STATE OF MINNESOTA AND BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA,
PLAINTIFFS,

V. 

PHILIP MORRIS, INC., ET. AL., 
DEFENDANTS.


TOPIC:          TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
        TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET-NUMBER:  C1-94-8565
VENUE:          Minnesota District Court, Second Judicial District, Ramsey
County.

YEAR:           February 19, 1998
        A.M. Session

JUDGE:          Hon. Judge Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge

THE CLERK: All rise. Ramsey County District Court is now in session, the
Honorable Kenneth J. Fitzpatrick now presiding.
(Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: Please be seated.
    THE COURT: Good morning.
        (Collective "Good morning.")
    THE COURT: The record should show that Deposition Exhibit 139, which
was marked as Trial Exhibit 2548, was introduced without objection, and
that is received.
    Counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor. We would start this morning by
calling for cross-examination pursuant to Rule 611(c) Robert K. Heimann,
who is a former CEO and president of American Tobacco. It will be by video
deposition, Your Honor.
    MR. BERNICK: Your Honor, the record should reflect that this deposition
was taken in December 1986.
    MR. CIRESI: That's correct. It was taken in another action, Your Honor,
where the defendants were represented and had an opportunity to examine Mr.
Heimann.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Your Honor, that's not quite accurate. There was no
counsel for B.A.T Industries invited to attend, though present. Your Honor
has issued an order on the matter.
    THE COURT: That matter has been ruled on. Let's proceed.
        (Videotape played.)
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, the Exhibit 1 which will be referred to has
been entered into trial here as Exhibit 14145, the Frank Statement.
        (Videotape continued to be played.)
    MR. CIRESI: The Surgeon General's report, Your Honor, is GK00003.
That's already been admitted.
        (Videotape continued to be played.)
    MR. CIRESI: Plaintiffs call James Glenn, the CEO and chairman of CTR
for cross-examination pursuant to Rule 611(c).
    MR. BERNICK: Your Honor, could we have a brief side bar.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I want to take just two minutes to bring some
documents up, if I could. Could I have your permission to --
    THE COURT: Okay.
    MR. WEBER: Thank you.
    THE CLERK: Sir, will you please stand and raise your right hand.
    MR. CIRESI: I think we're still waiting for Mr. Weber, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Why don't you be seated for a moment.
    Ready?
    MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it.
    THE COURT: All right. Swear him in.
        (Witness sworn.)
    THE CLERK: Please state your name.
    THE WITNESS: James F. Glenn.
    THE CLERK: You may be seated.
    *2 JAMES F. GLENN called as a witness, being first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Good morning, sir.
    A. Good morning, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. You and I have never met before.
    A. No.
    Q. You live in Winchester, Kentucky; is that correct?
    A. Well not quite. I live halfway between Lexington and Winchester.
    Q. All right. What's the name of the town, sir, if there is a town?
    A. There is no town.
    Q. Just live on a farm.
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. And you're a graduate of the University of Rochester with
a B.A. in general science; is that correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you received your M.D. degree from Duke University in 1952?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1958 to 1959 you were an instructor at Duke?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1959 to 1961 you were an assistant professor of urology at
Yale?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you then moved to Bowman Gray School of Medicine from 1961 to
1963?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you were an associate professor of urology there?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Where is Bowman Gray, sir?
    A. In Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
    Q. Okay. That's the home of RJR?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from 1963 to 1980 you went back to Duke and you were a professor
of urology there?
    A. I was professor and chairman of the department.
    Q. And 1980 to 1983 you moved to Emory, in Atlanta, Georgia; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And you were a professor of surgery at Emory?
    A. And Dean of the medical school.
    Q. Okay. And in 1983 you moved again to Mount Sinai Hospital; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that's in New York.
    A. In New York.
    Q. And you were president of Mount Sinai Hospital and the medical
school there?
    A. I was president of the Mount Sinai Medical Center, president of the
Mount Sinai Medical School and president of Mount Sinai Hospital.
    Q. And you left there in 1987; is that correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You had a disagreement with the board of directors at that time?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. There had been some unauthorized surgery that took place at Mount
Sinai?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mount Sinai was investigated by the Department of Health; is
that correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you resigned at that time; correct, sir?
    A. I took retirement at that time.
    Q. Took retirement.
    The retirement was connected with the investigation by the Department
of Health; was it not, sir?
    A. No, sir. The retirement was predicated on the fact that I disagreed
with our board of trustees. Our surgeons had done a heart transplant
without knowing that they needed the specific permission of the
Commissioner of Health to do this. I defended the doctors' position. Our
board of trustees in general felt that they had financial liability, and
for that reason they were prepared to accept my resignation.
    Q. And you did resign at that time, at the same time of this incident;
is that correct?
    A. At the same time as what?
    Q. The incident.
    A. Well some months later. There was considerable exchange of ideas
about this.
    *3 Q. I'm sure there were.
    A. I felt the physicians had acted in a very responsible and ethical
matter. As a matter of fact, the patient did beautifully.
    Q. And in fact the hospital was fined in the thousands of dollars;
correct?
    A. Eight thousand dollars.
    Q. By the State Department of Health, which conducted an investigation;
correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And the hospital was not authorized to conduct this type of surgery
at that time; correct?
    A. At that time. But this precipitated full approval of the heart
transplant program, subsequently the liver transplant program.
    Q. After you left, sir; correct?
    A. Coincident with my departure.
    Q. Which means after you left; correct?
    A. No. "Coincident" means at the same time.
    Q. Were they approved after you left? "Yes" or "no," doctor.
    A. I can't remember the exact timing, but the -- the heart transplant
precipitated the negotiations to approve all of the Mount Sinai programs.
We were approved for kidney transplants at the time.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. That's the third time he's
interrupted the witness now. If he could complete his answer.
    THE COURT: Counsel, just make your objection.
    MR. WEBER: He's interrupting the witness.
    THE COURT: All right. Allow the witness to answer.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, my question is simple: After you left and after the
investigation by the Department of Health, it was then that Mount Sinai got
authorization; correct? "Yes" or "no."
    A. The authorization was subsequent to my departure.
    Q. Thank you.
    A. The negotiations preceded my departure.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the non-responsive portion.
    THE COURT: I'll let it stand.
    Q. Now sir, in 1987, then, when you left Mount Sinai Hospital, you went
to work for The Council for Tobacco Research; correct?
    A. That's not exactly correct. I -- I was invited to join the
Scientific Advisory Board of The Council for Tobacco Research before
leaving Mount Sinai, and I did so.
    Q. Well when you left Mount Sinai, did you join The Council for Tobacco
Research?
    A. I joined The Council for Tobacco Research before I left Mount Sinai.
    Q. Okay. And that was in July of 1987?
    A. No, sir, it was in April of 1987.
    Q. Okay. And in July you became the assistant scientific director of
the CTR?
    A. I did.
    Q. And at that time the chairman of the CTR was a gentleman by the name
of Hobbs?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And he was the former president of RJR, Reynolds; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And did you become the scientific director of CTR in 1988?
    A. I did.
    Q. And did you become the CEO and chairman and president of CTR in
1991?
    A. Essentially. I became the chairman and CEO in 1991, and I assumed
the title of president in 1993.
    Q. And you report to the board of directors of the CTR; is that
correct?
    A. I am the chairman of the board of directors of CTR.
    Q. And do you report to the board?
    *4 A. Certainly.
    Q. And the board consists of two representatives from Philip Morris?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from RJR?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from Lorillard?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Two from Brown & Williamson; correct?
    A. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Q. And essentially 100 percent of the funding of the CTR is derived
from those four companies in relationship to their share of the market;
correct?
    A. I'm proud to say that that's true.
    Q. And the board has the power to hire or fire people; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you serve at the pleasure of the board; correct?
    A. I suppose. That issue hasn't been discussed.
    Q. Well I'm not asking if it's been discussed. I don't mean to imply
anything by that, sir, I'm only asking you what the organizational
structure is. Do you understand that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. And so you do serve at the pleasure of the board of directors;
do you not?
    A. They are, I would assume, my employers, yes.
    Q. And they determine your income?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And presently you're paid 350,000 dollars for your work --
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. -- on an annual basis for the CTR; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now when you joined the CTR, you had an opportunity to investigate
its history; correct, sir?
    A. I -- I didn't understand the question, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. When you joined the CTR, you had an opportunity to investigate the
history of that organization.
    A. When I joined the Scientific Advisory Board, I did that, yes.
    Q. Okay. And you have a reasonable overview of that history; do you
not, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've read the annual reports of the CTR; correct?
    A. Not word for word, but I am familiar with the annual reports.
    Q. And you reviewed much correspondence in the archives or files of the
CTR; correct?
    A. Some of it, yes.
    Q. And you've had conversations with members who are on the staff of
the CTR who have been there for a long period of time; correct?
    A. I've had some conversations with the staff, yes.
    Q. Now sir, during the course of your career, you have conducted
yourself no research regarding smoking and health; have you?
    A. Not regarding smoking and health. I've sponsored research into the
beneficial function of nicotine on the smooth muscle of the urinary tract
under a grant from the American Medical Association Educational Research
Fund.
    Q. Well that was about, what, 25, 30 years ago?
    A. Maybe a little longer. Thirty.
    Q. That was back at Duke; --
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- correct?
    And you didn't do the hands-on work on that. That was done in the
laboratory that you were in charge of; correct, sir?
    A. It's my laboratory, yes.
    Q. Okay. So other than that, you yourself have conducted no research on
smoking and health during the entire course of your career; correct?
    A. I've done no direct research regarding smoking and health, but I've
dealt extensively with cancers that are said to be associated with smoking,
so I can't say that I've been remote from the problem.
    *5 Q. That's not what I asked you, doctor. I simply asked you whether
you yourself have conducted any research, direct research on smoking and
health.
    A. Well what is --
    Q. Let me --
    A. -- "direct research," Mr. Ciresi?
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, can I object now to counsel's commentary and his
argument with the witness? And the question's asked and answered.
    THE COURT: Well the question's been asked. You may answer the question.
    A. I have not done direct smoking research.
    Q. Thank you, sir.
        (Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, I believe up there -- if not we'll get them for you -- there
should be two books, we'll hand them up to you, that have some exhibits.
    MR. CIRESI: May I approach, Your Honor?
        (Documents handed to the witness.)
    A. Thank you.
    Q. You're welcome.
    Now doctor, during the course of my examination I'll be referring to
certain documents, and they'll be in either volume one or two. And if you
look on the side you'll see that it will say either volume two or volume
one.
    A. Volume one, volume two.
    Q. Right. Okay, good.
    Now have you had an opportunity to look at some of the documents which
we gave notice that we would be using with you?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And some of those documents you had seen before; correct, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. When you had your deposition taken, you had reviewed some of those
documents; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now doctor, can you direct your attention, please --
    And I'd like to discuss with you right now the formation of The Council
for Tobacco Research. All right? Understand where we're going?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And it was formerly known as the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. That's the name it had when it was formed in 1954; correct?
    A. As I understand it.
    Q. Okay. And you understand that based on your investigation of -- into
the history of the organization; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Can you direct your attention, please, to Exhibit 18905, which
would be in volume two of the volumes in front of you.
    A. I have it.
    Q. All right. This is one of the documents you've reviewed; correct,
sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. This is a document by Bert C. Goss, G-o-s-s, dated December
15th, 1953, and he was with Hill & Knowlton.
    MR. CIRESI: And we would offer that document, Your Honor, Exhibit
18905.
    MR. WEBER: I'd object to it on the basis of no foundation to be
established with this witness, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: You'll have to lay foundation.
    MR. CIRESI: The document was produced out of the files of the
University of Wisconsin. It's an ancient document. It's been authenticated.
That information has been provided to the defendants. It's admissible, Your
Honor, we suggest, under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as an admission of agents, it's
admissible under 801(d)(2)(B) as adoptive admissions, and it's admissible
as an ancient document under Rule 803(16).
    *6 MR. WEBER: With respect to those statements, Your Honor, we don't
even get to those rules until they've laid the foundation as to what it is.
I understand Mr. Ciresi says this came from the University of Wisconsin. I
assume he's going to say it came from a file at the University of
Wisconsin, but that still doesn't lay the foundation through this witness,
so I object.
    THE COURT: Can you tell us what it is?
    MR. CIRESI: Pardon me, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: Can -- can you tell us what it is?
    MR. CIRESI: It is a document from Hill & Knowlton, an authenticated
document, the authentication of which has been provided to the defendant.
That is the authentication under Rule 803(16).
    THE COURT: All right, the court will receive 18905.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, I would also put into the record Trial Exhibit
18893, which is the authentication received from the State Historical
Society of Wisconsin, and which has been provided to the defendants.
    MR. WEBER: Excuse me. What's the number on that, Mr. Ciresi?
    MR. CIRESI: 18893.
    MR. WEBER: Are you just attaching that to the record, or are you moving
its admission?
    MR. CIRESI: I'm moving its admission.
    MR. WEBER: Okay, I would -- I would object to 18893, Your Honor. The
objection is hearsay. It's a letter, as I understand Mr. Ciresi's
description, it's a letter from someone who's not testifying and who's not
affiliated with any of the parties hereto. So I object, clear hearsay.
    THE COURT: I believe it's a certificate of authentication.
    MR. CIRESI: That is correct, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Okay. Court will receive 18893.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, you understand that Hill & Knowlton was hired back in 1953
by many of the defendants in this case in order to help form the TIRC; do
you not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you heard Mr. Heimann testify here this morning; did you not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you heard him say that Mr. Hahn, the former president of
American Tobacco, gave birth to the TIRC; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And it was Mr. Hahn who contacted Hill & Knowlton; correct, sir?
    A. I -- I didn't appreciate that from the testimony I heard, but I -- I
would assume it might be correct.
    Q. Yes. And based on your review of the history of the TIRC, you have
found that to be correct; have you not?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, asked --
    A. I don't know.
    MR. WEBER: Let me object. Asked and answered.
    THE COURT: It's been asked and answered.
    Q. Can you direct your attention, please, to Exhibit 18905. And
specifically you see at the top the date December 15th, 1953; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now based on your knowledge of the history of this organization,
doctor, you know at this time in history that there had been studies
published in the medical literature with respect to the relationship of
smoking to lung cancer; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You knew that there was great alarm in the industry concerning these
documents; correct?
    A. I don't know that.
    *7 Q. Did you learn that from your review of the documents, that they
had a concern -- and by "they" I mean the industry -- about the publication
of these documents?
    A. I accept the word "concern." The concern was over a matter of public
health. We were -- in 1953 we were just beginning to learn the implications
of smoking. I would say in 1953 a majority of physicians were smokers. We
were just beginning to learn the -- the risk factors that were involved
with smoking.
    Q. Do you know, sir, what the companies themselves knew in late 1953
about the health risks of smoking?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Have you looked at their own internal documents to see what they
knew?
    A. Only those documents that have been provided, but I -- I can't say
that I knew what the companies knew in 1953, which was a long time ago.
    Q. But you know based on your review of the documents what some of
those companies knew; don't you?
    A. I don't think the companies knew anything more than the scientific
community knew, and we were just beginning to evolve the information that
we now have available to us today.
    Q. All right. Well we'll explore those issues as we go through your
testimony. All right?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. If you can direct your attention, then, to the first page of
Exhibit 18905. Do you see there, first of all, there's a Roman numeral I,
"Participants?"
    A. Yes.
    Q. And if you go to the third paragraph where it's reported as follows,
"The group was called together by Mr. Paul Hahn, president of The American
Tobacco Company. The chief executive officers of all the leading companies
- R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Benson & Hedges, U.S. Tobacco Company,
Brown & Williamson - have agreed to go along with a public relations
program on the health issue." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And you've read this document before, sir.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you do know that at the outset of the formation of the TIRC, now
known as the CTR, that one of its functions was to engage in public
relations; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Let me object to that, Your Honor, there's no foundation
apart from this document which has been introduced. I think he needs to lay
foundation with the witness.
    THE COURT: No. You may answer it if you know.
    THE WITNESS: I -- I should answer it, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: If you know the answer.
    A. Well I don't know the answer.
    Q. You didn't --
    A. I know from what I've read here that a public relations function was
a charge to the -- this TIRC that was being formed.
    Q. All right. So you --
    A. I think that's in the nature of public information presenting a
factual and objective picture to the public.
    This was an era when, Mr. Ciresi, when we didn't know all of the things
we know today.
    Q. Okay. I think you said a factual and accurate picture; is that what
you said?
    A. Yes. Yes.
    Q. And that was a public relations function of the TIRC; isn't that
what you said?
    A. That's what I said.
    *8 Q. Okay. So you would expect that the TIRC at that time would give
accurate and factual information based on the knowledge it and the industry
had; correct?
    A. It has done that consistently, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir. You would expect that's what they
would do; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. That was their duty; correct?
    A. Well I don't know about "duty," but there certainly was a charge for
the TIRC to fulfill at least the function of public relations, public
information.
    Q. No. But you said it had to be factual and accurate; correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. And you considered that, based on what you read as their charge,
that that was their responsibility; correct?
    A. I can't accept the term "responsibility" any more than "duty." This
is a -- being formed by the industry in the hope that they can present a
fair appraisal of the health hazards of smoking.
    Q. Didn't you think the industry at that time had a duty or
responsibility to convey information that it knew based on what you've
learned from these documents?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, no foundation for that, calls for a
legal conclusion.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that. You may answer.
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi, what was duty and responsibility.
    Q. Just don't know one way or the other; correct, doctor?
    A. No.
    Q. Now if you go down to the organizational heading on page one, Roman
numeral II, "Organization," do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. States as follows: "Because of the anti-trust background, the
companies do not favor the incorporation of a formal association. Instead,
they prefer strongly the organization of an informal committee which will
be specifically charged with the public relations function and readily
identified as such."
    If you turn over to the next page, sir. "For example, Mr. Hahn reported
that one name they had considered was the 'Tobacco Industry Committee for
Public Information.' John Hill suggested that he felt the word 'research'
should appear along with 'information' in the title of the committee." Do
you see that, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. Now Mr. Hill was from Hill & Knowlton, the public relations
firm; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And from reading this and from your knowledge of the background of
the organization known as CTR today, you knew that they were specifically
charged with the public relations function; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And when they were formed, they incorporated the public relations
individual, Mr. Hill's suggestion that the term "research" be put in its
name; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now at this meeting in 1953 you learned that the industry conveyed
to Mr. Hill their opinion with regard to whether there was any scientific
basis for the claims against smoking; correct?
    A. I was not at the meeting, Mr. Ciresi, and I -- clearly. I was an
intern in 1953 and I was busy.
    Q. No, I understand that, sir. But let me back up again so we put this
in proper perspective.
    *9 You've read some of these documents; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've learned things from these documents as to what was
happening; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And during the course of this litigation you have been
designated as the spokesperson for the CTR to answer questions regarding
the history of the CTR; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Let me object to that as a misstatement.
    MR. CIRESI: May I ask, Your Honor, what is a misstatement? I'd ask
counsel to say what is a misstatement about that.
    MR. WEBER: I don't think Dr. Glenn is designated as the CTR historian.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, were you designated pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure to
testify on certain matters regarding the CTR?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi. You're asking me a legal question. I -- I
guess I am a representative of the CTR.
    Q. And in this case were you not, pursuant to the Rules of Civil
Procedure, designated as the spokesman -- spokesperson for the CTR on a
number of subjects?
    MR. WEBER: Object to the vagueness of that, Your Honor. Can't we move
on and ask the questions, find out what he knows?
