Up-to-date information on our collaborative research and citizen science work with the residents of Flint, MI in light of reported water quality issues
HomeDr. Edwards’ subpoenaed testimony from the pre-trial hearings of Dr. Eden Wells and Mr. Nick Lyon
Dr. Edwards’ subpoenaed testimony from the pre-trial hearings of Dr. Eden Wells and Mr. Nick Lyon
6 thoughts on “Dr. Edwards’ subpoenaed testimony from the pre-trial hearings of Dr. Eden Wells and Mr. Nick Lyon”
Well, these are extremely interesting documents. Although I’m only through the first 85 pages of the first I wanted to thank you very much for posting these, it is very enlightening.
What sticks in my mind (starting at ~pg 50, and escalating especially around pg 60, including the ~10 min. off the record discussion seemingly forced by Mr Flood’s objections) is the seeming dogged determination of Mr. Flood to prevent facts regarding the actions of Dr. McElmurry to be disclosed by Dr. Edwards. Although I’m not in the legal profession, I keep asking myself “Why”? Why is Mr. Flood so reluctant to have simple facts come out??
I like to assume that if I were in Mr. Floods shoes I might simply state and come to a conclusion (perhaps later for a jury) that, Yes, there were ethical problems associated with McElmurrys actions, however, I ask the jury to believe him on the remainder of his testimony against Dr. Wells.
It seems simplest and most honest. Why this dogged determination to bury the hard facts that there seems to have been severe misrepresentation (i.e. lying) in order to secure a place at the table and significant funds by a ‘researcher’? Why doesn’t Mr. Flood simply acknowledge the facts and move on? Not doing so, (IMO) makes it seem as if he is also complicit in some type of orchestrated effort to create public misperceptions.
Remember our legal system is an adversarial model. In some other countries both sides are supposed to be finding the truth, whereas our system is more designed, for lawyers to present the best possible case for their side. Whatever that side is.
I personally cannot be an outspoken advocate, unless a law is being broken, or common morality is involved, and if I am an advocate I will make that clear. and why. Mr. Flood was merely playing his role in our justice system. You might have noticed he tried to make me look bad a few times. You cannot take it personally. I have met him and I think he is trying to do his job. But sometimes the adversarial system misses the boat on bringing facts to light, and it has other shortcomings, as you have properly noted.
You might have noticed that we STILL do not have a simple answer to our simple questions about Dr. McElmurry. Our whole society seems to be adversarial. Not many people will just tell the truth anymore– it has to be dragged out of them. I find this sad. We will be writing more about the FACHEP train wreck in the future, but we need to wait until McElmurry’s situation is resolved. There is always a chance I am wrong about his qualifications, although I really cannot see how, and one would think if there was an innocent explanation it would have been provided already.
Recently saw the end of “The Emperors Club” and was struck by the similarities of this last scene to this topic… if you haven’t seen it, please take a peek; I’m sure you will truly enjoy:
FYI, there are lots of us in academia watching this case as it sends a message for what our own graduate students, post docs, new faculty etc. see as behavior that one can ‘get away with’.
Perhaps Sedgewick in the above movie clip is correct about the ‘real world’? Hopefully not but we shall see in time. Also, thanks for pointing out that aspect of our judicial system model, the truth finding/telling one certainly does sound more attractive!
Can’t say I enjoyed it, but it was all too true.
Did they edit out “Who gives a shit” to sound like “Who gives –it?
As a backdrop to the beginning phases of the FACHEP train wreck, you and your academia colleagues might also want to read the following article:
Ironically, even as I openly questioned the sudden interest of opportunists in the Flint water crisis, FACHEP was at that very time getting funded. Dr. McElmurry read the Chronicle article and then emailed me about it:
“…I also realize everyone in the world is trying to get your time, particularly academics trying to get a piece of the pie! .. …. the concept of a “public good” seems to be lost in many areas of our society. Thanks for bringing attention to this subject.”
If indeed, he did not work in Flint 2010-2015 as he claimed, to get himself and his hand-picked team $3.5 million sole source funding–I can’t imagine a better example of what I was describing in the Chronicle article.
I’d like to speak with you and your colleagues someday, if and when the dust clears on this, and we learn if the circumstances leading to the formation of FACHEP are as bad as I fear.
Yes, it’s a great clip, especially the quivering lip of the belligerent Sedgewick as he is sure he is triumphant. 🙁 And yes, we will e-mail Siddhartha back separately very soon.
It is my understanding that letters of support are currently coming in to Mr. Wilcox at MPI right now (in addition one MI Senator’s investigative team) regarding the FOIA case. Be strong… it is possible that Sedgewick is wrong 🙂
Yes, it’s a great clip, especially Sedgewick’s quivering lip as he belligerently delivers his victory speech about The World not caring. 🙁 And yes, we will e-mail Siddhartha very soon to talk.
