Wednesday, January 9, 2019

Hospital Neglect Allegation

In a mental health hospital in-patient wing in Chicago, a male, aged 30 patient was reportedly locked out by the hospital, in the cold (below 10 degrees F), without proper clothing and was not permitted entrance. 

        Analyze the accusation for content to learn what happened.  


_____ Hotline:  "What's happening?" 


Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke. I was right out there with him. He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part. He didn't even have a jacket on him. " 


46 comments:

Bobcat said...

Did the subject "borrow" the patient's coat/jacket?

Anonymous said...

"he doesn't even have a coat on. He didn't even have a jacket on him. "

Change in language.

How does he describe each each item?

"A coat" is usually larger in size to a "Jacket"

Why the change in language?
Is it justified?
Is it when he apportions blame we have the change? "This is wrong on their part."

Or has he lost track of his story?.
Th strong use of the pronoun "I" on form alone suggests that there is a lot of truth to what he is saying.

- David

Anonymous said...

Was it the mental health patient himself who called the hotline? Did he go outside to smoke and see his reflection in the window ("I was right out there with him"), without a coat and yelling? Did he make a photo of his reflection?

I think the caller was accused of doing something wrong because he says: "This is wrong on their part." Was he caught smoking inside (because of the cold) and did "they" tell him that that was not allowed and to go outside? Did the caller resent that? The issue of "smoking outside" seems most important (because the caller's first two sentences are about that). I saw some linguistic things but don't know what they mean, such as:
- change from past to present tense: "its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on"; and
- change from "coat" to "jacket".

If it's not the patient without coat himself who called, it may have been an other patient of the hospital (who had an argument with the staff of the hospital as described above and called the hotline out of resentment). I considered the possibility of the caller being a staff member, but think it's unlikely a.o. because of the 20 cigarette breaks (which employer would allow that).

Autumn

BOSTONLADY said...

He goes out 20 times a day and only noticed this man one time? Did he bring him back in for safety? How does he know this person is even a patient at the facility?

Anonymous said...

_____ Hotline: "What's happening?"


Subject: "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day. He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even have a coat on. I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke. I was right out there with him. He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part. He didn't even have a jacket on him. "

Subject: "I went outside (location) to smoke a cigarette (intention – did he smoke a cigarette? What did he do outside? He doesn’t say) and that's (distance) when (time) I saw him. I go outside to smoke like (not exactly) 20 times a day. He was like standing (increase in tension) there (distance) its (present tense) freezing cold (the person who has gone outside is cold) and he doesn't (present tense) even have a coat on. I would not even know about this (close) if I had not gone out to smoke. (The caller hasn’t told us he was smoking yet. Tells us for the third time the reason why he went out, but not what he did. There is missing information reported around what doesn’t or didn’t happen in the negative. The subject goes into present tense suggesting the account is not from experiential memory) I was right out there (unnecessary information) with (distancing)him. He was freezing (freezing is repeated making it sensitive) and they (this is passive. Who is they?) wouldn't let him in. They were yelling (who is they and why were they yelling?) at him from the window. I have taken (could this be leakage?)a picture of him on my phone to prove it. (need to convince as opposed to convey) This is wrong on their part. He didn't even have a jacket on him.(“Him” is unnecessary. There is a change of language where “coat” becomes “jacket” "

Given the context of the location, could it be that the caller is an employee? The subject mentions they go out 20 times a day. Given the clientele, this could more likely suggest a person of responsibility but to go out 20 times a day if a position of employment suggests a lack of commitment and responsibility. A “me” first attitude potentially. There is a strong need to persuade, use of distancing, unnecessary, passive and present tense language. The subject says it was “freezing cold,” could this be potential motive which later speaks to the change in language when a “coat” changes to a “jacket?” There is a lot of information reported in the negative and missing information. The subject doesn’t say what they did. They don’t say that they tried to help. The subject has to have bene inside the building to go outside. They say on 3 occasions they went out to smoke which is an intention but don’t actually say they smoked a cigarette. They would likely have us believe that this was the case but they don’t say this.

There is potential leakage via use of the word “taken” and this could be the reason for the coat becoming a jacket as it was freezing cold. As the patient didn’t have a jacket on… “him,” this could suggest he had a jacket on previously and the caller took it?

What were they “yelling” at the patient from the window? Were “they” trying to warn him?

I see this as a deceptive account due to missing information. Could the caller have guilty knowledge of the event and be trying to clear himself? Given he goes out 20 times a day to smoke, it could be someone with little concern for anyone else other than themselves and could speak to them making the call in the first place for their own benefit.

