All Scrushy all the time........

Main Menu

 

 

 

Closing arguments: via Scrushy-Report.com  

          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

          FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

          SOUTHERN DIVISION

         

          UNITED STATES OF

          AMERICA,

          CR-03-BE-530-S

          v.       Birmingham, Alabama

          May 18, 2005

          RICHARD M. SCRUSHY,    

          Defendant.

          **********************

          TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL

          BEFORE THE HONORABLE KARON O. BOWDRE

          UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and jury.

         

          VOLUME LVIII

 

APPEARANCES:

          FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

         

          ALICE MARTIN

          U.S. ATTORNEY 1801 4th Avenue North

          Birmingham, Alabama 35203

         

          RICHARD C. SMITH RICHARD WIEDIS

          NATHANIEL EDMONDS COLLEEN CONRY

          U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division, Fraud Section

          1400 New York Avenue, NW Suite 1400

          Washington, DC 20503

          JAMES INGRAM

          TAMARRA MATTHEWS U.S. Attorney's Office

          1801 4th Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203

         

          FOR THE DEFENDANT:

          ART LEACH

          LES MOORE 2310 Marin Drive

          Birmingham, Alabama 35243

          JIM PARKMAN

          MARTIN ADAMS Parkman & Associates

          739 West Main St. Dothan, Alabama 36301

         

          DONALD V. WATKINS

          Donald V. Watkins, PC 2170 Highland Avenue, Suite 100

          Birmingham, AL 35205

          H. LEWIS GILLIS

          Thomas, Means, Gillis & Seay 505 20th Street North

          Birmingham, Alabama 35237

         

 

          Court Reporter:

          Teresa Roberson, RPR, RMR

          Julie Martin, RMR, CRR Federal Court Reporter

          1729 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 325 Birmingham, Alabama 35203

          205.492.2483

         

         

I N D E X

                             CLOSING ARGUMENTS:

BY MS. MARTIN. . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14395

BY MS. CONRY . . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14469

BY MR. LEACH . . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14507

BY MR. PARKMAN . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14543

BY MR. WATKINS . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14613

BY MR. SMITH . . . . . . . . . . .PAGE 14652

 

* * * * *

P R O C E E D I N G S

* * * * *

 

          (SIDEBAR IN CHAMBERS)

                  

          (Brief recess)

          (SIDEBAR IN HALLWAY)

         

          (Open court. Jury not present.)

          (SIDEBAR)


 

          THE COURT:  As y'all can see, we have an overly crowded courtroom. And I understand that Mr. Scrushy may have been pushing the limits of the assigned seats that we had designated for him.

          The rule is that you have to have an armband or a lanyard to get in for this reserved seating, in essence, today.

          And I understand that some people may have gotten -- that more than one person may have come in on a lanyard that has been passed around.

          MR. LEACH:  How is that possible?

          THE COURT:  Passing them back outside.  And that people of the public have been bumped. We made extra seating available yesterday to both sides, or the day before, both sides have two full rows. And I understand Mr. Scrushy's desire to have as many of his friends and family here as possible. But we also have an obligation to the public.

          So after the break, when people come back in, if they are not wearing their lanyard or have on their armband, their wrist bands, they are not going to get in.

          I'm sorry about that, but we have to make sure that our adoring public can get in the courtroom as well.

          So if counsel would explain that to Mr. Scrushy, I would appreciate it, so that we don't have anymore problems with the press and the public for trying to get in. Okay.

          MS. SHARON HARRIS:  Thank you, Judge.

          MS. MARTIN:  Do you have any idea how you want to have a morning break for the jury, because I'm going to go about an hour and a half and turn over the last thirty minutes to Ms. Conry in our first two hours.

          I didn't know if that is a good breaking point or if you want to get through our two hours and then break.

          THE COURT:  We had discussed that previously when you were not present, Ms. Martin, and I had indicated that I would, at this stage, very much rely upon counsel to indicate when a good breaking point was so that I would not be interrupting your arguments.

          And I have basically tried to go about an hour and a half before we take breaks.

          So if that would be a good time to break, take a fifteen minute break between you and Ms. Conry or if you want to push it. But also I asked, when we were discussing this in chambers, I had been given some leeway to say, excuse me, I think we need to have a short stand up break or whatever.

          MS. MARTIN:  Certainly. I was told of that.

          THE COURT:  So --

          MS. MARTIN:  So we need to just try to indicate when I stop that that would be a good time, if it's agreeable with the court.

          MR. LEACH:  As with opening, if there are objections, the clock stops; is that right?

          THE COURT:  Yes. But I hope there will not be any objections.

          MR. LEACH:  Stretch break stops the clock, too?

          THE COURT:  Exactly. I'm not going to infringe upon your time.

          (Open court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. You will now hear summations or closing arguments from the attorneys.

          I want you to remember what I have told you several times during the trial and that is that what the lawyers say is not evidence. I encourage you to test what the lawyers say against your own recollection or memory of the evidence. You are the judges of the facts and of the credibility of the witnesses, not the lawyers.

          We allow lawyers to make these summations so as to help you pull all of the evidence together and see how it ties together, as opposed to the little disjointed pieces you have heard.

          But do remember, as I have told you, that what the lawyers say is not evidence. And if they say something that doesn't quite mesh with your memory, you go with your memory, not the lawyers' statements. Okay.

          Is the government ready?

          MS. MARTIN:  We are, Your Honor.

          THE COURT:  You may proceed, Ms. Martin.

          MS. MARTIN:  Thank you.

          CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MS. MARTIN

          MS. MARTIN:  May it please the court, defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury:  It's been almost four months since you were seated and took the oath of office -- of office -- of juror, and I know it's been a long haul.

          I want to thank you on behalf of the United States for the time that you've taken out of your lives. Because, as you know, our justice system simply couldn't work without people that are willing to commit their time for public service as jurors.

          And we want to thank you for sitting and listening patiently and for weighing the evidence impartially.

          Jury service, as you know, is not really entertaining like Law and Order. It's very hard work. You will be sifting through the evidence looking for the truth.

          In a few minutes, I know the defense will come up and they will paint Mr. Scrushy as the victim of his five CFOs. But I want to remind you of who the real victims are in this case.

          I told you four months ago, when I first spoke to you in opening, that you were going to meet people that had relied upon the information that they had gotten from HealthSouth about the finances, that they relied upon that information, and because of that reliance, they made investments.

          Do you remember almost four months ago meeting Mr. Reiner? He was from Parish, Alabama.

          Do you remember meeting Dr. Ellenburg? She lived here in Birmingham. Mr. Reiner was the retired Alabama Power worker who heard about the stock being delisted on CNBC.

          Dr. Ellenburg was the scientist, the spry eighty-three year old woman who came in here and had really done her research. They told you what they relied on. They looked at that shareholder letter that he wrote to them, and they believed in it.

          They were two of the many mail fraud victims. You will see their initials in the indictment. But they represent many, many of the people, individuals and institutions that relied on that information.

          And the reason we put them first is because I don't want you to forget about the victims. They were the ones that were cheated. They were the ones that were defrauded.

          It wasn't just the individuals. It wasn't just the individuals who saw the shares that they held go down to a dime after that stock was delisted. It wasn't just the individuals. Do you remember Retirement Systems of Alabama, the bondholders, they also lost.

          I told you also on the very first day that this case was going to come down to one word that you would be back in that jury room trying to deliberate and answer the question, what did he know, it comes down to knowledge.

          We have shown that knowledge several ways. We have shown you what he saw. We have shown you what was said to him, and you have heard what he said. I told you then that we were going to go inside HealthSouth, because that's how you learn about conspiracies. You don't learn about them by standing out on the street from the honest employees. You learn about them from the co-conspirators.

          We said we would take you inside HealthSouth, and we would show you private financial reports that the public didn't see, that you would hear conversations of that inner circle, that fifth floor group, the confidants, the circle of the conspiracy, that the public didn't hear on those earnings calls. And we told you that you would hear the tapes, hear what he said in those hushed conversations in that back hallway by his bathroom when he asked, are you wired, when he didn't think that jurors one day in federal court would be listening to his own words.

          Now, the defense says there's no smoking gun, and I never thought there would be a gun in this case. This gun is about a lot of paper. And I will tell you in a white collar crime, about the sexiest thing you've got is these spicy audit reports. That's about it. That's what you get. You get forensic audits in white collar crimes.

          The smoking guns are the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, these documents. Look at what he saw. They will tell you what he knew. Listen to the conversations. That's how you learn things.

          The crimes are complex. But you know how they were completed, with a fountain pen and computers. With that man's signature alone, he was able to pocket two hundred and seventy-five million dollars' worth of tainted money into his pocket while cheating and defrauding investors. All it took was a signature on the 10-Ks and 10-Qs that he knew had false financial information and just stick them on that EDGAR system and send them up electronically to D.C., to Washington, to the SEC, where they're then disbursed to analysts and all these investors across the globe, literally.

          So, first, we're going to go through the documents he saw, those inner circle conversations that he had, and we're going to listen to the words he said.

          We've had lots of exhibits, lots of numbers, lots of confusing numbers, lots of dashes that the judge has had to remind us to put in. This is just going to try to help you to organize them, because you're going to have all those exhibits back with you.

          We're going to look at what the defendant knew because of what he saw, and I'm going to briefly run through these just to help since we've had four months since you first saw some of these documents. Now, this gives you the Government Exhibit Number series.

          First, I want to start with the budget, because in putting in the case, we sort of went in the logical order of witnesses, but not always in the logical order of how the documents really come to pass in the business.

          So I want to start with the very first business report that I want you to think about, and that's the budget. Just like you might have a home budget, the budget is where to start. And as Director of the Board, Sage Givens, she told you each year the Board approved one annual budget. And she told you that annual budget was also called HealthSouth's business plan.

          Now, on your screen, you're seeing the budget for 1996. And on the budget, you see they project what they're going to make in revenue, and then you subtract out what you're going to have in expenses, and it leaves you with your net income or profit.

          And on their budget forms that are on the screens, you'll see that's then brought down, divided by shares that are outstanding and that gives you your EPS. And remember that earnings per share is what they then sent out in press releases to the public giving the guidance. So that becomes the Wall Street expectations. They figure, if you're running the business, you know how much you ought to make and they look at that for guidance, the analysts told you that.

          I want to show you how the budget ties into the next document that you saw. And that is the weekly revenue reports. Remember the weekly revenue report, that was the report that was actually a form that Mr. Beam told you was devised, was created by Mr. Scrushy.

          Remember Mr. Beam was the first CFO, and he had worked with Mr. Scrushy out at LifeMark in Houston, Texas. That company was acquired, so Mr. Scrushy had an idea, and HealthSouth is formed, and he brings a lot of those Texas buddies with him to Birmingham.

          Mr. Beam was the first CFO, and he said that Mr. Scrushy managed by the numbers.

          The weekly revenue report was the weekly report of the revenue of what their numbers were, how they were doing, and he got that form weekly. You know that because of the testimony of Mr. Beam, Mr. Martin, Mr. Owens, and it was supported by the testimony of Mr. Scrushy's executive assistant, Mary Esclavon. She told you that report would come.

          When you look at the report, Mr. Martin said it was a barometer. It doesn't give you all the information, but it's a barometer. And if you're missing that top number, then it's hard to get to the bottom and meet the budget.

          The report on your screen is a weekly revenue report that was the five week summary. This is just from June of 1996.

          Remember the full report was very thick, because it had a page for each of the eighteen hundred or so, whatever the number was at the time, of the facilities.

          And remember what the CFOs told you, they said only two people outside of the top inner circle finance people that were in the conspiracy received that full report; that was Mr. Scrushy and the Chief Executive Officer, Jim Bennett.

          And there's a reason why the other people didn't receive the report. Because when you look at these reports, what do you know? You know how badly they are missing the budget.

          Now, on this report, you will see, just to orient you again, that they project what they have made. That's their actual gross revenue.

          The next column is their budgeted amount. That will tie back to their annual budget, what they were expecting to make during that time.

          And then there's the variance column. And the variance is whether they are above or below. And remember what all the accountants told you, if there are brackets, parenthesis around the numbers, it's a negative.

          So you can see on this report, quite quickly, that for the month of June of 1996, HealthSouth was below budget. It was missing its budget by about twenty-one million dollars.

          The weekly revenue reports are in this GX -- they start with 20 and then there will be a dash, and it goes all the way up to 114. We put in 114 of these reports.

          You will remember when Mr. Beam was on the stand, we showed him nineteen reports that had been created during the time he was CFO. And remember we went through one of them and it was a negative number. And then Mr. Parkman got up on cross and he said, well, I bet they showed you a negative but I bet you the rest of those reports are positive.

          Remember what Mr. Beam said? I think we all laughed. He said, what do you want to bet? And you remember Mr. Parkman admitted that he lost that bet. I think he tried to borrow a dollar from somebody. Because when we went through those nineteen reports, because when Mr. Smith got back here and drew on the chart and went through those nineteen, what had they done? They missed their revenue by about two hundred thirty-four million dollars.

          Now, while I'm at it, if I throw out a number that doesn't agree with your memory, please use yours. I know y'all took lots of notes and I know they're good notes. And I know you'll do just what we did, you'll refer back to your notes. And we know that you'll do that.

          Weekly revenue reports, they don't show the full picture, that's right. They don't show the full picture because they don't show contractuals and they don't show expenses.

          I tell you right now, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of contractuals. Because, I know one thing, contractuals means they're making less money than they billed, right? You don't pay the amount that's on the bill.

          If you've got a negative number, taking out for contractuals doesn't make that negative number a positive. So they can talk about contractuals all they want, it is a red herring, and I won't go there.

          Now, what I will say is that this report is a red flag. And it does not take a financial genius, and those are the words of one of his fellow board members that he sat on other boards with for fifteen years, a financial genius, brighter than any investment banker he had ever worked with, Mr. Newhall's words. It doesn't take a financial genius to know when you see these week after week after week after week and you are not making your budget that something is happening. You're going to have to do something. You're going to have to do something to make your budget.

          If you plan to make your EPS and hit Wall Street expectations, you're going to have to bring down your guidance, you're going to have to cut expenses, you're going to have to do something.

          So, what was he thinking when he saw these? What did the defendant say when he received these reports? These reports that they say don't tell you that much, what did he say?  

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-22 played in open court.)

          THE COURT:  Ms. Martin, could you please identify what exhibit that was that you just played so the record will be clear?

          MS. MARTIN:  Yes, that's a clip of Government's Exhibit 701-22, Your Honor.

          THE COURT:  Thank you. And if all counsel would do that when you refer to something, please.

          MS. MARTIN:  Ladies and gentlemen, what's the truth? Is it the defendant's statement, his pre-indictment statement to his troops? That's the most important thing we can have as a company. I know exactly what you're doing week to week. I take it home and I study it every chance I can.

          Or is it the, I'm now indicted, I'm in federal court, these reports just don't really tell you that much, because you've got to have expenses, you've got to have contractuals to get the whole picture. You decide.

          Well, he did get the rest of the picture, and he got them in the consolidated worksheets. You heard the man, he said, I'm watching the expenses. We are tight. We are tight.

          And those reports, which you also got many of, you have heard from Beam and Martin and Owens that those were the reports that they personally took to Mr. Scrushy. Those were the hot potatoes that he wanted to give right back to them right after he saw them. He didn't want those in his hands. He didn't want those in his office.

          Now, the defense has argued that he just didn't get those reports. Well, it is uncontroverted. There is no proof to the contrary. I want you to use your common sense. The weekly revenue report shows revenue. There's been no other report introduced to you that shows expenses.

          Can you run your home only knowing how much money you've got coming in? Do you think that man ran a Fortune 500 company not knowing what the expenses were?

          You have heard testimony from many people. He is the quintessential micromanager. He had his finger on the pulse of HealthSouth. He's the one who had top officers stand up and have the people below them, over a hundred officers, in Monday morning meetings, stand up and for three minutes tell you what they did last week and three minutes on what they're going to do the next week. That's what he did.

          He approved every flight taken on a HealthSouth plane. He approved who ate in the executive dining room.

          Do you think the man just didn't look at expenses for the company? Remember, he was paid in the top seventeen percent of Standard & Poors 500 CEOs. You know what he made. You know he looked at the expenses.

          They're asking you not to believe that he saw this key report. And you know why? Because the key report shows the fraud. What are they going to say? He saw the report but he just didn't understand it.

          They can't come up here and do that to you, so they've just got to say he didn't see it.

          I want you to look at this report. There are a lot in evidence. And I want to make sure when you get back there and want to look at them with your evidence, that you understand these reports, since we produced so many.

          But it just shows you the columns. The columns show you the different divisions. You can see the line items on the left. You see a column called consolidated. That's when all the divisions numbers are added together, what they come up with.

          But the last two are those extra columns. I'll just call them the fraud columns. This is the first quarter 1998 report. And it shows what? It shows you that HealthSouth is a hundred and nine million dollars short.

          Do you see the column labeled Street? That's what the Street was expecting based on the guidance HealthSouth had given.

          You see the variance? That's what their actual production was doing. They were behind. That shows you the fraud. Look at the bottom. They're making ten cents. The Street is expecting twenty-six and a half. What was he seeing? The fraud.

          Let me tell you another common sense. If I told you next month when you go back to work that you're going to get a two hundred thousand dollar bonus at the end of the month if you make your target, that's what his contract provided, you will see it in the proxy, based on the monthly report, would you look at the monthly report to see if you've got your two hundred thousand dollars bonus?

          Now, we heard in the opening from Mr. Parkman, he had his chart over here and drew circles, that the defendant put in the balances, the checks and the balances and that the corporation was controlled by this group of people, the Board of Directors. Let's talk about those checks and balances.

          I want to just say for a minute, you met some of the board members. What did they tell you? The outside directors came to four board meetings a year in Birmingham, Alabama, and then they had a retreat. That's four days in Birmingham. You heard the list of boards that those people are on. You went through the bylaws. You saw what their responsibilities were.

          The day-to-day operation was there in the hands of Mr. Scrushy. He led this conspiracy just like he led that corporation.

          What you also heard was that they only got historical information. How did they get information? Remember what they said? They would get a binder to prepare for their board meetings.

          What did they say? Their binders were sent to them by the chairman, and they got historical data shortly before it was filed with Wall Street.

          So who got the weekly revenue reports and the consolidated worksheets out of those checks and balances?

          Well, not the internal auditor, Ms. Sanders; not the external auditor, E&Y; not the Board; not even the chairman, George Strong, of the audit committee; none of them got them.

          And I would think if it's the most important report we have, his words, if it's the most important report we have, if the corporation was controlled by the Board, why didn't they get them? They didn't get them. We asked each of the board members, they didn't get them.

          You know, this isn't negligence. We're not talking about a foolish business decision. We're not talking about a bad business decision. We're talking about criminal activity, someone that saw the fraud or deliberately closed their eyes. And this man had a watchful eye.

          And with all of this information, we come down to the last reports that are filed, the reports that have the false financial statements in them, and that's the 10-Qs and the 10-Ks.

          And from all he knew, from all the reports he saw and that you have in evidence, he signed those original signature pages and his signature was electronically sent on those forms, along with his CFOs who conspired with him, to Washington and the public relied on them.

          The last document I want to talk about that he saw was the Murphy binder.

          And, ladies and gentlemen, if he didn't see any other document between 1996 and 1999 in July when Mr. Murphy sat down with him with that binder, if he didn't see any other document, that document was a smoking gun and told him of this fraud.

          You remember Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy was the treasurer at HealthSouth, a treasurer at HealthSouth, 1999. A young man, barely thirty. And Mike Martin asked him to do an analysis of whether or not the split of the companies, which you saw a press release in June of 1999, they had proposed they might split HealthSouth into two companies. He wanted to know if it made financial sense. And he gave full access to Mr. Murphy, the financial records.

          Mr. Murphy told you when he saw the numbers, saw all the data, he was shocked. He was absolutely shocked. And he spoke with Mr. Owens and he tried to do his analysis, and the numbers did not make sense. And he wanted to take his analysis directly to Mr. Scrushy, his boss. And Mr. Martin went with him to that meeting.

          And there was Mr. Murphy, barely thirty, going into the lion's den, showing him this binder. And you're going to have the original binder, it's marked Court's Exhibit 1.

          You will remember that we marked certain pages as Government's Exhibit 13. It's the thirteen series. And the court, the next day, after we had seen the original binder, compared and told you in an instruction that the pages were the same.

          We just pointed out certain pages. Because, remember, Mr. Murphy went in with the binder. And he said, I showed him certain pages. But then I had the back-up data for my analysis in case he had any questions about what I had done. So we did that for ease, but look at it. Compare them.

          Now, Mr. Murphy, in this document, showed Mr. Scrushy a first run, one of these consolidated worksheets and it showed that HealthSouth was missing twenty cents. We marked this as Government's Exhibit 13-C.

          And he told him in order to announce that you have hit earnings, Mr. Scrushy, you're going to have to fabricate, make up seventy-two percent, that means seventy-two cents of every dollar would be a lie. HealthSouth didn't make it.

          And then Mr. Murphy showed him this document, 13-K. HealthSouth, on this, it showed we would have to make up seventy-two percent to make up earnings. And you see the bottom section of this report is where he's giving him his ideas on reducing earnings.

          And what he said was, you know, even if we reduce estimates, you've got to do it now. You can't do it over time. This is an emergent situation.

          Now, Mike Martin told you he blacked out the word "fabricated" on this because certain words, you know, weren't said. He didn't want to upset Mr. Scrushy. But look at the words on this that aren't blacked out. Look at the word "shortfall." Look at the words "accumulated accounting issue."

          And I submit to you if you take every word off this page and just look at the numbers, that it does not take a financial genius to see the negative signs. You see they are losing money. No words were needed to describe it.

          And what did Mr. Scrushy say to Mr. Murphy? No words. Mr. Murphy told you he was silent.

          Then he showed him this document. It was about the Horizon/CMS deal, Government's Exhibit 13. This is the deal where they hid the four hundred million dollars in fraud when things were getting so bad and they needed other places. It was too big to break up into little small pieces and spread out and get out of the radar of the auditor. They needed some new ways to hide it.

          And this is when Mr. Scrushy said to Beam, I'm sorry, to Mr. Martin and Mr. Owens, damn, you guys are good.

          Well, here's this financial analyst, thirty-something, coming in. And, while these fraudsters are patting each other on the back, how they're cheating and defrauding the good people, the people that are depending on them and investing in them, what they're seeing is what Mr. Murphy told you. We just paid good money for this company. And now, based on this analysis, we're spending enough money on capital expenditures -- remember that was something that the analysts were concerned about and always pointed out that HealthSouth was higher than other companies. We're replacing every hospital bed, every chair, every computer, every piece of equipment about every two years. And he said, the numbers just aren't right. They're just not right. But Scrushy didn't say anything.

          Mr. Murphy told you he didn't ask any questions. He didn't look surprised. Said nothing. Just looked intently, I believe, was Mr. Murphy's word.

          So Mr. Murphy, Mr. Martin, they go back to Mr. Martin's office, but the wait wasn't long. Murphy told you Mr. Scrushy barged in, he was red in the face, he was very angry. And he said, where do you get off telling me how to run my company that I've been running for fourteen years? I started it on a blank piece of paper, and I don't need you telling me how to run it. You're just a doomsayer.

          Now, that's what Mr. Martin and Mr. Murphy told you.

          Now, the defense has to say that Martin and Murphy are both lying. They have to say that. They have to say Mr. Murphy was a part of the conspiracy and had some kind of motive. They have to say it because what does the meeting tell you? Scrushy is either in on the fraud or he has now seen it and he's just deliberately closing his eyes to it. You can't be careless. It's not an error in judgment.

          And who saw Scrushy walk into Martin's office? Who heard the defendant yelling at Martin and Murphy? Who told you they saw Richard Scrushy come out of the office, red faced and upset? And who told you that Mr. Murphy, within a short time, retired from HealthSouth, resigned from HealthSouth? LeAnne Tyler, the executive assistant, the secretary that was sitting outside of Mr. Martin's office and heard it that day. She came up here from Dothan, Alabama to tell you what she remembered.

          What do we know? We know that within days, on August the 3rd of 1995, Mr. Scrushy committed Count Five of the indictment, a wire fraud, because he picked up, joined a HealthSouth earnings call and he told investors, we have met earnings, second quarter earnings per share, twenty-seven cents in line with what the analysts had on the company.

          Well, that included the twenty cents, ladies and gentlemen, of the fraud. And he went on to brag in that conversation on August the 3rd. The company met the expectations of the Street in a very uncertain and difficult healthcare environment where many companies have had difficulty.

          How does the defense explain this binder? Any CEO in America that was brought this binder would have smoke alarms going off in their building. He was HealthSouth's treasurer. But he wasn't a top five floor officer, was he? He didn't know about this fraud.

          The reason Mr. Scrushy didn't walk out of that office and cool down and say, well, now, maybe I better check out this young man's word. Maybe I better check out what Leif Murphy said. Maybe I better see what's going on. Maybe I just better call my auditors. Maybe I ought to let my audit committee know. Maybe I ought to call the hotline.

          You know why he didn't do it? Any investigation would have pointed the finger right at him. You can't investigate yourself, can you? Nope.

          So those are the documents. And that is what this defendant knew, because of what he saw.

          Now, I want to talk to you about what he knew because of what he heard. There's been a lot of statements. I'm going to ask you to rely on your memory and your notes because there's so many. But I want to talk about just some key conversations.

          Let's start at the beginning, second quarter of 1996. Aaron Beam tells Mr. Scrushy, we have not met Wall Street expectations. We just missed a little bit, he didn't know the exact number now, it's been so many years, but somewhere between five and ten million dollars, and that's supported by Harvey Kelly's forensic audit. You can see here, starting very small, around seven million. I believe they told us at one point that seven million meant about a penny in EPS.

          He told Mr. Scrushy, we have missed our earnings and there's nothing we can do in accounting. There's no accounting trick. There's nothing we can do. Mr. Scrushy said it is not an option to miss the earnings. He said, well, we can't do anything. There's nothing else we can do. There's nothing creative we can do, no tricks. And he said, fix it.

          Ladies and gentlemen, when your CFO tells you there's nothing he can legitimately do -- and Mr. Beam also told him we would have to put in false numbers -- if he tells you that and you say fix it, that is directing a fraud.

          It is laughable for them to come up here and argue, as they tried to on cross-examination, well, did he use the word "illegal"? Did he use the word "fraud"? Did he use the word "false"? Did he use the word "phony"?

          And we could sit up here with a thesaurus all day long. You know what, if somebody says, I'm going to hit the bank, they haven't told me they're going to rob it. They haven't said they're going to knock it over. They haven't said they are going to forcefully remove the funds from the teller's arms.

          I mean, it is ridiculous. We're playing a word game here. Fix it. You know what he did. And that night, they stayed there and they worked those numbers and they came back the very next day and they showed him those numbers. And within days, he announced that to Wall Street.

          Now, they want you to say, they want you to buy into this theory that Bill Owens is the mastermind.

          Ladies and gentlemen, he was a bean counter controller in HealthSouth. He joined HealthSouth in 1985. This is 1996. He's been down there counting numbers for eleven years. And you think all of a sudden he just convinced a CFO, a cofounder, Aaron Beam to just start committing fraud so they could get a little boost in salary and bonus?

          I mean, from 1996 to the year 2000, in this fraud, Bill Owens is still sitting down there in that lower office. What did he do, put him under a spell?

          I want you to listen in the tapes at the end how this man manipulates Bill Owens. Bill Owens wasn't the mastermind, but Richard Scrushy is a master manipulator, and he is a pied piper. And they believed in him, and they believed in this company. And they thought this was a bump in the road that they would get over by doing it just this one time.

          But as they explained to you, it wasn't just one time. It went on and on quarter after quarter. And after about a year, Mr. Beam told you he just decided to retire. He was tired of it.

          Well, when he retired, Mr. Scrushy needed to bring in a new CFO, and you can't go outside. You know from banking, you can't -- bank tellers, they don't leave. If a teller never takes a vacation day, they say, check the cash because something is probably wrong.

          Same thing here, they kept inside. These were inside promotions, homegrown.

          So Mr. Martin comes in. And Mr. Martin had found out about the fraud once he had come into HealthSouth, because it's hard not to get these numbers and not find out about the fraud. If you've got the whole picture, you know the fraud.

          Martin spoke, he told you, to Mr. Scrushy on a regular basis about the income statement and the balance sheet, and he said that Mr. Scrushy was always aware of the shortfall. And he told you that in late 1997 Mr. Martin and Mr. Scrushy sold a lot of HealthSouth shares because it was trading at about twenty-seven dollars a share.

          Mr. Scrushy, the evidence showed you, sold a hundred and seven million dollars in stock options.

          Well, in 1998, operations just got worse. You can see on this report that in the first quarter of 1998, the EPS is ten cents, but the Street is expecting twenty-six cents. Mr. Scrushy told Martin, you guys know what to do. Mr. Martin said, we can't do this. It's hard to get it up to this number. The variance was huge. You heard Ms. Givens, she told you two cents is huge, and now you're looking at some sixteen cents.

          So, Martin told the defendant, he said, we need to lower guidance or we have to do an acquisition. The defendant rejected the suggestion of lowering guidance, and you heard about some of the acquisitions that they did.

          Martin told you that virtually on a weekly basis he would go over the weekly revenue reports and he would talk about the fact that there weren't a lot of expenses that you could cut. These showed that HealthSouth wasn't making their budget. The solution was to lower guidance. The defendant just slapped that solution back.

          You remember, during the summer of 1999, Ken Livesay did that analysis. And it showed that, based on the fact that they were paying taxes on money they weren't really making, at this point, they're losing cash. They were hemorrhaging cash, so they need to bring this number down.

          And you hear that Mike Martin gave information that he thought was inside information that Harris wasn't going to use, but a negative analyst report came out. HealthSouth's stock reacted. Wall Street reacted, and the number was brought down.

          You have also learned about the budget process of 1999. I won't go into the details except to say HealthSouth did lower their guidance in 1999, and they cited the Balanced Budget Act as one of the reasons they needed to lower it.

          Remember that the Balanced Budget Act was used as part of a cover up. It was real. There was some impact, but just like Transmittal 1753 in 2002, it wasn't as big an impact as they were really telling the Street.

          Now, in 1999, there were two major events. We have talked about one of the major events, and that's the Leif Murphy meeting in July.

          The other major event in the history of this fraud happened in October, and it involved Diana Henze. You will remember Diana Henze was -- it's on this chart. Diana Henze was the assistant vice president in accounting. And she was the one that had the ability to hit a button basically and open up the books and close the books, and she would be told when to open them and when to close them in the consolidation process. And she told you that she saw some jumps in the EPS, and she didn't understand those.

          She went to her supervisor Livesay. He gave her an explanation once, and she didn't accept it after she saw it jump again, and she went to compliance.

          You will remember seeing the compliance log. Ms. Cullison, Kelly Cullison, remember, was the compliance director, and she came in and testified that this number, the 102899, was October the 28th of '99, and that's when Ms. Henze brought the complaint in.

          And she told you that she didn't have access to the books and records of HealthSouth to make an investigation. So she went immediately to her supervisor, who was the corporate compliance officer, Tony Tanner.

          And she went to him, told him of the complaint, and he said he would handle the investigation. And Ms. Cullison told you, as is now shown on the log, that Mr. Tanner, came back shortly and said the allegation was unsubstantiated, to close the file, and this reflects investigated by CCO, and that was Tony Tanner.

          Now, ladies and gentlemen, by this time, you will remember that the accounting department was basically a pressure cooker. Remember Mr. Livesay saying it was just getting so hard. There were thousands of entries they were making to do this fraud, trying to conceal it from the outside world, trying to fool their auditors.

          And at one point, Mr. Martin even asked Mr. Scrushy if he would give Mr. Livesay a pep talk. Remember that conversation? And Mr. Scrushy said, Ken, I know how hard you're working. We won't always have to do this. Quote, "We are all going to make a lot of money and go to the lake and retire."

          But by late 1999, after Ms. Henze came to him, Mr. Livesay told you what he did. He asked for a transfer to the I.T. department. And around this same time, remember Ms. Henze went up to Mr. Martin's office on the fifth floor and was upset and said, I'm not going to have any part of this. I won't be a part of this.

          Remember who came to the door of Mr. Martin's office when he was meeting with Ms. Henze? The defendant. Remember Ms. Henze was upset, and the defendant said, Mike, I need to see you when you're through with that meeting. And Ms. Henze said it was at the end of the day, she needed to get back with her kids, and she left.

          What did Mr. Martin tell you happened? He told Mr. Scrushy, he told his boss, that lower-level people were finding out. This was getting very hard to conceal, that Henze had figured it out, had filed the complaint.

          Now, how did he find out about that complaint? Well, remember, we know how, because Mr. Tanner came right down to their office and said, I've got this complaint, can y'all handle it? He promised that he would take care of the compliance part, and Martin and Owens promised they would take care of their part.

          What was Mr. Scrushy's response? His response was don't let it happen again. So that leaves Tanner.

          There's no motive for Kelly Cullison. There is no motive for Diana Henze to tell you anything not true. Their corroboration, they have supported Martin and Owens and Livesay's accounts of this.

          Now, you heard Tanner's testimony. Remember Mr. Tanner. He's the gentleman that lacked memory of the 1990's, but he did tell you that Ms. Cullison was a person of integrity. Does he have motive? I want you to listen to this clip.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-22 played in open court.)

          THE COURT:  What is that exhibit number, please, ma'am?

          MS. MARTIN:  701-22.

          THE COURT:  Thank you.

          MS. MARTIN:  Well, the defendant was right, Tony Tanner was the perfect person. But no incentive, no motive to do anything wrong? Ladies and gentlemen, you have the proxies. The proxies are the documents that were sent out to the investors. That's the one that has the little chart in it that shows the top five paid officers of HealthSouth each year.

          You'll see Tony Tanner's name in there. He was paid more than the CFOs. Look at what incentive he had. Look at how many stock options that man had.

          No, he just decided that in 1999, after learning about this, two weeks later, what did he do? He announced his retirement. He did the same thing his cofounder, Mr. Beam did. He decided the best way to get out of this fraud was to just to retire out of it, just to retire out of it.

          And what did he tell you? It's nice to still have your stock options. You can have a hall named after you by Mr. Scrushy. And what did he say about the calling out from Mr. Scrushy before the SEC testimony he gave? I believe it was that Mr. Scrushy said, I've been there for you; now you need to be there for me. And he was there for him.

          You know, the Henze complaint is simply a lost chapter in this saga of HealthSouth's fraud. The compliance department, it was designed to kick any serious complaints right up to the fifth floor. And there you've got Mr. Tanner, and it's just a fox guarding the hen house at that point.

          Well, by early 2000, Mike Martin and Mr. Scrushy weren't seeing eye to eye. The stress had gotten there. I don't care whether he was fired, whether he retired. It doesn't matter. He moved on.

          And as Mr. Renjilian, their accounting expert told you, in order to have collusion, you have people at the very top joining together to deceive auditors, to deceive the Board, to deceive the company.

          You know, the company, the company had the right to think they were getting the honest services of their employees. The Board had that right. Investors had that right.

          You've got to have the right group of people. Those were the words Mr. Renjilian said. You've got to have the right group of people to do a fraud.

          So you've got to find a new CFO. Martin's gone. You fired him. He retired. It doesn't matter. And you've got to pick somebody on the inside.

          So, finally that little mastermind, the guy that's been toiling down there in accounting since 1985, now he gets to be the mastermind.

          You know why he's the mastermind today? He's the mastermind, because he was the only person that was left down there in HealthSouth that was in that accounting when Mr. Scrushy got indicted.

          I mean, you can't have your mastermind now having been retired. So he can't use Beam as the mastermind. He can't use Martin as the mastermind.

          So Mr. Owens tells you he knows, that he has conversations with the defendant. The defendant knows the size of the fraud. And it is undisputed testimony that Mr. Owens and Mr. Scrushy met on a regular basis throughout his time as the CFO.

          He told you of one of the more interesting meetings in 2000 where they met on the lake actually. Mr. Scrushy was flying in on his seaplane and landed on the water. Mr. Owens on his Sea Doo comes up and ties up.

          And what do they talk about? They decide in 2000, that the problem is really out in the field. They're never going to be able to get the numbers under control until the field starts making as much as their telling Wall Street they're going to make. They keep missing their budget out in the field.

          So, they decide the right thing to do is to get rid of and get the retirement of Jim Bennett, the COO, the Chief Operating Officer. That's the person that you heard, by testimony that was read here, Mr. Foster and Mr. Taylor, the division presidents, they got rid of his boss, Mr. Bennett.

          And that meant that somebody had to be the person that was over all of operations, the COO, the Chief Operating Officer. Guess who took that position for a year? Because just like with the bank teller, you can't bring somebody else into your drawer. He couldn't bring anybody in from the outside as the Chief Operating Officer of HealthSouth and expose the fraud.

          So Mr. Scrushy takes the job, not only of chairman, not only of CEO, but also of President and the Chief Operating Officer for over a year. He's directly over those division presidents. He didn't want to elevate one of those division presidents up there. That would widen that circle of conspiracy.

          But within a year, he did need to delegate some of his jobs. And so who did he move in to be the head of the operations? Bill Owens, an accountant, was made Chief Operating Officer.

          Well, at this time, you need a new CFO. If Bill Owens is going to be promoted to COO, which was the recommendation of Mr. Scrushy to the Board, then you've got to promote somebody from within again as CFO, and they tabbed Weston Smith on this.

          And Weston Smith told you that he rocked along with this fraud. He was there for about a year, as you can see from these years, as the -- he had been a controller. He came in as the Chief Financial Officer. But things changed because of Sarbanes-Oxley.

          You will remember that there were a number of emails sent out by Bill Horton, the legal counsel for HealthSouth. He sent his emails to Scrushy, to Mr. Smith and to Mr. Owens. But a lot of the lower-level people saw these emails, too. And it was talking about Sarbanes-Oxley.

          Sarbanes-Oxley came about as a result of accounting scandals in major corporations in 2000, 2001. And there was going to be a new certification that the CFO and the CEO was going to have to sign for the very first time on August the 14th of 2002.

          And when Weston Smith read this and read the new criminal penalties, he didn't want to sign it. When the lower-level people read this new law and figured out that it's not just the people that sign these forms that get sent in, that can get tabbed with indictments and prosecution, but it's the people that are helping do all this work, the mechanics. Well, they all said, we're out of this. We don't want to do it anymore. We're going to have to stop this fraud.

          And you heard on August the 5th of 2002, that Owens packed up some of the things in his office, and he walked out. And he told Bill Owens, I'm out. I'm not signing that Sarbanes-Oxley certification. I'm not signing on August the 14th of 2002. He left the building.

          And then we heard testimony from Mr. Owens that he tried to reach Mr. Scrushy. And he called over and he reached Mary Esclavon, Mr. Scrushy's executive assistant. Ms. Esclavon, on these phone records we showed you, connected a call from Mr. Scrushy -- from Mr. Owens, excuse me, on his cell to Mr. Scrushy, who was at the Marin, Inc. building, a building out near his home in Birmingham, Alabama.

          And when she was patching that call through, she told you, to make sure it was connected, she heard -- overheard Mr. Owens say to Mr. Scrushy, we have a problem. Weston has left the building. And he said he would come over, and they would talk.

          Now, Owens drove over to the Marin building, and Scrushy told him, you need to get Smith back on the reservation. You remember Mr. Owens said he called Smith, and Smith said Mr. Owens called him, and this record reflects calls. And he said come on over and let Richard and me talk to you. He said, no, he didn't want to go over there, because he knew how persuasive Richard could be. And he said, no, I'm not going to do that.

          And then Bill Owens told Richard Scrushy, we've got to come up with a plan. You know, we've got to -- things have come to a boil now. We've got to do something. So they did devise a plan, and they told you about that plan.

          Mr. Owens told you how they thought, well, all right, one thing we can do is we can go back to the plan of trying to split the company like we proposed in 1999. Wall Street might like that, releases value. We'll split the company and have this one clean company. That's where the doctors have access to the records in the surgical center business. And as a carrot, to get Weston back to sign those forms, we will let him be the CFO of that clean division.

          The other thing that we can do is we know about this Transmittal 1753, and we know it's only going to be a small impact, ten, twenty million. But what we'll do is we'll use that and make it a bigger number, and that way we can pull some of that fraud off. And then, finally, the last thing we're going to do is we're going to stop.

          And look at the forensic audit. Look when they stopped. They stopped. This is it. You start going to a negative number. They're taking it out. So they said that's what we're going to do.

          Bill Owens called up Weston Smith again. He said meet me. Let me talk to you. And that's where they met and drove around on 280, and they talked about this plan.

          And you know the rest of the story. Weston Smith came in the next day. After they had had lunch in the executive dining, he saw Scrushy outside in the hallway. Scrushy took him in his office, and he said, Weston, we're not going to do it anymore. We're going to play it straight. We're not going to fudge our numbers anymore. We're going to stop this. We're going to clean up our balance sheet over time.

          This, ladies and gentlemen, was later referred to as the Weston Smith juncture. And you're going to hear the defendant use the term "Weston Smith juncture" when he talks to Bill Owens. And he's talking about that time when Weston Smith didn't really want to sign the form, but sort of had to, went along.

          Now, two days after this turmoil, Weston Smith and Richard Scrushy host another earnings call. Just days after all this, there's another earnings call, and that's wire fraud Fifteen.

          In that one, you heard Richard Scrushy, when we played the snippet earlier in court, he said, very strong second quarter results, twenty cents EPS, met consensus estimates, up thirty-three percent over the second quarter of last year.

          And they released the good news to the public, and they released the good news to their Board on August the 7th, but then they've got to put that plan for the clean-up into action.

          And look at the press release. There's a press release that comes out around August the 26th. They have a special board meeting. And they do what? They name Richard Scrushy as the chairman of the two companies, because he can't be CEO of both. They move Weston Smith, like they promised. He elevates Bill Owens to the role of CEO of HealthSouth, and they announce the huge hit of one hundred seventy-five million dollars. That all comes out in one press release.

          And they need a new CFO of HealthSouth, and that's when McVay, Tadd McVay, is brought over the wall. And Tadd McVay told you he was told that they weren't going to -- they were stopping the fraud.

          They weren't going to put anything new on the income statement. They weren't going to inflate those numbers. They would report real earnings, but they would have to clean up the balance sheet over time. That stuff was still in there. It was still in the PP&E. It was still in the cash. So they had to clean that up over time.

          And remember Mr. McVay told you that Scrushy said to him, you know, all companies fudge their numbers. You know, we're a good group of people. We're a good group of guys, and we're going to work this out.

          But once they made that announcement in August, you know the rest of that story, the stock plummeted. Remember it dropped sixty percent in value in two days, in two days? It was down below four dollars a share. And within hours, shareholder lawsuits were filed by investors that were very upset. They thought something was wrong in this company. The SEC, in the month of September of 2002, opened an investigation.

          As Chuck Newhall told you, by this time, the investing public had lost all confidence in HealthSouth. And what did Ms. Givens tell you? She said that the Board was very upset, because they thought Mr. Owens had miscalculated this Transmittal 1753, that he had mishandled it, that he had not told Mr. Scrushy about it, that Mr. Scrushy should have known about it.

          But remember what she also told you? That she didn't know about the private conversations they were having. She didn't know about those. She didn't know about that cover up.

          Ladies and gentlemen, by the spring of 2002, the SEC was taking depositions. You heard that they took Mr. Scrushy's deposition. On March the 14th of 2002, in my office, the grand jury here in the Northern District of Alabama had opened a criminal investigation, and the grand jury here had issued subpoenas. And Mr. Owens and Mr. Scrushy knew that a criminal investigation would result in fingers going their way.

          And the spotlight of federal law enforcement was shining on all these top executives of HealthSouth. It wasn't one person. It was all of them. It was a broad light.

          But instead of moving from that light, Bill Owens and Mr. Smith came toward the light, and they took us inside that conspiracy. And when Mr. Smith entered his plea of guilty, he agreed to plead guilty to crimes that carry twenty-five years in prison. That was his plea deal, twenty-five years.

          And when Mr. Owens pled guilty in this courtroom to his crimes, you know what he was dealing for? Thirty years was what we offered him. Owens wore a wire, and you will hear those tapes in a minute.

          I want to talk about those deals. Before I talk about the tapes, I just want to say that the government, law enforcement, we need cooperating witnesses. We can't learn about conspiracies from just anybody.

          They want to talk about all the fifty-two thousand employees at HealthSouth. Well, you know what? About fifty-one thousand nine hundred and eighty of them couldn't have helped us to get inside this crime. We needed the people that we went to, and we started with these two, and we worked our way out. We looked at a lot of people.

          And during their cooperation -- and many of them await sentencing. Some of them, you know, have already been sentenced. They helped us to see who was involved in the fraud. We looked at documents. They told us where we might look, people we might interview, things that had happened.

          Judge Bowdre charged you yesterday that plea bargaining is lawful and proper and is provided for in the rules of the court. And your common sense tells you to get inside a conspiracy, you need just what Mr. Scrushy had put together, the right group of people.

          But we didn't just rely on that right group of people. That's not what we came in here with. We also supported what that right group of people said with forensic audit, which showed how this fraud did escalate and grow and then was stopped. We brought you executive secretaries, flight log records, phone calls, lots of supporting evidence.

          Now, I expect the defense to tell you to reject all of the Chief Financial Officers' testimony. They have to say that. They have to say that. What did he know because of what they said to him? They want you to turn a blind eye to all of that evidence.

          Now, let's go to the last set of evidence I want to go through and show how the defendant knew, and that's by what he said. These tapes were played early on in the case, because they were made with Mr. Owens. So they were played early on, and they were only played once. And that was before you really had the full picture of the conspiracy, how you knew everything fit together from 1996 to 2003.

          So I encourage you to listen to these tapes, they are in evidence, and put them in proper context. We don't have time, during this brief time with you this morning, to go and listen to all the tapes.

          What I have done is created a chart that I hope will help you a bit to organize them, because you had the original numbers, you had government's exhibit numbers and then times and dates and types of machines, and I thought that might have been confusing.

          The way I like to think about the tapes is two, two and two. That's because there were two tapes made on Monday morning, the 17th of March. There were two tapes made on Monday afternoon, and there were two tapes made on Tuesday, one in the morning and one in the afternoon.

          So I want to start by saying the Monday morning recordings, that's the one where the body recorder that was sewn into the tie malfunctioned, and nothing was on that. That's the one where the cell phone was acting as the transmitter, and the FBI agents were off site and were just monitoring.

          And because of the micro disk having a very short capacity and the battery life, they would just cut it on and off and monitor it when they heard Mr. Scrushy's voice, because they thought, of course, the tie was working and would get everything. They were there as a back up. Those are the tapes that are poor quality.

          Now, on the afternoon of Monday, everything worked fine, because Mr. Owens called in from home, so it's a recording on a phone call, so it's clear. The next day the body recorder worked, and those tapes are good clarity.

          I want to talk about the first tape on Monday morning, the one that was picked up on the back. I want to say, first of all, you heard from one expert on their side about the tapes. And what he said was that he didn't examine the afternoon of Monday, and he didn't examine the Tuesday tapes; but, because of the way they were made, they could not be altered. He gave no testimony to the contrary.

          And what he said about the Monday morning tapes was there was no evidence of alterations or deletions. He told you that it was confusing, because he didn't know when they had turned it on and when they had turned it off. And that's because of just what the FBI agents told you, they were monitoring it. That's why it's that way.

          But what Mr. Ginsberg did tell you was that whatever is on the tape was not altered. So when you hear the defendant's voice, that is what he said. That is what their expert told you.

          So what I would like to do is just set up -- we're going to play a short clip from the first tape on the morning of March the 17th. This first one is where Bill Owens, you remember, is in his office, and Ken Livesay is in there standing against the wall. Ken Livesay told you that.

          And Mr. Scrushy comes down the office and comes -- comes down the hall and comes into Mr. Owens' office, and he's really pumped, because he's had his deposition before the SEC the Friday before. And he says, this didn't happen; you know, swear to it. But, man, this went well. They're on a witch hunt. They hadn't got anything. They didn't ask me nothing about the numbers.

          Let's hear the clip.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-2 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  You see where he says to Ken Livesay, he turns and he says, you need to hear this, because you were sitting under the CFO for a long time.

          THE COURT:  Ms. Martin, what is the exhibit number for the record, please, ma'am?

          MS. PHILIP:  701-2.

          MS. MARTIN:  701-2. Thank you, Judge. Remember Mr. Livesay is the one he gave the pep talk to that just didn't work. By 1999, he went to I.T. But he's here telling them that, they ain't got you know what. They ain't got nothing. They didn't ask me nothing about numbers.

          And he's making a special reference to somebody that left accounting in 1999. And he was so excited, you can hear, that they're not looking at the numbers.

          And when you listen to the full tape, it's about ten to twelve minutes, you will hear him go on to say the investigation is about nothing other than insider trading. And Bill Owens says, well, that's good news. Hell, yeah, that's good news. Yeah, that's good news.

          What else did he think they were investigating? Why is he so pleased that it's not about the numbers?

          Well, the second tape, let's go to that, because it gives you more evidence. The second tape is also in the morning on Monday, and this is when Bill Owens goes down into the defendant's office, and he's going to try to engage him in a conversation about this, and he's going to use two events.

          He's going to say, I've told my wife, and she's going to divorce me if I keep signing the phony financial statements.

          I mean, you've got to come up with something, ladies and gentlemen, if you're going to come down and talk about this at the end of something you've been involved in for all of six or seven years.

          And remember on that day, they were supposed to file something with the SEC? They had to file a 10-Q that was amended, and it was going to take the defendant's signature and Mr. Owens'.

          So they decide -- he talks with the FBI, and they decide you're going to go down and say, I don't want to sign that form, and it's because of my wife. So that is the set up for that conversation.

          I want you to listen. Mr. Owens says, when Mr. Scrushy says stop what, his answer is, you know, the stuff in the balance sheet, amount in cash, PP&E.

          And listen for the defendant's response. Does she not realize what she's doing to you? And then it continues. And Owens says, my wife says, how can y'all continue to lie this way.

          And what is the CEO of this Fortune 500 company's response to his CFO? He drops that voice so low, are you wired?

          And remember when you're listening to this where this conversation took place. Owens had gone down to the defendant's office, and he moved him around, when they started talking about this, into that back hallway back by his private bath. If we could have this clip, please.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit Number 701-003 played in open court.)

          THE COURT:  The exhibit number please?

          MS. MARTIN:  Exhibit Number 701-3.

          THE COURT:  Thank you.

          MS. MARTIN:  Stuff in the balance sheet. Does she not realize what she's doing to you? Are you wired?

          Listen to the full conversation, because he goes on and you will hear the defendant say that he prays everyday that God will give us time to get on the other side. And he warns Bill Owens, if you want to go public with all this, it's all gone, everybody goes down.

          What's he praying to get on the other side of? I mean, just that morning he was really pumped. He was really pumped, it's only insider trading, they're not looking at the numbers.

          What's Bill Owens talking about? I don't want to sign, I don't think I can sign the certification. It's the numbers. It's the fraud.

          He's worrying that his CFO, one of the last of the Mohicans in this fraud, he's cracking, too. I mean, he's already had Beam leave on retirement. Tanner has left on retirement. Martin is gone. Smith fell apart and had to be moved over to a clean division. McVay can't handle the pressure. Now his big dog is turning on him. I want you to listen to the next clip.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit Number 701-003 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  That's 701-3 for the record.

          THE COURT. Thank you.

