Defense Witness Disagrees with Court-Appointed Psych Diagnosis; Marsh’s Videotaped Interrogation Continues

an image of a blue sedan parked outside of a residence with police and police tape around itby Antoinnette Borbon


In what is now the third week of testimony in the state’s case against young Daniel Marsh, the defense’s medical witness, Dr. James Merikangas, would contradict the diagnosis given by the court-appointed psychologist, Dr. James Rokop. Dr. Merikangas is a neuropsychiatrist and neurologist with impressive credentials, from the Washington, D.C., and Bethesda, MD, areas.

Rokop, who testified for the prosecution, cast doubt upon the claim of insanity, stating, “Daniel may have over-played and may be using medication side effects for the reason behind the crime.”

Daniel Marsh is on trial for taking the lives of Oliver Northup and Claudia Maupin in their Davis home in the early morning hours of April 14, 2013.

Marsh, seen hanging his head and covering his eyes at moments, listened to the doctor testify about his diagnosis of Marsh.

Dr. Merikangas explained that the psychologists were not qualified to give an accurate assessment of Daniel. “They are not medical doctors, they did not examine his brain, his physical body or talk with him enough to know what was going on with him, and his psychiatrist just kept prescribing more meds,” stated the doctor.

He said he was hired by the defense to read the reports, to interview Daniel, and give a summary, analysis and diagnosis of Daniel.

Dr. Merikangas explained that Daniel suffers from manic depressive disorder, dissociative disorder, de-personalization and anorexia nervosa. But he stated, “Daniel does not have any evidence of anti-social or sexual sadism disorders, [there is] simply no evidence to support that.”

He said, “I disagree with their formulations all together, he has no history of sexual sadism and I have known sexual sadism patients and serial killers; Daniel does not fit the criteria.”

Deputy Public Defender Ron Johnson asked about the medications that Daniel Marsh had been taking and if he would have given them to him, “No, I wouldn’t have been giving those meds or any more meds – Daniel was in the wrong hands to be treated.”

He said Dr. Timothy Hesgard was a family therapist, ignoring things, and Dr. Cheyenne He just kept prescribing drugs, never doing a personal evaluation of Daniel.

Dr. He was Daniel’s Kaiser psychiatrist, and Dr Hesgard was also from Kaiser.

Dr. Merikangas stated that he would never have mixed Wellbutrin with Zoloft because they have the same side effects. “It is just wrong to give it with other meds, I would not have continued meds, you need to find out what’s going on,” asserted the doctor.

He explained that Daniel had suffered brain damage during birth, having to be resuscitated and losing oxygen.

He said Daniel’s MRI showed abnormalities and he felt that Daniel was having dreamlike episodes – and may have been under one at the time of the crime.

“He was in a dream state during the crime but did not know what he was doing until afterwards,” stated the doctor.

Dr. Merikangas testified the dreamlike state could last for hours to days, but no one would ever know that, besides Daniel.

He explained that Zoloft is 17 times more likely to cause increased aggression in children than in adults, causing them to become more violent.

“In fact, Daniel is much better since he is off meds,” Dr. Merikangas stated.

He said Daniel has several factors causing his mental health issues, not just one factor.

During cross-examination by Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney Mike Cabral, Dr. Merikangas would tell him that he uses medications other than SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors] to treat depression.

DDA Cabral asked, “How about controlled substances and alcohol, can that cause side effects to be worse if mixed with SSRIs?”

“There are no studies done, don’t know,” replied the doctor.

Dr. Merikangas explained that Daniel’s truancy and disobedient behavior was due to drug and alcohol use, not an anti-social disorder.

He was questioned more by DDA Cabral about Daniel’s “dreamlike state.” Cabral asked, “So when do you think Daniel began his dreamlike state, was it after he stole the mask, after he sharpened the knife?”

“I don’t know, he doesn’t know, do not know the timing,” asserted the doctor.

“But he did a good job at concealing the crime, right?” Cabral asked.

“He didn’t conceal anything, he told two friends, he didn’t do a good job of it,” replied the doctor.

DDA Mike Cabral asked about the cuts to Daniels arms.

Dr. Merikangas replied, “Daniel’s cuts to his arms are signs of a suicide attempt, cutting his arm is a sign of aggression against oneself.”