    THE COURT: Well just -- just a moment, please. Has he been designated
--
    MR. CIRESI: Yes, he has, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: -- or not, counsel?
    MR. WEBER: Well I've checked with CTR counsel who says that he was not
uniformly designated for all areas on CTR. Is that correct?
        (Inaudible comment by Mr. Steven Klugman to Mr. Weber.)
    MR. WEBER: Okay. He was produced in response to a 30(b)(6), but not
with respect to everything that ever happened over the 50 years.
    THE COURT: All right. He's been designated. Proceed.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. You understand you were designated as the spokesperson then of the
CTR.
    A. If counsel and His Honor tell me so, I accept that.
    Q. All right. Now --
    And that's why I'm asking you these questions, because you're the
person that's been produced. Do you understand that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now if we can go back to the document, then, the industry's
position, when you read this document, did you ascertain whether or not the
industry provided to the CTR a scientific basis to show there's no sound
reason to say that smoking is related to health? Did you make that
investigation?
    A. No.
    Q. Do you know, based on your conversations with people at the CTR,
whether any such investigation was made back in 1954?
    A. In 1953 and 1954, the time of this document, there was emerging a
body of evidence that linked smoking with a variety of diseases, and nobody
knew whether it was a causal relationship or whether it was a risk factor
or whether it was even associated. And there were early epidemiologic
studies that had been undertaken that were beginning to bring the
information to public attention and to the attention of the medical
community, but there were no definitive studies that said smoking causes
cancer or smoking causes heart disease. In part, the TIRC, which was formed
as a consequence of this meeting that we're discussing, was charged with
underwriting, funding efforts to obtain this information.
    *10 I hope that's responsive.
    Q. Well it wasn't, but I -- I like the last part of it. You said they
were charged with underwriting --
    A. Subsequently --
    THE COURT: Counsel, counsel, no comments here.
    MR. CIRESI: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I withdraw the comments.
    Q. I apologize to you, doctor.
    The last part of it, you said they were charged with undertaking
subsequent investigation to determine whether smoking caused the diseases;
is that right?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's not exactly what he said.
    THE COURT: Okay. You can answer that.
    A. My language may have been at odds with the facts, but one of the
purposes of TIRC, in addition to public information and public relations,
was to underwrite appropriate research into the questions of smoking and
health.
    Q. Okay. I'll accept that, charged with underwriting appropriate --
    MR. WEBER: I object to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Yes. Counsel, please refrain from commentary on the
witness's response.
    Q. Charged with the appropriate -- strike that.
    Charged with undertaking appropriate research into smoking and health.
Is that what you said?
    A. I can't remember exactly how I said it, Mr. Ciresi. But one of the
-- one of the purposes of TIRC was to underwrite -- that is, fund --
appropriate biomedical research into issues of smoking and health.
    Q. All right. Then I will accept what you said. Underwrite --
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor --
    THE COURT: Go ahead.
    Q. I will accept your words, sir. And you and I need to be on the same
definition so we can communicate. You understand that?
    A. Well I don't know how we could disagree. Funding appropriate
biomedical research, I think, was -- is fairly simple.
    Q. Into smoking and health, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. All right. Now, I want to go back to the question I asked you
before. In your investigation, did you ascertain whether the companies
provided to the CTR -- which was then known as the TIRC -- information that
it had in its files regarding smoking and health?
    A. I didn't ascertain that, but I think there's ample evidence that
information that the companies held was information that was generally
available in the biomedical research community.
    Q. Sir, my question is very specific. Did you conduct an investigation
to ascertain whether the companies provided information they had in their
files regarding smoking and health?
    A. I did not undertake any investigation to determine that.
    Q. Did you instruct anyone to undertake such an investigation?
    A. No, sir. This is ancient history, you know, this is nearly 50 years
ago.
    Q. Okay.
    THE COURT: Counsel, maybe we should take a short recess.
    MR. CIRESI: All right.
    THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.
        (Recess taken.)
    THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
        (Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: You may be seated.
    THE COURT: Counsel.
    *11 MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, during the course of your testimony we'll refer to the TIRC
and CTR as just the CTR. Is that agreeable with you? Then I don't have to
keep saying both organizations.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Did the CTR in 1954 issue a statement that smoking causes lung
cancer?
    A. Not to my knowledge.
    Q. Has the CTR today issued a statement that smoking causes lung
cancer?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. So from what you call the ancient history, over 40 years ago, right
up to today, there's been no public pronouncement by the CTR that smoking
causes lung cancer; correct?
    A. That's correct, Mr. Ciresi. And the reason is that --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- direct causal relationship has not been established.
    MR. CIRESI: I move to strike the non-responsive portion.
    THE COURT: It is non-responsive. It will be stricken.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now, going back again to 19 -- late 1953, at this meeting, Exhibit
18905, which you have in front of you, the industry wanted to sponsor a
public relations campaign which was positive in nature and entirely pro
cigarette; correct?
    A. I haven't read that, no, sir.
    Q. Can --
    A. I --
    Q. Can you look at page two of Exhibit 18905 under Roman numeral III,
"The Industry's Position," the fourth full paragraph.
    A. I see that now. Yes. I see that statement.
    Q. And the industry stated that they are confident that they could
supply Hill & Knowlton with comprehensive and authoritative scientific
material which completely refutes the health charges; correct?
    A. I see the statement.
    Q. Did you make an investigation to determine whether or not the
industry provided CTR with information in 1954 that completely refuted the
health charges?
    A. No, I did not make such an investigation.
    Q. Did the industry at any point in time right up to today ever provide
information to the CTR which completely refuted the health charges?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi, what information was provided. That
predates my time. We're talking about an era long before I arrived.
    Q. Sir, my question is from 1954 right up to today, has the industry
provided information to the CTR that completely refutes the health charges?
    A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to the next page, please. And I'd like
to specifically direct your attention to the indented paragraph that
starts, "Do the companies consider...." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. "Do the companies consider that their own advertising and
competitive practices have been a principal factor in creating a health
problem?
    "The companies voluntarily admitted this to be the case even before the
question was asked. They have informally talked over the problem and will
try to do something about it." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And you've seen that before; haven't you, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now what, based on your investigations, had the companies done to
create a health problem as of that time?
    *12 A. I did not investigate that, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Do you know what health problem is being referred to?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Do you know if it relates to lung cancer, sir?
    MR. WEBER: Objection. He said he had no knowledge. It's now
argumentative.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    Q. Have you ever seen any documents of the industry which might give
some inclination or clue as to what this health problem was?
    MR. WEBER: Same objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
    A. Well you're asking me to interpret the relatively few company
documents that I've seen, and I'm just -- I'm not able to do that. I don't
know the answer to your question.
    Q. Fair enough.
    You do know that the industry issued a Frank Statement; don't you, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And in that Frank Statement they made representations to the
American public; didn't they?
    A. I don't know what representation. It was an advertisement announcing
the formation of TIRC.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 14145, which is the Frank
Statement and is in evidence. And that would be in volume two, same volume,
sir.
    A. I have it.
    Q. You have seen that document before; correct?
    A. I have.
    Q. And if you look in the first column toward the bottom, sir, you see
the following statements: "We accept an interest in people's health as a
basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our
business?" Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And you understood, based upon your history with the CTR, that
that was a responsibility that the companies accepted; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Right up to this day; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And they also stated, "We believe the products we make are not
injurious to health." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. That's a representation that was made to the public in 1954;
correct?
    A. It is a statement made in the Frank Statement.
    Q. It's a representation made in the Frank Statement by these
defendants who signed it; correct?
    A. Yes. I -- I assume that we are saying the same thing. I don't know
what you mean by "representation" other than the fact that it is stated
here just as you read it.
    Q. Okay. How do you define "representation?"
    A. Well I'm represented in Congress by my elected congressman, I'm
represented here in this courtroom by my attorneys. That's representation.
I guess this is a representation.
    Q. Is that the only kind --
    A. I think we're saying the same thing. I was afraid that you were
asking me something in a legal sense that I didn't understand.
    Q. No, no, I'm just using the words that are here, sir. Okay? Now
you've given me two examples of representations, you're represented by an
attorney and you have a representative in Congress; is that right?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. When you make statements, do you make representations? Is that
another definition?
    A. That would be fine, if that's what it means, but I was afraid that
you were using a legal term that I didn't understand.
    *13 Q. Now when we look at the Frank Statement, there's nothing in
there about representation by an attorney; is there?
    A. I don't know that there is.
    Q. There's nothing in there about a representation by your congressman
or congresswoman; is there?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Okay. So the representation that's being referred to there is a
statement that was made by the industry; correct?
    A. If I interpret "representation" to simply mean the fact that they
made that statement, I agree with you. I don't want to argue with you.
    Q. And they made that statement to the American public; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And as far as you know, they intended the American public to rely on
that statement; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. They intended that statement to be truthful; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And it said that we do not believe that our products are
injurious to health; correct?
    A. That is a paraphrase of the statement, yes.
    Q. Okay. Now in the memo that we just saw, 18905, the companies had
voluntarily admitted that their practices had created a health problem;
correct?
    A. Yes, but it -- it's a very vague statement. I'm not sure what it
means.
    Q. But sir, we know that this -- or the whole formation of CTR was as a
result of these studies regarding lung cancer; correct? Don't we know that?
    A. No, I don't know that.
    Q. You don't. Okay.
    A. I don't think anyone knows that. The formation of CTR was in
response to the growing body of information that smoking had a deleterious
effect on health, and TIRC was formed in part to try to address the
questions of the necessary research to find out the answers to these
questions.
    Q. All right. A deleterious effect on health. That's why the TIRC in
part was founded; correct?
    A. Right.
    Q. Okay. And in this memo relating to the formation of that very
organization, the companies admitted that they have been a principal factor
in creating a health problem; correct?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, asked and answered.
    THE COURT: It's been asked and answered.
    Q. Sir, where in the Frank Statement do the defendants state we have
been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. It's not stated in the Frank Statement, --
    Q. Nowhere; correct?
    A. -- as far as I know.
    Q. Is that correct?
    Do you know if there was any statement to the public in 1954 where the
companies admitted that they had been a principal factor in creating a
health problem?
    MR. WEBER: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: No, that's a different question.
    A. I don't know of any such instance.
    Q. Do you know of any such instance right up to today where the tobacco
industry has said and admitted we have been a principal factor in creating
a health problem?
    A. I don't know that any of the companies have ever made a statement of
-- of that nature, but similar statements by industry executives have
indicated that they acknowledge that there is a relationship between
smoking and certain health problems.
    *14 Q. Are you relating to recent congressional testimony, sir?
    A. Recent and in the past.
    Q. Just a few weeks ago when the CEOs of the defendants went in front
of Congress and testified, is that what you're relating to?
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection, Your Honor, misleading. The "CEOs of the
defendants" is not an accurate statement.
    THE COURT: Yeah. You should be a little more specific, counsel.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Well let me help with that.
    One of them was part of the B.A.T family. Mr. Corrigan's client, B&W,
was one of --
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection.
    MR. CIRESI: Excuse me, sir.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs --
    THE COURT: Counsel --
    A. -- Brown & Williamson's?
    THE COURT: Counsel, please. If he's rising to make an objection, allow
him to make the objection.
    Go ahead.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection. My client is not B&W. That's a misstatement.
The whole question is improper.
    THE COURT: Okay. Proceed with the question.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs B&W?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Was one of the CEOs RJR?
    A. I don't know.
    I think the chief executives of all of the companies appeared before
Congress, but I was not there and I've not seen it.
    Q. All right. So as far as you know, they all appeared; correct?
    A. As far as I know.
    Q. Okay. And at that point did they admit, to your knowledge, that they
have been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Okay. So you don't know what they said at that congressional
hearing; correct, sir?
    A. No.
    Q. Do you know if they were seeking immunity for their past actions in
testifying in front --
    MR. WEBER: Object to that as argumentative and a misstatement, Your
Honor.
    THE COURT: Okay. It is not argumentative, but it doesn't seem to be
relevant here. He doesn't seem to know what they said.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, if I -- if I may make a proffer. The proffer in
terms of relevancy is to the punitive damage issue --
    MR. WEBER: Can we make this outside the scope -- if he's going to make
a proffer, outside the scope -- outside the hearing of the jury, Your
Honor? I'm not sure what he's going to say.
    THE COURT: Well neither am I.
        (Laughter.)
    THE COURT: Would you like to approach the bench?
    MR. CIRESI: That would be fine, if you'd rather do it that way.
    THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Sir, do you know if the defendants are seeking any type of immunity
from Congress for their past action?
    A. It's my understanding that that has been recommended.
    Q. So you are aware that the CEOs of these companies are seeking from
Congress immunity for their past conduct; correct?
    A. I know that immunity to liability suits is a -- is one of the
objectives of the tobacco settlement agreement.
    Q. And you've discussed that with people; haven't you, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You've discussed it with people from the tobacco companies; correct?
    A. That particular aspect? I don't know that I have.
    *15 Q. You've discussed aspects about how a proposed settlement might
affect the CTR; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've been told that it will affect the CTR.
    A. I've been told that it will affect the CTR.
    Q. And what have you been told about that, sir?
    A. Well I've read the -- I've read the -- the 30-page document that was
the proposed tobacco settlement agreement. This was the agreement struck
between attorneys for the tobacco companies and the attorneys general of
the various states that were involved. One of the recommendations relates
to CTR.
    Q. Is the CTR going to be disbanded?
    A. That the CTR activities be dissolved.
    Q. Dissolved.
    So your organization would be gone; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now, back to Exhibit 18905. And what we want to do, sir, is track
the history of the CTR from back when it was formed in 1954 up till now
when there's a proposal for it to be dissolved. Do you understand that?
    A. I guess so.
    Q. All right. Now you recall that I asked you earlier whether or not
the industry was alarmed and you said, "No, I wouldn't agree with that. I'd
use the word concern."
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Can you turn to page four. Let me read something to you at the
top of that page. "As another indication of how serious the problem is, the
officials stated that salesmen in the industry are frantically alarmed and
that the decline in tobacco stocks on the stock exchange market has caused
grave concern, especially since tobacco earnings will be much higher next
year because of the termination of excess profits taxes." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Now, do you recall now that when you read this previously, that
there was not just alarm but frantic alarm within the industry concerning
the seriousness of this problem?
    A. I think the document speaks for itself. That's what's written here,
the salesmen were frantic. I expect they were--
    Their concern was justified; there were public health issues being
raised.
    Q. And -- and you say it's justified because if those charges were
admitted or proven, sales could plummet; correct?
    A. What charges, Mr. Ciresi?
    Q. Health charges.
    A. No, there were no charges. There was scientific evidence that was
beginning to emerge that smoking was related to health problems.
    Q. Did the industry call them charges?
    A. They may have.
    Q. Okay. In fact you know they did; don't you, sir?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. Have you ever seen that in any of their documents?
    A. I don't recall.
    Q. Now in the last page of this document, do you see the people who are
present at this first meeting?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And one of the individuals was Mr. Hahn, who was president of The
American Tobacco Company; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now at this time do you know, based on your review of documents,
whether the individual companies had knowledge in their own files about
these serious health problems?
    A. I don't know that.
    *16 Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 12581, which is in the
same book, sir.
    Do you have it, sir?
    A. I have it.
    Q. And that's a "SURVEY OF CANCER RESEARCH with emphasis upon POSSIBLE
CARCINOGENS FROM TOBACCO" by Claude E. Teague, Jr., do you see that?
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. And this is an RJR document and it's dated 2 February 1953. Do you
see that, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you've reviewed this document; haven't you?
    A. I have seen it, yes.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to page 14 of the document, which
concludes -- strike that -- which includes the conclusions of Mr. Teague.
    A. I have it.
    Q. I want to read part of that. Starting with the second sentence, "The
closely parallel increase in cigarette smoking has led to the suspicion
that tobacco smoking is an important etiologic factor in the induction of
primary cancer of the lung. Studies of clinical data tend to confirm the
relationship between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking and incidence of
cancer of the lung." Do you see that, sir?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. Now do you know if that information was part of the
information that was being referred to in Exhibit 18905 where the
industry's CEOs said they have information that will completely refute the
scientific charges?
    A. Well there was information of that sort available. But I also think
Dr. Teague's statement here is scientifically correct, the suspicion that
tobacco smoking was an important etiologic factor, and that's what it was
in 1953, a suspicion.
    Q. Sir --
    A. So I think this is a very good report.
    Q. I'll agree with you on that. Now --
    MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: I'll withdraw it, Your Honor.
    Q. You consider this a very good report; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Fair statement of what the epidemiology was at the time?
    A. There was no accurate epidemiology in 1953.
    Q. Fair statement of what the epidemiology was at the time, sir?
    A. Fair statement of the suspicion that smoking bore a relationship to
lung cancer.
    Q. And that is based on the epidemiology of the time; correct? That's
what he's referring to here; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. All right. And this would be an accurate statement at that time;
correct?
    A. I think it probably was. There was this suspicion.
    Q. Now is --
    Does this then go to the issue that was in Exhibit 18905 where the CEOs
of the companies said they are confident they can supply us with
comprehensive and authoritative scientific material which completely
refutes the health charges?
    A. Well there was a lot of such information available. Even the Surgeon
General denied the relationship between smoking and health.
    Q. Well that doesn't mean it completely refutes the charges; does it,
sir?
    A. No. But there were -- there was a great body of evidence that was
negative. So, you know, you're asking me to go back and put myself 50 years
ago into the minds of people that I didn't even know.
    *17 Q. No, I'm not asking you to do that, sir. What I'm asking you to
do is look at the history and see what the companies knew and what they
said publicly. That's what I'm asking you to do.
    A. Well I don't think --
    Q. All right?
    A. -- the companies knew anything, and Dr. Teague does not suggest that
they knew anything.
    Q. Is Dr. Teague's statement consistent or inconsistent with the
statement of the CEOs that they would provide comprehensive and
authoritative scientific material which completely refutes the health
charges?
    A. It is perfectly consistent, because there was a large body of
evidence there that could have been used to refute, which is -- that is, to
counter or to debate --
    Q. So --
    A. -- the question.
    Q. So Dr. Teague's statement, quote, "Studies of clinical data tend to
confirm the relationship between heavy and prolonged smoking and incidence
of cancer of the lung," is consistent, according to your testimony under
oath, with the executive statement, "They are confident they can supply us
with comprehensive and authoritative scientific material which completely
refutes the health charges." Is that right?
    A. It is consistent, yes.
    Q. Okay. Now --
    A. And I would call your attention to the fact that Dr. Teague
acknowledges that this is studies of clinical data. Medically speaking,
clinical data means patient-derived information, it -- it doesn't mean
scientific fact. And it also says it tends to confirm the relationship
between heavy and prolonged tobacco smoking, and I think that was perfectly
true in 1953. That also is consistent with the fact that the companies may
have felt that they had evidence that would refute the argument that there
was any relationship.
    Q. So you'd say it's consistent; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. Now they're talking about the health charges; correct, in
Exhibit 18905?
    A. You'll have to read the statement to me, Mr. Ciresi. I don't see the
word "charges."
    Q. Well let me read it again, sir. Referring again to the executives of
the company, "They are confident they can supply us with comprehensive and
authoritative scientific material which completely refutes the health
charges;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Remember, I asked you whether or not the term was used, "health
charges?" Remember that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. So it was used; correct?
