedics treated her.

Dickson also explained symptoms like frothy sputum and miosis. Unlike others who've testified, he feels that both are conistent with heatstroke and are referred to in the literature. In particular, he put the frothy sputum issue into context. Like Dr. Mosley, he explained it as a common symptom of pulmonary edema, which he said is a late stage finding of heat stroke. He also drew a distinction between that pink, frothy sputum and the drooling associated with organophosphates, which he described as more of a pouring liquid; not foam.

Hughes also had Dickson explain thoroughly that discussion of the patients regarding cholinergic and anticholinergic symptoms indicated no clear pattern of either. It was some from column A and some from column B. Both Dr. Cutshall and Dr. Mosley have said the same, though not in as much detail. This rather thoroughly discounts organophosphate poisoning which should have caused a more clear cholinergic poisoning pattern. Dickson does not believe a toxidrome is indicated at all.

He also excluded rat poison because there was no evidence of bleeding to death. The only bleeding was in Liz Neuman associated with that DIC which was a final stage. Had it been rat poison, 45 minutes of CPR would have caused death from internal bleeding. And Liz Neuman was hooked up to mechanical CPR for quite some time.

Dickson had been provided with the pesticides in question from Angel Valley Ranch, the Just One Bite, JD Eaten, an d-Con rat poisons, all of which would have caused that bleeding death. He also looked into the toxicity of Amdro ant poison, even though it wasn't used until 2010. None of them contained organophosphates.

There was a bit more legal discussion after the first part of Dickson's testimony. Hughes's intention of asking him to correlate the symptoms described in 2007 and 2008 with what he knew of heat related illness, drew predictable reaction from the defense. Do argued that it conflicted with prior rulings but Judge Darrow disagreed. He decided that any testimony that had already been described by witnesses in court was appropriate to run by this expert, as long as Hughes was careful to characterize it honestly and avoid terms like unconscious when unresponsive was more accurate and less suggestive.

CNN's Up to the Minute Coverage of Nothing

I don't actually know what questions Hughes may have asked Dr. Dickson about 2007 and 2008 because, once again, CNN decided a line-up of one news feed, weather, nothing, and nothing, was more important. Yes, they would rather have empty feeds than air this trial. So, I missed the rest of Hughes's direct questioning and the beginning of Truc Do's cross. On the plus side, I think I have a solid understanding of the weather that was occurring across the country this afternoon.

All I can say is, keep letting CNN know that their indifference to James Ray trial viewers is not appreciated. I have heard from a number of you that the email address I provided recently kicked back emails as undeliverable. I've used this form several times. I've never gotten a response but who knows. Consider that the html is broken for the contact link on the live feed page and you get some idea of how much importance CNN places on the opinions of its viewers.

Truc Do Cross Examines Dr. Dickson

When CNN finally restarted the trial feed, Truc Do was well into a deceptively phrased Q&A on the harmless chemical constituents of everyday things. Dr. Dickson, by his own admission is no chemist. Even so, Do couldn't get him to concede much if any ground. He admitted that when he received the toxicology report he had to look the chemicals up online.

Do spent an unbelievable amount of time establishing that this is not his area of expertise even though he acknowledged that from the outset. And he explained that if confronted with a toxicity in a patient, he would do the same sort of research because he learns primarily through reading. He would turn to the MSDS, as he did in this case, becaus that is the standard of care in his hospital. Basically, he demonstrated that he is very good at researching things even when they're not part of his area of expertise.

In his reading he learned that 2 ethyl 1 hexanol is nontoxic and described how rat and human testing demonstrated what we already knew; it's of very low toxicity and any actual toxic effects remain unknown.

Do reached instead for the EPA document and, at Hughes's request, it was admitted into evidence and shown on the screen. She gleefully posted the following, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it proves the chemical is a harmless component of numerous products and that it's in our food supply.

In terms of pesticide use 2 EH is used only as an inert ingredient. There are currently no registered pesticide products containing 2 EH as an active ingredient. 2 EH is used as a solvent, co-solvent, adjuvant of surfactants, a defoamer and pesticide products used on agricultural food, crops, animals, ornamental plants, and in residential use pesticides such as insect sprays.

"Correct?"

That, at least, is what I believe the paragraph said. It was hard to make out given her bizarre pronunciations and the obvious fact that she had no understanding of what she was reading. For instance, she followed up by asking Dickson if he knew what an "adjoovant" or surfactant was. He had to explain that it was  adjuvant of surfactants; in other words something that assisted surfactant properties. Her response: "What does that mean?"

Note to Truc Do: If you're going to try to demonstrate the ignorance of a witness, it's better if they don't understand something far better than you do from the very first cold reading... and if you don't talk like a 13 year old valley girl.

Basically, Dickson spent the afternoon schooling Do on things he has only passing knowledge of.

Predictably Do brought up the recorded background noise in which we hear the word organophosphates. But Dickson was singularly unimpressed. He explained that having so much of the data in and looking at the big picture, that reference wouldn't change his opinion at all.
He also tried to explain to her what theoretical means and that there is a lot that is unknown, "down to the molecular level." She didn't have much patience for it. She preferred the idea that there were things he didn't know and that this meant he was ignorant. Good luck with that.

There was an interminable discussion of how he compiled the data for a report for the State which explained his terms by using standard references. Her implication, I believe, was that he was plagiarizing from these documents. He seemed confused because he has just plugging in the data from known sources, eMedicine and standard texts, for information purposes and his sources were transparent.

Do asked him about Dr. Ian Paul's report. He had read it, of course. He disagrees with his definition of heatstroke. After reading his report, he took him to mean that there was some "other cause." This clarifies for me that, in fact, Paul's initial report says nothing about organophosphates. Dickson was advised by the State that there is now an organophosphate theory but he didn't associate it with Dr. Paul based on his report. So, with Dr. Paul, it's another case of an expert who "can't rule out organophosphate," not one who has built a solid case around it. Should be interesting.

One after another, Do invoked the other doctors who have testified, and misstated their testimony as being diamentrically opposed to Dickson's. That diametric opposition? Dr. Dickson ruled out organophosphates. They said they couldn't. Hardly diametric opposition when you consider that every one of them, except Paul, stated belief to a medical degree of certainty that the deaths were caused by heat related illness.

Dr. Dickson explained that medicine is never 100% and every doctor has his own threshold value. He also explained that both heatstroke and organophosphate poisoning are clinical diagnoses because neither can really be tested medically. There are blood tests for organophosphates but, said Dickson, they are famously unreliable. So that's a new wrinkle. If Dickson is correct, and he's the only doctor so far to have treated organophosphate poisoning, the problem isn't just that nothing was tested soon enough. There are no reliable tests. That would make it much harder to rule organophosphates either in or out.

But Dr. Dickson has confidently excluded them because there are so many symptoms that aren't at all consistent with organophosphates. He said he had to to look at the big picture and that, in his opinion, says heatstroke. It's all consitent with heatstroke, even the miotic pupils and the frothy sputum.

Confronted with the idea that Drs. Cutshall, Lyon, Mosely, and Paul -- the defense's expert who has yet to testify -- that he is the only one who rules out organophosphates, Dickson held firm. "You're an outlier here," Do said repeatedly, sounding more like a Heather than an attorney. "Four doctors against Dr. Dickson. You are the outlier, right?"

Medicine by peer pressure. Nice.

Dickson: You're telling me, of, telling me about a testimony that these doctors made that they're, you're saying they said all these doctors completely recanted everything that they said in the medical record and said, I'm completely wrong. This is not heat illness. This is not heatstroke. And this is organophosphate. Is that what you're telling me?

Do: I don't believe that's what I told you at all.

Do: Okay. Well then, explain it to me because from what you're writing here I think it implies that.

Ironically, it's actually Dr. Paul who's the "outlier." He's the only one who doesn't think these were heat related deaths. Perhaps when he testifies, the prosecutor should let him know that he can't sit at the cool kids' table if he won't sign off on heatstroke.

Do also tried to pit Dr. Dickson against other doctors who had given differential diagnoses, positioning his disagreement with their preliminary diagnoses as assaults on their credentials. Dickson was unflappable. He turned himself to the jury and went into his teaching mode, explaining the problems with early opinions and how they can take you down the wrong path before more of the information is in so you can look at the big picture.

But Do didn't give up. She tried to pit Dickson against doctor after doctor, misstating and distorting their testimony as she went along. She was in the process of trying to create a conflict between Dickson and Mosley on the definition of "frank" pulmonary edema -- Dickson tried to explain that she was confusing it with "flash" pulmonary edema -- when Judge Darrow called it a day. Do likes to end her questioning on something she can call a win; when a witness agrees with something, anything she said. She didn't get that opportunity with Dickson today. She looked exhausted and gray by the end of it and Dickson looked like he could go another three rounds. He'll probably get that chance tomorrow.

