March 26, 2009
Below are all the posts of Thursday, March 2, in reverse chronological order. Read from the bottom up.
Locke accused of perjury and theft
Witness Robert Locke found himself accused of perjury and theft in a fierce cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Frongillo Thursday afternoon.
Frongillo, representing defendant Robert Bettacchi, alleged that Locke had lied to the jury about a conversation he supposedly had with Bettacchi and that he had stolen company documents.
In his cross-examination, Frongillo suggested that Grace documents given to prosecutor Kevin Cassidy by Locke were stolen from the company before the former employee left. This was a direct violation of a 1974 employee contract Locke signed when he was hired to the company, according to Frongillo. The contract stated that employees could not retain copies of sensitive documents once they left Grace.
“The reality of it is, Mr. Locke, is that you were collecting these documents over time, that this was part of a scheme, and that you were squirreling them away in anticipation of a fight with Grace,” Frongillo said, referencing Locke’s 1998 lawsuit against Bettacchi and the company.
Locke maintained a calm exterior as he explained that he was given a chance to look at and take documents that would otherwise be destroyed after he left. In addition, he disagreed with the defense’s interpretation of the employee contract. Frongillo would have none of it.
“You stole them, didn’t you? They weren’t your property, they were the company’s property,” he said.
Also in question was Locke’s honesty pertaining to an alleged conversation he had with Bettacchi about Grace real estate in Libby, Mont. He recalled this conversation in his testimony Wednesday.
“I had real bad vibes… I said it was a real bad idea, we should just plant grass and keep people the hell out of it,” Locke said Wednesday. In response, Bettacchi allegedly said, “buyer beware.”
However, in an 11-hour testimony with government officials during a 2005 grand jury investigation of Grace, Locke stated under oath that he had never discussed the properties with Bettacchi. In addition, there were no written records by the company or by Locke pertaining to the conversation, Frongillo said.
“You came up with a fabricated story, an outright lie, because you wanted to stick it to the guy who didn’t give you any money,” Frongillo said, referring to Locke’s unsuccessful attempts to get a salary settlement from Grace.
Frongillo suggested dryly that Locke’s memory “miraculously reappeared” when he heard the testimony of Mel and Lerah Parker, the couple who built a nursery on former Grace land. He then accused Locke of meeting twice with an EPA special agent last week before his own testimony.
Judge Donald Molloy appeared concerned about Locke’s testimony. After he dismissed the jury, Molloy told the courtroom that he would consider a move to strike Locke’s testimony over the weeklong break.
Court is set to resume on Wednesday, April 8th at 9:00 a.m.
- Nate Hegyi (posted 7:36 p.m.)
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under News.
Tags: Bettacchi, Hegyi, Locke
Comments: 9 | [edit]
Locke Faces Three Defense Attorneys
Former W.R. Grace executive Robert Locke faced a series of defense attorneys, all attempting to cast his testimony and testamentary capacity in a negative light. He first answered questions from Carolyn Kubota, lawyer for defendant Jack Wolter. Kubota made use of a memo Locke had sent to his former supervisor at Grace and Wolter, detailing Locke’s knowledge that Wolter had made efforts to educate and protect Grace workers.
Locke next answered questions from David Krakoff, attorney for defendant Henry Eschenbach. Locke testified that Eschenbach and his staff had taught Locke about asbestos monitoring and worker safety when Locke first started working in Grace’s asbestos-related operations. Locke testimony also revealed that Eschenbach had made a presentation to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) detailing the dangers of asbestosis and mesothelioma, including answering specific questions from NIOSH representatives.
Locke next faced Thomas Frongillo, attorney for defendant Robert Bettacchi. Frongillo fired two salvoes before the afternoon break, first questioning Locke about his employment history at Grace. During his career, Locke earned a series of promotions, often obtaining positions previously held by Mr. Bettacchi. Frongillo directed Locke to a memo he had written to his former supervisor, defendant Jack Wolter, and Bettacchi’s supervisor at that time, defendant Robert Walsh. The memo was very critical of Mr. Bettacchi’s success at managing of a Grace subsidiary company. Frongillo’s questions repeatedly emphasized that Locke himself had wanted the management job at the subsidiary company, but that Grace had placed Bettacchi in charge. Frongillo pointed out the various ways that Locke was critical of Bettacchi in the memo, and that Locke had not sent a copy to Bettacchi, but rather to Walsh and Wolter, behavior Frongillo characterized as “backstabbing.” Locke pointed out that Walsh himself, as Bettacchi’s supervisor, had asked for the memo, and thus the critical tone and list of addressees were appropriate.
