I don’t recall any mention in the documentary and am not able to find any article stating that Roe had repressed memories.
Can you cite?
I think I first read this in an article where she was interviewed; if I remember correctly she said she had some memories but she repressed it until her mother had passed away. I’m pretty sure it also comes up (albeit briefly) in the series at some point, but I don’t think I can bring myself to wade through again and find out where.
However, it’s in the court documents.
Some of it is recorded here, in the appeal: Doe v. Maskell, 679 A.2d 1087, 342 Md. 684 – CourtListener.com
In the appellate brief, there’s a better timeline: first, she responded to one of the solicitations from the Wehner family or Jean’s lawyers. After meeting with Jean Wehner’s (Jane Doe’s) legal counsel a few times she awoke to a “memory” of being raped. She reported this to them right away and they referred her to a therapist. She (predictably) continued to recover more memories.
If I can find the article and/or quotes from the series, I’ll post them. But I understand why so many people think Wehner is the only one whose accusations are based on “memories” recovered decades later, because at best they glossed over it with a brief mention and at worst, they omitted it entirely.
Too late to edit my last post, but I wanted to add that one of the court documents revealed confusion on Doe’s part regarding which memories she retained all along, and which ones she had repressed and recovered years later. It’s certainly possible that Maskell was coercing the girls into sexual contact with him but the Doe-Roe testimonies do not in any way prove that.
I watched the first episode and gave up, my wife stayed up and watched several more, and told be about them, so my opinions may not be fully informed by the evidence presented in the entire series.
I have a strong aversion to these sorts of “documentaries” that take one side of a story and run with it while either ignoring or downplaying any evidence that that doesn’t fit their narrative. For example, it could be that the police are being unhelpful to the women’s investigation because they are hiding a deep dark secret, or it could be that they are just annoyed by being constantly bothered by these women and their crazy conspiracy theories. I always get the feeling I’m being manipulated. Its the same reason I don’t like Michael Moore movies even though I largely agree with his politics.
My take, is that the women was probably killed by a stranger who car-jacked, raped and killed her, leaving her body in the woods, and then while not thinking clearly drove her car back towards her apartment to cover up his crime but then got spooked and so just left it nearby.
Her murder traumatized the two high school girls, who became obsessed with processing this event. Like a JFK grassy knoll aficionado, they weren’t satisfied with the simple explanation and had come up with an answer that was more satisfying than “bad shit happens”.
I have no problem believing that the priest molested a number of students, but I’m highly skeptical of all of the repressed memory “evidence”. I’m not an expert, but I don’t think that repeatedly being called out of class, and raped, and then returning blithely to class as if nothing had happened is the way thing actually worked. And while the existence of repressed memories is a matter of controversy in the psychological community, the existence or false memories is well documented, and trivial to generate in laboratory settings. I would also add that the prospect of a 40 million dollar law suit may also play a role in the direction their investigation took.
By the way, in the first episode they talked about two murders. One was the nun who was the main focus, but did they ever get around to fitting the second murder into their narrative?
Yes, the “Recovered memory” experts should be prosecuted for Rape, since now their victims remember the rape just as it is happened.
Well, that was my issue with it. These kinds of murders were rare, and two of them happen within a relatively short span? You would think they wight be related but as mentioned upthread, there wasn’t much time spent comparing them. They picked up on the abuse story and spent most of the time on that.
There was a third murder around the same time, and they cut that in editing.
Agreed, and I want to add that the murder traumatized and captivated pretty much the entire Keough student body and community at the time, and it has stayed with them even into the present day. This was (is) another common feature of RM narratives; the victim “remembers” being abused by important and powerful people, and goes on to “remember” playing some key role in an important event. Jean’s memories made her a key player in this murder, an event which in 1992 was still very much a part of their community consciousness. (According to Abbie Schaub and Gemma Hoskins, it remains a huge part of the local consciousness even now.)
As for the series…
[spoiler]
My opinion of the series and my take on the murder of Cesnik is very similar to Buck Godot’s.
I find The Keepers to be reckless, irresponsible, and manipulative. It is manipulative in the ways Buck already laid out in his post: they had already come to their conclusion before bothering to look at evidence, and it was a conclusion formed on emotional appeal rather than logic and fact. They ignored and omitted evidence that called their bias and their conclusion into question, and tried to shoe-horn everything else into their predetermined belief that Maskell killed or had someone kill Cesnik, and that he did so because she was heroically trying to stop his abuse.
So, in a nutshell:
– Their primary premise, that there was a widespread sex-abuse ring at Keough (which extended to the Baltimore police force, the greater Catholic church in Baltimore, and the local government) has zero credible evidence to support it. The entire premise relies on insinuation, accusations of dubious origin, and emotional manipulation on the part of the filmmakers.
