Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 303
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,494
    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.


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


  3. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,282
    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


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


  5. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    21,765
    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


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


  7. #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?


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


  9. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    10,243
    As one that could be part of the word "people", I have been extremely dubious of the media assertions.


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


  11. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,282
    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


  12. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    21,765
    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


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


  14. #68
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    10,889
    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.


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


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


  16. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,282
    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


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


  18. #70
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    21,765
    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


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


  20. #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.


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


  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2,282
    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


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


  24. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    590
    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


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


  26. #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...


  27. #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?


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


Page 5 of 21 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... 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
  •