Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Murder Mystery: Who Killed Yale Student Suzanne Jovin? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Harry Simpson who wrote (349)	1/19/2000 12:57:00 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1397

Re: CT autopsy reports... the definitive answer Now that I have time, I searched the net and found this: Who has access to the autopsy report? In accordance with the regulations of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations, the complete records of all investigations are made available to the family of the deceased, to any federal, state or municipal governmental agency or public health authority investigating the death; to insurance companies with a legitimate interest in the death; to all parties in civil litigative proceedings, and to treating physicians. In addition, records may be made available to any other individual with the written consent of the family or by court order. Legitimate scientific research organizations may also have access to the records provided the identity of the decedents are not published or otherwise made public. Records are not otherwise open to the general public. state.ct.us - Jeff

To: Harry Simpson who wrote (349)	1/19/2000 10:03:00 AM
From: CJ	Respond to of 1397

<<CJ, perhaps a little more dignified tone is in order.>> Yes, Sir. thank you. I regret - and apologize for - my momentary lack of dignity and diplomacy. It was the flippant, somewhat frustrated, result of my knowing there to be a significant difference between factual autopsy reports and investigative reports, and my having requested {publically and, in the past, privately}, but never received, a simple, direct answer to whether: CT autopsy reports, as opposed to investigative reports, are public records; and, whether anyone on Jim's behalf had ever made such a request. << Now you are accusing Jeff of not wanting the reports when perhaps he simply used an unclear phrase. Wouldn't it be possible, even probable, that he asked for the autopsy report for SJ? After all it is an autopsy report being used in a murder investigation.>> No, Sir. . Having become acquainted with Jeff during the past two months, and, based on my quickly learning - and frequently marvelling at - his consistent adherence {when he chooses to provide an answer to a question propounded to him} to supplying and demanding precise recanting of utterings and recounting of events, that would be neither probable, nor even possible. {{Pers. Note to MNI: Please do not ever use the immediate past sentence as an example of the grammatically proper use of the English language. To do so would be a grave mistake.}} <<I did {call the CT ME's Office}, and was told by an after hours person that the "cause and manner" information is public, but that the record as a whole is not. He asked me to call back tomorrow for a further clarification. Perhaps you could do so, as I am about as long distance as you can get.>> It is very good that you called. I am delighted by what you learned. Due to geographic proximity and having the greatest knowledge of the pertinent facts, if it is not too much of an imposition, I cordially accept Jeff's gracious offer of this type of assistance by requesting that he follow-through with attempting to obtain the "cause and manner" of death information. <<Perhaps you could be a little more cooperative with Jeff.>> WHAT??? Really, Sir, how would that be any fun?? Please read all the previous posts, as I think you will then agree, I've tried! At last count, I believe, there were 23 "good job" attaboys from me. <<Lastly, thanks for your informative posts.>> Thank you very much. Also, thank you for pointing-out my lapse of proper manners, and for the fine quality of your substantive contributions.