She has claimed that she didn’t release the tape. My post #27 in this thread has a quote from a magazine article about that.
I see. And I suppose no one else has come forward to challenge her version of events? No one swearing up and down that she’s lying? All righty then, I guess that firmly puts me in the camp of she did nothing wrong then.
Thanks for the reply.
This is called projection.
I hope this does have a chilling effect on people who attend therapy with extra people hanging around. Because they don’t have confidentiality then, and it’s best that they be aware of that, don’t you think?
It was couples therapy. It’s difficult to have couples therapy if you consider your spouse an extra person hanging around.
It’s been challenged rather vigorously over and over by Mr. Collin’s divorce attorney.
He says that she has been threatening for years to release the tape to the media unless he paid her more money and gave her a much larger share of the assets than she was entitled to.
Maybe schedule a solo session for the day you want to list the little kids you’ve molested? I really don’t think couple’s therapy is the right setting for this particular problem.
IMO, that’s probably why people are giving flak to the wife. He didn’t just admit this out of the blue. In fact, if he did, it would have been illegal for her to tape it. The only reason it may be legal is because of the contents. She had to have gone in knowing that she was trying to get a confession out of him. If it didn’t have the confession on it, taping of the session would have been illegal.
I just did a quick google search on this topic. In California, taping a conversation requires consent of all parties.
In a case in another state, someone placed a recorder in a teddy bear to record their spouse in their own home and is now facing a lawsuit.
From what I’ve read, the reason that the taping in the Collins’ case might be legal is that there’s an exception in California if the conversation contains [not sure if that’s the right word] a violent felony. Some examples given for the exception were for people threatening domestic abuse over the phone.
So the wife had to have known that she was planning to get his confession on tape or it would have been illegal for her to tape the conversation. He didn’t just offer up the confession, and she happened to catch it.
It doesn’t seem to be part of the couples therapy. Even the therapist sounds confused about what the wife is trying to do. In the transcript I read, the therapist asks the wife in the middle of her interrogation of him:
The wife’s questions are very specific and pointed. She seemed to know exactly what information she wanted to get on tape, so it was very planned and intentional. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to have been part of a police investigation because if it was, she would have known that the statute of limitations had run on that case. It sounded more like she was trying to get incriminating evidence on tape, but if she wasn’t going to release it as she claims she didn’t, what was her purpose?
The reason I think that it could have a chilling effect on therapy sessions is because people might think, after watching this play out, that any person can secretly tape any other person in a therapy session and use that tape to damage their reputation. People might be more reluctant to reveal things in therapy that might damage their reputation.
Well, people CAN tape your therapy session. I’m not sure what you can do about that. Tape recorders exist, and they can be used. That’s a reality.
Therapists generally don’t secretly record therapy sessions because they are legally bound to maintain confidentiality, and breaking that would endanger their livlihood. But as soon as you start bringing in other people, you bring in new risks. That’s not a right or wrong thing, it’s just reality. People can screw you over all the time, and if you are a child molester, people probably will try to screw you over. Molesting kids gets people really worked up, telling your therapist is fine but telling your wife is pretty dumb if your intention is not to get caught.
I’m not getting your distinction. People in general are legally bound to keep conversations private. There may be an exception in this case. But in general, people don’t secretly tape therapy sessions of others.
If it’s just a matter of what someone can do, then a therapist can tape your session and release it. There might be consequences to the therapist if the therapist did that, but if that’s not the issue, then anyone can do that. In this case, the wife lost her livelihood which was the husband’s income. It didn’t stop her.
For an illegal taping, they both have the same consequences.
If it’s just a matter of what someone can do, then you seem to be saying that people shouldn’t admit stuff that gets their therapist worked up (whatever that might be) because the therapist might record it and use it to damage that person’s reputation. Yes, the therapist might lose their livelihood. But any other person taping the conversation might get sued and lose a lot as well.
Thank you.
Any idea when the last incidence of abuse took place? (that we know of?)
It seems to me that more recent victims would be coming forward now.
Can you explain to me why I am required to see either of the people involved as a sympathetic person? Is it not possible to see Stephen Collins himself as a (assuming everything is true, blah blah disclaimer) horrible human being, and also to see his wife as kind of a shitty person, who - near as I can tell - protected and enabled a pedophile until it became convenient to her to finally stop? Because that’s my position. I see absolutely nothing in Stephen Collins that makes him a sympathetic person… but (again, based on the limited information available to me) I also don’t really see much to admire in his wife’s actions, either.
It would also explain why the guy adopted all those starving children from Africa. Seriously, Dee and Dennis really dodged a bullet there.
I laughed out loud at that.
Hey! I got that! Source, pot, kettle.
Why?
To you. Others may believe differently. This isn’t like people thinking murder is legal or something like that, I have no problems believing that a normal adult thinks that what he says in therapy is bound by some confidentiality. You’ll just have to believe that
He may have assumed that the setting at a doctor’s office overrode what his wife was legally able to divulge. Nothing wrong with believing that, its not a crazy stretch
Not false. Giving up some aspects of privacy willingly is not the same as having it taken away from you. Here’s a better test: go around asking people if they think privacy is important in some parts of their lives. I guarantee you’ll get 100% agreement
The trust between patient and doctor was violated by a third party. Yes, that hurts people who may be inclined to seek therapy but not after this incident. I think coverage of this case has made the Collins’ thing into our temporary national RO of the week, that’s bound to affect how some people seek therapy. And just because he might have been lax in researching California law with regards to doctors’ office confessions doesn’t mean he gives up his rights to privacy if it existed. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t research it, if he deserves privacy, then he should get it
Why? Because it is beneficial for people to be able to speak freely in therapy because that would result in the best medical treatment. And because there are far more people being treated for just random things in therapy than there are pedophiles with secret pasts running around, therefore the greatest amount of good lies in providing open lines of communications between doctor and patient rather than violate that for the sake of catching a statistically small amount of criminals seeking the same treatment.
