top of page

Our Recent Posts



Mass-murderers-in-waiting. See something. Say something. Do something. The inextricable Conundrum

Recently, with all the national and international turmoil related to many tragic scenarious, principally the Israel-Hamas conflict, Christopher Wray, FBI director, warned the nation that many ills are afoot that we have to be alert to, and he repeated the mantra often spouted at times after a mass-killing: See something, Say something. (Do something). This sounds great and also makes good sense, and is ernest and well-intentioned by news people and their experts who utter these words at the time of mass-killings, but unfortunately one has to take a moment to ponder.

We have a good idea of the numerator (the number of people who have actually engaged in mass killing) but we have no idea of the denominator (the number of people who appear threatening to commit mass murder). It clearly is not 1 to 1. It may be 1 in 10 people, where 1 accompishes mass murder, and 9 don't commit it. Maybe it is 1 in 100. Then it creates the circumstance if you report that someone may be a mass-murderer-in-waiting, and then they don't commit mass murder within, for example, 6 months, could the potential perp then not charge defamation of character and sue the person who spoke up? Maybe they won't commit mass murder, or maybe they will wait some years, and finally receive the trigger that causes them to go on the killing rampage. This was the case of Jarrod Ramos who in 2018 went on his Capitol Gazette killing rampage. In fact for some years prior to that the Gazette did not write about their concerns about him being a potential mass-murderer, so as not to inspire him to do so.... but he did so anyways. So when does a mass-mureder-in-waiting cease to be a risk? Basically when they are dead. The terrible reality of fire-arms is that you can range in age form 3 to 93 and still be able to kill someone with a gun.

The only way that it seems possible to report a mass-murderer-in-waiting, and to not be sued for defamation or not to create the circumstyance of becoming target number 1, if the authorities find that the person is not a risk: is to time travel to the future, videotape the mass-murderer in action, return to the present time, and show the authorities that in deed or in dead the person who you report is a possible mass-murderer actually is one, as the tape from the future shows, and should be apprehended and jailed for life. This is a more advanced Minority Report (Tom Cruise movie) scenario. Other than that in reporting someone, one stands the risk of being sued by the suspected perp or becoming from target none to target one, when the final trigger is hit and they go on their rampage.

Otherwise reporting your suspicion will result in a variety of adverse outcomes to you. There is no accolade of bravery if you take the risk of reporting and the person does not go on a killing spree. This circumstance is the perfect Catch 22 conundrum. I woulkd have been a hero if I reported on Qi before he killed the professor, and then he killed the professor proving I was right. But reporting on an individual at risk to murder 20 individuals, and he does not (yet) then that makes one someone to fire, asthis warning report may illustrate the lack oversight of senior administration.

I say this not from a theoretical perspective but from my direct personal experience. I had thought to write this blog many times earlier: after the Robert Card mass-murdering spree of 18 (fewer than I was worrided about) in Lewiston Maine, then after the direct at home UNC murder of Zijie Yam, by his student Tailei Qi. Then most recently by Anthony Polito at UNLV. Interestingly he was also on faculty at another North Carolina University, East Carolina University, where he was described innocuously as essentially ok but a little eccentric, loving Las Vegas. These 3 killers have qualities that all merge into the individual I reported on: the military skills of Card, University prof of Polito, and UNC of Qi. I reported I was concerned that in the neighborhood of 20 UNC employees were at risk of a fire arms mass killing. I have my original letter to Chancellor Folt from Feb 2016. The events of the spiralling out of control of the emotionally disturbed perp in Nov 2014, when I reported on him. Someone who I knew and studied his behavior for 22 years, and I a world authority in safety in Radiology. Eventually I will release this letter I wrote to Folt.

So the Chancellor was aware of my concerns, the Faculty Hearing Committee of UNC Chapel Hill, the Board of Trustees of UNC Chapel Hill, and the Board of Governors of UNC. So what happened to me for reporting: "See something, Say somethoing, Do something". As one of the most scholarhsip accomplished tenured full professors at UNC Chapel Hill, a phony, trivial charge was concocted against me: the lawyer who I had hired to write a letter to the Board of Trustees describing my concerns, because it had been ignored by the Chancellor and Provost; a few bad actors (who also happened to be in charge) twisted my intention of the hire, with no proof, that I had hired the attorney to sue UNC Chapl Hill. Ofcourse these same villians have made the water much muddier, but this will require a book to describe all their lies. This chapter would be entitled Academic Death by 100 dirty tricks.

