PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS, AUTOPSIES IN THE 1930s, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID - 022
TRANSCRIPT:
This week on The Writer's Detective Bureau: Privileged Communications, Autopsies in the 1930s, and Law Enforcement Mutual Aid. I'm Adam Richardson and the is the Writer's Detective Bureau. Welcome to the last episode of 2018, episode number 22 of the Writer's Detective Bureau, the podcast dedicated to helping authors and screenwriters write professional quality crime-related fiction.
If you have your own author business, I hope you'll consider joining Patreon. It's free for you and it allows your readers to support you financially through monthly micro-payments. Give your fans a chance to show their support by creating your own Patreon account right now. To learn more, visit writersdetective.com/patreon.
Please join me in thanking the patrons that make this podcast possible: Joan Raymond, Guy Alton, Natasha Bajema, Natalie Barelli, Joe Trent, Siobhan Pope, Leah Cutter, Ryan Kinmil, and Richard Phillips by visiting the links to their author websites in the show notes, by going to writersdetective.com/22.
If you have your own author business, I hope you'll consider joining Patreon. It's free for you and it allows your readers to support you financially through monthly micro-payments. Give your fans a chance to show their support by creating your own Patreon account right now. To learn more, visit writersdetective.com/patreon.
Please join me in thanking the patrons that make this podcast possible: Joan Raymond, Guy Alton, Natasha Bajema, Natalie Barelli, Joe Trent, Siobhan Pope, Leah Cutter, Ryan Kinmil, and Richard Phillips by visiting the links to their author websites in the show notes, by going to writersdetective.com/22.
Welcome to the last episode of 2018. I hope you had a wonderful holiday, and I hope you're getting ready for a productive year ahead. As 2019 is fast approaching, you're undoubtedly going to get asked about your New Year's resolution. Now, for me, for the last few years, I've deflected that question. I usually come up with a quick retort like "To stop making New Year's resolutions." I don't know, my resolutions are like most folks, eat better, work out more, lose a few pounds, finish writing my book. It's like rattling off a wishlist of things to start tackling in the middle of winter. I don't know, it just seems kind of lame to me.
I took notice of a suggestion I read in Tim Ferriss' Five Bullet Friday email this morning. This is what Tim wrote: "I'm often asked about how I approach New Year's resolutions. The truth is, that I no longer approach them at all, even though I did for decades. Why the change? I have found Past Year Reviews, PYR, more informed, valuable, and actionable, than half blindly looking forward with broad resolutions. I did my first PYR after a mentor's young daughter died of cancer on December 31st, roughly eight years ago, and I've done it every year since.
It takes 30 to 60 minutes, and it looks like this:
1. Grab a notepad and create two columns, positive and negative.
2. Go through your calendar from the last year, looking at every week.
3. For each week, jot down on the pad any people or activities or commitments that triggered peak positive or negative emotions for that month. Put them in their respective columns.
4. Once you've gone through the past year, look at your notepad list, and then ask 'What twenty percent of each column produced the most reliable and powerful peaks?'
5. Based on the answers, take your positive leaders and schedule more of the in the new year. Get them on the calendar now. Book things with friends and prepay for activities, events, commitments, that you know work. It's not real until it's in the calendar. That's step one.
Step two is to take your negative leaders, put Not To Do List at the top and put them somewhere you can see them each morning for the first few weeks of 2019. These are the people and things you know make you miserable, so don't put them on your calendar out of obligation, guilt, fear of missing out, or other nonsense. That's it. If you try it, let me know how it goes. And just remember, it's not enough to remove the negative. That simply creates a void. Get the positive things on the calendar ASAP, lest they get crowded out by the bullshit and noise that will otherwise fill your days.
Good luck and Godspeed, Tim."
I loved this concept of Past Year Reviews. I'm still working on this for myself, but I can immediately think of several things to add to the positive column for 2018, some of which I've actually scheduled to do again in 2019 already, including the prepaying part that he talked about. For me, those include launching this podcast, well, I'm not gonna do that again. I'm just gonna continue doing it, attending ConvertKit's Craft + Commerce event last July. That was awesome. It was really inspiring, so I'm going back next year. Traveling more, getting listed as a writing resource on the Writer's Guild of America website, and adopting the personal motto of "If it isn't a fuck yeah, it's a no." for any new commitments or requests of my time. I'm serious about that. Sorry for the language.
