andrew schneider investigates

May 8, 2009

BULLETIN W.R. Grace and the three remaining defendants were acquited of all charges. No surprise considering judge’s restrictions on prosecution.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Andrew Schneider @ 09:38


  1. It is sad that you can not let the verdict stand with out shifting blame to the judge. I for one praise Judge Molloy fo not being swayed by public opinion unlike so many involved in this case. I just pray that one day the EPA will be held responsible for their role in this sad story. For the record, my father worked for WR Grace, I worked at WR Grace for three summers, grew up in Libby, ran on the track, played on the baseball fields, cut down my christmas trees on the mine site and skied down the tailings. My entire family has had our chests ex-rayed by the best in Seattle (no we did not use Brad Black) and they are all clean. How could that be? Yes, change needed to be made but I think you have pointed that finger at the wrong place for years and hopefully now the EPA/goverment will be help accountable!

    Comment by ann stringer-hadley — May 8, 2009 @ 10:59 | Reply

    • Ann,
      Your comments show how little you know about health exposure science. Not all exposed, even over exposed, to carcinogens will get cancer. Those exposed will just be at much greater risk of that health effect. You need to study up on the concept of results based on an individual vs group outcomes (basic epidemiology).

      However, I’m glad you and your relatives so far do not show adverse health outcomes from potential exposures.

      Comment by Kevin — May 8, 2009 @ 12:31 | Reply

    • “For the record” Ann, you may wish to add that your father not only worked for Grace, he was indicted as one of the Grace defendants. Such disclosure on your part would be helpful in putting the remainder of your assertions in perspective.

      Comment by Elmer F — May 8, 2009 @ 17:48 | Reply

    • I am happy for you that your family shows clear xrays–but what about everyone else whose xrays are not who have died and are dying from asbestosis-what of them?? Justice where was it? Think of the families and how they are feeling now watching over loved one’s who are dying-burying the one’s who have-it is a proven fact that Libby has the highest rate of asbestosis than any other part of this great country of ours-explain that–

      Comment by Sandy — May 8, 2009 @ 18:32 | Reply

  2. Well, W.R. Grace has gotten away with murder.I am not surprised at the verdict with all the restrictions imposed by Malloy to the jury. Another case of not “the grace of God” but the Gods of grace”

    Comment by Eva Thomson — May 8, 2009 @ 11:45 | Reply

    • I so totally agree with you–this is such a sad day for all the families and friends involved–justice did not prevail and the judge was so unprofessional it was scary–mistrial comes to mind get another judge– I knew we were in trouble when they had him for a judge as he had previously ruled in Grace’s favor in another court case which got overruled and then they went whining to the Supreme Court who denied listening to them thus the trial which again ended in Grace’s favor–there is a saying ” if you have the money you don’t do the time ” and guess who has the money–

      Comment by Penny — May 8, 2009 @ 14:47 | Reply

  3. Donald Molloy made a fool of himself in this trial. He lost his composure, and he lost his judicial temperament. He gave the appearance of being biased and very partial. The outcome of any trial is less important than the notion that fundamental fairness has been adhered to. Rightly or wrongly, people will assign blame to Molloy for the outcome, when in fact the outcome may well have been the same had Molloy comported himself with a greater degree of fairness and even-handedness.

    Comment by Elmer F — May 8, 2009 @ 14:18 | Reply

    • Elmer, you may be completely correct, Thank you.

      Comment by Andrew Schneider — May 8, 2009 @ 15:20 | Reply

  4. This has been the greatest miscarriage of justice I’ve seen since OJ’s murder aquittal. Penny is so correct–those who have the money…

    Comment by Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 16:27 | Reply

  5. what restrictions on the prosecution? i thought i read somewhere that the prosecution claimed it showed 80 or 85 of the 100 overt acts of the conspiracy that it alleged in the indictment, were those just weak overt acts that shouldn’t have put in the indictment or what?

    Comment by joe — May 9, 2009 @ 07:07 | Reply

  6. This trial shows that legality wins over morality every time. For once it would have been nice to see the right thing done to/for the victims instead of applauding corporate greed.

    Comment by MT Mountain Girl — May 9, 2009 @ 09:13 | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: