People would rather blame something with a face (blaming the suicide on his lawyer, blaming videogame developers or the NRA for mass shootings, etc.) before admitting that the answer may lie in some science book that was too boring or dull for them to pick up and read. I'm glad this article actually addresses the problem directly: mental illness
As another example, take Mohamed Bouazizi. He was clearly a very sick man, to light himself on fire like he did.
But the sensationalist press decided to focus---not on his mental illness, which was the only thing to blame for his death---but instead on scapegoating the Tunisian government who rightfully confiscated a few pieces of his property.
I completely disagree.
What Aaron did was fully moral but partially/potentially illegal (see trespassing maybe).
In my mind, nothing more than a month of social work is the justified response to his act. I'm sure most people would agree.
However this is not what happened. He faced up to 35 years in prison, he faced being financially ruined by the case and he faced the option to unwillingly 'force' the people who love him (friends and family) to also face financial issues to help him fight this case.
This would cause problem in any reasonable person.
Why are you both you and the parent suggesting that it is crazy to kill yourself ? It is not crazy. Suicide sometimes is the best way out.
I would rather face death than 35 years in prison.
I also understand why someone wouldn't plaid guilty when they are not guilty, in particular if that still means I have to do up to 6 months in jail.
I heard many times people saying I rather die free than live as a prisoner.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of content linking Mohamed Bouazizi to mental illnesses... are you affirming that he was clearly very sick because he lit himself on fire?
Isn't this cultural bias? In this light, Quanc Duc(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc), the monk of the famous "lit myself on fire in protest" picture must had to be a clinical mental anything, too, no?
His dream was to improve and help this shitty world.
Aaron had depression regardless of the trial, granted.
I think it's quite natural to be depressed given the state of things.
Suicide is another thing altogether, I'm depressed at times but I've never thought of suicide but as I said in other comments in the same situation I would probably be at risk.
And rightly so. In jail I'm not going to help anybody and with my (and perhaps my beloved ones) life financially ruined with a criminal record doesn't really allow anyone to continue any quest to improve things.
His death maybe helped more than him going to jail and everyone forgetting about him. I wonder if this was his plan.
The problem is that a person can only die once. It's a big new. It appears in the main newspapers. Everyone comments about it. But in a few weeks it will be not a new new and it will be replaced by another new (a plane crash, a hurricane, a terrorist attack, or even something unimportant like a football match).
Another possible plan could have been: Go to trial and proclaim innocence. Get a guilty verdict and proclaim innocence. Go to the appeal court and proclaim innocence. Go to the supreme court a.p.i.. Start a hunger strike a.p.i.. Get a reduction of the sentence a.p.i.. Offer to create free software for charity institutions a.p.i.. Get the disallowed by the penitentiary system a.p.i.. Try to start a vocational school in jail to help rehabilitate the inmates a.p.i.. Also denied a.p.i.. Get out on parole a.p.i.. Give as many conferences about the case a.p.i..
In each of these steps there is a new to publish and get coverage in the media and explain that the laws were unjust. And each time explain his position about the restrictions of some information. It's like a PR campaign. Some messages only are understood after a lot of repetitions.
I understand that it's easier to say "just go to jail and start a pr campaign" that really doing it. It was a difficult situation and I don't want to judge him. But I don't think that suicide was obviously the best alternative.
And as I say in another comment: Some people did important things after incarceration or unjust persecution:
There is such a thing as contributing to it. No one doubts that Aaron took his own life and that he had a history of depression. However, add the draconian charges and ....
Aaron could manage the trial if only he was regularly going to some sort of psychotherapy and was taking medicaments. The trial only facilitated his inner problems.
Also he was primarily a hacker, and his biggest accomplishment is not JSTOR but RSS specification and web.py.
There are 3 battles which are being fought here, and they should ideally be separated out during discussions.
The trial affected a brilliant person who pushed limits of the world around him, to his limits.
At the same time there are thousands of convicts who have committed far more heinous crimes, and others who are being prosecuted harshly for crimes they didn't commit who don't follow this path.
Aaron died not because of the trial but because of depression. Having dealt with depression and depressed people, I know this fact intimately.
Depression and mental illness are humiliating, and with depression things reach a stage where anything and everything can become a trigger.
