The People rested late this afternoon in Norm Ryan’s trial. No more evidence. No more witnesses. I was sorry to see this part of the trial end.
So many questions remained unanswered. For example, what did board members Yvonne Preston and Nadine Bailey find on Ryan’s desk that caused them to call police?
Assuming it’s true that the Haven folks called in their computer tech on April 3 to copy Ryan’s hard drive (and computers that previously belonged to two other – recently terminated – employees), why did Preston et al wait nine days before they involved the police?
Why did they clone the information from those computers? And why didn’t Cheryl Wright — or Preston or Bailey or Stewart Altemus — an attorney on the Haven board — ever ask Ryan to explain the discrepancies on the Southwest bill? Wouldn’t a simple, “Hey, Norm, what’s up with this?” be better than filing criminal charges? Why did Dervin push so hard on the issue of Ryan using cash, especially if he had receipts to back up his request for payment?
The time for asking questions is over.
The jury will return Tuesday for deliberation instructions from Judge Monica Marlow.
After that, Ryan’s fate is in the jurors’ hands.
But here’s what happened before the day’s conclusion:
Yes, ma’am. No, ma’am.
Norm Ryan repeated those words dozens of times during the afternoon questioning by prosecuting attorney Erin Dervin. The exchange was like a tennis match with live ammo. Dervin served rapid-fire questions, Ryan lobbed back an impassive yes-ma’am, no-ma’am’s. Back and forth like that.
Dervin pressed Ryan more about the dates that he flew to the Philippines and Portland and the dates he allegedly intended to travel to Chicago. Ryan and Dervin went round and round about Chicago, with no new ground covered.
You didn’t book a flight to Chicago?
No, ma’am.
Ryan stuck to the story, that he’d thought about going to Chicago but didn’t.
Dervin didn’t buy it.
She grilled him about why, if he’d intended to go, he’d never registered for the conference. She grilled him about why, if he’d intended to go, he’d never booked a flight to Chicago.
Then Dervin moved onto Ryan’s list of unreimbursed expenses – money still owed him by Haven. Some items Ryan said he’d formed from memory, others were prompted by canceled checks and credit card statements. Missing were original receipts, which invariably triggered variations of this exchange:
Dervin: So do you have a receipt for that item?
Ryan: Yes, not on me, though.
Dervin: Where is it?
Ryan: In my old office.
Of course, nearly every financially related item from Ryan’s office is now part of police evidence.
For the most part Ryan came across as easygoing and helpful. He did not seem rattled by Dervin’s ramped up tone, and her obvious irritation with Ryan. However, there was one instance when Dervin seemed to have broken through Ryan’s composure.
She mentioned a website called topix.com, where Dervin said Ryan had responded to an anonymous, negative comment someone had left about Ryan. During this part of Dervin’s tone was mocking. Ryan’s face flushed and looked uncomfortable — less in control than before.
This was during Dervin’s questions regarding the Long Beach reporter, John Canalis, who’d written a story about Ryan last year. Ryan said Canalis had some errors in his story about what Ryan had said — most notably regarding the alleged Chicago trip. Dervin pressed Ryan about why, if the reporter got parts of his story about Ryan wrong — why didn’t Ryan complain, or ask for a retraction or a correction or even a letter to the reporter’s boss, complaining about the errors.
Update – early Thursday afternoon
Do you recall that Southwest Airlines document/ manifest/ itinerary — the one submitted as evidence by the prosecuting attorney — the one a Southwest data expert testified on Tuesday had been “altered”?
Gazzigli asked Ryan about that Southwest paper — the one that made it appear as if Ryan flew from Redding to S.F. to Chicago and back on the company dime, probably the most damaging piece of prosecution evidence.
Gazzigli ask Ryan if Ryan created that Southwest document,
No.
Did Ryan know who created it?
No, but …
“Anything I would say would be speculation.”
Cliffhanger.
Gazzigli asked if Ryan’s computer was password-protected? Ryan said no. (No?!) At this admission, Ryan shrugged and smiled almost apologetically.
Furthermore, when Gazzigli asked Ryan whether he’d gone to Chicago during that crucial Oct. 30 – Nov. 2 time frame, Ryan said no, he hadn’t gone. Sure, Ryan said, he’d intended to go, and yes, it’s true he told people he planned to go, and yes, part of Ryan’s initial plan was to fly from Redding to San Francisco to Chicago and then on to the Philippines and back. Ambitious flight plan, Ryan said.