Anyway, every one of those positives I just mentioned has led to unexpected experiences, meeting awesome new people despite my introverted tendencies, or even just opened up my schedule to have a chance to have some plain old fun. I'll be working on this later in the week, and I hope I'm not alone. Like Tim said, “Let me know how this goes for you.”
I took notice of a suggestion I read in Tim Ferriss' Five Bullet Friday email this morning. This is what Tim wrote: "I'm often asked about how I approach New Year's resolutions. The truth is, that I no longer approach them at all, even though I did for decades. Why the change? I have found Past Year Reviews, PYR, more informed, valuable, and actionable, than half blindly looking forward with broad resolutions. I did my first PYR after a mentor's young daughter died of cancer on December 31st, roughly eight years ago, and I've done it every year since.
It takes 30 to 60 minutes, and it looks like this:
1. Grab a notepad and create two columns, positive and negative.
2. Go through your calendar from the last year, looking at every week.
3. For each week, jot down on the pad any people or activities or commitments that triggered peak positive or negative emotions for that month. Put them in their respective columns.
4. Once you've gone through the past year, look at your notepad list, and then ask 'What twenty percent of each column produced the most reliable and powerful peaks?'
5. Based on the answers, take your positive leaders and schedule more of the in the new year. Get them on the calendar now. Book things with friends and prepay for activities, events, commitments, that you know work. It's not real until it's in the calendar. That's step one.
Step two is to take your negative leaders, put Not To Do List at the top and put them somewhere you can see them each morning for the first few weeks of 2019. These are the people and things you know make you miserable, so don't put them on your calendar out of obligation, guilt, fear of missing out, or other nonsense. That's it. If you try it, let me know how it goes. And just remember, it's not enough to remove the negative. That simply creates a void. Get the positive things on the calendar ASAP, lest they get crowded out by the bullshit and noise that will otherwise fill your days.
Good luck and Godspeed, Tim."
I loved this concept of Past Year Reviews. I'm still working on this for myself, but I can immediately think of several things to add to the positive column for 2018, some of which I've actually scheduled to do again in 2019 already, including the prepaying part that he talked about. For me, those include launching this podcast, well, I'm not gonna do that again. I'm just gonna continue doing it, attending ConvertKit's Craft + Commerce event last July. That was awesome. It was really inspiring, so I'm going back next year. Traveling more, getting listed as a writing resource on the Writer's Guild of America website, and adopting the personal motto of "If it isn't a fuck yeah, it's a no." for any new commitments or requests of my time. I'm serious about that. Sorry for the language.
Anyway, every one of those positives I just mentioned has led to unexpected experiences, meeting awesome new people despite my introverted tendencies, or even just opened up my schedule to have a chance to have some plain old fun. I'll be working on this later in the week, and I hope I'm not alone. Like Tim said, “Let me know how this goes for you.”
This week's first question is actually one that Caro submitted a couple of weeks ago that I just rediscovered, so I wanted to make sure I got it answered for her. Caro writes, “Can detectives obtain private information from priests? Information that they obtain from confessions with or without a warrant? And if the person who confessed is dead, does it make a difference in whether or not the priest would have to release the information? Or, if providing such information could potentially save other lives, for example?”
Oh, man, I wish. Private communications you have with your clergy member, like in a confessional are considered privileged communications, just like attorney/client communications, doctor/patient communications, and your spousal communications. Clergy-penitent communications are generally immune from disclosure.
Back to the clergy question, it really depends upon the state where the confession took place. Each state has different laws of evidence. Some states bar the clergy from waiving that privilege. Other states may allow the clergy member to waive the privilege. That said, I think it's highly unlikely a clergy person would waive that privilege. I'm sure that would be a battle of conscience, but I know for Catholic priests they are unconditionally forbidden by Church Canon law for making any disclosure, otherwise they face excommunication.
I should also mention that some states have mandated reporter laws when it comes to specific crimes, such as child abuse or elder abuse or neglect. These mandated reporter laws include many different types of reporters, not just clergy, so teachers, coaches, doctors, nurses, police officers, that kind of thing.
