When is Innocent until Guilty the Rule?

Vic Kohring is just one of the politicians who have wanted to keep their elected positions despite being indicted.

Kohring said he couldn't answer specific questions about the case before it goes to trial.

"All I can say is that people have to remember that I am innocent until proven guilty," he said. (Anchorage Daily News)

John Havelock wrote a much needed commentary in the ADN yesterday, pointing out that "innocent until proven guilty" is the rule

When serving on a jury, empowered to deprive one of our fellow citizens of their freedom or even their life...

But that standard isn't the one we should or do use for other decisions.

No such principle should guide our judgment as individuals when we make decisions about who should we trust with our family or property, or who should be entrusted with public office. . .

Would you let your daughter go out with an accused rapist because, after all, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence?

And surely you wouldn't hire an accountant who had been indicted, but not yet proven guilty, of embezzlement. And elected officials are our employees in a sense. So when there are indicators of wrong doing, we have the right to explain themselves.

Appropriately, in business the employee exercising his legal right to remain silent may be fired if he does not offer, in short order, a persuasive counter to incriminating circumstances. This should also be true of the public officeholder, who can avoid criminally incriminating himself by speaking through a spokesman such as his lawyer. If he can't provide a reasonable explanation, then he should resign or be removed from office.

An indictment is not an offhand comment on talk radio or an anonymous post on the internet. As Havelock points out

A grand jury has found that evidence exists which, if believed, would establish guilt

Knowing when a rule applies and doesn't apply is important in life. Too often people throw out the rule of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" inappropriately. It is an important part of our legal rules, to prevent people from being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the state. And before indicted politicians are imprisoned or fined, that standard is important. But it isn't the standard on which to decide whether they should continue representing us in our government.

Cottonwood

Northern summer sun
Warms fragrant green cottonwoods
Soft snow covers ground

USA v. Thomas Anderson Day 5 (only day 2 for me)

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
Court Calendar for Friday, June 29, 2007
Current as of 06/29/20http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif07 at 8:00 PM


9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 5

[For those who aren't going to read all this - most of you I imagine - I'll just slip in what I found most interesting today. When Prewitt was being cross examined and he denied that doing this work for the government was in exchange for dropping other charges (he claimed there was nothing out there that could stick), Stockler (Anderson's attorney) asked, "How many other cases are you volunteering to assist? The Prosecutor objected, but the judge allowed it, and Stockler told him not to reveal any names. Prewitt said, six or seven. Let's see, we know of four indicted legislators, that leaves two or three more cases. Ben Stevens? John Cowdery? Who might seven be?]

I got there just after the afternoon session began. Prewitt was still on the witness stand, the Prosecutor was still showing tapes and transcripts, and asking Prewitt to interpret what was said in the tapes. At one point the judge addressed the government's attorney as Mr. Marsh, so my assumption yesterday that Bottini was the attorney was wrong. I'm guessing Mr. Bottini was the older (Mr. Marsh appears to be in his mid 30s or less) gentleman sitting at the government table. There were around 20-30 people in the observer section of the court this afternoon.

From what I could tell, the prosecutor was trying to establish

1. Anderson's eagerness to help Prewitt and Cornell with whatever they needed in the legislator. There's video tape of Rep. McQuire (now Anderson's wife) explaining how she to pressed Commissioner of Health and Social Services Joel Gilbertson to split the Certificate of Need process for imaging services from the process for Juvenile facilities (I think that was it) because they'd been lumped together and the whole process was being delayed because of problems in the imaging situation, not the juvenile facilities situation. Anderson also whispered to Prewitt while McQuire was talking to someone else that he hadn't told her about their arrangement. Of course, one could ask why he wouldn't tell her if he thought it was all on the up and up. And if he had told her, might she have stopped him? We'll never know.

Anderson was also asked to assist in getting a bill to change the requirement that the State Troopers had to do the transporting of prisoners, because they didn't want to and had 'subcontracted' that to Corrections who also didn't want to. In Anchorage Corrections subcontracted transport of Municipal Prisoners to the Anchorage Police Department, who also didn't want to do it. So Bobrick after talking to Mayor Begich came up with the idea to start a company to transport prisoners, but that would need legislation to allow the Troopers to subcontract that task. And Tom agreed to make that happen. No word about whether he did.