The doctor would explain that most mass homicides end in suicide, reminding Cabral about the Columbine incident and others that ended in suicide. He asserted to Cabral that some of the people in those mass homicides had been using Zoloft.

But he stated that marijuana, over a period of long use, can affect the ability to think and remember things, but does not produce homicidal thoughts.

He said Daniel suffered from a lot of emotional and stressful abuse, but he agreed that drugs and alcohol could be a factor – just not the only factor.

Merikangas said, “Daniel told different things to different people but I felt him to be open and truthful with me.”

He stated that it is an interpretation of what Daniel tells doctors that are put into the notes, not facts.

“Black box warnings are from the National Institute of Health and were advice by the institute not to give out SSRIs to children,” said Merikangas.

Marsh’s Videotaped Interview

The six-hour long videotaped interview of Daniel Marsh continued on Monday afternoon.

Daniel was questioned by the FBI agent about what he felt as betrayal.

He explained to the agent that the cheating by his girlfriend, mom and sister made him not want to trust anyone, ever. He stated, “Betrayal sorta devastates me.”

He said the breakup with his girlfriend was due to her being “too mentally screwed up.” But it was one of the things which hurt Daniel.

Daniel spoke about his best friend and how the friend said that he just didn’t like Daniel anymore. But Daniel did not understand why.

He said watching his mom have seizures, and having to hold her each time to make sure she was okay, “kinda screws with your head.” He said, “I never knew if she was going to die, it scared me.”

Daniel continued, “I’ve had a whole butt load of hurts,” he said and laughed. He said his dad was not around much, and that he was mixing medication with alcohol and it was often hard to wake up.

But, Daniel stated, “a friend of my mom’s, Boris, took me to events and things and helped me cope with the divorce, sort of mentored me until he died.”

Daniel admitted to having a dark side, but asserted he would never hurt anyone. He said he had a dark sense of humor and a fascination with anatomy.

He talked about the four suicide attempts to the agent. But he said, “I attempted it, and if I can’t die, I’m not going to give up trying.”

When the agent asked about the things he put on his Tumblr account, Daniel explained them to be pictures that fascinated him about anatomy, “like, what would have done that, and how did that all come to play?” Daniel explained.

He said, “Every human being is always seeking affection, that’s what it is all about right?” “Yes,” answered the agent.

As the dialogue moved onto the night in question, the FBI agent would repeatedly say, “Daniel, there is no one who could have known the details of what happened in that house but someone who had to be in there that night, and two of your friends say you told them it was you.”

Daniel would repeat, “But I didn’t do anything, I would never have done that, I am just a kid, I do not know why they would f—-me over like that.”

Daniel, weeping, asserted that he had nothing to do with the homicides and that the story told about the killing of animals was really about his best friend.

He said he witnessed his friend choking a cat to death and throwing it away.

But the agent kept repeating the same questions, telling Daniel, “Now, Daniel, this is your time to heal, I am here to heal you, this is your refuge.”

Daniel continued, “I didn’t do it, I’ve gotten in fights, in self-defense…never killed anyone.” Daniel was sobbing at this point.

“Daniel, there is no one who would know the specifics, not even the police know things you know. This is an obsession, compulsion, you’ll feel complete relief if you tell me…You almost got away with it, it was a masterpiece, a work of art,” the FBI agent stated.

“You’re asking me to confess to something I haven’t done, I can’t tell you why I did something that I didn’t do,” Daniel said, sobbing.

“The person who was in there knew the details, left clues…” asserted the agent.

“But I swear I to you,” Daniel continued, sobbing. “Daniel, don’t swear, I am here to heal you,” replied the agent.

“YOU are not understanding me!” Daniel said, his voice getting louder. “I can’t confess to something I didn’t do!” he exclaimed, sobbing.

“All I know about this murder is what people told me…I don’t know why people are screwing with me,” Daniel asserted.

The viewing of the interview videotape continues on Tuesday morning.

