Hey there biohacking village. Thanks for this opportunity to speak today. My name's Quadi and the name of my talk today is there and back again a healthcare cybersecurity policy tale. We're going to go ahead and get started. A little bit about myself before I began. First and foremost, I'm a hacker so I grew up in the hacker space. I go to hacker conferences I really identify with the hacker mindset and I use a lot of the same skills and tools as hackers to do my day job. Which is actually being an emergency medicine doctor so most of the time when I'm at work I'm in the emergency department taking care of all sorts of sick patients that come to me whether or not they'd be having heart attacks or strokes or having severe infections like sepsis or or last year and a half or so and having COVID infections. Really combining those two worlds was something that I've had the tremendous honor of being able to do so I am both a hacker and a doctor combine those together. I really guides my research. So I do some active research on medical device vulnerabilities possible infrastructure vulnerabilities and the point of that really being. I care a lot about patient privacy and security but I care more about their health and safety and that cyber attacks including ransomware attacks are impacting my patients health and I want to study that. I'm also unapologetically a geek sorry not sorry you're going to see a lot of geeky meme references in my presentation and I'm sorry you're gonna have to deal with that. My Twitter account is at CDM FMD hit me up if you have questions. So, when contemplating what to speak about today, I had a lot of different things I can go over I could talk about some new research that came out I could talk about some new aspect of the problem that people might not understand from a clinical workflow situation. But really the more and more I thought about it. The more I felt kind of hopeless. And it's that the problem has not changed much since we started talking about this right hospitals are still under attack. In fact, the ransomware attacks of the last several years are increasing in frequency sophistication disruptive potential. That's not going away. There's been a lot of medical devices you know there has been a lot of work done by the FDA I see maybe a shimmering glimmer of hope in the future for really improving the medical device cyber security posture but with that being said there's still a lot of operational issues a lot of problems with legacy medical devices and as a consequence, what we have is pretty much the same damn conversation that we've been having for last 10 years on this and what what I wanted to do with this talk is to say, well, we've admired this problem. So long we've danced around some potential solutions most of those we say are called to action you know do something about it but what are we talking about would be required to actually make this problem, even a little bit better at a scale that would matter. So I hope today to talk a little bit about maybe moving in a little bit of a different direction realizing that, although it's very important for hackers in the community get involved we're only so we can only do so much. And truly we need to be talking about really big solutions to try to move this needle. So, I think to reframe the problem is that we're continued, we're continually having these issues and not having a much improvement, we're pissed off, and we're tired. And that's a dangerous combination to have people not care about this problem, as much as they should, and you can ask a lot of people in the space I think they feel the same way and they work so hard to try to move the needle, and it doesn't really work. So, the other thing to say is well hold on a second, is this even a fixable problem, and I think that the answer is personal. You know you can't fix cybersecurity vulnerabilities. That's not the nature of the problem. There are going to be a navigable flaws in hardware and software that are going to allow for vulnerabilities and exploitation of those vulnerabilities to change the function of a system to where it wasn't intended. And it's discussion that, you know, we need to finally push this boulder to the top of the mountain, and then we'll fix this issue we can move on as one that is just not in base in reality. Instead what we should be understanding is that we have particularly vulnerable set of circumstances right now that we need to fix, and then we need to establish sound policy and a good foundation to not fix this issue of healthcare cybersecurity devices but to instead be able to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, so that we can take care of patients, patients to get the care that they need, you know in a hospital in their clinic wherever it may be. And the risk of a large cyber attack disrupting that and impacting their safety or their data is greatly reduced. So what is that going to actually require it's not going to be a fix we're not going to finally do some legislative action or finally some hackers are going to stand up and it's going to be fixed it's going to be something we're dealing with a very long time. And if we actually take a little bit of an outward gaze of it. We could fix a vast majority of the problems we have now of course there will be new ones, but then we have to really look at a global approach and understand how we tackle this issue not just in the United States but across the globe. It's also a very, very hard problem so a little bit of a continuation of the work is often we're tired, but I think if anything it shouldn't encourage us to be renewed in our enthusiasm to try to try to make this problem at least a little bit better. The first things I wanted to bring up, you know quite frankly is that we have very little data. This is a problem. You know we can't make meaningful decisions and really get to the heart of an issue if we can't even measure how big the problem is. You know there are many possibilities in this one that the data if we had it would show that cybersecurity risks to patient safety and care quality are overblown. And that all of this energy and time and technology and money that we put into trying to make this problem better could actually be better spent by giving it to cancer research for example. That's one possibility. The other possibility is that there's much patient harm going on right there's to the degree that we don't even understand. There may be drastic impacts of patient safety and care quality to where this isn't really meaningful thing to focus on, and to work to improve. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. But again, if we can't even collect the basic data. We can't even measure the magnitude of the problem. It's unreasonable for us to expect to have decent solution. What is that going to mean for us moving forward well we're going to have to collect that data. There are a lot of problems with that. First of all, when I went to go write a paper I went to go see if there was a centralized repository or a database of ransomware healthcare attacks. I went to see really how prevalent this was, and most of what I was getting our industry reports, there are companies that have a vested interest in selling products and services around ransomware protection and or response and mitigation whatever it may be, and that they use their methodology to try to extract the magnitude of the issue and it's better than nothing for sure, but what I would suggest we need is a more rigorous approach to collecting this data more academic and scientifically validated process why when we collect, even something as basic as how many hospitals are getting hit with ransomware and what are the impact and magnitude of that of those attacks. What I'm saying I'm going to kind of throw a wrench into here is discussion of whether or not there should be mandatory reporting. This is not a easy thing to suggest or is so obvious a solution to our problems instead it's just a first step into discussing, you know, would something like if you're infected with ransomware at a hospital you have to report to a centralized agency. For example, when you were hit when you fully recovered what you were hit with and perhaps if you paid the ransom and how much those basic demographic type of things aren't present, and I think what we should be focusing on is, how can we encourage an environment where any of this isn't disincentive and disincentivized what do I mean by that, because ransomware attacks involve often protected health information. Many hospitals immediately after being hit by ransomware do not discuss the specifics of the ransomware they're trying to recover, they're trying to negotiate potentially a ransom payment, they're trying to show up their systems. And they are also afraid of a violation of HIPAA and a big fine. Those are all kind of a perfect storm for hospitals and other health organizations to not want to have to talk about this. So how do we destigmatize this, as well as allow an environment where reporting isn't seen as such a negative thing and said the value of the data is so important that it's self evident that people should report then if that doesn't work. And so we have to compel organizations in a give and take way to report that, for instance, discussions of safe harbor or anonymization of data to a meaningful way with hospitals to get assurances that they won't be identified with they report that particular information. But even something as basic as that would go a long way for us to record and then measure the impact of cyber attacks and healthcare. The great is that it's very clear that, in addition to having a lack of just very basic information we do not have a research infrastructure in place to study this what do I mean by this heart disease cancer diabetes these are horrible horrible pathophysiological conditions that result in lots of morbidity and mortality for human beings across this entire planet. So our organization government organizations that fund research into these types of diseases for the purpose of alleviating human suffering in depth what does that mean they invest in researchers to actually study these phenomena these particular diseases. Well my second call here and perhaps not too much of a controversial one is really that these types of agencies the national suit of health the National Science Foundation should prioritize funding into this not just by giving dollars and sense, but also to encourage researchers across the United States and globally to actually make this an area of study. If you go and look at the research you go go into PubMed and start looking into the patient care implications of cyber attacks, you're going to find a handful of papers if that that's amazing to me we see this on the front page of magazines, almost every single day newspapers magazines on the internet almost every single day healthcare ransomware healthcare cyber attacks medical device vulnerabilities but yet our infrastructure our scientists at the heart of being able to study a problem like this aren't focusing on it. And I think that's a missed opportunity. So my call is is then to develop a funding stream for research and encourage researchers across the globe to actually study this. The paper that we published discussing how cyber attacks are like disasters for a hospital hospitals prepare for certain disasters as part of being a hospital. If they are a hospital tornado alley. They have a plan for what happens if a large tornadoes around the more of a tornado actually hits the hospital. If they're in earthquake zone they have the same. These types of hazards to the hospital and their ability to take care of patients and do business should take into consideration cyber attacks and many of them do. It's become so prevalent now that many forward thinking hospitals are preparing for cyber attacks like disasters. This is a relatively new concept. And why am I bringing this up I talked about this in other forms before of course it makes sense cyber attacks can be so debilitating to a healthcare organization that of course they can look like disasters but the point of it is. Now we're learning something new. Cyber disasters impacting a particular hospital hit with ransomware for example, is one thing what happens to the care of patients at that facility, where they don't have an electronic health record, or they don't have medical devices such as CT scanners whatever it may actually be. There's the impact of patient care at that specific hospital or hospitals that are hit. But now we know something new. It's truly this concept of this healthcare ecosystem. Unfortunately, 2020 was such a horrible thing. 