This article is cross-posted at Firedoglake under the MyFDL reader diaries section.

Although Paul McCartney wrote Hey Jude, the song is credited to Lennon-McCartney. It was recorded and released in 1968. That recorded version, performed by The Beatles and showing the lyrics, is here.

The ballad evolved from “Hey Jules”, a song widely accepted as being written to comfort John Lennon’s son, Julian, during his parents’ divorce. “Hey Jude” begins with a verse-bridge structure based around McCartney’s vocal performance and piano accompaniment; further instrumentation is added as the song progresses to distinguish sections. After the fourth verse, the song shifts to a fade-out coda that lasts for more than four minutes.

The song took on additional and varied meaning. Hey Jude was released at a time when racial tension was raging in the US. Earlier that year, American clergyman, activist, and prominent leader in the African-American Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated in Memphis, and there was much turmoil in American music among black and white musicians in the immediate aftermath of the tragic loss. There were efforts to bridge the gaps in the new genre of music at that time known as Southern Rock.

There is a BBC Documentary on the development of Southern Rock, called Sweet Home Alabama – The Southern Rock Saga. While watching this, I learned about the history and recording of another version of Hey Jude, performed by Wilson Pickett and Duane Allman in 1969, just months after its release. It is an example of musicians as activists, in a peaceful demonstration that music, as well as tragedy, are colorblind. Please give it a listen, because it is difficult to find a song that is so deeply moving:

In addition to Wilson Pickett singing with beauty and passion, and Duane on electric slide guitar, this song also has ” “arguably the greatest soul horn section ever,” the Memphis Horns. Wilson Pickett balked when Duane suggested they attempt this version of Hey Jude. Pickett finally agreed, and other musicians were stunned when they listened.

Wilson Pickett (March 18, 1941 – January 19, 2006), who sings this version of Hey Jude, grew up in Alabama singing in Baptist choirs. From Wiki:

A major figure in the development of American soul music, Pickett recorded over 50 songs which made the US R&B charts, and frequently crossed over to the US Billboard Hot 100. Among his best known hits are “In the Midnight Hour” (which he co-wrote), “Land of 1,000 Dances”, “Mustang Sally”, and “Funky Broadway”.[1]
The impact of Pickett’s songwriting and recording led to his 1991 induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.[2]

This recording was a turning point for Duane Allman, who is immortalized as one of the greatest rock guitarists in American history. As you know, Duane passed away following a motorcycle accident in Georgia, in 1971. The loss was particularly difficult for younger brother Gregg. Gregg was scholastically studious and had plans to go to medical school. Duane was artistically motivated, and dropped out of high school to spend all of his time studying music. Gregg agreed to give the music a couple of years and then return to his studies. When Duane died, everyone looked to Gregg. He reports saying (interview linked above), “Don’t look at me, I just happen to have the same last name.”

I cannot imagine a world without music and the arts, and sometimes taking a second look at a classic makes it possible to return home in a world where one can generally never go home again. The song Hey Jude, with its iconic lyric, “Take a sad song and make it better,” is a source of great comfort during and time of loss or discomfort.

In 1997, as a benefit to the victims of a volcano on the Caribbean Island of Montserrat, notable musicians Paul McCartney, Elton John, Sting, Mark Knoffler, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins and others gathered and performed Hey Jude live during the concert. That performance is here:

Advertisements

hat tip Xena at frederickleatherman.com for turning my attention to this.

This is the best documentary I have ever seen, that I never want to see again. For those who are not familiar with this film or with this case, it is heartbreaking, and yet it brings to light important issues in a flawed legal system. The film is also about love, survival and activism.

In 2001, Dr. Andrew Bagby was found murdered in his scrubs, in a park in Latrobe, PA. He was an only son of very loving parents. He had an astonishing extended family of friends and relatives, spanning the continent from California where he lived as a boy to Newfoundland, Canada, where he attended medical school. He had been shot five times, in the face, head and buttocks. Andrew Bagby was 28 years old.

Dr. Bagby had just ended a relationship with another doctor, Shirley Turner, who he had met in Newfoundland. Her possessiveness and inappropriate behavior had become burdensome. He put her on a plane back to her home in Iowa, but she immediately returned to Pennsylvania by car. Evidence quickly indicated Shirley Turner as the suspect in Andrew Bagby’s murder. Shirley Turner was 40 years old.

Shirley Turner fled to Canada, where she had initially met Andrew Bagby. In Canada, she was arrested on suspicion of pre-meditated first degree murder. She was also pregnant with Andrew Bagby’s child. She was released on bail immediately.

She had the child and named him Zachary. Zachary looked like Andrew had looked, when he was a baby. Andrew’s distraught parents began a heartbreaking fight for visitation and custody of Zachary. The grandparents loved the boy and endured the likes of strip searches for each cherished hour that they spent with him. They were forced to stomach a relationship with their son’s likely murderer, to have what few hours they did get with the boy.

Shirley Turner was arrested a second time and held pending extradition to the US to face the murder charge. She appealed the extradition and during the pendency of the appeal, she was awarded custody of the child and allowed to go free. The Canadian court found her to be neither a risk for flight nor a risk to the safety of her community.

What happened next was unimaginable.

Andrew Bagby’s close friend Kurt Kuenne, who was a filmmaker, made a documentary of this story. The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures named the film one of the five top documentaries of the year. Among those who named it one of the best films of 2008 were Time Out Chicago, The Oregonian, the Times Herald-Record, Slant Magazine, and WGN Radio Chicago.[7] The website Film School Rejects place the film in third place in their 30 Best Films of the Decade list.[8] The Film Vault included the film on their top 5 good movies you never want to see again.[9] Source.

The film’s trailer is here:

The full-length documentary film by Kurt Kuenne is here:

Despite an exculpatory crime lab toxicology result, I was convicted of a DUI (and other crimes dependent on the DUI) and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. This is the executive summary of a complaint that I will be filing with ASCLD/LAB (American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board) and the National Institute of Justice (A branch of US DOJ that funds these laboratories through Paul Coverdell grants), with copies to other authorities. The reference list is extensive, as is the body of the complaint. This complaint has to do with improper testimony of a crime lab analyst, in a non-DNA toxicology case that resulted in conviction and sentence. I will share the link to the full body of the complaint, once it is completed.

Exculpatory evidence hidden.

To ASCLD/LAB

This is a formal complaint, regarding the trial testimony of a Kentucky lab analyst, during a jury trial on January 22, 2008. The analyst was, and still is, employed at a lab that was at the time of the testimony, and still is, under your purview. The analyst’s name is Ryan Johnson. He works in the Toxicology section of the Central Forensic Laboratory, a division of the Kentucky State Police (KSP), in Frankfort, KY. The Kentucky State Police and its labs are a division of the Kentucky government known as the Justice and Public Safety Department. Mr. Johnson is the current supervisor for the Toxicology division of this lab, although in 2008 when he testified, I do not believe he was a supervisor. The lab Director is Ms.Laura Sudkamp.

Posing as a clinical and pharmacology ‘expert witness,’ Mr. Johnson based his under-oath statements on, in some cases, information that did not exist, regarding the prescription benzodiazepine, clonazepam. In other instances he took a drastic departure from the FDA-regulated package insert and delivered exactly the opposite information to the jury, or delivered information and represented it as accepted fact, when such information did not exist. He misled the jury by claiming by inference that this product, since it happens to be a benzodiazepine, causes nystagmus, for example. In truth, clonazepam can be and has been, according to the peer-reviewed literature (more than a few sources), used to treat and alleviate pathological nystagmus and other problems related to vision. I will provide more detail in the body of this complaint. (References will be provided in the body of the complaint).

In addition, Mr. Johnson reported that he was “familiar with this drug” and that he had “read the literature” for this drug. His extensive review of the peer-reviewed clinical literature consisted of two articles, each written at least six years prior to the drug being marketed, available and regulated in the United States, and each published in countries outside the United States. On one article he presented information that was diametrically opposed to the article summary (related to eye movements). The other article discussed only ten volunteer healthy human subjects, only four of whom were women, none of them within ten years of my age. Mr. Johnson expanded the ten-volunteer-subject findings (again, done in a laboratory setting and not a clinical one) to include all humans taking therapeutic doses of the drug.