          MS. MARTIN:  You're not a dishonest person. Neither am I, in the hushed tones, quiet tones. You see he encourages Owens, we have to get on the other side. Does he say -- then you will hear on the rest of the tape, Owens told you the defendant held his hands out in front of him like handcuffs. He says, on the other side, you've got a chance. On the other side, you're just -- if you don't get on the other side, you're just going down there and giving yourself to them. Listen to how he says it.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-003 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  701-3. It's a continuation. Does that show he knows something? If you just go on down there, you're just going to give yourself to them. Who is them? The SEC is over in Atlanta, ladies and gentlemen. They don't have an office here. The them is us, the them is the Department of Justice.

          And the defendant ends that hushed conversation with this pep talk. Listen to the leader of the conspiracy encouraging Owens to lead HealthSouth out of the fraud. He says, you and I will take it out, don't destroy this.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-003 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  It's part of that same clip, 701-3. What is on the other side? What does he know? What he is so concerned about that they've got to lead it out, and you don't want to destroy this?

          He needs this CFO. This defendant, we've never said, made the journal entries. It took the accountants to make the journal entries. It took the CEO to direct it.

          What does it show? It shows knowledge. It shows participation in this conspiracy. And it shows it, ladies and gentlemen, beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, in the afternoon, there are two phone calls, because you will remember after these morning discussions, Mr. Owens said, I'm going to go home, try to talk to my wife. So there were two calls back to HealthSouth that afternoon so that he could report in.

          Now, the first call was at 1:45 p.m. And in it, the defendant warns Owens, don't go do something stupid. And he compared it to walking into a propeller blade.

          Then the second call was about ten minutes later after he had obviously spoken to Bill Horton and gotten an extension of time to file that 10-Q, the one he was refusing to sign that day. And this is a business call, ladies and gentlemen. He is calling his boss to say, we've gotten an extension of time.

          And I want you to listen to what Richard Scrushy, on this business call about signing the 10-Q, says. It shows what he's worried about.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-006 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  701-6. What does that show knowledge of? What does 10-QA signing -- what does being two days late on that have to do with he's got kids at home, and they need their daddy? Where did he think that daddy was going to go?

          SEC is a civil organization. They fine people for insider trading. Did daddy think he was going to go to prison?

          Just that morning, this pumped-up man marches down there to the CFO's office, said, hell, they ain't got shit, Bill. They're not looking at the numbers.

          And now he's -- I mean, this is what, 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, and he's, I got eight kids, and they need their daddy. Something big has happened, hasn't it? It's fixing to fall apart. And it did within twenty-four hours.

          The next day, the body mikes work, so we've got better clarity on these recordings. I just wanted to set the stage for the morning conversation. The next day Owens returns to work. He goes to his office.

          His boss, Scrushy, comes down the hall, talks to him. And then the defendant brings up the issue of his conversation with the wife, okay, you know, the wife that's going to divorce him if he signs another phony financial statement.

          And listen to what he says, because then Bill Owens says, well, are you comfortable talking here, and he says, no, not here. And that's why there isn't anything on the morning conversation and why at noon time, you hear him saying, I didn't really get anything. It's because the defendant didn't want to speak in Mr. Owens' office.

          Now, why would you not want to speak in your CFO's office? What are you concerned about? I want you to remember Ms. Esclavon's testimony that sometime in August of 2002, around that Weston Smith juncture, that was when Mr. Scrushy called her in the office and said watch out, be careful, don't give my itinerary -- don't give my schedule to Goodreau, my body guard. Be very cautious. Offices might be bugged. She said that she thought he was acting paranoid.

          Listen to this clip from the Monday morning meeting on March 18th.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-007 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  701-7. Now, we heard already testimony there was a Monday morning meeting that Tuesday, and then there was an officers' meeting. So you've got a room full of people that Mr. Owens and Mr. Scrushy have just left before leading into this last conversation, which was on Tuesday afternoon.

          I want you to listen, because the CFO, Bill Owens, uses very charged words in this conversation. He uses words like "phony financial statement." He names two companies that have been involved in accounting scandals. He talks about prison.

          Now, what would you do, if you were the Fortune 500 CEO of this company, a financial genius, as described by Newhall, when you hear this being said? I want you to think about that, what an honest person would do, what an honest person's response would be, what a person who did not know would be responding. And I want you to listen to this defendant's response.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-007 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  Is that where y'all left it? Is he a marriage counselor? Incredible. And the talk continues. Owens asked him for advice. The mastermind is asking for advice, what to do with his wife.

          They had just come out of that full office of HealthSouth officers, and the salesman, Richard Scrushy, goes to work. He reminds him in this clip, Mr. Owens, how well the company is doing, how people think the deck's clean, and how all those people in that room, all your friends are at risk. And as the kicker, he adds in there, and, Bill, you've already signed documents. It shows he's known about this all along. You've already signed documents.

          What does it tell you? That Richard Scrushy knew about the past filings. This isn't something new that's been dropped on him this day, and he's in shock. He's known about it.

          Listen also, he isn't concerned about the 10-Q. He tells you that. He says, that needs to be signed -- when Owens says, well, we have two days, because he's gotten that extension, listen, because Scrushy says I'm talking about the other stuff.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-008 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  701-8. You remember what the auditor said? You can't -- there's no fixing it over time in legitimate accounting. There's no fixing it over time. And that's what he's telling his CFO, just fix it over time. Just another direction, we'll clean up this fraud over time. Let's not let it fall apart today, Bill.

          And he reminds him in this next segment about the last time that hell broke loose at HealthSouth, the Weston Smith juncture, the secret meetings, the frantic phone calls on August the 5th. And the commander of this conspiracy, Richard Scrushy, gives a very hushed, calm pep talk.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-008 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  It's the same, 701-8. And then he lays down his trump card, you're already in it, Bill. When you commit these kind of crimes, you're in it.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-008 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  The "it" was the conspiracy. And the defendant was right, he didn't get out of it. He pled guilty. Thirty years in prison was the plea deal. The criminal partnership, those crossroads back in 1996.

          Now, the defendant turns to various persuasive techniques, references to family, how good the company is, do we really want to trash all this. Listen to the encouragement he gives to try to get this CFO back on the reservation.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-008 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  That's the same exhibit number, Your Honor. Every company he's ever been involved with, he's saying, has, his words, shit on the balance sheet. And he's right there telling his CFO, we've got to do the right thing. And the right thing in his world was fix it over time. Keep it hidden now. Let's not let anybody know what we have seen, what we know. Hold it together, brother, and get down there and lead your troops.

          All those accountants that have read about Sarbanes-Oxley that now figure that their little fanny is on the line, too, just hold them together. What does he say? You know, you've got to lead your people, you've got to lead your troops, go down fighting.

          You've got to answer the question, what did he know. And what he says gives you a lot of information about what he knows.

          Now, this is the final clip. And you will hear the techniques used again to persuade Owens to stay the course and not expose the fraud, not to expose his friends. And, as the defendant says, they'll all go down.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-008 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  It's the same clip number, Your Honor. It's worth fighting for them. Don't take them down, all those people.

          Ladies and gentlemen, within hours of that tape, the FBI executed search warrants at HealthSouth and gathered many of the documents you've seen through this trial.

          Now, the next day you remember Richard Scrushy went to work, and the Board later terminated him. But you'll recall Mary Esclavon, his executive assistant, she was there that day, and he asked her for a couple of phone numbers. Do you remember that? She said three phone numbers, but she could only remember two of them.

          Do you remember? He asked on that day in 2003 for the telephone numbers for his former Chief Financial Officer Aaron Beam, who had not been with the company in over six years. And he asked for the phone number for Mike Martin, his former Chief Financial Officer, who had not been with the company in over three years.

          His inner circle, ladies and gentlemen, had come back full round. You have now been shown what he saw, what he heard and what he said. And Richard Scrushy is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having directed and participated in this massive accounting fraud.

          And he has several motives. People always want to ask the question of why in crimes. Three things motivated Richard Scrushy:  Pressure, ego and money.

          On pressure, Beam told you back in 1996 that Scrushy said missing the earnings was not an option. And you heard the Wall Street analysts, Mr. Rice and Mr. Morgan. And they told you they based their recommendations -- you saw many of their reports on buying and selling -- they make those recommendations based on, in large part, the EPS, how is the stock performing.

          You saw that institutional investors owned about seventy percent of HealthSouth, seventy percent. These institutions have professional money managers, and they're not going to stay where they're not making money.

          If you miss your earnings, what happens? They told you, your stock drops. What did they say? People cash out. They find better investments.

          And boards also look at that. Remember Richard Scrushy was being graded every three months by Wall Street based on the EPS he released on those earnings calls, and he was being graded by his own Board.

          Listen to what he says in this clip, 701-10A.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-10A played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  Wall Street pressure broke this man, but he had some help, he had his ego. When you're the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, you're in a pressure cooker. You're paid very well, and you start living very well.

          He didn't want to break his record of ten consecutive years of meeting or exceeding Wall Street expectations. Look at the letters he sent out to shareholders. He would brag on the number of consecutive quarters, the second longest streak on Wall Street.

          Read those letters. Listen to the earnings calls. He was a winner. He was going to take HealthSouth into all fifty states. And even in the late '90s, he's calling it the healthcare company of the 21st century. And he deserved top pay as a reward. It was his idea, and it was his company. That reward, ladies and gentlemen, of course, came in the form of money.

          Now, apparently, the defense theory is that he was too rich to commit a crime, that he had no motive.

          Let's just look at money as the motive. What do we know about his finances? It is undisputed that at the beginning of this conspiracy he had about thirty-eight million dollars in the bank that was liquid. Everything else was paper wealth, they call it, stock wealth, stock options. It's not money in the bank.

          Mr. Renjilian wants to count it, like counting chickens before they've hatched. You only have money when you've sold that stock, when you've exercised those options and sold them.

          During the conspiracy from 1996 to 2003, we know how much money he spent. Mr. Bavis introduced that evidence, and it is uncontroverted. And during the time of the conspiracy, he spent two hundred and three million dollars.

          Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not the best with math. That's why I've let Ms. Conry take all those witnesses. But I can tell you that I can figure it out pretty quickly, that if I'm making one point two million dollars a year in my salary, and I'm making two point four million dollars in my annual management bonus. And then I get maybe a big ten million dollar annual bonus, I still cannot buy all the stuff, the art, the cars, the boats, the land, the jewelry, I can't buy that on just that salary, no matter how good it is. I've got to have my options. Listen to what he says.

          (Excerpt of Government's Exhibit 701-010 played in open court.)

          MS. MARTIN:  Clip 701-10.

          THE COURT:  Thank you.

          MS. MARTIN:  If he didn't have his options, he would have worked for nothing, for nothing. I started the company, I grew the company.

          He forgets about all the people that were rendering good medical care. I, I, I until today. Now it's them.

          I want you to look at the options he sold during this conspiracy. They say he has no motive. He sold two hundred and one million dollars' worth of options. I submit to you that he had two hundred and one million motives to commit the crimes he did.

          So they want to talk about their theory that the CFOs did it for the salaries and the bonuses? Well, I will just say show me the money.

          I want you to look at his motive compared to their motive on this chart, eighty-three percent, eighty-three percent of the proceeds of this. You can't spend two hundred million dollars on stuff that you want like he did, live the lifestyle he did, without these bonuses, without these stock options. He had to sell the stock. No one had a bigger motive to commit this crime than Richard Scrushy. Thank you.

          THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, the government is not through with closing argument yet, but I think this would be a good time for us to take a break. And during the day, we're going to kind of go with the flow of when different lawyers change the job of making summations to gauge our breaks.

          But if any of you need comfort breaks in between then, you just wave at me, and we'll take care of you like we've tried to do during the whole trial.

          We're going to come back at five after 11:00, and we're going to try start right back at that time. As you know, as it has been throughout this trial, you know that you're not to discuss the case among yourselves or allow anyone to discuss it in your presence. Thank you.

          (Brief recess)

          (Open court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Ms. Conry, you may proceed.

          CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MS. CONRY

          MS. CONRY:  Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. I would like to use a little of our time to walk through what the judge has called the indictment.

          Now, this is a document that you're going to have to take back with you in the jury room. And this lays out all the specific charges that we've made out against Mr. Scrushy, and it can serve as a road map as you deliberate.

          So let's start with the first count. The first count in the indictment is conspiracy. That starts at Page 1, and you'll see the first couple of pages are nothing more than an introduction.

          And, as you would expect, that's a little background information on HealthSouth and on Mr. Scrushy and the way they filed their financial reports.

          The next part of Count One, which is conspiracy, is the purpose -- I'm sorry -- the conspiracy itself. In other words, the ten crimes that the defendant and his co-conspirators conspired to commit.

          Now, like the judge told you yesterday, we don't have to prove that he attempted to commit all ten crimes. We only have to show that he conspired with at least one other person to commit one of these crimes, and somebody performed an overt act in furtherance of that crime.

          Now, we think we've proven that he tried to commit all the crimes with one other person, and you can find that and indicate that on your verdict form, but we only have to show one.

          Let me talk a little bit about the nature of a conspiracy and how it fits within this case. As the judge told you, a conspiracy is nothing more than an agreement between two people to do something unlawful.

          Now, every member of a conspiracy doesn't have to know what every other member of the conspiracy is doing at any particular point in time. And every member of the conspiracy doesn't need to know every detail of what the other people are doing.

          I mean, they don't have to sit down in a room at one time and hammer out a written agreement. It can be informal. For example, Richard Scrushy, he doesn't have to know what journal entries Ken Livesay is entering to be a part of that conspiracy.

          And a good person to exemplify this is Will Hicks. You might remember. He spoke briefly to you. Will Hicks, he never entered a single journal entry. He never attended a single family meeting, but he pled guilty to participating in the conspiracy.

          And the reason he did is because he did his job, and his job was to lie to the auditors. His job was to tell the auditors these investments that HealthSouth is making are worth a lot more than they're telling the rest of the world. So he was part of the conspiracy.

          He never met with Genny Valentine. He never met with Cathy Edwards or Ken Livesay to cook the books. He did his job. He pled guilty.

          Now, another thing that's unique about conspiracies, as you've learned in this case, co-conspirators don't tend to sit down and write down all their plans. They don't sign on the dotted line, we're all going to agree to do this.

          So we've shown you a lot of documents that show there was a fraud. We've shown you a lot of documents that show, for example, the magnitude of the fraud.

          And like Ms. Martin showed you, Government's Exhibit 19-10, it says, here's how much we really made. Here's how much Wall Street thinks we're going to make, and here's the variance. Well, nobody put their name on that.

          So how do you know who's in the conspiracy? Well, you've got to have them come in here in court and tell you. I was in it, and so was he. So was the defendant, Richard Scrushy. So you have the testimony of Leif Murphy. You have the testimony of the five CFOs that Ms. Martin went through with you, and I'm not going to repeat.

          But that's how you know, because people don't write their names on documents when they're committing crimes, unless we get really lucky, but that didn't happen a lot in this case.

          Now, the next part of the indictment talks about the purpose of the conspiracy. That's on Page 8. And the purpose of this conspiracy was to unjustly enrich and benefit the defendant Richard Scrushy and his other co-conspirators by cooking the books at HealthSouth. I mean, that's the plain English way to say it.

          Now, how do we prove that? Well, we prove that by all the bonuses he got. We prove that by the massive two hundred million dollars he got from selling stock at HealthSouth. So that's how we prove the purpose of that conspiracy.

          Now, the next part of the indictment, the part of the conspiracy charge, Pages 8 through 10, I believe, talks about something called the manner and means.

          And, again, these are all going to sound like legal terms to you, but really that's just how did they do it, how did they pull this off, what tricks did they pull. And this is just a fancy way of saying they knew they weren't going to make Wall Street expectations, they cooked the books, they pumped the income statement. They pumped the balance sheet with fake entries, making it look like they were doing a lot better than they were.

          Then they put those same fake numbers out in financial statements that they filed in the 10-Ks and 10-Qs and mailed out the annual reports. The shareholders took the hook, bought the stock, gave HealthSouth their money, and that is to the benefit of Richard Scrushy and to the detriment of shareholders. And that is the plain English version of what you're going to see in the manner and means of the conspiracy.

          The next part of the indictment, under the conspiracy count, talks about something called overt acts. And, again, the judge talked about this yesterday. And just like the rest of the trial, anything she says goes. And if I muck it up, you listen to her and not to me.

          So you'll get the jury instructions when you go back there. Whatever the judge tells you goes. But I want to talk a little bit about overt acts. And overt acts are really something -- it can be an innocent act in some other context, like, for example, one of them is filing the 10-Ks or filing the 10-Qs. Well, companies across America, they file their 10-Ks and 10-Qs all the time, and we don't think they're all criminals. But the reason it becomes an overt act is because it furthers the conspiracy.

          All right. Now, Genny Valentine and Cathy Edwards you didn't hear from, but you heard about them. They're making the fake entries, but they can't sign the 10-Qs. That's not their job. They can just make the fake pretend copier out in Topeka and try to fool the auditors with that.

          But only a couple of people signed the 10-Ks and 10-Qs, and Richard Scrushy is one of them, and that's his job in this conspiracy.

          Now, again, everybody has got their role. His role was to be the public face of this conspiracy. His role -- and I think Ken Livesay put it best. His role was to be the commander in chief of this conspiracy, and he served in exactly that role for seven years. Think about it, seven years, every quarter, HealthSouth filing fake financial statements, pumped up with billions of dollars of fraud.

          And as Ms. Martin mentioned, how did he commit the crime? With a fountain pen, signing the documents that are filed with the public, lying to them in the earnings conference calls. That was his role, and he fulfilled it quite nicely.

          Now, again, when you're going to get the verdict form from the judge and you're going to see under overt acts, it's going to list every paragraph. Now, you all have to unanimously agree that a particular overt act was committed.

          Now, I think there may be forty something of them. So just circle them on the verdict form, every one that you all can agree on. If you can't agree, don't circle it. But if you can agree, go ahead and circle it, and that will he us know what you all agreed upon unanimously.

          Now, just to summarize on the conspiracy, what do we know? We heard from -- well, we know for sure there was a conspiracy. We have fifteen people who pled guilty to participating in it. Richard Scrushy is a member of it also. So we know it happened.

          All right. And we know he was a member, Richard Scrushy, of this conspiracy. You've got Leif Murphy telling you about it. You have all the five CFOs telling you about it. You have Ken Livesay telling you about it. You have him admitting it practically on the tapes that Ms. Martin just reviewed with you.

          Now, we think that that together establishes there was an agreement between two people to commit something unlawful, pump the numbers, cook the books, sell on insider information, those are bad acts. And if somebody did something, an overt act, to further that, you can look at the list of them, and I think you'll find we've proven nearly all of them.

          Let me move on to Count Two. Count Two charges securities fraud, and it charges the defendant in particular with participating with a wide-ranging scheme at HealthSouth from 1996 to 2003, when the FBI finally came into HealthSouth to perform the search.

          And this scheme that we talked about, you're going to find a better description of that in the manner and means section of the indictment in Count One. So Count Two refers back to Count One for the manner and means.

          And, again, the scheme, in plain English, pumping the numbers, making it look like we're making as much as Wall Street thinks we're going to make, sending out all the false financial statements, lying about how much we're making, selling insider stock, getting big bonuses. That's the scheme. And that's at the heart of Count Two.

          Then we charge, in addition to that, well, the June 30th, 2002, 10-Q, and that's Government's Exhibit 6-23. That's in furtherance of that scheme. All right. And if you think about it, you've heard several times, HealthSouth, as a publicly-traded company, has to file its 10-Qs. Neal Seiden of the SEC told you about that. You'll see it on the front of the 10-Qs, HealthSouth an issuer. You'll see it on the front of the 10-Ks. So we know they did that. We know the evidence is overwhelming that they filed the June 30th, 2002, 10-Q. That's not in dispute.

          So let me focus on a couple of the other elements that the judge talked about with you yesterday in the context of Count Two.

          Now, one thing we have to show, and I think we have shown beyond a reasonable doubt, is that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud, another legal sounding phrase. What's that? That's just a plan or a course of action to cheat or deceive, just like you would think. Common sense. We're going to cheat those shareholders out of their money. That's really what a scheme and artifice to defraud means when you get down to it.

          Now, in this case, what evidence do we have of that, that there was a scheme or artifice to defraud?

          Well, again, we know the consolidated worksheets show they weren't making Wall Street expectations. You don't have to look any further than the exhibit Ms. Martin showed you, Government's Exhibit 19-10. We know it wasn't happening. That's barely in dispute.

          We know Harvey Kelly tells us they cooked the books. We've got two point seven billion dollars flooding, raging through their financial statements. He talked to you about how material those numbers were, and that means it would matter to an investor.

          And there's a description in the glossary, but it really boils down to it would make a difference, it would matter. And Harvey Kelly told you unquestionably, this would matter, this is one of the biggest accounting frauds. So we've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          We've also proven the other parts, that we file the false financial statements, file the fake 10-Q. They filed the June 30th 10-Q for 2002. That's not at issue. And we all know he sold the stock and made massive bonuses from it.

          So we've proven the scheme and artifice to defraud.

          Now, conspiracy, the scheme that we're talking about, Richard Scrushy, he doesn't have to know everything that everybody else is doing as a part of this scheme. He just has to participate in it. And I think we've shown that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          All right. Now, let me move to another element of this count, and that's called intent to defraud. And this is big, this is very, very important, and we think we've proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's a critical element of a lot of these charges.

          Now, intent to defraud just means to act knowingly and with specific intent to cheat or deceive. It makes sense.

          And usually evidence of this is either you're causing loss to somebody else or you're getting some money for yourself.

          Well, in this case, we have both. And how do we know that? How do we prove that to you?

          Well, like we said, we had the victims testify. We had Ms. Ellenburg, I like to call her Ms. 409. She is the lady who invented that little spray thing that we all clean our counter tops with. She was our first witness. She relied on these statements. She invested her money to her detriment because she didn't know, you know, so much of the earnings were fake. They were just fabricated in Leif Murphy's words. That's evidence of intent to defraud.

          So is personal gain. Well, how do we know there was personal gain here? Look at the bonuses, look at the massive bonuses. Thirty-four point five million dollars in annual bonuses. I think thirteen point five million in the monthly bonuses. That's evidence of intent to defraud. And I think we've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          And as I said, Neal Seiden talked to you about the fact that HealthSouth is an issuer of securities, and you will see that right in the front of every 10-K -- 10-Ks are in the five series. We have this way of numbering our documents. All the 10-Ks will be in the five series. All the weekly revenue reports, those are the twenty series. You'll see a pattern when you get back there.

          Let me move on then to Count Three. Count Three is also a securities charge, securities fraud. But we charge this, and let me remind you, you will get the jury instructions. The elements of Count Three are at Pages 27 through 28 of your instructions.

          But Count Three charges securities fraud in a little bit of a different way. It charges that on March 27th, 2002, the defendant caused to be filed HealthSouth's 2001 10-K. You file it in March for the previous year, and that he filed that or caused it to be filed in connection with the sale of his stock on May 14th, 2002, less than two months later. All right.

          So the evidence is clear, what do we know? We know he signed the 10-K. That's Government's Exhibit 5-7, if you would like to see that. And we know, Harvey Kelly explained, we took the chart down, but there's five hundred and seventy-six million dollars in fake income in that 10-K. So we know it's materially false beyond a reasonable doubt.

          And we know, during this time period, Bill Owens was talking to Mr. Scrushy quarter by quarter, telling him here's how far we're missing the numbers by. This is how bad it is. And this is two years after he's talked to Leif Murphy. So he knows there are first run consolidation worksheets, because Leif Murphy showed him. That's Government's Exhibit 13-C.

          So he knows all this stuff. He's signing the 10-K, filing the 10-K.

          We know from the five CFOs the purpose of the scheme was to pump up the numbers and pump up the stock price. So we've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, let's focus on whether the filing of the 10-K was in connection with the sale of the stock. All right.

          From March 27th, 2002 to May 14th, 2002, two times the defendant goes out and tells the public, bragging about the value of HealthSouth stock. All right. Once was an earnings conference call. Once was on national television, I think it was CNBC, bragging about what a great value HealthSouth stock was.

          Well, he doesn't take the chance to tell them, sorry about that, I forgot to remind you, there's five hundred seventy-six million dollars in fake numbers in the 10-K. He's pumping the stock, telling everybody it's a great deal. And then he capitalizes on that. He sells it. And he makes seventy-four million dollars from selling that stock.

          And I want you to remember now, they're going to talk about how his options were going to expire. Nobody forced Richard Scrushy to sell that stock. All right. He could have let those options expire. He had a choice:  Sell the stock, commit securities fraud; don't sell the stock, don't commit securities fraud.

          Guess what he chose? He chose to take the money.

          Now, that's not the end of it, because when he chose to take the money, and knowing when the stock price was inflated, there were victims. And again, those are victims just like Ms. Ellenburg, Mr. Reiner. He knew it was inflated. He sells the stock to somebody who doesn't know it was inflated. They're the people that are harmed by this.

          We've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of securities fraud as charged in Count Three.

          Let me move on to Count Four through Sixteen, and these charge wire fraud.

          Now, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant used wire communications to further these schemes to defraud that we've been talking about.

          Now, the wire fraud counts, those are based on the earnings conference calls. And we played a couple of them for you and we talked about a couple of them for you. Those are Government's Exhibit 8-2 through 8-13.

          Now, in this case, the wire communication, it's nothing more than a call from Alabama to some other state. All right. And we had A.J. Rice, and I think it was Frank Morgan, the analysts who came in and talked to you about how they were on those calls and they listened to them, and they weren't in Alabama when they were on those calls. That's the interstate connection that we need to prove to you, and I think we've done that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, we also know the defendant knew when he got on those conference calls what he was saying was false. Again, I'm not going to repeat it. He's talked to the CFOs, he's looking at the weekly revenue reports, he's looking at the consolidated worksheets. He knows what he's saying is false.

