Grayson Interrupted

The day before I got fired, I bought a TV. A huge one, that I couldn’t afford. I bought it on credit. I bought it in the good faith that I had a steady income. I bought it like how regular people buy stuff. I walked into a nice shop, in a nice shirt. I combed my hair. My knuckles were not bleeding. I exchanged niceties, even banter with the assistant.

I was in a good mood.

‘What do you need it for?’ The guy asked.

‘You watch a lot of films?’

‘Something is about to start that I intend to see in good colour.’

‘What?’

I smiled.

‘Have you heard about the LRI Trials?’

‘Is that the research facility that fucked up all those kids?’

‘Depends what side your sitting on, but it’s that. That’s what I’m going to watch.’

‘On a three thousand pound TV?’

‘Yes.’

‘You’re daft, mate. Think of the porn you could watch!’

We laughed.

As he was drawing up the contract, he asked me things about myself. Where I lived, what I did for work. He asked me what my name was. I think I paused a little too long because then he said:

‘You’re not in witness protection, are you?’

I smiled.

‘You’re not one of those kids?’

I didn’t break.

‘Watch the trial. I think it will be interesting.’

He nodded, and handed me the paperwork.

I left with a spring in my step and my TV in the back of a van.

I had to make the place nice you see. I needed to prepare for V.

The Regime: Pause

I slide out from under Partner in the middle of the night. Drag feet as I walk into the bathroom. Sit down to pee, and then realise I don’t need to. Go over to the sink, look at myself in the mirror.

Not Verity anymore. To my astonishment.

Just little old me. Jet black eyes, stern mouth. Special.

I think I’m hungry. Or thirsty.

I think I need to get out of this flat.

Pull hoodie on over T-Shirt and slip out into the night. Walk along the street searching for a light. I think about running away. But where would I go? I don’t know where-

I can’t go home, so what’s the point?

I decide I am hungry when I see a petrol station up ahead. Bright light flashing snacks.

Two cars parked, but apart from that, empty. Quiet. Door chimes as I enter. Boy (Man?) looks up from phone. Nods at me. I nod back.

I peruse the aisles. Chocolate. Wrenches. Crisps. Plasters. I pick the colours that I like and head to the counter. He rings me up.

Fourteen pounds.

I blink at him. Startled, like I’ve never heard of currency.

I don’t have any money.

What?

I look down, hands in pockets. I don’t have any money. I didn’t think-

How much did you say it was?

Fourteen pounds.

I feel about in my pockets still, knowing that I have nothing in them. I could put the snacks back…

But I don’t want to.

I want the snacks. And I used to only do things that I wanted. So, I decide to try that again.

I look up at BoyMan. Smile. He doesn’t smile back but he does watch me long enough for me to form a connection. I reflect his eyes back at him. It’s a weak line; I haven’t practiced in a while. But he’s not a challenge. He works in a petrol station after all.

Let me off this time.

He blinks.

I’ll let you off this time.

Really?

I…think so, yeah.

That’s so nice of you.

I smile.

So, so nice.

He nods, a little dazed. I pick up my treats and begin to leave.

But I can’t. I’m wide awake now. I want to play.

Hey.

Yeah?

It’s easier this time to connect. He waits, slack jawed, for my command.

Empty out the till.

He reaches into the till.I act surprised for the CCTV.

What are you doing?

What does it look like I’m doing?

Put it in a bag and give-

Wrong move.

Put it in a bag and leave the bag in the wheelie bin outside 23 Burns Avenue.

He continues to fill the bag. I head out.

I run, actually. All the way home. I dump all my snacks on the kitchen counter and stare at them.

What have I done?

What a stupid-

What if he can’t find my address?

I stay up the rest of the night, sitting at the living room window, overlooking the drive. I brace every time a car goes past. An hour later, maybe four, I see a figure in a hoodie walking up. He opens the wheelie bin, my wheelie bin, and drops something in it. He looks up at the house and I duck. I don’t know if he sees me. But when I next look out, he’s gone.

I go back to bed like nothing has happened.  Five minutes later Partner’s alarm goes off.

We get up, start our morning routine. I take my pills and the night before fades like a dream. Like with every day, I take the rubbish out to the bins. But when I look inside: There is the bag, full of cash, and what looks like a hand gun.

The Supervisor toots the horn of the car. I drop the rubbish in surprise and go towards him.

