Donna's Book on Jock

[Seaviewer]

Yes, that might be argued. Do we really want to set a precedent though where I can do whatever I want to you as long as it's for "the public good", whatever that means? Our system is founded upon the importance of individual rights. Other systems have been founded upon the notion you brought up, that individual rights are subservient to "the public good." It comes down to which ideology you believe in.

Well, I was really only making an argument based on your semantic distinction between "ideal" and "benefit". The real point is whether crimes should be covered up or exposed to the light - regardless of whether the perpetrator is dead or not.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Well, I was really only making an argument based on your semantic distinction between "ideal" and "benefit". The real point is whether crimes should be covered up or exposed to the light - regardless of whether the perpetrator is dead or not.

Sam wasn't convicted of a crime. He'd first have to have been charged with a crime and then had the opportunity to defend himself in court. There, in court, Sam would have the right to be defended by a lawyer, and eventually a judgement would be made of guilty or not guilty. The principle we live by in our society is: Innocent until proven guilty.

You brought up an interesting concept in saying: "Being dead doesn't make you innocent of past crimes." It doesn't necessarily make you innocent or guilty but it does make it awfully difficult to try you in court.

Very hypothetically, suppose there was such a preponderance of legally binding evidence that a judge could declare the deceased Sam Culver guilty of having Jonas committed when he didn't have any good reason to think Sam was a danger to himself to others. I'm no expert in this but I think that's the criteria for being committed: It must be shown that you are a danger to yourself or to others.

Well, then, who bears the guilt for Jonas having died, in addition to Jonas for having killed himself? Is it Sam for starting the process of having him committed, or is it the doctors in charge of the sanitarium for just taking Sam's word for it despite no observable criteria to suggest Jonas needed to be committed?

Maybe the sanitarium would admit Sam for a trial observation, based only on Sam's word, for say a couple days or a week. If at the end of that trial period, if they can't determine that Jonas is a danger to himself or to others, they have to release him. If they keep him anyway, despite any any observable criteria that he needs to be there, Jonas's death is on them!

Jonas killed himself two months into his stay, well after any trial observation would have concluded. Jonas died while he was on their watch. They, the doctors running things at the sanitarium were responsible for his safety and failed Jonas in the worst way.

So even if hypothetically it could be proven that Sam was guilty of a crime, maybe fraud, it was the doctors and possibly other employees of the sanitarium that were to blame for Jonas's death. Their malpractice and/or their negligence resulted in Jonas dying on their watch.

It gets complicated, doesn't it?

 

[Laurie Marr]

The kitchen encounter between Donna and Ellie is just as riveting now as it was nearly 40 years ago. When it was good Dallas was peerless in soap land.

 

[Toni]

Well, we don´t either know anything else about Jonas. Maybe he was THIS kind of man...

I´d also lock him and throw the keys to the sea...​

 

[Seaviewer]

So even if hypothetically it could be proven that Sam was guilty of a crime, maybe fraud, it was the doctors and possibly other employees of the sanitarium that were to blame for Jonas's death. Their malpractice and/or their negligence resulted in Jonas dying on their watch.

Donna wasn't writing a book about the sanitarium. It's assumed for the purposes of drama that she had proof of these events. Truth is the ultimate arbiter, isn't it?

 

[Jon Ewing Jr.]

The kitchen encounter between Donna and Ellie is just as riveting now as it was nearly 40 years ago. When it was good Dallas was peerless in soap land.

I always thought Ms. Ellie should have just got up and slapped Donna in the mouth and then left.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

I always thought Ms. Ellie should have just got up and slapped Donna in the mouth and then left.

That would have been something!

I always thought Barbara Bel Geddes did a great job,(of course, overall) but when Miss Ellie was angry. She totally commanded the scene.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I always thought Ms. Ellie should have just got up and slapped Donna in the mouth and then left.

Actually her initial reaction was to tell Donna that if she printed it, told that story about a man no longer here to defend himself, she'd sue her. It might have been more interesting if they'd continued in that direction.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Donna wasn't writing a book about the sanitarium. It's assumed for the purposes of drama that she had proof of these events. Truth is the ultimate arbiter, isn't it?

I agree, truth is the ultimate arbiter. Donna was writing about Sam Culver supposedly having his uncle committed so Sam, next of kin, would be appointed executor of his estate. There is no value or decency in Donna assuming she knows all there is to know about it (a common trait of Donna's, acting as if she's an authority on everything) and publishing a book for her own gain about a man who isn't alive to defend himself.

To make things worse, she wanted to include that Jock was Sam's partner - not in having Jonas committed - but in drilling for the oil. Only the relative could have him committed and be appointed executor of his estate. The things is, Jock had just died recently. He's not alive to defend himself either. Donna wanted to publish this while Jock's family had just recently been grieving his death!