          And you also know that as part of the scheme, you've got to get out there every quarter and tell your analysts, we're doing great. We're meeting Wall Street expectations. This is another quarter. We're right where we need to be. That's part of the scheme. We've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, the judge talked to you yesterday about alternative theories under wire fraud and mail fraud. And one is the scheme to defraud investors to get their money, all right, cheat and steal them out of their property.

          The analysts proved that beyond a reasonable doubt by saying they took this information and passed it on to investors from the earnings conference calls. So we know that the earnings conference calls were in furtherance of that scheme.

          There's another thing called honest services. The judge talked to you a little bit about this yesterday, too. And what that means is Richard Scrushy, like every director and executive in America, he owes a duty to HealthSouth, its shareholders and its directors to give them honest services.

          Again, there's a big long legal definition about that. The judge has it in the directions for you. It just means you can't lie to them. If you know something is wrong, you've got to tell them. You can't omit anything. You've got to tell them the truth. So that's what that boils down to.

          Well, we know, for the wire fraud on those earnings conference calls, he didn't tell them the truth. We know he never told the truth. We asked every director, did you see these consolidation worksheets, did he tell you about Leif Murphy? He didn't tell them.

          So we know he did not fulfill his duty to deliver honest services to HealthSouth or to its shareholders. And we know the earnings conference calls were in furtherance of that because that's how he got out the fake information to that.

          We think, under either theory, the defendant is guilty of the wire fraud counts, and those are four through sixteen.

          Let me move on to mail fraud. And these are -- the elements you'll see are in the jury instructions at Page 37 to 38.

          Well, we have to prove a lot like wire fraud, we've got to prove he used the mails, the U.S. mails, and that it was in furtherance of this scheme to defraud.

          Okay. Well, for these, we rely on the mailing of the 2001 annual report. And you may wonder, at the beginning of the trial or sort of early on, we were traipsing in all these victims, and they kept talking to you about the same annual report. Well, that's why. They all received this 2001 annual report in the mail from HealthSouth. And we've proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          And you may remember this annual report. This is the one where you see the picture of Richard Scrushy, and he's up there boasting about the second longest winning streak on Wall Street of Fortune 500 firms in terms of meeting the numbers. That's why we chose that one, because the evidence is clear, that's false. We know that's false. You know that's false beyond a reasonable doubt.

          To protect the privacy of the victims, this is a little unique part of the indictment, you're going to see, for each of these counts, initials of people, so J.E., she's Count Seventeen, that's Janice Ellenburg.

          Count Eighteen is Ernest Reiner. Count Nineteen is Grady Thornton. Count Twenty is Douglas Haskew. Twenty-one is Sue King. Twenty-two is May Moss. And Twenty-three is Donald Pritchard. These should ring a bell with you. You probably have them in your notes. They came in and talked to you about the annual report.

          So, again, just like the wire fraud counts, the mail fraud counts are charged under this alternative theory. We're either lying and cheating to the shareholders trying to get their money, trying to get them to buy stock or we're out there denying them of the honest services that Richard Scrushy owes them. And just like with the wire fraud, we've proven every one of them.

          We've proven to these investors, these numbers mattered. They read the 2001 report. They took the hook, they bought it. They bought the stock. It's all part of the scheme. You can't do the scheme without mailing out the annual reports. So that's in furtherance of that scheme.

          Same thing with honest services, you're lying to your directors, you're not telling them you've got five hundred seventy some million dollars of fraud in there. The directors can't do their job unless they know there's fraud, you're telling them the truth about the books. So you're denying them the honest services.

          And the 2001 annual report is in furtherance of that. If you don't mail it, everyone is going to wonder what's going on. They're going to come in and check out the fraud. So you're keeping them at bay. You're furthering the scheme by giving them the fake numbers.

          Let me move on to Counts Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six which are false statements to a U.S. agency. And the elements of this are the jury instructions at Page 42.

          Now, Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six, they charge the crime of making false statements to the SEC when HealthSouth filed two Forms S-4, and those are Government's Exhibit 700-5 and 700-6.

          Now, I don't remember if you remember this, but Harvey Kelly, early on in the case, he explained to you what a Form S-4 was. And that's simply some documents that they have to file with the SEC when they're going to go out and get a loan which is called a bond. A bond is nothing more than a big loan.

          So to do it, the SEC says, well, we want to know what you're telling people before you go out and borrow money from the public. So they file these things. And Harvey Kelly also told you that those two Form S-4s and these are from, I believe, around the 2000/2001 time period, they contained specific representations, false representations about cash, about earnings, about EBITDA, all right, inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars. We know they're false. That's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

          We also know that Richard Scrushy signed these S-4s. So he caused them to be filed. Again, remember when you get back there with these SEC documents, these filings, you're not going to see the beautiful Richard Scrushy hand signature. Neal Seiden explained to you when it's typewritten on a form, because it's filed electronically, that's the signature.

          So when you see the little two slashes in it and sometimes it's in the middle of the document, because there will be an appendix behind it, but look for his signature. That's how we proved that he caused it to be filed. It doesn't get filed unless he signed it.

          So that's how you know he was a participant in that fraud.

          Now, we've proven -- well, Neal Seiden testified also that these forms mattered to the SEC. They required them to be filed. That's another element you're going to have to find.

          So, we've proven all those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is certainly guilty of filing false statements with the SEC as charged in Counts Twenty-Five and Twenty-Six.

          Now, let me move on to the Sarbanes-Oxley count, and you've heard a lot about this. This is Count Twenty-Seven.

          You just heard about this actually recently on a tape with Ms. Martin.

          We charged in Count Twenty-Seven, the defendant filed false certifications in connection with the June 30th, 2002 10-Q, and that he also caused Weston Smith to file a false certification.

          Now, you don't have to find that he caused both, that it's Owens and Weston, it's either/or. He certainly signed it. And you'll see that at Government's Exhibit 108-004A. That's the actual false certification.

          Let me give you a little background about what we think we've proven here.

          The certificate itself says that Mr. Scrushy has to certify to the SEC that this 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the company.

          Well, we know, first of all, it didn't, because we've got Harvey Kelly to tell us that.

          We know, in fact, that it was -- income was overstated by a hundred and nine million dollars in that quarter alone, plus you've got the billions of dollars of fake assets on the balance sheet. So, again, we know the June 30th 10-Q, we know it's fake. We know it's false.

          Now, the question is did he act willfully and knowingly in signing this? Did Richard Scrushy act willfully and knowingly?

          And the judge told you about this stringent requirement, because this is a big deal. And we embrace that. All right. And the lucky thing for us is the facts of this case establish that beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, what do we have to show that? Well, we know that Mr. Horton -- you may remember him. Mr. Horton was the attorney out at HealthSouth. He's the head attorney. He's called the general counsel. He sent two emails to Richard Scrushy telling him Sarbanes-Oxley has been coming up. This is a big deal. We've got new criminal penalties. We've got to do all sorts of new stuff with the audit committee. Those exhibits are 108-002 and 108-003.

          So you've got your attorney telling you this is a big deal, pay attention to this. All right. And we know Horton also testified he talked with Richard Scrushy about this. I think it was in the HealthSouth dining room. You can ask the judge for any testimony you want including that. So he's talking to him about Sarbanes-Oxley. I mean, the whole place is abuzz with that. That's why this thing finally stopped. The lower level people said we're not doing this anymore. So it's a big deal. He knew about it.

          Another part that shows he acted willingly and knowingly was the Weston Smith juncture. This relates to that same time period.

          So Sarbanes-Oxley is enacted right around the end of July 2002. I think it's July 31st, somewhere around there. August 5th was the Weston Smith juncture. Weston Smith comes back from his honeymoon, I'm not signing anything. This is huge. I'm not signing this.

          He tells Owens, I'm not signing it. You've got all the phone calls back and forth. We called the Verizon lady in to explain who's calling who.

          You've got Mary Esclavon saying, I overheard Bill Owens saying we've got a problem, Weston has left the building. So we know it happened. You can find beyond a reasonable doubt this happened. His own CFO won't sign it.

          Richard Scrushy takes him into his own office the next day, August 6th. He says, Weston, you've got to face up to your problems here, buddy. We've got to get this done. He says, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to move you to the clean part of the company. We're not going to make up earnings anymore. We're going to report what we earn. We're going to play it straight from here on out, but one thing we've got to do before we do that, you've got to sign this thing. Because if we don't sign it, all sorts of bells and whistles are going to go off and the feds are going to be in here.

          So Weston Smith signs it based on that promise. Well, Richard Scrushy signed it, too. What else could you want to prove willfully and knowingly other than your own CFO is telling you, I don't want to sign this thing, it's fake. Bill Owens is saying, Weston won't sign this thing, it's fake. You've got Mary Esclavon verifying it happened. You've got the pilot putting him in Birmingham at the time. You've got the Verizon lady with the cell phone calls.

          This happened beyond a reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen, this event happened.

          You will hear Richard Scrushy reference the Weston Smith juncture on the tapes, and the court will play that for you if you request it. So it happened. Listen to the defendant's own words. It happened.

          That is willfully and knowingly in a nutshell.

          We urge that you convict the defendant on Count Twenty-Seven, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That's exactly why this law was enacted.

          Let me move on briefly to the money laundering counts. You've heard a lot about these in the case. This is just essentially Richard Scrushy taking money from the fraud, that he earned from the fraud, his bonuses, his salary -- I'm sorry -- his bonuses and his stock option proceeds and spending it to buy his toys, boats, cars, diamond rings, stuff like that.

          So we need to prove that more than ten thousand dollars for each of those purchases came from the fraud. And the heart of this is they don't like the fact that stock options -- they had some value. They were in the money before the time of the fraud period.

          Well, we ask that you look at Sage Givens' testimony on this. Sage Givens says, and she's the head of the compensation committee for a while. She was on the compensation committee for a while, I apologize.

          And she says, if she finds out Richard Scrushy is a part of this fraud any sooner, he's gone. None of this you're a leader and we like him, you're a good guy. You're gone, you're out of there.

          Well, if they find out the fraud -- about the fraud any sooner, he doesn't get any of his salary. He doesn't get any of his additional options. He doesn't get anything. He's gone. He's on the street. He's got ninety days to exercise and sell. If they find out about the fraud, what happens to the stock? It tanks.

          What happened when they did find out about the fraud? It went down to that dime Ms. Martin showed you.

          So we don't give him any credit for anything good he's done when he participates in a massive fraud and we don't think you should either. And I ask you not to.

          Let me mention quickly, Mr. Bavis mentioned the FIFO method. The only reason we had to use a method is because he took the fraud money and put it with the clean money. So you've got to use a model. FIFO is as reasonable as any other method. I don't think you heard anybody testify to the contrary.

          One thing I want to emphasize is Count Forty-Two, which is the quick and easy way to look at the money laundering. That's -- let me give you the exhibits for that. That's 800-168 and 800-74 and 800-39.

          And you will see from those, you've got a negative balance on April 29th, 2002. Massive bonus comes in. That's from the fraud. He buys a boat the next day, April 29th, April 30th and May 1st. It just goes like clock work. So there's certainly no question about that. That's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Let me talk about a couple of the charges that relate to a couple of different counts. One is aiding and abetting.

          Now, for all the counts, except for Count One, which is the conspiracy count, the defendant is also charged with aiding and abetting. And let me give you an example of how that works.

          Let's say Bill Owens and Richard Scrushy decide they're going to rob a bank. Richard Scrushy gives him the ski mask to go in, so nobody knows who he is. They're sitting around the kitchen table. Bill, you go rob the bank. I'm going to wait right here. You come back, and we're going to split the money. This is going to be great.

          Bill Owens goes down. He puts the mask on, goes in the bank, takes the money, comes back, splits it up with Richard Scrushy. He didn't leave the comfort of his own home. He's an aider and abettor. He's an accomplice.

          Now, in this case, nobody is wearing a ski mask. All right. So how does that translate to this case? The same is true because, even though Bill Owens is the one who said, record the fake entries this way or record the fake entries that way, Richard Scrushy directed and authorized Bill Owens to do it. And that's all you have to find beyond a reasonable doubt to find him guilty of all of these.

          So let me focus now for a moment on deliberate ignorance, which is another charge that the judge gave you, and you will see it in your jury instructions.

          Now, deliberate ignorance, to get to this, you've got to throw out the window all the CFOs. You've got to throw out the window Leif Murphy. You've got to believe none of that ever happened.

          And, of course, we think it did, and we think we've proven beyond a reasonable doubt it did. There's so many of them, how could all of them be lying? Well, let's say you have a problem with that. That's fine, chuck them all.

          You listen to the charge on deliberate ignorance. The judge says that the defendant -- the judge charges that if you find that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes to what he had every reason to believe was the fact, then you can find that he knew about the fraud, because he was deliberately ignorant.

          We think that's exactly what happened here. Let me give you the best example. It's the weekly revenue report. You've heard so much about those.

          If you were the defendant and you see the weekly revenue report every week, every month, missing tens of millions of thousands of dollars. All right. For one month alone, I think it was over forty million dollars. And, again, this is all in evidence.

          Well, you're sitting there, how can you possibly think HealthSouth is making its numbers? This isn't an isolated incident. This is month after month after month. How can you think they're meeting Wall Street's bottom line?

          I think we've proven beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was deliberately ignorant and closed his eyes to what he had every reason to believe was the fact, specifically, that HealthSouth was not meeting its numbers.

          All right. Now, in a moment you're going to hear Mr. Parkman and hear what he calls the other side of the pancake. And, as you do that, I'm going to ask a favor of you. I want you to keep a list, either in your head, write it down if you want, but keep a list of everybody he's going to tell you lied to you in this trial.

          And I know who the headlines are. You know who they are. Leif Murphy, he's going to be a liar. All the CFOs, Aaron Beam, Mike Martin, Bill Owens, Tadd McVay, Weston Smith, he's going to say they're all liars. He's going to say Ken Livesay say lied. He's going to say Diana Henze lied.

          But I want you to remember, you're going to have to find a lot of other people lied to you, too, to believe their side of story.

          You're going to have to believe LeAnne Tyler lied to you. LeAnne Tyler said she will never forget the look on Leif Murphy's face when Richard Scrushy stormed out of that room.

          You go back and look at her testimony. You remember her sitting here. She doesn't remember much. She remembers the look on Leif Murphy's face.

          You're going to have to think that Mary Esclavon lied. Richard Scrushy's own former secretary overheard the call, Weston's left the building. You're going to have to find she lied.

          You're going to have to find she lied on, the FBI's coming in. What's he do? He calls his old CFOs making sure they're in camp. I need their phone numbers. I need Aaron Beam, Mike Martin. They haven't been there for years. You have to find she lied.

          You're going to have to find the pilot lied, putting him in Birmingham, Alabama, on August 5th.

          You're going to have to find Ms. Pugh, the Verizon operator, she lied to you, too, according to them. She's got his cell phone making calls, just like we said it happened.

          You're going to find Chuck Newhall lied to you, worked with him for fifteen years on four different boards, called him a financial genius. You're going to have to find he lied.

          You're going to have to find Sage Givens lied when she said all of his compensation was tied to performance, except for his true salary.

          You're going to have to find Jim Lamphron, the only Ernst & Young lawyer (sic) they called. You're going to have to find he lied to you when he described Richard Scrushy's control as a risk, his control over HealthSouth as being overwhelming.

          These are their own auditors. That's the risk they assigned to his control at HealthSouth, but you have to find he's lying.

          And, finally, you've got to find his old buddy Jim Whitten, who they called to come up and tell you we made T-shirts with HealthSouth, we're branding, we're doing great stuff, well, you're going to have to find he lied, too, when he told you he saw Richard Scrushy lie on CNBC about HealthSouth stock. You're going to have to find he's lying, too.

          I'm sure I left a lot off my list. I just ask you to keep that in mind as you hear their case.

          And I want to ask you to ask yourselves, has nearly every witness in this case lied to you like they're asking you to believe, or is it just like we told you all along, Richard Scrushy was the commander in chief of this criminal enterprise, and he raked in eighty-three percent of the proceeds from those efforts?

          Thank you so much for your time and patience.

          THE COURT:  Thank you, Ms. Conry. Could I see counsel, please?

          (SIDEBAR OFF THE RECORD)

          (Open court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a short break so we won't have so much to do this afternoon. We are going to come back at 11:55.

          During this break, as with all others, do not discuss the case or allow anyone to discuss the case in your presence.

          (Brief recess)

          (Open court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Mr. Leach, you may proceed.

          CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. LEACH

          MR. LEACH:  May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, counsel for the government, Scrushy family and everyone observing this trial.

          First thing Mr. Scrushy wants to tell you is that we deeply appreciate your service. Without you being here, without you devoting the time, making the sacrifices to be here, we could not have tried our case before a jury and gotten to this point.

          I also want to point out to you that you serve a historic role in this case, something that goes back now two hundred and nineteen years ago, in the spring of 1876, James Madison first conceived the current formulation of our national government, consisting of three branches which were designed to replace the Articles of Confederation which were not working.

          The Constitutional Convention followed, and shortly thereafter, our Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified by the states. We spent several generations struggling with the equality guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. As part of that debate, a then unknown lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, challenged his famous opponent Senator Stephen Douglas, that if the United States was not going to live by the principles found in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, then we should cast those instruments to the ash heap of history.

          We have never cast away these rights. We have fought, not only among ourselves to vindicate those rights, we have fought on foreign soils to provide and preserve those rights to others.

          Richard Scrushy deserves the constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence. He deserves to have protection of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you will find that that is what this case comes down to, presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Now, there are a lot of things that are uncontested in this case. And the thing that the government wants you to do is ignore the presumption of innocence at every corner. Don't utilize that. They want you to view the evidence in the light least favorable without the presumption of innocence operating.

          They want you to forget the fact that Mr. Scrushy was the founder of this company back in 1984, that the company grew rapidly up to the point at which the fraud began.

          Mr. Bavis confirmed for you on my questioning that at the time the fraud began it was between two this rapid spurt of growth over time, and you also know that Mr. Scrushy was very wealthy at that point.

          Tim Renjilian told you that it was in excess of one hundred seventy-five million dollars.

          They submitted the affidavit of Byron Luke that showed that Mr. Scrushy was worth one hundred million dollars at that time.

          Now, why do they want to submit calculations to you that showed that Mr. Scrushy was only worth thirty-eight million dollars?

          Because, ladies and gentlemen, as you increase Mr. Scrushy's wealth, what happens is his motive for committing this crime decreases.

          We are not saying that's the whole case, but the reason why the government wants to suppress that number and push that number down is because they are trying to provide you a motive. And let's look at the critical section of the indictment that you must look at. If I can have the computer, please.

          We are going to look at on Page 8. We are going to look at the provision having to do with the purpose of the conspiracy.

          Now, you will note that this is the only purpose of the conspiracy that is articulated in the indictment. It says the purpose of the conspiracy was to unjustly enrich -- their entire theory of this case with the conspiracy and with the substantive counts is that Richard Scrushy was seeking to unjustly enrich himself -- and benefit the defendant and others by fraudulently inflating the results of operations and the financial condition of HealthSouth. That is what they say in their charging instrument is the motive.

          In each one of the counts, they talk about with intent to defraud. You will hear and you will see in the charge that that is specific intent, specific intent to enrich himself, to get for himself something that he is not entitled to.

          There is an awful lot of evidence that you need to look at in this case and you need to think about in this case that goes in the other direction. And that's what leads to proof not beyond a reasonable doubt, it shows you the reasonable doubt. And if you will sit there and do what the law asks you to do, and start with the presumption of innocence on all this evidence, where it will take you is to a better understanding of what is going on here.

          Let's talk about the circumstantial proof that tends to show that Richard Scrushy was not in this to unjustly enrich himself; that he was in the long-term for HealthSouth; that he only wanted the best for HealthSouth.

          The question is whether he was bent on unjust enrichment, whether he was bent on violating his duty, his fiduciary duty, to the shareholders, whether he was going to violate his responsibility to honest services to all those people, or whether every single day Richard Scrushy was actually trying to do those things.

          Question number one that you need to ask, circumstantially, is whether anyone would retain over eleven million options in a company if your intent, as you heard from Ms. Martin and you heard from Ms. Conry, was to pump the stock? What is the reason for pumping the stock? If it is, as the government claims, that it is to unjustly enrich, when is he going to cash in?

          He left seventy million dollars, net, one hundred and twenty, gross. Tim Renjilian told you at one point it was worth two hundred million, if he had cashed in in 1997. Why is he leaving that skin in the game, as Professor Guay told you?

          Could it not be because he is committed to HealthSouth? Why would he hold millions of shares?

          Let's set the options aside for just a minute. He is holding millions of shares in the company. If his intent is to pump and dump, wouldn't you get rid of those shares?

          And not only that, they point to a sale in May of 2002. Do you recall that, in September 2002, he exercises these options that are about to expire and what does he do? He keeps the stock. This is one heck of a pump and dump. He is investing more in the company that he is supposed to know.

          Somebody involved in a fraud wouldn't do that. Circumstantially, it doesn't make sense.

          When you look at the evidence of the starting point, and you think about how much Mr. Scrushy had at that point, and you utilize the presumption of innocence, as you should on every piece of evidence when you go back and deliberate, you should ask yourself how does the presumption of innocence operate? Where constitutionally should we be in terms of looking at this evidence?

          What you'll say to yourself is it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense.

          You add to this what the government contends is his relationship with these co-conspirators. These are co-conspirators, supposedly.

          And what does he do? He fires Mike Martin. Fires his co-conspirator. Hardly ever talks to Weston Smith. Tadd McVay makes a demand on Richard Scrushy. I'm going to get a bonus, I'm going to get an employment contract, or I'm not doing it. I'm not doing it.

          What does the lead co-conspirator, the one that they say is the commander in chief tell Tadd McVay? No. One heck of a conspiracy. No.

          Bill Owens, here's the guy who has been at the center of this criminal activity for years. What does he do? Demotes him. Not just one step down to COO and President of the company, but all the way back to CFO.

          Now, if you're in a conspiracy with a whole bunch of folks who could go running to the government and end up handing your bacon over to the U.S. Attorney's office, are you going to bust that guy and send him back to CFO? Are you going to allow the Board to set a plan up where in six months he's gone?

          Are you going to line it up so that that man has a motive to run to the FBI?

          This is the craziest conspiracy I have ever seen. Their theory is insane based on these facts.

          And when you look at what was really happening there, you can understand why Bill Owens and Weston Smith felt that they had to go to the U.S. Attorney's office. It was over. It was over. Because they got busted back, they no longer had the control they needed to have to make the fraud work.

          Add to all this the fact that the government completely botched this investigation, and you have reasonable doubt in abundance.

          Let's talk about what went wrong in this investigation, what mistakes were made in this investigation.

          In my opening statement, I tried to relate to you that I had been a prosecutor for twenty-one years. Nineteen of those years was sitting right at that table, Assistant United States Attorney.

          A federal prosecutor is an investigator. All investigators have to approach their jobs with a skeptical mind. I dealt with complex investigations, complex prosecutions under the Federal Racketeering Statute.

          And there was one abiding principle that I followed in every single investigation I ever did as an Assistant United States Attorney; and that is, I never had too much evidence. Ever. Ever.

          You keep digging and digging and digging until you get to the bottom of the pot in terms of the leads.

          When you combine that with the fact that you must have a skeptical mind, you have to question what you're being told, you have to look for corroboration. You can see where this investigation failed. And let's look at the failure to be skeptical, the failure to preserve and pursue all the leads.

          Did the government not think it was odd that Weston Smith was walking in the door in early March and that Bill Owens was coming in the door right behind him?

          Would not a skeptical mind say, why are these two fellows coming in together? You'll remember the testimony about the fact that Weston Smith was debriefed on one day at the Wyndom Hotel and Bill Owens is debriefed the next day at the Wyndom Hotel.

          And Bill Owens wanted to tell you, no, no, no, no connection. Miraculously decided we're coming in the door, and it just so happened that we're coming in the door at the same time, and ignore the fact that we were best friends up to this point.

          Did they know that Owens had been demoted? Did they know that he was to be fired in six months? Did that not raise a flag in their mind that there might be some motive as far as Mr. Owens is concerned?

          Wouldn't a skeptical prosecutor think, well, you know, maybe Owens is at the vocal point? Maybe Weston Smith is right behind him. And maybe there isn't enough evidence to indicate that Mr. Scrushy is in this.

          Did they understand that there could be ulterior motives here; that these two men, along with others, had committed this crime? Wouldn't a skeptical prosecutor approach this and say, you know what, you're going to have to show me, you're going to have to show me? You're going to have to show me documents, you're going to show me emails. I need faxes, handwritten notes, I need fingerprints. I need you to demonstrate to me that Richard Scrushy is in the middle of this, that he committed a crime and that he knew.

          Did they go to these two men and say, we need that corroborating evidence? We are not going anywhere. We're not doing anything until we see that corroborating evidence.

          And when that evidence was not forthcoming -- let's just assume for a moment that they asked the right questions, and when that evidence was not forthcoming, was that not a red flag there is a problem in this case, there is a problem with corroboration? Did they not worry about the fact that we were going to be sitting here in this courtroom, and we were going to be considering this failure of proof on a reasonable doubt standard and with the presumption of innocence?

          So they decide to meet with Weston Smith on Saturday, March 15th, and then with Owens on Sunday the 16th, and on March 17th, they begin the taping process, and we tape for two days.

          And the prosecutors, I'm sure, knew what was going on and what was said. And then they get the tape from the 17th, and they figure out the body recorder didn't work. That is a problem. That is a problem.

          I would have had two body recorders on the next day. But let's set that aside for a second. And let's just talk about the manner in which the tapes were made on the 17th, the turning on and turning off. And if you come into this courtroom and you listen, there are times when Richard Scrushy is in the middle of a sentence and that tape goes on.

          Didn't the skeptical mind kick in and say, you know what, this is a problem. This is a problem because we don't know what was said in the gaps.

          Do you remember what Ginsberg told you when he was being cross-examined about not examining the whole pie, and he said you didn't give me the whole pie. I don't have the whole pie to look at, because you turned it on and turned it off. Everything is not on that tape. We don't know what was said in the gaps.