I should tell him about the cash, but I don’t.

For the first time in a long time, I lie.

For the first time in a long time, I can see the exit sign.

Third Deposition

CERTIFIED EXCERPT

Transcript of Witness G.

Date: May 27, 2012

Case: The Royal London Research Institute -v- European Court of Human Rights

 

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

LAMIA GRAHAM, ESQUIRE

JAMES F. BROOKS, ESQUIRE

MICHAEL GEERHADT, ESQUIRE

ROMILY J. ORFANEDES, ESQUIRE

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

ILANA WILKINSON, ESQUIRE

RONAN BERMAN, ESQUIRE

STEVEN A. MYERS, ESQUIRE

LORNE NICOLS STERLING, ESQUIRE

ROGER ABRAMS, ESQUIRE

CARROLL NOBLE, ESQUIRE

THE ROYAL LONDON RESEARCH INSTITUTE

 

VIDEO SPECIALIST: The court reporter today is Brenda Huff. Would the reporter please swear in the witness.

WITNESS G. having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

 

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF BY MS. ORFANEDES:

 

Q: Good morning, G.

A: Good Morning.

Q: Due to the sensitive nature of the information you have, your identity has been changed a few times, hasn’t it?

A: Yes

Q: I imagine that has been quite troublesome.

A: That is an understatement.

Q: But on the scale of things you suffered while at the Institute’s facility, probably not the most painful.

A: I don’t have a scale. I live in a constant state of wretchedness.

Q: Of course. I apologise. For what it’s worth. I ask you to think back to point where you were rescued form the Facility. Or more, the point when you thought you had been rescued.

A: Which time?

Q: The first time.

A: Okay.

Q: You had been living in general population, at this point?

A: I was living on the cell block, yes.

Q: And what did your days consist of?

A: Psych tests, Memory exercises, torture.

Q: Torture?

A: What I considered torture, Yes.

Q: And can you clarify what that was?

A: I had arrived at the facility with my brother. I was told, if I participated in the exercises, we would both be allowed to ‘return home’. It was not my own desire to participate in those exercises. In fact, they hurt immensely. But they said I could see my brother again. They kept saying that, even though my brother had died 3 days after our capture.

Q: And what were these exercises?

A: The supervisors would bring people in and have me mine them for information until I was physically ill.

Q: And how often would this happen?

A: That I would be sick or that they would bring people in?

Q: Both.

A: So, if I mined 5 people a day, I would be sick by the 7th day.

Q: And what would happen when you got sick?

A: They would give me a break.

Q: For how long?

A: A couple of hours.

Q: Sorry?

A: A couple of hours.

Q: So, you’d still see people that same day?

A: Yes. Sometimes, we wouldn’t even get a break. They’d just mop us up and tell us to keep going.

Q: We?

  1. BERMAN: Objection, beyond the scope.
  2. ORFANEDES: Your honour, I am establishing the witness’s routine.
  3. BERMAN: You’re supposed to be asking about the escape.
  4. ORFANEDES: You mean the faux escape that your clients orchestrated.
  5. HOLMES: Enough. Ms. Orfanedes, continue with your questioning.

BY MS. ORFANEDES:

Q: G, who did you mean by we?

A: All the subjects with mental abilities. The had us work on the same corridor. If one of us was unsuccessful with a test, they’d pass the test to another. We would have lunch together. It’s how I met-

Q: G?

A: Sorry?

Q: It was how you met who?

A: It’s not important.

Q: We’ll decide if it’s important or not, G.

A: It’s how I met [Witness F].

Q: I see. Were the two of you friends?

A: When?

Q: While at the facility?

A: No. None of us were really allowed to talk to each other.

Q: But you ate lunch together-

A: Under supervision, yes.

Q: So, did you not talk because you didn’t want to or because you didn’t want to be seen?

A: Sort of both. Everything was being recorded.

  1. BERMAN: Objection, beyond the scope!
  2. ORFANEDES: How?
  3. BERMAN: The witness could not possibly know that.
  4. ORFANEDES: He was there.
  5. BERMAN: Your Honour, it has already been established that information from this period is unreliable. The subjects were purposely misinformed to keep the experiment unbiased-

WITNESS G: I know what I’m talking about.

  1. BERMAN: I’m sure you think you do.

WITNESS G: I know I do. I mined members of staff throughout my time at the facility. Seeing as the only other person with the ability to manipulate memories was murdered at the facility, I am confident that the memories I gathered were authentic.