The second issue is the over-zealousness of the prosecution, . What they aimed to do is wrong, not just for Aaron but for many other accused in America.
And the finally battle is the one for culture and openness that Aaron was a champion of.
So far I have seen people champion the latter two causes (over-zealousness and open access to information) more than the first (depression).
>Aaron died not because of the trial but because of depression
Aaron died because he decided suicide was the best course of action.
Given that the trial was what ultimately and unjustly squashed him, I would say he did die because of the harsh and unjust trial.
> Aaron died because he decided suicide was the best course of action.
People suffering from depression are not rational.
I don't mean that "I can't make sense of this decision therefore they aren't rational", but people having recovered from depression consider their own thought processes from the depression to be flat out wrong.
Depression has a side effect of making normal thinking patterns unusable.
You could literally win a lottery, and feel that the world hates you.
Your thought process would go - I won a lottery, but I still feel dead inside. Why go on, there isn't anything for live for.
I hate to use an example to explain depression, because its always "explainable", but hopefully as a vignette into what every waking moment of life is like for someone with depression, it should serve its purpose.
Just to be clear, the article is addressing Clinical Depression not just "having the blues" or any other form of day to day depression which most people suffer.
If you want a good description of how Clinical Depression varies wildly from 'rational depression,' read the Andrew Solomon's book The Noonday Demon. It's well written and, at least for me, expanded my perspective of how little I understood of severe depression.
I never said his depression was a consequence of the trial.
What I did say is that is death is a consequence of the trial, i.e. without trial he would be alive (so far at least, but I don't think he was necessarily suicidal prior to the trial).
What I did also say is that depression (when not an chemical imbalance problem at least) is a consequence of a series of events and therefore caused
Besides the fact that my point was generic to depression and not his type of depression let me clarify and say that I don't think he had 'chemical' depression.
If you check when he started having depression and what he was reading at the time and how this depression developed you see it has to do with the way the system works, which eventually killed him.
His description here sounds like the classic symptoms of chemical depression. Which is not to say, once again, that there weren't also other factors involved in the JSTOR/MIT case.
Sorry I wasn't aware, I've read a quite a bit about Aaron but didn't come across this.
I didn't imagine actual physical pains either. It must be terrible.
It can be both. Someone linked to a post by Aaron describing his depression; at that period it didn't seem like he had any particular stressors causing it, it was just that he was depressed. He also said that things which normally improve the mood of a person who feels down did not improve his mood. That sounds like he had a genuine medical problem.
That does not mean that his response to the pending trial was entirely irrational; but it does indicate that the pending trial was not the only factor in play.
Public efforts regarding Mental Health have been almost completely obliterated by the 1% in their greedy rush to take everything. MH is at the heart of this sick young man's tradgedy and the ever more frequent serial killings.
I don't buy all the victim scenarios for this fellow. He was smart, he knew what he was getting into. He knew attacking the established status quo would have dire consequences. He had plenty of opportunities to change his path to a less risky one. He knew going into this that to challenge these people would bring concrete and powerful counter attacks aimed at him.
What he did not know was how to cope with depression, how and were to get help, and was too ingrained with the imposed taboos to seek help.
I think this article is very important because it differs from many others that supposes that the prosecution caused the suicide.
I, like many others, am pissed with the overreach of the prosecution and think that the legal system must change. Aaron never deserved 6 months on jail.
That said, it was obvious that Aaron would face the possibility to go to jail many times in his career after he choose to be an internet activist. If you choose this path, it is something you have to be prepared to deal with. A person with severe depression choosing a career like this is an obvious candidate for suicide.
Ortiz, Heymann and MIT are guilty for overreaching and made a bad decision with this prosecution. But they are not murderers. Aaron choose this path. He choose to risk his life to try to change something on the world. He was bold and he will always be remembered.
this is the first article that puts aarons decision into perspective. while there are certainly broken laws in the us prosecution system, I never bought that the prosecutors were responsible for this tragedy. the tech community is in uproar about the unfairness of the trial against aaron but more fundamental issues in our society have caused this tragedy: the stigma of depression and other mental illnesses and the high amount of stress to which we're exposed in the 21st century.
