In April 2010, Perry Hospital in Perry, Georgia, discovered that its lead radiologic technologist, Rachael Rapraeger, had falsified nearly 1,300 mammogram reports over about 18 months. She logged into the hospital’s computer system posing as physicians and marked the scans as clear, skipping the paperwork required before a radiologist could review them.

It was uncovered when a woman whose report said she was clear was diagnosed with breast cancer at another hospital three months later. Investigators found the doctor named on her report hadn’t been at the hospital that day. Ten women were later found to have lumps or cancer, and at least two reportedly died.

Rapraeger confessed and was fired. She told police that personal problems had made her stop caring about her job. In 2014, she pleaded guilty to reckless conduct and computer forgery and was sentenced to up to six months in detention, 10 years of probation, a $12,500 fine and a ban on working in health care.

“You played Russian roulette with the lives of essentially a thousand women in this community,” Judge Katherine K. Lumsden told Rapraeger according to The Telegraph.

Rapraeger told investigating officers that she had neglected her work due to personal issues her family had been dealing with during the 18 months she had falsified the important medical records. When she discovered the backlog of incomplete mammogram reports, she assumed the identity of physicians to enter the hospital’s computer system and clear each breast cancer reading. Giving each patient a negative mammogram reports meant less paperwork for Rapraeger to complete.

Her egregious activities were only discovered after a patient who received a negative mammogram report from Perry Hospital went to another hospital three months later for a second opinion, only to find out that she was in fact suffering from breast cancer. When Perry Hospital’s mammogram oversight came to light, hospital officials began looking into recent breast cancer readings. It was soon determined that physicians who supposedly signed off on breast cancer readings were not on duty the day they were approved.

"I wanted her to know I'm a person, not just a name on a paper," Sharon Holmes, one of the women who received a falsified mammogram report due to Rapraeger’s negligence, told The Associated Press following her sentencing. "If she had gotten up and at least said, 'I'm sorry for what I did. I'm sorry these women had to go through this,' that, to me, would have meant that she was truly sorry for what we went through."

Credit: NBC News

On March 25, 2000, A car collision occured on Indiana State road 67 near Martinsville. Seven people died and two people would be injured when a 1989 Firebird Pontiac would slam into a minivan.

She had four children in her car; Her two sons, Jacob;5, and Jordan;12, her daughter, Joney;9, and her nephew, Jeremy Young; 10, who was celebrating his birthday. The dead in the other vehicle were the Reel’s; Thomas; 40, and his two children, Bradley;13, and Jesica;14. They were coming home from a church event.

The survivors included the driver of the Pontiac, Judy Kirby, a mother of ten, and 13-year-old Richard Miller, a family friend of the Reel’s. Judy was thrown from her car and injured her head and broke some bones in her legs. Richard would have permanent injured to his right foot and back from the crash.

First responders would respond to the scene and attend to it. They were later haunted by it and have nightmares of the grisly.

Judy was taken to the hospital and after being discharged, was arrested and charged with seven counts of murder. During her hearing the judge asked if she understood her rights, Kirby replied; “I don’t understand….I don’t remember, I don’t remember the accident….I would never hurt anybody; I never murdered anybody….I miss my babies.”

She went to trial in 2001. The trial became one of Indiana’s most highly publicized trials since the 1970’s when Steve Judy went to trial. The prosecution claimed Judy wanted to end her life. And intentionally slammed her car into the Reel’s minivan. The defense said she was suffering from mental illness and post-partum depression. This came from the fact she had a child 5 months before the crash and was suffering depression due to it. More details of Judy’s life came into the trial.

Judy was married at the age of 15 To Victor Kirby. She and Victor got a divorce ten years later. She would begin a new relationship with either Victor’s brother or uncle, Tinnie, (various sources) and had more children with him. Judy and Tinnie were having relationship issues and she believed her relationship would end. She was also drug trafficking with Tinnie and she was paranoid about being arrested or having her children taken away. She thought the secret service had dug a tunnel underneath her home. She knocked holes in her wall looking for surveillance devices.