    A. The word is there, yes.
    Q. And the industry looked at it as health charges; didn't they?
    A. Well "charges" in the sense that there is a suspicion that there is
a relationship, I -- I accept that. I don't think that's inconsistent at
all.
    Q. Now do you know if the industry in 1954, or any member of the
industry, made a public statement such as is contained in Dr. Teague's
memorandum?
    A. No, I don't know whether they did or not. And I think it's
immaterial whether they did or not.
    Q. I didn't ask you whether it was immaterial. Do you know if they made
it?
    A. I don't know.
    *18 Q. You do know that lung cancer causes death; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. You --
    Is there something funny about that, sir?
    A. No. I think everybody knows that, and people have known that since
1895.
    Q. That was true in 1954; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. These were serious matters of health --
    A. Yes.
    A. -- concerning smokers; weren't they, sir?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And when they're serious matters of health, you would agree that a
company who puts out a product has a responsibility to get out all the
information that that company knows about that product; wouldn't you?
    A. I don't know what their responsibility was. They were manufacturing
a legal product. We were beginning to raise questions in the medical
community about health effects of the product.
    Q. Sir, you're a medical doctor; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Wouldn't you agree that when you're dealing with an issue of life
and death regarding the use of a product, that you would expect it to be
the responsibility of the company to get out all of the information it
knows about the dangers of its product?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's the question that was just
asked.
    THE COURT: You may answer that.
    A. I don't know what you mean by "responsibility," Mr. Ciresi. I think
that the companies acted very responsibly in setting up a research arm that
would address scientific questions in an unbiased and effective fashion. So
--
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- as far as responsibility is concerned, I think that demonstrates
a lot of responsibility.
    Q. Well you just said you don't know what responsibility is, then you
used  "responsible" in your answer.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor.
    A. In the sense that I used it.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, that's argumentative.
    THE COURT: It is argumentative.
    Q. Did you say you did not understand "responsibility," but then you
used  "responsible" in your answer? Did you do that?
    A. I said I didn't understand "responsible" in the sense that you used
it. I think you're using it in a -- in a legal sense. And I'm saying that
as I view social responsibility, the industry reacted appropriately in
setting up a research arm.
    Q. Well we'll get to that and what that research arm did. But let's
talk about, then, responsible in a social sense. That's what you said;
correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Do you believe in a social sense that a company which has a
product that can cause death, or may cause death, has a responsibility to
get out all of the information it knows about that product?
    A. Well I can't accept the term "cause," because in 1953 and even today
we do not -- we're not sure about causation scientifically.
    Q. I know you're not, sir, but that's not what my question is. So let
me -- let me repeat the question.
    MR. WEBER: Objection to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Try and refrain from commentary, counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: I will. I will indeed, Your Honor.
    *19 Q. And I apologize to you for the commentary. But try to listen to
my question. All right, doctor?
    A. I'm very capable to listen to your question, Mr. Ciresi. I'm not
able to answer all of them.
    Q. Well I understand that. Now just listen to my question.
    Do you believe from a social-responsible standpoint that a company
which markets a product, mass markets a product, should get out all of the
information it knows about the hazards of that product which may or may not
cause death?
    A. I've heard your question. I still don't know whether they're
responsible for doing that or not.
    Q. Okay. You simply can't answer that question; correct?
    A. I cannot. I don't think anyone can.
    Q. Sir, can you direct your attention to Exhibit 18904.
    A. I have it.
    Q. This is another Hill & Knowlton document; correct?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi. And I'm not sure I've ever seen this
document.
    Q. It was one of the ones provided for you to review, sir.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor. I think he just said he hadn't seen
the document.
    MR. CIRESI: Well I'm trying to refresh his recollection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: You may answer.
    A. I -- I don't think I have ever seen this, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did you see it --
    A. If I have, I've forgotten it.
    Q. Okay. Well that's what we're trying to do, refresh your
recollection.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 18904.
    MR. WEBER: What did he say?
    Okay. I have the same -- I'm sorry, Your Honor, I'm not hearing all
that well. I have the same objection to this one that I did with respect to
the earlier document characterized by Mr. Ciresi as being a Hill & Knowlton
document, plus in addition the fact that, particularly with this witness,
there's no foundation for it.
    THE COURT: Was this document noticed to the witness?
    MR. CIRESI: It was, Your Honor. And it's also a Hill & Knowlton
document that's authenticated, and the same rules of evidence apply to
this, as to Exhibit 18904.
    THE COURT: Court will receive 18904.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, from the previous document you knew that Hill & Knowlton
was going to talk to the research directors of the companies before the
Frank Statement was issued; correct?
    A. I believe so.
    Q. And can you turn your attention, please, to page two of this
memorandum. And you see here that there is notes of interviews with the
research directors?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And one of those statements was, "You'll get from them little real
information about lung cancer pro or con, but you'll find some mighty
interesting opinions. One of the men said, 'It's fortunate for us that
cigarettes are a habit they can't break.' Said another, "Boy! Wouldn't it
be wonderful if our company was the first to produce a cancer free
cigarette. What we could do to the competition!"'
    Now sir, in your investigation, did you ascertain whether or not any of
these companies ever told the public that they would like to produce a
cancer free cigarette?
    *20 A. Mr. Ciresi, I did not make such an investigation, as I told you
before.
    Q. Do you know if any such information was provided to the CTR?
    A. No, sir, I do not know.
    Q. Did you ever see any such information in the files of the CTR, sir?
    A. Not to my recollection.
    Q. Now you're not a qualified expert in addiction; are you?
    A. No, I don't think so. I understand addiction from general medical
point of view, but I'm not a qualified expert.
    Q. Now the CTR has never issued a statement that smoking is addictive;
has it?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Have any of the companies ever issued a statement on their product
that smoking is addictive?
    A. I don't know that they have, but I think everybody knows it's a
habit- forming product.
    Q. That's not what I asked you, sir.
    A. Yes, it is what you asked me.
    Q. No, it wasn't what I asked you. My question was this: Do you know if
any of the companies ever said on their product that smoking is addictive?
    A. I do not know that.
    Q. Do you know if Liggett has done that?
    A. I do not know that.
    Q. Do you know if any of the CEOs of any of these companies have ever
admitted that tobacco is addictive?
    A. I do not know whether they have or not.
    Q. Are you familiar with their congressional testimony on that?
    A. Only to the extent of reading about it in the newspaper.
    Q. Did you learn that they did admit that smoking was addictive?
    A. I've forgotten --
    MR. WEBER: I object to that as a mischaracterization, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Well you may answer that.
    A. I've forgotten the exact statement. I think they acknowledged the
things that we know in the general public, --
    Q. Now --
    A. -- not just in the medical community.
    Q. Did they -- did they acknowledge in Congress a couple weeks ago,
based on your reading, that smoking was addictive?
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor, calling for information from a
newspaper, it's been asked and answered, and it's a misstatement.
    THE COURT: It hasn't been answered.
    A. I don't know whether they admitted addiction or not.
    Q. Do you know if in 1994 they denied addiction in Congress?
    A. I recall that -- I think I recall that they did, on the basis of
good scientific fact.
    Q. Well you just said everybody in the world knew it.
    A. Well I didn't say addiction, I said habit-forming, habituation.
There's a big difference.
    Q. Didn't you just say that they just admitted what everybody knew from
common knowledge? Wasn't that the substance of what you said?
    A. That smoking is habit-forming.
    Q. Did they learn that between 1994 and 1998?
    A. No, sir, they learned that from 1900.
    Q. 1900. But in 1994 each one of the CEOs of these companies stood up,
put their hand up and swore under oath that it wasn't addictive; didn't
they, sir?
    MR. CORRIGAN: Objection, Your Honor, that is not a correct statement.
    MR. CIRESI: I'll exclude B.A.T Industries from that.
    MR. CORRIGAN: Thank you.
    *21 Q. Isn't that right, sir?
    A. I remember that they did that, and I -- I -- the justification of it
is based on the fact that they had scientific authorities saying that the
habit of smoking was not the same as addiction to heroin or cocaine.
    Q. So they denied in 1994 what you just said everybody knew since the
1900s.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, that's a clear misstatement of what's
been said, and it's argumentative.
    THE COURT: Well you may answer.
    Q. Isn't that right, sir?
    A. Would you ask the question again, Mr. Ciresi? I lost it.
    Q. Sure. In 1994 the CEOs of Brown & Williamson, RJR, Philip Morris,
American Tobacco, Lorillard, raised their right hand, swore under oath, and
said smoking is not addictive, something you said that was known since the
1900s, early 1900s.
    MR. WEBER: Objection again, Your Honor.
    Q. Is that correct, sir?
    THE COURT: You may answer.
    A. I will, but I'll have to go back to my original statement. I said
it's been known for a hundred years that smoking is habit-forming. But
there are scientific authorities that were telling the tobacco executives
that habituation is different from addiction, and they were asked the
question about addiction. They did swear that smoking was not addictive,
and there's much scientific evidence to -- to support that view.
    Q. And in 1994, that's six years after the Surgeon General issued a
report that said smoking was addictive; correct?
    A. Well, Mr. Ciresi, we're into a area that is very gray, and that is
what is addiction. And there are --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- as many definitions as there are authorities in the area.
    Q. Sir, you just said you're not an expert in addiction.
    A. I'm not.
    Q. All right. Now -- and I didn't --
    I wasn't into a gray area. I asked you a very simple question. In 1988
the Surgeon General issued a report that said cigarette smoking is
addictive; correct?
    A. I would have to know --
    Yes, that's correct.
    Q. Thank you.
    And six years after that, those CEOs stood up, raised their hand and
said it wasn't addictive; correct?
    A. Yes.
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's been asked and answered. It's
argumentative.
    THE COURT: It has been asked and answered.
    Q. Now sir, do you know what they learned between 1994 and two weeks or
three weeks ago when they stood up and said smoking is addictive?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, counsel is testifying now.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
    Q. Do you know what they learned?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. You do know, though, that they were seeking immunity; don't you?
    A. I -- I -- I don't know what the purpose was.
    Q. Just don't know.
    A. And I was not a part of the -- these hearings, as you understand.
    Q. Sir, can you direct your attention back to Exhibit 18904.
    A. 1890 --
    Q. Four.
    A. Four.
    Q. Now on the same page do you see the statement, "At the moment, these
men feel thrown for a loop. They've competed for years - not in price, not
in any real difference of quality - but just in ability to conjure up more
hypnotic claims and brighter assurances for what their own brand might do
for a smoker, compared to another brand." Do you see that?
    *22 A. I do.
    Q. Do you know, sir, based on the investigation you did make, whether
or not that relates to the statement in Exhibit 18905 where the companies
said they have been a principal factor in creating a health problem?
    A. I don't know. I can't interpret any relationship.
    Q. You don't see any relationship at all; correct?
    A. No, I didn't say that. I -- I -- I just simply cannot interpret it.
I don't know what's meant.
    Q. Okay. Can you go to the next page of this document, and do you see
right below the stars there, if you will, the following is written: "There
is only one problem -- confidence, and how to establish it; public
assurance, and how to create it -- in perhaps" -- I'm sorry -- "in a
perhaps long interim when scientific doubts must remain." Do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now in discharging its public relations function, did the CTR
undertake, based on your investigation, to create public assurance?
    A. I did not investigate that.
    Q. You read the Frank Statement; correct?
    A. I read the Frank Statement.
    Q. And when you looked at the Frank Statement, as you've testified, the
companies said there were no health problems with the cigarettes; correct?
    A. Companies did not believe that their products were injurious to
health, and I accept that that's what they believed.
    Q. And they also said that they will always cooperate closely with
those whose task it is to safeguard the public health; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And in the first part of the Frank Statement they said that
"Although" -- referring to the studies that had been conducted -- "Although
conducted by doctors of professional standing, these experiments are not
regarded as conclusive in the field of cancer research. However, we do not
believe that any serious medical research, even though its results are
inconclusive, should be disregarded or lightly dismissed." Correct?
    A. That's what is written, yes.
    Q. Now --
    And they talked about doctors of professional standing; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And they were talking about the doctors who had conducted these
studies; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And then in the next paragraph they wanted to do something else with
regard to getting across their message; didn't they?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And they wanted to talk about it being in the public interest to
call attention to the fact that eminent doctors and research scientists
have publicly questioned the claimed significance of these experiments;
correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. So they contrasted the doctors of professional standing who found
this relationship, and then on the other hand they said that there were
eminent doctors and research scientists who didn't disagree -- or
disagreed; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now sir, have you seen documents internally that would indicate that
the CRT's and The Tobacco Institute's charge was to create doubt about the
health charges?
    A. Not to create doubt, but to acknowledge the differences of opinion
that existed at that time.
    *23 Q. Have you ever seen any documents which stated that the charge of
the TI, Tobacco Institute, and CTR was to create public doubt?
    A. I don't know that I've ever seen that statement. And I can't speak
for The Tobacco Institute; that's an entirely separate organization.
    Q. Fair enough. We'll get to those.
    You don't remember right now; correct?
    A. I don't.
    Q. Okay. Now sir, if you go to the next page of Exhibit 18904, which
states "Problem 1." Now you understand this is a document that led to the
formation of the CTR; correct?
    MR. WEBER: I object, Your Honor, there's been no such testimony to
that. Counsel is testifying.
    THE COURT: Sustained.
    Q. Sir, do you know if this is a document that immediately preceded the
formation of the CTR?
    A. No, sir, I do not know that. You've told me that this is a document
from Hill & Knowlton, which is a public relations firm. I don't know that
this preceded or followed the formation of CTR/TIRC.
    Q. You do know that Hill & Knowlton was the one who formed the CTR
together with the industry; correct?
    A. I think they were employed by the industry.
    Q. Now direct your attention, then, to page four, "Problem 1."
    "The very first problem is to establish some public confidence in the
industry's leaders themselves, so that the public will believe their
assertion of their own interest in the public health." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. And as we've seen, one of the principles of the Frank
Statement was that the industry was going to work closely with public
health officials; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. In the interest of the public health; correct?
    A. Yes.
    I don't have the Frank Statement in front of me so I can't acknowledge
that your words are exactly correct, but the principle is.
    Q. If you -- if you want to confirm that, you can take a look. It's in
the same volume, 14145. Do you see there where they say, "We have always --
We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it
is to safeguard the public health?"
    A. Yes. And I think they have done so.
    Q. That's what they said; correct, sir?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. All right. And you understand that what we're doing here in this
court is to find out whether they did so or didn't. You understand?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's commentary, and he's lecturing.
    THE COURT: No, you can answer the question.
    Q. You understand that; don't you, sir?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. You don't. Okay.
    Now can you look down at "Problem 2" on Exhibit 18904. "To reassure the
public, and still instinctive fears, in this interim when definitive facts
for giving complete assurance are still lacking; when scientific doubts
must remain; and when new 'unfavorable' information can emerge from some
laboratory at any time, to act as a bomb shell on the whole tobacco
industry -- if it has meanwhile tried to pooh-pooh the unfavorable data" --
I'm sorry, "the unfavorable finding to date." Do you see that?
    *24 A. I do.
    Q. And you understood that what the CTR did in the Frank Statement was
encourage people to go on and smoke and take pleasure from it; correct?
    A. I don't understand that, no. Does it -- I --
    I don't know that it says go on and smoke and take pleasure in that.
    Q. Well can you look at the second column of the Frank Statement where
it says, "For more than 300 years tobacco has given solace, relaxation and
enjoyment to mankind." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Now, sir, do you think that that's sort of an encouragement that
smoking is a pleasurable thing to do?
    A. I think it speaks for itself.
    Q. Okay. And that does speak to the pleasures of smoking when it speaks
for itself; correct?
    A. Says just exactly what it says, "For more than 300 years tobacco has
given solace, relaxation and enjoyment to mankind." That's a factual
statement.
    Q. And that's consistent with what we see in 18904 where it's reported
that a smoker "might just as well go on enjoying his smoke in this interim
while research pursues the facts, with full assurance that any -- that if
any cancer- causing agent is ever really found in tobacco, the
manufacturers will quickly find a way to eliminate it." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Have the individual manufacturing defendants removed cancer-causing
agents from their cigarettes?
    A. They haven't found cancer-causing agents in cigarettes.
    Q. Never, right up to today; right?
    A. Today, yes.
    Q. That's your opinion; correct?
    A. That's the scientific opinion.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike, Your Honor, it's non-responsive.
    THE COURT: It is non-responsive.
    Q. That is your opinion; correct?
    A. It is my opinion, along with that of the scientific community.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the second part of the answer.
    THE COURT: I'll let it stand.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now sir, do you know if the defendants have represented that they
will remove cancer-causing agents?
    A. If they could identify it, yes.
    Q. Okay. And you don't think they've ever identified any cancer-causing
agent in any of their cigarettes; correct?
    A. I'm not sure that's correct, and that's a very broad statement. Many
chemical compounds have been identified in cigarette smoke, many -- many
particulate substances, over 3,000, so the task is formidable, and I don't
know that anybody can pinpoint any one specific agent, though there are a
number of agents that have been incriminated as possibly carcinogenic.
    Q. I'm just asking a simple question.
    A. Well I'm giving you -- it doesn't -- doesn't --
    It doesn't call for a simple answer, Mr. Ciresi. You can't answer it
simply.
    Q. Have any of the defendants ever found a cancer-causing agent in
their cigarette smoke?
    MR. WEBER: Object as asked and answered, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: I don't think it's been answered yet.
    Q. If you know.
    A. Well I do know, but you're asking a very simple question about an
extremely complex problem and I can't give you a simple "yes" or "no"
answer so that. I can -- I can tell you what -- what I know from --
    *25 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you know if any of the defendants have
ever said they have found cancer-causing agents in their cigarettes?
    A. They have found carcinogenic agents. Whether they cause cancer in
humans or not is an issue that has not been determined. And they found
these agents in very minute quantities.
    Q. Well, sir, you do know that the Surgeon General of the United States
has said that cigarettes cause cancer. You do know that.
    A. I do know that. And I know the sense in which the Surgeon General
uses the term "cause."
    Q. Sir --
    A. And it's different from the scientific --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- terminology.
    Q. I just asked you a very simple question. Do you know --
    MR. WEBER: Object to the continuing commentary, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, counsel keeps making objections to
non-responsive answers. I'm entitled to get a responsive answer from the
witness.
    THE COURT: All right. You may answer the question.
    THE WITNESS: I'm -- I'm trying, Your Honor, to answer the best I can.
    Q. Then, sir, if you listen to my question, and I'll listen to your
answer, and we'll get through this a lot quicker. Okay?
    Has the Surgeon General said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. The Surgeon General has said that smoking causes cancer.
    Q. Has the American Lung Association said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. American Lung Association has said, but I -- I must add to this the
fact that they are using the term "cause" in a different sense than the
scientific term.
    Q. Sir --
    A. And I accept it. The -- the word "cause" --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- in their circumstances is fine.
    Q. Sir, can you just answer my question? Has the American Medical
Association said that smoking causes cancer?
    A. The same answer, Mr. Ciresi. But I think it's misleading to the jury
if they don't know that causation issue is -- is a scientific matter.
    Q. Sir, has the American Medical Association said that smoking causes
cancer? "Yes" or "no."
    A. Yes.
    Q. Thank you.
    Has the World Health Organization said that smoking causes cancer?
"Yes" or "no?"
    A. Yes, and I accept that, but --
    Q. Thank you.
    A. -- again we come back to the definition of "causation."
    Q. Now, sir, can you turn your attention back to Exhibit 18904.
    A. 18 --
    Q. 904.
    Now at the top of page five there is reported that any cancer-causing
agent will be eliminated; correct? That's reported.
