Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I obviously have no idea what happened here, but I am confused by a couple of reactions.

For the people so angry at Penn - my understanding is that they notified the Rhodes people of the information they were given (which seems like something they absolutely should have done), Rhodes conducted their own independent investigation, and reached the same conclusion. How is that on Penn? Why is everyone ignoring what the Rhodes Committee determined?

The articles seems pretty determined to ignore anything that contradicts Mackenzie's story. At the the end they briefly mention that when she was asked (at a hearing of some sort) why the medical records contradict what she wrote (about the bruising and blood and feeding tubes) and her response is something like that's just what she felt, the author just lets that go. I wanted a lot more information about that. It seemed pretty factual that "her truth" didn't match up with the medical documentation. But it is just glossed over in a short paragraph and dismissed. And some of the teacher comments were confusing - teachers are mandated reporters. But they found several willing to say they noticed a pattern of abuse, but only one person ever reported anything. Which was investigated and dismissed.

I don't know. I had an abusive mother that everyone else loved, so I want to believe her. But it also seems that when something Mackenzie said could be tested against other facts (hospital records, the stuff about supporting sister, etc), then Mackenzie's statements are shown to be less than accurate. So we're only left with the things she said that can't be verified one way or the other.

I think if the article was ignoring those things you wouldn’t have read about them. There were several places where the article noted that Mackenzie said things that weren’t quite accurate and I think the point is to leave it up to the reader to decide whether those things fundamentally undermine her credibility or not about the big picture.

Penn did lots more here than just let the Rhodes committee know what they found, including threatening her with loan fraud and withholding her MSW degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I obviously have no idea what happened here, but I am confused by a couple of reactions.

For the people so angry at Penn - my understanding is that they notified the Rhodes people of the information they were given (which seems like something they absolutely should have done), Rhodes conducted their own independent investigation, and reached the same conclusion. How is that on Penn? Why is everyone ignoring what the Rhodes Committee determined?

The articles seems pretty determined to ignore anything that contradicts Mackenzie's story. At the the end they briefly mention that when she was asked (at a hearing of some sort) why the medical records contradict what she wrote (about the bruising and blood and feeding tubes) and her response is something like that's just what she felt, the author just lets that go. I wanted a lot more information about that. It seemed pretty factual that "her truth" didn't match up with the medical documentation. But it is just glossed over in a short paragraph and dismissed. And some of the teacher comments were confusing - teachers are mandated reporters. But they found several willing to say they noticed a pattern of abuse, but only one person ever reported anything. Which was investigated and dismissed.

I don't know. I had an abusive mother that everyone else loved, so I want to believe her. But it also seems that when something Mackenzie said could be tested against other facts (hospital records, the stuff about supporting sister, etc), then Mackenzie's statements are shown to be less than accurate. So we're only left with the things she said that can't be verified one way or the other.

I think if the article was ignoring those things you wouldn’t have read about them. There were several places where the article noted that Mackenzie said things that weren’t quite accurate and I think the point is to leave it up to the reader to decide whether those things fundamentally undermine her credibility or not about the big picture.

Penn did lots more here than just let the Rhodes committee know what they found, including threatening her with loan fraud and withholding her MSW degree.

which was discovered after the Rhodes investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I obviously have no idea what happened here, but I am confused by a couple of reactions.

For the people so angry at Penn - my understanding is that they notified the Rhodes people of the information they were given (which seems like something they absolutely should have done), Rhodes conducted their own independent investigation, and reached the same conclusion. How is that on Penn? Why is everyone ignoring what the Rhodes Committee determined?

The articles seems pretty determined to ignore anything that contradicts Mackenzie's story. At the the end they briefly mention that when she was asked (at a hearing of some sort) why the medical records contradict what she wrote (about the bruising and blood and feeding tubes) and her response is something like that's just what she felt, the author just lets that go. I wanted a lot more information about that. It seemed pretty factual that "her truth" didn't match up with the medical documentation. But it is just glossed over in a short paragraph and dismissed. And some of the teacher comments were confusing - teachers are mandated reporters. But they found several willing to say they noticed a pattern of abuse, but only one person ever reported anything. Which was investigated and dismissed.