2021 shaping up to not be much better, but we learned something here, which I think is important to point out. It's very obvious. When you think about it said hospitals and other healthcare organizations will talk about a slide in a minute about what this healthcare ecosystem is like, they form symbiotic relationships and so what happens to one affects the other. This makes sense. Let's talk about that in the concept of a ransomware attack. If you have a metropolitan area taking care of five million people. There's going to be a finite number of hospitals and other healthcare facilities in that region, right. Well, not every hospital is equipped to take care of every type of patient we have trauma centers we have stroke centers we have cardiac arrest and heart attack centers that focus on particularly sick patients that specialize in their care. And furthermore, there's a finite number of hospitals to take care of all the patients but we don't have redundancies meaning we don't have backup hospitals of things go down. What we learned with a recent ransomware attack was that five hospitals in a geographic location went down. And then all the adjacent hospitals to that system that went down, I could pick up the slack. They saw huge influxes of patients to the emergency department. They saw huge increases in the amount of ambulances that had to come to their facilities. They saw increased numbers of strokes and heart attacks. What does that mean, it means that even if you're aren't hit by ransomware, because of the healthcare ecosystem, you can still be impacted. The only way from that is that air can suffer across a geographic area when one healthcare system of many goes down. We could realize that we're only as protected as our least defended communities meaning one hospital might invest a lot in cybersecurity one may not, but it matters that they all do, because what happens that one will affect the other as wise will be one It's not just hospitals. You know, we had this miracle, you know, I'm not religious I mean like a spiritual or religious miracle but I mean, we had this amazing thing happen where the, where coven happened, and we were very quickly able to develop a vaccine for that's amazing required a lot of science research infrastructure drug development and logistics to actually make that happen in the short amount of time that it did. And that was to respond to a crisis and what I think it shows is that of course that makes sense that there are so many pieces of this healthcare ecosystem, all of which are running vulnerable connected infrastructure and something happens that one part of the ecosystem is going to affect the other if the researchers doing COVID research and developing that vaccine were hit with ransomware even a delay of weeks to months in that regard, would have resulted in millions more dead. And likewise with things like PPE production, etc. It's a very complex and intricate web. And what we should realize is that we really have a bigger problem than just biting off medical device cybersecurity or just talking about hospital infrastructure and ransomware resiliency truly to surely make a resilient and thinkable healthcare system we have to raise the bar for everybody. This is the concept of the cyber haves and have nots. I've worked in all of these hospital types of hospitals. I've worked in hospitals that are very poor that have no resources they don't have two nickels to wrap together. They have the latest connected medical devices. They have old antiquated electronic health records. They have very vulnerable infrastructure and I've worked at other facilities that had marble floors, and we're very well resourced and and could take it and have the expertise to do a decent job of cybersecurity. These hospitals can be across the street from each other sometimes, or in the case of rural hospitals or critical access hospitals sometimes there's only one hospital near you and the next one can be 500 miles away. What we really have are cyber haves and have nots in healthcare. And what we need to realize is that we need to raise the bar for everybody, because one affects the other, and it's just the right thing to do. So how do we do that. How do we accomplish something like that given that that's a pretty tall order. Well, perhaps the second thing I want to talk about today is to say, I've really seen recently that we need to engage us at a national policy level. And that we could continue to try to solve this at the micro level and that will be a big important thing we're going to need hospitals to step up individually of course we're going to need medical device manufacturers continue to do that clinics etc. We need the private sector to help accomplish that but I think I'm thinking more and more. I'm convinced that we're going to need some real national legislation on this and what would that look like. And how would we be able to do this in a way that's actually effective and not counterproductive. What I thought about that and some other people have been talking about using this mechanism to do such a thing. I wanted to bring it to everyone's attention here and to discuss what something like this might look like. Many people are talking about and what it reminds me of is something called the 2009 high tech as part of a large investment in America there's a big spending bill and part of this was this high tech act. Part it was designed to improve electronic health record adoption among health care. It did many other things but just the at the heart of it that was one of the biggest things it tried to do so what do you what do you mean in 2009 we had a bill that said hospital should be off of paper records and be electronic health records the answers yes and after that many hospitals and health care systems were still on paper in even in 2009. And so many people are shocked to find that like well I don't go every hospital I engage in now is on electronic health record well it probably was because of this 2009 high tech act and there were people and there were hospitals before that electronic health record sometimes over a decade, but it took this legislation to really catalyze the change. There are reportedly though there were three stages to the legislation and basically stage one was data capture and sharing stage two was advanced clinical processes and stage three was to try to leverage all that technology to improve health care the thought was, is that electronic health records are much better than paper. They're more efficient. We can save money by sharing records. There were lots of reasons why the United States would care about making sure our hospitals were on electronic health records. It did a good job in doing that now there were a lot of failures and we're going to talk a little bit about that in a minute but one of the things that it succeeded in was at least offering carrots, you know this concept of carrots or sticks you want to incentivize people versus penalize them as a way to catalyze change. What they did was they would increase the amount of money that the federal government would give them for certain Medicare funding for patients so for example, you have Medicare you go see a hospital and if they met stage one. They were self certified that they met this level of electronic health record use that satisfied stage one while then when they send a bill to the federal government for your health care. The government would give them a little bit extra because they met this particular standards that was the parent. If you go to electronic health record you meet these types of standards under stage one or stage two or stage three as time went on. They're going to give you a little bit more money. Well that was thought to be a way to incentivize the hospitals and do that they get these incentive payments and they could use that to pay back the investment they made in the electronic health record. And what would realize is that we can't keep giving money out for everybody for for the type of stuff for in perpetuity so it transitioned from a carrot to a stick and where, where and as the years moved on you get less and less money and in fact at one point it flipped and said you will give you less money, taking care of Medicare patients, unless you're on electronic health record and that was successful in a lot of ways of making hospitals and health care organizations go towards electronic health records. Failures. Some people cite the involvement of vendors in this by looting the recommendations some cited failures in clearly defining interoperability requirements and long story short, despite its failures, it was successful in catalyzing change the question is, can we use this model. It's a way to improve healthcare cyber security in some type of legislative action. So the thought is, is this something that could pass you know could you get the house and the Senate to agree on a bill and could you get the president to sign something that would improve meaningfully the cybersecurity of health care. And could you do so by using this type of stages meaningful use type model. None of this, to my knowledge is very public, or exactly what would eventually end up in a bill yet I think is still being figured out. But the thought would be something like staged approaches you know we can't take a rule critical access hospital that has basically no cybersecurity protections and expect them to have a high level protections in a year without substantial internal money, as well as expertise which we've talked about time and time again we just really don't have a lot of healthcare cyber security expertise so you can do that overnight. But thought would be that you could do it in stages, and perhaps you list a bunch of controls you can say hey multi factor authentication is useful in in protecting some of these types of attacks or reducing your risk. In fact authentication will be on a list of certain controls that could be part of a stage one, satisfying a stage one. And then stage two, maybe a little bit more stringent, you move towards a better architecture for example, or you would adopt additional controls to continue to harden your infrastructure and then stage three of course, hopefully meeting a really meaningful defensive posture for hospitals as well as have built in the appropriate infrastructure each individual healthcare organization, so they can continue defending updating patching learning about the latest vulnerabilities and defending their enterprise essentially. So my thoughts, you know, about self attestation, you know, auditing hospitals and help you to the organizations that say yes we meet these certain benchmarks. And then if you get audited and you actually didn't, then perhaps you could suffer some tremendous fine. So should we use and set an incentivation incentives, should we use incentives like CMS monies, right. So, should we say you get more money from the government for every patient you take care of with Medicare, if you're particularly secured. So stage one, but what I want to bring out is that perhaps we use this type of legislation to also provide some type of safe harbor or protections for certain data breach implications and I know it's very controversial. But let me just hear me out for one second as a potential mechanism to incentivize hospitals to do this. One of the ways that the hospital was to meet a certain criteria of cyber safety or cybersecurity protections, and then they still get breached right they have a state actor, or a zero day hits them. And they have loss of patient records, the thought being, because they met certain benchmarks that were clearly defined by the law, should they still be liable for HIPAA finds under OCR, for example. One would say that that would be incentivizing of hospitals to do this if they could say, we met a certain standard, we had this particular type of attack, and we shouldn't be fine the same amount as if we had not invested in cybersecurity at all. And then perhaps to further incentivize hospitals to not pay fines but use that type of money to reinvest back into cybersecurity would potentially be another carrot to offer hospitals to do this because it's clear that such a endeavor as this would be tremendously expensive. I think it's clear that many people who would say the government should fund something like this would probably also say that we should have the same carrot eventually turns into a stick and that certain hospitals that don't meet standards eventually should have some disincentive for continuing to do that. So would you tie this bill into other types of additional efforts outside of this meaningful use framework. Yeah, you could, there's been Jeff Corman and others have discussed this concept of a cash for clunkers for old medical devices gives big legacy medical issue medical device issue. So just get those out of circulation the thought would be that you could subsidize the cost of buying new more secure medical devices and turn in your old ones could also be a part of such a legislative action or a legislative bill. And then I think it's clear and you probably heard me talk about this previously it's clear that we need to educate nurses doctors technicians other people in this space about healthcare cybersecurity, not only for a advocate from safety, but also for data protection you know their users of this technology, and they're often responsible for these breaches through fishing attack etc. There's a lot. There's a lot of things in here I think that will be encouraging a further dialogue and conversation you know there'll be many people on the spectrum. And the private sector can solve this uniquely to hospitals are overregulated why would you encourage something like this three. This isn't improving we need something else to spur action. I hope that this talk was a was received in a way to spur dialogue and then encourage you to engage with your representatives that is probably the biggest thing I could recommend at the end of this is that there's it's clear that we need to do something big and bold in my mind and doing that in a mindful and thoughtful way as to how it will impact actual health care delivery is important. All of you out there listening today have tremendous expertise and knowledge in this space that needs to be honest to craft a meaningful bill. I hope that if you have strong opinions on any part of this so and more that you make those make those known to your, your representatives in Congress and elsewhere. And then I hope that we as a community of anchors have meaningful policy conversations, because we possess unique technical insights that often representatives don't. So when they're drafting language and using particular explanations of what particular controls can be they can make mistakes and us as hackers are experts at gaming systems. We don't want that to be the case and something like this we want something meaningful. And with that I'm going to go ahead and say, send me any questions you have on Twitter. And if you have any thoughts about something you'd like in policy please send them my way, perhaps we could establish some type of form and dialogue where we can collect all that. Hit me up on Twitter. And again, thank you very much.