    A. I see it.
    Q. Okay. And indeed, over at page seven of the same report it is stated
at the bottom, "You can count on the cigarette companies, paren, who have
obligated themselves to pour millions of dollars into cancer research,
close paren, to take anything out of your cigarette that is a health
hazard, if our science ever really finds any such hazard in the wonderful
tobacco leaf." Correct?
    A. I see it.
    Q. Now, do you know if any of these companies in their own internal
documents ever said that they found a health hazard in the wonderful
tobacco leaf at any point over the last 40 years?
    *26 A. Oh, I --
    They most certainly did.
    Q. Okay. Now do you know, then, if they removed those hazards?
    A. Mr. Ciresi, this document that you're referring to is a -- is
written by public relations men. This is a document full of hype and
advertising terms. And to equate this with scientific evidence is really
straining things. I know that the companies have identified potential
carcinogens in tobacco smoke. The -- the problem relates to defining
scientifically the exact mode of -- of effect, and it gets to be a very
complicated problem.
    So the answer to your question is yes, they have found agents in
cigarette smoke that they think could be carcinogens.
    Q. That wasn't my question. That was the question before which you
answered yes to. My last question was: Do you know if they removed any of
those hazards that they found from their cigarettes?
    A. Any hazards or any cancer-causing agents? Which --
    Q. Hazards.
    A. Well I think that they --
    You know, I'm not an expert on the manufacture of cigarettes. My --
    Q. They have just --
    A. My -- my field is the science, and CTR deals with science, not with
the manufacturing of cigarettes.
    Q. Sir --
    A. So I can't speak to that.
    Q. So you don't know if they did or didn't. Is that your answer?
    A. Well I know that they've made efforts to filter cigarettes, I know
the things that everybody knows, the changes that they made in their
product over the years.
    Q. That's not what I asked you.
    A. I'm not -- I'm not an expert in this area and I can't testify to
that.
    Q. So you don't know if they have removed the hazards; do you?
    A. I don't know -- I don't know the details of manufacturing of
cigarettes. I'm not in that business.
    Q. Thank you.
    Now can you turn your attention to page five of Exhibit 18904.
    A. Are we still in the same document?
    Q. Yes, sir, we are.
    A. Okay.
    Q. And do you see page five, problem number three?
    A. I do.
    Q. And it's "How to validate this message of assurance." Do you see
that?
    A. I see it.
    Q. And do you see that there's being reported here by Hill & Knowlton
what they found by talking to the men in the industry?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And what they say is "The men talked to in the cigarette
companies tend to:
        (a) Think occasionally in terms of trying to 'smear' the personal
responsibility, motives, judgments, or techniques of Wynders -- Wynder and
others supporting him." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Now Dr. Wynder was one of the doctors who reported in the medical
literature about the relationship between smoking and lung cancer back in
the fifties; correct?
    A. Dr. Wynder was the man who painted tars on the backs of mice and
rats in the laboratory.
    Q. And that was reported in the medical literature.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. Now down at (c), it was also reported here back in late
1953 that the men talking in the cigarette companies tend "To overlook the
fact that in this particular instance, the stakes for the public are even
larger than for the tobacco manufacturers. (For the public, an issue
touching the deepest of human fears and instincts is involved - the issue
of uncontrollable disease and death. Hence cigarette companies might not
readily be forgiven, if their approach to this problem is stemmed only from
their eagerness to protect their earnings, and if they twisted the research
of medical science (which seeks to save men) into a device to save
stockholders. There is no precedent where a great industry has been forced
to face such grave issues."
    *27 Now, sir, did your investigation into the history of the CTR show
that this industry was faced with that precise issue in late 1953 and early
1954?
    A. Well as I've answered before, I didn't do an investigation of that
sort. And this document is written by public relations people, not by -- by
scientists.
    Q. Sir, is your answer that you didn't do that investigation?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. All right. Please look at the next paragraph. "In the past, industry
has given little twists to the facts of science, to convert them into sales
propoganda, without much risk. The cigarette industry has indeed been doing
this for years. We can therefore readily understand its assumptions that
the same technique will work now, in devising propoganda. But it is highly
important to note that the deep issues of life-and-death that are now
involved make highly doubtful the question as to whether the familiar
techniques can be relied upon. The stakes are too large; the penalties for
losing could be too great."
    Now, sir, do you see any relationship to that statement and the
statement in Exhibit 18905 where the industry had admitted that they have
-- and their conduct and advertising and competitive practices had been a
principal factor in creating a health problem? Do you see any relationship
of those two?
    A. You're relating this to the document 18905 --
    Q. Right.
    A. -- which is the -- the minutes of a meeting, background material on
the cigarette industry client.
    Q. That's correct.
    A. Well, you know, none of this -- I don't know what relationship there
is, but it -- clearly they're all dealing with the same topic.
    Q. Right. Okay. And they're dealing with disease and death; correct?
    A. They're talking about it from a lay point of view. There -- there's
no science in this, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Sir, they're talking about disease and death; correct?
    A. That is what is said here, and it speaks for itself.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of lung cancer from 1954 up
to today?
    A. I do not know.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of cardiovascular disease
from 1954 up to today?
    A. I do not know.
    Q. Do you know how many Americans have died of chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease from 1954 right up to today, sir?
    A. I do not know. You're asking me for epidemiologic information, and I
simply don't have that.
    Q. Now sir, in fact these companies did know back in 1958 that smoking
caused disease; didn't they?
    A. Will you define "cause" for me? Because we get into a very difficult
area. "Cause" to me means proven causation, replicable causation, and if
you use the -- the term "cause" in the lay sense, as the Surgeon General
has used it, I'll accept "cause."
    Q. Did these companies, using how the Surgeon General used it, know
that cigarettes caused lung cancer in 1954? Did they know that, sir?
    A. There was no scientific evidence in 1954 or, as you previously said,
1958.
    *28 Q. So they didn't know it in the lay sense, as you're saying it, in
1958; is that what you're saying?
    A. Mr. Ciresi, I said what I said.
    Q. All right. Can --
    A. If you want to define "cause," we -- we can go through that at
length.
    Q. You just said, sir, that in your opinion the Surgeon General uses
"cause" in a lay sense and says cigarette smoking caused cancer. Isn't that
what you said?
    A. I will accept the use of the word "cause" as used by the Surgeon
General, because he's using it as a warning to people --
    Q. Sir --
    A. -- that this is a health hazard.
    Q. Sir, he said "cause," and you said that was a lay sense; didn't you?
    A. Yes.
    Q. All right. Did the companies know that in 1955?
    MR. WEBER: Object, vague. How could they know in '55 what the Surgeon
General said in '64?
    THE COURT: I don't think that was the question.
    You may answer the question.
    A. I can't remember the dates, Mr. Ciresi, the date of the Surgeon
General's first report.
    Q. Did the companies, cigarette manufacturers, in 1955 know that
cigarette smoking caused cancer by using what you called the lay
definition? Did they know?
    A. I don't know that one way or the other. I don't know what they knew.
You're asking me to put myself in a position that's impossible.
    Q. Well can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11028.
    A. 1102?
    Q. 11028, sir. That would be in volume two. It's the very first
exhibit.
    A. I have it.
    Q. Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right up to
today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Which one of the defendants have told you that cigarette smoking
causes cancer?
    A. Which one of the defendants?
    Q. Yes.
    A. My father told me this. The cigarette companies didn't have to tell
me this.
    Q. Sir --
    MR. CIRESI: I move to strike, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: That answer will be stricken as non-responsive.
    Q. Which one of the defendants told you since 1987 that smoking causes
cancer? Which ones?
    A. We never discussed this issue.
    Q. Maybe you misunderstood my previous question. You just answered that
they did tell you that; didn't you, sir?
    A. There is tacit acknowledgment among the sponsors of CTR that they've
got a product that carries a risk factor.
    Q. Sir --
    A. And we know what the risk factors are and these things have been
discussed. For them to make a statement out of context that cigarette
smoking causes cancer is a most unlikely occurrence.
    Q. Well let me --
    A. I don't know that any of them ever said anything like that.
    Q. You don't know if any of them said it. Let me read back the question
and answer.
    "Question: Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right
up to today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    "Answer: Yes."
    You just gave that answer two minutes ago.
    A. Well I -- I'm accepting your use of the term "cause" because we have
discussed the -- the health issues.
    *29 Q. Which defendants told you since 1987 that smoking causes cancer?
Did RJR tell you that?
    A. I can't -- I can't answer that, Mr. Ciresi. I don't know --
    I can't recall of our conversations about the health issues related to
smoking. I can't recall specific conversations with representatives of the
tobacco industry.
    Q. Did Philip Morris --
    A. But --
    Q. -- tell you that, sir?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Brown & Williamson tell you that?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Lorillard tell you that?
    A. Same answer, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Did Liggett tell you that?
    A. I -- I -- I've never talked to anybody from Liggett, to my --
    Q. You haven't?
    A. No.
    Q. But you do know that since 1987, as you just testified under oath,
that representatives of the industry have told you that; correct, sir? You
just can't remember who; isn't that right?
    A. We --
    Mr. Ciresi, you're asking me something that I can't answer, because we
have had discussions about smoking and health with our directors, we have
made our directors aware of -- of the health issues that our Scientific
Advisory Board has been addressing. There is acknowledgment by the industry
representatives that they have a product that cause -- that causes health
problems, in the lay sense "causes."
    Q. Causes cancer; correct? Correct?
    A. And cardiovascular disease and other problems.
    Q. And chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; correct?
    A. I know -- I know all of them, Mr. Ciresi, you don't need to list
them.
    Q. And bladder cancer; correct?
    A. And if you accept the term "cause." But you're interrupting me.
    MR. WEBER: Could counsel return to the podium, Your Honor? I thought
that was the rule here.
    THE COURT: After he -- I think he wants to read that, but then I do
request that you return to the podium.
    Q. And sir, that's why you answered:
    "Question: Now did anyone from the cigarette companies from 1987 right
up to today ever tell you that cigarette smoking causes cancer?
    "Answer: Yes."
    That's why you said that under oath; isn't that right?
    A. I don't know exactly the context in which I said that. But we have
already discussed this question of cause. We've already discussed the fact
that the -- the companies acknowledge that there are health problems
associated with their tobacco products. And that's what our organization is
here to investigate.
    Q. And not one, not one of these defendants has ever publicly stated,
with the exception of Liggett, that smoking causes the diseases you just
admitted to. Isn't that right, sir? Not one.
    A. I don't know the answer to that.
    Q. The CTR hasn't; has it?
    A. No, sir. We have been --
    THE COURT: Counsel --
    A. -- intent on scientific investigation.
    THE COURT: Counsel, I think maybe we should recess for lunch.
    MR. CIRESI: All right.
    THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.
        (Recess taken.)

    THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
        (Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: Please be seated.
    THE COURT: Counsel.
    MR. CIRESI: Thank you, Your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen.
        (Collective "Good afternoon.")
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Good afternoon, doctor. Good afternoon, sir.
    A. Good afternoon.
    Q. Could you direct your attention to Exhibit 11028, which is in volume
two. It's the first exhibit.
    A. I have it.
    Q. And that is a report on a visit to the United States and Canada
during the period April 17th through May 12th, 1958, by three individuals
from England, Mr. Bentley, Mr. Felton and Mr. Reid. Do you see that, sir?
    A. I see that. I -- I did -- I do know where they're from, but it
doesn't indicate it here.
    Q. And you're familiar with this document; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And Mr. Bentley was from Imperial Tobacco; correct?
    A. I'm sorry, I missed the question.
    Q. Mr. Bentley was from Imperial Tobacco; correct?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. Can you turn to the next page. Do you see the itinerary there for
those three individuals?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Do you see that they were going to visit a number of companies and
institutions between the period April 17th and May 12th of 1958; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And one of those companies they were going to visit was the American
Tobacco Company in Richmond; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you're familiar with the name Mr. Hanmer; are you not?
    A. No.
    Q. Did you know that he was a top scientist at American?
    A. No, I did not know.
    Q. Did you know that Mr. Harlan was the head of research and
development at American?
    A. No, sir, I did not know that.
    Q. Did you know Mr. Harlow was a scientist there?
    A. No, sir, I did not.
    Q. You're familiar with the Medical College of Virginia; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Consider that a good institution?
    A. Excellent.
    Q. Okay. Duke University, you're certainly familiar with that; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Consider that an excellent institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Liggett & Myers is another company; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That was one of the tobacco manufacturers at that time; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you see that the two individuals visited there were Dr. Darkis
and Dr. Bates?
    *2 A. Yes.
    Q. Do you know that they are respectively the head of R&D and a senior
scientist?
    A. I did not know that.
    Q. You've reviewed this document before; haven't you, sir?
    A. I have, but they weren't identified as you are identifying them now.
    Q. Okay. Counsel didn't identify them for you?
    A. No. And I didn't ask for it.
    Q. Your own counsel didn't identify them?
    A. No.
    This document is from 1958. It really has little bearing on today.
    Q. We'll see if that's true, sir. The next --
    MR. WEBER: Object to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Objection sustained.
    Q. The next company visited was Philip Morris; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. You know that company; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. They're a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. American is a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Liggett is a defendant here today; are they not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Did you know who Dr. -- or Mr. Seligman or Mr. O'Keefe were?
    A. I've seen Mr. Seligman's name on -- on documents. I can't recall
where.
    Q. Okay.
    A. I don't know the name O'Keefe.
    Q. Do you know if Mr. Seligman was at one point in time the head of
research and development at Philip Morris?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. You know the organization A. D. Little, Inc.?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And what is A. D. Little, Inc., sir?
    A. Arthur Little is a research company. I'm not totally familiar with
it, but I know generally what they do.
    Q. Respected research organization?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now the next notation is TIRC. That's the CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You know who Mr. Hoyt was?
    A. Mr. Hoyt was the president of the TIRC. Or I think at that time they
referred to him as director.
    Q. Director of TIRC; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mr. Carl Thomson, he was with Hill & Knowlton; correct?
    A. It is so noted.
    Q. The next institution is Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York?
    A. Roswell Park.
    Q. Roswell Park.
    A. Yes.
    Q. You're familiar with that institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. The next is Yale University; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected institution?
    A. Yes, indeed.
    Q. Next institution is Biological Research Institute, Inc. in
Cambridge, Massachusetts?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Familiar with that; are you not, sir?
    A. Historically, yes.
    Q. It was a respected institution; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Dr. Homburger was respected?
    A. Not universally.
    Q. Not universally.
    A. No.
    Q. How many people are respected universally?
    A. A lot.
    Q. A lot? Okay.
    The next institution is Roscoe Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor. Do you
see that?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that was a respected institution at that time?
    A. Yes, indeed.
    Q. And the next is the Industrial Technical Committee of TIRC in
Richmond; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And there we see Mr. Hanmer's name; correct?
    *3 A. Correct.
    Q. And he's down as chairman; correct?
    A. It's so noted.
    Q. And that's the same Mr. Harriman that's up there -- or Hanmer,
excuse me, that's noted next to The American Tobacco Company; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. So he was chairman of the Industrial Technical Committee of
TIRC at that time; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And as we all know, TIRC is the forerunner to CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Dr. Hockett, who is Dr. Hockett?
    A. Dr. Hockett was one of the scientific directors, associate
scientific director of TIRC.
    Q. And then the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Respected institution?
    A. Certainly.
    Q. Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Respected medical institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. New York University of New York; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. That's another respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And then we have Dr. Little from the TIRC in New York, and was he
chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board?
    A. He was.
    Q. Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Dr. Wynder and Dr. Spranger; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Sloan-Kettering, respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And TIRC from New York again, and that's the Scientific Advisory
Board; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And finally in Montreal a Dr. Wright from the University of Toronto;
correct?
    A. Right.
    Q. And the University of Toronto is a respected institution?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now sir, can you direct your attention to the next page. Now have
you read this document before?
    A. Yes, I have.
    Q. Talked to your lawyers about it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Reviewed this in preparation for your testimony?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Reviewed it before your deposition was taken?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now one of the questions that the individuals from England were
seeking information on was the extent to which it is accepted that
cigarette smoke causes lung cancer; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And another question that was being addressed at that time, in
number six, is the attitude of the tobacco industry in the United States
and Canada to biological research; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And "biological research," how would you define that, doctor?
    A. Well I don't know it bears any definition. "Biological research"
simply means investigation of biological events, biomedical, basic
biological.
    Q. Well isn't it --
    A. A whole array of --
    Q. Isn't it --
    A. -- of science.
    Q. Is biological research research involving animals?
    A. Oh, animals, human beings, bacteria, viruses.
    Q. Living organisms.
    A. Any -- any living thing.
    Q. Okay. Can we agree on that definition, it's research involving
living organisms?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now if you direct your attention to the first full paragraph under
"'CAUSATION' OF LUNG CANCER," do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. It states as follows: "With one exception (H.S.N. Greene)" --
    *4 And he was from Yale; was he not?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- "the individuals whom we met believed that smoking causes lung
cancer if by 'causation' we mean any chain of events which leads finally to
lung cancer and which involves smoking as an indispensable link." Do you
see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now, those individuals whom they met with included all of the
individuals on the preceding page; correct?
    A. I assume that, yes.
    Q. And that involved people from American Tobacco; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved people from Philip Morris; correct?
    A. It is so stated.
    Q. It involved people from Liggett & Myers; correct?
    A. They are listed.
    Q. It involved the CTR personnel who are listed; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Involved Dr. Little; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. It involved Dr. Hockett; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved Mr. Hoyt; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved Mr. Thompson from Hill & Knowlton; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. It involved the Scientific Advisory Board of CTR; correct?
    A. Apparently.
    Q. And all of those people believed that lung smoking causes cancer if
by causation they mean any chain of events which leads finally to lung
cancer and which involves smoking as an indispensable link; correct?
    A. No. The statement is that they all believe that, but that is the
interpretation of the author of this document, and in fact later in this
document it's perfectly clear that this was not a universal belief.
    Q. Sir, --
    A. There was a suspicion.
    Q. -- is that what's reported right there in that paragraph?
    A. The report is here and I acknowledged what you have read. What I'm
unable to do is to put myself into this man's mind at that time. And as I
read further in the document, it is clear that he continues to raise
questions about, quote, causation, which is almost universally in quotes.
    Q. Well we'll get to further in the document.
    Now in the second paragraph, does it -- is it also reported that "There
is no support for the view that in the same individual the tendency to
smoke and to be susceptible to lung cancer are each independently an
outward expression of some third unknown factor?" Does he report that -- or
do they report that? Excuse me.
    A. I -- I see the statement as you have read it.
    Q. Okay. And down at the bottom of that page, is it reported that "The
Scientific Advisory Board of the TIRC and the group we met at the National
Cancer Institute -- Cancer Institute, in Bethesda, broadly take the view
that causation is likely to be indirect?"
    A. That is what it says.
    Q. And it says, "Several hypothetical means by which this occur were
proposed but with no experimental evidence to support any of them." Is that
right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. So this indirect causation; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And on the next page does it state, "Otherwise we found general
acceptance of the view that the most likely means of causation is that
tobacco smoke contains carcinogenic substances present in sufficient
quantity to provide lung cancer when acting for a long time in a sensitive
individual." Is that reported?
    *5 A. That is what is written, yes.
    Q. Now where in the Frank Statement is any of that information
reported?
    A. It is not.
    Q. In 1955 or 1956 or 1957 or 1958, was that ever reported by any of
the defendant manufacturers?
