One witness was so nauseating, I could not look at him. I found another place to rest my eyes. I looked at the wood paneling in front of me, part of the jury box. At some point, I saw Baubo come through in the wood grain.

He didn’t know that if the judge sustained an objection, then that meant that he shouldn’t answer. This happened several times. He said he’d been in court before. I wondered if he’d been drugged when he was a child. He was so full of himself, spoke with a soft voice, and could probably snow a lot of people, which was why he was making the big bucks today. After being asked to curb his long and bloated responses, he would respond yes or no and then say in his calm but passive-aggressive way, “Would you like me to explain why?” Even though I wasn’t keen on the attorney questioning at the time, I found this guy a painfully irritating human being. He wore a wedding ring as well. I couldn’t imagine what his partner could possibly be like or how their relationship would function. I quickly put that thought out of my mind.

When discussing dosage of chemicals, he was asked if he’d give an adult aspirin to a child. This guy was so talented in avoiding the question. In my book, he’s on the record as being able to talk for hours and not be on the record for anything except how many organizations he’s a member of and how he’s written tens of thousands of papers and how if anyone has reached his ability level in one regard, surely they haven’t reached that same level in another of his abilities. My bullschlit meter was blown to smithereens with this guy.

His lawyer accommodated him for his lack of math. His lawyer! Walked him through the equation, each and every step, and got him to say yes to each one. The guy couldn’t multiply 2 times 0.007 without a calculator and said so. Here’s another one of those points where I would feel like I lacked integrity to do what that lawyer did. I understand why he did it, he was representing his client and his client deserved representation. I personally just could not have brought myself to do this.

The most lame guy – good scientists know better than to compare two variables too simply. For example, on this one radio game show I listen to, they often pose questions like “name the smallest country with the least number of people.” It’s an ambiguous question. It’s fine in this lighthearted radio show and I just don’t call in on those questions because they just irk me. If you aren’t sure what I mean, consider a country that’s 1 square mile with a hundred people and another country that’s two square miles with fifty people. The 1 square mile country is the smaller but the 50 people country has less people. So which one wins? Well, this lame scientist talked that way about people’s size and how much they drink. Even without all the other terribly disconcerting things about this guy, this one fact was enough for me to consider his science suspect.

This guy said something to the effect that “all materials are required for good health.” Did he say what I think he said? Later the prosecution asked him if cancer drugs should be taken by a healthy person. He found some way to not answer that question. This guy was from another planet.

He had authored a paper that had a section entitled “Alternatives to the 5ppm Health Goal” and proceeded to suggest a much larger number. But under testimony he was amazingly and sickeningly creative in finding a hundred ways to not say that this article was suggesting an alternative to the goal.

So what happens if you lie under oath? I guess it all depends on how harmful his testimony was as to whether anyone would follow through with trying to prove he lied.