‘”Sounded good on paper,” Ryan said.
Ryan explained that he changed his mind — maybe around Oct. 26 or 27. (I wished someone would ask Ryan why he’d changed his mind. Maybe that was answered and I missed it.)
Regarding witnesses who said Ryan told them he had gone to Chicago, those people were mistaken.
As an aside, Ryan said he never planned to attend a Humane Society conference in Chicago, but rather a one-day Conterra fundraising conference … yes, in Chicago … which he first learned about in an American Humane Association newsletter.
So according to Ryan, he kept the plan to travel to the Philippines and ditched the plan to travel to Chicago. Ryan said he did travel to the Philippines on business — not Haven’s, but from his work in a “former life” as a finance guy, something about he needed to go to the Philippines to verify assets.
No, said Ryan, he didn’t tell Preston he’d gone to Chicago.
Yes, said Ryan, he did use Haven’s credit card to pay for his personal flight from San Francisco to the Philippines, adding, almost as an aside “I now know it was …” (Haven’s credit card) –planting the seed that his use of the Haven card was a mistake.
(Anyone who’s ever mistakenly charged a personal expense to their company card, raise your hand. I confess to accidentally charging a certain newspaper for a Starbucks gift card. Oops. Of course I paid it back.)
Ryan said he often paid for all kinds of Haven expenses – rental car, lunches, gasoline, airport parking, etc., with his own cash, checks and credit card. Did he seek reimbursement from HH?
“Occasionally,” Ryan said.
And Ryan said that whole plane-ticket reimbursement was a misunderstanding. Ryan said he thought the check he received Dec. 11 was for his September trip to Portland with an HH employee. And speaking of the Portland trip, Ryan used his own cash along the way so they could rent a car, eat out at Rose’s Deli, fill up the rental car up with gas and pay for airport parking. Plus, Ryan said he used his personal charge card to purchase their plane tickets from Redding to Portland and back.
Did Ryan submit all those expenses to Cheryl Wright, Haven’s controller?
Yes, the very next day, said Ryan.
Ryan said that it was December when Wright came to Ryan and asked if he’d like to be reimbursed for that Portland trip.
“I said, ‘I didn’t get paid for Portland?’ “
Ryan said he and Wright joked about that … like, that’s OK, Wright could always use that money to buy Christmas presents. Haha.
(Dervin later recalled Wright to the witness stand, and asked about Ryan’s version of that story of the Dec. 11 reimbursement check. Wright denied she broached the subject about it, and didn’t recollect the conversation about the Christmas presents. Wright also said Ryan didn’t submit any paperwork to her for reimbursement of the Portland trip.)
Oh, and the prosecution’s witnesses — Nadine Bailey and Yvonne Preston – the women who expressed alarm at Ryan’s one-page budget? That was just a summary page for the supporting documents — like more than a dozen pages — Ryan said, adding that those documents were available for the board members to see if they’d ask. He said no board member ever took him up on that offer.
(Did I say? Around this time, Wright was about to get a not-so-great job performance evaluation. Don’t know exactly how that will play out.)
Fast forward to an HH board meeting — not part of the regular schedule — which is why Ryan said he wasn’t aware and was not invited. Ryan said it was during that meeting that HH board members decided Ryan should go.
He said that on April 2 he was handed a cryptic letter that said Ryan’s job was done at Haven, minus an explanation of why he was being dumped immediately. Ryan said he thought the whole thing was a mistake, that things would get straightened out later. Ryan said that when he left Haven that day he didn’t know criminal charges would be filed against him. In fact, Ryan said he learned in the most circuitous way: Then-police chief Leonard Moty told Redding City Manager Kurt Starman, who told Redding City Council member Rick Bosetti, who told Ryan.
Ryan said that discovery was one week before Ryan was arrested.
Ryan said that on the day his employment with HH was “terminated” a taxi pulled up outside, followed by Preston in her car. Ryan said he learned that the taxi was intended for Ryan (he used the company van). He was asked to relinquish his van keys, Haven keys and told to get his stuff and leave.
That explains, in part, the messy office, Ryan said, although he admitted he’s not the most tidy guy, and his office actually looked about 40 percent better than shown in the evidence photos.
