Tutorial
Account
Forums
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Decollate Apiarian *** Part One ***
Category: Short Story*** Part One ***
Legal Disclaimer: This story is an exposé of a fictionalized criminal trial.
Warning: Due to the sensational nature of this case, reading an official copy of the transcript of this criminal trial without written consent by the court is a crime punishable by a fine up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($ 25,000.00) or imprisonment for a term not to exceed five (5) years or both, as mandated under current Texas State law. Hence, in order to protect the reading public from criminal liability, every name, date, and identifier, particular to this case, has been purposely altered. Any similarity to persons or places, living or dead, is coincidental.
The tone of this story is reportorial. In an attempt at improved readability when compared to traditional transcribed trial documents, gone are certain conventions of standard page layout, eliminating the need for officious line numbers and other concomitant legalese.
Please Note: All quote-encased dialogue is verbatim. All events and circumstances reflect actual events and circumstances cited in the 1,000 plus page official transcript of the trial. Condensed for brevity, this story was edited before publication by educated non-lawyers. Nonetheless, the ineffaceable facts of the case remain unchanged.
On Monday, May 2, 2005, the State of Texas brought Dr. Robert Currant to trial charging him with the negligent homicide of his wife, Carol Currant, ten years earlier. Facts uncovered during the pretrial investigation of the case portend serious consequences for the survival of the human race.
Hidden from scrutiny by court order, this case languished under the public radar for years, until May of 2007, upon the death of the court reporter, Cynthia Wise, a certified copy of the transcript including all pretrial investigation reports, evidence, displays, and depositions adjunct to case number 52142-A-2005: The State of Texas vs. Dr. Robert Currant, was uncovered amongst her personal effects. Her widowed husband, James Wise, subsequently made these documents available to the public before he died of cancer in September, 2009.
Of note, before the trial, in anticipation of public outcry, Tarrant County, Texas, Third Circuit Court Judge Harlan T. Perkins composed, signed, and implemented, a unique gag order barring members of the media from reporting about the case before, during, and after the trial. Consequently, any reportage stored on any medium or broadcast via any type of traditional method or subsequent electronic devise or process, including but not limited to any print, voice, sound bite, electronic video and/or film based photography, is hereby and herein deemed llegal. Dissemination of any information pertaining to this case is still prohibited to this day, by this all-encompassing court order.
On the day of the trial, Judge Perkins barred all visitors from the courtroom. The only people allowed in attendance at this mutually agreed upon magistrate only non-jury trial were the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the defendant, the court reporter, and the judge. Additionally, Judge Perkins temporarily relocated the trial from his usual spacious second floor courtroom to a smaller less used storage room in the basement of the Tarrant County Office Complex. A team of six armed security officers blocked the path to the basement, guarded the locked courtroom doors, and sequestered three witnesses for the State in separate rooms, some as small as a corridor utility closet.
In effect, the trial proceeded in utmost secrecy.
Members of the fourth estate, proud defenders of the tenets of our basic freedoms, and patriots all, hold this unique manipulation and maneuvering as an overt, opportunistic, and outrageous, violation of the right to free speech our founding fathers guaranteed the people under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Interpreted as governmental censorship, perceived as anathema to democracy, many constitutional scholars consider this broad based court order to be beyond the scope of any and all local judiciary, it being a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and unprecedented in the American justice system. Many people believe this order is a deliberate poke in the blind eye of a comatose Lady Justice.
Enacted in the name of National Security in a post 9/11 world by a lowly state judiciary lacking proper constitutional jurisdiction to do so, this exceptional edict far exceeds the accepted norm, to wit: it threatens our legally recognized right to freedom of the press, freedom of information, and our sacrosanct right to the currency of fact. The issuance of such an order is widely held as un-American, autocratic, and neo-fascist. This singular act illustrates a pernicious anti-democratic sentiment on the rise in the ever-changing political landscape that is modern America. Watchdogs for American rights, we at Green Fingered Skinner cannot and will not let any situation such as this go unchecked.
The following is a report of the strangest murder trial ever held in Texas State history.
§
Day 1: Monday, May 5, 2005.
Summary of Events:
09:03: Court in session.
In his opening statement, the prosecutor, District Attorney Gerald Wilson, told the Court:
“This case is a straightforward case of murder. While the facts are creepy, the gist is simple. The defendant, Dr. Robert Currant, killed his wife of five years, Carol Currant, by injecting her with a deadly dose of a homemade medicine, ironically a supposed life extending elixir…”
Pledging to call only three witnesses, District Attorney Wilson boasted:
“I will prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Dr. Currant caused the death of his wife. The death of Carol Currant was decidedly avoidable. Furthermore, as a career medical professional, Dr. Currant should have known better than to inject his wife with a homemade medicine of dubious benefit. This deliberate act caused the death of his wife.”
In his opening statement, defense attorney Harold Simmons told the Court:
“This case should never have been brought to trial.” The evidence is purely circumstantial and misleading. Dr. Robert Currant is not a murderer. Dr. Currant is a kind, generous, and compassionate humanitarian. He is a learned man of medicine, a professional caregiver, and an asset to our community. We are lucky this great man chose our community in which to live. Besides serving as the duly elected Tarrant County Coroner, Dr. Currant maintains an after-hours free clinic for the indigenous poor in downtown Dallas, a charity hospice for terminally ill cancer patients in suburban Mineral Wells, in addition to a busy obstetrics practice in Fort Worth.”
Attorney Simmons further declared:
“Dr. Robert Currant is a compassionate, community minded, devout pious Christian, incapable of such an evil thing as murder. Dr. Currant was devoted to his wife, and she to him. Because he loved her so intensely, and because of his deep religious beliefs, he would never intentionally do anything to hurt or harm her, or anyone else. Dr. Currant did not cause the death of his wife. I will prove Carol Currant died from natural causes, specifically; she succumbed to a fatal cardiological event precipitated by her previously undiagnosed coronary condition.”
11:45AM: Court recessed for lunch
1:45PM: Court in session
Testimony of FBI Forensic Document Examiner and Handwriting Expert, F.B.I Special Agent Daniel Wexler
After lunch recess, the prosecution called the first witness for the State, FBI document examiner and handwriting expert, Special Agent Daniel Wexler. Agent Wexler took the witness stand and testified as to the veracity of signatures on four select documents the Tarrant County, Texas, District Attorney presented his office for examination. One after another, for three uninterrupted hours, Federal Agent Wexler presented excruciating detail as to who signed what paper and when.
