Chapter 17 - The procurement trial begins
The criminal case was narrow.
That was good.
No dinner.
No divorce.
No hospital cruelty unless minimally relevant and likely excluded.
Question:
Did Julian knowingly falsify Apex procurement records to influence North Vale’s contract award?
The prosecutor showed:
Original score.
Final score.
Audit logs.
MFA confirmation.
Emails.
North Vale contract.
Julian’s bonus metric.
Defense showed:
Outdated staffing information.
Misclassified safety incident.
Mark’s email:
Fix before final.
The jury heard both.
Then Seth Monroe.
He testified:
Julian asked him whether reopening committee would delay award.
Yes.
Seth said two weeks.
Julian said:
“We don’t have two weeks.”
Why?
North Vale crews needed start date.
Hospital facilities schedule.
Business pressure.
Then:
“Did you authorize Julian to change the score?”
“No.”
“Did Mark?”
“I don’t know.”
Defense attacked.
Seth had received immunity for minor policy violations? Not criminal. No.
He had been reprimanded for data errors.
Bias.
Then Mark testified.
“I authorized correction of inaccurate information.”
“Did you authorize bypassing committee?”
“No.”
“Did you know score would cross threshold?”
“I expected it might.”
Gray.
Then Julian’s email:
Need 8 points.
Defense said this reflected legitimate correction magnitude.
Prosecution said target-driven manipulation.
Then Evelyn.
She looked smaller than in her pale-blue suit outside my hospital room.
“Did you pressure Julian?”
“Yes.”
“Did you tell him Graham needed the contract?”
“Yes.”
“Did he say he changed the scoring?”
“He said he got Graham across the line.”
“Did you ask how?”
“No.”
“Why?”
“I didn’t want to know.”
That sentence hurt Julian.
Defense:
“Did Julian ever tell you he falsified records?”
“No.”
“Did you tell him to falsify?”
“No.”
“Did you believe North Vale was qualified?”
“Yes.”
It was.
Then expert.
Procurement expert said corrected legitimate data could raise North Vale to approximately 75–77.
Still below 78.
Remaining changes lacked support.
Defense expert said subjective factors allowed 79–80.
Now reasonable doubt possible.
Then Julian testified.
Risky.
He said:
“I changed scores because the database was wrong and committee timetable threatened a major project.”
“Why not reopen?”
“Operational urgency.”
“Why write ‘Need 8 points’?”
“Because that was gap.”
“Why say ‘Don’t ask how’?”
“Bad joke.”
“Why false related-party certifications?”
“Careless.”
The jury would decide whether carelessness had become intentional falsification.
While they deliberated, my divorce final hearing was scheduled for the same week.
May you like
I refused to attend Julian’s criminal courthouse unless subpoenaed.
My marriage and his prosecution did not need to share a hallway.