Finally, Norm Ryan’s testimony indicates he’s a great guy who frequently opened his wallet to pay for Haven expenses with his own money. Ryan said he even gave money to a Haven employees who needed help; like that $600 so the animal shelter officer could attend a family funeral, and $1,000 to an employee going through bankruptcy, and money to one of his employees who needed insulin but couldn’t afford it. Gazzigli asked if the employee who borrowed $600 ever paid Ryan back?
“No, but I know she’s good for it.”
All this information is what we learned after the recess when Gazzigli interviewed his client.
I was reminded of Gazzigli’s opening comments Tuesday to the jury; the part where he implored everyone to not jump to conclusions, that they’d hear testimony that painted the defendant in an unfavorable light. (Understatement.)
Gazzigli beseeched the jury to wait until they’d heard all the testimony and had seen all the evidence before they formed an opinion about Ryan.
Easier said than done. Especially after one has heard Dervin’s witnesses, and seen more than 20 pieces of seemingly damning evidence that portrayed Ryan as a dishonest, greedy, sloppy, disorganized, poor excuse for a CEO. Things looked dire for Ryan.
Gazzigli’s questions of Ryan created an entirely different story. Ryan, his face reddened and shiny, appeared eager to please (of course), and seemed almost boyish – in a golly-gee-whiz, I’m-just-as-surprised-by-these-charges-as-you-are way. Gazzigli’s first questions of Ryan established him as a family man. He named his wife and four sons by name. Then came the credentials: MBA from UCLA, a BA from Cal State Fullerton, military experience and tons of training and education. Then came all the questions about everything else. Ryan had a plausible explanation for nearly everything.
(I apologize. I’ve skipped over defense attorney Gazzigli’s witnesses Carlos Alvares. He’s the independent contract person, the computer guy paid – after an “emergency call” From HH board members Rich Steele and Yvonne Preston – to come immediately so Alvares could “clone” the hard drives of three Haven employees: Norm Ryan, Tanya Randall and Amber Bcelik – hope that’s spelled correctly.
I’m also skipping Tanya Randall’s testimony. She was the Haven clinic manager terminated from Haven on April 3 – btw, also Ryan’s last day at Haven. Prosecuting attorney Erin Dervin tore into Randall’s testimony, and brought up such details as a locked Haven file cabinet Randall asked some Haven employees to put in her car. (She said it contained her personal belongings and because she’d been fired, she was having an “out of body experience.” Dervin mentioned lunches between Randall and Ryan, which Randall said included others.)
Update – Thursday a.m.
Court recess until 10:30 a.m., I’ll type fast.
So far here’s what happened: Prosecution’s first witness Matt Zalesny, RPD investigator. He works in the financial crimes unit. Prosecution attorney Erin Dervin performed a painstaking interview regarding a box of papers (Exhibit No. 21) from Norm Ryan’s office. After the box description, we learned about some of the contents of the box: bank statements, a travel itinerary and misc. paperwork.
Defense attorney Joe Gazzigli asked questions about who provided the box to the RPD. Former Haven board member and interim CEO Yvonne Preston was who Zalesny recalled providing the box to the RPD, which was picked up by an RPD service officer and taken to RPD. Gazzigli asked if Haven controller was the provider of the box, and Zalesny said that wasn’t his impression.
By 9:25 Erin Dervin rested her case, meaning she’d bring no more evidence — no further witnesses.
Next came some court stipulations, meaning items on which both the defense and prosecution agreed.
OK, recess over. Be back later.
Wednesday’s Trial, below
Before the jury was called in to Shasta Superior Court Judge Monica Marlow’s courtroom for Norm Ryan’s criminal trial, Marlow presided over a “402 hearing” attended by Erin Dervin, prosecuting attorney, and Joe Gazzigli, defense attorney to talk with John Canalis, a reporter with the Long Beach Press Telegram.
Canalis wrote a story last year about Norm Ryan, a former Long Beach politician. (Click here to read John Canalis’ story.)
Although Canalis was called as a prosecution witness, Gazzigli expressed interest in what else Ryan may have discussed with the reporter beyond the published parts of Ryan’s telephone conversation with Canalis.
Marlow, Dervin and Gazzigli discussed such points as when a reporter’s privilege should be balanced against a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial.
