|
Post by Graveyardbride on Aug 11, 2017 10:21:25 GMT -5
Either the film was edited, or in this interview, Donna VonDenBosch said that Maskell was the priest who jumped on top of her and separated her legs with his knee.
Something else that I found odd was that the reporter said, "Donna has a very successful professional and private life," yet, the interior of her house doesn't look like the home of a professionally successful family. I thought the same thing, so I checked her address. She lives in Reading, Penn., in a small, 3-bedroom, 1-bath, 1,681-sqaure-foot house at 512 Grill Avenue, in a lower middleclass neighborhood – not the sort of place a successful professional person lives. See for yourself. (The house with the small tree with turning leaves and black car in the driveway is hers.)
www.google.com/maps/place/512+Grill+Ave,+Reading,+PA+19607/@40.3032331,-75.9569652,3a,75y,106.19h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4pkzL-rK6SSkz3z4sWNXrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c67107cb30e59d:0xa4cbe659b2971064!8m2!3d40.3031388!4d-75.956726"
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 11, 2017 17:40:48 GMT -5
Something else that I found odd was that the reporter said, "Donna has a very successful professional and private life," yet, the interior of her house doesn't look like the home of a professionally successful family. It seems to me that reporters cater to these women by accepting everything that they say without question. So when Donna Von Der Bosch said that she has a very successful professional and private life, the reporter repeated it and nobody questioned it.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 11, 2017 17:48:22 GMT -5
I thought the same thing, so I checked her address. She lives in Reading, Penn., in a small, 3-bedroom, 1-bath, 1,681-sqaure-foot house in a lower middleclass neighborhood – not the sort of place a successful professional person lives. See for yourself. (The house with the small tree with turning leaves and black car in the driveway is hers.)www.google.com/maps/place/512+Grill+Ave,+Reading,+PA+19607/@40.3032331,-75.9569652,3a,75y,106.19h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4pkzL-rK6SSkz3z4sWNXrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89c67107cb30e59d:0xa4cbe659b2971064!8m2!3d40.3031388!4d-75.956726 I had to copy and paste the link to get it to work. You should code it where people can clink on it and go to the site.
It's a nice, clean neighborhood, but if Donna Von Der Bosch was as successful as she claims she is, she wouldn't be living in a house with just one bathroom. Also, the rooms in houses with no more square footage than that would be tiny.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 11, 2017 22:58:38 GMT -5
After my mother was personally attacked on some site after saying that she doubted what some of those women were saying, she's been sort of obsessed with finding out all that she can about them. She found this link about crystals on Donna Vandenbosch's Facebook page and sent it to me. I wonder if Donna told any of the people who have interviewed her that she thinks that you can rub a crystal and change your life?
blog.etemetaphysical.com/
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 14, 2017 14:50:46 GMT -5
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. If "Eva Nelson Cruz" is really Donna Von Den Bosch, is she talking about the same picnic in the park that she kept changing what happened, or is this a different rape? If this is the same rape, she doesn't say anything about a boat in the 3 examples that Catherine posted.
One of the things that bothers me is how these priests and police officers were having sex with underage girls all over the place - in parks, at picnics, at school, on police "ride alongs" and everywhere else and not once did anyone ever see them and why weren't they afraid of getting caught?
Something else that I have a problem with is Maskell taking Jean to see the body to scare her into keeping quiet. In the other thread, there's a very good point made that after he showed her the body, that if she did decide to spill the beans, she would have proof that what she was saying was true. She might not have known how to get back to the body site, but he couldn't be sure that she didn't remember any landmarks nearby, like the car shop owned by the Schmidt family. So instead of convincing her to keep quiet, he was taking a huge chance by showing her the body. In their conspiracy-obsessed minds, that's "proof" of the cover-up. No one talked because they were either afraid or they were in on it. They'll never accept the more likely possibility, that "no one talked" and no one noticed because it wasn't happening to begin with, at least nowhere near the scale they're suggesting. Catherine, thank you for the links; I did find the one on Facebook. Those are great details! I think I saw one or two of those interviews with Donna, but I either missed or had since forgotten the inconsistencies. Madeline, upon further reading, you're right; Vondenbosch has some serious problems with written communication and they do seem to go beyond simply not being comfortable with the technology. Some sort of reading disability, maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Kate on Aug 15, 2017 6:55:45 GMT -5
After my mother was personally attacked on some site after saying that she doubted what some of those women were saying, she's been sort of obsessed with finding out all that she can about them. She found this link about crystals on Donna Vandenbosch's Facebook page and sent it to me. I wonder if Donna told any of the people who have interviewed her that she thinks that you can rub a crystal and change your life?