One resource he described relying on is called Courtroom Toxicology, which is not peer-reviewed by the clinical world, and is authored by a lawyer (likely a prosecutor). I will discuss the problematic clinical bibliography for this publication in the body of the complaint. The DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) non-peer-reviewed literature that he discusses relies, in pertinent part, on a study done on primates, in 1968, on a different drug, ten years before clonazepam was invented, 27 years before the drug was available, marketed and regulated in the United States, and 37 years before Mr. Johnson represented the information in the study as accepted scientific fact for all humans taking the drug at therapeutic doses. When I attempted to contact the author of the ape study, I learned that he is retired. That study is: 9 David A. Robinson, Eye Movement Control in Primates, 161 Science 1219 (Sept. 1968). The reference document is here.

Mr. Johnson gave a technically misleading description of the chemical structure of this drug, describing it as having a unique characteristic (an attached chlorine atom) that is, in fact common to most of the drugs in this class, and misrepresented an extraction and separation process of organic chemistry as a diagnostic quantification tool. He wrongly stated that “liquid-liquid extraction is incapable of pulling clonazepam out of the blood,” when, in fact, liquid-liquid extraction has been the gold standard for extracting this drug (and about 6,000 others) from the plasma into a pH-adjusted organic layer for years. He stated,

Basically, it’s a, it’s a drug like diazepam but they put a chlor, a chlor, a chlorine atom on it, and that ends up, um, making it so that the test that we run, it’s called a liquid-liquid extraction, um, that test is incapable of pulling clonazepam out of the blood.

The chemical name for clonazepam is 5-(2-chlorophenyl)-7-nitro-2,3-dihydro-1,4-benzodiazepin-2-one, and the chemical name for diazepam is 7-chloro-1,3-dihydro-1-methyl-5-phenyl-1,4-benzodiazepin-2(3H)-one. Both structures have chlorine atoms. Clonazepam is not utterly unique for having the chlorine atom attached to the phenyl group (a group attached to the diazepine ring that is closely related to benzene) of the benzodiazepine skeleton. Ativan (lorazepam), another common benzodiazepine, is also a chlorophenyl benzodiazepine, named, (RS)-9-chloro-6-(2-chlorophenyl)-4-hydroxy-2,5-diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undeca-5,8,10,12-tetraen-3-one.

Mr. Johnson misstated the drug’s time-span of therapeutic activity as well as its’ half-life (he did not bother to explain half-life to the jury), and compared it, wrongly, in milligram-to-milligram equivalency that he termed “potency” to another drug, valium.

He misrepresented rare adverse, uncommon adverse and in some cases, non-existent adverse events as common every-day effects that are part of the well-known therapeutic profile for the drug and commonly experienced by everyone who is taking the drug as prescribed. He lied about the ‘generally accepted’ purpose of the drug, agreeing with the prosecutor that clonazepam is “specifically designed to get the user high.” Ironically, clonazepam is listed in the Bureau of Prisons formulary. As the only benzodiazepine allowed in the prison system, one of its ten off-formulary approved uses is “**04. Detoxification for substance abuse**.” In some cases, Mr. Johnson represented rare adverse events associated with extreme serum toxicity of a different benzodiazepine as common effects related to intended therapy and prescription of clonazepam.

Mr. Johnson lied by deliberate omission about not having a specific request to test for the drug by name in my case, when in fact he did have a request, to ‘test for’ clonazepam, by name. That request was verified to me by Laura Sudkamp on the telephone last month. He failed to explain to the jury that forensic lab toxicology testing takes the unknown to the known in a two-pronged approach that involves presumptive screening followed by quantification if the screen is positive and a report of “no drugs detected” if the presumptive screen is negative. He failed to explain the limits of detection for his testing purposes. He failed to explain that, generally speaking, for all of the classes of drugs that they screen for, drugs that fall below the limits of detection are not reported because they represent no issue of toxicological or therapeutic interest.