As for the confessor's death, the US Supreme Court has long held that the communication remains privileged even after death. The American Bar Association website opens their article on confidentiality after death with this: Quote, “Many readers have heard of Lizzie Borden, tried and acquitted of the 1892 murder in Massachusetts of her father and stepmother. The case even inspired a rhyme, 'Lizzie Borden took an ax, and gave her mother 40 whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father 41.' What you may not know is that Lizzie Borden's lead attorney's law firm continues to this day to maintain her client files in a confidential manner." So, even though this is an example for attorney/client privilege after death, the privileged communication protections also extend to clergy-penitent communications, as well.
Thanks so much for the question, Caro. I hope this helps.
Oh, man, I wish. Private communications you have with your clergy member, like in a confessional are considered privileged communications, just like attorney/client communications, doctor/patient communications, and your spousal communications. Clergy-penitent communications are generally immune from disclosure.
Back to the clergy question, it really depends upon the state where the confession took place. Each state has different laws of evidence. Some states bar the clergy from waiving that privilege. Other states may allow the clergy member to waive the privilege. That said, I think it's highly unlikely a clergy person would waive that privilege. I'm sure that would be a battle of conscience, but I know for Catholic priests they are unconditionally forbidden by Church Canon law for making any disclosure, otherwise they face excommunication.
I should also mention that some states have mandated reporter laws when it comes to specific crimes, such as child abuse or elder abuse or neglect. These mandated reporter laws include many different types of reporters, not just clergy, so teachers, coaches, doctors, nurses, police officers, that kind of thing.
As for the confessor's death, the US Supreme Court has long held that the communication remains privileged even after death. The American Bar Association website opens their article on confidentiality after death with this: Quote, “Many readers have heard of Lizzie Borden, tried and acquitted of the 1892 murder in Massachusetts of her father and stepmother. The case even inspired a rhyme, 'Lizzie Borden took an ax, and gave her mother 40 whacks. When she saw what she had done, she gave her father 41.' What you may not know is that Lizzie Borden's lead attorney's law firm continues to this day to maintain her client files in a confidential manner." So, even though this is an example for attorney/client privilege after death, the privileged communication protections also extend to clergy-penitent communications, as well.
Thanks so much for the question, Caro. I hope this helps.
Andrew Fuller asks: “How did American autopsies in the 1930s differ from contemporary autopsies?" This is a very interesting question, Andrew, and one I never really considered before. I did a little bit of digging, and although I can't speak to American autopsies, I did find some pretty fascinating stuff from the 1930s in Austria, so I'm sure we can extrapolate that something similar would have been occurring in the United States at the time, as well.
But the National Library of Medicine has a silent film fragment of Austrian doctor Jakob Erdheim, who was a pioneering neuroendocrinologist and cranial pathologist, conducting what may have been the first autopsy performed before a motion picture camera in 1933. Dr. Erdheim was head of the Department of Pathological Anatomy, now named the Jakob Erdheim Institute at Vienna City Hospital. I'm going to read an excerpt from the National Library of Medicine's description of the film, so if clinical autopsy descriptions make you squeamish, consider this a trigger warning. Go ahead and double tap that fast forward button on your podcast app to skip ahead 30 seconds or so.
“He begins the autopsy with a flourish, using his scalpel to make a swift and certain Y cut. The procedure's still used today to open up the body in autopsies. He then dissects the chest, cuts the ribs open, examines the lungs. Extracting the major thoracic organs, he places them carefully alongside the corpse. He then works towards the pituitary gland, one of his main research interests. The camera doesn't follow Erdheim peeling down the skin of the face. Is he deliberately sparing the viewer this difficult scene? But it does show him removing the scalp and examining it for a moment. He then takes a small chisel to detach the part of the skull that covers the area of the pituitary gland. Later, we see him remove and clean the brain before he turns to his audience, apparently explaining the structures at the base of the gland.”
Based on the description of what was in the video, it sounds to me like much of this autopsy from 1933 is very much the same as it is today. Obviously, some of the tools used today are a little more modern, but the basics sound pretty much the same. So I'd say the real differences from then to now would be at the microscopic level of understanding what's being seen on the slides, the ability to conduct advanced toxicology scans, and of course, the potential for collecting DNA evidence from the body that was possibly deposited there by another person.
Those would be the three things that are different from modern day, but as far as examining the contents and all of the stuff that was described earlier, that sounds pretty much the same or very similar to the way that it's done currently. So, thank you, Andrew, for the thought-provoking history question.