And Wayne didn't even put a movie out yet. What? He didn't even put a movie out yet. When I tell you that Hollywood is, they knocking at the door, not like this. They banging like that. They knocking like the feds. Trying to get that boy in there. Because if I could make ten million dollars and I don't even got to leave my cell phone, you know what they thinking. Ooh. Yeah, we on Boss Talk 101. 101. Yeah, we going to talk. So Forbes list, you got to start somewhere. At 34 years old, ten million. And the biggest comedian right now, Kevin Hart, was at 7.5. And Wayne didn't even put a movie out yet. What? He didn't even put a movie out yet. When I tell you that Hollywood is, they knocking at the door, not like this. They banging like that. They knocking like the feds. Trying to get that boy in there. Because if I could make ten million dollars and I don't even got to leave my cell phone, you know what they thinking. Ooh. Wow. We'll put up a hundred million in them. Yeah, but the way how y'all move, I can see him doing his own movie. We ought to shot it. Oh. So you know better. We ought to shot it. Right. Rather than going through them, just do everything yourself. To convince, to convince everybody, you know, like, you know, that this is the route to go. Because everybody can't do this though, first of all. Let me back up a little bit. Everybody can do this, bro. And it looks simple because I see it, but I understand because of the world that I've built around me. And I know that people look at the finishing of what one does and think it's easy. I'm telling you. It's a gift. But you know what? Everybody does have a gift that can be shown to me money off of. You just got to tap into it. You got to tap into it. Whatever your thing is, the beautiful thing about today's time is the people, like the rappers today, the old rappers be hating on the new rappers, right? These niggas making money. Back then we was faking like we had money. Yeah. We're in the chain. The label got us. D-boy walking around with three million dollars for jewelry for real. That's there. They got caught because the middleman cut out. We don't need Atlantic records. We don't need. So now what I don't need you, if I do do a deal with the landing records or in the movie world, Universal, once I show them I need you because they're a bank. Universal is a bank. Sony is a bank. They're going to write the check. They're going to give a blank check. When I say Wayne don't do this. He don't do interviews. Yeah. He's just saying it on another show. He don't talk about nothing. I actually heard him saying it on another show. He don't like to talk about it. He just do it. Because he know he getting so much. He don't talk about. He don't even. He ain't even saying anything about the Will Smiths, man. Will don't talk. I mean, Wayne, I'll be getting frustrated. I'm like, bro, I need to say something. Yeah. Because when you went on social media after the Will Smith thing, every comedian. Yeah. You know what I'm talking about, man, I already know. The part that was funny to me about comedians who say it, because a lot of comedians were saying it like y'all don't even think about it. Think about coming up with that. They warned it. They warned it. They warned it. They warned it. They warned it. They warned it. They warned it. I'm talking about it on there like that. Don't think you can do that to me. You know what Wayne said. He said, man, that's why I just talk about me and my family. Can't go wrong. We got enough problems. That's dope. That's the thing Kevin Hart do. He ain't talking about him. We ain't going to talk about people in the crowd. Like, were you gonna give him the battle? And I mean, I'm a little more ratchet.  But I'm learning Wayne is showing me to be more polished. He younger than me, but he's mentoring me. Don't matter, I've had that same thing. I tell youngsters that all the time that's been in the podcast world. You gotta know where you're at. You can't win from anybody. He's 70, Wayne's 70 for real. Well, let me ask you, like, what's the most, cause I know you've done a lot of skits. What's the skit that done the most that you, you're on, that done the most views? The most views, the quickest? Or the most views over a period of time? Over a period of time, or the quickest. You see what I'm saying? Like, you do a lot of them and they all go to a million, aren't you? That's easy. I don't know. I don't know. I know one of the most impactful ones was the one when I made Deacon. Oh boy, y'all be tripping in that church, man. Because let me tell you something. When I first came on, Wayne was like, when I was coming around, we would be the group. You know what I'm saying? People would be cracking up, laughing at me and be like, man, Mike, funny. And everybody would be sitting around like, yeah, yeah, he was like, I'm telling you, man, you funny, Mike. And I was like, is he really, like, he's trying to be funny, you know what I'm saying? And he would always say that, just man, Mike, funny, man, I'm telling you. And then the group started kind of peeping like, oh, Mike is funny. And when he was putting me on the skits, people at first was like, ah, man, who was this big old muscle ball dude? He, you know, they wasn't really rocking me like that. And Wayne was like, nah, I'm gonna keep pushing you on him because they don't know yet, but you funny. You real funny. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he kept, and now it's like, you know what I'm saying? People stop me like, everywhere I go, it's like eight pictures in the airport. Hey, man, you so funny. I'm like, damn. Man. I love, man, listen, man, listen, man. I love that dude, man, I do. But that's what I'm saying. Like, he knows that it's a different type of funny. He's not looking for what you, you may be looking at other people and comparing what you think, but it's something he sees in you that he feels other people hadn't tapped into. It gotta be, because that's what I see. When I see you, I was like, this dude different. He just, he ain't even trying. Like it just, you being like, your normality brings out the funny for me. I know, because I watch you. I'm telling you. Yeah, I appreciate it. It's just a chill code where I can be funny and I ain't even gotta go the extra mile like everybody else do. I'm just coming across the way I come across, like being with Ro, bringing the different girl, getting caught with that girl.  When he seen him at the, I don't know where y'all was at. No, y'all was coming out somewhere out of a movie restaurant, at the restaurant. And I was like, damn, he loves it. He loves it. That's the one for me right there. You know what's funny? Wayne said that. Wayne was like, he said, he said, I always say the deacons, he said, no, bro, that's a skit. He said the people really, he said, seeing your funny. Yeah. It was when I caught you, he said your facial expression. I was like, that was funny, man.  And she was out there at first. I didn't even know she was gonna pop out like that. I was like, isn't he in here too? And he supposed to be with Ro.  So how did your Ro get such good chemistry? Well, I'm sorry. Ro, man, she's a great woman, man. I love Ro, Ro. I love Ro. Thank you for always answering my DMs. You never treated me knowing you should just answer. And I was like, this is weird. Yeah, like this weird. Right, I showed you. I was like, my wife, I said, look, Ro be answering mine. Ro isn't it, man? She a great woman, man. Ro is like the mama sister, because it's a family now. Yeah, yeah.  You got different components and different personalities and different this and different that. And it's mostly me.  Ro always keeps the balance. You know what I'm saying? You can tell. She keep the balance. She's such a sweet woman, man. And she's a really good actress. Yeah, yeah, you could tell. She told me she was going to act something she had going on a movie that was happening in Dallas. That's what she told me. Well, she just recently just shot Chicago Fire. Oh, that's big. NBC Huge. Yeah, I like that show. Yeah, so she coming into hers, man. And we are just coming into ours, man. And I just love the whole team. I love seeing everybody win. And I love being a part of something where, the thing I deal with usually is the guy who can't help me, but won't because he's afraid that the woman gonna like me. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know what I'm saying? Afraid the women gonna think might, might be too handsome. I'm gonna help this nigga for real. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We ain't the first dude of all the slibs I've ever met. He the first one that is secure around me.