    A. No, sir. But it was reported generally in the medical literature and
in the lay literature.
    Q. Sir, my question very simply to you: Was it reported by any of the
defendant manufacturers? "Yes" or "no?"
    A. Not to my knowledge.
    Q. Did the CTR report that?
    A. No, sir. The CTR makes no reports.
    Q. Can you direct your attention in this document to the conclusions.
Now I want to start with the first one.
    "Although there remains some doubt as to the proportion of the total
lung cancer mortality which can fairly be attributed to smoking, scientific
opinion in U.S.A. does not now seriously doubt that the statistical
correlation is real and reflects a cause and effect relationship." Do you
see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now the statistical correlation that is being referred to is
epidemiological studies; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. They can be prospective, retrospective studies; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. They can be case-control studies; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. They can be randomized clinical trials; correct?
    A. Well I don't think you'd want to invoke a randomized clinical trial;
that is, to have individuals smoke, if you suspect that there is an element
of risk involved.
    Q. It would be medically unethical; wouldn't it, sir?
    A. I think it would be medically unlikely.
    Q. It would be medically unethical to take a non-smoker and subject
them to smoking and then compare them to non-smokers to see whether the
smokers develop lung cancer. That would be medically unethical; wouldn't
it?
    A. I don't know --
    You say "unethical," but certainly unlikely.
    Q. Well, would you conduct such a study?
    A. I don't think that such a study would be very -- very useful.
    Q. You --
    A. In the first place, you'd have to talk about a lifelong study.
    Q. Right. Would you conduct such a study? Would you go to people who
had never smoked and recruit them and say I want you to smoke, and we're
going to compare you against non-smokers over the lifetime to see who
develops smokers, and we're going to control for all other factors. Would
you conduct such a study?
    A. Well such a study exists because there are smokers and there are
non- smokers, and I don't think you'd have to set up a laboratory
experiment to compare the groups.
    Q. And where the --
    Where such a study exists is in the marketplace; isn't that right?
    A. Yes. In the general population.
    Q. It's the folks who are out there smoking who have had cigarettes
sold to them by these defendants; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. They've been the clinical study; haven't they, sir?
    A. It's not a clinical study. People choose to smoke. It's a matter of
personal choice.
    Q. How many people start smoking before the age of 18?
    *6 A. I have no idea.
    Q. You've never heard the statistic?
    A. No. I have never been concerned with that aspect of smoking and
health.
    Q. You've never been concerned with how many young teen-agers, or
children for that matter, start smoking before the age of 18?
    A. Oh, of course I'm concerned, Mr. -- I've forgotten your name --
Ciresi.
    Q. It's a forgettable name.
    A. I'm concerned, but -- but I have never -- I've never dealt with
this. This hasn't been a part of my professional activity.
    Q. In eleven years of being the head of the CTR, you have never been
interested or concerned about how many children start smoking in this
country?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's asked and answered.
    THE WITNESS: I've answered that.
    A. Of course I'm concerned. None of us want to see our children start
smoking.
    Q. Because it causes disease; correct?
    A. And other problems as well.
    Q. Yes. And when did any of these defendants say we don't want children
to stop -- start smoking because it causes disease and other problems as
well? When?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Never, did they?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Did The Tobacco Institute, to your knowledge, ever do so?
    A. Did the what?
    Q. Tobacco Institute, to your knowledge, ever do so?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Did you as the head of the CTR ever stand up and say, "Youth should
not start smoking because smoking causes disease and other problems?" Did
you ever do that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Where have you put that in writing?
    A. I haven't put it in writing. I've told it to my four children.
    Q. Oh. You told your own children that; is that right? But had you ever
told the public's children that, as the head of the CTR, sir?
    A. That's not my responsibility or my -- my assignment at The Council
for Tobacco Research. I've been busy dispensing 20 million dollars a year
in good, solid funding of basic biomedical research.
    Q. Just not your job; is that right?
    A. It is not my job.
    Q. And if it wasn't The Tobacco Institute's job and it wasn't the
manufacturers' jobs, whose job was it in the industry, if you know?
    A. In the industry?
    Q. Yes.
    A. I'm not sure it was anybody's job in the industry.
    Q. Nobody's job.
    A. It was public information. The Surgeon General had made the general
public aware of the risk factors involved. I think it's been common
knowledge for a long time.
    Q. So nobody's job in the industry. That's your opinion; correct?
    A. I don't know whether it was their job or not, but I don't think so.
    Q. Now directing your attention back, sir, to Exhibit 11028, can you
take a look at the third conclusion, which is on the next page. "The direct
carcinogenicity of smoke condensate to animal tissue, which is consistent
with direct causation, now is fully confirmed but the evidence so far
obtained makes it unlikely that the activity is due to any single 'super
carcinogen' in smoke." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    *7 Q. Did the CTR, based on your investigation, ever state that the
direct carcinogenicity of smoke condensate to animal tissue which is
consistent with direct causation is fully confirmed? Did it ever state
that?
    A. Did the CTR say that?
    Q. Yes.
    A. No.
    Q. You --
    A. That was not a function of the CTR.
    Q. Do you --
    A. This had been published widely in the scientific and lay literature.
This is -- this statement derives from the work by Dr. Wynder painting the
tars on the skin of laboratory mice.
    Q. Sir, do you know if any of the industry manufacturers ever stated
that?
    A. I don't think it was necessary. It was in the lay press.
    Q. They denied it; didn't they?
    A. I don't think so.
    Q. You don't --
    A. How could you deny a fact?
    Q. You think that the industry admitted publicly that it was fully
confirmed that smoke condensate is carcinogenic and it's consistent with
direct causation of lung cancer? Do you think the industry said that?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. They never have said that; have they, sir?
    A. I don't know, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Can you direct your attention back to page five of this Exhibit
11028. Now do you see the reference mid page to "ATTITUDE OF U.S. INDUSTRY
TO BIOLOGICAL TESTING?"
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. And I believe we've agreed that's research involving living
organisms; correct?
    A. Correct. But you have to include the plant world, a lot of other
things as well. If you mean living organisms as animals, that's too
limited. Biology is much more global.
    Q. Okay. Do you know any plants that smoke?
    A. Pardon?
    Q. Do you know any plants that smoke?
    A. No, but I know of a plant that is smoked.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to the first paragraph under that
heading. "Liggett & Myers stayed out of TIRC originally because they
doubted the sincerity of TIRC motives and believed that the organization
was too unwieldly to work efficiently. They remain convinced that their
misgivings were justified. In their opinion TIRC has done little if
anything constructive, the constantly re-iterated 'not proven' statements
in the face of mounting contrary evidence has thoroughly discredited TIRC,
and the SAB of TIRC is supporting almost without exception projects which
are not related directly to smoking and health."
    Now sir, did your investigation reveal that the CTR was supporting
almost without exception projects which were not related directly to
smoking and health?
    A. Well I would call attention to the fact that the statement is "not
directly related to smoking and lung cancer," not "smoking and health."
    Q. I'm sorry, I misspoke. "Smoking and lung cancer." I -- I accept that
correction.
    Did your investigation reveal that the TIRC/CTR was supporting almost
without exception projects which are not related directly to smoking and
lung cancer?
    A. No, it does not reveal that.
    Q. Did it reveal that during the earlier years at TIRC?
    *8 A. No, sir.
    Q. And you're saying it didn't -- doesn't even reveal it up until
today; is that correct?
    A. Right.
    Q. And you've reviewed the documents of the manufacturing defendants as
to what they said about the organization that you head; correct?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. So you deny this statement; is that right?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Do you know if Liggett as of 1958 had already invested considerably
more in biological research than the balance of the industry had
contributed to CTR?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. And sir, do you see down at the bottom where it's reported, "It was
clear from the talks we had that, probably, member companies of TIRC had
all at one time or another considered using biological testing in
conjunction with chemical fractionation." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And you see that Hanmer of American Tobacco Company had prepared a
comprehensive scheme for such biological research but it had been deferred?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And are you aware that -- strike that.
    Do you know if any of the companies conducted biological research
in-house, or whether they agreed they would not do that?
    A. Please restate that question for me. I may have missed a point.
    MR. CIRESI: Sure. Would you read it back, please, Mr. Stirewalt?
        (Record read by the court reporter.)
    A. I think some of the companies had accomplished biological research
in- house. Whether there was any agreement that they would do no further
such research, I don't know.
    Q. Which companies do you think had conducted biological research?
    A. Well again I don't know, but I think some of them had.
    Q. So you don't know one way or the other; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And isn't it true that you don't guess at things, you either know or
don't know?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You've said that; haven't you?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now can you go on to the next page.
    Would you agree that in 1958, if the companies were not conducting
biological research, scientists outside the companies would be shocked at
the lack of such research?
    A. I am reading the first paragraph that you have on the screen, and
I'm not sure I understand the thrust of the question.
    Q. Well let's --
    Mr. Hoyt is from CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he said at this point that he didn't know whether or not
individual companies of TIRC were doing biological research; correct?
    A. That's correct. That's essentially what I said previously.
    Q. Okay. And then "He said it was generally assumed by scientists
outside the industry that in fact the tobacco companies were doing this
sort of work and that these scientists would be shocked if they thought
that this was not so." Correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And he was an employee of CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he didn't know if they were doing it; correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And as you've testified, you don't know if they were doing it;
correct?
    *9 A. I think they were, but I don't know about it.
    Q. You don't know to this day if they've ever done any; do you?
    A. I know more today than they knew in 1958, and I don't know what was
happening in 1958.
    Q. Do you know if at any point in time the companies were conducting
biological research here in the United States from 1958 up to the present
time? Do you know?
    A. From 1958 until the present time.
    Q. That's what I said.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Which companies were conducting biological research here in
the United States from 1958 up to the present time?
    A. I don't know that I can tell you which companies, but I know that
there has been industry-sponsored research of chemical carcinogenesis.
    Q. Sir, I think I see what you're saying. You mean they may have
sponsored something by somebody outside the companies?
    A. Or inside.
    Q. Okay. I'm asking inside. Can you point to one company who was
conducting biological research in-house from 1958 up to the present time?
    A. No, sir, not from memory.
    Q. And you see that it is reported here that at a meeting with the
TIRC, these three English scientists were unable to obtain any first-hand
information as to whether or not individual companies were engaged in
biological research?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Now in 1958 the CTR broadly accepted the fact that tobacco smoke
causes lung cancer; correct?
    A. In 1958 the TCR accepts what?
    Q. I'm sorry, I misspoke. CTR.
    A. CTR.
    Q. Yes. In 1958 CTR broadly accepted the fact that cigarette smoking
causes lung cancer.
    A. Well we're back to the issue of causation, and I hope we can agree
that when we say "cause" in that regard, we're talking about risk factors.
    Q. Sir, did the CTR in 1958 broadly accept the fact that smoking caused
lung cancer?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. They didn't.
    A. Not -- not in the sense of scientific "cause."
    Q. Can you direct your attention to the bottom of page six, first
paragraph -- or last -- second-to-the-last paragraph. "The majority of
individuals whom we met accepted that beyond all reasonable doubt cigarette
smoke probably acts as a direct though very weak carcinogen in the human
lung." Do you see that?
    A. I see that statement, yes.
    Q. And that "The opinion was given that in view of its chemical
composition it would indeed be surprising if cigarette smoke was not
carcinogenic." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And then down at the bottom, "Others, including the SAB" --
    That's the Scientific Advisory Board; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. -- "of TIRC and a group at the National Cancer Institute, do not
accept that a case has yet been made that tobacco smoke is directly
carcinogenic to the human lung. While accepting broadly that cigarette
smoking may be said to be capable of 'causing' lung cancer, they argue that
the favor -- that the evidence favors some indirect mechanism of
causation." Correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. And that's because they didn't know at that time how the mutation of
a cell would go from normal to cancerous; isn't that right?
    *10 A. No, sir, I'm not sure you can interpret that. This is a 40-year-
old document. Actually I think the statements that are made here are fairly
prophetic. As you see, they're using the term "cause" in quotation marks.
The theories expressed here were based on the then-prevalent idea that
surface contact of constituents of smoke may be the causation risk factor
with -- with smoking, and actually this clearly demonstrates that there is
some suspicion that there's something else going on.
    Q. Let's read and see what they say.
    "Unfortunately so long as the basic problems underlying the
transformation of a normal to a cancerous cell remain unsolved, theories of
indirect causation must be largely speculative and almost without exception
incapable of being tested experimentally." Correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. Yes. Because there wasn't the ability to look at cells at that time
to see genetically how they change from non-cancerous to cancerous;
correct?
    A. That's your interpretation, yes.
    Q. Yes. And that's what they say here; isn't that right?
    A. No, that's not what they said.
    Q. Well --
    A. You read what they said.
    Q. "...so long as the basic problems underlying the transformation of a
normal to a cancerous cell remain unsolved, theories of indirect causation"
-- and that's the causation that TIRC was talking about at that time --
"must be largely speculative and almost without exception incapable of
being tested experimentally." Correct, that's what it says?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. So that if you accept the indirect theory of causation and you paint
smoke condensate on the back of a mouse and it develops experimentally
cancerous tissue, you won't accept that; correct?
    A. I accept that that happened, yes.
    Q. You accept it happened, but you don't accept that that would happen
in the human lung; correct?
    A. I accept that it is a possibility. And I think this is a very
intelligent statement for the time. They acknowledge the speculation and
the inability to prove, with the techniques they had at that time, whether
this could occur.
    Q. Sir, as long as you won't accept that when you paint smoke
condensate --
    A. Oh, I accepted that readily.
    Q. Oh, you do accept that.
    A. I accepted it readily.
    Q. And you accept it readily --
    A. It's a classical --
    Q. Excuse me. You accepted readily that that is a cancerous tumor on
the back of the mouse?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. But you don't accept that that -- that's what happens in the human
lung; correct?
    A. It has never been proven.
    Q. It's never been proven.
    Can you direct your attention, doctor, now, to Exhibit 11923.
    A. I have it.
    Q. And that's the "STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE
TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE AND ITS PROPOSED FUNCTIONS?"
    A. Yes, sir.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 11923.
    MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Court will receive 11923.
*11 BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. The name of this is "STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF
THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE AND ITS PROPOSED FUNCTIONS;"
correct?
    A. Yes, sir. I'm not -- I'm not absolutely confident that I've read
this document before, and I'd like to take a minute to do so.
    Q. Absolutely.
    A. Thank you, sir.
    Q. Have you completed, sir?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. Have you seen it before?
    A. I'm not sure I've seen this particular document.
    Q. Do you know if this is one of the ones that was designated for your
examination here?
    A. I don't know that. I didn't see the list.
    Q. If you direct your attention to the first page, the title is
"STATEMENT CONCERNING THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY
RESEARCH COMMITTEE AND ITS PROPOSED FUNCTIONS." Correct?
    A. Yes. Yes.
    Q. And in that first paragraph it's reported that "The responsible
chief officers of nine of the cigarette and tobacco product manufacturing
companies in America, and five organizations of growers of leaf tobacco and
tobacco warehouse associations have formed the TIRC;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And they formed it in the interest of the public; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And it was formed, if you look down to the next paragraph, because
of the appearance of certain publications claiming the relationship between
cigarette smoking and lung cancer; correct?
    A. That's what it states.
    Q. And if you turn to the next page, you'll see that it references the
fact that there was an extensive publicity concerning the studies that were
published; correct?
    A. There was.
    Q. And that's consistent with the documents that we saw, Exhibits 18904
and 18905, regarding the meetings between the industry and Hill Knowlton;
wasn't it?
    A. I don't understand the relationship, but I -- I accept that.
    Q. Well in those two documents there was reference to the fact that
there had been publicity; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And in fact some of the salespeople were frantically alarmed;
correct?
    A. That's what it stated.
    Q. Okay. Now if you go to the next page, sir, the publication of those
articles was called agitation; correct, "In the light of the foregoing
agitation...?"
    A. Well I would say the agitation was on the part of the public
receiving this information, on the part of the biomedical research
community as this information evolved. Certainly there would be concern.
    Q. So the agitation that is being referred to is agitation on the part
of the public; correct?
    A. Part of everyone, I would think.
    Q. Agitation that smoking may cause lung cancer; is that how you read
that?
    A. We again are using "cause" in the lay sense as -- as you've used it.
    Q. Well don't you think it was agitation on the part of the tobacco
companies that this information became public? Isn't that the agitation
being referred to?
    A. I think the public would justifiably be agitated by the medical
reports by respected scientists that there was this correlation --
    *12 Q. Well wouldn't --
    A. -- and that there was a risk of smoking.
    Q. Wouldn't it be more fair to state that the public may have been
concerned as opposed to agitated? Wouldn't you agree with that, sir?
    A. No, sir. You're asking me --
    Q. Okay.
    A. -- to draw conclusions from words that were written 40 years ago.
    Q. Okay. You do know, though, that the Frank Statement went out to some
448 newspapers; correct?
    A. I don't know the number, but I know it was published widely.
    Q. It's right --
    It's reported right there in the "Plan of Action." Do you see it?
    A. I do now, sir.
    Q. And the signing members of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee
pledged to support by financial aid, in addition to that already
contributed by individual companies, research under the charge and
direction of a science -- scientist of unimpeachable integrity and national
repute. Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And you understood that was the purpose of the CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that first scientist that was named would have been Clarence
Cook Little?
    A. Yes. Dr. Little.
    Q. And on the next page we see the signatories to the statement;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And if we go over to the next page, we see the formation of the
committee itself.
    A. Correct.
    Q. And we have the president of Benson & Hedges, RJR Reynolds, Liggett
& Myers, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson, Tobacco Associates, Philip Morris
and United States Tobacco Company; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And if you look down below, you see that those people who were
invited that we just listed would attend meetings on December 14th and 15th
and December 28th in New York City, and with the exception of Liggett they
all showed up; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And do you recall the dates of the documents 18904 and 18905?
    A. I can't --
    I haven't memorized the numbers of the documents. Tell me what they
are.
    Q. Those were the ones -- the Hill & Knowlton documents, sir, the Hill
& Knowlton documents.
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Those were in December of 1953; correct?
    A. I believe so. They reported on the meetings that you have under
consideration.
    Q. All right. And if you go to the last page, then, you'll see that the
Tobacco Industry Research Committee's chairman is Mr. Hahn, who was the
president of American Tobacco; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he was --
    He sort of gave birth to this committee; correct?
    A. I heard that phrase, yes.
    Q. Now the "Limit of Powers" -- do you see that section?
    A. Would you mark what you're looking at?
    Q. Sure. Well I can't mark it. It's right there, "Limit of Powers,"
number IV, Roman Numeral IV. Do you see that?
    A. That's on the next page.
    Q. I'm sorry. Yes, it is.
    A. Yes, I see that.
    Q. And can you tell me where it states there that under this limit of
powers, that CTR was going to do public relations?
    A. Well I --
    We can read the first sentence together. "The purposes and objectives
of the Committee," referring, I am sure, to the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee, "are to aid and assist research into tobacco use and health, and
particularly into the alleged relationship between the use of tobacco and
lung cancer, and to make available to the public factual information on
this subject."
    *13 Q. Okay. So they were going to research and then make that research
public; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. But where does it say they're going to be a public relations outfit?
Where does it say that?
    A. Well that is public relations. This is -- this is exactly what's
done today by way of biomedical publications by reporting research. It's
common practice. The National Institutes of Health have a public relations
function.