I don't know. I had an abusive mother that everyone else loved, so I want to believe her. But it also seems that when something Mackenzie said could be tested against other facts (hospital records, the stuff about supporting sister, etc), then Mackenzie's statements are shown to be less than accurate. So we're only left with the things she said that can't be verified one way or the other.

I don't know, I think the feeding tube is not great evidence of her being a liar. She recalled there was a metallic taste. Or she made up that it tasted metallic. Who gives a sh*t the poor kid had a FEEDING TUBE in her. FFS. She is not lying about that, it's a fact.

I'm confused about why nothing else was said about the sister, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sit for exams in 10th and early 11th grade, so before she would have been technically in the foster system. No PSAT, no SAT, no ACT, no National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist? But she was quick to get the reporter a copy of her transcript to show off inflated A's?

She graduated summa cum laude from Penn- I doubt she had crappy SAT scores. But who cares? She clearly did very well academically at Penn!

She's obviously a smart and hardworking student who was planning to use her Ivy League education to (checks notes) do social work. If she was really trying to con them, what a weird and benevolent con! "Haha I'll lie to get into this university so that I can spend my life making almost no money and helping kids in foster care!" What a devious mastermind.

Seriously, the argument that Mackenzie was just pulling a fast one make no sense. Why work so hard in school? Why get genuinely involved in programs to help kids in foster care and others who have been exploited and abused? Why pursue a non-lucrative graduate degree in a helping field?

Also, she obviously had the high school grades (at an elite prep school) to get into a good college. If she just wanted a free ride, why not just play nice with her supposedly non-abusive mother, who would have paid her way, I'm sure?

because she wanted to go to Ivy and learned that Questbridge was the only way to do it with her grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sit for exams in 10th and early 11th grade, so before she would have been technically in the foster system. No PSAT, no SAT, no ACT, no National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist? But she was quick to get the reporter a copy of her transcript to show off inflated A's?

She graduated summa cum laude from Penn- I doubt she had crappy SAT scores. But who cares? She clearly did very well academically at Penn!

When asked for her high school test scores and/or if she was a National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist, you deflect to inflated college grades in a soft major. Ivanka Trump also graduated from Penn with honors.

Ivanka Trump is VERY smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sit for exams in 10th and early 11th grade, so before she would have been technically in the foster system. No PSAT, no SAT, no ACT, no National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist? But she was quick to get the reporter a copy of her transcript to show off inflated A's?

She graduated summa cum laude from Penn- I doubt she had crappy SAT scores. But who cares? She clearly did very well academically at Penn!

She's obviously a smart and hardworking student who was planning to use her Ivy League education to (checks notes) do social work. If she was really trying to con them, what a weird and benevolent con! "Haha I'll lie to get into this university so that I can spend my life making almost no money and helping kids in foster care!" What a devious mastermind.

Seriously, the argument that Mackenzie was just pulling a fast one make no sense. Why work so hard in school? Why get genuinely involved in programs to help kids in foster care and others who have been exploited and abused? Why pursue a non-lucrative graduate degree in a helping field?

Also, she obviously had the high school grades (at an elite prep school) to get into a good college. If she just wanted a free ride, why not just play nice with her supposedly non-abusive mother, who would have paid her way, I'm sure?

Right. There's no difference between "a life making almost no money and helping kids in foster care" and courting fame with an avowed eye toward making policy by "working in federal government?" Interesting.



"She added that she would either like to start her own organization or work in the federal government to create more policies to benefit foster youth."
https://www.thedp.com/article/2020/11/penn-rhodes-scholar-mackenzie-fierceton-university-of-oxford

Just a wooowly lil social workuh. Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich white teens with As and Bs and an average SAT/ACT score do not get into Ivy League colleges*. Not even close. Let alone for free.

As and Bs and an average SAT/ACT gets UMC teens from St Louis into the Honors College at University of Missouri.

*Unless you're Jared Kushner and your dad makes a $2.5 million pledge to Harvard: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-behind-jared-kushners-curious-acceptance-into-harvard

Ivies do not give merit scholarships.