If we're lucky, we'll get to hear all the questions she promised to get to today but never did; all the times she said, some version of, "I understand and we are gonna talk about that." I think she achieved a new personal best on using to that particular dodge today -- probably because she didn't actually understand 99% of what Dr. Dickson said.

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or live courtroom footage on TruTV's "In Session" or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

Washington Times Takes On Air Force Pagans

Photo: Jerilee Bennett/The Gazette

The Founding Fathers: What a bunch of PC tree huggers, what with all their kooky ideas about religious freedom and tolerance. So sayeth the Washington Times. Alright... I'm paraphrasing.

I'm not surprised but I am dismayed to see the albeit ludicrous paper take aim at religious freedom in the military. Early last year I reported impressive strides in the Air Force when a Pagan temple was constructed at the installation in Colorado Springs. Well, the Washington Times isn't taking this lefty incursion into our ranks lying down and, somewhat unsuprisingly, has even found a way to work in a glorification of the imperial conquest of indigenous peoples.

The U.S. military’s success in Pakistan this week proved the importance of maintaining a team focused on accomplishing dangerous missions. Others on the left prefer to look upon the armed forces as a playground to experiment with fringe ideas. Take the Air Force Academy which reportedly held a ceremony on Tuesday to dedicate a pile of rocks in the academy’s “worship area for followers of Earth-centered religions.”

. . .

All of the actual Wiccans and Druids died out hundreds of years ago. The religions of the barbaric tribes of Europe faded away as the Roman conquest brought civilization to the region. Teachings once handed down by oral tradition were entirely forgotten over time. Around the 1950s, fringe leftists enamored by the concept of worshipping the Earth adopted the ancient labels and pretended to follow the old ways. They just left out the inconvenient bits, like human sacrifice. “They have likenesses of immense size, the limbs of which are composed of wicker, that they fill with living men,” wrote Julius Caesar, describing a Druid ceremony. “After these are set on fire, the men inside perish in the flames.”

Silly Washington Times, Pagans almost never sacrifice people in wicker man ceremonies anymore. Christianity, however, is an entire religion based on a human sacrifice... but I don't want to nit-pick. One thing I have yet to see is the Washington Times taking aim at that dirty hippie Jesus.
  
I noticed this item on Mikey Weinstein's Twitter feed last night and he has written an impressive rebuttal. Weinstein graduated from the United States Air Force Academy and has been following developments there closely.

Among other asinine assertions, the Times argues that certain nonmainstream religious faiths being practiced in the United States military are "fringe ideas" not worthy of any institutional respect, and even derides one faith group's worship area at the United States Air Force Academy as "a pile of rocks." A complete detailing of the Times' egregious savaging of the legitimate, religious civil rights of honorable US military members, who apparently don't meet the Times' own convenient "religious test of legitimacy," is beyond the intended scope of this brief rebuttal. I will restrict my responsive comments to two substantially enormous errors committed by this degradingly disgusting Times editorial; to wit, (1) the illegality and real-world danger of the Times' "religiously profiling" any faith as "fringe"; and, (2) the Times' selection of the United States Air Force Academy as the would-be quintessential example of too much religious accommodation gone awry.

It seems that the Times has either suspiciously forgotten or is engaged in "willful ignorance" (i.e., being stupid on purpose) regarding the purpose of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. This compendium of the first ten Amendments was absolutely not passed for the convenience of the majority, but to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Who is the Times to establish a "Religion Legitimacy Star Chamber" to seemingly render verdicts, sua sponte, on which faiths are "mainstream" and, thus, deserving of constitutional rights in our nation's armed forces and, alternatively, which are "fringe" and, consequently, should inherit the wind?

Such vile journalistic carelessness, callousness and arrogance have real-world consequences that go well beyond the oft-used analogy of a mere slippery slope. Oh, how we have seen these "Star Chambers" before. History is replete with draconian example after example, swimming in oceans of blood, as civil majorities have first categorized "fringe" religious faiths as unworthy, and secondly, moved to exterminate them from the planet earth. Our United States Constitution represents the very first time in human history that any nation-state has ever created a governing document that did not invoke the name of someone's particular deity. And besides the First Amendment to that same Constitution clearly creating and mandating a distinct separation of the metaphysical from the physical, the spiritual from the temporal and the church from the state, the actual body of that great document, at Clause 3 of Article 6, just as clearly proclaims that there will never be a "religious test" for anyone serving in the government of the United States. Last time I checked, members of the United States armed forces would seem to so qualify.

More details on the dedication ceremony can be found at The Wild Hunt.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

James Arthur Ray Sweat Lodge Trial: Day 39

Truc Do Continues Cross of Dr. Mosley

Whenever I watch Truc Do in action, I find myself wondering how this could possibly be the LA prosecutor with a spotless conviction record, who brought down Phil Spector. She's insufferable. The sound of her voice actually makes my eyes ache. I don't even know how that's possible.

Do invariably makes me think of a really snotty teenager pretending to be a grown-up. I can't help wondering if this isn't some Freaky Friday, body-swap, kind of thing. Could the real Truc Do be sitting in junior high school classroom somewhere wondering how she's going to get her body and impressive law career back?

I also don't know what to make of the dynamics between Do and Dr. Mosley. At times he seems like he's toying with her; even openly mocking her. At other times I think they're flirting in this really disturbing way. That too feels like some weird, teen comedy, in which the geeky, science nerd, and comic book fanboy, is awkwardly trying to get the attention of the pretty cheerleader who is way out of his league. Meanwhile, the cheerleader wants him to do her science homework so she's manipulating him with a game of come here, go away -- alternately insulting him and taunting him with casual flips of her shiny, shiny hair.

One thing was clear in listening to Do's cross of Dr. Mosley. There was some sort of power struggle going on. Do's courtroom antics are always excruciating but the undercurrent of these dynamics, that clearly stem from their earlier conversations, added another layer of horribleness. And, of course, it took forever. Truc Do... you know... Never have I heard a person talk so fast for so long and say so little. I almost have to admire the artistry of it. Perhaps one day she'll be a Senator and specialize in the filibuster.

Most of the hours and hours of cross examination boiled down to the following: Since Mosley's initial finding of hyperthermia, in the case of Liz Neuman, he has considered other possibilities. He believes some type of toxidrome could explain the symptoms that do not fit with hyperthermia -- miosis and frothy sputum, or salivation, which may or not have been present. He considered Dr. Ian Paul's theory of organophosphate poisoning but ultimately disagreed with it. He still cannot rule organophosphate poisoning out completely, though he doesn't think it's terribly likely. As he put it:

I cannot tell the jury that I'm certain that organophosphates were not contributory.

Do didn't care for the double negative nature of the statement but it really kind of nails it. Again, to not rule something out is not the same thing as ruling it in. It just means it couldn't be conclusively tested and excluded and no obvious observable evidence disproves it.

I get the feeling that a lot of the defense's theory depends on evidence about that tenuous. And it seems like Do took those wisps of confirmation from witnesses and built her case around them. Confronted with the unwillingness of witnesses to be more decisive than that, she expends a tremendous amount of energy trying to pin them to the wall with previous statements she thought were more solid. She learned yesterday that Dr. Mosley only ever thought Dr. Paul's theories "could be" right. And worse, he's since dismissed them.

Do exhibits a very obvious tell when she's confronted with witness testimony she doesn't like.

Do: I understand yesterday that, perhaps I understood this, you were beginning to say that you believe today that Dr. Paul is not correct.

Mosley: Correct.

Do: Okay. And I'm gonna talk to you about that.

Translation: I'm gonna talk to you about everything but that until you beg for mercy and I twist out of you some concession to the point I expect you to make. And that is what she did, for hours on end.

She did it through humiliation by pointing out in graphic detail that Dr. Paul's credentials are both broader and more impressive than Dr. Mosley's.

Do: And so based upon the information that the State provided you regarding Dr. Paul's credentials, you have no reason to believe that he is not qualified, correct?

Mosley: None whatsoever. I mean, Mr. Paul's credentials are impeccable. I suppose uh, you know, a thorough background check to find holes in him, in Mr. Paul's credentials, might reveal that he's allergic to kryptonite and he can't see through lead.

Um, so I'm aware of that. I was aware of that when I reviewed his report. I was aware of that before as I went in to re-review Ms. Neuman's records that if I were to oppose Dr. Paul, in my opinion, that it would be essentially similar to opposing the word of God. And, so, it's not a thing I take lightly when I have an opinion that is divergent from Dr. Paul's.

She did it by questioning his intellectual integrity for contradicting someone as lofty as Dr. Paul, seemingly unaware that deferring to someone, despite misgivings, is the opposite of intellectual honesty.

She did it by saying frothy sputum was seen in people as they left the sweat lodge, falsely implying that these were people who were still standing and in early stages of heat exposure. Bill Hughes objected and pointed out that this misstated the record. But Dr. Mosley explained that in unconscious people who could not protect their airway, as in late stage heatstroke victims who were dragged from the sweat lodge, pulminary edema and the attendant frothy sputum were likely.

