State temporarily rests after penultimate witness in Fulbright's trial
MONTAGUE COUNTY (KFDX/KJTL) — An expert in child brain scans representing the second-to-last witness for the prosecution took the stand on the final day of the first week of testimony in the trial of Joshua Thomas Fulbright.
Fulbright is charged with the murder of 2-year-old Scarlette Olivia Newsom after she was hospitalized in Clay County in October 2018 with injuries that authorities said appeared to be a result of abuse. Four days later, the child died after she was taken off life support.
A first attempt to try Fulbright in 2019 ended with a mistrial when a jury could not be seated in Henrietta out of a pool of 80 residents. His second trial in 2022 ended with a mistrial when his defense attorney was picked up on a DWI with a child passenger charge.
PREVIOUS STORY: Texas Ranger, Cook Children's doctor take stand in Fulbright's trial
The third attempt at Fulbright's trial began with jury selection on Monday, Feb. 24, 2025. Testimony got underway on Feb. 25 in the 97th Judicial District Courtroom in Montague, with Judge Trish Coleman Byars presiding.
A recap of testimony in Fulbright's trial can be found below:
Day 1 — Testimony begins in third retrial of Joshua FulbrightDay 3 — Texas Ranger, attending pediatrician from Cook Children's testify
The State of Texas is being represented by Katie Boggeman, 97th Judicial District Attorney and lead prosecutor of Fulbright's trial. Fulbright is being represented by Mark Barber, a defense attorney based in Wichita Falls.
Due to the scheduling conflict, counsel for the prosecution and Fulbright's defense agreed that the state would call one of its final two witnesses on Friday, Feb. 28, and then Barber would call several witnesses on behalf of the defense out of order.
Testimony resumed just after 9 a.m. on Feb. 28, with Boggeman calling the state's penultimate witness, Dr. Mahdan Bosemani. Dr. Bosemani testified that he is the attending pediatric neuroradiologist at Cook Children's Hospital and an expert in the field.
Dr. Bosemani testified that he worked with Olivia Newsom when she was admitted to Cook Children's Hospital in October 2018. Slides prepared by Dr. Bosemani that included scans of the child's brain were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury.
Dr. Bosemani testified that a CT scan of the child's head revealed fluid, blood, and swelling around the brain. He showed images from the CT scan to the jury, as well as images from an MRI taken 12 hours after she was admitted to Cook Children's Hospital.
READ MORE: Mother takes the stand in toddler's murder retrial
Dr. Bosemani testified that Olivia Newsom's CT scan showed swelling on both sides of the brain, which is indicative of an excessive amount of force. He testified that the MRI revealed the child had blood behind both of her eyes and was likely comatose.
'The entire brain is injured,' Dr. Bosemani testified. 'There's no normal-looking brain there.'
Dr. Bosemani testified that the scans on the girl's brain were indicative of abusive head trauma. He testified that a slap to the face would not cause the injuries the CT scan and MRI of Olivia Newsom showed. He said it would require 'considerable force' to cause those kinds of injuries.
'When the entire brain is injured, unfortunately, there's nothing left that's salvageable,' Dr. Bosemani said. 'I think the trauma is what actually caused… that injury that creates a downward spiral.'
Dr. Bosemani testified that the child suffered a devastating brain injury and had no chance of survival.
READ MORE: Day 1 of the trial of Joshua Fulbright
Barber cross-examined Dr. Bosemani, who testified that he could not pinpoint when the severe brain injury occurred in Olivia Newsom. He testified that just based on imaging, he cannot give a range of dates for when the traumatic brain injury occurred.
Barber asked Dr. Bosemani about his analysis of the CT scans and MRIs taken of Olivia Newsom's brain and why they differed with the opinions of other pediatric neuroradiologists at Cook Children's Hospital. Dr. Bosemani testified that due to the presence of blood and fluid rather than just blood in the brain, the other doctors were incorrect.
