How could David be innocent and be found guilty by a jury of 12 honest citizens? Let me explain.

First, you present to the jury a complicated subject. Monitoring technicians who have been conducting baseline tests for over 10 years do not fully understand the concept of how the system works.

Next, you bring in a host of witnesses who have closely coordinated their testimonies against the
defendant. One of the Army’s key witnesses admitted that some of her crucial testimony in Dave’s trial might have been “wrong” but not “false”? This statement was made, under oath, in a later hearing.

Then you bring in a last-minute expert witness, the colonel’s technical advisor, whose job is to
advise the colonel of problems incurred in the agent processing. I am confident he would have easily corrected any problems or misunderstandings concerning the baseline, thus eliminating any need for litigation. The technical advisor was never assigned, by the colonel, the task of looking into the baseline incident. He was, however, asked by David Yarbrough to talk to his trial investigator for his defense. The technical advisor stated the Army attorney had told him that he could not even talk to David’s trail investigator, let alone testify for David. He cited a government regulation that forbade any current government employee from testifying against the government without the
Army’s permission. It does not matter what is right or wrong, the only thing that matters is what is in the Army’s best interest. The technical advisor testified against David at his trial. The technical advisor has since been promoted to Director of CAMDS.

Finally, you have David’s defense attorney who was retained on a small set fee and thus was in a rush to get this case over with. David’s attorney fully understood the very technical process of baselines and the correctness of David’s methods. This is a complicated procedure and difficult to understand. He failed to convey these methods and educate the jury of the baseline process in the short two-day trial. Dave’s attorney advised me before taking the stand “Don’t say anything to discredit the Army’s testimonies or its witnesses and they would not say anything personal about David.” While testifying I took his advice, but the Army personally attacked David anyway, so much for the promise from the Army’s attorney. The main thing the confused jury was left to wonder was why the Army would go to all this trouble and expense if David were not guilty, thus the guilty verdict. This was Dave’s “reward” for his safety concerns.

You have to ask yourself, why would the Army spend thousands of dollars to convict an innocent man? Here is some insight. David and I have raised serious concerns about the current agent monitoring and agent filter monitoring systems.

The agent monitoring system is what tells you if the agent has been completely incinerated rendering it harmless, or if lethal agent is going up the incineration stack into the atmosphere. The same atmosphere you and I breathe everyday. Our concern is the current monitoring system cannot detect this raw agent. Every day that TOCDF does not process agent costs the Army hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is in the Army’s benefit to discredit and silence anything or anyone that delays or disrupts agent processing, even if it means convicting and destroying an innocent man.

Safety does not seem to be an Army priority.

I do agree with the Army on one point, their recent confession that there are “agent analytical data inconsistencies in their stack DAAMS monitoring system.” This is the politically correct way of saying our agent monitoring system DOES NOT WORK. One would have to assume, because it is essentially the same system they have always had, that it has NEVER WORKED. At least to the degree we were led to believe and feel safe about.

Beginning in 1999, because of our safety concerns with the current agent monitoring system at CAMDS and TOCDF, David and I have personally presented our concerns to the following people:

Del Bunch, Program Manager at Edgewood, MD
Colonel Cooper, present Colonel at South Area
Colonel Pate, previous commander at South Area
Mr. Don Barclay, previous Director of CAMDS
Mr. Don Jones, recently retired Director of CAMDS
Mr. Steve Mallen, new Director of CAMDS,
Mr. Don Barclay, Director of UMATILLA Depot, ORE
Debra Ng and Marty Gray, State Office of Hazard Waste Oversight.

These attempts were useless; they all have a “let’s wait and see what happens” attitude. It appears that the people we have reported these deficiencies to are more concerned with processing than any public safety risks. It would seem, we as a community, have accepted waste as our business, regardless of the hazards or any possible safety risks. What more can I do after all that I have seen at South Area? Keep my mouth shut? It’s probably too late for that, as the Army’s attorney stated to me in court “your head is on the chopping block.” I feel sorry for the workers and their next of kin at CAMDS and TOCDF. There are solutions to the problems David and I have identified, however, if there are only two people who care or are interested in the possible legacy we will all be left with, nothing will be done. If you are concerned with the injustice that has been done in this case and the extreme compromise in public safety please don’t remain silent.

Tom Cramer
Tooele