The Peanut Paper Trail

Take a second and read the lead paragraph of Bob Keefe's article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the Peanut Corp. president and the manager of its plant in Blakely, Ga., which is in the middle of the salmonella story:

---

Even after Peanut Corp. of America learned its products were tainted with salmonella, it kept shipping them to unsuspecting customers, apparently putting profits ahead of public safety, according to documents and testimony presented at a congressional subcommittee hearing Wednesday.

---

That is evidence of a crime.

The two men — company president Stewart Parnell and plant manager Sammy Lightsey — invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The law says that the fact that someone who is accused of a crime chooses not to testify is not evidence of guilt. But they are no less guilty even if they remain silent. Electronic evidence is, if anything, more difficult to eliminate than old-fashioned physical evidence, and it speaks volumes about the men's actions and their motivation.

And Keefe's article provides stark evidence of that guilt.

• "In one e-mail, Lightsey wrote Parnell and discussed positive salmonella tests on one batch of its products. Parnell gave instructions to nonetheless 'turn them loose' after getting a negative test result from another testing company."


• "In another e-mail, Parnell expressed concerns over losing '$$$$$' due to delays in shipment."


• "In a company-wide e-mail on Jan. 12, Parnell told employees there was no salmonella in its plants — 'we have never found any salmonella at all' — and accused the news media of 'looking for a news story where there currently isn't one.' "

Part of me says that, if Parnell and Lightsey can defend themselves, let them do so.

The evidence clearly shows two men who placed far more emphasis on the bottom line than on public safety. That is simply inexcusable behavior by people who produce food for human consumption.

But the law says no one can be compelled to testify against himself. So the men are within their rights to not answer questions. And the law probably will allow them to avoid answering those questions when they stand trial.

But make no mistake about it, they should stand trial. And the verdict should be a foregone conclusion.

Unless they can defend themselves. Which they can't. Because there is no defense that can justify their actions.

There is no need for them to incriminate themselves. Their own words on the paper trail do that nicely.

And their deeds cannot be erased, even if they remain silent until the day they are sentenced.