-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
Vegas Paul
- Thread starter Rider Rick
- Start date
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Man accused of poisoning wife with nicotine, collecting $400K
Paul Marshal Curry listens in court Tuesday during his murder trial. Deputy Public Defender Lisa Kopelman sits by his side. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
ormer nuclear power plant engineer accused of poisoning his wife with nicotine more than two decades ago was driven by greed and a "complete and utter disregard for human life," a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday.
Paul M. Curry, 57, could face life in prison if he is convicted of murdering his wife, Linda Curry, who had also worked at the San Onofre nuclear power station.
She was 50 years old when she died mysteriously in June 1994 at the couple's San Clemente home. They had been married just 21 months.
In his opening statement to an Orange County jury Tuesday, prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh described the defendant as a "very, very, very smart man," adding: "People referred to him as a genius."
In July 1993 and again in December 1993, Linda Curry became ill and had to be hospitalized, but doctors were unable to determine the source of her illness, the prosecutor said.
She became suspicious of her husband and removed him as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, naming her sister in his place, the prosecutor said. Yet she did not leave him.
In an interview with police after one of those hospitalizations, Paul Curry described his wife as having a trusting nature.
"She has the ability to sugarcoat everybody's intentions, and nobody has any bad intentions as far as she's concerned," Curry said, in a recording played for jurors. "She sees the good in everybody."
It was a nature that her husband exploited, the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor said Curry had been alone with his wife for hours before he called 911 around midnight on June 9, 1994 to report that he had found her in bed not breathing. Paramedics were unable to revive her.
"She was always, to him, a paycheck from Day One," the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors said that Curry managed to collect $400,000 on her life insurance policies.
Curry was remarried and living in Salina, Kan., when Orange County sheriff's deputies arrested him 2010 in connection with the death, the prosecutor said.
At the time of his wife's death, Curry told The Times that his wife was a nonsmoker and that he was puzzled by the conclusion that she'd died as a result of nicotine poisoning.
Paul Marshal Curry listens in court Tuesday during his murder trial. Deputy Public Defender Lisa Kopelman sits by his side. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
ormer nuclear power plant engineer accused of poisoning his wife with nicotine more than two decades ago was driven by greed and a "complete and utter disregard for human life," a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday.
Paul M. Curry, 57, could face life in prison if he is convicted of murdering his wife, Linda Curry, who had also worked at the San Onofre nuclear power station.
She was 50 years old when she died mysteriously in June 1994 at the couple's San Clemente home. They had been married just 21 months.
In his opening statement to an Orange County jury Tuesday, prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh described the defendant as a "very, very, very smart man," adding: "People referred to him as a genius."
In July 1993 and again in December 1993, Linda Curry became ill and had to be hospitalized, but doctors were unable to determine the source of her illness, the prosecutor said.
She became suspicious of her husband and removed him as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, naming her sister in his place, the prosecutor said. Yet she did not leave him.
In an interview with police after one of those hospitalizations, Paul Curry described his wife as having a trusting nature.
"She has the ability to sugarcoat everybody's intentions, and nobody has any bad intentions as far as she's concerned," Curry said, in a recording played for jurors. "She sees the good in everybody."
It was a nature that her husband exploited, the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor said Curry had been alone with his wife for hours before he called 911 around midnight on June 9, 1994 to report that he had found her in bed not breathing. Paramedics were unable to revive her.
"She was always, to him, a paycheck from Day One," the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors said that Curry managed to collect $400,000 on her life insurance policies.
Curry was remarried and living in Salina, Kan., when Orange County sheriff's deputies arrested him 2010 in connection with the death, the prosecutor said.
At the time of his wife's death, Curry told The Times that his wife was a nonsmoker and that he was puzzled by the conclusion that she'd died as a result of nicotine poisoning.
Where are you finding the updates?mark handler said:Man accused of poisoning wife with nicotine, collecting $400K
Paul Marshal Curry listens in court Tuesday during his murder trial. Deputy Public Defender Lisa Kopelman sits by his side. (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times)
ormer nuclear power plant engineer accused of poisoning his wife with nicotine more than two decades ago was driven by greed and a "complete and utter disregard for human life," a prosecutor told jurors Tuesday.
Paul M. Curry, 57, could face life in prison if he is convicted of murdering his wife, Linda Curry, who had also worked at the San Onofre nuclear power station.
She was 50 years old when she died mysteriously in June 1994 at the couple's San Clemente home. They had been married just 21 months.
In his opening statement to an Orange County jury Tuesday, prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh described the defendant as a "very, very, very smart man," adding: "People referred to him as a genius."
In July 1993 and again in December 1993, Linda Curry became ill and had to be hospitalized, but doctors were unable to determine the source of her illness, the prosecutor said.
She became suspicious of her husband and removed him as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy, naming her sister in his place, the prosecutor said. Yet she did not leave him.
In an interview with police after one of those hospitalizations, Paul Curry described his wife as having a trusting nature.
"She has the ability to sugarcoat everybody's intentions, and nobody has any bad intentions as far as she's concerned," Curry said, in a recording played for jurors. "She sees the good in everybody."
It was a nature that her husband exploited, the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor said Curry had been alone with his wife for hours before he called 911 around midnight on June 9, 1994 to report that he had found her in bed not breathing. Paramedics were unable to revive her.
"She was always, to him, a paycheck from Day One," the prosecutor said.
Prosecutors said that Curry managed to collect $400,000 on her life insurance policies.
Curry was remarried and living in Salina, Kan., when Orange County sheriff's deputies arrested him 2010 in connection with the death, the prosecutor said.
At the time of his wife's death, Curry told The Times that his wife was a nonsmoker and that he was puzzled by the conclusion that she'd died as a result of nicotine poisoning.