  1. BERMAN: G, you have no way of knowing if your brother was murdered

WITNESS G: I saw it. I saw it in his supervisor’s memories.

  1. BERMAN: A witness whom you murdered before they could testify, so how can anyone really know.
  2. ORFANEDES: Your Honour, Mr. Berman is hijacking my examination of the witness.
  3. HOLMES: Mr. Berman, you will wait your turn, or you won’t have one. Have I made myself clear?
  4. BERMAN: Yes, Your Honour.
  5. ORFANEDES: May we continue, your Honour?
  6. HOLMES: Please.

BY MS. ORFANEDES:

Q: How did you know you were being recorded?

A: Because I knew, despite what we were being told, that we were the subjects of the experiment.

Q: And how did you know that?

A: how do you think I knew that?

MR HOLMES: G, please just answer the questions. We don’t need you to pose them.

BY MS. ORFANEDES:

Q: How did you come to know that you were the subjects of the experiment?

A: I had mined it from a Supervisor.

Q: And how often were you doing that?

A: At first, all the time, and then after we moved to cell block, only when I could get away with it.

Q: And when was that?

A: During breaks, meal times. The kitchen staff and orderlies were not…the brightest. Sometimes, I’d take memories from the others.

Q: The others?

A: The other-

Q: G, please answer.

A: The other people like me.

  1. GRAHAM: Your Honour, may I request a recess?
  2. HOLMES: Ms. Orfanedes? Mr. Berman?
  3. ORFANEDES: I’m fine with that.
  4. BERMAN: Yes, same.

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are off the record at 12:35.

(A recess was taken.)

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are back on the record at 13:40.

BY MS. ORFANEDES:

Q: Let’s jump forward a little. At the point, when you thought you were being rescued, how many people were left in the facilty?

A: I don’t know. I only know who was in my cell block.

Q: How many was that?

A: Seven.

Q: What had happened to the others?

A: What had we been told or what had actually happened to them?

Q: Both.

A: They told us they had been reassigned to another cell block. That’s what they had told me about my brother too.

Q: And what had actually happened?

A: (No verbal response.)

Q: G?

A: I heard 0504 die. She had been glitching all afternoon-

Q: Glictching?

A: It’s um- It’s a thing that happens to people with mental abilities. Sometimes it’s nose bleeds, blackouts. It’s the wear and tear we suffer for using our abilities, only it can become- I don’t really know how to describe it- It’s different for everyone. For me, I can get trapped in memories. For- For Witness F, She has episodes of dissociation. It’s basically like your ability takes over and you lose control of yourself.

Q: Hyper Disassociation.

A: Yeah, but we call it glitching. You know, from when we thought that we’d had these abilities implanted in our heads.

Q: I see.

A: Community slang.

Q: So you heard 0504 die and then?

A: And then in the morning, we were told she had been reassigned.

Q: And what did you do once you made the link?

A: Nothing.

Q: Nothing?

A: What could I do?

Q: Were you worried?

A: No. I am not afraid to die.

Q: Is that why you went along with the escape plan?

A: To a degree.

Q: What other reason was there?

A: If I was out I could find the Good Doctor and do to him what he had done to me.

Q: and by that you mean kill him?

A: By that I mean find him, bind him, torture him and kill him. Yes.

  1. GRAHAM: Can we have a sidebar?
  2. HOLMES: You’ve just had a recess. Either continue with your line of questioning or release the witness.
  3. GRAHAM: Okay.
  4. ORFANEDES: No further questions, your honour.

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are off the record at 14:00.

(A recess was taken.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Deposition II

CERTIFIED EXCERPT

Transcript of Rueben Z. Corazzo, Esq.

Date: May 27, 2012

Case: The Royal London Research Institute -v- European Court of Human Rights

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

LAMIA GRAHAM, ESQUIRE

JAMES F. BROOKS, ESQUIRE

MICHAEL GEERHADT, ESQUIRE

ROMILY J. ORFANEDES, ESQUIRE

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

ILANA WILKINSON, ESQUIRE

RONAN BERMAN, ESQUIRE

STEVEN A. MYERS, ESQUIRE

LORNE NICOLS STERLING, ESQUIRE

ROGER ABRAMS, ESQUIRE

CARROLL NOBLE, ESQUIRE

THE ROYAL LONDON RESEARCH INSTITUTE

VIDEO SPECIALIST: The court reporter today is Brenda Huff. Would the reporter please swear in the witness?