2. Anderson's need for additional money from Prewitt (He asked for and got another $2000 in addition to the money that was being passed on through Bobrick's Pacific Communications (I think that was the final name) Company. We saw photocopies of two checks he handed to Anderson, one directly to Anderson, the other to Bobrick. There was a long discussion that seemed to be initiated by Tom, that if he got money from a company that didn't have a lobbyist and it was less than $5000 he wouldn't have to report to to the Alaska Public Offices Commission. So he wanted to be sure this money came from a subsidiary of Cornell that didn't have a lobbyist. Prewitt, Cornell's lobbyist offered to write a personal check, Anderson said no, and Prewitt gave him the $2000 cashier's check. The video showed Anderson, hands out in front of him at the restaurant table making two mock bows to Prewitt after he gave him the check and saying, "I love it." At another point, Anderson says something like, I have no trouble raising campaign money, but what I really need is a job.


Paul Stockler, Anderson's attorney, was getting antsy, and after the jury left for the afternoon 15 minute break he addressed the judge about the schedule and when he would get to start cross examining Prewitt. He clearly didn't want the jury going home for the weekend without ever hearing anything from the other side. He was offered an hour today. His manner was much more aggressive than Marsh's, who is very deferential, but articulate. However, Marsh was clearly losing focus a bit this afternoon - having to go back to cover a tape or document he'd skipped over, and at one point someone walked into the courtroom and he turned to look over his shoulder to see who had come in. Stockler even addressed the judge as "Judge" at one point. I don't spend much time in courtrooms, but Marsh's "Your Honors" sound a lot more respectful to me.

When Stockler finally did get to start his cross examination of Prewitt at 3:45pm, he lit right into him and then he began to try to show Anderson's behavior in a more positive light. First he hit Prewitt with a series of incidents that he suggested he could have gone to prison for.

1. A $30,000 loan Prewitt, while Commissioner of Corrections, got from Allvest another firm that subcontracted with the Department of Corrections (I think that's what he said.) Prewitt said he got the loan and paid it back. Stockler: Is there anything in writing? Isn't it true it was a bribe? No. How did you pay it back? I worked for Allvest for four months - $7500 per month. Did you pay taxes on the $30,000? No, it was a loan. But you say you worked for it. No, I was paying him back. So, all of us could avoid paying income taxes by having our employer loan us our pay before, and then we'd repay it by working and not have to pay taxes?

2. Something about getting a job for a Mr. [DonStahlworthy (sp?) Stolworthy] who in 2004 was Deputy Commissioner of Corrections. Prewitt promised him a job when STahlworthy[Stolworthy] was fired.
I couldn't follow the specific details here. It was getting late and it appeared Stockler wanted to leave the jury with some questions about Prewitt before the weekend. [See Sunday, July 1 post post.
for update on Stolworthy.

3. Funneling $30,000 in campaign contributions from Cornell, a Houston based company,
to Alaskan legislative candidates who were friendly to private prisons. This was illegal because there was a limit on how much money candidates could get from contributors from Outside (of Alaska), so he would give it to them as an Alaskan.

4. Then raised questions about what deal he made with the Government so that he was now in the witness stand instead of the defendant's seat. Prewitt said that after working closely with the FBI for a month, and consulting with his attorney, he realized that he wasn't going to be subject to prosecution because of statute of limitations issues and I'm not sure why about the funneling contributions. And that he had volunteered to work for the government; he didn't have to. And it has been at great cost to his reputation and future employment to have all this publicly aired. Stockler kept challenging his claim there was no deal and said he needn't have volunteered and he would have spared himself all the humiliation.

5. An interesting bit of information emerged when he was asked how many other investigations was he cooperating on. Stockler told him not to mention any names. Marsh objected, but the judge allowed it. After a pause, Prewitt said, six or seven.

6. Established Prewitt was making $150,000 a year from Cornell to lobby, then asked whether Prewitt told Cornell he was working for the government. No. You didn't let them know you were in criminal trouble? I wasn't. You mean when the FBI knocked on your door, you didn't think you were in trouble? I don't think this was a good line of questioning since Stockler's client also had the FBI knocking at his door. If he's suggesting the FBI doesn't knock until they have something, then he could be hurting his own client. He also asked if Prewitt asked the government to pay him. He said yes, but they wouldn't.

Then Stockler focused on changing the jury's image of Anderson.