Mr. Johnson left the jury with the impression that (1) the drug was present in my blood and (2) no matter how high the level of this drug may have been, ie., even if the blood he presumptively screened had contained blood from a deceased person who had died from a toxic overdose of clonazepam and clonazepam alone, he simply would have had no way in the world to figure that out, with the equipment he had, in his toxicology laboratory at the time.

Mr. Johnson’s written lab report is unambiguous and exculpatory, and without a single notation or even asterisk explaining, “We have no idea what this drug is,” or “We can’t test for this drug because we can’t extract it in our lab,” or “not tested- clonazepam,” or “Please give us a call if you have a problem with the fact that we cannot meet your explicit request,” or “Shall we save this blood until the day when we have the right machine, and that could be years from now?” or “The principles of Organic Chemistry do not work in our lab,” or “We don’t have any money, but if you send us some, we’ll get this tested at NMS Labs in Willow Grove, PA, a third party contract lab that we typically send mysterious blood samples to.”

Mr. Johnson, when confronted with his own exculpatory lab result that lacked an asterisked notation regarding clonazepam, misrepresented the same report as inculpatory, leaving the jury with the impression that there was not only clonazepam present in the blood, but the level was likely in the higher range for prescription therapy. He discussed, as would a licensed physician or clinical pharmacologist, the “normal dosages” at “normal dosage times” for this drug, even though he has, by his own admission, never seen it before in his life.

In addition to this discussion being outside the scope of Mr. Johnson’s practice as a lab tech, Mr. Johnson’s discussion contained a dearth of information that was not bogus. He gave his name. I will assume, for the sake of argument that he told the truth about that. I was not able to verify his stated course of education, however.

Mr. Johnson’s testimony has far-reaching potential impact on the citizens of Kentucky. I was convicted of a DUI (among other things that depended on the DUI conviction) with no drugs or alcohol in my blood, and without exhibiting any unlawful driving whatsoever. I appealed and my conviction was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in a unanimous, 26-page published opinion. The opinion has ‘facts’ in it that are based on this man’s trial testimony. In other words, there is a published and binding affirming opinion in Kentucky that not only contains science fiction, but actually obviates the need for any lab testing at all. The Kentucky published opinion affirming is based on findings of fact that are not founded in any sort of clinical reality whatsoever, and are a direct result of Mr. Johnson’s testimony. The published opinion could potentially affect any and all drivers in Kentucky who are ever pulled over for any reason. Mr. Johnson’s problematic testimony can and likely will lead to future unfortunate litigation around future no-drugs-no-alcohol-no-improper-driving DUI convictions.

Mr. Johnson appears to enjoy his deliberate, false testimony, as he smiles and giggles throughout. Part one of his testimony follows. Since he was recorded on videotape, I will include an official court-reporter transcript, for ease of review. Mr. Johnson is unsafe and unfit to work in a laboratory and make decisions about what to do with the blood samples that he receives.

This is related to the Frog Gravy legal case.

This is part one of Kentucky crime lab analyst Ryan Johnson falsely testifying at trial by posing as a clinical expert and delivering information about this prescription drug that is false, misleading, totally unsupported anywhere in any literature on the planet, or a combination of all.

In the next few days, I will upload the rest, and then I will use this testimony as a the basis of a detailed complaint that I plan to file with the accreditation board and other authorities. At that time, I will go into gruesome detail, sentence by sentence beginning with the chemistry and going into information in the clinical literature. I will back each and every claim with the FDA-regulated package insert, the peer-reviewed literature, or a combination of both. I will provide detailed background based in known fact where appropriate, particularly regarding the organic chemistry as well as the clinical ‘effects’ of this drug.

He claims during the testimony (just to provide a teaser), that the lab had no idea it was supposed to look for this commonly prescribed benzodiazepine, and even if it did, the lab had no way of detecting the very presence of it. Problem is, and this is just one of his many problems here, he DID have that request, and he DID at least screen for the presence of benzodiazepines. Even though the lab can and does use outside competent labs for quantification, he did not send the blood to an outside lab, and that is likely because he did not detect the presence of a benzodiazepine in the blood in the first place, so there was no need for the second prong of the test, which would include quantification.

His clinical claims are false and bizarre.

