SUSAN REED: "SPECIAL" TREATMENT FOR FRIENDS & FOES?

SUSAN REED: “SPECIAL” TREATMENT FOR FRIENDS AND FOES? 1) CATHERINE BABBITT: ADA KILLED A MOM PUSHING A BABY CARRIAGE -- NO GRAND JURY? 2) DR. CALVIN DAY: REED ‘S OFFICE APPARENT PROSECUTION MISCONDUCT – PERSONAL VENDETTA?

To: BRIAN CHASNOFF San Antonio Express-News Opinion Columnist

 From: Cal Day MD

 Hi Brian,

 I am confused after reading your October 30, 2014 opinion column entitled “Reed gets LaHood ad yanked off airwaves”. Here are the facts as I understand them and please correct me if I have misstated them:

  • A Bexar County Assistant District Attorney named Catherine Babbitt hit and killed a mommy pushing a baby carriage on October 17, 2000
  • The “mommy killing” took place
    • on a weekday school morning,
    • in a residential neighborhood,
    • at 8 AM,
    • when there were multiple children on the streets walking to the bus stop, and
    • when the streets were dry,
    • The police report photos apparently show that skid marks from Catherine Babbitt’s car
      • were after the impact, and
      • were near the curb.
      • Oh, and there were two other facts that were mysteriously missing from your opinion article as follows:
        • First, ADA Catherine Babbitt had a speeding ticket prior to killing this mommy for going 40 mph in a 30 mph zone. Perhaps the speeding ticket was under different circumstances – or was it?
        • Second, a civil suit was filed and Babbitt’s insurance company ended up paying the plaintiff a settlement. Wow! That sure sounds like probable cause for Grand Jury consideration doesn’t it? Or am I missing something?  

 On the surface, it sure sounds like driver Catherine Babbitt was apparently not paying attention when she killed the mommy pushing the baby carriage? On the surface, it sure sounds like apparent negligent homicide? Or am I missing something?

 Surely everyone would agree that the proper arms length action that DA Susan Reed should have taken at the time would have been to turn the case over to a special prosecutor to present this case to a grand jury, just as was recently done with Governor Rick Perry.

 Instead, DA Susan Reed obtained an apparent CHA (“cover her ass”) letter from an apparent governmental buddy stating (according to your column) that “no charges should be filed”. I bet Rick Perry is saying “Wow! I wish I had been given this type of preferential treatment.”

 And now that DA Susan Reed’s apparent preferential treatment of one of her staff for this “mommy killing” has been exposed, the information is pulled of the air? Where are we now? Nazi Germany? Communist Russia? Communist China? North Korea? Iran? Whatever happened to free speech? Has DA Susan Reed been in office so long and become so powerful that she has the political media muscle to bury this kind adverse exposure?

 Surely you agree that Susan Reed’s obtaining an apparent CHA (“cover her ass”) letter from an apparent governmental buddy was NOT the correct course of action?

 Surely you agree that DA Susan Reed should have arranged to have a special prosecutor to present this to a grand jury just as was recently done with Governor Perry?

 Surely you agree that this Assistant DA Catherine Babbitt person apparently received preferential treatment because she was on DA Susan Reed’s staff. Otherwise, why would someone on Susan Reed’s staff receive a treatment that not even Governor Perry could obtain?

 The San Antonio Express News has said much about LaHood trying to buy the election with money, but why has The San Antonio Express News said nothing about DA Susan Reed’s apparent buying of the election with political media muscle. The apparent problem of having an incumbent in office too long is that apparently the incumbent too often becomes so powerful that he/she can apparently dole out preferential treatment without consequences, and then via apparent political media muscle, attempt to convince the public that he/she does not do such things.  

Brian, as someone who is a big fan of yours, I ask you to please take a step back and take another look at this situation. Even though you are one of DA Susan Reed’s staunchest supporters, I pray that you recognize that Reed apparently took the wrong action in the ADA Catherine Babbitt “mommy killing” case, and I pray that you also recognize that any suppression of free speech, no matter how it is disguised, is harmful to all of us.

 --Cal Day M.D.

DA Susan Reed ‘s Office Apparent Prosecution Misconduct in the Dr. Calvin Day Case was recently exposed in an October 28, 2014 article from examiner.com   http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-governor-perry-s-prosecutor-michael-mccrum-aims-to-correct-injustice-1

Please find below excerpts from this article.