Agent Wexler testified:
“After extensive scientific examination, I conclude these documents are real. They are what they are. While the signatures on these papers do vary slightly in perceptible detail, in my professional opinion, all these papers were indeed signed over a period of years by the same person, the defendant, Dr. Robert Currant.”
Attorney Simmons declined to cross-examine Special Agent Wexler.
4:45PM: Court adjurned for the night.
Day 2: Tuesday, May 6, 2005.
Summary of Events:
09:07: Court in session
To begin the day, D. A. Wilson called his second witness, Dr. Genki Tagito, MD., former Tarrant County, Texas, assistant Coroner, to testify about the general working environment, conditions, and circumstances, at the Tarrant County Morgue. Dr. Tagito characterized the work environment at the morgue as:
“…Strained…”
Dr. Tagito further described Dr. Currant as:
“…A serious and demanding perfectionist. To know him is to avoid him. He suffers our ignorance, while we suffer his intense alpha-dog personality. He is exceedingly bossy and hard driven. His conversation is prone to verbal attacks spiced with demeaning insults. At times, Dr. Currant makes the horrible Mr. Hyde appear pleasant and personable."
Also:
"I do not like working with Dr. Currant. I am sure he would say the same about me!"
Dr. Tagito testified under oath:
“I did not perform the autopsy on the body of Carol Currant, completely on my own. Dr. Currant, my post doctorial instructor slash mentor slash direct superior on the job, supervised the entire procedure, as always."
In addition, Dr. Tagito stated for the record:
“The autopsy of Carol Currant was delayed for three days by a scheduling conflict.”
Attorney Simmons also declined to cross-examine the witness, Dr. Tagito.
11:24: Court recessed for lunch.
14:38: Court in session.
The Court: "I should like to apologize for keeping everyone waiting on an unexpected extra long lunch break. The situation was unavoidable. Keep in mind, the Court has other matters before it. Let us proceed. Call your next witness, Mr. Wilson."
District Attorney Wilson called his third and final witness, Texas Department of Public Safety Homicide Investigator, Detective Captain Steven Farouche, to the stand.
Testimony of Detective Farouche
D.A. Wilson: “Detective Farouche, please state your name, age, education, occupation, rank, professional credentials, and qualifications, in a brief biography for the record.”
Detective Farouche: “My name is Steven Farouche. I am 47 years old. I am a veteran of twenty years with the Texas Department of Public Safety, Homicide Division. My rank is Detective Captain. I hold a Masters Degree in criminology from The University of Texas, Dallas. I am the recipient of many academic awards and departmental citations for my work. I am the lead investigator on this case.”
D.A. Wilson: “Detective Farouche, tell this Court what your investigation uncovered?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “Pursuant to an exhumation order issued by this court, at my direction and under my supervision, Texas State Crime Laboratory personnel exhumed the body of Mrs. Carol Currant on the suspicion that she did not die of natural causes, but that she was in fact murdered.”
D.A. Wilson: “Were you able to make a determination as to the cause of death?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “Yes, but not immediately. It took many months of much hard work to gather the facts and analyze the data in this case because the thoracic cavity of the deceased was empty, devoid of all internal organs. Considering the remains were unearthed in a leather like mumified state, we started the investigation, despite the lack of evidence to work with. Oddly, what remained of the corpse had not decayed while in the ground for ten years. Upon closer examination, the disemboweled remains resembled a wax museum quality, perfectly preserved shell of a corpse, in unspoiled condition. Never before in all my years as a criminalist have I ever seen such a thing as this. It was extraordinary, to say the least."
District Attorney Wilson: "Mummified and disemboweled, good grief! Tell this court, what did you do next?"
Witness: Dectective Farouche: "Accordingly, I assembled a team of scientists who were able to extract exemplars of skin, hair, and samples from the remaining general tissue located in the thoracic cavity. I had envisioned this case would be a standard post mortem re-examination into the cause of death of the decedant. I was ever wrong. ”
District Attorney Wilson: "Indeed! How did you proceed?"
Witness: Detective Farouche: “Using state of the art equipment in our ultra modern lab, the team of experts ran a battery of innovative and exotic scientific tests on these exemplars. One such test, Gas Emission Spectrochemical Analysis, revealed the presence of toxic amounts of a previously unidentified chemical substance on the inside thoracic walls of the decedent. This chart best explains the geography of where we found what we found.”
D.A. Wilson: “In response to these findings, what did you do next?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “The results of the Gas Emission Spectrochemical Analysis were so unexpected and out of kilter, I directed the forensics team to gather, bag, box and ship, duplicate sets of proximate tissue samples to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA., and another to the FBI Forensics Lab in Quantico, VA., America's most respected science stations. Both labs ran similar independent parallel tests, and months later, both labs independently confirmed the presence of high amounts of the same toxic alkaloid in the empty yet remarkably mummified remains of Carol Currant.”
Distirict Attorney Wilson: "Did you conclude the presence of such high concentrations of this unknown toxin cause the death of the decedent, Carol Currant?"
Witness: Detective Farouche: "At first, it was hard to say what killed her, since the all the internal organs were missing. While the particular pathogen has not yet been fully documented or replicated, due in large part to unavailability of internal organs to sample, it is only a matter of time until an exact molecular match is isolated, categorized, and catalogued,from the tissue samples we were able to test. Texas State Crime Lab Pathologists speculate this fast acting pathogen works by blocking oxygen replenishment to internal organs, causing certain death. Just as dessication is at the core of the ancient art of mummification, this toxin apparently retards molecular decay and prevents putrification. Moreover, we found this lethal agent apparently creates a chemical footprint similar to, but not an exact isotonic match to, an obscure drug trade named Decollate Apiarian.”
D.A. Wilson: “What does all that mean? Please explain to this court, what significance, if any, did you attach to your findings?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “Strong circumstantial evidence spoke to three important things, in this case. First: It is entirely logical to conclude, since Dr. Currant is the inventor of a similar substance, a formulation he in fact presently manufactures and offers for sale; he had ready access to a supply of the suspected pathogen. Second: It is a fact; Carol Currant died in her home, notably in the early morning hours, in the presence of only her husband, Dr. Currant. There were no other individuals, relatives, household staff, guests, short-term visitors or deliveries made to their home, or any friends at or in the house on that night. While this fact appears insignificant and incidental, as a trained criminalist, I could not explain away lingering thoughts concerning a secrecy aspect in this case."
District Attorney Wilson: "You mentioned the evidence pointed to three things. Explain to this court what the third thing is."
Witness: Detective Farouche: “The scope of the third item is much broader. It concerns an exhaustive audit review of medical records of the 102 patients who died while in residence at the charity hospice Dr. Currant owns, operates, and personally oversaw during the decade before and the decade after his wife, Carol Currant, died. This is where my investigation uncovered no remarkable anomalies other then the general time of day of the deaths.”