Anonymous said...

In addition, the caller mentions he "saw" the patient,it's (it is as opposed to it was, making it present tense. Could this be perseveration?) "Freezing" and "coat" are mentioned close together. Lingusically, the caller "saw" the patient. This is likely reliable.

What is wrong on their part? There is no intrractint and the caller doesn't tell us he tried to help the oatipat, rather he took a photograph. Couldn't the caller, if they go outside to smoke 20 times a day have at least gotten help for the patient. The caller doesn't say what they did (missing information) but what happened or didn't happen in the negative. This strikes me as a deceptive unreliable acciunt

Anonymous said...

"They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it."

What does the caller mean by "it". Does "it" mean the caller being locked out of the hospital without a coat/jacket? Does "it" mean that they were yelling at him from the window? A picture of "him" standing outside of the hospital in itself would prove neither of those things (it might prove the latter if "they" + "the window" were also in the picture). Why does the caller say "on my phone"? It seems unnecessary info. Who cares how he/she took the picture. And: why does the caller say "to prove it". Why the emphasis on proving his/her statement? Does he/she doubt his/her statement?

"He was like standing there."

Why does the caller add "like"? Was the patient not really standing?

Autumn

Hey Jude said...

Subject:  "I went outside to smoke a cigarette and that's when I saw him. I go outside to smoke like 20 times a day.  He was like standing there, its freezing cold and he doesn't even a coat on. I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke. I was right out there with him. He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in. They were yelling at him from the window. I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part.
. " 

The subject saw the patient in an area outside the hospital. Was this the area which is used for smoking?

‘…that’s when I saw him’ introduces the element of time.Why does the subject find the need to say this? Had he seen the patient before this time?

The subject wants it known that it’s usual for him to go outside frequently ‘to smoke’, which is a need to explain why he was outside.

The patient was ‘like’ standing there - he was doing something similar, or in addition to, ‘standing there’. ‘There’ is not specified. Was ‘there’ a smoking area, or right at the hospital entrance? Was the patient outside because he went out to smoke? If not, what was he doing which was ‘like’ standing there?

‘I would not even know about this if I had not gone out to smoke.’

This sounds like a need to persuade. As the subject later states ‘they were yelling’ it is possible he would have heard, or heard about the incident, even if he had not gone outside ‘to smoke’.

The subject says he was ‘right out there with him’ - he does not say he spoke with the patient, or that he fulfilled his intention to smoke. Again, the sentence sounds like a need to persuade - it’s unnecessary to say he was ‘right out there with him’, while ‘with him’ suggests distance. Might that be the distance necessary to take a photograph?

The speaker repeats ‘to smoke’ three times, which repetition makes sensitive the reason why he went outside. Did he go outside to smoke, or to take a photograph?

The patient ‘doesn’t even [ - ] a coat on’ - the missing word is ‘have’ - it is to avoid stating that the patient did not ‘have’ a coat with him, it is to say that he is not *wearing* a coat. There is a change of language to ‘jacket’ - ‘He didn’t even have a jacket on him’ - a change in language indicates a change in reality for the speaker. If there is no apparent reason for a change in language, it may be due to deception.

‘he doesn't even [. ] a coat on.’
‘He didn't even have a jacket on him’

Hey Jude said...

In addition to a change in language there is a change in tense from present to past, which changes make what is said not reliable.

In both instances ‘even’ is an unnecessary word, which again might be due to a need to persuade, (or, more charitably, to indignation?).

‘On him’ can mean that he was not wearing a jacket, or that he did not have a jacket with him. The reader can take it that the patient did not have a jacket on or with him, but not so of a coat. Was it that the patient had with him a coat which he was not wearing?

‘He was freezing and they wouldn't let him in.’
This is the subject’s claim - he or she does not say the patient indicated by word or gesture that he was freezing, or that he wanted to go inside. He does not say why ‘the wouldn’t let him in’ or what ‘they were yelling at him from the window’ . If they were yelling, the subject presumably could hear what was being yelled, but does not include it. If what was yelled was abusive, would the subject not be expected to include what was yelled?

As the subject had the means to exit and re-enter the hospital, why did he not let the patient in himself rather than take a photograph? Why is it only ‘they’ who would not let him in? As he was ‘right out there with him’, what prevented him opening the door for the patient?

