Civil Action ~ Jonathan Harr ~ 2/98 ~ Book Club On Export

by
Jonathan Harr

Then Jan Schlichtmann came bursting into the office and Kevin said, "Jan's exactly what you hope you are going to be when you get out of law school."

Here is the true story of an epic courtroom showdown. Two giant corporations stand accused of causing the deaths of children through ground and water pollution. But it is much more than courtroom action!
It is the story of families seeing their children dying, trying to find out why and who is to blame. It is the story of a young, flamboyant, Porsche-driving, lawyer--the story of how one man can make a difference. Late one evening he realized he had found his calling, that of a discovery and trial lawyer. Kevin Conway, who became his partner, had told his wife, "There's no passion in my life." As a young lawyer he was bored with what he was doing. Then Jan Schlichtmann came bursting into the office,and Kevin said, "Jan's exactly what you hope you are going to be when you get out of law school!"
From early in the book you see four streams emerging: Hurting families seeing their children strangely die, an energetic lawyer committed to doing something about it, giant corporations intent on hiding their culpability, and a legal system gone awry!

Join in the reading and discussion! How does this story touch our lives?

Discussion Topics for Today:

1. Why did Schlichtmann weep with Anne Anderson in her kitchen? p 424>
2. To what extent were the Woburn families right in thinking the money wasn't as important as preserving the guilty verdict against Grace? pp 442-444

3. Why did it take so long for the Schlichtmann team to decide on the "squeal point" for settlement with Grace?
4. To what degree can you relate to Schlichtmann's lament, "Make me whole again!"? p 448
5. What is revealed by Schlichtmann's division of the income from the Grace settlement between his partners, associates, office staff and himself? pp454-455
6. What comfort could Schlichtmann draw from the great amount of evidence that showed his case to be right, even though it did not change the verdict?
7. How much can we relate to Schlichtmann's attitude, "He didn't hate Facher. He hated what Facher had done, but he understood why he'd done it. No, it was the judge, presiding over a U. S. District Court, the false and corrupt pretense of justice that drove Schlichtmann mad with fury"? p 464
8. What do you think of the res Judicata principle, that a matter once decided in a court of law remains decided, even if it flies in the face of overwhelming evidence?
9. How do you feel about our judicial system after reading this book?

10. What value did you find in the discussion of this book?
Highlights of the Story

After the trial came the penalty phase. In order to avoid court hearings, negotiations began with Albert Eustis, representing W. R. Grace. Schlichtmann's team debated for weeks about the amount. He thought they should demand 25 million but Conway thought ten million was maxiumum. They were finally offered 8 million, which they accepted.
Schlichtmann went to Woburn to report to Anne Anderson that a settlement with Grace did not look possible. "Anne began to cry softly, tears rolling down her cheeks. They'd sat together for a while in the dark kitchen, at the battered Formica table, both weeping."
Later Schlichtmann met with the families to discuss the settlement. "It was Patricia Kane who, near the end, seemed to speak for everyone. 'I think we'd all love to settle as long as we don't have to compromise the verdict. I don't think it's a matter of money,. But we all want the jury's verdict to stand against Grace.'" Later Schlichtmann said, "They're good people. If you have to die, they're good people to die for."
Schlightmann paid a high price for the case but treated everyone else on the team and staff generously. "Once everyone else had gotten paid, and a hundred thousand had been distributed among the office staff, Schlichtmann ended up with only thirty thousand dollars. He was debt-free, but there was no money left with which to reclaim his Porsche or house. Conway and Crowley came out of the case with a hundred thousand each and the deeds to their houses returned.
Many proofs, with witness after witness supporting Schlichtmann's case, were uncovered after the trial, including not only hidden but destroyed evidence. Riley admitted he had lied. The judge refused to consider these facts and repeatedly ruled against Schlichtmann and for Beatrice. "The long standing principle of res Judicata--that a matter once decided in a court of law remains decided--held sway, even if that decision flew in the face of reality. First the EPA, and now, the United States Geological Survery, had issued reports saying that the fifteen acres had contaminated the well field. But that would make no difference in the eyes of the law."

************************

The discussion leader was Russell Cervin

Ah, thanks to Larry, and Russ for the wonderful heading, here we are in our brand new home, ready to begin our discussion of A Civil Action !

Looking forward to all the comments!

Ginny

Found you!

Civil Action was depressing, to say the least,, especially for me. My two young grandson, Boston area, were tested in '93 for lead levels and were way over the limit... The cause was traced to the paint in their apartment, that had been rented to my son as free of contaminants and safe for children. Lawsuits were filed and now 4 years later after a relatively small settlement, one boy has been found to have mental retardation and the other is extremely hyper-active and on medication...

I'm not sure I will continue with the book, since it re-opens the heart break.

Pat / IL

Good Morning All, Am halfway through the book and am really caught up in it. Kept asking myself why did they continue to drink the water when something was SO OBVIOUSLY wrong with it? Originally ,I thought perhaps bottled water was not as available back then as it is now, and perhaps it was too expensive to use on a daily basis. One of the witnesses stated that they did use bottled water for certain things (i.e making the orange juice from the concentrate).

Then the really big kicker when the researchers came up with the stunning information that TCE was taken into the body not only by drinking it but was absorbed while bathing in it and from the vapors given off in breathing the vapors while bathing! Wow!!!

And the shocking statistics that between 9 and 14 percent of water supply sources in the United States may be contaminated with TCE. Remember when Schlichtman vowed "never again to take a drink of regular tap water ".

And what about the property values? What would each one of us do if we found out our water sources were contaminated, not even as obviously as it appeared to be in Woburn? How could we afford to let this info. out and yet how could we afford not to? Can we believe what our local government officials tell us about our water purity. For most of us, our homes represent our major financial equity? What do you do when your very life is at stake? Do you walk away from it ,,,or perhaps run?

More questions than answers. Am anxious to hear what my fellow readers have to say!

Pat: We must have been posting at about the same time. How tragic for all of you ,that your granchildren were affected this way. I do believe this book will bring out many terrible facts...look, it has already.

WELCOME to the discussion of A Civil Action! Many of you have been looking forward to it and we hope a broad participation will make this a great experience! The Highlights of the Story and the Discussion Topics for Today are meant to be jump-starts and not limitations. We hope to stay within the weekly reading assignments as much as possible. Let's have a good time!

Russ

Home at last! Thank you to whomever is responsible for getting this site together.
When I ordered the book from the library and found out it was about environmental litigation my immediate reaction was "What a pile of mind-numbing legalese that's going to be". Am now almost finished with "A Civil Action" and what a great, can't-put-it-down-read it has proven to be. Gotta go finish it before I burst.

Riel

Just started the book last night and it really was hard to put down.

I am going to try to stay with the schedule since I read Stones twice in order to remember the book!!!

This is going to be a good one!

Jimmie

Pat, I am sure we all would certainly understand your reluctance to continue to read this book. While it is very well written it certainly is not a book that will lift your mental outlook.

I also found this book almost impossible to put down once I got started on it. I like books about lawyers and trials, but I found this book to be so much more than that limited scope. It almosted seemed to be an impossible task to even think about putting together this case. I felt we were given an glimpse of Sclichtmann in chapter one to let us in on the fact that this case took all they had to give and this was not just another case for the lawyers. I found the leadership of the minister in seeing the pattern of the health problems and organizing the people involved to be a very important role.

I think that book is going to spur a lot of comment as we go along. There are so many issues of moral right and wrong as well as personal and corporate responsibility involved in this story.

Larry

I finished reading A CIVIL ACTION a couple nights ago about 1 AM because I couldn't go to bed without finishing it. It was difficult for me to believe that it wasn't a work of fiction. I had to keep reminding myself of that all the way through. I wish it had been! Then the end would have been different and I wouldn't be so leery of drinking water. I'm seriously considering having a water purifier installed in our new house.

Larry, I think you are entirely correct in saying that the first chapter was written in order to show some of Jan's sacrifices and his total dedication to the case. I also wonder if it was also to remove any preconceptions or bias' the reader might have toward lawyers in general. We have become such a lawyer-bashing society in recent years.

I also think Kevin Conway was a crucial part of the story due to his contrast with Jan. He was certainly a hard-working lawyer and a good person, but rather a plodder without imagination, but with a great deal of common sense, something Jan completely lacked. Jan seemed to me to be almost a stereotype of the creative genius with his head in the clouds and no concept of the day-to-day necessities. Again, if it were fiction, this is exactly what you would expect, but seeing as it is non-fiction...!

I'm sure we are all going to learn a lot from this book, like it or not! Pat, I'm so sorry to hear of your grandsons' problems due to a very similar circumstance. I full understand your reluctance to read it. I agree with you that you should skip this one. Sharon

I copied all the material Russ put together and trying to get the thought process to going.

Sclichtmann---I liked the quote by Reed, "He is like a bulldog, he never lets go." He is the kind of attorney I would want in my corner. An ego the size of infinity and doesn't no the meaning of giving up.

The families of the sick children---I can't think of anything worse in life than to give up a child in death or any other tragic circumstance. The lengths we will go to to protect our children are enormous. Yet it seems to be out of our hands from the very beginning. It is beyond our comprehension that anyone or anything could take so lightly what we all hold so dear.

Pat, not wanting to open old wounds is certainly understandable. You will be in my thoughts.

City Engineer---Politics!!! Doesn't most of this type of tragdies usually come down to politics?

Tradgies usually either bring families closer or break them up. The mothers usually get more involved than other members of the family and they find themselves being neglected.

Conway and Schilctmann seem to make a good team. One is the leader and the other the follower and it takes both to stay balanced.

Jimmie

I read this book almost a month ago, and seeing the questions at the top and the synopsis’s helped me remember it vividly.

I really do belong to the Duh club, because I was quite a way into it when I suddenly realized that it was not a book of fiction. That was when I read that one of the companies involved was Beatrice. My husband worked for Playtex for over 36 years, and at one time Beatrice owned them. I knew they couldn't use the name of a real company unless it was non fiction, and then read the blurb on the paperback cover.

I found the book engrossing, and spent much of our pre Christmas cruise reading it. Even read it in Los Angeles while visiting our children.

We live in a small town, Dover, Delaware, where I am sure there is a lot of dumping, or was, that we know nothing about. Why the town fathers didn't do anything about the illegal dumping I don't know. All I know is that these companies in a small town......own the town. There is very little concern about what harm there is to anyone from their practices to make money. I think it is very discouraging.

Pat, I join the others who have expressed their sympathy to you over the affect this has had on your family.

Is bottled water or a water purifier the answer? Who really knows for sure what is in those bottles, or if the purifier does it's job? Sorry to sound so cynical.

The book realy makes you think. What are the chances of winning against big companies ? I'd think a lot better now than before this case. It was sort of an Ice-Breaker. Of course now, even "Big Tobacco" is on the run, but its a long hard uphill struggle against corporate, institutional, heartless, American business and industry.

Best

LJ, You make a very good point. When you consider the virtual bottomless pit of money available to a Beatrice or Grace companies compared to the extreme difficulty that they had funding the things needed in this case it makes you realize how difficult the uphill climb can be. I believe this case took seven years from the time it started until conclusion.

Larry

I live on Long Island in New York where we have one of the highest rates of Cancer in the country...especially Breast Cancer. Last week I received a report from our local water company telling me about the purity of our water. By the way, it is clear looking and delicious to the taste. That being said; I drink only bottled water. It is the only thing we all have in common over which I have any control.

And yes I too am in the midst of researching a water purifier for at least the kitchen sink and fridge. Until recently we have had water delivered to the house. Now when I go to the Price Club I tote a case of water home with me.

If any of you out there have some good info. on what water purifiers are most satisfactory, I would appreciate it if you would share it.

I am not a food faddist by any means. But when you have lost several friends to Cancer in an untimely way and in what seems to be epidemic proportions, I know I feel out of control and this is my way of coping.

Thanks to so many for the excellent posts so soon. Others who are in process of readng will add to these. Today I want to give some quotes from a New York Times book review by Richard Bernstein as further background.

"A Civil Action is . . . a kind of cautionary tale about the way in which what ought to be a straightforward issue of justice and recompense can be transformed by greed and the very rules of engagement into a ruinous and exorbitant miasma." Mr. Harr "tells his tale in the beginning through the eyes of members of the bereaved families and then, for much of the rest of his book, through the experience of Mr. Schlichtmann."

Then I wonder (the cynic in me) because of other parts of his review, "was Mr. Bernstein a college classmate of any of the coroporate leaders or their lawyers?"

Russ

Had to keep reminding myself that this book is non-fiction every time I saw the name of the main character, SLICKMAN, with his almost pathological need to look wealthy and successful; and his original adversary, CHEESEMAN, with his heartlessly clever? tactics to keep the lawsuit from even going to court. What appropriate names for lawyers if the book was a fictional spoof on the legal system.

My anger grew as I read this book. In the beginning the focus was on the suffering children and devastated, sometimes broken, families. They ceased to exist once the legal system got involved; it became a big, greedy, macho game of one-upmanship with the almighty $ and protecting puffed up egos being the only thing that mattered. This book reinforced my belief that the corporate and legal world has lost sight of the only important parts of our universe: our families, our faith, and our friends.

Re tap water: the book mentions that TCE was also used in the metal tunnel where the plactic wrap was used to shrink wrap food!!

Riel

First of all, my heartiest thanks to Russ for the awesome headings and questions. Even if I weren't already hooked by the book, I would have to read it after reading what Russ put up to entice us.

The first introduction to Schlictmann was a good idea, because as you start into the story, he comes across as a self-centered egotist with ideals but not a cause. He avoids this case, as did everyone else, because it looks hopeless.

The town really has a difficult choice when it finds out that the water is not good. There are two major employers with the deepest pockets imaginable running the show, and the State itself isn't in the best of financial shape much less the town. This case could literally kill the city, and there are a lot of citizens on the other side of town who would really not like that.

I also think that the hazard of the water was not completely proven at the beginning. We are reading this knowing what the outcome will be, but if someone came to me right now and said that the local water supply was causing cancer, I would probably want proof.

I agree that this case was helpful in penetrating the legal wall of the mega corporations. Here in Texas, the tobacco industry just settled a multi-billion lawsuit rather than go to court. Still, though, money is not really the anwer. Stopping production, participating in the repairs and recovery, & creating safer ways to do things should be the things that come out of these lawsuits. The settlements always seem to be so huge until you break out fees, costs, etc., and then life goes on as usual. The corporations take it off their taxes and the lawyers get enormously rich. What about us little guys who got hurt in the first place??

For all the talk about water purifiers, bottled water, etc., I have some questions. Will these purify chemicals or only residues? Does the water that is bottled get tested for chemicals? In other words, can we really safeguard ourselves? I am afraid that we are always going to get smart after the fact.

Pat, I too would advise you not to read this, since you have already lived through it. I found that in reading this books, I did not know how I would react. I would probably find it hard to believe that the problem was in the water, and once convinced, I would probably find it even harder to believe that nothing was being done about it.

This is an engrossing book, and I am looking forward to the discussions.

Carole

Am enjoying all the posts. I read this book several months ago, but am skimming it again along with the rest of you, as I had found it so interesting the first time and well worth discussing.

A couple of facts that have not been mentioned, I believe - Leukemia is a rare disease, only 4 out of 100,000 children get it and the cause is unknown (quoting from the book). Also the fact that since 1860 there had been tanneries on this land.

Schlichtman (we'll have to shorten that name somehow) was not at all interested in the case at first, and it wasn't until the organization he had helped found - Trial Lawyers for Public Justice - came into the picture that he became interested. Why?

Yes, the question someone asked always plagued me, why did these people stay? The water ruined all their appliances - it's appalling to think about putting up with that. We live in an area where we all have our own wells (6 years ago, a few of us connected to city water for the simple reason we may need to someday and inflation continues). We had our water tested every year by the Board of Health and it tested fine - but as someone asked - What did they test for? We're no chemists!