D.A. Wilson: “Please continue..."
Witness: Detective Farouche: “Again, I found a few issues I could not simply explain away. First and foremsot was the lack of internal organs in Carol Currant. I expected to find this oddity to appear again. But it did not. As a crime analyst, I could not reach any conclusion based solely on an analyst of the time of death of these patients. However, I found this situation counterintuitive and perplexing. So I petitoned this court to exhume three other bodies, to check on their condition post mortem. My team found nothing wrong. All bodies contained all appropriate organs.”
D.A. Wilson: “What do you suppose happened to the internal organs of the deceased?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “I have no idea."
District Attroney Wilson: “One wonders how and why such a curious toxic came to be, and how it came to be ingested by the deceased, whose body would later be found without any internal organs. Let me ask, where you able to determine if the deceased took this drug voluntarily, or had someone other than the deceased administered into her bloodstream a lethal dose, against her will?”
Witness: Detective Farouche: “The toxin is a fast acting potent agent. It is as dangerous to the human central nervous system as snake venom. It would not take much of this potent neurotoxin to cause instantaneous death. In this case, the medical examiner found an injection site on the victim’s upper left arm, near her shoulder. Hence, we concluded the lethal dose was administered subcutaneously via syringe. Because the heart, liver, spleen, pancreas, intestines and lungs, were missing, naturally, the husband, Dr. Robert Currant, a noted medical professional, became our short list prime suspect.”
D.A. Wilson: “Your Honor, I have nothing more for this witness.”
The Court: “The Defense may move to cross examine the witness…”
Attorney Simmons: “Your Honor, I beg the Court’s indulgence and respectfully request discretionary latitude in the form of permission of the Court to defer my cross examination of Detective Farouche, until such later time as the defense deems necessary.”
The Court: State “This request is most unusual. However, since a man is on trial for his life, I will allow it. The witness may step down. The witness is instructed to present himself to the bailiff, when and where he will remain available, sequestered in the witness room until such time as he is recalled to testify.”
16:32: Court adjourned for the day.
Day 3: Wednesday, May 7, 2005.
Summary of Events:
09:01: Court in session.
On the morning of the third day of the trial the prosecution abruptly rested their case, confident the people of the State of Texas had presented the best case they could against the accused. With this, Defense Attorney Simmons immediately called, Dr. Currant, MD, OD, PhD, to the witness stand.
Testimony of Dr. Robert Currant
Attorney Simmons: “Dr. Currant, I have but one simple question for you. Did you cause the death of your wife?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I did not cause the death of my wife, Carol. I loved her, deeply and truly. Anyone who knew us socially or professionally, either individually or as a couple, from work, or from our church, or from anywhere, knew I would never do anything to harm my beautiful wife. I cherished her love. I depended on her. I loved her. She complimented my existence. She was my partner. I miss her so much.…”(Sobbing)
Attorney Simmons: “Your honor, I have no further questions for the witness.”
The Court: “In all my years on the bench, I have never before heard such epigrammatic testimony by a defendant in a case involving a homicide. I am astounded at this peculiarity. If the defense has nothing further to add, and does not wish to reconsider their position, the District Attorney may proceed to cross examine the witness.”
Cross Examination of Dr. Currant by District Attorney Wilson
D.A. Wilson: “Praise the Lord. Let the light of truth shine on this matter. Dr. Currant, are you now, or have you ever been, in the beekeeping business?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, I was once in the bee business. My late wife Carol and I owned a thriving honey bottling and bees wax processing operation, among other related scientific ventures. Conceivably, you were familiar with our brand name, ‘Long Life Honey'. My wife ran the business and I ran the laboratory.”
D.A. Wilson: “In this laboratory, did you perform research on bees?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, I did. Avian research is a serious hobby of mine. My esoteric research was limited strictly to the Italian Bee, Apis Mellifera Ligustica, commonly known as the 'Honey Bearing Bee'. This honeybee is the most prolific bee in North America.”
D.A. Wilson: “Tell this court, how many hives do you currently own?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I do not own a single hive. After Carol died I quit the bee business.”
D.A. Wilson: “When you say you quit the bee business, do you mean you simply stopped beekeeping one day, or were you forced to engage an attorney and file for legal protection under federal bankruptcy laws, back in 1997?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “The details are public knowledge. We were a large going concern with a huge overhead. Consequently, without my life partner around to run the day-to-day operations, the business failed. As vice president of the corporation and as executor of Carol’s estate, in accordance with my late wife’s last will and testament, I hired an attorney who followed all applicable laws to their logical legal end. I ceased operations, settled all our outstanding debts, sold all assets, locked the doors, and subsequently dissolved the corporation.”
D.A. Wilson: “Let the record show the defendant did indeed file for bankruptcy, eight years ago. Copies of that adjudication are on file in this courthouse and are available for public inspection. A copy of the corporate dissolution is on file at the state capital, in Austin, TX. Let me now ask you, doctor, do you acknowledge your signature on this piece of paper?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “While this signature appears similar to mine, I cannot be sure. I do not remember signing these papers. They are so old…”
D.A. Wilson: “Is your memory failing, doctor? Or is selective amnesia part of your defense?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I do not suffer from amnesia. My memory is perfectly fine, thank you, young man.”
D.A. Wilson: “Let the record show, the paper I hold in my hand is a certified abstract from the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics. This photo static copy represents the birth certificate of your late wife, Carol Currant. It states here, your late wife was born Carol Lee Emmons, on Monday, May 1, 1950, at 2:37AM, at Mercy General Hospital in Denton, Texas. Please examine the evidence carefully doctor, before I ask you once again: Is this your signature on this piece of paper?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, it is…”
D.A. Wilson: “Let the record show Dr. Currant acknowledges he did in fact sign the birth certificate of his late wife, Carol Lee Currant. Extraordinarily, Dr. Currant was the attending obstetrician at his wife’s birth. To put it directly, sir; you delivered into this world your future wife. That act is most bizarre!”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “You sense of humanity stirs too easily, Mr. Wilson. It is true; I was indeed the attending obstetrician at the birth of my future wife. What can I say? Despite the obvious difference in our ages, many years later, as consenting adults, we fell in love. I loved my wife. And she loved me.”
D.A. Wilson: “How old are you, Dr. Currant? Please tell this court your date of birth.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: (Answer inaudible).
D.A. Wilson: “I will repeat the question: How old are you, Dr. Currant?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I was born on Sunday, July 14, 1850. I will be 155 years old this year.”
