NY-LI 10 bodies found on Beach-Poss. SrlKlr-12/10-4 id'd; more found 3/11 #10

[waltzingmatilda]

What about the idea that he was calling when he was drunk. So lets say he has an alcohol problem, where he is compulsive when drunk and makes the calls. After he sobers up, he realizes how much risk he put himself into and with the last 2 murders, he requested the girls leave their phones so he would not be tempted to call them when he is drunk.

Bingo!!! I have known a few peeps during my life who compusively use the phone when intoxicated. 'Drunk dialing' is what I think it is called.

 

[inspctrgadget]

I'd like to ask if anyone has a clear sense of timing for the "Halfway House" call to SG's mom. News reports seem to indicate that it was "shortly after her disappearance", but nothing seems firm.

On the LISK site, Flukeyou said: "Dr called SG mother 10 or so hours after she went missing ….. How did he get her number, why did he say Shannon was under his care that morning…THESE ARE FACTS"...

Does anyone have any idea where Flukeyou got the 10 hour figure from? How is this a "Fact"?

Is there anyone on here that communicates with either Flukeyou or SG's mom that might be able to shed some light here?

I ask because CPH's phone records show calls made on the 6th and 9th, not the 2nd.

 

[truthspider]

I'd like to ask if anyone has a clear sense of timing for the "Halfway House" call to SG's mom. News reports seem to indicate that it was "shortly after her disappearance", but nothing seems firm.

On the LISK site, Flukeyou said: "Dr called SG mother 10 or so hours after she went missing ….. How did he get her number, why did he say Shannon was under his care that morning…THESE ARE FACTS"...


I ask because CPH's phone records show calls made on the 6th and 9th, not the 1st.

We need to be careful as to what we know and how we know it .... we don't know that CPH's phone records show calls on the 6th 9th and not the 1st. We know that CPH told us there were calls on the 6th and 9th. And we know Dormer said that their information now is that yes he did call the family's home. After being lied to, I'm not so quick to buy CPH statements in his own letters, maybe he did call on the 1st and didn't want to mention it? For all we know he called the mothers house at 9 am on Saturday, May 1st from his house phone, and the police know it. LE isn't looking to charge anyone for obstruction of justice in this case.

From what I could gather, from MSM reports and direct quotes from the gilbert family, they were not specific about the dates that they received the calls. On top of that, their statements used the term "from the time she was reported missing" which isn't an exact date and can be interpreted as a date as early as May 1, or any day much later that week. Because I believe it was nearly a week later before the actual NJ Missing Persons report was indeed filed.

And I will say this for that flukeyou character, he may not be great at formalizing an argument, but he is the only person on the web who knew CPH made the phone calls and that the police had records of it, weeks before the 48 hrs special was aired...... I think it is safe to say that flukeyou (at least for a while) was communicating with the police about the case, and was able to glean non-public info about the investigation.

 

[Peter Brendt]

You seem pretty convinced that it was one client who paid Maureen $900, and that she was alive after seeing that particular client. So...do YOU know something we don't know, Peter? If so, do tell.

Okay, once more. If she would have deposited only $0.01 what would it prove? It would prove her physical presence at this ATM as good as $900. So, the amount is not what proves, but the fact, that she was at the atm.
Second: She deposited $900. $900 is a lot of money. Would she carry $900 to a client (aka a zone in which she doesn't have control)? Nope, she wouldn't. But even if she would, for some unknown constructed reason be forced to do so, she is at a client, who paid her $1000. The basic reason, why people deposit money is, they don't want to carry a lot of money with them because they could be robbed (ooops, that is exactly what happened later that night to Maureen). So, if shou would, for any wildly constructed reason would have gathered payments from several clients and she got additional $1000 from this one, what amount would she have deposited? Oh wait ... maybe the amount she had minus what she needed to have on her person to buy a ticket home and a little extra? What would that be? $100 maybe? Which means, she had logically x-100=amount she deposited. This means (we put x to the left side of the formula) x=amount she deposited + 100. Which gives us $1000 for x. In other words, she hadn't more than the $1000 from the last client and no somehow constructed amounts of money she gathered from other clients, she couldn't have even met that day given the timeline. So, what I know is behavioral patterns and math.

 

[Peter Brendt]

What about the idea that he was calling when he was drunk. So lets say he has an alcohol problem, where he is compulsive when drunk and makes the calls. After he sobers up, he realizes how much risk he put himself into and with the last 2 murders, he requested the girls leave their phones so he would not be tempted to call them when he is drunk.