“Cannot be leaked” meaning that anything leaked from such a session cannot be used in any form of punishment. It should be like if cops illegally searched a person’s home and found evidence. That evidence should be thrown out and not considered in any court of any type, not in his divorce, and not in any prosecution that may result from it. His public image is damaged already, as it should be, and no one can physically prevent all leaks of all materials, but we can say that the courts cannot use such evidence against a person for any reason
As to your questions about the wife beating and doctor with an STD patient, I consider those falling under the imminent threat umbrella, so yes, people can testify to that. But if the beating happened, for example, 10 years ago, and the doctor wants to call the cops on the husband now, that evidence should be inadmissible. And no, not only those relationships, but many, I listed some in the same post, but that’s not a comprehensive list.
But you agree there are reasons, and valid ones? Then you and I are simply arguing for which ones are valid. Unless you think doctors and 3rd parties should be able to report anything they want, for any reason, then you believe as I do, only to a different degree.
It could. Imagine if a patient said “I have an urge to kill people sometimes” vs. “I want to kill XXX tomorrow at 7pm”. I would be fine if a doctor reported the second person but not the first
Lets not speak of “reasonable” because that’s subjective, lets speak of “legal”. If the evidence is thrown out, there may not be any legal reason a judge or someone may bar him from hanging around kids or, if Collins has any minor children, taking custody
That might be true. But if ultimately he cannot be prosecuted, would you still consider it a win vs. the wife tipping off cops to do their own investigation separate from the revealing tapes in the session? You may think that the alternative is nobody suspecting him, and that’s worse than him being hated. That’s speculation, just as I’m speculating that he’ll serve no jail time because of the manner in which the tapes were leaked. Lets compare our worst case scenarios: do you prefer a world where the tapes didn’t come out and people didn’t suspect him, or a world where the tapes came out but he can’t be prosecuted? I would prefer the tapes not come out, so that there’s a chance for him to be prosecuted in the future if he slips up or his wife tipped off the authorities in a less invasive way. How about you?
I see. I was speaking generally while I thought you were speaking specifically. It doesn’t reflect on this doctor, but does on doctors in general. That’s what I meant. So I agreed with you that it probably doesn’t affect Collins’ doctor, but we disagree on how much we think it would affect therapy in genearl
Nothing always works, that’s no reason to ignore the times when it does. Second, I’ve already mentioned that I don’t think victims will get justice based on how the tapes were leaked. And third, I feel you are ignoring outcomes where people do get better through therapy, and prosecution happens in a proper, non-privacy violating manner
You’re free to believe that too
Not his privacy, the proper respect for doctor/patient confidentiality. You might as well ask me if you know someone’s a serial rapist/killer, can you break the law and kidnap and torture him as punishment because you think that will serve justice more.
The proper course of action in your case would be if the guy’s an imminent threat, you can report him. But if did it 10 years ago and only gave up the information in a therapy session where he was trying to get better, you let the doctor determine if he needs to break confidentiality in order to report him. For you, you can tip off the cops without taping sessions of his therapy. Like if you know where his victims are buried, you can lead the cops there. Or if he raped someone, you can save evidence of his crimes and turn them over, and/or try to convince the victim to testify.
Luckily, I am not one of those people. In that thread, I think the cops should try to defuse the situation by not assuming he’s a burglar, by acknowledging that he may be who he claims to be, but that they need to verify it because the entering of the house was reported and if he could just be patient, everything will be settled soon. They should also expect and allow the guy to become a little bit angry, because if he was right, then what they did could be seen as racist and its perfectly fine that someone gets agitated over it.
Because it was really funny. The fact that you can’t see why, of course, only makes it more so.
Here is my problem with the wife.
OK so in the 70’s Stephen does some bad stuff with kids. All I’ve heard is exposing himself and he made a few touch his penis.
Early 2000’s wife gets a letter about this. Apparently the marriage is going well and she does nothing with this info.
(Also Stephen says some really weird things about their own child at some point in this timeline.)
2012 marriage is now bad and wife says, “you did sex stuff with kids” and Stephen is like ‘yeah’ and she is like “you should take to a therapist about that, don’t worry, I’ll be at your side” and then she records him and takes it to the police. The look into it and say, well it was a really long time ago, we can’t press charges.
2014 someone release the tape to TMZ.
Are there any victims from the 80’s or 90’s or the 00’s? Is there any suggestion that is just isn’t safe to have a kid around Stephen now?
Don’t get me wrong, he is a child abuser but he seems to be the nicest of the dammed.
Now for something that happened 40 years ago, he is facing all kinds of punishment, (none handed out by the state but by ‘outraged’ people)
Why would I need to consult with the doctor, when I know there is no statute of limitations for murder? A marriage counselor is probably not the best person to determine whether a serial anything is likely to reoffend, either.
All of what you’re saying may sound reasonable to you, but expecting Joe Schmoes to hoard secrets pertaining to murder, child molestation, and rape is impractical and unrealistic. But I will agree to disagree with you.