RUEBEN Z. CORAZZO, ESQ. having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: Good Afternoon, Mr Corazzo. I’d like to go back to you encounters with Ms. Eugene.

A: Okay.

Q: You’re a legal aide, in your own words, swamped with work and a woman is messaging you on a weekly basis. What do you do?

WILKINSON: Objection. Asked and answered.

HOLMES: Sustained.

BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: Did you tell your mentor at Welch and Fowler about the messages?

A: No.

Q: Did you tell any of the other lawyers that you worked with?

A: No.

Q: Did you tell the police?

A: No.

Q: Why not, Mr Corazzo?

A: I thought it was harmless.

Q: What about when Ms. Eugene approached you, did you tell anyone about that?

A: I told my girlfriend.

Q: But none of the senior staff at your workplace?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: I don’t know. I figured it was not a work matter.

Q: But you knew why Ms. Eugene was approaching you. According to you, it was to offer you a job. Why not tell your mentor so they could intercede on your behalf or provide the LRI with willing council?

A: I assumed if that was what Ms. Eugene wanted, she wouldn’t be pursuing me personally.

Q: So you knew that she was interested in you personally?

A: I assumed, given her dedication to the cause, there was something about me, in particular, yes.

Q: And had she let you know why she was interested in you personally?

A: Dr. Quentin liked my work.

Q: Just your work? Not your colleagues? Mr Davenport or Miss Shrewsbury for example.

A: (No audible response)

Q: Mr Corrazzo.

A: I don’t know.

Q: But you did talk to Mr Davenport and Miss Shrewsbury about the LRI approaching them.

A: (No audible response)

Q: Mr Corazzo, we have a copy of their sworn depositions where both of them claim to have spoken to you about the LRI and Ms Eugene in particular.

A: Right.

Q: So you knew that Ms. Eugene was actively pursuing all those who had worked the case that you met Dr. Quentin on?

A: Yes.

Q: And so you advised Mr Davenport and Ms Shrewsbury to go to HR about Ms Eugene’s attempts to get in contact with them. Is that true?

A:(No audible response)

Q: Mr Corazzo, it’s a simple yes or no answer.

A: I said if it was bothering them they should do something about it.

Q: But you made it apparent that by ‘do something’ you meant ‘let Welch and Fowler know what was going on’?

WILKINSON: Objection, leading the witness-

HOLMES: Overruled. Answer the questions Mr Corazzo.

BY MR CORAZZO:

A: I don’t remember what I said exactly. But I could have said that vaguely.

Q: And by going to HR, you knew that if anything happened in the future between Welch & Fowler and the LRI, you knew that Ms Shrewsbury and Ms Davenport would be exempt from working for them.

A: I didn’t know that.

Q: You didn’t know Welch and Fowler’s Fit and Proper policy? I have a copy here that you signed that year, would you like to read it again?

A: (No audible reply)

Q: So I did you or did you not know the rules concerning relationships between clients and members of staff, Mr Corazzo?

A: I didn’t make them go to HR.

Q: Please answer the question addressed to Mr. Corazzo.

A: (No audible response)

HOLMES: Mr. Corazzo, may I remind you that you are under oath, and we are under time constraints. MR Brooks repeat the question, Mr. Corazzo answer it.

BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: Did you know, that by going to HR about Ms. Eugene and the LRI, Mr. Davenport and Ms. Shrewsbury would not be allowed to work with the LRI should they be made clients?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you tell Mr Davenport or Miss Shrewsbury about your interactions with Miss Eugene?

A: No.

Q: Did you tell HR about your relations with Ms. Eugene?

A: No.

WILKINSON: Excuse me. Can we go off the record for a minute and take a break?

BROOKS: Sure.

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are off the record at 14:48.

(A recess was taken.)

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are back on the record at 15:00.

BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: And then you got made partner after how long at the company?

A: A year and eight months.

Q: And in the thirty years Welch and Fowler had been around before you joined, how long roughly did it take a lawyer to become partner?

A: Anywhere between six and a half to thirteen years.

Q: But you made partner in a year and eight months. Did this strike you as odd at all?

A: Maybe.

Q: It either did or it didn’t, Mr. Corazzo.