In short I reported my serious concern of a mass-shooting-killing event, and the upshot was I was fired. I also reported in the same document the worst medical misconduct in modern US history, allowing a drunk Paul Jaques to operate drunk for atleast 20 years from about 1988- 2008, perhaps on 5,000- 10,o00 victims, perhaps 500 with permanent injuries because he was drunk and 100 deaths.

There is a bitter irony, that in reporting the suspected mass-killing and if he had done that within a few months, I would be heralded as a hero.... but all those people would be dead, so an empty hero. Reporting that mass-murderer-in-waiting and he not going on a killing spree, because my report reflected that the chairman, the dean of the medical school and the chief legal counsel, also ignored for many years sexual harrassment and other misconducts by the perp, created the necessity for them and their subordinates to vindictively fire me.

I will write a separate blog on the Retaliation Playbook. UNC masterfully crafted a protection syndicate: the attorney general office represents UNC, foremost, above representing the public; a senior member of the Raleigh News and Observer the most influential local media is a member of the board of trustees of UNC; Chapel Hill; my case was successfully forced by UNC into Orange County the home of UNC Chapel Hill, where all potential jurors either work for UNC or benefit from UNC patronage;; all the judges who have weighed in on my case have been UNC law school (UNC) judges, including the subcommittee of the Court of Appeals was headed by a UNC judge, and of the other two members, one was also a UNC judge. My case in now before the NC Supreme Court, of whom 4/8 are UNC judges. Incredibly the UNC judge who seniored the panel of the Court of Appeals over-ruled the lower court decision that Whistle Blowing could proceed against UNC (although the lower court denied Whistle Blowing against the architects of my firing) ruled no retaliation.

I reported on my concern of a mass-shooting event by an emotionally unstable professor, with the qualities described above and I also reported on the worst medical misconduct in modern US history by another perp, I was fired because I requested (but did not receive) reimbursement from my business account (which contained only money that I had earned) for the attorney I hired to write the Board of Trustees. There was no retaliation against me??? This is an example of an incredible travesty of justice based on extreme partisanship by the UNC judges in the Court of Appeals.

Pay attention to the fact that I do know their names, of not only the UNC administation liars and criminals, but also of all the UNC accomplices in the NC Attorney General's office, and the UNC judges. I will not reveal their names so as not to endanger them. But my view may change with time.

Actually I do not think it gets much worse than this, as far as extreme partisanship, but it seems the lingua franca broadly afflicting the US politic and unfortunately large factions of the public is that extreme partisanship rules the day, truth be damned.

I think it likely I will lose my appeal to the NC Supreme Court, purely because 1/2 the judges are UNC judges. But I am fighting for justice. Not so much for me, but for the victims of Paul Jaques, whose story UNC has been able to still keep concealed, as they have with much of the mismanagements of the Pediatric Cardiac Surgery program.

A major contributory reason for me to write this now, is because of the recent trial against Rudy Giuliani, in which Ms Freeman and Ms Moss colectively were awarded $148 millionin damages. $16 million each for defamation and $20 million each for emotional distress, and $75 million together for punitive. These women clearly deserved compensation for the lies that Guiliani and Trump told of them, and their incredible harassment in phone calls, etc from the informal SS. The award was this high in large part to send a message that: lying about poll workers, who get very little if any pay for the important work they do, that results in their constant harrassment and danger to their lives will not be tolerated. Facing a prospect of a multimillion dollar settlement against you, if you lie about poll workers and endanger their lives is a fairly strong incentive not to be a vindictive liar. Hopefully this will protect poll workers in the 2024 election. I know this is the strong desire of the two plaintiffs.