I know a lot people listening to Mosley thought he was validating the defense's theory and that he was a very weak witness for the prosecution. I can't speak for how the jury heard it, and that's all that really matters, but what I heard was a witness who was openly derisive of Truc Do and who flipped her own illogic back on her repeatedly. The problem for the prosecution is only that he did so with great subtlety. Humor that dry is lost on a lot of people but he was cracking me up.

Mosley did get more combative at points, like when Do threw a pile of binders in front of him and ask/told him that they were Liz Neuman's records.

Do: Those are the complete medical records for Liz Neuman, correct?

Mosley: I'm sorry, let me just...

Do: Sure.

Mosley: ... restate the facts of the moment. You handed me four binders and asked me if these are the complete medical records of Liz Neuman. I've never seen these binders before. I can't tell you if page 5,063 is missing or not. Um, so, to, with any certainty, tell the jury that this record is complete, I cannot do that.

As testament to how much time Do can waste, allow me to present a pictorial history of her description of miosis. Could there be anyone on that jury who does not know that miosis means pinpoint pupils by now? Especially given that this is not the first time Do has graphed them out on the giant easel? But she still took Dr. Mosley through this pointless exercise. To his credit, he got in another zinger. Presented with her fill in the missing pupil eye graphic, he said, "I'm gonna flip the page. I don't like your drawing."

That last drawing is a comparison of a pinpoint and a dilated pupil, in case that's not screamingly obvious... which I believe it is.

Do also tried to make something, once again, of the "dispute" between Dr. Mosley and Dr. Lyon regarding the heatstroke and hyperthermia diagnoses. This supposed conflict appears to lie at the heart of the Brady violation that occurred before the trial started. Dr. Lyon's colleague Dr. Mark Fischione used the unfortunate phrase, "get on the same page" in terms of making the diagnoses agree. But Dr. Mosley clarified once again that the disagreement was entirely one of semantics. And he even went so far as to say that he does think Liz Neuman died of heatstroke. He just thinks that word is the domain of clinicians, not medical examiners.

I think Do was at her strongest when she handed Dr. Mosley the report of criminalist Dawn Sy on the volatiles found in tested samples. Because Dr. Mosley is, by his own admission, no chemist, he had no frame of reference for justly dismissing the report as meaningless in terms of causation. He agreed that it was a report that he would have wanted to see before rendering a final decision on Liz Neuman's cause of death and that he would have needed to confer with colleagues as to the possible toxicity of those chemical traces. I say it was strong because she really made the prosecutors look culpable in keeping valuable information from their expert. She also let him know that poison control had been contacted and that he had no idea that this information was out there, unavailable to him. She didn't mention that they never came back with a report.

Do was also successful in getting that bit of background noise referring to organophosphates played in court again. She carefully used weasel words to explain that "if" the State "had found" that evidence, it would have changed the course of his investigation, would it not. His answer? Not really. Testing for organophosphates is up to the treating physicians far earlier than he would have been involved in the case. It would have been something he learned from those medical records. He also accurately described the barely audible, recorded statement as "hearsay."

Bill Hughes Redirects Dr. Mosley

Bill Hughes immediately went after the hearsay recording and underscored that half of that assertion had been thoroughly discredited when carbon monoxide poisoning was ruled out. Dr. Mosley affirmed that those tests were clear and that he was confident that carbon monoxide did not play a role in Liz Neuman's death.

He also asked Dr. Mosley if he was aware that the physicians treating Liz Neuman had debated whether there was evidence of a cholinergic or anticholinergic toxin at play. I think the point he was making is that they never affirmed a cholinergic toxin through testing. Organophosphates are cholinergic. Implication: Had there been clear evidence of cholinergic poisoning, it would have been thoroughly tested and the organophosphate theory would have a much more solid foundation. As it stands... not so much. I'm just not sure that came across so clearly.

Dr. Mosley made it quite clear during redirect that his disagreement with Dr. Paul is that he thinks the toxidrome at play is carbon dioxide, not organophosphates. This would be wholly, rather than partly, consistent with the other findings.

For example, organophosphate poisoning would result in sweating, but dry skin was what was reported in a number of cases. Lacrimation, or tearing, would also be present with organophosphates but medical reports refer to dry eyes. Mosley also referred to Sidney Spencer's report which showed no defecation, excessive salivation, or bradycardia. These three clinical observations severely undercut the organophosphate theory.

Hughes also asked Dr. Mosley if he was aware that fourteen of the victims had no evidence of pinpoint pupils. If they were all getting sick from organophosphates, they should all have exhibited miosis.

Dr. Mosley also found no indication consistent with rat poison. What internal bleeding there was in Liz Neuman was from the overall systemic failure which was consistent with hyperthermia.

They also discussed a bit more about dehydration. Dr. Mosley allowed that he had been too quick to dismiss dehydration referred to in the investigative report he had been given because other patients did exhibit dehydration. Liz Neuman had been hydrated in the course of her hospital care. Most tellingly, he disagreed with Dr. Lyon, and thought it was entirely plausible that the mechanical CPR administered to James Shore and Kirby Brown could have forced enough fluid into their tissues to show that they were hydrated in vitreous testing. And, he affirmed that dehydration was not a necessary component of a heatstroke death, unconsciousness, or mental derangement severe enough to make them incapable of decision making.

Luis Li Argues About CO₂ and Brady

All this talk of carbon dioxide triggered a sidebar followed by more legal wrangling and renewed calls for mistrial. Do insisted that Dr. Mosley must be referring to the Haddow email and that the prosecution is backdooring in the inculpatory information from that report. And he used the word hypercapnia! He never used that word before!

That's right. A pathologist could not possibly have known the medical term for carbon dioxide poisoning unless he read it in an email from an environmental expert. This stuff hurts my brain.

Bill Hughes affirmed that Dr. Mosley said that he didn't even read the Haddow email. And he reminded the court that Dr. Mosley has been talking about a carbon dioxide theory for over a year. He also read aloud the transcript of Det. Diskin's exceedingly clear explanation of a carbon dioxide co-factor.

To his credit, Judge Darrow articulated clearly that the carbon dioxide information is not new at all and that the defense should have been fully aware of that line of inquiry. The defense team actually appeared chagrined and Li admitted that he and Do simply had not understood the information.

Judge Darrow clarified that the part of the Haddow report that is Brady material is the connection of the carbon dioxide theory with the structure of the sweat lodge which would implicate a third party. He reminded the attorneys that the mistrial motion is still under advisement and that he will take it up next Tuesday.

Dear God -- More Truc Do

Now here's what I find truly amazing. Even after all that discussion yesterday of Dr. Mosley's assertion that carbon dioxide was implicated in the sweat lodge deaths, Truc Do spent hours of cross examination without addressing it. She was so stunned that it came up again during Hughes's redirect that she demanded more cross examination questions to address the issue. Now, had she exerted a little less energy on trying to cajole Dr. Mosley into signing off on the organophosphate theory, she could have dispensed with these questions already.

Rattling off her questions with the speed of an auctioneer, she asked Dr. Mosley if his finding of hypercapnia being due to poor air quality inside the sweat lodge was based on witness statements and photos of the sweat lodge structure. He explained that it was based almost entirely on witness statements. Would an airtight covering and off-center rock pit be factors in that? Well, sure. Was he aware that James Ray had nothing to do with the building of the sweat lodge? Dr. Mosley explained that he had no idea who built the sweat lodge.

Do also took the opportunity to correct an assertion Mosley had made about headache not being part of the syndrome of organophosphates. She read some documentation of headache in organophosphate poisoning patients. Dr. Mosley accepted the correction with grace.

Judge Darrow Goes Over Jury Questions

The jury had some very insightful questions for Dr. Mosley.

In a superhumid, closed environment, with a high level of CO2 and heat, can the body sweat properly? 

Short answer: No. Dr. Mosley explained the body would sweat insufficiently in those circumstances. Hyperthermia and heatstroke result when the body's mechanisms to deal with the level of heat are insufficient.

And if it can't, would the body retain water and give a false level of hydration?

Dr. Mosley said he would not expect water retention in those circumstances.

Bill Hughes asked a follow-up question; would that result in profuse sweating? Dr. Mosley said that they would.

Truc Do restated Bill Hughes question with about a thousand more words but added that this should cause dehydration. Correct? Yes.

If there were salivation when the person came out of the sweat lodge, could it have stopped or been cleaned away before the EMS arrived 20-25 minutes later?

Yes.

Bill Hughes followed up: Would Dr. Mosley expect that salivation to continue until they received medical treatment? He said he would.

Truc Do... I'll try to abbreviate this... Would the amount of salivation vary based on the compound and degree of exposure and could it be as little as the foam on a latte. (That was Bill Hughes's analogy from yesterday. It may put me off lattes for life.) And yes, Dr. Mosley agreed. It could be that little.