ICE
Oh Well
He will walk.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Google News,cda said:
I also saw a story on the TV news tonight
mark handler
SAWHORSE
They have no evidence that he did itICE said:
High Desert
Gold Member
Don't be too sure of that. They withold a lot of stuff until the trial gets going. They had enough evidence to charge him, so they must have something. I'm not saying he did it or not, that will come out in the trial.mark handler said:
fatboy
Administrator
Seems like anything they can come up with would be pretty weak after 20 years.
north star
Sawhorse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,596
= + = +
+ = + =
Maybe not so much.......Afterall, this is a murder trial.
+ = + =
mark handler
SAWHORSE
CURRY v. SUPERIOR COURT
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1636690.html
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.
Paul Marshal CURRY, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.
G047000
Decided: June 25, 2013
Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Jean Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Mark S. Brown, Assistant Public Defender, and Martin F. Schwarz, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Matthew Lockhart, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
OP I N I O N
Petitioner Paul Marshal Curry stands accused of murdering his wife Linda for financial gain by means of poison. Although Linda died in 1994, petitioner was not charged until 2010, after forensic testing confirmed Linda, a nonsmoker, had lethal levels of nicotine in her system when she died. At the preliminary hearing, a homicide investigator with no specialized scientific training testified about the forensic evidence forming the basis for the prosecution's case. Over petitioner's objection, the investigator was also allowed to convey the expert opinions of two doctors who believe Linda died from nicotine poisoning. Petitioner contends the investigator's lack of knowledge about the scientific evidence and expert opinions he conveyed rendered his testimony unreliable, and therefore he should not have been bound over for trial. We disagree and deny his petition for relief.
FACTS
Petitioner and Linda met while working at the San Onofre nuclear power plant in the late 1980's. They got married in 1992, and a short time later they had a barbeque at their house that Linda's boss and his wife Betty Reeder attended. At the barbeque, Reeder heard petitioner boast that he could kill a person without being apprehended. Specifically, he claimed he could make a deadly poison in his garage and administer it to someone without ever getting caught.
In 1993, Linda was hospitalized due to severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Despite extensive testing, her doctors were unable to determine the cause of her illness. While Linda was in the hospital, the police asked her if she knew anyone who might want to harm her. She said petitioner might want to kill her because they were having money problems.
Upon her release from the hospital, Linda spoke with her former boyfriend Bill Sandretto. Linda told Sandretto petitioner wanted her to purchase a $1 million life insurance policy, but she was reluctant to do so. In fact, she said she didn't even want petitioner to be the beneficiary under her existing policies. She also told Sandretto that she and petitioner had no sex life.
In January 1994, Linda was hospitalized with the same symptoms, and again doctors were unable to determine their cause. One of Linda's nurses during that time was Nancy Row. One day, Row spoke with petitioner after she saw him leave Linda's room. Petitioner told Row that Linda was fine, but a couple of minutes later, Linda's intravenous alarm went off. Upon responding to Linda's room, Row found her intravenous port broken in an odd way. Row had never seen a port broken in that manner before, so she called the police. After interviewing petitioner about the incident, the sheriff's department reported it as a “potential tampering.”
Five months later, in the early morning hours of June 10, 1994, Linda died in her home. According to petitioner, Linda had said she was feeling tired when she came home from work the night before. She went to bed around 6:00 p.m., and petitioner joined her there a while later. Around midnight, petitioner was awakened by their cat and noticed Linda was not breathing. He called 911, but the responding paramedics were unable to revive her.
Linda's autopsy was performed by Dr. Joseph Halka, a pathologist with the Orange County coroner's office. Initially, Dr. Halka was unable to determine the cause of Linda's death, but after additional toxicology testing was conducted, he determined she died from nicotine and cadmium poisoning. He believed the poison was either injected or ingested.
As reflected in Linda's death certificate, Dr. Halka reached that conclusion in 1995. However, petitioner was not charged until 2010, after still more toxicology testing was done. Conducted under the supervision of Dr. Neil Benowitz at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), that testing indicated Linda had a lethal amount of nicotine in her system when she died. Dr. Benowitz surmised the drug was administered to Linda within two hours of her death, and she likely died from “massive nicotine poisoning.”
In light of these findings, the police tracked down petitioner in Salina, Kansas. In an interview conducted in November 2010, petitioner told investigators he received about $300,000 from Linda's life insurance policies and another $100,000 or so in stock options and pension benefits. He also admitted that after Linda died, he made a fraudulent insurance claim on a Rolex watch that belonged to her. (Petitioner reported the watch had been stolen; he had actually given it to Linda's sister.) At the end of the interview, the investigators arrested petitioner for murdering Linda. When informed that Linda died from nicotine poisoning, petitioner, who admitted Linda did not smoke, said, “I don't know how to respond to this.”
In a complaint filed on November 9, 2010, petitioner was charged with first degree murder and insurance fraud. (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 550, subd. (a)(1).) 1 Special circumstance allegations the murder was committed by means of poison and for financial gain were also alleged. (§ 190.2, subds.(a)(1) & (a)(19).)
The above evidence was presented at petitioner's preliminary hearing by investigators with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Their testimony was based primarily on information they obtained from conducting witness interviews, so much of it was hearsay. Petitioner does not challenge all of what they had to say. Rather, he targets the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz and the scientific testing they relied on to formulate their opinions. Petitioner contends that evidence should have been excluded because the investigator who conveyed it to the court did not know enough about the subject matter of his testimony to ensure it was reliable.
That investigator was Ken Hoffman. Hoffman has been a peace officer since 1984 and is currently assigned as a homicide investigator with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. As part of that assignment, Hoffman assisted in the investigation surrounding Linda's death. At the request of the prosecutor, and in anticipation of petitioner's preliminary hearing, he interviewed Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz about their findings and opinions in the case, as reflected in the reports they prepared. Hoffman had copies of those reports, as well as Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's resumes, when he interviewed them.