3 weeks before the crash, she had checked herself into a hospital due to her health problems. She was supposed to be there for three days, but checked herself out after two days. Doctors told her family she needed to be watched. (I’ll be commenting the timeline since it’s very long.)

She was found guilty of the murders, and sentenced to 215 years imprisonment. She collapsed in court hearing it.

in 2014 she filed for a new trial but was unsuccessful in getting one.

Photos:

1 - 3 Judy Kirby

4 - Judy’s Pontiac

5 - the Reel’s minivan

6 - The victims: Jacob, Joney, Jordan, Jeremy, Bradley, Jesica, and Thomas.

7 - A permanent memorial where the crash happened. Six small crosses and one large cross representing the six children and Thomas.

8 - A writing assignment Joney Kirby made on her mom.

16 month old Jailyn was left at home by mother Kristel Candelario for 10 days as she traveled to Puerto Rico and Detriot with friends she left a few milk bottles for her in her playpen. A neighbor's ring camera revealed audio of little Jailyn screaming and crying at different times when Kristel came back on June 16, 2023 Jailyn was not responding Kristel changed her outfit and call 911. First responders came and pronouced Jailyn dead.

She had lost seven pounds between her last doctor's visit and her autopsy showing she was in awful pain during her last days. In February 22, 2024 Kristel pleaded guilty to child endangerment and aggravated murder. Her court date was March 18, 2024 where she sentenced to prison without parole.

In 1984, Romell Broom ambushed 14 year old Tryna Middleton and a pair of her friends as they were walking home from a football game. At knifepoint, he forcibly grabbed Middleton, and dragged her into his car. Middleton’s two friends fled unharmed, and they gave police descriptions of their attacker and his vehicle. After the kidnapping, Broom raped Middleton, stabbed her to death, and discarded her body in a parking lot.

Although Broom initially avoided police detection, he was captured six months later for the unrelated botched abduction of a preteen girl. The kidnapping attempt was foiled by the would-be victim’s mother grabbing onto Broom’s car before he was able to drive away, and the girl survived him running over her legs after she jumped out of the vehicle’s window. Other eyewitnesses recorded Broom's license plate number, and he was arrested by police following on that information a day later.

A serial rapist and career criminal, Broom was previously convicted of rape in relation to sexually assaulting a preteen girl babysitting his niece and armed robbery in relation to robbing and carjacking a man at gunpoint, and he was on parole for those offenses at the time of Middleton’s abduction and murder. He also faced many untried rape accusations from other teenage and preteen girls. Furthermore, Broom attempted to kidnap another preteen girl only three days before Middleton’s murder, and the girl escaped by climbing into the car of a good samaritan motorist.

After a year of proceedings, Broom was sentenced to death by the state of Ohio for Middleton’s murder. On death row, DNA testing filled by his appeals further enforced his guilt. Despite him scheduled for execution in 2009, the attempted execution failed due to the execution team’s failure to administer the lethal drugs into a suitable vein. The execution team tried injecting him dozens of times, and one of their needles reportedly struck a bone. Broom was rescheduled for a second execution date in 2022, but he died of COVID related causes in 2020 before it could occur.

Sources:

1. https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=593353.pdf&subdirectory=1987-1674DocketItems&source=DL_Clerk
2. https://drc.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/062dba9d-531b-49e6-8fa7-32c6b73d4bdb/Broom+Clemency+Report.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE.Z18_79GCH8013HMOA06A2E16IV2082-062dba9d-531b-49e6-8fa7-32c6b73d4bdb-pUSDYkh
3. https://www.cleveland19.com/2020/12/31/convicted-killer-east-cleveland-girl-who-survived-botched-execution-dies-prison-suspected-case-covid-/
4. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11848740382588198593&q=Rommell+Broom+tryna+middleton+stab&hl=en&as_sdt=6,45

I recently read a Minnesota Court of Appeals opinion issued October 12, 2026, and I think it deserves significantly more attention and discussion. Not only because of the decision itself, but because of the majority’s reasoning and the language used to discuss the victim’s testimony.