About The Author

The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

Related posts


  1. WesC

    You have to do something pretty egregious to get the Calif Dept of Managed Health Care to fine you for care deficiencies. Kaiser recently received a 4 million dollar fine for mental health care deficiencies. Marsh just might be a product of the deficiencies. Unfortunately with annual revenues of of over 53 billion, a 4 million dollar fine is not much more than a little slap on the wrist. As one former Kaiser psychotherpist put it…Kaiser will continue to provide inadequate mental health care until it becomes more expensive than actually taking care of people properly. To this point it has been more profitable for Kaiser to offer the appearance of care than actual care. The tragedy is that this is the norm for most healthcare organizations.

    1. South of Davis

      WesC wrote:

      > Unfortunately with annual revenues of over 53 billion, a 4 million dollar
      > fine is not much more than a little slap on the wrist.

      If you drop the six zeros off the revenue and the fine you will see that a $4 million file for Kaiser is the same as a $4 dollar fine for a guy that makes $53K a year…

      1. WesC

        Obamacare will have no effect on this kind of care (or inadequate care). Obamacare does not specifically require that all clinicians be competent, or that the care and treatment be adequate. Professional and state licensing and accreditation entities are supposed to do this but reality rarely do.

  2. SODA

    What are Dr Merkener’s qualifications? Assume he is a psychiatrist from his criticism of other non MD therapists, but expert witnesses usually give their edication, credentials before questioning…thx

      1. Elizabeth Bowler

        I am fairly certain he is an expert witness for the defense. Expert witnesses must also examine defendants and evidence in order to render their expert opinions. Dr. Merikangas is a well known and highly regarded psychiatrist and neuropsychiatrist with a national reputation in the field of violent behavior. It is likely that his credentials were stipulated to by both sides.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Do you find it interesting that Marsh seems to be doing better off of the medications? I met a psychiatrist who relocated to a rural area in Northern California, and she said she spent weeks upon weeks upon first arrival pulling people off of medication(s). It was her feeling that medication was vastly over prescribed.

          1. Elizabeth Bowler

            Yes, it is certainly interesting and very relevant to this case that he is doing better off medications. I am also very concerned about the dramatic increase in the use of psychiatric medications in children despite the presence of Black Box warnings and very limited scientific research in this area.

          2. Tia Will

            “it is certainly interesting and very relevant to this case that he is doing better off medications.”

            While I agree wholeheartedly with this comment, I also believe that it is very important that we not overlook what else has changed in Daniel’s life. He is now in a highly structured living situation with lack of ready access to his drugs of choice for self medication as well as to what had apparently become his favored distractions of gore and violence. While we will never sort out how much each factor of Daniel’s previous lifestyle contributed to his descent into violence in the real world, I believe it is important that we consider all as possibilities, not certainties.

          3. Antoinnette

            Absolutely, Tia

            Being in a safer place, stable place where is counseled and cared for routinely is probably a load off of his back and heart….sad it had to take a tragedy to get there and spend the rest of his life locked up, possibly, but at least he is in a healthier state of mind.

            Well said…

          4. Antoinnette

            Elizabeth, the doctor yesterday who testified for prosecution said a warning of side effects is completely different than a statement on the bottle?

            He refused to admit that children cannot tolerate these drugs and claimed the two cases defense brought forth about a 12 and 14 year old having similar effects as Daniel from Zoloft.

            It was brought up that the FDA did not support his opinions and in fact called them, “lacking common sense.”

  3. WesC

    From James R. Merikangas, M.D. is a Neuropsychiatrist, co-founder of the American Neuropsychiatric Association and former president of the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. He is a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and trained in both Neurology and Psychiatry at Yale. He is board certified in each of those specialties. Primarily a practicing clinician, Dr. Merikangas established the EEG laboratory at the Western Psychiatric Clinic of the University of Pittsburgh, where he also established the Neurodiagnostic Clinic and directed the Psychiatric Emergency room. Currently he is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at The George Washington University School of Health Sciences and a consultant in research at the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Merikangas has been a dedicated teacher and mentor throughout his career. He has received numerous professional honors, including Elected Distinguished Life Fellow, American Psychiatric Association, Elected Consultant of the Scientific Program Committee, American Psychiatric Association, Elected Representative of District Branch in Assembly, American Psychiatric Association, and Elected Fellow, American Neuropsychiatric Association. Prior to his current clinical and forensic practices, Dr. Merikangas held faculty appointments at several institutions including Yale-New Haven Hospital, Georgetown University Hospital, The George Washington University Hospital, the Suburban Hospital (Bethesda, MD), and the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Washington, D.C. Dr. Merikangas has consulted extensively to hospitals, universities, and state and federal courts and agencies. In addition to serving as an active member on a number of boards and committees, Dr. Merikangas is currently an Examiner for the National Board of Medical Examiners, American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. His vast interest in the causes and prevention of violent behavior, has led to the neuropsychiatric evaluation of murderers in 28 state prisons, and pioneering the use of brain imaging in the understanding of violent crimes. Other forensic interests include brain injury, toxic exposures and psychiatric trauma as an expert for both plaintiffs and defense, including for the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Merikangas has authored many articles and chapters on these and other topics, served as an editorial reviewer, and has lectured nationally and internationally.

