COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Tuesday, 6/11/02 10:45 a.m. Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, PA - - - RESOLUTION NO. 020171 - Authorizing the City Council Committee on Law and Government to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation of allegations that biological and chemical research was forced upon people incarcerated in the Philadelphia prisons during the years 1949 to 1974. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chairman COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Vice Chairman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO Tim Kearney, Committee Clerk Stan Shapiro, Counsel to Committee - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 WITNESS Angus Love, Executive Director................ Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project Lynn Weed, Human Rights Advocate.............. 7 Dorothy Alston, Experimentation Survivor...... 21 Former House of Corrections Inmate 8 Wesley Wilson Bey, Chairman................... 33 9 Men United Against Violence Network 10 Russell Green, Experimentation Survivor....... 36 Former Holmesburg Prison Inmate 11 William Harper, Lab Worker Inmate............. 45 Holmesburg Prison James Duckworth, Esquire...................... 59 Assistant Philadelphia City Solicitor Leon King, Esquire, General Counsel........... 60 Philadelphia Prison system Elise Bruhl, Esquire.......................... 60 Assistant Philadelphia City Solicitor Reverend Betty R. Hill........................ 132 Jack Barnett, Lab Worker Inmate............... 136 Holmesburg Prison Allen Hornblum, Author, Acres of Skin......... 143 Leodus Jones................................. 153 Community Assistance for Prisoners * * * 3 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
Good morning. Good morning, please. If I could have your attention, please, for a minute. This morning, at 10:30, is scheduled a hearing to investigate experiments that were done on prisoners that were done in four Philadelphia city prisons. That hearing will be delayed for a short period of time because there is also another prison-related hearing that was scheduled for 10 o'clock, which will start a little bit late as the committee is getting a quorum together. So if you are here for the 10:30 committee hearing of the City Council Committee on hearing on Law and Government, it will be delayed because the City Council Public Safety Committee and Health and Human Services Committee is first going to have a hearing on a report on prison health care currently. So I beg your patience. For all of those of you in the room who are here for the Law and Government Committee hearing, it will be delayed because there's a hearing that's going to go before us. So please be patient. If you want to take a break or use the 4 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 bathrooms, please do so. Thank you. - - - (Hearings of Committee on Public Safety and Health & Human Services take place, then committee is recessed.) - - -
Now we will go into the committee of Law and Government. Good morning, please. We have just finished with the Committee on Public Safety; now this is a hearing of the Committee on Law and Government. Councilman David Cohen is the Chair of this committee, I'm the Vice Chair of this committee. Councilman Cohen is -- has been indisposed for a few hours; he might make it to this meeting, but if not, we will proceed without him. We are not needing a quorum because we are not into a meeting, and the committee will not take action. I will ask first Tim Kearney, the clerk of the committee, and then Stan Shapiro to explain 5 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 some of the procedures that will be taking place. Tim? Read the resolution, please.
Good morning. Resolution 5 020171, authorizing the City Council Committee on Law and Government to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation of allegations that biological and chemical research was forced upon people incarcerated in the Philadelphia prisons during the years 1949 to 1974.
Thank you, Tim. The Chair recognizes Stan Shapiro, counsel for the committee.
A number of letters sent out after the last committee hearing to people and entities who, it came to the attention of the committee. Were involved in the experimentation that this committee is investigating. I'm going to read some of them into the record at this time. On May 29, 2002, a letter was sent to Albert M. Kligman at the University of Pennsylvania, and the letter said: "Dear Dr. , in Room 696, City Hall, the City Council Committee on Law and 6 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Government, which I chair" -- this was signed by Councilman Cohen -- "will hold a hearing on the circumstances surrounding the experiments performed on inmates of Holmesburg Prison, the Philadelphia House of Correction, and the Detention Center from 1948 until 1974. As you know, these experiments were carried out at the request of various pharmaceutical, food and cosmetic companies for the purpose of developing products for them to market. Some were done at the behest of the Defense Department and the CIA. You were the leading participant in this process. Accordingly, we are asking that you testify at the hearing with respect to your exact role. "We also ask that you bring with you copies of all documents, including, but not limited to, letters, journals, research reports, memoranda, newspaper articles or advertisements, financial statements and forms, reports to government agencies, or electronic media of any kind which document the nature of the experiments, their results, the names of any products that were developed and/or produced as a result of the experiments, the profits that have been made as a 7 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 result of such production, the compensation you received from any of the producers of such products, and/or the names of inmates used for experimentation and the effects of such experimentation on such individuals or groups of individuals. "Please let me know by June 5, 2002 whether you will comply with the above requests for you to appear and bring relevant documents. " A letter basically saying the same thing addressed to the leadership of the University of Pennsylvania was also sent on the same date and, on June 10th -- no, excuse me. On June 5th, a letter was returned from the University of Pennsylvania from its counsel saying that they respectfully decline to appear pursuant to that letter request. On June 7th, a subpoena was issued both to the University and to Lawrence Kligman. The one to Dr. Kligman said, "You are ordered by the Council of the City of Philadelphia to come to Room 8 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. m. to testify before the Committee on Law and Government in connection with experiments and testing on inmates of Holmesburg Prison, the Philadelphia House of Correction, and the Detention Center in Philadelphia and to remain until excused, and to bring with you the following: "Copies of, and not limited to, documents, letters, journals, research reports, memoranda, newspaper articles, advertisements, financial statements, forms, reports generated in-house or to governmental agencies, and electronic media which document the nature of experiments names of products developed and/or produced as a result of experiments, and the amount of money paid to the City of Philadelphia and to any and all City commissions, agencies, boards, including the prison correctional system for the access and use of inmates, and the income or profits generated, and the compensation received as a result of the products. "Furthermore, provide the names of all inmates participating in the experimentation with 9 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. " The subpoena was signed by Robert Jaffe, who is counsel, co-counsel, to the committee, and was issued on June 7th. On June 10, 2002, a similar subpoena was also issued on June 7th by the University of Pennsylvania. On June 10th, counsel to the University wrote to Councilman Cohen, stating that -- this was signed by Wendy S.
