DAY 6
Hello, all.

Today's trial went well, once again. Our hostile nurses came off as just that: vindictive and biased. The people who were gathered to watch and listen were unanimous in saying, "I don't see how the jury could miss the truth, with the obvious hatefulness" exhibited by the Gang of Three. Interestingly, none of them said anything about any negligent behavior, much less reckless or criminal behavior.

Of great import was the testimony of the other state medical examiner, Maureen Frikke. I thought her testimony was forthright, at first, when she admitted that any of several causes of death were possible for the one patient she examined, years after burial. Then things got a little weird for her. We didn't challenge her much on her failure to find the well-documented rectovaginal fistula seen on gynecological exam, during hospitalization, and she admitted that nurse Earline Cozzens must have left on two Duragesic patches that I had ordered removed; they were found on the body at autopsy. What was odd was her reaction to being contradicted on her assertion that this patient, Mary Crane, had been on nothing but "non-prescription" pain medications before coming to the Geropsych Unit. We'd had copious testimony over the previous few days of not only patient Crane's daily Lortab for the past four years, but also that she'd had morphine for headache.

Dr. Frikke had stated that she made her findin of Crane's manner of death having been "undetermined" because she said she couldn't rule-out opiate overdose as cause of death in what she characterized as an "opiate-naive" patient. Confronted by the facts, she became extremely defensive. This was odd, because my defense attorney Tara Isaacson pointed out that the it was the state lawyers who had failed to provide her with all of the information she needed to understand the patient's prior history, and thus had victimized her similarly to how they have victimized the patients' family members. During all of this the state lawyers stared stonily ahead, while the jurors gave them knowing looks of disapproval, and in at least one case what resembled frank disgust. Not only did this boomerang on the prosecutors, but also on Todd Grey, the "chief medical examiner," who evidently based his determination of Judith Larsen's manner of death having been "homicide" mostly on what he read in the newspapers, not any objective medical science criteria.

Speaking of newspapers, did anyone notice the faux pas perpetrated by the Salt Lake tribune's Steve Hunt in yesterday's rag? He stated that the medical examiner had certified Mary Crane's death as having been a homicide, when in fact it was Judith Larsen. What a bonehead; too lazy to get it right. Hunt is evidently a total suck-up to the prosecutorial types. I'm told he's never met a defendant he doesn't dislike, and always takes the state's side in any lawsuit. You'd think he was on a different planet from the way he misreports the trial. None of the huge points we are scoring are mentioned. So it goes.

I don't understand it, to tell you the truth. "Doctor kills patients" is a good story for the sensationalizers, I'm sure; better than "man bites dog," but this is a story of foul and corrupt prosecutorial misconduct, yet the press completely misses it. (Except for the reputable and well-respected likes of media like CBS "60 Minutes.) The press corps has really sunk, in my estimation. Being in my current position has demonstrated to me the shortcomings of our popular media. NEVER trust them to get it right.

Trial is going just as scheduled, much to our surprise. It looks like the prosecutors will rest their case tomorrow, and we will begin Monday. Next week we may just use MWTH, and then Friday could well be closing.

Well, I hope everyone will come out to see what Brad Hare pulls out this time. It can't help but be interesting to see him try to deal with the fact that the very man who he recommended as having been the best palliative-care specialist in the region is now leading the experts for the defense. Thanks to all of you who came today; I really appreciate your support. I'm sure it helps to see people wearing the little blue tags. Keep coming back!

I do hope for acquittal. If the jurors vote the way their faces indicate they feel, this nightmare will end soon. I hope all of you will take care, and please write.

Yours,

Robert

--------------------------------
-------------------------------
--------------------------------

DAY 7

Dear Friends,

I must tell you, you had to be there to believe it. The state's case completely fell apart on them on Friday, and we had some hopes that the judge would grant a motion for directed verdict. (Legally, he should have, but this case is now far to politicized for him to take that action.)

The state called geropsychiatrist/internist Byron Bair first. He came off just like the junior faculty member he is. A know-it-all who spoke hurriedly and with a hint of desperate fear in his voice (he could see the local physicians in the gallery who had gathered to hear him make a fool of himself) he wasted no opportunity to display his "expertise" with the unnecessarily polysyllabic pronouncement or the gratuitous and nit-picking criticism. He claimed that all of the patients were delirious when they entered the unit, and that without his recommended grab-bag of aggressive and intrusive interventions, they were bound to die. Ignoring the big picture, that these patients were terminal and their families had given strong and unequivocal orders that no further interventions be attempted but rather they be allowed to die in peace (and with adequate analgesia), Dr. Bair repeatedly picked apart the care as provided, with ivory-tower, bookish complaints that were completely beside the point. He evidently just didn't get it. When referred on cross-examination to the numerous documents that show that all of the families were completely on board with the palliative care being given, his surprise and chagrin were palpable. He then attempted to avoid all of Mr. Bugdens very simple questions with the answer, "I can't answer that with just a 'yes' or 'no'." Finally he compounded the problem by changing that to: "I can't answer that without confusing the jury." - you can be sure the jury found that statement to be resoundingly complimentary of their intelligence - and he ended up by admitting that he really didn't think that morphine caused the death of any of the patients except perhaps Ennis Alldredge, who he claimed had been overdosed by a last injection of morphine given at 9:20; Mr. Alldredge died at 9:36. What Dr. Bair missed was that this injection was never given - the nurse held it. She was there and saw that he was about to die and didn't need the injection. Dr. Bair's small and misbegotten critiques were shown up in the full glory of their ignorance and irrelevance.