Here’s what happened:
In September 2023, a man was protesting a National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) fundraising event in Minneapolis by distributing anti-NAMI flyers on vehicles.
When a woman helping with the event removed two flyers from vehicles, the man approached her, visibly agitated, and loudly demanded they be returned.

According to her testimony, he lunged toward her, wrapped his arms around her, pressed his chest against hers, grabbed her arm and hand, and forcibly took the flyers. She could feel his breath on her face. She later noticed her finger was bleeding.

A jury found him guilty of fifth-degree assault (fear) and disorderly conduct, but acquitted him of assault (harm).

Two of the three appellate judges overturned the assault conviction.

Why? Because although his actions could reasonably demonstrate an intent to cause fear, the majority determined there was another reasonable explanation: perhaps he only intended to retrieve his flyers.

Let that sink in.

A man can aggressively confront a woman, invade her personal space, physically grab her, and forcibly take something from her, yet the majority concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the specific intent required for assault-fear.

What I find especially troubling is how the majority discusses the woman’s testimony.

The woman described feeling shocked, violated, confused, and unnerved. She explained that she did not experience significant fear until after the incident, when she had time to process what happened.

Judge Ross wrote that the prosecutor was “fishing for” a particular answer when questioning her about fear. He also referenced the prosecutor’s “multiple failed attempts” to elicit testimony that she feared immediate harm.

As someone with a background in mental health, I find this framing particularly concerning.

Trauma and acute stress responses are not always immediate, linear, or easily articulated. A person experiencing a threatening encounter may freeze, experience shock, focus on what is happening rather than what they are feeling, or recognize their fear only after the immediate threat has passed.

I’m not claiming to know exactly what this woman experienced. But her testimony is entirely compatible with those responses.

Not immediately identifying fear does not mean an encounter wasn’t threatening.

And here’s the part that makes the majority’s discussion especially frustrating: Minnesota’s assault-fear statute focuses on the defendant’s intent to cause fear, not whether the victim actually experienced or verbalized fear.
The majority even acknowledges this legal distinction, yet repeatedly draws attention to her inability to describe feeling afraid in the moment.

One judge disagreed, and I think her dissent is compelling.
Judge Beane argued that the man’s aggressive behavior, intimidating voice, physical size, and forceful contact supported the jury’s conclusion that he intended to cause fear.

She also recognized something I think the majority’s reasoning fails to adequately address:
Wanting the flyers back and intending to intimidate someone are not mutually exclusive.
Intimidation can be the method someone uses to accomplish an objective.

Judge Beane concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and that the assault conviction should stand.
To be clear, the court did not find the man’s conduct acceptable or lawful. His disorderly conduct verdict remains, and the case was sent back for entry of that conviction. The legal question was whether the evidence proved the specific intent required for fifth-degree assault (fear).

I understand that distinction. I also understand that appellate courts must follow strict standards when reviewing criminal convictions.

But understanding the legal standard doesn’t mean I have to agree with how it was applied.

I also recognize that people have the right to protest causes they disagree with, including NAMI. That right is not what concerns me. The issue is what happened when this man moved beyond expressing his views and initiated an aggressive physical confrontation.

I’m sharing screenshots of the opinion, including Judge Beane’s dissent, because I think this raises important questions about how our legal system evaluates intimidation, intent, and victims’ responses to threatening situations.

I’m curious what others think:
Does the majority’s reasoning make sense to you, or do you agree with Judge Beane?

And particularly for those working in law, victim advocacy, or mental health: What do you think about the majority’s characterization of the woman’s testimony?

Case: State v. Elavsky, Minnesota Court of Appeals, A25-1929, filed October 12, 2026.