White, Vice President and General Counsel, saying that, "Under these circumstances, on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. " The letter acknowledged receipt of the subpoenas. In the first paragraph, it said, "I am in receipt of the subpoenas that you issued as chair of the Philadelphia City Council Committee on 10 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. D. " Let me just say that similar letters, followed by subpoenas, were issued to Johnson & Johnson Company and to Dow Chemical Company. Those subpoenas were acknowledged, and Johnson & Johnson replied that they would not be present. And we've gotten no response from Dow Chemical Company.
I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and Councilman Wilson Goode, who was just here, and Councilman Frank Rizzo. Are any individuals representing the University of Pennsylvania here? (No response.)
That being the case, I would call, before we hear from the City Solicitor, attorney Angus Love. 11 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Angus Love. I'm the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project. Good morning, Councilman Ortiz, fellow Councilmembers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. The Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project provides free legal assistance to 75,000 institutionalized people in Pennsylvania. The goal of our project is that all individuals, regardless of race, gender, wealth, or station in life, have access to our legal system so that they may receive just compensation for injuries that they have suffered. As was mentioned, between 1949 and 1974, the City of Philadelphia, the University of Pennsylvania, and several major corporations acted in concert to utilize human subjects incarcerated in our city jails for experimentation of various products that the corporations sought to market. Hundreds of inmates were used in the experiments for such projects as Retin A, dioxin toothpaste, 12 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 perfume, detergents, mind-altering drugs, radioactive isotopes, chemical-warfare agents, and anti-rash treatments. Experiments resulted in temporary and permanent injury to many of these subjects. I assisted the various folks who have rallied behind this cause and who suffered mightily over the years in an effort to bring about a legal solution to this problem. Unfortunately, those efforts to date have not been successful. While there may not be a legal solution currently possible, there is clearly a moral obligation that we all must come to terms with. Millions of dollars have been made, and continue to be made, over the marketing and distribution of these products overseen by Dr. Albert Kligman, Professor of Dermatology, at the University of Pennsylvania. Also involved were several major corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson, Dupont, and Dow Chemical. Essentially what happened was, the City let it be known to the University of Pennsylvania that there were folks available for human experimentation. The University then let the 13 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 corporate community know that they were reading, willing, and able to provide human experiments for the testing of various products, and the corporations took them up on this offer, and for some years, ran experiments in our city jails. 7 The moral obligation that we have is 8 bolstered by the Nuremberg Principles and by the 9 Hippocratic Oath. The Nuremberg Principles were 10 signed on by the United States after the atrocities 11 of World War II; the Hippocratic Oath goes back to 12 ancient days and is an oath that all doctors have 13 an obligation to respect. 14 Reparations are in order for those who 15 were used in these experiments. Fortunately, the 16 laws were changed in the 1970s to prevent future 17 abuse of this nature, as now human beings can no 18 longer be subject to experimentation. Now is the 19 time to settle with those who assisted in these 20 experiments but got no compensation. 21 The government has a high moral 22 obligation to its citizens and its taxpayers to 23 correct these abuses. The City can begin by 24 turning over all of the records of these 25 experiments, including the names of the 14 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 corporations, the types of products that were involved, and the individuals who were used as human guinea pigs. Our moral obligation demands nothing less. I urge the Council to support the resolution and to issue bench warrants for Dr. Kligman and President Judith Rodin to appear, just as anyone else who disregards a subpoena would have likewise done. Thank you.
Mr. Love, the City has consistently refused to provide these documentations?
That's correct. We met with various officials in our legal effort, and no one has responded in a positive manner.
And has the City ever offered any apology for their role in the -- and participation in these experiments?
No administration since the time that this -- that these acts were done has ever acknowledged our role within the 15 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 experiments that have been done?
That's correct. My direct knowledge involves the Rendell Administration and the Street Administration, and neither administration, to my knowledge, has acknowledged or offered any sort of compensation or cooperation in this regard.
Thank you. I just want to make a notation for the record that all of those individuals that were written to, subpoenaed, and contacted have not appeared and are not presently in the Council chambers today. Is Lynn Weed here? (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Lynn Weed I represent (inaudible), a nonprofit organization. We are a --
I represent the (indiscernible) nonprofit corporation. We are a 16 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 nonprofit --
We still cannot hear you. You got to get closer to the microphone, like this (indicating).
