At the start of 2005, there were over two million Americans in U.S. prisons. Over 3,000 were sitting on death row, awaiting execution. Close to half a million were in jail because of offenses involving drugs.
So in today's N.Y. Times, John Tierney deals with issues of injustice in our country. He takes up the cause of Bernard Rottschaefer, M.D., currently pursuing an appeal to his sentence of six and a half years. The upper middle class, white male's legal team seem guardedly optimistic.
Even as Tierney decries "the D.E.A.'s war against doctors", he manages to mislead.
His piece adds nothing to the post last August 30th by Radley Balko of the The Agitator, to whom Tierney gives no credit. In fact one learns from Balko that the prosecutor is a "law-and-order Republican and rising star." Tierney omits a description of the prosecutor who carried out what he clearly believes is a miscarriage of justice. Instead he emphasizes the fault of nameless D.E.A. agents.
The Dr. was convicted of about 153 counts of writing prescriptions for drugs like OxyContin in exchange for sex. Four women testified against him. Tierney totally ignores the testimony of three of them. Instead he concentrates on one, who he believes committed perjury. Even assuming that she did, Tierney gives no reason to discount the testimony of the others. He also forgets to mention that a local pharmacist testified that the Doc "was writing so many prescriptions that [she] refused to fill prescriptions from Rottschaefer, saying the patients had no medical need." Tierney forgets to mention that the Doctor's former medical assistant had complained about the Dr's having sex with his "playmates and druggies" to officials from 2000 until she was fired in 2003. Tierney considered the voluminous documentation presented in the case unworthy of mention. The medical files showed that the doctor never tried to diagnose nor treat any of the women. They showed up, went into a locked room with him, and came out with a prescription.
Like Tierney, I was not in the courtroom to hear the case. I can't be sure that the judge and the jury reached the right verdict. There are tens of thousands of people in jail who are innocent, and maybe the Doctor will be another inmate who is not actually guilty.
I do know that Tierney does not give a fair accounting of the case. He blames a government bureaucracy for not being fair to a prosperous white doctor. He fails to mention the responsibility of the up and coming Republican prosecutor. He is very concerned about a victim of the "war on doctors" who has a team of lawyers. I have never seen any empathy from Tierney for innocent victims of the "war on drugs" who tend to be poorer, non-white and under-lawyered.
Tierney continues his quest to fill the shoes of former columnist William Safire, a Nixon devotee. By writing deceptive columns condemning 'big government' bureaucrats, while ignoring real iproblems of justice in our country, Tierney shows that he is well on the road to achieving that goal.
It's amazing how far hysterical idealogues will go to smear someone they see as an ideological opponent.
Your characterization of Tierney is laughable. He's hardly a Republican shill. He's repeatedly attacked the GOP in his columns. Did you read the column previous to the one about Rottschaefer? It was basically an 800-word diatribe against Republican hypocrisy.
The drug war is a contemptible, wasteful, 35-year government debacle that disproportionately targets the powerless. You'd think the left would embrace the fact that a NY Times columnist has the courage and principle to speak out against it. God knows your precious Krugman, Dowd & co. haven't (Bob Herbert has, to his credit).
Speaks volumes about your motivation that you'd rather attack Tierney and his character to score cheap partisan points than applaud the fact that he's addressing an awful injustice.
Posted by: Radley Balko | January 25, 2006 at 10:55 AM
Sir,
First, let me respond to your accusations against John. John reviewed the full record that was presented within the court. Unfortunately, you failed to heed your own advice and review the record (instead you focused in on the news information that the prosecution leaked during the trial). I imagine that after reading this first part of my comment, you will edit what I have to say next.
Unfortunately, all the full record is not available online, however you could reference this website for more details on the case.
http://www.painreliefnetwork.org/bernard_rottschaefer_.html
As for concentrating on one witness, I think the issue her is that the prosecution was given detailed accounting written in the witness’s own handwriting that she planned and did commit perjury. The issue is not really the doctor in this case. The concern is that the prosecution refuses to act. Are these prosecutors making similar lapses in judgment? If you want to read more on the witness John chose go to here and look at the arrest tally of http://www.pittsburghpa.net/neigh_westmoreland/20020618bust0618p5.asp
As for the other witnesses, they all knew each other outside the doctor’s office and went on record as being apart a criminal enterprise (not related to the doctor). Two of the four witnesses denied sexual transgression occurred between them and the doctor within their initial interviews with investigators. However, after these two individuals were looking at jail time for their own offenses, they altered their statements. Yet, the agents did not feel it was necessary to have these witnesses do a polygraph. Unfortunately, your lack of research failed to bring this up.
As for the assistant (one of three), she was the only employee of the doctor’s that collaborated these accusations. After she spent three years working for the doctor, she could provide no proof that any of these sexual acts occurred throughout this time period. She did however go on record as meeting the one of the witnesses outside of the doctor’s office on occasions. In the court record, this witness, who she had met with, could not remember if the doctor was circumcised after she talked in detail of giving him a blow job. Oh, this witness also admitted on the record that she was conspiring with another known felon on a way to blackmail he doctor.
Another office assistant came forth and testified during the trial that nothing improper ever occurred while she worked at the office.
As for the pharmacist, please review the record more thoroughly. These statements were given by the lead DEA investigator who said to a grand jury this is what the pharmacist said. Yes, in a grand jury hearsay is aloud. During the trial, these pharmacists did not come forth, so it is questionable if these statements were ever given.
As for the medical records, please review the court record and trial transcripts. The records showed that the doctor did continually diagnose these patients. However, the prosecution went after the doctor for not having these patients get MRI’s every visit or X-Rays for soft tissue issues.
In the end though, you made a similar mistake that the jury made. The case transcended into a records case where the DEA agent, lead prosecutor, and witnesses all gave their medical opinions vs. the doctor. The case moved away from sex for drugs and towards medical malpractice.
It’s a sad day when someone speaks before doing their research. I’m sorry, but this case stinks and through the prosecutions own inaction on the perjury presented to them is only getting worse.
Posted by: Jim Johnson | February 02, 2006 at 09:36 AM
Your views are incorrect and outdated concerning the new information uncovered in relation to this case.
1) The pharmacists never made the statements attributed to them. These statements were provided by a single DEA agent who was also responsible for interviewing each of the complaining witnesses. During the trial, the pharmacists refused to come forward and have since denied making these statements.
2) The office assistant testified during the trial that she had outside contact/relationship with one of the prosecution witnesses. This prosecution witness, whom she had outside contact with, was also the individual who admitted under oath that she was conspiring with two of the other witnesses to defraud the doctor and sell medications on the street.
3) As for the voluminous records, the doctor's legal team has recently filed a motion which details that all five of the prosecution witnesses lied about their diagnosis and need for the medications during the criminal trial. The new evidence consists of these individuals own statements in civil proceedings.
In addition to this new information, the doctor's legal team uncovered that the prosecution and witnesses mischaracterized the plea agreements/deals they received for their testimony in front of the jury.
The new evidence also shows that the patients were receiving the same medications that the doctor was prescribing from other physicians prior to Dr. Rottschaefer assuming their care, during the time Dr. Rottschaefer cared for them, and even today. To add to this issue, the evidence shows that the patients were getting larger dosages of these medications from these other physicians who were not their PCP.
see posts:
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=News%20Briefs&action=getComplete&ref=6772
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/east/s_470417.html
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=News%20Feature&action=getComplete&ref=6603
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/archive.cfm?type=Main%20Feature&action=getComplete&ref=6202
Posted by: | October 01, 2006 at 08:40 PM