– There is no evidence that Cesnik’s murder had anything to do with abuse at Keough. Assuming abuse was actually taking place, there’s no evidence that Cesnik knew about it or planned to expose it.
– Maskell may have engaged in some level of sexual impropriety with the Keough students, whether it was coercing them into full-fledged sexual relationships with him (statutory rape) or something less than that (but still sleazy and worthy of prosecution) is unclear. In fact, whether he was doing anything at all of this nature is unclear. The one huge strike against him is the buried documents in the cemetery, but ultimately, I don’t think there was any smoking gun in those documents. My reason for that is because the judge who handled Doe/Roe v Maskell personally went over those documents, and if there was something in there that corroborated Doe/Roe’s memories, I think it would have gone to trial. I don’t believe that judge railroaded Doe/Roe or was part of any cover-up.
– That not a single person came forward until after Jane Doe’s public allegations in 1992 – when Recovered Memories and RM narratives of widespread Ritual Abuse were still at the height of their popularity – gives me pause. Further, as far as I can tell, no one came forward until after two solicitations for info: the Wehner family circulated a letter among years’ worth of Keough alums, asking if they experienced or witnessed sexual abuse from staff at Keough, and later that year Jean’s legal team placed an anonymous ad in the paper soliciting info from anyone who experienced sex abuse at Keough during the years Maskell was there. In the late 80s and early 90s, when some of the most popular self-help books were notorious for suggesting that women had repressed memories of abuse and gave step-by-step instructions for how to “recover” them, an ad or letter like that was enough to potentially spark a hysteria.
– The quotes from the women, many of which refer to the gaps in their memory, how’s there’s so much they have yet to remember, their own speculations that they were drugged, hypnotized, etc, and that THAT must be why they haven’t yet remembered everything – makes it pretty clear that at least some (and possibly all) of the survivors featured in The Keepers also “recovered” their memories. It’s not just Jean Wehner and Teresa Lancaster, but the others as well - they are basing these accusations on memories they supposedly repressed for decades.
– For anyone else wondering, no, they never offer anything useful about Joyce Malecki’s murder or present any credible link to the murders.
There’s more, but I’m getting rambly and redundant so I’ll stop now. It’s my hope that this series will be publicly picked apart and thoroughly scrutinized, and that Ryan White will at some point be held accountable for recklessly implicating people, some of whom are still living and have families, in a murder. (Not to mention the heinous abuse allegations they’re also lumped into by default). [/spoiler]
Except even theArchdioceseof Balt disagrees w you. and according to Vox
And Anne Arundel County disagrees w you
so you can make up whatever theories you want based on your viewing of the documentary, but the people actually involved in investigating the case say otherwise
and as for the documentary itself
Makes no difference. If his inclusion on the list resulted from accusations arising from recovered memories; if they make the same logic mistake as this series, thinking the number of accusers means the claims themselves are credible, he probably shouldn’t be on that list.
Disagrees how? Your quote says they were exploring possible connections. We already know this. The point is, did they actually find any connections? In the context of this disingenuous documentary, which tries as hard as it can to tie everything – including those murders – to Maskell, there’s nothing. I do think it’s possible the murders are connected, though. A random killer, someone with no connection to Maskell or Keough, might have killed all three of them. Tragic, but not nearly so glamorous as the conspiracy The Keepers is pushing. But again, there’s no evidence to confirm it either way and as you’ve just pointed out, it’s not for lack of trying.
From your quote: … solving her murder isn’t the primary focus of The Keepers. What compels filmmaker White is the abuse that took place at Archbishop Keough and the voices of Maskell’s victims.
Right now, the only people we know for sure are actually victims are Cathy Cesnik, Joyce Malecki and Grace Montanye. And possibly people like Gerry Koob, Sharon May et al who are now subject to baseless speculations and accusations because of this irresponsible “documentary”.
What new shadow is Koob under? He was the Baltimore PD’s main suspect back in '70.
Wow. . .
clearly you don’t care about the facts, but for those who do. . .
The letters written to the alumnae of Keough asked about information of “sexual improprieties” at the school but never mentioned the name Maskell. Over fifty people responded naming Maskell and others. One of the respondents was Theresa Lancaster who later became “Jane Roe” in the '94 suit against Maskell et al. Lancaster’s memories were not recovered; she was added to the suit as corroboration of Doe’s allegations.
The Keepers doesn’t say that the abuse and the murder are connected. In fact it explores 2 alternative theories to the murder in depth.
Gerry Koob is under no shadow. He was a prime suspect in the original investigation, and as a possible lover of the deceased and the one who found her car on the street, should have been. He was cleared back in the 70’s and was very cooperative with the documentary.
