In her latest post for Scientific American on the Markingson case, Dr. Judy Stone writes about the evasiveness and stonewalling that she has gotten from the U when she asks direct questions. I especially appreciated this section about her exchange with PR spokesman Justin Paquette:
There was one response from Paquette that was particularly
disturbing, given that he should be very familiar with this trial.
Regarding Dan Markingson’s competency, Paquette tried to assure me that
“the Court” had declared Dan competent to consent to this trial and had
agreed to Dan’s participation. I countered that David Pettit, the case
manager, didn’t even see Dan until 10/26/03, five days after he was
enrolled on the trial. Surprisingly, Paquette reiterated it wasn’t
Pettit, that “the Court had agreed to Dan’s participation.”
Perhaps this was an innocent slip of the tongue or memory. I would
have expected the University’s spokesperson for this trial for several
years to be more familiar with major details that are recurrently
raised, and to be able to provide documents to refute specific concerns.
But Paquette and Rotenberg have received multiple e-mails and calls
from me since March 8 asking about this point, and have yet to provide
any documentation of this claim.
I wonder if that is because there is none. In fact, Dr. Olson (deposition pages 78-79) makes the statement that he never informed the court about Dan going into the study…only
that Dan’s county case manager approved it…who was never appointed
until days after Dan was signed and enrolled on the trial.