Redacted 05.06pmWRG

Document Sample
Redacted 05.06pmWRG Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                              7752


1                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                     DISTRICT OF MONTANA, MISSOULA DIVISION
2
     U N I T E D S T A T E S OF A M E R I C A ,
3
                    Plaintiff,
4
          v s.                                        C A S E N O . C R 05 - 0 7 -M - D W M
5
     W. R . G R A C E & C O M P A N Y, H E N R Y A.
6    E S C H E N B A C H, J A C K W . W O L T E R ,   M i s s o u l a, M o n t a n a
     WILLIAM J. McCAIG, ROBERT J.                     Wednesday, May 6, 2009
7    BETTACCHI, and ROBERT C.                         1 : 00 p . m.
     W A L S H,
8
                    Defendants.
9

10

11

12                JURY TRIAL - VOLUME 34 - AFTERNOON SESSION
                              PAGES 7752 - 7958
13

14                        TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
                   BEFORE THE HONORABLE DONALD W. MOLLOY,
15               UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a jury.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22         Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography and
                   t r a n s c r i p t p r o d u c e d by c o m p u t e r b y
23                                      Julie M. Lake
                       R e g i s t e r e d D i p l o m a t e R e p o r t e r,
24                         Registered Merit Reporter,
                         Certified Realtime Reporter,
25                     M a r t i n - L a k e & A s s o c i a t e s, I n c.
                                                                                                          7753


1                                     A P P E A R A N C E S

2    K R I S A . M C L E A N , A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y , of t h e
     O f f i c e of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y , U n i t e d S t a t e s
3    Department of Justice, 105 East Pine Street, Second
     Floor, Missoula, Montana 59802, and
4
     K E V I N C A S S I D Y, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y ,
5    and ERIC NELSON, Special Assistant United States Attorney
     of the United States Department of Justice, Environmental
6    C r i m e s S e c t i o n , E. N . R .D . G e n e r a l L i t i g a t i o n , P. O . B o x
     6 6 3, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .     20004-0663,
7             a p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f of t h e P l a i n t i f f U S A.

8    D A V I D B E R N I C K, E s q . , a n d W A L T E R R . L A N C A S T E R , E s q . , o f
     Kirkland & Ellis, 200 E. Randolph Drive, Chicago,
9    Illinois 60601-6636; and

10   T Y L E R M A C E , E s q . , o f K i r k l a n d & E l l i s, 6 5 5 F i f t e e n t h
     S t r e e t NW , S u i t e 1 2 0 0 , W a s h i n g t o n , D .C .  2 0 0 0 5; a n d
11
     K A T H L E E N L . D E S O T O , E s q . , of G a r l i n g t o n , L o h n & R o b i n s o n,
12   P L L P , 1 9 9 W e s t P i n e S t r e e t , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a 5 9 8 0 7,
              a p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f of t h e D e f e n d a n t W . R. G r a c e .
13
     D A V I D K R A K O F F, E s q . , a n d G A R Y A . W I N T E R S , E s q ., o f M a y e r,
14   B r o w n , R o w e & M a w, L L P, 1 9 0 9 K . S t r e e t , N. W . , W a s h i n g t o n,
     D . C.     20006-1101; and
15
     R O N A L D F. W A T E R M A N, E s q . , of G o u g h , S h a n a h a n , J o h n s o n &
16   W a t e r m a n, 3 3 S o u t h L a s t C h a n c e G u l c h , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a
     59604,
17            appearing on behalf of the Defendant
              Henry A. Eschenbach.
18
     CAROLYN KUBOTA, Esq., and JEREMY MALTBY, Esq., of
19   O ' M e l v e n y & M y e r s, 4 0 0 S o u t h H o p e S t r e e t , L o s A n g e l e s ,
     C a l i f o r n i a 9 0 0 7 1 -2 8 9 9 ; a n d
20
     W . A D A M D U E R K, E s q . , of M i l o d r a g o v i c h, D a l e , S t e i n b r e n n e r
21   & N y g r e n, P . C. , 6 2 0 H i g h P a r k W a y , M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a
     59803,
22          a p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f of t h e D e f e n d a n t J a c k W . W o l t e r .

23

24

25
                                                                                                    7754


1                          A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued)

2    T H O M A S C. F R O N G I L L O , E s q . , a n d P A T R I C K O 'T O O L E, E s q. , o f
     W e i l , G o t s h a l & M a n g e s, 1 0 0 F e d e r a l S t r e e t , 3 4t h F l o o r ,
3    B o s t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t t s 0 2 1 1 0; a n d

4    D A V I D B . H I R D, E s q . , of W e i l , G o t s h a l & M a n g e s, L L P, 1 3 0 0
     E y e S t r e e t , N. W . , S u i t e 9 0 0, W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . 2 0 0 0 5; a n d
5

6    BRIAN K. GALLIK, Esq., of Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin,
     P . O. B o x 6 5 8 0, B o z e m a n, M o n t a n a 5 9 7 7 1- 6 5 8 0 ,
7           a p p e a r i n g o n b e h a l f of t h e D e f e n d a n t R o b e r t J.
            Bettacchi.
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                                                                                 7755


1                                                    I N D E X

2                                                                                                 PAGE:
     CLOSING ARGUMENT
3
      By M r. B e r n i c k .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .            7756
4
      By M r. F r o n g i l l o . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .           7837
5
      By M r. K r a k o f f .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .            7864
6
      By M s. K u b o t a . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .            7886
7
      By M r. M c L e a n . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. .            7909
8

9

10   SEALED DISCUSSION IN CHAMBERS RE ALTERNATE JURORS 7946

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19    C e r t i f i c a t e of C o u r t R e p o r t e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 5 8

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                                                                             7756


1                                        W E D N E S D A Y, M A Y 6 , 2 0 0 9

2                                            AFTERNOON SESSION

3                       B E I T R E M E M B E R E D t h a t o n M a y 6 , 2 0 0 9, a t 1 : 0 0

4    p . m. , i n t h e R u s s e l l S m i t h C o u r t h o u s e, M i s s o u l a , M o n t a n a,

5    b e f o r e t h e H o n o r a b l e D o n a l d W . M o l l o y, U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t

6    J u d g e , t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e h a d:

7                         (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in

8                           open court with counsel present, the defendants

9                           present and the trial jury present.)

10                        THE COURT:         Please be seated.

11                        Mr. Bernick, you may proceed.                         It ' s my u n d e r s t a n d i n g

12   t h a t y o u w a n t m e t o g i v e y o u n o t i c e at o n e h o u r a n d 1 5 m i n u t e s ;

13   is that correct?

14                        MR. BERNICK:          T h a t i s c o r r e c t , Y o u r H o n o r.

15                        THE COURT:         All right, you may proceed.

16                        MR. BERNICK:          G e t o u t t h o s e p a d s, p e n c i l s, p e n s

17   ready.        W e ' r e g o i n g t o m a k e y o u d o a l o t o f w r i t i n g, d o a

18   little drawing.                I k n o w y o u' l l do a b e t t e r j o b t h a n I d i d .

19                        I w a n t to s t a r t o u t w i t h o n e w o r d , o n e w o r d ,

20   credibility.              The whole truth.             Credibility.

21                        I n t h i s c a s e , i f y o u r e a d t h e C o u r t ' s- - w h e n y o u r e a d

22   the Court's instructions or I should say reread the Court's

23   i n s t r u c t i o n s , y o u' l l s e e a n d c o m e t o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t

24   c r e d i b i l i t y is a l m o s t t h e v e r y f i r s t t h i n g y o u h a v e t o

25   c o n s i d e r.
                                                                                                                7757


1                         You have the latitude as part of your

2    d e c i s i o n- m a k i n g p o w e r t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r a n y a n d a l l e v i d e n c e

3    that's been presented by either side through any witness is

4    c r e d i b l e.     And if you decide that that evidence is not worthy

5    o f y o u r b e l i e f a s j u r o r s , y o u c a n c o m p l e t e l y d i s r e g a r d it .

6    T h a t ' s w h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s a y s, t h a t ' s w h a t t h e l a w s a y s .

7    A n d, t h e r e f o r e , c r e d i b i l i t y i n a n y c a s e i s a n i m p o r t a n t

8    critical determination that is left solely to your decision-

9    making.            The Court doesn't decide it.                     N o b o d y d e c i d e s i t.         You

10   d e c i d e w h a t ' s c r e d i b l e.

11                        And the easiest way that--the instruction that the

12   C o u r t h a s g o e s t h r o u g h m a n y t h i n g s t h a t y o u c a n c o n s i d e r.             But

13   I p u t u p o n t h e b o a r d t h e w h o l e t r u t h, b e c a u s e y o u a l l k n o w

14   t h a t w h e n a n y w i t n e s s t a k e s t h e s t a n d, t h e y t a k e a n o a t h a n d

15   w i t h o u t t h a t o a t h t h e i r t e s t i m o n y w o u l d n 't h a v e t h e k i n d o f

16   r e l i a b i l i t y t h a t 's n e c e s s a r y t o w a r r a n t y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

17   And when they take that oath, they swear to tell the whole

18   truth.        Not a part of it.                 N o t a s p i n.      The whole truth.

19                        U n f o r t u n a t e l y, i n t h i s c a s e c r e d i b i l i t y i s n o t

20   s i m p l y an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e , i t i s a l m o s t t h e e n t i r e i s s u e i n t h e

21   entire case.             Credibility problems have cast a dark shadow, a

22   pall, of doubt over this entire case from the very beginning.

23   Highly unusual and highly unfortunate situation.                                        And that pall

24   of credibility has come back into the courtroom this morning

25   even as you are embarking upon the most difficult task that you
                                                                                                             7758


1    f a c e , w h i c h is d e c i d i n g t h i s c a s e a n d d e c i d i n g w h a t h a p p e n s to

2    all the folks who are defendants in this courtroom.                                         It has

3    come back in.               I t' s h e r e .      I t h a s n ' t l e f t.

4                       What did you see this morning?                            I t w a s t h e s a m e o l d,

5    s a m e o l d.     I t w a s d o c u m e n t a f t e r d o c u m e n t a f t e r d o c u m e n t.       It

6    was the favorite documents.                          You saw the same documents in

7    opening.          You saw them on direct examination.                             A s if t h a t

8    weren't enough, you saw them on redirect like you had never

9    read them before.                 You have probably seen some of these

10   d o c u m e n t s s e v e n , e i g h t, n i n e t i m e s .      W e l l, d o y o u s e e w h e n y o u

11   go down to the next column it's .000.                                 Oooh.      T h a t 's n o t s o

12   much better.               Maybe the drop test failed or maybe the new idea

13   failed.          Again and again and again.                       And I could go through

14   e x a m p l e s h e r e.     I t' s h a p p e n i n g a g a i n a n d a g a i n a n d a g a i n h e r e.

15                      5 7 A, i f w e c o u l d s h o w 5 7 A , G o v e r n m e n t' s E x h i b i t 5 7 A.

16   I d o n ' t e v e n h a v e t o s h o w - -y o u ' ll r e c o g n i z e i t.         Remember this

17   thing with the handwriting?                          Yeah, that's one of the favorites,

18   s e e n t h a t a l l t h e t i m e.           S a w i t a g a i n.    M r. M c L e a n k i n d o f w e n t

19   t h r o u g h a n d p i c k e d o u t, o o oh , t h e M a r x A c t i n C a l i f o r n i a,

20   criminal prosecution.

21                      It turns out the Marx Act was a nonissue because it

22   w a s n ' t - -i t s h o u l d n ' t p r o p e r l y b e a p p l i e d t o G r a c e .    Grace went

23   to the folks in California.                          T h e y a g r e e d i t w a s n o i s s u e.       They

24   make it seem like it was a harbinger or a foretelling of what

25   w e s e e h e r e t o d a y.        No such thing.
                                                                                                               7759


1                        B u t w h a t' s e v e n m o r e a l a r m i n g a b o u t it i s t h a t t h i s

2    h a s b e e n t h e s u b j e c t of t e s t i m o n y .         And while Mr. Becker may

3    have thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, the same

4    with Mr. Locke, the fact of the matter was the boss was Mr.

5    Wood.        He ' s t h e o n e w h o p u t t h e p l a n t o g e t h e r .            And remember

6    what he said.                I want to show 188.                 Slide 188.

7                        He said he didn't recall ever seeing the document.

8    It played no part in his analysis.                               No p a r t i n h i s

9    d e t e r m i n a t i o n.

10                       Here's another one, Exhibit 90.                              Government

11   Exhibit 90.             One of the most important documents in the case,

12   t h e g u i d e l i n e s - - t h i s is t h e l a w s e n t d o w n b y Mr . W o o d o n M a r c h

13   2 8 th .     One of the most important documents in the case.                                         Guess

14   what?        It w a s n ' t o n t h e t i m e l i n e.         How not?            How not on the

15   t i m e l i n e?

16                       N o w, h e r e ' s a n o t h e r o n e .       Guidelines.             This is

17   Government Exhibit 95.                      A n o t h e r v e r y i m p o r t a n t d o c u m e n t b y M r.

18   Wood.        T h e y h a d h i m o n t h e s t a n d.          This is one of their

19   favorite documents, so what happens?                                    T h e y d o n' t a s k h i m a b o u t

20   it.

21                       They talked about the Agway Farms.                                That was another

22   recycle.           D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 0 0 6 8 . 2.      Remember the Agway

23   f a r m ' s r e s u l t s w h e r e t h e y go o u t t o a c u s t o m e r a n d i t t u r n s o u t

24   they have got high fibers.                         W e b r o u g h t o u t t h r o u g h M r . B e c k e r,

25   who was in charge of this whole area, that that was only part
                                                                                                          7760


1    of the story.                That there were many other facilities that had

2    n o p r o b l e m a n d t h e n t h e r e w a s f o l l o w -u p , f o l l o w - u p o n t h e

3    facilities that did have problems.                             And if they didn't fix

4    them, Wood said don't sell to them.                             It's like that never

5    happened in this case.

6                        G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 7 7 8.   Another priceless moment.

7    Remember the testimony that was recited by the tow truck

8    o p e r a t o r t h a t s a y s , O h, i n t h a t l o n g s h e d i t w a s s o d u s t y .             It

9    w a s l i k e g o i n g t h r o u g h s n o w.       O h, i s t h a t r i g h t ?    Is t h a t

10   right?         Yeah, yeah, yeah.

11                       I s a i d , W e l l , t a k e a l o o k at t h a t p h o t o t h a t w a s

12   shown to you on your direct examination.                                I don't see the dust.

13   Hmmm.

14                       And then even more than that is that if the dust

15   settled on the ground, it had to come out of the air.                                        If i t

16   had to come out of the air, it's not going to kind of carefully

17   skirt the roof of that trailer and the roof of that trailer was

18   shiny.

19                       So it may be that there was some dust there, but

20   d o n' t y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e c o u n s e l m i s r e p r e s e n t e d , d i d n ' t t e l l

21   you the whole story when this testimony was elicited, that

22   their own photographs showed that the testimony was an

23   o v e r s t a t e m e n t?    A n d i n f a c t, t h e w i t n e s s t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b y a n d

24   l a r g e , w h e n he w e n t t h e r e , t h i s i s t h e w a y t h a t i t l o o k e d .

25   Didn't see anybody there.
                                                                                                          7761


1                       Then you had the concealed important hamster study,

2    t h o s e p o o r a n i m a l s , a n d t h a t t h e m o d e l w a s s e t u p so t h a t t h e y

3    would have what the workers had.                        That's totally false.                 They

4    had the same mixture.                 T h e y h a d a m a s s i v e d o s e.     And then you

5    were led to believe that somehow that was never published.

6    Well, you know better.

7                       This is Defendants' demonstrative 10174.                             Remember

8    this with Mr. Locke?                Even he had to admit it.                   Not a frequent

9    o c c a s i o n.

10                      There was the Grace-Smith study.                        Y e s, t h a t w a s n o t

11   published, but that was in the context of a whole series of

12   other studies that were already published on exactly the same

13   subject, or were later published on the same subject.                                      This was

14   not something novel or secret.                       This was something that was out

15   there and known.

16                      A n d t h e s t u d y w a s n o t d o n e f o r s a f e t y p u r p o s e s.

17   E v e n M r . L o c k e a d m i t t e d i t w a s n 't d o n e f o r s a f e t y p u r p o s e s .    It

18   was done so that Grace could see whether in animals there was

19   some fiber reaction that might not be as severe for Grace

20   tremolite versus other asbestos.                        W h y?    B e c a u s e t h e y w a n t e d to

21   argue to the Government that the regulation should be easier on

22   them than other kinds of asbestos.

23                      This was not some kind of litmus test of whether

24   people are going to sick.                   If you want to find out whether

25   people are going to sick at Libby, you take a look at the Libby
                                                                                                           7762


1    mine.      It ' s a l r e a d y k n o w n t h a t p e o p l e a r e g e t t i n g s i c k .     You

2    d o n' t s t a r t s c u r r y i n g o f f to l a b o r a t o r i e s a n d s t a r t p l a y i n g

3    with mice--hamsters.

4                      S o y o u ' ve s e e n i t a g a i n .      You've seen exactly the

5    same pattern, exactly the same pattern.

6                      N o w, y o u c o u l d s a y i t 's k i n d o f l i k e a c o n t i n u o u s

7    loop.      You know, again and again and again and again.                                     Well, is

8    i t t h e G o v e r n m e n t i s k i n d of w e a r i n g b l i n d e r s , t h a t t h e y j u s t

9    d o n' t u n d e r s t a n d w h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s i n t h e c a s e , t h a t t h e y

10   j u s t d o n' t r e a l i z e i t ?

11                     Well, you know that that's not true.                            I m e a n , h o w do

12   y o u k n o w t h a t' s n o t t r u e ?     Because we all sat here in the same

13   r o o m i n t h i s t r i a l a n d w e a l l l i s t e n e d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y a n d we

14   all saw all the documents.                     Not just the favorites the

15   Government always likes to come back to.                              We saw everything.

16   You saw everything.                And you know that the trial in this case

17   is comprised of much more than their favorite handpicked

18   d o c u m e n t s p i c k e d o u t of m i l l i o n s o f p a g e s a n d d e c a d e s o f t i m e.

19   T h e s e l i t t l e f a c t s.   They don't capture the flow of human

20   experience.           T h e y d o n 't c a p t u r e w h a t 's o n t h e m i n d s o f p e o p l e

21   as they go forward.                Y o u h a v e t o t a k e a l o o k at m o r e d o c u m e n t s

22   than that.          Y o u h a v e to l i s t e n to w h a t p e o p l e s a y .        And they

23   said it in this courtroom.                     You all watched.

24                     N o w, i t w a s v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t w h e n t h e y w e n t

25   through, both of them, the documents this morning, they said,
                                                                                                         7763


1    Well, I want to show you this, I want to show you that, I want

2    to show you something else.

3                      I think I counted all of three times when Mr. McLean

4    actually referred to some testimony.                          Three times.            And he

5    never showed you, I think, a single piece of testimony.                                          Not

6    o n e.    How can that be?               How can we all sit here through a trial

7    a t t r e m e n d o u s c o s t t o y o u a l l , y o u r t i m e , y o u r a t t e n t i o n,

8    tremendous cost to the Government, tremendous cost to--and cost

9    i n a p r o f o u n d w a y t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s in t h i s c a s e .      How can we

10   sit through that whole trial and then have the Government

11   simply ignore what all of the evidence shows?                                 Just go through

12   what they--exactly what they did when they started out.

13                     A n d t h e a n s w e r i s s i m p l e , s i m p l e.    They are not

14   wearing blinders.              They are standing there with their eyes

15   totally open.            T h e y k n o w w h a t t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i s.         They

16   k n o w a b o u t i t.    They just don't want to tell you the whole

17   truth.       E v e n t o d a y t h e y d o n' t w a n t t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e w h o l e

18   truth.       T h e y d o n 't w a n t t o a n s w e r t h e t e s t i m o n y .    They don't

19   want to look at the documents.

20                     I t 's j u s t l i k e w i t h M r. W o o d .      W h e n Mr . W o o d t o l d

21   t h e m i n t h e f a l l o f 2 0 0 4 , H e r e ' s t h e s t o r y.       H e r e ' s t h e t r u t h.

22   H e r e a r e t h e d o c u m e n t s.    I was the boss.

23                     Go away, we don't want to talk with you anymore.

24   W e 'r e g o i n g to g o c h a r g e t h i s c a s e w i t h o u t y o u.        They didn't

25   want to listen to him.                   They put him on the witness list and
                                                                                                        7764


1    they didn't call him.

2                       W h e n t h e y c a l l e d h i m - -w h e n h e w a s c a l l e d , t h e y

3    d i d n ' t e v e n c r o s s e x a m i n e h i m o n t h e d o c u m e n t s t h e y l i k e.     They

4    d o n' t w a n t t o h e a r t h e t r u t h .

5                       What do they want to talk about?                        T h e y w a n t t o t a l k,

6    M r . C a s s i d y in t h e s o m b e r t o n e , b e c a u s e y e s , d a n g e r s t o p e o p l e

7    a r e s o m b e r a n d t h e r e ' s t r a g e d y at L i b b y .    B u t a l l he w a n t s t o

8    t a l k a b o u t i s t h e t r a g e d y at L i b b y , t h a t p e o p l e g o t s i c k.        Yes,

9    people got sick.

10                      No, that is not the charge in this case.                              This case

11   i s n' t g o i n g to s o l v e t h a t p r o b l e m .     And the fact that this case

12   is brought against that backdrop tells you nothing.                                      In fact,

13   t h e C o u r t t o l d y o u t h a t i t 's n o t a t i s s u e i n t h e c a s e .          But all

14   we hear is the somber tone.                      W e h e a r t h e p i l e s, t h e p i l e s , t h e

15   track, the track.                  How many times did the Court instruct you

16   t h a t t h a t r e a l l y d o e s n' t h a v e m u c h b e a r i n g o n t h e c a s e at a l l?

17   Y o u c a n s t i l l c o n s i d e r i t , b u t it h a s o n l y a v e r y r e m o t e

18   p u r c h a s e w h i c h i s, d i d i t g i v e us n o t i c e o f s o m e t h i n g s p e c i a l

19   a b o u t v e r m i c u l i t e?    And was it still there at the end of the

20   d a y?    But the fact that people were exposed to those piles back

21   i n t h e '4 0 s , ' 5 0 s, a n d ' 6 0 s, t h a t p e o p l e r a n on t h e t r a c k s , h o w

22   many times were you told that that's not what this case is

23   about?

24                      W h y, i f y o u h a v e t o p a y a t t e n t i o n t o t h a t

25   i n s t r u c t i o n as y o u s h o u l d , w h y c a n ' t M r . C a s s i d y p a y a t t e n t i o n
                                                                                                         7765


1    to that instruction?                He doesn't want to.                  H e d o e s n' t w a n t t o.

2    T h e y d o n' t w a n t t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h e t r u t h i n t h i s c a s e .

3                      N o w, a n a p o l o g y w a s m a d e b y M r . M c L e a n t h i s m o r n i n g.

4    A very specific apology.                   He s a i d I a p o l o g i z e b e c a u s e t h e s e

5    e-mails were not produced.                    And you know what?                It kind of

6    created a speed bump during this trial.

7                      W h a t d o e s t h a t a p o l o g y m e a n h e r e?     W e' r e n o t h e r e to

8    revisit whether it took some time out from the trial.                                      We ' r e

9    here to decide, you are here to decide, based upon the record

10   and the evidence in this case, what the facts are and what

11   should happen to these charges.                        Mr. McLean's apology doesn't

12   solve the taint that has come into the record of this case, and

13   it goes way beyond the e-mails, as we will explore and you

14   already know.

15                     The taint, the misconduct.                       What the Government has

16   done here is to systematically present a case that is tainted

17   a n d o n e -s i d e d.   A n d h i s a p o l o g y d o e s n' t m a k e t h a t go a w a y .         You

18   inherit the wind of their misconduct.                              You inherit what they

19   have done here.             A n d t h e n t h i n k o f t h e p e o p l e w h o a r e o ve r b a c k

20   here who are sitting waiting on your judgment, wondering how is

21   it going to happen?                W h a t is g o i n g t o h a p p e n w i t h h o w t h e

22   r e c o r d h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d in t h i s c a s e ?

23                     V e r y i n t e r e s t i n g l y , I d i d n 't h e a r - - I d o n 't t h i n k M r.

24   M c L e a n e v e n t u r n e d t o a d d r e s s t h e d e f e n s e.     I don't think Mr.

25   McLean made any apology to the defense.                             Indeed, the Government
                                                                                                           7766


1    never has.           That was only for your benefit, and not really for

2    t h e b e n e f i t of w h a t y o u h a v e t o d o .        I t w a s t o s a y , o k a y,

3    t h e r e ' s n o w an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t s a y s h e r e' s w h a t ' s g o i n g o n .        I

4    guess I ought to say something.

5                        The fact of the matter is that this case is about a

6    wrong.        Mr. McLean says a horrible wrong.                         But a wrong really

7    to whom?           You are going to have to answer that question.                                You

8    are going to have to ask yourself whether the really true

9    apology would have been to drop a case that does not have merit

10   and that is tainted by misconduct.                           T h a t 's t h e r e a l a p o l o g y

11   that should have been done.                      T h a t a p o l o g y h a s n e v e r, e v e r b e e n

12   given.        And the apology that was uttered this morning is false

13   and it's disingenuous.

14                       T h e s c r i p t , t h e r e m a r k s , t h e c o n t i n u o u s t a p e of t h e

15   same documents, the continuous references to the piles, to

16   k i d s , t o k i d s, t o k i d s, t o k i d s .        Where does that script come

17   from?       That's what I'm going to talk about first is where that

18   s c r i p t c o m e s f r o m.

19                       One of the pieces of the puzzle was put in place

20   yesterday.           A n d y o u m a y h a v e b e e n w o nd e r i n g , w h y a r e w e

21   d r a g g i n g p o o r M r . P e r o n a r d b a c k t o t h e s t a n d to p i c k o n h i m

22   some more?           Ap a r t f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t I t h i n k he l i k e s t h e

23   e x c h a n g e.    I d o n 't k n o w t h a t h e 's a l w a y s r e s p o n s i v e, b u t h e ' s

24   in there batting and batting, and that's fine.                                  Y o u k n o w, h e 's

25   that kind of guy.
                                                                                                         7767


1                      But we saw a critical piece of the puzzle come into

2    p l a c e a n d t h a t ' s w h y I' v e g o t a c h a r t b a c k h e r e t o s h o w y o u .

3    W e 'v e g o t a b u n c h o f c h a r t s h e r e, o k a y .        But that's not a free

4    show.      Y o u h a v e t o p i c k u p a n d y o u ' v e g o t t o - -I ' v e g o t

5    s o m e - - w e' l l g i v e y o u e x h i b i t n u m b e r s , t o o.   We know how to do

6    that, too.          We ' l l e v e n g i v e y o u c i t e s o f t e s t i m o n y .     They only

7    told you about exhibits.                    We ' l l e v e n g i v e y o u t e s t i m o n y .     Of

8    all things, you should know and go back and think about the

9    testimony.          Perish the thought.

10                     N o w, o n e o f t h e p i e c e s o f t h e p u z z l e t h a t c a m e i n

11   p l a c e g o e s b a c k - -a n d y o u k n o w t h a t u s u a l l y - - u s u a l l y I g i v e y o u

12   t h e s e c h a r t s a n d t h e y g o b a c k t o 1 9 7 6.       So why is this one

13   short?       B e c a u s e t h e r e a l o r i g i n s o f t h i s c a s e d o n ' t g o b a c k to

14   the so-called conspiracy at all.                         The origins of this case

15   d o n' t g o b a c k t o -- t h i s c a s e w a s n' t b r o u g h t b e c a u s e p e o p l e k i n d

16   of really were ticked off about what happened in the 1980s and

17   it took them 25 years to file a case.                             That's not why this is

18   here.      People aren't here because the properties were sold in

19   t h e 1 9 9 0s , o p e n a n d o b v i o u s a n d k i n d o f , g e e s , g e t t i n g a r o u n d

20   about time to file a criminal charge in 2005.

21                     This case is a direct consequence of the press

22   articles that came out in late 1999.                            That's what happened.

23   Prior to that time the mine had been closed for years.                                           Grace

24   had been gone for years.                    Everybody was off doing their own

25   business and the articles came out.
                                                                                                        7768


1                      And they were dramatic articles and they created

2    tremendous concern.                A lot of it was kind of rehashing.                          You

3    d o n' t e v e n k n o w w h a t t h e y a r e .       Rehashing investigative

4    r e p o r t i n g , w e' l l l e a v e i t at t h a t .     You don't have the evidence

5    before you what those articles said, except you've heard again

6    and again they played a role.

7                      So what happened?                W h a t h a p p e n e d i s E P A c a m e to t o w n

8    a n d t h e y d i d w h a t t h e y w e r e s u p p o s e d t o d o.       They conducted a

9    risk investigation.                They created a standard for what they had

10   to find.        I f t h e y f o u n d r i s k i n t h e a r e a o f 1 i n 1 ,0 0 0 , b e t w e e n

11   1 in 1 0 ,0 0 0 a n d 1 i n 1, 0 0 0 , t i m e t o t a k e a c t i o n .           1 i n 1, 0 0 0 , 1

12   i n 1 0 , 0 0 0 , w e' l l c o m e b a c k t o t h a t .

13                     But they did that investigation.                         They also did a

14   historical investigation and what they found was, surprise of

15   s u r p r i s e s , t h e r e r e a l l y w a s n ' t a l l t h a t m u c h to b e c o n c e r n e d

16   about.       There were a couple properties where there was

17   o b v i o u s l y c o n c e n t r a t e t h a t w a s on t h e p r e m i s e s a n d s h o u l d b e

18   r e m o v e d , b u t n o n e o f t h e i r d a t a s a i d t h a t t h e r e w a s a p r o b l e m.

19   T h e a m b i e n t a i r s a i d no p r o b l e m .      And even when they ran their

20   a c t i v i t y- b a s e d s a m p l e s, t h e i r s i m u l a t i o n s, t o s e e if t h e y c o u l d

21   g e t t h e d u s t s t i r r e d up , t h e y s t i l l d i d n 't e v e n c o m e a c r o s s t h e

22   threshold of even 1 in 10,000 risk.

23                     So that was fine.                They gave the public some

24   a s s u r a n c e a n d t h e y s t a r t e d t o c l e a n up t h e p r o p e r t i e s .   It

25   l o o k s l i k e i t' s n o t g o i n g to b e t h a t b i g a d e a l , w h i c h is g o o d
                                                                                                          7769


1    news.       Good news.

2                       T h e d i f f i c u l t y w a s t h a t i t w a s n 't t h a t e a s y t o w a l k

3    a w a y f r o m t h i s p r o c e s s.        There was enormous pressure to do

4    something.           Y o u ' v e g o t a w h o l e c o m m u n i t y t h a t 's b e e n t o l d

5    people are going to die.                       T h e y a r e d y i n g a n d t h e y a r e g o i n g to

6    d i e i n t h e f u t u r e.          Something had to be done.                 What do you do

7    about that?

8                       Well, the obvious answer is that if there really is

9    a p r o b l e m , y o u c l e a n it u p .          But what if it turns out that the

10   s c i e n c e d o e s n' t s a y t h a t t h e r e ' s s u c h a b i g p r o b l e m?       Maybe not

11   a problem at all.                    H o w c a n y o u go d o a c l e a n u p w h e n t h e r e i s n o

12   r e a s o n to d o t h e c l e a nu p ?          And under the EPA's procedures, you

13   d o n' t j u s t d o a c l e a n up .          S o m e b o d y h a s g o t t o p a y f o r i t.

14                      And to get the authorization to pay, you heard this

15   f r o m D r . M i l l e r , s o m e o n e ' s g o t to m a k e s o m e k i n d o f f i n d i n g

16   t h a t i t 's n e c e s s a r y t o d o t h e c l e a n u p.       W e l l , i f y o u d o n' t h a v e

17   t h e s c i e n c e to s a y t h a t i t 's n e c e s s a r y a n d y o u' v e g o t t o d o t h e

18   c l e a n u p , w e l l, w h a t a r e y o u g o i n g t o d o ?       W e l l, y o u c a n d o s o m e

19   s h o r t - t e r m t h i n g s, t h e e m e r g e n c y r e m o v a l , b u t y o u d o n ' t r e a l l y

20   have a justification for going out and doing a lot of

21   b i g- p i c t u r e t h i n g s .

22                      So the EPA is already in the crosshairs.                               How do

23   they satisfy this pressure, the desire, the fear that drives

24   what's going on?                W e l l, n o t s o e a s y to a n s w e r t h a t q u e s t i o n .

25   B u t t h e k e y t h i n g t h a t y o u l e a r n e d y e s t e r d a y is t h a t w a s n o t
                                                                                                             7770


1    the full extent of the problem.

2                       I w a n t to s h o w S l i d e 1 9 4 .         Okay.        And if we could

3    just highlight right here.                       This is the draft press statement

4    t h a t w a s p u t t o g e t h e r b y M r. P e r o n a r d a n d i t f o l l o w e d o n- - t h i s

5    is May and June of 2000, and it follows on a news report saying

6    t h a t E P A- - E P A k n e w t h a t d e a d l y a s b e s t o s f i b e r s w e r e k i l l i n g

7    p e o p l e in L i b b y , M o n t a n a 1 5 y e a r s b e f o r e i t t o o k a c t i o n .

8                       Whoa.        P r e t t y s e r i o u s s t a t e m e n t , t h a t.   Now EPA is

9    really under the gun.                    That they could have prevented all of

10   this?       J u s t as t h e y a r e s t a r t i n g t o d e v e l o p a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h

11   t h e t o w n a n d b e a b l e to s a y t h a t t h e y a r e g o i n g t o c l e a n i t up ,

12   n o w i t t u r n s o u t i t ' s a l l t h e i r f a u l t.          If they had done

13   s o m e t h i n g , t h e w o r l d w o u l d h a v e b e e n d i f f e r e n t.

14                      E P A' s g o t a b i g p r o b l e m n o w, h u g e p r o b l e m n o w , a n d

15   t h e y c o u l d n ' t t a k e t h e h e a t.       A s t o u g h a s M r . P e r o n a r d is , h e

16   c o u l d n ' t t a k e t h e h e a t.      And we know how this developed from

17   this very same document.                      If w e s c r o l l d o w n .      First of all--I

18   want to do these two paragraphs.

19                      H e , f i r s t o f a l l , s a y s, w e l l , a l o t of t h e r e p o r t s

20   that have come out are wrong.                         The data that you see in the

21   p a p e r s is - - s h o c k i n g l y , i t ' s w r o n g .   It t u r n s o u t t o b e f a l s e

22   and he clarifies that.

23                      N o n e t h e l e s s - -a n d t h i s i s k e y - - i n r e t r o s p e c t E P A

24   c o u l d h a v e d o n e m o r e to f o l l o w up o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t

25   n o nw o r k e r s w e r e b e i n g e x p o s e d t o u n s a f e l e v e l s o f a s b e s t o s .     We
                                                                                                        7771


1    cannot change that.                Last November we learned through news

2    stories of asbestos-related deaths and disease among Libby

3    p e o p l e w h o h a d n o t w o r k e d in t h e i n d u s t r y.       That meant

4    exposures were not limited to the worker population and the

5    broader community could be at risk.                           EPA immediately mounted an

6    emergency response and had people on the ground in Libby within

7    three days.

8                      T w o t h i n g s a r e g o i n g on :      Number one, 1985, that was

9    d i f f e r e n t f o l k s a t E P A.    Maybe they should have, with

10   retrospect, done something else.                         A n d b y t h e w a y , we ' r e g u n n i n g

11   o n t h a t c l e a nu p .    S o f o l k s a t E P A R e g i o n 8 c o m i n g on t h e s c e n e

12   were prepared to cut themselves a little distance from the

13   folks in the past to take themselves out of the crosshairs and

14   b e t h e g o o d g u y s w h o w e r e g o i n g t o c l e a n u p t h e p r o p e r t y, t h e

15   town.

16                     I f y o u go d o w n a n o t h e r p a r a g r a p h, i t t a l k s m o r e

17   a b o u t w h a t ' s b e i n g d o n e , w h a t ' s b e i n g d o n e , w h a t ' s b e i n g d o n e.

18                     N o w, t h i s d i d n ' t g o o v e r p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l w i t h t h e

19   p e o p l e b a c k at h e a d q u a r t e r s w h o w e r e a c t u a l l y t h e f o l k s t h a t

20   d i d k n o w t h a t- - t h e f o l k s t h a t w e r e a w a r e o f w h a t h a p p e n e d b a c k

21   in the 1980s.            And so we see Mr. Melone.                    You heard yesterday

22   this controversy between Peronard and Melone.                                  We didn't have a

23   c h a n c e to g o t h r o u g h t h e e -m a i l s.       I 'm j u s t g o i n g to s h o w y o u a

24   couple.

25                     L e t' s l o o k a t S l i d e 6 1 6 .      You know, there is
                                                                                                        7772


1    s o m e t h i n g w h i c h n e e d s t o b e s a i d a b o u t h o w l o w i t is f o r o n e

2    part of the agency to be pointing fingers at another.                                       Region 8

3    needs to get off that tack all together.

4                       T h e y s e e w h a t' s g o i n g o n .       What about all the

5    a l a r m i s m?   Let's take Slide 611.                   Could you blow that up a

6    little bit?

7                       P e o p l e in R e g i o n 8 w e r e c o m m e n t i n g o n s o m e o f t h e

8    o l d d a t a a n d M r . M e l o n e i s s a y i n g , n o, w a i t a m i n u t e , m y p o i n t

9    i n p r e s e n t i n g t h e t a b l e i s t h a t t h e v a l u e o f 9. 7 i s a l a r m i s t

10   when taken out of context.                       S o u n d f a m i l i a r?

11                      All the documents you saw with the high numbers

12   s a y i n g , o o h , t h o s e a r e h i g h.      R e m e m b e r a l o t of t h e m , i n d e e d

13   most of them, indeed probably all of them at some point or

14   a n o t h e r , a l o t o f t h e h i g h o n e s d i d n 't s h o w y o u t h e

15   time-weighted average, which is the key.                                 Y o u c a n g e t a s p i k e;

16   but to find out if there is a chronic problem, you have to do a

17   time-weighted average and the numbers come down.

18                      Well, that's what you saw right from the stand and

19   y o u s a w t h e G o v e r n m e n t d o it a g a i n a n d a g a i n a n d a g a i n .       W e l l,

20   t h a t ' s e x a c t l y w h a t M r. P e r o n a r d w a s d o i n g b a c k i n 2 0 0 0 .     He

21   s a i d - - a n d M e l o n e c a l l s h i m o n i t.       He says you are taking that

22   out of context.             O n e h a s t o c o n v e r t t h e n u m b e r t o t h e 8 -h o u r

23   TWA methodology in order to make a comparison with the PEL of 2

24   f i b e r s p e r c c.

25                      Sound familiar?
                                                                                                         7773


1                      Only the No. 2 operator values appear to be above

2    the PEL.

3                      S o t h e r e i s an i s s u e .        I t ' s a s l i g h t i s s u e.    It ' s a

4    small issue.           I t 's n o t s o m e t h i n g t o be a l a r m i s t a b o u t .      So

5    M e l o n e is p u s h i n g b a c k.

6                      N o w, M r . P e r o n a r d s a i d t h a t u l t i m a t e l y t h i s m a t t e r

7    b e c a m e r e s o l v e d a n d t h a t w e w e n t o n a n d o n a n d o n a n d o n.           But

8    in point of fact, the tension is there.                              What these documents

9    s h o w - - I 'm n o t b e i n g c r i t i c a l o f M r . P e r o n a r d .   I want to be

10   v e r y c l e a r w e a r e n o t h e r e t o r e v i s i t t h e e v e n t s o f t h e c l e a nu p

11   a n d I ' m g o i n g t o m a k e t h i s e x p l i c i t as w e g o a l o n g .

12                     But what this tells you is the dynamic, the pressure

13   t h a t w a s o u t t h e r e a s t h i s c l e a nu p d e v e l o p e d to f i n d a s o l u t i o n

14   to the EPA's problem.                   A n d t h e s o l u t i o n t h a t w a s d e v e l o p e d , we

15   see it right here in the document, A, you distance yourself

16   from the past and who was where and what they knew back at the

17   time.

18                     T w o, y o u c l e a n u p L i b b y a n d y o u r e a l l y c l e a n up

19   Libby from stem to stern.                     Y o u t a k e a l o o k a t a l l of t h e h o m e s .

20   I t i s a m a s s i v e , h u g e c l e a nu p .

21                     A n d t h e n, o f c o u r s e , y o u k n o w t h e f i n a l r e s u l t.        Who

22   picks up the tab?               W e l l , t h e r e ' s o n e c o m p a n y t h a t is c e r t a i n l y

23   going to have to pick up the tab and it's a good idea if we

24   make them do it, and that's W.R. Grace.                              A n d , t h e r e f o r e , i t is

25   not surprising that as this year progresses we can see the
                                                                                                          7774


1    d e v e l o p m e n t s t h a t w e ' re l a t e r g o i n g to t a l k a b o u t as c o m p r i s i n g

2    the basis for some of the charges.

3                       We get the 104(e) request.                     That came out in

4    F e b r u a r y, b u t w e g o t no q u a r t e r .        Produce 2.5 million pages,

5    answer these questions right today based upon your

6    recollection.             We got jammed.              We c o m p l i e d.

7                       Access.         A lot of negotiations about access.                            They

8    a r e a n e g o t i a t i o n.     T h e r e a r e t w o s i d e s t o a n e g o t i a t i o n.

9    W e 'r e g o i n g to t a l k a b o u t t h a t in a m i n u t e .             But those

10   d i s c u s s i o n s b r e a k d o w n.      T h e y s u e u s i n co u r t a n d we l o s e .

11                      C l e a n u p c o s t s.      We lose again.             It becomes a

12   contested, hard-edged relationship.                            And the EPA has broad,

13   broad powers.             They have legally recognized powers and they

14   w i n.    I w a s n 't t h e r e f o r t h o s e e v e n t s b u t y o u h e a r d f r o m M r .

15   C o r c o r a n w h a t t h i s d i d.        It was devastating.               And what Grace

16   basically woke up to was, you know what, we got--after the

17   fact, we had the wrong strategy.                           We completely underestimated

18   the legal authority of the EPA and we have lost.

19                      So what comes out of this little lesson here, this

20   first part, this first five years of the account?                                       One, there

21   was a massive cleanup at Grace's expense.                                   T w o, i s t h a t G r a c e

22   litigated and lost and did so repeatedly.

23                      N o w, a r e w e h e r e t o s a y , w e l l , g e e , we ' r e k i n d o f

24   u n h a p p y a b o u t t h a t a n d b e c a u s e we ' r e u n h a p p y a b o u t t h e c r i m i n a l

25   prosecution, we're going to share with you our unhappiness
                                                                                                          7775


1    a b o u t t h e c l e a n u p?   N o.    I t i s w h a t it i s.         W e l o s t.     We lost

2    u n d e r t h e l a w a n d w e h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t a n d , t h e r e f o r e, w h e n

3    w e t a l k a b o u t w h a t t h e E P A d i d d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e w h i l e

4    w e -- I c a n ' t k e e p o u t of m y t h o u g h t s a n d m y c l i e n t c a n ' t k e e p

5    out of their thoughts the fact that they got pushed against the

6    wall and they really took a hit.                        That's not going to be

7    r e s o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e a n d we a r e n o t h e r e t o c r i t i c i z e t h e E P A

8    f o r a n y t h i n g t h a t t h e y d i d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s c l e a nu p .

9    W e 'r e n o t h e r e t o c r i t i c i z e M r . P e r o n a r d .    W e 'r e n o t h e r e t o

10   criticize what those people did and why.                               And this is really

11   the key here.

12                     T h e r e a s o n i s, t h a t i t' s n o t t h e E P A t h a t b r o u g h t

13   t h e c a s e.    I t' s t h e J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t t h a t b r o u g h t t h e c a s e .

14   E P A c a n 't b r i n g a l a w s u i t .    It's counsel to the Government who

15   brings the lawsuit, who brings the charges, that goes before a

16   Grand Jury, obtains the Indictment and obtains the charges in

17   this case.

18                     It is they who have to make the ultimate judgment

19   i s , w e l l, a p a r t f r o m a l l t h e a c r i m o n y a n d t h e f r i c t i o n in t h e

20   regulatory context, is this a legal case as opposed to a

21   regulatory dispute?               A politically driven regulatory dispute.

22   Does the law say that these charges are proper charges that

23   s h o u l d be b r o u g h t u n d e r w h a t Y o u r H o n o r h a s - - t h e C o u r t h a s s a i d

24   and has properly described as the coercive power of the

25   prosecutor's office.                T h a t i s a n a b s o l u t e l y c e n t r a l, v i t a l
                                                                                                        7776


1    j u d g m e n t t h a t h a s t o be m a d e .       T h e y a r e t h e o n e s t h a t m a k e i t.

2    They are the ones that are accountable for it, not the EPA.                                              It

3    i s t h e y w h o a r e a c c o u n t a b l e f o r t h e d e c i s i o n t h a t w a s b r o u g h t.

4                       S o w h a t d o e s a l l t h i s t h e n m e a n f o r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n?

5    W e l l , w e k n o w t h a t t h e E P A w a s in c o n t r o l o f e v e r y t h i n g d u r i n g

6    t h i s p e r i o d of t i m e .     They controlled the record.                     They

7    c o n t r o l l e d a l l t h e e v i d e n c e.   How the samples were gathered.

8    T h e y c o n t r o l l e d e v e r y t h i n g a n d p r o p e r l y s o.

9                       And they also controlled the story that emerged from

10   this process because they were players in that story and they

11   wrote all the documents and they interacted with us and they

12   c o u l d m a k e t h e s t o r y of w h a t h a p p e n e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

13   cleanup.         They could make that story, not completely without

14   restraint, but largely without restraint.

15                      What did the Government do when they indicted this

16   case?       Pretty simple.             They took an easy path.                  They copied the

17   story.       They copied the story.                    With all the curlicues, all the

18   passion, all the history, all of the interactions, they copied

19   the story and all they did was change the titles.                                    T h e y d i d n 't

20   c h a n g e t h e s c r i p t.     They changed the titles.

21                      And what were the titles that they came up with?

22   E P A' s r a t i o n a l e f o r a c l e a nu p ; t h a t is , t h e y d e c l a r e d i m m i n e n t

23   d a n g e r , i m m i n e n t h a z a r d b e c a u s e t h a t 's t h e w a y t h e y g e t m o n e y

24   to clean up.            That now becomes not the basis for getting money,

25   not a request for money, it becomes the basis for a criminal
                                                                                                             7777


1    endangerment charge.

2                       So they take the text, they take all the same kind

3    of arguments, all of the same arguments, indeed the same words

4    and the same language, and they just change the title from

5    request for funds to criminal charge for criminal endangerment.

6    Pretty slick.

7                       G r a c e ' s o p e n d i s a g r e e m e n t s , 1 0 4 (e ) .   H o w t h e h e l l do

8    you answer that question?                      Excuse me.

9                       Access.         W e ' re o b j e c t i n g t o a c c e s s .

10                      Public health emergency for ZAI.                            W e d o n 't t h i n k

11   that should happen.                 Mine tour from Alan Stringer.                         All those

12   events.        They lived those events with us and they take all of

13   t h o s e i n t e r a c t i o n s t h a t a l l w e r e, y o u k n o w , j u s t - - it ' s l i k e y o u

14   go through your life and you deal with somebody and you have a

15   relationship.            And it may not be the best relationship but who

16   would ever think that that relationship later, however

17   a c r i m o n i o u s it m i g h t be , i s t h e r e t h e n t u r n e d b y t h e o t h e r s i d e

18   working with the Government to say that was all criminal and we

19   want to throw you in jail.                         W e w a n t to f i n e y o u .     Think of

20   that.       That's exactly what they did.                         They turned all of these

21   things into corruption charges and obstruction charges.                                          Great

22   n e w l a b e l s , d i f f e r e n t s t o r y.

