NY - LISK Bodies found as of December 10, 2011 Thread #13

[Kimster]

Do not
Do not
Do not

lash out at each other.

Don't discuss each other.


Discuss the case!!!

 

[Dwntwnslim]

It was "substance abuse". See page 6 of supreme court short order form.

"Do you believe that he called her mom? Moriarty asked Commissioner Dormer.

"Yeah. Our information is that he did," he replies.

*Quoted from: "Murder or accident: How did Shanna Gilbert die?" 48 Hours Mystery, December 17, 2011

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_16...die/?pageNum=4

What type of information is Dormer referring to? Why does he debunk the calls one moment and change his mind the next? Or was it vice versa? Personally, I need clarity and verifiable information.

About the court records, could you provide original locations for the documents, case numbers etc? Or, could you convert your pdfs to plain HTML? For security reasons I don't open pdfs or jpgs.

 

[Redbird]

All this information has been discussed in previous threads. It is a courtesy to expect posters to go back and look up all this information rather than posters trying to catch up by reading the old threads themselves. You have asked this question before and it has been answered. When Dormer said the calls had been debunked it was during his first press conference and it is my opinion that he was "caught with his pants down,". In other words he did not know the details about the calls yet so he said they had been debunked, then said LE was looking into it (trying to cover all bases). That press conference I believe was in December or January when the bodies had first been found and before much was known. He has since said in the 48 HR Mystery show from CBS that CPH DID MAKE THE CALLS. To me that is all the proof anyone needs. Nobody is on trial here. No one has to be cross examined.

 

[truthspider]

All this information has been discussed in previous threads. It is a courtesy to expect posters to go back and look up all this information rather than posters trying to catch up by reading the old threads themselves. You have asked this question before and it has been answered. When Dormer said the calls had been debunked it was during his first press conference and it is my opinion that he was "caught with his pants down,". In other words he did not know the details about the calls yet so he said they had been debunked, then said LE was looking into it (trying to cover all bases). That press conference I believe was in December or January when the bodies had first been found and before much was known. He has since said in the 48 HR Mystery show from CBS that CPH DID MAKE THE CALLS. To me that is all the proof anyone needs. Nobody is on trial here. No one has to be cross examined.

Agreed, all this info was posted long ago. <modsnip>

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us.../index/index_new/jonas/2001nov/025904-97a.pdf

 

[truthspider]

"
About the court records, could you provide original locations for the documents, case numbers etc? Or, could you convert your pdfs to plain HTML? For security reasons I don't open pdfs or jpgs.

I thought you might also be interested in this one:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us...dex/index_new/winslow/2001april/002857-96.pdf

particularly on page 2, where we see that proceeds from the settlement would be spent on a wheelchair accessible van for the victim.

Makes Jane Doe 9098 and her leg operation look real interesting doesn't it?

 

[inspctrgadget]

Agreed, all this info was posted long ago. <modsnip>:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us.../index/index_new/jonas/2001nov/025904-97a.pdf

<modsnip>

There is nothing contained in any of these documents that shows Mr. Hackett had a substance abuse problem.

Just because the plaintiff's attorney went on a fishing expedition (and was denied the ability to access Mr. Hackett's medical records) does not mean that there was any evidence that he had a substance abuse problem.

Saying that he have a substance abuse problem based on these court documents is libel or slander. For example, if one said: "I discovered he'd been in trouble with the law before," Murphy says. "He had a record for gross negligence and he'd been in alcohol rehab."

Also, the insinuation that just because he was sued for malpractice is some type of incriminating or circumstantial evidence of his guilt or involvement in a serial killer's murder spree is plain ludicrous.

Note:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-18/lifestyle/29901691_1_malpractice-patients-doctors
Most doctors in America will be sued at some point during their career, a Harvard study released yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine has found. Physicians who perform high-risk procedures, including neurosurgeons and obstetricians, face a near certainty of being named in a malpractice case before they reach age 65.


An EMT/emergency room physician that was sued is a near certainty.

There is nothing remarkable in these court docs.

 

[inspctrgadget]

I thought you might also be interested in this one:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us...dex/index_new/winslow/2001april/002857-96.pdf

particularly on page 2, where we see that proceeds from the settlement would be spent on a wheelchair accessible van for the victim.

Makes Jane Doe 9098 and her leg operation look real interesting doesn't it?

No, a kid who severely injured himself on a skateboard while playing in a park and ended up in a wheelchair, then suing the EMT and hospital that responded to the 911 call has nothing to do with a dead woman who had scars on her legs.

 

[Dwntwnslim]

We've been down this road.

<modsnip>.

There is nothing contained in any of these documents that shows Mr. Hackett had a substance abuse problem.

