|
Post by kitty on Jul 10, 2017 20:09:52 GMT -5
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Jul 12, 2017 10:32:51 GMT -5
I'd like to see them, too! They've said they are bound by state laws and laws re: confidentiality, but I don't know that they'd be violating any laws as long as they redact any information that could be used to identify individuals. Maskell did end up on the 2002 list of priests who were "credibly accused", and back in 1994 they had already permanently removed him from church ministry when additional allegations surfaced. So, from the timeline, Jean made her accusations in 1992 - they sent him away for treatment and evaluation. He was deemed fit to return, and without any further corroboration, they let him resume. More allegations came about in 1994, and at that point he was permanently removed from ministry. On the face of it, that seems pretty reasonable. I wonder if the allegations and the publicity were enough to get him added to the list, or if there's more they aren't revealing to the public.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Jul 12, 2017 12:29:23 GMT -5
I'd like to see them, too! They've said they are bound by state laws and laws re: confidentiality, but I don't know that they'd be violating any laws as long as they redact any information that could be used to identify individuals. Maskell did end up on the 2002 list of priests who were "credibly accused", and back in 1994 they had already permanently removed him from church ministry when additional allegations surfaced. So, from the timeline, Jean made her accusations in 1992 - they sent him away for treatment and evaluation. He was deemed fit to return, and without any further corroboration, they let him resume. More allegations came about in 1994, and at that point he was permanently removed from ministry. On the face of it, that seems pretty reasonable. I wonder if the allegations and the publicity were enough to get him added to the list, or if there's more they aren't revealing to the public. If the accusations of Wehner and Lancaster had been credible, wouldn't Maskell have been permanently removed from ministry before 1994? What I think happened was that the Church dismissed the allegations of the first two women because they weren't credible. However, better to be safe than sorry, so Maskell was sent to Connecticut(?) for treatment. Obviously, the shrinks didn't find any evidence that he was a sexual predator or he wouldn't have been allowed to continue his priestly duties. Then when the other women came forward with their wild accusations, the archdiocese realized things were getting out of hand and that most people believed the Sacred Cows. Pushed into a corner, the archdiocese permanently removed him.
I believe that the records would be more helpful than harmful to Maskell. Also, if the "victims" want the records released, aren't they indicating they have no problems with any information in the records that might identity them? I think the problem is that because the archdiocese has already apologized and paid money to the Sacred Cows, it would be awkward to release records proving Maskell was nothing more than a scapegoat, which I believe he is.
|
|
|
Post by julia on Jul 12, 2017 17:14:18 GMT -5
If the accusations of Wehner and Lancaster had been credible, wouldn't Maskell have been permanently removed from ministry before 1994? What I think happened was that the Church dismissed the allegations of the first two women because they weren't credible. However, better to be safe than sorry, so Maskell was sent to Connecticut(?) for treatment. Obviously, the shrinks didn't find any evidence that he was a sexual predator or he wouldn't have been allowed to continue his priestly duties. Then when the other women came forward with their wild accusations, the archdiocese realized things were getting out of hand and that most people believed the Sacred Cows. Pushed into a corner, the archdiocese permanently removed him.
I believe that the records would be more helpful than harmful to Maskell. Also, if the "victims" want the records released, aren't they indicating they have no problems with any information in the records that might identity them? I think the problem is that because the archdiocese has already apologized and paid money to the Sacred Cows, it would be awkward to release records proving Maskell was nothing more than a scapegoat, which I believe he is.
I agree. I think the records are more likely to clear Maskell than condemn him. I admit to having a very negative impression of these women because when they are questioned, as they were on the Inside Baltimore site, which is posted in the other thread, instead of simply answering the questions, they immediately attacked and began accusing the people who asked the questions. This is a typical tactic used by liars to avoid answering questions that would incriminate them.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Jul 15, 2017 10:04:08 GMT -5
I agree. I think the records are more likely to clear Maskell than condemn him. I admit to having a very negative impression of these women because when they are questioned, as they were on the Inside Baltimore site, which is posted in the other thread, instead of simply answering the questions, they immediately attacked and began accusing the people who asked the questions. This is a typical tactic used by liars to avoid answering questions that would incriminate them. I didn't know what to think about all of this until I read their comments on that Inside Baltimore site. Until then, I thought that they were probably exaggerating, but that something might have happened. You're right, Julia. People who are telling the truth don't attack those who question them and that, more than anything else, convinced me that they're lying.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Jul 19, 2017 12:31:16 GMT -5
If the accusations of Wehner and Lancaster had been credible, wouldn't Maskell have been permanently removed from ministry before 1994? What I think happened was that the Church dismissed the allegations of the first two women because they weren't credible. However, better to be safe than sorry, so Maskell was sent to Connecticut(?) for treatment. Obviously, the shrinks didn't find any evidence that he was a sexual predator or he wouldn't have been allowed to continue his priestly duties. Then when the other women came forward with their wild accusations, the archdiocese realized things were getting out of hand and that most people believed the Sacred Cows. Pushed into a corner, the archdiocese permanently removed him.