Maen nhw'n mynd. Y Deputy Presiding Officer ffans yma yng nghymru i'r gwleidio ar ffordd, o'r feaniau cael ei wentlynyddiant mewn gweld awt yng Nghymru i chi'r ffans hwn yn y cyffredin, ond y fawr iawn i'r iawn i chi'r ffans hwn am email yma? Felly, ni'n gyfnod yr aelod, ac y fawr iawn i'r gweld'r cyffredin i chi ei clwn o'r awt. Aelod i chi i chi gwybod iddyn nhw, i mi pwng i chi'r gwiedzwn nhw, ac i chi'n gwybod credu i chi i chi i chi i chi'r gweld arwain. Ie dd—oed. First I would like to thank members from across the Chamber for supporting my motion and allowing this important debate to go ahead. For many my constituents this is a hugely important issue and I'm so pleased that staff, volunteers, trainees and family members are with us in the public gallery this evening to hear our debate. For almost 25 years the engine engine shed has provided work-based training placements for young adults with learning disabilities. Although the engine shed is a member of the Scottish Union of Supported Employment, its approach is slightly different. It offers transitional support, providing young people with the opportunity to access training and work experience in an integrated setting, and they currently operate a cafe, a bakery, a tofu production line and outside catering services. Trainings are taken on for up to three years, initially working full-time in the engine shed's place. They then move on to a mixture of work placements with mainstream employers and further training within the engine shed before moving into paid employment with a variety of workplaces. As an MSP, I have been a strong supporter of the engine shed's work. I have attended graduation ceremonies and heard first hand from trainees the skills and the confidence that they have gained from being part of the organisation. I have also heard from many family members who have spoken powerfully about the difference that the engine shed has made to their loved ones and the opportunities that it has allowed them to pursue. Unfortunately, in recent times, the organisation in common with other voluntary organisations has faced a yearly battle to secure funding. Funding from the council contributes around 40 per cent of the engine shed's total income, with the remainder coming from its social enterprise operations. The value of the engine shed's grant from the council has dropped from less now than it did receive in 2003. It has quite a significant drop in the last decade. The organisation has been looking for ways to maximise its income from social enterprise projects, but as the Scottish Government has acknowledged before, many social enterprises struggle in today's harsh economic climate. I understand that the Scottish Government's third sector unit has been considering this issue, so I hope that the minister might have some positive news for us when he responds to the debate tonight. Earlier this year, following the failure to secure funding beyond March 2015, the engine shed's management team took the very difficult decision to wind down the operation. The current situation has its roots in the review of the employability services in Edinburgh, and as part of that work, the review undertook to consider investment in services for job-seeking disabled clients. It found a demand for an integrated employability service that would serve people of all disabilities, one-to-one services, greater involvement in the development and delivery of engagement with employers and a clear desire for the service to ensure paid work opportunities with progression. The council is now moving from next year to a supported employment model consistent with the Scottish Government's supported employment framework. Therefore, it is a single contract for the existing providers of employment services for disabled clients that are now working together to take forward a consortium for the contract. While not part of the consortium, the engine shed has attempted to engage consistently with those involved to see if there is an opportunity to retain the unique contribution to supporting unaggleths in learning employment skills that the engine shed has provided. The management team has been looking at alternative funding options and has worked hard to try and make the operation more self-sustaining. I was concerned at the characterisation that I received from the council that the engine shed had somehow rejected the offer to be part of that process. We are left with a difficult situation, with the engine shed's work simply not being able to fit in with the council's place and support-based model, and therefore the engine shed has now become no longer financially viable. I have spoken before in the chamber about the value and importance of supported employment opportunities. The Scottish Government urgently needs to address the fact that 46 per cent of working-age disabled people are employed, compared with 76 per cent of the general working-age population. As inclusion Scotland notes, only 13 per cent of adults with learning disabilities of working-age are in employment, only 13 per cent. Disabled people are more than three times likely to have been out of work for five years or more compared with their non-disabled counterparts. There is a real issue here that needs to be addressed. I campaigned against the closure of Edinburgh's blind craft and re-employ supported workplaces because I did not want to see the experience that they offered people with disabilities to go. The Scottish Government currently encourages all public bodies to have at least one contract with a supported business. Earlier this year, when we debated the procurement bill, Labour MSPs highlighted a freedom of information request, which indicated that 44 public authorities, including NHS boards, local authorities and central government organisations, do not currently meet the policy aim. There is a real gap between policy objectives and policy delivery. I wholeheartedly support the ambition of supporting people into mainstream work, where it is appropriate, but we need to recognise that some people will need more support than others. The client groups who benefit most from the work of the engine shed would not be easily served by the supported employment model that is currently being advocated. Many have profound learning disabilities and, at the point at which they are referred, do not have the skills needed to get an immediate placement of an employer irrespective of the support that was offered. I want to suggest to the minister that now that we have the proposal to devolve work choice to the Scottish Government from the Smith commission, will the minister look to ensuring that this new funding stream could be devolved to local government? As Eldas pointed out, supported employment for adults with learning disabilities has never had a clear source of funding, and that is something that needs to be urgently addressed. In particular, I know constituents who have no longer been able to work since the closure of the engine shed, when it takes place, and blind craft and employ, particularly no people who have not been able to get work since their employ closure. The engine shed has been a really important bridge of support towards the more traditional supported employment opportunities for people with learning disabilities. There is a real danger that they will lose out, that they will fall through the cracks in the system, without the dignity and intense support that the engine shed has been able to offer them. Let us look at what a solution might be. From the Scottish Government's perspective, we urgently need a review to look at what the position is now in the absence of employ opportunities, blind craft opportunities and now the engine shed. There is an urgent need for some sort of review to look at the funding opportunities both at a Scottish level and with the pressure on local authorities. There is a real need to review the situation and come up with an outcomes-based approach, not just to look at our policy ambitions. We can all sign up to good policy ambitions, but the reality is for disabled people, particularly for those with learning disabilities, this is an incredibly hard employment time for them. We need to be doing more in the Scottish Parliament to support them. I very much look forward to the minister in his summation today, hopefully coming up with some new opportunities and new ideas and possibly a review to just see where we are and to give new hope and new opportunities for people who, in the aftermath of the closure of the engine shed, will not have opportunities. I congratulate Sarah Boyack on securing this debate on the engine shed and supported employment, for what I thought was a very thoughtful and constructive contribution. That is an issue of concern to many people in Edinburgh, and it is close to my heart as the vice convener of the cross-party group on learning disability. I would also like to put on record the proactive work of the constituency member for the engine shed, Marko Biaje, who last year had separate meetings with the Scottish Government, council employability staff and the engine shed's founder and CEO, Marion MacDonald. Parliamentary protocol prevents Mr Biaje from speaking in this debate as a Government minister, although I see that he has joined us for the debate this evening. Like Sarah Boyack, I pay tribute to the engine shed and to Marion MacDonald in establishing the operation, which has, for over 25 years, successfully provided a route into employment for thousands of young adults with learning disabilities by offering training programmes that lead to placements with employers and, eventually, to paid employment. The skill, expertise and experience of the engine shed's workforce has provided a shining example of the strength of supported businesses in Scotland. It was the general secretary of the STUC, Graham Smith, who rightly highlighted the importance of supported businesses like the engine shed when he said, and I quote, the value of on-going training, social interaction and mentoring offered to people with disabilities to become more independent and play an active part in the workplace and their communities cannot be underestimated. It has been noted that the City of Edinburgh council is moving to a new city-wide support service. However, a move to only one model of support surely raises the question of how much choice will people with a learning disability now have if there is only one model available to them? If that model is so-called results-based so the provider will be paid for each person that they support into employment, how do we ensure that people being placed into jobs are supported to sustain that employment over time? Maureen Hope of Edinburgh, who wrote to my colleague Gordon MacDonald MSP, has highlighted the importance of choice in supported employment. She stated, and I quote, choice is vital and the council's policy simply will not be suitable for the engine shed trainees. They need much more help to get to the point where even contemplating employment becomes appropriate. That being said, they have placed 80 per cent of their trainees into employment before the recession and even now over 60 per cent go into paid jobs, my own son being one of them. The point here is that this good record of placing people into sustainable employment would not have been possible without the unique support that the engine shed is able to provide. Ian Hood of the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland has captured the widespread concern that is felt about the council's proposals and what that could mean for the young adults currently working at the engine shed. He stated, and I quote, what the council wants to do is help young people move straight to work with some support, but not all young people are ready for the workplace. The engine shed was helpful for them. They were able to work in a real environment with other people and a lot went on to get jobs afterwards. It is important to note that by withdrawing funding for services such as the engine shed in favour of one model of support, there are real concerns that that will simply limit the opportunities available to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised members of our society. Frankly, I am not comfortable with that situation and nor should any other member of this Parliament. In the past year, more than 10,000 people in Edinburgh have signed an online petition and a further 3,000 have signed a paper petition to keep the engine shed open. So where does the consultation that the council is committed to equate with that level of public concern expressed through those petitions? The model in place for the engine shed clearly has much to commend it. I would have hoped this evening's debate would have been about how we make the model of supported employment in place at the engine shed sustainable rather than casting it aside. In conclusion, while I deeply regret that the engine shed is to close, I hope that the expertise and knowledge built up during the time it has been open may eventually form the basis for another scheme of a similar nature, and the engine shed board is to be commended for seeking new ways of providing vital support for young people with learning disabilities, not just in my colleague Marco Biagi's constituency, but from all across Edinburgh and Lothian to gain the skills that they need for a lifetime of work. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you. No, Colin. Cameron Buchanan, after which we move to closing speech to the minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The news at the Edinburgh-based training organisation, the engine shed, is to cease operation, is sad news indeed, and I would like others to commend Ms Boyack for bringing the issue to debate in Parliament. As I've said before, supported businesses that provide training play a valuable role in tackling unemployment among the disabled people, and their role should be enthusiastically supported and applauded. I would also like to highlight that if the Government is to make as much of a contribution to sustainable employment for disabled people as possible, there must be a greater focus on supporting training programmes to help the transition to the mainstream workforce. However, this must also be recognised that for long-term sustainability, training organisations themselves need to develop sources of funding independent of the Government. I'd first like to draw attention to the fact that supported businesses in Scotland offer training opportunities for more than 400 individuals every year. It's a crucial role, but it seems that this figure should be increasing, as this approach is widely recognised as the best means by which disabled people can earn employment and start living independently with a good standard of living. The chief executive of Remploy, Bob Warner, said himself that there is now an acceptance that disabled people would prefer to work in mainstream employment alongside non-disabled people rather than sheltered workshops. The closure of the engine shed is a terrible setback in this regard. I'm sure we would all rather that such an event does not happen again. Add to this the reality that recent figures put the employment rate for disabled people in Scotland at just 44.3 per cent. It's clear that much more needs to be done. The point that I would like to make is that the Government should focus its attention on supporting training programmes to help disabled people learn the skills needed in the mainstream workforce, rather than propping up sheltered employment schemes. Ms Boyack is right to point out that the Government has failed by some margin to meet its own target of every public body having at least one contract with a supported factory or business, with almost 40 per cent failing to comply. But this must not be the only point to make. The direction not just of the implementation of policy needs to be reviewed and much improved. Indeed, the safe review concluded that Government funding should be invested in effective support for individuals rather than subsidising factory businesses. This is precisely what the UK Government is doing. I hope that Parliament can welcome this. Yet in order to effectively support the training model of businesses such as the engine shed, we must first recognise the challenges that they and many supported businesses face. As I have said many times before, commercial viability should be welcomed where it is genuinely achieved. It is apparent that preferential contracting can shelter some businesses from the genuine market forces. This may detract attention from operations such as marketing, product development and, indeed, innovation, which they will need in order to increase revenue from product and service-scale sales. Therefore, I would like to repeat what I have said before, but I hope that the operation of all supported businesses will evolve to increasingly include working within market incentives. Accordingly, Presiding Officer, I hope that we are not faced with the sad news of the closure of a training business like the engine shed again. It does a great work to bring disabled people closer to full-time employment, which is the object and which can have an invaluable contribution to their wellbeing. Furthermore, I hope that this debate will focus the Government's attention on facilitating the training-based model of supported employment rather than the sheltered model. Those businesses and, most importantly, their employees or trainees need stability going forward, which operating in a sustainable and commercial manner with focused Government support should deliver. I thank the minister for pursuing to close the debate on behalf of the Government. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I could begin by thanking Sarah Boyack for bringing this extremely important debate to Parliament and to commend her on the speech that she made. The Scottish Government firmly believes that all people of working age are encouraged and supported to work when they wish. That especially applies to people who have a disability in respect of the obligations that we have to do everything that we can to facilitate them to find employment, whether it be in supported employment, in supported businesses or elsewhere. The benefits of having a job, the respect and the sense of wellbeing that comes from being in work, are widely accepted by everyone. Many people with disabilities, even with severe disabilities, can and do choose to work and work very well indeed. I have had the opportunity to visit a large number of supported businesses. The engine shed is supported employment rather than a supported business. I have said before in numerous debates on supported business that what has struck me—and I did not know that until I saw it for myself—was that the commitment, the effort and the determination to the workplace to the work colleagues was immense and quite forcibly striking. Perhaps a greater level of commitment than many people without disabilities display towards the conduct and pursuit of the duties of their work. In some cases, the absentee rate was lower with people even with severe disabilities than people who do not have disabilities. Perhaps that was because of a sense of overcoming those difficulties to show that they were able to contribute to society just the same as the rest of us and perhaps, as I say, better. It is quite shocking that the level of employment in Scotland with those who have disabilities is at 42 per cent, but it is even more shocking, as I think Sarah Boyack alluded to, and Ian Hood, who has already been referred to, certainly commented in an email exchange with myself, that the level of employment among those who have learning disabilities is shockingly low in Scotland. In fact, it is my own observation from being a constituency MSP for 15 years that the group in society, as a whole, is not just considering matters of employment but matters of training, of getting proper training and education at school, in the college and university. Those problems are most acute for those children and young adults and adults who have learning disabilities. The fight that their families have to engage in to obtain access to what others receive as of right has often been of enormous proportions, at great cost, often to parents and family and others who are engaged in this. This has been a characteristic, a uniform characteristic of every single one of the 15 years that I have had as an MSP for individual constituents whose stories I probably can't or shouldn't tell, but I am sure that I would be familiar territory to others in the chamber who have represented people for several years. The difference is frankly shocking. Perhaps the most important thing that we can do is say collectively, whatever party we are in, that we must address this more effectively, that, although good things are done, we have together to do far better, far better in Scotland. We recognise, as Jim Eadie has said, that one size more certainly doesn't fit all, that we have to consider that every disabled person is different and that a range of support needs must be in place. That is evident. We also recognise that supported employment is a successful model. As Mr Buchanan has said, it provides a good environment for many people to flourish. As Sarah Boyack has said, in some cases, it is to move on into mainstream employment after a period of time. The same I have seen with supported business. The rate that I heard when I was visiting Haven premises in my constituency in Vernes was around about 15 per cent of people who move on from supported business into mainstream employment after having received the training and support, the confidence that they need to make that journey at the time that they need. One size does not fit all by any means. I am a passionate supporter of supported businesses and have visited a great many of them in Scotland. There are also other services such as project search, which is a six-month work placement and training programme, which has had success in helping young people with learning disabilities into work in Scotland. It is now operating in a number of areas, including Edinburgh. I want to turn to the engine shed. As we have heard today from moving and eloquent and passionate speeches from all contributors around the chamber, it is sad that, incidentally, I should say—I do not often say this, Presiding Officer—that there are so few members here in this debate tonight. I have to say that. Be that as it may, we have heard from all of those who have contributed to the debate that the engine shed is a social enterprise that has helped many, many young people with learning disabilities to gain skills in a real work environment and to support them on to mainstream paid employment. Sarah Boyack and Jamedie described some of the work that has been done in more detail. However, partly because of changing in funding or because of the city of Edinburgh council, the company has decided that it will no longer be financially viable and has taken the decision to cease its operation in 2015. I understand that the current position has arisen in part by Edinburgh council's adoption of the supported employment model, and, indeed, that has been alluded to by Sarah Boyack and Jim Eadie. We, of course, support the development of supported employment services. We recognise that local government is best placed to implement this locally on the ground. We are told that the move will enable funding to help around twice the number of disabled people in the city. That is what the council has said, as members will be familiar with. With employment rates for disabled people so very low, as I have said, any increase in that number is, of course, in itself a change to be welcomed. However, as has been said, there have been strenuous attempts, and I have had this confirmed from Mr Hood of the Ancient Shed to seek to join the said consortium. I think that Sarah Boyack alluded to this. Those attempts have thus far been unsuccessful, but I hope that this matter can be further considered by Edinburgh council, and I will ensure that a copy of the official report from this debate is conveyed by myself to the chief executive of Edinburgh council, convening the clearly expressed views of members from across the chamber that this is something that should be looked at further, if at all possible. On business support, of course, there are available a range of potential support from Scottish Enterprise or Just Enterprise, and Just Enterprise is the Scottish Government's business development service for third sector bodies, for voluntary bodies and for charities. That is Just Enterprise's role. In addition to that, we invest £320,000 per annum to the Scottish Social Enterprise Alliance that sends social from Scotland and Social Enterprise Scotland, and that is again an intermediary group funded to support the development and growth of social enterprises. We have recognised the difficulties that those bodies face to remain viable. I understand that the Ancient Shed has 13 employees at risk of redundancy, and 28 February next year is the expected redundancy date. The partnership action for continuing employment, known as PACE, is the Scottish Government's initiative dedicated to helping individuals and employers with the advice and support that they need faced with redundancy. PACE services have been offered, and I understand that the delivery of support activities by PACE commences this month. A PACE presentation will be delivered on-site by Skills Development Scotland and Jobcentre Plus advisers on 8 December. Other PACE support services will be an offer. Those include one-to-one interviews and workshops at the request of the affected employees. Certainly. I am grateful for making the services of PACE available to the Ancient Shed. Will he ensure that PACE speak to Remploy, who has a very good record in preparing people with a learning disability for job interviews and to give them the confidence and the skills that they need when they are seeking to gain employment in the marketplace? I certainly will take up Mr Eady's suggestion. PACE probably would be planning to do so in any event. I myself have met Remploy and I am aware of the excellent services that they can provide. I should say that, in relation to the brinecraft of the 26 disabled people who left and sought new jobs, 17 have entered work or education. Not enough, but a significant number. In Remploy, the closure had a huge impact, with only 11 of the 27 who lost their jobs being in work today. In conclusion, we can all agree that we need to do more in Scotland to assist disabled people in general in relation to employment, whether in supported employment or supported businesses. It is one of the most serious challenges in Scotland today. Indeed, that was the sentiment that I expressed at the count when I was declared re-elected, because I felt that it is a matter of such importance. I pledged to do everything that I possibly can, working with Sarah Boyack, Jim Eady and my ministerial colleague, Marko Biazio, who stayed for this debate, with Cameron Buchanan. The political party is entirely irrelevant in this matter. It is doing the right thing by disabled people. It is using the vast resources of Scotland to do far better. I feel ashamed that we have not been able to do more to get a better outcome. We must do better in the future. Many thanks. I thank you all for taking part in this debate. I now close this meeting of Parliament.


