Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Re - Ramsey vs Spitz
"A hearing on Dr Spitz's motion for summary disposition is currently scheduled for February 24, 2017."
Quote:
Originally Posted by meibomius
So, friends of the Ramseys and people who like them can't be trusted, but people who don't like them and people who think they're guilty should be trusted? Dr. Beuf would be subjecting himself to loss of his license and criminal prosecution if he lied or tampered with evidence. The lack of any signs of abuse were confirmed by Dr. Bernhard in her report for Boulder County Social Services.
No, I’m not saying that at all. I think the Whites, who were friends in the beginning and later pulled away, can be trusted with what they say and have been honest. I feel like the Whites were trusting friends of the Ramseys until they started to feel like the Ramseys were up to something and not being totally truthful. Even after they pulled away from the Ramseys, I still don’t think they were dishonest or tried to slam the Ramseys.
I also think the Fernies, who were friends in the beginning and later pulled away because Barbara saw the huge ad in the paper of the damaged door that the Ramseys had put into the newspaper as a possible point of entry for an intruder, can be trusted and have been honest. I believe they pulled away from the Ramseys because they started to smell something fishy in the way the Ramseys were handling the situation but still never tried to slam the Ramseys.
As far as Susan Stine goes, I think she has proven to be one of those people who you must look carefully at what she says…unlawfully using M. Beckner’s e-mail address, introducing jameson to JR who said in a transcript that one of the things that jameson offered was to put things on the internet through her name. From what JR said about what jameson “offered,” I tend to look carefully at what she put outs there too.
Beuf is one of those iffy people in my book. He was a close family friend and a pediatrician in Boulder. He not only treated JBR, be also prescribed medications for PR. I don’t know of any dr who will prescribe prescription medications for someone who is not his patient, but he did it for PR. I don't think that's legal.
According to Death of Innocence, Beuf took the medical records that he had in his possession to a bank and put them in a safety deposit box. I have to ask my why he felt it necessary to do that if everything in those records was all innocent…sniffles, respiratory problems, etc. If he really did this, I suspect he was feeling the need to protect himself against having his license jerked because of things that he had written about JBR’s exams and not reported. If he didn’t take the records to a safety deposit box, then you have to believe that he lied to the Ramseys for some reason or that the Ramseys just concocted the whole story and lied in DOI.
Quoted from your post, “The lack of any signs of abuse were confirmed by Dr. Bernhard in her report for Boulder County Social Services.”
I don’t get where you’re coming from with the above quote. I thought Bernhard only interviewed BR, so I don’t see how she could know about JBR abuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Steve Thomas was sued for libel and lost.
I haven’t read ST’s book. You seem to go back to this a lot, so I’m just going to ask the question because I truly don’t know. Wasn’t Thomas made to take out everything in his book that the Ramseys had proved to be libelous? If so, can it be assumed that what was left in the book couldn’t be proven to be libel, so the remaining portion of his book is possibly true? I don’t know how the whole libel thing works, but JR sure didn’t pursue Kolar for libel. Maybe it was because there was nothing in there that could be proven to be libel.
Beuf is one of those iffy people in my book. He was a close family friend and a pediatrician in Boulder. He not only treated JBR, be also prescribed medications for PR. I don’t know of any dr who will prescribe prescription medications for someone who is not his patient, but he did it for PR. I don't think that's legal.
It's completely legal, a doctor can prescribe to whomever they want. There are professional standards and regulations from state medical licensing board, and those guidelines discourage physicians from prescribing for family or friends, and for anyone they haven't done a full history on, or haven't actually examined (e.g. phone in). But there is wide latitude in those guidelines and regs for judgment and the doctor's discretion, especially in cases of emergency or urgency (or logistics, like a group of friends on a vacation together when one needs some treatment, and they are not near their regular doctor). Happens all the time.
Patsy was hysterical and highly agitated from the effects of acute traumatic stress, and could not sleep. Left untreated, she could have become a danger to herself or others, and was in danger of a temporary shock turning into a long-term psychological disorder (PTSD). Beuf was s a doctor, and saw his friend suffering. I don't see how you can criticize him for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLane2
According to Death of Innocence, Beuf took the medical records that he had in his possession to a bank and put them in a safety deposit box. I have to ask my why he felt it necessary to do that if everything in those records was all innocent…sniffles, respiratory problems, etc. If he really did this, I suspect he was feeling the need to protect himself against having his license jerked because of things that he had written about JBR’s exams and not reported. If he didn’t take the records to a safety deposit box, then you have to believe that he lied to the Ramseys for some reason or that the Ramseys just concocted the whole story and lied in DOI.