D.A. Wilson: “That number is impossible, sir. You must be mistaken, or perhaps you are delusional?”
Attorney Simmons: “Your honor, the question was asked and answered. Just because the prosecution does not like the answer the defendant has given, is no reason for disparaging commentary from the D. A.”
The Court: “Sustained. That snide comment was unprofessional. I caution you about my three strikes rule for contempt of court, Mr. Wilson. That was your first strike.”
D.A. Wilson: “Judge, please instruct the witness that a courtroom is no place for flippant foolishness. Let me state for the record, no human has ever lived past 125 years… ever!”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Except for me…”
D.A. Wilson: “Except for no one, fool!”
The Court: “That ungentlemanly snippet was strike two, Mr. Wilson. Be warned, the next violation will visit a reprimand on your office, and a fine on you personally.”
D.A. Wilson: “Dr. Currant, do you really believe you are the oldest man ever to inhabit earth? Odds are you are mistaken!”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I do not care if you believe me or not. I am 154 years old.”
D.A. Wilson: “Do tell… Yet, you look and act like a crazy younger man of sixty.”
The Court: “That snarky fastball was strike three, Mr. Wilson. You are now in Contempt of Court. Your fine is $500 dollars. Additionally, I must advise the witness to rethink and restate his incredible answer. Can you prove your assertion Dr. Currant, or must I also fine you $500 dollars for your persistent silliness?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Your honor, I speak the truth. I am older than I look. The circle of life centers on the miracle of bees. Bees enhance all forms of life. They pollinate our crops; they help cultivate the food we eat; they live to give us honey. They ask nothing in return for these blessings. I am living proof extended life is possible.”
D.A. Wilson: “Exactly what do you mean by that outlandish statement?
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I attribute my exceptional longevity to many things. Foremost is the honeybee. However, the emotion called love is a close second...”
The Court: “I must compliment you on your youthful appearance, Dr. Currant. On the other hand, surely you jest about your age. I caution you, The Court is not amused at your little game.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Life is not a game, Judge. While I may not possess my original birth certificate at such a late date, a paper trail of my life does exist…”
D.A. Wilson: “And I am Superman… I can see right through you.”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection!
The Court: “Sustained. However, I will noted the testimony as an exception. Move on past this issue counselor, or I will fine you for intentional delay. Be advised, Mr. Wilson, your last comment carries my warning that if you persist making editorial comments against my wishes, the next fine for Contempt of Court will be $ 1,000.”
D.A. Wilson: I apologize, your Honor. “Let us discuss your life before marriage, Dr. Currant. Is it true your wife, the baby you delivered three and a half decades earlier, was also a patient of yours, during grade school, middle school, high school, college, and that your were in fact the only physician to ever examine Carol Currant during her entire life?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, it is true. My wife was indeed a patient of mine. It is also true, years later, after she graduated college, my then future wife Carol worked for me as a registered nurse. As fate would have it, I fell in love with a female coworker much younger than I was. Propinquity, while wondrous, is not against any moral ordinance or codified law I am aware of…”
D.A. Wilson: “I see… Is it true your wife applied for and received a life insurance policy based in whole or in part on the results of a qualifying physical examination you personally performed?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, it is true. Carol purchased a policy on her life as a supplemental retirement plan, at the age of thirty-five. She made this purchase fully five years before we married, and approximately ten years before she died. As I stated before, at that time, Carol was my employee. Moreover, I was her physician.”
D.A. Wilson: “After your wife died, did you receive the proceeds of that said same life insurance policy?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, as executor of her estate, I alone received the proceeds.”
D.A. Wilson: “Please tell this Court; exactly how much money did you receive?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “The Prudential Insurance Company of America paid the estate of Carol Currant two million dollars. I used that money to pay her final expenses and to keep her good name intact, as she would have done for me. With that money I settled all her personal and our corporate debts. I am proud to say the estate of Carol Currant née Emmons, owes no business entity, creditor, or any person, either public or private, one single cent. All bills, loans, debts, and encumbrances, were paid in full, or otherwise satisfied.”
D.A. Wilson: “Such a fiduciary arrangement seems highly inappropriate. It appears ripe to the eye and smacks of larceny. Let me ask you doctor, does the fact that an employer officiates at an employee’s life insurance physical exam seem at the least unethical or improper to you, or present a conflict of interest?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Appearances are often misleading. Perhaps in your twisted legalistic mind many things may seem improper to you. Get your facts straight! At the time of issuance of that policy, I was not the beneficiary. The original beneficiary was my wife’s mother, her only living relative. When Carol and I married, a full year after my wife’s mother passed, Carol changed the beneficiary designation from that of her mother, to her estate, not namely me. You suspicious minded government lawyer types see crime everywhere. It is my professional contention; depressive personalities like yours believe the entire world is guilty of something…”
D.A. Wilson: “And here you are charged with the negligent homicide of your wife…”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “That is exactly my point. Let us review the situation, again. Before we married, my then employee, Carol, purchased an insurance policy on her life. That was entirely her doing. In addition, as her physician, I examined her and subsequently filled out an obligatory medical form. That is precisely what doctors do. Of course, to those among us who make a living focusing on the negative side of life, someone much like you Mr. Wilson, such an act seems ominous. Perhaps you should seek professional help, to rid you of your obviously anal retentive condition…”
The Court: “This is your second warning for Contempt of Court, Dr. Currant.”
D.A. Wilson: “Rest assured, upon your conviction, the State of Texas will refer you to a criminal psychiatrist as part of your prison in processing, at no charge to you. I ask you now to try to focus. Did you sign either or both of these papers?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “While these signatures appear similar to mine, I cannot state with complete certainty these signatures are mine. I do not remember signing these papers. They are dated so long ago…”
D.A. Wilson: “One wonders; does a 154 year old man require reading glasses to read? If so, would you please put them on and take a closer look at these papers. The FBI handwriting expert testified only yesterday to the veracity of your signature on these papers. Still you stubbornly deny you signed these documents. Are you a drug addled, much practiced, pathological liar?”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection!”
The Court: “Sustained! I caution the D.A. once again about his bellicose and provocative comments. My courtroom is not a venue in which to pick a fight. This is a court of law, not a forum for pissing into the wind.”
D.A. Wilson: “I apologize for my zeal, your honor. Nevertheless, whenever innocents die at the hands of another, it is my sworn duty to seek a balance of justice.”
Attorney Simmons: “I must object to the D.A.’s use of the plural, your honor. Dr. Currant is not on trial for multiple murders. Such loose-fitting language from an educated man is intentional and inappropriate. My client does not deserve this display of hostility by the State he so dearly loves and serves. In fact, no Texas gentleman should ever suffer this kind of treatment, especially by a small minded man who is up for re-election this year.”