“Texas governor Perry's prosecutor Michael McCrum aims to correct injustice in the Dr. Calvin Day Case”

 “………..Numerous problems with Day’s original prosecution included alleged misconduct by the Bexar County District Attorney's Office wherein Dr. Day's attorneys were threatened during the middle of the trial by the First Assistant DA with a witness tampering investigation. After two months it was revealed that there never was a witness tampering investigation. The First Assistant DA apparently lied, and apparently his threat was a malicious ruse, an underhanded attempt to win the case outright. This revelation of apparent prosecution misconduct by the First Assistant DA, among others, led to a mistrial being declared, thanks to the hard work of Michael McCrum.

A San Antonio Express-News article published 6/10/13 about the case called attention to another apparent instance of prosecution misconduct, “Defense attorneys for Dr. Calvin Day immediately asked for a mistrial during the hearing, which was held outside the presence of jurors. They argued that prosecutors ignored requirements to notify them before the trial began that a deal had been struck with the accuser not to charge her [with perjury].”

Additionally, other inaccuracies in the case have recently presented themselves. A false arrest affidavit further convoluted the prosecution’s case against Day. Paul Brown from the political website Opposing Views spoke candidly about the glaring evidence problems in the case. Most notable of these problems were pictures of the doctor’s genitalia in the flaccid state being compared to a the accuser's sketch of genitalia in the erect state. This ill-founded comparison by the police detective is what led to the false arrest affidavit being filed in the first place.

As Brown discussed, “…despite the fact that the affidavit used to arrest Dr. Day was false, the Bexar County District Attorney's office went ahead with the case, completely ignoring the false grounds on which the well-respected dermatologist was arrested, especially considering that this is a he-said-she-said case with no witnesses, no DNA evidence, and wherein Dr. Day voluntarily took and passed a polygraph.”

From a legal standpoint, the omissions and problems in this case have cast considerable doubt over the DA office’s true intention. As Brown reiterated, “This begs the question: Why would the DA's office pursue a case that's predicated on a false affidavit, instead of investigating perjury charges against the original accuser and the detective?”

……………The press surrounding his case had already shed a negative light around him – before he made it into the courtroom.

"I was arrested and then held at the police station until all of the local news station cameras were in place. I was then paraded in front of the television cameras in handcuffs for 900,000 viewers, creating a presumption of guilt in their minds,” Dr. Day stated. “Then the police and news spokespersons made ‘presumption of guilt’ solicitations to ‘other women.’ Of course, I had not assaulted the woman that fabricated the initial allegation, nor had I assaulted any other women, but the police and news media made it sound as if I had.”……..

Michael ……….McCrum has his sight set on correcting the injustices and setting Dr. Day free so that he can once again resume his war on skin cancer."”

 Here is the link to another article on the same subject published in “Opposing Views” written by Paul Brown and published entitled

“New Evidence and Revelations Aim to Vindicate Dr. Calvin Dayhttp://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/new-evidence-and-revelations-aim-vindicate-dr-calvin-day.

DR. CALVIN DAY INNOCENT VIA NEW EVIDENCE AND NEW REVELATIONS  

 New exculpatory evidence and new exculpatory revelations concerning Dr. Calvin Day make a compelling argument for Dr. Day’s innocence.  New evidence and new revelations unearthed by Michael McCrum via subpoenas were recently submitted to the Texas Medical Board (TMB) by Attorney Ann Comerio via a letter and eleven associated Exhibits. Copies of Comerio's letter and the associated Exhibits are posted on this website (i.e.,  http://www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com).

Herein is a summary of Comerio’s transmittal to the TMB

CORRECTIONS TO PRIOR MEDIA REPORTS: THE TRUTH

Herein are facts that correct prior media reports:

TRUTH

COMMENT

Dr. Day is still a “Medical Doctor”

Dr. Day never lost his M.D. degree despite the misconception caused by a San Antonio Express News article that referred to Dr. Day as an “ex-doctor”.

Dr. Day never lost his Texas Medical license

Dr. Day still has his Texas Medical license albeit “temporarily suspended” pending the outcome of his legal case.

Dr. Day has NO conviction

Dr. Day’s current status is that he is still presumed innocent and he is keenly awaiting his opportunity to prove his innocence at a FAIR trial.

