Letters Received to Mr. Barker [H.H. Barker], May 28, 1928

the Columbia College nt and Simgents EPIDEMIOLOGY 437 WEST 59TH STREET, NEW YORK INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH SANITARY SCIENCE 28 Dear Mr Barker: I have been giving a little thought to your defonse in the Law Courts and an idea came to me that is rather bold and depends almost on the flip of a coin. If youstudy their case both from the Court presentation and newspa- per articles you will see that they all claim that radium once deposited in the bone is never eliminated and das Martland says remains for I700 years. Dr Howard Kelley of Baltimore in an interview says it will remain for 2000 years. Madam Curie in an ar- ticle published in the N.Y. Journal said the same thing. Of course all of this talk is without full infornation and inexperience in other lines besides their own, but why try to deny it in Court? Question their witnesses in such a manner as to put them definitely on record on this point. Certainly St George, Norris and Humphrey will fall into the trap, Martland may be a little cagey. Now they base their whole case on this fact and that radio-active material is to blame for the girls condition. consequently if radium is not present according to their theory it cannot be blamed for the condition of the girls. Of course this part of your defonse would require a very strong attack on Mrs Hughs' results. I don't think you need to fear Dr. Gettler. It would require handling her without gloves in the matter and you have her testimony already given to aid you in this examination. Of course I didn't hear her testimony and don't know anything about her results but I remember your saying that she admitted in conversation that they were not as positive as she would like them to be. It would require testimony to show that Dr Humphrey's observation as to radium rays and x-rays to be wrong. It might be necessary to conduct a few experiments along that line with x-ray plates to prove him wrong as I think he is. Now on the other hand you will have to rely on Dr Schlundt's and ny tests to prove that the girls are not radio-active now. According to their theory if they are not radio=active now they nover were and consequently are not and cannot be suffering from radium poisoning. You can go on the stand and testify as to the accura- cy of the method, etc. Dr S hlundt expe rience etc should be sufficient to satisfy the Court that our work was accurate. Of course if Dr Moore and Dr Lind could testify it would make the case all the stronger. Then you have Miss Freyer's case to con- sider and the fact that we found her radio-active in 1928. Personally I doubt very much if Dr. McCaffery has my report for if he had there is no doubt that it would have been spread on the Court's records in the affidavits as everything else I ever wrote that they have is. Certainly Berry would have asked me to indentify it when I was on the stand when he asked me to identify the other papers. We didn't tell her that we found her radio-active, - all the comment was on the blood which she brought out. They will have to bring Dr MeCaffery into Court and I doubt if he would come. Of course if he comes and brings my report that is another thing but I do not think he has it from my observation of the man. If the report is not presented I should think it would be just as well not to put me on the stand for then Berry cannot question me. I was careful in Newark not to say that she radio-active in I926. I think Dr McCaffery may have told her but that is not legal proof. Or if I am correct I cannot be crossed examined except what I have testified to in direct testimony. In that case all I need to testify to is my examination on April 24th which was negative. Of course this sug- gestion may be foolish but it fits in very well with their case which depends abso-