Okay. We represent -- basically, the purpose of our nonprofit is to deal with unauthorized human subject testing. I would just like to say a few words on the subject of unauthorized human subject testing. The declaration of Geneva, stated in 1949 by the World Medical Association, after the Nazi Holocaust, was a restatement of the Hippocratic Oath. It states: I will not permit considerations of religion, nationality, race, party or social standing to intervene between my duty and my patient. The second part was: I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception. Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge, contrary to the laws of humanity. This declaration was a condemnation of the Nazi medical experiments. Physicians were urged to act with the utmost respect for human life 17 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 and to never use their medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity. In 1949, as Nazis were found guilty of intentional negligence by the Nuremberg court, the Nuremberg Code established. The outcome of these trials showed the world our capability to do justice in the face of enormously inhumane acts. During the trial, Nuremberg camp inmate after camp inmate gave testimony concerning the medical testing they endured at the hands of the Nazis. Healthy inmates remained sick in the name science. These tests were done in accordance with the Nazi principle that some people had a life not worthy to be lived and were a burden to society and the state. The determination made by the judges at Nuremberg was that these doctors were guilty of intentional negligence and harmful medical practices. They Went to jail for these practices. S. cast their votes at these trials, these men paid for their practices, and that their practices were criminal. S. citizens were aghast at pictures of victims who had been medical-test subjects without their agreement and, often, their knowledge. 18 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 These jurists at Nuremberg then constructed the Nuremberg Code in 1949. The first tenet of the code is the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. 116: "No investigator may involve a human being as a subject unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective, informed consent of the subject. " This rule is passed to ensure that laws for humanity's sustenance in the face of these potentials for inhumanity would be checked and would never be allowed to develop into the complete disregard for human welfare, as occurred during the Nazi regime. We, the United States, and the world saw this potential and believed that our dramatic precepts and law were capable enough to check this potential for inherent evil and to deal with it. 19 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 45 CFR 45 is a federal rule. It clearly states that human subject testing, without signed informed consent, is illegal. It is the American version of this very necessary law that was legislated at Nuremberg. It is one of mankind's best defenses against his own inhumane urges. The year after World War II was a time of unparalleled growth and economic stimulus given to the scientific and technical communities. After the horrors of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, this affluent research community began testing plutonium and radiation absorption effects on unwitting American subjects. This was clearly in violation of 45 CFR 46. These men and women, with all of these research dollars available to them, felt that the law was for other Americans, not the esteemed researchers. Human subjects became very ill from these tests. Some test subjects died, and their families did not know why. It wasn't until 1995, when Hazel O'Leary exposed these unauthorized radiation experiments, that America became aware of decades 20 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 of secret radiation testing.
Victims who realized that they had been unauthorizedly tested were compensated, and President Clinton offered them a long overdue apology. Another test which shocked the sensibilities of Americans was running secretly concurrently with the unauthorized radiation tests. The Tuskegee syphilis experiments were being performed on poor black sharecroppers in the South. These men were only told that this testing was for their medical health. This unauthorized, illegal medical testing continued for years. When penicillin became available as a cure for syphilis, these men were denied treatment because it would taint the test. The medical researchers determined the tests were more important than these men's health. The revelation of this kind of medical abuse shocked Americans. Victims of the unauthorized Tuskegee syphilis experiments were once again compensated because this unauthorized human subject testing is a violation of American law. We have a chance here to once again 21 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 give proper American justice to human subjects tested without their informed consent. Just as in the Tuskegee testing, if these people were not fully informed what these materials were and the possibility of pathogenic and genetic effects, 45 CFR 46 was violated, their human rights were violated. I ask that you pass the resolution 10 before you. These human test subjects deserve their day in court, and they deserve justice.
Good morning, everybody. My name is Dorothy Alston, and I used to live at 6224 Haverford Avenue, 62 years old. I was in the House of Correction in 1962 for approximately three months, and in 1963, for approximately four months. 22 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 During my stay in the House of Correction, I participated in two studies: A tampon study in 1962 and a biopsy study in 1963. I heard of these studies by word mouth and also through an inmate that worked in the nurse's office. The University of Pennsylvania never solicited for test subjects; they had others such as this inmate do that. At the time I decided to participate at the University of Pennsylvania experimental largely because I needed the money. I occasionally got money from my family or through writing letters for other inmates, but other than that, I had no other source of income. I was trying to save up some money for when I got out in addition to buying commissary items such as cigarettes, soap, writing materials, and cosmetics. The experiments seemed like the only way I could get some money. There were only about 35 or 40 jobs paying cents a day in the House of 22 Correction, and there were over a hundred women 23 staying there. There were no openings during the 24 time I was in the House of Correction. 25 The first study I participated in was 23 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 the tampon test in 1962, even though I wasn't normally a tampon user at the time I was pretrial detainee without the resources of the pay bail. I had seen -- I had been arrested for shoplifting two steaks. The University of Pennsylvania gave us a survey. On the survey were questions such as what kind of flow you have, how many tampons you use per day, what our brand preference was. If I had been asked to sign a consent form, I wasn't aware of it. I had to put our institution number on the survey as well so that they could keep track of the results. They gave us tampons according to our menstrual flow -- heavy, medium, or light. We were given clean plastic bags to put the tampons in after we had used them. I used one tampon; when I pulled it out, I noticed that the head was loose cotton. I only used one more until I gave the rest of the tampons to another woman who completed the study in my place. After my period ended that month, I had a bad pain in the bottom of my stomach. I had the nurse examine me, and she said that maybe I should 24 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 go to the Philadelphia General Hospital to have the cotton removed. I went there had it removed because it had not come out before. I received approximately $15 for participating in this study. After I had participated in the tampon test, a female inmate named Roberta Barnes told me about another study, a biopsy study. At that time, my understanding of the study was they would pull out flesh once. I agreed to do the study by telling Roberta Barnes, who told the nurse, and then the University of Pennsylvania people came over to me. This was in 1963. There were no paperwork that I had to fill out before I participated in the biopsy study. As I waited for the biopsy study, I stood in a line with the other women. The people conducting the study didn't let us talk to one another. A person with a white jacket that had a big "U of P" on it came out and asked each of us our names. Only nine women were allowed to participate in the experiment. We lined up in the order that the person told us, and we entered the room one by one. After the biopsy was performed, they made us go out 25 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 through another door that was a way down from the first door so that we wouldn't talk to the other women still in line. I was the third person in line, so I didn't see the first woman come out of the door where Gladys Macranette (ph), an officer, stood making sure that the women went back to their cells. The woman looked hurt. When I went into the room, they put my legs up in stirrups.
