Document EdZ98Xgx16j45Nq67NJd5eXnN

1 A We did. 2 Q And as a matter of fact, you interpreted the 3 materia 1 that appears on Page 41 that we have just been 4 reading is your interpretation, is it not, sir? 5 A No, sir, it is a summary of the record. 6 Q. Dr. Suskind, do you understand that you are under 7 oath here and you have called this interpretations, have you 8 not, in this very document, sir? Now y o u 're saying it is not 9 an interpretation. 10 A Where is that, sir? 11 Q Turn to the second page of the exhibit. It is 12 called Table of Contents, Section E, "Interpretations," 13 starting at Page 40 and running to Page 44, do you see that, 14 sir? 15 A I do indeed. 16 Q And you did indeed cal 1 Page 41 17 "Interpretations," did you not, sir? 18 A That1s how the subject heading is 1isted that 19 way, sir. 20 G And that's what you called it, isn't it, sir? 21 Page 41 was your interpretations of the records, wasn't it, 22 sir? 23 A As I see it, yes, it was. 24 Q And you interpret it at that time, it was your 25 interpretation that in most of these twenty-three cases, the 44 1 symptoms were mild other than the chloracne, but in seven 2 instances, they were something other than mild, isn't that 3 correct, sir? 4 A That's what the record reads. 5 Q Isn't that what you said at that time? Wasn't 6 that your interpretation at that time, sir? 7 A That* s what the record reads, sir. 8 Q Isn't that your interpretation at that time, sir? 9 A It is listed under interpretation, sir. 10 Q. Wasn't that your interpretation at that time, 11 sir? 12 A It is listed under interpretation, sir. 13 Q CouId you answer my question, Dr. Suskind? 14 A I have answered your question, sir. 15 Q Is t h a t a y e s o r n o t o m y quest!on? 16 A That is a yes, sir. 17 Q So it was your interpretation at that time? 18 A That is part of the record, sir. 19 Q Excuse me, Dr. Suskind, it was your 20 interpretation at that time, wasn't it, sir? 21 A It is listed under the interpretation, sir. 22 MR. CARR* Your Honor, would you direct the 23 witness to answer my question directly? 24 THE COURT: Doctor, you are so directed. Answer 25 d irect1y . 45 1 A What is the question, sir? 2 Q It was your interpretation at that time, wasn't 3 it, sir? 4 A Ye s , sir. 5 Q Thank you. Now, Doctor, what you said to the 6 world, however, was that in a few cases, they continued to 7 complain of mild pains, did you not, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q When in point of fact, youinterpreted your 10 records in 1953 that in seven cases they were not mild, did 11 you not, sir? 12 A No, sir. 13 Q Doctor, did you say in the twenty-three cases 14 they were mild except in these seven cases? Did you say that 15 on Page 41? 16 A Yes, we did. 17 Q And you are saying in that report that in 18 six teen of the cases they were mild, would you not, sir? 19 A Yes. 20 Q. And in seven of the cases, they were not mild, 21 are you n o t , sir? 22 A That's how it reads, sir. 23 Q Isn't that what you are saying, sir? 24 A That's how it reads, yes, sir. 25 Q So you said in seven cases they were not mild, 46 1 did you not, sir? 2 A Yes. 3 Q But in the world, you told them that in very few 4 cases they complained of mild pains, nervousness and fatigue, 5 but in point of fact in seven cases, they were not mild, 6 isn't that right, according to your interpretation in 1953? 7 A According to our interpretation in 1953. 8 Q Yes, Doctor. And you didn't tell them--now, did 9 you go back and re-examine these people in between 1953 and 10 1978, sir? If A We had no opportunity to do that, sir. 12 Q Excuse me, Doctor. Did you go back and re 13 examine these people in between 1953 and the time you made 14 this report in 1978? 15 A N o , we did not. 16 Q And you had at the time you made your report in 17 1978, you surely referred to your 1953 report, did you not, 18 sir? 19 A I believe we did. 20 Q And is that the only document you referred to, 21 Doctor? 22 A We had examined some of these for the workmen's 23 compensation hearing, and we knew about their improvement at 24 that time. 25 Q Doctor, when you made your report in 1978, did 47 1 you not refer to the thirty-six people that you followed? 2 A Yes, we did. 3 Q And did you not at that time report that there 4 were seven people who had symptoms more severe than mild? 5 A Yes, some of those were examined in '56. 6 Q W h o w e r e examined in 156? 7 A M r . W i 1lard. 8 Q And? 9 A 1 w i 11 tell you in a minute who we examined in 10 that group. 11 THE COURT! Okay, while you're doing that, we 12 will take about a ten minute break at this point in time. 13 And I wouId remind you as I do for any break in the 14 proceedings that you are not to discuss this matter among 15 yourselves, with anyone outside the Jury panel, or as of yet 16 form any opinions or conclusions about the matters on trial.. 17 The Court is in a short recess. 18 (At this time, Court was in recess.) 19 BY MR. CARR: 20 Q. Now, Doctor, have you had an opportunity to 21 examine your records to determine of these seven men referred 22 to on Page 41 of your 1953 examination that you had re 23 examined in 1955? 24 A The only two I recall were Willard and Harold 25 Young. 48 1 Q Harold Young isn't one of the seven. However, 2 that's referred to in your 1953 report on Page 41, is he, 3 sir? 4 A No, but you asked who of the *53, who did we 5 exam in e . 6 Q No, Doctor, what I asked you was who of the seven 7 that you said on Page 41 of your 1953 examination did not 8 have--were not mild, who of those seven did you re-examine in 9 your 1955 compensation hearing? 10 A I'm sorry, I thought you said did we examine any 11 of the *53, and the answer was two, yes. 12 Q But the answer to the question that I asked you 13 is one, and that's Paul Willard, isn't that correct? 14 A That's true. 15 Q And you did not re-examine the other six in 1955, 16 did you, sir? 17 A Yeah, those who in this instance-- 18 Q Is that correct, sir? 19 A The symptoms were mild-20 Q Doctor, could you please answer my question? You 21 did not re-examine the other six in 1955. 22 A We had no opportunity to. 23 Q Is that a no to my question, sir? 24 A The answer is no. 25 Q That you did not re-examine these other six? 49 1 A We did not re-examine them, sir. 2 Q And, Doctor, the other six then had--so far as 3 you were concerned in 1978, the only evidence or report that 4 you had as to their condition was the 1953 report, isn't that 5 correct, sir? 6 A That's true. 7 Q And in the 1953 report, their symptoms are not 8 described as mild, are they, sir? 9 A They are not described when--if we cite them-- 10 Q 11 Suskind? Could you answer that question, please, D r . 12 A They did not describe them as mild, sir. 13 Q And, Doctor, you did not interpret them as mild, 14 did you, sir, in your interpretations contained on Page 41? 