1. He wanted to show that Anderson was friendly and eager to please, not because Prewitt was paying him, but because that's his natural style. He asked Prewitt questions about an early meeting with Anderson before they knew each other at all, where Anderson called him FP (suggesting this was very familiar even though they didn't know each other well) and offered him assistance. And he didn't do that for money, but because he was that kind of guy and the issues were consistent with his principles. He didn't know Prewitt, hadn't gotten campaign contributions from him, and hadn't asked him for anything. Even though Bobrick had raised the notion of a campaign contribution, and Prewitt had said something like Tom shouldn't raise that now (because it is illegal for legislators to solicit campaign funding during the legislative session), Tom never asked you for a campaign contribution? Again, I don't think this was a good way to go, since Tom had earlier said that he didn't need campaign money, he needed a job. Prewitt's response was, that while he hadn't done anything for Tom, Bobrick, who was also a Cornell lobbyist, had done stuff for Tom and he was the one that introduced them here. (They'd had one prior meeting where Tom couldn't help Prewitt because he was supported by the prison employee's union that was opposed to private prisons. But when they split from the larger union, it was no longer a problem for him.)

2. He tried to portray the problem as Prewitt entrapping (he never used that term)Anderson. You and Bobrick concocted the sham company to funnel the money, Tom didn't. And he kept asking you to confirm that this money wasn't being paid him to do the legislative work. Stockler to Prewitt, "You could have said, Yes, the money is for you to fix my problems, and then Tom would have refused, and you wouldn't have had to humiliate yourself with all the publicity of this trial." The gist was, Tom was pushed into this by these older, more experienced mentors, at least one of whom is going to go scott free. But earlier they had established that Tom had a masters degree and law degree. In my opinion, a legislator should know better than asking lobbyists for legal advice.

And then it was 4:38 on the courtroom digital clock. The jury seemed much more interested in what was going on than they had been while the government painstakingly went through all the hard to hear and see tapes and transcripts.

Stockler asked for all of Monday to cross examine Prewitt. And then the Prosecutor will bring Bobrick to the witness stand.

[NOTE: YOU MAY HAVE TO HIT "OLDER POSTS" BELOW RIGHT TO GET THE FIRST ANDERSON POST - JUNE 28, 2007]

USA v. Thomas Anderson

9:00 AM 3:06-CR-00099-JWS Judge Sedwick Anchorage Courtroom 3
USA vs. THOMAS ANDERSON
TRIAL BY JURY - DAY 4


Disclosure First: Tom was a student of mine a while ago. I don't remember when I talked to him last. However, I have been disturbed by this case since the beginning. I haven't blogged about this, in part, because I can't talk about anything I learned about Tom through our student/teacher relationship which is the only relationship I've had with him. I decided I should go to court and hear the evidence for myself. What I say here is strictly reporting what I saw in court, stuff anyone who went could have seen.




First, walking up to the court building, I saw someone being interviewed. I found out in court it was Tom Anderson's attorney, Paul Stockler. Inside, security took my camera, along with everyone's cell phones, until I got out. The courtroom had seating for about 120. I got there after the lunch recess and there were about 40 people in the audience, including a German couple whose Anchorage friend brought them. It was down to about 30 when the court was adjourned at 4:30.

The Situation. The Prosecutor Joe Bottini (I assume, since I got there after introductions, but I'm going by today's ADN story on yesterday's opening statements) [correction: it was Nicholas Marsh] spent the afternoon presenting audio and (one) video tapes. On the screen on the wall were the transcripts of what was being said, a yellow highlight following along, sort of a courtroom karaoke. Most were hard to understand and read along. One juror said it was too hard to hear. The judge reminded the jury several times that the actual audio, not the transcript, was the evidence.
On the witness stand was Frank Prewitt, former Corrections Commissioner who became a lobbyist for Cornell Companies, a Houston based private prison corporation. A bit of tape would be played. Then the Prosecutor would ask Prewitt what it meant. Prewitt was an articulate witness explaining it clearly. A couple of times Stockler objected that Prewitt couldn't know what Tom Anderson or Bill Bobrick (a key person on the tape) meant. The judge agreed he could say what he understood it to mean.

The People on the Tape:
1. Prewitt was, according to the ADN story, already being investigated. He was the man with the wire. He was a lobbyist for Cornell.
2. Bill Bobrick was the main lobbyist working with the Anchorage Assembly, a good friend apparently of the Mayor, and generally a supporter of liberal politicians. He was also portrayed today as a trusted mentor and adviser to Tom Anderson.
3. Tom Anderson was a Republican legislator, in his early 40s (The other two 15-25 years older I'd guess.) As it came out in today's tapes and Prewitt's comments, he was in financial trouble, needing $2000-2500 per month just for child support.


