Late yesterday, the jury submitted another question to the judge. The judge, her staff, my attorney, me, and the prosecutor convened to discuss how it should be answered.

The question was a three part one, (paraphrasing) 'What, if anything, is the difference between the following:

"database" and "data base".
(another similar question about the term "database" I will enter when I get to my notes).
"database" and "data".'

There was some disbelief and amusement by both sides and perhaps even the judge, but I don't think the question itself could be opined upon unless the context of the question as related to the specific point and related discussions the jury was considering at the point they were asking it was known, which cannot be known except to the jury itself.

All agreed on a response for the jury by the judge, which was just essentially to give the response to read the jury instructions and that they had been given all the evidence and law with which to deliberate with.

The jury was then brought out for the judge to give the answer to as well as to dismiss them for the weekend, as it was well after the customary 4 PM quitting time for the court.

The jury was brought out and given the answer, as well as the standard and "custom" for the particular trial admonitions on what not to do until they started again Monday. When one juror realized they had to show up again Monday, she yelled the word "fuck" under her breath while making an emphasizing head movement in addition to the unambiguous "read my lips" version of the word.

Then, as Sci-Fi fans like me will know from where the term originated, from my perspective, "something wonderful" happened. Judging by the last few weeks in the courtroom and the judge's actions there, some of which are noted in previous blogs, it was unintentionally worded "in my favor" to the jury, but at this point I will take all such things that may help me be cleared of these obviously retaliatory and undeserved charges brought by Boeing and their prosecutor, no matter how few their number or minor they are.

The judge gave the usual admonition to the jury to not do any research on their own and to avoid any news about the trial or Boeing, but she added new news for them to avoid. She added to those prohibitions, "any news about airlines, and any news about any investigation of the FAA by Congress."

Fantastic, it was! I was told later that one of the jurors seemed to react extremely surprised at that point, her body language in effect stating, "there's an investigation by Congress of the FAA? Wow, I didn't know that!" As I was told later, if any juror didn't know the FAA was being investigated by Congress, they did after that admonition from the judge.

While the fact that there is a Congressional investigation of the FAA is not something that affects the jury's instructions on how to procede to decide the case, it just might lend some more credibility to my testimony in some juror's minds that may have not have believed my testimony on the corruption of the FAA that negated any true investigation of Boeing's massive noncompliances with its Production and Type Certificates that I reported all of the way up the corrupt management ranks of the FAA, and which they could not investigate without exposing their own ongoing complicity in that corruption. I was the only witness in my defense, so it is somewhat important that the truth of my testimony be corroborated, although it was in a few of the pieces in evidence--my letter to Doug Bain, former Chief Counsel of the Boeing Company that the prosecutor and Boeing used only tiny portions of out of context in order to try to show the jury I was only trying to get money from Boeing to keep quiet about their corruption (which is easily debunked by someone reading more than the two small passages they read at trial), and my statement to the police.

The jury was then dismissed, and will reconvene on Monday at 9 AM.

I think some jurors have seen the truth in this case, and were not swayed immediately to the wrong decision by the intentional misinformation and sheer positions of power of the prosecutor and Boeing during the trial. I would be surprised if they would vote to convict me after all of this deliberation time, but I don't venture to predict which way they are leaning or what their decision ultimately will be.

I got up early this morning and was flipping channels on the TV when I came across a call in show on CSPAN discussing the hearings last week about FAA corruption in oversight of the airlines. Not being neutral on the issue, obviously, I tried to call in to give my 2 cents on the issue--that it was not limited to just the FAA's oversight of the airlines.

Amazingly, I managed to get through during the twenty minute "open line" time at the end of the segment. I managed to get in the fact that the same thing was occurring between the FAA and Boeing, and some of the history of my battle to end that corruption. The host asked me what Boeing and the King County Prosecutor had charged me with when I brought that up, but I believe my call was dropped somewhere in my description of the charges (I was on my cell phone, which gets pretty bad reception in my neighborhood). Unfortunately I did not mention my name, and I don't know if they did before I was put on. If so, it was likely just my first name. Maybe not a good idea, but perhaps some people in Washington, D.C. the show is geared for got the message. There are other ways for me to get the news of the similar but more pervasive fraud between Boeing and the FAA to the correct people in the other Washington, but the power of my message has been sabotaged intentionally by Boeing and the King County Prosecutor in order to punish me as well as silence me as much as possible for my life or death-like efforts in my prior whistleblowing on this FAA/Boeing fraud. Of course it did mean life or death to countless people that I succeeded at exposing the still ongoing fraud between the FAA and Boeing management, but that was not even allowed to be considered in my trial for just the few errors I made along that trek that they could twist the law around and in doing so hope to both retaliate against me in a cruel way for my past whistleblowing, as well as end my efforts to get the FAA's fraud ended by the DOT OIG and make me much less a threat to that ongoing fraud if I did contact such authorities.