A: I don’t think odd is the word I would use. It caught me by surprise.

Q: And why did it catch you by surprise?

A: (No audible response.)

Q: Mr Corazzo.

A: I didn’t expect it to be that quick.

Q: So we can say that your being made partner after a year was an unusual occurrence?

A: I suppose.

Q: At least to you and your practice.

A: Yes.

Q: And naturally, being a man of great intelligence-

WILKINSON: Objection. Speculation.

BROOKS: Speculation of what?

WILKINSON: Of my client’s intelligence.

BROOKS: He’s an Oxford graduate.

WILKINSON: Postgraduate. And that proves nothing. You’re an Oxford graduate. Boris Johnson is an Oxford graduate and he, as our mayor, got on, and then got stuck on, a zip wire. School is not an accurate measure of intelligence.

BROOKS: What would you consider to be an accurate measure of intelligence?

WILKINSON: Who knows? But the burden of proof is on you, Mr. Brooks, not me.

HOLMES: Mr. Brooks, please rephrase your question.

BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: Were you quizzical about your promotion?

A: No. Not really.

Q: So an unusual occurrence took place, involving you, and you had no questions about it, made no inquiries about it?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because I was taught not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Q: That’s a good saying. Have you heard the one about something seeming too good to be true?

WILKINSON: Objection. Relevance.

HOLMES: Mr Brooks-

BROOKS: I’ll rephrase it.

BY MR BROOKS:

Q: So you just took the job?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you wonder why they offered it to you?

A: I assumed I was their last resort.

Q: You assumed that in a company of how many- sixty seven lawyers- all of them turned down the chance to become partner apart from you?

A: No. my department knew that they were looking for a partner in our field. I assumed the other lawyers in my department had turned it down.

Q: And how many people would that be?

A: Seven.

Q: Seven senior lawyers-

A: Five seniors.

Q: You thought five senior lawyers turned down partner and the company didn’t consider a new hire, or sending some other senior off for more training?

A: I figured I was probably cheaper.

Q: Did you know before your promotion that LRI was about to become a client at Welch and Fowler?

A: No.

Q: Did you know once you got your promotion that you’d been a condition in Welch and Fowler winning LRI as a client?

A: No.

Q: So as far as you were concerned your relationship with LRI had nothing to do with your promotion to partner.

A: At the time, that is what I believed.

Q: despite how instrumental you had been in narrowing the pool of candidates.

WILKINSON: Objection. My client has already attested to the fact that he did not make anyone go to HR. This is irrelevant.

BROOKS: It is not irrelevant to my argument if you would let me finish making it.

HOLMES: Mr Brooks, please continue to the point.

BY MR. BROOKS:

Q: Mr Corazzo, you never reported the emails. You never reported the gifts. You never reported meeting Ms. Eugene. You encouraged other potential candidates to go to HR with their complaints and then you got made partner because of it. You benefited entirely from LRI being a client of Welch & Fowler and you used that same shrewd and ambitious acumen once you started working directly for the Facility, didn’t you?

A: No. No-

Q: You knew what was going on and you were there to help them cut corners.

A: No! No. I did not know about the kids. I did not know about the kids in East Block!

HOLMES: Mr Corazzo, calm down.

CORAZZO: I did not know! You have to understand that I did not know that was happening in that house.

WILKINSON: Excuse me. Can we- Can we-

CORAZZO: I told them-

HOLMES: We’ll hold you in contempt, Mr. Corazzo.

WILKINSON: Can we take a break?

BROOKS: I’m fine with that.

VIDEO SPECIALIST: We are off the record at 15:28.

(A recess was taken.)

 

 

First Deposition

CERTIFIED EXCERPT

Transcript of Rueben Z. Corazzo, Esq.

Date: May 27, 2012

Case: The Royal London Research Institute -v- European Court of Human Rights

ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

LAMIA GRAHAM, ESQUIRE

JAMES F. BROOKS, ESQUIRE

MICHAEL GEERHADT, ESQUIRE

ROMILY J. ORFANEDES, ESQUIRE

THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

 

13 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

ILANA WILKINSON, ESQUIRE

RONAN BERMAN, ESQUIRE

STEVEN A. MYERS, ESQUIRE

LORNE NICOLS STERLING, ESQUIRE

ROGER ABRAMS, ESQUIRE

CARROLL NOBLE, ESQUIRE

THE ROYAL LONDON RESEARCH INSTITUTE

 

VIDEO SPECIALIST: The court reporter today is Brenda Huff. Would the reporter please swear in the witness.