The Line of Argument

1. Cornell Companies needed four things:
A. A certificate of need for a new prison
B. A feasibility study saying they could provide comparable prison 'service' at less cost than the State of Alaska.
C. A positive review of the Whittier Procurement (Something - can't read my notes) for a joint venture with Cornell to build the prison. Apparently some legislators had questions about the process.
D. Get the private prison money that goes to the Department of Corrections back into its own BRU. Prewitt explained that a BRU is a Budget Review Unit. Money can be moved around within a BRU by a department, but not from one BRU to another. Private prison money had been in a separate BRU, but Gov. Murkowski had changed that and Corrections then had moved money originally allocated to private prisons to other accounts. They wanted the separate BRU again so private prison funds would stay for private prison stuff and couldn't be switched to other Corrections Department needs.


2. Bobrick was proposing to Prewitt on the tape, that Tom Anderson would be a good candidate for helping get Cornell's needs met.
A. He was a legislator, in the majority party, and could get appointed to the key committees relevant to the Cornell's needs.
B. He needed money.
[Today the prosecutor was trying to build the case against Anderson and we only heard from Prewitt. What was Bobrick's motive? He wasn't going to get any money out of this based on today's testimony - though the newspapers said a while ago that he kept a chunk of the payments for himself. The evidence today suggested that this was a way for him to get Tom badly needed funds, and that Tom was a rising star and in the future he would remember who helped him.]
C. Tom was 'a closer' and would finish what he started, he could be counted on.

The Scheme: Bobrick was setting up a quarterly electronic public policy newsletter that Tom among others (Brian Rogers was mentioned) would write for. It would be bi-partisan and they would sell advertising. Cornell would buy $24,000 worth of banner ads. Prewitt, on the tape, made it clear to Bobrick that Cornell didn't advertise because they got contracts from government. Thus they had no reason to spend money on advertisements. They didn't care about the newsletter, they cared about Tom helping them in the legislature. The prosecutor asked several times - did Bobrick think this was a real venture? And the answer was, "Yes, he thought he could make money off it." But from today's testimony it seemed clear that while they might set up a newsletter, the real purpose was to channel money from Cornell to Anderson. It would go to the Newsletter company (that had different names throughout the testimony) and the company would pay Anderson. No one mentioned yet whether there eventually was such an electronic journal, and if there was, whether Tom wrote any articles. The question about whether they thought there would be a real journal might be leading up to the fact that there was no such journal in the end and which would make the payments seem even shadier. But I'm speculating now.

Anderson's Rationale On the video tape of the breakfast at the Whale's Tail at the Captain Cook Hotel - all you could see were Tom's hands - Tom was saying something like, I don't see any problem here because I'm doing these things because they are the right things to do, not because of the contract. He gave an example of working against a tax on RV Rentals. I didn't say, I'm against this because my mom rents RVs (which she did), but because I had the facts and the figures to show it was a bad idea.

Many politicians have argued that the money they get in campaign donations isn't a bribe. People donate because they want to support someone who believes the same things they believe. And there is validity to that argument. The problem here, at least with the testimony given so far, is that money is passing hands, and there are some specific deliverables - the four items listed above at (1). And the creation of a company so the money couldn't be easily traced. And no one was planning to tell anyone else that Anderson was getting paid by Cornell. I can imagine that the promise of an answer to his financial problems helped Tom rationalize that he was doing nothing wrong. Of course, that is the whole point of conflict of interest - our perceptions get colored by the conflict. Which is why telling others allows less biased minds to weigh in on the matter.

That covers the key points I got in court this afternoon. There was one more interesting tidbit that is totally irrelevant to the case. When Bobrick and Prewitt were at breakfast without Tom as part of the banter, Bobrick said about Ben Stevens (US Senator Ted Stevens' son), "He's got his father's worst qualities, but not his brains." Oh, my what we say when we don't know the other guy is taping the conversation.

Actually, there may be some relevance to Ben Stevens here. Trying to prove to the jury that Anderson's consulting contract was just a cover to pay him to do Cornell's business may be practice for the anticipated Ben Stevens trial. (Though he hasn't even been indicted yet.)