My reading of the various articles since Aaron's death has not been that people are blaming the prosecution for causing it, but rather noting:
a) it was almost certainly a contributing factor; and
b) regardless of its contribution to Aaron's death, it is ethically and legally appalling in itself to subject someone to the threat of a felony conviction and decades in prison for what amounts to a TOS violation - downloading large numbers of articles over an open network.
I appreciate the perspective this article brings to the real cultural challenges around recognizing, acknowledging and addressing depression, but there is no need for dismissive strawman attacks against those who have chosen to focus some of their outrage on the despicable actions of the US prosecutor in this matter.
I think you have a great way of expressing the point.
In my view Aaron would be happy to know his sacrifices contributed into generating this sort of discussions and hopefully change.
"a technology sub-culture that mostly doesn’t understand — or care much — about mental illness."
I'd go a step further and suggest that North American business culture, if not North American culture at large (and there's a good argument to be made that the latter is circumscribed by the former), is guilty of this as well. I don't think it's at all exclusive to IT.
Do you this is 'because' of purer capitalism ? Isn't that north american [business] culture at large ?
As opposed to mixed capitalism/socialism in other western countries.
Some countries that are often held up as positive alternatives to "North American business culture" (like France) have higher suicide rates than the US.
Whatever our business culture's failing are, causing more suicide is not high on the list, especially when you compare with the cultures of Asia and Eastern Europe.
This seems like just another instance of the excessively-specific adjective fallacy. I would submit that it is humanity as a whole that doesn't much understand or care much about mental illness.
I'm surprised that no one seems to have connected Swartz's death to that of Ilya Zhitomirskiy of Diaspora, and the discussions about depression and tech (admittedly startups) http://betabeat.com/2011/11/u-cant-haz-sadz-the-hushed-dange....
While Swartz's death obviously has the connection to the horrible MIT/JSTOR situation, both remind us that tech doesn't always take kindly to those that make a mistake or don't live up to expectations, or pay enough attention to depression.
As a depressive, I can tell you the experience is certainly very real, even if much of psychology is on shaky ground, and it's certainly not a pleasant or healthy state of mind.
Are there not relatively good quality studies demonstrating certain treatments such as CBT are effective in treating depression + anxiety?
And surely a schizophrenic who hears voices and is detached from reality can be said to be mentally unwell? And aren't their studies demonstrating anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals are effective in those cases?
Though I am all for data-based scientific reasoning in psychology, I do think there's a place for practical, empirical techniques to treat things we don't quite understand yet (and perhaps don't hope to understand for some time, i.e. a detailed understanding of the operation of the brain).
When people have mental health issues they need help now, not in X years when we have sufficient understanding to make it a harder science.
I often wonder about the disdain those of the harder sciences have for the 'softer' ones. Physics, chemistry + friends have the wonderful advantage of being able to examine phenomena in the small, once you examine things in the large (such as medical studies, or sociological behaviour, etc.) there are often sufficient factors to make it analytically intractable + require fuzzy uncertain statistical techniques. Does that approach make a science 'soft' in your opinion?
I am not for the big fuzzy Freudian unfalsifiable theories that thus can't be tested by the way. Rather I think a lot of big problems require imperfect statistical techniques now which can be improved with a deeper understand later.
Because it isn't, science is a strict term... this is a challenge for psychology/psychiatry and neuroscience(best hopes) as whole and it's not one or two weirdo proposing it... it's being thrown in it's face and begged for even by the people ~there~ itself.
Of course there's good willing people there, but there's also the 'Big Pharma' issue, the 'lets put 4 year olds on drugs' issue, a past of it being used to reinforce biases(against homosexuals, for slavery, as argument to lock state-enemies in Russia, Nazi Germany).
Also, normally when it's scientifically proven isn't it like "done, next question" and then they actually answer the question? They didn't got there yet it seems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Disclosure: Yes, I know there's situations so extreme need 'anything that helps', I've seen it in my family. With me, a bipolar 'diagnosis' and drug prescription got me 4 seizures that could have brought lasting damage, even as the dosage, the psychiatrist later confessed under my pressure, was already multiple times lower than what was considered the minimum, but he wouldn't admit having any responsibility for it, which led me to doing my own research and finding documented cases of seizures and even deaths as consequence. Anyway, gave the FU(metaphorically) to this, kept reading, making sure it was informed/not-in-denial, 3 years, not a problem, but I still have to hear about how I can't swim, box or "shouldn't even drive", this sort of stuff.