Was the patient smoking? Was he being ‘yelled at’ to put on his coat? Was he denied access to the building while he was in the action of smoking? Could that be why he was ‘like standing’ - he was not only standing but also smoking?

‘I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it. This is wrong on their part.’

The subject wants ‘to prove it’ through a picture taken on his phone. A video would have included the yelling and what was said? Was there some reason a single picture was preferable to a recording of the incident?

‘This was wrong on their part.’
The subject wishes to apportion blame to others. ‘This’ indicates closeness. The subject whilst outside appears not to have smoked, which was the stated reason for being there - yet also not to have interacted with the patient or let him back in, rather only to have taken a picture of him. Did he go outside in order to take a picture?

I would like to know more - I think either the patient was outside because he went there to smoke, and was voluntarily not wearing his coat, and tried to access the building before he had finished - or that there was an abusive incident involving several and during which the patient was humiliated and photographed by the subject for all their amusement.

The subject is not forthcoming about what was yelled - as the allegation is abuse, and the subject accuses others, why does he not include what they yelled?

Hey Jude said...

If someone had called out to the patient to put on his coat, that would indicate concern rather than abuse. If it was a false allegation the accused would find it convenient to omit what was yelled.

So, I don’t know, except it would seem easy enough, from where I am looking, for the subject to have opened the door, and to have recorded or otherwise included what was yelled at the patient, if the patient was being abused, and if the subject was not part of it.

Or, it’s a false allegation, the patient tried to access the building while smoking, and was voluntarily not wearing his coat, while he was yelled at to either put on his coat or put out his cigarette.

Or it’s true, and the subject is also a patient, and a rather passive bystander.

-------

I don't know if the subject is male or female, using he for convenience - concern about the lack of coat might be more a woman's concern? Or not, and I'm sexist. :-). I'm not doing very well here - should this one be easy?


Hey Jude said...

Careless - I missed that it was a hotline call rather than part of a work place interview or written statement - it doesn't appear to be a complete call as there's no introduction to who 'him', the patient is, etc. Also would be interesting to know was the missing 'have' really missing, or a transcript error? It must make a difference that it was a voluntary report and spoken, rather than part of an investigation interview, or written statement.

General P. Malaise said...

it is interesting that he doesn't offer help or ask for help for the man without the coat/jacket.

he does have a need to tell us why he was outside. is he looking for an alibi or justification for his own actions?

genie said...

Knowing about the situation is sensitive since he talks about it in the negative. "I would not even know about this if"

He seems to know about the man's internal state. He knows the man is freezing. He knows the man wants to go in. Perhaps the man told him these things, but he doesn't say so.

He feels indignant for the man. He says the man "doesn't even" have a coat on. He says that the situation was "wrong".

Lucia D said...

He emphasizes how happenstance it was that he came upon this man out in the cold. Causes me to wonder if it wasn’t happenstance at all.

genie said...

continued from previous post

I think there were several instances where he feels indignant for the man.
"it's freezing cold."
The man "doesn't even" have a coat on.
"He was freezing".
"they wouldn't let him in."
They were "yelling" at the man.
It is "wrong" on their part.
The man "didn't even" have a jacket on him. "

He is a reliable witness and possibly he identifies closely with the man.
"I was right out there with him."
"I have taken a picture of him on my phone to prove it"


Buckley said...

Here’s my on-a-limb take:

The caller saw from window, others at window were ‘wrongly’ yelling at patient. Caller took pic. Caller excused self to go smoke (and likely did), called hotline. Patient might have been visible but caller didn’t interact with him. That could mean caller called out to patient but there was no exchange.

Hey Jude said...

I think all I would be willing to say with confidence is that the subject went outside and that he took a photograph of the patient.

---

He does sound indignant yet he doesn't say he helped or spoke to the man - does he feel powerless to act in the moment, so helps through taking a photo and calling a hotline? A passive fellow patient might act in such a way.
--

Does he misinterpret what he is seeing - did the patient decline to wear a coat - did he try to enter the building with a lit cigarette?

---

Is he involved in an abusive incident, of which he took a picture?

---

Did he, as Buckley opined, witness the man locked out, from the window, and so went outside, ostensibly to smoke, as an excuse to take a photograph as evidence? Is the 'with him' of "I was right out there with him" indicative of solidarity rather than of distance?









Hey Jude said...

He might say "this is wrong on their part" because he feels guilty too, for taking a photograph, which might have felt wrong, as the patient either was, or seemed to be, in a bad situation.