But here's my question: If the amount of salivation is relative to the degree of exposure and toxicity level, why are people who had little to no frothy sputum dead? Riddle me that, Batman.

Do also asked if intubation and the placement of an oxygen mask have interfered with that salivation? He assumed that it would.

Hughes followed up by asking how those medical interventions would affect salivation. Dr. Mosley said it would have to go somewhere. In the case of intubation, it might need to be suctioned. It might go back into the lungs. Hughes asked if such suctioning tubes would be standard EMS equipment and would it be documented in the records?

Again, Bill Hughes asked if he'd seen anything in the EMS records for Liz Neuman and there was no reference to such suctioning.

Truc Do followed up with Sidney Spencer's records which did show suctioning of fluid and he allowed that the description could be consistent with organophosphate poisoning.

Did you autopsy Miss Neuman's brain? If so, did her brain show injury, and if so, can you explain cause and effect of this injury?

Dr. Mosley did autopsy the brain and it did not show "gross injury" but clinically, there was evidence of "anoxic brain injury." There was a lack of oxygen to the brain which may not have been readily apparent in gross examination. There could be a variety of causes of lack of blood flow to the brain.

Hughes asked if she was, in fact, comatose the entire time she was at the medical center, which she was. Would anoxic brain injury be consistent with any of those SLUDGEM, organophosphate types of symptoms. He agreed that involuntary defecation would be. Miosis would also be consistent.

Do asked if lack of oxygen to the brain necessarily meant suffocation. No. And she confirmed that it could be attributed to multiple etiologies; in other words many possible causes.

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or live courtroom footage on TruTV's "In Session" or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

James Arthur Ray Sweat Lodge Trial: Day 38

Judge Darrow Hears Mistrial Motions

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't feeling agitated today. The possibility of losing the CNN feed hangs over all our heads as does the possibility of mistrial. Tom Kelly moved for a mistrial twice today. The first such motion, Judge Darrow dismissed immediately. The second, he took under advisement, but continued with the trial for the day.

Tom Kelly's first mistrial motion started out the day. He argued that during Det. Diskin's redirect yesterday, improper questioning introduced inculpatory material from the Haddow email.

Sheila Polk maintained that her questions were in response to the carbon dioxide question I noted last Friday, in which Kelly said he'd look at the transcript, but never did.

Judge Darrow quickly dispensed with that motion. But later in the day, Kelly argued that the situation created by the Brady violation was "unworkable." I must confess that once again I missed a chunk of this. CNN is less and less concerned with starting the stream on time.

Kelly said that the whole process has been "infected" by the Brady violation. His motion, though, appeared to be at least partly based on erroneous information. He asserted that the defense has been disallowed from using the Haddow report. Judge Darrow disagreed saying that he has never said that they couldn't talk about it but warned that it opened the door to redirect by the State.

Kelly also claimed that Truc Do had heard Dr. Mosley discuss carbon dioxide for the first time during his direct examination today. He argued that the fact that Mosley's consideration of hypercapnia (carbon dioxide poisoning) was not disclosed by the State showed the "purposeful nature of the violation." But when Bill Hughes argued the State's position he read an extensive discussion between Do and Dr. Mosley on the possibility of oxygen deprivation and carbon dioxide poisoning having been factors. In an interview that took place in May of 2010, Do asked Dr. Mosley if he had discussed differential diagnoses with other medical experts in the case.

Mosley: Sort of, in the sense of oxygen deprivation being so, suffocation. And you know this may well have occurred... You drop the oxygen content to where you just say 15%, that can kill you if you stay in that room. CO₂ goes up. So if the air, the oxygen content of the air is what is changing substantially or dramatically. Well, I just contradicted myself there. I was just saying that it doesn't have to change much.

Li: A few percent is substantial and important?

Mosley: Yeah.

Li: Okay. So go ahead and finish the thought.

Mosley: It brings in an element of suffocation in the cause of death as opposed to pure hyerpthermia. But I think in consideration of that, I still felt that hyerthermia was the overriding cause of the suffocation element. While it may be present, I have no way to prove it.

Do: Then that oxygen deprivation element was discussed and eliminated by all three?

Mosley: Well. Eliminated? I don't know if I could eliminate it. I still can't eliminate it because I don't, I just felt I couldn't prove it and what I could prove I would, I couldn't prove to, so to speak, with the circumstantial evidence.

I repeat, that was in May 2010 -- a year ago. Hughes was reading from the defense's own transcript. Does the defense have a mental block when it comes carbon dioxide? In his mistrial argument, Li insisted that Det. Diskin tried to obscure it and confuse it with carbon monoxide, when the detective had been perfectly clear. I couldn't help wondering if Kelly had taken it upon himself to speak for Do when he asserted that she'd been blindsided by the hypercapnia issue in today's testimony or if she'd relayed some actual confusion to him. If it's the latter, well, I'm rendered nearly speechless. This is what bothered me about this Brady violation from the get-go. The defense is misstating the record. They have had every element of Haddow email in their possession, in other testimony. They have no one to blame but themselves for their complete ignorance of the possibility of a carbon dioxide co-factor because it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Kelly also argued that the State had improperly sent the Haddow email to experts including Dr. Mosley. Why do I remember this so clearly, when Kelly does not? This was discussed when the Haddow email came to light. Dr. Lyon said he hadn't looked at. Bill Hughes announced in court that he'd just spoken to him and directed him not to read it in light of Judge Darrow's decision that day to stop disseminating it. An interview was set up between Do and Dr. Mosley to discuss the matter. Today Hughes explained that there were two such interviews.

I'm sorry but the only reason the defense has to argue that the process is irredeemably tainted and unworkable is that they're like the Keystone cops. They seem to have no idea what the State has actually sent them and they keep wildly misrepresenting it.

If Judge Darrow allows them their mistrial, it would be rewarding the defense for their own stupidity. They should let it go to verdict and let Ray appeal based on incompetent counsel.

The thought of James Ray walking on a technicality does not sit well with me. But if you really want insight into the human cost, read what Tom McFeeley, the cousin of the late Kirby Brown, had to say on the matter, when the Brady finding first threatened to derail this trial.

Dr. Archiaus Licinius Mosley, Jr.

I missed a good bit of Dr. Mosley's testimony today, thanks, once again, to the good folks at CNN. Moments into his direct examination by Bill Hughes, the feed was abruptly preempted by another feed showing firefighters welcoming President Obama. The fact that there was another, identical feed running at the same time did not escape my notice. There was a bit more juggling over the next ten  minutes or so until every feed was of wreath laying ceremonies at 9/11 sites. Now, I'm not disputing the relevance of those ceremonies. I am disputing the relevance of most of that coverage being nothing but people milling about before and after the actual events. Like the footage of Buckingham Palace at night, it went on like that for ages. Most of it had no audio. I noted one stream that did have audio but it was just picking up background chatter of unnamed, unrecognizable citizens. I listened to it for a while to see if any of them mentioned organophosphates. No one did.

After more than an hour of this meaningless coverage CNN brought back the James Ray trial feed and Dr. Mosley's testimony. The caption still referred to Obama laying a wreath, prompting this impertinent blogger to question whether all black men look the same to CNN. I admit that was a bit offsides. I'm sure CNN is just incompetent, not racist. 

When we did have Dr. Mosley on the feed, we learned that he was the medical examiner who examined Liz Neuman. He is a forensic pathologist, which he explained pertains to pathology that has relevance in court proceedings. A lot of people think the word "forensic" refers to medical autopsies. I competed in college forensics for enough years to know that it actually refers to public speaking such as one does in a court. In other words, I was on the speech team. That said, I don't think anyone would confuse Dr. Mosley with a public speaker. In looking at the reactions to him on Twitter and in other comments, it's clear many found him dull. I did not. I actually found him compelling. He's very deliberate, methodical, and thoughtful... but I can see why many would more likely say ponderous.

Dr. Mosley explained today that much of forensic pathology is based on circumstantial causes rather than medical evidence. This, if you'll recall, was also discussed in regard to Dr. Lyon. And like Dr. Lyon, Dr. Mosley explained that there is no medical test for hyperthermia (or heatstroke). It's determined by clinical criteria and circumstiantial evidence -- in other words, evidence that a patient has been exposed to heat. For a pathologist examining a dead body, that clinical evidence is not even available. The body would no longer have an elevated temperature and the somewhat deranged mental state associated with heatstroke would be no more.

Bill Hughes, I have to say, conducted a brilliant and detailed direct examination today, asking very good and clarifying questions about some very tricky medical issues.

He really got into the dehydration question, which is one of my favorites. As I've discussed ad nauseum, ad infinitum, on this blog, dehydration is not a necessary cause of heatstroke. Dr. Mosley explained this in unambiguous terms, explaining that "heat all by itself is directly toxic to tissue without mechanistically acting through dehydration."