In my experience at the companies I've worked at in the northeast people tend to talk about their struggles with mental illness with work folks. I've started working at a California company the last few years and folks are pretty open there as well.
I understand this is just my experience and I like to talk about the feeling side of being human at work (and do) so I may attract this kind of discussion and folks opening up.
I don't like the argument here. I mean, in the technical sense.
It seems to attempt to lever facts about a specific situation into an otherwise unsupported generalization.
A couple of things leapt out at me - a) Aaron wasn't subject to the pressures of industry in Silicon Valley. He'd chosen a different path, and b) the author offers no support for his implication that the suicide rate in tech is higher than other industries.
The article didn't hang together for me and I'm left wondering if its just opportunistic drivel or a fair portrayal of a real concern that's been poorly argued.
To be clear, Aaron didn't work in Silicon Valley, or at a startup. Aaron was running his own well-funded team in an office in New York City at a 20 year-old company with good healthcare run by adults. It was not a high-stress work environment; I know, because I spent time on that team. I assure you that none of us deny the seriousness of depression, least of all me.
But Aaron was a very private person, and although he put a tremendous amount of pressure on himself to do the right thing, it could be hard to tell what his internal state was. At any rate, at the end, his efforts were focused almost completely on the trial, not on code. He spent time strategizing about how to bring around MIT and working with his lawyers. We surrounded him with help and were raising funds for his defense.
He had love and support. He kept on expressing optimistic sentiments, like "this is going to be a good year." He apparently acted cheerful the morning-of. His friends and partner are shattered. This Monday-morning quarterbacking does not help them.
49 comments
[ 6.8 ms ] story [ 87.5 ms ] threadAs another example, take Mohamed Bouazizi. He was clearly a very sick man, to light himself on fire like he did.
But the sensationalist press decided to focus---not on his mental illness, which was the only thing to blame for his death---but instead on scapegoating the Tunisian government who rightfully confiscated a few pieces of his property.
EDIT: I'm afraid people aren't understanding the tone of this comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fNvi6xG-5Y
In my mind, nothing more than a month of social work is the justified response to his act. I'm sure most people would agree.
However this is not what happened. He faced up to 35 years in prison, he faced being financially ruined by the case and he faced the option to unwillingly 'force' the people who love him (friends and family) to also face financial issues to help him fight this case.
This would cause problem in any reasonable person.
Why are you both you and the parent suggesting that it is crazy to kill yourself ? It is not crazy. Suicide sometimes is the best way out.
I would rather face death than 35 years in prison. I also understand why someone wouldn't plaid guilty when they are not guilty, in particular if that still means I have to do up to 6 months in jail.
I heard many times people saying I rather die free than live as a prisoner.
Isn't this cultural bias? In this light, Quanc Duc(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc), the monk of the famous "lit myself on fire in protest" picture must had to be a clinical mental anything, too, no?
The anger you see is about the trial having him pushed over the edge, which is almost certainly true if at least to a certain degree.
We'll never know whether Aaron would've taken his life without the trial as well, but now we will never get to find out.
Aaron had depression regardless of the trial, granted. I think it's quite natural to be depressed given the state of things.
Suicide is another thing altogether, I'm depressed at times but I've never thought of suicide but as I said in other comments in the same situation I would probably be at risk.
And rightly so. In jail I'm not going to help anybody and with my (and perhaps my beloved ones) life financially ruined with a criminal record doesn't really allow anyone to continue any quest to improve things.
His death maybe helped more than him going to jail and everyone forgetting about him. I wonder if this was his plan.
Another possible plan could have been: Go to trial and proclaim innocence. Get a guilty verdict and proclaim innocence. Go to the appeal court and proclaim innocence. Go to the supreme court a.p.i.. Start a hunger strike a.p.i.. Get a reduction of the sentence a.p.i.. Offer to create free software for charity institutions a.p.i.. Get the disallowed by the penitentiary system a.p.i.. Try to start a vocational school in jail to help rehabilitate the inmates a.p.i.. Also denied a.p.i.. Get out on parole a.p.i.. Give as many conferences about the case a.p.i..
In each of these steps there is a new to publish and get coverage in the media and explain that the laws were unjust. And each time explain his position about the restrictions of some information. It's like a PR campaign. Some messages only are understood after a lot of repetitions.
