Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 303

Thread: The Package and the Defense Motion

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,856
    Quote Originally Posted by KathrynL View Post
    Defense motion re: psychiatrist, confidentiality

    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...tion%20D11.pdf
    Yikes, it says Mr. H. was a psychiatric patient of the doctor.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Curious Me For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by Curious Me View Post
    Yikes, it says Mr. H. was a psychiatric patient of the doctor.
    Well, the defense sure doesn't seem to worry about his privacy when they release this info.
    LOL. Court documents appear to be a great way to release info when there is a gag order in place.
    Just my opinion

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  5. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by KathrynL View Post
    Defense motion re: psychiatrist, confidentiality

    http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...tion%20D11.pdf
    People's response :
    http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfi...20to%20D11.pdf

    Shhhh dont tell the judge these are all listed in the state court website lol...

  6. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to February For This Useful Post:


  7. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by February View Post
    People's response :
    http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfi...20to%20D11.pdf

    Shhhh dont tell the judge these are all listed in the state court website lol...
    Hah. Told ya all about trusting fox news anonymous sources.
    By the way isn't it a great way to release info with a gag order in place?
    Just my opinion

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  9. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,123
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...16/detail.html

    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.

    imo

  10. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to KathrynL For This Useful Post:


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    Hah. Told ya all about trusting fox news anonymous sources.
    By the way isn't it a great way to release info with a gag order in place?
    lol..am sure you and i been using these crime forums for many many years now- i started on that laci peterson case at courttv and there will be good and bad news and wrong news that some media like Foxnews reports


    it's actually better that we get the right info directly from the court

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to February For This Useful Post:


  13. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    922
    Quote Originally Posted by KathrynL View Post
    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...16/detail.html

    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.

    imo
    i remember that!
    it was Sheriff Oates press conference discussing about the media...

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to February For This Useful Post:


  15. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by February View Post
    People's response :
    http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfi...20to%20D11.pdf

    Shhhh dont tell the judge these are all listed in the state court website lol...
    Thanks wasn't enough, that was a good read.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to KathrynL For This Useful Post:


  17. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,123
    Quote Originally Posted by 21merc7 View Post
    The only problem I have with both of these Motions, is the demanding of evidence now. There is no way in this large a mess that any is ready. I question the defense on that. Unless prosecution is being uncooperative.

    As far as the reports being fake, well, guess we get to talk about a lot of fake info until trial.
    It says in the DA response that they have 20 days after Monday's proceeding to turn over discovery. The guy has yet to be formally charged, so I'm going to go with the defense being aggressive. I agree that the case is going to generate mounds of information. The DA said last Monday that investigation will continue right up until trial.

  18. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to KathrynL For This Useful Post:


  19. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Durango, Colorado
    Posts
    52
    The psychiatrist specializes in the' neurobiology of schizophrenia"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/us...er=rss&emc=rss
    In My Own Opinion

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mysticskye For This Useful Post:


  21. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,496
    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.

  22. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to 21merc7 For This Useful Post:


  23. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    Well, the defense sure doesn't seem to worry about his privacy when they release this info.
    LOL. Court documents appear to be a great way to release info when there is a gag order in place.
    possibly a preemptive strike?
    get people discussing how he was so messed up and in need of help...build a sympathy case...

    dunno...just throwing that out there....
    dum spiro, spero

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to prima.facie For This Useful Post:


  25. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by prima.facie View Post
    possibly a preemptive strike?
    get people discussing how he was so messed up and in need of help...build a sympathy case...

    dunno...just throwing that out there....
    People are already discussing this right and left.
    Just my opinion

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  27. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by gitana1 View Post
    That makes it sound like seeing a psychiatrist is a mandatory part of the graduate program. Otherwise, why so many students?

    Okay, I'm confused. I saw a report linked here stating that the notebook contained details about how exactly the killer would massacre a bunch of people, with drawings, etc. But the state's response to the motion indicates that they have not yet opened the "box" and were waiting for an "in camera" review, which means in the judge's chambers, with the judge present. Which is it?:
    Seems like Fox News had an overzealous "source" that was right about the package being delivered, but wrong about the contents. Someone probably speculated about the contents and was wrong. It could really just end up being a note to his doctor. If that's the case, I'm not sure they can seize it and use as evidence as it's protected by HIIPA, correct?

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to newsleuther For This Useful Post:


  29. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,856
    As one that could be part of the word "people", I have been extremely dubious of the media assertions.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Curious Me For This Useful Post:


  31. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    People are already discussing this right and left.
    true...but now we have something to chew on....sort of...
    dum spiro, spero

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by newsleuther View Post
    Seems like Fox News had an overzealous "source" that was right about the package being delivered, but wrong about the contents. Someone probably speculated about the contents and was wrong. It could really just end up being a note to his doctor. If that's the case, I'm not sure they can seize it and use as evidence as it's protected by HIIPA, correct?
    I am pretty sure that if they got the warrant HIPAA wouldn't apply.
    Just my opinion

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  34. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    9,990
    Quote Originally Posted by newsleuther View Post
    Seems like Fox News had an overzealous "source" that was right about the package being delivered, but wrong about the contents. Someone probably speculated about the contents and was wrong. It could really just end up being a note to his doctor. If that's the case, I'm not sure they can seize it and use as evidence as it's protected by HIIPA, correct?
    Well, in criminal cases, there are circumstances in which HIPPA can be bypassed. I will ask my law partner (he does criminal law) for specifics.
    For Travis Alexander, a human being. Justice will prevail.


    *Gitana (means "Gypsy girl"). Pronounced "hee tah nah."

  35. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gitana1 For This Useful Post:


  36. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,240
    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

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to prima.facie For This Useful Post:


  38. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    19,184
    Quote Originally Posted by prima.facie View Post
    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?
    You should read the people response. Just because defense lawyers say something doesn't make it so.
    Just my opinion

  39. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jjenny For This Useful Post:


  40. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    I am pretty sure that if they got the warrant HIPAA wouldn't apply.
    It depends though, perhaps they were not aware that the package was delivered to a doctor that was treating him.

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to newsleuther For This Useful Post:


  42. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,240
    Quote Originally Posted by jjenny View Post
    You should read the people response. Just because defense lawyers say something doesn't make it so.
    let me clarify.....if it is true, would it still be admissable...id like to hear the opinions of attorneys on this since there are some posting amongst us....
    dum spiro, spero

  43. The Following User Says Thank You to prima.facie For This Useful Post:


  44. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by pinkflamingo View Post
    Sorry if this was already mentioned, (i missed a few pages) but JH left his position, he was no longer a member of the university. Why should she still be responsible for him?
    While I personally don't see that this particular DR. 'saw' JH in the capacity the defense is now 'claiming' for the sake of removing of the journal.

    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

  45. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roxye For This Useful Post:


  46. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    265
    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...

  47. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    28
    "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?

  48. The Following User Says Thank You to cynar For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 108
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 01:43 AM
  2. Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?
    By yeknomaras in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:17 PM
  3. 2010.06.01 - Defense Motion for Tips
    By Jomo in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 09:40 PM
  4. Defense May Have To Re-File Motion
    By darnudes in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 07:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •