𝘍𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘳𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘴. 

Caution: This report may be disturbing -- sexual violence, drug abuse, mental health, and neurodivergence.

.

.

.

.

After the morning session had officially ended, I spoke with the defendant. I just asked him a few questions, What are you thinking? Do you think testifying will help your case?

He said the situation is very difficult with the case against him, with both sets of charges. He said that he hadn't had much time to prepare and hadn't worked with a lawyer. (𝘜𝘱 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘩𝘴, 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘢𝘺 1. 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘳𝘬 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 2𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭.)

However, it was hard for him to see all the charges together on that first day. So that's why he changed his approach and got involved, e.g., questioning the witnesses and trying to present a defense. (I asked him about the Grand Jury and I gather that all the charges were not together or clear to him then the same way.)

He seemed fairly relaxed, given the situation.

The morning did not seem to go well for him. The Cincinnati detective testified at length. The narrative was partly from the detective's answers, and often built from the questions from the prosecutor. In addition, she was asked to read from the transcript of her interviews (or interrogations) of the defendant. The prosecutor later told me that this was done to avoid entering into the record his incredibly long, rambling statements, which could distract the jury. (more below)

It now became really clear that he had a severe drug and alcohol problem.

This melded in my mind with the impression I had on the second and third days, as if he was asking questions (esp of the girls) about events 𝗮𝘀 𝗶𝗳 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗻'𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗵𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 (as opposed to, as if he was sure they never happened). I can't quite explain how I felt this, but maybe a combo of his tone and the wording of the questions, almost like he couldn't believe that he would have done such things. That is, like he was too messed up to remember clearly (even if he thought they never happened).

Updated:

On his ability to think rationally (IMO), see my comment to Gil.

Morning witness (cont.): The Cincinnati detective has handled about 80 rape cases and had special trainings for minors. She made a mistake in stating one of (~5) alleged sexual acts with 1 of the boys. I noticed it, though I wasn't 100% sure, and I figured maybe it didn't matter. But, surprisingly, the defendant caught it and she checked her notes and retracted.

Medical records. The defendant tried to establish that there was no medical evidence against him. But the detective held her ground, explaining about the 72 hr limit for rape exams, so they could not have been done. (The prosecutor also reinforced this point on redirect.) The detective did not request medical records and refused to speculate, e.g., if abrasions and scars would be seen. But later, when the defense called in one of the boys mothers, she did say that he had a medical test, there was no DNA evidence, but -- and the defendant is asking about this (to his own detriment) -- said there was indication of penetration. I gather that the prosecution did not pursue this because, as the police said, it's a historical record and not useful as evidence.

Disturbing news about one of the boys:

The accused had subpoenaed one boy and his mother, a girlfriend at the time. But there was a tense moment when the prosecutor and defendant started to discuss a letter about the boy, which she had handed the defendant. He stood up, a police officer told him to sit down. Judge orders a break -- jury leaves room. It turns out that the boy had a stress reaction to his testimony, had gone to the ER, and there was a doctor's note advising or asking that he not testify. In addition, it came out that from early interviews, the detective had seen that the boy was developmentally delayed and she suggested that the mother get him tested. The mother testifies that he has "autism spectrum disorder."

At advice of the public defender -- who is a backup and not serving as his attorney -- the accused tells the judge that he would waive the boy's appearance. (This is curious to me, since the defendant makes no effort to delay the trial and buy himself more time.)

The doctor's letter:

"I am the primary care provider for ___. I saw him on 5/22/19 ... I diagnosed him as having stress and adjustment reaction due to having to testify in court this week. We spent the visit discussing ways he can cope when he is reminded of his bad memories. 𝗣𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲, as it is causing this autistic child further damage." (emphasis added)

The mother's testimony (as a witness supposedly for the defense):

The defendant says during his questioning (or really just talking) that he drank a lot, smoked weed, smoked crack, and sold heroin.

Defense angle: The accused asks the mother about what she heard from Tony, a friend of accused, that the defendant had bragged about making a man out of her son. She says it happened,. The defendant says more than once, What kind of grown man tells another man that he molested a child?

Joint evidence. The prosecutor told me later that she wanted the jury to see how young the girls looked at the time (7 years ago). But she was hesitant to use the video of their interviews at the Mayerson center because she said it'd be long and distracting. So she took some still images from those interviews and proposed them as evidence. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗵𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀, 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗷𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗵𝗶𝗯𝗶𝘁. (Before the session began, I heard the clerk say that he had seen some videos in jail on Thursday. But it's not clear which video.)