23                      A n d i n so d o i n g , w h a t d i d t h e y do ?              What did they

24   show by their conduct?                   They showed that they cared a lot about

25   Libby, just like the EPA cared a lot about Libby.                                       T h e y h a d an
                                                                                                            7778


1    a l l e g i a n c e t o L i b b y a n d i t 's b e e n p a l p a b l e i n t h i s c a s e .         The

2    p e o p l e w h o h a v e c o m e h e r e , t h e p e o p l e w h o h a v e t e s t i f i e d, t h e

3    s o m b e r t o n e s o f M r. C a s s i d y t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e t o l l o f L i b b y .

4                       But their allegiance was to Libby.                             It w a s n o t t o

5    the law.         A n d i t 's t o t h e l a w t h a t t h e y h a d t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n .

6    A n d i t ' s t h e l a w t h a t y o u h a v e to a p p l y h e r e .           It's not we are

7    here for Libby.              It's we are here for the law.                         And that

8    f u n d a m e n t a l m i s j u d g m e n t , t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l f a i l u r e to d o t h e i r

9    j o b i s w h a t b r i n g s u s h e r e t o d a y.

10                      The decision to take this history, transform the

11   labels, transform the conduct, and take it home to Grace and

12   take it home to these individual Defendants, that's the problem

13   of this case.             A n d , t h e r e f o r e , w h e n Mr . C a s s i d y s t a n d s up o r

14   Mr. McLean stands up and they make all the arguments that

15   y o u' v e h e a r d a n d t h e y u s e t h e f a v o r i t e d o c u m e n t s , a l l t h e

16   d o c u m e n t s t h a t w e r e p u l l e d o u t by t h e E P A p e o p l e f r o m t h e

17   2 . 5 m i l l i o n p a g e s- - t h a t ' s w h e r e t h e y a l l c a m e f r o m .      The

18   w i t n e s s e s w h o t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e E P A , t h a t' s w h e r e t h e y a l l c a m e

19   from.       What has happened here?                    They have taken a story.                      I t 's

20   a p o l i t i c a l s t o r y.    T h e y h a v e c r i m i n a l i z e d i t a n d t h e y w a n t to

21   bring it home to you and make it stick out of allegiance to

22   Libby and to the cause that was so important for so many years.

23                      N o w, I c o u l d s p e n d t h e r e s t o f t h e a f t e r n o o n , o r m y

24   t i m e w h i c h i s, G o d b l e s s , m o r e l i m i t e d t h a n t h e a f t e r n o o n .        I

25   c o u l d s p e n d t h e r e s t of m y t i m e t a l k i n g a b o u t c r e d i b i l i t y a n d
                                                                                                        7779


1    it would be a worthwhile discussion.                          But I want to bring

2    another element to bear here.                     It ' s c a l l e d c r i m i n a l i t y , w h i c h

3    turns on the law and the jury, what they find.

4                      And why do I say that?                 I s a y t h a t b e c a u s e I ' ll

5    actually spend more time this afternoon talking about that than

6    talking about credibility, than talking about the misconduct of

7    the Government.            A l t h o u g h it ' s v e r y h a r d t o a v o i d b e c a u s e i t 's

8    pervasive.

9                      And the reason I want to talk about criminality,

10   t h a t i s t h e e v i d e n c e in t h e c a s e a n d w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s in f a c t

11   a crime, is that it's never been and is not now our agenda or

12   the way that we pursued this case to seek an excuse in the

13   Government's misconduct and mishaps.                          W e 'r e n o t l o o k i n g f o r a

14   way out.        W e 'r e l o o k i n g t o h a v e y o u a l l d e c i d e t h i s c a s e o n t h e

15   merits.       A l s o o n t h e b a s i s o f c r e d i b i l i t y, b u t w e w a n t y o u t o

16   look at the merits, too, as I know that you will.

17                     And the reason I say that and the reason that you

18   k n o w i t 's t r u e w h e n I s a y it , i s i f y o u t a k e a l o o k a t t h e w a y

19   t h a t t h i s c a s e h a s b e e n d e f e n d e d, w e h a v e n e v e r b e e n c o n t e n t

20   with the idea of just picking on the Government's evidence.

21   W e 'v e n e v e r s i m p l y s a i d , O h, t h a t ' s w r o n g, y o u d i d n' t p r o v e

22   that.

23                     I n f a c t , w h a t y o u' v e s e e n h e r e c o n s i s t e n t l y , we h a v e

24   brought out the evidence on cross-examination.                                 On

25   cross-examination we have tried at all points to take off the
                                                                                                              7780


1    n a r r o w v i e w of t h e p r o s e c u t i o n .       Not to simply say, oh, well,

2    that's not enough or that's not enough or got doubt about that,

3    b u t t o s a y l e t ' s t e l l t h e w h o l e s t o r y.        And you've seen that in

4    e a c h a n d e v e r y w i t n e s s, w e 'v e s o u g h t t o b r i n g o u t t h e w h o l e

5    story.

6                       B e c a u s e w e b e l i e v e , a l l t h e D e f e n d a n t s b e l i e v e, t h a t

7    on the facts the truth of the matter is that they are innocent.

8    Not simply that the Government has messed up here and

9    misbehaved.              But these are innocent people.                      The people at

10   Grace and the individual Defendants are innocent people and the

11   Government is flat wrong in bringing the kinds of charges that

12   i t 's b r o u g h t .

13                      A n d w h a t t h a t' s a c t u a l l y p r o d u c e d i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g

14   a n d i m p o r t a n t i s s u e , an i n s t r u c t i o n f r o m t h e C o u r t t h a t w e w a n t

15   y o u t o b e a r in m i n d .       Pay attention.              So we've got the trays

16   here, right?              And the balance of justice.                     I t 's n o t t o o b a d .

17   We really have been here too long.

18                      So what the Court told you at the outset is that the

19   Government puts in their evidence.                            T h a t 's t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s

20   e v i d e n c e.   And even if the defense says nothing, even if the

21   defense says nothing, the Government still has to establish

22   that that evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a

23   reasonable doubt.               R e m e m b e r t h a t?     T h e r e d o e s n' t h a v e t o b e

24   anything over there.                 I t c o u l d be j u s t t h i s , b u t t h a t ' s n o t

25   enough because the quality of the evidence or the sufficiency
                                                                                                            7781


1    of the evidence is not there.

2                       B u t w e h a v e n 't t r i e d t h a t c a s e .       T h a t' s n o t t h e c a s e

3    t h a t ' s b e f o r e y o u.      The case that's before you is the defense

4    p u t o n i t s e v i d e n c e o n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n a n d in i t s o w n c a s e .

5    W e d i d n 't j u s t s a y n o t e n o u g h .       W e s a i d w e t h i n k w e' v e g o t t h e

6    truth here.            L e t t h e t r u t h b e k n o w n a n d s e t u s f r e e.

7                       S o n o w t h e q u e s t i o n i s, w e l l , h o w a r e y o u a s j u r o r s

8    supposed to deal with this situation?                              Well, there is actually

9    an instruction.               It's Instruction No. 2.                   I f we c o u l d j u s t s h o w

10   that to the jury here.                    And I highlighted it.

11                      It says, The Government has the burden of proving

12   every element of every charge as to each defendant beyond a

13   reasonable doubt.                  S o f a r so g o o d .     It ' s t h e s a m e t h i n g y o u

14   heard before.

15                      But it says something else.                       It says, When there is

16   a n i n n o c e n t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n d u c t, a s w e l l a s

17   one that suggests that the defendant was engaged in wrongdoing,

18   t h e G o v e r n m e n t m u s t p r o v e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t- - p r o d u c e

19   p r o o f b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e l a t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n is

20   the correct one.

21                      So not only does the Government have to prove its

22   c a s e b e yo n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , b u t t h e y h a v e t o p r o v e b e y o n d a

23   reasonable doubt that our evidence is wrong, that their

24   e v i d e n c e p r e v a i l s.

25                      S o w h e n e v e r y o u h e a r t h e G o v e r n m e n t or w h e n e v e r y o u
                                                                                                           7782


1    look at the documents and the evidence, you say, well, what

2    a b o u t t h e o b s t r u c t i o n c o u n t?     Well, what about the conspiracy

3    count?

4                       W h e n e v e r y o u s e e a n a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n w h i c h we

5    h a v e p r o v i d e d y o u a n d I w i l l g o t h r o u g h , y o u h a v e to a s k n o t

6    only whether the Government submitted proof, but did the

7    Government account for our proofs and say beyond a reasonable

8    doubt that's all wet?                    T h a t' s a s u b s t a n t i a l b u r d e n .   T h e y c a n' t

9    just talk about their evidence.                           They have to say that our

10   e v i d e n c e i s w r o n g a n d t h e r e' s n o r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a b o u t i t .

11                      Every time you go through these charges you think

12   about that standard of proof.                         A n d I 'v e t r i e d t o - - I' l l p r o b a b l y

13   s a y i t a g a i n a s w e g o t h r o u g h i t, b u t d o y o u s e e h o w i m p o r t a n t

14   that is, that this case considers all of the evidence.                                          And

15   their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt applies to

16   all of the evidence.                 Not just their evidence, our evidence,

17   our alternative explanations.                         A n d t h a t ' s b e c a u s e of t h e w a y

18   this case has been tried.

19                      So we can now go through the charges in the case and

20   I'm going to do my best to cover them all and I'm going to do

21   i t i n t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e s o t h a t m y co - D e f e n d a n t s ' c o u n s e l c a n

22   stand up and also address you and my voice can also hold out.

23                      I'm going to begin with the obstruction count and

24   k i n d o f w o r k b a c k w a r d s.      Remember with the obstruction count,

25   t h e f i r s t t w o c o u n t s I' m g o i n g to d e a l w i t h a r e t h e o b s t r u c t i o n
                                                                                                           7783


1    c h a r g e s -- t h e r e ' s m o r e t h a n o n e - -a n d t h e n t h e e n d a n g e r m e n t

2    charges.           I n e a c h c a s e- - r e m e m b e r t h a t b a l a n c e b e t w e e n o u r

3    e v i d e n c e a n d t h e i r e v i d e n c e.

4                        So we had open disagreements.                        If w e 'r e r i g h t t h a t

5    there were open disagreements, can they prove their case at

6    a l l?    C a n t h e y d o i t at a l l?

7                        T h e y h a v e a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e c l e a n u p.       That's their

8    e v i d e n c e.    I s i t s u f f i c i e n t?     B u t , b u t , b u t , we h a d e v i d e n c e .

9    W e p r e s e n t e d w h a t w e t h i n k i s t h e t r u e s c i e n c e t h a t r e l a t e s to

10   risk.       So t h e y n o t o n l y h a v e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e i r s c i e n c e w a s

11   g o o d e n o u g h , t h e y h a v e t o d i s p r o v e o u r s c i e n c e.       S o a s we g o

12   t h r o u g h e a c h o n e o f t h e s e , w e ' r e g o i n g t o s h o w y o u b o t h s i d e s,

13   both sides.

14                       S o , T . J ., i f y o u c o u l d p u t u p a n o t h e r c h a r t ; a n d

15   these will go more quickly than the last one.

16                       Let me talk about the obstruction charge.

17   O b s t r u c t i o n c h a r g e , a n d y o u' l l s e e I n s t r u c t i o n N o . 5 0 , w h i c h

18   I ' ll n o t a s k T . J . t o c a l l up b e c a u s e h e c a n ' t d o t w o t h i n g s at

19   o n c e , t u r n s on a v e r y i m p o r t a n t t e r m .

20                       O b s t r u c t i o n is n o t s i m p l y to m a k e t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s

21   life more difficult.                   T h e k e y t e r m o f o b s t r u c t i o n is

22   corruption.             Obstruction is an act of corruption.                             It is

23   corrupt conduct.                M e a n s a c t i n g w i t h an i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e ,

24   personally or by influencing another, including making a false

25   or misleading statement or withholding, concealing, altering,
                                                                                                            7784


1    or destroying a document or other information.

2                       It is not only the acts which are misleading, false

3    s t a t e m e n t s , d e s t r u c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n , i t i s t h e i n t e n t.    It

4    i s c o r r u p t i n t e n t.       It is improper purpose.                  An i m p r o p e r

5    purpose.

6                       If your purpose is not improper, it's not like every

7    time the Government has a hard time dealing with you they can

8    file an obstruction charge.                       T h a t ' s w r o n g.    You have to be

9    perverting or undercutting the functioning of the Government in

10   t h i s w a y.     T h a t h a s t o b e - -i t h a s t o b e a p u r p o s e t h a t is l i k e

11   that purpose.

12                      So this is not a civil case where if you said

13   something wrong to somebody and they lost money you could well

14   have to pay, even if you didn't mean to mislead them, because

15   you maybe breached a warranty or something like this.

16                      I t 's r e a l l y t h e f r o n t e n d of t h i s t h a t c o u n t s .          I t 's

17   the purpose, it's the goal, it's the activity that you engage

18   i n , a s w e l l as w h e t h e r i t a c t u a l l y w a s p r o v e n a t t h e e n d o f t h e

19   d a y t o be w r o n g i n t h e s e n s e o f f a l s e o r i n c o r r e c t .

20                      So we have basically four obstruction or corruption

21   charges.          W e , f i r s t o f a l l , h a v e t h e m i n e t o u r.         This just

22   i l l u s t r a t e s h o w , i n a s e n s e, p e r v e r s e t h i s k i n d o f

23   c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n i s.    Mr . S t r i n g e r , w h o i s n o l o n g e r h e r e t o

24   a c c o u n t f o r h i m s e l f - - y o u n o t i c e h o w t h e G o v e r n m e n t 's f a v o r i t e

25   p e r s o n to t a l k a b o u t is M r . S t r i n g e r b e c a u s e he c a n' t b e h e r e
                                                                                                           7785


1    to answer.          He ' s p a s s e d a w a y .      He g i v e s M r. P e r o n a r d a m i n e

2    tour.      D i d n ' t h a v e t o g i v e h i m a m i n e t o u r b u t h e s a i d I' l l

3    give you a mine tour.                   And Mr. Peronard gave him no notice that

4    e v e r y t h i n g h e m i g h t b e s a y i n g c o u l d be u s e d i n a c r i m i n a l

5    charge.        He took no notes, even though all people working for

6    t h e E P A w h o w e n t o u t to d o i n t e r v i e w s h a d t o t a k e n o t e s a n d h a d

7    to make reports.               H e t o o k no n o t e s .

8                      But he recalls.                   I know poor Mr. Stringer is a nice

9    guy and he helped me out but I still have to tell you, I

10   t h i n k - - I' m h e r e t o s u p p o r t a n d t e s t i f y i n f a v o r o f a c r i m i n a l

11   charge that was originally brought against Mr. Stringer and

12   s t i l l b r o u g h t a g a i n s t G r a c e, b e c a u s e M r . S t r i n g e r s t a t e d t h a t

13   tremolite in concentrate is less than 1 percent.                                          Boom,

14   criminal obstruction.                   M i n e t o u r.      I t h i n k i t 's l e s s t h a n 1

15   percent.         B o o m , o b s t r u c t i o n.    Criminal intent.

16                     W e l l , f i r s t of a l l , w a s t h e s t a t e m e n t t r u e ?          And the

17   f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i s t h a t i t i s.            If we show Slide 021.                 This

18   is a slide that's very well known.                             It ' s t r e m o l i t e

19   concentration summaries.                     And you can see that over time the

20   a v e r a g e o f t r e m o l i t e in t h e c o n c e n t r a t e i s l e s s t h a n 1 p e r c e n t .

21   I n d e e d , i n l a t e r y e a r s i n a l l g r a d e s i t ' s l e s s t h a n 1 p e r c e n t.

22   In fact, Mr. Peronard admitted.                            T h i s i s -- t h e e x h i b i t h e r e i s

23   5444, Page 7.            Y o u ' v e s e e n t h i s a n d it w i l l b e i n y o u r

24   materials.          We a c t u a l l y a s k e d M r. P e r o n a r d a b o u t t h i s .         This is

25   Slide 020.          Mr . P e r o n a r d a d m i t t e d i t .
                                                                                                          7786


1                       S o a f t e r 1 9 8 3, i n a l l o f t h e g r a d e s as w e l l a s i n

2    t h e a v e r a g e , t h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n is l e s s t h a n 1 p e r c e n t , c o r r e c t ?

3                       Answer.          That is what this reflects, yes, sir.

4                       W e l l , M r. C a s s i d y t h i s m o r n i n g s h o w s u s a n e w

5    d o c u m e n t- - n o t a n e w d o c u m e n t .     It ' s a c t u a l l y a d o c u m e n t t h a t 's

6    been used before.                 He shows Government 597A.                     Incidentally, a

7    d o c u m e n t t h a t I d o n ' t b e l i e v e w a s e v e n s h o w n to M r . P e r o n a r d

8    a f t e r t h i s c r o s s -e x a m i n a t i o n .

9                       But 597A is the document he showed you this morning

10   in his little slide show.                       I f w e g o to t h e s e c o n d p a g e , w e c a n

11   see that this says--if we just blow this up--four vermiculite

12   ore concentrate samples were taken from the Libby silos and

13   analyzed for tremolite content and expansion characteristics.

14   They come from the silos.                       A n d t h e n y o u g e t t h e s e - -y o u g e t

15   these percentage amounts.                       A n d h e r e ' s t h e t r e m o l i t e.   H e s a i d,

16   o h , l o o k, i t 's o v e r 1 p e r c e n t .         What do we say about that?

17   W e l l , w e s a i d t h e s a m e t h i n g a b o u t t h i s t h a t we s a i d b e f o r e .

18   T h i s i s i n 1 9 9 2 a n d i t t u r n s o u t t h a t M s . Y a n g, D r . Y a n g,

19   testified about this.                    If you take a look at transcript

20   Page 3437, she explained why this testing was done.

21                      They kept this in Libby silos for a long time.

22                      This is what had settled and sifted down over time.

23                      We want to know whether this vermiculite is any good

24   o r n o t or d o e s i t h a v e a v e r y h i g h t r e m o l i t e c o n t e n t .

25                      S o t h e s e a r e n o t -- t h i s i s n o t t y p i c a l- - t h i s i s n o t
                                                                                                         7787


1    typical concentrate.                 This is not the stuff that's tested for

2    sampling of what goes out the plant for use year by year that

3    was reflected in the document we just showed you.                                       This was a

4    l i t t l e c h e r r y- p i c k e d d o c u m e n t t h a t M r. C a s s i d y d e c i d e d to s h a r e

5    w i t h y o u.    I t m a y b e t h a t t h e r e 's s o m e t h i n g e l s e t h a t M r.

6    C a s s i d y h a s in m i n d .     I ' m s u r e w h e n he c o m e s b a c k up f o r h i s

7    r e b u t t a l, t h a t w e' l l h e a r a b o u t i t .

8                      My point is very simple.                    We h a d r e l i a b l e d a t a.      The

9    d a t a w a s g o o d e n o u g h to c o n v i n c e M r . P e r o n a r d w h e n h e l o o k e d a t

10   it that actually the statement was true.                               He said, Yes, I see

11   it.     I t 's t r u e .    It's never really been disputed in the case.

12                     S o t h e y n o w in c l o s i n g c o m e i n on t h e e v e o f y o u r

13   d e c i s i o n, t h e y s a y , o h, t a k e a l o o k at t h i s d o c u m e n t .        And,

14   o n c e a g a i n , t h e y d i d n 't t e l l y o u a b o u t t h e d o c u m e n t.      They just

15   showed you the number.                  They didn't tell you about Dr. Yang's

16   testimony.          They just showed you the number.

17                     H o w i n t h e w o r l d c a n t h e G o v e r n m e n t e x p e c t y o u t o be

18   on a search for the truth when they are treating you this way

19   in closing argument?

20                     N e x t - - o h, w e l l , y e a h , s o t h e t o u r t a k e s p l a c e .

21   Everybody, okay, seen it, okay, and they have a relationship

22   that Mr. Peronard acknowledges, good relationship.                                       Years pass,

23   silence, nothing going on.                     B o o m, c r i m i n a l c h a r g e .

24                     L e t' s t a k e a l o o k a t t h e n e x t o n e , w h i c h i s t h e n e x t

25   s l i d e , n e x t b o a r d, T . J.     T e l l y o u w h a t , I' l l t a k e t h i s o n e , y o u
                                                                                                             7788


1    take the other one and we can move with greater speed.

2                       1 0 4( e ) .     T h i s i s t h e o t h e r -- a n o t h e r g o t c h a .

3    R e m e m b e r, G r a c e i s u n d e r h u g e p r e s s u r e h e r e .      The Government

4    wants to do lots of different things.                               A n d s o t h e y g o t t h i s - -a

5    1 0 4( e ) , r e m e m b e r , i s t h a t Ms . C o g g o n t e s t i f i e d a b o u t .        This

6    long thing, a lot of questions and answers.                                   A lot of questions

7    and answers.

8                       And there is a lawyer on the other side who never

9    c a m e i n t o t h i s c o u r t b u t w h o s e n a m e s e e m s t o be o n a l l of t h e

10   d o c u m e n t s , M r. M a t t C o h n .     Mr. Matt Cohn.              A n d h e ' s a n in - h o u s e

11   lawyer for EPA.              S o h e' s b u s y w i t h h i s w o r d p r o c e s s o r a n d t h e y

12   a r e t u r n i n g o u t a l l t h e s e l e g a l r e q u e s t s a n d Ms . C o g g o n i s b u s y

13   a t h e r w o r d p r o c e s s o r l o o k i n g a t i t s a y i n g h o w a r e w e g o i n g to

14   a n s w e r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s?     They go back 50, 60, 70 years.                        W e ' re

15   just getting into the documents, there are two and a half

16   million of them.                  How in the world are we going to answer them?

17   She puts together the answers consulting with Mr. Moeller and

18   c o n s u l t i n g w i t h M r. S t r i n g e r .    A n d I 'l l t a l k a b o u t t h e a n s w e r s

19   in just a moment.

20                      But the first thing I want to point out, is remember

21   t h a t M r . P e r o n a r d, I c r o s s -e x a m i n e d h i m o n t h i s d o c u m e n t i n

22   o r d e r t o f i n d o u t, w e l l , w a i t a m i n u t e , w e r e y o u a s k i n g G r a c e

23   questions that you already knew the answer to?                                     And he said,

24   oh, this was a--we were totally misled by these answers.

25   Really?        Did you really not know any of this?
                                                                                                             7789


1                       I t t u r n s o u t , h e w e n t t h r o u g h t h e d o c u m e n t.         And

2    I ' ve g o t E x h i b i t 5 9 6 h e r e .       If you take a look in your notes

3    f o r t h e a f t e r n o o n o f F e b r u a r y 2 6, t h a t ' s w h e r e t h a t c r o s s w a s

4    done.       It t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e E P A, i n d o i n g t h e i r f a c t u a l

5    i n v e s t i g a t i o n, t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , w e n t o u t a n d d i d

6    a whole bunch of interviews and learned a whole bunch of stuff.

7                       And what did they learn about?                          They learned about

8    the high school track and the fact that there was asbestos

9    there.       They learned about the Middle School.                                They learned

10   about Plummer Elementary.                      They learned about Rainy Creek Road.

11   In fact, they could not have learned about Rainy Creek Road

12   b e c a u s e t h e E P A a c t u a l l y w a s c o n s u l t e d b a c k i n 1 9 9 2, o r

13   thereabouts, about the fact that the Rainy Creek Road had

14   a s b e s t o s i n it .     T h a t a s b e s t o s w a s u s e d a s a - -a s a g r a d i n g

15   m a t e r i a l o r as a s a n d i n g m a t e r i a l .       So t h e E P A w a s a l r e a d y

16   familiar with this.                 Lincoln County owned part of the Rainy

17   Creek Road.

18                      So these were all things that were already well

19   known to the EPA.                S o w h y is t h e E P A , k n o w i n g t h e s e t h i n g s ,

20   a s k i n g a b o u t t h e m a l l o v e r a g a i n?

21                      A n d t h e a n s w e r i s, m a y b e t h e E P A r e a l l y w a s n ' t o n

22   that much of a quest for truth.                          A n d t h a t' s e x a c t l y w h a t M s .

23   Coggon testified to.

24                      S o I ' l l j u s t s h o w y o u a c o u p l e s l i d e s.          T h i s is t h e

25   first one, Slide 023.                   I say, Do you see that at Page 5411.6,
                                                                                                         7790


1    does that refresh your recollection that the piles, that is the

2    v e r m i c u l i t e p i l e s, w e r e i n v o l v e d a t a l l t h r e e s c h o o l s ; t h a t is

3    W o o d , P l u m m e r a n d M c G r a d e , t o i n s u l a t e t h e s k a t i n g r i n k s?

4                       He says, Answer.                    That was information that the

5    D e d r i c k s p r o v i d e d.      Those were provided information before our

6    1 0 4( e ) r e s p o n s e c a m e b a c k .       I t o o k a l o o k.      I said, These are

7    the interview notes?                     H e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t w a s t r u e.

8                       L e t' s t a k e a l o o k a t 0 2 5 .

9                       I s n' t i t a l s o t r u e t h a t t h e r e w a s a n i n t e r v i e w w i t h

10   Ken and Andrea Holcomb on January 11 of 2000?                                     See that?

11                      Answer.            Y e s , s i r.

12                      Q u e s t i o n.      Does that refresh your recollection that

13   information came to your people through the community

14   interviews that the tracks at the high school and junior

15   h i g h - - w e' r e n o w d o w n to t h e j u n i o r h i g h o n 1 - 11 p e r t h e

16   H o l c o m b s.   And if you want, we can pull the interview itself if

17   it would make you feel more comfortable.                                  And the Holcombs

18   specifically said that they were paved with vermiculite

19   t a i l i n g s.   T h e y t o l d y o u t h a t b a c k i n J a n u a r y o f ' 02 .

20                      Answer.            Y e s , s i r.

21                      That was 45, 30 days before our responses even came

22   in.      S o w h a t 's t h e p o i n t o f a s k i n g u s t h e q u e s t i o n ?           The

23   i n f o r m a t i o n is a l r e a d y o u t t h e r e i n t h e c o m m u n i t y .

24                      Here's another one.                    024.

25                      And so far as the State of Montana and EPA were
                                                                                                          7791


1    c o n c e r n e d , a t l e a s t g o i n g b a c k to 1 9 9 2 , s e v e n y e a r s b e f o r e y o u

2    arrived, there wasn't any secret about the fact that Rainy

3    C r e e k R o a d w a s p e r i o d i c a l l y g r o o m e d or p a v e d w i t h a s b e s t o s

4    t a i l i n g s.    Correct?

5                        Answer.        That was what was in the files, yes, sir.

6                        Well, why are we going over it?                         Why are we going

7    over it?           The EPA knew all about it.                    A s k i n g us q u e s t i o n s t h a t

8    they already knew from interviewing the people out in the

9    community and they already knew from their own files.

10                       I ' ve g o t m o r e t o s h o w y o u .       I f y o u ' l l t a k e a l o o k at

11   t h e b o a r d h e r e , t h i s is M r . P e r o n a r d 's c r o s s , 2 - 2 6 .        You can

12   look there and then back in your notes to get more information

13   b e c a u s e I ' m g o i n g t o r u n o u t o f s t e a m.

14                       S o w e t h e n g e t t o t h e r e q u e s t s t h e m s e l v e s.      And the

15   requests are really interesting when you compare them with what

16   Mr. Cassidy said this morning.                         Do you remember what Mr.

17   Cassidy said this morning?                      H e s a i d - -a n d h e h a d n i c e l i t t l e

18   s l i d e s w i t h t h e q u o t e s f r o m t h e 1 0 4 ( e) .      And you've really got

19   t a k e a l o o k at t h e 1 0 4( e ) .

20                       A n y w a y , t o p a r a p h r a s e , i t d o e s n 't c a p t u r e w h a t

21   a c t u a l l y h a p p e n e d, w h i c h i s y o u 'v e g o t v e r y c a r e f u l q u e s t i o n s,

22   very careful answers.                   Y o u 'v e g o t t o t a k e a l o o k a t i t w h e n y o u

23   go back to deliberate.

24                       B u t y o u r e m e m b e r h o w Mr . C a s s i d y p o i n t e d o u t , w e l l ,

25   t h a t a n s w e r w a s f a l s e b e c a u s e , y o u k n o w w h a t Mr . Z w a n g s a i d
                                                                                                            7792


1    from the stand, he said this.                         Or M r . S o -a n d - So s a i d f r o m t h e

2    s t a n d , he s a i d t h a t .

3                       W e l l , t h a t ' s k i n d o f i n t e r e s t i n g, b e c a u s e t h a t' s

4    testimony that was elicited in 2009 after years of

5    investigation by the Government with all of its very able

6    a g e n t s l o o k i n g a r o u n d f o r e v i d e n c e , l o o k i n g a r o u n d f o r p e o p l e.

7    Their initial witness list at this trial is a hundred witnesses

8    long.

9                       S o t h e y a r e s a y i n g , o h, w e l l , i f w e t a k e w h a t w e n o w

10   know in 2009 and it's been presented after years of

11   investigation and now take a look at those answers that poor

12   Ms. Coggon put together under a deadline that was, you know,

13   i m p o s s i b l e t o m e e t a n d s a y , w e l l, h o w c a n w e j u d g e w h e t h e r t h i s

14   w a s c r i m i n a l , c o r r u p t o b s t r u c t i o n b y s i m p l y d o i n g w h a t he d i d?

15                      That comparison is completely improper.                               It

16   c o m p l e t e l y h a s n o t h i n g t o do - - i t i g n o r e s t h e l a w .     The law

17   doesn't judge us on the basis of what he can put on the stand

18   at trial years later.                   I t j u d g e s u s f o r w h a t we d i d a n d k n e w a t

19   t h e t i m e a n d w h a t o u r i n t e n t w a s.         Were we corrupt?             Were we

20   corrupt?         I t 's n o t a s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y .     It's not

21   f i l l - i n -t h e - wr o n g- b l a n k , y o u k n o w , y o u g e t a n F b e c a u s e , g e e s,

22   y o u k n o w, y o u g o t t h e w r o n g a n s w e r .        T h a t' s n o t w h a t t h e s t o r y

23   is.     That's not a proper argument to make to you.

24                      Well, it turns out that the task was made even more

25   d i f f i c u l t b e c a u s e o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s.   Take a look at Slide
                                                                                                          7793


1    0 2 7.

2                       R e m e m b e r h o w w e w e n t t h r o u g h t h i s w i t h M r. P e r o n a r d?

3    I t s a y s , Q u e s t i o n s a r e t o be a n s w e r e d b y p a s t o r c u r r e n t W . R .

4    G r a c e C o m p a n y o f f i c e r s, d i r e c t o r s a n d e m p l o y e e s f r o m t h e i r o w n

5    recollections or by reference to personal accounts and not from

6    c o r p o r a t e r e c o r d s.

7                       Some of the questions are the same as the document

8    request; however, those questions require the production of

9    documents and these questions are intended to be given--

10   q u e s t i o n s a r e i n t e n d e d t o be g i v e n w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e t o s u c h

11   documents.           So i t' s k i n d o f, w e w a n t t o p l a y a g a m e w i t h y o u .

12   W e 'v e g o t l o t s a n d l o t s o f d o c u m e n t s b u t w e ' v e a s k e d f o r t h o s e

13   s e p a r a t e l y s o j u s t t e l l u s w h a t y o u r e m e m b e r or s o m e p e o p l e

14   r e m e m b e r.

15                      N o w, o f c o u r s e , i n o r d e r t o g e t 1 5 e x t r a d a y s t h e y

16   s a i d , O h, i f y o u w a n t , M s . C o g g o n , g o l o o k a t s o m e d o c u m e n t s .

17   Make you feel better, go look at some documents.                                     And she was

18   t h e r e t o s a y w e h a d l o o k e d t h r o u g h 2 .5 m i l l i o n d o c u m e n t s t h a t

19   were relevant to Libby that took two years just to gather.

20                      So in the time frame set up by this incredibly

21   c o n t o r t e d e x e r c i s e, i m p o s s i b l e e x e r c i s e , t h e r e w a s n o w a y w e

22   were going to have comprehensive accurate answers.                                       What they

23   g o t w a s w h a t t h e y a s k e d f o r.        They asked for the best

24   r e c o l l e c t i o n s o f a c o u p l e of p e o p l e , a n d o n e of t h e m i s n o

25   l o n g e r w i t h us .      T h a t 's M r . S t r i n g e r .   W e' r e n o t h e r e t o p r o b e
                                                                                                           7794


1    what his intent was or what he actually knew.                                     They can produce

2    all the documents in the world that they want.                                     I t 's n o t t h e

3    s a m e a s h a v i n g M r. S t r i n g e r w h o s a i d h e r e' s w h a t m y

4    recollection was.

5                          W e d i d p r o d u c e M r. M o e l l e r .     Mr. Moeller told what

6    he did.            H e s a i d l o o k -- a n d h i s w o r d s a r e a b s o l u t e l y r i g h t o n .

7    He said, I wasn't aware of the schools.

8                          L e t' s t a k e a l o o k a t t h e b o t t o m o f S l i d e C L 0 3 0 .

9    M r . M o e l l e r is a n s w e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n.        He talked about how the

10   q u e s t i o n s w e r e p r e t t y b r o a d.     B u t t h e b o t t o m l i n e is c l e a r .

11   In all cases we tried to answer the very best that we could

12   based on the experience that we had.

13                         They asked for the--they asked for the Moellers of

14   the world and the Stringers of the world and that's what they

15   g o t.    Y o u t o o k a l o o k a t M s. C o g g o n on t h e s t a n d a n d t h e w a y

16   she is and how diligent she was and she's getting these

17   r e q u e s t s.      A n d t h e y a r e s a y i n g t h i s is a l l c o r r u p t , c o r r u p t .

18   Competent, earnest, diligent lawyer.                                 Corrupt.      Part of a

19   corrupt process.

20                         I ' ll t r y t o do t h e n e x t c o u p l e a n d t h e n , Y o u r H o n o r,

21   if you could give me maybe five minutes at some point to take a

22   d r i n k a n d t h e n I 'l l p u s h o n.

23                         THE COURT:          You are at one hour and 1 minute right

24   n o w.

25                         MR. BERNICK:           L e t' s p u t u p t h e n e x t o n e .       Actually,
                                                                                                           7795


1    w e 'l l g e t d o n e w i t h c o r r u p t i o n a n d t h e n a c t u a l l y I w o u l d l i k e

2    to take a few minutes, if I can.

3                       A c c e s s to t h e m i n e ; t h a t ' s a n o t h e r k i n d o f

4    i n t e r e s t i n g s t o r y, I s u p p o s e .      H e r e ' s t h e c o r r u p t l i n e of

5    conduct that the Government has zeroed in on like a laser.

6                       G r a c e i s n o t i n t h e p i c t u r e.         The mine was sold to

7    K D C b a c k i n t h e '9 0 s , s o t h e E P A c o m e s i n a n d t h e y e a c h h a d a

8    problem.         R e m e m b e r I d i d t h e l i t t l e d i a g r a m s of w h o w a n t e d

9    what?       W h o w a n t e d w h a t?     And what does the Government want?

10   They want access.               They want to be able to use the mine to dump

11   the materials that they are gathering from the cleanup, so

12   that's what they wanted.

13                      A n d, y o u k n o w, t h e y h a v e t h e r i g h t u n d e r t h e l a w .

14   And this is what you heard.                          I f t h e y d o n 't g e t a g r e e m e n t, t h e y

15   can go file a lawsuit in court and get access.                                     T h e y d o n' t h a v e

16   t o r e s o l v e a n y o t h e r i s s u e s.        They don't have to resolve issues

17   of CERCLA liability or tort liability or reclamation liability.

18   T h e y d o n' t h a v e t o d o a n y of t h a t .             If t h e y w a n t , t h e y c a n j u s t

19   go to court and get an order granting access, but they don't

20   l i k e t o d o t h a t b e c a u s e i t t a k e s t i m e.          So what they would

21   r a t h e r do i s t o r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e o f a c c e s s o n a n e g o t i a t e d

22   basis.       S o t h e y n e e d a c c e s s a n d t h e y d o n 't w a n t t o g o t o c o u r t .

23                      What are the KDC people?                       Well, they have got

24   issues.        One is that they want some compensation for using the

25   m i n e a s a d u m p i n g a r e a.       But more than anything else, they are
                                                                                                          7796


1    worried about CERCLA liability.                            Because if you are an owner of

2    p r o p e r t y t h a t' s b e i n g c l e a n e d u p, y o u c a n b e h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e

3    f o r t h e c l e a nu p .    T h e y d i d n' t h a v e a n a w f u l l o t o f m o n e y.          This

4    is just a couple of individuals.

5                       So you heard the testimony from their lawyer, Mr.

6    C o c k r e l l, w h o s a i d , Y e a h , we d i d a l i t t l e d i a g r a m .     And he

7    s a i d , Y e a h , we w a n t e d t o r e s o l v e t h o s e l i a b i l i t y i s s u e s a n d

8    give them access.               T h a t ' s w h a t t h e y w a n t e d a n d t h a t' s w h a t t h e

9    t e s t i m o n y w a s.

10                      N o w, t h o s e - - a n d y o u t a k e a l o o k a t C L 0 3 4.       This is

11   M r . O w e n s a c t u a l l y w h o t e s t i f i e d.

12                      O n e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t y o u d e m a n d e d o r, I g u e s s,

13   n e g o t i a t e d , p u t o n t h e t a b l e w i t h E P A, w a s t h a t y o u w a n t e d a

14   release of liability; is that right?

15                      Answer.        Correct.

16                      All right.          And as a businessman that seemed

17   reasonable and appropriate for you to ask for before you let

18   t h e E P A a n d i t s c o n t r a c t o r s c o m e o n to y o u r p r o p e r t y t o u s e it

19   as a dump.

20                      Answer.        Yes, sure.

21                      These issues, these issues, notwithstanding what was

22   suggested in the examination of Mr. Peronard, these issues were

23   not resolved before Grace bought KDC.                            And Mr. Cockrell was

24   totally clear about this.                     They had not been resolved.                    There

25   w a s a n o r a l a g r e e m e n t , b u t i t h a d n o t y e t b e e n- - h a d n o t y e t
                                                                                                            7797


1    b e e n e x e c u t e d.

2                       S o i f w e t a k e a l o o k at C L 0 3 3 , i t s a y s , A g a i n t o be

3    clear, when that green light was given                               -- t h a t i s t h a t t h e KD C

4    c o u l d b e b o u g h t -- h a d a n y o f t h e s e i s s u e s t h a t y o u h a d b e e n

5    talking about with the EPA been finally resolved or did they

6    remain outstanding when the sale took place?

7                       Answer.         N o , t h e y a l l r e m a i n e d o u t s t a n d i n g.

8                       M r . P e r o n a r d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he k n e w t h a t G r a c e

9    was going to buy KDC.                   H e e n c o u r a g e d i t a n d , in f a c t , t h a t t h a t

10   was desirable from his point of view.                               That is at Slide 036.

11                      W h a t I w o u l d l i k e t o h a v e h a d h a p p e n i s , i n t h e e n d,

12   Grace take over responsibility for running and managing the

13   mine disposal site.                 He s a i d , I t h o u g h t p e r s o n a l l y l o g i c a l l y i t

14   made sense.

15                      S o t h e s c i e n c e s c e n e is p e r f e c t l y s e t.         There are

16   issues that are out there.                      T h e b i g i s s u e i s c l e a n up c o s t s .

17   G r a c e c o m e s in .     Because it makes sense for them, rather than

18   t r y i n g to b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c l e a n u p c o s t s w i t h s o m e b o d y

19   else on the mine, they should own it.                               M a k e s s e n s e t o t h e E P A.

20   S o a l l t h a t h a s t o h a p p e n is t h a t G r a c e s t e p s i n t o K D C ' s s h o e s

21   and now Grace negotiates all those same issues with the EPA.

22   A n d, o f c o u r s e , t h e y a r e n o w g o i n g t o w a n t t o n e g o t i a t e C E R C L A

23   l i a b i l i t y , r e c l a m a t i o n l i a b i l i t y, a n y t h i n g e l s e t h e y a r e g o i n g

24   to want to negotiate.

25                      N o w, i t i s t r u e t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r G r a c e b o u g h t
                                                                                                             7798


1    t h e m i n e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t e r s e, k i n d o f n a s t y - i s h l e t t e r g e t s

2    w r i t t e n b y a n i n -h o u s e G r a c e l a w y e r s a y i n g , G u e s s w h a t ?        M i n e' s

3    n o w o u r s.     M o u n t a i n o u s, r u g g e d t e r r i t o r y , w h a t e v e r .   Y o u c a n 't

4    come on the property.                   It was not a good letter.                        Mr . C o r c o r a n

5    s a i d i t 's n o t a g o o d l e t t e r.

6                       Of course, there was a letter from the estimable

7    Matt Cohn, who was the in-house EPA lawyer, who said we want

8    a c c e s s , t e r m s n o nn e g o t i a b l e.

9                       S o y o u ' ve g o t w h a t o f t e n h a p p e n s w i t h l a w y e r s , f r o m

10   experience.           E v e r y b o d y i s k i n d of p o s t u r i n g a n d g e t t i n g a

11   little tough and writing a couple nasty letters.

12                      B u t f o r M r . C a s s i d y t o s u g g e s t t h a t it w a s t h a t

13   n a s t y l e t t e r , o u r n a s t y l e t t e r t h a t h e l d u p t h e r e m e d i a t i o n of

14   these properties is just flat out wrong and completely contrary

15   to the evidence.               You heard that what happened was that after

16   those letters were exchanged, there were repeated efforts to

17   try to negotiate.                G r a c e t r i e d to n e g o t i a t e .       How did Grace try

18   to negotiate?              The governor of this state tried to negotiate

19   and the EPA wouldn't even meet with him.

20                      T a k e a l o o k at t h e l e t t e r s .          This is DX 5475.

21   E x c u s e me , 0 3 8 .     5 4 7 5 i s G r a c e s a y i n g w e 'r e s t i l l p r e p a r e d t o

22   negotiate.           0 3 8 i s G r a c e ' s l e t t e r t o G o v e r n o r R a c i c o t s a y i n g --

23   w e l l , r e c i t i n g b a s i c a l l y t h a t t h e E P A h a s r e f u s e d to a c c e p t t h e

24   o f f e r t o m e d i a t e a n d , t h e r e f o r e -- a n d t h e y h a v e n ' t a g r e e d t o

25   mediation in court either.                          W e ' re n o t s u r e w h e r e t h i s t h i n g is
                                                                                                          7799


1    going to go.

2                         T h e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i s t h e r e w e r e e f f o r t s to

3    negotiate.            People were brought in, including the governor of

4    t h i s s t a t e , a g r e e d t o d o i t.         It was turned down by the EPA.

5    The court mediation didn't work either.

6                         A g a i n , we ' r e n o t s a y i n g - - w e' r e n o t s a y i n g t h a t i t

7    w a s w r o n g f o r t h e E P A t o d o t h a t, b u t t h a t i s w h a t i n f a c t l e d

8    t o t h e n e c e s s i t y o f g o i n g to c o u r t .         They won in court, it's

9    t r u e , s o t h e y g o t t h e i r w a y.         But now where are we?                They get

10   their way and they still want a criminal charge for our having

11   had the gall to not negotiate on exactly their terms and to

12   m a k e t h e m g o t o co u r t a s t h e l a w p r o v i d e d.

13                        He says this is America.                    Is i t A m e r i c a w h e n y o u d o

14   exactly what the law says you are entitled to do and then later

15   o n , a f t e r t h e f a c t , y o u g e t c h a r g e d as a c r i m i n a l f o r h a v i n g

16   done it?        Criminal for Grace to have the gall to send that

17   letter.        C r i m i n a l.

18                        L a s t i t e m u n d e r o b s t r u c t i o n.   Let's take down this

19   b o a r d , T. J .      We're going to fly through the next one because

20   o t h e r w i s e I ' m g o i n g t o r u n o u t of t i m e .

21                        Last obstruction charge.                    Remember, this is the

22   public health emergency.                      E P A w a n t s to t a k e Z AI o u t o f t h e

23   homes in Libby.                C a n ' t d o it u n d e r t h e l a w w i t h o u t a p u b l i c

24   h e a l t h e m e r g e n c y , s o t h e y go f o r t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h e m e r g e n c y .

25   Fine.
                                                                                                         7800


1                      T h e p r o b l e m w i t h t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h e m e r g e n c y is i t

2    p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t s h o m e s a l l o v e r t h e c o u n t r y.    Although they

3    a r e s e e k i n g it o n l y f o r L i b b y , w h e n it ' s d e c l a r e d , e v e r y b o d y

4    a r o u n d t h e c o u n t r y s a y s , o h w a i t a m i n u t e.       If it's such an

5    e m e r g e n c y , w h y s h o u l d n' t i t b e d o n e in m y h o m e?

6                      S o t h i s b i g p r o b l e m e v o l v e s.      G r a c e s e n d s a l e t t e r --

7    y o u s a w i t y e s t e r d a y - -o p p o s i n g t h i s a n d s e t t i n g o u t e x a c t l y t h e

8    reasons for the opposition in black and white.                                     Just right out

9    there in black and white.                     And why not?            Well, they are going

10   to have to pay for part of it at least, at least as much as

11   they can afford.

12                     S o o n c e a g a i n w e 'r e s a y i n g w e d o n ' t l i k e i t , we

13   o p p o s e it , w e d o n' t t h i n k t h e G o v e r n m e n t s h o u l d d o i t .       A n d by

14   s a y i n g t h a t to t h e G o v e r n m e n t , we s a i d i t t o t h e h e a d o f t h e

15   E P A, w e n o w h a v e a n i s s u e .       S o h e r e we s a y t h e s c i e n c e a n d t h e

16   s c i e n c e t u r n s o u t t o be r i g h t .

17                     They pointed out there was an individual case that

18   was decided against Grace for an individual who said he was

19   h u r t f r o m Z A I.     T h e r e a r e o t h e r c a s e s t h a t y o u' v e a l s o h e a r d

20   a b o u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e w h e r e j u d g e s h a v e d e c i d e d t h a t Z AI i s

21   fine.

22                     M o r e t h a n t h a t , a t t h e t i m e E P A 's o w n o f f i c e w r i t e s

23   the report that you saw yesterday.                           A n d I d o n 't h a v e t i m e t o

24   show it to you again.                  I t is t h i s o n e, D X 5 4 0 0.           And it says,

25   we don't think that there's the science to support a public
                                                                                                               7801


1    health emergency and what are we going to do about homes all

2    over the country?

3                       S o i t t u r n s o u t t h a t t h e i s s u e is l e f t t h e r e .              W e ' ve

4    got two opposed parties.                         T h e G o v e r n m e n t d o e s n' t k n o w r e a l l y

5    which one to agree with.                         Do y o u a g r e e w i t h G r a c e or d o y o u n o t

6    a g r e e w i t h i t?      T h e O PP T d o e s .         Five years later, bammo, the

7    fact of having written that letter, written that letter,

8    c r i m i n a l, c o r r u p t c o n d u c t .

9                       O n e l a s t t h i n g o n t h e 1 0 4 ( e) r e s p o n s e, a n d t h e n i f I

10   c a n a s k t h e C o u r t' s i n d u l g e n c e to g i v e m e a c o u p l e m i n u t e s .

11   T h i s i s s u c h a - - I w o n 't u s e t h e w o r d .

12                      R e m e m b e r t h e y s h o w e d y o u t h e 1 0 4( e ) a n s w e r t h a t

13   t a l k e d a b o u t , y o u k n o w, s o m e p e t r o c h e m i c a l t h a t w a s r e v e a l e d i n

14   the answer?            W e l l, t h e r e a s o n i t w a s r e v e a l e d i n t h e a n s w e r ,

15   that question asked for hazardous substances.