Explaining his interview with Dr. Halka, Hoffman testified he spoke with him by telephone on September 27 and 28, 2011. Dr. Halka informed him he is a licensed physician and has practiced forensic pathology for nearly 40 years. He began working as a medical examiner for Orange County in 1986, and in that capacity he has conducted approximately 15,000 autopsies to determine the cause and manner of death. During that time, he has also testified as an expert witness on those issues.
Dr. Halka told Hoffman that when he conducted Linda's autopsy in 1994, he was initially unable to determine the cause of her death. Therefore, he ordered special toxicology testing to be performed on samples of Linda's nails, skin, hair, blood, urine and tissue. That testing was conducted by an outside lab that was under contract with Orange County to perform such testing. In Dr. Halka's words, this testing went “beyond the standard toxicology and microbiology testing” that is done in most cases. When the testing data came back, Dr. Halka analyzed the results and determined Linda's death was a homicide. More specifically, he opined Linda suffered acute pulmonary edema and intoxication from the combined effects of nicotine and cadmium poisoning, and those substances entered her body by means of injection or ingestion.2
On cross-examination, Hoffman admitted he does not have any special scientific training or expertise. He also admitted he was not present during Linda's autopsy or initially involved with the investigation into her death. In addition, Hoffman admitted he did not know which lab conducted the toxicology testing Dr. Halka relied on, what type of testing was performed at the lab, or whether proper scientific methods were utilized in the testing process. Hoffman also conceded he did not ask Dr. Halka if he has worked on any other cases involving nicotine or cadmium poisoning or if he has had any training on how those substances affect the human body.
Although the toxicology testing Dr. Halka relied on to formulate his opinions was “special” and “above the norm,” Hoffman testified it was still not to the level of testing that was conducted by Dr. Benowitz and his team at UCSF. During his investigation, Hoffman learned that when Linda's autopsy was conducted in 1994, samples of her blood and urine were sent to Dr. Benowitz's lab. The record does not disclose what type of testing Dr. Benowitz conducted or what results he obtained at that time. However, in 2009, Dr. Benowitz's team retested the samples. Since this was a key component of the prosecution's case, Hoffman focused on the results of this retesting when he interviewed Dr. Benowitz in preparation for petitioner's preliminary hearing.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1636690.html
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.
Paul Marshal CURRY, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.
G047000
Decided: June 25, 2013
Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Jean Wilkinson, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Mark S. Brown, Assistant Public Defender, and Martin F. Schwarz, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Matthew Lockhart, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest.
OP I N I O N
Petitioner Paul Marshal Curry stands accused of murdering his wife Linda for financial gain by means of poison. Although Linda died in 1994, petitioner was not charged until 2010, after forensic testing confirmed Linda, a nonsmoker, had lethal levels of nicotine in her system when she died. At the preliminary hearing, a homicide investigator with no specialized scientific training testified about the forensic evidence forming the basis for the prosecution's case. Over petitioner's objection, the investigator was also allowed to convey the expert opinions of two doctors who believe Linda died from nicotine poisoning. Petitioner contends the investigator's lack of knowledge about the scientific evidence and expert opinions he conveyed rendered his testimony unreliable, and therefore he should not have been bound over for trial. We disagree and deny his petition for relief.
FACTS
Petitioner and Linda met while working at the San Onofre nuclear power plant in the late 1980's. They got married in 1992, and a short time later they had a barbeque at their house that Linda's boss and his wife Betty Reeder attended. At the barbeque, Reeder heard petitioner boast that he could kill a person without being apprehended. Specifically, he claimed he could make a deadly poison in his garage and administer it to someone without ever getting caught.
In 1993, Linda was hospitalized due to severe nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Despite extensive testing, her doctors were unable to determine the cause of her illness. While Linda was in the hospital, the police asked her if she knew anyone who might want to harm her. She said petitioner might want to kill her because they were having money problems.
Upon her release from the hospital, Linda spoke with her former boyfriend Bill Sandretto. Linda told Sandretto petitioner wanted her to purchase a $1 million life insurance policy, but she was reluctant to do so. In fact, she said she didn't even want petitioner to be the beneficiary under her existing policies. She also told Sandretto that she and petitioner had no sex life.
In January 1994, Linda was hospitalized with the same symptoms, and again doctors were unable to determine their cause. One of Linda's nurses during that time was Nancy Row. One day, Row spoke with petitioner after she saw him leave Linda's room. Petitioner told Row that Linda was fine, but a couple of minutes later, Linda's intravenous alarm went off. Upon responding to Linda's room, Row found her intravenous port broken in an odd way. Row had never seen a port broken in that manner before, so she called the police. After interviewing petitioner about the incident, the sheriff's department reported it as a “potential tampering.”
Five months later, in the early morning hours of June 10, 1994, Linda died in her home. According to petitioner, Linda had said she was feeling tired when she came home from work the night before. She went to bed around 6:00 p.m., and petitioner joined her there a while later. Around midnight, petitioner was awakened by their cat and noticed Linda was not breathing. He called 911, but the responding paramedics were unable to revive her.
Linda's autopsy was performed by Dr. Joseph Halka, a pathologist with the Orange County coroner's office. Initially, Dr. Halka was unable to determine the cause of Linda's death, but after additional toxicology testing was conducted, he determined she died from nicotine and cadmium poisoning. He believed the poison was either injected or ingested.
As reflected in Linda's death certificate, Dr. Halka reached that conclusion in 1995. However, petitioner was not charged until 2010, after still more toxicology testing was done. Conducted under the supervision of Dr. Neil Benowitz at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), that testing indicated Linda had a lethal amount of nicotine in her system when she died. Dr. Benowitz surmised the drug was administered to Linda within two hours of her death, and she likely died from “massive nicotine poisoning.”