I would want to do the same for the University system. The university system has also has recently come under considerable scrutiny for a related but different subject the spineless testimony of 3 university presidents. The UNC Chancellor in my case, who incidentally was also a woman, Carol Folt, clearly must have been acting at the behest of the adminsitrative architects, in supporting the firing of me, politic favor an easier path to follow than truth. Covering up severe medical misconduct, and misconduct of other sorts, as is currently still in successful effect with Jaques by UNC, as done at USC, UCLA, Columbia, Michigan State, U of Michigan, Penn State, needs to be met with severe repercussions, not only to the perps, which did happen at these other centers, but also to the senior administrators. I am fully prepared to be that agent of change. It is the university which pays, which means university education that sufferers, and not the senior administrators, who must be the ones to face punishment. If they face puiishment, trhen suddenly everything changes and oversight of ground level misconduct is strictly dealt with.

But to return to the beginning of this blog: See something, Say something, Do something, only presently works if the individual goes on a killing spree within a few weeks of reporting. Then news anchors and guests can commiserate on the Seeing something, Saying something, and Doing something, that did not have any affect, and you were a hero for doing that... The military camp that Card was seen at shortly before his killing spree, saw something and said something, but this was ignored.

It is critical to understand, a number of these mass-killers. like Crump, have been under psychiatric care, and still go on a killing spree. So psychiatric care has not been the answer.

A final note, the UNC mass-murder-in-waiting was also cleared by UNC police in an interview with him, maybe 1 hr. Probable question "are you going to kill anyone" answer "no" , the verdict he was fine... This avoids the consistently observed reality: 1. the Charlie Hebo killers were under observation by the French antiterrorism police force for years, they took them off the terror list, then 1 year later they went of the killing spree. 2. In the Fort Lauderdale Airport killings in Aug 2018, the killer Esteban Santiago had his guns removed and interviewed by police to assess his risk for 2-3 days, they then released him as no risk, gave him back his guns, then he went on the airport killing spree of 5 people. 3. The middle schooler in Michigan Ethan Crumbly, was interviewed for the risk that he represented by school administrators, he was considered as no risk, released and then he went immediately to kill 5 students, 4. the 6 yr old who shot his grade 1 teacher in the chest outwitted the school administration... So a 1 hour interview of the UNC perp by UNC police and they determine he is no risk... really.

Right now my current focus remains the subject of Gadolinium toxicty and by extension other heavy metal toxicity, and more recently the subject of the GI tract- liver axis of inflammation. Many individuals have wondered, why Dr Semelka did you go and do this at UNC, it complicates now the gadolinium story. The answer is simple, the fact that I have been brave enough to speak up about GDD, is a reflection that I am brave enough to speak of all forms of misconduct that involves patient and hospital worker risk. And yes, I also feel it is too bad that I was fired, and I agree it makes the GDD story a little messy. I just cannot help speaking up to protect patients. The only consequence to me, that I feel very badly about is the consequence to my partner, and she was also a radiologist at UNC, and they psychologically tortured her after I was fired until she left. She should receive emotional distress compensation in the order of what Ms Freeman and Ms Moss received. But I will eventually return to the UNC scoundrels... I am not against UNC, they are really only a few bad actors, not everything in UNC is evil, it has many great qualities.. but this is just like Russia, very many Russians are very good, hard-working, caring.. just a few monsters.

In the mean-time these are my words to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme court of North Carolina. What about the many victims of Paul Jaques. The majority of these are lower income hard-working people of all races. Is there no justice for them. No one, no administrator at UNC, no judge at the Superior court, Court of Appeals, has show any concern for them. Now it is before the Supreme Court. Where is the justice for the victims. I also would appreciate justice finally.

See something, say something, do something. You do this at your own risk. Now things would change dramatically, US wide, world-wide, if I receive anything like the awards of defamation and personal injury Ms Freeman and Ms Moss received. And I was one of the most scholarship accomplished radiologists in the world when the architects of my final solution at UNC conducted their cunnning and malicious campaign of revenge. I am focused though on calling for justice for Jaques victims, and the victims of the pediatric cardiac program who I am not convinced received sufficient compensation.

And lastly to the Gadolinium and related others, don't worry I have the gadolinium story covered as well, it is a matter of compartmentalization.

Richard Semelka, MD


Single Post: Blog_Single_Post_Widget
bottom of page