I understand that it's easier to say "just go to jail and start a pr campaign" that really doing it. It was a difficult situation and I don't want to judge him. But I don't think that suicide was obviously the best alternative.
And as I say in another comment: Some people did important things after incarceration or unjust persecution:
Nelson Mandela: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela
Galileo Galilei: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Aaron could manage the trial if only he was regularly going to some sort of psychotherapy and was taking medicaments. The trial only facilitated his inner problems. Also he was primarily a hacker, and his biggest accomplishment is not JSTOR but RSS specification and web.py.
RIP Aaron
The trial affected a brilliant person who pushed limits of the world around him, to his limits.
At the same time there are thousands of convicts who have committed far more heinous crimes, and others who are being prosecuted harshly for crimes they didn't commit who don't follow this path.
Aaron died not because of the trial but because of depression. Having dealt with depression and depressed people, I know this fact intimately.
Depression and mental illness are humiliating, and with depression things reach a stage where anything and everything can become a trigger.
The second issue is the over-zealousness of the prosecution, . What they aimed to do is wrong, not just for Aaron but for many other accused in America.
And the finally battle is the one for culture and openness that Aaron was a champion of.
So far I have seen people champion the latter two causes (over-zealousness and open access to information) more than the first (depression).
Aaron died because he decided suicide was the best course of action. Given that the trial was what ultimately and unjustly squashed him, I would say he did die because of the harsh and unjust trial.
Depression is not a cause, is a consequence.
People suffering from depression are not rational.
I don't mean that "I can't make sense of this decision therefore they aren't rational", but people having recovered from depression consider their own thought processes from the depression to be flat out wrong.
You could literally win a lottery, and feel that the world hates you.
Your thought process would go - I won a lottery, but I still feel dead inside. Why go on, there isn't anything for live for.
I hate to use an example to explain depression, because its always "explainable", but hopefully as a vignette into what every waking moment of life is like for someone with depression, it should serve its purpose.
Edit: grammar in last para.
If you want a good description of how Clinical Depression varies wildly from 'rational depression,' read the Andrew Solomon's book The Noonday Demon. It's well written and, at least for me, expanded my perspective of how little I understood of severe depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Noonday_Demon:_An_Atlas_of_...
This qualifier undermines your point, since there was certainly evidence (as I posted upthread) that he did have a medical problem.
If you check when he started having depression and what he was reading at the time and how this depression developed you see it has to do with the way the system works, which eventually killed him.
Are you referring specifically to the JSTOR/MIT case, or to something else further back? If it's the latter, can you give a reference?
If it's the former, you are aware, aren't you, that Swartz was on record years before the JSTOR/MIT case describing his depression?
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick
His description here sounds like the classic symptoms of chemical depression. Which is not to say, once again, that there weren't also other factors involved in the JSTOR/MIT case.
It can be both. Someone linked to a post by Aaron describing his depression; at that period it didn't seem like he had any particular stressors causing it, it was just that he was depressed. He also said that things which normally improve the mood of a person who feels down did not improve his mood. That sounds like he had a genuine medical problem.
That does not mean that his response to the pending trial was entirely irrational; but it does indicate that the pending trial was not the only factor in play.
I don't buy all the victim scenarios for this fellow. He was smart, he knew what he was getting into. He knew attacking the established status quo would have dire consequences. He had plenty of opportunities to change his path to a less risky one. He knew going into this that to challenge these people would bring concrete and powerful counter attacks aimed at him.
What he did not know was how to cope with depression, how and were to get help, and was too ingrained with the imposed taboos to seek help.
I, like many others, am pissed with the overreach of the prosecution and think that the legal system must change. Aaron never deserved 6 months on jail.
That said, it was obvious that Aaron would face the possibility to go to jail many times in his career after he choose to be an internet activist. If you choose this path, it is something you have to be prepared to deal with. A person with severe depression choosing a career like this is an obvious candidate for suicide.
Ortiz, Heymann and MIT are guilty for overreaching and made a bad decision with this prosecution. But they are not murderers. Aaron choose this path. He choose to risk his life to try to change something on the world. He was bold and he will always be remembered.
a) it was almost certainly a contributing factor; and
b) regardless of its contribution to Aaron's death, it is ethically and legally appalling in itself to subject someone to the threat of a felony conviction and decades in prison for what amounts to a TOS violation - downloading large numbers of articles over an open network.