    Seems to be much more qualified than any of the other witnesses thus far.

    1. SODA

      Thanks! It puts his testimony in perspective with his background.
      Interesting that he was so critical of the meds but did not seem to describe how he would have treated…but not what was asked I guess.

        1. Elizabeth Bowler

          He actually mentioned a class of medication, the tricyclic antidepressants. These are an older class of antidepressants that were used prior to the availability of the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft and others), and they do not have the troublesome side effects in young people including suicidality and aggression that are associated with SSRIs.

  4. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    Arguably the hardest thing for jurors to decide in cases where each side puts on medical or scientific experts and those experts disagree is which side to believe and on what basis to believe or disbelieve. I think this is possible, though tough, for very discerning, highly intelligent jurors. However, odds are strong that most juries are not full of very discerning, highly intelligent people. They are just ordinary folks. And thus, this task is really impossible, even if they happen to come up with the right answer, be that guilty, not guilty or somewhere in between (such as guilty of some counts, not others, etc.).

    I am not sure how we can get around this problem. One way, I suppose, would be to test the intelligence of prospective jurors and favor those with more and better scientific education. But that flies in the face of the “jury of one’s peers*.” Other countries have no juries, but let judges (usually three or more) decide guilt or innocence. The problem with that, assuming the judges are intelligent, is judges who are ambitious may benefit personally from favoring the prosecution most of the time where that means they will be moved up to a higher court or it puts them in position to run for higher office.

    So we seem to be stuck with juries full of people deciding medical and scientific cases they are particularly unfit to decide. In civil courts, this is especially bad, as juries inevitably will favor the plaintiffs, if the supposed victim visually looks damaged. That is how John Edwards and other lawyers of his ilk helped ruin our medical system for their own enrichment.

    *I am not sure where the right to a jury of one’s peers comes from, but it seems to be enshrined in our judicial system. The Constitution (6th Amendment) guarantees a defendant’s right to a trial by an impartial jury. However, it does not say anything about the nature of the jurors beyond impartiality. I would guess that a Supreme Court decision early on must have concluded that the only possibility of an impartial jury is one made up of a broad selection from the defendant’s community and not a jury of elites.

    1. hpierce

      “jury of one’s peers”… good question, Mr Rifkin… not sure it is a defined right, but ‘common usage’ implies it is… what is a “peer”? In this case, would it be people who were charged in an assault, where mental health and/or substance issues were in play? For “career criminals”, would it be ex-felons? For civil cases involving consumer fraud, would it be an equal mix of victims/perpetrators?

      Damn good question… have no clear idea of what a good answer would look like.

      1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

        The Legal Dictionary (online) gives a definition:

        jury of one’s peers n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which “peer” means an “equal.” This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans.

        I guess the term “peer” here, meaning equal, should be seen in contrast with the older English system of rights based on rank. In other words, probably in English law, if one were of a privileged rank, say a baron or a duke, one’s jury would include members of equally high status in English law and would exclude commoners, who were not peers of the accused. And the reverse would have been true, where only commoners would serve on a jury if the accused were a commoner. … If that is right, then in the American system, where “all men are created equal,” a jury of one’s peers must be a jury made up of other citizens, not based on their status, employment, education, etc.

    2. Tia Will


      “But that flies in the face of the “jury of one’s peers*.”