16                      Hazardous substances are specifically defined in the

17   1 0 4( e ) to i n c l u d e p e t r o l e u m p r o d u c t s .        So we gave them what

18   they wanted.             I mean, it's kind of odd that when we actually

19   a n s w e r e d t h e q u e s t i o n e x a c t l y a s t h e y w a n t , O h, y o u t o l d u s t o o

20   much.       And then says, well, we didn't tell them about the

21   testing data.             That's completely false.

22                      The response to Question 19 specifically identifies

23   the kinds of testing, sampling programs that were being done in

24   connection with regulatory agencies.                                 A n d y o u c a n go a h e a d a n d

25   r e a d t h a t , r e a d t h a t l e t t e r.
                                                                                                            7802


1                      T h e o b s t r u c t i o n c h a r g e, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , i s

2    very revealing.              T h e o b s t r u c t i o n c h a r g e , a s i g n i f i c a n t c h a r g e,

3    is being mounted here.                    And it's being mounted here and it so

4    w e l l i l l u s t r a t e s e x a c t l y h o w t h i s w h o l e c a s e - -w h a t t h e

5    G o v e r n m e n t i s p r e p a r e d t o c o m e in a n d s a y i s c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t.

6                      And it underscores the fact of what I said at the

7    outset about the script.                     A l l t h a t t h e y h a v e d o n e is t o t a k e

8    the EPA script, the EPA's unhappiness with what happened in

9    connection with the regulatory process, put on a new label,

10   call it criminal, and bring it here for you to decide.

11                     W i t h t h a t , Y o u r H o n o r , i f I c o u l d h a v e f i v e m i n u t e s,

12   t h a t w o u l d b e t e r r i f i c.

13                     THE COURT:             W e l l , w e ' re g o i n g t o t a k e a t e n - m i n u t e

14   recess.        Ladies and gentlemen, don't discuss the case during

15   the break.          We ' l l b e in r e c e s s f o r t e n m i n u t e s.

16                     (Whereupon, court was in recess at 2:15 p.m.,

17   reconvened at 2:26 p.m.)

18                     THE COURT:             Be s e a t e d , p l e a s e .

19                     A s I u n d e r s t a n d i t, y o u h a v e a l i t t l e o v e r

20   44 minutes.

21                     MR. BERNICK:              N o t 4 7 or 4 8 ?       Okay.       We ' l l g e t i t

22   done.

23                     So now I want to talk about endangerment.                                    And

24   e n d a n g e r m e n t i s a l i t t l e b i t m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d l e g a l l y , so I

25   w a n t t o g o t h r o u g h i t a n d k i n d of t a l k a l o t a b o u t t h e l a w
                                                                                                               7803


1    before I get into the science.                          But I think that you'll see,

2    a f t e r y o u g e t y o u r m i n d a r o u n d it a l i t t l e b i t, i t 's

3    d e f i n i t e l y - - it ' s d e f i n i t e l y h a n d a b l e o n t h e e v i d e n c e .      Again,

4    we don't even come close to the question of whether the

5    Government has sustained its burden.

6                        First, I want to show Instruction 33 for a moment.

7    This is the instruction on endangerment and it gives the

8    e l e m e n t s.    F i r s t , i t m u s t be t r u e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r y o u r

9    consideration knowingly released or willfully caused to be

10   r e l e a s e d.

11                       So if Grace actually during the period of time

12   t h a t ' s at i s s u e - -a n d t h i s is a l l g o i n g t o b e f r o m 1 9 9 9 g o i n g

13   forward.           If Grace actually released asbestos into the air, you

14   w o u l d l o o k t o k n o w i n g l y r e l e a s e d.      If Grace caused somebody

15   e l s e t o c a u s e a r e l e a s e t o t h e a i r , t h e n i t ' s g o t to b e -- G r a c e

16   h a s t o be w i l l f u l, a l l t h e D e f e n d a n t s, w i l l f u l.

17                       S o i f I h a v e a s b e s t o s i n m y h a n d o r in a b u c k e t a n d

18   I go l i k e t h i s ( i n d i c a t i n g ), t h a t ' s k n o w i n g .        If I put asbestos

19   o n t h e g r o u n d a n d I s a y t o s o m e b o d y e l s e y o u go k i c k i t , t h e

20   r e l e a s e i s w h e n i t b e c o m e s a i r b o r n e in b o t h c a s e s .          But because

21   i n o n e c a s e I' m d o i n g i t a n d i n a n o t h e r c a s e I' m c a u s i n g

22   s o m e b o d y e l s e t o d o i t, s a y, y o u g o do i t, g o t t o be w i l l f u l ,

23   b e c a u s e I ' m n o t a s c l o s e t o t h e e v e n t.           A n d s o t h e -- i t ' s a

24   h i g h e r - -a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d .   I've got to be willful.                         I ' ve g o t

25   to say, hey, you go make it happen.                              And I have to do it in the
                                                                                                           7804


1    context where it then causes an imminent danger.

2                       S o y o u p u t t h a t t o g e t h e r , t h i s is a h e i n o u s c r i m e .

3    T a k e n r i g h t as i t r e a d s , i t' s a h e i n o u s c r i m e t h a t s o m e b o d y

4    c a u s e s a r e l e a s e k n o w i n g t h a t i t' s g o i n g t o p u t s o m e b o d y e l s e,

5    a n o t h e r p e r s o n , i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y or

6    death.       T h a t 's w h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s s a y i n g h e r e .

7                       So the law says there has got to be intent.                                  T h e r e 's

8    g o t t o be c a u s e .      P a r t i c u l a r l y if I ' m c a u s i n g s o m e b o d y e l s e .

9    I t 's n o t l i k e I l e a v e i t t h e r e a n d k i n d o f s a y, o o h, o o h, I

10   leave, and then somebody comes around and takes a backhoe

11   there.       T h a t 's n o t s o m e t h i n g I w i l l f u l l y d i d or i n t e n d e d a t

12   a l l.    S o t h e r e h a s g o t t o be a c o n n e x i t y .          I see, I know it's

13   going to happen, I cause it to happen and the effect of it, the

14   i m m e d i a t e e f f e c t o f i t i s to c r e a t e a d a n g e r - -a n i m m i n e n t

15   d a n g e r of s e r i o u s b o d i l y d e a t h or i n j u r y .       V e r y s e r i o u s s t u f f.

16                      I t 's l i k e t h e c l a s s i c c a s e w h e r e- - n o t c l a s s i c c a s e ,

17   v e r y u n f o r t u n a t e c a s e -- a c o m p a n y s e n d s a n e m p l o y e e d o w n t o

18   clean out a caustic tank.                    I t ' s n o t r e a l l y - - i t' s n o t r e a l l y

19   empty.       Very serious stuff.

20                      Sends an employee into a tank where there is still

21   f u m e s t h a t a r e l i n g e r i n g b e c a u s e t h e y a r e n o t a s v o l a t i l e a s --

22   they are heavier than air.                       V e r y s e r i o u s s t u f f.     That's what

23   they are saying here.                 O k a y.

24                      So what is a release?                   What kind of release are we

25   t a l k i n g a b o u t?   How can that be that complicated?                            It goes into
                                                                                                        7805


1    the air.        T h e a n s w e r is n o .      Because of the nature of this

2    claim, the endangerment has to take place after November

3    of 1990.        So the release that is caused has to take place after

4    November of 1990.

5                      W h y i s t h a t an i s s u e ?       Why is that difficult?

6    Because we didn't do anything.                       We didn't do anything.                  This is

7    all about what we did, did we cause.                           W e d i d n 't d o a n y t h i n g ,

8    none of the Defendants did, after we were gone in the mid

9    1990s.       W e w e r e n 't a r o u n d t h e r e i n t h e y e a r 2 0 0 0 t o s a y , l e t 's

10   g o d o i t a n d d o i t.         That's not what happened.

11                     S o n o w y o u ' l l s e e t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e of t h e

12   i n s t r u c t i o n s -- a n d t a k e a l o o k a t I n s t r u c t i o n No . 4 3.    I t s a y s,

13   T o f i n d a d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f t h e c h a r g e s, a l l o f y o u m u s t - -

14   a n d t h i s i s f o r C o u n t s I I , I I I or I V , e x p o r t p l a n t , s c r e e n i n g

15   p l a n t , r e s i d e n c e s - - a l l o f y o u m u s t u n a n i m o u s l y a g r e e as t o

16   t h e s a m e s p e c i f i c r e l e a s e or r e l e a s e s o c c u r r i n g f o r t h e f i r s t

17   t i m e a f t e r N o v e m b e r 3 , 1 9 9 9, t h a t p l a c e d a n o t h e r p e r s o n o r

18   persons in imminent danger.

19                     S o i f t h e G o v e r n m e n t is n o w c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t , a s

20   they are in this case, that we sold those properties or gave

21   t h e m a w a y a n d t h e r e b y c r e a t e d t h e i m m i n e n t d a n g e r or p u t i n

22   place a condition that would cause an imminent danger.                                       Our

23   conduct is the sale.                And what they have to demonstrate for

24   t h e r e t o b e a r e l e a s e c a u s e d b y u s w i l l f u l l y is t h e y h a v e t o

25   show that that stuff went into the air.
                                                                                                               7806


1                        B u t t h e f a c t t h a t w e s o l d it a n d i t w e n t i n t o t h e

2    a i r, w h e n i t c o m e s d o w n t h a t c a u s a t i o n i s d o n e.            I t' s d o n e .

3    I t 's a l r e a d y h a p p e n e d .    I created the plant.                    Somebody went and

4    k i c k e d it .     If t h a t h a s a l r e a d y t a k e n p l a c e a n d i t g e t s k i c k e d

5    again after November 1999, that would have to be a

6    n e w- - s o m e t h i n g n e w t h a t I c a u s e d.       And that's why the release

7    h a s t o be a n e w r e l e a s e , n o t b e f o r e .            I t h a s to b e a n e w

8    release.           And that's one of the problems the Government has

9    with this case, is that these properties were used.                                           We were

10   l a s t t h e r e i n t h e m i d 1 9 9 0 s.         They have to show that somehow

11   i t s f i r s t r e l e a s e w a s a f t e r 1 9 9 9.

12                       N o w, i f t h a t 's n o t c o m p l i c a t e d e n o u g h o r i t i s t o o

13   c o m p l i c a t e d , t h e r e' s a s i m p l e a n s w e r .     And the simple answer is

14   t h i s i s o n e of t h e s e a r e a s w h e r e t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s s i m p l y d o n e

15   nothing.           What specific release after 1999 created a danger for

16   a p e r s o n?      W h i c h i s i t?      What did you hear?                  W h a t w a s i t?        Much

17   less a new one.               And one that was caused willfully.

18                       And some other counsel are going to talk about

19   w i l l f u l n e s s , b e c a u s e i n d i v i d u a l D e f e n d a n t s- - w e' r e t r e a t e d t h e

20   s a m e w a y b u t t h e y w i l l b e a b l e to b e m o r e c o n c r e t e .              Who was

21   it?      Who was it that formed that evil intent, that heinous

22   i n t e n t to a c t u a l l y p u t s o m e b o d y d e l i b e r a t e l y in i m m i n e n t h a r m' s

23   w a y.    T h a t i s a h e i n o u s a c t.         Who?       Who's that bad person that

24   d i d t h a t b a d t h i n g, a n d w h i c h r e l e a s e?          Maybe they will blame

25   i t o n M r. S t r i n g e r.        I m e a n, w h e n y o u m a k e a c h a r g e l i k e t h a t,
                                                                                                          7807


1    e v e n a g a i n s t a c o m p a n y, a c o m p a n y i s p e o p l e .      Who formed the

2    i n t e n t to d e l i b e r a t e l y p u t s o m e b o d y in h a r m ' s w a y ?     W h o d i d it ?

3    And what release?

4                      T h e n , w e' r e n o t d o n e .      It must cause that release,

5    that identifiable release, not just general.                                  There has to be a

6    release that puts a person.                       Think of that caustic tank.                      If

7    you send somebody down to that caustic tank, you know exactly

8    w h a t y o u a r e d o i n g.      You can see it happen.                   T h e y go d o w n i n

9    that tank, you know you are putting them in harm's way and you

10   w a t c h i t a s it h a p p e n e d .      It ' s r i g h t t h e r e.      That's why it's to

11   a p e r s o n, n o t p e o p l e g e n e r a l l y .    It's to a person.

12                     So it's a release with the intent, imminent danger,

13   to a person.           You link it all together, you've got bad conduct.

14   Y o u' v e g o t c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t.    You start to take those things

15   a p a r t , t h a t is n o t w h a t t h i s c r i m e i s a b o u t .        This crime is

16   a b o u t v e r y , v e r y , v e r y b a d i m m e d i a t e , o b s e r v a b l e , it h a p p e n e d

17   conduct.         Bad people.           Bad intent.           Bad effects.             We d o n' t h a v e

18   any of that.

19                     S o t h e y s a y , w e l l- - a n d t h i s r e a l l y j u s t i l l u s t r a t e s

20   again, like the obstruction count, this just shows you how

21   incredible this is when you try to match up the script with the

22   l a w.    Y o u s a y, w e l l , w h a t ' s a n i m m i n e n t t h r e a t?

23                     An imminent threat is Instruction 40.                               A release

24   p l a c e s a n o t h e r p e r s o n -- s e e , l o o k a t t h o s e w o r d s .    A release

25   places another person in imminent danger if it is proved beyond
                                                                                                          7808


1    a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e r e l e a s e -- t h e r e l e a s e , n o t

2    s o m e t h i n g e l s e , n o t s o m e t h i n g g e n e r a l.     That release that was

3    i n t e n d e d a n d p u t a p e r s o n at r i s k .        How much risk?

4                       W e l l , t h e c a u s t i c t a n k, y o u k n o w i f s o m e b o d y c o m e s

5    in contact with caustic, they are going to get burned and if

6    t h e y b r e a t h e i t t h e i r l u n g s a r e g o i n g t o g e t b u r n e d.        You know

7    it.     I t 's t h e r e .     It's going to happen.                    T h a t 's w h y i t ' s b a d .

8    T h a t ' s w h y i t' s c r i m i n a l .

9                       What about a release that creates risk?                               Well, the

10   Government has been all about risk in this case.                                      Well, every

11   bit of asbestos carries with it some kind of risk.                                       W e l l, w h a t

12   kind of risk?             Is it a sure thing?                 No , i t d o e s n ' t h a v e t o b e a

13   sure thing.           75 percent?            Well, 75 percent will do it.                       What

14   about 2 percent?               D o e s n ' t m a k e it t h e r e .

15                      I t h a s to b e m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t t o c a u s e t h e d e a t h

16   o r s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n e x p o s e d to a r e l e a s e .

17   That is the level of probability that the law requires, more

18   likely than not.               G r e a t e r t h a n 50 p e r c e n t.      That's more likely

19   t h a n n o t.     I f y o u h a v e a 5 0- 5 0 p e r c e n t c h a n c e o f s o m e t h i n g , it

20   c a n h a p p e n o r i t c a n ' t, t h e n e i t h e r s i d e i s e q u a l l y p r o b a b l e .

21   T h i s h a s t o be m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o t .             More likely than not.

22   Again, think heinous.                   You go down in that tank, pretty darn

23   sure something bad is going to happen to you.

24                      Another example, you expose somebody improperly to

25   radiation.          T h e y m a y n o t g e t r a d i a t i o n b u r n s , b u t if y o u k n o w
                                                                                                              7809


1    t h a t t h a t r a d i a t i o n i s p r e t t y i n t e n s e, y o u c a n c a l c u l a t e t h e

2    probabilities of their actually getting sick.                                     This says they

3    h a v e g o t t o be h i g h p r o b a b i l i t i e s .       It ' s c r i m i n a l .     It's not

4    d e s i g n e d f o r s o m e t h i n g t h a t' s m i n i m a l o r r e m o t e .        So t h a t i s

5    t h e s t a n d a r d t h a t w e ' re d e a l i n g w i t h h e r e i n t h e c a s e .

6                       S o h o w h a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t p u r s u e d t h e i r c a s e in t h i s

7    regard?        A g a i n , c o m p l e t e m i s f i t b e t w e e n t h e c l e a n u p, t h e

8    cleanup story and the law.                       What have they said?                     Well, the

9    f i r s t t h i n g t h e y s a i d i s t h e y t r i e d to i m p o r t , w h o l e h o g i n t o

10   this courtroom, what the EPA decided before.                                    They have their

11   p e o p l e c o m e in a n d s a y I f o u n d i m m i n e n t d a n g e r, l i k e t h a t ' s it ,

12   that's all she wrote.

13                      Well, the Court is giving you an instruction that

14   s a y s , n o, t h a t ' s n o t a l l s h e w r o t e , t h a t d o e s n' t c o u n t in t h i s

15   case.       T h e r e i s a n i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t y o u w i l l s e e , a n d I 'l l s h o w

16   i t t o y o u n o w, i t' s I n s t r u c t i o n 4 4 .

17                      I n s t r u c t i o n 44 s a y s - - y o u ' v e h e a r d a l o t a b o u t

18   C E R C L A ; t h a t 's t h e c l e a n u p s t a t u t e .    Y o u 'v e h e a r d a l o t a b o u t

19   p e o p l e s a y i n g, w e l l , t h e r e m a y be a n i m m i n e n t o r s u b s t a n t i a l

20   t h r e a t , e t c e t e r a, e t c e t e r a .     You heard those opinions kind of

21   parroted from the way that they were used before.                                          That

22   s t a t u t e 's a c l e a nu p s t a t u t e.     I t, A , h a s a d i f f e r e n t s t a n d a r d,

23   a n d B , it ' s f o r c l e a n up .       It ' s n o t f o r c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n s .

24   Y o u c a n 't j u s t s a y , o h, w e l l , t h e w o r d s a r e t h e s a m e .               Like

25   w h a t w e 'v e b e e n s a y i n g b e f o r e , t h e y j u s t c h a n g e d t h e l a b e l s ?
                                                                                                             7810


1    No, you can't just change the labels, say cleanup equals

2    c r i m i n a l, i m m i n e n t d a n g e r e q u a l s i m m i n e n t d a n g e r .    D o e s n' t w o r k

3    t h a t w a y.     And the judge is saying that.                         You may not use the

4    E P A' s c o n c l u s i o n u n d e r C E R C L A a s a b a s i s o n w h i c h to f i n d a n y

5    defendant guilty of the offenses charged.

6                       So all that stuff you heard from the stand about,

7    w e l l , t h i s i s w h a t w e d e t e r m i n e d b e f o r e - -i t ' s i n y o u r m i n d , y o u

8    a r e n o t g o i n g t o g e t it o u t o f y o u r m i n d -- i t ' s i r r e l e v a n t a s a

9    m a t t e r of l a w.       T h e y m a d e an i r r e l e v a n t p i t c h t o y o u .

10                      N o w, w h a t e l s e d i d t h e y d o ?         Well, they said, well,

11   l e t' s t a k e a l o o k a t w h a t we d e c i d e d b e f o r e .           History's our

12   guide.        W e l l , t h e i r s c r i p t f r o m t h e c l e a nu p h i s t o r y i s n o t v e r y

13   robust.          What happened historically?                      Well, what happened

14   historically, and I'm going to show you these slides quickly,

15   is they did their risk investigation.                               Remember?

16                      They did their risk investigation.                             They did a risk

17   investigation and they did a simulation.                                 And I'm only focused

18   on outdoor air, because this is all outdoor air.                                         It ' s n o t

19   indoor air.           They did a simulation for a person doing

20   rototilling.            T h a t w a s t h e s i m u l a t i o n t h a t t h e y d i d.         Get the

21   d i r t r e a l l y s t i r r e d u p.

22                      Well, they developed a standard to say, well, how

23   much is going to be of concern?                           A n d i t ' s 0 6 0 , S l i d e 0 6 0.

24   S a i d , o u r s t a n d a r d, o u r R u l e o f D e c i s i o n i s g o i n g to b e b e t w e e n

25   1 in 1 0 ,0 0 0 a n d 1 i n 1, 0 0 0 .             So if they could find a risk of
                                                                                                             7811


1    b e t w e e n 1 i n 1 0 , 0 0 0 a n d 1 in 1 , 0 0 0 , t h a t w o u l d d r i v e a c l e a n up .

2    Y o u c a n a l r e a d y s e e h o w t h a t i s j u s t , y o u k n o w, l i g h t y e a r s

3    away from 50 percent.                      T h a t' s 1 o v e r 1 0 , 0 0 0 a s o p p o s e d to 1

4    over 2.        T h a t' s a d i f f e r e n c e o f 5 , 0 0 0 f o l d .        It ' s 5, 0 0 0 t i m e s

5    too low.         A n d y e t t h e y a r e s t i l l p r e s e n t i n g i t h e r e.

6                       Well, yes, you can do a cleanup on that basis but

7    i t 's n o t a n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r.         I t d o e s n ' t s a t i s f y t h e s t a n d a r d.

8    What did they find?                  T h e y c o u l d n' t e v e n f i n d a r i s k t h a t

9    e x c e e d e d 1 i n 1 0 ,0 0 0 .         They couldn't find it.                 They looked for

10   it.

11                      L e t' s t a k e a l o o k a t 0 5 1 .          It's actually the

12   testimony from Miller that deals with the standard.

13                      L e t' s t a k e l o o k a t 0 6 1.          061 is test results for

14   rototilling.            T h e l i n e r e p r e s e n t s t h e 1 i n 1 0 ,0 0 0 .         S o if i t 's

15   a b o v e t h e l i n e , i t' s t o o r i s k y a n d t h e y ' l l c l e a n i t u p .           Below,

16   n o t r i s k y a n d t h e y w o n' t c l e a n it u p .            A n d 1 o v e r 2, t h i s i s a

17   logarithmic scale but if you drew it, it would be huge.

18                      Standard in this case?                     Way up there.             What did they

19   f i n d a b o u t r o t o t i l l i n g?      R o t o t i l l i n g d i d n' t e v e n m e e t 1 i n

20   1 0 ,0 0 0 .   D i d n' t e v e n m e e t it .         That's why they had the problem

21   with the cleanup.                That's why they had to go with emergency

22   r e m o v a l , b e c a u s e t h e s e c a l c u l a t i o n s d i d n 't b e a r o u t t h e

23   n e c e s s i t y o f e v e n d o i n g a c l e a n up .        This is what they said for

24   outdoor air, and the outdoor air measurements that they took

25   without simulations could scarcely detect the asbestos.                                            So
                                                                                                         7812


1    even back in this period of time they weren't getting there.

2                       What about their actions?                       What do their actions say

3    about risk?           Their actions said about risk, what risk?

4    Remember how it became clear?                       T h i s is 0 6 9 .     Dr . M i l l e r w a s

5    a s k e d , w a s n ' t i t t r u e t h a t t h e i r p r o p e r t y, t h i s i s t h e P a r k e r s ,

6    w a s s a m p l e d in t h e v e r y e a r l y p a r t o f 2 0 0 0 , J a n u a r y a n d

7    F e b r u a r y.   The samples came in and they were not moved off the

8    property until June.

9                       So you think about it, the photos that they show

10   h e r e , t h e G o v e r n m e n t s h o w e d, i n v o k i n g t h e k i d s a n d t h e p i l e s

11   and how terrible it was.                    W e l l , a n y b o d y g o i n g o u t to t h e

12   Parkers' property after November of 1999 would have seen all of

13   w h a t - - a l l o f w h a t t h o s e p h o t o s s h o w e d.    They would have seen

14   a l l o f it .      The piles.          They would have known that the kids

15   were there.           T h e y w o u l d h a v e k n o w n a l l o f t h a t.

16                      D i d a n y b o d y s a y t h e n , o o o h , t h a t' s a n i m m i n e n t

17   t h r e a t , g o t to g e t t h o s e p e o p l e o f f t h e p r o p e r t y .     F a r f r o m it .

18   T h e y d i d n ' t g e t t h e m o f f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d t h e y d i d n' t t e l l t h e m

19   that.       And we were very clear.                   We asked people, did you

20   actually tell anybody that they were in imminent danger?                                          And

21   Dr. Miller from the stand, and I forget who else we asked,

22   n o b o d y w a s t o l d t h a t t h e y w e r e in i m m i n e n t d a n g e r .

23                      S o a l t h o u g h in t h e i r l i t t l e m e m o s t h a t t h e y a r e

24   w r i t i n g t o g e t t h e f u n d i n g f o r t h e i r c l e a nu p , y e a h , i m m i n e n t

25   danger, imminent danger, and that's what they repeat from the
                                                                                                        7813


1    stand.       W h e n t h e y w e r e t a l k i n g to t h e p e o p l e of L i b b y a n d t h e y

2    were acting with respect to the people of Libby at the time,

3    t h e y n e v e r t o l d t h e m a n y s u c h t h i n g b e c a u s e i t w a s n' t t r u e .

4    A n d t h e y l e t t h e m s t a y o n t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l it w a s o k a y a n d

5    t h i n g s w e r e r e a d y t o g e t t h e m t o m o v e o f f.

6                       And yet they still come in today with the photos and

7    the understated outrage of these people being in harm's way.

8    W e l l , i f t h e y w e r e i n h a r m 's w a y a t o u r - -a t o u r i n s t a n c e, i f

9    t h a t ' s r e a l h a r m 's w a y, w h e r e w a s a l l t h e E P A w h e n t h e y w e r e

10   watching them stay on that property for six months?                                        The

11   h y p o c r i s y i s j u s t a b s o l u t e l y s t u n n i n g.

12                      I n f a c t , t h e r e w e r e p u b l i c a s s u r a n c e s.   You remember

13   i n m y e x a m i n a t i o n o f Dr . M i l l e r I a s k e d h i m , I s a i d, W e l l , i n

14   f a c t , w e r e n ' t t h e r e p u b l i c a s s u r a n c e s t h a t y o u g a v e?

15                      W r i t e i t d o w n i n y o u r b o o k s, D X 6 0 1 5 , D X 5 4 3 6 , D X

16   8831.       T h e y a l l a r e p u b l i c a s s u r a n c e s.     L i b b y i s f i n e t o b e in .

17   The air is fine to breathe.                       M a k e s u r e t h a t y o u d o n' t g o, y o u

18   k n o w , d i s t u r b a l o t o f t h i s v e r m i c u l i t e , b u t c o m e on d o w n .

19   Repeatedly.           B u t t h e y w a n t e d t o p l e a s e t h e p e o p l e of L i b b y b y

20   cleaning everything up so, they wrote the memos and they

21   engaged in what's called an emergency removal.                                   Okay.

22                      T a k e a l o o k at M i l l e r 's t e s t i m o n y .     This is really

23   pretty stunning.               This is 065.

24                      Did they tell the people that were living there that

25   t h e r e w a s a n e m e r g e n c y b u t t h a t E P A j u s t d i d n 't h a v e t i m e t o
                                                                                                               7814


1    get to them?

2                      Answer.         They never--please repeat the question.

3                      All the people that were still living in areas where

4    t h e y w e r e o n t h e l i s t a n d it w a s s t i l l f u r t h e r d o w n, f u r t h e r

5    d o w n , b u t t h e y w e r e s t i l l c o n s i d e r e d e m e r g e n c y.      Did anybody

6    ever tell them that they were living in a place where there was

7    an emergency to clean up?

8                      We never said that.                  I would never say that.                       We

9    told them that there were risks associated with handling or

10   disturbing vermiculite material.                          That's what we told them.

11                     Imminent danger?               Imminent hazard?                  H u h - u h.

12   Emergency?          No .     B u t , w e w a n t t o c l e a n u p.        To clean up without

13   a risk assessment or with a risk assessment like this, you have

14   to have call it an emergency removal.                             So they filled out the

15   paper saying emergency removal, sent it in and got the funds.

16                     A n d t o s h o w w h a t a f r a u d t h a t i s, t h a t e m e r g e n c y ,

17   you know how long it's lasted?                        I t ' s s t i l l n o t o v e r.            I asked

18   Mr. Miller--this is at 067.

19                     S o t h e c l e a n up h a s b e e n o n g o i n g n o w f o r s i x y e a r s .

20   I t w a s s t i l l b e i n g c a l l e d an e m e r g e n c y c l e a n u p?

21                     Answer.         T h a t' s c o r r e c t .

22                     So six years equals emergency?

23                     Answer.         It's still in the emergency response.

24                     I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s of A m e r i c a t h e r e i s o n l y o n e

25   place I know where that kind of thing happens.                                      I t 's n o t i n
                                                                                                           7815


1    court.        I t ' s i n b u r e a u c r a t i c a g e n c i e s i n W a s h i n g t o n, D . C. ;

2    t h a t ' s w h e r e i t h a p p e n s , t h e s e k i n d s o f t h i n g s c a n t a k e p l a c e.

3    Call them an emergency even though everybody knows it's a

4    y e a r s - o l d p r o b l e m.   Y o u g e t t h e m o n e y.      You never tell the

5    p e o p l e in t h e c o m m u n i t y i t 's a n e m e r g e n c y b e c a u s e it ' s no t , b u t

6    then you come into court.                     Now, when you come into court you

7    c a n' t j u s t s a y t h o s e t h i n g s.      S o y o u 'v e g o t a l l t h a t .

8                       N o w w e ' re i n t h i s t r i a l .      And with this trial they

9    k n o w t h a t t h e y h a v e g o t t o a t l e a s t do s o m e t h i n g t o m a k e o u t

10   t h e i d e a t h a t t h e r e i s s c i e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e i r c a s e .         So w e 'v e

11   got science.

12                      So what do we learn in this trial?                           Well, we learned

13   t h a t t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of s c i e n c e.      A n d t h i s i s w h a t 's

14   r e a l l y so k e y i s i f y o u h a v e a c h a r g e t h a t i s t h i s -- t h a t' s t h i s

15   serious, people facing jail over the charge, got to be right.

16   Got to have more likely than not imminent threat.                                      Nothing that

17   h a p p e n e d h i s t o r i c a l l y e v e n c a m e c l o s e, b u t h e r e w e h a v e

18   science.         A n d s c i e n c e i s o u r b e a c o n of t r u t h .       You all, when

19   y o u g o to t h e d o c t o r s , w h e n y o u d o a n y t h i n g w h i c h r e a l l y

20   involves your life, you want to know what science has to say.

21   We all depend upon it.                   When it comes to putting people in

22   jail, pretty important to take a look at the science.

23                      So what do we have from the Government's science?

24   W e l l , w e h a v e t h e e p i d e m i o l o g y at L i b b y .      What did they do with

25   that?       T h e y j u s t i g n o r e d i t.     We then have the epidemiology for
                                                                                                               7816


1    M r . L o c k e y , Dr . L o c k e y.        A n d h e 's t h e i n d i v i d u a l - - f i r s t o f a l l ,

2    it was not Libby.                  And their own expert, Dr. Lemen, said you

3    h a v e t o h a v e L i b b y- s p e c i f i c s t u f f i n o r d e r t o g o .

4                          A n d i f we s h o w C L- 1 9 8 .        He was the guy that divided

5    doses into quartiles and purported to show that at very low

6    d o s e s w e c a n s e e s o m e s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r e s t.           And then I

7    e x a m i n e d.      I s a i d t h a t' s a l l b e c a u s e y o u a r e n o t c o n t r o l l i n g

8    for enough variables.                     I f y o u s t a r t to c o n t r o l f o r m o r e

9    variables, what happens?                       A l l o f y o u r r e s u l t s s p a n -- s t a r t t o

10   span 1.            A n d i f t h e y s p a n 1, w h a t c a n y o u s a y ?           They are not

11   statistically significant.                        S o it ' s o n l y w h e n y o u g e t t h e g r o u p

12   t h a t ' s g o t 6 .9 f i b e r - y e a r s -- r e m e m b e r w e h a d d o s e - r e s p o n s e

13   fiber-years?               I t 's o n l y t h e h i g h e s t q u a r t i l e t h a t s t a r t s t o

14   l o o k l i k e i t 's b o r d e r l i n e .      I t is n ' t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .

15   We fought a lot about that one.

16                         But then it turned out there was an even more

17   profound problem.                  L e t' s s h o w 1 0 2 8 2 .     Dr. Lockey had a flawed

18   study.        1 0 2 8 2.      I t' s a d e m o n s t r a t i v e e x h i b i t .     There it is.

19                         It turns out that there were four.                             Remember, I did

20   the arrows.              There were four different reasons why I thought

21   Dr. Lockey's calculations were too low.                                  So when he says I find

22   r e s u l t s a t 6 .9 f i b e r y e a r s , h i s m e a s u r e m e n t s , h i s d a t a , d o e s n' t

23   account for lots of exposures:                           P r e '6 3 e x p o s u r e s , o v e r t i m e

24   exposures, exposures before '72 which are only based on

25   estimates, post 1980 exposures.
                                                                                                            7817


1                      I n d e e d it w a s s o b a d , a l t h o u g h he d i d n ' t t e l l

2    a n y b o d y a b o u t i t i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m , t h a t h e ' s s t i l l l o o k i n g at

3    the impact of the post '80 data.                          He still doesn't know what it

4    is.     And under any set of circumstances, therefore, his numbers

5    a r e g o i n g t o g o u p.        So h e w a s b i l l e d a s h a v i n g a s t u d y t h a t

6    s h o w e d at v e r y l o w d o s e s t h e r e ' s r i s k.        You can't tell what low

7    dose there is risk in his study because his doses are off.                                             His

8    d o s e s a r e o f f.

9                      And then we had our scientist.                         Well, we then

10   g o t- - w e n t f u r t h e r d o w n t h e l i s t .    Risk assessment.              In a case

11   that's all about risk, the instruction says risk, they didn't

12   h a v e o n e p e r s o n t h a t c a m e in a n d d i d a q u a n t i t a t i v e r i s k

13   assessment.           They had to be able to say more likely than not.

14   You have to have a number.                      N o t o n e n u m b e r s l i p p e d t h e i r l i p s.

15                     I n f a c t , D r . M i l l e r s a i d w e' v e n e v e r d o n e o n e , w e ' ve

16   n e v e r c o m p l e t e d o n e , my a n a l y s i s i s q u a l i t a t i v e .   So l e t' s

17   qualitatively find these people criminally liable, instead of

18   running the numbers to see if we are quantitatively correct.

19   J u s t i c e i n A m e r i c a , c o u r t e s y o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t.

20                     M r . P e r o n a r d a d m i t t e d -- 0 4 8 .   Mr. Peronard said risk

21   a s s e s s m e n t i s, t o t h e h i g h e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , a s c i e n t i f i c

22   process.         Yeah.

23                     What did Dr. Miller have to say about that?                                  049.

24   He kind of messed around.                     He says--

25                     Well, do you agree or disagree?
                                                                                                         7818


1                      I disagree.

2                      Okay.       W h e n we g e t M r . P e r o n a r d a n d Dr . M i l l e r

3    reading off the same page, maybe we can listen to what they

4    have to say.           What did Miller say about quantitative risk

5    assessment at Libby?                 At Libby, this entire town to which they

6    h a v e s w o r n t h e i r a l l e g i a n c e, h a v e t h e y e v e n c o m p l e t e d a r i s k

7    assessment today?              No.      T a k e a l o o k at 0 5 0 .

8                      There is no quantitative risk assessment for Libby

9    at this point per se.

10                     Dr. Whitehouse.              He had all the case reports.

11   Indeed, Counsel recited the fact that according to Dr.

12   Whitehouse, all these folks have asbestos disease:                                      Mrs.

13   P a r k e r , M r . P a r k e r , i t' s t h e B u r n e t t s.    A s b e s t o s d i s e a s e.

14                     I t 's l i k e w e w e r e n' t h e r e to l i s t e n to t h e f a c t t h a t

15   Dr. Whitehouse has a definition of asbestos disease that nobody

16   else adopts.           H e 's p r e p a r e d t o c a l l p l e u r a l p l a q u e s, w h i c h a l l

17   of the other experts acknowledge and say are asymptomatic, you

18   d o n' t w o r r y a b o u t t h e m, y o u c o m e b a c k i n t h r e e o r f o u r y e a r s .

19   They could be a problem but it's very unusual.                                   Everybody else

20   i n t h e w o r l d s a y s t h a t a n d d o e s n o t s a y i t i s a s b e s t o s i s.          D r.

21   W h i t e h o u s e a l o n e s a y s i t ' s b a d n e w s a n d i t' s a s b e s t o s i s .

22                     D r . W h i t e h o u s e s a y s , oh , w e' v e s e e n h u n d r e d s of

23   people.        W e l l, a f t e r a l l t h e n e w s p a p e r s c o m e in a n d m a k e t h e s e

24   reports, of course hundreds of people from Libby are going to

25   come in.        And all of them are sick?                     W e l l, i s t h a t r e a l l y s o ?
                                                                                                        7819


1    T a k e a l o o k at 0 5 4 .

2                      O u t o f t h e 1 ,8 0 0 p e o p l e t h a t M r . M i l l e r i s f a m i l i a r

3    w i t h a f t e r 1 9 9 9 - -t h e s e a r e a l l p e o p l e w h o h a v e e x p o s u r e s g o i n g

4    b a c k b e f o r e t h e p e r i o d t h a t w e ' re t a l k i n g a b o u t .    So h o w i s it

5    relevant at all?

6                      O f t h e 1, 8 0 0 , 8 0 p e r c e n t h a d n o d i a g n o s t i c - - n o

7    negative diagnosis at all.                     Nothing was wrong with them at all.

8    18 percent had pleural disease; that means pleural plaques that

9    are asymptomatic.              Only 2 percent had asbestosis.

10                     So you get these notions of these huge numbers of

11   people are all sick.                T h a t w a s m i s l e a d i n g.    That was designed

12   to tell the script, to tell the script of Libby under siege.                                               2

13   p e r c e n t a s b e s t o s i s i s n o t g o o d , n o t at a l l u n e x p e c t e d f o r a

14   population that has had occupational exposure to asbestos.                                          The

15   1,800 didn't differentiate between people that worked at the

16   m i n e o r h a d e x p o s u r e to t a k e - h o m e d u s t .    Those are people who

17   are not at issue in this case.                       This is not about take-home

18   d u s t h a r m i n g p e o p l e b a c k d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d o f t i m e.    This is

19   about--and that's during the mine.                          This is about endangerment

20   from 1999 forward where there is no more dust to take home

21   because the mine has been shut down for the better part of ten

22   years.       This is community exposure.                      Community exposure.

23                     Mr. Cassidy recites the 11 mesothelioma cases.                                   Yet

24   h e c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d t h e f a c t t h a t it t u r n s o u t t h a t v e r y f e w

25   o f t h o s e p e o p l e , m o s t o f t h o s e p e o p l e, h a d a h i s t o r y o f
                                                                                                              7820


1    exposure to other kinds of asbestos.                              The idea that they were

2    all community turned out to be false.

3                       A n d w i t h r e s p e c t t o M r. W h i t e h o u s e - - Dr . W h i t e h o u s e 's

4    testimony saying, oh, well, gee, I think it's going to get

5    w o r s e , y o u h a v e a n i n s t r u c t i o n , I n s t r u c t i o n N o. 1 5 .        It says,

6    y o u a r e i n s t r u c t e d t o d i s r e g a r d D r . W h i t e h o u s e' s t e s t i m o n y a s

7    it relates to his prediction about the future incidents of

8    a s b e s t o s- r e l a t e d d i s e a s e a n d h i s c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t t h e g e n e r a l

9    cause of that disease.

10                      They proffered a witness to give this very

11   emotional, powerful testimony about a wave of disease.                                           He

12   wasn't qualified to do it.                      I t ' s o n l y t h e e p i t h a t c a n do i t ,

13   t h e e p i d e m i o l o g i s t.   He d i d n ' t h a v e it .       H e w a s n o t q u a l i f i e d.

14   His testimony has been stricken.                           So that all that remains of

15   Dr. Whitehouse are his diagnoses of individuals where he uses a

16   standard that other people don't use and where other

17   r a d i o l o g i s t s , y o u s a w m e c o n f r o n t h i m, c o m e t o e x a c t l y t h e

18   opposite conclusion.                  And still it's like it never happened

19   here.       T h a t Mr . C a s s i d y i s s t i l l t a l k i n g l i k e t h e

20   c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n n e v e r t o o k p l a c e , t h e C o u r t 's o r d e r n e v e r

21   took place.

22                      What about the epidemiological studies?                                This is our

23   testimony.           We t o o k y o u t o t h e e p i d e m i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s , s h o w e d

24   what they meant.                We brought you Dr. Moolgavkar.                         Dr .

25   Moolgavkar went through the epidemiology studies--let's take a
                                                                                                              7821


1    l o o k a t 1 0 2 8 5- - a n d h e e x p l a i n e d h o w t h e A T S D R m o r t a l i t y s t u d y

2    l o o k e d to t h e v e r y , v e r y l o w k i n d s o f e x p o s u r e s t h a t y o u w o u l d

3    h a v e a t L i b b y.      And they are so low their science has not even

4    been able to observe them.                         This is a theoretical risk that

5    w e 'r e t a l k i n g a b o u t .

6                       They are saying endangerment.                           They are saying it's

7    in our face.             T h e y a r e s a y i n g i t' s r i g h t n o w .        They are talking

8    a b o u t r i s k s at L i b b y t h a t if t h e y e x i s t , i f t h e y e x i s t , t h e y

9    only exist in mathematical models.

10                      S o p e o p l e g o t o j a i l f o r c r e a t i n g - - a r g u e d t o be

11   c r e a t i n g r i s k s t h a t a r e o n l y m a t h e m a t i c a ll y a s c e r t a i n e d a n d a r e

12   i n t h e r a n g e s o f 1 i n 1 0 , 0 0 0 o r w h a t e v e r , i f t h e y a r e t h e r e at

13   a l l.    Unbelievable.

14                      D r . M o o l g a v k a r a l s o r e r a n t h e L o c k e y d a t a, 1 0 2 8 1 ,

15   a n d f o u n d o u t t h a t m o s t o f t h e L o c k e y d a t a y o u c a n 't e v e n r e l y

16   upon.       It d o e s n ' t e v e n b e h a v e a s r e l i a b l e d a t a w o u l d .         It z i g s

17   and zags and it's not statistically significant.                                         And they

18   p r o f f e r e d t h a t t o y o u a s s a y i n g t h a t 's a b a s i s f o r t h e i r

19   charge.

20                      Case reports.               Lowest part of the totem pole.                          You

21   all have heard the term junk science.                                 This is junk science.

22   I t 's j u n k s c i e n c e.        I t' s m i s l e a d i n g s c i e n c e .   I t ' s n o n s c i e n c e.

23   B u t i t ' s n o n s c i e n c e t h a t d o e s n ' t e v e n a d h e r e to t h e l e g a l

24   s t a n d a r d.   They are trying to tell you that something is there

25   down in immeasurable levels of risk when the legal standard
                                                                                                        7822


1    says what are you talking about?                        If we created criminal

2    l i a b i l i t y e v e r y t i m e s o m e b o d y h a s g o t a r i s k of 1 in 1 0 , w e

3    would have criminal prosecutions every day of the week.                                       People

4    c a n b e e x p o s e d t o c h e m i c a l s.   People can be exposed to

5    chemicals knowingly that create risks of 1 in 10,000 and

6    n o b o d y t h i n k s a b o u t i t b e c a u s e t h e r i s k s a r e so l o w t h a t t h e

7    EPA doesn't even consider them worthy of action.                                   They will not

8    t a k e a c t i o n on r i s k s t h a t a r e b e l o w 1 i n 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

9                      How much time do I have left, Your Honor?

10                     THE COURT:          You've got about 15 minutes.

11                     MR. BERNICK:           Good.       So I ' m n o w g o i n g t o t a l k a b o u t

12   c o n s p i r a c y v e r y b r i e f l y a n d t h e n I ' m g o i n g t o g o t o t h e e n d of

13   my presentation.             S o I' v e g o t - - t e l l me w h e n f i v e m i n u t e s i s up ,

14   Your Honor.

15                     THE COURT:          I will.

16                     MR. BERNICK:           I f w e c o u l d s w i t c h t h e c h a r t.

17                     Conspiracy.          I want to say two things about

18   conspiracy.          N u m b e r o n e , c o n s p i r a c y is n o t a b o u t w h e t h e r w e ' ve

19   got a document in our files that nobody else has.                                   T h a t 's n o t

20   what conspiracy's about.                   C o n s p i r a c y i s a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e r e is

21   an agreement.           T h e r e h a s t o b e an a g r e e m e n t f o r c o n s p i r a c y .

22                     I f y o u t a k e a l o o k a t y o u r I n s t r u c t i o n 2 3, i f w e c a n

23   s h o w t h a t , I n s t r u c t i o n 2 3 , i t t e l l s y o u t h a t f o r t h e r e - -o n t h e

24   next page.         This one here.

25                     The keyword.           It is not necessary that the
                                                                                                            7823


1    conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on

2    every detail.            It is not enough, however, that they simply met,

3    discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or

4    perhaps helped one another.

5                      S o t h e i r d o c u m e n t s a r e- - r e f l e c t b u s i n e s s m e e t i n g s .

6    Well, of course there are going to be business meetings.

7    T h a t ' s w h a t y o u a r e s u p p o s e d t o d o w h e n t h e y do b u s i n e s s i s

8    they meet.          Particularly if they work for the same company,

9    generally they are at the same meetings.                                If you are at the

10   s a m e m e e t i n g s, g e n e r a l l y y o u a r e o n t h e s a m e d o c u m e n t s .

11                     Y o u m u s t f i n d t h a t t h e r e w a s a p l a n to c o m m i t a

12   crime.       A plan.        So now the question is, was there a plan the

13   Government has proven up?                     A n d t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t is n o , t h a t

14   t h e r e w a s n o p l a n t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s p r o v e n u p.        T h e r e is n o t a

15   s i n g l e p e r s o n w h o h a s t e s t i f i e d t o b e i n g p a r t y t o an a g r e e m e n t

16   t o c o m m i t a c r i m e, d o s o m e t h i n g u n l a w f u l , o r e v e n k n o w l e d g e a b l e

17   a b o u t i t.

18                     But what there clearly was, going back to my little

19   c h a r t h e r e , w a s t h a t t h e r e w a s a p l a n.         It was a different

20   plan.      It w a s a b u s i n e s s p l a n .       Transparent, documented, open

21   a n d o b v i o u s , c r a f t e d by M r . W o o d, w h o t h e G o v e r n m e n t d i d n ' t

22   want to talk to in '01 and would like not to have injected into

23   this proceeding.              That plan was specifically called out in

24   black and white, as the board indicates.                                The guidelines came

25   out in March.            It became a formal plan with the whole writeup
                                                                                                           7824


1    in May.        The plan called for compliance, called for health

2    surveillance, called for cooperation.                              The exhibits are here:

3    90, Government Exhibit 90, 108, 6980, and 76.                                    That was the

4    plan.

5                       N o w, a l l I ' m g o i n g t o c o v e r a t t h i s p o i n t i s w h a t

6    the witnesses actually say, who addressed this issue.

7                       First of all, Mr. Wood said that this is the most

8    complicated issue he ever dealt with.                              Said that it was his

9    issue.       And what does he say?                   He i s s u e s t h e g u i d e l i n e s i n

10   March, the guidelines for what's going to happen.                                       Mr. Locke

11   admits that they laid down the law.                             Same thing with respect to

12   the plan in May.

13                      W h a t w a s t h e p l a n?      148, Slide 148.               M r . L o c k e- - e v e n

14   Mr. Locke said the plan was to comply with the exposure

15   regulations.            Pretty illegal.

16                      Mr. Venuti, Slide 125.                   Same thing.

17                      M r . L o c k e - - t h i s i s t h e m o s t r e v e a l i n g t h i n g M r.

18   Locke said.           B e c a u s e I a s k e d h i m- - t h i s i s a t S l i d e 1 4 4 .

19                      M r . W o o d' s p l a n c o n t r o l l e d e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t i n g t o

20   tremolite during this period of time, correct?

