PAT: Please remove my email address, name is fine.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:56:44 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com posted:
> Again, some things, such as aquittals or mere suspicions, could be
> buried in paper files never to see light again. With computerized
> indexes, that is less likely.
Sorry for the delayed response but I've been traveling a bit.
Maybe for the general public that is true but not for those that
really care. Without disclosing some of the identifying details,
something along those lines happened to a family member.
A little background: "Jane" had carpel tunnel surgery on her left
wrist, later cubical tunnel surgery on her left elbow, both work
related. A few years later her right side started to bother her. She
went for the carpel tunnel surgery, and before her doctor cleared her
to return to work, the employer tried to force her back (even though
she had surgery scheduled for right cubical tunnel). This all
happened at one employer and there were other work related medical issues.
The attorneys got involved and eventually got into court.
At the hearing, the attorney starts asking questions about a
community-policing course that she took. They had information from a
weekly free-local newspaper article (based on press release from the
Police department). The paper does not have a web page. A web search
discloses none of the details.
Based on the company's attorney, it was clear he was laying the
groundwork to claim that her injury was from the activities of/learned
in the class. Without going through the full transcript, he asked: "In
the class, did it include doing X?" To which she replied "yes."
Then he asked "Did you do X?" Her, completely honest and unscripted
answer was "Yes, I tried it once, it hurt, so I stopped."
The attorney then went through his note pad crossing off pages of
questions. He had a few other questions but the hearing was
essentially over at that point.
Again: the fishrag had no paid circulation and was/is not available on
the Internet. And yet, the attorney knew about the mention of her name
and had a copy of the article. Just because certain information is
not in the Internet does not mean that it is unavailable to someone or
some organization willing to pay to find it.
Information on the Internet is easier to find ...
Another point about newspapers: Usually (most of the time, not
*always*) they will print an item when someone is acquitted or
suspicions are reported as "unfounded" (or someone else is arrested).
A web search for someone's name should grab both sets of articles.
David B. Horvath, CCP
Consultant, Author, International Lecturer, Adjunct Professor
Member: ICCP Educational Foundation Board and ICCP Test Council;
Chair of LPR&GC CMP
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To respond briefly to David: He said
(these things) 'may happen to the general public, but not to those
people who really care'. My question would be what people are those, David?
And I would agree with Lisa about newspapers printing acquittal
notices or retractions. Generally they do not do it. Consider the
Chicago Tribune: Large, front page stories may discuss in lurid terms
about someone's alleged misbehavior. When the person is either
acquitted (if it went to court) or the paper was simply mistaken in
how they reported the matter to start with, it becomes the problem of
the newspaper's "ombudsman" to print a correction/retraction which
goes in a little tiny box somewhere inside the paper. New York Times
is the same way. And the "ombudsman" not only prints the real version
of events (in tiny little print on an inside page) but often times
asks the newspaper it came to the conclusions it did, and the editor
will as often as not insist 'the Tribune stands by its story.' PAT]
David B. Horvath, CCP (dhorvath@notchur.biz)