Just because the plaintiff's attorney went on a fishing expedition (and was denied the ability to access Mr. Hackett's medical records) does not mean that there was any evidence that he had a substance abuse problem.

Saying that he have a substance abuse problem based on these court documents is libel or slander. For example, if one said: "I discovered he'd been in trouble with the law before," Murphy says. "He had a record for gross negligence and he'd been in alcohol rehab."

Also, the insinuation that just because he was sued for malpractice is some type of incriminating or circumstantial evidence of his guilt or involvement in a serial killer's murder spree is plain ludicrous.

Note:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-18/lifestyle/29901691_1_malpractice-patients-doctors
Most doctors in America will be sued at some point during their career, a Harvard study released yesterday in the New England Journal of Medicine has found. Physicians who perform high-risk procedures, including neurosurgeons and obstetricians, face a near certainty of being named in a malpractice case before they reach age 65.


An EMT/emergency room physician that was sued is a near certainty.

There is nothing remarkable in these court docs.

Thanks for reiterating this information! I thought I was going crazy there for a second.

 

[truthspider]

Saying that he have a substance abuse problem based on these court documents is libel or slander. For example, if one said: "I discovered he'd been in trouble with the law before," Murphy says. "He had a record for gross negligence and he'd been in alcohol rehab."

The GQ journalist got the quote wrong, I said that he was in rehab for "substance abuse" and I provided the court docs to the journalist. The writer is from England and I am a yankee who mumbles so I don't hold anything against him for getting the quote a little wrong.

Also, the insinuation that just because he was sued for malpractice is some type of incriminating or circumstantial evidence of his guilt or involvement in a serial killer's murder spree is plain ludicrous.

There is nothing remarkable in these court docs.

<modsnip> I think that everyone on here should read the documents for themselves and make up their own minds. If there is nothing remarkable in the docs <modsnip>? Nothing I have said is slander, and if it is CPH is welcome to sue me, <modsnip>, I am sure the courts of Suffolk County (and the media, let's be honest) would love to hear what I have to say.

 

[truthspider]

No, a kid who severely injured himself on a skateboard while playing in a park and ended up in a wheelchair, then suing the EMT and hospital that responded to the 911 call has nothing to do with a dead woman who had scars on her legs.

How do you know the individual was injured in a skating accident? <modsnip>

 

[Dwntwnslim]

Agreed, all this info was posted long ago. <modsnip>:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us.../index/index_new/jonas/2001nov/025904-97a.pdf

I don't open jpgs, pdfs etc. from anyone. This is not a practice I employ just for you. I don't think people should necessarily open any of my links, pdfs and jpgs either. That's why I provide information regarding search terms and search engines I've used to get to a website I have linked in a post.

 

[inspctrgadget]

How do you know the individual was injured in a skating accident? <modsnip>...

Because the court documents that you refer to are all posted online. I actually read them in their entirety, not just the snippets that you provided.

 

[truthspider]

Because the court documents that you refer to are all posted online. I actually read them in their entirety, not just the snippets that you provided.

I missed the doc that mentions skateboarding, do you mind provinding the doc doc or link?

 

[truthspider]

I don't open jpgs, pdfs etc. from anyone. This is not a practice I employ just for you. I don't think people should necessarily open any of my links, pdfs and jpgs either. That's why I provide information regarding search terms and search engines I've used to get to a website I have linked in a post.

ummm the pdf files and links I posted are from the website of the state of New York Court system.....do you not trust the state court system?

 

[dcgrumpy]

I thought you might also be interested in this one:

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us...dex/index_new/winslow/2001april/002857-96.pdf

particularly on page 2, where we see that proceeds from the settlement would be spent on a wheelchair accessible van for the victim.

Makes Jane Doe 9098 and her leg operation look real interesting doesn't it?

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing a connection.

 

[SoSueMe]

Folks, there are a lot of members on edge about this case. You're going to have to stop with the (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) snide remarks to each other. We can all read the tension in your posts and it's so thick we can cut it with a knife.

When we find ourselves with a forum where members can't seem to get along, we sometimes lock the threads for a cooling off period and other times we pull the forum altogether. We really want to keep this forum open, so please try to get along.

If you dispute information that someone puts forth, dispute it in a respectful, civil manner and leave the personal remarks out of it. Seriously, people come to Websleuths to read the resources we gather. They don't like to wade through a lot of snide, snappy, snarky posts, so please end it now.

Quiet Girl, thank you for the "Chill Thread." We obviously need it in this forum. If you find yourself getting hot under the collar, go post some pictures of puppies in the Chill Thread.

Thank you all and please carry on.

Sue aka SoSueMe
Websleuths Co-Owner

 

[Seaslug44]

It was "substance abuse". See page 6 of supreme court short order form.