21                      Answer.        Y e s , h e w a s t h e r e f o r f o u r y e a r s o r so .

22                      T h e n w e g o b a c k a n d f o r t h , b a c k a n d f o r t h.

23                      I s t h e a n s w e r t o m y q u e s t i o n y e s?         The plan dealt

24   w i t h a n d c o n t r o l l e d e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t e d t o t r e m o l i t e?

25                      Answer.        T r u e.
                                                                                                            7825


1                       S o a p p a r e n t l y M r . L o c k e , u ni n d i c t e d co - c o n s p i r a t o r

2    s u p r e m e , w a s n o t e v e n a w a r e o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y t h a t 's b e e n

3    charged in the case, because the only plan that controlled

4    e v e r y t h i n g w a s M r. W o o d ' s p l a n .     How can you have a conspiracy

5    w h e r e t h e u n i n d i c t e d co - c o n s p i r a t o r d o e s n' t e v e n t e s t i f y a b o u t

6    t h e p l a n?

7                       W h a t a b o u t D r. D u e c k e r?      Never thought he was in the

8    m i d d l e of a c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y ?     No.

9                       D r . Y a n g, y o u n e v e r t h o u g h t y o u w e r e i n t h e m i d s t of

10   a big criminal conspiracy?                        No.

11                      M r . W o o d, w o u l d y o u h a v e b e e n a w a r e of s u c h a

12   conspiracy if there were one?                           I certainly would have.

13                      That's the evidence.                   Without conspiracy, they have

14   got nothing.            Without an agreement, they have got nothing.

15   T h e y c a n' t a r g u e p e o p l e w e r e d o i n g s i m i l a r t h i n g s .      They

16   c a n' t - - it ' s n o t a c o n s p i r a c y , i t' s n o t a p l a n , i t ' s n o t a n

17   agreement.

18                      T h e y c a n' t a r g u e t h a t t h e r e a r e d o c u m e n t s i n f i l e s .

19   I c o u l d s p e n d a n h o u r t h a t I d o n' t h a v e g o i n g b a c k t h r o u g h t h e

20   documents that are in the files that they say should have been

21   disclosed.          And in each and every case showing you that there

22   a r e d o c u m e n t s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o r e a s o n t o.

23                      A n d t h e n y o u g e t , o h my g o o d n e s s, M r . L o c k e , t h e

24   obstruction-and-block memo that Mr. Cassidy recited here this

25   morning.         R e m e m b e r t h a t o n e?     H e s a y s o b s t r u c t a n d b l o c k.      And
                                                                                                           7826


1    w e w e n t t h r o u g h i t a n d d e m o n s t r a t e d he t o l d t h e G o v e r n m e n t

2    before this case was charged, he told the Government that that

3    was a plan that he dreamed up on his own.                                 He cooked it up all

4    on his own.             That he was being sarcastic.                      That maybe he was

5    tired.        That he was kicking up his heels.                           All of those things.

6                         T h e y t o l d h i m i n b l a c k a n d w h i t e, w h i l e t h e s e g u y s

7    h a d, q u o t e , f u n w i t h t h e d o c u m e n t s w h e n t h e y g o t t o g e t h e r w i t h

8    Mr. Locke.            And he brought none of that out on the stand on

9    d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n.   He a c t e d l i k e t h a t d o c u m e n t w a s a b s o l u t e l y

10   t h e G o d 's h o n e s t t r u t h.

11                        And then when Mr. Wood saw that document, and he

12   testified about this, he was--he was ticked.                                     Did the slow

13   burn.       C h e w e d o u t t h e w h o l e s t a f f , s a y i n g, t h i s k i n d o f s t u f f

14   i s t h e s t u f f t h a t w e ' ve b e e n w o r k i n g s o h a r d n e v e r t o s e e ,

15   never to deal with.                  Don't want to see it again.                      And he took

16   control of the relationship with NIOSH.                                He reached a

17   r e s o l u t i o n w i t h N I O S H a n d r e a c h e d c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h N I O S H.

18                        And they are still acting like this never happened,

19   t h a t y o u a l l d i d n' t h e a r i t.         T h a t a p p a r e n t l y y o u w e r e n 't

20   listening or taking notes.                       B e c a u s e it ' s t h e s a m e s p i e l t h a t

21   was there at the opening of the case.                               It was the same spiel

22   that they knew about when they interviewed Mr. Locke in '01 and

23   k n e w w a s f a l s e w h e n t h e y i n t e r v i e w e d M r . W o o d i n ' 01 .        They

24   d o n' t c a r e .      T h e y' v e g o t t h e i r l i t t l e s c r i p t .    T h a t' s a l l t h e y

25   want to pursue.               Secrets.         G o o d g r i e f.
                                                                                                         7827


1                      L e t' s t a l k a b o u t -- l e t 's p u t a n o t h e r b o a r d u p - -I ' m

2    going to run out of time.

3                      I ' ve g o t o n e t h i n g I ' ll s a y a b o u t t h i s b i g

4    conspiracy.           Number one, these little documents--not little,

5    sometimes they are significant.                         Go back to your notes, think

6    about the documents, think about how in each and every case

7    they did something on direct examination that was shown to be

8    completely misleading on cross.                         Just like we did here today.

9                      A n d t h e o n l y o t h e r t h i n g I 'l l s a y i s t h a t w e ' ve n o w

10   got a new version of the secret.                          We know the secret?                  It w a s a

11   secret then.           Here's the secret.                 And Mr. McLean purported to

12   r e c i t e t h e s a m e s e c r e t, e x c e p t it ' s n o w a d i f f e r e n t s e c r e t .

13                     The first secret he said was that if you have

14   reduction, you have small amounts of tremolite that can create

15   large air concentrations.                     I d o n' t h a v e t i m e to s h o w i t t o y o u .

16   There are documents--there is a document that was written in

17   1956 and was turned over to NIOSH in 1972 where it was written

18   to the State of Montana, by the State of Montana, that what's

19   difficult about this material is small amounts create large

20   airborne concentrations.                    Exactly the secret that was out there

21   50 years ago.            Now the Government prosecution comes along and

22   s a y s , o h, w e l l , g e e , y o u k n o w , we ' r e g o i n g t o p r o s e c u t e

23   s o m e b o d y b e c a u s e t h e y d i d n 't t e l l t h e G o v e r n m e n t t h e n .

24                     This document was sent to NIOSH in 1982.                                He never

25   brought it to your attention.                       He p u t a w i t n e s s o n t h e s t a n d
                                                                                                         7828


1    n a m e d K e n n e d y w h o w e n t b a c k t o l o o k at a l l t h e o l d r e c o r d s a n d

2    they didn't even let her testify about the old records.                                        She

3    had forgotten most of them.                     T h e s e w e r e i n t h e o l d f i l e s.

4                      S o t h e n e w t h e o r y i s - -a n d it ' s so t r a n s p a r e n t .        The

5    n e w t h e o r y s a y s , w e l l , w h a t t h e y d i d n' t s a y w a s t h a t e v e n

6    t h o u g h t h e y h a d r e d u c e d a l l t h e t r e m o l i t e d o w n t o an e x t r e m e l y

7    l o w l e v e l , t h e y c o u l d n' t g e t i t a l l o u t .      Remember that?            Yeah,

8    they got it real, real clean but they couldn't get it all the

9    way out, so therefore some would still get in the air.

10                     N o w, i f t h a t 's a s e c r e t , t h e n t h a t i s r e a l l y q u i t e

11   something.          B e c a u s e i f y o u -- a s s o o n as y o u h a v e a n y a i r d a t a

12   taken at all for that clean tremolite and it shows a single

13   f i b e r , y o u k n o w i t' s no s e c r e t t h a t it g e t s o u t .           Right?     If

14   f i b e r s c o m e o f f , t h e y a r e in t h e a i r .       I f t h e y d o n 't c o m e o f f- -

15   they are not in the air, they don't come off.

16                     S o i f i t' s a s e c r e t t h a t t h e r e a r e f i b e r s t h a t s t i l l

17   c o m e o u t, t h e n w e k e p t a s e c r e t e v e n t h o u g h e v e r y b o d y k n o w s it

18   still releases fibers into the air.                           In fact, if it were true

19   t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o f i b e r r e l e a s e s , i t w o u l d n e v e r n e e d to b e

20   regulated at all.              I n 1 9 8 0 w h e n i t w e n t d o w n to a v e r y l o w

21   c o n c e n t r a t i o n, i n 1 9 9 0, w e w o u l d h a v e k i c k e d up o u r h e e l s a n d

22   s a i d p r o b l e m s o l v e d , we ' r e f r e e , w e ' re f r e e o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s .

23   B u t w e w e r e n 't , b e c a u s e i t s t i l l r e l e a s e d f i b e r s .   T h a t 's a

24   hell of a secret.

25                     THE COURT:          A little less than five minutes.
                                                                                                            7829


1                      MR. BERNICK:            I s t h e r e a n y w a y , Y o u r H o n o r, I c o u l d

2    euchre out three minutes?                    Thinking proportionally with the

3    Government.

4                      THE COURT:           Better not waste your time not talking.

5                      MR. BERNICK:            T h e o n l y t h i n g , t h e l a s t t h i n g I' l l

6    s a y a b o u t t h e s e c r e t is i t w a s m a g n i f i c e n t w h e n M r . K o v e r t o o k

7    the stand.          He w a s t h e g u y w h o d i d t h e - - w h o t e s t i f i e d f o r t h e

8    G o v e r n m e n t a b o u t h o w l i t t l e w a s k n o w n.   A n d t h e n w e t o o k- -

9    remember we filled out that whole chart, he worked for the EPA,

10   w i t h a l l o f t h e t h i n g s, a l l o f t h e t h i n g s t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t

11   knew and that he had been provided.                           In fact, he said this

12   p r o d u c t w a s m o r e h e a v i l y s t u d i e d, t h e v e r m i c u l i t e , t h a n a n y

13   o t h e r p r o d u c t; t h a t G r a c e w a s a l l o v e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

14   providing it to the Government.                          And he admitted all of those

15   t h i n g s , t h a t t h e r e w a s n o s e c r e t.     A n d I a s k e d, w e l l , d i d t h e

16   Government even show you most of the documents I've shown you

17   here this afternoon?                 Never shown them.

18                     S o , I w a n t t o g e t t o - -I w a n t t o p u t up o n t h e

19   b o a r d - - I w a n t t o p u t up t h e b o a r d t h e s i m p l e q u e s t i o n s a n d

20   answers.        This board here.               I've got two boards and I'm done.

21                     W h e n w e d e a l w i t h t h e i s s u e o f c r i m i n a l i t y y o u' l l go

22   through the charges, but there are certain, in a sense, very

23   streamlined joints here.

24                     Count I.         Have they proven beyond a reasonable doubt

25   that, and considering our evidence, that the Defendants
                                                                                                          7830


1    actually agreed to an illegal plan versus a business plan?

2                       I f y o u r a n s w e r t o t h a t i s no , a n d w e b e l i e v e t h a t

3    c l e a r l y i t s h o u l d b e no , t h e c o n s p i r a c y c o u n t i s o v e r .       No

4    conspiracy?           T h a t' s i t.        C o n s p i r a c y is a p l a n .   Not there,

5    t h a t ' s it .

6                       Any evidence that the defendant committed an overt

7    act after 1999 in furtherance of a single conspiracy?                                         All

8    t h e s e o v e r t a c t s , t h e y h a v e t o be i n f u r t h e r a n c e .          They are not

9    simply acts that happened.                       They are only important if they are

10   in furtherance of a conspiracy.

11                        So when you go through the checklist of all the

12   o v e r t a c t s , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y h a p p e n e d d o e s n 't s a y m u c h.        It

13   is why they happened.                      If you don't have one after 1999, it's

14   over.

15                      C o u n t s II t h r o u g h I V .      Did the Defendants cause a

16   specific release that caused a real person to have a greater

17   t h a n 5 0 p e r c e n t c h a n c e, v e r s u s t h e e x t r a p o l a t i o n o f 1 i n

18   1 0 ,0 0 0 , o f g e t t i n g a s e r i o u s d i s e a s e ?     If you say the science

19   doesn't show 50 percent, the endangerment claim is over.                                            The

20   c h a r g e is g o n e .

21                      A n d, f i n a l l y , G r a c e ' s e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y .     These are

22   t h e o b s t r u c t i o n c o u n t s.     If what it was doing was stating its

23   o p e n o b j e c t i o n s , n o t c o r r u p t l y b u t b e c a u s e t h e y b e l i e v e d t h e m,

24   there's no corruption and obstruction is gone.

25                      I ' m g o i n g t o s p e n d t h e l a s t f i v e m i n u t e s , t h e n,
                                                                                                          7831


1    t a l k i n g a b o u t- - d o 0 1 6 .   I now want to talk about credibility.

2    I s p e n t a l l my t i m e t a l k i n g a b o u t c r i m i n a l i t y i n t h e e v i d e n c e.

3    I w a n t to t a l k a b o u t c r e d i b i l i t y a n d h o w t h i s c a s e w a s

4    prosecuted.

5                       Y o u' v e s e e n it w a s p r o s e c u t e d a c c o r d i n g t o a s c r i p t.

6    Y o u' v e s e e n t h a t t h e s c r i p t c a m e f r o m a r e g u l a t o r y b a c k d r o p a n d

7    was simply adopted to this case.                          A n d y o u' v e s e e n t h e p r o b l e m s

8    that the evidence now shows for trying to meet that script in

9    this case.           And now you know why there is an inextricable tie

10   between how the prosecution pursued the case and the lack of

11   e v i d e n c e t h e y h a d.     B e c a u s e t h e y d i d n' t h a v e a c a s e, t h e y

12   couldn't afford to let you know what the full truth was.                                           And

13   t h a t ' s w h y e v e r y t h i n g t h a t 's h a p p e n e d i n t h e c a s e f r o m t h e

14   Government is slanted.

15                      A n d i t ' s p r o d u c e d w h a t I c a m e u p w i t h.        I t' s

16   produced a dark flower in this trial.                             I t' s s o m e t h i n g t h a t h a s

17   p o w e r , t h a t h a s e m o t i o n , b u t i t 's f u n d a m e n t a l l y w r o n g .    It's

18   fundamentally dark sided.                     And the way they have done it is

19   r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e.   I 'm g o i n g t o c l i c k t h r o u g h a w h o l e b u n c h o f

20   s l i d e s a n d t h e n I' m g o i n g to s i t d o w n.          T h i s is a t r i p d o w n

21   memory lane.             G o i n g t o h a v e t o do t h i s f a s t .

22                      Slide 117.            117, T.J.        117.      R e m e m b e r h o w- - t r y 1 1 8 .

23   D o y o u n o t h a v e i t?        Okay.      I'm going to just show you this.

24                      Remember how the field on the screening plant that

25   said indoor was deleted?                    Do y o u r e m e m b e r a l l t h a t ?      How did
                                                                                                            7832


1    that happen?               W e l l , f i r s t Dr . M i l l e r s a i d- - d o y o u h a v e 1 2 0 ?

2                        MR. LOEBBAKA:             I do.

3                        MR. BERNICK:             He says, I don't know how that

4    decision came about.                    I d o n' t k n o w .

5                        T h e n 5 0 0.      I 'l l t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h a t

6    d e c i s i o n.

7                        Then Ms. Goldade shows up, 196.                          That entry was

8    c e n s o r e d f o r l i t i g a t i o n p u r p o s e s.     I t w a s t a k e n o u t.     It was

9    taken out for purpose of presentation to this jury.                                         That's

10   correct.

11                       N o w, w h o d o e s s h e s a y w a s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h a t?

12   1 9 7.    M r. M c L e a n .

13                       What about all the examples that were presented of

14   the photographs and the demonstratives that showed high

15   numbers?           Who was responsible for that?                        T h a t 's 6 2 1.     Internal

16   memo stating that the EPA, who was helping out in this process,

17   d e c i d e d t o d o c h e r r y - p i c k i n g a n d t h a t' s w h y t h e y c a m e u p w i t h

18   examples of exposures that turned out to be extreme exposures

19   w h e r e m o s t o f t h e s a m p l e s s h o w e d n o n d e t e c t s o r n o t h i n g at a l l.

20                       T h e n r e m e m b e r M r . M i l l e r ' s r e d f o l d e r, S l i d e 1 2 7 .

21   Slide 127.           Remember, he had the red folder under the table?

22   W e f i n a l l y m a d e h i m b r i n g it o u t a n d i t h a d a l l t h e s e i n t e r n a l

23   notes and that we had to recross Dr. Miller based upon his

24   internal notes.                I t w a s s i t t i n g r i g h t u n d e r C o u n s e l' s t a b l e .

25   R e m e m b e r t h a t?
                                                                                                                7833


1                           T h e n y o u h a v e- - I w o n ' t e v e n g o t h r o u g h t h e d e t e c t s

2    and the nondetects.                      I' l l j u s t s h o w y o u o n e .      1 0 0 5 7.      10057.

3    O h , t h a t' s a p o o -p o o ; o f c o u r s e t h e r e a r e n o n d e t e c t s .             What's

4    important here is that 93 percent of the samples were

5    n o nd e t e c t s .      T h e y d i d n' t t e l l y o u t h a t .      Every single chart

6    they showed you was misleading.                              It was one-sided.

7                           Mr. Kover who testified--this is Slide 123.                                   Did the

8    prosecution share with you all the evidence that said that

9    G r a c e g a v e t h e m i n f o r m a t i o n?

10                          No, he did not.

11                          I a s k e d , A r e n' t t h e y e y e o p e n e r s?

12                          Y e s, t h e y a r e.

13                          T h e n h e h a d Ms . K e n n e d y , 1 2 1 .       Remember all the old

14   documents that I introduced through her?                                    T h e y d i d n' t s h o w h e r

15   any of those documents either.                             N o t s h o w n o n c r o s s -e x a m i n a t i o n .

16                          1 2 2.      N o r w a s s h e s h o w n p a r t o f -- 1 2 2 -- s m a l l

17   part--the study that she was saying that was blocked, she never

18   even read it.                   T h e y n e v e r s h o w e d i t to h e r .

19                          Dr. Lemen.           Dr . L e m e n , w h o w a s an e p i d e m i o l o g i s t ,

20   took the stand, didn't talk about a single epidemiological

21   study even though he had discussed the ATSDR mortality study

22   with Mr. Cassidy the prior Sunday.                                So t h e y t a l k a b o u t it .

23   They put him on the stand, he's an epidemiologist, they don't

24   even have him talk about it on the stand.                                      They tell him it was

25   a lie.        T h e y s a y t h e r e' s n o c o m m u n i t y i n f o r m a t i o n .          Of course
                                                                                                         7834


1    there is community exposure information.                               There was ambient

2    a i r.    There was activity-based sampling.

3                       T h e n y o u' v e g o t M r. L o c k e .     Mr. Locke who testifies

4    on direct examination.                  T h i s i s S l i d e 0 0 7.      Slide 007.          PM 007.

5    I t s a y s , o n my - - I a s k e d , A n d t h e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i s y o u w e r e

6    t e s t i f y i n g o n b e h a l f of , i n s u p p o r t of t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c a s e

7    against your former employer.                       T r u e or n o t ?

8                       N o t t r u e.

9                       T h a t t u r n s o u t , y o u h e a r d it o n c o n t i n u e d

10   examination, he's got a special relationship.                                  H e g e t s e- m a i l s

11   f r o m t h e G o v e r n m e n t s a y i n g , y o u k n o w , l e t' s k e e p i t u p , a l l t h e

12   g o o d w o r k , t h i s t h i n g i s g o i n g to w o r k o u t .       E- m a i l s t h a t

13   e x p r e s s h i s v e n o m, M r . L o c k e ' s v e n o m f o r M r . B e t t a c c h i a n d

14   other people at Grace.                  Again and again and again.

15                      T h e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i s - -a n d I c o u l d g o t h r o u g h

16   t h i s , y o u ' v e s e e n i t - -t h e w a y t h e y c r e a t e d t h a t f l o w e r w a s

17   turning their witnesses into puppets.                            And they gave them only

18   c e r t a i n d o c u m e n t s, r e v i e w e d t h e m a g a i n a n d a g a i n a n d a g a i n j u s t

19   like they are doing here.                    P u t t h e m on t h e s t a n d a n d h a v e t h e m

20   do their little act and act like that was truth.                                    Almost

21   w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n.

22                      W h a t d o t h e y d o w i t h t h e e x p e r t s?      They only use

23   experts that were either plaintiffs' lawyer experts like Dr.

24   Lemen or who are insiders, people that they knew that they

25   c o u l d c o u n t on .
                                                                                                              7835


1                       The alteration of evidence, the changing of the

2    demonstratives, colluding with witnesses.                                  T h e w h o l e c a s e - - i t' s

3    not just the e-mails, the whole case is tainted.                                       It ' s t a i n t e d

4    b y m i s c o n d u c t.      I t' s t a i n t e d b y s o m e t h i n g t h a t s h o u l d n e v e r

5    h a v e o c c u r r e d.

6                       A n d w h a t t h i s m e a n s i s- - d o w e h a v e t h e l a s t s l i d e

7    here?       L e t ' s p u t u p t h e l a s t s l i d e a n d I 'm g o i n g t o c l o s e o f f

8    h e r e - - o h, I ' m r e m i n d e d.      N o, w e 'l l d e a l w i t h t h a t .

9                       The source of the entire problem at the end of the

10   day goes back to criminality.                          Their case was a politically

11   driven case.               T h e s c r i p t w a s w r o n g f o r t h e l a w a n d , t h e r e f o r e,

12   t h e y h a d t o m a k e u p t h e e v i d e n c e a n d p r e s e n t it i n a w a y t h a t

13   they could deal with their problems.

14                      A n d s o w h e n we c o m e b a c k d o w n t o i t at t h e e n d o f

15   the day, there is an easy checkmark here.                                  When you talk about

16   c r e d i b i l i t y , w a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t 's p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h i s c a s e

17   c r e d i b l e?   The answer is clearly no.

18                      N o w, I w a n t to t a l k a b o u t t h e v e r d i c t f o r a b o u t

19   90 seconds.           It's important that your verdict here say two

20   t h i n g s , f r o m m y c l i e n t' s p o i n t of v i e w .        One, there was no

21   crime.        W e w a n t y o u r v e r d i c t t o b e a v e r d i c t t h a t d o e s n 't

22   simply focus on the Government but that focuses on the

23   baselessness of the Government's charges.

24                      M y c l i e n t w a n t s e x o n e r a t i o n.     My client wants its

25   d a y i n co u r t t o b e m e a n i n g f u l .        My client wants you all to say
                                                                                                        7836


1    w e 'v e l o o k e d a t t h e e v i d e n c e a n d t h e r e i s n o c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t

2    by the people that work at this company.

3                      N u m b e r t w o , we d o w a n t y o u a l s o t o f o c u s o n t h e

4    Department of Justice and the prosecution of this case.                                          Mr.

5    Cassidy talked about America and the way things work in

6    America.        T h i s i s n o t t h e w a y j u s t i c e s h o u l d w o r k in A m e r i c a .

7    T h i s i s n o t it .      And your verdict should equally consider that.

8    A n d t h e t w o t h i n g s a r e t o t a l l y l i n k e d.    T h e y c o m e d o w n to a

9    central proposition.

10                     A n d, f i n a l l y , I w a n t to t a l k a b o u t m y c l i e n t

11   s p e c i f i c a l l y a n d r a i s e w i t h y o u w h a t I t h i n k is s o m e t h i n g

12   tough.

13                     My client's a company.                  A company's comprised of

14   people.       T h e y a r e n o t g o i n g t o go t o j a i l, t h e p e o p l e a t G r a c e .

15   T h e y w i l l - - i f w e 'r e f o u n d g u i l t y, t h e r e w i l l be a p e n a l t y .         And

16   most of all, the company will be a convicted criminal which has

17   a profound impact on the people of Grace.

18                     B u t i n a s e n s e i t' s m o r e d i f f i c u l t .     It's more

19   d i f f i c u l t t o j u s t i f y in y o u r o w n m i n d s , r a t h e r t h a n

20   i n d i v i d u a l s , a c o m p a n y, t o b e a b l e t o s a y, w e l l , w h a t ' s t h e b i g

21   deal?      How can we let off a company, to say nothing of a

22   company that at least in this part of the country does not

23   enjoy a high reputation.                   And we understand that and we

24   understand that history.

25                     B u t t h a t i s w h y i t' s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t y o u
                                                                                                            7837


1    f o c u s o n G r a c e , b e c a u s e G r a c e i s a t r u e t e s t of y o u r

2    deliberations and whether this process produces justice based

3    upon the facts.             It is Grace.              It i s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h

4    respect to Grace.                 It is the ultimate way to make sure that the

5    m e s s a g e t h a t y o u r v e r d i c t r e f l e c t s h a s c l a r i t y t o it .     So i t i s

6    not only important to my client, the company, and the people

7    that work there.                 I t is o f v i t a l i m p o r t a n c e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t

8    t h i s s y s t e m in f a c t w o r k s in a h i g h l y c o n t r o v e r s i a l c a s e f o r a

9    company that many people would say, Well, I read in the

10   n e w s p a p e r s i t' s a b a d c o m p a n y .     S o w h a t i f t h e y g e t c o n v i c t e d?

11                     S o w e r e a l l y a s k y o u to t r e a t t h e c o m p a n y t h e s a m e

12   way that you would treat an individual and give us the same

13   clarity of your determination.                         Thank you very much for your

14   attention.

15                     Thank you very much, Your Honor, for giving me a

16   l i t t l e e x t r a t i m e.

17                     THE COURT:             W h o w i l l be g o i n g n e x t ?     Mr. Frongillo.

18                     M R . F R O N G I L L O:     T h a n k y o u , Y o u r H o n o r.

19                     O n F e b r u a r y 23 r d , a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h i s c a s e , M r .

20   M c L e a n a n d M r. C a s s i d y s t o o d b e f o r e y o u a n d t h e y s a i d t o y o u

21   t h a t i t w a s an h o n o r to r e p r e s e n t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n t h i s

22   important criminal case.                      T h e y w e r e r i g h t.   I t' s n o t o n l y a n

23   h o n o r , it ' s a p r i v i l e g e t o r e p r e s e n t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s in

24   important criminal matters.                       And I did it for ten years in the

25   District of Massachusetts.                       And in representing the United
                                                                                                           7838


1    S t a t e s in f e d e r a l c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s t h e r e a r e s a c r e d o b l i g a t i o n s

2    a n d s a c r e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t o r h a s.

3                       F i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t, t h e p r o s e c u t o r h a s t o w e a r a

4    white hat.          He h a s t o b e i m p a r t i a l .        He has to be objective.

5    H e h a s to m a k e a d e t e r m i n a t i o n b a s e d o n a l l o f t h e f a c t s, t h e

6    g o o d o n e s a n d t h e b a d o n e s , w h e t h e r or n o t a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n

7    s h o u l d go f o r w a r d a n d w h e t h e r o r n o t t o s e e k an I n d i c t m e n t .

8    A n d h e n e e d s t o k n o w if a n I n d i c t m e n t w a s r e t u r n e d i m p r o p e r l y,

9    t h a t i t s h o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d.

10                      The goal of the Department of Justice and federal

11   p r o s e c u t o r s a r e t o i n s u r e t h a t j u s t i c e b e d o n e.       I t' s n o t a b o u t

12   winning.         I t 's i n t h e n a m e o f t h a t d e p a r t m e n t i t s e l f , t h e

13   Department of Justice.                   And in this case a remarkable and

14   extraordinary act happened.                       You witnessed it.                Judge Molloy

15   had to stop this trial and address you because of misconduct

16   that occurred on behalf of the United States.

17                      If I could have Slide 1.                     He h a d t o e x p l a i n t o y o u

18   what the role of the Government was.                             A n d i f y o u l o o k a t w h a t' s

19   o n t h e s c r e e n b e f o r e y o u , he s a i d , " T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y

20   and the Department of Justice are representatives not of an

21   ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereign whose

22   obligation to govern impartially is the source of its

23   l e g i t i m a c y t o g o v e r n at a l l a n d w h o s e i n t e r e s t, t h e r e f o r e , i n a

24   c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n is n o t t h a t i t s h a l l w i n a c a s e b u t t h a t

25   j u s t i c e s h a l l b e d o n e ."
                                                                                                           7839


1                       U n f o r t u n a t e l y, j u s t i c e w a s n o t d o n e h e r e .       And Judge

2    Molloy had to address you and explain to you that there had

3    been misconduct pertaining to the suppression and withholding

4    o f m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t p e r t a i n e d to t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of a

5    witness.         Fortunately, the Government was caught.

6                       And Judge Molloy read to you the following words,

7    "In this case the Department of Justice and the United States

8    A t t o r n e y' s O f f i c e h a v e v i o l a t e d t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

9    o b l i g a t i o n s to t h e D e f e n d a n t s .    They have violated the Federal

10   R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e, a n d t h e y h a v e v i o l a t e d o r d e r s o f

11   the Court.           The Government has violated its solemn obligation

12   and duty in this case by suppressing or withholding material

13   proof pertinent to the credibility of Robert Locke.                                            As a

14   sanction for this inexcusable dereliction of duty, the Court

15   h a s e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t p r o h i b i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a n y p r o o f

16   offered by Robert Locke in the case brought against Robert

17   Bettacchi.           Thus, you may not consider testimony of Robert

18   Locke when you decide the charges pending against Robert

19   Bettacchi.           L o c k e' s t e s t i m o n y i s s t r i c k e n i n i t s e n t i r e t y a s i t

20   r e l a t e s t o R o b e r t B e t t a c c h i. "

21                      B u t t h a t w a s n' t t h e o n l y i n s t a n c e o f m i s c o n d u c t .

22   They were legion.                If I could have Slide 3.                      Here are some of

23   t h e o t h e r t h i n g s t h a t h a p p e n e d f o r w h i c h t h e r e w a s n o a p o l o g y.

24                      A d v i s i n g L o c k e t h a t h e w o u l d a p p e a r m o r e c r e d i b l e at

25   trial if he rejected immunity, even though the Government had
                                                                                                            7840


1    already given him immunity.

2                       Calling Mel Parker to lie about his alleged lack of

3    k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p r e s e n c e of a s b e s t o s i n v e r m i c u l i t e a n d i t s

4    possible health hazards.

5                       Presenting a sweeping sample from the long shed as

6    an outdoor air sample, even though EPA had classified the

7    s a m p l e as a n i n d o o r a i r s a m p l e f o r a l m o s t a d e c a d e .

8                       Presenting air samples during cleanup activities and

9    t r y i n g to p a s s t h e m o f f t o s h o w t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n e x i s t e d

10   b e f o r e t h e c l e a n u p.

11                      Failing to introduce Government reports showing

12   e x t e n s i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e a n d k n o w l e d g e of

13   its friability and possible health hazards.

14                      Failing to introduce the agreement between the City

15   of Libby and Grace regarding the donation of the export plant

16   in which the City agreed to pay for remediation or removal of

17   the vermiculite.

18                      P r e p a r i n g w i t n e s s e s , l i k e F r a n k K o v e r, t o t e s t i f y

19   only about limited documents while not even showing them

20   documents favorable to the defense.

21                      And I'll add a couple more.                        The Government wasn't

22   even straight with you about whether this is truly asbestos.

23   T h e y d i d n ' t w a n t t o t e l l y o u t h a t 9 5 p e r c e n t of t h e f i b e r s w e r e

24   winchite and richterite which have never been regulated as

25   asbestos in the history of this country by any regulatory
                                                                                                         7841


1    a g e n c y or t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s .

2                      They also tried to give you the impression that it

3    i s i l l e g a l f o r G r a c e to h a v e s o l d p r o d u c t s t h a t h a d a s b e s t o s i n

4    it with the vermiculite.                   It h a s n e v e r b e e n i l l e g a l t o s e l l

5    products made with Libby vermiculite.                            Libby vermiculite was

6    n e v e r r e g u l a t e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , n o t o n c e.    Products

7    containing Libby vermiculite were not regulated.

8                      There has been unfair play and deception.                                The case

9    is tainted.          You can't trust the Government.                         Rather than

10   seeking justice, they are playing a different game.                                      The game

11   that they are playing is that the end justifies the means.

12                     T h a t , i n a n d o f i t s e l f, p r o v i d e s y o u w i t h r e a s o n a b l e

13   doubt as to all charges against all Defendants in this case and

14   you should weigh these factors heavily in your deliberations.

15                     I now want to talk to you about the charges against

16   Mr. Bettacchi specifically.                     I'm going to give you a road map

17   of what I'm going to cover.                     Mr. Bettacchi is charged with

18   three counts of violating different provisions of the Clean Air

19   A c t:    Counts I, III and IV.

20                     Counts III and IV are almost identical.                              They charge

21   knowing endangerment.                 C o u n t I I I, e n d a n g e r m e n t a t t h e s c r e e n i n g

22   plant between November 3, 1999 and June 15 of 2000.                                      C o u n t I V,

23   e n d a n g e r m e n t a t t h e e x p o r t p l a n t b e t w e e n N o v e m b e r 3, 1 9 9 9 a n d

24   the summer of 2000.                And then Count I has a charge of

25   conspiracy to violate the knowing endangerment provision of the
                                                                                                             7842


1    C l e a n A i r A c t.      Count I also charges Mr. Bettacchi with

2    conspiracy to defraud the United States.

3                       I'm going to talk about Count IV first, which is the

4    export plant; Count III, the screening plant; and then Count I,

5    the conspiracy charge, and last, the conspiracy to defraud.

6                       B e f o r e I a d d r e s s t h e c o u n t s, t h e C l e a n A i r A c t

7    counts specifically, let me make some general comments.                                            They

8    are all based on this concept that there was a nondisclosure by

9    M r . B e t t a c c h i a b o u t t h e p r e s e n c e o f a s b e s t o s in v e r m i c u l i t e on

10   the ground.           W h a t y o u h e a r d i n t h i s t r i a l, h o w e v e r , i s t h a t Mr .

11   Bettacchi made express disclosures about the presence of

12   asbestos in vermiculite.                     The evidence is exactly the opposite

13   of what the Government wants you to believe that it is.

14                      W h a t w a s t h a t e v i d e n c e?      Larry Dolezal testified

15   last week.           Mr . D o l e z a l f r o m t h e L i n c o l n C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n .

16   When the Libby mine was announced to be closed he testified

17   t h a t t h e r e w a s t h e r i s k o f t h e l o s s of j o b s a n d a m i l l i o n

18   d o l l a r s i n r e v e n u e t o t h e c o u n t y, a n d t h a t h e a n d o t h e r

19   c o m m i s s i o n e r s w e n t t o C a m b r i d g e , M a s s a c h u s e t t s, m e t w i t h M r .

20   Bettacchi, got full cooperation.                            T h e y w a n t e d t h e m i n e to s t a y

21   open.       They wanted the opportunity, along with the State of

22   Montana, Department of Commerce, to market and try to sell the

23   Libby mine.

24                      And what happened as a result of those

25   c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h M r. D o l e z a l ?    Mr. Bettacchi informed both
                                                                                                             7843


1    t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e a n d L i n c o l n C o u n t y a b o u t t h e

2    p r e s e n c e o f a s b e s t o s in t h e L i b b y o r e s o t h a t a n y p r o s p e c t i v e

3    buyer would know that.

4                         I f I c o u l d h a v e N o. 7 , p l e a s e .       In October of 1990

5    M r . B e t t a c c h i s e n t t h i s l e t t e r to t h e L i n c o l n C o u n t y

6    Commission.             No. 8, please.            I think we have the wrong one.

7    The next slide that goes with the letter.                                 I think you jumped

8    a h e a d , b u t I 'l l d e a l w i t h t h i s o n e r i g h t h e r e .

9                         I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l e t t e r Mr . B e t t a c c h i - -t h i s i s a

10   l e t t e r a c t u a l l y t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o m m e r c e i n w h i c h Mr .

11   B e t t a c c h i s a y s , "I n a d d i t i o n , p r o s p e c t i v e p u r c h a s e r s m u s t b e

12   informed that the vermiculite at Libby is associated with

13   t r e m o l i t e , w h i c h i s c l a s s i f i e d by t h e U . S. G o v e r n m e n t a s

14   a s b e s t o s. "

15                        There is an outright disclosure of the presence of

16   asbestos in Libby vermiculite.                         There is nothing here about

17   n o nd i s c l o s u r e.    A n d t h e y w e r e g o i n g to s h o p t h e m i n e t o o t h e r

18   companies, make it public.                       T h e c o n c e p t o f n o nd i s c l o s u r e i s

19   t o t a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h w h a t Mr . B e t t a c c h i t o l d L i n c o l n

20   County.

21                        I f I c o u l d l o o k a t S l i d e 8 -- c o u l d w e t r y 8 .          There

22   we go.        This was another disclosure that Mr. Bettacchi provided

23   t o L i n c o l n C o u n t y.     H e r e y o u s e e t h e t r e m o l i t e c o n t e n t of b o t h

24   the finished concentrate and the ore.

25                        I f w e f i n a l l y l o o k a t N o . 9, M r . B e t t a c c h i g a v e
                                                                                                         7844


1    Lincoln County and the State an MSDS.                             And this deals with the

2    health effects of the MSDS.                        You can see it right here.                  H e r e' s

3    what can happen if somebody is exposed to asbestos fibers.

4    They can get lung cancer, asbestosis, mesothelioma, cancer of

5    the stomach and colon.                   Complete outright disclosures.

6                       But Mr. McLean this morning tried to convince you,

7    b y s h o w i n g y o u G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 6 0 8, t h a t t h e r e w a s a g r a n d

8    p l a n t o c o n c e a l i n f o r m a t i o n.    And I have to tell you that

9    presentation of that evidence is particularly deceptive and

10   offensive.

11                      I f w e c o u l d p u l l u p - - do y o u h a v e 6 0 8 t h a t y o u c a n

12   pull up?

13                      G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 6 0 8.   M r. M c L e a n t r i e d t o p a s s

14   this off as having something to do with the screening plant.

15   Y o u h e a r d w h a t h e s a i d.       A f t e r - -t h i s i s t h e o n e w i t h t h e l i t t l e

16   g u y.    W e' v e g o t t o s e l l t o t h e l i t t l e g u y.

17                      T h i s m e m o r a n d u m d e a l s w i t h t h e s a l e of t h e L i b b y

18   mine.       It d o e s n o t d e a l w i t h t h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t .     A n d if y o u

19   l o o k a t t h e d a t e o n i t, i t 's J u l y 1 4 o f 1 9 9 3 .            Now, you know

20   from the testimony you heard again yesterday the screening

21   plant was sold in November of 1992 to the Parkers, and yet he

22   a r g u e d to y o u t h a t t h e r e w a s t h i s g r a n d s c h e m e t o d e c e i v e t h e

23   little guy like the Parkers because the deed gets signed later

24   o n w h e n t h e p r o p e r t y w a s a l r e a d y s o l d.

25                      W h a t t h i s d o c u m e n t d e a l s w i t h , if w e c o u l d l o o k a t
                                                                                                           7845


1    t h e l a s t t w o p a g e s, i t d e a l s w i t h - - I t h i n k y o u n e e d t o go t o

2    the end.         Y e a h , i t' s r i g h t h e r e .       W h a t M r. M c L e a n a r g u e d a b o u t

3    this document is that we have to try to pass off the

4    liabilities and responsibilities to the little guy because the

5    b i g c o m p a n i e s d o n' t w a n t t o b u y i t .

6                       What this memo deals with are the four options that

7    Grace faced when trying to sell the mine property.                                       And they

8    are all listed at the top.                       I don't want to spend a lot of time

9    on this, but I just want to point it out because it was

10   presented to you in a totally misleading way.

11                      Option one was to sell only the land.                              Option two,

12   sell the timber.                 Option three, sell it all.                      Option four, sell

13   nothing.         And if we look at what happens here with option

14   N o . 3 , if i t i s s o l d t h e y a r e g o i n g to g e t r i d o f t h e i r t a x

15   liability, the reclamation bond, remove the reclamation

16   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d t h e d a m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y.

17                      The idea was, the reclamation was still going on and

18   only a small company would be interested in this because there

19   were restrictions on the mineral rights.                                     And to try to pass

20   this off as a conspiratorial agreement was completely

21   m i s l e a d i n g t o y o u.

22                      Now let me turn to the export plant.                             If we could

23   see Slide 11.             K n o w i n g e n d a n g e r m e n t at t h e e x p o r t p l a n t .   The

24   Government didn't call one witness to explain to you the

25   t r a n s a c t i o n at t h e e x p o r t p l a n t .      They just wanted to put Mr.
                                                                                                             7846


1    B u r n e t t u p h e r e , s a y t h a t he h a d p l e u r a l p l a q u e s a n d w a s s i c k,

2    throw it against the wall and say convict somebody, put them in

3    jail, harsh penalties, with no proof of what actually even

4    happened at the export plant.

5                       W e p u t on t h e e v i d e n c e.           You heard it yesterday.

6    How did the export plant transfer hands from Grace to the City

7    o f L i b b y?     Grace was looking for a tax write-off.                               The City was

8    l o o k i n g f o r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o b r i n g in a d d i t i o n a l b u s i n e s s e s ,

9    so the property was donated to the City.                                  But it wasn't donated

10   in a vacuum.            There were discussions.                      And if we could take a

11   l o o k a t N o . 12 , p l e a s e.

12                      Alan Stringer provided the City the diagram.                                   He

13   identified the presence of vermiculite concentrate on the

14   p r o p e r t y.   H e t o l d t h e C i t y t h a t.       You heard Attorney Fennessy

15   talk about that.               E v e r y b o d y k n e w t h a t t h e r e w a s v e r m i c u l i t e on

16   the property.            And what did he also say?                        Everybody knows that

17   asbestos can cause health hazards.                               T h a t w a s no s e c r e t .   And so

18   h e r e i t w a s b e i n g d i s c l o s e d.     T h e p r e s e n c e o f -- t h e r e w a s d i e s e l

19   fuel and different locations of vermiculite on the property.

20                      N o w i f we c a n h a v e E x h i b i t 1 3 .           There was a letter

21   a g r e e m e n t t h a t M r. O ' T o o l e a s k e d- - a c t u a l l y M r . G a l l i k a s k e d

22   q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y e s t e r d a y , a n d it w a s t o c o n f i r m t h e

23   u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e p h o t o c o p y of t h e d i a g r a m .      This was the

24   letter between Attorney O'Hern and Attorney Fennessy, two

25   l a w y e r s n e g o t i a t i n g a t a r m 's l e n g t h .      And here the diagram was
                                                                                                          7847


1    sent along with the letter and here you can see in Nos. 2 and 3

2    the identification of vermiculite with possible asbestos on the

3    p r o p e r t y.

4                        No. 14, please.             In the letter the City agreed to

5    t h e f o l l o w i n g:    "T h e C i t y a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t i t h a s b e e n g i v e n

6    sufficient opportunity to examine and assess the three subject

7    areas and that it will assume full responsibility for the costs

8    of operating, maintaining, removing and/or remediating the

9    t h r e e s u b j e c t a r e a s a s m a y b e r e q u i r e d b y l a w ."

10                       Complete disclosures, assumption of responsibility

11   by the City back in 1993 and 1994.                           Why didn't you see that

12   document offered?                T h a t d o c u m e n t' s b e e n s i t t i n g i n t h e i r f i l e s

13   for years.           D i d t h e y n o t w a n t y o u t o k n o w t h e t r u t h?         Is this

14   justice?           Or is this the end justifies the means?

15                       I n a d d i t i o n to t h e s e d i s c l o s u r e s t h e r e i s a n o t h e r

16   document that was stipulated to.                          I f w e c o u l d l o o k a t N o. 1 5 .

17   This is a letter that actually Alan Stringer wrote to Kendra

18   Lind at the Lincoln County Sanitarian office, and there is a

19   p a r a g r a p h i n h e r e.    This document, you'll have a chance to read

20   i t , i t ' s D X 1 6 3 6 7.

21                       A n d b y t h e w a y , w e' v e p u t t h e s e u p .        We think these

22   a r e t h e k e y d o c u m e n t s t h a t y o u n e e d to l o o k a t a n d w e ' v e p u t

23   them up so I wouldn't be interrupted each time to list every

24   d o c u m e n t.    But they are here for you to write down these

25   numbers.
                                                                                                           7848


1                       G r a c e n e e d e d t o t a k e d o w n t h e w o o d e n s i l o s.       They

2    sought permission from the Lincoln County Sanitarian where

3    K e n d r a L i n d w o r k e d a l o n g w i t h M r. A n d e r s o n.      H e r e is K e n d r a

4    Lind's letter back to Mr. Stringer.

5                       "In conversations with you and Mike Ray last week,

6    t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r r e l e a s e of a s b e s t i f o r m f i b e r w a s d i s c u s s e d .

7    Based on information from past fiber analyses performed on ore

8    p r o d u c t s p r e v i o u s l y s t o r e d i n t h e s i l o s , t h e MS D S f o r

9    vermiculite, and evaluation of the Grace facility under NESHAPS

10   r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d e m o l i t i o n, r e s i d u a l f i b e r a m o u n t s i n t h e s i l o

11   remains, if any, would be minimal and public health risk from

12   airborne fibers should not be a concern if this burn is

13   conducted."

14                      Again, complete disclosure.                      M S DS g o e s t o t h e C i t y

15   of Libby along with Alan Stringer's diagram.

16                      W h a t d i d B o b B e t t a c c h i h a v e t o do w i t h t h i s

17   transaction?            Very little.            A s t h e p r e s i d e n t at t h e t i m e h e h a d

18   to sign the deeds to make sure that the property--a corporate

19   o f f i c e r h a d to s i g n t h e d e e d s a n d t h a t ' s w h a t h e d i d .

20                      And you also saw when Mr. Rogan came in yesterday,

21   if we can bring up No. 16, there was a legal memorandum written

22   b y A t t o r n e y O' H e r n a n d t h e r e i s a n o t h e r a t t o r n e y o n t h i s, M a r k

23   Stoler, the environmental attorney.                            Mr. Bettacchi gets this

24   memorandum, a legal memorandum along with the deed.

25                      A n d i t s a y s r i g h t i n it , " T h e C i t y o f L i b b y w o u l d
                                                                                                           7849


1    n o t a g r e e t o p r o v i d e an i n d e m n i t y t o G r a c e a g a i n s t t h i r d- p a r t y

2    c l a i m s or a g a i n s t c u r r e n t l y u n k n o w n e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e s o n t h e

3    land.       We d o n o t h a v e a n y r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e a t t h i s p o i n t t h a t

4    any environmental issues will be identified in the future which

5    are not already identified on Alan Stringer's drawing."

6                       So Mr. Bettacchi is getting legal advice that there

7    is no further environmental issues and everything has been

8    disclosed to the City of Libby.

9                       W h y d i d n' t t h e G o v e r n m e n t s h o w y o u t h i s o n e ?       They

10   h a v e t h i s d o c u m e n t.    Why are they trying to hide the truth from

11   y o u?    These are really undisputed facts in this case.                                     T h e y do

12   not want you to know the information.                              This is all about win at

13   a l l c o s t.    I t' s g o t n o t h i n g t o do w i t h j u s t i c e.

14                      The Government has the burden of proof in this case

15   b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , a n d Mr . B e r n i c k j u s t t o l d y o u, t o

16   prove willful causation.                    Because that's what Bob Bettacchi's

17   charged with, willfully causing a knowing endangerment.

18                      I f w e c o u l d h a v e N o . 17 , p l e a s e .        L e t' s t a k e a l o o k

19   a t t h e t i m e l i n e o f C o u n t I V.       M r. B e t t a c c h i s i g n e d t h e d e e d on

20   M a y 1 2 of 1 9 9 4 .       The alleged crime supposedly occurred between

21   N o v e m b e r 3 o f 1 9 9 9 a n d S e p t e m b e r 2 1 of 2 0 0 0 .         Five years and

22   six months after the deed was signed.