RUEBEN Z. CORAZZO, ESQ. having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF BY MS. GRAHAM:

Q: Good morning, Mr. Corazzo.

A: Good Morning.

Q: I know you’re a lawyer, and we’re days into the deposition, so I’m sure you’re familiar with the rules.

A: Yes.

Q: I just want to go briefly over your history. If you can just tell me about your education background, college and law school.

A: I went to the LSE for undergraduate, and then Oxford for Post.

Q: Okay. And when did you graduate from LSE?

A: 2002 and from Kings College in 2005.

Q: Thank you. And in 2005 you went to a law firm. Is that right?

A:  I did. I went to work at Welch & Fowler, which is a law firm here in London.

Q: And what did you do for them, practice as a litigator?

A: I represented health facilities that were being investigated for unexplained deaths.

Q: Okay. Is that litigation?

A: It was an array of activities that also included litigation.

Q: And how long were you there for?

A: From 2005-2008.

Q: And that’s when you started working for LRI?

A: I was working for LRI while at Welch too.

Q: How does that work?

A: I was headhunted and subsequently offered a job at LRI.

Q: When you say headhunted, what exactly did that entail, and how did it come about?

A: Doctor Quentin attended a hearing that I was counsel for in 2006. After the verdict, he approached all of us on the bench.

Q: All of you being

WILKINSON: Objection. I’m going to object because it’s beyond the scope and is not really relevant to what the four corners of the – I mean, general background, but it doesn’t relate to the case-

GRAHAM: I don’t — we don’t need to go over everything that was done in the courtroom, but, rather, with respect to the background of Mr. Corazzo and why he was chosen by the LRI, I believe this line of questioning is relevant to the scope.

HOLMES: Overruled. Ms. Graham, please continue. Pointedly.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

BY MS. GRAHAM:

Q: What did Dr. Quentin say when he approached you and your colleagues?

A: He commended us on a job well done. He explained that he was from the LRI and that they could use counsel like us for an upcoming operation. My colleague, the lead defence, advised him to contact the practice but Dr. Quentin explained that, given the size of the operation, they would need ongoing in house counsel. He asked if any of us were looking for ‘career growth’. My other colleague, who was second chair, displayed an interest. Dr Quentin then asked for all of our business cards. I didn’t have one at the time so I just told him my name. He then asked who wrote the closing argument and I replied that it was me. Then we went our separate ways.

Q: Why did you not have a business card?

A: I was still a legal aide at the time. At Welch and Fowler, legal aides do not have business cards.

Q: Was it normal for a legal aide to write the closing arguments for a case?

A: No, but at the time we were juggling a lot of cases. I wrote something for each and every one, just so we could keep our heads above water. Welch & Fowler were a fledgling practice during the recession. Without people like me, it wouldn’t still exist now.

Q: So out of all three people approached, you were the least qualified?

  1. WILKINSON: Objection-
  2. GRAHAM: least senior, then?

A: Yes.

BY MS. GRAHAM:

Q: Was that the last time you spoke to Dr. Quentin?

A: For a while, yes.

Q: and in the interim, you had no dealings with the LRI?

A: Not exactly. I was contacted that week and subsequently every week by the Head of HR at the LRI.

Q: Can you identify this person by name?

A: Constance Eugene.

Q: And what form did this contact take?

A: A host. Emails, phonecalls, letters. Invites to LRI Events. Gifts.

Q: To your place of work?

A: To my place of work, my flat, my childhood home, my then girlfriend’s tenement in Buenos Aires where she was volunteering at the time.

Q: I’m sorry?

A: Ms. Eugene had found out that I was visiting my girlfriend in Buenos Aires for 2 weeks and sent us tickets to the opera.

Q: How did she find this out?

A: I don’t know. I don’t know how she managed any of what she did, to be honest. If you ask me, it wasn’t natural.

WILKISON: Objection. That last bit was irrelevant, unadmissable. He answered the question with ‘I don’t know.’ Everything following is unnecessary.

GRAHAM: Are you saying that your client’s testimony is unnecessary?

WILKINSON: I’m saying he answered the question and you paused to allow him to implicate himself.

GRAHAM: Unfounded.