Dr. Bosemani testified that he could not give a specific definition of the severity of the injuries the child suffered to the brain. He testified that a lot of force would have been required, but he could not testify regarding the exact number of blows the child took to the head.
At around 10:47 a.m., Dr. Bosemani was released from the witness stand.
Boggeman, on behalf of the prosecution, rested the state's case on the condition that the defense would not object to the case being reopened on Monday, March 3, when Boggeman said the final witness for the prosecution would be called to testify.
Judge Coleman Byars released the jury so that attorneys for the prosecution and defense could address legal issues regarding a witness Barber intends to call as an expert.
Testimony will resume following a hearing outside the jury's presence, with Barber calling witnesses on Fulbright's behalf.Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Ralph Menzies does have dementia, but is competent enough to be executed
Ralph Leroy Menzies appears for a competency hearing in 3rd District Court in West Jordan on Monday, Nov 18, 2024. (Pool photo by Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune) A Utah judge says death row inmate Ralph Menzies is mentally competent enough to be executed by firing squad. In a ruling issued Friday evening, 3rd District Judge Matthew Bates wrote that Menzies does have dementia, but it's not enough to prevent him from understanding why he's being punished. Menzies' attorneys say they plan to appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court. The ruling caps of a monthslong competency hearing that began in November, where attorneys for Menzies argued the 67-year-old's brain is so damaged he can't form a 'rational understanding' of why the state is pursuing the death penalty. Attorneys for the state, meanwhile, argued that Menzies does show signs of cognitive decline but he's still competent. Will Ralph Menzies' dementia keep him from a firing squad? Attorneys make final argument Menzies has spent nearly 40 years on death row, after being convicted of murdering Maurine Hunsaker in 1986. Menzies kidnapped Hunsaker, a 26-year-old gas station clerk, from her work and took her up Big Cottonwood Canyon, where she was later found tied to a tree with her throat slashed. In recent years, Menzies' health has deteriorated, his attorneys say. After falling several times in prison, he was diagnosed with vascular dementia, caused when the brain's blood flow is disrupted, leading to memory loss and declining cognitive function. An MRI exam showed Menzies' brain tissue is deteriorating, and his balance is fraught, causing him to fall several times each month. In his ruling Friday, Bates acknowledged Menzies' condition, but said it's not enough to deem him incompetent. 'Although Menzies has shown he has vascular dementia, he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his mental condition prevents him from reaching a rational understanding of his punishment or the State's reasons for it. Therefore, he has not met his burden to show he is incompetent to be executed,' Bates wrote. In a statement, Matt Hunsaker, Maurine's son, said he appreciated the court's diligence for issuing the ruling so soon. During the final day of arguments in the competency hearing on May 7, Bates said he would issue a ruling in 60 days, giving himself a July 6 deadline. 'It kind of comes as a shock to the family. We weren't expecting it this soon,' Hunsaker said. 'We definitely appreciate the fact that it's moving forward, we are in hopes that the flow can continue and we can get an execution date and the death warrant signed immediately.' Hunsaker, in a text message, added, 'my family is very happy to see that we might have some closure coming.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Menzies' attorney Lindsey Layer told Utah News Dispatch they disagree with the ruling, and plan on filing an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' Layer said. 'He cannot understand the State's reasons for his execution. His dementia is progressive and he is not going to get better. It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' In Utah, death row inmates sentenced before May 2004 had a choice between lethal injection and firing squad. Menzies, when he was sentenced in 1988, chose the firing squad. For those sentenced after 2004, the default method of execution is lethal injection, unless the necessary drugs are not available. Read the ruling below: Menziesruling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Judge says Ralph Menzies does have dementia, but is competent enough to be executed