    Q. Didn't you say that science and public relations are almost
incompatible?
    A. They are -- they are two different activities.
    Q. That's not what I asked. Haven't you said that science and PR are
almost incompatible?
    A. I think I have said that. And -- and I further went on to explain
that the scientist is interested in developing factual information. The
dissemination of that information, public relations function or public
information function, is a very different thing.
    Q. But where does it say here that they're going to do public relations
apart from scientific research?
    A. Well it doesn't say apart. It -- it makes two objectives for the
TIRC as I read it.
    Q. Sir, in the Frank Statement, which is Exhibit 11145, do the
signatories to the Frank Statement say they're going to engage in public
relations?
    A. You'll have to forgive me, I have to look back at the Frank
Statement. Is that in volume two or one?
    Q. It would be in volume two. It should be. I'm sorry, it's 14145.
    A. That makes a little difference.
    Q. Yeah. Volume two, 14145.
    A. With the proper number I managed to find it.
    Q. Where in there does it say that the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee is being formed in part to be a public relations outfit for the
industry?
    A. Doesn't say it in those words.
    Q. Well, doesn't say it in anywhere near those words. If we look at
column two, "Many people have asked us what we are doing to meet the
public's concern," not agitation, "concern aroused by the recent reports.
Here is the answer:
    "1. We are pledging aid and assistance to the research effort into all
phases of tobacco use and health. This joint financial aid will of course
be in addition to what is already being controlled by individual companies
-- contributed by individual companies." Do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. And it talks about research efforts into all phases of tobacco
use and health; doesn't it?
    A. It does.
    Q. Doesn't talk about basic research into cancer generally; does it?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. And number two, "For this purpose," and that's research into tobacco
use and health, "we are establishing a joint industry committee consisting
initially of the undersigned. This group will be known as the TOBACCO
INDUSTRY RESEARCH COMMITTEE." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And then in paragraph three it talks about who's going to be in
charge of it; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Nothing in this statement of representations made to the public is
there a statement that the CTR, then known as TIRC, was going to engage in
public relations efforts; is there?
    *14 A. No. But I think the -- what we've all read here is they're going
to do this research, the research will be independently reported.
    Q. Apart from the research they were going to do, and its reporting,
there is nothing here about PR efforts; is there?
    A. I don't see anything here.
    Q. Nothing here about the fact we want to assure the public by pro-
cigarette statements; is there?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Nothing in here about we're not going to accept the hypothesis that
cigarette smoking is linked to lung cancer; is there?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. And of course if you wanted to test it, you'd have to at least
accept the hypothesis; wouldn't you?
    A. I think that that's implicit.
    Q. Absolutely implicit; isn't it?
    A. Yes.
    Q. That's a scientific truism, if you will; isn't it, doctor?
    A. It is. And it was done.
    Q. It wasn't done at all because the CTR never accepted the hypothesis;
did it?
    A. I beg your pardon now. I -- I think I've previously stated to you
that the TIRC and CTR, its successor, have consistently accepted a
statistical relationship between smoking and cancer and other diseases.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 10493, which is in volume
one.
    A. I have it.
    Q. Now this is a letter from Dr. Little to Mr. Hartnett, chairman of
the Tobacco Industry Research Committee, CTR, dated April 26, 1958;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 10493.
    MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Court will receive 10493.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. And sir, in this letter Dr. Little says his duty is to do PR;
doesn't he?
    A. I'd have to find that.
    Q. Do you know if in this letter Dr. Little, who headed up the CTR from
1954 to 1971, said that the Scientific Advisory Board has consistently
refused to accept the hypothesis of tar guilt? Do you know that?
    A. It says that in the letter, and I think that was a fairly consistent
-- consistent with the general thinking at the time that perhaps the risk
factor of smoking was not the direct influence of tars on the lining of the
lung.
    Q. Doctor, you just stated that in order to test something, it is a
scientific truism that you have to accept the hypothesis; didn't you?
    A. Well I think you're -- you're twisting people's words. I don't know
what -- exactly what he meant by "hypothesis," but there were lots of
studies ongoing at that time, even in 1958, of exposure of animals to the
so-called tars of -- of cigarettes.
    Q. I don't want to twist your words. I'm going to read them back to
you.
    "Question: And of course if you wanted to test it," and that's whether
cigarette smoke is linked -- I'll back up a sentence.
    "Question: Nothing in here about we're not going to accept the
hypothesis that cigarette smoking is linked to lung cancer; is there?
    "Answer: No, sir.
    "Question: And of course if you wanted to test it, you would have to at
least accept the hypothesis; wouldn't you?
    *15 "Answer: I think that's -- that's implicit.
    "Question: Absolutely implicit; isn't it?
    "Answer: Yes.
    "Question: That's a scientific truism, if you will; isn't it, doctor?
    "Answer: It is. And it was done."
    Were those your answers to those questions under oath --
    MR. WEBER: Objection.
    Q. -- two minutes ago?
    MR. WEBER: Object, Your Honor, to the improper implication on the
impeachment, that it's two different hypotheses referred to.
    THE COURT: Okay. The question will stand.
    Q. Were those your answers to those questions no more than two minutes
ago?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Thank you.
    A. And I would repeat those answers again. But the fact that the
Scientific Advisory Board didn't -- didn't accept the hypothesis is really
rather advanced thinking. They were ahead of the wave; they were saying we
don't think that this is it. But the -- but CTR, the TIRC, continued to
support exposure studies of animals to tars.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor --
    MR. WEBER: I'd like to object and note for the record now that
throughout this Mr. Ciresi has been rolling his eyes and pointing fingers
and shaking his head. I'd ask counsel not to do that.
    MR.CIRESI: I haven't pointed my finger, I have shead my head because --
    Well I won't say why. Yes, I have shaken my head.
    THE COURT: Okay. Let's move on.
    MR. CIRESI: Yes.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, can you answer my question? Okay? Stick with the questions
I'm asking. Your counsel will have an opportunity to ask you questions.
    Now in the first paragraph of this letter, does Dr. Little talk about
his duty as the scientific director of the Tobacco Industry Research
Committee?
    A. He speaks to that, yes.
    Q. And he says his duty is to warn members of that body of the serious
and dangerous effects on its research program if the present trend
continues towards the emphasis on tar reduction in advertising of
cigarettes; isn't that right?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And do you know what tar reduction is referred to by that paragraph?
    A. Well I know historically that there was a time when the cigarette
manufacturers were devising methods to reduce the amount of so-called tar,
which is smoke residue.
    Q. Do you know that they've claimed right here in this courtroom that
by doing that, they were making cigarettes safer?
    MR. WEBER: Objection, Your Honor, it's a misstatement.
    THE COURT: Rephrase the question, counsel.
    Q. I want you to assume that right here in this courtroom they've said
that made cigarettes safer. Can you assume that?
    MR. WEBER: Same objection.
    A. I will if you --
    MR. WEBER: Same objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: No, you may answer that.
    Q. Can you assume that?
    A. I will if you ask me to, Mr. Ciresi. I wasn't here.
    Q. And Dr. Little here is saying they shouldn't be saying that tar
reduction makes cigarettes safer; is he -- isn't he?
    A. He is.
    Q. Now you're aware that in the late fifties, actually from '54 up
until about 1961, there was a tar derby going on; correct?
    *16 A. I don't recognize that terminology, but I know that all the
manufacturers were concerned with that issue.
    Q. And the manufacturers were advertising that they were reducing tar;
weren't they?
    A. I believe that's correct.
    Q. And they were implying that they were safer; weren't they?
    A. I believe that's correct, too.
    Q. And that's the same type of thing that was being complained about
back in 1953 in the documents we looked at this morning; isn't it, sir?
    A. I -- I don't know of a connection there.
    Q. Well let me read it to you. Exhibit 18905. "Do the companies
consider" -- Exhibit 18905. "Do the companies consider that their own
advertising and competitive practices have been a principal factor in
creating a health problem?"
    A. I see that, yes.
    Q. See that?
    "The companies voluntarily admitted this to be the case even before the
question was asked." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And here four years later it's still going on; isn't it, sir,
according to Dr. Little?
    A. The answer to your question is yes, Dr. Little again raises the
question of tars and cigarettes. What I think -- and I'm interpret --
    I wish Dr. Little were here to answer the question himself, but he's
not. And my interpretation of this is that he -- Dr. Little's thinking was
very far advanced. He realized that there were other things at work and
that the manufacturers probably ought be funding research in a broad
variety of research efforts, not just tars.
    Q. We'll see what he says in this letter. Okay? But he was referring to
the same issue that was in Exhibit 18905 four years earlier; correct, sir?
    A. I -- I assume so. I don't know that.
    Q. Well he says right in his letter in 1958 --
    A. He does not say in his letter of 1958, and I am referring to the
statement in document -- whatever number it is --
    Q. Doctor, with all due respect, I didn't ask you whether he was
referring to the statement in --
    A. Yes, you did.
    A. -- the exhibit.
    No. I was asking you if he was referring to the same thing, the same
issue.
    A. I'm not sure.
    Q. Well let's see what he says. "As Scientific Director of the Tobacco
Industry Research Committee it is my duty to warn the members of that body
of the serious and dangerous effects on its research program if the present
trend continues toward the emphasis on 'tar reduction' in advertising of
cigarettes." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Don't you think it's fair to state that he's referring to the same
subject matter that was referenced in Exhibit 18905 that we just looked at?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Okay. Fair enough.
    Now he goes on to state, "Ordinarily the form and substance of
advertising would not contain elements that could affect research but in
this case they clearly do for the following reasons." Correct? And he
states reasons why advertising was going to affect research; is that right?
    A. That's what is written here.
    Q. And this is Dr. Little; correct?
    *17 A. Correct.
    Q. And the first reason he gives is, "The active campaign of the
American Cancer Society has alerted tens of millions of Americans to the
possibility that tobacco smoke contains a carcinogenic substance or
substances." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. So he's saying, hey, the American Cancer Society is alerting
Americans to this; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And then he goes, number two, "The series of articles in THE
READER'S DIGEST has accepted Wynder's thesis of 'tar' as the bearer of such
substances and has influenced the American people to examine tar content as
a significant factor in determining the risk of lung cancer and/or
diseases;" correct?
    A. He says that.
    Q. So as you understand that, what he's saying is that the American
people are looking at what is the tar in a cigarette; correct?
    A. You're putting words in my mouth, but I -- I have a slightly
different interpretation of this. I think Dr. Little is cautioning that too
much emphasis is being placed on tar.
    Q. Okay. We'll go on and see if that's true.
    Three, "Representatives of the American Cancer Society and others who
believe in the 'tobacco-guilt' theory are already asking the question as to
why the vast financial resources of the tobacco industry are not being used
to promote research in the removal of the 'guilty' substances from smoke."
Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And that's the same thing that was being referred to back in 1954 by
the industry itself; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Removing carcinogenic substances from the smoke; correct?
    A. Wait a minute. Doesn't say carcinogenic substances, it says tar.
    Q. I'm sorry. It doesn't even say that, it says the guilty substances;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that is what was being referred to back in 1954; correct?
    A. "Guilty" is in quotations. It indicates that there's some question
going on here.
    Q. If you want to read it that way, that's fine, doctor. But that's the
subject --
    MR. WEBER: Object to the commentary again, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: That's -- I apologize.
    THE COURT: Try not to comment.
    Q. That's the subject that's being referred to; correct, doctor?
    A. I think he's referring to the tars, yes.
    Q. And the industry had already told the three individuals from the
industry in England that there was no super carcinogen, that it was the
total smoke; isn't that correct?
    A. The report that we've previously read referred to a super
carcinogen. I don't know what they meant by that.
    Q. They said they couldn't find any super carcinogen, it was the entire
smoke; didn't they?
    A. I don't know that. I -- I don't recall that they said it was the
entire smoke.
    Q. You know there was a reference to that; do you not, sir?
    A. I'll accept that there is.
    Q. I'll just read it to you. "The direct carcinogenicity of smoke
condensate to animal tissue" --
    MR. WEBER: Can we have the number you're reading from, Mr. Ciresi?
    *18 MR. CIRESI: Exhibit 11028, page nine.
    MR. WEBER: Thank you. Thank you.
    Q. "The direct carcinogenicity of smoke condensate to animal tissue,
which is consistent with direct causation, is now fully confirmed but the
evidence so far obtained makes it unlikely that this activity is due to any
single 'super carcinogen' in smoke." Correct?
    A. Correct. I remember that.
    Q. So the industry couldn't remove just one constituent because there
were many carcinogenic substances in the smoke; isn't that right?
    A. That's -- that's a -- that's your interpretation. Another
interpretation is that the so-called tars or smoke residue may not be the
initiating factor for lung cancer or any other disease.
    Q. Go back to Dr. Little's statements. Number four, "The present type
of  'tar' advertising without further definition and explanation leads to
an intensification of the attitude of condemnation of the industry for not
spending the major fraction or all of its research resources in such
efforts. This could rapidly reach a critical stage." Correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. Then he states another reason. "Both the lay and scientific public
receive the impression that there has been acceptance of the 'tar' guilt
theory and that 'tar' reduction is advanced as a specific preventive or
ameliorative measure;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And that's what the ad -- advertising of the industry was doing at
that time; wasn't it, sir?
    A. The industry -- industry was advertising tar reduction.
    Q. And they were making health claims about it; weren't they?
    A. They were.
    Q. They were giving reassurance to the public; weren't they?
    A. They were -- they were accepting the theory that -- that tars may be
a promoting factor, and that reduction in tar would be a good thing for
smokers.
    Q. They were giving reassurance to the public; correct?
    A. I -- I can't say whether it was reassurance or whether it was simply
a reaction to the demonstration of -- of tar.
    What Dr. Little is saying, as I read this, is let's don't put all our
eggs in that basket, and if we -- if we arouse the sentiment that we should
spend all of our money on removing tars from cigarettes we may be missing
the boat because there may be something else going on. Dr. Little was ahead
of his time.
    Q. We'll see about that.
    MR. WEBER: Objection again.
    MR. CIRESI: Ah, I withdraw that.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, could I ask at this time for the court to
formally admonish counsel? This has happened repeatedly today.
    MR. CIRESI: Well Your Honor, the answer was in large measure
unresponsive.
    THE COURT: Proceed, counsel.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now doctor, we then go on to the next reason, and there is number
six where Dr. Little says that the SAB, or Scientific Advisory Board, has
consistently refused to accept the hypothesis; correct?
    A. And I'm eternally grateful that they did because they continued to
pursue other research avenues that have been much more rewarding.
    *19 Q. Sir, can I have an answer to my question?
    A. Your question relates to what is written. It speaks for itself.
    Q. And the board consistently refused to accept the hypothesis of tar
guilt; correct?
    A. That is what is written, yes.
    Q. So if you don't accept it, you can't test it; can you?
    A. Well they were supporting people who did accept it and were testing
it.
    Q. Sir, if you don't support it, you cannot test it; can you?
    A. The Scientific Advisory Board never did any of the testing itself,
never did any of the research itself. CTR never did any research. They're
funding investigators.
    Q. Now let's go on to the next reason. "Should increased or insistent
outside demand occur for the concentration or limitation of the SAB planned
research to the field of identifying and/or removing suspected components
from tobacco smoke, extremely unfortunate and possibly destructive
influences on TIRC may well develop." Correct? That's what he said.
    A. That's what he said.
    Q. Okay.
    A. And that's what I have said.
    Q. Now he then goes on to say, "Although this serious danger exists, I
believe it can and should be eliminated...." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he wants to have a public relations campaign; doesn't he?
    A. "...simple statement or statements to the public by press, radio and
television" to certain points.
    Q. Sure. He believes that "it can and should be eliminated by prompt
and unanimous action by the industry. This, I believe, should take the form
of a simple statement or statements to the public by press, radio and
television to the effect that:
    "(1) The increase in manufacture of filtered cigarettes is a response
to public demand and to nothing else." That's one of the PR campaigns he
wants to conduct; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. The next PR campaign he wants to conduct -- conduct is, "The
industry does not admit adverse health effects of smoke constituents or
nicotine as contained in its products previously or now sold, with or
without filters." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. So what he's saying is that he doesn't want the industry -- strike
that.
    What he's saying is he wants the industry to affirmatively state that
they don't admit adverse health effects of smoke constituents; correct?
    A. Correct. That's what he said.
    Q. And it is the smoke constituents which contain the tar; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And it's the tar which contains cancer-producing particles; correct?
    A. I'm not sure about that, because it's never been proven.
    Q. You just don't know; correct?
    A. We just don't know. We still don't know.
    Q. You don't know; correct, sir?
    A. No, we don't.
    Q. I'm asking you. You do not know; correct?
    A. I do not know, nor does any member of the scientific community.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the last portion, Your Honor,
non-responsive.
    THE COURT: Well we'll let it stand.
    Q. And he then says, "The industry will continue to support research
that will help to answer the many questions asked concerning the possible
relationship of tobacco to human health and well-being." Correct?
    *20 A. That's correct. And I subscribe to that.
    Q. And then on the next page he says, "The industry will at the same
time try to meet the wishes of the public by providing tobacco for smoking
in the forms most conducive for maintaining and increasing the pleasurable,
satisfying and emotionally balancing effects of this very old and almost
universal custom." Correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. This is the director, scientific director of the Scientific Advisory
Board who's suggesting that the industry promote increased use of the
product; correct?
    A. I don't know that that is the case. I can read what he said here,
and I -- I accept what you have read.
    Q. And in the last paragraph he says, "The exact form of such a
statement is not intended to be prescribed by this letter. The main points
however are to define the reason for increased filter manufacturing," and
that's just because the public demanded it; correct?
    A. It says "to define the reason for increased filter manufacturing."
    Q. "to state its belief in continued research;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And three, "to clear the industry of implied acceptance of guilt;"
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And "to call attention to the service it performs."
    And that's the industry; is that right?
    A. No, I would say the service is the pleasurable, satisfying and
emotionally balancing effects of this very old and almost universal custom.
    Q. And that's the industry selling the cigarettes; correct?
    A. No. That's the product.
    Q. That's the --
    Well the product is sold by the cigarettes; isn't it, doctor -- or sold
by the industry; isn't it?
    A. Well you're playing with words.
    Q. No.
    A. I think you -- you asked me what that referred to. I don't think it
refers to the industry, I think it refers to his previous statement.
    Q. Who sells the cigarettes?
    A. Well, you know, that's --
    I don't want to argue with you about this, but you asked me what the --
what I thought that referred to and I told you.
    Q. All right. I'm asking you a simple question. Who sells the
cigarettes?
    A. Who sells cigarettes? Well they're sold almost universally.
    Q. Who was he working for here?
    A. He was working for The Council for Tobacco Research.
    Q. Who is the --
    A. TIRC.
    Q. -- Council for Tobacco Research funded by?
    A. Funded by the industry.
    Q. And that industry was selling cigarettes; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And here's a scientific director promoting the sale of cigarettes;
correct?
    A. I don't read that.
    Q. Well he was a smoker himself; wasn't he?
    A. I think he was.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we have a tape we'd like to play right now, a
short one, Exhibit 18405.
    MR. WEBER: Is that in evidence?
    MR. CIRESI: We're going to offer it right now, The Tobacco Institute
tape of Dr. Little and Mr. Hockett.
    MR. WEBER: I'd object to this, Your Honor, unless they're going to play
the whole tape. I understand it's not very long, 15, 20 minutes. Under the
rule of completeness I don't think that some few excerpts ought to just be
taken out under Rule 106.