15 A I don't believe we interpreted them. We cited 16 them. 17 0. Doctor, didn't we just go through this, that the 18 material occurr ing on Page 41 was in fact your 19 interpretati ons? 20 A it is listed under "Interpretation". 21 Q Didn't you answer it that way, sir, just before 22 the recess? 23 A It is listed under "Interpretation". 24 Q And wasn't your answer also -to the question 25 notwithstanding that you say it is listed under 50 1 "Interpretations"? Didn't you respond to my question, sir, 2 that that which appears on Page 41 was in fact your 3 interpretation of these records? 4 A If I did, I'd like to correct it, sir. 5 Q Doctor, my quest ion, first of all, did you not 6 say that, sir? 7 A If I did, I'd like to correct it. 8 Q Excuse me, Doctor, my question is did you not say 9 that? 10 A In answer to your question yes or no, I did, sir. 11 Q Yes. You now want to correct that or you want to 12 change that? 13 A Well, I'd like to read from Page 41. 14 Q. Excuse me. Is your answer to my question that 15 you would not 1ike to change your prior answer? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q Have you had an opportuni ty to consult with 18 counseI in between the time you gave the answer before the 19 recess and the time now that you want to change your answer? 20 A I have had an opportunity to re-read this, sir. 21 Q Could you answer my question, please, sir? 22 A ` I have. 23 Q And did you discuss possible change in your 24 test imony with Monsanto's counsel? 25 A No, we did not, sir. 51 1 Q You didn't mention it at all? 2 A No. 3 Q You didn't discuss it at all, is that right? 4 A I'm choosing to do it myself. 5 Q My question is, did you discuss it at a l 1 with 6 Monsanto 's counse1? 7 A Yes, we did. 8 Q Yes, indeed, you did, didn't you, sir? Now, 9 Doctor, just a second ago you said you didn' t discuss it, but 10 you did d iscus s it. 11 12 it . M R . HE INEMAN: Objection, he said he did discuss 13 A Let me finish, for crying-- 14 THE COURT: Doctor, I'll decide whether it gets 15 finished or not. Mr. Carr, you may proceed. 16 Q Doctor, you did discuss the change in testimony, 17 your interpretations with counse1, did you not, sir? 18 A Ue did not discuss changing interpretation here. 19 Q Did you discuss this test imony and this matter, 20 sir? 21 A Yes, we did, sir. 22 Q Did you discuss the material that appeared on 23 Page 41, sir? 24 A Yes, we did, sir. 25 Q Did you discuss the fact that you described that 52 1 material as interpretation, sir? 2 A Yes, we did, sir. 3 Q Then you did discuss it, Doctor, and is it now 4 that y o u , following that discussion, you now wish to change 5 your answer, sir? 6 A I do, indeed. 7 Q. Al 1 right. Now, Doctor, you now want to say, I 8 take it, that the material that appears on Page 41 is not an 9 interpretation of those medical records and histories, is 10 that what you want to say-- 11 A N o , ITd like to put in the record that-- 12 Q Excuse me, Doctor. Is that what you want to do? 13 A No. 14 Q Then you do agree that that materia 1 that appears 15 on Page 41 is in fact your interpretation of the records and 16 summaries and the history of these workers, isn't that-- 17 A N o , sir. 18 Q Do you describe it as interpretations on--in the 19 Table of Contents, sir? 20 A Ye s , sir. 21 Q And is the mater ial on Page 41, does it appear in 22 the section that you have described as interpretations? 23 A It does, indeed. 24 Q. Yes. And, Doctor, now you want to add something 25 to it? 53 1 A I do, indeed. 2 Q. And what would you 1ike to add? 3 A I'd like to add the following. I*d like to read 4 it. "In most of the twenty-three cases, the other symptoms 5 were mild, except in the instances cited by Messrs. 6 Westphall, Steele, Willard, Hudnall, Selby, Beckman, and 7 Stover." It doesn't mean that we interpreted that, but we 8 were citing them. This is what they told u s . 9 Q Doctor, that's all I've ever asked you about, and 10 whether or not what they told you, a 11 we have been talking 11 here is complaints on these men, that's the entire thing that 12 you talked about in your 1978 report to the joint conference 13 is what you talked about in your Exhibit 62, the Journal of 14 Occupation Mortality Study in Exhibit 1728, isn't that 15 correct, sir? 16 A It is our interpretation, yes', sir. 17 Q Yes, indeed. And, Doctor, they are talking about 18 the complaints, you are talking about complaints, aren't you, 19 sir? 20 A We are talking about our interpretation of the 21 complaints. 22 Q And on Page 41, you are talking about your 23 interpretation of the complaints, aren't you, sir? 24 A Except those that were cited by Messrs. 25 Westphall, Steele, Willard, Hudnall, Selby, Beckman, and 54 1 Stover, those are citations, not interpretations. 2 Q. Doctor, you're saying on Page 41, this is the 3 interpretation section. 4 A I,t is the interpretation section, but we said 5 except-6 Q. And there you have said on Page 41 that the other 7 symptoms were mild, didn't you, sir, on the other twenty8 three? Didn't you say in most of the twenty-three cases the 9 other symptoms, that is the noncutaneous symptoms were mild, 10 didn't you say that, sir? Didn't I read that correctly? 11 Didn't you say that on Page 41? 12 A Would you point it out, sir? 13 Q It is that paragraph you just got through reading 14 a portion of that sentence, Doctor. 15 A 1t says, "Twenty-three persons--'' 16 Q The first part of the sentence that you read. 17 Did you not say there in most of the twenty-three cases the 18 other symptoms were mild, didn't you say that, sir? 19 A Yes, we did. 20 Q And aren't you there interpreting in this 21 section, interpreting what the other, the classification, the 22 type of the other symptoms that's descsribed earlier? 23 A We were simply describing what they said. 24 Q Excuse me, aren't you interpreting those other 25 symptoms and aren't you saying the other symptoms as we 55 1 interpret them were mild? 2 A As they told it to us, they were mild, yes. 3 Q And that is your interpretation, isn't it, sir? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Sir? That is your interpretation of the 6 complaints these other, these other symptoms, isn't it, sir? 7 A Yes. 8 Q And you go on in that, you say, "We interpreted 9 the other twenty-three cases as being mild," and then you 10 say, "Except in the instances cited by Westphall, Steele, and 11 so forth," do you not, sir? 12 A Those were citations from them. 13 Q Excuse me, Doctor. I didn* t ask you that. I 14 asked you to go on to say, don't you, sir, in that very same 15 sentence where you are interpreting the twenty-three, you are 16 saying the other symptoms were mild, except, and then you 17 give the instances cited by Westphall, Steele, and so forth, 18 don't you, sir? 19 A Those are citations from those people, yes. 20 Q Is the answer to my question yes, that that's 21 what you did? 22 A That is not interpretation, those are citations. 