The Archdiocese of Baltimore opened an investigation into the conduct of Maskell based on more than the allegations of “one woman with a hazy memory”, and found enough evidence to add him to a list of priests accused of sexual abuse and has reached out to his victims to offer support and compensation.
The documentary offers a very clear picture that the investigation into the murder of Helen Malecki was handled extremely poorly - falling into the cracks between the FBI and county investigators And, possibly due to public scrutiny arising from the documentary, the county has renewed it’s investigation and is looking into connections to other similar crimes from the area, including the Cesnik case.
You may not have liked the documentary, but your grasp of the facts surrounding the case is sketchy at best.
He’s married and has a family now. I wonder, how would an innocent person handle being implicated not just in a murder, but now the additional suspicion that he’s a rapist and a general villain? Do you think the public suspicion that one did these things might affect their job, family, or social life? If so, is it just too bad for them or should they have recourse? I mean, I don’t have an easy answer to that.
But there’s speculation all over the internet (wherever The Keepers is being discussed, that is, which is a lot of discussion) that Koob could be the monstrous “Brother Bob”. There are at least 7 Reddit threads naming Koob as being, or possibly being, Jean’s main villain. And that’s just with a quick search. I haven’t read all of them. In another *The Keepers * “Megathread” there’s a sub-thread in which people opine that Koob is a psychopath and a rapist/killer, and similar speculations on the The Keepers Facebook page as well as comment sections of various outlets that published articles on the series. Many of them don’t name Koob exclusively; other names are thrown in too, including people not featured in The Keepers. And some of those people might still be living, and might also have families and lives that could be affected by these speculations.
That five minute edit window (and my apparent inability to state things clearly) gets me every time.
In any case, I wanted to add that putting “innocent” in italics was not to assert or emphasize that Koob is innocent, but to say, "forget about Koob for a second: how would an innocent person deal with this? Would we say the creators of The Keepers were irresponsible to cast aspersions on someone innocent and subject them to widespread allegations and vitriol? If so, should that also apply to Koob? Or does being a former suspect change that? It sounded like the police investigated and interrogated him to the point where it bordered on harassment (according to the late Bud Roemer, featured in a recorded interview in episode 6). If the police had had something, enough to bring him in, they’d have acted on that. At what point do we say “Okay, the evidence just wasn’t there. After all this time, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence”?
OMFG! No wonder. . .
(ahem)
Nor did I say otherwise, but I can see how you might have misconstrued what I meant. I worded it poorly. I am well aware that Maskell wasn’t specifically named. What I originally stated is that the ad solicited info from Keough students who attended during the years that Maskell was there (67 to 75, if I remember correctly). In other words, they specified that time frame. I wasn’t suggesting they specifically named Maskell. However, since Wehner (as Jane Doe) had already gone public with her allegations, it might not have mattered even if they had named Maskell specifically. Jean’s accusations were already headlines.
Can you cite the source for that number? Yes, I’ve heard the 30 to 100 range. I know the sources for those numbers. Who said “over 50”?
Yes, as I said before, SOME of them absolutely were. This is specified in the court documents, including the part of the appeal I posted here in this thread.
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1997594/doe-v-maskell/
It also seems Lancaster is altering her story. She initially claimed to have had some of her memories all along (in which case, over 2 decades past the statute of limitations, she really had no excuse) but the rapes and the worst of the abuse she claimed to have repressed and recovered later.
I guess it’s my turn to say “wow”…
Can you cite sources for this? Thanks. I’d love to see exactly what compelled them to add him, if it was something other than the accusations (which I’ve already explained why I don’t find them to be as convincing as they seem on the surface). As for the compensation, that the Archdiocese is settling out of court doesn’t really tell us anything except that they felt it was less of a hassle to settle than to deal with more lawsuits.
Yes, some cases are being reopened. The documentary does its best to shoe-horn every possible suspect into the* Maskell Did It* conspiracy. In fact, I’ll have to look later but I’m pretty sure Ryan White himself confirms this, that he believes Maskell had to be involved in her murder. This perspective shines through clearly in the documentary. My point is that there is zero compelling evidence, based on what is shown in the docuseries, that these deaths were connected to Maskell, no matter how much they tried to make it seem otherwise. Nothing you’ve said here changes that.
Other than one example where you misunderstood me (my fault for not being clearer) you’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort.
I’m also not sure how you can refer to yourself as the person who cares about facts when you keep saying Lancaster didn’t recover memories when she herself is on record saying she had.
Beverly Wallace one of the attorneys in the '94 suit says it in ***the Keepers. ***Apparently 30 witness were called at the trial, counting “Doe” and “Roe” I will concede the number is less than 50.