The safe deposit box was a very prudent move on his part. As a doctor, he has a legal obligation to take all reasonable steps to guarantee the confidentiality of those medical records. He had already provided the BPD with a complete copy of JBR's records in early January of 1997 in response to a search warrant. Knowing the lengths to which the media would go to get their hands on any evidence like this, he wisely judged that his office was not safe, as someone could easily break in or bribe their way in or con their way in somehow and steal them. The box would solve that. No one besides himself, or authorities with a search warrant or court order should have been able to access that box, that's how they work. The bank had a legal duty to ensure that, so he was right to think they were safe. And yet, he later found someone had accessed the box without his authorization, and was outraged. It's unlikely a tabloid reporter could have conned his way into such a protected place, so most likely it was the police, not trusting that Beuf had turned over all the records (though no search warrant has come to light for this, so they may have talked their way into an illegal access to the box). Nothing was stolen, but the box was accessed without authorization. But there's nothing the slightest bit suspicious about his deciding to protect the records in a safe deposit box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLane2
Quoted from your post, “The lack of any signs of abuse were confirmed by Dr. Bernhard in her report for Boulder County Social Services.”
I don’t get where you’re coming from with the above quote. I thought Bernhard only interviewed BR, so I don’t see how she could know about JBR abuse.
It's in my post. Yes, Burke was the only one of the two children that she interviewed (for obvious reasons), but it's a child abuse investigation. Such a report by a child protective agency investigates the household, which means everyone in it. They look at all the children in the household and both parents (and anyone else who might be living in the household) to determine if there is any indications of a history of abuse (to determine if remaining children are safe). She reviewed the medical records of both children. Dr. Bernhard's conclusion that there was no evidence of history of abuse applied to both children.
I haven’t read ST’s book. You seem to go back to this a lot, so I’m just going to ask the question because I truly don’t know. Wasn’t Thomas made to take out everything in his book that the Ramseys had proved to be libelous? If so, can it be assumed that what was left in the book couldn’t be proven to be libel, so the remaining portion of his book is possibly true? I don’t know how the whole libel thing works, but JR sure didn’t pursue Kolar for libel. Maybe it was because there was nothing in there that could be proven to be libel.
I know your comment was to CA4, but I know the answers to much of this, so I'll go ahead. Only in the rarest circumstances are books UNpublished after they are out. Thomas' book was already out, the genie was out of the bottle, when the suit was brought. The parties agreed to a settlement, which did not include any alteration to the text of future editions, did not include any acknowledgement of the libelous nature of anything in the book. The parties aren't allowed to discuss the terms of the settlement, but there is good indication that the publisher had to pay the Ramseys a hefty sum, enough that Lin Wood said Thomas will never see a dime from the book. Thomas' book is out there, and may or may not be true or libelous, but that question was never tried in court. But it still being out there doesn't make any comment on whether or not you can trust anything in it as accurate or not.
The difference between Thomas and Kolar cases I don't know enough about to comment on, but I do have a suspicion.
Beuf is one of those iffy people in my book. He was a close family friend and a pediatrician in Boulder. He not only treated JBR, be also prescribed medications for PR. I don’t know of any dr who will prescribe prescription medications for someone who is not his patient, but he did it for PR. I don't think that's legal.
According to Death of Innocence,
If he didn’t take the records to a safety deposit box, then you have to believe that he lied to the Ramseys for some reason or that theRamseys just concocted the whole story and lied in DOI.
I don’t know how the whole libel thing works, but JR sure didn’t pursue Kolar for libel. Maybe it was be ause there was nothing in there that could be proven to be libel.
Is this a normal practice, no, Drs prescribing meds for anyone not under their care is illegal.
Absence of any mental health medical files were to the Ramseys benefit, these two think fast on their feet.
Not only Dr Beuf prescribing mental health meds for PR,
( I'm pretty sure I've posted this in the past) after their move to Atlanta both PR and JR were prescribed meds by BRs psychiatrist. Same old....everyone bends to the Ramseys.
No doubt and without reading DOIs the Ramsey slant; lies seem to come naturally. I don't put anything past Steve Thomas either, though. The guy really lost his shyt ( excuse the expression), wonder if he ever recovered? If I'm not mistaken hes a contributor on one of the crime forums from time to time.
Kolars book didn't slide under Woods radar....nothing in it for Johnboy and Burke; Kolars self- published. Steve Thomas didn't loose a dime; big money came from the publishing company.
Only in the rarest circumstances are books UNpublished after they are out. Thomas' book was already out, the genie was out of the bottle, when the suit was brought.
Are you certain Thomas' book wasn't pulled, edited and re-released as was the case with O.J. Simpson's book due to title?
I feel like the Whites were trusting friends of the Ramseys until they started to feel like the Ramseys were up to something and not being totally truthful. Even after they pulled away from the Ramseys, I still don’t think they were dishonest or tried to slam the Ramseys.
There are probably multiple reasons why the Ramseys and Whites pulled away from each other, many of which have been discussed on these threads.
The BPD helped destroy this friendship, by telling the Whites that the Ramseys said certain things about them which, in fact, they never said, in an effort to force a confession.
Interesting info from this 1998 transcript. I would imagine that having the Whites approach the governor of Colorado asking to appoint a special prosecutor was probably a clear indication that the friendship had been abruptly ended.
18 TOM HANEY: What is your current
19 relationship with the Whites?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: We have not -- we
21 have not spoken.