They didn't use any anesthesia, they had a lot of instruments set out. They ripped flesh from my womb, and it hurt terrible. They told me that if I only came in at one time, I -- and didn't complete the study, I wouldn't get my $100. I had to come in four to six times to complete the experiment. Each time they took a biopsy, this biopsy had to be done when I wasn't menstruating so I didn't come in... (Ms. )
Thank you. So I didn't come in for a biopsy this week because I was having my menstrual cycle. At the end of the experiment, they told 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 me that I would receive my money in seven to ten days. I received $100 for participating in this study. At first I was excited to go for the biopsy study. I thought that the University of Pennsylvania people would do a pelvic exam on me first. I didn't have a pelvic exam when I arrived because I was menstruating. At the time of my arrival, they only tested my blood for syphilis. The prison was dirty, and some of the women weren't very clean, and even the nurse's office and equipment wasn't very clean, so I wanted to be examined to make sure that I was doing okay. My menstrual cycle was every month and lasted only three to five days. There's no history of menstrual or gynecology problems in my family. By the time I got money from the biopsy study a month later, I started having irregular menstrual cycles. My period began to last longer. I complained to the nurse, and she told me to see the University of Pennsylvania people. I went to the University of Pennsylvania people, and they told me that they 27 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 were at the prison for a different study, so they couldn't -- they told me that they would send somebody else. No one else came, though. I kept asking the University of Pennsylvania people I saw in the prison, but each time, they just passed it off. I finally had to put in to see a social worker to have them call my family. I was hoping that my family could do something about the problem. To see the prison doctor was a slow process. I had to put my name on the list about ten days later, the doctor would come. He had a nasty attitude and would sometimes refuse to see inmates whose name had been put on the list. He said, "I've seen too many of you today. " I put my name on the list and finally got to see the doctor about my irregular bleeding. He gave me a couple aspirins and told me to go back to my cell and elevate my feet. I don't think he knew I was participating in the study, but the nurse, Miss Wilke, I think she seen me go in for the studies. After the biopsy test, I didn't participate in any more studies. When I got out of 28 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 the jail, my medical problems related to the studies I had participated in and continued. I still had irregular bleeding, and my periods were lasting to days; the longest one of my 6 periods lasted was 22 days. Sometimes I couldn't 7 get out of bed. I had to use towels to absorb the 8 blood. 9 I was 32 when I went to PGH where a 10 doctor did a D&C. The irregular bleeding stopped 11 for four months, but then it began again, and I 12 thought it wouldn't stop. I went to Einstein 13 Northern and checked into a gynecology clinic there. The doctor gave me a shot to stop the bleeding; it slowed my menstrual down, but it started again. They gave me pills, birth control pill, I believe, and that happened a little bit. I went to the emergency room three different times for a transfusion. On the last visit to the emergency room, they put me in the hospital. The doctor had tried everything they knew how at this point. I had followed all of the instructions they had given me. They said now that the only way possible to stop problem the problem was to remove my uterus, a partial hysterectomy. 29 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 I was only 34 years old. I was devastated. At the height of my life, I felt like my life was over. I couldn't function as a female anymore. My husband and I had separated because our sexual life had been very limited during this time due to my constant bleeding and discomfort. Our dreams of having a big family had been completely stopped. I was very depressed. I thought of suicide, but I never formed a plan. I had a nervous breakdown. I don't remember three years of my life when I was institutionalized in a hospital.
First I was in the mental ward at PGH, and then they sent me to Byberry State Hospital. I experienced all of this at too young of a age. It's a hell of a mental woman not knowing how to function as a woman. I went to a psychiatrist to try to help myself. )
Just relax. Just... stop for a few minutes. (Pause in testimony.)
I guess that's why the University of Pennsylvania didn't want to be 30 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 here.
I couldn't function as a woman. I went to the psychiatrist. I felt used and deceived. I felt like the University of Pennsylvania took advantage of us because of our vulnerability position as prisoners. I think the University of Pennsylvania robbed me of my youth. I would like to see the University of Pennsylvania stop research studies like this. I want them to use better experimental methods. I want them to explain the experiments to those people who participate in them so they can make a knowledgeable decision as to whether or not to participate. I felt like the University of Pennsylvania came and asked me to participate in the biopsy study and they didn't give me enough reasoning, they didn't explain anything to me, they didn't let me know the aftermath of what I would possibly face later on in life. And not allow my mother -- not allow me to be a mother, not allow my mother to be a grandmother numerous of times. Yes, I still feel the pain after 30-some years, but then I get angry. 31 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Thank you.
When you went in, they just said you're going to get so much money and that's it?
They had a list with the nine women's names on 'em, and we had to sign our names and our institutional number alongside it. And they also said in the beginning, If you did not complete this study, you will not get the $100. And that was my concern. And I also want to say something else.
The University of Pennsylvania had told, I guess, the City Council that if we call 1-800-879-Penn, that we could tell them what we needed, tell them that we were experimented persons. That number's a joke. If you don't have insurance, they don't want to say anything to you.
Has anybody from the City ever contacted you about what you went 32 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 through?
No one from the City has ever contacted you and said, We should not have subjected you to these things, to these experiments?
Has anybody from the University of Pennsylvania ever contacted you and asked and said, We should never have done this to you?
At least from this part of the City, I apologize for what City administrations have allowed to go on for so long, and I'm very deeply sorry that the City of Philadelphia was ever a part of any act of this sort. 33 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 So I apologize to you and your family on behalf of the City since the Administration seems to want to cover behind some of the legalities.
We've been joined by Councilman Nutter. Mr. Bey, identify yourself for the record, please.
Good morning. My name is Wesley Wilson Bey, and I'm the chairman of Men United Against Violence Network. I come here in support of the experimentation survivors. I just want to say that it's sad that we even have to come this far, to City Council. A travesty of justice has been done. Many nations have suffered they own different Holocausts. The African-American community have suffered greatly and dearly, and are still suffering. The experimentation that took place at Holmesburg, in my mind, in my view, is the same 34 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 experimentations that took place in Nazi Germany. There's no reason why those who have profited from the experimentation of those who are here today to give they testimony of the tragedies that they have gone through should not be compensated. There is no price that could be put on the mental, the psychological anguish that they are going through today. The experimentations that is taking place -- has taken place is a travesty on all of humanity. And I pray that this Council will do the utmost to see that justice is carried out in favor of the experimentation survivors.