23 Q Doctor, is the answer to my question yes, this is 24 what you did? You said you interpreted, you interpreted ail 25 twenty-three cases, did you not, sir? 56 1 A Yes. 2 Q And you said in most of these cases that we 3 interpreted, they were mild? 4 A We didn't say interpreted in here, sir. 5 Q Well, Doctor, you did say interpreted in here. 6 It is in the section in ''Interpretations", and you just got 7 through tel 1ing me that this was an interpretation that you 8 interpreted most of these other twenty-three cases as having 9 mild symptoms, didn't you, sir? 10 A Yes. 11 Q That is an interpretation, isn't it, sir? 12 A Yes, and then we went on to say' 13 ll Doctor, excuse me. I want to get that point 14 clear. That is an interpretation, no question about it, no 15 ifs, ands, and buts, you are interpreting that in part of 16 that sentence "Most of these cases," aren't you, sir? 17 A Yes, sir. 18 Q And your interpretation is that in most of these 19 twenty-three cases they were mild, aren't you, sir? 20 A We did, indeed. 21 Q Excuse me, that is yourinterpretation? 22 A Yes. 23 Q And then you go on to say in the same sentence, 24 "Except most of these twenty-three cases were mild, except in 25 the instances cited by these seven people," isn't that 57 1 correct, sir? 2 A Now, those are not interpretations. 3 Q Doctor, you are anticipating and you are jumping 4 ahead, and we've got to do it one step at a time. You said 5 that, sir, in that sentence, didn't you, sir, just as I put it 6 to you, didn't you, sir? 7 A It is in the same sentence. 8 Q And you are saying there that these, most of 9 these cases were mild, except In the instances cited by these 10 seven people, isn't that correct, sir? 11 A Yes. 12 Q. And aren't you saying, sir, that in the instances 13 cited by these seven people, these symptoms are not mild? 14 A Cited, but not interpreted. 15 Q Doctor, would you answer my question? 16 MR. C A R R : Would you read the question to him 17 again, and, your Honor, would you direct the witness to give 18 me a direct answer to that question? 19 THE COURT: Read the question. 20 (The previous question, "And aren't you 21 saying, sir, that in the instances 22 cited by these seven people, these 23 symptoms are not mild?" was read by 24 the reporter.) 25 THE COURT: Doctor, answer that directly, yes or 58 1 no. 2 A We are saying that they are not mild. 3 Q Yes, Doctor. And you are saying that based upon 4 your examination of the records pertaining to these seven 5 people, including what they have said and comp 1ained about, 6 isn't that correct, sir? 7 A Based upon their records, sir, yes. 8 Q And it was their records that you looked at and 9 read and studied and concluded and poured over before you 10 made that statement, isn't that correct, sir? 11 A No, no. 12 Q. What was it that you looked at and studied and 13 poured over and examined before you-14 A It was their record, and we took the record at 15 face value. That's not an interpretation, that's a citation. 16 That's different. 17 Q. Doctor, face value, their complaints weren't 18 mild, were they, sir? 19 A Not as they stated them, sir. 20 W Right. So you interpreted what they said to you 21 as having complaints that were not mild, didn't you, sir? 22 A Well, I don't want to quibble about the word 23 "interpretation". It is not my interpretation. 24 Q Doctor, you interpreted what they said to you at 25 that time as not being mild, didn't you, sir? 59 1 A No, sir, 2 Q. You didn't interpret those comp1aints as not 3 being mild? How did you interpret those complaints? 4 A We recorded them as being not mild. 5 Q Well, Doctor, to record them as not mild, you 6 have to interpret what they say to y ou, do you n o t , sir? 7 A No, we simply-8 Q If I tell you that Ihave got areal bad headache 9 and that I got real bad joint aches, and if you do not quote 10 me in your summary or in your interpretation section 11 directly, you said, "M r . Carr had severe problems with his 12 head," that's an interpretation of what I just told you, 13 isn't it, sir? 14 A That isn't the way we would have done it. 15 Q Excuse me, Doctor. Could you please bear with 16 me? If I tell you that I have a bad headache and my left 17 knee hurts and my back hurts and my foot is numb and I am 18 painful all over and I shake and I quiver, and if you 19 subsequently after you've recorded that in the record, and 20 you subsequently report in your summary section, if you say 21 "Mr. Carr had very, very bad complaints of pain," that is an 22 interpretation of what I have said, isn't it, sir? 23 A It is a record of it, sir. 24 Q Excuse me, Doctor. The record is what I said. 25 The statement that "Mr. Carr has very bad pains" is an 60 1 interpretaton of what I said, isn't it, sir? 2 A It is a summary of what you said, sir. 3 Q No, it is not even a summary, because you don't 4 restate what I said. It is an interpretation of what I said, 5 i t , D o cto r? 6 A Y e s , we wou 1d h a v e s a id -- 7 Q D o c t o r , i t i s an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f w h a t I s a i d ? 8 A No, i t i s n ' t . 9 Q W hat is i t? 10 A I t i s a s u m m a r y o f w h a t y o u s a i d 11 Q A n d w h a t i s a s u m m a r y , D o c t o r ? I f i t i s n o t a n 12 interpretation. 13 A ''Hr. Carr complained that--" 14 Q Excuse m e , Doctor. What is a summary if it is 15 not an interpretation? 16 A It doesn't have to be an interpretation. 17 Q Doctor, what is a summary if it isn* t an 18 interpretation? 19 A An interpretation -- 20 Q Doctor, what is a summary if it is not an 21 interpretation? 22 A It is a short, it is a short version, a version, 23 not an interpretation. There is no judgment used in it. 24 Q No judgment at a l 1? 25 A No, judgment. 61 1 Q All right. Now, Doctor, is there judgment when I 2 tell you that I have a lot of aches and a lot of pains in my 3 head, my back, and my shoulder, and you say he had a severe 4 case of pain, is that a judgment? 5 A That might be a judgment. 6 Q. It is indeed a judgment. 7 A Yes, but that isn't the way we said it. 8 Q Excuse me, Doctor. It is a judgment, isn't it, 9 s ir? 10 A That would be a judgment. 11 Q If I tell you I ache just a little bit, Idon't 12 have much of a headache, and aspirin makes it go away, and my 13 foot just hurts sometimes, but not real bad, and you describe 14 that as M r . Carr having mild pains, again you have made a 15 judgment as to my pains, haven't you, sir? When you describe 16 them as mild, isn't that right, sir? 17 A Yes, if we took everything into consideration. 18 Q Yes, Doctor, indeed. And you described the 19 complaints of some workers, and you interpreted the 20 complaints of some workers as mild, did you not, sir? 21 A Yes. 22 Q And you interpreted the complaints of other 23 workers as not mild, didn't you, sir? 24 A Not in this statement, sir. 25 Q Doctor, could you answer, myquestion? 