In light of these findings, the police tracked down petitioner in Salina, Kansas. In an interview conducted in November 2010, petitioner told investigators he received about $300,000 from Linda's life insurance policies and another $100,000 or so in stock options and pension benefits. He also admitted that after Linda died, he made a fraudulent insurance claim on a Rolex watch that belonged to her. (Petitioner reported the watch had been stolen; he had actually given it to Linda's sister.) At the end of the interview, the investigators arrested petitioner for murdering Linda. When informed that Linda died from nicotine poisoning, petitioner, who admitted Linda did not smoke, said, “I don't know how to respond to this.”
In a complaint filed on November 9, 2010, petitioner was charged with first degree murder and insurance fraud. (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a); 550, subd. (a)(1).) 1 Special circumstance allegations the murder was committed by means of poison and for financial gain were also alleged. (§ 190.2, subds.(a)(1) & (a)(19).)
The above evidence was presented at petitioner's preliminary hearing by investigators with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Their testimony was based primarily on information they obtained from conducting witness interviews, so much of it was hearsay. Petitioner does not challenge all of what they had to say. Rather, he targets the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz and the scientific testing they relied on to formulate their opinions. Petitioner contends that evidence should have been excluded because the investigator who conveyed it to the court did not know enough about the subject matter of his testimony to ensure it was reliable.
That investigator was Ken Hoffman. Hoffman has been a peace officer since 1984 and is currently assigned as a homicide investigator with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. As part of that assignment, Hoffman assisted in the investigation surrounding Linda's death. At the request of the prosecutor, and in anticipation of petitioner's preliminary hearing, he interviewed Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz about their findings and opinions in the case, as reflected in the reports they prepared. Hoffman had copies of those reports, as well as Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's resumes, when he interviewed them.
Explaining his interview with Dr. Halka, Hoffman testified he spoke with him by telephone on September 27 and 28, 2011. Dr. Halka informed him he is a licensed physician and has practiced forensic pathology for nearly 40 years. He began working as a medical examiner for Orange County in 1986, and in that capacity he has conducted approximately 15,000 autopsies to determine the cause and manner of death. During that time, he has also testified as an expert witness on those issues.
Dr. Halka told Hoffman that when he conducted Linda's autopsy in 1994, he was initially unable to determine the cause of her death. Therefore, he ordered special toxicology testing to be performed on samples of Linda's nails, skin, hair, blood, urine and tissue. That testing was conducted by an outside lab that was under contract with Orange County to perform such testing. In Dr. Halka's words, this testing went “beyond the standard toxicology and microbiology testing” that is done in most cases. When the testing data came back, Dr. Halka analyzed the results and determined Linda's death was a homicide. More specifically, he opined Linda suffered acute pulmonary edema and intoxication from the combined effects of nicotine and cadmium poisoning, and those substances entered her body by means of injection or ingestion.2
On cross-examination, Hoffman admitted he does not have any special scientific training or expertise. He also admitted he was not present during Linda's autopsy or initially involved with the investigation into her death. In addition, Hoffman admitted he did not know which lab conducted the toxicology testing Dr. Halka relied on, what type of testing was performed at the lab, or whether proper scientific methods were utilized in the testing process. Hoffman also conceded he did not ask Dr. Halka if he has worked on any other cases involving nicotine or cadmium poisoning or if he has had any training on how those substances affect the human body.
Although the toxicology testing Dr. Halka relied on to formulate his opinions was “special” and “above the norm,” Hoffman testified it was still not to the level of testing that was conducted by Dr. Benowitz and his team at UCSF. During his investigation, Hoffman learned that when Linda's autopsy was conducted in 1994, samples of her blood and urine were sent to Dr. Benowitz's lab. The record does not disclose what type of testing Dr. Benowitz conducted or what results he obtained at that time. However, in 2009, Dr. Benowitz's team retested the samples. Since this was a key component of the prosecution's case, Hoffman focused on the results of this retesting when he interviewed Dr. Benowitz in preparation for petitioner's preliminary hearing.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
By way of background, Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman he has been a professor of medicine and psychiatry at UCSF since 1974 and is currently the head of the school's division of clinical pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. He holds a California medical license and is certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in toxicology and clinical pharmacology. In addition, he has conducted extensive research and published numerous studies and articles on the impact of nicotine on the human body.
Dr. Benowitz informed Hoffman that besides inhalation, nicotine can also enter a person's body by means of ingestion, absorption or injection. He said that if someone were to soak a cigarette or chewing tobacco in rubbing alcohol, the tobacco could be “reduce[d] ․ down,” and its nicotine-laden contents could then be introduced into a person's system by the latter three means. And if that were to occur, the person would likely experience an increased heart rate, nausea and vomiting. Nicotine being a poison, a high dosage could result in death.
Speaking to this case, Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman he supervised his colleagues Dr. Peyton Jacob and research analyst Lisa Yu when Linda's blood and urine samples were retested in 2009. They used a gas chromatograph with nitrogen phosphorus detection to ascertain the nicotine level in the samples. Describing this testing procedure as a “well-established scientific method,” Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman his lab utilizes it “quite often.”
To find out more about the testing, Hoffman also spoke to Yu and Dr. Jacob. Yu said she conducted the actual testing and Dr. Jacob oversaw her work. Then, once the testing was completed, they met with Dr. Benowitz to discuss and analyze the results.3
According to Dr. Benowitz's report, Linda's test results showed she had a blood nicotine concentration of 1,120 nanograms per milliliter. Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman that level was “extraordinarily high” and “likely to be fatal.” In fact, it was three times higher than a prior case he had worked on that involved “extreme nicotine poisoning.” In light of this finding, Dr. Benowitz opined Linda's death was “consistent with a catastrophic illness as would have been caused by massive nicotine poisoning.” He also believed the nicotine was introduced into her system within two hours of her death.