Many friends of mine that are here today. Men United States Against Violence Network is a grassroots organization, a nonprofit 35 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 organization, that deals with ex-gang members, gangs that are now community activists. I'd like to read to you today those organizations that are a part of Men United Against Violence Network: The Richard Allen Reunion Committee, Crossroads, the Norris Unification Council of the World Incorporated, Valley Management Corporation, Uptown LT Social Organization, 21st and Norris Community Committee, the Original Tender Lines Reunion Committee, Dog Town Social Club, Community Assistance for Prisoners, (indiscernible) Five Aces Community Committee, Camac and Diamond Social Club, the Prodigal Sons, and Seventh and (indiscernible) Social Organization. These are community organizations that are under the umbrella of Men United Against Violence Network who are doing some great things in their community, and we are here in support of the experimentation survivors, to say that it is wrong and should never have been done. And we pray that this Council will give them a speedy reply.
Mr. Rodney Muhammad. AUDIENCE MEMBER: He's not here either.
Hello. My name is Russell Green, and I was at Holmesburg Prison during the days when they were doing experiments in the early '60s through the '70s. I've experienced a number of different things that they did at Holmesburg Prison that wasn't right, because Holmesburg Prison itself was set up where inmates need money to survive, and if they didn't have family or people or loved ones to send them money, 'cause everything, the better haircuts, the better clothes, the money to try to get out of Holmesburg cost money. So I feel as though University of Pennsylvania knew what they were up against at the beginning. They knew that they could flash a dollar bill in front of some starving people's face 37 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 and get them to cooperate. The tests was ungodly. When I first got at Holmesburg, they had two benches sitting in front of different blocks where they would stick your arm under a slat and hold 'em, and I'm talking about brand, brand, different things on inmates and things like that. One inmate was on D Block with me -- I remember the (indiscernible) in the middle of his forehead in the middle of the night, and he screamed and hollered. I mean, this was telling them right off the bat what you're doing is not right, but they continued, and the people allowed them to continue. Now I'm going to go on with some of the things they did to me. They branded me in the back, in my back; all over my back is branded. Had they had of told me that this would go away, I wouldn't have took it.
I'm talking about a patch study test, which to the day, which was over 40 years ago, still remains on my back. I'm talking 38 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 about tests where they did all types of ungodly things to inmates because they could get away with it, and society said nothing. Not only did they do things to people that they could get away with it; if the test was not completed and the inmate had become discharged, they would send him in the street with all kind of hangups. They had a Army study, a GI study there, where they would test guys and give 'em all kinds of drugs and stuff at this time. I have never in my life taken a drug. When I came around, I found myself in a yard surrounded by a number of inmates not knowing what had happened to me. They had the audacity to put us on a "pay-me-no-mind" list, which meant after we drove 'em crazy, pay him no mind, he's okay. I mean, these things was allowed, and they did these things to us, and it hurts me to the depths of my heart to hear Allen Hornblum's -- I mean, not Allen Hornblum, but the guy who did these studies to us say he didn't -- Kligman say he didn't do anything to us. I mean, and we sit, like you over there with humor on your face. This wasn't funny; I 39 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 witnessed these things. This wasn't funny for them to take and put patches. You could ride a street car here in Philadelphia and see a number of people, and you could distinguish that they had been on University studies. You know, it was over and over. And I've been on a number of studies, and they have hurt me through the years. At the time, I thought it was a blessing because we needed money in that prison to survive -- the better foods, the better haircuts, the better anythings cost money. I mean, it was something else. I just hope that you take it in your heart to bring this up to par and do something for those that have suffered these injustices, and we are the men and women that have suffered these injustices.
I was on quite a few experiments because I needed money; I wanted money to get out to pay my bills. I wanted --
Can you tell me which experiments you were on? 40 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
The patch study was a study when they changed over the different patches, the Band-Aid, they used to Band-Aid you. You know when they went from the hurting Band-Aid, when you used to take it off, it used to hurt you. Then they went to the not-so-hurting Band-Aid -- this is one we were under, which I was told which would come off easy. They used a scale to weigh it, to see how much stuff would come off. They put a little acid on your back and burned it, and those marks are still there until today. I mean, what they did wasn't right to us. I mean, you can look there and you can say anything. It didn't happen to you. One of the guys told me to show him. I'll show you. (Witness comes forward to show committee members scars from burns on back.)
That's up and down your spine here? 41 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
These men, if it was someone had a ailment and they cured it, that would have been beautiful, but you don't give a person an ailment and then try to cure it. I mean, they were ungodly things that they did to us because they could get away with it. I mean -- and what makes it so bad is they take the citizens of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania and they say, Well, they don't count, they was inmates anyway. Some of them was untried inmates, some of them was still babies, just finding they way around, and they did ungodly things like that.
About 18 years of age when took advantage of me and did not only that, but they took little samples of -- 42 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
And they came to you experiment and they said, We have this experiment, and you're going to get some money. And they didn't tell you what the experiment really was about or what it might do to you or it might harm you in any way?
What they did was -- it's a tricky thing what they did. Some of the inmates that we trusted, they used them to recruit. Hearing a inmate saying it was okay, a guy that we trusted, we went on, and then we saw the jackets. They knew what they was doing. 43 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 I didn't hear no one say that they had inmates as doctors did at that time, like running the studies for them, putting little things on them, you know, and then today in time, what I'm saying, it's true, you could take me to a lie detector and I'd say the same thing. If you took me to a lie detector, I'd want double the money from the University of Pennsylvania for the stress and stuff they put me through. They did wrong, we know they did wrong, you know they did wrong, but we're sitting up here arguing about what we should be compensated with. I mean, we're being put up and sit up here and being put through all kind of new things and stuff, brand-new stuff, but don't nobody say they did you wrong and then just say, Let's do right by these men. And that's what they did. In 1998, I happened to read the paper which Leodus was on it and he had started -- and thank God that there was a person like Leodus to get in there and pitch for us. I don't have to explain to you. If it happened to you, any one of ya'll, y'all would feel the same way that the inmates and the survivors of 44 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Holmesburg Prison feel right now. That's all I have to say.