blog.etemetaphysical.com/
I don't think that it's all that unusual for people to believe that certain gemstones can heal, or bring good luck. Whatever intellectual disability Donna Von Den Bosch has doesn't have anything to do with the metaphysical.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Aug 19, 2017 12:21:19 GMT -5
I don't think that any of those women are very bright. Even Theresa Lancaster, the one who's a lawyer, doesn't speak all that well and doesn't seem to understand the law, such as the release that the church required them to sign when they were paid. Lee tried to explain it to them in the Inside Baltimore comments section, but it seemed that none of them could understand that what they were required to sign was just a standard release. Theresa Lancaster isn't a lawyer that I would want representing me, or a member of my family. Another thing about that release I would like to know is why didn't Tom Nugent know that what was in it was standard? He tried to imply that it was something unusual, but anyone who has ever signed a release with an insurance company, or anyone else, knows that they all have similar language.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 21, 2017 14:18:02 GMT -5
I don't think that any of those women are very bright. Even Theresa Lancaster, the one who's a lawyer, doesn't speak all that well and doesn't seem to understand the law, such as the release that the church required them to sign when they were paid. Lee tried to explain it to them in the Inside Baltimore comments section, but it seemed that none of them could understand that what they were required to sign was just a standard release. Theresa Lancaster isn't a lawyer that I would want representing me, or a member of my family. Another thing about that release I would like to know is why didn't Tom Nugent know that what was in it was standard? He tried to imply that it was something unusual, but anyone who has ever signed a release with an insurance company, or anyone else, knows that they all have similar language. I think this demonstrates how biased and unrealistic they are when it comes to this subject. Teresa seems relatively articulate in other interviews, but she didn't correct Nugent's or the commenters' insinuations that this legal agreement was somehow unfair or sinister. I think Nugent is on record saying he raised four kids on his writing, and I suspect it's because of that that he goes for sensationalism, big headlines, and tabloid-style journalism designed to get buyers (and now, in the internet era, to get clicks). That doesn't excuse sloppy journalism, but I think his personal interest in the Cesnik murder and his friendships with the alleged survivors skew his perspective. I still give him credit for not deleting the dissenting viewpoints that sometimes show up in his comment sections. Also, little by little, people are starting to question things...
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 22, 2017 11:49:28 GMT -5
So, I posted this and it hasn't been deleted yet, and perhaps they'll leave it up. Awhile back a lot of comments and threads were being deleted when anything like this was posted but they might have given up on that now. The whole "Jean said there were maggots and she was right! Memories must all be 100% correct!" line of thinking really bothers me. I don't know if I'll keep posting, and if I do I might end up banned, but I wonder if it might be possible to interject little bits of common sense here and there. The Keepers was apparently just nominated for an emmy.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Aug 23, 2017 0:01:25 GMT -5
So, I posted this and it hasn't been deleted yet, and perhaps they'll leave it up. Awhile back a lot of comments and threads were being deleted when anything like this was posted but they might have given up on that now. The whole "Jean said there were maggots and she was right! Memories must all be 100% correct!" line of thinking really bothers me. I don't know if I'll keep posting, and if I do I might end up banned, but I wonder if it might be possible to interject little bits of common sense here and there. The Keepers was apparently just nominated for an emmy. Good for you, beta. Keep us updated if its deleted, or you're inundated with nasty replies. I'm not a Facebook member, so it's hard for me to read anything on Facebook because half the screen is taken up by a message asking that I log in.