No one said they did. Are you saying the only way she could get a scholarship was to lie her way through Questbridge? That may be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I obviously have no idea what happened here, but I am confused by a couple of reactions.

For the people so angry at Penn - my understanding is that they notified the Rhodes people of the information they were given (which seems like something they absolutely should have done), Rhodes conducted their own independent investigation, and reached the same conclusion. How is that on Penn? Why is everyone ignoring what the Rhodes Committee determined?

The articles seems pretty determined to ignore anything that contradicts Mackenzie's story. At the the end they briefly mention that when she was asked (at a hearing of some sort) why the medical records contradict what she wrote (about the bruising and blood and feeding tubes) and her response is something like that's just what she felt, the author just lets that go. I wanted a lot more information about that. It seemed pretty factual that "her truth" didn't match up with the medical documentation. But it is just glossed over in a short paragraph and dismissed. And some of the teacher comments were confusing - teachers are mandated reporters. But they found several willing to say they noticed a pattern of abuse, but only one person ever reported anything. Which was investigated and dismissed.

I don't know. I had an abusive mother that everyone else loved, so I want to believe her. But it also seems that when something Mackenzie said could be tested against other facts (hospital records, the stuff about supporting sister, etc), then Mackenzie's statements are shown to be less than accurate. So we're only left with the things she said that can't be verified one way or the other.

I don't know, I think the feeding tube is not great evidence of her being a liar. She recalled there was a metallic taste. Or she made up that it tasted metallic. Who gives a sh*t the poor kid had a FEEDING TUBE in her. FFS. She is not lying about that, it's a fact.

I'm confused about why nothing else was said about the sister, though.

There's no medical reason to have a feeding tube in that setting. There is, however, a psychological one, as well as a psychological one for pseudo-seizures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sit for exams in 10th and early 11th grade, so before she would have been technically in the foster system. No PSAT, no SAT, no ACT, no National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist? But she was quick to get the reporter a copy of her transcript to show off inflated A's?

Inflated? She went to an elite private day school, ranked nationally. I thought those don’t do grade inflation and are supposedly eons better than public schools. What’s going on here? She applied pre-test-optional admissions.

yeah, costing $30,000 per year. So who paid for that? Including the year she "bounced around in foster care"?

The school gave her a full scholarship for her last year (when she was in foster care and living with friends' families). Because they believed her. Since, you know, they knew her and had seen the injuries and multiple teachers and parents were concerned enough to reach out to authorities about it. Her mom didn't pay.

You don't know that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sit for exams in 10th and early 11th grade, so before she would have been technically in the foster system. No PSAT, no SAT, no ACT, no National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist? But she was quick to get the reporter a copy of her transcript to show off inflated A's?

She graduated summa cum laude from Penn- I doubt she had crappy SAT scores. But who cares? She clearly did very well academically at Penn!

When asked for her high school test scores and/or if she was a National Merit Semifinalist or Finalist, you deflect to inflated college grades in a soft major. Ivanka Trump also graduated from Penn with honors.

Ivanka Trump is VERY smart.

Fierceton seems to have a lot of things in common with Ivanka Trump, a consummate grifter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, Mackenzie hater, what do you have to say about her mom reacting with lolz about her boyfriends sexual abuse of her 15 year old?

Why are you trying to divert attention with salacious sexual assault hearsay? Seems to be a go-to.

From what I've read, it does actually sound like the "trainer" boyfriend was probably a loser, certainly sounds like the successful and attractive mother could and should be doing a lot better than what sounds like a mooch targeting the older and wealthy female MD. However, that does not make him a sexual abuser or whatever is being spread. And she is not the first kid, an only child at that, to go absolutely nuts when a mother (or father) starts dating someone. I believe the lip stick alley term for the mother's poor judgement is d***-notized, as in hypnotized by a new sexual partner. The mother probably needed better judgment. But the mooch guy has no criminal record, right? Was never charged with anything in this, right? I mean you think it's a huge conspiracy by everyone in STL and county and state's attorneys to cover up all of this for a random rich female doctor? Or is the center piece of this never-ending drama, from St Louis to Philly to Oxford, a theatrical spoiled brat?