He does have quite a need to explain, but might that be due to his expecting to be in trouble, and so justifying why he went outside?

sonjay said...

Is this the entire statement, or accusation? Or are parts missing? Because it really feels like there's huge gaps in what's reported in this accusation.

Nowhere does the accuser state that the freezing person is a patient.

Nowhere does the accuser state that the freezing person wants or is attempting to go back inside.

Nowhere does the accuser state that the freezing person even has any association with the mental hospital. For all the statement tells us, the freezing person may have been standing at the bus stop outside the hospital, waiting for the 5:15 to go home.

Nowhere does the accuser state or explain his role there. Is he a staff member? A doctor? A pharmaceutical salesman? Is he maybe a patient himself, at this mental hospital?

This accusation on the face of it is so lacking in detail as to be meaningless. Nothing happened, as far as I can tell. The accuser went outside to smoke, and he saw a cold person outside.

Colin said...

The subjects over stating his reason for being outside (to smoke), the sensitivity around it, and the normalisation of him being out there (like 20 times a day) leads me to wonder why else he was out there and what was not normal. The change of language from coat to jacket may indicate there was indeed a coat involved in order for it to have a change in reality? If there was a coat did the subject himself have something to do with this change?

Hey Jude said...

Maybe he gave him his own coat?

Anonymous said...

A 2 year old dies in Arizona following dental procedure. HERE WE GO AGAIN. Root canals on a baby.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6575379/Toddler-2-dies-brain-damage-routine-dental-procedure.html

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

OT:

"Universal you"

Lack of unity.

Distancing Language.

Lights

Doors

Normal Factor

Subjective language

Time element

Temporal Lacunae

Parroting Language

No reliable denial

Although these are abbreviated reports and more information is needed. There are a lot of S/A principle.


Cricketer Accused Of Rape Breaks Down In Court As He Insists Sex With Woman Was Consensual

A cricketer accused of raping a sleeping woman broke down several times in court as he insisted the alleged victim had consensual sex with him.

Alex Hepburn, 23, claimed he only realised she was in his team-mate Joe Clarke’s room after getting into bed beside her following a night out in April 2017.

He told jurors the woman rolled over towards him, opened her eyes, kissed him and then engaged in around 20 minutes of consensual sex.

The alleged victim has told the court she was asleep when Hepburn began sexual contact and then wrongly thought she was having sex with Clarke, who now plays for Nottinghamshire.

Hepburn, of Portland Street, Worcester, denies two counts of rape.

Giving evidence, he denied believing he was “God’s gift to the women of Worcester” and said his alleged victim knew she was sleeping with him rather than fellow cricketer Clarke.

Prosecutors allege Hepburn raped the woman after she had consensual sex with Clarke, an England Lions batsman, who had then left his bedroom to be sick.

Addressing jurors at Worcester Crown Court from the witness box on Wednesday, Hepburn broke down three times as he insisted the woman had “interacted” with him in a normal way.

He told the court he entered Clarke’s room at their flat – after seeing him leaning against a wall in the bathroom – because he had previously arranged to sleep in his friend’s bed.

Describing himself as drunk at the time of the alleged offence, the player said: “After I had got myself into bed, that’s when I first realised that there was a woman in the bed.

“The lighting was dim. You couldn’t make out the door on the other side of the room but you could see what was in front of you and around.

“She rolled over towards me. She kissed me.”

Asked by defence QC Michelle Heeley whether the woman’s eyes were open or closed, Hepburn replied: “They were open. Her eyes were open before she kissed me.”

Telling the court he had recognised the woman before they kissed, Hepburn went on: “We moved around as you normally would if you are interacting and having sex with a female.

“She was enjoying it. She was actively engaged with me.”

The court heard that the woman, who cannot be identified, pushed Hepburn off and asked him what he was doing, leaving him “shocked and confused”.

Heeley asked Hepburn: “What did she say next?”

John mcgowan said...

Cont..

Hepburn answered: “She asked me where Joe was and I replied that he was in the bathroom. I was under the impression that what we had been doing was absolutely normal.”

Jurors have heard claims that both Hepburn and Clarke were involved in a sexual conquest “game” – after setting up a “stat chat” page on WhatsApp to keep a record of sex with women.

During around two hours of evidence, Hepburn – who was born in Western Australia and moved to England in 2013 to pursue his cricket career – fought back tears while being asked about the WhatsApp group.

He said he was “completely embarrassed” at comments he had made, saying of the messages: “My family has had to see them.

“It was meant to be nothing more than immature chat between a group of friends. No thought went into it.”