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 25, 2017 11:26:14 GMT -5
If any of you are on Facebook, this thread is a real treat to read: www.facebook.com/groups/454252571596239/permalink/512315419123287/Catherine, I'll be posting some highlights for those of you who aren't on Facebook. The original post was from a girl who emailed Paul McHugh, and she posted screenshots their brief exchange. To her mind, McHugh "bullied" her and she posted these emails publicly (links forthcoming) to demonstrate that he is "still a bully". McHugh was featured in episode 4 of The Keepers because he was an expert witness in Doe/Roe V Maskell, testifying against the validity of Recovered Memories. He didn't actually participate in the film but they showed his photo, a clip from one of his lectures, and played somber music to indicate how horrible he is. In fairness, he has outdated, and in my opinion, bigoted views about gay rights and gender issues but he is right on the money when it comes to the science of memory. Although most people were patting the poster on the back and congratulating her, a few people did point out that her email to him was hardly the kind of thing that would invite polite discussion. It was an attempt to shame him, and frankly, she doesn't have what it takes. She attempted to make herself seem credible by listing credentials, but she actually listed a degree she doesn't yet have and dated it 2018. The ensuing discussion over there has been all over the place. Some of the cretins took to speculating about if McHugh was "in on it" (meaning, the abuse). The reasonable people there, all 2 or 3 of us, have been duly labelled trolls and child abusers. If they get called out for their shenanigans, they just label themselves as abuse victims and suddenly everything they say is golden. Emotions and personal feelings trump facts and documentation, every time. In many cases, it's simply because they aren't very bright, but at times there's also willful ignorance and willful deception. Stay tuned...
|
|
|
Post by madeline on Aug 25, 2017 15:15:30 GMT -5
It has already been deleted:
Amanda Jessica Maria Johncola Yesterday at 10:36am
Removed the images due to the treatment I've received since posting them. My purpose was to start a discussion on the bullying of the victims and to highlight that this particular bully's stance has not changed. If you would still like to see them, PM me and I will share them with you. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
I have an old Facebook account that I haven't used for a long, long time, but I was still able to log in. I was shocked by the following comment:
Meghan Toms I'm pretty sure this comment will get me in hot water but he himself gave me the vibe of being someone involved in a pedophile ring. Very arrogant, self righteous and condescending. I'll stand by my "read" on the guy being a perv. and nutjob. His degree does not make him sane or respectable by any means. #sorrynotsorry
Where do these people get the idea that they can accuse people of being involved in a pedophile ring, or even of murder? The one on the Inside Baltimore site suggested that Lee might have killed Sister Cathy:
Anonymous says: June 8, 2017 at 8:40 pm
Why would you think I would reveal anything to a stranger?? You are not part of this. You are some random person – could be the killer for all I know. You are also very insensitive – work for the church? This is how they treat people who have been wronged.
Then there was Jerry Smith, who threatened bodily harm and posted his phone number. Also, why are they so paranoid? They think that anyone who disagrees with them is a murderer, pedophile or works for the church. How did so many mentally ill people get together?
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 28, 2017 14:32:04 GMT -5
Amanda Jessica Maria Johncola did delete her original post and the screenshots, I think within a day of posting them. But the internet is forever.
Here is her original post: I decided to email Dr. McHugh who equated recovered memories to unicorns and took parted in bullying Jane Doe and Jane Roe during their civil trial. I discovered he's still a bully.
And her edited post: Removed the images due to the treatment I've received since posting them. My purpose was to start a discussion on the bullying of the victims and to highlight that this particular bully's stance has not changed. If you would still like to see them, PM me and I will share them with you. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.
According to her public profile, she's affiliated somehow with the Philadelpia Inquirer. Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm disappointed someone so thin-skinned is working in journalism. Further, the fact that she initiated contact with a overt attempt to shame someone who is clearly her intellectual superior (and yes, arrogant, but he's earned that), and then felt "bullied" by his rather civil responses, just reeks of entitlement and victim mentality. She felt entitled to go on the attack, then played victim when he didn't respond with warm hugs.
She originally posted screenshots of the email exchange; here are links to those screenshots. (Note the way she lists future credentials she hasn't earned yet -- a few people rightly called her out for this).
Email 1: i.imgur.com/pGjjrB9.jpg
Email 2: i.imgur.com/tKcMAnk.jpg
Email 3: i.imgur.com/evGTO6h.jpg
Email 4: i.imgur.com/mIF1733.jpg
There was lots of hand wringing in the Facebook group, that he addressed her as "Dear Person" in the final email. This, according to the rabid mob, is a sign that he is a bully, that he must have been personal friends with Maskell, must have been "just like" Maskell (a not-so-subtle way of calling him a child molestor), and was probably "in on it". It wasn't only the people quoted below but at least a few others said or alluded to these things. People who should know better. Perhaps even worse is that only two people, including me, actually called them on it.