62 1 A No, sir. 2 Q You did not? 3 A No. 4 Q And what you are saying is that you did not 5 interpret these records, is that right, Doctor? 6 A We did. 7 Q Are you saying you did not interpret the records, 8 Doctor ? 9 A We did interpret the records. 10 Q And what you have been saying in your summary 11 portion and in your interpretation portion is your 12 interpretation of the records, isn't it, sir? 13 A Except where we cited, and there was a direct 14 citation. 15 Q A direct citation, what you said, Doctor, was 16 that these were mild, except in the instances cited by these 17 seven people, isn1t that correct, sir? 18 A Correct. 19 Q Isn't that right, sir? 20 A Correct. 21 Q And what you told Monsanto was, most of these 22 twenty-three had mild symptoms, but these seven p e o p 1e did 23 not, isn't that correct, sir? 24 A They said they did no t. 25 Q Yes, that' s right. That's what you told 63 1 Monsanto. 2 A We did. 3 Q And, Doctor, what you told the world, however, 4 was that they only in a very few cases did they have mild 5 pains, isn't that correct, sir? A And we were telling the truth, sir, yes. 7 Q. And that is the truth, Doctor? 8 A Yes, it is. 9 Q Well, and you also told the Compensation 10 Commission, didn't you, sir, that these thirty-six peop1e, 11 they were either nonexistent or mild pains, didn't you, sir? 12 A Y e s . 13 Q But in point of fact, in 19--and you told them 14 that in 1955, didn't you, sir, about the thirty-six? 15 A Fifty-six, sir. l Q Fifty-six, fifty-five, whenever it was, you told 17 them that, d id n 't y ou, sir? 18 A Yes, 1 believe we did. 19 Q And, Doctor, you wanted the commission just as 20 you wanted the world to believe that these symptoms were mild 21 and then existent only in a very few cases, you wanted the 22 Compensation Commission to believe that as well, didn't you, 23 s i r ? 24 A N o , sir. 25 Q Why did you tell that to them if you didn't want 64 1 them to believe that? s 2 A Ue were just tel 1ing the facts as we saw them, 3 sir. 4 Q Doctor, my question is you wanted them to believe 5 it, did you not, sir? 6 A We had no objective in wanting them to believe 7 it. What we wanted, what my job, sir, was to come before 8 that hearing and to tell them the facts as I knew 1t , and 9 that's what I did, sir. 10 Q And you weren't there in any kind of role on 11 behalf of Monsanto or advocating a position by Monsanto 12 wanting the w o r 1d-- 13 A I wasn*t advocating a position by Monsanto, I was 14 advocating my own* position. 15 Q. Let me finish my question. You weren't there in 16 a position wanting to let the world know about what you saw 17 in 1953, wanting Monsanto* s position to be put forward 18 effectively? 19 A No, sir, absolutely not. 20 Q Well, Doctor, I want you to remember that, 21 because I have an exhibit, sir, that describes you, we will 22 get into sometime in the course of this trial, so please 23 remember that that *s the position that you said today you 24 took in front of the Commission. 25 THE COURTi Okay, Mr. Carr, is this a good point 65 1 to break for lunch? 2 MR. CARRi Yea, your Honor. 3 THE COURT* We will break for lunch at this time. 4 We will resume again at I s 1 5 . The admonishments that I have 5 given you"earlier apply during this 1unch break also. Court 6 is in recess. 7 (At this time Court recessed 8 for the noon hour.) 9 (The following conference was 10 held in chambers.) i 11 THE COURT * I've decided, this is the file, by 12 the way. It is beginning to look like ours. 13 M R . HE INEMAN * Judge, it ain't even in the big 14 1eagues, yet. 15 THE COURT: Well, that1s true. After I go 16 through this file, I will talk to this juror probab ly 17 Thursday. You gent 1emen can be present. My inc1ination at 18 this point in time is to proceed on the basis that 1 want you 19 Thursday morning to give me any suggested questions that 20 either of you have. Both that I--you would like me to ask 21 and that you wouId like to ask. I will make up--I will 22 decide what questions I want to ask. I will interrogate or I 23 will decide at that time whether there should be any 24 interrogation by any of you. I think you' would be ent i1 1ed 25 to be there, and we will go from there. But I want to--I 66 1 want to have your questions first, and 1 want to go over the 2 file first, and then we will go from there. W e 're off 3 tomorrow, so you would have the opportunity, I would think, 4 to sit down and consider some questions and see what you 5 think wouId be appropriate. And after I review this file, 6 then I will have a feel as to what* s actually going on in 7 this case, because it was just picked up over the lunch hour. 8 I haven't had a chance to look at it. And for the record, it 9 is four folders thick, and so Irm not going to--four and 10 starting into a fifth--and so I'm going to need some time to n go into it, also. 12 MR. HEINEMAN* For the record, who are the 13 parties i n t h a t t h i n g ? 14 THE C O U R T : Plaintiff is Kenneth Combs. The 15 parties are listed on the front, and I don't know what third 16 party actions there are in it, obviously Derby Refineries, 17 Shell Oil Company, Fred--I'm sure that's Renolet--doing 18 business as Freddie's Shell Service Center, and Clark Oil and 19 Refining Companies. Those are the parties that are on the 20 front sheet now. I don't know who else is in it or who else 21 has been brought in on a third party or what*s been going on. 22 That's what's on the front of the file. 23 MR. CARR* Your Honor, I don't know, did 24 Monsanto--or maybe I should address this to Mr. Heineman, 25 does Monsanto express the desire that you want to question 67 1 the juror personally or just be here when the Judge does the 2 questioning? 3 MR. HEINEMAN* For the time being, I have 4 expressed my request to the Court that I be permitted to 5 question the juror on my option, if I felt it was necessary 6 after the Judge had finished questioning her, if there was 7 anything that I would like to add, the option of questioning 8 her at the conclusion of the Judge1s examination. 9 THE COURT! That* s what you requested, and 11m 10 sorry, did you have something? n MR. CARR: No. 12 THE COURT* At this point in time, I'm not sure 13 that either of you should be allowed to do that, so at this 14 point in time I am denying your request. I don't think you 15 requested-16 MR. CARR* No, I specifically said 1 didn't think 17 it wouId be appropriate for counse1 to ask questions because 18 of the danger of what might occur in that process. T9 THE COURT* So submit the questions to me 20 Thursday. I'll look this over and we will get to her 21 Thursday or Friday, Okay. Oh, while'we're back here, this 22 doesn't have to be on the record. 