23                      W h e n M r . B e t t a c c h i p u t t h e i n k on t h a t d o c u m e n t , w a s

24   he willfully causing another person, five and a half years

25   l a t e r , to c o m m i t a r e l e a s e i n L i b b y t h a t w a s g o i n g t o p u t
                                                                                                             7850


1    somebody in imminent danger of death with serious bodily

2    injury?            I t is t o t a l l y i n c o n c e i v a b l e .   This is an outlandish

3    charge that should have never been brought if the Department of

4    Justice was doing what it was supposed to be doing in this

5    case.

6                          What if were 10 years, 15 years, 20 years later and

7    somebody kicked up a pile?                         W o u l d t h e y s t i l l be r u n n i n g a f t e r

8    him like they did in this case?

9                          There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Bettacchi

10   willfully caused a knowing endangerment.

11                         I f w e l o o k a t S l i d e 1 8, h e r e ' s a s u m m a r y o f w h a t t h e

12   facts are.              Grace told Libby about possible contamination.

13   Grace provided an MSDS about health hazards of Libby

14   vermiculite.               L i b b y a g r e e d i t h a d s u f f i c i e n t t i m e to i n s p e c t

15   p r o p e r t y.      Libby was represented by counsel on the land

16   t r a n s f e r.      Libby agreed to pay the cost of any remediation or

17   cleanup.            And Mr. Bettacchi signed the deed after receiving

18   legal advice (no reason to believe any other contaminants on

19   t h e p r o p e r t y ).       And Libby, not Grace, owned the land for five

20   and a half years before the Government alleged that the crime

21   e v e n o c c u r r e d.

22                         It was Millworks West that had a lease with the City

23   in 1999, not with W.R. Grace.

24                         Now let me talk about release.                       Mr. Bernick, also,

25   he read the jury instruction on release.                                  T h e G o v e r n m e n t d i d n' t
                                                                                                              7851


1    prove any release at all at the export plant.                                    What they did

2    w a s t h e y c a l l e d M r. A n d e r s o n , t h e s a n i t a r i a n .     H e s a i d he t o o k

3    samples.

4                         I f w e c o u l d h a v e 2 0 , p l e a s e.     S l i d e 20 .      Mr.

5    A n d e r s o n w e n t o u t t o t h e e x p o r t p l a n t o n N o v e m b e r 17 t h .          He

6    t o o k f i v e s a m p l e s.      He dug them up.            They were soil bulk

7    s a m p l e s a n d he a l s o t o o k o n e o u t o f a b a g.            They were not air

8    samples.            This case requires proof of a release into the

9    outdoor ambient air.

10                        I f y o u l o o k at - - t h i s is t h e s a m p l e r e s u l t s f o r M r .

11   A n d e r s o n.     And they are really quite minimal.                          Less than one

12   p e r c e n t , l e s s t h a n o n e p e r c e n t , t r a c e.     N e x t p a g e , 2 1 , p l e a s e.

13   N o nd e t e c t , n o n d e t e c t .   T h a t c e r t a i n l y i s n' t p r o o f of a r e l e a s e .

14                        A n d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s g i v e n to P a u l P e r o n a r d w h e n

15   E P A s h o w e d u p w i t h t h e R e s p o n s e T e a m o n N o v e m b e r 2 3r d o f 1 9 9 9.

16   Mr. Anderson testified about that.                            Mr . P e r o n a r d t e s t i f i e d

17   about that.             E P A k n e w t h a t t h e r e w e r e s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s of

18   asbestos in Libby vermiculite at the export plant, or just in

19   general.

20                        And so what happened?                 M r . P e r o n a r d t o l d y o u on

21   November 24 EPA took their samples.                            They went back to the

22   e x p o r t p l a n t o n D e c e m b e r 1 3t h a n d t h e y t o o k m o r e a i r a n d s o i l

23   samples.            Did you ever see the results of those?                             No , y o u

24   didn't.            They were never offered in evidence.                          There was no

25   evidence of what the results were.
                                                                                                       7852


1                      In addition, you saw this aerial with the red dots.

2    Y o u s a w i t a g a i n t o d a y a t t h e e x p o r t p l a n t.      The red dots were

3    supposed to show locations where there were possible detections

4    o f a s b e s t o s in t h e s o i l .      But the Judge made a very specific

5    i n s t r u c t i o n on t h i s , if w e c o u l d t a k e a l o o k at N o . 2 2 , a s t o

6    what you could consider when you look at the red dots on that

7    m a p.

8                      W h a t J u d g e M o l l o y t o l d y o u w a s t h a t he w a s g o i n g t o

9    admit the document but with a cautionary instruction.                                      The

10   evidence cannot be considered by you for establishing asbestos

11   concentrations or ambient air releases under these charges that

12   refer to the ambient air.                    You may consider it for such other

13   p u r p o s e s a s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e p r e s e n c e, i f y o u b e l i e v e i t, o f

14   asbestos fibers in the soil and it may pertain in your judgment

15   to other counts.

16                     I w o u l d j u s t l i k e t o go b a c k j u s t f o r a m i n u t e a n d

17   call up Slide 19.                You saw this slide in a slightly different

18   format, but this is the calendar of Count IV.                                 And you can see

19   that the yellow is the time period that EPA was present in

20   L i b b y w h e n t h e a l l e g e d c r i m e o c c u r r e d.   T h e b l u e , at t h e f r o n t ,

21   those are the only days in which EPA was not present during

22   t h i s e n t i r e c o u n t.

23                     If a crime was committed at that export plant, it

24   happened on EPA's watch.                    There is only 20 days out of 324 days

25   in that Count in which EPA was not present and investigating.
                                                                                                          7853


1    I f E P A p e r m i t t e d s o m e b o d y to b e e x p o s e d w i t h m a t e r i a l s on t h e

2    ground, you can look squarely at the agency because they were

3    there.

4                       Then there were the cleanup samples.                              If I could

5    t a k e a l o o k at 2 3, p l e a s e .        A n d t h i s w a s a n o t h e r p i e c e of

6    m i s l e a d i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t y o u s a w.    The cleanup samples that

7    w e 'v e g o t , t h e s e w e r e d e m o n s t r a t i v e s 8 1 2 a n d 8 1 8 .     They were

8    misleading because they were samples taken during a cleanup,

9    not during the normal daily activity.                             When the heavy-duty

10   m a c h i n e r y i s m o v i n g t h i n g s a r o u n d , t h a t ' s w h a t' s c a u s i n g t h e

11   r e l e a s e , t h e c l e a nu p .   Not something willfully caused by Mr.

12   Bettacchi.

13                      B u t i f y o u l o o k a t t h e n u m b e r s on t h i s , t h e n u m b e r s

14   are extraordinarily low.                    First of all, without even doing any

15   t i m e - w e i g h t a v e r a g i n g w e h a v e a n a v e r a g e e x p o s u r e of . 0 9.     When

16   y o u a c t u a l l y l o o k a t t h e t i m e - w e i g h t a v e r a g i n g- - I ' m s o r r y , I

17   c i r c l e d t h e w r o n g o n e -- i t ' s . 0 4 .     I t 's l e s s t h a n t h e P E L.

18                      W h a t t y p e o f p r o p e r t y w a s t h e e x p o r t p l a n t?      It w a s

19   a retail business governed by the OSHA PEL.                                 The OSHA PEL was

20   .1.     T h e s e r e s u l t s a r e l o w e r t h a n t h e O S H A P E L.         And here they

21   a r e p u t t i n g in t h i s t y p e o f e v i d e n c e , t r y i n g to s a y t h a t t h e r e

22   i s a n e n d a n g e r m e n t a t t h e e x p o r t p l a n t w h e n t h e y a r e c a u s e d by

23   a c l e a n up a n d t h e y a r e d e m o n s t r a b l y l o w e r t h a n t h e O S H A P E L .

24   They are like 60 percent lower than the OSHA PEL.                                      What type of

25   evidence is that?
                                                                                                            7854


1                      T h e n t h e r e w a s M r. P e r o n a r d' s l e t t e r t o t h e B u r n e t t s

2    o n J u l y 2 1 o f 2 0 0 0 , w h i c h is N o . 2 4 .           Mr. Peronard told the

3    Burnetts in quotes here in the highlight, "However, in the

4    interim, I wanted to notify you that our preliminary data

5    i n d i c a t e s a s b e s t o s l e v e l s in t h e a i r r e c o r d e d i n t h e b r e a k r o o m

6    of the planer building were at present occupational exposure

7    l i m i t f o r a i r b o r n e a s b e s t o s, 1 f i b e r s p e r c u b i c c e n t i m e t e r .

8    T h e e x a c t m e a s u r e m e n t w a s 0. 0 9 9 f i b e r s p e r c u b i c c e n t i m e t e r

9    which is fundamentally equivalent to the occupational limit."

10                     This was put in by the defense, by the way.                                  It ' s

11   still lower than the OSHA PEL.

12                     A n d t h e n i f we c o u l d t a k e a l o o k a t No . 2 4.               I' m

13   s o r r y , t h a t w a s 2 4.

14                     A l l i n a l l , t h e r e w a s n o p r o o f of a r e l e a s e i n t h i s

15   case.      T h a t is t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s b u r d e n t o p r o v e b e y o n d a

16   reasonable doubt that there was a release in the ambient air

17   that endangered somebody.                    You just don't have it.                    On that

18   element alone this count evaporates.

19                     N o w, i m m i n e n t d a n g e r .   Was there proof of imminent

20   danger?        There was none.              Mr . B e r n i c k t a l k e d to y o u a b o u t i t .

21   I ' ll t a l k t o y o u a b o u t i t as w e l l .          EPA knew from the very

22   first day that they showed up in Libby there was small amounts

23   o f a s b e s t o s in t h e L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e .    What else did they know?

24   T h e y w e n t o u t- - a n d y o u h e a r d t h i s f r o m D r. M i l l e r - -t h e y g o t a l l

25   of those historical Government reports, the Versar reports, the
                                                                                                          7855


1    M R I r e p o r t s r e p o r t , t h e y g o t t h e P r i o r i t y R e v i e w L e v e l No . 1

2    report, all the historical reports about Libby vermiculite that

3    the Government had done.

4                       So what did they do?                   They announced that there was

5    g o i n g t o b e a c l e a n u p o n J a n u a r y 3 1 of 2 0 0 0 .         When did the

6    c l e a n u p o c c u r?   It didn't even start until the summer, the

7    summer, of 2000.               A n d M r . B u r n e t t w a s a s k e d s p e c i f i c a l l y, i f w e

8    c o u l d l o o k a t N o . 2 5 , w h e t h e r h e w a s i n a n y t y p e o f r i s k.             He

9    w a s a s k e d w h a t w a s t o l d t o h i m by E P A.

10                      Q u e s t i o n.   "Now, isn't it also true that the EPA

11   t o l d y o u, i n d e e d t h e y t o l d t h e p u b l i c, t h a t t h e r e a s o n y o u

12   d i d n ' t h a v e to m o v e r i g h t a w a y w a s b e c a u s e t h e r e w a s n o

13   i m m e d i a t e r i s k t o y o u o r y o u r w o r k e r s?     I s n ' t t h a t t r u e ?"

14                      "At one point that's probably true."

15                      T h a t ' s w h a t he w a s t o l d b y E P A .

16                      I f w e c o u l d l o o k a t 2 6.        This is perhaps the most

17   convincing piece of evidence in the case to show why this

18   s h o u l d h a v e n e v e r e v e r b e e n b r o u g h t by t h e G o v e r n m e n t , t h i s

19   count.       T h i s i s t h e p u b l i c p r e s s r e s p o n s e t h a t E P A p r e p a r e d on

20   M a y 2 4 of 2 0 0 0 .       You may remember this.                 W e q u e s t i o n e d - -I

21   q u e s t i o n e d D r. M i l l e r a b o u t t h i s.    EPA was preparing to

22   a n n o u n c e t h e c l e a nu p s a n d t h e r e w a s a Q a n d A i n h e r e .          And the

23   E P A t e a m, M r . P e r o n a r d, W e i s , M i l l e r , a l o n g w i t h t h e a t t o r n e y

24   Matt Cohn, prepared this response.

25                      "Question.          If t h e s e t w o s i t e s a r e s o c o n t a m i n a t e d
                                                                                                           7856


1    w i t h a s b e s t o s, w h y d i d E P A a l l o w, i n o n e c a s e , t h e f a m i l y t o

2    continue living there and, in the other case, workers to

3    continue working on site?"

4                       "Answer.        EPA did not take immediate steps to

5    relocate the family or the workers because there was no

6    i m m e d i a t e h e a l t h r i s k f r o m a s b e s t o s at t h e s e t w o s i t e s .        The

7    l e v e l s of a s b e s t o s a r e h i g h e n o u g h t o r e q u i r e a c l e a n u p b u t do

8    n o t p o s e a n i m m e d i a t e a c u t e h e a l t h t h r e a t. "

9                       EPA just gave you the answer.                        No i m m i n e n t d a n g e r ,

10   in its own words here.

11                      What did EPA do during the time period after they

12   s h o w e d up ?    Nothing.        Not a darn thing.                  Did they close

13   Millworks West?              No.    Did they relocate the Burnetts?                            No .

14   R e m o v e p i l e s o r b a g s of v e r m i c u l i t e ?    No.        C o v e r p i l e s of

15   vermiculite?           No.     B u i l d a f e n c e a r o u n d v e r m i c u l i t e?     Post

16   danger/warning signs, block access?                            During the entire time

17   p e r i o d of t h e c o u n t , no , n o, n o , n o , n o , n o , n o t h i n g .

18                      Imminent danger?             How could there possibly be

19   imminent danger?

20                      I f w e c o u l d l o o k a t N o. 2 8 .        M r . B e t t a c c h i i s n' t

21   g u i l t y on t h i s c o u n t f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s :       He didn't willfully

22   c a u s e a n o t h e r p e r s o n to v i o l a t e t h e C l e a n A i r A c t .        He didn't

23   r e l e a s e a n y a s b e s t o s at t h e e x p o r t p l a n t .       H e d i d n 't c a u s e o r

24   direct anybody to release asbestos.                            There was no evidence of a

25   dangerous release of asbestos, and nobody was placed in
                                                                                                            7857


1    imminent danger.

2                       You basically can take every single element of that

3    c r i m e a n d a n s w e r n o a c r o s s -t h e - b o a r d , n o t g u i l t y .

4                       THE COURT:           You have nine minutes.

5                       M R . F R O N G I L L O:    T h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t , C o u n t I I I.        I 'm

6    going to move quickly through this one because you heard a lot

7    about this yesterday.                  This really should have been a civil

8    lawsuit, and it was, and it should have stayed there between

9    the Parkers and Grace.                   I t 's a l l a b o u t t h e P a r k e r s .

10                      The Parkers went into this transaction with their

11   eyes wide open.              Unfortunately, Mr. Parker decided to lie about

12   it.     You saw all the evidence yesterday.                             So, in summary

13   fashion, the Parkers were sophisticated business people.                                              They

14   were willing to lay out $3 million to buy the mine.                                         They

15   t o t a l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e a n d t h e o r e t h a t -- M r .

16   Parker got the environmental assessment.                                You heard Patrick

17   P l a n t e n b e r g s a y h e s e n t i t t o h i m a n d y o u s a w p l a g i a r i s m.           You

18   saw his proposal that he had.                        T h e p r o p o s a l w h i c h we w a l k e d

19   t h r o u g h i t , if w e c a n j u s t l o o k a t t h i s o n e q u i c k l y, t o s h o w

20   that he absolutely got the environmental assessment which had

21   every disclosure in the world in it.

22                      T h e p r o p o s a l i s - -i f w e k e e p c l i c k i n g -- r i g h t h e r e .

23   W e w a l k e d t h r o u g h t h i s y e s t e r d a y.    Almost every word from that

24   p a r a g r a p h o n P a g e 1 0 of t h e m i n e p r o p o s a l c a m e o u t o f t h e d r a f t

25   environmental assessment.                     And what else came with the
                                                                                                           7858


1    environmental assessment?                    I f w e c o u l d t u r n t o t h e n e x t s l i d e,

2    please.          All these disclosures.                The ore body contains

3    asbestiform materials.                  The health effects.                 We w a l k e d t h r o u g h

4    it all yesterday.               Money was more important to the Parkers than

5    being truthful with you.

6                       People shouldn't go to jail based on perjured

7    testimony.          You can't consider that type of evidence.                                The

8    Parkers came in here.                  Mrs. Parker was crying.                   Lerah Parker,

9    all the stories, we didn't know, Alan lied to us.

10                      The fact of the matter is this:                        T h a t c l o s i n g d i d n 't

11   happen until December of 1993.                        The Parkers had a big thick

12   7 7 -p a g e d o c u m e n t t h a t s p e l l e d o u t i n d e t a i l e v e r y t h i n g y o u

13   n e e d e d to k n o w a b o u t t h e o r e a n d h e a l t h h a z a r d s .      They wanted

14   that waterfront property.                    T h e y d i d n 't a s k f o r t h e i r $ 2 ,0 0 0

15   back.      They closed on it with their eyes wide open.                                  Y o u c a n 't

16   endanger a person when they know what the risk is when they buy

17   t h e l a n d.

18                      T h e y a r e a l s o, i n t h i s c a s e- - a n d I c o u l d w a l k

19   t h r o u g h i t a g a i n b u t , a g a i n, t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e of a r e l e a s e

20   at the screening plant during the applicable time frame.                                             There

21   is no imminent danger.                  You can go down that checklist again

22   t h a t w e j u s t l o o k e d a t.      It all applies for the screening plant

23   a s w e l l a s t h e e x p o r t p l a n t.      EPA did nothing.               They were there

24   the whole time.             T h e y d i d n 't m o v e t h e P a r k e r s o f f t h e p r o p e r t y .

25   W h e n t h e y g o t o f f t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e n t h e y s t a r t e d t h e c l e a n u p.
                                                                                                          7859


1                       B u t h e r e' s y o u r c h e c k l i s t .      Did they close Raintree

2    N u r s e r y , m o v e t h e P a r k e r s , c o v e r t h e p i l e s?     N o n e of i t .       So

3    where was the release?                   If something actually happened there,

4    w h o' s t o b l a m e ?

5                       T h e l a s t s l i d e o n t h a t, 5 3 .         Not guilty, Count III.

6    No willfully caused another person to violate the Clean Air

7    A c t.    No release of asbestos, didn't cause anybody to release

8    a s b e s t o s.   T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e o f a r e l e a s e a n d n o b o d y w a s in

9    imminent danger.

10                      Let me turn now to Count I.                        I'm trying to cover a

11   lot of ground in a short period of time here.                                   Conspiracy to

12   violate the Clean Air Act.                     T h i s b a s i c a l l y , I w i l l t e l l y o u in

13   short shrift, this is just a combination of the two land

14   transactions.              T h a t ' s a l l t h a t it i s .        There was no evidence of

15   a conspiracy.              W h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t i s t r y i n g to s a y i s t h a t t h e

16   sale of these two properties with Mr. Bettacchi signing the

17   deed makes him a conspirator.                       It ' s an a b s o l u t e l y a b s u r d

18   proposition.

19                      N o w, t h e d e f r a u d c o n s p i r a c y.     M r. B e t t a c c h i i s

20   accused here of conspiring to conceal information about the

21   friability and health hazards of Libby vermiculite from the

22   Government.           Slide 56, please.

23                      Y o u m a y r e m e m b e r f r o m C h i p W o o d M r . B e t t a c c h i 's

24   first position in vermiculite, a vermiculite position, didn't

25   occur until June of 1980 when he was named as the marketing
                                                                                                        7860


1    m a n a g e r o f t h e B u i l d i n g P r o d u c t s D i v i s i o n.   The alleged

2    conspiracy starts in 1976, so allegedly this conspiracy is

3    g o i n g o n f o r f o u r a n d a h a l f y e a r s a n d t h e n M r. B e t t a c c h i s h o w s

4    up.

5                       W h a t p r o o f w a s t h e r e t h a t he j o i n e d a c o n s p i r a c y ?

6    T h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t h i n g.   B u t w h a t I w a n t t o f o c u s on i s

7    w h a t h a p p e n e d b e f o r e Mr . B e t t a c c h i s h o w e d u p .    Government

8    knowledge about friability and health effects.                                    We walked

9    through this in great detail with Dr. Miller.

10                      T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a d , a s a r e s u l t o f t h e O .M . S c o t t

11   i n c i d e n t, t h e y l i t e r a l l y p u t L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e u n d e r a

12   microscope.            Report after report after report was written about

13   L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e.   They studied the friability.                      They studied

14   the health effects.                 They issued all these different reports

15   a n d y o u h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y.     E P A w a s a w a r e o f t h e p r e s e n c e of

16   asbestos in Libby vermiculite literally from the day that the

17   a g e n c y w a s f o r m e d.

18                      All of this happened and it preceded Mr. Bettacchi.

19   S o y o u n e e d to a s k y o u r s e l f t h i s q u e s t i o n:        How can somebody

20   conceal information about friability and health effects when

21   t h e y c o m e o n to t h e s c e n e i n 1 9 8 0 a n d t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a s

22   spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, they have put resources

23   a n d m a n p o w e r a n d t h e y h a v e h i r e d c o n s u l t a n t s to g e n e r a t e a l l

24   t h e s e r e p o r t s.    They know everything that they could possibly

25   w a n t t o k n o w a b o u t L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e b e f o r e M r. B e t t a c c h i e v e n
                                                                                                            7861


1    c o m e s o n t h e s c e n e.

2                       Conspiracy to conceal information from the United

3    States.         The defraud that pertains to that count is the fact

4    that it was brought in this Indictment.

5                       Then there's the secret.                     Slide 58.            Mr. McLean's

6    o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t.   "The secret in this case that the

7    D e f e n d a n t s k e p t f r o m t h e G o v e r n m e n t is t h a t t h e i r p r o d u c t , e v e n

8    when it contained a small amount of asbestos, released

9    hazardous levels of asbestos in the air when disturbed.                                            That

10   is the secret that the Defendants knew, that the Government did

11   n o t.    Their products, even whether it contained a small amount,

12   a t i n y a m o u n t o f a s b e s t o s by w e i g h t , r e l e a s e d h a z a r d o u s l e v e l s

13   when disturbed."

14                      B e f o r e Mr . B e t t a c c h i j o i n e d t h e v e r m i c u l i t e

15   p o s i t i o n, S l i d e 5 9, C h i p W o o d s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e C o n s u m e r

16   P r o d u c t S a f e t y C o m m i s s i o n to M r . D a l e R a y.       S l i d e 60 , p l e a s e .

17                      W h a t d i d h e do ?       He talked about Zonolite Attic

18   I n s u l a t i o n a n d t h e f a c t t h a t w h e n i t w a s d i s t u r b e d a n d w h e n it

19   w a s i n s t a l l e d, s o m e f i b e r s w e r e d e t e c t e d .

20                      62, please.           Here are the results.                      W e l l , w e ' ll g o

21   w i t h t h i s o n e.      H e r e ' s t h e t i m e -w e i g h t a v e r a g e.      There was

22   disclosure to the United States federal government that when

23   you handle Zonolite Attic Insulation you get releases.                                            Small

24   amounts of asbestos in the product, you get releases.

25                      I guess the secret was unveiled before, before Mr.
                                                                                                             7862


1    Bettacchi ever showed up.

2                      I n a d d i t i o n to t h a t , t h e r e w e r e t h e MS D S e s t h a t w e r e

3    put out in 1977.              Slide 63.             Please.        The MSDS saying that the

4    vermiculite concentrate contained 1.2 percent by weight

5    a s b e s t o s, n o r m a l p h y s i c a l h a n d l i n g w i l l r e s u l t i n r e l e a s e s i n

6    e x c e s s of t h e O S H A s t a n d a r d.

7                      That was what was given to customers.                                 S o i f we l o o k

8    a t t h e n e x t sl i d e, h e r e ' s w h a t we ' v e g o t .            There is Mr.

9    McLean's secret in the left column.                              Small amounts of asbestos,

10   when disturbed, cause hazardous levels.                                 And here's what comes

11   right out of the MSDS.                     Small amounts of asbestos, normal

12   h a n d l i n g, c a u s e s r e l e a s e s in e x c e s s of t h e O S H A P E L.            Boy,

13   that's quite a secret.                     I t 's i n p r i n t.       It goes to the

14   c u s t o m e r s a l o n g w i t h Mr . W o o d ' s l e t t e r .

15                     T h e n t h e r e w a s M r. V e n u t i .         You heard Mr. McLean say

16   t h a t M r . V e n u t i t e s t i f i e d t h a t Mr . B e t t a c c h i w a s t h e p o i n t m a n

17   on asbestos.           W h a t h e d i d n 't t e l l y o u i s t h a t h e a s k e d t h e

18   q u e s t i o n, " W e l l , w h a t d i d y o u m e a n b y t h a t ? "         6 5 , p l e a s e.

19                     Q u e s t i o n.      "But you did tell Mr. Frongillo that Mr.

20   Bettacchi was the key point man on asbestos issues, right?"

21                     Answer.            "That's correct."

22                     Q u e s t i o n.      " W h a t d i d y o u m e a n b y t h a t? "

23                     Answer.            " I t w a s -- M r . B e t t a c c h i w a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l

24   t h a t h a d, i f n o t t h e u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , c e r t a i n l y c l o s e

25   t o i t , w h e n it c a m e t o a l l m a r k e t i n g m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g p r o d u c t s
                                                                                                             7863


1    c o n t a i n i n g t h e v e r m i c u l i t e ."

2                       T h a t w a s t h e m a n 's j o b.            He was the head of

3    marketing of the products.                           S o b e c a u s e M r. V e n u t i d e s c r i b e d Mr .

4    Bettacchi's employment position, Mr. Bettacchi joined a

5    conspiracy to defraud his country.                                A remarkable proposition.

6                       A n d w h a t d i d y o u g e t f o r p r o o f of t h a t ?             The

7    Government offered the fact that Mr. Bettacchi received a

8    Zonolite Attic Insulation air sample result.                                      No different than

9    the one that Chip Wood sent off to the CPSC.

10                      I t 's a n i n c r e d i b l e t h e o r y .        And then we have the

11   m o n t h l y r e p o r t , w h i c h i s N o. 6 6 .          Mr. Bettacchi's required

12   monthly report.               He had to write a monthly report.                             He wrote it

13   t o h i s b o s s e s, M r. D a n n e k e r, W a l s h a n d V i n i n g .

14                      A n d w h a t d o we h a v e h e r e ?            373.      Because Mr.

15   Bettacchi accurately and truthfully wrote that the tremolite

16   i s s u e i n t h e v e r m i c u l i t e h a d b e c o m e an i s s u e in t h e m a r k e t p l a c e

17   with customers asking questions, that that's proof of a

18   conspiracy to defraud the country.                                H o w c o u l d t h a t p o s s i b l y be ?

19   I t 's p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n .    Customers are raising questions about

20   the presence of asbestos in vermiculite.                                    And because the man

21   w r o t e a r e p o r t t h a t h e' s s u p p o s e d t o w r i t e a n d h e t a l k s a b o u t

22   t h a t , t h a t s o m e h o w b e c o m e s e v i d e n c e of a c o n s p i r a c y?        Criminal

23   conduct?

24                      THE COURT:            Y o u s h o u l d w r a p i t up .

25                      M R . F R O N G I L L O:     I w i l l w r a p i t up n o w, Y o u r H o n o r .
                                                                                                           7864


1                        I f I c o u l d s e e 6 8, S l i d e 6 8.        T h e D e p a r t m e n t of

2    J u s t i c e 's i n t e r e s t i n t h i s c a s e i s n o t s u p p o s e d t o b e t o w i n

3    t h e c a s e.      I t' s s u p p o s e d t o b e to i n s u r e t h a t j u s t i c e s h a l l be

4    done.      T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s t o t a l l y l o s t s i g h t of w h a t i t s g o a l

5    is.

6                        N o w i t ' s u p to y o u .          You have to insure that justice

7    will be done, and you will and you'll do so when you return a

8    s w i f t v e r d i c t t h a t M r . B e t t a c c h i i s n o t g u i l t y o n Co u n t s I ,

9    I I I, a n d I V of t h i s I n d i c t m e n t .         I do thank you for your

10   attention in this long trial and during the closing argument.

11                       THE COURT:          L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n, w e 'r e g o i n g t o

12   take a break.             Do you want to take 15 minutes or is 10 minutes

13   enough?          15?     W e 'l l t a k e a 1 5 - m i n u t e b r e a k.    We ' l l b e i n

14   recess.          D o n 't d i s c u s s t h e c a s e .

15                       (Whereupon, court was in recess at 4:06 p.m.,

16   reconvened at 4:19 p.m.)

17                       THE COURT:          Please be seated.

18                       Mr. Krakoff.

19                       MR. KRAKOFF:           Thank you, Your Honor.                 Good

20   afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

21                       JURY:       Good afternoon.

22                       MR. KRAKOFF:           At the start, it's been a long day.

23   I t 's b e e n a l o n g t r i a l.        I want to thank you for the great time

24   a n d a t t e n t i o n t h a t y o u' v e o b v i o u s l y g i v e n t o t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e

25   t h i s i s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t t h i n g t o my c l i e n t a n d h i s f a m i l y .
                                                                                                            7865


1                       I s t o o d b e f o r e y o u o n F e b r u a r y 23 r d , a n d I t o l d y o u

2    what we expected the evidence in this case would show you.                                              The

3    e v i d e n c e i s in .     A n d w h e n y o u b o i l i t a l l d o w n, w h e n y o u t a k e

4    i t a l l t o g e t h e r , w h a t h a s it s h o w n y o u a b o u t H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h?

5    J u s t w h a t w e t o l d y o u a t t h e o u t s e t of t h i s c a s e .           That

6    38 years ago when Harry Eschenbach joined W.R. Grace in 1971,

7    h e w a s - -h e j o i n e d a s a h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y p r o f e s s i o n a l .      He

8    w o r k e d to h e l p t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n P r o d u c t s D i v i s i o n be i n

9    compliance with the law.                    He w o r k e d to p r o t e c t t h e w o r k e r s .           He

10   l e a r n e d t h e a d v e r s e h e a l t h e f f e c t s o f t r e m o l i t e e x p o s u r e.     He

11   reported that critical information to the management of the

12   c o m p a n y a n d he i n f l u e n c e d t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e c o m p a n y t o m a k e

13   h a r d d e c i s i o n s t o p r o t e c t t h e w o r k e r s.

14                      A n d w h a t e l s e?     H e r e p o r t e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n to t h e

15   G o v e r n m e n t , to E P A , a n d t o N I O S H.       B u t t h e G o v e r n m e n t c o m e s in

16   here in their case, all these months, and they say, see, there

17   was this secret.               Only Harry Eschenbach and his colleagues knew

18   about the secret about the dangers of tremolite exposure and

19   about friability.

20                      B u t t h e p r o b l e m i s, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , t h a t' s n o t

21   w h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e s h o w e d.      B e c a u s e G r a c e , i t s e l f,

22   p r o v i d e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n to t h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d b e c a u s e E P A

23   studied Libby for years and because people like Harry

24   Eschenbach went to the Government and wrote a letter to the

25   Government and told them, told them about the health problems
                                                                                                           7866


1    a t L i b b y.

2                       Harry Eschenbach is charged in Count I; that's the

3    o n l y c o u n t h e' s c h a r g e d i n , c o n s p i r a c y .      Conspiracy to defraud

4    t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t o k n o w i n g l y e n d a n g e r t h e p e o p l e of

5    Libby.        T h e f u n d a m e n t a l e l e m e n t o f t h a t c h a r g e i s an a g r e e m e n t .

6    Y o u' v e h e a r d a b o u t i t , b u t I w a n t t o t a l k a b o u t i t j u s t f o r a

7    moment.          An agreement is a plan.                       An agreement is people coming

8    t o g e t h e r, p e o p l e w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r .     It ' s w h a t w e c a l l a c o n c e r t

9    of action.           You hear about that in the law.                           Coordinated

10   activities between people.                       A meeting of the minds.                   I t 's a

11   plan.       It ' s n o t w h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t t r i e s t o p u t i n f r o n t o f

12   you in this case.

13                      A n d e a c h o f us k n o w s w h a t an a g r e e m e n t i s.           We agree

14   with one another, with our families, with our colleagues every

15   d a y.    You know what an agreement is.                            The only agreement in

16   this case was Chip Wood's plan.

17                      In this trial the Government has tried its very best

18   to stand the truth on its head, to turn facts into myth, and to

19   c h e r r y p i c k t h e w o r d s o u t of d o c u m e n t s a n d s t i t c h t o g e t h e r t h e

20   words of my client and to magically transform them into an

21   agreement to violate the law.

22                      L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , d o n ' t l e t t h e G o v e r n m e n t,

23   d o n' t l e t t h e G o v e r n m e n t p u l l t h e w o o l o v e r y o u r e y e s i n t h i s

24   case.       We a s k y o u s i m p l y t o a s s e s s t h e f a c t s h o n e s t l y ,

25   dispassionately, because the only fair conclusion you can reach
                                                                                                          7867


1    is that Harry Eschenbach did not agree to violate the law.

2    H e 's n o t g u i l t y .

3                       N o w, r i g h t n o w w h a t I w o u l d l i k e t o do i s t h i s.             I

4    would like to talk to you about what the evidence shows and

5    review the evidence about Harry Eschenbach and I want to break

6    i t u p i n t o t w o t i m e p e r i o d s.        1971 to 1977 is the first time

7    period.

8                       Look at what he did, what his job was and what he

9    d i d, a n d t h i n k a b o u t t h e c h a r g e s.       Because what he did and what

10   his job was tells you about the fact that he didn't agree to

11   violate the law.                He didn't intend to violate the law.

12                      1 9 7 1 - - w e' r e g o i n g t o go b a c k t o t h e e a r l y y e a r s ,

13   ' 7 1, ' 7 2, ' 7 3.         W e h e a r d f r o m w i t n e s s a f t e r w i t n e s s:     D r.

14   D u e c k e r , D r . Y a n g, M r . G e i g e r , C h i p W o o d .      What was the word

15   they used over and over and over and over again?                                       That Harry

16   Eschenbach was a resource.                       He was at the corporate level, the

17   Industrial Chemicals Group.                       H e n e v e r w o r k e d in C P D a s Mr .

18   McLean says.            H e n e v e r w o r k e d f o r R o d V i n i n g , t h e p r e s i d e n t of

19   C P D.    He was at the corporate level.

20                      I C G p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s t o a l l d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n G r a c e,

21   a n d C P D w a s o n e o f t h o s e d i v i s i o n s a n d L i b b y w a s a n i m p o r t a n t- -

22   a n i m p o r t a n t b u s i n e s s w i t h i n C P D.

23                      What else did we learn in this case?                                We learned

24   that the world looked a lot different back in the early '70s.

25   T h e r e w e r e b r a n d -n e w a s b e s t o s l a w s , n e w a g e n c i e s .    The
                                                                                                           7868


1    scientific community was paying a lot of attention to tremolite

2    a s b e s t o s.     And Grace and Libby were very different.                              They were

3    building a new mill.                   T h e o l d m i l l w a s s t i l l up a n d r u n n i n g ,

4    very high exposures to the workers.                              T h a t' s t h e c o m p a n y t h a t

5    Harry Eschenbach joined.                     So w h a t d i d h e d o a s a h e a l t h a n d

6    safety professional doing his job to serve as a resource to

7    C P D?    In a word, he did a lot.

8                         F i r s t , l e t ' s j u s t l o o k a t s o m e of t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t

9    he did.            When the new OSHA law came out in 1972 Harry

10   E s c h e n b a c h d i s t r i b u t e d i t to t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f C P D .     Defense

11   Exhibit 8967.              He distributed it in 1972 to assure that they

12   k n e w w h a t t h e l a w w a s a n d t h e y c o u l d c o m p l y w i t h t h e l a w.           And

13   that first law, of course, in that first law OSHA put down its

14   position about tremolite and asbestos right there going

15   forward:            All forms of asbestos, including tremolite, cause

16   asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer.                                 That was their

17   position based upon significant scientific studies that they

18   h a d d o n e f o r y e a r s.

19                        What else did he do as a resource to CPD?                               He went

20   to conferences.               A s b e s t o s c o n f e r e n c e s p u t o n by t h e G o v e r n m e n t ,

21   b y M S H A a n d by a s b e s t o s a s s o c i a t i o n s .

22                        G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 7 a n d 1 1.    He reported back about

23   t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n t o C PD , a b o u t w h a t t h e s c i e n t i f i c c o m m u n i t y

24   and what the regulatory community were saying.                                     Because there

25   was a lot of attention being given to tremolite asbestos at
                                                                                                              7869


1    t h a t p o i n t i n t i m e b y t h e s c i e n t i f i c c o m m u n i t y.

2                         What did Dr. Duecker tell you about that?                               It was

3    very useful.             I t w a s v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n.    He distributed to

4    us publications.                 T h a t' s w h a t h e d i d a s - -i n h i s j o b.        That's

5    not a conspiracy to violate the law.

6                         What else did he do?                He worked with customers like

7    O . M. S c o t t .     Remember Mr. Chamberlain and remember Mr. Kennedy

8    who came in here?                 T h e y t a l k e d to y o u a n d t h e y s h o w e d y o u o l d

9    e x h i b i t s a n d o l d d o c u m e n t s f r o m O . M . S c o t t.

10                        Defense Exhibit 13151.                  H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h w e n t o u t to

11   M a r y s v i l l e , O h i o , b e g i n n i n g i n 1 9 7 2 , t i m e a n d t i m e a g a i n t o do

12   air sampling for the customer so they could be in compliance

13   with the law.

14                        What else?              The bloody pleural effusion problem that

15   t h e y h a d a t O. M . S c o t t.           What about that?              When that came up,

16   Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kennedy was asked by OSHA, What about the

17   e x p e r i e n c e o f W . R. G r a c e w i t h b l o o d y p l e u r a l e f f u s i o n s ?       What

18   about that?            So he posed that question to Grace.

19                        And the Health and Safety director answered the

20   q u e s t i o n.     He investigated the problem.                      H e w e n t o u t t o L i b b y.

21   He talked to the Libby physicians.                            He t a l k e d t o - - he l o o k e d at

22   the medical records for Libby and the expanding plants.                                              A

23   t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n.    Totally cooperated.              A n d as M r .

24   K e n n e d y t e s t i f i e d o n t h i s w i t n e s s s t a n d , M r . E s c h e n b a c h --

25   G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 1 9 0- - M r . E s c h e n b a c h p r o v i d e d m o r e t h a n w e
                                                                                                          7870


1    had even asked for.                That's the kind of Health and Safety

2    director Harry Eschenbach was.                       Worked with the customers.

3                      What else did he do as a resource to the

4    Construction Products Division?                        Air sampling.           Many visits out

5    t o L i b b y.    He set up the air sampling program.

6                      Randy Geiger testified in this trial.                            He said he

7    joined the company in 1976.                     H e w a s f r e s h o u t o f c o l l e g e.         He

8    was the pollution control officer.                          He d i d n ' t k n o w a n y t h i n g

9    a b o u t a i r s a m p l i n g.   He d i d n ' t k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t r u n n i n g a

10   l a b.    Harry Eschenbach did.                 H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h , h e t o l d us - - M r.

11   G e i g e r t o l d us - - s e r v e d a s h i s m e n t o r .   Came out to Libby and

12   showed him how to set up this sampling program and to improve

13   it.      Because at that point in time, 1976, the new mill was up

14   and running, there were new regulations, and the company wanted

15   t o i m p r o v e a n d e n h a n c e i t s s a m p l i n g p r o g r a m a n d t h e y d i d.

16   That's exactly what they did.

17                     And what did Mr. Geiger testify to?                           What did he

18   testify to about the air sampling program that Harry Eschenbach

19   h a d s e t u p t h a t h e t o o k a n d m o v e d t o t h e n e x t l e v e l?         He

20   testified that the whole purpose of the air sampling program

21   w a s t o m a k e t h e f a c i l i t y a s a f e r p l a c e t o w o r k.

22                     Medical monitoring, another thing that the Health

23   and Safety director was fully engaged in.                              In fact, it was the

24   central element of Harry's job.                        We heard from Mr. Wood, we

25   h e a r d f r o m M r. G e i g e r a n d m a n y o t h e r w i t n e s s e s t h a t L i b b y h a d
                                                                                                              7871


1    b e e n d o i n g a n n u a l c h e s t x - r a y s b a c k i n t o t h e '6 0 s .        But under

2    H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h 's w a t c h t h e y a d d e d l u n g f u n c t i o n t e s t s w h i c h

3    g a v e i m m e d i a t e i n f o r m a t i o n o n a s b e s t o s d i s e a s e, a n d m e d i c a l

4    questionnaires.              They made that information, the health

5    information, available to the workers and their physicians.                                                He

6    was essential to this program.

7                       And not only did Harry Eschenbach implement and

8    a d m i n i s t e r t h e m e d i c a l m o n i t o r i n g p r o g r a m, b u t a s t i m e w e n t on

9    h e c o l l e c t e d a n d a n a l y z e d x- r a y s, c h e s t x- r a y s, a n d a s m a l l

10   n u m b e r of d e a t h c e r t i f i c a t e s .    He d i d n ' t d o a n e p i d e m i o l o g y

11   study.       H e ' s n o t a s c i e n t i s t , h e' s n o t a n e p i d e m i o l o g i s t.           But

12   he could see from the statistics and the data that he pulled

13   t o g e t h e r t h a t t h e r e w a s a h i g h r a t e of a b n o r m a l c h e s t x -r a y s .

14   Y e s, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t , h e k n e w t h a t .         Of c o u r s e he

15   d i d.    T h a t w a s h i s j o b.       And there was an elevated number of

16   lung cancer deaths.

17                      So by early 1977 when all this information was being

18   c o l l e c t e d b y M r . E s c h e n b a c h, e v e r y t h i n g c a m e t o g e t h e r .   There

19   was a new mill, new tighter regulations imposed by OSHA and

20   M S H A a n d, m o s t i mp o r t a n t , a n e w l e a d e r , M r. W o o d .

21                      What did Mr. Wood tell us about the health data that

22   Harry Eschenbach collected and presented to him?                                       He s a i d , I

23   listened to Harry Eschenbach.                         I worked with him when I came

24   t h e r e i n 1 9 7 7.     I l e a r n e d f r o m Mr . E s c h e n b a c h .

25                      He could see something had to change.                               So what did
                                                                                                         7872


1    he do?        He put the guidelines in place and he put the plan in

2    place.

3                        Government Exhibit 90.                 M a r c h 2 8, 1 9 7 7 , M r. W o o d

4    laid down the guidelines going forward.                              N u m b e r o n e, p r o t e c t

5    our workers.            Number two, comply with the permissible exposure

6    limit, and that will serve as the threshold for safe exposure

7    for our workers.               And, three, cooperate with all government

8    a g e n c i e s.

9                        A m o n t h l a t e r, G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 1 0 8, t w o m o n t h s

10   l a t e r , M a r c h 2 4 t h, M a y 2 4 t h, 1 9 7 7 , M r. W o o d p u t t h e p l a n i n

11   place.        A n d w h a t d i d Mr . W o o d t e l l u s o n t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d ?

12   What's the evidence?                  Because that's what is before you.                          What

13   d i d h e t e l l y o u a b o u t t h e w o r k of H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h ?       The

14   i n -h o u s e e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d y, t h a t ' s w h a t h e c a l l e d i t .    What

15   did he say about that?                   I t h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t o n me .

16   H a r r y ' s w o r k h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t o n t h e "s e a c h a n g e" t h a t

17   he brought to bear on CPD.                      Mr. Wood said Harry Eschenbach's

18   work was profoundly important.

19                       B u t M r . W o o d h a d a r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n, b e c a u s e t h e r e

20   w a s a c o n f u s i n g i s s u e i n f r o n t of h i m a n d t h a t w a s t h a t t h e

21   h i g h e x p o s u r e s a t t h e o l d m i l l no l o n g e r e x i s t e d .      They had a

22   n e w m i l l, t h e y h a d l o w e x p o s u r e s, t h e y w e r e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h

23   the law.           Harry's data was useful and it was historic and it

24   looked backwards.                W h a t M r . W o o d w a s f o c u s e d on w a s t h e f u t u r e

25   and he needed to know, are the present low exposures going to
                                                                                                        7873


1    protect our workers?

2                       S o i n A p r i l '7 7 M r. W o o d , Mr . E s c h e n b a c h , a n d o t h e r s

3    m e t w i t h D r . M a c M a h o n a n d p o s e d t h i s q u e s t i o n , S h o u l d w e d o an

4    e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d y?   The answer, no, because you haven't had

5    sufficient latency.                  Health and Safety director went with the

6    h e a d o f C P D to v i s i t w i t h Dr . M a c M a h o n a n d g e t t h e a n s w e r s t o

7    t h e q u e s t i o n s.

8                       Dr. MacMahon makes several recommendations, only one

9    o f w h i c h I w a n t t o f o c u s o n r i g h t n o w.        H e s a i d y o u c a n 't - - i t' s

10   n o t t h e r i g h t t i m e t o d o a n e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d y, b u t w h a t y o u

11   need to do regarding your new workers is to continue to track

12   their health.              Build your health surveillance program so you

13   can see if there are changes to their health.

14                      Y o u h e a r d i t f r o m M r . W o o d , t h a t' s j u s t w h a t H a r r y

15   Eschenbach did over the next four years.                              Mr. Wood testified

16   that Harry Eschenbach carried the heavy load for the Health

17   Surveillance Program, building the database, watching the data

18   t o s e e if t h e p e r m i s s i b l e e x p o s u r e l i m i t w o u l d p r o t e c t t h e i r

19   workers.

20                      S o h e r e y o u a r e i n 1 9 7 7 a n d y o u c a n s e e w h a t Mr .

21   Eschenbach did in his job.                     He didn't join an agreement to

22   v i o l a t e t h e l a w , t o d e f r a u d a n y o n e , to e nd a n g e r a n y o n e .    T h a t' s

23   not what he did.                A n d t h a t 's n o t w h a t h i s j o b w a s .    His job was

24   to serve as Health and Safety director and provide information

25   to the management of the company to protect the workers.
                                                                                                          7874


1    That's just what he did.

2                       L e t' s m o v e f o r w a r d t o t h e p e r i o d ' 7 7 t o '8 6 a n d l o o k

3    at what he did in that time period.                            T h e p l a n w a s in p l a c e .

4    M r . W o o d' s p l a n w a s i n p l a c e i n ' 7 7 .         Harry Eschenbach followed

5    the plan and promoted the plan.                          W h a t d i d h e do ?

6                       F i r s t , '7 8 t o ' 8 3, a s w e h e a r d , h e a d v a n c e d t h e

7    H e a l t h S u r v e i l l a n c e P r o g r a m.   H e e n h a n c e d i t , h e b u i l t it a n d

8    t h a t ' s w h a t t h e y n e e d e d t o d o , a c c o r d i n g t o D r. M a c M a h o n.

9                       Second.          I n 1 9 7 8 h e f o l l o w e d a n o t h e r o n e o f D r.

10   M a c M a h o n' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a n d he e n g a g e d t h e E n b i o n i c s f i r m t o

11   r e v i e w t h e o l d c h e s t x- r a y s o f o l d w o r k e r s e x p o s e d t o t h e h i g h

12   l e v e l s of t r e m o l i t e i n t h e o l d m i l l .       A n d n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , it

13   confirmed that there were a high level of abnormal chest x-rays

14   a t L i b b y.     Not news.           There were numerous studies about the

15   e f f e c t s o f a s b e s t o s o n w o r k e r s by t h a t p o i n t in t i m e .        Not

16   news.