22 TOM HANEY: When is the last time?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Well I -- when we
24 left town, right in the mild the incident, I
25 remember we were staying with the Stines, Glen
0085
1 and Susan Stine, Fleet White went in to Glen
2 Stine's office at the university, and leaned
3 across the table, demanding to let the Stines
4 see us. And Glen Stine said Fleet, you know,
5 settle down.
6 TOM HANEY: Fleet wanted the Stines
7 to let them (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS)?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: He was just saying
9 that the Stines were keeping us away from them,
10 which wasn't the case. But he was going there,
11 he went into the vice president of the
12 university and (INAUDIBLE). You know what,
13 irrational behavior.
14 TOM HANEY: Is this--
15 PATSY RAMSEY: So anyway, before I
16 left town, (INAUDIBLE) before I left town I took
17 a little teddy bear up to this kid and left a
18 note, little teddy bear, and left a note, opened
19 a card that said you know, we are leaving town
20 or something, JonBenet loves you and whatever.
21 I don't know.
22 And then subsequently I had written
23 a couple of notes, I found a picture of Daphne,
24 that I sent to her and I think I wrote a note,
25 there was a story, one of the tabloids had their
0086
1 photographs, said Ramseys accusing best friends
2 or something, please don't believe these
3 horrible stories, you know.
4 But you know, not (INAUDIBLE) the
5 next thing I heard that they were down in the
6 governor's office (INAUDIBLE).
I haven’t read ST’s book. You seem to go back to this a lot, so I’m just going to ask the question because I truly don’t know. Wasn’t Thomas made to take out everything in his book that the Ramseys had proved to be libelous? If so...
I mention the fact that Thomas was sued and lost for libel because it’s and indication that much of what he wrote in his book was not true. I have not read his book...and never would, given how unethical he was. I have no idea if anything was removed from his book.
Is this a normal practice, no, Drs prescribing meds for anyone not under their care is illegal.
Absence of any mental health medical files were to the Ramseys benefit, these two think fast on their feet.
Not only Dr Beuf prescribing mental health meds for PR,
( I'm pretty sure I've posted this in the past) after their move to Atlanta both PR and JR were prescribed meds by BRs psychiatrist. Same old....everyone bends to the Ramseys.
It's not illegal, I don't know where you're getting that. See my reply on this above. And a child psychiatrist spends almost as much time with the parents as they do with the child, so he would be quite familiar with the mental and emotional state of the Ramseys. A child psychiatrist is a psychiatrist who has had extra training in diagnosing and treating children and adolescents, so he is fully qualified to examine, diagnose and treat John and Patsy.`
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
Kolars book didn't slide under Woods radar....nothing in it for Johnboy and Burke; Kolars self- published. Steve Thomas didn't loose a dime; big money came from the publishing company.
According to Thomas, he lost his house. And the payment by the publisher would have destroyed any royalty payments Thomas would have otherwise received. I'm not familiar with the specific contract, but most publishers have their contracts very carefully written to charge any expenses of this type against the writer's royalties. Here's one I believe is typical in the industry:
Quote:
Author's Warranties. The Author warrants and represents that the Work is the Author's original creation, that the Author owns or is the authorized licensee of all rights granted under this Agreement, that the Author has full power and authority to copyright the Work and make this Agreement, that the uses of the Work authorized in this Agreement will not infringe any other person's copyrights or other proprietary rights, that the Work does not violate any privacy or publicity rights or contain any libelous or unlawful matter , and that all statements of fact in the Work are based upon deliberative research and to the best of the Author’s knowledge are true . The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher and its licensees against any damages or expenses, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in connection with the Author’s breach of any of these warranties or with any third party claim , demand, or action arising out of such a breach (a “third party claim”). The Publisher will have the right to take the lead in defending any third party claim, and the Author will have the right to choose an attorney, to be paid at the Author's expense, to co-defend such a claim. Any settlement of a third party claim will be subject to the Author’s approval, which will not be unreasonably withheld. If a third party claim is sustained in a court of competent jurisdiction or settled by common agreement between the Author and Publisher, the Publisher may withhold sums therwise due the Author under this Agreement and apply them to the reduction of the Author’s obligations under this Paragraph 12. The above warranties and indemnities will survive the termination of this Agreement
Author promise publisher the book isn't libelous, holds publisher harmless, and publisher can apply expense of any court judgment against the author's share.
It's not illegal, I don't know where you're getting that.
According to Thomas, he lost his house. And the payment by the publisher would have destroyed any royalty payments Thomas would have otherwise received.
Tons of kids see psychiatrists for one reason or the other, parents are directly involved and consult with the physician, however, not technically classified as patient.
Its unethical; there's a fine line.
Steve Thomas... in the end lost his career and finances, he should've medicated like the family he tried to put behind bars.
Edit:
But as you've said, seeing the Dr as a family unit changes the situation to patient.
My question why JR refers to the M.D. as "Burkes psychitrist"? Was poor little Burke their cover for psych treatment?
Last edited by virgode; 02-21-2017 at 09:23 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