The fact is that the courts found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges. That’s a far cry from exoneration.

The fact is that an independent investigation by social service professionals found her allegations to be credible.

The fact is that she made contemporaneous notes, which always enhances a witness’s credibility.

Calling her names doesn’t enhance your credibility.

The case is all kinds of crazy, that is for sure. Also, I'm not so sure about these "facts":

During their investigation of Fierceton, Penn's general counsel spoke to "Michael Hayes, the prosecutor in St. Louis who had charged Dr. Morrison with child abuse and neglect. Mr. Hayes did not mince words. He referred to the charge and arrest of Dr. Morrison as the 'biggest mistake of my career.' ”

According to Penn's lawyers, prosecutor Hayes stated that "Fierceton’s mother. Dr. Morrison was a medical doctor of high standing in the community and had an unblemished public record. Although Fierceton had made a complaint to child services against her mother’s boyfriend, it had been dismissed due to lack of evidence."

"Second, based on Fierceton’s allegations that her mother was abusing prescription medication, a search warrant was issued," Penn's legal brief states. "No drugs were found, and nothing came of that false accusation. Mr. Hayes described the lead from Fierceton as a 'total dead end.' ”

"Third, Fierceton’s cousin, Colleen, who had lived with Fierceton and her mother for some time in their Chesterfield home, refuted what Fierceton had alleged," Penn's lawyers wrote. "She witnessed no abuse, whether physical or emotional. Colleen said it was possible that Fierceton had caused her own injuries."

"Finally, Mr. Hayes had learned that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother’s life," Penn's lawyers wrote. "Fierceton had regular temper tantrums, beyond the normal range for an adolescent. Mr. Hayes concluded that Fierceton’s accusations of abuse were fraudulent and manipulative."

From this article: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reddit and College Confidential have years and years of details on how to exploit these programs and the hooks required for elite college admissions. And they're full of ruthless 14, 15, and 16 year-olds obsessively studying them. You have to suspend reality to pretend this young woman was just an oblivious student who randomly stumbled upon QuestBridge and whatever else she applied to because the rich private school counselor told her to apply.

And her breakdown after bombing AP chemistry teases out she was precisely the sort of student who was gunning for an Ivy League university at least back in 10th or 11th grade. In contrast to your average UMC overachiver who merely wanted to go to in-state University of Missouri, they are not going to have a breakdown over a single AP test. But an elbowy Ivy League gunner is going to have that breakdown, worrying a single B may cost them a spot at Harvard.

And the transcripts all but prove the breakdown happened. The girl, per usual, spins and calls the mother a liar. Right. The mother totally made that up... and it's just a pure coincidence that happens to be one of the few B's on her transcript? You all are way too naive.

The mother claims she bombed AP chem. The record doesn’t support her. The student’s grade was B+. This was the mother’ cover story to explain the incident that was detrimental to her. Other parents described the smear campaign which the mother conducted against her own daughter.

Are you confused about the difference between bombing A TEST and bombing A CLASS, or was that error deliberate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, Mackenzie hater, what do you have to say about her mom reacting with lolz about her boyfriends sexual abuse of her 15 year old?

Why are you trying to divert attention with salacious sexual assault hearsay? Seems to be a go-to.

From what I've read, it does actually sound like the "trainer" boyfriend was probably a loser, certainly sounds like the successful and attractive mother could and should be doing a lot better than what sounds like a mooch targeting the older and wealthy female MD. However, that does not make him a sexual abuser or whatever is being spread. And she is not the first kid, an only child at that, to go absolutely nuts when a mother (or father) starts dating someone. I believe the lip stick alley term for the mother's poor judgement is d***-notized, as in hypnotized by a new sexual partner. The mother probably needed better judgment. But the mooch guy has no criminal record, right? Was never charged with anything in this, right? I mean you think it's a huge conspiracy by everyone in STL and county and state's attorneys to cover up all of this for a random rich female doctor? Or is the center piece of this never-ending drama, from St Louis to Philly to Oxford, a theatrical spoiled brat?

The fact is that the courts found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges. That’s a far cry from exoneration.

The fact is that an independent investigation by social service professionals found her allegations to be credible.