So. because she didn’t remember everything that happened to her over twenty years prior right away her entire story is suspect? As far as i can tell she has always said"I always had a memory of the first couple times with Maskell and what he did with the douche bags and enema bottles and the raping. But yes, at the time, in ’94, I woke up in the middle of the night screaming because I remembered the rape at the rector’s office. I started remembering other things then, too." seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don’t know what they used to come up with their determination, but here’s what the Archdiocese says:
[INDENT]"Since the 1990s, when the Archdiocese of Baltimore first learned of an allegation of child sexual abuse against Maskell, and on numerous occasions since, the Archdiocese has publicly acknowledged and apologized for the horrific abuse committed by him (my bolding). . . . apologized to victims and offered them counseling assistance, sought additional victims, and provided direct financial assistance to 16 individuals abused by Maskell.
Though it was unaware of the abuse at the time it occurred approximately 50 years ago, the Archdiocese deeply regrets the damage that was caused to those who were so badly harmed and has worked diligently since becoming aware of their abuse to bring some measure of healing to them. The Archdiocese is wholly committed to protecting children, holding abusers accountable — clergy and laity alike, and promoting healing for victims.
There is no room in the Archdiocese for anyone who would harm a child and every effort must be made to ensure what happened before never happens again. It is our hope that The Keepers advances this pursuit, just as we hope the series helps those who have kept alive the memory of Sr. Cathy and our collective hope that justice will be won for her." "[/INDENT]
And yes, plenty of people in the documentary state that they believe that Maskell was involved in Cathy Cesnik’s murder, and maybe even White believes it as well, but he goes to great lengths to point out there is no physical evidence to back up that claim, and leaves it to the viewers to decide. Me personally? I believe Maskell is guilty of sexual abuse, and I don’t know who killed Sr Cathy.
If you want to say Maskall is probably innocent of the crime of murdering Sister Cathy, then I agree. Of sexual abuse? Not so much.
But nothing is proven and the evidence is weak. Once you get into recovered memories you might as well admit Ouija boards and tealeaves.
I admit that it’s hardly impossible. Such things have happened and been hushed up. The scope here seems very doubtful, however.
But the link to the murders is so tenuous to be tinfoil-hat territory.
Agreed on all counts. And there’s already a strong cultural bias against the Catholic church since, as you point out, they’ve been caught trying to hide other pedophile priests. So pretty much anyone can make an accusation right now and there will be a lot of people, perhaps even a majority, whose default position will be automatic acceptance and the accused is automatically “guilty until proven innocent” even when the claims are suspect.
When it comes to the catholic church or similar situations (where there’s a history of bad behavior) my default inclination is to believe an abuse claim, but when they start naming multiple people, in positions of power, and doing pretty drastic things like showing off someone’s dead body (that they allegedly murdered or had a hand in murdering) to several people and other assorted over-the-top acts, suggesting a huge conspiracy and a cover up, that alone demands a higher level of scrutiny. I’d have a hard time believing that without some very compelling evidence. Then if it were to also come out that it all supposedly happened decades ago and their current “knowledge” of the abuse is derived from memories they “recovered” decades later, the plausibility goes out the window. We’ve already been through this in the 80s and 90s (which is what this story really is, imo - a holdover from the Satanic Panic in which the right decision was made by the court. Pity Ryan White is trying to revive it and start the witch hunt anew). We should know better by now than to treat this type of story with anything but a high level of skepticism. Not automatic disbelief, necessarily, but people are right to be doubtful of these accounts.
In June, Bishop Malooly posted a credible of rebuttal of Charles Franz’s claims. I know very little about Malooly but he seems to be one of the more forthright representatives of the church, taking steps to prevent future problems and offering some kind of restitution to accusers. Naturally, his response was rejected automatically by the people who accept Franz’s claims without question, and Malooly himself is accused of being a “pedophile protector” and part of the cover-up.
Episode 7 spoiler:
[spoiler]Franz lost serious credibility points when he proclaimed that, if the church had acted on his mother’s report, “there would have been no murder”. Listening closely to his claims, in my opinion, his account not only doesn’t corroborate the Keough survivor accounts, it actually contradicts them. He’s describing a specific MO that doesn’t fit with what the Keough women describe. As you’ve rightly pointed out, it doesn’t make it impossible, but to me it makes it even LESS likely that their accounts are at least reasonably accurate, and that’s on top of all the other serious problems with the Keough accusations.
Maskell might well have been manipulating or otherwise coercing the Keough students into sexual relationships with him, and if so, it’s tragic. It’s a shame he never got caught, if that was happening. But implicating a bunch of other people, the attempt to link it to the murder of Cathy Cesnik and suggesting a wide-spread sex abuse ring and a church/government cover-up is ludicrous.
Like Jean and many of the Keough survivors, Franz strikes me as someone trying to insert himself into the middle of this murder mystery and the subsequent urban legend/conspiracy. Malooly’s well-stated response is further evidence of that likelihood, IMO. [/spoiler]