And that bottled water - and purifiers - what guarantee do they give that the water is pure? What is pure water? I doubt today there is such a thing!

This is really a book that can't be put down. This case is so complex it should be read slowly to understand. Here are my opinions on some of the discussions points you have listed. I think the short description of Schlictmann was put in Chapter 1 to give an idea of the kind of person he is and what the case did to him. It shows he likes expensive things and that he was obsessed by the case to the point of losing everything. I think the city engineer had political pressure to keep the wells open. If they weren't kept open, Woburn wouldn't have had enough of its own water and would have had to buy water from the metropolitan supply which would have been expensive and high water bills would make the residents mad. I think it would be very difficult to prove where the pollutants came from, because of a lot of industries, dumping, a river flowing through. Conway and Schlichtmann don't seem like a team; it seems like Schlictmann is a one man show.

Dale Knapschaefer Manchester, NH

Schlictman was a flamboyant, colorful character, willing to go to the mat for this case. Oddly enough, though, I never felt that he really cared about the people he was representing. On the other hand, the author, displayed a great deal of understanding and sympathy in his descriptions of their plight and portrayed them very clearly. I had no idea how incredibly difficult it would be to prove that the water was contaminated, or how the "law" is not always on the side of truth.

An aside, I worked in Boston many years ago, the Federal Building had a large cafeteria meant only for federal employees but a bunch of us who worked for a nearby insurance company used to go there for lunch and we would occasionally see juries lead by a gentleman with a "staff" brought to the cafeteria for lunch, this was in the fifties so not around the period of this trial.

Eileen Megan

This book is really scary. It seems likely that clean water will be the most precious resource of the next century. We can survive without oil, electricity, etc. but not without water. So many folk I talk with about this do not believe our water supply is in danger. This is really, really scary.

Just checking in - I find I want to sit down in a quiet place, pencil in hand, and re-read the first 82 pages, underlining and putting question marks in the margin. Russ, with your sharp eye for detail, what led you to infer that the New York Times reviewer was a college classmate of the attorneys?

I thought the NYT review called my attention to the importance of authorial impartiality, something that must have been very difficult for Harr to maintain in reporting this emotion-laden case. Don't we see the same thing in media coverage of recent and current headline cases?

Ros

We have a "leukemia cluster" here in Ohio right now and I am following it in the news. The high school was built on a former Army Depot where weapons were stored. The parents believe there were leaks from the weapons - what kind of weapons I don't know. The EPA and Ohio Board of Health are conducting investigations.

Hi All, Made the mistake of checking out the Times review. They told me more than I wanted to know about the outcome. I am well into the trial now. Boy, doesn't it read like a mystery!

Jmann is a flamboyant character to say the least. He is also extremely bright, somewhat arrogant, rude ,impatient, imaginitive, and hard working …might be the understatement of the day! I felt overwhelmed for him (and the others) when I had some comprehension of the enormity of the task. This is not just knowing the law, it is like being both lawyer and a master detective.

In the beginning I think Conway was an anchor for him or the ground if you will. "Conway felt as close to Schlichtmann as a brother, although in most respects they appeared to be complete opposites." Remember Conway trying to steer Jmann away from the Woburn Case; telling him, "It's a black hole". Later Jmann loses sight of Conway's value to him in this respect. It was said of Conway," He had a kind word for everyone he encountered….tried never to judge anyone harshly".

Don't want to put it down but must for now. It's a holder!!!

P.S. Hey Russ, this time I even stuck to the first 82 pages!

Ella,

That is really frightening to think that this case that we are reading about is happening again in another part of the country. Maybe you need to write to the newspapers and tell them to read this book!!!!

Keep us posted, as this is too scary. Do we humans never learn?????

Carole

There is so much to discuss and so many good comments that it is easy to get ahead of ourselves. Ros, the NYT reviewer seemed to me to lean a bit more to the side of the corporations, but I may be wrong there. Several have mentioned the lack of a known cause for leukemia, and we will get to some of the expert opinions and the circumstancial evidence later. Helen, what a great comment about the NYT review, it "told me more than I wanted to know"! Your shortening of the Schlichtmann name might be one we should adopt. Jmann seems a good option. Then in my mind I pronouce it Jay-man. Any other thoughts on that?

Russ

Why not simply JAN? Also, where are the results of the voting and rating of Stones? Sharon

"Civil Action" is entertaining and informative. I've been operated on malignant tumor of the stomach more than a year ago; and this book has enlightened me about this disease.

Dante

Gosh what wonderful posts!!

Dante! Welcome, welcome!! So glad to see you here! Our newest member, and all the way from the Phillipines!

Sharon: the results of the voting (the winner was Cold Mountain for April can be found in the old Stones discussion, and the ratings are in our nicely revamped Ratings and Reviews sections: Ratings and Reviews .

Just cannot get over the posts and the many many people posting: think this is really off to a perfect start.

I thought of many things reading your posts, and want to reply individually:

Pat: So sorry to read your experience, and isn't it horrifying that so many of us have first hand knowledge we'd rather not HAVE of this issue??

Helen: Why did they continue to drink the water? When we moved here 17 years ago I noticed a smell to our well water. It ATE the pipes, the plumbing, city water not available....no lines here....the pipes would just burst, in summer or winter.

I called the Health Dept, and to make a long story short, after 7 trips to the Health Dept, with my newly drawn quart of water, I had to SPECIFY exactly what chemical I thought was in the water: ONE specification per quart.

To, again, make a long story short, Methoxychlor was found in the water, but in no amounts harmful....so many ppbillion. Methoxychlor is something you spray for mosquitoes, we'd never sprayed it. That's when I stopped drinking iced tea made with tap water. Then the "city water" did come out, and we hooked on, but many neighbors sarcastic about "Oh, that'll be GOOD water," as the prevailing theory here is that well water is good water. My neighbor insists the city water smells like "Sevin," pesticide, but, when she had the city out, again they wanted to know what chemicals she wanted it tested for. They tested it, but never got back to her. We also have a landfill about 5 miles north and a cancer cluster about 9 miles away west from us where a poor woman has labored for years, literally, to get somebody to shut down a chemical waste facility. And it does seem, like Carole said, a case of the little guy getting beaten by BIG industry.

If you couldn't get any other water, what would you do? Only bathe in bottled water? The people who ought to be sued are the municipalities who permit this horror. Like Joyce, I thought this story and the implcations for us all are very scary, and like Fran, and Carole, I, too, wonder what's in bottled water? Have heard it's as bad as what comes out of the pipe. You have to read the labels, too. I got a very picturesque bottle of "Spring Water" with a beautiful illustration of a spring, and had it half drunk,( because, even with city water I drink bottled water), only to read the label and see "Wilmington NC Municipal Water," so it was somebody else's "city" water.

Sharon mentioned a bias toward lawyers, and I did find myself thinking of that Robert Frost quotation, which I can't find now, about "Tell me why a hearse horse snickers ...." when it carries a lawyer to his grave, and, like Riel, I found the actual names of the lawyers Cheesman and Schlictmann interesting. Remember how we all marveled at first at slick Robert Shapiro? How fascinated we are with the "players," when justice ought not to be about "players." I think we need to scrap the jury system in America...you can see the disastrous results in the OJ case, and go with a panel of judges, who are immune, usually to all the lawyer posturing.

Megan, I didn't feel that Schilctmann cared that much for the litigants; I think he was touched, but I always felt he held himself back, sort of aloof. He didn't answer Anne's calls as he didn't know what to tell her. Why not say that?? I agree with Dale that he seems a "one man show," rather than a team player at this point.

As LJ and Larry have noted, and Harr himself mentioned, the "deep pocket" theory of justice seems awfully prevalent. It's said the case goes to whomever's pocket is deeper.

Enjoyed seeing Russ's inclusion of the Bernstein review, and I do echo Jimmie's thoughts on the helplessness of our situation against the "bottomless pit" as Larry said, of financial resources of big business.

That's why I thought this would be David taking on Goliath, but I'm not seeing that in Schilctmann (how are you pronouncing that, by the way)?? Russ is saying "man," but I've been wondering, (don't know why, it isn't important) Yahn SchilctMAHN....how IS that Jan pronounced??? And is it ....MAHN or MAN??

Anyway, not seeing that in Schilctmann. Seeing a shallow egotistical vain person pumped up by display, not kindliness. Straighten me out, I read it fast.

Russ: those questions are wonderful. I agree with Dale that it would be very hard to PROVE where the contaminants came from. Did we ever find out the identity of the mystery dumper? A look at the inside cover of the book shows the actual Grace PLANT a long way away and not close to the river, so I guess that's why all the experts were called in, and at such cost!~

Ella; I was also interested in why S....decided to take the case when he heard the Trial Lawyer's Ass'n was involved, as he had been one of the FOUNDERS??

Like Larry, I thought the behind the scenes glimpses of the lawyer's preparation of the case fascinating, and like Ros, was intrigued by the job the author did in relating the story: the narrator's voice was well done here, I thought. Just the right touch.

This is the first book I've read in years that I made an ouline of the principal characters and whose side they were on in the inside back cover, as I had a hard time keeping them straight.

Were you at all intrigued by the apparent differentiation between trial lawyers and corporate lawyers, and, my goodness, WHO KNEW there were so many Harvard Law grads? They do seem to rise to the top?? Or the bottom, depending on your outlook??

Ginny

Such thought-provoking posts! One last reference to the NYT review. The review said there were no villains and the author should have been more impartial. If Harr had been as impartial as the review suggested and there were no villains, the book would be a non-issue and as boring as Conway's life before Sch came bursting into his office. Are the corporations faceless abstractions incapable of responsibility and the lawyers only greedy adversaries? When the human element enters that is all changed. When families are ruptured, little children poisoned and dying, and parents brokenhearted, then we look for villains to hold responsible. And once there is evidence that someone is a villain it is hard to be impartial.

Conway could never have handled this case. Does it take someone like Sch, with a sense of purpose, a lot of courage,(foolhardiness?) with total commitment and tenacity, hard working, willing to pour out his life in spite of his mixed motives and contradictions, to confront such adversaries?

Russ

And like so many other books we've been reading lately this one just lowers my opinion of Judges in general too.

Best

LJ, I thought the judge came off pretty poorly in this story. It made me wonder whether there wasn't some under the table activity. Just the questions posed to the jury to answer looked like a deliberate setup and you know the judge had the last word in those. (Sorry, getting ahead of the story).

Larry

Larry:

With our absurd process of appointing political appointees to judges, I don't even think that there had to be money under the table. The judge knew which side his of bread to keep facing up!!!

I am not basically a cynical person, but this book is bringing out the worst in me. I see an overwheming amount of self-interest on the part of all the players, except the victims and their families. No one wants to rock the boat.

In Rendall's Road Rage the Inspector is musing on the environmentalist's objection to putting a road through the town, and he realizes that it is fine in theory to worry about the damage that the road can bring, but he doesn't want to give up his car. Most of us don't want to give up anything we have become accustomed to, and we sure don't want to pay for anything that won't directly benefit ourselves! Trying to get a bond issue passed by any city in this country for basic water works, utilities, roads, etc. is becoming impossible, but put up a new sports arena, and everyone says yes!! I guess the ancient Roman politicians understood that better than we do.

This ambivalence was pervasive throughout this whole book. Ole JSlick wanted to talk the talk, but he sure didn't willingly walk the walk. Like most lawyers, he had a terribly hard time committing himself to something other than himself. (Hope none of you are lawyers)

The city did not, or could not, take a stand, the doctors wouldn't go out on a limb, and the people out of the cancer area turned deaf ears. Surprise, surprise.

Ginny, your post was exactly on the money. Even if you are willing to take matters into your own hand, the ridiculous bureaucracy ends up defeating you.

Dante, you mentioned you just had surgery for this same type of condition. Was this from the environment? How are you now? I hope you have recovered fully.

As I read the posts, I sense we are all getting very cynical. I hope it is just this book that is causing this.

(I will try to stay within the week's topics next time.) Sorry, Russ! 8-(

Carole

Oh, dear, those people over in Jefferson are going to think I'm crazy. They might be right! I posted something over there that I meant to post here, forgive me LJ, for messing up your wonderful discussion there. Have heard it said that things get better with age - only violins, I think.

Riel:

I receive your message for me today. I already emailed you but just the same I want to repeat here my profound thanks for your message.

Dante

Dante: Do you think your illness came from toxic wastes, or that it may have? Hope you are improving!

Our question #5 raises the problem of how difficult it is to trace and prove toxic waste as the source of disease. Someone mentioned that the statistical rate of leukemia in children is 4 to 100,000. Doesn't that give more urgency to finding out what creates the clusters, since that is far beyond the statistical probability? Anyone shed light on that?

Who wants to speculate on whether Sch ever considered the possiblity of losing, and did he count the cost, and plan the next stage of his life if he did?

For further consideration: Can you understand Anne Anderson's decision not to move to Toronto with her husband? What drove her to stay in Woburn? Was it in Jimmy's best interests?

Russ

Russ: As I remember reading, Schl. didn't care much about money - he spent it very fast when he had it, e.g. Porsche. I don't think either that he planned ahead very far, sort of a take-it-day-by-day fellow. I'll have to look where that was.

Ginny - I found your post interesting - we had much the same experience. Moved to the country 32 years ago, but a city grew up around us. We had the Ohio Board of Health check our water every year (but they did it free and came out to do it). They pronounced it O.K., but we don't know what they tested it for and how would we know - we're not chemists. But our water tasted good, and we had a very good softener installed, so our pipes never corroded. But when the city offered water, we spent the money to hook up to it. But there are many people around us that still use their well water to drink, etc. We use ours for outside purposes.

We have not only a leukemia cluster in Marion, Ohio, but the city has had a 122% rise in the last 20-30 years in other types of cancer. I did not save that article, but it told how many deaths have occurred there - far more than should have, I know. They are now checking 3 sites there - a former preserving company (used creosote in their processes, which is a cancer-causing agent), a weapons depot and a dump (which are now called sanitary landfills). I don't know how many agencies are involved, but the EPA and the Ohio Board of Health are 2 of them. No lawsuits have been filed and I would not recommend they read this book if any of the victims or their families have in mind of suing anybody! What is our society going to do about this? It affects us all! Our ground water is polluted, probably everywhere and the big corporations just keep dumping. Government has to get stronger.

Several of you have talked about Jan's apparent disregard for the victims, his clients, and spoken of his greed. I really don't think greed motivated him as he seemed to like money theoretically. If he had it, he spent it, if he didn't he didn't worry about it. He seemed to me to look at money as a reward for his work. I think he felt something for his clients, as when he hated to meet with them at the end of the first part of the trial, etc. But I really think that most of his trials were like puzzles or geometry proofs--challenges to his ingenuity and intellectual abilities and neither the people nor the money were really the important thing to him. Just my opinion.

Ella: I think you are right that Sch didn't care much about money and didn't plan ahead much for himself. And Sharon: You affirmed this, too, when you said that if he had it he spent it and if he didn't he didn't worry about it. Instead he seemed to live for the high of moment, which now was the Woburn case. Riel: You are right, we will never know why Anne stayed in Woburn when her husband moved to Canada, but I wonder if she was so committed to the battle against toxic waste dumping which she believed killed her son Jimmy that she had to remain to continue the fight.

Russ

Russ,Riel: It's been bugging me too,ever since I read the part about Anne Anderson's not leaving Woburn when the opportunity presented itself. Based on the info. given I would have thought she would have grabbed at the opportunity to get away from that toxic environment.

Do you think perhaps we don't have enough info.? I wondered about how she felt about losing her current support system, especially the medical part. I also wonder about the state of her marriage at that point; her husband did go off anyway leaving her with the children and the problem. I think we can only speculate on why she chose to stay behind.