As a result of this man’s false testimony, I was convicted of some crimes that I did not commit, and that includes a DUI with no drugs or alcohol in my blood, and without any bad driving or traffic violations. As a result of his false testimony, there is now a published opinion affirming in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, that contains a great deal of false information and science fiction. If you wish to lose IQ points, give it a read. Here is that opinion.

I will share the entire complaint with every appropriate related link, once I get the whole thing uploaded.

UPDATE: Here is the follow-along transcript for this portion. Second portion is being uploaded to YouTube and a transcript will be available for the whole testimony within a day or so. I will then share with my readers a sentence-by-sentence analysis of the false statements with backing literature.

Ryan Johnson (JOHNSON) is on the stand, under oath.

Chris McNeill (DEFENSE) is the defense attorney.

James A. Harris (COMMONWEALTH) is the prosecutor.

Hon. Judge Craig Z. Clymer (COURT) is the presiding trial court judge.

The testimony occurred on 1-22-2008, and was recorded on videotape. Here is that testimony.

COMMONWEALTH: (unintelligible)… Please, sir.

JOHNSON: Uh, my name is Ryan Johnson.

COMMONWEALTH: And how are you employed, Mr. Johnson?

JOHNSON: Um, I am a Forensic Science Specialist with the Kentucky State Police, um, Central Forensic Laboratory.

COMMONWEALTH: That’s in Frankfort.

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: So you’ve got a four-hour drive to go home, lookin’ at you.

JOHNSON: (chuckles) Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. And, just summarize for our jury your training, and your education that qualifies you to practice in our lab.

JOHNSON: Um, I have a Biology and a Chemistry Bachelor of Science from (sounds like Pikeville College), (unintelligible) testing at the Kentucky State Police in Central Forensic Laboratory and I’ve had ongoing education approved for studying drug effects on human behavior, um and, the Society of Forensic Toxicology annual conferences (unintelligible).

COMMONWEALTH: You understand there are two subjects I want to ask you about (unintelligible) right to the blood sample that was sent to you, you can stipulate that there was a blood sample taken from Rachel Leatherman on the night of June 28, ’06, you did a blood test to see if there was any drugs in her blood, is that right?

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: And your, what you test for came back “no drugs in her blood,” is that right?

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: Okay. Now. This test that you run for drugs in her blood, does that test for clonazepam?

JOHNSON: No sir, it does not.

COMMONWEALTH: Why is that?

JOHNSON: Uh, clonazepam is a chloro-derivative benzodiazepine. Basically, it’s a, it’s a drug like diazepam but they put a chlor, a chlor, a chlorine atom on it, and that ends up, um, making it so that the test that we run, it’s called a liquid-liquid extraction, um, that test is incapable of pulling clonazepam out of the blood. So, it’s a, it’s a issue of, we need, um, the drug actually is, needs to be ran, to test for that drug, needs to be ran on, uh, what’s called liquid chromatography and with the budget the way it is right now we don’t have that instrument.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. (clears throat) Your test would have tested for heroin?

JOHNSON: Uh, we would have detected opiates.

COMMONWEALTH: You would have, would have, your test would have determined whether there was either rock or powder cocaine or its derivatives and (unintelligible) derivatives in the blood…

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: And it came back negative on that.

JOHNSON: It was negative for cocaine and opia…

COMMONWEALTH: (interrupting) No heroin, no opiates, no forms of cocaine.

JOHNSON: That’s correct.

COMMONWEALTH: Can’t tell us about clonazepam.

JOHNSON: I couldn’t tell you if it had clonazepam in it.

COMMONWEALTH: As to her blood.

JOHNSON: As to her blood, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: Okay. Now I’m going to ask you about clonazepam. Are you familiar with it?

JOHNSON: Yes sir, I am.

COMMONWEALTH: Have you read the literature on it?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I have.

COMMONWEALTH: Including not only the, the uh, manufacturer’s um, data sheet, um, but also the other, uh, PDR-type references that describe clonazepam and its effects?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir, the general textbooks that we use are the PDR, which is the Physician’s Desk Reference, um, the Courtroom Toxicology, which is a database of drugs and their effects, um and how, how they can be detected, uh, ranges, and then another book, it’s called, um Drug Effects on Human Behavior, um, it’s just another book to tell us if there is any driving effects…

COMMONWEALTH: (interrupting) And since you don’t have a clonazepam test that you did on her blood, you can’t tell us about any clonazepam levels in her blood.