      One of the problems with the theory of a “jury of one’s peers” is that our jury selection process promptly undermines this concept. Surely on a murder trial involving complex medical issues, a “jury of one’s peers” might reasonably include someone with knowledge of this area as well as those who have no knowledge. What actually happens is that anyone with knowledge of the medical field in question, even very peripherally, is automatically excluded from the jury pool thus biasing selection in favor of those who not only have no knowledge of the area in question, but also of those who have any reasonable possibility of understanding the complexities of the issues being discussed. We have evolved our system to ensure that the least qualified to judge highly technical areas are those that are ultimately selected to do so.

  5. Antoinnette

    Thank you Wes….I guess David didn’t get my memo on Dr.s credentials.

    He was kinda brief on how to treat Daniel but mentioned a close monitoring and different meds along with a lot of one on one therapy.

    He was an interesting character….extremely qualified expert.

    Videotape continues…..haven’t gotten to confession yet.

  6. DurantFan

    As this trial proceeds, Mr Marsh seems to become more downcast and overwhelmed. It is clear to me that trying Mr. Marsh as an adult rather than a juvenile is a tacticaql error, and could be the basis for a mistrial.

    1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

      ” It is clear to me that trying Mr. Marsh as an adult rather than a juvenile is a tactical error, and could be the basis for a mistrial.”

      Durant, you are factually mistaken.

      Under California law, anyone age 14 or higher charged with certain serious offenses, including murder, must be tried as an adult. It is not left to the discretion of the prosecutor to determine whether the case is heard in juvenile or adult court. It always must be tried in adult court.

      In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 21. That removed the discretion in these sorts of cases:

      1. Davis Progressive

        you are not correct on that rich. prop 21 revamped California’s juvenile justice system by greatly increasing
        prosecutorial discretion as to whether a child is tried as an adult—taking the decision away from juvenile court judges. it does not mandate a prosecutor try murders, violent crimes, and gang crimes as an adult.

        1. Davis Progressive

          i’ll step back from that slightly. murder is special circumstances compels the prosecutor to file it as an adult case – but there is nothing to compel the prosecutor to file it with special circumstances.

          1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

            there is nothing to compel the prosecutor to file it with special circumstances.

            True. However, in this case, there are several components of the crime which meet the list of special circumstances. They include multiple homicides, lying in wait and murder involving torture.

            Because Marsh is under 18, he is not subject to the death penalty. If he is convicted of murder with special circumstances, he would automatically qualify for life without the possibility of parole, which seems to be the favored punishment among those who oppose the death penalty for heinous crimes.

            To my mind, this really comes down to the question of sanity or insanity. If the jury believes Daniel Marsh was insane or somehow incapable of knowing right from wrong, he does not deserve to be punished as one would punish a person who knowingly chose to kill two innocent people. If, on the other hand, they find he was sane at the time he murdered his neighbors, he deserves a serious punishment and will be convicted of murder.

            Because I am not in the courtroom hearing the testimony directly, I am not sure how I would vote on the key question of sanity.

          2. Davis Progressive

            i don’t disagree that it was probably appropriate in this case, only addressing that it wasn’t inevitable. that said, i think we assume that because someone commits a big boy crime, that they are an adult and if you read the account of the interrogation and also read the research on minors in interrogation situations, you see there are probably with that view.

        2. Rich RifkinWDE 73

          DP, it is not a matter of opinion. I get the feeling that you have never read the law. Just read Prop 21, which I linked to. It explicitly removes discretion in the case of murder and other serious crimes for all those charged age 14 and higher. Here is the specific language:

          SEC. 18. Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

          602. (b) Any person who is alleged, when he or she was 14 years of age or older, to have committed one of the following offenses shall be prosecuted under the general law in a court of criminal jurisdiction:

          (1) Murder, as described in Section 187 of the Penal Code, if one of the circumstances enumerated in subdivision (a) of Section 190.2 of the Penal Code is alleged by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor alleges that the minor personally killed the victim.

          Again, this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of how the law under Prop 21 is written. There is no choice to charge crimes like murder in a juvenile court if the defendant was 14 or older at the time of the alleged offense.

    2. Davis Progressive

      the bigger problem i see is the violation of his post-arrest rights – the right to an attorney, and really if he requested a parent being present, an appellate court is not going to look kindly on this confession. it’s probably not enough to throw out the conviction because they have other evidence, but it troubles me greatly.