In Liz Neuman's case, it was a moot point by the time Dr. Mosley examined her, because she had been on IV fluids, having lived for nine days, instead of dying on the scene.

Dr. Mosley explained that he held off on signing his final report because he wanted to confer with colleagues. He described his own mental process as being like an internal pinball machine and that he enjoys bouncing his thoughts off of other internal pinball machines. He explained that he has to keep an open mind. He expressed much respect for Dr. Lyon as someone to have constructive argument with. And he confirmed Dr. Lyon's assertion that the difference in their diagnostic terms was largely semantics. Dr. Lyon is comfortable determining James Shore's and Kirby Brown's deaths as being due to heatstroke. Dr. Mosley prefers the term hyperthermia because the clinical conditions associated with heatstroke are not observable in the dead.

Dr. Lyon did convince him to change his finding from homicide to accident. Again, the issue is largely semantics. Homicide is defined as death at the hands of another. But he accepted Dr. Lyon's reasoning and changed it to accident.

Dr. Mosley did not have a toxicology report run at the time of his examination of Liz Neuman, but he did explain that the organophosphate test was run at the behest of the State just recently. He did not expect to find evidence of organophosphates because they would have been long gone from the blood, especially because Neuman had not died immediately. He explained that her initial blood draw at the time of admission would have been disposed of seven days later, before she had even died.

I found Dr. Mosley's testimony most interesting when he answered questions about organophosphates. He even created a useful chart on the giant easel. The constituents in his mnenomic are salivation, lacrimation (tearing), urination, defecation, GI hypermotility, emesis (vomiting), miosis (pinpoint pupils)/muscle twitches.

SLUDGEM Organophosphate Mnenomic

Dr. Mosley explained that the question of organophosphates is at least interesting because there were some symptoms that were atypical for hyperthermia or heatstroke. He went through Liz Neuman's records and some records of other participants. Some of the symptoms presented would be consistent with organophosphate poisoning.

As they went through the list, there were some things, but not all, ticked off on the list. Salivation (frothy sputum) came from eyewitness accounts but isn't in the medical reports. Defecation occurred but that is a very nonspecific symptom because everybody does it routinely and involuntary defecation would be consistent with coma. Liz Neuman was in a deep one. Emesis or vomiting was reported but that is also nonspecific and is consistent with hyperthermia. Miosis or pinpoint pupils were reported and not explained by hyperthermia. As I've noted before that is the bizarre outlier in terms of symptoms in a number of participants.

Dr. Mosley, though, did suggest another possible explanation for miosis. He said there are multiple causes but of interest in this case: hypercapnia. As noted above, this revelation may trigger a mistrial. The likelihood that participants were affected by elevated carbon dioxide levels is fairly high.

There is also a possibility that miosis could have been caused by brain damage, which Liz Neuman had.

Salivation, or the frothy sputum described, is also nonspecific. In the case of organophosphate poisoning, the autonomic nervous system switches on and just begins to run unchecked. There is a loss of conscious control of salivation. So there would be a lot of salivation. It's interesting, then, that it was nowhere mentioned in the paramedic's report. Bill Hughes gave him the entire report from Guardian Air to review and he did not find any reference to salivation or frothy sputum. The paramedic in question, Joel Swedberg, saw no excessive salivation and did not suspect pesticide poisoning.

Like every medical professional who's testified so far, Dr. Mosley has never seen a case of organophosphate poisoning.

Dr. Mosley also addressed the question of rat poisoning. He said typical rat poisons would cause internal bleeding and excessive bruising. The CPR Liz Neuman received would have caused severe and noticeable bruising. It did not.

Truc Do Cross Examines Dr. Mosley

Truc Do quickly cut Dr. Mosley's qualifications down to size. He is not a treating physician. We also learned that he not board certified. He passed his board for forensic pathology but not for anatomic pathology because he's not so good at reading pap smears and similar tests.

Do suggested that it's because he's not a treating physician that he's never seen organophosphate poisoning. She still doesn't seem to grok that what she's implying is that there aren't a lot of deaths due to organophosphates; hence, those cases don't make it to the morgue.

Do also established that she has had many conversations with Dr. Mosley. In one of them he'd mentioned (or pinballed?) the idea of doing a sweat lodge to gain insight into this case. He didn't do it. Not mentioned is how little insight he would gain into a James Ray heat gauntlet by doing a normal -- or  weenie-ass -- sweat lodge.

Predictably, she went after the circumstantial nature of his diagnosis. This brought a truly comical exchange in which she asked him about a number that they discussed previously: 99.872%. He described it as one of his "favorite numbers." He said he "facetiously" concocted that number to express to the attorneys something that really can't be quantified numerically. Do then explained that the number would be 100% based on witness testimony and 100% based on police investigation. (Doesn't that bring us to 200%? I think I'm missing something.) At any rate, Dr. Mosley said her math was fine but that the whole idea of assigning a number is "ridiculous."

Dr. Mosley allows that his conclusions have changed somewhat due to more information that has become available since February of 2010, when he reported his findings. Do asked if he now doubted his diagnosis of hyperthermia. He said no, but that he now considered there to be other factors. As stated above there are some symptoms that are not consistent with hyperthermia alone.

He agreed with Do's assertion that Liz Neuman's death was consistent with a toxicity. He also agreed that he "cannot exclude organophosphates." Do also pointed out that Dr. Cutshall and Dr. Lyon likewise could not exclude organophosphates and that this makes their testimony consistent.

What caused Dr. Mosley to reconsider the possibility was the "organophosphate theory that was floated." He agreed that it probably came from Dr. Ian Paul.

Dr. Mosley reviewed Dr. Paul's report. He did not agree with Do that Dr. Paul found that the medical findings in this case are inconsistent with heatstroke. He clarified that Dr. Paul found some of the findings are inconsistent with heatstroke. That's actually a bigger difference than I think Do realizes.

Dr. Paul, they both agreed, believed that this is a case of toxicity and that his prime candidate is organophosphates.

Do asked Dr. Mosley if when he initially received Dr. Paul's report, he thought he was wrong. Dr. Mosley's answer? I do believe he's wrong. Do didn't like that answer.

He allowed that in a discussion with Do on April 19th, he thought Dr. Paul could be right.

Initially, Dr. Mosley had emailed the State and said that Dr. Paul's theory could be "dismantled." He did walk that back but he disputed Do's assertion that he took it back in its entirety. Today he emphasized that there were a number of participants whose symptoms were not consistent with organophosphate poisoning.

I get the sense that Do thought Dr. Mosley was going to be a more agreeable witness than he has turned out to be. He appears to have reconsidered his reconsideration. So tomorrow's testimony should be interesting. That is, if I can get through even another hour of Do's odd mix of belligerence and valley girl uptalking.

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or live courtroom footage on TruTV's "In Session" or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

James Arthur Ray Sweat Lodge Trial: Day 37

James Ray and His Defense Team

ALERT: CNN is planning to pull the plug on its live coverage of the James Ray trial as of Friday. If you enjoy these updates, which are based almost entirely on that live footage, please contact CNN and ask them to continue its coverage. Thanks to Connie Joy for finding the contact information for Viewer Communication Management on the CNN website. They don't make it easy. Here's the email address: VCN@cnn.com

James Ray's defense team never ceases to amaze me. Over the weekend I downloaded their motion to preclude Dr. Kent from testifying. It seems a bit thin to me but I'll wait and see what Judge Darrow has to say on that. More to the point, attached to that motion is a list of every person who has ever attended Spiritual Warrior since 2003, including their addresses, phone numbers, and email. Connie Joy posted an alert on her Facebook page and the State was apparently deluged with complaints from people who were unhappy about having their private data available for download from the court website. Prosecutor Sheila Polk filed a motion and Judge Darrow ordered it removed and sealed. But, for the love of God, this thing was available all weekend because it was posted on a Friday. They're very vigorous about protecting Ray's data and incredibly cavalier about everybody else's.

I don't know if any of that was addressed in legal arguments this morning because legal arguments were well underway when CNN finally started the live feed this morning. This and failing to turn on the sound were recurring themes throughout the broadcast day. I do know that two jurors have been excused -- one, no doubt, was the sick juror for whom court was canceled yesterday.  I also know that the defense is objecting to prosecution witness Douglas Sundling but this was not discussed in depth.

The day was fraught with legal argument, throughout, as Det. Diskin continued his testimony. There continued to be multiple objections, sidebars, and arguments over the breaks. So the actual testimony was rather limited.

Tom Kelly Cross Examines Det. Diskin

Tom Kelly's questioning of Det. Diskin is really a boilerplate defense tactic. There is lots of other evidence in the world that the police chose not to pursue. Any defense lawyer at any time can argue that because all detectives will narrow down their focus to the likeliest causes and suspects. And labs will only spend the money to test samples attached to viable, investigated theories. In this case, the Flagstaff facility declined to send the soil samples to Pheonix to be tested. Yet, Tom Kelly seemed flummoxed as to why the entire sweat lodge wasn't tested. The samples are so small and constitute a tiny percentage of the overall square footage of the crime scene. Hey, it's a tried and true defense tactic and maybe he can confuse one juror who's never watched a single detective drama and has no idea what leads and sampling are about.