Sharon: I do agree with you about Sch. I don't think he was in it strictly for the money. I haven't finished the book yet and I have posted about him before,but I do see him as needing the excitement and I believe he has to do his work for really big ,interesting stakes... this need translates into his cases. I think the environmental issues were important to him. There are indications that he was warm to some of his clients,but as he was required to as their lawyer. With all that was going on I can't imagine how he could have the time or emotional energy to become closely or personally involved with them more than he was. He didn't have time for his own social life. He was consumed by his work and by winning which equated to sending out an environmental message and to trying to draw big money out of deep pockets...but no less than Facher...just different M.O.s.

Ginny: Interesting post. Isn't it something that we are told that our water is just great and I don't feel as if they would tell me us it wasn't!

But I still haven't finished. Maybe things will still happen to alter my views still further.

Still lots of things to talk about. Like who SHOULD have been on that jury! But that can't be before page 82. I'm trying to stick to the guidelines,something I am not great at!

HELEN: glad I'm not the only one having difficulty sticking to the guidelines.

Riel

Dear friends,

I agree completely about Sch not really caring about money. If he had it he spent it etc.

About Anne not leaving with her husband when he moved to Toronto could have many reasons. Not the least being that when parents have a desperately sick child or lose a child, there is a good chance that they will split up.

I am very concerned for our country and our world since it seems pretty obvious that we are killing ourselves allowing local government to be influenced by big business, and in the name of the bottom line.....Killing animals, our children and ourselves through the poisoning of our water supply.

When will people learn? If Americans still support the tobacco farmers grow and distribute a product that has been found to be deadly....exactly what does that say about us?

My two cents worth....

I agree Fran. Yesterday someone posted about bottled water coming from another municipal source, so I checked out ever brand of bottled water on the grocery shelf today. Except for the spring water, all the other water which was labeled "drinking water" was from some municipal source--like Chicago and Cincinnati. I have no idea whether their water is pure or not. The spring water simply listed the spring, but no other information. Does anyone know anything about the water purifiers you can attach to your sink faucet or pour into a pitcher with a special filter. I'm really wondering about the water down in SC. Our neighbor said it turned the porcelain black in the toilets if you were gone and left it unflushed too long. This book may give me nightmares yet. Sharon

Dear Sharon,

I surely agree about this particular book making you think long and clearly about your own drinking water supply in your area.

I don't have too much faith in either bottled water or a water purifier installed in your house. About the water purifier. Exactly what is purifying your water....how often should you replace it......what happens when the unpurified water runs over the filter that purifies your water etc. There are a lot of questions this brought up.

Fran

All the discussion about water reminded me of when we took a cottage in Wareham, Ma which is about 20 miles south of us. I went down there armed with all the cleaning paraphenalia that I use here in Brockton, MA to clean the toilet bowl. Guess what, even with the 6 of us the bowl remained sparkling clean. I do buy spring water mainly because Brockton's water tastes terrible. Sorry, next post will be about the book.

Eileen

We had some very good posts during the first week. The plot thickens as we move on, providing some good topics for discussion. If you have just been lurking so far, please share your opinions and enrich our thinking!

Most of us have reacted to this story with feelings of frustration because we see something wrong and feel unable to do anything about it. Is it possible for us to be fair even though we have taken sides? For purposes of understanding, can we put ourselves in the place of the defense lawyers and think of what we would have done in their place? What do you think?

Russ

From an attorney's (or judge's) point of view (Not mine) There is absolutely no connection between the "Law" and "Justice".

Best

To LJ KLEIN: RIGHT ON!

Riel

Russ: provocative thoughts and wonderful new questions! Need to go back now and relook at 83-146 and see if I can sort of gather the thoughts I had then.

There was just SO MUCH in this book, found myself thinking of Tracy Kidder's book on architecture, House which has this same kind of floating narrator: no shock to see Kidder a friend who read the ms, and gives a review.

The whoe reason of WHY they took the case is sort of ephemeral to me, want to go back and revisit it. How on earth does a defense lawyer defend anybody he KNOWS is guilty?? That's what I meant by all the Harvard grads for the defense.

It's almost presented like a gladitorial combat, isn't it? I did wonder why S did not want the families present, but I get ahead of myself...

Ginny

Not lurking, just catching up! Been away a few days!

All the posts are sooo interesting. I have jumped ahead a little in the book. Couldn't help myself.

Russ, I don't think SchLICK ever considered the possibility that he might lose this case. If he had ever stopped to consider the cost of the case, he might not have done his best. People like him tend to let others handle the "small stuff".

SchLICK just lived for the moment and GLORY of the WIN!

Fran, I always thought the lawsuits against the tobacco industry was absurd until the reports said they knowingly tampered with the chemicals to get people hooked and keep them hooked.

People have free will as to or not to smoke that first cigarette. I smoked for over 35 yrs. and no one ever made me smoke. But our water supply is another question altogether.

Jimmie

Hi Everyone I have a friend that sells NASA water filters. The type I have is installed in the back of my refigerator. It filters the drinking water that comes out the door and also filters the water that goes to the ice cube maker. It has to be changed every three years and NASA sends you a notice and also the dealers send you a reminder. When I lived in the Virgin Islands we had big containers of water delivered and sat on a stand that could come out hot or cold. I see they are doing a lot of that here in the Seattle area.

TTYL Judy

Judy, could you post or e-mail me the address to contact NASA about the filter? I'd really appreciate it. Sharon

Judy, Me too please!!!

I have seen the fridge cartridges in Home Depot Expo. And the newest refrigerators are coming out with them built right in. Again I have no idea how effective they are. Most of the filtration systems I have seen need their cartidges changed about twice a year. But again each of us has to know what it is we need filtered out of our particular water system. I have been told that several years ago,"Consumer's Report" reported that a system for the kitchen called, "EverPure" was recommended. I have been in touch with a distributor. But again no definitive info. I have been told that having your water tested by a private org. is very costly.

Many years ago Jerry and I were visiting,"Smoky Mountain National Park" somewhere in the Blue Ridge Mountains. It was very beautiful there,wonderful sparklingly clear gorgeous waterfalls cascading down the mountain. We thought it would be a lovely thing to have a picnic sitting on the huge boulders along one of the waterfalls and streams. Much to our horror,there were signs posted all along warning visitors NOT to drink the water as many years before wild boar had been brought in for the hunters,from Europe, and they (the boars)had brought in a bacteria that destroyed the purity of this wonderful site. We really do a number on ourselves don't we,or is it "they" really do a number on us,don't they.

I am heading toward the final pages in our story. Hard to put it down. Look at how it has stirred up all of our own environmental issues and experiences.

Judy, Sharon, Helen, Ginny and others! Talk about identifying with the story! We all want to avoid toxics in our potable water. When any of you have found the best water purifier/filter, please post the information here!

Russ

Russ: well, since you DID ask for it, here 'tis: of course we had purifiers on the well, itself, the kitchen sink, and the fridge.

The plumber said (and keep in mind this was years ago and technology has obviously changed) that if you didn't keep changing the filters (and the one on the fridge TOOK A PLUMBER TO CHANGE back then) what you were drinking was worse than what you had before, as when the filter was full all you were doing was adding bacteria to your drinking water. What does HE know? We don't have any now. I have a feeling that this NASA which sends you reminders or a system which sends you reminders would be the best thing!

Consumer Reports is getting their Online site set up, I think it's about $19 a year, but my understanding is you can access all their past records, which would be worth it, if you don't save the magazines.

Ginny

WE NEED YOU. CHECK IT OUT!

Book Review

Hi everyone About the NASA Water Filter my friends e-mail is JanetSueC@aol.com She has lots of information at her fingertips and a find person to boot. Enjoy the Rosebowl everyone. TTYL Judy

Russ, you have certainly put up some challenging questions or thought stimulators. I felt that Facher and Cheeseman fit my preconceived idea of corporation lawyers. They are paid huge sums of money to protect these giant corporations and they were doing their job. There didn't seem to be much cooperation between the corporation lawyers, which seemed rather surprising. It looked like the Unifirst settlement was very wise, at least for that corporation.

I found Riley to be a pretty despicable character. I would not have wanted to be put into the position that a number of the employees were but really had to admire those that came forward, "the truth will out" in their situations.

You asked about what the families were doing during all of this lengthy delay as the case languished and then creeped along. I would think that they just had to get on with life. At that point they had nothing from the case, nor did they have any financial liability involved if the case had been lost. There really wasn't much that they could do other than to follow and assist. It sounded like some of the people were put through a lot of medical exams and depositions, which were pretty unpleasant.

If Schlichtmann had not won the Carney case how could he have pursued the Woburn case, considering the unbelievable expense involved. They just wouldn't have had the money to begin to do the work that had to go into the case.

Larry

Larry: What a good post! Good answers to some of the questions I felt were central to the story.

Further on the legal side, can anyone describe what Rule 11 is? And, what are orphans and dogs?

Judy: Thanks for the info on the water filter, NASA. I, for one, will follow it up.

Russ

Hi all and YEAaaaaah Broncos! This is one happy town. Our water comes from the Rockies.

Great thoughtful questions. You're putting up some fine post responses. Go for it.

Lurk, lurk, lurk.

Di

You guys are doing so well that there's nothing left for me to add, but its a long book

Best

My thoughts on Riley are that he was a scared old man, a dim bulb that was just afraid of losing his business and had "no more conscience than a snake has hips".

Cheeseman apparently was known for multiple "objections" and I guess in the past had worn down the opposition by dragging out cases this way.

I think Skinner blatantly supported all of Facher's objections. It was stunning to me that JS & Co. put everything they owned financially on the line, I had no idea that any lawyer would go this far in trying to win a case. I had to keep reminding myself that this book was not fictional!

Eileen

I've got lots to say about this section, but Everybody DO go look at our own Larry Hanna: The SeniorNet Volunteer Profile of the Month:

Profile of Larry Hanna .

Back at you in a sec, have lots to say (what else is new??)

Ginny

I thought our section for today was very revealing about the major players in this story, and am very much enjoying reading everyone's posts and ideas.

It's really hard to keep reminding yourself that this is non -fiction, and one of the sticky points for me was the oblivious-type narration of some really glaring...well, what I would think were glaring character flaws. Or is this a world where character does not matter? Now we know from the end of the book that Schlictmann let Harr follow him around, and I wonder why??

Wonder where on earth Harr got inside Fachers head to write: "In his own bed, where there was no one to marvel at his expertise, no one to compete against, he lay awake, furious at his inability to sleep." (page 88). Why would Facher tell Harr that? Unlike Harr and the lawyers in the book, I didn't think much of Mr. Facher the classroom bully, reducing a student to tears, the boss who wrote such things as "I think we made a mistake hiring you," and "Is English your first language?"

Maybe someday we'll come in this country to an examination of the real truth and these macho characters can just all ride into the sunset and shoot each other with squirt guns.

Oh, but Facher is well matched by Mr. Riley, concerned businessman of the year, and Mr. Jacobs, who, despite having seen with his own eyes the contamination, wrote "Defendant Beatrice Foods Co. lacks knowledge or information sufficient ...."

I will never again go into a lawyer's office furnished with antiques with any kind of appreciation. Thought Schilctmann's reaction to HIS being in the court room as the defendant for a change, most interesting. When did our courts turn into the side shows they now have, it's worse than the Colosseum.

I wish I could be impressed by Schilctmann's risking all for the case, but there are too many contradicting statements like "the appearance of success often begets success," (page 124) on the posh office surroundings, and in "he wanted his firm to deal only in those cases which promised big rewards and required big investments." (page 126)

I'm willing to bet if the total outlay had been $24.56, and they were satisfied with the result, they would have stopped spending money in their preparation of the case. I don't think a man who buys a Porche and renovates his apartment with money he's won is a man who does not care about money. Facher and his coat hanger briefcase is a man who doesn't care about money, and I really wanted to root for him, but couldn't.

I just can't get over how there is not ONE lawyer to root for...for the right reasons, anyway. Is it me??

Ginny

I was delighted with S..Man's comment "A lie is half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on"

And of course, the arrogant corporate attys who screw each other, i.e. Facher hadn't helped on an earlier motion so cheeseman didn't tell him about his plan to implant "Unifirst" into the litigation.

Best

Really nice profile of Larry. Enjoyed reading it very much.

Rule ll: "The rule had been intended to curb frivolous and irresponsible lawsuits." The problem was, it didn't have any teeth in it. They were in the process of trying to change that to be able to fine the ones responsible for bring these frivolous suits.

I remember reading of a case in Dallas recently where a Judge fined the plaintiff and/or the lawyer for bring in this frivolous lawsuit.The fine was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That should have gotten their attention.

Orphans and Dogs: Orphans referred to cases with merit that "bounced" around from one law firm to another.

Dogs referred to cases that were frivolous lawsuits.

Geez, this is a good book. Hard to put down and Russ, I can't stay with the schedule. Sorrrryyy!!!

Jimmie

I'm posting about this one for the first time. I think The "characters" in this true-novel evoke responses based on the reader's values, which may be why Schlichtmann is a "turn-off" for some. Schlichtmann certainly operates like a complete materialist, and his costly flamboyance is a study in excess . . . except, it works for him! The Carney case convinced him that he had to go flat out with the Woburn situations, spending everything he could get his hands on, including his own inner resources and those of everybody in his wake. He is an incredible risk-taker, and that's what keeps me going. I want to see how far he finally does go, and if he's ever going to explode. He had to have a profound belief in the case to subject the system and himself to that kind of stress. I wonder if he has ever done anything like this since, or if he ever will again? Would he, if he did not believe in the truth of the situation where the clients were concerned? I don't think he could ever function as a public defender; he wouldn't have the opportunity to what he does so well - all the grand flourishes, the bells and whistles, and he would have to argue at times against his own perceptions of the truth.

About Skinner - I think his personal sympathies were with Facher, but the seriousness of the issue motivated him to schedule the trial as early as possible. He really didn't like Jan Schlichtmann, but his integrity made him listen, back down when he wanted to swat him like a fly, and refuse to postpone the trial despite his sympathies with Facher.

GINNY: Thanks for the good profile of Larry Hanna! I'd be glad to claim him as friend anyday!

Since no one else has picked up some of the good items in Ginny's post I'll touch on a couple. ". . or is this a world where character does not count?" Following the media, where too often only the bad seems to be news, one might think so. In spite of this impression there are millions of people of good character in our world. Where character no longer matters society crumbles and indvidual lives are devastated. Incidentally, there are also a lot of good lawyers.

"When did the courts turn into a side show?" How about TV and the big money? Example 1.3 million for a 30 second commecial during the SuperBowl, while we watch a lot of millionaires run around the field bashing each other. And we are watching high-profile court cases now!

To JM: Thanks for your post. Indeed, responses to the persons in this story are based on the reader's values. Isn't that inevitable? Speaking of Sch you say that he is an incredible risk-taker and he had to have a profound belief in the case. Perhaps that's why I'm for him and hope he wins in spite of all his foibles!

Russ

I really think Jan's motivation is the challenge of winning against all odds, but I also think that he would do it only for what he felt was right. I agree that he probably would make a lousy public defender.

One thing I really couldn't fathom was why everyone in his entourage was willing to follow him into bankruptcy. I know Conway idolized him, but still cannot imagine a married man with children risking his family's security by borrowing on the deed to his home!

As to the Judge, I have trouble believing that he was not in collusion with Facher. His decrees struck me as entirely biased and bordering on the illegal--if not actually illegal!

Congratulations, Larry! You deserve it! Enjoyed reading your profile.

Thanks for the e-mail address for the NASA water filter. Am planning to send her a note now. Sharon

JM!! Welcome, welcome! What a treat in an otherwise grey and miserable day to look in and see you here!

I agree with your take on Skineer. Have not seen him in a despicable light, I wish those who did would point those instances out...

Jimmie: thanks for the orphans and dogs thing, read it once, but was determined not to go back. Do any of you think of that as a little glib with people's lives?

