WA - Unidentified Male: "Lyle Stevik", Grays Harbor, 17 Sept 2001 - #5

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
EugeneBYMCMB said:
Nope. Autopsies are exempt from release per WA state law. Here's a list of the stuff redacted:
Statement (Redacted: Social Security Number)
Name search of DMV license (Redacted: Social Security Number)
Statement (Redacted: Social Security Number)
Statement (Redacted: Social Security Number)
Disposition Report (Removed: Interagency Memoranda)
Autopsy Report (Removed: Autopsy Records/Reports)
Autopsy/Pathology Findings (Removed: Autopsy Records/Reports)
Follow Up Report (Removed: Interagency Memoranda)
Officer's Notes (Removed: Interagency Memoranda)
Death Investigation Toxicology Report
Officer's Notes (Removed: Interagency Memoranda)
Dental Records (Removed: Autopsy Records/Reports)
Officer's Notes (Removed: Interagency Memoranda)
Law Enforcement Arrest (Removed: Criminal Records Privacy Act)
Click to expand...

yet they give the photos of him hanging?
 
Roselvr said:
yet they give the photos of him hanging?
Click to expand...

Oh, I hope nobody in the thread gets upset at you for pointing out the inconsistency...because it is an inconsistency, and it's strange to me, too.
 
emeraldine said:
Oh, I hope nobody in the thread gets upset at you for pointing out the inconsistency...because it is an inconsistency, and it's strange to me, too.
Click to expand...

emeraldine, what do you mean with the inconsistency? I don t understand what it s strange? Maybe is because english is not my mother tongue.
 
seopaula, I think the seeming inconsistency might be (as noted by EugeneBYMCMB in post #69 of this thread), that state law doesn't allow complete autopsy results to be released, probably due to reasons of the deceased's (and his/her family's) privacy...yet the death photo has been released, and surely that's a violation of privacy as well.

I think this "privacy" inconsistency might be due to one of two things:

1. Did the police/coroner's office officially release the "hanging" photos? (I honestly don't remember, so I'm asking here.) Or did they just mysteriously make their way into the public, much like the recently made available Lyle Stevik case files that appeared online? The "hanging" photos may have been released by an LE or medical official, but that doesn't necessarily mean the release was sanctioned. Plenty of EMS, firefighters, and LE members have gotten in trouble for circulating crime scene/morgue photos via e-mail to each other, when those photos inevitably get out to the wider public.

2. My hunch tells me that it's perhaps a difference in what exactly is covered by privacy laws. You don't have any expectation of privacy in a public place--in most (if not all) states, you can be photographed or videotaped by anyone when you're in public, because you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. You generally can't be audiotaped, but you can't stop people from "seeing" you and documenting via images what happens in public. By choosing to commit suicide in a publicly accessible setting, maybe the argument is that Lyle gave up his right to privacy regarding his image. It's also possibly a "public has the right to know" thing. The death scene is a crime scene--not because it's a suicide, necessarily (because I don't think suicide is against the law in any of the states anymore), but because it's obviously not a natural death. So the public might have a right to know that there's been an unnatural death in a public place, or maybe the public has a right to know if this is their missing loved one. But the public doesn't have the right to know the ins and outs of the deceased's health and body as revealed by autopsy, because those things (in this case) don't influence the general public safety. And as non-LE, the public isn't privy to all of the information that might help solve a crime, only the fact that a crime may have occurred. Think of all the times on WS that a body is identified, or a missing person is located, or a mystery is solved, and we don't get to hear the specifics of it after resolution, because it's not the general public's business, and the deceased (and their family, if found), have the right to privacy as much as possible.

I'm thinking of something like HIPAA in the classroom, for example. HYPOTHETICALLY, I might vent after a class by saying, "Arg, this one student just would not stop derailing my lecture today!" But I couldn't/wouldn't say, "And that student's name is X, and he kept asking off-topic questions because he has Aspergers and doesn't pick up on the social cues that he's driving all the other students crazy with his weird tangents." Or if I walked into my classroom and someone had smeared feces all over, I might take a picture and say, "Urg, someone smeared **** all over my classroom during break." But I wouldn't/couldn't then add, "And it was Y, because his student accommodation paperwork says that he has impulse control problems." One is a discussion/documentation of what happened in a public space, the other delves into an individual's private health.
 
^^^Sorry for the length above! I'm apparently incapable of saying anything in less than a zillion words. Maybe my hypothetical derailing student just can't stand to hear me jabber non-stop any longer--
 
Mouse said:
seopaula, I think the seeming inconsistency might be (as noted by EugeneBYMCMB in post #69 of this thread), that state law doesn't allow complete autopsy results to be released, probably due to reasons of the deceased's (and his/her family's) privacy...yet the death photo has been released, and surely that's a violation of privacy as well.

I think this "privacy" inconsistency might be due to one of two things:

1. Did the police/coroner's office officially release the "hanging" photos? (I honestly don't remember, so I'm asking here.) Or did they just mysteriously make their way into the public, much like the recently made available Lyle Stevik case files that appeared online? The "hanging" photos may have been released by an LE or medical official, but that doesn't necessarily mean the release was sanctioned. Plenty of EMS, firefighters, and LE members have gotten in trouble for circulating crime scene/morgue photos via e-mail to each other, when those photos inevitably get out to the wider public.

