Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This has been covered already

New article has not been covered.

Thread started when the NYer article was published

How UPenn Turned Against It’s Student
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1047269.page

New Yorker article is dated April 4. Brand new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a first gen college kid (who only got loans btw) I never understood the claim that she lied about that. You are considered first gen if you do not have college educated parents helping you. That was clearly her situation. It is meant to cast a wide net. I found penn’s actions horrendous before the New Yorker article, and wasn’t at all surprised at what they uncovered. I hope she sues the heck out of penn. All these varsity blue kids and you go after the young woman getting her degree in social work who spent weeks in the hospital after her mother’s care? They need to clean house in their legal dept.

Her mother was a doctor…whether they actually “helped” is irrelevant.

It’s not, in fact. And you’d know that if you’d read the article.

Her mother was not, in fact, a doctor? What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's about the UMC white girl turned first generation imposter - already know that story.

Penn will be fine. Predict record applications next year.

If you think you already know the story, then you’ve closed your mind and have not read the linked article. There’s new information here.

NP. The single thing I see presented as "new" which is a matter of fact -- and not opinion -- was that she had a "diagnosis of epilepsy." That isn't what was represented in the excerpts from the medical record before.

If the NYT printed that AND it is not verifiable, it would exemplify a shoddy level of fact-checking. I remain interested in that and in why she had a "feeding tube," the reason for which has never been clarified. All of this sounds like some dramatic psych stuff. If it goes to trial, that would come to light. Will it go to trial? If it does, would her legal representation back out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well that’s a pack of lies. I predict a libel action against the New Yorker and its staff writer on this much the way UVA rd overdid against Rolling Stone when it ran its false case about rape at a frat house.

I see you’re with the camp that claims she attacked herself, smashed her own face, broke her own bones, and that her stepfather legit mistook her for her mother when he molested her.

[Anonymous]

^^PS in clarification, "seizure-like activity" is NOT "epilepsy." And PNES, or "psychogenic non-epileptic seizure" is NOT "epilepsy."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People will still be applying in droves and none will care about the schools terrible actions.

Until it happens to them...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that’s a pack of lies. I predict a libel action against the New Yorker and its staff writer on this much the way UVA rd overdid against Rolling Stone when it ran its false case about rape at a frat house.

I see you’re with the camp that claims she attacked herself, smashed her own face, broke her own bones, and that her stepfather legit mistook her for her mother when he molested her.

Why do you believe that? She’s a master manipulator. The article is part of the plaintiff lawyers’ appeal to the public and to taint the jury. Or to force an early settlement. Most good lawyers don’t litigate in the press. And the New Yorker doesn’t go it’s own fact-checking-do the person saying gold standard is wrong. It wants to sell mags ones so will print what it thinks it can get away with. Private law firms do the fact checking. I used to do it

[Anonymous]

"Another" Black eye...is there a plethora of bad news stories about Penn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's about the UMC white girl turned first generation imposter - already know that story.

Penn will be fine. Predict record applications next year.

If you think you already know the story, then you’ve closed your mind and have not read the linked article. There’s new information here.

NP. The single thing I see presented as "new" which is a matter of fact -- and not opinion -- was that she had a "diagnosis of epilepsy." That isn't what was represented in the excerpts from the medical record before.

If the NYT printed that AND it is not verifiable, it would exemplify a shoddy level of fact-checking. I remain interested in that and in why she had a "feeding tube," the reason for which has never been clarified. All of this sounds like some dramatic psych stuff. If it goes to trial, that would come to light. Will it go to trial? If it does, would her legal representation back out?

You believe the mother that she attacked herself and caused all her wounds over the years? Bruises, black eyes, broken bones? And that she just happened to be removing gum from her daughter's hair at the top of the steps and that’s how she fell down? And that it was cute her hubby mistook her daughter for herself which is why he climbed into bed and molested her? You believe that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that’s a pack of lies. I predict a libel action against the New Yorker and its staff writer on this much the way UVA rd overdid against Rolling Stone when it ran its false case about rape at a frat house.

I see you’re with the camp that claims she attacked herself, smashed her own face, broke her own bones, and that her stepfather legit mistook her for her mother when he molested her.

Why do you believe that? She’s a master manipulator. The article is part of the plaintiff lawyers’ appeal to the public and to taint the jury. Or to force an early settlement. Most good lawyers don’t litigate in the press. And the New Yorker doesn’t go it’s own fact-checking-do the person saying gold standard is wrong. It wants to sell mags ones so will print what it thinks it can get away with. Private law firms do the fact checking. I used to do it

Because I believe victims. When children arrive at school multiple times with bruises all over them including black eyes, I don’t immediately suspect they did it to themselves. And neither did her teachers who reported them. Or the doctors who tended to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will still be applying in droves and none will care about the schools terrible actions.

Until it happens to them...

LOL. Until they win a Rhodes Scholarship by inducing Penn to lie in their behalf? I don’t think Rhodes will be awarding any more scholarships to Penn students, so there’s nothing to worry about there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that’s a pack of lies. I predict a libel action against the New Yorker and its staff writer on this much the way UVA rd overdid against Rolling Stone when it ran its false case about rape at a frat house.

Yeah…I don’t think so. The New Yorker is pretty much gold standard when it comes to fact checking and editing. Even today. And you can bet that this story in particular got tons of additional scrutiny given the background and context. Sorry to burst your bubble, but perhaps Mackenzie will end up being vindicated. It’s weird how random strangers could have such an axe to grind when it comes to this young woman.

I disagree. I know how careful universities have to be before they make any public allegation against a student. Both in-house counsel and outside counsel went over this with a fine tooth comb before taking any if the actions it did. The Article reads like the plaintiff’s brief. Just like the Rolling Stone believed the false rape story, I think The New Yorker got taken in and probably failed to fact check some critical parts. We will see.

Lol! No universities/colleges are at their core arrogant, petty bureaucracies. They do not give two sh#ts about students. They have a long history of F’ing kids over- academically all the way to the NCAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New Yorker article offers a coherent narrative:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/04/mackenzie-fierceton-rhodes-scholarship-university-of-pennsylvania

Are you literally the schemer girl? Why are you spamming this here, a DMV-based mom message forum i.e. a long way from Missouri or Philly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's about the UMC white girl turned first generation imposter - already know that story.

Penn will be fine. Predict record applications next year.

If you think you already know the story, then you’ve closed your mind and have not read the linked article. There’s new information here.

NP. The single thing I see presented as "new" which is a matter of fact -- and not opinion -- was that she had a "diagnosis of epilepsy." That isn't what was represented in the excerpts from the medical record before.

If the NYT printed that AND it is not verifiable, it would exemplify a shoddy level of fact-checking. I remain interested in that and in why she had a "feeding tube," the reason for which has never been clarified. All of this sounds like some dramatic psych stuff. If it goes to trial, that would come to light. Will it go to trial? If it does, would her legal representation back out?

You believe the mother that she attacked herself and caused all her wounds over the years? Bruises, black eyes, broken bones? And that she just happened to be removing gum from her daughter's hair at the top of the steps and that’s how she fell down? And that it was cute her hubby mistook her daughter for herself which is why he climbed into bed and molested her? You believe that?

Nope, you are projecting. I am interested in seeing if the claim of a diagnosis of epilepsy (specifically) is validated, and in the reason for the feeding tube. That's it.

Are you always this careful in attributing things to others?

That's interesting, too, and probably telling. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.