What is the strategy of the Harran defense?

To contact us Click HERE
C&EN reporters Jyllian Kemsley and Michael Torrice are covering the second day of the preliminary hearing of Professor Patrick Harran on charges stemming from the death of Sheharbano (Sheri) Sangji in January 2009. Jyllian has a nice summary of the point of a preliminary hearing: "The purpose of the preliminary hearing is for the prosecution to present evidence to a judge, who will decide if there is enough to take the case forward to a trial." Her summary post of day 1 is up. You should go over there and read it.

For those who are really interested in the details of it, I've summarized/paraphrased the Harran defense team's (as represented by attorney Thomas O'Brien) questions below the jump:

To the LA Fire Department investigator who interviewed Sheri Sangji, Mr. Robert Hernandez:

• Was Ms. Sangji aware that the chemical was pyrophoric? Did she know that it had spilled? Did Mr. Hernandez agree that it was an accident? 

To the burn unit physician, Dr. Peter Grossman:

• Why so many photos (20 in all) of Ms. Sangji's injuries?
• Questions on the extent of Ms. Sangji's burns and injuries
• Why did Ms. Sangji's heart stop (during the 3rd surgery)?
• How much of the burns came from tBuLi, as opposed to burning clothing? 

To the deputy medical examinaer, Vadims Poukens:

• Did Dr. Poukens notice anything unusual about her heart? Could he tell that it stopped during a surgical proceeding?
• Did Dr. Poukens examine Ms. Sangji's brain to indicate cause of death? 

First, I am not a lawyer. It is my understanding that it is not advantageous for the defense to say much during a preliminary hearing and I assume that they're going to continue to be somewhat cryptic as to a defense strategy. I am terribly curious to what Professor Harran's defense team is getting at with their questions. I get the sense that they're trying to separate her death from her injuries, but to what end, I am not sure.

(One presumes that, as an overall strategy, the best-case scenario for the Harran team is to show that the prosecution does not have enough evidence to move to trial. I suppose that this will have much more to do with Professor Harran and his (lack of) safety training for Ms. Sangji than anything else, but again, IANAL.) 
Readers, any ideas?