🚀 go-pugleaf

Interesting that you would use the phrase "His name is mud".

Correct my ignorance of American History but I seem to recall that phrase
arose from an Lincoln's assassination and Samuel Mudd. Mudds family is still
trying to clear their name through the courts over a hundred years later.

The Military Records of Dr. Samuel Mudd
by Eric Longley

http://www.eclectica.org/v5n2/longley.html


"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
news:mKz99.134052$EJ4.4190871@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Why is the woman's name not mentioned due to "the nature of the charges",
but the doctor's name gets dragged thru the mud before a
> trial. He may be guilty, and if so, drag away, but what if he isn't? His
name is mud anyway.
>
> It happened in my area where a dentist was accused of molesting a woman
who had come for an emergency to an otherwise "empty" office
> for an after-hours visit. She accused the doctor of molesting her for an
hour or more. What she didn't know was the doctor had
> ongoing renovations being done, and 10 workman were in the next room
quietly waiting for him to take care of the emergency. Then
> later it turned out this woman and her boyfriend had been doing this to
doctors around the country.
>
> When the story first broke it was front page news, complete with a picture
of the office. When the truth came out you could barely
> find the story. For years after the patients would refer to him as that
guy who raped that girl.
>
> His life was ruined by a false accusation. Until guilt is proven, no names
should be revealed. Lives hang in the balance.
>
> T
>
>
>
> "Sylvia Kaplan" <skaplan@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D65EF1A.FB19FE50@nospam.com...
> > Dentist denies he improperly touched a woman patient
> > DePadua is being tried in sex offense, assault case
> >
> > By Lisa Goldberg
> > Sun Staff
> > Originally published August 23, 2002
> >
> > An Ellicott City dentist denied yesterday that he ever improperly
> > touched a young woman in his care - although he did acknowledge
> > that tests he says he performed on her earlier this year were
> > never recorded in her medical files.
> >
> > Dr. Evan C. DePadua testified in Howard County Circuit Court that
> > the 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman's version of the events that
> > transpired on Jan. 19 - including allegations that he pulled her
> > pants down and rubbed her thighs while she was mildly anesthetized
> > and unable to react - could not have happened the way she said.
> >
> > Although a question-and-answer form he filled out at the behest
> > of Howard police investigators includes an admission that he
> > touched the woman's thigh, but "not in a sexual way," DePadua,
> > 37, said a detective pressured him during an interview that
> > lasted several hours to change his answer from his original denial.
> >
> > "They were threatening me. They were browbeating me," he said
> > during the second day of testimony in his trial on fourth-degree
> > sexual offense and misdemeanor assault charges.
> >
> > Closing arguments in the case, which is being tried by Judge
> > Diane O. Leasure instead of a jury, are scheduled to begin this
> > morning.
> >
> > DePadua, a Brazilian native who was first licensed as a Maryland
> > dentist in 1997, was the last person to testify in a case that
> > largely pits his word against that of the 22-year-old woman, who
> > had been a patient of his for more than a year at the time of the
> > incident.
> >
> > The Sun is not naming the woman because of the nature of the charges.
> >
> > Statements critical
> >
> > As a result, DePadua's statements to police - as well as changes
> > he made to his version of events and omissions in the woman's
> > dental files - are expected to be critical as Leasure weighs the
> > evidence.
> >
> > Both DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore
> > National Pike, and police investigators testified that when
> > confronted, the dentist at first denied ever giving the woman
> > nitrous oxide, then later told officers that he did.
> >
> > According to testimony, the gas dulls patients and makes them
> > "compliant."
> >
> > Also, DePadua wrote in the woman's medical file that he only
> > tightened her braces Jan. 19, but he testified that he also
> > performed a test for a jaw disorder and cut around two teeth
> > that day.
> >
> > The woman said she told her husband and brother what happened
> > not long after the dental visit.
> >
> > On Wednesday, she broke down after she testified that DePadua
> > at first tried to pull her pants down while she was in the
> > examination chair and then stood her up against a wall - all
> > the while increasing the nitrous oxide flow - lowered her tight
> > jeans and rubbed her thighs.
> >
> > DePadua broke a belt loop on her jeans during the incident,
> > she said.
> >
> > The nitrous oxide made her feel "out of it," she said.
> >
> > "All I could do was stand there," she said, crying. "I was
> > leaning against the wall. I was dizzy."
> >
> > DePadua's dentistry license has been restricted since the accusation.
> >
> > Practice restrictions
> >
> > The Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners declined last
> > month to suspend him while the criminal case was pending but
> > ordered that he not see patients alone, administer nitrous oxide
> > or prescribe drugs.
> >
> > The order also includes details of complaints made by three
> > other patients of inappropriate touching and comments and of
> > an instance when DePadua is alleged to have left a sedated
> > patient alone in an examination room.
> >
> > None of those complaints has resulted in criminal charges.
> > ===============================
> >
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.depadua23aug23.story?coll=ba
l%2Dlocal%2Dhoward
>
>

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.
.. 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?

>Dentist denies he improperly touched a woman patient
>DePadua is being tried in sex offense, assault case 
>
>By Lisa Goldberg
>Sun Staff
>Originally published August 23, 2002
>
>An Ellicott City dentist denied yesterday that he ever improperly 
>touched a young woman in his care - although he did acknowledge 
>that tests he says he performed on her earlier this year were 
>never recorded in her medical files. 

Why no records?

>Dr. Evan C. DePadua testified in Howard County Circuit Court that 
>the 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman's version of the events that
>transpired on Jan. 19 - including allegations that he pulled her 
>pants down and rubbed her thighs while she was mildly anesthetized 
>and unable to react - could not have happened the way she said. 
>
>Although a question-and-answer form he filled out at the behest 
>of Howard police investigators includes an admission that he 
>touched the woman's thigh, but "not in a sexual way," DePadua, 
>37, said a detective pressured him during an interview that 
>lasted several hours to change his answer from his original denial. 

Oh?  If "not in a sexual way", then "in what way"?

>"They were threatening me. They were browbeating me," he said 
>during the second day of testimony in his trial on fourth-degree 
>sexual offense and misdemeanor assault charges. 

Oh, sob, poor molester.

>Closing arguments in the case, which is being tried by Judge 
>Diane O. Leasure instead of a jury, are scheduled to begin this 
>morning. 