The fact is that she made contemporaneous notes, which always enhances a witness’s credibility.

Calling her names doesn’t enhance your credibility.

The case is all kinds of crazy, that is for sure. Also, I'm not so sure about these "facts":

During their investigation of Fierceton, Penn's general counsel spoke to "Michael Hayes, the prosecutor in St. Louis who had charged Dr. Morrison with child abuse and neglect. Mr. Hayes did not mince words. He referred to the charge and arrest of Dr. Morrison as the 'biggest mistake of my career.' ”

According to Penn's lawyers, prosecutor Hayes stated that "Fierceton’s mother. Dr. Morrison was a medical doctor of high standing in the community and had an unblemished public record. Although Fierceton had made a complaint to child services against her mother’s boyfriend, it had been dismissed due to lack of evidence."

"Second, based on Fierceton’s allegations that her mother was abusing prescription medication, a search warrant was issued," Penn's legal brief states. "No drugs were found, and nothing came of that false accusation. Mr. Hayes described the lead from Fierceton as a 'total dead end.' ”

"Third, Fierceton’s cousin, Colleen, who had lived with Fierceton and her mother for some time in their Chesterfield home, refuted what Fierceton had alleged," Penn's lawyers wrote. "She witnessed no abuse, whether physical or emotional. Colleen said it was possible that Fierceton had caused her own injuries."

"Finally, Mr. Hayes had learned that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother’s life," Penn's lawyers wrote. "Fierceton had regular temper tantrums, beyond the normal range for an adolescent. Mr. Hayes concluded that Fierceton’s accusations of abuse were fraudulent and manipulative."

From this article: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

NP -- Those really don't seem like reasons that show Fierceton was lying. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to ditch prescription drugs, and if a parent is abusive, of course they're not going to do it when there are witnesses in the home. And I'd like to know from whom did Mr. Hayes learn that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother's life? Could it be from her mother? Did she get help for her daughter? If so, did Mr. Hayes talk to that therapist? Because there's no evidence that he did.

This just seems really flimsy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, Mackenzie hater, what do you have to say about her mom reacting with lolz about her boyfriends sexual abuse of her 15 year old?

Why are you trying to divert attention with salacious sexual assault hearsay? Seems to be a go-to.

From what I've read, it does actually sound like the "trainer" boyfriend was probably a loser, certainly sounds like the successful and attractive mother could and should be doing a lot better than what sounds like a mooch targeting the older and wealthy female MD. However, that does not make him a sexual abuser or whatever is being spread. And she is not the first kid, an only child at that, to go absolutely nuts when a mother (or father) starts dating someone. I believe the lip stick alley term for the mother's poor judgement is d***-notized, as in hypnotized by a new sexual partner. The mother probably needed better judgment. But the mooch guy has no criminal record, right? Was never charged with anything in this, right? I mean you think it's a huge conspiracy by everyone in STL and county and state's attorneys to cover up all of this for a random rich female doctor? Or is the center piece of this never-ending drama, from St Louis to Philly to Oxford, a theatrical spoiled brat?

The fact is that the courts found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges. That’s a far cry from exoneration.

The fact is that an independent investigation by social service professionals found her allegations to be credible.

The fact is that she made contemporaneous notes, which always enhances a witness’s credibility.

Calling her names doesn’t enhance your credibility.

The case is all kinds of crazy, that is for sure. Also, I'm not so sure about these "facts":

[b]During their investigation of Fierceton, Penn's general counsel spoke to "Michael Hayes, the prosecutor in St. Louis who had charged Dr. Morrison with child abuse and neglect. Mr. Hayes did not mince words. He referred to the charge and arrest of Dr. Morrison as the 'biggest mistake of my career.' ”

According to Penn's lawyers, prosecutor Hayes stated that "Fierceton’s mother. Dr. Morrison was a medical doctor of high standing in the community and had an unblemished public record. Although Fierceton had made a complaint to child services against her mother’s boyfriend, it had been dismissed due to lack of evidence."