JOHNSON: That’s correct.

COMMONWEALTH: So I’m going to ask you to answer my questions based on normal dosages, okay?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Uh, within a normal dosage time, okay?

JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um. First of all, taken in normal dosages, can you tell our jury whether clonazepam is generally what we would refer to as intoxicating?

JOHNSON: Um, for the most part, it’s considered a potent sedative, which would be intoxicating, yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Potent, does that mean very intoxicating?

JOHNSON: Uh, yes, sir, it’s considered about, uh, according to the recent literature I’ve read, about twenty times more potent than valium.

COMMONWEALTH: Twenty times more potent than valium.

JOHNSON: Yeah, on a milligram-per-milligram basis.

COMMONWEALTH: And, what are the chemically, scientifically, pharmacologically recognized effects on vision of someone who is taking normal dosages of clonazepam?

JOHNSON: It can cause double vision, blurred vision.

COMMONWEALTH: Um, do you know anything about the HGN test?

JOHNSON: Um, according to what I’ve read, uh, the DRE, which is the Drug Recognition Expert, um, they recommend that benzodiazepines does cause HGN. I wasn’t for sure…

COMMONWEALTH: Causes the signs of HGN.

JOHNSON: Yes, um, after reading the literature that we have, it does say that nystagmus, either vertical or horizontal, are present, as a side effect.

COMMONWEALTH: A person taking clonazepam is likely to flunk the HGN test.

JOHNSON: That’s correct, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: And it would also be very intoxicating.

JOHNSON: It is possible, yes, sir.

COMMONWEALTH: Um, you say “possible.” Again, at normal dosages, based on all the literature that you’ve read, thought you said it was a potent, twenty times stronger than valium.

JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Um, the only reason I say possible, is that drugs do tend to have different effects on different people. A certain dosage for a person who is used to taking them might not actually be as potent as a drug, as, one that not been taken…

COMMONWEALTH: That’s not gonna, that’s not very scientific, Mr. Johnson, let me ask you this.

JOHNSON: (giggles)

COMMONWEALTH: Uh, given what you know about clonazepam, uh, if a person were taking clonazepam, would it be unusual if that person were to describe themselves as so whacked out they couldn’t remember?

JOHNSON: Uh, it could be, that would be consistent…

COMMONWEALTH: That would be consistent.

JOHNSON: That would be consistent with um, the things I’ve read about clonazepam, yes.

COMMONWEALTH: In terms of impairment, in terms of motor skills, and particularly those motor skills that we usually associate with being able to drive an automobile, would a person taking clonazepam in normal dosages be impaired?

JOHNSON: According to the pharmacy companies that produce clonazepam they do recommend that, um not driving a motor vehicle while taking the drug until you know exactly how it affects you, um, and from the studies that I’ve read it causes uh, degradation in mental ability to concentrate, uh, the fine motor skills, um, confusion, dizziness are all symptoms of clonazepam…

COMMONWEALTH: (unintelligible and interrupting)…about glassy eyes, is that something (unintelligible) recognized signs of use of clonazepam?

JOHNSON: I don’t recall (unintelligible)

COMMONWEALTH: That’s all I have. Thank you.

COURT: (unintelligible) defense?

DEFENSE: Uh, yes, Judge. (papers shuffling) Um. Mr. Johnson, even if you had found that there was clonazepam in her blood, that still wouldn’t be an indicator that she was quote under the influence of it, would it?

JOHNSON: I couldn’t testify to impairment based on (unintelligible)

DEFENSE: Right. Clonazepam can actually stay in your system for some period of time even after the effect of it wears off, right?

JOHNSON: The effects are usually given at six to eight hours and the half-life of the drug can be up to nineteen, twenty hours, twenty-seven hours.

DEFENSE: So, um, you can’t offer any testimony today about whether or not she was under the influence of clonazepam and/or impaired by the effects of clonazepam, can you.

JOHNSON: I couldn’t say, no, sir.

