“The United States has the power, ability, and resources to accomplish that objective. Dr. MacDougall believes, and many Americans would agree, that America has a moral and ethical responsibility, rooted in the essence of our humanity, to save those children’s lives. He himself saved hundreds of lives, one at a time in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the most grueling, difficult circumstances imaginable. But he saw that his efforts and the efforts of his compatriots were simply being overwhelmed. The flood of death continued, rendering their small victories insignificant. Who can be satisfied with saving one hundred lives, when a million are needlessly lost?
“Dr. MacDougall’s African experiences transformed his view of the world. He returned to the U.S. and devised a brilliant way to raise money to help children beset by poverty. He created a non-profit organization called the Blue Drop Foundation to raise money to provide poor people in Africa with access to clean water. He spoke directly with his political representatives. He wrote to the president of the United States, urging him to address what history will regard as one of humanity’s greatest failures. Sadly, his pleas fell on deaf ears.
“And so, badly traumatized by his experiences in Africa, frustrated but unwilling to accept defeat, and determined to do whatever was necessary to awaken America to the imperative of saving children’s lives, Dr. MacDougall was seized by a second idea. He will admit that his initial reaction to the thought of contaminating a watershed was one of revulsion, as it may be for many of you. But eventually, as all other alternatives were exhausted and unsuccessful, the idea became irresistible.”
All twelve jurors appeared to be riveted.
“Under American law, a defendant must satisfy four elements in order to rely on the defense of necessity. First, the harm to be avoided must be greater than the harm caused by the defendant’s illegal activities. In the present case, that test is easily met. On one side of the scales of justice, the residents of Seattle had a few days of concern about the quality of their drinking water, and a small number of people may have experienced mild nausea. On the other side, we have the senseless and avoidable deaths of millions of babies, toddlers, and children.
“Second, the harm to be prevented must be imminent. The defense only applies in urgent situations—crises and emergencies. Again, who can argue that the death of millions of children each and every year is anything but a humanitarian crisis of the most compelling urgency?
“The third requirement is that it must be reasonable to believe that the defendant’s actions will be effective in addressing the harm. The World Bank estimates that many of the most devastating aspects of African poverty could be eliminated in a few short years through an investment of $100 billion—the very amount that Dr. MacDougall was asking the U.S. to spend.
“The fourth element of the necessity defense is that there is no legal alternative to breaking the law. In this case, Dr. MacDougall pursued every lawful path to its ultimate dead end. He reached a point of desperation.
“We will provide you with incontrovertible evidence establishing all four components of the necessity defense. I must warn you that some of this evidence may be deeply disturbing. It may shock you to the core. Your hearts may be shattered by facts and images that describe human suffering on a scale that is almost incomprehensible to Americans living amongst the underappreciated daily luxuries of the twenty-first century. In the end, you will be able to understand what drove Dr. MacDougall to take the actions that initially may have seemed unthinkable to you. By the end of this trial, having reviewed all of the evidence, I believe you will agree with me that the man who sits before you acted to save lives, not take them.”
Chapter 41
After the lunch break, Marconi and her team began presenting their witnesses. The first was Stephen Carter, from the Central Intelligence Agency. Tall, slim, and radiating confidence, Carter strode ahead of the U.S. marshal and seated himself in the witness box, having performed this routine many times.
With his looks alone, Carter was magnetic. All eyes followed him, so nobody noticed Michael’s intense reaction. Eyes wide, he scribbled furiously on the yellow notepad in front of him and shoved it toward Yavari and Quarrington. He’s the one who tortured me!
The defense had received the list of prosecution witnesses in advance of trial, including the name Stephen Carter. But Michael had never learned the names of the men who’d tortured him.
Quarrington leaned over and whispered, “Maintain your composure.” Michael gritted his teeth and nodded.
Carter was sworn in and began testifying. He explained that he worked as a legal attaché for the Central Intelligence Agency in Nairobi, Kenya.
“I received an urgent call from the Director of the CIA. He instructed me to charter a helicopter and fly to Goma, where I was to apprehend a suspect wanted in relation to the terrorist attack on Seattle. I followed the instructions and arrested the fugitive.”
“Is that fugitive here in the courtroom today?” Marconi asked.
“Yes, ma’am. He’s sitting right over there.” Carter pointed toward Michael’s chest.
“What happened next?” Marconi continued.
“We flew to a secure location made available to us by the Rwandan government. I began interrogating the suspect. To my surprise, he was highly cooperative and immediately admitted responsibility for poisoning Seattle’s drinking water supply.”
“What were the exact words he used?”
“One of my colleagues made an audio recording of the interview, and it was transcribed for use in these proceedings.”
“Can you verify the accuracy and authenticity of the transcript?”
“Yes, ma’am.”
“So the defendant’s exact words were?”
“He said, and I quote, ‘I placed several gallons of perchloroethylene in the Chester Morse Reservoir.’”