>DePadua, a Brazilian native who was first licensed as a Maryland 
>dentist in 1997, was the last person to testify in a case that 
>largely pits his word against that of the 22-year-old woman, who 
>had been a patient of his for more than a year at the time of the
>incident. 
>
>The Sun is not naming the woman because of the nature of the charges. 
>
>Statements critical 
>
>As a result, DePadua's statements to police - as well as changes 
>he made to his version of events and omissions in the woman's 
>dental files - are expected to be critical as Leasure weighs the
>evidence. 
>
>Both DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore 
>National Pike, and police investigators testified that when 
>confronted, the dentist at first denied ever giving the woman 
>nitrous oxide, then later told officers that he did. 

denied, then changed the story.

>According to testimony, the gas dulls patients and makes them
>"compliant." 
>
>Also, DePadua wrote in the woman's medical file that he only 
>tightened her braces Jan. 19, but he testified that he also 
>performed a test for a jaw disorder and cut around two teeth 
>that day. 
>
>The woman said she told her husband and brother what happened 
>not long after the dental visit. 

very difficult to do.

>On Wednesday, she broke down after she testified that DePadua 
>at first tried to pull her pants down while she was in the 
>examination chair and then stood her up against a wall - all 
>the while increasing the nitrous oxide flow - lowered her tight 
>jeans and rubbed her thighs. 
>
>DePadua broke a belt loop on her jeans during the incident, 
>she said. 
>
>The nitrous oxide made her feel "out of it," she said. 
>
>"All I could do was stand there," she said, crying. "I was 
>leaning against the wall. I was dizzy." 
>
>DePadua's dentistry license has been restricted since the accusation. 
>
>Practice restrictions 
>
>The Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners declined last 
>month to suspend him while the criminal case was pending but 
>ordered that he not see patients alone, administer nitrous oxide 
>or prescribe drugs. 

>The order also includes details of complaints made by three 
>other patients of inappropriate touching and comments and of 
>an instance when DePadua is alleged to have left a sedated 
>patient alone in an examination room. 

Hm.. three more complaints?

>None of those complaints has resulted in criminal charges. 
>===============================
>http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.depadua23aug23.story?coll=bal%2Dlocal%2Dhoward

>
>N2O causes people to hallucinate or enter a dream state. The most
>common dreams are of a sexual nature .........

Oh I see..
So YOU say the 22 yr old married woman hallucinated
the story of sexual abuse by her dentist?  Uh, Nice try, but no.  
The most common crime by 'doctors' is sexual abuse of women.


>Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:41:02 -0400, "Tony Bad"
<SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote:

>Why is the woman's name not mentioned due to "the nature of the charges", but the doctor's name gets dragged thru the mud before a
>trial.

Because it's an embarrassment to her, you idiot.  It is protecting
the victim. Unlike your preference - blaming the victim.
Do you know how many thousands of convictions of sexual abuse by
doctors are on record in each state?
If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
the opportunity to come forward.

Roy Brown wrote:
> 
> Interesting that you would use the phrase "His name is mud".
> 
> Correct my ignorance of American History but I seem to recall that phrase
> arose from an Lincoln's assassination and Samuel Mudd. Mudds family is still
> trying to clear their name through the courts over a hundred years later.
> 

The dentist was convicted yesterday!

http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/guns/bal-md.ho.depadua24aug24.story?coll=bal%2Dlocal%2Dheadlines 

Dentist convicted in assault of patient

10-year term possible; sentencing set for Nov. 1

By Lisa Goldberg
Sun Staff

August 24, 2002

An Ellicott City dentist was convicted yesterday of sexual 
assault and assault charges tied to a patient's claim that he 
pulled down her pants and rubbed her thighs while she was 
under the effects of a mild anesthetic.

Dr. Evan C. DePadua, 37, faces a maximum 10-year prison term 
for misdemeanor assault and fourth-degree sexual offense at 
his sentencing Nov. 1 -- although state sentencing guidelines 
recommend a probationary term.

In a case that largely pitted DePadua's word against that of his
22-year-old patient, Howard Circuit Judge Diane O. Leasure said 
that the young woman was "extremely credible," and that DePadua's
statements to investigators and during the two-day trial had "many
inconsistencies."

DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore National 
Pike and has been a licensed dentist in Maryland since 1997, never
disputed that the young woman's pants had been unzipped and 
lowered at some point during her dental visit on Jan. 19, 
Leasure said.

The dentist also admitted to investigators that he touched the 
woman's thighs but "not in a sexual way," and that he lied when
confronted by the woman's husband about the assault and when 
initially questioned by investigators about his use of nitrous 
oxide, she said.

Initially, DePadua denied giving the woman the gas, which dulls 
patients' awareness and makes them compliant, according to testimony.

As Leasure delivered her verdict yesterday, the woman, whom 
The Sun is not naming because of the nature of the charges, 
gripped her husband's arm and fought back tears. She later 
declined to comment.
======================

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 15:34:09 -0400, pobox---@ix.netcom.com wrote:


>The dentist was convicted yesterday!

Thanks for posting.

>http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/guns/bal-md.ho.depadua24aug24.story?coll=bal%2Dlocal%2Dheadlines 
>
>Dentist convicted in assault of patient
>
>10-year term possible; sentencing set for Nov. 1
>
>By Lisa Goldberg
>Sun Staff
>
>August 24, 2002
>
>An Ellicott City dentist was convicted yesterday of sexual 
>assault and assault charges tied to a patient's claim that he 
>pulled down her pants and rubbed her thighs while she was 
>under the effects of a mild anesthetic.
>
>Dr. Evan C. DePadua, 37, faces a maximum 10-year prison term 
>for misdemeanor assault and fourth-degree sexual offense at 
>his sentencing Nov. 1 -- although state sentencing guidelines 
>recommend a probationary term.

"Practice limited to fellow inmates" 
would be my recommendation.

>In a case that largely pitted DePadua's word against that of his
>22-year-old patient, Howard Circuit Judge Diane O. Leasure said 
>that the young woman was "extremely credible," and that DePadua's
>statements to investigators and during the two-day trial had "many
>inconsistencies."
 
Yes.

>DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore National 
>Pike and has been a licensed dentist in Maryland since 1997, never
>disputed that the young woman's pants had been unzipped and 
>lowered at some point during her dental visit on Jan. 19, 
>Leasure said.

Why?  As part of the dental treatment?

>The dentist also admitted to investigators that he touched the 
>woman's thighs but "not in a sexual way," 

In what way then? 

>and that he lied when
>confronted by the woman's husband about the assault and when 
>initially questioned by investigators about his use of nitrous 
>oxide, she said.

more lying.