DEFENSE: Um. Now, you say that you all didn’t have the uh, the equipment to test for the presence of clonazepam in the blood. Uh, but, the Kentucky State Police Lab that you work for, sometimes they do send off materials for testing at other labs.

JOHNSON: Uh, we do use private labs for some things, yes, sir.

DEFENSE: Like, DNA, for example, sometimes, is that correct?

JOHNSON: Um, I’m not familiar with exactly DNA, but I know the toxicology section does do it, sometimes.

DEFENSE: Well, but, again, you’re familiar with some tests that the KSP Lab either doesn’t do or doesn’t have enough staff to do, they do contract out with labs who do do those tests, right?

JOHNSON: (giggling) It has been done, yes.

DEFENSE: Um, so certainly that would have been possible to test for clonazepam.

Tape ends here. Last part of tape is being uploaded, and will also be transcribed for follow-along convenience.

The wiki for CPDRC Dancing Inmates is here.

Psy
By Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer on flickr

About a month ago, my son emailed me the video Psy – Gangnam Style. He did this because he knows my history with high-energy hip-hop/electronica, an essential music genre for anyone who takes roller blading seriously. I used to purchase bootleg tapes in West Hollywood and then roller blade to the tapes all around Santa Monica.

Today, reports from MTV Europe are that “One of the night’s most popular performers was dance sensation Psy with his record-breaking hit “Gangnam Style”, which won Best Video.

With 710,294,710 YouTube hits at the moment, here is that video:

Last night, Fred (aka Mason/Masoninblue) came across this thing and started listening. We both just circled the drain; the thing started growing on us both and just would not stop. Now, just to confess here, I am 52 and he is 65, and we both ordinarily listen to areas of music that are pretty unrelated to this. Psy is a Korean artist, his genre is K-Pop (Korean Popular) and the words are in Korean with just a bit of English. However, Psy has managed to overcome cultural and language barriers, and his in-your-face infectious and sweet nature appeals to everyone, including us.

His flash mobs are epic, spanning from the largest flash mob ever in Paris, to an illegal flash mob in Jakarta, Indonesia with so many people it simply left the authorities helpless, to others in New York, Rome, Los Angeles, and other places.

Our night went like this: Step – Step – Step – Repeat step….Oppan Gangnam Style! I had to stop briefly when I nearly broke my leg, carrying a cup of soda and doing this dance down the steps. It’s probably safer if you’re old to begin with coming up the stairs. As Fred rubbed the sore muscles of his shoulder, he and I both fantasized about some solid plans to take over this staid town we live in, and instigate a memorable flash mob that would be well worth the jail time. While technically not illegal here, you don’t have to do anything illegal here to get arrested nonetheless.

Psy’s live summer stand concert in Korea is my favorite:

I guess it just feels really good to set aside worry or fear or concern about the sadness in the world today and see something that the entire globe can agree on: a cheesy, really fun dance with a catchy tune and words (yes, we’ve got some of the words memorized). The English translation and ‘Romanized’ lyrics are here.

In this interview, Psy explains that he is a father of twins who are six in Korea and four in the US. Psy took some of his musical training at Boston University. When he was discovered by his current US manager, who wanted to sign Psy, Psy wondered why, and suggested that he take the manager to Koreatown and drink instead.

In yet another video that is hilarious, Psy, in a Spider Man outfit, and his dancers, essentially accost people in the streets, winning over their hearts and getting them to dance. The elevator pelvic thrust is fabulous:

Whop, whop, whop, whop, Oppan Gangnam Style!!

The wiki for Psy.

Addendum: On Psy’s sunglasses:

Psy’s sunglasses are from French eyewear brand Thierry Lasry. I did find some discrepancy as to whether these were from Garrett Leight (probably because the two brands recently collaborated on a limited edition of sunglasses) but upon some closer inspection they’re definitely from Thierry Lasry. Psy really only goes through two different styles of sunglasses and one pair of swimming goggles, but I still had to do some digging through their collections and Look Books to hunt them down.

The first is Variety 1015 from the opening scene in Psy’s video, as well as in the final scenes with HyunA and the flash mob. This was found in Thierry Lasry’s 2011 collection.