POI: Michael Pak

[Justiceforever]

Occams razor needs a few things to be valid. The complete knowledge of facts is one of them. That we do not have. Even though I think MP is a horrible person and probably had something to do with the death of SG; I still cannot commit to him 100%. How can I with the jerk off CPH in the picture? I also do not think MP was using OP as a burial ground either, so even if MP killed SG you still have atleast 1 serial killer running around. You cannot commit to anyone 100%; to do that is pretty unreasonable at this point. There is alot of information out there that we do not know. You can be 99.9% sure; but you still have to leave that little bit open for further developments until someone is playing footsie with their prison cell mate.

: ) playing footsie? The visual is hilarious!

Yes there is a serial killer out there but I don't think it's MP or the Doc.

 

[LINative13]

: ) playing footsie?lol!

I absolutely believe there is a serial killer out there and I don't think it's MP or the Doc.

That is your opinion, something you are entitled to and should not be crucified for it. I think CPH has alot more to tell police than he has. So does MP. SO does everyone involved in this conglomerate in my opinion. I can understand why JB said "no sex" to the press but I hope he was straight up with the cops.

 

[Justiceforever]

That is your opinion, something you are entitled to and should not be crucified for it. I think CPH has alot more to tell police than he has. So does MP. SO does everyone involved in this conglomerate in my opinion. I can understand why JB said "no sex" to the press but I hope he was straight up with the cops.

I also find it believable that they didn't have sex. I know that's hard for some people to believe but it happens. Think about it. JB felt uncomfortable when SG asked him if he ever encountered any transvestites (something to that effect) it was then that he began to believe she might be a man. That's when he wanted her to leave. If he had sex with her, he would know she was a woman.

 

[mysterymom7]

That is your opinion, something you are entitled to and should not be crucified for it. I think CPH has alot more to tell police than he has. So does MP. SO does everyone involved in this conglomerate in my opinion. I can understand why JB said "no sex" to the press but I hope he was straight up with the cops.

The, "No sex," comment to the press (assuming JB was being honest), is why I have my theory of a CVS prescription run rather than she was just there for sex. Now that we're on that subject, JB admits that SG was in the car with him to go to CVS. I forgot he had said that. That just adds more weight to my theory, IMO.

 

[mysterymom7]

I also find it believable that they didn't have sex. I know that's hard for some people to believe but it happens. Think about it. JB felt uncomfortable when SG asked him if he ever encountered any transvestites (something to that effect) it was then that he began to believe she might be a man. That's when he wanted her to leave. If he had sex with her, he would know she was a woman.

I can believe they didn't have sex, but I don't believe it was because he thought she was a man. Otherwise, she wouldn't have gone with him to CVS, come back and stay another 1.5(ish) hours before "telling her to leave".

 

[WINDSOR]

They took and searched JBs car and he told them SG was in his car when they went for their little ride. I would assume they would want to search any and all cars for blood, etc. ?

In my opinon the swarm of LE activity/search was more interested in JB and CPH than they were with MP.

Truth, probably as a matter of course, a competent police department would do that. It seems like a reasonable thing to do, and it should probably have been done.

Not absolving the SCPD of any investigating responsibility, they probably were not aware of MP and his vehicle for days after SG's disappearance. Remember MP did not hang around to wait for the police to show up for the 911 call. He was gone before that officer arrived. The next time MP was in Oak Beach when he had his meeting with CPH, there were no police there.

I do not even know when the first time SCPD spoke to MP.

I agree a thorough search of MP's vehicle should have been done as soon a possible. If LE had found in MP's vehicle such things as a large pool of SG's blood, signs of a struggle involving SG, chunks or pieces of SG anatomy, clothing that she had been wearing that night, it would all point to MP's culpability.

However LE did not check out his vehicle, and MP had plenty of opportunity to clean his vehicle. In terms of proving MP's involvement the non-search of his vehicle is not a deal breaker.

If CPH were to testify as it has been rumored that MP drove off with SG that night, MP has some explaining to do.

MOO

 

[Justiceforever]

I can believe they didn't have sex, but I don't believe it was because he thought she was a man. Otherwise, she wouldn't have gone with him to CVS, come back and stay another 1.5(ish) hours before "telling her to leave".

No I don't think that's why they didn't have sex either. I was just pointing out that if they had sex he never would've felt uneasy at the end of there time together when she asked him if he'd ever run into any transvestites. (WHERE DID I READ THAT?)

 

[mysterymom7]

Truth, probably as a matter of course, a competent police department would do that. It seems like a reasonable thing to do, and it should probably have been done.