          But the government wants you to ignore that. They want to say that there is no tampering, but the reality is the tape was edited when it was made. We don't know what is in the middle and in the gaps. What else was said?

          And why the hurry? Why the hurry. Why do we have the tape on the 17th and the 18th and no more?

          Well, let me explain to you what I think happened, based upon the evidence that has been presented in this court.

          They made the decision that the FBI was going to go in and search, the decision was probably for the 17th, but it could have been the 18th. And when you get agents traveling in from all over the world to conduct this search, it's a great big deal, it's like running an aircraft carrier. And once that ship is going in a straight line, it is very hard to turn that ship. They had made their decision to go in and do the search.

          And when the tapes weren't turning out exactly the way they wanted, they thought, you know what, we'll get what we need when we do the search. We'll go in and we'll do the search and we'll find what we need. One problem. They go in and do the search, and they don't find what they need.

          Now, why couldn't we have taped for weeks?

          From a skeptical prosecutor's perspective, what could have been done? What sort of things did this prosecutor (indicating) do in his career when he was faced with this situation?

          The one thing that you do is you tape for a long, long time. And you have a series of events that occur in the taping process, which we will just call a ruse.

          For instance, you send a grand jury subpoena in with Agent Kelly or Agent Proctor, and you march him right in the front door of HealthSouth. And you go up to the fifth floor and you say, I need to see Bill Owens. Now, of course, Bill Owens knows he is coming. But that grand jury subpoena is for an appearance next Monday. And this is occurring on Friday. All right. Not only that, but the grand jury subpoena is requesting a very specific account. And you'll remember that the testimony was that when they are parking the cash, it would go into a specific account until it could be spread out. All right.

          Now, if you request that specific account, haven't you created the situation where Bill Owens can walk into Richard Scrushy and say, you ain't going to believe this. You're not going to believe what just happened to me. An FBI agent just came up to the fifth floor, and he served me with this subpoena.

          Now, imagine the tape that could be recorded there. I don't understand what this means, Bill, explain it to him. Lay it out. Why would the skeptical mind not say to Bill Owens on the 18th, tell him about the years of fraud. We're not going to talk about one quarter, about a 10-QA for the previous quarter. I want to talk about everything.

          Why did it have to go down on the 18th? It didn't. Why did they allow it to happen? Because they thought they had him.

          Now, why was Bill Owens allowed to say, I don't want to sign that 10-QA. Be mindful that at this point Bill Owens is working for the government. Bill Owens cannot commit a crime when the government is directing him in the door. Can't be done.

          Why didn't they have Bill Owens walk into Richard Scrushy's office with that 10-QA, signature for Bill, signature for Richard and say, Richard, we need to do this. You sign yours, I'll sign mine. We'll put this all behind us, years of fraud. We're getting straightened out. All our problems with the plant, property, and equipment will be behind us. We will do some more write offs. We'll stonewall the grand jury investigation. We will stonewall the SEC investigation.

          Isn't it just natural and logical that that could have been done in this case?

          Now, why did it not happen? And if you're looking at it with the presumption of innocence, what is going on in this case? Is it that Bill Owens is manipulating these circumstances? Is it because Bill Owens understands that if you let that man run (indicating) for two or three days, he is going to figure it out; that when Bill Horton got back in town, he would have talked to Bill Horton; that he would have talked to the lawyers from the outside that were representing him on the SEC once Bill Horton said it was all right; and that once Richard Scrushy figured out what course of action to take, that is Bill Owens is getting busted here, something is wrong here, we're going to take the bull by the horns and we are going to straighten it out, that then the house of cards would have fallen in on Bill Owens and all the other co-conspirators.

          Remember, Bill Owens and Weston Smith have confessed at this point. It's over for Bill Owens. As of that Sunday, it's done. He's confessed.

          So Bill Owens' only hope for getting the kind of sentence that he wanted, and you will remember this, from when we were talking about it, how much jail time did these people get?

          Now, Ms. Martin wants to stand up here and say thirty years, twenty-five years they are signing up for. The problem is, strategically the government made a mistake in this case. And this is what it is.

          When they took this case down, when they brought those people in and had them plead guilty, the clock started ticking on the government.

          There is a little thing called speedy trial in federal court. And the clock was ticking. And what happens is, after a certain period of time, these people need to be sentenced.

          Because they started the clock back there, all those people had to be sentenced. Whereas if they had waited, if they had been prudent, if they had done what almost every other prosecutor in this United States would have done, and that is sign them up and wait, don't let them enter a plea until right before the trial. Have them come in here and enter their plea where they can't be sentenced.

          Most juries do not know what happens with sentencing departures. You do. You do. And that is because of a strategic error. But now you've got it.

          What is Bill Owens hoping for? He told you. Jim asked him. He is hoping to go home. He is hoping to get that home confinement, just like all the rest of them.

          We talked an awful lot about the plant, property, and equipment. And one of the things that we wanted to do in the defense case, and we tried to do through the likes of Kelly and through Bavis and through the government's case, is to show you that there was never a time when there was two point seven billion dollars' worth of fraud on the books. Never. And every one of those witnesses told you that. Total, over the entire span, all right, but never at the same time.

          And where is that fraud located? It's over there in the plant, property, and equipment on the balance sheet. It's on the ledger, the general ledger.

          Was there ever any evidence that you ever heard that Richard Scrushy ever got into the general ledger? Never. Didn't happen.

          But they want you to believe that he had that knowledge. They want you to believe that he knew what was going on over there in the balance sheet.

          Another idea that they could have done, why couldn't they have done a redo on the Weston Smith situation, just do a redo.

          Remember, Weston Smith is in on the Saturday, that weekend. All right. You got Weston, then you got Bill and the taping starts on Monday. All right. Weston is in. So doing a ruse with Weston Smith is real easy. He is part of the government team at that point. Send him back in and redo the August 2002. I'm not being involved in this anymore, I have got a grand jury subpoena, I have got an SEC subpoena, and I'm not going to lie. That would open up a whole can of worms as to what happened back in 2002.

          Now, I find it real interesting that when you hear from the government, they want to talk about all these events in August 2002, but what is the one thing they left out for you, the one thing they don't want to talk about? They do not want to talk about Jim Goodreau. Jim Goodreau.

          And the fact that somewhere in that time frame when this stuff is going on with Weston Smith, he meets with Bill Owens up at the Mexican restaurant at the Summit On The Border, and Bill Owens tells him, Richard Scrushy doesn't know.

          Well, you need to tell him, Bill. That's what Jim Goodreau told him. If you have nothing else, right there, right there (indicating) is reasonable doubt. Right there.

          Think about where their relationship was at that point. Bill Owens is either soon to become the CEO, or in fact is the CEO. They are very close.

          Goodreau is Owens' protective detail. He is covering the CEO just like he did Mr. Scrushy. Owens calls Goodreau. He has got something on his mind.

          Goodreau goes up to the restaurant, they talk about family, they talk about golf, and then they are on this issue.

          Was Goodreau impeached in any way on that statement? They want to talk about uncontroverted evidence. Goodreau told you that he raised that issue five or six times with Bill Owens. Have you told Richard? Every time he told me he had not told Richard. That is a very important piece of evidence.

          And why not, as the skeptical prosecutor, say, you know what, we're going to do this deal with Weston. In fact, I don't know that my deal wouldn't have been, you know what is going to happen tomorrow morning, Weston, tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., I'm going to have an IRS CI agent and I'm going to have Agent Kelly come walking in there, and you know what they're going to do, they're going to lock you up. That is what they are going to do.

          We're going to put handcuffs on you and we're going to march you out of HealthSouth. Don't you think that would have caused a little chatter? Don't you think that would have made for some interesting conversation between Mr. Owens, who is left behind, and Mr. Smith? Wouldn't that have been smart? Wouldn't you like to know what would have come from that?

          What about this:  You have got Owens and Smith in, go get Tadd McVay. Tadd McVay was going to cooperate anyway. Go get him, grab him and get him cooperating. Send him to work the next day, march the same two agents in there and get them.

          I'm telling you. There would be a whole bunch of talk going on. And it would be interesting to see how it all shakes out. But we'll never know.

          So now they want to put all their eggs in the Leif Murphy basket. They want to tell you that Leif Murphy, as of that time frame in 1999, that book is it. That book lays it out. But Mr. Murphy has got some motives on his own. I will let Mr. Parkman talk to that.

          What I want to talk about is this piece of evidence that they want to focus on. Mr. Murphy took that notebook, went into Mr. Scrushy's office, and you look at it when you get back there, the print is a little bitty font. And what happened? What do you suppose the facts are when that notebook got back there?

          Let's just assume this is the notebook and Mr. Murphy walks in there. What happens? See that thumb, that thumb (indicating), that print is going to be on those pages, is going to be on that notebook.

          Why do we have no forensics on that? Wouldn't the prudent investigator want to know that? Would that not be important to your determination?

          Leif Murphy testified to you that he kept that notebook the whole time. Had it in his possession.

          What happened? Why were those forensics not run on that notebook? Why don't we have those answers? What did Agent Kelly tell you? Didn't think it was necessary. Didn't think it was necessary.

          Here we have a case -- be mindful now, Leif comes some time after all the initial events. They have got a case now where they have been through the evidence. They know there is not a piece of paper, there is not an email, there is not a fax, there is not a sticky note, there is nothing corroborating what these men are telling them, and they have got this notebook in pristine condition sitting in Tennessee, and they are not going to run for fingerprints. Unbelievable.

          Let's look at the government's confidence as of the week of the taping. Not only do they do the search on the 18th, but Mr. Seiden told you that he was involved in the interviews, and the SEC took action on the 19th, the day after, what do they do? They freeze all of his assets.

          Now, what is going on there? Why is the government undertaking this action to freeze his assets?

          Why does the government want to put a bear hug on Richard Scrushy at that point? And what does that tell you about what is going on within the investigation?

          They believe they have got it. They believe they have everything they need.

          What we're going to do is we're going to shut Mr. Scrushy down. And by filing that complaint, Mr. Scrushy gets fired.

          And by getting fired, his power base is cut off. He is no longer associated with HealthSouth. You have got all these conspirators getting retainers for their lawyers. Mr. Scrushy, not a dime. Not a dime. He is left to fare for himself under circumstances where everything he has got in the whole wide world is locked up. How did that work out? Not too good. Now, we get to November of 2002, after the investigation has gone down the road a ways, and we end up having the arrest in this case.

          Once again, we are in the same situation, and Mr. Scrushy's assets are seized.

          The question I think you need to ask, from a skeptical perspective, is here you have a man who, in May of 2002, gets all his money back, gets all his assets back, and do any of the assets move?

          Do you remember I asked questions about whether there was a Luxembourg account, you know, is there an account in the Cayman Islands?

          Now, does a guilty man keep all the property sitting right there? I know the government is coming, I know I'm the target. I know they want to take all my assets, but I'm not moving one thin dime. I'm going to stand tall. I'm going to wait for them. I'm going to fend with what comes in the future.

          Does a guilty man do that? Or does a guilty man get all his assets out of the country? Does he pack his bags, take his family and flee the United States because he knows he is going to be the first target under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?

          In terms of the timing of the events in 2002, there is something else I think you need to think about. You need to think about Mr. Goodreau's testimony about the fact that in 2001 and into 2002, Mr. Scrushy is withdrawing, Mr. Scrushy is retiring. Mr. Scrushy moves the family to Palm Beach. Puts them in school down there. Only returns when his mom gets sick and dies. That is when he returns to Birmingham.

          He continues, even though he comes back to Birmingham, he continues to yield control to Mr. Owens, who, in August of 2002, becomes CEO. All right.

          Now, you have to recall that this is right in the midst of grand jury investigations, SEC investigations, and the stock is plummeting, all right. Sarbanes-Oxley is passed and becomes law.

          His company is in trouble. The Board of Directors asks him to come back. January 2003, this man, who is supposed to be the commander in chief of the fraud, who is totally out, doesn't have to sign a document again the rest of his life, comes back to try to save that company.

          Is there any logic to that? That somebody with the knowledge of what is going on there is going to come back in and subject themselves to signing that Sarbanes-Oxley declaration? We submit to you that that makes no sense. As so much of the other parts of the case make no sense.

          Where is all the incriminating evidence from Richard Scrushy's office? When you go back into the jury room, you need to think about that.

          In other words, all right, they say he has got the weekly reports and, you know, he has got all these documents and he had access. Where is anything, anything, anything from Richard Scrushy's office?

          They showed you this end of the month calculation that had the target and the variance and all that. Where is just one of those, just one of those from Richard Scrushy's office?

          And when Bill Owens tells the government, well, he always made me take them out, doesn't that raise a flag for the skeptical prosecutor? Doesn't it make sense that somewhere along the line Richard Scrushy would have taken one of those documents and just written a note in the margin, you know, just, I don't understand, you know, why we're so far off on these numbers? Could we reduce costs? Is there a way that we can drop salaries, any way that we can increase what we charge for these services? Nothing. Nothing.

          That ought to make you wonder about whether these co-conspirators are telling you the truth.

          My God, seven years, isn't it seven years that this is supposed to go on and not a piece of paper?

          Is that possible under these circumstances? I mean, even Ken Livesay, when we talked to him about Leif Murphy, do you remember the sticky thing, and remember that Ken Livesay talked to the FBI and told them that Leif knew in '98, and then we had the little sticky that talks about the fact that we have got to talk to Leif about the holes. And remember that Livesay tells you, well, that is the terminology we used for the fraud. And, yeah, looks like it's '98. Because, you know, Leif wasn't around for the budget process in '99, so it has to be '98.

          Why is it so important that Leif Murphy be pushed as far into '99 as possible? And that is because, if you get Leif Murphy with knowledge of the fraud in '98, then he's committed a litany of crimes.

          Do you remember, he is the treasurer, all right. As treasurer, he is responsible for cash. The cash is missing. You know, isn't Leif Murphy wondering, if I'm responsible for cash, where is it? I can't find it.

          And once he has that knowledge, and once he does his little check through and he finds it, do you honestly believe that he does a check through and he leaves and the job is waiting in Tennessee? The job is just waiting. Isn't that miraculous? When is the last time that happened to you?

          You just decide, you know what, it's Thursday, I think I'm going to start a new job Monday. I resign. Move to Tennessee, and I got my job. None of these things add up.

          What happened with Leif Murphy was, he did figure it out. The problem is he figured it out in '98. He started looking, I don't doubt that for a second. But when he signed those bank certifications in 1999, he knows. He says it's an oversight. Oh, it was an oversight. Just, I wasn't thinking. You know, I'm brilliant, I'm an MBA, but I just wasn't thinking.

          The key to this case is whether Mr. Scrushy is down here in the family or whether he is out on the periphery with E&Y, UBS, the Board, audit committee, general counsel.

          You heard from Tanner and Foster by way of their testimony at the SEC. I mean, Taylor and Foster and you heard from Tanner live. You heard from Brown.

          Do you remember when Mr. Smith asked Mr. Brown about the spikes? And he said, yeah, I saw spikes. Was it just me or did all the air in this room get sucked out? Just (indicating). And Mr. Smith didn't ask the follow-up. I had to get to the podium and say, tell us about the spikes, Mr. Brown. Nothing unusual. Because nobody is looking at those numbers the first two months, the last month, we're pushing the numbers.

          Ladies and gentlemen, I haven't gotten through near what I wanted to talk about. I could stand here and talk for hours, days, weeks.

          The bottom line is that there is an abundance of reasonable doubt. Keeping skin in the game, working for HealthSouth, totally defeats what the government is trying to tell you in terms of his intent to defraud, that he is there to put money in his pocket. To the last, to the last transaction he did in September 2002, he took stock. He didn't cash out. He took stock.

          He is investing in the company. He is increasing his skin in the game.

          With all this information, we ask that you find him not guilty of all counts.

          And let me ask one little point. Look at the requested charge on Mr. Bavis. Look at what the judge tells you about his assumptions. And when you find that what Mr. Bavis has told you is unreasonable with regard to those options, and be mindful, that all those options preceded the fraud, that was all the options that Mr. Scrushy got when the company was growing like crazy and there is no fraud, when you find that that is an unreasonable assumption, those money laundering counts should be not guilty.

          That is where you should start your deliberations. Because there is two ways that you get to not guilty on that. Number one, we don't believe what Mr. Bavis told us was accurate. We think his starting point was wrong. We think that Tim's starting point of one hundred seventy-five million is right. That increases the white beads, decreases the black beads.

          Secondly, we don't think that Mr. Scrushy knew about the fraud. We don't think that Mr. Scrushy knew that this was fraud proceeds.

          Does a criminal put his fraud proceeds just right in there with everything else he's got? No new accounts. Nothing off-shore. Just going into the regular same old accounts.

          This is not a money laundering case. You should start there.

          When you find him not guilty of all those counts, that deliberative process will lead you to not guilty on all counts in this case. And that's the verdict you should render.

          Thank you very much.

          THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Leach. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break now for lunch.

          We will come back at 1:45 for the remainder of the arguments for the day.

          During this break, you're not to discuss the case or anything that has happened here in the courtroom among yourselves or allow anyone to discuss it in your presence.

          We will see you at 1:45.

          (Lunch recess taken)

          (Open court. Jury not present.)

          THE COURT:  Before the jurors file in, I need to give some instructions in courtroom decorum.

          This is not a spectator sport. Some of you have heard me say that before.

          When the lawyers are speaking, you need to be quiet and respectful. All right. I don't want any cheering going on, I don't want any murmuring. You are not to be talking among yourselves. Okay.

          If you feel compelled to behave that way, I'm going to ask you now to leave, because that's not appropriate in a court of law.

          Okay. Now we can seat our jury.

          (Open Court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Mr. Parkman or Watkins?

          MR. PARKMAN:  It will be me, Your Honor.

          THE COURT:  Mr. Parkman, you may proceed.

          CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. PARKMAN

          MR. PARKMAN:  If it please this honorable court.

          You know, the other night I was sitting there and I was trying to kind of come up with something to try to best describe how this case has gone.

          And I thought about it just a minute and it came to me, what this is is what I would like to term a Wisconsin case. A Wisconsin prosecution.

          And you're going to ask me, what is a Wisconsin prosecution? Real simple:  It's one that has got more holes in it than Swiss cheese. And that is what this case has been like.

          And you know what the government says to y'all, what they say that they have done in this case is they say we have gone out and we have taken some evidence, dirt. And what we have done is we have taken that dirt, and we have gone over to this hole in the cheese and we have tried to fill up those holes so they no longer exist, so there won't be any gap left in the testimony and contradictions of all their witnesses.

          But you know what happens? What happened to them was is when they went over and they tried to fill up those holes with their evidence, their dirt, the big rat, Bill Owens, and the rest of his little mice, all they did was just eat bigger holes as time went on, as the months passed, and what we ended up with was just bigger holes.

          Now, before I get in and talk to you and try to show you how we are going to exterminate these rodents' den of lies, what I want to do is I want to talk to you about a couple of things first, things that I don't think you have heard before today.

          Number one, the prosecution over here never really talked to you about what the burden of proof really is. They never mentioned it.

          Why not? Because they're scared of it.

          Why do we want to talk about it? Because Judge Bowdre yesterday spent a great deal of time talking about it.

          What does it mean when we talk about the burden of proof? What does it say to us? What it says is this:  Is that these folks sitting right here, they have the burden, not us, they have the burden of proving Richard Scrushy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Listen to that.

          Now, some of you are sitting there going, now, Jim, listen to me just a minute. I have seen every episode of LA Law. I have seen every episode of Perry Mason. I watch Law and Order every week, and none of them have talked to me about this burden of proof and reasonable doubt.

          How come? Well, because it's not that exciting for T.V. Because in T.V., they have got to do the whole thing in an hour. And we don't have that long here. But one thing we do have is a principle that has existed in our country, as Art Leach said, for two hundred sixteen years that has never failed us. And I submit to you it's not going to fail us now.

          So you're sitting there right now, and you're looking at me and you're saying, hey, Jim, I understand something about this reasonable doubt stuff, but what is reasonable doubt? What does it mean? Let me throw out a few examples.

          I don't know if they apply to this case or not. That is up to you.

          Let me throw a few out. Some I would like to quote Judge Bowdre about who did such a marvelous job.

          If there is a doubt based on common sense, you have got yourself a reasonable doubt.

          If you're looking there right now at me and you're saying to yourself, you know what, Jim, I don't know what to believe in this case, then you have got yourself a reasonable doubt.

          If you're sitting there right now and you're thinking to yourself and you look over there at Richard Scrushy and you say, you know what, Mr. Scrushy, you may be guilty of this. You're possibly guilty of this. You're probably guilty of this. It's not enough. Because in every criminal case in our land, that requires an acquittal of a criminal defendant.

          Let me throw you out a few more. Let me show you one, in particular.

          Do you remember Ken Livesay's testimony? He said to us sitting here, he said, you know, I kept asking Bill Owens and Mike Martin if they really ever told Richard Scrushy what was going on. And he kept asking it over and over, year after year.

          Let me tell you something, folks, if he doesn't know for sure, then how are you, that Richard Scrushy knew about it?

          And when you don't know, then you have got yourself a reasonable doubt.

          For every hole in the cheese, there's a reasonable doubt.

          In this case, you know what you really have to do? In this case, they won't tell you this, but I dare them to come up and say different. In this case, you're going to have to believe and trust these pack of rodents. You're going to have to believe them in their entirety. You're going to have to trust them with all your heart in order to find Richard Scrushy guilty.

          Listen to this:  I was going to say, you know, that what it boils down to is like Judge Bowdre said, can you trust these people to handle the most important affairs of your life? Can you trust them to do that?

          And if you can't, you've got yourself a reasonable doubt.

          You know, I think it's interesting in this particular case, when we're talking about a reasonable doubt, important matters and what goes and what isn't, and who you should believe and what you shouldn't, I think it's important that we start at the beginning of where I came from and that was my opening statement to y'all.

          And you know something, in that opening statement, I stood up here in front of every one of you and I made promises to you. I made promises to you about the evidence in this case. I wasn't very wide open with it. I was very narrow and told you exactly what the evidence was going to show and what the defense intended to do. Think about that.

          Not only did I say that, I believe I told you the truth. I believe I stood by my word to you. I understand. I understood when I came here back in January, nobody likes lawyers. Nobody trusts lawyers. I don't blame people. I don't trust them either.

          But there is one thing I wanted to do for you, and that is, through the course of time, not tell you, but prove to you that you could trust me. And I certainly hope I've done that.

          The first thing was trust by me and what I told you I could back it up.

          Number two, I told you in the very beginning about the fraud. I said, look, I'm not going to contest that a fraud happened. We're not going to spend here hours and days and months trying to prove to you a fraud didn't take place.

          I also told you this, about the charges. Forget all about them. I told you, it doesn't matter whether or not someone licked a stamp and stuck it in the mail or sent it over the internet or ever how you do it or whatever you do. It doesn't matter.

          I told you, because this case comes down to one thing and one thing only, and all the counts, not one by one by one, all the counts fall on one thing, that's it, knowledge. Not just do I believe he had it, or I think he may have had it, but did they prove to you specifically that Richard Scrushy had knowledge of this fraud and what was going on.

          Did he have a specific intent to defraud? That's what we're talking about in this case.

          I went further with you. I sat right up here and said, let me tell you what I'm going to talk to you about. I'm going to show you about a group of people who is involved in this. Do you remember that? Did I not tell you the truth? Did it not come to pass? Did everything I tell you happened?

          Not only that, it was worse than what I thought it was going to be.

          On top of that, I told you about how these people got to where they were. I want to show you something real interesting, folks. Do you remember how I told you how Bill Owens hired and got all these people here and how Mike Martin, through Aaron Beam, got all these people here?

          Let me show you a little trick. Let me show you a con. Once I did that, the government comes before you and with every one of these rodents, what they do is they say to you, oh, Mr. Scrushy hired them. It wasn't Bill Owens, it was Mr. Scrushy.

          And you know what I did? I proved them a liar. Do you know where? Right here with Weston Smith.

          I put in a document that was a letter to him from, guess who, Aaron Beam and Bill Owens saying, congratulations, you're hired. It wasn't even sent to Richard Scrushy. And you know what they did when he saw that, do you know what Weston did with it? He went, well, that's not the way it happened. Unbelievable.

          Because what they wanted you to believe is is that he had this control over everything, that he did everything, but then when we present documentary evidence, what do they do? They run because the light shined on them, and they head for the holes. Every single time, this whole group.

          On top of that, let me tell you this:  Who was the one that came up before you in opening statement and said, let me tell you about tapes. Let me tell you what is on the tapes. Let me tell you what to look for on the tapes. It wasn't them. It was moi.

          And I told you then and there, I'm not afraid of the tapes. Thank goodness for the tapes. And I'm going to cover it in a minute to show you why.

          The main thing about it is, you can pick and choose portions all you want to, and you can play little blurbs here and you can play little blurbs there, but let me tell you what it boils down to, those tapes are reasonable doubt.

          I'm going to submit to every one of you, let me tape record a four to six hour conversation you have with somebody. Let me do that. I'll bet you that Gerry Kelly and the rest of the FBI can pull out blurbs from that and have you convicted, too, before you turn around of something. Because when you pick and choose, you get what you want.

          Not only the tapes. You know, I came before you, this has been months ago, months ago. I sat here and said, there are six million documents that exist in this case alone. And guess what, I made a promise to each and every one of you sitting up there, I said, I dare them to find one, one document, one memo, one note, one paper that says without the testimony of a pack of mice that he did it (indicating). Six million documents.

          You know what else is great about this? They tried to con you again. See, they put on their nine million dollar CPA man, Harvey Kelly.

          And he tells you, well, we went in there, and we didn't find a lot of emails. They weren't on the computer. Uh-oh, wrong-o, because Gerry Kelly gets on the stand and I say, Mr. Kelly, y'all took all the computer hard drives Mr. Scrushy had, didn't you? Yeah, yep. Did it? Yep. Certainly, yep.