An opposing attorney making an unwarranted request to fish through medical records for any possible substance abuse treatment IS NOT proof of a substance abuse history.

<Modsnip>

 

[Claudette]

I can't believe her family is holding up the way they are. I'd have gone mad by this point. Bloody mad.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

There was also that little comment from a patient that reviewed the good doc. Patient said he seemed to be "drunk or on something" (No, I don't have that link handy, sorry. It's been linked many times, though.)

At any rate, yes, a patient doing an online review can say anything...might be true, might be bs. But if you lay bricks end to end, you usually end up with a path. IMO

 

[Dwntwnslim]

There was also that little comment from a patient that reviewed the good doc. Patient said he seemed to be "drunk or on something" (No, I don't have that link handy, sorry. It's been linked many times, though.)

At any rate, yes, a patient doing an online review can say anything...might be true, might be bs. But if you lay bricks end to end, you usually end up with a path. IMO

Here is the link you were referencing:

http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Charles_Hackett

To get to the above link, enter the following into the Google search bar:

“Charles Peter Hackett”+patient +review

It is the first result on the first page.


I found some interesting information about vitals.com, the website that contains the review of the doctor. Here is a sample of what I found with links:

Los Angeles Times
The rating room
Consumer opinions are thriving online, including reviews of doctors.
But is scoring an MD the same as rating an HDTV?
May 19, 2008
Shari Roan/Times Staff Writer

“Many say the reviews on RateMDs.com, Vitals.com, DrScore.com and other sites are skewed by disgruntled patients and are thus unfair, pushing some doctors to near-ruin after a single post.”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...tals.com+complaints&cd=33&&ct=clnk&gl=ushl=en


Nashville Post
Plastic surgeon fighting online reviews
Defamation lawsuit target anonymous posters
Published December 21, 2010 by Erin Lawly

“In the Dec. 15 complaint, Dr. Nicholas Sieveking and Sieveking Plastic Surgery allege various unnamed defendants posted three “untrue and damaging” reviews about the surgeon on physician review site Vitals.com, one of which claimed the doctor provided no follow-up after a major procedure and that the patient needs corrective surgery.”

http://nashvillepost.com/news/2010/12/21/plastic_surgeon_fighting_online_reviews


Chicago Tribune
Doctors: Web ratings flawed
Critics say Web scores based on few reviews are unfair, unreliable
November 15, 2010/ By Julie Deardorff, Tribune reporter

"I get rated by insurance companies and can't stand it," said Boll, who had 12 patient ratings and a 100 percent patient satisfaction rate, according to Consumer's Checkbook. "The stuff they come up with is rarely representative of what I do and how I do it."

But he does see a need for "objective, verifiable and uniform ratings." On vitals.com, which says it rates more than 700,000 doctors, Boll had just one rating. On ratemds.com, one of seven reviewers said "he cares more deeply about his patients than any other doctor I have ever met." But another complained that "his nurse has NEVER once picked up a phone."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...01115_1_patients-rate-ratemds-com-web-ratings


According a technology profile I consulted for information about the website, vitals.com uses some questionable analytics and tracking for a Healthcare website.

http://builtwith.com/vitals.com

They have employed Quantcast a California based company that measures web audiences. Via a product called “Quantcast Measurement”, vitals.com is able to get the following information about their site's users:

“...user demographics and audience insights. This information includes traffic, demographics, geography, business, site affinity and categories of interest. The service offers MRC accredited traffic data.”

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantcast"]Quantcast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But, Quantcast has gotten into trouble for doing even sneakier things like circumventing privacy controls internet surfers have set on their personal computers' web browsers. Here are a couple of stories about it with links:

Wired
Flash Cookie Researchers Spark Quantcast Change
By Ryan Singel
August 12, 2009

“...researchers, led by grad student Ashkan Soltani, found that Quantcast was one of several companies who used Flash cookies on the net’s most popular websites to re-spawn traditional browser cookies after users had deleted them. According to their findings released on Monday, the undead cookies created by Quantcast were discovered on Hulu.com, the popular online video site, which uses Quantcast to measure its traffic”

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/08/flash-cookie-researchers-spark-quantcast-change/


MediaPost News
Specific Media Settles Flash Cookie Suit, Promises
Never To Use Them
by Wendy Davis, Aug. 22, 2011

“This lawsuit was one of several recent cases dealing with Flash cookies. Quantcast, Clearspring and Say Media's VideoEgg recently paid a total of $3.4 million to settle similar lawsuits alleging that they circumvented users' privacy controls by using Flash cookies for tracking.

Flash cookies are controversial because some Web companies allegedly use the technology to circumvent users' privacy settings. Flash cookies are stored in a different location in the browser than HTTP cookies, so users who delete their HTTP cookies did not necessarily also delete Flash cookies. “

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/156331/