The Court: “Overruled. The D.A. will focus on the business at hand. The D.A. will cease his untoward attitude, right now. I warn you, ‘Do Not Politicize This Case’, Mr. Wilson.”
D.A. Wilson: “I withdraw my comments. Let me rephrase the question. (Pause) Since your signature appears on line 31 as the verifying witness on the insurance policy application, and again as the attending physician on the accompanying required physical examination report –which you already admitted you performed, how could you deny these are your signatures on these papers? Your denial is entirely illogical.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I cannot and do not remember every single piece of paper I ever signed. The notion that I, a busy medical professional, should remember signing a piece of paper that is over four decades old, and another of a lesser age and lesser incidental significance –out of the thousands of documents I have signed in my entire lifetime, is impracticable and utterly absurd. How much more plain can I make this? While I may or may not have signed those papers, I did not cause the death of my wife!”
D.A. Wilson: “Yes, we heard this all before. You did not murder your wife because you loved her… Such personal vitriol is nothing more than what it is -common, shallow, self serving sentiment.”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! The District Attorney is haranguing the witness, despite previous admonitions by this Court.”
The Court: “Sustained. Mr. Wilson, you are again in Contempt of Court. The fine is another $1,500 dollars! I warn you, the next time you display an unacceptable attitude, the fine will increase to $2,500 dollars.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Let everyone hear me, Mr. Wilson …you are a jackass…”
The Court: “Congratulations, Dr. Currant. You are also in Contempt of Court. Your fine is $500 dollars. Additionally, the court is compelled to warn the defendant to refrain from asserting his antagonism in my courtroom. I hereby caution the witness, the next time he makes another belligerent comment; I will increase his fine to $1,000 dollars. Do you understand me, Dr. Currant?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes sir, I do.”
D.A. Wilson: “The State of Texas herein and hereby stipulates to the defendant’s love for his late wife, and to her love for him. Look at me, Dr. Currant, and not at your lawyer. I now hold in my hand, an official copy of the death certificate of Carol Currant. Do you recognize the signature on the bottom of this form, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I do. It appears to be that of my assistant, Dr. Tagito.”
D.A. Wilson: “This is a certified abstract copy of the death certificate of Carol Currant, née Carol Emmons. Please take a moment to read it carefully. After you finish, when you are ready, please tell this court what exactly is listed in box 13 as the cause of death?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Box 13 lists heart failure as the cause of death.”
D.A. Wilson: “Tell this court, what is the normal life expectancy of a married American Caucasian female?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “The normal life expectancy for married American females, across all races, is currently pegged at seventy-eight years of age.”
D.A. Wilson: “Carol Currant was 45 years old at the time of her death. In your expert opinion doctor, is heart failure common at such a relatively young age?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No, it is not. Human heart failure under age 45 is atypical. However, hearts sometimes fail unexpectedly. People do die suddenly. Death is after all a part of life.”
D.A. Wilson: “Your late wife’s medical file does not contain a toxicology report. Was a toxicology scan ever performed on you wife’s remains, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No toxicology report was filed because back then, a toxicology scan was not required under Texas State law. Certainly you know the law, Mr. Wilson.”
D.A. Wilson: “I try my best… Tell this court, why was a toxicology report not required or performed in this case?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Toxicology scans are costly and sometimes unnecessary. The autopsy revealed my wife died from a massive heart attack brought on by her previously undetected coronary artery disease. Carol suffered from undiagnosed atherosclerosis, commonly known as CAD (Coronary Artery Disease). In simple terms, her badly occluded arteries had a flow decrease, a Stenosis of 75 percent, or worse, and as a result, she incurred an oxygen deficit to her heart muscle. The exact cause of her death was a massive ischemic heart attack. Ergo, there was no need to waste precious departmental resources searching for another non-existent cause of death.”
D.A. Wilson: “Let me try to better understand. Please correct me, if I am wrong. Stenosis refers to a blockage, a restriction of blood flow. In the case of your wife, the amount of unobstructed free-flowing blood carrying life-sustaining oxygen to her heart suddenly reduced to one quarter of the normal requirement, due to her clogged arteries. Clogged arteries, the State contends, caused by a medicine you personally administered into your wife. As a result, she died a crushing, unexpected, painful death. Is that correct?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “You are too (Inaudible) insensitive. My wife Carol was a vibrant, beautiful, educated woman, full of passion for life…”
D.A. Wilson: “Let us move on to view a bigger picture of your medical practice. Is it true, an inordinate number of patients have died while under your medical care in the decade since your wife died?”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! Do not answer that question, Dr. Currant. It is improper!”
The Court: “Sustained! I order the question stricken from the record as improper. Mr. Wilson will rephrase the question or withdraw it, and apologize to this Court!”
D.A. Wilson: “Judge, the State contents that after Carol Currant died, Dr. Currant began to lose his focus, judgment, and professionalism, as a direct result of habitual drug abuse. These treatments, these medications, prescribed by Dr. Currant to patient Dr. Currant, were in direct violation of Texas State law. The accused, Dr. Currant, would claim these shots were intended to mitigate the emotional grief caused by his failure to cope with the death of his wife. The State of Texas contends that stance is nothing but a subterfuge, a sideshow of smoke and mirrors designed to obscure the truth. What really happened is Dr. Currant was attempting to medicate away the guilt he felt as a result of him murdering his wife, and later disemboweling her remains to remove any clues. As is common with intravenous drugs abusers, as time progressed, these shots increased in frequency and dosage. This wanton self-destructive behavior caused Dr. Currant to become an out of control psychotic killing machine, to the misfortune of all of his patients. The State of Texas contends, an out of control, drug addled, Dr. Currant, took out the misery of his physcosis on his unsuspecting patients, killing scores of innocent people who blindly placed their trust in him. I ask you again, Dr. Currant, how many of your patients died, while under your direct care, in the decade since your wife passed?”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! The D.A. is badgering the witness. He is arguing issues not backed by facts in evidence. He is trying to provoke the witness to anger…”
The Court: “Counselors, stop this right now! I order District Attorney Wilson to tone down his rhetoric a decided notch or two, and I insist Defense Attorney Simmons stop objecting unnecessarily. I see what is happening here, gentlemen. Let us move forward without any more animosity. This Court will not tolerate an undertow of mutual loathing. The objection is overruled! The witness is instructed to answer the question, exactly as asked.”