Ralph Leroy Menzies appears for a competency hearing in 3rd District Court in West Jordan on Monday, Nov 18, 2024. (Pool photo by Rick Egan/The Salt Lake Tribune) A Utah judge says death row inmate Ralph Menzies is mentally competent enough to be executed by firing squad. In a ruling issued Friday evening, 3rd District Judge Matthew Bates wrote that Menzies does have dementia, but it's not enough to prevent him from understanding why he's being punished. Menzies' attorneys say they plan to appeal the decision to the Utah Supreme Court. The ruling caps of a monthslong competency hearing that began in November, where attorneys for Menzies argued the 67-year-old's brain is so damaged he can't form a 'rational understanding' of why the state is pursuing the death penalty. Attorneys for the state, meanwhile, argued that Menzies does show signs of cognitive decline but he's still competent. Will Ralph Menzies' dementia keep him from a firing squad? Attorneys make final argument Menzies has spent nearly 40 years on death row, after being convicted of murdering Maurine Hunsaker in 1986. Menzies kidnapped Hunsaker, a 26-year-old gas station clerk, from her work and took her up Big Cottonwood Canyon, where she was later found tied to a tree with her throat slashed. In recent years, Menzies' health has deteriorated, his attorneys say. After falling several times in prison, he was diagnosed with vascular dementia, caused when the brain's blood flow is disrupted, leading to memory loss and declining cognitive function. An MRI exam showed Menzies' brain tissue is deteriorating, and his balance is fraught, causing him to fall several times each month. In his ruling Friday, Bates acknowledged Menzies' condition, but said it's not enough to deem him incompetent. 'Although Menzies has shown he has vascular dementia, he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that his mental condition prevents him from reaching a rational understanding of his punishment or the State's reasons for it. Therefore, he has not met his burden to show he is incompetent to be executed,' Bates wrote. In a statement, Matt Hunsaker, Maurine's son, said he appreciated the court's diligence for issuing the ruling so soon. During the final day of arguments in the competency hearing on May 7, Bates said he would issue a ruling in 60 days, giving himself a July 6 deadline. 'It kind of comes as a shock to the family. We weren't expecting it this soon,' Hunsaker said. 'We definitely appreciate the fact that it's moving forward, we are in hopes that the flow can continue and we can get an execution date and the death warrant signed immediately.' Hunsaker, in a text message, added, 'my family is very happy to see that we might have some closure coming.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Menzies' attorney Lindsey Layer told Utah News Dispatch they disagree with the ruling, and plan on filing an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court. 'Ralph Menzies is a severely brain-damaged, wheelchair-bound, 67-year-old man with dementia and significant memory problems,' Layer said. 'He cannot understand the State's reasons for his execution. His dementia is progressive and he is not going to get better. It is deeply troubling that Utah plans to remove Mr. Menzies from his wheelchair and oxygen tank to strap him into an execution chair and shoot him to death.' In Utah, death row inmates sentenced before May 2004 had a choice between lethal injection and firing squad. Menzies, when he was sentenced in 1988, chose the firing squad. For those sentenced after 2004, the default method of execution is lethal injection, unless the necessary drugs are not available. Read the ruling below: Menziesruling SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Mushroom cook denies cancer claim at lunch
Alleged mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson has denied telling her lunch guests she had cancer and asking for advice on how to break the news to her children, the jury in her triple-murder trial has heard. Ms Patterson, 50, is facing trial accused of murdering Simon Patterson's parents and aunt and the attempted murder of his uncle after the four guests fell critically ill following a lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023. She has pleaded not guilty, with her defence arguing the case was not deliberate poisoning but a tragic accident. Giving evidence on her fourth day in the witness box on Thursday, Ms Patterson was grilled at length by Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC about her 'so-called cancer diagnosis'. Earlier in the week, the alleged killer admitted she feigned receiving a series of medical tests, including a needle biopsy and an MRI, claiming she was concerned about a lump on her elbow 'at one point' but was planning to use the medical test ruse as cover for a gastric bypass surgery. 'I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids and I wouldn't have to tell them the real reason,' she said on Wednesday. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson continued the 'fiction' to her husband Simon Patterson's parents, Don and Gail, expecting them to tell Simon so he would be less likely to reject the lunch invitation. 