As LU Alumni we should have compassion and concern and offer support when one of our own passes away. We need to all help find out why Gary died, if there was a killer, etc.
Send emails and phone calls to the church and the local police dept in Montgomery, AL.
The TRUTH needs to be flushed out here - that will end all speculation.
here are some comments made over the past few days lifted from the Montgomeryadvertiser.com
eader Comment Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:15 am
The Thorington Road parish wants to squelch any revelation that might suggest that auto-erotic asphyxiation was involved. Thus we are reading only very delicate descriptions of the situation as being suspicious.
The public has the right to know what caused his death, just as they would for anyone else.
One last lesson from the pastor? Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:55 pm
First of all, Drinkard with the MPD opened the door for all this speculation with his elusive comments he gave the media the day the pastor was found. From the information given, if foul play wasn't involved it sounds like maybe autoerotic asphyxiation. For those who don't know what this is, look it up. For those who do, this sexual practice causes the deaths of about 50 young men annually nationwide. If this was the cause of his death, the publication of the real truth and the discussion about it afterward may save the life of someone.
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:06 pm
>>I stand corrected.
Not a problem...
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:20 pm
I stand corrected.
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:42 am
you miss the point mrnurse2u.
>>Coroners and medical examiners, who under State or other law typically are public officials, have a legitimate need to obtain protected health information in an expeditious manner in order to carry out their legal responsibility to identify deceased persons and determine cause of death.
coroners "have a legitimate need to obtain"...
this regulation is in regards to coroners getting your medical records, not coroners disseminating information such as autopsy reports.
I understand what you are trying to say here, but you are misreading your source.
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:50 am
Bufe, I took this excerpt out and pasted it here. The part about public interest outweighs any individual privacy interests... Show me anywhere in this regulatory language where it speaks to the privacy of the family?
"Coroners and medical examiners, who under State or other law typically are public officials, have a legitimate need to obtain protected health information in an expeditious manner in order to carry out their legal responsibility to identify deceased persons and determine cause of death. Such disclosure would be clearly in the public interest, and should be included among the types of disclosures for which the public interest in efficient sharing of medical information outweighs any individual privacy interests that may be compromised."
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:39 am
I'd like to agree with mrnurse2u... the problem is that both of these involve disclosure TO coroners not BY coroners.
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:37 am
In accordance with the HIPAA rule, it is disclosable by law from the coroner the cause of death. It is in the public's interest.
http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/hipaa/dece ... mbined.pdf
http://www.hipaadvisory.com/regs/standa ... edexam.htm
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:31 am
>>This is really making me sick. We have a lot of rights in this country but the last one on the list would be the right to know what happened to Brother Gary. Yes, I visited that church, yes, I have friends that knew him very well, and yes, everyone would like to know what happened. But you have to be some kind of idiot to think YOU have the RIGHT to know so you can have something to talk about around the watercooler or dinner table.
I do have a RIGHT to have access to public Autopsy reports. I also have a RIGHT to make sure justice was served in this instance. These are RIGHTS that we all have.
However, I also have a RIGHT to public documents. I did not care whether I saw them or not, until they kept them from us... I will make sure that my RIGHTS are not infringed.
>>The bottom line, leave this man's memory and his family alone. It's not a murder, it's not a suicide.
How do you know? Because you were told so by the powers that be?
If that were truly the case, then what are they investigating?
You are being lied to. Either they are investigating this as a possible murder/suicide, or they have nothing to investigate in regards to this issue. Correct?
It can't be both ways. The information is being held back because they are investigating something. So then it must be either a murder or a suicide. Either way you are being lied to, and you don't care.
Also, they are giving preferential treatment to him. They wouldn't do this for me if I was found in a similar state, I can guarantee you. That's another thing I have a RIGHT to be upset about. If they are going to make public the autopsies and information surrounding the deaths of ALL other Montgomery citizens, then they must treat this citizen the same. That's called equality. Unless you are suggesting we create a separate class of citizen... the clergy, which gets special treatment by the police department. Is that what you are suggesting?
Reader Comment Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:32 am
>>Furthermore, autopsies are public record. To keep that information from the public without foul play, is a cover up... and one thing citizens of this country don't like... is a cover up. We have a RIGHT to know that justice was served, not just a RIGHT to be told justice was served.
To add another note. If there was no foul play, and this was a natural or accidental death, and privacy is being maintained, then why did the newspaper publish that the autopsy report is not going to be released? The newspaer in itself is stirring up public interest in the matter by printing this story. And if they newspaper is stirring up public interest in this matter, then why are the administrators of this forum getting upset with people talking about this subject? The paper should never have printed the article then.
what an interesting site. hope to connect with LU alumni from the vintage of 76-80