A Midwest attorney who is not associated with City of Milwaukee v NL but is a Sherwin-Williams' shareholder opines on the trial so far, off-the-record:
"Based on what I read in the trial transcript so far I don't view the two sides as equally matched. Already I pick up weaknesses on the plaintiff side. For instance, there is a lack of creativity in the plaintiff's opening. In fact, I perceive that opening as giving ammunition to the defense to discredit the emotional speculation that was spewed out. From following this lead paint public nuisance litigation for years, I do not assess that the studies cited by the plaintiff are credible. Also, there never has been a causal link established from lead dust to lead poisoning, only precautions that the paint industries provide warnings.
"As for using as an 'expert witness' a historian such as Gerald Markowitz who has already been found to be less than objective is risky to the plaintiff. This is a civil trial but in a criminal law trial prosecutors have no gray area when presenting situations which ware later deemed to be biased for false."
Reader comment welcome. Please contact Mgenova981@aol.com.