I appreciate the perspective this article brings to the real cultural challenges around recognizing, acknowledging and addressing depression, but there is no need for dismissive strawman attacks against those who have chosen to focus some of their outrage on the despicable actions of the US prosecutor in this matter.
I'd go a step further and suggest that North American business culture, if not North American culture at large (and there's a good argument to be made that the latter is circumscribed by the former), is guilty of this as well. I don't think it's at all exclusive to IT.
Some countries that are often held up as positive alternatives to "North American business culture" (like France) have higher suicide rates than the US.
Whatever our business culture's failing are, causing more suicide is not high on the list, especially when you compare with the cultures of Asia and Eastern Europe.
http://arachnoid.com/psychology/myth.html
Are there not relatively good quality studies demonstrating certain treatments such as CBT are effective in treating depression + anxiety?
And surely a schizophrenic who hears voices and is detached from reality can be said to be mentally unwell? And aren't their studies demonstrating anti-psychotic pharmaceuticals are effective in those cases?
Though I am all for data-based scientific reasoning in psychology, I do think there's a place for practical, empirical techniques to treat things we don't quite understand yet (and perhaps don't hope to understand for some time, i.e. a detailed understanding of the operation of the brain).
When people have mental health issues they need help now, not in X years when we have sufficient understanding to make it a harder science.
I often wonder about the disdain those of the harder sciences have for the 'softer' ones. Physics, chemistry + friends have the wonderful advantage of being able to examine phenomena in the small, once you examine things in the large (such as medical studies, or sociological behaviour, etc.) there are often sufficient factors to make it analytically intractable + require fuzzy uncertain statistical techniques. Does that approach make a science 'soft' in your opinion?
I am not for the big fuzzy Freudian unfalsifiable theories that thus can't be tested by the way. Rather I think a lot of big problems require imperfect statistical techniques now which can be improved with a deeper understand later.
Why would anyone even take the time to bother? You've already decided that psychology isn't a sufficiently hard science.
Of course there's good willing people there, but there's also the 'Big Pharma' issue, the 'lets put 4 year olds on drugs' issue, a past of it being used to reinforce biases(against homosexuals, for slavery, as argument to lock state-enemies in Russia, Nazi Germany).
Also, normally when it's scientifically proven isn't it like "done, next question" and then they actually answer the question? They didn't got there yet it seems. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment
Disclosure: Yes, I know there's situations so extreme need 'anything that helps', I've seen it in my family. With me, a bipolar 'diagnosis' and drug prescription got me 4 seizures that could have brought lasting damage, even as the dosage, the psychiatrist later confessed under my pressure, was already multiple times lower than what was considered the minimum, but he wouldn't admit having any responsibility for it, which led me to doing my own research and finding documented cases of seizures and even deaths as consequence. Anyway, gave the FU(metaphorically) to this, kept reading, making sure it was informed/not-in-denial, 3 years, not a problem, but I still have to hear about how I can't swim, box or "shouldn't even drive", this sort of stuff.
I understand this is just my experience and I like to talk about the feeling side of being human at work (and do) so I may attract this kind of discussion and folks opening up.
It seems to attempt to lever facts about a specific situation into an otherwise unsupported generalization.
A couple of things leapt out at me - a) Aaron wasn't subject to the pressures of industry in Silicon Valley. He'd chosen a different path, and b) the author offers no support for his implication that the suicide rate in tech is higher than other industries.
The article didn't hang together for me and I'm left wondering if its just opportunistic drivel or a fair portrayal of a real concern that's been poorly argued.
But Aaron was a very private person, and although he put a tremendous amount of pressure on himself to do the right thing, it could be hard to tell what his internal state was. At any rate, at the end, his efforts were focused almost completely on the trial, not on code. He spent time strategizing about how to bring around MIT and working with his lawyers. We surrounded him with help and were raising funds for his defense.
He had love and support. He kept on expressing optimistic sentiments, like "this is going to be a good year." He apparently acted cheerful the morning-of. His friends and partner are shattered. This Monday-morning quarterbacking does not help them.
Is there a way to contact you directly?