 

EVIDENCE OF PERJURY BY A “COPYCAT” COMPLAINANT

Currently Dr. Day is scheduled to go to trial on 01/22/2015 for charges filed by an Imitator soon after Dr. Day was arrested on 01/27/2011. Yet, the evidence shows that it is the Imitator who should be going to trial instead on charges of perjury. The evidence against the Imitator includes the following:

  • · The medical assistant who was in the room on the day of the allegation swore that she was in the exam room the entire time and that nothing happened.
  • · This Imitator said that Dr. Day telephoned her 3 to 4 times after the alleged event but there are no such calls in any of the telephone records.
  • · This Imitator initially told police in a recorded telephone conversation that the alleged “finger assault” occurred at the beginning of the visit and that she then stayed for a procedure afterwards. “Oops, that doesn’t sound believable” she must have thought to herself because the very next day she changed the order of events in her statement to police, and moved the alleged assault to the end of the office visit.
  • · This Imitator could not remember the date or even the year that the alleged assault was supposed to have occurred. Yet, if she had truly been the subject of such an act, she would know the date and time down to the hour and minute of the alleged event.
  • · This Imitator admitted that she returned to see Dr. Day after the alleged event, something that she would not have done if her story were true.

Clearly this Imitator fabricated her testimony, but unless the prosecutor decides to dismiss the charges on the basis of this new evidence and these new revelations, Dr. Day’s trial versus the Imitator will begin 01/22/2015. Attorneys Michael McCrum and Scott McCrum will defend Dr. Day.

STATEMENT OF INNOCENCE BY DR. CALVIN DAY

“I abhor men who force themselves on women; I am innocent of the allegations and deny the accusations, which are based solely on words without any DNA or physical evidence whatsoever”, said Dr. Calvin Day. Dr. Day went on to say “To accuse me of sexual assault or even sexual impropriety  is like accusing Bill Gates or Donald Trump of holding up convenience stores. As implied by this analogy, the accusations are absurd and most implausible because 1) I was content, ergo without the temptation or desire to commit such an act, and 2) as a practical matter, I would not have committed nor did I commit such acts because doing so would have jeopardized my successful livelihood.”

A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PERSONAL TRAINER WHO STARTED IT ALL

To understand the truth about Dr. Day’s case, it is helpful to review the sordid chain of events that began when a 46 year old personal trainer fabricated a sexual assault allegation against Dr. Day. This fabricated allegation then cascaded into the “manufacturing” of additional complainants. Although it has taken some time, enough evidence has now accumulated against the personal trainer to conclusively show that she was untruthful and perhaps there is now enough evidence to indict her for perjury. Herein is a summary of the evidence against the personal trainer.

  • · This is a he-said-she-said case with no other witnesses and with no DNA evidence.
  • · The personal trainer waited 10 days to call police and did not go immediately to authorities as one would expect. This 10 day delay is particularly significant given  the following three considerations:The personal trainer destroyed DNA evidence that would have exonerated Dr. Day.The personal trainer destroyed DNA evidence that would have exonerated Dr. Day.
  • o she had no obstacles to deter her from making an immediate complaint,
  • o she had no inhibition to contact police as evidenced  by at least 14 prior calls to police, and
  • o she had achieved a level of experience and maturity that is inconsistent with reticence to immediately report such an alleged act (i.e., 46 year old twice divorced mother of two).
  • · The personal trainer destroyed DNA evidence that would have exonerated Dr. Day.
  • · Dr. Day voluntarily took and easily passed a polygraph on 12/12/2010.
  • · The personal trainer had least three apparent motives for fabricating a sexual assault allegation.
  • · The personal trainer has numerous “red flags” in her prior behavioral patterns that are apparently consistent with a sexual assault allegation fabricator.
  • · Eye witnesses testified that the personal trainer admitted that she made untruthful statements in her testimony before the Texas Medical Board.
  • · Eye witnesses testified that the personal trainer sought an agreement from Dr. Day not to file a civil suit against her for her prior untruthful testimony.
  • · There are multiple substantive inconsistencies in the personal trainer’s statements and testimonies.
  • · The personal trainer is a part time amateur actress and has won at least one acting award.

The sequence of events and more details of the evidence are discussed below.