Next the inimitable Dr. Bradford Hare walked boldly to the witness stand. He repeated his familiar litany of: "He gave him those psychiatric drugs ('central nervous system depressants' -oooohh...scaaarrry...) and weakened them, then finished the off with MORPHINE... He also claimed that all of the patients were just fine - "medically stable" - when they walked in the door. Of course this completely contradicted the "expert" just previous to himself, and thus illustrated the inability of the state lawyers to even get their story straight.

The best part of the day was when Mr. Bugden had Hare admitting that he was not an expert in geropsychiatric dosing. Mr. Bugden then asked the witness why he was there, then. He went over and put his hand on state lawyer and head prosecutor Melvin Wilson's shoulder and said, "This man hired you to complain about Dr. Weitzel's geropsychiatric dosing, but you admit you're not an expert in that field?" Wilson rose to object, saying, "That calls for speculation on why I called this witness, your honor." The judge got a huge laugh from the jury (and about one half of the spectators) by looking over his glasses at Wilson, with what looked like a mixture of amusement and contempt, and drawling, "I think the jury and everyone here knows why you called this witness, Mr. Wilson. Objection over-ruled."

We will begin our defense 8:30 Monday morning. Tuesday will be the usual day off, then we resume on Wednesday. I look forward to the very distinguished and somewhat impassioned experts we will call, true experts, not the uninformed sorts that the state lawyers procured. I invite everyone who lives close enough to come wear a blue badge and hear the other side of this case.

We will most likely finish up on Friday in time for closing arguments on that day. I am hopeful that I won't have to spend this Thanksgiving in a six by eight foot cell with a guy with the nick-name "Beast", like I did after the other trial.

I have included below a reprint of an article on the case from DRCNet, published yesterday on the Internet. Although local newspapers have reported the case in a way that makes me wonder what trial they attended, this article is more indicative of the true nature of the trial.

Thanks to all of you for your support, prayers, and donations of time and money to the defense. It means everything.

Yours,

Robert Weitzel MD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #263 - November 15, 2002

Phillip S. Smith, Editor,
David Borden, Executive Director, [email protected]">[email protected]
David Borden, Executive Director, http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Newsbrief: Pain Doctor Weitzel Retrial Underway in Utah

Salt Lake City psychiatrist Robert Weitzel is in court this week defending himself for a second time against state charges that he killed patients under his care in 1995 and 1996. Prosecutors accuse Weitzel of causing the deaths of five mentally and terminally ill elderly patients by treating them with psychotropic drugs and morphine while working for the geropsychiatric unit at Davis Hospital and Medical Center (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/255.html#weitzel).

Weitzel was originally charged with murder, but a jury found him guilty of manslaughter in 2000. He served six months of a 15-year sentence before being released after an appeals judge found the prosecution had not disclosed evidence that would have vindicated his medical judgment.

He maintains his innocence and has assembled a strong defense team that has, according to his daily e-mails to supporters, effectively cross-examined prosecution witnesses. The defense will present its case next week, with Weitzel scheduled to take the stand November 22.

Although Weitzel at first received little support from his colleagues in the Utah Medical Association, concerns over unwarranted prosecution in his case seem to have inspired the association to pass a resolution condemning such practices last month: "The Utah Medical Association opposes the criminalization of medical care and sees unfounded accusations of physicians in criminal court and the criminal trial of physicians' professional judgment and quality of practice as a serious threat to patient care in the State of Utah and an unreasonable burden on the medical profession," read the resolution.

Then, in an implicit reference to the Weitzel case, the resolution added: "We believe that when a medical expert admonishes a prosecutor against filing a criminal complaint, it behooves the prosecutor to reconsider his position and at least seek the opinion of the Utah Medical Association, the Physicians Licensing Board, or some other regularly established and constituted panel of medical peers. Neither Utah's physicians nor their patients can afford this type of judicial embarrassment. It is a serious threat to good patient care for all Utah's citizens."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------