In this case, Diskin narrowed the investigation down to James Ray because there were other sweat lodges conducted in the same structures, through the years, and the only problems occurred in James Ray's sweats. Those problems arose in three different sweat lodge structures. Because, I repeat, a James Ray sweat lodge is unsafe in any structure. That's the simple truth of the matter that became evident as detectives interviewed witness after witness. Det. Diskin described this last week as "the extreme nature" of James Ray's sweat lodges. The defense has worked very hard to keep that ugly history out of the court, which constrains Det. Diskin from explaining how he built his case. But enough of the prior sweat lodge testimony has gotten in to this point that I think it probably comes across to the jury.

If you really want to know how extraneous the defense's argument is, look no farther than the chemistry question. Last week, Kelly introduced lab results showing trace amounts 2 ethyl 1 hexanol. As explained, this is a ubiquitous chemical constituent of numerous, non-toxic, household products. In other words, in terms of causation, it's meaningless.

Likewise, today, Kelly introduced other chemical volatiles -- alpha terpineol and terpineol-4-OL -- expressed in trace amounts from the cedar logs. But what Kelly does not say is that terpineols are natural components of pine. They are under the broader category of terpenes, many of which make up cedar. Essential oil  of cedarwood has many therapeutic properties and terpineols are commonly extracted and sold for use in perfumery. This is something that jumped out at me immediately, when I heard Kelly's questions because I went to school for aromatherapy. I had to learn a fair bit about the chemistry of botanicals. Today we  learned that Tom Kelly actually has a degree in chemistry, so he certainly knows that the natural world is made up of many such impressive sounding chemicals. It's more than a little disingenuous for Kelly to imply to the jury that the presence of those naturally occurring compounds is evidence of toxic pesticides. Put simply, he knows better. It's an intentionally misleading line of questioning.

And it gets worse. Injun Samurai, a regular commenter on the Salty Droid has been posting information on the toxicity of the chemicals in question, including organophosphates. As used in pesticides, they're not much of a threat to humans, at least in the short term. Long term, they're carcinogenic, like so much of what makes up the industrialized world. You'd have to ingest them... a lot of them to die suddenly. The punchline? None of the pesticides actually used by the Hamiltons at Angel Valley even contain organophosphates. No wonder Luis Li held up a jar of a pesticide he picked up at the hardware store that no one has claimed the Hamiltons have ever used. Reading off the labels of Just One Bite or Amdro -- which wasn't even used until 2010 -- wouldn't have afforded him the opportunity to name any organophosphates. The toxicity of the Hamiltons' products is extremely low, as per Injun Samurai on this thread. His comments are well-researched, documented, and laced with just the right amount of profanity in response to such shameless, diversionary tactics.

Also shameless is the question of nails in logs which Kelly actually raised again today. Sure the nails were used to hold down tarps, he acknowledged, but Amayra Hamilton said they would never burn wood that contained nails. Of course, her clearly stated point was that they would never burn wood that had been previously used as part of the old construction, which could be easily identified by having nails in it.

Kelly also questioned Diskin's assessment that heat could impact people irregularly but poison would take out everyone. Couldn't there be pesticides coming up out of the sand so that those people who laid down on the ground were more affected than others. Never mind that he provided no evidence that those people who got sick or died were those who laid down in the sweat lodge, as has been amply demonstrated it would take a tremendous quantity of such poisons and that kind of quantity would have definitely effected everyone to some degree.

It is increasingly clear that the poisons theory has no foundation; well except for the nameless, faceless, possible EMT who mentioned that organophosphates and carbon monoxide were a possibility. So Kelly played the amplified background noise again for Det. Diskin, over Sheila Polk's objections. I think it's worth noting that the defense team ignores the carbon monoxide theory mentioned by this unknown person. Carbon monoxide was ruled out by bloodwork. Organophosphates weren't because no one thought to test for them -- apparently, because that's not what the symptoms indicated.

He then launched into the medical records of Liz Neuman, Sidney Spencer, Stephen Ray, and Lou Caci, carefully reading only the preliminary, differential diagnoses which mention possible toxidromes. He also read that in Stephen Ray's case, they doubted heatstroke and suspected an acute toxidrome in their initial assessment. And in every case, they suspected carbon monoxide. What does that say about those preliminary reports, considering that carbon monoxide was ruled out?

Kelly also mentioned the interview with defense expert Dr. Ian Paul. He points out that Dr. Paul "cannot exclude organophosphates." Polk thought that was a misstatement of his testimony but even if it's a correct statement, it's not terribly impressive as evidence of organophosphates. Because, again, you can't rule out what hasn't been tested, which means there's quite a range of things that he could not possibly exclude. So I'm curious to hear what Dr. Paul actually has to say. Kelly also raised Dr. Cutshall and Dr. Lyon's testimony, to sustained objections. But the thing is, they also could only "not exclude" organophosphates. None of this actually indicates organophosphates. It just doesn't not indicate them.

Kelly invoked the Haddow information with Det. Diskin and started listing the events regarding the disclosure of the email. He used the word "sanction" to describe the consequences for the State. Polk objected because this is untrue. The State has, to date, not been sanctioned. Judge Darrow hastily called for lunch recess and heard legal arguments. They got very heated.

Polk argued that the defense is implying that it's the State that's trying keep Mr. Haddow and his "expert" information out of the court, when in fact, it's the defense at this point that's blocking his testimony.

Kelly's response was, again, to demand the elusive jury instruction.

Judge Darrow explained that he found the Haddow email exculpatory because it's the difference between reckless manslaughter and negligent homicide. I'm not sure I completely understand this but I think he means that if the structure is partly to blame, Ray was merely negligent in not recognizing the potential problem.

Polk argued again that the obvious remedy would be to allow Haddow to testify and called for a jury instruction because of the defense's repeated references to information that will never be demonstrated in court and the implications that it's the State that's blocking it.

There is a lot of the legal argument missing due to CNN's failure to turn on the stream... again, but Judge Darrow allowed that Kelly had usurped the court's authority by claiming a nonexistent sanction. He also, though, expressed renewed concern about whether or not the Brady violation can be rectified as he'd hoped and wanted to know if the defense was still urging a mistrial. They are. He also has concerns about how long the trial is taking, so there he may well be considering granting the mistrial. We shall see.

When we returned to Kelly's cross there was no audio for quite a while so we have no idea how Kelly addressed the disputed questions about the Haddow email and Brady violation. We do know that he was on about bugs on fruit again. Strangely he left the question about what bugs Det. Diskin found hanging.

Sheila Polk Redirects Det. Diskin

On redirect, Sheila Polk took up the bizarrely truncated bug question by allowing Det. Diskin to point out the flies he sees on the images. She blew up a digital image and allowed Det. Diskin to close in on what is without question an ant.

Polk also underscored that the samples have been available for testing by the defense all along. It is kind of interesting that Kelly has a degree in chemistry but didn't think it important to test these samples at any point.

Det. Diskin defended his crime scene saying that he was quite sure that it was never contaminated and that no important evidence was missed. Even after listening to two months of trial testimony, he remains quite comfortable with his level of investigation and still sees no reason to have called in additional experts or scientists.

Polk also used one of Kelly's charts as an object of deserved ridicule. This chart was his attempt to outline the course of the investigation. As Det. Diskin pointed it failed to include things like hundreds  of interviews with witnesses. It excludes searches of Angel Valley and JRI offices and the examination of all that evidence. It excludes the chasing down of leads and further interviews.

Kelly's Investigation Overview Leaves Out a Few Things

Polk also Det. Diskin about the photo of Fawn Foster walking about and whether it was inconsistent with her testimony. He did not because Kelly's assertion that she claimed to have been sitting on a log outside the sweat lodge the entire time, except for her assistance with Lou Caci, is a straw man. It's not what she said. She described a variety of activities as well as times when she was sitting on that log.

She also asked him to clarify his stance on Foster's credibility and that of the Hamiltons. He explained that credibility is not about peoples' spiritual beliefs but whether their testimony is corroborated by evidence and other testimony, their body language, and any possible motive to lie. In other words, he's in the business of detective work, not religious bigotry.

Polk also picked off another of Kelly's straw man questions; this one regarding Ted Mercer's statements about what wood he burned. He never said he'd burned the "wrong wood." He was asked what was different in 2009 and it was that the cedar logs were burned exclusively, rather than mixed with other tree wood as had been done in previous years. He also explained that he observed no staining or other treatment of that wood. Kelly raised many objections as to his qualifications to make that assessment but he did work in construction after all.