But the National Library of Medicine has a silent film fragment of Austrian doctor Jakob Erdheim, who was a pioneering neuroendocrinologist and cranial pathologist, conducting what may have been the first autopsy performed before a motion picture camera in 1933. Dr. Erdheim was head of the Department of Pathological Anatomy, now named the Jakob Erdheim Institute at Vienna City Hospital. I'm going to read an excerpt from the National Library of Medicine's description of the film, so if clinical autopsy descriptions make you squeamish, consider this a trigger warning. Go ahead and double tap that fast forward button on your podcast app to skip ahead 30 seconds or so.
“He begins the autopsy with a flourish, using his scalpel to make a swift and certain Y cut. The procedure's still used today to open up the body in autopsies. He then dissects the chest, cuts the ribs open, examines the lungs. Extracting the major thoracic organs, he places them carefully alongside the corpse. He then works towards the pituitary gland, one of his main research interests. The camera doesn't follow Erdheim peeling down the skin of the face. Is he deliberately sparing the viewer this difficult scene? But it does show him removing the scalp and examining it for a moment. He then takes a small chisel to detach the part of the skull that covers the area of the pituitary gland. Later, we see him remove and clean the brain before he turns to his audience, apparently explaining the structures at the base of the gland.”
Based on the description of what was in the video, it sounds to me like much of this autopsy from 1933 is very much the same as it is today. Obviously, some of the tools used today are a little more modern, but the basics sound pretty much the same. So I'd say the real differences from then to now would be at the microscopic level of understanding what's being seen on the slides, the ability to conduct advanced toxicology scans, and of course, the potential for collecting DNA evidence from the body that was possibly deposited there by another person.
Those would be the three things that are different from modern day, but as far as examining the contents and all of the stuff that was described earlier, that sounds pretty much the same or very similar to the way that it's done currently. So, thank you, Andrew, for the thought-provoking history question.
And the last question for 2018 comes from Chris Moody who you can find at chrisamoody.com. Chris writes: “Growing up in Northern California, and knowing one of the local fire chiefs, I knew it was rather common that if a large fire breaks out, say the one that recently decimated Paradise, California, it's not uncommon for firemen across the state and sometimes across the western states, to come and help out. Do policemen ever do the same thing in large disasters like this, or is it left mainly to the National Guard to help police stations in that kind of case? Asking, because still trying to see if there's a way I could have a visiting police officer like I had in one of my earlier questions, not sure of the episode. Thanks, Adam. Chris.”
Yes, Chris, we have what are called Mutual Aid Agreements. In California, we have Mutual Aid Operation Areas, and we have Mutual Aid Regions, and each region consists of several counties, so a county would be an operational area. When an agency receives a mutual aid request, they will send up to 50% of on-duty uniformed personnel to that event. When a chief of police of a local jurisdiction or the sheriff acting as chief law enforcement officer for an unincorporated or contract area determines that an unusual occurrence may become or is already beyond the control of local law enforcement resources, it's the chief's or duly authorized representative's responsibility to request mutual aid from the operational area law enforcement mutual aid coordinator. That comes directly from the Blue Book, which governs law enforcement mutual aid in the state of California.
The bigger the incident, like a major natural disaster, such as the fire scenario that Chris mentioned in Paradise, the higher up that mutual aid chain you go, you can get more assistance. If your incident is something where you need more than the cops that are available in the surrounding counties, then you're talking a state level response, where you're gonna get cops from all over the state or like Chris mentioned with the fire scenario of several western states for California, the surrounding states, that would be the federal level call for mutual aid. When you get to that state level response or the federal level, like that top-tier request, those would be handled through the state governor's office, and that would be where you might have the National Guard get mobilized. It would be the National Guard of that state operating under the authority of the governor.
So, Chris, for your story to have your out-of-state cop be present in a local jurisdiction, assuming you're writing about California, it would need to be a gigantic situation, like a Hurricane Katrina or a Paradise, California, level type of disaster. With Paradise, you had multiple major fires throughout the state at the same time, so if you're thinking in a big natural disaster scale, that's where you're going to see that large response. But it would not be the case for a specific crime kind of case like a task force. This would definitely be for major disasters that are affecting thousands, if not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people.
