1:07:00
I don't disagree -
I don't understand them.
1:07:03
What don't you understand?
They're straightforward questions.
1:07:05
Have the plaintiffs established,
by preponderance of evidence,
1:07:09
that chemicals containing TCE
were disposed of on these lands
1:07:14
after October 1 , 1964
and August 27, 1968, respectively,
1:07:20
and did those chemicals contribute
to the well water contamination?
1:07:24
What were these dates?
Where are they from? Out of a hat?
1:07:28
Question two.
1:07:30
What, according to
a preponderance of the evidence,
1:07:33
was the earliest time
at which these chemicals
1:07:37
substantially contributed
to the wells' contamination?
1:07:40
How can they determine that?
1:07:42
Science can't even determine
when the chemicals arrived
1:07:45
with the precision
that you're asking of the jurors.
1:07:49
And finally, three.
1:07:50
What, according to
a preponderance of the evidence,
1:07:53
was the earliest time -
again, month and year -
1:07:56
at which substantial contribution
referred to in question two
1:07:59
was caused, if it was,
1:08:01
by the negligent conduct
of the defendants?
1:08:05
It's like English translated into
Japanese back into English again.
1:08:08
I've heard enough.
1:08:09
Your Honour,
no one can answer these.
1:08:13
You're asking for answers
that are unknowable.
1:08:15
I've heard enough.
1:08:16
You're asking for a fiction
that stands for truth, but isn't.
1:08:20
Enough!
1:08:22
Once again, I remind you not
to discuss your views outside,
1:08:28
and excuse you...
1:08:33
Don't worry about it.
Everything's under control.
1:08:37
And excuse you
to your deliberations. Thank you.