And JM, I agree I can't see him as a Public Defender, that's a good point.

I wondered about that too, Sharon, didn't Conway at one point lie to his wife and say she'd find out about it later?? Didn't he mortgage the house again? S must be SOME salesman, and I, too, really would like to know what they all are doing NOW. Is there any way we can find out??

Russ, you're doing a whale of a job here!

Ginny

Ginny: You really have got a thing for the Smann. Interesting the differences in how we saw the same characters. I saw this guy as flamboyant and flawed but definitely a keeper. Yes, I liked and admired him. So there. No flames please my dear! Last time they were in living color.

Like you I'm afraid I have to step ahead somewhat to quote when he asks himself why he did it…"Pride, greed, ambition. Getting rich by doing good." Yes he did spend money recklessly, it meant little to him. Yes he did like the toys the other rich boys had, but if he lost them he lost them. He lived on the edge, no half way for him. He even said he didn't mind living in his office when it came to that. It was the Middle ground he had no tolerance for,thrived on excitement and being in the limelight. But with all of this I believe that he believed and worked his tail off along with his staff , at trying to make his mark but also make a difference in the way the big boys would do business from there on in.

Also you ask about Conway and what he was doing today. Well it appears that after several years of paying off heavy debts he now is partners in a thriving law firm (Conway ,Crowley & Homer).

I was fascinated to learn that Harr was in on the writing project from the onset. That really was a surprise. But my favorite enemies were Facher and Skinner . I do agree with you on that bit of license about what Facher was thinking, there were other examples also. It made the point of view a narrow one. What did the other side say? I can't imagine that they could defend what they were doing in any positive way other than they worked for their slithery slim+y clients and did that well.

Uncorroborated news flash: Robert Redford bought the rights to do the movie (directing) and John Travolta is going to play Schlictmann. Or has someone already posted this?

My biggest question is about the jury system in this matter. Do any of you believe, that the average person has the ability to sit on a panel listening to this kind of complicated,highly technical information ,side bar upon side bar, day after day ,month after month and truly digest and understand it well enough? What about the question that Skinner posed?

Later, P.S. Larry, congrats on that page about you. It certainly is well deserved. And for people like myself who don't say if often enough, thanks for all that you do for us.

At this point, as we think about taking license in writing, it might be helpful to go to the back of the book and read A Note on Sources as well as Acknowledgments to see the vast amount of material from which Harr drew his story.

Russ

Wonderful posts! Helen, since you know about Conway, what happened to Schlichtmann? Thanks for all the info., including about the movie-to-be, I hope!

Hi, Everyone!

Have become so wrapped up in Jan Schlichtmann, that I have searched all over the web for any more info I could get on what happened to him. He is now practicing in Beverly, MA. Here is the address I got off of Switchboard:

Schlichtmann, Jan R Esq 359 Hale St Beverly, MA 01915-2029 Phone: (508)927-3880

Found some other interesting sites. One from Cornell University where he gave a seminar on litigating and a panel discussion with several attorneys from Cornell. (one of them was lawyer for Beatrice) Also, an interesting write up on the movie and how it is being held up because of "rights" to interviewing the families involved. Seems that a former resident of Woburn, who is a legislator had acquired the family's stories and is fighting with Disney over the rights for the movie. Check it out...it is so interesting! Jan Schl...'s reaction to John Travolta playing his part was true to form...when asked what he thought of Travolta playing him, he answered, "I'm just glad it's not Danny DeVito."

Cornell Picture & Story

Civil War over Movie Rights

More on Jan at Cornell

Conway, Crowley & Homer Web Site

On one of the Cornell sites Jan S. gives some insights on what went wrong with the case and a little about his recuperation period in Hawaii, before coming back FULL STEAM!

I can't help but find him interesting and I really do like him, "warts" and all! He is a survivor!

Eddie

Eddie, Thanks for those interesting sites. I had been wondering what happened to the main characters in this story and if Jan S. had returned to the practice of law. He obviously was totally burned out when the trial was over.

Larry

Dear Eddie,

Another big thank you from me for posting those sites relating to Jan. I looked through each one. Thank you for going to the trouble of doing that for us. I appreciate it. Jan looks just as I thought he would. I bet I know where a lot of that gray hair came from.

I have held back from posting here, because I was so dismayed at the ending of the book I just was in shock! I couldn't believe that the judge wasn't in somebody's pocket. I simply couldn't believe that Jan and company didn't prove their case.

It was also very surprising to me that Conway was willing to risk soooo much all for that case, important as it was him. After all he did have a wife and family. Jan didn't have the same responsibilities as Conway did, and wasn't the same personality at all so it wasn't as hard for him to go for broke.

I am not a lawyer, or an expert in pollution, but it seemed obvious to me that those two companies poisoned that well water with their dumping of waste.

Fran

Yes, last fall a movie was made of "A Civil Action" in Boston with John Travolta as the star. It was constantly in the news while shooting here. I wish I paid more attention to the "gossip" column in the Herald American which reported on a lawyer suing for the families involved insisting they should be paid by the movie company for their stories. Don't even know if it was JS!

Eileen Megan

Eddie: Thanks so much for all those links. Finally got to see what he looks like. I pictured him younger,which obviously he was at the time...not exactly a John Travolta. I think he was described as very tall and lanky,dark hair????. Oh well that went into my own mental picture.

This case too was featured on 60 Minutes and was the feature of a full length Nova production. The trial was reported by PBS on a daily basis for its 6 month duration. The firm's efforts in this case are also chronicled in the award-winning bestseller, A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr.

Found the above in one of the links posted. I think the PBS reporting was probably local. But if you follow the links you'll see the lawyers and the great quest for ,"get me the money" in action again. There are reportedly big problems with getting to make the movie. They lie between Disney, a producer, lawyer, ex-resident of Woburn and the families involved in the original case. Here they go again!

Wow, wow, wow what wonderful posts, and thanks a MILLION, Eddie Marie for those clickables, and Everyone, here's your chance to use the new button: MARK MESSAGE.

I did. You just go to Eddie Marie's post, which is #76, and you hit the MARK MESSAGE button, and you see there's a little blank where you can put in, if you like, WHAT the message was about, so you can go back and do another of the sites later on, and hit OK, and Voila! There you are, such fun, and Eddie Marie's post is there forever.

Then when you want it again, just hit MARK MESSAGE, and all the ones you marked come back up for your perusal.

What fun. Great new wrinkle in the software, love it!!

Ginny

My thanks also to Eddie for the clickables and the information by Helen and others on what Sch and Conway are doing now. I'm just hoping you all don't fall off the cliff yet; we still have a long way to go with the discussion of the book before the story ends!! Hang in there!

Russ

Eddie, thank you for pictures and info. Jan S. fits my imagination of author's description with a few years and a lot of gray hair added. Does anyone know if citizens of Woburn had requested the E.P.A. to do any testing of the water supply and the environment before Schlichtmann was retained? If they did, were any pre-lawsuit tests done? It seems strange that the government wasn't involved when the water was so foul.

Well, heck. I was all aglow to hear there would be a March 26th meeting at Cornell between Frederico and Schilctmann, among others, which would address these issues covered in the book:

Roger C. Cramton, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell, says the case raised many ethical questions and concerns that will be addressed at the March 26 program. They include client communication, communication of settlement claims with clients and the destruction of corporate records relevant to future legal proceedings.

BUT this meeting has already taken place!! Must have been last March.

Now, we're about to get into the Discovery section which was of fantastic interest to me, and should be to all of us, as in this litigious society we live in, it may be US there next time.

Those are really neat questions up above, and I'm wondering WHY one would think Schilctmann WOULDN'T have a chance against these multi million dollar corporations?? That's an excellent question. Usually it's the CLIENT with no money to match that doesn't have a chance, not the attorney.

Helen, I, too, would not have been able to pick out Schilctmann. Where is the extremely tall man? That little sort of shrunken guy? He's the last one I'd have chosen...and the other lawyer looks much more like what I thought S resembled. In fact, S. in real life resembles Jim Williams of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil fame, but I digress??

JM: WHAT a fabulous point. I don't remember, going to look.

Ginny

Just a comment on question 10 above--"What skills were revealed when Schlichtmann turned the motion to implead Unifirst to his own advantage?" I felt this was an example where Schlichtmann made the other lawyers pay for their independence from each other where they didn't coordinate or really cooperate with each other. I have to wonder how much of this related to the ego of Facher and Cheeseman in not wanting to seem in an inferior position to the other attorney. When Unifirst was brought in, this same hesistancy for the defense lawyers to cooperate was turned against them and Schlichtmann improved his position in the case since one of the companies in essence admitted a liability even though their settlement was pretty small.

It would be interesting to know now much Beatrice and Grace paid in legal and related fees in defending this case in comparison to the cost of the settlement.

Larry

Good points, Larry. Gordon had reported that in the year before the case Beatrice and Grace together had a profit of half a billion dollars. It must have cost plenty in legal and related costs for their defense, but with that kind of resources, whose counting?

Russ

Dear Larry,

I think it was very important for both Grace and Beatrice to win this particular case.....no matter what the cost, because if they had lost it they would probably be open to more suits in other communities where they are located. It sort of reminds me of the tobacco industry. Win at all costs to protect yourself from other suits. Thank goodness that treachery is over, and they are beginning to tell the truth in documents that were never available before this.

Here's a non sequitur, but just came from Amazon.com where I went to see if any of our members had won their monthly review contest (as some of our members are too modest to tell us if they DID) and we didn't, but, excuse me, what DID win and what was the RUNNER UP is not anything like the quality we've got here every day. So do take heart and give it a try, it's on hiatus at the moment, but will return soon.

I'd be on hiatus, too, if I had to read much of that stuff....they really want POSITIVE reviews, tho.

I keep thinking about this book, and the author. I know it's non fiction, but it's presented with a slant, anyway...Now, I'm frustrated by the lack of documentation! I wanted to check on JM's point about the EPA: there's NO index!! NONE!! Even books on celebrities like Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin have indices.

And then, there's the perspective angle.

Now, if you were writing this book, covering THIS subject, whose point of view would YOU have taken?

Isn't the whole thing about the families?

Ginny

Hi Guys, Found dynamite site at no other than W.R. Grace where they talk about the book and state their side of the story. Will try to make it clickable but am in a big rush so if it doesn't work would one of you smarties please do if so everyone can read it.

Now you can read the"rest of the story" and their apology for what "was never proven that they did". Would someone please tell me why the URL is disappearing and those other two sentences come up as dead end clickables?

W.R.Grace Co.

Have been trying,most unsuccessfully I might add, to provide a clickable for a dynamite site I found at W.R.Grace. Unfortunately when I enter the format for the clickable it disappears when posted. Somebody please tell me what I am doing wrong?

Am in a terrible rush,but want you all to see this so here goes nothing...

The Woburn Story Background Facts About Woburn

The Woburn Story

A book entitled A Civil Action -- and an upcoming film based upon that book -- have rekindled interest in a 1980s lawsuit involving Grace. Although neither proven in court nor supported by scientific research, the lawsuit made allegations that Grace and Beatrice Foods had contaminated drinking water and caused illnesses in the Massachusetts town of Woburn. From 1960 until 1988, Grace operated a small equipment manufacturing shop in Woburn. In 1982 Grace discovered that some employees had disposed of cleaning solvents on Company property during the '60s and '70s, although the method of disposal was in keeping with standard practices at that time.

We believed at the time of the trial in 1986 and continue to believe, based on the results of additional technical work since that time, that Grace did not contaminate municipal wells in Woburn.

We do, however, regret our actions which contributed to pollution in the East Woburn area.

The tragedy suffered by the families and the impact on the Woburn community, as well as on Grace and its employees living there, led us to thoroughly re-examine and improve our environmental policies and programs to ensure that our practices truly reflect our commitment to caring about our employees, our communities and the environment today and well into the future. Over the past decade, this re-examination has led to significant improvements in Grace operations worldwide. In the U.S. alone, Grace reduced its emissions by over 90% during this period.

Grace has worked aggressively to fulfill its pledge to the Woburn community, as well as state and federal environmental agencies, to remove contamination on our property. We continue to work closely with EPA and the Woburn community to keep everyone informed and involved.

Background Facts About Woburn

Grace has cooperated fully with the EPA and the Woburn community to clean up its property. As a result, on October 16, 1992 EPA stated that Grace had "trimmed months to years off the time it has sometimes taken to move from a paper legal agreement to a cleaner environment. This sets a standard for accelerating the pace of Superfund cleanups." Reporter Dan Kennedy stated in a December 24, 1993 Boston Phoenix article, "Today Grace is one of Woburn's model corporate citizens."

Grace operated a machinery manufacturing plant in Woburn, Massachusetts from 1960-1988.

The City of Woburn opened Wells G and H in the mid-1960s, 1/2 mile down-gradient from the Grace plant. The wells were closed in 1979 due to the discovery of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

The Grace plant used small amounts of solvents (or VOCs) which were common substances used for metal degreasing. Employees disposed of some waste solvents on the ground between 1960 and the mid-1970s. This was a standard disposal method suggested by the supplier of the solvents.

These disposal activities resulted in the contamination of groundwater on Grace's property. Grace and its employees were unaware that this type of disposal could cause groundwater contamination. However, experts concluded that contamination from Grace property did not reach wells G and H prior to their closure in 1979.

In 1982, eight Woburn families sued Grace and Beatrice Corp., alleging that one child in each of seven families and an adult in the eighth family had contracted leukemia from exposure to Wells G and H water contaminated by Grace and Beatrice. They subsequently also sued a third company in Woburn.

Grace was the only company in the area to voluntarily investigate the impact of its actions on the environment during the period of the litigation.

In 1986, following an 80-day trial and eight days of deliberation, a jury concluded that Beatrice did not contaminate the wells and that contamination from Grace reached the wel

I encourage you to visit the site and will give you the URL but not in the HTML format for fear it will once again disappear

W.R. Grace Woburn/ A Civil Action

When I did this on "word" it was clickable. Will someone be kind enough to put me out of my misery and tell me what I am doing wrong?

I fixed it, Helen. Don't know WHAT was wrong with it, but it works, now.

It's interesting to read their point of view. I do feel for them, a little, now, as what was done in the 60's and 70's was following the manufacturer's instructions, and WHO knew then?? Remember Rachel Carson? Silent Spring wasn't it?

Should there be a statute of limitations on these things? How many of us have poured out crankcase oil on the ground??

Or pesticides? Or weed killers? Or sprayed the house with bug spray?? Or maybe allowed the termite people to spray Lindane?

This opens a whole new train of thought....I think we should look at all sides of the story, not just the lawyer's finageling, or is THIS more lawyer finageling??

Ginny

Hi, All: Thanks for all the posts, the new references, etc. We begin the third week today. There is much more in these two chapters than our Highlights and Discussion Topics indicate. Those are only to stimulate our thoughts and trigger our memories. Since many of you have finished the book and find it difficult to go back to hunt for answers I'm adding page numbers to the questions and hope you will find them helpful. Remember, beside the legal aspects there are families, and hard working lawyers!

Russ

Fran, agree with your sentiments entirely. Thanks, Ginny, for posting the explanation of the "Mark message" button. Thanks also to Eddie, Ginny & Helen for the clickables. This is all very interesting. Russ, you are doing a great job leading the discussion. TTYL Sharon

Ginny, you raised the issue about the families in this book. It is my opinion that this story really has little to do with the families and they are, in fact, side-line players. Obviously without them there probably wouldn't have been a case, but once the case was started it became a battle of wills between the lawyers on both sides. The winning and losing became the issue of this tremendous struggle.

Russ, you have some excellent quetions and thought stimulators posted for this section of the book and the page numbering certainly helps get back for a quick review.

I felt that the deposition process was a two-sided sword, with risks for both sides, since the lawyers are not able to control the witness as well and anything they say is under oath and can be brought into the actual trial.