Under cross-examination by prosecutor Miranda Moore QC, Hepburn said he was no longer employed by Worcestershire because his contract had not been renewed.

Moore then asserted: “This is a case about you, fired up by this ‘game’ you were so keen to play with your mates, taking advantage of a girl that you knew was asleep in Joe’s bed.”

Hepburn answered: “Not true.”

As Hepburn sobbed in the dock, Moore continued: “The reason you are crying now is the world knows how you behave.”

The case continues.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cricketer-accused-of-rape-breaks-down-as-he-insists-sex-with-woman-was-consensual_uk_5c361183e4b05b16bcfcdaa7?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001&fbclid=IwAR18aEMpguxB-XK4i41c75rWO85nDObgii0R-kklGfDcS5kvr4v6dFXOsks

Nadine Lumley said...

This is a made up account by an employee to get his employer into trouble. None of this happened. I doubt he even smokes. His first sentence is to establish himself as a smoker, that's his priority, to throw the scent off him because he doesn't smoke.

p.s. I've heard you say it's very rare for people to come right out and lie and tell an outright lie. Well, since then I've noticed that I can easily tell those kinds of lies. For example I told a bunch of people I flew to Vancouver for NYE's for a long weekend when I didn't. Once I was shown a leather glove and asked if it was mine. I immediately said, "That's not mine" even though it was mine. I should probably go into sales as a business.

.

Anonymous said...

Nadine Lumley said:

"Once I was shown a leather glove and asked if it was mine. I immediately said, "That's not mine" even though it was mine."

If one abandons/leaves a personal property with the intention to relinquish all rights to it, it legally belongs to no one until someone else, simply put, takes possession of it (I think that rule applies under US law as well). Maybe you didn't want the leather glove anymore? In that case "That's not mine" may not have been a lie at all. Also, even if you had not intentionally relinquished all rights to it, lying about the ownership of a leather glove hardly seems something to get very nervous about (unless you had a bomb hidden in it or something).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6555009/Pedophile-Gary-Oliva-confesses-killing-JonBen-t-Ramsey-accident.html

Anonymous said...

This is a made up account by an employee to get his employer into trouble. None of this happened

If the caller doesn’t mention the cold man is a patient, if the caller has made this up, how is Peter able to tell us the male patient is aged 30? How is Peter able to tell us the hospital allegedly locked him out? How is Peter able to tell us it was 10 F below outside?

The caller is deceptive about some things, but if there’s no patient, then Peter made it up.

Anonymous said...

p.s. I've heard you say it's very rare for people to come right out and lie and tell an outright lie.

I can’t speak to his saying “very rare”; didn’t he say 90%? One in 10. Is that very rare?

If it helps, I think you’re a liar.

Anonymous said...

That is, 90% are lies of omission so 1 of 10 is outright.

General P. Malaise said...

everyone lies.

90% avoid lying as a rule. 10% will lie even when it isn't a reason to lie. these people are dangerous.

lying causes internal stress so most avoid lying. the 10% who lie as habit and without logical reason (when there is no need to lie) usually have a long history of lying possibly back to childhood.

Anonymous said...

Dailymail headline: confesses to murder of JBR.

Buckley said...

He loved JBR, he accidentally killed her, if he hadn’t they’d be married now.

I can’t see how moderately informed “ransom note” to JR could possibly fit into this scenario.

Someone is confusing their fantasy and reality. Possibly manipulation by “pen pal”?

Kimberly Bow said...

When babies need root canals it is the result of very neglectful parenting.

Kimberly Bow said...

Not the first false confession regarding JonBenet.

M said...

The other day, I was out on my daily walk, a neighbor was backing out of her driveway without looking and almost hit me, I did not hear her car, it was a matter of seconds that saved me. I made note of her comments to me.
She said " I am so sorry. I am always so careful. I always look".
I responded, "Well, next time please do look".

Here "always" evidently is used to refer to every other day but the one the incident took place. She and I both knew she had not been looking.
Anyway, I thought it interesting.

M

M said...

OT


'I'm the victim': Tearful wheelchair-bound survivor, 86, insists she's 'no liar' as Florida pardons the four black men accused of raping her at gunpoint in 1949 when she was 17
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6583585/Florida-Governor-Ron-DeSantis-posthumously-pardons-four-black-men-1949-rape-case.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Groveland Four accuser's full statement to the clemency board
Norma Padgett, 86, delivered the following statement before Florida's Board of Executive Clemency and Governor Ron DeSantis on Friday, January 11, 2019 in Tallahassee:

'My name is Norma Tyson Padgett Upshaw and I'm the victim of that night.