And one more comment. It must have been even more bizarre to Tom than it was to me to watch these two men, one of whom purportedly was his trusted mentor, talking about him and setting him up to do this. Does he feel betrayed? Or does he look on Bobrick as looking out for him, helping him get much needed cash? And if the evidence eventually shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Tom is guilty, what about these other two, older, much more experienced men, who set Tom up? Why do they get to bargain with the FBI? Just because Tom is the legislator? It seems what they were doing was as bad or worse. But, not all the cards have been played, so let's hold off on a conclusion.




When I walked out, the TV truck was still there across the street.

Go to next day post.

This Week's Blooming Flowers - Part 3

Columbine.
















I can't remember what this one is.














Lilac








Another Columbine














Mountain Ash
















And a strawberry

See also week 1 and week 2 flowers.

Changing One's Story of How Things Work

The Washington Post began a series on Dick Cheney Sunday. It's June 2007, almost six years after 9/11, and I'm sure that there are still people who will argue that this series is just a liberal smear of the vice president.

How many people have actually examined and tested the ways they distinguish between truth and falsehood and the various stages of uncertainty in between? How many people examine the 'stories' in their heads that they use to explain how the world works? Or even know that they have such stories?

Cognitive dissonance is when the actual world we experience is inconsistent with the world our stories lead us to expect. For a while, especially in national political situations, we can just dismiss what we are told as political maneuvering - in fact that is one of the 'stories' most of us have in our heads. We have to figure out when the story and the facts more or less match, and when use of the story is a way to distract from the real facts.

Questions about whether the dismissals were politically motivated have been swirling since January. But they reached a fever pitch on Tuesday with disclosures by the White House that Mr. Bush had spoken directly with Mr. Gonzales to pass on concerns from Republican lawmakers, among them Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, about the way certain prosecutors were handling cases of voter fraud.

NY Times on US Attorney Firings

At the moment, the state's former Democratic governor, Don Siegelman, stands convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges and faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison. Siegelman has long claimed that his prosecution was driven by politically motivated, Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys.

Time

Did NEJM and politically motivated whistleblowers conspire to upstage the FDA on Avandia?
The May 30 Heartwire report on fallout from the Avandia controversy (to which I linked earlier today) suggests so:

But new reports go one step further--suggesting that FDA whistleblowers coordinated with politicians critical of the agency and the study authors to get damaging data into the public arena before the FDA could issue a safety statement on rosiglitazone.

Notes from Dr RW

After politically-motivated delays, FDA approves Plan B without a prescription

NewsTarget.com

"This politically motivated move of the Andhra Pradesh Government, supported by the UPA Government at the Centre, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 340,'' he said.

The Hindu


Perhaps the dissonance is temporary, we can then retreat back into our old stories. But if it persists, eventually we have to question our stories and find better ones to explain what is happening.

This happened with Watergate. People had various stories that kept them from believing that Nixon was lying. A major story was tied up with the idea of the president of the US being our leader. He wouldn't lie to us. The Watergate hearings, live on tv, or the evening news' highlights, caused some to waiver. Eventually the tapes of Oval Office conversations convinced most people. But even then, I'm sure there were people who would have excused Watergate because they felt overall Nixon represented the greater good for the US and the world.

It seems today the same thing is happening. We don't have such a tangible clear cut single event like the Watergate tapes, but we do have dead soldiers (even if their coffins are hidden from the tv cameras), the tv coverage of Katrina, the daily Bagdad death count, the growing gap between rich and poor, the cost of medicine, etc.

And for those who read, the Washington Post series on Cheney appears to be one of the first in-depth reports on what has gone on behind the scenes in the White House.

Tuna for Whales?

Japan should offer to cut its still legal whale hunting in exchange for the rest of the world cutting way back on bluefin tuna consumption.

The New York Times reported today that a worldwide shortage of bluefin Tuna is causing alarm among Japan's sushi chefs. Apparently the world wide popularity of sushi, especially in the US, Russia, China, and South Korea, is driving up the price and the giant tuna get scarcer.

Recently, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Japan was denied their request to reopen commercial whaling

Japan threatened to abandon the International Whaling Commission, which in a meeting in Anchorage last week passed a resolution upholding a 21-year moratorium on commercial whaling.

The ADN also reports that Japan does have the right to kill some whales.