As to Aufiero's testimony, it was my reaction that he would make a very powerful witness that would certainly impact the jury in the case. I believe that is why Facher reached the conclusion he did after the deposition. He realized that this would be very powerful testimony that would outweight a lot of scientific evidence that the jury probably would have trouble understanding anyway.

I will try to dicuss some of the other questions later as these are very rich pages.

Larry

Larry: I think you have put your finger on the one issue that troubles me just a bit about this excellent book: the focus.

The issue of the book and what makes it exciting is the byplay and struggle between the lawyers...the families are just an aside.

I think this speaks volumes about our current state in society. If I were one of the families, I might rightly conclude (or maybe I'm hopelesly "Mr. Smith Went to Washington esque") that the REAL ISSUE should have been the horrendous pollution and problems, not the antics of big business to hire "hired guns" to defend themselves, and what those "hired guns" ate for breakfast and how fast they could whip out those pistols.

We MUST wake up in this country. If you've ever been sued, you know where justice stands and how deeply it's left in the dust of the hired gun skirmish. Not to mention what pockets are depleted.

Russ: your listing of the pages is a stroke of genius: you can print that out,and just take it and the book to your easy chair in front of the fire, and ponder to your heart's content.

I DO love a book which makes me think!! This one gets a 10 for that!!

Ginny

. . . and I did print them out! Thanks, Russ!

This book club is good for me since it gets me to read different types of books from what I usually read. This book somewhat changed my opinion about the general type of lawyers who go after big settlements in things like malpractice and product liabilty cases. I thought of them as being greedy and only interested in their percentage of the settlement. The lawyers who represent the states in cases against tobacco companies are certainly getting gigantic fees. Schlichtmann seems different in that he wants to help the families as well as make money himself. I don't completely agree with some of the postings saying that the families are not important in cases like this. The lawyers who handle cases like this are always anxious to get people like these families on the witness stand so juries can hear them. Maybe I am prejudiced but I think most juries would sympathize with the families in this case and would dislike the large corporations. There have been so many cases in which juries have awarded large settlements to the people affected. Dale Knapschaefer Manchester, NH

In "DISCOVERY", my frustration was summed up on P.180 "In the begining the truth had been obscured by a web of lies, evasions and self-serving accounts from both workers and Grace executives. In the end it still remained hidden by death and the vagaries of memory"

Best

I don't think that Schlichtmann's interest in the families was what motivated him...they were just a means to an end. I think he was just as greedy as the others, but not for money...for the power to out maneuver, out think, and out shine even the huge corporate legal minds. Seems, to me, as though his egotistical nature made it necessary for him to reign supreme. Don't think he could truly understand it when his peers either could not, or would not recognize his great legal mind! I feel this became an obsession with him...and that was his downfall. It appears to me that everyone he let "close" to him, was either someone who looked up to him, or was in awe of him, or who thought he could help them. He appeared to really feel for the families...and I believe he did...but I think that got "lost" in his desperate fight to prove himself! My take on this is that he was unable to realize that his greed for (what he saw as deserved) recognition was a losing game from the start. The corporate lawyers were and are a greedy bunch...but they knew the ins and outs of political dealings and while Jan was throwing monies to the winds to make himself look good, they were busy patting Judges' a---s and trading political favors...and the families were lost in the melee...and the beat goes on!!!

Eddie

And the fabulous posts go on, too, this is just wonderful.

Now, the Deposition, and in answer to the first question posed above: What risks are inherent in the process of taking depositions in which both sides participate, my question has to be: Have you ever been deposed??

I was shocked at the amount of "coaching" S's witnesses received, and, of course, we don't know about the other side, as that's closed to us.

A couple of years ago I was sued by a "neighbor" who turned his car around in the road because he thought I was coming out of the driveway. He claimed massive car and personal injuries. Wore neck brace. Turned out he had a long history of insurance suit, in fact, made his livelihood by suing. During the pre trial he managed to sue another neighbor whom HE ran into sideways, but convinced the poor old fellow he had been at fault before the police arrived, fell in the supermarket and sued them, and burned down his trailer and got a new one...his third. His wife also sued the nursing home she had worked for a total of three months for carpal tunnel syndrome.

I was given NO pre-deposition chat. No explanation from my own attorney. If my husband had not brought home the typescript of a deposition just taken in a corporate suit his company was involved in, I'd not have known what on earth went on.

The risk is simple: anything you say under oath is written down forever. It's always there. You casn lose your case just by the little informal deposition...It's possible to even sense, as we can by the little snippet provided on page 188-190, annoyance. Apparently, if they make you angry, you have lost. I got very angry. Could have jumped across the table at him. The seemingly non relevant questions asked by the attorneys always have meaning. You are not supposed to volunteer a thing....in my case, my attorney asked plaintiff about his participation in a local band. Lovely smiles all around. What plaintiff didn't know was that, far from being debliltated by his terrible back injuries that he claimed, he regularly lifted heavy drum sets and carried them around to "gigs," and also played the drums....so he'd have been hoist on his own petard, but, of course, it never came to trial.

Because I would not swear that my front wheels never even crossed the line into the road, because I did not know whether they did or not, they gave the "SEWER" as we call him, $2,800....which is $200 less than it would cost to go to trial.

As an epilogue, he was CAUGHT burning down his trailer for the insurance money last year.

Have now been sued again by another "neighbor" who wants to use our driveway, and wants to prohibit us from closing our gate.

In the court's efforts to determine the truth and to hear all the sides and to be the MOST clever lawyer, I think truth stands waiting outside the door...the jury system, I do believe, IS capable of finding the truth, but many times, as in the OJ case, they are hampered by the fast guns of the defense attorneys....

I truly think justice is not served by this high finageling, and I'm willing to bet you that in their heart of hearts, the lawyers don't either....what IS truth, they'd probably say? Some people think it's just a matter of perspective.

Ginny

DALE: you make a good point about the families and their testimony. Pages 154,155 indicate Facher's fear that he could not win if Aufiero were allowed to tell the story of his son's death on the witness stand. ". . he had to find a way to keep the plaintiffs off the witness stand." Personally, I think the trial turned on whether they were allowed to testify or not. We'll see more on this question later in the book.

LJ: The question of "truth" recurs, but your reference is revealing. First the truth is obscured by human agency and then by the passage of time. Is the purpose of a trial to discover the truth, or as Eddie suggest, the opportunity for the lawyers to enrich and exalt themselves?

Ginny: your story reveals the pitfalls of deposition. I would guess many people discover this too late.

Russ

Hi All, Tuning in from Florida,where we are vacationing with friends for the week.

Have been reading all your great posts. Ginny what a tale, wow! I think we will all be in agreement about the need for some overhauling in the system.

I was asked if I thought that Schlichtmann could have worked for the other side as well as for Woburn. I don't think so. I really think that with all the arrogance, ego and alll the rest he still would't have done that. Am I being naive? What do you think?

My best from not so sunny Florida.

Hey, Helen!! That makes two of you Clubbers in Florida!! I KNOW you turned the water off before leaving!!

That's a good question you pose about S....would he have worked for the other side?? Good question.

Ginny

I don't think I fully understand the rules of deposition as they differ from those governing the more formal trial interrogation. It seems Schlichtmann thought there were limits to how far the defense attornies could go in questioning the witnesses/experts Sch. presented at the deposition, and that he lost his temper when they exceeded those limits with their questions. Schlichtmann thought he hadn't prepared his experts enough. In Dr. Bernard Turner's case, there was evidently the chance that they could use details of his private life to discourage him from testifying against Beatrice (the tannery stuff). I don't understand how that could be, but they seemed to be planning to turn non-payment of child support against him.

I think Jan Sch. cared about the families, but the trial was structured by the judge who decided that all the hard evidence (time, types of pollution, witnesses to the actual contaminating of the soil, etc.) had to be presented, scrutinized, questioned before the presentation of families who had suffered the results of the contamination, according to Schlichtmann et al. Sch. was so caught up in that part of the case that consideration for the families was rarely mentioned during that time period, but wasn't the the "rule" of the game as Skinner designed it? Jan had no life other than the trial: headaches, hypochondria, anti-social behavior, total distraction characterize his condition for a long time. He became so desperate to win the case in the face of the impediments that perhaps he missed a chance to do right by the families when Facher offers a 20 million dollar out-of-court settelment. Facher himself was so disturbed by the testimony of the father whose son died on the way to the hospital that he came to believe he would lose Beatrice's case. Why did Schlichtmann say no?

What did youall think of the Judicial Prejudice demonstrated by the Magistrate? (P217).

Best

JM: Your thoughtful post raises several points. Conerning Dr. Turner, does it not point up that if you can't win with facts you discredit the witness? You surely described the case with Sch "Jan had no life other than the trial"(the case). I wondered also if Sch later regretted that he turned down the 20 million settlement with Beatrice. Why did he do it? Could it be that he thought he could get much more, that the penalty should fit the crime?

Russ

LJ, I get the impression that the judge was so ticked off with Sch. for expecting him to read those two volumes and so weary of his job that he sided with the defendant. Anything Sch. wanted him to do was evidently more work. An older, more experienced attorney perhaps would not have presented those two books for the judge to read for answers to his questions. The judge's attitude did not serve justice, did it? Russ, I guess Sch. did at that time think he could get more. Again, I wonder what a more seasoned attorney would have done. Could a defense attorney have raised issues about Turner's non-payment of support in the midst of the Worburn case?

I think for JS it was all about "winning", I think he was obsessed by it.

Eileen Megan

The 20 million turned down by Sch, I thought that was more Nessons attitude. He thought the case was worth many more millions and he was certainly a more seasoned attorney.

I thought the Judge was unfair through out the case. I can't imagine a judge being that unfair. Do you suppose this happens a lot, if so, how can anyone ever get a fair trial? Makes me wonder if there is any real justice.

Jimmie

Eddie, I agree with you on Schl's attitude & ego. I think he is an essentially good person, but with a very compulsive or obsessive personality. I still say that the judge was either incompetent or in collusion with the defendants. I think he and his rullings were the cause of the case being lost. Sharon

~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~

Happy Birthday
to
GINNY!!!
May you have many more!!
Love
Pat
~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~

Thank you, our Pat!

Bob Vila is doing a big thing on water filters on CBS Today in the morning, if you're in the Central or Pacific Time Zones, I'm watching it right now at 8:35 am

Ginny

, I just logged in (still from Florida). I missed the water filter piece. Any info. you can report on Ginny or any of the others who may have seen the piece.? Was it helpful to those of you who saw it to make a determination?

Ginny:

Gosh, you snuck that Birthday right by everyone. Hey, Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you, etc. etc. They say that what you do on your Birthday, you will do all year, so it looks like we will enjoy your leadership for another year!!!!!

I must confess that I bogged down in all the court stuff in this book. I have never really enjoyed that type of action, in fact, I mised the entire O.J. trial(on purpose). I think that the points above are excellent points, but that the author made them over and over and over. Actually, you guys are writing an even better book!!!

Remember, Don't Drink The Water~~~~~~

Today we begin the fourth week of discussion with the shortest reading but one that is full of interest. Contemplate our Discussion Topics and give us your thoughts. There must be lurkers whose comments would enrich the discussion. Please participate!

Have any of you read the "Afterword to the Vintage Edition" on page 493, dated April 1996?

A belated, well deserved HAPPY BIRTHDAY to you GINNY! We may not like the accumulation of birthdays but as long as we have them we know we are still alive!

Russ

Carole and Russ, thanks so much! And am glad to hear I'll be doing what I did Tuesday for a year: started out in the local new Barnes & Noble, what a spectacular place: cooking smells, wonderful music, soft chairs, and books books books, then on to Wal Mart and a nice fire at home with hubby and pups: lovely day.

I know everybody dislikes the judge in this book, but I thought his statement about why people file lawsuits to be very astute. Question # 8 above: Why do you agree/disagree with Judge Skinner's statement, "The main fuel, I think, in lawsuits for the death of children is an overwhelming sense of personal guilt. What they do want is to have it said clearly that this wasn't their fault"? p.273

He also said there "Mostly I don't think parents really want money. They may indeed be offended that money is an equivalent for life..." I agree with him.

It may be that anger is the primary fuel for such lawsuits, too, and the urge to hurt the uncaring people who hurt your own.

One thing I did see on the Bob Vila special was a faucet type thing by Moen which sort of resembles a white spigot with a warning buzzer in it when the filter needs changing. It looked interesting, may check it out as to how much it filters, even with city water.

Ginny

I think th Judge's evaluation was imperceptive, thoughtless, without merit and bordering on pure stupidity. The main reasons lawsuits for compensation are filed are to get money and/or to get revenge.

Grief, admittedly is soaked with the sponge of "Self-Pity" which to some extent may imply guilt feelings, but this judge to my lights was not well in contact with reality.

Best

LJ: Would you be willing to give an example from the book which demonstrates that the Judge was out of contact with reality??

I don't think the Judge was looking at the case from an emotional standpoint. Schilctmann had put so much of himself into the case that he and Facher were, in my opinion, boiling along on emotion engendered by their already documented competitveness and personal desire to succeed....nowhere in the book does Harr show Schilctmann eating his heart out over his clients. Still do not understand WHY they would not allow the clients in the courtroom, even as onlookers???

Did anyone catch that?? I read that pretty fast, may have missed it.

If we all had to say why we think people file lawsuits in the death of a family member, what would we say, if we had no personal knowledge of such suits? (That is, had never happened to us or anyone we knew)?

By the way, I see by Russ's schedule that we are to begin the Road From Coorain about the first of March. Does everyone have it??

Ginny

While the judges thoughts about why people bring lawsuits might reflect insight, it seems to me that he was totally out of line expressing them and what he thought was the reason was not pertinent to anything. Nothing the people could do would bring their children back but perhaps making the companies pay large dollars would at least give the parents feelings that they had done something to punish those responsible for the death of their children. Since money is the only thing that large corporations seems to value what better way to get some satisfactiion from them.

I cannot even begin to imagine the anger that the parents must have felt in the three weeks of questioning. I think we see examples of how asking a question in a certain way elicits the response that the opposing attorney wants to convey even if it in essence twists the truth.

Larry

Larry: What wonderful insights, I didn't see it that way. Do now. And I do think you're right, he was out of line. Love this book club.

Our Clubber Patrick Mulligan, known to us all as the Travelin' Man, has just returned from a long sojurn in India, and has posted some of his diary, and it reads better than fiction: some headings are "Culture Shock," and "The Snake." You can find it at Patrick's Journal starting with post 330, will just do it this way until I can figure out how to get a Cross Link up.

Ginny

LJ speaks of lawsuits to get money and revenge. Larry uses the word punishment. Legalese speaks of punitive damages. No doubt money is leverage. Nesson said if they took away a year's income that might get their attention! I am sure all the families wanted Beatrice and Grace to be punished, but wasn't there a powerful motivation in wanting corporations to stop polluting? It is interesting that in W. R. Grace's self-justifying web sight they made a strong argument about how they had improved policies concerning polluting to be some of the best in the country? Was that, "We didn't do it, but we have corrected it?"

Larry makes a good point that the way questions are asked can skew the answers. I thought it a sad commentary on the process that lawyers would try to equate the 500 everyday products with the run off of their toxic waste.

Russ

Russ, I guess defense attornies have to make a case with what they've got, and in this case, one recourse was presenting names of products, etc. that had been cited at some time or by some "expert" as carcinogenic. Nesson got the handle "Billion Dollar Charlie" because he estimated that a year's income as puitive damages from both companies would be about half-a-billion dollars. I think his words on that day planted the seed that made Schlichtmann hold out against settlement offers later.