'The answer is no because I would not expect her to tell him any of that,' she responded. 'They made me feel loved and cared for in the way they were asking be about my health … so I just kept going.' Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson if she told guests at the lunch on July 29, 2023, she had cancer. 'I don't think I put it that precisely,' she said. 'I don't remember saying I had a diagnosis.' The prosecutor continued the line of questioning, asking if she agreed that 'even in your evidence yesterday' Ms Patterson told the lunch guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer. 'I can't remember the exact words I used, as to whether I said 'I had' or 'I might need to', but I was trying to communicate that there might be some treatment coming up,' Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson wanted her guests to believe she would be receiving cancer treatment, which she agreed with. Dr Rogers then took Ms Patterson to the evidence of Ian Wilkinson, who said she had asked for advice on how to break the news of her 'life-threatening' diagnosis. In response, Ms Patterson suggested Mr Wilkinson was wrong, saying there was 'nothing to tell the kids'. 'I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie about having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die?' Dr Rogers asked. 'That's not true,' Ms Patterson responded. 'Lethal dose': Cook grilled on mushroom pic Ms Patterson was taken to a series of images police located in cache records from the Google Photos app on a Samsung tablet. She confirmed the photos were 'likely' taken by her, and depict her kitchen bench, dehydrator and scales. 'I only phrase it that way I don't have a specific memory of taking the photo,' the alleged killer said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to the evidence of mycologist Dr Tom May who said one image of mushrooms on a dehydrator tray being weighed was 'consistent with Amanita Phalloides (death cap mushrooms)'. The image, Dr Rogers said, was recorded in metadata as being last modified on May 4, 2023. The prosecutor suggested these were death cap mushrooms Ms Patterson collected from the nearby town of Loch after seeing a post on citizen science website iNaturalist. 'That is not correct,' Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested the image depicts her weighing the mushrooms so she could 'calculate the lethal dose'. 'Disagree,' Ms Paterson said. Judge gives update on trial After a short break, jurors were given an update on the trial, now in its sixth week, by trial judge Justice Christopher Beale. The judge said it was likely Ms Patterson would remain in the witness box until at least the end of the week and following that, there would need to be a break for legal discussions. 'Those discussions may take a couple of days,' he said. Justice Beale said there was a 'possibility' there may be more evidence called in the trial before closing addresses from the prosecution and defence. 'Each of those could take a couple of days which would see out that week,' he said. Jurors would then be given directions, he said, before they were sent off to deliberate. 'So my final directions to you could take a couple of days, then the boot is on the other foot because none of you can tell me how long deliberations will take,' Justice Beale said. Prosecution begins with rapid fire questions about lies to police Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC starts off her line of questioning at a rapid pace, asking Ms Patterson to confirm she lied to police about owning a dehydrator, dehydrating food stuffs and foraging for mushrooms. Ms Patterson confirms this is the case. The prosecutor takes the accused woman through a series of exhibits, including photos found on her tablet of mushrooms and a dehydrator, an invoice showing she purchased the dehydrator on April 28, 2023, and photos of her disposing of it at the tip on August 2. 'You rushed out to get rid of the evidence, you lied to the police because you knew you had used the dehydrator?' Ms Rogers asks. 'No I didn't know that,' Ms Patterson replied. 'You knew if you told the police it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning?' the prosecutor follows with. 'No, it's not correct,' she responds. Erin denies deliberately harming lunch guests Defence barrister Colin Mandy SC then took Ms Patterson through a series of propositions he said related to the prosecution case. She is asked if she lied about only cooking one batch of beef wellingtons, responding; 'No, I didn't lie'. Mr Mandy then runs through a series of questions, including whether she lied about purchasing mushrooms from an Asian grocer, her children eating the leftovers, and pretending to be sick following the lunch. Each Ms Patterson denies. The barrister carries on asking about whether Ms Patterson ever deliberately picked death cap mushrooms and intentionally included them in the lunch. Again Ms Patterson denies this is the case. Going through the four lunch guests, Don, Gail, Ian and Heather, Mr Mandy first asks if she intended to kill, seriously injure or harm them. Her voice faltering, Ms Patterson replies; 'no, I did not' to each. Mr Mandy then closes his examination in chief and hands over Ms Patterson to Crown Prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC. 