Exercise 5

Meanwhile, in a room down the hall, Schlictmann - the maverick attorney who says he became "obsessed" with the Woburn case - talked about the need for citizens to become active watchdogs. The alternative, he said, was to allow some corporations to pollute, in a reference to Grace and Beatrice.

"If you want to keep the air safe, the water safe, you have to be a partner, along with government agencies. [Corporations] won't do it on their own," Schlictmann said.

(Rodriguez, Cindy "Real cast of 'A Civil Action' gathers to reflect on Woburn cancer case." The Boston Globe, January 31, 1999.)

Issue:

Conclusion:

Reasons:

Albert Balestrieri of 26 Naples Ave., North Woburn recalls seeing all kinds of chemicals dumped in that area as a youth.

"I remember as a kid seeing broken cardboards of acid and big mounds of red dye, I think they were called pirate's ore, from Canada."

"I remember hearing about how canisters of arsenic and lead were dumped down along the old B & M tracks," he says.

"If anyone ever took the time to take a look up there, they'd know what's in the ground. I've always felt it was a possible problem to our water supply," relates Balestrieri.

"I've been concerned about this for years. I've spoken up before about it. I've felt if it wasn't in the wells already, it soon would be."

"When they talked about hazardous materials, there's all kinds dumped up there. God knows where they've moved it to," he worries.

Balestrieri feels local city officials should have known. Anyone in the city who knew that the chemical plants were operating up there should have known hazardous materials were being dumped onto the ground.

(Ryan, Charles C. "Lagoon of arsenic discovered in North Woburn" The Daily Times, Woburn Edition, September 10, 1979)

Charles Ryan in this 1979 edition of the Daily Times writes this article, in support of the conclusion that there are more questions than answers in the Woburn case.

1. Evaluate the evidence used to support these conclusions.
2. What has Belestrieri (the person quoted) selected to place in his evidence? What might he have omitted? Why would he do this? What does he have to gain?