          Y'all have facilities in the lab, don't you? Oh, yeah, we've got a lab. Forensic computer lab, don't you? Oh, yeah, we do. And you can go back in those computers and you can pull out things that people have even erased? You can go back in time and you can pull out things that people thought they deleted.

          What did you find? Nothing. You know why? Because there isn't anything.

          You know, as I told you in opening, I made a promise to you. A promise to you that I would prove those things to you. I think I have done it. I think I have fulfilled my end of the bargain.

          And now, through the rest of this, I want to ask you to please consider fulfilling your end of the bargain to me, your promises to me, your promises that you're not going to let anything outweigh the evidence. Not any outside influence, not any of this, not any of that; that if I'm right, I want you to live up to your promise to me and bring in a verdict of not guilty to all counts.

          One thing that I think is the most interesting part of this case -- listen to this, this is good -- for over six years, you hear me, 1996 through spring 2003, over six years, that man (indicating) Richard Scrushy never made a slip up, if he was involved in this fraud. Never slipped up one time to show corroboration of evidence that he knew. Not once. It's impossible. It's impossible that he couldn't do that.

          You know why? Because there has only been one person to walk the face of this earth that could have been that perfect. Not one time. Not once did he ever slip up. It's impossible.

          And you know what that means? It's a reasonable doubt.

          So the government says to you, I want to tell you what our evidence is. And I dare them, make him get up here and refute this. Here's our evidence that Richard Scrushy was involved in this. Because we have got a big rat, Bill Owens, and a pack of mice, and all they're doing is sitting there squealing at you, trust me, trust me, believe me, I'm telling you the truth, Richard Scrushy did it. That's it, folks. That's all they got.

          You know why I say Bill Owens is a big rat? Because he has been in this from the beginning, he shows up everywhere, he is everywhere that the evidence is, he's been there, and he's there today lingering. And the audacity of someone to stand up here and look at you in the eyes, and say to you, watch this, Bill Owens is just a bean counter. That's all he is.

          No. Bill Owens is a bean eater. And I proved that to you when I caught him at On The Border sitting up there with Jim Goodreau sucking down the Mexican beans. He isn't just a bean counter.

          Listen to this:  You want to talk about something that I think is just wonderful? Alice Martin stands up here and says to you and looks in your face and says, that man has the biggest ego in the world. The audacity of that.

          When Bill Owens stood right here, sat right here, looked you in the eyeball and said, when I asked him, tell me, Bill, tell me about your wife's fortieth birthday party. What was the toast?

          What did y'all expect? If it had been your husband, or your wife that had given that toast, you would have knocked him off, you would have knocked him off the deck and probably unconscious for days.

          How dare he sit here and say to you, I'm the smartest man alive. You know what I waited for? I knew he was going to say it. You know why? Because I could see it in his eyes. I could see the ego coming out. Did you know what you were waiting for? You were waiting for what common sense men, like yourself, would have said to that.

          Do you know what the answer is really, for us, not for Bill Owens, but for us guys? I'm the smartest man alive. Watch this. I'm the smartest man alive, because I married the most beautiful woman in the world (indicating). That is what you wanted to hear from him.

          But, no, you got Mr. Ego standing over there telling you, I'm the smartest man alive.

          The audacity of him to look at you and tell you that to your face. And then to have her say, he's (indicating) got the ego.

          Do you think for one minute that HealthSouth is the only fraud that he perpetrated in this case? Do you really believe that?

          Let me show you something. Let me show you how the smartest man -- I'm going to give him some credit, folks.

          He is not the smartest man alive. He is close to it, but he is not the smartest. You know how I know it? Because I have got sixteen people sitting here that are the smartest people alive, and they saw right through him. Just like she said about impressions, you have got your impression from him. You felt him. You smelled him. You understood where he was coming from.

          And where he was coming from, you know, I know we don't want to go there.

          The smartest man alive. Let me show you what he did. I give you credit, Bill, wherever you are, buddy, here it is.

          All right. By the way, who brought this out? You remember this, I hadn't filed my tax return for nine years. Whoa. Whoa. Hadn't filed your tax return for nine years?

          How did you get away with it? Here's the kicker, folks. If you or any of us had not filed our taxes for nine years, tell me how the government is going to come up here and go, it's okay, just do the best you can.

          Fraud number two. This is a good one. He pulled this one on the government after he came into them.

          Well, I'm getting a refund on my taxes.

          Bill, how did you pull this one off, buddy? Well, you see what I did is on the back where it says job related, I just decided to deduct the attorney fees that HealthSouth had paid and claim it as part of my fee and, therefore, it's a job expense, and I get to walk away scot free, and I get a refund.

          And you know what he is doing right now to you, folks? You want to take a blame on this? Watch this. I really believe that right now, right this minute, 2:25 p.m., Bill Owens is at the bank cashing his refund check from the Internal Revenue Service.

          You know why I believe it? Because when I asked about people in the courtroom, two IRS agents were in the courtroom, and I picked them out for you. And what do they do? It's okay, Bill, I know we got your return. We will get your refund to you, buddy.

          You know what the next fraud was he pulled on you, on taxes? Watch this, this is a good one. Do you remember he ain't paid any taxes, hadn't filed his taxes. I'm going to get to the paying in a minute. He took his '96 tax return through 2002 -- listen to this -- and filed them at one time right before trial.

          Here is the fraud. First of all, it's a con to you that you would even let him get away with pulling that stunt so he can go, well, I filed my taxes now.

          Trust me, believe me, I paid, I filed. Except for one problem, see. '96 through 2002 is the indictment time of the conspiracy. He didn't pay in '95 or file in '95, he ain't filed that. He filed that outside later on, because he wanted to get the indictment covered up first.

          Are you ready for the next fraud? This is a good one, too, folks. On Friday, before the taping went down on Monday, the 17th of March, what was Bill Owens doing? He was changing his property out to put it in his wife's name to get it out of his. Moving money around, hiding it because he knows what is coming down. And you know what? That is not a fraud just on you and me, that is a fraud on the government.

          Let them get up here, I dare you to make Richard Smith get up here and answer that one way or the other. Make him stand up here before you and look you in the eye and say we knew about him doing it. Because if they did, they are in it with him. And if they didn't, then shame on them, because Bill Owens just pulled the biggest fraud on them, too. Think about it.

          Is he through? He isn't through. He is not even close. He tells y'all, listen to this, that I was really having, at the time of the 17th and 18th of March, I was really having marital problems. So I came up with the story to go in and use the truth to get Richard Scrushy to talk to me. Oh, boy. You see, when you lie so much, you forget about your former lies.

          Do you remember when I pulled out the grand jury testimony where he raised his hand to God and swore before you that he was going to tell you the truth? And in the grand jury testimony, he said, the FBI made up that story for me to use.

          When is he lying? He's lying one time or another, and it's under oath. Under oath. And he didn't even blink an eye to it.

          You know what his answer was? I don't recall that. I don't recall that. You know why he doesn't recall it? Because he can't remember the lies he's done.

          Is he through? Oh, no, he isn't through. A year and some months later, he does get a divorce. Guess what he does with it? He takes the divorce, so nobody will know anything about it, thinking that, smartest man alive, and carries it over to a county that he and his wife don't even live in, reside in, have ownership in, property in, nothing in, in Pickens County above Tuscaloosa and files it under seal, meaning you can't get to it. We did. That's another con on them right there (indicating).

          How about this one, we are not even through with what he pulled in fraud. How about this one, folks? Yeah, I owed HealthSouth one point two million dollars in an executive loan. I don't have it. So let me see what I can do about it. I'll write them a bad check. And I will give it to my buddy, Kay Morgan, and tell her to hold it. And some time later on, I will pick it up. Then she can go ahead and write the debt off, and I can go lie to Richard Scrushy, I can lie to the Board of Directors, I can lie to the other officers of this corporation. And he did, uncontradicted.

          So he writes out his little check, he gives it to them. It's hidden. The debt is wiped off. He looks good. And he sits here and lies to y'all about it. He did it. He knew he did it. He got caught.

          You know what? What has he done to straighten out that check? You know what good people like -- listen, has Jim Parkman ever written a bad check? Yeah, I did. I didn't mean it. But I wrote it to Movie Gallery when I went and got some tapes. And I didn't know my wife had written another one. It's not her fault. I am not blaming you, honey.

          So what did I do? As soon as they called me and said, Jim, you've got a bad check down here, what do you do if you are good people like you and me? You get up off the couch and you go correct the problem immediately.

          Bill Owens didn't correct any problem. Do you know what his answer was to you? Do you remember this when he looked at you in the face? I'm going to take care of that in the future.

          How about this one, folks, are you ready for another con he pulled on you? Mr. Scrushy intimidated me. Really, Bill? Yeah, he was intimidating. How did he intimidate you, Bill? Well, he sent me a note and said that, as an officer of the corporation, I ought to work till 6:00 o'clock. Holy smoke. There's a threat for you. Boy, that will make you want to quit your job, won't it?

          Aaron Beam, the same way. You see, they put them together, folks, to try to get that intimidation in, because they want you to believe that he's the one with the ego, not the smartest man alive.

          And you know what they did with Beam? See, it comes out. It all comes out on cross.

          He says, he intimidated me. Oh, he did? Well, Mr. Beam, if he intimidated you, you went to Australia for a week on a vacation and left behind handling the biggest deal HealthSouth has ever had.

          Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's one. I did that.

          And, number two, well, he intimidates me, but I just decide to drop in and have lunch with him one day, Richard Scrushy. Oh, come on.

          I tell you who the intimidator is. I tell you who is a better intimidator than Dale Earnhart -- Bill Owens. You can bet on it.

          You know, it's not only that he pulled these frauds off, but you know something, he has one fraud left to do. Are you watching? He has one final fraud, and that's with you. All he has to do is to get you to vote guilty, and he's going to be back at his home that he kept worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and he's going to be dancing (indicating). I know, I know I'm not good, that's the best I've got.

          But let me tell you something, the big smile will come on his face because he knows he has conned you, he has frauded you, and now he is the smartest man in the world. Bottom line.

          I told you, I came up here before you and made some promises to you. Now what I would like to do is take just a minute, and I would like to talk to you about why you can feel good about your decision in this case to find Richard Scrushy not guilty based on the evidence.

          And what I would like to do is talk to you just briefly, if I can, about the events that took place during HealthSouth's history and why they happened like they did.

          The government says it was because Richard Scrushy wanted a lot of money. Richard Scrushy had a lot of money. I don't care if it's thirty-eight million, two hundred million, one hundred seventy-eight million -- thirty-eight million dollars is a lot of money, folks. Good gracious alive. Do you understand that?

          The whole, whole thing that they put on about money laundering was only five million bucks. All the property they put in on money laundering, five million dollars. Minimum, thirty-eight million dollars. Top, one hundred seventy-two million in cold cash he could get his hands on.

          Who cares? Expect they want you to believe that you ought to convict him because he made a lot of money. And we don't like people that's got a lot of money.

          So let's talk about how this developed. You know, it all started in 1996 right up here with the SEC. This was interesting. Two things came about in 1996. Number one, the SEC at that time had not rendered any orders dealing with accounting at HealthSouth or anywhere else.

          What had HealthSouth been doing? We know from Aaron Beam and Bill Owens that they were into aggressive accounting. That is not illegal. Everybody, accountants and everybody else has told you that. They just did aggressive accounting.

          It's not that it's illegal. It's not that it's wrong. That's what they were doing. Then all of a sudden in 1996, the SEC comes out with a letter they send to HealthSouth, and they say, we want you to stop aggressive accounting in the area of start-up costs. That created a problem.

          That, coupled with number two, the one running the show, and I'm going to prove this one to you in a minute, the one running the show, Bill Owens, see, he ain't filed his income taxes since '94, '95 -- '95. What he was doing was what a lot of folks do when you get behind in debt, you just hope you can catch up with money later on to pay that off, and then you're all right.

          But to catch up, you have got to make more.

          Now, here is the key, here is your key:  Mr. Owens, do you remember this, tell me about your taxes in this time period. I had paid, quote/unquote, the vast majority of my taxes through withholding. And all I was was simply just a little delinquent in filing my returns.

          Do you remember that one? Oops. The paper got him. The fly paper caught the mice. You know how? Because when we put it into evidence, by 1997, guess what liens had been placed against his property?

          Are you ready for this, folks? Federal and state combined was over a million dollars by '97 on liens.

          But I paid the vast majority. Come on. He needed it. He wanted it. And now he's got to try to get it.

          So how does he do it? Watch what happens. Aaron Beam testifies that he goes up to see Richard Scrushy, and he says to Richard Scrushy, you know, Mr. Scrushy, we are a little behind on our numbers.

          What does Mr. Scrushy say to him? It kind of got a little complicated a little bit, but we straightened it out on the 302s. He said something to the effect, well, just fix the numbers or make it happen.

          Here is the catch all to that. Here is the reasonable doubt right here.

          Mr. Beam, have you ever heard Mr. Scrushy use those terms before? Yep. Used them all the time when we were doing aggressive accounting.

          Uh-oh. So Beam runs down, along with Mr. Owens. And Alice Martin is wrong, again. She says that both of them spend the night together -- no. No. Mr. Beam went home. Aaron Beam took off and left who to fix it, the way he wanted to fix it? Bill Owens.

          You know, in dealing with this and in dealing with these problems that we have, I want to tell you this, too, that Mr. Beam, as Ms. Martin said, and I'm going to admit I'm wrong, when I'm wrong. I lost a dollar on a bet to him. I did. But you know what I did, I pushed all in on him on cross. I put in all I got.

          And you know what happened to him? He got up and ran from the poker table like a scared mice ought to.

          Because you know what happened when he got up there and we started looking at him real closely? We found out that he made six point two million dollars. Nothing to do with the bank. Nothing to have to pay the bank back.

          Listen to this, it got down to, oh, I had to quit because I just couldn't do the fraud anymore. You know why he quit. I know why he quit. They know. Beam knows.

          Unfortunately, his wife didn't know until that day. And let me tell you, folks, I stand by this. Tell him to get up here and call me, tell him to tell me I'm a liar. If you will lie to your wife for these many years looking her in the face, he will lie to you. The audacity of him. I hate to say it. But that is exactly what it's like.

          Because he thought he could keep it quiet. He thought he could keep Nancy Belcher, listen to this, put over there at Mountain Brook. Jim Parkman can't even get in Mountain Brook. And he has got Nancy stuck over there in some house over there living off HealthSouth, working part-time.

          The audacity of him. Running women up and down the stairs. And when it came out, what happened? Mr. Scrushy, what did he say to you, Beam? You know what he said, Beam, it's time to go, buddy. You're drinking too much. Your lounging too much. Too many women. You have got them stuck up over here. You've got them coming into the office. It's a disgrace.

          Listen to this, I'm not trying to pick on him, but let me tell you something, this is not something that we don't need to pick about because it's important. Because he's in this now (indicating).

          But when I asked Aaron Beam on the stand, Mr. Beam, are you an alcoholic? What did he say to you?

          Well, that is just a matter of opinion. Sad, but true.

          I want to next go and tell you about Horizon. And here is the kicker to this. I have got to hurry, I know. Listen to me. The Horizon deal came about in '97, and that was supposed to have cleaned the deck, see.

          And here is what the story that bothers me is. We have got three people we know were in the conspiracy, because they admitted it on direct. And three of them got the whole story wrong with how it happened. If they are in a conspiracy together, how in the world can they get it all wrong? Bill Owens says, I called the controller over there and we put extra capital, fraudulent capital, on the books of Horizon/CMS and that is how we were able to pull it off. Ken Livesay says, no, it was fictitious assets that we transferred with the nursing homes after the sale. And Mike Martin says, no, it wasn't, it was expenses.

          Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, it's been a long time ago. They can certainly mess up on this one, because it's been a long time.

          Listen to this:  Two years they have tried to prepare for this. Each one of them has met with the government and, they admitted it, up to twenty to thirty times preparing for their testimony before you and they still can't get it right.

          And then what happened? Are you ready? The budget comes up. And in the summer, we find out that there is a three hundred and fifty million dollar math mistake made by the accounting department.

          These two things alone are critical, and I'm going to show you why. In neither one of them is there any evidence that they ever went to Richard Scrushy and told him we lost four hundred million dollars in moving fraud out, and three hundred and fifty million in an error in the accounting department that we had to make up so Richard Scrushy wouldn't know about it. Uncontradicted.

          He's supposed to be -- what did they call him? What did they call Richard Scrushy? The kingpin, the mastermind. And they don't even tell him what's going on.

          Oh, we're not through, folks. Balanced Budget Act. We have two more now that have entered the people, two more mice. And you know what Ken Livesay tells you about the Balanced Budget Act? It had an affect, a devastating effect on HealthSouth. It cost us up to three hundred million dollars.

          Bill Owens sits here and tells you, we knew about it the whole time. We just made all that up so that we could hide the fraud.

          If they are telling Richard Scrushy anything, which story are they telling him?

          Next, Mike Martin, stock crash. This was great. We know now, because he testified under cross, we know now that he admitted that he called his buddy Geoff Harris and gave him insider information about what was going on at HealthSouth and about the affects that these things were going to have on HealthSouth.

          We know for a fact, do we not, that at that point in time Geoff Harris calls one of his friends over with somebody, I think it was Fidelity, holding the majority of the shares, and what happens? Nothing that Richard Scrushy did, something that Mike Martin did, they dumped forty-eight million shares on the market in three days and the stock goes down and he sits right here, Mike Martin, and looks at Richard Scrushy in his face and says, I didn't do it. I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't do it.

          He goes to the Board of Directors and they confront him. I didn't do it. He goes to the FBI. Did you have anything to do with it? I didn't do it.

          If he will lie to the FBI, he will lie to y'all.

          Next. This is a good one. Merger. Do you remember this? This is what boils down to the lake trip with Bill McGahan of Warburg, UBS Warburg. And this is where Mike Martin is involved. This is wonderful. This is wonderful.

          Let me tell you the two stories, Mike Martin's version first. Mike Martin says, I called Bill McGahan to come down to go talk to Richard Scrushy, and, in a legitimate way, explain to him why we don't want to be in this deal.

          And why don't we want to be in the deal? Because Mr. Scrushy was in the process of doing a merger with Manorcare. And what happens when you do a merger? Due diligence.

          By the way, let me show you something about due diligence. Isn't it amazing that it's all the rats and the mice together that did all the due diligence on all these cases? Isn't it the ones that put together all these acquisitions that ended up having a total, total amount of unbelievable expenses that they didn't catch, that they didn't look at, being dumped on the books at HealthSouth? Isn't it amazing that in that LBO that due diligence was going to catch them?

          I want to answer something for you right here, they're witnesses who have said, listen to this, that Richard Scrushy is a self-made smart man, especially in the business world and accounting. We know he didn't get a degree in it because we know what he did. He got it in, what, something far, far from it, right?

          So how did he learn how to be the smart businessman that he is? Because of the teacher. See, you can't learn without the teacher. Guess who the teacher is? Bill Owens.

          What Bill Owens taught him is what Bill Owens wanted him to know and how to do it, and what to say. And that is going to come back in a minute when we get down here.

          He was the one that told him what he wanted him to know, not about fraud, but about legitimate stuff. That is where the teacher comes in.

          But the merger, Manorcare, Mike Martin's story. Please forgive me for digressing. Here we go.

          We go out to the lake. Bill McGahan talks to Richard Scrushy, it doesn't work. I finally pull Richard Scrushy aside and say, look, you know we have got this fraud going on, man, we can't do this thing. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Good bye.

          Here is the problem:  Proved previous to his testimony that Mike Martin told the FBI unconditionally, are you ready, Bill McGahan was able to talk Richard Scrushy out of doing the merger, and he was able to do it, one, without letting him know that anything was wrong in fraud. In other words, I was able to do it by legitimate means, that being that we don't want to get back in the nursing home business because we had just gotten out of it with Horizon. And number two, okay, because we didn't let on to Richard Scrushy at that time that there was a fraud.

          Uh-oh. Here is what I want you to do, make Richard Smith get up here and explain that to you. Make Richard Smith get up here and explain to you, without him sitting down, how Mike Martin can make up and tell a story to the government that clears Richard Scrushy, but when he gets to trial after twenty times talking to the government, it's now, I have talked about fraud.

          Listen to this, are you ready? I talked about fraud. The only time I ever talked about fraud was at the lake meeting. Watch this. Did you ever tell the FBI in any of the statements that they took from you about that fraud? No. No.

          Isn't it amazing, this is the first time we ever heard it.

          Now, from there, Leif Murphy and the notebooks. This is my favorite. Here's why. You see, they had marched -- the government had marched in Aaron Beam thinking, he will tell the story, and they will like him and everything will be all right. There won't be any problems. Well, it didn't work that way.

          Well, we better bring the big rat in and put him up there and try to get him to convince the jury, because the big rat knows everything. So they bring the big rat in, he squeals, trust me, believe me. He leaves the stand. They go, uh-oh, we have too many problems with him.

          So what have we got to do, folks? We have got to find us some clean-looking guy. Some guy that looks good. Just like they told you a minute ago. Didn't he look good up on the stand? You dang right he looked good. That is the purpose of it. We have got to bring in somebody that is as clean as a Winn-Dixie chitling to convince you that Richard Scrushy knew what was going on. And we have got to do it because they look good.

          And then all of a sudden, their world collapsed. Watch this. Ken Livesay tells you straight to your face that in the end of 1998, right, that Leif Murphy knew about the gap that existed in the earnings between the actual, the budgeted amounts.

          He was in the controller position where all the money is, handling all the money, folks, in the treasury department. He knew what was going on.

          And on top of this, listen, they go, well, you can't believe that. Oh, yes, Jimmy can. And here's why right here, Defendant's Exhibit 97, end of 1998, oh, here it is. Another document, slam, and the mice, Leif Murphy, runs into the hole to get covered up. From Ken Livesay to Bill.

          Let me tell you something, we have got to fill in the holes here. We have got problems. Tell Mike and Leif, we know who they are. And here was the key, Weston Smith got on the stand and said the only time we ever used holes, dirt, gap were in family meetings when we're talking about fraud. He knew it.

          Are you ready? Watch. The government comes out with a notebook that's got "fabricated" written on it. And then it's kind of marked out, and they give you this story about how Mike Martin did this.

          Are you ready for this? And all of a sudden, folks, another notebook appears. One coming from Bill Owens. And you know what? You know what Jim Parkman said when he sat over there and heard that? Same thing you did, I smell a rat.

          And you're right. We did. All of a sudden, two books change "fabricated" to "blue sky." And let me tell you something, the story about it is even more contradictory than the books are.

          Let me say this to you:  Do you know how I know Richard Scrushy, and I can prove to you that Richard Scrushy never saw either of those notebooks? Are you ready? Number one, we know for a fact, and we will talk about it in just a minute, when we talk about the Emery Harris road map, do you remember Weston Smith saying, do you remember him saying, Emery, fix this thing for me so I can take it up and show it to Richard Scrushy and show him where we are on this fraud. He never took it up there. It's uncontradicted. Nobody took it up there.

          You know why they didn't take it up there? Because when they saw what was in it, they said, I'm not going up there to show Richard Scrushy this. I'm going to get fired. He's going to kill me.

          So why in the world, if they are not going to take actual numbers to Richard Scrushy, why are they going to take some projection in the future; and number two, we know it wasn't true because it never happened, the projection. It never took place. The whole company was supposed to fold, and here we have it sitting right here.

          And number three, are you ready? Because, you see, when you talk about contradictions in a case like this, you're looking at it to see, do the people remember things? Do they understand what really happened? How did it come about? They, again, like the others that we pointed to, had time and time again to think about this, to talk with the government.

          And do you remember the story they came up with? Leif Murphy says, I talked to Richard Scrushy about the notebook one time in his office sitting on the sofa.

          Mike Martin says, no, no. He talked to him three times. One was on some kind of a call or sitting in some limo somewhere. I never really understood what he said about it, somewhere Mike Martin said up in New York or something. I'm not sure he even knows that.

          Number two, he says, what, we were in my office, Mike Martin's office, sitting around a table and Bill Owens was there. Bill Owens said, I wasn't there. I don't know anything about it.

          And number three, after the sitting around the table in Mike Martin's office, he says Leif Murphy then goes up and takes it up there. And they say to you, well, he came running down. He said something to them. The secretary also said some time in July, not August, the other secretary, by the time I got through on cross-examination, wasn't really sure what happened and who went in and who did what. She even thought it could have been Martin and them talking, and we know about Mike Martin. I will get to him in a minute.

          So I say to you, in this particular case, dealing with these two notebooks, bottom line is this:  They're right, if Richard Scrushy was involved in this case, they had the murder weapon in their hand, the Leif Murphy notebooks. Or book. Or whatever. If he was.

          You know how finally, number four, I know he hadn't seen them? Watch this? Because the government did absolutely nothing to check out to see if they could find any DNA, any fingerprints, anything on either book that involved Richard Scrushy.

          And if that wasn't enough, the FBI knew about the problems. They knew there were two books all along. And they never -- they didn't, the FBI didn't, the whole row of FBI agents, never went back to Bill Owens or Mike or Leif Murphy and said, explain to me how these two came about.

          You know why they didn't do that? Because it's like life, folks, it's common sense, you don't ask a question that you don't want the answer to, because you're afraid or you know it's going to hurt you. There it is.

          And then we get to the bottom line of Leif Murphy. Are you ready? Yeah, the defense sent in some material to the government they were going to use in their case. And lo and behold, I done found out I have committed bank fraud. I didn't know I had done that. I forgot I signed that thing for five hundred million dollars. He knew it. The government knew it.

          But, you see, they don't want to throw no dirt on their Winn-Dixie chitlin. They have got to have that baby clean when it gets in here to y'all.

          And you know what the sad part of this story is? Really? Is he did, Leif Murphy, did the same thing Aaron Beam did, signed a bank statement and they (indicating) charged and get Beam to plead, and they let the Winn-Dixie chitlin walk out of the Winn-Dixie. Sad. Very sad.