>Initially, DePadua denied giving the woman the gas, which dulls 
>patients' awareness and makes them compliant, according to testimony.

Obvious liar, not credible.

>As Leasure delivered her verdict yesterday, the woman, whom 
>The Sun is not naming because of the nature of the charges, 
>gripped her husband's arm and fought back tears. She later 
>declined to comment.
>======================

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>Because it's an embarrassment to her, you idiot.  It is protecting
>the victim. Unlike your preference - blaming the victim.
>Do you know how many thousands of convictions of sexual abuse by
>doctors are on record in each state?
>If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
>the opportunity to come forward.

Why not wait until the trial is over and then if the defendant is
convicted, then release the name? That way if shown to be not guilty
tthe denfendant can resume a normal life?
Would it not be embarassing to be falsely accused?
Certainly you can't think that every accusation is correct, can you?

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:17:44 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Why not wait until the trial is over and then if the defendant is
>convicted, then release the name? That way if shown to be not guilty
>tthe denfendant can resume a normal life?
>Would it not be embarassing to be falsely accused?
>Certainly you can't think that every accusation is correct, can you?

I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
turns out, he was in fact convicted.

Nadine, why are you here?  Shouldn't you be on alt.carpet.munchers???  I
would recommend you return.

It would be A-OK for his name to be released now after he was found
guilty--HOWEVER, if he were found innocent, his career and livelihood would
be over due to idiots like you.  Unfortunately, morons such as yourself
don't understand this concept, thus our society is filled with walking
talking excrement such as yourself.  It's sad that even Jan can see that
you're wrong, yet you remain blind to your foolishness.


"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> 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.
> .. 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?
>
> >Dentist denies he improperly touched a woman patient
> >DePadua is being tried in sex offense, assault case
> >
> >By Lisa Goldberg
> >Sun Staff
> >Originally published August 23, 2002
> >
> >An Ellicott City dentist denied yesterday that he ever improperly
> >touched a young woman in his care - although he did acknowledge
> >that tests he says he performed on her earlier this year were
> >never recorded in her medical files.
>
> Why no records?
>
> >Dr. Evan C. DePadua testified in Howard County Circuit Court that
> >the 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman's version of the events that
> >transpired on Jan. 19 - including allegations that he pulled her
> >pants down and rubbed her thighs while she was mildly anesthetized
> >and unable to react - could not have happened the way she said.
> >
> >Although a question-and-answer form he filled out at the behest
> >of Howard police investigators includes an admission that he
> >touched the woman's thigh, but "not in a sexual way," DePadua,
> >37, said a detective pressured him during an interview that
> >lasted several hours to change his answer from his original denial.
>
> Oh?  If "not in a sexual way", then "in what way"?
>
> >"They were threatening me. They were browbeating me," he said
> >during the second day of testimony in his trial on fourth-degree
> >sexual offense and misdemeanor assault charges.
>
> Oh, sob, poor molester.
>
> >Closing arguments in the case, which is being tried by Judge
> >Diane O. Leasure instead of a jury, are scheduled to begin this
> >morning.
>
> >DePadua, a Brazilian native who was first licensed as a Maryland
> >dentist in 1997, was the last person to testify in a case that
> >largely pits his word against that of the 22-year-old woman, who
> >had been a patient of his for more than a year at the time of the
> >incident.
> >
> >The Sun is not naming the woman because of the nature of the charges.
> >
> >Statements critical
> >
> >As a result, DePadua's statements to police - as well as changes
> >he made to his version of events and omissions in the woman's
> >dental files - are expected to be critical as Leasure weighs the
> >evidence.
> >
> >Both DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore
> >National Pike, and police investigators testified that when
> >confronted, the dentist at first denied ever giving the woman
> >nitrous oxide, then later told officers that he did.
>
> denied, then changed the story.
>
> >According to testimony, the gas dulls patients and makes them
> >"compliant."
> >
> >Also, DePadua wrote in the woman's medical file that he only
> >tightened her braces Jan. 19, but he testified that he also
> >performed a test for a jaw disorder and cut around two teeth
> >that day.
> >
> >The woman said she told her husband and brother what happened
> >not long after the dental visit.
>
> very difficult to do.
>
> >On Wednesday, she broke down after she testified that DePadua
> >at first tried to pull her pants down while she was in the
> >examination chair and then stood her up against a wall - all
> >the while increasing the nitrous oxide flow - lowered her tight
> >jeans and rubbed her thighs.
> >
> >DePadua broke a belt loop on her jeans during the incident,
> >she said.
> >
> >The nitrous oxide made her feel "out of it," she said.
> >
> >"All I could do was stand there," she said, crying. "I was
> >leaning against the wall. I was dizzy."
> >
> >DePadua's dentistry license has been restricted since the accusation.
> >
> >Practice restrictions
> >
> >The Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners declined last
> >month to suspend him while the criminal case was pending but
> >ordered that he not see patients alone, administer nitrous oxide
> >or prescribe drugs.
>
> >The order also includes details of complaints made by three
> >other patients of inappropriate touching and comments and of
> >an instance when DePadua is alleged to have left a sedated
> >patient alone in an examination room.
>
> Hm.. three more complaints?
>
> >None of those complaints has resulted in criminal charges.
> >===============================
>
>http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.depadua23aug23.story?coll=b
al%2Dlocal%2Dhoward
>

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:58:43 -0400, "bbb" <pissswisher@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>Nadine, why are you here?  Shouldn't you be on alt.carpet.munchers???  I
>would recommend you return.

who cares?

>It would be A-OK for his name to be released now after he was found
>guilty--HOWEVER, if he were found innocent, his career and livelihood would
>be over due to idiots like you.  

The fact is, he was convicted.  Got it?

>Unfortunately, morons such as yourself
>don't understand this concept, thus our society is filled with walking
>talking excrement such as yourself.  It's sad that even Jan can see that
>you're wrong, yet you remain blind to your foolishness.

It is a not very clever attempt to shift the blame from a criminal
sexual abuser dentist, described in the article - onto me, a
non-criminal.

You're too stupid and vulgur to reply to anymore.
That's all for you.