Another recess was called with Kelly arguing that Polk's questions are "leading." (Pot calling the kettle what?) This goes back to the conundrum of allowing Det. Diskin to defend his investigation if he can't address the (leading) questions that were asked by Tom Kelly. Ultimately it was agreed that Polk would stop asking his "opinion" or "conclusion" and instead ask for his "belief."

Det. Diskin also addressed the crosscut samples of the sweat lodge coverings and testified that the plastics were all on the outside; with only fabric blankets facing inward. He also determined that the plastics themselves did not get hot. (In other words, they would not have been expressing volatiles into the sweat lodge.)

Polk also went after Kelly's questions about the chemical evidence. Diskin explained the difference between "trace evidence" and "trace amounts." Trace evidence is things like hairs and carpet fibers that are very small but evidentiary. A trace amount is a tiny, tiny amount of something that is found in evidence. He also explained that an inert ingredient means it's not the active ingredient. He did look up 2 ethyl 1 hexanol and learned from the EPA that's in everything.

In a particularly telling series of questions, Polk asked about the Haddow email and asked Diskin about whether he had expressed his belief that carbon dioxide was a contributing cause of death and if that was consistent with the Haddow email. I don't think there's any explaining the looks on Li and Do's faces during this testimony. I don't know if they've finally grokked that Det. Diskin was, in fact,  explicit about carbon dioxide or if they are still confused as to the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, but they were very reactive to Diskin's statement on the issue.

Polk also showed Det. Diskin a page from Stephen Ray's medical chart that Kelly had ignored. It explained that he was found to be severely dehydrated and it was, in fact, heatstroke. Again, this is the difference between focusing on a preliminary diagnosis and the diagnosis made after the patient has been evaluated.

Det. Diskin explained that he, himself, was surprised when carbon monoxide was ruled out. But it was and the investigation led to the reckless use of heat by James Ray. That was based not only witness testimony but, later, on the recording of James Ray's recorded speech before the sweat lodge in which he described the intensity; that it would be "hellacious hot" and that they might vomit. Kelly tried to have he vomiting excluded because it's not in the segment of the recording referred to, but as the entire recording is in evidence, Judge Darrow allowed the references to vomit. You can see why Kelly would want that out.

Ultimately Det. Diskin explained that the case was about the way James Ray conducted his sweat lodges, not any possible poisons.

The jury asked a rather telling question about the poisons, specifically. They asked if the poison control center, having been contacted, came back with any results on the presence of poisons. Answer: No.

Steven Michael Page

Former detective with the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office and current computer forensics analyst, Steven Page gave brief but complicated testimony. Page did the crime scene diagrams and he's a serious math guy. Questioned by Bill Hughes, he explained the ins and outs of measuring a crime scene and constructing a diagram with a computer program.

Luis Li began his cross of Page by surreptitiously trying to discredit poor Fawn Foster. The defense really seems to have it in for her. Without ever saying it, Li set out to prove that the log she sat on was too far from the sweat lodge for her to have heard Ray say things like, oh, I don't know, that he was the alpha and the omega?

Li sketched the log into the diagram. He asked Page to estimate the distance from the door of the sweat lodge to the log, admitting that the diagram was not to scale. Then he took out the tape measure to measure the distance, estimating the distance from the back of the sweat lodge to the log as 48 feet from the back of the sweat lodge, and estimating the log to be outside of the courtroom and into the hall. Then he estimated that the door would be where Bill Hughes was sitting at the prosecutors' table and pointed out that from that Bill Hughes point, the log would still be in the hall. Wouldn't it have made more sense to start from the door point, putting that at the front of the courtroom, and leave Bill Hughes and the irrelevant length of the sweat lodge out of it? Of course it would, but then he couldn't have put the log in a place beyond the jurors' vision.

What the aware juror would notice, however, is that even when Li was standing by the doors at the back of the courtroom, greater than the approximated distance from the sweat lodge door to the log, he and Page could hear each other easily. So he actually proved that Fawn Foster would have no trouble hearing what was James Ray was saying loud enough to be heard in the 24' sweat lodge. That's if the juror was not hopelessly confused by Li's intentionally misleading and extraneous measuring.

Next Li did more math to determine what percentage of the sweat lodge scene were taken as samples, repeating Kelly's erroneous line of questioning. When he took out a calculator to verify his math, an exasperated Judge Darrow interrupted to ask him how long it would take. He promised five minutes and, thankfully, came in pretty darned close. So that math, he could do.

Bill Hughes promised a very short redirect and he delivered. He asked Page to calculate the distance from the log to the sweat lodge door. Page asked for scratch paper and a calculator so that he could utilize a Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance. He arrived a measure of 33.' In other words, not outside the courtroom and into the hallway, but a very reasonable distance that Li had already demonstrated was within hearing range.

There were no jury questions for the mathematikoi. Go figure

Steven Page was dismissed subject to recall.

Buy at Allposters.com

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or live courtroom footage on TruTV's "In Session" or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.

James Arthur Ray Sweat Lodge Trial: Day 36

Judge Darrow Hears Arguments

The day started with some very heated argument over what Det. Diskin can testify to. (I missed the beginning of this because CNN was asleep on the job but more on that later.) When In Session began broadcasting the legal arguments, they were discussing the case of Daniel Pfankuch and how it informed the direction of Det. Diskin's investigation. There is much about this situation that is debatable. It happened 6 years ago. There is some conflicting witness testimony and there are seemingly irreconcilable differences in interpretation as to what happened. Both Pfankuch interview transcripts and those of other participants can be found here.

People on the scene at that sweat lodge event described Pfankuch as hullucinating, combative, and ultimately unconscious. His wife had to force him to leave the sweat lodge. He wandered around hitting and kicking people and was generally irrational before passing out. He believes he had a near death experience from which he really didn't wish to return. His wife, Michelle, pounded on his chest and pleaded with him to come back. Another participant named David Duhaime aggressively cooled him by hosing down his head with cold water. Duhaime believes he would have died, otherwise. Duhaime demanded JRI staff members call 911 but they refused to do so without checking with Ray who had gone to take a shower. He became "very animated" and believes he persuaded them to call because but they didn't. Amayra Hamilton did and James Ray screamed and yelled at her for it.

Pfankuch was taken by ambulance to the hospital where he was treated for heat exhaustion and syncope. Daniel Pfankuch, though, believes he was told he had heatstroke and that is what he told Det. Diskin. The hallucinations and combative behavior are also consistent with heatstroke. He was also dehydrated and kept on IV fluids for some hours at the hospital.

Here's where it gets tricky for the prosecution and how James Ray has actually protected himself through his inaction. Because of all the foot dragging and the staff's refusal to call 911, Pfankuch's body temperature had, no doubt, dropped by the time he got to the hospital. The worst of his symptoms had also abated. A doctor can't diagnose based on symptoms he does not see. So the official medical diagnosis is hampered by the lack of promptness in getting Pfankuch to the hospital. The same thing occurred in 2009. And in 2007 and 2008, no one even went to the hospital so there are no medical records to refer to; only eye witness testimony to symptoms. This is also very dicey for Judge Darrow who has repeatedly stated his unwillingness to allow testimony filled with laymen diagnoses that have never been medically corroborated.

Sheila Polk would like to have the testimony admitted and connect the dots between what people observed and the medical definitions of heat related illness. Judge Darrow has given her some latitude in this regard but it's still tenuous and there is only so far he will go out onto that limb. It's understandable. Frustrating but understandable.

Today, though, he came as close as I've ever seen him come to losing his temper. There is another problem that was laid out today that ties back to the PowerPoint presentation and discussion between the prosecutors, the police, and the medical examiners. Apparently, in that presentation, Det. Diskin described Daniel Pfankuch as having suffered heatstroke which could have prejudiced their diagnoses in the cases of Kirby Brown, James Shore, and Liz Neuman, and according to Tom Kelly, this was after the police had the actual medical report with the lesser diagnosis in their possession. Polk argued that if such aspersions were going to made against Det. Diskin, he needed to be offered the chance to testify to the issue directly, which would mean presenting the Daniel Pfankuch to the jury. And that, according to Judged Darrow, is a bridge too far.

The defense would also like to get its limiting instruction on the burden shifting issue. The prosecution has no objection to a limiting instruction but this morning they were still going over precedent and languaging. Luis Li, predictably, got very agitated over the issue, insisting that he and Truc Do were getting suspicious looks from the jury as Sheila Polk ran through her litany of questions about the many opportunities defense attorneys had to raise the question with Det. Diskin but didn't. I think its entirely possible that her phrasing could have created confusion about what the responsibility of the defense is in a case like this but I think Li might do well to consider that he and Do are getting looks because they've damaged their own credibility with their tactics. The other significant event that occurred yesterday was that Li's lying to Amayra Hamilton about nails in logs was laid bare by Diskin's testimony and the presentation of the logs themselves to the jury. Tactics like that look bad. No one likes to be lied to and the witness is not the only person deceived in a case like that; the jurors were also being willfully, and I think, noticeably misled.