On cross-examination, Hoffman admitted he does not know how a gas chromatograph works or exactly how the machine was used to test Linda's blood and urine samples. He also did not know the last time the equipment in Dr. Benowitz's lab was calibrated or how many nanograms are in a milliliter. In addition, Hoffman said he did not ask Dr. Benowitz whether he tested Linda's samples for cadmium or how nicotine and cadmium interact in the body. And even though Dr. Benowitz's report indicated he “modified” the testing method in this case to allow for the “simultaneous extraction of nicotine, cotinine and caffeine,” Hoffman did not ask him if that was a standard modification. Nor did he ask Dr. Benowitz if he knew the form of nicotine that poisoned Linda (e.g., liquid or solid) or the method by which it was introduced into her system.
Hoffman was aware that Dr. Benowitz's lab receives research grants, contracts for services and does “a lot of different types of things under a lot of different programs.” However, he did not question Dr. Benowitz in detail about any specific cases he had previously worked on or ask him whether, prior to this case, he had ever conducted an examination to determine the cause of a person's death. Nor did he ask him what his level of experience was with the injection, ingestion or absorption of nicotine.
During Hoffman's testimony, defense counsel made a continuing objection to the expert opinions he conveyed to the court regarding the cause of Linda's death. Defense counsel argued Hoffman simply did not have sufficient scientific knowledge to distill the information he received from Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz and convey it in a meaningful and reliable fashion. However, the magistrate denied defense counsel's motion to exclude Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions on that basis. In light of those opinions, and all of the other information he received, the magistrate determined there was sufficient evidence to bind petitioner over for trial. Petitioner challenged that ruling by way of a section 995 motion in the trial court, but the motion was denied. He then filed the present petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate to overturn that decision. For the reasons explained below, we deny the petition.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the court erred in admitting the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz, and without their opinions there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The People contend the expert opinions were properly admitted, and even without them, there is sufficient evidence to hold petitioner over for trial. We believe the magistrate properly admitted the challenged evidence. Despite Hoffman's lack of scientific training, his testimony was sufficiently reliable to justify the admission of Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions into evidence.
Dr. Benowitz informed Hoffman that besides inhalation, nicotine can also enter a person's body by means of ingestion, absorption or injection. He said that if someone were to soak a cigarette or chewing tobacco in rubbing alcohol, the tobacco could be “reduce[d] ․ down,” and its nicotine-laden contents could then be introduced into a person's system by the latter three means. And if that were to occur, the person would likely experience an increased heart rate, nausea and vomiting. Nicotine being a poison, a high dosage could result in death.
Speaking to this case, Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman he supervised his colleagues Dr. Peyton Jacob and research analyst Lisa Yu when Linda's blood and urine samples were retested in 2009. They used a gas chromatograph with nitrogen phosphorus detection to ascertain the nicotine level in the samples. Describing this testing procedure as a “well-established scientific method,” Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman his lab utilizes it “quite often.”
To find out more about the testing, Hoffman also spoke to Yu and Dr. Jacob. Yu said she conducted the actual testing and Dr. Jacob oversaw her work. Then, once the testing was completed, they met with Dr. Benowitz to discuss and analyze the results.3
According to Dr. Benowitz's report, Linda's test results showed she had a blood nicotine concentration of 1,120 nanograms per milliliter. Dr. Benowitz told Hoffman that level was “extraordinarily high” and “likely to be fatal.” In fact, it was three times higher than a prior case he had worked on that involved “extreme nicotine poisoning.” In light of this finding, Dr. Benowitz opined Linda's death was “consistent with a catastrophic illness as would have been caused by massive nicotine poisoning.” He also believed the nicotine was introduced into her system within two hours of her death.
On cross-examination, Hoffman admitted he does not know how a gas chromatograph works or exactly how the machine was used to test Linda's blood and urine samples. He also did not know the last time the equipment in Dr. Benowitz's lab was calibrated or how many nanograms are in a milliliter. In addition, Hoffman said he did not ask Dr. Benowitz whether he tested Linda's samples for cadmium or how nicotine and cadmium interact in the body. And even though Dr. Benowitz's report indicated he “modified” the testing method in this case to allow for the “simultaneous extraction of nicotine, cotinine and caffeine,” Hoffman did not ask him if that was a standard modification. Nor did he ask Dr. Benowitz if he knew the form of nicotine that poisoned Linda (e.g., liquid or solid) or the method by which it was introduced into her system.
Hoffman was aware that Dr. Benowitz's lab receives research grants, contracts for services and does “a lot of different types of things under a lot of different programs.” However, he did not question Dr. Benowitz in detail about any specific cases he had previously worked on or ask him whether, prior to this case, he had ever conducted an examination to determine the cause of a person's death. Nor did he ask him what his level of experience was with the injection, ingestion or absorption of nicotine.
During Hoffman's testimony, defense counsel made a continuing objection to the expert opinions he conveyed to the court regarding the cause of Linda's death. Defense counsel argued Hoffman simply did not have sufficient scientific knowledge to distill the information he received from Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz and convey it in a meaningful and reliable fashion. However, the magistrate denied defense counsel's motion to exclude Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions on that basis. In light of those opinions, and all of the other information he received, the magistrate determined there was sufficient evidence to bind petitioner over for trial. Petitioner challenged that ruling by way of a section 995 motion in the trial court, but the motion was denied. He then filed the present petition for a writ of prohibition/mandate to overturn that decision. For the reasons explained below, we deny the petition.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the court erred in admitting the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz, and without their opinions there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The People contend the expert opinions were properly admitted, and even without them, there is sufficient evidence to hold petitioner over for trial. We believe the magistrate properly admitted the challenged evidence. Despite Hoffman's lack of scientific training, his testimony was sufficiently reliable to justify the admission of Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions into evidence.
mark handler
SAWHORSE
DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the court erred in admitting the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz, and without their opinions there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The People contend the expert opinions were properly admitted, and even without them, there is sufficient evidence to hold petitioner over for trial. We believe the magistrate properly admitted the challenged evidence. Despite Hoffman's lack of scientific training, his testimony was sufficiently reliable to justify the admission of Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions into evidence.
The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to establish whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant has committed a felony. (§ 866, subd. (b).) “ ‘ “[P]robable cause is shown if a man (or woman) of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” ’ [Citations.]” (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474.) That is the sole inquiry. Guilt or innocence is not determined. It is not a vehicle for discovery. (§ 866(b); Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1080–1081 (Whitman),)
In order to streamline the preliminary hearing process, the voters enacted Proposition 115 in 1990. That measure amended the California Constitution and the Penal Code to allow hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1072–1073.) Although hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible at trial, section 872 states that a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing “may be based in whole or in part upon the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer ․ relating the statements of declarants made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” (§ 872, subd. (b).)
Section 872 requires the testifying officer either have five years of law enforcement experience or have completed a training course on the investigation and reporting of cases. (§ 872, subd. (b).) But the statute does not restrict the type of hearsay declarants to which it applies. Because of this, courts have interpreted section 872 broadly to include not only the extrajudicial statements of crime victims and percipient witnesses, but law enforcement officers and expert witnesses alike. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1073; Hosek v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 605, 608–609 (Hosek).)
The statute is not without limits, however. In Whitman, our Supreme Court made clear that Proposition 115 “does not authorize a finding of probable cause based on the testimony of a noninvestigating officer or ‘reader’ merely reciting the police report of an investigating officer․ The testifying officer ․ must not be a mere reader but must have sufficient knowledge of the crime or the circumstances under which the out-of-court statement was made so as to meaningfully assist the magistrate in assessing the reliability of the statement.” (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1072–1073.)
The testifying officer in Whitman lacked such knowledge. He was not involved with the defendant's arrest for driving under the influence, nor was he personally aware of the circumstances under which the defendant's sobriety tests, including a blood test, were conducted. And because he did not speak with the arresting officer about his report, he was completely ignorant of the circumstances under which the report was made. However, at the preliminary hearing, his testimony about the contents of the report served as the main basis for the defendant's bindover. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1068–1069.)
The Supreme Court found this extremely troubling. The problem was, the testifying officer's connection to the case was so attenuated there was no way for the magistrate to ensure the information conveyed from the arrest report was reliable. The court was particularly concerned the testifying officer “was unable to answer any potentially significant questions regarding the methods and circumstances of [the arresting officer's] investigation, including the time the report was written, the details of the sobriety tests given ․, and [the defendant's] pupil reaction and degree of dilation. Indeed, [the testifying officer] was even uncertain how long [the arresting officer] had been employed on the force or even whether [the arresting officer] was a male or a female.” (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1074–1075.)
Petitioner argues the court erred in admitting the expert opinions of Dr. Halka and Dr. Benowitz, and without their opinions there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against him. The People contend the expert opinions were properly admitted, and even without them, there is sufficient evidence to hold petitioner over for trial. We believe the magistrate properly admitted the challenged evidence. Despite Hoffman's lack of scientific training, his testimony was sufficiently reliable to justify the admission of Dr. Halka's and Dr. Benowitz's expert opinions into evidence.
The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to establish whether there is probable cause to believe the defendant has committed a felony. (§ 866, subd. (b).) “ ‘ “[P]robable cause is shown if a man (or woman) of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused.” ’ [Citations.]” (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474.) That is the sole inquiry. Guilt or innocence is not determined. It is not a vehicle for discovery. (§ 866(b); Whitman v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1080–1081 (Whitman),)
In order to streamline the preliminary hearing process, the voters enacted Proposition 115 in 1990. That measure amended the California Constitution and the Penal Code to allow hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1063, 1072–1073.) Although hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible at trial, section 872 states that a finding of probable cause at a preliminary hearing “may be based in whole or in part upon the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer ․ relating the statements of declarants made out of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted.” (§ 872, subd. (b).)
Section 872 requires the testifying officer either have five years of law enforcement experience or have completed a training course on the investigation and reporting of cases. (§ 872, subd. (b).) But the statute does not restrict the type of hearsay declarants to which it applies. Because of this, courts have interpreted section 872 broadly to include not only the extrajudicial statements of crime victims and percipient witnesses, but law enforcement officers and expert witnesses alike. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1073; Hosek v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 605, 608–609 (Hosek).)
The statute is not without limits, however. In Whitman, our Supreme Court made clear that Proposition 115 “does not authorize a finding of probable cause based on the testimony of a noninvestigating officer or ‘reader’ merely reciting the police report of an investigating officer․ The testifying officer ․ must not be a mere reader but must have sufficient knowledge of the crime or the circumstances under which the out-of-court statement was made so as to meaningfully assist the magistrate in assessing the reliability of the statement.” (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1072–1073.)
The testifying officer in Whitman lacked such knowledge. He was not involved with the defendant's arrest for driving under the influence, nor was he personally aware of the circumstances under which the defendant's sobriety tests, including a blood test, were conducted. And because he did not speak with the arresting officer about his report, he was completely ignorant of the circumstances under which the report was made. However, at the preliminary hearing, his testimony about the contents of the report served as the main basis for the defendant's bindover. (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1068–1069.)