Meghan Toms I'm pretty sure this comment will get me in hot water but he himself gave me the vibe of being someone involved in a pedophile ring. Very arrogant, self righteous and condescending. I'll stand by my "read" on the guy being a perv. and nutjob. His degree does not make him sane or respectable by any means. #sorrynotsorry
(Her comment did NOT get her in hot water, of course, because roughly 95% of that group is comprised of a witch-hunting mob who apparently has no qualms making these baseless criminal allegations)
Jeanne Robinson That wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were involved
Beta Rus It says a lot that both of you would so casually throw out such a disgusting and heinous allegation against someone just because they were arrogant in a confrontational email exchange.
Jeanne Robinson Beta Rus no one said how he was involved. He could have helped cover up the crimes, he already lied to protect Maskell ....there's something with you that you even remotely defend him!!!
In hindsight, I wished I'd thought to ask her how exactly he "lied to protect Maskell". Not that she would be able to provide a sensible or coherent answer, of course, but I'd love to know what, in her conspiracy-riddled mind, constitutes "proof" that McHugh lied or what these exact lies were.
Beta Rus Jeanne Robinson, sometimes when people are so quick to accuse others it's because they themselves are guilty, so perhaps you, Jeanne Robinson, are involved in a pedophile ring. I'm not saying *how* you're involved, so it's ok. See how this works? Are you even capable of re-reading my earlier comment and understanding that it isn't a "defense"? Can you comprehend nuance at all, Jeanne Robinson?
____________
Jeanne Robinson I think there's a few Vatican trolls on here, stirring the pot, so to speak ....they actually speak the way Maskell did to the victims....
Wendy Susanna Onsted What exactly is a Vatican troll? Anyone who doesn't agree and is well aware that documentaries are notoriously one sided? Is that a Vatican troll?
Beta Rus I actually still like to think documentaries are, or can be accurate portrayals of events and so it bothers me that much more that The Keepers is so misleading, and frankly, harmful to victims of abuse, victims of recovered memory therapy and false memories, and the public at large.
Paul Beauchamp Beta Rus interesting, beta.. why do you think the movie is so misleading? seems like many corroborating victims. what did i miss?
Jeanne Robinson Paul Beauchamp don't give the troll air time
Beta Rus Paul Beauchamp, the number of accusers serms very convincing until it becomes apparent that not only Doe and Roe, but quite a few of the accusers based their accusations on recovered memories. The show was extremely misleading about repressed/recovered memories as well, presenting it as if it were widely accepted when at best, it is still highly controversial and many credible researchers consider it dangerous pseudoscience.
I think a great many viewers might have been more skeptical if they knew that Jean once believed herself to be demon possessed, that she had (or believed she had) something akin to Multiple Personality Disorder (now called Dissociative Identity Disorder) with various child personalities, that she had provably false memories, such as that she herself had killed another unidentified sister at the school. And so much more, but I'm on my phone. You're welcome to PM me and I'll explain in a little more detail.
Jeanne Robinson Beta Rus maybe you would have some issues too if you were raped every day by your trusted priest!!!! Your an idiot...just shut up!!!
Jeanne Robinson Go back to the Vatican
Wendy Susanna Onsted Name calling when the truth gets laid out. That's a tactic people use when they don't have a good argument. The fact is, this documentary went too far. Nothing Tues Maskell to the murders. This was added to sensationalize. For me, it destroys her credibility a great deal. I believe she was sexually abused, but not much more. _______________
Karla Palmer Beta Rus I'd like to see documentation where Jean States she thought she was 'Demom Possessed', or thought she had MPD or DID. Thank you.
I replied to her with screenshots from the appellate brief, which as I pointed out, so many of them are patting themselves on the back for having this and they refer to it as if they're experts on it, yet, none of them seem to have actually read it. The screenshots are here: i.imgur.com/fG9FNKg.jpg
The actual text from the brief is as follows:
Re: Multiple Personality Disorder (aka Dissociative Identity Disorder): "... Shortly thereafter, while engaged in her "dialoguing with the inner-child" therapy, Doe noted in her "prayer journal" that Father Magnus is dead and that she and/or one of her "inner children" would have to "tell on" Father Maskell. This is the last reference to Father Magnus in Doe's prayer journal.
[Footnote at the bottom of page 3] Doe has dialogued with various aspects of her inner self, some of which she named, including Jeannie, Beth (very passive), Gloria ("tomboyish"), Ethel (puritanic), and Martha (materialistic).
Re: Demon possession: "...She felt that she was possessed by an evil force for about six months in 1979."
