The Lancaster Newspapers does not like to be confrontational, especially when dealing with establishment figures. Yet it has the sense of decency to provide information deep in the articles of considerable surprise and significance. Such is the case of “Behind the scenes at Woomer trial.”
The sub-heading states “Transcript reveals nurse convicted in boy’s death declined to take lie detector test; had vials and syringes containing drugs – but not morphine – at her home.”
More revealing information was a discussion of why it took the district attorney four whole years to getting around to filing charges. The following is excerpted from the transcript as reported in the Intelligencer Journal New Era:
“During one discussion in Ashworth’s chambers, according to testimony in the eight-volume transcript, Assistant District Attorney Randall Miller said a ‘significant portion of the delay in this case was while we were waiting for (Woomer) to make up her mind as to whether or not to take the polygraph exam.’
“ ‘That was back in 2003, 2004,’ defense attorney Christopher Patterson responded, ‘and she wasn’t charged until 2008.’
“ ‘But the delay,’ Patterson continued, ‘wasn’t caused for four years because she wouldn’t take …’
“ ‘What was it caused by?’ Ashworth asked.
“ ‘It was caused by the fact they didn’t have a report that they liked,’ Patterson said, perhaps referring to medical analysis. ‘That’s what it was caused by.’
“ ‘Well, that’s your position,’ Ashworth said. ‘What’s the Commonwealth’s position as to what the delay was caused by?’
“Assistant District Attorney Karen Mansfield explained that the delay was caused, in part, when the case was transferred to her from another prosecutor.”
Concerning the subheading of the article, the transcript says: “ “I think the prejudice of bringing up the polygraph and her right against self-incrimination and her right not to take the polygraph outweighs any probative value of allowing any reference to the polygraph in,’ Ashworth told the attorneys.'”
Polygraph tests are notoriously unreliable and some types of personalities are likely to appear to be lying when they are telling the truth. Therefore, they are not admissible in court.
It is what is related at the very end of the article that might well have been a more appropriate sub-title:
“The judge reminded the attorneys that if they had any questions, they should stop the trial and ask him, rather than speak out of turn in the courtroom.
” ‘We don’t need to have this house of cards come tumbling down at the last moment,’ Ashworth told the attorneys.”
We interpret the “house of cards” reference to an allusion by the judge to the case being based strictly on circumstantial evidence.
The Watchdog’s observation is that Woomer, like Dr. Richard Carter, should have been charged for Reckless Endangerment, not Third Degree Murder. This may well be a case of bad judgment on the part of the district attorney.