I will put a link to the Mutual Aid Blue Book that I read from in the show notes, which you can find at writersdetective.com/22. And thank you for your question, Chris. You can find Chris at chrisamoody.com.
Yes, Chris, we have what are called Mutual Aid Agreements. In California, we have Mutual Aid Operation Areas, and we have Mutual Aid Regions, and each region consists of several counties, so a county would be an operational area. When an agency receives a mutual aid request, they will send up to 50% of on-duty uniformed personnel to that event. When a chief of police of a local jurisdiction or the sheriff acting as chief law enforcement officer for an unincorporated or contract area determines that an unusual occurrence may become or is already beyond the control of local law enforcement resources, it's the chief's or duly authorized representative's responsibility to request mutual aid from the operational area law enforcement mutual aid coordinator. That comes directly from the Blue Book, which governs law enforcement mutual aid in the state of California.
The bigger the incident, like a major natural disaster, such as the fire scenario that Chris mentioned in Paradise, the higher up that mutual aid chain you go, you can get more assistance. If your incident is something where you need more than the cops that are available in the surrounding counties, then you're talking a state level response, where you're gonna get cops from all over the state or like Chris mentioned with the fire scenario of several western states for California, the surrounding states, that would be the federal level call for mutual aid. When you get to that state level response or the federal level, like that top-tier request, those would be handled through the state governor's office, and that would be where you might have the National Guard get mobilized. It would be the National Guard of that state operating under the authority of the governor.
So, Chris, for your story to have your out-of-state cop be present in a local jurisdiction, assuming you're writing about California, it would need to be a gigantic situation, like a Hurricane Katrina or a Paradise, California, level type of disaster. With Paradise, you had multiple major fires throughout the state at the same time, so if you're thinking in a big natural disaster scale, that's where you're going to see that large response. But it would not be the case for a specific crime kind of case like a task force. This would definitely be for major disasters that are affecting thousands, if not tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people.
I will put a link to the Mutual Aid Blue Book that I read from in the show notes, which you can find at writersdetective.com/22. And thank you for your question, Chris. You can find Chris at chrisamoody.com.
So that about does it for 2018. Thank you so much for listening this year, and helping me launch this podcast. I'm really looking forward to what we have in store for 2019. I've got some great interviews lined up for the year ahead, and as always, you can submit questions to me at writersdetective.com/podcast. I'm here to answer those questions for you so please don't be shy. Get them in and I will make sure to read them on the air. Have a very safe and fun new year, and write well.
Thanks for listening to this episode of the Writer's Detective Bureau podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please be sure to subscribe. If you belong to a writer's group, in person or online, I would love it if you'd share this podcast. This podcast is created for you, so don't be shy, and submit your crime fiction questions, or just say hello, at writersdetective.com/podcast.
Thanks again for listening. Write well.
Thanks for listening to this episode of the Writer's Detective Bureau podcast. If you enjoyed this episode, please be sure to subscribe. If you belong to a writer's group, in person or online, I would love it if you'd share this podcast. This podcast is created for you, so don't be shy, and submit your crime fiction questions, or just say hello, at writersdetective.com/podcast.
Thanks again for listening. Write well.
EPISODE LINKS:
- Author: Chris A. Moody - chrisamoody.com
- Popular Mechanics - History of Autopsy
- National Library of Medicine - Dr. Erdheim's 1933 Autopsy Silent Film
- California Offices of Emergency Services - Law Enforcement "Blue Book" for Mutual Aid
- Patreon* - Create your own Patreon page to let your supporters give you money for your creations.
- Support the Writer's Detective Bureau through Patreon for as little as $2/month.
- Writer's Detective Facebook Group - Join us!
PATREON PATRONS THAT MADE THIS EPISODE POSSIBLE
- Joan Raymond Writing and Design - joanraymondwriting.com
- Guy Alton
- Anonymous (you may not want your name shown, but I truly appreciate your support!)
- Natasha Bajema - natashabajema.com
- Natalie Barelli - nataliebarelli.com
- Joe Trent
- Siobhan Pope
- Leah Cutter - leahcutter.com
- Ryan Kinmil - @RKinmil
- Richard Phillips
Be sure to subscribe to the Writer's Detective Bureau podcast on your favorite listening app to get the next episode automatically.
[Links marked with an asterisk * are affiliate links. This means I make a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.]