2. My hunch tells me that it's perhaps a difference in what exactly is covered by privacy laws. You don't have any expectation of privacy in a public place--in most (if not all) states, you can be photographed or videotaped by anyone when you're in public, because you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. You generally can't be audiotaped, but you can't stop people from "seeing" you and documenting via images what happens in public. By choosing to commit suicide in a publicly accessible setting, maybe the argument is that Lyle gave up his right to privacy regarding his image. It's also possibly a "public has the right to know" thing. The death scene is a crime scene--not because it's a suicide, necessarily (because I don't think suicide is against the law in any of the states anymore), but because it's obviously not a natural death. So the public might have a right to know that there's been an unnatural death in a public place, or maybe the public has a right to know if this is their missing loved one. But the public doesn't have the right to know the ins and outs of the deceased's health and body as revealed by autopsy, because those things (in this case) don't influence the general public safety. And as non-LE, the public isn't privy to all of the information that might help solve a crime, only the fact that a crime may have occurred. Think of all the times on WS that a body is identified, or a missing person is located, or a mystery is solved, and we don't get to hear the specifics of it after resolution, because it's not the general public's business, and the deceased (and their family, if found), have the right to privacy as much as possible.

I'm thinking of something like HIPAA in the classroom, for example. HYPOTHETICALLY, I might vent after a class by saying, "Arg, this one student just would not stop derailing my lecture today!" But I couldn't/wouldn't say, "And that student's name is X, and he kept asking off-topic questions because he has Aspergers and doesn't pick up on the social cues that he's driving all the other students crazy with his weird tangents." Or if I walked into my classroom and someone had smeared feces all over, I might take a picture and say, "Urg, someone smeared **** all over my classroom during break." But I wouldn't/couldn't then add, "And it was Y, because his student accommodation paperwork says that he has impulse control problems." One is a discussion/documentation of what happened in a public space, the other delves into an individual's private health.
Click to expand...
Yes. Could very well be as you have stated. Or could it be when they wrote the laws, they didn't take into consideration that photos from a suicide would not be covered under any of the statutes lined out to prevent their release so they ended up falling between the cracks? We may find their laws amended soon to cover such a thing from happening again. ;)
 
...!

SeriouslySearching said:
Yes. Could very well be as you have stated. Or could it be when they wrote the laws, they didn't take into consideration that photos from a suicide would not be covered under any of the statutes lined out to prevent their release so they ended up falling between the cracks? We may find their laws amended soon to cover such a thing from happening again. ;)
Click to expand...

The bold text is what I'm thinking has happened. The underlined text is what I'm hoping will happen(though others' opinions may vary)!

Anything that will solve this case helps, of course - but, consistency and the respect of a human being's right to his own dignity are, of course, very important things to consider in both life and death.

This being allowed while the rest is not...well...this may not be a thread about the privacy laws of Washington state, but it seems pretty odd!
 
Back on topic - has a timeline been made of everyone's personal observations concerning where Lyle was and what he did?

I'm asking because there seems to be a lot of confusion over whether he did this or that on Friday/Saturday/Sunday/etc.
 
Mouse said:
seopaula, I think the seeming inconsistency might be (as noted by EugeneBYMCMB in post #69 of this thread), that state law doesn't allow complete autopsy results to be released, probably due to reasons of the deceased's (and his/her family's) privacy...yet the death photo has been released, and surely that's a violation of privacy as well.

I think this "privacy" inconsistency might be due to one of two things:

1. Did the police/coroner's office officially release the "hanging" photos? (I honestly don't remember, so I'm asking here.) Or did they just mysteriously make their way into the public, much like the recently made available Lyle Stevik case files that appeared online? The "hanging" photos may have been released by an LE or medical official, but that doesn't necessarily mean the release was sanctioned. Plenty of EMS, firefighters, and LE members have gotten in trouble for circulating crime scene/morgue photos via e-mail to each other, when those photos inevitably get out to the wider public.

2. My hunch tells me that it's perhaps a difference in what exactly is covered by privacy laws. You don't have any expectation of privacy in a public place--in most (if not all) states, you can be photographed or videotaped by anyone when you're in public, because you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. You generally can't be audiotaped, but you can't stop people from "seeing" you and documenting via images what happens in public. By choosing to commit suicide in a publicly accessible setting, maybe the argument is that Lyle gave up his right to privacy regarding his image. It's also possibly a "public has the right to know" thing. The death scene is a crime scene--not because it's a suicide, necessarily (because I don't think suicide is against the law in any of the states anymore), but because it's obviously not a natural death. So the public might have a right to know that there's been an unnatural death in a public place, or maybe the public has a right to know if this is their missing loved one. But the public doesn't have the right to know the ins and outs of the deceased's health and body as revealed by autopsy, because those things (in this case) don't influence the general public safety. And as non-LE, the public isn't privy to all of the information that might help solve a crime, only the fact that a crime may have occurred. Think of all the times on WS that a body is identified, or a missing person is located, or a mystery is solved, and we don't get to hear the specifics of it after resolution, because it's not the general public's business, and the deceased (and their family, if found), have the right to privacy as much as possible.