Watch the ensuing lies, semantic games, and mental gymnastics as Karla so desperately tries to pretend the appellate brief DOESN'T say what it says. _______ Wendy Susanna Onsted Karla Palmer. Jean herself claimed to be possessed. That's documented. I was simply pointing out the irony of someone being told they were possessed and then being refused an exorcism because they weren't actually possessed but told so as a means to control them.
Karla Palmer That clearly states she 'felt' like she was possessed in 1979. Not her stating she was Hon.
Beta Rus From the brief: "[Jean] felt that she was possessed by an evil force for about six months in 1979."
The bizarre attempt to argue that she DIDN'T think she was "possessed by an evil force" smacks of dishonesty and desperation. When you have to play these semantic games and lie to make your point, you've already lost the argument.
Beta Rus You know, I retract that last comment. Maybe you weren't playing semantic games and really somehow see it that way. If so, it's another thing we'll have to agree to disagree about.
You're aware that the appellate brief also mentions her memory that she killed an unidentified nun at the school, a memory which was verifiably false? And that she claimed her uncle abused not only her, but all of her siblings, yet the siblings say they were never abused?
Why are you willing to question other accounts featured in The Keepers but will go to any length to avoid a critical look at Jeans' own testimony?
As it turned out, Karla did NOT know these other things, because of course, Karla hasn't bothered to actually read it. She just demands others "show her" and when they do, she denies it anyway.
after a bit more back-and-forth: Karla Palmer I guess we're in an endless loop Wendy Susanna Onsted. Jean stated she 'felt' like she was possessed. Not that she was. Where did she state she had DID??
I don't know how to describe her comment as anything except willful dishonesty. I actually put it together in that concise screenshot, limited to just a couple paragraphs, and she is still either too dishonest or too stupid to read it, even when it's spoon-fed to her.
Wendy Susanna Onsted Karla Palmer in her statement to the court, she clearly said that she had DID. She even referenced several different personalities in her head.
Karla Palmer Wendy Susanna Onsted, I don't see that statement concerning her stating she has DID, or several different personalities in her head. At least in what Beta Rus has shown us so far.
Stay tuned, folks, more to follow...
|
|
beta
New Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by beta on Aug 28, 2017 16:43:59 GMT -5
Here are a few more highlights from the frenzied "advocates", along with some comments by Wendy S. Onsted (a rare gem in that group; a reasonable person with a sharp mind). As long as she's still in the conversation I'll probably keep posting on occasion, but I won't be engaging on a regular basis anymore.
For reference, here's the screenshot I shared with Karla Palmer when she requested "documentation" that Jean had once believed herself to be demon possessed and that she once believed (and possibly still believes, for all we know) she had multiple child alter personalities. These are the specific sections of the appellate brief (which Karla claims to fully trust and believe): i.imgur.com/fG9FNKg.jpg
Nota Moose There are definitely trolls on here. Its ok to have differences of opinion but I think you can do that and still be respectful. That is, If your not a shill for the church or pedophiles in general. I have experienced repressed memories and for a time had a major depression that I had similar thoughts, like jean, of being possessed. If I myself did not experience these things, I am not sure I would believe them either. However, f you have not experienced them, you really don't know and maybe you shouldnt judge until you have walked in someone's shoes. One if the trolls in jest accused someone here who suggested Dr. Mchugh was a part of the pedophile ring to be the one that actually was apart of the pedophile ring. This is so typical of these types. My father , an sex abuser to many including myself, used similar "logic" with a smerk. It is ironic how these abusers and their "friends" and defenders always use similar tactics. They must be very frustrated that the survivors are getting stronger, and are supporting each other and gaining increased clarity about the ways of these manipulators. No wonder they are trying to use this forum to discredit survivors, because this forum has brought together survivors from all over the world who are now seeing the similarities between their stories and the side effects if such abuse. It is getting harder to silence us
Beta Rus I'm glad you at least said "in jest", which is at least closer to the truth. There was no "smirking" going on when I used the same words to Jeanne Robinson that she herself used against Paul McHugh.
And once again, for no reason than you disagreeing with me, you've just insinuated that I'm a child molester. Do you honestly not realize how badly you damage your own cause when you do this?
Child abuse is so utterly revolting and heinous, it's an allegation that NEVER should be thrown about so casually just because you strongly dislike someone! And when you do so anyway, it indicates that you either don't take child abuse very seriously, or worse, it demonstrates that you're ok with making outrageous allegations against people without knowing or caring whether they're true.
