Document rxm3x3jpzzqj9z8zZM9Ew6DM7

T. Marmor Page 265 1 MS. ROSENBERG: If it's a 2 question -- , . 3 MR. G IANA RIS: I've got a . : 4 question. - -. 5 BY MR- GIANARIS: 6 Q. We've talked; about all, your 7 opinions you have in, this case?, - 8 A. No. 9 Q. W e haven't? 10 A. No. . 11 Q: What o.ther opinions:do.you have? 12 A. There are too numerous to 13 mention. There are opinions about a lot of,the- 14 documents in the file that we,,haven't talked 15 about.; ' 16 We talkedaboutmy major , . 17 opinions, but the pnesowedidn't do muchwork 18 with had to;do with the degree to which unions 19 were conscious ofintbeirpublicationsofthe 20 dangers of-asbestos. l would have elaborated , 21 on that. That would have been very important-' 22 and relevant. i. 23 THE VIDEO OPERATOR: Going off 24 -t; tlie record. End of,this;tape. .Time is 25 4.:15:p.m. : -I.. , Page 267 1 with the general claim that enough public 2 available knowledge was there in the early 3 1960's to make implausible the claim that 4 groups with a clear interest in asbestos 5 wouldn!t have known that it was a dangerous 6 substance. 7 Q. 1 think you just-misspoke. 8 Groups would not have known that it was a 9 dangerous substance?: 10 A. Made implausible that groups 11 would not have known. 12 Q. That is your general opinion? 13 A. That's the conclusion of all of 14 this work on publicly available information 15 from all these sources. 16 Q. Elaborate on your opinion and 17 tell me what you want to tell the jury about 18 that particular issue. 19 A. Not so much tell them, state the 20 point again, as to show evidence as to what was 21 available. Newspaper articles that were . 22 explicitly directed in asbestos. Television 23 programs that.interviewed.Selikoff.who was a 24 remarkable-spokesman for this and so on. We 25 can do that another time. Page 266 1 (Brief recess taken.) , 2 THE VIDEO OPERATOR:, Returning to . 3 the..record 4:15. Beginning pf tape 4 number 5. 5 Q. Professor, the p.odium is yours. 6 Elaborate. 7 A. I'll.elaborate only in one . : 8 respect, which.Is, for. whatever reasopr we:,,:-... 9 spent more time talRing about thepart of my 10 work of; which: I've,spent the,least-time. ; , . ,c 11 So instead of going through-the ; 4 12 documents ihat:l actua|ly: collected, we talked 13 about Union Carbide;w hicb was thelastand the 14 least,developed; of ,those. So in that sense, 15 there was sonic imbalance, but.I.thfnkl gave, 16 you a clear notion of what my subject was, the. . 17 prime subject, and.I think 1 ,gave you a 18 reasonably clear n.otion.about my general 19 conclusions about-publicly available knowledge. 20 To that extent, I fee} all right. 21 Q. . You-have opinions regarding the 22 documents that yctu've collected that are.in; . 23 the -- 24 A. 1 have elaborations of opinions 25 that we.didn't get to, but they're consistent Page 268 1 Q. In your trial testimony in West 2 Virginia, you went through a list of examples - 3 of things that were publicly available. - . -- 4 Is that the same documents that 5 you're going to present in trial in Madison 6 County, other than perhaps specific media - 7 searches regarding St. .Louis, Alton, Illinois 8 and Chicago, Illinois? 9 A. Mostly that's correct. Therefore 10 few additionallllustrations that seemed 11 particularly good ones, points that already.are ' 12 being made, either about medical science or 13 particularly about unions. There was some 14 expansion of the union illustration of 15 publications. 16 Q. You say a few?.. 17 A. Something in the order of 8 to 18 10. 19 Q. Tell me what those opinions are. 20 A. The opinion is the same. It just 21 illustrates the range. . . , 22 Q. Tell me what you're going to show 23 the jury to illustrate your opinion that you 24 didn't show them at the trial in West Virginia?. 25 A. Exhibits 139 to 147, for example. * POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY (314)421-0099 67 (Pages 265 to 268)