Frongillo then shifted gears and began to directly attack Locke’s capacity, mind, and motives. Frongillo introduced into evidence Locke’s complaint from a concurrent civil lawsuit in which he has sued W.R. Grace for employment discrimination. The complaint detailed many mental health and work problems suffered by Locke, problems he claims Grace caused when he worked there. Frongillo weaved Locke’s current lawsuit against Grace, his two mental breakdowns while a Grace employee, his past and current mental health medications, and his testimony for the prosecution in this trial together in an obvious effort to convince the jury to put little weight behind Locke’s words on the stand. As Frongillo continued through this line of questioning, an ill-sounding Judge Molloy called for the afternoon recess.
Mark Lancaster – posted 5:40 pm
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under Law.
Comments: 1 | [edit]
Cross-examination of Locke continues after Bernick
A trio of defense lawyers continued questioning Robert Locke early Thursday afternoon, with a diverse cross-examination that ranged in focus from exhibits to a section of questions concerning his past mental disabilities and prescribed drug use.
Locke frequently responded with a dissonant “yes,” or, “I do not recall,” to the counsels’ questions.
It was defense attorney Thomas C. Frongillo, representing defendant Robert Bettacchi, who most fiercely questioned Locke and his job performance history, as well as his diagnosed mental disabilities related to depression, anxiety and attention deficit disorders.
“Are you taking any today?” Frongillo asked.
After Locke said he was on one mild anti-depressant, Frongillo asked whether or not that was affecting his testimony. Locke responded and said he was perfectly fine to testify. After some surprised sounds and mild gasps from the galley, cross examination continued in which Frongillo tried to get Locke to admit to conspiring to get his client, Bettacchi fired.
Locke has filed suit accusing Bettacchi and W.R. Grace of age and mental disability discrimination. Frongillo pointed out that all settlements have been rejected by the courts that would award Locke anything. That case remains unresolved.
Carolyn Kubota, representng Jack Wolter, breezed through a brief cross-examination in which she presented letters and memos from Locke to Wolter about the defendant’s “Corrective Action Procedure,” which included the addition of unannounced expansion plant inspections.
Exhibits also included drafts of employee safety manuals produced by Wolter, which Locke admitted to canceling because he said there were “editing errors” in it.
David Krakoff, representing Henry Eschenbach, swiftly asked questions on matters pertaining to his client. Krakoff repeatedly got Locke to say how much Eschenbach taught him about the testing.
-Kelsey Bernius (posted 4:32)
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under News.
Comments: 1 | [edit]
Bernick wraps up his cross-examination of Locke
Defense attorney David Bernick completed his forceful cross-examination of former W.R. Grace vice president Robert Locke on Thursday.
Throughout his cross-examination, Bernick pointed out a number of things to which Locke testified in 2004, things Bernick showed Locke failed to mention to the jury during his initial examination earlier this week.
Ten times or more, Bernick was frustrated by Locke’s inability to answer specific questions, often saying, “I didn’t ask you that question,” to Locke’s response. Locke also seemed to grow agitated.
At one point Judge Donald Molloy chimed in to ask Locke, “Are you paying attention to his questions?”
“Yes, but he’s jumping around,” Locke said.
Bernick also discussed the “dilemma” caused by the latency period of asbestos exposure. “You have exposure, disease, and the lag is latency, correct?” Bernick asked Locke. “So, just because Grace is observing that miners are getting asbestosis in 1970 doesn’t mean it is from exposure in 1970.”
Locke said, “different people respond differently…[however] it takes time.”
Bernick concluded his argument concerning latency by saying that generally speaking it [asbestos disease] is caused by conditions earlier on. So, the value of a study by the National Insitutes of Occupational Safety and Health study principally would be in the future, he said. Locke agreed.
Bernick went on to question Locke about whether the NIOSH study in 1981 intended to scrutinize vermiculite or tremolite. Bernick said that W.R. Grace executive vice president Elwood “Chip” Wood opposed the study because it focused on vermiculite, which is different than tremolite.