>"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> 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.
>> .. 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?
>>
>> >Dentist denies he improperly touched a woman patient
>> >DePadua is being tried in sex offense, assault case
>> >
>> >By Lisa Goldberg
>> >Sun Staff
>> >Originally published August 23, 2002
>> >
>> >An Ellicott City dentist denied yesterday that he ever improperly
>> >touched a young woman in his care - although he did acknowledge
>> >that tests he says he performed on her earlier this year were
>> >never recorded in her medical files.
>>
>> Why no records?
>>
>> >Dr. Evan C. DePadua testified in Howard County Circuit Court that
>> >the 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman's version of the events that
>> >transpired on Jan. 19 - including allegations that he pulled her
>> >pants down and rubbed her thighs while she was mildly anesthetized
>> >and unable to react - could not have happened the way she said.
>> >
>> >Although a question-and-answer form he filled out at the behest
>> >of Howard police investigators includes an admission that he
>> >touched the woman's thigh, but "not in a sexual way," DePadua,
>> >37, said a detective pressured him during an interview that
>> >lasted several hours to change his answer from his original denial.
>>
>> Oh?  If "not in a sexual way", then "in what way"?
>>
>> >"They were threatening me. They were browbeating me," he said
>> >during the second day of testimony in his trial on fourth-degree
>> >sexual offense and misdemeanor assault charges.
>>
>> Oh, sob, poor molester.
>>
>> >Closing arguments in the case, which is being tried by Judge
>> >Diane O. Leasure instead of a jury, are scheduled to begin this
>> >morning.
>>
>> >DePadua, a Brazilian native who was first licensed as a Maryland
>> >dentist in 1997, was the last person to testify in a case that
>> >largely pits his word against that of the 22-year-old woman, who
>> >had been a patient of his for more than a year at the time of the
>> >incident.
>> >
>> >The Sun is not naming the woman because of the nature of the charges.
>> >
>> >Statements critical
>> >
>> >As a result, DePadua's statements to police - as well as changes
>> >he made to his version of events and omissions in the woman's
>> >dental files - are expected to be critical as Leasure weighs the
>> >evidence.
>> >
>> >Both DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore
>> >National Pike, and police investigators testified that when
>> >confronted, the dentist at first denied ever giving the woman
>> >nitrous oxide, then later told officers that he did.
>>
>> denied, then changed the story.
>>
>> >According to testimony, the gas dulls patients and makes them
>> >"compliant."
>> >
>> >Also, DePadua wrote in the woman's medical file that he only
>> >tightened her braces Jan. 19, but he testified that he also
>> >performed a test for a jaw disorder and cut around two teeth
>> >that day.
>> >
>> >The woman said she told her husband and brother what happened
>> >not long after the dental visit.
>>
>> very difficult to do.
>>
>> >On Wednesday, she broke down after she testified that DePadua
>> >at first tried to pull her pants down while she was in the
>> >examination chair and then stood her up against a wall - all
>> >the while increasing the nitrous oxide flow - lowered her tight
>> >jeans and rubbed her thighs.
>> >
>> >DePadua broke a belt loop on her jeans during the incident,
>> >she said.
>> >
>> >The nitrous oxide made her feel "out of it," she said.
>> >
>> >"All I could do was stand there," she said, crying. "I was
>> >leaning against the wall. I was dizzy."
>> >
>> >DePadua's dentistry license has been restricted since the accusation.
>> >
>> >Practice restrictions
>> >
>> >The Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners declined last
>> >month to suspend him while the criminal case was pending but
>> >ordered that he not see patients alone, administer nitrous oxide
>> >or prescribe drugs.
>>
>> >The order also includes details of complaints made by three
>> >other patients of inappropriate touching and comments and of
>> >an instance when DePadua is alleged to have left a sedated
>> >patient alone in an examination room.
>>
>> Hm.. three more complaints?
>>
>> >None of those complaints has resulted in criminal charges.
>> >===============================
>>
>>http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.depadua23aug23.story?coll=b
>al%2Dlocal%2Dhoward
>>
>
>

"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3d68439f.1223093@news.cwnet.com...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:58:43 -0400, "bbb" <pissswisher@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Nadine, why are you here?  Shouldn't you be on alt.carpet.munchers???  I
> >would recommend you return.
>
> who cares?
>
> >It would be A-OK for his name to be released now after he was found
> >guilty--HOWEVER, if he were found innocent, his career and livelihood
would
> >be over due to idiots like you.
>
> The fact is, he was convicted.  Got it?

I'm too stupid??  Please try to understand--his name was released BEFORE he
was convicted, get it?  If he were innocent, his practice would be ruined
due to his name having been released, get it?  But since he was found
guilty, it is just that his name be released now.  Get it?

>
> >Unfortunately, morons such as yourself
> >don't understand this concept, thus our society is filled with walking
> >talking excrement such as yourself.  It's sad that even Jan can see that
> >you're wrong, yet you remain blind to your foolishness.
>
> It is a not very clever attempt to shift the blame from a criminal
> sexual abuser dentist, described in the article - onto me, a
> non-criminal.

This makes no sense... perhaps you would like to edit and resubmit your
sorry attempt at an insult?

>
> You're too stupid and vulgur to reply to anymore.
> That's all for you.

Your logic is flawed and your intelligence is inferior.  I would suggest you
evaluate your comments more critically prior to posting them. (I believe the
word is 'vulgar'--and you say I'm stupid!)

What's all for me?