D.A. Wilson: “I repeat, how many of your patients died, while under your direct care, in the decade since your wife passed?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “The question is preposterous. Your words are outright slander. You are an anal Neanderthal; a fool with a pea-sized brain –a narcissist with an uncommon deficit of common sense. I will not answer such a rancorous question?”
The Court: “The defendant will refrain from ranting. I direct the witness to answer the question without outcry, or condescension. And I warn the District Attorney, the Court is tiring of this line of questioning.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Under advice from counsel, I will not answer that question…”
Attorney Simmons: “Judge, how long is this witch-hunt going to continue? The State is in error. The defendant is not on trial for multiple murders. This is ludicrous. It is all too obvious; the D.A.’s outlandish comments are intentionally hostile and overtly prejudicial to the defendant. In the interest of justice, such unruly behavior cannot be allowed to continue…”
The Court: “Sit down, Mr. Simmons. The District Attorney raised a point of contention he needs to hurry to conclude. The previous question stands. The witness will answer the question.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I have nothing to say in response to such idiocy. I stand mute. My life-long record as a medical practitioner speaks for itself. Of all the nerve...”
The Court: “The witness will quantify a response to the question, or he will be held in contempt of court, again!”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I will say this much, over my entire career, the death rate of my private practice patients is no higher or lower than that of the medical profession as a whole.”
D.A. Wilson: (Pause) “So you would have us believe. In contrast, The State of Texas contends six out of ten patients die while in your care. Mathematically, your patients are absolutely better off not being your patients.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Once again you are distorting the facts. The patients admitted to my cancer hospice are all diagnosed terminally ill, pre-admittance. I offer these retched dying people dignity in the face of death. Since these poor souls do not have long to live, that statistic is impossibly skewed.”
D.A. Wilson: “Let us now more closely examine the medical record of one of your obstetrics patients. On May 12 last year, Shirley Falconet, aged 30; an illiterate, poverty prone, unmarried black mother of three little girls, came to you seeking medical advice as to the condition of her possible pregnancy. Do you remember patient Shirley Falconet, Dr. Currant?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, I remember Ms. Falconet.”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! What does the history of that patient have to do with this case?”
D.A. Wilson: “I would ask the court’s indulgence on this issue. My intentions will become clear, shortly.”
The Court: “Overruled! You may proceed…”
D.A. Wilson: “What exactly was your diagnosis of Ms. Falconet, Dr. Currant? Do you remember?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, I remember. Ms. Falconet suffered from extreme pain in her abdominal area. She feared she might be pregnant again. I ran some tests and discovered she was not pregnant. Unfortunately, the tests indicated she suffered from advanced intrauterine cancer. Ms. Falconet had a rare and deadly form of Endometrial Cancer. Undiagnosed and untreated since the birth of her third and last child, she developed cancerous tumors. This cancer metastasized to the bone. Mrs. Falconet was already Stage 5 long before she came to see me. Sadly, stage 5 is always fatal.”
D.A. Wilson: “Given those circumstances, what treatment did you prescribe?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “At first I consoled her. She was very despondent and concerned for her children. I arranged for her to meet with a grief counselor. Naturally, I later referred her to the charity cancer hospice I operate in Mineral Wells, where I knew my staff would monitor her status closely, and if need be, tend to her last wishes.”
D.A. Wilson: “Tell this court, is patient Falconet still alive.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No, she died shortly thereafter.”
D.A. Wilson: “As her attending physician, did you administer any drugs to Ms. Falconet?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “There was no treatment available to patient Falconet. Upon admittance, up until the time Ms. Falconet expired, the only drugs she received were pain medications.”
D.A. Wilson: “On the night she passed, did you personally administer pain medication to patient Falconet?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, I personally administered pain medication to patient Falconet.”
D.A. Wilson: “Since you brought up the issue of pain, please tell this Court what instrument measures pain? How do you calculate the intensity of pain? Do you use a machine to metric it, or is it done by committee, or by survey consensus? What exactly is the accepted protocol for administrating pain medication?”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! We all understand pain. Some of us more than others…”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Hold on. I will answer that question. I am a compassionate and pious Christian man. Moreover, by the grace of an Almighty God, I am not a stupid man. Ms. Falconet displayed much discomfort, so I prescribed a combination painkiller and soporific sedative of my own formulation. I pray it helped ease her suffering in her struggle towards eternal life.”
D.A. Wilson: “Can you describe in more detail what you meant when you said a combination pain killer and soporific sedative of your own formulation? Did you in fact administer a homemade pain remedy and combination sleeping potion to a woman dying of cancer?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “To be sure, I mixed up a special formulation of my own prescription, tailored decidedly for patient Falconet.”
D.A. Wilson: “So, you alone prescribed a medicine especially formulated for a dying patient, and then later administered that medicine to a terminally ill cancer patient; a patient who in fact died in the early morning hours, at 4:22 AM to be sure, with only you in attendance.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “While her death was tragic, the fact that I mix up medicine for my patients is no big secret. I make up prescriptions for most of my patients. My medicine did not kill Ms. Falconet. Shirley Falconet died of terminal cancer.”
D.A. Wilson: “Such a thing does not sound completely ethical. Is not FDA or DEA approval required before administration of drugs, potions, powders, and elixirs, made by hand?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “In point of fact, government bureaucracies cannot and do not review each and every prescription written in America. That would be impossible. However, strict federal regulations require exacting records be kept.”
D.A. Wilson: “Did patient Falconet sign a legal document known as a ‘DNR’ (Do Not Resuscitate) affidavit informing medical personnel of her choice to die, should the occasion present?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I am sure she did.”
D.A. Wilson: “She did this, although you labeled her an illiterate who could not read or write?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “On the day she was admitted to my hospice, I personally explained to patient Falconet about her absolute right to life options. After she made an informed decision, I personally witnessed patient Shirley Falconet make her mark on the required affidavit.”
D.A. Wilson: “Are you also lawyer, Dr. Currant?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Good Heavens, no! I am not a lawyer!”
D.A. Wilson: “Are you a licensed pharmacist, or a pharmacologist, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No, I am not.”
D.A. Wilson: “What exactly is your medical specialty, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “My medical specialty is Oncological pain management. Besides being a Medical Doctor, in addition to being a Doctor of Osteopathy, I hold a doctorate in Homeopathic Medicine from Johns Hopkins. While I was too young to fight in the Civil War, notably I served my country honorably during the Spanish American War. I also served on the battlefields of Europe during World Wars I and II, then again during the Korean conflict, and lastly in Vietnam. After I came home from Korea, and before my first of three tours in Southeast Asia, I obtained board certification in another specialty, that of Obstetrics. Moreover, I have since become a licensed Forensic Pathologist. Additionally, twenty years ago, the people of this county elected me County Coroner, a position I still hold. I know when a patient is in pain, sonny.”
