But Arapahoe County Senior Deputy District Attorney Richard Orman's written response to the defense motion said inaccuracies in the Fox News reports about the notebook indicate that whoever provided the information didn't know the facts of the case.
Instead of law enforcement sources "leaking" details about the notebook, Orman wrote that the news media may be getting information from "hoaxers, fraudsters," or maybe news reporters fabricated the information by "creating fake 'law enforcement sources' out of whole cloth."
I recall the Aurora police chief stating that someone claiming to be him had made it on the air of a news outlet, and cautioned the media - perhaps the very day of the shooting. I don't think the DA's argument can be easily dismissed.
it's actually better that we get the right info directly from the court
The psychiatrist specializes in the' neurobiology of schizophrenia"
In My Own Opinion
Did anyone notice that "the package" has not been examined and is being held for in camera review?
No manifesto, or leaking pipes?
Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.
As one that could be part of the word "people", I have been extremely dubious of the media assertions.
in regards to what the defense claims - that JH's right to due process and a fair trial has been jeopardized.....how will this affect the trial now? will the information that has been leaked not be admissible?
can an attorney here speak on this?
Last edited by prima.facie; 07-27-2012 at 07:08 PM. Reason: me schpelling
dum spiro, spero
IF JH WAS seeing the DR professionally before his acts, it MIGHT be relevant.
If JH was seeing the DR for medication and counselling before his horrendous act, then him mailing anything to his DOCTOR WOULD be covered under doctor patient confidentiality.
BUT!! The fact is in this journal he threatened the lives of others!... Even after the fact, if a patient threatens others, is it still covered?
Little confused on that aspect.
There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief.. and unspeakable love. --Washington Irving
I meant more like, he had dropped out over a month earlier. Obviously had ANYONE received that notebook (and opened it) and did not report it to police, they would be liable. However, I am just imagining that he stopped seeing her in May, which was like 2 months ago. Maybe she did refer him for more help. I really doubt that any professional would just refuse to see or help him if they thought he was capable of doing this. Of course it is a possibility, but there is no evidence that suggests that ANYONE knew that this was his plan.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds...
"If JH was seeing the DR for medication and counselling before his horrendous act, then him mailing anything to his DOCTOR WOULD be covered under doctor patient confidentiality.
BUT!! The fact is in this journal he threatened the lives of others!... Even after the fact, if a patient threatens others, is it still covered?"
Prosecution response to defense motion asserted that the package had not been opened yet and media reports about its content did not come from law enforcement.
But you raise an interesting point: if the package contains threats, can the defense claim patient confidentiality? And who determines what is a "threat" in this situation, where hindsight colors every communication and makes it see an inevitable precursor?