      1. Tia Will


        I could not agree more.

        “it was a masterpiece, a work of art”
        ““But I swear I to you,” Daniel continued, sobbing. “Daniel, don’t swear, I am here to heal you,” replied the agent.”

        I cannot see this form of “questioning” as anything other than high pressure lying to an obviously distressed, ill individual as ethical under any circumstances. This form of lying in order to gain a confession in my opinion would only be justifiable in order to save an imminently threatened life. But the “mission creep” of gaining a confession at any moral or ethical cost seems to have eluded our law enforcement.
        I cannot help but wonder, if for even a moment the questioner considered the possibility that if Daniel had been in a dissociative state at the time of the crime, he might very well have been telling what he perceived as the “truth”, that he “Daniel” had not committed the crimes in question? Probably not. But then, that is not the questioner’s job right ? He is only there to get the confession. The claim that Daniel will only get emotional relief by saying what the agent wants him to say….. unconscionable lying in my opinion. And we wonder why some people are skeptical about law enforcement tactics ?

        1. Antoinnette

          Tia, my thoughts exactly…..there was so much more the agent said, even putting feelings into Daniel’s head during questioning…unbelievable…

          I agree, I think Daniel at one point, may not have believed he did it but with a continuing probe and mix of words, he got what he wanted…..yes, shameful to me to complete an interview in this manner.

          But I will say this….there are a lot of detectives, and/or cops who do things right…trust me…it can be done right.

  7. Davis Progressive

    i’ll be very interested in the rest of the confession tape. it seems like there was an extreme amount of compulsion used against a 16 year old – i don’t care what he’s alleged to have done, that’s not okay

    1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

      I am not sure of this, but I think, once the trial is over, you as a citizen have the right to request a copy of the videotape under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). You do not have to be a reporter or involved in the case to get any public records subject to CPRA.

      I discussed with higher-ups at The Enterprise the idea of requesting the tape and publishing it online. (I also mentioned the same idea to David Greenwald for the Vanguard.) Yet after reading accounts of what was on that tape, I have changed my mind. It seems to be excessively gruesome and, while excerpts as reported give you the flavor of the interview, publishing the full tape, in my opinion, might be less probative than it is prurient.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      I’d rather have the FBI taking down Mexican drug cartels operating here, or Islamist terrorist sects.. not 16 year olds who posted about their crime on the Internet, and told their buddies all about it.

  8. DavisBurns

    I thought the defense psychiatrist’s testimony was very good. When asked about Marsh doing a good job concealing the crime, he responded, no he didn’t do a good job. He told two people about it. That changed the way I thought about what he did. I give the wittiness high marks.

    The lack of oxygen at birth, being two months premature, etc seems to have been refuted. I am of two minds on this. He is guilty and I don’t see how he can be found insane with the law we have. How can we think a 15 year old who does what he did is sane? So glad I am not on that jury.

    1. KonaOhana

      Read the following if you want to truly understand what BIGPHARMA is doing to our nation specifically targeting children under 25yrs to destroy there cognitive abilities. books by Dr Ann Blake Tracy “Prozac panacea or Pandora” This book buffoons has openly tried to keep them of the shelves. Books by Dr Peter Breggin order on These two doctors are representative of hundreds worldwide trying for 25+yrs to expose the lies spread by BIGPHARMA puppets in the FDA and AMA. They’re truly drug cartel destroying the lives of millions worldwide for profit with no consideration of the consequences.

  9. Antoinnette

    Yea, Rich, at this point, and we haven’t seen the confession part yet, I would not advise putting that tape on anything for the public to view. It is enough to know and see, hear the family crying and anguishing over testimony already. It would also hurt and affect the rest of Daniel’s life and his family…I believe enough damage has been done and it will take years of healing on both sides.

    As far as the expert yesterday, yes, he is certainly educated and experienced enough, But I do feel that Hesgard was concerned about Daniel’s state of mind, he just didn’t get anyone to listen?

    Yes, agree with the doctor, he did a lousy job of concealing things, if that was what he was doing?

    I believe this is going to be extremely difficult to decide on whether sane or insane?

    But from what I am hearing around the block is, people watching this case have mixed feelings and do believe he was pretty messed up with medications…it is a tough case for a jury for sure….

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for