AutoLite and its 96,000 dealers bring you the first lady of suspense, Miss Agnes Moorhead, in a true story of murder. Tonight's presentation of... Suspense! Tonight, AutoLite presents a dramatization of the most famous unsolved American murder mystery, Miss Agnes Moorhead as Lizzie Borden in The Fall River Tragedy. Hey, uh, Hap! Why the downcast look? My battery is dry, Harlow, and my car won't start. Well, Hap, that's one of the big reasons you should have an AutoLite stay-full battery. The famous battery that needs water only three times a year in normal car use. You mean... Why the AutoLite stay-full has over three times the liquid reserve of batteries without stay-full features. And this helps prevent one of the major causes of battery failure. The AutoLite stay-full gives longer life as proved by tests conducted according to accepted life cycle standards. That's the battery for me, Harlow. Well, then see your neighborhood AutoLite battery dealer. He's equipped to give you the best service money can buy on all makes of batteries. To quickly learn his location, just call Western Union by number... And ask for me, Operator 25. I'll gladly tell you the address of your nearest AutoLite battery dealer. And remember, from bumper to tail light, you're always right with AutoLite. And now with the Fall River Tragedy and the performance of Miss Agnes Moorhead, AutoLite hopes once again to keep you in... South Bend. Key from the pantry. You're Mr. Lippet from the magazine? Yes, I'm Elizabeth Gordon. Won't you come in? Come on in. I thought we might sit in the morning room. I have all the things in there. The newspaper, clippings, and pictures about the trial. You may sit there, if you will. They follow anybody who comes and shout their words. That has been part of my punishment. My whole life since the trial has been a punishment. The worst punishment that anyone, innocent or guilty, could ever face. They think I'm guilty. Everyone does. They always did, but I'm not. Jerry said I wasn't. You must forgive me. I'll pour you tea and tell you all about it. It was my father and my stepmother who were killed, if you will remember. It was a long time ago, father, where he lay on a couch in the living room. My stepmother upstairs where she'd been attended to the making of the bed. First, Dr. Bowen came over, and then in a little while, the police were there through. After some time had passed, I was arrested and brought to trial. And all my friends were witnesses against me. Donna, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of the jury. Upon the fourth day of August, an old man and an old woman, husband and wife, each without a known enemy in the whole world, in their own home upon a frequented street in the most popular city of this county, under the light of day and in the midst of its activities, were first one, then another, very killed by unlawful human agency. Today, Lizzie A. Borden, the own daughter of one of the victims, is at the bar of this court, accused by the grand jury of this county of these crimes. As spokesman for the Commonwealth, it is my purpose to explain to you the grounds and the bases for that accusation. I believe the best way to do that is to call the first witness, Dr. S. W. Bowen at stand. Dr. S. W. Bowen. Yes, thank you. Raise your hand on the book. Do you sign this word, tell the truth, the whole truth over the truth, to help your God? I do. Please be seated. Dr. Bowen. Where do you live? 91 Second Street. That is in Fall River. Yes, in Fall River. Am I right in believing that address is directly across Second Street from where the Borden family lives? Yes, that is correct. Do you know the Borden family? I had been their physician and friend for 25 years. Did you know Mr. Borden's financial situation? Financial situation. Did you know if he were wealthy or not? Mr. Borden's estate, I do not hesitate to say, is considerably more than $300,000. To be inherited by whom, do you know? According to his will to be inherited by his wife. And upon the condition of her death. To be inherited by his two daughters. His two daughters. That is the prisoner, Miss Lizzie Borden and Miss Emma Borden. Yes. I see. On the morning of the 4th of August, where were you lost? I was working in the front garden. How long had you been working there? Between 9.30, as I can remember, and the time I was called to the Borden house. Had you seen anyone enter the house? Only Mr. Borden. The deceased. What time was that? Some minutes before 11, say 10 before. Tell us what you noticed. I saw him first coming up street. He turned through his gate and then I heard him knocking on his door. The door was locked? Yes. I could see that he had tried to unlock it with his key, but the door must have been locked from the inside. Presently he was let in by the maid, Bridget Sullivan. Had you ever known that to happen before? No. And you saw no one else enter the house the morning of the 4th? No. Now Dr. Borden, how did you learn of the trouble? The maid, Bridget Sullivan told me. She came across and said Lizzie had found her father and had called her to go for help. And you returned to the house with her? Yes. Who was there when you arrived? He went in the side entrance which led to the kitchen. Miss Lizzie Borden and a neighbour, Mrs. Churchill. You remember what was said at that moment? Yes, I do. I saw Lizzie and I said, Lizzie, what's the matter? She said, father's been killed or stabbed. I said, well, where is he? And she told me in the sitting room. Is that all she said in that conversation at that time? Yes, I went into the sitting room. Will you describe what you saw in the sitting room? Mr. Borden was on the couch. He had the appearance of a man who had been killed while he slept. Could you explain that, Dr. Borden? There was no facial constriction such as is found in cases where the victim fought death. Were there signs of a struggle in the room? None. And when you went out, did you speak to Miss Lizzie Borden again? Yes. You'll remember what you said. Yes, I asked her if she had seen anyone and she said no. And then I said, where were you? And she said in the barn to get some lead. Dr. Borden, who discovered the body of Mrs. Borden? I did. When? And I went upstairs to get a sheet to cover the body of Mr. Borden. I saw her body when I reached the top of the front stairs. You could see her body from the stairway. Yes. Could you see it from the hallway upstairs? Yes. Did you examine the body? Yes, she had been killed the same way as Mr. Borden. You know, sir, which of them died first? I believe it has been proved by Dr. Wood that Mrs. Borden died approximately an hour before her husband did. Thank you, Dr. Borden. That will be all. This lawyer's name was Mr. Moody.  He had a way to fill everybody else with hate, with the questions he asked. He made all my friends' witnesses against me. Yes? Miss Russell, who lived next door south in his Churchill, who lived next door north. Mr. Moody made them say things to make the jury believe that no one could have gone into the house without being seen, and that no one had it. So the murders were committed by someone who was there. And Bridget Sullivan was the only other one there. But there wasn't anybody who suspected her. Just a witness against me, like the rest of them. Bridget Sullivan. How long have you known the prisoner? I worked at that house for almost three years. Would you say they were a happy family? No, sir. Will you explain what you mean, please? There were feelings between Mrs. Borden and the two girls. Miss Lizzie and Miss Emma? Yes. Mrs. Borden was a stepmother. They didn't like her. They show their dislike in any definite way? Well, Miss Lizzie never called her mother. The show is called her Mrs. Borden. Do you know why she did that? What started the feeling? Yes. There was an argument about some property. Mr. Borden gave some over to Mrs. Borden.  How do you know this happened? I heard her arguing with her father. You remember the words that were spoken? They argued about the property and Mr. Borden said, mother has a right to it. And Miss Lizzie said, don't call her mother. She's a mean old thing and we hate her. By we, she meant her sister and her? Yes. And from that time, Miss Lizzie never called Mrs. Borden mother? Never that I heard. Miss Sullivan, what were you doing the morning of the murder? I've been washing windows. Who was in the house that morning? Miss Emma was not. She'd been gone since the day before of her two friends. Mr. and Mrs. Borden had breakfast and then he left. What time was that? Near nine o'clock. What about Mrs. Borden? She was dusting. She told me to wash the windows. Then I never saw her again. Will you repeat that please? I never saw her again. I even asked Miss Lizzie where she was and she told me she went out.  Yes. She said a note had come and that Mrs. Borden had gone to see six friends. Did you see the note? No, sir. No one ever saw. Did you see Mrs. Borden leave? No, sir. If she had indeed left, which door would she have gone out? Front door, sir. And yet that was the door you unlocked and opened to admit Mr. Borden a few minutes before eleven. Yes. How was it locked? It was bolted from the inside. Did you lock it? No, sir. And obviously no one going out that way could lock it from the outside? No, sir. What about the other doors? They were locked. You're sure of that? Yes, sir. So no one could have come into the house that morning? I don't think so. Oh, I'm sorry. Now when you heard Mr. Borden knock on the door, you went to it. Yes, sir. Miss Sullivan, where was Lizzie Borden at that moment? Upstairs or on the stairway. How do you know that's where she was? Because when I was walking to the door, I heard her laugh. You heard her laugh? Yes, sir. And she came down the front stairs after I let her father in. What was she laughing at? I don't know, sir. She didn't say. Tell us what happened then after Mr. Borden came in. I heard her ask how he felt. She was in sick, and I heard her get the couch ready so he could lie down. By that time, I'd gone through the kitchen to the rear stairway where I went up to my room. And how long did you stay there? Twenty minutes, I think. And Miss Lizzie called from downstairs to say that her father had been killed. Did you speak to Miss Lizzie? Yes, sir. When she told me her father was killed, I asked her where she was. And how did she answer? She said, I was up in the barn. Thank you, Miss Sullivan. That will be all. Miss Lawyer, this Mr. Moody was awfully clever. You understand the Commonwealth had no physical evidence nor any witnesses to the murders. And Mr. Moody was trying to eliminate the possibility that anyone else could have done it, as they said. And I realized that innocence or guilt didn't make any difference anymore. Mr. Moody would have tried to do the same thing no matter what. To turn my friends against me, my doctor and my servant. Captain Harrington, being in charge of the investigation of the day of the murders, did you question Miss Lizzie Borden? I did. When I got there, I asked her if she knew anything about it. She said she did not. She found him when she came into the house. I asked her where she'd been, and she said she'd been in the loft, in the barn. I asked her how long, and she said she thought it'd been 20 minutes. And did you investigate that statement? I did. I went to the loft in the barn. The floor was thick with dust. When I walked across it, I left footprints. But there were no other footprints up there. There was no evidence that anyone else had been there? No evidence at all. That will be all, Captain Harrington. Thank you. I would like to ask the jury to pause for a moment in way the testimony heard that far. I'd like to remind you that it was given by persons who would rather not speak against the prisoner and who spoke only the truth under oath. Now, I should like to ask the prisoner, Miss Lizzie Borden, to take the stand. Autolight is bringing you Miss Agnes Moorhead as Lizzie Borden, with Joseph Kearns as Mr. Moody in The Fall River Tragedy. Tonight's production in Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrill's South Spence. Say, Hap, where were we?  Oh, yes, the famous battery that needs water only three times a year in normal car use. Good starter, Harlow. Ah, that's the very best, Hap. By every positive plate in the Autolight Stay Full is protected by fiberglass retaining mats to reduce shedding and flaking and give longer life, as proved by tests conducted according to accepted life cycle standards. You've sold me, Harlow. I'm on my way to get a new Autolight Stay Full Battery. So, friends, have your battery checked soon by your neighborhood Autolight Battery dealer who services all makes of batteries. He'll gladly tell you whether your battery is right for these cold starting days. And if a replacement is needed, your Autolight Battery dealer has an Autolight Stay Full Battery for your car. To quickly learn his location, just call Western Union by number. And ask for me, Operator 25. I'll tell you the name of your nearest Autolight Battery dealer. Where you can be sure of getting an Autolight Stay Full Battery, the battery that needs water only three times a year in normal car use. And remember, from bumper to tail light, you're always right with Autolight. And now Autolight brings back to our Hollywood soundstage Miss Agnes Moorhead as Lizzie Borden in Elliot Lewis' production of The Fall River Tragedy, a true story well calculated to keep you in suspense. Oh, I remember the days so clearly when I was called to the stand. None of my friends would look at me, nor my sister. And then I realized that my father and my stepmother were more fortunate than I would ever be. You, Lizzie A. Borden, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth's up your garden. I do. Please be seated. Miss Borden, did you ever have any trouble with your stepmother? No. Miss Borden, do you mean not within that past year? No, about two years ago. Then you did have trouble with her. If you wish to call it that. What was it about? About my stepmother's stepsister, Miss Whitehead. Was it a violent expression of feeling? That was simply a difference of opinion. In regard to what? Some property. Her father's house was a sale on Fort Street, and my father bought her stepsister's share and gave it to her. To your mother? My stepmother. We thought what he did for her, he should do for his own flesh and blood.  I, I don't know. I may have, but I don't remember. Were you always cordial with your stepmother? That depends upon one's idea of cordialness. Was it cordial according to your ideas of cordiality? Yes. I didn't regard her as my mother. I stopped calling her mother after the affair regarding her stepsister. Why did you leave off calling her mother? Because I wanted to. Have you any other reason to give me? No. Then that will have to be sufficient. Now, Miss Borden, we come to the morning of August 4. That morning, did you breakfast with your father and stepmother? No, I came downstairs at about nine. They had finished eating. Did you see your father? Yes. He was in the sitting room reading the Providence Journal. And your stepmother? Saw her in the dining room. She, she had a ducking cough. That was about nine. Yes. When did you see your stepmother again? After I had eaten a pear and come back into the dining room, she told me she had had a note and was going out to see a sick friend. She said she'd get the dinner. Did you see the note? No. Did you see your stepmother leave? No. Or did you hear her leave? No. How long did you stay downstairs? I'm not sure. I ate a pear and drank a cup of tea and then went back to my room. Your room? That's up the front stairs to the rear. Is that correct? Yes. That is across the hallway and a few paces to the rear of the room where your stepmother's body was laid about. Yes. How long did you stay in your room? I don't know. It must have been an hour. Did you see anyone up there? No, sir. Did you hear anything? No, sir. What were you doing? I was sewing a piece of lace on a garment. Do you know that medical examination has proved that your stepmother was killed approximately an hour before your father? Yes. Do you understand that to mean she was killed at approximately ten o'clock? Yes. Were you in your room at ten o'clock? I think I was. But you heard nothing. Nothing like the sound of a person being struck down a few paces away. No. That is extraordinary. Now, Miss Warden, you insist that you did not leave your room for close to an hour. Yes. Where was your father? He had left. He went downtown after nine. Do you understand that the front door and all the doors were locked from the inside when he returned a few minutes before eleven? Yes. Did you lock it? No, sir. Do you understand that the witness, Miss Bridget Sullivan, testified that she did not lock it? I heard her say that. Well, then who locked it? I don't know. Did you hear your father try to get in? Yes, sir.  I was coming down. You had passed the spare room and were on the stairs. Yes. Did you see anything? If I looked in, I should have seen Miss Warden. I didn't look in. I didn't see anything. What did you laugh at? I did not laugh. Did you hear a witness's sworn statement that you did laugh? Yes. Must have been mistaken. I see. Now, when your father came in through the door, Bridget Sullivan had unlocked. You came downstairs. Yes. Did you speak with your father? I asked him how he was feeling and he said he thought he would lie down. And that is when he went to the couch in the sitting room. Did you help him? Yes. Yes, I went with him and covered him with a shawl. And then what did you do? I went up in the barn to get some lead. What kind of lead? For fishing sinkers. I was going to our farm in Marion and I was going to fish while I was there. When were you going fishing? Monday. The murders occurred on Thursday. You were going fishing on the next Monday? Yes. Miss Warden, why did you pick that particular time on Thursday to go to the loft in the barn to get sinkers? I don't know. It occurred to me, so I went to the barn. Did you pick the loft in the barn as a place to keep sinkers? No. My father had once told me there was some lead up in the barn. You know that search for fishing apparatus in your house is shown there was none there? I had none there, but there was some at the farm. Then did not that apparatus include sinkers? No, there were no sinkers on the line. How long it had been since you used the apparatus? Three years. And you remembered all those years that there were no sinkers? Yes. I see. How long do you think you were occupied in looking for sinkers in the loft? About fifteen or twenty minutes. Did you do nothing besides look for sinkers in that twenty minutes? Yes, sir. I ate some pears. Would it take you all that time to eat a few pears? I do not do things in a hurry. Is that all you did? No. I went over to the window and I opened it. Why did you do that? Because it was too hot. I suppose that's the hottest place on the premises? Yes. Don't you think it would have been more comfortable if you waited until late afternoon to look for your sinkers rather than choose the hottest hour of an August morning? Perhaps, I would have. I'm sure you would have. From the window, could you see the house? Yes.  Three. You standing at that window see anybody enter the kitchen or the side door. I thought you said you could see the house. Not after you pass a jog in the barn, it obstructs the view of that side of the house. Miss Bourden, have you heard a witness, Captain Harrington, a policeman trained to make accurate observation, testify that there was no evidence whatsoever that anyone had disturbed the dust on the floor of the barn loft that no one had been there? I heard him.  