>
>
>
>
> >"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> 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.
> >> .. 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?
> >>
> >> >Dentist denies he improperly touched a woman patient
> >> >DePadua is being tried in sex offense, assault case
> >> >
> >> >By Lisa Goldberg
> >> >Sun Staff
> >> >Originally published August 23, 2002
> >> >
> >> >An Ellicott City dentist denied yesterday that he ever improperly
> >> >touched a young woman in his care - although he did acknowledge
> >> >that tests he says he performed on her earlier this year were
> >> >never recorded in her medical files.
> >>
> >> Why no records?
> >>
> >> >Dr. Evan C. DePadua testified in Howard County Circuit Court that
> >> >the 22-year-old Pennsylvania woman's version of the events that
> >> >transpired on Jan. 19 - including allegations that he pulled her
> >> >pants down and rubbed her thighs while she was mildly anesthetized
> >> >and unable to react - could not have happened the way she said.
> >> >
> >> >Although a question-and-answer form he filled out at the behest
> >> >of Howard police investigators includes an admission that he
> >> >touched the woman's thigh, but "not in a sexual way," DePadua,
> >> >37, said a detective pressured him during an interview that
> >> >lasted several hours to change his answer from his original denial.
> >>
> >> Oh?  If "not in a sexual way", then "in what way"?
> >>
> >> >"They were threatening me. They were browbeating me," he said
> >> >during the second day of testimony in his trial on fourth-degree
> >> >sexual offense and misdemeanor assault charges.
> >>
> >> Oh, sob, poor molester.
> >>
> >> >Closing arguments in the case, which is being tried by Judge
> >> >Diane O. Leasure instead of a jury, are scheduled to begin this
> >> >morning.
> >>
> >> >DePadua, a Brazilian native who was first licensed as a Maryland
> >> >dentist in 1997, was the last person to testify in a case that
> >> >largely pits his word against that of the 22-year-old woman, who
> >> >had been a patient of his for more than a year at the time of the
> >> >incident.
> >> >
> >> >The Sun is not naming the woman because of the nature of the charges.
> >> >
> >> >Statements critical
> >> >
> >> >As a result, DePadua's statements to police - as well as changes
> >> >he made to his version of events and omissions in the woman's
> >> >dental files - are expected to be critical as Leasure weighs the
> >> >evidence.
> >> >
> >> >Both DePadua, who practices in the 10300 block of Baltimore
> >> >National Pike, and police investigators testified that when
> >> >confronted, the dentist at first denied ever giving the woman
> >> >nitrous oxide, then later told officers that he did.
> >>
> >> denied, then changed the story.
> >>
> >> >According to testimony, the gas dulls patients and makes them
> >> >"compliant."
> >> >
> >> >Also, DePadua wrote in the woman's medical file that he only
> >> >tightened her braces Jan. 19, but he testified that he also
> >> >performed a test for a jaw disorder and cut around two teeth
> >> >that day.
> >> >
> >> >The woman said she told her husband and brother what happened
> >> >not long after the dental visit.
> >>
> >> very difficult to do.
> >>
> >> >On Wednesday, she broke down after she testified that DePadua
> >> >at first tried to pull her pants down while she was in the
> >> >examination chair and then stood her up against a wall - all
> >> >the while increasing the nitrous oxide flow - lowered her tight
> >> >jeans and rubbed her thighs.
> >> >
> >> >DePadua broke a belt loop on her jeans during the incident,
> >> >she said.
> >> >
> >> >The nitrous oxide made her feel "out of it," she said.
> >> >
> >> >"All I could do was stand there," she said, crying. "I was
> >> >leaning against the wall. I was dizzy."
> >> >
> >> >DePadua's dentistry license has been restricted since the accusation.
> >> >
> >> >Practice restrictions
> >> >
> >> >The Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners declined last
> >> >month to suspend him while the criminal case was pending but
> >> >ordered that he not see patients alone, administer nitrous oxide
> >> >or prescribe drugs.
> >>
> >> >The order also includes details of complaints made by three
> >> >other patients of inappropriate touching and comments and of
> >> >an instance when DePadua is alleged to have left a sedated
> >> >patient alone in an examination room.
> >>
> >> Hm.. three more complaints?
> >>
> >> >None of those complaints has resulted in criminal charges.
> >> >===============================
> >>
>
>>http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/howard/bal-ho.depadua23aug23.story?coll=
b
> >al%2Dlocal%2Dhoward
> >>
> >
> >
>

Nadine...As I explained in my first post, a dentist in my area was falsely accused of such abuse. It happens. There is plenty of
time to crucify the guilty when their guilt is proven. My point was that until it is proven, why should anyone's name be made
public.

T



"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message news:3d67c838.4860792@news.cwnet.com...
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:41:02 -0400, "Tony Bad"
> <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote:
>
> >Why is the woman's name not mentioned due to "the nature of the charges", but the doctor's name gets dragged thru the mud before
a
> >trial.
>
> Because it's an embarrassment to her, you idiot.  It is protecting
> the victim. Unlike your preference - blaming the victim.
> Do you know how many thousands of convictions of sexual abuse by
> doctors are on record in each state?
> If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
> the opportunity to come forward.
>
>

"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
news:5RX99.178100$EJ4.4869655@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Nadine...As I explained in my first post, a dentist in my area was falsely
accused of such abuse. It happens. There is plenty of
> time to crucify the guilty when their guilt is proven. My point was that
until it is proven, why should anyone's name be made
> public.
>
> T
Nadine, it's such a joy to see you here again.  Do you hate all men or just
heterosexual men?

carabelli

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
>this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
>turns out, he was in fact convicted.

He certainly was although I'm sure it will be appealed.
Until his conviction, though, there wasn't a difference with other
cases. He was innocent until proven guilty. Had he been found not
guilty, the damage would still have done.
Before the conviction, how do you make a determination of when the
name is reased?
In case you may be wondering, no I don't think the victim's name
should be released unless it is the victim's decision to do so.

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote in message news:<3d67c838.4860792@news.cwnet.com>...
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:41:02 -0400, "Tony Bad"
> <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote:
> 
> >Why is the woman's name not mentioned due to "the nature of the charges", but the doctor's name gets dragged thru the mud before a
> >trial.
> 
> Because it's an embarrassment to her, you idiot.  It is protecting
> the victim. Unlike your preference - blaming the victim.
> Do you know how many thousands of convictions of sexual abuse by
> doctors are on record in each state?
> If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
> the opportunity to come forward.

REPLY:

If it is a woman dentist and a male patient they do the same. They
mention the female dentist and blame the victim. Oh we men are so
tired of you women trying to get "your way" with us.

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.

While I would guess that the scam Tony reported is a much rarer
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. It's true that
the media is liberal in reporting things that sell, and a story about
a dentist being exonerated is not likely to sell as well as the
scandalous story of his possibly being guilty.

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."

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.


> .. 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?

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:36:41 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:
>
>
>>I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
>>this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
>>turns out, he was in fact convicted.
>
>He certainly was although I'm sure it will be appealed.

Why so sure?  

>Until his conviction, though, there wasn't a difference with other
>cases. He was innocent until proven guilty. Had he been found not
>guilty, the damage would still have done.

If pigs had wings, they would fly.
This is the reality, these are the facts as we know them from the
material given: 
A 37 yr old dentist was accused, and convicted of sexually assaulting
a 22 yr. old married woman.  
When confronted, he lied to her husband and lied to the police.
In court, her story was deemed extremely credible, his story was
deemed not credible because of blatant inconsistencies.
It is also known generally that sexual abuse ranks high as a reason
for disciplinary actions and legal actions against medical/dental
practitioners.

>Before the conviction, how do you make a determination of when the
>name is reased?