    *21 MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, if they wish to play the entire tape in
their case, they can.
    MR. WEBER: The rule of completeness, again, doesn't require that, Your
Honor. Rather than take sound bytes or whatever out, it is out of this rule
that would require them to show the entire tape.
    THE COURT: Are you going to be taking sound bytes or are you plaing one
straight portion?
    MR. CIRESI: We're taking one segment of it. If they believe it's
misrepresentative of it, they can play the entire tape.
    THE COURT: All right. If it's just one straight segment, then I'll
allow it, and then allow you to play the balance.
    MR. WEBER: Would now be a good time for a short break, Your Honor? I
don't know whether --
    MR. CIRESI: I believe we have it, Your Honor. I hope.
        (Tape played.)
    THE COURT: Why don't we take a short recess at this time.
    THE CLERK: Court stands in recess.
        (Recess taken.)
 
    THE CLERK: All rise. Court is again in session.
        (Jury enters the courtroom.)
    THE CLERK: Please be seated.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, can I raise one brief point. Looking at the
realtime, plaintiffs' counsel said they were just going to play one
segment, and Your Honor ruled and said that if it was just one segment, one
straight segment, then it would be allowed. That was not one straight
segment as I saw that, so I would renew my motion now to play the entire
tape.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, they have had this portion of the tape in their
hands for a number of days. They also have the full one. If they believe
that it in any way misrepresents what was done in that tape, they have a
right to replay it in their case in chief. If you want us to play it all
now, we will take the time to play it all, but they had this for a long
period of time and have never stated it misrepresents what was done in that
tape.
    THE COURT: Okay. Are you claiming that there was something that was --
they just selected certain parts that were just a portion of the tape that
misrepresented what was said in any way?
    MR. WEBER: What I -- I'm sorry if I spoke over the end of that.
    THE COURT: That's all right. Go ahead.
    MR. WEBER: What I am saying in about in a 15- to 20-minute tape, taking
a few segments out is an unfair presentation just due to the fact it can't
be representative of the entire 15 or 20 minutes. That's why I raised that
rule- of-completeness issue with Your Honor.
    THE COURT: Okay.
    MR. CIRESI: You see, Your Honor, but they are not saying that it
misrepresented what was presented in the tape. And they have had the tape
for a substantial period of time, and if they felt that was the case, they
had the opportunity to say so.
    THE COURT: Well I guess --
    MR. CIRESI: We will -- we will be glad to play the entire tape.
    THE COURT: I guess we played it, and why don't we go ahead. And
certainly we'll give you a chance -- do you want to --
    When you have a chance, do you want to play it from beginning to end
again?
    MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honor.
    *22 THE COURT: Is that your plan?
    All right. When we finish the cross, then we will play the whole tape.
Okay?
    MR. CIRESI: That's fine, Your Honor.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, based on your investigation into the history of the CTR, did
you learn that the industry itself felt that the CTR was doing little if
anything constructive with regard to research into smoking and health?
    A. I've read that statement.
    Q. Pardon me?
    A. I have read that statement.
    Q. And did you learn that the CTR was controlled by the lawyers and not
the scientists?
    A. No, I didn't learn that. I've read that statement.
    Q. You read statements by industry people that said that; correct?
    A. I did.
    Q. Should lawyers control scientific research?
    A. No. And they did not.
    Q. Excuse me. Should lawyers control scientific research rather than
scientists?
    A. I answered that question, Mr. Ciresi.
    Q. Should they?
    A. No. And they did not.
    Q. Did you see documents which said that they did, documents written by
industry people?
    A. I did.
    Q. Do you agree that the chief executive officers had the duty and
responsibility to make sure that the research was controlled by scientists
and not by lawyers?
    A. I do --
    I have read that.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11027.
    A. In which volume is that?
    Q. That would be in volume one, sir.
    A. I have it.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 11027.
    MR. WEBER: I'd -- there's an objection on this from the defendants,
Your Honor, both with respect to foundation and with respect to the fact
that -- let me just make sure I've got the right one. Yes -- with respect
to foundation and with respect to the fact that it does not appear to have
been authored by any personnel of any of the defendants.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, it's a document of The Tobacco Research
Council. It was formed by the U.K. tobacco manufacturers, including BATCo,
a defendant in this case. It was initially called The Tobacco Manufacturing
Standing Committee. Its purpose was to fund smoking and health. In 1962
they changed their name from The Tobacco Manufacturer's Standing Committee
to The Tobacco Research Council. They cooperated with the CTR and shared
and exchanged information, and documents from The Tobacco Research Council
have been produced by these defendants from their files, including BATCo
and Philip Morris. It is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as an admission
of an agent, it's admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) as an adoptive
admission, it's admissible as an ancient document under Rule 803(16), and
it's also an admission of co-conspirators.
    MR. WEBER: With respect -- might I be heard on that for a moment, Your
Honor?
    THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead.
    MR. WEBER: TRC is a separate entity, is not a party to this litigation,
in addition to the fact that there's no foundation for this for this
reason: This document has hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay in it, which is
not cured by the exceptions under Rule 801 that plaintiffs' counsel noted.
And I'd also raise, particularly with respect to those defendants in this
case who are not in any way affiliated with TRC, a Rule 403 objection as
well.
    *23 THE COURT: All right. Court will receive 11027 as an admission.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, this is one of the documents upon which notice was provided
to the defendants to be used in your testimony. Have you reviewed it, sir?
    A. I have seen this, yes.
    Q. All right. And you note that in the upper left-hand corner it's
noted  "CONFIDENTIAL;" correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And it's a report on a visit to the United States in September and
October of 1964 concerning research into smoking and health?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And at the bottom is the notation "BAT Co Ltd - Minnesota Tobacco
Litigation," do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And what's reported here are discussions that were had in the United
States on research aspects of smoking and health which cover a wide variety
of topics and which are likely to be of varying interest to different
members of the TRC subcommittee and study groups; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And the discussions were with the research directors of a number of
the defendant cigarette companies, including RJR Reynolds, Philip Morris,
Liggett & Myers, Brown & Williamson; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Can you direct your attention, please, to that portion of Exhibit
11027 which bears the last three Bates numbers -- and those, sir, are the
ones on the right-hand, lower right-hand side of each page, and it's 267,
the last three numbers are 267.
    A. I have it.
    Q. Now if you just look back a page, you'll see that this was a
discussion at a meeting at R. J. Reynolds that took place on September
23rd, 1964; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And you see the individuals there that -- Dr. Murray Senkus and Dr.
Willard M. Bright, do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Do you see the initials J.F.T.? I'm sorry, G.F.T.?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. I'll represent to you that that's Mr. Todd, who was director
of the TSC. Will you accept that representation?
    MR. WEBER: I object to the representation. Counsel is testifying, Your
Honor.
    THE COURT: Well you can ask him if he -- if he would be willing to
assume that.
    Q. I would like to know whether you would assume that to be true, sir.
    A. All right.
    Q. Now if we turn to the page, then, 267, do you see there that the
individuals at RJR, at the very end, stated that there was "No sign or
mention of biological research" being conducted at RJR as of the date of
this document? Do you see that, sir?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And this is about ten years after formation of the CTR;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Can you direct your attention now to page 268, which is the next
page.
    A. I have it.
    Q. And you see that's a report of a discussion at Philip Morris with
Dr. Helmut Wakeham, Dr. Baveley, and somebody with the initials P.J.R., and
then again you see the initials G.F.T.; correct?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. And you see in the very first paragraph there that it was
reported by Dr. Wakeham that with regard to Philip Morris and their
biological research, they were concerned only with short-term tests, and
that they simply could not wait two years for results of experiments?
    *24 A. I see that.
    Q. And if you turn to page 270, two seven zero, --
    A. I have it.
    Q. -- and if you look at the second-to-the-last paragraph, do you see a
report there about what Dr. Wakeham of Philip Morris said about CTR and
Liggett & Myers?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And Dr. Wakeham reported that he had considerable praise for the
research work done by Liggett & Myers through A. D. Little. They had tested
the carcinogenicity of different fractions of smoke as long as 10 years,
while other companies were still arguing. Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And Wakeham thought little of CRT's work and approach to the
problem. Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And do you know if Dr. Wakeham was in charge of research and
development at Philip Morris?
    A. Dr. Wakeham, as I understand it, is a physical chemist, and I've
seen memoranda from him which is perfectly clear that he did not understand
biomedical research.
    Q. I didn't ask that question.
    A. I know you didn't. I thought I would tell you that.
    Q. Oh. Well excuse me.
    THE COURT: Sir, please try and just respond to the question.
    MR. CIRESI: Move to strike the answer as being non-responsive.
    THE COURT: The answer is non-responsive and it will be stricken.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Doctor, do you know if Dr. Wakeham was in charge of research and
development at Philip Morris?
    A. And he was a physical chemist. Yes, I know that.
    Q. That's not what I asked you.
    A. Yes, I know that.
    Q. Do you know if he was in charge of research and development at
Philip Morris?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Thank you.
    Can you take a look at page 277.
    Actually I apologize, doctor. Before you get there, maybe you can go to
272.
    A. I have both of them.
    Q. Okay, great. Let's go to 272 first, because that's a meeting that's
being reported that took place at Liggett & Myers on September 21st, 1964;
correct?
    A. Yes. Yes, sir.
    Q. And do you see there where skin testing was being done at A. D.
Little for Liggett & Myers in the first paragraph?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And that tumors were being obtained as a result of the test
being conducted?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. Now if you turn to the --
    By the way, at the top of that page it says "SECRET;" correct?
    A. I'm sorry, sir?
    Q. At the top of the page it says "SECRET." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Okay. And if you turn to the last page --
    A. And what number is that?
    Q. 277.
    A. Very good.
    Q. Do you have that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. There's a reference there to CTR. Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And you see where Dr. Darkis of Liggett & Myers reports as follows:
"Darkis was very critical of CTR. Their research of no practical value." Do
you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Have you seen this document before it was shown to you by your
lawyers?
    A. I've seen it. I did not study it.
    Q. Okay. Did you see this part of this document before it was shown to
you by your lawyers?
    *25 A. I don't think I looked at this particular part.
    Q. Now you know that Dr. Darkis was one of the individuals who was
visited back in 1958 when the three English scientists came over and
visited with all of the institutions that we went through, and companies;
correct?
    A. I believe I remember that.
    Q. Okay. And you know that he was head of research and development at
-- at Liggett & Myers?
    A. I do not know that.
    Q. Did anybody ever tell you that?
    A. No.
    Q. Can you direct your attention, please, to document number 11890. And
sir, that would be in volume two.
    A. I have it.
    Q. And directly behind that is Exhibit 11891. Do you see it? It's the
attachment to the letter. Just pick up one page, sir. Do you see it there?
    A. I have 11890. I don't have 11891, at least not in proximity to this.
I may have it somewhere else.
    Q. Is it not attached to that?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. Well let me give --
    A. It's not attached.
    Q. Let me give you a copy, sir.
    MR. CIRESI: May I approach, Your Honor?
    THE COURT: All right.
        (Document handed to the witness.)
    Q. You can put it in there, sir. Okay?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. Now 11890 is a letter to Senator Earle Clements, who was at that
time the president and executive director of The Tobacco Institute, --
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- from William Bates, who was the director of research and
development at Liggett. Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And there's a carbon copy goes to Mr. Harrington, who was the
president of Liggett, and Mr. Haas, who was the general counsel of Liggett.
Do you see that?
    A. Well I will accept that, Mr. Ciresi, but there's no letterhead here,
so I really don't know the origin of the letter.
    Q. Fair enough, doctor. I will represent to you and I ask you to assume
that Mr. Bates is a research and direct -- director -- research and
development director at Liggett at that time, Mr. Harrington is Liggett's
president, and Mr. Haas was the general counsel.
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. And the letter attaches a memorandum; correct?
    A. Correct.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we would offer Exhibits 11890 and 11891.
    MR. WEBER: No objection, Your Honor.
    THE COURT: I don't have 11891.
    MR. CIRESI: I don't know if we have another copy either, Your Honor.
    MR. WEBER: I'd offer to share mine, but the copy we have from
plaintiffs is -- I can't even read the one I've got, so --
    THE COURT: Well if I can't read it, I guess I'm not missing anything.
    Well if there's no objection, I'll receive 11890 and 11891. Hopefully
it's appropriate.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Let me direct your attention to 11890 first, the original letter, so
the court can see it also. And here it's a letter from Mr. Bates which
states "Dear Senator Clements:
    "I am enclosing a memorandum which I promised you slightly more than a
month ago. I apologize for the delay but hope it will serve your purposes."
Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Okay. And attached is the memorandum, which is Exhibit 11891, which
is to Senator Bates, who was the president and executive director of The
Tobacco Institute. Do you see that, sir?
    *26 A. I do.
    Q. Did The Tobacco Institute hire senators to run its operation when
senators retired from the Senate?
    A. Apparently they did.
    Q. Do you know if Senator Clements had any expertise in the field of
smoking and health?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Do you know if he had any expertise in the tobacco industry at all?
    A. I can't tell you. This was in 1967.
    Q. Okay. Do you know what state he was a senator from?
    A. Kentucky.
    Q. Did you get a chance to vote for him?
    A. No.
    Q. Had he worked for the industry before he was a senator?
    A. I don't know that.
    Q. Has there been a policy at the CTR and The Tobacco Institute to hire
retiring politicians?
    A. No, sir, not at the -- not at the CTR.
    Q. Now if you direct your attention, then, to Exhibit 11891, do you see
that Mr. Bates, the director of research and development at Liggett, is
expressing his opinion in paragraph one -- or paragraph two, excuse me,
that the tobacco industry has a very serious problem in the current
tobacco-health controversy and it is rapidly becoming worse? Do you see
that?
    A. I do.
    Q. He reports that "Prior to 1954 the problem was mainly a public
relations problem and our opponents had no effective base to work from." Do
you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And then he says, "In December of 1973 with the publishing of the
Wynder, Graham and Croninger paper the problem, not only intensified, it
became a scientific one." Do you see that?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Now the first Surgeon General's report came out about three years
before this memorandum; correct, sir?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And in that Surgeon General's report the Surgeon General reported
that smoking caused lung cancer in men; correct?
    A. Suggested it, yes.
    Q. Stated it; correct?
    A. I've forgotten the exact statement, I can't quote it, but the
implication was very clear.
    Q. Would you deny that in '64 the Surgeon General said smoking causes
lung cancer?
    A. No, sir, I don't deny. I just don't remember the exact statement.
    Q. Okay. Now in 1967, then, Mr. Bates, the research and development
director, states that "In the last fourteen years this problem has become
much more complex, more involved and much more serious. Although this
problem has public relations, business, legal and political components, it
is basically a scientific one." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now at this point in time the CTR had been in existence for 13
years; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Mr. Bates goes on to state this: "So far, however, the major
efforts of the industry to cope with this problem have been other than
scientific." Correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And he goes on to state at the bottom of that sentence, "In my
opinion this problem can only be defined by doing appropriate medical and
epidemiological research." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he goes on in the next page to report that, "The Public Health
Service effort in medical research is enormous...;" correct?
    *27 A. Correct.
    Q. And he says that "for the most part is directed at basic researches
-- research on the causes of disease with essentially no direct work on the
interaction of smoking and disease." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. So what that means is that the Public Health Service, through a lot
of medical institutions, was doing basic research into cancer; correct?
    A. I think that is a fair interpretation.
    Q. They weren't looking specifically at the interaction of smoking and
lung cancer, they were looking at cancer generally through basic research;
correct?
    A. Count your blessings.
    Q. Isn't that correct, sir?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he goes on to state, "If all of the diseases which have been
associated with smoking were found to be attributable to causes other than
smoking -- smoking would be exonerated." Correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And then he says, "But, this is not likely to happen in several life
times." Correct?
    A. That's correct.
    Q. And in each succeeding Surgeon General's report since 1964, more
diseases that were associated with smoking have been found by the Surgeon
General to be caused by smoking; isn't that correct?
    A. I don't understand your statement.
    Q. Well --
    A. Each succeeding report by the Surgeon General --
    Q. Has found more diseases --
    A. Has --
    Q. -- to be caused by smoking.
    A. Has implicated smoking in a broader variety of diseases, yes.
    Q. It has said "caused by smoking;" correct?
    A. Using the word "cause" in the statistical epidemiological
association, yes.
    Q. Sir, it has said "caused by smoking;" right?
    A. I understand that, but we have to define the word "cause" --
    Q. Now --
    A. -- in order to understand each other.
    Q. Now, sir, Mr. Bates in the letter to -- the memorandum to Senator
Clements goes on to talk about CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he says, "The CTR and AMA programs suffer from almost the same
fault." And AMA is the American Medical Association; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And the tobacco industry was giving some funding to the AMA;
correct?
    A. As I understand it, yes.
    Q. Okay. And what he says is, "Most of their projects have only a
peripheral connection to tobacco use." Correct?
    A. That's what he says.
    Q. And he goes on to say down a little bit lower in that page, "The CTR
has done little to improve the situation and neither has the industry."
Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And he goes on, then, to state that there is a need to establish
communication at all levels of industry and government and to establish
communication and cooperation between the industry and the Public Health
Service at the working scientific level; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And if you go on to the next page, he states that in his opinion the
CTR is neither organized nor staffed to properly do the job that must be
done; correct?
    A. That was his opinion.
    Q. And he wasn't alone in that opinion within the industry; was he?
    *28 A. I -- I don't know that.
    Q. Can you direct your attention to Exhibit 21804.
    A. I have it.
    Q. Now this is a document from Addison Yeaman, vice-president and
general counsel of Brown & Williamson, to a number of individuals; correct?
    A. Document is unsigned. I have two pages. The letterhead says "Addison
Yeaman, Vice-President," but it does not identify him as the author.
    Q. Sir, do you know Addison Yeaman to be the one-time vice-president
and general counsel of Brown & Williamson Company?
    A. Yes. It is so stated here on the letterhead.
    Q. And you knew that anyway; didn't you?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And in fact he was chairman of the CTR at one point; wasn't he?
    A. After his retirement I believe he was, yes.
    Q. So the lawyer left Brown & Williamson and he came and was chairman
of CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And this is a letter dated January 19th, 1968; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And it's to a number of individuals. And I'd like to ask you to
assume that Mr. Grant, who's named, was Lorillard's general counsel; Mr.
Haas was the general counsel at Liggett at that time; Mr. Hetsko was the
general counsel at American; Mr. Ramm --
    And you've heard of Mr. Ramm.
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. He was the general counsel at RJR. Mr. Smith was the general
counsel at Philip Morris. And a carbon copy went to Dr. Little. Do you see
that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And Mr. Forsyth who is mentioned was with United States Tobacco
Company, their general counsel. Can you assume those things?
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Okay. You knew some of these people; didn't you?
    A. By name.
    Q. And you --
    A. None of them personally.
    Q. And you knew what position they held; correct?
    A. You have refreshed my memory and also provided me with new
information. I did not know some of these names.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 21804.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, we'd object to this for reasons that I think
were expressed previously by Brown & Williamson. I think the court has
ruled on it, but just for the record I'd note that.
    THE COURT: All right. Court will receive 21804.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. That's up on the overhead sir, and you can see it in your book. We
see the addressees of the memo and the fact that it's private and
confidential; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now if we go to the first paragraph, doctor --
    As you see, first of all, the letter is dated January 19th; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mr. Yeaman here is referring to a meeting that took place on
Thursday, January 18 at CTR. Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. He says that Phil Grant and he joined Janet Brown and Cy Hetsko at
the luncheon; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Janet Brown was a lawyer who represented American Tobacco, do
you know that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And Cy Hetsko, as I said, was the general counsel at American;
correct?