D.A. Wilson: “Do not call me sonny. I am not your son, doctor. I resent the implication.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “As I resent you, Mr. Wilson. I remember a time not too long ago, when a violent psychotic ran amuck, upstairs in this very courthouse. I remember that prisoner attacked you with a knife and severely cut your hand in the melee. I also remember you stressed so much; I personally gave you a local anesthetic and an injection of liquid Valium before I stitched you up. Do you remember your pain now, Mr. Wilson? Does that memory enlighten you as to what pain is and how pain is measured?”
D.A. Wilson: “Indeed, pain is subjective. Moreover, health caregivers are not patients. Sometimes health caregivers over medicate pain. Did you intentionally and purposely over medicate patient Falconet, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “You prance around like a prissy child, Mr. Wilson. What exactly is your point?”
D.A. Wilson: “Why do you, a physician licensed by the State of Texas, a physician who is admittedly not a licensed Pharmacist or licensed Pharmacologist, I might add, why do you still prescribe and administer homemade formulations for seriously ill patients in this day and age of modern medical science? Most medical professionals consider such backward looking medical practice antiquated and unnecessary.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “It is like I stated before. I am a compassionate man. I run a compassionate practice. When people suffer, as their physician, it is my duty to ease their pain with the most appropriate drugs available. Sometimes relieving pain is all one can or needs to do.”
D.A. Wilson: “Apparently you decide who is suffering and how much. That is a powerful position to realize. It is so heady. It is like playing God, isn’t it?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “That is a naïve, sophistic, intellectually false conclusion. Look at me! I am not God. I am but a man. Undoubtedly, such fool hearty thinking springs from your unenlightened puritanical preconceptions of pain and suffering, passed on to you no doubt by your genealogy of inbred antecedents. You sir, are a soulless common cretin!”
D.A. Wilson: “And you are a deceptive man. The high and mighty attitude you foist upon us illustrates your maniacal need to dabble in the mysterious medical kitchen of yesteryear. Do you deny that you frequently mix up experimental concoctions in your lab, like a mad scientist?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I resent that characterization, you legalistic nimrod. I am hardly a mad scientist. For the past century, I have always created my own formulations. I built my reputation on mixing medicines for my patients. Ask anyone…”
D.A. Wilson: “What exactly was in this formulation you concocted specifically for the suffering of patient Falconet, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “That medicine contained 30 percent liquid morphine and 70 percent Decollate Apiarian held in colloidal suspension by a minor measure of unprocessed raw honey.”
D.A. Wilson: “I see… It this formulation administered via syringe, at room temperature?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No it is not. At room temperature, this formulation is too thick and congealed to pass thru a standard syringe. Until it is brought up to approximate body temperature, to at least 90 degrees, it is the consistency of a waxy yellow paste.”
D.A. Wilson: “So, this formulary congeals as the temperature deceases. Is that correct?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “That is correct.”
D.A. Wilson: “While most of us know what morphine is, some of us have never heard of Decollate Apiarian. Please tell the Court what Decollate Apiarian is, how it is manufactured, and what affects or precautions it indicates?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I am proud to say Decollate Apiarian is a drug I discovered. Years ago, I discovered honey and wax are not the only things a bee manufactures. Bees also produce a potent venom protein that offers untold benefits to mankind. My research has found there is more usable bee venon protein in a liquified crushed bee head than there is in a bee's entire stinger/delivery apparatus. I discovered that fact, I perfected and patented the bee venom protein recovery process, and I hold an exclusive world-wide manufactoring patent on natural protein V-123A. To answer your question directly, Decollate Apiarian is a naturally occuring potent sedative made from bee venom protein no.123A, as it is centrifugally extracted from crushed liquefied bee heads. The twice dehydrated, microwave purified, 100 micron filtered product, I am told, makes one feel dizzy and drunk, and pleasantly numb all over.”
D.A. Wilson: “You say you invented a drug made from the extract of crushed bee heads? One is startled to hear such talk. It sounds utterly barbaric.”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! Those comments, made by a lawyer, a decidedly non-physician, are spurious and intentionally injurious to the defendant…”
The Court: “Overruled! That medicine does sound ghoulish and makeshift!”
Attorney Simmons: “Your honor, in view of your unqualified personal remarks, and the detrimental remarks made by the District Attorney, I move for an immediate mistrial.”
The Court: “Motion denied! Forget the procedural nonsense, counselor. There is no jury present for you to influence. Save any complaints for the Appellate Court. Please continue, Mr. Wilson…”
D.A. Wilson: “Must one drink this concoction in warm tea to receive the benefits of this witch’s brew?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Dear Lord, Decollate Apiarian is not a witch’s brew, you moron. The United States Government has issued me a patent for my formulary. It is a good and effective medicine. Mixing one teaspoon of Decollate Apiarian in steamy hot tea is the preferred administration. One simply stirs it in and drinks it down.”
D.A. Wilson: “One simply drinks it down, like a cup of deadly hemlock…”
The Court: “Watch your step, Mr. Wilson.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Mr. Wilson, you are a nimrod and a pointy headed putz!”
The Court: “Watch your loose tongue and reactive temperament, Dr. Currant.”
D.A. Wilson: “Let us move on. Do you drink alcohol, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Yes, but only occasionally. From time to time, I have enjoyed a drink or two before dinner, or at a cocktail party. I am only a social drinker. What is your point?”
D.A. Wilson: “Have you ever been drunk?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “While I do not make a habit of it, the answer is yes. Of course, I have been drunk once or twice in my life. I seem to remember my days back at Harvard Medical College, back in the last century, when I was a younger man…”
D.A. Wilson: “You say you got drunk when you were a younger man, back in the last century. I would ask you, are you drunk right now, Dr. Currant?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No, I am not drunk.”
D. A. Wilson:"Where you drunk on the morning your wife died?
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No, I was not drunk on the morning my wife died.”
D.A. Wilson: “Your drinking habits interest me, doctor. Detectives noted in their preliminary field report that you seemed intoxicated, incoherent, and mildly confused when investigators first spoke to you on the morning your wife died. The report clearly states you were belligerent, hostile, and abusive toward police. The report also states, when police arrived, you answered the door naked, in the buff, without a stitch of clothing on. Do you remember anything of your behavior on that morning?
Witness: Dr. Currant: "No, I do not remember much of what happened that morning. If you say I answered the door in haste, what of it? I was distraught. My wife had just died. I was in shock. I am not embarrassed to admit I sleep in the nude. Always have and always will..."