23 (Whereupon an off-the-record 24 discussion was held.) 25 THE COURT* We may as well put that-on the 68 1 record, so it explains. One of the Jurors has out-patient 2 surgery on the 11th, so we are not having Court that day. 3 MR. CARR* So there are just two days of Cburt 4 next week then? 5 THE COURT s The juror could not get the date 6 changed on the out-patient surgery, so it has to be done that 7 date. 8 M R . CARR : Four days of Court the following week 9 and four days of Court the following week, 10 (The following proceedings were 11 he 1d in open Court.) 12 BY MR. CARR: 13 Q Doctor, in the months before you testified at the 14 workmen's compensation hearing in November of 1956, you did 15 have a conference with the people at Monsanto with respect to 16 that commi ssion, did you not, sir? 17 A I believe it was the year before, sir. 18 Q, As a matter of fact, it was in June of 1956, just 19 a few months before, you had one a year before, but you also 20 had one in June of 1956, didn't you, sir? 21 A I ca n 't recall. I don't have any memorandum 22 about it. 23 Q Doctor, I d o have a memorandum. But just to 24 refresh your memory, do you recall I asked you about that 25 meeting when I commenced my cross examination of you, because 69 1 you had mentioned that meeting in the Nitro--Fed'era 1 court 2 case that you testified to. 3 A Yea. 4 Q You do recal 1 that? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And so indeed there was such a meeting that you 7 do now recal 1, isn* t that correct, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you did appear at the hearing, that 10 Commission hearing in behalf of Monsanto as its witness, and 11 did so voluntarily, did you not, sir? 12 A N o , sir. 13 Q Is it that you, well, are you testifying that you 14 did not appear in behaIf of Monsanto, or are you testifying 15 that you did not appear voluntarlly? 16 A No. 17 Q Are you testifying that you didn't do either? 18 A I am testifying that I appeared in behalf of 19 myself at the request of Monsanto, but I was there to supply 20 information about what I knew-21 Q Excuse me, Doctor. Didn't you testify in behalf 22 of Monsanto atthat hearing? 23 A 1 believe 1 said no, sir. 24 Q Doctor, do you recall on the 18th of February in 25 this case I asked you a question like that, and your response 70 1 to my question was, on Page 39 of the transcript,- February 2 the 10th, 1986, "QUESTION* Did you testify in behalf of 3 Monsanto, sir?" And your answer was, "I did." But you 4 indicated so that they woud not get workmen's compensation, 5 and that is false. Your answer to the question did you 6 testify in behalf of Monsanto at that time was that you did, 7 isn't that correct, sir? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And what you are t e 11lng us at that time that you 10 testified in behalf of Monsanto, it was the truth on February 11 the 18th, wasn't it, sir? 12 A It is no different than it is now, sir. 13 Q Doctor, couId you answer my question, sir, 14 P 1ease? 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Q You did testify to the truth on February the 18th 17 in front of this Jury, did you not, sir? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q And you did appear in behalf, testify in behalf 20 of Monsanto, didn't you, sir? 21 A I testified on behalf of m y s e l f - - a t t h e request 22 of Monsanto. 23 Q Doctor, my question 1s you testified in behalf of 24 Monsanto, did you not, sir? 25 A No, I think it is a matter of semantics, sir. 71 1 Q Doctor, every word we use is a matter of 2 semantics. Our entire communication is a matter of 3 semantics, so that we can understand what one another say. I 4 ask you today as I asked you on February the 18th, did you 5 testify in behalf of Monsanto, didn't I ask you those 6 questions? 7 A You asked me that, and I am .saying no. 8 Q And you responded today that you did not testify 9 on behalf of Monsanto, but you answered on February the 18th 10 that you did testify on behalf of Monsanto, did you not, sir? 11 A If I did-12 Q Did you not, sir? 13 A If you have the record there, I did. 14 Q Well, Doctor, whether I have the record or not 15 doesn't make it the truth or the falsity, the question is did 16 you or did you not, just simply because I have the proof to 17 show it that you did testify that way doesn't make your 18 answer pa 1atab le at all. 19 A Doesn* t make my answer what, sir? 20 Q Palatable. Doctor, did you not testify in behalf 21 of Monsanto at that compensation hearing? 22 A My answer was no. 23 Q Your answer was no today, wasn't it, sir? 24 A It is no today and it could have been no the 25 other day at the request of Monsanto. 72 N. 1 Q It c o u 1d have been no the other day, but, Doctor, 2 It Is in plain black and white yes, you did. The question 3 was you did testify in behalf of Monsanto, sir, and your 4 answer was, "I did," wasn't that your answer at that time, 5 sir? 6 A Sir, I believe-7 Q Wasn't that your answer at that time, sir? 8 A It was Indeed. 9 Q Now, one of those two days has to be not true. 10 You said today you did not testify in behalf of Monsanto, and 11 yet on February the 18th, you said you did testify in behalf 12 of Monsanto. Now, which is the truth? 13 A Both of those are true, sir. 14 Q They are exactly contradictory one to the other. 15 A No, they are not. 16 Q Aren't they, sir? 17 A No, they are not. 18 Q Then, Dootor, in your view, the word "yes" is 19 equivalent to the word "no", and 1 ask you the same question. 20 A No, sir. 21 Q. Well, Doctor, you said no-today, didn't you, sir? 22 A That's what Isaid.. 23 Q And you said yes on the 18th, didn't you, sir? 24 A Yes, I did. 25 Q And your saying the word yes on the 18th doesn't 73 1 contradict the word no today? 2 A That*s right, it does not, if I can qualify it. 3 Q Doctor, your answer will have to stand by Itself. 4 If you want to tell this Jury that when you say yes on the 5 18th, you mean no on the, what is today, the 4th, it is your 6 privilege so to say. And, Doctor, you did testify there 7 voluntarily, did you not, sir? 8 A Yes, sir. 9 Q And you did testify as to what you discovered on 10 these claimants, did you not, sir? n A I did, sir. 12 Q And you testified at that time, did you not, sir, 13 you interpreted your 1953 findings, didn't you, sir? 14 A I described the 1953 findings. 15 Q That isn't my question, Doctor. My question is 16 you interpreted your 1953 findings for the Commission, didn't 17 you, sir? 18 A Ye s , sir. 19 Q And in that Commission hearing, you Interpreted, 20 you said the aches and pains that you found in Steele, 21 Willard, those seven that you mention-in 1953, you said for 22 them that these aches and pains and nervousness was moderate, 23 didn* t you, sir? 24 A Was what, sir? 25 Q Were moderate. 74 1 A I'll have to look that up. I don*t have it here. 2 Q It is on Page 94 and 95 of the transcript of your 3 hearing, of the Commission hearing, Dr. Suskind. The 4 transcript of the hearing is not an exhibit unless you have 5 the record with you. The transcript is not in evidence. 