THE PERSONAL TRAINER APPARENTLY MISTOOK DR. DAY’S INTENDED JOKE AS AN INSULT

On Tuesday August 31, 2010, a 46 year old personal trainer filed sexual assault charges against Dr. Calvin Day alleging  that ten days earlier on 8/22/2010 that he had sexually assaulted her with his finger(s) after she had had a Sunday morning Botox treatment. In truth and contrary to what the personal trainer said, the real reason that she went to Dr. Day’s office that Sunday morning was to meet with Dr. Day at her request to discuss her proposition that Dr. Day become a personal training client of hers. This 46 year old personal trainer, who had been a Dr. Day patient since 2003, had expressed an interest in having Dr. Day become a personal training client of hers during a 07/30/2010 visit to his office. Dr. Day’s nurse witnessed this proposition by the personal trainer and this nurse has testified as such. Three weeks later at approximately 4 PM on the Saturday afternoon of 8/21/2010, the personal trainer initiated contact with Dr. Day by calling his personal cell phone number, whereupon she requested a meeting to discuss her proposition for him to become her client. Dr. Day had a standing golf game on Sunday mornings at the Oak Hills Country Club, which was located right across from his office, so Dr. Day agreed to meet with her at his office the following Sunday morning prior to his usual Sunday morning round of golf. Dr. Day’s secretary was at the office that morning, as she was almost every Sunday morning, but because this was a personal trainer-prospective client meeting and not a doctor patient visit, Dr. Day did not ask his secretary to chaperone the meeting. The meeting ended poorly when the personal trainer expressed a desire to “date” Dr. Day and then solicited him to trade sex for Botox; in response to these solicitations by the personal trainer, Dr. Day jokingly and sarcastically replied that he did not want to get into that line of business. The personal trainer apparently mistook Dr. Day’s intended humor as an insult.

“RED FLAGS” IN THE PERSONAL TRAINER’S PRIOR BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS

Unbeknown to Dr. Day, the personal trainer had “red flags” in her prior behavioral patterns that included two slip, trip, or fall insurance claims, a “rock in the food at a restaurant” insurance claim, as well as more than a dozen other insurance claims. Private investigators reported that she apparently had a pattern of dating successful married men, including physicians. And now, new information gathered only recently via multiple new subpoenas and recent findings by private investigators, suggest that this passel of insurance claims and her apparent dating of married men were just the tip of the iceberg of multiple other apparent “red flags” in her prior behavioral patterns that are apparently consistent with a sexual assault allegation fabricator.  Evidence from the private investigators and subpoenas show that her possible motives in filing charges against Dr. Day may have included the following:

  • · Vindictiveness in response to Dr. Day’s rebuking her request to date him, as well as her apparent misinterpretation  of Dr. Day’s sarcastic response to her solicitation to trade sex for Botox,  
  • · In the early stages of the legal  complaint process, visions of potential financial gain, and 
  • · Desire to be the center of attention by playing the “damsel in distress” in order to manipulate other relationship(s).

THE PERSONAL TRAINER DID NOT GO TO THE POLICE RIGHT AWAY – SHE WAITED 10 DAYS AND DURING THE INTERIM HAD MULTIPLE VOICE CALLS AND TEXTS TO AND FROM A CIVIL ATTORNEY

On Tuesday 08/31/2010, unbeknown to Dr. Day, the personal trainer called and then met with the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) officers wherein she alleged that Dr. Day had sexually assaulted her with his finger(s) ten days previously. During the five days leading up to her SAPD call, the personal trainer had multiple telephone calls and texts to and from a civil attorney. Then within a few minutes after she called the police on 08/31/2010 to file the allegations, the personal trainer again telephoned this same civil attorney, suggesting that perhaps one of her initial motives was money. If money was one of the motives, Dr. Day’s filing of bankruptcy a few months later effectively stopped any contemplated civil action. But apparently, it did not stop the District Attorney’s Office from continuing to erroneously describe Dr. Day as “a wealthy doctor”.

 

THE PERSONAL TRAINER DESTROYED DNA EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE EXONERATED DR. DAY

DNA evidence would have exonerated Dr. Day if the personal trainer had gone to SAPD immediately. Instead, she waited 10 days, and in so doing, committed a de facto destruction of evidence. Had it been performed on the day of the allegation, the DNA test would have shown the absence of Dr. Day’s finger DNA in or on the personal trainer. It also would have shown NO personal trainer DNA on Dr. Day’s finger(s) and NO personal trainer DNA underneath Dr. Day’s fingernail(s). However the DNA test is not typically performed if more than three days have elapsed because it is considered invalid after that time. Thus, the personal trainer, by waiting, instead of going directly to SAPD, in effect destroyed evidence that would have exonerated Dr. Day.

TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PERSONAL TRAINER ADMITTED MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN HER PRIOR TESTIMONY BEFORE THE TEXAS MEDICAL BOARD

  • · At the Hearing for a New Trial on 08/26/2013, testimony indicated that the personal trainer had admitted making untruthful statements in her testimony before the Texas Medical Board. The following relevant excerpts are taken from Exhibit I attached to the Comerio letter and posted at www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com :
    • o Page 19, lines 11, & 13 thru 15 -- “…..she was concerned about…… her prior testimony in Austin….. she had perjured herself…..”
    • o Page 23, lines 22 thru 24 – “…… had expressed concern over her change in testimony and her possible perjury before a state licensing board…..”
    • o Page 27, lines 11 thru 13 – “…… there was in her own mind the need for counsel because of prior testimony and perjury……”
    • o Page 68, lines 1 thru 3 – “…..she had made untruthful statements. That's what I understood her to say……”

TESTIMONY SHOWS THAT THE PERSONAL TRAINER SOUGHT AN AGREEMENT FROM DR. DAY NOT TO FILE A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST HER FOR HER PRIOR UNTRUTHFUL TESTIMONY

  • · At the Hearing for a New Trial on 08/26/2013, testimony indicated that the personal trainer had sought an agreement from Dr. Day not to file a civil suit against her for her prior untruthful testimony. The following relevant excerpts are taken from Exhibit I attached to the Comerio letter and posted at www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com .
    • o Page 17, lines 24 & 25, and page 18, line 1 – “And when we were there”, she “was concerned about civil liability and Dr. Day suing her”  
    • o Page 19, lines 10 & 11 – “…..she was concerned about civil liability…..”
    • o Page 24, lines 4 thru 7 – “It's very unusual for the complainant in a case to solicit a meeting with defense counsel - if you will, the opposition - to express a desire that she be protected from civil liability.”
    • o Page 68, lines 1 thru 3 – “…..she wanted a release because she had made untruthful statements. That's what I understood her to say……”
    • o Page 51, lines 4, 9, & 13 thru 15 – “…. the mutual release… document….. was…. prepared….. in response to” her “ request.”
    • o Page 51, lines 19 & 20 – She “didn't want a mutual release. She only wanted a release initially where she was not going to get sued…..”
    • o Page 67, lines 18, 19, & 22 – “And she said, Well, I know your client and I think he'll sue me……. And then she wanted the release…..”

DR. DAY’S ARREST: FILING OF THE FALSE ARREST AFFIDAVIT

Five months after the personal trainer filed her complaint, Dr. Day was arrested on 01/27/2011, and then only because the police detective assigned to the case filed a false affidavit stating that the genitalia sketch drawn by the personal trainer matched police photos of Dr. Day’s genitalia. In truth, the sketch and the photos don’t match at all and this is clearly evident when the sketch and the photo are held side by side. Indeed, a match was impossible because the sketch depicted a penis in the erect (hard) state whereas the photos showed a penis in the flaccid (soft) state). Clearly, the detective made an ill-founded “apples to oranges” comparison and the case should have been dropped at that point.

A MANUFACTURED MEDIA FRENZY CREATED A NEGATIVE PREJUDICIAL ATMOSPHERE  

Following Dr. Day’s arrest, a manufactured media frenzy created a negative prejudicial atmosphere. At least 19 television clips showing “presumption of guilt” televised images of Dr. Day in handcuffs accompanied by “presumption of guilt” on-camera solicitations for “other women” to step forward were seen by an estimated audience of approximately 900,000. As expected, a number of women filed a hodge-podge of complaints without any consistent pattern. And although the media gave the reader the impression that all of these complaints were crimes, only two of them in fact were Imitation sexual assault complaints that were summarily disproven (see below).  The other complaints were less serious allegations of non-criminal sexual impropriety. Cross examination of the complainants who came forward after the manufactured media frenzy revealed that, without exception, each of them was being untruthful either because they had had a prior dispute with Dr. Day and thus had a specific “axe to grind”, or that the negative prejudicial atmosphere created by the manufactured media campaign had tainted each of their memories. The “tainting” of their memories was especially evident for the patient complainants because their medical records controverted their testimonies.