Ginny, I was involved in a criminal case as a witness recently and no one giving testimony was allowed to be in the courtroom during the testimony of anyone else - only for closing summaries. I assumed it was because we might hear something that would color our individual testimonies. In the Woburn case, I thought the defense might contend that the presence of the plaintiffs in such a situation could prejudice the jury in their favor. (Did the author ever say that?) The parents must have been exhausted, frustrated as all get-out after all that "peanut butter" stuff. I try to imagine myself, and find that I would be feeling quite vengeful, but mixed in with that would be the deep desire to see the pollution stopped. That's the way it comes out in words, but the rage I would feel if I thought the pollution had killed my child or grandchild is beyond words...and beyond money!

Although I'd have to reread to find the particular place where I thought the judge was being "Unrealistic". It had to do with a bias against the possibility of contamination being the source of the cases of Leukemia.

Best

I've been reading all the posts because I read this book sometime ago and it brings it back to mind. I certainly think we should give the parents of these children some consideration as to their motive, and I did not at all believe it was monetary except as a punishment. Perhaps their motive was to stop this pollution in their community and call it to the attention of the nation as a whole. I also remember thinking as I read it that Schl. and partner deserved something (although I don't know what) for taking on this case, whatever their motive, and spending the time and money they did in seeing it through. Couldn't believe the ending!

Ginny - what a wonderful way to spend a birthday - you have "cooking smells" in your B&N? Darn, we don't! A sandwich or what?

Ella: It seems to be a regular little coffee house, with cinnamony and coffee smells, little tables, it's a really nice one...just the right combination, music, books and smells!!

The food of life, I guess.

Ginny

Ginny, how much is Road from Coorain on Amazon and how long does it take to get an order? Our library doesn't have it. I am on the waiting list for Cold Mountain, but may have to buy that too.

I really think that besides the anger and revenge motives for the parents, that they also wanted to prevent such things happening to someone else's children. I don't think the money had anything to do with it either, except as a means to the above ends. Sharon

Happy Birthday dear Ginny......Sorry I missed that one. We certainly do appreciate all that you and your hard working volunteer laborers do for all of us in this book club. You are all the best. And I do know who you are.

I've lent my book out already so I can't cite pages and such. But all I remember is having a sick feeling after finishing this book. I was in shock that these companies got away with making those children sick, and find it hard to believe that the judge was so unsympathetic to their case. I also find it hard to believe that he wasn't in the pocket of the Beatrice or Grace companies.

I am convinced that these big companies understand only one thing......money!! That is the only way they can be prevented from harming others.

Fran; Thanks for that, I'm almost afraid I agree with you about the big companies and money. Wonder how it came to that? There must be somebody there with a conscience. Maybe they sell out in view of the overwhelming mountains of money being spent.

Sharon: Barnes & Noble and Amazon both have the Road From Coorain online for $8.80 and both say it's available, and both charge $3.95 shipping for "standard" mail.

It's not a huge book, hope everyone has gotten it.

The "peanut butter" question above, to me, is just a recast of the extreme measures thrown up by the lawyers defending OJ Simpson . It seems, if you have a claim, you get to be harrassed to death and verbally abused, all in the name of "seeking the truth."

You say you have leukemia? But, O, did you ever eat from a Teflon pan or use Deoderant? Or eat peanut butter?

Seemed to me to be hysterical smoke signals thrown up by a panicked Defense.

Ginny

Hi All, Came back to New York to warm up from the southern climates! Wow you Floridians are having some nippy winter!

Have any of you thought about what it would be like to be on a jury in this case? Frankly I feel that this is another example of where our system breaks down. Do you believe that an average jury of your peers could handle the technical nature of the information in this case,to say nothing of the tedium of sitting in the courtroom through all of the hours of sidebars and lengthy explanations. There was much that they didn't understand,and what about the questions the judge posed to them which cause so much puzzlement and confusion. It would seem to me that this would be more appropriate for a blue ribbon jury...which I believe are called up to serve on murder trials. I don't think they do that for any other kind of trial.do they? Any thoughts?

Saw the Grace building in Manhattan and in Florida...has a whole other meaning for me now.

Dear Helen....

Welcome back!!! I am sure Long Island looks good now. No snow, and 50 degrees all week here in Dover.

I have a lot of very smart friends and relatives, and the way this casse in A Civil Action was presented I don't think any one of them could follow it through. It was very confusing, and often made deliberately so by the defense.

About the blue ribbon panel for murder trials. Perhaps they do that in New York, but surely not in Delaware or California.

Ginny....My husband worked for a big company...Playtex. When they bought out a company called Sarong they did not act ethically I thought. I know it is not the same, but if they could be so callous to the employees of a company they were buying out, why not to a group of people who would make their bottom lines not quite so attractive. I am afraid that....Money makes the world go round....

Fran

HI, ALL! We have had eighteen people who have posted in the Civil Action discussion so far. Thanks for your many perceptive posts. Our discussion would be further enhanced by your opinions of Facher's statement in question nine, in the case of the death of children. Also, how important was Judge Skinner's trial plan to the outcome of the trial, and to the outcome you wanted?

Russ

Regarding Facher's statement about mothers with small children not being able to judge objectively about the death of children, I think he is wrong. I think it would depend more on the intelligence of the person than whether the person was a father or a mother of small children. The judge asked a good question when he asked if Facher would also want to exclude fathers with small children. My wife has the same opinion about this question. I think Judge Skinner's trial plan had a big effect on the outcome. The goal of the defense is to keep the people involved off the witness stand and the goal of the plaintiff is to get them on the stand to affect the jury. I agree with Helen that a case like this is too complex for a regular jury. There should be more mediation between sides and attempt to handle a case like this without going to trial. I think that is happening more now. Corporations realize they spend as much on legal fees as they would on a settlement. The big thing is corporations don't want to admit guilt. The goal should be to find a way to reduce pollution in the future rather that just to punish the corporation. I think the best thing would be the corporation having to pay a reasonable settlement to families and to agree to a plan to prevent future polution. From what I read that is the way some of the cases are being handled now. Dale Knapschaefer, Manchester, NH

In regard to Facher's statement about mothers on the jury my wife and I both think the intelligence of the person is more important that whether it is a mother or a father of young children. I think Judge Skinner's trial plan was very important in deciding the outcome. Getting the families to testify was the goal for the plaintiff and keeping them from testifying was the goal for the defense. I agree with the statements some people have made that these complex cases are too hard for a regular jury. I recently read that there is more mediation without going to trial to settle cases like this. That seems sensible. Corporations spend as much on legal fees as they would on a settlement; they mainly want to avoid the publicity of being found guilty. I think if they could reach an agreement on a reasonable financial settlement as well as a plan to reduce pollution in the future it would be more valuable than just punishing the company. Both sides would probably come out ahead and the only losers would be the lawyers. Dale Knapschaefer, Manchester, NH

...Recent posts increase my skepticism about Skinner. How could he design such a trial plan - one that would be so tedious and obscure for the jury to follow, and, at the same time, one that would keep the real plantiffs OFF the witness stand almost completely? What a crime!

In my not so humble opinion.....I think that mothers, fathers, and all people who have children in their families, and isn't that all of us, can be completely objective when it comes to the evidence in a trial.

Fran

Fran, I agree with you.

BEST

Dale: Thanks for your good posts which deal with basic issues. Fran and LJ: Do people, and jurys, in fact decide on the basis of either the evidence or emotion? Could it be both? Do not some recent high profile cases seem to have been decided more on emotion than evidence?

Russ

Russ, I realize that that was/is a rhetorical question. I have to say that on the basis of the absolute glut of jury trial cases we've read in the past year, my healthy distrust of lawyers has grown to an absolute loathing of them as well as judges and juries. They're ALL a pack of thieves, knaves, charlatans, crooks and liars.

Best

I wonder how many of Judge Skinner's decisions were affected by his courtroom clashes with the abrasive personality of J.S.? Skinner seemed to greatly respect the older defense lawyer who also was a well-known college professor and often gave him the benefit of the doubt. It seems to be easy to favor one side over another in making rulings and yet stay within the limits of the law, which tends to adjust itself to accommodate the various strategies of the lawyers.

You ask whether recent rulings by juries were dictated by emotion or reason? Some are dictated by emotion rather than the facts I am sure. But that wasn't your first question, as I understood it. I thought the original question was whether a mother on a jury could base her decision on facts. And my answer was that I think they can.

By the way ..... I do not mean to knit pick about this. I am still obviously very emotional about the outcome of this particular trial.

Yes, LJ, that was a rhetorical question to stimulate response. And I think a lot of us feel the way you do about the judicial system--the lawyers, juries, judges. During our last week we may discuss what, if anyting, we can do about that.

We started this thread with asking whether we agreed with Facher's statement that he thought that,in the case of the death of children, a mother with young children would make her judgment on the basis of emotion rather than the evidence. My contention is that the dichotomy of evidence and emotion would apply to her as well as to most people who function on the basis of both intellect and emotion.

Jo: Maybe the "Old Boy" club applied to Facher and the judge and the brash young lawyer upset the status quo?

Russ

How timely can you get...

Just got a brochure in the mail re a lecture series two of which I would love to go to and am frustrated because they both fall on work nights...there's a reason to retire!

Alec Baldwin and Jan Schlichtmann are appearing together at Adelphi University, the topic being, "The Social Responsibility of The Actor". Strange combination. Is Baldwin connected with the film does anyone know?

The other one of interest is Jill Ker Conway the "Coorain" author who is currently a member of the board of trustees of Adelphi University.

OH, Helen!! Can you trade nights?? Oh, I'm so jealous!!

AND talk about timely stuff, did you all see on the news tonight that the EPA is about to pass a regulation which will be in effect late this year that an annual report must be put out on what's in your drinking water? The TV announcer here said that might not be a good idea, as "folks" might panic.

Think about that a minute.

I don't know who these "folks" are they keep talking about, but I really don't think we're all as stupid as they think. Also startling was the news that the report already exists here for our water, all we have to do is ask. I bet my neighbor will be excited.

Also it said the FDA is considering making the bottled water people label their bottled water.

Now, wasn't it JM who asked why the EPA didn't get involved? On page 49 and 50, Harr writes that when the CDC and the Mass Department of Public Health published their report of the large number of leukemia cases in Woburn, the "EPA was attempting to trace the contaminants back tot he point of origin, but that task, time-consuming and costly, would take at least another year." That was in 1981, does anybody remember anything else about the EPA after that?

There's no index, so it's hard to look stuff up.

Can't say this book club is not timely!

Ginny

Helen: If you attend youll have to inform us about Schlichtmann's appearance at the event in the Adelphi University.

Ginny: Thanks for your info on water and the possible requirement to label bottled water for content. Also, you ask about the EPA study. It is reported on page 456. In December after the end of the trial the EPA issued a report on the pump test of Wells G and H that it had conducted one year before. Why was it not reported in time for the trial? "At a public hearing in Woburn, the EPA administrator in charge of the project stated that the Beatrice land was the most grossly contaminated area in the aquifer, and by far the largest contributor to the pollution of the wells." This is in the part of the book we will cover in our last week.

Russ: I think what JM was asking was why (and I'm not sure, as it was so many posts ago: NOW we have the new Mark This Post button, and I could have marked her post and come back to it, but it takes so long these last few days to get in here, I'm just glad to be able to post this!)...anyway I think (JM help me out here?) that she was asking why the EPA did not DO something or get involved when it was announced that the land was contaminated?? Maybe I misunderstood the question...wouldn't be the first time! hahahahhahaha

Ginny

This week we have our longest reading. I hope many of you will take the time to read it again. Personally, I have gotten more out of the second reading in sections than out of my first reading of the entire book.

Russ

And, Russ, you are just doing a BANG UP job here, too, as Eddie Marie said in her post in the Library, YOU rate a 10+!!

Ginny

Thanks Eddie Marie and Ginny!

Russ

On top of that, You've been very patient with us. I must confess that after reading it, the book frustrated me so much that I have trouble getting back into the detail.

The Trial was mercifully, succinctly prersented. As complex as it was, I thought he did an excellent job there.

BEST

Personally, I felt sorry for the jury: who on earth could understand those questions?

Ginny

'Way those many posts ago I was trying to say that I couldn't understand how the EPA could remain so silent, so uninvolved with the issues here. So, yes, Ginny, I did mean, "Why didn't they DO something?" So much for the EPA (at least at that time), and so much for TV reporters who are afraid that we might GET UPSET ABOUT WHAT'S IN OUR WATER!!! More boo's and hiss's for Skinner if he did let the old-boy network interfere with his disposition of this case - and I think he did.

Thanks, Russell, for the questions, and for keeping the threads weaving so that I can understand what's going on after an absence from the posts!

I wondered where you were, JM!! You are missed when you aren't here. I have to restrain myself from writing a lot of you, saying WHERE are you and HOW are you and HOW'S it going?? May do it yet!

Ginny

And the beat goes on:

Did you see the news report last night on Tom's River, New Jersey and the cancer clusters. Industrial pollutants in the ground from local big businesses contaminating with their dumping of toxic materials. Much serious illness documented. The residents are drinking bottled water. I'm sure there will be more about it in detail in the paper today.

Russ: I agree that you are doing a terrific job with discussion and I thank you for the time and effort you have and continue to put into it.

Oh, yes, and Happy Valentines' Day !!

And if you didn't get a Valentine, this is YOURS, and you ARE loved!!

Ginny

JM: Good to hear from you again; your posts are always pertinent and helpful.

Helen: The beat does go on. Maybe Civil Action, the trial and the book, have sparked awareness, concern and action beyond our knowing! Then again, people in many places have discovered their own problems with contaminated water and are trying to address them.

Russ

Reflectinmg on our posts, I try to discover where our interests are greatest. Some have been more interested in the end of this journey (the book) and others have tried to comment on the journey itself.

In the beginning we said there were four identifiable streams in this book: the families, the lawyer, the corporations, the legal process. As I see it now, the journey is most important. What about the families? They were the plaintiffs and didn't even have a chance to testify. But we care about the families because, in a real sense, the families are US. We become the victims of forces beyond our control.

What about the central figure, the lawyer who, at great risk, laid himself on the line. In a sense he is US. And who of us is willing to cast the first stone? He struggles with powers beyond his own. We relate to what he is trying to do and hope we care so much that we are willing to weep with Anne Anderson, as he did, and put our actions where our mouths are.

Then there are these great corporations, so impersonal that it is almost impossible to fix responsibility, and it becomes easy to see ourselves, also, as nearly hopeless victims with little chance of redress.

Finally, there is the legal system that should champion the truth and guarantee justice, also being distorted in the hands of individuals with their own agendas and interests. Under this category we might include the jury which is required to make decisions where evidence is unclear, distorted or witheld. Isn't this jury also US?

Now, how about tackling some of the questions we've raised to highlight issues for this week?

Russ

I think, in answer to questions # 8 and 9 above, that the questions themselves were a blueprint for disaster.

The judge was interested in having the time of contamination established, thinking, no doubt, of future appeals and trials.

The questions were "the work of a committee whose members had already demonstrated their inability to agree on just about anything."

As a result, the jurors had to spend time reading "the questions several times, trying to parse the compound sentences. How could they possibly determine the month and year that the chemicals had arrived at the wells?"

When you add this to the wording of Question 4: "What, according to a preponderance of the evidence, was the earliest time (again both the month and year) at which the substantial contribution referred to in question 3 was caused by the negligent conduct of this defendant..." then it's no wonder they all agreed with Fox in his assertion that "September, 1973," was the date, as that was the date when Grace closed a storm drain at the plant into which workers had poured waste solvents. "Everyone quickly accepted this date, even though they had no idea what relation it bore to the question."

So here we see decision by fatigue, anything to finish. I don't think, as I said earlier in our discussion, that juries are capable of deciding this type of thing, and are a waste of taxpayer's money. Better spent money would go for a panel of judges: think of the OJ case, none of that posturing and delay and incredible expense would have happened.

I don't think it's possible to get a jury of peers. In Simpson's case, they'd all have to be former football player who are now sportscasters who occasionally play bit parts in movies.

