When Sarah Harris went in for surgery to remove her wisdom teeth in the summer of 2020, she must have thought she was in good hands. The oral surgeon she chose, Dr. James Ryan, had years of training, a good reputation and a thriving practice near her Washington, D.C.-area home. As a new patient at 23, she may never have dreamed he’d allegedly watched her when she was just 14. And Ryan would do more than take out Sarah’s teeth. Her family says he would take her self-control and eventually take her life.
This article is suuuuper heavy handed.
Wore her down? Fuck, wear me down daddy.
And, how many times are they going to bring up that 14 thing? She was 23! Just because the dude said (paraphrased) “hey I remember seeing you before” doesn’t mean he was beating off to her.
Other than the drugs part, he just sound like a horny dude, and she was into it.
He went to her restaurant and got her as a server… yeah no shit. If I know someone at a restaurant, I get them as a server.
Now about those drugs… dude is super irresponsible. Dude is probably an addict. However, she probably had her fair share of drugs. Ketamine can be a fun time, but it’s dangerous. And he should not have given someone an injectable drug, and allowed them to inject themselves. He’s a doctor ffs. He not the dude on the block who can get you high.
Drugs can kill. Don’t inject them. 😩
Bro that’s not even an accurate summary of the article. Do you have zero reading comprehension or do you just enjoy defending at best borderline pedos?
Yeah, that is an awful take.
I think it’s more trying to be edgy than reading comprehension. Although, going into an article with that mindset affecting your whole life definitely does shade your comprehension.
Explain to me your understanding of the article. I don’t know how he’s a pedo because she was 23, and the only reference to her being 14 was the mother who said that he said She was pretty. My point is that this article is very heavy-handed, and was carefully written to sound like she was 14 when any of them started. She was 23
Other people have explained it to you, and the article is right fucking there for you to click on and read, which you’ve ostensibly already done. I’m not going to waste my time further with a person like you.
No one has explained anything. Someone said he raped her but nowhere in the Article does it say that. It’s just a lot of quotes from the mother, who understandably is pissed off. But even the article said that none of her statements could be corroborated.
Believe me, I’m not defending him For giving her drugs, I’m just criticizing the writing.
Just gotta get the last word in huh? You fucking blocked bro.
lol
Here, I’ll take this up. The article also quotes text messages between them wherein he admits he injected her with ketamine himself while she was asleep.
You are monstrous for defending this monster.
I’m not defending HIM, I’m criticizing the article for trying to paint a different picture. He’s definitely abusing drugs, and helping her abuse drugs. He’s definitely guilty of supplying, and probably assisted with the dose that killed her.
But, he’s not a child molester, as the article suggests. And, he’s not “grooming” her. The mother sure didn’t complain when he took both of them on vacations.
He’s just a really irresponsible person who knows better.
You downplayed his actions with the drugs as “irresponsible” (earlier and again now) and only talked about him making drugs available to her rather than forcefully injecting them when she couldn’t consent.
He predated on a very young patient. Whether or not the mother’s claims about his comments are true, he is clearly a manipulative monster.
The article talks both about the evidence and the mother’s statements. You look really bad here.
You telling me that I look bad to you doesn’t mean anything to me. There is nothing that anyone can say that can make me feel bad.
What other word would you use besides irresponsible? That seems to be the right word. His irresponsible actions led to her dying. That’s not downplaying anything.
I don’t consider 23 to be very young.
The mother seemed perfectly fine with all of this when it was benefiting her.
You’re claiming the article is saying something by quoting her relatives. Weird.
“How dare them spin this with their interviews of the victim’s family!”
She loved his money too. Sold her daughter for it.
Wow I’m feeling sorry for you my dude. You’re correct and everyone is too dense to read the article…infuriating.
lemmy reading comprehension strikes again
Elaborate
The only person that claims there was some kind of a relationship prior to the guy and girl meeting is the mother.
If there was any strong evidence to this story it would have been tested in court. The article specifically says that was not the case. Which means it’s basically heresay about his interest in her when she was 14.
This article just sensationalises that piece of information instead of focussing on the real crime which was a doctor giving his potentially addicted partner drugs.
Exactly.
I wanted to agree with you at some point here, but I just can’t bring myself to it.
He didn’t just notice her at 14, he kept on pursuing her. He frequented the toy store she worked at with his family. He then frequented the restaurant when she was a server (doesn’t say what age). It paints a pretty clear picture of obsession.
He also had already knocked up one of his office staff outside of his marriage. It doesn’t seem that this person has much regard for women.
Sure gifts, dinners and travel are part of courtship, but the line gets damn hazy when you start introducing drugs (particularly ones you prescribe) into the mix. I think as a society we certainly should frown upon that.
There’s a lot of questions about what age things happened at. The article is very vague on purpose. Now, I’m not trying to say that anything he did was right, just that this article is very carefully written to make you think he’s some kind of child molester. These are also quotes from the mother, and may or may not be true at all.
He also got convicted by a jury of his peers.
For the Death. Of which he is responsible, yes.
Imagine taking the time to write a wall of text in defence of a rapist.
You’re telling on yourself.
Where was it that he raped her?
One fact is that you’re defending a convicted killer, so the jury disagrees with you. The other thing is that you’re willing to err on the side of being horrible. Not a good look at all.
None of that is happening. Gaslighting won’t make you right. Shame on you.
Your words speak for themselves
That’s what words do Sherlock.
In with you, man. That headline made what it was supposed to make: a sensation from a common story about drug addicts.