17                      What else did he do?                  ' 7 8 a n d ' 79 , a s w e 'v e s e e n , he

18   c o o p e r a t e d w i t h O. M . S c o t t o n t h e b l o o d y p l e u r a l e f f u s i o n

19   i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t h a t, o f c o u r s e , l e d t o t h e E P A s t u d y .       Mr.

20   F r o n g i l l o t a l k e d a b o u t, M r . B e r n i c k t a l k e d a b o u t t h e E P A s t u d y

21   which led to the Priority Review Level One report.                                      EPA sent

22   contractors out to Libby and they studied Libby for year after

23   year.       And in 1980 they reached a conclusion that there were

24   adverse health effects from exposure to tremolite asbestos.

25                      I t a l s o l e d to t h e N I O S H s t u d y .        In 1980 NIOSH tried
                                                                                                             7875


1    to initiate a study of pure vermiculite.                                T h a t' s w h e n t h e y

2    b e g a n t h e i r s t u d y.       I 'l l g e t t o N I O S H a l i t t l e b i t m o r e i n a

3    few minutes, but right now what I want to focus on is this, the

4    one and only meeting Harry Eschenbach ever attended with NIOSH,

5    N o v e m b e r 2 4 t h, 1 9 8 0 .     Look at what Harry Eschenbach did at that

6    meeting.          Look at how he conducted himself at that meeting as

7    the Health and Safety director.

8                        S t r a i g h t u p he w e n t i n t o t h e m e e t i n g w i t h N I O S H a n d

9    h e t o l d N I O S H, w e' v e h a d a l o t of d e a t h s a t L i b b y d u e t o l u n g

10   cancer.         We had high exposures.                   He sat across the table from

11   t h e p e o p l e a t L i b b y - - at N I O S H .     H e d i d n ' t h i d e.        H e d i d n' t

12   conceal.          He told them what our situation was.

13                       A n d M r s . K e n n e d y , w h a t a b o u t h e r?      She said they

14   answered all of our questions about the Health Surveillance

15   Program.

16                       What else did Mr. Eschenbach do in 1982?                                 He hired

17   D r . M o n s o n , G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 3 1 4 , to r e v i e w t h e 66 d e a t h

18   certificates that had been collected at that point in time.

19   D r . M o n s o n d i d n ' t d o an e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d y l i k e N I O S H a n d l i k e

20   t h e M c G i l l t e a m d i d l a t e r on , a n i n - d e p t h t h r e e - y e a r

21   i n v e s t i g a t i o n.   H e l o o k e d at t h e c a u s e o f d e a t h o n 6 6 d e a t h

22   c e r t i f i c a t e s a n d , a g a i n , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y, h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t

23   what he saw was an elevated mortality rate that was consistent

24   w i t h a s b e s t o s e x p o s u r e.    A g a i n , t h i s w a s n' t n e w s .      Not a TSCA

25   violation.            D i d n 't h a v e t o t u r n t h a t o v e r u n d e r t h e T S C A l a w .
                                                                                                            7876


1                       B u t h e r e' s w h a t w a s n e w s , h e r e ' s w h a t w a s n e w s,

2    ladies and gentlemen.                   In 1983 the health surveillance database

3    generated some new and disturbing information.                                    It generated

4    information that the permissible exposure limit was not

5    protecting the workers at Libby because some workers were

6    showing evidence of asbestos disease below the threshold 100

7    fiber-years.

8                       S o w h a t d i d he d o a s t h e H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y d i r e c t o r?

9    He also had, by that point in time, had collected a lot more

10   death certificates, 109.                     A n d h e c o u l d s e e , h i m s e l f, f r o m

11   looking at them there were 16 deaths due to lung cancer and

12   t h e r e w e r e t w o d e a t h s d u e to m e s o t h e l i o m a.      What did he do as

13   the Health and Safety director?                          He did the right thing.                      He

14   w r o t e a l e t t e r t o E P A a n d he r e p o r t e d t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n .        A

15   t o t a l d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n a t L i b b y.

16                      What he did was present the situation at Libby and

17   he told EPA that this was preliminary information.                                       W h y w a s it

18   preliminary information?                     Because they had not yet done an

19   e p i d e m i o l o g y s t u d y.   We h e a r d f r o m M r. M o o l g a v k a r e p i d e m i o l o g y

20   studies are the gold standard, the gold standard for the

21   scientific community.                   T h a t' s w h a t t e l l s y o u w h a t t h e c a u s e of

22   d i s e a s e i s ; n o t , w i t h a l l d u e r e s p e c t, D r. M o n s o n ' s r e v i e w o f

23   66 death certificates or the Enbionics review of old chest

24   x-rays.

25                      W h a t w a s E P A 's r e s p o n s e ?     Government Exhibit 340.
                                                                                                           7877


1    EPA totally agreed with Grace and Harry Eschenbach and wrote

2    back one month later.                   M r . K o v e r, w h o t e s t i f i e d , w r o t e b a c k o n e

3    month later, "The health effects are corroborative of written

4    scientific opinion on the effects of exposure to asbestiform

5    materials."

6                        And you can see, on one side is Government

7    E x h i b i t 3 3 3 , t h a t' s M r. E s c h e n b a c h ' s l e t t e r t o M r . K o v e r.        And

8    o n t h e o t h e r s i d e, 3 4 0 i s h i s l e t t e r b a c k.

9                        At that point in time this language right here is

10   r i g h t o u t o f t h e T S C A l a w w h i c h t h e G o v e r n m e n t, t h e

11   prosecutors, say that we violated.                             T h e y s a y t h a t in 2 0 0 9 .      The

12   problem is this:                 That EPA said in 1983 we didn't violate TSCA.

13   C o r r o b o r a t i v e.     Corroborative of the scientific opinion.

14                       N o w, w h a t e l s e d i d M r . K o v e r a t E P A w a n t ?          What else

15   was he interested in?                   He was interested in learning more about

16   the workers who had evidence of asbestos disease underneath 100

17   fiber-years.                 He asked for that information.                    He also asked for

18   a s t u d y b y D r. M c D o n a l d w h i c h t h e y w e r e s t a r t i n g t o e n g a g e a t

19   that point in time.                  What did Harry Eschenbach do?                       He

20   r e s p o n d e d a n d d i d e x a c t l y w h a t t h e y a s k e d h i m t o d o.

21                       G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 3 6 3.   J u n e 1 5t h , 1 9 8 3 , H a r r y

22   E s c h e n b a c h s e n t b a c k to M r . K o v e r t h e h e a l t h r e p o r t s , e x t e n s i v e

23   substantial health data about more than 20 of the workers who

24   had been exposed to less than 100 fiber-years and were showing

25   evidence of asbestos disease.
                                                                                                              7878


1                       A n d w h a t e l s e d i d h e do ?         When the McDonalds

2    f i n i s h e d t h e i r s t u d y in 1 9 8 6 , h e s e n t t h a t o n t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t

3    as well.         G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t 4 9 2.

4                       S o a t t h i s - - at t h e e n d o f a l l t h i s e v i d e n c e - - b e c a u s e

5    that's basically where Harry leaves the case.                                    At the end of

6    all this evidence what does it tell you about who Harry

7    E s c h e n b a c h i s?   It tells you that he was a conscientious health

8    and safety professional who was all about learning about the

9    disease at Libby, who was all about reporting it to management,

10   who was all about disclosing it to the Government.                                        That is not

11   a m a n w h o a g r e e s t o v i o l a t e t h e l a w , t o e nd a n g e r t h e p e o p l e of

12   L i b b y o r t o d e f r a u d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s.

13                      So in the face of clear evidence that Harry

14   E s c h e n b a c h ' s l e t t e r d i s c l o s e d t h e h e a l t h p r o b l e m s at L i b b y ,

15   past and present, old and new, what does Mr. McLean come up

16   w i t h n o w?     W e l l , t h e y d i d n 't t e l l u s e n o u g h .      They left some

17   i n f o r m a t i o n o u t , t h a t g o t in o u r w a y .       It interfered with us, I

18   guess was his point.

19                      But the problem is he conveniently ignores that Mr.

20   Eschenbach reported that we had 16 lung cancer deaths and two

21   m e s o t h e l i o m a s a n d, m o r e i m p o r t a n t , h e r e p o r t e d t h a t o u r c u r r e n t

22   workers are showing evidence of asbestos disease underneath the

23   permissible exposure limit.

24                      Conveniently leaves that out.                        Says why?          To promote

25   the secret.           The secret that they kept talking about from the
                                                                                                            7879


1    b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s c a s e, t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t' s

2    c a s e , t h e s e c r e t c r u m b l e d on t h e w i t n e s s s t a n d o n

3    c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n o f Mr . K o v e r a n d M r s . K e n n e d y .    The curtain

4    was pulled back, the truth was exposed.

5                       A s M r . B e r n i c k , a s M r . F r o n g i l l o t o l d y o u, t h e r e w a s

6    vast information out there about Libby tremolite because EPA

7    h a d s t u d i e d it f o r y e a r s ; b e c a u s e M r . K o v e r h i m s e l f h a d w r i t t e n

8    a c a t a l o g , a r e p o r t a b o u t a l l t h a t w a s k n o w n in t h e s c i e n t i f i c

9    community.          He d i d t h a t a s e a r l y a s 1 9 7 6 .          EPA knew all about

10   t h e h e a l t h e f f e c t s o f a s b e s t o s , i n c l u d i n g t r e m o l i t e.

11                      W h a t e l s e d o t h e y s a y w a s p a r t of t h i s b i g s e c r e t ?

12   T h e h a m s t e r s t u d y.    That was--the truth about the hamster study

13   w a s a l s o r e v e a l e d o n c r o s s -e x a m i n a t i o n , b u t t h e y s t i l l a r e

14   t r y i n g to p u l l o n e o v e r i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m.

15                      Asbestiform tremolite.                   Dr. Smith did a study which

16   h e r e p o r t e d D e c e m b e r 6t h , 1 9 7 7 , a b o u t a s b e s t i f o r m t r e m o l i t e .

17   It was Johns Manville asbestiform tremolite.                                   He found

18   mesothelioma that was caused when he injected massive doses

19   into the pleural space of hamsters.                             That was Johns Manville

20   asbestiform tremolite.                   W h a t ' s at L i b b y ?     Asbestiform

21   tremolite.          This paper was a year before our study was even

22   completed.

23                      W h a t e l s e d o t h e y s a y a b o u t t h i s h a m s t e r s t u d y?            M r.

24   M c L e a n s a i d , w e l l, t h e r e w a s a s e c r e c y a g r e e m e n t , t h a t t h e r e

25   w a s p u b l i c a t i o n o n l y by m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t w i t h D r . S m i t h .       Well,
                                                                                                           7880


1    that's what the language of the contract says, publication by

2    mutual agreement.                 They call that a secrecy agreement.

3                         The fact of the matter is, that that is not what the

4    truth is at all.                 Dr. Duecker testified in this courtroom.

5                         " D o y o u r e m e m b e r t h a t a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n W. R . G r a c e

6    a n d D r . S m i t h a b o u t p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e -- t h e f i n d i n g s ? "

7                         Answer.        " Y e s.   I think that was a standard form

8    that Fairleigh Dickinson required."

9                         "So that was something that Fairleigh Dickinson

10   r e q u i r e d? "

11                        "Yes, as I understand it."

12                        Why are they trying to pull one over on you even at

13   this late date?

14                        And Government Exhibit 147.                     Who suggested not to

15   i n c l u d e t h e G r a c e d a t a i n t h e p a p e r t h a t M r . - -t h a t D r . S m i t h

16   d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o n f e r e n c e i n W a s h i n g t o n i n D e c e m b e r o f 1 9 7 7?

17   D r . S m i t h h i m s e l f.

18                        "I have not disclosed the results of our tests of

19   samples you sent us.                   We could include that information in this

20   p a p e r i f y o u w i s h u s to d o s o , b u t I w o u l d n o t r e c o m m e n d t h a t

21   a t t h i s t i m e ."

22                        That was a letter from Dr. Smith to Julie Yang three

23   weeks before the conference where he delivered the Johns

24   M a n v i l l e a s b e s t i f o r m t r e m o l i t e p a p e r ; w h i c h , by t h e w a y , E P A

25   planned and attended.                    So they knew all about the effects of
                                                                                                              7881


1    asbestiform tremolite on hamsters.                               It i s a b s o l u t e l y a

2    distortion for them to come into this courtroom and continue to

3    try to put that over.

4                        So what do they do when the secret was blown away?

5    They cherry pick a word, they cherry pick a sentence out of a

6    l e t t e r by M r . E s c h e n b a c h t h a t d i s c l o s e d t h e h e a l t h p r o b l e m s at

7    Libby.        They ignore the entire context.                               Remember, 1983, this

8    was years after EPA had been all over Libby--the Libby mine and

9    mill.

10                       What's the last total distortion in this case about

11   the letter?            M r . M c L e a n p o i n t s to t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e i n t h e

12   letter, a sentence that says, "Grace had no reason to believe

13   that there is any risk associated with the current uses of

14   L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e- c o n t a i n i n g p r o d u c t s. "

15                       That was a true statement.                            1 9 8 3, t h a t w a s a t r u e

16   statement.           We h e a r d f r o m Mr . - - Mr . F r o n g i l l o t o l d y o u a b o u t t h e

17   letter that had been written to the CPSC in 1980, a letter that

18   said that there had been--there were small amounts of fibers

19   t h a t w e r e r e l e a s e d f r o m t h e p r o d u c t s o f W. R . G r a c e .           That was

20   right out there in the public domain.

21                       Did the CPSC do anything?                        D i d t h e y t a k e a n y a c t i o n?

22   Did they ban the products?                         Absolutely not.                 Why?     Because the

23   amounts, the exposures were so infinitesimal.                                         S o t i n y t h a t no

24   one believed there was any danger, any risk, whatsoever.

25                       Ladies and gentlemen, it is beyond preposterous.
                                                                                                             7882


1    I t 's p l a i n w r o n g t o c a l l a d i s c l o s u r e l e t t e r to E P A

2    n o nd i s c l o s u r e.   T h e y e v e n w e n t so f a r a s t o t r y t o r e a c h b a c k

3    t o a 1 9 7 2 m e m o t h a t M r. E s c h e n b a c h w r o t e a b o u t a c o n f e r e n c e , a n

4    a s b e s t o s c o n f e r e n c e , t h a t he w e n t t o o n l y e i g h t m o n t h s a f t e r h e

5    joined the company.

6                        A n d t h e y a p p a r e n t l y - - G o v e r n m e n t E x h i b i t N o. 7 -- t h e y

7    a r e t r y i n g t o s u g g e s t t h a t M r . E s c h e n b a c h, I g u e s s , w a s g i v e n

8    i n s o m e w a y to c o n c e a l m e n t .       That is giving grasping at straws

9    a b s o l u t e l y n e w m e a n i n g.    They pointed at something that he said

10   that there were no significant problems at Libby.

11                       Well, ladies and gentlemen, in 1983 they

12   conveniently forget that he wrote a letter to EPA telling EPA

13   a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m s a t L i b b y.       T h e y c o n v e n i e n t l y f o r g e t t h a t in

14   1980 he sat across the table from NIOSH and he told NIOSH about

15   the problems at Libby.

16                       It is clear beyond any doubt at all that what Harry

17   E s c h e n b a c h w a s a t t e m p t i n g to d o a n d w a s d o i n g a n d a c c o m p l i s h i n g

18   in his letter to EPA was to help them understand the health

19   i s s u e s at L i b b y , n o t t r y i n g t o c o n c e a l o r h o l d a n y t h i n g b a c k

20   f r o m E P A.

21                       NIOSH.       Let's talk about NIOSH just for a few

22   moments.

23                       THE COURT:             You have about eight minutes.

24                       MR. KRAKOFF:            Thank you, Your Honor.

25                       W e 'l l t u r n t o N I O S H j u s t f o r a m o m e n t.           T h i s is a
                                                                                                          7883


1    totally flagrant abuse in this case.                               They say that we

2    d e f r a u d e d N I O S H b y d e l a y i n g t h e s t u d y.     Why?      Because Grace had

3    t h e t e m e r i t y t o o p p o s e a s t u d y of p u r e v e r m i c u l i t e .        Grace

4    said, hey, wait a minute.                     You can't learn anything about

5    v e r m i c u l i t e at L i b b y b e c a u s e i t 's c o n t a m i n a t e d w i t h t r e m o l i t e.

6                       There is no doubt that Grace expressed loud and

7    clear and outspoken disagreement at that meeting.                                       But

8    disagreement is the bedrock of this country.                                   The Court has

9    a l r e a d y i n s t r u c t e d y o u, m a k i n g t h e G o v e r n m e n t 's j o b m o r e

10   d i f f i c u l t i s n o t c o n s p i r a c y.    And the Government knows that.

11   S o w h a t d o t h e y d o?        T h e y b r i n g a p e r j u r e r, a p e r j u r e r , R o b e r t

12   Locke, into this courtroom and they try to manufacture a case

13   against Harry Eschenbach.

14                      T h e C o u r t h a s a l r e a d y t o l d y o u to v i e w h i s t e s t i m o n y

15   w i t h g r e a t - - Mr . L o c k e 's t e s t i m o n y w i t h g r e a t s k e p t i c i s m .   His

16   testimony should be totally rejected.                               And options that he

17   w r o t e a b o u t in h i s m e m o , t h a t w a s h i s w o r k a n d h i s a l o n e.            He

18   t e s t i f i e d a b o u t i t.    He t o l d y o u t h a t h e c o o k e d t h a t u p

19   himself.         Y o u c a n' t - - he d i d n ' t e v e n s e n d t h a t m e m o t o H a r r y

20   Eschenbach.           You cannot give--Harry Eschenbach did not conspire

21   to defraud NIOSH in this case.

22                      Last issue, conspiracy to knowingly endanger.                                    I'm

23   going to turn to that briefly.                         We've heard a lot about knowing

24   e n d a n g e r m e n t , b u t I w a n t t o r a i s e t h r e e p o i n t s f o r y o u to k e e p

25   in mind as you deliberate.
                                                                                                        7884


1                      F i r s t , t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e, n o e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r,

2    that Harry Eschenbach joined an agreement to knowingly endanger

3    b e f o r e N o v e m b e r 1 5t h , 1 9 9 0 .    Why is that important?                   Because

4    t h e l a w d i d n 't c o m e i n t o e f f e c t u n t i l N o v e m b e r 1 5 t h, 1 9 9 0 .      It

5    w a s n ' t e v e n on t h e b o o k s u n t i l t h e n .

6                      As the Court told you, there must be evidence

7    presented by the Government that Harry Eschenbach reaffirmed an

8    agreement after that date.                       We know that Harry left the company

9    and he retired on December 31, 1996.                            That means, ladies and

10   g e n t l e m e n , a s t h e C o u r t i n s t r u c t e d y o u t h i s m o r n i n g, t h a t y o u

11   can find that Harry Eschenbach withdrew from any alleged

12   conspiracy by December 31, 1996, years before the statute of

13   l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d b e g a n t o r u n , N o v e m b e r 3 r d , 1 9 9 9.

14                     B u t w h a t e v i d e n c e d i d t h e G o v e r n m e n t p r e s e n t to y o u

15   between November 15th, 1990 and December 31, 1996 that Harry

16   Eschenbach reaffirmed an agreement to knowingly endanger the

17   p e o p l e of L i b b y ?    Nothing.           No evidence whatsoever.                   The only

18   e v i d e n c e a b o u t H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h i n t h a t w i n d o w o f t i m e is a

19   s u b m i s s i o n t h a t h e s i g n e d to E P A, a s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e o l d

20   hamster study in 1992.                   A n d, o n i t s f a c e , t h a t h a s n o t h i n g t o

21   do with knowing endangerment whatsoever.

22                     S o o n t h a t b a s i s a l o n e, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , y o u

23   can find him not guilty.

24                     The last thing I want to say to you about knowing

25   endangerment is that knowing endangerment is like its name.
                                                                                                           7885


1    I t 's a b o u t k n o w l e d g e .   W e h a v e n o t s e e n o n e p i e c e of e v i d e n c e

2    that Harry Eschenbach had any knowledge that the people of

3    Libby were placed in imminent danger of death or serious bodily

4    injury.

5                       O f c o u r s e M r . E s c h e n b a c h - - of c o u r s e he k n e w t h a t

6    tremolite asbestos caused serious adverse health effects to the

7    workers.         That was his job.               That's what I've spent the last

8    3 5 m i n u t e s t a l k i n g a b o u t a n d w e 'v e h e a r d i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m

9    during the trial, that was his job.                           But that is not about the

10   p e o p l e of L i b b y .     They place great weight on Government

11   E x h i b i t 4 8 4 , a m e m o r a n d u m t h a t H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h w r o t e i n 1 9 8 5,

12   t h a t c o l l e c t e d t h e h e a l t h d a t a on a l o t o f p e o p l e a n d s h o w e d

13   that there was asbestos disease among the workers, among the

14   workers.         It had nothing to do with the people of Libby.

15                      T h e u n r e b u t t e d e v i d e n c e i n t h i s t r i a l, l a d i e s a n d

16   gentlemen, is that Harry Eschenbach was a committed health and

17   safety professional who did everything he could to protect the

18   workers at Libby.               T h e r e i s n o w a y , no w a y h e w o u l d a g r e e t o

19   e n d a n g e r t h e f a m i l i e s o f t h e w o r k e r s h e w o r k e d s o h a r d to

20   protect.         T h a t w o u l d v i o l a t e e v e r y p r i n c i p l e t h a t he s t a n d s

21   f o r.

22                      S o , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , w h a t we h a v e s e e n i n t h i s

23   long trial--and an observation I want to make and I make it

24   c a r e f u l l y - - w e h a v e s e e n t h e a w e s o m e , t h e a w e s o m e p o w e r of t h e

25   Government.           W h e n t h e y w a n t s o m e t h i n g, t h e y w i l l s t o p a t
                                                                                                            7886


1    nothing.         But there must be evidence to back the charges and

2    t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s f a i l e d m i s e r a b l y in t h i s c a s e .

3                       There is no evidence that Harry Eschenbach reached

4    a n a g r e e m e n t t o d e f r a u d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s, t o c o n c e a l

5    i n f o r m a t i o n or t o e n d a n g e r t h e p e o p l e o f L i b b y.        I n s t e a d, w h a t

6    we saw was a prosecution team--and I was a federal prosecutor

7    for a long time so I say this very, very carefully.                                         But this

8    prosecution team attempted to manipulate the facts and distort

9    the truth.          It ' s a p r o s e c u t i o n t e a m t h a t t h e C o u r t h a s t o l d y o u

10   v i o l a t e d i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n t o t h e s e m e n a n d t o W .R .

11   Grace.       It was an inexcusable dereliction of their duty.                                       Harry

12   Eschenbach must not pay the price for their failures.

13                      M r . M c L e a n s t a r t e d t h i s c a s e o u t.       At the beginning

14   of his argument he said this is a case about right and wrong.

15   W e a g r e e.     We agree.          T h i s c a s e , t h i s e n t i r e c a s e is w r o n g .

16   W h a t ' s r i g h t -- M r . E s c h e n b a c h h a s h a d t h i s t e r r i b l e , h o r r i b l e

17   c a s e h a n g i n g o v e r h i m f o r o v e r f o u r y e a r s.        What is right,

18   ladies and gentlemen, is to give him back his life and find him

19   not guilty.           T h a n k y o u.

20                      THE COURT:            Ms . K u b o t a.

21                      MS. KUBOTA:            G o o d a f t e r n o o n, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n .

22                      JURY:       Good afternoon.

23                      MS. KUBOTA:            I'm the last one.

24                      JUROR:        Yea.

25                      MS. KUBOTA:            Ladies and gentlemen, Chip Wood
                                                                                                        7887


1    t e s t i f i e d a s f o l l o w s , " I w o u l d s a y J a c k W o l t e r, m o r e t h a n a n y

2    o t h e r p e r s o n i n o u r o r g a n i z a t i o n, m a d e t h e w o r k e n v i r o n m e n t in

3    o u r f a c t o r i e s, e x p a n d i n g p l a n t s , a n d i n L i b b y t u r n f r o m w h a t

4    w a s a d a n g e r o u s w o r k p l a c e to a p l a c e w h i c h w e n t f a r b e y o n d a n y

5    regulatory definition of hazardous, and did more to create a

6    safe working environment for our employees in Libby than any

7    other person I know."

8                      I t 's u n d i s p u t e d i n t h i s c a s e t h a t f o r t h e 1 9 y e a r s

9    that he worked at Grace Jack Wolter dedicated himself to

10   improving worker safety.                   That's undisputed.

11                     B u t t h e G o v e r n m e n t c l a i m s t h a t at t h e s a m e t i m e ,

12   d u r i n g t h e s a m e 1 9 y e a r s , J a c k w a s a l s o s e c r e t l y c o n s p i r i n g to

13   endanger the Libby community and defraud the Government.

14                     How does the Government reconcile their allegation

15   o n o n e h a n d a n d t h e e v i d e n c e o n t h e o t h e r?       Apparently they

16   c l a i m h e w a s b o t h; t h a t h e w a s b o t h , a t t h e s a m e t i m e , t r y i n g

17   hard to protect workers and endangering people in Libby.

18                     Ladies and gentlemen, to believe the Government's

19   case against Jack Wolter you would have to believe that he was

20   t h e W . R . G r a c e v e r s i o n o f Dr . J e k y l l a n d M r . H y d e .      That the

21   G o v e r n m e n t w o u l d c o m e i n t o t h i s c o u r t r o o m a n d t r y to s e l l y o u

22   s u c h a f a r f e t c h e d v e r s i o n of e v e n t s a n d s u c h a f a r f e t c h e d

23   portrayal of Jack Wolter shows exactly how far they are willing

24   t o g o t o g e t a c o n v i c t i o n in t h i s c a s e .

25                     A n d, i n f a c t , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , we a l l k n o w t h a t
                                                                                                          7888


1    t h e s t o r y o f D r . J e k y l l a n d M r . H y d e i s f i c t i o n a n d s o is t h e

2    case against Jack Wolter.

3                       L e t' s l o o k a t w h a t t h e e v i d e n c e h a s s h o w n a b o u t

4    Jack's role and the facts underlying the case.                                   A s w e k n o w , in

5    S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 5 J a c k s t a r t e d a s t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n t of

6    manufacturing and engineering at CPD.                             Shortly afterwards Chip

7    Wood took over as his boss and created the plan, Exhibit 90,

8    that you all have seen many times during the course of this

9    trial.       And the three key elements of that plan were safety,

10   c o m p l i a n c e , a n d c a n d o r.

11                      I n h i s t e s t i m o n y C h i p W o o d t o l d y o u a b o u t J a c k' s

12   crucial role in carrying out that plan.                              Chip told you, "Jack

13   provided the extraordinary link that could take good intentions

14   a n d t r a n s f o r m t h e m i n t o g o o d w o r k p r o d u c t. "

15                      A n d J a c k d i d t h a t, w e k n o w , b y r e d u c i n g f i b e r l e v e l s

16   in Libby and at the expanding plant.                            In Libby Jack made

17   engineering improvements to every part of the mining and

18   milling process.               He was so successful that Libby became a

19   model plant.

20                      Exhibit 5008 is a letter to Jack from a man named

21   J o n V o l k w e i n a t t h e U .S . B u r e a u o f M i n e s a s k i n g t o v i s i t L i b b y .

22   M r . V o l k w e i n w r o t e, " D u r i n g a r e c e n t c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h B o b

23   W h e e l e r f r o m N I O S H, h e s u g g e s t e d t h a t i t w o u l d b e of v a l u e f o r

24   m e t o s e e t h e w e l l - e n g i n e e r e d d u s t c o n t r o l s y s t e m at t h e W . R .

25   Grace vermiculite operation in Libby, Montana.                                   Mr. Wheeler
                                                                                                           7889


1    c a u g h t my i n t e r e s t b y s a y i n g t h a t i t w a s t h e c l e a n e s t p l a n t he

2    h a d e v e r s e e n.     I a m i n t e r e s t e d i n l e a r n i n g w h a t W .R . G r a c e h a s

3    done to earn this praise."

4                      Mr. Volkwein even wanted to study the ways in which

5    Jack and Grace had so successfully managed to reduce dust.                                               He

6    w r o t e , "I w o u l d l i k e to v i s i t t h e L i b b y o p e r a t i o n to s t u d y t h e

7    d u s t c o n t r o l s y s t e m s at t h e p l a n t . "

8                      J a c k m a d e e x p a n d i n g - - p a r d o n m e - -i m p r o v e m e n t s at t h e

9    expanding plants, too.                  He enclosed the expanding process to

10   contain the dust that it generated.                            He added baghouses and

11   slot screens.            H e p u t i n p l a c e s u r p r i s e i n s p e c t i o n s.      And he

12   instituted something called the Wolter Corrective Action Plan

13   t o c o r r e c t t h e s i t u a t i o n w h e n e v e r t h e r e w a s a n a b o v e - t h e- P E L

14   reading reported.

15                     Jack's dust reduction efforts in Libby and the

16   e x p a n d i n g p l a n t s d r o v e f i b e r l e v e l s d o w n , d o w n, d o w n .    By 1 9 8 9

17   t h e a v e r a g e f i b e r l e v e l s i n L i b b y h a d d r o p p e d t o 0 .0 3 6 f i b e r s

18   p e r c c , w h i c h w a s a b o u t o n e- f i f t h o f t h e P E L in e f f e c t at t h e

19   time.

20                     L a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , a l l of t h e s e m e a s u r e s w e r e

21   d r i v e n by a n e f f o r t t o b e a t t h e P E L .         As you know, Grace not

22   o n l y w a n t e d to b e a t t h e P E L, t h e y h a d t h e i r o w n i n t e r n a l l i m i t

23   that was half of the PEL.

24                     N o w, I ' ve l i s t e n e d- - w e l l , I l i s t e n e d r e a l l y

25   c a r e f u l l y t h i s m o r n i n g t o Mr . M c L e a n 's c o m m e n t s a n d d o y o u k n o w
                                                                                                         7890


1    h e d i d n o t s a y t h e w o r d P E L o n c e?         Isn't that strange?                The PEL

2    was the regulatory requirement against which Jack and Grace

3    were required to measure their conduct and their performance.

4    That was it.             It was the law.

5                       T h e r e a s o n t h a t M r. M c L e a n d i d n 't m e n t i o n t h e P E L is

6    because the PEL is a problem for the Government.                                    A n d i t' s a

7    problem because it puts them in the kind of awkward position of

8    h a v i n g to c l a i m t h a t Mr . W o l t e r a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s c o m m i t t e d a

9    c r i m e , m u l t i p l e c r i m e s, w h i l e c o m p l y i n g w i t h t h e l a w

10   continuously.             S o w e d i d n ' t h e a r a n y t h i n g a b o u t t h e P E L i n M r.

11   M c L e a n ' s c o m m e n t s.

12                      But keep in mind, what is the PEL?                          The PEL is the

13   m e a s u r e m e n t t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t s e t to s a y , o k a y , t h i s is s a f e .

14   This exposure is safe for workers to experience eight hours a

15   d a y, f i v e d a y s a w e e k , 5 0 w e e k s a y e a r , f o r 4 0 y e a r s , a n d - -

16   4 0 -y e a r w o r k i n g l i f e .   T h a t' s w h a t t h e P E L w a s.       And Jack

17   r e l i e d on t h a t , r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d o n t h a t, i n e v a l u a t i n g w h a t

18   w a s s a f e.

19                      Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen, while Jack was

20   w o r k i n g v e r y h a r d, a s w e k n o w , a n d i n m a n y d i f f e r e n t w a y s t o

21   drive fiber levels down in Libby and the expanding plants,

22   o t h e r p e o p l e a t CP D w e r e t e s t i n g a n d s t u d y i n g L i b b y

23   vermiculite.             W e 'v e h e a r d t h a t d u r i n g t h e 1 9 7 0s a n d e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s

24   Grace was conducting a series of studies.                                They were doing what

25   w e s o m e t i m e s c a l l e d h e a l t h e f f e c t s t u d i e s; t h a t w a s t h i n g s l i k e
                                                                                                                 7891


1    t h e h a m s t e r s t u d y, E n b i o n i c s , M o n s o n .     They were doing product

2    t e s t s ; t h i n g s l i k e t h e d r o p t e s t.        They were doing some

3    r e s e a r c h e x p e r i m e n t s , l i k e v e r m i c u l i t e s a l t i n g.

4                       N o w, C h i p W o o d t o l d y o u a b o u t J a c k ' s r o l e i n t h o s e

5    tests and studies and let's look at what he said.                                            He said Jack

6    was not in charge of them, nor was he responsible for deciding

7    w h e t h e r t h e r e s u l t s s h o u l d b e s h a r e d w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t.

8                       I a s k e d M r . W o o d , I s a i d , "T h e j u r y h a s s e e n t h a t

9    Jack was often copied on memos that had to do with tremolite.

10   W h y t h e h e c k w a s t h a t ?"

11                      He said, "Because he was the doer.                                  If s o m e b o d y

12   needed something to be done in the manufacturing operations,

13   J a c k w a s t h e g u y t h a t y o u w o u l d g o t o t o g e t it d o n e . "

14                      So if Fred Eaton or Bob Locke needed to do a drop

15   s t u d y , a d r o p t e s t , t h e y g o t t h e m a t e r i a l f r o m J a c k.              If

16   something came out of all these tests and studies that needed

17   to be, like, implemented in the manufacturing process, Jack

18   would be the one to do it.

19                      Ladies and gentlemen, even though fiber levels

20   c o n t i n u e t o f a l l d u r i n g t h e l a t e 1 9 8 0s , s o, u n f o r t u n a t e ly d i d

21   the demand for vermiculite.                         In 1990 Grace closed the Libby

22   m i n e a n d m i l l.      In late 1992 Grace began selling its Libby

23   properties.            In November 1992 Alan Stringer sold the screening

24   plant to the Parkers.                    In May 1994, Grace donated the export

25   plant to the City of Libby.
                                                                                                          7892


1                        B u t b y t h e n J a c k w a s no l o n g e r w o r k i n g a t G r a c e .

2    After the Libby facility closed, Grace didn't need a mining

3    e n g i n e e r a n y m o r e a n d in F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 4 J a c k w a s f i r e d .

4                        But later in 1994 Grace needed Jack's expertise

5    again and they hired him back as a consultant to help with the

6    sale of the mine in Libby.                      And in the course of that project

7    J a c k m e t M a r k a n d L u m O w e n s.       The Owens pursued Jack as a

8    potential business partner because he had things they needed:

9    He had expertise with the mine site, he had experience with

10   reclamation, and he had a relationship with the Montana DEQ.

11                       In December 1994 KDC bought the former Grace mine

12   site and another property called the Flyway.                                  Shortly after

13   t h a t J a c k b e c a m e p a r t o w n e r o f KD C .

14                       N o w, f r o m 1 9 9 5 t o 1 9 9 9 J a c k w o r k e d o n t h e K D C

15   properties.             He helped with the logging and the reclamation.

16   He came to Libby to participate in the annual environmental

17   i n s p e c t i o n s w i t h P a t P l a n t e n b e r g o f t h e M o n t a n a D E Q.

18                       B u t d u r i n g t h a t f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d, f r o m D e c e m b e r o f

19   ' 9 4 t o N o v e m b e r o f ' 9 9, t h e r e ' s n o e v i d e n c e a t a l l t h a t J a c k

20   was in contact with either Grace or any of his alleged

21   c o -c o n s p i r a t o r s .   Why does that matter?                I t m a t t e r s, l a d i e s a n d

22   g e n t l e m e n , b e c a u s e h e r e i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m, i n t h e r e a l

23   n o nf i c t i o n a l w o r l d, i t d o e s n ' t m a k e a n y s e n s e t h a t p e o p l e

24   engaged in a criminal conspiracy go for five years without

25   talking to each other.
                                                                                                            7893


1                      N o w, b e s i d e s h i s b u s i n e s s i n t e r e s t i n K D C, M a r k

2    Owens told you that Jack had a romantic attachment to Libby.

3    H e v i s i t e d t h e K DC p r o p e r t i e s o f t e n .     Sometimes with Mark Owens

4    a n d s o m e t i m e s w i t h h i s w i f e C l e o.      Jack decided to build a

5    h o u s e o n t h e F l y w a y r i g h t n e x t d o o r to t h e P a r k e r s .         S o h e r e 's

6    t h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t w h e r e t h e P a r k e r s h a v e t h e i r n u r s e r y, a n d

7    here's the Flyway where Jack was going to build his house.

8    Jack contacted a local builder and began plans for his house.

9    B u t, u n f o r t u n a t e l y , i n 1 9 9 8 C l e o d i e d o f a n i l l n e s s u n r e l a t e d

10   to asbestos and Jack put his plans on hold.

11                     When Jack visited Libby, he was absolutely

12   unconcerned about asbestos exposure.                             And you know who else was

13   unconcerned about asbestos exposure?                             Bill McCaig, Alan

14   S t r i n g e r a n d R a n d y G e i g e r , a l l of w h o m w o r k e d a t G r a c e f o r m a n y

15   years and lived in Libby.

16                     Bill McCaig used vermiculite in his garden.

17   R e m e m b e r, h i s s o n M i k e t e s t i f i e d a n d t o l d y o u a b o u t t h e ir , I

18   t h i n k , 30 - b y -5 0 y a r d - -w h i c h s e e m s v e r y l a r g e - -g a r d e n w h e r e B i l l

19   M c C a i g , h i s w i f e a n d t h e i r t w o s o n s g r e w v e g e t a b l e s.       Mike

20   McCaig ran on the high school track and Mike McCaig came back

21   to Libby for his senior year of high school.

22                     Alan Stringer had an office at the screening plant.

23   Do you remember, Jack DeShazer described a meeting that he had

24   with Stringer with a big old pile of vermiculite sitting right

25   outside the office.                What else?            S t r i n g e r' s d a u g h t e r A n n w o r k e d
                                                                                                              7894


1    at the mine.

2                       Randy Geiger took vermiculite home and used it in

3    his garden.           H e a l s o g a v e it t o h i s f a t h e r - i n -l a w a n d h i s

4    n e i g h b o r.

5                       I j u s t w a n t to t a k e a m o m e n t t o t a l k a b o u t a n a s i d e.

6    Y o u c a n s e e f r o m t h i s e v i d e n c e t h a t it ' s p a r t o f t h e

7    G o v e r n m e n t ' s t h e o r y - - l e t m e b a c k u p o n e s e c o n d.

8                       R e m e m b e r, B i l l M c C a i g a n d A l a n S t r i n g e r a r e

9    c o -c o n s p i r a t o r s i n t h i s c a s e .   It ' s t h e G o v e r n m e n t 's t h e o r y

10   that Bill McCaig and Alan Stringer not only knowingly

11   endangered themselves, but also knowingly endangered their

12   wives and their kids.                   Again, ladies and gentlemen, this points

13   to the fictional nature of this case.                              People don't behave like

14   that.       That makes no sense.

15                      I n 1 9 9 9 t h e E P A c a m e to L i b b y a n d P a u l P e r o n a r d

16   a s k e d K DC f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o c o m e o n t o t h e m i n e s i t e, a n d J a c k

17   and Mark Owens said have at it, come right on in.                                       They allowed

18   E P A u n l i m i t e d a c c e s s to t h e m i n e s i t e a n d t h e F l y w a y a n d l e t

19   EPA do whatever testing and investigation they wanted.

20                      N o w, t h e J u d g e h a s i n s t r u c t e d y o u a b o u t w i t h d r a w a l

21   from the conspiracy.                  I t ' s k i n d o f a h a r d, a n o t h e r l i k e l i t t l e

22   r a t' s n e s t o f c o n c e p t s.      B u t w h e n J a c k a l l o w e d t h e E P A on t o t h e

23   KDC properties in November '99, and that fact was communicated

24   t o h i s s u p p o s e d c o- c o n s p i r a t o r s t h r o u g h A l a n S t r i n g e r , J a c k

25   withdrew from any conspiracy to obstruct the Government that
                                                                                                         7895


1    may have ever existed.                   A n d b e l i e v e me , w e d o n' t t h i n k o n e d i d .

2                       W h a t t h a t m e a n s i s, a l s o , t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t t h e n

3    has to prove an overt act after the limitations period began

4    and before Jack withdrew.                     T h a t g i v e s t h e m a n e x a c t l y 2 0- d a y

5    window, because the period, the limitations period, starts on

6    November 3rd.             P a u l P e r o n a r d c a m e t o L i b b y o n N o v e m b e r 23 r d .

7    And guess what?              T h e r e a r e n o o v e r t a c t s i n t h a t 2 0- d a y p e r i o d .

8    S o n o m a t t e r w h a t e l s e, a n d b e l i e v e me t h e r e is p l e n t y e l s e ,

9    t h a t k i l l s t h e c o n s p i r a c y to o b s t r u c t.

10                      All right.           In t h e s p r i n g of 2 0 0 0 , a s w e k n o w , G r a c e

11   a g r e e d to b u y b a c k t h e L i b b y p r o p e r t i e s f r o m KD C .          As Dale

12   C o c k r e l l t o l d y o u, t h o s e n e g o t i a t i o n s w e r e d i f f i c u l t .   Grace

13   t o o k a g g r e s s i v e p o s i t i o n s w i t h KD C a n d w i t h J a c k i n p a r t i c u l a r .

14   So at a time that the Government claims Grace and Jack were

15   actually in a secret criminal conspiracy, in reality they were

16   l o c k e d in a d i f f i c u l t a n d a c r i m o n i o u s n e g o t i a t i o n .

17                      Part of the problem with the negotiation is that

18   Jack didn't want to sell.                     H e d i d n ' t w a n t t o g i v e up h i s d r e a m

19   o f o w n i n g t h a t L i b b y p r o p e r t y a n d d e v e l o p i n g it .         Jack tried a

20   c o u p l e of t i m e s t o c a l l o f f t h e d e a l , b u t M a r k O w e n s i n s i s t e d

21   o n g o i n g f o r w a r d a n d t h a t s a l e f i n a l l y c l o s e d i n J u l y o f 2 0 0 0.

22                      The July of 2000 sale of the mine site to Grace is

23   the last time that Jack appears in the events of this case.

24   F i v e y e a r s l a t e r h e f o u n d h i m s e l f i n d i c t e d, c h a r g e d w i t h c r i m e s

25   just this side of mass murder.                         Nine years later he finds
                                                                                                         7896


1    himself here before you.                    A n d t h i s , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n, i s

2    w h e r e i t e n d s.

3                       The Government has charged Jack with three crimes:

4    One count of conspiracy and two counts of knowing endangerment.

5    The Government has completely and utterly failed to prove those

6    c h a r g e s , a n d l e t 's t a l k a b o u t w h y t h a t ' s s o .

7                       I w a n t to t a k e t h e t w o o b j e c t s of t h e c o n s p i r a c y o n e

8    a t a t i m e , a n d l e t ' s s t a r t w i t h t h e a l l e g e d c o n s p i r a c y to

9    d e f r a u d t h e G o v e r n m e n t.

10                      T h e e s s e n c e of t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s c a s e a g a i n s t J a c k on

11   this particular object is this:                         They say Jack knew that these

12   G r a c e s t u d i e s h a d t o be d i s c l o s e d t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t u n d e r T S C A ,

13   but he withheld them because he thought that disclosure would

14   b e h a r m f u l a n d m a y b e e v e n f a t a l t o G r a c e 's v e r m i c u l i t e

15   b u s i n e s s.   A n d t h e G o v e r n m e n t c l a i m s t h a t, f o r t h o s e s a m e

16   reasons, Jack and his colleagues defrauded NIOSH.

17                      What studies does the Government claim should have

18   been disclosed under TSCA?                      W e l l, i t 's t h e s a m e o l d, y o u k n o w,

19   our old friends, the hamster studies, Enbionics, Monson, et

20   cetera.

21                      N o w, t h e G o v e r n m e n t , t h o u g h- - I w a n t to t a l k a b o u t

22   t h i s f o r a s e c o n d.       T h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s t r i e d to p r o v e J a c k ' s

23   r o l e i n t h i s c o n s p i r a c y t o o b s t r u c t by s a y i n g , o k a y, h e g o t

24   this memo and he got this memo and he got this memo and, there

25   you go, that proves he was in a conspiracy.                                 Does that work?
                                                                                                         7897


1    O f c o u r s e i t d o e s n' t w o r k .     I t d o e s n 't w o r k f o r a l o t o f

2    reasons.

3                      First of all, Chip Wood told us why Jack got those

4    memos.       He got those memos because he was the doer, not because

5    he was conspiring to obstruct the Government.                                  And besides

6    that, the memos that Jack got and that the Government is

7    relying on relate to the underlying studies themselves.                                         Right?

8    They are talking about the tests and the studies.

9                      W h a t d o n' t t h e y r e l a t e t o ?      T h i n k a b o u t i t.    What

10   t h e y d o n' t r e l a t e t o is a n y d e c i s i o n a b o u t w h e t h e r t h a t s t u f f

11   s h o u l d be t u r n e d o v e r t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t .    None of those memos

12   s a y, H e y, J a c k , w e' r e s u p p o s e d to t u r n t h i s s t u f f o v e r , b u t

13   l e t' s n o t , w h a t d o y o u t h i n k ?      T h e y a r e n o t a b o u t t h a t , n o t by

14   a mile.        T h e y a r e j u s t t h e m o s t r o u t i n e , p e d e s t r i a n, e v e r y d a y

15   memos about, you know, another hamster died.

16                     So the Government has also introduced documents like

17   5 7 A, w h i c h i s t h a t h a n d w r i t t e n B e c k e r d e c i s i o n t r e e a n d t h e B o b

18   L o c k e m e m o t h a t t a l k s a b o u t, y o u k n o w, o b s t r u c t a n d b l o c k , t o

19   s h o w t h a t J a c k a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s w e r e k i n d o f g e n e r a l l y u p to

20   no good.        And Mr. Bernick has talked to you about that and I

21   b e l i e v e M r . K r a k o f f a s w e l l, a n d t h e y h a v e e x p l a i n e d t o y o u

22   that those documents don't prove any conspiracy to obstruct.

23                     B u t a s f a r a s J a c k ' s r o l e in t h e c o n s p i r a c y , w h i c h

24   i s t h e t o p i c t h a t I ' m f o c u s i n g on , w h a t ' s i m p o r t a n t i s n o n e of

25   t h o s e d o c u m e n t s , n o n e o f t h a t e v i d e n c e a n s w e r s t h e q u e s t i o n or
                                                                                                           7898


1    even tries to answer the question or even addresses the

2    q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r J a c k , J a c k W o l t e r, k n e w t h a t t h e r e w a s a n y

3    duty to turn that material over to the Government and whether

4    he participated in any way, shape or form in any decision to

5    t u r n i t o v e r o r n o t t u r n i t o v e r.

6                       T h a t l a c k o f p r o o f, l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , i s l i k e a

7    g a p i n g h o l e in t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s p r o o f a g a i n s t J a c k o n t h e

8    conspiracy to obstruct and it compels an acquittal.

9                       L e t' s g o o n to t h e s e c o n d c o n s p i r a c y t o v i o l a t e t h e

10   Clean Air Act by endangering Libby.                             I want to focus on the

11   G o v e r n m e n t ' s f a i l u r e to p r o v e t h a t J a c k a c t e d w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d

12   knowledge and intent.

13                      This is at least part of what the Government has to

14   p r o v e a b o u t J a c k 's k n o w l e d g e a n d i n t e n t o n b o t h t h e

15   e n d a n g e r m e n t c o n s p i r a c y , C o u n t I, a n d t h e e n d a n g e r m e n t c o u n t s,

16   w h i c h a r e C o u n t s I I I a n d I V.       These intent requirements, I find

17   them incredibly dense and confusing and every time I read them,

18   e s p e c i a l l y t h i s t i m e of d a y, I w a n t to , l i k e , t a k e a n a s p i r i n

19   and lie down on the couch.

