5/5/2011 Billie Dunn, Mom of Missing Teen, to Appear Live on KRBC News at 5 & 6

[Donjeta]

I agree that it sounds weird to hear the attorney call Hailey "our baby", and "our child". He is not the father or a relative.

Quoting casesignal transcript (thanks!)
http://casesignal.wordpress.com/201...ie-jean-dunn-john-young-ktab-interview-may-5/

John Young: There was somewhat of a chilling effect, Brittany, when, you know, this case became more about who done it rather than find, you know, find the child, rather than finding Hailey, and when, you know, some in law enforcement chose at the late hour to execute a warrant that could have been executed early morning, and to try to hold Billie over night, you know, to have the chance to chat with her a bit without a lawyer, that has a bit of a chilling effect on our desire to cooperate. Now, we continue, obviously, to want to cooperate fully and completely in anything that has to do with finding, finding Hailey. We want our baby home.

BBM. As opposed to what? This seems to imply that they do not want to cooperate fully in finding out who done it.

It is IMO not a good strategy for them to continue harping about this alleged plot by the police to arrest Billie because it emphasizes an adversarial relationship with the police, not an attitude of cooperation like they want us to think Billie has.
Later on, he seems to realize this is what he did and wants to correct himself:

John Young: And we continue to cooperate with law enforcement. I don’t want to paint the picture that we have an adverse relationship. There have been some roadblocks, but we obviously will continue to cooperate. We want our child home. We want Hailey home, and Billie will continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement.

If Billie has and will continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement, why on earth did LE allegedly feel like they needed to go through the trouble of arresting her to get a chance to chat with her? Couldn't they just have called and said, hey Billie, please could you drop by and talk a little bit whenever you have a minute?

John Young: And unfortunately, let me add, that’s a great question that you ask, Brittany. Unfortunately, these misdemeanor, minor, I suggest, respectfully, uneccessary charges of false statement to a police officer, and having some Flexeril, for which there was a prescription at some point in the past, have kept her from obtaining that license, that re-licensure with the nursing board, and that’s a very unfortunate reality, that this lady, the one thing that she could do to be productive, other than hunt for her daughter, these minor things have (main? maimed?), have kept her from doing that, and we’ll continue to fight those, and hopefully get those resolved in the near future.

"There was a prescription at some point in the past" is very vague IMO and sounds a little bit like Billie managed to get a legal prescription a long time ago, so long ago that it's hard to remember the exact time, and they're trying to use that as a justification for pills that were not exactly bought with that prescription. "She was prescribed this medicine two months ago by a doctor in [insert name of hospital]" would sound completely different.

 

[katydid23]

"There was a prescription at some point in the past" is very vague IMO and sounds a little bit like Billie managed to get a legal prescription a long time ago, so long ago that it's hard to remember the exact time, and they're trying to use that as a justification for pills that were not exactly bought with that prescription. "She was prescribed this medicine two months ago by a doctor in [insert name of hospital]" would sound completely different.
==============================================Donjeta


Exactly. My dentist prescribed pain pills last year for my root canal. That does not mean I can buy them on the street now and say I have a legal right to do so. They had NO REFILL for a reason.

Nor would I ever take them out of the original container or cross out the name on the prescription. And since BD worked in the health field she would know better as well.

Her lawyer was just tapdancing, as usual.

 

[hollyblue]

I agree that it sounds weird to hear the attorney call Hailey "our baby", and "our child". He is not the father or a relative.

Quoting casesignal transcript (thanks!)
http://casesignal.wordpress.com/201...ie-jean-dunn-john-young-ktab-interview-may-5/


BBM. As opposed to what? This seems to imply that they do not want to cooperate fully in finding out who done it.

It is IMO not a good strategy for them to continue harping about this alleged plot by the police to arrest Billie because it emphasizes an adversarial relationship with the police, not an attitude of cooperation like they want us to think Billie has.
Later on, he seems to realize this is what he did and wants to correct himself:



If Billie has and will continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement, why on earth did LE allegedly feel like they needed to go through the trouble of arresting her to get a chance to chat with her? Couldn't they just have called and said, hey Billie, please could you drop by and talk a little bit whenever you have a minute?