I believe that the records would be more helpful than harmful to Maskell. Also, if the "victims" want the records released, aren't they indicating they have no problems with any information in the records that might identity them? I think the problem is that because the archdiocese has already apologized and paid money to the Sacred Cows, it would be awkward to release records proving Maskell was nothing more than a scapegoat, which I believe he is. With regard to the bolded part, I honestly don't know. The Catholic church has been caught shuffling pedophile priests around to different parishes, trying to hide their activity instead of removing them, so it's hard to say what they might have done had they found Jean's claims credible from the start (it was just Jean at first; Lancaster's accusations weren't known to the church until awhile later - I think not until she joined the lawsuit). They might not have taken permanent action even with a plausible claim if, as in Jean's case, there was no way to corroborate it. Back then, especially, a he-said, she-said would likely not warrant that kind of action. In my opinion, sending him away for treatment and evaluation was a reasonable thing for them to do. When he was cleared to return, they assigned him to a new church, and then later removed him permanently when new allegations surfaced (from Lancaster and other witnesses who responded to the lawyers' ad or to the letter sent to Keough alumnae). As far as I can tell, the church did take appropriate action. Their entire The Church Is Lying and Cathy Would Still Be Alive!!!11 spiel rests solely on the claims of Charles Franz, who I don't find credible at all. I don't know that he's lying, exactly. I think he probably started off with his own very distorted "memory" which he embellished and probably has now come to fully believe. I agree that the Archdiocese probably removed him because they felt pushed into a corner; they certainly didn't find Jean credible, and later both Jean's and Teresa's claims fell apart under scrutiny. As for the "survivors" who want the records released, I imagine those clamoring for it are doing so with the belief that all names and sensitive info would be redacted. But I also think that the survivors who appeared in The Keepers were living in a protective bubble; insulating themselves in "survivor" support groups, patting each other on the back, and going forward under this layer of protection that came with Ryan White's complete credulity. As the filmmaker, they knew HE believed them and would portray their stories' in as flattering a light as possible. And, I really think they believe their own stories, and I don't think they even realize when they contradict themselves or make subtle changes to their narratives. I do think they might have gone through with this series sincerely believing that all, or most people would accept their claims as truth, without question or doubt, and I think they were genuinely surprised that anyone would dare question them.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jul 19, 2017 20:39:59 GMT -5
With regard to the bolded part, I honestly don't know. The Catholic church has been caught shuffling pedophile priests around to different parishes, trying to hide their activity instead of removing them, so it's hard to say what they might have done had they found Jean's claims credible from the start (it was just Jean at first; Lancaster's accusations weren't known to the church until awhile later - I think not until she joined the lawsuit). They might not have taken permanent action even with a plausible claim if, as in Jean's case, there was no way to corroborate it. Back then, especially, a he-said, she-said would likely not warrant that kind of action. In my opinion, sending him away for treatment and evaluation was a reasonable thing for them to do. When he was cleared to return, they assigned him to a new church, and then later removed him permanently when new allegations surfaced (from Lancaster and other witnesses who responded to the lawyers' ad or to the letter sent to Keough alumnae). As far as I can tell, the church did take appropriate action. Their entire The Church Is Lying and Cathy Would Still Be Alive!!!11 spiel rests solely on the claims of Charles Franz, who I don't find credible at all. I don't know that he's lying, exactly. I think he probably started off with his own very distorted "memory" which he embellished and probably has now come to fully believe. I agree that the Archdiocese probably removed him because they felt pushed into a corner; they certainly didn't find Jean credible, and later both Jean's and Teresa's claims fell apart under scrutiny. As for the "survivors" who want the records released, I imagine those clamoring for it are doing so with the belief that all names and sensitive info would be redacted. But I also think that the survivors who appeared in The Keepers were living in a protective bubble; insulating themselves in "survivor" support groups, patting each other on the back, and going forward under this layer of protection that came with Ryan White's complete credulity. As the filmmaker, they knew HE believed them and would portray their stories' in as flattering a light as possible. And, I really think they believe their own stories, and I don't think they even realize when they contradict themselves or make subtle changes to their narratives. I do think they might have gone through with this series sincerely believing that all, or most people would accept their claims as truth, without question or doubt, and I think they were genuinely surprised that anyone would dare question them.