Not absolving the SCPD of any investigating responsibility, they probably were not aware of MP and his vehicle for days after SG's disappearance. Remember MP did not hang around to wait for the police to show up for the 911 call. He was gone before that officer arrived. The next time MP was in Oak Beach when he had his meeting with CPH, there were no police there.

I do not even know when the first time SCPD spoke to MP.

I agree a thorough search of MP's vehicle should have been done as soon a possible. If LE had found in MP's vehicle such things as a large pool of SG's blood, signs of a struggle involving SG, chunks or pieces of SG anatomy, clothing that she had been wearing that night, it would all point to MP's culpability.

However LE did not check out his vehicle, and MP had plenty of opportunity to clean his vehicle. In terms of proving MP's involvement the non-search of his vehicle is not a deal breaker.

If CPH were to testify as it has been rumored that MP drove off with SG that night, MP has some explaining to do.

MOO

This is why early investigation is CRUCIAL in any case. The more time goes by, more opportunity to get rid of evidence and come up with reasonable doubt to explain away the evidence. If there was even a SPECK of blood in MP's car that was found and that was all that was there, I would have a harder time believing he wasn't somehow involved. If evidence pointed to JB, I would hold more scrutiny on him. The problem is, even before their homes/vehicles were searched, JB stuck with the same story, and CPH had a couple stories (I did/didn't call MG). Why CPH was in the middle to begin with is incredibly strange whether you want to appear the "hero" or not. He would have never even been on anyone's radar had he NOT called MG... even if the call was on the 6th instead of the 2nd.

 

[Justiceforever]

Windsor I couldn't quote your text on my phone, it was too long, but, IF CPH testifies that MP drove off with SG then CPH also has some explaining to do because he has said repeatedly that he never met her. Are you thinking that he's going to change that story under oath?

 

[WINDSOR]

Windsor I couldn't quote your text on my phone, it was too long, but, IF CPH testifies that MP drove off with SG then CPH also has some explaining to do because he has said repeatedly that he never met her. Are you thinking that he's going to change that story under oath?

Justice,
I do not have any idea what CPH will or will not say in court.

However let us assume there is some validity to the claim that

a) CPH met SG, and 'attended' to her
b) CPH at sometime called Mari Gilbert and said he attended to SG.

If these are true statements, CPH would probably be wisest to refuse to testify.

If he denies these statements he confirms that he lied and could be part of a criminal cover conspiracy; or he can verify the two statements as reality, and that he violated his duties and obligations as a doctor and is responsible for SG's wrongful death.

CPH is in a very difficult situation, his only choice is to tell the truth and accept responsibility for his actions.

BTW, I am not a lawyer, these are only my opinions.

 

[Tugela]

Not really, he can simply deny it and there is no way to show otherwise. A case in point: JB denies having sex with SG. Well, everyone knows why she was there and no one believes him, but when it comes to evidence the only testimony possible is from JB and SG. SG is dead and JB is denying it, so that is where it will end from a legal perspective. No one can prove otherwise because there is zero evidence to contradict him.

Pak would have provided LE with a statement early on, and that would be the only real evidence in that scenario. If he doesn't corroborate what Ray is claiming then Ray has nothing.

In any event, even if CH did assist her in some way, how is that failing in his duty as a doctor? A doctor is not responsible for what a patient does afterwards, and they have no legal right to restrain someone who elects to leave. To show a failure or negligence they will require testimony from CH himself to that effect, and that is not going to happen. There is no forensic evidence to support Ray's claims, so where does that leave Ray's case?

The claims Ray is making is based on neighborhood gossip, and that is not considered evidence in a court. Why is he making such claims? Because he is not is a court and can say anything he likes. His investigators reported local gossip, and he is basically passing that on. He doesn't have to prove anything. He knows perfectly well that the evidence he claims to have will not be allowed, so this show is for publicity. He is doing what every lawyer does when representing a client, which is to take an extreme position even if they don't have any actual evidence. That doesn't mean there is a case.

 

[ps149]

:

Not really, he can simply deny it and there is no way to show otherwise. A case in point: JB denies having sex with SG. Well, everyone knows why she was there and no one believes him, but when it comes to evidence the only testimony possible is from JB and SG. SG is dead and JB is denying it, so that is where it will end from a legal perspective. No one can prove otherwise because there is zero evidence to contradict him.

Pak would have provided LE with a statement early on, and that would be the only real evidence in that scenario. If he doesn't corroborate what Ray is claiming then Ray has nothing.

In any event, even if CH did assist her in some way, how is that failing in his duty as a doctor? A doctor is not responsible for what a patient does afterwards, and they have no legal right to restrain someone who elects to leave. To show a failure or negligence they will require testimony from CH himself to that effect, and that is not going to happen. There is no forensic evidence to support Ray's claims, so where does that leave Ray's case?