The Supreme Court found this extremely troubling. The problem was, the testifying officer's connection to the case was so attenuated there was no way for the magistrate to ensure the information conveyed from the arrest report was reliable. The court was particularly concerned the testifying officer “was unable to answer any potentially significant questions regarding the methods and circumstances of [the arresting officer's] investigation, including the time the report was written, the details of the sobriety tests given ․, and [the defendant's] pupil reaction and degree of dilation. Indeed, [the testifying officer] was even uncertain how long [the arresting officer] had been employed on the force or even whether [the arresting officer] was a male or a female.” (Whitman, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1074–1075.)
mark handler
SAWHORSE
More and full story at http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1636690.html
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Prosecutor: Man poisoned wife for life insurance
http://abc7.com/news/prosecutor-man-poisoned-wife-for-life-insurance/324666/
Thursday, September 25, 2014
SANTA ANA, Calif. (KABC) --
Closing statements were made Thursday in a trial for a man accused of poisoning his wife to collect her life insurance.
Paul Curry, 57, faces charges of murder with special circumstances and insurance in the death of his wife Linda Curry in 1994.
"He did something to cause her death. He injected her with nicotine, caused her death. He intended for her to die. That's it," prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh said in his closing arguments.
Baytieh added that Curry showed little concern for his wife while she grew sicker. When she died, he received about $500,000 after being married for 21 months, he said.
Curry's first wife also mysteriously grew sick, but when she failed to qualify for life insurance, Curry left her, Baytieh said.
"She got sick. They don't know why. He wants her to get life insurance. She gets rejected. He leaves her and now she's fine," Baytieh said. "She got lucky because she got rejected!"
Curry's attorney Lisa Kopelman painted another picture. She said the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
"Paul Curry is not a murderer. This case is all about conjecture, innuendo and suspicion," Kopelman said.
Curry is a former nuclear physicist and trained chemist who worked at the San Onofre nuclear power plant.
After his wife's death in San Clemente in 1994, he moved to Kansas where he worked as a city building inspector.
Kopelman said her client is only guilty of illegally collecting Linda Curry's life insurance benefits, not murder.
"He had committed this small act of insurance fraud," Kopelman said. "He's now pegged the criminal who committed this murder. He did not commit the crime of murder."
http://abc7.com/news/prosecutor-man-poisoned-wife-for-life-insurance/324666/
Thursday, September 25, 2014
SANTA ANA, Calif. (KABC) --
Closing statements were made Thursday in a trial for a man accused of poisoning his wife to collect her life insurance.
Paul Curry, 57, faces charges of murder with special circumstances and insurance in the death of his wife Linda Curry in 1994.
"He did something to cause her death. He injected her with nicotine, caused her death. He intended for her to die. That's it," prosecutor Ebrahim Baytieh said in his closing arguments.
Baytieh added that Curry showed little concern for his wife while she grew sicker. When she died, he received about $500,000 after being married for 21 months, he said.
Curry's first wife also mysteriously grew sick, but when she failed to qualify for life insurance, Curry left her, Baytieh said.
"She got sick. They don't know why. He wants her to get life insurance. She gets rejected. He leaves her and now she's fine," Baytieh said. "She got lucky because she got rejected!"
Curry's attorney Lisa Kopelman painted another picture. She said the case was based on circumstantial evidence.
"Paul Curry is not a murderer. This case is all about conjecture, innuendo and suspicion," Kopelman said.
Curry is a former nuclear physicist and trained chemist who worked at the San Onofre nuclear power plant.
After his wife's death in San Clemente in 1994, he moved to Kansas where he worked as a city building inspector.
Kopelman said her client is only guilty of illegally collecting Linda Curry's life insurance benefits, not murder.
"He had committed this small act of insurance fraud," Kopelman said. "He's now pegged the criminal who committed this murder. He did not commit the crime of murder."
mark handler
SAWHORSE
Jury to begin deliberations in woman's 1994 death
BY KELLY PUENTE / STAFF WRITER
Published: Sept. 25, 2014 Updated: 7:02 p.m.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/curry-636354-wife-linda.html?page=2
Prosecutors say he’s a cold-hearted murderer who poisoned his wife andcollected the insurance money.
The defense says he is a loving husband who nursed his chronically-ill spouse and was devastated when she died.
Now, the fate of Paul Curry will be decided by an Orange County Superior Court jury, which will begin deliberating in Santa Ana on Monday.
Curry, a former San Onofre engineer and chemist, is accused of poisoning his 50-year-old wife, Linda Curry of San Clemente, with a lethal injection of nicotine in 1994.
He was a suspect from the beginning, but prosecutors didn’t believe they had enough evidence to file charges until the case was re-launched in 2007 and new evidence uncovered a different time frame for the alleged nicotine injection.
Sixteen years after his wife’s death, Curry was arrested in 2010 and charged with murder and insurance fraud. If convicted of all charges, Curry, now 57, will face an automatic sentence of life without parole.
In closing arguments Thursday, Assistant District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh painted Paul Curry as a greedy and calculated killer who viewed his wife as nothing more than a paycheck.
“In this courtroom sits a vicious, cold-blooded murderer who killed a person he was supposed to love and protect,” Baytieh said. “It was all about money.”
Prosecutors have said Paul Curry pushed Linda Curry to take out life insurance policies and insisted they get married. After her death, he collected more than $547,000 in life insurance and other benefits.
The pair met in 1989 while both were working at the San Onofre nuclear plant. When they married in 1992, he was 35 and she was 48.
Late June 9, 1994, Paul Curry called 911 and said his wife was in bed in their San Clemente home and was not breathing. Paramedics took Linda Curry to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Baytieh, earlier in the trial, said Paul Curry started applying for life insurance payouts the day after her funeral, not realizing his wife had made her sister the beneficiary.