I don't make these determinations, but this looks to be.. hm.. a sorta
red herring.   
See, instead of acknowledging the truth, you, as a group (if you see
the rest of the thread) attempt to shift the blame away from
yourselves; your fellow practitioner. You have been psychologically
conditioned to do so: ("the woman dreamed the event", "it is the
newspapers fault for printing his name before the end of the trial",
"Does Nadine hate men or only heterosexual men".lol)..  All attempts
to SHIFT THE BLAME away from the perpetrator onto 
1) the victim  2)reporters  3) me.
What next?  Who or what will be blamed next in the attempt to avoid
the reality of events as they have been presented?


>In case you may be wondering, no I don't think the victim's name
>should be released unless it is the victim's decision to do so.
>

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:11:53 GMT, "carabelli"
<HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
>news:5RX99.178100$EJ4.4869655@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>> Nadine...As I explained in my first post, a dentist in my area was falsely
>accused of such abuse. It happens. There is plenty of
>> time to crucify the guilty when their guilt is proven. My point was that
>until it is proven, why should anyone's name be made
>> public.
>>
>> T
>Nadine, it's such a joy to see you here again.  Do you hate all men or just
>heterosexual men?

Low regard for abuse of power, high regard for truth.

>carabelli

 My point was that until it is proven, why should anyone's name be made
> public.
>
Because it is a matter of public record?

cwhite0714@fsi.net (cwhite0714) wrote in message news:<985b3ebb.0208242141.1790aad1@posting.google.com>...


Thanks for a very intelligent response ....

Joel M. Eichen

"Roy Brown" <roybrown@sympatico.cEh> wrote in message news:<sSO99.9101$xL1.1795615@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> Interesting that you would use the phrase "His name is mud".
> 
> Correct my ignorance of American History but I seem to recall that phrase
> arose from an Lincoln's assassination and Samuel Mudd. Mudds family is still
> trying to clear their name through the courts over a hundred years later.
> 
> The Military Records of Dr. Samuel Mudd
> by Eric Longley
> 

REPLY:

You are correct and this guy's name is worse than Mudd. Now if Mudd
had only been touching babes while they were under N2O, we would not
even know where Ford's theater is.

Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

Now see if you know (etymologically, of course) what a "growler" is
and how it relates to "minding your Ps and Qs."

"garden_state" <garden_state@worldnet.att.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:U81a9.33932$Ke2.2374492@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> My point was that until it is proven, why should anyone's name be made
> > public.
> >
> Because it is a matter of public record?
>
So is the victim's name, but that is protected by the media for privacy
issues.  As Tony noted in an earlier post, he knows of a case where the
dentist was innocent and the "victim" was the criminal trying to pull a
scam.  It can happen.

Toni

"cwhite0714" <cwhite0714@fsi.net> wrote in message news:985b3ebb.0208242141.1790aad1@posting.google.com...
> 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.
>
> While I would guess that the scam Tony reported is a much rarer
> 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. It's true that
> the media is liberal in reporting things that sell, and a story about
> a dentist being exonerated is not likely to sell as well as the
> scandalous story of his possibly being guilty.

It is a real story, that occurred several years ago in NY. I agree that the occurrence of false tales is probably much lower than
those where there has been a real offense, but for those few ocasions where innocent people's lives may be ruined, I think it
prudent to wait until the trial is over before mentioning ANY names.

T

> 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."
>
> 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.
>

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?

On 24 Aug 2002 21:54:23 -0700, joel_eichen@hotmail.com (Joel M.
Eichen) wrote:

>Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote in message news:<3d67c838.4860792@news.cwnet.com>...
>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:41:02 -0400, "Tony Bad"
>> <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote:
>> 
>> >Why is the woman's name not mentioned due to "the nature of the charges", but the doctor's name gets dragged thru the mud before a
>> >trial.
>> 
>> Because it's an embarrassment to her, you idiot.  It is protecting
>> the victim. Unlike your preference - blaming the victim.
>> Do you know how many thousands of convictions of sexual abuse by
>> doctors are on record in each state?
>> If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
>> the opportunity to come forward.
>
>REPLY:
>
>If it is a woman dentist and a male patient they do the same. They
>mention the female dentist and blame the victim. 

really. is that so. happens all the time. sure. right.


> Oh we men are so
>tired of you women trying to get "your way" with us.

*Not* in regard to the case being discussed.. 
but other circumstances, on the whole, yes,
I believe it.  One sex doth not have a monopoly on
trying to 'get their way' with the other.

"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in .........

> Low regard for abuse of power, high regard for truth.

QED -  most of the time males are guilty in these cases, therefore they
should be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Not that I am suggesting that this would apply to you, however assumption in
another scenario would  scream racism - on the other hand theis does not
cross over to differences in sex.

carabelli

"bbb" <pissswisher@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in >
> Your logic is flawed and your intelligence is inferior.  I would suggest
you
> evaluate your comments more critically prior to posting them. (I believe
the
> word is 'vulgar'--and you say I'm stupid!)

Typical male,  logic and intelligence are code words.  Quit acting as
someone with a spouse and children.

carabelli

> 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.

Geez, another person who gets on here running her mouth, who doesn't have
her light bulb screwed in all the way.  Hmm, don't you think that if he were
found GUILTY in a criminal case, that it would make it a breeze to sue the
pants off of him LATER in a civil case???  Of course, as the story goes, she
didn't know that there were witnesses in the other room, hence, that was one
lucky guy!



"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3d690941.704113@news.cwnet.com...
> 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?
>
>

"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message news:3d690941.704113@news.cwnet.com...
>
> >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.
>

Fuck you Nadine...like I have nothing better to do than fabricate stories to start such intellectual discourse with an empty head
like you. If you like the concept of guilty until proven otherwise, all I can say is I hope it happens to you.

T

Gee, I am shocked Nadine missed this point...she seems so bright.

T


"Toni" <toni4@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:40da9.392269$XH.8733864@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > 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.
>
> Geez, another person who gets on here running her mouth, who doesn't have
> her light bulb screwed in all the way.  Hmm, don't you think that if he were
> found GUILTY in a criminal case, that it would make it a breeze to sue the
> pants off of him LATER in a civil case???  Of course, as the story goes, she
> didn't know that there were witnesses in the other room, hence, that was one
> lucky guy!
>
>
>
> "Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:3d690941.704113@news.cwnet.com...
> > 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?
> >
> >
>
>

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>See, instead of acknowledging the truth, you, as a group (if you see
>the rest of the thread) attempt to shift the blame away from
>yourselves; your fellow practitioner. You have been psychologically
>conditioned to do so: ("the woman dreamed the event", "it is the
>newspapers fault for printing his name before the end of the trial",
>"Does Nadine hate men or only heterosexual men".lol)..  All attempts
>to SHIFT THE BLAME away from the perpetrator onto 
>1) the victim  2)reporters  3) me.
>What next?  Who or what will be blamed next in the attempt to avoid
>the reality of events as they have been presented?