In this case, the jury would be made up of the CEO's of huge corporations, all of whom have probably been sued. I bet there would have been a speedy end to this case if THEY had been empanelled.

Or would it have been those whose loved ones had died at the careless contamination of others? Another speedy end.

And wasn't it Pinder, whose wife remineded him to reread his deposition, but who ignored her?? Just like Caesar...with about the same result!

Ginny

GINNY, That was a realy percetive and analytical post. Much more-so than the book itself, your post gives "Food for thought"

Best

LJ, you are too kind.

A sad note today, since we are all a group of friends, is that our Larry Hanna, while on a trip to visit his father in Missouri who had just had a heart attack and stroke, has himself been hospitalized for his heart.

I know we are all wishing our Lar the best, and looking forward to when he can be among us again!

Another off the subject note is that I sat down to read Road From Coorain, and got up with 1/4th of it read. It's a strange book, so different, so unusual, so....you'll have to read it yourself, so we can have your ideas.

Meanwhile, this is the book of the year, and what about those jury questions? If you had been on the jury, how would YOU ahve answered them??

Ginny

Ginny! I agree that that was a very perceptive and analytical post: you read and gave thought to the appropriate passages of the book!! If I had been on the jury I would have done no better than they did.

Sorry to hear about Larry and wish him the best, hoping he'll soon be back with us again!

Russ

Thanks Ginny for the e-mail with the new URL to get on. Like Russ, I don't suppose I would have done any better either. With the judge's questions, there wasn't much to base it on.

Tell Larry that we all are pulling for him and have him in our prayers.

I will be gone for 2 weeks. My vote is an 8.5. As I said before, I had trouble remembering that it was not a work of fiction. One reason for that, I think, is that it only showed one side of the argument--presuming of course that there was some sort of valid side on the part of the defendants. Will talk to you when I return. Sharon

Sharon, what a good point: a one-sided point of view, think that's what's been nagging at me, too.

Have a safe trip, we'll miss you, and keep your vote for our tally

Ginny

To quote from the Afterword (p493)

"I used to believe in the idea that justice would prevail if you worked hard enough at it......I thought if judges saw cheating right in front of them, they'd do something about it.....The Woburn case gave me a depressing dose of reality"

At some point, way back in the begining, the idea of potential environmental harm must have entered some of the minds of the participants, but no guilt can be attached to the acts of contamination other than ignorance of the extent of the potential consequences. The real crime lay in the deliberate concealment of the evidence and perjured testimony. The social injustice was perpetrated by the legal system, which is probably no more or less corrupt than any other.

BEST

Today we enter the last week of our reading/discussion. My thanks to the many who have entered significant posts on this important book!!

Since space is limited in the Hightlights I could not put in several more paragraphs I thought significant, so I enter them here:

After settlement was decided Schlichtmann said, "Just put me back to where I was two years ago. Make me whole again!" Maybe we have all said that at some time, but as Thomas Wolfe put it, "You Can't Go Home Again."

The families met together to discuss the division of money. Schlishtmann informed them that the expenses of the case came to 2.6 million and legal fees weere 2.2 million. As it turned out, expenses as billed didn't begin to cover the true cost. Grace had spent seven million for legal fees and costs, and Beatrice had spent millions more.

Schlichtmann and Crowley cleaned out their storage rooms which contained 400 cartons holding the entire archive of the Woburn case, which Schlichtmann said represented nine years of his life.

Thanks LJ, for your post including the Nesson quote from the Afterword which I intended to post here.

Russ

I've been enjoying this discussion tremendously and my compliments to Russell for doing such a wonderful job. I read this book a while ago so I enjoyed reading everyone's reaction to this great story. While we vacationed in Costa Rica a couple weeks ago, I took "Road from Coorain" with me so I'd be ready for the discussion on this book. It's a wonderful story and I don't know how I ever missed reading it before. In fact, a few of our travel companions had read it and joined in with their praise. So, I gave them information about Seniornet and invited them to join, also.

Shirley!! Welcome, welcome!!

AND you've invited your friends to join us, and I hope 100 of them do! This is so fabulous.

I agree that Russ has just done a fabulous job. Can't imagine anybody else doing A Civil Action, and think we've really done it well.

I heard an interview with a Federal Judge on NPR Friday in which, in answer to a question put to him about juries and their ability to understand complicated trials, the Judge expressed total confidence in the jury system, and said if the lawyers were good enough, the Jury would understand all the points.

Interesting, no?

Ginny

My answer to #9:

Cynical and I use the word lightly. I know we are suppose to have the best judicial system in the world or that is what we are lead to believe. I think the judge in this case was a joke. Maybe cases such as these should have more than one judge. I still believe in the jury system, but not sure of the way they are chosen.

Why did the judge suppress so much of the evidence? What did he have to gain by doing this? Makes one wonder!!! Surely it wasn't his dislike for Sch. Talk about a miscarriage of justice.

This book made me angry, paranoid, more cynical about the way big business is allowed to get by with so much. But will it ever end? No! Big business can pay their way out of anything.

We the regular law abiding citizens---what chance do we have against such unscrupulous people---the same as the people in Woburn---very little.

Jimmie

I aagree with Jimmie W. about #9. I would add that it's depressing to think how endangered the ordinary (unfunded, unconnected, politically or judicially) citizen is in a system that operates this way. It's a wonder there was anything at all to award the families in this case, with someone like Skinner calling the shots, designing those absurd questions, and placidly citing the res judicata principle, another piece of insanity. The rest of the questions are great - or so they seem to me - because they spotlight the experience, motives and character of Schlichtmann. I think he has earned our attention legitimately, even though the story is one-sided. I honestly don't see why we should feel the arguments of the other side are neglected in this book, particularly in light of the evidence that emerged when it was too late for it to help the plaintiffs. Didn't the defense win more than they should have???? I'll be back to talk about the other questions! (Already reading next book - it's good!)

Word now comes from our Pat Scott that our Larry who has been hospitalized for chest pains in Missouri, is better, and may be released!

I can hear the sighs of relief from here, sure will be good to see him back again.

Ginny

Ginny, happy to hear about Larry, thanks for letting us know.

WELCOME, Shirley Streff!! You will make a good contribution to our discussions!

Jimmie: What did the judge have to gain by his actions? Perhaps to be in good standing with a large corporation located nearby (good county tax income?) and maintain a good relationship with an older lawyer of good standing? Whether that is right is another matter. I agree that we often have little chance against the unscrupulous and powerful. Is it not also true that our hope is in those people who are willing to struggle for and risk much for us?

JM: Yes, Sch earned our attention legitimately. I hope we will comment a little more on how we see him and his actions at this late stage of the book. My view, also, is that the story is not one-sided, evidenced partly by what the defense won. Because the prosecutor is the aggressor he creates the action and thus seems more visible.

Russ

I really did enjoy this book a lot, but as I stated almost at the beginning of our discussion the ending left me really upset and disgusted with the judge, the law, and of course with Grace and Beatrice. That is one reason I posted so little.

Thank you Russ for your very interesting questions, and for everyone's interesting comments. They have certainly added to my enjoyment of the book. You have done a masterful job.

I am very glad that Conway and Crowley were given the deeds to their homes back. Question.....Would you be happy if your lawyer husband told you that he put up your home to pay expenses for a case? I know that I would be more than upset.

Glad to hear that Larry is home. I'll send him a message. I am sure that his hospitalization gave Pat a good scare.

Thanks for keeping us up to date on everything. We are friends, and we do care. You are absolutely right Ginny.

I started The Road to Coorain, and I think we have another winner there.

I had reserved Cold Mountain ages ago at the library, and I was #30 on the list. The other day my friend asked me if I had read it, and offered to lend it to me. She had bought it, and of course I am just thrilled. I'll take it with me on our next cruise since she is in no hurry to get it back. Lucky, lucky me!!!

Sometime ago, I mentioned the leukemia cluster case in Marion, Ohio that our papers have been reporting on. The Ohio legislature appropriated 1.5 million for investigating several sites there, the high school athletic grounds are roped off and students have to find other places to practice sports, etc. Now, the Army Corps of Engineers are involved (along with the Ohio Board of Health, EPA, and probably more I've forgotten) as the site was a weapons depot during WW II. The Army is calling for any personnel who worked there during the war to contact them as they want to know what kinds of weapons were stored there - can you imagine? Wouldn't you think the Army would have kept some sort of records on this? The soil is contaminated at this site. Something to think about, isn't it?

Dear friends,

I posted a message here yesterday, not terribly important, but wonder what happened to it, and why when I entered here today my subscriptions didn't seem to work. Computers....Bah Humbug!! And sometimes....Yea, Yea!!

Thank you for letting us know about Larry. I did send him a get well message.

Russ....You have done a wonderful job leading the discussion about this important book. Congratulations and Thanks. I made my views known at the beginning of the discussion so didn't add much later on. I was just soooo taken aback by the final verdict, and disgusted by the judge that I didn't have much to add.

I was glad to see that Conway and Crowley had the deeds to their homes returned to them. My question is....what would you think if your spouse put the deed to your home up like that as collateral? I would have been in divorce court.

Seen in today's New York Times about our own Frank McCourt of Angela's Ashes fame.

"Quote, End Quote"

"When was the last time you saw a teacher on a talk show? asked Frank McCourt, a former teacher and the author of "Angela's Ashes," who will receive the Creative Leadership Award from New York University today. "When the experts gather to discuss education and the schools, there's always somebody form a think tank or a university or a union head, but it's like discussing surgery without having a surgeon in the room."

Yes Russ, perhaps Judge Skinner did hope to ingratiate himself with the large corps. and large impressive law firms. He could have had dollar signs in his eyes like Nesson who worked with Sch. Maybe he was thinking of retiring and hoped one of these corps. or firms would hire him. Any way, I do think he was responsible for these large corps. to get off virtually "scott free". Do you suppose he has ever given that any thought at all?

Power was also a big motive for Judge Skinner. He had the power and he used it. Why else would he not let the families take the stand?

As for the large corps. and such who do much for us and risk much, must it be at the risk of human lives? Do they take the approach sacrafice a few for the good of the masses? That sends a shriver down my spine.

Like Fran, this book has made me very angry. Again, how can an ordinary citizen get a fair trial? Many do not!!!

Jimmie

Just to comment on "A Civil Action" as a book, I think Jonathan Harr did a remarkable job recounting the story. I had to remind myself several times that it *wasn't* fiction. I dislike stories about "trials" but I was absolutely fascinated with this book. If it were fiction I'm sure Harr would have written a "satisfying" ending instead of the real life ending of "a whimper, not a bang".

Kudos to Russell Cervin for his masterful guide through this compelling book.

Eileen Megan

Just talking to Larry on telephone!!

Yes, I was just speaking to him and he assures me that he is feeling so much better since his surgery. He says he doesn't need any "Get Well Cards"!!!

The town library is getting internet access tomorrow and so he is really hoping that he will be able to get online to post here on the RoundTables.

His father is doing fairly well but at 78 years of age, all the operations (he had his carotid arteries done plus having had a stroke and heart attack) is taking a toll on him as well as the family.

So, I'm sure that even though Larry says he doesn't need any "Get Well Cards", I'm sure that a "Thinking of You" card will be much appreciated by Pat and him.

Anything sent by snail mail can be sent to:

SeniorNet
1 Kearny St., 3rd floor
San Francisco, California 94108

or just to his own email address. Stacey is sending any email on to him.

Pat

Just wrote Larry, Didn't realize he'd had surgery.

The book was well written. I thought it was fair and factual. It was, of course irritating, aggrevating, frustrating, enraging and objective.

Rather than actually learning from the volume, I get the feeling that I've had my Adrenals massaged

I think Schlictman, whatever his motives, deserves recognition as a humanitarian. If any improvements are to be made in our society, they must be made by men (And Women) like him.

Best

Good Morning to Everyone,

It was great to talk with Pat Scott last evening and was I ever surprised that she found me in Missouri. Things are looking up with my Father and myself. We hope to have my Father home from the hospital in a few days, although he has a long way to recovery and with the damage to his heart he will never be very strong again.

As I can only use the computer here at the local library for 30 minutes at a time (unless there are no other users waiting) I will make this short.

Larry

LARRY!! Nearly fainted when I saw your little name!! Hope you are doing well!

I, of course, was at dog OBEDIENCE, since you won't let me give you one of the puppies, somebody needs to do SOMETHING!

Hey, hey, this makes my day, what a fabulous fun discussion this is!!

Ginny

LJ: Your good post, especially about Schlichtman is the way I feel after spending considerable time with this book.

Hi, Larry!! I've missed you and hope you mend rapidly!

For those of you have pursued the human interest stories which are part of this book from beginning to end, no matter how upset about the final outcome, I want to say a special thanks!! You have helped us mine some gems and, in doing so, to see ourselves and feel for others on this journey we call life.

Russ

Hi, Larry hanna. Welcome back!

Ginny, thanks for the e-mail info., etc.

I guess we are finishing this one, so I'll just add my two cents' worth before the tent is folded. I agree about Schlichtmann - his persistence is an example of what it will take to save and redeem society, no matter what the particular issue. About question #6: The revelation of the contamination caused by the Beatrice-owned tannery shows that he was right to pursue conviction. If he hadn't spotlighted it so long and ardently the government investigation might never have occurred. Now, at least, the iniquity was public knowledge, and that is necessary to stop industries from polluting and killing us, our children, our grandchildren. The families were right about a guilty verdict being even more important than financial compensation for the same reason (#2).

Does anyone know what the laws governing (or failing to govern) industrial pollution were at the time of the case? I'm probably not reading that part carefully enough, or failing to understand what is being said. The Skinner style of jury instruction didn't help me any. Have the laws been tightened or clarified since this case?

To everyone here on senior net, L.J. Will not be posting for the next several days as he has suffered a mild heart attack, and is currently in the hospital. They are doing a cardiac cath as I am writing this and I really cant say much more until these test results are in. I will do my best to keep everyone informed.

OH, Andrhea not our LJ!!

Would you please tell him for all of us that we hope he feels better and is soon recovered, and is ready for the next marathon. We are all thinking of him. Please give him our love.

Do keep us informed every chance you get.

Thanks so much for your caring enough about us to write!

Ginny

This is a real bummer to read that LJ has had a mild heart attack. Sure hope they can get him fixed up with the heart cath, or least determine his problem. I will be keepin him in my thoughts and prayers and hope to see him posting again shortly.

Larry

LARRY HANNA! Hello, hello!! Can you get your email? He'll need a quadruple bypass again, apparently. His daughter wrote he was so enthused to hear you're back with us again and he's up to date on his reading.

so, Larry, When are you coming back and what's happening??

Ginny

Sorry to hear about LJ whose posts were always so meaningful. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!!

Ginny: There seems to be some conflict of dates. In our Reading Schedule, A Civil Action was to finish on Thursday, February 26th.

Russ

Hello Larry, and glad your better. Hope you father is improving as well.

LJ, hope all goes well with the heart cath. and you will be back soon. Good luck and prayers are with you.

When do we vote on Civil?

Jimmie

My prayers and thoughts go out to L.J. Thank you Andrhea for letting us know, and will look for your updates on L.J.'s condition. He is such an integral part of the group here and I ALWAYS look forward to his postings. Please, let him know we are thinking of him and God speed his return.

God Bless,

Eddie Elliott

I echo all the other posts about LJ. We all look forward to his thoughts and posts here on Seniornet Books. Andrhea, please let him know how much we all are thinking of him and hoping for his quick recovery so he can join us again - and tell him to be good there at the hospital and obey the nurses and doctors. You may have to take a laptop to him there to keep him occupied! All our best, LJ. - Ella Gibbons

LARRY - Good to have you back and do stay well!

Get well, get well, get well LJ!

HEY, Clubbers!! Let's get rolling again!