6 A What page are you referring to? 7 Q. Ninety-four and ninety-five. 8 A Yes, I have it. 9 Q And you did interpret these complaints for the 10 Commission, didn* t you, sir? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And you described them as moderate, didn*t you, 13 sir? 14 A No, I did not. 15 Q, Would you turn to the bottom of Page 94, sir? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 Q. Are you there? 18 A llm hmm. 19 Q Did you not say at that time, you were asked the 20 question, "QUESTION: The thirty-four that you saw later in 21 1953, what did you find out there about complaints, about 22 aching, and painful muscles?" And your answer was, "There 23 were thirty-six men in that group, and in almost all of them, 24 the aches and the pains were either nonexistent or very 25 mild. Now, if I may refresh my memory, there were a few of 75 1 them whom we regarded--recorded as having comp 1aints 2 referable to the pains and the aches which were perhaps more 3 than just one. QUESTION* Doctor, we wo n 't take up time on 4 that unless you want to," and your answer was then, "I can 5 cite these, or those," I can't make out that word, mine is a 6 bad copy, " 1 oan cite those is when the symptoms of aches and 7 pains and nervousness and so-called loss of vigor were 8 moderate were Steele, Westphall, Hudnall, Barry, Beckman, and 9 Stover." Wasn't that your answer, sir? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q. And didn't you use the word "moderate" in 12 describing the aches and pains in Steele, Westphall, Hudnall, 13 Barry, Beckman, and Stover? 14 A Yes. I also used* the word "citing" . 15 Q Doctor, my question is did you describe these 16 symptoms as moderate? 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that was your interpretation at that time of 19 those symptoms, wasn't it, sir? 20 A Yes, citing their comp 1aints. 21 Q. Doctor, my question is your interpretation of 22 their complaints, and those symptoms at that time was that 23 they were moderate, isn't that correct, sir? 24 A Yes, 25 Q And, Doctor, prior to the time of that hearing, 76 1 you get back to the point that, well, first of all, in 2 addition to that, there is no question in your mind but what 3 these men were truthful, you cons 1dered them truthful at that 4 time, did you n o t , s i r ? 5 A We just recorded their complaints. 6 Q Excuse me, Dootor, that isn't what I asked you. 7 Did you not consider these men being truthful? 8 A Yes. 9 Q. Ye s . A n d , Doctor, you had a meeting at the 10 Kettering Laboratory on June 22, 1956, didn't you, sir, in 11 which you were there and representatives from Monsanto was 12 there, and you discussed the claims and litigation, that is, 13 the compensation claims, do you reca11 that, sir? 14 A I don't recal1 it, but if there is a memorandum, 15 I'd 1ike to see it. 16 Q. Doctor, you' 11 get to see it. 17 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1752 was 18 marked for identification.) 19 Q A nd, Doctor, do you recall being considered at 20 that time as to whether or not you shou1d be an expert 21 witness in behalf of Monsanto in that litigation? 22 A I do not remember, sir. 23 Q Now, Doctor, you told us earlier that, and you 24 said absolutely not* that you had no such meeting and had no 25 such discussion, do you recall that just before lunch? I 77 1 said that I would remind you that I had such a memo, and you 2 said no, it didn't occur? 3 A No, I do n 't think I said that at all. I didn't 4 say that at all, sir. v 5 MR. HEINEMAN* Objection. May counsel approach 6 the bench? 7 (The following discussion was 8 held at the bench.) 9 MR. HEINEMAN* I'd 1ike the record read, your 10 Honor, as to what was asked him at that time, because that's 11 an absolute misrepresentation of what the question w a s . The 12 question at that time was, as 1 recall it, whether he 13 testified, whether the purpose of his testimony was to put 14 forward the Monsanto posit ion. 15 MR. CARR: Well, I' ll certainly adopt that. 16 MR. HEINEMAN: And this latest question was Just 17 absolutely incorrect, and I object to it as m i s 1eading and 18 fa 1se. 19 MR. CARR: I'll modify my question. 20 THE COURT: Go ahead. Objection sustained. 21 (The following proceedings were 22 held in open Court.) 23 BY MR. CARR: 24 Q Doctor, did you not at that meeting urge that the 25 publication be made of the results of your experiments 78 V 1 regarding the examination of these people in order t o -- 2 A I w o u 1d have to read it to reca11. 3 Q So it oould be used most effectively in defending 4 Monsanto's position? 5 A I really can't recall that, sir. If it is in 6 there, 1 wouId like to see it. 7 Q. Now, Doctor-8 A 1 will not answer it unless I see it. 9 Q Doctor, I'm asking you to the best of your 10 memory, sir. 11 A Well, I don't remember. 12 Q, Didn't you? 13 A That* s thirty-three years ago, sir. 14 Q Doctor, indeed, and it is for thirty-three years 15 that you have been--oh, strike that. I'll hand you 16 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1752 and see if you recognize that, sir, 17 as a memo of the meeting at the Kettering Laboratory that 18 took place June 22, 1956. 19 THE COURTS What's the number on that one, 20 p 1ease? 21 MR. SEIGFREID: 1752. 22 Q Do you recognize it, sir, as the minutes of that 23 meeting at the Kettering Laboratory? 24 A Yes. I didn't get these until 1983, sir. 25 Q That may be, Doctor. I have no quarrel with that 79 1 at a 11 * 2 MR. CARR: I'll offer Exhibit 1752 into evidence, 3 if it please the Court. 4 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1752 was 5 offered into evidence.) 6 THE COURT: Any objections? 7 MR. HEINEMAN: No objection. 8 THE COURT: Admitted without objection. 9 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1752 was 10 admitted Into evidence.) 11 Q And, Doctor, at that time, if you will turn to 12 the--1' d like to pass it to the Jury, please. 13 THE COURT: Fine. It has been admitted. You may 14 pass it to the Jury. 15 Q Now, Doctor, this exhibit which the--which 16 represents the minutes of this meeting, the 1953 examination 17 of these thirty-six workers was discussed, wasn't it, sir? 18 Page 2 of the Exhibit, Dr. Suskind, the Section III. 19 A It was discussed very briefly, sir. There are 20 about three lines on it. 21 Q. Doctor, could you answer my question, please, 22 sir? It was discussed, wasn't it, sir? 23 A Yes, very briefly. 24 Q And Mr. Paul Bowles was an attorney defending 25 Monsanto in the workmen's compensation claim, was he not, 80 1 sir? 2 A Yes. 3 Q. And that's the meaning of the first section where 4 Mr. Paul Bowles discussed certain aspects of the chloracne '5 claims now in litigation and reviewed for your benefit some 6 of the medical aspects alleged by the physician for the 7 Plaintiffs, isn't that correct? 