The claims Ray is making is based on neighborhood gossip, and that is not considered evidence in a court. Why is he making such claims? Because he is not is a court and can say anything he likes. His investigators reported local gossip, and he is basically passing that on. He doesn't have to prove anything. He knows perfectly well that the evidence he claims to have will not be allowed, so this show is for publicity. He is doing what every lawyer does when representing a client, which is to take an extreme position even if they don't have any actual evidence. That doesn't mean there is a case.

:goodpost:

Couldn't agree with you more!

10Q!!

 

[Samantha Spade]

Ray's no fool.
Okay, maybe he looks a little funny in some of those threads, but his mind is sharp.
Me thinks this suit against hackett is just the first move in a well planned chess strategy.

 

[WINDSOR]

Tugela and ps149


Pak would have provided LE with a statement early on, and that would be the only real evidence in that scenario. If he doesn't corroborate what Ray is claiming then Ray has nothing.

Yes MP provided a statement early on, but statement may have been full of lies and mis-information, therefore of no value as evidence. It is what MP says on the stand under oath that is of value as evidence.


In any event, even if CH did assist her in some way, how is that failing in his duty as a doctor? A doctor is not responsible for what a patient does afterwards, and they have no legal right to restrain someone who elects to leave. To show a failure or negligence they will require testimony from CH himself to that effect, and that is not going to happen. There is no forensic evidence to support Ray's claims, so where does that leave Ray's case?

Please familiarize yourselves with
Understanding New York's Medical Conduct Program - Physician Discipline
http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/1445/

This legislation details what are the doctors duties in New York State, and holds doctors to a higher standard than normal civilians.

Here are misconduct examples:

A physician was found guilty of prescribing drugs to patients without doing even minimally necessary exams or histories. The physician was found to have given one patient drugs that were excessive in number, too high in dosage, dangerous in their combined side effects and, in some instances, contraindicated. In two other cases, the physician gave a patient enormous doses of addictive drugs that were contraindicated and prescribed drugs for another patient over a three-year period without any indication of the reason or the necessity for the prescriptions.

Physicians may also be charged with misconduct for:

abandoning or neglecting a patient in need of immediate care;


failing to maintain a record for each patient that accurately reflects his or her medical evaluation.

Tugela, the State law does not require the doctor to testify to show failure and/or negligence.(misconduct) Please when giving legal opinions make sure you know the law.When you make a statement like To show a failure or negligence they will require testimony from CH some people reading may believe your erroneous statement as fact.

Consider the case of Dr. Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's doctor. He was found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter, and he took better care of Michael Jackson than CPH did of SG. The jury based its decision on all the evidence.

MOO

 

[LINative13]

Constructive Criticism is good and I always encourage it, especially towards myself. Instead of ganging up on someone or something just to piss further.....why not offer a solution?

 

[ps149]

CPH's responsibilities as a licensed physician can only be questioned in a court of law if there is a preponderance of the evidence to support that CPH not only met SG that night but also treated her.

The problem lies in the proof.

Will there be a witness that takes the stand under oath to state that he/she was in CPH's home and witnessed him treating SG?

Will there even be a witness who will take the stand and testify under oath that they saw SG enter CPH's home?

The problem is that we already established that the visibility was poor at that time of the morning. Simply observing CPH allowing a young woman to enter his home will not convince a jury that he treated SG. The defense can easily point out how the eye witness could not positively identify that person as being SG (especially if he/she never met her).

Even if someone takes the stand and states "the Doc told me that he treated a woman named SG"... well... that testimony isn't sufficient proof in itself of what the doc did or did not do (and to whom he did or did not do it to).

Seriously...

For every witness JR can put on the stand from the OBA community to testify that the Doc made that claim to them, the defense attorney could put up TWO witnesses who will testify that the Doc said he NEVER met SG.

The jury will be left with countering testimonies that will basically cancel each other out.

Add to that the lack of any evidence found by during the search of CPH's home along with a long list of other defenses that are tough to get around and CPH walks away from this legal complaint without a worry in the world.

Only an eyewitness who was in a room with both CPH and SG could possibly know whether injections, examinations, etc... were involved. Any other witness testimony would be useless in court (unless CPH or one of his own family members incriminates themselves).

 

[WINDSOR]

PS149

Only an eyewitness who was in a room with both CPH and SG could possibly know whether injections, examinations, etc... were involved. Any other witness testimony would be useless in court (unless CPH or one of his own family members incriminates themselves).