20                      B u t w h a t I w a n t t o d o , i n s t e a d of l i k e t r y i n g t o

21   p a r s e t h r o u g h a l l t h e l e g a le s e , w h a t I w a n t t o d o is t r y t o c u t

22   through it and say, look, the one thing that's perfectly clear

23   from all of this is that the Government has to prove that Jack

24   Wolter believed that the vermiculite concentrate left behind in

25   Libby was not just dangerous, but potentially deadly.                                          Right?
                                                                                                             7899


1    T h e y h a d t o p r o v e h e b e l i e v e d i t w a s d a n g e r o u s, w a y d a n g e r o u s.

2    A n d t h a t t h e y a b s o l u t e l y , p o s i t i v e l y , h a v e n o t d o n e.

3                         L e t' s l o o k a t t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a s

4    r e l i e d on t o t r y a n d p r o v e t h a t .        T h e y p o i n t e d t o O. M . S c o t t ,

5    and other counsel have talked about that.                                B u t a s we k n o w , a t

6    O . M. S c o t t , y e a h , t h e y w e r e e x p o s e d to t r e m o l i t e , b u t t h e y w e r e

7    exposed in an industrial setting at a fertilizer plant where

8    they were also exposed on a daily basis to this terrible stew

9    o f , l i k e, h e r b i c i d e , f u n g i c i d e , i n s e c t i c i d e , in a d d i t i o n t o

10   a s b e s t o s.     Plus, those exposures went back many, many years

11   before a lot of the improvements were made and when the Libby

12   vermiculite had a lot more tremolite in it than when the O.M.

13   Scott issue came to light.

14                        What else?         T h e G o v e r n m e n t s a y s , w e l l, J a c k k n e w

15   f r o m t h e p r o d u c t t e s t s, l i k e t h e d r o p t e s t s , t h a t L i b b y

16   v e r m i c u l i t e w o u l d r e l e a s e h i g h l e v e l s o f a s b e s t o s at l o w

17   concentrations.               S o l e t ' s t a k e a l o o k.      I k n o w w e ' ve t a l k e d a

18   lot about the drop tests.                      I want to just take a look at them

19   and you should really take look at what they show and what they

20   d o n' t s h o w .      T h e s e a r e E x h i b i t s 3 9 a n d 4 0 a n d I e n c o u r a g e y o u,

21   w h e n y o u d e l i b e r a t e , to t a k e a l o o k at t h e m .

22                        First of all, the drop tests are described in those

23   exhibits as a severe simulation environment.                                  Severe.         Not

24   regular, not normal.                  Severe.        The vermiculite is dropped from

25   a height four feet off the ground.                            They are conducted indoors
                                                                                                            7900


1    in something called the controlled drop sampling room where the

2    d o o r s w e r e c l o s e d.    The same people was tested over and over

3    and over again, and there was only minimal cleaning procedures

4    in between the tests.

5                       N o w, e v e r y o n e i n t h i s c o u r t r o o m k n o w s b y n o w t h a t

6    running the fan until the light appears clear is not going to

7    be enough to clear out all the microscopic fibers from that

8    controlled drop sampling room.                         Even Bob Locke wrote in 1976,

9    i n E x h i b i t 3 9, t h a t t h e t e s t r e s u l t s m i g h t b e d i s t o r t e d b y w h a t

10   h e c a l l e d b u i l d u p o f f i b e r s b e t w e e n d r o p s.      D r. Y a n g t e s t i f i e d

11   that in her view the drop tests were unscientific.                                       And, in

12   fact, Grace dropped the drop tests in 1977 because the test

13   data was not reliable.

14                      So to come in here and say you should convict Jack

15   Wolter because he got copies of memos that showed the drop test

16   results, that is preposterous.

17                      L e t' s l o o k a t a n o t h e r o n e , v e r m i c u l i t e s a l t i n g.

18   This is another favorite of the Government's.                                    It's another

19   t e s t t h a t t h e y s p e n t a l o t o f t i m e o n, a n d t h i s i s i n

20   E x h i b i t 8 6 a n d 7 0.      A l l r i g h t , w h a t t h e y d i d - -w e ' v e g o t t o t a l k

21   about what they did in the vermiculite salting tests.                                          They

22   t o o k S o u t h C a r o l i n a o r e , w h i c h is s o m e t i m e s c a l l e d K e a r n e y o r e ,

23   a n d t h e y a d d e d L i b b y t r e m o l i t e in s p e c i f i c c o n c e n t r a t i o n s .

24   Okay?       T h e n t h e y r a n it t h r o u g h s o m e d r o p t e s t s a n d t h e r e s u l t s

25   a r e s e t f o r t h i n E x h i b i t 7 0.
                                                                                                             7901


1                       N o w, t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s e x p e r t , A u b r e y M i l l e r ,

2    testified that Exhibit 70 was very important with regards to

3    propensity.            Why?       Because he said it shows that even where

4    there's very low levels of fiber in the material, you still get

5    really large levels in the air.

6                       L e t' s l o o k a t t h a t .      Let's look at Exhibit 70.

7    W e 'l l b l o w t h a t u p a l i t t l e.          All right.         S o L o t N o. 5 is

8    what's called the control, so that is just South Carolina

9    vermiculite with 0.0 percent added tremolite.                                    Right?           So i t 's

10   pure South Carolina ore.                      A n d t h e y t e s t t h a t in a d r o p t e s t .

11                      W h e n t h e y t e s t e d t h a t S o u t h C a r o l i n a o r e , i t ' s a s if

12   i t 's c o m p a r a b l e t o- - a s i f G r a c e h a d t a k e n j u s t l i k e a b a t c h of

13   l i k e s o i l o r r o c k s a n d t e s t e d i t.        Right?        I t h a s no h a z a r d o u s

14   tremolite whatsoever.

15                      S o t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c o n t r o l , t h i s 0 .7 1 2 , i s t h e

16   equivalent of zero.                  That's the baseline against which all the

17   other numbers have to be compared.                            Why?      B e c a u s e t h e c o n t r o l,

18   No. 5, had no hazardous tremolite.

19                      S o w h a t d o e s E x h i b i t 70 s h o w o n c e y o u u n d e r s t o o d

20   that fact?           Yes, it shows a big drop.                     Like a 90 percent drop

21   f r o m . 5 t o . 05 p e r c e n t.         All of the other numbers are

22   i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m z e r o.   So the really large levels that

23   Aubrey Miller said he saw, they are equivalent to zero.                                             W h a t' s

24   g o i n g o n h e r e?

25                      So this isn't my interpretation of the data.                                     T h a t 's
                                                                                                          7902


1    w h a t G r a c e c o n c l u d e d a n d w r o t e at t h e t i m e .      They said further

2    r e d u c t i o n s f r o m .0 5 t o . 0 0 5 t o .0 0 0 5 p e r c e n t w e r e

3    indistinguishable from the unsalted control Lot 5.                                      They are

4    t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f z e r o.

5                      And what conclusions did Grace draw from that?                                     They

6    concluded that a reduction of friable tremolite in the ore will

7    s h o w a c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e d u c t i o n in a i r b o r n e f i b e r l e v e l s i n t h e

8    expanded product.

9                      In other words, reducing tremolite in the ore will

10   a l s o r e d u c e it i n t h e p r o d u c t .      So it may be that Aubrey Miller

11   l o o k e d at t h e s e v e r m i c u l i t e s a l t i n g t e s t s a n d s a i d , o h , m y G o d ,

12   Grace's tremolite problem could never be solved, but that is

13   n o t w h a t G r a c e c o n c l u d e d b a c k i n 1 9 7 7.

14                     S o , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n , t h e G o v e r n m e n t 's e v i d e n c e

15   does not prove definitively that Jack believed vermiculite

16   c o n c e n t r a t e w a s d e a d l y, b u t o u r e v i d e n c e p r o v e s h e b e l i e v e d it

17   w a s s a f e.

18                     W h a t e v i d e n c e a m I t a l k i n g a b o u t?      First, air

19   sampling tests in the Town of Libby.                             Randy Geiger, do you

20   remember him?            He was the industrial hygienist who came from

21   Libby who testified in the defense case and the Government

22   case.      He t e st i f i e d a b o u t a i r s a m p l i n g t e s t s t h a t w e r e t a k e n

23   over the years in the Town of Libby.                             H e --

24                     A n d t h o s e t e s t r e s u l t s a r e E x h i b i t s 5 0 7 2 , 5 0 7 3, a n d

25   18844.       I encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to take a look
                                                                                                          7903


1    at those tests.             What do they show?                 They show extremely low or

2    no fibers.          In 1 9 7 8 w h e n t h e O S H A P E L w a s 2 f i b e r s p e r cc , t h e

3    a i r s a m p l e s t h a t w e r e t a k e n i n L i b b y s h o w e d 0 .0 1 f i b e r s p e r cc .

4    I n 1 9 8 2 , t w o s e t s o f a i r s a m p l i n g w a s d o n e i n t h e T o w n of

5    Libby:       O n e in F e b r u a r y a n d o n e i n O c t o b e r .       And they both came

6    b a c k a s n o n d e t e c t.    No fibers detected.

7                       I s n' t t h a t r e a l l y t h e e v i d e n t q u e s t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t

8    t o w h a t J a c k b e l i e v e d a b o u t a s b e s t o - -a s b e s t o s e x p o s u r e in

9    Libby?       S o r r y, i t' s g e t t i n g l a t e.      Isn't that really the end of

10   it?     Tests were done.               Jack and his team did tests going back

11   to 1978 and they showed either minuscule or no fiber levels.

12   Where?       In the town.

13                      All right.          The Berke memo.              I n 1 9 8 2 -- y o u h a v e n ' t

14   s e e n t h i s m e m o b e f o r e , s o I' l l s p e n d a m i n u t e o n i t.           In 1982 a

15   fellow named Jerry Berke wrote a memo to Jack.                                   And it's

16   E x h i b i t 1 1 3 3 3.   J e r r y B e r k e w a s a m e d i c a l d o c t o r , r i g h t , s o an

17   M . D. , a n d h e w a s a t t h e t i m e t h e m e d i c a l d i r e c t o r of G r a c e .

18   What did he tell Jack?

19                      He said that, "Extensive and costly engineering

20   c o n t r o l s h a v e b e e n a p p l i e d t o r e d u c e w o r k e r s ' e x p o s u r e to

21   a s b e s t o s t o a m o u n t s l o w e r t h a n t h e e x p o s u r e s of m a n y c i t y

22   dwellers from brake linings and older buildings who have never

23   worked with asbestos."

24                      He went on--and you can look at the memo when you

25   are deliberating.                He said to Jack, look, if you really want to
                                                                                                          7904


1    d o s o m e t h i n g w o r t hw h i l e t o r e d u c e l u n g d i s e a s e a m o n g w o r k e r s ,

2    f o c u s o n a n o- s m o k i n g p r o g r a m .     Why does that matter?                  It

3    m a t t e r s b e c a u s e i n 1 9 8 2 , i n J u l y 1 9 8 2, a m e d i c a l d o c t o r t o l d

4    J a c k t h a t t h e w o r k e r s i n L i b b y w e r e b e i n g e x p o s e d to l e s s

5    asbestos than the people in midtown Manhattan and the people in

6    downtown Los Angeles.

7                       In light of that advice, why would Jack believe that

8    after 1990--remember when fiber levels had continued to drop

9    f r o m 8 2 t o ' 90 - - w h y w o u l d J a c k b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p e o p l e in

10   L i b b y , w h o d i d n ' t w o r k f o r G r a c e, j u s t t h e p e o p l e in t h e

11   community, would be exposed to hazardous levels of asbestos?

12   And the answer is he would not.

13                      All right.          When Jack was fired from Grace in 1994,

14   h e h a d no r e a s o n g o i n g f o r w a r d to e v e r v i s i t t h e T o w n o f L i b b y

15   or to associate himself with that place again.                                    If he had

16   b e l i e v e d t h a t t h a t t o w n w a s c o v e r e d , a s t h e G o v e r n m e n t c l a i m s,

17   i n d e a d l y a s b e s t o s, y o u c a n b e t h e w o u l d h a v e t a k e n t h a t

18   o p p o r t u n i t y to h i g h t a i l i t i n t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n .

19                      W h a t d i d h e do ?       Just like Mike McCaig, Jack Wolter

20   c a m e b a c k t o L i b b y.      He c a m e b a c k a n d h e b e c a m e n o t j u s t- - h e

21   didn't just come back to the town.                            He b e c a m e a p r o p e r t y o w n e r

22   in the town.            He owned acres of land in Libby, and not just any

23   land.       He b e c a m e t h e o w n e r o f t h e v e r y p r o p e r t i e s t h a t t h e

24   G o v e r n m e n t s a y s h e k n e w w e r e c o n t a m i n a t e d.   Does that make any

25   sense?       No.
                                                                                                      7905


1                      He visited those properties often, walked all over

2    them.      Brought Mark Owens with him sometimes and brought his

3    wife with him sometimes.                  He v i s i t e d L e r a h P a r k e r at t h e

4    screening plant and sat in her kitchen talking about the

5    nursery business.              He even planned to build a house on the

6    F l y w a y r i g h t n e x t d o o r t o t h e P a r k e r s.

7                      N o w, t h e G o v e r n m e n t m a y g e t u p in r e b u t t a l a n d s a y ,

8    o h , w e l l, y o u k n o w , M a r k O w e n s s a i d t h a t t h e y w e r e g o i n g t o

9    move the vermiculite piles and they were going to cover it all

10   u p w i t h c l e a n f i l l a n d s o t h a t ' s w h y J a c k t h o u g h t it w a s o k a y.

11                     F i r s t o f a l l , t h a t ' s n o t w h a t h e s a i d.     He said it

12   w a s- - M a r k O w e n s t e s t i f i e d it w a s h i s i d e a t o m o v e t h e

13   v e r m i c u l i t e p i l e s t o f i l l in s o m e o f t h e l o w s p o t s a n d t h a t he

14   called Jack.

15                     " I c a l l e d h i m u p a n d I j u s t s u g g e s t e d, w h y d o n' t w e

16   handle that material the way that I explained to you?                                   And

17   t h a t ' s w h a t we d i d . "

18                     The bottom line is this.                  Nobody builds a house in a

19   town and on a property that they believe is contaminated with a

20   deadly substance, period.

21                     T h a t m i g h t m a k e s e n s e i n t h e f i c t i o n a l w o r l d of D r .

22   J e k y l l a n d M r. H y d e .    After all, the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

23   c h a r a c t e r k i l l s h i m s e l f a t t h e e n d o f t h e b o o k.     But here in

24   t h i s c o u r t r o o m , i n t h e r e a l w o r l d , t h a t m a k e s n o s e n s e at a l l.

25                     A l l r i g h t , l e t ' s t u r n t h e n t o C o u n t s I I I a n d IV
                                                                                                          7906


1    which are what we call the knowing endangerment counts.

2                      THE COURT:          You have five minutes.

3                      MS. KUBOTA:          O k a y.

4                      The bottom line with these counts is that the

5    G o v e r n m e n t , in a d d i t i o n t o a l l t h e o t h e r s t u f f t h a t M r .

6    Bernick, Mr. Frongillo told you about why these counts fail,

7    they fail because the Government has to prove the act of

8    selling or leasing the properties.                           There is nothing that ties

9    Jack to these transactions.                       H e d i d n o t c o m m i t- - p e r f o r m t h o s e

10   acts and the Government hasn't proved it.

11                     So let's look at Count III quickly.                             So Alan

12   Stringer negotiated the sale.                        Jack DeShazer did the paperwork.

13   T h e P a r k e r s m o v e i n i n t h e f a l l o f ' 93 .          All that time they

14   haven't met Jack Wolter.                  T h e y o n l y m e e t h i m in J a n u a r y 1 9 9 4 .

15   His involvement in the sale of the screening plant to the

16   P a r k e r s i s g o o s e e g g , z e r o , n o n e, n o n e .      You must acquit him on

17   this count.

18                     N e x t l e t' s l o o k a t t h e e x p o r t p l a n t .        There is two

19   parts of the export plant count.                          T h e r e ' s t h e d o n a t i o n to t h e

20   City of the Libby and the Burnett lease.                                T h e d o n a t i o n to t h e

21   C i t y o f L i b b y, t h e r e is e x a c t l y o n e p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e .        Alan

22   S t r i n g e r w r i t e s a l e t t e r t o t h e m a y o r o f L i b b y i n M a r c h o f ' 93

23   s a y i n g we ' r e g o i n g t o d o n a t e t h e p r o p e r t y t o y o u , a n d J a c k i s a

24   c c o n t h a t l e t t e r.    That's it.

25                     Grace negotiates the donation with the City.                                   You
                                                                                                          7907


1    h e a r d f r o m M r. F e n n e s s y .     I a s k e d h i m, D i d y o u d e a l w i t h J a c k

2    Wolter?        No, I didn't.

3                       T h e d o n a t i o n i s f i n a l i z e d in M a y ' 9 4 .     Meanwhile,

4    J a c k ' s b e e n f i r e d.      T h e r e is n o e v i d e n c e h e e v e n k n o w s t h a t

5    this donation actually goes forward.                            His involvement in this

6    e v e n t i s z e r o.

7                       L e t' s l o o k a t t h e i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

8    B u r n e t t l e a s e.   I f p o s s i b l e, i t 's l e s s .     Nothing, not one piece

9    of evidence that shows that Jack even knew the Burnetts ever

10   leased that property.

11                      Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to acquit you on

12   these counts.

13                      There has been a complete failure of proof with

14   r e s p e c t t o C o u n t s I I I a n d IV .       That the Government would come

15   here before you and claim that this proof rises to the level of

16   proof beyond a reasonable doubt is shameful.                                 Their willingness

17   to do that taints everything they do and everything they say in

18   this case.          Why?         B e c a u s e it s h o w s t h a t t h i s is n o t a r i g h t e o u s

19   prosecution.

20                      N o w, i n a f e w m i n u t e s M r . M c L e a n i s g o i n g t o g e t u p

21   and he's going to give his rebuttal argument and we are not

22   g o i n g t o h a v e a c h a n c e- - n e i t h e r I n o r a n y o f t h e d e f e n s e

23   c o u n s e l a r e g o i n g t o h a v e a c h a n c e t o r e s p o n d t o h i s c o m m e n t s.

24   A n d s o w h e n he s p e a k s t o y o u , I a s k y o u , p l e a s e , l i s t e n w i t h

25   the skepticism that we would bring to it.                               Ask what would the
                                                                                                          7908


1    D e f e n d a n t s s a y i n r e s p o n s e t o M r. M c L e a n 's c o m m e n t s?

2                       Ladies and gentlemen, we ask you to acquit Jack

3    W o l t e r on a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s.      I n m a k i n g t h a t r e q u e s t w e 'r e

4    asking you to do something that people at the highest levels of

5    t h e E P A , t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e a n d t h e U . S. A t t o r n e y' s

6    O f f i c e h a v e n o t h a d t h e c o u r a g e t o d o, a n d t h a t i s t o s t o p t h i s

7    u n j u s t p r o s e c u t i o n.

8                       In some ways it's not fair that you are in this

9    p o s i t i o n.   I t m e a n s t h a t s a f e g u a r d s in t h e j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a v e

10   f a i l e d ; b u t y o u , l a d i e s a n d g e n t l e m e n, a r e t h e b a c k s t o p a n d

11   w e 'r e v e r y g r a t e f u l f o r t h a t .

12                      I know that you'll be true to your oath as jurors.

13   I k n o w t h a t y o u w o n ' t b o w to e m o t i o n o r p o l i t i c a l p r e s s u r e a n d

14   that you will return the verdict that the evidence compels.

15                      In my opening statement I told you that there had

16   b e e n a t r a g e d y i n L i b b y a n d, i n d e e d , t h e r e h a d.        But a tragedy

17   is a very different thing than a crime.                              And the Government

18   here has completely failed to prove that Jack Wolter committed

19   any crime.           Instead, they have piled tragedy upon tragedy by

20   p r o s e c u t i n g an i n n o c e n t m a n.    Y o u ' v e h e a r d t h e w i t n e s s e s,

21   y o u' v e s e e n t h e d o c u m e n t s , y o u k n o w t h e t r u t h .     And the truth

22   i s , J a c k W o l t e r i s i n n o c e n t.     I ask you to acquit him.                    Thank

23   y o u.

24                      THE COURT:          Thank you.

25                      We have 46 minutes to go.                    Do you want to take
                                                                                                            7909


1    another short break?

2                       JURY:       Yes.

3                       THE COURT:           A l l r i g h t , w e ' ll t a k e a t e n - m i n u t e

4    r e c e s s a n d b e b a c k a n d f i n i s h u p.         Don't discuss the case

5    during the break.

6                       (Whereupon, court was in recess at 5:38 p.m.,

7    reconvened at 5:49 p.m.)

8                       THE COURT:           Please be seated.

9                       Mr. McLean, you may rebut.

10                      MR. MCLEAN:            The Defendants spent a great deal of

11   t i m e d u r i n g t h e i r c l o s i n g s a t t a c k i n g t h e G o v e r n m e n t, a t t a c k i n g

12   the prosecution team.                   In essence, putting the Government on

13   trial.       I should be used to that by now.                            It's a common defense

14   tactic.        It's a good tactic to try to distract the jury from

15   actually reviewing the evidence, listening to the law the judge

16   has given, and applying your collective common sense, but it

17   d o e s n ' t t a k e t h e s t i n g o u t o f i t e v e n t h o u g h I' v e h e a r d i t

18   before.

19                      What you need to keep in mind when you hear

20   a r g u m e n t s l i k e t h a t , t h a t is t h e p u r p o s e .       I t 's t o t r y to g e t

21   you thinking of something else and not concentrating on the

22   charges and the evidence in the case.

23                      Several defense attorneys mentioned the tragedy in

24   Libby.       T h e y d o s e e m to a g r e e t h a t t h e r e h a s b e e n a t r a g e d y ,

25   b u t i n t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t t h e y s a y t h e r e ' s n o r i s k in L i b b y a n d
                                                                                                            7910


1    t h e y p r o d u c e d a n e x p e r t w i t n e s s t o s a y t h e r e is n o r i s k i n

2    Libby.        How can you say both of those statements in the same

3    a r g u m e n t?

4                         M r . B e r n i c k , c o u n s e l f o r W .R . G r a c e , a r g u e d a b o u t

5    credibility and the whole truth.                           T h e d o c u m e n t s d o n' t l i e .       The

6    documents that were created by these Defendants in the course

7    and scope of their employment for the company, W.R. Grace,

8    d o n' t l i e .      Please read them.               L o o k at t h e m .     They tell the

9    s t o r y o f w h a t h a p p e n e d a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t s' k n o w i n g

10   participation in the conspiracy alleged in Count I.                                        The

11   k n o w l e d g e t h a t y o u ' l l s e e r e f l e c t e d in t h o s e d o c u m e n t s t h a t

12   e a c h D e f e n d a n t g a i n e d o v e r t h e c o u r s e o f t i m e i s v i t a l to y o u r

13   u n d e r s t a n d i n g i n y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e c h a r g e s i n t h i s

14   case.

15                        M r . B e r n i c k w a s l o o k i n g a t a d o c u m e n t, i t w a s o n e of

16   the ag/hort test documents, I think, and he was explaining to

17   you the testimony about how when the ag/hort test results came

18   b a c k a n d t h e D e f e n d a n t s l o o k e d at t h e m a n d t h e y s a w t h a t t h e y

19   w e r e n o t g o o d, t h e r e w a s f o l l o w -u p .       He said there was

20   f o l l o w - up .    T h e r e w a s f o l l o w - u p a n d he h a d h i s d e m o n s t r a t i v e

21   exhibit up there.                 Every time they had some bad results they

22   f o l l o w e d u p w i t h t h e i r c u s t o m e r s.

23                        Who followed up with the Libby residents?                               Did Jack

24   Wolter follow up with those folks?

25                        MR. BERNICK:           I'm going to object to that question,
                                                                                                         7911


1    Your Honor.          It's an improper rebuttal.

2                      THE COURT:           Sustained.

3                      MR. MCLEAN:           Mr. Bernick talked about Government's

4    e x h i b i t -- o r D e f e n s e E x h i b i t 5 0 4 9, a n d I t h i n k i t w a s t h e p r e s s

5    r e l e a s e t h a t P a u l P e r o n a r d w r o t e, w h e r e h e s a i d E P A c o u l d h a v e

6    done more to follow up on the possibility that nonworkers were

7    getting sick in Libby.                  A n d I t h i n k Mr . P e r o n a r d c o n f i r m e d t h a t

8    during his testimony, that he does believe that EPA could have

9    d o n e m o r e t o f o l l o w u p o n t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n.

10                     T h i s w a s i n 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 0 w h e n Mr . P e r o n a r d w a s

11   drafting these statements.                     But at that time, of course, Mr.

12   S t r i n g e r k n e w, W .R . G r a c e k n e w t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t M r .

13   Peronard was wishing EPA had followed up on.

14                     The Defendants want to talk about EPA failings and

15   n o d o u b t t h e r e w e r e s o m e , b u t i t' s t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e s e

16   Defendants that even brought EPA to Libby in the first place.

17   E P A w o u l d n ' t h a v e b e e n t h e r e i n v e s t i g a t i n g a n d d o i n g a c l e a n up

18   if these Defendants hadn't created this situation.

19                     Mr. Bernick argued that the Government has

20   n o t- - w e l l , h e c o r r e c t l y a r g u e s we ' r e r e q u i r e d t o s h o w c o r r u p t

21   intent for the obstruction charges, that the Defendants

22   knowingly made these false and misleading statements for a

23   corrupt purpose.              What could be more corrupt than not telling

24   E P A a b o u t t h e d a n g e r s o n l y k n o w n t o W. R . G r a c e a n d t h e s e

25   Defendants.          They kept that secret from the EPA and from the
                                                                                                          7912


1    regulators through time.

2                       Mr. Bernick talked about Defense Exhibit 5444.                                    I

3    would like to just take a quick look at that, if we could,

4    Page 7, in particular.                       I think it's Page 7 he was referencing,

5    according to my notes.                       This is some of the data on the percent

6    o f t r e m o l i t e i n t h e L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e.     And he was pointing out

7    to you how it has decreased over time and it was quite small

8    towards the 1983, '84, '85.                       And I think he was directing it at

9    t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t G r a c e s o m e h o w m i s l e d E P A a n d M r. S t r i n g e r,

10   i n p a r t i c u l a r, w h e n h e t o l d P a u l P e r o n a r d o u r m a t e r i a l s a r e

11   less than 1 percent.

12                      A n d, o f c o u r s e , M r. C a s s i d y h a d s h o w n y o u t h e

13   t e s t i n g t h a t w a s d o n e o f s o m e o f t h e v e r m i c u l i t e i n t h e s i l o s,

14   but what I wanted to show you was some testimony by Paul

15   Peronard that appears at Page 1057 of the transcript on this

16   issue about the percentages of tremolite in the concentrate

17   t h a t w a s f o u n d a r o u n d L i b b y.

18                      H e 's a s k e d o n c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n .

19                      "So the jury shouldn't draw the inference from all

20   of this red that those are areas that there was only detection,

21   n o n o n d e t e c t i o n , r i g h t? "

22                      And Mr. Peronard wrote --excuse me, said.

23                      " A n d I ' ll b e c l e a r.       To t h e c o n t r a r y .    One of these

24   p r o p e r t i e s w h e r e w e f o u n d t h e v e r m i c u l i t e m a t e r i a l s, t h e p i l e

25   of vermiculite, you would have higher concentrations of
                                                                                                         7913


1    a s b e s t o s, e s p e c i a l l y in t h o s e p i l e a r e a s .   2, 3, 4, you know,

2    i n t h e c a s e of t h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t , 20 p e r c e n t a s b e s t o s ."

3                      S o t h i s s t a t e m e n t b y Mr . S t r i n g e r t h a t a l l t h e

4    materials are less than 1 percent is not only belied by the

5    documents from 1992, but also by this testimony that you heard.

6                      Mr. Bernick argued that it was silly or improper for

7    M r . P e r o n a r d t o a s k i n t h e 1 0 4 ( e) q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r s t h a t h e

8    already knew.            M r. B e r n i c k s a i d t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e

9    investigation that EPA workers had done there at Libby, they

10   t a l k e d to s o m e o f t h e p e o p l e a n d t h e y a l r e a d y k n e w t h a t t h e r e

11   w a s v e r m i c u l i t e a t t h e h i g h s c h o o l , on R a i n y C r e e k R o a d , a n d

12   the Plummer Elementary School.

13                     And Mr. Peronard explained during his testimony

14   that, of course, he was getting a lot of information from

15   townspeople.           Townspeople were coming forward and telling him

16   things.        His assistants were out interviewing people, they were

17   out learning information.

18                     But he asked W.R. Grace this question because the

19   company would be the best source of information.                                    He t o l d y o u

20   that Grace would be in the best position to know and he would

21   b e a b l e t o f i l t e r t h r o u g h th i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w a s c o m i n g f r o m

22   a l l s o u r c e s a n d g e t i t r i g h t f r o m t h e h o r s e ' s m o u t h, t h e

23   c o m p a n y , t h a t w o u l d k n o w t h e a n s w e r to t h e s e q u e s t i o n s .

24                     M r . B e r n i c k b r o u g h t y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o M r . C o r c o r a n 's

25   l e t t e r a n d a r g u e d t h a t i t w a s c e r t a i n l y n o t c o r r u p t, n o
                                                                                                             7914


1    evidence of corrupt intent.                          I think we should just look at

2    t h a t l e t t e r b r i e f l y , if w e c o u l d.         E x h i b i t 6 4 4.    A n d w e 'v e

3    t r i e d t o h i g h l i g h t s o m e o f t h e l a n g u a g e t h a t ' s c h a r g e d in t h e

4    Indictment.

5                         And Mr. Corcoran writes, "There is no credible

6    r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h a t Z A I h a s e v e r c a u s e d a n a s b e s t o s - r e l a t e d

7    d i s e a s e i n a n y o n e w h o h a s u s e d it i n h i s o r h e r h o m e . "

8                         If we could turn the page, please.                              And he writes,

9    "The crude vermiculite ore mined near Libby contained small

10   a m o u n t s o f a t y p e o f a s b e s t o s c o m m o n l y k n o w n as t r e m o l i t e

11   a s b e s t o s. "

12                        A n d t h e n, " T h u s , G r a c e' s e x p a n d e d v e r m i c u l i t e , w h i c h

13   w a s u s e d i n ZA I , p o s e s n o r i s k to h u m a n h e a l t h o r t h e

14   environment."

15                        He writes, "The answer is simple and

16   straightforward.                Scientific analysis has repeatedly shown that

17   the product contains biologically insignificant amounts of

18   r e s p i r a b l e a s b e s t o s f i b e r s ."

19                        A n d t h e n h e r e, " G i v e n t h i s f a c t , i t is r e a s o n a b l e to

20   e x p e c t t h a t d i s t u r b a n c e o f t h e p r o d u c t w i l l n o t r e s u l t in

21   hazardous levels of airborne asbestos fibers."

22                        N o w, g i v e n a l l t h e r e c o r d s a n d t h e t e s t i n g t h a t w a s

23   i n G r a c e f i l e s a t t h e t i m e , t h e s e c a n' t b e t r u e s t a t e m e n t s .

24   M r . C o r c o r a n d i d o f f e r s o m e t e s t i m o n y, t h o u g h , t h a t I t h i n k y o u

25   s h o u l d c o n s i d e r w h e n y o u a r e l o o k i n g a t w h e t h e r t h i s l e t t e r is
                                                                                                          7915


1    a f a l s e s t a t e m e n t, w h e t h e r i t c o n t a i n s f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s ,

2    whether it's a corrupt letter.                        A n d he t o l d y o u d u r i n g h i s

3    testimony about the reason that he was writing this letter.

4    A n d i t g o e s to o n e o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c o n s p i r a c y , a n d t h e

5    purposes of the conspiracy that are alleged is to avoid

6    liability, increased profits and avoid liability.                                      Mr. Corcoran

7    i s v e r y c l e a r i n h i s t e s t i m o n y w h e n he t a l k e d a b o u t t h e

8    p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y t h a t G r a c e f a c e d o n a n a t i o n a l l e v e l i f ZA I

9    w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o b e s o m e s o r t of m a t e r i a l r e q u i r i n g r e m o v a l

10   from homes by the EPA.                   He said nobody's got that much money.

11                      That gets back to the purpose of the conspiracy

12   t h a t ' s - -a n d t h e p h r a s e s a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t s t h a t a r e i n t h i s

13   letter echo back to Harry Eschenbach, back in Exhibit 333, and

14   i n o t h e r e x h i b i t s t h a t y o u 'v e s e e n w h e r e t h e s e s a m e s o r t s o f

15   s t a t e m e n t s a r e b e i n g m a d e to t h e E P A .

16                      " T h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o e x p e c t t h e d i s t u r b a n c e o f t h e

17   product" -- excuse me.                   " I t' s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t

18   d i s t u r b a n c e of t h e p r o d u c t w i l l n o t r e s u l t i n h a z a r d o u s l e v e l s

19   o f a i r b o r n e a s b e s t o s f i b e r s. "

20                      I f y o u l o o k at E x h i b i t 3 3 3 , H a r r y E s c h e n b a c h ' s

21   s t a t e m e n t b a c k i n 1 9 8 3, t h a t l a s t s e n t e n c e t h a t y o u' v e s e e n

22   a l r e a d y , v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h i s o n e , d o e s n 't t a l k a b o u t Z AI , b u t

23   i t s a y s t h a t s a m e s o r t o f p h r a s e.        I f w e c a n go t o t h e l a s t

24   s e n t e n c e.

25                      " F i n a l l y, w e w i s h t o e m p h a s i z e t h a t we h a v e n o
                                                                                                            7916


1    r e a s o n to b e l i e v e t h e r e i s a n y r i s k a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c u r r e n t

2    u s e s o f L i b b y v e r m i c u l i t e c o n t a i n i n g p r o d u c t s ."

3                       T h a t s a m e s t a t e m e n t c a r r i e s f o r w a r d 20 y e a r s .

4    That's the corporate line.                       T h a t' s t h e p l a n .     T h a t 's e v i d e n c e

5    t h a t t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a r e p a r t of a c r i m i n a l c o n s p i r a c y .       The

6    same language being presented to the Government through the

7    years.

8                       Mr. Bernick talked about the example of the heinous

9    c r i m e ; or h i s e x a m p l e o f a h e i n o u s c r i m e w a s a c a u s t i c

10   m a t e r i a l, t h a t t h a t w o u l d c e r t a i n l y be i m m i n e n t d a n g e r u n d e r

11   some circumstances and that that was heinous.

12                      Of course, we know through the evidence in this case

13   that asbestos doesn't act that way.                             A s b e s t o s d o e s n' t f i t t h a t

14   m o d e l o f w h a t M r . B e r n i c k w o u l d s a y is h e i n o u s.          Asbestos is a

15   slow-acting poison, that latency period that you've heard

16   about.

17                      But you also heard the doctors that testified

18   d e s c r i b e, a n d t h e d i f f e r e n t e x p e r t s , t h a t a s p e r s o n s a r e

19   e x p o s e d t o a s b e s t o s o v e r t i m e i t a c c u m u l a t e s in t h e i r b o d y .           It

20   a c c u m u l a t e s in t h e i r l u n g s .    And every time they are exposed it

21   increases the risk that they will develop an asbestos-related

22   disease.

23                      T h i s i s n' t a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a p e r s o n w a l k s i n t o a

24   cloud of asbestos and falls over dead or is suddenly burned and

25   blistered.           T h i s i s a s i t u a t i o n o f c h r o n i c e x p o s u r e o v e r t i m e.
                                                                                                             7917


1    T h e l a t e n c y p e r i o d o f t h i s p o i s o n c a n' t b e a v i a b l e d e f e n s e .

2                       Mr. Bernick complained that the Government's expert

3    had no risk numbers, they didn't have a curve.                                      And they

4    c e r t a i n l y d i d n o t.     D r. W h i t e h o u s e t o l d y o u h e d i d n' t h a v e a

5    curve.        But what they did offer to you was substantial evidence

6    that you can consider in deciding whether a risk of serious

7    b o d i l y i n j u r y e x i s t s in L i b b y d u e t o t h e s e v e r m i c u l i t e

8    materials.           Dr . W h i t e h o u s e t o l d y o u a b o u t t h e h u n d r e d s of c a s e s

9    h e 's d i a g n o s e d o f a s b e s t o s -r e l a t e d d i s e a s e , m a n y o f t h e m f r o m

10   purely environmental exposures.                              Told you about 11 cases of

11   mesothelioma that he determined were environmental.                                         And there

12   w a s a c t u a l l y t e s t i m o n y f r o m D a r l e n e R i l e y' s h u s b a n d e a r l y o n i n

13   the trial and he described for you her exposure was the attic

14   i n s u l a t i o n t h a t f e l l on t o h e r w a s h i n g m a c h i n e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e

15   of her work around the house.

16                      D r . W h i t e h o u s e d e s c r i b e d C a r o l G e r a r d' s e x p o s u r e .

17   You heard about that.                   It was her work at the doctor's office

18   where they would actually wash the patient's gowns that they

19   wore during their appointments.                              Those are not occupational

20   exposures.           T h o s e a r e t h e t y p e of e x p o s u r e s t h a t w e' r e t a l k i n g

21   about in this case.

22                      MR. BERNICK:             Y o u r H o n o r , t h a t v i o l a t e s Y o u r H o n o r 's

23   o r d e r c o n c e r n i n g i n d o o r e x p o s u r e.

24                      THE COURT:           It d o e s .         Sustained.

25                      MR. MCLEAN:            Mr. Bernick--I think this was Mr.
                                                                                                         7918


1    B e r n i c k -- t a l k e d a b o u t E P A n o t g e t t i n g t h e P a r k e r s o f f t h e

2    property and that the hypocrisy was stunning, and that they

3    left the Parkers out there.                          Contended this is a fraud, that

4    t h e e m e r g e n c y c a n' t b e o n g o i n g .

5                        A n d, o f c o u r s e , y o u h e a r d P a u l P e r o n a r d d e s c r i b e f o r

6    you his efforts and his struggles to find out about this

7    m a t e r i a l.    He had to reinvent the wheel himself and figure out

8    through scientific testing and other manners about whether this

9    was actually a dangerous material.                           He d e s c r i b e d f o r y o u t h a t

10   it took some time for that to happen.                             They had to make the

11   samples.           T h e y h a d t o g e t t h e m to t h e l a b.        They had to figure

12   o u t h o w t o s a m p l e, w h e r e t o s a m p l e .

13                       A n d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h a t t i m e , of c o u r s e , G r a c e

14   w a s n ' t c o m i n g f o r w a r d a n d s a y i n g, h e y, y o u k n o w , t h a t s t u f f o u t

15   t h e r e o n t h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t , i f y o u d i s t u r b it , i t' s g o i n g to

16   release asbestos.                If you are driving up Rainy Creek Road and

17   y o u d i s t u r b it , i t' s g o i n g t o r e l e a s e a s b e s t o s.       If there's

18   kids playing in the Plummer Elementary ice rink, they are going

19   t o b e d i s t u r b i n g t h o s e m a t e r i a l s a n d i t w i l l be r e l e a s i n g

20   a s b e s t o s.

21                       MR. BERNICK:           T h a t ' s an i m p r o p e r r e b u t t a l.   It

22   v i o l a t e s t h e C o u r t' s r u l i n g s .

23                       THE COURT:          Overruled.

24                       MR. MCLEAN:          Mr. Peronard didn't know that.                       He

25   didn't have that information.                          Only this company did and only
                                                                                                         7919


1    t h e s e D e f e n d a n t s d i d , a n d t h e y k e p t it f r o m P e r o n a r d a n d t h a t

2    c r e a t e d m o r e e x p o s u r e s.    That obstruction that occurred

3    w o r s e n e d t h e s i t u a t i o n.

4                       O n c e P e r o n a r d h e a r d a b o u t it , o f c o u r s e , y o u h e a r d

5    t h e s o m e w h a t h e r c u l e a n e f f o r t s he m a d e t o g e t t h e B u r n e t t s i n t o

6    a safe situation.                You recall they had a planer operation at

7    t h e e x p o r t p l a n t a n d he d e s c r i b e d t h a t h e w o u l d c l e a n t h e i r

8    entire building.               I m e a n , he , t h e E P A.         Would clean their

9    entire building so they could do a planer run.                                  And then almost

10   after every planer run they would have to clean the whole thing

11   again because they were starting to pick up some hits on the

12   asbestos monitor.                Those steps were taken so the Burnetts could

13   a c t u a l l y s t a y i n b u s i n e s s , m a i n t a i n t h e i r o p e r a t i o n, b u t i t w a s

14   a daily battle with the asbestos being released on that

15   p r o p e r t y.   Ultimately, the Burnetts were able to relocate their

16   business and they did move it to a safe location.

17                      Mr. Bernick complained again that, you know, EPA has

18   not done a quantitative risk assessment at Libby and, of

19   course, you know through the education you've received during

20   the course of this trial that a quantitative risk assessment

21   c a n' t b e d o n e w i t h o u t d o s e i n f o r m a t i o n .   The dose information

22   that would come is simply not available because, of course,

23   Libby residents don't walk around with the air monitors on

24   their chest every day.                     And so that type of information is

25   simply not available for Libby residents in a nonworker
                                                                                                                7920


1    situation.

2                       C o u n s e l f o r W. R . G r a c e d i d h o l d u p M r. W o o d a n d t h e

3    Wood plan as an important item for your consideration, and it

4    certainly is.             B u t , o f c o u r s e , Mr . W o o d w a s n ' t c h a r g e d in t h i s

5    case.       These other Defendants were.                         And as we can see when you

6    look at those documents, the Wood plan is set forth in Defense

7    Exhibit 108.            W e k n o w t h a t C h i p W o o d w a s t h e r e f r o m ' 7 7 t o 8 2.

8    And then in 1983 Harry Eschenbach is writing Exhibit 333 to the

9    G o v e r n m e n t t h a t w e j u s t l o o k e d at .

10                      So while Chip Wood may have had a policy of

11   cooperating with the Government and being truthful, evidently

12   E s c h e n b a c h t h o u g h t o t h e r w i s e a n d t h e s e c o- c o n s p i r a t o r s t h a t

13   were there.           W o l t e r w a s t h e r e b e f o r e C h i p c a m e, h e w a s t h e r e

14   after Chip left.               Eschenbach was there before Chip came, he was

15   there after Chip left.

16                      B e t t a c c h i j o i n e d i n 1 9 8 3 a n d s t a y e d on f o r s o m e

17   significant period of time.                        But you can see that Chip Wood

18   e r a.    M r. E s c h e n b a c h , M r . W o l t e r m a i n t a i n e d t h e n a t u r e of t h e i r

19   a g r e e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h a t t i m e as e v i d e n c e d i m m e d i a t e l y i n 1 9 8 3

20   b y E s c h e n b a c h a c t u a l l y w r i t i n g t h i s l e t t e r t o E P A t h a t we j u s t

21   l o o k e d at s a y i n g t h e r e' s n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e i s a n y

22   sort of hazard with our materials.

23                      We do know that Chip Wood, according to his

24   testimony, was pretty upset when he got a hold of Bob Locke's

25   memo; that's Exhibit 239.                      He described the slow burn that he
                                                                                                        7921


1    d i d a n d h o w he c o n f r o n t e d h i s e m p l o y e e s a b o u t i t .     B u t we a l s o

2    know that, of course, he didn't immediately fire Bob Locke and

3    he even hired him back to work with him at another location

4    l a t e r o n d o w n t h e r o a d.       So the slow burn must have worn off or

5    m a y b e i t d i d n' t o c c u r a t a l l .

6                       The Defendants, several defense attorneys did assail

7    the secret that we told you about in opening statements,

8    contended that there was no secret, that the Government knew

9    about the secret and that Grace actually revealed the secret

10   t h r o u g h t h e d o c u m e n t s t h a t y o u ' ve s e e n i n t h i s c a s e.

11                      I would invite you to look at those documents that

12   the defense has offered, as well as the Government exhibits

13   r e l a t i n g t o t h i s i s s u e, a n d n o w h e r e in t h o s e d o c u m e n t s w i l l y o u

14   s e e a n y r e v e l a t i o n t h a t a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f . 0 3 8 , . 0 2 4 , .0 2 9 ,

15   tiny concentrations of asbestos, release hazardous levels of

16   asbestos into the air.                   T h a t i s s i m p l y n o t i n t h o s e d o c u m e n t s.

17                      Many of them do say there's asbestos at the Libby

18   m i n e , t h e r e ' s a s b e s t o s i n v e r m i c u l i t e.   Everybody knew that.

19   T h a t w a s n ' t t h e s e c r e t.     That wasn't even the dangerous secret

20   that these Defendants kept from the EPA.

21                      The reason this was dangerous is they continually

22   told the EPA our materials have less than 1 percent asbestos

23   and they are not a problem.                       You know otherwise.              The

24   Defendants knew otherwise.                      They had that information and they

25   k e p t t h a t s e c r e t f r o m t h e r e g u l a t o r s i n a n e f f o r t to s t a y i n
                                                                                                           7922


1    t h i s v e r m i c u l i t e b u s i n e s s as l o n g a s t h e y c o u l d .     And then once

2    they couldn't be in the business anymore, they needed to keep

3    that secret from the regulators to avoid this liability that

4    M r . C o r c o r a n t a l k s a b o u t i n h i s l e t t e r o f A p r i l 1 0 th , 2 0 0 2 .

5                      Can I have a time check, Your Honor?

6                      THE COURT:           You have about 19 minutes and

7    20 seconds.

8                      MR. MCLEAN:            T h a n k y o u, s i r.

9                      The Defendants like to hold Mr. Kover up as an

10   example of how the Government presented only one side of the

11   story here.           But as you might recall, Mr. Kover actually

12   testified on direct examination about documents that he either

13   s i g n e d or r e c e i v e d.    That's how it works as witnesses are

14   describing and testifying about documents that they actually

15   know something about.

16                     And you should certainly look at those documents

17   that the defense offered through Mr. Kover and see if they mean

18   anything at all to this case.                        See if they reveal the secret as

19   the Defendants represent.

20                     M r . F r o n g i l l o t a l k e d at s o m e l e n g t h a n d w i t h s o m e

21   v i g o r a b o u t Mr . B e t t a c c h i ' s d i s c l o s u r e s t o, f i r s t , L i n c o l n

22   County and then the City of Libby in his dealings with those

23   governmental entities in disposing of the W.R. Grace

24   properties.

25                     I encourage you to look at those documents as well.
                                                                                                          7923


1    A n d n o w h e r e in t h o s e d o c u m e n t s w i l l y o u f i n d w h e r e M r .

2    Bettacchi reveals that there is any sort of hazard on that

3    p r o p e r t y, a n y s o r t o f d a n g e r t h a t a s b e s t o s i s g o i n g t o be

4    r e l e a s e d.   I t' s a l o t m o r e o b t u s e l a n g u a g e.       And some of the

5    l a n g u a g e t h a t I r e c a l l, a n d y o u 'l l b e a b l e t o r e a d t h e

6    documents, is something like vermiculite was handled at this

7    site.       Asbestos is associated with the mining of vermiculite.

8    That's not full disclosure.                      That's actually misleading

9    disclosure because the City of Libby relied on it, Lincoln

10   County relied on it when they decided to assume the liability

11   for these properties, which was, of course, the goal.                                         Mr .

12   B e t t a c c h i ' s g o a l w a s to u n l o a d t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s .     More

13   importantly, unload the liabilities.

14                      Mr. Frongillo pointed to the five-year gap between

15   M a y 1 2 t h, 1 9 9 4 , w h e n Mr . B e t t a c c h i w a s s i g n i n g a d e e d o r m a k i n g

16   a l e a s e , a n d N o v e m b e r 3 r d , 1 9 9 9 , w h e n t h e s t a t u t e of

17   limitations works in this case.                         And he said, during that time

18   period Bettacchi did nothing to release asbestos, and if there

19   w a s a c r i m e c o m m i t t e d , s o m e s o r t o f c o n s p i r a c y, w h y w e r e n ' t t h e

20   conspirators talking?