D.A. Wilson: "I see... Let me ask you, have you ever ingested Decollate Apiarian, doctor?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “No I have never ingested Decollate Apiarian.”
D.A. Wilson: “And why is that?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “That is because I am the doctor, not the patient. Decollate Apiarian is intended for terminally ill patients. It is must be mixed with morphine, to be effective. Moreover, doctors are forbidden by law from ingesting schedule one narcotics without a proper prescription by yet another licensed doctor.”
D.A. Wilson: “Morphine is a schedule one narcotic and its use is strictly monitored. Please tell this court, exactly who is permitted to receive morphine?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Seriously ill patients are sometimes prescribed multiple increasing doses of liquid morphine for pain. Liquid morphine is highly addictive, and sometime deadly. That is why I developed Decollate Apiarian. It is non-addictive and relatively safe to administer, in most cases.”
D.A. Wilson: “In most cases? Would you say Decollate Apiarian is a stronger or more potent drug then pure morphine?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Not exactly. Unadulterated Decollate Apiarian is hyper analgesic to the human neurological system. One dose is akin to a thousand bee stings. Potential side effects of an overdose bee venom protein include uncontrollable convulsions and severe inflammation of the brain. The resultant inflammation of the brain causes the neurological system to release a stream of chemicals to conteract the bee venom protein. The release of these proteins causes the pain receptors in the human central nervous system to shut down. When liquid morphine is added, the convulsions subside measurably from severe to negligible, making the medicine tolerable and most effective. The combination gently suppresses the central nervous system causing the pain to decrease. It is a strong apothecary. Consequently, one administration of Decollate Apiarian can be effective for up to seventy-two hours, sometimes longer.”
D.A. Wilson: “Did you prescribe just such a ‘Strong Apothecary’ for patient Falconet?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “As I stated before, Ms. Falconet was in tremendous pain. She was stage 5 and terminal.”
D.A. Wilson: “Is that when you took it upon yourself to kill her?”
Attorney Simmons: “Objection! That question is improper, misleading, and unacceptable.”
The Court: “Sustained. You do not have to answer that question, Dr. Currant. It is without a doubt highly improper.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I feel I must respond to the accusation. I did nothing of the sort. I am a healer, not a murderer. I have never killed anyone. Not even in times of war. Patients do die, that is all.”
D.A. Wilson: “Sometimes, patients die needlessly and prematurely, at the hands of others. The State contends you administered a precursor of your unusual formulation to your wife only moments before she died. Only, on that wintry morning, she died instantly of an overdose after you administered Decollate Apiarian directly into her bloodstream, via syringe, not via hot tea. In effect, you caused your wife to suffer a fatal heart attack. In fact, you caused the death of your wife with a hotshot of your homemade medicine, didn’t you?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I did no such thing!”
D.A. Wilson: “You killed your wife the minute you injected her with a fatal dose of artery clogging, thick and deadly, Decollate Apiarian.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I did no such thing!”
D.A. Wilson: “What happened that night, doctor? Did you make a mistake, old man? You know the death of your young wife was no accident. Why did you kill her? Why did you then rip out all her internal organs? Was it to cover-up the way you murdered her”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Carol died of a heart attack! I did not kill her! I worshipped her. I could never kill her. She was my lover, my life partner, and my queen. I would never desecrate her body...”
The Court: “I will put a stop this right now. (Pause) In view of the hour, we will recess for lunch. I suggest we all use this time to calm down, people.”
12:32; Court recessed for lunch.
1:37: Court in session
D.A. Wilson: “Returning to the subject of bees, please tell this Court exactly how many beehives you owned at the peak of business, before you shut down your bee operation.”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “At one time we had an inventory of nearly 70,000 plus cutting edge, solar powered, radio controlled, computerized, laser equipped beehives, each with a population of approximately 50,000 live bees per hive. By extrapolation, the total head count of live bees ranged from 350 to 500 million.
D.A. Wilson: “That is a tremendous number of bees. Why did you ever own so many bees?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Our business plan was simple. You must understand our bees were unique in the world. Before birth, we systematically tattooed each pupae with a harmless low wattage, low voltage, non-invasive micro laser I invented. Similar to a Uniform Product Code (UPC) printed on a box of cereal or a candy wrapper, we branded our company bees with a effective tracking device. After they were born, and later when they matured, we strategically dispersed these electronically track able drones in fields adjacent to America’s richest farmlands. We studied their specific flight patterns and did analysis of the type, quanity, and quality, of pollen they brought back to the hive. That information was relayed to our computerized database, where our proprietary software then gleaned what information it could.”
D.A. Wilson: “What you say is extraordinary…”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Indeed it was. Furthermore, with this information, I was able to determine what crops we could expect to be prolific during which season, and to a lesser degree, which crops one should not expect to be bountiful. Along with calculating crop yields and approximate time to market, I was able to monetize that information for a profit. Of course, due to the short life cycle of a male bee, we needed abundant numbers of bees to insure a seamless information stream.”
“D.A. Wilson: “Such science borders on absurdity. Your thesis is considered unverified by most leading scientists.”
“Witness: Dr. Currant: “I beg to differ with your conclusions. Years ago, during our heyday, if you encountered a bee anywhere in the heartland of America, odds were he was a member of our private air force. Sadly, after my wife died, working the bee business was not fun anymore. I gave all the queen bees away and disbanded the business. As I stated before, I no longer own any hives.”
D.A. Wilson: “Tell this Court, to whom did you gift these computerized bees?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “I gave away only the queen bees. My bee keepers harvested the drones for my research. Back at the lab, techicians sent out a strong radio signal that destroyed all the electronic hives. I gave away the queens we gathered to anyone who would pay the nominal shipping charges. After I put a single advertisement in an industry magazine, the demand was overwhelming. I am proud to say our prized queens dispersed all over the globe.”
“Some went to Mexico, Brazil, and points south. Others went to India, China, Canada, Russia, and even Africa. In addition, the queens also dispersed all across America. I am glad I took the precaution of inoculating those bees against any deathly predatory mites, before dispersal.”
D.A. Wilson: “Help me understand what you mean. What exactly did you do to your queen bees before shipment?”
Witness: Dr. Currant: “Honeybee hives are notoriously susceptible to decimation by insidious pathogens, specifically from HBTM (Honeybee Tracheal Mite Infestation). As a precaution, before shipment, I sprayed all the queen bees with a live culture of harmless genetically engineered mites I specifically breed to counteract and fight off any hostile invading mites that might threaten my queens.”
*** End of Part One ***
Posted by Green Fingered Skinner on 05/24 at 11:16 AM
| Permalink
(0) Comments •
(0) Comments •