But Curry filed appeals with insurance companies, Baytieh said, and got more than $400,000 in payouts, plus a monthly $564.07 check from Southern California Edison that he collected until 2011.
Deputy Public Defender Lisa Kopelman told the jury Linda Curry had serious health issues for years before she married.
Kopelman said Linda Curry was desperate to find a cure for her chronic health issues and was known to dabble in alternative medicine. She might have taken nicotine as a medicine since some studies have shown nicotine enemas can treat gastrointestinal problems, she said.
More than 20 years after Linda Curry’s death, there’s little direct evidence that points to her husband as a killer, she said.
“We have to consider all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Kopelman said.
Even before her death, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department had questioned the Currys. During a 1993 hospitalization, an unexplained dose of lidocaine was found in an IV bag, suggesting someone had tampered with it, according to court filings.
Baytieh said Linda Curry had suspicions about her husband.
“Well the only person I can think of to have a motive to do it would be Paul and the only motive I can think of is money,” she had told police.
Paul Curry has said he would have nothing to gain from his wife’s death, which he called “financially devastating.”
Staff writers Eric Hartley and Scott Schwebke contributed to this article.
Contact the writer: kpuente@ocregister.com
BY KELLY PUENTE / STAFF WRITER
Published: Sept. 25, 2014 Updated: 7:02 p.m.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/curry-636354-wife-linda.html?page=2
Prosecutors say he’s a cold-hearted murderer who poisoned his wife andcollected the insurance money.
The defense says he is a loving husband who nursed his chronically-ill spouse and was devastated when she died.
Now, the fate of Paul Curry will be decided by an Orange County Superior Court jury, which will begin deliberating in Santa Ana on Monday.
Curry, a former San Onofre engineer and chemist, is accused of poisoning his 50-year-old wife, Linda Curry of San Clemente, with a lethal injection of nicotine in 1994.
He was a suspect from the beginning, but prosecutors didn’t believe they had enough evidence to file charges until the case was re-launched in 2007 and new evidence uncovered a different time frame for the alleged nicotine injection.
Sixteen years after his wife’s death, Curry was arrested in 2010 and charged with murder and insurance fraud. If convicted of all charges, Curry, now 57, will face an automatic sentence of life without parole.
In closing arguments Thursday, Assistant District Attorney Ebrahim Baytieh painted Paul Curry as a greedy and calculated killer who viewed his wife as nothing more than a paycheck.
“In this courtroom sits a vicious, cold-blooded murderer who killed a person he was supposed to love and protect,” Baytieh said. “It was all about money.”
Prosecutors have said Paul Curry pushed Linda Curry to take out life insurance policies and insisted they get married. After her death, he collected more than $547,000 in life insurance and other benefits.
The pair met in 1989 while both were working at the San Onofre nuclear plant. When they married in 1992, he was 35 and she was 48.
Late June 9, 1994, Paul Curry called 911 and said his wife was in bed in their San Clemente home and was not breathing. Paramedics took Linda Curry to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.
Baytieh, earlier in the trial, said Paul Curry started applying for life insurance payouts the day after her funeral, not realizing his wife had made her sister the beneficiary.
But Curry filed appeals with insurance companies, Baytieh said, and got more than $400,000 in payouts, plus a monthly $564.07 check from Southern California Edison that he collected until 2011.
Deputy Public Defender Lisa Kopelman told the jury Linda Curry had serious health issues for years before she married.
Kopelman said Linda Curry was desperate to find a cure for her chronic health issues and was known to dabble in alternative medicine. She might have taken nicotine as a medicine since some studies have shown nicotine enemas can treat gastrointestinal problems, she said.
More than 20 years after Linda Curry’s death, there’s little direct evidence that points to her husband as a killer, she said.
“We have to consider all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Kopelman said.
Even before her death, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department had questioned the Currys. During a 1993 hospitalization, an unexplained dose of lidocaine was found in an IV bag, suggesting someone had tampered with it, according to court filings.
Baytieh said Linda Curry had suspicions about her husband.
“Well the only person I can think of to have a motive to do it would be Paul and the only motive I can think of is money,” she had told police.
Paul Curry has said he would have nothing to gain from his wife’s death, which he called “financially devastating.”
Staff writers Eric Hartley and Scott Schwebke contributed to this article.
Contact the writer: kpuente@ocregister.com
fatboy
Administrator
It will be interesting to hear the verict.....
ICE
Oh Well
So far, I haven't heard how the nicotine was administered----or any connection of nicotine to Mr. Curry. For 16 years the DA wasn't willing to charge him with a crime due to a lack of evidence. Now there is some new technology which provides a time line of the introduction of the nicotine that is evidence that, one, a murder took place and two, that he did it. Sounds fishy to me but the media can't be trusted....who knows?
mark handler
SAWHORSE
And that relates how?kilitact said:
conarb
Registered User
He had a 1951 Studebaker that he tooled around Las Vegas in, I had one too when in college, it was that wild Raymond Lowey design with the bullet nose.mark handler said:
beach
Gold Member
Is this him?http://abc7.com/news/man-accused-of-poisoning-wife-for-life-insurance-found-guilty-of-murder/331348/''>http://abc7.com/news/man-accused-of-poisoning-wife-for-life-insurance-found-guilty-of-murder/331348/' rel="external nofollow">
http://abc7.com/news/man-accused-of-poisoning-wife-for-life-insurance-found-guilty-of-murder/331348/
http://abc7.com/news/man-accused-of-poisoning-wife-for-life-insurance-found-guilty-of-murder/331348/
fatboy
Administrator
Yup, one and the same!
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
Conarb
Is this the car?
I wonder what wife # 3 is thinking about now?
Is this the car?
I wonder what wife # 3 is thinking about now?