Numerous parties have contacted both Mr. Wilcox of MPI, as well as the investigative team of a MI Senator leading U.S. Senate Appropriations, in support of your FOIA case this past week. It is still possible that Sedgewick was wrong. Stay strong… :-))
Well, these are extremely interesting documents. Although I’m only through the first 85 pages of the first I wanted to thank you very much for posting these, it is very enlightening.
What sticks in my mind (starting at ~pg 50, and escalating especially around pg 60, including the ~10 min. off the record discussion seemingly forced by Mr Flood’s objections) is the seeming dogged determination of Mr. Flood to prevent facts regarding the actions of Dr. McElmurry to be disclosed by Dr. Edwards. Although I’m not in the legal profession, I keep asking myself “Why”? Why is Mr. Flood so reluctant to have simple facts come out??
I like to assume that if I were in Mr. Floods shoes I might simply state and come to a conclusion (perhaps later for a jury) that, Yes, there were ethical problems associated with McElmurrys actions, however, I ask the jury to believe him on the remainder of his testimony against Dr. Wells.
It seems simplest and most honest. Why this dogged determination to bury the hard facts that there seems to have been severe misrepresentation (i.e. lying) in order to secure a place at the table and significant funds by a ‘researcher’? Why doesn’t Mr. Flood simply acknowledge the facts and move on? Not doing so, (IMO) makes it seem as if he is also complicit in some type of orchestrated effort to create public misperceptions.
Remember our legal system is an adversarial model. In some other countries both sides are supposed to be finding the truth, whereas our system is more designed, for lawyers to present the best possible case for their side. Whatever that side is.
I personally cannot be an outspoken advocate, unless a law is being broken, or common morality is involved, and if I am an advocate I will make that clear. and why. Mr. Flood was merely playing his role in our justice system. You might have noticed he tried to make me look bad a few times. You cannot take it personally. I have met him and I think he is trying to do his job. But sometimes the adversarial system misses the boat on bringing facts to light, and it has other shortcomings, as you have properly noted.
You might have noticed that we STILL do not have a simple answer to our simple questions about Dr. McElmurry. Our whole society seems to be adversarial. Not many people will just tell the truth anymore– it has to be dragged out of them. I find this sad. We will be writing more about the FACHEP train wreck in the future, but we need to wait until McElmurry’s situation is resolved. There is always a chance I am wrong about his qualifications, although I really cannot see how, and one would think if there was an innocent explanation it would have been provided already.
Recently saw the end of “The Emperors Club” and was struck by the similarities of this last scene to this topic… if you haven’t seen it, please take a peek; I’m sure you will truly enjoy:
https://www.wingclips.com/movie-clips/the-emperors-club/who-we-really-are
FYI, there are lots of us in academia watching this case as it sends a message for what our own graduate students, post docs, new faculty etc. see as behavior that one can ‘get away with’.
Perhaps Sedgewick in the above movie clip is correct about the ‘real world’? Hopefully not but we shall see in time. Also, thanks for pointing out that aspect of our judicial system model, the truth finding/telling one certainly does sound more attractive!
Can’t say I enjoyed it, but it was all too true.
Did they edit out “Who gives a shit” to sound like “Who gives –it?
As a backdrop to the beginning phases of the FACHEP train wreck, you and your academia colleagues might also want to read the following article:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Water-Next-Time-Professor/235136
and “A poison in the water” in the same edition.
Ironically, even as I openly questioned the sudden interest of opportunists in the Flint water crisis, FACHEP was at that very time getting funded. Dr. McElmurry read the Chronicle article and then emailed me about it:
“…I also realize everyone in the world is trying to get your time, particularly academics trying to get a piece of the pie! .. …. the concept of a “public good” seems to be lost in many areas of our society. Thanks for bringing attention to this subject.”
See his Feb 10th 2016 email here: https://flintwaterstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/FACHEP-Part-1.pdf
If indeed, he did not work in Flint 2010-2015 as he claimed, to get himself and his hand-picked team $3.5 million sole source funding–I can’t imagine a better example of what I was describing in the Chronicle article.
See also:
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ees.2016.0223
I’d like to speak with you and your colleagues someday, if and when the dust clears on this, and we learn if the circumstances leading to the formation of FACHEP are as bad as I fear.
Yes, it’s a great clip, especially the quivering lip of the belligerent Sedgewick as he is sure he is triumphant. 🙁 And yes, we will e-mail Siddhartha back separately very soon.
It is my understanding that letters of support are currently coming in to Mr. Wilcox at MPI right now (in addition one MI Senator’s investigative team) regarding the FOIA case. Be strong… it is possible that Sedgewick is wrong 🙂
Yes, it’s a great clip, especially Sedgewick’s quivering lip as he belligerently delivers his victory speech about The World not caring. 🙁 And yes, we will e-mail Siddhartha very soon to talk.
Numerous parties have contacted both Mr. Wilcox of MPI, as well as the investigative team of a MI Senator leading U.S. Senate Appropriations, in support of your FOIA case this past week. It is still possible that Sedgewick was wrong. Stay strong… :-))