Yes, sir. Then how do you account for Captain Harrington's statement? I don't know. I'm afraid that Captain Harrington must have been mistaken. I was up in the barn. Mr. Moley was terribly clever. He suggested a motive, two motives, the hate for my stepmother and the inheritance. He suggested the story of being in the barn was false. He suggested that the story of the note in my stepmother leaving was false. He suggested that I was guilty, but I'm not. The jury said I wasn't. They found me not guilty. They didn't find acts. They didn't find blood stains or destroyed clothes or anything. Just circumstance. But it doesn't seem to matter what the jury said. Nobody else thinks I'm innocent. Lady Bourden, come here. That's why they punished me. But I am innocent. No matter what people think, I stood trial and I am innocent. I swear I am. I swear I am. And show me the pictures or the newspaper clippings. I saved them all to show somebody. Why are you leaving like this, Mr. Lippert? You haven't even finished your tea. I didn't finish. Presented by Autolite, tonight's star, the first lady of suspense, Miss Agnes Morehead. This is Harlow Wilcox speaking for Autolite, world's largest independent manufacturer of automotive electrical equipment. Autolite is proud to serve the greatest names in the industry. That's why, during the early months of 1952, the Autolite family will join together in saluting the leading car manufacturers who use Autolite products. Our Autolite family is made up of the nearly 30,000 men and women in 28 great Autolite plants from coast to coast and in still other Autolite plants in many foreign countries. Our family also includes more than 18,000 people who have invested a portion of their savings in Autolite, as well as 96,000 Autolite distributors and dealers in the United States and thousands more in Canada and throughout the world. Our Autolite family will salute the Hudson Motor Car Company on the next Autolite Suspense television program. If you live in a television area, check the day and time of suspense on television so that you'll be sure to see this show. And remember, be with us next week for another thrilling Autolite Suspense program on radio. Next week on Suspense, our star will be Mr. Richard Basshart, who will portray a man who found it necessary to commit the perfect crime, a tale we call The Perfectionist. In weeks to come, we shall also present Mr. Charles Boyer, Mr. J. Carol Nash and Mr. James Mason, all on Suspense. Suspense is produced and directed by Elliot Lewis with music composed by Lucian Morrowick and conducted by Lut Bluskin. The Fall River tragedy was written for Suspense by Gil Dowd. In tonight's story, Joseph Kearns was heard as Mr. Moody. Featured in the cast were Peggy Webber, Herb Butterfield, Ralph Sidon, Will Wright and Stuffy Singer. Agnes Moorhead may currently be seen in the Walt Krasna RKO Productions of Blue Vale. And remember, next week on Suspense, Mr. Richard Basshart in The Perfectionist. This is the CBS Radio Network.


Hi everyone, another short notice today. There is a by-election this week. This Thursday, so a couple of days away, in Somerset, in Chard. Now, we have a candidate standing in this and his name is Nigel and we are going to do our best to support him this coming Thursday. And on that, we're going to go out and do some evening campaigning. Now, I'm going to be filming in Wales on Thursday morning. After that, I'm going to travel to Somerset and help out. We're meeting at about quarter to five.  Now, this is a really good opportunity for us and I want to thank Nigel for standing. There's no Labour or Tory candidate in this election, so it's a pretty interesting one. So, let's do all we can to get as many votes as we can and to support Nigel in this. Give Sharon a shout on inquirersatforebritain.uk. She'll give you a postcode of where to meet us. But if you're in the South West and you can make it Thursday evening, please, please do. We need to do all we can now to get some votes for Britain on the ballot paper. So, five till around seven, this Thursday evening, give Sharon a shout, inquirersatforebritain.uk and she'll tell you where to meet us. Let's do all we can to get as many votes as we can for Nigel. Thanks, everyone, see you there.


Let's now turn from the topic of science to the topic of religion and deal with the case studies that I mentioned before miracles and revelation. Here's a picture of David Hume, who was a Scottish philosopher, and here's a quote from one of his books. He says, There is not to be found in all history any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men of such unquestioned good sense, education, and learning as to secure us against all delusion in themselves of such undoubted integrity as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to deceive others of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood and at the same time a testing facts performed in such a public manner and in so celebrated a part of the world and as to render the detection unavoidable. All which circumstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men. Hume used this argument to say that, well, if you observe a miracle directly, then you might be justified in believing that it happened. But if you hear about a miracle through testimony, either second hand or third hand or fourth or fifth or sixth hand, then you should never believe that it actually occurred and you can see here in the quotation that I've underlined a few of the source and receiver and conduit virtues that Hume refers to in his argument. He says that there should be multiple sources. So he talks about the number of men and then he also talks about the virtues that they should have which include good sense, education, learning, as well as credit and reputation so that they have something to lose if we find out that they were lying or mistaken. So Hume thinks that we, who tend to be in the position of person N in this graph, should always disbelieve reports about miracles. This can be contrasted with the view of miracles that is articulated by Thomas Reed. Reed argued that people should observe both the principle of veracity and the principle of credulity. He says that we are social creatures by nature and that means that we have a natural propensity to speak the truth. That means that he thinks that people have a sort of inborn source virtue, that they're naturally disposed to say what they think, they're naturally disposed to report what they know and not what they merely guess or what they think is false and interlocking with this, Reed argued for the principle of credulity. He said because people observe the principle of veracity, we likewise have a natural propensity to believe what others tell us and that this is correct because after all if others are observing the principle of veracity, then it only makes sense as a receiver as someone in the position of person B in the network shown here to believe what they say. So whereas Hume said we should be skeptical receivers and skeptical about conduits and sources, Reed argued that because we're essentially interdependent social creatures, we should take seriously the words of other people even when they report things like miracles. This suggests that the kind of creatures that you think human beings are and the kinds of dispositions that you think they naturally have, the kinds of source and receiver virtues that are appropriate for humans will indicate to you what sort of credence you should put in reports about miracles. We can think about this using what's known as Bayes' law. This is an equation that tells you how much credence you should put in a proposition given a certain amount of evidence. This is a fairly mathematical bit of the story, so I'll take some time to walk through it. The large P in parentheses following it just means a probability. So we have on the left side of the equation a single probability, namely the probability of a hypothesis given some evidence, whereas on the right side of the equation we have three probabilities, the initial probability of the hypothesis to begin with, the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis, also known as the likelihood, and the probability of the evidence occurring in the first place. Bayes' law tells you that whenever you get some evidence relevant to a particular hypothesis, you can update your credence in that hypothesis by taking the product, multiplying the your initial confidence in that hypothesis by the likelihood and then dividing by the probability of the evidence in the first place. This gives us what is now called a posterior probability. So if you already had very low credence in the hypothesis to begin with, if the probability of H was say 0.01, 1%, then even if there was really strong evidence for it, you might only increase your credence in it from 0.01 or 1% to say 5%. So even really strong evidence for an incredibly unlikely hypothesis shouldn't necessarily be convincing. So let's think about this in the context of miracles. If H, the hypothesis, is that a miracle occurred, then we can let E, the evidence be either someone says that a miracle occurred, or someone says that someone says that a miracle occurred, or someone says that someone says that someone says that a miracle occurred, and so on. This represents the number of conduits that the testimony has passed through from the original source to us. And as you can see from this, the probability that a miracle occurs should generally be considered quite low. So your prior probability in any particular miraculous event should be extremely low. Unless you believe that miracles are occurring all the time, all over the place, your probability should probably be something like 0.0000001 for any particular miracle. And if someone says that a miracle occurs, well, how likely does that make it that a miracle occurs? We can think of lots of reasons why someone would say this, even if it weren't true. And we can think of even more reasons why someone would say that someone else says it, even if it weren't true. And this indicates that as Hume argued, the amount of evidence we need to get, the number of sources and the epistemic virtues associated with those sources must be extremely high for us to believe that miracles have occurred.


The Morrison County Sheriff's Office says Donald Cheetah was working on the tractor near peers when he was run over by it. Cheetah was airlifted to a St. Cloud Hospital where he was listed in serious condition. This is the second serious incident involving a tractor in the last two days in Morrison County. The first occurred on Monday when a man died after being run over by a tractor on his property near Little Falls. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.