🚀 go-pugleaf

On 24 Aug 2002 22:41:01 -0700, cwhite0714@fsi.net (cwhite0714) wrote:

>Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote in message news:<3d67c827.4843843@news.cwnet.com>...
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 04:15:22 -0400, Sylvia Kaplan <skaplan@nospam.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> What a beast.
>> A woman has no motivation to make up such a story.
>
>The situation doesn't seem so simple to me.
>
>If Tony's report is correct (and I believe it could be), at least one
>woman and her boyfriend have been hopping around the country accusing
>a doctor of molesting her. Looking for money is certainly a motivation
>to bear false witness.

So you think the young lady in the story was ahem, bearing false
witness for money.  I don't think so. Know why? Cuz it was a criminal
case, not civil.  

>While I would guess that the scam Tony reported is a much rarer

Tony gets a lot of mileage out that supposed scam.  I think 
he made it up.  Pure fiction. Total hallucination.

>occurrence than legitimate complaints by women, it still seems unfair
>that even one honest person's reputation and future business would be
>ruined by media coverage of his or her name in the context of a
>sensational accusation that eventually proved false. 

Which honest persons reputation are you referring to?  The honest
person that lied when confronted by the womans husband and police?
THe honest person that was considered not credible by the judge
because of inconsistencies? 

>It's true that
>the media is liberal in reporting things that sell, 

Things that sell:
Paxill. Prozac.  Zoloft.
Hoe about some Ritalin for junior? 

>and a story about
>a dentist being exonerated is not likely to sell as well as the
>scandalous story of his possibly being guilty.

possibly?

>And yet, you are right about the publicizing of the accused's name
>being an encouragement for other victims to come forward. You are also
>right that what we have read doesn't add up. As the article was
>written, it looks very much as though the dentist is either guilty or
>negligent with his records, possibly both. But we do not have the
>whole story. We have what the newspaper reported that will sell copy.
>None of us would want to be tried on that unreliable "evidence."

oh well, ahem, none of us would pull down a ladys pants during
an office visit either! would we?  while she was drugged?
So you think the news story is a fake?  C'mon!

>I am not a dental professional; I am a patient. I am also a survivor
>of childhood sexual abuse. But I cannot immediately condemn this man
>as a molester.
>
>I find these situations too difficult and complex to judge without far
>more information than we have here.

Okay, okay, don't decide.
You don't have to decide.  No need.  A court already has.

maybe you didn't see this:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/guns/bal-md.ho.depadua24aug24.story?coll=bal%2Dlocal%2Dheadlines

"Dentist convicted in assault of patient"

As for me, (like I said elsewhere), I'm going on facts as given 
for this case.

>> .. missing info from files, the dentists story keeps
>> changing... does not add up.  
>> Pretty sad that here on smd, there is oblique support 
>> for the suspected abuser of female patients.  
>> WHy is that?