DESPITE 200,000+ “AT RISK” PROFESSIONAL ENCOUNTERS, DR. DAY HAD NO PRIOR COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL IMPROPRIETY FILED WITH ANY AUTHORITY PRIOR TO 08/30/2010

During the 27 year span from the opening of his practice in 1983 until August 30, 2010 there were no complaints of sexual impropriety filed against Dr. Calvin Day with any authority, and prior to the 1/27/2011 manufactured media frenzy, only the personal trainer had filed a complaint. This is especially significant because during these 27 years, Dr. Day had had 200,000+ “at risk” professional encounters with women. This included  in excess of 100,000 “ at risk” professional encounters with his female patients  from performing full body skin cancer surveillance exams  that included examination of genitalia, and approximately 150,000 “at risk” professional encounters from working daily side by side with his female staff (i.e., 7000+ days spent with his female staff of over 20+ women). 

MEDIA COMPLICITY IN PROMOTING THE UNSOUND LOGIC OF “THEY ALL CAN’T BE LYING”

Whereas Dr. Day’s defense successfully discredited the testimonies of the complainants who came forward after the manufactured media frenzy, including the two Imitators who alleged sexual assault as well as the other less serious non-criminal complaints of sexual impropriety, the prosecution countered with the argument “they all can’t be lying”. It is immediately apparent that this logic is unsound, because if applied to the Salem witch trials, for example, one would have to come to the preposterous conclusion that there must have been at least one witch among the 20 women who were put to death. In other words, the prosecution’s apparent principal strategy was to use the fact that there were multiple complainants per se as credible evidence of guilt. As a sleight of hand the prosecutors included the unsubstantiated and subsequently disproven less serious non-criminal allegations of sexual impropriety in the mix to give the false impression of serial sexual assaulter. This misconception was promulgated widely and repeatedly in the media, apparently at the prosecutors’ prodding, and created a misimpression among the public that in turn is believed to have been a significant contributor to the death of Dr. Day’s son, Zac Day.  

APPARENT MOTIVES FOR COMPLAINANTS IN THE DR. CALVIN DAY CASE

It is enlightening to learn that the apparent genesis for each of the complaints was identified for each one of the complainants.   Herein are the apparent motives that are evident in the testimonies, medical records, and private investigator files of the complainants:

  • · Four of the less serious non-criminal complaints were based on simple misunderstandings of the rationale, protocol, and medical necessity of conducting a full body skin cancer surveillance exam. And Dr. Day was not given the opportunity to clear up any of these misunderstandings at the time that they occurred because the complainants did not make him aware of them. Instead of notifying Dr. Day at the time, each of these four complainants waited years (and in one case 21 years) to file their complaints, and then only after the manufactured media frenzy had tainted their memories regarding the exams they had undergone.
  • · Each of the remaining complainants carried identifiable grudges and their complaints appear to be vindictive acts in response to those grudges.  The origin of these grudges may be categorized as follows:
  • The personal trainer apparently held a grudge because she mistook Dr. Day’s intended humor as an insult when, in reply to her solicitation to trade sex for Botox, Dr. Day told her that he did not want to go into that line of business. In apparent retaliation for this perceived insult (as well as an apparent perception of potential financial gain), the personal trainer filed a sexual assault charge against Dr. Day. Comerio’s letter and Exhibits make a compelling argument that the personal trainer’s allegation was fabricated (seewww.drcalvindayisinnocent.com).
  • Four complainants apparently held grudges because Dr. Day either fired them or gave them a choice to either voluntarily resign or be fired. Each of these four made less serious non-criminal allegations of sexual impropriety that were subsequently proven to be unsubstantiated and untrue.
  • One of the complainants apparently held a grudge because her sister had been fired by Dr. Day and her mother was a disgruntled former Dr. Day employee who left her job with feelings of unhappiness and anger stemming from a dispute with Dr. Day over work hours and changes in personnel responsibilities. This complainant made an Imitation sexual assault claim that was subsequently disproven – see below.
  • Two complainants apparently held grudges resulting from a prior business dispute with Dr. Day. Both of these complainants made less serious non-criminal allegations of sexual impropriety that were subsequently proven to be unsubstantiated and untrue.
  • Three complainants apparently held a grudge resulting from a prior personal dispute with Dr. Day. One of these three made an Imitation sexual assault allegation that was subsequently disproven – see below. Two of these complainants made less serious non-criminal allegations of sexual impropriety that were subsequently proven to be unsubstantiated and untrue.
  • Visions of financial gain early in the legal complaint process, before Dr. Day filed for bankruptcy, may have been another motive for all of the complainants. As noted above the number and timing of the personal trainer’s telephone calls and texts to and from a civil attorney suggests a financial motive. However, the most compelling evidence that visions of monetary gain were in the minds of the complainants was the Facebook posting of $$$$ signs by a former disgruntled employee complainant following Dr. Day’s arrest.
  • These grudges apparently sat dormant until they were activated by the manufactured media frenzy which in turn spawned an atmosphere of “mass hysteria", "mob behavior”, “witch hunt”, or whatever term one wishes to use to describe the transition from logical individual thinking to illogical group thinking (i.e., “Social Insanity”).