I think it's indisputable that the City and the University of Pennsylvania and the prison administration and Johnson & Johnson and all of the other companies did wrong. And we were wrong. Just that it's taken so long for this to even have a hearing for this even to come up, and the people of Philadelphia understand what it is that was done in their name all of those years back. I don't know what the rightful compensation is but, definitely, the City should be stepping up to all of the families and the individuals that are still surviving. Thank you.
My name is William Harper. I'm 66 years old and I live at 5457 Wayne Avenue, Apartment 716. 45 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 In 1964, I received two and a half years at Holmesburg Prison and I was accepted on the H-Block as a worker, starting off with $25 a month. And at that time, I had begged the social worker, Mr. Otis, to give me something where I could have some money, because I didn't have any sort of support. I started over working at H-Block with doubts of Mr. Otis, who was my social worker, because he felt like it was a cesspool. I had said to myself if I ever got any time, that I would make good use of it, that I wouldn't allow anything to happen which happened to me by working for the University of Pennsylvania. I didn't care what I did. I started off taking blood and spinning it down the serum, working the autoclave, and after six months of working there, I went outside to work in the dermatology cell where we did blisters, biopsies, we worked with radiation. I even had a person's hand that was treated with radiation to use it on the Geiger counter. I had things like (indiscernible), DMSO, LSLS, various chemicals. I even had the -- what you call "Spanish fly," which 46 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 is (indiscernible) to make blisters. I could apply a blister, and you wouldn't be able to see me in four hours. I have had a guy, after I put a blister on his scrotum, pass out, and I had to --
I put a blister on a guy's scrotum, and he came to me in less than three hours and I had to take the blister off. I put him on the table, took the blister off, and he went back to the block. We did a series of blisters, and it's guys in here that I worked on, you know? And I'm here to bring a closure to all of this 'cause I don't feel good about it, working for the University for two and a half years. I used to take books in my cell to read how to carry out the protocols that was given to me directly from Dr. Kligman. Dr. Kligman, Dr. Papa, all of those protocols I had to do, and I did suturing, stitching. I took --
Well, how I learned was from the guys that were in the cell. 47 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
But no medical -- you were assisting these doctors in doing these experiments; is that correct?
At any time, did you have a doctor or a nurse or somebody in the medical profession train you as to what it was that you were going to be doing to these prisoners?
But the only people who told you really what to do were other prisoners?
So you were doing -- and you were doing medical procedures on people in Holmesburg without any training whatsoever from medical individuals and --
And knowing what you might be doing, I mean, the effects that these 48 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 things might have on people?
I did not care at that particular time; all I thought about was doing my time, getting out, and having a few hours, you know, and also learning. I thought that maybe after this was all over, that I could get a better job, that I could do better for myself. And I did pursue it, and I wound up with a nervous breakdown, going to OIC for biochemistry. But out of all this, I have the least experience to show from the University of Pennsylvania. I had a transparent [sic] done from my lip to my arm, right here, see? (Witness shows committee members scar under upper arm.
Yes. Moving from one area 49 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 to the other.
It did not take in my lip, but it took here, as you can see (indicating). That gets chafed and I have to peel it off like, you know, your lip been would get chafed or chapped, and I would have to peel it off. And sometimes it itches. It's been there since '65. And they were supposed to take it out, do biopsies. I received about $150 for that, you know.
I'm just hoping for some closure so this whole thing could be over with because I haven't felt too good about it; I apologize about it. But unless you experience these things yourself, then you wouldn't believe that people -- if somebody came to me now and offered me something like this, I think I would get rather angry.
Did you get special treatment by the prison guards and so on because you were --
I was like a king up 50 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 there. You know, I was keys, I had a watch, I had everything that I wanted available to me but -- except for a woman, everything else.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have a question for the witness; I actually wanted to ask the Chair just a couple background 51 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 questions, and I apologize for being late. So whenever the gentleman is finished, I have a couple questions for the Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to try to get a better understanding. I think I've been at all of the hearings, and I apologize for being late today. Is there any information in this record or the previous record with regard to from the City's perspective what was going on in Holmesburg Prison at the time? Is there any acknowledgment that testing activity was going on? There are a variety of letters and responses here that seem to indicate by different parties that there was apparently some activity in the prison, but no one seems to specifically state either, what it was the nature of it was, who was in charge of the prison during these years from 1948 to 1974, and, I guess, what was the City's knowledge or participation in any of these events. Do we have anything about that? 52 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
I don't think we have that on the record, but we have the City Solicitor here that will be answering some of those questions for us.
Okay. Is there -- I'm assuming that there are more people to testify. Is there some other moment when I might be able to ask those types of questions?
The City Solicitor will be the next witness to come up.
You're welcome. Sir, thank you very much. We'll take a five-minute recess right, now, and the City Solicitor will be next. (Break taken.) (Proceedings resume.) - - -
The five-minute recess is over. I'd like to continue the hearing, the five-minute recess is over. I'll wait until everybody comes in from the hallway. Thank you very much for being patient. 53 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 I will now turn over the chair of the meeting to the Chairman of the committee, Mr. David Cohen. David?