At one point Gazzigli asked Canalis if the reporter recalled information from Ryan’s conversation that hadn’t been published, to which Canalis said he did recall, but wouldn’t say, invoking a reporter’s right to not disclose privileged information.
Gazzigli said he wanted the unpublished information from Canalis so Gazzigli could discern which parts of the reporter’s story came from Ryan himself, and which parts the reporter gleaned from documents, such as those provided by the Redding Police Department – documents Gazzigli claimed contained some mistakes, namely, incorrect dates.
By the end of the 402 hearing, Marlow did not order Canalis to answer questions about unpublished information. Rather, Marlow said she wanted time to listen to witnesses, do some research and decide how to best proceed with the issue.
When Marlow asked Canalis what the reporter would do if Marlow ordered him to answer questions (about unpublished information received during Ryan’s interview), Canalis said, ” I’d have to contact my attorney.”
With that, Marlow said she preferred to “take a step at a time” and see how things went during the trial and with witnesses.
John Canalis, Long Beach Press Telegram reporter
Court in session
Prosecutor Dervin’s opening statement set the tone of her case: “The story you’ll hear is about greed.”
She told the jury they’d learn Ryan never went to a conference in Chicago, but instead flew to Manila on the dates he claimed he’d been in Chicago – and then seek reimbursement for the personal trip.
Defense attorney Gazzigli told the jury that there was no question Ryan didn’t go to Chicago, no question Ryan did go to the Philippines, and no question that Ryan paid for the trip with his Haven Humane business credit card – “But that was a mistake,” added Gazzigli, almost as an aside. (Gazzigli can be difficult to hear sometimes.)
Gazzigli also said that when Ryan left Haven Humane, the former CEO had $1,500 in outstanding personal expenses.
“I’m not here to tell you Haven Humane is a bad place,” Gazzigli said. “Did he (Norm) intend to steal $1,300 from Haven? No. Is he guilty of stealing from Haven? No. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Should he have done some things differently? Yes.”
All the while, Ryan sat quietly and listened to testimony as his wife sat on the same side of the courtroom, several feet behind her husband.
First witness
The jury was called in to hear the prosecution’s first witness, Cheryl Wright, Haven’s controller.
Wright never wavered in her negative characterization of Ryan, a boss who was generally unavailable, often away from the office (no idea where he’d gone), hardly ever spoke to her, kept a messy office (we heard a lot about that messy office) – “complete disarray” – and that Ryan didn’t hand in paperwork in a timely fashion, ignored repeated requests – spoken and written – for documentation regarding credit card purchases and/or reimbursement requests.
Wright said Haven even paid some bills late because Ryan often took so long to sign the checks for payment.
One piece of crucial evidence Dervin showed during Wright’s testimony was a copy of a Southwest Airlines itinerary that Wright said she’d only seen briefly, when Ryan showed it to Wright just long enough for her to cut a reimbursement check to Ryan for his alleged Chicago trip.
Wright said Ryan never actually gave her that paper, so she later found it in his office, copied it and put it in her files. (Later, Gazzigli said he’d wondered how Wright got that copy.)
The often-mentioned Chicago conference, and whether Ryan did or did not attend, or did or did not say he attended, was a key topic in the trial since the conference was supposedly one of the items for which Ryan was reimbursed.
Gazzigli made some headway when Wright admitted she didn’t have accounting for every single expense charged to the animal shelter’s credit cards. Gazzigli was also able to substantiate that although Wright’s desk, which used to be near the CEO’s office, was moved somewhere in Haven boondocks, this happened before Ryan’s time at the shelter.
Gazzigli also scored points for the defense when Wright acknowledged she didn’t recall reimbursing Ryan for a trip that Ryan and another employee – Capt. Leanne Smith – took to Portland months before the alleged Chicago trip.
Computer expert
The prosecution called Dan Kartchner, forensic computer expert and chief investigator for Shasta County District Attorney’s office. He described software that allowed him to see not just what was on Ryan’s computer but also what had been deleted from Ryan’s computer. Kartchner said he found different user profiles for Ryan on the former CEO’s computer, and a resume, and finally, airline reservations documentation.
Kartchner said it was easy to alter documents on a computer.