EVIDENCE FOR “MASS HYSTERIA” AND/OR “MOB BEHAVIOR” IN THE DR. CALVIN DAY CASE

The following lines of evidence suggest that the phenomenon of “mass hysteria” and/or “mob behavior” was operational in the “artificial manufacturing” of “other women” complainants in the Dr. Calvin Day case:

  • · The fact that not one of the complaints could be substantiated (SEE ABOVE) is consistent with “mass hysteria” and/or “mob behavior”.
  • · The timing is consistent with “mass hysteria” and/or “mob behavior”.
    • o Each and every one of the complainants who came forward in response to the manufactured media frenzy had NOT filed a complaint at the time of the alleged event. Indeed, complaints in every instance were filed years (and in one case 25 years) after the allegation date, but conversely, within a few days of the manufactured media frenzy that accompanied Dr. Day’s arrest on 01/27/2011.
  • · Bizarre testimony is consistent with "mass hysteria” and/or “mob behavior” and at least one of the accusations was bizarre.  An RN alleged that she fired the hair removal laser into Dr. Day’s rear end, and that Dr. Day had two golf ball sized nodules in his penis. Yet, the photos of Dr. Day’s genitalia taken by the police show no golf ball sized nodules or anything resembling that description. And it strains credulity to believe that Dr. Day would risk having the tissue damage, not to mention the excruciating pain that would result from firing a hair removal laser into his rear end. This RN’s statement and testimony clearly show that she let her imagination unduly influence her memory. She apparently allowed herself to be drawn into the mix by her feelings of ill will that emanated from her termination from Dr. Day’s employ wherein Dr. Day gave her the option to voluntarily resign or be fired.
  • · Some of the complaints appear to be so trivial that perhaps the respective complainants were lured into the fray by an irresistible force (i.e., “Social Insanity).
    • o For example, one female SAPD officer who had been a Dr. Day patient filed a complaint stating that she stopped coming to Dr. Day when he recommended a full body exam because she had had a skin cancer. That was the sum of her complaint.  Coming forward with this type of trivial complaint is consistent with "mass hysteria" and/or “mob behavior” (or perhaps with her attempting to get a promotion from her superiors).
    • o Another trivial if not ridiculous complaint was that Dr. Day inappropriately touched a mole. How does a dermatologist inappropriately touch a mole -- that is ludicrous—yet the prosecution included this patient in their list of complainants. This complaint is so absurd that it suggests that “Social Insanity” was operational perhaps not only with the complainants but also with the prosecutors as well.
    • o Because it defies logic as to why the prosecutors included these trivial complaints, their act of including them is in and of itself, evidence that the prosecutors were not only the apparent instigators of this “mob mentality” but also apparent mob members themselves, and that this group behavior mentality in turn apparently prevented the prosecutors from thinking as individuals and looking at Dr. Day’s case from an objective clinical point of view. After all, it is far easier for a group to stone someone to death than it is for an individual to take the same action.

THE CASE FOR INDICTING THE TWO IMITATORS FOR PERJURY

To be sure there were more serious allegations. Two Imitators came forward and also alleged “finger(s) assaults”.  However, the overwhelming evidence indicates that these two Imitators were just that (i.e., “Imitators”).

  • · One Imitator became a Dr. Day patient three years after she alleged that the event occurred and then saw Dr. Day for multiple visits, something that she would not have done if her story were true. Moreover, she had an obvious axe to grind because Dr. Day had fired her sister and her mother was a disgruntled former Dr. Day employee who had left her job with feelings of anger and unhappiness stemming from a dispute with Dr. Day involving work hours and changes in personnel responsibilities.
  • · The overwhelming evidence that the other Imitator fabricated her story is found on page 1 herein.

THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINANTS WAS LESS THAN EXPECTED

The number of complainants who filed their complaints after being exposed to the manufactured media frenzy was less than one might have expected given the following:

  • · The unique circumstances of Dr. Day’s practice with 200,000+ “at risk” professional encounters with women that included 100,000+ “at-risk” professional encounters with his female patients (i.e., skin exams and medical treatments), plus an estimated 150,000 “at-risk” professional encounters with his female staff (i.e., daily work interactions with 20+ female staff for 7000+ days),
  • · The manner in which the manufactured media extravaganza was conducted
    • o By showing “presumption of guilt” televised images of Dr. Day in handcuffs, and
    • o By making the on-camera “presumption of guilt” solicitations for “other women” to step forward,
  • · The estimated 900,000 viewers who saw the televised images and heard the solicitations, and
  • · The estimated 100,000+ subscribers to the San Antonio Express News who read the articles about Dr. Day.

UNTRUTHFUL INDIVIDUAL TESTIMONIES VS NUMBER OF COMPLAINANTS

One is forced to conclude foregoing that in evaluating the complaints against Dr. Day that one should consider only the testimony of each individual complainant and not the number of complainants per se

SUMMARY

Attorney Ann Comerio, recently submitted new exculpatory evidence and new exculpatory revelations concerning Dr. Calvin Day to the Texas Medical Board which vindicate Dr. Day and include the following:

  • · Compelling evidence and revelations against the personal trainer showing that she fabricated her allegation (see summary on page 2 of this document) ,
  • · Evidence against the two Imitators showing that they committed perjury (see pages 1 and 7 of this document), and
  • · Revelations that additional unsubstantiated complaints against Dr. Day were indeed anticipated and expected given
    • o 200,000+ “at risk” professional encounters associated with the unique circumstances of Dr. Day’s practice,
    • o the manufactured media frenzy that resulted in an estimated 900,000 television viewers, not to mention the 100,000+ readers of the San Antonio Express News, and
    • o The apparent induction of an atmosphere of “mass hysteria” and/or “mob behavior” by this manufactured media frenzy, that in turn that gave rise to group behavior phenomena that spawned the aforementioned unsubstantiated complaints. Indeed, it is far easier for a group to stone someone to death than it is for an individual to take the same action.

Comerio’s letter and the eleven associated Exhibits make a compelling argument for Dr. Day’s innocence. Copies of the letter and Exhibits are posted on this website (i.e., http://www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com).

Additional information can be found at http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/new-evidence-and-revelations-aim-vindicate-dr-calvin-day and at 

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-governor-perry-s-prosecutor-michael-mccrum-aims-to-correct-injustice-1

DR. CALVIN DAY’S BACKGROUND

By way of background, Dr. Calvin Day was the Salutatorian and President of his 1969 Karnes City High School class, graduated Summa Cum Laude from Texas A&M University in College Station (class of ’73), and was the second ranking student in his Southwestern Medical School Class of 1976. He completed an internal medicine internship and residency at Harvard’s Massachusetts General Hospital and then continued his training in the Harvard Dermatology and Dermatopathology programs, before completing his training fellowship in Mohs Surgery with Dr. Perry Robins at New York University Medical Center. In June 1983, he opened his private practice in San Antonio and simultaneously received an academic appointment in the dermatology program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio (UTHSCSA) where he taught skin surgery to the dermatology residents and where he held the title of “Clinical Professor” from 1990 thru June 2011. Dr. Day has authored more than 60 published scientific articles on the subject of skin cancer. During the 25 years prior to these allegations, Dr. Day, his wife, and his three children lived in Alamo Heights where Dr. Day actively participated in his children’s youth teams, especially Little League baseball. From 1991 through 1999, Dr. Day coached 35 youth baseball teams. In 1991, Dr. Day and his wife chaired the “Reflections of a Yellow Gala” for juvenile diabetes. From 2009 through 2011, Dr. Day contributed to 126 different charities via donations to charity golf tournaments. Dr. Day also donated his time to active military and to Veterans. From 1984 through 1986, Dr. Day served as Consultant in Dermatology at Brooke Army Medical center, and from 1986 through 2000, Dr. Day served as a Staff Physician at the Audie Murphy Veterans Administration Hospital.