Crime Thread

A Rhode Island anesthesiologist was convicted in absentia in 2005 for (g)raping a woman on his boat. He fled midtrial and has been a fugitive for 21 years. The US Cast Guard took him into custody while he was on a yacht named "The Silver Lining" off the coast of New York and New Jersey last week.

Come to find out he, under the alias Richard Graydon, ran several biotech companies. It appears Graydon had a long, fruitful career in biopharma. He worked for Atossa Therapeutics (ATOS) as its interim chief medical officer. According to an Atossa news release, he also worked at Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and Daiichi Sankyo in prior years. Graydon had his hands involved in the development of drugs that became Darzalex, Imbruvica, Sylvant and Vanflyta. Darzalex and Imbruvica are massive blockbuster successes in cancer treatment. Until July 17, Graydon was the name of the chief medical officer at Immix Biopharma. Graydon was fired for a "reason unrelated to his activities at the company," Immix said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Monday.

Convicted sex criminal and liar to employers? I'm surprised he's not in the current administration.

Have an opinion on what verdict you'd give for the woman who even her defense team admits she killed her 3 children?

I don't know myself, but I have more solid opinions on other states of mind and homicide.

If man or woman after a bad argument with a spouse gets in a car, and screeches out into the road in a fit of anger and kills a random pedestrian, although I might understand your state of mind to some extent, I'm still going to give the victim justice and convict you.

Whereas a joy rider doing the same thing would get even less sympathy.

If you killed that bystander because you unknowingly were impaired by someone drugging your drink, it's hard to impossible for me to convict you unless you had already admitted to someone you were knowingly impaired before you started driving.

If however, you were supposed to be on a medication that controlled some erratic condition, and you had chosen to not take it, I'd likely convict you.

If you got into a car, killed someone because you had a stroke while driving. I can't convict you. Of course, if you were already told you shouldn't be driving again, that's different.

I don't have any problem with the idea of post-partum depression and psychosis, but I really need to hear all the details around that, that might matter.

Haven't followed this except by headline browsing, but I expect the defense is that she is not guilty by reason of insanity.

I'm thinking the jury will agree on this one. As far as 'what do I think' I'll have to make assumptions ... I assume the prosecution must be bringing up stuff that really makes you wonder, still, at the moment she did the deeds, I could easily be convinced she was insane at that time ... even if she seemed to be planning it sane. That would clearly be very disturbing, though

I hope she's found guilty, as she obviously was aware of what she was doing when she was doing it.

Alleged depression is at most a partial explanation but not an excuse.

But with juries "you never know."

This trial is happening in my neck of the woods and I have been following with some interest, but am not completely reading everything about it. Her lawyer is a well regarded, top eshcelon defense lawyer with a sterling reputation for defending clients with great ability. The prosecution is arguing she was not insnae enough escape criminal culpability. The defense is arguing she suffered severe post partum depression and severe post partum psychosis that were underrecognized and not treated appropriately. Both sides stipulted to some evidence, including that she did indeed kill her children in the way the state accuses, and that she jumped out a second story window in a suicide attempt. It very well could be that there are no villians here. She needed psychological help big time and actively sought it. The shrinks and social workers did their best. Husband/father did what he could. I am glad I am not on that jury.

My read: defense did a credible job of hammering away at her treating clinicians about how (allegedly) poor or negligent their treatment of her was. I don't know if is enough, as I thought it was a bit weak, or at least not enough. I am glad I am not on that jury.

It could be there are no monsters here. But, she did a monstrous thing. If found guilty, does that make her a monster by default or by definition?

I wonder if the jury will even be able to reach a unified verdict.

Quote: rxwine

I wonder if the jury will even be able to reach a unified verdict.

If the jury hangs, that'll be a victory for her-not a conviction-and a VERY expensive do-over.