There is a little discrepancy here on the behavioral side. Allegedly, and we heard that from the sister and the boyfriend, it was an older white guy. I said my opinion about speech patterns already. But the angle of compulsive drunk dialing is new. Now, I can imagine, he was drunk, but he was not so drunk to miss any chance to hit the soft spots in his targets (as in sister and boyfriend/pimp). He was obviously well aware, that he needed to deliver prove he was who he claimed to be and therefore the thing with tattoos and sex scenes between Melissa and Terry. So he couldn't have been that drunk.
I have still two problems with the theory, this client is the killer:

a.) Maureen Brainard-Barnes, who obviously left the client well and alive and was abducted later.

b.) The primary targeting of Terry instead of Amanda (was that her name?).

Both together appear to me rather support a form of stalker theory.

 

[Sillybilly]

... He told me that, it looks like CPH settled, so I don't believe there ever would have been anything on his DO record. Though, even if you don't settle and are found guilty, I believe the "record" only shows malpractice cases that occurred in last 7 or 10 years. The events he stood trial for occurred in 89 and 90-ish) and the trial was in 1999 and 2000 (good job CPH attorney). So his "record" would be clean now regardless. The expert witness physician in the case stated that CPH acts amounted to gross negligence ...

<rsbm>

Is it not also true that, if the case went to trial and he was found Not Guilty, there would be nothing on his DO record? We also know that as many expert witnesses the prosecution could present, the defence would present just as many to refute.

...The 2 events happened during his residency at Long Beach Hospital, when he was away from the hospital and on site as a physician/EMT. When you are in the field, and away from an actual hospital or emergency room, you are protected by the "good samaritan law" which makes it difficult for anyone to file malpractice suits against you, he still racked up 2. The law was specifically designed to protect doctors when you are 'away from a hospital' and trying to save someones life ...

Pure symantecs here, but anyone can "file" a lawsuit against another, with a plethora of accusations in a Statement of Claim, none of which are substantiated in a court of law or refuted by defence counsel ... doesn't make the defendant guilty. The medical profession is probably more prone to such filings than other professions.

Couple questions:

Have we ever seen a Statement of Defence from CPH?
Why would he have to claim bankruptcy? Don't doctors in NY have insurance?

As for "misrepresenting" himself as an MD, that could be something as simple as a paralegal assuming he was one and it wasn't spotted in the court documents.

We don't KNOW the outcome of the case, therefore we can't assume it was so serious that the Good Samaritan Law could not protect him. The case may have been dropped when a plaintiff realized they had no chance of conviction under that same law.

We don't KNOW the outcome of the case, therefore we can't assume he was "found to be grossly negligent".

We can think we know, but we really still know bugger all

Don't get me wrong here Truth ... I'm just as suspicious of the doc as you and many others. I think we just have to remain objective, note the coincidences, keep them in mind while seeking any and all information that leads to the ultimate "Truth" and real justice for the victims.

ETA: Sorry i am so far behind in this convo ... was without a computer for a week or so and now am adjusting to a laptop. Arghhh !!

 

[NJGuy]

There is a little discrepancy here on the behavioral side. Allegedly, and we heard that from the sister and the boyfriend, it was an older white guy. I said my opinion about speech patterns already. But the angle of compulsive drunk dialing is new. Now, I can imagine, he was drunk, but he was not so drunk to miss any chance to hit the soft spots in his targets (as in sister and boyfriend/pimp). He was obviously well aware, that he needed to deliver prove he was who he claimed to be and therefore the thing with tattoos and sex scenes between Melissa and Terry. So he couldn't have been that drunk.
I have still two problems with the theory, this client is the killer:

a.) Maureen Brainard-Barnes, who obviously left the client well and alive and was abducted later.

b.) The primary targeting of Terry instead of Amanda (was that her name?).

Both together appear to me rather support a form of stalker theory.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I don't see your logic in this. No one is claiming the client that Maureen saw and left alive from and the john on LI in which Melissa went to see is the same person.

From what I gathered from your argument, you are stating the client who saw Maureen last is not the killer because she still had $900 when she called her friends...ok I buy that. But no one is saying that client and the person Melissa went to see the night she went missing is the same person.

 

[truthspider]

<rsbm>

Is it not also true that, if the case went to trial and he was found Not Guilty, there would be nothing on his DO record? We also know that as many expert witnesses the prosecution could present, the defence would present just as many to refute.

Pure symantecs here, but anyone can "file" a lawsuit against another, with a plethora of accusations in a Statement of Claim, none of which are substantiated in a court of law or refuted by defence counsel ... doesn't make the defendant guilty. The medical profession is probably more prone to such filings than other professions.