'Stupid': Why Erin says she lied to police Giving evidence on Thursday, Ms Patterson was asked by her barrister if she had lied to police in her record of interview when she denied owning a dehydrator, dehydrating things and ever foraging for mushrooms. She confirmed she had. Asked why, Ms Patterson said it occurred 'in the context of thinking mushrooms I had foraged … had made people sick'. 'It was this stupid knee-jerk reaction to dig deeper and keep on lying, I was scared,' she said. Mushroom cook admits lies to husband, in-laws Taking the stand following the closure of the prosecution case this week, Ms Patterson was asked by her barrister Colin Mandy SC about a message exchange with her husband. Earlier in the trial, the jury was told the pair separated in 2015 but remained amicable as they continued to co-parent their two children. Reading the messages, Mr Mandy said the evening before the lunch Simon Patterson declined an invitation he'd earlier agreed to. 'Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, mum, dad, Heather & Ian tomorrow, but am happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time if you'd like to discuss on the phone. Just let me know,' the message read. Ms Patterson responded saying; 'That's really disappointing. I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing and spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet to make beef Wellingtons because I wanted it to be a special meal as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time.' 'It's important to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I can have the conversations that I need to have. I hope you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at 12.30. I hope to see you there.' Asked about her reaction, Ms Patterson told the jury she felt a bit hurt and a bit stressed by Simon's message. Questioned by Mr Mandy if the reply was true, she said: 'Apart from the fact that I'd spent a small fortune on beef eye fillet and I wanted it to be special, the rest was exaggeration.' She told the court she exaggerated because she wanted him to attend so she could discuss an upcoming medical procedure, specifically about sorting out plans for the care of their son and daughter. Earlier in the day, Ms Patterson told the jury she had misled Simon's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, about needing a series of tests on a lump on her elbow. She said earlier the same year she had a lump but it resolved itself and she was planning to use it as a cover to get gastric bypass surgery. 'I had come to the conclusion that I wanted to do something, for once and for all about my weight and my poor eating habits. So I was planning to have gastric bypass surgery and so I remember thinking I didn't want to tell anybody what I was going to have done,' she said. 'I was really embarrassed about it, so I thought perhaps letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they'd be able to help me with the logistics around the kids and I wouldn't have to tell them the real reason.' The jury was shown a series of messages between Ms Patterson and Gail Patterson over a few weeks in June where she kept up the charade, writing to her mother-in-law that she was waiting for the results of a biopsy and then needing an MRI. Asked 'were those lies?' by Mr Mandy, Ms Patterson confirmed 'yes'. 'They had shown quite a lot of care about that, which felt really nice … I didn't want their care of me to stop, so I just kept it going. I shouldn't have done it,' she said. Ms Patterson told the court she 'shouldn't have' said those things to Simon but wanted him to feel bad about cancelling at the last minute. Asked by her barrister whether it was true when she said she'd spent 'many hours' preparing for the lunch, the accused woman confirmed it was not. 'I didn't do any preparing other than shopping and researching the recipe, so I guess the answer to your question is, no, it wasn't true,' she said. 'I didn't mean to do any of that. I shouldn't have done any of that, but that's what I was thinking at the time.' Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson died in early August 2023 from organ failure linked to death cap mushroom poisoning. Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson recovered after about a month and a half in hospital. Ms Patterson is expected to return to the witness box on Thursday, where Mr Mandy told the jury he had about 15 minutes more of questions, before she is turned over to the prosecution to question. The trial continues.