And I'll tell you now that it's on my mind, it's been on my mind for about 70 years.

I was 17-years-old and this never left my mind…

I'll tell you this: If you had a gun held to your head and told that you if you screamed and didn't do what they said that they'd blow your brains out, so what would you do?

And if you had a daughter and a mother and a wife and a sister or a niece, would you give 'em pardon? No, I don't think you would. I really don't.

And every time it comes up, I just quiver on the inside. And I have lived it for 60 years.

When my boys was little, I kept my mouth shut 'cause…I was afraid something would happen to 'em. They might find out where they were and kill 'em or do somethin' to 'em. Now my grandkids is up, and they go to school, and I worry about them. And my great-grandkids are coming up.

Y'all just don't know what kind of horror I've been through for all these many years.

(Her voice trembles.)

I never told my kids...they knew it but they never did know what kind of horror I've been through. And I love each and every one of them.

And I don't want them pardoned, no, I do not. And you wouldn't either.

I know she (Beverly Robinson, Samuel Shepherd's cousin) called me a liar.

But I'm not no liar.

If I had to go to court today I could tell you the same story that I told then and I could [take] you on the route. Some of the places is not there no more but I could [take] you and I could show you and I walked all night long.

I don't know how many miles it was but I walked all night. And I knew I was closer to another town. But they went that way and I'd seen headlights and I'd run to the woods. I don't know how long I stayed in there. I didn't have no watch. I didn't have nothing.

And right now, my nerves is so bad and I'm quiverin' on the inside and I can't help it.

I'm beggin' y'all not to give them pardon because they done it.

Your minds might be made up. I don't know.

If you do [pardon them], y'all going to be just like them…

And that's all I got to say, 'cause I know I'm telling the truth.

I went to court twice.…

I can tell you right now — not the exact words — but could tell you today almost quote to what I said then. And if any of you got any questions, ask me, I'll answer them the best I know how.

Like I say...if something happens to any of my kids I hope it ponders y'all's mind [because] I begged you not to do it and it's liable to.

Like I said, if there's any question ya'll want to ask me, I'll try to answer it if I can.'

Amyl Nitrite said...

This is wrong on their part. —so he is aware of a wrong on another part.
Smoking was the problem. He got kicked outside for smoking indoors. He called about himself. That may be the other wrong on another part.

Tiffany Gerik said...

My mom is in a hospital for a terrible bone infection and this happened to her. She didn't have the hospital number, got locked out, so she called her son (my brother) and he had to call the hospital to go out and find her b/c she didn't know what entrance she was even at. All for a cigarette!

New England Water Blog said...

I got locked out of a hospital I spent a month in while in West Berlin. I snuck out for a real meal and came back to locked doors. Eventually I got in through the boiler room when I showed a worker my wounds...

TimA said...

There's some time sensitivity about smoking so much. A pack a day would mean 100 minutes smoking 20 five minute cigs. He is "like" standing, maybe he was walking around, or leaning on the wall, or also smoking? But he's outside without "even" a coat. Probably mental patients are not supposed to be outside in the smoking area. Not "even" a jacket, the staff had not dressed the patient for the weather, appropriately (a coat), or inappropriately (a light jacket). The caller would not have known about this. This is a point of sensitivity, likely the caller should have been told if a patient was punished by nurses, or told if patients were allowed to go outside at all. The patient was trying to get back inside but someone inside was yelling at him out of the window. Possibly the caller could have said who was yelling at the patient, but didn't want to say because of personal repercussions. He took a picture, he expected that they would lie about what happened. Instead of talking to a boss he called a hotline. He refers to the people shouting at the patient as "this is wrong on their part". He doesn't identify with the people doing this, he may be another patient or a visiting doctor. He is concerned with who will be blamed.

He didn't talk me out of believing him.

Nadine Lumley said...

Ohhh I really like Autumn's post. Yes I had abandoned that glove already so maybe that's why I was able to say that's not mine with such conviction. And I had every reason to be stressed as there is back story and the glove was a clue.

Nadine Lumley said...

Oh yeah lolz excellent points!!!!

Anonymous said...

Nadine, I'm glad to have been of some help. But now I'm imagining a plot of Agatha Christie-like magnitude, ha ha.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Just curious. Did the plot involve a "tiny purse" and an "aisle"?

Autumn