Couple questions:

Have we ever seen a Statement of Defence from CPH?
Why would he have to claim bankruptcy? Don't doctors in NY have insurance?

As for "misrepresenting" himself as an MD, that could be something as simple as a paralegal assuming he was one and it wasn't spotted in the court documents.

We don't KNOW the outcome of the case, therefore we can't assume it was so serious that the Good Samaritan Law could not protect him. The case may have been dropped when a plaintiff realized they had no chance of conviction under that same law.

We don't KNOW the outcome of the case, therefore we can't assume he was "found to be grossly negligent".

We can think we know, but we really still know bugger all

Don't get me wrong here Truth ... I'm just as suspicious of the doc as you and many others. I think we just have to remain objective, note the coincidences, keep them in mind while seeking any and all information that leads to the ultimate "Truth" and real justice for the victims.

ETA: Sorry i am so far behind in this convo ... was without a computer for a week or so and now am adjusting to a laptop. Arghhh !!

I'm not sure why I am answering you as you clearly didn't read the docs or you didn't understand them. I didn't assume anything, the expert witness found CPH's actions to be "grossly negligent". Paralegals don't write up short form orders, stenographers do. I asked 2 different stenographers if a mistake like that would be made and they said no. I am not an attorney, so I had one read the documents after I read them and explain them to me. What I said in my previous post was a summary of their response.

 

[Peter Brendt]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I don't see your logic in this. No one is claiming the client that Maureen saw and left alive from and the john on LI in which Melissa went to see is the same person.

From what I gathered from your argument, you are stating the client who saw Maureen last is not the killer because she still had $900 when she called her friends...ok I buy that. But no one is saying that client and the person Melissa went to see the night she went missing is the same person.

But the whole set of theories, the client killed those prostitutes would imply, we talk all the same client here. And in fact, I used that argument, we don't know it's the same client several times myself. Because if Maureen wasn't killed by a client and all GB4 have such a similar signature, it means, we have to look for someone not in the client lists. Because otherwise, we would have split the GB4 also onto two killers and I can't see that given from the obviously same signature.

 

[stillwatersc]

What about the idea that he was calling when he was drunk. So lets say he has an alcohol problem, where he is compulsive when drunk and makes the calls. After he sobers up, he realizes how much risk he put himself into and with the last 2 murders, he requested the girls leave their phones so he would not be tempted to call them when he is drunk.

He could have just been deliberately slurring his words to disguise his voice. I doubt he was terribly drunk since he was careful to call from a crowded, public location and could have been arrested for public drunkenness if it was obvious.

 

[stillwatersc]

But the whole set of theories, the client killed those prostitutes would imply, we talk all the same client here. And in fact, I used that argument, we don't know it's the same client several times myself. Because if Maureen wasn't killed by a client and all GB4 have such a similar signature, it means, we have to look for someone not in the client lists. Because otherwise, we would have split the GB4 also onto two killers and I can't see that given from the obviously same signature.

I think it is wise to not make any assumptions. The killer may not have been a client or maybe he was a previous client who cultivated a relationship so the victims would feel comfortable with him. Maybe there is not always a pre-arranged date. He just 'happens' to run into them & makes an offer. That way he can be sure they don't tell anyone where they are going or with whom. He could have a non-descript car to make it harder to remember or identify. I imagine the windows are tinted as dark as is allowed by law.

 

[Peter Brendt]

I think it is wise to not make any assumptions. The killer may not have been a client or maybe he was a previous client who cultivated a relationship so the victims would feel comfortable with him. Maybe there is not always a pre-arranged date. He just 'happens' to run into them & makes an offer. That way he can be sure they don't tell anyone where they are going or with whom. He could have a non-descript car to make it harder to remember or identify. I imagine the windows are tinted as dark as is allowed by law.