"There was a prescription at some point in the past" is very vague IMO and sounds a little bit like Billie managed to get a legal prescription a long time ago, so long ago that it's hard to remember the exact time, and they're trying to use that as a justification for pills that were not exactly bought with that prescription. "She was prescribed this medicine two months ago by a doctor in [insert name of hospital]" would sound completely different.

How cooperative would they be to that other poly she promised?

Young is just trying to use his spatial reasoning with the whole schmear....IOW...flip it to his idealized perspective. imo

 

[Tugela]

In Texas a person gets arrested for possession of "illegal narcotics" when he/she is in possession of a controlled substance (flexaril, hydrocodone, vicodine, Zanax, etc) and cannot prove they have a valid prescription for that narcotic. Whatever the drug was she had, if LE could not find the physician who was prescribing it in HER name, the pharmacy that filled it under HER name or a bottle with HER name on it, she is in possession of "illegal narcotics".

I feel sure if she was seeing a doctor and getting these medications on a regular basis, they would have verified her prescription and they would have dropped the charges.

Mr. Young is just trying to sway a future jury in my opinion. And I certainly think it is very creepy him calling Hailey "our baby"!!:uke:

I think she was charged with possession of dangerous drugs. That includes any and all prescribed drugs, it doesn't mean they were narcotics. For example, if you had been prescribed something, and you gave some to your husband/child/parent whatever because they had a similar condition, you woudl be breaking the law and looking at serious jail law. And it wouldn't need to be a narcotic or anything addictive, any prescribed drug would do it. Someone posted about this way back, I'm not going to dig through the thousands of old posts to find it, but the gist of it was that narcotics are specifically listed in Texas whereas other prescribed drugs fall under the catchall of "dangerous drugs".

If BD is/was a nurse, and she worked at a hospital, there would be a good probability that she self medicated to some extent since she would know what was needed. If that is the case then there may well not be a prescription, or at least a currently active one.

As for dropping charges or continuing the case, we would have to wait for the next hearing for that.

 

[Oriah]

This is a good resource:

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/dmd/control_subst_sched.shtm

 

[TexasTNT]

I'd like to know just where BJD is putting up posters of her precious daughter! We were through CCity twice over the weekend and stopped for gas and misc. and didn't see one single poster! PFFFFFFFFFT!

 

[Crosby87]

CE’s (Continuing Education Credits) are per license renewal period … so ~2007 to 2011 … ~4-5 years worth.
And CE’s are not free, nor is the license … each year lapsed would have to be ‘made up’ along with the CE’s. ~ $175 x 5 (5/2007 to 5/2012 to get it current plus a year to work) = $875.
Plus … there was a fine imposed upon revoking the license … $1200.00 on page 5 of the PDF I cannot seem to be able to copy/paste. Not sure if that was paid.

And, yes, the board would also consider charges, whether pending or convictions.

Plus, practicing without a license is a form of malpractice.

One thing I do know for sure … any hospital I ever worked with/for always made sure every license was current. Think insurance.

And if I am not mistaken, BJD’s last place of employment was still with Cogdell Memorial Hospital (at a clinic/cleric)?

Not, Mr. Young, that that lets your client off the hook … it is a part of an individual’s licensure to maintain that license in good standing, not the employer’s responsibility, nor the board’s.
Except to protect from those abusing the privilege of being licensed. And the public (priority #1).

BTW … are we doing Mr. Young’s homework for him?

Yes, BJD's last employer was Cogdell Memorial Hospital.

Page 3 in the Section titled 'Disciplinary Sanctions for Lying and Falsification' states the following:

The Board believes that employers of nurses should verify licensure utilizing the Board’s website and thereby avoid hiring a nurse imposter or allowing a nurse to practice beyond his/her scope. The Board may impose a disciplinary sanction to the nurse employer found responsible for hiring a nurse imposter."

http://www.bon.state.tx.us/disciplinaryaction/pdfs/lying.pdf