8 A That's true, sir. 9 Q So he did review for you the various things that 10 these workers were olaiming had happened to them? 11 A I can't recall, but that's in the minutes. 12 Q And he discussed the fact that these claims are 13 in the litigation before the Compensation Commission and then 14 it was discussed whether or not you might appear as an expert 15 witness, isn't that correct? 16 A Yes, that is stated. 17 Q And you indeed did then subsequent 1y appear as an 18 expert witness, did you not, sir? 19 A Yes, I did. 20 Q And you told Monsanto at that time that it was 21 your feeling that there was minimal evidence of liver 22 disorders and in one case there was evidence of nerve damage, 23 correct, sir? 24 A Yes, sir. 25 Q. But that there was no sign of such disorders in 81 1 any of the thirty-five people which the Kettering group 2 examined in Nitro in 1953, is that correct, sir? Did you 3 state that at that meeting, sir? 4 A I can*t--these are not my minutes, sir. 5 Q, I understand that, Doctor. But you were at that 6 meeting and somebody apparently was appointed to take 7 minutes, and that was a Mr. Ueger from Monsanto and was at 8 your laboratory in Cincinnati and took these minutes, 9 correct, sir? 10 A Yes. 11 Q This was ameetingin which you,along with the 12 people at Monsanto, discussed what services you might be able 13 to give Monsanto in addition to the work you had already 14 done, isn't that right, sir? ^ 15 A To appear as an expert witness, sir. 16 Q Not just at the Compensation Commission, but in 17 other respects. You were going to correspond directly with 18 the people at BASF, were you not, sir? 19 A N o , s ir . 20 Q Now, Doctor, onPage 2, the thirdparagraph, 21 isn't it stated that, "It is anticipated that Dr. Suskind 22 will correspond directly with Dr. Adel"? 23 A That is Mr. Weger's view, not mine, sir. 24 Q Isn't that recorded at this meeting? 25 A I was not responsible for his minutes, sir. 82 1 Q Doctor, had you not just met with the people at 2 BASF just ten days before this meeting? 3 A No, sir, I had not. 4 Q When did you have the conference with D r . Adel? 5 A In I960, sir. 6 Q In what part of 1966? 7 A 1 can't recall. 1 don't have the memorandum 8 here, but we did have a meeting with him in 1960 at the 9 request of Monsanto. 10 Q. Well, then, did you correspond-11 A I did not, sir. 12 Q. Would you let me finish my question, please, sir? 13 Did you correspond with BASF as it was mentioned that 1t was 14 anticipated that you would do so, sir? 15 A Only prior to the 1960 meeting. 16 Q Did you exchange any information with BASF? 17 A Absolutely not, sir. 18 Q Didn't you get a request from Monsanto that you 19 should correspond directly with Dr. Adel? 20 A No, sir. 21 Q Are you familiar with the report of M r . Wheeler 22 in behalf of Monsanto dated June 12, 1956 just ten days 23 before the minutes, the meeting that we have, in which he 24 states that they're going to request Dr. Suskind to 25 correspond directly with Dr. Adel? 83 1 MR. HEINEMANs Objection, your Honoi:. Could we 2 have the document marked? 3 MR. CARR: We*re going to get to that, counsel, 4 in time. 5 A Is that a request to me-- 6 MR. HEINEMANs Excuse me, Doctor-7 THE COURT * Objection is overruled. You may 8 proceed, Mr. Carr. 9 0 Now, Doctor, as I stated to you, that Monsanto 10 could request Dr. Susklnd to correspond directly with the 11 people at BASF? 12 A They co u 1d request, but they did no t . 13 Q Well, Doctor, didn't they say in this memo where 14 you were, that it is anticipated that you wouId do that? 15 A That was at my discretion, sir. 16 Q. Well, then, it was certainly at your discretion, 17 then, it was discussed and you did say, w e l 1, if I feel 1Ike 18 it, I'll do it, is that correct? 19 A No, I did not, sir. 20 Q Well, what did you say? 21 A I have no Idea, but I didn't .anticipate 22 corresponding with them because there was no need to. 23 Q Doctor, why do you say then here that it was at 24 your discretion that this correspondence take p 1ace? 25 A Because they didn* t request that I do it. 84 1 Q Why mention it in the minutes if they didn't 2 request it and it wasn't anticipated that this was going to 3 take place? 4 A It said, "It is anticipated that Dr J Suskind,w l 11 5 correspond directly." It doesn't say that I did or that l 6 promised to. 7 Q Indeed, it does not say that you did, but my 8 question is why did you say here now today that it was going 9 to be at your discretion whether or not such correspondence-- 10 A Because that's what it was all about. 11 Q Indeed, that's what it was all about. But you 12 decided not to have any such correspondence. 13 A There was no need to, sir. 14 Q You decided not to have any such correspondence, 15 didn* t you, sir? 16 A I did so. 17 Q But you did discuss then these, at this meeting, 18 the possibility of giving, well, more than that, first of 19 a l 1, you told the people there that there were no signs of 20 any disorders, any such disorders, liver or nerve damage, 21 correct, sir, in your '53 examination? 22 A That was Mr. Weger's view of it. 23 Q Do you have any memory to dispute this record of 24 what you did state, sir? 25 A Al 1 I know is what I know from my report. 85 -- ----- -------:--- ----------------- -------- --- ---,. ..A___ 1 Q. Doctor, c ou1d you answer my question, please? 2 A And my report doesn*t-- 3 MR. CARRt Your Honor, would you direct the 4 witness to wait until I finish my question and give a 5 respons 1ve answer? 6 THE COURT: Doctor, please wait until the 7 question--it would be easier to answer the question once 8 you1ve heard it. 9 Q Do you have any memory of what transpired at this 10 meeting? 11 A No, sir. 12 Q. And the written record of which you have no 13 memory is that it was recorded, put in writing 14 contemporaneously, was it not, sir, that you stated at that 15 time that there was no sign of these disorders in any of 16 these thi rty-five people, isn't that correct, sir? 17 A Which is in error. 18 Q Doctor, c o u 1d you answer my question, please? 19 A What was the questionagain, sir? 20 CPrevious question, "And the w r 1tten 21 record of which you have no memory 22 is that it was recorded, put in 23 writing contemporaneous 1y, was it 24 not, sir, that you stated at that time 25 that there was no sign of these disorders 86 1 - 1 2 3 4A 5Q 6A 7Q 8 correct. 9A 10 Q 11 A in any of these thirty-five people, isn't \ that correct, sir?" was read by-the reporter.) No, sir, it is not correct. Isn't that what this document says, sir? \ Yes, sir. Then the answer to my question isyes, that is No, sir, it is not correct. Isn* t that what this document says? But 1 couldn't have said it, sir. 12 Q Excuse me, isn* t that what this document says? 13 A This document is in error, sir. 14 Q Doctor, my question is, isn't that what this 15 document says? 16 A Yes, it does. 17 Q Now, yo u 're suggesting it is in error because it 18 is not true that t h e r e w e r e no signs, isn't that right, sir? 19 Isn't that correct, sir? Isn't that what you are saying here 20 now today? 