I've seen comments on several sites by people who doubted some, or all, of their stories and that's why I was surprised when they attacked you and Lee on the InsideBaltimore site when it would have been much simpler to answer the questions. (I searched for some of those comments, but they are usually deleted by moderators shortly after they're posted.) I agree with Jane and Julia, when people refuse to answer questions and become indignant that the question was even asked, they're lying through their teeth. Something else that puzzles me is that their stories, such as the rape at the picnic, don't make any sense and when Lee specifically asked if the rapes were accomplished while both were standing, they couldn't answer and that's an indication that they hadn't considered that aspect of the story when they were fabricating their tales. I wish someone interviewing whichever one told the picnic story would ask these questions of her face-to-face and demand an answer.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Jul 20, 2017 13:38:54 GMT -5
I've seen comments on several sites by people who doubted some, or all, of their stories and that's why I was surprised when they attacked you and Lee on the InsideBaltimore site when it would have been much simpler to answer the questions. (I searched for some of those comments, but they are usually deleted by moderators shortly after they're posted.) I agree with Jane and Julia, when people refuse to answer questions and become indignant that the question was even asked, they're lying through their teeth. Something else that puzzles me is that their stories, such as the rape at the picnic, don't make any sense and when Lee specifically asked if the rapes were accomplished while both were standing, they couldn't answer and that's an indication that they hadn't considered that aspect of the story when they were fabricating their tales. I wish someone interviewing whichever one told the picnic story would ask these questions of her face-to-face and demand an answer. Yes, you're exactly right. This article from 1995, God Only Knows, offers a pretty good example of how these "memories" are often formed: (From the article: www.baltimoremagazine.com/1995/12/1/murder-at-archbishop-keough-sister-cathy-cesnik-father-joseph-maskell) Over the next few days, Eva Cruz became consumed with the sound of water slapping against the hull of a boat and the idea that something had happened between her and Maskell. [...] The parish crab feast called up a series of fragmented impressions: Maskell’s car, the floor of a boat, water slapping. Physical pain. Being dropped off at the St. Clement rectory. At the urging of a priest friend, she arranged to meet with archdiocesan officials in her therapist’s Columbia office in October 1994. Cruz brought her mother. Father Richard Woy and attorney Thomas Dame represented the archdiocese. Cruz told the group that Maskell had taken her to a boat and that she was convinced the two had had intercourse, and also that he had penetrated her with an object she couldn’t picture.Woy was quiet and a bit awkward as Dame took furious notes. They asked whether Cruz intended legal action. Cruz told them that she wasn’t planning to sue, but she was interested in some empathy, which seemed to her in short supply. “You’ll never understand the hurt, the pain, the anxiety, the loss of self-esteem that’s happened for most of my life,” she shouted at Woy.
------------ They start off with fragmented impressions, uncomfortable feelings and dream-like "visions", and come to believe that these dream-like, dark fantasies are "memories" of real events. With Jean Wehner, it started with an uncomfortable feeling when her realtor, a former classmate, mentioned her upcoming high school reunion. From there, she "prayed" about it -- her prayer sessions consisted of her putting herself into a sort of trance-- and started "remembering". There are a few false memory retractors (people who came to realize that what they "recovered" weren't real memories) who have confirmed that the "memories" can and often do come about much like this. In one case, one of many where the retractor had a therapist (a psychiatrist) "helping" her recover memories, the retractor had later demanded the therapy notes from her psychiatrist and reading back over them, she said she was amazed at how often, in the beginning, she had doubted and disbelieved these "memories". Her therapist insisted she was in denial and couldn't make progress until she "admitted" what happened to her and "disclosed" all the abuse. And that, too, was a very common scenario in the 80s and 90s, and might well have been similar to what "Eva Nelson Cruz" experienced. (I'm about 99% sure "Eva Nelson Cruz" is actually Donna Von Den Bosch; the 1995 quotes seem to match up with Donna's statements both in The Keepers, and in the insidebaltimore article. ) All that to say, although there is probably some level of self-deception, I don't think they're consciously lying. At least not all of them. And I agree, someone should have been asking them these questions all along, but it seems like they've all carefully avoided any questioning beyond the superficial and the overtly supportive. The Keepers was the perfect vehicle for them to get their (versions of their) stories out because Ryan White was already a believer. He omitted the inconsistencies, the demonstrably false claims, made it appear as though he had "researched" these accounts and presented them as credible. It's likely no one will ever ask them the hard questions except people like us, in the rare forums like this one where our questions and comments are actually left standing. And as strongly as I disagree with him, kudos to Tom Nugent, too, for leaving up the critical comments.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Jul 20, 2017 17:26:35 GMT -5
I just found out that the father of Jean Wehner, the one who first recovered her memory, was a policeman. This means that she could have heard her father talking about the body of Sister Cathy and other things that she supposedly remembered. She also talked about a lot of policemen being involved in the activities, so why didn't she tell her father? Maybe this doesn't make a difference, but it makes me suspicious of everything she said.
