I apologize for not blogging as much as I should have been, especially considering the curious lack of press coverage of my trial.
The Jury is just entering the sixth hour of deliberations on my fate. I don't know if that's good or bad that it seems to be perhaps longer than I would have guessed. I suppose the longer the better, within limits, unless other jurors are trying to wear down the jurors who saw through the smoke and mirrors arguments put forth by the King County Deputy Prosecutor, and have arrived at the truth, and are sticking to it to prevent an injustice to be done to me and all whistleblowers like me at Boeing's behest.
I like the fact they seem to be not making any snap judgments on the matter, and that even though I don't remotely resemble George Clooney, they nonetheless appear to consider my fate important.
The jury began deliberations yesterday, about 2 PM PST. I'm told to be within a fifteen minute radius of the court, so I'm blogging from the courthouse library.
The fifteen minute radius thing shows a little bit of bias by the court because, even though the court rules say 15 minutes, the practice put in place by all judges except mine is 30 minutes, probably due to the fact we are in a major city in which it is difficult to get around in. My attorney told the judge it would be difficult for her to get from her nearby (6 or so blocks away) office to the courtroom in fifteen minutes. Of course, the judge stayed with the fifteen minute radius order as the Prosecutor's office is just two flights of stairs above her courtroom. This is her first case in King County Superior Court, a judge who used to work as a prosecutor in the Criminal Division with Dan Satterberg in the early 90's, I'm told. Dan Satterberg is the newly elected (By Boeing and Perkins Coie contributions and a Perkins Coie partner managing his campaign) King County Prosecutor who the Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson, who argued the prosecution's side in my trial, directly reports to.
More to be added later today.
Thanks for your kind prayers and support. At least it is heartening that I know many people are praying for me, my family, and that justice ultimately be served, and no one is praying for Boeing and their minions in the Prosecutor's office to prevail.
An interesting thing happened today around 3 PM as the jury deliberated in my case.
I and my attorney were told to stay within a fifteen minute radius as noted in the earlier today blog in case of a verdict or if the jury had a question.
It turns out the jury had a question at the time noted above. The question itself may give some insight into the jury's deliberations for those of you who are good at that sort of thing.
The jury's question was (paraprasing, I'm sure), "can we consider whistleblower laws in our deliberations?"
Pretty interesting, huh? The judge took away our whole necessity/whistleblower defense, yet somehow the jury seems to be seeing the true nature of the case. Perhaps they see the case as I see it--as a not too thinly veiled attempt at whistleblower retaliation by Boeing and Dan Satterberg, the new King County Prosecutor that Boeing and Perkins Coie were instrumental in installing after Norm Maleng's death.
What is somewhat amusing in this is that it was the Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson, who brought up the fact I was a whistleblower most frequently, although his derisive tone in branding me as such must have telegraphed to the jury. I believe I only mentioned it in testimony once, when I said answered something to the effect of "during my attempts to blow the whistle on Boeing."
Of course, if you've read my previous blogs on the trial, you already know what the judge told the jury--she gave them a one word answer--simply the word "no." The jury then presumably deliberated for another hour after that before the customary time of quitting, 4 PM. The judge's answer was one of the several incorrect rulings she's made thus far during the trial, in my humble opinion, although I'm told that the answer "consider the law as presented to you in court" is actually the correct answer she should have given, rather than weighing in at all either way so as to not bias the jury. As the judge is apparently not following that precedent, she simply told them to stop considering the fact I was a whistleblower, telegraphing her unambiguousness as to which side of the issue she was on--Boeing's.
I'm told that a verdict would probably be returned this week, although I'm surprised the jury went home today without a verdict.
Tomorrow I have to be before the judge at 9 AM in order to put the jury's question and the judge's answer officially on the record. Then the fifteen minute radius wait continues.
I now have some pretty high hopes and respect for the jury, with them apparently trying to find a way out of the Boeing drawn box the judge and prosecutor have put me in so that they return a guilty verdict. I think they are smart enough to know the bias of the court, and will ultimately return a verdict per the law, not just how the prosecutor and Boeing want the verdict to be, which any first year law student I think could tell isn't per the law in my case.
The Last Inspector
A comment from GFS:
Keep up your spirits Gerald. There will be real justice. It sounds like the Jury is questioning the right things. The trial as being run by King County appears to really be a total travesty. They should be ashamed. The judge should have recused herself in my opinion if she had that past history with the prosecutor and prosecutor's office, particularly as connected to the company as the prosecutor's office appears to be. It sure is an insult to the "justice system."
It is sad how ugly some of the people from TBC seem to be. And, certainly not everyone is like that. I know some fine people who work for that company, or are trying to the best they can considering some of the things going on inside. Those good folks are represented badly however by some of the antisocial stuff certain people are putting out there for the public to see regarding this trial. I have reason to believe that there are a lot of things being scrutinized and investigated in a variety of arenas regarding this company and its business dealings. Time will tell. Those who are and/or have been corrupt and have been acting in bad faith will eventually be exposed I imagine. In my opinion change will come one way or another in time and they will have to clean up their act. It would be nice to really be able to respect and celebrate this company and be able to it with a clear conscience, and rally around them to ensure their success.
Actually it was before deliberations, on the same day as Mike Bair testified. The juror volunteered after Bair's testimony that he remembered Mike Bair as the executive he reported to. He didn't make the connection when his name was mentioned during jury selection, but he did after he saw him. He was one of the two alternates, so he was dismissed early as a result.
There were several Boeing people eliminated during jury selection. They didn't admit any bias as some Microsoft people did who were removed from the jury panel for cause. We were unable to eliminate everyone my attorney wanted to during jury selection. That is the case during most jury selections I guess. I can't say what the prosecutor thinks about the jury panel. There is at least one dyed in the wool business "executive" on the jury, but even though that may not be someone you think could be fair, you've got to hope for the best. Not all businesses by far have corruption in them like Boeing, so they may be as horrified as everyone else hopefully is at Boeing Management's actions as I described to the jury, and as demonstrated during the trial how Boeing handles whistleblowers like me.
A comment from Airbus Fan:
Thank you for all the information you leaked to the Press. We especially appreciated the muppet family of airplane designs that would still be secret had you not given them to the press.
It will just help us continue to compete. Now I don't understand what that has to do with whistleblowing, but you obviously think so.
Again, thanks for the Boeing secrets and we love you in Toulouse!
"Airbus Fan." Your sarcasm is noted. The info you write of was info given to an industry audience. Airbus also knew the other things, such as which sales campaigns they lost. People like you forget that I ensured the public and relevant authorities knew of Boeing's illegal transfer of B-2 composite military technology from the military side of the program to the 787 and other BCA programs, as well as ensured authorities would act in the public interest in the case of the story about Boeing's export (over State Department objections) of the QRS-11 chip to proscribed countries such as China which could be used as a solid state replacement to error prone gyro systems so China's missiles would hit their mark if we went to war with them someday over Taiwan or for some other reason. They also forget I exposed publicly that Boeing Management was still "ethically challenged" and that Federal Prosecutor's still thought Boeing management "was rotten to the core," probably the reason my trial is in King County Superior Court.
GFS--Thanks for the support. I too wish Boeing Management was something we could be proud of instead of otherwise so we could back the company without holding our noses while doing so.
The Last Inspector