21                      At that point they had unloaded their real estate.

22   They had gotten rid of the mine site.                             They had shut down the

23   mine.       They had torn down the screening plant.                                  They had

24   relieved themselves of the liability.                             The plan was working.

25   The plan was working during that time period.                                   And
                                                                                                            7924


1    unfortunately for the Parkers and people that were living,

2    working and playing in these materials that were spread around

3    town, they didn't know .                     The secret was being kept during that

4    c o u r s e of t i m e p e r t h e p l a n o f t h e s e D e f e n d a n t s .

5                       What these Defendants actually did by unloading

6    these properties and selling them off to other people was to

7    l e a v e l i t t l e -- n o t l i t t l e - - p i l e s o f v e r m i c u l i t e t h a t w e r e l i k e

8    little land mines out there for people to come around and

9    disturb and release asbestos.                         It ' s a p r e t t y d e c e n t a n a l o g y .

10   Y o u m i g h t h a v e a b e t t e r o n e.

11                      But the problem with the materials isn't when they

12   are just sitting there undisturbed.                             The problem is when they

13   a r e m o v e d , k i c k e d, s h o v e l e d, w h a t e v e r.     T h a t is w h e n t h e

14   problem occurs.              T h a t 's w h e n t h e r e l e a s e o c c u r r e d e v e r y t i m e ,

15   as you know from the evidence in this case.

16                      M r . B e t t a c c h i' s a t t o r n e y c a l l e d M r . P a r k e r a l i a r ,

17   said he gave perjured testimony, that money was more important

18   to him than telling the truth.                         A n d he s a i d t h a t s i n c e E P A d i d

19   nothing to get the Parkers off the property, who's to blame?

20   W h o' s t o b l a m e f o r a n y t h i n g t h a t h a p p e n e d?

21                      W e l l , a s w e k n o w , t h e c o m p a n y , Mr . W o l t e r, M r .

22   S t r i n g e r a n d M r . B e t t a c c h i , k e p t t h e s e c r e t t h a t w e' v e

23   discussed.          Nobody told the Parkers don't go disturb that

24   m a t e r i a l o r y o u a r e g o i n g to b e e x p o s e d t o h a z a r d o u s l e v e l s of

25   a s b e s t o s.   N o b o d y t o l d t h e m.     J a c k W o l t e r w a s i n L e r a h P a r k e r' s
                                                                                                                7925


1    k i t c h e n w h e n --

2                          MS. KUBOTA:          O b j e c t i o n, Y o u r H o n o r , i m p r o p e r

3    r e b u t t a l.

4                          THE COURT:         Overruled.

5                          MR. MCLEAN:          Mrs. Parker told you about a meeting

6    where Jack Wolter was in her kitchen with her.                                      H e w a s on t h e

7    p r o p e r t y w i t h t h e P a r k e r s w a t c h i n g w h a t w a s g o i n g on .            Why

8    d i d n ' t he t e l l t h e m ?       He knew that those vermiculite materials

9    were there.              H e k n e w if t h e y w e r e d i s t u r b e d t h e y w o u l d r e l e a s e

10   a s b e s t o s.

11                         That's the kind of conduct from which you can infer

12   c r i m i n a l i n t e n t , i n t e n t t o h i d e s o m e t h i n g, i n t e n t to k e e p a

13   secret.            T h a t' s t h e t y p e o f c o n d u c t y o u c a n u s e t o m a k e t h a t

14   inference.

15                         Meanwhile, the Parkers lived, worked and played at

16   their property and they stayed there, as we know, through that

17   s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , N o v e m b e r 3r d , 1 9 9 9 , a n d i n t o

18   June of 2000.               And they described for you the type of

19   a c t i v i t i e s t h a t t h e y w e r e d o i n g d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h a t t i m e

20   which would have disturbed asbestos, disturbed vermiculite and

21   r e l e a s e d a s b e s t o s.

22                         Mr. Krakoff argued the Government failed to prove

23   t h a t M r . E s c h e n b a c h m a d e a n y f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s , w a s i n v o l v e d in

24   a n y s o r t o f c o n s p i r a c y, k e p t a n y s e c r e t s f r o m a n y o n e .            But,

25   again, you've seen these documents many times.                                      You saw
                                                                                                          7926


1    Eschenbach's development of the bank of knowledge.                                     It was a

2    c o n c e r n t h a t h e h a d i n 1 9 7 2.        And then he was listed on many,

3    m a n y m e m o s w h e r e t h a t b a n k o f k n o w l e d g e w a s d e v e l o p e d f r o m ' 72

4    u n t i l 1 9 8 3 w h e n h e w r o t e t h e l e t t e r to E P A .        He ' s g o t t h e

5    h a m s t e r s t u d y, h e' s g o t t h e M o n s o n s t u d y , h e ' s g o t E n b i o n i c s ,

6    h e 's g o t w o r k e r h e a l t h d a t a, h e 's g o t t h e h a m s t e r s t u d y .       H e 's

7    also got access to all of the fiber testing results that were

8    g o i n g o n i n - h o u s e.     A n d y e t h e w r i t e s t h i s l e t t e r to E P A i n

9    1 9 8 3 a n d s a y s t h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e t h e r e is a n y t h i n g

10   h a z a r d o u s o r d a n g e r o u s a b o u t o u r p r o d u c t s.   That sort of

11   statement shows you his mental state.                              That sort of false

12   statement is what you can utilize in determining whether he's

13   i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c o n s p i r a c y.

14                      In 1992 he committed his last overt act in

15   f u r t h e r a n c e of t h i s c o n s p i r a c y .   T h a t' s w h e n he a c t u a l l y

16   submitted to EPA the hamster study; finally admitting that, you

17   know, we should have submitted this long ago under TSCA, so

18   w e 'r e g o i n g to s e n d t h i s t o y o u n o w u n d e r T S C A.

19                      A n d, o f c o u r s e , w h e n he s e n d s t h e h a m s t e r s t u d y i n

20   i n 1 9 9 2 h e s t i l l d o e s n' t r e v e a l t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t h e k n o w s

21   about workers being exposed to low levels of exposures there;

22   that's Exhibit 484.                 We t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t.      And he certainly

23   d o e s n ' t d i s c l o s e a n y of t h e f i b e r t e s t i n g r e s u l t s t h a t h a v e

24   been going on from '77 through 1987 showing these materials

25   r e l e a s e a s b e s t o s a t t h e d r o p o f a h a t.
                                                                                                           7927


1                       Mr. Krakoff also described Mr. Locke as a perjurer

2    a n d t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t n e e d e d to c a l l h i m t o m a k e i t s c a s e ,

3    and that the opinions that he set forth in his memo were his

4    alone.       B u t w h a t y o u n e e d to d o i n t r y i n g t o a s s e s s a l l t h e

5    w i t n e s s e s ' c r e d i b i l i t y i s l o o k f o r w h a t o t h e r c o r r o b o r a t i o n of

6    their statements might exist in the record.

7                       W h e n y o u c o n s i d e r M r . L o c k e' s t e s t i m o n y , w h a t h e

8    says in that memo when he lists his options of how to handle

9    N I O S H , I u r g e y o u t o l o o k at w h a t f o l l o w s t h a t m e m o.           And what

10   f o l l o w s t h a t m e m o, a s w e s h o w e d y o u , i s l e t t e r s , m e m o s ,

11   communications to NIOSH by other persons, persons other than

12   F a v- - o t h e r t h a n L o c k e .   Other conspirators following his

13   recommendations over and over again dealing with NIOSH and

14   delaying that study for 17 months until they could get the

15   M c D o n a l d s o n l i n e a n d g e t t h a t p r e e m p t i v e s t u d y , w h i c h of

16   course was also listed in the options memo, up and running.

17   That's the kind of thing you need to consider in looking at

18   E x h i b i t 2 3 9 a n d w h e t h e r t h a t w a s t h e p l a n t h a t w a s f o l l o w e d by

19   several of these conspirators.

20                      Ms. Kubota pointed out that Mr. Wolter worked hard

21   for the employees at Libby.                      No doubt he did.               And he was very

22   a c t i v e in m a k i n g e f f o r t s t o r e d u c e t h e f i b e r e x p o s u r e s at t h e

23   mine, reduce the fiber exposures to the workers.                                     He s p e n t l o t s

24   a n d l o t s o f m o n e y, a s y o u k n o w , a l o n g t h o s e l i n e s .

25                      B u t w h a t t h a t m e a n s i s t h a t h e is w e l l a w a r e of
                                                                                                       7928


1    these materials' propensity to release.                              When the mine shuts

2    down and all that stuff is left at the screening plant and all

3    that stuff is left at the Flyway where the kids have their bike

4    c o u r s e , w h y d i d n 't h e t e l l s o m e b o d y a b o u t i t ?

5                       MS. KUBOTA:          O b j e c t i o n, Y o u r H o n o r , i m p r o p e r

6    a r g u m e n t.

7                       THE COURT:          Overruled.

8                       MR. MCLEAN:          A s y o u c a n s e e f r o m t h e d o c u m e n t s, J a c k

9    Wolter was there at the beginning.                          He w a s t h e r e i n t h o s e

10   planning meetings in 1977 where they were actually considering

11   the unfortunate outside events that might impact their

12   b u s i n e s s.   And then he was on almost every memo of every topic

13   from 1977 until the Government's proof ends and he retires in

14   ' 9 4.    H e' s l e a r n i n g a l l t h e s e t h i n g s .    He is the common thread

15   through the entire time period until he retires in '94.

16                      THE COURT:          Y o u ' v e g o t a b o u t f o u r m i n u t e s.

17                      MR. MCLEAN:          T h a n k y o u, Y o u r H o n o r .

18                      W o l t e r w a s t h e r e f i r s t.    He worked through the Wood

19   era and he was there after Wood left.                             He was the tremolite

20   c o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n.   Chaired the committee dealing with this

21   issue.        A n d , o f c o u r s e, h e k n e w w h a t w a s g o i n g o n in L i b b y t o

22   s o m e e x t e n t b e c a u s e h e s i g n e d t h e s h o p o r d e r to c o v e r t h e h i g h

23   s c h o o l t r a c k a n d t h e j u n i o r h i g h t r a c k w h e r e he a c t u a l l y w r o t e

24   down and noted--

25                      MS. KUBOTA:          O b j e c t i o n, Y o u r H o n o r .    Contravenes the
                                                                                                               7929


1    Court's orders.

2                        THE COURT:            Sustained.

3                        MR. MCLEAN:             H e a c t u a l l y o w n e d t h e F l y w a y.     He owned

4    the Flyway.             There were vermiculite piles on the Flyway.                                      He

5    picked a house site.                    He made sure that he pushed the

6    vermiculite into a shallow area and then covered it with clean

7    fill.       He k n o w s t h e d a n g e r .        H e w a s t r y i n g t o p r o t e c t h i m s e l f.

8                        But what did he do about the kids on the bike

9    course?         W e d o n ' t k n o w.

10                       M r . W o l t e r i s a l s o l i s t e d on t h a t E x h i b i t 4 8 4 , o n e

11   of the recipients of the worker health studies showing that

12   even with the wet mill that he put in there were workers there

13   that had started work after the wet mill started, had low

14   e x p o s u r e s a n d w e r e s t i l l g e t t i n g a s b e s t o s- r e l a t e d d i s e a s e .        He

15   knew that.            The low exposures to those workers were giving them

16   a s b e s t o s- r e l a t e d d i s e a s e .

17                       THE COURT:            Two minutes.

18                       MR. MCLEAN:             T w o m i n u t e s , a n d i t' s g e t t i n g r e a l l y

19   hot in here.

20                       THE COURT:            I' m n o t g o i n g to s a y a n y t h i n g.

21                       (Laughter. )

22                       MR. MCLEAN:             Ladies and gentlemen, as I did at the

23   b e g i n n i n g o f t o d a y, I a s k y o u t o g i v e y o u r c a r e f u l

24   consideration to the evidence in this case.                                    You know,

25   s o m e t i m e s i t m i g h t a p p e a r t h a t we l a w y e r s a r e a l i t t l e b i t
                                                                                                    7930


1    loopy or a little bit strange, but what we ask you as jurors to

2    do is to apply your common sense to the issues at hand.

3                      G o b a c k t o t h e j u r y r o o m , l o o k at t h e e v i d e n c e, r e a d

4    the instructions Judge Molloy has given you and apply your

5    collective common sense to the charges.                           The Government is

6    confident that when you do that, when you consider each

7    Defendant's situation with respect to each count, that you will

8    f i n d t h e m g u i l t y a s c h a r g e d.   Thank you very much.

9                      Thank you, Your Honor.

10                     THE COURT:          Will the marshals and the bailiffs

11   p l e a s e s t e p f o r w a r d a n d t a k e t h e o a t h.

12                     (Whereupon, the oath was issued to the marshals and

13   the bailiffs. )

14                     THE COURT:          All right, ladies and gentlemen,

15   F e b r u a r y 1 9 t h w e b e g a n a n d y o u ' ve l i s t e n e d t o a l o t o f

16   e v i d e n c e, a n d i t 's g o i n g t o t a k e a f e w m i n u t e s.     As you know,

17   t h e r e a r e a l o t o f e x h i b i t s h e r e.     Beth, do we have food for

18   the jurors?

19                     THE CLERK:          Yes.

20                     THE COURT:          So t h e r e w i l l be f o o d f o r y o u.       Two

21   things:       J u r o r N o. 1 4 a n d J u r o r N o . 15 , I n e e d t o h a v e y o u ,

22   when you go back to the jury room, gather your notes, seal them

23   u p a n d g i v e t h e m t o e i t h e r B e t h o r N i c o l e.     They will be put in

24   t h e v a u l t i n t h e e v e n t t h a t w e n e e d y o u r a s s i s t a n c e.

25                     T h e o t h e r s , w h e n y o u g e t b a c k , of c o u r s e t h e r e w i l l
                                                                                                        7931


1    b e t h e f o o d t h e r e a n d y o u a r e g o i n g to b e r e l i e v e d o f t h e

2    obligation to not discuss the case.                           Y o u a r e n o w a t l i b e r t y to

3    discuss it but only when all 12 of you are present in the jury

4    room.       T h a t is t h e o n l y t i m e t h a t y o u c a n d i s c u s s t h e c a s e .

5                       There has been a lot said.                    I t h i n k in t h e e a r l y

6    part of the voir dire examination we went over a lot of things

7    t h a t a r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e

8    c r i m i n a l a r e a.   A n d I o f t e n t i m e s t h i n k a b o u t w h a t it i s t h a t w e

9    are asking you to do, and there is a very historical basis for

10   w h a t w e 'r e a s k i n g y o u t o d o.       We hear a lot about

11   constitutional rights.                  Talked about the First Amendment and

12   t h e f r e e d o m of r e l i g i o n a n d i n o u r s t a t e t h e S e c o n d A m e n d m e n t

13   s e e m s t o b e o n e o f g r e a t c o n v e r s a t i o n.     The Fourth Amendment in

14   searches and seizures and due process of law.

15                      But there is something that is rarely discussed in

16   t h e p u b l i c f o r u m a n d it i s a l s o a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t a n d i t

17   is in the Sixth Amendment.                     A n d I w o n' t r e a d it i n i t s

18   e n t i r e t y, b u t I w i l l r e a d to y o u t h e p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n.

19                      "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall

20   e n j o y t h e r i g h t t o a s p e e d y a n d p u b l i c t r i a l by a n i m p a r t i a l

21   jury."

22                      That is our expectation, and that you will do

23   justice.         T h e r e w i l l be 1 2 c o p i e s o f t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s , o n e

24   for each of you.              There will be an index to the exhibits and

25   you will have all of the exhibits available.                                 The learned
                                                                                                           7932


1    treatises do not go to the jury room.                                 The illustrative

2    exhibits do not go to the jury room.                             The instructions are all

3    important.          Y o u r j u d g m e n t is e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t o a l l o f u s.

4                       S o w i t h t h a t , w e 'r e g o i n g to p u t t h e c a s e i n y o u r

5    hands.        A n d if J u r o r No . 1 4 a n d 1 5 w o u l d g a t h e r y o u r m a t e r i a l s

6    a n d w e ' ll h a v e o n e o f t h e b a i l i f f s h a n g t o u g h w i t h y o u , I ' l l

7    g e t y o u s o m e i n s t r u c t i o n s as s o o n a s I ' m f i n i s h e d w i t h s o m e

8    t h i n g s in t h e c o u r t r o o m .

9                       S o p l e a s e s t a n d w h i l e t h e j u r y is t a k e n t o t h e j u r y

10   room and we will await your verdict.

11                      (Whereupon, the jury leaves the courtroom .)

12                      (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in

13                       open court with counsel present, the defendants

14                       present and the trial jury NOT present.)

15                      THE COURT:          Please be seated.

16                      M r . M c L e a n , is t h e r e a n y d i f f e r e n t o r a d d i t i o n a l

17   instructions that you want to submit?

18                      MR. MCLEAN:             N o , Y o u r H o n o r.

19                      THE COURT:          Mr . B e r n i c k ?

20                      MR. BERNICK:             I wanted to raise some questions with

21   r e g a r d to t h e v e r d i c t f o r m a n d I d o n 't k n o w i f i t ' s a p p r o p r i a t e

22   to do that now or later.

23                      THE COURT:          Yes, yes, because we need to get that

24   r e s o l v e d.

25                      But before we get to the verdict form itself, do you
                                                                                                               7933


1    have any different or additional instructions that you want?

2                       MR. BERNICK:            Y e s, I do h a v e o n e a d d i t i o n a l

3    instruction.            There were some significant statements that were

4    just made in the rebuttal closing, what I think is essentially

5    a n a r g u m e n t to t h e j u r y t h a t t h e y c a n i g n o r e t h e p e r i o d f r o m

6    1977 to 1982 when Mr. Wood was running the show and his plan

7    g o v e r n e d, t h e r e b y- - a n d b a s i c a l l y s a i d t h a t t h e c o n s p i r a t o r s

8    skirted around that period of time and presumably becoming

9    r e a c t i v a t e d in 1 9 8 3 .

10                      That is a substantial deviation from the charge of

11   the conspiracy in the case.                       I think it probably--I again will

12   d e f e r t o m y m o r e l e a r n e d c o l l e a g u e s w h e n i t c o m e s to e x a c t l y

13   what implications that has under the Rules of Criminal

14   Procedure.           It m a y j u s t b e t h a t t h a t i s a n a d d i t i o n a l b a s i s f o r

15   a R u l e 29 m o t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o C o u n t I .

16                      But I wanted to flag that for the Court and I don't

17   know--I really want to think about what the impact is.                                            It may

18   b e a n i n s t r u c t i o n, i t m a y n o t b e.          I j u s t d o n 't k n o w .

19                      S e c o n d l y, t h e r e w a s t h e n t h e s t a t e m e n t m a d e b y M r .

20   McLean that the conspiracy, the object of the conspiracy

21   essentially had been completed; that is, the object of the

22   e n d a n g e r m e n t c o n s p i r a c y h a d e s s e n t i a l l y b e e n c o m p l e t e d as o f

23   the time the properties were sold.                             And that also, I think, has

24   a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p a c t on t h e l e g a l p o s t u r e o f t h e c h a r g e .

25                      The one thing I do know that we want to raise, at
                                                                                                            7934


1    l e a s t G r a c e w o u l d l i k e t o r a i s e b y w a y o f a n i n s t r u c t i o n, i s t o

2    address what is another remarkable turn of events.                                      The

3    a r t i c u l a t i o n o f t h e s o- c a l l e d s e c r e t , w h i c h i s a t t h e h e a r t of

4    the Government's fraud case as contained in the Indictment, the

5    S u p e r s e d i n g I n d i c t m e n t, s a y s t h a t t h e r e w a s a c o n s p i r a c y t o

6    d e f r a u d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s by v i r t u e of c o n c e a l i n g or f a i l i n g t o

7    disclose or misrepresenting two things:                              O n e is t h e h a z a r d o u s

8    n a t u r e of a s b e s t o s a n d t h e o t h e r i s f r i a b i l i t y.

9                       F r i a b i l i t y i s a d e f i n e d t e r m i n t h e I n d i c t m e n t.      It

10   is the propensity to release fibers.                            That was what was stated

11   t o b e t h e f o c a l p o i n t o r t h e o b j e c t - -o r t h e f o c a l p o i n t o f t h e

12   conspiracy.

13                      There was significant concession made at the outset

14   o f t h i s t r i a l t h a t r e a l l y , i n a s e n s e, c h a n g e d t h e s c o p e o f

15   that charge and specified a very particular secret, which is

16   t h a t s m a l l a m o u n t s o f a s b e s t o s s t i l l p r e s e n t in v e r m i c u l i t e

17   could still lead to significant concentrations in the air.

18                      That was flat out represented to the jury in, I

19   think, essentially those terms.                         That was arguably, within the

20   s t r u c t u r e a n d c o n t e x t o f t h e I n d i c t m e n t , a d e s c r i p t i o n of

21   friability.            A l b e i t , t h e r e w a s no u n d e r t a k i n g m a d e b y t h e

22   G o v e r n m e n t t o f o c u s - - to w i t h d r a w o r to l i m i t t h e c h a r g e t o t h a t

23   p a r t i c u l a r s e c r e t.   But that is the representation that was

24   made to the jury and there is certainly judicial estoppel when

25   i t c o m e s t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s ' a b i l i t y to r e l y u p o n t h a t t h e o r y
                                                                                                          7935


1    and that particular secret.

2                      We spent the last two and a half months dealing with

3    that secret.           T h a t s e c r e t is o b v i o u s l y , i n o u r v i e w, n o -- t h e r e

4    is no record that says it was a secret.                             That very formulation

5    of a secret was specifically described in the 1956 document

6    t h a t Y o u r H o n o r i s v e r y f a m i l i a r w i t h.    That document was not

7    only known to the State, the federal government was involved at

8    that time and the document was transmitted to NIOSH in 1982.

9    A n d t h a t, t o g e t h e r w i t h n u m e r o u s a d m i s s i o n s t h a t I w o n ' t g o

10   through, was conceded by witnesses on cross-examination.

11                     We now, after the close of the evidence and in

12   r e b u t t a l, a n d t h e n a g a i n i n- - I ' m s o r r y , i n c l o s i n g a n d t h e n in

13   rebuttal closing, had a continually refined articulation in the

14   closing.        In the initial closing it was that very small amounts

15   of tremolite now present in the cleaned-up product were still

16   capable of causing releases to the atmosphere.

17                     That's not the same secret.                     That's a secret that's

18   now so refined that it deals with kind of the end-stage

19   v e r m i c u l i t e w h e r e i t ' s v e r y, v e r y c l e a n a n d i t' s s t i l l

20   releasing an amount.                That is not the same secret that was

21   described to the jury.

22                     S o w e h a v e , a f t e r t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , an

23   argument that does not fall within the four corners of the

24   charge.       I t is d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t w a s m a d e

25   before the jury at the outset.
                                                                                                          7936


1                      And rebuttal became even worse.                          We then get decimal

2    p o i n t s t h a t , w e l l, e v e n d o w n t o 0 . 3 8 , o r s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t ,

3    still releases fibers.                   God knows what that means.                      But it's

4    i n t e r e s t i n g , i t w a s i m p o r t a n t , Mr . M c L e a n t o o k p a i n s t o s a y ,

5    well, that's now his theory of the case.                               At which point it

6    actually contradicts, or at least there is no place in the

7    record that says it's in harmony with the whole allegation of

8    the Indictment, the charge in the Indictment.                                   It has to be

9    something of consequence.                     You can imagine that one fiber comes

10   off of a highly, highly decontaminated clean piece of

11   vermiculite.           But the essence of the charge is that that

12   property creates a potential hazard.

13                     So at this point I think that the jury, if they are

14   l i s t e n i n g t o t h i s, p r o b a b l y i s s a y i n g, w e l l , e x a c t l y w h a t i s

15   the secret?           I looked over at the jury and while, for the most

16   part, I think they were largely, by this point in the day, kind

17   of zoned out in the colloquial sense, when Mr. McLean

18   a r t i c u l a t e d t h a t t h e o r y o f t h e s e c r e t, i m m e d i a t e l y p e n s s p r u n g

19   to the paper to write that secret down.                               T h a t 's j u s t n o t r i g h t .

20                     W e c a n ' t h a v e, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e b u t t a l , w h i c h y o u

21   k n o w , Y o u r H o n o r , w e h a d v i e w s of t h i s c o m i n g i n t o t h e c l o s i n g ,

22   but particularly after the close of the evidence and now give

23   the jury a new theory on the basis of which they now believe

24   t h e y c a n s u s t a i n t h e i r c r i m i n a l c h a r g e i s- - n o t o n l y d o e s i t

25   h a v e t o b e i m p r o p e r , it h a s t o t a i n t t h e t r i a l.
                                                                                                       7937


1                        S o I d o n' t k n o w i f t h e r e m e d y i s n o w t o d i s m i s s

2    Count I.           Maybe it is to dismiss Count I.                      But it seems to me

3    Y o u r H o n o r a s k e d f o r an i n s t r u c t i o n .    The instruction should be

4    t h a t t h e- - t h a t i t i s t h a t t h e c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s w e r e s i m p l y t h e

5    arguments of counsel.                  That they cannot change the theory of

6    t h e c a s e.      And that specifically the prosecution's articulation

7    o f a s e c r e t or w h a t t h e y n o w b e l i e v e t o b e t h e s e c r e t d o e s n o t

8    govern the charge that is being made in this case.                                    The charge

9    t h a t i s m a d e i n t h i s c a s e is t h a t t h e r e w a s a f a i l u r e t o

10   disclose the propensity, the propensity for the release of

11   fibers otherwise known as friability.                             That's exactly what the

12   charge reads.             That is what we aimed at.                    We hit that bull's

13   e y e r e p e a t e d l y , a s Y o u r H o n o r k n o w s f r o m t h e R u l e 29 m o t i o n .

14   T h e y c a n' t n o w c o m e u p w i t h a n e w r e f i n e m e n t a n d , t h e r e b y ,

15   s h i f t t h e t a r g e t a n d h a v e us b e a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e .

16                       I w o n ' t g e t i n t o t h e m i s c o n d u c t a s p e c t o f t h a t, b u t

17   I do b e l i e v e t h a t c o u l d w e l l r e q u i r e o r p r o v i d e a s e p a r a t e

18   grounds for dismissal.                  But in any event, they should not be

19   e v e n t a l k i n g a b o u t t h a t s e c r e t in t h a t r o o m .    That is totally

20   i m p r o p e r.    So that is the additional instruction that we would

21   ask for.

22                       THE COURT:         All right.          Well, I think that

23   instruction that you request is already covered by Instruction

24   No. 8 which says arguments and statements by lawyers are not

25   e v i d e n c e, t h e l a w y e r s a r e n o t w i t n e s s e s .   What they have said
                                                                                                           7938


1    in their opening statement, what they will say in their closing

2    a r g u m e n t s a n d o t h e r t i m e s is i n t e n d e d t o h e l p y o u i n t e r p r e t t h e

3    evidence but it is not evidence.                         If the facts as you remember

4    them differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory

5    c o n t r o l s.

6                       A n d t h e r e a r e p e n d i n g R u l e 2 9 m o t i o n s.    Of course,

7    we will see what the jury does before there is any disposition

8    o f t h o s e.

9                       MR. BERNICK:           A n d t h e n I ' m p r e p a r e d to t a l k a b o u t

10   t h e v e r d i c t f o r m w h i c h I t h i n k is p r o b a b l y m o r e o f i n t e r e s t ,

11   Your Honor.

12                      THE COURT:         All right.           Well, let's take up the

13   verdict form.            Let me just ask, does anybody have a different

14   or additional instruction?

15                      MR. MALTBY:          Yes, Your Honor.

16                      THE COURT:         On w h a t ?

17                      MR. MALTBY:          On Count III.            Your Honor, from the

18   beginning of the case, this was indicted in Count III, the

19   c h a r g e w a s t h a t M r. W o l t e r a n d o t h e r s e n d a n g e r e d t h e P a r k e r s b y

20   selling the property known as the screening plant.                                     That has

21   been the charge in this case from the beginning.

22                      Now in rebuttal closing Mr. McLean stands up and

23   s a y s t h a t a f t e r t h e s a l e o n J a n u a r y - -i n J a n u a r y o f 1 9 9 4 t h e y

24   d i d n ' t t e l l t h e P a r k e r s - - M r. W o l t e r d i d n 't t e l l t h e P a r k e r s

25   a b o u t t h e d a n g e r s.   That's an entirely different theory, one
                                                                                                      7939


1    that we have not addressed.

2                       H e a l s o m a d e a r e m a r k a b o u t c h i l d r e n b e i n g h a r m e d by

3    riding bicycles.              Frankly, it's an outrageous change at the

4    last minute.           W e t h i n k t h e j u r y n e e d s t o b e i n s t r u c t e d at a

5    minimum that those are not valid grounds for a conviction.

6    A n d, f r a n k l y , I t h i n k t h i s i s a g r o u n d s f o r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n

7    for judgment of acquittal.                     T h i s i s g o i n g t o be t a i n t e d i f y o u

8    d o n' t d o s o , Y o u r H o n o r .      That's what I have.

9                       THE COURT:         Do y o u w a n t a m i s t r i a l ?

10                      MR. MALTBY:           I don't think we want a mistrial.                      We

11   want to push you for a judgment of acquittal.                                A t a m i n i m u m we

12   w a n t a n i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h i s, Y o u r H o n o r .   It's not appropriate

13   a r g u m e n t.

14                      THE COURT:         At s o m e p o i n t I h a v e t o h a v e c o n f i d e n c e

15   in the jury that they are going to follow the law.                                   I

16   understand what you are saying.                        The Rule 29 motions are under

17   a d v i s e m e n t a n d w e' l l t a k e c a r e of i t .

18                      If you have a written instruction that you want to

19   p r o p o s e , y o u n e e d t o g e t i t t o me A S AP , b e c a u s e t h e s e

20   instructions are going into the jury now.

21                      MR. MALTBY:           W e w i l l do s o , Y o u r H o n o r .

22                      THE COURT:         Okay.        Y o u' v e g o t t e n m i n u t e s t o do i t .

23                      Now the verdict form.                 You have a problem with the

24   v e r d i c t f o r m a s t o W . R. G r a c e .

25                      MR. BERNICK:           Y e s, w e d o .     In particular, it's the
                                                                                                          7940


1    p a r t o f t h e v e r d i c t f o r m t h a t p e r t a i n s s p e c i f i c a l l y- - o r I g u e s s

2    o n l y t o W . R . G r a c e, a n d t h a t i s t h e o b s t r u c t i o n c o u n t s , C o u n t

3    V I a n d C o u n t V I I I.

4                       And the particular concern I think is one that I

5    articulated last night before I uncourteously left chambers and

6    went off to prepare for my argument.                            I t h a s to d o w i t h t h e

7    recitation of statements.                     T h i s i s a t P a g e 9 of t h e v e r d i c t

8    form.       T h e i r f i r s t q u e s t i o n, w h i c h i s g u i l t y or n o t g u i l t y , b u t

9    it then goes on to say who identified the statements that you

10   m i g h t u n a n i m o u s l y f i n d.

11                      The difficulty--as I know, in the instruction that

12   s a m e l a n g u a g e a p p e a r s , b u t a t l e a s t in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

13   instruction there is the preparatory language that Your Honor

14   p u t s i n t h a t s i m p l y s a y s " t h e s e a r e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s. "

15                      To repeat it in the verdict form inevitably suggests

16   t o t h e j u r y t h a t t h e y w i l l a c t u a l l y - -t h e y a c t u a l l y f i n d f o r t h e

17   Government on the basis of this particular formulation and that

18   t h a t f o r m u l a t i o n s o m e h o w e n j o y s t h e a p p r o v a l of t h e C o u r t .

19                      A n d I t h i n k it i s h i g h l y , h i g h l y d a m a g i n g a n d

20   misleading.           T h e s e a r e n o t e v e n s t a t e m e n t s , s o m e o f t h e m.       They

21   a r e n o t e v e n -- t h e y d o n' t p u r p o r t t o be r e c i t a t i o n s o f t h e

22   s t a t e m e n t a c t u a l l y i n t h e 1 0 4 ( e ).

23                      T h e 1 0 4 (e ) i s a h i g h l y c r a f t e d l e g a l d o c u m e n t .      I t 's

24   full of all kinds of stuff.                      And the Government may have a

25   contention about what those answers say, which Your Honor
                                                                                                            7941


1    p r o p e r l y h a s c a v e a t e d i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s, b u t n o n e o f t h e s e

2    a c t u a l l y c o m e r i g h t o u t o f t h e 1 0 4 ( e ).     Not a single one of

3    them.

4                      S o i t s e e m s to m e t h a t i f Y o u r H o n o r i s - -t h e p u r p o s e

5    of this is to find out whether, in fact, they do have

6    u n a n i m i t y , y o u c a n s i m p l y do w h a t ' s d o n e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e

7    o v e r t a c t s , w h i c h i s to l e a v e a b l a n k w h e r e i t c a n b e f i l l e d

8    o u t.    And that way we know what it is that they found

9    unanimously, if they find something unanimously at all.

10                     So we would very, very strongly object to having

11   t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s l a i d o u t in t h e v e r d i c t f o r m .

12                     THE COURT:           Is t h a t t h e s a m e p o s i t i o n o n C o u n t V I I I?

13                     MR. BERNICK:            That's the same position in Count

14   VIII.

15                     THE COURT:           I realize that was brought up last

16   e v e n i n g b u t y o u ' v e- - p e r h a p s t h e r e s o l u t i o n i s t o a d o p t y o u r

17   s u g g e s t i o n , w h i c h i s to t r a c k t h e v e r d i c t f o r m a s it r e l a t e s t o

18   the first count.              Just delete the blanks.                    Does the Government

19   have any objection to do that?

20                     MR. CASSIDY:            Your Honor, the Government is fine

21   with the verdict form as it is, so we would object to a change.

22                     THE COURT:           Y o u d o o b j e c t to t h e c h a n g e ?

23                     MR. CASSIDY:            Y e s, Y o u r H o n o r .

24                     THE COURT:           A l l r i g h t , y o u r o b j e c t i o n i s n o t e d.      The

25   v e r d i c t f o r m o n C o u n t V I a n d V I I I w i l l b e c h a n g e d to p u t i n a
                                                                                                            7942


1    blank similar to the one on Count I.

2                       MR. BERNICK:            M r . C a s s i d y - -I a s k e d M r.    Cassidy

3    whether the Government would also agree on Count V, to remove

4    the second blank or the second check blank on the bottom of

5    P a g e 8 , t h a t h i s t o r i c a l a s b e s t o s c o n t a m i n a t i o n.

6                       THE COURT:           Y e a h , t h a t' s o u t .     He s a i d t h a t w a s n ' t a

7    part of the case, so that's out.

8                       All right.           Any other objections to the verdict form

9    f r o m a n y b o d y e l s e?     M r. K r a k o f f .

10                      MR. KRAKOFF:            Y o u r H o n o r , I d o n 't h a v e t h e c u r r e n t

11   v e r s i o n s o I 'm s p e a k i n g f r o m m e m o r y a n d I m a y b e w r o n g , b u t I

12   d o n' t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e s a y s t h a t t h e y m u s t

13   a g r e e o n a s i n g l e c o n s p i r a c y , w h i c h of c o u r s e i s t h e l a w.

14                      THE COURT:           I t h i n k t h a t ' s i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s.

15   T h e r e i s a n i n s t r u c t i o n o n t h e s i n g l e.         There is not any Gordon

16   i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t w a s r e q u e s t e d , b u t t h e r e i s an i n s t r u c t i o n

17   that actually talks about there could be more than one

18   conspiracy but it has to be this conspiracy.

19                      S o w h a t a r e y o u p r o p o s i n g as a f i x ?

20                      MR. KRAKOFF:            Y o u r H o n o r , I' l l h a v e to l o o k a t t h i s

21   q u i c k l y a n d p r o p o s e s o m e t h i n g t o t h e C o u r t A S AP , a s t h e C o u r t

22   h a s s a i d.

23                      THE COURT:           I d o n' t t h i n k we n e e d t o g e t t h e v e r d i c t

24   form right now.              If we do, we're all in trouble.

25                      Anybody else have objections to the verdict form--
                                                                                                          7943


1    Mr. Wolter?          Mr. Bettacchi?                - - as i t r e l a t e s to y o u r c l i e n t ?

2                      MS. KUBOTA:           N o , Y o u r H o n o r.

3                      M R . F R O N G I L L O:      N o, Y o u r H o n o r .

4                      THE COURT:          All right.            B e t t e r g e t t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n.

5    D o y o u h a v e it ?

6                      MR. MALTBY:           O n e l a s t t w e a k.

7                      THE COURT:          W h i l e w e ' re w o r k i n g o n t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n,

8    everybody has to leave a telephone number where you can be.

9    Beth will call one person for each party.                                  It will be the

10   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f w h o m e v e r i s d e s i g n a t e d a s t h e c a l l e e to h i t

11   the phone tree for whomever wants to be here.                                   If the jury has

12   a question or if they get a verdict, we will call one person

13   and then it will be your responsibility to get the information

14   to the others in your contingency.

15                     If there are questions from the jury, the Defendants

16   d o n o t h a v e to b e h e r e.            T h e y a r e w e l c o m e t o be h e r e i f t h e y

17   want to come.            You just need to let Beth know whether or not

18   t h e y w i l l b e h e r e.     I don't know how late the jury will

19   deliberate.

20                     Mr. McLean, your observation about the building

21   getting hot was a correct one.                         I made the observation earlier

22   and the cooling system was off.                          I t g o e s o f f at , w h a t , s i x

23   o'clock.        S o I t h i n k it ' s b a c k on , h o p e f u l l y .         And I thought we

24   had made arrangements, and I think perhaps we had, to make sure

25   t h a t i t 's a v a i l a b l e a t a n y t i m e t h e j u r y w a n t s t o be
                                                                                                           7944


1    deliberating.

2                       A n y t h i n g e l s e w e n e e d t o t a k e u p?       Do you have your

3    instruction?

4                       MR. MALTBY:          It's hand scrawled.

5                       THE COURT:         Just read it to me.

6                       MR. MALTBY:          O k a y.     Count III of the Superseding

7    Indictment charges Mr. Wolter--Count III of the Superseding

8    I n d i c t m e n t c h a r g e s M r . W o l t e r , Mr . B e t t a c c h i a n d W .R . G r a c e

9    with knowingly endangering the Parkers by selling the property

10   known as the screening plant.                        In r e b u t t a l c l o s i n g t h e

11   G o v e r n m e n t a r g u e d t h a t y o u c o u l d r e s t a g u i l t y v e r d i c t on

12   p o s t - s a l e s t a t e m e n t s to t h e P a r k e r s a n d o n p o s t - s a l e c o n d u c t i n

13   connection with the Flyway.                        Such statements, if you find they

14   were made, cannot form the basis for conviction under this

15   Count.

16                      THE COURT:         What about just an instruction that says

17   y o u m a y n o t d e t e r m i n e g u i l t b a s e d o n p o s t- s a l e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e

18   to the Parkers with respect to the Flyway property?

19                      MR. MALTBY:          I t h i n k it ' s t h e s c r e e n i n g p l a n t

20   p r o p e r t y.

21                      THE COURT:         I t h o u g h t y o u s a i d F l y w a y.

22                      MR. MALTBY:          There were two statements.                      Statements

23   to the Parkers about the screening plant property and also

24   statements about the children on the Flyway property.                                         The

25   Flyway property is not mentioned in Count III.
                                                                                                                7945


1                        THE COURT:               Yeah.      Any objection to giving that

2    a d d i t i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n?      I 'l l h a v e t o g e t i t n a r r o w e d d o w n .

3    But I'm not going to give a big long one.                                    I'm going to give

4    j u s t a v e r y t e r s e s t a t e m e n t.

5                        Mr. Cassidy, those were not allegations in the

6    Indictment.            They are not appropriate argument as a reason to

7    convict on that count.                        What is your position as to giving a

8    very terse instruction like I suggested?

9                        MR. CASSIDY:                Y o u r H o n o r , we d o n' t t h i n k i t ' s

10   necessary.            We t h i n k y o u r j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s w o u l d s u f f i c e .

11                       THE COURT:               All right.         O v e r y o u r o b j e c t i o n I 'l l

12   g i v e i t , b u t I ' l l l e t y o u l o o k at i t b e f o r e - -

13                       MR. CASSIDY:                Thank you, Your Honor.

14                       THE COURT:               -- I a c t u a l l y g i v e i t.

15                       S o , B e t h, w e 'v e g o t t o w a i t u n t i l w e g e t t h a t

16   finished and it won't be very long.

17                       And make sure everybody comes up and checks with

18   B e t h t h a t a l l o f t h e e x h i b i t s - - I k n o w y o u' v e c l e a r e d t h e m o n c e ,

19   b u t o n c e t h e y g o i n , t h e y a r e i n.

20                       S o w e ' l l b e in r e c e s s .          I would like to see counsel

21   i n c h a m b e r s in t e n m i n u t e s .

22                       (Whereupon, court was in recess at 7:00 p.m.,

23   reconvened in chambers at 7:31 p.m.)

24                       THE COURT:               First thing.          31 A , Mr . C a s s i d y , a n y m o r e

25   o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t?
                                                                                                              7946


1                      MR. CASSIDY:               No more than what we did in open

2    c o u r t , Y o u r H o n o r.   Same objection.

3                      THE COURT:           Anybody else have an objection to it?

4                      MR. BERNICK:               No, sir.

5                      MS. KUBOTA:           No.

6                      M R . F R O N G I L L O:     N o.

7                      MR. KRAKOFF:               No.

8                      THE COURT:           All right.           Now the verdict form.

9                      MR. BERNICK:               Fine.

10                     THE COURT:           A r e y o u f i n e w i t h i t?        The only one

11   that's changed is the Grace one.                          A n d a c t u a l l y, M r . C a s s i d y ,

12   b e c a u s e t h a t y o u s t r u c k o u t t h a t o n e -- I t h i n k i t w a s o n C o u n t

13   V I --

14                     MR. GILMAN:           V.

15                     MR. CASSIDY:               It just went to guilty, not guilty.

16   Y u p.

17                     THE COURT:           Yeah, it just says that.                     All right, so

18   w e 'v e g o t t h a t .

19                     ( W H E R E U P O N , T H E F O L L O W I N G D I S C U S S I O N I S S E A L E D. )

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7947


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7948


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7949


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7950


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7951


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7952


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7953


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
     7954


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
                                                                                                    7955


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19                    (Whereupon, the following proceedings were held in

20                      open court with only the trial jury present at 7:31

21                      p . m. )

22                    THE COURT:          Go a h e a d a n d s i t d o w n .

23                    I t 's m y u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t y o u a r e c a l l i n g i t a d a y.

24   I s t h a t r i g h t?

25                    JUROR:       Yes.      W e 'r e f e e l i n g a l i t t l e w o r n o u t .
                                                                                                        7956


1                      THE COURT:          No k i d d i n g.     Just a couple of cautionary

2    things and then a procedural thing.

3                      As I indicated to you when we talked about the

4    s e q u e s t r a t i o n, t h e j u r y r o o m h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e f o r y o u w h e n y o u

5    a l l d e c i d e y o u a r e g o i n g t o c o m e d o w n a n d w o r k.       So you just

6    need to coordinate that with the marshals and they will bring

7    y o u d o w n.    N o t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e c a s e o u t s i d e of t h e c o u r t r o o m.

8    Okay?      And that means in the vans, in the motel.                              When you get

9    back here and there are 12 of you in the jury room, you are

10   free to discuss.

11                     J u r o r N o. 1 4 h a s g o n e b a c k t o S u p e r i o r , b u t M r.

12   Calvert is going to be sequestered with the rest of you.                                       So

13   y o u c a n 't t a l k a b o u t t h e c a s e w i t h h i m a t a l l .       B u t h e is g o i n g

14   to be, I think, a part of your group when you are eating and

15   t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g.    But if you are eating in the jury room and

16   i f h e j o i n s y o u , a n d I d o n 't k n o w i f h e w i l l or n o t, b u t i f

17   t h a t o c c u r s , d o n 't t a l k a b o u t t h e c a s e ; o r i f y o u do w a n t t o

18   talk about the case, just tell the Marshals that you are going

19   t o c o n t i n u e to d e l i b e r a t e w h i l e y o u a r e e a t i n g a n d t h e n M r .

20   Calvert will be okay with that.                          I've already talked to him.

21                     S o y o u a r e i n c h a r g e , a n d we w i l l - - a n d i n t h e

22   morning they will just bring you in when you say you are coming

23   in.     Y o u g o in t h e j u r y r o o m , b e g i n y o u r d e l i b e r a t i o n s .    Beth

24   h a s e v e r y t h i n g i n t h e r e , I t h i n k.     You've got the instructions,

25   the verdict form, and the index will be there in the morning.
                                                                                                        7957


1    There is one thing that had to get changed on it.

2                      So thank you very much for your attention for all

3    t h i s t i m e , a n d f o r y o u r d e l i b e r a t i o n s.   A n d w e' l l s e e y o u w h e n

4    y o u t e l l u s y o u a r e g o i n g to - - w h e n y o u d o h a v e v e r d i c t s .

5                      JUROR:        Question.           C a n w e t a k e t h e s e b a c k w i t h u s so

6    w e c a n g e t a j u m p- s t a r t o n t h i s ?

7                      THE COURT:           No .     I t h i n k y o u s h o u l d l e a v e t h e m h e r e.

8                      JUROR:        I understand leaving our notes here.

9                      THE COURT:           R i g h t.    I t' s j u s t o n e o f t h o s e t h i n g s .

10   I t h i n k w e n e e d t o l e a v e e v e r y t h i n g in h e r e .      I wish I could

11   say something different.                      I know what you are saying.                  It w o u l d

12   be a lot easier to take it home at night and study it.

13                     JUROR:        You can study them without the chatter and

14   whatnot.

15                     THE COURT:           B u t I t h i n k i t 's b e t t e r w h e n e v e r y b o d y 's

16   t o g e t h e r a n d t o h a v e it t h e r e .      S o r r y, b u t I t h i n k y o u s h o u l d

17   leave it here and then in the morning come back and get at it

18   o n c e y o u' v e h a d a c h a n c e t o g e t o r g a n i z e d a n d g e t u n d e r w a y .

19   All right?          Thank you.

20                     W e 'l l b e i n r e c e s s .

21                     (Whereupon, court was in recess at 7:39 p.m.)

22

23

24

25
                                                                                                            7958


1                                           C E R T I F I C A T E

2    STATE OF MONTANA                   )

3                                      )     ss.

4    C O U N T Y OF M I S S O U L A    )

5

6                       I, Julie M. Lake, RDR, RMR, CRR, Freelance Court

7    Reporter for the State of Montana, residing in Missoula,

8    Montana, do hereby certify:

9

10                      That I was duly authorized to and did report the

11   p r o c e e d i n g s of t h e j u r y t r i a l i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a

12   v s . W . R . G r a c e , e t a l ., C R 0 5 - 0 7- M - D W M , V o l u m e 3 4 , A f t e r n o o n

13   Session.

14

15                        That the foregoing pages of this transcript

16   c o n s t i t u t e a t r u e a n d a c c u r a t e c o m p u t e r - a i d e d t r a n s c r i p t i o n of

17   my stenotype notes of the court proceedings.

18

19                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on

20   this the 6th day of May, 2009.

21

22
                                                         .
                                      s / s J ul i e M Lake
23                                    J u l i e M . L a k e, R M R , R D R , C R R
                                      Freelance Court Reporter
24                                    State of Montana, residing in
                                      M i s s o u l a, M o n t a n a.
25

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:9/17/2011
language:English
pages:207