There was also some argument over another exhibit. Polk explained that she wanted to present a chart showing the corporate structure and hierarchy. Seems pretty straightforward, right? But Kelly renewed his objection. This seemed to confuse Judge Darrow. He seemed to be laboring under the misapprehension that Kelly's corporate chart, created on the easel during Melinda Martin's testimony, was actually designed to clarify the corporate structure rather than to obscure it.

Darrow: I mentioned the specific thing you wanted to show was corporate structure, hierarchy, officers and those things... I mentioned in the ruling and I think one of the things that the State had objected to then in their written response had to do why, why all of the articles, and, um, I mean I understand Mr. Kelly spent a lot of time with the, on the easel, and there was discussion about who does what and that kind of information I, and I thought that's what you wanted was to actually get the document in and you'd have foundation for that.

Kelly: Judge. We will stipulate that James Ray was the president of James Ray International if that's its purpose. Again, I never thought that was a disputed fact, but, even a relevant fact but it uh

Polk: Judge. It's not the Articles of Incorporation. It is the -- this is exhibit 809 -- which is the list of corporate officers.

Darrow: Mr. Kelly, you gonna object to that?... Again I don't know that the detective would be the foundation witness for this if there's an issue on foundation.

Polk: Your honor this is a certified public record. It, um, I'm just bringing it in through his testimony but the foundation is through the rules. It's a certified public document.

Darrow: There's the certification and authentication --

Kelly: Judge [inaudible crosstalk] The point of the chart was to point out the lack of any personal knowledge by James Ray. I just don't think this is relevant. But, uh, we respect your ruling. If that's the document, it appears to be rather innocuous so I don't have any objection. [All Emphases Mine]

James Ray International Offices

When Polk resumed her questioning of Det. Diskin it became clear why Kelly would not particularly want JRI corporate structure laid bare, if his goal was to show how detached Ray was from the day to day goings on at JRI. She brought out Kelly's chart and compared it to the actual certified copy listing the officers for JRI.

Polk: Detective, are you able to see who is listed as President for James Ray International?

Diskin: Yes. It's James Ray.

Polk: Are you able to see who is listed as Secretary for James Ray International?

Diskin: Yes. It's James Ray.

Polk: Are you able to see who is listed as Treasurer for James Ray International?

Diskin: Yes. It's James Ray.

Polk: And are you able to see who is listed as Director for James Ray International?

Diskin: Yes. It's James Ray.

Polk: Are you able to see who signed the filing of the corporate officers for James Ray International's Secretary?

Diskin: Yes. Has James Ray's name there.

Next, Polk addressed some of the materials that were discovered during the search executed at the JRI offices in Carlsbad, CA. These were all items pertaining to Kirby Brown, James Shore, and Liz Neuman. Some of them are in dispute and their admission is pending further argument. What was admitted were the release waivers for the Spiritual Warrior event. The bulk of these waivers were found in Megan Fredrickson's backpack, which was sitting by the door to her office. So they had clearly been hurriedly transported from Arizona to the offices. Worse, the backpack did not just contain the JRI waivers but also the Angel Valley waivers. So, in their haste, they actually stole Angel Valley property and took it back to Carlsbad.

Whether or not this pertains to the attempted scrubbing of the Spiritual Warrior records discussed in Megan Fredrickson's police interview, I can't say for certain.

Kelly Does Fancy Math

Kelly started his cross examination with Det. Diskin in a very aggressive and accusatory manner. He questioned his skill as a case agent, given his overlooking of crucial lab findings. He broke out the easel to show chemicals which were found in a sample of the sweat lodge coverings.

Kelly: I wrote up on the, on the board there 2 ethyl 1 hexanol. You ever seen that chemical before?

Diskin: I don't know.

Kelly: I'm uh, handing you what's been marked as evidence item 356. You recognize that can, detective?

Diskin: I do.

Kelly: Do you know that uh, that chemical was determined from the carbon strip in that can?

Diskin: I knew that there were quite a few chemicals determined from the carbon strip in that can.

Kelly: If 2 ethanol 1 hexanol is the inert ingredient for residential insect spray, would that not be important for a case agent to making a determination during his investigation?

. . .

Kelly: And again. Take a look at 2 ethyl 1 hexanol. Are you aware that Miss Sy provided an analysis of exhibit 356 and found trace evidence of 2 ethyl 1 hexanol?

Diskin: I know that there were quite a few chemicals or as she called it volatiles that were detected.

Kelly: Were you aware that 2 ethyl 1 hexanol possible use is as an inert ingredient for residential insect spray?

Diskin: No.

This is the kind of questioning that could truly make me hate defense attorneys. It's the worst kind of lawyering when people use deliberately misleading phrasing like that to confuse a jury. It would be hard not to take Kelly's implication that this was evidence that there was insect spray in the tarps. But let's break it down... Now where's my giant easel...

Here are some of the key, weasel words, the meaning of which directly contradict Kelly's tone and implied meaning:

• trace evidence -- very, very small amount of the chemical in question
• inert ingredient -- not one of the active ingredients that would actually serve the purpose of killing bugs
• residential -- something commonly used and available in any hardware store
• 2 ethyl 1 hexanol -- a common chemical constituent found in numerous household products including packaged foods

Moments later, Kelly claimed that Diskin said he'd ruled carbon dioxide as well as carbon monoxide. Diskin corrected him and said that, no, he did not rule out carbon dioxide. "You didn't say that? We can review your transcript." Which he made no move to do. But I have reviewed the transcript and put the relevant portion here. This is the interview in which Diskin clearly stated that carbon dioxide was being considered as a contributing cause of death, but which the defense attorneys apparently still fail to grasp.

So basic chemistry may not be the defense team's long suit but Kelly did demonstrate some impressive math skills. He calculated the square footage of the sweat lodge and pointed out that Diskin only took 1% of the overall structure for samples. He may not really understand how sampling works either because that's quite sufficient to the purpose.

Kelly then restated all of Diskins impressive credentials in investigating crimes against children... for some reason...

Then he began to wax philosophic about the dangers of wrongful accusation. "And, uh, that's happened," said Kelly.

"Not in this case," replied Det. Diskin.

Then Kelly started monologuing about Richard Jewell. Polk objected. Darrow sustained the objection. Kelly said, "Can I finish?" and just continued to talk about how Jewell's life was ruined. Objection. Sustained. Bizarre. Kelly likes to chat with rugged, male witnesses, like Scott Barratt, the cowboy, and he doesn't like to be interrupted by annoying judges and their rules.

In one of the uglier episodes today, Kelly used Diskin's questioning to attempt to invalidate Fawn Foster. He showed photos, completely out of context, that he asserted showed she left the scene of the sweat lodge instead of sitting on the log the entire time. Polk objected, pointing out that it misstated the prior testimony. Diskin's memory of her testimony was also different. My memory of her testimony is different. But this distortion of the evidence was not enough. He went after her as a person. He mocked her characterization by Amayra Hamilton as someone who was good at communicating with animals. You know, not only is it fairly indecent to mock a witness, in front of the jury, and behind her back, but he also managed to insult many people of many faiths who respect the dignity and sentience of all life. Buddhists, indigenous peoples, me...

It was an ugly sequence and another creepy, little peek into Kelly's male bonding rituals. Diskin actually disarmed Kelly, I think. He didn't get flustered at all by the accusatory Kelly and as the questioning progressed, Kelly got more than a little chummy... and gossipy... and just weird.

"What the buggery bollocks is this?" ~ Edina Monsoon

If you really want to see my husband get wrapped around the axle about something, remind him of the days following the near simultaneous deaths of Lady Di and Mother Theresa. He still gets angry over how we were subjected to endless royal drama and near silence about a woman who spent her life attending to impoverished, orphaned, and desperately ill people in India. I was reminded of that today while trying to watch the James Ray trial coverage on CNN's live feed. The attorneys were well into their legal arguments this morning before coverage started. After the lunch break, trial coverage was preempted for the rest of the day by empty feeds, weather, and two continuous feeds of the royal wedding. One of those ran endless replays of the wedding, so it wasn't even live. The other was -- and I'm not kidding -- the silent darkness outside Buckingham Palace at night. The palace, at night, in the dark, with no sound.

To CNN a lineup like the following was more important than a trial involving the deaths of three people.

LIVE: The Royal Wedding replay

LIVE: Outside Buckingham Palace

LIVE: Alabama Storm Coverage

LIVE: U.S. weather outlook

Anyone who finds CNN's priorities as disturbing as I do can relay their comments to CNN here.

All information on the trial comes from news articles with provided links or live courtroom footage on TruTV's "In Session" or CNN's live feed. All quotes and paraphrased statements that are not linked to a source document are my best attempt to transcribe material from live broadcasts.

Comments on this entry are closed, on this blog. If you wish to comment, please find this and all newer blog entries crossposted on Celestial Reflections.