“Did he explain how the perc came into his possession?”
“Yes. He admitted to stealing it from the Seattle hospital where he was employed.”
“And did he disclose any motive for this criminal terrorist act?”
“Yes. The suspect advised me that he was attempting to blackmail the United States of America into revising its foreign policy.”
“Did the accused, at any time, express any remorse about the fact that his actions had killed and injured innocent Americans?”
“No, ma’am.”
“Thank you, Mr. Carter. No further questions.” The prosecution’s strategy was to make an immediate and lasting impression on the jury. The defendant did it, he admitted it, and therefore he’s guilty.
“Over to you, Mr. Quarrington.” Judge Klinsmann bared his teeth in what passed for a smile.
Quarrington rubbed his hand on his chin for a minute, then said, “We have no questions for this witness, your honor.” There was no way to raise the issue of torture. It would be Michael’s word against Carter’s, and the prosecution could, if it needed to do so, buttress Carter’s testimony with the other agents present at the interrogation.
Klinsmann pushed his glasses up his long nose and fixed his gaze on Quarrington. “The defendant does not wish to contest the admissibility of his confession?”
“No, your honor, nor do we wish to distract the jury’s attention by raising the issues of kidnapping, coercion, and torture associated with the defendant’s treatment at the hands of Mr. Carter and other representatives of the American government.”
Marconi flashed to her feet, her posture perfectly straight. “Objection! Counsel for the defense cannot raise such outlandish and unsubstantiated assertions after pledging not to make an issue of them.”
“I agree. The objection is sustained and the jury will disregard Mr. Quarrington’s remarks. The witness is dismissed.”
The next two witnesses were brief. Alistair Gryzbowski of the Seattle Watershed Authority provided evidence about the email n
otifying the utility of the PCE contamination and the emergency response it triggered. Katie Cornett, a communications intern at the White House, described the receipt of the email claiming responsibility for the poisoning of Seattle’s reservoir and threatening a deadlier attack on another American city unless certain demands were met. Text versions of the emails were entered into evidence. Quarrington declined to cross-examine Gryzbowski or Cornett.
Marconi introduced the next prosecution witness. “Dr. Andrew Wright is a toxicologist with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.” Dr. Wright was a wisp of a man with unkempt gray hair and Coke-bottle eyeglasses. He wore an ill-fitting blue suit, and it was easy to imagine him more at home in a white lab coat.
“Dr. Wright, are you familiar with a chemical called perchloroethylene?”
“Yes. Perchloroethylene is a manufactured chemical consisting of four chlorine atoms and two carbon atoms. It is also called tetrachloroethylene and is commonly referred to as PCE or perc.”
“Could you please tell us about its chemical properties?”
“Certainly. At room temperature, perchloroethylene is a clear, non-viscous, nonflammable liquid. It evaporates easily and has a sweet odor. It is persistent, meaning it does not break down easily in the environment, and it bioaccumulates, meaning it builds up in the bodies of living organisms and in the food chain.”
“Now, most importantly, what are the adverse health effects of exposure to PCE?”
Dr. Wright bit his lower lip before answering. “PCE is a potent neurotoxin, a reproductive toxin, a developmental toxin, and a probable carcinogen. The adverse health effects of exposure to PCE depend, er—” He paused. “The adverse health effects of exposure to PCE include dizziness, headaches, sleepiness, confusion, nausea, vomiting, difficulty speaking and walking, ocular and respiratory irritation, unconsciousness, coma, and death. PCE damages the liver and kidneys and increases the risk of heart attacks. Women exposed to PCE suffer menstrual problems and abnormally high levels of spontaneous abortions. Recent studies indicate that PCE also crosses the placental barrier in pregnant women, causing as-yet-unknown health problems in fetuses.”
“Is there any known antidote to PCE poisoning?”
“No.”
“None?”
“None.”
“I see. And because of these hazardous properties, PCE is subject to extensive federal and state health, safety, and environmental legislation?”
“Oh yes. PCE is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Applicable laws include the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act.”
“So PCE, in your expert opinion, and I am quoting the United States Criminal Code here, is clearly a substance which, ‘through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death, temporary incapacitation, or permanent harm to humans or animals.’”
“Yes, definitely.”
“No further questions.”
“Thank you, Ms. Marconi.” Klinsmann continued to be solicitous towards the DA. “Mr. Quarrington?”
Quarrington wheeled his chair toward the witness box. “Dr. Wright, you have provided us with an exhaustive catalog of the potential health effects of exposure to perchloroethylene. I must admit that I have no formal training and no experience in the field of toxicology. I am a lawyer, not a scientist. So you must forgive me if my questions strike you as elementary, or even ill informed. However, there is a phrase, an old chestnut if you will, that has stuck in my mind for many years and which seems to have some bearing on your testimony here today.”
Dr. Wright fidgeted on his seat, bit his lower lip again, and glanced at Marconi.