          We come now to Diana Henze. First of all, I want to clear this up. The government told you that I'm going to call everybody in this case a liar. Absolutely not. I have got six people I'm calling liars, that is the rodent and the pack of mice.

          I say to you the rest of them they told the truth, Diana Henze included. Do you know what is strange about her testimony? You still don't get the story right. You still get two people giving two different things.

          Ken Livesay says that Mike Martin told Tanner about the fraud. Mike Martin says, no, I didn't. And on top of that, listen to this, the audacity of those people to attack Tony Tanner that came in this courtroom the way he was and got on this stand and looked you in the eyes. And I'm going to tell you right now, he told you the truth. You know it. I know it. You saw it. You smelled it. You felt it. You had the impression. Because he is a good man. And they had the audacity to tell you that Tony Tanner left the corporation because he was tired of working in the fraud. And the cow jumped over the moon.

          Tony Tanner left the corporation because he realized he couldn't produce anymore because of a disease that he had. And they want to make something out of it.

          That man got on his crutches and he came to this courthouse and he struggled. And he came in. And he struggled getting in that chair. And he looked you in the eye and he told you the truth. Mr. Parkman, no, I don't remember a lot of things that happened. But I know this, if I had known there was a fraud, I would have done something about it. I don't care who it is.

          And on top of that, who cleaned up this mess? Mike Martin told me that it had been taken care of. It was nothing. Don't worry about it.

          Listen to this:  Diana Henze told you the truth. She did. I'm telling you. Do you know what she told you? I was in Mike Martin's office talking to him about what was going on and why they were transferring -- why they were transferring me, not Richard Scrushy. Do you remember? Even Martin and Owens said that they are the ones that put her over in I.T. to get rid of her.

          Here comes the other lies, folks. Richard Scrushy opens the door, steps in and sees her sitting there. Got it. Mike Martin said that Diana was sitting there crying, upset. Diana Henze told you the truth, I wasn't crying. I was upset. But I wasn't crying.

          And what happened, Ms. Henze, when Richard stuck his head in the door? She said, all I did is look around and see him, and I said, I've got to get up, so I got up and left. I had enough of Mike Martin.

          Listen to this:  If a fraud was going on and they're going to cover this up, right then and there would have been the time for Mike Martin to say, oh, Richard, I'm glad you're here. Come on. Diana Henze has uncovered this fraud. We need to do something about this. Didn't happen.

          Emery Harris road map. I love this one. Told you, Weston said, fix it up for me, let me take it to Richard. Uncontradicted. Never took it to him.

          Do you know what is important about that document? There's two things. Number one, nine hundred million dollars they paid out in actual money on taxes to create seven hundred million dollars in paper on net income on a balance sheet.

          If they had taken that up to Richard Scrushy, he would have done back flips, because that is absolutely ludicrous. The only person that would want that to happen is Bill Owens, because the only thing he cares about is getting his money to pay off his loans, pay off his executive loan, make it, get to the top, climb the corporate ladder. He could care less about HealthSouth Corporation and what happens to them.

          If he did, if he cared about the stockholders like all of them tell you, and all the bond people, if he cared, he would have sold everything he had, written a check to HealthSouth, all the millions he's got stored away and said, folks, I did wrong, I'm sorry, but I paid back everything I had.

          Instead, it's, I'll take care of this. What a con.

          The second thing that is important, I thought this was great. Can I give some credit to two people? Not me. Two people I want to give credit to. This was great.

          Martin Adams, and big Leonard Bowen sitting in the back. I want to give credit to these guys.

          Their nine million dollar accountant from New York City never caught a mathematical transaction that made a seventy-eight million dollar error in this exhibit right here, and Martin and Leonard caught it.

          Folks, we could have saved you eight million bucks, okay, if you had just given us half of it. Because they found it.

          And you know what is interesting about it? You see, you know why they missed it? Every one of them missed it. They have been looking at it for years and they missed it.

          Do you know why they missed it? Because it's just like what you heard from Alice Martin, they turned the spotlight on, and they couldn't see anything but Richard Scrushy shinning from it. They couldn't take the time to take a look at the documents and see, they couldn't take time to find a seventy-eight million dollar mistake.

          Listen to this, what other mistakes? What did that do to all this? Their nine million dollar expert didn't catch it, so we will never know, will we?

          You know, Weston Smith, CareMark, do you remember this? It was simple. But I think it's important. This is where he went and got his buddy to change the sale date on the stock or to keep stock on the book and to get money from the sale and they up everything and it makes everything look pretty. Here we go.

          The key to the Weston Smith CareMark thing was this, are you ready? It's uncontradicted. They have got nobody that said Richard Scrushy knew about it. Nobody. None. Weston didn't say he went up and told Richard about it. Nobody.

          Again, that falls right in to the Emery Harris -- that falls into every one of the big things that went on in this case he is supposed to know, but he doesn't. That is reasonable doubt.

          Weston Smith. Can I talk about him briefly? Ready for this? I had come in on cross-examination and praised Weston Smith, because I thought he might tell you the truth. I really did. I thought not only might he tell you the truth about the fact that Richard didn't know, but I thought he might tell you the truth about his wife Susan.

          Now, listen to me just a minute. Is there any doubt that his wife, Susan Jones Smith, wasn't involved in this conspiracy from the very beginning?

          Do you understand that Ken Livesay, Kay Morgan, put her in it at every meeting?

          Do you not understand that Bill Owens stood here and lied to your face and said, no, Susan wasn't involved; but, in the 302 that he gave to them earlier, he said, yeah, Susan was involved. She was a family member.

          Why did he change? To cover up one of the mice.

          So I told you, I thought he was going to do the honorable thing. I thought he might come in here and look you in the face and say to you, okay, my wife was involved in it. I'm going to tell you the truth. She was a family member. She worked down there right under me in treasury. She knew about the money. She knew about what was going on. These guys are right. She was in the family. This is what I did. I'm from the south, I'm honorable. And I took the heat for her so they wouldn't charge her. And I hope they don't. He didn't do that. He lied to you about it.

          Next. August 5th and 6th, Transmittal 1753. I have got to rush. We could do this for the rest of the week, if you let me. Judge, won't let me.

          THE COURT:  No.

          MR. PARKMAN:  Here is what is interesting about the 5th and 6th.

          See, when you catch people, they have to turn things around and change the story. Bill Owens gets on the stand to you and says, I went to Richard Scrushy before midmorning on the 5th of August and we talked about 1753. We talked about the split of the company, and we talked about Weston Smith.

          And I get up and I go, oops, Bill, what if midmorning Richard Scrushy isn't in the state? Because, see, I knew. They didn't. And then they got caught, because they started looking, and they found out he is in the air. He doesn't get into Birmingham until way after midmorning, and now they change the story, and now they come back and now they want it to be in the afternoon.

          Even then, listen, the times they put up on the big screen, the times that they had, the only time, the maximum, the maximum amount of time that even if it happened like they said, was forty minutes that Owens would have had a chance to talk to Richard Scrushy.

          And you tell me if in forty minutes that you can decide that 1753 is going to be millions of dollars to hide a fraud, that we are going to split the company in order to try to cover up the fraud, and we are going to put Weston Smith as CFO. And on top of that, we bring in UBS Warburg with McGahan in three days with a team of people with documents that are thousands of pages to show that this is going to be all right. And the cow jumped over the moon. It didn't happen that way.

          As a matter of fact, do you remember what Owens really said? He said, well, I thought it was the 6th. Even when he talks to Richard Scrushy on the tape, he goes, yeah, it was the 6th. He says to you on the stand, well, I found out from the government. The government lawyers told me it was the 5th, not the 6th. Oh, my goodness gracious alive.

          1753. Weston Smith says, man -- or, was it? Let me see. Yeah. Weston, I believe, was the one that said, oh, yeah, 1753 was real. It was real. Yeah. It was one hundred seventy-five million. He is in the conspiracy and believes it.

          Owens says, this could be devastating to us. Owens also says, we used 1753 to cover up the fraud.

          Smoking gun, right here. Defendant's Exhibit 43. September the 11th, 2002. Are you ready for this? What happens? Bill Owens sends a letter to only Richard Scrushy, no one else, and says on September the 11th, 2002, 1753 is going to be more devastating than one hundred seventy-five million dollars.

          If Richard Scrushy was involved in the planning of this, if Richard Scrushy knew about this back on August the 5th or 6th, why is Bill Owens sending only him a letter, to tell him it's going to be more than what it really was?

          How about this:  Jean Davis we put on the stand. Y'all tell me she didn't tell y'all the truth. She said it was after August 15th when we finally went up there and the problems that we had with Transmittal 1753 and the mess that it caused. And she explained it to you in detail and she said, it was after August 15th, not at the time they were talking that we really realized that 1753 was going to be a tremendous impact on HealthSouth.

          Make Richard Smith get back up here and explain that one. Make him call her a liar. Because it has to be if you believe Richard Scrushy is involved in this conspiracy.

          On top of that, the Owens and Goodreau deal. Real quick. Here we go. I love this one. You met with him up there at On the Border, didn't you, Mr. Owens? Nope, did not. Did not meet him up there on August the 5th. Never did. I don't even like eating there. That is how I know I wasn't there. I don't like going.

          Well, Mr. Owens, what if I can produce to you a receipt and prove to you? I dare you to do it.

          So, Jim Parkman goes back and goes through six million documents on Valentine's night. Sorry, Honey, I missed it, but I found it.

          And what happened the next morning when I brought it in and put it in his face, do you know what he did? He hadn't even got the guts to sit here and tell you to your face I'm wrong. He goes, well, this ain't right. This couldn't be right. No, I probably -- who are you going to believe? Who are you going to believe? This is his philosophy, me or your lying eyes? Are you going to believe me or are you going to believe some receipt I signed showing I was there for fifty-five dollars and eleven cents. He was there with Goodreau. He knows it. I know it.

          And on top of that, it's uncontradicted. You know it? Uncontradicted that he sat there and told Goodreau, we have got accounting problems and no, I hadn't told Richard Scrushy. And he asked him time and time again, have you? No, I haven't done that. No, I haven't told Richard yet.

          And he explained it to you in detail. And you know what, it's uncontradicted. You know why it's uncontradicted? They had a chance right here to put somebody, Bill Owens or whoever, back on the stand on rebuttal and look you in the face and tell you, no, that didn't happen. And they didn't do it.

          And you know why they didn't do it? Because they know what really happened.

          The coup. We know about the coup. Let me tell you what is important about it. If you're involved in a fraud, and you're in a coup, you ain't looking to fire people, because any of these people in the coup -- and on January 6th at the board meeting, like Art Leach told you, do you know what they are going to say to Richard Scrushy, they are going to walk in the door, shut the door, and say, hey, Richard, buddy, let me explain this to you, man. We're involved in this fraud together.

          The way I see it is this:  I look at it this way, I am doing all the work, I'm taking all the risks, and you are making all the money, and you ain't going to demote me, and you ain't going to cut my salary. Or else I'm going to run and tell the world what you are doing. And Tadd McVay tried that trick on him, just like Art Leach said.

          And what did Richard Scrushy say to the co-conspirator that is in it with him? No, I dare you, because he didn't know about any fraud.

          The only thing he saw was Bill Owens going to him, going with Tadd McVay, he wants a half million dollars in extortion money. That ain't what he told him. You know how I know it? Because you remember what he got Owens to admit when he came back to McVay, he said, Tadd, listen, buddy, Richard ain't going to do this thing about any contract or about any half million dollars.

          But do me a favor, don't run into Richard in the hallway and talk to him about it.

          The LBO. Real quick. The LBO was real simple. Richard Scrushy, in 2003, again started the same thing that he thought about doing back when, when Bill McGahan talked him out of it because we don't want to get back in the nursing home business. And there is a document. There it is. They are saying to you, Richard Scrushy knew there wasn't any money. And he sits right there and says, can I assume that we are going to use two hundred fifty million out of three hundred ninety-nine million to do this deal. Well, if they had been telling him, why is he saying yes to it.

          On top of that, did you hear the tapes? I'm not going in there with that guy. And you know what guy they are talking about? Richard Scrushy. You know how they tried to get out of that conversation? They both lied to you.

          Do you know that? Tadd McVay told you, well, that meant all those guys involved in the LBO, more than one. Well, it's not plural. It's your word. That guy is singular.

          Oh, yeah. So what do they do to fix it? They bring Bill Owens. And he goes, oh, we were talking about the one guy, we get in there with one guy with the LBO. They were talking about Richard Scrushy. They were talking about the fact that he didn't know there wasn't the money there.

          And on top of all of it, you know what they did, they got UBS to come up with these things, crimson and everything, you know, they got them to do that, because what they did was they showed on there, which they showed to the investors, do you remember that, that under any plan they had, they had three hundred ninety-nine million dollars. And they were either going to allocate one fifty, two fifty or none but the money was still there.

          How are you going to pull it off later on? You've shown the people that are going to come down and going to do the due diligence, you have shown them. If you don't have the money, first of all, you don't bring it in, and you don't certainly show it to them that UBS has got that shows the money is in the account. That is how.

          And you know why the thing never went through? Because we never got to it.

          Finally, I want to get right here to the tapes. Here is what I want to do. Listen for me a minute. Listen. I want to do the same thing the government did. Okay. I want to play you some excerpts of tapes in which Richard Scrushy says on there, unequivocally, without having to read anything into it, that he is involved in the fraud and that he knew about it and it was going to -- let's listen to the tapes. Would you play those for me, please?

          MR. LEACH:  Don't have it.

          MR. PARKMAN:  Oh, that's right, we don't have them, because they don't exist. There are none. Isn't this amazing?

          You know what is amazing about this whole story? This right here. I love this. This is the first conversation that we had on Monday that was recorded, 002. Here we go. Kay and I had a talk over the weekend. I want to show you something. We get right down here, and she says to me, you know, I told her about the income statement, balance sheet, and if you don't stop immediately, and the first words out of Richard Scrushy's mouth is what, stop what?

          And then I want to do something, watch this. Richard Smith called me out, I'm calling your bluff. He said to me, Jim, later on in the conversation Richard Scrushy says something to Bill about other people involved in it. I held this one. I like doing that. And I like answering the bluff. I'm going to get my dollar back.

          How did Richard Scrushy know other people were involved in it? Can I tell you a problem, folks? When you are from Washington, D.C., and you live there for so long, you forget about southern words. Right? And they are good words.

          What he forgot about was right here, "y'all." "How can y'all go on doing this?" The key to it is is Richard Scrushy knew he wasn't involved in it, so he knew someone else was, because it came right out of their mouth, and then we got static noise. You ought to go back and listen to what is in the static noise, too.

          By the way, Ginsberg got up here and told you about how all this stuff was done and how messed up it is. And you know what, they had a chance on rebuttal to disprove our expert. They didn't do it. Because they know he was right. Y'all can do this.

          I then went and took a look at, instead of like the government did, pulling snippets out here and there, I went and I figured up just some, I couldn't do them all, I just did some of the things that Richard Scrushy said during the course of this. Look at this, all through this, all through this tape, go back and listen, check me out, prove me wrong, (indicating). You have got to do the right thing here.

          Well, Bill, until this wrinkle, that is what Owens said, until this wrinkle came up, what does that leave Richard Scrushy thinking? The only thing Bill Owens ever told him about the tapes, when we talked about it, was a 10-QA. Guess who signed the 10-QA? Nobody has ever told you that. Bill Owens. Not Richard Scrushy.

          So the 10-QA was not Richard Scrushy's problem. He didn't sign it. It was Bill Owens and another little mice of his that was the CFO.

          Look at this. You have got a balance sheet that you defended with accountants. Yeah. Well, Bill, you just got millions of dollars' worth of acquisitions -- this is interesting -- and that you know some stuff, just got to clean up some stuff that came on here. And they come up here and tell you, well, it's that stuff that's on the sheets, that's meaning that's fraud. No, it isn't.

          Throughout these tapes, he tells you about acquisitions Richard Scrushy does. And he tells you that what we've got is we have got a lot of stuff that we took in with the acquisitions, and we have proved it because we showed you that they had warehouses full of junk that they couldn't get rid of and it was costing them money. That is where all that came from.

          Then, you know, I mean, it's like walking into a propeller blade. Let me tell you something, go back and listen to the tape. Listen to when he says it. He is not talking about business. Richard Scrushy and Bill Owens are talking about his divorce and the problems he is having there. That is what walking into the propeller blade is all about.

          And he says it and he ends with it, you just got a personal issue that you've got to deal with, right after it. That personal issue ain't fraud. It's his wife.

          Well, I accidentally asked Horton, isn't that interesting, Bill Owens tells him on the tape, well, I'm going to run down and see Horton, I'm going to take care of this with Horton.

          What are you going to tell Horton? Well, I've just got to see.

          So what does Mr. Scrushy do in this investigation, trying to figure out what in the world Bill Owens is talking about? He called Horton. And says, Bill Owens called you yet? No. Then he tells Owens right there, didn't want to him I'm calling to check up on you, Bill, because he knows Bill is having some problems, I just accidentally asked. And then Bill Owens sits right there and tells you, well, I used a conversation, you know that conversation about the -- I just used that to kind of set him up.

          Since when are we trying to set folks up in this country? Because when we set folks up, we end up with a mob and a lynch. Not justice.

          Listen to this. It goes on. There are millions of these things. You can't sign your numbers you produced, you put yourself in that situation, Bill. Listen to this. You are going to create a problem, you think it's going to create a problem with the shareholders? Richard Scrushy, throughout the conversation, asked every question trying to get Bill Owens to answer it, and Bill Owens changes the subject every time. He asked him about the shareholders. He asked him about the banks. He asked him about the bonds. He asked him about the accountants and never got a true statement out of his mouth.

          So you're going to go tell Horton there's something wrong? What do you want me to do?

          I mean, I'm signing a 10-Q amendment, that's not a problem, is it? Bill doesn't even answer him.

          He goes on. Certification, I'm sorry to drop this on you right now. Everybody is involved. That is what we said, he knew it at this time, he came after that thing about the y'all. And then can the company get on the other side? Well, the company's solid. That's Bill Owens telling him.

          Can the company get on the other side? The other side of fraud? No. The other side of any problems, Bill, that you have got. Bill says, it's solid, don't worry about it.

          Here we go. You engineered your way into it, you can engineer your way out.

          Look at this. I'm sure by Thursday, I'll have this thing solved. How are you going to solve a two point seven billion dollar fraud? Even on the books, he says, can we write this off? You can't write off a two point seven billion dollar fraud. Owens knows it. Owens never said anything about it.

          This is what I want to get to, too, I love this, about the babies. What they want you to believe is that Richard Scrushy said I have got my babies at home, so Bill, don't run out there and get me convicted and send me to jail.

          Let me tell you the fallacy about that. He left something out.

          Throughout this whole tape what you hear is Richard Scrushy saying, I have got my babies at home. My wife is out of town. I'm up all night with them. I got all my kids. I have got problems. I have got a ball game this afternoon, I have got to go to, on the 18th.

          Here is what is missing. If it's going to be like they say it is, you know what you're going to say? What you're going to say is, Bill, not only have I got my babies at home, but I have got my wife, too, and she needs me. And he didn't say that, because he wasn't talking about that. He was talking about his personal circumstance at the time.

          And on top of that, after all is said and done, time after time you hear Bill Owens say, we didn't get anything this morning. Well, if they used these code words like you heard them use, then they would have it, wouldn't it? There weren't any words that they used. He never even told the FBI about that.

          Finally, I want to get to this. First of all, let me say this, we talked about the family and all that.

          Sympathy. Every one of these guys get up on the stand and they say to you, crying, well, except for no more tears over here, Mr. Weston Smith, sit up here and tell you, I'm sorry, I did it, I didn't mean to. Richard Scrushy made me do it. I'm a good guy. Y'all believe me, please.

          And it's something my grand mama use to tell me, you know about the pancakes, here we go. The more they talk of honor, the quicker we count the silverware.

          So that is exactly what you saw in this case. Let me tell you something, Weston Smith tells you, I was nauseated by doing this. I found a cure, everybody in the world listen up, if you feel nauseated, sick to your stomach, go to the bank and cash a one hundred thousand dollar check. It will make you feel better. It will clear it up.

          How do we know he is not involved in this? Every reason given right here (indicating). Every one of them. Hadn't got time to go through it.

          It starts with LifeMark back with Beam. Beam admitted back then, Richard Scrushy was a division president. He never asked Beam to do anything illegal. That is where it all starts.

          You bring that with you when you come to HealthSouth Corporation. He had a chance to do it to make his things look better, he didn't do it.

          And then you come on down -- no slip ups, fingerprints, letters. You come on down to no salary or bonuses that he didn't take. You come down to how much money he had. And the kicker is, let me tell you something, folks, thieves don't give away twenty-one point five million dollars in charitable contributions during the time of a fraud, thieves keep the money.

          There is only one thief I know in the world that has never pulled that off that has ever done that and that is Robinhood, and he lives in a fictitious place called Sherwood Forest.

          Then we come down here to stock options. They give you that. We know what happened. We know about the executive loan. Guess who paid his executive loan? Richard Scrushy did. Guess who didn't? Bill Owens. Guess who paid his taxes? Richard Scrushy. Guess who didn't? Bill Owens.

          Let me tell you something, it wasn't just Richard Scrushy that didn't know what happened, every one of these didn't know what happened.

          We put on the division presidents, legal counsel, Fulbright & Jaworski, Board of Directors, Ernst & Young, audit committee, they didn't figure it out either, because it was so well hidden and so well done.

          Why didn't Richard Scrushy know it was going on? Because Richard Scrushy is not just in accounting, he's into sales. That was his name when he got into the group.

          And what did he do? He spent his time with other things other than accounting.

          Let me tell you what he spent his time doing, are you ready? He spent his time with things like, the auto ambulator, trying to help people in this country, that is what he spent his time doing. He spent his time trying to build a company that these people tore up.

          Finally, and I'm going to leave this one with you. Finally, it comes down like I told you. Do you believe Bill Owens entirely? Do you trust Bill Owens? Then you find Richard Scrushy guilty.

          Let me tell you something, before you do that, let me tell you what you do (indicating), it looks just like him. I could pick him out of anywhere.

          And you know what he's carrying? The government's case. He's carrying the government's case. Because that is all they have got.

          In closing, I hope I hadn't done anything to embarrass me with any of y'all during this trial.

          If you don't know where Dothan is, it's a great town, great city. It's where you stop to get gas on the way to the beach. Proud of my people, proud of this case and proud of what my team has done.

          I ask you, please, please bring in a verdict of not guilty on every count for Richard Scrushy in this case.

          And before I leave, Donald Watkins is up to talk to you. He ain't going to tell you, but I'm going to tell you, it's a sad day for Jim Parkman, this is Donald Watkins' last closing argument. This is his last ride. This is his last case.

          Please pay attention to him like you have to me. Thank y'all so much. Thank you, Your Honor.

          THE COURT:  Do y'all need a break before we hear from Mr. Watkins? I thought we might.

          We will come back at 3:45. During this break, ladies and gentlemen, you are not to discuss anything that has taken place here in the courtroom or discuss anything about the case, and we will see you in a few minutes.

          (Break taken)

          (Open court. Jury present.)

          THE COURT:  Mr. Watkins, you may proceed.

          CLOSING ARGUMENT BY MR. WATKINS

          MR. WATKINS:  Thank you, Your Honor. It's kind of hard to come behind Jim Parkman. And he let the cat out of the bag on one thing:  I have been doing this for thirty-two years. I'm fifty-six years old. And this is my last one. And I feel free to say some things.

          First, you know, I have been in a lot of trials, a lot of courtrooms, a lot of courthouses in Alabama, around the country, and I like to recognize greatness when I see it.

          I was here the other day when we applauded the court reporters, because they have done a tremendous job for four or five months.

          I want to tell you, I have been in this courtroom -- this is my first trial before the Honorable Karon Bowdre.

          THE COURT:  Mr. Watkins, we don't need to go there. Finish your closing argument.

          MR. WATKINS:  Yes, ma'am. And I appreciate being here in this courtroom.

          I also appreciate -- I sat over there for two or three months, and I watched you. And I watched a couple other things in the courtroom. Not just evidence. Just a couple other things.

          One thing I watched, because it's very personal to me, I watched this flag right over there in the corner, I watched that emblem behind Judge Bowdre.

          The flag has special meaning to me. You know, we look at it -- and it's easy to come over here and salute it, we do it all the time. It's easy to pledge allegiance to it. But it's hard to serve it. It is real hard to serve it.

          You all came here, you answered a jury summons. That how you got to this building. That is how you got to this trial.

          We serve our country in different ways. Right now, as we sit here, in this building, we have men and women over in Afghanistan putting their lives on the line. Iraq, willing to die, willing to take a bullet, willing to jump on a grenade for that flag (indicating).

          It's personal to me for different reasons. My introduction to the Federal Courthouse started in Montgomery, Alabama, that is where I grew up, back in the '50s.

          I was the fifth child of Levine and Lillian Watkins. There were six of us all together:  Three boys, three girls.

          And, you know, back in the '50s, mom and dad would get us together to go downtown on Saturday, that is where you did your shopping, go to Loveman's, Belk Hudson, 1958. And what they would do, I don't know if you all watched this, I don't know if you all know the history of this, it's your regular peppermint (indicating). In 2005, we just think it's a breath freshilizer.

          What mom would do with the little kids, all of us, would make sure each one of us had one of these, each one of us carried one of these.

          And the reason for that is that when you put it in your mouth, it would keep your mouth moist on a hot, muggy day in downtown Montgomery, Alabama on a Saturday. It was important to her, it was important to my dad that you had your peppermint. Because you didn't know, running around eight, nine, ten years old, you didn't know if the water fountain from which you could drink would be working that day, and mom didn't want us getting the family in trouble by going to the wrong water fountain to drink. So we had peppermint to keep our mouths warm and moist.