I'm not attempting to shift the blame; I'm indicating one of the
bedrocks of the US judicial system which is that the defendant is
innocent until proven guilty. He's been convicted-now he's guilty.

(You don't seem to have much knowledge of nitrous though.)

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>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.  

Think it might won't wind up with a civil case also?

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


You must agree with this staement that I read in relation to another
case in which the defendant was acquitted.
"Allison Beaman, 21, an interior design major from Peachtree City,
said a woman who says she has been raped should always be believed.
"If she says it's not consensual, it's not consensual, and the jury
wasn't in the bedroom, getting raped," Beaman said."

The case in Ellicott City was not consensual certainly but if
you'regoing to say that any case in which the woman is lying must be
fiction, it does indicate a certain mind set.

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>If his name and address is mentioned, it gives other patients
>the opportunity to come forward.

That argument could be made the other way also. If someone is pulling
a scam, other potential victims of that could come forward.

Woo Hoo, go Tony!

"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
news:u9ea9.210243$EJ4.5361340@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3d690941.704113@news.cwnet.com...
> >
> > >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.
> >
>
> Fuck you Nadine...like I have nothing better to do than fabricate stories
to start such intellectual discourse with an empty head
> like you. If you like the concept of guilty until proven otherwise, all I
can say is I hope it happens to you.
>
> T
>
>
>

"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote ........


> (You don't seem to have much knowledge of nitrous though.)

Not that it would matter - she has her mind made up.

I remember participating in the N2O course in dental school.  We had a
hygiene program as well and both dental students and hygiene students took
the course together.  Most of the hygiene students (sorry Nadine they were
all female - that's another statement on how screwed up the USA is but of
course you certainly have immigrated by now)  had nitrous administered
before the dental students did (shocking Nadine  - but there were some
female dental students also.  Good thing since I married one - please don't
be offended that some people are married).

I digress, however....

I will never forget the sight.  One of the straightest, most business - like
young ladies laid there in the chair.  She giggled at first then as the
concentration of nitrous was increased she started thrusting her hips and
moaning.  I'm sure that it was probably only about 90 seconds but she
continued to be more aroused.  Everyone was embarrassed to see it and it
seemed more like 30 minutes.  Close to 20 people where there to take the
class, no questions about abuse there.   What do you think her thoughts
would be if she recovered from the effects with only one guy pushing sixty
smiling at her?   It was a classic lesson of why you would never administer
nitrous without an assistant/witness.

The point Nadine, since I'm sure it escaped you, is the Joel's insights were
appropriate.

carabelli

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote in message news:<3d681703.1597738@news.cwnet.com>...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:17:44 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >Why not wait until the trial is over and then if the defendant is
> >convicted, then release the name? That way if shown to be not guilty
> >tthe denfendant can resume a normal life?
> >Would it not be embarassing to be falsely accused?
> >Certainly you can't think that every accusation is correct, can you?
> 
> I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
> this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
> turns out, he was in fact convicted.


REPLY:

OOooooops Nadine ......... "presumed innocent ..." except for this guy
who is clearly guilty before trial ..... you know ... a dentist and
all ....... fooling around with nitrous .......

We are talking the principle ...in this case he was convicted ... so
you "got lucky" so to say!

Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

"carabelli" <HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<%ufa9.4620$p%3.337100@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote ........
> 
> 
> > (You don't seem to have much knowledge of nitrous though.)
> 
> Not that it would matter - she has her mind made up.
> 
> I remember participating in the N2O course in dental school.  We had a
> hygiene program as well and both dental students and hygiene students took
> the course together.  Most of the hygiene students (sorry Nadine they were
> all female - that's another statement on how screwed up the USA is but of
> course you certainly have immigrated by now)  had nitrous administered
> before the dental students did (shocking Nadine  - but there were some
> female dental students also.  Good thing since I married one - please don't
> be offended that some people are married).
> 
> I digress, however....
> 
> I will never forget the sight.  One of the straightest, most business - like
> young ladies laid there in the chair.  She giggled at first then as the
> concentration of nitrous was increased she started thrusting her hips and
> moaning.  

REPLY:

It does get one thinking about some of those straightest, most
business - like
young ladies, now doesn't it? Who knows what would make her giggle at
first, then as the concentration increased, she might start thrusting
her hips and
begin moaning  .........  

(continued at alt.great.seduction.stories)

Oh BAD, I know ...........

"Joel M. Eichen" <joel_eichen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b7091bc.0208240325.11beb5e9@posting.google.com...
> Om Shanti ... Go Eagles, Go!

University of North Texas?

Brad

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:07:42 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
wrote:

>I'm not attempting to shift the blame; I'm indicating one of the
>bedrocks of the US judicial system which is that the defendant is
>innocent until proven guilty. He's been convicted-now he's guilty.
>(You don't seem to have much knowledge of nitrous though.)

THese are red herrings. 
See, instead of acknowledging the truth, you, as a group (if you see
the rest of the thread) attempt to shift the blame away from
yourselves; your fellow practitioner. You have been psychologically
conditioned to do so: ("the woman dreamed the event", "it is the
newspapers fault for printing his name before the end of the trial",
"Does Nadine hate men or only heterosexual men".lol).. 
 All attempts (now more blatant and foul; obscene) to SHIFT THE BLAME
away from your convicted colleague onto
 1) the victim  2)reporters  3) me.  
What next?  Who or what will be blamed next in the attempt to deny,
to avoid the reality of the facts of the case as presented.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:28:27 GMT, "carabelli"
<HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote ........
>
>
>> (You don't seem to have much knowledge of nitrous though.)

You're a real jerk.
An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.