We could at least try to eliminate, what is by laws of physics impossible. For example, that the killer just ran into them. They were no street corner prostitutes. So the only way to run into them would have been Craigslist - which would have led to an appointment. It is physically impossible to run into someone who isn't there in the first place. Unless of course, you would implicitly accept the idea that the killer lives in the normal life environments of his victims and is no Craigslist-client at all.
And we know, at least Amber Lynn Costello told her bf, she knew the client and was comfortable with him. So, that is not an assumption but a fact. But then, it's still on the line of a business relation.
And I have no idea whether his car is non-descript or flashy, but it is clear, he has one at least at his disposal, which is big enough to transport a body. And it must be the kind of car, in which something wrapped in burlap wouldn't cause attention. There is a profound difference of a body sized bundle wrapped in burlap on the bed of a truck and the same bundle in the backseat of a BMW. And of course, since behavioral patterns are always a mix of statistics and recognition of behavioral patterns, one can call it assumptions or educated guess, but this guy wouldn't drive a gray Nissan Micra. He would go for a fashionable color at the time, he buys the car. F-150s most popular colors over the last years was red, so, if he would drive an F-150, it would be red. But Nissan XTerra's most popular color over the last few years was yellow and if he would get himself an XTerra, it would be yellow. Looks flashy but in the end, a lot of them are around. It's the same pattern as with his "crowded" places. Madison Square Garden? Times Square? Sure! The crowd off of a movie theater in the Bronx? Rather not!

 

[inspctrgadget]

From the LISK site:

By Mari Gilbert on Jul 12, 2011
....Like I told the cops, the media, and anyone who would listen Hack ( or someone using his name called me ).........Hackett told the cops Alex gave him my phone number....

By Flukeyou on Aug 4, 2011
Doc called the family the day SG went missing..telling the family he runs a home for runaway girls and SG had been there – fact.

____________

It looks to me like Mari Gilbert herself even at this late date maintains some level of doubt as to whether or not CPH was the actual caller (hence the qualifier: "or someone using his name...").

Also, Flukeyou says the call occurred "the day" SG went missing. He seems convinced of that since he calls it a "fact," and as mentioned previously he used the timeframe for the call "within 10 hours".

Shannon's missing persons report is dated the 4th, and according to CPH his calls occurred May 6th and 9th.

What would be the motivation for CPH calling Mari Gilbert on the 6th and 9th, other than for the benign reasons he indicated in his 48 Hours letters? To buy some time? It seems like he would have had all the time in the world between May 1st and May 9th to "clean up" or whatever.

Most importantly, what are CPH's specific denials to the news media? What exact question(s) was he responding to? I feel that this is important. The exact MSM questions, and his exact, verbatim words that constituted "lying" and/or "denying". It seems like everyone is accusing him of lying but I haven't seen the citation of the actual lie. I'd like to get this cleared up.

 

[kemo]

A critical issue here is "when did SG's mother (or sister) notify LE that CPH had called her? " If CPH had called "10 hours after SG went missing" the mother should have mentioned that fact as part of the missing person report. I would think it would have been critical information. If CPH got the mother's (and sister's) phone number from Alex, LE would certaily verify that information with Mike.

I would assume there is no recording of any call CPH made to the family so we can never really know what was said but there should be phone records (this would have been a toll call). If the calls were made before CPH spoke to Alex, that would pretty well prove he got the phone number from SG and it would be very suspicious. If the calls were made after Alex gave him the number, it seems odd and inappropriate but not necessarily incriminating.

 

[goathairjones]

The 2 events happened during his residency at Long Beach Hospital, when he was away from the hospital and on site as a physician/EMT. When you are in the field, and away from an actual hospital or emergency room, you are protected by the "good samaritan law" which makes it difficult for anyone to file malpractice suits against you, he still racked up 2. The law was specifically designed to protect doctors when you are 'away from a hospital' and trying to save someones life.

.

Hi Truthspider,

I would just like to add something here: The Good Samaritan Law only protects you if you are acting within your level of training and within your protocols.

That child was having a febrile seizure and was probably dehydrated and should have been administered fluids intravenously and provided high flow oxygen. Failure to do that goes against his training and protocols and therefore the Good Samaritan Law goes out the window.

So when the expert witness say he was grossly negligent in his care, that implies that he did not follow his training and protocols and is therefore responsible for the poor outcome of the child.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Okay, once more. If she would have deposited only $0.01 what would it prove? It would prove her physical presence at this ATM as good as $900. So, the amount is not what proves, but the fact, that she was at the atm.
Second: She deposited $900. $900 is a lot of money. Would she carry $900 to a client (aka a zone in which she doesn't have control)? Nope, she wouldn't. But even if she would, for some unknown constructed reason be forced to do so, she is at a client, who paid her $1000. The basic reason, why people deposit money is, they don't want to carry a lot of money with them because they could be robbed (ooops, that is exactly what happened later that night to Maureen). So, if shou would, for any wildly constructed reason would have gathered payments from several clients and she got additional $1000 from this one, what amount would she have deposited? Oh wait ... maybe the amount she had minus what she needed to have on her person to buy a ticket home and a little extra? What would that be? $100 maybe? Which means, she had logically x-100=amount she deposited. This means (we put x to the left side of the formula) x=amount she deposited + 100. Which gives us $1000 for x. In other words, she hadn't more than the $1000 from the last client and no somehow constructed amounts of money she gathered from other clients, she couldn't have even met that day given the timeline. So, what I know is behavioral patterns and math.