“The only data that existed [in 1981] was data on tremolite asbestos,” Locke said. “There was confusion in the NIOSH approach as to whether they were studying vermiculite or tremolite.” Locke said that in time NIOSH did change the terminology.
Bernick wrapped up his cross-examination by displaying a document Locke wrote in November 1983, which was admitted into evidence without objection from the prosecution. In it Locke wrote to a former coworker that W.R. Grace was his “clear number one career preference.”
Court was scheduled to be back in session at 1:30 p.m. with the continued cross-examination of Locke.
– Chris D’Angelo (posted 2:20 p.m.)
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under News.
Tags: D’Angelo
Comments: none | [edit]
Bad for Business
Defense Attorney David M. Bernick concluded his cross-examination of former Grace employee Robert Locke this morning.
Through a series of statements to which Locke replied, “yes,” Bernick constructed an alternative explanation for Grace’s purposeful delay of the NIOSH study. Bernick stated that Grace executive vice president Elwood “Chip” Wood and W.R. Grace had opposed the study because NIOSH wanted to study vermiculite (instead of tremolite). See Defense Exhibit 230, the NIOSH proposal.
Grace opposed the study because of a “justifiable concern” that a NIOSH study of vermiculite would only stigmatize the product and the vermiculite business. Bernick stated that W.R. Grace would have been more than happy to participate in a study focused on tremolite; and in fact, when NIOSH changed its proposal to study tremolite, the executives at Grace immediately encouraged the study.
Bernick concluded with a string of examples indicating that the Government has known about the hazards of the Libby tremolite since the 1950s, but has failed to take any action for the last 60 years.
– Audrey Schultz (posted 1:20 pm)
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under Law.
Tags: Locke, NIOSH
Comments: 3 | [edit]
Bernick argues Grace’s hamsters irrelevant
Defense attorney David Bernick spent the morning using his cross-examination of Robert Locke to argue that publication of W.R. Grace’s hamster study was unnecessary. It merely corroborated existing studies that showed tremolite to cause cancer in laboratory animals, he said.
Similar studies, such as the Johns-Manville study, which Locke said he knew about, had been published, as had another done by Johnson & Johnson. Since Grace’s study simply stated the already-known fact that tremolite was carcinogenic to hamsters, there was no need to parrot others’ results, Bernick said.
Besides, Bernick argued, classified studies were the norm at large chemical corporations. In one memo brought into evidence, Locke expressed surprise at Johns-Mansville scientists being allowed to publish their findings, saying,”I wonder what their contracts stipulate …”
Bringing new evidence for his cross-examination, Bernick said that the company had changed its attitude toward proposed stiffer regulations. As late as October, 1976, Grace officials had been openly pushing agencies like Mine Safety and Health Administration and Occupational Safety and Health Administration for leniency in tremolite regulation, arguing that since it wasn’t intended for commercial use, but was merely a contaminant, it shouldn’t be regulated like commercial asbestos.
Then in May, 1977, Locke revised a letter that would be sent to the Mine Enforcement and Safety Administration (later MSHA), in which the company rescinded its claim to lenient regulation. Bernick noted that the letter did not mention the hamster study, but rather cited human deaths in Libby and a “changing regulatory climate” as the reason they did not intend to argue against tighter regulation. Locke, begrudgingly admitted this change, but Bernick talked over him as he tried to comment further. Locke was effectively silenced, and Bernick said that the heightened sentiment of cooperation did not hinge on lab tests, but on concrete, experiential realities. Therefore, he argued, the hamster test was irrelevant in directing health and safety regulations.
The final interchange served as an exclamation point to the line of questioning Bernick had been pursuing all morning. While he was able to make some inroads on the government’s direct examination, Bernick also asked minor questions in an edgy tone. Looking at one tremolite study that had been published in a small medical journal, Bernick pressed Locke, saying, “Was this published or not?” Locke, never having read the article and seemingly frustrated by Bernick’s tone, said, “You’re showing me words on a screen. I don’t know about publication.”
The jury did not seem to respond in any negative way to Bernick’s questioning, though when Locke would snap back, a few would grin. Molloy, still suffering from a hoarse throat, called for a recess just before 10 a.m
-Alex Tenenbaum (posted at 12:10)
Posted: March 26th, 2009 under News.
Tags: hamster, Locke, Tenenbaum
Comments: none | [edit]