    A. That's what you have told me.
    Q. All right. And you'll see here that two principal items were
discussed, one, the idea of increased participation by the companies'
respective R&D directors in overall problems related to health, and two,
Brown & Williamson's concern, which I understand to be shared generally in
varying degrees, for some reassessment and possible realignment or
reorientation of CTR. Do you see that?
    *29 A. I do.
    Q. Now in your investigation that you made into the history of the CTR,
did you ascertain whether or not the sponsoring companies, the
manufacturers in this case, had concern about the orientation of CTR in the
late 1960s?
    A. Yes, they did.
    Q. And Mr. Yeaman here reflects the fact that the discussion was highly
useful; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And he reports the fact that the impression was that Lorillard, like
Brown & Williamson and others, had considerable concern whether the dollars
were being spent in the most useful way, and specifically whether the
companies might derive greater value both short and long term if CTR were
reorientated and perhaps in a sense reorganized; right?
    A. I see that.
    Q. And this question of reorientation provoked a response from the
lawyer, Janet Brown; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And she gave what Mr. Yeaman characterized as a well-reasoned
argument in defense of the long-established policy of CTR, carried out
through the Scientific Advisory Board, to, quote, research the disease, end
of quote, as opposed to researching questions more directly related to
tobacco; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. And Mr. Yeaman at this point in 1968 relates why that type of
approach of CTR was helpful or useful to the industry in two particular
ways; correct?
    A. I see that.
    Q. First, it enabled the industry to maintain the existing -- that the
existing evidence of a relationship between the use of tobacco and health
is inadequate to justify more closely related to tobacco -- research more
closely related to tobacco; correct?
    A. That's what it says, yes.
    Q. So in other words, what Mr. Yeaman is saying here is that the
research that was being done by CTR served to keep research relating to
cigarettes in the background; isn't he?
    A. That's not what it says.
    Q. Well that's the import of what it says; correct?
    A. Well I'm not sure about that. That's an interpretation.
    Q. Well "First, we maintain the position that the existing evidence of
a relationship between the use of tobacco and health is inadequate to
justify research more closely related to tobacco," and he's saying that
that flows from the fact that CTR was sponsoring research into the disease
and not into smoking and health; correct? That's what he says.
    A. No, that's not what he says, but that -- that's your interpretation.
I'm not sure I accept that. This is --
    This statement could be read several ways. For instance, "research more
closely related to tobacco," well is he talking about the plant, the
tobacco product, smoking, or the diseases that have been statistically
associated with smoking and health? And I just don't know. That -- to me
that's too vague.
    Q. Too vague for you. Okay. I suppose it could mean whether nicotine is
addictive. Could have sponsored that kind of research --
    A. Well --
    Q. -- into the tobacco plant; is that right?
    A. Certainly.
    Q. Is that --
    A. He doesn't address that issue.
    *30 Q. No. But what he does say is because they've researched the
disease as opposed to researching questions more directly related to
tobacco, that's been useful for two purposes, it's enabled the industry to
maintain a position; correct? That's what he says; doesn't he?
    A. Well I -- I --
    If I can interpret in my way, this is a memorandum between lawyers, and
they really don't understand or appreciate, I think, the -- with all
apologies to attorneys, I don't think they appreciated the impact of the
basic biomedical research that was going on at the time. For instance, when
you -- you deal with the phrase such as to, quote, research the disease,
unquote, as opposed to "researching questions more directly related to
tobacco," that reflects a degree of naivete that really is remarkable.
    Q. You use the word "naivete" a lot. You used it in your deposition
when somebody questioned you; didn't you? Didn't you, sir?
    A. I don't think I use the word "naivete" a lot. I believe it's the
first time I've said it in several weeks. But I may have said it in my
deposition as well.
    Q. And you said it when you were interrogated by a congressman in
Congress. You called the congressman naive; didn't you?
    A. I don't remember that.
    Q. You don't?
    A. No. It's very -- very likely I did, but --
    Q. Yeah. I won't pull it out.
    Now the second useful thing by researching the disease was, secondly,
the study of the disease keeps constantly alive the argument that until
basic knowledge of the disease itself is further advanced, it is
scientifically inappropriate to devote the major effort to tobacco;
correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now the industry itself was in the business of selling
tobacco; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. They weren't selling soft drinks; correct?
    A. I don't think so.
    Q. They weren't selling tractors; correct?
    A. Although they are now.
    Q. And they got the ability to buy that company through the profits
from tobacco; correct?
    A. I don't know.
    Q. Well that's where they started; didn't they, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Yes. And they've used those profits they've made to buy all kinds of
companies; haven't they?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And as they've done that, they've gotten wealthier and wealthier;
haven't they, sir?
    A. I don't know that. I'm not an economist.
    Q. You don't know if the net worth of those companies has grown over
the 40 years since 1954?
    A. If it hasn't, I think they would probably be out of business.
    Q. Sure. And --
    Well, think they should be out of business?
    A. No, sir.
    Q. You don't.
    Now the second fact that is mentioned here is that it would be
scientifically inappropriate to devote the major effort to tobacco; right?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. Now --
    A. Bear in mind that this was written by lawyers for lawyers.
    Q. Lawyers talking about --
    By the way, you're not going to insult me when, you know, you said
"You're a lawyer." That's fine.
    *31 But lawyers talking about the CTR; correct?
    A. That is correct.
    Q. Lawyers talking about what the orientation of the CTR should be;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. General counsel, the top lawyers in each company talking about that;
correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. No scientist talking about it in this memo; is there?
    A. Unfortunately, not.
    Q. And if the lawyers were directing what research should or should not
be done, in your judgment, that would be unfortunate; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now the CTR was set up, as we saw its purpose back in that previous
memo, to research smoking and health; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Not basic research into cancer generally; were they, sir?
    A. That's a complex question, and I don't think it's fair to give a
"yes" and "no." The fundamental mechanisms of disease are the things that
we're trying to uncover, and I know that you know that a conscientious
effort has been made to do that. The more we learned of smoking and health,
the health problems related to smoking, the more we realized we had to get
into fundamental and basic mechanisms of disease to try to understand it. I
could go on at great length about this. I don't want to do that, I don't
want to take your time or that of the jury. But there is no simple answer
to your question.
    Yes, TIRC, subsequently CTR, was by the Frank Statement dedicated to
investigating issues of smoking and health and has done so over the years,
but the research that's been required has become more and more
sophisticated as time goes by, and basic molecular/cellular biology,
genetics, immunology, all come into play. The question is not an easy
question to answer. And --
    Q. That wasn't my question.
    A. -- to simply say "smoking and health" doesn't cover the subject.
    Q. That wasn't my question, sir.
    A. What was your question?
    Q. My question was: The purpose of the formation of CTR was to research
smoking and health; wasn't it?
    A. It was. And that was done.
    Q. Now the companies felt that that wasn't being done; didn't they, as
-- as reflected --
    A. I'm not sure what --
    Q. -- by these memoranda; correct?
    A. I'm not sure what the companies felt or understood or thought at the
time, and I can only read this and try to interpret it in my own way.
    Q. As expressed in these memoranda, that's what the companies were
saying; correct?
    A. At that time, late sixties and up into the seventies, the companies
-- the sponsor companies were ambivalent about their research programs. I
think there was a failure of communication and understanding. There are
multiple memoranda that I've been provided by counsel from the company
files indicating misapprehension and -- and dissatisfaction with the
medical research programs that were being mounted.
    Q. And let's take a look at some of those. Can you take a look at
Exhibit 100 -- or 10125, one zero one two five.
    A. I have it. I must say it's illegible.
    Q. Can you make out --
    *32 That is a difficult copy, but it's the only one provided to us,
sir. Do you see it's a memorandum from Mr. Harrington to Mr. Bates again,
dated February 19th, 1968?
    A. I can read that, yes.
    Q. And the subject is ""Meeting of Scientific Directors February 14th
to 16th, 1968?"
    A. I think so, yes.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we'd offer Trial Exhibit 10125.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, I would object to this because apparently it's
not just the copy that I got off the plaintiffs' disks but it may be the
one up there. I can't read the one I have. I'd object on the grounds of
illegibility.
    MR. CIRESI: That's the document --
    THE COURT: Do you have the document -- the original document, counsel?
    MR. WEBER: I don't. I assume this came from Liggett. I certainly don't
have it. What I've got is the copy that I was provided from plaintiffs.
    MR. CIRESI: This is the document that was provided to us by the
defendants.
    THE COURT: Well we'll have to go with it. I can read my copy.
    MR. WEBER: You can?
    THE COURT: Oh, sure.
    MR. WEBER: Okay.
    THE COURT: Do you want to look at my copy?
    MR. WEBER: I'll see how the doctor does with that one. And, Your Honor,
with your permission, if he has a hard time reading it, perhaps he could --
he could check yours?
    THE COURT: Sure. See if mine's any better.
    I'll tell you what, why don't you -- why don't you go ahead with your
questioning, and if there's something you can't read, then I'll give you my
copy.
    THE WITNESS: Okay, fine.
    THE COURT: This way I can follow along. Okay?
    THE WITNESS: Yes.
    MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
    MR. CIRESI: And I'll try to help out, doctor, as we go along, because
it is a tough copy.
    Your Honor, we offer 10125.
    THE COURT: All right, we'll receive 10125.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now it may help by looking at the monitor, doctor, because we can
bring up the magnification on that.
    A. I think it does.
    Q. Okay. Now that's to Mr. Harrington from Mr. Bates. You see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. February 19th, 1968.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And the subject is "Meeting of Scientific Directors" --
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- "February 14th to 16th, 1968."
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. And if you look at the individuals, you'll see they met at
Hilton Head for a two-and-a-half-day meeting; correct?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And Mr. Harlow from American Tobacco was there?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Mr. Griffith from Brown & Williamson?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Dr. Senkus from R. J. Reynolds?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Dr. Wakeham from Philip Morris?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Dr. Spears from Lorillard?
    A. Correct.
    Q. You know Dr. Spears.
    A. Yes.
    Q. He's the present CEO of Lorillard; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. He's a Ph.D.?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. Now that means he's not a medical doctor.
    A. No.
    Q. Okay. Do you consider him qualified to discuss these issues?
    A. He's a very able scientist.
    Q. Okay. So the fact that he's not an M.D. doesn't mean he wouldn't be
able; isn't that right?
    *33 A. No, our Scientific Advisory Board is made up of both M.D.'s and
Ph.D.'s.
    Q. Okay.
    A. Dr. Spears has not been engaged in direct biomedical research, but
--
    Q. I understand.
    A. -- he's an able scientist.
    Q. And finally Mr. Bates from Liggett & Myers; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now if you go down to the second paragraph, and we'll see if we can
bring that up a little bit -- now let me read that for you, sir. The
meeting's purpose was as follows: "Our primary purpose was to discuss the
scientific aspects of the problems facing the tobacco industry, with
specific emphasis on tobacco and health. If a consensus could be reached on
this point, we were to discuss and attempt to reach a consensus as to an
acceptable way to attempt to solve these problems." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Now Mr. Harlow, it's referred to in the next paragraph, had been
instructed not to discuss nor to be present in the room when matters other
than chemistry or anything he thought wasn't in his field of expertise was
being discussed.
    If you go over to the next page, it says, "The forbidden subjects
included statistics, epidemiology, pharmacology, toxicology, and anything
which might be broadly interpreted as being biological or medical in
nature." Do you see that?
    A. I see that.
    Q. Then Mr. Bates, the R&D director at Liggett, had been instructed by
Mr. Haas, who was the general counsel at Liggett, not to take part in any
discussion of the mission of or a possible reorganization of CTR; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now if we go on to page three of this document, you'll see at the
very bottom that Mr. Bates on -- shortly after lunch on the second day of
the conference, "insisted upon discussing what I considered to be the major
scientific problem facing the industry. As a result, Mr. Harlow left the
meeting." Correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. "After a brief discussion the -- brief discussion the remaining five
scientific directors rather quickly arrived at a consensus...," and if we
go over to the next page, we see what that consensus is; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Number one, "There is general agreement that it is desirable, paren,
I feel it is necessary, close paren, to establish the scientific facts
which will put smoking and health into the proper perspective. These
problems are of such magnitude that they are beyond the capability of one
-- any one company to attack with the expectation of making the needed
progress within reasonable time period -- time limits." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. Number two, "In order to do this will require an extensive and
broadly based program which includes epidemiology, pharmacology,
toxicology, chemistry and the necessary interactions of components of
cigarette smoke with biological systems of animals and where necessary
humans. Our thoughts expressed here may in fact" -- I'm sorry. "My thoughts
expressed here may in fact go somewhat beyond my fellow conferees." Do you
see that?
    *34 A. I do.
    Q. Three, "The organization discussed above contains the essential
elements to undertake the type -- kind of program which is required."
Correct?
    A. That's what it says.
    Q. And the organization that was being discussed was something
different than the CTR; wasn't it?
    A. I assume so. But I've never read this document, so I can't -- I
can't tell you that. From what we've read, I think that's a fair
assumption.
    Q. And fourth, "In addition we reached agreement that in many areas of
basic research such as the isolation and identification of components of
cigarette smoke and other problems with non-competitive implications, work
should be jointly planned and divided between individual industry labs so
as to eliminate unnecessary duplication and generate more information
faster without increase in funds needed to do the work." Do you see that?
    A. I do.
    Q. And then at the next paragraph Mr. Bates has his own thoughts. "To
this report of the meeting of scientific directors I want to add my
extremely deep felt conviction that the scientific problems which face the
industry -- tobacco industry in general and Liggett & Myers in particular
are of such nature and magnitude that a substantially increased research
effort is required for any real progress toward their solution."
    Now, this was shortly after the meeting of the general counsels that we
saw; correct?
    A. I guess so. I didn't compare the date.
    Q. This represents the thinking of the research directors of all of the
companies who supported the CTR; correct?
    A. I'm not sure of that. This represents the thoughts of Mr. Bates, and
I -- I don't know what his qualifications are to make these judgments. He
even admits within the text there that these thoughts may reflect his own
feelings rather than those of his fellow conferees.
    Q. He's reporting on a two-and-a-half-day conference that took place at
Hilton Head Island in South Carolina among and between the research
directors of these major corporations in America; correct, sir?
    A. He is reporting on that conference. It is his report. These are not
approved minutes. These reflect Mr. Bates' interpretation of what happened
at the meeting, and he admits in there himself that this may reflect more
his own views than those of his fellow conferees.
    Q. And this is consistent with what the general counsels were saying
about CTR and a need for reorganization; isn't it?
    A. Well a number of people were questioning the directions of CTR
research, CTR-sponsored research.
    Q. And this was --
    A. So this is not surpriseing --
    Q. Excuse me.
    A. -- to me. But I again come back to the point: I'm not sure what Mr.
Bates' qualifications are to be making these judgments.
    Q. Yeah. Whatever his qualifications were, he was the head of research
and development of a major United States corporation that was selling
product that was accused of killing thousands of people; correct?
    A. That's your statement. I don't know whether that's true or not. He
may --
    *35 I accept from you that he was the director of research. It's
disappointing that he doesn't show any more insight than he does here in
this memorandum.
    Q. Not enough insight for you; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now can you direct your attention to Exhibit 11434. Do you see this
is a B.A.T. Company Ltd. file --
    A. In which -- in which --
    Q. I'm sorry, sir, that would be in volume two of two.
    A. I'm looking. I have 11338 --
    Q. 114 --
    A. 11434.
    Q. 34. Do you have it, sir?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay.
    A. Badly organized. The tabs are overlapping.
    Q. Well I'll tell the folks who did it that they better organize --
    A. Well you could just tell them if they put them in chronological
order, it would have helped.
    Q. We'll tell the folks that they just didn't do a good-enough job,
sir.
    Now you do have 11434 in front of you?
    A. I do.
    Q. And that's a BATCo Ltd. document. Do you see that at the bottom?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And if you go to the last page, you see the letters "DGF, 11th
March 1970?"
    A. I see "DGF/SEW."
    Q. Okay.
    A. "11th March 1970."
    Q. And I want you to assume, sir, that DGF is Mr. Felton, who was a
research and development manager at BATCo. Can you assume that?
    A. I will accept that, yes.
    Q. And you'll recall that Mr. Felton was one of the individuals who
came to the United States in April and May of 1958, the exhibit that we
saw, 11028. Do you remember that?
    A. Yes. I don't remember the names, but I accept that.
    MR. CIRESI: Okay. Your Honor, we'd offer Exhibit 11434.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, we'd object on the basis that foundation
objection was preserved here.
    MR. CIRESI: There was no foundation objection reserved, I'm told, Your
Honor. Moreover, it's a document from BATCo. It's admissible under
801(d)(2)(D), admission of an agent, it's admissible under 801(d)(2)(B) as
an adoptive admission, and it's admissible as an ancient document under
803(16). It's also admissible as an admission of a co-conspirator.
    MR. WEBER: Your Honor, on that point, if I can apologize to you and to
Mr. Ciresi, reading the notes from the others who gave this to me, I read
it wrong. The foundation -- there is no foundation objection, so I
apologize. And I'll withdraw that.
    THE COURT: Okay. Court will receive 11434.
BY MR. CIRESI:
    Q. Now, sir, do you see that this is a supplementary report on
discussions with Osdene and Philip Morris?
    A. Yes, I do.
    Q. And again, this is in 1970, about two years after the last document
we just looked at; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Now Dr. Osdene was head of research and development at Philip
Morris; correct?
    A. As I understand it.
    Q. And do you understand that he was an esteemed scientist there?
    A. I don't know that. I don't know Dr. Osdene.
    Q. You never heard that he was an esteemed scientist at Philip Morris?
    A. No, sir, I never heard that. I heard that he was a research
scientist at Philip Morris.
    *36 Q. Now do you know what type of research on smoking and health he
ever directed or conducted?
    A. I think he too was a chemist and was looking at things from a
chemical viewpoint, but I don't know that. This was --
    Q. Well remember, you said you --
    A. -- 30 years ago.
    Q. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. I apologize.
    Remember, you said you never guess, you only say what you know or don't
know; isn't that right?
    A. Correct.
    Q. So you don't know what he was there; is that right?
    A. No, I don't know.
    Q. Now can you direct your attention to page two.
    A. Yes, sir.
    Q. Down to (f), "Relations with the CTR." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. "These could scarcely be worse! Osdene's view, paren, Philip
Morris's view, question mark, close paren, was that CTR did virtually no
useful work and cost a vast amount of money. He was highly critical of
Little, Hoyt and Hockett and considered the most able member of the staff
was probably Kreisher. The SAB" --
    That's the Scientific Advisory Board; correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. -- "was not considered to be very effective, but he was not critical
of any individual member. Furst was described as a 'reasonable
second-rater.' This may be the advice which was given to the president of
Philip Morris by Wakeham." Do you see that?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Now do you know if Dr. Wakeham at that time was Dr. Osdene's
superior?
    A. I don't know that. I've forgotten the relationship.
    Q. Do you know if Dr. Wakeham reported to the president of Philip
Morris?
    A. I think he did. I think he did, as a matter of fact.
    MR. CIRESI: Your Honor, we're going on to another document there.
    THE COURT: All right. I think we'll recess at this time and reconvene
tomorrow morning at 9:30.
    THE CLERK: Court stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
        (Court recesses.)