<< …his offences were not minor compared to legal and acceptable treatment of children. >>

The offences are indeed at the lower end of the spectrum.

Like I said in the opening post:

>> Sorry, but this just doesn’t add up. <<

You wrote:

<< Produce some evidence that the trial was flawed or drop this nonsence of supporting a creep who used his privileged position to abuse little children. >>

Wow! Like; I am in a position to produce evidence! Obviously I am not. But it is perfectly fair and reasonable to point out potential anomalies.

And no, it is not ‘nonsense’ to be very closely looking at the whole saga and putting forward suggestions of how it could be viewed differently.

So I say to you R0bert: don’t close your mind to what I have been saying. Keep an open mind to the possibilities that some or all of the things I have mentioned are well worth considering and could be true.

Of course, I will maintain an open mind to the possibility that you are completely right, and to the possibility that Harris is actually a much worse offender than what has come to light to date.

In terms of penalties I came across the following http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=hUOx2tlg

"A "rogue" gynecologist who used tiny cameras to secretly record videos and photos of his patients has forced one of the world's top medical centers to pay $190 million to 8,000 women and girls.

Dr. Nikita Levy was fired after 25 years with the Johns Hopkins Health System in Baltimore in February 2013 after a female co-worker spotted the pen-like camera he wore around his neck and alerted authorities."

The images were as far as autorities currently knows not shared by the doctor, they did not contain faces or other readily identifying features. There is no indicatiin at this point that the hospital had any early indications of what the doctornwas doing. From whats in that report the failure was inadequate supervision.

The numbers were far higher than in Harris case but as far as I can tell all of the harm to the victims occurred as a result of them being told about the offence (but I do think they had a right to know).

R0bert

Ludwig,

You are so far out on that limb that one wonders at the continuing robustness of the junction with the tree's trunk.

It's time to climb down.

That is truly incredible, R0bert. So what does this say about the legal system?

This medical centre has to pay 190million$ for what really amounts to a very small oversight in supervision, which no doubt happens everywhere, in hospitals and all sorts of institutions.

That’s 190million$ taken away from medical research, the implementation of top-rate medical procedures, the employment of highly trained doctors and nurses, and in short, from the provision of quality medical care at Johns Hopkins.

It would seem that this doctor was taking photos, not of faces, not for any devious purposes, and very possibly just for his own database of images of all manner of gynaecological conditions… and that it was all completely innocent and benign. Maybe. Quite frankly I can’t imagine what sort of devious intent he might have had.

And this doctor, having done great work at that institute for 25 years, was so traumatised by the condemnation that he committed suicide.

In the absence of anything more than a very cursory level of knowledge about this issue, I would still say that this is an utterly outrageous decision of the worst sort, which surely has millions of people questioning the veracity of the US legal system.

They must also be thinking that it is simply impossible for institutions and supervisors and managers therein to confidently make sure that everything is always absolutely good and proper…. and that it really is just a matter of chance as to whether someone will do something wrong and bring the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Relating this to Harris; I hope you can now see that if enormously over-the-top decisions such as this can occur within legal proceedings, then very much lesser faults can most definitely occur, and very easily so. I have gone to great lengths to point out that there are numerous potential inconsistencies, and that the verdicts and penalties should indeed be open to scrutiny, and not just blithely accepted as the best outcome.

I'm sure you have more open mind about this than the likes of Is Mise.

RObert, at times there has to be unsupervised trust of doctors, nurses etc. When a professional violates that trust then the full force of the law must be applied.
There is little I can say about John Hopkins, other than what action has been taken so far is no less than what the community expects.

Actually its insurance premiums that will be effected by the payout. http://m.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/Nikita_Levy.html

Whilst I think there are a number of issues raised by that decision regarding the concept of harm and other issues I think the suggestion that the images were for legitimate purposes is a very optimistic view of the behaviour.

Regardless of how they were used the doctor was clearly taking those images without consent using a disguised camera and outside of hospital policy. Like Harris reaching under skirts and touching a line is crossed when tjose actions were taken. Any concept of a credible defence is lost at that point.

Ludwig I have kept my mind open on this topic, if any credible reason to take an aternative view had been put I'd consider it but that has not been the case. Instead all I've seen is a determined effort on your part to minimise Harris actions (and from some comments) the actions of others who have crossed very clear lines around sexual autonomy and behaviour. Your main support has been from a couple of posters who are either trolls trying a dodgy portrayal of elderly kiddy fidlers or hopefully under police survelance.

R0bert