You are absolutely right. If you are assuming that CPH will not testify.

I believe, based on his past behaviors CPH will want to get the real story out on public record. He will testify and tell the world exactly what happened from his point of view. If he chooses not to testify so as not to incriminate himself, the jury will likely recognize this.

By not testifying, CPH is taking a huge risk.


If on the other hand CPH does take the stand and says he never met SG and he did not meet with MP that night either, and it is not the truth, then he has to worry what MP will say.

Since MP is not part of the claim, the judge can compel him to testify or face jail time. MP cannot hide behind self -incrimination as carefully worded questions by John Ray will only be focused on what MP saw regarding CPH.

There are thousands of murderers in jail today who believed since there were no witnesses they were going to go free.

The issue you should be concerned with is not how CPH could possibly get away with it, but rather you should be concerned with the truth and the reality of the situation.

If CPH and MP had nothing at all to do with SG's death they should not be punished. However if they were involved or legally contributed to her death they should 'man-up' and take responsibility.

All CPH has to do is tell the truth.



Add to that the lack of any evidence found by during the search of CPH's home along with a long list of other defenses that are tough to get around and CPH walks away from this legal complaint without a worry in the world.

Assuming you do know there was a lack of evidence found, but the police sometimes have some evidence, but not enough for a criminal trial. The standards in a civil trial are much lower in criminal trial. The police may very well have something that they could share with John Ray.


Also this last comment of yours seems flippant in the context of the suffering, pain and sadness that has occurred. OJ Simpson walked away from his trial without a worry in the world. He lost everything and only has 29 years of jail time left.

MOO

 

[truthspider]

CPH's responsibilities as a licensed physician can only be questioned in a court of law if there is a preponderance of the evidence to support that CPH not only met SG that night but also treated her.

The problem lies in the proof.

Will there be a witness that takes the stand under oath to state that he/she was in CPH's home and witnessed him treating SG?

Will there even be a witness who will take the stand and testify under oath that they saw SG enter CPH's home?

The problem is that we already established that the visibility was poor at that time of the morning. Simply observing CPH allowing a young woman to enter his home will not convince a jury that he treated SG. The defense can easily point out how the eye witness could not positively identify that person as being SG (especially if he/she never met her).

Even if someone takes the stand and states "the Doc told me that he treated a woman named SG"... well... that testimony isn't sufficient proof in itself of what the doc did or did not do (and to whom he did or did not do it to).

Seriously...

For every witness JR can put on the stand from the OBA community to testify that the Doc made that claim to them, the defense attorney could put up TWO witnesses who will testify that the Doc said he NEVER met SG.

The jury will be left with countering testimonies that will basically cancel each other out.

Add to that the lack of any evidence found by during the search of CPH's home along with a long list of other defenses that are tough to get around and CPH walks away from this legal complaint without a worry in the world.

Only an eyewitness who was in a room with both CPH and SG could possibly know whether injections, examinations, etc... were involved. Any other witness testimony would be useless in court (unless CPH or one of his own family members incriminates themselves).

I really don't know ish about law, but I am guessing you learned this from a tv show as the basic logic is flawed. If there exists 1 witness to a crime, you can't discredit that witness with the infinite supply of non-witnesses. If CPH told 1 or 2 people that he treated her, the fact that he now tells the world he didn't treat won't negate the statements he made to those 2 people. The defense can attempt to discredit those 1 or 2 people, but introducing the word "credible" into a case involving CPH will undoubtedly do more harm than good as CPH has a documented and very colorful history of being non-credible.

This isn't a criminal case and nobody is going to serve time, but at least the truth will come out, and the truth about this individual is undeniable: he is a documented pathological liar. We just want to know if he is much more than that.

 

[Seajay]

Not to mention that sticky little problem for CPH of SG's body being found out behind his house.....

 

[ps149]

Since MP is not part of the claim, the judge can compel him to testify or face jail time. MP cannot hide behind self -incrimination as carefully worded questions by John Ray will only be focused on what MP saw regarding CPH.

MOO

HUH? :waitasec:

Under what grounds can a judge in New York force someone to testify in a case that is a CIVIL complaint?

Jail time for MP for not cooperating as a witness against CPH in a civil matter????

Not in New York. Not even on Judge Judy.

JR is on his own building a case against CPH. He can't rely on a judge to force people to testify against the defendant. He can't ask the court to subpoena witnesses to say what he needs them to say when they do not want to testify. I think you are confusing this with a criminal proceeding. There is no grand jury assigned to civil complaints. JR can seek out testimony from MP. If MP doesn't want to cooperate he does not have to say one word and no judge is going to throw him in jail for not speaking.