>Not that it would matter - she has her mind made up.
>
>I remember participating in the N2O course in dental school.  We had a
>hygiene program as well and both dental students and hygiene students took
>the course together.  Most of the hygiene students (sorry Nadine they were
>all female - that's another statement on how screwed up the USA is but of
>course you certainly have immigrated by now)  had nitrous administered
>before the dental students did (shocking Nadine  - but there were some
>female dental students also.  Good thing since I married one - please don't
>be offended that some people are married).
>
>I digress, however....
>
>I will never forget the sight.  One of the straightest, most business - like
>young ladies laid there in the chair.  She giggled at first then as the
>concentration of nitrous was increased she started thrusting her hips and
>moaning.  I'm sure that it was probably only about 90 seconds but she
>continued to be more aroused.  Everyone was embarrassed to see it and it
>seemed more like 30 minutes.  Close to 20 people where there to take the
>class, no questions about abuse there.   What do you think her thoughts
>would be if she recovered from the effects with only one guy pushing sixty
>smiling at her?   It was a classic lesson of why you would never administer
>nitrous without an assistant/witness.
>
>The point Nadine, since I'm sure it escaped you, is the Joel's insights were
>appropriate.
>
>carabelli
>
>

On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 20:02:49 GMT, "carabelli"
<HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in .........
>
>> Low regard for abuse of power, high regard for truth.

You are an ignorant person.

>QED -  most of the time males are guilty in these cases, therefore they
>should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
>
>Not that I am suggesting that this would apply to you, however assumption in
>another scenario would  scream racism - on the other hand theis does not
>cross over to differences in sex.
>
>carabelli

On 26 Aug 2002 05:20:54 -0700, joel_eichen@hotmail.com (Joel M.
Eichen) wrote:

>Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote in message news:<3d681703.1597738@news.cwnet.com>...
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:17:44 GMT, Brian <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Why not wait until the trial is over and then if the defendant is
>> >convicted, then release the name? That way if shown to be not guilty
>> >tthe denfendant can resume a normal life?
>> >Would it not be embarassing to be falsely accused?
>> >Certainly you can't think that every accusation is correct, can you?


>> I was not speaking about "every case".  I was speaking about
>> this particular case - the contents of the specific article posted...
>> turns out, he was in fact convicted.
>
>
>REPLY:
>
>OOooooops Nadine ......... "presumed innocent ..." except for this guy
>who is clearly guilty before trial ..... you know ... a dentist and
>all ....... fooling around with nitrous .......

...Just as an example...there is a 2 page math problem ... it takes
you three hours to find the solution... I find the same solution
solution in 30 seconds.  Skill or luck?  then I am persecuted
for such.  What principle operates?  

>We are talking the principle ...in this case he was convicted ... so
>you "got lucky" so to say!

I am talking principle, you are acting lynch mob.



>Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:28:27 GMT, "carabelli"
<HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:



carabelli,

You're a real jerk.
An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.


>Not that it would matter - she has her mind made up.
>
>I remember participating in the N2O course in dental school.  We had a
>hygiene program as well and both dental students and hygiene students took
>the course together.  Most of the hygiene students (sorry Nadine they were
>all female - that's another statement on how screwed up the USA is but of
>course you certainly have immigrated by now)  had nitrous administered
>before the dental students did (shocking Nadine  - but there were some
>female dental students also.  Good thing since I married one - please don't
>be offended that some people are married).
>
>I digress, however....
>
>I will never forget the sight.  One of the straightest, most business - like
>young ladies laid there in the chair.  She giggled at first then as the
>concentration of nitrous was increased she started thrusting her hips and
>moaning.  I'm sure that it was probably only about 90 seconds but she
>continued to be more aroused.  Everyone was embarrassed to see it and it
>seemed more like 30 minutes.  Close to 20 people where there to take the
>class, no questions about abuse there.   What do you think her thoughts
>would be if she recovered from the effects with only one guy pushing sixty
>smiling at her?   It was a classic lesson of why you would never administer
>nitrous without an assistant/witness.
>
>The point Nadine, since I'm sure it escaped you, is the Joel's insights were
>appropriate.
>
>carabelli
>
>

"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3d6a5091.3250926@news.cwnet.com...
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:28:27 GMT, "carabelli"
> <HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> carabelli,
>
> You're a real jerk.
> An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.

You're such a breath of fresh air.  Why don't you contact the dental school
closest to you and volunteer your services to the Admissions Committee.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:55:19 GMT, "carabelli"
<redslaz3@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>"Nadine" <Nadine@jps.net> wrote in message
>news:3d6a5091.3250926@news.cwnet.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 01:28:27 GMT, "carabelli"
>> <HUERTER@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>

>> carabelli,
>>
>> You're a real jerk.
>> An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.
>
>You're such a breath of fresh air.  Why don't you contact the dental school
>closest to you and volunteer your services to the Admissions Committee.

Thanks, but no thanks, dog breath.

"Thanks, but no thanks, dog breath.

You're a real jerk.

An ignorant creep like you......

You are an ignorant person."

Nadine, these are some first class insults you have thrown at me.  Do you
spend every lunch hour copying graffiti off the third grade restroom walls?

Troll away - you have become boring.

carabelli

"Bradrph" <justaskme@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<a3qa9.21852$3V5.5346@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> "Joel M. Eichen" <joel_eichen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8b7091bc.0208240325.11beb5e9@posting.google.com...
> > Om Shanti ... Go Eagles, Go!
> 
> University of North Texas?
> 
> Brad

REPLY:

Nope ... Philly!

Cheeeeesesteak heaven!

On 24 Aug 2002 04:25:12 -0700, joel_eichen@hotmail.com (Joel M.
Eichen) wrote:

>"Tony Bad" <SpamSpamSpam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message news:<mKz99.134052$EJ4.4190871@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>
>[..]
>
>Tony wrote:
>
>What she didn't know was the doctor had
>ongoing renovations being done, and 10 workman were in the next room
>quietly waiting for him to take care of the emergency.


>REPLY:
>
>Hey Tony!
>
>Good story. Can you send me the name of the contracting firm? The ten
>men I just hired to do some remodeling raise such a ruckus that even
>the dead can't sleep. And this is when they are waiting quietly in the
>next room, just quietly drinking beer and even more quietly meditating.

LOL...ah yes, 'The Quiet Contractors', ten in one small room
no less, quiet contractors, very, very, quiet during the 
ongoing renovation... 

>.......
>
>Om Shanti ... Go Eagles, Go!

OM

>Joel M. Eichen

Nadine@jps.net (Nadine) wrote:


>You're a real jerk.
>An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.


And your qualifications to make this judgment (other than paranoia)
would be...?
It must be difficult going through life distrusting and hating so many
other people.

Nadine wrote:
> 
> 
> You're a real jerk.
> An ignorant creep like you should not be allowed in dental school.


Why don't you suck my big dick Nadine. OK?