I'm thinking of something like HIPAA in the classroom, for example. HYPOTHETICALLY, I might vent after a class by saying, "Arg, this one student just would not stop derailing my lecture today!" But I couldn't/wouldn't say, "And that student's name is X, and he kept asking off-topic questions because he has Aspergers and doesn't pick up on the social cues that he's driving all the other students crazy with his weird tangents." Or if I walked into my classroom and someone had smeared feces all over, I might take a picture and say, "Urg, someone smeared **** all over my classroom during break." But I wouldn't/couldn't then add, "And it was Y, because his student accommodation paperwork says that he has impulse control problems." One is a discussion/documentation of what happened in a public space, the other delves into an individual's private health.
Click to expand...
Yes, the photos and case files were released with redactions made pursuant to the Washington Public Records Act.
 
emeraldine said:
Back on topic - has a timeline been made of everyone's personal observations concerning where Lyle was and what he did?

I'm asking because there seems to be a lot of confusion over whether he did this or that on Friday/Saturday/Sunday/etc.
Click to expand...

Since I've just gotten home, I can get to work on that in a bit.
 
I just read a post from Help ID Me about a small breakthrough in the DN case 279UFMD where they recently did pollen testing on some of the evidence and narrowed down where she might have been before her death.

Lyle's clothes should probably contain some pollen after 14 years. This would solve one half of this mystery!
 
outofthedark said:
I just read a post from Help ID Me about a small breakthrough in the DN case 279UFMD where they recently did pollen testing on some of the evidence and narrowed down where she might have been before her death.

Lyle's clothes should probably contain some pollen after 14 years. This would solve one half of this mystery!
Click to expand...

I think they used pollen analysis on Tammy Alexander's jacket to determine where was from, too, before they identified her. It's a great idea.

They could also analyze the isotopes in his teeth.
 
emeraldine said:
I think they used pollen analysis on Tammy Alexander's jacket to determine where was from, too, before they identified her. It's a great idea.

They could also analyze the isotopes in his teeth.
Click to expand...

They should probably take dental x-rays before they do that, though.
 
Roselvr said:
yet they give the photos of him hanging?
Click to expand...

I know, huh?

I feel very sad for this man and my heart goes out to him. But I can't help but feel that he may not appreciate/want every thing we are doing to try to identify him. He obviously used a fake name bc he didn't want people to know who he was. And yet we (the public) have access to images of his most private moment. We are pointing every possible mark or hair on his body. We are speculating every aspect of his last few days. I wonder how he would feel about that. I dont really know how to say what im feeling. Maybe guilt? Invasion of privacy? Am I making any sense?
 
Spurser said:
I know, huh?

I feel very sad for this man and my heart goes out to him. But I can't help but feel that he may not appreciate/want every thing we are doing to try to identify him. He obviously used a fake name bc he didn't want people to know who he was. And yet we (the public) have access to images of his most private moment. We are pointing every possible mark or hair on his body. We are speculating every aspect of his last few days. I wonder how he would feel about that. I dont really know how to say what im feeling. Maybe guilt? Invasion of privacy? Am I making any sense?
Click to expand...

Hmm...well, I think that should go without saying.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to come back from the dead and say, "How would you like a lawsuit?"

Even if he was alive, he might not win that lawsuit.

Since we've pretty much established that this wasn't a homicide scene, and that he did what he did of his own volition, it seems to me that photos of the actual suicide are gratuitous. I can't even look at them, personally, because I'm pretty sure the sight would make me sad/uncomfortable enough to ruin several days.

What's legal is legal...but, as for what's ethical...well, I've already expressed certain non-confrontational opinions in a previous thread that resulted in me getting my head ripped off, despite living in this democracy. ;)

If we do identify him, his family can then have closure(if they did care), and resources can also then be concentrated a little bit more on the many other missing people he won't turn out to be.

Once we do that, though, I hope he can finally get the privacy he's really been entitled to all along(even if people are still curious).
 
Spurser said:
I know, huh?

I feel very sad for this man and my heart goes out to him. But I can't help but feel that he may not appreciate/want every thing we are doing to try to identify him. He obviously used a fake name bc he didn't want people to know who he was. And yet we (the public) have access to images of his most private moment. We are pointing every possible mark or hair on his body. We are speculating every aspect of his last few days. I wonder how he would feel about that. I dont really know how to say what im feeling. Maybe guilt? Invasion of privacy? Am I making any sense?
Click to expand...
But what if he was murdered and nothing about this is what it seemed to be at the time?
 
I think hanging like this seems odd because we usually think of hanging happening from a height, but it probably happens like this more than we think. Mick Jagger's girlfriend committed suicide last year by hanging herself with a scarf from a doorknob, and she was something like 6'3".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 1,556 (members: 73, guests: 1,483)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
1,483
Total visitors
1,556
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,885
Messages
18,194,266
Members
233,622
Latest member
cassie.ryan18
Back
Top