Gazzigli asked no questions of of the computer expert. (Note: No mention was made of the porn images found on Ryan’s computer, a detail mentioned Tuesday – out of earshot of the jury.)
Southwest expert
Perhaps the most damning testimony of the day came from Mark Wolston, a custodian of records for Southwest Airlines. Dervin methodically questioned Wolston about how he combed the airline’s records for any sign that Ryan flew to Chicago on Southwest Airlines during that Oct.-30-to-Nov.-2 period – the time frame noted on the paper Wright found in Ryan’s office from which she’d reimbursed Ryan for travel expenses. No record of Ryan during that time frame, at least not on Southwest, Wolston said.
When Dervin asked for Wolston’s conclusion regarding the Southwest document (that Ryan showed to Wright for travel reimbursement), Wolston answered, “That the information was incorrect. It had been altered.”
Then came the next witness, a representative of Philippine Airlines, who provided even more damaging evidence to Ryan’s case when the airline representative showed records that proved Ryan flew from San Francisco to Manila during the exact time of the alleged Chicago conference – Oct. 30 to Nov. 2.
Long Beach reporter
John Canalis was called as a witness (this was the jury’s first time to see/hear him). He answered questions, but each time only after he consulted his published story.
Gazzigli brought up the subject of unpublished information that the reporter gained during the phone call with Ryan. When Gazzigli asked Canalis if the reporter kept notes of his Ryan interview, Canalis said yes, but he no longer had them.
When Gazzigli asked if Canalis could remember anything said by Ryan that was not in the story, Canalis invoked the California shield law.
“I’m willing to discuss what’s published,” Canalis said. “But I’m not willing to discuss other parts because that’s privileged.”
Haven board members turned witnesses
Former board members Nadine Bailey and Yvonne Preston were questioned, respectively. Bailey said she’d initially been impressed with Ryan because of his business degrees and strong financial background. In fact, Bailey was so impressed she was part of the committee that offered Ryan the job as CEO.
However, Bailey said she became concerned over time about cash flow problems at the animal shelter, that more was going out than in. Bailey said when she asked Ryan about the large amounts of out-going money, he was evasive and “didn’t seem to have any answers.”
Bailey also described a skimpy financial report offered by Ryan at a board meeting that contained just six lines and two or three columns.
“It wasn’t adequate for an organization like that,” Bailey said.
Bailey said that eventually the board decided to terminate Ryan’s employment with the animal shelter, and when they did, they did it quickly, asking Ryan to leave immediately.
Again, the topic of the aesthetic condition of Ryan’s office was addressed. Dervin showed as evidence color photos of Ryan’s desk and office area.
Bailey said that after Ryan was asked to leave Haven, Bailey and some other board members went into Ryan’s old office, she saw some things that inspired her to call the Redding Police to investigate. (Note: Here’s the unanswered question: What exactly did Bailey see in Ryan’s office that compelled her to call the police? Something more than a messy desk, we hope.)
When Gazzigli questioned Bailey he mentioned the fact that the board gave Ryan a $5,000 raise, which seemed a sign of approval of the CEO’s performance.
Yvonne Preston was the next Haven board member called by the prosecution. Preston echoed Bailey’s early positive take on Ryan, and how she was initially impressed with the board’s pick of a new CEO. But Preston said her confidence in Ryan waned over the months. Of course, she mentioned the state of Ryan’s office.
“It was mayhem, littered with all kinds of stuff,” Preston said.
As Bailey did, Preston also mentioned Ryan’s flimsy financial report, to which Gazzigli pointed out that the organization had a financial person who provided a longer, more in-depth financial report to the board.
Gazzigli questioned Preston at length regarding the time gaps between when Ryan left Haven, and when Bailey called police, and when the police finally arrived to pick up Ryan’s computer:
Nine days.
Last witness of the day
The prosecution called Captain Leanne Smith, animal regulation officer for Haven for 21 years. She told about a day trip she took with Ryan to Portland on Haven business in which Ryan shared with Smith information about an upcoming humane society conference, and that Ryan planned to take a trip from there to “Taiwan or something like that.”
Gazzigli asked Smith if Ryan had ever given Smith $600, to which Smith said yes, that a sudden death in the family required Smith fly to Texas. Smith said Ryan gave her $600 because she didn’t have enough oney to make the trip.
That’s it for now. Next up: Thursday’s trial