          You know what happened? One day, one day, a judge like her, jurors like you, you come in as strangers to each other, strangers to me, said, no, no, no, no, Mrs. Watkins' little boy can drink out of any water fountain that works.

          Later on, another jury came in a court just like this, Mrs. Watkins' little boy can use any toilet that flushes.

          Later on, they said, he could go get him a little job somewhere throwing papers or picking up coca-cola bottles and selling them, he can take his fifty cents or a dollar and go to any lunch counter that he can buy a hamburger.

          Then they said, oh, Mrs. Watkins, if you can keep your boy out of trouble, don't let him run the street, don't let him be a juvenile, Mrs. Watkins, a jury like you, a judge like that, said he can go to any school where he has grades to get in.

          Mrs. Watkins, if you can keep him focused on his academics, he can go to any college he can get an ACT score or a SAT score and grades to get in. A jury like you, twelve folks, strangers to each other and strangers to me, said you can do that.

          And then it was he can go to any law school he wants to attend. He can come out and practice law in the State of Alabama.

          Ultimately, thirty-two years later, he can represent Richard.

          I don't -- they use all these titles in here, defendant, and Mr. Scrushy. He is Richard to me. The man who grew up on the other side of the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

          One of the reasons I'm here, they tell me, is I'm his lawyer. The real reason I'm here is I'm his friend.

          I love the jury system. I love it. Let me tell you about it.

          When you have to climb in the protection of the flag, case by case, it has a special and personal meaning to you.

          I love it because while men and women put their lives on the line in uniform, as police officers, as soldiers, you come in here and you serve the country also. You don't have to wear a uniform. But you, right now, are one of the most powerful groups in the United States.

          Have you noticed when you enter the room we all rise? Have you noticed that? When you enter the room, the judge and her staff, they rise? When you enter the room, you have a marshal sitting there, and a marshal over there, court security officer back there, you are one of the most powerful groups in the country right now.

          That is not by accident. Eight hundred and six thousand people since the history of this country in conflicts all over the globe have died, have paid the price in blood, for you to sit there and have this power. You got it. Nobody can boss you right now. No employer, no judge, the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world right now cannot call you and tell you to do a thing. Nope.

          Our country, it's represented by the group over there (indicating).

          You have that power for a reason. You know, we all know because we went to civics classes, our founding fathers, they came from all over the world, they came mostly from England. And over there in the King's Court, you know, they just do a charge, you know, the King said you did something. And the crowd would be in the courtyard. They are ready, you know, if you have got anything to say, you're already presumed to be guilty. Have you got anything to say, man, have you got anything to say?

          What can I say, I'm all tied up, there ain't no lawyer. We'll just flog him. The crowd says, no, don't just flog him, kill him. Crowd justice.

          The founding fathers said, no, no, no, that is not the way we are going to do it in the United States of America, that is not what this flag stands for. We don't do it that way here. Huh-uh. You don't have that power, where all of us rise when you enter, and rise when you are getting ready to leave. Even if you are leaving for a bathroom break, we rise.

          You don't have that power to just drag street justice in here. You don't want a crowd out there cheering, oh, we've got a chance to kick him while he's down, talking about Richard. Or I don't like him because he is rich. I don't like the way he ran HealthSouth. I don't like the way he treated employees. That ain't why you have got this kind of power.

          Or, I promised my mama or my daddy that if I got on the jury, I will use this chance to kick him. That is not why you have that kind of power. That is why people -- that is not why they dived on grenades, friends of mine in Viet Nam, without hesitating, to make sure you can sit in this box, you can serve the flag.

          I'm going to tell you what I think the use of the power is, because it's great power.

          We do our jobs. I'm an officer of the court. I'm his friend. I'm his family's friend. They are back here on the front row. And right now, for this moment in time, I'm his advocate. That is my job.

          But the case is ending now, and soon you will have the evidence, and you have a job. And beyond sifting through the evidence, and you will do that, I mean, I paid attention, you've got more notes than I've got. And I was sitting over there writing like you were. I was paying attention.

          Your job, your job is to police the Government of the United States of America, that is why you are here. That is why we have a jury of our peers. That is why we don't have the King's Court. That is why nobody can touch you right now. That is why nobody can speak to you right now. That is why these marshals take you wherever you want to go, to police, to police them (indicating). That is the system.

          That is the way our founding fathers and mothers wanted it set up.

          What do we mean by police them? Police them? That means, and the judge has instructed you on burden of proof and beyond a reasonable doubt, that means that every time, in every case, on every charge, on every element you must make sure that they carry the burden. He doesn't have any burden. They must carry it.

          And when they do not carry it, and they haven't in this case, for all the reasons that Jim Parkman, who is more articulate than I will ever be, and has already told you about, and Art Leach, who used to sit over there at that table for nineteen years. And when they don't carry it, your job is not to be a wheelchair for them, not for this crowd. It's not to be a crutch to help him limp on over to the other side when the evidence just is not there. That is not your job.

          That is not why eight hundred six thousand American service men and women have died. That is not your job.

          I want to pause a minute, since we are in your job, I want to talk about some evidence. I don't want to go over it too much because they have already touched on it. I want to talk about tapes.

          And Mr. Parkman did a beautiful job, and Art Leach did, too. And I want to talk about tapes in a different kind of way, in a real world kind of way, a real CEO kind of way. Because I want to talk about head space, what is in a man's head when he is talking. Richard, what was in his head when he was talking.

          A couple of things. I want to -- after you get through listening, I don't care if they play it on speaker phones in Legion Field, after you get through listening for two days, you tell me, after you get through listening, play it plenty of times, you tell me if you ever hear him say, after Bill Owens comes in on the 17th and says, I have a problem, he wrapped it up in divorce stuff, I have a problem with a 10-Q, third quarter 10-Q, I signed. Bill Owens, CEO, Tadd McVay, I signed.

          Did you ever -- and Mr. Scrushy, I need your signature. I need your signature on an amendment to the third quarter 10-Q. Got to have it. Got to be in in two days. I checked with Bill Horton. He said it's got to be in.

          After you listen, you can listen all day long, even to the chopped up Gerry Kelly version on the 17th, or to a long one on the 18th. After you listen, you tell me if you ever hear Richard Scrushy say, Bill Owens, I'm going to sign this amendment, and bail you out of whatever your problem is. Bill Owens, you sign the amendment, and get yourself out.

          You will not hear that. It ain't there.

          What is there, well, let's start with what they say he was on an incredible high. March 14, he has done his deposition or whatever they did with the SEC, testimony, where he had been falsely accused of insider trading. Went and did his little deposition. Felt good about how he did. There ain't no question about that. Came on the 17th, Monday, still feeling good on a high.

          The SEC people, looking at insider trading, in 1753, remember this, there is no dispute about that, had some erroneous theory, erroneous in the sense that there was a question about the numbers based on whether they should be doing group billing or some concurrent billing.

          And you remember when they played that portion of the tape, I think we had to play it or do it through cross-examination, where Richard Scrushy comes in and says, look, these guys, they were asking me some questions about 1753 and my trading and the 10-Qs and the 10-Ks. And what I realized was they were all concerned about the way we do the group billing. And if we knock the group billing theory out, we are back to accurate numbers. His head space, captured in his own words, on his tape, Bill Owens' tape, is knock out the group billing theory and we are back to accurate numbers.

          You know what is significant about the 17th and 18th, when you go back and you add them up, Bill Owens talks about one regulatory filing, the third quarter 10-Q, out of twenty-six regulatory filings covered by the charged period involving Richard Scrushy. Twenty-six of them. You add them all up. The 10-Qs, the 10-Ks, the twenty-six, Bill Owens talks about one. And the one he talks about is his own.

          So what does Scrushy do? What does he do? The man doesn't even come direct with him. He comes with this weird conversation. I have got problems. I have got marital problems. Wife is all crying and throwing a fit, weird.

          What is his head space? It ain't hard to figure out. Bill Owens, November 2002, sitting around a room with Tadd McVay; Bill Horton, they are out there planning the coup, they are out there planning on how to ouster Richard from his own company.

          January 2003, the Board meets, you met the board members, do they look like you could run them around by the nose? Sage Givens around by the nose or George Strong, Chuck Newhall, these are not light weights. These are financial heavy weights who know business, know finance and know the business world.

          What do they do? They say, Richard Scrushy, Bill Owens, he just can't cut it, he ain't got the stature, he doesn't represent the company the way we want that image out there, and we're going to bust him down. So you can go tell him, if you want to, we are busting him down, he is not going to be CEO anymore, he ain't even going to be president or chief operating officer. We are going to knock him on down in stature, in position, down to CFO.

          And by the way, Richard, you have got to come on back, man, come on. I know you took yourself out of this situation, but come on back.

          And while you are at it, Richard, I know you have got to give a transition period, common sense tells you there is a transition period in a Fortune 500 company, fifty-one thousand employees, with that kind of revenue stream, I don't care what you call it, four billion, three billion, there is a transition period.

          And they say, well, Richard, run him off. Run him off. You have got three months to six months. Do you remember Sage Givens said that? Run him off.

          So, all of a sudden, in your third month, March, after you come back, on your three month to six month run-him-off period, here comes this guy, you are already in a, what I call, a shotgun marriage with him now, because he ain't supposed to be there and they don't want him there. Here he comes, he has been busted in rank, in position, and he has this weird conversation. Looking weird.

          Do you remember Richard described it as your sadness, your depression? Looking weird. Talking about he had some thing with his wife.

          And if you pay attention, as you listen, what happens for the next two conversations, two days of conversations, Government Exhibit 500-111, Pulling the Wagon, Integrity in Action, Standards of Business Conduct.

          There are about fifteen separate points that are covered. When you find yourself in a situation where a subordinate, in this case, Bill Owens subordinate to Richard, comes over there and starts rambling about some problem, a third quarter 10-Q, once he identified the third quarter 10-Q, Richard Scrushy knew that he was in charge.

          I don't have to sign it, if I don't have to sign it, I am not going to sign it until we find out exactly what you did.

          So what does he do? He goes ahead for fifty-eight questions, direct questions. Do you remember Parkman pointed out that Bill Owens and Tadd McVay, and they captured this on tape, on their own tape, the government's tape, look, I'm not going to get in a room and answer a direct question to Richard Scrushy about cash or anything else. I'm just not going to do that. That is their tape. Those are their agents, I guess, you call them agents, whatever cooperating folks are. Fifty-eight questions.

          What subjects do you go through? We can't tell the order on the 17th of the subjects, because Paul Ginsberg said look, man, the tape is on and off, we don't know in what order stuff is on. What subjects? Bill, is it a shareholder problem? In other words, is it a company-wide problem? He asked that. You were here.

          Bill, is this an accounting issue? Because I thought the accountant signed off on whatever you did.

          Bill, is this a banking issue? You remember they said, on the banking thing, you may have to give the keys if you have got a banking problem? They made something sinister out of that. I'm in the banking business. I'm going to tell you, you don't make a car note, you don't make a house note, the keys are going over to the bank. Period.

          Bill, is this something that, look, we have got to act on today, or tomorrow, or is this something we can deal with over time?

          Bill, no matter what we do, we are going to do the right thing because that is what we say in this book.

          Bill, is this something we can tell to other people? Because you need to get with Horton on this now. See if you can get with Horton on this. And either get you more time, try to figure out if there is something we can work out, either right now or over time.

          Bill, we just took a six hundred and fifty million dollar write down. What is the problem? The accountants approved the write down.

          Bill, we have a seventy million dollar unexpected income tax credit coming in, is that something that will take care of whatever you are talking about?

          Bill, even after you declared it to be a wrinkle, whatever the problem is, is a wrinkle on the 17th?

          Bill, is there something else you're trying to tell me? You will find all these questions when you listen to the tape.

          Is there something else you're tying to tell me, Bill? No, I've just got to go talk to my wife. I've just got to go talk to my wife.

          Find me one place on two days of tapes, find me one place, and they had time to coach Bill Owens, find me one place that Richard Scrushy said, Bill, you know, I have signed, out of these twenty-six, you signed one of them, I signed the other twenty-five, and I knew fraud was there. I knew we had problems with the numbers. Find me a place where there is any acknowledgment, no matter how subtle, on fraud on the books between two guys, according to the government, that have been doing this for seven years.

          If they had been doing it for seven years, like they said, all Bill had to do is come in and say, look, Richard, you know the thing we have been doing on these 10-Qs and 10-Ks, we've only got to do it one more time. We are going to inflate a little bit and put some fixed assets.

          If they had been doing it, partners in crime, across time, it would be easy.

          But you listen to the tapes for yourself. And you tell me if it's there.

          Leif Murphy's notebook. I was sitting over there by Leif Murphy. They trot him in, trot the notebook in. And then I saw Parkman had these gloves on. He put these gloves on and stuff.

          And I am just knowing our United States Government, my government, I am knowing as soon as they got this notebook, you know how they do it, like this, I'm just knowing that in a case of this magnitude, where you have got cooperators over here saying some stuff, that they dusted for fingerprints, that they tried to see if Richard's DNA was on that one, Leif Murphy's notebook. And I could not believe my ears. That our government, given a chance to get scientific forensic evidence, answer to a key question, they just -- we just didn't do it. Well, the Irondale Police Department would have done it. We just didn't do it. Couldn't believe it.

          Then they parade in the CFOs. And this is where I really have a problem. When on March 11th, Weston Smith comes in with his hands up. I'm not talking about after a fight. I mean, he just comes in, hands up, back up, ready to surrender and tell all. On March 12th, Bill Owens comes in, hands up. My government, our government got on its knees to them, I'm not talking about to fight, and said, what kind of deal -- this is after you have surrendered, you calling in, it's not like they have figured it out themselves, you are calling in, what kind of deal can we make. Let's make a deal.

          And I learned more law up here in this case. Let's make a deal. Let's see, if I only charge you with two or three things, even though you come in telling me about fifty or sixty felonies you've committed, if I charge you with two or three things and tell some court that you provided me substantial assistance, then that equals home detention for Ken Livesay, home detention for Mike Martin, home detention -- I can't remember everybody who got home detention.

          Then I say, wait a minute, tell me about home detention. Parkman was kind enough to go into it for me. Home detention. Is that like, you know, I've got five kids, is that like time out for my little kids? You go over here in this chair and you sit here and you don't move until it's time for me to tell you to move? No.

          Home detention is more lenient, is easier than time out for my little kid.

          Home detention:  I get to surf the TV channels on my big screen TV.

          Home detention:  I get to sleep in my own bed next to my wife.

          Home detention:  I get to travel, if I need to travel to go see my brother or relative somewhere in the district, I just go.

          Home detention:  If I get bored of just laying at home in my home in Greystone, I can go out to the golf course, and I can meet my buddies.

          Home detention:  I know I committed all these crimes. And I have been basically pardoned for them, but on home detention, I can even go out there and cut me a business deal, a multi-million dollar business deal.

          Home detention:  I don't even have to worry about the government coming to get the proceeds of my business deal.

          I almost fell out of my chair. I learned it. I hope they have got law students out there. Home detention, I will never forget that term.

          You know, let me tell you what really bothers me, and why you have got to get our government off of its knees. I'm going to tell you how to do that.

          When Bill Owens came in, I don't know about y'all, you know, April 15th, you know, I was trying to work on my taxes, maybe y'all got an extension or something. And I'm watching the guy, who has been working with the government since March of 2003, working with them all, rows of them, Bill Owens. And I just, I just, maybe they have got some explanation, but I have not seen, in my thirty-two years, I have not seen anybody that can just say I ain't going to file taxes. I ain't filing tax returns. Not this year, not next year, not for nine years; and then we come mention it in opening argument, then all of a sudden, here comes a stack of them. A stack of tax returns.

          And I'm wondering is the guy worried about anything. I'm looking at them. I wanted to see their redaction.

          What is their reaction to a guy who doesn't have to file tax returns? He just enjoys the protection of this flag and doesn't have to pay a dime for it and because he is a smart accountant, the smartest man in the world, he can, when caught, not by them, but by us, when caught, he can go get our tax money and get a refund check, and I bet he is smiling all the way to the bank, just like Parkman said. Lord, it made me sick. It made me sick.

          Let me tell you what I think the proper use of your power is, and you've got it.

          Right now, in Birmingham, the eyes of the nation are on you. They know you're here. They know what you're doing. They are here. They are watching. The folks up in D.C., the big shots, the ones who call the plays, who make the decisions for the group here, I am talking about that bourbon-sipping, martini-drinking, cigar-smoking crowd, the ones who gather at 7:00 o'clock out at the club. They say, I wonder what the folks in Birmingham are going to do, the ones that just, oh, they don't think we have got any sense at all down here? I tell you what you can do, you can have more power doing this, and the best use of power than any congressman, any senator, any legislator, any lobbyist that I know of, you can use your power. Let me tell you what not guilty, thirty-six times, does when it rings from this courtroom in Birmingham. Let me tell you what it does. Overnight, number one, they are going to rush out of here, all this crowd is, half of this part of the court building will empty out. They are going to rush out of here, get on down there by the elevators, flip cell phones out, and they're going to say, Mr. Attorney General, let me tell you what the message from Birmingham is. Mr. FBI Director in Washington, D.C., let me tell you what this jury said from Birmingham, we've got to change policy overnight. No longer in 2005 and forward can we use FBI 302s and have Gerry Kelly talking about, I didn't have time to pay attention, I was busy, I'm twenty-nine years, but I think I got it mostly right, but I can't swear to it.

          If they can, in the Irondale police department, take a little -- you know, they have got these tape recorders, you can get them for thirteen dollars out there at Best Buy or Target or WalMart and just put it up there. And when a Weston Smith comes in or Aaron Beam, Aaron Beam said he was pressured, the first time he felt like he was pressured and his FBI 302 got better over time, all of them, you know, they went from I didn't know this to I know everything overnight.

          You know, they have been using 302s since Hoover was there. Overnight, and these folks, they don't have the power, they can't get it done. They can send a memo up. Ain't nobody going to pay attention to that.

          If they don't pay attention to memos on terrorist suspects before 9/11, they ain't going to pay attention to -- we need to abandon the 302s and get tape recorders.

          They will when you speak, they'll phone it in. It will change, not just for Birmingham, it will change all over the nation. Just like when I couldn't drink out of the water fountain, now I can drink out of any water fountain in the nation. It changes.

          The other thing you can do is you tell my government no more getting on your knees when they come in without a fight, surrendering, hands up, waving the white flag, ready to accept any punishment you are ready to give out, ready to take whatever charges you want to put on them, no more bending and bowing on your knees. You get my government up off its knees.

          The other thing you could do:  FBI, when there is an alteration or a change or a difference between one notebook and another notebook with the same stuff, FBI, investigate it. Tell us why, tell us who did it. Tell us what did it mean, under what circumstances.

          FBI, since you got the technology for DNA testing, for fingerprint testing, for forensic or computer analysis, use what you have. Overnight, they will do that.

          FBI, if you are going to be in a van, I don't know if he was in a van, Gerry Kelly, or if he was in a hotel room or where he was, if we are going to send a Bill Owens, the next Bill Owens in the next case or the next city, Alice, if we are going to send him out, FBI, we want all of the conversation. We don't want the guy in the van deciding, oh, I'm going to turn it on right now. I'm going to turn it off.

          We don't want Bill Owens walking in there, I'm wired, I'm wired, I'm wired. We don't want that. I meant to say something, I'm going to say it since I'm on a wire. They made a big deal out of, okay, Richard Scrushy asked this guy was he wired. I would ask him the same thing, if he had tried to throw me out in November, if I had taken his job in January, if the Board had demoted him two levels, if he was to be fired three months later. Because I know I have got a bad employee, and I know that this is lawsuit heaven in Alabama, and I know this guy, I want to know, it ain't an FBI wire, I want to know if you are recording me. Because you are coming in with some weird conversation talking about something you did. We are going to figure it out with Bill Horton.

          Let me tell you what else you can use your power for. I diverted just for a moment on that.

          We don't need this pressure stuff no more. We don't need it. You know, Aaron Beam, he said he was pressured, then he searched for a different word.

          But the message is, we don't need to pressure people to get the truth. And you know, they did that back in the sixties and seventies, we don't have to do that anymore. And we can stop that.

          The next message, this is for the U.S. Government as a whole, crooks, like law abiding people, must file their income tax returns, even when they are working as your agent; even when they are cooperating; even when they are providing substantial assistance; even when they are hoping to avoid jail time, they must file their income tax returns.

          You can send that message overnight with your verdict and they will. They will.

          And then the next message is, there will be no income tax refund check for anybody, no Bill Owens, not the next Bill Owens, where you come in and say, I participated in one of the biggest frauds in corporate history, but I'm working with the government now, and so I'm going to go hustle up some income tax returns because the defense counsel mentioned it. There will be no, what was it, twenty thousand dollar check, Parkman, I can't remember the size of the check. But it's a good one. It's enough for somebody's annual -- there will be no income tax refund to somebody in that situation. Never, ever again, if you send the right message.

          You know, so many times Birmingham, Alabama, people look at us and say, you know, what's going on with these people down there, how come they can't get it together.

          Well, we have got a chance to set a standard for justice and excellence in this country. We have got a chance to get America off of her knees and never let her go there again in this kind of situation. We have a chance to make sure that a Bill Owens, the self-professed smartest man alive or is it in the world, I can't remember, alive, I know he is good, he was the go-to-it-man for everybody. Not just Richard. He was the go-to-it-man for George Strong, Sage Givens, E&Y. You saw E&Y people. These folks don't have a dog in this fight. He was everybody's go-to-it-man.

          He had positioned himself through trust and through superior knowledge where people relied on him.

          Then they said, Richard, Richard's hands are all over everywhere. Do you remember they said, he is the micromanager, he is deciding where somebody sits in the dining hall. He is all over the place.

          But the undisputed evidence is this:  When the Board set up its audit committee and the audit committee by charter, by bylaws or by everything had the oversight for the accuracy, accuracy of the financial records prepared by Bill Owens, you know Bill Owens supplied them with everything, now, just like he supplied Richard. And when that accuracy was checked and balanced by E&Y to a person, George Strong, Sage Givens, E&Y, to a person, all of them said Richard Scrushy respected that Chinese Wall, he was not over there trying to tell E&Y what to look at, he wasn't saying don't look over here, don't count down cash, don't look at PP&E, don't look at fixed assets, he wasn't there. It's undisputed. He relied on the same folks.

          He honored the charter, there is no dispute about that. His hands may have been everywhere on HealthSouth, but it wasn't on audit committee members. It was not on E&Y.

          E&Y is not your corner accounting firm. This is global. These people are sophisticated. Richard Scrushy may be a financial genius, but so is E&Y, so is George Strong.

          You know, I wonder, George, how did you get on so many audit committees? Did you just volunteer? No, that wasn't it. The man has got financial credentials and he was a CFO. Everybody wanted him watching over the money. George, did Richard Scrushy interfere with your ability to watch over the money, to check the books, to check the records? No.

          Let me wind down a little bit by saying this, since this is my last ten minutes of closing in any case.

          Sometimes, I found in my career, especially when you have got a lot of charges, you get back there and, you know, even though the judge charges you, you shouldn't feel sorry for Richard and you shouldn't feel sorry for them, you shouldn't have bias against Richard and you shouldn't have bias against them. And she's right.

          Because we don't want no victory based on somebody felt sorry for him. Huh-uh. Nope. No sympathy. No apathy. We just want the system to work.

          I remember seeing a couple of months ago, I can't remember which anniversary was it, do you remember the five soldiers of Hiroshima, they are raising the American Flag and a tremendous price was paid for that. The only group that can get my country off of its knees right now is in this box. I'm looking at you. I'm talking to you.

          And in a final analysis, twelve of you will go into a jury box and to get my country off its knees, it will take twelve of you to hoist this flag and to make sure that the stars and bars fly the way they are supposed to fly.

          We are not looking for consolation prize justice. I'm going to tell you what that is. You get back there and you talk it out and hash it out and you start doing horse trading where I'll give y'all ten, y'all give me one.

          That ain't the way we do it in America. They may do it in some other countries around the globe, that's not the way we do it. There ain't no consolation prizes. That is not carrying the burden.

          Those folks, listen, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case, and it's not really because of anything we have done. We may have shed a little light on it. There is enough reasonable doubt in this case, you can get three eighteen-wheeler trucks down there in front of the courthouse, right there in the front of the courthouse and you all could spend a week loading pallets of reasonable doubt to load those three trucks up and you still wouldn't have enough room to get rid of the reasonable doubt.

          I just, I hope that if I said anything, you know, I don't believe in sugar coating it when you are in a courtroom. A man has been over here waiting on this trial for two years. And you never know, you never know when you are going to be falsely accused in this world. And you sit there and you just cry off for somebody to believe you. You never know. It could be your neighbor falsely accusing you; the PTA parent falsely accusing you; it may be Bill Owens who got caught in a bad situation falsely accusing you. It may be the guy who wants to lay up on home detention and go do his multi-million dollar deals falsely accusing you.

          But you never know when you are sitting in that chair and you are hoping and praying, hoping and praying that a fair juror is somebody who would say, if I'm in that chair, I want somebody like me judging my case. You never know when you are going to be in that position.

          One of the things, I do have one bone that I picked for a long time with the founding fathers, because I just couldn't understand it in my thirty-two years of practicing.

          I think I kind of understand it now. Parkman has helped me a little bit, and Art, too.

          I always thought that -- during the trial, you saw how we fought tooth and nail. These guys are good, these women and men are good at what they do. They are professionals. They are very good. They get up, we get up; they get up behind us, we get up behind them; you know, you just keep shooting at each other until you are just too tired to shoot anymore. And then we both say, we have nothing further, we pass that witness, and everybody is relieved that we are moving on to the next witness.

          Well, this is the part of the system where, you know, we have been carrying this fight for a long time. And I have enjoyed working with my colleagues, these are some of the greatest guys in the world. I am going to miss them. They are great guys. Great people.

          You see us hugging a lot and it's genuine. I'm going to tell you that now. It's a hug out of respect and admiration, as a person first, and as a professional next.