Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are back with their dramatised reconstruction of Mann vs Simberg and Steyn, now installed in a far grander courtroom - 132 - at the District of Columbia Superior Court.
Day Twelve began with Judge Irving unleashing what US legal scholars call a can of jurisprudential whupp-ass on the Plaintiff:
Plaintiff's presentation of the case at times seemed a bit disjointed. And, yes, there were many evidentiary objections, but they were ground -- there were grounds for them...
It seemed that there was very little relevance to Drs. Bradley and Oreskes' testimony, especially where the defendants' theory of their cases appeared to suggest, at least for Mr. Simberg, scientific misconduct or academic misconduct... As to Mr. Steyn, his statements about the bogus, fraudulent nature of the Hockey Stick graph in his mind were substantially and entirely true...
Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show that the statements are not within a class of protected speech or otherwise permissible speech and, thus, such speech damaged Dr. Mann... The full extent of Dr. Mann's time on the stand, while consuming the lion's share of elapsed trial time, appears to be the natural consequence of several factors that were in plaintiff's control:
Dr. Mann's repeated insistence on giving extended answers and not directly answering questions put to him by counsel;
the dearth of any witnesses, fact witnesses, to corroborate his claims and lay appropriate foundation to admit other documentary evidence concerning his claimed damages which triggered several extended, but again, well-founded evidentiary objections..;
and, finally, the introduction of erroneous figures intended to go back with the jury during deliberations, figures that were corrected only upon recross-examination by defendants without an affirmative withdrawal or acknowledgment by plaintiff's counsel.
His Lordship then denied Michael E Mann the right to put on a so-called "rebuttal" case that would have consumed another day of the jury's time.
The Court's dissatisfaction with Plaintiff had not abated when, an hour or so later, Mann's counsel John B Williams attempted to quiz Judith Curry about a hearsay document written by some anonymous person:
MR. WILLIAMS: I learned in law school, from Faust Rossi teaching the bar, that you can refresh somebody's recollection with a plate of spaghetti alfredo.
THE COURT: All right. Well, you can use the spaghetti alfredo, but not this document.
Alas, as often with the ill-prepared Mr Williams, there was no pasta to hand.
After Dr Curry, it was the turn of Mark's fellow Torontonian Stephen McIntyre, who was denounced by Mann on the eve of trial - in a crude attempt at witness-tampering - as a "white supremacist". Mr McIntyre began his testimony by revealing that he is a distant cousin of Barack Obama.
Here's Ann and Phelim's take on the day. Click below for all the action:
Today, Tuesday, is the last day of witnesses. The case will go to the jury tomorrow.
Mark has been played throughout Ann and Phelim's series by the Australian actor Thomas Bromhead. Steyn Clubbers have enjoyed listening to Mr Bromhead bring Mark to life, which he could certainly use right now.
Our official limited-edition trial souvenir, the SteynOnline Liberty Stick, has sold out but we hope you will want to continue supporting Mark through a ruinous twelve-year run of "The process is the punishment" by buying a loved one either a SteynOnline Gift Certificate (starting at $25) or a Mark Steyn Club gift membership.