The defendant's testimony:

Rambling testimony, took about 45 minutes. The prosecution only raised an occasional objection (e.g., when talking about other people's criminality or speculating about a girl's mother) .

It's my impression that his testimony only dug himself in deeper. He admitted to intense drug and alcohol use, which AOT correlates with at least one 2012 incident alleged by both girls.

His testimony was less about the accusations and more about his girlfriends, esp the first, a mother of one of the girls. He was 42, she 23, when they met. She was "gorgeous" -- "I loved the ground that woman walked on" -- "I never knew love until I met her!" She helped him sell heroin, which he said was lucrative -- and enabled him to post $10,000 bail after she was arrested for killing her (next) boyfriend. (She's currently serving time in Dayton for manslaughter).

𝗛𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘅𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗲𝘀. "It's forbidden and against our creator for males to have sex with males. I wish I would have been taught correct growing up [i.e., rather than crime] so I wouldn’t have experienced that life yrs ago in the penitentiary. ... At age 6 yrs old a teen age boy around 16 made me [perform a sexual act], so I could never feel comfortable causing that said feeling to someone else, and plus I couldn’t live with myself."

Here are some angles that the defense haphazardly seemed to pursue or have in mind. (If it's not obvious, I'm not claiming that these are valid defenses.)

Defense angle -- The mothers are tough and wouldn't let their daughter or son be abused.

Defense -- The mother of 1 girl is from a family with mental illness, incest, a man imprisoned for molesting children, and so the girl was "surrounded by sexually exploited people."

Defense angle -- The mothers were ex-girlfriends and motivated to get back at him. (This is what I think he was aiming to show.) He thinks the mother of one of the boys (2017) wanted to get back at him for introducing her to her next boyfriend, who was the defendant's crack dealer.

Defense angle -- He brought out (in cross examination, etc) various problems or delays in the progression of the case. For instance -- why the mothers did not act more quickly (for the different children in 2012 and 2017 incidents)? Why was the 2012 case dropped? (Aside -- though apparently he was no longer allowed to see his daughter.) Was the 2017 case was deliberately slowed down to merge with the 2012 case? I do wonder if a concise enumeration of all these problems could raise a reasonable doubt.

Defense angle -- The accused floated various snippets of ideas about collusion. Tony could be part of the set up (see above). Notably, to get the boys to concoct a joint story, he demonstrated and emphasized that the mother of the 1st boy did not try to contact the 2nd boy. Instead, she delayed by about 6 months. 𝗦𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗷𝗮𝗶𝗹 (𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀). So maybe this could look like she solicited corroboration from the 2nd boy (who indeed was a much better witness). I admit that this timing looks odd -- was it only because she felt more safe with him in jail? (But she didn't say that.)

Note: The prosecutor presumably felt vulnerable about the 6 months delay, too, because, in 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀-𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, she got the mother to say that the 6 month delay was only because the mother was too busy -- with therapy and treatment for the boy and, as a single parent, care for 2 kids.

Defense angle -- of course, he claims that the children are lying.

Defense angle -- not mentioned today, but I think it would have come out that the less effective boy (had he testified) cannot consistently serve as a witness upon repeated questioning [this was my impression from day 2]. It could then be argued that the boy's mother belatedly approached the 2nd boy's mother only to concoct a joint narrative.

Defense angle -- Well, I would imagine that a good defense team would have gone over those childrens' videotaped interviews in detail. The defense agreed not to enter them as evidence (see above), but I wonder if they would have helped his case. There were weaknesses in their testimony, e.g., the 2nd girl claimed 3 incidents of one type, but she could only recall anything about 1 of them.

Btw, I enjoyed speaking with the others who sat thru the trial -- the prosecutor, the victim advocate, the clerk, two detectives, and the (backup) public defender. I asked about their emotions, their impressions, and for feedback on mine. A curious response to my question about jury selection, by one who said: I wouldn't want my mother on the jury because she is a social worker who would see his side, make up excuses for him, and imagine him abused as a child (see his testimony, above), etc. In other words, try to weed out jurors who might lean too far on empathy.

Adjourned until Tuesday 10:30 a.m. for closing arguments and charge to the jury.

This post on FB: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161759194115335

Earlier posts:

Timeline of the case: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161758398780335

Defendant's prior record: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161758445225335

3rd day: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161753378555335

2nd day: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161749241145335

1st day: https://www.facebook.com/hcgray/posts/10161743905840335