Thank you. I apologize to everyone for my inability to be here at the time of the inception of the hearing. We've been trying to get to the bottom of the story to find out whether it's a figment of some people's imaginations because there are aspects of this story told and of the evidence given already that make people think that it could not possibly have happened in Philadelphia; some people think it could not possibly have happened to human beings anywhere in the world, but particularly not in Philadelphia. And we felt it important to give all of the parties the opportunity to be heard. If, in fact, it did not happen or if others have a different kind of a story to tell, they ought to be given an opportunity to do it, because oftentimes, we are accused of being one-sided. So we decided this time to go out of our way to be very much all-sided to let everybody tell their story. And an amazing thing happened. 54 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Suddenly, those who have been clamoring for the right to tell their story, saying that we had not heard their version of it, suddenly decided they didn't want to tell their story. And so, as I understand it, at the early part of the meeting, some letters were read into the record from companies that felt we had not been fair to them, that they had not been given an opportunity to be heard. We gave them the opportunity mand they declined, saying no. And we told them we wanted to do it in as friendly and a cooperative manner as possible; we're not assuming any final conclusions. So we wrote to them and invited them to come as guests, but in fairness, we had to tell them that the resolution passed by City Council had authorized the chairperson of the committee, if necessary, to issue subpoenas, because if Council is to do its legislative work properly, we've got to be able to get at facts. And usually people who don't want to talk when they have knowledge usually have a good reason not to want to talk. That is a good reason from their point of view, because if they did talk, they would show how wrong they had 55 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 been in what they had done. And so an interesting thing happened on the way to the story being told. So far, every company that we have subpoenaed and the University of Pennsylvania and Dr. Kligman have all refused the opportunity to talk, after all of them had complained that they had not been given the opportunity. So given the opportunity, they've declined it. And we moved on to the stage of subpoenaing them, and each of them, so far as I can tell, is in defiance of the law, because each of them has said they will not comply with the subpoenas. I'm not going to take your time to talk about what City Council intends to do in that case except to say that we don't intend to have the interests of justice in the City of Philadelphia thwarted by obstructive actions by people who have a responsibility to tell their side of the story when they're involved in a matter concerning a legislative inquiry. The Home Rule Charter gives us that power, and it's been put there to enable us to do our work. 56 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 With respect to the City of Philadelphia, since obviously, it is a sister part of our organization, the City government of Philadelphia, we are glad to see that the City Solicitor is here -- not as a result of a subpoena, but as a result of the original request. Because none of this is personal. You know, I don't want anybody to feel -- we have nothing personally against the University of Pennsylvania. I'm one of five people out of six in my family who have degrees from the University of Pennsylvania; in fact, I have both my degrees -- the pre-law and the law degree -- come from the University of Pennsylvania, and I was a pretty good student there since I lead the law school. So that I'm somebody that the University of Pennsylvania has recognized in the past.
I had a Gowan Fellowship from the law school that was awarded by the law school. I think the University's a great institution, but with greatness comes greater responsibility as well. And we don't think that refusing to comply with the subpoena is the right way to go. 57 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 But I would like at this point to invite those representatives from the City Solicitor's department to take the witness stand. I've told them whoever's here all ought to come up tother. And we're going to address questions. )
If any member of the committee wants to make a statement before the questioning --
No? Basically what we want to know is: Did the things that were testified to by people who had been in our prison system some years ago, did it happen? What was the City's involvement? Did the City get approval? Did the City receive any form of compensation? Has the City acknowledged its role? Has the City said that what it did thought it was right in doing; or has it said it thought it was wrong? 58 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 What has the City done to alleviate the complaints that we have heard here and that have appeared in a book and have appeared in the City's media outlets? I would like the -- it seems to me government, above all others, has the major responsibility -- since the government in this country is elected by the people, it seems to me that the responsibility of government, any government agency, is the highest responsibility there is to a council of the people or its activities. We all know government is not perfect; some people might say it's not even good by its actions. But we would like to feel that the City of Philadelphia, if this did happen, if evidence indicates it was wrong, we would hope the City would come forth and admit it. And then we would hope the City would do a second thing: Having admitted it, which would be the first important step, the City ought to find a way to take leadership in resolving the difficulties that the former prisoners have had as a result of their being subjected to human 59 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 experimentation which still today, many years after it occurred, shocks the conscience, I think, of everybody who hears about it. So I may address to the three attorneys representing the City Solicitor, if you would each be good enough to give your name and your position with the City first, and then I'll ask whoever among you wants to comment in general to the comments I have made.
Good morning, Councilman; good morning, committee. My name is James Duckworth, and I'm an attorney with the City of Philadelphia. Sitting to my left is Mr. Leon King, who's general counsel for the Philadelphia prison system and was the trial attorney that handled the litigation that was recently filed and was pending before the Third Circuit. To his left is Elise Bruhl, who is currently handling the appellate issue that is pending before the Third Circuit.
And I'll turn it over, actually, to Mr. King at this point. 60 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
Okay, would you please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Leon King, and I'm general counsel for the Philadelphia Prison system, as Mr. Duckworth said, and I --
Would you speak directly into the microphone. You know, this is our temporary meeting room, and the acoustics are pretty bad.
All right. I have been in the position of general counsel for the prison system since 1997, and I was responsible for this case before it was litigation, and I would just like to explain what the City did in response to the complaints that we heard first.
All right. You'll have an opportunity to do it after the identification of the third attorney.
Good morning. My name is Elise Bruhl, and I am an assistant City Solicitor.
Okay, I'll try. My name is Elise Bruhl. I am an assistant City Solicitor with 61 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 the Appeals Unit for the City of Philadelphia.
All right. Now, which one of you -- do you, sir, want to explain whatever it is you started to say?
Yes. I want to explain first what the City did in response to --
All right. Could you do as I'm doing -- try to get as close as possible to the microphone.