There are so many assumptions here that I wouldn't even know where to beging to argue your points.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm not sure why I am answering you as you clearly didn't read the docs or you didn't understand them. I didn't assume anything, the expert witness found CPH's actions to be "grossly negligent". Paralegals don't write up short form orders, stenographers do. I asked 2 different stenographers if a mistake like that would be made and they said no. I am not an attorney, so I had one read the documents after I read them and explain them to me. What I said in my previous post was a summary of their response.

I'm not sure why you are answering in such an antagonistic fashion. That said, I have read the documents, I do understand them. I worked in law firms for many years, and in fact have the personal experience of having filed a medical malpractice suit in the death of my own son. I was referring to paralegals and/or stenographers having had input in the initiating documents that could have been reproduced in subsequent documents. The error referencing CPH as an MD is in the Style of Cause which would have been an error on the Statement of Claim, initiated by the plaintiff's law firm ... a document that CPH would not have had input to.

As for stenographers not making "a mistake like that", they most certainly do ... some just won't admit to it.

 

[goathairjones]

I think SG's sister said that the CPH calls came just after they reported her missing in Jersey City. So that would put the CPH call just after 5/4/10. So 5/6/10 looks like a good date for the first call. I think CPH may be right here and flukeyou may be wrong.

http://newyorkstatemissingpersons.ning.com/forum/topics/shannan-gilbert-oak-beach

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Welcome back, Billy.

 

[Seaslug44]

the 3 docs are attached for your convenience.

Don't know how I missed this one document before, it specifies that one of the things being paid for from the victims trust is a wheelchair accessible van....

If this young victim lost the ability to walk due to CPH actions....HOLY $h1t.....
that isn't an accident! feeling sick right now..:sick:

I hope that this sick individual never gets a day in court, and that one of his victims family members or friends just feeds him a hot copper sandwich, its sickening

Thank you very much for posting the court documents. Here are some extremely important facts/corrections about CPH that the first document proves;

1. As of January 17, 1989, CPH was physically healthy enough to be an active member of the Point Lookout-Lido Beach Volunteer Fire Department. 99.99 percent sure that this means that his crippling car accident took place after this date. There are minimum agility tests/physical fitness requirements that must be met to be a member of a fire department. Their requirements might not be as strict as FDNY, but you can be certain that having two functioning legs would be a given for active duty members.

2. Although it does mention CPH's bankruptcy petition, it's important to note his filing of bankruptcy was most likely not as a result of this lawsuit. In fact, even though the accused negligence took place on 1/17/89, the first that CPH heard of the lawsuit was when he was served papers on 9/10/97 (over eight years later). CPH responded to that complaint two months later on 11/26/97 when he asked the court to for a stay (temporary hold on the proceedings) due to the fact that he had already had a bankruptcy petition that he needed to wait for the outcome of (you cannot file for bankruptcy after learning that you are being sued as a way to avoid paying the plaintiff. Hence, he was already in the middle of a bankruptcy procedure when he was served).

This leads me to believe that CPH's car accident took place some time between January 1989 and probably 1995 or 1996. The reason why I suspect this is because an extremely large percentage of bankruptcies are filed as a result of people with severe medical conditions. Losing a leg is such an injury that he surely was kept out of work for a year or more. The court document shows that the stay for on the lawsuit was lifted on 12/21/1999. That is an extremely unusual long time for a bankruptcy case to be extended (most are settled in less than one year). It almost makes me think that maybe he had just filed for bankruptcy in July or August of 1997 and the plaintiff's attorney immediately filed the lawsuit in September of 1997 in hopes that it wasn't too late. It's very possible that CPH was still in rehab for his injuries and was able to keep filing extensions on his bankruptcy case on the grounds that he was still recovering from the severe traumatic injuries that he sustained.

3. The third document (as well as this one;http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/10jd/nassau/decisions/index/index_2000/winslow/2000aug/002857-96.pdf) refer to trial that looks like was set to start on 9/6/2000. It's not a malpractice case against CPH but rather a case where other doctors were sued and the Long Beach Medical center in turn sued CPH in an attempt to shift the responsibility for the patient's bodily injuries to him. They successfully petitioned the court to hear both cases simultaneously. it's getting late but at another time I will attempt to obtain the details of that case.