Calling people in this thread "abusers" hurts your credibility to any objective reader.
Wendy Susanna Onsted BetaRus, thank you, because someone actually called me Dr McHugh and insinuated that I was running a pedophile sex ring - all because I vehemently opposed the publication of private emails and the manner in which it was done. Mind you there's no evidence that Dr McHugh is a pedophile either! To be called a troll on this page is almost a compliment seeing that many of these folks are so mentally damaged that they can't see how ignorant it is to accuse someone of any type of child abuse or endangerment without strong evidence. That, and it does not just border on defamation of character, it actually is defamation of character. No reasonable person would assume that because someone opposes a viewpoint, they are Chester the Molester.
Nota Moose I have seen many differences of opinion on here done in a respectful manner. Yours, not so much. It is obvious you both have an agenda. You talk as though this page seems to be upsetting to you. I'm not sure why you stay on it. I hope you find another page somewhere else that you can handle and that is better suited to your fragile sensibilities. Your really helping to take the focus away from the real issues that this page is trying to address. I take responsibility for getting myself sucked into this nonsense with you both. Your total disregard for the victims and their experiences leads people to question your motives. If you had offered your side of the argument in a more respectful manner, you would have been taken more seriously. You did not do that. You merely bashed people's experiences. If you sincerely want to know why the reactions to you have been so intense, be aware that most sexual abuse victims have been marginalized and not believed so the status quo can continue and it can be swept under the rug. Thank you. Sincerely, mentally deranged in new york
Wendy Susanna Onsted You liken people who don't agree with you to pedophiles. You don't have a seat at the table.
LaLaina Din Wendy glad YOU get to decide who gets a seat at THE table.
Defending the side of child abusers to people who have been abused is such a noble cause I wouldn't want a seat at any table you're seated at.
Beta Rus "You talk as though this page seems to be upsetting to you."
Not even close. What is "upsetting" to me and any reasonable person are baseless allegations that do serious damage to actual victims and harms the very cause you say you support.
What you, and others, are doing with these insinuations sets real advocacy back by decades. _____________
Karla has "figured out" that I'm related to Sister Russell...... (The nun's name was actually Russell Phillips, so, it really makes no sense on any level):
Karla Palmer Positive Wendy Susanna Onsted. It's what made me look at her Facebook page and pretty much let me know pretty much that I correctly deciphered Beta Rus(sell) true identity.
Wendy Susanna Onsted Karla Palmer Russell is dead. Don't start with the whacks doodle stuff yourself.
Karla Palmer Wendy Susanna Onsted, very insulting Hon. Of course Russell in dead. Two days after maskell. But there seems to be some that in extolling Russell's virtues, think they need to throw Jean under the bus.
(Note: neither I, Wendy S. Onsted, nor anyone else in the entire thread that I can see, has "extolled Russell's virtues".
Not giddy. Very frustrated that you are unable to comprehend my clear and simple posts however. Modus operandi was your terminology, along with the word "their". That is what made me curious about your post. Hon maybe read twice, prior to responding, or insulting people. Bless your heart, you do seem upset. _________
.... and then, below, Karla inexplicably claims she never believed that. I'm starting to think that in addition to being flagrantly dishonest, Karla might also be suffering delusions herself.
Nota Moose Wendy Susanna olstead...the amount of guilt involved with child sexual abuse and the thinking that its your fault can lead to a deep depression so overwhelming where one thinks they are possessed. Especially if an abuser is using god to manipulate the child. My father used to make me pray after he raped me because of what bad things I was supposedly making him do. In early adulthood I went into a major depression and during that time I also had thoughts about being possessed. These are common feelings for people whose body was the possession of someone else's, not their own. Someone who has had their very core compromised by another individual. I know you feel like you know a lot about trauma and repressed memories, but you don't. Yes, I survived a major depression and therefore, in your eyes I will always be mentally ill. In the same manner you view Jean. I lead a high functioning life and have for years after that depression. Jean seems anything but mentally ill. Sounds like Maskel seems sane to u? I mean he just sexually abused the kids, not like he killed anyone. (How you make it sound). Be aware, you can have a strong belief in the catholic faith and not drink the kool aid that they try to make u drink about sexual abuse within the church. Throw away whatever talking points they gave you last Sunday. Its not working here.