Japan kills about 1,000 whales annually and sells the meat under a scientific program allowed by the commission, although the annual whale hunt off Antarctica was cut short in February by a ship fire that killed one crew member. The program is nothing but a loophole that defies the moratorium and it should be better scrutinized, said Joel Reynolds with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Thousands of whales are killed each year, ostensibly for research, but the overwhelming majority of whale scientists around the world consider it a fraud," he said. "Essentially it's commercial whaling in the guise of scientific research."

While the world - as reflected in the Whaling Commission - rejects Japan's claims that whales are not endangered and so Japan should be free to hunt whales for Japanese to eat, I'm sure that the world would be much more sympathetic to Japan's claim to tuna in sushi.

Perhaps Japan should propose to withdraw from killing the whales it still legally hunts in exchange for other countries greatly reducing their consumption of tuna in sushi. Surely, the world would understand that sushi is fundamental to Japan and while it has become quite popular elsewhere, foreigners could make do with California rolls and other non-Tuna adaptations of sushi.

Alaska Botanical Garden - Civilizing Wilderness

The Garden is a lot like Anchorage - a tiny bit of attempted civilization hidden in the middle of the wilderness. A chunk of natural forest with a few clearings with flower beds showcasing plants that can grow here.
This weekend was the 10th Annual Garden Fair & Art Show at the Anchorage Botanical Garden.





For people trying to figure out what to plant in their gardens, all the different plants with their labels are a great resource.










The Peony is for Lyrica - Des, be sure to show it to her. Lyrica and her mother took us to the Coal Hill Garden in Beijing a couple of years ago just as the peonies were blooming. That's when peonies finally got my serious attention.






We got to the garden an hour before closing on Sunday, but just in time to hear the bagpipes - a dubious pleasure.








I have mixed feelings. Every bit of 'civilizing' here reminds me that the whole North American continent was once as wild and natural as the environment around Anchorage and if we continue what we're doing, Alaska will lose its special natural splendor. On the way to the garden we stopped at that epitome of American civilization - Costco. Convenient? Yes. Natural? Beautiful? Not even close. And Costco appears to be one of the more thoughtful big box stores - good pay and benefits for the employees, etc.

Leak and Dryer

It started raining sometime late Saturday. It's almost done now. But there was a big wet spot in the living room rug this morning (Monday.) The roof guy is supposed to call back.








I did get an email back today from our Craigslist ad and someone is calling a friend to help pick up the dryer. We've figured out the new washer and how to keep it from dripping onto the floor. The new dryer works fine. (Unfortunately, we can't stick the wet carpet into the dryer.) So, it's time to get the old one out of the garage.

Moby Dick the Musical

West High School's drama department's production of Moby Dick the Musical will be performed at the Edinburgh International Fringe Festival in August according to the

Anchorage Daily News.

Last night we saw it at UAA.

We had a lot of fun watching these great high school kids sing and act and dance. But they are going to the big time so here are a few things I hope they can nail down by the time they get to Scotland.



This is a campy play. It's kitschy and makes fun of musicals in general. But spoofs are done best by people who are really good, otherwise the audience isn't sure if it's parody or a weak performance.

The biggest issue - and I'm sure they are on top of this - for me was voice volume. The singers all had good voices and the words were clear, but most of them just didn't have the power to project. Ahab and Elijah were the exceptions. Esta was pretty strong. The rest sounded like the volume knob was turned too low much of the time and we were not too many rows back. I'd consider mikes.

A number of the actors seemed like they were acting. Well, sure, they were. But the best performances happen when everyone 'is' their part. The audience no longer sees an actor, but rather sees real people living their lives on stage. Justin Birchell (Ahab and the School Head) and Aaron Eberhardt (Elijah and Coffin) were fine. Stacia Sutherland (Esta) slipped in and out, mostly in. I'm not a theater person and I don't know how to get people to move over that line from being an actor playing a part to actually being the part. I'm guessing it's all in one's head. Are they thinking about their lines or are they mentally actually the role? It makes all the difference.



Finally, I was never sure if the whale - who was on skates - really knew how to skate. Were the awkward little steps taken to turn around part of the spoof? They did get laughs. Or was the actor really wobbly on those skates? I'll assume it was part of the spoof. In that case, just to let the audience know he can really skate, when he skates across the stage at the end, he should show his real skill.

Overall, it was a fun evening. The various actors handled the music well. And it's fun music. I wish the cast lots of fun at the Festival.