Yes, okay. As my recollection serves me, Mr. Hornblum's book came out some years ago, and there was some press about it, and when the Law Department, when we heard about that, we went out and purchased a copy of the book, and we began to do legal research on the issues that we saw. We also instigated an investigation to see if we could find out some information about what went on back at Holmesburg in the time period in question. Our research revealed then, and it hasn't changed till this point, and this is a big problem in the case, is that this stuff happened, the most recent stuff happened in 1970. So the City doesn't have records from 1970. There's no 62 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 way for to us research that issue. Most of the people that may have been running the City jails back at that time are either dead, moved away, or are retired, and we can't talk to them. There's no one in an official position in the prison now that can comment on what went on at Holmesburg Prison during the time period in question. Despite that, though, and I think the City Solicitor, if he were here, would say that, you know, the Law Department doesn't just dismiss a case based on, you know, statue of limitations or whatever; we always recognize that as representatives of the City of Philadelphia --
Yes. As representatives of the City of Philadelphia, the taxpayers, etc., there's always one thing that we take into account when we consider settling a case, is whether someone was wronged. You know. Sometimes we have settled cases in the past where there was maybe not so strong of a legal case, but we feel the person was wronged and that they should get some money. 63 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 And I think we took that approach to this case. We didn't know whether people were wronged, but from what we heard and from what we read in the book, there may have been some issue there. So what did we do. We didn't just ignore the problem; we researched it, we got as much information together as we could, and we initiated a dialogue with the attorneys who were representing the inmates at the time. They weren't the same attorneys that are representing them now; it was a female, whose name escapes me. We had two or three meetings with these attorneys, and our intention was to get some sort of a sense of how many people were out there, what the injuries were, what the stories were. And based on that, we could then make an eternal determination as to whether we should put some money out. And you have to remember that from the City Solicitor's point of view, not only are we the City's lawyers, but we also have an interest in protecting the money that -- the taxpayers' money that we, you know, settle cases with. So we can't 64 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 just settle a case because you say you were injured; we need some sort of independent documentation. So we met with the attorneys for the inmates, we discussed their legal theories. Our big legal impediment in this case was the statute of limitations. We tried to get from them some sense of what their argument was to overcome the statute of limitations. They never were forthcoming, they never said anything. We asked them on three or four occasions -- I believe both in writing and orally, and I was at these meetings -- to please provide us some documentation to show that other than what these folks say, that they were in Holmesburg Prison, that they were in the House of Correction. If you don't have that, can you provide us with at least some documentation that you've sent these people to a doctor and that the doctor has talked to them and said, This went on, that went on, and the injuries and the things that you claim are a result of this testing. Give us that, and we will then evaluate to say whether or not we can settle this case and 65 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 offer some money to these folks. They wouldn't provide it. As a matter of fact, in one of the meetings, their attorney flat-out refused to provide any documentation. So without any documentation, without any supporting evidence, we were sort of in a bind. There was no way for us to justify expending taxpayers' dollars based on just what one person said, and I don't think City Council or anybody else would want the Law Department settling cases or handing out money without documentation. So what happened was, the talks sort of stalled. The lawsuit was filed, we answered the complaint in the lawsuit. Our position was still the same: We'd be willing to consider something, but you've got to give us some documentation. We don't have any. We filed a complaint, and after the complaint was filed, from my point of view, the attorney for the inmates fell asleep. He didn't do one thing in the lawsuit after that. He filed the complaint and he did absolutely nothing. We sent him discovery requests, and we said, Please provide us with information, please 66 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 provide us with written summaries, please provide us something. Nothing was forthcoming from counsel for the plaintiffs.
I just have -- from all you said, it kind of struck me. You mean the City doesn't keep records at all?
I mean, is there not a responsibility that the City has to keep records? I mean, you just can't say the warden at that time died, the deputy warden died, the cops or prison guards retired. I mean, you just can't say that. And so we don't have any history as to what happened?
The City does have an obligation to keep records, and we do keep records so --
Does or does not? 67 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171
And we do keep records, but we do not have an obligation to keep them for 30 years. And if we kept all of our records for 30 years, we'd have so many warehouses filled up around the City with City records -- we have a retention policy for each department.
Excuse me for interrupting, but when President Clinton made the apology to the people involved in the Tuskegee Institute problem, it seems to me he did not use that as an excuse. He said, It's our responsibility to find out what happened, and then he did what we're asking for, he apologized and set the stage for proper action to occur. Now, are you saying that the City has -- because it's 30 years ago, the City has no 21 responsibility to do whatever can possibly be done?
We're not here to go over a lawsuit. It is not the responsibility of private counsel for individuals to deal with and 68 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 find out the history. Since these charges exist against the City, it seems to me clearly that it's the City's responsibility to go to every possible extent to find out what happened so that it's in a position to say no, it did not happen, if that's their conclusion, and we can deal with that; or if it did happen, to say it happened, it was proper; or it happened and was all wrong, we will never do it again, we apologize, and we intend to make whole. It seems to me government has that responsibility. Government doesn't have the responsibility to act like a corporate defense firm, trying to avoid responsibility; government has the responsibility for treating its citizens fairly. And you -- and the City's been charged with a terrible series of events that occurred many years ago, and it seems to me that it's the responsibility of the City, not attorneys for the people that suffered for the victims if this incident really occurred. It seems to me it's the responsibility of the City to come forth with proof one way or the other. 69 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 Councilman Nutter, I understand that you had questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. King, were you trying to finish your response?
Well, I was going to say in response to Councilman Ortiz that we do have a responsibility to preserve records, but that responsibility doesn't require us to keep 'em for 30 or 40 or 60 years; there's no reason for us to do that. And as far as what Councilman Cohen said, of course, the City has the responsibility to look into this, as we did when it came up, and we made every reasonable effort to find records, to find documents, and ask other people who may have had access to information for information. And the documents just aren't there; I don't know what I can do about that.
Did these 70 6/11/02 LAW & GOV'T - RES. 020171 experiments --
All I can tell you is that there has been testimony in Council, there's been evidence presented in the book that indicates that at Holmesburg Prison, most especially, experiments were conducted. The City cannot admit that for purposes of this hearing because there's pending litigation. But I can say that.