Beta Rus Wendy Susanna Onsted, my first comment above to "Nota Moose" was referencing the comment Karla Palmer is referring to. I'll repeat the first paragraph just to make it crystal clear to any honest, objective readers that I wasn't making an accusation:
"I'm glad you at least said "in jest", which is at least closer to the truth. There was no "smirking" going on when I used the same words to Jeanne Robinson that she herself used against Paul McHugh." (To be clear, I wasn't accusing her -- I re-directed back to her the exact idiotic and offensive words she used about McHugh. If everyone is so fired up about what I said to Jeanne Robinson, they should be just as fired up at Jeanne herself that those words were used, and meant as an actual allegation against someone else.)
It's truly hilarious that Karla thinks I'm related to Russell Phillips, but not terribly surprising given the rampant paranoia around here.
Karla Palmer Beta, beta, beta hons. I was referring to way you responded to someone in the thread way in the beginning love. I don't and have never believed you are related to Russell in any way, shape or form.
(What a surprise, I guess Karla was either lying with the whole "correctly deciphered" identity thing, or she's lying here in this comment. Will wonders never cease? )
I do however believe that a person who needs to join a site, with an obviously fake name and post what are obviously opinions about the mental health of a survivor has issues, as they seem to need to hide their true identity. There's obviously a reason for this subterfuge and the only reasons I can think for this are not in any way positive.
There are always clues, breadcrumbs to their true identity however hons. What is this nickname? Does it speak to meanings behind their posts? Does it speak to why they use half truths to insinuate ideas about a survivors mental health, thereby thinking they argue someone else's defense??
Until this person has the respect to reveal their own identity, to post under their own name, I think the paranoia on this site speaks to paranoia that is 100% that is all their own. The twisting of posts, half truths, lies, expounding of a survivors words, out in out lies and cowardice hiding behind a fake name has made this my last post in this thread. It would be a nice time to go hug your pet, or a teddy bear hons!
Wendy Susanna Onsted Karla Palmer. If Beta Rus was trying to hide their identity solely to do subterfuge work, I highly doubt they'd purposely use Rus to stand for Russell. Kind of defeats the purpose of going undercover. But okay.
Beta Rus "Does it speak to why they use half truths"
Bollocks. Name one of these "half truths", point out these alleged "lies". Please be specific. I've done nothing of the sort and you know it. And I think any honest, objective readers who happen upon this thread will know it too.
_________________
In closing, I present the inevitable "I have secret knowledge" argument in response to Wendy S.O., who had explained that she, too, is an abuse victim.
Melissa Cooper I don't always do the right thing. I'm sorry you were a victim of abuse. It hurts me when Jean is not believed. I know more than you do about the whole thing. I know for a fact the way the Evil Monsters would scare you, not to tell. I do lash out from time to time. It's true. When my friends aren't believed. Not going to keep this up. I'm going to squash it right here. Have a great evening.
I think I've figured out how this works: Wendy is an abuse victim too, but Melissa is super special and knows more. She won't share this secret knowledge, we just have to take her word for it that she is More Victimized Than Thou and we should defer to her opinion. Again, it's that sense of entitlement that makes me wonder how many of them are actually abuse victims, because I don't believe for a second that experiencing abuse turns someone into an entitled shit. But I do think there are plenty of entitled shits out there who lie about having been abused, so they can get attention and status among these "survivor" groups, and use it as an excuse to treat people badly.
I'm so glad I can share this insanity with you guys - hope it wasn't too nauseating.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Aug 28, 2017 20:39:31 GMT -5
Here are a few more highlights from the frenzied "advocates", along with some comments by Wendy S. Onsted (a rare gem in that group; a reasonable person with a sharp mind). As long as she's still in the conversation I'll probably keep posting on occasion, but I won't be engaging on a regular basis anymore.
For reference, here's the screenshot I shared with Karla Palmer when she requested "documentation" that Jean had once believed herself to be demon possessed and that she once believed (and possibly still believes, for all we know) she had multiple child alter personalities. These are the specific sections of the appellate brief (which Karla claims to fully trust and believe): i.imgur.com/fG9FNKg.jpg
I'm beginning to think that the accusers and their gullible supporters are all taking some kind of psychotropic medication that suppresses their ability to reason. They still deny the truth, even after it's shown to them, and this isn't normal. Studies have shown that psychotrophic drugs may contribute to cortical grey matter loss.
|
|