"Second, based on Fierceton’s allegations that her mother was abusing prescription medication, a search warrant was issued," Penn's legal brief states. "No drugs were found, and nothing came of that false accusation. Mr. Hayes described the lead from Fierceton as a 'total dead end.' ”

"Third, Fierceton’s cousin, Colleen, who had lived with Fierceton and her mother for some time in their Chesterfield home, refuted what Fierceton had alleged," Penn's lawyers wrote. "She witnessed no abuse, whether physical or emotional. Colleen said it was possible that Fierceton had caused her own injuries."

"Finally, Mr. Hayes had learned that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother’s life," Penn's lawyers wrote. "Fierceton had regular temper tantrums, beyond the normal range for an adolescent. Mr. Hayes concluded that Fierceton’s accusations of abuse were fraudulent and manipulative."

From this article: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

[/b]



Interesting. Very daming of Fierceton's side of the story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, Mackenzie hater, what do you have to say about her mom reacting with lolz about her boyfriends sexual abuse of her 15 year old?

Why are you trying to divert attention with salacious sexual assault hearsay? Seems to be a go-to.

From what I've read, it does actually sound like the "trainer" boyfriend was probably a loser, certainly sounds like the successful and attractive mother could and should be doing a lot better than what sounds like a mooch targeting the older and wealthy female MD. However, that does not make him a sexual abuser or whatever is being spread. And she is not the first kid, an only child at that, to go absolutely nuts when a mother (or father) starts dating someone. I believe the lip stick alley term for the mother's poor judgement is d***-notized, as in hypnotized by a new sexual partner. The mother probably needed better judgment. But the mooch guy has no criminal record, right? Was never charged with anything in this, right? I mean you think it's a huge conspiracy by everyone in STL and county and state's attorneys to cover up all of this for a random rich female doctor? Or is the center piece of this never-ending drama, from St Louis to Philly to Oxford, a theatrical spoiled brat?

The fact is that the courts found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the charges. That’s a far cry from exoneration.

The fact is that an independent investigation by social service professionals found her allegations to be credible.

The fact is that she made contemporaneous notes, which always enhances a witness’s credibility.

Calling her names doesn’t enhance your credibility.

The case is all kinds of crazy, that is for sure. Also, I'm not so sure about these "facts":

During their investigation of Fierceton, Penn's general counsel spoke to "Michael Hayes, the prosecutor in St. Louis who had charged Dr. Morrison with child abuse and neglect. Mr. Hayes did not mince words. He referred to the charge and arrest of Dr. Morrison as the 'biggest mistake of my career.' ”

According to Penn's lawyers, prosecutor Hayes stated that "Fierceton’s mother. Dr. Morrison was a medical doctor of high standing in the community and had an unblemished public record. Although Fierceton had made a complaint to child services against her mother’s boyfriend, it had been dismissed due to lack of evidence."

"Second, based on Fierceton’s allegations that her mother was abusing prescription medication, a search warrant was issued," Penn's legal brief states. "No drugs were found, and nothing came of that false accusation. Mr. Hayes described the lead from Fierceton as a 'total dead end.' ”

"Third, Fierceton’s cousin, Colleen, who had lived with Fierceton and her mother for some time in their Chesterfield home, refuted what Fierceton had alleged," Penn's lawyers wrote. "She witnessed no abuse, whether physical or emotional. Colleen said it was possible that Fierceton had caused her own injuries."

"Finally, Mr. Hayes had learned that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother’s life," Penn's lawyers wrote. "Fierceton had regular temper tantrums, beyond the normal range for an adolescent. Mr. Hayes concluded that Fierceton’s accusations of abuse were fraudulent and manipulative."

From this article: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

NP -- Those really don't seem like reasons that show Fierceton was lying. Seems like it'd be pretty easy to ditch prescription drugs, and if a parent is abusive, of course they're not going to do it when there are witnesses in the home. And I'd like to know from whom did Mr. Hayes learn that Fierceton had routinely been a domineering presence in her mother's life? Could it be from her mother? Did she get help for her daughter? If so, did Mr. Hayes talk to that therapist? Because there's no evidence that he did.

This just seems really flimsy to me.

A prosecutor states for the record that charging the mom was "the biggest mistake of my career" - you don't find that compelling?? And how do you explain away cousin Colleen?