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Jul 20, 2017 19:32:09 GMT -5
I just found out that the father of Jean Wehner, the one who first recovered her memory, was a policeman. This means that she could have heard her father talking about the body of Sister Cathy and other things that she supposedly remembered. She also talked about a lot of policemen being involved in the activities, so why didn't she tell her father? Maybe this doesn't make a difference, but it makes me suspicious of everything she said.
I didn't know that her father was a police officer. You know everyone in Baltimore was talking about the disappearance of the nun. It's unbelievable that she wouldn't have told someone that she had seen the body, or at least hinted that she knew something, especially with her father being a police officer.
Another thing I don't find believable is that if Maskell had anything to do with Sister Cathy's death, he wouldn't have risked taking anyone to the see the body because even if he threatened her, he couldn't be sure that she wouldn't tell.
The more I learn about this case, the less I believe what those women said.
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Jul 20, 2017 19:44:41 GMT -5
Donna VonDenBosch is the one Lee told that she should take a course in English grammar. At first I thought that she was a nurse practitioner, but now I know that she's a nurse practitioner STUDENT. She must be in her 60s. Does anyone know what she's been doing all of those years between high school and now or why she has such a problem with written communication?
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Jul 23, 2017 2:10:30 GMT -5
Donna VonDenBosch is the one Lee told that she should take a course in English grammar. At first I thought that she was a nurse practitioner, but now I know that she's a nurse practitioner STUDENT. She must be in her 60s. Does anyone know what she's been doing all of those years between high school and now or why she has such a problem with written communication? I have found three different versions of the Sacred Cow Donna VanDenBosch's story about the rape at the picnic. In the one on the Inside Baltimore site, she says: "He got out and came over to me and started taking my pants down. Then he put his knee between my legs and forced them apart and began raping me."
In one I saw on Facebook, she claims that she was taken to a hidden part of the park and raped. In yet another, she says that she became woozy from something they had put into her drink, fell and the priest, or whoever it was, jumped on top of her.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Jul 24, 2017 11:51:20 GMT -5
Donna VonDenBosch is the one Lee told that she should take a course in English grammar. At first I thought that she was a nurse practitioner, but now I know that she's a nurse practitioner STUDENT. She must be in her 60s. Does anyone know what she's been doing all of those years between high school and now or why she has such a problem with written communication? I have found three different versions of the Sacred Cow Donna VanDenBosch's story about the rape at the picnic. In the one on the Inside Baltimore site, she says: "He got out and came over to me and started taking my pants down. Then he put his knee between my legs and forced them apart and began raping me."
In one I saw on Facebook, she claims that she was taken to a hidden part of the park and raped. In yet another, she says that she became woozy from something they had put into her drink, fell and the priest, or whoever it was, jumped on top of her.
Re: the bolded part, I suspect it's a combination of typing the response on her phone, and just being from a generation that, in general, isn't always comfortable with electronic media and communications. Catherine, do you happen to remember where that Facebook post can be found? I'd love to take a look at that, if it's still accessible.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Jul 24, 2017 14:04:10 GMT -5
Billy Schmidt, introduced as a suspect in episode 5, accused by his niece (Sharon) and his sister-in-law Barbara (Sharon's mother), is portrayed as a troubled man obsessed with Catholicism who became a "tortured soul" and committed suicide shortly after the disappearance and death of Cathy Cesnik. These are Barbara's words from the series: It's possible that she did give a better timeline and that this vague, misleading quote is a product of bad editing, but Charles William "Billy" Schmidt died in 1981, 11 years after Cesnik's death, and by that time he was married and had had a son. (In The Keepers, she also gets his name wrong, calling him "William Charles Schmidt".) An obituary has been posted here: Charles William "Billy" SchmidtThe only other link to Cathy Cesnik is their claim that he lived in an adjacent apartment, and the fact that her body was eventually found near their home. If so, if that is the only link, that's already so little as to dismiss their assertions as unlikely. And as far as I can tell, so far there is no record of him having lived in an apartment next to hers, or even having lived in the Carriage House apartments at all. Although they are of course entitled to their opinions, in my own humble opinion, it's safe to say that Barbara does not seem particularly qualified to speak on his behalf and was in no position to know what Billy felt, or his motives. I already agreed with kitty that this whole segment seemed like a red herring to begin with, but these little revelations just further weaken the entire "documentary".
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jul 25, 2017 20:50:30 GMT -5
I believe that I saw something in an old Baltimore Sun from 1969 that said something about Billy Schmidt living near, or maybe across the hall, from Cathy Cesnik, but it could have been on some other site. There's so much online now about this case that it's hard to go back and find anything. Do you have some reason to doubt that he lived near her? I don't think he had anything to do with her murder because he was supposed to be queer.
Something else that I don't believe is the story that Maskell and someone else, I forget who, pushed their way into the nun's apartment the night before she went missing. Do you know if Sister Russell ever confirmed that Maskell came to their apartment the night before?
|
|