“The phrase,” Quarrington continued, “dates back to the German Renaissance. Coined by a scholar by the name of Paracelsus, if memory serves me correctly. And the phrase is ‘the dose makes the poison.’ Is this a basic principle of toxicology?”
“Yes.”
“Would you be so kind as to illuminate the repercussions of that basic principle in the context of perchloroethylene?”
“Well, you need to understand that the effects of exposure to any hazardous substance depend on the dose, the duration of the exposure, the physiological pathway through which you are exposed, your personal genetic traits, and whether other chemicals are present.”
“Thank you. Let us focus on the dose for a moment. How does the dose to which a person is exposed relate to the disturbing catalog of adverse health effects that you articulated in your earlier testimony?”
“The higher the dose, the greater the likelihood that a person will experience adverse health effects.”
“Yes. And the longer the period of exposure?”
“Again. The higher the dose and the longer the period of exposure, the greater the likelihood that a person will experience adverse health effects.”
“And sir, are you aware of the level of contamination of the Chester Morse Reservoir as a result of the actions of my client, Dr. Michael MacDougall?”
“Yes.”
“What were the levels of contamination?”
“My understanding is that the levels of PCE in Seattle’s drinking water exceeded the health-based standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“Can you elaborate on that by providing the court with a numerical figure?”
“The EPA standard is five parts per billion.”
“And the levels of PCE detected in the Chester Morse Reservoir?”
“As high as eleven parts per billion, or more than twice the EPA standard.”
“Parts per billion?”
“Yes.”
“That is a difficult term to understand in the abstract. Could you try to describe it in layman’s terms?”
“I’m not sure I understand the question.”
“Can you provide us with an explanation of parts per billion, or perhaps a comparison so that we have a better grasp of the concept.”
Dr. Wright rubbed his chin, perplexed.
“Let me endeavor to provide some assistance. Imagine that you were pouring me a gin and tonic. How much gin would you add to my glass to make it eleven parts per billion?” Quarrington cast a smile toward the jury box, hazarding a guess that at least one juror would be sympathetic to the choice of comparisons.
“Ah, I see what you’re getting at. You certainly wouldn’t be able to taste the alcohol. It would be akin, roughly, to placing a teaspoon of gin into an Olympic-sized swimming pool of tonic water.”
“Thank you. And the adverse health effects that you described to the court earlier—brain damage, cancer, spontaneous abortions, and so forth—are those effects likely to be caused by short-term exposure to PCE at levels of a few parts per billion?”
Wright’s answer was mumbled.
“Would you be so kind as to repeat that answer, sir?”
“No, not likely. But possible. You see, the health effects of consuming water contaminated by low concentrations of PCE for a short period are not known with certainty.”
“Thank you. Let us move on. If my rudimentary understanding is correct, the adverse health effects that you described earlier are based on two kinds of studies. Occupational studies, in which individuals in the workplace are unintentionally exposed to elevated concentrations of PCE over a period of years, and animal experiments, in which mice and rats are deliberately exposed to extremely high concentrations of PCE, albeit for shorter durations. Is this basic summary correct?”
“Yes.”
“Can you summarize the exposure levels associated with occupational and animal studies?”
Wright looked at Marconi, silently beseeching her to somehow extricate him from this situati
on.
“Sir?” Quarrington pressed.
“Would the witness please answer the question?” Judge Klinsmann glared at Wright.
“Most occupational studies involve prolonged inhalation of PCE at levels between 75 and 300 parts per million.”
“I have to apologize, as I am not strong at mathematics. Did you say 75 to 300 parts per million, or billion?”
“Million.”
“Could you convert that to parts per billion, since that is the measurement being used in the prosecution of Dr. MacDougall?
Wright winced. “It would be 75,000 to 300,000 parts per billion.”
“Fascinating! So occupational studies involve concentrations more than one thousand times higher than in the case at hand. And animal studies?”
“Animal tests involve exposure to PCE at levels another order of magnitude higher.”
“Again, I must apologize for my ignorance. Please explain what you mean by an order of magnitude.”
“If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, then usually one is about ten times larger than the other. So the levels of PCE in the animal tests range from 1,000 to 3,000 parts per million.”
Quarrington raised his eyebrows and asked, “In parts per billion, please?”
“One to three million parts per billion,” Wright said quietly.
“Thank you. In other words, the evidence of adverse health effects that you described in your earlier testimony is based on exposures to levels of perchloroethylene that range from thousands to millions of times higher than that which occurred in Seattle?”
Wright looked like he wanted to disappear. Yavari was smiling because she’d taught her legal partner Toxicology 101. The old guy was a pretty quick study. Wright’s eyes flitted about the courtroom but found no avenue of escape.
“Dr. Wright?”
“Yes.”
“Would you please be so kind as to answer my question?”
“Yes, the adverse health effects I referred to earlier were based on levels of exposure significantly higher than the people of Seattle experienced.”
Thirst for Justice Page 24