Don't mind telling you I've been knocked for a loop by the unexpected illnesses of our friends, but I know all of them, and they'll just get anxious if we dilly, so please let them know how much we miss them, and ON WITH THE SHOW!

And didn't our Russ do a masterful job with that discussion? The questions alone took so much work, and I, for one, am so grateful to him for his hard work.

Now, I want to answer his last question up there: what value did you find in the discussion of this book?

You know some people think book discussions are frivolous; don't feel they matter.

I think the insights we've gained from the revelations in this book and our pointing out of things I, for one, would have missed, and the chance to share our thoughts on VERY IMPORTANT TRUE issues which certainly do affect us all is just energizing.

And I, for one, am marching right down to the Water Works to SEE this report "folks" may be afraid of, and I would not, NO, have even thought to do that before this.

Also, it does give us hope. The "little man" CAN win, sometimes, but at what cost....now we MUST see the movie, and we'll keep Russ's excellent discussion and we can refer back to it and compare!

Will write you this pm, if you don't get a letter, say so tomorrow: something's wrong with my mail .

Nominate Today
Nominate Today
Nominate Today through Tuesday.
Since this is such a short time, we'll VOTE THURSDAY and POST OUR RATINGS OF A CIVIL ACTION ON THURSDAY, or you can post them any time from now on.

Now, hope you all have The Road From Coorain, the discussion starts Friday!!

Ginny Nominate Today

Russ, you did a masterful job on this discussion. The work you put in must have been very time consuming and we really do appreciate it very much. Thanks from a very grateful booklover.

I would like to vote now as I will be away next week and may not get another chance. I think a 9 for Civil Action. It was a very enlightening, thought provoking book. I think Jonathan Harr did a wonderful job in presenting both sides of the story.

Jimmie

Yes, Russ, thank you so much for your excellent handling of our discussion of A Civil Action. I am amazed at the amount of thought and work you put into it.

Did anyone see John Travolta, on Oprah the other day? He had just finished filming Primary Colors and said the movie he is working on now is A Civil Action. He described his part of John Schlictmann as, "a low level lawyer, who was taught a big lesson." Odd...I never thought of Schlictmann as a low level lawyer...what does that mean to all of you? What was the lesson he was taught...and by whom? Maybe I'm just tired and have lost any ability to comprehend??? Help me out!

Got to go now...Bob & I are going out to celebrate our 40th wedding anniversary tonight! Dinner, gamblig boat, FUN, FUN, FUN!!!

Later,

Eddie

Happy Happy 40th Anniversary, Eddie Marie Elliott and 40 more big ones!!

Ginny

WHERE are all our nominations? Surely you don't want ME to pick one!! ahhahahahahahahah

Eddie Marie,

Go to Spring Shenanigans for anniversary wishes.

Joan

This book and the discussion are important because they force us to realize that we must mistrust the law and other agencies that are supposed to protect us. Our destiny is in our own hands; no one else, no agency, is totally reliable. More of us should be on the march, like Ginny, to make sure we're being served adequately in respect to clean water, clean air, clean everything in our environment. Only if we don't care what happens to us now and much later can we dismiss the issues raised.

Secondarily, this discussion makes me think that many of us tend to scorn the flambuoyant personality, almost as if we equate power and Porsche with self-serving, insensitive behavior. I don't think that's the case. A show-off hedonist can still be a caring, thoughtful person. In Schlichtmann's case, I don't think his flashy presence meant he was unconcerned with the people of Woburn. In fact, I think his "flash" was another part of the drive and energy he used in his pursuit of justice for his clients. All these elements were (are?) in his nature, and are not as contradictory as they might seem.

Vote for A Civil Action: 8.5. (I hope that's what you mean by "vote"! I'm still new around here!)

Eddie Marie....40 congratulations to you and your husband on your anniversary. I hope you win big on that River Boat. I know you will both have fun.

LJ....I am so sorry to hear about your illness. When I see Larry posting so soon after his illness it gives me hope that you will be back with us soon also. Meanwhile.....I will hold you close to my heart.

Is this the place to vote? If so please count me in as a 9 for A Civil Action. Thanks to Russ's leadership in the discussion I learned a lot more after I read the book, than I did just reading it. Thanks again Russ. I'm with Ginny as far as being skeptical about our water system, and surely our big companies that may be polluting, and not taking responsibility.

A big thank you to Ginny also for keeping all of these book clubs on track and getting me back to reading regularly.

Thank you, Russ! My copy of 'Civil Action' had to go back to the public library shortly after this discussion started. That didn't stop me from checking in morning & night to read all the interesting postings. It's probably a good thing that I couldn't re-read the book. I, like Fran, was FUMING by the time I'd finished reading it. I'm still speechless at the questions the judge gave to the jury. ?!?! That was the weirdest part of the whole saga for me. Although I question Slickman's motives for getting involved in the case, I felt he became a Don Quixote type figure by the end; flawed, wounded, but giving it his all. The kind of lawyer I'd want on my side. Neither my husband, nor I, could put this book down. We give it a 9.

My husband and I both read A CIVIL ACTION. He will give it a 9 and I will give it an 8.

Thank you, Russ, for your excellent job as the discussion leader. I feel I did get much more out of the book with the questions, posts, etc. Thanks to all of you for your certainly "above average discussion" of A CIVIL ACTION.

BTW, I am going to recommend this book to my AAUW book group for a future selection.

Ginny, I thought we were doing Cold Mountain in April?

Jimmie

AH!!!! Jimmie, right on, we're so organized even I don't know what I'm doing.

Yes: Road From Coorain in March
Cold Mountain in April

AND WHAT? O WHAT in May?? for our May Day book?

I saw a couple of Oprah Winfrey shows in Austin, and was shocked at the excesses of money displayed by the people, (thought that was bragadoccio and in the past) so my first nomination, (I plan 3) is an old favorite: we've not had that kind of month, yet: Giant by Edna Ferber.

The movie with James Dean and Elizabeth Taylor is available for rental. They are making a NEW GIANT as well. I'd like to read the book and watch the old movie, and the new one, if it's out, and just enjoy Ferber's writing: she's a champ.

Yes, J.M very well done, we vote our ratings on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the highest.

I'm going to give Civil a 9. Wonderfully written book, never let you out of its clutches. We must see the movie and compare, will open a new folder for it.

MAY: OUR FIRST??? husband and wife voting team. So proud of you!!

Now, that's my "something old" nomination, back tomorrow with a "something new" nomination and I do give Russell Cervin a 15 on a scale of 1-10 for his grand leadership in this important book.

LOVE all your posts, you're all so smart!

Ginny

Ginny, Ginny, Ginny - how on earth do you keep track of everything!

I already posted my opinion (excellent) of the book and thanked Russell for all his hard work . . . so I vote a 9 for "A Civil Action".

My vote for the next book (??which month??) is my usual one "A Hundred Secret Senses" by Amy Tan.

Eileen Megan

Ah, Megan, isn't it obvious I don't? We must all pull together now as we're in crisis with our Larry and LJ out, and our Pat so involved with her husband's illness, and thanks to so many for helping! What wonderful posts!

Now I have the Discussion Schedule up top, I hope it's right, and hope to come in this pm and see a million more nominations!

Ginny

I too have already voted for A Civil Action, and give it a 9. And to Russ, who kept these discussions going, and added immeasurealby to my pleasure in dissecting the book a 100% and AAA+.

For the month of May, and every month thereafter...I will continue to nominate "The Color of Water". It has been on the N.Y.Times PAPERBACK best seller list for over a year now, and is the true story of a white woman who marries a black man in the South, brings 12 children into the world who ALL go on to college and advanced degrees etc. A true inspiration to everyone.

May nomination:

COMING HOME by Rosamunde Pilcher

This is a pre-WWII, WWII, and Post WWII book. Takes place in England.

As I will be out of town on March 5 and unable to vote, I would like to vote for COMING HOME.

Jimmie

I think A Civil Action deserves a 9. For such a complicated subject is was written in an understandable way. Only one thing;I didn't realize until the end that this book was written from the viewpoint of Schlictmann with the author following his activities. It would have been nice to know that at the start. It is a book that really held my interest. Thanks for leading the discussion and listing discussion questions; that added a lot to the enjoyment. Dale Knapschaefer

I am the fly in the ointment. I give A Civil Action a 7 because I had to work hard to finish it. I thought the book was excellent, and the topic absorbing and contemporary, but I drooped with all the lawyer stuff. It was certainly well researched and well written, but I thought it could have been shorter.

I, too, give Russ a STANDING OVATION for the leadership of this discussion and all the tremendous work in keeping it stimulating and up to date.

I would love so much to read the Hundred Secret Senses by Amy Tan, Eileen. You are so faithful to this book, it must be really wonderful. Consider my vote to be cast for this book.

Jimmie, we will be reading Coming Home in the Romance Book Club in April. Please come and join us then, as this is really a wonderfully gentle and well written book.

I'll be reading The Road from Coorain next week so I can be ready for the discussions.

Carole

Thanks to so many for kind words for me as discussion leader for A Civil Action. You all played an important part in keeping the discussion interesting and active! After all the time I spent with the book I will rate it a 9.5! Hope to add some nominations later.

Russ

Bravo, Russ, for this splendid discussion. I vote for GIANT in May. ok?

Hello all, am still in FL and using my stepdad's computer. Just caught up on all the posts. So sorry to hear about LJ, but am glad Larry is better. I already voted a 8.5 on CA. No nominations for May that I can think of.

Russ, you did a fantastic job at leading the discussion! What a precedent you have set.

I'll try to check back later in the week. Sharon

OK, we've got three absentee ballots already, but you may want to hold off until you see the full slate!

Now I have two more today, one old and one new.

Would just like to pause and say everyone is welcome to nominate, I see no reason why we should mail out the NY TIMES bestseller list this time, we're going to have enough to choose from, so LET the nominations continue, and we'll take them through Tuesday (TOMORROW)...

Just read a NY TIMES review of Fran's The Color of Water which said "The Color of Water will make you proud to be a member of the human race." Heady stuff.

This is a good time to be chatting about the merits or lack of same of the books nominated.

Now, I have two:

And want to pause here and say that of the current NY TIMES bestseller list, both paperback and hardback, our book clubs have read or are about to read 10!!!

That's pretty darn good.

So I guess you could say, to be au courant with what's going on in the world of books, you can do no better to come here and be in our groups!! Tell your friends!!

Now, I nominate one more from the NY TIMES list, (the Walter Lord)one old and one new. I guess you could say one "blue."

I nominate Walter Lord's A Night to Remember Bantam, Paperback, $5.99. The very famous old book by an historian about the Titanic disaster. The movie made by the same title is, in my opinion, vastly superior to the new "Titanic," and I'd like to compare all three with some of the conflicting accounts by survivors.

My last nomination is Palace Walk by Naguib Mahfouz, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. "a magnificent work, a wonderful story, a feast." "A majestic accoumplishment." Life in an Egyptian family.

This brings my nominations to two Nobel winners, Mahfouz and Ferber.

I think we're accumulating a wonderful slate, but we need YOUR input, do nominate today. Voting Thursday, I'll mail you a ballot, please vote HERE!

Ginny

PS: Riel and Hubby!!

I missed that! This is a FIRST for us, the first time we've got TWO, yes, count 'em, TWO voting husband and wife Clubbers!! I do call that wonderful! The McMillan and the Naab Clubbers!

And Sharon! Hello in Florida, hope you have avoided the awful storms!

I want to get my rating in for this book, which I really enjoyed and found to be very absorbing and thought provoking. It will give it a 9.5. It is a book that I will long remember.

I also want to add my thanks to Russ for his excellent leadership during this discussion. His work helped keep us focused and the questions made us think. Thanks, Russ.

I will sure be keeping LJ in my thoughts and prayers as I know what he is going through. Hopefully he will be able to bounce back to a vigorous lifestyle and will feel much better.

Larry

You are cordially invited
To attend the First Annual Gathering
Of the Book Groups
Of SeniorNet

Thursday, December 10-Sunday December 13
In New York City
in All its Pre Holiday Splendor

Accommodations Are Described in:
Joan Pearson "History: Book Discussion: King of the Confessors" 2/28/98 10:47am

Many Events Planned: Or Go Off On Your Own

Luncheon at Tavern on the Green
Saturday, December 12

All Area SeniorNetters Invited

For Information, email: jonkie@erols.com--- Joan Pearson

If you've gone to The Big Apple at Christmas time you know how magic it is, and you know how it sells out in February.

This hotel is run by nuns and they make no reservations before three months prior, but they have requested ASAP the number and type of rooms we want. Please note for $2.00 more ($69) you can get a double room with bath in room, and for $67, you get shared showers down the hall.

You can cancel up to two days in advance with no penalty. The air is on you: you've 10 months to make the best deal and price.

But the hotel wants our specific room requests (single/double…bath/ no bath) NOW, so they can write back and indicate what they have for us to choose from.
These rates are available to us as a Non-Profit organization and run approximately 1/5 to ¼ the going rate in NYC at the holidays. Alternate date in case of sell out: December 3-6.

We hope this FIRST annual Book Gathering will be a huge success, and we hope to meet many of you for the first time! Next year we'll have it in a different city, but we'll start off with a BANG in the Big Apple, and just have a ball!

DO join us!

If you have any idea you might go, please SEIZE this opportunity and join us!

RSVP

Ginny and all,

Since I'm back from my trip, I will go on and keep my rating of 8 (proxied to you Ginny) for A Civil Action. Thought it a good book...but wouldn't have been able to get as much out of it without the discussion here. Russ and the rest opened a much better understanding of it.

As far as the May book for discussion, I would also like to read The Color of Water. Another I would like to nominate is John Grisham's newest, The Street Lawyer. Amazon's review, and the first Chapter can be read here: The Street Lawyer Also, a contest is available to enter, whether you read the book or not, and an interview with Grisham. The first chapter made available hooked me!

Eddie

Hope you picked up on the fact that I mistakenly made a "clickable" to the CD Audio version of The Street Lawyer. The BOOK, at Amazon, is only $16.77. Sorry about that!

Eddie

Hi, everyone! Have you missed me? After day one of this discussion I decided to forego your charming company until I had at least caught up with you in the book, since I didn't want the plot revealed before I had a chance to read it. Well, guess what? I'm still less than a third of the way thru it. When I see the good ratings you are giving "A Civil Action" I know that I will finish it...eventually! There is just too darned much other stuff I have to read, to get it out of the way, and I just have not been able to get back into the book.

I've missed you...and hope to do better next time.

Love, Katie

WE always miss you, Katie, I was wondering where you were! Now, run out and get Road From Coorain, , it's short, and then you can be among us again!!

Also Cold Mountain !! Can't proceed without our Katie!

Last Day for Nominations!
Last Day for Nominations
Last Day for Nominations

Yes, this is IT, nominate today. Very very pleased and proud to announce that JM Meander will be taking over the Road From Coorain discussion Friday with very little notice! Now, she is kindly trying to help us all out here, as we frantically try to cover the ground formerly covered by Larry and LJ (you didn't KNOW it took so many people to do what they do effortlessly, did you??) will list all the people in a post here before long.

But YOU can help and really keep us rolling by getting a copy of Road From Coorain and helping JM and us out! THIS one has plenty to discuss! Call your friends, for once a memoir that is not depressing. Or is it??

Also my last nomination is not a new one nor a best seller nor a Nobel prize winner. I'ts light, it's fun, and it's good. I nominate Peter Mayle's A Year in Provence for the sheer fun of reading it. It was his first book, and many of his later books have NOT lived up to it, some have, most have not. But it's a fun, light book, a true story about an Englishman throwing it all up and going to live in the countryside of Southern France. It's hilarious. So it's a winner, and my FOURTH nomination and where are YOURS???

This Book Club Online is one of the first internet book clubs in existence, and it remains the best above any other, thanks to the people who post here. I KNOW those from other sites looking in here are green with envy over our members!

Ginny