21 A I must have said more than that, sir, that's what 22 I am saying. 23 Q. Isn't that what you are saying today, that this 24 statement wasn't true, it was in error? 25 A It was in error because I wouId have said more 87 1 than that 2 Q You would have said that there were people in 3 this group of thirty-five that had signs of these disorders, 4 w o u 1dn* t you, sir? 5 A Not liver disorders, that* s correct. 6 Q Doctor, is the answer to my question that this 7 was in error because there were signs of these disorders? 8 A No, sir. 9 Q. Were there signs of nerve damage, sir? 10 A In one Instance. 11 Q Oh, Doctor, there is more signs of--nerve damage 12 is indicated by pain, is it not, sir? 13 A Not necessarily, no. 14 Q Doctor, oan it be manifested by pain? 15 A It might. 16 Q. Now, Doctor, that's one of the cardina1 signs of 17 nerve damage is pain in the legs, pain wherever the nerve 18 might be damaged. Pain if you have a ruptured disc, you have 19 pain down your legs. If you have pleurisy, anything that you 20 have that affects the nerves causes pain, doesn* t it, sir? 21 A It does, sir. 22 Q So one of the cardina1 signs of nerve damage is 23 pain, isn't it, sir? 24 A 11 couId b e , y es. 25 0. And, Doctor, practically all of these 29, 27 88 1 people had signs of pain in the leg, didn't they, sir? 2 A No, sir. 3 Q How many had pain in the legs, Doctor? 4 A I don't know, sir. 5 Q We went through it, didn't we, sir? 1 '6 A We did. 7 Q And a large group of these people had pain in the 8 leg, didn't they, sir? 9 A Some of them did, sir. 10 Q Doctor, no, I'm saying more than some, a large 11 group had pain in the legs, didn't they, sir? If you want to 12 go through the 1953 report again, 1 guess we can do so, 13 Doctor. But you-14 A I don't think it is necessary. 15 Q It is not necessary, because there were a large 16 number, we've got 27 out of 29 that had one or more of these 17 complaints which includes pain, correct, sir? 18 A According to your code, ye s . 19 Q No, Doctor, you keep saying according to ray code. 20 It was according to your 1953 report. That's the source of 21 these checkmarks, isn't it, sir? 22 A Yes, according to your way of recording it. 23 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the 24 witness to answer the question? 25 Q My question is this is taken from your 1953 89 1 report, isn't it, sir? x 2 A Yes, sir. 3 Q. And, Doctor, according to your 19S3 report, a 4 large number of these people had pains in the legs, didn't 5 they? Pains in the arms, didn't they, sir? 6 A No, sir. 7 Q How many did, sir? 8 A I said, I can't tel 1 you, I haven't counted them. 9 Q Well, why don't you count them, Doctor. Have you 10 had a chance to count them, Doctor? Have you had an 11 opportunity to count them, Doctor? 12 A I have. 13 Q How many did you count, Doctor? 14 A Those that I felt significant were about ten. 15 Q Doctor, I didn't ask you the ones that you 16 thought were signifleant. I asked you to count the number of 17 men complaining of pains or aches in their legs or arms or 18 neck or shoulders that would be indicative of, well, just, I 19 ask you just to count those, sir. How many did you count 1ike 20 that? 21 A I only counted those that I interpreted as 22 s ignif icant. 23 Q Doctor, recount them, p 1ease, sir, and give u s , 24 please, the number of people, number of men who were in 1953 25 c.omplaining of pains in the neck, the shoulder, the arms, the 90 1 thighs, the 1egs, the feet, the back, w o u 1d you do that, % 2 p 1ease? 3 A You have that number up there, sir. 4 Q No, Doctor, this is 27 out of 29. Some of the 5 men did not have comlaints of pains in the legs or the back 6 or so forth, so that isn* t correct and I donTt want to 7 mislead you, and I don't want you to mislead us. This is the 8 27 out of 29 that had one or more of these complaints, sir, 9 they were not all pain complaints, 10 A The majority of them do have pain, comp 1ained of 11 pain. 12 Q The large majority, I counted 23 out of 27. 13 A Um hmm. 14 Q. And so did you. 15 A No, 1 did not. 16 Q Well, do you have any quarrel with what 1 17 counted, sir? 18 A Yes, I do. 19 d Well, then, count them again. 20 A No, I'm only quarreling about the significant 21 complaints of pain. 22 d I didn't ask you if you were quarreling about the 23 significance. I asked you if you counted 23 men who had 24 complaints of pain in the legs, the thighs, the feet, the 25 arms, the shoulder, the neck, or the back in 1953 upon the 91 1 autoclave and some in the adjacent department, correct, sir? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And this second group of animals all died within 4 one to two weeks following exposure, did they not, sir? 5 A. That's what it read, yes. 6 Q. And then it says, "Subsequently, animals placed in 7 the cages which had previously been in the department died of 8 liver necrosis," correct, sir? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. So there is a third group of animals who had been n placed in the cages that had been previously put in the 12 department, correct, sir? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And again of liver necrosis? 15 A* Correct. 16 THE COURT: Mr. Carr, is this a good point to 17 break? 18 MR, CARR: Yes, Your Honor, 19 THE COURT: All right, we will break for the day at 20 this time. We will resume again tomorrow morning at 9:30, 21 and I would remind you as I do on any overnight break that 22 you are not to discuss this matter among yourselves, with 23 anyone outside the jury panel. You are not to read, listen 24 to or watch anything about this case in particular or subject 195 1 matter in general in any of the media. Thank you for your 2 attention and cooperation. 3 COURT ADJOURNED: 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 196 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, DEBRA M, MUSIELAK, certify the foregoing to be a 6 true and accurate transcript of the testimony and proceedings 7 in the above-entitled cause. 3 Dated this / fi day of March, 1986. 9 IO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 197 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, one of the Judges in and 6 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, do hereby certify that I 7 have examined the aforesaid transcript of proceedings, and 8 certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate transcript of 9 the testimony and proceedings in the above-styled cause. 10 Dated this _____ day of March, 1986. 11 12 i 13 14 15 16 HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 17 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 24 198