HOLMES: Ms Wilkinson, are you accusing Ms. Graham of leading the witness?

WILKINSON: I am asking that only Mr Corazzo’s first answer be admissible.

HOLMES: Sustained.

BY MS. GRAHAM:

Q: Back to this contact, was it a back and forth between you and Ms. Eugene?

A: I missed the first couple of calls. I replied to an email inviting me to LRI for a chat, and explained I was swamped with work and would not have the time, that I appreciated the interest but I was happy at Welch. There were more calls and emails after that that I did not reply to. Then Ms Eugene intercepted me on my way back from court to Welch.

Q: How long after your first encounter with Dr. Quentin did this happen?

A: About a month. Just over a month.

  1. Were the other people who met with Dr. Quentin also being pursued in this way?

A: If they were, it wasn’t for very long.

  1. So would you say Ms. Eugene and the LRI were focused on you?

A: Out of everyone in my circle, yes. I can only speak to that.

Q: And were the gifts sent during this time?

A: No. After.

Q: What was the nature of your fist encounter with Ms Eugene?

A: She had understood that I was too busy to talk at the LRI, so she brought the chat to me. We shared a cab back to the office.

Q: What was discussed at this meeting?

A: Mostly me.

Q: Can you go into any more detail?

A: She asked me about school, about Welch and Fowler.

Q: Did she tell you why the LRI wanted in house counsel?

A: Not until I asked.

Q: What was her reply?

A: That the LRI had been tasked with investigating an existing condition in its early stages and that the experiment would be quite large, involving multiple subjects, and spanning a couple of years. They needed someone to keep an eye on the ethics of the experiment.

Q: Were those her exact words?

A: She probably used more words, but it was to that effect.

Q: That the LRI had been tasked? As in asked to undertake this research?

A: Yes. That was what was communicated to me.

Q: What was the outcome of this meeting?

A: Much like before, I thanked her for her interest in me, but I assured her that I wanted to make partner at Welch and I wasn’t interested in anything else until then.

Q: And what was Ms Eugene’s reply?

A: She was cordial.

Q: And after this, your contact ended?

A: No, it ramped up. This is when the gifts started, when we went to the Opera in Buenos Aires.

Q: And how long did this period last?

A: Until I was made partner.

Q: And when roughly was that?

A: (No verbal response.)

Q: Mr Corazzo?

A: Three months later.

 

 

 

Minutes 1517

 [REDACTED]

(the Company)

(Company no: [REDACTED])

Minutes of a meeting of the directors of the Company held at [REDACTED] ON [REDACTED] at [REDACTED].

  1. Preliminary Matters
    [REDACTED] was appointed chairwoman of the meeting. The chairwoman noted that the meeting had not been duly convened and that only a handful of board members were present. Chairwoman noted that on any other occasion this meeting would not have been authorised, but given [REDACTED]’s, (hence forth known as Dr. A) concerns, the meeting  was declared open.
  2. Business of the Meeting
    The chairman reported that the business of the meeting was to:
    2.1. Discuss the recent spate of  incidents in the East facility.
  3. Incidents
    Dr.A acknowledged that the incidents that have occurred are not common to the experiment and that the volatile situation in East Block may be because that facility houses the longest running test subjects. As a result, the statistics are skewed dramatically in that direction. Equally the test subjects involved (17 in total) have reached a level of maturity that previous test subjects had not. He asked that the board consider whether the facility is equipped to deal with the condition in this adult stage of its manifestation.
    [REDACTED], hence forth known as RDG, enquired as to why Dr. A did not submit incident reports until the most recent incident (in which 1543 was subdued and detonated. See Incident Report 1543 9C). Dr. A informed the board that East Block Management did not want to jeopardise the experiment.
    Dr. A urged the board to seriously consider removing East Block from the Experiment, or at least from the control of Senior Management.
    It was agreed that the experiment would continue, but concentrating only on East Block.
    It was not decided whether the other Test Subjects in Blocks North, South and West would be let go or destroyed.
    Dr. A reported growing concern amongst the facilitators about the length of the experiment and whether at this point the extended incarceration of the test subjects is leading to the volatile situation. He argued that this was jeopardising the work done so far. RDG stated that overall the board was not happy with the facilitators in East Block, since the projected progress of the experiment has not been met.
    [REDACTED], henceforth known as QA, suggested gutting the staff of East Block completely and starting again with fresh eyes.
    Dr. A strongly condemned this form of action, stating that a huge change like that could make the situation in East Block even more chaotic. He added that, given the nature of the experiment, the time and effort it would take to find and train a new set of facilitators would extend the experiment beyond its three year projection and push the test subjects to breaking point.
    RDG reminded Dr. A that the test subjects had forfeited their rights when they signed up to the experiment.
    Dr. A then disclosed some information about the East Block test subjects that led to the meeting being promptly adjourned.
  4. Close
    Given the information discovered, concerning the ethics of the test subjects in East Block’s surrender, the chairwoman declared the meeting closed. It was agreed that a meeting would be held once a an investigation into Senior Management at East Block was completed.

Observation 151

41fc8b2c15c1269363d1f1975abd3215

Subject 2514

  • Subject has reached Stage Four of observation: A Game.
  • Subject has been docile throughout process and condition appears dormant, if not non-existent.
  • This is the last observation before subject is potentially struck off from register.
  • Subject is seated on the bed, reading, when Supervisor arrives.
  • She responds cordially to his small talk, but reveals nothing about herself despite pointed questions.
  • Supervisor asks Subject if she would like to play a game. Subject obliges and asks what game they will be playing. Supervisor states that she will pick it up as they go along. Subject seems tense for a split second.
  • Supervisor and Subject begin card game. Supervisor wins first round. Subject asks if the game they are playing is Snap. Supervisor says the game they are playing is the game that they are playing. He asks Subject if she would like to continue playing. She agrees.
  • Supervisor wins second round. Subject states that this was an illegal move. Supervisor insists that it was a legal move. Subject asks for a list of rules for the game. Supervisor states that the Subject will pick them up as they go along. He asks Subject if she wishes to continue playing. She hesitates for a moment but agrees to continue.
  • Subject thinks she has won third round. Supervisor tells her the move was illegal, and therefore he has won the round. Subject firmly asks him to tell her how her move was illegal or how he has won the round because of it. Supervisor states that the rules are obvious, if Subject is paying attention. He asks Subject if she wishes to continue playing. Subject takes a minute and through gritted teeth agrees to continue.
  • This goes on for eight more rounds, Subject is visibly growing more and more tense and angry. She slams her fist on the table, swears profusely and one point sweeps all the cards off the table. However, whenever asked to continue she agrees.
  • Subject has a hard time admitting defeat?
  • At the commencement of the twelfth round, Subject asks the Supervisor again for the rules of the game. Supervisor states that the rules are so simple, even a child could pick them up. Subject calls the Supervisor a cheat. Supervisor suggests that maybe she is just stupid.
  • Subject falls silent. Pulls herself to her full height and stares at supervisor. She says the following: You are the stupid one, coming into this room alone with me.
  • Supervisor asks her what she means. Subject continues to stare at him.
  • The rest of these notes are pieced together from eye witness accounts and surveillance footage.  Observation was disrupted by the following incident (See Appendix titled ‘2514 Overpowers Supvisor’).
  • At this point, on the tape, we notice that her eyes have changed from a dark brown, almost black, to hazel. She whispers something to the Supervisor, which, after viewing the surveillance footage, we believe to be a command to drop the cards he is holding. He does so.
  • She tells him to get up, according to what could be made out from the surveillance footage. The Supervisor does as he is told.
  • Subject tells him to run headfirst into the observation widow until, direct quote: Either the glass cracks or your skull does. He does so.
  • This entire exchange takes less than 30 seconds. Supervisor is running at the window for at least 2 minutes before we think to intervene.
  • When we enter the room and ask him to stop, he does not. It is like he cannot hear us. Attempts to get his attention are useless.
  • Against protocol, we address the Subject.
  •  She is nonchalant when we ask her what she has done. She shrugs and places the cards in neat pile before getting into the bed and facing away from us.
  • Security is called to restrain Supervisor, who at this point is bloody from the effort, but will not stop.
  • We attempt to engage the Subject again but she has fallen asleep.
  • Without empathy?
  • Supervisor is finally subdued, strapped to a stretcher. His hazel eyes appear vacant.
  • Observation is paused to attend to Supervisor.
  • Final Thoughts: As of now, we have no research on this manifestation of the condition. This is the first time we have seen anything like it. We are referring to it as ‘Submission of Will’ until we can study the subject further.
  • The board have signed off on keeping Subject 2514 for further observation.